HomeMy WebLinkAboutCedarfields DEIS SupplementSUPPLEMENT TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
THE CEDARFIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
AND
THE MOORESLAND TOWN HOUSES PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
SECTION A - GROUNDWATER IMPACT (NITRATES)
SECTION B - DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
SECTION C - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC STUDY
PECONlC ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERING & PLANNING CONSULTANTS One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 Greenport, New York 11944
Telephone: (516) 477-0030
ASSOCIATES:
Faiiweather/Brown
Architects
Gannet Fleming
Engineers
R.P. Morrow & Associates
Winery Design
Planners Eas~
binl,ironmental Planning
Wilhelm Allantic Co.
Financial Planning
dune 25, ~987
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. - Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, L. I.
New York - 1~971
Re: DEIS Cedarfields/
Mooresland
Dear Mr. Oriowski:
In accordance with your letter of June 9, 1987 and
comments from Szepatowski Associates dated May 21,
~987, attached please find a Supplement to subject
DEIS.
The Supplement addresses the following items as
requested:
Groundwater Impact: The location of the
proposed well was shown on the Site Plan
contained as Appendix 5 in the submitted
DEIS. For further reference, the well site
is located between lots number 22 and 23 in
the Affordable Housing section.
The projected impact to the groundwater from
lawn fertilization is contained as Supplement
identified "Groundwater Impact". These
calculations are based on the modeling
accomplished by Cornel1 University, entitled
"Land Use and Ground Water Quality in the
Pine Barrens of Southampton", as provided by
David Emilita as a guide in the preparation
for these calculations.
As stated in the DEIS, we feel that this
modeling should not eliminate the requirement
of a continuing monitoring of groundwater
quality, both in the new well and the
strategically placed monitoring wells.
Mr. Bennett Orlowski,
June 25, 1987
Page 2
Jr.
As approvals are already being obtained from the
Village to hook up to both the public water and
sanitary systems, and as the proposed density requires
both public water and sewer, the review of the
alternatives without public water and sewer as
suggested in the 11/25/85 letter from Szepatowski
Associates would not be applicable. In other words, if
the availability of public water and public sewer were
withdrawn, then this would require a totally new
project submittal.
Drainage: The drainage calculations contained on the
Site PJan submittal have been extracted and are included
as a Supplement to the DEIS. Please note that drainage
swales have been used as a primary means of effecting
recharge of storm run-off.
Traffic: A complete peak hour traffic study has been
accomp-1-ished and is attached as a Supplement to the
DEIS.
You will note that the study indicates that the loca!
roadway network can readily accommodate the traffic
that will be generated by the proposed development.
Sincerely,
PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
Merlon E. Wiggin, f~hSD.,M.E.
President
MEW/iw
CC'
Mrs. Diane Carrot!
Mr. Donald Bracken
T
D
~LD
Y
Southold, N,Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
June 9, 1987
Mr. Merlon Wiggin
President
Peconic Associates
One Bootleg Alley
Greenport, NY 11944
Re: Cedarfields/Mooresland
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
Please let this confirm the following action taken by
the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, June 1, 1987.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept
and request compliance with the memorandum of the Planning
Consultan, David Emilita, dated May 21, 1987, with regard
to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cedar-
fields and Mooresland proposals located at Greenport.
Enclosed is a copy of the memorandum for your review.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to
contact our office.
Very truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
enc.
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
,S/il
TO: Southold Planning Board
RE: DEIS Cedar Fields/Mooreslands
FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc./David Emilita ~
DATE: May 21, 1987
We have reviewed the above referenced DEIS for sufficiency and
completeness and find it inadequate for public review since
several important and pertinent items are not shown on the
attached site plan nor discussed in the text in enough detail to
fully assess the impacts stated.
The following areas need to be more fully addressed before the
DEIS can be rendered complete and sufficient for review:
GROUNDWATER IMPACT - No documented assessment was made on
groundwater impact. No impact on the "on-site" well was stated.
The well is not even located on the site plan. No qualitative
analysis was shown as to nitrate levels in the on-site recharge
and its effect on the supply well.
Reference was made on the Scoping Checklist to our memo of
11/25/85, but no text discussion was devoted to the points raised
in that memo.
DRAINAGE - No drainage calculation or drainage designs were
presented to substantiate the assessment of no significant
drainage impact.
TRAFFIC - No peak hour traffic analysis was shown. Simply
refering to AADT residual capacity is not sufficient. Key
intersection analysis is necessary at Moore's Lane at Routes 48
and 25 and Middletown Road and Route 48.
It is recommended that a ~ to the DEIS be prepared and
submitted, addressing the points raised above. The Supplement
will then be assessed for completeness before public comment.
23 Narragansett Ave. Jamestown, RI 0Z835 (401) 4)_3-0430
SECTION A
GROUNDWATER IMPACT
(NITRATES)
GROUNDWATER IMPACT
FROM FERTILIZER NITRATES
FOR
CEDARFIELDS AND MOORESLAND
PREPARED BY:
CHARLES R VELZY ASSOCIATES, INC.
ONE OLD COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 430
CARLE PLACE, NEW YORK 11514
JUNE 23, 1987
GROUNDWATER IMPACT
To access the impacts of fertilizer nitrates on groundwater
quality in the on-site well, estimates of the well's re-
charge zone and nitrate concentrations in recharge waters
are presented. Reference is made to reports previously
prepared as part of the area~s water resource management
program.
The recharge zone for a production well is represented by a
circular area with the well at the center, The charge zone
(or capture zone) of the on-site wel! can be estimated by
the method of Todd (1964), as presented in the North Fork
Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York (ERM/Camp,
Dresser & McKee, 1983). The method allows for the
estimation of the radius of influence of a pumping well,
based on the expected pumping rate and natural recharge
rates from precipitation:
Q = r2 x w
o
where, Q : effective well pumping rate
r = radius of influence
o
w : natural recharge rate
The estimated production capacity of the on-site well is
120,000 gallons per day (gpd). Using an annual, long-term
average recharge value of 20 inches (ERM/Camp, Dresser &
McKee, 1983), the radius of influence is tabulated as:
: /120,000 _qal/da.y
r° ~/3.75 x 16-2 ga~/day/square foot
r = 1.79 x 103 ft 1800 feet
o
The radius of influence (~) defines the circular area
around the well from whiC~infiitrating precipitation is
captured and discharged to the surface. A value of 1800
feet corresponds to an area of about 10,179,000 square feet,
or 234 acres.
Based on this analysis, the proposed development is found to
be entirely within the recharge zone of the well. The
impact of nitrate fertilization of turfgras$ in the
development can be assessed by determining what affect
development of 50 of these acres, or 21% of the recharge
area, would have on existing nitrate concentrations.
Nitrate concentrations (Nitrate as Nitrogen) in the well's
recharge water zone have been measured previously as 2.1
mg/L, as indicated in a letter from ECOTEST Laboratories,
dated May 5, 1986, attached hereto.
The average effect of ]awn fertilizers, using data
reflecting average turf management practices in Eastern
Suffolk County follows:
Substance
Nitrogen and
Water Recharged From
Turf Other
Overall Nitrogen
Concentration in
Recharge (mg/L)
Water (in.) 13.5
Nitrogen ]b/Acre) 24.0
18.2
4.2 3.94
Land use is based on residential with 2 to 4 dwelling units
per acre. Average turf management practices would estimate
the application rate of 2.5 pounds of fertilizer per 1,000
square feet per year (Hughes and Porter, 1983).
