1 - Eagle County

Transcription

1 - Eagle County

REFERRAL FORM
Date Sent: August 20, 2015
Return Requested: September 10, 2015
Eagle County Community Development
P.O. Box 179, Eagle, CO 81631
(970) 328-8745 / Fax: (970) 328-7185 / PC/ZBA Agenda Line: (970) 328-8754 / www.eaglecounty.us
File Number(s)
Project Name(s)
Type of Application(s)
SUS-5557
The Fields Subdivision
Subdivision Sketch
Staff Planner:
Email:
Sean Hanagan
sean.hanagan@eaglecounty.us
Phone: (970) 328-8748
Applicant:
Email:
The Fields Development Group
Phone: (770) 778-5815
Contact Person:
Email:
35E, LLC-Keith Ehlers
Phone: (970) 477-2990
Location:
554 Valley Road
Summary of Request: Subdivision Sketch plan for a 98 unit residential subdivision.
The Eagle County Community Development Department has received a land use request as referenced above. Your
comments are an important part of the evaluation process. In order to review all appropriate agency comments and
incorporate them into the Staff Evaluation, we request your response by September 10, 2015 or we will assume you have
no comments and/or objections.
EAGLE COUNTY
Hard Copies
Animal Services
1
Assessors
1
Attorney
1
Engineering
1
Environmental Health
1
Housing Division
1
Road and Bridge (Brad Higgins)
1
School District (Administration) RE1
1
School District (Transportation) RE1
1
Sheriff’s Office
1
1
Surveyor
Weed and Pest (Steve Elzinga)
1
Wildfire Mitigation Specialist
1
COLORADO STATE
CDOT (Grand Junction Office)
1
CDOT (Local Office)
1
Division of Water Resources
1
Division of Wildlife
1
Geological Survey (Fee) $700.00
1
Water Conservation Board
1
FEDERAL
Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA)
1
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1
U.S. Forest Service
1
SERVICE DISTRICT
Ambulance District: Basalt & Rural FPD
1
Fire District: Basalt & Rural FPD
1
Holy Cross Electric:
1
1
Metro District:: Mid Valley Metro
1
Public Service Co./KN Energy Metro District:
1
Qwest / PTI / CenturyTel
1
Crown Mountain Park Rec District
1
OTHER
1
Basalt Water Conservancy District
Colorado Historical Society
1
Eagle County Historical Society
1
Mid Valley Trails Committee
1
NWCCOG (Fee)
1
Postmaster: El Jebel/Basalt
1
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
1
Pitkin County
1
Garfield County
1
HOMEOWNERS
Emma Caucus
1
Sopris Village HOA
1
Blue Lake HOA
1
TOWNS
Basalt
1
COUNTY
Planning Commission (PC or RFVRPC)
9
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
1
Staff / Public Copy
1
Total:
42
12
Planning Commission Hearing: TBD
Eagle County Planning Commission Agenda Line: (970) 328-8754
Board of CC Hearing: TBD
Board of County Commissioner Agenda Line: (970) 328-8331
ZBA Hearing: N/A
Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda Line: (970) 328-8754
NOTE: Dates are for internal information only. Call for confirmation.
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
EAGLE COUNTY LAND USE REGULATIONS
EAGLE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P.O. BOX 179, EAGLE, CO 81631
(970) 328-8730 / FAX (970) 328-7185
www.eaglecounty.us
TYPE OF
APPLICATION:
■
Sketch Plan Subdivision
Sketch Plan PUD
Preliminary Plan Subdivision
Preliminary Plan PUD
Final Plat
Exemption Plat
Correction Plat
Location & Extent
Amended Final Plat
Minor Type A Subdivision
Minor Type B Subdivision
Zone Change
LUR Text Amendment
LAND USE REGULATION
REFERENCE:
Section 5-280, SUBDIVISION
Section 5-240, PUD
Section 5-240, PUD
Section 5-270, SUB. EXEMPTION
C.R.S. 30-28-133(a)
C.R.S. 30-28-110
Section 5-290, MINOR SUBDIVISION
Section 5-230, ZONE DISTRICT
AMENDMENT
TYPE OF
APPLICATION:
Special Use Permit
Consolidated
Concept Evaluation
Final
PUD Amendment
Variance- Zoning/VIS
1041 Permit
Limited Review
Vacation
FONSI
Other
LAND USE REGULATION
REFERENCE:
Section 5-250, SPECIAL USES
Section 5-240, PUD
Section 5-260, VARIANCES
Chapter 6, MATTERS OF STATE INTEREST
Section 5-2100, CERTIF. OF ZONING
Section 5-2200 VACATIONS
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
INVOLVED PARTIES:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Name:.The Fields Develoment Group, LLC
Mailing Address:.1155 Mount Vernon Hwy Ste. 800
Town/State/Zip: Atlanta, GA
FAX #:.
Phone #: 770-778-5815
Email Address:.
REPRESENTATIVE (Authorization Required):
Name: 3SE, LCC - Keith Ehlers
Mailing Address: 2662 Lookout Lane
Town /State/Zip: Grand Junction, CO 81503
FAX #:
Phone #: 970-210-7680
Email Address: kehlers@threesail.net
Note: All correspondence will be mailed, emailed or faxed to the
representative listed above UNLESS otherwise requested.
SURVEYOR/ENGINEER:
Name: Dan Cokley
Mailing Address: 118 W Sixth St., Suite 200
Town/State/Zip: Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
FAX #:
Phone #: 970-945-1004
Email Address:. DanC@sgm-inc.com
NOTE: Please read the above referenced Section in
Chapter II of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and
the applicable Process Guide.
Please submit all
necessary application documentation and fees as
required.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
For all applications, please submit a list of all adjacent
property owner names and addresses, using the most
current Eagle County tax records. These names and
addresses must be submitted on adhesive mailing labels or
pre-addressed envelopes. Please see corresponding
application checklist.
DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP:
For all applications, please submit the necessary
ownership disclosure (dated within two months of the
application), pursuant to Section 5-210.D.2.c. Please see
corresponding application checklist.
SUBSURFACE MINERAL INTERESTS: Pursuant to
C.R.S. § 24-65.5-103 Notice Requirements, please note:
It is the responsibility of the applicant for any Sketch Plan,
Preliminary Plan, Variance, and/or Zone Change application
to notify owner(s) and/or lessee(s) of subsurface mineral
interests, affected by your proposal.
PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION:
Assessor’s Parcel # .2391-334-01-003
Physical/Street Address: 554 VALLEY RD
. El Jebel, CO 81623
Name of Project: The Fields Subdivision
Legal Description of Project:
Subdivision: ARLIAN RANCH SUBDIVISION
Block
Filing
Tract .
Lot 5
Township
Range
.
Section
-- OR -Attach a Metes and Bounds legal description and survey
depicting the property boundary.
PROJECT DATA (Pursuant to Section 5-210.D.2.e):
Written Description of Project: Residential Subdivision implementing the written and intended standards of the
Mid Valley Future Land Use Plan, Affordable Housing Guidelines, Sustainable Community Index, and Article 4: Site
Development Standards. The proposal includes multiple public trail connections, community gardens, and a pocket park to
compliment 98 residential units consisting of (3) three different unit types, sizes, and price points. The residential units are
proposed as: 26 Single Family Units (>2,000 sf); 34 Duplex Units (+/- 1,800 sf); 38 Duplex Units (+/- 1,200 sf). A portion of
the housing units will be dedicated as Affordabl Housing units per the methods provided within the Affordable Housing
Guidelines.
■
■
Proposed Land Use Type
# of Lots
# of Units
Single Family
Duplex
Multi-Family
Commercial/Office
Industrial
Other: agricultural open lands
26
36
26
72
62
98
Total Project:
■ Existing Zoning
■ Proposed Zoning
■ Existing Land Use(s) (Be Specific)
■ Proposed Land Use(s) (Be Specific)
■ Existing Source of Water
■ Proposed Source of Water
■ Existing Source of Waste Disposal
■ Proposed Source of Waste Disposal
■ Existing Fire Protection
■ Proposed Fire Protection
■ Existing Access
■ Proposed Access
■ Date of Parcel Creation
■
■
■
Acreage
Floor
Area Ft2
RR
RMF
Residential and Small Ag
Primarily Residential with Public Trail, Community Garden, and Pocket Park
Mid Valley Metro District
Septic
Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
Valley Road
Controlled Access to Valley Road
January 28, 1981
VICINITY MAP ATTACHED (Pursuant to Section 5-210.D.2.d).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ATTACHED, IF REQUIRED (Pursuant to Section 5-210.D.2.f).
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED, IF REQUIRED (Pursuant to Section 5-210.D.2.g).
REQUIRED* PRE-APPLICATION MEETING
YES
NO
If YES: Date of meeting: 12/2014 & 5/2015 Planner(s) attended: Bob N., Scott H., Eva W., & Afford Hsng
Names
*See Section 5-210.D
I do hereby certify that the foregoing representations and attachments are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
May 20, 2015
Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Representative
Date
OFFICIAL USE ONLY:
Received By:
Amount Received: $
Receipt #:
Date:
Check #
.
The Fields Development Group, LLC
Benjamin D. Bailey
Partner
678.667.1388
May 26, 2015
Keith Ehlers
Three Sail Enterprise, LLC
Grand Junction, CO
via Email
Re: Grant of Power of Attorney for
The Fields Development in El Jebel
Dear Keith:
I, Benjamin D. Bailey, on behalf of The Fields Development Group, LLC (the
“Company”), do hereby appoint you as the Company’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact
(“Agent”) to act in the Company’s name and place during the application process for the
proposed residential housing development to be known as The Fields, located at 554
Valley Road in El Jebel, Colorado (parcel no. 2391-334-01-003), taking all actions the
Company would take if personally present, including but not limited to, execution and
submission of any forms, notices, reports, and all other documents required during the
development application process.
The rights, powers, and authority to exercise any and all of the rights and powers
herein granted shall commence and be in full effect today, May 26, 2015, and shall remain
in full force and effect until May 25, 2016, unless specifically extended or rescinded earlier
by either you or the Company.
Sincerely,
By:_______________________________
Benjamin D. Bailey
Partner
The Fields Development Group, LLC 1155 Mt. Vernon Hwy. | Suite 800 | Atlanta, GA 30338 P.O. Box 1980, 0050 Chambers Ave. Suite I
Eagle, CO 81631
Phone: (970) 328-5211
Fax: (866) 828-9541
DATE: May 5, 2015
FILE NUMBER: 454-H0418795-060-TP1, Amendment No. 3
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 554 Valley Rd., Carbondale, CO 81623
BUYER/BORROWER: Southern Puma, LLC
OWNER(S): Steven W. Rieser Revocable Trust and the Sandra S. Rieser Revocable Trust
YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 239133401003 R027402
PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING REVISED TERMS CONTAINED HEREIN:
New effective date
WIRED FUNDS ARE REQUIRED ON ALL CASH PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. FOR WIRING
INSTRUCTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR ESCROW OFFICE AS NOTED ON THE TRANSMITTAL PAGE
OF THIS COMMITMENT.
TO:
Heritage Title Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 1980
0050 Chambers Ave. Suite I
Eagle, CO 81631
ATTN:
PHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
Tracie Portice
(970) 328-5211
(866) 828-9541
tportice@heritagetco.com
TO:
Southern Puma, LLC
877 Hillwood Dr.
Marietta, GA 30068
TO:
Steven W. Rieser Revocable Trust and the
Sandra S. Rieser Revocable Trust
1421 County Road 230
Durango, CO 81301
ATTN:
PHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
ATTN:
PHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
TO:
Kerst & Strautman P.C.
823 Blake Ave.
Suite 202
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
ATTN:
PHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
Theresa French
(970) 945-2447
(970) 945-2440
theresa@kerststrautman.com
TO:
Kerst & Strautman P.C.
823 Blake Ave.
Suite 202
ATTN:
PHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
Dan Kerst
(970) 945-2447
(970) 945-2440
dan@kerststrautman.com
TO:
Clayton, McKay & Bailey, PC
4611 Travis Street #1106A
Dallas, TX 75205
TO:
Eagle Escrow
P.O. Box 1980
0050 Chambers Ave. Suite I
Eagle, CO 81631
ATTN:
PHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
ATTN:
PHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
jclayton@cmbpc.com
Tracie Portice
(970) 328-5211
(866) 828-9541
tportice@heritagetco.com
bmckay@cmbpc.com
capitolpk@aol.com
Commitment Transmittal
(Continued)
END OF TRANSMITTAL
05/05/2015 11:23 AM Commitment No.: 454-H0418795-060-TP1, Amendment No. 3
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
Commitment No:
454-H0418795-060-TP1, Amendment No. 3
1. Effective Date:
April 29, 2016 at 7:00 A.M.
2. Policy or policies to be issued:
Proposed Insured
(a) ALTA Owners Policy 6-17-06
Policy Amount
$2,300,000.00
southern puma, llc, a Delaware limited liability company
(b) ALTA Loan Policy 6-17-06
$500,000.00
Steven W. Rieser Revocable Trust and the Sandra S. Rieser Revocable Trust
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is:
A Fee Simple
4. Title to the estate or interest in the land is at the Effective Date vested in:
5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
See Attached Legal Description
(for informational purposes only) 554 Valley Rd., Carbondale, CO 81623
PREMIUMS:
Lenders Coverage: $175.00
Owners Coverage: $4,535.00
Deletion 1-4: $65.00
Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American
Land Title Association.
Attached Legal Description
Lot 5, Arlian Ranch, according to the Plat recorded September 10, 1982 in Book 309 at Page 5 and Corrected Plat
recorded January 10, 1981 in Book 317 at Page 729,
County of Eagle, State of Colorado
SCHEDULE B – Section 1
Requirements
The following requirements must be met:
a.
Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or for the mortgage to be insured.
b.
Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy.
c.
Obtain a certificate of taxes due from the county treasurer or the county treasurer's authorized agent.
d.
Evidence that any and all assessments for common expenses, if any, have been paid.
e.
The Company will require that an Affidavit and Indemnity Agreement be completed by the party(s)
named below before the issuance of any policy of title insurance.
Party(s):
The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the
requested Affidavit.
f.
The Company reserves the right to add additional exceptions and/or make further requirements
once the identity of the Purchaser is disclosed.
g.
Deed sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the Land described or referred to herein, to
the Proposed Insured Purchaser.
h.
Deed of Trust sufficient to encumber the estate or interest in the Land described or referred to herein for
the benefit of the Proposed Insured Lender.
Statement of Authority for Steven W. Rieser Revocable Trust recorded January 23, 2002 at Reception No.
783649 discloses the following person(s) authorized to sign on behalf of the entity, pursuant to Colorado
Revised Statutes:
Steven W. Rieser, Trustee
Statement of Authority for Sandra S. Rieser Revocable Trust recorded January 23, 2002 at Reception No.
783650 discloses the following person(s) authorized to sign on behalf of the entity, pursuant to Colorado
Revised Statutes:
Sandra S. Rieser, Trustee
i.
Recordation of Statement of Authority for southern puma, llc, a Delaware limited liability company
pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes evidencing the existence of the entity and authority of the
person(s) authorized to execute and deliver instruments affecting title to real property on behalf of the
entity and containing other information required by Colorado Revised Statutes.
j.
Please be advised that our search did not disclose any open Deeds of Trust of record. If you should
have knowledge of any outstanding obligation, please contact the Title Department immediately for
further review prior to closing.
24 MONTH CHAIN OF TITLE, FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY:
The following vesting deeds relating to the subject property have been recorded in the Clerk and Recorder’s office
of the County in which the property is located:
There are no conveyances affecting said land recorded within 24 months of the date of this report.
END OF REQUIREMENTS
SCHEDULE B – Section 2
Exceptions
Any policy we issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction:
1.
Any facts, rights, interests or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but which could be
ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
2.
Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
3.
Any encroachments, encumbrances, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that
would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by Public
Records.
4.
Any lien or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by
law and not shown by the Public Records.
5.
Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public
Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured
acquires of record for the value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6.
Water rights, claims of title to water, whether or not these matters are shown by the Public Records.
7.
All taxes and assessments, now or heretofore assessed, due or payable.
NOTE: This tax exception will be amended at policy upon satisfaction and evidence of payment of taxes.
8.
Reservations contained in the Patent
From:
Recording Date:
Recording No:
The United States of America
November 25, 1894
Book 48 at Page 195 and January 3, 1902 in Book 48 at Page 256
Which among other things recites as follows:
A right of way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States of America.
The right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom should the same be
found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as provided by law.
9.
Reservation of ½ of Mineral Rights as contained in Deed recorded in Book 133 at Page 407.
10.
Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Right of Way and Easement
as set forth below:
Recording Date:
Recording No.:
11.
November 22, 1961
Book 173 at Page 251
Terms, conditions, restrictions, provisions, notes and easements but omitting any covenants or
restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of
income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or
restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth on the Plat(s) of said subdivision set forth below:
Recording Date:
Recording No:
12.
Covenants, conditions and restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not
limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status,
disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, source of income, gender, gender identity, gender
expression, medical condition or genetic information, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws,
except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the
document
Recording Date:
Recording No:
13.
December 31, 1992
Book 598 at Page 77
Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Driveway Improvement and
Maintenance Sharing Agreement as set forth below:
Recording Date:
Recording No.:
16.
December 13, 1989
Book 519 at Page 671
Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Private Road Maintenance
Agreement as set forth below:
Recording Date:
Recording No.:
15.
September 10, 1980
Book 309 at Page 4 and as amended in instrument recorded June 17, 1986 in
Book 443 at Page 564 and Book 443 at Page 565.
Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Agreement for Easement as
set forth below:
Recording Date:
Recording No.:
14.
September 10, 1980
Book 309 at Page 5 and Corrected Plat recorded January 10, 1981 in Book 317 at
Page 729.
August 11, 1999
Reception No. 705151
Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the Mid Valley Metropolitan
District Line Extension Agreement as set forth below:
Recording Date:
Recording No.:
END OF EXCEPTIONS
October 17, 2012
Reception No. 201220973
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued by
Heritage Title Company, Inc.
AS AGENT FOR
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation (“Company”), for a valuable
consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the
Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land described or
referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the Requirements; all
subject to the provisions of Schedule A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment.
The Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy
or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company.
All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate 6 months after the Effective Date or
when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue the
policy or policies is not fault of the Company.
The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name and
seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A.
Attest:
By:
Secretary
President
CONDITIONS
1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim
or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than
those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing,
the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance
hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed
insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual
knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its
option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the
Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed insured and such
parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only
for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the
requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the
estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability
exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policies or policies committed for and such liability is
subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy
or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference
and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title
or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured
may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or
the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the
provisions of this Commitment.
5. The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of
Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as
the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at
http://www.alta.org.
.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Section 38-35-125 of Colorado Revised Statutes and Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation
3-5-1 (Section 7), if the parties to the subject transaction request us to provide escrow-settlement and
disbursement services to facilitate the closing of the transaction, then all funds submitted for disbursement
must be available for immediate withdrawal.

Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 3-5-1, Paragraph G of Section VII, requires that "Every title
insurance company shall be responsible to the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the
title insurance commitment, other than the effective date of the title insurance commitment, for all matters
which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title insurance company, or its agent,
conducts the closing and settlement service that is in conjunction with its issuance of an owners policy of title
insurance and is responsible for the recording and filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction
which was closed". Provided that Heritage Title Company, Inc. conducts the closing of the insured transaction
and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception No. 5 in Schedule B-2
will not appear in the Owner's Title Policy and Lender's Title Policy when issued.

If the sales price of the subject property exceeds $100,000.00 the seller shall be required to comply with the
Disclosure of Withholding Provisions of C.R.S. 39-22-604.5 (Nonresident Withholding).

Section 39-14-102 of Colorado Revised Statutes requires that a Real Property Transfer Declaration
accompany any conveyance document presented for recordation in the State of Colorado. Said Declaration
shall be completed and signed by either the grantor or grantee.

Recording statutes contained in Section 30-10-406(3)(a) of the Colorado Revised Statutes require that all
documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at
least one inch and a left, right, and bottom margin of at least one-half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may
refuse to record or file a document that does not conform to requirements of this paragraph.

Section 38-35-109 (2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, requires that a notation of the purchasers legal
address, (not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the deed to be recorded.

Regulations of County Clerk and Recorder's offices require that all documents submitted for recording must
contain a return address on the front page of every document being recorded.

Pursuant to Section 10-11-122 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1987 the Company is required to disclose
the following information:
o
The subject property may be located in a special taxing district.
o
A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County
Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent.
o
Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from
the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder or the County Assessor.

Pursuant to Section 10-11-123 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, when it is determined that a mineral estate
has been severed from the surface estate, the Company is required to disclose the following information: that
there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the
surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas,
other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and that such mineral estate may include the right to
enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission.

Note: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Commitment, if the policy to be issued is other than an
ALTA Owner's Policy (6/17/06), the policy may not contain an arbitration clause, or the terms of the
arbitration clause may be different from those set forth in this Commitment. If the policy does contain an
arbitration clause, and the Amount of Insurance is less than the amount, if any, set forth in the arbitration
clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the
exclusive remedy of the parties.
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL
PRIVACY NOTICE
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its majority-owned subsidiary
companies providing real estate- and loan-related services (collectively,
“FNF”, “our” or “we”) respect and are committed to protecting your
privacy. This Privacy Notice lets you know how and for what purposes
your Personal Information (as defined herein) is being collected,
processed and used by FNF. We pledge that we will take reasonable
steps to ensure that your Personal Information will only be used in ways
that are in compliance with this Privacy Notice.
This Privacy Notice is only in effect for any generic information and
Personal Information collected and/or owned by FNF, including
collection through any FNF website and any online features, services
and/or programs offered by FNF (collectively, the “Website”). This
Privacy Notice is not applicable to any other web pages, mobile
applications, social media sites, email lists, generic information or
Personal Information collected and/or owned by any entity other than
FNF.
Collection and Use of Information
The types of personal information FNF collects may include, among
other things (collectively, “Personal Information”): (1) contact
information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email address); (2)
demographic information (e.g., date of birth, gender marital status); (3)
Internet protocol (or IP) address or device ID/UDID; (4) social security
number (SSN), student ID (SIN), driver’s license, passport, and other
government ID numbers; (5) financial account information; and (6)
information related to offenses or criminal convictions.
In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information
about you from the following sources:
•
•
•
•
Applications or other forms we receive from you or your
authorized representative;
Information we receive from you through the Website;
Information about your transactions with or services performed by
us, our affiliates, or others; and
From consumer or other reporting agencies and public records
maintained by governmental entities that we either obtain directly
from those entities, or from our affiliates or others.
Information collected by FNF is used for three main purposes:
•
•
•
To provide products and services to you or one or more third party
service providers (collectively, “Third Parties”) who are obtaining
services on your behalf or in connection with a transaction
involving you.
To improve our products and services that we perform for you or
for Third Parties.
To communicate with you and to inform you about FNF’s, FNF’s
affiliates and third parties’ products and services.
Additional Ways Information is Collected Through the Website
Browser Log Files. Our servers automatically log each visitor to
the Website and collect and record certain information about each
visitor. This information may include IP address, browser language,
browser type, operating system, domain names, browsing history
(including time spent at a domain, time and date of your visit),
referring/exit web pages and URLs, and number of clicks. The domain
name and IP address reveal nothing personal about the user other than
the IP address from which the user has accessed the Website.
Cookies. From time to time, FNF or other third parties may send a
“cookie” to your computer. A cookie is a small piece of data that is sent
to your Internet browser from a web server and stored on your
computer’s hard drive and that can be re-sent to the serving website on
subsequent visits. A cookie, by itself, cannot read other data from your
Privacy Notice
Effective: January 24, 2014
hard disk or read other cookie files already on your computer. A cookie,
by itself, does not damage your system. We, our advertisers and other
third parties may use cookies to identify and keep track of, among other
things, those areas of the Website and third party websites that you have
visited in the past in order to enhance your next visit to the Website.
You can choose whether or not to accept cookies by changing the
settings of your Internet browser, but some functionality of the Website
may be impaired or not function as intended. See the Third Party Opt
Out section below.
Web Beacons. Some of our web pages and electronic
communications may contain images, which may or may not be visible
to you, known as Web Beacons (sometimes referred to as “clear gifs”).
Web Beacons collect only limited information that includes a cookie
number; time and date of a page view; and a description of the page on
which the Web Beacon resides. We may also carry Web Beacons placed
by third party advertisers. These Web Beacons do not carry any Personal
Information and are only used to track usage of the Website and
activities associated with the Website. See the Third Party Opt Out
section below.
Unique Identifier. We may assign you a unique internal identifier
to help keep track of your future visits. We may use this information to
gather aggregate demographic information about our visitors, and we
may use it to personalize the information you see on the Website and
some of the electronic communications you receive from us. We keep
this information for our internal use, and this information is not shared
with others.
Third Party Opt Out. Although we do not presently, in the future
we may allow third-party companies to serve advertisements and/or
collect certain anonymous information when you visit the Website.
These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g.,
click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of
advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to the
Website in order to provide advertisements about products and services
likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a
cookie or third party Web Beacon to collect this information, as further
described above. Through these technologies, the third party may have
access to and use non-personalized information about your online usage
activity.
You can opt-out of online behavioral services through any one of the
ways described below. After you opt-out, you may continue to receive
advertisements, but those advertisements will no longer be as relevant to
you.
•
•
•
•
You can opt-out via the Network Advertising Initiative industry
opt-out at http://www.networkadvertising.org/.
You can opt-out via the Consumer Choice Page at
www.aboutads.info.
For those in the U.K., you can opt-out via the IAB UK's industry
opt-out at www.youronlinechoices.com.
You can configure your web browser (Chrome, Firefox, Internet
Explorer, Safari, etc.) to delete and/or control the use of cookies.
More information can be found in the Help system of your browser.
Note: If you opt-out as described above, you should not delete your
cookies. If you delete your cookies, you will need to opt-out again.
When Information Is Disclosed By FNF
We may provide your Personal Information (excluding information we
receive from consumer or other credit reporting agencies) to various
individuals and companies, as permitted by law, without obtaining your
prior authorization. Such laws do not allow consumers to restrict these
disclosures. Disclosures may include, without limitation, the following:
•
•
•
•
To agents, brokers, representatives, or others to provide you with
services you have requested, and to enable us to detect or prevent
criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or
nondisclosure in connection with an insurance transaction;
To third-party contractors or service providers who provide
services or perform marketing services or other functions on our
behalf;
To law enforcement or other governmental authority in connection
with an investigation, or civil or criminal subpoenas or court
orders; and/or
To lenders, lien holders, judgment creditors, or other parties
claiming an encumbrance or an interest in title whose claim or
interest must be determined, settled, paid or released prior to a title
or escrow closing.
In addition to the other times when we might disclose information about
you, we might also disclose information when required by law or in the
good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with a
legal process or applicable laws; (2) enforce this Privacy Notice; (3)
respond to claims that any materials, documents, images, graphics,
logos, designs, audio, video and any other information provided by you
violates the rights of third parties; or (4) protect the rights, property or
personal safety of FNF, its users or the public.
We maintain reasonable safeguards to keep the Personal Information
that is disclosed to us secure. We provide Personal Information and nonPersonal Information to our subsidiaries, affiliated companies, and other
businesses or persons for the purposes of processing such information
on our behalf and promoting the services of our trusted business
partners, some or all of which may store your information on servers
outside of the United States. We require that these parties agree to
process such information in compliance with our Privacy Notice or in a
similar, industry-standard manner, and we use reasonable efforts to limit
their use of such information and to use other appropriate confidentiality
and security measures. The use of your information by one of our trusted
business partners may be subject to that party’s own Privacy Notice. We
do not, however, disclose information we collect from consumer or
credit reporting agencies with our affiliates or others without your
consent, in conformity with applicable law, unless such disclosure is
otherwise permitted by law.
We also reserve the right to disclose Personal Information and/or nonPersonal Information to take precautions against liability, investigate
and defend against any third-party claims or allegations, assist
government enforcement agencies, protect the security or integrity of the
Website, and protect the rights, property, or personal safety of FNF, our
users or others.
We reserve the right to transfer your Personal Information, as well as
any other information, in connection with the sale or other disposition of
all or part of the FNF business and/or assets. We also cannot make any
representations regarding the use or transfer of your Personal
Information or other information that we may have in the event of our
bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, receivership or an assignment
for the benefit of creditors, and you expressly agree and consent to the
use and/or transfer of your Personal Information or other information in
connection with a sale or transfer of some or all of our assets in any of
the above described proceedings. Furthermore, we cannot and will not
be responsible for any breach of security by any third parties or for any
actions of any third parties that receive any of the information that is
disclosed to us.
Information from Children
We do not collect Personal Information from any person that we know
to be under the age of thirteen (13). Specifically, the Website is not
intended or designed to attract children under the age of thirteen (13).
You affirm that you are either more than 18 years of age, or an
Privacy Notice
emancipated minor, or possess legal parental or guardian consent, and
are fully able and competent to enter into the terms, conditions,
obligations, affirmations, representations, and warranties set forth in this
Privacy Notice, and to abide by and comply with this Privacy Notice. In
any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, as THE WEBSITE
IS NOT INTENDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 13 THAT ARE
UNACCOMPANIED BY HIS OR HER PARENT OR LEGAL
GUARDIAN.
Parents should be aware that FNF’s Privacy Notice will govern our use
of Personal Information, but also that information that is voluntarily
given by children – or others – in email exchanges, bulletin boards or
the like may be used by other parties to generate unsolicited
communications. FNF encourages all parents to instruct their children in
the safe and responsible use of their Personal Information while using
the Internet.
Privacy Outside the Website
The Website may contain various links to other websites, including links
to various third party service providers. FNF is not and cannot be
responsible for the privacy practices or the content of any of those other
websites. Other than under agreements with certain reputable
organizations and companies, and except for third party service
providers whose services either we use or you voluntarily elect to
utilize, we do not share any of the Personal Information that you provide
to us with any of the websites to which the Website links, although we
may share aggregate, non-Personal Information with those other third
parties. Please check with those websites in order to determine their
privacy policies and your rights under them.
European Union Users
If you are a citizen of the European Union, please note that we may
transfer your Personal Information outside the European Union for use
for any of the purposes described in this Privacy Notice. By providing
FNF with your Personal Information, you consent to both our collection
and such transfer of your Personal Information in accordance with this
Privacy Notice.
Choices with Your Personal Information
Whether you submit Personal Information to FNF is entirely up to you.
You may decide not to submit Personal Information, in which case FNF
may not be able to provide certain services or products to you.
You may choose to prevent FNF from disclosing or using your Personal
Information under certain circumstances (“opt out”). You may opt out of
any disclosure or use of your Personal Information for purposes that are
incompatible with the purpose(s) for which it was originally collected or
for which you subsequently gave authorization by notifying us by one of
the methods at the end of this Privacy Notice. Furthermore, even where
your Personal Information is to be disclosed and used in accordance
with the stated purposes in this Privacy Notice, you may elect to opt out
of such disclosure to and use by a third party that is not acting as an
agent of FNF. As described above, there are some uses from which you
cannot opt-out.
Please note that opting out of the disclosure and use of your Personal
Information as a prospective employee may prevent you from being
hired as an employee by FNF to the extent that provision of your
Personal Information is required to apply for an open position.
If FNF collects Personal Information from you, such information will
not be disclosed or used by FNF for purposes that are incompatible with
the purpose(s) for which it was originally collected or for which you
subsequently gave authorization unless you affirmatively consent to
such disclosure and use.
You may opt out of online behavioral advertising by following the
instructions set forth above under the above section “Additional Ways
That Information Is Collected Through the Website,” subsection “Third
Party Opt Out.”
Access and Correction
To access your Personal Information in the possession of FNF and
correct inaccuracies of that information in our records, please contact us
in the manner specified at the end of this Privacy Notice. We ask
individuals to identify themselves and the information requested to be
accessed and amended before processing such requests, and we may
decline to process requests in limited circumstances as permitted by
applicable privacy legislation.
Your California Privacy Rights
Under California’s “Shine the Light” law, California residents who
provide certain personally identifiable information in connection with
obtaining products or services for personal, family or household use are
entitled to request and obtain from us once a calendar year information
about the customer information we shared, if any, with other businesses
for their own direct marketing uses. If applicable, this information
would include the categories of customer information and the names and
addresses of those businesses with which we shared customer
information for the immediately prior calendar year (e.g., requests made
in 2013 will receive information regarding 2012 sharing activities).
To obtain this information on behalf of FNF, please send an email
message to privacy@fnf.com with “Request for California Privacy
Information” in the subject line and in the body of your message. We
will provide the requested information to you at your email address in
response.
Please be aware that not all information sharing is covered by the “Shine
the Light” requirements and only information on covered sharing will be
included in our response.
Privacy Notice
Additionally, because we may collect your Personal Information from
time to time, California’s Online Privacy Protection Act requires us to
disclose how we respond to “do not track” requests and other similar
mechanisms. Currently, our policy is that we do not recognize “do not
track” requests from Internet browsers and similar devices.
Your Consent to This Privacy Notice
By submitting Personal Information to FNF, you consent to the
collection and use of information by us as specified above or as we
otherwise see fit, in compliance with this Privacy Notice, unless you
inform us otherwise by means of the procedure identified below. If we
decide to change this Privacy Notice, we will make an effort to post
those changes on the Website. Each time we collect information from
you following any amendment of this Privacy Notice will signify your
assent to and acceptance of its revised terms for all previously collected
information and information collected from you in the future. We may
use comments, information or feedback that you may submit in any
manner that we may choose without notice or compensation to you.
If you have additional questions or comments, please let us know by
sending your comments or requests to:
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
601 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Attn: Chief Privacy Officer
(888) 934-3354
privacy@fnf.com
Copyright © 2014. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
EFFECTIVE AS OF: JANUARY 24, 2014
LAST UPDATED: JANUARY 24, 2014
SKETCH PLAN
Vicinity Map:
SKETCH PLAN
Legal Description:
Lot 5, Arlian Ranch, according to the Plat recorded September 10, 1982 in Book 309 at Page 5
and Corrected Plat
recorded January 10, 1981 in Book 317 at Page 729,
County of Eagle, State of Colorado
Sketch Plan Proposal
Project Report
[Revised]
August 14, 2015
1.0 Introduction
A residential housing development to be known as The Fields is proposed by The Fields Development Group,
LLC (the Applicant) and represented by Keith Ehlers of 3SE, LLC (the representative). Members of the
Applicant’s development team and the representative live and work in the Roaring Fork Valley and are keenly
aware of the community need for housing and economic development, while maintaining the lifestyle and cultural
amenities the Valley has always offered.
The Fields subdivision is located at 554 Valley Road in El Jebel, having a parcel number of 2391-334-01-003.
The site is 19.39 Acres on the north side of Valley Road and adjacent to the south right of way for Hwy 82 near
the intersection of Valley Road and Hwy 82 west of El Jebel.
The Applicant proposes that the property be rezoned to Residential Multi-Family (RMF) to provide ninety eight
(98) residential homes at four (4) different price points by utilizing three (3) housing sizes and two (2) housing
types at a density of 5 units per acre in compliance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the recently
approved Mid Valley Area Community Plan. The residential opportunities are accompanied by the proposal of
community gardens, a pocket park with a playground, recyclable materials station, and over 2,000 linear feet of
Public Trail connecting to existing trail corridors and river access points.
1|Page
2.0 Sketch Plan Process and Criteria
2.1 APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCESS
Upon meeting with Staff at the Eagle County Planning Department it was indicated that the Applicant’s proposal
for residential development using the ‘Subdivision’ approval process is different than the ‘PUD’ process
sometimes pursued by others and presented for review. With that in mind this section is intended to briefly
explain why the Subdivision approval process is the most appropriate process for the proposed development.
The difference between a PUD and a Subdivision is primarily about the zoning applied to the development.
Standard Subdivisions implement conventional zone districts as established by the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations. By using the existing standards, restrictions, and allowed uses of conventional zone standards a
welcomed increase of predictability will be enjoyed; and will efficiently establish land use within a designated
zone that has already been vetted, approved, and deemed appropriate by the community at large, and its policy
makers. Alternatively, a PUD permits variations from the strict application of standards of the conventional zone
districts and essentially creates a custom zone district in the form of a PUD Guide.
This project is located within the El Jebel Community Center (aka Town Center) which has been through a major
public process that ultimately led to the adoption of the Mid Valley Area Community Plan as part of the Eagle
County Master Plan. The goals and intentions for land use standards within the Mid Valley Area Community
Plan is thorough and has been accepted by the community at large so it does seem appropriate to propose custom
variations or deviations in the form of a PUD proposal. Therefore, The Fields Subdivision is proposed as a
standard Subdivision for review.
This proposal is the ‘Sketch Plan’ step of the Subdivision process (see flow chart below). Eagle County Planning
Department Staff indicated that they sometimes receive Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan at the same time, but
the Applicant does not wish to combine the two steps. The Sketch Plan brochure provided by the Planning
Department states:
“The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant
must address if the project is ultimately to receive final subdivision approval from the County.”
Therefore, the applicant wishes to address the known considerations of off-site traffic mitigation as well as
receive feedback on the proposed development to reach an agreement on the general concepts for development
and mitigation proposals prior to making the next phase of investment for the project in the form of the finalizing
the traffic study and detailed engineering. The initial investment to date has already included significant
engineering assessment and traffic study as part of the project feasibility assessment.
Eagle County Planning Department provided the flow chart below and the Applicant intends to pursue the process
indicated by the steps shown in blue: [Additional steps such as a 1041 permit application and an revising the Access
Control Plan for Hwy 82 will also be necessary but are not shown below.]
2|Page
2.2 THE PURPOSE OF SKETCH PLAN [per Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.1.a]:
“The purpose of sketch plan review is for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and
discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed subdivision, and to consider whether
there are any alternative concepts the applicant should explore. It is the time when determinations
should be made as to whether the proposed subdivision substantially complies with these Land Use
Regulations and is in substantial conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area
Community Plans, and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural
resource protection, affordable housing, or infrastructure management, and is generally compatible
with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other substantially
impacted land, services, or infrastructure improvements. It is also the opportunity to reach general
agreement on such issues as the appropriate range of units and commercial space for development;
the general locations intended for development and the areas planned to remain undeveloped; the
general alignments for access; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be provided via
on-site systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome of sketch plan review should
be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately to
receive final subdivision approval from the County. (am 11/08/05) (am 05/08/12)”
The Applicant’s feasibility study for this project was prompted by the overwhelming expression of need by the
local community of individuals, the public sector, and private enterprise for the provision of reasonable housing
opportunities in the area, as well as economic considerations. Once a market call was verified, the design team
focused heavily on the development and review of various concept plans that considered the following directive
from page 7 of the Mid Valley Area Community Plan that led to the proposed plan of the The Fields subdivision
as the most appropriate development of the site:
"The Mid Valley Area Community Plan is a guiding document, as master plans are not regulatory in
Eagle County. However, Eagle County Land Use Regulations do require conformance to the plan,
and as such its goals and policies should be viewed as both relevant and significant.” [Page 7 of
MVACP]
Based on the above directive from the MVACP, the proposal was developed and designed with a focus on the
recently approved Mid Valley Area Community Plan (2013) and the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to be
compatible with the existing surrounding uses and provide appropriate density for current and future community
planning. The proposal conforms with applicable ancillary County adopted documents including ‘Sustainable
Communities’, ‘Public Trails Plan’, and ‘Affordable Housing’. The proposal also considers its location within the
existing Mid Valley Metropolitan Utility District, which has indicated it can service this development, although a
1041 permit will be required and will be submitted simultaneously with Preliminary Plan and Rezone submittal.
2.3 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY [Also see ‘Section 5.0 Alternative Considerations’ herein].
Consideration and alternatives were reviewed for various housing types before selecting the proposed mix of
duplex and medium single family lots. However, a recently performed market analysis shows an abundance of
high density apartments and townhomes have been approved or are ‘in-process’ to be approved, and revealed the
need and desire for medium density development of duplexes and detached single family units to be high, yet
woefully unavailable. [See ‘Section 5.0 Alternative Considerations’ of this report]
Once the density and housing types were guided by the MVACP and a market analysis, the Applicant’s design
team generated several alternative conceptual layouts to be considered for development of the site. Of the options
considered, the proposed plan best services the community’s current and future residential needs, while providing
the most favorable combination of: mixed residential use, traffic mitigation, compliance with the plans and
policies of Eagle County, and compatible incorporation with the public amenities and logistical master planning
of the El Jebel ‘Community Center’.
At one of the early meetings, County Planning Staff raised consideration of an alternative concept, which would
cluster the housing units on a limited portion of the site. The Applicant’s subsequent analysis found that to
maintain the targeted density of the MVACP near a ‘Community Center’ with public services and infrastructure
3|Page
as stated in Goal 3.1 of the MVACP, clustering would force the development to provide small townhouse or
apartment units. These types of units are becoming abundant in this market and would inhibit the development of
a diversity of unit types, sizes, and price points in the El Jebel ‘Community Center’. Approprite development that
helps meet the goals and intentions of the MVACP density designation is particularly important when considering
this property is one of the last remaining sites suitable for development of density near existing infrastructure in
the area.
3.0 Land Use
The Fields subdivision is an appropriate development in the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ that can be reviewed,
approved, and built efficiently and predictably using the tools and parameters set forth in the existing land use
regulation documents with no deviation or variances necessary. Therefore, The Fields is proposed as a Sketch
Plan application for Subdivision, not a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The Fields subdivision is compatible with the surrounding community because it will incorporate design elements
in consideration of the adjacent neighborhoods and enhance and preserve the broader El Jebel ‘Community
Center’. Additionally, the future vision of planning for the area’s forecasted growth is addressed by The Fields’
adherence to the stated specifications, goals, and intentions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR)
and Eagle County’s adopted policies such as the recently approved Mid Valley Area Community Plan (MVACP),
Affordable Housing Guidelines, and Sustainable Community considerations.
The 19.39 acre site is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR), but the Mid Valley Area Community Plan
(MVACP) and its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) approved in 2013 designates the site to be developed as Urban /
Suburban Residential (USR) with a density range of 3-7 units per acre in consideration of its proximity to the El
Jebel ‘Community Center’. The Fields subdivision is proposed in the middle of the USR density range at 5 units
per acre and requests a rezone to Residential Multi-Family (RMF). The RMF zone is compatible with the
MVACP designation and the proposed development meets its land use requirements and the overall purpose of
the zone as defined in the following excerpt from Article 3 of the ECLUR:
“The purpose of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district is to provide for higher density
residential development within the County's community centers, where transportation facilities,
necessary infrastructure and employment opportunities are already available. This is accomplished by
permitting development of single-family, duplex and multi-family residences on lots of six thousand
(6,000) square feet or larger and by setting maximum lot coverage and maximum floor area standards
appropriate for such uses and lots. The zone district also permits the development of small, conveniencetype commercial uses to serve the neighborhood.”
The Fields subdivision is proposed as 98 single family residential homes. The two general housing types that will
make up the residential housing offerings include detached single family homes on lots ranging from 6,000-8,000
s.f., and duplex units also known as ‘attached single family homes’. The detached single family home lots are
designed to target a floor plan of around 2,100 s.f. of living space; however, the homes may be built by individual
lot owners who will determine the exact size of the home built within the constraints of each lot’s size and the
HOA CC&R’s.
In response to feedback from Planning Staff, each duplex lot is proposed as a single large lot that will
accommodate the construction of two attached duplex units and will be administratively subdivided into two fee
simple lots for individual ownership once the common wall is constructed and can be defined precisely on the
plat. The duplex lots are designed to accommodate two different unit sizes. Lots identified on the Sketch Plan as
Duplex ‘A’ are designed to accommodate two units having a footprint no wider than thirty feet (30’) each, thus
creating a duplex building structure of sixty feet (60’) wide or less. Duplex ‘A’ units have a targeted floor area of
1,100 s.f. per unit and include a garage. Lots identified on the Sketch Plan as Duplex ‘B’ are designed to
accommodate two units having a footprint no wider than forty feet (40’) each, thus creating a duplex building
structure of eighty feet (80’) wide or less. Duplex ‘B’ units have a targeted floor area of 1,800 s.f. per unit and
include a garage.
4|Page
The three different sizes of proposed homes coupled with the designation of some of those homes to be
‘affordable housing’, as defined by the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines provides housing
opportunities at four (4) different price points. The housing opportunities in the Fields subdivision are
accompanied by community gardens, a pocket park with a playground, recyclable materials station, and over
2,000 linear feet of Public Trail connecting to existing trail corridors and river access points. The mix of
residential home size and type is broken down as follows:
#
Type
Size
38
Duplex 'A'
±1,100 s.f.
34
Duplex 'B'
±1,800 s.f.
26
Single Family
>2,100 s.f.
98 TOTAL # UNITS
4.0 Compatibility
When considering the development’s compatibility with surrounding uses the Applicant’s design team looked into
multiple alternatives to determine the best solution for compatibility with both, the neighbors who are directly
adjacent to the site, and the bigger picture of the El Jebel ‘Community Center’.
‘Community Centers’ are referred to often, and with significance, throughout the ECLUR, the MVACP, and the
other adopted policies. As shown in the graphic below, El Jebel is a nearly perfect example of a ‘Community
Center’ that is identified as a location where development should occur at higher density to fully utilize its
favorable proximity to infrastructure, mass transit, public services, public parks, trails, recreation centers, retail,
groceries, and entertainment.
5|Page
Future growth in the Valley is expected and providing density in and around these ‘Community Centers’ will
mitigate urban sprawl and protect the surrounding valley hillsides, features, outdoor lifestyles, and culture. The
significance and value of ‘Community Centers’ is one of many reasons why development of the proposed site is
best considered as part of the ‘big picture’ and not just as an ‘island’ of development. The Fields’ compatibility
with the broader vision of the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ is best revealed by the The Fields compliance with
the MVACP and other adopted plans and policies to provide a reasonable range of housing types and price points
near existing infrastructure so locals can live in close proximity to urban amenities, and expansive open spaces
with great views while enjoying their lifestyle of choice in the Roaring Fork Valley.
When considering the appropriate combination of the broader goals of the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ and the
focused visions of the neighborhoods adjacent to the site, some assumption is made that adjacent neighbors chose
to participate in the recent public process to develop the MVACP which designates development for this site at a
slightly higher density than that of their own. With that said, a deliberate and successful effort was made to
accommodate transitions between the adjacent neighborhoods by designing the proposed housing, and the
location within the site, to respect the visual perception of continuity and compatibility with surrounding
neighborhoods. The visual perception of the size and mass of the proposed duplex building structures is
comparable to the size and mass of detached single family homes found in surrounding residential neighborhoods.
The homes in surrounding neighborhoods have building structure widths ranging from 50’-80’ wide, and the
proposed duplex lots will allow widths of the structure to be no greater than 60’ or 80’ depending on the lot
designation. Duplexes have proven to be an effective way of accomplishing this feat by using architectural
controls enforced by the Home Owners Association that require them to be built in a manner attempting to
visually project it as a single larger home and disguises its nature of being two smaller homes by discouraging
floorplans that mirror each unit; and encourage design integration of thoughtful roof lines, window and access
locations, appropriate exterior materials, and driveway/garage separation. The duplexes built in this manner will
appear as a single large home of equal or larger size than the adjacent neighbors. This intent is particularly
effective when viewing the rear of the homes from the adjacent neighborhoods and travel corridors like Hwy 82
and Valley Road because the driveways and garages are not visible. The provision of garages and appropriate
driveway dimensions, as required by the ECLUR, will provide ample parking for each attached single family
dwelling unit making up the duplex. Further detail and a completed HOA CC&R’s and Architectural Controls
documents that define how this intent shall be implemented will be provided at Preliminary or Final Plan
submittal.
5.0 Alternative Considerations
The Applicant considered multiple alternatives in the process of designing, assessing, and selecting the most
appropriate layout and configuration for The Fields subdivision proposal. The criteria considered when assessing
the alternative plans included:
a. Economic feasibility
b. Conformance with ECLUR, MVACP, and other adopted policies.
c. Compatibility with surrounding uses and the ‘Community Center’ vision for anticipated growth.
In light of these criteria the Applicant considered alternative plans that included:
 Maximize density range recommended by the MVACP (of 7 units per acre) resulting in variations
that yielded either efficient grid patterned roads with reasonably sized lots, or less efficient road
patterns that required small lots to still achieve density. Reaching the upper limit of the recommended
density range would inhibit the ability to provide mixed housing size/type/price points. Additionally
the Applicant determined the housing options necessary to meet the higher density would be less
compatible with surrounding uses and would be in direct competition with the large number of high
density units currently available or in the process of approval at Shadow Rock and The Tree Farm
developments.
 Minimize density range recommended by the MVACP (of 3 units per acre) resulting in variations that
yielded large lots that were ‘more of the same’ as what is found in adjacent and surrounding
neighborhoods and provided no diversity on one of the few remaining developable properties in the
El Jebel ‘Community Center’. Additionally the lower unit count was found to be economically
infeasible considering today’s development costs for project in this location.
6|Page


