Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChase Bank - Mattituck Drive-thru LANTIC TRAFFIC DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC 2002 Orville Drive North Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 631.738.1919 631.738.1177 fax atde@atlantictraffic.com TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. PROPOSED CHASE BANK WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE SECTION 143, BLOCK 3, LOT 33.2 10300 MAIN ROAD (NYS RT. 25) MATTITUCK, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK 11952 ...... · ~,~.~,,.,~;~ ::;;:::: ......... :.:~ :::;;~i~CHARLES D. OL~VO, P.E., P'~rOE ~=~,¢~:, ¥:':;;ZZ~ ............. ~:!.,q~ NY/~i~ense No 087356 '[ ;~ ;' ~ ~ / }~ PROJECT ~GINEER ~ ~ :' %L. ~,:-~ ' ,~ Revised December 4, 2009 ~ ~ .~'~*:~"*'::~ ;: ::~':,"~'~ November 5, 2009 3 ATDE Project No. ~09026 Other Office Location: 35 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, WARREN, NEW JERSEY 07059 908.769.5588 TRAFFIC &; TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, SITE PLANNING ~ ROADWAY DESIGN CONSULTANTS 'www. atlantictraffic.com INTRODUCTION Atlantic Traffic & Design Engineers, Inc. (ATDE) has prepared this analysis to examine the future traffic impact of the proposed Chase Bank with drive-thru service. This document is intended to ad&ess the typical traffic analysis requirements of the New York State Department of Transportafion (NYSDOT) and.Town of Southold. The subject site is located along Main Road (NYS Rt. 25), approximately 300 feet east of Marlene Lane in Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, as shown in appended Figure 1. The property is currently a vacant lot. The proposed development involves the construction of a new 4,200 square foot Chase Bank with drive-thru service. The future access configuration proposes a fu]i-movement driveway along Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) aligned with the existing shopping center driveway. In addition, a westbound left-turn lane is proposed to accommodate the westbound ingress movement to the Chase Bank. The New York Stat? Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) issued its approval of the application and site access plan on August 4, 2008, and based on recent discussions with the NYSDOT Permit Engineer, thJs approval remains valid to date. This study identifies the nature of site traffic increases, which could potentially occ~ as a result of the constmcfion of the proposed Chase Bank. Additionally, this study ad&esses the ability of the site to safely and efficiently accommodate the anticipated traffic demand. This analysis therefore includes the following elements: · A review of the existing roadway conditions and traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site; · Projection of the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the Chase Bank with drive-thra service, including an identificafion of the traffic &awn f~om the adjacent traffic stream and identification of "new" traffic to the area; · An analysis of existing and futuxe roadway and site &iveway operations; · A review of the Site Plan focusing on the proposed site access, parldng layout, and circulation patterns; and · Recommendations and conclusions. PAGE i 2009 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is located along Main Road (NYS Rt. 25), approximately 300 feet east of Marlene Lane in Mattimck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Ne~v York, as shown in appended Figure 1. The property is currently a vacant lot. The subject property is designated as Section 143, Block 3, Lot 33.2 and has approximately 150 feet of frontage along Main Road (NYS Rt. 25). The subject property is located in the "B" Zoning District and is surrounded by various commercial uses, in addition to the Mattimck Plaza Shopping Center located across from the subject site on the north side of Main Road (NYS Rt. 25). EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) is under the ownership and jurisdiction of the NYSDOT. In the vicinity of the subject, property, Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) has a general east/west orientation and provides one (1) travel lane in each direction and separate turn lanes at key intersections. Shoulders are provided along both sides of the roadway, sidewalks are provided along the west side of the roadway to accommodate pedestrian travel, and the pavement and striping appear to be in good condition. The posted speed lim/t in the vicinity of the site is 30 miles per hour. It should be noted that Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) changes to a 40 mile per hour roadway west of the subject site. Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) provides westbound access to the Long Island Expressway (LIE) (I-495) and eastbound access to Orient Point, which is at the end of the North Fork, as well as various residential communities and commercial uses. Factory Avenue/Sigsbee Road is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold and has a north/south orientation in the vicinity of the site w/th a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. The roadway provides (1) travel lane in each direction, with turn lanes at key intersections. On Factory Avenue (north of Main Road [NYS Rt. 25]), sidewalk is provided on the east side of the roadway and parking is not provided along both sides of the roadway. On Sigsbee Road (south of Main Road [NYS Rt. 25]), sidewalks are provided along both sides of the roadway and parking stalls are provided along the west side of the roadway. On both roadways, shoulders are not provided and the pavement and strip/rig appear to be in fak condition. Factory Avenue/Sigsbee Road provides ~/~ A~c TRAFFIC PAGE 2 &: DESIGN ENGINEERS, LNG access to residential and commercial uses, as well as a beach club at its southerly terminus at the Long Island Sound (approximately 0.6 miles south of the subject intersection). Marlene Lane is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold and has a general north/south orientation with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. In the vicirfity of the site, the roadway provides one (1) travel lane in each direction, and on-street parking is not provided in the vicinity of the subject site. Shoulders and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway to accommodate pedestrian travel and the pavement and striping appear to be in fair condition. Marlene Lane provides access to primarily commercial and residential uses and reaches its northerly terminus at Main Road NYS Rt. 25) opposite the westerly shopping center driveway. The easterly shopp/ng center driveway, located across Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) from the proposed Chase Bank driveway, provides full access to the shoppJ2g center to supplement the ingress and egress left-turn restrictions at the westerly shopping center driveway. Main Road (NYs Rt. 25) meets Factory Avenue/S/gsbee Road to form a four-legged signal/zed intersection approximately 400 feet west of the subject site and operates with four (4) phases under the jurisdiction of the NYSDOT. All approaches to the intersection provide one (1) exclusive left- tam lane and one (1) shared through/right turn lane. Crosswalks are provided at due Factory Avenue southbound approach, as well as the Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) westbound approach, to accommodate pedestrian mobility. Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) and Marlene Lane/westerly shopping center drivexvay meet approximately 90 feet west of due subject site forming a four-legged rmsignalized intersection with two-way STOP control at the northbound and southbound approaches. The westbound approach provides one (1) exclusive left-turn lane and one (1) shared through/fight-turn lane and the eastbound approach provides a shared through/fight-mm lane. The southbound approach provides a shared through/fight-tam lane and the northbound approach provides a shared left m/through/right-turn lane. PAGE 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES To exam/2e the exist/2g traffic conditions/2 the vicinity of the subject property, manual tmxfing movement counts were conducted during the weekday midday, weekday evening, and Saturday midday peak periods at the follow/2g locations: Main Road 0',,rYS Rt. 25) and Factory Avenue/Sigsbee Road Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) and Marlene Lane/westeriy Mattituck Plaza Shopping Center driveway Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) and easterly Mattimck Plaza Shopping Center driveway Specifically, manual turning movement counts were conducted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and on Saturday, August 22, 2009 from t1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. T~ne results of the traffic counts indicate that there are distinct hours during the periods of study when traffic experiences its highest level. Based on the traffic count/2format/on, the weekday midday peak hour occurred from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., the weekday evening peak hour occurred from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and the Saturday midday peak hour occurred from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. The ex/sting peak hour volumes are summarized on appended Figures 2 through 4, respectively. Traffic volumes at other times of the day are generally lower than during the study peak hours. This is prLmarily influenced by the commuting trips made during the weekday midday and weekday evening period and shopping trips made during the Saturday midday peak period. The higher traffic volumes on the roadway system during peak traffic hours result/2 available excess capacity being at a m/2/mum. As a result, these time periods are typically the focus of a Traffic Impact Analysis. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES A Level of Service and Volume/Capacity Analysis was conducted for the study intersections and shopping center driveways using HCS+ Software ([/er~ion 5.2), which is based on methodologies contained PAGE 4 in the High~vqy Capad~y Manual (2000)~ published by the Transportation Research Board.~ This type of analysis is performed to gauge the operational state of traffic activity and to identify any areas of excessive de]ay or congesflon. The HCS+ summary printouts are included ka the Technical AppendLx. Several factors are used in the Highxvay Capacity Analysis to model the actual conditions found in the field. The peak hour factors are calculated based on the turning movement counts and are applied to the hourly volume on each approach to generate the peak fifteen-minute volume within the peak hour. The input volumes are then adjusted to reflect the critical fifteen-minute demand over the course of the peak hour, otherwise known as the peak flow rate. The percentage of hea~y vehicles on the adjacent roadways was incorporated into the Highway Capadty Analysis based on field counts and observations. A conservative 2% heavy vehicle rate was applied at the shopping center and site driveways as rain/real truck traffic to and from the site was observed durhng the field studies. The traffic signal was field-timed on several occasions during the peak hours and the prevailing timing parameters were util/zed in the analysis. The signalized intersection of Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) and Factory Avenue/Sigsbee Road is calculated to operate at overall Level of Service D during the weekday midday and overall Level of Service C during the weekday evening and Saturday midday peak hours. The unsignalized intersection of Main Road ¢qYS Rt~ 25) and Marlene Lane/xvesterly shopping center driveway is calculated to operate at acceptable Level of Service C or better during all the study peak hours. The existing easterly shopping center driveway is calculated to operate at acceptable Level of Service D or better during all peak periods. See Technical Appendix for Volume/Capacity and Level of Service description. PAGE 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS The next step in the analysis procedure is to project the volume of fatu_te traffic that would be generated as a result of the proposed Chase Bank with drive-thru service. For the purpose of this analysis, complete project approval, construction, and occupancy are assumed to occur within two (2) years. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation projections for the proposed development were prepared on the basis of research data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the 8m Edition of Trip Generation, 2008. Using this publication as a reference source, the trip generation was calculated in accordance with Land Use Code 912: "Drive-In Bank." Table I presents the projected trip generation for the proposed Chase Bank du~mg the weekday m/dday, weekday evening, and Saturday midday peak hours based on ITE calculations. TABLE I ITE TRIP GENERATION PROPOSED 4,200 SF DRIVE-IN BANK Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Midday 57 55 112 Evening 54 54 108 Saturday 58 53 111 A significant portion of the site-generated traffic is projected to be "pass-by" in nature, as diverted movements into the site from adjacent flows of traffic (i.e., one stop made in a series of linked "errand-type" trips to multiple retail locations, or made by a commuter on the way to work or home). The average peak hour pass-by trip percentage for drive-in banks is 47% duffmg the evening peak hour, as found in ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 2~a Edition, June 2004. ITE data indicates that pass-by rates as high as 64% occur during peak hours of bank operation. To provide a conservative analysis, a 40% rate was used for weekday midday and evening time periods, and a 25% rate has been utilized for the Saturday peak hour. PAGE 6 Table II shows the site-generated traffic for the proposed bank in terms of newly generated traffic and pass-by traffic. TABLE II ITE TRIP GENERATION WITH CONSIDERATION OF PASS-BY TRIPS EVENING PEAK HOUR ENTER EXIT TOTAL NEW PASS-BY TOTAL MIDDAY PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK HOUR TOTAL ENTER EXIT TOTAL 34 32 66 23 23 46 57 55 112 32 32 64 22 22 44 II 54 54 108 ENTER EXIT 44 39 14 14 58 53 83 28 111 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The site-generated traffic attributed to the proposed Chase Bank has been assigned to the adjacent roadways based on the existing travel patterns identified from the traffic counts collected at the intersections of Main Road (NrYS Rt. 25) and Factory Avenue/Sigsbee Road, Main Road .(NYS Rt. 25) and Marlene Lane/westerly shopping center driveway, and Main Road 0x,TYS Rt. 25) and easterly shopping center driveway, as xveI1 as the uses in the vicinity of the site. The distributions of "new" and "pass-by" traffic are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. The corresponding site- generated traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 7 through 9 ("nexv") and 10 through 12 ("pass- by") for the weekday midday, weekday evening, and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively. The "new" traffic volumes were surcharged onto the "pass-by" traffic volumes to show the total ske- generated traffic volumes, wtzich are illustrated in Figures 13 through 15, respectively for each peak hour studied. Please note that negative values indicate "pass-by" traffic. ~m~ ATLANTIC TRA~C DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. PAGE 7 2011 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS BACKGROUND GROWTH It is recognized that traffic routinely fluctuates along various State and County roadways, as well as local streets, and varies not only day-to-day, but also on a monthly and yearly basis. It is expected that as development continues in the vicinity of the site, traffic may be expected to increase (though nominally) on a regular basis. It is anticipated that complete project approval, construction, and occupancy would occur within two (2) years. As a result, mirfimal (if any) additional "background" traffic growth can be anticipated with such a short build-out. However, in order to perform a conservative analysis, and to account for future traffic growth in the general vicinity of the subject site, the existing traffic volumes on the study roadway system were increased by a 1.8% annual growth rate compounded annually for two (2) years to develop the 2011 furore "base" traffic volumes. This rate was provided by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for areas located on the North Fork of eastern Long Island. OTHER AREA DEVELOPMENTS The NYSDOT and the Town of Southold were contacted to determine if there were any recent development approvals which would contribute to traffic growth along the subject roadway system. According to the respective Departments, there is an application for a Hudson City Savings Bank Plaza located 0.25 miles east of the subject site. To accurately determine the additional traffic associated with the roadway network, we have obtained the Traffic Impact Study, conducted by Eschbacher VHB, from the Town of Southold and have incorporated it into our analysis. The analysis indicates that most of the traffic associated with the bank would be drawn from Main Road ON%SS Rt. 25), which would add volume to the study intersections included within this Traffic Impact Analysis. Please note, the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed Hudson City Savings Bank Plaza does not provide site-generated traffic volumes for the Saturday midday peak hour. To provide a conservative analysis, our office used the 8th Edition of ITE's Tr/p Generation to obtain trip generation volumes for the Saturday midday peak hour for a 3,244 square foot "Drive-In Bank," Land Use Code 912, and a 9,982 square foot "General Office Building," Land Use Code 710. Using PAGE 8 the trip distribution provided by Eschbacher VHB, xve were able to establish the site-generated volumes added to our subject intersections associated with the Hudson City Savings Bank Plaza. Based on consu}tadons with Ms. I~cisty Wisher of the Town of Southold, a 7-Eleven convenience store is proposed at the northwest comer of Main Road 0NYS Rt. 25) and Factory Avenue/Sigsbee Road. The proposed convenience store traffic has been added to this Traffic Impact Analysis as part of the No-Build analysis. The traffic projections were calculated util/zJ2g ITE Land Use 851 "Convenience Market (Open 24 Hours)" in T~ip G~aeration. The convenience store would generate 147 total weekday midday peak hour trips, 145 total weekday evening peak hour trips, and 212 total Saturday midday trips. Please note, ITE recommends a 50% pass-by credit for a convenience store use. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Based on our research with the Town of Southold and the NYSDOT, there are no future roadway Lmprovements planned in the vicinity of the subject site that ~¢ould influence traffic conditions along Main Road (NYS Rt. 25). FUTURE NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES The 2011 future No-Build traffic volumes were calculated by adding the 2011 future "base" traffic volumes to the potential trip generation volumes associated with the Hudson City Savings Bank Plaza and 7-Eleven convenience store. These volumes are shown in appended Figures 16 through 18 for the respective peak hours. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES A Level of Service and Volume/Capacity analysis ~vas also conducted for the 2011 future No- Build weekday midday, weekday evening, and Saturday midday peak hour traffic volumes at the subject intersection and driveways. The signalized intersection of Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) and Factory Avenue/S~gsbee Road is calculated to continue to operate at existing Levels of Service during the study peak hours in the No-Build condition with the exception of the westbound through/right-mm movement. This PAGE 9 movement is calculated to increase from Level of Service E to F during the weekday midday peak hour and increase from Level of Service C to D during the weekday evenh~g peak hour. These increases are primarily attributed to the additional traffic generated by the proposed Hudson City Sa-/mgs Bank, 7-Eleven, and the background traffic growth. The unsignalized intersection of Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) and Marlene Lane/westerly shopping center driveway is calculated to continue to operate at existing Levels of Service during the study peak hours with the following exceptions: during the weekday midday peak hour, the southbound approach is calculated to increase to Level of Service C and the northbound approach is calculated to increase to Level of Service D. During the Saturday midday peak hour, the westbound approach is calculated to increase to Level of Service B and the southbound approach is calculated to increase to Level of Service C. A 95th percentile queue length of less than two (2) vehicles would be anticipated, which can be accormnodated on-ske. The easterly shopping center driveway is calculated to operate ar existing Levels of Service with the following exceptions: during the weekday midday and Satarday midday peak hours, the southbound approach is calculated to increase to Level of Service D. During the weekday evening peak hour, the southbound approach is calculated to increase to Level of Service E. The 95th percentile queue length would be less than three (3) vehicles which can be accommodated within the d~veway throat depth vAthout impeding on-site circulation. FUTURE BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES The 2011 futare Build traffic volumes were established by surcharging the total additional site- generated traffic volumes onto the 2011 future No-Build traffic volumes. The resulting 2011 future Build volumes are shown on Figures 19 through 21 for the weekday midday, weekday evening, and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES Volume/Capacity and Level of Service analyses were conducted for the furore Build peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersection and driveways along Mai2 Road (NYS Rt. 25). Tables II through X provide a comprehensive Level of Service and delay comparison m~der the Existing, No- ~ ATL~aYnC Tmm~c & DF. SIGN ~WGI1NL~RS, INC. PAGE 10 Build, and Build conditions at the signal/zed intersection and driveways during the weekday midday, weekday evening, and Saturday midday peak hours. TABLE II COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (DELAY) TABLE MAIN ROAD (NYS RT. 25) & FACTORY AVENUE/SIGSBEE ROAD WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Group I[ Existing No-Build I[ Build EB Left EB Through/Right Il B08.0)B0%S) II B0%S) II C(21.2) II C(24.6) [[ C(25.7) WB Left II c(25.4) II c(26,6)IIc(27.0) II E(sZo)II F(9~.4)IIF(9%0) II c(32.8) I[ c(32.9)IIc(32.9) II c(34.3) ]l c04.5) IIc(34.5) WB Through/Right SB Left SB Through/Right NB Left II D(45.4) II D(4s,s) II I~(4s.s) NB Through/Right E(65.9) Overall D(38.2) II E(73,6) II E(74.7) - EB (Eastbound) and WB (Westbound) lane groups -- Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) - NB (Northbound) lane group = Sigsbee Road - SB (Southbound) lane group = FactoryAvenue - Delays are specified in seconds and are shown in parentheses. TABLE III COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (DELAY) TABLE MAIN ROAD (NYS RT. 25) & FACTORY AVENUE/SIGSBEE ROAD WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR Lane Group II Existing I[ No-Build Il Build EB Left B(13.5) I[ B(17.0) Il B(17.6) EB Through/Right A(8.8) II A(9,7) II A(9.9) wu Left II g0$.0) II B0S.