Resultant nitrate concentrations in pumped groundwater would
be expected to represent an average of the two concentrations
discussed above, and can be calculated from the equation:
nwPoerCent of~k y~itrat~ /~ercent'o~k /~itrate~ /~otal Wate~ ~esultan~
ater from ~/concen-~ ,/ water fromm/ concen-~volume-lOO~nitrate ~
ew devel- ))tration )~ remainingm~ tration) m )~c~ncentra-)
pment /~ } ~recharge }~ / ~ /
~concentration ~
Resultant Nitrate Concentration = 2.49 mg/L
Based on a review of existing data, the impact of the
application of nitrate fertilizers would not result in
nitrate concentrations in excess of accepted water quality
criteria. A value of 2.49 mg/L represents an average value.
Concentrations below this would be expected as a result of
the proposed fertilization monitoring program recommending an
application rate of one pound of fertilizer per one thousand
square feet. As previously stated, continuing monitoring of
the water quality from the new well and that of strategically
placed monitoring wells will be the best indication of the
effectiveness of the proposed fertilizing covenented
restrictions.
REFERENCES
Hughes, Henry B.F. and Keith Porter, Land Use and Ground
Water Quality in the Pine Barrons of Southampton, Cornel1
University, 1983.
North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York,
ERM-Northeast/Camp, Dresser & McKee, 1983.
SECTION B
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS (CEDARFIELDS)
LAND AREA: 83?0 S.F. PER LOT (AVERAGE).
PAVED AREAS (STREET AND DRIVE): 1600 S.F.
DRAINAGE VOLUME:
LAND 8370 X
PAVEMENT - 1600 X
.24 X .1 = 200 CU. FT.
· 24 X .9 = 345 CU. FT.
TOTAL = 545 CU. FT.
DRAINAGE SWALE PER LOT:
80' X 3' X 2' = 480 CU. PT.
ADDITIONAL ROAD DRAINAGE (S.F. X .%? X
STA. S.F. V.F. OF ~0' DIA.
PER LOT.
~+25 6580 14 2 - 10 X 8
4+70 4970 11 3 - 1~ X 8
12+80 728~ 16 3 - 10 X 8
22+05 8050 18 2 - 10 X 10
26+60 7000 15 2 - 10 X 8
33+50 11900 26 4 - 10 X 8
.9/68)
~P~ ~ACH SIDE
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS (MOORESLAND)
BUFFER AREA - DRAINAGE VOLUME:
LAND - - - 159,550 X
PAVEMENT - 30,450 X
.24 X .1 = 1,130 CU. FT.
.24 X .9 = 6,580 CU. FT.
7,710 CU. FT.
TOTAL =
DRAINAGE SWALE - BUFFER SIDE OF ROAD:
3,200 X 1' X 2.5 = 8,000 CU. FT.
TOWNHOUSE AREA DRAINAGE VOLUME:
LAND
PAVEMENT
DRAINAGE
484,400 X .24 X .1 = 11,630 CU. FT.
55,000 X .24 X .9 = 11,880 CU. FT.
TOTAL = 23,510 CU. FT.
SWALE - TOWNSHOUSES (SIDE OF ROAD):
4,200 X 3' X 2' = 25,200 CU. FT.
ADDITIONAL ROAD DRAINAGE (S.F. X .17 X .9/68)
10' DIAMETER LEACHING POOLS LOCATED IN LOW AREAS
AS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN.
NOTE:
ALL ADDITIONAL ROAD DRAINAGE CATCH
BASINS TO BE LOCATED AT LOW POINTS IN
DRAINAGE SWALE. ACTUAL LOCATIONS TO BE
REVISED TO MEET FIELD CONDITIONS.
SECTION C
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC STUDY
Louis K. McLean Associates, P. C.
437 South Count~' Road · Br{~khaven · New York · 11719
(516) 286-8668
GEORGE J. KAIGH, P.E., I.S.
JOHN 1. JOHNSEN, P.E.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
June 23, 1987
Mr. Merlon E. Wiggin, Ph.D.,
Peconic Associates, Inc.
One Bootleg Alley
P.O. Box 672
Greenport, NY 11944
MoEo
Re:
Cedarfields/Mooresland
Development Traffic Study
LKMA Project No. 100-40-01
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
We are pleased to submit herewith the
prepared in response to questions raised by the
the Town of Southold.
traffic study we
Planning Board of
Our study indicates that the local roadway network can
readily accommodate the traffic that will be generated by the
proposed developments.
If you have any questions or if we can be of additional
assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Eugene F. Daly, P.E.
EFD/dy
enc.
CEDAI~FIELDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
MOORESLAND TOWN HOUSES PROJECT
DEIS TRAFFIC SUPPLEMENT
INTKODUCTION
This supplement has been prepared in response to comments
raised in the May 21, 1987, memorandum by David Emilita of
Szepatowski Associates, to the Southold Planning Board. This
report provides traffic analysis of the proposed developments and
their impact on the surrounding roadway network during the peak
morning and evening commuter hours and for peak hour conditions on
a Saturday. As suggested in the above referenced memorandum, the
following key intersections were evaluated:
1. Moores Lane at Route 48
2. Moores Lane at Route 25
3. Middletown Road and Route 48
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed development consists of 84 affordable dwelling
units known as the Cedarfields project and 84 town houses known as
the Mooresland project. The proposed project is to be situated on
a 48 ~ acre site on the southeast corner of Moores Lane and County
Route 48 in the Town of Southold. A location map (See Figure 1)
is provided for reference.
As noted in the proposed site plan prepared by Charles E.
Egosi dated November 24, 1986, and furnished with the April 1987
DEIS, access to the Mooresland project would be provided solely on
Moores Lane while access to the Cedarfields project would be
provided on both Middletown Road and Moores Lane.
1
LOCATION
FIGURE No. I
Cedarfleids - Mooresland
Project
Location Map
LOUIS K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
~msu~iflg
437 ,$=utfl C~unuy R~
BROO~AV~. N~ YORK 11719
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
Within the environs of the proposed site, County Route 48 is
a two lane concrete highway with asphalt shoulders. Moores Lane
is a two lane asphalt highway which serves as a truck route
connecting Routes 25 and 48. State Route 25 is a two lane ~
highway^with shoulders. Middletown Road is a local residential
street situated to the immediate east of the Cedarfields project.
Right-of-way control at the three key intersections is as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
Moores Lane and Route 48 - stop sign on the southeast
corner controlling northbound traffic.
Moores Lane and Route 25 - yield sign on the northwest
corner controlling southbound traffic.
Middletown Road and Route 48 - stop sign on the
southeast corner controlling northbound traffic; stop
sign on the northwest corner controlling southbound
traffic on McCann Avenue.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To assess
adjacent
the
establish existing or baseline conditions.
automatic machine counts previously described
DEIS, turning movement counts were conducted
intersections during the following hours:
Friday - p.m. peak commuter hour
Saturday - afternoon peak hour
Monday - a.m. peak commuter hour
2
the impact the proposed development
roadway network, it is necessary
will have on
to initially
To supplement the
on page 34 of the
at the three key
These hours were chosen so that the "worst case" scenario
could be evaluated - that is, those hours during which existing
traffic volumes are highest and the traffic attributable to the
proposed developments are heaviest. The results of the turning
movement counts
machine counts in the area that were
State Department of Transportation
Department of Public Works.
are provided in the Appendix as well as automatic
obtained from the New York
and the Suffolk County
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation rates from Institute of Transportation
Engineer's "ITE Trip Generation Manual" were used in this study
since they reflect typical conditions on Long Island for the
various types of residential development being proposed. These
rates are shown in Table 1. It should be recognized that the
rates for the Cedarfields Affordable Housing project are in our
opinion quite conservative (on the high side) because of the small
size of the units - 850 square feet. Note the generation rates
for the Mooresland Town Houses are approximately half the rates
for the affordable housing project and the town houses are
approximately 50% larger (1250 square feet per unit).