Middle of the density range recommended by the MVACP (of 5 units per acre) resulting in variations
such as the proposed plan of mixed units and amenities, and alternatives of static housing types
throughout the site or utilization of the concept of clustering which would force the density into a
reduced area that required smaller units and limited the ability to provide diversity as well has being
in direct competition of the large number of smaller units currently available, or in the process of
approval at Shadow Rock and The Tree Farm developments.
Varying Housing types to meet the goals and intentions of the Land Use Regulations and the
MVACP, as well as the needs of the market considering existing, recently approved, and proposed
development in the area. The chart below shows the market levels of various housing types to show
what housing types are prevalent versus those that are unavailable.
Lots
Lots
8k‐10k sf 6k‐8k sf Blue Lake
120
105
Adjacent to east of Summit Vista
36
2
South of City Market
85
30
Willits
13
136
Tree Farm (Proposed)
n/a
n/a
Shadowrock Townhomes n/a
n/a
Oak Grove Townhmes
n/a
n/a
Willits Townhomes
n/a
n/a
Lakeside Townhomes at Willits
n/a
n/a
Sagewood/Pine Ridge Townhome n/a
n/a
Silverado Townhomes
n/a
n/a
Willits Bend Condo/Aprtmnt
n/a
n/a
Valley Pines Condo/Aprtmnt
n/a
n/a
Lakeside Condos at Willits
n/a
n/a
Sopris View Condo/Aprtmnt
n/a
n/a
Dakota Duplexes
n/a
n/a
Crawford Mobile Home Park
n/a
n/a
SouthEast Mobile Home Park
n/a
n/a
Other
n/a
n/a
Total # of Units in El Jebel Area
254
273
Duplex Townhouse Condo / Mobile
Aprtmnt. Homes
n/a
n/a
n/a
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
336
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
64
97
50
74
56
48
20
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
?
?
?
?
52
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
?
?
2
64
n/a
n/a
n/a
409
336
?
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.
In addition to the housing type availability evidence shown above, further assessment of price points,
affordability, and financing options for residents of the area added support to the provision of duplexes and
medium sized detached single family homes.
6.0 Conformance with Eagle County Regulations and Adopted Policies:
Portions of Section 6 below include text extracted directly from Eagle County Land Use Regs and adopted
policies. The Applicant has responded to the items regarding how the proposed development addresses each item.
The original document text remains in black text color and the Applicant’s responses are in blue text.
6.1 EAGLE COUNTY LAND USE REGULATIONS (ECLUR):
Article 5, Section 5-280.B.3.e – Sketch Plan for Subdivision Standards:
(1) Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision shall be in substantial conformance
with the purposes, intents, goals, and policies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community
Plans, and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection,
affordable housing, or infrastructure management. (am 11/08/05) (am 05/08/12)
The Fields proposal conforms with the intent, goals, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Mid Valley
Area Community Plan was the guiding document for consideration of land use, density, and integration with
existing infrastructure and public amenities such as trails, parks, and open spaces associated with the El Jebel
Community Center.
7|Page
(2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of
this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable
standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards.
The Fields proposal is submitted as a standard Subdivision proposal primarily due to its consistency with Land
Use Regulations and its existing development standards without the need for variations or deviations.
(3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid
creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or
premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
The Fields proposal fills in one of the last remaining properties designated for medium to high density
residential use near the existing infrastructure of the El Jebel Community Center. See section 4.0 and 6.2 of this
report for further discussion.
(a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service
plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions
shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan.
The Fields proposal meets this criteria.
(b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the
service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines.
The Fields proposal will provide appropriately sized lines to meet this criteria with input from the
Mid Valley Metro District, although the primary infrastructure already exists adjacent to the
property and is sized appropriately as it exists.
(c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire
range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an
otherwise un-served area.
No utility extensions are proposed because the site is adjacent to existing infrastructure capable of
servicing the development by Mid Valley Metro District.
(4) Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development,
considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the
potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
The proposed site has been deemed suitable for residential development at a density of between 3-7
units per acre by the Mid Valley Area Community Plan (Note: The Fields is proposed as 5 units per
acre). The site is on the valley floor with topographical challenges and is not in a flood plain.
Existing irrigation and drainage ditches will be addressed so as to negatively affect users upstream or
downstream.
(5) Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision shall be generally compatible with the
existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land, and other substantially impacted land, services,
or infrastructure improvements. (am 05/08/12)
The Fields proposal is compatible with both the existing adjacent uses as well as the broader scope of the El
Jebel Community Center. See section 4.0 of this report for further detail.
(6) Adequate Facilities. The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Sketch or
Preliminary Plan will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste
disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools,
police and fire protection, and emergency medical services (orig. 03/28/06)
The Fields proposal is within the Mid Valley Metro District and has received an “Ability to Serve” letter. The
site is in an existing residential neighborhood and the El Jebel Community Center with available emergency
services. Roaring Fork School District is currently considering locating a school within a 2 mile radius of the
proposed site within the next 5-10 years. See the response to Policy 1.2.1.a within Section 6.2.C of this report
for further detail.
8|Page
6.2 MID VALLEY AREA COMMUNITY PLAN (MVACP):
The MVACP was updated in 2013. The Applicant highly prioritized conforming with MVACP because of the
language on page 7 of the MVACP that reads:
"The Mid Valley Area Community Plan is a guiding document, as master plans are not regulatory
in Eagle County. However, Eagle County Land Use Regulations do require conformance to the
plan, and as such its goals and policies should be viewed as both relevant and significant.”
The adoption of the MVACP came after months of recommendations from multiple public meeting, over 45
contacted entities and stakeholders in the area, and then onto Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) before finally
being approved and adopted by the Planning Commission. The applicable key components, objectives, and
considerations for development per the MVACP and how The Fields subdivision meets or exceeds these goals are
as follows:
A. Planning Objectives [per ‘Introduction’ Page 6 MVACP]
1. Provide a master plan that would effectively guide land use over the next ten to fifteen years,
consistent with the values and needs of the Mid Valley Community.
The Fields subdivision matches the density range, infrastructure, and ‘Community Center’
considerations associated with the study and discussions of housing needs reflected by the approved
MVACP.
2. Provide opportunities for urban and suburban growth within and near ‘Community Center’s
along Highway 82.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) provides a guide for development in and around the ‘Community
Center’ of El Jebel that meets the goals and intentions of the approved MVACP. The FLUM
designation for development on the proposed site is Urban/Suburban Residential (USSR) and calls for
a density range of 3-7 dwelling units per acre. The Fields subdivision is in the middle of the USSR
density range by proposing 5 dwelling units per acre.
3. Encourage compact development, multi modal connectivity and walkability within developed
areas along Highway 82.
The location and proximity of the proposed site within the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ requires the
development to be viewed as an integral part of the larger ‘Community Center’ rather than just an
independent ‘island’ of development. If the project was located in a more rural area and was
developed as its own ‘community neighborhood’ an independent study of clustering and consideration
of its isolation may be warranted, but such is not the case for this proposal. The Fields subdivision
proposed density and mixed residential unit price points adheres to the MVACP vision and
encouragement of compact development for the community. Furthermore, The Fields proposes over
2,000 linear feet of Public Trail with connections to existing public trail links as well as access to the
Roaring Fork River section maintained by the U.S. Forest Service. The internal roads and adjacent
sidewalks within the proposed subdivision are designed in a non-linear fashion to avoid an undesirable
‘grid pattern’ and provide access to a pocket park with playground and over 5,400 s.f. of Community
Gardens.
4. Work to enhance a sense of place and identity for development along Highway 82.
The proposed developments adherence to the stated goals, intentions, and regulations for the El Jebel
‘Community Center’ as laid out in the MVACP and associated Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities guidelines effectively enhances the sense of identity for the El Jebel ‘Community
Center’ along Hwy 82.
5. Support affordable housing within existing Community Centers.
The Fields will provide 25% of its units as called for in the Affordable Housing Guidelines within the
existing El Jebel ‘Community Center’.
6. Provide an appropriate range of recreational, cultural, economic and social opportunities.
The multi-modal travel connections for vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. increases trail lengths in the
community and completes safe new access to the Roaring Fork River for existing community
members, while also providing new homes within ¾ of a mile to a range of opportunities such as jobs,
mass transit, sewer/water, groceries, restaurants, retail, entertainment, parks, river access, etc.
9|Page
Preserve air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat, and high quality views.
The proposed residential development will not adversely affect the quality of air, water, wildlife, or
views. In fact, studies support that providing homes closer to jobs, recreation, groceries, and
recreation such as a ‘Community Center’ like El Jebel reduces the impacts of vehicular travel on all of
the aforementioned aspects throughout the Valley. An additional public benefit of provision of homes
in the location and density proposed by The Fields is that it will accommodate growth of the region
within an existing ‘Community Center’ and alleviate the quality views from being diminished by
urban sprawl if growth is forced to build outward from the ‘Community Center’ when only low
density development is approved. The Home Owners Association Covenants will encourage
renewable and passive energy features.
8. Protect rivers, streams, lakes, historic irrigation delivery systems and associated aquatic and
riparian ecosystems.
There are no waterways located on the proposed site and all irrigation and drainage will be engineered
to maintain the delivery system’s integrity.
9. Preserve historic structures and other elements of local history, including mature trees.
A large portion of the stand of trees near the proposed entry will be undisturbed, although some less
distinctive foliage must be removed for intersection safety and fall hazards. There are no historical
structures on the site, although the semi-buried cellar in the northeast corner of the site is being
considered to remain for use associated with the proposed community gardens if deemed safe upon
further inspection.
10. Preserve agricultural land uses and rural character, and encourage local crop and food
production.
14.6% of the site is proposed as Open Space, Pocket Park, or Community Gardens. Over 5,400 s.f. of
Community Garden beds are proposed within a pocket park and an additional 2,400 s.f of semi-buried
cellar shall be provided to encourage local food production. The Mid Valley Area Community Plan
gave great consideration to the preservation of agricultural land use in the area and deemed this
property to be best suited for residential development at a density of 3-7 units per acre to capture
density growth near the ‘Community Centers’ and preserve agricultural land elsewhere. The Fields is
consistent with the development designation of the MVACP. Furthermore, the alternatives that were
considered which might allow some of the existing open area to remain, were found to come at the
cost of conflicting with other important MVACP planning objectives, including the provision of
diverse housing types and price points in the overall El Jebel ‘Community Center’, and the
encouragement of development density near the infrastructure of existing ‘Community Centers’.
11. Support alternative energy production where appropriate, and encourage energy and resource
efficient designs and building materials.
The Fields Home Owners Association Covenants will encourage the renewable and passive energy
features of all new homes and require them to adhere with the strict regulations of the Eagle County
building code which requires or incentivizes efficient designs and materials.
12. Promote public safety, health and welfare, consistent with Eagle County Land Use Regulations.
The prosed development promotes public safety, health, and welfare throughout its design by
providing safe road systems built in a curvilinear manner to reduce speed, multi-modal transportation
options, community garden opportunities, proximity to infrastructure, mass transit, and logistical
needs, and finally, by adhering to the land use and engineering standards required by Eagle County
and the State of Colorado.
7.
B. Vision Statement - Chapter 3 Highway 82 Corridor Character Area:
1. “A reasonable range of housing types and price points is available, and locals live in close proximity
to both urban amenities and expansive open spaces with great views.
The Fields proposes (4) different price points, (3) different housing sizes, and (2) different housing
types and is targeted at meeting the housing needs of the full-time resident population of the Valley
2. “Road intersections along Highway 82 are appropriately spaced and well designed, serving “hubs” of
commercial and retail services as well as clusters of urban and suburban type residential
neighborhoods.”
The proposed addition of a signal at the intersection at Valley Road and Hwy 82 meets this vision
10 | P a g e
3.
using updated traffic assessment data and will relieve a portion of the existing issue at the El Jebel
Road intersection with Hwy 82.
“Crown Mountain Park provides sport fields and other active recreational facilities, as well as a
direct connection to the Roaring Fork River corridor, which borders the character area to the
southwest.”
The Fields proposal will be a public benefit regarding the overall planning and vision for the El Jebel
‘Community Center’ by providing housing opportunity at recommended densities within ¼ mile of
the Crown Mountain Park and the Roaring Fork River access point.
C. Goals & Policies:
1. Land Use:
“Goal 1.1 The type and distribution of land uses in the Highway 82 Character Area
meet community needs, reflect community desires, and demonstrate
effective multi agency collaboration.”
“Policy 1.1.1 Work collaboratively with affected agencies and stakeholders to provide an appropriate
overall mix of land uses in the area.
The Applicant has reached out to numerous entities including, but not limited to, emergency services,
school districts, and public land management entities to discuss what need they may have regarding
housing in the area. Although not all of the entities chose to comment on the matter, those who did
overwhelmingly agreed that our mix of duplex and single-family homes ranging in sizes from 1,1002,400 s.f. covered the spectrum of housing needed by their employees and associates. These public
sector entities also expressed great enthusiasm for for the roughly 24 homes provided by The Fields
that would be affordable housing. Further community outreach recognized an overall demand for
market driven housing opportunities for ‘every day’ citizens who work in, or otherwise enjoy the
Valley. The desire and need expressed during our community outreach was further confirmed by the
many letters to the editor and social media forums in which citizens express the need for housing
opportunities like those proposed by The Fields.
“Policy 1.1.2.b Provide opportunities for higher density residential uses in close proximity to
commercial service areas and transit hubs.”
The proposed subdivision has a density of 5 units per acre which fits within the MVACP designation
of 3-7 units per acre. The site is located within the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ and has multi-modal
access to mass transit, groceries, entertainment, restaurant, retail, jobs, and recreation.
“Policy 1.1.2.c Ensure an adequate number of affordable workforce units in the area.”
The Fields subdivision proposes to meet the affordable housing guidelines by dedicating 24 units (or
25%) as affordable workforce housing units. The Applicant’s potential development of these units has
generated great anticipation from the local school districts, emergency service entities, public land
management authorities, and more.
“Policy 1.1.2.e Ensure an appropriate range of housing types and price points in any new Planned
Unit Development.”
Although the proposed subdivision is not a Planned Unit Development, The Fields furthers the intent
of this policy by proposing (4) different price points (including affordable housing), (3) different
housing sizes, and (2) different housing types. The proposal consists of (38) Duplex ‘A’ units
targeting roughly 1,100 s.f., (34) Duplex ‘B’ units targeting 1,800 s.f., and (26) detached SingleFamily homes targeting >2,100 s.f. Price points are relative to the change in home size.
“Policy 1.1.5 Provide appropriate recreational opportunities and facilities
The proposed subdivision’s unique location within the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ is its primary
source for recreational opportunities due to its immediate proximity to Crown Mountain Park and the
Roaring Fork River access, but the proposal also includes more than 2,000 linear feet of public trail
built to Mid Valley Trails Committee standards, over 5,400 s.f. of Community Gardens, and a pocket
park with a neighborhood playground.
“Policy 1.1.9 Adhere to the purposes and intents of the Mid Valley Area Community Plan Future
Land Use Map.”
The Future Land Use Map designation for development on the proposed site is Urban/Suburban
Residential (USSR) and calls for a density range of 3-7 dwelling units per acre. The Fields
subdivision is in the middle of the USSR density range by proposing 5 dwelling units per acre.
11 | P a g e
“Policy 1.2.1.a Encourage compact development, and promote higher densities in community centers
where adequate infrastructure already exists, and where services can be most efficiently provided.
The Fields subdivision provides appropriate density that is compatible with existing surrounding
subdivisions yet still adheres to the intent of the MVACP to promote higher densities within
‘Community Centers’ such as El Jebel. Existing utility infrastructure exists with capacities capable of
receiving the the proposed development:
i. Water and Sewer: The Mid Valley Metro District has issued an “Ability to Serve” letter for both
water and sewer at the proposed density and the Applicant is prepared to submit a 1041 Permit
application with Preliminary plan.
ii. Fire Protection: Fire protection will be provided by the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District.
The method of Fire Protection will be an on-site water system with new Fire Hydrants with a
looped connection to the existing Water Supply of the Mid Valley Metro District. As the design
progresses, there will be coordination with BRFPD Fire Marshall Bill Harding to ensure any
specific concerns are met. In general, the design will follow BRFPD guidelines in terms of the
following aspects:
 Access Road Design
o Adequate width and surfacing
o 8Two-way access (Main and Emerg.)
o Max cul-de-sac length / turnaround
 Wildfire Requirements
 Fire Flow
o Volume, pressure, and storage
 Fire Hydrants
o Location / spacing / accessibility
 Building Requirements
6.3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
The Applicant recognizes the community need for affordable housing and proposes adherence to the Eagle
County Affordable Housing Guidelines amended in 2013 in response to the Eagle County Housing Needs
Assessment Update in 2012. Section 3.01 of the Affordable Housing Guidelines currently states that a mitigation
rate of 25% shall be imposed on any new residential development. The Fields development proposes to employ
the acceptable methods described at the intro to Chapter 4 of the Affordable Housing Guidelines as presented
below.
The Applicant’s intent is to propose a Housing Plan that primarily utilizes Price Capped and Resident Occupied
Housing. The Housing Plans considered include satisfying mitigation by simply providing 25% of the proposed
housing as Price Capped For Sale Housing; or, a combination of Price Capped For Sale Housing and Resident
Occupied Housing. The Applicant understands that Resident Owned housing is only given 0.5x credit toward the
25% Affordable Housing mandate so an example of a combination for consideration is providing 13 Price Capped
units, and 24 Resident Owned units. Development in the Mid Valley Area is complicated and requires open
discussion with Eagle County regarding the feasible provision of Affordable Housing once a level of
predictability is obtained in regards to approved zoning, density, and off-site improvements. Therefore, once
Sketch Plan approval has provided the predictability necessary to know what zoning, density, and off-site
improvements are deemed appropriate for development at this site we can then present a detailed Housing Plan at
Preliminary or Final Plan depicting which methods shall be used and identifying units designated to be deed
restricted for mitigation of affordable housing.
CHAPTER 4 – ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION
In an effort to provide the flexibility necessary for the development industry, an applicant may comply
with the Guidelines in the following ways, all of which are subject to approval by the BoCC, in its sole
discretion:
1. Price Capped For Sale Housing with a maximum Initial Sales Price set at or below 100% AMI
affordability level will be given full credit.
2. Affordable Rental Housing with a deed restriction requiring rents to be set at or below the 80%
AMI affordability level may be given increased credit if a recent market analysis shows the need
for additional Affordable Rental Housing in the rental project’s location.
3. Resident Occupied For Sale Housing, which includes a 2.0% transfer fee on all sales to nonEligible Households, without regard to AMI, will be given 0.50x credit.
4. A donation of land to ECHDA within a reasonable vicinity of the applicant’s Project will be
given 0.50x credit.
12 | P a g e
5.
6.
7.
8.
Off Site Development will be given 0.50x credit. In cases where the off site location has a higher
Affordability Gap than the development site, full credit may be awarded.
A Payment in Lieu may be made to ECHDA.
An applicant may use Affordable Housing Credits.
Other Public Benefits may be provided to offset some portion of Affordable Housing.
6.4 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY INDEX:
The Fields subdivision meets and exceeds the intent, goals, and criteria set forth by the Sustainable Community
Index. The purpose of the Sustainable Community Index is described in the Land Use Regulations as follows:
DIVISION 4-10: SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY INDEX (org. 9/17/08)
SECTION 4-1000: PURPOSE
The Sustainable Community Index (SCI) is a development review tool to comprehensively
analyze how new developments contribute toward sustainable community development. The
intent of the SCI is to give staff, developers, and decision makers an indicator as to the level of
sustainability a project includes within it, as well as its contribution to the broader community.
Sustainable Community shall be defined as: a community which fosters economic opportunity and
social capital while protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which people and
economies depend.
The proposed residential development meets and exceeds the intent of the SCI by way of adhering to the Land
Use Regulations and MVACP which have given great consideration to the enhancement and preservation of the
El Jebel ‘Community Center’. While many of the considerations within the SCI Checklist (or Points List) can be
addressed on a site by site basis they must also be applied to the surrounding community center, which has
effectively been promoted within the Eagle County development regulations applicable to the proposed site. The
SCI Checklist (or Points List) below, as provided by Eagle County, was used to assess what Sustainability
considerations are being met by The Fields subdivision. The Applicant’s meetings with Eagle County Planning
Staff identified several items and points availability that were deemed ‘non applicable’ as described in Section 41020 of Article 4: Site Development Standards:
Section 4-1020
Point Scale:
140+ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
70-139 MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
0-69 DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
“…The point scale above assumes a maximum point score of 210, with 70 (meets minimum standards) and 140 (exceeds
minimum standards) representing 33% and 66% thresholds of this maximum number, respectively. For proposals where
certain line items from the SCI which are not applicable to the project, the total maximum points and point thresholds
shall be adjusted and pro-rated accordingly. A non-applicable point or line item is one which is impossible to include
in the project because of its location or existing condition. A point or line item cannot become non-applicable due to a
proposed design or recent actions taken by the applicant.”
Within the SCI Checklist below, the black text in the table below is the standard language in the SCI Checklist.
The Maroon text indicates revision to the points availability per agreement with Eagle County Planning Staff
regarding applicability. The blue text is comment from the Applicant regarding satisfaction of the line item
within the Fields subdivision proposal:
SITE/LOCATION
pts.
5
2-5
3
5
LOCATION INFILL/REDEVELOPMENT: Infill (4), adjacent (2), and/or previously developed (1)
The site is located within the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ and adjacent to previously developed
residential neighborhood.
TRANSIT: Over 50% of the development is within walking distance (1/4 mile) of transit stop (5). The
site is located less than a ¼ mile from RFTA stop that exists north of Hwy 82 at the Blue Lake
Subdivision and within ¾ mile of the RFTA stop on the south side of Hwy 82 at the El Jebel Road
intersection. The proposed signalization of the intersection at Valley Road and Hwy 82 and the trail
connection leading to El Jebel Road will provide safe access to RFTA.
13 | P a g e
4
2-4
5
5
1
1
0
2
1
1-2
-
N/A
2
2
2
1-3
2
2
2
4
3
4
0
1-2
1
2
0
3-18
0
2
-
N/A
1
1-3
-
N/A
1
3
1
1
3
1-8
0
1-20
0
2-4
PROXIMITY TO EXISTING WATER/WASTEWATER: ties into existing (4); public extension (2)
Located within the Mid Valley Metro district with access to both sewer and water adjacent to the
property.
WILDLIFE/ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES: biological study with DOW compliance DOW has
indicated no major impacts to wildlife. See attached memo from DOW.
RIPARIAN/WETLAND PRESERVATION: 100' setback and water quality testing [Originally 1-3
points available, but 2pts deemed N/A]
AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION: Doesn't remove historic/potential agricultural land In
order to comply with the Mid Valley Area Community Plan and the preservation and enhancement of the
EL Jebel ‘Community Center’ while maintaining diversity of homes in the area, it is not feasible to
preserve the portions of the site sometimes used as pasture.
EXISTING VEGETATION PRESERVATION: <10% existing tree/shrubs impacted The only source of
trees and shrubs on the property occur along Valley Road and the existing driveway. Home sites were
pushed away from the trees so roughly 80% of the trees are expected to be preserved. It is possible that
engineering site lines for the access intersection may require some trees to be removed for safety.
BROWNFIELD/BLIGHT REDEVELOPMENT: Improves blighted lot (2), contamination cleanup (3)
[Originally 2-3 points available, but all points deemed N/A]
STEEP SLOPES/RIDGELINES: on slopes less than 20%
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: 100% of surface drainage through bioswale/vegetated system.
Drainage engineering has not been fully investigated, but water quality control and low impact
development BMP’s will be implemented.
CONNECTIONS AND USES
OPEN COMMUNITY: no gates, amenities are open to the public
PUBLIC ACCESS: provides appropriate public access to public lands/rivers (with agency approval)
Over 2,000 linear feet of public trail proposed along with a new connection to existing river access.
COMPACT DEVELOPMENT: 7 or more units/acre; commercial > .50 FAR All feedback from County
Planning and community input has recommended not to develop at the maximum range of 7 units per
acre. The proposed 5 units per acre density complies with the MVACP and is compatible with existing
neighborhoods and future vision of the El Jebel Community Center.
REDUCED FOOTPRINT: on previously disturbed area (1); all structures and parking < .50 lot (1)
CLUSTERING: efficient infrastructure, development concentrated in node(s), allowing for open areas.
Although clustering does not apply to the proposal when looking at the site as an island of development,
the Applicant proposes 1 point be awarded for clustering when considering the clustering of density near
infrastructure and open spaces as designated by the vision of the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ and the
MVACP.
OPEN SPACE: conservation easement meets components of open space criteria. See regulations.
REDUCED PARKING FOOTPRINT: less surface parking (2-3), carpool (1), covered bike storage (1-2)
[Originally 2-7 points available, but 5pts deemed N/A]
PARKING LOCATION: surface parking to rear of structures only (4); to side and screened (2).
[Originally 2-4 points available]
REDUCED PARKING: Does not exceed LURs: 1 pt. Study shows reduced on-site demand (2-3 pts.)
JOBS/HOUSING RATIO onsite housing for mixed-use non-residential (see regulations) [Originally 4
points available]
SCHOOL PROXIMITY: within a mile of a public school Roaring Fork School District planning a
school within the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ [long term planning].
DIVERSITY OF USES: 1 point each use category listed in regulations [Originally 1-20 points
available, but 19pts deemed N/A because of zoning and MVACP]
DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES 1 point each housing type listed in regulations above 2. Although
technically only two housing types are proposed (Duplex and Detached Single Family), there are 3 sizes
and price points that warrant points consideration.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1 point each affordable housing unit provided above housing guidelines.
