Access Management
Multi-Modal
Transportation Study
Final Report

October 2015
Prepared for:

COCONINO
COUNTY ARIZONA

Prepared by:

BURGESS & NIPLE

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
ADOT Task Assignment MPD 012-15

Final Report

Prepared for:

AND

Prepared by:

October 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Project Leadership
Arizona Department of Transportation
205 S. 17th Ave, Rm 370 - MD 605E
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Heidi Yaqub, Project Manager
Email: HYaqub@azdot.gov
Telephone: 602.712.7644
Coconino County
5600 E. Commerce
Flagstaff, AZ 86004
Tim Dalegowski, Transportation Planner
Email: timdalegowski@coconino.az.gov
Telephone: 928.679.8344

Study Consultant
Burgess & Niple, Inc.
1500 N. Priest Drive, Suite 101
Tempe, AZ 85281
Jason Pagnard, PE
Email: Jason.Pagnard@burgessniple.com
Telephone: 602.244.8100 ext. 5332

This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material,
presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona
Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that
may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The
U.S. government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.

Page i of vi

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... E1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... E1
Current and Future Conditions ................................................................................................................................... E2
Recommended Improvements and Implementation Plan ............................................................................... E3
1.0

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Study Overview........................................................................................................................................................1
1.2. Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................1

2.0

Relevant Plans and Studies .............................................................................................................................................3
2.1. I-40 Corridor Profile Study, In Progress .........................................................................................................3
2.2. Coconino County Roads Capital Improvement Plan .................................................................................3
2.3. AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System, Working Paper 1, October 2014 (Draft) .................................3
2.4. Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan, June 2014 .................................3
2.5. Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030, May 2014 ........................................................................................................3
2.6. A Coordinated Transit Plan for ECoNA in Northern Arizona, January 2014.....................................4
2.7. Flagstaff Regional Five-Year and Long Range Transit Plan, May 2013 ..............................................4
2.8. Mountain Mobility Business Plan 2015-2019, September 2013 ...........................................................4
2.9. ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update, June 2013 .......................................................4
2.10. Initial Design Concept Report, I-40 Bellemont to Winona, February 2011 ......................................5
2.11. Flagstaff Pathways 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, December 2009 .........................................5
2.12. Coconino County Comprehensive Plan, September 2003 ......................................................................6
2.13. Bellemont Area Plan, July 1985 .........................................................................................................................6

3.0

Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................................................................7
3.1. Land Ownership and Jurisdiction .....................................................................................................................7
3.2. Land Use ....................................................................................................................................................................7
3.3. Zoning .........................................................................................................................................................................7
3.3.1. Open Zoning Cases.............................................................................................................................. 11
3.4. Residential Development ................................................................................................................................ 11
3.5. Activity/Employment Centers ......................................................................................................................... 11
3.6. Socioeconomic Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.6.1. Demographics ........................................................................................................................................ 13
3.6.2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Environmental Justice .................................... 15
3.7. Physical, Natural, and Cultural Environment ............................................................................................. 17
3.7.1. Topography and Drainage Features .............................................................................................. 17
3.7.2. Wildlife ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.7.3. Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................ 20
3.8. Utilities ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.9. Transportation Network .................................................................................................................................... 23
3.9.1. Roadway Network ................................................................................................................................ 23

Page ii of vi

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.9.2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Network...................................................................................................... 24
3.9.3. Transit Network ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.10. Traffic Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
3.10.1. Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.10.2. Traffic Operational Analysis .............................................................................................................. 27
3.10.3. Existing Crash Analysis........................................................................................................................ 29
4.0

Future Features ................................................................................................................................................................. 31
4.1. Travel Demand Model Land Use ................................................................................................................... 31
4.2. Utilities ..................................................................................................................................................................... 31
4.3. Transportation Network .................................................................................................................................... 31
4.3.1. Roadway Network ................................................................................................................................ 31
4.3.2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Network...................................................................................................... 31
4.3.3. Transit Network ..................................................................................................................................... 32
4.4. Traffic Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
4.4.1. Traffic Forecast and Annual Growth Factor Development .................................................... 32
4.4.2. Design Hour Volume Factor ............................................................................................................. 33
4.4.3. Traffic Operational Analysis .............................................................................................................. 33

5.0

Identified Needs Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 36
5.1. Roadway Network Needs ................................................................................................................................. 36
5.1.1. Congestion and Safety ....................................................................................................................... 36
5.1.2. Access Management ........................................................................................................................... 36
5.2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Needs ...................................................................................................... 36
5.3. Transit Network Needs ...................................................................................................................................... 36

6.0

Potential Improvement Strategies ............................................................................................................................ 37
6.1. Potential Roadway Network Improvements.............................................................................................. 37
6.2. Potential Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Improvements ................................................................... 44
6.3. Potential Transit Network Improvements .................................................................................................. 44
6.4. Planning Level Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 46
6.5. Access Management Policy Considerations .............................................................................................. 46
6.5.1. Functional Classification and Definitions ..................................................................................... 48
6.5.2. Unsignalized Access Spacing ........................................................................................................... 49
6.5.3. Driveway Spacing ................................................................................................................................. 52
6.5.4. Driveway Design ................................................................................................................................... 54
6.5.5. Bicyclists and Pedestrians .................................................................................................................. 54
6.6. Additional Considerations ................................................................................................................................ 55

7.0

Traffic Analysis of Potential Roadway Network Improvements ..................................................................... 56
7.1. Traffic Operational Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 56
7.2. Interpretation of Results ................................................................................................................................... 61

8.0

Evaluation of Potential Improvements .................................................................................................................... 63
8.1. Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................................... 63

Page iii of vi

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

8.2.
9.0

Evaluation of Potential Improvements ........................................................................................................ 63

Hybrid Concept 2/3 ........................................................................................................................................................ 65

10.0 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................... 68
10.1. Near-term (5-Year) .............................................................................................................................................. 68
10.2. Mid-term (10-Year) ............................................................................................................................................. 68
10.3. Long-term (20-Year) ........................................................................................................................................... 68
11.0 Implementation ................................................................................................................................................................ 69
11.1. Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................... 69
11.1.1. Federal Funds ......................................................................................................................................... 69
11.1.2. State Funds ............................................................................................................................................. 70
11.1.3. Local/Other Funds ................................................................................................................................ 71

Page iv of vi

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figures

Figure E1 - Wide Shoulders on Shadow Mountain Drive ............................................................................................. E4
Figure E2 – Hybrid Concept 2/3 ............................................................................................................................................. E5
Figure 1 – Study Area ................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 – Proposed Bellemont TI ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3 – Land Use ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4 – Zoning......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5 – Residential Development .................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 6 – Census Areas ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 7 – Topography .............................................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 8 – Drainage Features .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 9 – Major Utilities ........................................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 10 – Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 11 – Vehicle Crash Analyses....................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 12 – Concept 1 ................................................................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 13 – Concept 2 ................................................................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 14 – Concept 3 ................................................................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 15 – Concept 4 ................................................................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 16 – Concept 5 ................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 17 – Wide Shoulders on Shadow Mountain Drive ............................................................................................ 45
Figure 18 – Functional Route Classification (Tucson Guidelines Table 3-1).......................................................... 48
Figure 19 – Functional Classification (Peoria Guidelines Table 1) ............................................................................. 49
Figure 20 – Minimum Unsignalized Intersection Spacing (Tucson Guidelines Figure 4-1) ............................. 50
Figure 21 – Qualitative Project Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 22 – Hybrid Concept 2/3............................................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 23 – Qualitative Evaluation for Hybrid Concept 2/3......................................................................................... 67

Tables

Table 1 – Population................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 2 – 2010 Population by Block and Block Group .................................................................................................. 13
Table 3 – Minority Population* .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 4 – Poverty Level Status* .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 5 – Disability Status*....................................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 6 – Female Head of Household*................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 7 – Age Distribution*...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 8 – Special Status Species Within the Study Area ............................................................................................... 20
Table 9 – Primary Road Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 10 – 2015 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 27

Page v of vi

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Table 11 – Intersection 3 Access and Operational Issues............................................................................................. 28
Table 12 – Manufactured Home Park Trip Generation ................................................................................................. 33
Table 13 – 2025 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 34
Table 14 – 2035 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Table 15 – TRB EXHIBIT 15-13 Unsignalized Access Spacing Based on Adjacent and Independent
Connections ................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Table 16 – Minimum Spacing Between Unsignalized Median Openings............................................................... 51
Table 17 – Guidelines for Spacing Median Openings (Tucson Guidelines Table 4-3)....................................... 51
Table 18 – Guidelines for Spacing Signalized and Unsignalized Connections by Functional Classification
(Peoria Guidelines Table 3) ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 19 – Minimum Access Spacing (feet) (Peoria Guidelines Table 1) ................................................................ 53
Table 20 – Minimum Corner Clearance (feet) (Peoria Guidelines Table 2) ............................................................ 54
Table 21 – Minimum Curb Return Radius (Tucson Guidelines Table 5-2) ............................................................. 54
Table 22 – Roadway Concept 1 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 57
Table 23 – Roadway Concept 2 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 58
Table 24 – Roadway Concept 3 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 59
Table 25 – Roadway Concept 4 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 60
Table 26 – Roadway Concept 5 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 61

Appendices

Appendix FR-1 – Reference Document Catalog
Appendix FR-2 – Traffic Count Data and Classification Counts
Appendix FR-3 – Synchro Analysis Output
Appendix FR-4 – Crash Data
Appendix FR-5 – City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines
Appendix FR-6 – City of Peoria Transportation Access Management Guidelines
Appendix FR-7 – Concept 1 Traffic Analysis
Appendix FR-8 – Concept 2 Traffic Analysis
Appendix FR-9 – Concept 3 Traffic Analysis
Appendix FR-10 – Concept 4 Traffic Analysis
Appendix FR-11 – Concept 5 Traffic Analysis
Appendix FR-12 – Phase I Engagement Summary
Appendix FR-13 – Phase II Engagement Summary
Appendix FR-14 – Planning/Environmental Linkages Questionnaire

Page vi of vi

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Executive Summary
Introduction
The Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study was conducted by the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) for Coconino County through the Planning Assistance for Rural
Areas (PARA) program. Coconino County, with ADOT support, has reviewed the Bellemont area
transportation system and determined priority needs for future improvements north of Interstate 40 (I40), including access management recommendations. The Study Area is located immediately north of I40, at the Bellemont Traffic Interchange (TI) (milepost 185.15), which is approximately 9 miles west of
the City of Flagstaff. The Study Area is approximately three miles wide (east-west). Primary roads
within the Study Area are I-40, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive.
Bellemont is a rural, unincorporated community with a population of approximately 1,000 residents in
Coconino County that has become a suburb of Flagstaff, where residents commute to work. Prevailing
development in the area is a combination of commercial/industrial/residential uses. There are
approximately 250 acres of privately-owned developable land at this location, with current development
including a truck stop with restaurants, hotel, and a phased platted subdivision of which two phases
have been completed.
This Study was completed with support from a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC provided
data, reviewed documents, provided study guidance, and attended TAC meetings. The following
agencies were represented:










Arizona Department of Public Safety, Flagstaff District 2
ADOT Northcentral District
ADOT Multimodal Planning Division
Coconino County Community Development
Coconino County Public Works
Coconino County Sheriff’s Office
Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization
Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority
Ponderosa Fire Department

Two working papers were completed in conjunction with this Study: Working Paper 1 – Existing and
Future Conditions, and Working Paper 2 – Recommended Improvements and Implementation Plan.
Both working papers were reviewed by the TAC and presented to the public over the course of two
open houses. Input from the TAC and public was considered and influenced the completion of this
study. Two Public Open Houses were conducted in conjunction with this study and are documented in
Appendix FR-12 and FR-13. ADOT’s Planning/Environmental Linkages Questionnaire was completed
at the conclusion of the study and is included as Appendix FR-14.

Page E1 of E5

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Current and Future Conditions
A summary of completed and ongoing plans and studies involving the Study Area is presented. Known
existing and future conditions within the Study Area are outlined, including:










Land ownership and jurisdiction;
Land use;
Zoning;
Residential development;
Activity/Employment Centers;
Socioeconomic Conditions;
Physical, Natural, and Cultural Environment;
Utilities; and
Transportation Network.

Existing and future traffic analyses were conducted to identify traffic operation issues. The existing
conditions analysis indicated that all of the intersections that were evaluated will operate at an overall
Level of Service (LOS) A. However, field observations indicate that private property site layout and
access (driveways) within the functional area of the intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park
Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive create traffic operational issues that are not normally considered
with a traditional traffic capacity analysis. Limited truck storage space, or area for queuing, is available
for the fueling station; when the fueling stations are all occupied, waiting trucks are stopped through
the driveway and the intersection. This creates periodic blockage of the intersection, including the only
available shared northbound right-through lane. The blockage raises concerns for safety and timely
emergency response. Residential traffic to Shadow Mountain Drive has no alternative route and is
forced to wait for the truck traffic to clear the intersection.
The 2025 and 2035 analysis indicates the intersections will generally operate at a very good LOS A or
LOS B. However, the truck volume for the Pilot Travel Center will continue to rise over the next 20 years.
This increase in truck traffic will cause more frequent congestion on the street network as well as
increased queue lengths.

Page E2 of E5

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Recommended Improvements and Implementation Plan
Transportation needs and deficiencies were identified, which include addressing congestion and safety,
access management, gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network, and public transit. Physical
improvements, as well as policy and guidance recommendations, were developed.
Evaluation criteria were developed with the TAC and Project Management Team (PMT). These criteria
were used to evaluate potential projects. The evaluation criteria are the following:





Mobility;
Consistency with planned improvements;
Safety impact;
Property impacts;






Environmental compatibility;
Public input;
Cost; and
Funding availability.

Improvements were assigned to near-term (5-year), mid-term (10-year), and long-term (20-year) time
frames based on technical analysis, potential funding availability, and recommendations from other
studies. Recommended projects are shown in Figure E1 and Figure E2. This section also documents
recommendations for implementation, including a summary of potential funding sources.

Near-term (5-Year)
 Construct roadway Hybrid Concept 2/3.
 Widen the shoulders on Shadow Mountain Drive.
 Develop access management guidelines.

Mid-term (10-Year)
 Extend basic commuter service per the Flagstaff Regional Five-Year and Long Range Transit Plan
(May 2013), depending on future transit studies and programming.
 Provide park-and-ride lot per A Coordinated Transit Plan for ECoNA in Northern Arizona (January
2014), depending on future transit studies and programming.

Long-term (20-Year)
 Monitor commercial development in the Bellemont area and the Camp Navajo Industrial Park.
Based on the traffic forecasts completed for this study and documented in Working Paper 1, the
near-term roadway improvement recommendations (Hybrid Concept 2/3) should sufficiently
manage Study Area future traffic demands and truck traffic. A primary need for Concept 1,
which is the recommendation from the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial DCR, appears to have
been based on anticipated substantial commercial development in the Camp Navajo Industrial
Park; combined with other potential developments at the TI, the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial
DCR attributed a potential increase of 26,600 vehicles per day by 2040 east and west of the
Bellemont TI. The Camp Navajo Industrial park has been in the planning stage for nearly ten
years but has not yet developed. Should the Camp Navajo Industrial Park develop in the future,
the traffic forecasts and traffic capacity analysis performed as part of this study should be
revisited prior to programming Concept 1.

Page E3 of E5

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure E1 - Wide Shoulders on Shadow Mountain Drive

Page E4 of E5

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure E2 – Hybrid Concept 2/3

Page E5 of E5

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

1.0 Introduction
The Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study is being conducted by ADOT
for Coconino County through the PARA program.

1.1.

Study Overview

Bellemont is a rural, unincorporated community with a population of approximately 1,000 residents in
Coconino County that has become a suburb of Flagstaff, where residents commute to work.
Bellemont’s transportation system is almost entirely automobile-oriented, with no public transit service
and limited dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Prevailing development in the area is a combination of commercial/industrial/residential uses. There
are approximately 250 acres of privately-owned developable land at this location, with current
development including a truck stop with restaurants, hotel, and a phased platted subdivision of which
two phases have been completed. Additional phases of the subdivision are expected to be completed
in the near future.
Three roads, I-40, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive are used to access virtually all the
private land north of I-40 at this location. Frequent congestion from heavy truck volumes and
subdivision traffic causes traffic delays and creates concern for safety and timely emergency response.
The 2008 closure of the ADOT Parks Rest Area on I-40, just west of Bellemont, has also increased
vehicular traffic accessing the truck stop and restaurants. Future build-out of the subdivision and
potential commercial/industrial uses in the area are expected to continue to negatively affect the
Brannigan Park Road and Shadow Mountain Drive intersection and the I-40 TI. ADOT recently prepared
the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial Design Concept Report (DCR), which recommended long-term
improvements for the intersection and the TI.
This access management and multi-modal transportation study provides a comprehensive review of the
Bellemont area transportation system and provides guidance for determining priority needs for future
improvements north of I-40, including:
 Alleviate congestion and improve/manage access; and
 Improve and evaluate multi-modal access to businesses from residential areas.

1.2.

Study Area

The Study Area is located immediately north of I-40, at the Bellemont TI (milepost 185.15), which is
approximately 9 miles west of the City of Flagstaff. The Study Area is approximately three miles wide
(east-west). Primary roads within the Study Area are I-40, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain
Drive. A map of the Study Area is included as Figure 1.

Page 1 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 1 – Study Area

Page 2 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

2.0 Relevant Plans and Studies
A review of completed and ongoing plans and studies involving the Study Area was performed and
summarized below. Sources and reference information for these documents, along with other data
included in this working paper, are cataloged in Appendix FR-1.

2.1.

I-40 Corridor Profile Study, In Progress

ADOT is conducting a corridor profile study for I-40, from the Arizona/California state line to the
junction with I-17. The purpose of a corridor profile study is to strategically assess the health of key
highway assets within the context of ADOT’s Plan to Program (P2P) Link. The study will perform life
cycle cost analyses and risk assessment to identify a range of cost-effective solutions for the I-40
corridor deficiencies and prioritize projects based on relative risks to operations, safety, and
performance for the corridor.

2.2.

Coconino County Roads Capital Improvement Plan

The Coconino County Roads Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is an outline of planned improvement
projects within Coconino County. The current CIP is for years 2015 to 2024. Coconino County also
prepared a map that shows the project name, location, estimated cost, estimated work year, and
estimated length of projects for the current CIP. The current Coconino County CIP identified a $3
million improvement in 2018 at the Bellemont TI, outside ADOT right of way, at the intersection of
Brannigan Park Road and Shadow Mountain Drive. Specific details of the scope of the improvement
were not included.

2.3.

AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System, Working Paper 1, October 2014 (Draft)

The U.S. Bicycle Route (USBR) System is developing a national network of bicycle routes. Four routes
are proposed in Arizona: USBR 66, 70, 79, and 90. This report evaluates potential route alternatives for
each USBR and recommends a preferred route. Though not yet adopted, the preferred route of USBR
66 follows I-40 through Bellemont.

2.4.

Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan, June 2014

The Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan was prepared by the Flagstaff
Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO). It serves as a framework to improve coordination among
transportation service providers and human service agencies in order to enhance transportation
services for disadvantaged populations. It also serves as a federal requirement for a “locally developed,
coordinated human services transportation plan.” Goals and objectives to address unmet
transportation needs and gaps in service were identified. A five-year transit plan to fill a gap in transit
service from Bellemont and its surrounding areas to Flagstaff is stated in the report.

2.5.

Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030, May 2014

The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 is a policy guide, which serves as a general plan for the City of
Flagstaff and an amendment to the Coconino County Comprehensive Plan. It is an important planning
tool that is used as a guide to navigate the future direction of the City and region. It applies to the 525square-mile FMPO planning area that extends from Bellemont to Winona, and from Kachina Village and
Mountainaire to north of the San Francisco Peaks. The plan directs future decision making and serves

Page 3 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

as a basis for policies and regulations to guide land use and physical and economic development. This
comprehensive document consists of four parts: Introduction, Natural Environment, Built Environment,
and Human Environment. The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 replaced the Regional Land Use and
Transportation Plan 2001, which is no longer active.

2.6.

A Coordinated Transit Plan for ECoNA in Northern Arizona, January 2014

This study reviewed existing and future transit services in northern Arizona and identified unmet needs
and transportation issues. Various options were evaluated and the recommended transit service plan
and funding options were identified. The transportation needs range from medical transportation to
employment and tourism, including serving the Grand Canyon area and Northern Arizona University.
Current and future demands were based on several models of estimation, such as Greatest Transit
Needs, Rural Transit Demand Methodology, and Peer Comparison Analysis. The greatest transit need
areas are primarily in Williams, followed by the Grand Canyon Village. In addition, this report outlines
existing options as well as future needs for commuter traffic in Bellemont.

2.7.

Flagstaff Regional Five-Year and Long Range Transit Plan, May 2013

The Flagstaff Regional Five-Year and Long Range Transit Plan proposes a long-term vision for Flagstaff’s
regional public transportation system. It identifies and establishes a short (1 to 5 years), mid (6 to 10)
years, and long (11 to 20 years) range service plan, funding plan, and implementation plan. This plan
takes steps to implement many of the policies outlined in the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030. Currently,
the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA) operates Mountain
Line and Mountain Link fixed route transit services, as well as Mountain Lift, a complimentary paratransit service, all within the City of Flagstaff. The regional vision is to extend basic commuter service to
outlying areas, and based on funding availability, to provide service to Doney Park, Kachina Village,
Bellemont, and other areas along I-40. Implementation steps for the short-term service plan outlined in
this document were to begin in July 2013.

2.8.

Mountain Mobility Business Plan 2015-2019, September 2013

This document provides NAIPTA guidance for the next five-year period and considers mobility in
northern Arizona. It addresses gaps in available transportation programs for older adults, persons with
disabilities, and persons of low‐income. Its vision is “to build available, efficient mobility options within
the Flagstaff area and the extended region of Coconino County.” The working five-year budget
includes two full-time positions to manage this new program, improvements to the taxi voucher
program, van pool programs, and introduction of the mileage reimbursement program in rural areas.
Bellemont residents are not specifically targeted in this plan.

2.9.

ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update, June 2013

This document is an update to the previous plan completed by ADOT in 2003. The update focuses on
the critical planning needs for bicyclists and pedestrians on the State Highway System and also
addresses the significant growth in Arizona in the last decade. The goals of the plan update are to
double the walking and bicycling percentage statewide over the next 10 years, to reduce crashes
involving pedestrians by 12 percent, and to improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure on state
highways. Public input was reflected in the plan recommendations. Survey respondents specifically
stated shoulder improvements were needed along I-40 to be suitable for bicycles.

Page 4 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

2.10. Initial Design Concept Report, I-40 Bellemont to Winona, February 2011
The Initial Design Concept Report for I-40, from Bellemont to Winona, was performed by ADOT in
partnership with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The purpose of the report was to evaluate
additional capacity improvements to I-40 for the next 25 to 30 years. The recommended improvements
for the Bellemont TI accounted for the development of a proposed Camp Navajo Industrial Park. This
future project, located south of I-40 at the Bellemont TI, was planned to develop 600 to 800 acres. To
accommodate the projected Camp Navajo expansion, the recommended improvements included the
construction of a new TI east of the existing Bellemont TI. The new TI, which is shown in Figure 2,
includes three roundabouts and an additional lane in each direction of travel on Transwestern Road.
Figure 2 – Proposed Bellemont TI

2.11. Flagstaff Pathways 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, December 2009
The Flagstaff Pathways 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identifies and prioritizes future
transportation investments in the Flagstaff region for driving, transit, walking, biking, and moving
goods. As a federal and state requirement to receive transportation funding, the RTP evaluates the cost
and effectiveness of projects for each major travel mode, as well as addresses the relationships between
land use, transportation, the economy, and the environment. The RTP identified the Bellemont Pilot
Travel Center as a rural activity center and included the reconstruction Bellemont TI.

Page 5 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

2.12. Coconino County Comprehensive Plan, September 2003
The Coconino County Comprehensive Plan establishes future goals and policies to direct growth, solve
problems, and improve the quality of life for Coconino County residents. The Comprehensive Plan’s
main objectives are to preserve and promote stable, safe, attractive, rural communities; safeguard the
choices of its residents; coordinate strategies for economic development, transportation, and affordable
housing; and to protect unique natural resources, ecosystems, and habitats. Additionally, it guides land
use decisions and serves as a comprehensive reference for public and private-sector community
programs. The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 serves as an amendment to this document.

2.13. Bellemont Area Plan, July 1985
The Bellemont Area Plan was developed by the County Community Development Department as an
amendment to the Coconino County Comprehensive Plan. The purpose was to determine appropriate
zoning and land uses for the Bellemont TI area of I-40 to facilitate development. The study
recommended rezoning the Bellemont area to the Planned Community (PC) Zone. The plan added
residential multi-family land use with a maximum density of 10 units per acre (RM-10A). Approved
zoning includes mobile-home park, commercial-heavy use, and light industrial use.

Page 6 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.0 Existing Conditions
3.1.

Land Ownership and Jurisdiction

Land within the Study Area is predominantly part of the Coconino National Forest. Private land is
located along I-40. A portion of the Study Area is federal land as shown in Figure 3. Bellemont is an
unincorporated area within Coconino County and is part of the FMPO planning area.

3.2.

Land Use

Study Area land use is shown in Figure 3. The majority of the
land is undeveloped or open space, which includes portions of
the Coconino National Forest. Developed lands are generally
concentrated along Brannigan Park Road and Shadow
Mountain Drive, near the Bellemont TI. This includes
commercial land uses adjacent to the Bellemont TI. Existing
residential development is located east of the Bellemont TI,
including single family and multiple family residential
developments that are further discussed in Section 3.4. Existing
land use information is from the Coconino County Assessor and
County zoning databases; it was verified using aerial imagery.

Flagstaff Meadows

The Ponderosa Fire District Station 82 is located to the east of the Bellemont TI where Brannigan Park
Road ends and Shadow Mountain Drive begins. The first Baha’i school in Arizona has a special use
permit for a church camp near the northwest part of the Study Area, along Forest Service Road 9005P.

3.3.

Zoning

Study Area zoning is shown in Figure 4, which includes residential (RS-6000), multi-unit residential (RM10/A), manufactured home park (MHP), commercial heavy (CH-10,000), open space and conservation
(OS), and General (G) with a conditional use permit for a church camp. The Bellemont Area Plan
proposes a mixed-use zoning classification under the Planned Community (PC) Zone for the Study Area.
The PC zone is designed to achieve the following purposes:
A. To provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated,
comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can result
from large-scale community planning.
B. To allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental
arrangement, while ensuring substantial compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
C. To provide for a zone encompassing various types of land uses, such as single-family residential
developments, multiple housing developments, professional and administrative office areas,
commercial centers, industrial parks or any public or semi-public use or combination of uses
through the adoption of a development plan and text materials which set forth land use
relationships and development standards.
The western and southern borders of the undeveloped subdivision Flagstaff Meadows Unit 3 include
multi-unit residential (RM-10/A), while the remainder of the subdivision is zoned for medium density

Page 7 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

residential (RS-6000). The Townhomes at Flagstaff Meadows are zoned for multi-unit residential (RM10/A). Coconino County defines these zones as follows:
RS-6000 – Residential Single Family Zone - This zone is intended for single family, urban
residential development on minimum Lot sizes of 6,000 square feet and maximum densities of
6.0 Dwelling Units per acre. Only those additional uses are permitted that are complementary to,
and can exist in harmony with, a residential neighborhood.
RM-10/A – Multiple Family Residential Zone - This zone is intended for the development of
medium density Apartments, Condominiums, Townhouses or other group Dwellings with
provisions for adequate light, air, open space and landscaped areas at maximum densities of
10.0 Dwelling Units per acre. Only those additional uses are permitted that are complementary
to, and can exist in harmony with, such residential developments.
MHP – Manufactured Home Park - To provide for the exclusive development of Manufactured
Home Parks. All Manufactured Home Parks hereinafter shall be developed in accordance with
the provisions of this Section.
CH-10,000 – Commercial Heavy Zone - This zone is intended to provide appropriately located
areas for establishments catering primarily to highway travelers, visitors to the County or such
businesses or uses where direct access to major arterial highways is essential or desirable for
their operation.
OS - Open Space and Conservation Zone - In addition to the objectives outlined in Section 1
(Purposes and Scope), the Open Space and Conservation Zone is included in the zoning
regulations to achieve the following purposes:
A. To reserve areas of the County where it is desirable and necessary to provide
permanent open spaces when such are necessary to safeguard the public health,
safety and general welfare and to provide for the location and preservation of scenic
areas and recreation areas.
B. This zone classification is intended to be applied primarily to lands held under public
ownership.
G – General Zone - This zone is a general rural land-use category intended for application to
those unincorporated areas of the County not specifically designated in any other zone
classification. Only those uses are permitted which are complementary and compatible with a
rural environment.

Page 8 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 3 – Land Use

Page 9 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 4 – Zoning

Page 10 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.3.1. Open Zoning Cases
There are two open zoning cases within the Study Area:
 PZ-CUP-15-001 – Conditional Use Permit for 11951 W Shadow Mountain Drive (existing fire
station). This permit will renew the existing conditional use.
 PZ-CUP-15-007 – Conditional Use Permit for parcel 20347004H (west of existing truck stop).
This permit will extend the existing conditional use for public water sales.

3.4.

Residential Development

Study Area residential development is shown in Figure 5, which includes Flagstaff Meadows Units 1 and
2 and the Townhomes at Flagstaff Village. Planned residential development includes Flagstaff
Meadows Unit 3 Phase I and Phase II; Phase I is platted, Phase II is not. Phase II of Flagstaff Meadows
Unit 3 is located between Flagstaff Meadows 2 Phase I and the Townhomes at Flagstaff Meadows. The
mobile home park is currently vacant, but the Coconino County Comprehensive Plan includes 12
spaces. No development plans are underway for the undeveloped commercially-zoned areas along I40.
After the completion of the Draft version of Working Paper 1, it was discovered that a manufactured
home park is being planned within the Study Area along Brannigan Park Road, west of Transwestern
Road. This development was included in subsequent traffic analysis as documented in Section 4.4.1.

3.5.

Activity/Employment Centers

There are three primary employment/activity centers within the Study Area: Pilot Travel Center (truck
stop) that includes a convenience store and two restaurants; Days Inn Hotel; and the Ponderosa Fire
District Station 82. The Pilot Travel Center and the Days Inn are located at the intersection of Brannigan
Park Road, Shadow Mountain Drive, and Transwestern Road, adjacent to the Bellemont TI; the
Ponderosa Fire District Station 82 is located on the south side of Shadow Mountain Drive.

Page 11 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 5 – Residential Development

Page 12 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.6.

Socioeconomic Conditions

3.6.1. Demographics
The populations within the State of Arizona and Coconino County have risen over the past ten years as
illustrated in Table 1. The population of the Bellemont area is difficult to quantify using Census data, as
it is not a defined place, city, or town, nor does the area neatly align with a Zip Code Translation Area
(ZCTA). Census divisions are shown in Figure 6. ZCTA 86015 includes the majority of the residential
development within the Study Area and extends south of I-40. Census Tract 22, Block Group 4 is bigger
than the Study Area and extends to the north. Block Group 4 covers the entire Study Area, while the
ZTCA will indicate if an area beyond the Study Area is skewing the results. Census data from the ZCTA
and Block Group 4 will be assessed to provide information on general demographics.
Table 1 – Population
Place
ZCTA 86015
Coconino County
State of Arizona
Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census

2000 Census
231
116,320
5,130,632

Population
2010 Census
385
134,437
6,392,015

% Change
+66.7%
+15.6%
+24.6%

As part of the traffic forecasting processes outlined in Section 4.1, a population count was estimated
based on the assumed number of residents per household and a rooftop count, which yielded a
population of 731. To check the estimate, Census data for the applicable blocks was reviewed and is
shown in Table 2. A review of ten of the blocks within Block Group 4 that more neatly align with the
Study Area, yet still covers a larger extended area to the north, yields a population of 855. This is
generally consistent with the estimate.
Table 2 – 2010 Population by Block and Block Group
Population
Place
2010 Census
Census Tract 22 – Block Group 4
2,003
Census Tract 22 – Block 4887

475

Census Tract 22 – Block 4888
Census Tract 22 – Block 4889
Census Tract 22 – Block 4890
Census Tract 22 – Block 4892
Census Tract 22 – Block 4893
Census Tract 22 – Block 4894
Census Tract 22 – Block 4895
Census Tract 22 – Block 4912
Census Tract 22 – Block 4914
Population Total

19
20
58
57
76
58
21
22
49
855

Page 13 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 6 – Census Areas

Page 14 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.6.2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, signed on February 11, 1994, reinforces the provisions set forth from Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and provides additional guidance on identifying and addressing
disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority and low-income populations, as well as disabled
individuals, female head of household, and elderly populations. Specifically, those programs, policies, or
benefits should ensure that they prevent discriminatory effects, including: discriminating against or
excluding individuals or populations from participation, denying benefits of a proposed action/activity,
or otherwise adversely affecting the human health or environment of these populations.
Relevant population characteristics were evaluated and are summarized below.
3.6.2.1. Minority Populations
A minority person can be defined as an individual who is racially classified as African American, Asian
American, Native American or Alaskan Native, or anyone who classifies himself or herself as “other”
race. Hispanics are also considered minorities, regardless of their racial affiliation. As shown in Table 3,
minority populations within the ZTCA and Block Group are below Coconino County and State levels.

Place
ZTCA 86015
Tract 22 – Block Group 4
Coconino County
State of Arizona
*2010 Census Data.

Table 3 – Minority Population*
Percent Minority
11.7%
26.9%
38.3%
27.0%

Percent Hispanic
12.2%
21.0%
13.5%
29.6%

3.6.2.2. Poverty Level Status
Low-income is defined as a person who is below the poverty level. Poverty thresholds are revised
annually to allow for changes in the cost of living as reflected in the Consumer Price Index. The average
poverty threshold for a family of four persons was just above $24,000 in 2014. As shown in Table 4, the
percentage of the population below the poverty level within the ZTCA is below Coconino County and
State levels; however, the percentage in the Block Group is above Coconino County and State levels.
Table 4 – Poverty Level Status*
Place

Population for whom poverty
status is determined

ZTCA 86015
156
Tract 22 – Block Group 4
234
Coconino County
113,076
State of Arizona
5,021,238
*2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-year Estimate.

Page 15 of 71

Below poverty level
Number
0
72
20,609
698,669

Percent
0%
30.8%
18.2%
13.9%

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.6.2.3. Disabled Populations
Disabled individuals are persons older than 16 who are either work disabled, have self-care limitations,
or have a mobility disability as enumerated in the 2010 Census. As shown in Table 5, the percentage of
disabled populations within the ZTCA and Block Group are below Coconino County and State levels.
Table 5 – Disability Status*
Place

Population for whom poverty
status is determined

ZTCA 86015
Tract 22 – Block Group 4
Coconino County
State of Arizona
*2009 – 2013 American Community Survey.

156
546
113,949
5,721,472

Residents with a
Disability
Number
0
0
15,929
815,273

Percent
0%
0%
14.0%
14.2%

3.6.2.4. Female Head of Household
“Female head of household” is a family household in which there is a female with no male spouse
present, regardless of whether she has any children less than 18 years of age. As shown in Table 6, the
percentage of female head of household populations within ZTCA is below Coconino County and State
levels; however, the percentage in the Block Group percentage is above Coconino County and State
levels.
Table 6 – Female Head of Household*
Place

Number of Households for
whom head of household is
determined

ZTCA 86015
Tract 22 – Block Group 4
Coconino County
State of Arizona
*2009 - 2013 American Community Survey.

52
234
29,450
1,573,888

Page 16 of 71

Female Head of
Household
Number
0
98
9,244
377,280

Percent
0%
41.9%
31.4%
24.0%

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.6.2.5. Elderly Populations
Elderly refers to individuals who are older than 60 years of age. As shown in Table 7, the percentage of
elderly population within the ZTCA and Tract Block Group are lower than the Coconino County and
State levels.

ZTCA 86015
Tract 22 – Block Group 4
Coconino County
State of Arizona
*2010 Census Data.

3.7.

Table 7 – Age Distribution*
Below
% Pop. Age 16Age 15
64
122
31.7%
250

% Pop.

% Pop.

64.9%

Age 65
and over
13

3.4%

526

26.3%

1347

67.2%

130

6.5%

17,708
1,358,059

19.6%
21.2%

96,190
4,152,127

71.5%
65.0%

11,924
881,831

8.9%
13.8%

Physical, Natural, and Cultural Environment

The physical, natural, and cultural environmental information summarized below is intended to provide
a general overview of the Study Area. Additional research, analysis, coordination, and/or permitting will
be required prior to any potential improvements. Conditions may change subsequent to the
preparation of this study that may result in additional investigations or studies being required. This
summary is not a formal National Environmental Policy Act analysis.
There are no Arizona State or Coconino County parks within the Study Area. In addition, there are no
wilderness areas, national parks, national monuments, or national recreation areas. A large portion of
the Study Area is the Coconino National Forest, generally shown as Open Space/Conservation Area in
Figure 3.
3.7.1. Topography and Drainage Features
Study Area topography is shown in Figure 7. Wing Mountain is located outside, northeast of the Study
Area; smaller foothills are within the Study Area, generally within Coconino National Forest lands and
the area currently zoned as Open Space. Wing Mountain influences the Study Area topography as the
ground generally slopes from northeast (high) to southwest (low). There are no major bodies of water
within the Study Area.
Key drainage features are shown in Figure 8. The National Flood Insurance Program develops Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to indicate the risk of flooding. Map number 04005C6800G, panel 6800G
of 8475, effective September 3, 2010, and map number 04005C6425G, panel 6425G of 8475, effective
September 3, 2010, cover the Study Area. Based upon these maps, the majority of the Study Area is
located within flood Zone X, or areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. The
area near Volunteer Wash is in flood Zone A, which is a special flood hazard area subject to inundation
by the 1% annual chance flood. The base flood elevation is not determined. Large box culverts under I40 and Brannigan Park Road accommodate Volunteer Wash flows.

Page 17 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 7 – Topography

Page 18 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 8 – Drainage Features

Page 19 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.7.2. Wildlife
The Coconino County Comprehensive Plan identifies Bellemont as a priority 3 wildlife planning area.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Heritage Data Management System identifies ten special
status species as potentially occurring within the Study Area, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8 – Special Status Species Within the Study Area
Scientific Name
Accipiter gentilis
Aquilegia desertorum
Clematis hirsutissima

Common Name
Northern Goshawk
Mogollon Columbine
Clustered Leather
Flower
Bald Eagle - Winter
Population

U.S. Fish &
Wildlife
Service
SC

U.S.
Forest
Service
S
S

Bureau of
State
Land
of
Management Arizona
S
WSC
SR
HS

Haliaeetus leucocephalus
SC
S
S
WSC
(wintering pop.)
Microtus mexicanus
Navajo Mexican Vole
SC
S
WSC
navaho
Myotis occultus
Arizona Myotis
SC
S
Myotis thysanodes
Fringed Myotis
SC
Myotis volans
Long-legged Myotis
SC
Phacelia serrata
Cinder Phacelia
SC
Strix occidentalis lucida
Mexican Spotted Owl
LT
WSC
SC = Species of Concern; C = Candidate Species; S = Sensitive Species; WSC = Wildlife of Special
Concern; SR = Salvage Restricted; HS = Highly Safeguarded; LT = Listed Threatened
Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department (Heritage Data Management System)

The Arizona’s Wildlife Linkage Assessment, prepared by the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup,
identified Potential Linkage Zones (PLZs) throughout the State that are critical to wildlife for movement
and dispersal. PLZ 14 and PLZ 15 are identified within or near the Study Area. During the design phase,
features that accommodate wildlife movement should be considered.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department Online Environmental Review Tool was used to assess special
areas within the Study Area. There are no critical habitat or important bird areas within the Study Area.
The entire Study Area is within a classified “special area” – a 10J area for the California condor. The
Peaks to Rim Linkage Design wildlife corridor crosses through the northern portion of the Study Area,
within the Forest Service lands.
3.7.3. Cultural Resources
The Study Area was reviewed for known cultural resources. Existing records of cultural resource surveys
and sites were reviewed, including site and project files in the AZSITE cultural resources database and
the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The AZSITE cultural resource database
indicated that a small portion of the Study Area has been surveyed and that the available survey was
conducted in the 1990’s along I-40, west of the Bellemont TI. A search of the National Register of

Page 20 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Historic Places revealed no sites of importance within the Study Area. The General Land Office (GLO)
maps, maintained by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) identified one homestead within the Study
Area, which appears to be bisected by I-40, and a few roads that generally run diagonally within the
Study Area.

3.8.

Utilities

Study Area major existing utilities are shown in Figure 9. An existing Kinder Morgan/El Paso Natural
Gas Line passes through, generally transecting Flagstaff Meadows Unit 2, in an easement near the
intersection of Shadow Mountain Drive and Monarch Drive. A wastewater treatment plant, owned and
operated by Utility Source, LLC., is located north of I-40, near the western edge of the Townhomes at
Flagstaff Meadows. Other minor utilities are present to serve local needs.

Page 21 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 9 – Major Utilities

Page 22 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.9.

Transportation Network

3.9.1. Roadway Network
The Study Area existing roadway network is shown on Figure 1, with key roadways summarized in
Table 9. All other roadways are considered local roads, which are owned and maintained by either
Coconino County or the Forest Service.
Table 9 – Primary Road Summary
Functional
Posted
No. of
Roadway
Classification*
Speed
Lanes**
I-40
Interstate
75 mph
4
Transwestern Rd
Minor Arterial
Not Posted
2
Brannigan Park Rd
Minor Arterial
35 mph
2
Shadow Mountain Dr
Local Road
35 mph
2
*ADOT Functional Classification System Database (as of 03/10/2015).
**Total includes both directions of travel.

Pavement
Width
N/A
28’ – 38’
20’-24’
26’ – 28’

Own/
Maintain
ADOT
ADOT
Coconino Cnty
Coconino Cnty

I-40 is the major route passing east-west through the Study Area, extending from California to North
Carolina. At a local level, I-40 connects the Study Area to the Cities of Williams and Flagstaff. Within
the Study Area, I-40 is a four-lane divided facility that is governed by the ADOT Northcentral District.
Brannigan Park Road (also Old Highway 66) and Shadow Mountain Drive are on the north side and
parallel I-40. Brannigan Park Road serves the Study Area to the west, and Shadow Mountain Drive
serves the Study Area to the east. Transwestern Road is oriented north-south and connects I-40 to
Brannigan Park Road and Shadow Mountain Drive. The entire Study Area roadway network is rural in
nature. Roadways are generally paved, except for the Forest Service roads.
3.9.1.1. Existing Access Control
I-40 and the Bellemont TI are limited access facilities, which are under the oversight of ADOT and
FHWA. Changes in access to these facilities will require their approval. All other roadways in the Study
Area will require Coconino County review and approval.
Access to the Study Area from I-40 is provided at the diamond-type Bellemont TI with Transwestern
Road. Transwestern Road intersects Brannigan Park Road and Shadow Mountain Drive approximately
250 feet north of its intersection with the westbound I-40 ramps. The Transwestern Road intersections
are stop-controlled. Stop-controlled access is also provided at intersections between the primary
roadways listed in Table 9, as well as their intersections with subdivision roadways. The remaining
roadway intersections are uncontrolled.
Private property access is provided along Brannigan Park Road and Shadow Mountain Drive, with a
concentration of six driveways adjacent to the intersection between Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park
Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive. These six commercial driveways all occur within a span of
approximately 600 feet, centered at the intersection, providing uncontrolled left/right-turn access to the
Pilot Travel Center and Days Inn.

Page 23 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.9.1.2. Access Management Policies and Guidelines
Access management is the systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operation of
driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street connections to a road. The purpose of access
management is to provide access to land development in a manner that preserves the safety and
efficiency of the transportation system. Access management provides a proactive and cost effective
approach to improving road safety and reducing congestion. Failure to manage access creates adverse
social, economic, and environmental impacts.
ADOT recently completed a draft Access Management Guidelines in November 2014. This document
outlines policy to set forth uniform standards for managing access to and from ADOT roadways. It
addresses a variety of topics, including types of access control, spacing requirements, treatment of
access in the vicinity of an Interstate TI, and retrofitting existing roadways.
The Coconino County Engineering Design and Construction Manual provides limited guidance with
respect to access management elements and leaves discretion to the Coconino County Public Works
and Coconino County Engineer. The Coconino Comprehensive Plan outlines a need “to improve
roadway capacity and safety by regulating vehicular access to public roadways from adjoining
properties.” The FMPO 2030 RTP describes a desire to design “Complete Streets,” meaning that
roadways are designed with all transportation users in consideration. Although access management
guidelines and regulations are limited, access management is described as a priority for both Coconino
County and the Flagstaff area.
3.9.2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
There are currently no bike lanes or bicycle paths within the Study Area. According to the 2012
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, six-foot wide paved shoulders are acceptable
on rural roadways, where shoulders are not adjacent to curb, guardrail, or other vertical obstructions. In
the later scenario, five-foot wide shoulders are recommended to provide additional operating clearance
to the vertical obstruction. Most of the marked and unmarked shoulders are too narrow.
Pedestrian accommodations are limited within the
Study Area. There are no designated sidewalks or
multi-use paths along Brannigan Park Road or Shadow
Mountain Drive, providing no linkage to the Pilot
Travel Center and associated restaurants and
convenience store.
Sidewalks are sparingly located within the residential
developments. Flagstaff Meadows has a detached
sidewalk along Bellemont Springs Drive that ends at
Slate Mountain Trail,
the signed neighborhood entrance. Detached sidewalks are
Looking South
typically found on one side of the street, except along Deer
Springs Drive, which has an attached sidewalk. Flagstaff Meadows II has an attached sidewalk along
Fossil Creek Drive, the signed neighborhood entrance, which ends at Cove Crest Drive. Attached
sidewalks are typically found on the north or east side of the streets within the subdivision. The
Townhomes at Flagstaff Meadows has attached ribbon curb/sidewalk on both sides of the streets.

Page 24 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.9.3. Transit Network
There is no regular public transit service within or to/from the Study Area. NAIPTA operates the
Mountain Line, Mountain Link, and Mountain Lift (para-transit), which provide public transit service only
within the City of Flagstaff.
School bus transportation and curb-to-curb transportation for special needs students is provided for
the residents of Bellemont.

3.10. Traffic Analysis
3.10.1. Existing Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts were collected on February 12, 2015. Daily 24-hour counts and turning movement counts
for the morning, mid-day, and evening peak hours were collected in the Study Area as shown on Figure
10. More detailed traffic count data, including vehicle classification counts, is included in Appendix FR2.
Daily traffic volumes for the Study Area can be generally characterized as low. Daily traffic volumes on
the Bellemont TI ramps range between 852 and 2,282 vehicles, Transwestern Road had 3,175 vehicles,
and Shadow Mountain Road had 1,522 vehicles. The truck percentages varied from 15% on
southbound Transwestern Road to as high as 51% on the eastbound off-ramp.

Page 25 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 10 – Existing Traffic Volumes

Page 26 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.10.2. Traffic Operational Analysis
Existing capacity analysis was conducted for the existing (2015) conditions at the six intersections
identified in Figure 10. Synchro software using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used
for all intersections, except the intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow
Mountain Drive. This intersection is stop-controlled on three of the four approaches, which is not
supported in the HCM methodology. For this location, SimTraffic software was used for the evaluation.
Synchro and SimTraffic results are included in Appendix FR-3.
Table 10 summarizes the 2015 AM, Mid-Day, and PM peak hour capacity analysis results, which are
presented in terms of LOS and delay. LOS is a qualitative value of how well a roadway or intersection
operates. A grading system of A through F is assigned. LOS A represents free-flow traffic operations
with little vehicle delay; LOS F represents substantial congestion and vehicle delay. Operations of LOS C
and better are typically considered good and acceptable in rural areas; LOS D is often acceptable in
urban areas. Operations of LOS E or F typically need attention.
Table 10 – 2015 Traffic Analysis
Intersection*
Intersection 1
Transwestern &
EB I-40 Ramps
Intersection 2
Transwestern &
WB I-40 Ramps
Intersection 3
Transwestern &
Brannigan Park
& Shadow Mtn
Intersection 4
Shadow Mtn &
Middle Pilot
Drive
Intersection 5
Shadow Mtn &
East Pilot Drive
Intersection 6
Shadow Mtn &
Days Inn Drive

Approach
Eastbound
Northbound
Southbound
Overall
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Overall
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Overall
Eastbound
Westbound
Southbound
Overall
Eastbound
Westbound
Southbound
Overall
Eastbound
Westbound
Southbound
Overall

2015 AM Peak
Delay
LOS
(sec/veh)
C
16.2
A
0.0
A
6.1
A
7.3
B
10.2
A
0.6
A
0.0
A
2.9
A
4.8
A
4.5
A
0.5
A
5.9
A
3.5
A
5.2
A
0.0
B
10.0
A
3.5
A
0.8
A
0.0
A
9.8
A
0.6
A
0.8
A
0.0
A
10.0
A
0.5

2015 Mid-Day Peak
Delay
LOS
(sec/veh)
B
13.2
A
0.0
A
4.3
A
4.6
B
10.2
A
1.5
A
0.0
A
3.1
A
3.1
A
4.3
A
0.6
A
5.6
A
2.6
A
5.7
A
0.0
A
9.2
A
5.9
A
1.9
A
0.0
A
9.1
A
2.8
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0

2015 PM Peak
Delay
LOS
(sec/veh)
B
13.1
A
0.0
B
6.5
A
4.5
B
10.3
A
1.5
A
0.0
A
4.9
A
5.0
A
4.4
A
0.7
A
3.6
A
2.4
A
3.6
A
0.0
A
9.6
A
4.5
A
0.2
A
0.0
A
9.5
A
1.7
A
0.4
A
0.0
A
9.5
A
0.8

*Refer to Figure 10 for intersection number.

Page 27 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

The analysis indicates that the intersections operate with an overall LOS A. However, field observations
indicate that private property site layout and access (driveways) within the functional area of the
intersection create traffic operational issues that are not normally considered with a traditional traffic
capacity analysis.
Several of the driveways serve a Pilot Travel Center (truck stop), which draws a high percentage of truck
traffic (over 50 percent on the I-40 ramps). The site layout of the Pilot Travel Center includes a fueling
station that is accessed by the driveway identified as Intersection 3 on Figure 10. Limited truck storage
space, or area for queuing, is available for the fueling station; when the fueling stations are all occupied,
waiting trucks are stopped through the driveway and the intersection, as shown in Table 11. This
creates periodic blockage of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive,
including the only available shared northbound right-through lane. Residential traffic to Shadow
Mountain Drive has no alternative route and is forced to wait for the truck traffic to clear the
intersection.
Table 11 – Intersection 3 Access and Operational Issues
Transwestern Road, looking north toward Pilot
Travel Center. The fueling station is shown on
the left with the large trucks entering and exiting
the site.

Pilot Travel Center fueling station truck storage
space accommodates only one single or double
trailer truck. When this storage space is
occupied, a line of trucks and other vehicles
often blocks the intersection.

Traffic count video recording shows recurring
truck usage of the intersection, with one truck
stopped on Transwestern Road and another (red
cab) pulling around to access the Pilot Travel
Center fueling station.

Traffic count video recording shows passenger
vehicles incorrectly passing the queuing of
trucks at the intersection, traveling in the
opposite travel lane to either proceed into the
truck stop or turn right onto Shadow Mountain
Road, towards the residential areas.

Page 28 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.10.3. Existing Crash Analysis
Crash data for the Bellemont area was obtained from ADOT’s Traffic Safety Section. The most recent
five-year period (accessed February 23, 2015) was between September 1, 2009, and August 31, 2014.
There were a total of 13 crashes reported on the ramps and the crossroad, Transwestern Road. Note
that Transwestern Road is also recorded as Hughes Road and Navajo Army Depot Road in the crash
reports. Additionally, Coconino County reported six crashes, including two non-injury crashes on
Brannigan Park Road and four crashes involving two injuries on Shadow Mountain Road. Crash data is
included in Appendix FR-4.
Sixteen of the nineteen recorded crashes were minor and classified as “property damage only,” two
were “non-capacitating” injuries, and one was a “possible injury.” Only one crash was reported in the
last four months of 2009, four in each 2011 and 2013, and six in each 2010 and 2012. There were no
reported crashes in the first eight months of 2014. As shown in Figure 11, the majority of the crashes
involved single vehicles, followed by sideswipes in the same direction, and then sideswipes in the
opposite direction. Heavy trucks contributed to almost half of the crashes. Wet, snow, and icy surface
conditions were factors in approximately half of the crashes. There were four crashes with guardrail or
other fixed objects. The majority, six crashes, were reported on Brannigan Park Road and Shadow
Mountain Drive.
Detailed police reports were requested for the reported crashes. Thirteen of the nineteen narratives
were provided and evaluated. There were no apparent patterns, except for those noted above. Heavy
truck traffic which exits I-40 at the Bellemont TI to use the Pilot Travel Center has been a factor in nine
of the crashes, including backing into a stopped vehicle, making a sweeping right-turn and sideswiping
a passenger car, and the inability to stop on ice/snow and striking guard rail or other vehicles. All of the
crashes involving heavy trucks were minor, with no reported injuries.

Page 29 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 11 – Vehicle Crash Analyses

Page 30 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

4.0 Future Features
4.1.

Travel Demand Model Land Use

The 2010 and 2035 land use for the current ADOT Statewide Travel Demand Model (AZTDM2) was
reviewed to determine if it was appropriate for the Study Area, based on the existing development and
known future development. It was determined that the 2010 land use was appropriate, but that a few
changes were warranted for 2035 land use.
 Flagstaff Meadows Subdivision – This subdivision is located on Shadow Mountain Drive, east of
Transwestern Road. The 2010 land use contains approximately 260 houses, which is likely close
to what was there at the time. The 2035 land use contains approximately 320 houses. There are
approximately 320 rooftops in this subdivision now, with the next phase already platted. To
account for additional growth in this subdivision, the 2035 land use was increased by 100
houses to represent a full build-out of the next phase.
 Commercial Area and Camp Navajo Industrial Park (south of I-40) – A comparison of the land
use showed little-to-no growth at the proposed Camp Navajo Industrial Park site, as well as the
commercial area adjacent to the south side of I-40. The Camp Navajo Industrial Park has been
under development for almost 10 years and currently does not have any businesses. It is
uncertain when development at this site will occur. For the commercial area south of I-40, there
is some existing development along the corridor, but nothing planned to occur in the near
future. To account for some development in this area, the 2035 land use was adjusted to
include a new commercial building of approximately 10,000 square feet. This adjusted 2035
employment to 25 employees, from 15 employees in 2010.
These adjustments to the 2035 land use were reviewed and approved by FMPO.

4.2.

Utilities

Based upon available information, there are no planned major utility improvements within the Study
Area.

4.3.

Transportation Network

4.3.1. Roadway Network
Except for various improvements recommended in this study, key roadways within the Study Area are
not expected to change within the 2035 planning horizon. Additional local roadways may be
constructed to support future phases of the Flagstaff Meadows subdivision, but no new arterial or
collector roadways are expected. There are planned improvements at the Bellemont TI; however, it is
not programmed.
4.3.2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Except for various improvements recommended in this study, the bicycle and pedestrian network is not
anticipated to change within the 2035 planning horizon. Future multi-modal connectivity within the
Study Area is dependent on development-level improvements. Future multi-modal connectivity outside
the Study Area is dependent on multi-modal improvements to I-40, as it serves as the exclusive route

Page 31 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

connecting the Study Area to other destinations, including local towns, employment centers, and the
City of Flagstaff. One of the goals of 2012 ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update is to
improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure on state highways, as well as double the percentage of
walking and bicycling statewide over the next 10 years. Public survey conducted as part of this update
highlighted respondents’ concerns associated with a need for shoulder improvements along I-40 to be
suitable for bicyclists. However, no such improvements are planned at this time. The portion of I-40
that bisects Bellemont is currently recommended for inclusion in the future designation of USBR 66.
4.3.3. Transit Network
The existing transit network is not anticipated to change within the 2035 planning horizon. Long-term
regional vision (11 to 20 years), outlined in the Flagstaff Regional Five-year and Long Ranch Transit Plan,
is set to “maximize geographic coverage of the transit system, including extending basic commuter
service to outlying areas of Bellemont, as well as areas along I-40 between Bellemont, Williams, the Twin
Arrows Casino, and Winslow.” Additionally, this document mentions the possibility of commuter service
for Bellemont as soon as 6 to 10 years into the future, if adequate funding is in place.
Mountain Mobility Business Plan identifies additional five-year goals to address gaps in available
transportation programs for older adults, persons with disabilities, and persons of low‐income. No
specific plans are identified for the Bellemont area’s qualifying residents; however, its proposed
introduction of the mileage reimbursement program for the rural area, as well as the enhanced taxi
voucher program could benefit low-income, ADA eligible, and older persons living in Bellemont.

4.4.

Traffic Analysis

4.4.1. Traffic Forecast and Annual Growth Factor Development
Using the revised land use discussed in Section 5.1, the AZTDM2 was run for the 2010 and 2035
scenarios. The assignments from these scenarios were reviewed for reasonableness. From this review,
it was noticed that the Shadow Mountain Drive assignments were within 15% of the recently collected
traffic count data. The rest of the Study Area was well below the traffic counts with assignments. The
assignments for the I-40 ramps to and from the west are approximately 10% of the traffic counts. Upon
review, it was determined that a majority of this under assignment is related to the Pilot Travel Center
site. While this site is included in the land use as commercial, there is not a way to identify that it is a
very high volume commercial site. The AZTDM2 has about 100 daily trips for the site, compared to the
traffic counts that show over 3,600 daily trips. Because of the large difference, an annual growth factor
was determined for the Study Area intersections to develop 10- and 20-year traffic forecasts.
The growth of the Bellemont TI and Shadow Mountain Drive is related directly to the amount of growth
in the Flagstaff Meadows subdivision and the traffic generated by the Pilot Travel Center site. Annual
growth for each of these sites was developed as follows:
 Flagstaff Meadows Subdivision – The 2010 AZTDM2 included 260 houses for this subdivision.
This number increased to 420 for the year 2035. This represents an annual growth rate of 2.5%.
 Pilot Travel Center Site – The trips for the site are primarily pass-by trips from I-40. Therefore, it
is reasonable to assume that the traffic for the site will increase at the same rate as I-40. From
the ADOT 2013 AADT Report, this section of I-40 has an annual growth rate of 2.1%.

Page 32 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

For this study, a global growth factor of 2.5% per year was selected. This will accommodate the growth
for the subdivision and provide a slightly more conservative value for the Pilot Travel Center site.
Existing 2015 traffic count data was increased by 2.5% per year, or 25%, to determine 10-year forecasts,
and 50% to determine 20-year forecasts.
After the completion of the Draft version of this Working Paper 1, it was discovered that a
manufactured home park is being planned within the Study Area along Brannigan Park Road, west of
Transwestern Road. Based on coordination with development representatives, it is anticipated that it
will consist of 225 manufactured homes. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that 75% of the
development will be constructed in the 10-year horizon and 100% constructed in the 20-year horizon.
As documented above, adding this development to the AZTDM2 model will not result in meaningful
assignments for the Study Area. Therefore, the ITE Trip Generation Manual was used to determine the
10-year and 20-year trips associated with this development; Land Use 240, Mobile Home Park, was
used. Table 12 shows the AM, Mid-Day and PM peak trips associated with the development. It is
assumed that these trips will be destined for Flagstaff; therefore, entering trips come from I-40
westbound and exiting trips are destined for I-40 eastbound. The trips in Table 12 were added to the
10-year and 20-year intersection volumes after the 2.5% annual growth had been applied.
Table 12 – Manufactured Home Park Trip Generation
AM Peak
Mid-Day Peak*
PM Peak
Design Number
Year
of Units
Entering
Exiting
Entering
Exiting
Entering
Exiting
2025
169
15
59
21
26
62
38
2035
225
20
79
26
35
82
51
*Mid-Day volumes were estimated.
4.4.2. Design Hour Volume Factor
Design hour forecasts typically represent the 30th highest hourly volume of the year. Since the 2015
traffic count data were assumed to be taken on an “average” day, a design hour volume factor was
developed to convert the counted volume to design hour. From the ADOT 2013 AADT Report, the peak
hour on I-40 in this area represents 8% of the AADT. From the 24-hour counts conducted on the I-40
ramps, the PM peak was 7.46% of the 24-hour volume. For this location, design hour volume factor is
8% / 7.46%, which is 1.072. To be a little more conservative, this factor was rounded to 1.1. The 2015
AM and PM turning movement counts were multiplied by 1.1 to convert them to the 30th highest hour
design volumes for the traffic operational analysis.
4.4.3. Traffic Operational Analysis
Capacity analyses were conducted for the 2025 and 2035 no-build conditions at the six intersections
identified in Figure 12. Synchro software using the HCM methodology was used for all intersections,
except the intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive. This
intersection is stop-controlled on three of the four approaches, which is not supported in the HCM
methodology. For this location, SimTraffic software was used for the evaluation. Synchro and SimTraffic
results are included in Appendix FR-3. Table 13 and Table 14 summarize the 2025 and 2035 AM,
Mid-Day, and PM peak hour capacity analysis results, respectively.