3
TABLE 1
CEDARFI ELDS/HOORES LAND PROJECT
TRIP GENERATION RATES
CEDARFIELDS MOORESLAND
(84 AFFORDABLE (84 TOWN HOUSE
HOUSING UNITS) UNITS) COMBINED
RATE TOTAL TRIPS RATE TOTAL TRIPS PROJECTS
Average Daily 10 840 5.2 437 1277
Peak AM Highway
Hour
Enter 0.21 18 0.07 6 24
Exit 0.55 46 0.37 32 78
Total 0.76 64 0.44 38 102
Peak PM Highway
Hour
Enter 0.63 53 0.37 32 85
Exit 0.37 31 0.18 15 46
Total 1.00 84 0.55 47 131
Saturday Peak
Hour
Enter 0.51 43 0.26 22 65
Exit 0.45 38 0.22 19 57
Total 0.96 81 0.48 41 122
4
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
proposed development
conditions:
O
O
O
O
Figure 2 shows the
weekday a.m. and p.m.
The distribution and assignment of traffic attributed to the
was estimated based on the following
location of employment and population centers and
shopping areas.
the regional highway network within the environs of the
site.
the local roadway network serving the site.
turning movement activity at the key study
intersections.
projected traffic distribution for the
peak hours while Figure 3 shows the
estimated distribution for the Saturday afternon peak hour.
The projected traffic assignments for site generated traffic
for these time periods are shown on the turning movement counts
provided in the Appendix.
CAPACITY ANALYSES
Capacity analyses were performed at the three key study
intersections for the three key time periods previously identified
using the new Highway Capacity Manual, "Transportation Research
Board Special Report 209, 1985".
The analyses were initially done for existing or baseline
conditions (No Build). Next, the traffic attributable to the
MIDDLE COUNTY ROAD RT 48 ~
AVE.
~o) AIN ROAD
~ ~c~:~-~, ~D .,,
FIGURE 2
ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
WEEKDAY AM & PM PEAK
NOT TO SCALE
(:ts) (::5')
FIGURE8
ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
SATURDAY AFTERNOON PEAK.
NOT TO SCALE
proposed developments was superimposed on the baseline conditions
and this composite traffic volume analyzed.
The results of the analyses are provided in Table 2. Level
of Service criteria for unsignalized intersections are provided in
Table 3.
As shown in Table 2, the predominate level of service (LOS)
provided for both the build and the no build condition is level
"A". As noted by the double asterisk, there is a slight
degradation of the level of service for three traffic movements
when the no build condition is compared to the build condition.
These are summarized as follows:.
A. Saturday Afternoon Peak
At Route 48 and Middletown Road,
traffic changes from "A" to
capacity being reduced from 421
per hour (pcph).
the LOS for northbound
"B" with the reserve
to 362 passenger cares
At Route 25 and Moore's Lane, the LOS for southbound
traffic changes from "B" to "C" with the reserve
capacity being reduced from 309 to 283 pcph.
B. Friday P.M. Peak
At Route 48 and Moore's Lane, the LOS for northbound
traffic changes from "A" to "B" with the reserve
capacity being reduced from 410 to 364 pcph.
As can be seen, these differences are very minor, and the
overall level of service provided is excellent. It should be
recognized that in the design of new intersections, that the
nationally recognized American Association of State Highway and
Transportation officials (AASHTO) recommends that level of service
"C" be used as the design criteria.
6
INTERSECTION
TABLE 2
CEDARFIELDS MOORESLAND PROJECT
S~mmary of Intersection Capacity
Analyses Level of Service
EXISTING
CONDITION
(NO
MINOR ST. *MAJOR ST.
NB SB EB WB
WITH PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENTS
(~UILO)
MINOR ST. *MAJOR ST.
NB SB EB WB
Route 25 & Moores
Lane
AM Peak -- A A
PM Peak -- B A
Saturday Peak -- B A
-- A A --
-- B A --
-- **C A --
Route 48 & Moores
Lane
AM Peak A .... A A
PM Peak A .... A **B
Saturday Peak B .... A B
A
A
A
Route 48 &
Middletown Road
AM Peak A A A A A A
PM Peak B A A A B A
Saturday Peak A A A A **B A
A A
A A
A A
Indicates Level of Service for the left turn movement
Indicates change in Level of Service
7
TABLE 3
LEVLE OF SERVICE CRITERIA
FOR UNSIGN~?.?~ED INTERSECTIONS
RESERVE CAPACITY
(PCPH)
I~ELOF
SERVICE
> 400 A
30~-399 B
200-299 C
100-199 D
0- 99 E
* F
EXPECTED DELAY TO
MINOR STREET TRAFFIC
Little or no delay
Short traffic delays
Average traffic delays
Long traffic delays
Very long traffic delays
When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays
will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion
affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition
usually warrants improvement to the intersection.
8
CONCLUSIONS
Our study indicates that the traffic generated by the
proposed development can readily be absorbed by the adjoining
roadway network. In addition, the study is somewhat conservative
since the generation rates used for the Cedarfields project would
appear to be on the high side because of the small size of the
affordable dwelling units.
9
APPENDICES
NYSDOT & SCDPW
AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC COUNTS
NEW YORK STATE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
AVERAGE WEEKDAY
HOURLY REPORF
AM WES~BOUND EASTBOUND
12-1 40
1-2 50 20
2-5 10 10
5-4 10 10
4-5 20 10
5-6 30 50
6-7 80 80
7-8 180 150
8-9 210 190
9-10 250 210
10-11 280 280
11-12 280 500
PM
12-1 500 510 **
1-2 290
2-3 550 500
5-4 560 270
4-5 590 ** 290
5-6 :250 260
6-'7 250 200
7-8 190 180
8-9 170 150
9-1Ci 120 140
10-11 110 100
11-12 70 70
ROUTE 25
OAKLAWN AVENUE TO
ROUTE 114
JUNE 1984
FILE NAME
RT25 S05006~
DAILY TO]~
8~190
EST. AAD!
7~400
** DENOI~
PEAK HOUF~
] OTALS 4,290 .2~. , 9( ~
0
· Z O0 O0 O0
O0 O0 O0
000
HOUR iqOl~aY ~
B~6[M3 E id
5 ~ 45
7 ~49
10 2~ 310
317
319 319
4 3t7 378
7 159
8 1 i~
10 71
Ii 47 47
TflTJLS
4150
6LFFOLK COUNTY D~P?. fl~ PLIBLIC MMIK6
I ~OUR, ~ OWdNEL VEHICLE COtlff
COilRECTI~ FiICTf]Rt 1.00
SITE NIL s 480009
JE~K ~ NONMV
TUESMY ~'7 I~Y ~8 THUIISIW ~9 FIIIMY ~3 MTL~ ~°4 S~NMY ~
E # E # E ¥ E id E # E M
1037 m3
COdqDlJf=D TOTm. S
12 38 3~ ·
I 19 12 ·
§ cji ~
~ 215 211
7 473 510
lO 593 *
11 616 o
I 617 ·
9 ~9 J
11 ~ f
TDTGL.S
1900
372
1~ 72
~77
718
719
FILEz 048-.09
tdEEI~D~V ~M6E
E W
69 S4 68 S,1 ~0 16
32 83 3~ 47 9 7
~8 l& 19 34 8 10
l-q 10 15 15 7 5
13 13 14 I0 5 11
127 ~ m ~ 1~ 1~
~ ~ ~10 ~ ~ 310
4~ 310 ~18 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 315
~4 ~1 ~1 378 ~ ~
~ ~ 819 378 ~ ~
~4 376 1~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ 197
181 ~ 1~ igl ~ 157
49O4
133 I~
55 83 16
44 53 18
87 46 78
161 I~ 214
~ 167
~ 474 ~3
~ ~ 616
7~ ~7
~ ~7 78i
7~ ~
~7 3~
~ 3i3
~ ~ 316
314 159
~ ~ 161
0 6939 10~51 7601
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
LOCATION_
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
DATE A~ F~--~-.