25% of proposed housing units will meet affordable housing designation as required.
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Onsite rental housing, see regulations.
TRANSPORTATION
11
1-15
WALKABLE STREETS: see commentary [Originally 1-28 points available, but 13pts deemed N/A]
14 | P a g e
STREET NETWORK: grid small block pattern, 2 pts, pedestrian connection at cul de sacs (1) Eagle
County Planning Staff discouraged grid-like city patterns in favor of curvilinear roads.
1
1-3
0
2-3
1
1-4
3
3
2
2
2
1-3
2
1-3
2
1-2
1
1
DIVERSE NATIVE LANDSCAPE: Landscape plan utilizes 10 or more local native low-water species.
2
2
4
5
10
3-30
0
1
XERISCAPE: Landscape plan incorporates seven xeric design principles (see regulations)
SOLAR ORIENTATION: 75% of all buildings have solar orientation (see regulations) The road system
that overwhelmingly incorporates roads on a NW/SE bearing provides nearly every home with an
opportunity to incorporate passive solar orientation and the HOA CC&R’s will encourage the use of
both passive and active solar energy features.
RENEWABLE ENERGY 3 points for every 5% total energy offset by onsite renewable system(s). The
HOA CC&R’s will encourage the use of renewable energy systems.
INFRASTRUCTURE RECYCLED CONTENT: Concrete/asphalt 75% or more recycled content. This
item is unpredictable at this stage of Sketch Plan.
RECYCLING: Design includes areas for recycling co-mingled, paper, and cardboard. An area for a
recycled materials collection bin has been proposed near the mailbox pullout across from the park.
TRANSIT FACILITIES: transit stop provided by development (2 pts.), covered bike storage (1 add'l pt.)
WALKABLE VICINITY: www.walkscore.com score 10-25=1pt, 26-50=2pts, 51-75=3pts, 76-100=4pts.
Walkscore.com gives a score of 12 for the site address and comments that most errands would require a
car even though groceries, entertainment, restaurants, and services are all found within one mile of the
site and connected by public trails.
BICYCLE NETWORK: Connection to community center via bicycle paths/routes.
ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACES: 90% of units within 1/4 mile of public green space Access to Roaring
Fork River.
ACCESS TO ACTIVE SPACE: within 1/2 mile of ball field, 3-mile recreation trail, and/or dog park
Access to Crown Mountain Park.
LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION: private garden areas (1); community garden(s) (2); local market (1)
Proposal includes over 5,400 s.f of Community Gardens within a pocket park.
RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
-
78
X
179
LIMITED TURF/SPECIES: <25% landscaped areas turf (1). Turf uses 25% less water than KBG (1).
LIGHT POLLUTION: Exterior lighting minimized, shielded, night sky compliant.
INNOVATION IN DESIGN: Items meeting intent not listed, case by case review
TOTAL [44%] The Categories of ‘Renewable Energy’ and’ Affordable Housing (beyond the 25%
required)’ account for 30 and 20 points possible, or 28%. The economics of being required to provide
25% of units as affordable housing before being able to earn any points for affordable housing within
this index make obtaining any points in this heavily weighted category very challenging. Renewable
Energy is also heavily weighted in this index, but at this early stage of Sketch Plan we cannot accurately
depict how many individual home buyers may choose to use renewable energy systems other than the
passive solar opportunity provided by the developer.
Upon approval of the proposed Sketch Plan for the Fields subdivision and the ensuing finalization of design
engineering, landscape plan, and the HOA CC&R’s it is believed the projects score on the SCI may exceed 50%.
However, the heavy points weighting of affordable housing that is eligible by affordable housing beyond the 25%
required by the Affordable Housing Guidelines makes it very challenging from an economically feasible
standpoint, as does the heavy points weighting of the use of renewable energy which is very difficult to predict
what an individual property owner may choose for their energy needs upon building a home in the Fields
subdivision. The Applicant understands that the heavy weighting of the points in these categories may be
intentional to promote a vision for development in the area, but at this early stage of Sketch Plan the Applicant is
uncertain of its level of participation in the final construction of each home on the project vs. private owners of
purchased lots who will then build their own homes, so points assignment for SCI proved to be challenging in
some categories.
15 | P a g e
7.0 Traffic Impact Mitigation:
The consideration of feasibility for any development in the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ area must address the
issue of traffic impact, and more specifically, the traffic impact on the intersections of access to State Highway 82
(Hwy 82). The Applicant is very aware of the long standing logistical and fiscal issues surrounding primarily the
intersection of El Jebel Rd / Hwy 82, and its culmination to this point that the next development in the area will be
burdened with addressing the issue. The Applicant’s engineers and planners have had thorough discussion on the
matter with Eagle County Engineering, Eagle County Planning, CDOT, local stakeholders, and interested parties.
We understand the level of involvement various parties choose (or choose not) to participate in resolving the
matter as well as the budgeting time frames for such participation. The Fields Development Group proposes a
fair, safe, and financially equitable solution that can be implemented in a timely manner providing relief to the
current traffic issue at El Jebel; and we believe the proposed solution can be implemented without the need for
immediate out-of-pocket cost sharing from the County or other entities. However, as explained below, the
process to implement the proposed solution will require the support and cooperation of Eagle County.
In addition to meeting with governing entities, the Applicant and its engineering team at SGM, Inc. studied
CDOT’s Access Control Plan (ACP) from 2002 for the Hwy 82 corridor, reviewed several traffic studies
performed in recent years (on behalf of CDOT, Eagle County, or other interested parties), and submitted a Level 3
Traffic Analysis Methodology Proposal to CDOT in April of this year (2015) that included new traffic counts.
Review of recent traffic studies in addition to traffic counts performed this year by qualified traffic engineers on
behalf of the Applicant have provided insight on the differences between the traffic levels forecasted by the ACP
back in 2002 and the actual traffic (and their sources) impacting the intersections today. Upon completing the
preliminary study it became evident that the intersection at El Jebel Rd / Hwy 82 was not the only intersection in
the area whose actual traffic impact was different from the 2002 ACP forecasts, and furthermore, there were
identifiable relationships between the effectiveness of one intersection on another. The primary example of such
relationships is between the intersection of El Jebel Rd / Hwy 82 and the intersection to the west of Valley Rd.
(and/or JW Rd) / Hwy 82. With this updated data set and fresh perspective on how to approach the traffic issues
that are stifling economic development and hindering the availability of housing opportunities for residents in the
area, the Applicant presented two mitigation measures:
Limit the access movements of vehicles exiting the Fields subdivision so that a ‘right turn only’ is
available, thereby directing all traffic exiting the subdivision to the intersection of Valley Rd. (and/or JW
Rd) / Hwy 82.
2. Install a new signal at the intersection of Valley Rd. (and/or JW Rd) / Hwy 82.
1.
Upon presenting the concept of installing a signal at JW Drive and Hwy 82 to equitably relieve the El Jebel
intersection and improve existing traffic conditions in the area now and into the future, the Eagle County
Engineering office requested the applicant perform a complete Traffic Impact Analysis to assess its feasibility.
The traffic study was completed in August 2015 and documents the existing and 20-year projections as well as the
operational conditions that the Hwy 82 corridor is anticipated to experience. In an effort to reduce the volume of
site-generated traffic using the El Jebel signal, this study considers a new traffic signal at Hwy 82/JW Drive that
is intended to serve as the development’s primary access point to the regional highway system. The study
demonstrates that a traffic signal here will improve operations at this intersection, while also providing relief to
the operations at the highly congested intersection of Hwy 82/El Jebel Road during certain times of the day.
Support for the proposed signal beyond capacity and operations considerations include a known history of
requests for a signal from neighbors and other users (i.e. school district, surrounding property owners and
stakeholders), existing infrastructure of conduit and pull boxes to facilitate signalization that was previously
installed by CDOT at the request or approval of Eagle County Engineering, and several MUTCD warrants being
satisfied. It should be noted that the study was conducted in a “worst case scenario” approach with no reductions
taken for trips made by transit, bicycle or other modal choices available to the residents ,which if considered,
would yield added favorable support for the proposed signalization.
In summary, the extensive professional data assessment and resulting justification for a signal at JW Drive shows
that it will provide relief to existing congestion at the El Jebel intersection, accommodates future growth, and
create another local access route from surrounding neighborhoods which allows redundancy and accessible
alternative routes in the event of excessive mainline delays without hindering the travel corridor functionality.
16 | P a g e
7.1 BENEFITS OF MITIGATION
The primary benefits to the proposed traffic mitigation of the installation of a signal at Valley Rd. (and/or JW Rd)
/ Hwy 82 and the three-quarter movement intersection at the subdivision entrance to Valley Rd., include but are
not limited to:
Benefit A:
A three-quarter movement intersection will prevent additional traffic from the proposed development to
the south side of the intersection at EL Jebel Rd / Hwy 82, while still providing housing opportunities and
amenities that enhance and preserve the El Jebel ‘Community Center’. Incorporated into the design of
The Fields subdivision where it accesses Valley Road is a limited movement intersection to restrict the
ability of a vehicle leaving the subdivision from turning left (east) and traveling toward the El Jebel Rd /
Hwy 82 intersection, and instead, allows only a right turn (west) onto Valley Road to the nearby Valley
Rd / Hwy 82 intersection. The proposed three-quarter movement intersection will not affect through
traffic or the existing use of Valley Rd. The improvements will allow drivers to enter the subdivision
from both eastbound and westbound Valley Rd and will only restrict the exit from the subdivision to be
right turn only. The three-quarter movement intersection simultaneously acts as a grand entry feature that
will be landscaped with vegetation, boulders, and grading designed to physically prohibit traffic from
illegally forcing a left turn by jumping curbs or cutting across the entry feature area. See below for a
conceptual layout of the restricted intersection.
Residents and visitors to The Fields subdivision will not suffer hindered access or longer routes of travel
to the El Jebel ‘Community Center’ or it’s amenities as a result of the proposed three-quarter movement
intersection at the entrance of the subdivision. Travel times were studied for driving both routes from the
proposed location of the subdivision entrance to the intersection of EL Jebel Rd / Hwy 82. The studies
showed that when driving within the legal speed limit of each road and incurring average delay at the
intersection, travel time was as follows:
 130 seconds to exit right (west) out of the proposed subdivision along Valley Road and then turn
right (east) onto Hwy 82 at the intersection and remain on Hwy 82 until reaching the signal at El
Jebel Road.
 125 seconds to travel left (east) out of the proposed subdivision onto Valley Road until reaching
the stop sign at the intersection with El Jebel Rd just south of the intersection with Hwy 82.
The study shows it is virtually the same travel time (within 5 seconds) for either route.
17 | P a g e
Benefit B:
The Fields subdivision will provide relief of the existing pre-development traffic impacting both the north
and south sides of the intersection at El Jebel Rd / Hwy 82, thus prolonging the life of acceptable
intersection operations. Traffic using the north side of SH 82 at El Jebel is generated by four primary
areas: Missouri Heights subdivisions, Blue Lakes subdivisions, the Crawford property subdivisions, and
the businesses along SH 82 and El Jebel Road. Blue Lake has approximately 400 units and our peak hour
counts at JW/El Jebel Road will show how many right turns are made in the morning peak (and left turns
in the afternoon peak) at this intersection to better isolate Blue Lakes traffic currently using the El Jebel
signal. Removing the majority of traffic from one of these four generators from the intersection will
indeed help relieve the traffic issue. Additionally, there are several small subdivisions along Valley Road
across from Crown Mountain Park that would benefit from a signal at JW drive. Many of these residents
now use the signal at El Jebel to drive toward Carbondale and would likely use a signal at JW if it were
available.
Existing Traffic Scenario:
Proposed Traffic Relief:
18 | P a g e
Benefit C:
An immediate ‘way of life’ benefit will be felt by the community as a result of timely construction of an
equitable solution to simultaneously relieve existing traffic concerns and provide future capacity. The
improvements will relieve the El Jebel intersection from portions of the traffic generated by existing
sources. Additionally, the approval of the proposed traffic mitigation plan will relieve the “choke point”
that is currently stifling appropriate development in the area and provide opportunities including the
provision of reasonable housing for new valley residents, or existing workers who may currently reside
down valley, to live in the same area they work and play in. The positive economic impact of appropriate
development on the area’s businesses is invaluable.
Benefit D:
The local governing bodies will see benefits to both financial and community planning considerations
such as:
 Prolonging the life of acceptable intersection operations at an intersection already in great
demand for relief but without funding to do so.
 Accommodation of anticipated growth of the region into the future that addresses the
shortcomings of the ACP forecasts from nearly 15 years ago.
 The Fields subdivision proposal will generate $384,844 in Traffic Impact Fees to be used in the
Roaring Fork Benefit District identified on Exhibit D of Article 4, Section 7 in the ECLUR. The
Applicant is willing to engage in discussions concerning options to fund the improvements for
construction at the early stages of the project rather than waiting until the Traffic Impact Fees are
collected at Building Permit of each unit over time.
 Limited traffic on eastbound Valley Road will increase considerations of health, safety, and
welfare for the Crown Mountain Park visitors and the high level of pedestrians in the area along
Valley Road utilizing the concentration of trails, open space, and river access in the area.
Traffic data collected thus far shows the magnitude of relief to the El Jebel / Hwy 82 intersection upon the
installation of the proposed signal may be significant enough to not warrant the proposed three-quarter movement
intersection at the entrance/exit of the subdivision. Should ongoing assessment and engineering show the threequarter movement intersection is not appropriate, the Applicant will provide an appropriate alternative
intersection for review by Eagle County during Preliminary Plan using accepted engineering design standards
based on health, safety, and welfare.
The Applicant acknowledges this proposal does not, by itself, resolve all the issues at the intersection of El Jebel /
Hwy 82, but it does provide a fair and equitable contribution on behalf of the development relative to the small
proportion of traffic impact the proposed development produces on surrounding intersections, and will provide
nearly $390,000 in Road Impact Fees to the County.
This proposal represents an equitable solution based on a fresh look at updated traffic data to simultaneously
relieve existing conditions and plan for the future. The implementation of these improvements would satisfy
future needs and is a significant advancement to address the traffic woes in El Jebel and the effects it has on
economic development of the region. The traffic data supports the engineer’s report that the actual traffic
experienced today is different than the forecasts made by the CDOT Access Control Plan (ACP) nearly 15 years
ago, resulting in a signal being warranted at the intersection Valley Rd. (and JW Rd) / Hwy 82. However, if it is
deemed to be agreeable by community planners and area stakeholders the process of approval will include an
amendment to the CDOT Access Control Plan (ACP) that was done in 2002. The Applicant intends to facilitate
the amendment process. Dan Roussin (CDOT Region 3 - Access/Utility Engineer/Permits Coordinator) has
indicated neither support nor opposition to an amendment process if warranted by traffic data, but advised that
support from Eagle County and the local community is paramount to the process. Upon Sketch Plan approval of
the basic concept for the proposed traffic mitigation the Applicant will begin amending the ACP using the
appropriate County and CDOT processes.
19 | P a g e
8.0 Public Benefit Summary:
The Public Benefits of The Fields subdivision primarily fall into the following categories:
a. Satisfy existing and projected community housing needs. By all accounts from individuals, business, and
public sector entities there is great demand for reasonable housing opportunities in the area. Market
studies have been performed supporting this claim, and local media is inundated with letters from the
public discussing the topic. During the community outreach phase of this project there were several
public entities and private land owners who chose to provide letters on the subject of their housing needs
or the hurdles they have encountered to provide solutions in the past. These letters of support for
reasonable housing opportunities can be provided upon request.
b. Enhancing and preserving the El Jebel ‘Community Center’. Community Centers are promoted and
urban sprawl is prevented when appropriate development like The Fields subdivision addresses inevitable
growth and workforce housing needs near existing infrastructure, lifestyle logistics like groceries and
jobs, and amenities such as trails and public spaces.
c. Compliance with the MVACP, ECLUR, and other adopted plans and policies. The Fields follows the
goals and intention of all adopted policies and complies with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations.
d. Traffic Mitigation. The proposal of off-site traffic improvements and on-site traffic control measures
provide relief to traffic issues that are otherwise stalled from being fixed for fiscal reasons, while also
providing new capacity to accommodate future appropriate development as envisioned in the Mid Valley
Area Community Plan.
e. Economic Development. Impact fees, permit fees, and taxes will add to the government revenues.
Increased business generation during construction and afterwards when homes are occupied are a direct
result of approval of The Fields development proposal. Collateral benefits of approval would also include
new jobs to construct the infrastructure and homes, as well as a reduced impact of travel throughout the
Valley by those who work up valley but are forced to live down valley due to the lack of reasonable
housing opportunities.
The Fields subdivision is an appropriate development of a site near existing infrastructure and amenities which is
compatible with the surrounding land uses and complies with all Eagle County development regulations and
policies. The traffic mitigations proposed herein help enhance the El Jebel Community Center by relieving
existing issues that are not otherwise being addressed, and provide additional capacity to accept forecasted growth
into the future.
Thank you for your consideration of this Sketch Plan application of the Fields Subdivision.
Respectfully,
Represented by Keith Ehlers, 3SE LLC
20 | P a g e
Existing Conditions Map
Lot 5, Arlian Ranch Subdivision
Eagle County, Colorado
#
Notice:
118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200
970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com
Arlian Ranch
1
Eagle County, CO
3
2
4
5
Revision
Date
By
Job No.
Drawn by:
Date:
Approved:
File:
2015-329.001
kt/dc
1
March 17, 2015
bb Of
ArlianRanch-ExCon
1
Lot 5, Arlian Ranch Subdivision
#
Notice:
118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200
970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com
Arlian Ranch
1
Eagle County, CO
3
2
4
5
Revision
Date
By
Job No.
Drawn by:
Date:
Approved:
File:
2015-329.001
kt/dc
March 17, 2015
bb Of
ArlianRanch-ExCon
1
1
Rare Earth Science
www.rareearthscience.com
May 19, 2015
Via Email: kehlers@threesail.net
Keith Ehlers
Three Sail Enterprise, LLC
Grand Junction, Colorado
Re: Initial Environmental Review
El Jebel, Colorado
Dear Keith:
At your request, Rare Earth Science, LLC (Rare Earth) has completed an initial review of
environmental conditions for The Fields Subdivision (hereafter, “Site”) located west of the
community of El Jebel in Eagle County, Colorado. The Site consists of approximately 19.39
acres (currently in agricultural and residential useage) and is identified by Eagle County Tax
Parcel Number 2391-334-01-003. Please refer to attached Figure 1 also.
This letter provides an initial review of environmental conditions for planning purposes only.
Rare Earth’s analysis relied upon publicly-available information (i.e., aerial photography,
geologic and topographic maps, wildlife and habitat data, etc.) and our knowledge of the
regional setting. However, no reconnaissance was performed at the Site, nor were interviews
conducted with either the landowner or regulatory-agency personnel. The following paragraphs
provide a discussion of the general environmental topics evaluated for the proposed Sitedevelopment project:
1. Site and Regional Setting – The Site is positioned on fairly level ground covered by
irrigated fields and residential development. This region is part of the Aspen Sub-Basin,
which forms the area west of the Sawatch Uplift and is a southern extension of the larger
Eagle Basin. According to the Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys, an Environmental and
Engineering Geology Study, Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison and Pitkin Counties, Colorado
(Colorado Geological Survey [CGS] Environmental Geology No. 8, 1974), the Site
consists of Quaternary older alluvial deposits (Map Unit Qo). The 1974 CGS study does
not indicate any avalanche or rockfall issues at the Site.
Post Office Box 222 | Gunnison, Colorado 81230-0222 | 970.641.1144 | jim@rareearthscience.com
Initial Environmental Review: The Fields Subdivision (El Jebel, CO)
May 19, 2015
Page 2 of 3
2. Hydrology and Wetlands – No natural perennial watercourses exist at the Site (Figure
1). The northeast corner of the Site is traversed by an irrigation canal diverted from the
Roaring Fork River, and identified by the National Wetland Inventory as PEMCx
(Seasonally Flooded Excavated Palustrine Emergent Wetland [see Figure 2]). Other
irrigation delivery laterals are also present at the Site. Filling these irrigation resources
for the purpose of establishing a residential subdivision may trigger the need for a
Section 404 Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s December 2007 Flood Insurance Rate
Map (Eagle County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas [www.fema.gov]) shows the Site
mapped as Zone X (i.e., areas determined to be outside of the 0.2-percent annual
chance floodplain). Groundwater quality data, depth, and flow direction information were
not available for the Site; however, the 1974 CGS study indicates that the Site is in an
area where groundwater is found more than 20 feet beneath the ground surface.
3. Wildlife and Habitat – Rare Earth reviewed current Colorado Parks and Wildlife species
range maps for the area. The following ranges are mapped on or near the Site:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bald eagle winter range (the Roaring Fork River corridor immediately to the south is
winter foraging ground)
Black bear fall concentration area (general Basalt area is mapped as such)
Mountain lion human conflict area
Elk overall range, highway crossing zone
Mule deer summer range
Osprey foraging area (an active nest lies about 0.5 miles to the west on the Roaring
Fork River corridor)
Great blue heron foraging along the Roaring Fork River riparian corridor immediately
south
Development of the Site would not significantly alter an ecological unit or natural
landform feature, or remove significant native vegetation cover. The Site is in irrigated
hay ground and residential useage, and as such does not provide exceptional or
significant habitat for any of the above mentioned species. Development of the Site is
expected to impede any traditional movements of big game through the property,
particularly at the highway crossing. The nearby foraging activities of bald eagle,
osprey, and blue heron may also be disturbed to some degree by increased human
presence and human activity in the area.
4. Hazardous Waste and other Potential Environmental Concerns – The Site is located
in an area of established residential and agricultural properties. Rare Earth searched
the Colorado Division of Oil & Public Safety’s Storage Tank Information System
(COSTIS) online database (www.colorado.gov); the Colorado Division of Reclamation,
Mining and Safety (DRMS) database for active and inactive mines
(www.mining.state.co.us); and the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
(COGCC) database for oil & gas wells (www.oil-gas.state.co.us/). The Site does not
appear in the COSTIS database for registered fuel storage tanks, leak/spill incidents, or
tank closure and removal programs. There are no permitted, or historic, mining
Rare Earth Science
Initial Environmental Review: The Fields Subdivision (El Jebel, CO)
May 19, 2015
Page 3 of 3
operations or oil/gas wells at the Site or adjoining lands per the DRMS and COGCC
databases. And, based upon our recent experience with similar projects in the El
Jebel/Emma/Basalt area, there are no documented nearby industrial facilities or
incidents in the surrounding area with the potential to negatively impact the Site with
hazardous waste, leaking fuel tanks, abandoned mine drainage, etc.
This letter provides an initial review of environmental conditions for planning purposes only, and
this information is not intended to be an Environmental Impact Report for purposes of satisfying
Section 4-460 of Eagle County’s Site Development Standards. Additionally, this letter does not
evaluate other possible impacts from actual Site development, including stormwater runoff,
lighting, noise, air quality, transportation, visual/scenic values, etc.
We hope that this information useful in your Site planning and pre-development process.
Please contact me at 970/641-1144 if you require further information.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rare Earth Science, LLC
James C. Armstrong
Principal Environmental Scientist
cc:
D. Reeder (Rare Earth)
Attachments
1. Topographic Map
2. Wetlands Map
Rare Earth Science
K
0
Subject property (approx.)
BLM land
USGS Hillshade Topographic Map
Sourced from Esri Online Server
Effective Scale 1:24,000
All Locations Approximate
0.25
0.5
1
Mile
Initial Environmental Review
Map by D. Reeder | May 2015
Topographic
Map
THE FIELDS
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
FIGURE
1
K
PEMC
World Aerial
Imagery
PEMC
Sourced from Esri Online Server
Effective Scale 1:5,000
All Locations Approximate
Subject property (approx.)
National Wetland Inventory
PEMC
PEMC
PABF
Irrigation ditch potentially
under jurisdiction of
Section 404 Clean Water Act
PSSC
PSSC
R3USA
PSSC
PEMCx
PSSA
R3UBF
PABF
R3UBH
PEMC
R3USA
PEMC
R4SBCx
0
0.05
0.1
R3USA
0.2
Mile
Initial Environmental Review
Map by D. Reeder | May 2015
PEMC
PEMC
Wetlands
Map
THE FIELDS
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
FIGURE
2
Glenwood Springs Service Center
0088 Wildlife Way
P 970-947-2920 | F 970-947-2936
May 21, 2015
Keith Ehlers
3SE, LLC
President
970-210-7680
kehlers@threesail.net
RE: Wildlife Review 554 Valley RD, El Jebel, CO.
Mr. Ehlers,
I have reviewed the property at 554 Valley Rd, El Jebel for potential wildlife impacts
related to potential development. The property is located between Hwy 82 on the north,
Valley Rd on the south and Summit Vista subdivision to the east.
No known threatened or endangered species inhabit the property. Based on the
location and associated disturbances from surrounding areas wildlife usage of the
property is minimal. Development of this property should have minimal impact on
wildlife populations in the area.
If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at 970-947-2933.
Sincerely,
\\John
John Groves
District Wildlife Manager-Carbondale
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
970-947-2933
Sent Via E-mail
Bob D. Broscheid, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife  Parks and Wildlife Commission: Robert W. Bray, Chair  Chris Castilian, Vice Chair
Jeanne Horne, Secretary • John Howard, Jr. • Bill Kane  Dale Pizel  James Pribyl  James Vigil  Dean Wingfield  Michelle Zimmerman  Alex Zipp
318600
318660
318720
318780
318840
107° 6' 10'' W
107° 6' 26'' W
Soil Map—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties
(The Fields Subdivision - Soil Report)
318900
4363010
4363070
4362950
4363010
4362890
4362950
4362830
4362890
4362770
4362830
4362710
4362770
4362650
4362710
318600
318660
318720
318780
Map Scale: 1:2,430 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
N
Meters
210
Feet
0
100
200
400
600
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0
35
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
70
140
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
318840
318900
107° 6' 10'' W
4362650
318540
107° 6' 26'' W
39° 23' 39'' N
39° 23' 55'' N
4363070
4363130
4363130
39° 23' 55'' N
5/6/2015
Page 1 of 3
39° 23' 39'' N
(The Fields Subdivision - Soil Report)
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle,
Garfield, and Pitkin Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 7, Sep 22, 2014
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Date(s) aerial images were photographed:
2011
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Aug 7, 2011—Sep 3,
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Natural Resources
Web Soil Survey
5/6/2015
Page 2 of 3
The Fields Subdivision - Soil Report
Map Unit Legend
Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties (CO655)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
13
Atencio-Azeltine complex, 3 to 6
percent slopes
38
Evanston loam, 1 to 6 percent
slopes
Acres in AOI
Totals for Area of Interest
Natural Resources
Web Soil Survey
Percent of AOI
12.1
61.4%
7.6
38.6%
19.7
100.0%
5/6/2015
Page 3 of 3
MYERS, MARK F.
PO BOX 1562
CARBONDALE, CO 81623-4562
ROBERTS, RHONDA MARIE - ETAL
PO BOX 1888
WOOD, PAMELA
85 PARKSIDE LN
SUMMIT VISTA HOA
PO BOX 28582
EL JEBEL, CO 81623
EWING, WAYNE H. & ANDREW L.
793 VALLEY RD
KILLEBREW, JASON T. & NICOLE A.
PO BOX 4437
BASALT, CO 81621-4437
WHITE, KEVIN C - MARBLE, RACHEL
0979 VALLEY RD
RIVADA LLC
999 VALLEY RD
BLUE LAKE HOA
189 J W DRIVE - BLUE LAKE
Page 1
SGM, Inc.
118 W. 6th Street Suite 200
www.sgm-inc.com
Site Code: JW Drive West
Station ID: The Fields
Dir 1=EB
Dir 2=WB
Latitude: 0' 0.0000 Undefined
Start
11-May-15
Time
Channel 1 Channel
12:00 AM
*
*
01:00
*
*
02:00
*
*
03:00
*
*
04:00
*
*
05:00
*
*
06:00
*
*
07:00
*
*
08:00
*
*
09:00
*
*
10:00
*
*
11:00
*
*
12:00 PM
*
*
01:00
*
*
02:00
*
*
03:00
*
*
04:00
*
*
05:00
*
*
06:00
*
*
07:00
*
*
08:00
*
*
09:00
*
*
10:00
*
*
11:00
*
*
Lane
0
0
Day
0
AM Peak
Vol.
PM Peak
Vol.
-
Comb.
Total
ADT
0
ADT 1,956
Tue
Channel Channel
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
110
74
141
106
99
63
72
38
46
29
25
15
22
5
12
3
527
333
860
17:00
17:00
141
106
860
AADT 1,956
Wed
Channel Channel
8
4
2
3
2
1
0
0