~) II B0S.2) [I C02'9) Il WB Through/Right SB Left D(44.9) D(49.3) l[ D(46.9) II D(47.2) D(47.2) SB Through/Right II E(56.9) II E(60.3) E(60.3) NB Left II D(46.0) II D(46.0) Il D(46.0) NB Through/Right Il D(48.1) D(48.5) II D(48.6) Overall II C(25.3) il C(30.9) I[ C02.9) - EB (Eastbound) and WB (Westbound) lane groups = Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) - NB (Northbound) lane group = Sigsbee Road - SB (Southbound) lane group .= Facto~yAvenue - Delays are specified in seconds and are shown in parentheses. PAGE 11 TABLE IV COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (DELAY) TABLE MAIN ROAD (NYS RT. 25) & FACTORY AVENUE/SIGSBEE ROAD SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Lane Group II Existing No-Build Build EB Left B(16.4) EB Through/Right C(22.8) WB Left C(22.6) WI] Through/Right D(37.9) SB Left Il D(37.2) SB Through/Right [I D(37.6) NB Left B(18.2) II B(18.8) C(25.4) C(26.8) C(23.2) C(23.5) D(46.3) D(50.7) D(37.3) [I D(37.4) D(37.7) [I D(37.7) NB Through/Right II D(40.7) II D(43.0> D(40.7) II D(40.7) D(43.3) II D(43.4) Overall II C(30.6) C(34.5) l[ D(36.7) - EB (Eastbound) and Wl~ (Westbound) lane groups = Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) - NB (Northbound) lane group = Sigsbee Road - SB (Southbound) lane group = Factory Avenue - Delays are specified in seconds and are shown in parentheses. TABLE V COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (DELAY) TABLE MAIN ROAD (NYS RT. 25) & MARLENE LANE/WESTERLY SHOPPING CENTER DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Approach ][ Existing Il No-Build II Build Westbound II A(9.4) II A(9.7) II A(9.8) Northbound II C(22.7) II D(2a.7) II D(30.4) Southbound B(14.5) Il C(16.$) C06.9) - WB (Westbound) lane group = Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) - NB (Northbound) lane group = Marlene Lane - SB (Southbound) lane group = Westerly shopping center driveway ~ Delays are s pe ~ffied in seconds and are shown in parentheses. TABLE VI COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (DELAY) TABLE MAIN ROAD (NYS RT. 25) & MARLENE LANE/WESTERLY SHOPPING CENTER DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR Approach ~ Existing II No-Build Il Build Westbound II A<9,3>II A<9,6> II A<9.7) Northbound II c07.0)II c09.3> II c¢0.0) Southbound II C06.~)II C08.2) II c08.8) - WB (Westbound) lane group = Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) - NB (Northbound) lane group = Marlene Lane - SB (Southbound) lane group = Westerly shopping center driveway - Delays are specified in seconds and are shown in parentheses. PAGE 12 TABLE VII COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (DELAY) TABLE MAIN ROAD (NYS RT. 25) & MARLENE LANE/WESTERLY SHOPPING CENTER DRIVEWAY SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Approach II Existing II No-Build II Build Westbound [ A(9,8) II g00,0) II B(10.2) Northbound I[ C(20.4)II C(22.9)II C(24.1) Southbound I[ g(~.8) Il c0s,2) II c(~,6) - WB (Westbmmd) lane group = Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) - NB (Northbound) lane group = Marlene Lane - SB (Southbound) lane group = Westerly shopping center driveway - Delays are specified in seconds and are shown in parentheses. TABLE VIII COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (DELAY) TABLE MAIN ROAD (NYS RT. 25) & EASTERLY SHOPPING CENTER DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Approach II Existing II No-Build Build Eastbound II A(9.5) II A(lO.O) A(9.9) Westbound II --- II --- II A(9.6> Northbound II --- II --- c(23.4) Southbound II C(23.1) [ D(33.3) E(40.8) - EB (Eastbound) and WB (Westbound) lane groups = Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) - NB (Northbound) lane group = Marlene Road - SB (Southbound) lane group = Easterly shopping center driveway - Delays are specified in seconds and are shown in parentheses. TABLE IX COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (DELAY) TABLE MAIN ROAD (NYS RT. 25) & EASTERLY SHOPPING CENTER DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR Approach II Existing Il No-Build II Build Eastbound II B (10.1) II B(10.7) II B(10.6) Westbound Northbound II --- II --- II D(27.4) Southbound II D(25.9) II E(36.1) ][ E(44.0) - EB (Eastbound) and WB (Westbound) lane groups = Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) - NB (Northbound) lane group = Marlene Lane - SB (Southbound) lane group = Easterly shopping center driveway - Delays are specified in seconds and are shown in parentheses. PAGE 13 TABLE X COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (DELAY) TABLE MAIN ROAD (NYS RT. 25) & EASTERLY SHOPPING CENTER DRIVEWAY SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR ApproachII Exis ng II Eastbound II A(9.4> I[ Westbound II --- II Sur bonnd II --- II Southbound II C(24.0) II No-Build Build A(9.8) A(9.8) --~ A(9.7) - -- C(24.8) D(31.6) E08.7) - EB (Eastbound) and WB (Westbound) lane groups = Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) - NB (Northbound) lane group = Marlene Lane - SE (Southbound) lane group -- Easterly shopping center driveway - Delays are specified in seconds and are shown in parentheses. As shown, there would be no degradation in Level of Service at the signalized intersection of Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) and Factory Avenue/Sigsbee Road from the No-Build to Build Condition with the exception of the overall Level o£ Service during the Saturday midday peak hour, which is calculated to degrade to Level o£ Service D. As this degradation would be approximately two (2) seconds o£ delay, the increase in Level of Service would be acceptable. The unsignalized intersection of Main Road 0x!YS Rt. 25) and Marlene Lane/westerly shopping center driveway would continue to operate at No-Build Levels of Service during the study peak The easterly shopping center driveway is calculated to continue to operate at No-Build Levels of ServSce with the exception of the southbound approach, wh/ch would experience a minor degradation to Level of Serv/ce E during the weekday rrddday and Saturday midday peak horns. Please note, this 95th percentile queue during both peak hours is consistent with the three (3) vehicle queue in the No-Build condition. The northbound site driveway approach is calculated to operate at Level of Service C during the weekday midday and Saturday midday peak hours, and Level of Service D during the weekday evening peak hoar. As the Level of Service D translates to a 95d~ percentile queue length of approximately one (1) vehicle, the queue can be accommodated at the proposed site driveway without impeding on-site circulation. The additional site-generated traffic associated with the proposed Chase Bank is projected to comprise only 2.3% of the total future Build approach volmnes at the signalized intersection during PAGE 14 the respective study peak hours based on "new" traffic. Therefore, the proposed Chase Bank is expected to have minimal resulfing traffic impact on the surrounding roadway network and study intersection. PAGE 15 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION A re~/~ew has been made of the Site Alignment and Striping Plan (C3.01) for the proposed development, prepared by SaxAk & Murray, LLP, last revised July 1, 2009. In particular, a re,dew has been made focusing on site access, on-site circulation, and parking supply. The follov(mg items address on-site de~igu characteristics: The access configuration to the Chase Bank proposes a full-movement driveway along Main Road 0NYS Rt. 25) across from the easterly shopping center driveway, forming a four-legged unsignal/zed intersection. qPne New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) issued its approval of the application and site access plan on August 4, 2008, and based on recent discussions with the NYSDOT Permit Engineer, this approval remains valid to date. A westbound left-turn lane is proposed to accommodate the westbound ingress movement. This roadway capacity improvement would allow for the stacking of approximately four (4) vehicles within an exclusive mm bay so as not to impede through traffic. DRIVE-THRU' Drive thru banks are typically offered as time saving convenience since bank patrons do not need to park their vehicles and walk into a ban!ring facility. The three O) proposed ctrive-thru lanes, likewise, will offer to the local customer base the convenience of drive-up banking. ITE recognizes in Transportation and Land Development that "customers wilI not use the facility if the wait is too long and wJJl exercise the option of using the lobby, making the transaction at another time of the day, or mov'mg their account to a less congested institution." The Town of Southold's Zoning Code requires five (5) queuing spaces per drive thru teller lane, which Chase has provided to comply with this requirement. PAGE 16 Based on 4rive-thru smd{es conducted by our office at banks throughout Long Island, the maximum queuing observed during peak hour periods would be expected to be five (5) vehicles (total, all lanes). The proposed drive-thru windows and drive-up Automated Teller Mackine w~ provide a substantial benefit to on site circulation and also improve customer service, particularly for less ambulatory customers. Drive-thru w'mdows offer exped{ent and convenient service (particularly during inclement weather) and are especially beneficial for parents vAth small children and elderly or disabled persons who may find it easier to remain in their vehicles while awaiting bank service. PARKING Based on the Town of Southold's Zoning Ordinance, a drive:m bank requires one (1) space per 100 square feet of gross floor area or 42 stalls for a drive-in bank of the subject size. · The Site Alignment and Striping Plan prepared by Savik & Murray, LLP provides 42 on-site parking stalls, including 2 ADA stalls, thus satisfying the Town's parking requirement. PAGE 17 CONCLUSIONS The analysis has shown that the traffic impact of the proposed Chase Bank with dAve-thru service on the overall roadway system during the typical peak hours would be minimal. The Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) and Factory Avenue/Sigsbee Road signalized intersection would continue to operate at the acceptable overall Level of Ser,Ace D or better during the study peak hours. The "new" trips associated with the Chase Bank '¢flth drive-thru serv/ce would account for approximately only 2.3% of the future Build total intersection volumes during the critical peak periods. As such, the additional site-generated traffic associated with this Chase Bank with drive-thru service would have minimal traffic impact along the adjacent roadway network. The unsignalized intersections with Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) are calculated to operate at acceptable Levels of Service duFmg the weekday midday, weekday evening peak hour, Saturday midday peak hours in the Build condition with minor degradations in Level of Service as a result of the change in volume generated by the proposed Hudson City Savings Bank, 7-Eleven, and background growth. As these minor degradations are calculated to operate with future 95d~ percentile queue lengths that will not impede on-site circulation, the results are acceptable by current Traffic Engineering standards. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) issued its approval of the application and site access plan on August 4, 2008, and based on recent discussions ~vith the NYSDOT Perm{t Engineer, th/s approval remains valid to date. The Site Plan has been designed to provide adequate on-ske parking and queuing accommodations based on the Town of Southold's Zoning Ordinance. PAGE 18 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TECHNICAL APPENDIX FIGURES ATI~X~C TRAFFIC & DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York ~ ATLANTIC TRiFFIC DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. 2009 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 2 Proposed Chase Bank M~ttituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York JIL 54 -J 493 ~ 15' 1 601 Z 64 MATTITUCK PLAZA L6 · <--- ~.8MAIN ROAD ,[--- 42 (NYS RT 25) '1 i F .......... '-,;~ ......... 8 2 51 587 VACANT SITE LEGEND --= EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ~ = WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATrANT C & DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. 2009 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR Figure 3 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, NewYork L9 35 2 ~ 620 2 I 45 UJ Z MATTITUCK PLAZA MAIN ROAD (NYS RT 25) 642 I VACANT SiTE LEGEND ~ = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ~ = WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ~ ATLANTIC TRAFFIC & DESIGN ENGINEEI1S, INC. 2009 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 4 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York 191 o JIL 121 _ ¥! 48 MATTITUCK PLAZA 3 *-- ,~7~ MAIN ROAD ~ ,[-- s~ (NYS RT 25) 774 ~ LLI 83 '"IFF 745 ~ VACANT SITE 4--.-- 649 812 ~ LEGEND -- = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ~ = SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES -- SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Axr rnc DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. "NEW" SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York MATTITUCK PLAZA MAIN ROAD (NYS RT 25) 0% 0% 4% 44% LEGEND ~ = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ = "NEW" PEAt( HOUR DiSTRIBUTiON = SIGNALIZED INTERS ECIION AT _ rric DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. "PASS*BY" SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York 0% 0% 0% ~ 0% F' MATTITUCK PLAZA 0% 0% LU Lo% ~ o'/. MAIN ROAD ~-- ~'% (NYS RT 25) ._1 CHASEO LEGEND ~' = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ ="PASS-BY" PEAK HOUR DISTRIBUTION = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATLANTIC TRAmC DESIGN I~IGINEERS, INC. "NEW" SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 7 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southoid Suffolk County, New York MATTITUCK PLAZA o MAIN ROAD (NYS RT 25) 33' LEGEND -- = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ =WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION "NEW" SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR Figure 8 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southoid Suffolk County, New York Lo LLI Z Z LM MATTITUCK PLAZA (NYSRT25) ~J ILi ~'-" CHAESE O ENTER32 J EXIT 32 LEGEND ~ = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ = WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATLANTIC TRAFFIC & DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. "NEW" SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES - SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 9 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York JIL -' 1! MATTITUCK PLAZA Lo o o omqlF LU I ! ilo MAIN ROAD o ~ o [~-o LEGEND -- = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ = SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATL~CrIC TRAF~C DESIGN F~GINEERS, INC. "PASS-BY" SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 10 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York o o Lo MATTITUCK PLAZA MAIN ROAD (NYS RT 25) _1 ILir-'° .-o CHASEO LEGEND -- = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DFUVEWAY ~ = WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATLANTIC TRAFFIC & DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. "PASS-BY" SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR Figure 11 Proposed Chase Bank Mat[ituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York o--~ 0 MATTITUCK PLAZA · 0 0 Z L--0 ~-- o MAIN ROAD ~--o (NYS RT 25) J ILir'° CHASE ENTER [ ES(IT 22 22 LEGEND -- = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY "<---' = WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES -- SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATLANTIC TRAFFIC &DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. "PASS-BY" SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES - SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 12 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southo[d Suffolk County, New York o AIL -o o MATTITUCK PLAZA o o Z Lo '*-- o MAIN ROAD ,[--- o (NYS RT 25) "'1 I F J ILir~ ._.o CHASED LEGEND -- =EXISTtNG ROADWAY ............. = eXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRiVeWAY ~ = SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ~ ATLANTIC TRAFFIC DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. TOTAL SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 13 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York o MATTITUCK PLAZA o o o 1 UJ LLI MAIN ROAD o (NYS RT 25) .,,a .......... :~.i.~...F.r~- CHASE ENTER57 I EXIT55 LEGEND --' = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ = WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = StGNAUZED INTERSECTION ATLANTIC TRAFFIC & DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. TOTAL SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR Figure 14 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York o o MATTITUCK PLAZA *'-- 46 MAIN ROAD ,r-- ~ (NYS RT 25) ENTER54 I EXIT 54 LEGEND -- = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ = WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATLANTIC TRAFFIC & DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. TOTAL SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES - SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 15 Propgsed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York o o o MATTITUCK PLAZA MAIN ROAD (NYS RT 25) .......... CHASEO ENTER58 [ EXIT 53 LEGEND -- = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ = SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATLANTIC TRAFFIC & DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. 2011 "NO-BUILD" TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 16 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York 247 97 59 91 ~ 541 36 7-ELEVEN I 4O 666 -~ 117 MATTITUCK PLAZA MAIN ROAD (NYS RT 25) 2 652 VACANT SITE 747 726 ~ LEGEND = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ~ = WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INIERSECTION Tr mc DESIGN F.2qGINEERS, INC. 2011 "NO-BUILD" TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR Figure 17 Proposed Chase Bank MatUtuck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York 7-ELEVEN 36 MATTITUCK PLAZA L9 2 ..,-- ?08 MAIN ROAD [ ~ '~' (NYS RT 25) LB 1 46 t 692 ) VACANT SITE 826 745 I LEGEN~ -- = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ~ = WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATLANTIC TRAFFIC & DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. 2011 "NO-BUILD" TRAFFIC VOLUMES - SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 18 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York ~ L sa 7-ELEVEN 1 t-- ~ 64 40 94 727 ~ 27 46 24 z9 "~ IX: f-- ,~ j L~o .j 3 822 ~ 87 MATTITUCK PLAZA MAiN ROAD (NYS RT 25) VACANT SITE ~, 735 861 ~ LEGEND ~ = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ~ = SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATLANTIC TRAFFIC & DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. 2011 "BUILD" TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 19 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York 97 59 J! 248 I! <~ t.- os 7-ELEVEN o 570 ~ 4O 4 68 MATTITUCK PLAZA 2 54 MAiN ROAD (NYS RT 25) 762 LEGEND -- = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ = WEEKDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNALIZED INIERSECTION ATLANTIC TRAFFIC & DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. 2011 "BUILD" TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~ WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR Figure 20 Proposed Chase Bank Matti[uck, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York 169 78 28 63 o ,o-J'lti-- 653 ~ 20 35 21 MATTITUCK PLAZA L9 ~ 724 r"- eo LtJ LM LLI I ! MAIN ROAD (NYS RT 25) I Lit" _,,, I , I I IZHA55EO I 54 54 ~ I LEGEND -- = EXISTING ROADWAY ............. = EXISTING DRIVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ = WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ATL 'T C TRAgiC DESIGN ENGINEERS, INC. 2011 "BUILD" TRAFFIC VOLUMES - SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Figure 21 Proposed Chase Bank Mattituck, Town of Southold Suffolk Coun[7, New York 2OO ?$6 ..i~r~.. 7-ELEVEN 64 94 88 LU Z T MATTITUCK PLAZA MAIN ROAD (NYS RT 25) 43 1 752 CHASEO LEGEND -- = EXISTING ROAOWAY ............. = EXISTING ORiVEWAY ....... = PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ~ = SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES = SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION TECHNICAL APPENDIX DESIGN EAIGINEERS, INC. LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS While traffic volumes provide a measure of actW~ty on the area roadway system, it is also important to evaluate how well that system can accommodate those volumes -- i.e., a comparison of peak traffic volumes with av~dlable roadway capacity. By derivation, capadty represents the mum number of veh/cles wh/ch can be accommodated given the constraints of roadway geometry, em/rronment, traffic characteristics, and controls. Intersections are usually the critical pcfmt in may road network since it is at such pcfmts that conflicts exist between through, crossing, and mmmg traffic, and where congestion is most 1/kely to occur. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS An unsignalized (i.e., "YIELD" or "STOP" sign controlled) driveway or side street along a tl~rongh route is seldom critical from an overall capacity standpoint, however, it may be of great sLgrfificance to the capacity of the minor eross-route, and it may influence the quality of traffic flow on both. In analyzing unsignalized intersections, it is assumed that both the through movements and fight rum movements on the major street approaches are unimpeded and have the right-of-way over the rr~ur street approaches and left turns from the major street. All other mrvAng movements in the intersection cross, merge with, or are otherwise impeded by the major street movements. The concept in determining traffic delays at an unsignalized intersection is to process these impeded movements in a sequential mariner. For each impeded movement, all conflicting flows are summed, and an initial critical 'gap' in traffic is determined with a "follow-up" gap determined for subsequent vehicles waiting in a queue. Based upon the number of available gaps in flie passing traffic stream, the potential capacity of that movement can be calculated. However, since operation at capacity is usually unsatisfactory to most drivers, a descriptive mechanism (Levd of Service) has been devdoped which describes traffic operations as a function of average total dday. Unsignalized Levds of Sewice range from 'A' (delays less than 10 seconds) to (delays greater than 50 seconds). Table I summarizes the relationship between capacity and Level of Service for unsignalized intersections as deemed by the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2000. LEVEL OF SERVICE AND EXPECTED DELAY FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY (SEC./VEH.) A _~10 B >10 and_< 15 C >I5 and < 25 D >25 and_< 35 E >35 and<50 F > 50 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capaci~ Manual, .HCM2000~ 2000, by the Transportation Research Board, Wast~ngton, D.C. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS At signalized intersections, numerous other factors regulate the various approach capacities, including ~vidth of approach, nrtmber of lanes, signal "green time", tt~rrfi~g percentages, truck volumes, etc. As with unsignalized intersections, operation at capacity is far from satisfactory since substantial delays or reduced operating speeds are likely. Therefore, a sLrrJJlar description mechanism has been developed (also called Level of Service) which indicates, on tlxe basis of average delay per vehicle, the relative smoothness of intersection operation on a scale of 'A' (indicating average delays of 10 seconds or less) to 'F' (indicating average delays greater than 80 seconds). The various levels of signalized intersections are summarized in Table II. Again, the acceptable limit of delay for most motorists is Level of Service 'E'. Delays cannot be related to overall roadway capacity in a sknple one-to one fasbion. It is possible to have delays in the Level of Service 'F' range, without exceeding the physical roadway capacity. Such delays can exist if one or more of the following conditions exist: long s/gnal cycle lengths (the time of complete a full seqnence of s/gnal phases); the particular traffic movement experiences a long red lime; or, a progressive movement for a particular lane group is poor. LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION AVERAGE SERVICE TOTAL DELAY A Progression is very favorable; many vehicles do not stop at all; <10 short cycle length contributes to low delay values. B Generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle >10 and _< 20 length; more vehicles stop than with Level of Service A, cauZmg 14gher levels of delay. C Fak progression and/or loaner cycle length; the number of >20and_<35 vehicles stoplYmg is sigrdficant at this level, though many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Longer delays may result from unfavorable progression, long > 35 and_< 55 cycle length, or h~gh volume/capadty ratios; many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines; individual cycle failures are noticeable E These t4gh delay values generally indicate poor progression, > 55 and _< 80 loan cycle length, and high volume/capacity ratios; individual cycle fa/lures are frequent. F Considered unacceptable to most drivers; often occurs with > 80 over-saturation (£e. arrival flow rates exceed capadty), high volume/capadty ratios, and many individual cycle failures. Capacity is not necessarily exceeded under this Level of Service. Transportation Research Board, Highway CapaciW Manual, HCM2000, 2000, published by the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. TECHNICAL APPENDIX HIGHWAY CAPACITY' ANALYSIS Main Road & Factory Avenue/Sigsbee Place Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS+" DETAILED REPORT Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Factory/Sigsbee Agency or Co. A TDE Area Type Al~ other areas Date Performed 8/25/2009 Jurisdiction Town of Southo/d Time Period Weekday Midday Analysis Year Exieting Project ID AN09026 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N~ 1 I 0 I 1 0 I 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 54 493 53 4f 472 42 36 55 38 88 57 93 % Heaw Vehicles, %HV 15 4 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.85 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Stad-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 i 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 G0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 17 Lane Width 12.0 fl.5 12.0 12.0 10.0 9.0 10.5 ~1.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G= 15.0 G= 35.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 10.0 G= G= Timing Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T=0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 65 653 45 562 49 117 104 156 Lane Group Capacity, c 293 931 226 598 160 154 404 396 vic Ratio, X 0.22 O. 70 0.20 0.94 0.31 0.70 0.26 0.39 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.52 G52 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.10 0.24 0.24 Uniform Delay, d~ 17.7 18.8 25.0 34.0 44.3 46.3 32.5 33.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.27 0,11 0.45 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 2.4 0.4 23.0 1.1 19.6 0.3 0.6 Init!al Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 18.0 21.2 25.4 57.0 45.4 65.9 32.8 34.3 Lane Group LOS B C C E D E C C Approach Delay 20.9 54.7 59.8 33.7 Approach LOS C D E C Intersection Delay 38.2 X. = 0.62 Intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Rese~ed HCS+m Version 5.21 file://C:\Documents and Setfings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\s2k2405.tmp 12/4~2009 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 Hca+' DETAILED REPORT Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Factory/Sigabee Agency or Co. ATDE Area Type All other areaa Date Performed 12/4/2009 Jurisdiction Town of Southold Time Period Weekday Midday Analysis Year No-Build Project ID AN09026 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, NI 1 1 0 I 1 0 I I 0 1 I 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 63 555 55 44 541 44 38 59 39 91 59 97 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 15 4 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.85 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pad / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 17 LaneWidth 12.0 ,11.5 I2.0 12.0 10.0 9.0 10.5 11.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G= 15.0 G= 35.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 10.0 G= ' G= Timing Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T=O.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 EB VVI3 NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 76 730 48 640 52 125 107 t63 Lane Group Capacity, c 293 932 173 599 160 154 404 396 v/c Ratio, X 0.26 0.78 0.28 1.07 0.32 0.81 0.26 0.41 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.52 0.52 0.33 0.33 0.10 0. t0 0.24 0.24 Uniform Delay, dI 19.0 20.2 25.7 35.0 44.3 46.6 32.5 33.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.50 0. tl 0.35 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 4.4 0.9 56.4 1.2 27.0 0.4 0.7 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 19.5 24.6 26.6 91.4 45.5 73.6 32.9 34.5 Lane Group LOS B C C F D E C C Approach Delay 24.1 86.9 65.3 33.8 Approach LOS ' C F E C Interseciion Delay 51.5 Xo = 0.68 Intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, Ali Rights Reserved HC$+m Version 5 21 file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\s2klF1A.tmp 12/4/2009 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS+TMDETAILED REPORT Analyst BMZ intersection Main Rd & Factory/Sigsbee Agency or Co. ATDE Area Type AII other areas Date Performed 12/4/2009 Jurisdiction Town of $outheld Time Period Weekday Midday Analysis Year Build Project ID AN09026 EB W8 NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 I I 0 I 1 0 I I 0 I 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 63 570 55 45 555 44 38 59 40 92 59 97 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 15 4 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.63 0.83 0.83 0.91 0.91 0. gl 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.85 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Stad-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ardval Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 17 Lane Width 12.0 11.5 12.0 12.0 10.0 9.0 ' 10.5 11.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G= 15.0 G= 35.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 10.0' G= G= Timing Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 76 748 49 655 52 126 108 163 Lane Group Capacity, c 293 932 161 599 160 154 404 396 vic Ratio, X 0.26 0.80 0.30 1.09 0.32 0.82 0.27 0.41 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.52 ,0.52 0.33 0.33 0.10 O. 10 0.24 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 20.5 26.0 35.0 44.3 46.6 32.5 33.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.35 0.1t 0.50 0.11 0.36 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 5.1 1.1 64.9 1.2 28.1 0.4 0.7 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 19.5 25.7 27.0 99,9 45.5 74.7 32.9 34.5 Lane Group LOS B C C F D E C C Approach Delay 25.1 94.8 66.2 33.0 Approach LOS C F E C intersection Delay 54.8 X, = 0.70 intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 Unlvemity of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C:~D0cuments and Settings\bzimolka\L0cal Settings\Temp\s2klF64.tmp 12/4/2009 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS+= DETAILED REPORT Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Factoty/Sigsbee Agency or Co. A TDE Area Type All other areas Date Performed 8/25/2009 Jurisdiction Town of Southo/d Time Period Weekday Evening Analysis Year Existing Project ID AN09026 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT i Number of Lanes, N~ I 1 0 I 1 0 1 I 0 1 I 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L ' TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 60 577 46 22 606 29 19 32 19 60 27 75 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.9'/ 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.81 0.8t 0.81 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Stad-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT I 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 ;3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped/ Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 16 Lane Width 12.0 11.5 12.0 12.0 10.'0 9.0 10.5 11.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing I EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G= 17.0 G= 50.0 G= G= G= 10.0 'G= 8.0 G= G= Timing Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T=0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 68 676 26 747 21 48 74 106 Lane Group Capacity, c 403 1234 369 871 128 125 163 157 vic Ratio, X 0.16 0.55 0.07 0.86 0.16 0.38 0.45 0.68 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.69 0.69 0.48 0.48 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 Uniform Delay, dl 13.4 8.3 14.9 24.3 45.4 46.2 44.9 45.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1~000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.39 0.1't 0.11 0.1t 0.25 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.5 0.1 8.5 0.6 2.0 2.0 10.9 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 13.5 8.8 15.0 32.9 46.0 48.1 46.9 56.9 Lane Group LOS B A B C D D D E Approach Delay 9.2 32.3 47.5 52.8 Approach LOS A C D D Intersection Delay 25.3 Xo = 0.67 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Flodda, All Rights Reserved file://CSDocuments and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\s2k24D2.tmp 12/4/2009 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS+" DETAILED REPORT Analyst BMZ intersection Main Rd & Factory/Sigsbee Agency or Co. ATDE Area Type All other areas Date Performed 12/4/2009 Jurisdiction Town of Southold Time Period Weekday Evening Analysis Year No-Build Project ID AN09026 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N~ I 1 0 I I 0 1 1 0 1 I 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 70 639 48 25 671 30 20 35 20 62 28 78 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.81 0.81 i 0.81 Prefimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Stad-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 I Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 I 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 'i. O00 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped/ Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 16 Lane Width 'i2.0 11.5 12.0 12.0 10.0 g,o 10.5 11.