Trinidad Area Freeway Master

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Plan Study Report

Prepared for:

The Trinidad Rancheria

Prepared by:

Revised February 13, 2014

MEMORANDUM

To:

Attn:

From:

Re:

SHN Consulting Engineers and

Geologists

Greg Williston

Kamesh Vedula, PE, TE

Russ Wenham, PE, TE, PTOE

Response to Caltrans Comments on

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan

Study Report

Date:

February 13, 2014

Project:

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan

Studuy

Job No.:

45-6108-01

File No.:

C1721MEM003.DOCX

CC:

Introduction

This memorandum has been prepared by OMNI-MEANS in response to the January 17, 2014

Memorandum and January 24, 2014 Memorandum from Troy Arseneau. (District 1, Chief, Office of

Traffic Operations) to Ralph Martinelli (District 1 – Advanced Planning).

OMNI-MEANS prepared a Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study Report in June 2013. This

memorandum addresses the comments provided by Caltrans on the June 2013 report. Caltrans comments

are followed by OMNI-MEANS’ response to each item.

Comments within the January 17, 2014 memorandum from Caltrans

1. This memorandum from Caltrans District 1 Traffic Operations includes weaving analysis

for the Trinidad Rancheria Cher-Ae Lane (Scenic Drive) Interchange.

Response to Comment 1: OMNI-MEANS has incorporated the above weaving analysis

within the section titled – Weaving Analysis within the updated Trinidad Area Freeway

Master Plan Study Report

Comments within the January 24, 2014 memorandum from Caltrans

1. The proposed location of the Cher-Ae Lane Interchange appears to be closer to the

Trinidad interchange ramps than the stated 3,700 feet in the report. Rough measurements

show that the distances between the proposed northbound onramp and the existing

northbound onramp at Trinidad and the proposed southbound off-ramp and the existing

southbound on-ramp at Trinidad are approximately 2,500 ft and 2,600 ft, respectively.

The close proximity of the ramps between the two interchanges would require a weaving

analysis according to the 2010 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The

report failed to provide a weaving analysis, stating that the 3700 feet distance was beyond

the thresholds of weaving as per the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). It appears that

the reference is to HCM 2000 which is not the current edition. Traffic Operations

conducted an independent analysis of the weaving sections between the existing and

proposed interchanges using the volume projections found in the report and concluded

943 Reserve Drive, Suite 100, Roseville, CA 95678 ~ (916) 782-8688 fax (916) 782-8689

February 13, 2014

that the freeway section between the two interchanges would operate with acceptable

levels of service with the project's full build out under future conditions and that auxiliary

lanes on the freeway between the interchanges would not be required if a new

interchange for the tribe is built. The results of the weaving analysis are provided to your

office via separate memo.

Response to Comment 1: Agree with Caltrans findings. The reference to the Weaving

Analysis section was indeed from 2000 HCM, an older version. There is no explicit

guidance with regards to weaving based on distance between the interchanges within the

2010 HCM, the current version.

OMNI-MEANS included the weaving analysis and results, provided by Caltrans District

1 Office of Traffic Operations, within the section titled – Weaving Analysis of the updated

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study Report

2. The report indicated that Main Street in Trinidad near Scenic Drive would need to be

signalized if no interchange is constructed (Figure 19) and the Trinidad Rancheria

Master Plan is fully implemented. The report does not provide any support

documentation for the Synchro analysis for the signalized option without construction

of the proposed interchange for the year 2020 or 2040. Additionally, the alternative

shows that more lanes are needed to support traffic volumes in 2020 if the Cher-Ae

Lane Interchange is not constructed. This report should be amended to include all

necessary support data and calculations that demonstrate the need for additional lanes

for both future scenarios (with and without project) at the Trinidad interchange (i.e.

Synchro/SimTraffic printouts).

Response to Comment 2: Table 5A and 6A within the June 2013 report documented the

results of intersection operations on the Main Street corridor which indicates that

improvements are required to the Main Street intersections to accommodate the

Rancheria Master Plan traffic volumes. The Synchro printouts for these conditions were

included in the June 2013 report. The June 2013 report also concludes that with the

Rancheria Master Plan Volumes signalization will be required on the Mains Street

corridor intersections.

The updated Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study Report includes Table 9, which

summarizes intersection delay and LOS values associated with the proposed Main Street

corridor improvements in order to better communicate the year 2020 and 2040

conditions without the new interchange.

Regrettably, we failed to include the Synchro/Sim-Traffic printouts for year 2020 and

2040 conditions with the proposed Main Street corridor improvements and without the new

Cher-Ae Lane interchange. The updated Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study Report

includes an Appendix section titled Main Street Corridor Improvements Worksheets that

contains all the documentation (Synchro/Sim-Traffic printout) for the delay and LOS

values provided in Table 9.

943 Reserve Drive, Suite 100, Roseville, CA 95678 ~ (916) 782-8688 fax (916) 782-8689

TRINIDAD AREA FREEWAY MASTER PLAN STUDY

PREPARED FOR:

THE TRINIDAD RANCHERIA

1 CHER-AE LANE

TRINIDAD, CA 95570

PREPARED JOINTLY BY:

OMNI-MEANS, LTD.

ENGINEERS & PLANNERS

943 RESERVE DRIVE

SACRAMENTO CA 95678

(916) 782-8688

AND

SHN CONSULTING ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS, INC

812 W. WABASH

EUREKA, CA 95501-2138

FEBRUARY 2014

45-6108-01

R1721RPT003.DOCX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

STUDY AREA ROADWAY ....................................................................................................................... 1

STUDY LOCATIONS.................................................................................................................................. 2

Intersections........................................................................................................................................ 2

US101 Mainline Segments ................................................................................................................. 2

US101 Merge/Diverge........................................................................................................................ 2

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES AND PARAMETERS ........................................................................... 3

Level-of-Service Methodologies ........................................................................................................ 3

LOS Policies ....................................................................................................................................... 3

LOS Threshold ................................................................................................................................... 3

Warrant Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 3

Technical Analysis Parameters - Intersections ................................................................................... 3

Technical Analysis Parameters – Mainline and Ramps ..................................................................... 4

EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 5

Intersections........................................................................................................................................ 5

Existing Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions ............................................................. 5

DESIGN YEAR CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 7

General ............................................................................................................................................... 7

Year 2040 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 7

Year 2020 Traffic Forecasts ............................................................................................................... 7

YEAR 2020 BASE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ............................................................................................ 7

Intersections........................................................................................................................................ 7

Year 2020 Base Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions................................................. 8

YEAR 2040 BASE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ............................................................................................ 9

Intersections........................................................................................................................................ 9

Year 2040 Base Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions............................................... 10

RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 11

Rancheria Master Plan Development Trip Generation ..................................................................... 11

Rancheria Master Plan development Trip Distribution and Assignment ......................................... 13

YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN TRAFFIC OPERATIONS................................................. 13

Intersections...................................................................................................................................... 14

Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions .................. 14

YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN TRAFFIC OPERATIONS................................................. 15

Intersections...................................................................................................................................... 15

Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions .................. 16

CHER-AE LANE INTERCHANGE .......................................................................................................... 18

Weaving Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 18

Design Exceptions ............................................................................................................................ 19

YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH CHER-AE LANE INTERCHANGE CONDITIONS

(Year 2020 Rancheria MP with IC conditions) .......................................................................................... 20

Intersections...................................................................................................................................... 20

Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions .................. 21

YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH CHER-AE LANE INTERCHANGE CONDITIONS

(Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan with IC conditions) ............................................................................. 21

Intersections...................................................................................................................................... 22

Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions .................. 22

MAIN STREET INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT CHER-AE LANE INTERCHANGE

.................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page i

R1721RPT003.docx

Main Street/Scenic Drive ....................................................................................................... 24

Main Street/US 101 SB Ramps .............................................................................................. 25

Main Street/US 101 NB Ramps ............................................................................................. 25

Westhaven Drive/Frontage Road ........................................................................................... 25

Scenic Drive/Cher-Ae Lane ................................................................................................... 25

CHER-AE LANE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................... 25

Cher-Ae Lane/US 101 NB Ramps ......................................................................................... 26

Cher-Ae Lane/US 101 SB Ramps .......................................................................................... 26

RECOMMENDATION .............................................................................................................................. 26

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page ii

R1721RPT003.docx

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1A Existing Conditions: Intersections Level of Service ..................................................................... 5

Table 1B Existing Conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service ............................. 6

Table 1B (Continued) Existing Conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service ......... 6

Table 2A year 2020 Base Conditions: Intersections Level of Service.......................................................... 8

Table 2B year 2020 Base Conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service .................. 8

Table 2B (Continued) year 2020 Base Conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service

......................................................................................................................................................... 9

Table 3A year 2040 Base Conditions: Intersections Level of Service.......................................................... 9

Table 3B year 2040 Base Conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service ................ 10

Table 3B (Continued) year 2040 Base Conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service

....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 4A Rancheria MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT - BUILT-OUT TRIP GENERATION ............ 12

Table 4b YEAR 2020 MASTER PLAN TRIP GENERATION ................................................................. 13

Table 5A year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan Conditions: Intersections Level of Service ........................... 14

Table 5B year 2020 Rancheria Master plan Conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of

Service ........................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 5B (Continued) year 2020 Rancheria Master plan Conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp

Junction Level of Service............................................................................................................... 15

Table 6A year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan Conditions: Intersections Level of Service ........................... 16

Table 6B year 2040 Rancheria Master plan Conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of

Service ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 6B (Continued) year 2040 Rancheria Master plan Conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp

Junction Level of Service............................................................................................................... 17

Table 7A Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan with IC conditions: Intersections Level of Service .............. 20

Table 7B Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan with IC conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp Junction

Level of Service ............................................................................................................................. 21

Table 7B (Continued) Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan with IC conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp

Junction Level of Service............................................................................................................... 21

Table 8A Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan with IC conditions: Intersections Level of Service .............. 22

Table 8B Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan with IC conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp Junction

Level of Service ............................................................................................................................. 23

Table 8B (Continued) Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan with IC conditions: US 101 Mainline and Ramp

Junction Level of Service............................................................................................................... 23

Table 9 Rancheria Master Plan with main street corridor improvements: Intersections Level of Service . 25

APPENDIX

FIGURES

SYNCHRO REPORTS

WARRANT WORKSHEETS

WEAVING CALCULATIONS

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page iii

R1721RPT003.docx

INTRODUCTION

The Trinidad Rancheria (Rancheria) retained the team of SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologist Inc,

(SHN) and OMNI-MEANS to complete a roadway improvement needs traffic study, in the vicinity of

City of Trinidad in Humboldt County. Figure 1 (in the appendix) shows the study area. With the

planned growth of the Rancheria (per the Master Plan), City of Trinidad (per the General Plan) and other

background growth in the County, planning an efficient transportation system is essential to support this

growth. The focus of this study is to determine the circulation improvements on US 101 and the

interchanges that provide access to the City of Trinidad and the Rancheria to support the future growth.

Traffic operations have been quantified based upon weekday peak month AM and PM peak hour traffic

operations at critical study intersections, and along US 101 freeway mainline segments, and at

mainline/ramp junctions.

