Transportation Master Plan Report
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Masterplan Update Prepared by: Egis in collaboration with Concept Dash February 2025
February 19, 2025 Mike Farquhar – Manager of Infrastructure City of Kawartha Lakes 322 Kent Street Lindsay, ON K9V 4T7
Dear Mr. Farquhar: Re: City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan TMP Report Enclosed is the City of Kawartha Lake’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) report. The TMP study is a strategic policy document that will serve as a road map for short, medium and long-term transportation infrastructure investments. It will guide how the City:
Develops their roadways;
Coordinates infrastructure improvements with land uses;
Responds to future growth and demand on the transportation network.
The TMP is developed in full compliance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, following Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Master Planning Process.
Contributors We would like to thank all the contributors and stakeholders who helped guide and create this Transportation Master Plan Update. The project has been carried out by Egis in collaboration with Concept Dash and close consultation with the City of Kawartha Lakes. Following is a list of key contributors that have been part of the development of the Transportation Master Plan study: City of Kawartha Lake Advisors
Mike Farquhar, Project Manager Joseph Kelly, CET – Traffic Management Supervisor, Engineering & Corporate Assets – Technical Services
Egis Consulting Team
Kassel Prince, P.Eng., PMP – Senior Transportation/Traffic Engineer Thomas Gryz, P.Eng. - Senior Transportation/Traffic Engineer Alina Ahmad, Transportation Planner
Stakeholders:
Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) City of Kawartha Lakes Departments/Municipalities Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Department of National Defense (DND) Hydro One Ontario Power Generation (OPG) The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Private Landowners, Emergency Services, Business Associations, and School Boards General Public, utilities, local business associations, and township committees.
Page | i
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table of Contents Contributors ........................................................................................................................................... i 1.0
2.0
3.0
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1
Geographical Context ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2
Purpose of the Plan ........................................................................................................... 4
1.3
Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6
1.4
The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process ................................................ 6
1.5
Project Methodology.......................................................................................................... 8
1.6
Consultation Process ........................................................................................................ 9
1.7
Public and Stakeholder Engagement ................................................................................ 9
Planning Context..................................................................................................................... 11 2.1
Planning and Policy Compliance ..................................................................................... 11
2.2
Provincial Documents...................................................................................................... 12
2.3
Local and Regional Documents....................................................................................... 12
Community and Growth.......................................................................................................... 17 3.1
Community Profile ........................................................................................................... 17
3.1.1 Population and Employment ........................................................................................... 17 3.2 4.0
Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 19
Stakeholder and Public Engagement .................................................................................... 27 4.1
Overview of the City’s Engagement Process .................................................................. 27
4.2
Public Information Centre 1 ............................................................................................. 28
4.2.1 Online Survey 1 ............................................................................................................... 28 4.3
Public Information Centre 2 ............................................................................................. 29
4.3.1 Online Survey 2 ............................................................................................................... 29 5.0
Existing Transportation Network ........................................................................................... 32 5.1
The City’s Transportation System ................................................................................... 32
5.2
Road Classification and Design....................................................................................... 32
5.3
Truck Network ................................................................................................................. 40
5.4
Railway Network.............................................................................................................. 40
5.5
Transit Network ............................................................................................................... 40
5.6
Parking ........................................................................................................................... 43
5.7
Active Transportation Network ........................................................................................ 45
5.7.1 Trails and Sidewalks ....................................................................................................... 45
| Transportation Master Plan Update
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
5.7.2 Cycling ............................................................................................................................ 51 5.8
Emerging Technologies ................................................................................................... 53
5.9
Existing EV Charging in Kawartha Lakes ........................................................................ 55
5.10 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................... 56 5.10.1
Travel Demand Trends ............................................................................................. 56
5.10.2
Network Volumes...................................................................................................... 60
5.10.3
Intersection Volumes ................................................................................................ 68
5.10.4
Traffic Analysis Operation ......................................................................................... 74
5.11 Collision Review .............................................................................................................. 81
6.0
5.11.1
Collision Analysis of Intersections............................................................................. 81
5.11.2
Collison Analysis of Road Segment .......................................................................... 84
Future Conditions ................................................................................................................... 89 6.1
Planned Improvements ................................................................................................... 89
6.2
Growth and Development ................................................................................................ 91
6.3
Forecasting Future Needs ............................................................................................... 96
6.3.1 Future Traffic (AADT) Volume Projections ...................................................................... 96 6.4
Future Traffic Operations .............................................................................................. 103
6.5
Intersection and Corridor Improvements ....................................................................... 109
6.5.1 Lindsay .......................................................................................................................... 109 6.5.2 Fenelon Falls ................................................................................................................. 114 6.5.3 Bobcaygeon .................................................................................................................. 118 6.5.4 Omemee ....................................................................................................................... 121 7.0
8.0
A Vision for the City of Kawartha Lakes ............................................................................. 124 7.1
Opportunities and Challenges ....................................................................................... 124
7.2
Strategic Priorities ......................................................................................................... 125
7.3
TMP Vision Statement ................................................................................................... 127
7.4
Alternative Solutions...................................................................................................... 128
7.5
Selection of Preferred Solution ...................................................................................... 129
TMP Supportive Policies ...................................................................................................... 132 8.1
Speed Limit Policy ......................................................................................................... 132
8.2
Automated Speed Enforcement Policy .......................................................................... 134
8.3
Special Speed Zone ...................................................................................................... 135
8.3.1 School Zones and Areas ............................................................................................... 135
| Transportation Master Plan Update
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
8.3.2 Playground Zones and Areas ........................................................................................ 137 8.3.3 Community Safety Zones .............................................................................................. 139 8.3.4 Reduced Speed Zone Areas ......................................................................................... 139 8.4
Traffic Calming Policy.................................................................................................... 141
8.5
Traffic Control Facilities ................................................................................................. 142
8.5.1 All-Way Stop Control Policy .......................................................................................... 143
9.0
8.6
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines ............................................................. 144
8.7
Vision Zero Policy.......................................................................................................... 145
8.8
Goods Movement Policy ............................................................................................... 147
8.9
Infrastructure Guidelines ............................................................................................... 148
Multi-Modal Network ............................................................................................................. 150 9.1
TMP Integration with ATMP .......................................................................................... 150
9.1.1 Principles ....................................................................................................................... 150 9.2
Transit Network ............................................................................................................. 154
9.3
Road Network................................................................................................................ 157
9.3.1 Urbanization .................................................................................................................. 157 9.3.2 Complete Streets........................................................................................................... 158 9.3.3 Protected Intersections .................................................................................................. 159 9.4
Emerging Technologies ................................................................................................. 160
9.4.1 Micro-mobility ................................................................................................................ 160 9.4.2 Automated, Connected, and Electric Vehicles .............................................................. 161 9.4.3 Information Technology ................................................................................................. 161 10.0 Implementation Plan and Costs ........................................................................................... 164 10.1 Costing .......................................................................................................................... 164 10.2 Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................ 164 10.3 Road Network Implementation Plan .............................................................................. 166 10.4 TMP Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 170 10.5 TMP Updates ................................................................................................................ 171
| Transportation Master Plan Update
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
List of Maps Map 1 - Existing Study Area.................................................................................................................. 3 Map 2 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-3 ........................ 20 Map 3 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-5 ........................ 21 Map 4 - Lindsay Development Areas .................................................................................................. 22 Map 5 - Fenelon Falls Development Areas ......................................................................................... 23 Map 6 - Bobcaygeon Development Areas .......................................................................................... 24 Map 7 - Omemee Development Areas ................................................................................................ 25 Map 8 - City of Kawartha Lakes Road Classification .......................................................................... 35 Map 9 - Lindsay Existing Road Classification ..................................................................................... 36 Map 10 - Fenelon Falls Existing Road Classification .......................................................................... 37 Map 11 - Bobcaygeon Existing Road Classification ............................................................................ 38 Map 12 - Omemee Existing Road Classification ................................................................................. 39 Map 13 - Lindsay Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) .......................................................................... 47 Map 14 - Fenelon Falls Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) ................................................................. 48 Map 15 – Bobcaygeon Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) .................................................................. 49 Map 16 – Omemee Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) ....................................................................... 50 Map 17 – City of Kawartha Lakes Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes............................. 61 Map 18 – Lindsay Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ..................................................... 62 Map 19 – Fenelon Falls Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................ 63 Map 20 – Bobcaygeon Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................. 64 Map 21 – Omemee Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................... 65 Map 22 – TMP Count Locations.......................................................................................................... 69 Map 23 - City of Kawartha Lakes 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes .................................. 98 Map 24 - Lindsay 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes .......................................................... 99 Map 25 - Fenelon Falls 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................... 100 Map 26 - Bobcaygeon 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................. 101 Map 27 - Omemee 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 102
List of Figures Figure 1 – City Location in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area ........................................................... 2 Figure 2 - MCEA Process ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 - Project Methodology ............................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4 - Population Age Structure .................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5 - Online Survey Result Example 1 ........................................................................................ 29 Figure 6 - Online Survey Result Example 2 ........................................................................................ 30 Figure 7 - Existing Transit in Lindsay .................................................................................................. 42 Figure 8 - Core Area Parking Experience Satisfaction (PIC #1).......................................................... 43 Figure 9 - Existing Trails (Retrieved from Active Transportation Master Plan) .................................... 46 Figure 10 - Existing Cycling Routes .................................................................................................... 52 | Transportation Master Plan Update
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Figure 11 - AM Peak Mode Split – All Purposes ................................................................................. 56 Figure 12 - PM Peak Mode Split ......................................................................................................... 57 Figure 13 - Trip Purpose by Mode, AM Peak (2016) ........................................................................... 59 Figure 14 - Trip Purpose by Mode, PM Peak (2016) ........................................................................... 60 Figure 15 - Lindsay 2023 Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................... 70 Figure 16 - Bobcaygeon 2023 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................... 71 Figure 17 - Fenelon Falls 2023 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................. 72 Figure 18 - Omemee 2023 Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 73 Figure 19 - Intersection Levels of Service (Courtesy of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual ............. 75 Figure 20 - Existing Lindsay LOS........................................................................................................ 77 Figure 21 - Existing Bobcaygeon LOS ................................................................................................ 78 Figure 22 - Existing Fenelon Falls LOS .............................................................................................. 79 Figure 23 - Existing Omemee LOS ..................................................................................................... 80 Figure 24 - Intersection Collision Hot Spot Locations ......................................................................... 84 Figure 25 - Road Segment Collision Hot Spot Locations .................................................................... 87 Figure 26 - Population, Housing and Employment Growth Summary ................................................. 91 Figure 27 - Lindsay Future Development Density ............................................................................... 92 Figure 28 - Fenelon Falls Future Development Density ...................................................................... 93 Figure 29 - Bobcaygeon Future Development Density ....................................................................... 94 Figure 30 - Omemee Future Development Density............................................................................. 95 Figure 31 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Lindsay ................. 105 Figure 32 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Fenelon Falls ........ 106 Figure 33 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Bobcaygeon ......... 107 Figure 34 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Omemee .............. 108 Figure 35 - Lindsay Improvements .................................................................................................... 113 Figure 36 - Clifton Street Pedestrian Bridge...................................................................................... 116 Figure 37 - Fenelon Falls Improvements .......................................................................................... 117 Figure 38 - Bobcaygeon Improvements ............................................................................................ 120 Figure 39 - Corridor improvements ................................................................................................... 122 Figure 40 - Hierarchy o f Controlled Crossing Treatment Systems (OTM Book 15) .......................... 143 Figure 41 - Elements of Vision Zero. ................................................................................................. 146 Figure 42 - TMP Update Integration with ATMP Recommendation ................................................. 152 Figure 43 - Multi -modal Street Cross-section ................................................................................... 159 Figure 44 - City of Ottawa Protected Intersection Design Guide ...................................................... 160