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G= 17.0 G= 50.0 G= G= G='IO.O G= 8.0 IG= G= Timing Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y~ 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = O. 25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 77 746 29 824 22 52 77 112 Lane Group Capacity, c 364 1235 346 87'i '128 125 163 157 v/c Ratio, X i0.21 0.60 0.08 0.95 0.17 0.42 0.47 0.71 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.69 0.69 0.48 0.48 0.08 0.08 0.10 O. 10 Uniform Delay, dl 16.7 8.9 'i5.0 26.2 45.4 46.3 45,0 45.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0,19 0.11 0.46 0.71 0.11 0.11 0.28 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.8 0.1 18.7 0.6 2.2 2.2 14.2 initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay t7.0 9.7 ~5.1 44.9 46.0 48.5 47.2 60.3 Lane Group LOS B A B D D D D E Approach Delay 10.4 43.9 47.8 55.0 Approach LOS B / D D D Intersection Delay 30.9I X¢ = 0.73 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of FIorida, All RiGhts Reserved HCS+~ Version 5.21 Generated: 12/4/2009 2:57 PM file://C:~Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\s2klF2C.tmp 12/4/2009 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS+" DETAILED REPORT Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Factory/Sigsbee Agency or Co. ATDE Area Type All other areas Date Performed t2/4/2009 Jurisdiction Town of Southold Time Period Weekday Evening Analysis Year Build Project ID AN09026 EB ~ NB SB LT TH RT LT TH ET LT TH I RT LT TH ET Number o1 Lanes, N1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Group L TR L 'TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 70 653 48 26 685 31 20 35 21 63 28 78 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.81 0.81 0.81 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 ~0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3. Q 3.0 Filtedn~/Metedng, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 initial Unrnet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 18 Lane Width 12.0 11,5 12.0 12.0 10.0 9.0 : 10.5 11.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G= 17.0 G= 50.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= &0 G= G= Timing Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T=O.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flaw Rate, v 77 762 31 842 22 53 78 112 Lane Group Capacity, c 364 1235 340 871 128 125 163 157 v/c Ratio, X 0.21 0.62 0,09 0.97 0. f7 0.42 0.48 I 0.71 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.69 0.69 0.48 0.48 0.08 0.08 0.10 O. 10 Uniform Delay, dl 17.4 9.0 15.1 26.7 45.4 46.3 45.0 46.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.47 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.28 Incremental Delay, dg 0.3 0.9 0.1 22.6 0.6 2.3 2.2 14.2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 17.6 9.9 15.2 49.3 46.0 48.6 47.2 60.3 Lane Group LOS B A B D D D D E Approach Delay 10.6 48,1 47.9 54,9 Approach LOS B D D D Intersection Delay 32.9 X~ = 0.75 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Generated: 12/4~2009 2:59 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\s2klF7A.tmp 12/4/2009 Detailed Report Page 1 of I HCS+" DETAILED REPORT Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Factory/Sigsbee Agency or Co. ATDE Area Type All ether areas Date Performed 8/25/2009 Jurisdiction Town of Southold Time Period Saturday Midday Analysis Year Existing Project ID AN09026 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Nl I 1 0 I 1 0 1 I 0 I 1 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 65 682 28 20 491 14 26 42 23 91 39 61 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-Hoer Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.87 G87 0.87 Pretimed (P) or Actuated IA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Stad-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 ~.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 Lane Width 12.0 11.5 12.0 12.0 10.0 9.0 10.5 11.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G= 13.0 G= 38.0 G= G= G= 20.0 G= 14.0 G= G= Timing Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T=O.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 68 733 22 540 37 89 105 112 I Lane Group Capacity, c 343 964 '191 665 225 217 327 318 v/c Ratio, X 0.20 0.76 0.12 0.81 0.16 0.41 0.32 0.35 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.19 Uniform Delay, d~ 16.1 ~9.2 22.3 30.3 40.3 41.7 36.6 30.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 3~6 0.3 7.6 0.3 1.3 0.6 0.7 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 16.4 22.8 22.6 37.9 40.7 43.0 37.2 37.6 Lane Group LOS B C C D D D D D Approach Delay 22.3 37.3 42.3 37.4 Approach LOS C D D D intersection Delay 30,6 X. = 0.62 Intersection LOS C Copydgh( © 2005 University of Flodda, AI~ Rights Reserved Generated: 12/M2009 5:54PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\TemP\s2k24E4.tmp 12/4/2009 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT Analyst BMZ Agency or Co, ATDE Date Pedormed 12/4/2009 Time Period Saturday Midday Intersection Main Rd & Factory/Sigsbee Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Town of Southold Analysis Year No-Build Project ID AN09026 EB 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm Y= 03 G = ~13.0 G = 38.0 G = Timing Y= 5 Y= 5 Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G= 20.0 G= 14.0 G= Cycle Length, C = 105.0 LOS Approach Delay 24.7 45.4 37.5 Approach LOS C D D Intersection Delay 34.5 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserve(~ HCS+~ Version 5,21 Generated: 12/4/2009 2;58 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\s2klF3F.tmp 12/4/2009 Detailed Report Page 1 of 1 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Factory/Sigsbee Agency or Co. A TDE Area Type All other areas Date Pedormed 12/4/2009 Jurisdiction Town of Southold Time Period Saturday Midday Analysis Year Build Project ID AN09026 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Nl I I 0 I I 0 1 I 0 1 I 0 Lane Group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 78 747 29 24 559 15 27 46 25 96 40 64 % Heaw Vehicles, %HV 0 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.71 0.71 0.7t 0.87 0.87 0.87 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Loat Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green1 e 2.0 2.0 2,0 2;0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 Lane Width 12.0 tl.5 12.0 12.0 10.0 9.0 10.5 11.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G= 13.0 G= 38.0 G= G= G= 20.0 G= 14.0 G= G= Timing Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T=O.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 EB WB NB I SB LT TH RT LT YH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 81 802 26 614 i 38 97 'i10 116 Lane Group Capacity, c 295 964 'i42 665 225 217 327 318 vic Ratio, X 0.27 0.83 0.18 0.92 0~17 0.45 0.34 0.36 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.19 Uniform Delay, d~ 18.3 20.6 ' 22.9 32.1 40.3 419 36.8 37.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 t.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.37 0.11 0.44 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, dg 0.5 6.3 0.6 18.6 0.4 1.5 0.5 0.7 Initiel Queue De[ay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Control Delay 18.8 26.8 23.5 50.7 40.7 43.4 37,4 37.7 Lane Group LOS B C C D D D D D Approach Delay 26.1 49.6 42,6 37.5 Approach LOS C D D D Intersection Delay 36.7 Xc = 0.67 Intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\s2klFg0.tmp 12/4/2009 TECHNICAL APPENDIX HIGHWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS Main Road and Marlene/Shopping Center Driveway Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TVVO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Marlene Ln/Ddveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 8/26/2009 Analysis Year Existing Analysis Time Period Weekday Midday ~roject Description AN09026 --astNVestStreet: MainRoad(NYSRt25) Nor~h/SouthStreet: MarfeneLaneA/VestDriveway ntersectirm Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs: 0.25 rvlajor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 601 18 42 508 6 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 724 21 46 558 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - _ 0 - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 I 0 Lanes 0 I 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L TR Upstream Signal I 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 I 11 12 L T R L T R iVolume (veh/h) 8 2 51 4 39 ~eak-Hour Factor, P HF O. 70 O. 70 O. 70 O. 83 0.83 O. 83 dourly Flow Rate, HFR ~ I 2 72 0 4 46 ;veh/h) ~ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 2 2 Percent ~rade ~%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 '/ 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR TR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L TR TR v (veh/h) 46 85 50 .3 (m) (veh/h) 872 287 427 /lc 0.05 0.30 O. 12 95% queue length 0.17 1.20 0.39 .~ontrol Delay (s/veh) 9.4 22.7 14.5 LOS A C B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- 22.7 14.5 Approach LOS -- C B Copyright © 2005 Universgy of Florida, All nights Reserved HCS+~ Version 5.21 Generated: 12/4/2009 5:54 PM file://C:kDocuments and Settings\bzimotka\Local Settings\Temp\u2k24Es}tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Madene Ln/Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 12/4/2009 Analysis Year No-Build Analysis Time Period Weekday Midday Project Description AN09026 East/WestStreet: Main Road (NYS Rt 25) Nor[h/SouthStreet: Marlene Lane/West Ddveway intersection Orientation: East-West Study Per od (hrs): 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement I 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 666 '~9 44 60t 6 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.83 0.83 0. gl 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 802 22 48 660 6 (veh/h) Percent Heaw Vehicles 0 - 0 -- - Median Type Undivided ~T Ch~nnelized 0 0 .anes 0 I 0 1 1 0 3onfiguration TR L TR Jpstream Si[Inal 0 0 Vlinor Street Northbound Southbound Vlovement 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h/ 8 2 53 4 40 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 2 75 0 4 48 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approac~ ' N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 I 0 / Configuration I L TR TR Approach Eastbound Westbound Nodhbound Southbound Movement I 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L TR TR v (veh/h) 48 88 52 C (m) (veh/h) 8'15 238 364 vic 0.06 0.37 0.14 95% queue length O. 19 ~.62 0.49 Control Delay (sA/eh) 9.7 28.7 16.5 _OS A D C ~,pproach Delay (sA/eh) - 28. 7 16.5 Approach LOS -- D C Copyright © 2005 Univers[ly of Florida, All Rights Reserved HOa+m Version 5.21 Generated: 12/4/2009 3:00 PM ~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\L0cal Settings\Temp\u2klF95.