Page 33 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Table 13 – 2025 Traffic Analysis
Intersection*

Intersection 1
Transwestern &
EB I-40 Ramps

Intersection 2
Transwestern &
WB I-40 Ramps

Intersection 3
Transwestern &
Brannigan Park
& Shadow Mtn

Intersection 4
Shadow Mtn &
Middle Pilot
Drive
Intersection 5
Shadow Mtn &
East Pilot Drive

Intersection 6
Shadow Mtn &
Days Inn Drive

Approach

2025 AM Peak
Delay
LOS
(sec/veh)

2025 Mid-Day Peak
Delay
LOS
(sec/veh)

2025 PM Peak
Delay
LOS
(sec/veh)

Eastbound

D

31.2

C

17.3

C

18.8

Northbound

A

0.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

Southbound

A

6.8

A

4.9

A

7.3

Overall

B

10.0

A

5.6

A

5.9

Westbound

B

11.0

B

11.0

B

11.8

Northbound

A

0.7

A

1.6

A

1.6

Southbound

A

0.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

Overall

A

3.0

A

3.4

A

5.8

Eastbound

A

4.5

A

4.4

A

3.4

Westbound

A

6.2

A

5.6

A

6.3

Northbound

A

0.5

A

0.7

A

0.9

Southbound

A

7.6

A

7.2

A

7.9

Overall

A

4.5

A

3.4

A

3.0

Eastbound

A

5.4

A

5.8

A

3.7

Westbound

A

0.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

Southbound

B

10.6

A

9.6

B

10.2

Overall

A

3.7

A

6.1

A

4.7

Eastbound

A

0.8

A

1.9

A

0.2

Westbound

A

0.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

Southbound

B

10.2

A

9.2

A

9.9

Overall

A

0.6

A

2.8

A

1.8

Eastbound

A

0.8

A

0.0

A

0.4

Westbound

A

0.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

Southbound

B

10.4

A

0.0

A

9.9

Overall

A

0.5

A

0.0

A

0.8

*Refer to Figure 12 for intersection number.

Page 34 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Table 14 – 2035 Traffic Analysis
2035 AM Peak
Intersection*

Intersection 1
Transwestern &
EB I-40 Ramps

Intersection 2
Transwestern &
WB I-40 Ramps

Intersection 3
Transwestern &
Brannigan Park
& Shadow Mtn

Intersection 4
Shadow Mtn &
Middle Pilot
Drive
Intersection 5
Shadow Mtn &
East Pilot Drive

Intersection 6
Shadow Mtn &
Days Inn Drive

Approach
LOS

Delay
(sec/veh)

Eastbound

F

Northbound

2035 Mid-Day Peak

2035 PM Peak

LOS

Delay
(sec/veh)

LOS

Delay
(sec/veh)

69.7

C

23.1

D

28.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

Southbound

A

7.1

A

5.1

A

7.8

Overall

C

15.8

A

6.7

A

7.6

Westbound

B

12.1

B

11.9

B

13.6

Northbound

A

0.7

A

1.7

A

1.6

Southbound

A

0.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

Overall

A

3.3

A

3.6

A

6.6

Eastbound

A

8.1

A

5.8

B

5.2

Westbound

A

8.2

A

7.2

A

8.8

Northbound

A

0.6

A

0.8

A

1.1

Southbound

A

8.4

A

8.0

B

10.0

Overall

A

6.0

A

4.1

A

4.1

Eastbound

A

5.5

A

5.9

A

3.7

Westbound

A

0.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

Southbound

B

11.3

A

9.9

B

10.9

Overall

A

3.9

A

6.2

A

4.9

Eastbound

A

0.8

A

1.9

A

0.2

Westbound

A

0.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

Southbound

B

10.6

A

9.4

B

10.2

Overall

A

0.7

A

2.9

A

1.8

Eastbound

A

0.8

A

0.0

A

0.4

Westbound

A

0.0

A

0.0

A

0.0

Southbound

B

10.8

A

0.0

B

10.3

Overall

A

0.5

A

0.0

A

0.8

*Refer to Figure 12 for intersection number.
The analysis indicates the 2025 and 2035 intersections will operate at a very good LOS A or LOS B,
except for the Transwestern Road and eastbound I-40 Ramps intersection that will operate at LOS C
during 2035 AM peak hour. The truck volume for the Pilot Travel Center will continue to rise over the
next 20 years, which will cause more frequent congestion on the street network as well as increased
queue lengths. Driveways, or access points, to the public roadways from the Pilot Travel Center and/or
truck storage on the Pilot Travel Center site will need to be addressed as part of any future year
improvement.

Page 35 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

5.0 Identified Needs Summary
Transportation needs and deficiencies were identified from a variety of technical sources, input from
stakeholders and public, and field observations. The sections below summarize the roadway, bicycle
and pedestrian, and transit network needs.

5.1.

Roadway Network Needs

5.1.1. Congestion and Safety
There is a need to address congestion and safety at the intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan
Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive. The analysis in Section 3.10 and Section 4.4 indicated that
these issues are caused by the presence and concentration of driveways within the functional area of
the intersection. The location of the driveways and the Pilot Travel Center site conditions combine to
adversely affect the traffic operations of these public roadways, including the Bellemont TI.
The site operations of the Pilot Travel Center, specifically the fueling station location and lack of large
truck queuing space, complicate traffic operations and safety. As currently configured and utilized, the
Pilot Travel Center site provides limited truck storage space, or area for queuing, for the fueling station
when the fueling stations are occupied. Waiting trucks queue through the driveway and into the
intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive, including the
only available shared northbound right-through lane. Residential traffic to Shadow Mountain Drive has
no alternative route and is forced to wait for the truck traffic to clear the intersection.
5.1.2. Access Management
There is a need to provide guidance for the management of access, including driveways, to public
roadways. ADOT is nearing the completion of its Access Management Guidelines that will apply to their
roadway facilities; however, Coconino County guidance is limited. The FMPO is currently developing
access management guidelines. A more comprehensive approach to access management, whether it is
policy or guidelines, would serve as a tool for the County to preserve the safety and efficiency of its
transportation system.

5.2.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Needs

There is a need to address the gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian transportation networks. There are
limited facilities available now; those that do exist do not serve as a network linking the different areas
within the Study Area, nor the Study Area to the neighboring cities of Flagstaff and Williams.

5.3.

Transit Network Needs

There is a need to address public transit for the Study Area. Previous studies and plans have identified
this need and have developed plans for transit to serve the Study Area; however, none of the planned
services have been implemented. Adequate funding sources for Study Area public transit have not
been identified.

Page 36 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

6.0 Potential Improvement Strategies
The potential improvement strategies development process included the exploration of a wide range of
options. The process engaged the TAC and the public. Through a collaborative process, the potential
improvement strategies were screened based upon a variety of factors, such as jurisdictional authority,
feasibility, and cost. The potential improvement strategies outlined in the following subsections were
approved by the TAC for evaluation. Strategies of interest to stakeholders and the public, but are either
beyond the either beyond Coconino County’s typical purview or the scope of this study, are listed in
Section 7.6 for future consideration by others.

6.1.

Potential Roadway Network Improvements

Potential improvements to the roadway network were generated to reduce congestion and improve
safety concerns at the intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain
Drive, as outlined in Section 6.1.1. Based on input from the TAC, concepts were developed to address
the presence of driveways within the functional area of the intersection and accommodate truck
queuing from the Pilot Travel Center fueling station, where limited space is available onsite. Cost
effective improvements were developed that would have a greater chance of being funded and
implemented. Concepts were framed to be compatible with the recommendations in the I-40
Bellemont to Winona Initial DCR.
Five roadway concepts were developed and outlined below.
 Concept 1 – Illustrated in Figure 14, Concept 1 implements the Bellemont TI recommendations
from the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial DCR, which is ADOT’s long-term goal for the
Bellemont TI. Concept 1 has been identified as a long-term solution primarily due to lack of
identified funding, preventing it from being constructed at this time to resolve the congestion
issues. The existing Bellemont TI would be reconstructed approximately 800 feet to the east.
The new Bellemont TI intersections would be two-lane roundabouts. The new intersection with
Shadow Mountain Drive would be a two-lane roundabout.
Concept 1 improves the congestion and safety need at the intersection of Transwestern Road,
Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive by relocating the intersection to the east,
away from the Pilot Travel Center and other nearby driveways. Trucks queuing for the Pilot
Travel Center fueling station would have limited storage on Shadow Mountain Drive.
 Concept 2 – Illustrated in Figure 15, Concept 2 realigns Transwestern Road to the east on the
north side of I-40. A new one-lane roundabout is constructed on Shadow Mountain Drive at the
approximate location of the roundabout proposed in the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial
DCR. A new one-lane, one-way local access road is provided along the parcel boundary on the
north side of the new roundabout.
Concept 2 addresses the congestion and safety need at the intersection of Transwestern Road,
Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive by relocating the intersection to the east,
away from the Pilot Travel Center and other nearby driveways. The new local access road would
provide truck access to the rear of the Pilot Travel Center site. Trucks queuing for the Pilot

Page 37 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Travel Center fueling station would be stored on onsite, or perhaps the new local access road,
freeing Shadow Mountain Drive from truck storage.
 Concept 3 – Illustrated in Figure 16, Concept 3 widens Transwestern Road by one northbound
lane, creating a dual-lane right-turn to eastbound Shadow Mountain Drive. A new raindrop, or
teardrop, roundabout is constructed on Shadow Mountain Drive at the approximate location of
the roundabout proposed in the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial DCR. A median “pork chop”
island at the intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain
Drive relocates the Transwestern Road northbound to westbound left-turn traffic movement to
the raindrop roundabout (U-turn). A new one-lane, one-way local access road is provided along
the parcel boundary on the north side of the new raindrop roundabout.
Concept 3 addresses the congestion and safety need at the intersection of Transwestern Road,
Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive by relocating the intersection to the east,
away from the Pilot Travel Center and other nearby driveways. The new local access road would
provide truck access to the rear of the Pilot Travel Center site. Trucks queuing for the Pilot
Travel Center fueling station would be stored on onsite, or perhaps the new local access road,
freeing Shadow Mountain Drive from truck storage.
 Concept 4 – Illustrated in Figure 17, Concept 4 realigns Transwestern Road to the east and
constructs a two-lane roundabout on Shadow Mountain Drive at the approximate location of
the roundabout proposed in the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial DCR. Two dedicated right-turn
lanes on westbound Shadow Mountain Drive are provided: one to accommodate truck traffic to
the Pilot Travel Center fuel station and one for passenger cars. A third westbound lane is
provided for through traffic.
Concept 4 addresses the congestion and safety need at the intersection of Transwestern Road,
Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive by relocating the intersection to the east,
away from the Pilot Travel Center and other nearby driveways. Trucks queuing for the Pilot
Travel Center fueling station would have limited storage on Shadow Mountain Drive.
 Concept 5 – Illustrated in Figure 18, Concept 5 widens eastbound Shadow Mountain Drive by
one lane. A new raindrop roundabout is constructed on Shadow Mountain Drive at the
approximate location of the roundabout proposed in the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial DCR.
A median “pork chop” island at intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and
Shadow Mountain Drive relocates the Transwestern Road northbound to westbound left-turn
traffic movement to the raindrop roundabout (U-turn). Two dedicated right-turn lanes on
westbound Shadow Mountain Drive are provided; one to provide limited truck storage accessing
to the Pilot Travel Center fuel station and one for passenger cars. A third westbound lane is
provided for through traffic.
Concept 5 addresses the congestion and safety need at the intersection of Transwestern Road,
Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive by relocating the intersection to the east,
away from the Pilot Travel Center and other nearby driveways. Trucks queuing for the Pilot
Travel Center fueling station would have limited storage on Shadow Mountain Drive.

Page 38 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 12 – Concept 1

Page 39 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 13 – Concept 2

Page 40 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 14 – Concept 3

Page 41 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 15 – Concept 4

Page 42 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 16 – Concept 5

Page 43 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

6.2.

Potential Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Improvements

Potential improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian network were generated to address gaps outlined
in Section 5.2. The existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities are limited within the Study Area. There are
no designated bike lanes, sidewalks or multi-use paths along Brannigan Park Road or Shadow Mountain
Drive. Existing sidewalks are located within the residential developments and are disconnected from
the commercial developments at the Pilot Travel Center. Currently, bicyclists and pedestrians share the
roadway with motorists. Most of the marked and unmarked roadway shoulders are too narrow to
accommodate both vehicular and multi-modal transportation. One bicycle and pedestrian concept was
developed and is outlined below.
 Wide Shoulders on Shadow Mountain Drive – Illustrated in Figure 17, wide shoulders on
Shadow Mountain Drive will provide a linkage for non-motorized travel between the residential
areas and Pilot Travel Center, including associated restaurants and convenience store.
According to the 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the 2013
ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update, paved wide shoulders are considered best practice
for rural roadways. A wide shoulder will facilitate the separation of travel modes along Shadow
Mountain Drive and encourage the use of alternative modes of travel. Specific treatments for
bicycle and pedestrian movements through a potential roundabout would be addressed during
final design.
Wide shoulders on Shadow Mountain Drive address the gap between the commercial and
residential areas within the Study Area. Detached pathways were originally investigated.
Coconino County, however, does not typically maintain these types of facilities and the concept
was not pursued further.
At a regional level, the planned USBR 66 follows I-40 adjacent to the Study Area and is one of four
designated bike routes in Arizona. A portion of Brannigan Park Road was adopted by the County Board
of Supervisors as an alternate route. These designations are included herein for reference only.

6.3.

Potential Transit Network Improvements

Potential improvements to the transit network were generated by prior studies, as outlined in Section
5.3, and are outlined below.
 Commuter Express Service – To provide regional services, the Flagstaff Regional Five-year and
Long Range Transit Plan (May 2013) includes the potential for commuter express service to the
Study Area if funding is identified.
 Park-and-ride Lot – To support the implementation of the service plan from A Coordinated
Transit Plan for ECoNA in Northern Arizona (January 2014), the study recommended a new parkand-ride lot at the Bellemont TI. The addition of a park-and-ride could support the van pool
program recommended in the Mountain Mobility Business Plan 2015-2019.
The potential transit network improvements listed above are incorporated herein to carry the concepts
forward for future regional transit studies. Previous studies briefly included the above potential
improvements as smaller elements of a greater network; substantial demand for transit was not
identified. Therefore, no further evaluation of these elements was conducted as part of this study.

Page 44 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 17 – Wide Shoulders on Shadow Mountain Drive

Page 45 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

6.4.

Planning Level Cost Estimates

Planning level cost estimates were developed for the above potential improvements to provide an
“order of magnitude” cost. These costs were developed utilizing 2015 dollars and are based on the
general description of the potential improvement provided. Potential right-of-way costs are not
included in the estimates. Planning level cost estimates for Concepts 2-5 considered the following
factors:
 Construction items, such as pavement, earthwork, and traffic control;
 Administrative items, such as design, construction and engineering administration, and quality
control; and
 Contingencies, including unidentified items (30%) and construction (5%).
As improvements advance in the project development process, more detailed project cost estimates
that consider specific existing site conditions, such as topography and right-of-way constraints, will
need to be developed.
The Concept 1 cost estimate was sourced from the I-40, Bellemont to Winona Initial DCR and inflated
from 2011 to 2015 dollars using the Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This
Initial DCR developed concepts to a greater level of detail, and as such, generated more detailed cost
estimates. Right-of-way costs were excluded in the cost estimates developed as part of this study.
Planning level cost estimates are presented in Figure 21.

6.5.

Access Management Policy Considerations

Currently, there is limited formal guidance provided for access management by Coconino County and
ADOT, as outlined in Sections 3.9.1.2 and 5.1.2. Access management is the systematic control of the
location, spacing, design, and operation of driveways, median openings, interchanges, and street
connections to a roadway. The purpose of access management is to provide access to land
development in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. Access
management provides a cost effective approach to improve roadway safety and reduce congestion.
Failure to manage access creates adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts. Successful
access management results include:
 Reduced vehicular crashes and collisions including pedestrians and cyclists.
 Reduced travel delays, fuel consumption, and vehicular emissions as numerous driveways and
traffic signals intensify congestion and delays along major roads.
 Reduced cut-through traffic in residential areas due to overburdened arterials.
 Reduced unsightly commercial strip development.
Access management helps preserve long-term property values and the economic viability of abutting
development. In addition, well-designed circulation systems promote efficient travel and can improve
the aesthetics of a corridor. Motorists are more likely to travel a corridor that is aesthetically pleasing,
has efficient traffic movement, and is safer to drive. This results in increased economic vitality for the
area.

Page 46 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Conflict points are the points at which a roadway user can cross, merge, diverge, etc. with another
roadway user. Drivers make more mistakes and are more likely to have collisions when they are
presented with complex driving situations created by numerous conflicts. Simplifying the driving task
results in fewer collisions, improves safety, and reduces congestion. A less complex driving
environment is accomplished by limiting the number and type of conflicts between vehicles.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) Access Management Manual, Second Addition (2014) provides
approaches to the various typical access management elements, including:
 Access management definitions.
 Functional classification with assigned ranges for speed limits, number of access points, bicycle
facility requirements, and recommendations regarding on-street parking.
 Typical roadway sections.
 Access and intersection spacing, including access type and median/median breaks.
 Driveway location, width, and curb radius.
 Guidance for cross and shared access.
 Guidance for service roads.
 Guidance regarding bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, including bus pull outs.
 Site design requirements.
Access management guidelines for the Bellemont area would likely be prepared by Coconino County.
In addition to guidelines, it could be possible to develop a simplified zoning overlay for the area in the
interim to direct future development/redevelopment within the Study Area. A zoning overlay could
include site access criteria to restrict future access along Brannigan Park Road and Shadow Mountain
Drive. It could also be structured to require changes in access for approval of new permits for
redevelopment of existing sites. This study also recommends changing the functional classification of
Shadow Mountain Drive from local road to collector or higher functional classification: higher functional
classifications provide greater access management opportunities.
To facilitate the development of access management guidelines, a brief review of the access
management guidelines for the City of Tucson (Tucson) and City of Peoria (Peoria) were conducted.
While the character for much of Coconino County differs from these communities, their guidelines
provide a reference for content, requirements, and other provisions. Tucson’s policies and standards
are outlined in the Transportation Access Management Guidelines (revised December 2011), which is
included in Appendix FR-5. Peoria’s policies and standards are outlined in the Access Management
Guidelines (2011), which is included in Appendix FR-6. Several excerpts from the TRB, Tucson, and
Peoria access management documents that are relevant to this study are provided to serve as a
reference. Even though ADOT has developed draft access management guidelines, they are not
included due to their draft status; however, this document contains many of the same elements.

Page 47 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

6.5.1. Functional Classification and Definitions
The TRB manual defines functional classification as, “A system used to group public roadways into
classes according to their purpose in moving vehicles and providing access.”
Tucson guidelines define functional classifications following definitions. Note this table provides criteria
for access, speed, and complete streets, among other features.
Figure 18 – Functional Route Classification (Tucson Guidelines Table 3-1)

Page 48 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Peoria’s Guidelines provide the following definitions, which are more general than Tucson’s definitions.
Figure 19 – Functional Classification (Peoria Guidelines Table 1)

6.5.2. Unsignalized Access Spacing
Unsignalized access spacing impacts the speed and safety of a roadway. The TRB Access Management
Manual, Second Edition (2014) identifies multiple approaches to unsignalized connection spacing,
including:











Independent access connections,
Upstream functional distance
Turn lane design
Safety
Stopping sight distance
Intersection sight distance
Decision sight distance
Right-turn conflict overlap and
Egress capacity
Travel Speed

Page 49 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Table 15 – TRB EXHIBIT 15-13 Unsignalized Access Spacing Based on Adjacent and Independent
Connections
Posted Speed
(mph)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75

Functional Distance (ft)
Downstreama
Upstreamb
160
60
230
95
320
135
440
185
580
240
740
206
950
375
1,200
455
1,520
540
1,990
635
2,580
735
3,360
840

Ideal Spacing
(ft)
220
325
455
625
820
1,045
1,325
1,655
2,060
2,625
3,315
4,200

NOTE: All functional distances and spacing are exclusive of queue storage
a
See Section 14.3.1, Exhibit 14-11
b
See Section 14.2. Assumes 2.0-s perception-reaction time (see Exhibit 14-3) and a
deceleration rate acceptable to most drivers (see Exhibit 14-4) for the example
distances

Tucson provides guidance for unsignalized intersection spacing, with a provision that, “where
intersection signalization is likely in the future, ½ mile intersection spacing should govern.”
Figure 20 – Minimum Unsignalized Intersection Spacing (Tucson Guidelines Figure 4-1)

Page 50 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Tucson’s guidelines also identify minimum spacing between unsignalized median openings. Note in
Table 16, allowable spacing is dependent upon speed. A second guideline is provided in Table 17
which dictates allowable spacing by functional classification. The guidelines indicate the most
conservative governs.
Table 16 – Minimum Spacing Between Unsignalized Median Openings
(Tucson Guidelines Table 4-2)

Guidelines for unsignalized median openings by functional classification.
Table 17 – Guidelines for Spacing Median Openings (Tucson Guidelines Table 4-3)

Peoria provides guidance for required spacing for both signalized and unsignalized connections by
functional class as shown in Table 18.

Page 51 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Table 18 – Guidelines for Spacing Signalized and Unsignalized Connections by Functional
Classification (Peoria Guidelines Table 3)

Peoria also offers guidance on median openings as follows:
Full median openings shall be located, at a minimum:
 Every 1/2 mile on major and minor arterials
 Every 1/4 mile on collectors that are not anticipated to become arterials.
 The Engineer Director may permit median openings at smaller intervals for built-up areas.
6.5.3. Driveway Spacing
The TRB Access Management Manual, Second Edition (2014) generally recommends that driveway
spacing requirements be included as part of “connection spacing” criteria, so that all connections are
reviewed concurrently.
Design requirements for driveway locations onto arterial and collector roadways in all new development
are as follows:
1. Entrance and exit drives crossing arterials and collectors are limited to two per 300 feet of
frontage along any major roadway. The nearest pavement edges should be spaced at least 80
feet apart (Figure 5-4).
2. A minimum of one hundred and fifty feet, measured at curbline, shall separate the nearest
pavement edge of any ingress or egress driveway and the curbline to any signalized or major
intersection with arterial and collector roadways. (Figure 5-4)
3. On divided arterial and collector roadways, at full median openings, access points on both sides
of the roadway should align (Figure 5-5) or be offset from the median opening by at least 150
feet (Figure 5-6). If the noted design requirements for driveway locations cannot be met, then
driveway turning movement restrictions may be imposed. See Section 5.10 for movement
restrictions.

Page 52 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

4. On undivided arterial and collector roadways, at the access points on both sides of the roadway
should align, or be offset by at least 300 feet for arterials, and 150 feet for collectors (Figure 5-7).
If the noted design requirements for driveway locations cannot be met, then driveway turning
movement restrictions may be imposed. See Section 5.10 for movement restrictions.
5. There should be no direct residential lot access to arterials. Direct residential lot access to
collectors should be avoided in new roadway development.
6. All new development should promote cross access agreements to limit the number of driveways
crossing arterial and collector roadways. See Figure 5-8 for the benefits of shared and cross
access management.
7. To limit access on major roadways, a local access lane can be incorporated into the design when
multiple existing parcels have direct access to a collector or arterial roadway (Figure 5-9).
8. Area, neighborhood, and corridor plans and studies may further restrict driveway locations. For
example, the Houghton Area Master Plan limits driveways on Houghton Rd. to ¼ mile spacing.
9. At locations near major intersections where the property is adjacent to a bus stop, consideration
shall be provided for safe loading and unloading of passengers. See the Transit Facilities section
(Section 5.16) and Bus Bay Details (Figures 5-14 and 5-15).
The Tucson Access Management Guidelines also call for varying levels of traffic impact analysis based
upon the size of a proposed development/redevelopment.
Peoria provides guidance on driveway spacing as a function of the type of facility, roadway speed, and
required corner clearance.
Driveways should be offset from median openings by the following: At least 60 m (200 ft) when two
low-volume traffic generators are involved, The greater of 60 m (200 ft) or the established median
opening spacing interval when one major traffic generator is involved, and at least two times the
established median opening spacing interval when two major traffic generators are involved.
Major generators are those developments that are estimated to generate 500 vehicle trips or more
during either of the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. On streets with posted speed limits or prima facie
speed limits of less than 30 mph the minimum access spacing may be reduced to 50 feet

Required spacing by speed:
Table 19 – Minimum Access Spacing (feet) (Peoria Guidelines Table 1)

Page 53 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Required spacing by corner clearance:
Table 20 – Minimum Corner Clearance (feet) (Peoria Guidelines Table 2)

Additional criteria are offered in Peoria’s guidelines.
6.5.4. Driveway Design
Driveway design geometrics impact progression through a corridor. The design of access points must
consider the type of vehicle that will utilize the driveway. For example, large trucks have a large turning
radius and need more room to turn. Similarly, they require greater storage lengths to queue. The time
of day (peak travel time vs. off peak) and number of large vehicles should be considered when selecting
a driveway type. Recommended driveway curb radii vary based on site use and roadway speed (TRB,
Access Management Manual, Second Edition (2014)).
Tucson’s guidelines identify criteria for driveway profiles, turning movement restrictions, driveway
widths, throat length, and other design considerations. Table 5-2 from their guidelines is included
below as an example reference for curb return radius.
Table 21 – Minimum Curb Return Radius (Tucson Guidelines Table 5-2)

6.5.5. Bicyclists and Pedestrians
The TRB Access Management Manual, Second Edition (2014) provides guidance for accommodating
bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the manual.
Both Tucson and Peoria identify access considerations for bicyclists and pedestrians that complement
their design guidelines.

Page 54 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

6.6.

Additional Considerations

This section outlines additional considerations that were identified through TAC and public input that
have the potential to improve the study area transportation network, but are either beyond Coconino
County’s typical purview or the scope of this study. They are listed below in three groups: 1) Policy
considerations; 2) Pilot Travel Center site considerations; and 3) Other considerations.
Policy Considerations
The following policy considerations pertain to ADOT.





Reopen closed ADOT rest areas, including the Parks Rest Area on I-40.
Prohibit truck parking on the Bellemont TI ramps.
Increase trash collection on the Bellemont TI ramps.
Improve response time for snow removal.

Pilot Travel Center Site Considerations
The following potential improvements pertain to the Pilot Travel Center site, which should be presented
to Pilot Travel Center for consideration.
 Relocate truck fueling station away from intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park
Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive.
 Revise on-site circulation to utilize an alternative driveway for truck traffic.
 Improve signing for non-truck traffic (passenger cars and recreational vehicles).
 Add stop-control for trucks leaving the site.
 Denote a dedicated fire lane along the west side of the site, adjacent to the fueling station.
Other Considerations
The following are other considerations within the study area not previously addressed.
 Provide a covered, lighted school bus stop.
 Pave and maintain Forest Service Road 649 as an alternate ingress/egress point from the
residential development (Flagstaff Meadows).
 Provide additional signing and enforcement along Brannigan Park Road.
 Improve lighting on the Bellemont TI ramps and Transwestern Road.
 Relocate mail boxes from the Pilot Travel Center to a location within the residential
development.
 Add a gate to the fence along Shadow Mountain Drive, at the I-40 underpass for use by cyclists
and runners.

Page 55 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

7.0 Traffic Analysis of Potential Roadway Network Improvements
7.1.

Traffic Operational Analysis

Capacity analyses were conducted for the 2025 and 2035 build conditions for each of the five potential
roadway concepts outlined in Section 6.1. Traffic projections developed in Section 4.4 were used for the
analyses of the potential roadway concepts. Synchro software using the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) methodology was generally used. For the intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park
Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive, where three of the four approaches are stop-controlled, SimTraffic
software was used for the evaluation. Sidra software using HCM roundabout methodology was used to
evaluate the roundabouts. Results are summarized in tables below; traffic software results are included
in the Appendix as follows:






Concept 1 – Table 22 and Appendix FR-7;
Concept 2 – Table 23 and Appendix FR-8;
Concept 3 – Table 24 and Appendix FR-9;
Concept 4 – Table 25 and Appendix FR-10; and
Concept 5 – Table 26 and Appendix FR-11.

Results are presented in terms of LOS and delay. LOS is a qualitative value of how well a roadway or
intersection operates. A grading system of A through F is assigned. LOS A represents free-flow traffic
operations with little vehicle delay; LOS F represents substantial congestion and vehicle delay.
Operations of LOS C and better are typically considered good and acceptable in rural areas; LOS D is
often acceptable in urban areas. Operations of LOS E or F typically need attention.

Page 56 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM
2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM
2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM

Table 22 – Roadway Concept 1 Traffic Analysis
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Overall
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
EB I-40 Ramps & Transwestern Road Roundabout
A
8.7
A
7.2
A
7.3
A
7.5
A
9.3
A
6.7
A
5.5
A
6.5
A
7.0
A
9.4
A
6.1
A
7.8
B
10.3
A
8.2
A
8.5
A
8.7
B
10.7
A
7.5
A
5.8
A
7.3
A
7.8
B
11.9
A
6.5
A
9.2
WB I-40 Ramps & Transwestern Road Roundabout
A
8.4
A
5.3
A
7.9
A
7.8
A
8.3
A
5.1
A
6.7
A
6.8
B
11.2
A
5.1
A
6.8
A
8.5
A
9.6
A
5.4
A
9.1
A
8.9
A
9.6
A
5.3
A
7.5
A
7.6
B
14.6
A
5.2
A
7.4
B
10.4
Transwestern Road & Brannigan Park/Shadow Mountain Roundabout
B
11.0
A
6.6
A
5.3
A
7.9
A
8.5
A
4.9
A
6.1
A
7.0
A
8.5
A
5.4
A
7.4
A
7.6
B
14.2
A
7.6
A
5.6
A
9.5
A
9.8
A
5.4
A
6.6
A
7.9
B
10.0
A
6.1
A
8.4
A
8.8

Page 57 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM
2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM
2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM

Table 23 – Roadway Concept 2 Traffic Analysis
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Overall
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
EB I-40 Ramps & Transwestern Road
D
29.5
A
0.0
A
6.8
A
9.5
C
17.3
A
0.0
A
4.9
A
5.4
C
18.4
A
0.0
A
7.4
A
5.7
F
58.3
A
0.0
A
7.0
B
14.0
C
21.1
A
0.0
A
5.0
A
6.5
C
24.7
A
0.0
A
7.8
A
7.0
WB I-40 Ramps & Transwestern Road
B
11.1
A
1.1
A
0.0
A
3.0
B
11.1
A
1.7
A
0.0
A
3.4
B
12.1
A
2.0
A
0.0
A
5.9
B
12.0
A
1.0
A
0.0
A
3.3
B
11.9
A
1.8
A
0.0
A
3.7
B
13.7
A
1.9
A
0.0
A
6.7
Transwestern Road & Brannigan Park/Shadow Mountain Roundabout
B
11.0
A
7.3
A
7.0
A
8.6
A
8.5
A
5.4
A
8..0
A
8.0
A
8.7
A
6.0
B
11.5
B
10.0
B
14.2
A
8.7
A
7.5
B
10.4
A
9.8
A
6.1
A
9.0
A
9.1
B
10.0
A
6.9
B
14.7
B
12.4

Page 58 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Table 24 – Roadway Concept 3 Traffic Analysis
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Overall
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
EB I-40 Ramps & Transwestern Road
2025 AM
D
29.5
A
0.0
A
6.8
A
9.5
2025 MD
C
17.3
A
0.0
A
4.9
A
5.4
2025 PM
C
18.4
A
0.0
A
7.4
A
5.7
2035 AM
F
58.3
A
0.0
A
7.0
B
14.0
2035 MD
C
21.1
A
0.0
A
5.0
A
6.5
2035 PM
C
24.7
A
0.0
A
7.8
A
7.0
WB I-40 Ramps & Transwestern Road
2025 AM
B
13.7*
A
1.1
A
0.0
A
1.6
2025 MD
B
13.7*
A
1.7
A
0.0
A
1.6
2025 PM
B
12.7*
A
2.0
A
0.0
A
1.6
2035 AM
C
16.0*
A
1.0
A
0.0
A
1.8
2035 MD
C
15.5*
A
1.8
A
0.0
A
1.8
2035 PM
B
13.8*
A
1.9
A
0.0
A
1.6
Transwestern Road & Brannigan Park
2025 AM
A
3.4
A
6.8
A
2.0
A
6.0
A
4.8
2025 MD
A
2.5
A
6.3
A
1.9
A
5.8
A
3.9
2025 PM
A
3.2
A
7.2
A
2.4
A
5.6
A
4.2
2035 AM
A
4.2
A
8.2
A
2.0
A
6.7
A
5.7
2035 MD
A
2.6
A
6.9
A
2.1
A
6.1
A
4.2
2035 PM
A
3.4
A
8.2
A
2.5
A
6.2
A
4.6
Brannigan Park/Shadow Mountain & U-Turn Roundabout
2025 AM
A
5.8
A
6.7
A
6.3
2025 MD
A
6.0
A
5.0
A
5.8
2025 PM
A
6.8
A
4.6
A
6.4
2035 AM
A
6.1
A
7.7
A
7.0
2035 MD
A
6.4
A
5.5
A
6.2
2035 PM
A
7.5
A
6.0
A
7.4
* Delay is for left turn only. Right turn delay is 0.0 seconds.

Page 59 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM
2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM
2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM

Table 25 – Roadway Concept 4 Traffic Analysis
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Overall
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
EB I-40 Ramps & Transwestern Road
D
29.5
A
0.0
A
6.8
A
9.5
C
17.3
A
0.0
A
4.9
A
5.4
C
18.4
A
0.0
A
7.4
A
5.7
F
58.3
A
0.0
A
7.0
B
14.0
C
21.1
A
0.0
A
5.0
A
6.5
C
24.7
A
0.0
A
7.8
A
7.0
WB I-40 Ramps & Transwestern Road
B
11.1
A
1.1
A
0.0
A
3.0
B
11.1
A
1.7
A
0.0
A
3.4
B
12.1
A
2.0
A
0.0
A
5.9
B
12.0
A
1.0
A
0.0
A
3.3
B
11.9
A
1.8
A
0.0
A
3.7
B
13.7
A
1.9
A
0.0
A
6.7
Transwestern Road & Brannigan Park/Shadow Mountain Roundabout
B
11.0
A
6.6
A
5.3
A
7.9
A
8.5
A
4.9
A
6.1
A
7.0
A
8.5
A
5.4
A
7.4
A
7.6
B
14.2
A
7.6
A
5.6
A
9.5
A
9.8
A
5.4
A
6.6
A
7.9
B
10.0
A
6.1
A
8.4
A
8.8

Page 60 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM
2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM
2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM
2025 AM
2025 MD
2025 PM
2035 AM
2035 MD
2035 PM

7.2.

Table 26 – Roadway Concept 5 Traffic Analysis
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Overall
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
EB I-40 Ramps & Transwestern Road
D
29.5
A
0.0
A
6.8
A
9.5
C
17.3
A
0.0
A
4.9
A
5.4
C
18.4
A
0.0
A
7.4
A
5.7
F
58.3
A
0.0
A
7.0
B
14.0
C
21.1
A
0.0
A
5.0
A
6.5
C
24.7
A
0.0
A
7.8
A
7.0
WB I-40 Ramps & Transwestern Road
B
11.1
A
1.1
A
0.0
A
3.0
B
11.2
A
1.7
A
0.0
A
3.5
B
12.1
A
2.0
A
0.0
A
5.9
B
12.0
A
1.0
A
0.0
A
3.3
B
11.9
A
1.8
A
0.0
A
3.8
B
13.7
A
1.9
A
0.0
A
6.7
Transwestern Road & Brannigan Park
A
3.7
A
6.2
A
1.6
A
6.0
A
4.6
A
2.4
A
5.2
A
1.8
A
6.0
A
3.6
A
3.2
A
6.0
A
2.1
A
5.8
A
3.8
A
3.8
A
6.9
A
1.6
A
6.6
A
5.0
A
3.0
A
5.8
A
1.9
A
5.7
A
3.9
A
3.5
A
6.8
A
2.1
A
5.9
A
4.2
Brannigan Park/Shadow Mountain & U-Turn Roundabout
A
5.3
A
7.2
A
6.4
A
6.2
A
5.1
A
6.0
A
7.2
A
5.5
A
7.0
A
5.6
A
7.6
A
6.7
A
6.7
A
5.6
A
6.5
A
8.2
A
6.3
A
7.9

Interpretation of Results

The capacity analysis results summarized in Table 22 through Table 26 show that the intersections for
all five roadway concepts will generally operate at an overall LOS A, with an occasional LOS B. However,
as documented in the no-build (existing conditions) analysis in Section 3.10, the primary concern is the
lack of storage for trucks queueing to use the fuel station at the Pilot Travel Center.
Trucks waiting for occupied fueling stations stop and wait through the driveway and into the
intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive. This periodically
blocks the intersection. Incidents where three or four trucks are stopped along Transwestern Road are
common, and can occasionally reach seven or eight trucks. At an average spacing of 85 feet per truck,

Page 61 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

the queue for waiting trucks is routinely over 300 feet, and can occasionally reach close to 700 feet.
Concepts 1, 4 and 5 provide a longer than existing storage length of approximately 500 feet. While this
length will accommodate the 300 foot queues routinely seen, a 300 foot queue will block the other
nearby driveways serving passenger cars. In addition, queues over 500 feet will block the westbound
traffic from Shadow Mountain Drive from being able to access I-40. While Concepts 1, 4 and 5 will have
the capacity to handle the traffic demand, there is concern that queued trucks will cause blockages and
create access problems similar to what exists today.
Concepts 2 and 3 address truck queuing at the Pilot Travel Center fueling station by constructing a new
local access road from Transwestern Road to the north side of the site. Trucks would proceed to the
back of the Pilot Travel Center site, encouraging on-site truck storage. Also, the new local access road
provides the necessary storage for waiting trucks away from Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road,
and Shadow Mountain Drive and should eliminate the blockages seen today.
One concern just outside of the Study Area will exist in Concepts 2 through 5 for the 2035 AM peak
hour. The I-40 eastbound exit ramp intersection with Transwestern Road will operate with an overall
LOS of B; however, the eastbound approach will be at LOS F. This operational issue is projected to
occur during just one hour of the day. The intersection may need improvement by 2035, with a
roundabout as an appropriate type of improvement. This issue does not exist with Concept 1.

Page 62 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

8.0 Evaluation of Potential Improvements
8.1.

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria were developed with the TAC and PMT. These criteria were used to evaluate
potential projects. The evaluation criteria are the following:
 Mobility – How well potential improvements enhance mobility, alleviate congestion, and
enhance connectivity with one or more modes of transportation.
 Consistency with planned improvements – How well potential improvements provide
connectivity with future planned improvements and proposed developments while minimizing
“throw away” infrastructure.
 Safety impact – How well potential improvements address pedestrian or bicyclist safety and/or
how they may reduce vehicular crashes.
 Property impacts – How substantial potential improvements impact existing and planned land
uses, including future development opportunities and creation of remnant parcels.
 Environmental compatibility – How potential improvements may impact the environment,
such as the natural environment, land use, cultural resources, and socioeconomic factors. The
likely extent of environmental permitting, investigations, and remediation was also considered.
 Public input – Input on potential improvements from stakeholders and the general public.
 Cost – Planning-level cost estimates, as described in Section 6.4, were developed for each
potential improvement.
 Funding availability – Assessment of the financial feasibility to implement proposed
improvements, including the ability to leverage funding from agencies, property owners, or
other organizations.

8.2.

Evaluation of Potential Improvements

The analysis of proposed improvements is summarized in Figure 21. The table includes a qualitative
rating as follows for each criterion:
 (+) represents an advantage;
 (o) represents neutral impacts; and
 (-) represents a disadvantage.
The ratings will be used to determine whether proposed improvements are feasible and to determine
which of the major roadway concepts are recommended. The evaluation criteria are not weighted.

Page 63 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 21 – Qualitative Project Evaluation

Mobility

Consistency
w/Planned
Improvements

Safety
Impact

Property
Impacts

Environmental
Compatibility

Public
Input

Cost*
($ million)

Funding
Availability

Roadway Network Improvements
Concept 1

$25.8

Concept 2

$2.0

Concept 3

$1.6

Concept 4

$1.8

Concept 5

$1.3

Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Improvements
Wide shoulders

$0.8

*Potential right-of-way costs are not included.
Advantage

Neutral

Page 64 of 71

Disadvantage

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

9.0 Hybrid Concept 2/3
Concepts 2 and 3 scored the best overall and were generally preferred by the TAC, stakeholders, and
the public. Based upon input from these groups, Hybrid Concept 2/3 was developed to incorporate
desirable elements from Concepts 2 and 3. In general, maintaining the existing location for
Transwestern Road from Concept 3 was preferred; the roundabout from Concept 2 was preferred to the
raindrop to better accommodate future development and maneuverability. Hybrid Concept 2/3 is
illustrated in Figure 22.
Similar to Concept 3, Hybrid Concept 2/3 widens Transwestern Road by one northbound lane, creating
a dual-lane right-turn to eastbound Shadow Mountain Drive. Similar to Concept 2, a new two-lane
roundabout is constructed on Shadow Mountain Drive at the approximate location of the roundabout
proposed in the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial DCR. A new one-lane, one-way local access road is
provided along the parcel boundary on the north side of the new roundabout. As in Concept 2, a
median “pork chop” island at the intersection of Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow
Mountain Drive relocates the Transwestern Road northbound to westbound left-turn traffic movement
to the roundabout. It should be noted that Hybrid Concept 2/3 is conceptual in nature and refinements
may be desirable during final design.
Hybrid Concept 2/3 addresses the congestion and safety need at the intersection of Transwestern Road,
Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive by relocating the intersection to the east, away from
the Pilot Travel Center and other nearby driveways. The new local access road would provide truck
access to the rear of the Pilot Travel Center site. Trucks queuing for the Pilot Travel Center fueling
station would be stored on onsite, or perhaps the new local access road, freeing Shadow Mountain
Drive from truck storage.
Based on the traffic operational analysis performed for Concepts 2 and 3, it is anticipated that Hybrid
Concept 2/3 will generally operate at an overall LOS A or B for all five roadways.
The qualitative evaluation for Hybrid Concept 2/3, consistent with the analysis performed above in
Section 8.0, is provided in Figure 22, as well as the planning level cost estimate.

Page 65 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 22 – Hybrid Concept 2/3

Page 66 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 23 – Qualitative Evaluation for Hybrid Concept 2/3

Mobility

Consistency
w/Planned
Improvements

Safety
Impact

Property
Impacts

Environmental
Compatibility

Hybrid Concept 2/3

Public
Input**

Cost*
($ million)

Funding
Availability

$1.8

*Potential right-of-way costs are not included.
**Hybrid Concept 2/3 was developed after the final Public Open House held on August 5, 2015. This rating is based upon input received
regarding elements of Concepts 2 and 3 that were incorporated into Hybrid Concept 2/3.
Advantage

Neutral

Page 67 of 71

Disadvantage

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

10.0 Recommendations
Improvements were assigned to near-term (5-year), mid-term (10-year), and long-term (20-year) time
frames based on technical analysis, potential funding availability, and recommendations from other
studies. Coconino County and partner agencies should consider these priorities in future programming
updates.

10.1. Near-term (5-Year)
 Construct roadway Hybrid Concept 2/3.
 Widen the shoulders on Shadow Mountain Drive.
 Develop access management guidelines.

10.2. Mid-term (10-Year)
 Extend basic commuter service per the Flagstaff Regional Five-Year and Long Range Transit Plan
(May 2013), depending on future transit studies and programming.
 Provide park-and-ride lot per A Coordinated Transit Plan for ECoNA in Northern Arizona (January
2014), depending on future transit studies and programming.

10.3. Long-term (20-Year)
 Monitor commercial development in the Camp Navajo Industrial Park. Based on the traffic
forecasts completed for this study and documented in Section 4.4, the near-term roadway
improvement recommendations (Hybrid Concept 2/3) should sufficiently manage Study Area
future traffic demands and truck traffic. A primary need for Concept 1, which is the
recommendation from the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial DCR, appears to have been based on
anticipated substantial commercial development in the Camp Navajo Industrial Park; combined
with other potential developments at the TI, the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial DCR attributed
a potential increase of 26,600 vehicles per day by 2040 east and west of the Bellemont TI. The
Camp Navajo Industrial park has been in the planning stage for nearly ten years but has not yet
developed. Should the Camp Navajo Industrial Park develop in the future, the traffic forecasts
and traffic capacity analysis performed as part of this study should be revisited prior to
programming Concept 1.

Page 68 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

11.0 Implementation
This study serves as the first step in the project development process. The results of this study are
preliminary in nature; changes may be necessary as the recommendations advance. The following
general steps should be taken to implement the recommendations of this study:














Finalize the recommendations implementation schedule.
Obtain approval of recommendations from the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.
Update the Coconino County Capital Improvement Plan.
Update the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program.
Incorporate recommendations into existing and future planning documents.
Complete scoping and final design phases of the project development process. The
recommendations illustrated herein are conceptual in nature; formal project scoping will need to
be completed, including required typical local, state, and federal agency approvals. Additional
research, analysis, coordination, and/or permitting will be required prior to construction. Future
design and construction will need to be coordinated with stakeholders such as the Pilot Travel
Center and emergency responders.
Finalize funding for improvements. Limited funding has been secured by Coconino County, as
described below in Section 11.1; however, opportunities to leverage resources and obtain
additional funds through agency and private stakeholder partnerships could be realized.
Continue to support transit opportunities at a regional level.
Develop access management guidelines/policy to protect transportation infrastructure
investments, improve safety, and reduce congestion.
Change the functional classification of Shadow Mountain Drive from local road to collector or
higher functional classification.
Further investigate opportunities for the additional considerations listed in Section 6.6.

11.1. Potential Funding Sources
Proposition (Prop) 403 was passed by voters in November 2014 and provides $3 million for the
Bellemont TI modification between FY 2015-2019. This proposition supports Coconino County’s 10year Roads CIP. Prop 403 was proposed to bridge a gap in available Coconino County funding for
transportation maintenance and improvements. As such, any other project costs must be able to be
reasonably borne by Coconino County, or through a partnership with another agency or private party.
For example, it may be desirable to construct a portion of the recommended short-term improvement
project (Hybrid Concept 2/3) utilizing a Public Private Partnership (P3) with the Pilot Travel Center.
Other potential funding sources, as well as their limitations, are described below. This does not
represent a limitation on funds to be used, but rather a starting point. Should additional resources
surface, Coconino County should consider their use.
11.1.1. Federal Funds
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (funded through United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD)) – CDBG funds are dispersed with a prioritization to benefit
low- and moderate-income persons. The objective of CDBG funding is to provide improved community
facilities and services, which may include eliminating imminent threats to health and wellness or

Page 69 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

eliminating slums or blight. As is relevant to this Study, eligible activities include construction or
reconstruction of streets and other public facilities.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program (funded through MAP-21)
– CMAQ provides a flexible funding source to state and local governments for transportation projects
and programs to help reduce congestion and improve air quality for nonattainment and maintenance
areas. Eligible activities include, but are not limited to: projects that improve traffic flow, such as
improving signalization, constructing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, improving intersections, and
adding turning lanes. Other approved activities include projects to improve incident and emergency
response or improve mobility. Funds may be used for projects that shift traffic demand to nonpeak
hours or other transportation modes, increase vehicle occupancy rates, or otherwise reduce demand.
There is some expanded authority to use funds for transit operations. Funds may not be used for
projects that increase the number of single occupant vehicles in the network.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) (funded through MAP-21) – HSIP provides funding
to improve safety on public roads and to reduce accident related injuries and deaths.
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) (funded through MAP-21) – TAP combines funding
from several previous programs, including Transportation Enhancements, Recreational Trails, Safe
Routes to School, and other discretionary programs. TAP funds may be used for planning, design, and
construction of surface transportation features. This includes, among other things, infrastructure to
provide safe routes to non-drivers, such as children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to
access daily needs.
Safe Routes to School (part of Transportation Alternatives Program in MAP-21) – Safe Routes to
School funding has been combined with other programs into the TAP. States have the option to
continue operating this program, or to use the funding through the TAP.
Surface Transportation Program (STP) (funded through MAP-21) – STP provides funding to states
and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid
highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and
transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals. Eligible activities are numerous and include:
intersections with high accident rates or levels of congestion; construction and operational
improvements for a minor collector in the same corridor and in proximity to an National Highway
System (NHS) route (if the improvement is more cost-effective than an NHS improvement and will
enhance NHS level of service and regional traffic flow), and TAP projects. In general, STP projects may
not be on local or rural minor collectors; however, there are a number of exceptions to this requirement.
11.1.2. State Funds
Greater Arizona Development Authority (GADA) – Managed by the Water Infrastructure Finance
Authority of Arizona (WIFA), GADA's goals are to lower the costs of financing and help accelerate
project development for public facilities owned, operated and maintained by a political subdivision,
special district or Indian tribe. To accomplish this, GADA is authorized under statute to offer both
financial and technical assistance programs. Grants are typically used for early stage project

Page 70 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

development; loans typically are used for technical assistance in the final phases of project
development. Due to funding limitations, no loan or grant opportunities are currently available.
Highway Extension and Expansion Loan Program (HELP) – This program provides the State and
communities with a financing mechanism to stretch transportation dollars for eligible highway projects
in Arizona and bridge the gap between needs and available revenues. The minimum loan amount is
$250,000; grants are not available. HELP loans are not currently available due to budget limitations.
Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) – HURF provides funding to cities, towns, counties, and to the
State Highway Fund for highway construction, improvements, and other related expenses.
11.1.3. Local/Other Funds
Development Impact Fees - Development impact fees are one time fees typically assessed at the time
building permits are issued and are intended to financially support infrastructure costs associated with
new development. The fees are paid by the developer, and are typically in turn passed to the
homebuyer or commercial property owner.
Developer Contributions – These funds would be provided by a developer through a development
agreement with the local agency.
General Funds – General funds are non-dedicated funds that may be used for any lawful purpose.
Improvement Districts – Improvement districts are authorized by the State legislature for the
construction of a wide range of public works facilities. Improvement districts are initiated by property
owners who combine resources with a county and/or town to finance improvements. The property
owners are then assessed over multiple years to repay their share of the cost of the improvement.
Revenue Bonds – Counties and municipalities can issue bonds against their revenues to accelerate
project construction. This can reduce the impacts of funding capital improvement projects and
distributes the costs over the life of the project.
Public-Private Partnerships – Public private partnerships are allowed under Title 28 of the Arizona
Revised Statues and enable a public agency and a private-sector entity to enter into an agreement
allowing the private-sector partner to have an increased level of participation in a public project. This
may include funding, design, construction, operation, and/or management and will extend as agreed
upon by the two entities.