3
2
14
17
25
42
79
100
81
106
36
42
42
34
35
40
45
26
40
42
60
54
77
50
119
67
124
110
89
40
77
37
38
28
34
8
33
15
14
4
1077
872
1949
08:00
08:00
81
106
17:00
17:00
124
110
1949
Thu
Channel Channel
2
2
2
1
0
1
0
1
3
3
9
10
22
38
68
102
51
80
50
54
45
44
40
38
58
46
61
51
45
54
94
58
118
76
139
102
101
54
63
27
43
19
32
19
13
9
9
2
1068
891
1959
07:00
07:00
68
102
17:00
17:00
139
102
1959
Fri
Channel Channel
7
4
5
5
1
2
1
2
5
1
11
7
21
39
75
91
68
75
37
44
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
231
270
501
07:00
07:00
75
91
-
501
Sat
Channel Channel
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
-
0
Sun
Channel Channel
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
-
0
Week Average
Channel Channel
6
3
3
3
1
1
0
1
4
2
11
11
23
40
74
98
67
87
41
47
44
39
38
39
52
36
50
46
52
54
86
54
116
72
135
106
96
52
71
34
42
25
30
14
23
10
12
3
1077
877
1954
07:00
07:00
74
98
17:00
17:00
135
106
1954
Page 1
SGM, Inc.
www.sgm-inc.com
Site Code: JW Drive East
Dir 1=EB
Dir 2=WB
Start
11-May-15
Time
Channel 1 Channel
12:00 AM
*
*
01:00
*
*
02:00
*
*
03:00
*
*
04:00
*
*
05:00
*
*
06:00
*
*
07:00
*
*
08:00
*
*
09:00
*
*
10:00
*
*
11:00
*
*
12:00 PM
*
*
01:00
*
*
02:00
*
*
03:00
*
*
04:00
*
*
05:00
*
*
06:00
*
*
07:00
*
*
08:00
*
*
09:00
*
*
10:00
*
*
11:00
*
*
Lane
0
0
Day
0
AM Peak
Vol.
PM Peak
Vol.
-
Comb.
Total
ADT
0
ADT 2,137
Tue
Channel Channel
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
95
137
111
170
81
110
62
84
59
52
26
44
12
18
11
12
457
627
1084
17:00
17:00
111
170
1084
AADT 2,137
Wed
Channel Channel
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
7
0
28
6
75
15
156
45
46
92
70
33
56
38
46
45
48
35
54
45
62
73
45
72
58
91
104
158
75
92
65
68
41
56
27
43
13
15
8
9
1135
993
2128
07:00
08:00
156
46
17:00
17:00
104
158
2128
Thu
Channel Channel
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
0
5
2
25
0
70
10
154
43
76
37
56
25
48
31
56
46
55
55
38
44
47
63
70
80
69
104
113
134
62
96
61
72
36
56
13
32
12
30
6
7
1068
983
2051
07:00
11:00
154
56
17:00
17:00
113
134
2051
Fri
Channel Channel
1
3
2
3
0
2
1
0
9
4
16
1
68
8
159
32
36
80
47
25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
383
114
497
07:00
08:00
159
36
-
497
Sat
Channel Channel
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
-
0
Sun
Channel Channel
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
-
0
Week Average
Channel Channel
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
0
7
2
23
2
71
11
156
40
83
40
58
28
52
34
50
46
52
45
46
44
54
68
58
76
74
111
109
154
73
99
63
75
45
55
22
40
12
21
8
9
1117
1011
2128
07:00
11:00
156
50
17:00
17:00
109
154
2128
Page 1
SGM, Inc.
www.sgm-inc.com
Site Code: Valley Road West
Dir 1=Westbound
Dir 2=Eastbound
Start
11-May-15
Time
Direction 1 Direction
12:00 AM
*
*
01:00
*
*
02:00
*
*
03:00
*
*
04:00
*
*
05:00
*
*
06:00
*
*
07:00
*
*
08:00
*
*
09:00
*
*
10:00
*
*
11:00
*
*
12:00 PM
*
*
01:00
*
*
02:00
*
*
03:00
*
*
04:00
*
*
05:00
*
*
06:00
*
*
07:00
*
*
08:00
*
*
09:00
*
*
10:00
*
*
11:00
*
*
Lane
0
0
Day
0
AM Peak
Vol.
PM Peak
Vol.
-
Comb.
Total
ADT
0
ADT 1,194
Tue
Direction Direction
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
71
50
87
55
49
29
26
17
13
6
7
4
3
5
2
2
258
168
426
17:00
17:00
87
55
426
AADT 1,194
Wed
Direction Direction
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
17
30
29
55
54
68
28
39
24
34
27
24
42
49
52
39
60
54
58
30
66
45
81
63
50
32
13
15
20
17
3
4
5
2
2
2
634
604
1238
08:00
08:00
54
68
17:00
17:00
81
63
1238
Thu
Direction Direction
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
4
16
33
30
49
56
71
32
44
24
33
36
29
45
41
38
31
52
41
50
40
68
37
80
40
41
27
17
18
12
8
12
7
3
3
4
2
618
565
1183
08:00
08:00
56
71
17:00
12:00
80
45
1183
Fri
Direction Direction
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
3
3
11
32
30
55
45
67
3
6
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
94
164
258
08:00
08:00
45
67
-
258
Sat
Direction Direction
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
-
0
Sun
Direction Direction
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
-
0
Week Average
Direction Direction
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
15
32
30
53
52
69
21
30
24
34
32
26
42
47
45
35
56
48
54
35
68
44
83
53
47
29
19
17
15
10
7
5
4
3
3
2
620
575
1195
08:00
08:00
52
69
17:00
17:00
83
53
1195
Page 1
SGM, Inc.
www.sgm-inc.com
Site Code: Valley Road East
Dir 1=WB
Dir 2=EB
Start
11-May-15
Time
Direction 1 Direction
12:00 AM
*
*
01:00
*
*
02:00
*
*
03:00
*
*
04:00
*
*
05:00
*
*
06:00
*
*
07:00
*
*
08:00
*
*
09:00
*
*
10:00
*
*
11:00
*
*
12:00 PM
*
*
01:00
*
*
02:00
*
*
03:00
*
*
04:00
*
*
05:00
*
*
06:00
*
*
07:00
*
*
08:00
*
*
09:00
*
*
10:00
*
*
11:00
*
*
Lane
0
0
Day
0
AM Peak
Vol.
PM Peak
Vol.
-
Comb.
Total
ADT
0
ADT 1,340
Tue
Direction Direction
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
77
54
115
62
75
48
55
33
23
16
27
17
12
10
9
2
393
242
635
17:00
17:00
115
62
635
AADT 1,340
Wed
Direction Direction
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
13
9
39
88
25
26
60
31
40
23
34
25
24
37
40
37
36
47
31
54
25
70
49
91
73
72
35
38
25
32
26
33
17
9
8
8
3
671
671
1342
09:00
07:00
31
88
17:00
17:00
91
73
1342
Thu
Direction Direction
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
12
10
35
91
22
31
55
17
33
19
34
35
42
40
39
47
27
34
36
63
37
53
64
84
51
67
42
52
32
35
19
35
16
11
4
5
1
677
666
1343
11:00
07:00
35
91
17:00
16:00
84
53
1343
Fri
Direction Direction
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
5
7
30
74
24
27
70
6
12
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
68
197
265
08:00
07:00
27
74
-
265
Sat
Direction Direction
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
-
0
Sun
Direction Direction
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
-
0
Week Average
Direction Direction
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
10
9
35
84
24
28
62
18
28
21
34
30
33
38
40
42
32
40
34
58
31
70
52
97
62
71
42
48
30
30
20
32
17
11
7
7
2
677
660
1337
11:00
07:00
30
84
17:00
17:00
97
62
1337
SGM, Inc.
Engineers | Surveyors
JW Drive & SH 82
Eagle County
April 2015
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
: JW040215
: 00000001
: 4/2/2015
:1
Groups Printed- Unshifted - Bank 1
Start Time
From North
Left
Peds
8
0
9
0
16
0
21
0
54
0
07:00 AM
07:15 AM
07:30 AM
07:45 AM
Total
Right
3
6
15
19
43
Thru
0
0
0
1
1
08:00 AM
08:15 AM
08:30 AM
08:45 AM
Total
10
14
5
8
37
5
1
0
1
7
7
9
6
6
28
04:00 PM
04:15 PM
04:30 PM
04:45 PM
Total
9
8
12
18
47
1
0
0
0
1
05:00 PM
05:15 PM
05:30 PM
05:45 PM
Total
27
15
23
6
71
Grand Total
Apprch %
Total %
Unshifted
% Unshifted
Bank 1
% Bank 1
198
59.1
2.4
198
100
0
0
From East
Left
Peds
3
0
4
0
4
0
7
0
18
0
11
15
31
41
98
Right
2
6
6
1
15
Thru
48
80
90
115
333
0
0
0
0
0
22
24
11
15
72
8
7
6
7
28
97
115
122
124
458
12
8
4
2
26
5
4
4
1
14
1
0
0
0
1
16
12
16
19
63
8
10
13
14
45
344
329
362
393
1428
2
1
3
3
9
3
9
7
3
22
0
0
0
0
0
32
25
33
12
102
14
18
8
12
52
18
5.4
0.2
18
100
0
0
118
35.2
1.4
118
100
0
0
1
0.3
0
1
100
0
0
335
140
3.7
1.7
140
100
0
0
App. Total
From South
Left
Peds
3
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
8
0
53
90
100
123
366
Right
8
15
8
7
38
Thru
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
117
130
132
133
512
12
12
10
5
39
0
3
0
1
4
2
0
2
4
8
10
5
7
8
30
0
0
0
0
0
362
344
382
415
1503
5
3
9
10
27
0
0
0
3
3
377
331
311
326
1345
6
17
11
1
35
0
0
0
0
0
397
366
330
339
1432
2
7
6
2
17
3564
93.5
42.8
3564
100
0
0
109
2.9
1.3
109
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3813
121
72
1.5
121
100
0
0
App. Total
From West
Left
Peds
7
0
25
0
9
0
13
0
54
0
11
16
12
8
47
Right
4
6
2
3
15
Thru
345
348
321
384
1398
0
0
0
0
0
14
15
12
10
51
3
2
5
5
15
305
342
329
225
1201
6
11
6
5
28
4
1
1
2
8
0
0
1
0
1
9
4
11
15
39
1
5
3
1
10
138
145
135
139
557
0
1
0
1
2
1
4
3
4
12
0
0
0
0
0
3
12
9
7
31
7
3
5
2
17
10
6
0.1
10
100
0
0
36
21.4
0.4
36
100
0
0
1
0.6
0
1
100
0
0
168
57
1.4
0.7
57
100
0
0
App. Total
App. Total
Int. Total
356
379
332
400
1467
431
500
475
572
1978
0
0
0
0
0
314
355
340
235
1244
467
524
495
393
1879
14
16
11
19
60
0
0
0
0
0
153
166
149
159
627
540
526
558
608
2232
139
170
133
148
590
18
17
14
12
61
0
0
0
0
0
164
190
152
162
668
596
593
524
520
2233
3746
93.5
45
3746
100
0
0
203
5.1
2.4
203
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4006
8322
48.1
4006
100
0
0
8322
100
0
0
*** BREAK ***
4
335
100
0
0
45.8
3813
100
0
0
2
168
100
0
0
SH 82 / El Jebel Road
Study Name
Start Date
End Date
Site Code
The Fields
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:15 AM
2015‐329
Report Summary
Southbound
L
U
Time Period
Class.
R
T
Peak 1
Specified Period
7:15 AM ‐ 9:15 AM
One Hour Peak
7:15 AM ‐ 8:15 AM
Lights
70
53
302
%
95%
96%
Buses
1
%
Westbound
L
U
I
O
R
T
0
425
192
87
358
14
96%
0%
96%
93%
91%
93%
1
9
0
11
7
6
1%
2%
3%
0%
2%
3%
Trucks
3
1
2
0
6
%
4%
2%
1%
0%
Total
PHF
74
0.88
55
0.86
313
0.72
0
0
17%
8%
Approach %
Northbound
L
U
I
O
R
T
0
459
1644
44
26
29
100%
0%
93%
94%
98%
96%
10
0
0
16
18
1
6%
3%
0%
0%
3%
1%
7
3
16
0
0
19
1%
3%
3%
4%
0%
0%
442
0.81
206
0.83
96
0.75
384
0.87
14
0.5
0
0
19%
67%
Eastbound
L
U
I
O
R
T
I
O
Total
0
99
173
106
1298
79
0
1483
457
2466
97%
0%
97%
93%
90%
93%
95%
0%
93%
94%
94%
1
0
0
2
1
0
8
0
0
8
11
37
2%
4%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
2%
1%
92
0
0
1
0
1
13
12
90
4
0
106
20
132
4%
5%
0%
0%
3%
0%
1%
7%
10%
6%
5%
0%
7%
4%
5%
494
0.84
1754
0.82
45
0.8
27
0.68
30
0.94
0
0
102
0.85
187
0.82
118
0.87
1396
0.85
83
0.83
0
0
1597
0.87
488
0.88
2635
0.89
4%
7%
61%
19%
SH 82 / El Jebel Road
Study Name
Start Date
End Date
Site Code
The Fields
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:15 PM
2015‐329
Report Summary
Southbound
L
U
Time Period
Class.
R
T
Peak 1
Specified Period
4:15 PM ‐ 6:15 PM
One Hour Peak
4:30 PM ‐ 5:30 PM
Lights
148
89
114
%
96%
100%
Buses
0
%
Trucks
Westbound
L
U
I
O
R
T
0
351
471
277
1286
63
97%
0%
98%
98%
98%
96%
0
3
0
3
2
2
0%
0%
3%
0%
1%
0%
6
0
0
0
6
7
%
4%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
Total
PHF
154
0.96
89
0.79
117
0.71
0
0
360
0.92
480
0.86
12%
16%
Approach %
Northbound
L
U
I
O
R
T
0
1626
577
46
100
110
100%
0%
96%
98%
100%
100%
9
0
0
11
9
0
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
2%
5
45
0
0
50
2%
3%
0%
0%
284
0.88
1340
0.89
63
0.79
0
0
57%
20%
Eastbound
L
U
I
O
R
T
I
O
Total
0
256
268
116
417
94
0
627
1544
2860
97%
0%
99%
100%
99%
98%
98%
0%
98%
96%
97%
0
2
0
2
0
0
6
0
0
6
11
22
0%
0%
2%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
2
0
6
52
63
3%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
2%
0%
1%
3%
2%
1687
0.89
589
0.94
46
0.77
100
0.71
113
0.78
0
0
259
0.78
269
0.85
117
0.73
426
0.92
96
0.89
0
0
639
0.95
1607
0.88
2945
0.93
9%
9%
22%
55%
El Jebel / Valley Road
Study Name
Start Date
End Date
Site Code
The Fields
2015‐329
Report Summary
O
BR
Northwestbound
BL
U
I
O
BR
L
Eastbound
U
I
Class.
Peak 1
Specified Period
7:15 AM ‐ 9:15 AM
One Hour Peak
7:30 AM ‐ 8:30 AM
cles (no classif
34
164
0
198
94
43
25
0
68
210
46
51
0
97
59
363
%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
Total
PHF
34
0.85
164
0.89
0
0
198
0.88
94
0.81
43
0.72
25
0.62
0
0
68
0.85
210
0.92
46
0.82
51
0.71
0
0
97
0.84
59
0.78
363
0.92
55%
26%
19%
58%
27%
16%
Approach %
R
Southbound
BL
U
I
Time Period
O
Crosswalk
s on Cro
edestria Total
Total
N
SE
W
0
1
0%
100%
0
1
0%
100%
0
0
0%
0%
0
2
1
1
0
2
El Jebel / Valley Road
Study Name
Start Date
End Date
Site Code
The Fields
2015‐329
Report Summary
Time Period
Peak 1
Specified Period
4:15 PM ‐ 6:15 PM
One Hour Peak
4:30 PM ‐ 5:30 PM
Class.
R
cles (no classif 138
Southbound
BL
U
I
O
BR
Northwestbound
BL
U
I
O
BR
L
Eastbound
U
I
O
136
0
274
259
168
96
0
264
216
80
91
0
171
234
709
%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
Total
PHF
138
0.78
136
0.77
0
0
274
0.87
259
0.78
168
0.76
96
0.83
0
0
264
0.82
216
0.86
80
0.77
91
0.76
0
0
171
0.79
234
0.9
709
0.89
39%
37%
37%
30%
24%
33%
Approach %
Crosswalk
s on Cro
edestria Total
Total
N
SE
W
0
0
0%
0%
2
26
7%
93%
0
0
0%
0%
2
26
0
28
0
28
El Jebel / JW Drive
Study Name
Start Date
End Date
Site Code
The Fields
2015‐329
Report Summary
Time Period
Class.
Peak 1
Specified Period
7:15 AM ‐ 9:15 AM
One Hour Peak
7:15 AM ‐ 8:15 AM
Southbound
U
I
O
T
L
Northbound
U
I
R
T
Lights
12
179
0
191
69
62
41
0
%
100%
99%
0%
99%
95%
95%
91%
0%
L
Eastbound
U
I
O
R
103
335
156
7
0
94%
97%
95%
88%
0%
O
Total
163
53
457
94%
93%
96%
Buses
0
2
0
2
0
0
3
0
3
7
5
0
0
5
3
10
%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
7%
0%
3%
2%
3%
0%
0%
3%
5%
2%
Crosswalk
s on Cro
edestria Total
N
S
0
0%
0
0
0%
0%
Trucks
0
0
0
0
4
3
1
0
4
4
4
1
0
5
1
9
1
2
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
5%
2%
0%
4%
1%
2%
13%
0%
3%
2%
2%
33%
67%
Total
PHF
12
0.6
181
0.79
0
0
193
0.78
73
0.87
65
0.86
45
0.8
0
0
110
0.83
346
0.73
165
0.67
8
0.67
0
0
173
0.69
57
0.84
476
0.79
1
2
41%
15%
23%
73%
36%
12%
Approach %
W
0
0%
0
0
3
3
El Jebel / JW Drive
Study Name
Start Date
End Date
Site Code
The Fields
2015‐329
Report Summary
R
T
Southbound
U
I
Time Period
Class.
Peak 1
Specified Period
4:15 PM ‐ 6:30 PM
One Hour Peak
5:15 PM ‐ 6:15 PM
Lights
12
95
0
107
%
100%
99%
0%
99%
O
Northbound
U
I
O
R
L
Eastbound
U
I
T
L
186
168
153
1
322
193
97
18
0
100%
100%
97%
100%
98%
97%
94%
100%
0%
O
Total
115
165
544
95%
97%
98%
Buses
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
3
3
0
0
3
2
5
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
0%
0%
2%
1%
1%
Crosswalk
s on Cro
edestria Total
N
S
0
0%
0
1
0%
100%
Trucks
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
3
4
3
0
0
3
3
7
2
8
%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
2%
0%
1%
2%
3%
0%
0%
2%
2%
1%
20%
80%
Total
PHF
12
0.75
96
0.83
0
0
108
0.82
186
0.85
168
0.86
158
0.77
1
0.25
327
0.82
200
0.91
103
0.92
18
0.75
0
0
121
0.95
170
0.77
556
0.84
2
9
19%
33%
59%
36%
22%
31%
Approach %
W
0
0%
0
1
10
11
Source: CDOT Online Transportation Information System (OTIS) AADT 20‐Year Future Traffic HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/2/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93
5
0
1.00
1.00
1810
104
1
0.89
5
138
0.08
1723
104
1723
5.9
5.9
1.00
138
0.75
276
1.00
1.00
45.0
7.9
0.0
3.1
53.0
D
1564
2
0
132
12
0
1.00
1.00
1810
111
1
0.89
5
776
0.50
1538
111
1538
3.9
3.9
1.00
776
0.14
776
1.00
1.00
13.2
0.4
0.0
1.7
13.6
B
16
1
0
1.00
1.00
1810
18
1
0.89
5
27
0.02
1723
18
1723
1.0
1.0
1.00
27
0.66
69
1.00
1.00
48.9
24.4
0.0
0.7
73.3
E
430
6
0
108
16
0
1.00
1.00
1810
91
1
0.89
5
676
0.44
1538
91
1538
3.5
3.5
1.00
676
0.13
676
1.00
1.00
16.7
0.4
0.0
1.6
17.1
B
34
3
0
1.00
1.00
1810
38
2
0.89
5
535
0.16
3343
38
1672
1.0
1.0
1.00
535
0.07
535
1.00
1.00
35.7
0.3
0.0
0.5
35.9
D
30
8
0
50
18
0
1.00
1.00
1810
43
1
0.89
5
246
0.16
1538
43
1538
2.4
2.4
1.00
246
0.17
246
1.00
1.00
36.3
1.5
0.0
1.1
37.8
D
351
7
0
1.00
1.00
1810
394
2
0.89
5
535
0.16
3343
394
1672
11.2
11.2
1.00
535
0.74
535
1.00
1.00
40.0
8.8
0.0
5.8
48.8
D
62
4
0
83
14
0
1.00
1.00
1810
0
1
0.89
5
246
0.00
1538
0
1538
0.0
0.0
1.00
246
0.00
246
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
3.0
0.0
4
4
20.0
4.0
16.0
5.4
0.4
6
6
48.0
4.0
36.0
11.2
24.5
7
7
20.0
4.0
16.0
13.2
0.4
1
1
5.6
4.0
4.0
3.0
0.0
1.00
1810
1757
2
0.89
5
1734
0.50
3438
1757
1719
50.4
50.4
1734
1.01
1734
1.00
1.00
24.8
25.0
0.0
29.9
49.8
F
1972
47.9
D
2
2
54.4
4.0
48.0
52.4
0.0
1.00
1810
483
2
0.89
5
1512
0.44
3438
483
1719
9.2
9.2
1512
0.32
1512
1.00
1.00
18.3
0.6
0.0
4.5
18.8
B
592
20.2
C
5
5
12.0
4.0
16.0
7.9
0.1
1.00
1810
34
1
0.89
5
290
0.16
1810
34
1810
1.6
1.6
290
0.12
290
1.00
1.00
36.0
0.8
0.0
0.9
36.8
D
115
36.9
D
1.00
1810
70
1
0.89
5
290
0.16
1810
70
1810
3.4
3.4
290
0.24
290
1.00
1.00
36.7
2.0
0.0
1.9
38.7
D
464
47.2
D
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
4.4
0.4
42.2
D
The Fields 8:15 pm 6/1/2015 Baseline AM - Scenario 1
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
30: Valley Rd/JW Drive & SH 82
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
73.7
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
EBL EBT EBR
41 1550
15
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
450
- 450
0
0
89
89
89
5
5
5
46 1742
17
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Major1
575
4.2
2.25
974
-
Approach
HCM Control Delay, s
HCM LOS
EB
0.2
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
7/2/2015
974
-
0
-
NBLn1 EBL
33 974
3.813 0.047
$ 1513.9
8.9
F
A
14.8
0.1
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity
0
-
WBL WBT WBR
35 512
25
0
0
0
Free Free Free
- None
600
- 500
0
0
89
89
89
5
5
5
39 575
28
Major2
1742
4.2
2.25
344
344
WB
1
0
-
NBL NBT NBR
49
8
55
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
89
89
89
5
5
5
55
9
62
Minor1
2202 2488
1834 1834
368 654
7.6
6.6
6.6
5.6
6.6
5.6
3.55 4.05
~ 24
28
76 121
616 454
0
-
~ 17
~ 17
72
501
NB
$ 1513.9
F
24
24
115
403
871
7
3.35
288
-
SBL SBT SBR
6
3
47
0
0
0
Stop Stop Stop
- None
0
0
89
89
89
5
5
5
7
3
53
Minor2
1621 2488
654 654
967 1834
7.6
6.6
6.6
5.6
6.6
5.6
3.55 4.05
66
28
415 454
267 121
288
-
33
33
395
184
24
24
403
115
288
7
3.35
700
700
-
SB
45.3
E
EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
- 344
- 150
- 0.114
- 0.419
- 16.8
- 45.3
C
E
0.4
1.9
$: Delay exceeds 300s
The Fields 8:15 pm 6/1/2015 Baseline AM - Scenario 1
LMB
+: Computation Not Defined
*: All major volume in platoon
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
7/2/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
51
46
Stop
0%
0.89
52
43
Stop
0%
0.89
48
25
164
Free
0%
0.89
184
34
0.89
57
0.89
28
4
0.89
38
None
273
407
369
369
0
0
407
7.1
369
6.5
369
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
87
452
4.0
89
492
4.0
90
492
3.3
97
1076
2.2
89
1604
EB 1
57
57
0
452
0.13
11
14.1
B
13.7
B
EB 2
52
0
0
492
0.11
9
13.2
B
WB 1
76
0
28
778
0.10
8
11.4
B
11.4
B
SB 1
184
184
0
1604
0.11
10
7.5
A
6.2
SB 2
38
0
38
1700
0.02
0
0.0
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
The Fields 7/2/2015 Baseline AM - Scenario 1
LMB
9.2
25.2%
15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
19: El Jebel Rd & JW Drive
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
7/30/2015
4.9
EBL
9
0
Stop
0
0
0
89
5
10
EBR
185
0
Stop
None
89
5
208
NBL NBT
50
73
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
89
89
5
5
56
82
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
429
235
194
6.45
5.45
5.45
3.545
577
797
832
235
6.25
3.345
797
-
Major1
243
4.15
2.245
1306
-
552
552
797
796
797
-
1306
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
11.4
B
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1306
0.043
7.9
A
0.1
NB
3.2
NBT EBLn1
- 781
- 0.279
- 11.4
B
1.1
The Fields 7/2/2015 Baseline AM - Scenario 1
LMB
0
-
SBT SBR
203
13
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
89
89
5
5
228
15
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2:
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/2/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
108
5
0
1.00
1.00
1863
116
1
0.93
2
148
0.08
1774
116
1774
7.1
7.1
1.00
148
0.78
258
1.00
1.00
49.4
8.7
0.0
3.8
58.2
E
477
2
0
131
12
0
1.00
1.00
1863
141
1
0.93
2
806
0.51
1583
141
1583
5.3
5.3
1.00
806
0.18
806
1.00
1.00
14.6
0.5
0.0
2.4
15.0
B
71
1
0
1.00
1.00
1863
76
1
0.93
2
97
0.05
1774
76
1774
4.7
4.7
1.00
97
0.78
161
1.00
1.00
51.3
12.6
0.0
2.6
64.0
E
1501
6
0
318
16
0
1.00
1.00
1863
342
1
0.93
2
760
0.48
1583
342
1583
15.8
15.8
1.00
760
0.45
760
1.00
1.00
19.0
1.9
0.0
7.3
20.9
C
127
3
0
1.00
1.00
1863
137
2
0.93
2
501
0.15
3442
137
1721
3.9
3.9
1.00
501
0.27
501
1.00
1.00
41.8
1.3
0.0
1.9
43.2
D
112
8
0
52
18
0
1.00
1.00
1863
56
1
0.93
2
230
0.15
1583
56
1583
3.4
3.4
1.00
230
0.24
230
1.00
1.00
41.6
2.5
0.0
1.7
44.1
D
131
7
0
1.00
1.00
1863
141
2
0.93
2
501
0.15
3442
141
1721
4.0
4.0
1.00
501
0.28
501
1.00
1.00
41.9
1.4
0.0
2.0
43.3
D
100
4
0
172
14
0
1.00
1.00
1863
185
1
0.93
2
230
0.15
1583
185
1583
12.4
12.4
1.00
230
0.80
230
1.00
1.00
45.5
24.9
0.0
7.0
70.4
E
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
5.9
0.3
4
4
20.0
4.0
16.0
14.4
0.4
6
6
56.8
4.0
46.0
49.9
0.0
7
7
20.0
4.0
16.0
6.0
0.3
1
1
10.0
4.0
10.0
6.7
0.0
1.00
1863
513
2
0.93
2
1801
0.51
3539
513
1770
9.2
9.2
1801
0.28
1801
1.00
1.00
15.5
0.4
0.0
4.6
15.9
B
770
22.1
C
2
2
60.0
4.0
52.0
11.2
40.1
1.00
1863
1614
2
0.93
2
1699
0.48
3539
1614
1770
47.9
47.9
1699
0.95
1699
1.00
1.00
27.3
12.8
0.0
26.3
40.1
D
2032
37.8
D
5
5
13.2
4.0
16.0
9.1
0.1
1.00
1863
120
1
0.93
2
271
0.15
1863
120
1863
6.5
6.5
271
0.44
271
1.00
1.00
42.9
5.2
0.0
3.7
48.1
D
313
45.2
D
1.00
1863
108
1
0.93
2
271
0.15
1863
108
1863
5.8
5.8
271
0.40
271
1.00
1.00
42.6
4.3
0.0
3.3
47.0
D
434
55.8
E
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
8.5
1.3
37.2
D
El Jebel Improved NorthSide 7/2/2015 Baseline PM - Scenario 1
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
1: Valley Rd/JW Dr & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/2/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
65
583
Free
0%
0.93
627
14
38
59
17
8
0.93
63
0.93
18
0.93
77
0.93
9
4
Stop
0%
0.93
4
28
0.93
41
3
Stop
0%
0.93
3
72
0.93
15
1463
Free
0%
0.93
1573
0.93
30
0.93
70
None
None
1637
642
1667
2485
313
2187
2437
787
1637
4.1
642
4.1
1667
7.5
2485
6.5
313
6.9
2187
7.5
2437
6.5
787
6.9
2.2
82
392
2.2
96
939
3.5
56
42
4.0
86
23
3.3
89
682
3.5
49
17
4.0
82
25
3.3
91
335
WB 3
787
0
0
1700
0.46
0
0.0
WB 4
63
0
63
1700
0.04
0
0.0
NB 1
99
18
77
143
0.69
98
73.5
F
73.5
F
SB 1
43
9
30
55
0.78
83
178.4
F
178.4
F
EB 1
70
70
0
392
0.18
16
16.2
C
1.6
EB 2
313
0
0
1700
0.18
0
0.0
EB 3
313
0
0
1700
0.18
0
0.0
6.5
61.3%
15
EB 4
15
0
15
1700
0.01
0
0.0
WB 1
41
41
0
939
0.04
3
9.0
A
0.2
WB 2
787
0
0
1700
0.46
0
0.0
LMB
B
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/2/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
102
90
Stop
0%
0.93
97
108
Stop
0%
0.93
116
188
152
Free
0%
0.93
163
155
0.93
110
0.93
202
4
0.93
167
None
273
486
327
327
0
0
486
7.1
327
6.5
327
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
64
308
4.0
82
532
4.0
78
532
3.3
81
1085
2.2
90
1623
EB 1
110
110
0
308
0.36
39
23.0
C
18.4
C
EB 2
97
0
0
532
0.18
16
13.3
B
WB 1
318
0
202
1458
0.22
21
10.7
B
10.7
B
SB 1
163
163
0
1623
0.10
8
7.5
A
3.7
SB 2
167
0
167
1700
0.10
0
0.0
9.9
27.4%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
19: El Jebel Road & JW Drive
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
7/30/2015
4.5
EBL
18
0
Stop
0
0
0
93
2
19
EBR
103
0
Stop
None
93
2
111
NBL NBT
158 168
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
93
93
2
2
170 181
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
630
110
520
6.42
5.42
5.42
3.518
446
915
597
110
6.22
3.318
943
-
Major1
116
4.12
2.218
1473
-
395
395
915
528
943
-
1473
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
10.5
B
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1473
0.115
7.8
A
0.4
NB
3.8
NBT EBLn1
- 782
- 0.166
- 10.5
B
0.6
0
-
SBT SBR
96
12
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
93
93
2
2
103
13
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93
5
0
1.00
1.00
1810
104
1
0.89
5
135
0.08
1723
104
1723
6.5
6.5
1.00
135
0.77
251
1.00
0.30
49.7
2.9
0.0
3.2
52.6
D
1646
2
0
142
12
0
1.00
1.00
1810
123
1
0.89
5
843
0.55
1538
123
1538
4.3
4.3
1.00
843
0.15
843
1.00
0.30
12.2
0.1
0.0
1.9
12.3
B
16
1
0
1.00
1.00
1810
18
1
0.89
5
27
0.02
1723
18
1723
1.1
1.1
1.00
27
0.68
63
1.00
1.00
53.9
26.3
0.0
0.7
80.1
F
455
6
0
83
16
0
1.00
1.00
1810
63
1
0.89
5
746
0.49
1538
63
1538
2.4
2.4
1.00
746
0.08
746
1.00
1.00
15.2
0.2
0.0
1.1
15.4
B
34
3
0
1.00
1.00
1810
38
2
0.89
5
486
0.15
3343
38
1672
1.1
1.1
1.00
486
0.08
486
1.00
1.00
40.6
0.3
0.0
0.5
40.9
D
30
8
0
50
18
0
1.00
1.00
1810
43
1
0.89
5
224
0.15
1538
43
1538
2.7
2.7
1.00
224
0.19
224
1.00
1.00
41.3
1.9
0.0
1.3
43.2
D
269
7
0
1.00
1.00
1810
302
2
0.89
5
486
0.15
3343
302
1672
9.3
9.3
1.00
486
0.62
486
1.00
1.00
44.2
5.9
0.0
4.7
50.0
D
52
4
0
83
14
0
1.00
1.00
1810
0
1
0.89
5
224
0.00
1538
0
1538
0.0
0.0
1.00
224
0.00
224
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
3.1
0.0
4
4
20.0
4.0
16.0
5.1
0.4
6
6
57.4
4.0
46.0
11.9
33.7
7
7
20.0
4.0
16.0
11.3
0.5
1
1
5.7
4.0
4.0
3.1
0.0
1.00
1810
1849
2
0.89
5
1885
0.55
3438
1849
1719
57.8
57.8
1885
0.98
1885
1.00
0.30
24.3
7.8
0.0
29.3
32.1
C
2076
32.0
C
2
2
64.3
4.0
58.0
59.8
0.0
1.00
1810
511
2
0.89
5
1668
0.49
3438
511
1719
9.9
9.9
1668
0.31
1668
1.00
1.00
17.1
0.5
0.0
4.8
17.6
B
592
19.3
B
5
5
12.6
4.0
16.0
8.5
0.1
1.00
1810
34
1
0.89
5
263
0.15
1810
34
1810
1.8
1.8
263
0.13
263
1.00
1.00
40.9
1.0
0.0
1.0
41.9
D
115
42.1
D
1.00
1810
58
1
0.89
5
263
0.15
1810
58
1810
3.1
3.1
263
0.22
263
1.00
1.00
41.5
1.9
0.0
1.7
43.4
D
360
49.0
D
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
4.7
0.4
31.9
C
The Fields 8:15 pm 7/2/2015 Baseline with Diversion AM - Scenario 2
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
41
7
0
1.00
1.00
1810
46
1
0.89
5
497
0.56
770
46
770
1.8
6.7
1.00
497
0.09
497
1.00
1.00
8.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
8.1
A
1550
4
0
15
14
0
1.00
1.00
1810
17
1
0.89
5
867
0.56
1538
17
1538
0.3
0.3
1.00
867
0.02
867
1.00
1.00
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
5.3
A
35
3
0
1.00
1.00
1810
39
1
0.89
5
161
0.56
264
39
264
6.4
31.0
1.00
161
0.24
161
1.00
0.96
25.0
0.7
0.0
0.6
25.8
C
512
8
0
50
18
0
1.00
1.00
1810
56
1
0.89
5
867
0.56
1538
56
1538
0.9
0.9
1.00
867
0.06
867
1.00
0.96
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
5.5
A
49
5
0
1.00
1.00
1900
55
0
0.89
5
253
0.29
545
126
1515
0.0
3.2
0.44
535
0.24
535
1.00
1.00
15.0
1.0
0.0
1.6
16.0
B
8
2
0
55
12
0
1.00
1.00
1900
62
0
0.89
5
217
0.29
745
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.49
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98
1
0
1.00
1.00
1900
110
0
0.89
5
365
0.29
881
166
1438
1.3
4.4
0.66
527
0.31
527
1.00
1.00
15.3
1.6
0.0
2.2
16.9
B
3
6
0
47
16
0
1.00
1.00
1900
53
0
0.89
5
134
0.29
459
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.32
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
4
4
35.0
4.0
31.0
26.6
4.0
6
6
20.0
4.0
16.0
6.4
1.2
7
1
1.00
1810
1742
2
0.89
5
1938
0.56
3438
1742
1719
24.6
24.6
1938
0.90
1938
1.00
1.00
10.6
6.1
0.0
13.0
16.7
B
1805
16.4
B
2
2
20.0
4.0
16.0
5.2
1.3
1.00
1810
575
2
0.89
5
1938
0.56
3438
575
1719
4.8
4.8
1938
0.30
1938
1.00
0.96
6.3
0.1
0.0
2.3
6.4
A
670
7.4
A
5
1.00
1810
9
1
0.89
5
65
0.29
224
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
126
16.0
B
1.00
1810
3
1
0.89
5
29
0.29
98
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
166
16.9
B
8
8
35.0
4.0
31.0
33.0
0.0
14.2
B
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/2/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
51
46
Stop
0%
0.89
52
43
Stop
0%
0.89
48
25
164
Free
0%
0.89
184
34
0.89
57
0.89
28
4
0.89
38
None
273
407
369
369
0
0
407
7.1
369
6.5
369
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
87
452
4.0
89
492
4.0
90
492
3.3
97
1076
2.2
89
1604
EB 1
57
57
0
452
0.13
11
14.1
B
13.7
B
EB 2
52
0
0
492
0.11
9
13.2
B
WB 1
76
0
28
778
0.10
8
11.4
B
11.4
B
SB 1
184
184
0
1604
0.11
10
7.5
A
6.2
SB 2
38
0
38
1700
0.02
0
0.0
9.2
25.2%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
7/30/2015
4.9
EBL
9
0
Stop
0
0
0
89
5
10
EBR
185
0
Stop
None
89
5
208
NBL NBT
50
73
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
89
89
5
5
56
82
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
429
235
194
6.45
5.45
5.45
3.545
577
797
832
235
6.25
3.345
797
-
Major1
243
4.15
2.245
1306
-
552
552
797
796
797
-
1306
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
11.4
B
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1306
0.043
7.9
A
0.1
NB
3.2
NBT EBLn1
- 781
- 0.279
- 11.4
B
1.1
0
-
SBT SBR
203
13
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
89
89
5
5
228
15
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/2/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
108
5
0
1.00
1.00
1863
116
1
0.93
2
145
0.08
1774
116
1774
7.7
7.7
1.00
145
0.80
237
1.00
0.96
54.1
9.3
0.0
4.1
63.4
E
526
2
0
139
12
0
1.00
1.00
1863
149
1
0.93
2
864
0.55
1583
149
1583
5.7
5.7
1.00
864
0.17
864
1.00
0.96
13.7
0.4
0.0
2.6
14.1
B
71
1
0
1.00
1.00
1863
76
1
0.93
2
97
0.05
1774
76
1774
5.1
5.1
1.00
97
0.78
163
1.00
1.00
56.0
12.9
0.0
2.8
68.9
E
1589
6
0
230
16
0
1.00
1.00
1863
247
1
0.93
2
820
0.52
1583
247
1583
10.7
10.7
1.00
820
0.30
820
1.00
1.00
16.5
0.9
0.0
4.9
17.4
B
127
3
0
1.00
1.00
1863
137
2
0.93
2
459
0.13
3442
137
1721
4.3
4.3
1.00
459
0.30
459
1.00
1.00
46.9
1.7
0.0
2.2
48.6
D
112
8
0
52
18
0
1.00
1.00
1863
56
1
0.93
2
211
0.13
1583
56
1583
3.8
3.8
1.00
211
0.27
211
1.00
1.00
46.7
3.1
0.0
1.8
49.8
D
82
7
0
1.00
1.00
1863
88
2
0.93
2
459
0.13
3442
88
1721
2.7
2.7
1.00
459
0.19
459
1.00
1.00
46.2
0.9
0.0
1.4
47.2
D
92
4
0
172
14
0
1.00
1.00
1863
185
1
0.93
2
211
0.13
1583
185
1583
13.8
13.8
1.00
211
0.88
211
1.00
1.00
51.0
36.5
0.0
8.2
87.5
F
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
6.3
0.3
4
4
20.0
4.0
16.0
15.8
0.1
6
6
66.2
4.0
56.0
56.0
0.0
7
7
20.0
4.0
16.0
4.7
0.2
1
1
10.6
4.0
11.0
7.1
0.0
1.00
1863
566
2
0.93
2
1930
0.55
3539
566
1770
10.4
10.4
1930
0.29
1930
1.00
0.96
14.8
0.4
0.0
5.1
15.1
B
831
21.7
C
2
2
69.4
4.0
61.0
12.4
47.9
1.00
1863
1709
2
0.93
2
1834
0.52
3539
1709
1770
54.0
54.0
1834
0.93
1834
1.00
1.00
26.9
10.1
0.0
28.9
37.1
D
2032
35.9
D
5
5
13.8
4.0
16.0
9.7
0.1
1.00
1863
120
1
0.93
2
248
0.13
1863
120
1863
7.2
7.2
248
0.48
248
1.00
1.00
48.2
6.6
0.0
4.2
54.8
D
313
51.2
D
1.00
1863
99
1
0.93
2
248
0.13
1863
99
1863
5.8
5.8
248
0.40
248
1.00
1.00
47.6
4.7
0.0
3.3
52.3
D
372
68.6
E
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
9.2
1.2
37.3
D
The Fields 7/2/2015 Baseline PM with Diversion - Scenario 2
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
1: Valley Rd/JW Dr & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/2/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
65
7
0
1.00
1.00
1863
70
1
0.93
2
197
0.60
276
70
276
14.7
33.9
1.00
197
0.35
197
1.00
1.00
20.8
1.1
0.0
1.2
21.9
C
583
4
0
14
14
0
1.00
1.00
1863
15
1
0.93
2
950
0.60
1583
15
1583
0.2
0.2
1.00
950
0.02
950
1.00
1.00
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
4.9
A
38
3
0
1.00
1.00
1863
41
1
0.93
2
523
0.60
784
41
784
1.6
6.8
1.00
523
0.08
523
1.00
0.34
7.5
0.0
0.0
0.3
7.5
A
1463
8
0
155
18
0
1.00
1.00
1863
167
1
0.93
2
950
0.60
1583
167
1583
2.8
2.8
1.00
950
0.18
950
1.00
0.34
5.4
0.0
0.0
1.2
5.4
A
17
5
0
1.00
1.00
1900
18
0
0.93
2
113
0.27
157
98
1586
0.0
2.8
0.18
494
0.20
494
1.00
1.00
17.2
0.9
0.0
1.4
18.1
B
3
2
0
72
12
0
1.00
1.00
1900
77
0
0.93
2
332
0.27
1246
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.79
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98
1
0
1.00
1.00
1900
105
0
0.93
2
383
0.27
1040
139
1449
1.2
4.0
0.76
492
0.28
492
1.00
1.00
17.5
1.4
0.0
2.0
18.9
B
4
6
0
28
16
0
1.00
1.00
1900
30
0
0.93
2
83
0.27
313
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.22
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
4
4
40.0
4.0
36.0
35.9
0.1
6
6
20.0
4.0
16.0
6.0
0.9
7
1
1.00
1863
627
2
0.93
2
2123
0.60
3539
627
1770
5.2
5.2
2123
0.30
2124
1.00
1.00
5.8
0.1
0.0
2.5
5.9
A
712
7.5
A
2
2
20.0
4.0
16.0
4.8
1.0
1.00
1863
1573
2
0.93
2
2123
0.60
3539
1573
1770
19.2
19.2
2123
0.74
2124
1.00
0.34
8.6
0.5
0.0
9.3
9.1
A
1781
8.7
A
5
1.00
1863
3
1
0.93
2
49
0.27
183
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98
18.1
B
1.00
1863
4
1
0.93
2
26
0.27
97
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
139
18.9
B
8
8
40.0
4.0
36.0
21.2
12.2
9.3
A
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/2/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
102
90
Stop
0%
0.93
97
108
Stop
0%
0.93
116
188
152
Free
0%
0.93
163
155
0.93
110
0.93
202
4
0.93
167
None
273
486
327
327
0
0
486
7.1
327
6.5
327
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
64
308
4.0
82
532
4.0
78
532
3.3
81
1085
2.2
90
1623
EB 1
110
110
0
308
0.36
39
23.0
C
18.4
C
EB 2
97
0
0
532
0.18
16
13.3
B
WB 1
318
0
202
1458
0.22
21
10.7
B
10.7
B
SB 1
163
163
0
1623
0.10
8
7.5
A
3.7
SB 2
167
0
167
1700
0.10
0
0.0
9.9
27.4%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
7/30/2015
4.5
EBL
18
0
Stop
0
0
0
93
2
19
EBR
103
0
Stop
None
93
2
111
NBL NBT
158 168
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
93
93
2
2
170 181
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
630
110
520
6.42
5.42
5.42
3.518
446
915
597
110
6.22
3.318
943
-
Major1
116
4.12
2.218
1473
-
395
395
915
528
943
-
1473
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
10.5
B
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1473
0.115
7.8
A
0.4
NB
3.8
NBT EBLn1
- 782
- 0.166
- 10.5
B
0.6
0
-
SBT SBR
96
12
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
93
93
2
2
103
13
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128
5
0
1.00
1.00
1810
144
1
0.89
5
167
0.10
1723
144
1723
12.4
12.4
1.00
167
0.86
241
1.00
1.00
66.8
19.1
0.0
6.8
85.9
F
2158
2
0
182
12
0
1.00
1.00
1810
167
1
0.89
5
978
0.64
1538
167
1538
6.6
6.6
1.00
978
0.17
978
1.00
1.00
11.1
0.4
0.0
2.9
11.5
B
21
1
0
1.00
1.00
1810
24
1
0.89
5
30
0.02
1723
24
1723
2.1
2.1
1.00
30
0.81
46
1.00
1.00
73.5
43.1
0.0
1.3
116.6
F
576
6
0
144
16
0
1.00
1.00
1810
132
1
0.89
5
856
0.56
1538
132
1538
6.2
6.2
1.00
856
0.15
856
1.00
1.00
16.1
0.4
0.0
2.8
16.5
B
46
3
0
1.00
1.00
1810
52
2
0.89
5
357
0.11
3343
52
1672
2.1
2.1
1.00
357
0.15
357
1.00
1.00
60.8
0.9
0.0
1.0
61.7