List of Tables Table 1 - Population and Employment Statistics ................................................................................. 17 Table 2 – Rural Road Design Classifications ...................................................................................... 33 Table 3 – Urban Road Design Classifications ..................................................................................... 33 Table 4 – Existing Government of Canada Policies ............................................................................ 54
| Transportation Master Plan Update
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Table 5 - Primary Travel Mode in Kawartha Lakes’ from Home to Work during AM Hours ................. 57 Table 6 - Primary Travel Mode in Kawartha Lakes from Home to Work during PM Hours ................. 58 Table 7 - Home-to-Work Daily Trips from Lindsay to Other Areas ...................................................... 58 Table 8 - Home to Work Daily Trips from Kawartha Lakes to Outside Region .................................... 58 Table 9 - Commercial Vehicle Percentages ........................................................................................ 67 Table 10 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ............................. 74 Table 11 - HCM Level of Service Description ..................................................................................... 75 Table 12 - Intersection Collision Severity (2014-2022) ....................................................................... 82 Table 13 - Top 10 Intersection Collision Hotspots in Kawartha Lakes ................................................ 83 Table 14 - Road Segment Collision Severity (2014-2022) .................................................................. 85 Table 15 - Top 10 Segment Collision Hotspots in Kawartha Lakes .................................................... 86 Table 16 - Future Development Density Forecast............................................................................... 96 Table 17 - Future Development Density Forecast............................................................................. 103 Table 18 - Roadway Capacity ........................................................................................................... 109 Table 19 - Lindsay Intersection Improvements Summary Table ....................................................... 110 Table 20 - Fenelon Falls Intersection Improvements Summary Table .............................................. 115 Table 21 - Bobcaygeon Intersection Improvements Summary Table ................................................ 119 Table 22 - Omemee Intersection Improvements Summary Table ..................................................... 121 Table 23 - Alternative Solutions ........................................................................................................ 130 Table 24 - School Zones and Areas .................................................................................................. 136 Table 25 - Playground Zones and Areas .......................................................................................... 138 Table 26 - Summary of ATMP Recommendations ........................................................................... 153 Table 27 - Short Term Improvements ............................................................................................... 167 Table 28 - Medium Term Improvements ........................................................................................... 168 Table 29 - Long Term Improvements ................................................................................................ 169 Table 30 - Measures for Monitoring Implementation ......................................................................... 170 Table 31 - Measures For Tracking Progress ..................................................................................... 171
| Transportation Master Plan Update
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
List of Appendices Appendix A: Communication and Consultation Plan Appendix B: Public Consultation B.1 Notice of Commencement B.2 Public Information Centre 1 (Survey Results) B.3 Public Information Centre 2 (Survey Results) B.4 Notice of Completion Appendix C: Commercial Vehicle Percentages Appendix D: ATR Count Data Maps Appendix E: Existing Condition Capacity Analysis E.1 Lindsay E.2 Bobcaygeon E.3 Fenelon Falls E.4 Omemee Appendix F: Collision Analysis Appendix G: AADT Volumes (2031-2051) G.1 Lindsay G.2 Bobcaygeon G.3 Fenelon Falls G.4 Omemee Appendix H: Future Conditions Traffic Volumes (2031-2051) Appendix I: Future Conditions Capacity Analysis I.1 Lindsay I.2 Bobcaygeon I.3 Fenelon Falls I.4 Omemee Appendix J: Future Conditions Network LOS Summaries J.1 Unmitigated Base Condition J.2 Mitigated Condition Appendix K: Future Conditions Screenline Analysis Appendix L: Policy Documents L.1 Speed Limit Policy L.2 Traffic Calming Policy L.3 All-Way Stop Policy L.4 Infrastructure Guidelines L.5 Vision Zero Policy L.6 Goods Movement Policy
| Transportation Master Plan Update
173 191 193 196 215 239 241 245 255 257 355 385 405 419 481 483 487 491 495 499 517 519 1075 1203 1295 1351 1353 1371 1383 1387 1389 1405 1443 1457 1483 1501
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update L.7 Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines
| Transportation Master Plan Update
1511
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
This Transportation Master Plan update will assist the City of Kawartha Lakes by identifying policies, guidelines, providing recommendations and an implementation plan. The goal is to accommodate growth in a sustainable manner, align with the City’s objectives to maintain a high quality of life, and foster economic development in both rural and urban areas.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
1.0 Introduction The City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update (TMP) sets the vision for the City’s transportation infrastructure and services. As a central document, this 2025 TMP tailors the direction of planning, policies, strategies for walking, cycling, transit and roads to shape and support future development within the City. At the same time it provides guidance to staff, stakeholders, and decision-makers on transportation development and is updated every five to ten years to reflect changes in population, employment, travel trends, or policy direction. The City of Kawartha Lakes undertook its previous TMP in February 2012 to develop an integrated multi-modal transportation network. The 2012 TMP addressed and recommended improvements to the road network and to the transportation infrastructure in order to meet the projected population and employment growth, up to the year 2031. The City of Kawartha Lakes is now undertaking an update to their 2012 TMP to align with the City’s Official Plan, Growth Management Strategy, and Strategic Plan policies. This revision includes incorporating the latest population and employment forecasts and providing guidance to the City for the continued development of a multi-modal transportation network until the year 2051. The City wide 2025 TMP update will reflect development aspirations to provide a sustainable transportation system with a strong focus on connectivity and accessibility.
1.1 Geographical Context The City of Kawartha Lakes is a single-tier municipality located within central Ontario bordered by many municipalities such as, the Regional Municipality of Durham, Peterborough, and Simcoe County. According to the Greater Golden Horseshoe growth forecasts to 2051, the City of Kawartha Lakes is located in the outer Ring, north-east of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTAH) as shown in Figure 1. The pattern of settlement is rural, interspersed with small urban centers; the largest of these is Lindsay which serves as a mid-sized regional service center. Outside Lindsay, tourism and agriculture predominate. The City wide transportation network and municipal boundary is illustrated in Map 1.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 1
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 1 – City Location in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 2
Map 1 - Existing Study Area Page | 3
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
1.2 Purpose of the Plan This TMP update will serve as a long-range strategic plan for the City that identifies transportation infrastructure requirements to accommodate projected growth, address existing challenges, identify areas of opportunity and guide transportation and land use decisions. Sustainability principles will also be embedded into this TMP update to provide a framework for implementing the suggested improvements on a City-wide basis. This TMP update also provides an opportunity for proactive thinking, preparing for emerging technologies in transportation, and anticipating community needs. The City of Kawartha Lakes highlighted some general requirements for the TMP update which include:
A review of the City’s existing road network, including recommendations for network optimization and improvements to address growth and travel demand up to the horizon year of 2051.
Mobility across all transportation modes, for residents of all ages and abilities, that is safe, efficient, connected, accessible, affordable, and sustainable.
Review, coordination and incorporation of updates from the ongoing Growth Management Strategy, Active Transportation Master Plan and Trails Master Plan update
Develop a sustainable transportation network implementation plan that reflects future development scenarios for the short term (1-5 year), mid term (5-10 year) and long term (10-20 year) that will assist the City in prioritizing capital works and investing efficiently.
A review of roadways and intersections with high traffic volumes to highlight potential operational and safety issues and develop recommendations to achieve the City’s goals.
A review of current transit opportunities and the City’s mid- and long-term transit requirements/feasibility.
Creation of a detailed Terms of Reference (ToR) for Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) to be used as a standard guideline for developments to ensure consistency.
Completion of a Traffic Calming Policy uniquely tailored to Kawartha Lakes which includes definition of key features, guidelines for implementation and recommended list of solutions based on road type.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 4
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Policy or guideline recommendations to incorporate traffic calming into design and planning of new subdivisions.
Review and provide updated recommendations for City’s parking needs in key builtup areas.
Review of the City’s seasonal load restriction policies, existing routes, feasibility of designating route(s), while considering ways to limit the disruption to local agricultural, tourist, and recreational activities
Development of a road classification system, to assess the City’s future arterial and collector road needs, and update to the design standards for roads to consider multimodal uses
Implementing a meaningful consultation and engagement process for City staff, business communities, the public and external stakeholders that meets the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) requirements for a TMP.
Development of an implementable action plan with recommended capital projects and/or initiatives for transportation infrastructures (roads, active transportation facilities, etc.) based on priority, estimated cost, and timelines for completion (by 2043), under the MCEA process.
Review of the City’s collision statistics and traffic operational assessments
Development of a framework for the implementation of a Vision Zero/ Safe Systems program in the City using and building on comparable Canadian best practices
Review and development of policies and plans tailored to the City including a posted speed limit review policy, a goods movement strategy, and an all-way stop policy.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 5
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
1.3 Project Objectives A multi-modal transportation network that is well-designed and efficient can be an essential part in achieving the local goals set out in various City plans. This TMP study will help in enhancing the transportation network for the City to establish it as a leader in building, preserving, and enhancing livable communities, which will be supported by economic development, tourism, sustainable transportation practices, and the emerging shared economy. The objectives for this study were tailored specifically to the needs of the City of Kawartha Lakes and have been listed below.
1
2 3
4
Assessing the existing state of the City’s transportation network (roads and intersections), including recommendations for network optimization and improvements to address growth and travel demand up to the 2051 horizon year. Improving mobility across all transportation modes that is safe, connected, sustainable, affordable, and accessible for residents of all ages and abilities.
Reviewing active transportation network gaps and opportunities to better integrate the City’s communities through efficient and safe infrastructure.
Integrating the City’s active transportation network within the broader context of the active transportation plans of its neighbors.
Integrating the City’s active transportation network within the broader
5
Developing a sustainable transportation network implementation plan that reflects future development scenarios for the short term (1 to 5 years), medium term (5 to 15 years) and long term (15 to 30 years) that will assist the City in prioritizing capital works and investing efficiently.
1.4 The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process The TMP update will be developed in accordance with the Provincial Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, following the Approach 1 as outlined in the 2023 Municipal Class | Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 6
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Environmental Assessment (MCEA) document. As shown in Figure 2, the TMP update will satisfy Phase 1, Problem and Opportunity, and Phase 2, Alternative Solutions, of the MCEA process and facilitate streamlining and implementation of recommended capital works.
Phase 1: Problems and Opportunity
• Identify City of Kawartha Lakes transportation challenges and opportunities • Identify what has changed in infrastructure • Review previous studies and identify any factors that lead to an improvement • Obtain population and employment forecasts • Research key background information
Phase 2: Alternative Solutions
• Evaluate identified alternatives and recommendations • Gather input from the community and various stakeholders to inform preferred alternative and recommendations • Select preferred alternative and set of recommendations
Figure 2 - MCEA Process
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 7
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
1.5 Project Methodology The project methodology for this TMP update is summarized in Figure 3 below. The TMP Update will have three phases that will follow the MCEA process: 1. Assess the existing conditions, area context and specific challenges 2. Assess traffic operations and road safety Assess the City’s transportation needs Develop preferred solutions to meet those needs Update and implement policies and develop design standards to align with the City’s goals 3. Refine the preferred solutions and develop a comprehensive TMP update document
Figure 3 - Project Methodology
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 8
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
1.6 Consultation Process The project team established the guiding principles for the study through gathering local knowledge and having open and effective communication with the public, as well as all stakeholders. The philosophy behind the approach and methodology of the study included the following:
Maintain and preserve the local character and protect the natural environment that makes City of Kawartha Lakes a desirable place for residents, business, and tourists alike.
Provide safe and accessible streets for all modes of traffic, ensuring all modes of transportation are promoted as effective and safe mobility options regardless of age or ability.
Ensuring a vibrant and attractive downtown cores to enhance tourism and economic development within the City.
Minimize traffic congestion, ensuring the City’s Road network can accommodate future growth and travel demand.
Effective consultation with all stakeholders, including the City staff, indigenous communities and general public to ensure success of the 2025 TMP.
1.7 Public and Stakeholder Engagement An integral part of the MCEA process is public consultation as there are requirements for notifications and consultations with the public, agencies, and other stakeholders at key phases of the process. During the 2025 TMP’s development multiple audiences were engaged and feedback was incorporated into technical milestones and this report. A summary of the engagement tactics, milestones and stakeholders involved is provided below and further discussed in Section 4 of this report that provides more detailed information such as the date, time, and consultation material used during the engagement sessions.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 9
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Who was Engaged? Residents: this represents the individuals who live, work, and play within the City of Kawartha Lakes. Stakeholders and Technical Agencies: this group included various City departments and technical agencies such as Indigenous Communities, MTO, and the Ministry of Environment City Staff and Council: this group is involved in the planning, implementation, decision making, operation, and management of the TMP. City Staff and Council: this group is involved in the planning,
How were they Engaged? In-Person: Two rounds of public engagement sessions, survey’s and meetings with stakeholders and technical agencies
Outreach: Promotional tools, social media, and the City’s JumpIn project webpage to post consultation material and keep the public informed about the project
In-Person: Two rounds of
When were they Engaged? Notice of Study Commencement circulated in August 2023
Presentation to Council held in December 2024
PIC 1 held on November 23rd & 24th, 2023
PIC 2 held on October 8th & 9th, 2024
Notice of Study Completion in January 2025
What we Heard Promote Sustainable Transportation: Promote sustainable transportation options like cycling, walking, and public transit to reduce congestion and improve road conditions, creating a more efficient and What we Heard eco-friendlier network. Improve Network: The City has Promote an aging sustainable population, therefore Promote Transit Sustainable Transportation: there is a need options to extend reach walking, of transitand service to transit a widertoarea and transportation likethe cycling, public reduce increase operating hours. congestion and improve road conditions, creating a more efficient and What we Heard eco-friendlier network. Improve Transit Network: The City has an aging population, therefore there is a need to extend the reach of transit service to a wider area and Promote Sustainable Transportation: Promote sustainable increase operating hours. | Transportation Master Plan Update transportation options like cycling, walking, and public transit to reduceP a g e | 10 congestion and improve road conditions, creating a more efficient and
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
2.0 Planning Context A detailed review of various background documents and studies was conducted as part of this TMP study which provided the current context for Kawartha Lake’s planning objectives as well as direction for developing the TMP update. The documents that were reviewed for the purpose of this TMP update are highlighted below.