Page 71 of 71

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-1
Reference Document Catalog

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Reference Documents Summary Table
Document
ID
B-001
B-002
B-003
B-004
B-005
B-006
B-007
B-008
B-009
B-010
B-011
B-012
B-013
B-014
B-015
B-016
B-017
B-018
B-019
B-020
B-021
B-022
B-023
B-024
B-025
B-026
B-027
B-028
B-029
B-030
B-031

Title
Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Bellemont Area Plan
Initial DCR, I-40 Bellemont to Winona
Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030
Flagstaff Regional Five-Year and Long Range Transit Plan
Coconino County Comprehensive Plan
A Coordinated Transit Plan for ECoNA in Northern Arizona
Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan
Flagstaff Pathways 2030 Regional Transportation Plan
ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update
I-40 Corridor Profile Study Working Paper 1
I-40 Corridor Profile Study Working Paper 2
Census quick facts
Flagstaff Meadows Units 1 & 3 Final Plats; Townhomes at Flagstaff Meadows Final
FEMA Firmettes
ADOT Functional Classification Maps for Coconino County and Flagstaff
Draft Land and Resource Management Plan for the Coconino National Forest
Coconino County Demographic Update
Bellemont Wildlife HDMS
Mountain Mobility Business Plan 2015-2019
Coconino County Engineering Design and Construction Manual
Cultural Surveys
Historical Survey Plats
Wildlife Linkage Zones
Coconino County Capital Improvement Plan
Census and ACS Information for Study Area
ADOT Access Management Guidelines - DRAFT
Various access management guidelines
AASHTO US Bicycle Route System Working Paper 1 Draft
ADOT 2013 AADT report
Coconino County Roads CIP

Description
ADOT PARA Application
Amendment to Coconino County Comprehensive Plan
Design Concept Report for I-40, Bellemont to Winona
ADOT PARA Application
Transit Plan to establish service, funding, implementation
Overall plan to direct growth and development
For Community Transportation Association of America
Plan to improve transit service for disafvantaged population
RTP Update for 2030 transp. investments for Flagstaff
2013 update
Literature review and district discussions
Performance framework and Corridor Health Assessment
People, business, geography quick facts
Final plats for Flagstaff Meadows
Flood Insurance Rate Map for study area
Maps indicating roadway fucntional classification
Proposed land management plan for Coconino NF
Coconino County census data
Information for at Risk Wildlife Within Study Area
Focuses on transit for eldery, disabled, low income
Provides standards, specifications for Coconino County
GIS Database of cultural resources
Historic hand-drawn survet plats
Arizona wildlife species identified by linkage zones
A 10-year Roads CIP for maintaining and improving roads
Population, race, poverty tract, disability, etc data
Draft access management guidelines
Various county access management guidelines
Identification and evaluation of routes
2013 traffic volumes

Source
Author

Dated

Provider

Contact

Tim Dalegowski
Bellemont and County Community Dev.
Stanley Consultants
Kimley Horn, Flagstaff, FMPO, Coconino County
NAIPTA, Kimley Hord and Nelson/Nygaard
Coconino County
LSC Transportation Consultants
FMPO
FMPO
Kimley Horn
Kimley Horn & Cambridge Systematics
Kimley Horn & Cambridge Systematics
United States Census Bureau
various engineering firms
FEMA
ADOT
USDA
Coconino County
AZG&F
NAIPTA
F.G Stanley, Coconino County Public Works
Arizona State University
various
Arizona Department of Transportation
Coconino County
United States Census Bureau
ADOT
varies
Kimley Horn, Lee Engineering
ADOT
Coconino County

Mar 2014
Jul 1985
Feb. 2011
Nov. 2001
May 2013
Sep 2003
Jan 2014
Jun 2014
Dec 2009
Jun 2013
Aug 2014
Jan 2015

ADOT
internet
internet
internet
ADOT site
Coconino Website
NAIPTA
internet
internet
internet
internet
internet
internet
internet
internet
internet
USDA website
email from Combrink
AZG&F
NAIPTA
Coconino Website
AZSITE Website
AZSITE Website
AZG&F
Coconino Website
internet
ACEC
internet
internet
internet
internet

H. Yaqub
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Erika Mazza
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
J.Trupiano

2001-2007
Sep 2010
8/13 & 8/14
Oct 2013
2000, 2010
Feb 2015
Sep 2013
not listed
Jul 1905
1878-1928
2006
2014
2000-2013
Nov. 2014
varies
Oct. 2014
Jul 1905

Erika Mazza
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Janice Burnett
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Date
Provided
Nov 2014
May 2014
Jul 2014
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Jan 2015
Feb 2015
Feb 2015
Mar 2015
Feb 2015
Mar 2015
Mar 2015
Mar 2015
Mar 2015
Mar 2015
Mar 2015
Jan 2015
Mar 2015
Mar 2015
Jan-15
Mar-15

Collected
By
JP
DB
DB
DB
MS
MS
FTP
MS
MS
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
DB
MS
AH
DB
DB
DB
AH
AH-DB
JP
DB
DB
RK
DB

Page 1 of 1

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-2
Traffic Count Data and Classification Counts

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Intersection TMC:
Count Date:

1500009
2/12/2015

AM
07:00

228
0

47

From North

181

0

45

37

0

1

0

0

Time
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45

From East

From South

From West

INTSEC
HUGHES AVE
I-40 EB ON RAMP
HUGHES AVE
I-40 EB OFF RAMP
LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL
15
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
0
3
0
0
0
46
24
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
4
0
0
0
40
27
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
7
0
1
0
47
29
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
5
0
2
0
50
47
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
8
1
0
0
71
35
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
12
0
1
0
60
57
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
10
0
4
0
91
42
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
7
0
2
0
72

7

N
0

6

15

21

MID
11:00

135
0

58

77

0

49

43

0

2

0

0

Total
Peak

276
181

87
47

Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45

LT Thru
24
21
19
11
15
14
19
12
20
8
18
15
16
10
13
10

Total
Peak

144
77

Time
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

LT Thru
15
8
22
10
15
3
19
3
25
6
21
6
17
10
11
6

Total
Peak

145
81

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

18
6

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
20
11
11
7
7
9
5
5

0
0

75
49

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
2
12
15
6
6
8
5
4

0
0

58
39

LT

29
15

0
0

RT Ped
7
0
11
0
6
0
0
0
7
0
1
0
4
0
4
0

56
37

1
1

LT Thru
10
0
12
1
7
0
14
1
12
0
9
0
16
1
4
0

10
7

0
0

477
294

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
82
3
0
68
0
0
53
1
0
54
2
0
56
1
0
53
0
0
52
1
0
37

4

N
0

49

24

73

PM
16:15

103
0

22

81

0

59

50

0

2

0

0

101
58

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LT

40
24

0
0

RT Ped
13
0
31
0
35
0
8
0
16
0
10
0
5
0
4
0

84
43
LT

3
2

4
14
12
10
14
15
8
17

Thru
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0

94
50

3
2

8
4

0
0

455
257

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
43
4
0
93
2
0
83
1
0
48
0
0
67
2
0
62
3
0
48
1
0
43

7

N
0

39

90

129

Intersection Statistics
Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:15 PM

Comments

Pk Hr Vol
294
257
291

52
22

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

122
90

0
0

13
7

0
0

Approach Statistics
Peak Intvl
7:30 AM
11:00 AM
4:15 PM

Pk Intv Vol
91
82
93

Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
228
135
107

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
0
0
0

Peak Hour
6:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:15 PM

Pk Hr Vol
26
73
129

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:45 AM
5:00 PM

Pk Hr Vol
45
57
60

Approach
47
115
180

Depart
97
109
65

Approach
67
95
110

Depart
0
0
0

Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds)
Per
AM
MID
PM

Approach
363
245
197

Depart
74
159
152

Approach
0
0
0

1500009.TMC

Depart
306
187
270

Page 1 of 1

487
291

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Intersection TMC:
Count Date:

1500010
2/12/2015

AM
07:00

238
46

192

From North

0

67

0

0

2

0

36

105

Time
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45

From East

From South

From West

INTSEC
HUGHES AVE
I-40 WB OFF RAMP
HUGHES AVE
I-40 WB ON RAMP
LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL
0
20
12
0
10
0
13
0
3
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
0
25
7
0
5
0
11
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
0
31
15
0
5
2
7
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
0
34
6
0
6
0
8
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
0
49
9
0
7
1
14
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
89
0
37
8
0
6
0
14
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
0
61
12
0
10
1
18
0
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
114
0
45
17
0
13
0
21
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
104

0

N
2

40

0

42

MID
11:00

Total
Peak

174
66

108

0

88

0

0

0

0

24

112

Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45

0
0

302
192

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
37
27
19
25
23
24
19
20

0
0

194
108

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
16
23
16
22
29
24
20
14

0
0

164
87

LT

86
46

0
0

RT Ped
13
0
19
0
15
0
19
0
11
0
16
0
19
0
26
0

62
36
LT

4
2

7
4
8
5
6
9
7
3

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

49
24

1
0

106
67

0
0

RT Ped
19
0
23
0
23
0
23
0
27
0
20
0
33
0
31
0

6
2

67
40

6
3
2
3
2
1
4
3

Thru
26
20
16
18
16
18
17
7

24
14

138
80

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

633
385

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
108
0
0
96
0
0
83
0
0
93
0
0
85
0
0
89
0
0
99
0
0
90

0

N
14

80

0

94

PM
17:00

Total
Peak

157
70

87

0

175

0

0

0

0

18

193

Time
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

LT

138
66

0
0

RT Ped
17
0
22
0
15
0
13
0
15
0
19
0
21
0
15
0

LT
7
8
3
0
2
3
7
6

Thru
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

36
18

1
0

199
88

0
0

RT Ped
25
0
35
0
26
0
28
0
46
0
52
0
42
0
35
0

LT
0
7
9
2
3
5
1
1

Thru
6
19
19
14
16
20
11
21

28
10

126
68

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

743
380

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
72
0
0
114
0
0
88
0
0
79
0
0
111
0
0
123
0
0
102
0
0
92

0

N
10

68

0

78

Total
Peak

Intersection Statistics
Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
5:00 PM

Comments

Pk Hr Vol
385
380
428

137
70

0
0

289
175

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

Approach Statistics
Peak Intvl
7:30 AM
11:00 AM
5:15 PM

Pk Intv Vol
114
108
123

Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
238
174
163

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
12:00 PM
5:00 PM

Pk Hr Vol
105
137
193

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:15 PM

Pk Hr Vol
42
94
89

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:15 PM

Pk Hr Vol
0
0
0

Approach
73
162
154

Depart
364
243
200

Approach
0
0
0

Depart
96
163
166

Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds)
Per
AM
MID
PM

Approach
388
332
301

Depart
173
337
415

Approach
172
249
326

1500010.TMC

Depart
0
0
0

Page 1 of 1

781
428

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Intersection TMC:
Count Date:

1500011
2/12/2015

AM
07:00

46
0

44

From North

2

0

6

0

2

3

191

193

Time
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45

From East

From South

From West

INTSEC
HUGHES AVE
BRANNIGAN PARK RD HUGHES AVE
BRANNIGAN PARK RD
LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL
0
13
0
0
19
0
0
0
1
6
13
0
0
0
0
0
52
0
6
0
0
26
0
0
0
2
6
9
0
0
0
0
0
49
0
8
0
0
37
0
0
0
1
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
61
1
11
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
54
1
10
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
12
9
0
0
0
0
0
78
0
8
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
10
15
0
0
1
0
0
72
0
15
0
0
58
0
0
0
0
10
20
0
0
1
1
0
105
1
11
0
0
49
2
0
0
0
10
20
0
0
1
2
0
96

3

N
0

42

64

106

MID
11:00

Total
Peak

44
0

41

3

0

2

0

4

0

132

136

Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45

3
2

82
44

0
0
2
1
0
0
4
0

Thru
15
10
6
10
8
10
12
10

7
3

81
41

0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1

Thru
10
13
5
12
14
10
9
9

3
1

82
42

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

302
191

2
2

LT Thru
37
2
37
1
26
0
32
1
25
0
29
0
25
0
35
0

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4
0

67
42

0
1
0
2
1
1
2
1

Thru
9
12
12
13
12
11
20
9

8
3

98
46

1
1
2
0
3
3
1
1

Thru
2
8
13
13
14
13
13
15

12
8

91
55

LT

101
64

0
0

RT Ped
39
0
28
0
29
0
26
0
29
0
26
0
26
0
29
0

0
0

3
3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1

0
0

7
3

LT

3
3

0
0

567
351

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
102
0
0
89
0
0
75
2
0
87
1
0
76
1
0
78
1
0
90
1
0
85

2

N
3

46

122

171

PM
17:00

Total
Peak

43
0

42

1

0

6

0

5

3

112

117

Time
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

246
132

4
4

LT Thru
22
0
32
0
24
3
22
2
29
1
32
3
31
1
20
0

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LT

232
122

0
0

RT Ped
28
0
42
0
33
0
30
0
44
0
57
0
41
0
39
0

LT

6
2

0
0

682
353

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
65
0
0
97
0
0
81
1
0
82
1
0
106
1
0
120
1
0
98
0
0
86

3

N
8

55

181

244

Total
Peak

Intersection Statistics
Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
5:00 PM

Comments

Pk Hr Vol
351
353
410

0
0

0
0

212
112

10
5

0
0

0
0

314
181

0
0

4
3

0
0

Approach Statistics
Peak Intvl
7:30 AM
11:00 AM
5:15 PM

Pk Intv Vol
105
102
120

Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
6:45 AM
11:45 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
46
45
47

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
193
136
121

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
5:00 PM

Pk Hr Vol
106
171
244

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:45 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
6
5
6

Approach
172
338
417

Depart
387
333
298

Approach
6
6
11

Depart
6
12
22

Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds)
Per
AM
MID
PM

Approach
85
88
85

Depart
67
98
91

Approach
304
250
222

1500011.TMC

Depart
107
239
324

Page 1 of 1

735
410

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Intersection TMC:
Count Date:

AM
07:00

1500012
2/12/2015

From North

51
49

0

2

8

70

46

143

24

0

151

Time
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45

From East

From South

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY
BRANNIGAN PARK RD NONE
LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru
0
0
8
0
0
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
26
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
37
2
0
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
29
1
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
45
2
0
0
0
1
0
19
0
0
32
3
0
0
0

From West

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

INTSEC
BRANNIGAN PARK RD
LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL
9
4
0
0
34
8
1
0
0
34
6
3
0
0
47
6
2
0
0
40
8
3
0
0
60
10
5
0
0
53
16
8
0
0
84
12
8
0
0
75

0

N
0

0

0

0

MID
11:00

Total
Peak

96
93

0

3

6

122

94

41

28

0

47

Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45

2
2

0
0

1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4
3

0
0

1
1
2
0
0
1
3
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

8
4

0
0

LT

88
49

0
0

RT Ped
28
0
24
0
16
0
25
0
16
0
18
0
15
0
30
0

0
0

216
143

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
10
12
12
7
8
12
9
6

0
0

76
41

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
8
14
5
9
12
11
16
7

0
0

82
46

LT

12
8

0
0

RT Ped
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

75
46

34
24

LT Thru
31
6
22
6
25
6
16
10
25
5
18
7
25
8
19
9

0
0

0
0

427
272

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
77
0
0
66
0
0
60
0
0
62
0
0
54
0
0
56
0
0
58
0
0
64

0

N
0

0

0

0

PM
17:00

Total
Peak

73
69

0

4

4

186

98

46

88

0

50

Time
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

LT

172
93

0
0

RT Ped
15
0
18
0
21
0
15
0
17
0
23
0
16
0
13
0

LT

7
6

0
0

RT Ped
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

181
94

57
28

LT Thru
21
10
23
22
17
13
16
16
29
16
25
32
22
20
22
20

0
0

0
0

497
265

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
56
0
0
80
0
0
58
0
0
57
0
0
75
0
0
94
0
0
78
0
0
62

0

N
0

0

0

0

Total
Peak

Intersection Statistics
Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
5:00 PM

Comments

Pk Hr Vol
272
265
309

138
69

0
0

8
4

0
0

0
0

0
0

175
98

149
88

0
0

0
0

Approach Statistics
Peak Intvl
7:30 AM
11:00 AM
5:15 PM

Pk Intv Vol
84
77
94

Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:30 PM

Pk Hr Vol
51
96
79

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
151
47
53

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
0
0
0

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
5:00 PM

Pk Hr Vol
70
122
186

Approach
0
0
0

Depart
0
0
0

Approach
109
238
324

Depart
304
248
220

Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds)
Per
AM
MID
PM

Approach
90
176
146

Depart
87
188
183

Approach
228
83
90

1500012.TMC

Depart
36
61
157

Page 1 of 1

560
309

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Intersection TMC:
Count Date:

AM
07:00

1500013
2/12/2015

From North

8
6

0

2

9

26

3

147

23

0

156

Time
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45

From East

From South

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY BRANNIGAN PARK RD NONE
LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
22
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
39
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
30
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
43
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
35
0
0
0
0

From West

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

INTSEC
BRANIIGAN PARK RD
LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL
0
4
0
0
17
0
1
0
0
18
0
3
0
0
30
0
2
0
0
26
1
2
0
0
48
1
4
0
0
40
0
9
0
0
56
1
8
0
0
46

0

N
0

0

0

0

MID
11:00

Total
Peak

19
12

0

7

4

31

8

36

23

0

40

Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45

3
2

0
0

1
1
3
2
0
3
3
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

13
7

0
0

LT

6
6

0
0

RT Ped
2
0
4
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
7
0
3
0
1
0

0
0

224
147

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
9
9
10
8
7
6
5
6

0
0

60
36

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
8
13
5
11
12
9
13
6

0
0

77
40

LT

12
9

0
0

RT Ped
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
2
0
3
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3
3

33
23

1
3
3
1
0
2
1
2

Thru
6
4
4
9
5
6
7
7

13
8

48
23

LT

0
0

0
0

281
190

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
20
0
0
23
0
0
24
0
0
23
0
0
13
0
0
28
0
0
21
0
0
19

0

N
0

0

0

0

PM
17:00

Total
Peak

30
9

0

21

4

93

1

40

92

0

44

Time
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

LT
4
4
0
1
5
6
5
5

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

30
21

0
0

23
12

0
0

RT Ped
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
1
0

LT

14
4

0
0

RT Ped
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LT
0
3
1
1
0
1
0
0

Thru
11
20
14
15
16
33
23
20

6
1

152
92

0
0

0
0

171
90

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
25
0
0
45
0
0
20
0
0
29
0
0
35
0
0
55
0
0
45
0
0
32

0

N
0

0

0

0

Total
Peak

Intersection Statistics
Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
5:00 PM

Comments

Pk Hr Vol
190
90
167

14
9

0
0

7
4

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

Approach Statistics
Peak Intvl
7:30 AM
12:15 PM
5:15 PM

Pk Intv Vol
56
28
55

Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:30 AM
5:00 PM

Pk Hr Vol
8
21
30

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
156
40
49

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
0
0
0

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
5:00 PM

Pk Hr Vol
26
31
93

Approach
0
0
0

Depart
0
0
0

Approach
36
61
158

Depart
230
83
91

Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds)
Per
AM
MID
PM

Approach
9
36
44

Depart
15
27
13

Approach
236
74
84

1500013.TMC

Depart
36
61
182

Page 1 of 1

286
167

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Intersection TMC:
Count Date:

AM
07:00

1500014
2/12/2015

From North

2
2

0

0

1

25

1

153

24

0

154

Time
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45

From East

From South

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY
BRANNIGAN PARK RD NONE
LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru RT Ped LT Thru
0
0
1
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
23
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
46
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
33
0
0
0
0

From West

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

INTSEC
BRANNIGAN PARK RD
LT Thru RT Ped TOTAL
0
4
0
0
17
0
1
0
0
17
0
3
0
0
31
0
3
0
0
28
0
3
0
0
46
0
4
0
0
35
0
8
0
0
56
1
9
0
0
44

0

N
0

0

0

0

MID
11:00

Total
Peak

0
0

0

0

0

30

0

40

30

0

40

Time
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45

1
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
2

0
0

LT

3
2

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

232
153

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
10
10
12
8
8
9
7
8

0
0

72
40

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
9
15
5
9
14
11
13
6

0
0

82
44

LT

2
1

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Thru
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1

35
24

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

Thru
7
5
7
11
5
8
10
7

1
0

60
30

1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1

Thru
13
24
14
17
20
40
26
24

5
3

178
110

LT

0
0

0
0

274
181

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
17
0
0
15
0
0
19
0
0
19
0
0
13
0
0
19
0
0
17
0
0
16

0

N
0

0

0

0

PM
17:00

Total
Peak

3
1

0

2

0

113

3

44

110

0

44

Time
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

LT

1
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

RT Ped
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0

0
0

135
70

RT Ped TOTAL
0
0
23
0
0
40
0
0
19
0
0
27
0
0
35
0
0
53
0
0
41
0
0
31

0

N
0

0

0

0

Total
Peak

Intersection Statistics
Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
5:00 PM

Comments

Pk Hr Vol
181
70
160

2
1

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

Approach Statistics
Peak Intvl
7:30 AM
11:30 AM
5:15 PM

Pk Intv Vol
56
19
53

Per
AM
MID
PM

Peak Hour
6:00 AM
12:00 PM
4:30 PM

Pk Hr Vol
2
2
4

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
154
40
47

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:00 AM
4:45 PM

Pk Hr Vol
0
0
0

Peak Hour
7:00 AM
11:45 AM
5:00 PM

Pk Hr Vol
25
35
113

Approach
0
0
0

Depart
0
0
0

Approach
36
61
183

Depart
235
73
84

Approach & Departure Volumes (No Peds)
Per
AM
MID
PM

Approach
4
2
4

Depart
3
1
5

Approach
234
72
82

1500014.TMC

Depart
36
61
180

Page 1 of 1

269
160

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 0:00
2/12/2015 0:15
2/12/2015 0:30
2/12/2015 0:45
2/12/2015 1:00
2/12/2015 1:15
2/12/2015 1:30
2/12/2015 1:45
2/12/2015 2:00
2/12/2015 2:15
2/12/2015 2:30
2/12/2015 2:45
2/12/2015 3:00
2/12/2015 3:15
2/12/2015 3:30
2/12/2015 3:45
2/12/2015 4:00
2/12/2015 4:15
2/12/2015 4:30
2/12/2015 4:45
2/12/2015 5:00
2/12/2015 5:15
2/12/2015 5:30
2/12/2015 5:45
2/12/2015 6:00
2/12/2015 6:15
2/12/2015 6:30
2/12/2015 6:45
2/12/2015 7:00
2/12/2015 7:15
2/12/2015 7:30
2/12/2015 7:45
2/12/2015 8:00
2/12/2015 8:15
2/12/2015 8:30
2/12/2015 8:45
2/12/2015 9:00
2/12/2015 9:15
2/12/2015 9:30
2/12/2015 9:45
2/12/2015 10:00
2/12/2015 10:15
2/12/2015 10:30
2/12/2015 10:45
2/12/2015 11:00
2/12/2015 11:15
2/12/2015 11:30
2/12/2015 11:45

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500541
BRANNIGAN PARK RD
E of HUGHES AVE
Total
5
5
1
2
1
3
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
2
5
4
4
8
9
4
3
4
4
7
6
6
7
4
5
5
4
7
5
7
11

cls01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls02
5
4
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
4
1
1
3
4
2
5
7
4
2
3
2
2
6
3
5
4
2
5
3
4
3
7
7

15-min Class Count: 1500541.20150212

cls03
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
1
1
2
5
0
3
1
0
3
0
1
3
2
0
4

cls04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Site Ref:
6
Direction:
EB
Latitude: 35.23788
Longitude: -111.82058
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
---0.0%
-0.0%
--0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
37.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

pct CB
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
---0.0%
-0.0%
--0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

1 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 12:00
2/12/2015 12:15
2/12/2015 12:30
2/12/2015 12:45
2/12/2015 13:00
2/12/2015 13:15
2/12/2015 13:30
2/12/2015 13:45
2/12/2015 14:00
2/12/2015 14:15
2/12/2015 14:30
2/12/2015 14:45
2/12/2015 15:00
2/12/2015 15:15
2/12/2015 15:30
2/12/2015 15:45
2/12/2015 16:00
2/12/2015 16:15
2/12/2015 16:30
2/12/2015 16:45
2/12/2015 17:00
2/12/2015 17:15
2/12/2015 17:30
2/12/2015 17:45
2/12/2015 18:00
2/12/2015 18:15
2/12/2015 18:30
2/12/2015 18:45
2/12/2015 19:00
2/12/2015 19:15
2/12/2015 19:30
2/12/2015 19:45
2/12/2015 20:00
2/12/2015 20:15
2/12/2015 20:30
2/12/2015 20:45
2/12/2015 21:00
2/12/2015 21:15
2/12/2015 21:30
2/12/2015 21:45
2/12/2015 22:00
2/12/2015 22:15
2/12/2015 22:30
2/12/2015 22:45
2/12/2015 23:00
2/12/2015 23:15
2/12/2015 23:30
2/12/2015 23:45
Day Totals
AM Peak Hr
AM Peak Vol
AM PHF
PM Peak Hr
PM Peak Vol
PM PHF

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500541
BRANNIGAN PARK RD
E of HUGHES AVE
Total
5
8
9
8
11
4
8
3
13
6
7
15
16
13
12
22
15
24
15
17
19
39
29
26
14
24
19
20
14
19
16
18
17
17
11
12
4
10
3
5
10
7
1
4
4
7
4
2
761

cls01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls02
3
7
7
5
7
2
6
3
8
3
6
12
12
8
7
16
12
15
10
9
14
24
21
17
13
19
15
16
10
14
10
12
12
14
9
8
3
5
1
4
9
2
1
3
1
5
2
2
533

cls03
2
0
2
3
4
2
2
0
5
3
1
3
4
3
5
6
3
7
5
7
5
15
7
9
1
5
4
4
4
5
6
6
5
3
2
4
1
5
2
1
1
5
0
1
3
2
2
0
216

cls04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6

cls05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4

cls06
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

cls07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Site Ref:
6
Direction:
EB
Latitude: 35.23788
Longitude: -111.82058
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.3%
0.0%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%

pct CB
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

11:45 AM
33
0.750
5:00 PM
113
0.724

15-min Class Count: 1500541.20150212

2 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 0:00
2/12/2015 0:15
2/12/2015 0:30
2/12/2015 0:45
2/12/2015 1:00
2/12/2015 1:15
2/12/2015 1:30
2/12/2015 1:45
2/12/2015 2:00
2/12/2015 2:15
2/12/2015 2:30
2/12/2015 2:45
2/12/2015 3:00
2/12/2015 3:15
2/12/2015 3:30
2/12/2015 3:45
2/12/2015 4:00
2/12/2015 4:15
2/12/2015 4:30
2/12/2015 4:45
2/12/2015 5:00
2/12/2015 5:15
2/12/2015 5:30
2/12/2015 5:45
2/12/2015 6:00
2/12/2015 6:15
2/12/2015 6:30
2/12/2015 6:45
2/12/2015 7:00
2/12/2015 7:15
2/12/2015 7:30
2/12/2015 7:45
2/12/2015 8:00
2/12/2015 8:15
2/12/2015 8:30
2/12/2015 8:45
2/12/2015 9:00
2/12/2015 9:15
2/12/2015 9:30
2/12/2015 9:45
2/12/2015 10:00
2/12/2015 10:15
2/12/2015 10:30
2/12/2015 10:45
2/12/2015 11:00
2/12/2015 11:15
2/12/2015 11:30
2/12/2015 11:45

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500542
BRANNIGAN PARK RD
E of HUGHES AVE
Total
0
0
1
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
5
3
8
4
3
3
13
13
12
16
28
22
43
32
48
32
19
18
11
17
13
14
6
8
5
8
8
8
10
11
12
6

cls01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls02
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
4
2
5
3
2
2
12
5
9
11
22
13
30
21
36
26
15
11
9
15
12
9
6
3
4
7
7
6
6
8
8
5

15-min Class Count: 1500542.20150212

cls03
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
8
3
4
6
8
13
11
9
6
4
7
2
2
1
5
0
5
0
1
1
2
4
3
4
1

cls04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Site Ref:
6
Direction:
WB
Latitude: 35.23788
Longitude: -111.82058
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
--0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
----0.0%
-0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

pct CB
--0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
----0.0%
-0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

1 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 12:00
2/12/2015 12:15
2/12/2015 12:30
2/12/2015 12:45
2/12/2015 13:00
2/12/2015 13:15
2/12/2015 13:30
2/12/2015 13:45
2/12/2015 14:00
2/12/2015 14:15
2/12/2015 14:30
2/12/2015 14:45
2/12/2015 15:00
2/12/2015 15:15
2/12/2015 15:30
2/12/2015 15:45
2/12/2015 16:00
2/12/2015 16:15
2/12/2015 16:30
2/12/2015 16:45
2/12/2015 17:00
2/12/2015 17:15
2/12/2015 17:30
2/12/2015 17:45
2/12/2015 18:00
2/12/2015 18:15
2/12/2015 18:30
2/12/2015 18:45
2/12/2015 19:00
2/12/2015 19:15
2/12/2015 19:30
2/12/2015 19:45
2/12/2015 20:00
2/12/2015 20:15
2/12/2015 20:30
2/12/2015 20:45
2/12/2015 21:00
2/12/2015 21:15
2/12/2015 21:30
2/12/2015 21:45
2/12/2015 22:00
2/12/2015 22:15
2/12/2015 22:30
2/12/2015 22:45
2/12/2015 23:00
2/12/2015 23:15
2/12/2015 23:30
2/12/2015 23:45
Day Totals
AM Peak Hr
AM Peak Vol
AM PHF
PM Peak Hr
PM Peak Vol
PM PHF

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500542
BRANNIGAN PARK RD
E of HUGHES AVE
Total
10
9
6
8
7
5
6
13
6
10
6
6
11
12
7
9
9
15
6
6
16
12
13
5
8
6
9
4
4
2
10
5
3
1
5
4
2
0
0
2
6
4
0
1
2
0
1
0
761

cls01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

cls02
10
9
5
6
2
2
4
11
2
8
4
5
8
6
5
8
5
10
6
5
11
9
8
4
5
6
7
4
3
1
9
4
1
1
5
3
0
0
0
1
4
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
552

cls03
0
0
1
2
5
3
2
2
4
2
2
1
3
4
2
1
4
4
0
1
4
3
5
1
3
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
199

cls04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5

cls05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

cls06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

cls07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Site Ref:
6
Direction:
WB
Latitude: 35.23788
Longitude: -111.82058
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
--0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
-0.0%
-1.2%

pct CB
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
--0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
-0.0%
-0.0%

7:00 AM
155
0.807
4:45 PM
47
0.734

15-min Class Count: 1500542.20150212

2 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 0:00
2/12/2015 0:15
2/12/2015 0:30
2/12/2015 0:45
2/12/2015 1:00
2/12/2015 1:15
2/12/2015 1:30
2/12/2015 1:45
2/12/2015 2:00
2/12/2015 2:15
2/12/2015 2:30
2/12/2015 2:45
2/12/2015 3:00
2/12/2015 3:15
2/12/2015 3:30
2/12/2015 3:45
2/12/2015 4:00
2/12/2015 4:15
2/12/2015 4:30
2/12/2015 4:45
2/12/2015 5:00
2/12/2015 5:15
2/12/2015 5:30
2/12/2015 5:45
2/12/2015 6:00
2/12/2015 6:15
2/12/2015 6:30
2/12/2015 6:45
2/12/2015 7:00
2/12/2015 7:15
2/12/2015 7:30
2/12/2015 7:45
2/12/2015 8:00
2/12/2015 8:15
2/12/2015 8:30
2/12/2015 8:45
2/12/2015 9:00
2/12/2015 9:15
2/12/2015 9:30
2/12/2015 9:45
2/12/2015 10:00
2/12/2015 10:15
2/12/2015 10:30
2/12/2015 10:45
2/12/2015 11:00
2/12/2015 11:15
2/12/2015 11:30
2/12/2015 11:45

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500539
HUGHES AVE
At I-40
Total
6
6
2
6
5
2
1
5
5
3
2
4
4
7
5
8
9
1
2
3
6
6
10
9
12
7
13
5
7
18
16
9
7
10
14
9
19
8
6
10
6
12
22
20
38
24
18
23

cls01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
1
1
3
2
1
0
1

cls02
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
2
1
0
1
3
0
1
0
1
2
6
4
4
2
5
1
1
9
5
2
2
1
3
3
8
4
3
2
2
4
6
9
19
7
6
7

15-min Class Count: 1500539.20150212

cls03
2
3
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
6
3
4
3
2
5
7
3
2
3
5
2
2
0
2
3
2
6
4
3
11
11
7
5

cls04
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1

cls05
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2

cls06
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
4
3
1
1
1

cls07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

cls09
2
0
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
0
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
0
3
2
3
5
2
7
1
1
2
2
1
7
1
3
3
2
4

Site Ref:
5
Direction:
NB
Latitude: 35.23638
Longitude: -111.82316
cls10
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

pct SU
16.7%
33.3%
0.0%
33.3%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
14.3%
20.0%
12.5%
22.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
10.0%
11.1%
8.3%
0.0%
15.4%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
18.8%
11.1%
14.3%
10.0%
7.1%
11.1%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
18.2%
20.0%
7.9%
8.3%
16.7%
17.4%

pct CB
33.3%
0.0%
50.0%
33.3%
40.0%
50.0%
100.0%
60.0%
60.0%
66.7%
100.0%
50.0%
0.0%
42.9%
60.0%
50.0%
11.1%
100.0%
50.0%
33.3%
50.0%
50.0%
20.0%
22.2%
8.3%
28.6%
7.7%
20.0%
57.1%
16.7%
0.0%
33.3%
28.6%
40.0%
35.7%
33.3%
36.8%
12.5%
16.7%
20.0%
33.3%
8.3%
31.8%
5.0%
7.9%
12.5%
11.1%
26.1%

1 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 12:00
2/12/2015 12:15
2/12/2015 12:30
2/12/2015 12:45
2/12/2015 13:00
2/12/2015 13:15
2/12/2015 13:30
2/12/2015 13:45
2/12/2015 14:00
2/12/2015 14:15
2/12/2015 14:30
2/12/2015 14:45
2/12/2015 15:00
2/12/2015 15:15
2/12/2015 15:30
2/12/2015 15:45
2/12/2015 16:00
2/12/2015 16:15
2/12/2015 16:30
2/12/2015 16:45
2/12/2015 17:00
2/12/2015 17:15
2/12/2015 17:30
2/12/2015 17:45
2/12/2015 18:00
2/12/2015 18:15
2/12/2015 18:30
2/12/2015 18:45
2/12/2015 19:00
2/12/2015 19:15
2/12/2015 19:30
2/12/2015 19:45
2/12/2015 20:00
2/12/2015 20:15
2/12/2015 20:30
2/12/2015 20:45
2/12/2015 21:00
2/12/2015 21:15
2/12/2015 21:30
2/12/2015 21:45
2/12/2015 22:00
2/12/2015 22:15
2/12/2015 22:30
2/12/2015 22:45
2/12/2015 23:00
2/12/2015 23:15
2/12/2015 23:30
2/12/2015 23:45
Day Totals
AM Peak Hr
AM Peak Vol
AM PHF
PM Peak Hr
PM Peak Vol
PM PHF

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500539
HUGHES AVE
At I-40
Total
22
18
26
11
13
19
13
18
14
9
34
22
14
21
25
21
6
22
35
19
27
25
12
24
13
5
10
15
6
15
10
12
13
10
6
8
12
7
10
3
5
5
5
3
11
4
5
1
1114

cls01
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39

cls02
12
3
9
5
4
6
8
5
3
3
15
8
4
6
9
12
4
13
17
6
16
6
3
11
6
1
7
6
2
3
3
6
4
4
1
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
0
0
5
1
2
1
402

cls03
5
7
4
3
4
5
3
5
5
3
13
5
5
8
5
6
2
8
13
5
4
14
4
3
5
2
0
5
2
4
4
3
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
2
2
0
0
300

cls04
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13

cls05
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26

cls06
2
0
5
0
1
0
0
4
1
1
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
4
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
75

cls07
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6

cls09
3
6
4
2
3
8
1
3
3
2
2
4
2
2
7
2
0
1
1
6
0
4
3
6
2
2
1
3
1
3
2
2
5
3
3
4
7
3
6
0
2
2
3
2
4
0
3
0
239

Site Ref:
5
Direction:
NB
Latitude: 35.23638
Longitude: -111.82316
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5

pct SU
9.1%
5.6%
26.9%
9.1%
7.7%
0.0%
0.0%
27.8%
21.4%
11.1%
5.9%
18.2%
7.1%
19.0%
4.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
5.7%
5.3%
18.5%
4.0%
16.7%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
6.7%
16.7%
26.7%
10.0%
8.3%
7.7%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
14.3%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.5%

pct CB
13.6%
33.3%
15.4%
18.2%
23.1%
42.1%
15.4%
16.7%
21.4%
22.2%
8.8%
18.2%
28.6%
9.5%
32.0%
9.5%
0.0%
4.5%
2.9%
31.6%
3.7%
16.0%
25.0%
25.0%
15.4%
40.0%
10.0%
20.0%
16.7%
26.7%
20.0%
16.7%
46.2%
30.0%
50.0%
50.0%
58.3%
42.9%
60.0%
0.0%
40.0%
40.0%
60.0%
66.7%
36.4%
0.0%
60.0%
0.0%
23.0%

10:30 AM
104
0.684
4:30 PM
106
0.757

15-min Class Count: 1500539.20150212

2 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 0:00
2/12/2015 0:15
2/12/2015 0:30
2/12/2015 0:45
2/12/2015 1:00
2/12/2015 1:15
2/12/2015 1:30
2/12/2015 1:45
2/12/2015 2:00
2/12/2015 2:15
2/12/2015 2:30
2/12/2015 2:45
2/12/2015 3:00
2/12/2015 3:15
2/12/2015 3:30
2/12/2015 3:45
2/12/2015 4:00
2/12/2015 4:15
2/12/2015 4:30
2/12/2015 4:45
2/12/2015 5:00
2/12/2015 5:15
2/12/2015 5:30
2/12/2015 5:45
2/12/2015 6:00
2/12/2015 6:15
2/12/2015 6:30
2/12/2015 6:45
2/12/2015 7:00
2/12/2015 7:15
2/12/2015 7:30
2/12/2015 7:45
2/12/2015 8:00
2/12/2015 8:15
2/12/2015 8:30
2/12/2015 8:45
2/12/2015 9:00
2/12/2015 9:15
2/12/2015 9:30
2/12/2015 9:45
2/12/2015 10:00
2/12/2015 10:15
2/12/2015 10:30
2/12/2015 10:45
2/12/2015 11:00
2/12/2015 11:15
2/12/2015 11:30
2/12/2015 11:45

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500540
HUGHES AVE
At I-40
Total
4
8
4
1
10
6
1
4
3
4
4
3
6
7
7
5
9
7
20
12
17
21
57
74
32
32
33
44
56
45
64
69
38
31
22
44
29
29
20
20
23
25
28
20
45
33
29
29

cls01
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

cls02
2
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
4
1
1
5
4
6
8
10
9
35
37
17
10
18
15
30
24
39
29
17
15
9
19
18
12
10
11
11
11
8
10
23
14
11
12

15-min Class Count: 1500540.20150212

cls03
1
1
1
0
3
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
2
7
3
5
9
20
34
9
14
12
20
21
17
20
32
14
10
8
19
7
10
8
5
6
7
16
5
15
10
12
10

cls04
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1

cls05
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1

cls06
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

cls07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls09
0
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
4
2
0
4
1
3
4
2
0
5
1
2
2
2
1
5
4
0
8
3
2
4
4
7
3
5
5
2
6
1
4
2
4
2
4
5
7
3
4

Site Ref:
5
Direction:
SB
Latitude: 35.23638
Longitude: -111.82316
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
0.0%
30.0%
16.7%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
3.1%
12.5%
6.1%
2.3%
1.8%
4.4%
1.6%
4.3%
0.0%
9.7%
0.0%
0.0%
6.9%
3.4%
5.0%
0.0%
13.0%
12.0%
7.1%
5.0%
4.4%
3.0%
6.9%
10.3%

pct CB
0.0%
37.5%
25.0%
100.0%
20.0%
16.7%
100.0%
50.0%
66.7%
100.0%
50.0%
0.0%
66.7%
14.3%
57.1%
80.0%
22.2%
0.0%
25.0%
8.3%
11.8%
14.3%
3.5%
1.4%
15.6%
12.5%
0.0%
18.2%
7.1%
4.4%
6.3%
5.8%
18.4%
9.7%
22.7%
11.4%
6.9%
20.7%
5.0%
20.0%
13.0%
16.0%
7.1%
20.0%
11.1%
21.2%
13.8%
13.8%

1 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 12:00
2/12/2015 12:15
2/12/2015 12:30
2/12/2015 12:45
2/12/2015 13:00
2/12/2015 13:15
2/12/2015 13:30
2/12/2015 13:45
2/12/2015 14:00
2/12/2015 14:15
2/12/2015 14:30
2/12/2015 14:45
2/12/2015 15:00
2/12/2015 15:15
2/12/2015 15:30
2/12/2015 15:45
2/12/2015 16:00
2/12/2015 16:15
2/12/2015 16:30
2/12/2015 16:45
2/12/2015 17:00
2/12/2015 17:15
2/12/2015 17:30
2/12/2015 17:45
2/12/2015 18:00
2/12/2015 18:15
2/12/2015 18:30
2/12/2015 18:45
2/12/2015 19:00
2/12/2015 19:15
2/12/2015 19:30
2/12/2015 19:45
2/12/2015 20:00
2/12/2015 20:15
2/12/2015 20:30
2/12/2015 20:45
2/12/2015 21:00
2/12/2015 21:15
2/12/2015 21:30
2/12/2015 21:45
2/12/2015 22:00
2/12/2015 22:15
2/12/2015 22:30
2/12/2015 22:45
2/12/2015 23:00
2/12/2015 23:15
2/12/2015 23:30
2/12/2015 23:45
Day Totals
AM Peak Hr
AM Peak Vol
AM PHF
PM Peak Hr
PM Peak Vol
PM PHF

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500540
HUGHES AVE
At I-40
Total
32
33
33
23
28
18
37
34
21
33
27
27
28
38
29
31
25
34
19
23
35
28
29
19
24
11
14
16
10
8
13
15
12
11
8
9
9
8
9
13
5
11
4
7
9
7
8
2
2061

cls01
0
3
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
29

cls02
18
15
16
7
9
10
14
18
4
13
15
14
14
10
15
15
7
18
10
12
19
10
14
9
14
6
7
12
5
2
7
6
4
6
3
3
2
0
3
4
2
5
2
2
3
4
1
1
936

cls03
8
9
10
9
6
7
10
12
10
14
9
6
6
13
9
6
13
7
7
6
7
11
11
6
4
3
5
2
2
2
4
3
3
1
2
0
2
3
1
5
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
668

cls04
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18

cls05
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35

cls06
0
1
2
1
3
1
0
0
0
2
1
2
3
4
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
66

cls07
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

cls09
5
2
3
4
7
0
10
3
7
2
2
4
4
7
3
7
3
5
2
3
6
1
3
2
5
2
1
2
3
4
0
5
3
2
1
4
4
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
4
2
4
0
297

Site Ref:
5
Direction:
SB
Latitude: 35.23638
Longitude: -111.82316
cls10
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6

pct SU
3.1%
12.1%
9.1%
8.7%
14.3%
5.6%
5.4%
2.9%
0.0%
12.1%
3.7%
7.4%
10.7%
15.8%
6.9%
3.2%
8.0%
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
8.6%
14.3%
3.4%
5.3%
4.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.4%
6.7%
0.0%
18.2%
12.5%
11.1%
11.1%
0.0%
22.2%
15.4%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
28.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.8%

pct CB
15.6%
6.1%
12.1%
17.4%
25.0%
0.0%
29.7%
8.8%
33.3%
6.1%
7.4%
14.8%
17.9%
18.4%
10.3%
25.8%
12.0%
17.6%
10.5%
13.0%
17.1%
3.6%
10.3%
10.5%
20.8%
18.2%
14.3%
12.5%
30.0%
50.0%
0.0%
33.3%
25.0%
18.2%
12.5%
44.4%
44.4%
62.5%
33.3%
15.4%
40.0%
18.2%
25.0%
14.3%
44.4%
28.6%
50.0%
0.0%
14.9%

7:00 AM
234
0.848
3:00 PM
126
0.829

15-min Class Count: 1500540.20150212

2 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 0:00
2/12/2015 0:15
2/12/2015 0:30
2/12/2015 0:45
2/12/2015 1:00
2/12/2015 1:15
2/12/2015 1:30
2/12/2015 1:45
2/12/2015 2:00
2/12/2015 2:15
2/12/2015 2:30
2/12/2015 2:45
2/12/2015 3:00
2/12/2015 3:15
2/12/2015 3:30
2/12/2015 3:45
2/12/2015 4:00
2/12/2015 4:15
2/12/2015 4:30
2/12/2015 4:45
2/12/2015 5:00
2/12/2015 5:15
2/12/2015 5:30
2/12/2015 5:45
2/12/2015 6:00
2/12/2015 6:15
2/12/2015 6:30
2/12/2015 6:45
2/12/2015 7:00
2/12/2015 7:15
2/12/2015 7:30
2/12/2015 7:45
2/12/2015 8:00
2/12/2015 8:15
2/12/2015 8:30
2/12/2015 8:45
2/12/2015 9:00
2/12/2015 9:15
2/12/2015 9:30
2/12/2015 9:45
2/12/2015 10:00
2/12/2015 10:15
2/12/2015 10:30
2/12/2015 10:45
2/12/2015 11:00
2/12/2015 11:15
2/12/2015 11:30
2/12/2015 11:45

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500537
I-40 EB OFF RAMP
At HUGHES AVE
Total
5
4
3
6
5
1
2
6
3
4
2
3
4
8
2
8
8
2
3
4
9
11
18
18
3
4
8
8
7
15
16
9
9
8
11
8
17
8
6
7
7
11
16
14
12
15
8
15

cls01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls02
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
3
0
2
0
2
3
10
11
0
1
1
1
1
4
6
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
5
4
3
4
4
2
3

15-min Class Count: 1500537.20150212

cls03
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
5
4
4
1
1
3
4
1
5
5
3
5
2
3
1
6
1
2
2
2
1
2
5
4
5
3
2

cls04
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2

cls05
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1

cls06
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0

cls07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls09
3
0
2
2
2
1
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
5
2
7
1
2
0
2
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
5
2
2
3
1
5
4
2
8
3
2
2
3
3
6
5
3
5
1
6

Site Ref:
3
Direction:
EB
Latitude: 35.23734
Longitude: -111.82586
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

cls11
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
33.3%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
6.3%
11.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
5.9%
12.5%
16.7%
14.3%
0.0%
9.1%
25.0%
7.1%
8.3%
6.7%
25.0%
20.0%

pct CB
80.0%
25.0%
100.0%
33.3%
40.0%
100.0%
100.0%
66.7%
100.0%
50.0%
100.0%
66.7%
50.0%
62.5%
100.0%
87.5%
37.5%
100.0%
0.0%
50.0%
44.4%
27.3%
22.2%
16.7%
66.7%
50.0%
50.0%
37.5%
71.4%
33.3%
18.8%
33.3%
11.1%
62.5%
45.5%
25.0%
47.1%
50.0%
33.3%
28.6%
42.9%
36.4%
37.5%
35.7%
25.0%
33.3%
12.5%
46.7%

1 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 12:00
2/12/2015 12:15
2/12/2015 12:30
2/12/2015 12:45
2/12/2015 13:00
2/12/2015 13:15
2/12/2015 13:30
2/12/2015 13:45
2/12/2015 14:00
2/12/2015 14:15
2/12/2015 14:30
2/12/2015 14:45
2/12/2015 15:00
2/12/2015 15:15
2/12/2015 15:30
2/12/2015 15:45
2/12/2015 16:00
2/12/2015 16:15
2/12/2015 16:30
2/12/2015 16:45
2/12/2015 17:00
2/12/2015 17:15
2/12/2015 17:30
2/12/2015 17:45
2/12/2015 18:00
2/12/2015 18:15
2/12/2015 18:30
2/12/2015 18:45
2/12/2015 19:00
2/12/2015 19:15
2/12/2015 19:30
2/12/2015 19:45
2/12/2015 20:00
2/12/2015 20:15
2/12/2015 20:30
2/12/2015 20:45
2/12/2015 21:00
2/12/2015 21:15
2/12/2015 21:30
2/12/2015 21:45
2/12/2015 22:00
2/12/2015 22:15
2/12/2015 22:30
2/12/2015 22:45
2/12/2015 23:00
2/12/2015 23:15
2/12/2015 23:30
2/12/2015 23:45
Day Totals
AM Peak Hr
AM Peak Vol
AM PHF
PM Peak Hr
PM Peak Vol
PM PHF

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500537
I-40 EB OFF RAMP
At HUGHES AVE
Total
13
12
15
7
11
16
11
15
13
10
16
16
14
13
16
12
5
18
17
11
14
18
9
20
8
3
7
11
3
10
10
7
10
9
3
7
8
7
10
1
6
2
6
3
8
5
3
2
852

cls01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4

cls02
2
1
2
2
4
4
3
2
0
2
4
4
4
5
2
5
2
7
2
1
3
4
3
9
2
1
5
3
0
1
4
3
0
3
0
2
2
1
2
0
2
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
212

cls03
5
2
2
3
2
5
6
4
6
4
5
4
5
2
5
2
2
8
7
3
4
9
3
3
4
1
0
3
1
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
226

cls04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14

cls05
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17

cls06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16

cls07
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

cls08
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6

cls09
3
8
8
2
5
7
1
5
2
4
4
3
4
3
6
1
1
2
6
5
3
3
2
7
2
1
2
5
1
6
2
2
7
6
3
4
5
3
6
0
2
1
3
3
4
3
2
0
307

Site Ref:
3
Direction:
EB
Latitude: 35.23734
Longitude: -111.82586
cls10
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20

cls12
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12

cls13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4

pct SU
7.7%
8.3%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
26.7%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
6.3%
7.1%
7.7%
12.5%
8.3%
0.0%
5.6%
0.0%
9.1%
7.1%
11.1%
11.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.8%

pct CB
38.5%
66.7%
66.7%
28.6%
45.5%
43.8%
18.2%
33.3%
38.5%
40.0%
31.3%
43.8%
28.6%
38.5%
43.8%
33.3%
20.0%
11.1%
47.1%
54.5%
42.9%
16.7%
22.2%
40.0%
25.0%
33.3%
28.6%
45.5%
66.7%
70.0%
30.0%
42.9%
80.0%
66.7%
100.0%
71.4%
75.0%
57.1%
70.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
66.7%
100.0%
50.0%
60.0%
66.7%
50.0%
42.4%

10:30 AM
57
0.891
5:00 PM
61
0.762

15-min Class Count: 1500537.20150212

2 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 0:00
2/12/2015 0:15
2/12/2015 0:30
2/12/2015 0:45
2/12/2015 1:00
2/12/2015 1:15
2/12/2015 1:30
2/12/2015 1:45
2/12/2015 2:00
2/12/2015 2:15
2/12/2015 2:30
2/12/2015 2:45
2/12/2015 3:00
2/12/2015 3:15
2/12/2015 3:30
2/12/2015 3:45
2/12/2015 4:00
2/12/2015 4:15
2/12/2015 4:30
2/12/2015 4:45
2/12/2015 5:00
2/12/2015 5:15
2/12/2015 5:30
2/12/2015 5:45
2/12/2015 6:00
2/12/2015 6:15
2/12/2015 6:30
2/12/2015 6:45
2/12/2015 7:00
2/12/2015 7:15
2/12/2015 7:30
2/12/2015 7:45
2/12/2015 8:00
2/12/2015 8:15
2/12/2015 8:30
2/12/2015 8:45
2/12/2015 9:00
2/12/2015 9:15
2/12/2015 9:30
2/12/2015 9:45
2/12/2015 10:00
2/12/2015 10:15
2/12/2015 10:30
2/12/2015 10:45
2/12/2015 11:00
2/12/2015 11:15
2/12/2015 11:30
2/12/2015 11:45

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500538
I-40 EB ON RAMP
At HUGHES AVE
Total
8
7
4
3
9
7
1
4
0
3
4
6
5
4
6
4
10
6
13
5
8
4
20
20
25
27
25
38
47
43
48
60
28
21
22
35
26
24
14
21
17
28
22
18
31
32
22
18

cls01
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls02
1
2
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
1
3
3
2
5
0
13
4
12
13
11
12
24
21
27
22
14
8
11
18
13
11
9
6
8
10
10
4
11
15
9
7

15-min Class Count: 1500538.20150212

cls03
4
0
1
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
5
2
4
1
1
1
4
12
7
7
13
15
17
16
15
26
8
8
6
9
7
6
3
7
2
10
9
7
10
7
8
6

cls04
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
3

cls05
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0

cls06
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0

cls07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0

cls09
1
2
2
0
2
1
1
3
0
2
2
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
5
1
2
3
2
2
5
4
1
8
3
5
5
5
6
5
5
8
4
7
2
5
5
4
2
3
7
7
4
2

Site Ref:
4
Direction:
EB
Latitude: 35.23508
Longitude: -111.82134
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls11
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
12.5%
14.3%
25.0%
33.3%
33.3%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
-33.3%
0.0%
16.7%
40.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.7%
0.0%
7.9%
2.1%
0.0%
2.1%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
4.8%
11.8%
7.1%
4.5%
16.7%
6.5%
6.3%
4.5%
16.7%

pct CB
25.0%
42.9%
50.0%
0.0%
33.3%
14.3%
100.0%
75.0%
-66.7%
50.0%
50.0%
40.0%
25.0%
66.7%
75.0%
30.0%
16.7%
46.2%
20.0%
25.0%
75.0%
10.0%
10.0%
20.0%
22.2%
4.0%
21.1%
10.6%
14.0%
10.4%
15.0%
21.4%
23.8%
22.7%
22.9%
19.2%
29.2%
14.3%
23.8%
29.4%
17.9%
9.1%
22.2%
25.8%
25.0%
18.2%
11.1%

1 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 12:00
2/12/2015 12:15
2/12/2015 12:30
2/12/2015 12:45
2/12/2015 13:00
2/12/2015 13:15
2/12/2015 13:30
2/12/2015 13:45
2/12/2015 14:00
2/12/2015 14:15
2/12/2015 14:30
2/12/2015 14:45
2/12/2015 15:00
2/12/2015 15:15
2/12/2015 15:30
2/12/2015 15:45
2/12/2015 16:00
2/12/2015 16:15
2/12/2015 16:30
2/12/2015 16:45
2/12/2015 17:00
2/12/2015 17:15
2/12/2015 17:30
2/12/2015 17:45
2/12/2015 18:00
2/12/2015 18:15
2/12/2015 18:30
2/12/2015 18:45
2/12/2015 19:00
2/12/2015 19:15
2/12/2015 19:30
2/12/2015 19:45
2/12/2015 20:00
2/12/2015 20:15
2/12/2015 20:30
2/12/2015 20:45
2/12/2015 21:00
2/12/2015 21:15
2/12/2015 21:30
2/12/2015 21:45
2/12/2015 22:00
2/12/2015 22:15
2/12/2015 22:30
2/12/2015 22:45
2/12/2015 23:00
2/12/2015 23:15
2/12/2015 23:30
2/12/2015 23:45
Day Totals
AM Peak Hr
AM Peak Vol
AM PHF
PM Peak Hr
PM Peak Vol
PM PHF

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500538
I-40 EB ON RAMP
At HUGHES AVE
Total
30
17
22
17
26
19
30
34
18
29
43
36
28
36
25
37
31
42
62
27
41
30
25
15
39
13
18
13
14
7
11
11
12
7
6
8
10
9
7
15
7
7
6
3
8
6
15
4
1829

cls01
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18

cls02
13
9
8
5
9
8
11
12
7
9
15
16
11
13
13
16
9
20
30
17
15
11
13
8
16
5
10
7
8
2
4
7
2
1
2
3
2
0
0
4
3
2
2
0
1
1
6
3
740

cls03
11
3
8
5
4
6
8
16
5
14
19
13
12
10
6
9
16
13
30
4
12
14
10
4
17
6
5
4
4
1
5
0
3
1
2
1
5
3
0
4
1
2
3
1
1
3
5
1
603

cls04
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23

cls05
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25

cls06
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
35

cls07
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12

cls09
5
3
4
6
10
0
9
3
6
3
5
4
2
9
3
10
3
7
1
5
8
3
0
3
5
2
3
2
2
4
0
4
5
3
2
4
3
2
3
6
3
2
1
1
5
2
4
0
339

Site Ref:
4
Direction:
EB
Latitude: 35.23508
Longitude: -111.82134
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18

cls12
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
14

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
0.0%
11.8%
4.5%
5.9%
7.7%
10.5%
3.3%
8.8%
0.0%
10.3%
0.0%
8.3%
3.6%
5.6%
4.0%
5.4%
6.5%
2.4%
1.6%
0.0%
9.8%
3.3%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%
28.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.6%

pct CB
16.7%
17.6%
22.7%
35.3%
42.3%
5.3%
33.3%
8.8%
33.3%
10.3%
11.6%
11.1%
14.3%
30.6%
20.0%
27.0%
12.9%
19.0%
1.6%
22.2%
22.0%
13.3%
4.0%
20.0%
15.4%
15.4%
16.7%
15.4%
14.3%
57.1%
18.2%
36.4%
50.0%
71.4%
33.3%
50.0%
30.0%
22.2%
42.9%
46.7%
42.9%
42.9%
16.7%
66.7%
62.5%
33.3%
26.7%
0.0%
20.9%

7:00 AM
198
0.825
3:45 PM
172
0.694

15-min Class Count: 1500538.20150212

2 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 0:00
2/12/2015 0:15
2/12/2015 0:30
2/12/2015 0:45
2/12/2015 1:00
2/12/2015 1:15
2/12/2015 1:30
2/12/2015 1:45
2/12/2015 2:00
2/12/2015 2:15
2/12/2015 2:30
2/12/2015 2:45
2/12/2015 3:00
2/12/2015 3:15
2/12/2015 3:30
2/12/2015 3:45
2/12/2015 4:00
2/12/2015 4:15
2/12/2015 4:30
2/12/2015 4:45
2/12/2015 5:00
2/12/2015 5:15
2/12/2015 5:30
2/12/2015 5:45
2/12/2015 6:00
2/12/2015 6:15
2/12/2015 6:30
2/12/2015 6:45
2/12/2015 7:00
2/12/2015 7:15
2/12/2015 7:30
2/12/2015 7:45
2/12/2015 8:00
2/12/2015 8:15
2/12/2015 8:30
2/12/2015 8:45
2/12/2015 9:00
2/12/2015 9:15
2/12/2015 9:30
2/12/2015 9:45
2/12/2015 10:00
2/12/2015 10:15
2/12/2015 10:30
2/12/2015 10:45
2/12/2015 11:00
2/12/2015 11:15
2/12/2015 11:30
2/12/2015 11:45

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500535
I-40 WB OFF RAMP
At HUGHES AVE
Total
9
6
4
12
2
5
4
6
6
3
2
9
6
6
10
7
7
2
6
17
17
23
46
59
29
15
19
15
23
20
32
35
33
26
31
22
27
32
29
23
35
28
29
21
29
30
33
28

cls01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0

cls02
6
4
0
9
2
3
3
3
2
0
0
8
2
5
7
6
4
1
4
6
5
10
21
31
23
6
10
8
13
11
18
20
21
13
18
4
15
17
9
13
25
11
10
9
12
16
17
14

15-min Class Count: 1500535.20150212

cls03
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
8
9
10
22
24
4
5
4
4
3
5
9
10
7
4
5
14
8
10
11
4
6
9
12
7
10
5
8
8

cls04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2

cls05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

cls06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0

cls07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0

cls09
2
0
4
1
0
0
1
2
3
1
0
1
3
1
2
0
3
0
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
4
3
2
5
3
2
4
4
7
6
3
3
4
7
5
3
7
4
3
4
7
6
4

Site Ref:
1
Direction:
WB
Latitude: 35.23551
Longitude: -111.82021
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

cls11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.9%
0.0%
4.3%
2.2%
3.4%
3.4%
0.0%
10.5%
0.0%
4.3%
5.0%
9.4%
0.0%
3.0%
7.7%
3.2%
0.0%
3.7%
3.1%
6.9%
0.0%
2.9%
3.6%
3.4%
4.8%
3.4%
3.3%
3.0%
7.1%

pct CB
22.2%
16.7%
100.0%
8.3%
0.0%
20.0%
25.0%
33.3%
50.0%
66.7%
0.0%
11.1%
50.0%
16.7%
20.0%
0.0%
42.9%
0.0%
16.7%
11.8%
17.6%
8.7%
4.3%
3.4%
3.4%
26.7%
15.8%
20.0%
26.1%
15.0%
6.3%
14.3%
12.1%
26.9%
22.6%
18.2%
11.1%
12.5%
24.1%
26.1%
8.6%
25.0%
20.7%
14.3%
20.7%
23.3%
21.2%
14.3%

1 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 12:00
2/12/2015 12:15
2/12/2015 12:30
2/12/2015 12:45
2/12/2015 13:00
2/12/2015 13:15
2/12/2015 13:30
2/12/2015 13:45
2/12/2015 14:00
2/12/2015 14:15
2/12/2015 14:30
2/12/2015 14:45
2/12/2015 15:00
2/12/2015 15:15
2/12/2015 15:30
2/12/2015 15:45
2/12/2015 16:00
2/12/2015 16:15
2/12/2015 16:30
2/12/2015 16:45
2/12/2015 17:00
2/12/2015 17:15
2/12/2015 17:30
2/12/2015 17:45
2/12/2015 18:00
2/12/2015 18:15
2/12/2015 18:30
2/12/2015 18:45
2/12/2015 19:00
2/12/2015 19:15
2/12/2015 19:30
2/12/2015 19:45
2/12/2015 20:00
2/12/2015 20:15
2/12/2015 20:30
2/12/2015 20:45
2/12/2015 21:00
2/12/2015 21:15
2/12/2015 21:30
2/12/2015 21:45
2/12/2015 22:00
2/12/2015 22:15
2/12/2015 22:30
2/12/2015 22:45
2/12/2015 23:00
2/12/2015 23:15
2/12/2015 23:30
2/12/2015 23:45
Day Totals
AM Peak Hr
AM Peak Vol
AM PHF
PM Peak Hr
PM Peak Vol
PM PHF

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500535
I-40 WB OFF RAMP
At HUGHES AVE
Total
34
31
41
36
30
20
31
27
40
41
34
39
42
23
26
45
35
46
31
28
51
62
50
41
33
47
31
29
29
32
27
27
20
26
24
18
14
15
19
11
16
12
9
11
5
12
8
5
2282

cls01
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
7

cls02
15
14
25
19
16
12
13
15
18
24
14
25
15
6
12
27
12
21
13
12
26
30
24
22
20
23
18
19
14
21
14
12
11
13
13
12
6
9
10
7
8
3
3
5
3
9
1
5
1164

cls03
12
8
10
10
9
4
10
7
14
10
10
6
16
7
10
11
19
18
11
10
17
24
14
13
7
13
9
8
9
8
11
10
4
6
6
5
4
3
4
3
4
5
1
3
1
2
3
0
668

cls04
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22

cls05
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17

cls06
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
24

cls07
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6

cls08
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17

cls09
5
5
5
2
5
3
4
3
6
4
6
7
8
8
3
6
2
6
7
4
4
6
10
6
5
8
2
2
6
3
2
4
4
4
5
1
3
3
3
0
3
3
4
3
1
1
2
0
333

Site Ref:
1
Direction:
WB
Latitude: 35.23551
Longitude: -111.82021
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

cls11
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
10

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

pct SU
2.9%
12.9%
2.4%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
6.5%
7.4%
0.0%
2.4%
5.9%
2.6%
4.8%
4.3%
3.8%
0.0%
5.7%
2.2%
0.0%
3.6%
3.9%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
3.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
5.0%
7.7%
0.0%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
10.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
3.0%

pct CB
17.6%
16.1%
12.2%
8.3%
16.7%
20.0%
19.4%
11.1%
20.0%
14.6%
23.5%
17.9%
19.0%
39.1%
11.5%
15.6%
5.7%
13.0%
22.6%
17.9%
9.8%
12.9%
22.0%
14.6%
18.2%
19.1%
9.7%
6.9%
20.7%
9.4%
7.4%
14.8%
20.0%
19.2%
20.8%
5.6%
21.4%
20.0%
15.8%
9.1%
25.0%
33.3%
55.6%
27.3%
20.0%
8.3%
25.0%
0.0%
16.4%

5:15 AM
157
0.665
5:00 PM
204
0.823

15-min Class Count: 1500535.20150212

2 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 0:00
2/12/2015 0:15
2/12/2015 0:30
2/12/2015 0:45
2/12/2015 1:00
2/12/2015 1:15
2/12/2015 1:30
2/12/2015 1:45
2/12/2015 2:00
2/12/2015 2:15
2/12/2015 2:30
2/12/2015 2:45
2/12/2015 3:00
2/12/2015 3:15
2/12/2015 3:30
2/12/2015 3:45
2/12/2015 4:00
2/12/2015 4:15
2/12/2015 4:30
2/12/2015 4:45
2/12/2015 5:00
2/12/2015 5:15
2/12/2015 5:30
2/12/2015 5:45
2/12/2015 6:00
2/12/2015 6:15
2/12/2015 6:30
2/12/2015 6:45
2/12/2015 7:00
2/12/2015 7:15
2/12/2015 7:30
2/12/2015 7:45
2/12/2015 8:00
2/12/2015 8:15
2/12/2015 8:30
2/12/2015 8:45
2/12/2015 9:00
2/12/2015 9:15
2/12/2015 9:30
2/12/2015 9:45
2/12/2015 10:00
2/12/2015 10:15
2/12/2015 10:30
2/12/2015 10:45
2/12/2015 11:00
2/12/2015 11:15
2/12/2015 11:30
2/12/2015 11:45

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500536
I-40 WB ON RAMP
At HUGHES AVE
Total
8
3
5
4
6
3
2
0
4
1
4
5
7
3
3
6
3
7
4
1
7
10
9
4
15
8
16
9
11
9
14
15
16
11
16
14
18
17
13
16
22
15
15
13
22
22
18
21

cls01
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

cls02
3
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
3
2
3
4
5
5
3
4
2
3
4
9
2
5
5
6
7
1
5
7
6
6
5
5
9
9
13

15-min Class Count: 1500536.20150212

cls03
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
5
4
2
1
4
1
4
1
1
2
3
5
3
3
1
5
1
2
4
3
3
4
3
1
5
7
4
2

cls04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

cls05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

cls06
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0

cls07
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

cls09
4
2
2
3
3
1
1
0
3
1
3
2
3
1
1
2
2
5
1
1
1
2
2
0
7
1
5
3
3
5
6
5
1
6
6
2
10
6
6
7
10
5
4
5
12
5
3
4

Site Ref:
2
Direction:
WB
Latitude: 35.23761
Longitude: -111.82431
cls10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

cls11
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
25.0%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
6.3%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
14.3%
6.7%
18.8%
0.0%
12.5%
14.3%
0.0%
11.8%
7.7%
6.3%
4.5%
0.0%
6.7%
7.7%
0.0%
4.5%
11.1%
0.0%

pct CB
62.5%
66.7%
40.0%
75.0%
50.0%
33.3%
50.0%
-75.0%
100.0%
75.0%
40.0%
57.1%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
66.7%
71.4%
25.0%
100.0%
14.3%
20.0%
44.4%
0.0%
46.7%
12.5%
31.3%
55.6%
27.3%
55.6%
42.9%
33.3%
6.3%
54.5%
43.8%
14.3%
61.1%
35.3%
46.2%
43.8%
50.0%
33.3%
26.7%
46.2%
54.5%
22.7%
16.7%
28.6%

1 of 2

Client:
File Number:
Route:
Location:
Date/Time
2/12/2015 12:00
2/12/2015 12:15
2/12/2015 12:30
2/12/2015 12:45
2/12/2015 13:00
2/12/2015 13:15
2/12/2015 13:30
2/12/2015 13:45
2/12/2015 14:00
2/12/2015 14:15
2/12/2015 14:30
2/12/2015 14:45
2/12/2015 15:00
2/12/2015 15:15
2/12/2015 15:30
2/12/2015 15:45
2/12/2015 16:00
2/12/2015 16:15
2/12/2015 16:30
2/12/2015 16:45
2/12/2015 17:00
2/12/2015 17:15
2/12/2015 17:30
2/12/2015 17:45
2/12/2015 18:00
2/12/2015 18:15
2/12/2015 18:30
2/12/2015 18:45
2/12/2015 19:00
2/12/2015 19:15
2/12/2015 19:30
2/12/2015 19:45
2/12/2015 20:00
2/12/2015 20:15
2/12/2015 20:30
2/12/2015 20:45
2/12/2015 21:00
2/12/2015 21:15
2/12/2015 21:30
2/12/2015 21:45
2/12/2015 22:00
2/12/2015 22:15
2/12/2015 22:30
2/12/2015 22:45
2/12/2015 23:00
2/12/2015 23:15
2/12/2015 23:30
2/12/2015 23:45
Day Totals
AM Peak Hr
AM Peak Vol
AM PHF
PM Peak Hr
PM Peak Vol
PM PHF