NORTH ARROW
~ ADDrl'IONAL MOVP_.~B
!
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS I~. McLEA~I ASSOCIATES. P.C.
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
DATE IPI~ I~--~K.
NORTH ARROW
8
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. McLEA~I ASSOCIATES. P.C.
LOCATION_
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
NORTH ARROW
R.O F=
~ RoJ~CT
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. 'McLEA~I ASSOCIATES. P.O.
LOCATION_
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTER8ECTION TURNING MOVEMENT8
~IOC)F-c.F____'~ L/,-.~E' ~ ~ z 5
NORTH ARROW
P I~ o p o~ ElD
ADDITIO/,,/AL ~OVffiME. t,.JT~ i
C.'E~ D,~RFI EL~ '
PIRO,J P-C'F
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. McLEA~I AssriCIATES. ;~.C.
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
LOCATION__
INTER8ECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
NORTH ARROW
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. McLEAN ASS6CIAT~.S. ,~.C.
LOCATION_
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
DATE
NORTH ARROW
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS ~. McLEAN ASSGCIATES. P,C.
LOCATION_
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
DATE
NORTH ARROW
ADDITIONAL l~OV~ HE
//
!
P ROJ I~C'T'
/2.
/
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES. P.C.
LOCATION
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
F~I
NORTH ARROW
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS K. McLEAN ASSOCIATES.
LOCATION_
VEHICLE VOLUME COUNT
INTER8ECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS
DATE ,,P~ ~'F_-,~,~
NORTH ARROW
NOTES and COMMENTS
LOUIS I(. ;'4cLEAN ASSUCIATES. P.C.
CAPACI"I'Y ~ALYSES
:985 HCH: UNSIONALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I
*********************************************************************
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
aVERAOE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............
~EAK HOUR FACTOR ......................... : ......
REA POPUL~TI ON .................................
· lAME OF THE EAST/WEST ST.~EE- ....................
,lAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ..................
· 4AME OF THE ANALYST .............................
DATE OF THE ANAL¥SI'S ~mm/dd.,."yx) .................
-IME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................
55
1
150000
route 48
Moore's L&ne
OD
~/22/87
Mon mm peak No Ouiid
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
;!'ITERSECTION T'."F=_ AND CONTROL
I>ITERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
~IAJOR STREET DiRECTiON: EAST.'WEST
CONTROL T'YPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SION
Tu~,U
F I G HT
E~ bib NB
0 2,5 i 4 -~
1 :_~'i 174 0
_,4f'4 E S
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AOJ'USTHEHT FACTORS Page-2
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND 0.00
SOUTHBOUND .....
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 .P0 20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
90 20 N
'PO 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHEOUND
SOUTHEOUr4D
SU TRUwK~ ~. COMBINATION
AND RV"~ VEHICLES ~. MOTORCYCLES
0 0 0
0 0 0
n 0 0
TABULAR VALJES ~DJUSTED SIGHT DIST. F!NAi.
,,'Table i0-2> VALUE ADJUE:TMENT CRITICAL GAP
MINOR RIGHT!-=:
'.~E: ,5 EO " ='
. ~,. ~,0 0 . 0 0 ~ ·
IM~JOE .;E; ~ 50 5.50 ;~.OO ~ SCm
LEFTS
MINO~ L~FTS
)
)
)
.)
.)
)
.)
.)
.)
)
,I
i' ~--';- : i
~,; 50 : . 50 0 · O0 .:. 5(
l"!'-', 2 ) F _E--TS
[jE -¢.50 5.50 0 ,00 5,50
f,~S.' :~',, O0 £. O0 0. O0 E.. O0
M Ct: EM ENT
~0TEN- ACTLI~L
=LCd.;- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v~cpn) c (pcph) c (pcpn) c (pcph) c = c - v
p M SH R SH
LOS
MI~OR STREE'
NB
LEFT
RIGHT
15 423 414 > 414 >
1~ 730 730 ' > 780
>A
712 > A
MmJOR STREET
LEFT 29 890 890 8~0 8~1 A
19:35 HCM: UblSIONALIZED INTERSECTIONS P&ge-!
*********************************************************************
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, ..
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .....................
AREA POPULATION ......................
i~AP1E OF THE EAST,'I^IEST STREET .........
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................
NAME OF THE ANAL'YET ...........................
DATE OF THE ANAL'¢SIS (mm/~d//y) .................
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED .............................
MAJOR STREET ..........
55
1
150000
route 48
Hoore's Lane
GD
6/22/87
Mon am peak 8uil~
)
')
)
)
)
)
INTEESE.2TiON TYPE ~ND CONTROL
!!'~'TERSE",-i ON -""PR: T-!I-!TERSEST! ON
rIAJOR STREET ~iF, ECTiCN: EAS:T/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STCP ~IGN
.EFT
-HRU
F I GHT
0 2 ~ S 7 - -
1 S 0 ! 7 4 1~ - -
L~I'4ES
! ! --
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FACTORS Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN
GRADE ANGLE
EASTBOUND 0.00 ?0
WESTBOUND 0.00 ~0
NORTHBOUND 0.00 90
SOUTHBOUND ........
CURB RADIUS ':ft)
FOR RIGHT TURNS
20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
20 N
~0 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBCL~4D
WESTBOUNC,
,.." SU TRUCKS Y. COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES ..../. MOTORCYCLES
3 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
~ABiJL~R VALUES
(T~oie 10-2)
ADJUSTED SIghT DIST. FINAL
VALUE ADJU~,TMENT CRIT:CAL
h1II'4OR Ri GHTS.
r,lB ...... 0 .b. ,.50 0.00 ,~. 50
. ,~4.. _IR LE.- T:-
JE; 5.50 5.50 3.00 5.50 -
· I!NOR ' ¢ '-
',iE; :-q · 00 ,~ · :.110 : . 00 :~'. 00
r ~8
.,. _~,. ..... 0 0.0 0 -=:,. 5.:
E:. 0 0 E~. S 9 C, . 0 0 E;. 0 0
MOL;
POTEN- ACTUAL
~LON- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERUE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAP, SIT\' CAPACITY
~)(pcph> c 4pcph)' c (pcph> c (pcph) C = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
N E:
LEFT 4! 418 410
RIGHT 25 727 727
410 > 3~9 > B
492 > 42~ >A
727 > 701 > A
MAJOR STREET
W8 LEFT 31 883 883 88~ 852 A
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I
*********************************************************************
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AUERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET..
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .....................
AREA POPULATION .....................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ........
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ......
NAME OF THE ANALYST .................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .....
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................
.......... 150000
.......... route 48
.....,.... Moore's Lane
.......... GD
.......... ~/22/87
.......... NB Fri pm peak
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
~<AJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE ~40RTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUME~
LEFT
THRU
RIGHT
0 IS 3S --
2O7 200 0
2'9 O ' 33 -- ~
~,~U~,IBER 0-~ i~NES
i~NE~
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20
WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20
NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20
SOUTHBOUND ...........