E
42
8
0
68
18
0
1.00
1.00
1810
63
1
0.89
5
164
0.11
1538
63
1538
5.7
5.7
1.00
164
0.38
164
1.00
1.00
62.4
6.7
0.0
2.7
69.1
E
470
7
0
1.00
1.00
1810
528
2
0.89
5
446
0.13
3343
528
1672
20.0
20.0
1.00
446
1.18
446
1.00
1.00
65.0
103.7
0.0
15.6
168.7
F
85
4
0
114
14
0
1.00
1.00
1810
0
1
0.89
5
205
0.00
1538
0
1538
0.0
0.0
1.00
205
0.00
205
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
4.1
0.1
4
4
24.0
4.0
20.0
9.3
0.7
6
6
87.5
4.0
77.0
17.4
59.4
7
7
24.0
4.0
20.0
22.0
0.0
1
1
6.6
4.0
4.0
4.1
0.0
1.00
1810
2425
2
0.89
5
2187
0.64
3438
2425
1719
95.4
95.4
2187
1.11
2187
1.00
1.00
27.3
56.3
0.0
62.0
83.5
F
2736
79.3
E
2
2
99.4
4.0
94.0
97.4
0.0
1.00
1810
647
2
0.89
5
1913
0.56
3438
647
1719
15.4
15.4
1913
0.34
1913
1.00
1.00
18.2
0.5
0.0
7.4
18.6
B
803
21.2
C
5
5
18.5
4.0
21.0
14.4
0.2
1.00
1810
47
1
0.89
5
193
0.11
1810
47
1810
3.6
3.6
193
0.24
193
1.00
1.00
61.4
3.0
0.0
1.9
64.4
E
162
65.4
E
1.00
1810
96
1
0.89
5
241
0.13
1810
96
1810
7.3
7.3
241
0.40
241
1.00
1.00
59.5
4.8
0.0
4.0
64.3
E
624
152.7
F
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
7.7
0.6
78.6
E
The Fields 7/2/2015 Future Baseline AM - Scenario 3
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
57
2140
Free
0%
0.89
2404
20
49
35
68
8
0.89
39
0.89
76
0.89
85
0.89
9
5
Stop
0%
0.89
6
65
0.89
55
11
Stop
0%
0.89
12
76
0.89
22
706
Free
0%
0.89
793
0.89
73
0.89
64
None
None
833
2427
3115
3475
1202
2325
3458
397
833
4.2
2427
4.2
3115
7.6
3475
6.6
1202
7.0
2325
7.6
3458
6.6
397
7.0
2.2
92
777
2.2
70
183
3.5
0
0
4.0
0
4
3.3
50
172
3.5
0
0
4.0
0
4
3.3
88
594
WB 3
397
0
0
1700
0.23
0
0.0
WB 4
39
0
39
1700
0.02
0
0.0
NB 1
174
76
85
0
Err
Err
Err
F
Err
F
SB 1
88
9
73
0
Err
Err
Err
F
Err
F
EB 1
64
64
0
777
0.08
7
10.0
B
0.3
EB 2
1202
0
0
1700
0.71
0
0.0
EB 3
1202
0
0
1700
0.71
0
0.0
Err
81.5%
15
LMB
EB 4
22
0
22
1700
0.01
0
0.0
WB 1
55
55
0
183
0.30
30
32.9
D
2.0
WB 2
397
0
0
1700
0.23
0
0.0
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
79
71
Stop
0%
0.89
80
65
Stop
0%
0.89
73
38
246
Free
0%
0.89
276
53
0.89
89
0.89
43
4
0.89
60
None
273
611
553
553
0
0
611
7.1
553
6.5
553
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
69
284
4.0
78
362
4.0
80
362
3.3
96
1076
2.2
83
1604
EB 1
89
89
0
284
0.31
32
23.3
C
20.7
C
EB 2
80
0
0
362
0.22
21
17.7
C
WB 1
116
0
43
573
0.20
19
14.1
B
14.1
B
SB 1
276
276
0
1604
0.17
16
7.7
A
6.3
SB 2
60
0
60
1700
0.04
0
0.0
11.7
31.3%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
7/30/2015
5.9
EBL
12
0
Stop
0
0
0
89
5
13
EBR
255
0
Stop
None
89
5
287
NBL NBT
64
92
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
89
89
5
5
72 103
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
572
325
247
6.45
5.45
5.45
3.545
477
726
787
325
6.25
3.345
709
-
Major1
336
4.15
2.245
1207
-
449
449
726
740
709
-
1207
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
14.1
B
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1207
0.06
8.2
A
0.2
NB
3.4
NBT EBLn1
- 691
- 0.434
- 14.1
B
2.2
LMB
0
-
SBT SBR
280
19
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
89
89
5
5
315
21
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
30: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
8/5/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
148
5
0
1.00
1.00
1863
159
1
0.93
2
181
0.10
1774
159
1774
13.3
13.3
1.00
181
0.88
189
1.00
1.00
66.4
33.6
0.0
8.2
100.0
F
658
2
0
181
12
0
1.00
1.00
1863
160
1
0.93
2
966
0.61
1583
160
1583
6.6
6.6
1.00
966
0.17
966
1.00
1.00
12.7
0.4
0.0
3.0
13.0
B
95
1
0
1.00
1.00
1863
102
1
0.93
2
124
0.07
1774
102
1774
8.5
8.5
1.00
124
0.83
189
1.00
1.00
68.9
15.9
0.0
4.7
84.8
F
2011
6
0
426
16
0
1.00
1.00
1863
429
1
0.93
2
915
0.58
1583
429
1583
23.5
23.5
1.00
915
0.47
915
1.00
1.00
18.3
1.7
0.0
10.7
20.0
C
175
3
0
1.00
1.00
1863
188
2
0.93
2
367
0.11
3442
188
1721
7.7
7.7
1.00
367
0.51
367
1.00
1.00
63.3
5.0
0.0
3.9
68.3
E
155
8
0
69
18
0
1.00
1.00
1863
61
1
0.93
2
169
0.11
1583
61
1583
5.4
5.4
1.00
169
0.36
169
1.00
1.00
62.3
5.9
0.0
2.6
68.2
E
176
7
0
1.00
1.00
1863
189
2
0.93
2
367
0.11
3442
189
1721
7.8
7.8
1.00
367
0.51
367
1.00
1.00
63.3
5.1
0.0
4.0
68.4
E
138
4
0
238
14
0
1.00
1.00
1863
0
1
0.93
2
169
0.00
1583
0
1583
0.0
0.0
1.00
169
0.00
169
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
9.7
0.3
4
4
20.0
4.0
16.0
13.6
0.5
6
6
90.7
4.0
86.0
88.7
0.0
7
7
20.0
4.0
16.0
9.8
0.3
1
1
14.4
4.0
16.0
10.5
0.1
1.00
1863
708
2
0.93
2
2160
0.61
3539
708
1770
14.6
14.6
2160
0.33
2160
1.00
1.00
14.2
0.4
0.0
7.2
14.6
B
1027
27.6
C
2
2
95.6
4.0
86.0
16.6
69.1
1.00
1863
2162
2
0.93
2
2046
0.58
3539
2162
1770
86.7
86.7
2046
1.06
2046
1.00
1.00
31.6
36.9
0.0
52.5
68.5
F
2693
61.4
E
5
5
19.3
4.0
16.0
15.3
0.0
1.00
1863
167
1
0.93
2
199
0.11
1863
167
1863
13.2
13.2
199
0.84
199
1.00
1.00
65.7
32.8
0.0
8.6
98.5
F
416
80.4
F
1.00
1863
148
1
0.93
2
199
0.11
1863
148
1863
11.6
11.6
199
0.74
199
1.00
1.00
65.0
22.2
0.0
7.2
87.2
F
337
76.7
E
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
15.2
0.2
56.6
E
The Fields 7/30/2015 Future Baseline PM - Scenario 3
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
102
917
Free
0%
0.93
986
22
60
93
27
13
0.93
100
0.93
29
0.93
122
0.93
14
6
Stop
0%
0.93
6
44
0.93
65
5
Stop
0%
0.93
5
113
0.93
24
2302
Free
0%
0.93
2475
0.93
47
0.93
110
None
None
2575
1010
2623
3910
493
3441
3833
1238
2575
4.1
1010
4.1
2623
7.5
3910
6.5
493
6.9
3441
7.5
3833
6.5
1238
6.9
2.2
35
167
2.2
91
682
3.5
0
0
4.0
0
1
3.3
77
522
3.5
0
0
4.0
0
1
3.3
72
167
WB 3
1238
0
0
1700
0.73
0
0.0
WB 4
100
0
100
1700
0.06
0
0.0
NB 1
156
29
122
0
Err
Err
Err
F
Err
F
SB 1
68
14
47
0
Err
Err
Err
F
Err
F
EB 1
110
110
0
167
0.65
94
60.1
F
5.9
EB 2
493
0
0
1700
0.29
0
0.0
EB 3
493
0
0
1700
0.29
0
0.0
Err
90.6%
15
LMB
EB 4
24
0
24
1700
0.01
0
0.0
WB 1
65
65
0
682
0.09
8
10.8
B
0.3
WB 2
1238
0
0
1700
0.73
0
0.0
E
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
141
124
Stop
0%
0.93
133
144
Stop
0%
0.93
155
252
204
Free
0%
0.93
219
213
0.93
152
0.93
271
4
0.93
229
None
273
652
439
439
0
0
652
7.1
439
6.5
439
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
19
188
4.0
70
443
4.0
65
443
3.3
75
1085
2.2
86
1623
EB 1
152
152
0
188
0.81
140
74.5
F
47.4
E
EB 2
133
0
0
443
0.30
31
16.6
C
WB 1
426
0
271
1218
0.35
40
12.3
B
12.3
B
SB 1
219
219
0
1623
0.14
12
7.6
A
3.7
SB 2
229
0
229
1700
0.13
0
0.0
17.6
36.7%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
7/30/2015
5.3
EBL
28
0
Stop
0
0
0
93
2
30
EBR
159
0
Stop
None
93
2
171
NBL NBT
244 260
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
93
93
2
2
262 280
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
973
169
804
6.42
5.42
5.42
3.518
280
861
440
169
6.22
3.318
875
-
Major1
180
4.12
2.218
1396
-
227
227
861
357
875
-
1396
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
13.7
B
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1396
0.188
8.2
A
0.7
NB
4
NBT EBLn1
- 613
- 0.328
- 13.7
B
1.4
0
-
SBT SBR
148
19
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
93
93
2
2
159
20
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
8/5/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128
5
0
1.00
1.00
1810
144
1
0.89
5
167
0.10
1723
144
1723
12.4
12.4
1.00
167
0.86
241
1.00
0.09
66.8
2.2
0.0
6.0
68.9
E
2271
2
0
196
12
0
1.00
1.00
1810
183
1
0.89
5
1019
0.66
1538
183
1538
6.8
6.8
1.00
1019
0.18
1019
1.00
0.09
9.7
0.0
0.0
2.9
9.7
A
21
1
0
1.00
1.00
1810
24
1
0.89
5
30
0.02
1723
24
1723
2.1
2.1
1.00
30
0.81
46
1.00
1.00
73.5
43.1
0.0
1.3
116.6
F
610
6
0
111
16
0
1.00
1.00
1810
95
1
0.89
5
897
0.58
1538
95
1538
4.1
4.1
1.00
897
0.11
897
1.00
1.00
13.9
0.2
0.0
1.8
14.1
B
46
3
0
1.00
1.00
1810
52
2
0.89
5
357
0.11
3343
52
1672
2.1
2.1
1.00
357
0.15
357
1.00
1.00
60.8
0.9
0.0
1.0
61.7
E
42
8
0
68
18
0
1.00
1.00
1810
63
1
0.89
5
164
0.11
1538
63
1538
5.7
5.7
1.00
164
0.38
164
1.00
1.00
62.4
6.7
0.0
2.7
69.1
E
360
7
0
1.00
1.00
1810
404
2
0.89
5
357
0.11
3343
404
1672
16.0
16.0
1.00
357
1.13
357
1.00
1.00
67.0
88.8
0.0
11.8
155.8
F
72
4
0
114
14
0
1.00
1.00
1810
0
1
0.89
5
164
0.00
1538
0
1538
0.0
0.0
1.00
164
0.00
164
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
4.1
0.1
4
4
20.0
4.0
16.0
8.3
0.5
6
6
91.5
4.0
81.0
17.6
63.2
7
7
20.0
4.0
16.0
18.0
0.0
1
1
6.6
4.0
4.0
4.1
0.0
1.00
1810
2552
2
0.89
5
2279
0.66
3438
2552
1719
99.4
99.4
2279
1.12
2279
1.00
0.09
25.3
54.6
0.0
64.1
79.9
F
2879
74.9
E
2
2
103.4
4.0
98.0
101.4
0.0
1.00
1810
685
2
0.89
5
2005
0.58
3438
685
1719
15.6
15.6
2005
0.34
2005
1.00
1.00
16.3
0.5
0.0
7.5
16.7
B
804
19.4
B
5
5
18.5
4.0
21.0
14.4
0.2
1.00
1810
47
1
0.89
5
193
0.11
1810
47
1810
3.6
3.6
193
0.24
193
1.00
1.00
61.4
3.0
0.0
1.9
64.4
E
162
65.4
E
1.00
1810
81
1
0.89
5
193
0.11
1810
81
1810
6.3
6.3
193
0.42
193
1.00
1.00
62.7
6.6
0.0
3.5
69.2
E
485
141.3
F
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
7.7
0.5
71.7
E
The Fields 7/2/2015 Future Baseline with Diversion AM - Scenario 4
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
8/5/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
57
7
0
1.00
1.00
1810
64
1
0.89
5
455
0.68
615
64
615
3.6
10.8
1.00
455
0.14
455
1.00
1.00
7.2
0.1
0.0
0.6
7.4
A
2140
4
0
20
14
0
1.00
1.00
1810
22
1
0.89
5
1046
0.68
1538
22
1538
0.3
0.3
1.00
1046
0.02
1046
1.00
1.00
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.9
A
49
3
0
1.00
1.00
1810
55
1
0.89
5
96
0.68
137
55
137
0.0
51.0
1.00
96
0.57
96
1.00
0.94
37.5
7.5
0.0
1.3
45.0
D
706
8
0
69
18
0
1.00
1.00
1810
78
1
0.89
5
1046
0.68
1538
78
1538
1.3
1.3
1.00
1046
0.07
1046
1.00
0.94
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4.1
A
68
5
0
1.00
1.00
1900
76
0
0.89
5
187
0.21
553
173
1521
0.0
7.3
0.44
394
0.44
394
1.00
1.00
26.0
3.5
0.0
3.6
29.5
C
11
2
0
76
12
0
1.00
1.00
1900
85
0
0.89
5
159
0.21
747
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.49
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
135
1
0
1.00
1.00
1900
152
0
0.89
5
262
0.21
853
231
1372
4.6
11.8
0.66
372
0.62
372
1.00
1.00
27.8
7.6
0.0
5.3
35.3
D
5
6
0
65
16
0
1.00
1.00
1900
73
0
0.89
5
93
0.21
434
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.32
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
4
4
55.0
4.0
51.0
53.0
0.0
6
6
20.0
4.0
16.0
13.8
0.5
7
1
1.00
1810
2404
2
0.89
5
2338
0.68
3438
2404
1719
51.0
51.0
2338
1.03
2338
1.00
1.00
12.0
26.3
0.0
31.9
38.3
F
2490
37.2
D
2
2
20.0
4.0
16.0
9.3
1.4
1.00
1810
793
2
0.89
5
2338
0.68
3438
793
1719
7.2
7.2
2338
0.34
2338
1.00
0.94
5.0
0.1
0.0
3.3
5.1
A
926
7.4
A
5
1.00
1810
12
1
0.89
5
47
0.21
221
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
173
29.5
C
1.00
1810
6
1
0.89
5
18
0.21
86
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
231
35.3
D
8
8
55.0
4.0
51.0
53.0
0.0
29.5
C
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
8/5/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
79
71
Stop
0%
0.89
80
65
Stop
0%
0.89
73
38
246
Free
0%
0.89
276
53
0.89
89
0.89
43
4
0.89
60
None
273
611
553
553
0
0
611
7.1
553
6.5
553
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
69
284
4.0
78
362
4.0
80
362
3.3
96
1076
2.2
83
1604
EB 1
89
89
0
284
0.31
32
23.3
C
20.7
C
EB 2
80
0
0
362
0.22
21
17.7
C
WB 1
116
0
43
573
0.20
19
14.1
B
14.1
B
SB 1
276
276
0
1604
0.17
16
7.7
A
6.3
SB 2
60
0
60
1700
0.04
0
0.0
11.7
31.3%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
8/5/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
57
7
0
1.00
1.00
1810
64
1
0.89
5
455
0.68
615
64
615
3.6
10.8
1.00
455
0.14
455
1.00
1.00
7.2
0.1
0.0
0.6
7.4
A
2140
4
0
20
14
0
1.00
1.00
1810
22
1
0.89
5
1046
0.68
1538
22
1538
0.3
0.3
1.00
1046
0.02
1046
1.00
1.00
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.9
A
49
3
0
1.00
1.00
1810
55
1
0.89
5
96
0.68
137
55
137
0.0
51.0
1.00
96
0.57
96
1.00
0.94
37.5
7.5
0.0
1.3
45.0
D
706
8
0
69
18
0
1.00
1.00
1810
78
1
0.89
5
1046
0.68
1538
78
1538
1.3
1.3
1.00
1046
0.07
1046
1.00
0.94
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4.1
A
68
5
0
1.00
1.00
1900
76
0
0.89
5
187
0.21
553
173
1521
0.0
7.3
0.44
394
0.44
394
1.00
1.00
26.0
3.5
0.0
3.6
29.5
C
11
2
0
76
12
0
1.00
1.00
1900
85
0
0.89
5
159
0.21
747
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.49
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
135
1
0
1.00
1.00
1900
152
0
0.89
5
262
0.21
853
231
1372
4.6
11.8
0.66
372
0.62
372
1.00
1.00
27.8
7.6
0.0
5.3
35.3
D
5
6
0
65
16
0
1.00
1.00
1900
73
0
0.89
5
93
0.21
434
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.32
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
4
4
55.0
4.0
51.0
53.0
0.0
6
6
20.0
4.0
16.0
13.8
0.5
7
1
1.00
1810
2404
2
0.89
5
2338
0.68
3438
2404
1719
51.0
51.0
2338
1.03
2338
1.00
1.00
12.0
26.3
0.0
31.9
38.3
F
2490
37.2
D
2
2
20.0
4.0
16.0
9.3
1.4
1.00
1810
793
2
0.89
5
2338
0.68
3438
793
1719
7.2
7.2
2338
0.34
2338
1.00
0.94
5.0
0.1
0.0
3.3
5.1
A
926
7.4
A
5
1.00
1810
12
1
0.89
5
47
0.21
221
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
173
29.5
C
1.00
1810
6
1
0.89
5
18
0.21
86
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
231
35.3
D
8
8
55.0
4.0
51.0
53.0
0.0
29.5
C
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
8/5/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
148
5
0
1.00
1.00
1863
159
1
0.93
2
181
0.10
1774
159
1774
13.3
13.3
1.00
181
0.88
189
1.00
0.92
66.4
31.5
0.0
8.1
98.0
F
726
2
0
192
12
0
1.00
1.00
1863
171
1
0.93
2
966
0.61
1583
171
1583
7.1
7.1
1.00
966
0.18
966
1.00
0.92
12.8
0.4
0.0
3.2
13.1
B
95
1
0
1.00
1.00
1863
102
1
0.93
2
124
0.07
1774
102
1774
8.5
8.5
1.00
124
0.83
189
1.00
1.00
68.9
15.9
0.0
4.7
84.8
F
2129
6
0
308
16
0
1.00
1.00
1863
302
1
0.93
2
915
0.58
1583
302
1583
14.9
14.9
1.00
915
0.33
915
1.00
1.00
16.5
1.0
0.0
6.7
17.5
B
175
3
0
1.00
1.00
1863
188
2
0.93
2
367
0.11
3442
188
1721
7.7
7.7
1.00
367
0.51
367
1.00
1.00
63.3
5.0
0.0
3.9
68.3
E
155
8
0
69
18
0
1.00
1.00
1863
61
1
0.93
2
169
0.11
1583
61
1583
5.4
5.4
1.00
169
0.36
169
1.00
1.00
62.3
5.9
0.0
2.6
68.2
E
110
7
0
1.00
1.00
1863
118
2
0.93
2
367
0.11
3442
118
1721
4.8
4.8
1.00
367
0.32
367
1.00
1.00
62.0
2.3
0.0
2.4
64.3
E
127
4
0
238
14
0
1.00
1.00
1863
0
1
0.93
2
169
0.00
1583
0
1583
0.0
0.0
1.00
169
0.00
169
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
9.7
0.3
4
4
20.0
4.0
16.0
12.6
0.6
6
6
90.7
4.0
86.0
88.7
0.0
7
7
20.0
4.0
16.0
6.8
0.2
1
1
14.4
4.0
16.0
10.5
0.1
1.00
1863
781
2
0.93
2
2160
0.61
3539
781
1770
16.5
16.5
2160
0.36
2160
1.00
0.92
14.6
0.4
0.0
8.2
15.0
B
1111
26.6
C
2
2
95.6
4.0
86.0
18.5
67.2
1.00
1863
2289
2
0.93
2
2046
0.58
3539
2289
1770
86.7
86.7
2046
1.12
2046
1.00
1.00
31.6
60.8
0.0
59.3
92.4
F
2693
83.7
F
5
5
19.3
4.0
16.0
15.3
0.0
1.00
1863
167
1
0.93
2
199
0.11
1863
167
1863
13.2
13.2
199
0.84
199
1.00
1.00
65.7
32.8
0.0
8.6
98.5
F
416
80.4
F
1.00
1863
137
1
0.93
2
199
0.11
1863
137
1863
10.6
10.6
199
0.69
199
1.00
1.00
64.6
17.8
0.0
6.5
82.4
F
255
74.0
E
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
15.2
0.2
68.7
E
The Fields 7/30/2015 Future Baseline with Diversion PM - Scenario 4
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
8/5/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
102
7
0
1.00
1.00
1863
110
1
0.93
2
96
0.68
106
110
106
0.0
51.0
1.00
96
1.15
96
1.00
1.00
37.5
136.5
0.0
5.6
174.0
F
917
4
0
22
14
0
1.00
1.00
1863
24
1
0.93
2
1077
0.68
1583
24
1583
0.4
0.4
1.00
1077
0.02
1077
1.00
1.00
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.2
3.9
A
60
3
0
1.00
1.00
1863
65
1
0.93
2
405
0.68
556
65
556
4.4
13.7
1.00
405
0.16
405
1.00
0.09
8.4
0.0
0.0
0.7
8.4
A
2302
8
0
214
18
0
1.00
1.00
1863
230
1
0.93
2
1077
0.68
1583
230
1583
4.1
4.1
1.00
1077
0.21
1077
1.00
0.09
4.5
0.0
0.0
1.7
4.5
A
27
5
0
1.00
1.00
1900
29
0
0.93
2
93
0.21
169
156
1580
0.0
6.2
0.19
394
0.40
394
1.00
1.00
25.7
3.0
0.0
3.1
28.6
C
5
2
0
113
12
0
1.00
1.00
1900
122
0
0.93
2
264
0.21
1235
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.78
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
91
1
0
1.00
1.00
1900
98
0
0.93
2
261
0.21
854
151
1436
0.2
6.4
0.65
385
0.39
385
1.00
1.00
25.6
3.0
0.0
3.0
28.6
C
6
6
0
44
16
0
1.00
1.00
1900
47
0
0.93
2
95
0.21
447
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.31
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
4
4
55.0
4.0
51.0
53.0
0.0
6
6
20.0
4.0
16.0
8.4
1.1
7
1
1.00
1863
986
2
0.93
2
2407
0.68
3539
986
1770
9.3
9.3
2407
0.41
2407
1.00
1.00
5.3
0.1
0.0
4.4
5.4
A
1120
22.0
C
2
2
20.0
4.0
16.0
8.2
1.1
1.00
1863
2475
2
0.93
2
2407
0.68
3539
2475
1770
51.0
51.0
2407
1.03
2407
1.00
0.09
12.0
14.9
0.0
29.0
26.9
F
2770
24.6
C
5
1.00
1863
5
1
0.93
2
37
0.21
175
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
156
28.6
C
1.00
1863
6
1
0.93
2
29
0.21
134
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
151
28.6
C
8
8
55.0
4.0
51.0
53.0
0.0
24.2
C
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
8/5/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
141
124
Stop
0%
0.93
133
144
Stop
0%
0.93
155
252
204
Free
0%
0.93
219
213
0.93
152
0.93
271
4
0.93
229
None
273
652
439
439
0
0
652
7.1
439
6.5
439
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
19
188
4.0
70
443
4.0
65
443
3.3
75
1085
2.2
86
1623
EB 1
152
152
0
188
0.81
140
74.5
F
47.4
E
EB 2
133
0
0
443
0.30
31
16.6
C
WB 1
426
0
271
1218
0.35
40
12.3
B
12.3
B
SB 1
219
219
0
1623
0.14
12
7.6
A
3.7
SB 2
229
0
229
1700
0.13
0
0.0
17.6
36.7%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
8/5/2015
3.4
EBL
28
0
Stop
0
0
0
93
2
30
EBR
79
0
Stop
None
93
2
85
NBL NBT
122 260
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
93
93
2
2
131 280
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
711
169
542
6.42
5.42
5.42
3.518
400
861
583
169
6.22
3.318
875
-
Major1
180
4.12
2.218
1396
-
362
362
861
528
875
-
1396
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
11.9
B
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1396
0.094
7.8
A
0.3
NB
2.5
NBT EBLn1
- 638
- 0.18
- 11.9
B
0.7
0
-
SBT SBR
148
19
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
93
93
2
2
159
20
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128
5
0
1.00
1.00
1810
144
1
0.89
5
167
0.10
1723
144
1723
12.4
12.4
1.00
167
0.86
241
1.00
1.00
66.8
19.1
0.0
6.8
85.9
F
2171
2
0
195
12
0
1.00
1.00
1810
182
1
0.89
5
978
0.64
1538
182
1538
7.3
7.3
1.00
978
0.19
978
1.00
1.00
11.3
0.4
0.0
3.2
11.7
B
21
1
0
1.00
1.00
1810
24
1
0.89
5
30
0.02
1723
24
1723
2.1
2.1
1.00
30
0.81
46
1.00
1.00
73.5
43.1
0.0
1.3
116.6
F
579
6
0
144
16
0
1.00
1.00
1810
132
1
0.89
5
856
0.56
1538
132
1538
6.2
6.2
1.00
856
0.15
856
1.00
1.00
16.1
0.4
0.0
2.8
16.5
B
46
3
0
1.00
1.00
1810
52
2
0.89
5
357
0.11
3343
52
1672
2.1
2.1
1.00
357
0.15
357
1.00
1.00
60.8
0.9
0.0
1.0
61.7
E
42
8
0
68
18
0
1.00
1.00
1810
63
1
0.89
5
164
0.11
1538
63
1538
5.7
5.7
1.00
164
0.38
164
1.00
1.00
62.4
6.7
0.0
2.7
69.1
E
470
7
0
1.00
1.00
1810
528
2
0.89
5
446
0.13
3343
528
1672
20.0
20.0
1.00
446
1.18
446
1.00
1.00
65.0
103.7
0.0
15.6
168.7
F
85
4
0
114
14
0
1.00
1.00
1810
0
1
0.89
5
205
0.00
1538
0
1538
0.0
0.0
1.00
205
0.00
205
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
4.1
0.1
4
4
24.0
4.0
20.0
9.3
0.7
6
6
87.5
4.0
77.0
17.5
59.3
7
7
24.0
4.0
20.0
22.0
0.0
1
1
6.6
4.0
4.0
4.1
0.0
1.00
1810
2439
2
0.89
5
2187
0.64
3438
2439
1719
95.4
95.4
2187
1.12
2187
1.00
1.00
27.3
58.9
0.0
62.8
86.1
F
2765
81.2
F
2
2
99.4
4.0
94.0
97.4
0.0
1.00
1810
651
2
0.89
5
1913
0.56
3438
651
1719
15.5
15.5
1913
0.34
1913
1.00
1.00
18.2
0.5
0.0
7.5
18.7
B
807
21.2
C
5
5
18.5
4.0
21.0
14.4
0.2
1.00
1810
47
1
0.89
5
193
0.11
1810
47
1810
3.6
3.6
193
0.24
193
1.00
1.00
61.4
3.0
0.0
1.9
64.4
E
162
65.4
E
1.00
1810
96
1
0.89
5
241
0.13
1810
96
1810
7.3
7.3
241
0.40
241
1.00
1.00
59.5
4.8
0.0
4.0
64.3
E
624
152.7
F
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
7.7
0.6
79.8
E
The Fields 7/30/2015 Future Baseline + Project AM - Scenario 5
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
57
2140
Free
0%
0.89
2404
26
52
35
92
8
0.89
39
0.89
103
0.89
115
0.89
9
6
Stop
0%
0.89
7
65
0.89
58
14
Stop
0%
0.89
16
102
0.89
29
706
Free
0%
0.89
793
0.89
73
0.89
64
None
None
833
2434
3122
3482
1202
2363
3472
397
833
4.2
2434
4.2
3122
7.6
3482
6.6
1202
7.0
2363
7.6
3472
6.6
397
7.0
2.2
92
777
2.2
68
182
3.5
0
0
4.0
0
4
3.3
34
172
3.5
0
0
4.0
0
4
3.3
88
594
WB 3
397
0
0
1700
0.23
0
0.0
WB 4
39
0
39
1700
0.02
0
0.0
NB 1
234
103
115
0
Err
Err
Err
F
Err
F
SB 1
89
9
73
0
Err
Err
Err
F
Err
F
EB 1
64
64
0
777
0.08
7
10.0
B
0.3
EB 2
1202
0
0
1700
0.71
0
0.0
EB 3
1202
0
0
1700
0.71
0
0.0
Err
84.6%
15
EB 4
29
0
29
1700
0.02
0
0.0
WB 1
58
58
0
182
0.32
33
33.8
D
2.2
WB 2
397
0
0
1700
0.23
0
0.0
LMB
E
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
79
71
Stop
0%
0.89
80
68
Stop
0%
0.89
76
38
259
Free
0%
0.89
291
53
0.89
89
0.89
43
4
0.89
60
None
273
642
582
582
0
0
642
7.1
582
6.5
582
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
66
264
4.0
77
344
4.0
78
344
3.3
96
1076
2.2
82
1604
EB 1
89
89
0
264
0.34
36
25.4
D
22.2
C
EB 2
80
0
0
344
0.23
22
18.6
C
WB 1
119
0
43
537
0.22
21
14.9
B
14.9
B
SB 1
291
291
0
1604
0.18
17
7.7
A
6.4
SB 2
60
0
60
1700
0.04
0
0.0
12.2
32.1%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
19:
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
7/30/2015
4.9
EBL
9
0
Stop
0
0
0
89
5
10
EBR
185
0
Stop
None
89
5
208
NBL NBT
50
73
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
89
89
5
5
56
82
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
429
235
194
6.45
5.45
5.45
3.545
577
797
832
235
6.25
3.345
797
-
Major1
243
4.15
2.245
1306
-
552
552
797
796
797
-
1306
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
11.4
B
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1306
0.043
7.9
A
0.1
NB
3.2
NBT EBLn1
- 781
- 0.279
- 11.4
B
1.1
0
-
SBT SBR
203
13
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
89
89
5
5
228
15
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/2/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
148
5
0
1.00
1.00
1863
159
1
0.93
2
181
0.10
1774
159
1774
13.3
13.3
1.00
181
0.88
189
1.00
0.92
66.4
31.5
0.0
8.1
98.0
F
726
2
0
192
12
0
1.00
1.00
1863
171
1
0.93
2
966
0.61
1583
171
1583
7.1
7.1
1.00
966
0.18
966
1.00
0.92
12.8
0.4
0.0
3.2
13.1
B
95
1
0
1.00
1.00
1863
102
1
0.93
2
124
0.07
1774
102
1774
8.5
8.5
1.00
124
0.83
189
1.00
1.00
68.9
15.9
0.0
4.7
84.8
F
2129
6
0
308
16
0
1.00
1.00
1863
302
1
0.93
2
915
0.58
1583
302
1583
14.9
14.9
1.00
915
0.33
915
1.00
1.00
16.5
1.0
0.0
6.7
17.5
B
175
3
0
1.00
1.00
1863
188
2
0.93
2
367
0.11
3442
188
1721
7.7
7.7
1.00
367
0.51
367
1.00
1.00
63.3
5.0
0.0
3.9
68.3
E
155
8
0
69
18
0
1.00
1.00
1863
61
1
0.93
2
169
0.11
1583
61
1583
5.4
5.4
1.00
169
0.36
169
1.00
1.00
62.3
5.9
0.0
2.6
68.2
E
110
7
0
1.00
1.00
1863
118
2
0.93
2
367
0.11
3442
118
1721
4.8
4.8
1.00
367
0.32
367
1.00
1.00
62.0
2.3
0.0
2.4
64.3
E
127
4
0
238
14
0
1.00
1.00
1863
0
1
0.93
2
169
0.00
1583
0
1583
0.0
0.0
1.00
169
0.00
169
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
9.7
0.3
4
4
20.0
4.0
16.0
12.6
0.6
6
6
90.7
4.0
86.0
88.7
0.0
7
7
20.0
4.0
16.0
6.8
0.2
1
1
14.4
4.0
16.0
10.5
0.1
1.00
1863
781
2
0.93
2
2160
0.61
3539
781
1770
16.5
16.5
2160
0.36
2160
1.00
0.92
14.6
0.4
0.0
8.2
15.0
B
1111
26.6
C
2
2
95.6
4.0
86.0
18.5
67.2
1.00
1863
2289
2
0.93
2
2046
0.58
3539
2289
1770
86.7
86.7
2046
1.12
2046
1.00
1.00
31.6
60.8
0.0
59.3
92.4
F
2693
83.7
F
5
5
19.3
4.0
16.0
15.3
0.0
1.00
1863
167
1
0.93
2
199
0.11
1863
167
1863
13.2
13.2
199
0.84
199
1.00
1.00
65.7
32.8
0.0
8.6
98.5
F
416
80.4
F
1.00
1863
137
1
0.93
2
199
0.11
1863
137
1863
10.6
10.6
199
0.69
199
1.00
1.00
64.6
17.8
0.0
6.5
82.4
F
255
74.0
E
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
15.2
0.2
68.7
E
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
102
917
Free
0%
0.93
986
45
73
93
39
13
0.93
100
0.93
42
0.93
137
0.93
14
9
Stop
0%
0.93
10
44
0.93
78
6
Stop
0%
0.93
6
127
0.93
48
2302
Free
0%
0.93
2475
0.93
47
0.93
110
None
None
2575
1034
2652
3938
493
3484
3886
1238
2575
4.1
1034
4.1
2652
7.5
3938
6.5
493
6.9
3484
7.5
3886
6.5
1238
6.9
2.2
35
167
2.2
88
668
3.5
0
0
4.0
0
1
3.3
74
522
3.5
0
0
4.0
0
1
3.3
72
167
WB 3
1238
0
0
1700
0.73
0
0.0
WB 4
100
0
100
1700
0.06
0
0.0
NB 1
185
42
137
0
Err
Err
Err
F
Err
F
SB 1
71
14
47
0
Err
Err
Err
F
Err
F
EB 1
110
110
0
167
0.65
94
60.1
F
5.8
EB 2
493
0
0
1700
0.29
0
0.0
EB 3
493
0
0
1700
0.29
0
0.0
Err
93.8%
15
EB 4
48
0
48
1700
0.03
0
0.0
WB 1
78
78
0
668
0.12
10
11.1
B
0.3
WB 2
1238
0
0
1700
0.73
0
0.0
The Fields 7/30/2015 Future Baseline + Project PM - Scenario 5
LMB
F
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
141
124
Stop
0%
0.93
133
157
Stop
0%
0.93
169
252
211
Free
0%
0.93
227
213
0.93
152
0.93
271
4
0.93
229
None
273
674
454
454
0
0
674
7.1
454
6.5
454
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
12
173
4.0
69
432
4.0
61
432
3.3
75
1085
2.2
86
1623
EB 1
152
152
0
173
0.88
158
92.5
F
57.2
F
EB 2
133
0
0
432
0.31
32
17.0
C
WB 1
440
0
271
1125
0.39
47
12.9
B
12.9
B
SB 1
227
227
0
1623
0.14
12
7.6
A
3.8
SB 2
229
0
229
1700
0.13
0
0.0
20.1
37.8%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
7/30/2015
5.3
EBL
28
0
Stop
0
0
0
93
2
30
EBR
159
0
Stop
None
93
2
171
NBL NBT
244 260
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
93
93
2
2
262 280
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
1115
311
804
6.42
5.42
5.42
3.518
230
743
440
311
6.22
3.318
729
-
Major1
322
4.12
2.218
1238
-
181
181
743
347
729
-
1238
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
16.9
C
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1238
0.212
8.7
A
0.8
NB
4.2
NBT EBLn1
- 502
- 0.401
- 16.9
C
1.9
0
-
SBT SBR
280
19
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
93
93
2
2
301
20
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128
5
0
1.00
1.00
1810
144
1
0.89
5
167
0.10
1723
144
1723
12.4
12.4
1.00
167
0.86
241
1.00
0.09
66.8
2.2
0.0
6.0
68.9
E
2284
2
0
209
12
0
1.00
1.00
1810
198
1
0.89
5
1019
0.66
1538
198
1538
7.5
7.5
1.00
1019
0.19
1019
1.00
0.09
9.8
0.0
0.0
3.2
9.8
A
21
1
0
1.00
1.00
1810
24
1
0.89
5
30
0.02
1723
24
1723
2.1
2.1
1.00
30
0.81
46
1.00
1.00
73.5
43.1
0.0
1.3
116.6
F
613
6
0
111
16
0
1.00
1.00
1810
95
1
0.89
5
897
0.58
1538
95
1538
4.1
4.1
1.00
897
0.11
897
1.00
1.00
13.9
0.2
0.0
1.8
14.1
B
46
3
0
1.00
1.00
1810
52
2
0.89
5
357
0.11
3343
52
1672
2.1
2.1
1.00
357
0.15
357
1.00
1.00
60.8
0.9
0.0
1.0
61.7
E
42
8
0
68
18
0
1.00
1.00
1810
63
1
0.89
5
164
0.11
1538
63
1538
5.7
5.7
1.00
164
0.38
164
1.00
1.00
62.4
6.7
0.0
2.7
69.1
E
360
7
0
1.00
1.00
1810
404
2
0.89
5
357
0.11
3343
404
1672
16.0
16.0
1.00
357
1.13
357
1.00
1.00
67.0
88.8
0.0
11.8
155.8
F
72
4
0
114
14
0
1.00
1.00
1810
0
1
0.89
5
164
0.00
1538
0
1538
0.0
0.0
1.00
164
0.00
164
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
4.1
0.1
4
4
20.0
4.0
16.0
8.3
0.5
6
6
91.5
4.0
81.0
17.7
63.1
7
7
20.0
4.0
16.0
18.0
0.0
1
1
6.6
4.0
4.0
4.1
0.0
1.00
1810
2566
2
0.89
5
2279
0.66
3438
2566
1719
99.4
99.4
2279
1.13
2279
1.00
0.09
25.3
57.4
0.0
65.0
82.6
F
2908
77.0
E
2
2
103.4
4.0
98.0
101.4
0.0
1.00
1810
689
2
0.89
5
2005
0.58
3438
689
1719
15.7
15.7
2005
0.34
2005
1.00
1.00
16.3
0.5
0.0
7.6
16.8
B
808
19.4
B
5
5
18.5
4.0
21.0
14.4
0.2
1.00
1810
47
1
0.89
5
193
0.11
1810
47
1810
3.6
3.6
193
0.24
193
1.00
1.00
61.4
3.0
0.0
1.9
64.4
E
162
65.4
E
1.00
1810
81
1
0.89
5
193
0.11
1810
81
1810
6.3
6.3
193
0.42
193
1.00
1.00
62.7
6.6
0.0
3.5
69.2
E
485
141.3
F
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
7.7
0.5
73.1
E
The Fields 7/30/2015 Future Baseline + Project with Diversion AM - Scenario 6
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
57
7
0
1.00
1.00
1810
64
1
0.89
5
455
0.68
615
64
615
3.6
10.8
1.00
455
0.14
455
1.00
1.00
7.2
0.1
0.0
0.6
7.4
A
2140
4
0
26
14
0
1.00
1.00
1810
29
1
0.89
5
1046
0.68
1538
29
1538
0.5
0.5
1.00
1046
0.03
1046
1.00
1.00
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.2
3.9
A
52
3
0
1.00
1.00
1810
58
1
0.89
5
96
0.68
136
58
136
0.0
51.0
1.00
96
0.60
96
1.00
0.94
37.5
9.7
0.0
1.5
47.2
D
706
8
0
69
18
0
1.00
1.00
1810
78
1
0.89
5
1046
0.68
1538
78
1538
1.3
1.3
1.00
1046
0.07
1046
1.00
0.94
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4.1
A
92
5
0
1.00
1.00
1900
103
0
0.89
5
191
0.21
572
234
1506
0.0
10.7
0.44
390
0.60
390
1.00
1.00
27.3
6.7
0.0
5.2
34.0
C
14
2
0
102
12
0
1.00
1.00
1900
115
0
0.89
5
158
0.21
740
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.49
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
135
1
0
1.00
1.00
1900
152
0
0.89
5
243
0.21
768
232
1249
2.9
13.6
0.66
346
0.67
346
1.00
1.00
28.5
9.9
0.0
5.6
38.5
D
6
6
0
65
16
0
1.00
1.00
1900
73
0
0.89
5
84
0.21
393
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.31
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
4
4
55.0
4.0
51.0
53.0
0.0
6
6
20.0
4.0
16.0
15.6
0.1
7
1
1.00
1810
2404
2
0.89
5
2338
0.68
3438
2404
1719
51.0
51.0
2338
1.03
2338
1.00
1.00
12.0
26.3
0.0
31.9
38.3
F
2497
37.1
D
2
2
20.0
4.0
16.0
12.7
0.9
1.00
1810
793
2
0.89
5
2338
0.68
3438
793
1719
7.2
7.2
2338
0.34
2338
1.00
0.94
5.0
0.1
0.0
3.3
5.1
A
929
7.6
A
5
1.00
1810
16
1
0.89
5
41
0.21
194
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
234
34.0
C
1.00
1810
7
1
0.89
5
19
0.21
88
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
232
38.5
D
8
8
55.0
4.0
51.0
53.0
0.0
30.0
C
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
79
71
Stop
0%
0.89
80
68
Stop
0%
0.89
76
38
259
Free
0%
0.89
291
53
0.89
89
0.89
43
4
0.89
60
None
273
642
582
582
0
0
642
7.1
582
6.5
582
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
66
264
4.0
77
344
4.0
78
344
3.3
96
1076
2.2
82
1604
EB 1
89
89
0
264
0.34
36
25.4
D
22.2
C
EB 2
80
0
0
344
0.23
22
18.6
C
WB 1
119
0
43
537
0.22
21
14.9
B
14.9
B
SB 1
291
291
0
1604
0.18
17
7.7
A
6.4
SB 2
60
0
60
1700
0.04
0
0.0
12.2
32.1%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
7/30/2015
3.4
EBL
12
0
Stop
0
0
0
89
5
13
EBR
128
0
Stop
None
89
5
144
NBL NBT
35 100
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
89
89
5
5
39 112
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
516
325
191
6.45
5.45
5.45
3.545
514
726
834
325
6.25
3.345
709
-
Major1
336
4.15
2.245
1207
-
497
497
726
807
709
-
1207
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
11.8
B
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1207
0.033
8.1
A
0.1
0
-
NB
2.1
NBT EBLn1
- 684
- 0.23
- 11.8
B
0.9
SBT SBR
280
19
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
89
89
5
5
315
21
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
148
5
0
1.00
1.00
1863
159
1
0.93
2
181
0.10
1774
159
1774
13.3
13.3
1.00
181
0.88
189
1.00
0.92
66.4
31.5
0.0
8.1
98.0
F
733
2
0
199
12
0
1.00
1.00
1863
179
1
0.93
2
966
0.61
1583
179
1583
7.4
7.4
1.00
966
0.19
966
1.00
0.92
12.8
0.4
0.0
3.4
13.2
B
95
1
0
1.00
1.00
1863
102
1
0.93
2
124
0.07
1774
102
1774
8.5
8.5
1.00
124
0.83
189
1.00
1.00
68.9
15.9
0.0
4.7
84.8
F
2142
6
0
308
16
0
1.00
1.00
1863
302
1
0.93
2
915
0.58
1583
302
1583
14.9
14.9
1.00
915
0.33
915
1.00
1.00
16.5
1.0
0.0
6.7
17.5
B
175
3
0
1.00
1.00
1863
188
2
0.93
2
367
0.11
3442
188
1721
7.7
7.7
1.00
367
0.51
367
1.00
1.00
63.3
5.0
0.0
3.9
68.3
E
155
8
0
69
18
0
1.00
1.00
1863
61
1
0.93
2
169
0.11
1583
61
1583
5.4
5.4
1.00
169
0.36
169
1.00
1.00
62.3
5.9
0.0
2.6
68.2
E
110
7
0
1.00
1.00
1863
118
2
0.93
2
367
0.11
3442
118
1721
4.8
4.8
1.00
367
0.32
367
1.00
1.00
62.0
2.3
0.0
2.4
64.3
E
127
4
0
238
14
0
1.00
1.00
1863
0
1
0.93
2
169
0.00
1583
0
1583
0.0
0.0
1.00
169
0.00
169
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
20.0
4.0
16.0
9.7
0.3
4
4
20.0
4.0
16.0
12.6
0.6
6
6
90.7
4.0
86.0
88.7
0.0
7
7
20.0
4.0
16.0
6.8
0.2
1
1
14.4
4.0
16.0
10.5
0.1
1.00
1863
788
2
0.93
2
2160
0.61
3539
788
1770
16.7
16.7
2160
0.36
2160
1.00
0.92
14.6
0.4
0.0
8.2
15.1
B
1126
26.5
C
2
2
95.6
4.0
86.0
18.7
67.0
1.00
1863
2303
2
0.93
2
2046
0.58
3539
2303
1770
86.7
86.7
2046
1.13
2046
1.00
1.00
31.6
63.6
0.0
60.1
95.2
F
2707
86.1
F
5
5
19.3
4.0
16.0
15.3
0.0
1.00
1863
167
1
0.93
2
199
0.11
1863
167
1863
13.2
13.2
199
0.84
199
1.00
1.00
65.7
32.8
0.0
8.6
98.5
F
416
80.4
F
1.00
1863
137
1
0.93
2
199
0.11
1863
137
1863
10.6
10.6
199
0.69
199
1.00
1.00
64.6
17.8
0.0
6.5
82.4
F
255
74.0
E
8
8
20.0
4.0
16.0
15.2
0.2
70.0
E
The Fields 7/30/2015 Future Baseline + Project with Diversion PM - Scenario 6
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Q Serve(g_s), s
Prop In Lane
V/C Ratio(X)
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
102
7
0
1.00
1.00
1863
110
1
0.93
2
96
0.68
106
110
106
0.0
51.0
1.00
96
1.15
96
1.00
1.00
37.5
136.5
0.0
5.6
174.0
F
917
4
0
45
14
0
1.00
1.00
1863
48
1
0.93
2
1077
0.68
1583
48
1583
0.8
0.8
1.00
1077
0.04
1077
1.00
1.00
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
4.0
A
73
3
0
1.00
1.00
1863
78
1
0.93
2
398
0.68
543
78
543
5.6
14.8
1.00
398
0.20
398
1.00
0.09
8.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
8.6
A
2302
8
0
214
18
0
1.00
1.00
1863
230
1
0.93
2
1077
0.68
1583
230
1583
4.1
4.1
1.00
1077
0.21
1077
1.00
0.09
4.5
0.0
0.0
1.7
4.5
A
39
5
0
1.00
1.00
1900
42
0
0.93
2
110
0.21
241
185
1603
0.1
7.2
0.23
401
0.46
401
1.00
1.00
26.1
3.8
0.0
3.8
29.9
C
6
2
0
127
12
0
1.00
1.00
1900
137
0
0.93
2
253
0.21
1187
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.74
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
91
1
0
1.00
1.00
1900
98
0
0.93
2
249
0.21
802
155
1397
0.0
7.1
0.63
376
0.41
376
1.00
1.00
25.9
3.3
0.0
3.1
29.2
C
9
6
0
44
16
0
1.00
1.00
1900
47
0
0.93
2
90
0.21
424
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.30