Traffic Research & Analysis, Inc.
3844 East Indian School Road
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 840-1500

Burgess and Niple
1500536
I-40 WB ON RAMP
At HUGHES AVE
Total
14
18
22
31
21
17
13
19
16
23
21
21
16
16
14
20
18
29
26
13
19
27
20
20
17
22
16
12
8
15
8
15
6
4
15
5
14
3
6
7
13
11
3
5
10
2
5
1
1172

cls01
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
11

cls02
6
7
9
18
12
6
4
11
7
10
13
13
5
4
7
11
10
12
15
5
6
10
9
10
8
10
9
6
4
8
4
6
3
0
6
1
5
0
2
4
6
6
1
3
4
1
1
0
477

cls03
3
4
6
5
5
3
3
6
2
6
6
5
5
7
1
3
2
10
7
3
7
10
3
4
4
4
1
0
3
2
0
4
0
1
2
2
3
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
240

cls04
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
16

cls05
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14

cls06
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
29

cls07
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7

cls08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7

cls09
3
4
5
6
3
5
6
1
4
4
1
3
5
4
6
5
4
5
4
5
5
6
4
5
3
7
3
4
1
5
3
5
3
3
4
2
5
2
3
3
3
4
0
2
4
1
2
0
348

Site Ref:
2
Direction:
WB
Latitude: 35.23761
Longitude: -111.82431
cls10
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8

cls11
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8

cls12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
7

cls13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

pct SU
14.3%
5.6%
4.5%
6.5%
4.8%
17.6%
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
11.1%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
5.3%
0.0%
10.0%
5.0%
5.9%
0.0%
18.8%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
13.3%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
15.4%
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
5.6%

pct CB
21.4%
27.8%
27.3%
19.4%
14.3%
29.4%
46.2%
10.5%
37.5%
26.1%
9.5%
14.3%
31.3%
25.0%
42.9%
30.0%
22.2%
20.7%
15.4%
38.5%
26.3%
25.9%
30.0%
25.0%
23.5%
36.4%
18.8%
41.7%
12.5%
33.3%
37.5%
33.3%
50.0%
75.0%
26.7%
40.0%
35.7%
66.7%
50.0%
42.9%
23.1%
36.4%
66.7%
40.0%
40.0%
50.0%
40.0%
0.0%
32.3%

11:00 AM
83
0.943
3:45 PM
93
0.802

15-min Class Count: 1500536.20150212

2 of 2

TRUCK PERCENTAGE CALCULATIONS

Intersection:

150009 Hughes Avenue & I-40 EB Ramp
AM PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles

From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

47
35
57
42
181

RT

9
7
16
15
47

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

3
1
1
1
6

Ped

3
4
3
5
15

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

8
12
10
7
37

RT

1
0
0
0
1

Ped

0
1
4
2
7

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT

Thru

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

0
0
1
0
1

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT

Thru

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

1
0
0
0
1

RT

0
1
1
1
3

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
1
1
0
2

Ped

0
0
2
0
2

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
1

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

6
4
9
3
22

13.3%

RT

0
0
0
1
1

8.5%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

33.3%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

13.3%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

5
7
2
4
18

51.4%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

Ped

0
0
1
0
1

14.3%

0
0
0
0
0

Midday PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT

Thru

24
19
15
19
77

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

21
11
14
12
58

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

20
11
11
7
49

Ped

7
11
6
0
24

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

10
12
7
14
43

RT

0
1
0
1
2

Ped

0
3
0
1
4

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT

Thru

0
0
1
2
3

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
2
1
3

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
2
0
2

Ped

1
3
0
0
4

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0
2
2
2
6

RT

0
0
0
1
1

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

9
4
3
2
18

27.3%

RT

2
1
1
2
6

15.5%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

2
0
1
0
3

10.2%

Ped

1
1
0
0
2

25.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

3
4
1
8
16

51.2%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

50.0%

Ped

0
1
0
0
1

25.0%

0
0
0
0
0

PM Peak Hour
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT

Thru

25
21
17
11
74

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

6
6
10
6
28

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

6
8
5
4
23

Ped

16
10
5
4
35

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

14
15
8
17
54

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
2
3
1
6

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT

Thru

1
2
1
0
4

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

3
0
1
0
4

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
2
0
2

Ped

3
1
0
1
5

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
2

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
1
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB ON RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 EB OFF RAMP

LT
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

9
2
1
3
15

25.7%

RT

0
1
2
0
3

25.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
1
1
0
2

17.4%

Ped

1
1
0
0
2

20.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

5
3
3
7
18

37.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

16.7%

0
0
0
0
0

TRUCK PERCENTAGE CALCULATIONS

Intersection:

1500010 Hughes Avenue & I-40 WB Ramp
AM PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles

From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

49
37
61
45
192

Ped

9
8
12
17
46

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

7
6
10
13
36

RT

1
0
1
0
2

Ped

14
14
18
21
67

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

1
0
1
0
2

RT

8
13
11
8
40

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
1
0
1

0
0
2
1
3

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
4

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
1
1
2

0
0
0
2
2

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
1
0
0
1

RT

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
1
3
0
4

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
1
0
1

0
2
0
0
2

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

6
5
8
4
23

13.5%

Ped

4
5
5
5
19

52.2%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

2.8%

RT

0
0
1
0
1

50.0%

Ped

7
5
1
5
18

38.8%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

50.0%

RT

5
6
3
4
18

50.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Midday PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

37
27
19
25
108

Ped

13
19
15
19
66

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

7
4
8
5
24

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

19
23
23
23
88

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

6
3
2
3
14

RT

26
20
16
18
80

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

Ped

0
0
1
2
3

1
1
1
0
3

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
1
1
2

RT

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

3
0
0
2
5

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
1
1
2

0
2
2
2
6

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

7
5
3
3
18

19.4%

Ped

8
5
3
6
22

39.4%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

2
1
1
1
5

29.2%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

6
8
5
4
23

33.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

3
0
0
0
3

35.7%

RT

3
4
2
7
16

27.5%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

PM Peak Hour
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

29
24
20
14
87

Ped

15
19
21
15
70

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

2
3
7
6
18

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

46
52
42
35
175

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

3
5
1
1
10

RT

16
20
11
21
68

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

Ped

1
1
0
0
2

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
1
2

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

Ped

4
2
2
0
8

2
0
1
0
3

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
0
3

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
1
1
0
2

1
1
1
0
3

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB OFF RAMP

HUGHES AVE

I-40 WB ON RAMP

LT
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

9
2
1
5
17

31.0%

Ped

4
5
7
4
20

32.9%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
1
2
0
3

16.7%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

7
7
9
6
29

19.4%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

20.0%

RT

6
4
3
8
21

35.3%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

TRUCK PERCENTAGE CALCULATIONS

Intersection:

1500011 Hughes Avenue & Brannigan Park Road
AM PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles

From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

1
0
0
1
2

RT

10
8
15
11
44

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

46
38
58
49
191

RT

0
0
0
2
2

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

12
10
10
10
42

Ped

9
15
20
20
64

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
1
1
1
3

Ped

0
0
1
2
3

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
3
1
4

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

1
1
1
1
4

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
1

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
1
1

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0
1
2
0
3

Ped

0
1
2
1
4

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

RT

10
8
14
10
42

97.7%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
1
0
0
1

3.1%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

11
9
6
9
35

90.5%

Ped

1
0
0
0
1

14.1%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

0
0
0
0
0

Midday PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
2
1
3

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

15
10
6
10
41

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

37
37
26
32
132

RT

2
1
0
1
4

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
1
0
2
3

RT

9
12
12
13
46

Ped

39
28
29
26
122

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
2
2

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
1
0
1

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
1
0
0
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

0
0
0
1
1

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

1
1
1
1
4

RT

1
0
0
0
1

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
3
4

Ped

3
2
2
2
9

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00

0.0%

RT

15
10
6
9
40

100.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

3.8%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

25.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

RT

8
11
8
10
37

89.1%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

8.2%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

0
0
0
0
0

PM Peak Hour
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
1
1

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

14
10
9
9
42

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

29
32
31
20
112

RT

1
3
1
0
5

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

3
3
1
1
8

RT

14
13
13
15
55

Ped

44
57
41
39
181

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
1
1
1
3

Ped

1
1
1
0
3

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

1
1
0
0
2

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

1
0
0
0
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

0
1
1
0
2

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

5
1
2
0
8

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

RT

0
0
0
0
0

2
1
1
0
4

Ped

1
1
1
0
3

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

HUGHES AVE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00

0.0%

RT

13
7
8
9
37

92.9%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

8.9%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

1
0
0
0
1

12.5%

RT

11
12
12
14
49

96.4%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

2.2%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

0
0
0
0
0

TRUCK PERCENTAGE CALCULATIONS

Intersection:

1500012 Brannigan Park Rd & Pilot Middle Driveway
AM PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles

From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

0
1
0
1
2

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

10
7
13
19
49

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

37
29
45
32
143

Ped

2
1
2
3
8

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

8
10
16
12
46

RT

3
5
8
8
24

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
1
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
3
0
3

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
1
1

RT

1
1
1
0
3

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
1
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

1
0
0
2
3

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
1
0
1

RT

0
1
1
1
3

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

1
0
0
0
1

6.1%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
1
0
0
1

4.9%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

1
0
0
0
1

6.5%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

25.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Midday PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

1
1
0
1
3

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

28
24
16
25
93

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

10
12
12
7
41

Ped

1
1
1
3
6

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

31
22
25
16
94

RT

6
6
6
10
28

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
1
0
1

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
1
0
0
1

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
1
1
1
3

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

1
0
1
0
2

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

2
1
1
0
4

RT

1
1
0
2
4

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00

0.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

3.2%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

7.3%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

5.3%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

14.3%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

PM Peak Hour
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
1
3
0
4

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

17
23
16
13
69

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

12
11
16
7
46

Ped

1
2
1
0
4

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

29
25
22
22
98

RT

16
32
20
20
88

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
1
0
0
1

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

1
0
0
0
1

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

1
0
0
0
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

3
1
2
0
6

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
1
0
0
1

RT

1
0
2
0
3

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT MIDDLE DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00

0.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

1.4%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

15.2%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

1.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

4.5%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

TRUCK PERCENTAGE CALCULATIONS

Intersection:

1500013 Brannigan Park & Pilot East Driveway
AM PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles

From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

1
0
0
1
2

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

1
2
2
1
6

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

39
30
43
35
147

Ped

4
3
2
0
9

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

1
1
0
1
3

RT

2
4
9
8
23

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
1
1
0
2

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
2
2

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
2
0
2

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
1
1
0
2

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

33.3%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

1.4%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

17.4%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Midday PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

1
1
3
2
7

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

2
4
3
3
12

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

9
9
10
8
36

Ped

1
2
1
0
4

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

1
3
3
1
8

RT

6
4
4
9
23

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
1
0
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

1
0
1
1
3

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

1
1
0
1
3

RT

0
0
0
1
1

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00

0.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

33.3%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

37.5%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

4.3%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

PM Peak Hour
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

5
6
5
5
21

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
4
4
1
9

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

12
9
13
6
40

Ped

2
2
0
0
4

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
1
0
0
1

RT

16
33
23
20
92

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
1
1
0
2

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

2
0
1
0
3

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

1
0
2
0
3

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

PILOT EAST DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00

0.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

22.2%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

7.5%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

3.3%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

TRUCK PERCENTAGE CALCULATIONS

Intersection:

1500014 Brannigan Park & Days Inn
AM PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles

From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
1
1
2

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

Ped

43
31
46
33
153

0
0
1
0
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
1
1

RT

3
4
8
9
24

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

Ped

0
0
2
0
2

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
2
0
2

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
1
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

Ped

0
0
0
1
1

0
0
1
0
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
1
1
0
2

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

50.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

2.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

100.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

16.7%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Midday PEAK HOUR
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

10
10
12
8
40

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

7
5
7
11
30

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
1
1

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

3.3%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

PM Peak Hour
All Vehicles
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
2
0
0
2

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

1
0
0
0
1

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

14
11
13
6
44

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
2
1
3

RT

20
40
26
24
110

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Buses
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Single-Unit Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

3
0
1
0
4

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
1
0
1

RT

1
0
1
0
2

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Articulated Trucks
From North

From East

From South

From West

MOTEL 6 DRIVEWAY

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

NONE

BRANNIGAN PARK RD

LT

17:15
17:30
17:45

TOTAL

Truck %

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

17:00

0.0%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0.0%

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

9.1%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

RT

0
0
0
0
0

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

LT

0
0
0
0
0

Thru

0
0
0
0
0

33.3%

RT

0
0
0
0
0

1.8%

Ped

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-3
Synchro Analysis Output

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Existing Syncro Analysis
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interstate 40 WB OffRamp
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

2.9
EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
36
2
67
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
57
4
92

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor1
371
66
305
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
628
954
745

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
10.2
B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2015 AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

625
625
950
745

NBL
993
0.004
8.6
A
0

408
57
66
342
7 6.59
6
6
4.45 3.651
466 914
755
561
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 625 914 1547
- 0.099 0.101
0
- 11.4
9.4
0
A
B
A
A
0.3
0.3
0

914
-

NBL NBT NBR
2
40
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
4
57
0
Major1
342
4.6
2.65
993
993
NB
0.6

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 192
46
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 267
74
Major2
57
4.12
2.218
1547
1547
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7.3
EBL EBT EBR
37
1
7
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
53
4
18

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
599
575
24
6.92
5.92
5.92
3.968
392
476
884

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
16.2
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1529
0
A
0

2015 AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

324
324
393
884

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
71
4.12
2.218
1529
-

610
71
575
35
6.5 6.34
5.5
5.5
4 3.426
412 959
506
870
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
6
15
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
13
22

959
-

1529
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 324 959 1508
- 0.177 0.018 0.167
- 18.5
8.8
7.9
C
A
A
0.6
0.1
0.6

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
181
47
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
252
71
0
Major2
35
4.23
2.317
1508
1508
-

0
-

0
-

SB
6.1

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

HCM 2010 TWSC
8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road

3/9/2015

HCM research does not support more than two 'Stop' controlled approaches at the intersection.

2015 AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Synchro 8 Report
Page 3

HCM 2010 TWSC
13: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot Middle Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

3.5
EBL EBT
46
24
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
72
75
7
25
70
35

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
212
4.17
2.263
1329
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
5.2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2015 AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

1329
-

EBL
1329
0.053
7.9
A
0.2

0
-

WBT WBR
143
8
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
79
67
5
0
199
13
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
2
0
Stop
0
0
0
50
0
4

SBR
49
0
Stop
None
64
6
84

Minor2
382
206
176
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
624
833
859

206
6.26
3.354
824
-

590
590
833
813

824
-

SB
10
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 808
- 0.11
0
10
A
B
0.4

Synchro 8 Report
Page 4

HCM 2010 TWSC
15: Brannigan Park Road & Motel 6

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

0.5
EBL EBT
1
24
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
25
67
0
17
4
39

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
207
4.1
2.2
1376
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.8

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2015 AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

1376
-

EBL
1376
0.003
7.6
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
153
1
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
83
25
2
50
203
4
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
0
0
Stop
0
0
0
92
0
0

SBR
2
0
Stop
None
25
50
9

Minor2
253
205
48
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
740
834
980

205
6.7
3.75
728
-

738
738
834
977

728
-

SB
10
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 728
- 0.012
0
10
A
B
0

Synchro 8 Report
Page 5

HCM 2010 TWSC
17: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot East Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

0.6
EBL EBT
3
23
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
75
64
0
17
4
40

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
208
4.1
2.2
1375
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.8

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2015 AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

1375
-

EBL
1375
0.003
7.6
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
147
9
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
85
56
1
0
190
18
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
2
0
Stop
0
0
0
50
0
4

SBR
6
0
Stop
None
75
33
9

Minor2
247
199
48
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
746
839
980

199
6.53
3.597
769
-

744
744
839
977

769
-

SB
9.8
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 760
- 0.017
0
9.8
A
A
0.1

Synchro 8 Report
Page 6

SimTraffic Performance Report
2015 Existing Conditions

3/9/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

2015 AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
4.8
0.0
3.2

WB
0.0
0.0
0.3
4.5
0.2
3.3

NB
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.3

SB
0.0
0.1
0.1
5.9
0.0
3.1

All
0.0
0.0
0.4
3.5
0.3
2.4

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interstate 40 WB OffRamp
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

3.1
EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

2015 Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

WBL WBT WBR
24
0
88
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
75
92
96
29
2
33
35
0 101
Minor1
371 413 114
167 167
204 246
6.69 6.52 6.53
5.69 5.52
5.69 5.52
3.761 4.018 3.597
579 529 861
801 760
770 703
565
565
781
770

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

3/9/2015

0
0
0
0

861
-

WB
10.2
B
NBL
1145
0.023
8.2
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 565 861 1475
- 0.062 0.117
0
- 11.8
9.7
0
A
B
A
A
0.2
0.4
0

NBL NBT NBR
14
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
27 114
0
Major1
246
4.46
2.524
1145
1145
NB
1.5

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 108
66
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
73
87
2
19
39
0 163
83
Major2
114
4.12
2.218
1475
1475
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

4.6
EBL EBT EBR
43
2
4
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
50
33
51
50
25
61
4
13

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
416
304
112
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
510
649
804

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
13.2
B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1503
0
A
0

2015 Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

467
467
594
804

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
92
4.12
2.218
1503
-

440
92
304
136
7 6.45
6
6
4.45 3.525
446 906
585
701
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
49
24
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0
88
48

906
-

1503
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 467 906 1308
- 0.141 0.015 0.081
14
9
8
B
A
A
0.5
0
0.3

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
77
58
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
106
92
0
Major2
136
4.37
2.443
1308
1308
-

0
-

0
-

SB
4.3

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

HCM 2010 TWSC
8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road

3/9/2015

HCM research does not support more than two 'Stop' controlled approaches at the intersection.

2015 Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Synchro 8 Report
Page 3

HCM 2010 TWSC
13: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot Middle Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

5.9
EBL EBT
94
28
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
76
70
5
14
136
44

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
66
4.15
2.245
1517
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
5.7

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2015 Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

1517
-

EBL
1517
0.09
7.6
A
0.3

0
-

WBT WBR
41
6
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
85
50
7
0
53
13
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
3
0
Stop
0
0
0
75
0
4

SBR
93
0
Stop
None
83
3
123

Minor2
376
60
316
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
629
968
744

60
6.23
3.327
1003
-

571
571
968
676

1003
-

SB
9.2
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 978
- 0.131
0
9.2
A
A
0.4

Synchro 8 Report
Page 4

HCM 2010 TWSC
15: Brannigan Park Road & Motel 6

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

0
EBL EBT
0
30
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
92
68
0
3
0
49

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
53
4.1
2.2
1566
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2015 Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

1566
-

EBL
1566
0
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
40
0
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
83
92
0
0
53
0
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
0
0
Stop
0
0
0
92
0
0

SBR
0
0
Stop
None
92
0
0

Minor2
102
53
49
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
901
975
979

53
6.2
3.3
1020
-

901
901
975
979

1020
-

SB
0
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 5

HCM 2010 TWSC
17: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot East Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

2.8
EBL EBT
8
23
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
67
64
38
4
13
40

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
53
4.48
2.542
1351
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
1.9

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2015 Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

1351
-

EBL
1351
0.01
7.7
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
36
4
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
90
50
0
0
44
9
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
7
0
Stop
0
0
0
58
0
13

SBR
12
0
Stop
None
75
33
18

Minor2
114
48
66
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
887
980
962

48
6.53
3.597
940
-

878
878
980
952

940
-

SB
9.1
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 912
- 0.034
0
9.1
A
A
0.1

Synchro 8 Report
Page 6

SimTraffic Performance Report
2015 Existing Conditions

3/9/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

2015 Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.1
0.0
4.0

WB
0.0
0.0
0.2
4.3
0.1
3.6

NB
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.3

SB
0.0
0.1
0.1
5.6
0.0
2.8

All
0.0
0.0
0.3
2.6
0.2
1.8

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & InterVWate 40 WB On-Ramp/InterVWate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

4.9
EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

2015 PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

WBL WBT WBR
18
0 175
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
2
19
31
0 229
Minor1
305 347
92
136 136
169 211
6.57 6.52 6.39
5.57 5.52
5.57 5.52
3.653 4.018 3.471
657 576 921
855 784
826 728
645
645
840
826

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

3/9/2015

0
0
0
0

921
-

WB
10.3
B
NBL
1260
0.017
7.9
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 645 921 1503
- 0.048 0.249
0
- 10.9 10.2
0
A
B
B
A
0.2
1
0

NBL NBT NBR
10
68
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
22
92
0
Major1
211
4.3
2.38
1260
1260
NB
1.5

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0
87
70
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
83
75
92
2
31
33
0 128
84
Major2
92
4.12
2.218
1503
1503
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

4.5
EBL EBT EBR
50
2
7
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
92
50
37
0
17
70
2
15

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
425
275
150
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
525
697
799

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
13.1
B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1576
0
A
0

2015 PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

471
471
626
799

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
35
4.12
2.218
1576
-

515
35
275
240
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
466 997
686
711
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
39
90
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
60 180

997
-

1576
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 471 997 1198
- 0.153 0.015 0.101
14
8.7
8.3
B
A
A
0.5
0
0.3

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
81
22
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
120
35
0
Major2
240
4.36
2.434
1198
1198
-

0
-

0
-

SB
6.5

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

HCM 2010 TWSC
8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road

3/9/2015

HCM research does not support more than two 'Stop' controlled approaches at the intersection.

2015 PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Synchro 8 Report
Page 3

HCM 2010 TWSC
13: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot Middle Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

4.5
EBL EBT
98
88
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
84
69
1
5
128 140

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
79
4.11
2.209
1526
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
3.6

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2015 PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

1526
-

EBL
1526
0.084
7.6
A
0.3

0
-

WBT WBR
46
4
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
72
50
15
0
70
9
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
4
0
Stop
0
0
0
33
0
13

SBR
69
0
Stop
None
75
1
101

Minor2
472
75
397
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
554
953
683

75
6.21
3.309
989
-

504
504
953
621

989
-

SB
9.6
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 889
- 0.129
0
9.6
A
A
0.4

Synchro 8 Report
Page 4

HCM 2010 TWSC
15: Brannigan Park Road & Motel 6

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

0.8
EBL EBT
3 110
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
38
69
33
2
9 175

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
61
4.43
2.497
1366
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.4

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2015 PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

1366
-

EBL
1366
0.006
7.7
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
44
0
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
79
92
9
0
61
0
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
2
0
Stop
0
0
0
25
0
9

SBR
1
0
Stop
None
25
0
4

Minor2
254
61
193
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
739
967
845

61
6.2
3.3
1010
-

734
734
967
839

1010
-

SB
9.5
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 808
- 0.016
0
9.5
A
A
0.1

Synchro 8 Report
Page 5

HCM 2010 TWSC
17: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot East Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

1.7
EBL EBT
1
92
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
25
70
0
3
4 145

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
66
4.1
2.2
1549
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2015 PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

3/9/2015

1549
-

EBL
1549
0.003
7.3
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
40
4
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
77
50
8
0
57
9
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
21
0
Stop
0
0
0
88
0
26

SBR
9
0
Stop
None
56
22
18

Minor2
215
62
153
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
778
966
880

62
6.42
3.498
949
-

776
776
966
877

949
-

SB
9.5
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 837
- 0.052
0
9.5
A
A
0.2

Synchro 8 Report
Page 6

SimTraffic Performance Report
2015 Existing Conditions

3/9/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
5.0
0.0
3.8

WB
0.0
0.0
0.2
4.4
0.1
3.5

NB
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.3

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
6.4
0.0
3.5

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.0
0.3
2.4
0.2
1.6

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

2025 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

3
EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
36
2 109
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
72
6 136

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor1
546
83
463
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
497
938
632

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
11.1
B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

494
494
931
632

NBL
849
0.007
9.3
A
0

593
72
83
510
7 6.59
6
6
4.45 3.651
360 896
741
466
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 494 896 1528
- 0.157 0.152
0
- 13.6
9.7
0
A
B
A
A
0.6
0.5
0

896
-

NBL NBT NBR
2
40
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
6
72
0
Major1
510
4.6
2.65
849
849
NB
0.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 329
46
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 416
93
Major2
72
4.12
2.218
1528
1528
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

2025 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

10
EBL EBT EBR
37
1
7
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
66
6
22

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
914
884
30
6.92
5.92
5.92
3.968
248
332
878

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
31.2
D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1506
0
A
0

2025 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

179
179
239
878

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
89
4.12
2.218
1506
-

928
89
884
44
6.5 6.34
5.5
5.5
4 3.426
270 937
366
862
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
6
15
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
17
28

937
-

1506
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 179 937 1496
- 0.401 0.023 0.266
38
8.9
8.3
E
A
A
1.8
0.1
1.1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
314
47
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
397
89
0
Major2
44
4.23
2.317
1496
1496
-

0
-

0
-

SB
6.8

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

2025 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road

5/4/2015

HCM research does not support more than two 'Stop' controlled approaches at the intersection.

2025 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Synchro 8 Report
Page 3

2025 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
13: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot Middle Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

3.7
EBL EBT
46
24
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
72
75
7
25
88
44

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
266
4.17
2.263
1269
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
5.4

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1269
-

EBL
1269
0.069
8
A
0.2

0
-

WBT WBR
143
8
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
79
67
5
0
250
16
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
2
0
Stop
0
0
0
50
0
6

SBR
49
0
Stop
None
64
6
106

Minor2
478
258
220
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
550
790
821

258
6.26
3.354
771
-

511
511
790
763

771
-

SB
10.6
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 752
- 0.148
0
- 10.6
A
B
0.5

Synchro 8 Report
Page 4

2025 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
15: Brannigan Park Road & Motel 6

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

0.5
EBL EBT
1
24
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
25
67
0
17
6
49

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
260
4.1
2.2
1316
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.8

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1316
-

EBL
1316
0.004
7.7
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
153
1
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
83
25
2
50
254
6
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
0
0
Stop
0
0
0
92
0
0

SBR
2
0
Stop
None
25
50
11

Minor2
317
257
60
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
680
791
968

257
6.7
3.75
678
-

677
677
791
963

678
-

SB
10.4
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 678
- 0.016
0
- 10.4
A
B
0.1

Synchro 8 Report
Page 5

2025 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
17: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot East Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

0.6
EBL EBT
3
23
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
75
64
0
17
6
50

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
261
4.1
2.2
1315
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.8

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1315
-

EBL
1315
0.004
7.7
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
147
9
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
85
56
1
0
239
22
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
2
0
Stop
0
0
0
50
0
6

SBR
6
0
Stop
None
75
33
11

Minor2
311
250
61
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
686
796
967

250
6.53
3.597
719
-

683
683
796
962

719
-

SB
10.2
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 707
- 0.023
0
- 10.2
A
B
0.1

Synchro 8 Report
Page 6

2025 AM Peak Sim Traffic Analysis

SimTraffic Performance Report
5/4/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

2025 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

EB
0.0
0.2
0.1
4.5
0.1
4.4

WB
0.0
0.0
0.5
6.2
0.4
5.1

NB
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.4

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
7.6
0.1
4.8

All
0.0
0.1
0.7
4.5
0.6
3.6

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

2025 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

5/4/2015

3.4

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor1
505 557 143
210 210
295 347
6.69 6.52 6.53
5.69 5.52
5.69 5.52
3.761 4.018 3.597
482 439 829
765 728
698 635
466
466
739
698

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

WBL WBT WBR
24
0 144
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
75
92
96
29
2
33
44
0 150

0
0
0
0

829
-

WB
11
B
NBL
1045
0.032
8.6
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 466 829 1440
- 0.095 0.181
0
- 13.5 10.3
0
A
B
B
A
0.3
0.7
0

NBL NBT NBR
14
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
33 143
0
Major1
347
4.46
2.524
1045
1045
NB
1.6

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 177
66
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
73
87
2
19
39
0 242 105
Major2
143
4.12
2.218
1440
1440
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

2025 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

5/4/2015

5.6

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
43
2
4
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
50
33
51
50
25
77
6
17

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
592
451
141
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
397
550
779

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
17.3
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1473
0
A
0

2025 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

341
341
472
779

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
116
4.12
2.218
1473
-

622 116
451
171
7 6.45
6
6
4.45 3.525
346 878
498
675
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
49
24
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0 111
60

878
-

1473
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 341 878 1268
- 0.242 0.019 0.132
- 18.9
9.2
8.3
C
A
A
0.9
0.1
0.5

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
134
58
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
168 116
0
Major2
171
4.37
2.443
1268
1268
-

0
-

0
-

SB
4.9

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

2025 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road

5/4/2015

HCM research does not support more than two 'Stop' controlled approaches at the intersection.

2025 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Synchro 8 Report
Page 3

2025 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
13: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot Middle Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

5/4/2015

6.1

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT
94
28
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
76
70
5
14
171
55

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
83
4.15
2.245
1495
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
5.8

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

1495
-

EBL
1495
0.114
7.7
A
0.4

0
-

WBT WBR
41
6
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
85
50
7
0
67
17
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
3
0
Stop
0
0
0
75
0
6

SBR
93
0
Stop
None
83
3
155

Minor2
472
75
397
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
554
953
683

75
6.23
3.327
984
-

489
489
953
602

984
-

SB
9.6
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 951
- 0.168
0
9.6
A
A
0.6

Synchro 8 Report
Page 4

2025 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
15: Brannigan Park Road & Motel 6

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

5/4/2015

0

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT
0
30
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
92
68
0
3
0
61

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
67
4.1
2.2
1547
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

1547
-

EBL
1547
0
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
40
0
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
83
92
0
0
67
0
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
0
0
Stop
0
0
0
92
0
0

SBR
0
0
Stop
None
92
0
0

Minor2
128
67
61
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
871
961
967

67
6.2
3.3
1002
-

871
871
961
967

1002
-

SB
0
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 5

2025 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
17: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot East Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

5/4/2015

2.8

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT
8
23
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
67
64
38
4
16
50

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
66
4.48
2.542
1335
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
1.9

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

1335
-

EBL
1335
0.012
7.7
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
36
4
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
90
50
0
0
55
11
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
7
0
Stop
0
0
0
58
0
17

SBR
12
0
Stop
None
75
33
22

Minor2
144
61
83
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
853
967
945

61
6.53
3.597
924
-

843
843
967
934

924
-

SB
9.2
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 887
- 0.044
0
9.2
A
A
0.1

Synchro 8 Report
Page 6

2025 MD Peak Sim Traffic Analysis

SimTraffic Performance Report
5/4/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

2025 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
4.4
0.0
4.5

WB
0.0
0.0
0.3
5.6
0.3
5.0

NB
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.3

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
7.2
0.1
4.4

All
0.0
0.0
0.5
3.4
0.4
2.7

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

2025 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

5.8
EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

2025 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

WBL WBT WBR
18
0 309
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
2
19
39
0 368
Minor1
440 492 116
171 171
269 321
6.57 6.52 6.39
5.57 5.52
5.57 5.52
3.653 4.018 3.471
547 478 892
824 757
743 652
533
533
803
743

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

5/4/2015

0
0
0
0

892
-

WB
11.8
B
NBL
1144
0.024
8.2
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 533 892 1473
- 0.073 0.412
0
- 12.3 11.8
0
A
B
B
A
0.2
2
0

NBL NBT NBR
10
68
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
28 116
0
Major1
321
4.3
2.38
1144
1144
NB
1.6

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 162
70
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
83
75
92
2
31
33
0 216 105
Major2
116
4.12
2.218
1473
1473
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

2025 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

5.9
EBL EBT EBR
50
2
7
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
92
50
37
0
17
87
3
19

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
645
457
188
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
386
570
767

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
18.8
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1566
0
A
0

2025 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

314
314
463
767

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
43
4.12
2.218
1566
-

758
43
457
301
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
339 986
571
669
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
39
90
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
75 226

986
-

1566
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 314 986 1135
- 0.288 0.02 0.182
21
8.7
8.9
C
A
A
1.2
0.1
0.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
153
22
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
207
43
0
Major2
301
4.36
2.434
1135
1135
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.3

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

2025 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road

5/4/2015

HCM research does not support more than two 'Stop' controlled approaches at the intersection.

2025 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Synchro 8 Report
Page 3

2025 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
13: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot Middle Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

4.7
EBL EBT
98
88
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
84
69
1
5
161 176

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
99
4.11
2.209
1500
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
3.7

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1500
-

EBL
1500
0.107
7.7
A
0.4

0
-

WBT WBR
46
4
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
72
50
15
0
88
11
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
4
0
Stop
0
0
0
33
0
17

SBR
69
0
Stop
None
75
1
127

Minor2
592
94
498
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
472
935
615

94
6.21
3.309
966
-

416
416
935
542

966
-

SB
10.2
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 837
- 0.172
0
- 10.2
A
B
0.6

Synchro 8 Report
Page 4

2025 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
15: Brannigan Park Road & Motel 6

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

0.8
EBL EBT
3 110
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
38
69
33
2
11 220

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
77
4.43
2.497
1347
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.4

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1347
-

EBL
1347
0.008
7.7
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
44
0
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
79
92
9
0
77
0
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
2
0
Stop
0
0
0
25
0
11

SBR
1
0
Stop
None
25
0
6

Minor2
319
77
242
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
678
951
803

77
6.2
3.3
990
-

672
672
951
796

990
-

SB
9.9
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 753
- 0.022
0
9.9
A
A
0.1

Synchro 8 Report
Page 5

2025 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
17: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot East Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

1.8
EBL EBT
1
92
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
25
70
0
3
6 181

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
83
4.1
2.2
1527
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1527
-

EBL
1527
0.004
7.4
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
40
4
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
77
50
8
0
72
11
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
21
0
Stop
0
0
0
88
0
33

SBR
9
0
Stop
None
56
22
22

Minor2
269
77
192
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
725
951
845

77
6.42
3.498
931
-

722
722
951
842

931
-

SB
9.9
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 794
- 0.069
0
9.9
A
A
0.2

Synchro 8 Report
Page 6

2025 PM Peak Sim Traffic Analysis

SimTraffic Performance Report
5/4/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

2025 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.4
0.0
3.6

WB
0.0
0.1
0.3
6.3
0.3
5.7

NB
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.0
0.4

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
7.9
0.1
5.1

All
0.0
0.0
0.6
3.0
0.4
2.3

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

2035 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

3.3
EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
36
2 133
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
86
7 166

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor1
666
99
567
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
423
922
566

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
12.1
B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

419
419
913
566

NBL
764
0.009
9.8
A
0

722
86
99
623
7 6.59
6
6
4.45 3.651
300 880
729
411
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 419 880 1510
- 0.221 0.189
0
16
10
0
A
C
B
A
0.8
0.7
0

880
-

NBL NBT NBR
2
40
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
7
86
0
Major1
623
4.6
2.65
764
764
NB
0.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 404
46
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 511 112
Major2
86
4.12
2.218
1510
1510
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

2035 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

15.8

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

EBL EBT EBR
37
1
7
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
79
7
26

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Minor2
1119 1136 106
1083 1083
36
53
6.92
6.5 6.34
5.92
5.5
5.92
5.5
3.968
4 3.426
184 204 917
262 296
872 855
120
120
170
872

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
69.7
F

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1485
0
A
0

2035 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
6
15
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
20
33
Major1
106
4.12
2.218
1485
-

917
-

1485
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 120 917 1485
- 0.716 0.029 0.329
- 88.3
9
8.6
F
A
A
3.9
0.1
1.5

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
386
47
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
489 106
0
Major2
53
4.23
2.317
1485
1485
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.1

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

2035 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road

5/4/2015

HCM research does not support more than two 'Stop' controlled approaches at the intersection.

2035 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Synchro 8 Report
Page 3

2035 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
13: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot Middle Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

3.9
EBL EBT
46
24
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
72
75
7
25
105
53

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
318
4.17
2.263
1214
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
5.5

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1214
-

EBL
1214
0.087
8.2
A
0.3

0
-

WBT WBR
143
8
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
79
67
5
0
299
20
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
2
0
Stop
0
0
0
50
0
7

SBR
49
0
Stop
None
64
6
126

Minor2
573
309
264
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
484
749
785

309
6.26
3.354
722
-

441
441
749
715

722
-

SB
11.3
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 700
- 0.19
0
- 11.3
A
B
0.7

Synchro 8 Report
Page 4

2035 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
15: Brannigan Park Road & Motel 6

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

0.5
EBL EBT
1
24
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
25
67
0
17
7
59

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
311
4.1
2.2
1261
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.8

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1261
-

EBL
1261
0.005
7.9
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
153
1
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
83
25
2
50
304
7
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
0
0
Stop
0
0
0
92
0
0

SBR
2
0
Stop
None
25
50
13

Minor2
379
307
72
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
627
751
956

307
6.7
3.75
633
-

623
623
751
950

633
-

SB
10.8
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 633
- 0.021
0
- 10.8
A
B
0.1

Synchro 8 Report
Page 5

2035 AM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
17: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot East Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

0.7
EBL EBT
3
23
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
75
64
0
17
7
59

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
312
4.1
2.2
1260
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.8

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1260
-

EBL
1260
0.005
7.9
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
147
9
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
85
56
1
0
285
27
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
2
0
Stop
0
0
0
50
0
7

SBR
6
0
Stop
None
75
33
13

Minor2
371
299
72
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
634
757
956

299
6.53
3.597
673
-

630
630
757
950

673
-

SB
10.6
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 658
- 0.03
0
- 10.6
A
B
0.1

Synchro 8 Report
Page 6

2035 AM Peak Sim Traffic Analysis

SimTraffic Performance Report
5/4/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

2035 No-Build AM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

EB
0.0
0.2
0.2
8.1
0.2
7.9

WB
0.0
0.2
0.8
8.2
0.7
7.3

NB
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.3

SB
0.0
0.2
0.2
8.4
0.1
5.4

All
0.0
0.1
1.2
6.0
1.0
5.2

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

2035 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

5/4/2015

3.6

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor1
611 673 171
251 251
360 422
6.69 6.52 6.53
5.69 5.52
5.69 5.52
3.761 4.018 3.597
416 377 798
732 699
650 588
397
397
699
650

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

WBL WBT WBR
24
0 174
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
75
92
96
29
2
33
53
0 181

0
0
0
0

798
-

WB
11.9
B
NBL
977
0.041
8.8
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 397 798 1406
- 0.133 0.227
0
- 15.5 10.8
0
A
C
B
A
0.5
0.9
0

NBL NBT NBR
14
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
40 171
0
Major1
422
4.46
2.524
977
977
NB
1.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 217
66
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
73
87
2
19
39
0 297 125
Major2
171
4.12
2.218
1406
1406
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

2035 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

5/4/2015

6.7

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
43
2
4
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
50
33
51
50
25
92
7
20

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
723
554
169
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
329
489
755

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
23.1
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1445
0
A
0

2035 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

269
269
400
755

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
139
4.12
2.218
1445
-

759 139
554
205
7 6.45
6
6
4.45 3.525
285 852
444
651
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
49
24
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0 133
72

852
-

1445
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 269 852 1231
- 0.367 0.023 0.169
- 25.9
9.3
8.5
D
A
A
1.6
0.1
0.6

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
166
58
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
208 139
0
Major2
205
4.37
2.443
1231
1231
-

0
-

0
-

SB
5.1

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

2035 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road

5/4/2015

HCM research does not support more than two 'Stop' controlled approaches at the intersection.

2035 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Synchro 8 Report
Page 3

2035 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
13: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot Middle Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

5/4/2015

6.2

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT
94
28
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
76
70
5
14
204
66

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
99
4.15
2.245
1475
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
5.9

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

1475
-

EBL
1475
0.138
7.8
A
0.5

0
-

WBT WBR
41
6
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
85
50
7
0
80
20
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
3
0
Stop
0
0
0
75
0
7

SBR
93
0
Stop
None
83
3
185

Minor2
563
89
474
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
491
940
630

89
6.23
3.327
966
-

420
420
940
539

966
-

SB
9.9
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 925
- 0.207
0
9.9
A
A
0.8

Synchro 8 Report
Page 4

2035 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
15: Brannigan Park Road & Motel 6

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

5/4/2015

0

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT
0
30
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
92
68
0
3
0
73

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
80
4.1
2.2
1531
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

1531
-

EBL
1531
0
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
40
0
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
83
92
0
0
80
0
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
0
0
Stop
0
0
0
92
0
0

SBR
0
0
Stop
None
92
0
0

Minor2
153
80
73
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
843
948
955

80
6.2
3.3
986
-

843
843
948
955

986
-

SB
0
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 5

2035 MD Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
17: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot East Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh

5/4/2015

2.9

Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT
8
23
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
67
64
38
4
20
59

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
79
4.48
2.542
1320
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
1.9

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

1320
-

EBL
1320
0.015
7.8
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
36
4
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
90
50
0
0
66
13
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
7
0
Stop
0
0
0
58
0
20

SBR
12
0
Stop
None
75
33
26

Minor2
172
73
99
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
823
955
930

73
6.53
3.597
909
-

810
810
955
915

909
-

SB
9.4
A

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 864
- 0.054
0
9.4
A
A
0.2

Synchro 8 Report
Page 6

2035 MD Peak Sim Traffic Analysis

SimTraffic Performance Report
5/4/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

2035 No-Build Mid-Day Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

EB
0.0
0.2
0.1
5.8
0.1
5.8

WB
0.0
0.0
0.5
7.2
0.4
6.7

NB
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.3

SB
0.0
0.2
0.2
8.0
0.1
5.1

All
0.0
0.1
0.8
4.1
0.6
3.4

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

2035 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

6.6
EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

2035 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

WBL WBT WBR
18
0 380
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
2
19
46
0 452
Minor1
534 597 139
205 205
329 392
6.57 6.52 6.39
5.57 5.52
5.57 5.52
3.653 4.018 3.471
482 416 866
795 732
697 606
466
466
769
697

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

5/4/2015

0
0
0
0

866
-

WB
13.6
B
NBL
1075
0.031
8.5
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 466 866 1445
0.1 0.522
0
- 13.6 13.6
0
A
B
B
A
0.3
3.1
0

NBL NBT NBR
10
68
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
33 139
0
Major1
392
4.3
2.38
1075
1075
NB
1.6

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 200
70
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
83
75
92
2
31
33
0 267 126
Major2
139
4.12
2.218
1445
1445
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

2035 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7.6
EBL EBT EBR
50
2
7
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
92
50
37
0
17
104
4
23

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
789
565
224
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
315
505
737

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
28
D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

238
238
381
737

NBL
1554
0
A
0

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
52
4.12
2.218
1554
-

924
52
565
359
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
271 975
511
631
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
39
90
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
89 270

975
-

1554
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 238 975 1078
- 0.454 0.024 0.238
- 32.1
8.8
9.4
D
A
A
2.2
0.1
0.9

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
190
22
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
257
52
0
Major2
359
4.36
2.434
1078
1078
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.8

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

2035 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road

5/4/2015

HCM research does not support more than two 'Stop' controlled approaches at the intersection.

2035 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Synchro 8 Report
Page 3

2035 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
13: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot Middle Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

4.9
EBL EBT
98
88
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
84
69
1
5
192 210

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
119
4.11
2.209
1475
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
3.7

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1475
-

EBL
1475
0.131
7.8
A
0.4

0
-

WBT WBR
46
4
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
72
50
15
0
105
13
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
4
0
Stop
0
0
0
33
0
20

SBR
69
0
Stop
None
75
1
152

Minor2
707
112
595
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
405
918
555

112
6.21
3.309
944
-

345
345
918
473

944
-

SB
10.9
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 785
- 0.219
0
- 10.9
A
B
0.8

Synchro 8 Report
Page 4

2035 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
15: Brannigan Park Road & Motel 6

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

0.8
EBL EBT
3 110
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
38
69
33
2
13 263

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
92
4.43
2.497
1329
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.4

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1329
-

EBL
1329
0.01
7.7
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
44
0
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
79
92
9
0
92
0
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
2
0
Stop
0
0
0
25
0
13

SBR
1
0
Stop
None
25
0
7

Minor2
381
92
289
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
625
937
765

92
6.2
3.3
971
-

618
618
937
757

971
-

SB
10.3
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 703
- 0.028
0
- 10.3
A
B
0.1

Synchro 8 Report
Page 5

2035 PM Peak Synchro Analysis

HCM 2010 TWSC
17: Brannigan Park Road & Pilot East Driveway

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

1.8
EBL EBT
1
92
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
25
70
0
3
7 217

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Major1
99
4.1
2.2
1507
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
0.2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

5/4/2015

1507
-

EBL
1507
0.004
7.4
A
0

0
-

WBT WBR
40
4
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
77
50
8
0
86
13
Major2
WB
0

0
-

SBL
21
0
Stop
0
0
0
88
0
39

SBR
9
0
Stop
None
56
22
27

Minor2
322
92
230
6.4
5.4
5.4
3.5
676
937
813

92
6.42
3.498
913
-

673
673
937
809

913
-

SB
10.2
B

EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
- 753
- 0.088
0
- 10.2
A
B
0.3

Synchro 8 Report
Page 6

2035 PM Peak Sim Traffic Analysis

SimTraffic Performance Report
5/4/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

2035 No-Build PM Peak
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

EB
0.0
0.1
0.1
5.2
0.1
5.4

WB
0.0
0.1
0.5
8.8
0.5
8.3

NB
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.1
0.1
0.4

SB
0.0
0.2
0.2
10.0
0.1
7.2

All
0.0
0.1
1.0
4.1
0.8
3.3

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-4
Crash Data

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Arizona Department of Transportation
Traffic Records Section
Standard Detailed Report

IncidentId

Incident
Date

Incide
IncidentCro Incid IncidentInj
IncidentCollisi IncidentLig Inciden
nt
IncidentOnroa ssingFeatur entOf urySeverit IncidentFirstHarmfulD onMannerDes htConditio tWeath IncidentIntersectionT IncidentJunction
Time d
e
fset
yDesc
esc
c
nDesc
erDesc ypeDesc
RelationDesc

1

2553347

10/14/2011

15:40 I 040185G

03 NAVAJO
ARMY DEPOT
RD

MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR
0 NO_INJURY ANSPORT
LEFT_TURN

2

2676100

12/15/2012

03 NAVAJO
ARMY DEPOT
14:30 RD

I 040185G

0 NO_INJURY GUARDRAIL_FACE

3

2349228

10/15/2009

11:30 I 040185A

03 NAVAJO
ARMY DEPOT
RD

4

2384987

2/22/2010

10:14 I 040185A

I 040

5

2517757

4/17/2011

14:25 I 040185A

03 NAVAJO
ARMY DEPOT
RD

6

2634319

7/25/2012

10:20 I 040185C

M185

DAYLIGHT

CLEAR

INTERSECTION_R
INTERSECTION_AS_PA ELATED_INTERCH TRUCK_TT_TRU
RT_OF_INTERCHANGE ANGE
CK_TRACTOR
1 - NORTH

SINGLE
VEHICLE

DAYLIGHT

SNOW

T_INTESECTION

0 NO_INJURY GUARDRAIL_END

SINGLE
VEHICLE

DAYLIGHT

CLEAR

INTERSECTION_AS_PA OTHER_PART_OF_ TRUCK_TT_TRU
RT_OF_INTERCHANGE INTERCHANGE
CK_TRACTOR
1 - NORTH

-0.02 NO_INJURY GUARDRAIL_END

SINGLE
VEHICLE

DAYLIGHT

ENTRANCE_EXIT_ PASSENGER_34
NOT_AT_AN_INTERSE RAMP_INTERCHAN PU_PICKUP_3_
CLOUDY CTION
GE
4_TON
3 - EAST

SIDESWIPE_S
MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR AME_DIRECTI
0.18 NO_INJURY ANSPORT
ON

7

2684359

12/30/2012

19:38 I 040185C

8

2694345

1/28/2013

16:23 I 040185C

M185

SIDESWIPE_S
MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR AME_DIRECTI
0.17 NO_INJURY ANSPORT
ON

M185

SIDESWIPE_S
MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR AME_DIRECTI
0.17 NO_INJURY ANSPORT
ON

2695536

2/10/2013

13:38 I 040185C

0 NO_INJURY OTHER_FIXED_OBJECT

SINGLE
VEHICLE

ENTRANCE_EXIT_
RAMP_INTERCHAN TRUCK_TT_TRU
GE
CK_TRACTOR
4 - WEST

SNOW

OTHER_FIXED_
OBJECT

DAYLIGHT

SNOW

T_INTESECTION

INTERSECTION_R PASSENGER_4D
ELATED_INTERCH SW_STATION_
ANGE
WAGON_4_DR 4 - WEST

SLOWING_I
N_TRAFFIC ROAD_SURFACE_C
WAY
ONDITION
SNOW

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

DAYLIGHT

BLOWI
NG_SN
OW

ENTRANCE_EXIT_
FOUR_WAY_INTERSEC RAMP_INTERCHAN TRUCK_TT_TRU
TION
GE
CK_TRACTOR
4 - WEST

STOPPED_I
N_TRAFFIC ROAD_SURFACE_C
WAY
ONDITION
SNOW

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

CLEAR

UNKNOWN

OTHER

OTHER

DRY

PARKED_MOTO
R_VEHICLE

BACKING

No Data

DRY

PARKED_MOTO
R_VEHICLE

REAR_TO_SID
E
DAYLIGHT

NOT_JUNCTION_R
99 ELATED
NOT_REPORTED UNKNOWN

11:50 I 040185G

M185

PARKED_MOTOR_VEHIC
0.05 NO_INJURY LE
REAR_END

DAYLIGHT

NOT_AT_AN_INTERSE NOT_JUNCTION_R TRUCK_TT_TRU
CLOUDY CTION
ELATED
CK_TRACTOR
4 - WEST

12

2409617

12/29/2010

12:05 I 040185J

M185

MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR
0.05 NO_INJURY ANSPORT
REAR_END

DAYLIGHT

SNOW

13

2570758

12/17/2011

03 NAVAJO
ARMY DEPOT
20:25 RD

I 040185J

MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR
0.014 NO_INJURY ANSPORT
OTHER

03 BRANNIGAN 03 HUGES
13:08 PARK RD
RD

MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR
0 NO_INJURY ANSPORT
OTHER

7/20/2012

17

S1003253

9/6/2010

Branninan Park
23:27 Rd
Huges Rd

3:00

Shadow
Mountain Road

ICE_FR RAN_OFF_ROA
OST
D_LEFT

GOING_STR NO_CONTRIBUTIN
AIGHT_AHE G_CIRCUMSTANCE
AD
S

8/4/2012

16

NO_CONTRIBUTIN
G_CIRCUMSTANCE
S

PASSENGER_2D
FOUR_WAY_INTERSEC INTERSECTION_IN SD_SEDAN_2_
TION
TERCHANGE
DR
4 - WEST

2637972

15

OTHER

DARK_NOT_
LIGHTED
SNOW

11

Branninan Park
Rd
Hughes Ave

GUARDRAIL_EN
D

DRY

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

0.13 NO_INJURY UNKNOWN

7:42

MAKING_LE
FT_TURN
LANE_CLOSURE

DRY

M185

10/4/2011

GUARDRAIL_FA
CE

NO_CONTRIBUTIN
MAKING_RI G_CIRCUMSTANCE
GHT_TURN S

CLEAR

18:15 I 040185C

S1104008

MAKING_RI ROAD_SURFACE_C
GHT_TURN ONDITION
SNOW

ENTRANCE_EXIT_
FOUR_WAY_INTERSEC RAMP_INTERCHAN TRUCK_TT_TRU
TION
GE
CK_TRACTOR
4 - WEST

DAYLIGHT

INTERSECTION_IN TRUCK_TK_TRU
TERCHANGE
CK
3 - EAST

8/13/2010

3/9/2013

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

T_INTESECTION

2450944

2719931

WET

DRY

CLEAR

10

14

NO_CONTRIBUTIN
MAKING_LE G_CIRCUMSTANCE
FT_TURN
S

NO_CONTRIBUTIN
MAKING_LE G_CIRCUMSTANCE
FT_TURN
S

SIDESWIPE_O
MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR PPOSITE_DIRE
0 NO_INJURY ANSPORT
CTION
DAYLIGHT

03 HUGES
RD

9

UnitBodyStyle UnitTravelDi UnitAction UnitRoadConditio
Desc
rectionDesc Desc
nDesc1

UnitSu
rfaceC
onditio UnitEventSequ
nDesc1 enceDesc1

NOT_AT_AN_INTERSE NOT_JUNCTION_R TRUCK_TT_TRU
CTION
ELATED
CK_TRACTOR
4 - WEST

GOING_STR
AIGHT_AHE ROAD_SURFACE_C
AD
ONDITION
SNOW

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

DARK_LIGH
TED
CLEAR

ENTRANCE_EXIT_ PASSENGER_4D
FOUR_WAY_INTERSEC RAMP_NON_INTER SW_STATION_
TION
CHANGE
WAGON_4_DR 2 - SOUTH

DRIVERLES
S_MOVING
_VEHICLE
OTHER

WET

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

DAYLIGHT

SNOW

T_INTESECTION

PASSENGER_12
INTERSECTION_N PU_PICKUP_1_
ON_INTERCHANGE 2_TON
2 - SOUTH

NO_CONTRIBUTIN
MAKING_LE G_CIRCUMSTANCE
FT_TURN
S

SNOW

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

DAYLIGHT

UNKNO
WN
T_INTESECTION

PASSENGER_12
INTERSECTION_N PU_PICKUP_1_
ON_INTERCHANGE 2_TON
4 - WEST

MAKING_LE
FT_TURN

SIDESWIPE_O
POSSIBLE_ MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR PPOSITE_DIRE
INJURY
ANSPORT
CTION
DARK

CLOUDY T_INTESECTION

INTERSECTION_N TRUCK_TT_TRU
ON_INTERCHANGE CK_TRACTOR
1 - NORTH

BRAKES
FALIED

DRY

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

NON_CAPA
CITATING_I MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR SINGLE
NJURY
ANSPORT
VEHICLE

DUSK

CLEAR

NOT_AT_AN_INTERSE NOT_JUNCTION_R
CTION
ELATED
MOTORCYCLE

Negotiating
a curve
BAD TIRES

DRY

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR
NO_INJURY ANSPORT
LEFT_TURN

3 - EAST

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

18 S1201057

3/23/2012

Shadow
20:56 Mountain Road

I-40
INTERCHAN
GE

SIDESWIPE_O
MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR PPOSITE_DIRE
NO_INJURY ANSPORT
CTION
DARK

CLEAR

T_INTESECTION

PASSENGER_12
INTERSECTION_N PU_PICKUP_1_
ON_INTERCHANGE 2_TON
3 - EAST

GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD

DRY

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

19

9/23/2013

Shadow
16:10 Mountain Road

Fossil Creek

NON_CAPA
CITATING_I MOTOR_VEHICLE_IN_TR
NJURY
ANSPORT
ANGLE

CLEAR

T_INTESECTION

INTERSECTION_N
ON_INTERCHANGE MOTORCYCLE

MAKING_LE
FT_TURN

DRY

MOTOR_VEHICL
E_IN_TRANSPO
RT

DAYLIGHT

2- WEST

Crashes by Number and Severity
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

% of Crashes

Total

Fatal

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0

Incapacitating Injury

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0

Non Capacitating

0

1

0

0

1

0

11%

2

Possibly Injury

0

2

0

1

0

0

5%

1

1
1

3
6

4
4

5
6

3
4

0
0

84%
100%

16
19

2010
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
4

2011
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
4

2012
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
6

2013
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
4

2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

% of Crashes
26%
11%
16%
16%
11%
5%
5%
11%
100%

Total
5
2
3
3
2
1
1
2
19

2010
2
1
1

2011
4

2013
4

2014

4

4

2012
3
1
1
1
6

4

0

% of Crashes
68%
16%
11%
5%
100%

Total
13
3
2
1
19

Property Damage Only
Total

Crashes by Manner of Collision
Single Vehicle
Rear End
Sideswipe Same Direction
Sideswipe Opposite Direction
Left Turn
Angle
Rear to Side
Other
Total

2009
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

Crashes by Harmful Event
2009
Motor Vehicle in Transport
Guardrail
Parked Vehicle
Other Fixed Object

1

Total

1

Crashes by Unit Body Style
2009
1

Tractor Trailer Truck
Passenger Car
Motorcycle
Unknown
Total

2010
1
1
1
1
4

2011
2
2

2012
4
2

2013
1
2
1

2014

4

6

4

0

2009
1

2010
2

2011
1
2

2012
4

2013
1

2014

2

3

1

1
1
1
5

3

6

4

0

2011
3
1

2012
3
3

2013
4

2014

4

6

4

0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2
1

2

2
2

2
2

1

% of Crashes
47%
37%
11%
5%
100%

Total
9
7
2
1
19

% of Crashes
47%
11%
32%
5%
5%
100%

Total
9
2
6
1
1
19

% of Crashes
79%
21%
5%
105%

Total
15
4
1
19

% of Crashes
5%
26%
11%
16%
11%
32%
32%

Total
1
5
2
3
2
6
19

Crashes by Surface Conditions
Dry
Wet
Snow
Ice/Frost
Unknown
Total

Crashes by Light Conditions
Daylight
Dark
Dusk
Total

2009
1

2010
4

1

1
4

Crashes by Roadway
2009
EB On-Ramp
EB Off-Ramp
WB On-Ramp
WB Off-Ramp
Crossroad
Branningan&Shadow Mnt.
Total

2010
1
1

1

1

0

1
2

1
1
2
1
5

0

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-5
City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0

Introduction _______________________________________________________ 4

2.0

Principles of Access Management _____________________________________ 4

3.0

Roadway Functional Classification ____________________________________ 7

4.0

Access Spacing ____________________________________________________ 10
4.1 Signalized Intersections _________________________________________ 10
4.2 Unsignalized Roadway Intersections ______________________________ 11
4.3 Median Openings ______________________________________________ 12
4.4 Alternatives to Standard Signalized Intersections ___________________ 15
4.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Device Guidelines __________________ 15
4.5.1 Marked Crosswalks _____________________________________________________ 15
4.5.2 School Crosswalks ______________________________________________________ 16
4.5.3 HAWK – High Intensity Activated CrossWalK _______________________________ 16
4.5.4 TOUCAN – TwO GroUps CAN Cross ______________________________________ 18
4.5.5 PELICAN – Pedestrian LIght Control ActivatioN _____________________________ 20

5.0

Design Standards __________________________________________________ 22
5.1 Street Cross Sections ____________________________________________ 22
5.1.1 Local Streets __________________________________________________________ 22
5.1.2 Collectors _____________________________________________________________ 22
5.1.3 Arterials ______________________________________________________________ 23

5.2 Sight Distance _________________________________________________ 23
5.3 Turning Lanes ________________________________________________ 23
5.3.1 Total Turn Lane Length __________________________________________________ 27

5.4 Driveway Locations ____________________________________________ 29
5.5 Cross and Shared Access ________________________________________ 31
5.6 Local Access Lanes ____________________________________________ 33
5.7 Driveway Curb Radius _________________________________________ 34
5.8 Unsignalized Driveway Entry Width ______________________________ 34
5.9 Driveway Profiles ______________________________________________ 35
5.10 Driveway Turning Movement Restrictions _________________________ 35
5.11 Driveway Throat Length ________________________________________ 36
5.12 Truck Loading Area ___________________________________________ 37
5.13 Median Design ________________________________________________ 37
5.14 Pedestrian Facilities ____________________________________________ 39
5.15 Bicycle Facilities _______________________________________________ 39

Page i

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

5.16 Transit Facilities_______________________________________________ 40
6.0

Methods of Application _____________________________________________ 44
6.1 Traffic Impact Analysis _________________________________________ 44
6.2 Variations ____________________________________________________ 44
6.3 Site Design____________________________________________________ 45
6.3.1 Access Control _________________________________________________________ 45
6.3.2 Traffic Impact Analysis __________________________________________________ 45

6.4 Existing Problem Areas _________________________________________ 54
6.4.1 Types of Action ________________________________________________________ 55

7.0

Guideline References _______________________________________________ 59

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 – Movement vs. Access ........................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2-2 – Cycle of Traffic Congestion .............................................................................................. 6
Figure 3-1 – Hierarchy of Movement in a Functional Circulation System ............................................ 8
Figure 3-2 – Suburban Street Network ................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4-1 – Minimum Unsignalized Intersection Spacing.................................................................. 12
Figure 4-2 – Full Median Opening ....................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4-3 – Directional Median Opening ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 4-4 – HAWK ............................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4-5 – TOUCAN......................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-6 – PELICAN ........................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 5-1 – Left Turn Lane Warrant ................................................................................................... 25
Figure 5-2 – Right Turn Lane Guidelines for Two-Lane Roadway ..................................................... 26
Figure 5-3 – Right Turn Guidelines for Four-Lane Roadways ............................................................ 27
Figure 5-4 – Driveway Location Distances .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 5-5 – Divided Roadway, Aligned Driveway Locations – Median Opening ............................. 30
Figure 5-6 – Divided Roadway, 150’ Offset Driveway Locations – Median Opening ........................ 31
Figure 5-7 – Undivided Roadway, (Major Traffic Generators) ........................................................... 31
Figure 5-8 – Cross and Shared Access ................................................................................................. 32
Figure 5-9 – Local Access Lane ........................................................................................................... 33
Figure 5-10 – Unsignalized Driveway Entry Width ............................................................................. 35
Figure 5-11 – Turning Movement Restrictions .................................................................................... 36
Figure 5-12 – Driveway Throat Length................................................................................................ 37
Figure 5-13 – Minimum Median Openings .......................................................................................... 38
Figure 5-14 – Bus Bay Detail 1 – Major Intersections ......................................................................... 42
Figure 5-15 – Bus Bay Detail 2 – Minor Intersections......................................................................... 43

Page ii

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 – Functional Route Classification .......................................................................................... 9
Table 4-1 – Optimum Spacing of Signalized Intersections .................................................................. 11
Table 4-2 – Minimum Spacing Between Unsignalized Median Openings .......................................... 13
Table 4-3 – Guidelines for Spacing Median Openings ........................................................................ 13
Table 5-1 – Relative Crash Involvement Rates .................................................................................... 24
Table 5-2 – Minimum Curb Return Radius .......................................................................................... 34
Table 5-3 – Unsignalized Driveway Entry Widths .............................................................................. 35
Table 6-1 – Retrofit Techniques – Category A .................................................................................... 56
Table 6-2 – Retrofit Techniques – Category B..................................................................................... 57
Table 6-3 – Retrofit Techniques – Category C..................................................................................... 57
Table 6-4 – Retrofit Techniques – Category D .................................................................................... 58

Page iii

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Access management refers to the regulation of the design, spacing, and operation of
intersections, driveways and median openings to a roadway. Its objectives are to enable
access to land uses while maintaining roadway safety and mobility through controlling access
location, design, spacing and operation. This is particularly important for major roadways
intended to provide efficient service to through-traffic movements.
Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson was prepared from a
compilation of multiple sources. The Guidelines describe the overall concept of access
management, review current practice, and set forth basic policy, planning, and design
guidelines. The Guidelines provide consistent and effective access management policies for
the City of Tucson. The guidelines presented are consistent with those established by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
For purposes of this report, “access” means the direct physical connection of adjoining land
to a roadway via a street or driveway. These guidelines have been adopted as ordinance and
are applicable to all public and private developments within the City of Tucson rights-ofway.