2.1 Planning and Policy Compliance The City of Kawartha Lakes operates within a legislative framework established by the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada. Two recent initiatives by the Ontario Government have direct bearing on this study, the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is a policy document in Ontario, that provides direction on land use planning, development, and resource management throughout the province. It serves as a framework for planning decisions made by municipalities, land-use planners, developers, and various stakeholders. The PPS is periodically updated to reflect evolving priorities and policies. On the other hand, the "Places to Grow" plan is another important policy document in Ontario, that focuses on managing growth, land use, and development in the province. Like the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the "Places to Grow" plan is intended to guide planning decisions and shape the future development of communities in Ontario. It is also important to note that, the City is undertaking a Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) in accordance with the Provincial Growth Plan, A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). The MCR program applies the policies and schedules of the Growth Plan, reflects the community’s interests and establishes the Official Plan goals, objectives and policies for land use and development over the next 25 years.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 11
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
2.2 Provincial Documents Provincial Policy Statement (2020) provides the guiding principles and policy direction on key land use planning issues within Ontario. It aims to promote land-use patterns that support multi-modal transportation options and increase the use of sustainable modes of transportation. The Greater Golden Horseshoe: Growth Forecasts to 2051 (2020) report presents long-term growth forecasts for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) and its constituent upper- and single-tier municipalities. The forecasts form part of a review of population and employment forecasts contained in Schedule 3 of the Provincial plan A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019.
2.3 Local and Regional Documents City of Kawartha Lakes Strategic Plan (2024-2027) aims to provide a holistic view of community through a sustainability approach that considers the natural environment, the economy and the community. It provides guidance for developing services to meet expectations of Kawartha Lakes’ residents and sets strategic priorities over the short, medium and long term. City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan (2012) provides policy guidance to manage the use of land and resources desired to maintain and improve the quality of the environment and the quality of life for City residents. It is important to understand that various sections of the City’s Official Plan continue to be under appeal. Additionally, the secondary plan’s reviewed as part of the study are identified below:
The Fenelon Falls Secondary Plan is no longer under appeal and is in effect. The Lindsay Secondary Plan is no longer under appeal but is not in effect until the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approves the City’s repeal of the Lindsay Official Plan. The Omemee Secondary Plan, the Bobcaygeon Secondary Plan and the Woodville Secondary Plan all remain under appeal.
Overall, the plan highlights the following key points: Tells us where new housing, industry, offices and shops will go; Identifies land that needs protection from development; Helps the City plan for services like roads, watermains, sewers, parks and schools that will be needed in the future; and Describes when and how communities will experience growth.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 12
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update City of Kawartha Lakes Secondary Plans are more detailed land use plans prepared for five settlement areas: Bobcaygeon, Fenelon Falls, Lindsay, Omemee, and Woodville. At this time, the Secondary Plans for these settlement areas have been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal and currently not in effect. City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) outlines and defines policies, programs and infrastructure improvements needed to manage both existing and future transportation demands. It focuses on all modes of transportation to promote a safe, effective and sustainable transportation network. The City of Kawartha Lakes’ previous TMP was adopted in February 2012. City of Kawartha Lakes 2006 Trails Master Plan addresses the need for a comprehensive approach to trails planning and development throughout the City, and provides a framework for future decision-making. It’s a long-term planning tool to guide the development of new trails and open space linkages and to assists in negotiations to acquire routes for recreation/transportation a opportunities arise. City of Kawartha Lakes Trails Master Plan Update (2023) outlines the vision and strategy for developing and managing a network of trails in the city. The Trails Master Plan update was developed with the intent of serving as the City’s policy support, blueprint, and guide to trail planning, design, implementation, management, and maintenance. The Trails Master Plan update was completed in April 2023. Kent Street and Colborne Street Corridor Studies Existing Conditions Report (2013): Building upon recommendations from the City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy and the previous Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the City initiated corridor studies in the Town of Lindsay for two east‐west corridors: Kent Street and Colborne Street. The report provided an update on the 2013 traffic conditions for Kent Street and Colborne Street, confirming existing operations, identifying capacity deficiencies, and addressing safety issues. According to the traffic operations findings, due to slight decrease in traffic volumes it was identified that there were no capacity deficiencies during both AM and PM peak. Colborne Street Schedule B Class EA and Corridor Study Report (2017): The limits of this study for Colborne Street West were from Highway 35 to William Street North. For Kent Street West the limits were from Highway 35 to Lindsay Street North. Given the proximity of these two corridors and the connection and interaction of north-south streets between these two arterial roads, the corridor studies were conducted at the same | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 13
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update time. Overall, this report addresses the study findings and recommendations for Colborne Street only; the findings for Kent Street are documented under the Kent Street Schedule B Class EA report (2016). Fenlon Falls Corridor Study of Lindsay St and Colborne St (CKL 121) (2016) was developed following the 2012 City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan. The CKL 121 corridor was identified as requiring review due to current operating and development pressures. This corridor study/class EA includes the completion of an operational review of the corridor, the identification of existing and future deficiencies; and the provision of recommendations for improvements to vehicular capacity, pedestrian safety, accessibility, and streetscaping. Limo Specialized Transit Guide report provides information and guidance on specialized limousine transportation services within the Kawartha Lakes region. Road Needs 2016 & 2021 Study Reports highlight the existing road network and assesses the physical condition as well as confirms various road attributes within Kawartha Lakes. Data collected from field reviews are also documented in these reports that were used to identify and develop a prioritized listing of the road network needs in the reports. City of Kawartha Lakes Downtown Parking Strategy (2021) examined the current state and administration of parking, forecasted future parking demand, and determined future parking supply needs, and identified recommendations accordingly. Overall, while some users of the Core Area parking systems may perceive a shortage of parking at certain times, this study shows that, based on industry best practices and utilization data, the existing parking supply is adequate to meet existing demand. City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy Update (GMS 2024) provides an introduction to the overall study and sets out, at a high level, several fundamental opportunities and challenges that the City of Kawartha Lakes faces over the next few decades from a growth management perspective. The study provides the technical analysis and evaluations to determine where and how forecast population and employment growth will be accommodated in the City over the next three decades. 2023 Road Infrastructure Guidelines provides the City’s infrastructure design preferences and standards under normal circumstances. Refusal to follow these design guidelines requires written approval of the Director of Engineering & Corporate Assets or designate. This guideline also highlights that all proposed works within the City of Kawartha | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 14
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Lakes Right-of-Way (R.O.W.) shall comply with all applicable current industry standards and specifications for design, installation, modification, quality management and quality control. City of Kawartha Lakes Lindsay Transit Master Plan (2018) builds on past successes of Lindsay Transit and LIMO service and incorporates best practices that have evolved over the years throughout Ontario and Canada. The transit market has changed and as such, the proposed Master Plan provides various recommendations to improve service on Lindsay Transit. The plan also includes a community Transit plan for locations outside of Lindsay for the years 2023-2027. Some of the key recommendations outlined in the Transit Master Plan included the following:
Provide more service-coverage by expanding Lindsay Transit’s fixed route service to serve residents outside of Lindsay. This will help address current needs as well as growth within Lindsay.
Provide more affordable and accessible transit options for Kawartha Lake residents and visitors
When designing for new residential developments, maximum transit route coverage at minimal cost must be viewed as a priority
Provide more arterial transit routes which is a more attractive service since they are more direct and cost-effective than transit routes along slower internal collector roads and residential streets
Provide a potential connection between Lindsay and Peterborough in combination with the Fleming College Bus Services that currently exist between Sutherland Campus (Peterborough) and Frost Campus (Lindsay). The primary intent is to achieve an enhanced transit modal split in order to reduce auto dependence.
The Housing Pledge was another document that was reviewed as part of this study. It highlights the council’s commitment to build 6500 housing units by 2031.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 15
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 16
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
3.0 Community and Growth To identify opportunities for improvements, recommendations, and strategies for the City of Kawartha Lakes transportation network, a comprehensive understanding of the current community context is essential. The existing conditions review of the City’s transportation network will serve as the basis for assessing opportunities and improvements in the future.
3.1 Community Profile The transportation network for a City must be planned in accordance to the local landscape and demographics in order to address the problems and recommend solutions tailored specifically to the local community. It is essential to understand the relationship between the changing demographics and land use in order to know the needs of the community and find out where residents and businesses will go in the future. 3.1.1
Population and Employment
According to the most recent 2021 census data, the City of Kawartha Lake’s has a total population of 79,247. According to Statistics Canada, 2021 Census of Population data, the land area of Kawartha Lakes is 3,033.66 square kilometres and the population density was reported to be 26.1 people per square kilometre. Growth within the City has been modest in recent decades. There has been a +5.1% growth in population from approximately 75,423 people in 2016 to 79,247 people in 2021. Based on the City’s updated Growth Management Strategy, population is forecasted to reach 130,000 by 2051 as shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Population and Employment Statistics Population
2016 75,423
2021 79,247
2051 130,000
Employment
25,640
30,270
40,600
Figure 4 shows growth projections for the City of Kawartha Lakes and indicates a modest increase in both population and employment. A notable portion of the population growth is expected to result from the conversion of second homes into permanent residences. By 2051, the age structure of Kawartha Lakes is also projected to exhibit a more mature profile compared to many other areas within the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). Currently, the largest age demographic within the City are residents aged 65 years or over which account for approximately 60% of the total population which is slightly higher than the City’s median age being 51.6 and the provincial median which is 41.6. Regardless of a growing senior population, a younger cohort of 14 years of age and under are expected to enter the | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 17
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update working-age bracket in the next 10 – 15 years as well. This presents an opportunity to guide the transportation choices for the next generation of working-age residents and make transportation related decisions accordingly. Monitoring trends in demographics enables the City to better understand change over time (and how that might affect the transportation system) and assess the effectiveness of the TMP update in meeting stated objectives.
Figure 4 - Population Age Structure
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 18
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
3.2 Land Use Significant land uses within City limits consists of rural, agricultural, environmental, natural resource and urban areas, as identified per the City of Kawartha Lakes’ Official Plan Schedule A-3 and A-5 shown in Map 2 and Map 3. Land use designations play an important role within the City, governing its growth and development. This TMP update will outline the impacts and needs of the City’s transportation system based on forecasted growth and development. Urban settlement areas are the primary locations for the anticipated growth within the City. As defined in the City’s official plan, the goal of urban settlement areas is to manage growth through efficient land use and development that supports strong, liveable and healthy communities, protects the environment and public health and safety and facilitates economic growth. Designated urban settlement areas of Lindsay, Fenelon Falls (including fringe area), Omemee, and Bobcaygeon are key areas for assessment within the TMP update. As outlined in the City’s Growth Management Strategy, the City of Kawartha Lakes is expected to experience significant growth. The population of the City is projected to reach 130,000 by 2051. This growth forecast is based on intensification within designated growth areas, planned future developments, and Minister’s Zoning Orders (“MZO”) across the City. These factors will contribute to population growth, particularly in the urban settlement areas of Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, Omemee, and Fenelon Falls, as shown in Map 4 though Map 7.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 19
Map 2 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-3 P a g e | 20
Map 3 - City of Kawartha Lake's Official Plan Land Use Designation – Schedule A-5 P a g e | 21
Map 4 - Lindsay Development Areas P a g e | 22
Map 5 - Fenelon Falls Development Areas P a g e | 23
Map 6 - Bobcaygeon Development Areas P a g e | 24
Map 7 - Omemee Development Areas P a g e | 25
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Designated urban settlement areas of Lindsay, Fenelon Falls (including fringe area), Omemee, and Bobcaygeon are key areas for assessment within the TMP Update.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 26
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
4.0 Stakeholder and Public Engagement 4.1 Overview of the City’s Engagement Process The engagement program ensured that residents, stakeholders, businesses, and institutions had ample opportunity to be heard and their opinions made known throughout the course of the study. The following stakeholders were informed and included as part of the study: 1. Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO); 2. City of Kawartha Lakes Departments; 3. Kawartha Region Conservation Authority; 4. Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP); 5. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF); 6. Lindsay Transit; 7. Utilities (i.e., Hydro One Ontario Power Generation); 8. Emergency services (Police, Fire, Paramedic); 9. Community and business group associations; and 10. Indigenous communities and Local residents. Comments from these stakeholders were vital in the development and completion of the TMP update that is relevant, understood and broadly supported by the public. As part of the Stakeholder Engagement process, two in person Public Information Centres (PIC) and two online survey’s were conducted during Phase 1 and 2 of the study. The first online survey was conducted from September 22nd, 2023 to October 31st, 2024 and the second survey was available to the public from October 7th, 2024 to October 29th, 2024. The survey was advertised through the City of Kawartha Lake’s JumpIn project website. All public engagement material and detailed survey results have been included in Appendix B.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 27
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
4.2 Public Information Centre 1 The first public workshop was held during phase 1 of this TMP update in November 2023 in Fenelon Falls and in the Lindsay area to collect initial concerns and feedback from community members. The meetings began with a 15-minute summary presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. The remaining time consisted of an open house drop-in style session for review of display boards by the participants. At the first PIC, the participants learned about the study’s approach and findings. Feedback was also gathered in real-time through comment forms to capture the community's needs effectively. 4.2.1
Online Survey 1
The goal of the online survey’s was to collect information on how people use the transportation and mobility network, their preferred modes of transportation, and to establish an overall vision for the future multi-modal transportation network within the City of Kawartha Lakes. During Phase One of the study for the first online survey, a total of 258 respondents completed the survey. Of the 258 respondents, the majority were primary residents of the City with varying ages ranging from 18 to 65 and older. Based on the responses received, the main issues identified and raised by the respondents were about the following: 1. Traffic Congestion (Downtown Fenelon Falls, Downtown Lindsay, Kent Street & Angeline Street) 2. Inadequate Public Transit Options 3. Poor Road Conditions 4. Local Operations/Roadway Capacity (Traffic Signals, Widenings, etc.) 5. By-pass bridge and In-Town crossing needs to be improved in Fenelon Falls. During Summer season traffic on bridge is high and potentially impacts emergency services. (CKL Rd 21 to 8).