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Marlene Ln/Dfiveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 12/4/2009 Analysis Year Build Analysis Time Period Weekday Midday ~roject Description AN09026 --astNVestStreet: Main Road (NYS Rt 25) North/SouthStreet: Marlene LaneA4/est Driveway ntersection Orientation: East-West Study Per od hrs): 0.25 ~laior Street Eastbound Westbound Movement I 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 683 19 45 616 6 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 822 22 49 676 6 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channel[zed I 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L TR Upstream S[¢nal 0 0 Minor Street Nodhbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 '~ 1 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 8 2 54 4 40 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF O. 70 O. 70 O. 70 0.83 0.83 0.83 -{oudy Flow Rate, HFR '/1 2 77 0 4 48 /eh/h) ~ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 0 0 ~ercent Grade (%) 0 0 :lared Approach N N Storage 0 0 F~T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 '/ 0 Configuration L TR TR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L TR TR v (veh/h) 40 90 52 C (m) (veh/h) 80'i 230 355 vic 0.06 0.39 0.15 95% queue length 0.20 1.75 0.51 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 30.4 16.9 _OS A D C ~,pproach Delay (s/veh) 30.4 ~5.9 ~,pproach LOS D C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+m Version 5.21 Generated: 1214/2009 3:01 PM file://C:~Documents and Settings\bzimOlka\LoCal Settings\Temp\u2klFA2.tmP 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 T~NO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Mar/eno Ln/Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Pedormed 8/26/2009 Analysis Year Existing Analysis Time Period Weekday Evening Project Description AN09026 EastNVestStreet: Main Road (NYS Rt 25) North/SouthStreet: Madene Lane/West Ddveway [ntersecfion Orientation: East-West Study Perod (hfs); 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 847 9 47 620 9 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 710 9 55 729 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - .. 0 - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Nodhbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 I 45 2 35 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.77 0.77 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 t 54 0 2 45 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Approach I N N Flared Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 I 0 0 I 0 3onfiguration L TR TR J (veh/h) 55 57 47 2 (m) (veh/h) 892 356 372 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.3 17.0 16.1 C Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.0 '/6.'/ Copyright © 2005 University of Flodda, All Rights Reserved HCS+~ Version 5,21 Generated; 1214/2009 5:55PM file://C:\DocUments and settings\bzimolka\LOcal Settings\Temp\u2k24EB.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Marlene Ln/Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 12/4/2009 Analysis Year No-Build Analysis Time Period Weekday Evening Project Description AN09026 East/WestStreet: MainRoad(NYSRt25) North/SouthStreet: MarleneLane/WestDriveway Intersection Orientation: East-West StudyPerod hfs: 0.25 I Maior Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 712 I 9 49 708 9 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.91 0.9'1 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 782 9 57 832 10 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - 0 - Median Type Undivided {T Channelized 0 0 .aries 0 I 0 I I 0 Z. onfigumtion TR L TR Jpstream Signal 0 0 Vlinor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 I 46 2 36 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.77 0.77 Hourly Flow Rate. HFR 2 1 56 0 2 46 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0/ 1 0 0 '/ 0 ]onfiguration I LTR TR ~,pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Vlovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ane Configuration L L TR TR v (veh/h) 57 59 48 C (m) (veh/h) 838 310 320 vic 0.07 0.19 0.15 95% queue length 0.22 0.69 0.52 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.6 19.3 18.2 LOS A C C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- - 19.3 18.2 Approach LOS .... C C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Generated; 1214/2009 3:01 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolkaLLocal Settings\Temp\u2klFgA.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TVVO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY GeneraL!nf6rmat~on ..~..~, ~. ,~ Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Marlene Ln/'Ddveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 12/4/2009 Analysis Year Build Analysis Time Period Weekday Evening Project Description AN09026 East/WestStreet: MainRoad(NYSRt25) Nor[h/SouthStreet: MadeneLaneA4/estDfiveway Intersection Orientation: Eaat-West StudyPerod (hfs): 0.25 ~lajor Street Eastbound Westbound Vlovement ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (yah/h) 728 9 50 724 g Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0,91 0.9~ 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 799 9 58 851 t0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- - 0 - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 I 1 0 Configuration TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Nodhbound Southbound Movemeht 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ;Volume (veh/h) 2 I 47 2 36 ~eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.77 0.77 -{ourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 I 57 0 2 46 '~veh/h) Percent Heaw Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 I 0 Configuration L TR TR Approach Eastbound Westbound Nodhbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ane Configuration L L TR TR z (veh/h) 58 60 48 3 (m) (veh/h) 826 300 309 vic 0.07 0.20 0,16 95% queue length 0,23 O, 73 0,54 ;ontrol Delay (s/yah) 9.7 20.0 18.8 LOS A C C Approach Delay (sNeh) -- 20.0 ~ 8.8 Approach LOS __ - C C Copyright © 2005 University of Elorida, All Rights Reserved Generated: 12/4,~009 3:02 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2klFA7.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Marlene Ln/Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE lurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 8/26/2009 Analysis Year Existing Analysis Time Period Saturday Midday Project Description AN09026 East/West Street: Main Road (NYS Rt 25) North/South Street: Marlene Lane/West Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Pared hfs): 0.25 Meier Street Eastbound Westbound Movement I 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 774 22 58 475 14 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF f.00 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 806 22 62 5fO f5 (yah/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - _ 0 - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 I 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 1 'i 12 L T R L T R Volume (yah/h) 2 5 51 3 48 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 5 60 0 3 54 iveh/h) >ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 2 =ercent Grade (%) 0 0 --lared Approach N N Storage 0 0 :tT Channelized 0 0 _anes 0 1 0 0 I 0 $onflguration L TR TR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L TR TR v (veh/h) 82 67 57 C (m) (yah/h) 812 301 466 v/c 0.08 0.22 0.12 95% queue length 0.25 0,84 0.41 Control Delay (s/yah) 9.8 20.4 13.8 LOS A C B Approach Delay (s/yah) -- 20.4 13.8 Approach LOS -- C B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Generate~: 12/412009 5:55 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2k24EE.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Marlene Ln/Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 12/4/2009 Analysis Year No-Build Analysis Time Period Saturday Midday Project Description ANOg026 EastNVestStreet: MainRoad(NYSRt25) North/SouthStreet: MarleneLane/WestDriveway ntersecfion Orientation: East-West Stud},Perod (hrs): 0.25 Vlajor Street Eastbound I Westbound Vlovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R[ L T R Volume (veh/h) 822 23 60 554 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate. HFR 0 856 23 64 595 16 (veh/h) Percent Heaw Vehicles 0 .. 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized I 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 I 1 0 Configuration TR L TR iUpstream Signal 0 0 Vlinor Street Northbound I Southbound Movement 7 8 I 9I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R ~/olume (veh/h) 2 5 53 3 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 5 63 0 3 56 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 I 0 0 '/ 0 .3onfigurafion L TR TR Approach Eastbound I Westbound Nodhbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 I 11 12 Lane Configuration L L TR TR v (veh/h) 64 70 59 C (m) (veh/h) 777 270 411 vic 0.08 0.26 0.14 95% queue length 0.27 1.01 0.50 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.0 22.9 15.2 .OS B C C ~,pproach Delay (s/veh) _ -- 22.9 ~5.2 ~,pproach LOS -- C C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2klF9E.tmp 12/4/2009 Two'Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & Mar/eno Ln/Driveway Agency/Co. ATDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 8/26/2009 Analysis Year Build Analysis Time Period Saturday Midday ~roject Description AN09026 EastNVestStreet: Main Road (NYS Rt 25) Nor[h/S0uthStreet: Marlene Lane/West Driveway ntersection Orientation: East-West Study Per od (hrs): 0.25 '~lajor Street Eastbound Westbound 'vlovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 845 23 82 572 '15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF '1.00 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 880 23 66 6'15 16 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ~- 0 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 '1 0 '1 1 0 Configuration TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 '11 .12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 5 55 3 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 5 65 0 3 56 iveh/h) ~ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 2 2 =ercent Grade (%) 0 0 --lared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 '1 0 0 I 0 Configuration L TR TR Approach Eastbound Westbound Nodhbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L TR TR v (veh/h) 66 72 59 C (m) (veh/h) 761 260 397 vic 0.09 0.28 O. '15 95% queue length 0.28 ~. 10 0.52 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.2 24.1 15.6 _OS B C C ~,pproach Delay (s/veh) .... 24.1 '15.6 ~,pproach LOS -- C C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, A~I Rights Rose.ed HCS+,~ Version 5.21 Generated: 12/4~2D09 3:02 PM file://C:\DocUments and settings\bzimOlka\Local Settings\Temp\u2klFAB.tmp 12/4/2009 TECHNICAL APPENDIX HIGHWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS Main Road & East Shopping Center Driveway Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & East Driveway Agency/Co. ATDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 8/26/2009 Analysis Year Existing Analysis Time Period Weekday Midday Project Description AN09026 EastJVVestStreet: MainRoad(NYSRt25) North/SouthStreet: EaatShoppin~/CenterDriveway Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud},Per od (hfs): 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (yah/h) 65 587 517 131 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.9'1 0.9'~ 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 78 707 0 0 568 '143 (yah/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 .... 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 .anes I I 0 0 1 0 3onfiguration L T TR Jpstream Signal 0 0 Vlinor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 718L T R9 10II1L T 12R Volume (veh/h) 71 39 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.86 0.83 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 82 0 45 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR ~,pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ~lovem ant 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR ~' (yah/h) 78 127 C (m) (veh/h) 879 324 v/c 0.09 0.39 95% queue length 0.29 'lBO Control Delay (s/veh) 9.5 23.1 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) .. 