STUDY AREA ROADWAY

Roadways that provide the primary vehicle circulation within the study area include US 101, Main Street,

Scenic Drive, and Westhaven Drive. Following is a brief description of the primary roadways within the

study area:

US 101 is a major north-south freeway facility that provides regional connections to the cities on the

north coast and Sacramento/ Los Angeles urban basin to the south. Within Humboldt County, US 101

serves as a vital north-south circulator, and is a general four lane divided freeway with a 65 mph posted

speed limit in the immediate vicinity of the study area. Just south of the Main Street interchange (@ PM

98.067), US 101 currently carries an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 10,600 vehicles. (Source:

2011 Caltrans Traffic Volumes.) Truck traffic on US 101 in the project area (@ PM 98.067) represents

approximately 22% of the daily traffic. (Source: 2010 Caltrans Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on

the California State Highway System.)

Main Street is an east-west two lane primary collector street that extends west of US 101 SB ramps and

continues through the City of Trinidad as Trinity Street and Edwards Street. Per the City of Trinidad

draft General Plan Circulation Element, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Main Street is 3,170

vehicles.

Scenic Drive is a north-south two lane secondary collector street that extends south of Main Street and

provides access to the Rancheria. Per the City of Trinidad draft General Plan Circulation Element, the

ADT on Scenic Drive is 870 vehicles.

Westhaven Drive is a north-south two lane primary collector street that extends east of US 101 SB ramps

and provides a connection between the City of Trinidad and the unincorporated community of Westhaven

in the county. Per the City of Trinidad draft General Plan Circulation Element, the ADT on Westhaven

Drive east of US 101 is 865 vehicles.

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 1

R1721RPT003.docx

STUDY LOCATIONS

Intersections

Based on consultation with Caltrans, weekday AM & PM traffic counts were collected for the following

study intersections:

1. 6th Avenue/Kay Avenue

2. 6th Avenue/Kahlstrom Avenue

3. Kay Avenue/US101 SB Ramps

4. Kahlstrom Avenue/7th Avenue

5. Main Street/Patricks Point Drive/Trinidad Scenic Drive

6. Main Street/US101 SB Ramps

7. Westhaven Drive/US101 NB Ramps

8. Westhaven Drive/Trinidad Frontage Road

9. Scenic Drive/Baker Ranch Road

10. Scenic Drive/Cher-Ae Heights Casino Driveway

11. Scenic Drive/Cher-Ae Lane

12. Scenic Drive/Lanford Road

The weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic counts were collected in May 2013. The AM peak hour is

defined as one-hour of peak traffic flow counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour is

defined as one-hour of peak traffic flow counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

Based on the data obtained from Caltrans continuous count station located at PM 98.067 on US 101,

August counts were observed to be 25% higher than the May counts. Therefore, the May counts were

adjusted to reflect the peak August month counts. Although, it is unlikely that the local street

intersections will experience this same growth, for the purposes of this study, this growth was utilized to

reflect August peak month counts.

Figure 2 (in the Appendix) shows the existing lane geometrics and control at the study intersections.

Figure 3 (in the Appendix) shows the existing peak hour volumes at these locations and Figure 4 (in the

appendix) shows the existing ramp volumes.

US101 Mainline Segments

The following mainline segments have been analyzed in the study:

1. US101 Mainline NB – north of Main Street Interchange

2. US101 Mainline SB – north of Main Street Interchange

3. US101 Mainline NB – south of Main Street Interchange

4. US101 Mainline SB – south of Main Street Interchange

US101 Merge/Diverge

The following merge/diverge junctions have been analyzed in the study:

1) NB US101/Kahlstrom Avenue Ramp Diverge

2) SB US101/Kay Avenue Ramp Merge

3) NB US101/Kahlstrom Avenue Ramp Merge

4) SB US101/Kay Avenue Ramp Diverge

5) NB US101/Westhaven Drive Ramp Diverge

6) SB US101/Main Street Ramp Merge

7) NB US101/Westhaven Drive Ramp Merge

8) SB US101/Main Street Ramp Diverge

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 2

R1721RPT003.docx

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES AND PARAMETERS

Level-of-Service Methodologies

Traffic operations will be quantified through the determination of "Level of Service" (LOS). Level of

Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is

assigned to an intersection or roadway segment representing progressively worsening traffic conditions.

Levels of Service have been calculated for all intersection control types using the methods documented in

the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual, Fourth Edition, 2010 (HCM2010). For signalized intersections and all-way-stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections, the intersection

delays and levels of service are average values for all intersection movements. For two-way-stopcontrolled (TWSC) intersections, the intersection delays and levels of service are representative of those

for the worst-case movement.

LOS Policies

The Caltrans published Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (dated December 2002) states

the following:

“Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D”

on State highway facilities.”

LOS Threshold

Based on the above policy, LOS ‘C’ has been assumed as the minimum acceptable for all study

intersections, mainline segments and ramp merge diverge and weave junctions.

Warrant Analysis

A supplemental traffic signal “warrant” analysis has been completed on unsignalized intersections

determined to be operating at unacceptable LOS. The term “signal warrants” refers to the list of

established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the

need for installation of a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection. The signal warrant criteria are

based upon several factors, including the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of

accidents, and location of school areas. The criteria is published in the California Manual of Traffic

Control Devices (MUTCD).

This study utilizes the peak hour volume-based Warrant 3 as one representative type of traffic signal

warrant analysis. It should be noted that the Peak-Hour-Volume Warrant was only applied when the

intersection was found to be operating at unacceptable LOS. Therefore, there may be instances when the

unsignalized intersection operates at acceptable LOS conditions or better but still meets the Peak-HourVolume Warrant.

Technical Analysis Parameters - Intersections

The traffic study would generally provide a “preliminary operational level” evaluation of traffic operating

conditions, which is considered sufficient for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National

Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) purposes. The Synchro 8.0 (Trafficware) integrated computer

software program has been used to implement the HCM-2010 analysis methodologies at intersections.

The specific intersections related technical analysis parameters that have been used for this study are

presented below.

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 3

R1721RPT003.docx

Parameters

Existing Conditions

Future Conditions

Peak Hour factor (PHF)

Heavy Vehicle Percentage

# of Conflicting Pedestrian/Hour

from data collection

0.88

Ideal Saturated Flow

1500 vphpl

1. Ideal Saturated Flow assumed as per Caltrans District 1 recommedation.

Technical Analysis Parameters – Mainline and Ramps

The Highway Capacity Software integrated computer software program has been used to implement the

HCM-2010 analysis methodologies at freeways and ramps. The specific mainline, ramp related technical

analysis parameters that have been used for this study are presented below.

Parameters

Existing Conditions

Future Conditions

Free Flow Speed

Mainline Peak Hour Factor (PHF)

Ramp Peak Hour Factor (PHF)

55 MPH

0.88

from existing counts

55 MPH

0.88

22%

Level

0.86

22%

Level

0.86

317 vph

1% growth rate

287 vph

1% growth rate

541 vph

1% growth rate

486 vph

from data collection

1% growth rate

Mainline Heavy Vehicle Percentage

Ramp Heavy Vehicle Percentage

Terrain

Driver Population

Mainline AM peak Hour Volume (Northbound)

Mainline AM peak Hour Volume (Southbound)

Mainline PM peak Hour Volume (Northbound)

Mainline PM peak Hour Volume (Southbound)

Ramp Volumes

1. Mainline Heavy Vehicle Percentage obtained from Caltrans Published 2011 Data.

2. Data abtained from Caltrans' Performance Measurement System (PEMS) database for

Thursday in August 2012 (peak month and day).

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 4

R1721RPT003.docx

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This section provides a summary of intersection, mainline and ramp merge/diverge analysis for Existing

conditions. Figure 3 (in the appendix) depicts the intersection volumes and Figure 4 (in the appendix)

depicts the freeway mainline and ramp volumes.

Intersections

“Existing” peak-hour traffic operations were quantified for the study intersections. Table 1A summarizes

Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS values with existing traffic volumes (shown on Figure

3) and lane geometrics and control (shown on Figure 2).

TABLE 1A

EXISTING CONDITIONS: INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE

Control

Intersection

1 6th Avenue & Kay Avenue

2 6th Avenue & Kahlstrom Avenue

3 Kay Avenue & US 101 SB Ramps

4 Kahlstrom Avenue & 7th Avenue

5 Scenic Drive & Main Street

6 Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

7 Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

8 Westhaven Drive & Frontage Road

9 Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

10 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Lane

11 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Heights Casino

Type

1,2

TWSC

Target

LOS

12 Scenic Drive & Landford Road

Notes:

1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections

3. Warrant = Based on California MUTCD Warrant 3

AM Peak Hour

Warrant

PM Peak Hour

Warrant

LOS

Met?

Delay

8.9

8.8

9.1

9.0

0.4

12.4

13.6

9.6

10.0

Delay

LOS

Met?

8.9

9.0

9.5

10.7

11.2

9.2

9.0

0.7

8.5

8.6

9.1

8.6

8.7

8.9

As indicated in Table 1A, all of the study intersections are found to be operating at acceptable LOS under

Existing conditions based on the intersection delay and the corresponding LOS.

Existing Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions

US 101 freeway mainline and ramp junction peak-hour traffic operations were also quantified applying

methods documented in the HCM-2010 with the existing conditions LOS presented in Table 1B. As

shown in Table 1B, all freeway mainline segments and ramp junctions within the study area currently

operate at LOS “C” or better for “Existing” AM and PM peak hour periods.

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 5

R1721RPT003.docx

TABLE 1B

EXISTING CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Freeway Mainline Segment

US 101 NB north of Main Street

US 101 NB south of Main Street

US 101 SB north of Main Street

US 101 SB south of Main Street

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

No. Target

Density,

Lanes

LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS

204

2.7

368

4.9

343

5.1

539

7.2

164

2.2

366

4.9

282

3.8

496

6.6

TABLE 1B (CONTINUED)

EXISTING CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

AM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

PM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

Target

LOS

Junction

Type

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

US 101 Ramps @ Main Street I/C

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

7.8

6.1

7.4

5.8

9.9

9.2

9.8

8.8

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

5.9

6.8

7.0

4.1

7.8

9.3

9.6

7.2

Interchange Location

US 101 Ramps @ 6th Avenue I/C

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 6

R1721RPT003.docx

DESIGN YEAR CONDITIONS

General

The Highway Design Manual (HDM) states that the geometric design of new facilities and reconstruction

projects should normally be based on estimated traffic 20 years after completion of construction. As

such, Caltrans has established that the cumulative year of analysis should be 2040. This is consistent with

the Humboldt County Regional Planning efforts and the Humboldt County Regional Travel Demand

model.

Year 2040 Traffic Volumes

The following sources of data were reviewed to establish background annual growth rate that will be

applied to the study area facilities to derive Year 2040 Base traffic volumes:

1) Humboldt County Travel Demand Model Roadway volumes for Year 2010 and Year 2040 were

compared on US 101. In the vicinity of the study area, the model projects approximately 6,100

ADT for Year 2010 and 7,000 ADT for Year 2040. This yields an annual growth rate of

approximately 0.5% per year.

2) Historic ADT data available from Caltrans was reviewed for the Year 1992 and Year 2012. In

the vicinity of the study area, the 1992 ADT was found to be 8,000 and the peak ADT was found

to be 11,300. In 2012, the ADT was found to be 8,900 and the peak ADT was found to be

12,300. This yields an annual growth rate of approximately 0.6% per year.