Figure 5 illustrates how many of the respondents’ believed to be the most significant transportation related issue within the City.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 28
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 5 - Online Survey Result Example 1
4.3 Public Information Centre 2 The second public workshop took place in October 2024, to validate the findings from Phase 1. This event presented key themes and insights gathered from previous engagement activities, allowing attendees to confirm that their experiences and perspectives are accurately reflected throughout the study process. All feedback collected during this PIC was documented and utilized to guide and inform the development of this TMP update. 4.3.1
Online Survey 2
Online Survey 2 was launched in October 2024 and the goal of the second online survey was to gather further input from the community on the refined findings and proposals resulting from Phase 1. The survey served as a follow-up to ensure that the public's views are aligned with the direction of the project, particularly in relation to the proposed solutions and priorities identified in the earlier phases. This survey included a combination of multiple choice and a few open-ended questions to collect additional suggestions and insights. The survey was available online to complete through the project's JumpIn website.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 29
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update During Phase Two of the study for the second online survey, a total of 99 respondents completed the survey. Of the 99 respondents, the majority were primary residents of the City with majority of the respondents from the Fenelon Falls and Lindsay area ranging between 45 and 65 years old. Based on the responses received, the main issues identified and raised by the respondents were about the following, similar to what was identified during Phase 1 of this TMP update: 1. Traffic Congestion, 2. Inadequate Public Transit Options, and 3. Poor Road Conditions and Speeding Concerns
Figure 6 below illustrates how many of the respondents’ believed to be the top factor influencing their transportation mode choice within the City. 4. Traffic Congestion, 5. Inadequate Public Transit Options, and 6. Poor Road Conditions and Speeding Concerns
7. Traffic Congestion, 8. Inadequate Public Transit Options, and 9. Poor Road Conditions and Speeding Concerns
Figure 6 - Online Survey Result Example 2 10. Traffic Congestion, 11.
Inadequate Public Transit Options, and
12.
Poor Road Conditions and Speeding Concerns
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 30
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 31
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
5.0 Existing Transportation Network 5.1 The City’s Transportation System A City’s transportation network plays a fundamental role in shaping not only the physical, but its social and economic landscape. Therefore, it is essential to understand the existing context of the transportation facilities in order to identify the improvements needed to serve its population and help achieve a progressive, prosperous and safe community well-served by its transportation infrastructure. The subsequent sections provide a summary of the existing transportation network including the current road classification system, traffic volumes, traffic operations, transit and the active transportation network.
5.2 Road Classification and Design A roadway network performs most efficiently and effectively when the roads comprising that network are designed, built and operated to serve their intended purposes. In order to ensure roads serve their intended purpose classification systems are used to designate roads into different groups according to the function they serve. The City of Kawartha Lakes boasts a diverse and extensive road network and the classifications currently in use are described below: Provincial Highways: Fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) and serves high traffic volumes at high speed for long distance, inter-urban travel. These include Highway 7/7A, 115, and Highway 35. MTO currently has jurisdiction over access to Highways 7, 115, and 35. Arterial Roads: The former county road system, now known as CKL Roads, are primarily arterial roads. Arterial roads are major roads designed to carry high volumes of traffic over long distances. They serve as primary routes for the movement of vehicles between different areas, often connecting major centers such as cities or neighborhoods. Arterial roads typically have higher speed limits, multiple lanes, and limited points of access. Notable examples include Angeline Street, Kent Street, Queen Street, and Colborne Street in Kawartha Lakes. These vital roadways facilitate regional and long-distance travel, supporting economic growth and connectivity. Collector Roads: Collector roads form the backbone of Kawartha Lakes local transportation system, providing essential connections between arterial roads and local streets. They play a crucial role in distributing traffic within the City and ensuring accessibility to residential, commercial, and recreational areas. Collector roads may have | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 32
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update moderate traffic volumes and are designed to balance local access with the need to move traffic efficiently. Local Roads: These roads provide access to individual properties and neighborhoods, offering convenience and connectivity for daily activities. Local streets typically have lower speed limits, fewer lanes, and are intended for local traffic within neighborhoods or communities. The road classification system designates roads into different groups according to the type of service each group is intended to provide. For the purposes of design and asset management planning purposes, all roads are classified according to their roadside environment (Urban or Rural) and function within the system. The characteristics for design classification have been adapted from the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Manual. Table 2 and Table 3 are to be utilized for establishing the design classification. Not illustrated in these tables are the additional restrictions recommended by the TAC geometric design classification which must be considered when undertaking design for City Roads. Table 2 – Rural Road Design Classifications TAC Classification
Local (R1)
Collector (R2)
Arterial (R3)
AADT
<1,000
<5,000
<12,000
Posted Speed (km/h)
40 - 80
40 - 80
50 - 90
Connections
Collectors, Locals
Arterials, Collectors, Locals
Freeways. Arterials, Collectors
Table 3 – Urban Road Design Classifications TAC Classification
Local (U1)
Collector (U2)
Arterial (U3)
Residential: <1,500 Industrial/Commercial: < 3,000
Residential: 1,500 – 8,000 Industrial/Commercial: 3,000 – 12,000
5,000 – 12,000
Posted Speed (km/h)
40 or less
40-50
50-80
Connections
Locals, Collectors
Arterials, Collectors, and Locals
Collectors, Arterials Freeways
AADT
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 33
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Overall, the existing road network serves as the essential framework for the daily lives of residents and the growth of businesses. It embodies the character of the City’s communities, connects diverse landscapes, and fuels the economic vitality of the City’s region. Understanding Kawartha Lakes’ existing road network is fundamental in working towards improving the transportation network and making it efficient, safe, and sustainable. The City of Kawartha Lakes boasts a diverse and extensive road network and the classifications currently in use are in Map 8 through Map 12.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 34
Map 8 - City of Kawartha Lakes Road Classification P a g e | 35
Map 9 - Lindsay Existing Road Classification P a g e | 36
Map 10 - Fenelon Falls Existing Road Classification P a g e | 37
Map 11 - Bobcaygeon Existing Road Classification P a g e | 38
Map 12 - Omemee Existing Road Classification P a g e | 39
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
5.3 Truck Network Aside from the existing provincial road network of Kawartha Lakes, it is important to understand that the City does not have any designated trucking or haul routes, but rather imposes seasonal load restrictions and lists routes that are not affected by the restriction on its website. Restrictions are put into place in accordance with By-Law 2022-190, when road damage is most likely to occur due to heavy loading. The unrestricted roadways as of March 1, 2023 are specified in the load restriction By-law on the City’s website. In addition to the load restriction By-law, a number of local roads that experienced disruptive heavy truck traffic have had by-laws passed restricting them. Overall, these roadway segments will provide a starting point to determine appropriate commercial truck routes, and the feasibility of designating routes instead of the current strategy of imposing seasonal load restrictions. Equally important will be the need for a plan to minimize the disruption of truck movements to local, agricultural, tourist, and recreational areas.
5.4 Railway Network The rail corridor connecting Toronto and Peterborough is owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), known as the Havelock Subdivision. Stretching from the CPR Agincourt Yard in Toronto to Peterborough, Havelock, and Blue Mountain, this section of the line crosses the southern part of the City, at the Pontypool station. Covering an approximate distance of 120 kilometers, the line is only used for limited freight operations. VIA Rail passenger service has been absent on this route since around 1990, primarily due to the deteriorated track condition and restricted operating speeds. Ongoing studies are investigating the feasibility of upgrading the line to accommodate heightened freight and passenger traffic. Further exploration of these opportunities and their potential impacts on the City's transportation system and services is detailed in subsequent sections of this report.
5.5 Transit Network Kawartha Lakes is situated on the periphery of the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as such it is critical for the City to be aware of and plan for opportunities to expand its transit service. Lindsay Transit is the only available transit service within Kawartha Lakes. As shown in Figure 7, Lindsay’s transit network consists of four transit routes (Red, Blue, Orange, and Green Routes). The Orange route is one of Lindsay’s fourth newest route. The Orange Route brings Lindsay Transit to the Springdale Gardens area and offers a direct route from the Transit Hub to Lindsay Square Mall. Service on the new route began on February 23, 2023. | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 40
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Currently, no service is available on statutory holidays and all routes operate Monday to Saturday from 7am to 7pm, and Sunday from 9am to 4pm. Lindsay Transit also operates a Specialized Transit system called LIMO that provides accessible door to door transportation within Lindsay to residents that are unable to use Lindsay Transit. According to the Lindsay Transit Master Plan (2018), there was a 22.1 % growth in total transit ridership from 2012 to 2016 while the service area population grew by only 7.2%. For every 1% in population growth, the public transportation demand grew by 3%. Thus, both services have experienced an increase in ridership, operational efficiencies and community acceptance. Hence, in order to meet the needs of an aging population. The demand for accessible public transportation both within the Lindsay urban area and to adjacent and remote areas outside of Lindsay will continue to grow. As such, increasing transit options within Kawartha Lakes’ and providing more reliable access to transportation options will help facilitate an accessible and sustainable environment for the City of Kawartha Lakes. Inter-Municipal Transit According to the 2018 City of Kawartha Lakes Transit Master Plan, the inter-municipal transit services that operate within or through the City of Kawartha Lakes are operated by GO Transit as described below: GO Transit has two inter-regional bus routes operating through the municipality:
1
GO Route 81 operates along Highway 12 between Whitby GO Station and Beaverton four trips in each direction on weekdays and weekends. This route is located approximately 28 kilometers west of Lindsay and just outside of Kawartha Lakes boundaries.
Route 88 Operates along Highway 115 between Trent University in Peterborough and the 12 Oshawa GO Whitby Station GO withStation serviceand approximately GO Route 81 operates along Highway between Beaverton four every two hours in each direction onThis weekdays weekends. This route trips in each direction on weekdays and weekends. route isand located approximately 28 stops at the Highway 35 and Highway 115 Park and Ride facility about 35 kilometers west of Lindsay and just outside of Kawartha Lakes boundaries. kilometers south of Lindsay, approximately 1.5km outside of Kawartha Lakes boundaries.
2
GO Route 81 operates along Highway 12 between Whitby GO Station and Beaverton four trips in each direction on weekdays and weekends. This route is located approximately 28 kilometers west of Lindsay and just outside of Kawartha Lakes boundaries.
| Transportation Master Plan Update a g e | 41 GO Route 81 operates along Highway 12 between Whitby GO Station and BeavertonP four
Figure 7 - Existing Transit in Lindsay
P a g e | 42
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
5.6 Parking A 2021 Downtown Parking Strategy study was undertaken by the City of Kawartha Lakes for Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, and Fenelon Falls, via a need identified through the 2012 TMP. The objective of the Downtown Parking Strategy was to examine the current state and administration of parking, forecast future parking demand, determine future parking supply needs, and provide appropriate recommendations. The parking strategy aimed to ensure future parking demand in core areas is met, utilized public consultation, parking demand surveys, review of modal splits and potential modal shifts. The study also sought to:
Address stakeholder concerns;
Review parking service delivery models; and
Develop solutions for meeting future growth-related parking demands.
The parking strategy identified that while some users in core parking areas may perceive a shortage of parking at certain times. Public consultation responses showed that for Fenelon Falls and Bobcaygeon over 60% of respondents were neutral to satisfied on core area parking. In Lindsay only 45% of respondents were neutral to satisfied on core area parking with 65% indicating dissatisfaction as summarized in Figure 8.