ACCBLERATION L~NE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
N
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
% SU TRUCKS
AND RV~S
0
COMBINATION
VEHICLES
0
MOTORCYCLES
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED BIGHT DIST, FINAL
VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF
,"ti N0R RIGHTS
NE,' .-~. 50 6.50 0.00 ~. 50
LEFTS
5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50
LIEF'TS
NB ,-~. O0 8.00 0.00 :3.00
CAPACIT'~' AND LEVEL-0P-SERVICE Pmge-8
MOVEMENT
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOMEMENT
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY
v(pcph) c ~pcph) c (pcph)
p M
SHARED RESERVE
CAPACITY CAPACITY
(pcph) c = c - v LOS
SH R SH
MINOR STREET
N8
LEFT 42 391
RIGHT ~ 702 702
38~ > 344 > 8
488 > 410 sA
702 > &65 > A
MAJOR STREET
W8 LEFT 20 854 854 854 834 A
1985 HCPI: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
*********************************************************************
I DENT I FY I NG I NFORMAT I ON
AUERAOE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 55
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. I
AREA POPULATION .................................. 150000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... route 48
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Moore's Lane
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. OD
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mmYod/yy> .................. ~/22/S7
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. Fri pm peak Build
INTERSECTION ~YPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECT!0N TYPE: ~-INTER~ECTiON
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHSOUND: STOP SION
TRAFFIC UOLUMES
EB W8 ,NB SB ~
THRU 207 £03 0 --
LANES 1 I 1 --
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (~t)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20
WESTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20
NORTHBOUND 0.00 ~0 20
SOUTHBOUND ...........
ACCELERATION L~NE
fOR RIGHT TURNS
N
N
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
SU TRUCKS
AND RV'S
0
COMBINATION
VEHICLES
0
MOTORCYCLES
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Tmble 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUS~E?~T
FINAL
C~ITICAL GAF
MINOR RIGHTS
~.50 0.00 ~.50
NAJOR LEFTS
WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50
~INOR LEFTS ~
NB 8.00 8.00 O.O0 8.00
CAP~SZTY' AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ~age-S
blOV EM ENT
PCTEN- ACTUAL
FLO~I- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v[pcph) c (~cph) C (pcph> c (pcph> c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
LE~T
RIGHT
5~ 37~ 371 > 371 > 315 > B
> 4&l > 3~4 >B
41 ~2 &92 > &~2 > &51 > A
MAJOR STREET
WB LEFT 27 830 830 830 801 A
/u ....... : UNS I *SI.IAL I ZED !NTERSECTI 0NS ~.Ag~- !
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET ..............
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ...............................
AREA POPULATION ................................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...................
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .....
NAME OF THE ANALYST ............................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ................
TIME =EAiOD ANALY2ED .............................
1
150000
route 48
............ Moore's Lane
6/18/87
N~ Sat pm pe~k
INTERE:ECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSE:TiON TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MAJOR ~T~EET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CT~TR0~ -YPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
LEFm
E~ WB NB SE
0 28 28 --
THRU ~77 2S0 0 --
~!SHT 48 0 '~
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20
WESTSOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
NORTHBOUND 0.00 PO 20 N
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
SOUTHBOUND .....
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOLND
SU TRUCKS ;~ COMBINATION
AND ~U~S VEHICLES ~{ MOTORCYCLES
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
SOUTHBOUND
CRITiC:AL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2>
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL GAF
~'41 NOR RIGHTS
0 .O0 6.50
MAJOR LEF-S
WB 5.50 5,50 0.00 5.50
MI,NOR LEFTS
3.00 8.00 0.00 8.00
MOVEMEHT
-~LC ;-
RATE
~'OTEN- ACTUAL
TIAL HOUEMENT SHARED RE$ERME
CAPACITY' cAPACITY CAPACITY CAPAC IT"/
C ~cph) C (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - ',~ LOS
;, M SH R SH
Iq I NOR STREET
NB LEFT
RIGHT
35
2~1 284 > 284 >
> 403 )
634 634 > 634 >
253 > C
59~ > A
MAJOR STFEET
LEFT
3!
7&8 768 768 737 A
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
*********************************************************************
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ....................
AREA POPU~ATION .....................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ........
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ......
NAME OF THE ANALYST .................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/do/yy) .....
TIHE PERIOD ANALYZED ............... .
........... 150000
........... Poute ~
· . ......... Moore's Lane
........... ~x'18/87
........... Sat pm peak Build
iNTERSECTiON TYPE AND CONTROL
INTE~SECTiON TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MAJOR STREET C~iRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL T'/PE NORTHBOUND: STOP i~IGN
LE~T
THRU
E~ WB NB SB
0 S7 ~ --
277 ~C 0
RIGHT 5~ 0 40
?UMBER 0F LANES
LANEE
I t ! --
PERC~IT RIGHT TURN CURB'RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20
WESTBOUND O.O0 ~0 20 N
NORTHBOUN~ 0.00 ~0 ~0 N
SOUTHBOUND ............
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUN~
Sg TRUCKS X COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES ~ MOTORC¥CLE~
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CRITICAL SAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(TmOle 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
[!INOR RIGHTS
NB 5. PO 5. ~0
LEFTS
'dB 5.2.0 5.20
MINOR LEFTS
7. i 0 7 . 1~0
SIGHT DIST. FINAL
ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP
0.00 5.~0
0.00 5.20
0.00 7.10 '
MOUEMEh:T
PC~EN- ACTUAL
:L0(~- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERUE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
u(pcDh' c (pcph) c (pcpn) c (pcph) c = ~ - ~ LOS
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
NB LEFT
R I GHT
42 358. 347 > 347 > 29~ > B
44 704 704 > 704 > 660 '> ~
MAJOR STREET
41 856 ~56 856 8~5 A
17S5 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSEOTIONS Ps.qe-!
*********************************************************************
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................
AREA POPULATION ................................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ....................
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ..................
NAME OF THE ANALYST ..............
DATE OF THE ANALVSiS
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED .............