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
4
4
55.0
4.0
51.0
53.0
0.0
6
6
20.0
4.0
16.0
9.1
1.2
7
1
1.00
1863
986
2
0.93
2
2407
0.68
3539
986
1770
9.3
9.3
2407
0.41
2407
1.00
1.00
5.3
0.1
0.0
4.4
5.4
A
1144
21.6
C
2
2
20.0
4.0
16.0
9.2
1.1
1.00
1863
2475
2
0.93
2
2407
0.68
3539
2475
1770
51.0
51.0
2407
1.03
2407
1.00
0.09
12.0
14.9
0.0
29.0
26.9
F
2783
24.5
C
5
1.00
1863
6
1
0.93
2
37
0.21
175
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
185
29.9
C
1.00
1863
10
1
0.93
2
37
0.21
171
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0.00
0
1.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
155
29.2
C
8
8
55.0
4.0
51.0
53.0
0.0
24.1
C
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
17: Valley Rd & EJ
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
7/30/2015
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
141
124
Stop
0%
0.93
133
157
Stop
0%
0.93
169
252
211
Free
0%
0.93
227
213
0.93
152
0.93
271
4
0.93
229
None
273
674
454
454
0
0
674
7.1
454
6.5
454
6.5
0
6.2
0
4.1
3.5
12
173
4.0
69
432
4.0
61
432
3.3
75
1085
2.2
86
1623
EB 1
152
152
0
173
0.88
158
92.5
F
57.2
F
EB 2
133
0
0
432
0.31
32
17.0
C
WB 1
440
0
271
1125
0.39
47
12.9
B
12.9
B
SB 1
227
227
0
1623
0.14
12
7.6
A
3.8
SB 2
229
0
229
1700
0.13
0
0.0
20.1
37.8%
15
LMB
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
Vol, veh/h
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
7/30/2015
3.4
EBL
28
0
Stop
0
0
0
93
2
30
EBR
79
0
Stop
None
93
2
85
NBL NBT
122 260
0
0
Free Free
- None
100
0
0
93
93
2
2
131 280
Major/Minor
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Minor2
711
169
542
6.42
5.42
5.42
3.518
400
861
583
169
6.22
3.318
875
-
Major1
180
4.12
2.218
1396
-
362
362
861
528
875
-
1396
-
Approach
HCM LOS
EB
11.9
B
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
NBL
1396
0.094
7.8
A
0.3
0
-
NB
2.5
NBT EBLn1
- 638
- 0.18
- 11.9
B
0.7
SBT SBR
148
19
0
0
Free Free
- None
0
0
93
93
2
2
159
20
Major2
-
0
-
SB
0
SBT SBR
-
LMB
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Future Baseline + Project with Diversion AM - Scenario 6
8/4/2015
Intersection: 2: EJ & SH 82
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
EB
L
410
189
408
EB
T
1300
942
1372
5357
EB
T
1291
976
1402
5357
22
29
24
50
SB
L
162
157
168
SB
L
174
172
178
150
24
17
150
76
54
SB
T
282
262
280
255
66
145
EB
R
326
138
349
421
SB
TR
252
209
307
178
62
272
385
0
0
EB
R
410
203
522
WB
L
90
14
48
385
0
1
385
WB
T
183
105
185
2322
WB
T
190
84
178
2322
WB
R
35
4
22
NB
L
68
9
37
NB
L
79
25
64
385
100
100
NB
T
154
51
128
151
2
3
0
0
NB
R
125
71
125
100
8
7
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Intersection: 10: EJ
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
The Fields
LMB
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Future Baseline + Project with Diversion AM - Scenario 6
8/4/2015
Intersection: 30: Valley Rd/JW Drive & SH 82
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
EB
L
171
34
86
450
EB
T
434
222
363
1831
EB
T
467
225
389
1831
0
0
0
0
EB
R
43
3
19
WB
L
342
151
282
450
600
WB
T
164
74
137
5357
WB
T
149
83
141
5357
WB
R
61
9
31
NB
LTR
231
117
199
1091
SB
LTR
254
107
190
2145
500
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 579
The Fields
LMB
SimTraffic Report
Page 3
Future Baseline + Project with Diversion PM - Scenario 6
8/4/2015
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
EB
L
218
124
190
EB
T
265
99
198
5357
EB
T
292
100
204
5357
385
EB
R
66
13
38
WB
L
410
181
452
385
385
0
0
WB
T
2362
2091
2989
2322
35
0
WB
T
2386
2104
2985
2322
42
0
36
34
36
110
WB
R
410
276
567
NB
L
112
79
139
NB
L
124
104
152
385
0
1
100
7
17
100
14
30
NB
T
171
143
195
151
24
96
45
109
NB
R
125
63
140
100
0
0
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
SB
L
120
35
81
SB
L
174
72
142
150
150
0
0
EB
R
29
7
27
421
SB
TR
204
13
96
178
0
2
SB
T
268
117
220
255
1
3
SB
R
236
99
248
255
0
0
6
6
Intersection: 10: EJ
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
The Fields
LMB
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Future Baseline + Project with Diversion PM - Scenario 6
8/4/2015
Intersection: 30: Valley Rd/JW Drive & SH 82
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
EB
L
475
458
525
450
85
389
EB
T
1830
1071
1905
1831
0
0
EB
T
1708
1029
1875
1831
EB
R
23
8
25
WB
L
92
34
71
450
600
WB
T
236
149
206
5357
WB
T
248
158
219
5357
WB
R
45
23
48
NB
LTR
137
59
103
1091
SB
LTR
209
63
132
2145
500
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 865
The Fields
LMB
SimTraffic Report
Page 3
Colorado Department of Transportation
DiExSys™ Roadway Safety Systems
Detailed Summary of Crashes Report
Location: 82A
Begin: 17.50
Severity
End: 18.50
05/28/2015
Job #:
20150528081017
From:01/01/2003 To:12/31/2013
Crash Type
PDO:
INJ:
FAT:
87
40
1
Total:
128
67 :Injured
1 :Killed
Number of Vehicles
One Vehicle:
Two Vehicles:
Three or More:
Unknown:
76
45
7
0
Total:
128
On Road:
Off Road Left:
Off Road Right:
Off Road at Tee:
Off in Median:
Unknown:
94
15
18
0
1
0
Total:
128
Lighting Conditions
Daylight:
Dawn or Dusk:
Dark - Lighted:
Dark - Unlighted:
Unknown:
59
10
3
56
0
Total:
128
Location
Weather Conditions
None:
Rain:
Snow/Sleet/Hail:
Fog:
Dust:
Wind:
Unknown:
107
5
15
0
0
1
0
Total:
128
Crash Rates
PDO:
0.98 *
INJ:
0.45 *
FAT:
1.13 **
ADT: 22,495
* MVMT
** 100 MVMT
Total:
1.44 *
Overturning:
Other Non Collision:
Pedestrians:
Broadside:
Head On:
Rear End:
Sideswipe (Same):
Sideswipe (Opposite):
Approach Turn:
Overtaking Turn:
Parked Motor Vehicle:
Railway Vehicle:
Bicycle:
Motorized Bicycle:
Domestic Animal:
Wild Animal:
Light/Utility Pole:
Traffic Signal Pole:
Sign:
Bridge Rail:
Guard Rail:
Cable Rail:
Concrete Barrier:
18
1
1
19
1
9
6
1
8
1
1
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
5
0
1
0
1
Bridge Abutment:
Column/Pier:
Culvert/Headwall:
Embankment:
Curb:
Delineator Post:
Fence:
Tree:
Large Boulders or Rocks:
Barricade:
Wall/Building:
Crash Cushion:
Mailbox:
Other Fixed Object:
Total Fixed Objects:
Rocks in Roadway:
Vehicle Cargo/Debris:
Road Maintenance Equipment:
Involving Other Object:
Total Other Objects:
Unknown:
0
0
2
1
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
3
0
1
4
0
Total:
128
0 P:
0
Total:
128
Dry:
Wet:
Muddy:
Snowy:
Icy:
Slushy:
Foreign Material:
With Road Treatment:
Dry w/Icy Road Treatment:
Wet w/Icy Road Treatment:
Snowy w/Icy Road Treatment:
Icy w/Icy Road Treatment:
Slushy w/Icy Road Treatment:
Unknown:
95
14
0
6
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
Total:
128
Mainline/Ramps/Frontage Roads
Mainline:
Crossroad (A):
Ramps
B:
C:
D:
E:
0
0
0
0
F:
G:
H:
I:
128
0
0 J:
0 K:
0 L:
0
Frontage/Ramp Intersections
M:
0 N:
0
O:
0 Left Frontage Rd (L):
0 Rt Frontage Rd (R):
0
HOV Lanes (V):
Unknown:
Road Description
0
0
0
0
Road Conditions
At Intersection:
At Driveway Access:
Intersection Related:
Non Intersection:
In Alley:
Roundabout:
Ramp:
Parking Lot:
Unknown:
33
2
3
90
0
0
0
0
0
Total:
128
Length: 0.98
Any intentional or inadvertant release of this data or any data derived from
its use shall not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC 409.
Page 1
User: killianb on 3KILLIANB15
Colorado Department of Transportation
DiExSys™ Roadway Safety Systems
Detailed Summary of Crashes Report
Location: 82A
Begin: 17.50
Veh 1
Vehicle Type
Veh 2
Veh 3
69
0
26
2
23
0
0
4
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
30
0
16
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total:
128
52
7
Veh 1
Veh 2
Veh 3
No Apparent Contributing Factor:
Asleep at the Wheel:
Illness:
Distracted by Passenger:
Driver Inexperience:
Driver Fatigue:
Driver Preoccupied:
Driver Unfamilar with Area:
Driver Emotionally Upset:
Evading Law Enforcement Officier:
Physical Disability:
Unknown:
73
2
0
1
16
2
11
3
0
0
1
19
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total:
128
52
7
Condition of Driver
Veh 1
Veh 2
20150528081017
From:01/01/2003 To:12/31/2013
Veh 1
Veh 2
Veh 3
Going Straight:
Slowing:
Stopped in Traffic:
Making Right Turn:
Making Left Turn:
Making U-Turn:
Passing:
Backing:
Enter/Leave Parked Position:
Starting in Traffic:
Parked:
Changing Lanes:
Avoiding Object/Veh in Road:
Weaving:
Other:
Unknown:
77
1
2
3
18
1
2
0
0
0
0
5
6
1
12
0
39
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Total:
128
52
7
Direction
Veh 1
Veh 2
Veh 3
North:
Northeast:
East:
Southeast:
South:
Southwest:
West:
Northwest:
Unknown:
6
0
51
1
14
0
55
0
1
0
0
13
0
2
0
36
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
4
0
0
Total:
128
52
7
Veh 3
No Impairment Suspected:
Alcohol Involved:
RX, Medication, or Drugs Involved:
Illegal Drugs Involved:
Alcohol and Drugs Involved:
Driver/Pedestrian not Observed:
Unknown:
120
5
0
0
3
0
0
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total:
128
52
7
ADT: 22,495
Job #:
Vehicle Movement
Passenger Car/Van:
Passenger Car/Van w/Trl:
Pickup Truck/Utility Van:
Pickup Truck/Utility Van w/Trl:
SUV:
SUV w/Trl:
Truck 10k lbs or Less:
Trucks > 10k lbs/Bus > 15 People:
School Bus < 15 People:
Non School Bus < 15 People:
Motorhome:
Motorcycle:
Bicycle:
Motorized Bicycle:
Farm Equipment:
Hit and Run - Unknown:
Other:
Unknown:
Contributing Factor
End: 18.50
05/28/2015
Length: 0.98
Any intentional or inadvertant release of this data or any data derived from
its use shall not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC 409.
Page 2
User: killianb on 3KILLIANB15
DU
45%
25%
5%
25%
Entering Site Traffic
From SH 82 W
From SH 82 E
From Blue Lake
From Valley Road
0.17
PM Out
Rate
0.37
122
666
787
418
483
Daily
248
304
16
68
40
28
AM TOT
4
10
14
5
7
AM In
5
7
13
41
54
27
33
AM Out
15
21
14
77
46
31
PM TOT
Total Exiting Traffic:
AM
6
3
1
3
14
Total Entering Traffic:
AM
24
13
3
13
54
PM
9
42
50
25
31
23
13
3
13
50
PM In
16
20
Regression Totals are 18.27% higher than totals calculated by average rate
Regression Equation
0.07
0.37
0.35
Regression Equation
AM In AM Out PM In
Rate
Rate
Rate
0.19
0.56
0.63
Regression Equation
45%
25%
5%
25%
Trip Distribution Calculations
5.81
Dailly
Rate
9.52
Using Regression Equation Results:
Estimated Trip Distribution
Exiting Site Traffic
To SH 82 W
To SH 82 E
To Blue Lake
To E Valley via EJ
72.0
Unit Type # of Units
DU
26.0
ITE TRIP GENERATION , 9th EDITION (2012)
Source:
Difference
Rate Totals
Regression Equation Totals
230 Res. Condominium/Townhouse
Code Land Use
210 Single-Family Detached Housing
RESIDENTIAL
The Fields, Eagle County
PM
5
22
27
12
15
12
7
1
7
27
PM Out
10
12
Blue Lake Diversion Travel Time Calculations
Eastbound Left Turns (AM Peak)
Option 1 (JW to SH 82, Left on SH 82, through El Jebel)
25 mph @ 0.4 Miles
AVG DELAY @ JW Dr SB LT (w/ signal)
55 mph @ 1 Mile
AVG DELAY @ El Jebel Rd EB THRU
TOTAL:
57.6
16.9
65.5
32.1
172.1 Seconds
Option 2 (JW to El Jebel, Right on El Jebel, Left on SH 82)
25 mph @ 0.8 Miles
AVG DELAY @ JW/El Jebel Rd EB RT
25 mph @ 0.35 Miles
AVG DELAY @ El Jebel Rd SB LT
TOTAL:
115.2
11.4
50.4
50.0
227.0 Seconds
Difference
-54.9
Westbound Right Turns (PM Peak)
Option 1 (Thru El Jebel,Right at JW)
AVG DELAY @ El Jebel Rd WB THRU
55 mph @ 1 Mile
AVG DELAY @ JW Dr WB RT (w/ signal)
25 mph @ 0.4 Miles
Option 2 (Right at El Jebel, Left to JW)
AVG DELAY @ El Jebel Rd WB RT
25 mph @ 0.35 Miles
AVG DELAY @ El Jebel Rd WB LT
25 mph @ 0.8 Miles
TOTAL
TOTAL:
37.1
65.5
5.4
57.6
165.6 Seconds
TOTAL:
17.4
50.4
3.2
115.2
186.2 Seconds
Difference
-20.6
Scenario 6 AM Peak
Scenario 6 - PM Peak
April 15, 2015
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 16, 2015
TO:
Kent Harbert, CDOT Region 3 Traffic and Safety
CC:
Keith Ehlers, The Fields
Dan Cokley, SGM
FROM:
Lee Barger
RE:
The Fields Level 3 Traffic Analysis Methodology Proposal
This memo documents the initial assumptions that SGM intends to use for the Level 3 traffic
analysis for “The Fields” proposed development along Valley Road in Eagle County. The size
of the proposed development, consisting of 36 single-family homes and 64 duplex units (55
AM/69 PM trips), would normally require a Level 2 traffic analysis by CDOT Region 3 standards,
but the location of the site dictates a need to provide intersection operational analysis at the two
proposed access points to SH 82. Both access points to Highway 82 have full-length left and
right turn acceleration and deceleration lanes along the highway.
A pre-application meeting was held on April 1, 2015 at CDOT’s Grand Junction office that was
attended by Dan Roussin & Kent Harbert of CDOT; Whit Whitaker, Ryan Ivy, and Keith Ehlers
of the project ownership group; and Dan Cokley and Lee Barger of SGM. The goal of this
memo is to gain CDOT’s acceptance of the data intended for use in the analysis, assumptions
proposed for the analysis (primarily regarding directional distribution assumptions), and the
overall approach to the access permit process for this land use application for Eagle County.
The owners understand that this site will add traffic to the intersection at El Jebel Road and SH
82, which is planned for future improvements when a 20% increase in traffic has been realized.
The RFTA park-n-ride that was opened here in 2012 technically created a 17.6% impact on
East Valley Road, west of Sopris Village Drive, allowing for an additional 2.3% impact from
other developments such as the Fields before improvements will be warranted by CDOT. The
owners understand that this 2.3% threshold may be met depending on the agreed distribution of
site generated traffic, but feel that the development could still be phased in such a way to “buy
time” for the County to acquire the necessary funding to construct the preferred improvement on
the south side of SH 82 (preliminary estimate over $3M).
Although this project may be “the straw that break the camel’s back” from the standpoint of
triggering expensive improvements on the south side of SH 82, the owners intend to present a
reasonable and equitable proposal to the County to provide their fair share of funding for this
future improvement. The owners realize that they cannot solely fund this improvement by
building a development of 100 units, so they intend to request a partnership with the County and
CDOT to assist in funding this important intersection.
Study Intersections
This Level 3 study will provide current and future-year operational analysis of the intersections
of Valley Road/JW Drive/State Highway 82 and Valley Road/El Jebel Road/SH 82. Acceleration
and deceleration lanes exist on all legs of the mainline at these signalized intersections; El Jebel
is signalized, Valley Road/JW Drive is unsignalized. SH 82 is classified as an E-X Expressway
April 15, 2015
Page 2 of 4
through the project area with a posted speed of 55 mph. The intersection of The Fields site
driveway and Valley Road will also be included in the analysis.
Baseline Traffic
SGM collected peak hour volumes at the SH 82/Valley Road/JW Drive intersection on Thursday
4/2/15. Counts were collected from 7-9 AM and from 4-6 PM. Existing traffic counts from the El
Jebel intersection (and the Valley Road/El Jebel intersection) were referenced from the RFTA
“VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit, El Jebel Traffic Report Addendum” conducted by HNTB in
2010. These are the same baseline volumes used in the SH 82/El Jebel Road/East Valley
Road intersection improvements analysis that SGM conducted for Eagle County in 2012-2013.
The RFTA report, which references the current access permit for El Jebel Road/SH 82 allowed
for a 17.6% impact to the intersection, thus allowing for an additional 2.3% traffic growth on this
leg before the need for improvements is triggered, based on the local interpretation of the “20%
rule”. The attached figure shows the counts collected recently at JW drive and the counts found
in the RFTA BRT reports.
Analysis Years
Operational analysis of Opening Day traffic (2017) and 20-year traffic will be conducted. All
baseline traffic volumes at all study intersections will be factored by CDOT’s 20-year factor
provided on the OTIS website for this section of SH 82 (Station #103511: 20-year factor of 1.93,
with 3.6% trucks, and 30,000 factored ADT 2013).
With this growth factor applied to today’s volume, the average annual daily traffic forecast in 20
years is 57,900 vehicles per day, a number that is completely unreasonable considering the
availability of land for development, the characteristics of the highway corridor (4-lanes for the
foreseeable future), and the political forces against additional large-scale development in the
upper Roaring Fork valley. The growth rate ranges from 1.15 to 1.42 along other segments of
SH 82 between Basalt and Glenwood, which shows that this 20-year rate may be an error or an
anomaly. It also appears that this segment was last counted by CDOT in 2010, so the 2013
AADT published is a factored volume rather than an actual, observed volume from 2013.
Assuming the factor used derives from the current 1.93 factor, we might be also starting with an
inflated baseline daily volume.
Based on the counts collected last week, between 1,915 – 1,942 vehicles traveled on SH 82 in
the morning peak and between 2,170 – 2,223 vehicles traveled on SH 82 in the afternoon peak.
One would anticipate closer to 3,000 vehicles per hour in both directions during the PM peak,
representing a “K’ factor of 0.10, if the AADT were in fact 30,000 vehicles per day. What this
demonstrates, and has been supported by analysis of the signal at El Jebel in the past, is that
peak hours will tend to ‘stretch out’ or get longer in the future since the 4-lane signalized section
can typically handle between 2,500 – 3,000 vehicles per hour during a weekday peak hour
before reaching capacity. Any operational analysis of future traffic using a 1.93 factor will show
excessive delays in intersection failure unless additional mainline capacity is developed, which
is highly unlikely. CDOT’s input on this growth factor is requested as part of the response to this
methodology proposal.
Specific Development Growth & Land Use Rates
Full buildout of The Fields includes 36 single-family homes and 64 duplex units. Land Use
Code #210, Single-family Detached Housing and Land Use Code #230, Condominium/
Townhome will be used to generate site traffic. Opening day traffic will include a percentage of
buildout that limits the impact at El Jebel Road to a 2% increase over the baseline, while longterm traffic will assess full buildout of The Fields.
April 15, 2015
Page 3 of 4
SH 82 Project Traffic Distribution
The directional distribution for site traffic was developed through several sources including traffic
counts and interviews conducted with current site residents. The first source was the recent
counts collected at Valley Road/JW Drive/SH 82 which indicated a 35% southbound/65%
northbound distribution on Valley Road during both the AM and PM peaks. These counts also
show a turning movement split of 44%/7%/49% (18%/3%/78%) AM (PM) Left/Thru/Right at the
intersection on the northbound approach (Valley Road) to the highway. The second source
used was the peak hour counts at the intersection of Valley Road and El Jebel Road from
RFTA’s 2010 BRT report. This count indicated a 60% eastbound/40% westbound split on
Valley Road, which reverses to 60% westbound/40% eastbound in the PM peak. At the
intersection with El Jebel Road, the split is 54%/46% (60%/40%) for northbound/southbound
traffic on El Jebel Road. The observed splits tend to support a more equivalent distribution
between eastbound and westbound oriented traffic from The Fields site. Additionally, site traffic
can access the highway at Valley Road/JW, El Jebel, or at Willits. The third routing option is
common among the residents interviewed that currently live on The Fields property. About half
of the current residents interviewed indicated that they often stop by the shopping center on the
way to or from work up-valley. Traffic destined for the El Jebel or Willits intersections technically
cross the highway access line (A-line) at the same point. This is the point where the 17.6%
impact from RFTA’s study was calculated.
The attached figure also shows the length of the eastbound and westbound routes to the
highway from The Fields site. The distance from the site driveway to the intersection of Valley
Road/JW Drive/SH 82 is 0.45 miles, while the distance from the site driveway to the intersection
of Valley Road/El Jebel Road/SH 82 is 0.86 miles. The distance along the highway between
JW Drive and El Jebel Road is approximately one mile. Based on average delays at the
intersection calculated by Synchro (HCM 2010) and a travel speed equivalent to the posted
speed, the eastbound oriented trips destined for SH 82 in the AM peak could travel one of two
routes: accessing SH 82 at Valley Road (Option 1) or at El Jebel Road (Option 2). On the
return trip in the afternoon peak, these motorists could choose either route as well. In fact,
motorists may also continue east on Valley Road to access the shopping center in the morning
or evening on their way to/from work up-valley. Using average delays calculated by HCM and
travel times on specific segments, Option 1 takes approximately 24 seconds longer to clear the
El Jebel signal on eastbound SH 82 than accessing at the El Jebel signal (166 seconds vs. 142
seconds). In the opposite direction during the afternoon peak, Option 1 takes about 25 more
seconds than Option 2 (158 seconds vs. 133 seconds). The average delays for the affected
movements at the two highway intersections are the primary differentiators of travel times on the
two options. Potentially, at times of little delay at the intersections, Option 1 may be shorter
than Option 2. Therefore, it appears that a 50/50 east/west distribution seems like an
appropriate overall directional distribution to assume for the traffic analysis.
With the variety of options to access the highway, commuting motorists will seek out the best
route depending on the time of day they are accessing the highway and the ultimate direction
they intend to go. Taking the distributions beyond the 50/50 eastbound/ westbound split, we will
assume that 5% cross the highway, 40% are oriented to the west on SH 82 (split between JW
and El Jebel), 18% access the highway at JW drive oriented east, 12% access the highway at
El Jebel oriented east, and the remaining 25% are oriented along Valley Road to/from Willits.
The proposed distributions are shown below:
April 15, 2015
Page 4 of 4
Proposed Directional Distributions
Access Permits
The Fields will file for two state highway access permit applications for this project for access to
SH 82 at JW Drive/Valley Road and at El Jebel Road.
Other Concerns
Potential future signal control at JW Drive. Although not included in the Access Control Plan for
this corridor, a signal at JW drive, if determined necessary, would be able to provide
progression equivalent to what exists today on this section of SH 82. The spacing between El
Jebel and Willits is ½ mile, while the spacing from JW to El Jebel is 1 mile. This signal has
been requested numerous times by residents in recent years, but analysis has shown that it did
not meet warrants for signalization at that time.
The access control plan would require amending for this option to be considered. It is likely that
a traffic signal at JW Drive would create a distribution shift away from the El Jebel intersection
and allow more traffic on the highway at Valley/JW that currently accesses at El Jebel during the
peak hours. This solution could prove to be less expensive and more easily constructed in a
shorter time-frame than the ultimate improvements for the south side of the intersection required
at El Jebel Road and should be considered an optional improvement scenario by CDOT and
Eagle County. To consider this scenario in the analysis, a reasonable distribution shift (from the
El Jebel signal to JW) will need to be developed by SGM and verified by CDOT prior to analysis.
Schedule
The report and permit application will be submitted top CDOT by May 15.
Attachment (1)
I:\2015\2015-329-MidValDev\001-Lot5-ArlianRch\B-Calcs\Traffic\TISAssumptions041515.docx
Region 3 Traffic
T
and Safetty
DATE:
May
M 28, 2015
5
TO:
Lee
L Barger, SGM
COPY:
Daniel
D
Rousssin, CDOT Re
egion 3 Perm
mit Unit Man
nager
Eva
E Wilson, Eagle Countty Engineer
FROM:
Kent
K
Harbert, CDOT Reg
gion 3 Accesss Engineer
SUBJECT: The
T Fields, review
r
of me
ethodology memorandu
um
_________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
_________
__________
______
The followin
ng are review commentts related to
o the method
dology propo
osal dated A
April 16, 2015.
- Some of th
he remaining
g 2.3% in capacity at the El Jebel R
Road/SH 82 iintersection
n may be ded
dicated
to planned expansions
e
at
a Crown Mo
ountain Park
k.
Study Interrsections – Concur
C
that the
t operatio
onal analysiss of the inte
ersections off Valley Road/JW
Drive/State Highway 82
2 and Valley Road/El Jebel Road/SH
H 82 is appro
opriate.
Baseline Trraffic – A sea
asonal adjusstment will need
n
to be m
made to the
e peak hour vvolumes sincce the
count was made
m
in Apriil.
Analysis Ye
ears – The ob
bservation iss correct tha
at the 20-ye
ear factor in OTIS is inco
orrect. The ccorrected
20-year facttor for the segment
s
of SH
S 82 west of
o El Jebel rroad is 1.38. The corrected 20-year factor
for the segm
ment of SH 82
8 east of Ell Jebel road is 1.34.
Specific Development Growth & Land
L
Use Ra
ates – ITE La nd Use Code
es 210 and 2
230 are apprropriate.
SH 82 Proje
ect Traffic Distribution
D
n – Reference
e is made in
n the first pa
aragraph to crossing the
e A-Line.
The A-Line is the access control lin
ne where acccess onto th
he highway is prohibited
d. So the refferenced
c
the rig
ght-of-way liine, not the A-Line.
traffic will cross
SH 82 Proje
ect Traffic Distribution
D
n – The 50/50
0 east/westt distribution
n is reasonable for the ttotal
daily volumes. The distributions for the AM and
d PM peak h
hours will alsso need to b
be projected
d for the
turn lane an
nalyses and turn lane de
esigns.
s – Since the
Proposed Directional
D
Distribution
D
ere are no aaccesses onto
o SH 82 betw
ween El Jeb
bel Road
and JW Drivve it is not lo
ogical that 10%
1 of the trraffic from tthe subdivission will makke a left ontto the
highway at El Jebel Roa
ad.
Potential fu
uture signall control at JW Drive – The installaation of a tra
affic signal a
at the SH 82
2/Valley
Road/JW Drrive intersec
ction is a possibility but not a sure tthing. Consiiderably morre thought a
and
analysis will be needed before a de
ecision can be
b made on whether a ssignal will be allowed. B
Be aware
that meetin
allowed, not that it is rrequired
ng MUTCD sig
gnal warrants only means that a siggnal can be a
or even reco
ommended.
2
222 S. 6th Street,, Room 100, Gran
nd Junction, CO 81501-2769 P 970.683.6271
9
F 970.683.6290
www.coloradodo
ot.Info
Traff
T fic Im
mpa
act S
Study
Th
he Field
ds
Eag
gle County, CO
D
Dan Cokley, PE
L
License No. 2
29799
8
8/13/2015
Table of Contents
Section
Page No.
ES
Executive Summary
ES 1 – ES 2
1.0
Introduction
1
2.0
Project Description
1
3.0
Methodology and Assumptions
3
4.0
Existing Traffic Conditions (2015)
4.1. Study Area
4.2. Local Circulation Network
4.3. Baseline Traffic Volumes
4.4. Baseline Intersection Capacity Analysis
4.5. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
4.6. Traffic Diversion Affected by Proposed Traffic Signal
4.7. Baseline with Diversion Intersection Capacity Analysis
6
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
5.0
Future Baseline Traffic Conditions (2035)
5.1 Future Baseline Intersection Capacity Analysis
5.2 Future Baseline with Diversion Intersection Capacity Analysis
14
15
15
6.0
Proposed Development Traffic Generation
6.1 Trip Distribution and Assignment
6.2 Projected Buildout Volumes
16
16
17
7.0
Future Traffic Conditions with The Fields Traffic
7.1 Total Traffic Capacity Analysis
7.2 Signal Progression Analysis
7.3 Buildout Traffic Turn Lane Analysis
7.4 Queuing Analysis
17
17
19
20
21
8.0
Valley Road Access Conditions
25
9.0
Conclusions and Proposed Mitigation Measures
25
Appendix
The Fields Traffic Impact Study
August 2015
List of Figures
Figure
Page No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
1
2
6
END
END
11
11
13
END
END
END
END
END
END
18
22
24
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Study Area
Existing Traffic Conditions
Baseline Traffic Conditions
Four Hour Warrant
Peak Hour Warrant
Blue Lake Travel Times
Baseline Traffic with Diversion
Future Baseline Traffic
Future Baseline with Diversion
Assignment of Project Traffic
Future Baseline + Project
Future Diverted + Project
Synchro Network – PM Scenario 6
95th Percentile Queue Lengths at SH 82/JW Drive
95th Percentile Queue Lengths at SH 82/El Jebel Road
List of Tables
Table
Page No.
1. Baseline Intersection Level of Service Summary
10
2. Calculated Accident Rates at SH 82/JW Drive
12
3. Blue Lake Estimated Travel Times
13
4. Baseline Diverted Intersection Level of Service Summary
14
5. Future Baseline Intersection Level of Service Summary
15
6. Future Baseline Diverted Intersection Level of Service Summary
15
7. Estimated Traffic Generation
16
8. Future Baseline + Project Intersection Level of Service Summary
18
9. Future Baseline Diverted + Project Intersection Level of Service Summary 18
10. Volume-based Turn Lane Comparison
20
11. Queuing Analysis at SH 82/JW Drive
21
12. Queuing Analysis at SH 82/El Jebel Road
23
August 2015
THE FIELDS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The traffic study for The Fields proposed development in Eagle County documents the existing
and 20-year projections and the operational conditions that the SH 82 corridor is anticipated to
experience. In an effort to reduce the volume of site-generated traffic using the El Jebel signal,
this study considers a new traffic signal at SH 82/JW Drive that is intended to serve as the
development’s primary access point to the regional highway system. The study demonstrates
that a traffic signal here will improve operations at this intersection, while also providing relief to
the operations at the highly congested intersection of SH 82/El Jebel Road during certain times
of the day.
Based on nationally accepted rates and equations for estimating project-specific traffic, The
Fields will generate a maximum of 787 daily trips from a mix of 26 single-family homes and 72
duplex units. The site is expected to generate up to 68 trips in the morning peak hour and 76
trips in the afternoon peak hour upon buildout. This is a worst-case estimate, with no reductions
taken for trips made by transit, bicycle or other modal choices available to the residents.
The intersection of SH 82/El Jebel Road currently operates at LOS “D” during both peak hours
and is expected to operate at LOS “E” in the 20-year time period with or without the Fields traffic
demand. With a traffic signal in place at SH 82/JW Drive and assuming a 50% distribution of
Blue Lake commuters from the El Jebel signal to the JW Drive, the El Jebel intersection will
operate with about 10 seconds less delay overall in the morning peak. In the PM peak, the
overall delay at the signal at El Jebel is about the same under either condition. The proposed
signal provides better access for vehicles on both sides of the highway, allowing the intersection
to operate at LOS “B” under baseline conditions or LOS “C” under future baseline conditions.
The redundancy that this signal provides to the local street system will allow more direct trip
making from the local neighborhoods to the regional arterial system.
Beyond capacity and operations, additional measures that would support a traffic signal at JW
Drive include two of the MUTCD warrants being met currently (four-hour and peak hour
volumes) and two others that could be met provided more data (crash experience and roadway
network). Also, there is a known history of requests for a signal from neighbors in the area and
CDOT installed infrastructure (conduit and pull boxes) to simplify signalization if and when this
may occur. CDOT may have signalized this intersection when the turn lanes were built if they
had the funding at the time.
Additional traffic signals on the SH 82 corridor may not be desirable from many perspectives,
but given the current climate that a six-lane SH 82 corridor is politically and financially
unattainable, they make sense given the proper location. The one mile spacing between SH
82JW Drive and SH 82/El Jebel meets the required minimum distance for signal spacing
defined in the Code. A highway bandwidth of 41% - 47% can be achieved for peak directional
flows if a signal were installed here, under future buildout conditions. The sight distance for the
highway approaches and the side street approaches to the proposed signal is more than
adequate.
A signal at JW Drive creates another local access route from neighborhoods on the north and
south sides of the highway, which allows redundancy and accessible alternative routes in the
event of excessive mainline delays. Turn lanes in place at the SH 82/JW Drive intersection