Lindsay
Fenelon Falls
Bobcaygeon
(256 respondents)
(53 respondents)
(40 respondents)
Figure 8 - Core Area Parking Experience Satisfaction (PIC #1)
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 43
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Parking utilization surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019 (winter and spring) prior to the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, showed existing parking supplies were adequate. On a system-wide basis, existing parking supply was found to be sufficient, in some cases significantly more than sufficient, to accommodate existing parking demand. Rather than a shortage of parking shortage a number of parking challenges were discovered, which included:
Uneven distribution of parking activity;
Deficient wayfinding and awareness of the availability of parking; and
Restrictive notions of an acceptable walking distance.
Study forecasts show that by 2027-2028 horizon Lindsay is demonstrated to reach effective capacity (defined as between 85% and 90% of total capacity). Through to a 2041 study horizon, utilization in Lindsay is forecasted to reach total capacity and Bobcaygeon is forecasted to effective capacity. The Fenelon Falls parking system however, is forecasted to continue operating well below effective capacity through to 2041. Based on future parking demand only the Lindsay core area is anticipated to require a parking supply expansion. Recommendations were provided based on a short-medium-long term consideration and identified that the City should take advantage of low-cost expansions to parking supply wherever possible. A sample of implementable recommendations from the study included:
Pavement marking refurbishment and delineation to provide accessible parking spaces in lots where none have been provided. Revision of pavement markings to eliminate unnecessary “no parking” zones Introduction of 2-hour parking duration limit to prime parking assets Introduction of proactive enforcement Implementation of wayfinding systems Upgrade of parking lots to provide increased parking supply Upgrades on on-street parking areas to increase supply Introduce dynamic pricing to municipal parking lots within core areas Reduce duration for free off-street parking Consider applications for reduced parking requirements Changes to cash-in-lieu policies Increase overtime parking fines to match peer municipalities; Adopt handheld license plate recognition (LPR) software to improve on-street parking enforcement in Lindsay. Undertake another Downtown Parking Strategy in 2029.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 44
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
5.7 Active Transportation Network Active Transportation enhances quality of life by fostering social cohesion, promoting inclusion, and contributing to economic development. Focusing on investing in and promoting active transportation will provide the City with the opportunity to enhance its existing active transportation network. The City of Kawartha Lakes has currently updated their Active Transportation Master Plan (ATMP) 2024, which is a new plan and initiative for Kawartha Lakes that will consider how the City can improve active and accessible transportation experiences that accommodate safe trips for people of all and abilities, as well as longer distance cycling trips for touring purposes. This TMP Update will ensure to integrate and consider the recommendations being implemented in the ATMP plan in order to successfully develop a sustainable and connected multi-modal transportation network. The following sections is a review of the existing trails, sidewalk conditions, and cycling infrastructure. 5.7.1
Trails and Sidewalks
As noted in the 2012 TMP, trails in Kawartha Lakes contribute to the idea of a “Community of Communities,” fostering stronger community bonds. Integrating active transportation policies into the Transportation Master Plan will help align with both City and Provincial objectives and promote travel modes beyond private automobiles. This approach, known as the ‘Complete Streets’ approach, guarantees that transportation rights-of-way are carefully planned, designed, and operated to ensure safe access for all users, encompassing drivers, transit users, pedestrians, cyclists, as well as older people, children, and persons with disabilities. The existing trails network in the City of Kawartha Lakes is shown in Figure 9 and the City’s sidewalk network, which provides links to community areas, school zones, and the downtown core areas are illustrated in Map 13 to Map 16. There are more than 600 km of trails spread across Kawartha Lakes. The Ganaraska Trail, Kawartha Trans Canada Trail and Victoria Rail Trail Corridor have several access points in different areas of Kawartha Lakes. The Trails Master Plan Update was recently completed and approved on April 18, 2023.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 45
Figure 9 - Existing Trails (Retrieved from Active Transportation Master Plan)
P a g e | 46
Map 13 - Lindsay Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) P a g e | 47
Map 14 - Fenelon Falls Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) P a g e | 48
Map 15 – Bobcaygeon Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) P a g e | 49
Map 16 – Omemee Existing Sidewalk Network (2022) P a g e | 50
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 5.7.2
Cycling
Cycling is important to integrate into the transportation network for several reasons. Firstly, it promotes sustainable and environmentally friendly modes of transportation, contributing to reduced carbon emissions and mitigating the impact of climate change. Secondly, cycling enhances personal health and well-being by encouraging physical activity. Additionally, integrating cycling into the transportation network helps alleviate traffic congestion, especially in urban areas, and provides an efficient and cost-effective means of commuting. Moreover, it fosters a sense of community, as cycling infrastructure often connects neighborhoods and facilitates social interactions. Finally, cycling supports economic development, particularly in the realm of tourism and local businesses, as bike-friendly infrastructure attracts visitors and residents alike. The 2006 Trails Master Plan identified improvements to the cycling network that included:
A need for signed safe cycling routes in the urban areas;
A need for cycling routes to connect the gaps in the Victoria Rail Trail Corridor; and
A need to identify safe routes through urban areas, particularly in Lindsay.
The existing cycling network for Kawartha Lakes is shown in Figure 10.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 51
Figure 10 - Existing Cycling Routes P a g e | 52
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
5.8 Emerging Technologies The transportation sector is experiencing significant changes in technological advancement and municipalities need to better prepare in response to these emerging trends. This involves adapting and evolving current transportation and land use planning policies and practices to help their communities be prepared for the upcoming transformative shift in mobility services. Technology plays a critical role in how people move, and communities develop. This has never been truer than it is today. As digital technology rapidly evolves, it is having a substantial impact on transportation networks, particularly in urban areas. The challenge for municipalities is to proactively manage these new technologies so that they have a positive impact on transportation trends and the region more broadly. In general, much of the emerging technology such as those involving shared mobility (ride sharing) and micro-mobility (e-bikes/e-scooters) have yet to be adopted in rural environments such as in the City of Kawartha Lakes. Electric Vehicles (EVs), however, have become common place on all Canadian Roads. The Government of Canada has set a mandatory target for all new cars and passenger trucks to be zero emission by 2035, accelerating Canada’s previous goal of 100% sales by 2040. Planning for this will be critical for Kawartha Lakes, in order for it to continue to be a viable place for people to live and visit. More details are provided in Table 4 which highlights some key Government of Canada electric vehicle and sustainability related policies.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 53
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Table 4 – Existing Government of Canada Policies Policy
Objective
The Treasury Board of Secretary Greening Government Strategy (TB GGS, 2018)
The government will adopt low-carbon mobility solutions, deploy supporting infrastructure in its facilities, and modernize its fleet as follows:
Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS, 2019-2022)
Starting in the 2019 to 2020 fiscal year, 75% of new lightduty unmodified administrative fleet vehicle purchases will be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) or hybrid, with the objective that the government’s administrative fleet comprises at least 80% ZEVs by 2030.
Long Term Target: Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050, relative to 2005 levels.
GGS requires low carbon commuting be considered to achieve reduction in GHG emissions (Decrease GHG emissions from commuting = Adopt alternative modes of transportation etc).
Take public transit or explore active transportation to get around
Use low-carbon forms of transportation to reduce emissions from commuting such as biking, walking, carpooling or public transit
Modern and Resilient Infrastructure: By the end of the 2027– 2028 fiscal year, invest $26.9 billion in funding for green infrastructure initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve climate resilience and environment quality
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from federal government facilities and fleets by 40% by 2030 (with an aspiration to achieve this target by 2025) and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050 (with an aspiration to be carbon neutral)
Increase sales of zero emission vehicles in Canada to 10% of light-duty vehicle sales by 2025, 20% by 2030 and 100% by 2040
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 54
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Policy
Objective Under Canada’s Paris Agreement, the target for Canada is to reduce emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030
RPS Sustainable Development and Environmental Strategy (RPSDES, 2018)
Supply fast charging electric vehicle charging stations with the objective to support the conversion of fleet and private vehicles from gas to electric.
5.9 Existing EV Charging in Kawartha Lakes Currently, the City of Kawartha Lakes has 4 public charging station ports for the public to use offering either Level 2 or 3 chargers. Overall, the City has a limited number of electric charging stations, and moving forward, significant opportunity exists for collaboration with developers and stakeholders for expanding EV capacity throughout the City of Kawartha Lakes.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 55
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
5.10 Existing Traffic Conditions 5.10.1
Travel Demand Trends
Understanding the existing travel patterns is important for the effective planning of a City’s transportation network and infrastructure development. Mode Splits Information on travel patterns for the City of Kawartha Lakes was extracted from the 2016 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS). As shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12, automobile mode share has remained consistent as the primary mode for over 70% of trips since 2016. Alternative modes of transportation like cycling, walking, and transit have all seen limited increases in mode share over the past seven years.
Figure 11 - AM Peak Mode Split – All Purposes
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 56
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 12 - PM Peak Mode Split Based on the 2016 TTS data, a focus on home to work trips during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) was reviewed. This provided an overview of key trip ends for the internal distribution of trips happening between the settlement areas in Kawartha Lakes’ and outside the City’s region. Travel mode summaries shown in Table 5 and Table 6 below, indicate about 94% of Kawartha Lakes residents use a car as their main mode of transportation for commuting from home to work during AM peak hours. Likewise, approximately 95% of residents rely on driving a car for their home to work trips during peak evening hours. Table 5 - Primary Travel Mode in Kawartha Lakes’ from Home to Work during AM Hours Trip Purpose Home Based-Work Trips
Primary Travel Mode Auto Driver
Cycle
Transit
Walk
Other
13,876
147
42
135
487
94%
1%
<1%
1%
3%
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 57
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 6 - Primary Travel Mode in Kawartha Lakes from Home to Work during PM Hours Trip Purpose
Primary Travel Mode Auto Driver
Cycle
Walk
Other
6,167
65
72
160
95%
1%
1%
3%
Home Based-Work Trips
Home based-work trips account for 40% of morning trips made in Kawartha Lakes. Lindsay as the largest urban area in City accounts for more than 50% of these trips. Home basedwork morning trips from Lindsay are summarized in Table 7, showing that 56% of daily trips in the AM peak hours going from home to work remain within Lindsay. About 4% of the trips that leave Lindsay go to Fenlon Falls, 13% to Bobcaygeon, and 27% to Omemee. More than 60% of home based-work trips stay within the confines of Kawartha Lakes, showcasing a strong local commuting pattern. On the other hand, as shown in Table 8, of the trips leaving Kawartha Lakes, 88% go to neighboring municipalities like Durham and Peterborough. These individuals most likely reside in Kawartha Lakes but do not work within the City. Table 7 - Home-to-Work Daily Trips from Lindsay to Other Areas Home to Work Daily Trips from Lindsay to Other Areas within Kawartha Lakes (AM Peak) Location TTS Zones No. of Trips % of trips 8706 417 Lindsay to Fenlon Falls 4 8707, 8713 1309 Lindsay to Bobcaygeon 13 8714, 8715 2674 Lindsay to Omemee 27 8709, 8710, 8711, 8712 5561 Within Lindsay 56 Total 9961 100% Table 8 - Home-to-Work Daily Trips from Kawartha Lakes to Outside Region Home to Work Daily Trips from Kawartha Lakes to Outside GTA Zone Areas (AM Peak) Location No. of Trips % of trips Kawartha Lakes to Toronto 369 7 Kawartha Lakes to Durham 2794 52 Kawartha Lakes to Simcoe 116 2 Kawartha Lakes to Peterborough 1909 36 Kawartha Lakes to Dufferin 30 1 Kawartha Lakes to Orillia 159 3 Total 5377 100% | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 58
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update As shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14 below, 63% of AM peak trips and 29% of PM peak trips happening in Kawartha Lakes’ are both work and school related. Although a significant number of school-related trips during the AM hours are made by the school bus, many of these journeys rely more on automobiles as the primary mode of travel. This indicates a demand during these times for employment and educational purposes. On the other hand, during PM peak hours, 43% of trips in Kawartha Lakes are home-based discretionary trips. These trips involve non-essential or optional travel for purposes other than commuting to work, school, or essential activities. Overall, in comparison to the previous 2012 TMP, Home to Work trips being made within Kawartha Lakes in the Lindsay area have dropped from 62% to 56%, and Home to work trips that go to other areas outside the City have increased over the past few years by 5%. (Motorcycle, Auto Passenger, School Bus, Taxi Passenger)
Figure 13 - Trip Purpose by Mode, AM Peak (2016)
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 59
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
(Motorcycle, Auto Passenger, School Bus, Taxi Passenger)
Figure 14 - Trip Purpose by Mode, PM Peak (2016) 5.10.2
Network Volumes
An understanding of the existing traffic volumes in Kawartha Lakes is important to determining traffic demand characteristics within the City. This information is also essential for the forecasting of future traffic conditions and building a properly calibrated model to analyze traffic capacity and level of service on existing and future road networks. The City of Kawartha Lakes 2021 Road Needs Study was used for current estimates of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Current (2021) AADT volumes for all roads within Kawartha Lakes are illustrated in Map 17 through Map 21. AADT is a theoretical estimate of the total volume of vehicles using a specific segment of a roadway (in both directions) on any given day of the year. AADT is an essential factor in the analysis of the road network, including:
Establishing adequacy of the available roadway capacity in comparison to the roadways traffic demand and its Level of Service (LOS);
Establishing design and maintenance classifications for the roadway; and
Establishing the relative priority for maintenance, reconstruction, and rehabilitation.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 60
Map 17 – City of Kawartha Lakes Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes P a g e | 61
Map 18 – Lindsay Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes P a g e | 62
Map 19 – Fenelon Falls Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes P a g e | 63
Map 20 – Bobcaygeon Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes P a g e | 64
Map 21 – Omemee Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes P a g e | 65
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Seasonal Trends The population of the City of Kawartha Lakes fluctuates with the changing seasons. The period from June to August is regarded as the peak summer season when the number of transient and seasonal residents is at the highest. According to historical data on average for annual daily traffic (AADT) and summer average daily traffic (SADT) volumes provided by the MTO for the year 2015 to 2019, saw that traffic volumes are 28% higher during those peak months. The seasonal factor provided in the 2012 City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan report was 25%. Vehicle Classifications Using data from Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR) on selected corridors, counts of categorized vehicles were analyzed based on their axle configurations to identify areas with high truck volumes. The focus of this analysis was on corridors where trucks represented more than 10% of the total traffic. As shown in, Table 9, 17 roadways within the City of Kawartha Lakes were found to have commercial vehicle traffic exceeding 10%. These high truck volumes can be attributed to several factors, including the City’s seasonal road restrictions and the strategic locations of its roadways, which provide access to key economic activities and transportation routes. In general, certain roads within the City experience higher truck volumes due to their role in bypassing seasonal road restrictions and providing direct access to major highways, other cities, and key commercial hubs. These routes are essential for transporting goods to and from facilities like quarries and industrial zones within the City of Kawartha Lakes. Trucks use these roads to reach larger, unrestricted highways, allowing for more efficient travel. Additionally, these routes help trucks avoid seasonal restrictions or weight limits on lowerorder roads, especially during weather-related limitations. The design of these roads also facilitates better access to commercial and industrial facilities, supporting improved logistics and trade. More detailed results of all commercial vehicle traffic percentages are summarized in Appendix C.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 66
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 9 - Commercial Vehicle Percentages
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 67
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 5.10.3
Intersection Volumes
To understand the traffic demand characteristics, volume, type of vehicle (trucks, buses, recreational vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians), and traffic pattern using the roadway, a comprehensive count program was undertaken across the City. Automated traffic recorder (ATR) counts and turning movement count (TMC) data was collected and the locations for collected traffic data is illustrated in Map 22. Locations for ATR data collection throughout the City is provided in Appendix D. As part of the data collection exercise 48 key intersection locations across the four urban areas of Lindsay (29 locations), Bobcaygeon (10 locations), Fenelon Falls (5 Locations) and Omemee (4 locations) were selected for detailed review based on discussions with the City Staff. Due to seasonal trends that impact traffic patterns within the City data collection was focused within the summer periods or count data adjusted where necessary to reflect these conditions. The existing traffic volumes, in terms of peak hourly traffic movements at key intersections across the four urban settlement areas, are shown in Figure 15 through Figure 18.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 68
Map 22 – TMP Count Locations P a g e | 69
Figure 15 - Lindsay 2023 Traffic Volumes P a g e | 70
Figure 16 - Bobcaygeon 2023 Traffic Volumes P a g e | 71
Figure 17 - Fenelon Falls 2023 Traffic Volumes P a g e | 72
Figure 18 - Omemee 2023 Traffic Volumes P a g e | 73
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 5.10.4
Traffic Analysis Operation
Intersection operations were assessed using Synchro 11 traffic analysis software which utilizes methodologies established within The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 th Edition methodology published by the Transportation Research Board National Research Council (TRBNRC). Intersection operational performance metrics are reported in terms of Level of Service (LOS), delays, volume-to-capacity (V / C) ratios, and 95th percentile queues. LOS is based on the average control delay per vehicle for a given movement. Delay is an indicator of how long a vehicle must wait to complete a movement and is represented by a letter between ‘A’ and ‘F’, with ‘F’ being the longest delay. Delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line at the intersection, which is then averaged to determine the total intersection delay. A secondary performance measure is to determine the maximum volume-to-capacity (V / C) ratio, which compares the traffic demand to theoretical capacity. A V / C ratio greater than 1.00 is a strong indication of congested conditions, high delays, and long queues. Table 10 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections and Table 11 provides LOS descriptions. An illustration of LOS is also provided in Figure 19. Table 10 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
A
≤ 10 sec
≤ 10 Sec
B
10-20 sec
10-15 sec
C
20-35 sec
15-25 sec
D
35-55 sec
25-35 sec
E
55-80 sec
35-50 sec
F
> 80 sec
> 50 sec
\ | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 74
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 19 - Intersection Levels of Service (Courtesy of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Table 11 - HCM Level of Service Description LOS A B C D
DESCRIPTION Free-flow operations where vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Reasonably free flow conditions where the ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted. Traffic speeds at or near the free-flow speed with noticeable restricted freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream Declining speeds due to increasing flows with seriously limited freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream.
E
Operations at or near capacity are highly volatile because there are virtually no usable gaps within the traffic stream; unstable with no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruption.
F
Unstable flow with queues forming behind bottlenecks. Breakdowns occur for several reasons.
\ | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 75
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update The results of the capacity analyses reveal that most of the assessed intersections operate satisfactorily under existing (2023) traffic conditions. The analysis results for each of the urban settlement areas are described below and analysis details are provided in Appendix E.
Lindsay Signalized intersections were found to be generally operating satisfactorily under existing morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes. One key intersection was noted, the Kent Street and Angeline Street intersection, which operates at a LOS of D, with an average delay of 52.8 seconds, and a V/C ratio of 0.89 in the PM peak hour with capacity constraints on the eastbound left-turn and westbound through movement. A significant part of traffic entering or leaving Lindsay, connecting to the highway system, passes through the Kent Street and Angeline Street intersection. D.
Bobcaygeon The two signalized and other unsignalized intersections in Bobcaygeon were found to be operating satisfactorily with minimal delays. The traffic analysis results shows that unsignalized intersections are functioning well, while signalized intersections are operating satisfactorily. The only critical unsignalized intersection was CKL Road 49/East Street intersection at Main Street.
Fenelon Falls The study intersections in Fenelon Falls are operating with minimal delays and sufficient capacity. The two signalized intersections studied were found to be operating at volume-tocapacity ratios below 60 percent. All unsignalized intersections are found to be operating satisfactorily.
Omemee The unsignalized intersection at King Street N and Ski Hill Rd/Deane St N was found to be operating at LOS C. Other unsignalized intersections were operating satisfactorily. Figure 20 through Figure 23 summarizes the intersection levels of service and operations in the key urban settlement areas in Kawartha Lakes’.
\ | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 76
Figure 20 - Existing Lindsay LOS P a g e | 77
Figure 21 - Existing Bobcaygeon LOS P a g e | 78
Figure 22 - Existing Fenelon Falls LOS P a g e | 79
Figure 23 - Existing Omemee LOS P a g e | 80
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
5.11 Collision Review A high-level collision analysis was completed as part of this study in order to aide in highlighting any significant collision trends such as over represented collision types, areas of localized high collision densities, etc. The most recent collision data was provided for the years 2014-2022. The analysis covered the period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2022, including all corridors and intersections in the settlement areas within the City of Kawartha Lakes. Collisions for 2023 were excluded as the data was not available for a whole year. Collisions outside the City’s municipal limits were omitted from the data analysis. The objective of the safety review and detailed collision analysis is to identify possible contributing factors for higher overall collision frequency, subsequently identify appropriate mitigation measures, and guide the city in prioritizing potential safety enhancements. 5.11.1
Collision Analysis of Intersections
Methodology The intersections were classified into signalized, unsignalized, and three-legged and fourlegged intersections. A review of historical collision data was performed based on information provided by the city. Our review was to identify key hotspots and collision trends in terms of type and severity. A detailed desktop review of the hotspot area was performed at key hotspots to identify causal factors. Results In total, 60 signalized and 872 unsignalized intersections were considered for the study. Among them, there were 548 three legged and 384 four legged intersections. Collision by Severity Over the course of the study, while considering the severity of collisions, 75% of collisions were classified as Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Only 0.2% of collisions were fatal and 22% were non-fatal. In addition, there were 4% non-reportable collisions. Collision by Impact Type Analyzing initial impact type, single motor vehicle collisions (other than unattended vehicle collisions) come around 41%, and turning movement and rear-end collisions together makeup over 20% of the recorded collisions. Moreover, angle collisions, approaching, and sideswipe collisions make up around 15%. Turning movement collisions are often caused by inadequate vehicle clearance intervals at intersections or obstructing sight lines. Meanwhile,
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 81
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update angle accidents can result from drivers running red lights or stop signs, failing to yield at a yield sign, or changing lanes without properly checking for other vehicles. External Factors External factors associated with a collision can further be classified into temporal distribution (by year, season/month, and time of day) and driving conditions (road surface, light, and weather conditions). Table 12 below shows the collision severity over the years (20142022). Table 12 - Intersection Collision Severity (2014-2022) Year
Fatal Injury
Non-fatal injury
Property Damage only
Non-reportable
2014
0
69
273
0
2015
0
93
220
2
2016
1
84
188
7
2017
1
84
242
27
2018
0
84
274
14
2019
1
95
279
20
2019
1
95
279
20
2020
0
38
203
13
2021
1
42
230
22
2022
1
29
236
23
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 82
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Intersections were sorted according to the number of collisions and top ten intersections were identified as key hotspots. Intersections were also sorted according to the number of collisions and the top ten intersections were identified as key hotspots. Key hotspots are listed in Table 13 and shown in Figure 24. Table 13 - Top 10 Intersection Collision Hotspots in Kawartha Lakes Intersection Type
Total No. of Collisions
Signalized
4 legged
127
Kent Street & Angeline Street
Signalized
4 legged
112
3
Kent Street & Commerce Road
Unsignalized
3 legged
36
4
Angeline Street & Colborne Street
Signalized
4 legged
34
5
Highway 35 & Highway 7
Signalized
4 legged
34
6
Kent Street & William Street
Signalized
4 legged
30
7
Lindsay Street & Russell Street Victoria Avenue & Kent Street
Signalized
4 legged
27
Signalized
4 legged
26
9
Russell Street & William Street
Signalized
4 legged
24
10
Kent Street & Cambridge Street
Signalized
4 legged
23
No.
Intersection
1
Kent Street & St. Joseph Road
2
8
Traffic Control
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 83
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 24 - Intersection Collision Hot Spot Locations All hotspot intersections follow the same trend, with a higher percentage of collisions under Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Collision hotspots are mainly along Kent Street in Lindsay which is the main part of the urban core and would consist of some the highest volumes within the City. The three highest intersection collision locations are within close proximity to the Lindsay Square Mall indicating that the high level of traffic volumes within this commercial area, the number of lanes on Kent Street and driver behavior has an impact on collisions in the area. 5.11.2
Collison Analysis of Road Segment
Collison by Severity Collisions that occurred over road segments were analyzed identifying 78% of collisions were classified as Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Only 1% of collisions were fatal and 18% were non-fatal. In addition, there were 3% non-reportable collisions. A summary of collision severity is provided in Table 14.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 84
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 14 - Road Segment Collision Severity (2014-2022) Year
Fatal Injury
Non-fatal injury
Property Damage only
Non-reportable
2014
5
86
416
5
2015
1
240
678
3
2016
11
183
630
14
2017
8
179
686
20
2018
6
139
740
22
2019
6
148
823
42
2019
2
130
532
34
2020
7
129
595
36
2021
5
96
610
55
2022
5
86
416
5
Collision by Impact Type Data review indicated single motor vehicle collisions (other than unattended vehicle collisions) account for 42% of collisions, while turning movement and rear-end collisions together make up over 20% of the recorded collisions. Angle collisions, approaching, and sideswipe collisions account for approximately another 15%. A summary of External Factors Over the reviewed period the maximum number of collisions were recorded in 2019. The greatest number of collisions occurred in wintertime, occurring under clear and dry road conditions during daylight hours during the week. It was also identified collision frequency was lower in the dark and on the weekends. The major reason stated for most of the collisions was that "the driver lost control of the vehicle". Road conditions was not cited as a causal factor for many collisions and drivers, were not under the influence (Non-DUI) in most of the collisions. Inattentive driving however was the major reason for angle collisions. Road segments were also sorted according to the number of collisions, and the top ten were identified as key hotspots. Key hotspots are listed in Table 15 and shown in Figure 25.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 85
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 15 - Top 10 Segment Collision Hotspots in Kawartha Lakes No.