3) California Department of Finance (DOF) projections for population in Humboldt County were

reviewed for Year 2010 and Year 2040 conditions. The DOF estimate for population in Year

2010 was 134,663 and Year 2040 is 147,873. This yields an annual growth rate of approximately

0.6% per year.

Per direction from Caltrans District 1 Long Range Planning, a background growth rate of 1.3% per year

has been utilized to derive Year 2040 Base traffic volumes.

Year 2020 Traffic Forecasts

Based on the planned development of the Rancheria and input from Caltrans, Year 2020 was established

as the interim analysis year. A background growth rate of 1.3% per year has been utilized to derive Year

2020 Base traffic volumes.

YEAR 2020 BASE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

This section provides a summary of intersection, mainline and ramp merge/diverge analysis for Year

2020 Base conditions. Figure 5 (in the appendix) depicts the intersection volumes and Figure 6 (in the

appendix) depicts the freeway mainline and ramp volumes.

Intersections

Year 2020 Base peak-hour traffic operations were quantified for the study intersections. Table 2A

summarizes Year 2020 Base AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS values with Year 2020 volumes

(shown on Figure 5) and lane geometrics and control (shown on Figure 2).

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 7

R1721RPT003.docx

TABLE 2A

YEAR 2020 BASE CONDITIONS: INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE

Control

Intersection

Type

1 6th Avenue & Kay Avenue

2 6th Avenue & Kahlstrom Avenue

3 Kay Avenue & US 101 SB Ramps

4 Kahlstrom Avenue & 7th Avenue

5 Scenic Drive & Main Street

6 Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

7 Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

8 Westhaven Drive & Frontage Road

9 Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

10 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Heights Casino

11 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Lane

1,2

TWSC

Target

LOS

12 Scenic Drive & Landford Road

Notes:

1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections

3. Warrant = Based on California MUTCD Warrant 3

AM Peak Hour

Warrant

PM Peak Hour

Warrant

LOS

Met?

Delay

9.2

8.9

9.2

9.4

1.9

14.5

16.0

9.8

10.8

Delay

LOS

Met?

9.1

9.3

9.7

11.2

12.1

9.7

9.5

2.5

8.6

8.7

9.0

8.7

9.5

9.2

9.5

As indicated in Table 2A, all of the study intersections are found to be operating at acceptable LOS under

Year 2020 Base conditions based on the intersection delay and the corresponding LOS.

Year 2020 Base Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions

US 101 freeway mainline and ramp junction peak-hour traffic operations were also quantified applying

methods documented in the HCM-2010 with the existing conditions LOS presented in Table 2B. As

shown in Table 2B, all freeway mainline segments and ramp junctions within the study area currently

operate at LOS “C” or better for Year 2020 Base AM and PM peak hour periods.

TABLE 2B

YEAR 2020 BASE CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Freeway Mainline Segment

US 101 NB north of Main Street

US 101 NB south of Main Street

US 101 SB north of Main Street

US 101 SB south of Main Street

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

No. Target

Density,

Lanes

LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS

230

3.1

400

5.3

380

5.1

580

7.7

170

2.3

410

5.5

300

4.0

540

7.2

Page 8

R1721RPT003.docx

TABLE 2B (CONTINUED)

YEAR 2020 BASE CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

AM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

PM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

Target

LOS

Junction

Type

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

US 101 Ramps @ Main Street I/C

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

8.3

5.6

6.9

5.6

10.4

8.5

9.2

8.3

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

6.2

6.3

6.8

4.1

8.1

8.8

9.2

6.6

Interchange Location

US 101 Ramps @ 6th Avenue I/C

YEAR 2040 BASE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

This section provides a summary of intersection, mainline and ramp merge/diverge analysis for Year

2040 Base conditions. Figure 7 (in the appendix) depicts the intersection volumes and Figure 8 (in the

appendix) depicts the freeway mainline and ramp volumes.

Intersections

Year 2040 Base peak-hour traffic operations were quantified for the study intersections. Table 3A

summarizes Year 2040 Base AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS values with Year 2040 traffic

volumes (shown on Figure 7) and lane geometrics and control (shown on Figure 2).

TABLE 3A

YEAR 2040 BASE CONDITIONS: INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE

Control

Intersection

1 6th Avenue & Kay Avenue

2 6th Avenue & Kahlstrom Avenue

3 Kay Avenue & US 101 SB Ramps

4 Kahlstrom Avenue & 7th Avenue

5 Scenic Drive & Main Street

6 Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

7 Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

8 Westhaven Drive & Frontage Road

9 Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

10 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Heights Casino

11 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Lane

Type

1,2

TWSC

Target

LOS

12 Scenic Drive & Landford Road

Notes:

1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections

3. Warrant = Based on California MUTCD Warrant 3

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

AM Peak Hour

Warrant

PM Peak Hour

Warrant

LOS

Met?

Delay

9.1

8.9

9.3

9.1

1.9

17.1

21.1

11.3

11.8

12.8

14.5

10.0

9.6

2.5

8.6

8.7

8.9

8.7

9.4

9.1

9.6

Delay

LOS

Met?

9.1

9.8

Page 9

R1721RPT003.docx

As indicated in Table 3A, all of the study intersections are found to be operating at acceptable LOS under

Year 2040 Base conditions based on the intersection delay and the corresponding LOS.

Year 2040 Base Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions

US 101 freeway mainline and ramp junction peak-hour traffic operations were also quantified applying

methods documented in the HCM-2010 with the Year 2040 conditions LOS presented in Table 3B. As

shown in Table 3B, all freeway mainline segments and ramp junctions within the study area currently

operate at LOS “C” or better for Year 2040 Base AM and PM peak hour periods.

TABLE 3B

YEAR 2040 BASE CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Freeway Mainline Segment

US 101 NB north of Main Street

US 101 NB south of Main Street

US 101 SB north of Main Street

US 101 SB south of Main Street

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

No. Target

Density,

Lanes

LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS

290

3.9

520

6.9

490

6.5

760

10.1

230

3.1

500

6.7

390

5.2

690

9.2

TABLE 3B (CONTINUED)

YEAR 2040 BASE CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

AM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

PM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

Target

LOS

Junction

Type

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

US 101 Ramps @ Main Street I/C

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

7.8

6.1

7.4

5.8

9.9

9.2

9.8

8.8

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

5.9

6.8

7.0

4.1

7.8

9.3

9.6

7.2

Interchange Location

US 101 Ramps @ 6th Avenue I/C

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 10

R1721RPT003.docx

RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT

The Trinidad Rancheria provided long range plans for development of the Rancheria (Master Plan

Development). To assess the roadways improvements needs associated with the Master Plan

Development, trips expected from the Master Plan Development will be added to the Base year traffic

volumes. The general land use assumptions for the proposed Rancheria Master Plan development are

presented below:

Uses

Casino

RV Spaces

Hotel

Office Space

Retail

Community Space

Gas Station

Existing

50,000 sq.ft.

None

Minimal

None

Minimal

None

Master

Plan

150,000 sq.ft.

100 Rooms

100,000 sq.ft.

25,000 sq.ft.

50,000 sq.ft.

6 Pumps

Rancheria Master Plan Development Trip Generation

Table 4A provides the trip generation associated with the proposed Rancheria Master Plan development.

Trip Generation estimates for other uses were obtained from the data published in the 9th edition of

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Although the retail uses associated with the proposed

Rancheria Master Plan development are expected to be “Specialty Retail” (ITE Use Code 814), a

“Shopping Center” (ITE use code 820) was used to estimate trips for this land use. The data is limited for

the Specialty Retail type uses and therefore, Shopping Center was used.

Traffic counts conducted at the entrance to the existing Trinidad Rancheria indicated that the existing

Rancheria generates 67 trips during the AM peak period and 107 trips during the PM peak period. Based

on the 50,000 square feet existing casino establishment, these trips translate to 1.34 trips/1,000 sq.ft.

during the AM peak period and 2.14 trips/1,000 sq.ft. during the PM peak period. This data along with

data from other Casino/Rancheria’s was utilized in deriving trips for the proposed 150,000 square feet

casino expansion.

Table 4B provides the trip generation associated with the proposed Rancheria Master Plan development

for Year 2020 conditions.

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 11

R1721RPT003.docx

TABLE 4A

RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT - BUILT-OUT TRIP GENERATION

"Unadjusted" Project Trip Generation

Land Use Category

AM Pk Hr Trip Rate

(ITE Code)

Casino Trip Generation Rates

Hotel (310)

Total

In %

Out % Total

In %

Out %

per ksf

2.01

69%

31%

3.94

53%

47%

per room

0.56

61%

39%

0.59

53%

47%

per ksf

1.92

88%

12%

1.91

17%

83%

per ksf

0.96

62%

38%

3.71

48%

52%

per ksf

2.05

66%

34%

2.74

49%

51%

General Office (710)

Shopping Center (820)

Recreational Community Center (495)

Gas Station with Convenience Market (945)

per FS

10.16 50%

50%

AM Pk Hr Trips

Total

Out

Quantity

150.0 ksf

302

208

100 rooms 56

100 ksf

192

169

25 ksf

50 ksf

103

6 FS

Land Use Description

Proposed Casino Expansion

Hotel

Office

Retail

Recreational

Mini-Mart

PM Pk Hr Trip Rate

Rate Unit

TOTAL "UNADJUSTED" PROPOSED PROJECT TRIPS

738

525

213

13.51 50%

50%

PM Pk Hr Trips

Total

Out

591

313

278

191

159

137

1,153

529

624

Notes: k sf = 1,000 square feet, FS - Fueling Stations

1) Unadjusted Trips include Internal Trips.

2) Trip generation volumes estimated using other sources, which are attached.

3) Trip generation volumes estimated using the ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition) .

4) Based on professional engineering judgement.

Internal Trip Reductions

Land Use Description

Hotel

Office, Retail, Recreational and Mini-Mart

Land Use Description

100 Room Hotel

Office, Retail, Recreational and Mini-Mart

TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT INTERNAL TRIPS

AM Peak Hour

Internal %

30%

20%

AM Peak Hour Trips

Total

Out

PM Peak Hour

Internal %

30%

20%

PM Pe ak Hour Trips

Total

100

117

Out

"Unadjusted" External Trip Generation

Land Use Description

TOTAL "UNADJUSTED" PROJECT TRIPS

- Internal trips

AM Peak Hour Trips

Total

Out

738

525

213

-92

-66

-26

Total

1,153

-117

529

-46

Out

624

-71

TOTAL "UNADJUSTED" PROPOSED PROJECT EXTERNAL TRIPS

646

1,036

483

553

459

187

PM Pe ak Hour Trips

Full development of the proposed Rancheria Master Plan development is expected to generate 646 AM

peak hour trips and 1,036 PM peak hour trips. Note that these are all net “new” trips that will be added to

the study intersection in the analysis under Year 2040 Master Plan conditions.

The study includes analysis of proposed Rancheria Master Plan development conditions under Year 2020

conditions. It is not expected that full build-out of the proposed Rancheria Master Plan development will

occur by Year 2020 conditions. Therefore, for trip generation purposes under Year 2020 conditions, it is

assumed that the 100 room hotel and the 150,000 square feet casino expansion will be constructed.