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page ES‐1 meet current standards for forecast demand based on 45 mph, but not the posted 55 mph. It is
recommended that if a signal were installed at JW Drive, the approach posted speed limits to
the signal would be reduced to 45 mph, similarly to how other signals in the corridor are posted.
In addition to a traffic signal at SH 82/JW Drive, an improvement that may help extend the
acceptable limits of corridor operations includes an interconnection of the traffic signals from JW
Drive to Two Rivers Road (lower) in Basalt. This approximate three-mile section currently has
four traffic signals and overall operations could be improved if they operated in coordination with
each other. Interconnection of signals is especially important as the mainline volumes approach
saturation, as they do at times today during the summer months.
The intersection of the site driveway and Valley Road was assumed to be a right-in, right-out,
left-in (three-quarter movement) configuration, which sends all traffic leaving the site to the SH
82/JW intersection. This intersection will operate acceptably with little to no delay for traffic
accessing the development. The approaches to the SH 82/JW Drive intersection could be
improved in the future to provide more capacity for traffic on these approaches to the proposed
signal, but the single-lane approaches will serve project and background traffic adequately as
built today.
With future intersection operations forecast to be LOS “E” at SH 82/El Jebel Road and heavy
commuter peak hours that will grow in duration in the future with or without this project,
alternative means to reduce traffic will continue to be necessary. RFTA ridership increases, car
and van pool usage, pedestrian and bicycle trip-making, and shifting of commuter times will all
be employed to reduce the peak hour traffic demand in the future, given that a six-lane SH 82
corridor is not feasible.
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page ES‐2 1.0
Introduction
This study is prepared as a CDOT Level Three Traffic Impact Study for “The Fields” proposed
housing development located in the Roaring Fork Valley of unincorporated Eagle County,
Colorado. The purpose of this traffic analysis is to document the existing traffic conditions in the
vicinity of the site, analyze the trip generation and trip distribution of the proposed development,
estimate traffic volumes to the 20-year planning horizon, determine the need and
appropriateness for a traffic signal at the intersection of State Highway 82 (SH 82) and JW
Drive, and discuss any other mitigation measures that may reduce the site’s impact on the
adjacent infrastructure. The property is located adjacent to SH 82 and Valley Road and is
shown in the vicinity map below.
Figure 1
VICINITY MAP
Eagle/Garfield County Line State Highway 82
The Fields Proposed Development 2.0
Project Description
The Fields is a proposed residential development slated to contain a mix of single-family
housing including detached units and duplex units. The proposal includes 26 single-family units
and 72 duplex units situated around a looping road system with a single access point at Valley
Road. The site plan is shown on Figure 2.
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 1 Figure 2
SITE PLAN
The site plan includes a trail along the north side of the property (abutting SH 82) that will
connect to the existing trail through the Summit Vista and Valley View neighborhoods to the
east of The Fields. This will provide a complete trail link from the property to Crown Mountain
Park, with connectivity to the RFTA station and the commercial areas in Willits. A north-south
connection from this trail to Valley Road will run through the property accessing the community
gardens and small pocket park that are a part of the plan. The site plan above shows a
proposed three-quarter movement access (right-in, right-out, left-in) at Valley Road which will be
addressed in detail later in this traffic study.
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 2 3.0
Methodology and Assumptions
This traffic analysis has been prepared in accordance with section 2.3(5) of the State Highway
Access Code (Code) and the assumptions have been vetted with the CDOT access manager
and engineer for Region 3. The assumptions and methodology will provide a conservative
analysis for the purposes of assessing traffic impacts resulting from buildout of The Fields.
SGM’s “methodology proposal” memo and the response from CDOT are contained in the
appendix.
Intersection analysis was performed using the Synchro/Simtraffic 8 analysis package to
estimate the capacity of the signalized intersections along SH 82. The measures of
effectiveness that are compared for this study include Level of Service (LOS) and delay. The
estimated 95th percentile queue lengths will be reported for the future buildout analysis to
determine if the current lanes are adequately sized or need extensions in the future. For the
signalized intersection analysis, the highway signal timing bandwidth will be reported to ensure
it meets the corridor standards set forth in the Code. All signalized analyses contained in this
report are consistent with Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM 2010) calculations and
methodology. Synchro does not model acceleration lanes very well, so it could be assumed
that the unsignalized approaches of SH 82/JW Drive may operate slightly better than shown,
since the side street traffic has acceleration lanes in all directions to accelerate and merge with
mainline traffic. Drivers making left turns do not necessarily need both directions to be clear
before turning; however, some drivers are not comfortable using the acceleration lanes as a
result of the high speeds that exist on the mainline.
The unsignalized intersections in the project area were analyzed using HCM 2010 methodology
with the exception of the El Jebel Rd/Valley Road intersection, which functions as a two-way
stop. This intersection’s layout is unconventional, from an analysis perspective, with the
uncontrolled approach being the El Jebel leg that connects to the highway. This layout is similar
to what is found in ring roads around malls where entering traffic has priority so as not to create
queuing backups onto the adjacent arterial. As such, a delay could not be calculated for the
stop-controlled approaches under HCM 2010 methodology, but could under HCM 2000
methodology. All Synchro/Simtraffic output is contained in the appendix for reference.
Peak hour factors, heavy vehicle percentages, and other inputs were developed based on
existing traffic counts taken in April and May 2015. CDOT considers 150 seconds the maximum
cycle length allowable on SH 82, with a maximum of 120 seconds provided to the eastbound
and westbound signal timing in the future.
Some of the assumptions that have been made to estimate future traffic conditions and project
distributions may be influenced by many factors as buildout occurs. These assumptions
include:
•
•
•
50%/50% East-West distribution of site traffic
20-year factor of 1.38 west of El Jebel, 1.34 east of El Jebel applied to baseline traffic
A 50% redistribution of Blue Lake residential traffic from the El Jebel intersection to the
JW Drive intersection as a result of signalizing this intersection
The final bullet has not been vetted by CDOT, but is a reasonable estimate based on number
and proximity of units to the JW Drive intersection within the approximate 400-unit Blue Lake
neighborhood. No diversions of commuter traffic or trips were made on the south side of the
highway; however, these trips could also experience a “delay reduction” in route choice as a
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 3 result of a signal in place at JW Drive. In practice, commuters will be drawn to a route that
affords less delay, so there may actually be a larger shift than what is predicted, based on the
current state of operations at the El Jebel signal. It is likely that provided more appropriately
spaced and well-coordinated signals along the corridor in this growing area, some relief may be
given to those signals currently serving the corridor with congested minor approaches during the
peak hours. Additional basis for use of the 50% Blue Lake redistribution is discussed in Section
4.6.
For the purposes of this analysis and to address the potential needs for a signal at JW Drive,
this study analyzes several growth and geometric scenarios including a baseline scenario
(Scenario 1), a baseline diverted scenario (Scenario 2), a future baseline scenario (Scenario 3),
a future baseline diverted scenario (Scenario 4), a future baseline plus project scenario
(Scenario 5), and a future baseline diverted plus project scenario (Scenario 6). The “diverted”
scenarios reflect the 50% redistribution of Blue Lake traffic that might result from an additional
signalized access to the highway at JW Drive for these residents. The non-diverted scenarios
reflect existing signalization conditions along the corridor.
To provide a conservative analysis of site traffic impacts, no reductions of site traffic were
assumed for multi-modal trips made by residents of the Fields. Residents may decide to make
pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, transit, or other trips rather than using their personal car, which
should lessen the overall impact of the site when compared to the final results of this analysis.
Additionally, the existing volumes that were collected at the project intersections in April and
May of this year have been seasonally adjusted by factors found on CDOT’s OTIS website.
This develops analysis time periods that reflect the historically busiest month of the year (July)
in the Roaring Fork Valley. Traffic reductions for multi-modal users are most common during
the summer months when the weather is fair and ambient highway traffic volumes are highest,
as is evident by the full bike racks common at most BRT stations among the valley. Historically,
RFTA ridership peaks in the summer and winter months.
Eagle County plans to construct improvements on the north side of the El Jebel Road/ SH 82
intersection, likely to occur in 2016. These improvements to the southbound approach to the
signal at SH 82 were included in the baseline analysis. Specifically, the southbound approach
to the signal will be improved to add a free-right turn lane, in addition to the through lane, and
two exclusive left turn lanes that currently exist. This improvement and realignment of the north
approach will allow the signal to operate on a conventional protected/permissive signal cycle
rather than the split-phased operations currently employed today. Accesses along El Jebel
Road north of the highway will be restricted to right-in, right-out maneuvers by a raised median
extending from the highway to a new roundabout at Shadowrock Drive (located slightly north of
its current intersection). This roundabout will assist in providing access to the businesses
adjacent to SH 82 and El Jebel Road once the median is constructed.
The State Highway 82 corridor through Eagle County is governed by an Access Control Plan
(ACP) that was developed by LSC, CDOT and Eagle County and approved in 2002. The ACP
concludes that the intersection of JW Drive and SH 82 shall not be signalized due to low traffic
volumes. On page 34 the ACP states:
“This intersection barely meets signal warrants in 2020. If this
intersection were to be signalized, it might encourage some of the
motorists to use it rather than the El Jebel intersection. The Access
Control Plan shall not cause more traffic to use either JW Drive or
Valley Road.”
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 4 The ACP further recommends a pedestrian overpass or underpass to access proposed bus
stops on either side of the intersection. Currently, RFTA’s “Valley Local Route” turns to and
from the highway at JW drive providing service to Blue Lake, while BRT access remains on SH
82 with stops nearby at El Jebel and Willits. The recently improved BRT stations at El Jebel
Road and Willits both provide this grade separation for pedestrian access across the highway
and have become the main point of access for the BRT and other valley transit routes for
residents in the mid-valley area. RFTA would require any new signal along the corridor to be
equipped with the Transit Signal Priority pre-emption system that exists at other signals along
the SH 82.
If it is demonstrated to be warranted and deemed a valid recommendation, a proposed traffic
signal at JW Drive will require amending the Access Control Plan, which will require approval
from CDOT and Eagle County.
Existing Traffic Conditions (2015)
Existing traffic data for this study was collected by SGM in April and May 2015 using Miovision
video collection, radar, and pneumatic tube counters. Traffic data from CDOT’s OTIS website
was also consulted to determine the existing AADT on SH 82 in the project area. Based on
CDOT’s data, this section of SH 82 carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day including
3.6% trucks. Existing data collected is contained in the appendix.
4.1.
Study Area
The project study area includes the intersections along SH 82 at JW Drive and at El Jebel Road.
The intersections of El Jebel Road/Valley Road and El Jebel Road/JW Drive were also included
in the study area and the analysis. The study area is shown below:
Figure 3
STUDY AREA
Eagle/Garfield County Line JW Drive
El Jebel Road
State Highway 82 Frontage Road The Fields Proposed Development Shadowrock Drive
Valley Road
Sopris Village Drive East Valley Road Willits Lane The red stars in Figure 3 indicate the location of the four intersections studied. The El Jebel
Road/Valley Road intersection is located 175 feet south of the SH 82/El Jebel Road signalized
intersection, so this intersection’s operations may be influenced by the signal (or the signal may
be influenced by this intersection); thus, this intersection is included in the analysis. The
intersection of Valley Road and the Frontage Road (south of SH 82/JW Drive) was not included
in this analysis but could also be influenced by future signal operations at SH 82/JW Drive due
to its close proximity to the mainline (125 feet).
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 6 The SH 82/JW Drive intersection was improved in summer 2013 to include left and right turn
deceleration lanes (400’ – 500’ in length), and left and right turn acceleration lanes (450’ – 800’
in length) on all approaches with median barrier separating mainline flow. Prior to repaving the
highway, conduit and pull boxes were also installed by CDOT, as future preparation for a traffic
signal at this intersection if it is determined warranted and appropriate.
4.2.
Local Circulation Network
The primary roadways in the study area that connect the main intersections on SH 82 provide
neighborhood collector access while also providing connectivity and redundancy to the local
arterial highway. These roads, including Shadowrock, Valley/E. Valley and JW Drive serve as
local relievers when there is excessive delay or saturated conditions on the mainline. Similar to
modal shifts residents make during peak season conditions, local commuters also route their
trips around the known congestion points or time their trips to occur earlier or later in the day.
The shift of local traffic to these relievers resulting from mainline congestion during busy peaks
is not reflected in the traffic volumes developed for this study (since they were collected in
April/May and fewer “delay-induced” diversions were occurring).
The primary roads in the study area include:
State Highway 82 is the primary arterial that serves the Roaring Fork Valley. It is classified as
an Expressway by CDOT’s State Highway Category Assignment Schedule and has a posted
speed between 55 mph and 65 mph within the project area. The intersection at JW Drive has a
posted speed of 65 mph through the intersection, while the intersection at El Jebel Road is
posted at 55 mph. The major intersections along the corridor have fully developed acceleration
and deceleration lanes. There are no existing or proposed access points along the highway
within 1,750 feet of JW Drive. The only access west of JW Drive within a half-mile is Dakota
Drive, which is about 0.35 miles west. East of JW, a private access to property north of the
highway exists at 0.35 miles.
Valley Road is a two-lane collector roadway classified by Eagle County as a Suburban
Residential Collector in Appendix C of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The travel
width includes two 11’ travel lanes and a one foot paved shoulder. The posted speed along
Valley Road is 25 mph. Valley Road begins as the south leg of the JW Drive intersection with
SH 82 and extends about 1.25 miles to the intersection with El Jebel Road. From this point
east, the road is known as East Valley Road, intersecting with the Willits roundabout further
south. The Fields access point is located 0.45 miles from the JW intersection and 0.85 miles
from the El Jebel intersection via Valley Road.
El Jebel Road is a two-lane collector roadway classified by Eagle County as a Rural Major
Collector in Appendix C of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The travel width varies
from SH 82 to JW Drive, but generally contains 33 feet of pavement with two through lanes and
a center turn lane. The posted speed along El Jebel Road is 30 mph. El Jebel Road extends
north along the valley floor from the Valley Road/East Valley Road intersection to where Upper
Cattle Creek Road begins, providing access to Missouri Heights, about a quarter mile north of
JW Drive.
JW Drive is a two-lane collector roadway classified by Eagle County as a Suburban Residential
Collector in Appendix C of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The travel width includes
two 11’ travel lanes and a one foot paved shoulder. The posted speed along JW Drive is 30
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 7 mph. JW begins on the west at the intersection with SH 82, providing access to the Blue Lake
neighborhood. JW Drive extends about 1.25 miles to the intersection with El Jebel Road.
Shadowrock Drive is a two-lane collector roadway not found in the classification listing
provided by Eagle County in Appendix C of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The travel
width includes two 11’ travel lanes and a one foot paved shoulder. The posted speed along
Shadowrock Drive is 25 mph. Shadowrock begins at El Jebel Road (constructed as a
roundabout as early as 2016) and extends east and south to the Willits Lane signal on SH 82
via Tree Farm Drive. The distance from El Jebel Road to the Willits signal via Shadowrock/Tree
Farm is approximately 0.60 miles.
4.3.
Baseline Traffic Volumes
Peak hour turning movement counts were collected at the intersection of SH 82 and JW Drive
on April 2, 2015, and they were collected at the intersection of SH 82 and El Jebel Road on May
13, 2015. Turning movement counts were also collected at the El Jebel Road/Valley Road
intersection (south of the highway) and at the El Jebel Road/JW Drive intersection north of the
highway in May.
Several 24-hour traffic counts were collected in the project area mid-week in May including:
• Valley Road, west of Eagle County Building/Crown Mountain Park
• Frontage Road, west of Valley Road
• JW Drive (West), north of SH 82
• JW Drive (East), east of Coyote Circle (just east of Blue Lake)
Figure 4 and subsequent traffic volume figures are provided at the end of this report for
reference. Figure 4 presents a lot of information including: the existing traffic data showing AM
and PM turning movements at the intersections, pedestrian movements, intersection laneage
and control, intersection peak hour totals, average 24-hour volumes, and peak hour approach
volumes to the study intersections. The approach volumes shown are simply the sum of the
movements entering and leaving the adjacent intersections, and the hourly peaks at the 24-hour
count locations are also shown. Additionally, the current CDOT daily count found on OTIS is
shown for SH 82. The neighborhoods in the project area are shown on the figure for reference
in discussion within this report. “BRFD” is abbreviated for the Basalt and Rural Fire District,
while “ASC” is a property owned by the Aspen Skiing Company.
During the traffic counts, truck percentages were found to be 5% in the AM peak and 2% in the
PM peak, which is consistent with other locations in the valley. The peak hour factors were 0.89
in the AM peak and 0.93 in the PM peak. These inputs were used in the capacity analysis for all
scenarios. All traffic count information is included in the appendix.
Figure 4 shows that the study intersections on SH 82 in April and May processed between
2,058 and 2,945 vehicles per hour during the peak hours. During this same time period, the
stop-controlled intersection at JW/El Jebel and El Jebel/Valley served between 407 and 794
vehicles during the peak hours.
For use in this traffic analysis, CDOT requires adjustment of these existing volumes to account
for seasonal peak conditions that typically occur in the Roaring Fork Valley in July. The
seasonal adjustment factor for April is 1.14 while the factor is 1.12 for May, as found on OTIS.
The volumes shown on Figure 5 are the result of applying these seasonal peaking factors to the
intersection turning movements and the measured 24-hour volumes. These are the “Baseline”
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 8 counts that are used in the analysis and the basis from which the future baseline scenarios are
developed.
Figure 5 shows that the study intersections on SH 82 would process between 2,346 and 3,298
vehicles per hour during the peak hours of July. This seasonal adjustment provides another
layer to the conservative analysis volumes (which will be grown in a straight-line manner) and
does not account for the modal splits and routing choices that are often influenced by existing
delays and daily congestion.
4.4.
Baseline Intersection Capacity Analysis
AM and PM level of service estimates were prepared in accordance with the Highway Capacity
Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010). For signalized intersections, the HCM
measures level of service in terms of seconds of delay per vehicle. This is also a measure of
driver discomfort, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The table below relates the LOS to
seconds of delay per vehicle at a signalized intersection.
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Delay (seconds)
A (Highly Desirable)
< 10.0
B (Desirable)
10.1 to 20
C (Acceptable)
20.1 to 35
D (Acceptable in Urban Areas)
35.1 to 55
E (Unacceptable)
55.1 to 80
F (Unacceptable)
> 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010
For unsignalized intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual defines level of service and delay
in terms of seconds of stopped delay per vehicle, which is based on the number of acceptable
gaps in the conflicting traffic stream. In general, the traffic movements analyzed are those
controlled by stop signs or yield signs, and the left turn movements from the uncontrolled major
street. The following table represents the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections:
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Delay (seconds)
A (Highly Desirable)
< 10.0
B (Desirable)
10.1 to 15
C (Acceptable)
15.1 to 25
D (Acceptable in Urban Areas)
25.1 to 35
E (Unacceptable)
35.1 to 50
F (Unacceptable)
> 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010
The “overall” intersection level of service at unsignalized intersections corresponds with the
highest delay experienced on a minor street approach. In general, CDOT and Eagle County
consider overall intersection operations of LOS “D” or better acceptable during the peak hours.
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 9 Using the baseline volumes shown on Figure 5, the capacity analysis was run in Synchro to
determine level of service and delay for the study intersections. The following table shows the
overall results of the capacity analysis for all four intersections in the study area. Again, the
LOS and delays reported for the unsignalized intersections at SH 82/JW, El Jebel/Valley, and El
Jebel/JW correspond with the worst performing side street approach (controlled by stop). The
uncontrolled movements at these intersections all operate at LOS “C” or better.
Table 1
Baseline Intersection Level of Service Summary
AM
PM
Intersection
LOS DELAY 1 (s) LOS DELAY (s)
SH 82 & JW Drive
F
1513.9
F
145.4
SH 82 & El Jebel Road
D
42.2
D
37.2
El Jebel Road & Valley Road
B
13.7
C
18.4
El Jebel Road & JW Drive
B
11.4
B
10.5
1 – Delay expressed as average delay per vehicle in seconds/vehicle.
As the table shows, the unsignalized approaches at SH 82/JW Drive will operate with significant
delay during the peak hours. As a result, motorists wishing to access the highway at JW Drive
by turning across the heavy directional flows that exist in the peak hours will incur significant
delay or perform risky maneuvers unless they reroute to another intersection that allows better
access.
It is common in commuter areas for side-street approaches to major intersections along arterials
to operate with significant delays during peak periods, while the majority of the traffic using the
mainline is served by optimizing signal operations along the corridor. Without a traffic signal,
right turning movements from the minor street and left turns from the mainline are the most
common movements during the peak hour when conflicting volumes for side street left turns are
too high for most motorists to feel comfortable turning across traffic. The acceleration lanes
have helped this to an extent, but due to the high speed environment; there are still many
motorists who do not feel comfortable using these lanes effectively.
4.5.
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
A traffic signal warrant analysis consistent with Chapter 4 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) was completed using the “Existing” traffic volumes that were
collected at the SH 82/JW Drive intersection in April 2015. No seasonal adjustments were
made to these input volumes, which demonstrate that even during lighter traffic times in the
corridor, several of the warrants are met for signalization.
The data collected at the SH 82/JW Drive intersection included two hours of turning movements
in the AM peak and in the PM peak. Therefore, not enough data was collected to determine if
Warrant 1 Eight-hour Vehicular Volume warrant, was met.
Nonetheless, Warrant 2 Four-hour Vehicular Volume, and Warrant 3 Peak Hour warrants were
both tested using the 70% factor, which applies to communities less than 10,000 in population
or where a posted speed above 40 mph exists on the mainline. The data shows that both
Warrants 2 and 3 are met, based on April 2015 volumes. The side street volumes are fairly
close to the thresholds, while the mainline volumes are close to the end of the range on both of
the following figures showing the Four-Hour and Peak Hour warrants. It should be noted that in
the ACP, this intersection met the peak hour warrant for signalization using the long-term
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 10 forecast volumes for the corridor. However, no signal was recommended for the reasons stated
in Section 3 of this report.
Figure 6
Four Hour Warrant
Figure 7
Peak Hour Warrant
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 11 Since little to no pedestrian activity exists at this intersection and schools are more than a halfmile away, Warrant 4 Pedestrian Volume and Warrant 5 School Crossing were not satisfied.
Warrant 6 Coordinated Signal System is not met, although a signal at JW Drive could be
integrated into the existing system with ease. CDOT has stated that the system is not currently
coordinated through Eagle County and the Town of Basalt. From a coordination standpoint, the
spacing from the El Jebel signal to JW Drive is ideal at one-mile.
Warrant 7 Crash Experience could not fully be assessed without eight hours of counts, but
crash rates were calculated for the intersection using data supplied by CDOT that includes the
accident statistics from 2003 – 2013. From this data, Property Damage Only (PDO), Injury, and
Fatal crash rates were calculated and are shown below:
Table 2
Calculated Accident Rates at SH 82/JW Drive
Accident Rates
PDO
INJURY
FATAL
SH 82 & JW Drive (MP 17.5-18.5)
0.75
0.34
0.01
Statewide Average *
1.47
0.14
0.72
* – Crash Rates on State Highways 2012, CDOT.
As shown, the intersection sees a higher rate of injury accidents along this section of SH 82
than the statewide average for “Other Freeways and Expressways” in 2012 (latest year accident
rates are available online). The PDO and Fatal rates are well below the statewide averages.
Digging deeper into the accident summary, we see high numbers of crash types associated with
Overturning, Broadside, Wild Animal, and Fixed Objects, with Wild Animals being the most
common type. In recent years, the SH 82 corridor has seen construction of a wildlife fence
along the more rural portions of the highway including at JW Drive. It is likely that these
accident types have decreased significantly with the new fence, as they have elsewhere along
SH 82 where the fence has been constructed. Broadside accidents may be reduced with a
signal if side street traffic were given a dedicated phase to turn rather than having to “shoot the
gap” to enter the traffic stream from a stop-controlled approach. Often, a new traffic signal may
create more of one accident type (rear-ends) while reducing another type, such as broadsides.
Warrant 8 Roadway Network may apply to the SH 82/JW Drive intersection in that installation of
a signal here could encourage better concentration and organization of flow on the roadway
network by allowing another, equal access point to SH 82 where the El Jebel signal is currently
experiencing congestion. Valley Road and JW Drive may not be characterized as “Major
Routes”, but they are the only primary collectors serving growing areas on both sides of the
highway. When the primary access intersection to the highway for these routes become
congested, alternative access points should be considered or additional future traffic will
continue to congest the existing intersection at SH 82/El Jebel Road. Warrant 9 Intersection
Near a Grade crossing does not apply.
However, two volume warrants are met and two others could potentially be justified at this
location. Given these conditions, a signal will be analyzed as an optional treatment for the SH
82/JW Drive intersection to determine how it may affect the operations and capacity at the El
Jebel signal.
4.6.
Traffic Diversion Affected by Proposed Traffic Signal
If a signal were installed at SH 82/JW Drive, local commuter patterns may shift to utilize the
improved access. In particular, Blue Lake residents oriented to jobs east (up-valley) that
typically use a route from JW Drive to El Jebel Road to SH 82 eastbound might be diverted to
the JW Drive signal and then continue east on SH 82 to their destination.
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 12 SGM estimated that approximately 50% of the volume turning from eastbound JW Drive to
southbound El Jebel Road would instead use the signal at JW Drive to access the highway.
This reduces the southbound through and left turn movements at the El Jebel signal, as well as
the corresponding return movements of eastbound right at SH 82/El Jebel and northbound left
at El Jebel/JW Drive. Movements are then diverted to access the highway at the proposed JW
signal. These movements become through movements along the mainline at El Jebel if they
are diverted to a signal at JW Drive.
The basis for this assumed 50% redistribution was developed by calculating travel times for the
two current route options for Blue Lake residents to get to eastbound SH 82. Travel time
calculations include segment travel times, based on length and posted speed, added to the
delay experienced at intersections traversed along the route. A point was picked corresponding
with the assumed “centroid” of the Blue Lake subdivision, at the intersection of JW Drive and
Black Bear Trail (red star). From this point, “East” and “West” commuter routes were measured
on JW Drive by travel time and delay that extended through the El Jebel signal to SH 82 East.
The following figure and table shows the routes and corresponding travel times associated with
the east and west routing choices.
Figure 8
Blue Lake Travel Times
Table 3 below documents the approximate travel times for traffic oriented to the east, as
measured from the assumed centroid of Blue Lake through the SH 82/El Jebel intersection.
Table 3
Blue Lake Estimated Travel Times
Route
AM
PM
East (Blue)