2.0 PRINCIPLES OF ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Fundamental to recognizing the need for access management is to understand that movement
of traffic and direct access to property are in mutual conflict. No facility can move traffic
effectively and also provide unlimited access at the same time. Extreme examples of this
concept are the freeway and the cul-de-sac: freeways move traffic very well with few
opportunities for access, while cul-de-sacs provide unlimited opportunities for access, but
don’t move traffic very well.
Crashes and congestion are frequent outcomes of attempting to simultaneously provide both
mobility and access on the same street. Poor planning and inadequate control of access can
quickly lead to an unnecessarily high number of direct accesses along roadways. The
movements that occur on and off roadways at driveway locations, when those driveways are
too closely spaced, can make it very difficult for through traffic to flow smoothly at desired
speeds and levels of safety.
AASHTO states that “the number of crashes is
disproportionately higher at driveways than at other intersections; thus their design and
location merit special consideration.”1 Additionally, research documented in the 6th Edition
ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook confirms a direct relationship between crash and
driveway frequency, driveway activity, and median access.

1

AASHTO, “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,” 2004

Page 4

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Fewer direct access points, greater separation between driveways, and better driveway design
and location are the basic elements of access management. When these techniques are
implemented uniformly and comprehensively, there is less occasion for through traffic to
slow down and change lanes in order to avoid turning traffic.
Consequently, with good access management, the flow of traffic will be smoother and
average travel times will be shorter. There will also be less potential for crashes. According
to the FHWA, before and after analyses show that those routes with well managed access can
experience 50% fewer crashes2 than comparable facilities with no access controls.
Figure 2-1 shows the relationship between mobility, access, and the functional classification
of streets.

Figure 2-1 – Movement vs. Access3

A “vicious cycle” of traffic congestion found in many areas of the country is shown in
Figure 2-2. An effective access management program ends a cycle of road improvements
followed by increased access, increased congestion, and the need for more road
improvements.

2

Transportation Research Board, “Access Management Manual,” 2004.
Adopted from: NCHRP Report 348 “Access Management Policies and Guidelines for Activity Centers.”
Metro Trans Group, TRB Washington DC, 1992.
3

Page 5

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Figure 2-2 – Cycle of Traffic Congestion4

An effective access management program accomplishes the following:
1) Limits the number of conflict points at driveway locations. Conflict points are
indicators of the potential for crashes. The more conflict points that occur at an
intersection, the higher the potential for crashes. The number of conflict points is
significantly reduced when left turns and cross street through movements are
restricted.
2) Separate conflict areas. Intersections created by streets and driveways represent
basic conflict areas. Adequate spacing between intersections allows drivers to
react to one intersection at a time, and reduces the potential for conflicts.
3) Reduces interference to through traffic. Through traffic often needs to slow
down for vehicles exiting, entering, or turning across the roadway. Providing
turning lanes, designing driveways with appropriate and adequate turning radii,
and restricting turning movements in and out of driveways allows turning traffic
to get out of the way of through traffic.
4) Provides sufficient spacing for at-grade, signalized intersections. Good spacing
of signalized intersections reduces conflict areas and increases the potential for
smooth traffic progression.
5) Provides adequate on-site circulation and storage. The design of good internal
vehicle circulation in parking areas and on local streets reduces the number of
driveways that businesses need for access to the major roadway.

4

Adapted from: Vergil G. Stover and Frank J. Koepke, “Transportation and Land Development, Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 1988.

Page 6

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

3.0 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Access and mobility are competing functions. This recognition is fundamental to the design
of roadway systems that preserve public investments, contribute to traffic safety, reduce fuel
consumption and vehicle emissions, and do not become functionally obsolete. Suitable
functional design of the roadway system also preserves the private investment in residential
and commercial development.
The 2004 AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (“Green Book”)
recognizes that a functionally designed circulation system provides for distinct travel stages,
that each stage should be handled by a separate facility and that “the failure to recognize and
accommodate by suitable design each of the different stages of the movement hierarchy is a
prominent cause of roadway obsolescence.”5 The AASHTO policy also indicates that the
same principles of design should be applied to access drives and comparable street
intersections.
A typical trip on an urban street system can be described as occurring in identifiable steps or
stages as illustrated in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2. These stages can be sorted into a definite
hierarchy with respect to how the competing functions of mobility and access are satisfied.
At the low end of the hierarchy are roadway facilities that provide good access to abutting
properties, but provide limited opportunity for through movement. Vehicles entering or
exiting a roadway typically perform the ingress or egress maneuver at a very low speed,
momentarily blocking through traffic and impeding the movement of traffic on the roadway.
At the high end of the hierarchy are facilities that provide good mobility by limiting and
controlling access to the roadway, thereby reducing conflicts that slow the flow of through
traffic.
A transition occurs each time that a vehicle passes from one roadway to another and should
be accommodated by a facility specifically designed to handle the movement. Even the area
of transition between a driveway and a local street should be considered as an intersection
and be treated accordingly. However, the design of these intersections poses few problems
since speeds and volumes are low. Many urban circulation systems use the entire range of
facilities in the order presented here, but it is not always necessary or desirable that they do
so.
The functional classification system divides streets into three basic types:
arterials,
collectors, and local streets. The function of an arterial is to provide for mobility of through
traffic. Access to an arterial is controlled to reduce interference and facilitate through
movement. Collector streets provide a mix for the functions of mobility and access, and
therefore accomplish neither well. The primary purpose of local streets is to provide direct
access to adjoining property.

5

AASHTO, “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,” 2004

Page 7

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Figure 3-1 – Hierarchy of Movement in a Functional Circulation System 6

Figure 3-2 – Suburban Street Network7

6

Adopted from: “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Chapter 1, Washington DC,
AASHTO, 2004.
7
Adopted from: AASHTO “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,” Exhibit 1-4. Schematic
Illustration of a Portion of a Suburban Street Network (Tucson at 22 nd and Wilmot), 2004.

Page 8

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Each class of roadway has its own geometric, traffic control, and spacing requirements. The
general types of facilities and their characteristics are summarized in Table 3-1. This table
provides a broad guide in setting access spacing standards that are keyed to functional classes
of roadways.
The City of Tucson has defined functional classifications of roadways through the Mayor and
Council approved Major Streets and Routes Plan (MS&R). The MS&R document provides
roadway classifications and the associated cross section and right-of-way requirements and
can be accessed by contacting the Tucson Department of Transportation (TDOT) or Planning
and Development Services Department.
Table 3-1 – Functional Route Classification

Characteristic

Functional Classification
Collector Street

Local Street

traffic movement, land access, collect &
distribute traffic between streets and arterials

land access

not necessarily continuous
½ mile or less

not continuous
as needed

65-80%

5-20%

10-30%

Direct Land Access

limited

limited – less restrictive

local access

Speed Limit

30-55 mph

25 mph

Parking

prohibited

30-40 mph
prohibited, unless approved due to special
conditions

Bicycle Facility

Yes, striped

Primary Function
Continuity
Spacing
Typical % of Surface Street
System Travel Volume Carried

Arterial Street
Through traffic
movement, limited
direct land access
continuous
1-2 miles

Yes, striped

Page 9

permitted
Yes, not
striped

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

4.0 ACCESS SPACING
Access spacing guidelines are keyed to allowable access levels, roadway speeds, and
operating environments. They apply to new land developments and to significant changes in
the size and nature of existing developments. Access to land parcels that do not conform to
the spacing criteria may be necessary when no alternative reasonable access is provided.
However, the basis for these variations should be clearly indicated and approved by a City
representative.
4.1 Signalized Intersections

In order to maintain efficient traffic flow and safety, signalized intersections should be
limited to locations along the city arterial and collector streets where the progressive
movement of traffic will not be significantly impeded. Uniform, or near uniform, spacing of
traffic signals is critical for the progression of traffic in all directions. Failure to gain proper
spacing will result in severe degradation to the system’s operation. Spacing between traffic
signals, pedestrian crossing needs, and left-turn arrows, are dictated by two critical factors to
ensure good progression, 1) traffic signal cycle length, and 2) desired vehicle speed.
The majority of Tucson employs a grid system: arterials are spaced at 1-mile, and collectors
are spaced at ½-mile. Consistent with the Tucson grid street system, traffic signals are to be
spaced at ½ mile (2,640 feet). This spacing enables an operating speed of 40 miles per hour
(mph) and a 90-second traffic signal cycle length that properly serves pedestrians and leftturn arrows. If additional green time is desired for pedestrians and left-turn arrows, a 120second cycle length may be considered; however, this enables an operating speed of
approximately 30 mph. This lower operating speed is often unacceptable to drivers and can
lead to disregard of speed limits and rushing from red light to red light. The optimum
spacing for signalized intersections is detailed in Table 4-1.
As a guideline, traffic signal cycle lengths should be kept as short as possible; cycle lengths
of 150 seconds or more should be avoided. Excessively long cycle lengths result in long
vehicle queues, unreasonable delays, and potential air quality problems. Special split phase
operations should be avoided.
The Mayor and Council may approve deviations to ½-mile spacing of signals as conditions
warrant. If non-standard traffic signal spacing is under consideration, the following actions
should be taken to mitigate the associated problems:
1) The group proposing the installation or retention of the traffic signal shall pay for
its installation.
2) The actual or proposed traffic levels shall meet 1.5 times the volume requirements
published in the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) for traffic signal warrants. Warrants other
than eight-hour volume warrants and crash warrants will be carefully evaluated
before being accepted and approved by Traffic Engineering staff.

Page 10

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

3) In order to mitigate negative effects of non-standard signal spacing, roundabout,
or Florida “T” intersections/operations should be installed if possible. Florida “T”
intersection designs may impact roadway access. A traffic engineering report will
be required to address mitigation to impacted access.
4) Non-standard spaced traffic signals should be designed to operate in a two-phase
mode. Additional phases and protected left-turn arrow movements are to be
avoided whenever possible.
Table 4-1 – Optimum Spacing of Signalized Intersections 8

Cycle
Length
(sec)
60
70
80
90*
100
110
120*
150**

30

35

1320
1540
1760
1980
2200
2420
2640
3300

1540
1800
2050
2310
2570
2830
3080
3850

Operating Speed (mph)
40
45
Distance in feet
1760
1980
2050
2310
2350
2640
2640
2970
2930
3300
3220
3630
3520
3960
4400
4950

50

55

2200
2560
2930
3300
3670
4040
4400
5500

2430
2830
3230
3630
4030
4430
4840
6050

*90 and 120 cycles lengths are the most used cycle lengths for the City of Tucson
** Represents maximum cycle length for actuated signal if all phases are fully used.
This cycle length or greater cycle lengths should be avoided.

4.2 Unsignalized Roadway Intersections

Unsignalized intersections typically consist of an intersection between a collector or arterial
and a local street or high volume driveway. Unsignalized intersections are more common
than signalized intersections and need to be designed to allow for proper spacing for safe
access. The ideal spacing between unsignalized intersections is 600 feet or more. However,
such spacing may be difficult to achieve based on existing roadway conditions and/or site
development needs. To accommodate for such conditions, minimum distances between
unsignalized roadway intersections can be applied. The minimum offset for consecutive
unsignalized roadway intersections on the same or opposite side of an undivided street shall
be 300 feet from adjacent edges of pavement along arterial roadways. Along collector
roadways, the minimum offset shall be 150’. For streets with raised medians, intersections
on opposite sides of the street can be treated separately. In addition to the 150-foot
minimum, spacing, adequate intersection spacing should be provided for any dedicated turn
lane needs. Figure 4-1 illustrates the minimum unsignalized roadway intersection spacing
for an undivided roadway. Driveway locations are addressed in Section 5.4.

8

Source: Stover, Vergil G. “Access Control Issues Related to Urban Arterial Intersections,” Transportation
Research Board, 1993.

Page 11

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Unsignalized roadway intersection spacing guidelines should be applied to both public streets
and private driveways, which are discussed in Section 5.4. The minimum acceptable spacing
is affected by surrounding land uses; spacing between unsignalized intersections may need to
be increased at large developments. Where intersection signalization is likely in the future,
½ mile intersection spacing should govern.

Note: 150’ minimum on collector roadways
Figure 4-1 – Minimum Unsignalized Intersection Spacing

4.3 Median Openings

Median openings are provided at all signalized at-grade intersections, and generally at
unsignalized junctions of arterial and collector streets. They may be provided where they
will have minimum impact on roadway flow.
Minimum desired spacing of unsignalized median openings as functions of speed are given
in Table 4-2. These minimum distances should be limited to retrofit situations. Ideally,
spacing of median openings should be limited to locations that are suitable for future
signalization. Directional median openings, where left-turns into a driveway are allowed, but
left-turns exiting are prohibited, for driveway openings can be spaced so long as sufficient
storage for left-turning vehicles is provided, subject to minimum unsignalized and driveway
spacing requirements (see Figure 4-3).

Page 12

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Table 4-2 – Minimum Spacing Between Unsignalized Median Openings 9

Speed Limit(mph)
30
35
40
45
50
55

Minimum Spacing (feet)
370
460
530
670
780
910

Minimum desired spacing of unsignalized median openings as a function of roadway
functional classification are given in Table 4-3. This spacing will accommodate traffic
signal requirements, storage space needed for left turns, bay tapers, and roadway aesthetic
and landscaping goals.
When evaluating the minimum spacing requirements, the most
conservative requirements as specified in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 shall govern.
Table 4-3 – Guidelines for Spacing Median Openings10

Street Functional
Classification
Arterial
Collector

Spacing of Median Openings (in feet)
Urban
Suburban
Rural
660
660
1320
330
660
1320

Median openings can be subject to closure where traffic volumes warrant signals, but signal
spacing is inappropriate. Median openings should be set far enough back from nearby traffic
signals to avoid possible interference with intersection queues. In all cases, left-turn storage
within the median opening should be designed for the maximum future queue.
All median spacing guidelines are to be considered minimums and are not automatic. The
following will be considered when evaluating a request for a median opening:
1) The City may require a traffic engineering analysis by a professional traffic
engineer before approving any median opening request. Such an analysis should
address the issues stated in 2 through 9, and should be at the sole expense of the
requestor.
2) Directional median openings should be investigated as a first option over a full
median opening. As shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3, directional median openings
reduce the number of conflicts and improve arterial safety.
3) The proposed median opening must be necessary for adequate access to an
abutting property and must improve circulation both on- and off-site.
4) The proposed median opening will not cause a significant problem elsewhere (e.g.
increased traffic in neighborhoods, increased crashes in another location, etc.)
9

Source: Koepke, Frank J., and Stover, Vergil G., 1988.
Adapted from: Koepke, Frank J., and Stover, Vergil G., 1988.

10

Page 13

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

5) Full consideration should be given to adjacent and opposite properties. Median
opening locations for individual developments should be coordinated with other
affected property owners.
6) The location and design of any proposed median opening must meet acceptable
engineering design standards for expected traffic speeds and volumes.
7) The proposed median opening will not interfere with the continuity of traffic flow
at or between intersections.
8) The proposed full median opening will not be at a location where driveways on
opposite sides of the roadway do not align.
9) Emergency vehicle access should be reviewed to provide adequate police and fire
vehicle entry.
10) The group proposing the median opening is responsible to pay for the design and
construction of improvements.
11) The City may require cross access agreements for adjacent developments and
properties if a median opening request is granted.

X = potential conflict
Number of conflicts = 60
Figure 4-2 – Full Median Opening

Page 14

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

X = potential conflict
Number of conflicts = 22
Figure 4-3 – Directional Median Opening

4.4 Alternatives to Standard Signalized Intersections

When traffic volumes exceed the capacity of standard signalized intersections or construction
of a standard signalized intersection is not otherwise desirable or feasible, alternative designs
such as grade-separated, indirect left turn, continuous flow, roundabouts, and Florida Tintersections should be considered. When a developer proposes an alternative intersection
design, the developer will be responsible for funding the project, providing a traffic study,
and documenting public response of the alternate design.
Due to potential geometric and right-of-way requirements associated with alternative
designs, special consideration and coordination with adjacent land owners will be required.
4.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Device Guidelines

Guidelines for the installation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic control devices are set forth in
the MUTCD, published by the Federal Highway Administration. Final approval of all
devices and locations will be by the City of Tucson Department of Transportation.
4.5.1 Marked Crosswalks

Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be
performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control
signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. The engineering study should

Page 15

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

consider the number of lanes, the presence of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized
intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted
or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible
consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other
appropriate factors. Crosswalk markings are normally not used at intersections with
driveways. Refer to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control (MUTCD) for details on
crosswalk marking installation. All proposed crosswalks shall be approved by the City of
Tucson Department of Transportation.
When used, crosswalk markings shall be located so that the curb ramps are within the
extension of the crosswalk markings. Refer to the City of Tucson/Pima County Pavement
Marking Design Manual for details for crosswalk installation.
4.5.2 School Crosswalks

The developer shall consult with City of Tucson Traffic Engineering Division staff for
assistance regarding school crosswalk considerations.

4.5.3 HAWK – High Intensity Activated CrossWalK

The High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) consists of Red-Yellow-Red signal format
for motorists. The signals remain off until a pedestrian activates the system by pressing a
button. First, a FLASHING YELLOW light warns motorists that a pedestrian is present.
The signal then changes to SOLID YELLOW, alerting drivers to prepare to stop. The signal
then turns SOLID RED and shows the pedestrian a “WALK” symbol. The signal then begins
FLASHING RED, and the pedestrian is shown a flashing “DON’T WALK” symbol with a
countdown timer. During the FLASHING RED drivers are to make a full stop to ensure that
the crosswalk is free of pedestrians, and then proceed. In school zones, drivers must wait
until the children and crossing guard are completely out of the crossing before proceeding.
Locations considered for the installation of marked crosswalks with pedestrian actuated
beacon signal lights and signage should generally meet the following criteria:
1) Meet the warrants and design guidelines provided in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices 2009 (or latest edition), Chapter 4F Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons.
2) A traffic engineering analysis with approval from the Director of Transportation
and Mayor and Council.
3) There is no other crossing controlled by a traffic signal, stop sign, or crossing
guard within 600 feet of the proposed location.
Figure 4-4 illustrates the various vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle movements that are made
at a HAWK.

Page 16

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

*Striping Details to be coordinated with the City of Tucson Department of Transportation staff.
Figure 4-4 – HAWK

Page 17

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

4.5.4 TOUCAN – TwO GroUps CAN Cross

The TwO GroUps CAN cross (TOUCAN) system was designed to provide a safe crossing
for two groups, pedestrians and bicyclists. TOUCANs are placed at intersections of major
streets where bicycle and pedestrian crossing activity is heavy. They are also placed along
roadways that are prioritized for non-motorized uses, such as along “Bicycle Boulevards” at
intersections with arterials or major collectors.
At a TOUCAN signal, motorized traffic on the minor street is not allowed to proceed through
the intersection, decreasing the number of cars on neighborhood streets, and enhancing the
neighborhood’s quality of life.
A TOUCAN rests on a green for the major road. A bicyclist or pedestrian activates the
signal by depressing a push button. Bicyclists respond to a bicycle signal and use a special
lane when crossing. Pedestrians get a standard WALK indication and have a separate,
adjacent crosswalk. The system uses a standard signal for motorists.
The TOUCAN crossing is designed specifically to facilitate bicycle access. Locations
considered for the installation of a TOUCAN should generally meet the following criteria:
1) Meet MUTCD warrants for consideration of a traffic signal installation or conduct
a traffic engineering analysis for justification, to be approved by the Director of
Transportation and approved by Mayor and Council.
2) Ability to install barrier islands to prohibit motor vehicle traffic on the minor
street from crossing the street; only right turns are permitted from the minor street
to the major street.
3) Coordinate with emergency services to determine if through movements for
emergency vehicles will be required, and design accordingly.
4) TOUCANs should be used mainly on major bicycle routes and bicycle
boulevards.
Figure 4-5 illustrates the various vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle movements that are made
at a TOUCAN.

Page 18

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

*Striping Details to be coordinated with the City of Tucson Department of Transportation staff.
Figure 4-5 – TOUCAN

Page 19

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

4.5.5 PELICAN – Pedestrian LIght Control ActivatioN

The PEdestrian LIght Control ActivatioN (PELICAN) is placed mid-block on major streets
and provides a safe, two-stage crossing for pedestrians. The PELICAN uses two, standard
Red-Yellow-Green signals. The signals remain green for motorists until a pedestrian
activates them using a push button. When a pedestrian presses the button, the signal turns
YELLOW, then RED, alerting oncoming motorized traffic to stop. A “WALK” symbol
prompts the pedestrian to proceed across half of the road to the median. The pedestrian then
walks a short distance along the median to activate the second push button to cross the
second half of the road. The same process is followed. The pedestrian presses the button,
the traffic signal turns RED and oncoming traffic stops. The pedestrian then proceeds to the
other side of the road. Artwork is sometimes incorporated into the design of PELICANs to
make them easily noticeable. PELICANs minimize the potential for stops, delays, and
crashes. Bicyclists using the PELICAN should yield to pedestrians using the device.
Locations considered for the installation of this combination of devices should generally
meet the following criteria:
1) The location shall have a demonstrated need for a pedestrian crossing through a
traffic analysis.
2) If designed as a school crossing the location of the PELICAN should be on the
the school’s “School Route Plan.”
3) The proposed location is not within 600 feet of another signalized crossing, STOP
sign, or flashing beacon and sign crossing.
Figure 4-6 illustrates the various vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle movements that are made
at a PELICAN.

Page 20

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

*Striping Details to be coordinated with the City of Tucson Department of Transportation staff.
Figure 4-6 – PELICAN

Page 21

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

5.0 DESIGN STANDARDS
5.1 Street Cross Sections

The reader is referred to the City of Tucson Major Streets & Routes Plan for specific cross
sections of roadways.
Cross sections are the combination of the individual design elements that typify the design of
the roadway. Cross section elements include the pavement surface for driving and parking
lanes, curb, bike lanes, alternate mode facilities, sidewalks and additional buffer/landscape
areas.
The design of cross-section elements depends upon the facility’s intended use. Roads with
higher design volumes and speeds require more travel lanes and wider right-of-way than low
volume, low speed roads. Furthermore, arterials should include wider shoulders and
medians, separate turn lanes, shoulders for use by bicycles, elimination of on-street parking
and control of driveway access. For most roadways, an additional buffer area is provided
beyond the curb line. This buffer area accommodates the sidewalk area, landscaping, and
local utilities. Locating the utilities outside the travel way can minimize traffic disruption if
utility repairs or service changes are required.
Typical elements of the roadway cross sections are identified in the following sections.
However, few of the dimensions used in street design have been precisely determined by
research. Instead, the cross sections usually represent a consensus of opinion based upon
engineering judgment and operating experience. Therefore, each of the roadway design
elements can be altered to better accommodate various conditions found in Tucson.
5.1.1 Local Streets

Local streets provide direct access to abutting land uses and accommodate local traffic
movement. Local streets should be designed to encourage slow speeds and relatively low
traffic volumes. The posted speed limit shall be 25 mph. Local streets are not typically
striped. On-street parking is usually permitted and bicycles can be accommodated without a
separate travel lane.
5.1.2 Collectors

Collector streets provide for traffic movement between local streets and arterial streets.
Collector streets also provide access to abutting land uses. Parking is not allowed on
collector streets unless approved by Mayor and Council. Individual driveway openings onto
collectors should be designed to eliminate backing movements onto the street. Curbside
lanes should be wider than 15 feet to provide for bicycle travel. Bicycle lanes shall be
provided on any new collector roadway. They should be striped and have a minimum width
of 5 feet.

Page 22

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

5.1.3 Arterials

Arterial streets provide for major through traffic movement between geographic areas. These
roadways typically have some form of access control that limits the locations of driveways.
A curbed median should be included in the design of all arterial streets where the curb to
curb width exceeds 75 feet. Where traffic volumes create the need for additional capacity,
intersection modifications should be pursued prior to further widening. Additional right-turn
lanes and dual left-turn lanes or traffic signal modifications can be provided in-lieu of
additional travel lanes or roadway widening.
The maximum width of an arterial street should be no more than 6 lanes in the midblock,
except where the additional lanes are designated for buses, bicycles, and high-occupancy
vehicles. Parking is not allowed on arterial streets unless approved by Mayor and Council, or
it is located in the downtown central business district.
5.2 Sight Distance

It is essential to provide sufficient sight distance for vehicles using a driveway. Vehicles
should be able to enter and leave the property safely. Refer to the City of Tucson
Development Standards for Sight Visibility Triangle Requirements. Alternatively, an
engineering analysis may be conducted with the approval from the City of Tucson
Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Division.
5.3 Turning Lanes

Turning lanes for right and left turns at intersections and driveways may be necessary to
improve intersection safety or capacity where speeds, traffic volumes, or turning volumes are
high.
Rear-end crashes can be severe on shared lanes. Research has found (Table 5-1) that crash
rates increase exponentially as the speed differential in the traffic stream increases. As
shown, on an arterial street, a vehicle traveling 35 mph slower than other traffic is 180 times
more likely to become involved in a crash than a vehicle traveling at the same speed as other
traffic.

Page 23

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Table 5-1 – Relative Crash Involvement Rates11

Speed Differential (mph)
0
-10
-20
-30
-35

Relative Crash Potential for:
At-Grade Arterials
Freeways
0-mph Differential
0-mph Differential
1
1
2
3.3
6.5
20
45
67
180
N/A

N/A = not available

Separate turning lanes remove the turning vehicle from through traffic, removing the speed
differential in the main travel lanes, thereby reducing the frequency and severity of rear-end
collisions.
Left-turn lanes increase intersection capacity where left turns would otherwise share the use
of a through lane. Shared use of a through lane dramatically reduces capacity, especially
when opposing traffic is heavy. One left turn per signal cycle delays 40 percent of the
through vehicles in the shared lane; two turns per cycle delays 60 percent.12
Figure 5-1 provides City of Tucson Transportation Department left turn lane warrant criteria.
Alternatives to these criteria shall be supported by a traffic analysis. The minimum turn lane
width is 12 feet unless approved by the Director of Transportation. Figures 5-2 and 5-3
provide right turn lane warrant criteria. Alternatives to these criteria shall be supported by a
traffic analysis.

11
12

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1998.
Source: Transportation Research Board, “Access Management Manual,” 1989.

Page 24

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Figure 5-1 – Left Turn Lane Warrant13

13

Idaho Transportation Department, “Traffic Manual,” 2011; and, Transportation Research Board, NCHRP
Report 348, “Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers.”

Page 25

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Figure 5-2 – Right Turn Lane Guidelines for Two-Lane Roadway14

14

Source: MoDOT. Engineering Policy Guide. Sheet 940.9.8 “Right Turn Lane Guidelines for Two-Lane
Roadways,” 2007.

Page 26

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Note: Existing roadway constraints may restrict the ability or need to install turning lanes. Traffic Engineering may
require a traffic engineering analysis to support alternative recommendations for the installation of turning lanes.

Figure 5-3 – Right Turn Guidelines for Four-Lane Roadways15

5.3.1 Total Turn Lane Length

A separate turning lane consists of a taper plus a full width auxiliary lane. The design of turn
lanes is primarily based on the speed at which drivers turn into the lane, the speed to which
drivers must reduce in order to turn into the driveway, and the required vehicular storage
length. Other special considerations include the volume of trucks that will use the turning
lane and the steepness of an ascending or descending grade.
The Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) and the City of Tucson
Department of Transportation (TDOT) provide design guidelines for minimum
15

Source: MoDOT. Engineering Policy Guide. Sheet 940.9.9 “Right Turn Lane Guidelines for Four-Lane
Roadways.” 2007.

Page 27

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

recommended transitions and storage lengths within the PCDOT/COT Pavement Marking
Design Manual. Refer to the PCDOT/COT Pavement Marking Design Manual for minimum
standards, Chapter 4 for transition and storage lengths.
At intersections with high traffic volumes, high turning movements, large amounts of truck
traffic, steep grades, high speed differentials, and large activity centers, it is recommended
that the minimum distances should not be used and a traffic engineering analysis shall be
provided. Computerized methods of analysis are recommended, such as the latest addition of
the Highway Capacity Software, Trafficware Synchro Software or an equivalent program.
The storage length should be sufficient to store the number of vehicles likely to accumulate
during a critical period. The storage length should be sufficient to avoid the possibility of
turning vehicles blocking the through lanes due to a lack of storage.
At unsignalized intersections, the storage length, exclusive of taper, may be based on the
number of turning vehicles likely to arrive in an average two-minute period in the peak hour.
Storage for at least two passenger cars should be provided; with over 10 percent truck traffic,
storage should be provided for at least one car and one truck.
At signalized intersections, the required storage length is dependent on the signal cycle
length, the signal phasing, and the rate of arrivals and departures of turning vehicles. The
required storage length should be based on 1.5 to 2 times the average number of vehicles that
would store per cycle. This length will be sufficient to serve heavy surges that occur from
time to time. Approved computerized method of analysis can be used to determine queue
lengths. The recommended method of analysis is the use of the latest edition of the Highway
Capacity Software, Trafficware Synchro Software or an equivalent program.
The Director of Transportation or designated staff may grant written permission from the
minimum and maximum guidelines based on site conditions or land use. Conditions that
may impact required turn lane length are:
Right-of-way constraints
Excessive or expensive utility relocations
Physical constraints with adjacent driveways, roadways, and/or bus pullouts

Page 28

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

5.4 Driveway Locations

Design requirements for driveway locations onto arterial and collector roadways in all new
development are as follows:
1) Entrance and exit drives crossing arterials and collectors are limited to two per
300 feet of frontage along any major roadway. The nearest pavement edges
should be spaced at least 80 feet apart (Figure 5-4).
2) A minimum of one hundred and fifty feet, measured at curbline, shall separate the
nearest pavement edge of any ingress or egress driveway and the curbline to any
signalized or major intersection with arterial and collector roadways. (Figure 5-4)
3) On divided arterial and collector roadways, at full median openings, access points
on both sides of the roadway should align (Figure 5-5) or be offset from the
median opening by at least 150 feet (Figure 5-6). If the noted design
requirements for driveway locations cannot be met, then driveway turning
movement restrictions may be imposed. See Section 5.10 for movement
restrictions.
4) On undivided arterial and collector roadways, at the access points on both sides of
the roadway should align, or be offset by at least 300 feet for arterials, and 150
feet for collectors (Figure 5-7). If the noted design requirements for driveway
locations cannot be met, then driveway turning movement restrictions may be
imposed. See Section 5.10 for movement restrictions.
5) There should be no direct residential lot access to arterials. Direct residential lot
access to collectors should be avoided in new roadway development.
6) All new development should promote cross access agreements to limit the number
of driveways crossing arterial and collector roadways. See Figure 5-8 for the
benefits of shared and cross access management.
7) To limit access on major roadways, a local access lane can be incorporated into
the design when multiple existing parcels have direct access to a collector or
arterial roadway (Figure 5-9).
8) Area, neighborhood, and corridor plans and studies may further restrict driveway
locations. For example, the Houghton Area Master Plan limits driveways on
Houghton Rd. to ¼ mile spacing.
9) At locations near major intersections where the property is adjacent to a bus stop,
consideration shall be provided for safe loading and unloading of passengers. See
the Transit Facilities section (Section 5.16) and Bus Bay Details
(Figures 5-14 and 5-15).

Page 29

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Figure 5-4 – Driveway Location Distances

Figure 5-5 – Divided Roadway, Aligned Driveway Locations – Median Opening

Page 30

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Figure 5-6 – Divided Roadway, 150’ Offset Driveway Locations – Median
Opening

Figure 5-7 – Undivided Roadway, (Major Traffic Generators)

5.5

Cross and Shared Access

Cross access is achieved when property owners agree to allow other parcels to cross their
property to access a driveway access point. Shared access is achieved when adjacent
property owners agree to share a single driveway that accesses both adjacent properties.

Page 31

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Cross and shared access reduces the number of driveways, the number of driveway conflict
points along the arterial, and helps traffic move smoothly along the roadway. Figure 5-8
illustrates cross and shared access.
Benefits of cross and shared access include:
Reduces the number of conflict points between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Reduces congestion by maintaining the flow of traffic along the arterial roadway.
Provides more area for landscaping.
Makes the bicycle and pedestrian environment safer.
Business patrons encounter less congestion; thereby experience fewer delays
accessing businesses.

Figure 5-8 – Cross and Shared Access

Page 32

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

5.6

Local Access Lanes

Local access lanes may be used in residential or commercial areas. Local access lanes reduce
the number of driveways on the arterial, and the number of conflict points. Figure 5-9
illustrates how a local access lane can be used to provide multiple access points to individual
parcels (or different users on a single property), while limiting the number of driveways on
the arterial.

Figure 5-9 – Local Access Lane

Local access lanes include the following benefits:
Reduces the number of conflict points between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists
Reduces congestion by maintaining the flow of traffic
Provides more area for landscaping
Makes the bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment safer
Business patrons encounter less congestion, thereby experience fewer delays
accessing businesses
Provides parking lane
This concept is not recommended for new developments.

Page 33

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

5.7

Driveway Curb Radius

The preferred curb radius is dependent on the type of vehicles to be accommodated, the
number of pedestrians crossing the access road, and the operating speed of the accessed
roadway. Table 5-2 presents the minimum curb return radius for connection between two
types of streets.
Table 5-2 – Minimum Curb Return Radius16

Arterial Street
Collector Street
Local Street
Driveway/PAAL

Arterial
Street

Collector
Street

Local
Street

Driveway/
PAAL

30'
25'
25'
25'

25'
25'
25'
25'

25'
25'
18'
18'

25'
25'
18'
18'

Note: Traffic study to allow radii reduction or approval by TDOT

5.8 Unsignalized Driveway Entry Width

The entry width is the width needed at the driveway throat to accommodate the path of the
turning design vehicle. Design vehicle requirements should be based on land use. Most
locations will likely use passenger vehicles as the design vehicle when determining driveway
entry widths; land uses with high truck volumes will need to use a truck as the design
vehicle. The curb return radii given in Table 5-2 represent the minimums developed for
commonly used design vehicles turning into a driveway from the right-most lane. The entry
width will differ from the driveway’s overall width, depending on how the driveway is
expected to operate. Driveway entries should be placed outside of steep slopes, no access
easements, or restricted utility easements.
All curb cuts, curb returns, curb radii, and curb depressions should be located in accordance
with the City of Tucson Code, Chapter 25 (see guidelines in Table 5-3 and illustrated in
Figure 5-10). For example, the presence of utility poles, catch basins, steep slopes on a
property, abnormally high bicycle and/or pedestrian volumes can be cause for an exception.
The existing design and land use of the abutting property may also support a change from the
guidelines. The exception, however, cannot be against the public interest, safety,
convenience or general welfare.

16

Source: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 3-01.1 Figure 6.

Page 34

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Table 5-3 – Unsignalized Driveway Entry Widths17

Residential Districts

Business Districts

Industrial Districts

10' / 20'

35' max

35' max

30'

35' max

35' max

n/a

30'

30'

Driveway width
(min./max.)
Max. driveway width
for two adjoining
properties (shared
access)
Max. driveway width
at the property line

Note: The provisions established for curb cuts and driveways for business zoned district shall prevail in all industrial zoned districts for
properties fronting on a through street, as defined in the City of Tucson Code, or on a major street as shown on the latest MS&R Plan on file
with the Director of Transportation or designated staff.

Figure 5-10 – Unsignalized Driveway Entry Width

5.9 Driveway Profiles

The slope of a driveway can dramatically influence its operation. Usage by large vehicles
can have a tremendous effect on operations if slopes are severe. The profile, or grade, of a
driveway should be designed to provide a comfortable and safe transition for those using the
facility, and to accommodate the storm water drainage system and reduce erosion or not
impact erosion control, of the roadway. Driveways should also be designed in compliance
with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines.
5.10 Driveway Turning Movement Restrictions

Where full-access will impact the safety along the adjacent roadway, the traffic engineering
staff may require turning restrictions at driveways. The restriction may be for left-turn
movements in or out of the driveway. Turning restrictions may be imposed for driveways
that are too close to signalized intersections, or where existing driveways or roadway
characteristics may increase accident potential or at locations with a history of high accident
rates. Figure 5-11 provides examples of potential restrictions to turning movements.
17

Source: Tucson City Code, Section 25-38 to 25-40

Page 35

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Figure 5-11 – Turning Movement Restrictions

5.11 Driveway Throat Length

The driveway throat should be of sufficient length to enable the intersection of the driveway
and abutting roadway and the on-site circulation to function without interference with each
other. Drivers entering the site should be able to clear the intersection of the roadway and the
driveway before encountering any on-site intersections that are part of the redevelopment
circulation. Inadequate throat length results in poor access circulation in the vicinity of the
access drive. This produces congestion and high crash rates on the abutting streets as well as
on site. Pedestrian/vehicular conflicts may also result from confusion caused by the complex
pattern of over-lapping conflict areas.
The exit side of an access connection should be designed to enable traffic leaving the site to
do so efficiently. Stop-controlled connections should be of sufficient length to store three
passenger cars (one passenger car = 20 feet). Figure 5-12 illustrates the recommended
practices for designing driveway throat lengths.

Page 36

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Figure 5-12 – Driveway Throat Length

5.12 Truck Loading Area

Truck loading areas should be designed to minimize conflict with on-site traffic and
circulation. Drop-off/loading areas should not be located where they will have an effect on
traffic operations on the adjoining roadway.
5.13 Median Design

On median-divided roadways, left-turn ingress or egress to a site requires a median opening.
Median design elements include the median width, the spacing of median openings (see
Section 4.3), and the geometrics of median noses at openings.
Median widths ranging from 6 to 20 feet are desirable for providing separate left-turn lanes.
The design of the median nose can vary from semicircular, usually for medians in the 4-foot
to 10-foot range, to bullet nose design, for wider medians and for intersections that will
accommodate semi-trailer trucks.
The bullet nose is formed by two symmetrical portions of control radius arcs that are
terminated by a median nose radius that is normally one-fifth the width of the median (e.g., a

Page 37

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

bullet nose design for a median opening in a 20-foot-wide median would have a small nose
radius of 4 feet that could connect two 50-foot radii).
The large radii should closely fit the path of the inner rear wheel of the selected design
vehicle. The advantages are that the driver of the left-turning vehicle, especially a truck, has
a better guide for the maneuver. The median opening can be kept to a minimum, and vehicle
encroachment is minimized. Figure 5-13 indicates the various elements of a median opening
design.

Figure 5-13 – Minimum Median Openings18

18

Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, “A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets – 4th Edition,” 2001.

Page 38

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

5.14 Pedestrian Facilities

19

Pedestrian facility improvements on major roadway projects should utilize all applicable City
of Tucson Development Standards, Pima County/City of Tucson Standard Specifications and
Details, and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Standards, and should be
compliant with the transportation and public accommodation provisions of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
All major roadway projects should include sidewalks on both sides of the improved roadway
section. When adequate right-of-way is available, consideration should be given to providing
sidewalks and landscape areas between the sidewalk and the roadway of greater width than
minimum Development Standard specifications. The path of travel along sidewalks should
generally be straight without unnecessary curving or offsets. Consideration should be given
to extending sidewalks to local and regional activity centers up to one-quarter mile beyond
the project limit, in order to create a convenient, safe, and attractive pedestrian network.
Consideration should be given to the utilization of alternative paving materials and designs,
such as permeable concrete, unit pavers, scored or sandblasted concrete patterns, and the
integration of public art in paving that enhance the overall aesthetic value of the project,
contribute to the effectiveness of rainwater harvesting elements, and complement existing
and planned future urban design character. Pedestrian access within the public right-of-way
should also take into consideration the guidelines and requirements for on-site pedestrian
improvements that exist within city codes, area and neighborhood plans, and other land use
policy documents that shape development adjacent to the road. Installation of crosswalks
across streets and driveways requires approval from the Traffic Engineering Division
5.15 Bicycle Facilities

The City of Tucson desires to provide facilities and infrastructure that support bicycling as a
safe and reliable mode of transportation. The City of Tucson frames the development of the
City’s bikeway network around five types of bicycle facilities:
Bicycle Route – lower volume streets with a maximum speed limit of 30 mph, with
“Bike Route” signs.
Bicycle Route with Striped Shoulder – on major streets with speed limits 25 mph or
more. Striped shoulder consists of a 5-foot-wide paved shoulder with a white edge
line.
Shared-use Path – a paved pathway, 10-foot to 12-foot-wide, physically separated
from the street. Shared-use paths are shared with pedestrians and other non-motorized
users, and occasionally equestrians. These are suitable for slower speeds. Shareduse-Paths shall be designed in accordance with the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Development of Bicycle
Facilities. Special consideration should be given to address safety issues where shared
use paths are located adjacent to roadways.

19

Source: City of Tucson Roadway Development Policies, 1998.

Page 39

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Residential Streets – Selected local streets that have low traffic volumes, and a
maximum speed limit of 25 mph. Bicycles and vehicles share the roadway.
Bicycle boulevards – Bicycle boulevards are low-volume and low-speed streets that
have been optimized for bicycle travel through treatments such as traffic calming and
traffic reduction, signage and pavement markings, and intersection crossing
treatments. The improvements prioritize bicycle travel on the streets, and lead to an
attractive, convenient, and comfortable bicycling environment. These treatments
allow through movements for cyclists while discouraging similar through trips by
non-local motorized traffic. Motor vehicle access to properties along the route is
maintained. Bicycle boulevards are designed to offer the advantages of cycling on
shared roadways, but allow the bicyclist to experience lower traffic volumes and
lower traffic speeds.
Architects and developers should consider these five types of bicycle facilities throughout the
development planning and design process.
The City of Tucson requires that all major roadway projects be designed with a minimum 5foot-wide or preferred 6-foot-wide bicycle lanes. Additionally, 6-foot-wide bicycle lanes are
required on roadways with speeds at or exceeding 40 miles per hour. Bicycle facility
improvements on major roadway projects should utilize all appropriate AASHTO design
guidelines, MUTCD, City of Tucson Development Standards, and the City of Tucson
Specifications and Details.
All major roadway projects involving the reconstruction of intersections should provide for
bicycle lanes with striped shoulders or additional outside vehicle lane width for bicycle lanes
as part of the intersection improvement. Bicycle-sensitive actuated signal detection or video
camera detection should be provided so that the bicyclist can actuate the traffic signal.
All new development should provide safe bicycle access to and from their facility.
Development which requires new turn lanes shall maintain or install new bike lanes.
5.16 Transit Facilities

In order to provide convenient access to public transit, bus stops should be placed every onequarter mile on major roadway projects located along existing local transit routes, and every
one-half mile to one mile along express or limited routes. Additional stops may be
considered to serve major trip generators. Unless otherwise warranted by overriding safety
concerns or passenger convenience issues, bus stops should be located on the far side of the
intersection.
Bus shelters should be provided at all bus stops located along major roadways to provide for
passenger comfort and safety.
Major roadway or large scale development projects should include bus pullouts at high
activity bus stops when warranted by peak hour traffic, peak hour bus frequency, passenger
safety concerns, and when adequate right-of-way is available. Bus pullouts should be located

Page 40

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

on the far side of the intersection in order to utilize signal protection for re-entry into the
stream of traffic. Bus pullouts should be carefully planned and designed to minimize transit
vehicle delay in re-entering the stream of traffic. Bus pullouts should include shelters and
other passenger amenities to provide for customer safety and convenience and should be
designed to not conflict with driveway access.
For the design of a bus bay, it is recommended that a minimum 6:1 bay taper be used to
provide a 12-foot minimum width bus bay. The bus bays should provide for 100 feet of
storage length, unless it is a layover location, and a 4:1 exit taper. Figures 5-14 and 5-15
provide the bus bay details for two types of design.

Page 41

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Figure 5-14 – Bus Bay Detail 1 – Major Intersections

Page 42

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Figure 5-15 – Bus Bay Detail 2 – Minor Intersections

Page 43

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

6.0 METHODS OF APPLICATION
6.1 Traffic Impact Analysis

The City may request that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) be prepared for proposed
developments consistent with its policies. A detailed description of the methodology and
necessary data is presented in Section 6.3.2.
6.2 Variations

Where the City of Tucson finds extraordinary hardships or practical difficulties resulting
from strict compliance with approved requirements, the City may approve variations to the
requirements, provided that safety standards are met, so that the public interest is served.
The City may require that a TIA or other information be submitted when reviewing a request
for a variation. Variations may be necessary for exceptions to turning restrictions or spacing
standards where it can be demonstrated that no other reasonable options are available.
A petition for any variation should be submitted in writing to the City by the developer or by
the developer’s traffic engineer. The developer must prove that the variation will not be
contrary to the public interest and that unavoidable practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship will result if not granted. The developer should establish and substantiate that the
variation conforms to the City’s requirements and standards.
Care should be taken in issuing variations. No variation should be granted unless it is found
that the following relevant requirements and conditions are satisfied. The City may grant
variations whenever it is determined that all of the following criteria have been met:
1) The granting of the variation should be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the regulations and should not result in undue delay or congestion or be
detrimental to the safety of the public using the roadway.
2) There should be proof of unique or existing special circumstances or conditions
where strict application of the provisions would deprive the developer of
reasonable access. Circumstances that would allow reasonable access to a road or
street other than a primary roadway, circumstances where indirect or restricted
access can be obtained, or circumstances where engineering or construction
solutions can be applied to mitigate the condition should not be considered unique
or special.
3) There should be proof of the need for the access and a clear documentation of the
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The difficulty or hardship must
result from strict application of the provision, and it should be suffered directly
and solely by the owner or developer of the property in question.
The City shall render a decision in writing to the developer. Materials documenting the
variation are maintained in the City’s permit files.

Page 44

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

6.3 Site Design

This sub-section sets forth criteria for access control and traffic impact analyses, as they
apply to individual developments.
6.3.1 Access Control

Typical access control requirements for arterials and collectors are provided as follows:
1) No driveway access to an arterial street should be allowed for any residential lot.
Driveway access to collectors from residential lots should be discouraged and
approved on a case-by-case evaluation.
2) No driveway access should be allowed within 150 feet of the nearest curb line of
a signalized or major intersection. See Section for 5.0 for specific design criteria.
3) Driveways giving direct access may be denied if alternate access is available.
4) When necessary for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, access points may
be required to be designed for right turns in and out only.
5) In most cases driveways will be treated with curb returns along arterial and
collector roadways (see Table 5-2).
6.3.2 Traffic Impact Analysis

A TIA is a specialized study of the impacts that a certain type and size of development will
have on the surrounding transportation system. A TIA is essential for many access
management decisions, such as spacing of driveways, traffic control devices, and traffic
safety issues. It is specifically concerned with the generation, distribution, and assignment of
traffic to and from new development. A TIA should also be used as part of the site planning
process, not merely justification of the site plan. The purpose of this sub-section is to
establish uniform guidelines for when a TIA is required and how the study is to be
conducted.
6.3.2.1 Requirements A complete TIA should be performed if any of the
following situations are proposed:
1) All new developments or additions to existing developments, which
are expected to generate more than 100 new peak-hour vehicle trips
(total in and out vehicular movements). The peak-hour will be
determined by the City’s representative.
2) In some cases, a development that generates less than 100 new peak
hour trips may require a TIA or a Traffic Statement, if it affects local
“problem” areas. These would include high crash locations, currently
congested areas, or areas of critical local concern. These cases will be
based on the City representative’s judgment.
3) All applications for rezoning or special exception (e.g. big box).
4) All applications for annexation.

Page 45

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

5) Any change in the land use or density that will change the site traffic
generation by more than 15 percent, where at least 100 new peak-hour
trips are involved.
6) Any change in the land use that will cause the directional distribution
of site traffic to change by more than 20 percent.
7) When the original TIA is more than 2 years old, access decisions are
still outstanding, and changes in development have occurred in the site
environs.
8) When development agreements are necessary to determine “fair share”
contributions to major roadway improvements.
9) Parking in areas of minimum requirements is proposed.
The specific analysis requirements, and level of detail, are determined by the
following requirements.
CATEGORY I TIA -- Developments which generate from 100 up
to 500 peak hour trips. The study horizon should be limited to the
opening year of the development. The minimum study area should
include site access drives and adjacent signalized intersections
and/or major unsignalized street intersections.
CATEGORY II TIA -- Developments that generate from 500 up
to 1,000-peak hour trips. The study horizon should include both
the opening year of the development and five years after opening.
The minimum study area should include the site access drives and
all signalized intersections and/or major unsignalized street
intersections within one-half mile of the development.
CATEGORY III TIA -- Developments that generate 1,000 or
more peak hour trips. The study horizon should include the
opening year of the development, five years after opening and ten
years after opening. The minimum study area should include the
site access drives and all signalized intersections and/or major
unsignalized street intersections within one mile of the
development.
6.3.2.2 Qualifications for Preparing Traffic Impact Analysis Documents.
The TIA should be conducted and prepared under the direction of a registered
professional engineer. The subject engineer should have special training and
experience in traffic engineering.

Page 46

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

6.3.2.3 Analysis Approach and Methods. The traffic study approach and
methods should be guided by the following criteria.
6.3.2.3.1 STUDY AREA.
The minimum study area should be
determined by project type and size in accordance with the criteria
previously outlined. The extent of the study area may be either enlarged,
or decreased, depending on special conditions as determined by the
City’s representative.
6.3.2.3.2 STUDY HORIZON YEARS. The study horizon years should
be determined by project type and size, in accordance with the criteria
previously outlined.
6.3.2.3.3 ANALYSIS TIME PERIOD.
Both the morning and
afternoon weekday peak hours should be analyzed, unless the proposed
project is expected to generate no trips, or a very low number of trips,
during either the morning or evening peak periods. If this is the case, the
requirement to analyze one or both of these periods may be waived by the
City’s representative.
Where the peak traffic hour in the study area occurs during a different
time period than the normal morning or afternoon peak travel periods (for
example mid-day), or occurs on a weekend, or if the proposed project has
unusual peaking characteristics, these additional peak hours should also
be analyzed.
6.3.2.3.4 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENTS. When directed by the City’s
representative, the traffic volumes for the analysis hours should be
adjusted for the peak season, in cases where seasonal traffic data is
available.
6.3.2.3.5 DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS. All data should
be collected in accordance with the latest edition of the ITE Manual of
Traffic Engineering Studies, or as directed by the City of Tucson’s
Traffic Engineer.
6.3.2.3.5.1 Traffic volumes. Manual turning movement counts
should be obtained for all existing cross-street intersections to be
analyzed during the morning and afternoon peak periods. Turning
movement counts may be required during other periods as directed
by the City’s representative.
6.3.2.3.5.2 Daily traffic volumes. The current and projected daily
traffic volumes should be presented in the report. If available, daily

Page 47

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

count data from the City of Tucson, Pima County, or the Pima
Association of Governments (PAG) may be used. Where daily
count data is not available, mechanical counts will be required at
locations agreed upon by the City’s representative.
6.3.2.3.5.3 Crash data. Traffic crash data should be obtained for
the most current three-year period available.
6.3.2.3.5.4 Roadway and intersection geometrics. Roadway
geometric information should be obtained. This includes, but is not
limited to, roadway width, number of lanes, turning lanes, vertical
grade, and location of nearby driveways, pedestrian facilities, and
lane configuration at intersections.
6.3.2.3.5.5 Traffic control devices.
traffic controls should be identified.

The location and type of

6.3.2.3.5.6 Bicycle and pedestrian volumes. When directed by
the City of Tucson’s traffic engineering staff, bicycle and pedestrian
volumes should be collected.
6.3.2.3.6 TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS. Future traffic volumes
should be estimated using information from transportation models, or
applying an annual growth rate to the base-line traffic volumes. The
future traffic volumes should be representative of the horizon year for
project development. If the annual growth rate method is used, the traffic
engineering staff must give prior approval to the growth rate.
In addition, any nearby proposed "on-line" development projects should
be taken into consideration when forecasting future traffic volumes. The
increase in traffic from proposed "on-line" projects should be compared
to the increase in traffic by applying an annual growth rate. This
information should be provided by the traffic engineering staff
If modeling information is unavailable, the greatest traffic increase from
either the "on-line" developments, the application of an annual growth
rate, or a combination of an annual growth rate and "on-line"
developments, should be used to forecast the future traffic volumes.
6.3.2.3.7 TRIP GENERATION. The latest edition of Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook should be
used for selecting trip generation rates. Other rates may be used with the
approval of the traffic engineering staff in cases where the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook does not include trip rates for a specific land use

Page 48

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

category, or includes only limited data, or where local trip rates have
been shown to differ from the ITE rates.
Site traffic should be generated for daily, AM, and PM peak hour
periods. Adjustments made for "passer-by" and "mixed-use" traffic
volumes should follow the methodology outlined in the latest edition of
the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. A "passer-by" traffic volume
discount for commercial centers should not exceed twenty five percent
unless approved by the City's representative.
A trip generation table should be prepared showing proposed land use,
trip rates, and vehicle trips for daily and peak hour periods and
appropriate traffic volume adjustments, if applicable.
6.3.2.3.8 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT. Projected
trips should be distributed and added to the projected non-site traffic on
the roadways and intersections under study. The specific assumptions
and data sources used in deriving trip distribution and assignment should
be documented in the report and approved by the City’s representative.
Category III TIA’s may require the use of a travel demand model based
on direction from the City’s representative.
The site-generated traffic should be assigned to the street network in the
study area based on the approved trip distribution percentages. The site
traffic should be combined with the forecasted traffic volumes to show
the total traffic conditions estimated at development completion. A
figure will be required showing daily and peak period turning movement
volumes for each traffic study intersection. In addition, a figure should
be prepared showing the base-line volumes with site-generated traffic
added to the street network. This figure will represent site specific traffic
impacts to existing conditions.
6.3.2.3.9 CAPACITY ANALYSIS. Level of service (LOS) should be
computed for signalized and unsignalized intersections in accordance
with the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. The intersection
LOS should be calculated for each of the following conditions (if
applicable):
1) Existing peak hour traffic volumes (figure required).
2) Existing peak hour traffic volumes including site-generated
traffic (figure required).
3) Future traffic volumes not including site traffic (figure
required).
4) Future traffic volumes including site traffic (figure required).

Page 49

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

5) LOS results for each traffic volume scenario (table required).
The LOS table should include LOS results for AM and PM peak periods
if applicable. The table should show LOS conditions with corresponding
vehicle delays for signalized intersections, and LOS conditions for the
critical movements at unsignalized intersections.
For signalized
intersections, the LOS conditions and average vehicle delay should be
provided for each approach and the intersection as a whole.
Unless otherwise directed by the City’s representative, the capacity
analysis for existing signalized intersections should be conducted using
the Highway Capacity Manual’s Operational Method for each study
horizon year. When directed by the City’s representative, the capacity
analysis should be conducted using the Planning Analysis Method.
When the operational capacity analysis method is used for existing
signalized intersections, it should include existing phasing, timing, splits,
and cycle lengths during the peak hour periods when available from the
City’s representative.
For unsignalized intersections,
methodology should be used.

the

Highway

Capacity

Manual

If the new development is scheduled to be completed in phases, the TIA
will, if directed by the City’s representative, include a LOS analysis for
each separate development phase in addition to the TIA for each horizon
year. The incremental increases in site traffic from each phase should be
included in the LOS analysis for each preceding year of development
completion. A figure will be required for each horizon year of phased
development.
6.3.2.3.10 QUEUE ANALYSIS.
If directed by the City’s
representative, a queue analysis should be completed using the methods
outlined in Section 5.3.2.1 to determine appropriate storage lengths for
right turn and left turn lanes into and out of the site.
6.3.2.3.11 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS. A traffic
signal warrant study should be conducted if directed by the City’s
representative. The analysis will be required for each horizon year.
Traffic signal warrant studies should be conducted by a method preapproved by the City’s representative.
6.3.2.3.12 CRASH ANALYSIS.
If directed by the City’s
representative, an analysis of three-year crash data should be conducted

Page 50

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

to determine the level of safety of the study area and any possible
mitigation efforts.
6.3.2.3.13 SPEED ANALYSIS. Vehicle speed is used to estimate safe
stopping and cross corner sight distances. In general, the posted speed
limit is representative of the 85th percentile speed and may be used to
calculate safe stopping and cross corner sight distances. If directed by
the City’s representative, speed counts should be taken in the study area.
6.3.2.3.14 TRAFFIC SIMULATION. For a major development, a
simulation using SYNCHRO or other approved software should be done
to show existing traffic flows and future traffic flows if directed by the
City’s representative.
6.3.2.3.15 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. The roadways and
intersections within the study area should be analyzed, with and without
the proposed development to identify any projected impacts in regard to
level of service and safety.
Where the roadway will not operate at Level of Service D or better with
the development, the traffic impact of the development on the roadways
and intersections within the study area shall be mitigated to Level of
Service D.
6.3.2.3.16 INTER-AGENCY COORDINATION.
When a new
development falls within the boundaries of more than one government
agency jurisdiction, the TIA should be distributed as an informational
report to all affected agencies. The agency with governing powers over
the development site will have final approval of the TIA.
6.3.2.4 Report Format. This sub-section provides the format requirements for
the general text arrangement of a TIA. Deviations from this format must
receive prior approval of the City’s representative.
6.3.2.4.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.3.2.4.2 TABLE OF FIGURES
6.3.2.4.3 LIST OF TABLES
6.3.2.4.4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Report and Study Objectives
Site Location and Study Area
Development Description
Principal Findings

Page 51

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Conclusions
6.3.2.4.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Location
Land Use and Intensity
Proposed Development Details
Site Plan (readable version should be provided)
Access Geometrics
Development Phasing and Timing
6.3.2.4.6 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Study Area
Roadway System
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
Transit
Sight Distance
Existing Land Use
6.3.2.4.7 EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA
Traffic Counts
Pedestrian Counts (if necessary)
Bicycle Counts (if necessary)
Times Collected
Locations
Types - Daily, Morning, and Afternoon Peak Periods
(two hours minimum, and others as required)
6.3.2.4.8 TRIP GENERATION
Trip Generation
Pass-by Traffic (if applicable)
6.3.2.4.9 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Trip Distribution
Trip Assignment

Page 52

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

6.3.2.4.10 ACCESS
Site Access
Driveways
6.3.2.4.11 CRASH ANALYSIS
Analysis Years
Types of Crashes
DUI
Injury
Non-injury
Fatalities
6.3.2.4.12 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Level of Service
Morning Peak Hour, Afternoon Peak Hour
(And others as required)
6.3.2.4.13 FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS WITHOUT
PROJECT
Projections of non-site traffic (Methodology for projections
should receive prior approval of City’s representative)
Roadway Improvements
Improvements Programmed to Accommodate Non-site
Traffic
Additional Alternative Improvements to Accommodate
Site Traffic
Level of Service Analysis without Project (for each horizon
year including any programmed improvements)
6.3.2.4.14 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Warrant Analysis should be performed for each horizon year
with and without project (Methodology for analysis should
receive prior approval of City’s representative)

Page 53

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

6.3.2.4.15 FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS WITH PROJECT
Level of Service Analysis with Project (for each horizon year,
including any programmed improvements)
6.3.2.4.16 SUGGESTED TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS
Pedestrian/Bicycle Considerations
Traffic Control Needs
Intersection Channelization Mitigation
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation
6.3.2.4.17 TURN LANE ANALYSIS
Turn lane need
Turn lane storage lengths
6.3.2.4.18 CONCLUSION
Trips Generated
Trip Impacts
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Transit
Recommendations
Other
6.3.2.4.19 APPENDICIES
Traffic Volume Counts
Capacity Analyses Worksheets
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Crash Data and Summaries
Miscellaneous Addendum
6.4 Existing Problem Areas

Introducing a “retrofit” program of access control to an existing roadway is often difficult.
Land for needed improvements is often unavailable, making certain access management
techniques impossible to implement and requiring the use of minimum rather than desirable
standards. Rights of property access should be respected. Social and political pressures will
emerge from abutting property owners who perceive that their access will be unduly
restricted and their businesses hurt. The needed cooperation of proximate, sometimes
competitive, developments in rationalizing on-site access and driveway locations may be
difficult to achieve, as is a comparison of the cost of economic hardship to an individual to
the benefits accruing to the general public. Accordingly, the legal, social, and political
aspects of access management are particularly relevant in retrofit situations and should be
thoroughly understood by public agencies and private groups responsible for implementing
access control programs for retrofit projects.