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 12

R1721RPT003.docx

TABLE 4B

YEAR 2020 MASTER PLAN TRIP GENERATION

"Unadjusted" Project Trip Generation

Land Use Category

AM Pk Hr Trip Rate

(ITE Code)

Casino Trip Generation Rates

Hotel (310)

Total

In % Out % Total

In % Out %

per ksf

2.01

69%

53%

31%

per room

0.56

61%

39%

AM Pk Hr Trips

Total

Out

Quantity

150.0 ksf

302

208

100 rooms 56

Land Use Description

Proposed Casino Expansion

Hotel

PM Pk Hr Trip Rate

Rate Unit

TOTAL "UNADJUSTED" PROPOSED PROJECT TRIPS

358

242

116

3.94

47%

0.59

53%

47%

PM Pk Hr Trips

Total

Out

591

313

278

650

344

306

Notes: ksf = 1,000 square feet, FS - Fueling Stations

1) Unadjusted Trips include Internal Trips.

2) Trip generation volumes estimated using other sources, which are attached.

3) Trip generation volumes estimated using the ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition) .

4) Based on professional engineering judgement.

Internal Trip Reductions

Land Use Description

Hotel

Land Use Description

100 Room Hotel

TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT INTERNAL TRIPS

AM Peak Hour

Internal %

30%

AM Peak Hour Trips

Total

Out

PM Peak Hour

Internal %

30%

PM Peak Hour Trips

Total

Out

"Unadjusted" External Trip Generation

Land Use Description

TOTAL "UNADJUSTED" PROJECT TRIPS

- Internal trips

AM Peak Hour Trips

Total

Out

358

242

116

-16

-10

-6

Total

650

-17

344

-9

Out

306

-8

TOTAL "UNADJUSTED" PROPOSED PROJECT EXTERNAL TRIPS

342

633

335

298

232

110

PM Peak Hour Trips

Year 2020 development of the proposed Rancheria Master Plan development is expected to generate 342

AM peak hour trips and 633 PM peak hour trips. Note that these are all net “new” trips that will be added

to the study intersection in the analysis under Year 2020 Master Plan conditions.

Rancheria Master Plan development Trip Distribution and Assignment

The directional trip distribution and assignment of proposed Rancheria Master Plan development trips

was largely based on the type of uses, demographics of the study area, travel patterns from the existing

Rancheria derived thru traffic counts. The directional trip distribution for the proposed Rancheria Master

Plan development is depicted graphically in Figure 9 (in the Appendix).

YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

This section provides a summary of intersection, mainline and ramp merge/diverge analysis for Year

2020 Rancheria Master Plan conditions. Figure 10 (in the appendix) depicts the intersection volumes and

Figure 11 (in the appendix) depicts the freeway mainline and ramp volumes.

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 13

R1721RPT003.docx

Intersections

2020 Rancheria Master Plan peak-hour traffic operations were quantified for the study intersections.

Table 5A summarizes Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS values

with Year 2020 traffic volumes (shown on Figure 10) and lane geometrics and control (shown on Figure

2).

TABLE 5A

YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS: INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE

Control

Intersection

1 6th Avenue & Kay Avenue

2 6th Avenue & Kahlstrom Avenue

3 Kay Avenue & US 101 SB Ramps

4 Kahlstrom Avenue & 7th Avenue

5 Scenic Drive & Main Street

6 Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

7 Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

8 Westhaven Drive & Frontage Road

9 Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

10 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Heights Casino

11 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Lane

Type

1,2

TWSC

Target

LOS

12 Scenic Drive & Landford Road

Notes:

1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections

3. Warrant = Based on California MUTCD Warrant 3

AM Peak Hour

Warrant

PM Peak Hour

Warrant

LOS

Met?

Delay

9.4

9.1

9.3

9.4

1.9

54.3

OVR

Yes

11.8

15.3

16.3

39.0

Yes

9.9

2.5

8.7

9.1

9.5

10.2

24.1

11.2

15.6

Delay

LOS

Met?

9.2

9.4

9.7

As indicated in Table 5A, all of the study intersections with the exception of Scenic Drive and Main

Street and Westhaven Drive and US 101 NB Ramps intersections are found to be operating at acceptable

LOS under Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan conditions based on the intersection delay and the

corresponding LOS. Furthermore, the Scenic Drive/Main Street and Westhaven Drive/US 101 NB

Ramps intersections are projected to meet the peak hour warrant criteria during the PM peak period.

Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions

US 101 freeway mainline and ramp junction peak-hour traffic operations were also quantified applying

methods documented in the HCM-2010 with the existing conditions LOS presented in Table 5B. As

shown in Table 5B, all freeway mainline segments and ramp junctions within the study area currently

operate at LOS “C” or better for Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan AM and PM peak hour periods.

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 14

R1721RPT003.docx

TABLE 5B

YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Freeway Mainline Segment

US 101 NB north of Main Street

US 101 NB south of Main Street

US 101 SB north of Main Street

US 101 SB south of Main Street

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

No. Target

Density,

Lanes

LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS

254

3.4

464

6.2

515

6.9

774

10.3

221

2.9

484

6.5

364

4.9

713

9.5

TABLE 5B (CONTINUED)

YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

AM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

PM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

Target

LOS

Junction

Type

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

US 101 Ramps @ Main Street I/C

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

9.9

7.5

8.0

6.6

12.6

11.3

11.5

11.0

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

6.4

8.5

7.6

4.8

8.7

11.8

11.3

8.1

Interchange Location

US 101 Ramps @ 6th Avenue I/C

YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

This section provides a summary of intersection, mainline and ramp merge/diverge analysis for Year

2040 Rancheria Master Plan conditions. Figure 12 (in the appendix) depicts the intersection volumes and

Figure 13 (in the appendix) depicts the freeway mainline and ramp volumes.

Intersections

Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan peak-hour traffic operations were quantified for the study intersections.

Table 6A summarizes Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS values

with Year 2040 traffic volumes (shown on Figure 12) and lane geometrics and control (shown on Figure

2).

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 15

R1721RPT003.docx

TABLE 6A

YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS: INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE

Control

Intersection

Type

1,2

Target

LOS

1 6th Avenue & Kay Avenue

TWSC

2 6th Avenue & Kahlstrom Avenue

TWSC

3 Kay Avenue & US 101 SB Ramps

TWSC

4 Kahlstrom Avenue & 7th Avenue

TWSC

5 Scenic Drive & Main Street

TWSC

6 Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

TWSC

7 Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

TWSC

8 Westhaven Drive & Frontage Road

TWSC

9 Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

TWSC

10 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Heights Casino

TWSC

11 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Lane

TWSC

12 Scenic Drive & Landford Road

TWSC

Notes:

1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections

3. Warrant = Based on California MUTCD Warrant 3

AM Peak Hour

Warrant

Delay

9.3

9.9

9.4

OVR

18.6

71.7

10.5

2.5

9.2

13.6

13.4

LOS

Met?

Yes

PM Peak Hour

Warrant

Delay

9.4

9.2

9.5

1.9

OVR

23.7

OVR

10.4

8.7

10.4

235.1

22.7

LOS

Met?

Yes

As indicated in Table 6A, the following study intersections are found to be operating at unacceptable

LOS D or worse conditions under Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan conditions based on the intersection

delay and the corresponding LOS:



Scenic Drive and Main Street (meets the peak hour warrant criteria during both peak periods)

Westhaven Drive and US 101 NB Ramps (meets the peak hour warrant criteria during both peak

periods)

Scenic Drive and Cher-Ae Lane (meets the peak hour warrant criteria during the PM peak period)

Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions

US 101 freeway mainline and ramp junction peak-hour traffic operations were also quantified applying

methods documented in the HCM-2010 with the existing conditions LOS presented in Table 6B. As

shown in Table 6B, all freeway mainline segments and ramp junctions within the study area currently

operate at LOS “C” or better for Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan AM and PM peak hour periods.

TABLE 6B

YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Freeway Mainline Segment

US 101 NB north of Main Street

US 101 NB south of Main Street

US 101 SB north of Main Street

US 101 SB south of Main Street

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

No. Target

Density,

Lanes

LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS

331

4.4

642

8.6

756

10.1

1,040

13.9

331

4.4

606

8.1

498

6.6

1,011

13.5

Page 16

R1721RPT003.docx

TABLE 6B (CONTINUED)

YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

AM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

PM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

Target

LOS

Junction

Type

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

US 101 Ramps @ Main Street I/C

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

12.2

10.2

9.4

8.3

15.5

14.4

14.7

14.8

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

7.3

11.5

9.0

6.2

10.6

15.1

14.4

9.6

Interchange Location

US 101 Ramps @ 6th Avenue I/C

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 17

R1721RPT003.docx

CHER-AE LANE INTERCHANGE

As noted in the previous analysis, with the addition of trips associated with the Rancheria Master Plan,

the intersections on Main Street interchange are forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS E or worse

conditions under both Year 2020 and Year 2040 conditions. Without the Rancheria Master Plan trips, all

of the study locations are projected to operate at acceptable LOS. Therefore, within this study, traffic

operations analysis is evaluated with an interchange that provides direct access to the Rancheria and

Westhaven Drive. This new interchange will be located approximately 0.7 miles south of the Main Street

interchange.

For the purposes of the analysis a tight diamond interchange is assumed at the new interchange, which is

referred to as the Cher-Ae Lane interchange. A two lane overcrossing is assumed with all-way stops at

the two ramp locations. Easterly extension of Cher-Ae Lane past the interchange to intersect at a “T”

intersection with Westhaven Drive is also assumed.

It should be noted that the spacing between the existing Main Street interchange and the proposed CherAe Lane interchange does not meet the spacing requirements and a design exception would be necessary.

However, the objective of this study is to analyze transportation operations associated with the new

interchange and the design details and exceptions will be prepared in a Project Study Report, which will

be prepared at a later time.

Weaving Analysis

Caltrans District 1 Traffic Operations performed a weaving analysis for the proposed Cher-Ae Lane

Interchange on U.S. 101, approximately 0.7 miles south of the Trinidad interchange. The Leisch Method,

referred to in Index 504.7 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), 6th Edition, was used in this

analysis. Figure 504.7A from the HDM, which demonstrates this method, is provided in the appendix.

The results of this analysis provided by Caltrans District 1 Traffic Operations are summarized below.

The overall conclusion from this analysis is that there is adequate distance on U.S. 101 between the

proposed interchange ramps and the existing Trinidad interchange ramps to accommodate the interaction

of entering and exiting traffic (current and projected) on U.S. 101 in both the north and south directions

while maintaining acceptable Level of Service (LOS) on the freeway. Auxiliary lanes will not be needed

on U.S. 101 if a new interchange is constructed near PM 100.2.

Using the post mile locations for the ramp connections of the Trinidad interchange and proposed Cher-Ae

Lane interchange, the on and off ramps would be separated by approximately 2,600 feet (0.49 miles) and

2,500 feet (0.47 miles) for the northbound and southbound portions of the freeway, respectively.

According to Index 504.5, Paragraph 2, of the HDM, "auxiliary lanes should be provided in all cases

when the weaving distance is less than 2000 feet." Under these criteria, auxiliary lanes would not be

required for northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) U.S. 101 between the Trinidad interchange and the

proposed interchange.