Intersection
Total No. of Collisions
1
Kent Street
908
2
Highway 35
579
3
Highway 7
471
4
Lindsay Street
329
5
Angeline Street
224
6
County Road 121
176
7
County Road 36
164
8
Glenarm Road
155
9
Pigeon Lake Road
147
10
Little Britain Road
143
Kent Street intersections and the Kent Street corridor has the highest number of collisions. Additional measures would be required by the City to mitigate the number of collisions along the Kent Street corridor. It is recommended that the City continue to monitor traffic and road safety conditions along the hotspots listed above by proactively conducting safety audits by qualified professionals. The audit should identify hazards and risks and recommend eliminating them. Collision Analysis summaries are provided in Appendix F.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 86
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 25 - Road Segment Collision Hot Spot Locations
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 87
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 88
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
6.0 Future Conditions 6.1 Planned Improvements A number of planned and ongoing infrastructure projects have been identified within the City of Kawartha Lakes which will improve network connectivity and the movement of goods and people across the City. Improvements and their locations are summarized below. Colborne Street Scugog River Crossing: Colborne Street has been identified as the preferred location for a new bridge crossing of the Scugog River within Lindsay. This new crossing will address the need for additional capacity across Scugog River and will connect Colborne Street West to Colborne Street. Assessment and design of the crossing is ongoing with implementation of the bridge anticipated to be in place by 2031. Colborne Street Intersections: As part of the Colborne Street Scugog River bridge crossing project, improvement and development of adjacent intersections are proposed. West of the future bridge crossing, signalization is planned for the Colborne Street and William Street intersection. To the east of the bridge crossing a new intersection is to be built for a future Colborne Street and Lindsay Street three-legged intersection. The future Colborne Street and Lindsay Street intersection is forecasted to operate under stop control with future signalization by 2051. Colborne Street and Angeline Street: Planned intersection improvements will result in dedicated left and right-turn lanes on all approaches of the intersection. Upgrades planned for this intersection are anticipated to implemented by 2031. Angeline Street and Kent Street: Corridor studies and approved MCEA have been used to identify the required improvements to the intersection. The City’s preferred alternative for the intersection twining of northbound and southbound lanes, a dedicated southbound left and right-turns, double eastbound left-turn, a westbound left-turn and a through and through right turn in the eastbound, westbound and northbound directions. Canal Street / Boyd Street and East Street (CKL Rd 36): The process of signalizing this intersection, upgrading it from a minor road stop control is currently ongoing. Full signalization of this intersection location is to be completed shortly. Cedartree Lane / Duke Street and East Street (CKL Rd 36): A second intersection along the East Street (CKL Rd 36) corridor that is in the process of being signalized. Signalization is anticipated to be completed imminently.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 89
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Somerville 3rd Concession Crossing: In Fenelon Falls an additional vehicle crossing via a new bypass connection at the Somerville 3rd Concession (Burnt River) has been endorsed by council. The need for further study of the crossing and surrounding network has been identified. Implementation of this crossing is anticipated to be in place by 2041. Ministry Ministry of Transportation (MTO): A a few key transportation infrastructure improvements have been identified by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). These types of projects through providing enhanced network capacity can significantly impact travel patterns and traffic volumes, altering the way people travel throughout the City of Kawartha Lakes. Currently, MTO owns and operates three provincial “King’s Highways” within the City of Kawartha Lakes; Highway 7, Highway 7A and Highway 35. As discussed in the Connecting the East: A draft transportation plan for eastern Ontario (2022) it identifies MTO plans to explore opportunities to add passing lanes on Highway 35 south of Lindsay to alleviate local congestion. Within the City of Kawartha Lake, Highways 7, 7A, 35 and 115 were also identified to be a part of the Strategic Goods Movement Network.
Additional On-going Improvements 1. Highway 35 Corridor Improvements: Ongoing improvements along the Highway 35 corridors, which are key routes for both local traffic and inter-regional transportation. These improvements aim to address congestion and safety concerns, while also supporting the growing population and economic activity in the City. 2. City-wide Road Rehabilitation Program (Various Locations throughout City): The City of Kawartha Lakes is committed to maintaining and upgrading its infrastructure. A city-wide road rehabilitation program is underway to improve the condition of local roads, particularly in rural and suburban areas. 3. Active Transportation & Trail Network Development: As part of an effort to promote sustainable transportation, the City is developing a more comprehensive network of cycling and walking trails, connecting key areas of the City for both residents and tourists. This includes trails around lakes, parks, and residential areas.
4. Highway 35 Corridor Improvements: Ongoing improvements along the Highway 35 corridors, which are key routes for both| local traffic andMaster inter-regional transportation. These improvements aim to P a g e | 90 Transportation Plan Update address congestion and safety concerns, while also supporting the growing
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
6.2 Growth and Development The rate of traffic growth across the City was identified in the City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy Update (GMS) completed in 2024. Growth management involves establishing a long-term vision for the City including its urban communities, rural lands, and protected areas. For the City of Kawartha Lakes, population growth is anticipated to be driven by migration from other parts of Ontario, rather than by immigration as opposed to Canada’s larger urban centers. From 2021 to 2051 the population of Kawartha Lakes is forecasted to grow to 130,000 with employment growing to 40,600 and housing to 48,900 as illustrated in Figure 26.
Figure 26 - Population, Housing and Employment Growth Summary The Growth Management Strategy indicates that to accommodate this projected population growth, the City will need approximately 21,640 new households by 2051, which equates to about 720 new households annually. For historical context, between 2001 and 2021, the City averaged approximately 300 new households per year. To meet the future housing demand across the City, a diverse range of new housing typologies will be required. These will need to address various factors such as built form, location, tenure, and affordability, ensuring that housing options are available for a broad spectrum of demographic and socio-economic groups throughout the City of Kawartha Lakes. Residential and commercial densities forecasted across the four key urban areas of the City up to 2051 are illustrated in Figures 27 through Figure 30.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 91
Figure 27 - Lindsay Future Development Density P a g e | 92
Figure 28 - Fenelon Falls Future Development Density P a g e | 93
Figure 29 - Bobcaygeon Future Development Density P a g e | 94
Figure 30 - Omemee Future Development Density P a g e | 95
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Future development densities were forecasted based on development information where known and high-level planning estimates. Estimates of future densities have been summarized in Table 16. Table 16 - Future Development Density Forecast
Note: Commercial density includes future institutional lands
Specific development density forecasts for Omemee where not available, however available density information for urban areas as shown in Table 16 estimate an addition of 26,866 residential units and 6,082,500 sq.ft. of commercial to be developed up to 2051.
6.3 Forecasting Future Needs 6.3.1
Future Traffic (AADT) Volume Projections
Existing 2021 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) volumes from the City of Kawartha Lakes 2021 Road Needs Study, existing conditions network volumes and development density information provided in Table 16, were used to forecast future traffic volumes up to 2051. The City’s Growth Management Strategy (GMS) identified a City wide traffic growth of 1.6% per annum will occur within Kawartha Lakes. This growth rate is consistent with the annual growth rate identified in the previous 2012 TMP. This growth rate was used to project volumes for all future horizons up to 2051. Given the concentration of future development in the growth areas discussed in Section 3.2, further growth beyond the GMS rate of 1.6% is anticipated on main corridors across the four urban areas. These key corridors are anticipated to experience traffic intensification between 2% to 5% based on development density in segments of the urban areas. It is important to note that other factors beyond development activity will influence future traffic volumes using the City’s road network. Growth in communities adjacent to the City
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 96
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update also contributes to more vehicles using Kawartha Lake roads. Furthermore, greater use of City roads by seasonal and recreational travellers also adds to traffic volumes. While growth rates were applied to traffic volumes based on the respective urban settlement areas, future development plans could result in relatively higher short-term growth. Traffic volume growth associated with development activity should be accounted for on a case by-case basis as supporting traffic impact studies are undertaken in support of development applications. Future Future AADT projections for Kawartha Lakes for 2051 have been illustrated in Map 23 through to Map 27. Projections for the 2031 and 2051 horizons have been provided in Appendix G.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 97
Map 23 - City of Kawartha Lakes 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes P a g e | 98
Map 24 - Lindsay 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes P a g e | 99
Map 25 - Fenelon Falls 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes P a g e | 100
Map 26 - Bobcaygeon 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes P a g e | 101
Map 27 - Omemee 2051 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes P a g e | 102
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
6.4 Future Traffic Operations Similar to the existing conditions traffic operations assessment, was performed for future horizon conditions at key intersections to identify any potential future capacity issues. Forecasts for future conditions considered the following in the development of traffic volumes for assessment:
Forecasted traffic volume for future horizons would align with summer weekday peak period as per existing conditions.
Traffic redistribution was applied to network volumes for Lindsay due to the planned Colborne bridge which would connect Colborne Street, east and west of the Scugog River.
Trips were forecasted for residential units based on densities obtained from the City (see Table 16) with assumptions made on unit types i.e. single detached, townhouse, mid-rise etc. when detail information was not available.
Commercial densities were applied based on City planning guidelines, with trips forecasted based on assumed commercial land use types and mixes, which align with existing development in growth areas where specific detail had not been provided.
Morning and evening peak hour trips were generated for residential and commercial land uses using trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
A 1.6% annual growth was applied to movements away from key corridor areas that were not subject to intensification.
Based on trips forecasted for residential and commercial uses corridor intensification was applied to main corridors listed in Table 17.
Table 17 - Future Development Density Forecast Area
Intensified Corridors
Lindsay Fenelon Falls
Colborne Street; Kent Street; Wellington / Queen Street; Angeline Street / Thunder Bridge Road; Verulam Road (CKL 36) County Road 8 (Helen St); Lindsay Street (CKL 121)
Bobcaygeon
County Road 8 / Duke Steet; County Road 36
Omemee
N/A
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 103
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Traffic volumes were forecasted for the four urban areas of Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon and Omemee for 2031, 2041 and 2051 for key intersections reviewed and assessed under existing conditions. Given the level of progressive development within the City, 2051 ultimately provides the highest cumulative future development densities of all horizons as shown in Table 16 and highest network volumes. Forecasted peak period volumes for urban areas for study horizons are provided in Appendix H. The ability of urban area networks to accommodate future travel demand was assessed for future horizons. From 2031 to 2051 there was a progressive increase in the number of intersections experienced operational deficiencies and exceeding capacity. To manage future demand a number of improvements were required to mitigate deficiencies and improve network operation. A summary of analysis for 2051 inclusive of measure to improve intersection operations for 2051 for the four urban areas of Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon and Omemee is illustrated in Figure 31 through Figure 34. Proposed improvements to address anticipated deficiencies are discussed in Section 6.5 of this report. Intersection analysis for all future horizons and LOS summaries with and without improvements are provided in Appendix I and Appendix J respectively.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 104
Figure 31 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Lindsay P a g e | 105
Figure 32 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Fenelon Falls P a g e | 106
Figure 33 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Bobcaygeon P a g e | 107
Figure 34 - 2051 Future Traffic Condition Level of Service – Critical Peak Hour Omemee P a g e | 108
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
6.5 Intersection and Corridor Improvements Network demand also necessitated the need for corridor improvements to be examined. Screenlines and link analysis was undertaken to assess demand and long-term adequacy of a transportation network. A screenline is an imaginary line that extend across a number of parallel roadways on a network and are used to summarize travel demands and capacity across these corridors. In this manner, roadway capacity and traffic demand are aggregated. This ‘holistic’ approach encourages decision-making that fully utilizes road network capacity; congestion along a particular corridor may not warrant modifications if underutilized capacity is available in a parallel corridor. The capacity of each screenline is defined as the sum of the capacities of all viable alternative roadways, using a “vehicle per hour per lane” (v/h/l) unit, whereby vehicles are defined as a passenger car. The ‘v/h/l’ capacities were assigned according to individual roads based on their existing functional design classification. These roadway capacities are summarized in Table 18. Table 18 - Roadway Capacity Road Type
6.5.1
Lane Capacity (v/h/l)
Arterial
750
Collector
500
Local
400
Lindsay
Moderate improvements are required by 2031 to address network demands. Improvements previously identified for the Angeline Street and Kent Street intersection are anticipated to be implemented and signalization of two new intersections have been proposed to address capacity constraint and turning movement delay. By 2051 the significant increase in development across Lindsay would require significant upgrades across the network including provision dedicated turning lanes, signalization and increased capacity. Based on future conditions analysis for Lindsay the following intersection improvements listed in Table 19 have been identified for short term (2031), medium term (2041) and long term (2051). A screenline with a path drawn along the Scugog River was established to assess capacity of travel lanes crossing the river. Assessment was based on crossings via the new Colborne Bridge, Wellington Street, Lindsay Street North and Lindsay Street South.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 109
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Capacity constraints begin to appear at Lindsay Street South by 2041, however sufficient capacity is available within the network a v/c of 0.76. By 2051 however, demand indicates a new crossing or additional capacity at an existing crossing would be required as the river crossing screenline v/c is expected to increase to 1.01. Link analysis also identifies that main corridors within Lindsay would be approaching capacity by 2041. By 2051 main corridors will operate with capacity deficiencies and would require additional capacity to be provided. Results of screenline and link analysis for Lindsay are summarized in Appendix K. A summary of network improvements for Lindsay is provided in Figure 35. Table 19 - Lindsay Intersection Improvements Summary Table Short Term Improvements New Recommendations Angeline St
Improvement Areas
Kent St
Angeline Street at Kent Street
Future Existing
Optimization of signal times including cycle length. Construction of dual eastbound left-turn lanes, southbound right-turn lane, and twinning of Angeline Street corridor northbound and southbound. Colborne Street and William Street
Intersection signalization as part of Colborne Street bridge
Colborne Street and Lindsay Street
New signalized intersection to be developed as part of overall Colborne Street bridge project.