Page 54

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

The general reasons underlying retrofit actions include the following:
1) Increased congestion and crashes along a given section of road that are attributed
to random or inadequate access;
2) Major construction or design plans for a road that make access management and
control essential;
3) Street expansions or improvements that make it practical to reorient access to a
cross street and remove (or reduce) arterial access; and
4) Coordinating driveways, on one side of a street, with those planned by a
development on the other side.
6.4.1 Types of Action

Most retrofit actions involve the application of accepted traffic engineering techniques that
limit the number of conflict points, separate basic conflict areas, limit speed adjustment
problems, and remove turning vehicles from the through travel lanes. Tables 6-1 through 64 present the various access management techniques that achieve each of these objectives
and mainly apply to retrofit situations.

Page 55

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Table 6-1 – Retrofit Techniques – Category A20

No.
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20

20

CATEGORY A – Limit Number of Conflict Points
Description
Install median barrier with no direct left-turn access
Install raised median divider with left-turn deceleration lanes
Install one-way operations on the roadway
Install traffic signal at high-volume driveways
Channelize median openings to prevent left-turn ingress and/or egress maneuvers
Widen right through lane to limit right-turn encroachment onto the adjacent lane to the
left
Install channelizing islands to prevent left-turn deceleration lane vehicles from returning
to the through lanes
Install physical barrier to prevent uncontrolled access along property frontages
Install median channelization to control the merge of left-turn egress vehicles
Offset opposing driveways
Locate driveway opposite a three-leg intersection or driveway and install traffic signals
where warranted
Install two one-way driveways in lieu of one two-way driveway
Install two two-way driveways with limited turns in lieu of one standard two-way
driveway
Install two one-way driveways in lieu of two two-way driveways
Install two two-way driveways with limited turns in lieu of two standard two-way
driveways
Install driveway channelizing island to prevent left-turn maneuvers
Install driveway channelizing island to prevent driveway encroachment conflicts
Install channelizing island to prevent right-turn deceleration lane vehicles from returning
to the through lanes
Install channelizing island to control the merge area of right-turn egress vehicles
Regulate the maximum width of driveways

Adapted from: Federal Highway Administration, 1982.

Page 56

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Table 6-2 – Retrofit Techniques – Category B21

No.
B-1*
B-2
B-3
B-4*
B-5*
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-11*
B-12

CATEGORY B – Separate Basic Conflict Areas
Description
Regulate minimum spacing of driveways
Regulate minimum corner clearance
Regulate minimum property clearance
Optimize driveway spacing in the permit authorization stage
Regulate maximum number of driveways per property frontage
Consolidate access for adjacent properties
Require roadway damages for extra driveways
Purchase abutting properties
Deny access to small frontage
Consolidate existing access whenever separate parcels are assembled under one purpose,
plan, entity, or usage
Designate the number of driveways regardless of future subdivision of that property
Require access on collector street (when available) in lieu of additional driveway on
arterial

* = not directly applicable for retrofit
Table 6-3 – Retrofit Techniques – Category C22

No.
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6*
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-11
C-12
C-13
C-14

CATEGORY C – Limit Speed-Adjustment Problems
Description
Install traffic signals to slow roadway speeds and meter traffic for larger gaps
Restrict parking on the roadway next to driveways to increase driveway turning speeds
Install visual cues of the driveway
Improve driveway sight distance
Regulate minimum sight distance
Optimize sight distance in the permit authorization stage
Increase the effective approach width of the driveway (horizontal geometrics)
Improve the driveway profile (vertical geometrics)
Require driveway paving
Regulate driveway construction (performance bond) and maintenance
Install right-turn acceleration lane
Install channelizing islands to prevent driveway vehicles from backing onto the arterial
Install channelizing islands to move ingress merge point laterally away from the arterial
Move sidewalk-driveway crossing laterally away from the arterial.

* = not directly applicable for retrofit

21
22

Adapted from: Federal Highway Administration, 1982.
Adapted from: Federal Highway Administration, 1982.

Page 57

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

Table 6-4 – Retrofit Techniques – Category D23

No.
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11*
D-12*
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-17
D-18
D-19
D-20

CATEGORY D – Remove Turning Vehicles from the Through Lanes
Description
Install two-way left-turn lane
Install continuous left-turn lane
Install alternating left-turn lane
Install isolated median and deceleration lane to shadow and store left-turning vehicles
Install left-turn deceleration lane in lieu of right-angle crossover
Install median storage for left-turn egress vehicles
Increase storage capacity of existing left-turn deceleration lane
Increase the turning speed of right-angle median crossovers by increasing the effective
approach width
Install continuous right-turn lane
Construct a local service road
Construct a bypass road
Reroute through traffic
Install supplementary one-way right-turn driveways to divided roadway (non-capacity
warrant)
Install supplementary access on collector street when available (non-capacity warrant)
Install additional driveway when total driveway demand exceeds capacity
Install right-turn deceleration lane
Install additional exit lane on driveway
Encourage connections between adjacent properties (even when each has arterial access)
Require two-way driveway operation where internal circulation is not available
Require adequate internal design and circulation plan

* = not directly applicable for retrofit

23

Adapted from: Federal Highway Administration, 1982.

Page 58

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

7.0 GUIDELINE REFERENCES
References to standard engineering documents mentioned throughout the text refer to the
latest publication or edition of the work.

The following documents were used in developing the City of Tucson Transportation Access
Management Guidelines:
American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO), Roadside Design Guide.
Washington, DC: 1973.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO “Green
Book”), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC:
2001 and 2004.
American Public Works Association (Southern Utah Chapter), Traffic Standards. St.
George, UT: 1996.
City of Chandler, Street Design and Access Control, Technical Design Manual #4. Chandler,
AZ: January 2002.
City of Glendale, Design Guidelines for Site Development and Infrastructure Construction.
Glendale, AZ: 1997.
City of Tucson, Street Development Standard 3-01.
City of Tucson, Tucson City Code, Section 25-38 to 25-40.
City of Tucson Department of Transportation, Roadway Development Policies, Update to
Ordinance 6593. Tucson, AZ: April 1998.
City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Department, Major Streets & Routes
Plan. Tucson, AZ: October 1996
Federal Highway Administration, Access Management, Location and Design. National
Highway Institute Course No. 15255, June 1998.
Flora, John W., and Keitt, Kenneth M., Access Management for Streets and Highways.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, FHWA IP-82-3, June 1982.
Idaho Transportation Department, Traffic Manual. 2011.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Traffic Engineering Handbook – 6th Edition,
Washington, DC: 1999.
Koepke, Frank J., and Levinson, H.S., Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 348, 1992.
Koepke, Frank J., and Stover, Vergil G., Transportation and Land Development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988.

Page 59

Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson

MoDOT. Engineering Policy Guide. Sheet 940.9.9 Right Turn Lane Guidelines for FourLane Roadways. 2007.
Pima County Department of Transportation and the City of Tucson Department of
Transportation. Pavement Marking Design Manual, Second Edition. August 2008.
Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control, Roadway Design Manual –
1st Edition. Pima County, AZ, September 1998.
Ronald K. Giguere. Driveway and Street Intersection Spacing. Transportation Research
Board, Transportation Research Circular 456. Washington, DC, March 1996.
Stover, Vergil G. Access Control Issues Related to Urban Arterial Intersections.
Transportation Research Board, 1993.
Transportation Research Board. Access Management Manual. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1989 and 2004.
Transportation Research Board. Conference Proceedings of the Second National Conference
on Access Management (Held in Vail, CO, August 11-14, 1996). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996.
Transportation Research Board - National Research Council. Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM). Washington, DC, 2000 Fourth edition.
U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). Washington, DC:
1988, 2009.
Wasatch Front Regional Council. Access Management Techniques for Local Governments.
Bountiful, UT, Report No. 56, July 1991.

Page 60

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-6
City of Peoria Transportation Access Management Guidelines

Final Report
October 29, 2015

CITY OF PEORIA, AZ

Access Management
Guidelines

2011

0

CITY

OF

PEORIA

Table of Contents

1.0

Introduction

1

2. 0

Functional Classification

1

3.0

Connectivity

4

3.1

Connectivity with Surrounding Streets

4

3.2
3.3

Commercial and Residential Development Connectivity
Bicycle/Pedestrian Access and Connectivity

4
5

4.0
4.1

Connection Spacing
Functional Area of an Intersection

6
6

4.2

Signal Spacing Standards

6

4.2.1 Intersections

7

4.2.2 Driveway Criteria

9

4.3

Interchange Areas

10

5.0
5.1

Medians
Median Openings

10
10

5.2

Median Widths

13

6.0

Internal Site Circulation and Outparcels

13

7.0

Frontage Roads

14

.

1.0

INTRODUCTION

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

1

Constantly growing traffic congestion, concerns over traffic safety, and the increasing
cost of upgrading roads have generated interest in managing the access to the roadway
system. Access management attempts to balance the need to provide good mobility for
through traffic with the requirements for reasonable access to adjacent land uses
The most important concept in understanding the need for access management is that
through movement of traffic and direct access to property are in conflict. An effective
access management program will accomplish the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

2.0

Limit the number of conflict points at driveway locations;
Conflict points are indicators of the potential for collisions;
When left turns and cross street through movements are restricted, the number
of conflict points are significantly reduced;
Adequate spacing between intersections allows drivers to react to one
intersection at a time, and reduces the potential for conflicts;
Reduce the interference with through traffic;
Providing turning lanes, designing driveways with large turning radii, and
restricting turning movements in and out of driveways reduces friction to the
through movement and enhances safety;
Provide sufficient spacing for at-grade, signalized intersections;
Good spacing of signalized intersections reduces conflict areas and increases
the potential for smooth traffic progression;
Provide adequate on-site circulation and storage;
The design of good internal vehicle circulation in parking areas and on local
streets reduces the number of driveways needed for access to commercial and
residential developments.

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
The purpose of this section is to discourage the use of local streets for cut through traffic
while maintaining the overall connectivity of the roadway system. In addition to the
standards outlined in the Infrastructure Design Guidelines, the provisions of this section
are intended to improve the safety and convenience for walking and bicycling; facilitate
emergency access; reduce vehicle miles traveled; help preserve the use of major
roadways for through traffic by providing alternative routes for short local trips and reduce
the need for continued road widening which divides neighborhoods with wide expanses
of pavement that are difficult and hazardous to cross. Further, it is expected that these
provisions will reduce environmental damage by allowing more compact layouts of
streets and lots.

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

2

TABLE 1. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Freeway

A major highway that provides access via interchanges only.

Major
Arterial

A roadway of regional importance intended to serve high volumes of traffic
traveling relatively long distances. The roadway is also access controlled
and primarily intended to serve through traffic.

Minor
Arterial

A roadway that is similar in function to major arterials, but operated under
lower traffic volumes, serves trips of shorter distances, and provides a higher
degree of property access than major arterials.

Major
Collector

A roadway that provides for traffic movement between arterials and local
streets and carries moderate traffic volumes over moderate distances.

Minor
Collector

A roadway that is similar in function to a major collector, but carries lower
traffic volumes over shorter distances and has a higher degree of property
access. Minor Collectors may also provide direct access to abutting
properties except individual residences.

Local
Street

A roadway intended to provide access to abutting properties that tends to
accommodate lower traffic volumes, serve short trips, and provide
connection to collector streets. The roadway also provides mobility within a
neighborhood.

Rural
Street

Similar to a local roadway, but in a rural setting versus an urban or suburban
environment.

A.

Roadways under the jurisdiction of the City of Peoria shall be classified for the
purposes of access management.

B.

The City of Peoria’s functional classification system is provided in the City of
Peoria General Plan.

C.

Existing and planned medians on all major arterials, minor arterials, major
collectors, and minor collector roadways.
•
•

D.

Medians should be identified by type;
Non-conforming medians should be identified for future consolidation or
closure.

The Engineering Director shall be responsible for assigning an access
classification to roadway or roadway segments. Factors to be considered
in
the assignment of an access classification shall include, but not be limited to:
•
•
•

The current and planned functional classification of the roadway;
Existing and projected traffic volumes;
Growth management objectives, and;

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

3

•

The location within a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND).

E.

Separation between access points on all State Highways shall be in accordance
with the Arizona Department of Transportation Access Management Guidelines.

F.

Alleys may be included but shall not be required in residential, commercial, or
industrial subdivisions, except that alleys shall be required in all subdivisions
where:
•
•

The subdivision abuts an existing, partially dedicated alley(s);
Extension of an alley(s) from an adjoining subdivision is required to
complete the established circulation pattern.

3.0

CONNECTIVITY

3.1

CONNECTIVITY WITH SURROUNDING STREETS
A.

Local streets must provide for intra-and inter-neighborhood
connections to
knit developments together, rather than forming barriers between them.
The
street configuration within each parcel must
contribute to the street system
of the neighborhood.

B.

Potentially signalized, full movement intersections of major or minor collectors
with arterial streets should be provided at every 2,640 feet or 1/2 mile along
arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic features,
existing development or a natural area or feature.

C.

Additional non-signalized, potentially limited movement, collector intersections
with arterial streets should be spaced at intervals not to exceed 1,320 feet or ¼
mile between full movement collector
intersections, unless rendered infeasible
due to unusual topographic features, existing development or natural features.

D.

Street alignments shall be extended to the tract boundary to provide future
connection with adjoining unplatted lands, unless otherwise indicated by the
Engineering Director.

E.

Local streets shall be extended to provide access between adjoining
neighborhoods at appropriate intervals.
•
•

3.2

Half streets at subdivision boundaries shall be discouraged except where
necessary for continuation of existing patterns;
Platted half-streets abutting the tract to be subdivided and furnishing the sole
access to residential lots shall be platted within the tract.

COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONNECTIVITY
A.

All new developments should be designed to discourage the use of local streets
by cut-through traffic while maintaining the overall connectivity with the
surrounding system of roadways. This may be accomplished through
the use
of modified grid systems, T-intersections, roadway jogs, or other appropriate
traffic calming measures within the development.

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

4

3.3

BICYCLES/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY
A.

Opportunities for bicycle/pedestrian mobility should be enhanced through site
design strategies and bicycle/pedestrian access ways that seek to shorten
walking distances and increase accessibility between neighborhoods, schools,
recreation areas, community centers, shopping areas or employment center.
•
•

B.

All pedestrian crossings should be provided to meet the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);
Where the Engineering Director determines that a bicycle/pedestrian
connection is desirable and that such access is not conveniently provided by
sidewalks adjacent to the streets, the Engineering Director may require the
developer to reserve an unobstructed easement to provide such access.

Commercial developments shall be designed to support bicycle and pedestrian
mobility.
1. Site plans for proposed commercial developments shall address steps to
incorporate bicycle and pedestrian mobility. The Site Plan shall address
connectivity to nearby residential developments, neighborhood community
centers, churches, parks, other commercial and office developments, or
other compatible land uses.
•
•

•
•

Safe and convenient pedestrian ways should be provided between
parking areas and from the building entrance to surrounding streets,
external sidewalks and development outparcels.
Pedestrian circulation should be provided between abutting commercial
properties through the use of walkways and similar pedestrian-oriented
facilities. Bicycle circulation and connectivity between commercial
properties should be considered, where feasible.
Pedestrian facilities may be incorporated into required landscape buffers.
Pedestrian ways may be constructed of paver blocks, concrete, or other
suitable materials. Pedestrian ways that traverse parking areas should
include reflective striping.

2. Pedestrian refuge shall be incorporated in the design of channelized
medians.
3. Bicycle and pedestrian amenities, such as benches, water fountains, or
bicycle racks, should be provided for commercial developments of 10,000
square feet or more of gross floor area in accordance with Table 2.

Square Feet/ Gross
Floor Area

TABLE 2
Required Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Amenity

10,000 to 50,000

One bike rack, one bench

50,001 – 100,000

Two bike racks, two benches

100,001 or more
•

Four bike racks, four benches, outdoor water
fountain

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

5

•

Bicycle racks should be located within fifty (5) feet of the main entrance
of the primary building.
Commercial developments of 100,001 or more square feet should
incorporate shaded areas into the site plan to facilitate pedestrian and
bicycle friendly areas. Shower facilities should also be encouraged for
use by the bicycle riders
Priority should be given to usage of U-type bicycle racks spaced at 18”
per the manufacture’s specifications.

•

•

4.0

CONNECTION SPACING

4.1

FUNCTIONAL AREA OF AN INTERSECTION
A. For the purpose of the access management plan, the functional area of intersection
shall be measured as the minimum physical length, including
the
taper,
maneuver distance plus the queue storage.
B. New connections shall not be permitted within the functional area of an intersection,
as established by the minimum connection spacing for each roadway, unless:
•
•

No other reasonable access to the property is available, including side street
access and/or joint and cross access with adjacent properties, and,
The Engineering Director determines that the connection does not create a
safety or operational problem upon review of a site-specific study of the proposed
connection prepared by a State of Arizona registered engineer and submitted
by the applicant.

C. If proposed connections to both the primary and secondary roadway do not meet
established spacing standards, then the property shall take access
from
the
roadway with the lower functional classification.
1. An exception may be made by the Engineering Director if:
a. The proposed spacing of the connection to the primary roadway exceeds the
proposed spacing of the connection to the secondary roadway by 20 percent
or more; or,
b. The analysis provided in the site traffic impact analysis demonstrates:
•
•

4.2

The need for access to the primary roadway; and;
How sufficient mitigating access management measures, as determined
by the Engineering Director, shall be implemented.

SIGNAL SPACING STANDARDS
A. The City of Peoria encourages the uniform signal spacing in accordance with a
roadway’s functional classification.
B. The City will identify current and future locations of signalized intersections.
•

The Engineering Director may permit a signalized intersection in prohibited
areas, as a necessary measure to address safety and operational issues;

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

6

•

If a variance is warranted, then the Engineering Director will consider
consolidating closely spacing signalized intersections to facilitate consistent,
uniform signal spacing.

C. Requests for signalized intersections require a site traffic impact analysis to be
conducted by an engineer hired by the applicant. The site TIA must address:
•
•
•
•
•
•

4.2.1

Speed, cycle length, and minimum progression efficiency for both the peak and
off peak periods;
The computer software to be used;
Traffic volumes;
Development conditions;
Length of roadway segment to be evaluated; and
Other relevant factors, as specified by the Engineering Director and/or
Engineering Department.

INTERSECTIONS
A. The City of Peoria shall maintain a functional classification system and intersection
hierarchy.
1.

The location and spacing of proposed and existing signalized and unsignalized
intersections shall be contingent on the roadways’ functional classification. The
separation between access points on roadways shall meet or exceed the
minimum spacing standards for that classification.
•
•
•

The Engineering Director shall approve any deviations from the established
signal spacing standards.
Deviations from the proposed spacing standards exceeding 10 percent shall
not be permitted.
An exception may be made by the Engineering Director if a non-conforming
signal and/or median opening is closed to accommodate the proposed
signalized intersection.
TABLE 3
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

MINIMUM SPACING STANDARD

Roadway A

Roadway B

Signalized
Connections

Unsignalized
Connections

Major Arterial

Major Arterial

1 mile

1 mile

Major Arterial

Minor Arterial

1 mile

1 mile

Major Arterial

Major Collector

½ mile

½ mile

Major Arterial

Minor Collector

½ mile

½ mile

Minor Arterial

Minor Arterial

1 mile

½ mile

Minor Arterial

Major Collector

½ mile

½ mile

Minor Arterial

Minor Collector

None*

¼ mile

Major Collector

Major Collector

None*

¼ mile

Major Collector

Minor Collector

None*

1/8 mile

*Signalized intersections at these locations are not desired.
2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

7

2.

New or reconstructed intersections should be limited to locations that preserve
functional classification system and maintain the intersection hierarchy.

3.

The City shall maintain the intersection hierarchy by avoiding local street
connections to arterials that fail to conform to adopted spacing standards
or that pose safety or operational problems.

4. Collector streets shall intersect with major collectors or arterial streets at safe
and convenient locations.
5.

Minor collector and local residential access streets shall connect with
surrounding streets to permit the convenient movement of traffic between
residential neighborhoods or facilitate emergency access and evacuation, but
such connections shall not be permitted where the effect would be to encourage
the use of such streets by substantial through traffic.

B. All proposed intersections shall be evaluated to minimize conflicts and designed for
anticipated traffic movements.
1. Intersection evaluations shall address:
a.
Traffic factors, including:
•
Capacities;
•
Turning movements;
•
Operations;
•
Vehicle speed;
•
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities and movements;
•
Transit operations;
•
Collision history;
•
Auxiliary lanes; and
•
Connections in the functional area of the intersection.
b.

Physical factors, including:
•
Topography;
•
Existing conditions’
•
Channelization requirements; and,
•
Sight and stopping distance.

c.

Human factors, including
•
Driver habits;
•
Decision and reaction times; and,
•
Natural paths of movements.

C.

Analysis of proposed intersections shall include turn lane queue lengths for all
arterials and critical intersections.

D.

Median openings that encourage U-Turn movements shall be considered before
signalizing an intersection.

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

8

4.2.2

DRIVEWAY CRITERIA
Access Spacing
Minimum access spacing provides with sufficient perception-reaction time to address one
potential conflict area at a time. Guidelines for minimum unsignalized driveway or local
street spacing should consider the speed of the major roadway, stopping sight distance,
the elimination of right-turn conflict overlays and the functional area of the access points.
When a driveway is to be located upstream of a major intersection, the possibility of
weaving, or lane shifts, to make a left turn at the major intersection should also be
considered.
The functional area of any access point should be kept clear of any additional points of
access. Guidelines for minimum access spacing are presented in
Table 1.
Table 1. Minimum Access Spacing (feet)
Speed (mph)

Spacing

30
35
40
45
50

150
180
230
260
290

Corner Clearance
Corner clearance is the distance between an access drive and the nearest cross road
intersection. It should provide drivers with adequate perception-reaction time to access
potential downstream conflicts and is aimed at preventing the location of driveways within
the functional area of an intersection. It will also minimize driveway/intersection conflicts
by preventing blockage of driveways upstream of an intersection due to standing traffic
queues. Minimum driveway setback distances should take into consideration typical
traffic queue lengths while permitting sufficient movement to driveway traffic. The corner
clearance on the upstream side of the intersection should be longer than the longest
expected queue, or at a minimum, the distances indicated in Table 2. On the downstream
side, the minimum distance should conform to Table 2. Driveways on corner lots should
be located on the lesser street and near the property line most distant from the
intersection.
Table 2. Minimum Corner Clearance (feet)
________________________________________________________________
Distance From Near Side of Street to Near
Side of Access Driveway
Speed (mph)
30
35
40
45
50

Major Generator
200
295
390
425
450

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

9

Minor Generator
145
230
310
325
345

Major generators are those developments that are estimated to generate 500 vehicle
trips or more during either of the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. Other development projects
are considered minor generators.
Vehicle service stations, which are almost always on corner lots, will want to have up to
two driveways on each street. Only one driveway on the major street, located near the
property is desirable. Depending on the classification of the intersecting street, one
driveway is desirable, two are maximum.
On streets with posted speed limits or prima facie speed limits of less than 30 mph the
minimum access spacing may be reduced to 50 feet. Other provisions of Peoria Detail
PE-251-3 (Driveway Criteria) will remain in effect.
Notes:
Location and spacing of driveways affect the safety and functional integrity of streets and
highways. Too many closely-spaced streets and driveways increase accident potential
and delays. Increasing the spacing and providing a greater separation of conflict points,
reduce the number and variety of events to which drivers must respond. This translates
into fewer accidents, travel time savings, and preservation of capacity.
Reasonable spacing between driveways is important to the safety and capacity of a road,
as well as the appearance of a corridor. Managing driveway spacing is essential on roads
intended for higher speeds. At higher speeds drivers have less time and distance to react
to unexpected situations.
Inadequate corner clearances can result in poor traffic operation (ingress and egress)
along with safety backups and capacity problems. Driveways located too close to
intersections can add to traffic congestion.
References:

4.3

th

1.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Traffic Engineering Handbook, 5
Edition, Washington, DC, 1999.

2.

Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2003.

3.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO
“Green Book”), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
Washington, DC, 2001.

4.

Federal Highway Administration, “Access Management, Location and Design”.
National Highway Institute Course No. 15225, June 1998.

5.

U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration, Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD),
Washington, DC 2003.

INTERCHANGE AREAS
A.

Driveway connections within 825 feet of an interchange will not be permitted,
unless no other reasonable access to the property is available including side
street access and/or joint and cross access with adjacent properties.

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

10

B.

Where interchange area spacing standards cannot be met, the Engineering
Director may permit one of the following deviations:
•
•

Joint and/or cross access
Directional connections (right-in, right out only)

C.

Signalized intersections shall be located a minimum of 1,200 feet from
interchanges.

D.

Median openings are prohibited within 900 feet of an interchange.

E.

5.0

Any permitted deviation from the corner clearance spacing requirements must be
located either at or within 10 feet of the property line furthest from the
intersection.
MEDIANS

5.1

MEDIAN OPENINGS
A.

Median openings are prohibited:
•
•

B.

Median openings should not be constructed:
•
•

C.

Every 1/2 mile on major and minor arterials
Every 1/4 mile on collectors that are not anticipated to become arterials.
The Engineer Director may permit median openings at smaller intervals
for built-up areas.

Directional median openings shall be limited to every 1/4 mile on arterials
and major collectors.
•

F.

Median openings on major arterials may deviate up to 15 percent from
the requirements.

Full median openings shall be located, at a minimum:
•
•
•

E.

Across exclusive right turn lanes; or
Across regularly forming queues from neighboring intersections

Median openings may not exceed the distance specified in the infrastructure
Design Guidelines Manual.
•

D.

In the functional area of an intersection or other median opening; or,
Within the physical length of a left-turn bay

The Engineer Director may permit median openings at smaller intervals
for built-up areas.

Roadway improvements proposed to any corridor or any development or
redevelopment of a property within 600 feet or 1/8 mile of an existing
median
opening shall trigger an analysis and review of the median opening and median
type.
•

The Engineering Director shall review the analysis to determine if any
modifications to the median are required to ensure safe operation and
continued traffic flow and consistency with the access management Plan.

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

11

G.

Median opening spacing shall be contingent on an evaluation of the following
criteria addressed in the site plan:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Stopping sight distance
Intersection sight distance
Operating speeds
Length of turn lanes
Right turn conflict overlap
The size and type of traffic generator
The potential number of left turns into driveways
Length of frontage along the street’s right-of-way line of the property
proposed to be served
Distance of the proposed opening from adjacent intersections, median
openings, and other connections
The length and width of the left-turn storage lanes should be estimated
using standard engineering practices.
Traffic controls
Queue storage
Perception/reaction distance

H.

Median openings should reflect street or block spacing and the access
classification of the roadway. Spacing between median openings shall be
adequate to allow for the introduction of left turn lanes

I.

Full median openings shall be consistent with traffic signal spacing criteria

J.

The Engineering Director may require separate U-turn median openings at the
following locations:
•
•
•

•

•

Locations beyond intersections to accommodate minor turning
movements not otherwise provided in the intersection or interchange
area.
Locations just ahead of an intersection to accommodate U-turn
movements that would interfere with through and other turning
movements at the intersection
Locations occurring in conjunction with minor crossroads where traffic is
not permitted to cross an arterial but instead is required to turn right,
enter the through traffic stream, weave to the left, U-turn, and then
return.
Locations on high-speed or high-volume arterials where a crossroad with
high-volume traffic, a shopping area, or other traffic generator that needs
a median opening nearby and additional median openings would not be
practical.
Locations where regularly spaced median openings facilitate
maintenance operations, policing, repair service of stalled vehicles, or
other roadway related activities.

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

12

K.

The length of a median opening shall provide for 50 foot turning radius leftturning vehicles.
Driveways should be offset from median openings by the following: At least 60 m
(200 ft) when two low-volume traffic generators are involved, The greater of 60 m
(200 ft) or the established median opening spacing interval when one major
traffic generator is involved, and at least two times the established median
opening spacing interval when two major traffic generators are involved.

5.2

MEDIAN WIDTHS
A.

Median widths shall be determined by the median function as well as right-of-way
acquisition, maintenance, and construction costs.
•
•

The minimum median widths by function are detailed in Table 4;
The Engineering Director shall make the final determination on the
required median width.

B.

The minimum median width must meet or exceed the standards outlined in
Infrastructure Design Guidelines

the

C.

U-Turns from the inside (left-most) left turn bay shall be encouraged on arterials
and major collectors where medians widths are sufficient to accommodate dual
left-turn lanes.
TABLE 4
Median Function

Minimum
Width
(in feet)

Desired
Width
(in feet)

Separation of opposing traffic Streams

6

10

Pedestrian refuge and room for signs and
appurtenances

8

14

Single left-turn bay

14

18

Dual left-turn bay

25

30

25

30

18

30

Storage of left-turning vehicles

Protection for passenger vehicles crossing or turning
left onto mainline
Design direction openings for selected ingress/egress
movements only
6.0

INTERNAL SITE CIRCULATION AND OUTPARCELS
A.

For the purpose of access management and in the interest of promoting unified
access and circulation systems, development sites under the same ownership or
consolidated for the purposes of development and comprised of more than one
building site shall be considered unified parcels. Accordingly, the following
requirements shall apply:

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

13

•
•
•
•

The number of connections permitted shall be the minimum number
necessary to provide reasonable access to the overall site and not the
maximum available for that frontage;
All easements and agreements required by the access management
Plan and the land development regulations shall be provided;
Access to outparcels shall be internalized using the shared circulation
system and designed to avoid excessive movement across parking
aisles or queuing across surrounding parking and driving aisles;
The owner and all lessees within the affected area are responsible for
compliance with the requirements of this code and both shall be cited for
any violation.

B.

Where abutting properties are in different ownership and not part of an overall
development plan, cooperation between the various owners in development of a
unified access and circulation system is encouraged.

C.

Access to outparcels shall be internalized using the shared circulation
of the principle development or retail center.
1.

The Engineering Director may grant direct access from a collector or
arterial to an outparcel, when the outparcel and adjacent development
meet or exceeds the following standards established:
•
•
•
•
•

D.

7.0

system

Connection Spacing Requirements;
Internal Site Circulation;
Driveways in the Functional Area of an Intersection;
Joint and Cross Access Requirements; and;
Access is taken from the roadway with the lower functional
classification.

Access to outparcels shall be designed to avoid excessive movement across
parking aisles and queuing across surrounding parking and driving aisles.

FRONTAGE ROADS
A.

Newly installed or retrofitted frontage roads shall be designed and operated as
one-way facilities.
•
•

B.

Connections from the arterial roadway to the frontage road shall be permitted as
merging and diverging movements only.
•

C.

Frontage roads that begin and terminate at each block are preferred and
shall be constructed, where feasible.
Continuous frontage roads are discouraged unless the frontage road is
designed to provide alternate access to a freeway or parkway.

Signalized intersections between the arterial roadway and the frontage
roadway are prohibited.

The separation of frontage roads at cross streets should be maximized to ensure
sufficient storage for crossroad traffic between the frontage road and arterial.
•

The separations between the arterial and the frontage road shall meet or
exceed the minimum spacing standards set forth in Table 5 where the
arterial and frontage road connect with a perpendicular side street.

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

14

D.

A landscaped median between the arterial and the frontage road is required.
The landscaped median shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide to provide pedestrian
refuge and safe placement of traffic control devices and landscaping.
•

The Engineering Director may permit an exception up to 10 feet where
conditions warrant.

E.

Pedestrian and bicycle movements are encouraged on the frontage roads.

F.

Parking may be permitted where the frontage roads traverse residential areas.

G.

Major activity centers that front along any arterial roadway should incorporate a
reverse frontage road into the site plan.
•

Frontage roads or additional access points will not be granted where a
reverse frontage road is feasible.

TABLE 5
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Perpendicular
Main Roadway
Roadway
Arterial (Major)
Arterial (Major)
Arterial (Major)
Arterial (Minor)
Arterial (Major)
Collector (Major)
Arterial (Minor)
Collector (Major)
* Between the Main Arterial and Frontage Road

2011 Access Management Guidelines
Rev: 01/2011

15

Minimum
Separation *
660 feet
660 feet
300 feet
300 feet

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-7
Concept 1 Traffic Analysis

Final Report
October 29, 2015

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 EB Off-Ramp AM

Option 1
EB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2025 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
8
T
18
R

20
27

33.0
13.0

0.041
0.046

7.9
6.8

LOS A
LOS A

0.1
0.1

Approach

47

21.6

0.046

7.2

LOS A

399
89
488

13.0
9.0
12.3

0.399
0.086
0.399

8.0
4.2
7.3

65
23
88

52.0
14.0
42.1

0.162
0.162
0.162

622

17.2

0.399

Mov ID

Turn

North: Transwestern
7
L
4
T
Approach
West: EB I-10 Off
5
L
12
R
Approach
All Vehicles

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

3.2
3.7

0.49
0.49

0.64
0.70

29.0
28.8

0.1

3.7

0.49

0.67

28.9

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.71
0.43
0.66

30.0
34.8
30.8

8.7
8.7
8.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3
0.3

10.0
10.0
10.0

0.39
0.39
0.39

0.83
0.67
0.79

25.6
27.6
26.0

7.5

LOS A

0.3

10.0

0.09

0.68

29.9

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:04:29 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 EB Off-Ramp MD

Option 1
EB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2025 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
8
T
18
R

115
64

10.0
25.0

0.129
0.129

6.5
7.0

LOS A
LOS A

0.4
0.4

Approach

178

15.4

0.129

6.7

LOS A

North: Transwestern
7
L
4
T
Approach

169
116
285

27.0
16.0
22.5

0.190
0.119
0.190

5.9
4.8
5.5

78
10
88

77.0
33.0
72.0

0.171
0.171
0.171

551

28.1

0.190

Mov ID

Turn

West: EB I-10 Off
5
L
12
R
Approach
All Vehicles

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

11.4
11.1

0.43
0.42

0.60
0.67

29.9
28.7

0.4

11.4

0.42

0.62

29.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.71
0.43
0.59

30.0
34.8
31.8

9.3
9.3
9.3

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3
0.3

10.3
10.3
10.3

0.31
0.31
0.31

0.75
0.58
0.73

25.3
27.3
25.5

6.5

LOS A

0.4

11.4

0.19

0.62

29.8

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:16:45 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 EB Off-Ramp PM

Option 1
EB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2025 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
8
T
18
R

76
227

17.0
20.0

0.115
0.352

6.7
10.3

LOS A
LOS B

0.3
1.2

Approach

304

19.2

0.352

9.4

LOS A

North: Transwestern
7
L
4
T
Approach

209
43
252

26.0
25.0
25.8

0.234
0.047
0.234

6.4
4.4
6.1

West: EB I-10 Off
5
L
12
R
Approach

82
20
102

37.0
17.0
33.1

0.150
0.150
0.150

All Vehicles

658

23.9

0.352

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

9.8
34.9

0.43
0.51

0.61
0.74

29.8
26.8

1.2

34.9

0.49

0.71

27.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.71
0.43
0.66

30.0
34.8
30.7

7.0
7.0
7.0

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3
0.3

9.5
9.5
9.5

0.30
0.30
0.30

0.75
0.57
0.72

26.3
28.7
26.7

7.8

LOS A

1.2

34.9

0.27

0.69

28.5

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:20:15 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 EB Off-Ramp AM

Option 1
EB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2035 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
8
T
18
R

20
33

33.0
13.0

0.046
0.065

8.9
7.8

LOS A
LOS A

0.1
0.2

Approach

53

20.5

0.065

8.2

LOS A

North: Transwestern
7
L
4
T
Approach

487
110
597

13.0
9.0
12.3

0.487
0.106
0.487

9.4
4.4
8.5

West: EB I-10 Off
5
L
12
R
Approach

78
34
112

52.0
14.0
40.4

0.223
0.223
0.223

All Vehicles

762

17.0

0.487

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

3.5
5.2

0.53
0.54

0.69
0.76

28.4
28.1

0.2

5.2

0.53

0.73

28.2

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.71
0.43
0.66

30.0
34.8
30.8

10.3
10.3
10.3

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

0.4
0.4
0.4

14.2
14.2
14.2

0.44
0.44
0.44

0.86
0.70
0.81

24.9
26.8
25.4

8.7

LOS A

0.4

14.2

0.10

0.69

29.7

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:12:47 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 EB Off-Ramp MD

Option 1
EB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2035 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
8
T
18
R

131
73

10.0
25.0

0.159
0.159

7.3
7.8

LOS A
LOS A

0.5
0.5

Approach

204

15.4

0.159

7.5

LOS A

North: Transwestern
7
L
4
T
Approach

200
138
338

27.0
16.0
22.5

0.225
0.141
0.225

6.3
5.0
5.8

West: EB I-10 Off
5
L
12
R
Approach

97
30
128

77.0
33.0
66.6

0.251
0.251
0.251

All Vehicles

669

28.7

0.251

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

14.1
13.7

0.47
0.47

0.65
0.72

29.3
28.2

0.5

14.1

0.47

0.67

28.9

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.71
0.43
0.59

30.0
34.8
31.8

10.7
10.7
10.7

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

0.4
0.4
0.4

15.8
15.8
15.8

0.35
0.35
0.35

0.80
0.63
0.76

24.7
26.6
25.1

7.3

LOS A

0.5

15.8

0.21

0.65

29.4

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:18:02 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 EB Off-Ramp PM

Option 1
EB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2035 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
8
T
18
R

83
273

17.0
20.0

0.136
0.456

7.5
13.2

LOS A
LOS B

0.4
1.8

Approach

356

19.3

0.456

11.9

LOS B

North: Transwestern
7
L
4
T
Approach

257
50
307

26.0
25.0
25.8

0.286
0.055
0.286

7.0
4.5
6.6

West: EB I-10 Off
5
L
12
R
Approach

95
30
125

37.0
17.0
32.2

0.192
0.192
0.192

All Vehicles

788

23.9

0.456

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

11.6
51.9

0.48
0.58

0.66
0.83

29.3
25.3

1.8

51.9

0.56

0.79

26.1

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.71
0.43
0.66

30.0
34.8
30.7

7.8
7.8
7.8

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.4
0.4
0.4

12.4
12.4
12.4

0.34
0.34
0.34

0.79
0.61
0.75

26.0
28.2
26.5

9.2

LOS A

1.8

51.9

0.31

0.73

27.9

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:21:19 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 WB Off-Ramp AM

Option 1
WB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2025 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T

10
71

50.0
50.0

0.054
0.054

5.3
5.3

LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0

Approach

81

50.0

0.054

5.3

LOS A

East: WB I-10 Off
1
L
16
R
Approach

72
138
210

50.0
39.0
42.8

0.289
0.289
0.289

8.4
8.4
8.4

North: Transwestern
4
T
14
R
Approach

418
96
513

14.0
52.0
21.1

0.311
0.311
0.311

All Vehicles

805

29.7

0.311

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00

0.91
0.41

30.0
34.8

0.0

0.0

0.00

0.48

34.1

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.6
0.6
0.6

19.9
19.9
19.9

0.20
0.20
0.20

0.76
0.51
0.59

25.7
28.0
27.1

7.8
8.3
7.9

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.2
1.0
1.2

33.4
31.6
33.4

0.29
0.29
0.29

0.48
0.59
0.50

29.1
28.0
28.9

7.8

LOS A

1.2

33.4

0.24

0.52

28.8

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:24:30 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 WB Off-Ramp MD

Option 1
WB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2025 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T

34
143

36.0
28.0

0.102
0.102

5.2
5.1

LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0

Approach

177

29.6

0.102

5.1

LOS A

East: WB I-10 Off
1
L
16
R
Approach

47
158
204

29.0
33.0
32.1

0.280
0.280
0.280

8.3
8.3
8.3

North: Transwestern
4
T
14
R
Approach

247
103
350

19.0
39.0
24.9

0.215
0.215
0.215

All Vehicles

732

28.0

0.280

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00

0.87
0.41

30.0
34.8

0.0

0.0

0.00

0.50

33.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.6
0.6
0.6

19.5
19.5
19.5

0.28
0.28
0.28

0.81
0.57
0.62

25.9
28.1
27.5

6.6
7.0
6.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.7
0.6
0.7

20.8
20.1
20.8

0.25
0.24
0.25

0.46
0.56
0.49

29.8
28.7
29.5

6.8

LOS A

0.7

20.8

0.19

0.53

29.8

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:37:59 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 WB Off-Ramp PM

Option 1
WB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2025 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T

40
123

20.0
35.0

0.095
0.095

5.0
5.1

LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0

Approach

163

31.3

0.095

5.1

LOS A

East: WB I-10 Off
1
L
16
R
Approach

39
369
408

17.0
19.0
18.8

0.499
0.499
0.499

11.2
11.2
11.2

North: Transwestern
4
T
14
R
Approach

213
109
322

31.0
33.0
31.7

0.206
0.206
0.206

All Vehicles

894

25.7

0.499

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00

0.85
0.41

30.0
34.8

0.0

0.0

0.00

0.52

33.5

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

1.6
1.6
1.6

45.3
45.3
45.3

0.34
0.34
0.34

0.84
0.60
0.62

24.6
26.5
26.3

6.8
6.9
6.8

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.6
0.6
0.6

19.2
19.1
19.2

0.22
0.22
0.22

0.45
0.55
0.48

29.7
28.8
29.4

8.5

LOS A

1.6

45.3

0.24

0.55

28.5

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:40:38 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 WB Off-Ramp AM

Option 1
WB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2035 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T

10
84

50.0
50.0

0.063
0.063

5.4
5.4

LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0

Approach

94

50.0

0.063

5.4

LOS A

East: WB I-10 Off
1
L
16
R
Approach

87
169
256

50.0
39.0
42.7

0.357
0.357
0.357

9.6
9.6
9.6

North: Transwestern
4
T
14
R
Approach

513
110
623

14.0
52.0
20.7

0.385
0.385
0.385

All Vehicles

973

29.4

0.385

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00

0.92
0.42

30.0
34.8

0.0

0.0

0.00

0.47

34.2

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.8
0.8
0.8

25.9
25.9
25.9

0.22
0.22
0.22

0.77
0.52
0.61

25.2
27.3
26.5

9.0
9.6
9.1

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.6
1.4
1.6

44.2
41.5
44.2

0.34
0.33
0.34

0.51
0.61
0.53

28.3
27.3
28.1

8.9

LOS A

1.6

44.2

0.28

0.54

28.2

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:36:20 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 WB Off-Ramp MD

Option 1
WB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2035 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T

43
169

36.0
28.0

0.122
0.122

5.4
5.3

LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0

Approach

212

29.6

0.122

5.3

LOS A

East: WB I-10 Off
1
L
16
R
Approach

53
196
249

29.0
33.0
32.1

0.353
0.353
0.353

9.6
9.6
9.6

North: Transwestern
4
T
14
R
Approach

295
126
421

19.0
39.0
25.0

0.264
0.264
0.264

All Vehicles

882

28.1

0.353

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00

0.86
0.41

30.0
34.8

0.0

0.0

0.00

0.51

33.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.8
0.8
0.8

25.9
25.9
25.9

0.32
0.32
0.32

0.83
0.60
0.65

25.3
27.3
26.8

7.3
7.8
7.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.9
0.8
0.9

26.6
25.6
26.6

0.28
0.28
0.28

0.48
0.58
0.51

29.3
28.2
29.0

7.6

LOS A

0.9

26.6

0.23

0.55

29.3

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:39:10 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 WB Off-Ramp PM

Option 1
WB I-10 Ramps at Transwestern
2035 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T

40
142

20.0
35.0

0.106
0.106

5.1
5.3

LOS A
LOS A

0.0
0.0

Approach

182

31.7

0.106

5.2

LOS A

East: WB I-10 Off
1
L
16
R
Approach

47
452
499

17.0
19.0
18.8

0.621
0.621
0.621

14.6
14.6
14.6

North: Transwestern
4
T
14
R
Approach

260
125
385

31.0
33.0
31.6

0.249
0.249
0.249

1066

25.6

0.621

Mov ID

Turn

All Vehicles

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00

0.87
0.41

30.0
34.8

0.0

0.0

0.00

0.51

33.6

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

2.5
2.5
2.5

73.2
73.2
73.2

0.42
0.42
0.42

0.87
0.66
0.68

23.3
24.8
24.7

7.4
7.5
7.4

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.8
0.8
0.8

23.9
23.8
23.9

0.24
0.24
0.24

0.45
0.56
0.49

29.3
28.4
29.0

10.4

LOS B

2.5

73.2

0.28

0.58

27.4

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:41:36 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 Brannigan AM

Option 1
Brannigan at Transwestern
2025 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

165
31

35.0
2.0

0.114
0.114

5.3
5.1

LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3

Approach

196

29.7

0.114

5.3

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

232
31
263

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.277
0.277
0.277

6.6
6.6
6.6

West: EB I-10 Off
2
T
12
R
Approach

13
256
270

2.0
35.0
33.4

0.403
0.403
0.403

All Vehicles

728

21.1

0.403

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

10.1
10.1

0.07
0.07

0.68
0.49

27.1
29.8

0.3

10.1

0.07

0.65

27.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.9
0.9
0.9

21.6
21.6
21.6

0.29
0.29
0.29

0.75
0.48
0.72

26.5
29.4
26.8

11.0
11.0
11.0

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

1.3
1.3
1.3

41.7
41.7
41.7

0.42
0.42
0.42

0.56
0.64
0.64

27.0
26.6
26.6

7.9

LOS A

1.3

41.7

0.28

0.67

26.9

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:52:36 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 Brannigan MD

Option 1
Brannigan at Transwestern
2025 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

268
38

35.0
2.0

0.182
0.182

6.1
6.0

LOS A
LOS A

0.6
0.6

Approach

306

30.9

0.182

6.1

LOS A

51
18
68

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.079
0.079
0.079

4.9
4.9
4.9

West: EB I-10 Off
2
T
12
R
Approach

24
259
282

2.0
35.0
32.2

0.348
0.348
0.348

All Vehicles

657

28.5

0.348

Mov ID

Turn

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

17.0
17.0

0.10
0.10

0.67
0.48

26.7
29.2

0.6

17.0

0.10

0.65

27.0

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.2
0.2
0.2

5.1
5.1
5.1

0.31
0.31
0.31

0.79
0.51
0.72

27.4
30.5
28.1

8.5
8.5
8.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.2
1.2
1.2

37.0
37.0
37.0

0.18
0.18
0.18

0.40
0.51
0.50

28.6
27.9
28.0

7.0

LOS A

1.2

37.0

0.16

0.59

27.5

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:58:50 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 Brannigan PM

Option 1
Brannigan at Transwestern
2025 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

347
146

35.0
2.0

0.288
0.288

7.5
7.0

LOS A
LOS A

1.1
1.1

Approach

493

25.2

0.288

7.4

LOS A

57
12
69

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.086
0.086
0.086

5.4
5.4
5.4

West: EB I-10 Off
2
T
12
R
Approach

53
241
295

2.0
35.0
29.0

0.356
0.356
0.356

All Vehicles

856

24.7

0.356

Mov ID

Turn

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

30.7
30.7

0.18
0.18

0.67
0.50

26.1
28.6

1.1

30.7

0.18

0.62

26.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.2
0.2
0.2

5.5
5.5
5.5

0.36
0.36
0.36

0.80
0.55
0.76

27.2
30.2
27.6

8.5
8.5
8.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.3
1.3
1.3

38.6
38.6
38.6

0.20
0.20
0.20

0.41
0.51
0.50

28.6
27.9
28.0

7.6

LOS A

1.3

38.6

0.20

0.59

27.2

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:58:05 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 Brannigan AM

Option 1
Brannigan at Transwestern
2035 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

200
38

35.0
2.0

0.138
0.138

5.6
5.4

LOS A
LOS A

0.4
0.4

Approach

238

29.8

0.138

5.6

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

274
38
312

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.340
0.340
0.340

7.6
7.6
7.6

West: EB I-10 Off
2
T
12
R
Approach

13
319
332

2.0
35.0
33.7

0.520
0.520
0.520

All Vehicles

881

21.4

0.520

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

12.5
12.5

0.07
0.07

0.68
0.49

27.0
29.6

0.4

12.5

0.07

0.65

27.3

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.1
1.1
1.1

28.1
28.1
28.1

0.34
0.34
0.34

0.78
0.53
0.75

26.0
28.7
26.3

14.2
14.2
14.2

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

2.0
2.0
2.0

62.4
62.4
62.4

0.49
0.49
0.49

0.65
0.71
0.71

25.4
25.0
25.0

9.5

LOS A

2.0

62.4

0.33

0.71

26.1

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:53:51 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 Brannigan MD

Option 1
Brannigan at Transwestern
2035 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

327
45

35.0
2.0

0.221
0.221

6.6
6.4

LOS A
LOS A

0.7
0.7

Approach

372

31.0

0.221

6.6

LOS A

56
24
80

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.098
0.098
0.098

5.4
5.4
5.4

West: EB I-10 Off
2
T
12
R
Approach

24
316
340

2.0
35.0
32.7

0.422
0.422
0.422

All Vehicles

792

28.8

0.422

Mov ID

Turn

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

21.4
21.4

0.10
0.10

0.67
0.48

26.5
28.9

0.7

21.4

0.10

0.65

26.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3
0.3

6.4
6.4
6.4

0.35
0.35
0.35

0.82
0.55
0.74

27.2
30.2
28.0

9.8
9.8
9.8

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.5
1.5
1.5

48.2
48.2
48.2

0.21
0.21
0.21

0.41
0.51
0.50

27.8
27.2
27.2

7.9

LOS A

1.5

48.2

0.17

0.60

27.1

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:56:57 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 Brannigan PM

Option 1
Brannigan at Transwestern
2035 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

424
171

35.0
2.0

0.353
0.353

8.5
7.9

LOS A
LOS A

1.4
1.4

Approach

594

25.5

0.353

8.4

LOS A

68
18
86

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.116
0.116
0.116

6.1
6.1
6.1

67
294
361

2.0
35.0
28.9

0.441
0.441
0.441

1041

24.7

0.441

Mov ID

Turn

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach
West: EB I-10 Off
2
T
12
R
Approach
All Vehicles

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

40.0
40.0

0.22
0.22

0.67
0.51

25.6
28.0

1.4

40.0

0.22

0.63

26.2

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3
0.3

7.6
7.6
7.6

0.40
0.40
0.40

0.85
0.61
0.80

26.8
29.7
27.3

10.0
10.0
10.0

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

1.7
1.7
1.7

51.9
51.9
51.9

0.24
0.24
0.24

0.42
0.52
0.50

27.7
27.1
27.2

8.8

LOS A

1.7

51.9

0.24

0.60

26.6

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:59:07 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 1\Option 1.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-8
Concept 2 Traffic Analysis

Final Report
October 29, 2015

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Transwestern & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
50
0 110
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
72
0 138
Minor1
557
91
466
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
490
930
630

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
11.1
B

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

3

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 AM Peak

484
484
919
630

NBL
847
0.012
9.3
A
0

604
71
91
513
7 6.59
6
6
4.45 3.651
355 897
735
465
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 484 897 1529
- 0.15 0.153
0
- 13.7
9.7
0
A
B
A
A
0.5
0.5
0

897
-

NBL NBT NBR
5
55
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
10
71
0
Major1
513
4.6
2.65
847
847
NB
1.1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 330
65
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 418
96
Major2
71
4.12
2.218
1529
1529
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Transwestern & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/21/2015

9.5
EBL EBT EBR
50
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
65
0
23

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
920
887
33
6.92
5.92
5.92
3.968
246
331
875

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
29.5
D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1506
0
A
0

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 AM Peak

177
177
238
875

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
89
4.12
2.218
1506
-

934
89
887
47
6.5 6.34
5.5
5.5
4 3.426
268 937
365
860
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
10
20
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
20
27

937
-

1506
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 177 937 1493
- 0.367 0.024 0.267
- 36.7
8.9
8.3
E
A
A
1.6
0.1
1.1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
315
65
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
399
89
0
Major2
47
4.23
2.317
1493
1493
-

0
-

0
-

SB
6.8

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 AM Brannigan

Option 2
Brannigan and Transwestern
2025 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

94
68
31

2.0
100.0
2.0

0.237
0.237
0.237

7.0
7.0
7.0

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.7
0.7
0.7

Approach

194

36.5

0.237

7.0

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

232
31
263

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.299
0.299
0.299

7.3
7.3
7.3

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

13
256
270

2.0
35.0
33.4

0.403
0.403
0.403

All Vehicles

726

22.8

0.403

Mov ID

Turn

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T
18
R

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

22.8
22.8
22.8

0.07
0.07
0.07

0.80
0.35
0.49

26.3
29.1
28.8

0.7

22.8

0.07

0.59

27.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.3
1.3
1.3

32.2
32.2
32.2

0.41
0.41
0.41

0.76
0.53
0.73

26.2
28.9
26.4

11.0
11.0
11.0

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

1.3
1.3
1.3

41.7
41.7
41.7

0.42
0.42
0.42

0.56
0.64
0.64

27.0
26.6
26.6

8.6

LOS A

1.3

41.7

0.33

0.66

26.8

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:00:58 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 2\Option 2.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Brannigan & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
35
0 145
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
75
92
96
29
2
33
47
0 151
Minor1
510 562 143
212 212
298 350
6.69 6.52 6.53
5.69 5.52
5.69 5.52
3.761 4.018 3.597
479 436 829
763 727
695 633
462
462
736
695

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

3.4

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 MD Peak

0
0
0
0

829
-

WB
11.1
B
NBL
1043
0.033
8.6
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 462 829 1440
- 0.101 0.182
0
- 13.7 10.3
0
A
B
B
A
0.3
0.7
0

NBL NBT NBR
20 110
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
34 143
0
Major1
350
4.46
2.524
1043
1043
NB
1.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 180
90
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
73
87
2
19
39
0 247 103
Major2
143
4.12
2.218
1440
1440
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Brannigan & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/21/2015

5.4
EBL EBT EBR
60
0
5
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
50
33
51
50
25
78
0
15

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
600
453
147
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
393
549
774

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
17.3
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1473
0
A
0

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 MD Peak

337
337
470
774

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
116
4.12
2.218
1473
-

631 116
453
178
7 6.45
6
6
4.45 3.525
342 878
497
670
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
70
35
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0 115
64

878
-

1473
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 337 878 1260
- 0.231 0.017 0.134
- 18.9
9.2
8.3
C
A
A
0.9
0.1
0.5

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
135
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
169 116
0
Major2
178
4.37
2.443
1260
1260
-

0
-

0
-

SB
4.9

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 MD Brannigan

Option 2
Brannigan and Transwestern
2025 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T
18
R

190
74
38

2.0
100.0
2.0

0.346
0.346
0.346

8.0
8.0
8.0

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.3
1.3
1.3

Approach

303

25.9

0.346

8.0

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

51
18
68

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.087
0.087
0.087

5.4
5.4
5.4

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

24
259
282

2.0
35.0
32.2

0.348
0.348
0.348

All Vehicles

653

26.1

0.348

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

38.1
38.1
38.1

0.12
0.12
0.12

0.75
0.35
0.47

25.8
28.5
28.2

1.3

38.1

0.12

0.62

26.8

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3
0.3

7.5
7.5
7.5

0.41
0.41
0.41

0.79
0.54
0.73

27.1
30.1
27.8

8.5
8.5
8.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.2
1.2
1.2

37.0
37.0
37.0

0.18
0.18
0.18

0.40
0.51
0.50

28.6
27.9
28.0

8.0

LOS A

1.3

38.1

0.18

0.58

27.4

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:03:50 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 2\Option 2.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Brannigan & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
25
0 310
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
2
19
39
0 369
Minor1
471 525 123
203 203
268 322
6.57 6.52 6.39
5.57 5.52
5.57 5.52
3.653 4.018 3.471
525 458 884
797 733
744 651
505
505
767
744

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

5.9

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 PM Peak

0
0
0
0

884
-

WB
12.1
B
NBL
1143
0.035
8.3
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 505 884 1464
- 0.077 0.417
0
- 12.7
12
0
A
B
B
A
0.2
2.1
0

NBL NBT NBR
20 100
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
40 123
0
Major1
322
4.3
2.38
1143
1143
NB
2

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 160 100
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
83
75
92
2
31
33
0 213 109
Major2
123
4.12
2.218
1464
1464
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Brannigan & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/21/2015

5.7
EBL EBT EBR
65
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
92
50
37
0
17
82
0
20

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
652
462
190
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
382
567
765

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
18.4
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1566
0
A
0

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 PM Peak

310
310
460
765

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
43
4.12
2.218
1566
-

766
43
462
304
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
335 986
568
667
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
55 125
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
76 227

986
-

1566
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 310 986 1132
- 0.265 0.02 0.185
- 20.8
8.7
8.9
C
A
A
1
0.1
0.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
155
30
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
209
43
0
Major2
304
4.36
2.434
1132
1132
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.4

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 PM Brannigan

Option 2
Brannigan and Transwestern
2025 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T
18
R

259
82
146

2.0
100.0
2.0

0.545
0.545
0.545

11.5
11.5
11.5

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

2.7
2.7
2.7

Approach

486

18.4

0.545

11.5

LOS B

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

57
12
69

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.095
0.095
0.095

6.0
6.0
6.0

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

67
241
308

2.0
35.0
27.9

0.369
0.369
0.369

All Vehicles

862

20.5

0.545

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

77.7
77.7
77.7

0.28
0.28
0.28

0.73
0.40
0.50

24.4
26.6
26.2

2.7

77.7

0.28

0.61

25.3

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3
0.3

8.2
8.2
8.2

0.46
0.46
0.46

0.81
0.59
0.77

26.8
29.7
27.3

8.7
8.7
8.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.3
1.3
1.3

40.7
40.7
40.7

0.20
0.20
0.20

0.41
0.52
0.49

28.5
27.8
28.0

10.0

LOS B

2.7

77.7

0.27

0.58

26.3

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:06:10 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 2\Option 2.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Transwestern & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
60
0 135
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
87
0 169
Minor1
672
104
568
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
420
918
565