The weaving analysis prepared by Caltrans District 1 Traffic Operations was based on the Year 2020 and

2040 volume information presented in the appendix. The data used was in the units of vehicles per hour

(vph) and was taken from the afternoon PM peak hour. Year 2020 plus interchange northbound weaving

volumes was calculated at 233 vph (80 vph NB onramp + 153 vph NB off ramp). Southbound weaving

was calculated at 244 vph PM peak (151 vph SB onramp + 93 vph SB off ramp). Year 2040 plus

interchange northbound weaving volumes was calculated at 292 vph (139 NB onramp + 153 vph NB off

ramp). Southbound weaving was calculated at 339 vph (212 vph SB onramp + 127 vph SB off ramp).

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 18

R1721RPT003.docx

HDM Section 504.7, Paragraph 3, gives a rough approximation for length of a weaving section, "one foot

of length per weaving vehicle per hour (vph)." The largest weaving volume, 339 vph for Year 2040 in the

southbound direction, would only require a 339 foot weaving section, which is much less than the 2500

and 2600 feet distances that exist between on and off ramps in the NB and SB directions, respectively.

The distances between the ramps are more than adequate to accommodate the interaction of through

traffic, traffic entering the freeway, and traffic exiting the freeway between the proposed and existing

interchanges; therefore, auxiliary lanes would not be necessary.

The Leisch Method was used to determine Level of Service (LOS). The results from the method

nomograph (HDM Figure 504.7A, provided in the appendix) show that the Year 2040 southbound

weaving volume of 339 vph, or 401 passenger cars per hour (pcph), would result in LOS A. Being that

the Year 2040 northbound weaving volume and the Year 2020 volumes are all less than 339 vph (401

pcph), LOS A would exist in both directions for the weaving section lengths between the interchanges for

Year 2020 and 2040 conditions.

Design Exceptions

To promote uniform practice on a statewide basis, the Caltrans HDM identifies standards that shall be

considered during project planning. When design features or elements deviate from HDM mandatory

standards, approval from the appropriate Caltrans Design Coordinator shall be obtained. The authority to

approve exceptions to advisory standards rests with the District Director (District 1).

Design exception approval must be obtained prior to Caltrans approval of a Project Study Report (PSR).

When project development is initiated with approval of a Project Study Report – Project Development

Support (PSR-PDS) document, approval of applicable design exceptions can be deferred to the Project

Report (PR) phase.

Table 82.1A of the HDM lists mandatory standards subject to the above approval requirements. A

screening-level review of the standards resulted in development of the below list of potential exceptions

to mandatory standards for this project:

HDM Index

101.1

201.1

202.2

203.1

204.1

309.1

501.3

504.3

Standard

Selection of Design Speed

Sight Distance Standards

Superelevation

Horizontal Alignment

Local Facility Grades

Clear Recovery Zone

Interchange Spacing

Distance Between Ramp &

Frontage Roads

Comment

Local roads at interchanges may not meet standards.

Local roads and ramp termini may not meet standards.

Local roads may not meet standards.

Local road grades may not meet standards.

Existing topographic features may not meet standards.

A new interchange will require an exception.

Not met at existing interchanges. May not be met

at new interchange.

Table 82.1B of the HDM lists advisory standards subject to the above approval requirements. A

screening-level review of the standards resulted in development of the below list of potential exceptions

to advisory standards for this project:

HDM Index

101.1

105.4

Standard

Selection of Design Speed

Two ADA Ramp Design

203.1

204.1

Horizontal Alignment

Local Facility Grades

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Comment

Local roads at interchanges may not meet standards.

One access ramp is often appropriate at signalized

freeway ramps.

Local roads may not meet standards.

Local road grades may not meet standards.

Page 19

R1721RPT003.docx

304.1

309.1

504.3

Side Slopes 1:4 or Flatter

Clear Recovery Zone

Distance Between Ramp &

Frontage Roads

Existing and proposed slopes may exceed 1:4.

Existing topographic features may not meet standards.

Not met at existing interchanges. May not be met

at new interchange.

YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH CHER-AE LANE INTERCHANGE

CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MP WITH IC CONDITIONS)

Year 2020 proposed Rancheria Master Plan development trips identified in Table 4B have been added to

Year 2020 Base traffic volumes based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 9 to derive Year 2020

Rancheria Master Plan with Cher-Ae Lane Interchange Conditions (Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan

with IC conditions). Traffic volumes will be redistributed based on the addition of a new freeway

interchange at the Trinidad Rancheria. Figure 15 (in the appendix) depicts the intersection volumes and

Figure 16 (in the appendix) depicts the freeway mainline and ramp volumes.

Intersections

Year 2020 Rancheria MP with IC conditions peak-hour traffic operations were quantified for the study

intersections. Table 7A summarizes Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan with IC conditions AM and PM

peak hour intersection LOS values with Year 2020 traffic volumes (shown on Figure 15) and lane

geometrics and control (shown on Figure 14).

TABLE 7A

YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH IC CONDITIONS: INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE

Control

Intersection

1 6th Avenue & Kay Avenue

2 6th Avenue & Kahlstrom Avenue

3 Kay Avenue & US 101 SB Ramps

4 Kahlstrom Avenue & 7th Avenue

5 Scenic Drive & Main Street

6 Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

7 Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

8 Westhaven Drive & Frontage Road

9 Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

10 Scenic Drive & Cheer-Ae Hieght Casino

11 Scenic Drive & Cher-AE Lane

12 Scenic Drive & Landford Road

13 Cher AE Lane & US 101 NB Ramps

14 Cher AE Lane & US 101 SB Ramps

Type

1,2

TWSC

AWSC

TWSC

Target

LOS

15 Cher AE Lane & Westhaven Drive

Notes:

1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections

3. Warrant = Based on California MUTCD Warrant 3

AM Peak Hour

Warrant

Delay

LOS

Met?

9.2

9.6

9.8

PM Peak Hour

Warrant

LOS

Met?

Delay

9.5

9.1

9.3

9.6

1.9

13.2

14.4

9.7

9.8

10.9

11.5

9.8

9.7

2.1

8.7

9.1

8.8

9.1

9.5

8.9

9.3

8.4

9.5

8.2

10.1

9.0

9.2

As indicated in Table 7A, all of the following study intersections are found to be operating at acceptable

LOS C or better conditions under Year 2020 Rancheria MP with IC conditions based on the intersection

delay and the corresponding LOS.

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 20

R1721RPT003.docx

Year 2020 Rancheria Master Plan Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions

US 101 freeway mainline and ramp junction peak-hour traffic operations were also quantified applying

methods documented in the HCM-2010 with the existing conditions LOS presented in Table 7B. As

shown in Table 7B, all freeway mainline segments and ramp junctions within the study area currently

operate at LOS “C” or better for Year 2020 Rancheria MP with IC conditions AM and PM peak hour

periods.

TABLE 7B

YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH IC CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Freeway Mainline Segment

US 101 NB north of Main Street

US 101 NB south of Main Street

US 101 SB north of Main Street

US 101 SB south of Main Street

US 101 NB south of Cher-Ae Lane

US 101 SB south of Cher-Ae Lane

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

No. Target

Density,

Lanes

LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS

464

6.2

254

3.4

379

5.1

618

8.2

484

6.5

221

2.9

348

4.6

600

8.0

518

6.9

779

10.4

372

5.0

715

9.5

TABLE 7B (CONTINUED)

YEAR 2020 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH IC CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

AM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

PM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

Target

LOS

Junction

Type

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

US 101 Ramps @ Cher-Ae Lane I/C

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

10.0

7.5

8.0

6.7

12.6

11.3

11.5

11.0

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

US 101 Ramps @ Main Street I/C

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

8.2

8.5

8.0

6.4

10.9

11.8

10.3

9.6

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

6.5

6.8

7.2

4.8

8.9

9.8

10.4

8.1

Interchange Location

US 101 Ramps @ 6th Avenue I/C

YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH CHER-AE LANE INTERCHANGE

CONDITIONS (YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH IC CONDITIONS)

Year 2040 proposed Rancheria Master Plan development trips identified in Table 4A have been added to

Year 2040 Base traffic volumes based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 9 (in the Appendix) to

derive Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan with Cher-Ae Lane Interchange Conditions (Year 2040

Rancheria Master Plan with IC conditions). Traffic volumes will be redistributed based on the addition of

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 21

R1721RPT003.docx

a new freeway interchange at the Trinidad Rancheria. Figure 17 (in the appendix) depicts the

intersection volumes and Figure 18 (in the appendix) depicts the freeway mainline and ramp volumes.

Intersections

Year 2040 Rancheria MP with IC conditions peak-hour traffic operations were quantified for the study

intersections. Table 8A summarizes Year 2040 Rancheria MP with IC conditions AM and PM peak hour

intersection LOS values with Year 2040 traffic volumes (shown on Figure 17) and lane geometrics and

control (shown on Figure 14).

TABLE 8A

YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH IC CONDITIONS: INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE

Control

Intersection

1 6th Avenue & Kay Avenue

2 6th Avenue & Kahlstrom Avenue

3 Kay Avenue & US 101 SB Ramps

4 Kahlstrom Avenue & 7th Avenue

5 Scenic Drive & Main Street

6 Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

7 Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

8 Westhaven Drive & Frontage Road

9 Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

10 Scenic Drive & Cheer-Ae Hieght Casino

11 Scenic Drive & Cher-AE Lane

12 Scenic Drive & Landford Road

13 Cher AE Lane & US 101 NB Ramps

14 Cher AE Lane & US 101 SB Ramps

Type

1,2

TWSC

AWSC

TWSC

Target

LOS

15 Cher AE Lane & Westhaven Drive

Notes:

1. TWSC = Two Way Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections

3. Warrant = Based on California MUTCD Warrant 3

AM Peak Hour

Warrant

PM Peak Hour

Warrant

LOS

Met?

Delay

9.5

9.2

9.6

9.4

1.9

16.7

18.7

10.1

10.4

12.6

13.2

10.2

10.1

2.1

8.8

9.1

8.9

9.5

10.0

9.0

9.5

Delay

LOS

Met?

9.3

9.9

10.3

11.6

9.5

10.1

9.3

9.5

As indicated in Table 8A, all of the study intersections are found to be operating at acceptable LOS C or

better conditions under Year 2040 Rancheria MP with IC conditions based on the intersection delay and

the corresponding LOS. :

Year 2040 Rancheria Master Plan Freeway and Ramp Junction Operating Conditions

US 101 freeway mainline and ramp junction peak-hour traffic operations were also quantified applying

methods documented in the HCM-2010 with the existing conditions LOS presented in Table 8B. As

shown in Table 8B, all freeway mainline segments and ramp junctions within the study area currently

operate at LOS “C” or better for Year 2040 Rancheria MP with IC conditions AM and PM peak hour

periods.