23. Approach LOS -- C Copyright © 20(35 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+m Version 5.21 Generated: 1214P2009 5:55 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2k24F3.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ intersection Main Rd & East Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town ~f Southold Date Pedormed 12/4/2009 I Analysis Year No-Bultd Analysis Time Period Weekday Midday ~ ~rcject Description AN09026 :ast/West Street: Main Road (NYS Rt25) ntersection Orientation: East-West Vlajor Street ~lovement Volume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Nor[h/South Street: EastShoppin[ICenterDdveway Study Period hfs): 0.25 Westbound 67 0.83 8O 4 Eastbound 652 0.83 785 R Median Type Undivided RT Channelized Lanes I 1 Configuration Upstream Signal Vlinor Street 7 'LO0 Vlovement Volume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Iveh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach T Noflhbound 8 0.70 0 N 0 Storage RT Channelized 0.91 0 0 0 9 .10 R L 74 0.70 0.86 0 86 2 2 0 0 0 T 611 0.91 67t R ~36 0.91 149 0 I 0 TR 0 Southbound 11 12 T R N 0 0 4O Configuration LR Npproach Eastbound Westbound Nodhbound Vlovement 1 4 _ane Configuration L v (veh/h) 80 C (m) (veh/h) 800 vic 0.10 95% queue length 0.33 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.0 LOS A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- 7 8 9 Approach LOS 0.86 CoPyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Resoled 46 Southbound 10 11 ~ 12 l.R 132 255 0.52 2.73 33.3 D 33.3 HCS+m Version 5.21 Generated: 1g/4rgoo9 3:03 PM file://C:XDocuments and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2klFB6.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & East Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed '~2/4/2009 Analysis Year Build Analysis Time Period Weekday Midday Project Description AN09026 EastgNestStreet: Main Road (NYS Rt 25) North/SouthStreet: East Shoppin[I Center Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West StudyPerod hfs): 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 67 640 31 25 600 136 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.91 0.9'1 0.9'~ Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 80 771 37 27 659 149 iveh/h) ~ercent Heavy Vehicles 4 - 5 - - ',,ledian Type Undivided :~T Channelized 0 0 _anes '~ 1 0 1 1 0 ~onflgumtion L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 27 I 27 74 '1 40 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 'l 30 86 1 46 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 '/ 0 0 ~ 0 2onfiguration LTR LTR I I Westbound Northbound Southbound Approach Eastbound 'vlovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR ~t (veh/h) 80 27 61 t33 C (m) (veh/h) 809 804 256 228 v/c 0.10 0.03 0.24 0.58 95% queue length 0.33 0.10 0.90 3.29 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.9 9.6 23.4 40.8 LOS A A C E Approach Delay (s/veh) .... 23.4 40.8 Approach LOS - C E Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+~a Version 5.21 Generated: 12/4/2009 3:06 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2klFCg.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 'rvvo-wAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & East Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 8/26/2009 Analysis Year Existing Analysis Time Period Weekday Evening Proiect Description AN09026 EastJWestStreet: MainRoad(NYSRt25) Nodh/SouthStreet: EastShoppinECenterDdveway ntersecfion Orientation: East-West Study Period (hfs): 0.25 Vlajor Street Eastbound Westbound Vlovement t 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 84 628 642 g2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.91 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 70 690 0 0 755 108 Iveh/h) Percent Heaw Vehicles 3 -- - 0 - - Median Type Undivided I RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes I I 0 0 I 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Nodhbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 51 34 Peak-Hour Factor, PH F 1.00 G 70 0. 70 O. 76 0. 83 O. 76 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 67 0 44 iveh/h) ~ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 2 0 2 =ercent Grade (%) 0 0 =lared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement I 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh/h) 70 111 C (m) (veh/h) 775 281 vic 0.09 0.40 95% queue length 0.30 1.81 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.1 25.9 .OS B D ~,pproach Delay (s/veh) _. 25.9 ~,pproach LOS D Copyright © 2005 Universi[y of F[orida, All Rights Resolved HCS +?M Version 5 21 Generated: 12/4/2009 5:55PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2k24F6.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ intersection Main Rd & East Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed '12/4/2009 Analysis Year No-Build Analysis Time Period Weekday Evening proiect Descr[Dtion AN09026 EastANestStraet: Main Road (NYS Rt 25) North/SouthStraet: East Shopping Center Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Per od hfs): 0.25 Maior Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (yah/h) 66 692 731 95 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.9~ 0.9.1 0.83 0.9'1 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR / ,(veh/h) 72 760 0 0 859 '111 ~ercent Heavy Vehicles 3t - _ 0 - ~ledian Type Undivided :~T Channelized 0 0 _anes '1 1 0 0 1 0 3onflguration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8. 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 53 35 Peak-H our Factor, PHF '1.00 0. 70 O. 70 O. 76 O. 83 O. 76 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 69 0 46 (yah/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N ' N Storage 0 0 :{T Channelized 0 0 _anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 3onflguration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh/h) 72 '115 C (m) (veh/h) 706 227 vic 0.10 0.5~ 95% queue length 0.34 2.60 Control Delay (s/yah) 10. 7 36.1 LOS B E Approach Delay (s/yah) .... 36.1 ~,pproach LOS .... E Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Rese~ted HCS+,~ Version 5.21 Generated: 12/4/2009 3:04 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2klFC0.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analysis Time Period Weekday Evening Proiect Description AN09026 Easl/WestStreet: Main Road (NYS Rt 25) No~th/SouthStreet: East Shoppin~ Center Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Perod hfs): 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 66 680 31 24 721 95 (veh/h) Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal I 0 0 ~/olume (veh/ht 27 '1 27 53 1 35 /eh/h) ~ercent Grade (%) 0 0 v (ye h/h) 72 28 61 'l 16 C (m) (veh/h) 713 832 221 203 Cepyrigh[ © 2005 University of Florida~ All Rights Reserved Generated: 121412009 3;06 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2klFCF.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & East Driveway Agency/Co. ATDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 8/26/2009 Analysis Year Existing Analysis Time Period Saturday Midday Project Description AN09020 East/WestStreet: MainRoad(NYSRt25) North/SouthStreet: EastShoppinc, ICenterDfiveway Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Per od (hfs): 0.25 Maior Street Eastbound Westbound Movement .1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 80 745 506 143 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.83 0.91 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 83 776 0 0 544 153 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 - .. 0 -- v~edian Type Undivided ~T Channelized 0 0 _enos 1 '/ 0 0 I 0 3onfigurafion L T TR Jpstream Signal I 0 0 rVlinor Street Nod~bound Southbound 'vlovem ent .7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 67 41 Peak-Hou r F actor, P HF 'L 00 O. 70 O. 70 O. 87 O. 83 O. 87 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 77 0 47 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 0 2 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Vlovement I 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ane Configuration L LR v (veh/h) 83 124 3 (m) (veh/h) 904 311 vic 0.09 0.40 95% queue length 0,30 'f.84 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 24.0 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/~eh)/ 24.0 Approach LOS I C Copyright © 2005 Univers0y of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+m Version 5,21 Generated: 12/4~2009 5:55 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2k24F9.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TVVO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ intersection Main Rd & East Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Date Performed 12/4/2009 I Analysis Year No-Build Analysis Time Period Saturday Midday I Project Description AN09026 East/West Street: Main Road (NYS Rt 25) intersection Orientation; East-West Major Street Eastbound Nodh/South Street: EastShoppin~CenterDfiveway Stud~, Per od (hrs): 0.25 Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 83 792 587 148 Volume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Vledian Type ~T Channelized _aRes Donflguration Jpstream Signal i Minor Street Movement Volume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 86 0.96 825 L T 0 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles No~hbound 0,91 Percent Grade (%) 0.93 631 Un~vided Southbound Flared Approach Storage 0.93 159 0 10 11 L T 69 0.87 0.83 79 0 2 0 0 TR 12 L T R R 42 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.87 0 48 N 0 0 N 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound 'vlovement 1 4 7 8 9 _ane Configuration L v (veh/h) 86 C (m) (veh/h) 835 0.10 vic 95% queue length 0,34 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 LOS A Approach Delay (s/veh) .... Approach LOS -- - Copyright © 2005 University ol Flodda, All Rights Reset'ed HCS+m Version 5,21 Southbound 10 11 / 12 LR 127 259 0.49 2.51 31.6 D 31.6 D Generated: 1214~009 3:05 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2klFC5.tmp 12/4/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst BMZ Intersection Main Rd & East Driveway Agency/Co. A TDE Jurisdiction Town of Southold Dote Performed 12/4/2009 Analysis Year Build Analysis Time Period Saturday Midday Project Description AN09026 East/WestStreet: Main Road (NYS Rt 25) N0rth!SouthStreet: East Shoppinc. I Center Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Per od (hfs): 0,25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement I 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 83 785 32 25 579 148 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR [veh/h) 86 817 33 26 622 159 Percent Heavy Vehicles I _ 0 - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes '~ 1 0 '~ 1 0 3.onflguration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ~/olume (veh/b) 27 1 25 69 '1 43 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.87 0.87 0.87 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 30 1 27 79 I 49 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 I 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR v (veh/h) 86 26 58 129 C (m) (veh/h) 841 797 239 231 v/c 0.10 0.03 0.24 0.56 95% queue length 0.34 0.10 0.92 3.06 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 9.7 24.8 38. 7 LOS A A C E Approach Delay (s/veh) -- 24.8 38.7 Approach LOS -- C E Copyright © 2005 Universily of Florida, All Rights Reserved Generated: 12/4r2009 3:07 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\bzimolka\Local Settings\Temp\u2klFD4.tmp 12/4/2009