55
I
150000
MidOletown Road
Route 48
GD
5/22/87
Mon am peak No Build
INTERSE]T!0N T'/PE AND CONTROL
iNTE~SE2TiON T','PE: 4-=EG
MAJOR ~TREBT DIRE3TION: E~T/WEE.T
CONTROl TVPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN '
CONTROL TVPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SION
EB I,JB NB SB
~HRU 207 I ;::_~ ~ 9 0
R l Grit 4 i 3 7
~IU.*'IE;EF: ~F~f.,=_~ ,=;'iD ,.-.~NE USAGE ,
~.~' ~E USAGE
LTF: LTF
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS <~t) ACCELERATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
WESTBOUND 0.00 ?0 20 N
NORTHBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
~ SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES ~ MOTORCYCLES
EASTBOUND 0 0 0
~E~;TBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND 0 0 0
SOUTHBOUND 0 O 0
TABULAR V~LUE~
(Tmble 10-2)
~DJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL
rllfJOR RIGHT'=-;
;.18 ,:,. 50 .... .-,0 0.00 ,!,. 50
r.,r... 6.50 ,S · 50 ' ' '- ,=, · 50
!'J E 5.50 5.50 r~ ~ :_'. 0 5.50
EB 5.50 5.50 0 . 00 5.50
1.;.,L R "'"HR OLIG H S
- 50 ~ = - 50
.... 0
7.50 -.50 0,00 7.50
NOR ;_EFTS:
: i B S. ,D 0 B · 00 !'~. 00 ;.'-:. 0 L';
_E. E:. On 3. O0 0.00 :=. O0
_:,~ 9. r_ru S. O0 C . O0 ~,. O0
HOVEHEF~T
FOTEN- ACTUAL
F_OW- Till MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY C~P~ITY CAPACITY
utpcpn¢ c kpcph) C (pcph) c ~pcph) c = c - u LOS
p H SH R SH
N ~I'40R STREET
NE LEF-
THF:OUSH
! !': 40 9 404
", -:,: 450
~ ~22 - 712
404 '> 3¢4
45C > 42~, 450
712 > 710
'> B
>A A
HINOR STREET
SB
_EFT 2 411 408
THROUGH C 452 450
RIGHT S 735 735
~24
408 >
450 :>
735
40~ A
&14 450 >A A
727 > A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT & ¢05 ¢05 ?05 899 A
WB LEFT ~, 879 879 879 87& A
I785 HCM: UN~GNALIZE2' INTERSECTIONS PAge-I
*********************************************************************
IDENT!FYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 55
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. 1
At~EA POPULATION .................................. 150000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STR. E~T ..................... Middletown RoAd
NAME OF THE NORTH.,'S:0UTH STREET ................... Route 48
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. OD
D~TE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/c~d,..'yy) .................. 6/22,"87
TiME PER!OD ANALYZED .............................. Mort &m peak @uil~l
MA.'0R := .... ~='--2. r-.,IRE3T! '-" .... EAST.,-'b. JEST
_.4,R,__ TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SI6N
CONTROL TYPE
· _,uL, , ,_ut,.,, lb.: STC'P Si GN
LEF- '= : i o =
-ANE:--
E-3 .,~ NE SB
'_'T ~: LT R
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20
WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20
NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 ~0
ACCELERATI ON LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
N
N
N
UEHICLE COMPOSITION
X SU TRUCKS >; COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES ~; MOTORCVCLES
~AST~OUND 0 0 0
t,JESTS~U~D 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND 0 0 0
SOUT~8OUNC, 0 0 0
OF:ITICAL GAPS
TABULAP VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D!'ST. F!NPL
,::Tal~l · 10-2> VALUE AD,oTLI~:TMEN'r CRITICAL
HINO~ RI_~n~.
~'I~ ~.~0 6.50 0.00 6.50
~E ,.'.'5.50 ,~. 50 0. u 0 o. ~.L
LIB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50
I I I',lO R THROI_IGP~ S
~',1 E:
'. 5C 7 ·50 'il. 30 -,
~l,.,ql.r- LEFT'S
XlB :-:: · 0 0 S · ;" 0 '3 · 0 0 c: · 3 0
S E, I--:. 0 0 3.0 0 0 · 0 0 '=,¢.UU' '
Li E: =- . 5 '1: 5.50 Ii, · 0 ¢' 5 . 50
E E. =- , 5 ';, 5 o 5"~ 0 . 06 5 · 5 t
I II ~_R THF.:OUGHS
f'IZNOF LECTS
-' -.Er~ 0.00 50
~, J · ,.,C Ct 0 L' ,50
~ ,! B ;--. J 0 8. ,J 0 0,00 .'El,. '.'* 0
~ ¢:. '-'"'_ ,., ~. 9,00 0 , O0 S: . O0
CAPACITY AND ,_EUEL-O~-SERVICE Rage-3
MOMEP;EN-
ROTEN- ACTUAL
FLOL,,,- TIA~ MOUEMENT SHARE[) RESERVE
RATE C:AF~0ITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
u(p.:pr,> c ,;pcph)- ~ (pcph) . (pcph) c = c ~., i c.
;, M SH R
MINOR $TFEET
NB LEFT 18 408 402
THROUGH 0 452 44~
RIGHT 4 711 711
MINOR STREET
SB LEFT 2 408 403
THROUGH 0 450 447
RIGHT 8 735 735
MAJOR STREET
E8 LEFT 6 ~05 ~05
WB LEFT 4 87~ 87&
> 402 > 385 > B
> 441 44~ > 41~ 44~ >A A
> 711 > 707 > A
> 403 > 401 > A
. > &21 447 > 611 447 >A A
> 735 > 727 > A
8¢¢ A
872 A
· i.~85 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .......
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .........................
AREA POPULATION ..........................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET .............
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ...........
NAME OF THE ANALYST .......... ~ ...........
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy> ..........
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED .....................
...... 150000
...... Middletown Road
...... Route 48
...... ~/22787
...... Fri pm peak No Build
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTEESECT!CN T'/FE: 4-LE~
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WE~T
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL T?PE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAF=IC UOLgME~
EB WB N8
LEFT :S 2 ?
THRU 257 20? O
RIGHT ~ ~ 2
NUMBER OF LANES raND =ruNE USAGE
SB
2
14
LANE USAGE
1 1 1 I
LTR LTR
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 ~0 N
WESTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
NORTHBOUND 0.00 ~0 ~0 N
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 ~0 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
% ~U TRUC~JS ~{ COMBINATION
~ND RV'S VEHICLES }~ MOTORCYCLES
EASTBOUND 0 0 0
WESTBOJND 0 0 0
N0~TH~0UND 0 0 0
SOUTHBOUNP 0 0 0
TABULAR UALUES
(Table I0-2)
ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL
VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL iSAP
MINOR RI']HTS
NB ¢.50 ~.50 0.00 ~.50
'EB ¥.50 ~.~0 3.00 ~.50
MAJOR LEFTS
WE: 5,=~. ~.,~ 5,50 0,00 5,50
~ EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 ~.50
PIINOR ?HROLIGHS
NE, 7. ~0 7. -=..0 ,]. 00 7 · 50
..,"='= 7 . 507.50 0 . O0 - · ='¢',..,.J
H Ii'40R LEFTS
NS S.00 8.00 0.30 :~,.30
SE, 8.00 '__w.00 0.00 S.O0
. , , ...,~. 7, ~0 0,00 7,50
r I II.lOF LE--T E:
t;E S,O0 S.O0 0.00 8.00
SE: S,O0 8,00 0,06; 8,00
CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3
MOVEMENT
P0TEN- ACTUAL
FLOU~- TIA~ MOVEMENT SHARED RESERUE
RAT~ CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY OAPACITY
u,Jpc?r~> c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - u LOS
p M SH R SH
MIN0~ STREET
NB LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
i,:, 348 ~38 > 338 J 328 > B
F S~ 3~0 > 371 S~0 ) 35~ 3¢0 >B B
MINOR STREET
SB LEFT
THRO
RI GHT
'F' 357 351 > 351 > 342 > B
~ 3~& @~0 > 503 3~0 > 47? ~87 >A B
15 710 710 > ?lO > 6~4 > A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 20 875 8?5 875 855 A
WB LEFT 2 827 827 .827 825 A
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED,
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ...............
AFEA POPULATION ................
NAME OF THE EAST./'WEST STREET...
NANE OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.
NAME OF THE ANALYST ............
DATE OF THE ANAL"¢SIS (mm/dd/yy)
T;hIE PERIOD ANALYZED ...........
MAJOR STREET ..............
55
1
150000
Middletown Road
Route 48
6/22/87
FPi pm peak Build
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
ib.'TERSEZT!0N T"/PE: .;i-LES
?IA..;::R STRE='T ~,I RECTI Obi: EAST/"WE~;T
CONTR;iL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SiGN
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: :~:T*:~P SIGN
LEF-
RIGH-
EB ;4B NB SB
257 .~?c o n. ":
1 4 d, ;2 14
EB l.dE, NB :-B
I I i 1
_~ ,f,,,z,. ,JSA,SE LT=; LTR
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-~
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20
WESTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
NORTHBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT' TURNS
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
~ SU TRUCKS % COMBIN~TION
AND RV'S VEHICJ-ES ~ MOTORCYCLES
EASTBOUND 0 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND O 0 0
SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
· ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL GAP
,~41 NOR RIGHTS
N8 .... 0 ~.50 O.O0 6.~0
SB 6.50 6.50 O.O0 6.50
MAJOR LEFTS
WB 5.50 5.50 0.00
EB 5.50 5.56 0.00 5.50
MINOR THROUGH:E;
Se.