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 22

R1721RPT003.docx

TABLE 8B

YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH IC CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Freeway Mainline Segment

US 101 NB north of Main Street

US 101 NB south of Main Street

US 101 SB north of Main Street

US 101 SB south of Main Street

US 101 NB south of Cher-Ae Lane

US 101 SB south of Cher-Ae Lane

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

No. Target

Density,

Lanes

LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume (pc/mi/ln) LOS

331

4.4

642

8.6

494

6.6

850

11.3

331

4.4

606

8.1

488

6.5

783

10.4

759

10.1

1,045

13.9

501

6.7

1,015

13.5

TABLE 8B (CONTINUED)

YEAR 2040 RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH IC CONDITIONS:

US 101 MAINLINE AND RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

AM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

PM Peak Hour

Density

(pc/mi/ln) LOS

Target

LOS

Junction

Type

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

US 101 Ramps @ Cher-Ae Lane I/C

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

12.2

10.2

9.4

8.3

15.6

14.4

14.7

14.8

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

US 101 Ramps @ Main Street I/C

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

9.6

11.6

9.5

8.2

13.5

15.2

14.6

11.9

U.S. Route 101 Northbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Northbound Off-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound On-Ramp

U.S. Route 101 Southbound Off-Ramp

Merge

Diverge

Merge

Diverge

7.3

8.2

9.5

6.2

10.9

12.7

12.4

9.6

Interchange Location

US 101 Ramps @ 6th Avenue I/C

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 23

R1721RPT003.docx

MAIN STREET INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT CHER-AE LANE

INTERCHANGE

As noted previously (Year 2020 and 2040 Rancheria Master Plan Conditions), with the addition of trips

from the proposed Rancheria Master Plan, intersections on the Main Street corridor and the project

entrance on Scenic Drive are forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS. This section identifies

intersection improvements that will provide acceptable operations through Year 2040 Rancheria Master

Plan conditions.

While intersection delay, on which LOS is derived, is a valid measure of delay and congestion, the

proposed improvements are unique. Due to the closely spaced nature of the intersections and

signalization proposed on the Main Street Corridor intersections, operations at one intersection

significantly impacts operations at adjacent intersections. Furthermore, the close proximity of the

intersections within this area and short turn pocket lengths greatly increases the likelihood that a critical

movement at an intersection will block adjacent intersections. This behavior is not captured within the

isolated intersection analysis in Synchro and needs to be documented using microsimualtion analysis.

Synchro is bundled with microsimulation software, SimTraffic, which uses the Synchro network as the

direct input data. The intersection operations for Main Street corridor intersections was performed in

SimTraffic.

When compared to AM peak hour volumes, the PM peak hour volumes were significantly higher on the

Main Street Corridor. Therefore, the analysis was performed for PM peak hour conditions. The proposed

intersection improvements on the Main Street corridor are shown on Figure 19 and the intersection LOS

for Year 2020 and Year 2040 PM Peak hour conditions are provided in Table 9.

Figure 19 – Main Street Interchange Improvements to accommodate Year 2020 and 2040

Rancheria Master Plan Conditions Traffic Volumes

Main Street/Scenic Drive

 Signalize and coordinate the intersection with other Main Street corridor intersections

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 24

R1721RPT003.docx



Provide dual northbound right turns and one shared left-thru lane

Provide left turn and right turn lanes and a shared left-thru lane in the southbound direction

Provide a shared left-thru lane and a thru-right lane in the eastbound direction

Provide dual left turn lanes and a thru-right lane in the westbound direction

Main Street/US 101 SB Ramps

 Signalize and coordinate the intersection with other Main Street corridor intersections

 Provide a left-right lane and right turn lanes in the southbound direction

 Provide a thru lane ,a thru-right lane and an exclusive right turn lane in the eastbound direction

 Provide a shared left-thru lane, and dual thru lanes westbound direction

Main Street/US 101 NB Ramps

 Signalize and coordinate the intersection with other Main Street corridor intersections

 Provide dual left lanes and a shared left-right lane in the southbound direction

 Provide a left turn lane and a thru lane in the eastbound direction

 Provide a thru lane and a shared thru-right lane in the westbound direction

Westhaven Drive/Frontage Road

 Signalize and coordinate the intersection with other Main Street corridor intersections

Scenic Drive/Cher‐Ae Lane

 Signalize the intersection

 Provide a 350 feet left turn lane and a left-thru lane in the southbound direction

 Provide a left turn and a right turn lane in the westbound direction

TABLE 9

RANCHERIA MASTER PLAN WITH MAIN STREET CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS: INTERSECTIONS

LEVEL OF SERVICE

Control

Intersection

5 Scenic Drive & Main Street

6 Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

7 Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

8 Westhaven Drive & Frontage Road

11 Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Lane

Type

1,2

Signal

Target

LOS

2020 PM Peak Hour

Warrant

Delay

12.3

14.2

15.8

13.3

17.8

LOS

Met?

2040 PM Peak Hour

Warrant

Delay

21.8

15.7

18.6

13.6

29.9

LOS

Met?

As indicated in Table 9, all of the study intersections are found to be operating at acceptable LOS C or

better conditions with the proposed Main Street corridor improvements based on the intersection delay

and the corresponding LOS. All of the other intersections are projected to operate acceptable LOS under

both Year 2030 and 2040 conditions. Please refer to Tables 5A and 6A for the intersection delay and the

corresponding LOS for the other study intersections.

CHER-AE LANE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

The analysis of Year 2020 and 2040 Rancheria Master Plan Conditions with the Cher-Ae Lane

interchange has been documented in Tables 7A, 7B, 8A and 8B. This section reiterates the intersection

improvements that were assumed for the Year 2020 and 2040 Rancheria Master Plan Conditions with the

Cher-Ae Lane interchange and Figure 20 provides a schematic of these improvements. A modern

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 25

R1721RPT003.docx

roundabout at these two locations will provide superior LOS compared to all-way stop. No additional

improvements beyond those identified in Figure 20 are required for Cher-Ae Lane.

Cher‐Ae Lane/US 101 NB Ramps

 All-way Stop Control at the intersection

Cher‐Ae Lane/US 101 SB Ramps

 All-way Stop Control at the intersection

 Channelized eastbound right pocket

Figure 20 – Cher-Ae Lane Interchange Improvements to accommodate Year 2020 and 2040

Rancheria Master Plan Conditions Traffic Volumes

RECOMMENDATION

A Project Study Report - Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) should be prepared to define the cost,

schedule, scope, impacts and benefits of the alternatives identified in this study.

Although improvements to Main Street corridor (as noted within the Main Street Interchange

Improvements Without Cher-Ae Lane Interchange section) provide acceptable operations with the

buildout of the area including the Rancheria Master Plan, we recommend the implementation of the CherAe Lane interchange improvements for the following reasons:

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 26

R1721RPT003.docx

(1) Improving the Main Street Interchange will require significant right of way acquisition and

change the character of the gateway to the coastal community of Trinidad

(2) Geometry (Close spacing) of intersections on Main Street is undesirable

(3) Cher-Ae Lane interchange improvements provide superior operations when compared to the

Main Street Interchange Improvements

(4) A new Cher-Ae Lane interchange will reduce travel times by providing a more efficient

connection between the Trinidad Rancheria and the US101 corridor

Trinidad Area Freeway Master Plan Study

The Trinidad Rancheria

Page 27

R1721RPT003.docx

APPENDIX

FIGURES

SYNCHRO REPORTS

WARRANT WORKSHEETS

WEAVING ANALYSIS

APPENDIX

Figures

Synchro Reports

Main Street Corridor Improvements Worksheets

Warrant Worksheets

HCS Reports

Weaving Analysis

FIGURES

SYNCHRO REPORTS

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: 6th Ave & Kay Ave

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

Stop

0.81

12.0

3.5

None

0.81

4.1

6.4

6.2

2.2

100

1540

3.5

936

3.3

1022

EB 1

1540

0.00

2.5

WB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

954

0.03

8.9

3.6

16.6%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: 6th Ave & Kahlstrom Ave

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

Free

0.73

12.0

3.5

Free

0.73

12.0

3.5

Stop

0.73

12.0

3.5

None

0.73

109

4.1

109

6.4

6.2

2.2

1497

3.5

867

3.3

988

EB 1

1497

0.01

2.2

WB 1

1700

0.04

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

928

0.02

9.0

2.1

20.1%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Kay Ave & US 101 SB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Stop

0.81

12.0

3.5

0.81

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

0.81

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

0.81

Stop

0.81

0.0

3.5

0.81

None

7.1

6.5

6.2

7.1

6.5

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

922

4.0

100

809

3.3

100

1014

3.5

100

943

4.0

100

843

3.3

100

1058

2.2

100

1550

2.2

100

1554

EB 1

809

0.00

9.5

NB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

SB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.5

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

0.81

Synchro 8 Report

Page 3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Kahlstrom Ave & 7th Avenue

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.58

12.0

3.5

Free

0.58

12.0

3.5

0.58

Free

0.58

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.58

None

101

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

881

3.3

100

967

2.2

100

1500

WB 1

914

0.01

9.0

NB 1

1700

0.04

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1500

0.00

0.6

0.9

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Scenic Drive/Patricks Point Drive & Main Street

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

104

Free

0.85

122

12.0

3.5

0.85

Stop

0.85

12.0

3.5

0.85

Stop

0.85

12.0

3.5

0.85

149

Free

0.85

175

12.0

3.5

0.85

None

0.85

None

193

143

466

451

140

469

452

192

193

4.1

143

4.1

466

7.1

451

6.5

140

6.2

469

7.1

452

6.5

192

6.2

2.2

1356

2.2

1415

3.5

463

4.0

473

3.3

892

3.5

460

4.0

100

473

3.3

834

EB 1

158

1356

0.01

1.1

WB 1

229

1415

0.03

1.6

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

NB 1

627

0.07

11.2

3.6

34.0%

SB 1

545

0.11

12.4

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 5

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Free

0.86

12.0

3.5

116

0.86

Stop

0.86

12.0

3.5

0.86

Stop

0.86

0.0

3.5

0.86

135

179

Free

0.86

208

12.0

3.5

0.86

None

0.86

None

213

186

393

374

124

374

441

218

213

4.1

186

4.1

393

7.1

374

6.5

124

6.2

374

7.1

441

6.5

218

6.2

2.2

100

1333

2.2

1370

3.5

100

538

4.0

100

541

3.3

100

914

3.5

100

563

4.0

100

496

3.3

806

EB 1

181

135

1700

0.11

0.0

WB 1

229

1370

0.02

0.8

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

SB 1

806

0.02

9.6

0.9

40.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 6

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Free

0.86

12.0

3.5

145

0.86

169

0.86

Stop

0.86

0.0

3.5

0.86

Stop

0.86

12.0

3.5

0.86

Free

0.86

12.0

3.5

0.86

None

0.86

None

137

139

152

137

4.1

137

7.1

139

6.5

6.2

152

7.1

137

6.5

6.2

2.2

1512

2.2

100

1551

3.5

809

4.0

100

734

3.3

1014

3.5

100

783

4.0

100

736

3.3

100

976

EB 1

1512

0.01

2.8

WB 1

1700

0.04

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

NB 1

184

169

823

0.22

10.6

7.1

34.5%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 7

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Westhaven Drive/Trinadad Frontage Road