227.0 Sec
186.2 Sec
West (Red)
172.1 Sec
165.6 Sec
Difference
54.9 Sec
20.6 Sec
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 13 The results show that the red route through a proposed signal at SH 82/JW Drive may be
approximately 55 seconds faster in the morning peak and 21 seconds faster in the afternoon
peak, when compared to the route most commonly used today (blue route). The calculation
uses the approach delays computed in Scenario 2, contained in the appendix.
A similar diversion might occur in the opposite direction for commuters on the south side of the
highway who use the El Jebel signal to turn west on SH 82 toward Carbondale. However, no
diversion of “southside” based trips was assumed for this study. The density of development
along the north side of the highway within Blue Lake near this intersection also factors into the
diversion assumption made. There is less existing density of housing on the south side
(Summit Vista, Valley View, Aspen Skiing Company), and it is predominantly closer to the El
Jebel intersection than the JW Drive intersection.
Figure 9 was developed to show the intersection volumes adjusted to reflect the assumed 50%
diversion that could be anticipated if a signal were installed. The turning movement volumes
highlighted in boxes are those that were reduced or increased to reflect this assumed diversion.
4.7.
Baseline with Diversion Intersection Capacity Analysis
Using the Baseline Diverted volumes shown on Figure 9, the capacity analysis was run in
Synchro to determine level of service and delay for the study intersections. The following table
shows the overall results of the capacity analysis for all four intersections in the study area.
Table 4
Baseline Diverted Intersection Level of Service Summary
AM
PM
Intersection
SH 82 & JW Drive
B
14.2
A
9.3
C
31.9
D
37.3
B
13.7
C
18.4
A
11.4
B
10.5
With a signal installed at SH 82/JW Drive, the intersection operates at an acceptable LOS “B” or
better. The intersection of SH 82/El Jebel Road shows an improvement of about 10 seconds of
overall delay over the Baseline AM results and about the same operational delay for the PM
peak under the diverted scenario. Similar to the baseline analysis, the movements at the
unsignalized intersections all operate at LOS “C” or better.
5.0
Future Baseline Traffic Conditions (2035)
The Baseline and Baseline Diverted volumes found in Figures 5 and 9 were factored up by
CDOT’s published growth factor for this corridor. With the exception of the volumes turning to
and from the east at the SH 82/El Jebel intersection which were factored up by 1.34, all other
volumes, including mainline through volumes at El Jebel, were factored up by 1.38 to develop
future baseline traffic forecasts for the study intersections. The traffic projections for the Future
Baseline analysis scenario is found on Figure 10, while the traffic projections for the Future
Baseline Diverted analysis scenarios is found on Figure 11. The same traffic diversions were
assumed for the Future Baseline Diverted scenario as were assumed for the Baseline Diverted
scenario.
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 14 Forecasting by the “straight-line growth factor” method has some limitations, which are
particularly evident in the cases where volumes exceeding the carrying capacity of the
roadways and intersections are projected. In reality, as peak hour volumes approach oversaturated conditions at corridor signals, commuters tend to adjust their habits to reduce their
exposure to the periods when heavy congestion can be expected. This adjustment can be in
the form of increased use of transit or other modes, ride-sharing, other route choices (which are
limited in this case) or simply adjusting the times that they arrive and leave work on a typical
weekday. These adjustments are not accounted for in the forecasts used in this analysis, but
should be considered likely to occur in practice.
Under both the Future Baseline and Future Baseline Diverted scenarios, the intersection of SH
82/El Jebel Road is forecast to (attempt to) serve nearly 4,000 – 4,500 vehicles in the peak
hour.
5.1
Future Baseline Intersection Capacity Analysis
Using the Future Baseline volumes shown on Figure 10, the capacity analysis was run in
Synchro to determine level of service and delay for the study intersections. The following table
shows the overall results of the capacity analysis for all four intersections in the study area.
Table 5
Future Baseline Intersection Level of Service Summary
AM
PM
Intersection
SH 82 & JW Drive
F
*
F
*
E
78.6
E
56.6
C
20.7
E
47.4
B
14.1
B
13.7
Without a signal installed at SH 82/JW Drive, the operational delay could not be calculated for
the minor street approaches, due to excessive v/c ratios, which is LOS “F”. The intersection of
SH 82/El Jebel Road is approaching saturated flow conditions in 20-years, with LOS “E”
operations predicted. The intersection of El Jebel Road/Valley Road also begins to experience
less than acceptable approach delays for the eastbound approach to the stop sign on Valley
Road in the PM peak. These results are expected with or without the addition of traffic
generated by The Fields.
5.2
Future Baseline with Diversion Intersection Capacity Analysis
Using the Future Baseline Diverted volumes shown on Figure 11, the capacity analysis was run
in Synchro to determine level of service and delay for the study intersections. The following
table shows the overall results of the capacity analysis for all intersections in the study area.
Table 6
Future Baseline Diverted Intersection Level of Service Summary
AM
PM
Intersection
SH 82 & JW Drive
C
29.5
C
24.2
E
71.7
E
68.7
C
20.7
E
47.4
B
11.8
B
11.9
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 15 With a signal installed at SH 82/JW Drive, the intersection operates at an acceptable LOS “C”
during the peak periods. The intersection of SH 82/El Jebel Road shows an improvement of
about 7 seconds of overall delay over the Baseline AM results and about 12 seconds more
delay over the PM peak under the future diverted scenario. The intersection of El Jebel
Road/Valley Road also begins to experience less than acceptable approach delays for the
eastbound approach to the stop sign on Valley Road in the PM peak. These results are
expected if a signal were installed at SH 82/JW Drive and with or without the addition of traffic
generated by The Fields.
6.0
Proposed Development Traffic Generation
Trip generation rates for the proposed land uses for The Fields development were based on
Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2012). Trip estimates shown
on Table 7 summarize the total trips expected to be generated by the development during the
AM and PM peak hours and on an average weekday. These estimates are based on the
regression equations provided for Single-Family Homes and Condominium/Townhomes in Trip
Generation and are higher than the estimates found by using the average trip rates. For
example the daily forecast is 18% higher using the regression equation over the standard rates.
SGM is using the more conservative estimates of trip generation for this analysis.
Table 7
Estimated Traffic Generation
Unit Type
# of
DAILY AM
AM
PM
PM
UNITS
TRIPS
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Single-Family Detached Homes 1
26
304
7
21
20
12
Duplex Units 2
72
483
7
33
31
15
Total Traffic Generation
98 DU’s
787
TOTAL
14
AM
54
68
51
PM
27
76
1 – ITE Land Use Code #210 – Single-family Detached Housing, trip rate based on number of dwelling units
2 – ITE Land Use Code #230 – Condominium/Townhouse, trip rate based on number of dwelling units
As Table 7 shows, the residential units planned The Fields will generate approximately 787 daily
trips on an average weekday. The site is expected to generate approximately 68 trips in the AM
peak hour and 76 trips in the PM peak hour upon buildout of the current site plan. No
adjustments will be made to these trip generation projections to account for transit or other
mode choices to provide a worst-case depiction of the site’s potential traffic impacts. The Fields
is located within about a mile of the RFTA BRT station at El Jebel and residents may choose to
make future trips via bicycle or foot to and from this station. For the purpose of this study, no
transit reductions were made.
6.1
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Based on the agreed upon 50%/50% east/west distribution of site traffic and assuming a threequarter movement access point to the Fields, the traffic leaving the Fields will all be oriented
exclusively toward the proposed signal at SH 82/JW Drive. At that point, 45% of the site traffic
will be oriented west on SH 82, 5% will be oriented north on JW Drive, and 50% will be oriented
east on SH 82. Of the 50% oriented east, 25% will turn right at El Jebel Road, while the
remaining 25% will continue east on SH 82.
The returning movements and percentages will be the same for all distributions with the
exception of the 25% oriented toward Willits along East Valley Road. This traffic will return via
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 16 Valley Road and turn right into the Fields, while the remaining traffic oriented east will stay on
SH 82 and turn left at the proposed JW signal and follow Valley Road to the site. This return
assignment depends highly on the time at which the commuter arrives at the signal. If the
westbound phasing at SH 82/El Jebel is green, the commuter will likely proceed down the
highway to JW. But if the commuter arrives on red, he may decide to make the left on the
leading arrow of the next phase rather than continuing down the mainline to the JW signal.
Figure 12 shows the assignment of project traffic volumes to the study intersections. This also
includes site traffic at the access point onto Valley Road.
6.2
Projected Buildout Volumes
Using the volumes assignments found on Figure 12, total traffic volumes were developed that
include the 20-year traffic forecasts plus the site generated traffic. These estimates were
developed for the Future Baseline plus Project and Future Baseline Diverted plus Project
scenarios. These final volumes are shown on Figures 13 and 14.
7.0
Future Traffic Conditions with The Fields Traffic
Capacity analysis was run for the 20-year time period that includes the addition of The Fields
traffic demand at buildout. The results show that there continues to be operational issues in the
corridor resulting in saturated flow conditions in the peak hour. In both scenarios, the El Jebel
Road signal cycles have been maxed out to 150 seconds in Synchro and timing has been
optimized consisting of protected/permissive phasing with leading lefts for all approaches. The
JW Drive signal would best be served initially on a half-cycle of the El Jebel cycle to maintain
acceptable minor street levels of service and provide acceptable corridor progression. Transit
Signal Priority (TSP) for RFTA buses has not been modeled into the signals but would need to
be incorporated into the final timing plans.
As has been mentioned previously, the straight-line growth that is used to develop the future
year forecasts does not account for capacity based decisions and route and mode adjustments
made by the local commuters during seasonal peaks. Additionally, the traffic demand attributed
to The Fields could conceivably already be accounted for in CDOT’s 20-year factor. In a recent
study approved by CDOT in this same area, CDOT acknowledged that this method of growth
forecasting could be appropriate since “CDOT’s projections do not specify when or where
growth will occur”. This first-come, first-serve approach is a reasonable method for forecasting
growth and it reduces the opportunity to “double-count” traffic volumes or overestimate future
projections. However, this report employs the more conservative approach of adding site traffic
demand to the 20-year projections developed from CDOT’s published factors.
7.1
Total Traffic Capacity Analysis
Using the Future Baseline + Project (Scenario 5) volumes shown on Figure 13 and the Future
Baseline Diverted + Project (Scenario 6) volumes shown on Figure 14, the capacity analysis
was run in Synchro to estimate level of service and delay for the study intersections. Below is a
screenshot of the Synchro simulation model developed for the Total Traffic Diverted PM peak
scenario. This is meant to show the extents of the modeling network from the JW intersection
on the left to the El Jebel intersection on the right. The output of the Synchro capacity analysis
is contained in the appendix.
Synchro Network – PM Scenario 6
The following tables show the overall results of the capacity analysis for all four intersections in
the study area.
Table 8
Future Baseline + Project Intersection Level of Service Summary
AM
PM
Intersection
SH 82 & JW Drive
F
*
F
*
E
79.8
E
57.7
C
22.2
F
57.2
B
11.4
C
16.9
* – v/c ratio exceeds 1.0, delay cannot be calculated
Table 9
Future Baseline Diverted + Project Intersection Level of Service Summary
AM
PM
Intersection
SH 82 & JW Drive
C
30.0
C
24.1
E
73.1
E
70.0
C
22.2
F
57.2
B
11.8
B
11.9
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 18 The tables show that the influence of The Fields traffic on project operations without the project
are only slightly better than when project traffic demand is added to the system. In either case,
operations at the El Jebel signal are LOS “E”. The results of Table 8 show about a second of
overall delay is added to the SH 82/El Jebel intersection when the Fields traffic is added under
the “undiverted” scenario (compared to Table 5). Under the diverted scenario, this intersection
operates with approximately 2 more seconds of delay during the peaks when The Fields traffic
demand is added (when compared to Table 6).
Under both scenarios, the minor approaches to the intersection of El Jebel Road/Valley Road
experience poor LOS conditions. This is not unexpected and the operations will be LOS “E”
without the Fields traffic demand added and LOS “F” with traffic demand added. Potentially, this
poor LOS here could divert more traffic to the JW signal during peak hours. Eagle County has
planned improvements on the south side of the highway to improve the current conditions of the
El Jebel/Valley Road intersection, but funding for that project is not currently in place.
Based on the traffic forecasts contained in this analysis, very little that can be done from a
geometric or timing standpoint to improve peak hour operations at the El Jebel Road signal that
doesn’t include adding through lanes along the mainline. This improvement for the State
Highway 82 corridor is politically and financially infeasible in the current climate. If the Access
Control Plan were conducted today, using this study’s baseline volumes and current growth
factors, it would likely show the need for additional through capacity on the highway corridor in
order to achieve acceptable peak hour operations at the signals. CDOT’s current directive of
studying tolling as an option for any major capacity improvements is another reason that an
expanded Highway 82 section is further from reality than a train on the Rio Grande Trail.
Providing another, well-spaced controlled access point to the mainline that allows for
redundancy of local access and/or systemic improvements including signal coordination and
adaptive signal timing could be employed to maximize the volumes of traffic that the SH 82
corridor can serve in the future. Today, it is not uncommon to incur delays equivalent to one
cycle length (100 – 120 seconds) while traveling in the primary direction of the mainline during
peak hours of the summer, and potentially two or more cycles on the minor street approaches.
A proposed signal at SH 82/JW Drive will likely take some of the conflicting approaches at the El
Jebel signal during peak hours.
7.2
Signal Progression Analysis
A proposed signal at SH 82/JW Drive would be located about one mile from the existing El
Jebel signal to the east and 2.5 miles to the Catherine’s Store (CR 100) signal to the west. One
mile is the desired spacing for traffic signals along Expressway corridors. A highway bandwidth
of 40% or greater is also desirable as prescribed in the Code. The Synchro analysis that
calculates delays and levels of service for the study intersections also provides a time-space
diagram to estimate the corridor bandwidth based on the proposed timing plans for the highway
signals.
Using the Future Baseline Diverted (Scenario 6) models for AM and PM peaks and selecting the
90th percentile volumes for evaluation, the signal progression analysis shows an eastbound AM
peak band of 64 seconds and a westbound band of 62 seconds. With a 150 second cycle at El
Jebel, this represents a bandwidth of 43% in the peak direction (eastbound) and 41% in the
secondary direction. In the PM peak, the eastbound band is 70 seconds while the westbound
band is 62 seconds. This corresponds with bandwidths of 47% in the secondary direction and
41% in the primary direction during the PM peak. The time-space diagrams are contained in the
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 19 appendix and all show that the minimum bandwidth can theoretically be achieved if a signal
were installed at JW Drive.
7.3
Buildout Traffic Turn Lane Analysis
Turn lane adequacy on SH 82 at the JW Drive intersection was analyzed under the Future
Baseline Diverted + Project scenario, which produces higher turning movement demand from
the mainline when compared to the unsignalized scenario. The existing turn lanes at the SH
82/JW Drive intersection were measured to determine if they are designed adequately for future
buildout conditions of The Fields. Their dimensions were compared against forecast demand
volumes, which is the basis for their initial design.
Turn lanes along Expressways are designed per the State Highway Access Code as such:
•
•
•
Left turn deceleration lane = taper + deceleration length + storage
Right turn deceleration lane = taper + deceleration length
Acceleration lane = accel length + taper
The Code specifies that for a flat 55 mph highway, tapers for a standard 12’ lane are 222’ in
length, acceleration length is 960 feet, and deceleration length is 600 feet. Storage length is
defined in Table 4-8 of the Code and is generally equivalent to one foot of storage per vehicle
turning in the peak hour. Left turn acceleration lanes are generally not required at signalized
intersections, so these lane dimensions are shown for information only.
The following table shows the existing turn lane dimensions (length + taper), maximum peak
hour turning volume, standard design and difference if existing lane is longer/shorter than the
forecast demand warrants. The standard design is shown for both 55 mph and 45 mph posted
speeds. The table shows all eastbound (EB) turn lane dimensions followed by all westbound
(WB) turn lane dimensions.
Table 10
Volume-based Turn Lane Comparison
Peak
Standard
Lane Dimensions
Turn Lane
Demand Design by Difference
(ft)
(vph)
Code 1
EB Left Turn Deceleration
530 + 222 = 752
102
922 / 699
(170)
EB Right Turn Deceleration
440 + 222 = 662
45
822 / 597
(160)
EB Left Turn Acceleration
775 + 360 = 1135
135
1182 / 712
(47)
EB Right Turn Acceleration
775 + 222 = 997
127
1182 / 712
(185)
WB Left Turn Deceleration
600 + 250 = 850
73
895 / 670
(45)
WB Right Turn Deceleration
490 + 175 = 665
214
822 / 597
(157)
WB Left Turn Acceleration
950 + 222 = 1172
92
1182 / 712
(10)
WB Right Turn Acceleration
540 + 180 = 720
65
1182 / 712
(462)
1 – 55 mph / 45 mph Design Standards
As the table shows, the existing turn lane lengths are all sized under the requirements set forth
in the code, based on 20-year forecast turning movements at a 55 mph posted speed. These
lanes may have been designed for 45 mph conditions, although the tapers generally correspond
with the 18.5:1 taper rates specified in the Code for 55 mph highways. As the design standards
show for 45 mph, the turn lanes would meet the current standard under 20-year signalized
traffic demand at SH 82/JW Drive.
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 20 The posted speed on SH 82 is lowered from 55 mph to 45 mph on the approaches to many of
the signalized intersections in the corridor (CMC, Catherine’s Store, and Basalt Avenue) to
promote slower speeds in the vicinity of the signals, while the longer segments are posted at 55
mph. This speed limit reduction is recommended for both approaches to the proposed signal at
JW Drive.
The three-mile section of SH 82 from JW Drive to Two Rivers Road (Lower) contains four traffic
signals today, and corridor operations would benefit from coordinating the timing of the signals
to achieve progressive movement for the peak direction. The spacing of signals allows a mile
between JW and El Jebel, a half-mile between El Jebel and Willits, a mile between Willits and
Original, and a half-mile between Original and Two Rivers Road. This is a relatively easy way
to maximize the corridor throughput during busy times and should be in place today via hardwire
or a simple timing approach run from a master controller.
7.4
Queuing Analysis
As a second check of the current deceleration turn lane design and length of the turn lanes on
the minor street approaches, the 95th percentile queuing results estimated by Synchro/Simtraffic
are provided in the table below. The queuing results are also shown in Figure 16 below for both
AM and PM peaks. The results depicted include the left turn queues from the mainline and the
northbound and southbound queues on Valley Road and JW Drive (the right turn deceleration
storage lengths are one to two car lengths).
Table 11
Queuing Analysis at SH 82/JW Drive
AM
PM
Lane Dimensions
Turn Lane
Queue
Queue
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
752
86
525
662
19
25
850
282
71
665
31
48
NB Approach
120 *
199
103
SB Approach
380 *
190
231
* – Distance to adjacent intersection
95 Percentile Queue Lengths at SH 82/JW Drive
th
AM Peak
PM Peak
As the figure above shows, storage queues in the morning peak are generally handled by the
existing turn lanes and approaches, with the exception of the northbound approach (Valley
Road). Here, morning queues may block the adjacent intersection with the frontage road. A
“Do Not Block Intersection” sign may assist in keeping this intersection clear during peaks.
Queues in the PM peak for the eastbound left turn into Blue Lake are estimated to be over 500
feet long, but this is mainly a result of the heavy conflicting westbound flows in the PM peak
This predicted queue length could be accommodated in the lane provided today, but reduces
the deceleration length to about 225 feet when it fills.
This lane may need extension in the future, which could be accomplished by paving the existing
median. In general, right turn deceleration and acceleration lanes at this intersection could be
extended by restriping the existing pavement (shoulder pavement is generally provided), while
left turn lane extensions for deceleration lanes would require additional pavement in the median
and adjustments to the barrier that separates flow on the highway. No changes to the
acceleration lanes are recommended if a signal is installed.
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 22 At El Jebel Road, 95th percentile queues were also calculated using Scenario 6 volumes and
are shown in the table and graphically below. The graphic shows the extents of the eastbound
and westbound left turn 95th percentile queues and the longest queue calculated for the
northbound and southbound approaches.
Table 12
Queuing Analysis at SH 82/El Jebel Road
AM
PM
Lane Dimensions
Turn Lane
Queue
Queue
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
580
408
190
670
203
38
635
48
452
635
22
567
NB Left
150 *
37
152
NB Thru
150 *
64
195
NB Right
150 *
128
140
SB Left
260 **
178
142
SB Thru
260 **
280
220
SB Right
260 **
n/a
248
* – Distance to Valley Road intersection
** – Distance to Favre Lane
95 Percentile Queue Lengths at SH 82/El Jebel Road
th
AM Peak
PM Peak
As the figure above shows, storage queues in the morning peak are generally handled by the
existing turn lanes. The eastbound left turn queue length in the morning peak is approaching
the lane’s current storage capacity. The westbound left turn queue length in the afternoon peak
is also approaching the lane’s current storage capacity. In both cases, the existing paved
median width would allow a simple restriping to lengthen these turn lanes if needed in the
future.
On the northbound approach, PM peak queues extend past the Valley Road intersection. This
area is planned to be improved by Eagle County in a future project that will lengthen the
highway approach and reduce the queue backups through adjacent intersections. On the
southbound approach, the 95th percentile queues extend to the Favre Lane intersection. This
side of the highway is also planned to be improved with right-in, right-out accesses between SH
82 and Shadowrock, with a roundabout at Shadowrock to facilitate u-turning movements. There
is potential that with the signalized intersection at JW Drive, the heavy congestion for side street
traffic at SH 82/El Jebel might divert more traffic away from this signal to another route than was
estimated in this study.
Valley Road Access Conditions
This analysis assumes a right-in, right-out, left-in access configuration (3/4 movement) to
physically prevent vehicles from exiting the site any access to the south approach to the signal
at El Jebel. This was proposed as a different approach to solving a known regional traffic issue
at SH 82/El Jebel Road. Given that the improvements on the south side of SH 82 at El Jebel
would likely cost more than this single development could bear, the installation of a signal at JW
Drive could attract more vehicles away from the El Jebel intersection than we’ve assumed in
this study (50% Blue Lake diversion), particularly from the south side of the highway. There is
concern, however, for the potential for u-turn movements somewhere west of the access on
Valley Road made by residents wishing to make trips to the Willits area or Crown Mountain and
bypass SH 82.
Given that there are other properties along Valley Road in this same area that operate with
uncontrolled access points, it does not seem reasonable for the County to require one
development a particular access pattern, while allowing others already impacting the system
unlimited access. It is likely that residents in these adjacent developments may shift their travel
patterns and begin using the signal at JW as their primary highway access, depending on their
destination. The Fields’ access is about 0.45 miles from JW Drive, while it is 0.85 miles from El
Jebel Road. The majority of the residents will likely use the route via JW Drive (if it were
signalized), but the diversion of those commuters wishing to access the south side of the
highway at El Jebel actually worsens the delay incurred by the Valley Road approach to the El
Jebel/Valley Road intersection, since these vehicles are now turning right off SH 82 and travel
through the El Jebel/Valley intersection.
Commuter traffic patterns tend to gravitate toward the areas of less delay. Given that the
access control measure proposed at the Fields entrance is not a safety measure and is purely
meant to control a specific volume from entering a specific intersection, it would be appropriate
and reasonable to monitor its effectiveness, if installed. As patterns change with the new signal
installation, additional capacity may open up at the El Jebel signal, thereby allowing for more
direct travel patterns for Fields residents to the adjacent shopping centers in the Willits area.
9.0
Conclusions and Proposed Mitigation Measures
This analysis was completed to be conservative and thus not underestimate future traffic
conditions with or without The Fields project demand. The analysis shows that CDOT and
Eagle County’s current standard of LOS “D” for intersections may be difficult to maintain in the
SH 82 corridor in the future, given current forecasting methods and the existing four lane
section. Other factors in the analysis contributing to conservative or “worst-case” results
include:
• Seasonally adjusted volumes
• No transit or multi-modal trip reductions
• Trip generation regression equations used instead of average rates
• Site trips generated added to 20-year forecasts (not included in the 20-year projections)
All of these conservative adjustments provide additional layers to the analysis, creating a future
picture that may be considerably worse than what actually occurs at buildout of the site.
The Fields is projected to generate a total of 787 trips on an average weekday at buildout. This
includes 68 potential trips made in the morning peak and 76 potential trips made in the
afternoon peak. The project proposes a traffic signal at the intersection of SH 82/JW Drive that
will be the primary access point for the site to the regional highway system. The site access is
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 25 less than a half mile from this access point, compared to the 0.85 miles to the signal at El Jebel
Road, which is shown to operate at LOS “D” today during either peak hour.
Due to current congestion at this signal and the connectivity of county collector roadways that
provide access to neighborhoods and the adjacent full-movement access to the highway at JW
Drive, a signal here may divert a portion of existing minor street turning movements from the El
Jebel intersection. This will give residents on either side of the highway another opportunity or
route for priority access to SH 82. The analysis shows that a signal operating at JW Drive
would assist turning movements at both intersections, thereby potentially providing additional
capacity at the current El Jebel signal (than would be forecast without a signal). Under either
the future buildout or the future buildout diverted scenarios, the intersection of SH 82/El Jebel is
shown to operate at LOS “E” with a maximum allowable cycle length of 150 seconds. The
analysis shows that a signal at JW would operate effectively on a 75 second cycle and be able
to provide a corridor green time bandwidth of between 41% and 47%, depending on time of day
and direction of flow.
The Fields project proposes the following mitigation measures to alleviate their impact of the
projected 787 daily trips that the site may generate upon buildout:
• Installation of a traffic signal at SH 82/JW Drive
• Construct a 3/4 movement access at the site driveway on Valley Road
• Install a “Do Not Block Intersection” sign on the northbound approach of Valley Road,
south of the frontage road.
• Provide an internal trail system with connections to adjacent trails and the regional
system, including the RFTA park and ride at SH 82/El Jebel Road
Other measures that could be employed to improve traffic flow along SH 82 during the peak
hours include providing signal coordination through this section of Eagle County and Basalt.
Optimized signal timing plans could be developed based on current volumes if a more adaptive
traffic control system were in place on the corridor. CDOT is currently exploring and testing this
technology in other corridors in the state and it may prove to reduce mainline delays during
peak hours in the future as the signal system operates more efficiently as a whole. A potential
drawback of an adaptive system is that it will likely prioritize the mainline traffic with the heaviest
flows and create longer delay times on the minor street approaches. Optimization of signal
timing and corridor progression will be the primary future improvements, short of expanding the
highway corridor to six lanes.
This analysis demonstrates that there are many needs for transportation improvements in this
part of the SH 82 corridor in Eagle County. The Fields is proposing a reasonable set of
measures with the intent of reducing the side street pressure on the heavily congested
intersection at El Jebel Road and providing redundancy to the regional highway system by
improving the highway connection at JW Drive.
The Fields Traffic Impact Study August 2015 Page 26 APPENDIX
Traffic Count Data (11 pages)
CDOT Growth Factors and AADT (1 page)
Synchro/Simtraffic Capacity Analysis Output (52 pages)
CDOT Accident Summary (2 pages)
Trip Generation and Distribution Calculations (1 page)
Diversion Travel Time Calculations (1 page)
Time-Space Diagrams for SH 82 Progression (2 pages)
Methodology Memorandum to CDOT dated 4/16/15 (5 pages)
Review Memorandum from CDOT dated 5/28/15 (1 page)
August 2015

1 - Eagle County

Transcription

Similar documents

brochure

Holiday Bazaar - Wayzata Schools

SABIC_Newsletter_Issue _4_DRAFT_2.p65

Future Champions National Area WELCOME New Champions!

Jibou - Iserlohn

the program brochure

Attachment 13 Traffic Impact

saturday, may 4, 2013

PIONEER DAYS AT THE WASHINGTON STATE FAIR