7.50 ?,~0 O.O0 7.50
7.50 7.50 O.JO -.50
MINOR LEFTS
N5 S.O0 8.00 0.30
SB 3.00 8.00 O.O0 8.00
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I
*********************************************************************
IDENTI~YINO INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED~ MAJOR STREET .............. 55
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. I
ARE/4 POPULATION .................................. 150000
NAM~ OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... Middletown Road
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Route 48
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. GD
D~TE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm?dd/yy) .................. ~?18/87
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. Sat pm peak No Sui!~
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION:
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND:
CONTROL ~¢PE SOUTHBOUND:
EAST/WEST
STOP SION
STOP SION
LEFT
THRU
RIGWT
EB t,.JB NB SB
i0 I 2 3
257 '~S~ 0 0
L~,NES
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 8age-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN ~URB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 ~0 ~0
WESTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
NORTHBOUND 0.00 ~0 20 N
SOUTHSOUND 9,00 .~0 20 N
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
~; SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLE~ % MOTORCYCLES
EASTBOUND 0 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
NORTH~OJJND 0 0 0
SOUTHE~rqD J 0 0
TABULAR VALUES
(TaO!e 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
~,18 ~.50 ~.50 0.00 ¥.50
SB ~.50 ~.50 0.00 6.50
MAJOR LEFTS
5.50 5.50
5.50 5.50 9.00 5.50
LEFTS
;~F-. 'B,O0 S.O0 O .JO 8.00
,_.~P~ ~¢'~[> LEVEL-0F-SERU ! CE F'&_~-3
MOVEMENT
~OTEN-
FLOb~- TIAL
RATE CAPACITY
u ,. p,-'ph ) c
P
ACTUAL
HOVEMENT SHmRED RESERVE
CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
c ~p:ph) c ~pcph) c = c - u LO~
M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
["JB LE~T 2 2:33
THF:OLIGH 0 ,;,~
R~ GHT 3 6,_42
279 > 27¢ > 27~
317 > 427 317 > 421 317
¢&2 > 8~2 > ~58
>A B
HINOR STREET
SB ~EFT 3 284
THROLfGH 0 220
RIGHT 7
281 > 281 > 278
317 > 437 317 > 427 317
>A B
MAJOR STREET
EB iE~T 11 753
WB LEFT S20
753 753 742 A
820 820 81¢ A
I785 HCM: UNSiGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MA~OR STREET ....
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .......................
AREA POPULATION ........................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST ~TREET ...........
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .........
NAME OF THE ANALYST ....................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ........
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ....................
.... 150000
.... Middletc~n Road
.... Route 48
.... GD
.... 6/18/87
.... Sat pm peak ~uild
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION T','CE: 4-~EG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SiGN
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
EB WB NB SB
LEFT 10 8 S 3
THRU '-''
~7 ._, 0 O
RIGHT iO _,~
NUMSER OF L.-.NE5 aND LF, NE USAGE
SE: WE f'4B SB
! 1 I 1
LAN E S
LANE USAGE
LTR
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20
WESTBOUND 0.00 ~0 20
NORTHBOUND 0.00 ~0
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 ~ 20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
N
N
N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
SU TRUCKS
AND RV'S
0
COMBINATION
VEHICLES
0
MOTORCYCLES
0
WE.~TBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND 0 0 0
SOUTHBOUND O 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
'VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL GAR
MINOR RIGHTS
N8 6.50 $.50 0.00 ~.30
SB ~.50 ~.50 0.00 ~.50
HAJOR LEFTS
WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 ~.50
EB 5.50 5.50 0.00
MINOR THROU8HS
SB
7.50 7.50 0.00 7.50
7.50 7.50 O.O0 7.50
HINOR LEFTS
N~ 8.00 S,00 0.00 S.30
SB 8.00 B.00 0.00 $.30
}"{ OV EM ENT
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIA2 MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v(pcph) c (pcph> c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v
p M SH R SH
LOS
MINOR STREET
NE - -
THROUGH
RIGHT
? 2~4 258 > 258 > 24~ ) C
0 300 2¢5 > 881 2~5 > 3~2 2?5 >B C
10 ~59 ~5~ > ~,5~ > ~49 > A
MINOR STREET
SB LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
3 2~8 2~2 > 262 > 258 > C
0 30& 301 > 417 301 > 407 301 >A B
7 5~$ 5~3 > 5~3 > 587 > A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 11 724 724 724 713 A
WB LEFT ~ 813 813 818 804 A
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-!
*********************************************************************
I DENT I FY I NG I NFORMATI ON
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................
AREA POPULATION .................................
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ....................
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ..................
NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS <mm/d~/yy> .................
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................
40
1
150000
Route 25
Moore's Lane
GD
~/~2/87
Mort am peak ~4o ~uil~
INTERSECTION ~,'PB AND CONTROL.
INTERSECTiOH TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MA~0R ~TREET DIRECTiCN: EAST/WEST
~30NTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: YIELD SIGN
E8 WB NB SB
LEFT 40 0 -- ~
THRU 22~ 240 -- 0
RIGHT 0 SO -- 22
I,JUMEER OF L~NES
LAN E S
1 i -- i
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND .....
SOUTHBOUND 0.00
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 ~0 20 N
90 20 N
90 20 N
EASTBOUND
WECTEOUND
NORTHBOUND
~OUTHBOUND
,. SU TRUCKS Y. COMBINATION
AND RV' S VEH ! CLES ~. MOTORCYCLES
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
CRITICAL GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
SB 5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20
HAJOR LEFTS
5.20 5.20 0.00 '5.20
M INCi~ L EFT:~:
'_=:B d, · 40 ~ · 40 0. O0 ~. 40
MOVEMENT
POTEN-
FLOW- TIAL
RAT--. CAPACITY
v(pcph) ¢ (pcph)
P
ACTUAL
MOV,,.MENT SHARED RESERVE
'CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
c (pcph> c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
M SH R SH
.E~T ?~ 477
RI6HT 35 e~3
4~ '~' 391 i:: B
554 > 447 >~
933 > 89~ .t A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 44 ¢1¢ ~1~ ~1¢ 875 A
1~P$5 HCM: UNSlGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I
*********************************************************************
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 40
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. l
AREA POPULATION .................................. 150000
~ME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... Route 25
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Moope~s L~ne
~ME OF THE ANALYST .............................. GD
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................. ~/'2~/87
TIME PERIOD '~ALYZED ............................. Mon am pe&K Suilo
!NTER~S~TION TYPE AND CONTROL
:~TER~E~TiON T"PE: T-INTERSECTION
'~AJOR STREET ~IEECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: YIELD SIGN
B~ W8 NB SB
LEFT 44 0 ~- 8S
'H~U 22S 240 -- 0
~!GHT 0 34 -- 4S
· J_P1B-~ -,¢ L~NES
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND .....
SOUTHBOUND 0.00
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 ~0 20
ACCELERATI ON LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
~0 20 N
90 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
,..'" SU TRUCKS
AND RV'S
0
COMBINATI ON
VEHICLES
0
MOTORCYCLES
0
0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR .~LUES ADJUSTED
(~le 10-2> UALUE ADJU-C-;TMENT CRITICAL GAP
f'lI NOR RIGHTS
SE' 5.20 , ~.20 0.00
5.20
PI~ JOR LEF"r S
S.2¢~_ . 5.20 0.09 5.20
r'1I NOR LEFT,~
0.40 , .~. 40 0. O0 ~. 40
AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-~.