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Free

0.83

12.0

3.5

0.83

Stop

0.83

12.0

3.5

0.83

Stop

0.83

12.0

3.5

0.83

None

4.1

7.1

6.5

6.2

2.2

1589

3.5

879

4.0

100

822

4.0

100

794

3.3

1053

EB 1

1589

0.01

2.9

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

NB 1

876

0.06

9.4

SB 1

1053

0.02

8.5

6.7

Err%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

9: Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.72

12.0

3.5

Free

0.72

12.0

3.5

0.72

Free

0.72

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.72

None

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

937

3.3

100

1019

2.2

100

1554

WB 1

1700

0.00

0.0

NB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1554

0.00

0.6

0.2

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 9

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

10: Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Height Casino Drive

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.56

12.0

3.5

Free

0.56

12.0

3.5

0.56

Free

0.56

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.56

None

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

926

3.3

1010

2.2

100

1547

WB 1

1010

0.02

8.6

NB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

SB 1

1700

0.01

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

2.2

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 10

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

11: Cher-Ae Lane & Scenic Drive

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.81

12.0

3.5

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

0.81

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.81

None

153

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

798

3.3

1010

2.2

1544

WB 1

1010

0.02

8.6

NB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1544

0.03

5.7

4.4

21.7%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 11

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

12: Scenic Drive & Lanford Road

Existing Condtions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.80

12.0

3.5

Free

0.80

12.0

3.5

0.80

Free

0.80

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.80

None

114

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

867

3.3

999

2.2

100

1535

WB 1

969

0.01

8.7

NB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

SB 1

1535

0.00

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.5

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 12

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: 6th Ave & Kay Ave

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

Free

0.67

12.0

3.5

Free

0.67

12.0

3.5

Stop

0.67

12.0

3.5

None

0.67

4.1

6.4

6.2

2.2

100

1554

3.5

957

3.3

100

1032

EB 1

1554

0.00

5.5

WB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

962

0.05

8.9

5.5

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: 6th Ave & Kahlstrom Ave

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

Free

0.76

12.0

3.5

Free

0.76

12.0

3.5

Stop

0.76

12.0

3.5

None

0.76

4.1

6.4

6.2

2.2

100

1551

3.5

912

3.3

1026

EB 1

1551

0.00

1.1

WB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

976

0.02

8.8

2.7

17.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Kay Ave & US 101 SB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Stop

0.90

12.0

3.5

0.90

Free

0.90

12.0

3.5

0.90

Free

0.90

12.0

3.5

0.90

Stop

0.90

0.0

3.5

0.90

None

7.1

6.5

6.2

7.1

6.5

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

932

4.0

100

824

3.3

100

1013

3.5

100

942

4.0

100

841

3.3

100

1058

2.2

100

1548

2.2

100

1573

EB 1

878

0.00

9.1

NB 1

1700

0.01

0.0

SB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.6

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

0.90

Synchro 8 Report

Page 3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Kahlstrom Ave & 7th Avenue

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.80

12.0

3.5

Free

0.80

12.0

3.5

0.80

Free

0.80

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.80

None

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

936

3.3

100

1025

2.2

100

1561

WB 1

1700

0.00

0.0

NB 1

1700

0.01

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1561

0.00

0.4

0.2

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Scenic Drive/Patricks Point Drive & Main Street

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

135

Free

0.93

145

12.0

3.5

0.93

Stop

0.93

12.0

3.5

0.93

Stop

0.93

12.0

3.5

0.93

129

Free

0.93

139

12.0

3.5

0.93

None

0.93

None

187

164

533

522

162

546

508

170

187

4.1

164

4.1

533

7.1

522

6.5

162

6.2

546

7.1

508

6.5

170

6.2

2.2

1363

2.2

1390

3.5

403

4.0

422

3.3

867

3.5

391

4.0

430

3.3

858

EB 1

182

1363

0.02

1.1

WB 1

248

1390

0.05

2.4

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

NB 1

654

0.09

11.0

4.3

47.9%

SB 1

493

0.15

13.6

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 5

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Free

0.89

12.0

3.5

143

0.89

Stop

0.89

12.0

3.5

0.89

Stop

0.89

0.0

3.5

0.89

161

203

Free

0.89

228

12.0

3.5

0.89

None

0.89

None

233

238

460

429

162

429

509

238

233

4.1

238

4.1

460

7.1

429

6.5

162

6.2

429

7.1

509

6.5

238

6.2

2.2

100

1311

2.2

1312

3.5

100

477

4.0

100

504

3.3

100

871

3.5

100

519

4.0

100

454

3.3

786

EB 1

233

161

1700

0.14

0.0

WB 1

247

1312

0.01

0.7

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

SB 1

760

0.04

10.0

1.0

44.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 6

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Free

0.92

12.0

3.5

177

0.92

192

0.92

Stop

0.92

0.0

3.5

0.92

Stop

0.92

12.0

3.5

0.92

Free

0.92

12.0

3.5

0.92

None

0.92

None

153

155

172

153

4.1

153

7.1

155

6.5

6.2

172

7.1

153

6.5

6.2

2.2

1531

2.2

100

1525

3.5

788

4.0

100

717

3.3

989

3.5

100

753

4.0

100

719

3.3

100

994

EB 1

1531

0.01

2.4

WB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

NB 1

212

192

803

0.26

11.1

7.6

38.7%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 7

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Westhaven Drive/Trinadad Frontage Road

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Free

0.92

12.0

3.5

0.92

Stop

0.92

12.0

3.5

0.92

Stop

0.92

12.0

3.5

0.92

None

4.1

7.1

6.5

6.2

2.2

1589

3.5

903

4.0

100

830

4.0

100

776

3.3

1053

EB 1

1589

0.01

1.7

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

NB 1

903

0.04

9.2

SB 1

998

0.01

8.7

4.9

Err%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

9: Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.82

12.0

3.5

Free

0.82

12.0

3.5

0.82

Free

0.82

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.82

None

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

911

3.3

100

1022

2.2

100

1559

WB 1

1022

0.00

8.5

NB 1

1700

0.01

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1559

0.00

0.5

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 9

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

10: Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Height Casino Drive

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.82

12.0

3.5

Free

0.82

12.0

3.5

0.82

Free

0.82

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.82

None

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

916

3.3

1020

2.2

100

1557

WB 1

1013

0.02

8.6

NB 1

1700

0.01

0.0

SB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

2.0

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 10

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

11: Cher-Ae Lane & Scenic Drive

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.77

12.0

3.5

Free

0.77

12.0

3.5

0.77

Free

0.77

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.77

None

237

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

700

3.3

998

2.2

1531

WB 1

918

0.04

9.1

NB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

109

1531

0.05

5.4

4.9

24.0%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 11

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

12: Scenic Drive & Lanford Road

Existing Condtions - PM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.80

12.0

3.5

Free

0.80

12.0

3.5

0.80

Free

0.80

104

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.80

None

188

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

785

3.3

100

967

2.2

100

1503

WB 1

898

0.00

9.0

NB 1

1700

0.04

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

108

1503

0.00

0.3

0.4

20.1%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 12

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: 6th Ave & Kay Ave

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

Stop

0.81

12.0

3.5

None

0.81

4.1

6.4

6.2

2.2

1517

3.5

880

3.3

1004

EB 1

1517

0.01

2.5

WB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

918

0.04

9.1

3.3

20.2%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: 6th Ave & Kahlstrom Ave

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

Free

0.73

12.0

3.5

Free

0.73

12.0

3.5

Stop

0.73

12.0

3.5

None

0.73

115

154

115

4.1

154

6.4

6.2

2.2

1449

3.5

815

3.3

956

EB 1

1449

0.01

1.9

WB 1

110

1700

0.06

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

880

0.05

9.3

2.4

20.9%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Kay Ave & US 101 SB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Stop

0.81

12.0

3.5

0.81

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

0.81

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

0.81

Stop

0.81

0.0

3.5

0.81

None

7.1

6.5

6.2

7.1

6.5

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

900

4.0

784

3.3

100

1004

3.5

100

919

4.0

100

835

3.3

100

1058

2.2

100

1540

2.2

100

1532

EB 1

784

0.02

9.7

NB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

SB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

1.2

16.7%

ICU Level of Service

0.81

Synchro 8 Report

Page 3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Kahlstrom Ave & 7th Avenue

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.58

12.0

3.5

Free

0.58

12.0

3.5

0.58

Free

0.58

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.58

None

174

105

108

174

6.4

105

6.2

108

4.1

3.5

792

3.3

933

2.2

1457

WB 1

857

0.04

9.4

NB 1

103

1700

0.06

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1457

0.01

2.6

2.4

20.2%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Scenic Drive/Patricks Point Drive & Main Street

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

120

Free

0.85

141

12.0

3.5

0.85

Stop

0.85

12.0

3.5

0.85

Stop

0.85

12.0

3.5

0.85

170

Free

0.85

200

12.0

3.5

0.85

None

0.85

None

229

170

545

528

163

557

528

222

229

4.1

170

4.1

545

7.1

528

6.5

163

6.2

557

7.1

528

6.5

222

6.2

2.2

1316

2.2

1383

3.5

399

4.0

424

3.3

866

3.5

387

4.0

424

3.3

803

EB 1

188

1316

0.02

1.1

WB 1

271

1383

0.03

1.6

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

NB 1

554

0.13

12.4

4.4

39.5%

SB 1

461

0.18

14.5

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 5

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Free

0.86

12.0

3.5

140

0.86

Stop

0.86

12.0

3.5

0.86

Stop

0.86

0.0

3.5

0.86

163

200

Free

0.86

233

12.0

3.5

0.86

None

0.86

None

238

226

463

429

150

429

510

243

238

4.1

226

4.1

463

7.1

429

6.5

150

6.2

429

7.1

510

6.5

243

6.2

2.2

100

1306

2.2

1325

3.5

100

471

4.0

100

503

3.3

100

885

3.5

100

517

4.0

100

452

3.3

781

EB 1

221

163

1700

0.13

0.0

WB 1

256

1325

0.02

0.8

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

SB 1

781

0.04

9.8

1.1

44.2%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 6

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Free

0.86

12.0

3.5

160

0.86

186

0.86

Stop

0.86

0.0

3.5

0.86

Stop

0.86

12.0

3.5

0.86

Free

0.86

12.0

3.5

0.86

None

0.86

None

167

173

190

167

4.1

167

7.1

173

6.5

6.2

190

7.1

167

6.5

6.2

2.2

1491

2.2

100

1543

3.5

771

4.0

100

701

3.3

1007

3.5

100

731

4.0

100

706

3.3

100

960

EB 1

1491

0.02

3.1

WB 1

1700

0.05

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

NB 1

209

186

791

0.26

11.2

7.2

36.7%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 7

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Westhaven Drive/Trinadad Frontage Road