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
12
B

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

3.3

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 AM Peak

414
414
905
565

NBL
764
0.013
9.8
A
0

727
84
104
623
7 6.59
6
6
4.45 3.651
298 882
725
411
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 414 882 1513
- 0.21 0.191
0
16
10
0
A
C
B
A
0.8
0.7
0

882
-

NBL NBT NBR
5
65
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
10
84
0
Major1
623
4.6
2.65
764
764
NB
1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 405
75
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 513 110
Major2
84
4.12
2.218
1513
1513
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Transwestern & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

7/21/2015

14
EBL EBT EBR
60
0
15
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
78
0
34

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Minor2
1121 1137 110
1084 1084
37
53
6.92
6.5 6.34
5.92
5.5
5.92
5.5
3.968
4 3.426
183 203 912
262 296
871 855
119
119
171
871

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
58.3
F

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1480
0
A
0

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 AM Peak

0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
10
25
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
20
33
Major1
110
4.12
2.218
1480
-

912
-

1480
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 119 912 1485
- 0.655 0.037 0.328
- 79.8
9.1
8.6
F
A
A
3.4
0.1
1.4

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
385
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
487 110
0
Major2
53
4.23
2.317
1485
1485
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 AM Brannigan

Option 2
Brannigan and Transwestern
2035 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T
18
R

118
80
38

2.0
100.0
2.0

0.285
0.285
0.285

7.5
7.5
7.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.9
0.9
0.9

Approach

235

35.2

0.285

7.5

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

274
38
312

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.372
0.372
0.372

8.7
8.7
8.7

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

13
319
332

2.0
35.0
33.7

0.520
0.520
0.520

All Vehicles

879

22.8

0.520

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

28.7
28.7
28.7

0.08
0.08
0.08

0.79
0.35
0.48

26.1
28.8
28.5

0.9

28.7

0.08

0.59

27.4

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.7
1.7
1.7

42.3
42.3
42.3

0.48
0.48
0.48

0.80
0.59
0.77

25.6
28.0
25.8

14.2
14.2
14.2

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

2.0
2.0
2.0

62.4
62.4
62.4

0.49
0.49
0.49

0.65
0.71
0.71

25.4
25.0
25.0

10.4

LOS B

2.0

62.4

0.38

0.70

25.9

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:01:59 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 2\Option 2.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Brannigan & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
40
0 180
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
75
92
96
29
2
33
53
0 188
Minor1
613 676 169
255 255
358 421
6.69 6.52 6.53
5.69 5.52
5.69 5.52
3.761 4.018 3.597
415 375 801
729 696
652 589
395
395
693
652

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

3.7

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 MD Peak

0
0
0
0

801
-

WB
11.9
B
NBL
978
0.044
8.9
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 395 801 1409
- 0.135 0.234
0
- 15.5 10.9
0
A
C
B
A
0.5
0.9
0

NBL NBT NBR
25 130
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
43 169
0
Major1
421
4.46
2.524
978
978
NB
1.8

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 215 110
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
73
87
2
19
39
0 295 126
Major2
169
4.12
2.218
1409
1409
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Brannigan & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/21/2015

6.5
EBL EBT EBR
75
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
50
33
51
50
25
97
0
30

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
706
538
168
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
337
498
756

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
21.1
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1446
0
A
0

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 MD Peak

278
278
410
756

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
138
4.12
2.218
1446
-

742 138
538
204
7 6.45
6
6
4.45 3.525
292 853
452
651
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
80
40
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0 131
73

853
-

1446
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 278 853 1232
- 0.35 0.036 0.162
- 24.8
9.4
8.5
C
A
A
1.5
0.1
0.6

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
160
95
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
200 138
0
Major2
204
4.37
2.443
1232
1232
-

0
-

0
-

SB
5

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 MD Brannigan

Option 2
Brannigan and Transwestern
2035 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T
18
R

238
85
45

2.0
100.0
2.0

0.416
0.416
0.416

9.0
9.0
9.0

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.7
1.7
1.7

Approach

368

24.7

0.416

9.0

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

56
24
80

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.109
0.109
0.109

6.1
6.1
6.1

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

24
316
340

2.0
35.0
32.7

0.422
0.422
0.422

All Vehicles

788

25.9

0.422

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

49.9
49.9
49.9

0.13
0.13
0.13

0.74
0.35
0.47

25.4
28.0
27.6

1.7

49.9

0.13

0.62

26.2

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.4
0.4
0.4

9.5
9.5
9.5

0.45
0.45
0.45

0.83
0.59
0.76

26.9
29.7
27.6

9.8
9.8
9.8

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.5
1.5
1.5

48.2
48.2
48.2

0.21
0.21
0.21

0.41
0.51
0.50

27.8
27.2
27.2

9.1

LOS A

1.7

49.9

0.20

0.58

26.8

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:04:58 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 2\Option 2.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Brannigan & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
30
0 380
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
2
19
47
0 452
Minor1
545 607 142
222 222
323 385
6.57 6.52 6.39
5.57 5.52
5.57 5.52
3.653 4.018 3.471
475 411 863
781 720
701 611
456
456
750
701

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

6.7

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 PM Peak

0
0
0
0

863
-

WB
13.7
B
NBL
1082
0.037
8.5
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 456 863 1441
- 0.103 0.524
0
- 13.8 13.7
0
A
B
B
A
0.3
3.1
0

NBL NBT NBR
20 115
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
40 142
0
Major1
385
4.3
2.38
1082
1082
NB
1.9

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 195 115
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
83
75
92
2
31
33
0 260 125
Major2
142
4.12
2.218
1441
1441
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Brannigan & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/21/2015

7
EBL EBT EBR
75
0
15
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
92
50
37
0
17
95
0
30

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
784
564
220
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
317
506
740

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
24.7
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1557
0
A
0

Option 2
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 PM Peak

239
239
382
740

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
50
4.12
2.218
1557
-

920
50
564
356
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
273 977
512
633
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
60 150
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
83 273

977
-

1557
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 239 977 1081
- 0.397 0.031 0.238
- 29.7
8.8
9.4
D
A
A
1.8
0.1
0.9

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
190
35
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
257
50
0
Major2
356
4.36
2.434
1081
1081
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.8

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 PM Brannigan

Option 2
Brannigan and Transwestern
2035 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
8
T
18
R

318
98
171

2.0
100.0
2.0

0.657
0.657
0.657

14.7
14.7
14.7

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

3.9
3.9
3.9

Approach

586

18.3

0.657

14.7

LOS B

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

68
18
86

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.130
0.130
0.130

6.9
6.9
6.9

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

67
294
361

2.0
35.0
28.9

0.441
0.441
0.441

1033

20.7

0.657

Mov ID

Turn

All Vehicles

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

111.1
111.1
111.1

0.33
0.33
0.33

0.72
0.41
0.51

23.2
25.2
24.7

3.9

111.1

0.33

0.60

23.9

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.4
0.4
0.4

11.3
11.3
11.3

0.51
0.51
0.51

0.86
0.66
0.82

26.4
29.0
26.9

10.0
10.0
10.0

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

1.7
1.7
1.7

51.9
51.9
51.9

0.24
0.24
0.24

0.42
0.52
0.50

27.7
27.1
27.2

12.4

LOS B

3.9

111.1

0.31

0.59

25.2

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:07:07 AM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 2\Option 2.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-9
Concept 3 Traffic Analysis

Final Report
October 29, 2015

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
50
0 110
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- Free
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
72
0 138

NBL NBT NBR
5
55
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
10
71
0

Minor1
557
91
466
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
490
930
630

604
91
513
7
6
6
4.45
355
735
465

0
0
0

Major1
513
4.6
2.65
847
-

484
484
919
630

0
0
0
0

-

847
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
13.7
B

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

1.6

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 AM Peak

NBL
847
0.012
9.3
A
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 484
- 1529
- 0.15
0
- 13.7
0
0
A
B
A
A
0.5
0

NB
1.1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 330
65
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 418
96
Major2
71
4.12
2.218
1529
1529
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/23/2015

9.5
EBL EBT EBR
50
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
65
0
23

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
920
887
33
6.92
5.92
5.92
3.968
246
331
875

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
29.5
D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1506
0
A
0

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 AM Peak

177
177
238
875

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
89
4.12
2.218
1506
-

934
89
887
47
6.5 6.34
5.5
5.5
4 3.426
268 937
365
860
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
10
20
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
20
27

937
-

1506
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 177 937 1493
- 0.367 0.024 0.267
- 36.7
8.9
8.3
E
A
A
1.6
0.1
1.1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
315
65
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
399
89
0
Major2
47
4.23
2.317
1493
1493
-

0
-

0
-

SB
6.8

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2025 AM Peak

Option 3
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.1
3.4
0.1
2.9

WB
0.0
0.3
0.5
6.8
0.3
3.3

NB
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.0
0.0
0.0

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
6.0
0.0
3.4

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.2
0.8
4.8
0.4
2.2

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 U-Turn AM

Option 3
Brannigan U-Turn
2025 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

253

2.0

0.272

6.7

LOS A

0.8

Approach

253

2.0

0.272

6.7

LOS A

0.8

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
12
R
Approach

100
68
40
208

14.0
100.0
2.0
39.9

0.101
0.157
0.157
0.157

4.5
7.0
7.0
5.8

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

461

19.1

0.272

6.3

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

21.0

0.31

0.54

29.8

21.0

0.31

0.54

29.8

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.75
0.78
0.37
0.68

29.0
29.2
34.9
29.9

0.8

21.0

0.17

0.61

29.9

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:30:23 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 3.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
35
0 145
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- Free
- 250
0
0
75
92
92
29
50
33
47
0 158

NBL NBT NBR
20 110
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
34 143
0

Minor1
510
212
298
6.69
5.69
5.69
3.761
479
763
695

562
212
350
7
6
6
4.45
376
646
556

0
0
0

Major1
350
4.46
2.524
1043
-

462
462
736
695

0
0
0
0

-

1043
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
13.7
B

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

1.6

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 MD Peak

NBL
1043
0.033
8.6
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 462
- 1440
- 0.101
0
- 13.7
0
0
A
B
A
A
0.3
0

NB
1.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 180
90
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
73
87
2
19
39
0 247 103
Major2
143
4.12
2.218
1440
1440
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/23/2015

5.4
EBL EBT EBR
60
0
5
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
33
51
0
25
78
0
15

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
600
453
147
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
393
549
774

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
17.3
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1473
0
A
0

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 MD Peak

337
337
470
774

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
116
4.12
2.218
1473
-

631 116
453
178
6.5 6.45
5.5
5.5
4 3.525
401 878
573
756
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
70
35
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0 115
64

878
-

1473
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 337 878 1260
- 0.231 0.017 0.134
- 18.9
9.2
8.3
C
A
A
0.9
0.1
0.5

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
135
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
169 116
0
Major2
178
4.37
2.443
1260
1260
-

0
-

0
-

SB
4.9

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2025 MD Peak

Option 3
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.6

WB
0.0
0.2
0.4
6.3
0.2
3.1

NB
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.9
0.0
0.0

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
5.8
0.0
3.2

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.1
0.6
3.9
0.2
1.5

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 U-Turn MD

Option 3
Brannigan U-Turn
2025 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

71

2.0

0.083

5.0

LOS A

0.2

Approach

71

2.0

0.083

5.0

LOS A

0.2

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
12
R
Approach

205
74
67
346

8.0
100.0
2.0
26.5

0.196
0.191
0.191
0.196

5.3
7.0
7.0
6.0

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

416

22.3

0.196

5.8

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

5.3

0.31

0.55

30.9

5.3

0.31

0.55

30.9

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.75
0.81
0.38
0.69

29.0
29.2
34.9
29.9

0.2

5.3

0.05

0.67

30.1

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:27:29 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 3.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
25
0 310
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- Free
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
50
19
39
0 369

NBL NBT NBR
20 100
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
40 123
0

Minor1
471
203
268
6.57
5.57
5.57
3.653
525
797
744

525
203
322
7
6
6
4.45
396
652
573

0
0
0

Major1
322
4.3
2.38
1143
-

505
505
767
744

0
0
0
0

-

1143
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
12.7
B

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

1.6

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 PM Peak

NBL
1143
0.035
8.3
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 505
- 1464
- 0.077
0
- 12.7
0
0
A
B
A
A
0.2
0

NB
2

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 160 100
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
75
92
2
31
33
0 213 109
Major2
123
4.12
2.218
1464
1464
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/23/2015

5.7
EBL EBT EBR
65
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
25
50
37
0
17
82
0
20

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
652
462
190
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
382
567
765

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
18.4
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1566
0
A
0

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 PM Peak

310
310
460
765

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
43
4.12
2.218
1566
-

766
43
462
304
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
335 986
568
667
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
55 125
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
76 227

986
-

1566
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 310 986 1132
- 0.265 0.02 0.185
- 20.8
8.7
8.9
C
A
A
1
0.1
0.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
155
30
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
209
43
0
Major2
304
4.36
2.434
1132
1132
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.4

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2025 PM Peak

Option 3
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.2
0.0
2.6

WB
0.0
0.3
0.5
7.2
0.2
3.1

NB
0.0
0.0
0.3
2.4
0.0
0.0

SB
0.0
0.1
0.1
5.6
0.0
3.0

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.1
0.9
4.2
0.3
1.4

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 U-Turn PM

Option 3
Brannigan U-Turn
2025 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

71

2.0

0.077

4.6

LOS A

0.2

Approach

71

2.0

0.077

4.6

LOS A

0.2

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
12
R
Approach

100
82
196
378

5.0
100.0
2.0
23.9

0.093
0.321
0.321
0.321

4.2
7.7
7.7
6.8

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

448

20.5

0.321

6.4

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

4.9

0.26

0.51

31.2

4.9

0.26

0.51

31.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.75
0.88
0.40
0.60

29.0
29.2
34.9
31.6

0.2

4.9

0.04

0.58

31.6

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:35:34 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 3.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
60
0 135
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- Free
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
87
0 169

NBL NBT NBR
5
65
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
10
84
0

Minor1
672
104
568
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
420
918
565

727
104
623
7
6
6
4.45
298
725
411

0
0
0

Major1
623
4.6
2.65
764
-

414
414
905
565

0
0
0
0

-

764
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
16
C

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

1.8

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 AM Peak

NBL
764
0.013
9.8
A
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 414
- 1513
- 0.21
0
16
0
0
A
C
A
A
0.8
0

NB
1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 405
75
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 513 110
Major2
84
4.12
2.218
1513
1513
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

7/23/2015

14
EBL EBT EBR
60
0
15
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
78
0
34

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Minor2
1121 1137 110
1084 1084
37
53
6.92
6.5 6.34
5.92
5.5
5.92
5.5
3.968
4 3.426
183 203 912
262 296
871 855
119
119
171
871

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
58.3
F

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1480
0
A
0

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 AM Peak

0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
10
25
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
20
33
Major1
110
4.12
2.218
1480
-

912
-

1480
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 119 912 1485
- 0.655 0.037 0.328
- 79.8
9.1
8.6
F
A
A
3.4
0.1
1.4

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
385
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
487 110
0
Major2
53
4.23
2.317
1485
1485
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2035 AM Peak

Option 3
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.1
4.2
0.1
3.6

WB
0.0
0.3
0.8
8.2
0.4
4.4

NB
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.0
0.0
0.0

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
6.7
0.1
4.1

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.2
1.1
5.7
0.6
2.9

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 U-Turn AM

Option 3
Brannigan U-Turn
2035 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

300

2.0

0.336

7.7

LOS A

1.1

Approach

300

2.0

0.336

7.7

LOS A

1.1

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
12
R
Approach

131
80
53
264

14.0
100.0
2.0
37.5

0.132
0.189
0.189
0.189

4.8
7.3
7.3
6.1

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

564

18.6

0.336

7.0

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

27.5

0.37

0.59

29.1

27.5

0.37

0.59

29.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.75
0.79
0.38
0.68

29.0
29.2
34.9
30.0

1.1

27.5

0.19

0.63

29.5

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:31:36 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 3.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
40
0 180
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- Free
- 250
0
0
75
92
92
29
50
33
53
0 196

NBL NBT NBR
25 130
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
43 169
0

Minor1
613
255
358
6.69
5.69
5.69
3.761
415
729
652

676
255
421
7
6
6
4.45
321
617
514

0
0
0

Major1
421
4.46
2.524
978
-

395
395
693
652

0
0
0
0

-

978
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
15.5
C

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

1.8

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 MD Peak

NBL
978
0.044
8.9
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 395
- 1409
- 0.135
0
- 15.5
0
0
A
C
A
A
0.5
0

NB
1.8

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 215 110
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
73
87
2
19
39
0 295 126
Major2
169
4.12
2.218
1409
1409
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/23/2015

6.5
EBL EBT EBR
75
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
33
51
0
25
97
0
30

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
706
538
168
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
337
498
756

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
21.1
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1446
0
A
0

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 MD Peak

278
278
410
756

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
138
4.12
2.218
1446
-

742 138
538
204
6.5 6.45
5.5
5.5
4 3.525
346 853
526
737
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
80
40
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0 131
73

853
-

1446
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 278 853 1232
- 0.35 0.036 0.162
- 24.8
9.4
8.5
C
A
A
1.5
0.1
0.6

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
160
95
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
200 138
0
Major2
204
4.37
2.443
1232
1232
-

0
-

0
-

SB
5

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2035 MD Peak

Option 3
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.6
0.0
2.8

WB
0.0
0.2
0.5
6.9
0.2
3.2

NB
0.0
0.0
0.2
2.1
0.0
0.0

SB
0.0
0.3
0.1
6.1
0.1
3.5

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.1
0.8
4.2
0.3
1.7

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 U-Turn MD

Option 3
Brannigan U-Turn
2035 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

82

2.0

0.102

5.5

LOS A

0.3

Approach

82

2.0

0.102

5.5

LOS A

0.3

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
12
R
Approach

256
85
73
415

8.0
100.0
2.0
25.8

0.245
0.217
0.217
0.245

5.8
7.4
7.4
6.4

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

497

21.9

0.245

6.2

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

6.6

0.35

0.59

30.6

6.6

0.35

0.59

30.6

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.75
0.80
0.38
0.69

29.0
29.2
34.9
29.8

0.3

6.6

0.06

0.68

29.9

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:28:47 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 3.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
30
0 380
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- Free
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
50
19
47
0 452

NBL NBT NBR
20 115
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
40 142
0

Minor1
545
222
323
6.57
5.57
5.57
3.653
475
781
701

607
222
385
7
6
6
4.45
353
639
535

0
0
0

Major1
385
4.3
2.38
1082
-

456
456
750
701

0
0
0
0

-

1082
-

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
13.8
B

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

1.6

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 PM Peak

NBL
1082
0.037
8.5
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 456
- 1441
- 0.103
0
- 13.8
0
0
A
B
A
A
0.3
0

NB
1.9

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 195 115
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
75
92
2
31
33
0 260 125
Major2
142
4.12
2.218
1441
1441
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/23/2015

7
EBL EBT EBR
75
0
15
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
25
50
37
0
17
95
0
30

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
784
564
220
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
317
506
740

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
24.7
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1557
0
A
0

Option 3
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 PM Peak

239
239
382
740

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
50
4.12
2.218
1557
-

920
50
564
356
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
273 977
512
633
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
60 150
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
83 273

977
-

1557
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 239 977 1081
- 0.397 0.031 0.238
- 29.7
8.8
9.4
D
A
A
1.8
0.1
0.9

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
190
35
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
257
50
0
Major2
356
4.36
2.434
1081
1081
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.8

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2035 PM Peak

Option 3
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.1
3.4
0.1
2.7

WB
0.0
0.4
0.7
8.2
0.3
3.9

NB
0.0
0.0
0.3
2.5
0.0
0.0

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
6.2
0.1
3.5

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.1
1.2
4.6
0.4
1.7

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 U-Turn PM

Option 3
Brannigan U-Turn
2035 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

88

2.0

0.117

6.0

LOS A

0.3

Approach

88

2.0

0.117

6.0

LOS A

0.3

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
12
R
Approach

338
98
234
670

5.0
100.0
2.0
17.8

0.314
0.385
0.385
0.385

6.4
8.7
8.7
7.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

758

16.0

0.385

7.4

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

7.7

0.39

0.64

30.2

7.7

0.39

0.64

30.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.75
0.88
0.40
0.65

29.0
29.2
34.9
30.7

0.3

7.7

0.05

0.64

30.6

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:37:02 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 3.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-10
Concept 4 Traffic Analysis

Final Report
October 29, 2015

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Transwestern & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
50
0 110
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
72
0 138
Minor1
557
91
466
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
490
930
630

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
11.1
B

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

3

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 AM Peak

484
484
919
630

NBL
847
0.012
9.3
A
0

604
71
91
513
7 6.59
6
6
4.45 3.651
355 897
735
465
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 484 897 1529
- 0.15 0.153
0
- 13.7
9.7
0
A
B
A
A
0.5
0.5
0

897
-

NBL NBT NBR
5
55
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
10
71
0
Major1
513
4.6
2.65
847
847
NB
1.1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 330
65
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 418
96
Major2
71
4.12
2.218
1529
1529
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Transwestern & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/21/2015

9.5
EBL EBT EBR
50
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
65
0
23

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
920
887
33
6.92
5.92
5.92
3.968
246
331
875

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
29.5
D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1506
0
A
0

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 AM Peak

177
177
238
875

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
89
4.12
2.218
1506
-

934
89
887
47
6.5 6.34
5.5
5.5
4 3.426
268 937
365
860
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
10
20
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
20
27

937
-

1506
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 177 937 1493
- 0.367 0.024 0.267
- 36.7
8.9
8.3
E
A
A
1.6
0.1
1.1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
315
65
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
399
89
0
Major2
47
4.23
2.317
1493
1493
-

0
-

0
-

SB
6.8

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 Brannigan AM

Option 4
Brannigan at Transwestern
2025 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

165
31

35.0
2.0

0.114
0.114

5.3
5.1

LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3

Approach

196

29.7

0.114

5.3

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

232
31
263

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.277
0.277
0.277

6.6
6.6
6.6

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

13
256
270

2.0
35.0
33.4

0.403
0.403
0.403

All Vehicles

728

21.1

0.403

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

10.1
10.1

0.07
0.07

0.68
0.49

27.1
29.8

0.3

10.1

0.07

0.65

27.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.9
0.9
0.9

21.6
21.6
21.6

0.29
0.29
0.29

0.75
0.48
0.72

26.5
29.4
26.8

11.0
11.0
11.0

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

1.3
1.3
1.3

41.7
41.7
41.7

0.42
0.42
0.42

0.56
0.64
0.64

27.0
26.6
26.6

7.9

LOS A

1.3

41.7

0.28

0.67

26.9

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:39:10 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 4.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Brannigan & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
35
0 145
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
75
92
96
29
2
33
47
0 151
Minor1
510 562 143
212 212
298 350
6.69 6.52 6.53
5.69 5.52
5.69 5.52
3.761 4.018 3.597
479 436 829
763 727
695 633
462
462
736
695

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

3.4

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 MD Peak

0
0
0
0

829
-

WB
11.1
B
NBL
1043
0.033
8.6
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 462 829 1440
- 0.101 0.182
0
- 13.7 10.3
0
A
B
B
A
0.3
0.7
0

NBL NBT NBR
20 110
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
34 143
0
Major1
350
4.46
2.524
1043
1043
NB
1.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 180
90
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
73
87
2
19
39
0 247 103
Major2
143
4.12
2.218
1440
1440
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Brannigan & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/21/2015

5.4
EBL EBT EBR
60
0
5
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
50
33
51
50
25
78
0
15

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
600
453
147
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
393
549
774

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
17.3
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1473
0
A
0

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 MD Peak

337
337
470
774

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
116
4.12
2.218
1473
-

631 116
453
178
7 6.45
6
6
4.45 3.525
342 878
497
670
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
70
35
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0 115
64

878
-

1473
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 337 878 1260
- 0.231 0.017 0.134
- 18.9
9.2
8.3
C
A
A
0.9
0.1
0.5

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
135
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
169 116
0
Major2
178
4.37
2.443
1260
1260
-

0
-

0
-

SB
4.9

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 Brannigan MD

Option 4
Brannigan at Transwestern
2025 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

268
38

35.0
2.0

0.182
0.182

6.1
6.0

LOS A
LOS A

0.6
0.6

Approach

306

30.9

0.182

6.1

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

51
18
68

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.079
0.079
0.079

4.9
4.9
4.9

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

24
259
282

2.0
35.0
32.2

0.348
0.348
0.348

All Vehicles

657

28.5

0.348

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

17.0
17.0

0.10
0.10

0.67
0.48

26.7
29.2

0.6

17.0

0.10

0.65

27.0

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.2
0.2
0.2

5.1
5.1
5.1

0.31
0.31
0.31

0.79
0.51
0.72

27.4
30.5
28.1

8.5
8.5
8.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.2
1.2
1.2

37.0
37.0
37.0

0.18
0.18
0.18

0.40
0.51
0.50

28.6
27.9
28.0

7.0

LOS A

1.2

37.0

0.16

0.59

27.5

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:56:48 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 4.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Brannigan & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
25
0 310
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
2
19
39
0 369
Minor1
471 525 123
203 203
268 322
6.57 6.52 6.39
5.57 5.52
5.57 5.52
3.653 4.018 3.471
525 458 884
797 733
744 651
505
505
767
744

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

5.9

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 PM Peak

0
0
0
0

884
-

WB
12.1
B
NBL
1143
0.035
8.3
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 505 884 1464
- 0.077 0.417
0
- 12.7
12
0
A
B
B
A
0.2
2.1
0

NBL NBT NBR
20 100
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
40 123
0
Major1
322
4.3
2.38
1143
1143
NB
2

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 160 100
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
83
75
92
2
31
33
0 213 109
Major2
123
4.12
2.218
1464
1464
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Brannigan & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/21/2015

5.7
EBL EBT EBR
65
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
92
50
37
0
17
82
0
20

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
652
462
190
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
382
567
765

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
18.4
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1566
0
A
0

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 PM Peak

310
310
460
765

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
43
4.12
2.218
1566
-

766
43
462
304
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
335 986
568
667
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
55 125
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
76 227

986
-

1566
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 310 986 1132
- 0.265 0.02 0.185
- 20.8
8.7
8.9
C
A
A
1
0.1
0.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
155
30
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
209
43
0
Major2
304
4.36
2.434
1132
1132
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.4

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 Brannigan PM

Option 4
Brannigan at Transwestern
2025 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

347
146

35.0
2.0

0.288
0.288

7.5
7.0

LOS A
LOS A

1.1
1.1

Approach

493

25.2

0.288

7.4

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

57
12
69

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.086
0.086
0.086

5.4
5.4
5.4

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

53
241
295

2.0
35.0
29.0

0.356
0.356
0.356

All Vehicles

856

24.7

0.356

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

30.7
30.7

0.18
0.18

0.67
0.50

26.1
28.6

1.1

30.7

0.18

0.62

26.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.2
0.2
0.2

5.5
5.5
5.5

0.36
0.36
0.36

0.80
0.55
0.76

27.2
30.2
27.6

8.5
8.5
8.5

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.3
1.3
1.3

38.6
38.6
38.6

0.20
0.20
0.20

0.41
0.51
0.50

28.6
27.9
28.0

7.6

LOS A

1.3

38.6

0.20

0.59

27.2

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:41:21 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 4.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Transwestern & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
60
0 135
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
87
0 169
Minor1
672
104
568
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
420
918
565

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
12
B

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

3.3

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 AM Peak

414
414
905
565

NBL
764
0.013
9.8
A
0

727
84
104
623
7 6.59
6
6
4.45 3.651
298 882
725
411
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 414 882 1513
- 0.21 0.191
0
16
10
0
A
C
B
A
0.8
0.7
0

882
-

NBL NBT NBR
5
65
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
10
84
0
Major1
623
4.6
2.65
764
764
NB
1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 405
75
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 513 110
Major2
84
4.12
2.218
1513
1513
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Transwestern & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

7/21/2015

14
EBL EBT EBR
60
0
15
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
78
0
34

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Minor2
1121 1137 110
1084 1084
37
53
6.92
6.5 6.34
5.92
5.5
5.92
5.5
3.968
4 3.426
183 203 912
262 296
871 855
119
119
171
871

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
58.3
F

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1480
0
A
0

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 AM Peak

0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
10
25
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
20
33
Major1
110
4.12
2.218
1480
-

912
-

1480
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 119 912 1485
- 0.655 0.037 0.328
- 79.8
9.1
8.6
F
A
A
3.4
0.1
1.4

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
385
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
487 110
0
Major2
53
4.23
2.317
1485
1485
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 Brannigan AM

Option 4
Brannigan at Transwestern
2035 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

200
38

35.0
2.0

0.138
0.138

5.6
5.4

LOS A
LOS A

0.4
0.4

Approach

238

29.8

0.138

5.6

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

274
38
312

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.340
0.340
0.340

7.6
7.6
7.6

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

13
319
332

2.0
35.0
33.7

0.520
0.520
0.520

All Vehicles

881

21.4

0.520

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

12.5
12.5

0.07
0.07

0.68
0.49

27.0
29.6

0.4

12.5

0.07

0.65

27.3

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.1
1.1
1.1

28.1
28.1
28.1

0.34
0.34
0.34

0.78
0.53
0.75

26.0
28.7
26.3

14.2
14.2
14.2

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

2.0
2.0
2.0

62.4
62.4
62.4

0.49
0.49
0.49

0.65
0.71
0.71

25.4
25.0
25.0

9.5

LOS A

2.0

62.4

0.33

0.71

26.1

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:39:48 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 4.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Brannigan & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
40
0 180
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
75
92
96
29
2
33
53
0 188
Minor1
613 676 169
255 255
358 421
6.69 6.52 6.53
5.69 5.52
5.69 5.52
3.761 4.018 3.597
415 375 801
729 696
652 589
395
395
693
652

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

3.7

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 MD Peak

0
0
0
0

801
-

WB
11.9
B
NBL
978
0.044
8.9
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 395 801 1409
- 0.135 0.234
0
- 15.5 10.9
0
A
C
B
A
0.5
0.9
0

NBL NBT NBR
25 130
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
43 169
0
Major1
421
4.46
2.524
978
978
NB
1.8

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 215 110
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
73
87
2
19
39
0 295 126
Major2
169
4.12
2.218
1409
1409
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Brannigan & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/21/2015

6.5
EBL EBT EBR
75
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
50
33
51
50
25
97
0
30

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
706
538
168
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
337
498
756

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
21.1
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1446
0
A
0

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 MD Peak

278
278
410
756

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
138
4.12
2.218
1446
-

742 138
538
204
7 6.45
6
6
4.45 3.525
292 853
452
651
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
80
40
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0 131
73

853
-

1446
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 278 853 1232
- 0.35 0.036 0.162
- 24.8
9.4
8.5
C
A
A
1.5
0.1
0.6

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
160
95
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
200 138
0
Major2
204
4.37
2.443
1232
1232
-

0
-

0
-

SB
5

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 Brannigan MD

Option 4
Brannigan at Transwestern
2035 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

327
45

35.0
2.0

0.221
0.221

6.6
6.4

LOS A
LOS A

0.7
0.7

Approach

372

31.0

0.221

6.6

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

56
24
80

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.098
0.098
0.098

5.4
5.4
5.4

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

24
316
340

2.0
35.0
32.7

0.422
0.422
0.422

All Vehicles

792

28.8

0.422

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

21.4
21.4

0.10
0.10

0.67
0.48

26.5
28.9

0.7

21.4

0.10

0.65

26.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3
0.3

6.4
6.4
6.4

0.35
0.35
0.35

0.82
0.55
0.74

27.2
30.2
28.0

9.8
9.8
9.8

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

1.5
1.5
1.5

48.2
48.2
48.2

0.21
0.21
0.21

0.41
0.51
0.50

27.8
27.2
27.2

7.9

LOS A

1.5

48.2

0.17

0.60

27.1

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:40:47 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 4.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Brannigan & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
30
0 380
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
2
19
47
0 452
Minor1
545 607 142
222 222
323 385
6.57 6.52 6.39
5.57 5.52
5.57 5.52
3.653 4.018 3.471
475 411 863
781 720
701 611
456
456
750
701

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/21/2015

6.7

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 PM Peak

0
0
0
0

863
-

WB
13.7
B
NBL
1082
0.037
8.5
A
0.1

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 456 863 1441
- 0.103 0.524
0
- 13.8 13.7
0
A
B
B
A
0.3
3.1
0

NBL NBT NBR
20 115
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
40 142
0
Major1
385
4.3
2.38
1082
1082
NB
1.9

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 195 115
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
83
75
92
2
31
33
0 260 125
Major2
142
4.12
2.218
1441
1441
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Brannigan & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/21/2015

7
EBL EBT EBR
75
0
15
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
92
50
37
0
17
95
0
30

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
784
564
220
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
317
506
740

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
24.7
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1557
0
A
0

Option 4
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 PM Peak

239
239
382
740

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
50
4.12
2.218
1557
-

920
50
564
356
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
273 977
512
633
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
60 150
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
83 273

977
-

1557
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 239 977 1081
- 0.397 0.031 0.238
- 29.7
8.8
9.4
D
A
A
1.8
0.1
0.9

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
190
35
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
257
50
0
Major2
356
4.36
2.434
1081
1081
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.8

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 Brannigan PM

Option 54
Brannigan at Transwestern
2035 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

South: Transwestern
3
L
18
R

424
171

35.0
2.0

0.353
0.353

8.5
7.9

LOS A
LOS A

1.4
1.4

Approach

594

25.5

0.353

8.4

LOS A

East: Brannigan
1
L
6
T
Approach

68
18
86

2.0
2.0
2.0

0.116
0.116
0.116

6.1
6.1
6.1

West: Brannigan
2
T
12
R
Approach

67
294
361

2.0
35.0
28.9

0.441
0.441
0.441

1041

24.7

0.441

Mov ID

Turn

All Vehicles

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

40.0
40.0

0.22
0.22

0.67
0.51

25.6
28.0

1.4

40.0

0.22

0.63

26.2

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

0.3
0.3
0.3

7.6
7.6
7.6

0.40
0.40
0.40

0.85
0.61
0.80

26.8
29.7
27.3

10.0
10.0
10.0

LOS B
LOS B
LOS B

1.7
1.7
1.7

51.9
51.9
51.9

0.24
0.24
0.24

0.42
0.52
0.50

27.7
27.1
27.2

8.8

LOS A

1.7

51.9

0.24

0.60

26.6

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:41:48 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 4\Option 4.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-11
Concept 5 Traffic Analysis

Final Report
October 29, 2015

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
50
0 110
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
72
0 138
Minor1
557
91
466
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
490
930
630

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
11.1
B

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

3

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 AM Peak

484
484
919
630

NBL
847
0.012
9.3
A
0

604
71
91
513
7 6.59
6
6
4.45 3.651
355 897
735
465
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 484 897 1529
- 0.15 0.153
0
- 13.7
9.7
0
A
B
A
A
0.5
0.5
0

897
-

NBL NBT NBR
5
55
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
10
71
0
Major1
513
4.6
2.65
847
847
NB
1.1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 330
65
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 418
96
Major2
71
4.12
2.218
1529
1529
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/23/2015

9.5
EBL EBT EBR
50
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
65
0
23

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
920
887
33
6.92
5.92
5.92
3.968
246
331
875

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
29.5
D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1506
0
A
0

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 AM Peak

177
177
238
875

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
89
4.12
2.218
1506
-

934
89
887
47
6.5 6.34
5.5
5.5
4 3.426
268 937
365
860
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
10
20
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
20
27

937
-

1506
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 177 937 1493
- 0.367 0.024 0.267
- 36.7
8.9
8.3
E
A
A
1.6
0.1
1.1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
315
65
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
399
89
0
Major2
47
4.23
2.317
1493
1493
-

0
-

0
-

SB
6.8

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2025 AM Peak

Option 5
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.2
0.1
3.7
0.1
3.0

WB
0.0
0.3
0.6
6.2
0.3
3.2

NB
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.3

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
6.0
0.1
3.4

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.2
0.8
4.6
0.4
2.4

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 U-Turn AM

Option 5
Brannigan U-Turn
2025 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

300

2.0

0.319

7.2

LOS A

1.0

Approach

300

2.0

0.319

7.2

LOS A

1.0

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
Approach

175
47
222

35.0
2.0
28.1

0.126
0.126
0.126

5.4
5.1
5.3

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

522

13.1

0.319

6.4

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

26.0

0.31

0.55

29.4

26.0

0.31

0.55

29.4

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.79
0.38
0.70

29.0
34.9
29.9

1.0

26.0

0.18

0.61

29.6

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:42:24 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 5\Option 5.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
35
0 145
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
75
92
92
29
50
33
47
0 158
Minor1
510
212
298
6.69
5.69
5.69
3.761
479
763
695

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
11.2
B

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

3.5

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 MD Peak

462
462
736
695

NBL
1043
0.033
8.6
A
0.1

562 143
212
350
7 6.53
6
6
4.45 3.597
376 829
646
556
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 462 829 1440
- 0.101 0.19
0
- 13.7 10.4
0
A
B
B
A
0.3
0.7
0

829
-

NBL NBT NBR
20 110
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
34 143
0
Major1
350
4.46
2.524
1043
1043
NB
1.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 180
90
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
73
87
2
19
39
0 247 103
Major2
143
4.12
2.218
1440
1440
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/23/2015

5.4
EBL EBT EBR
60
0
5
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
33
51
0
25
78
0
15

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
600
453
147
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
393
549
774

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
17.3
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1473
0
A
0

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 MD Peak

337
337
470
774

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
116
4.12
2.218
1473
-

631 116
453
178
6.5 6.45
5.5
5.5
4 3.525
401 878
573
756
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
70
35
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0 115
64

878
-

1473
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 337 878 1260
- 0.231 0.017 0.134
- 18.9
9.2
8.3
C
A
A
0.9
0.1
0.5

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
135
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
169 116
0
Major2
178
4.37
2.443
1260
1260
-

0
-

0
-

SB
4.9

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2025 MD Peak

Option 5
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.4
0.0
2.5

WB
0.0
0.2
0.4
5.2
0.2
2.7

NB
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.8
0.0
0.3

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
6.0
0.0
3.4

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.1
0.6
3.6
0.3
1.7

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 U-Turn MD

Option 5
Brannigan U-Turn
2025 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

71

2.0

0.084

5.1

LOS A

0.2

Approach

71

2.0

0.084

5.1

LOS A

0.2

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
Approach

288
67
355

35.0
2.0
28.8

0.202
0.202
0.202

6.2
5.9
6.2

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

426

24.4

0.202

6.0

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

5.4

0.32

0.56

30.8

5.4

0.32

0.56

30.8

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.79
0.37
0.71

29.0
34.9
29.8

0.2

5.4

0.05

0.68

30.0

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:46:01 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 5\Option 5.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
25
0 310
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
50
19
39
0 369
Minor1
471
203
268
6.57
5.57
5.57
3.653
525
797
744

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
12.1
B

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

5.9

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2025 PM Peak

505
505
767
744

NBL
1143
0.035
8.3
A
0.1

525 123
203
322
7 6.39
6
6
4.45 3.471
396 884
652
573
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 505 884 1464
- 0.077 0.417
0
- 12.7
12
0
A
B
B
A
0.2
2.1
0

884
-

NBL NBT NBR
20 100
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
40 123
0
Major1
322
4.3
2.38
1143
1143
NB
2

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 160 100
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
75
92
2
31
33
0 213 109
Major2
123
4.12
2.218
1464
1464
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/23/2015

5.7
EBL EBT EBR
65
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
25
50
37
0
17
82
0
20

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
652
462
190
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
382
567
765

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
18.4
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1566
0
A
0

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2025 PM Peak

310
310
460
765

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
43
4.12
2.218
1566
-

766
43
462
304
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
335 986
568
667
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
55 125
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
76 227

986
-

1566
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 310 986 1132
- 0.265 0.02 0.185
- 20.8
8.7
8.9
C
A
A
1
0.1
0.7

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
155
30
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
209
43
0
Major2
304
4.36
2.434
1132
1132
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.4

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2025 PM Peak

Option 5
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.2
0.0
2.6

WB
0.0
0.3
0.5
6.0
0.3
2.9

NB
0.0
0.1
0.2
2.1
0.0
0.4

SB
0.0
0.1
0.1
5.8
0.1
3.1

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.1
0.9
3.8
0.4
1.6

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2025 U-Turn PM

Option 5
Brannigan U-Turn
2025 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

71

2.0

0.090

5.5

LOS A

0.2

Approach

71

2.0

0.090

5.5

LOS A

0.2

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
Approach

369
196
565

35.0
2.0
23.5

0.309
0.309
0.309

7.5
6.8
7.2

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

636

21.1

0.309

7.0

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

5.8

0.37

0.61

30.5

5.8

0.37

0.61

30.5

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.80
0.39
0.66

29.0
34.9
30.6

0.2

5.8

0.04

0.65

30.6

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:49:02 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 5\Option 5.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
60
0 135
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
69
50
80
3
50
39
87
0 169
Minor1
672
104
568
6.43
5.43
5.43
3.527
420
918
565

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
12
B

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

3.3

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 AM Peak

414
414
905
565

NBL
764
0.013
9.8
A
0

727
84
104
623
7 6.59
6
6
4.45 3.651
298 882
725
411
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 414 882 1513
- 0.21 0.191
0
16
10
0
A
C
B
A
0.8
0.7
0

882
-

NBL NBT NBR
5
65
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
77
92
50
50
2
10
84
0
Major1
623
4.6
2.65
764
764
NB
1

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 405
75
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
79
68
2
14
52
0 513 110
Major2
84
4.12
2.218
1513
1513
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

7/23/2015

14
EBL EBT EBR
60
0
15
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
44
52
0
14
78
0
34

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Minor2
1121 1137 110
1084 1084
37
53
6.92
6.5 6.34
5.92
5.5
5.92
5.5
3.968
4 3.426
183 203 912
262 296
871 855
119
119
171
871

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
58.3
F

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1480
0
A
0

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 AM Peak

0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
10
25
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
50
75
2
33
13
0
20
33
Major1
110
4.12
2.218
1480
-

912
-

1480
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 119 912 1485
- 0.655 0.037 0.328
- 79.8
9.1
8.6
F
A
A
3.4
0.1
1.4

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
385
80
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
79
73
92
13
9
2
487 110
0
Major2
53
4.23
2.317
1485
1485
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2035 AM Peak

Option 5
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.1
3.8
0.1
3.1

WB
0.0
0.3
0.8
6.9
0.4
3.7

NB
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.4

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
6.6
0.1
4.0

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.2
1.1
5.0
0.6
2.7

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 U-Turn AM

Option 5
Brannigan U-Turn
2035 AM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

300

2.0

0.333

7.6

LOS A

1.1

Approach

300

2.0

0.333

7.6

LOS A

1.1

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
Approach

219
53
272

35.0
2.0
28.5

0.155
0.155
0.155

5.7
5.4
5.6

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

572

14.6

0.333

6.7

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

27.2

0.36

0.59

29.2

27.2

0.36

0.59

29.2

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.79
0.37
0.71

29.0
34.9
29.9

1.1

27.2

0.19

0.64

29.5

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:44:33 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 5\Option 5.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
40
0 180
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
75
92
92
29
50
33
53
0 196
Minor1
613
255
358
6.69
5.69
5.69
3.761
415
729
652

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
11.9
B

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

3.8

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 MD Peak

395
395
693
652

NBL
978
0.044
8.9
A
0.1

676 169
255
421
7 6.53
6
6
4.45 3.597
321 801
617
514
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 395 801 1409
- 0.135 0.244
0
- 15.5 10.9
0
A
C
B
A
0.5
1
0

801
-

NBL NBT NBR
25 130
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
58
77
92
36
28
2
43 169
0
Major1
421
4.46
2.524
978
978
NB
1.8

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 215 110
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
73
87
2
19
39
0 295 126
Major2
169
4.12
2.218
1409
1409
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/23/2015

6.5
EBL EBT EBR
75
0
10
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
77
25
33
51
0
25
97
0
30

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
706
538
168
6.91
5.91
5.91
3.959
337
498
756

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
21.1
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1446
0
A
0

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 MD Peak

278
278
410
756

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
138
4.12
2.218
1446
-

742 138
538
204
6.5 6.45
5.5
5.5
4 3.525
346 853
526
737
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
80
40
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
61
55
2
10
25
0 131
73

853
-

1446
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 278 853 1232
- 0.35 0.036 0.162
- 24.8
9.4
8.5
C
A
A
1.5
0.1
0.6

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
160
95
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
80
69
92
27
16
2
200 138
0
Major2
204
4.37
2.443
1232
1232
-

0
-

0
-

SB
5

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2035 MD Peak

Option 5
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.0
0.0
3.0

WB
0.0
0.2
0.5
5.8
0.3
3.0

NB
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.9
0.0
0.3

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
5.7
0.1
3.2

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.0
0.2
0.8
3.9
0.4
1.8

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 U-Turn MD

Option 5
Brannigan U-Turn
2035 MD Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

82

2.0

0.104

5.6

LOS A

0.3

Approach

82

2.0

0.104

5.6

LOS A

0.3

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
Approach

353
73
426

35.0
2.0
29.3

0.244
0.244
0.244

6.7
6.4
6.7

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

508

24.9

0.244

6.5

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

6.8

0.36

0.60

30.5

6.8

0.36

0.60

30.5

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.78
0.37
0.71

29.0
34.9
29.8

0.3

6.8

0.06

0.69

29.9

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:47:22 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 5\Option 5.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Hughes Avenue & Interate 40 WB On-Ramp/Interate 40 WB Off-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

EBL EBT EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

WBL WBT WBR
30
0 380
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 250
0
0
64
92
84
17
50
19
47
0 452
Minor1
545
222
323
6.57
5.57
5.57
3.653
475
781
701

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

WB
13.7
B

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

7/23/2015

6.7

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

2035 PM Peak

456
456
750
701

NBL
1082
0.037
8.5
A
0.1

607 142
222
385
7 6.39
6
6
4.45 3.471
353 863
639
535
0
0
0
0

NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL
- 456 863 1441
- 0.103 0.524
0
- 13.8 13.7
0
A
B
B
A
0.3
3.1
0

863
-

NBL NBT NBR
20 115
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
50
81
92
20
35
2
40 142
0
Major1
385
4.3
2.38
1082
1082
NB
1.9

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
0 195 115
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
68
75
92
2
31
33
0 260 125
Major2
142
4.12
2.218
1441
1441
-

0
-

0
-

SB
0

SBT SBR
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 1

HCM 2010 TWSC
3: Hughes Avenue & Interstate 40 EB Off-Ramp/Interstate 40 EB On-Ramp

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow

7/23/2015

7
EBL EBT EBR
75
0
15
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
- 150
0
0
79
25
50
37
0
17
95
0
30

Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2

Minor2
784
564
220
6.77
5.77
5.77
3.833
317
506
740

Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS

EB
24.7
C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

NBL
1557
0
A
0

Option 5
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

2035 PM Peak

239
239
382
740

WBL WBT WBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
92
92
92
2
2
2
0
0
0

Major1
50
4.12
2.218
1557
-

920
50
564
356
6.5 6.37
5.5
5.5
4 3.453
273 977
512
633
0
0
0
0

NBL NBT NBR
0
60 150
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
92
72
55
2
17
20
0
83 273

977
-

1557
NB
0

NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 SBL
- 239 977 1081
- 0.397 0.031 0.238
- 29.7
8.8
9.4
D
A
A
1.8
0.1
0.9

0
-

0
-

SBL SBT SBR
190
35
0
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
0
0
74
70
92
26
25
2
257
50
0
Major2
356
4.36
2.434
1081
1081
-

0
-

0
-

SB
7.8

SBT SBR
0
A
-

Synchro 8 Report
Page 2

SimTraffic Performance Report
2035 PM Peak

Option 5
7/23/2015

8: Hughes Avenue/Pilot West Driveway & Brannigan Park Road Performance by approach
Approach
Denied Delay (hr)
Denied Del/Veh (s)
Total Delay (hr)
Total Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
Stop Del/Veh (s)

EB
0.0
0.1
0.1
3.5
0.1
2.9

WB
0.0
0.3
0.7
6.8
0.3
3.3

NB
0.0
0.1
0.3
2.1
0.1
0.4

SB
0.0
0.2
0.1
5.9
0.1
3.3

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

All
0.1
0.2
1.2
4.2
0.5
1.8

SimTraffic Report
Page 1

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 2035 U-Turn PM

Option 5
Brannigan U-Turn
2035 PM Peak
Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand
Flow
veh/h

HV
%

Deg.
Satn
v/c

Average
Delay
sec

Level of
Service

East: Brannigan
6
T

88

2.0

0.122

6.3

LOS A

0.3

Approach

88

2.0

0.122

6.3

LOS A

0.3

West: Brannigan
5
L
2
T
Approach

450
234
684

35.0
2.0
23.7

0.374
0.374
0.374

8.4
7.7
8.2

LOS A
LOS A
LOS A

All Vehicles

772

21.2

0.374

7.9

LOS A

Mov ID

Turn

95% Back of Queue
Vehicles
Distance
veh
ft

Prop.
Queued

Effective
Stop Rate
per veh

Average
Speed
mph

8.0

0.41

0.66

30.0

8.0

0.41

0.66

30.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.80
0.39
0.66

29.0
34.9
30.6

0.3

8.0

0.05

0.66

30.6

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.
HCM Delay Model used. Geometric Delay not included.

Processed: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:50:36 PM
Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\PR53828\traffic\Alternatives Analysis\Option 5\Option 5.sip
8001273, BURGESS & NIPLE, INC., SINGLE

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-12
Phase I Engagement Summary

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
ADOT Task Assignment MPD 012-15

Phase I Engagement Summary

Prepared for:

AND

Prepared by:

In association with:
Partners for Strategic Action, Inc.
May 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Project Leadership
Arizona Department of Transportation
205 S. 17th Ave, Rm 370 - MD 605E
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Heidi Yaqub, Project Manager
Email: HYaqub@azdot.gov
Telephone: 602.712.7644
Coconino County
5600 E. Commerce
Flagstaff, AZ 86004
Tim Dalegowski, Transportation Planner
Email: timdalegowski@coconinoaz.gov
Telephone: 928.679.8344

Study Consultant
Burgess & Niple, Inc.
1500 N. Priest Drive, Suite 101
Tempe, AZ 85281
Jason Pagnard, PE
Email: Jason.Pagnard@burgessniple.com
Telephone: 602.244.8100 ext. 5332
Report Prepared by
Partners for Strategic Action, Inc.
13771 N. Fountain Hills Blvd., Suite 114-360
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
Audra Koester Thomas
Email: audra@psaplanning.com
Telephone: 480.816.1811
This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material,
presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona
Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that
may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The
U.S. government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.

Page i of ii

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Phase I Public and Stakeholder Engagement Details .....................................................................................1
1.2. Phase I Public and Stakeholder Communication Tactics ...............................................................................1
2.0 Public Meeting .........................................................................................................................................................................2
2.1. Attendees.........................................................................................................................................................................2
2.2. Input Received ...............................................................................................................................................................2
2.3. Post-Public Meeting Input ........................................................................................................................................5
3.0 Pilot Travel Center On-Site Interviews ............................................................................................................................7
3.1. Observations regarding access into and out of this Pilot Travel Center .................................................7
3.2. Suggestions or ideas to improve access into/out of this Pilot Travel Center or to this
interchange area......................................................................................................................................................................7
3.3. Other comments or observations regarding traffic movements at this location?...............................8
3.4. Business impacts ...........................................................................................................................................................8
3.5. Frequency of visiting Pilot Travel Center .............................................................................................................9
3.6. Other input......................................................................................................................................................................9
Figures
Figure 1 – Focused Study Area Input ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 – Study Area Input ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 – Drivers that Elected not to use Pilot Travel Center due to Access or Congestion Issues ............. 8
Figure 4 – Frequency of Bellemont Pilot Travel Center Use .......................................................................................... 9

Appendices
Appendix ES1-1 – Fact Sheet
Appendix ES1-2 – Presentation
Appendix ES1-3 – Display Boards
Appendix ES1-4 – Comment Form
Appendix ES1-5 – Truck Interview Questionnaire

Page ii of ii

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

1.0 Introduction
The Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study is being conducted by the
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for Coconino County through the Planning Assistance for
Rural Areas (PARA) program. The project includes two phases of public and stakeholder engagement;
this first phase was facilitated to receive input regarding transportation issues and opportunities for
future improvements in the study area.

1.1.

Phase I Public and Stakeholder Engagement Details

Two specific activities were facilitated to inform this phase:
 Held the first public meeting.
 Conducted on-site interviews with Pilot Travel Center customers.

1.2.

Phase I Public and Stakeholder Communication Tactics

A variety of methods were utilized to communicate about the project and inform stakeholders and the
public about the public meeting. In February, a project web page was developed
(www.azdot.gov/Bellemont) to accommodate project information, reports and documents, and
announce engagement opportunities. Soon after, a project fact sheet, which is included as Appendix
ES1-1, was developed and used to communicate the March 25, 2015 public meeting. The flier was
distributed to Technical Advisory Committee members and their agencies, delivered to businesses
within and adjacent to the study area, and posted at the Pilot Travel Center. Working with the Flagstaff
Meadows property management associations (Sterling Real Estate Management and HOAMCO), the
fact sheet was distributed to the homeowner associations boards of directors, posted to the Flagstaff
Meadows Facebook page, and emailed to residents. Coconino County District 3 Supervisor Matt Ryan
included a notice of the meeting within his newsletter, which was distributed to residents the week of
March 16, 2015.
Because the Pilot Travel Center is a critical stakeholder, specific outreach to its management staff was
conducted. While managers did not express any questions or concerns at this early stage of the study,
the team indicated future follow-up would occur as alternatives are developed. Management was
notified that the study team also intended to interview semi- and heavy-truck customers on March 25,
2015, prior to the public meeting.

Page 1 of 9

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

2.0 Public Meeting
A public meeting was held in an open house format from 5 to 7 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at
the Ponderosa Fire District Station 82 in Bellemont. Coconino County Supervisor Matt Ryan offered a
brief welcome to those in attendance at the beginning of the event. Participants were encouraged to
view an automated presentation, which is included in Appendix ES1-2, providing study background
and details prior discussing the project with the study team. Three display boards, which are included
in Appendix ES1-3, and study area roll plots were used to capture observations, ideas and concerns.

2.1.

Attendees

The following individuals signed-in at the public meeting.
Keith Johnson
Duke MacArthur
Virgil Macklin
Erik Nielsen
Lerry Oldaker
Amy Paul
John Riordan
Patrick Thiel
Rick VanDeWater, Camp Navajo
Christine Wenstrom

James Brown
Rosanne Brown
Brad Clark
Patrick Conley
Chuck Crockat
Lindsay Daley
Dave Diever
Terry Fallon
Holly Fasld
William Forbes
Allison Hughes
Sign-in at public meetings is completely voluntary.

2.2.

Input Received

While participants were offered a comment
form, which is included in Appendix ES1-4,
participants elected to provide input on two
roll plots of the study area. One roll plot
portrayed the entire study area and the
other was a focused area near the I40/Bellemont traffic interchange. The
following graphics summarize the comments
that were received.

Participants provide input by marking on roll
plots of the study area.

Page 2 of 9

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 1 – Focused Study Area Input

Page 3 of 9

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Figure 2 – Study Area Input

Page 4 of 9

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

2.3.

Post-Public Meeting Input

One individual submitted input during the comment period (through April 8, 2015).
What opportunities, constraints or observations do you have regarding alleviating congestion
and improving or managing access to businesses and residential areas along Brannigan Park
Road and Shadows Mountain Drive and Transwestern Road?
I have seen very high truck traffic congest the exit 185 area to the point where I was delayed or
prevented getting to my home in Bellemont. This is increased during high traffic periods, high wind,
and/or inclement weather. One simple solution is to (re)paint traffic lanes between the westbound exit off
ramp and the Pilot parking lot, allowing for a turn lane for truck and a trough lane for cars [illustrated in
graphic, below]. Another solution is to install a second access ramp somewhere accessible by Bellemont
residents and businesses. I realize that this can be a high level of financial investment, but short of
paving the forest service roads, I believe it is required to have two methods of egress from the
residential dwellings, which is not currently true since the [forest service] road is not accessible yearround.

Page 5 of 9

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Do you have any suggestions or ideas to improve multi-modal travel (e.g., pedestrian or bike
paths, future transit options)?
 Paint a bike lane along Shadow Mountain road.
 Add a gate in the fence along Shadow Mountain road at the viaduct under I-40 (about a mile
past the Bellemont homes). Often cyclists will hop/crawl under the fence to bike to Flagstaff. I
have seen this fence damaged and repaired numerous times and a simple gate would relieve
that issue and make this route [friendlier] to cyclists and runners.
Do you have any other comments regarding this project?
 The repair job on I-40 outer lanes between Bellemont and Flagstaff (done around 2009?) was a
complete failure and the contractor should be made to repair the shoddy work they did.
 The developer should not have been allowed to build without two modes of egress.
 Whomever is responsible for snow removal should be encouraged to complete it in a timely
manner as it seems that we are last to be plowed or forgotten altogether.

Page 6 of 9

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.0 Pilot Travel Center On-Site Interviews
Congestion and access issues often occur at the Pilot Travel Center driveways, which are located in and
near the intersection of Brannigan Park Road and Shadow Mountain Drive. Therefore, the study team
interviewed several semi- and heavy truck customers on March 25, 2015. Interviews with 13 customers
were completed using the Truck Interview Questionnaire included in Appendix ES1-5. Each interview
included specific questions, which are summarized in Sections 3.1 through 3.5.

3.1.

Observations regarding access into and out of this Pilot Travel Center

While many respondents indicated they have had no issues accessing the Pilot Travel Center, several
remarked that the facility was small, particularly for its high use, and that access could be improved
particularly for trucks exiting the facility.
Specific observations included the following:
 It is difficult to look right (west) when exiting.
 Many different traffic movements occur where Brannigan Park Road, Transwestern Road, and
Pilot Travel Center access meet.
 Access is constrained, particularly at night; the location lacks the opportunity to park, stop, or
rest.
 Brannigan Park Road traffic sometimes assumes traffic on Transwestern Road, which enters Pilot
Travel Center, has a stop sign.
 The location succumbs to bottlenecking.

3.2.

Suggestions or ideas to improve access into/out of this Pilot Travel Center or to
this interchange area

Many drivers remarked at the ease of exiting I-40 and directly accessing the Pilot Travel Center via
Transwestern Road. However, because of the short distance from Brannigan Park Road to the fuel
pumps, there is little space for trucks to stage or queue; one driver remarked that customers need to
pick a lane/pump quickly because there is so little room to line-up and wait, and one cannot easily
back-up or change course. Improvements to assist trucks exiting the Pilot Travel Center were often
suggested.
Specific ideas included the following:
 Provide more truck parking.
 Open the location to provide more staging of trucks in fuel lanes; this is an important stop for
many drivers.
 Consider alternative ingress/egress; currently, there is only one access point for trucks to enter
and exit.

Page 7 of 9

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.3.

Other comments or observations regarding traffic movements at this location?

Many drivers remarked that this location was often very busy, but because of the large fuel capacity of
trucks (e.g., two 135 gallon tanks), most drivers only stop when they need to stop. They deal with
whatever consequences await.
One driver observed the addition of the tire repair shop behind/north of the fueling pumps added
substantial congestion at the location.

3.4.

Business impacts

Study team members asked drivers if they had ever intended to visit this Pilot Travel Center, but
changed their minds because of poor access to the site or congestion. Many drivers interviewed
indicated they have never experienced congestion that deterred them from visiting the location;
however, some drivers indicated times where they have elected to try the next fueling station, or in the
case of one driver, attempt to avoid this location entirely.

Figure 3 – Drivers that Elected not to use Pilot Travel Center due to Access or Congestion
Issues

Yes
36%

No
64%

Page 8 of 9

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.5.

Frequency of visiting Pilot Travel Center

Interviewees reported a range of frequency in visiting the Pilot Travel Center, with those that visit
frequently noting the importance of this location regionally or in terms of their typical route.

Figure 4 – Frequency of Bellemont Pilot Travel Center Use
Often (weekly)
25%
Rarely/First
Time
42%

Occasionally
(1-2 times per
month)
33%

3.6.