HOt~EHENT
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
u(pcpn) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph)
p M SH
RESERVE
CAPACITY
c = c - v LOS
R SH
MINOR ~,TF ....
SE:
LEFT
RIGHT
~l 473 458 > 458 >
> 554 >
47 931 931 > 931 >
367 > E
415 )A
884 > A
MAJOR STREET
LEFT 48 915 915 915 8&& A
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MA~OR STREET .............. 40
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. 1
AREA POPULATION .................................. 150000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... Route ~5
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Moore's Lane
NAME 0Y THE ANALYST ..............................
DATE 0P THE ANALYSIS (mm/dO?/y) ..................
TIME PERIOD
~"1S/S7
Fri pm ~eak !4o Suil~
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECT!DN TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MA.fOR :~TF, EET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: YIELD SiGN
LEFT 22 0 -- 40
TH~U 376 285 -- 0
RIGHT 8 i£ -- 24
,-IL,.F::=~ :DF LANES
L~N E E;
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2.
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND .....
SOUTHBOUND 0.00
PERCENT RIGHT TURN
GRADE ANGLE
0.00 90
CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION lANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
20 N
90 20 N
90 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
,.'/ SU TRUCKS
AND RV'S
0
COMBINATION
VEHICLES
0
MOTORCYCLES
0
0 0 0
0 0 9
CRITICAL GAPS
T~BL, LARU~LUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SI6HT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINAL
C~ITICAL
MINOR RIGHTS
5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20
MAJ3R LEFTS
EB 5.20 5.20 0 .O0 5.20
MINOR ~LEFTS
SB 6.40 ,~. 40 0. O0 ,~. 40
M OU EMEhIT
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLO~- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v(pcph;, ~ (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph> c ' c - v LOS
~ M SH R SH
hlI ~40~. 3TREE-
LEFT
RI GHT
44 S70 364 > 3&4 > 320 > B
> 468 > ~? >B
.
o 8¢2 892 > 892 > 86~ )' A
MAJOR STREET
ES 2EFT 24 880 880 880 855 A
1985 HCM: UNBIGNLALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED~ MAJOR STREET .............. 40
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ................................. 1
AREA POPULATION .................................. 150000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... R~ute 25
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Moore's Lane
NAME OF THE ANALYST ..............................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ..................
TIME PERIOD A~ALYZED ............................. Fni pm peak Build
INTERSEJTION ~'."PE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION T'~FE: T-INTERSEOTION
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EASTx'WEST
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: YIELD SIGN
E9 WB h~B SB
LEFT ~,~,:"= 0 -- ~0.
-THRU '~76 2,35 -- ~ ,~
RIGHT 0 4~ -- 30
h~LIf"IBE~ Z,F L~NEE
LANE---
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-~
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND .....
SOUTHBOUND 0.00
PERCENT RIGHT TURN. CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 90 20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
90 20 N
90. 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND 0
WESTBOUND 0
NDRTHBOUND ---
SOUTHBOUND 0
SU TRUCKS ~ COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES X MOTORCYCLES
0 0
0 0
0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(T~ble 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
F~NAL
CRITICAL GAP
HINOR RIGHTS
5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20
MAJOR LEFTS
5.20 ~ 0.00 5.20
MINOR LEFTS
SG o.~0 ~.40 0.00 ,~.~0
CAPACIT'~ AN[) bEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-:
MOVEMENT
POTEN-. ACTUAl
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
~(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v lO~
p M SH R ~H
MINOR STRE~
LEFT
RIGHT
55 ~ 358 349 > 349 > 294 > L
> 452 > 364 >B
SS 883 883 > 883 > 850 > ~
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 36 862 862 862 826 ~
1'~8~ HOM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I
*********************************************************************
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED MAJOR STREET 40
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ........................
AREA POPULATION .........................
NAME OF THE EAST/WE~T STREet ............
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ..........
NAME OF THE ANALYST .....................
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm?dd/yy) .........
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED .....................
....... 1~0000
....... Route 25
,., .... Moore/s Lane
....... 6/18/87
....... Sat pm peak No 8uilO
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTE~SECTiON TYPE: T-iNTERSECTiON
MAJOR ST~EE-? DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: YIELD SIGN
TRAFFIC UOLUMES
LE.--T
TN~.U
R I G H T
EE WB NB SB
_,-°'$' 0 -- 54
3?3 344 -- 0
0 35 -- 32
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND .....
SOUTHBOUND O.OO
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft)
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS
0.00 ~0 20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
90 20 N
9O 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
SU TRUCKS
AND RV'S
0
COMBINATION
VEHICLES
0
MOTORCYCLES
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Table 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIBHT DIST.
ADJUS~4T
F I HAL
CRITICAL GAP
MINOR Ri6HTS
SB 5.20 5.20 O.O0 5.20
MAJOR LE:TS
ES 5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20
MINOR LEFTS
SB 6.40 6.40 0.00 ¢.40
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOL!- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARE[) RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT u(pcph) c (pcpn) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
~ M SH R SH
I'I I NOR STREET
LEFT 5e 318
RIGHT 35 832
310 > 310 > 250 > C
> 404 > 809 >B
832 > 832 > 79~ > A
MAJOR STREET
E8 LEFT ~'~, 815, 815 815 780 A
1985 HCM: UNSI~NALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
*********************************************************************
ID~4TIPfING INFORMATION
AUERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............
PEAK HOU~ FACTOR ................................
AREA POPU&ATION .................................
NAME 0F THE EAST/WEST STREET ....................
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREE? ..................
NAME 0F THE ANALYST .............................
DATE 0F THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................
40
1
150000
Route 25
Moore's Lane
GD
6718787
Sat pm peak Build
INTERSEJTION TYPE AND CONTROL
~ NTERSEOT i ON 'FY'~E: T- ! NTER~E~TI 0N
"!~-,,;OR :~TREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
~:2NTROL TYF~ SOUTHBOUND: YIELD SIGN
LEFT
EB t,JB NB SB
40 0 -- 64
THRU 3';'3 E;44 -- 0
RIGHT 0 4,: -- 40
L~NE~
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS P&ge-2
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND 0.00
NORTHBOUND .....
SOUTHBOUND 0.00
PERCENT RIGHT TURN
GRADE ANGLE
0.00 ~0
CURB RADIUS (ft)
FOR RIGHT TURNS
20
ACCELERATION LANE
FOR RIGHT TURNS
N
90 20 N
90 . 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
SU TRUCKS
AND RV'S
0
COMBINATION
VEHICLES
0
MOTORCYCLES
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES
(Taole 10-2)
ADJUSTED
VALUE
SIGHT DIST.
ADJUSTMENT
FINA~
CRITICAL 6AF
MINOR RIGHT~
5.30 5.20 0.00 5.20
MAJOR LEFTS
EB 5.20 5.20 0.0~ 5.20
MINOR LEFTS
SB ~.40 ~.40 0.00 ~.~0
¢
¢
·
!
(
(
(
(
&
(
rllNOF: L--FT S
SB 6,40 6.40 0.00 ¥.40
CAPACIT'," AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page
NOVEMENT
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
v(psph) ¢ (pcph) c (psph) c (pcph) ¢ = ¢ - v L
p M SH R ~H
MINOR STRE~--T
SB LEFT
RIGHT
70 310 300 > 300 >
> 397
44 82& 82& > 82&
22¢
283
782
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT
44 805 805 805 7&l