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Free

0.83

12.0

3.5

0.83

Stop

0.83

12.0

3.5

0.83

Stop

0.83

12.0

3.5

0.83

None

4.1

7.1

6.5

6.2

2.2

1589

3.5

853

4.0

807

4.0

100

771

3.3

1053

EB 1

1589

0.02

3.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

NB 1

845

0.09

9.7

SB 1

1053

0.02

8.5

6.9

Err%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

9: Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.72

12.0

3.5

Free

0.72

12.0

3.5

0.72

Free

0.72

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.72

None

100

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

875

3.3

100

1007

2.2

1534

WB 1

1700

0.00

0.0

NB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1534

0.01

2.5

1.3

20.2%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 9

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

10: Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Height Casino Drive

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.56

12.0

3.5

Free

0.56

12.0

3.5

0.56

Free

0.56

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.56

None

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

884

3.3

1006

2.2

100

1542

WB 1

1006

0.04

8.7

NB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

SB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

2.5

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 10

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

11: Cher-Ae Lane & Scenic Drive

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.81

12.0

3.5

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

0.81

Free

0.81

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.81

None

214

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

730

3.3

996

2.2

1525

WB 1

996

0.02

8.7

NB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1525

0.04

4.8

4.0

23.7%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 11

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

12: Scenic Drive & Lanford Road

Year 2020 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.80

12.0

3.5

Free

0.80

12.0

3.5

0.80

Free

0.80

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.80

None

160

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

816

3.3

972

2.2

100

1508

WB 1

887

0.03

9.2

NB 1

1700

0.04

0.0

SB 1

1508

0.00

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

1.3

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 12

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: 6th Ave & Kay Ave

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

Free

0.67

12.0

3.5

Free

0.67

12.0

3.5

Stop

0.67

12.0

3.5

None

0.67

4.1

6.4

6.2

2.2

1530

3.5

892

3.3

1013

EB 1

1530

0.01

3.7

WB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

920

0.06

9.2

4.9

19.6%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: 6th Ave & Kahlstrom Ave

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

Free

0.76

12.0

3.5

Free

0.76

12.0

3.5

Stop

0.76

12.0

3.5

None

0.76

102

4.1

102

6.4

6.2

2.2

1537

3.5

873

3.3

1018

EB 1

1537

0.01

1.9

WB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

965

0.04

8.9

3.4

20.9%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Kay Ave & US 101 SB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Stop

0.90

12.0

3.5

0.90

Free

0.90

12.0

3.5

0.90

Free

0.90

12.0

3.5

0.90

Stop

0.90

0.0

3.5

0.90

None

7.1

6.5

6.2

7.1

6.5

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

909

4.0

798

3.3

1002

3.5

100

893

4.0

100

827

3.3

100

1058

2.2

100

1531

2.2

100

1553

EB 1

889

0.03

9.2

NB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

SB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

2.0

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

0.90

Synchro 8 Report

Page 3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Kahlstrom Ave & 7th Avenue

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.80

12.0

3.5

Free

0.80

12.0

3.5

0.80

Free

0.80

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.80

None

104

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

871

3.3

100

1011

2.2

1540

WB 1

1700

0.00

0.0

NB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1540

0.01

1.9

1.1

20.9%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Scenic Drive/Patricks Point Drive & Main Street

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

150

Free

0.93

161

12.0

3.5

0.93

Stop

0.93

12.0

3.5

0.93

Stop

0.93

12.0

3.5

0.93

150

Free

0.93

161

12.0

3.5

0.93

None

0.93

None

220

188

628

612

182

644

596

198

220

4.1

188

4.1

628

7.1

612

6.5

182

6.2

644

7.1

596

6.5

198

6.2

2.2

1325

2.2

1362

3.5

332

4.0

369

3.3

845

3.5

323

4.0

377

3.3

827

EB 1

215

1325

0.02

1.3

WB 1

290

1362

0.06

2.4

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

NB 1

546

0.16

12.8

5.3

49.8%

SB 1

422

0.23

16.0

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 5

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Free

0.89

12.0

3.5

160

0.89

Stop

0.89

12.0

3.5

0.89

Stop

0.89

0.0

3.5

0.89

180

230

Free

0.89

258

12.0

3.5

0.89

None

0.89

None

263

275

538

493

190

493

583

268

263

4.1

275

4.1

538

7.1

493

6.5

190

6.2

493

7.1

583

6.5

268

6.2

2.2

100

1277

2.2

1271

3.5

100

413

4.0

100

462

3.3

100

840

3.5

469

4.0

100

411

3.3

756

EB 1

270

180

1700

0.16

0.0

WB 1

281

1271

0.02

0.8

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

SB 1

673

0.08

10.8

1.4

54.3%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 6

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Free

0.92

12.0

3.5

200

0.92

217

0.92

Stop

0.92

0.0

3.5

0.92

Stop

0.92

12.0

3.5

0.92

Free

0.92

12.0

3.5

0.92

None

0.92

None

200

206

222

200

4.1

200

7.1

206

6.5

6.2

222

7.1

200

6.5

6.2

2.2

1511

2.2

100

1504

3.5

730

4.0

100

668

3.3

969

3.5

100

694

4.0

100

672

3.3

100

980

EB 1

1511

0.02

2.6

WB 1

1700

0.04

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

NB 1

239

217

746

0.32

12.1

7.8

41.8%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 7

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Westhaven Drive/Trinadad Frontage Road

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Free

0.92

12.0

3.5

0.92

Stop

0.92

12.0

3.5

0.92

Stop

0.92

12.0

3.5

0.92

None

119

4.1

7.1

6.5

119

6.5

6.2

2.2

1589

3.5

848

4.0

100

813

4.0

748

3.3

1053

EB 1

1589

0.01

1.9

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

NB 1

848

0.05

9.5

SB 1

927

0.04

9.0

5.3

Err%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

9: Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.82

12.0

3.5

Free

0.82

12.0

3.5

0.82

Free

0.82

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.82

None

120

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

854

3.3

1005

2.2

1541

WB 1

1005

0.01

8.6

NB 1

1700

0.02

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1541

0.01

1.5

1.8

21.6%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 9

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

10: Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Height Casino Drive

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.82

12.0

3.5

Free

0.82

12.0

3.5

0.82

Free

0.82

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.82

None

108

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

874

3.3

989

2.2

100

1525

WB 1

948

0.04

9.0

NB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

SB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

2.4

16.4%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 10

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

11: Cher-Ae Lane & Scenic Drive

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.77

12.0

3.5

Free

0.77

12.0

3.5

0.77

Free

0.77

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.77

None

302

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

635

3.3

961

2.2

1488

WB 1

852

0.06

9.5

NB 1

1700

0.05

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

130

1488

0.06

5.4

4.6

25.2%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 11

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

12: Scenic Drive & Lanford Road

Year 2020 Base Conditions - PM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.80

12.0

3.5

Free

0.80

12.0

3.5

0.80

100

Free

0.80

125

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.80

None

248

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

721

3.3

941

2.2

1476

WB 1

817

0.03

9.5

NB 1

1700

0.05

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

138

1476

0.01

0.7

1.4

25.6%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 12

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

1: 6th Ave & Kay Ave

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2040 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

None

0.88

4.1

6.4

6.2

2.2

1515

3.5

888

3.3

1008

EB 1

1515

0.01

2.5

WB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

916

0.05

9.1

3.7

20.2%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

2: 6th Ave & Kahlstrom Ave

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2040 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

None

0.88

152

4.1

152

6.4

6.2

2.2

1472

3.5

812

3.3

972

EB 1

1472

0.02

3.1

WB 1

1700

0.05

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

912

0.04

9.1

2.7

21.6%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 2

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

3: Kay Ave & US 101 SB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2040 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Stop

0.88

0.0

3.5

0.88

None

112

7.1

112

6.5

6.2

7.1

6.5

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

884

4.0

769

3.3

100

993

3.5

100

909

4.0

100

826

3.3

100

1058

2.2

100

1530

2.2

100

1522

EB 1

769

0.01

9.8

NB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

SB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

1.0

17.4%

ICU Level of Service

0.88

Synchro 8 Report

Page 3

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

4: Kahlstrom Ave & 7th Avenue

Year 2040 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.88

None

129

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

843

3.3

958

2.2

1486

WB 1

897

0.03

9.1

NB 1

1700

0.05

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1486

0.01

2.5

2.1

20.2%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 4

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

5: Scenic Drive/Patricks Point Drive & Main Street

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2040 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

150

Free

0.88

170

12.0

3.5

0.88

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

220

Free

0.88

250

12.0

3.5

0.88

None

0.88

None

278

198

675

646

192

675

646

271

278

4.1

198

4.1

675

7.1

646

6.5

192

6.2

675

7.1

646

6.5

271

6.2

2.2

1262

2.2

1350

3.5

316

4.0

357

3.3

834

3.5

318

4.0

357

3.3

753

EB 1

227

1262

0.03

1.4

WB 1

330

1350

0.04

1.7

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

NB 1

471

0.14

13.9

4.9

45.7%

SB 1

102

399

0.26

17.1

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 5

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

6: Westhaven Drive & US 101 SB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2040 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

170

0.88

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Stop

0.88

0.0

3.5

0.88

193

260

Free

0.88

295

12.0

3.5

0.88

None

0.88

None

300

266

572

538

175

538

635

305

300

4.1

266

4.1

572

7.1

538

6.5

175

6.2

538

7.1

635

6.5

305

6.2

2.2

100

1238

2.2

1280

3.5

100

394

4.0

100

431

3.3

100

857

3.5

434

4.0

100

380

3.3

720

EB 1

261

193

1700

0.15

0.0

WB 1

330

1280

0.03

1.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

SB 1

619

0.07

11.3

1.3

57.7%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 6

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

7: Westhaven Drive & US 101 NB Ramps

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2040 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

210

0.88

239

0.88

Stop

0.88

0.0

3.5

0.88

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

None

0.88

None

107

220

226

254

220

107

4.1

220

7.1

226

6.5

6.2

254

7.1

220

6.5

107

6.2

2.2

1465

2.2

100

1530

3.5

707

4.0

100

649

3.3

993

3.5

100

652

4.0

100

654

3.3

100

935

EB 1

1465

0.02

3.3

WB 1

102

1700

0.06

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

NB 1

273

239

733

0.37

12.8

8.3

42.2%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 7

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

8: Westhaven Drive/Trinadad Frontage Road

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

Year 2040 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

None

112

124

4.1

112

7.1

6.5

124

6.5

6.2

2.2

1589

3.5

803

4.0

782

4.0

100

738

3.3

1053

EB 1

1589

0.02

3.2

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

NB 1

800

0.10

10.0

SB 1

1053

0.03

8.5

7.0

Err%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

9: Scenic Drive & Baker Ranch Drive

Year 2040 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.88

None

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

882

3.3

100

1001

2.2

1530

WB 1

1700

0.00

0.0

NB 1

1700

0.03

0.0

Intersection Summary

Average Delay

Intersection Capacity Utilization

Analysis Period (min)

Trinidad Area Freeway Masterplan Study

Omni-Means

0.0

SB 1

1530

0.01

2.5

1.1

20.2%

ICU Level of Service

Synchro 8 Report

Page 9

HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

10: Scenic Drive & Cher-Ae Height Casino Drive

Year 2040 Base Conditions - AM

7/19/2013

Movement

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h)

Sign Control

Grade

Peak Hour Factor

Hourly flow rate (vph)

Pedestrians

Lane Width (ft)

Walking Speed (ft/s)

Percent Blockage

Right turn flare (veh)

Median type

Median storage veh)

Upstream signal (ft)

pX, platoon unblocked

vC, conflicting volume

vC1, stage 1 conf vol

vC2, stage 2 conf vol

vCu, unblocked vol

tC, single (s)

tC, 2 stage (s)

tF (s)

p0 queue free %

cM capacity (veh/h)

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Stop

0.88

12.0

3.5

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

0.88

Free

0.88

12.0

3.5

Direction, Lane #

Volume Total

Volume Left

Volume Right

cSH

Volume to Capacity

Queue Length 95th (ft)

Control Delay (s)

Lane LOS

Approach Delay (s)

Approach LOS

0.88

None

6.4

6.2

4.1

3.5

100

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.