Other input

One interviewee expressed his deep concern for the condition of I-40, west of Bellemont, and
underscored the need to repair the paving service of this important corridor.

Page 9 of 9

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX ES1-1
Fact Sheet

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
A Planning Assistance for Rural Areas Study
FEBRUARY 2015

ST U DY OV E RV I E W
The Arizona Department of Transportation, through its Multimodal Planning Division, is collaborating with
Coconino County to conduct a transportation study at Bellemont.
Bellemont is a rural, unincorporated community with a population of approximately 1,000 residents in
Coconino County that has become a suburb of Flagstaff, where residents commute to work. Three roads,
Interstate 40 (I-40), Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive are used to access virtually all the
private land north of I-40 at Bellemont. Frequent congestion from heavy truck volumes and subdivision
traffic causes traffic delays and creates concern for safety and timely emergency response.
The access management and multi-modal transportation study, which is funded through the Planning
Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program, will provide a comprehensive review of the Bellemont area
transportation system and provide guidance for determining priority needs for future improvements north
of I-40, including alleviating congestion and improving/managing access, and improving and evaluating
multi-modal access to businesses from residential areas.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU
Join us on Wednesday, March 25, 2015, from 5 to 7 p.m. at a public open house to learn more about the
study and to share your ideas.
Ponderosa Fire District Station 82
11951 W. Shadow Mountain Dr.
Bellemont, AZ 86015
ST U DY T I M E L I N E
Spring 2015: Existing and future conditions
Summer 2015: Recommended improvements and
implementation plan
Fall 2015: Final report

ST U DY CO N TAC T
Heidi Yaqub
Project Manager
Arizona Department of Transportation
Phone: 602-712-7644
E-mail: hyaqub@azdot.gov

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
HOTLINE: 1-855-712-8530
azdot.gov/planning/CurrentStudies/PARAStudies

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX ES1-2
Presentation

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management & Multi‐
Modal Transportation Study

March 25, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi‐Modal Transportation Study
Public Open House
March 25, 2015

PROJECT BACKGROUND

For informational purposes; details
subject to change

1

Bellemont Access Management & Multi‐
Modal Transportation Study

March 25, 2015

Study Partners
Project Background
Open House Format

Coconino County is partnering with ADOT through its
Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program to
complete this access management and multi‐modal
transportation study.

Next Steps

Study Purpose

For informational purposes; details
subject to change

Next Steps

• Improve multi‐modal access to businesses from
residential areas

Open House Format

• Alleviate congestion and improve/manage access

Project Background

The study will provide guidance for determining priority
needs for future improvements north of I‐40, including
how to:

2

Bellemont Access Management & Multi‐
Modal Transportation Study

March 25, 2015

Study Area
Project Background
Open House Format
Next Steps

Study Area
Project Background
Open House Format
Next Steps

For informational purposes; details
subject to change

3

Bellemont Access Management & Multi‐
Modal Transportation Study

March 25, 2015

Study Product

Open House Format
Next Steps

It’s important to note:
 This is a study to inform future decisions.
 Recommendations will take time and money to
implement.

Project Background

The study will deliver to Coconino County an access
management and multi‐modal transportation plan to
implement in the Bellemont area over the next 5, 10
and 20 years.

What is Access Management?

Open House Format
Next Steps

For informational purposes; details
subject to change

Project Background

 Systematic control of the location, spacing, design,
and operation of driveways, median openings,
interchanges, and street connections to a roadway
 Benefits include:
• Safety
• Traffic operations
• Environment
• Economic development

4

Bellemont Access Management & Multi‐
Modal Transportation Study

March 25, 2015

OPEN HOUSE FORMAT

Provide Your Input!

Open House Format
Next Steps

For informational purposes; details
subject to change

Project Background

Please provide input tonight on
issues, ideas and opportunities
for the study team to consider!
 Review study boards and
post comments
 Talk with a member of our
study team
 Provide input on a comment
form
 Submit comments online:
azdot.gov/Bellemont

5

Bellemont Access Management & Multi‐
Modal Transportation Study

March 25, 2015

NEXT STEPS

Next Steps
Project Background
Open House Format
Next Steps

Tentative Schedule
 April: Working Paper #1, Summary of Existing and
Future Conditions
 June: Working Paper #2, Recommended
Improvements and Implementation Program;
Public Open House
 July: Draft Final Report
 August‐September: Final Report;
Presentation to Board of Supervisors
Documents available online at: azdot.gov/Bellemont

For informational purposes; details
subject to change

6

Bellemont Access Management & Multi‐
Modal Transportation Study

March 25, 2015

Thank you for attending today!

For informational purposes; details
subject to change

7

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX ES1-3
Display Boards

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
MulƟ-Modal TransportaƟon Study
Study Area TransportaƟon Issues and Needs
•

•

•

•

March 2015

Address congesƟon and safety at the intersecƟon of
Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow
Mountain Drive:
o Driveways are located within the intersecƟon and
aīect traĸc operaƟons.
o Trucks heading into the Pilot Travel Center someƟmes
block the intersecƟon and traĸc gets backed up to the
I-40 oī ramps.
Provide guidance for the management of access
(driveways) to public roadways.
o ADOT prepared Access Management Guidelines
that are in draŌ form.
o Coconino County has limited access management
standards.
Address the gaps in the bicycle/pedestrian network.
o There are limited paths and walkways within the
Study Area.
o ExisƟng paths and walkways do not provide
connecƟvity within the Study Area.
o The Study Area is not connected to neighboring areas.
Address public transit.
o Previous studies have idenƟĮed the need for transit
service.
o Adequate funding has not been idenƟĮed.

azdot.gov/Bellemont

Bellemont Access Management &
MulƟ-Modal TransportaƟon Study
PotenƟal Improvements from Previous Plans and Studies
•

Reconstruct the I-40/Bellemont Interchange.

•

Improve the Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road
and Shadow Mountain Drive intersecƟon.

•

Accommodate new local roads from future phases of
Flagstaī Meadows.

•

Provide basic commuter/transit service along I-40,
including a Park-and-Ride lot in Bellemont.

March 2015

azdot.gov/Bellemont

Bellemont Access Management &
MulƟ-Modal TransportaƟon Study
PotenƟal Interchange Concept from Previous Study

Example Roundabout
W Shadow Mountain Dr
Monarch Dr

Perseus Rd

40

Ice

Pe
gas
us
Rd

Centaurus Rd

Mensa Ct

Co
ve

Ca
ve

Dr

Cr
es
tD
r

Fos
sil
Cre
ek
Dr

Tra
nsw
est
ern
Rd

W

Fossil Creek Dr

W Brannigan Park Rd

W

Sh
ad
ow

M
ou
nt
ai
n

Dr

40
Source: NAIP
Rendering based on prior study and was prepared for illustraƟve purposes only.

Example Roundabout

Source: ESRI

March 2015

Mesa, AZ
azdot.gov/Bellemont

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX ES1-4
Comment Form

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal
Transportation Study
A Planning Assistance for Rural Areas Study

Feedback Form

March 25, 2015

Coconino County and ADOT appreciate your participation tonight. Your input is important to us. If you would
like to submit comments in writing, you may do so using this form. Comments must be received by April 8, 2015
in order to be part of the project record. You may leave this form with us tonight or submit comments to Heidi
Yaqub (hyaqub@azdot.gov) or online at: azdot.gov/Bellemont.
What opportunities, constraints or observations do you have regarding alleviating congestion and
improving or managing access to businesses and residential areas along Brannigan Park Road and Shadows
Mountain Drive and Transwestern Road?

Do you have any suggestions or ideas to improve multi-modal travel (e.g., pedestrian or bike paths, future
transit options)?
• Between businesses and residential areas?
• To areas beyond the study area?

Do you have any other comments regarding this project? Use back of form if you need additional space.

Contact Information (Optional*)
Name:
Address:
Email address:
* Completion of this comment form is completely voluntary. Under state law, any identifying information provided will become part of the
public record, and as such, must be released to any individual upon request.

azdot.gov/Bellemont

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX ES1-5
Truck Interview Questionnaire

Phase I Engagement Summary
May 10, 2015

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal
Transportation Study
A Planning Assistance for Rural Areas Study

Truck Interview Questionnaire

March 25, 2015

Coconino County and ADOT are facilitating an access management and multi-modal transportation study at
Bellemont. The results of this study will provide guidance for determining improvements to alleviate congestion
and improve access to businesses. As a semi- or heavy truck customer of the Pilot Travel Center, we’d like to ask
you a few short questions about access to this location and other observations you might have of this
interchange.
1. What are your observations regarding access into and out of this Pilot Travel Center?

2. Do you have any suggestions or ideas to improve access into/out of this Pilot Travel Center or to this
interchange area?

3. Do you have any other comments or observations regarding traffic movements at this location?

4. Have you ever intended to visit this Pilot Travel Center, but changed your mind because of poor access
to or congestion at the Pilot Travel Center?
Yes
No
If yes, please explain.

5. How often do you visit this Pilot Travel Center?
Rarely/First Time
Occasionally (1-2 times per month)

azdot.gov/Bellemont

Often (weekly)

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-13
Phase II Engagement Summary

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
ADOT Task Assignment MPD 012-15

Phase II Engagement Summary

Prepared for:

AND

Prepared by:

In association with:
Partners for Strategic Action, Inc.
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Project Leadership
Arizona Department of Transportation
205 S. 17th Ave, Rm 370 - MD 605E
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Heidi Yaqub, Project Manager
Email: HYaqub@azdot.gov
Telephone: 602.712.7644
Coconino County
5600 E. Commerce
Flagstaff, AZ 86004
Tim Dalegowski, Transportation Planner
Email: timdalegowski@coconinoaz.gov
Telephone: 928.679.8344

Study Consultant
Burgess & Niple, Inc.
1500 N. Priest Drive, Suite 101
Tempe, AZ 85281
Jason Pagnard, PE
Email: Jason.Pagnard@burgessniple.com
Telephone: 602.244.8100 ext. 5332
Report Prepared by
Partners for Strategic Action, Inc.
13771 N. Fountain Hills Blvd., Suite 114-360
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
Audra Koester Thomas
Email: audra@psaplanning.com
Telephone: 480.816.1811
This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material,
presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona
Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that
may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The
U.S. government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.

Page i of ii

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Phase II Public and Stakeholder Engagement Details ....................................................................................1
1.2. Phase II Public and Stakeholder Communication Tactics..............................................................................1
2.0 Public Meeting .........................................................................................................................................................................2
2.1. Attendees.........................................................................................................................................................................2
2.2. Input Received ...............................................................................................................................................................2
3.0 Pilot Travel Center Discussions ..........................................................................................................................................7
3.1. Observations regarding access into and out of this Pilot Travel Center .................................................7

Appendices

Appendix ES2-1 – Fact Sheet
Appendix ES2-2 – Bi-Fold
Appendix ES2-3 – Display Boards
Appendix ES2-4 – Comment Form

Page ii of ii

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

1.0 Introduction
The Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study is being conducted by the
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for Coconino County through the Planning Assistance for
Rural Areas (PARA) program. The project includes two phases of public and stakeholder engagement;
this second phase was facilitated to receive input regarding potential improvement concepts in the
study area.

1.1.

Phase II Public and Stakeholder Engagement Details

Two specific activities were facilitated to inform this phase:
 Held the second public meeting.
 Conducted discussions with local Pilot Travel Center management.

1.2.

Phase II Public and Stakeholder Communication Tactics

A variety of methods were utilized to communicate about the
project and inform stakeholders and the public about the
public meeting. The project web page was updated with
public meeting information (www.azdot.gov/Bellemont). An
open house flier, which is included as Appendix ES2-1, was
developed and used to communicate the August 5, 2015
public meeting. The flier was distributed delivered to
businesses within and adjacent to the study area and posted
at the Pilot Travel Center. Working with the Flagstaff
Meadows property management associations (Sterling Real
Estate Management and HOAMCO), the fact sheet was
distributed to the homeowner associations boards of
directors, posted on the associations’ websites, posted to the
Flagstaff Meadows Facebook page, and emailed to residents.
Coconino County also stationed a Variable Message Sign
(VMS) on July 29, 2015 communicating the public meeting.

Page 1 of 9

VMS board in Bellemont
advertising the public meeting.

Phase I Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

2.0 Public Meeting
A public meeting was held in an open house format
from 5 to 7 p.m. on Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at the
Ponderosa Fire District Station 82 in Bellemont.
Participants were encouraged to review a detailed
study bi-fold, which is included in Appendix ES2-2,
providing the study background and details prior to
discussing the project with the study team. Display
boards, which are included in Appendix ES2-3, were
used to convey the concepts and solicit observations,
ideas and concerns.

2.1.

Participants review and discuss concepts
with study team.

Attendees

The following individuals signed-in at the public meeting.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Horst Bauer
Matthew Bavuso
Erika Brayton
James H Brown
Rosanne Brown
Gary Bucecher
Patrick Conley
Megan Courtney
Lindsay Daley, Coconino County
Dave Diener
Helga Dinwiddle
Ronald Dinwiddle
James Guidotti, Coconino County
Sharon Javegers

ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Mike Nesbitt, Jonesco Trucking
Jennifer Noenickx
David Prizio
Marshall Randall
John Riordan
Kathleen Scheller
Rick Scheller
Lindsey Steinhoff
Matthew Steinhoff
Patrick Thiel
Steeve Vallee, IML Containers
Scott Kudi Weger
Christie Wenstrom

Sign-in at public meetings is completely voluntary.

2.2.

Input Received

Participants were offered a comment form, which is included in Appendix ES2-4. The following
summarizes the comments that were received at the public meeting and through the comment period,
which concluded August 28, 2015.
What are your comments regarding the various traffic interchange improvements?
 Great ideas. Hope #2 is the interim solution.
 I am happy to see the traffic issues are being addressed. The sooner the better.

Page 2 of 9

Phase I Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

 I appreciation the attention to our neighborhood. My two main concerns are emergency exit
and semi trucks maneuvering through roundabouts. Current we do not have an emergency exit,
and need one desperately. If this is an improvement to the existing forest road/frontage or a
new on ramp/off ramp, something needs to change. Also as it is the intersection at
Transwestern is an issue during high traffic or snowstorm. This will become a larger concern w/
roundabouts. I like the feature on #3 & #2 for the rear access to the Pilot parking area. I do not
like the teardrop intersection, as it does not allow for free-flow traffic. The raindrop will not help
traffic in & out of residential, its success is determined by semis not blocking the interchange
which they will.
 We would like to see concept #1, but also aware of money shortage.
 Concept 3 will reduce truck traffic congestion the most. Consider bicycle/pedestrian lane this
allows us to pick up our mail (from the Pilot Station) without using our cars
 They all seem good – EXCEPT – round abouts. With winter weather, I feel round abouts will be
very unsafe.
 As a resident and an ex-trucker (20 years over the road) concept #2 + #3 are the most practical
for both the truckers and the residents.
 Whatever concept is decided upon – it must be implemented immediately!
 Need concept #3 with added auto only right to west Shadow Mountain Rd. Trucks only allowed
on left.
 This is a big issue that needs to be addressed sooner than later. I would like #4 only if residents
have their own road. [Dedicated truck road; dedicated car/residential road]
 I have a hard time seeing a semi make a 270°
 #1 great but expensive. #2 best interim (see below) *note: Roundabout has more room (esp.
for trucks) than the teardrop.
 There are no perfect and economic option other than to get Pilot to move the gas tank further
in their property. Like the world gravitates around Pilot…It might be cheaper to help them out
financially to achieve such thing…they are the problem, and must be part of the solution…But I
understand that someone in the past approved their layout…
 1. Due to traffic volume, type (lots of semis), age & construction, the I-40 overpass must
eventually be replaced (Option 1) 2. In the interim, I urge the agencies to combine the following
projects: either option 3 or 5 modified with a large (overbuilt for semis) 2-lane roundabout
(instead of the teardrop). At the same time, please widen the shoulders of Shadow Mtn. Dr. for
bikes & ped’s & stripe a bike lane. (At the same time as the traffic interchange construction
creates efficiencies & lowers total costs.)
 Clear and precise signage is also important, such as “yield” signs at each of the three traffic circle
entrances, and “Pilot Truck Access Only” at the North access road. Upon the completion of the
project, it would be helpful to have a Sheriff’s Department presence to educate and provide
warnings for improper or illegal operations during the transition. I believe that, prior to the
implementation of the project, it would be helpful to send out a mailing to all the residents and
businesses of Bellemont with a brief explanation of the regulations and proper techniques for
negotiating a roundabout. I have shared the Concepts brochure with five of my neighbors who
were not in attendance at the August 5th meeting. They are unanimous in their support of the
designated northbound truck access road as being the only viable solution to the current traffic
issues. They are equally in agreement that using Shadow Mountain Road as a waiting area for
trucks would only make the situation worse.

Page 3 of 7

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

 Of the concepts listed, I like concept 3 the best because of the dual-lane right turn to Eastbound
Shadow Mountain and the Northbound local-access for truck traffic. I would like to see the 1lane, one-way local access road changed to a 2-lane, one-way local access road to allow more
trucks to accumulate. My biggest concerns are snow removal and traffic control. Concept 1
would work better if it had the 2-lane local access road to the North that I recommended above.
I don't believe concept 1 would work without the 2-lane local access.
 Concept 1. would be the most ideal concept IF the plan included the alternate path for truck
drivers where they access the Pilot property from the north side as in concept 2 and concept 3. If
there is not an alternate path that diverts truck driver traffic to the north, the residents of the
community could potentially experience long delays when attempting to access either the Pilot
or the interstate. These delays will be a direct result of the combined travel of any and all
vehicles that are using the roundabout to gain access to Brannigan Park, the Pilot, or the
interstate. Concept 1 allows accommodates more traffic and easier travel with the addition of
the extra lanes.
 Like Concept 1 but it’s costly.
Considering Concept 1 depicts ADOT’s long-term design, which concept would you most prefer
as an interim improvement? Why?
 (2) More fun to drive, long swooping curves. Allows truck traffic to loop thru back of Pilot
smoother, more efficient.
 (2) Like the roundabout over the teardrop (2 vs. 3 *note: Roundabout has more room (esp. for
trucks) than the teardrop.) Also like the trucks going to the back of the Pilot. 4 & 5 not feasible
for trucks esp with doubles or 53’ trailers and would have trouble making the full circle, either
causing damage or causing just as much or more traffic congestion.
 (2) (3) I would like number two. An additional improvement to the plan would be to add a
second lane on the Pilot bound round
 (2) (3) Having the trucks approach the pumps at Pilot from the north will reduce most of the
traffic and safety problems.
 (2) (3) I support Option 2. If the land east of Transwestern Road and north of I-40 cannot be
obtained, I would support Option 3 (WITH A MODIFICATION). The primary factor for my
position is the new one lane, one way local access road for the truck line up. Any proposal
involving lining up trucks along Shadow Mountain road would only make the current situation
worse, and would create a dangerous situation to traffic in the area. There is insufficient space
between the Pilot station and residential areas to accommodate the number of trucks waiting to
enter the fueling area. If only one truck too many were to be lined up waiting, that would block
off any roundabout and stop traffic in all directions. In addition, the presence of trucks along
Shadow Mountain drive to the east of the Motel and Pilot station would impede the vision of
any west bound vehicles for anyone exiting the motel or station. This would result in vehicles
having to edge out onto the road in order to see if there was any west bound traffic
approaching, adding to the possibility of traffic accidents. Only Options 2 and 3 include the
designated truck corridor which would be advantageous to both the truckers and the local
traffic. They would both solve the problem which currently exists. As I stated, I prefer Option 2
due to the roundabout. If the necessary land cannot be obtained, Option 3 would be an
acceptable alternative, but the “raindrop” roundabout should be made a traditional roundabout.

Page 4 of 7

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15



















With either option, the roundabout needs to be sufficiently large to accommodate large trucks,
including the double trailered trucks. Standard sized roundabouts, such as those in the Sedona
and Cottonwood areas, would not suffice.
(2) (3) Blend concepts; separate the neighborhood traffic from truck traffic because truckers
bully the cars and are sometimes tired and careless. Prefers Option 2 for neighborhood traffic,
but use existing Transwestern Road for trucks only…and taking them around the back of the
Pilot on the west side of Pilot, not through the roundabout mixed with cars. This is primarily a
safety issue. Pilot should have to pay for a portion of improvements because they’re causing the
issues.
(3) With amendments or #1.
(3) It’s simpler. It take expansions into account.
(3) #3 brings the truck traffic to the back of Pilot – this is a good concept – the trucks must be
kept in the left lane while the local residents has the right lane to pass the trucks.
(3) Leading trucks to rear of station for fueling.
(3) I like that the trucks have a place to wait that should not interfere with the traffic for
residents getting off the highway.
(3) I believe it’s the easiest
(3) With a 2-lane roundabout instead of the “tear drop”. I don’t like 2 & 4 – the curvy road takes
up that whole land parcel. The turn radius on the “tear drop” is too steep for semis/increases
risk of slide-offs & jackknifes in the winter.
(3) (see above: “Concept 1. would be the most ideal concept IF the plan included the alternate
path for truck drivers where they access the Pilot property from the north side as in concept 2
and concept 3. If there is not an alternate path that diverts truck driver traffic to the north, the
residents of the community could potentially experience long delays when attempting to access
either the Pilot or the interstate. These delays will be a direct result of the combined travel of
any and all vehicles that are using the roundabout to gain access to Brannigan Park, the Pilot, or
the interstate. Concept 1 allows accommodates more traffic and easier travel with the addition
of the extra lanes.”)
(3) Three would allow for an easier transition to Concept 1.
(3)
(3)
(4) (5) #4 needs more length for semis or Pilot customers to back up at their roundabout and
keep free access traffic to FLG meadows. #5 By far most less compromising and best concept.
(5) Clearer access to Pilot.

What are your comments regarding other potential improvements (i.e., paved shoulder on
Shadow Mountain Drive, commuter express transit service, park-and-ride lot)?








All would be awesome
Any & all would be appreciated (within $ reason)
Would love to see transit system.
Like to see the park + ride system
Is there any improvements planned for the bridge?
Paved should on Shadow Mountain is most practical.
[Paved shoulder] good!

Page 5 of 7

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

 Home owners must have priority
 I really like the idea of a paved shoulder as I feel this road is dangerous for bikes and
pedestrians as it is now. The commuter express would be good for Bellemont residents and
help the environment. The Park & Ride would be nice for those who commute from Parks &
Williams.
 Paved shoulders a must especially for bikers and dog walkers trying to get to the
Pilot/mailboxes (a rea safety issue). Park & Ride a good idea espec if NAU supports & will
subsidize (partially or full) as it reduces traffic/cars on campus and would encourage use by
employee’s/students?
 1st side walk and bike lane from meadows to Pilot. 2nd fix North Alpine Dr!!! Yes, really. 3rd
Highway 40 is in a “attempt” for repair. Hope county didn’t pay anything yet because it’s worse
than it was before…pathetic work! Between Bellemont and FLG. 4th the semis still park on down
camp eastbound despite no parking signs…+ and need bus services!!!
 Not if HAO’s have to pay—
 See above—please construct wider shoulders on Shadow Mtn. & stripe a bike lane at the same
time as the interchange project.
 I like these ideas in concept. I would need to see actual concepts in writing and drawings before
I could make an informed decision.
 The paved shoulder on Shadow Mountain would allow for safer travel for walkers, bikers, and
runners to travel. The park-and-ride lot could also help commuters and the environment.

Page 6 of 7

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

3.0 Pilot Travel Center Discussions
Congestion and access issues often occur at the Pilot Travel Center driveways, which are located in and
near the intersection of Brannigan Park Road and Shadow Mountain Drive. On August 5, 2015, the
study team met with Travel Center management, providing them a review of initial study findings and
proposed improvement concepts.

3.1.

Observations regarding access into and out of this Pilot Travel Center

The following observations were offered by the Pilot Travel Center management team:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Acknowledgement that Pilot Travel Center site is small and problematic.
Acknowledgement that addressing intersection congestion and truck storage is a long-standing
issue; Pilot Travel Center currently dedicates one full-time employee to directing traffic on-site.
Acknowledgement that rectifying congestion issues would benefit the Pilot Travel Center.
Observation that originally, truck traffic was routed around and to the back of the site, a route
that worked well in the past and would be a favorable future solution.
Inquiry as to whether pumps would need to be “flipped” (i.e., Diesel Exhaust Fluid/DEF diesel
pumps in particular) to accommodate a southbound fueling pattern.

Page 7 of 7

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi‐Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012‐15

APPENDIX ES2-1
Fact Sheet

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal Transportation Study
A Planning Assistance for Rural Areas Study
JULY 2015

ST U DY OV E RV I E W
The Arizona Department of Transportation, through its Multimodal Planning Division, is collaborating with Coconino
County to conduct a transportation study at Bellemont.
Bellemont is a rural, unincorporated community with a population of approximately 1,000 residents in Coconino
County that has become a suburb of Flagstaff, where residents commute to work. Three roads, Interstate 40 (I-40),
Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive are used to access virtually all the private land north of I-40 at
Bellemont. Frequent congestion from heavy truck volumes and subdivision traffic causes traffic delays and creates
concern for safety and timely emergency response.
The access management and multi-modal transportation study, which is funded through the Planning Assistance for
Rural Areas (PARA) program, will provide a comprehensive review of the Bellemont area transportation system and
provide guidance for determining priority needs for future improvements north of I-40, including alleviating
congestion and improving/managing access, and improving and evaluating multi-modal access to businesses from
residential areas.

STUDY PROGRESS

Based on input provided by the public at the March 25, 2015 open house, as well as agency and stakeholder
representatives, the study team has drafted several potential improvement concepts to: 1) reduce congestion and
improve safety at the intersection of Transwestern Road with Brannigan Park Road and Shadow Mountain Drive; and
2) enhance multimodal travel in the study area.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU
Join us on Wednesday, August 5, 2015, from 5 to 7 p.m. at a public open house to review potential
improvement concepts. Interested individuals can attend anytime between 5 and 7 p.m. to meet with the
study team, learn more about the potential alternatives and provide feedback.
Ponderosa Fire District Station 82
11951 W. Shadow Mountain Dr.
Bellemont, AZ 86015
ST U DY T I M E L I N E
Spring 2015: Existing and future conditions
Summer 2015: Recommended improvements
and implementation plan
Fall 2015: Final report

ST U DY CO N TAC T
Heidi Yaqub
Project Manager
Arizona Department of Transportation
Phone: 602-712-7644
E-mail: hyaqub@azdot.gov

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
ADOT HOTLINE: 1-855-712-8530
azdot.gov/Bellemont

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi‐Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012‐15

APPENDIX ES2-2
Bi-Fold

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
A Planning Assistance for Rural Areas Study
August 2015
OTHER POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS
Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel Provide paved, wide shoulders on Shadow Mountain Drive to
provide linkage for non-motorized travel between residential areas and Pilot Travel Center
and associated commercial areas.
Commuter Express Service Provide regional commuter express transit service.
Park-and-Ride Lot Provide a new park-and-ride lot at the Bellemont traffic interchange.

NEXT STEPS
The study will deliver to Coconino County an access management and multi-modal
transportation plan to implement in the Bellemont area over the next 5, 10 and 20 years. The
final report will be presented to the Board of Supervisors later this fall.
It is important to note that this is a study to inform future decisions and recommendations will
take time and money to implement.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU
Talk with a member of our study team
Provide input on a comment form
Submit comments online: azdot.gov/Bellemont
Comments must be received by August 28, 2015 in order to be part of the project record.

For more information

Heidi Yaqub
Project Manager
Arizona Department of Transportation
Phone: 602-712-7644
E-mail: hyaqub@azdot.gov
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
ADOT HOTLINE: 1-855-712-8530
azdot.gov/Bellemont

TheSTUDY
Arizona OVERVIEW
Department of
Transportation, through its Multimodal
Planning Division, is collaborating with
Coconino County to conduct a
transportation study at Bellemont.
Bellemont is a rural, unincorporated
community with a population of
approximately 1,000 residents in
Coconino County that has become a
suburb of Flagstaff, where residents
commute to work. Three roads,
Interstate 40 (I-40), Brannigan Park
Road, and Shadow Mountain Drive are
used to access virtually all the private
land north of I-40 at Bellemont.
Frequent congestion from heavy truck
volumes and subdivision traffic causes
traffic delays and creates concern for
safety and timely emergency response.
The access management and
multi-modal transportation study,
which is funded through the Planning
Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA)
program, will provide a comprehensive
review of the Bellemont area
transportation system and provide
guidance for determining priority needs
for future improvements north of I-40,
including alleviating congestion and
improving/managing access, and
improving and evaluating multi-modal
access to businesses from residential
areas.

STUDY AREA

POTENTIAL CONCEPTS
Input provided by the public at the March 25, 2015 open house as well as agency and stakeholder representatives was used to
develop several potential improvement concepts. Compatibility with the recommended improvements from the I-40 Bellemont
to Winona Initial Design Concept Report (2011) are noted for each concept.

1
For informational purposes; details subject to change

2

Concept 1: Reconstruct the Bellemont traffic interchange
approximately 800 feet to the east of the existing Bellemont traffic
interchange with three, two-lane roundabouts per the I-40
Bellemont to Winona Initial Design Concept Report.

Concept 2: Realign Transwestern Road to the east. Construct a
one-lane roundabout on Shadow Mountain Drive at the
approximate location of the roundabout proposed in the I-40
Bellemont to Winona Initial Design Concept Report (Concept 1).
Provide a new one-lane, one-way local access road along the parcel
boundary on the north side of the new roundabout for truck traffic.

3

Concept 3: Widen Transwestern Road by one northbound lane,
creating a dual-lane right-turn to eastbound Shadow Mountain
Drive. Construct a new “raindrop” roundabout on Shadow
Mountain Drive at the approximate location of the roundabout
proposed in the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial Design Concept
Report (Concept 1).
Provide a new one-lane, one-way local access road along the parcel
boundary on the north side of the new roundabout for truck traffic.
Add a median island “pork chop” at the intersection of
Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain
Drive to relocate the Transwestern Road northbound to westbound
left-turn traffic movement to the “raindrop” roundabout.

For informational purposes; details subject to change

4

Concept 4: Realign Transwestern Road to the east and construct a
two-lane roundabout on Shadow Mountain Drive at the
approximate location of the roundabout proposed in the I-40
Bellemont to Winona Initial Design Concept Report (Concept 1).
Add two dedicated right-turn lanes on westbound Brannigan Park
Road; one to accommodate truck traffic to the Pilot Travel Center
fuel station and one for passenger cars. A third westbound lane is
provided for through traffic.

5

Concept 5: Widen eastbound Shadow Mountain Drive by one lane.
Construct a new “raindrop” roundabout on Shadow Mountain
Drive at the approximate location of the roundabout proposed in
the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Initial Design Concept Report
(Concept 1).
Add a median island “pork chop” at the intersection of
Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain
Drive to relocate the Transwestern Road northbound to westbound
left-turn traffic movement to the “raindrop” roundabout.
Add two dedicated right-turn lanes on westbound Brannigan Park
Road; one to accommodate truck traffic to the Pilot Travel Center
fueling station and one for passenger cars. A third westbound lane
is provided for through traffic.

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi‐Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012‐15

APPENDIX ES2-3
Display Boards

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi‐Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012‐15

APPENDIX ES2-4
Comment Form

Phase II Engagement Summary
September 30, 2015

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-Modal
Transportation Study
A Planning Assistance for Rural Areas Study

Feedback Form

August 5, 2015

Coconino County and ADOT appreciate your participation tonight. Your input is important to us. If you would
like to submit comments in writing, you may do so using this form. Comments must be received by August 28,
2015 in order to be part of the project record. You may leave this form with us tonight or submit comments to
Heidi Yaqub (hyaqub@azdot.gov) or online at: azdot.gov/Bellemont.
What are your comments regarding the various traffic interchange improvement concepts?

Considering Concept 1 depicts ADOT’s long-term design, which concept would you most prefer as an
interim improvement?
2
3
4
5
Why?

What are your comments regarding other potential improvements (i.e., paved shoulder on Shadow
Mountain Drive, commuter express transit service, park-and-ride lot)?

Contact Information (Optional*)
Name:
Address:
Email address:
* Completion of this comment form is completely voluntary. Under state law, any identifying information provided will become part of the
public record, and as such, must be released to any individual upon request.

azdot.gov/Bellemont

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

APPENDIX FR-14
Planning/Environmental Linkages Questionnaire

Final Report
October 29, 2015

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study

Questionnaire for Transportation Planners – Part 1
This part of the questionnaire should be completed by transportation planners at the beginning of the
transportation planning study. Please note that planners should also review the second part of the questionnaire
to understand what additional issues will need to be considered and documented as the study progresses.
Project identification
What is the name of the study? What cities and region does it cover? What major streets are covered? For corridor studies, what are the
intended termini?
The Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study investigates an area that is entirely within Coconino County, and involves the
unincorporated community of Bellemont located 9 miles west of the City of Flagstaff. The study area resides within the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning
Organization planning area. The primary roads within the study area are I-40, Transwestern Road, Brannigan Park Road, and Shadow Mountain
Drive.
Who is the study sponsor?
The project is being conducted under the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program, funded by the Arizona Department of Transportation
and Federal Highway Administration. Coconino County is the local agency and applicant.
Briefly describe the study and its purpose.
This access management and multi-modal transportation study will provide a comprehensive review of the Bellemont area transportation system and
provide guidance for determining priority needs for future improvements north of I-40, including: 1) Alleviate congestion and improve/manage access;
and 2) Improve and evaluate multi-modal access to businesses from residential areas.
Who are the primary study team members (include name, title, organization name, and contact information)?
The primary study team members are:
Heidi Yaqub, Project Manager, ADOT, Email: HYaqub@azdot.gov P: 602.712.7644
Tim Dalegowski, Transportation Planner, Coconino County, Email: timdalegowski@coconino.az.gov P: 928.679.8344
Jason Pagnard, PE, Burgess & Niple, Inc., Email: jason.pagnard@burgessniple.com P: 602.244.8100.
Does the team include advisory groups such as a technical advisory committee, steering committee, or other? If so, include roster(s) as
attachment(s).
The team includes a technical advisory committee. The roster is attached.
Have previous transportation planning studies been conducted for this region? If so, provide a brief chronology, including the years the studies were
completed. Provide contact names and locations of the studies and study websites.
Previous transportation planning studies in the region include:
 Coconino County Roads Capital Improvement Plan in 2014 (No contact, Coconino County)
http://www.coconino.az.gov/index.aspx?NID=1324)
 Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan in 2014 (No contact, City of Flagstaff)
http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/index.aspx?nid=1871
 Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 in 2014 (No contact, City of Flagstaff) http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/index.aspx?nid=2936
 A Coordinated Transit Plan for ECONA in Northern Arizona in 2014 (Erika Mazza, NAIPTA, No website)
 Flagstaff Regional Five-Year and Long Range Transit Plan in 2013 (No contact, Northern Arizona)
http://azdot.gov/planning/CurrentStudies/PARAStudies/flagstaff-regional-five-year-and-long-range-transit-plan
 Mountain Mobility Business Plan 2015-2019, September 2013 (Erika Mazza, NAIPTA, No website)
 ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update in 2013 (No contact, Arizona) http://azbikeped.org/
 Initial Design Concept Report, I-40 Bellemont to Winona in 2011 (No contact, Arizona) http://www.azdot.gov/projects/north-central/i-40-frombellemont-to-winona/documents)
 Flagstaff Pathways 2030 Regional Transportation Plan in 2009 (No contact, City of Flagstaff)
http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1177
 Coconino County Comprehensive Plan in 2003 (No contact, Coconino County) http://coconino.az.gov/index.aspx?NID=1111)
 Bellemont Area Plan in 1985 (No contact, Bellemont) http://www.coconino.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/81

1

ADOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Questionnaire and Checklist

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study
What current or near-future planning (or other) studies in the vicinity are underway or will be undertaken? What is the relationship of this study to
those studies? Provide contact names and locations of the studies and study websites.
Current or near-future planning studies in the vicinity include:
 I-40 Corridor Profile Study which will identify cost-effective solutions for corridor deficiencies (Heidi Yaqub, California to Flagstaff)
http://azdot.gov/planning/CurrentStudies/corridor-profile-studies/i-40-(california-border-to-i17
 AASHTO U.S. Bicycle Route System which will include a preferred bicycle route through Bellemont (No contact, United States)
http://route.transportation.org/Pages/USBicycleRoutes.aspx

Study objectives
What are your desired outcomes for this study? (Mark all that apply.)
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholder roles/responsibilities definition
Travel study area definition
Performance measures development
Development of purpose and need goals and other objectives
Alternative evaluation and screening
Alternative travel modes definition

Scheduling of infrastructure improvements over short-,
mid-, and long-range time frames
Environmental impacts
Mitigation identification
Don't know
Other access management and multimodal connections_

Have system improvements and additions that address your transportation need been identified in a fiscally constrained regional transportation plan?
Recommendations for this PARA were made with fiscal constraints considered; however, the I-40 Bellemont to Winona Design Concept Report
includes a recommendation for a new Bellemont traffic interchange. It has not been adopted in a regional transportation plan.
Will a purpose and need statement 1 be prepared as part of this effort? If so, what steps will need to be taken during the NEPA process to make this a
project-level purpose and need statement?
A formal purpose and need statement is not anticipated at this time. A generalized description of the project purpose and need was identified by
Coconino County for the PARA application.

Establishment of organizational relationships
Is a partnering agreement in place? If so, who are signatories (for example, affected agencies, stakeholders, organizations)? Attach the partnering
agreement(s).
No known formal partnering agreement exists. Coconino County and ADOT are conducting this study in a partnership via the PARA program.
What are the key coordination points in the decision-making process?
The Project Management Team (PMT), comprised of ADOT, Coconino County and consultant staff, reviews project documents prior to review by the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and public. Documents are presented to the TAC and the public through three TAC meetings and two public
Open Houses. Additional review time and coordination are performed electronically with the TAC as needed. The public comment periods are
provided to allow ample opportunity for comment.

Planning assumptions and analytical methods
Is the time horizon of the study sufficiently long to consider long-term (20 years or more from completion of the study) effects of potential scenarios?
Yes. The study investigates short and long-term solutions. The long-term solutions are based on a 20-year planning horizon.

1

For an explanation of purpose and need in environmental documents, please see the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s)
“NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking: The Importance of Purpose and Need in Environmental Documents,” <Purpose and
Need>. This website provides links to five additional resources and guidance from FHWA that should be helpful in understanding the
relationship between goals and objectives in transportation planning studies and purpose and need statements of NEPA documents.

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study
What method will be used for forecasting traffic volumes (for example, traffic modeling or growth projections)? What are the sources of data being
used? Has USDOT validated their use?
A global growth factor was determined to be the appropriate method for forecasting traffic volumes. The factor was determined using historic traffic
counts for I-40, new traffic counts on major study area roads, and the growth in residential housing units and commercial land use between existing
year and future year. USDOT did not validate their use.
Will the study use FHWA’s Guide on the Consistent Application of Traffic Analysis Tools and Methods 2? If not, why not? How will traffic volumes from
the travel demand model be incorporated, if necessary, into finer-scale applications such as a corridor study?
Yes it will follow the FHWA guide. The ADOT travel demand model volumes are not applicable. The main traffic generator in the study area is a truck
stop. The travel demand model is not accurately predicting the number of trips at this location. The TDM predicts about 100 daily trips for the truck
stop site. Recent traffic count shows approximately 3600 daily trips for the truck stop site.
Do the travel demand models base their projections on differentiations between vehicles?
The travel demand model differentiates vehicle types.

Data, information, and tools
Is there a centralized database or website that all State resource agencies may use to share resource data during the study?
Yes, www.azdov.gov/Bellemont

Questionnaire for Transportation Planners – Part 2
This part of the questionnaire should be completed by transportation planners at the end of the transportation
planning study. This completed document should become an appendix to the study’s final report to document
how the study meets the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulations § 450.212 or § 450.318.
Purpose and need for this study
How did the study process define and clarify corridor-level or subarea-level goals (if applicable) that influenced modal infrastructure improvements
and/or the range of reasonable alternatives?
Coconino County identified purpose, need and goals as part of the PARA application process. These were carried forward and provided the
framework, along with further input from the PMT and TAC, for the development of multimodal infrastructure improvement alternatives and final
recommendations.
What were the key steps and coordination points in the decision-making process? Who were the decision-makers and who else participated in those
key steps?
A process was developed and followed that included the engagement of the PMT, TAC and public at key decision-making steps in the process. TAC
meeting summaries and public engagement summaries were prepared to document these activities. In addition to reviewing work products, the TAC
was engaged at the study outset to guide efforts and identify needs, develop alternatives and evaluation criteria, and evaluate the study findings.
How should this study information be presented in future NEPA document(s), if applicable? Are relevant findings documented in a format and at a
level of detail that will facilitate reference to and/or inclusion in subsequent NEPA document(s)? 3
Local funding has been identified and therefore NEPA documentation is not anticipated. However, the study recommended improvements adjacent to
the I-40/Bellemont interchange, which will require coordination with ADOT and potentially FHWA and could potentially result in triggering NEPA.
Final project scoping will conclude whether NEPA is ultimately needed. A high-level environmental overview was conducted to identify potential red
flags.
Were the study’s findings and recommendations documented in such a way as to facilitate an FHWA or Federal Transit Administration decision
regarding acceptability for application in the NEPA process? Does the study have logical points where decisions were made and where concurrence
from resource or regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and the public was sought? If so, provide a list of those points.

2

FHWA November 2011 publication: <Traffic Analysis Tools and Methods>

3

For an explanation of the types of documents needed under the NEPA process and the nature of the content of those documents,
please see “NEPA Documentation: Improving the Quality of Environmental Documents,”<Documentation>.

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study
Purpose and need for this study
The study findings and recommendations were presented to facilitate FHWA acceptance. Concurrence was sought from the TAC and the public as
part of this study. Recommendations and decisions are summarized in the working papers and final report. A summary of interactions with
stakeholders and members of the public is provided in the attached public and stakeholder engagement matrix.

Establishment of organizational relationships – tribes and agencies 4
Tribe or agency

Describe level
of participation

Date(s) contacted

Describe the agency’s primary concerns
and the steps needed to coordinate
with the agency during NEPA scoping. 5

Tribal
N/A
Federal
N/A
State
Arizona Department of
Transportation

Ongoing Dec. 2014Oct. 2015

Project Management and TAC
participation

Arizona Department
of Public Safety

Ongoing Dec. 2014Oct. 2015

TAC participation

Coconino County
Community
Development

Ongoing Dec. 2014Oct. 2015

TAC participation

Coconino County
Public Works

Ongoing Dec. 2014Oct. 2015

Project Management and TAC
participation

Coconino County
Sheriff’s Office

Ongoing Dec. 2014Oct. 2015

TAC participation

Ongoing Dec. 2014Oct. 2015

TAC participation

Flagstaff Metropolitan
Planning Organization

Ongoing Dec. 2014Oct. 2015

TAC participation

Northern Arizona
Intergovernmental
Public Transportation
Authority

Ongoing Dec. 2014Oct. 2015

TAC participation

County

Local
Ponderosa Fire
Department
Transportation agencies

Establishment of organizational relationships – stakeholders and members of the public 6
Public and
stakeholders

Date(s) contacted

Describe level
of participation

Describe the primary concerns expressed
by members of the public and stakeholders.

Public
See attached public and stakeholder engagement matrix.

4

Users may add rows to this table to accommodate additional tribes and agencies. Unused rows may be deleted.

5

If the transportation planning study final report does not adequately document interactions (for example, meeting minutes, resolutions,
letters) with the relevant agencies, append such information to the end of this questionnaire and checklist.

6

Users may add rows to this table to accommodate additional stakeholders.

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study
Establishment of organizational relationships – stakeholders and members of the public 6
Public and
stakeholders

Date(s) contacted

Describe level
of participation

Describe the primary concerns expressed
by members of the public and stakeholders.

Stakeholders –
See attached public and stakeholder engagement matrix.

Planning assumptions and analytical methods
Did the study provide regional development and growth assumptions and analyses? If so, what were the sources of the demographic and employment
trends and forecasts?
The study provided regional development and growth assumption based on the ADOT Travel Demand Model Land Use and Census data, refined with
Coconino County and Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization information regarding development timing.
What were the future-year policy and/or data assumptions used in the transportation planning process related to land use, economic development,
transportation costs, and network expansion?
The study coordinated with Coconino County, FMPO and ADOT for land use, economic development, transportation costs, and network expansion.
New development/growth is anticipated and coordinated with the Coconino County, FMPO and ADOT. This primarily includes new residential within
the study area and limited commercial development in the Camp Navajo Industrial Park adjacent to, but outside the study area. Existing
documentation was sourced for potential network expansion, which none with committed funding was identified within the study area beyond new
roads to within expanded subdivisions.
Were the planning assumptions and the corridor vision/purpose and need statement consistent with each other and with the long-range transportation
plan? Are the assumptions still valid?
The planning assumptions and corridor vision/purpose and need were consistent with each other and the long-range transportation plan. These
assumptions are still valid.

Data, information, and tools
Are the relevant data used in the study available in a compatible format that is readily usable? Are they available through a centralized web portal?
Yes. Reference data is included in a summary table in the Appendix for Working Paper 1, which is currently available at azdot.gov/Bellemont
TDM results are documented in the working papers and Final Report. ADOT maintains the TDM. Synchro and SimTraffic results are included in the
working papers and Final Report.
Are the completeness and quality of the data consistent with the quality (not scale or detail) of inputs needed for a NEPA project-level analysis 7?
The data used in this study is consistent with NEPA project-level analysis.
Are the data used in the study regularly updated and augmented? If regularly updated, provide schedule and accessibility information.
The AZTDM2 is updated by ADOT; other information used in this study was obtained and referenced.
Have the environmental data been mapped at scales that facilitate comparison of effects across different resources and at sufficient resolution to
guide initial NEPA issue definition? If not, what data collection and/or manipulation would likely be needed for application to the NEPA scoping
process?
A high-level environmental overview was prepared to serve as a red flag review. A more thorough review will be necessary should the NEPA process
be determined necessary. However, the NEPA process is not anticipated.

7

For an explanation of the types of information needed to evaluate impacts in environmental documents, please see FHWA’s “NEPA
and Transportation Decisionmaking: Impacts,”<Analysis of Impacts>. This website provides links to six additional resources and
guidance that should be helpful in understanding the types of impacts that need to be assessed, their context, and their intensity.

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study

Examine the Checklist for Environmental Planners, at the back of this document, for more detail about potential impacts that could be mapped. Below
is an abbreviated list of resources that could occur in the study area and may be knowable at this time and at the study’s various analytical scales:

Is the resource or
issue present in
the area?
Resource or issue

Would any future
transportation
policies or
projects involve
the issue? Would
there be impacts
on the resource?

Is the resource or
issue present in
the area?

Would any future
transportation
policies or
projects involve
the issue? Would
there be impacts
on the resource?

Resource or issue

Sensitive biological
resources

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Section 4(f) 8 wildlife
and/or waterfowl
refuge, historic site,
recreational site,
park

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Wildlife corridors

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Section 6(f) 9
resource

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Wetland areas

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Existing development

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Riparian areas

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Planned
development

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

100-year floodplain

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Title VI/
Environmental
justice
populations 10

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Prime or unique
farmland or farmland
of statewide or local
importance

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Utilities

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Visual resources

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Hazardous materials

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Designated scenic
road/byway

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Sensitive noise
receivers 11

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Archaeological
resources

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Air quality

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Historical resources

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Other (list)
10J area for
California Condor

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

8

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S. Code § 303, as amended); see <Section 4(f)>.

9

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act

10

refers to Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1994 Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice

11

under FHWA’s Noise Abatement Criterion B: picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences,
motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study

Did the study incorporate models of, for example, species/habitat locations (predictive range maps), future land use, population dynamics, stormwater
runoff, or travel demand? What models were used? Did the study adequately document what models were used, who was responsible for their use,
and how they were used (with respect to, for example, calibration, replicability, contingencies, and exogenous factors)?
The AZTDM2 was used for travel demand and future land use, updated with guidance from Coconino County, FMPO and consultant experience.
Study working papers detail their use and assumptions.
In scoping, conducting, and documenting the planning study, participants have come across documents and leads from agency staff and other
sources that the environmental planners may be able to use in conducting their studies. List any applicable memoranda of understanding, cost-share
arrangements, programmatic agreements, or technical studies that are underway but whose findings are not yet published, etc.
The I-40 corridor profile study, ADOT access management guidelines, and FMPO access management guidelines are underway but not complete.
Potential cost-share arrangements between Coconino County and Pilot Travel Centers are being investigated/finalized.

Development of alternatives
Were resource agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public engaged in the process of identifying, evaluating, and screening out modes,
corridors, a range of alternatives, 12 or a preferred alternative (if one was identified—the latter two refer to corridor plans)? If so, how? Did these
groups review the recommendation of a preferred mode(s), corridor(s), range of alternatives (including the no-build alternative), or an alternative?
Were the participation and inputs of these groups at a level acceptable for use in purpose and need statements or alternatives development sections
in NEPA documents? If not, why not?
The TAC and the public were engaged during alternatives development and evaluation process. The TAC provided input on potential improvements
and also approved the list of potential improvements for further investigation prior to evaluation. The public provided input on the development of
potential improvements and on the alternatives analysis. Through a collaborative process, the potential improvement strategies were screened based
upon a variety of factors, such as safety impact, mobility, public input, funding availability, and cost. The input from these groups was at an acceptable
level.
Describe the process of outreach to resource agencies, the public, and other stakeholders. Describe the documentation of this process and of the
responses to their comments. Is this documentation adequate in breadth and detail for use in NEPA documents?
Outreach was conducted via e-mail, telephone, websites, and in-person meetings. A TAC was formed to guide the study process. The public was
engaged at key decision points of the study via open house meetings. Individual meetings were conducted with key stakeholders. Meeting summaries
and public engagement summaries were prepared. The documentation is adequate.
If the study was a corridor study, describe the range of alternatives considered (if any), screening process, and screening criteria. Include what types
of alternatives were considered (including the no-build alternative) and how the screening criteria were selected. Was a preferred alternative selected
as best addressing the identified transportation issue? Are alternatives’ locations and design features specified?
The study was not a corridor study.
Also regarding whether the study was a corridor study, for alternatives that were screened out, summarize the reasons for their rejection. Are
defensible, credible rationale articulated for their being screened out? Did the study team take into account legal standards 13 needed in the NEPA
process for such decisions? Did the study team have adequate information for screening out the alternatives?
The study was not a corridor study.
What issues, if any, remain unresolved with the public, stakeholders, and/or resource agencies?
Finalize the agreement/negotiation with the Pilot Travel Centers for the back access road in the recommended alternative.

12

For an explanation of the development of alternatives in environmental documents, please see FHWA’s “NEPA and Transportation
Decisionmaking: Development and Evaluation of Alternatives,”<Alternatives>.

13

23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 771.123(c), 23 CFR § 771.111(d), 40 CFR § 1502.14(a), 40 CFR § 1502.14(b) and (d),
23 CFR § 771.125(a)(1); see FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, October 30, 1987, <FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A>.

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study
Formally joining PEL with the NEPA process
Lead federal agencies proposing a project that will undergo the NEPA process will want to most effectively leverage the transportation planning
study’s efforts and results. How could a Notice of Intent (for an environmental impact statement 14) refer to the study’s findings with respect to
preliminary purpose and need and/or the range of alternatives to be studied?
The study provides information that could be used to seed the NEPA process. However, the NEPA process is not anticipated. If the NEPA process
were to commence, an EIS would not be the anticipated level of documentation.
Could a Notice of Intent in the NEPA process clearly state that the lead federal agency or agencies will use analyses from prior, specific planning
studies that are referenced in the transportation planning study final report? Does the report provide the name and source of the planning studies and
explain where the studies are publicly available? If not, how could such relevant information come to the environmental planners’ attention and be
made available to them in a timely way?
Yes.
List how the study’s proposed transportation system would support adopted land use plans and growth objectives.
The study’s recommended improvements were developed to complement the adopted land use plans and growth objectives.
What modifications are needed in the goals and objectives as defined in the transportation study process to increase their efficient and timely
application in the NEPA process?
None are anticipated.
Jurisdictional delineations of waters of the United States frequently change. Housing and commercial developments can alter landscapes dramatically
and can be constructed quickly. Noise and air quality regulations can change relatively rapidly. Resource agencies frequently alter habitat delineations
to protect sensitive species. Will the study data’s currency, relevance, and quality still be acceptable to agencies, stakeholders, and members of the
public for use in the NEPA process? If not, what will be done to rectify this problem? Who will be responsible for any needed updating?
Yes, this is anticipated. However, the NEPA process is not anticipated. Ultimately, the scale/nature of unforeseen changes will dictate. Coconino
County should be the responsible party for making sure the study elements remain current.

Other issues
Are there any other issues a future NEPA study team should be aware of (mark all that apply)? In the space below the check boxes, explain the
nature and location of any issue(s) checked.
Public and/or stakeholders have expressed specific concerns
Utility problems
Access or right-of-way issues
Encroachments into right-of-way
Need to engage—and be perceived as engaging—specific
landowners, citizens, citizen groups, or other stakeholders

Contact information for stakeholders
Special or unique resources in the area
Federal regulations that are undergoing initial promulgation or
revision
Other ____________________________________

The Pilot Travel Center and Ponderosa Fire Department are key stakeholders. Right-of-way acquisition will be likely. Cost sharing is anticipated to
implement the recommendations, including Pilot Travel Center. Transwestern Road is the only ingress/egress to the area, which is critical for
emergency responders, residents, and others. Local residents were active participants, as well as the County Board of Supervisors representative.

14

While Notices of Intent are required by some federal agencies for environmental assessments, they are optional for FHWA. Please
see “3.3.2 Using the Notice of Intent to Link Planning and NEPA,” in Guidance on Using Corridor and Subarea Planning to Inform
NEPA (Federal Highway Administration, April 5, 2011), <Notice of Intent>.

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study
Concurrence
By signature, we concur that the transportation planning document meets or exceeds the following criteria in
terms of acceptability for application in NEPA projects:
Public involvement (outreach and level of participation)

Stakeholder involvement (outreach and level of participation)
Resource agencies’ involvement and participation
Documentation of the above efforts
Applicability of the general findings and conclusions for use, by reference, in NEPA documents

Approved by: _________________________________ Date: ______________
DALLAS HAMMIT
State Engineer
Arizona Department of Transportation

Approved by: _________________________________ Date: ______________
MICHAEL KIES
Director
Multimodal Planning Division, Arizona Department of Transportation

Approved by: _________________________________ Date: _______________
KARLA PETTY
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study

Checklist for Environmental Planners – Part 3
By completing this checklist, environmental planners will be able to systematically evaluate the transportation
planning study with regard to environmental resources and issues. It provides a framework for future NEPA
studies by identifying those resources and issues that have already been evaluated, and those that have not. The
role of environmental planners during the study’s various stages is laid out in the flowchart on page 3. This
role includes timely advocacy for resources and issues that will later be integral to NEPA processes.
Checklist for environmental planners
Is the resource or
issue present in
the area?
Resource or issue

Are impacts to the
resource or issue
involvement
possible?

Are the impacts
mitigable?

Natural environment
Sensitive biological
resources

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Wildlife corridors

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Invasive species

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Wetland areas

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Riparian areas

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

100-year floodplain

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Clean Water Act
Sections 404/401
waters of the United
States

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Prime or unique
farmland

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Farmland of statewide
or local importance

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Discuss the level of review and method of review
for this resource or issue and provide the name
and location of any study or other information
cited in the planning document where it is
described in detail. Describe how the planning
data may need to be supplemented during NEPA.

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study
Checklist for environmental planners
Is the resource or
issue present in
the area?
Resource or issue

Are impacts to the
resource or issue
involvement
possible?

Are the impacts
mitigable?

Sole-source aquifers

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Wild and scenic rivers

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Visual resources

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Designated scenic
road/byway

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Archaeological
resources

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Historical resources

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Cultural resources

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources
Section 4(f) wildlife
and/or waterfowl
refuge

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Section 4(f) historic
site

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Section 4(f)
recreational site

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Section 4(f) park

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Section 6(f) resource

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Discuss the level of review and method of review
for this resource or issue and provide the name
and location of any study or other information
cited in the planning document where it is
described in detail. Describe how the planning
data may need to be supplemented during NEPA.

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study
Checklist for environmental planners
Is the resource or
issue present in
the area?
Resource or issue

Are impacts to the
resource or issue
involvement
possible?

Are the impacts
mitigable?

Human environment
Existing development

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Planned development

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Displacements

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Access restriction

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Neighborhood
continuity

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Community cohesion

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Title VI/Environmental
justice populations

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Utilities

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Hazardous materials

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Sensitive noise
receivers

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Air quality

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Yes
No
Unknown
Not applicable

Physical environment

Other (list)

Discuss the level of review and method of review
for this resource or issue and provide the name
and location of any study or other information
cited in the planning document where it is
described in detail. Describe how the planning
data may need to be supplemented during NEPA.

Bellemont Access Management & Multi-modal Transportation Study

Identification of potential environmental mitigation activities
Could the transportation planning process be integrated with other planning activities, such as land use or resource management plans? If so, could
this integrated planning effort be used to develop a more strategic approach to environmental mitigation measures?

With respect to potential environmental mitigation opportunities at the PEL level, who should ADOT consult with among federal, State, and local
agencies and tribes and how formally and frequently should such consultation be undertaken?

Off-site and compensatory mitigation areas are often creatively negotiated to advance multiagency objectives or multiple objectives within one
agency. Who determined what specific geographic areas or types of areas were appropriate for environmental mitigation activities? How were these
determinations made?

To address potential impacts on the human environment, what mitigation measures or activities were considered and how were they developed and
documented?

Prepared by: _________________________________ Date: ______________
________________________
Environmental Planning Group, Arizona Department of Transportation

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
MPD 012-15

Bellemont Access Management &
Multi-Modal Transportation Study
Technical Advisory Committee
First Name
Richard
Gerrit
John
Tim
Dan
Erika
Audra
Nate
Marc Della
Mark
Brian
Jeanne
Dave
Heidi

Last Name
Berry
Boeck
Dalby
Dalegowski
Gabiou
Mazza
Merrick
Reisner
Rocca
Sachara
Tozer
Trupiano
Wessel
Yaqub

Agency
ADPS
Coconino County Sheriff’s Office
ADOT
Coconino County
ADOT
NAIPTA
ADOT
ADOT
Coconino County
Ponderosa Fire Department
Coconino County Sheriff’s Office
Coconino County
FMPO
ADOT

Consulting Team
First Name
Dana
Jason
Audra

Last Name
Biscan
Pagnard
Koester Thomas

Organization
Burgess & Niple
Burgess & Niple
Partners for Strategic Action, Inc.

Public, Stakeholder engagement matrix (AKT) – As of October 27, 2015
Establishment of organizational relationships – stakeholders and members of the public [1]
Public and stakeholders

Describe level
of participation

Date(s) contacted

Describe the primary concerns expressed
by members of the public and stakeholders.

Flagstaff Meadows (HOA, singlefamily residential management
association, Sterling)

February 26, 2015
March 5, 2015
March 24, 2015
July 15, 2015
July 29, 2015
August 4, 2015

Phone conversation, e-mail

Affirmation of congestion concerns with residential/truck traffic. Appreciation for
study.
Assisted in open house communication.

Flagstaff Meadows (POA,
townhome management
association, Hoamco)

March 5, 2015
March 24, 2015
July 15, 2015
July 29, 2015
August 4, 2015

Phone conversation, e-mail

Appreciation for study.
Assisted in open house communication.

Coconino County: Supervisor Matt
Ryan’s Office

March 11, 2015
March 24, 2015
July 15, 2015
July 20, 2015
July 22, 2015
July 29, 2015
August 4, 2015

Phone conversation, e-mail

Affirmation of congestion concerns with residential/truck traffic. Appreciation for
study.
Assisted in open house communication.

Pilot Travel Center

March 20, 2015
July 22, 2015
August 5, 2015
October 9, 2015

Phone conversation, in-person meeting

Acknowledgement of study.
See Pilot Stakeholder Meeting Summaries (attachment)

Pilot Travel Center, truck
customers

March 25, 2015

On-site interviews

See Phase I Engagement Summary (attachment)

Public

March 25, 2015 (comment
period through April 8, 2015)

Open House

See Phase I Engagement Summary (attachment)

Public

August 5, 2015 (comment
period through August 28,
2015)

Open House

See Phase II Engagement Summary (attachment)

[1]

Users may add rows to this table to accommodate additional stakeholders.