Scugog River Crossing
No additional improvements proposed.
Verulam Road and Colborne Street
Signalization recommended.
Kent Street and St. Joseph Road
Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining existing cycle length.
Verulam Road (CKL36) and Weldon Road / Riverview Road
Signalization recommended.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 110
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Medium Term Improvements Improvement Areas Highway 35 & Thunder Bridge Road
New Recommendations Signal timing improvements recommended for intersection. (Not under City purview intersection under MTO jurisdiction)
Angeline Street and Connolly Road / Signalization recommended. Timing driven by demands of future Orchard Park Road area development. Colborne Street and Albert Street
Introduction of an eastbound and westbound protected/permitted left-turn phase and optimization of signal times.
Colborne Street and David Street
Signalization recommended.
Wellington Street at William Street
Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining existing cycle length.
Queen Street and St. David Street
Signalization recommended.
Angeline Street and Mary Street
Construction of a westbound left-turn lane.
Wellington Street and Queen Street Increase cycle length and optimization of signal times. Lindsay Street
Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity. Twining from Hway 7 / 35 to north of Mary required. Corridor assessment required to confirm extent of improvement
Angeline Street North / Thunder Bridge Road
Corridor review study to assess future road needs.
Angeline Street South
Corridor review study to assess future road needs.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 111
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Long Term Improvements Improvement Areas
New Recommendations
Colborne Street from Highway 35 to No additional changes. Colborne study underway. Albert Street Signal optimization and addition left-turn lane from Hwy 7 and Hwy Highway 7 and Dew Drop Inn Road 7B recommended for intersection. (Not under City purview intersection under MTO jurisdiction). Little Britain Road & Elm Tree Road
Construction of a southbound right-turn lane.
Colborne Street and David Street
Construction of a westbound, eastbound, southbound left-turn lanes and southbound right-turn lane.
Construction of an eastbound and westbound left-turn lane and Adelaide Street and Colborne Street optimization of signal times. Albert Street and Fair Avenue
Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate.
Wellington Street / Queen Street and Construction of a southbound left-turn lane and optimize signal times. Lindsay Street Construction of an eastbound and westbound left-turn lane, Queen Street and Verulam Road eastbound right-turn lane. Parkside Drive and Verulam Road
Construction of an eastbound left-turn and right-turn lanes.
Lindsay Street and Logie Street
Construction of a southbound left-turn lane.
Colborne Street Verulam Road (CKL 36)
Queen Street / Wellington Street
Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity from Hwy 35 to Verulam Road (CKL 36). Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity. Twining recommended from Needham Street to Parkside Drive. Corridor improvements requried to provide additional capacity. Twining recommened from Victoria Street to to Verulam Road (CKL 36). Review of road classification recommended along corridor.
Kent Street
Corridor review study to assess future road needs.
Fieldside Road
Corridor review study to assess future road needs.
Pigeon Lake Road / Weldon Road
Corridor review study to assess future road needs.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 112
Figure 35 - Lindsay Improvements P a g e | 113
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
6.5.2
Fenelon Falls
Fenelon Falls has a single crossing of the Fenelon River via Lindsay Street / CKL 121 and Helen Street (CKL 8) which continues in 2031. With the single crossing intersections along Lindsay Street / CKL 121 corridor would operate with satisfactory levels of service for this horizon. The 3rd concession Somerville bypass is anticipated to be in place by 2041 allowing for diversion of some traffic that would have typically used the existing Fenelon River crossing. Increases in traffic demand by 2041 in Fenelon Falls will require signalization of the Bond Street and Colborne Street intersection and signal timing improvements through the study corridor. Traffic demand through the Lindsay Street / CKL 121 corridor indicates a v/c ratio of 1.05 across the bridge in 2031, identifying the need for increased crossing capacity in Fenelon Falls. By 2041 assumed implementation of the Somerville 3rd Concession bypass provides some relief along the study corridor and the network will benefit from diversion of traffic to the bypass crossing. The v/c ratio at bridge is anticipated to show marginal improvement to 0.99 for the assessed 2041 horizon. By 2051 however the existing bridge will operate with a v/c ratio of 1.19, warranting a new crossing to be provided. Intersection improvements have been summarized in Table 20 for short term (2031), medium term (2041) and long term (2051). In addition to vehicular crossing of Fenelon River, an in-town pedestrian crossing has also been reviewed by the City as part of the Lower Gorge Renewal project. The crossing would not accommodate any type of vehicular traffic but will connect Clifton Street on both sides of the river via a pedestrian bridge. Timing of implementation is to be confirmed, however geotechnical and site planning studies have been completed for the potential pedestrian crossing and deemed the crossing feasible. The potential crossing location is illustrated in Figure 36. Network improvements for Fenelon Falls has been illustrated in Figure 37.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 114
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 20 - Fenelon Falls Intersection Improvements Summary Table Short Term Improvements Improvement Areas Fenelon River Crossing
New Recommendations By-pass: Option has been brought forward. EA for crossing has been endorsed by council with study assessment to commence in 2025. Medium Term Improvements
Improvement Areas
New Recommendations
Lindsay Street and Helen Street
Introduction of an eastbound protected/permitted left-turn phase and optimization of signal times.
Colborne Street and Francis Street
Increase cycle length and optimization of signal times.
Colborne Street and Bond Street
Signalization recommended.
County Road 121 and Northline Road Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be / County Road 8 conducted annually or as deemed appropriate. Fenelon River Crossing
In-Town Crossing: Crossing recommended for implementation for medium to long term period. Long Term Improvements
Improvement Areas
New Recommendations
Fenelon River Crossing
In-Town Crossing: Crossing recommended for implementation for medium to long term period.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 115
Figure 36 - Clifton Street Pedestrian Bridge P a g e | 116
Intersection Improvements Completed
Areas of Interest
Ongoing
MTO Improvements
Update
Figure 37 - Fenelon Falls Improvements P a g e | 117
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
6.5.3
Bobcaygeon
Bobcaygeon is served by two crossings of the Trent/Severn Waterway linking the island to the north side of canal; one on East Street and one via a swing bridge on Bolton/Main Street. The majority of growth experienced in Bobcaygeon is planned to south along East Street (County Road 36) and to the west along North Street (County Road 8). Limited intersection improvement is required for future conditions. Signalization of West Street and North Street, driven by future development and signal timing improvements for East Street and King Street. Due to the general increase in future traffic demand and intersection geometry i.e. skewed alignment of the intersection further study is recommended for the intersection of Main Street and East Street (County Road 36) / County Road 49. Intersection improvements for Bobcaygeon is summarized in Table 21. The screenline analysis of travel demands compared to the available capacity is contained in Appendix O. Analysis indicates that overall, there is sufficient link capacity to accommodate future demand in 2031, capacity deficiencies begin to occur in 2041 along East Street. Although high demand along East Street will lead to deficiencies on this link in 2041 and 2051 it is estimated that the Canal Road crossing will operate with some reserve capacity. Crossings however will operate V/C ratio of 1.01 by 2051 and will be above capacity. Network improvements for Bobcaygeon is provide in Figure 38.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 118
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 21 - Bobcaygeon Intersection Improvements Summary Table Short Term Improvements Improvement Areas
New Recommendations
East Street at Cedartree Lane / Duke Intersection Upgrade (Ongoing) - Implementation of Signalization Street proposed by 2025 East Street and Boyd Street
Intersection Upgrade (Ongoing) - Implementation of Signalization proposed by 2025 Medium Term Improvements
Improvement Areas
New Recommendations
West Street and North Street
Signalization of intersection and construction of an eastbound and westbound left-turn lane recommended. Upgrades driven by demands of future area development.
Bolton Street and Canal Street
Review signal times for optimization based on traffic patterns and bridge crossing.
East Street (CKL Rd 36)
Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity. Twining recommended along corridor from King Street to Duke Street
North Street (CKL 8)
Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity. Twining recommended along corridor from Joseph Street to at least 500m west of West Street Long Term Improvements
Improvement Areas
New Recommendations
East Street and King Street
Increase of cycle length and optimization of signal times.
Main Street and Duke Street
Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate.
Main Street and East Street
All-way stop operating at an acceptable LOS for long term conditions. Recommend detail intersection study to identify geometric intersection improvements.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 119
Intersection Improvements Completed
Areas of Interest
Ongoing
MTO Improvements
Update
Figure 38 - Bobcaygeon Improvements P a g e | 120
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
6.5.4
Omemee
Based on future conditions analysis for Omemee identified improvements are limited to the intersection of King Street and Sturgeon Road. Addition of a northbound left-turn lane and signal timing improvement are both required by 2041. Forecasts indicate high levels of through traffic along Highway 7 limiting capacity on this corridor that City may want to address. Intersection improvements have been summarised in Table 22 and network improvements provide in Figure 39. Table 22 - Omemee Intersection Improvements Summary Table Short Term Improvements Improvement Areas King Street and Sturgeon Road
New Recommendations Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining existing cycle length. Medium Term Improvements
Improvement Areas
New Recommendations
King Street and Ski Hill Road
Monitor intersection for signalization driven by continued build-out of tourist traffic generator. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate. Long Term Improvements
Improvement Areas King Street and Sturgeon Road
New Recommendations Addition of northbound left-turn lane recommended
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 121
Figure 39 - Corridor improvements P a g e | 122
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 123
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
7.0 A Vision for the City of Kawartha Lakes 7.1 Opportunities and Challenges Key opportunities and challenges were identified as part of the analysis and are summarised below: Challenges Growth and Urbanization: As the City of Kawartha Lakes continues to grow there is a need to create complete communities for the residents to ensure their basic needs are met. With that, there is also a need to ensure sufficient transportation infrastructure is available to accommodate the growing population while having a strong emphasis on minimizing environmental impacts and contributing to sustainable growth.
High Auto-Dependency: Although Kawartha Lakes has planned for and accommodates all modes of transportation within its existing network, it is still a highly auto-dependent City. Automobiles represent over 70% of the modal split as discussed in Section 5.10.1. The existing auto dominance travel and behavioral patterns exist as they perceived as the most convenient, accessible, and attractive choice. Therefore, it is essential to build a city with viable age-friendly transportation options with a renewed focus on sustainability.
Aging Population: The City has an aging population as it is an attractive location for older adults, therefore, meaningfully responding to the needs of the community is a vital aspect of developing a TMP update. Adopting an age-friendly planning framework is an important consideration regarding developing a safe, dependable, and accessible transportation network.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 124
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Opportunities Transit Integration with the GTA: The City can provide the opportunity for enhancing connections with the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) resulting in improved access, increased ridership and mode share for public transit, and support future needs in a sustainable, effective, and efficient way. Strategic Location: Kawartha Lakes is at the cross-roads of Highway 35 and 7 which are important economic links and trade corridors. They provide connections from Kawartha Lakes to the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) ensuring that goods and people keep moving across the region. This provides the opportunity to enhance community connections, and improve people’s access to jobs, housing, healthcare, and education. Strategic Location: Kawartha Lakes is at the cross-roads of Highway 35 and 7 which Dynamic Diversified Economy: The City is making significant are important economic links and trade corridors. They provide connections from investments that will be beneficial to residents and commercial interests. Kawartha Lakes to the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) ensuring that goods There are new industrial and business parks planned for the City and the and people keep moving across the region. This provides the opportunity to enhance City plans to achieve the target of building over 21,600 new residential community connections, and improve people’s access to jobs, housing, healthcare, and units by 2051. Therefore, Kawartha Lakes approach to growth coupled with education. a commitment to preserving its unique identity, positions the City as an inviting destination for businesses and residents alike.
7.2 Strategic Priorities The feedback received from Kawartha Lakes residents, the stakeholders, and technical agencies was reviewed, and the current transportation network, demand, policies, and programs were assessed to guide the future direction for the City’s transportation network. A few key themes were emphasized that were later translated into the vision statement in the subsequent section. The strategic priorities to support the evaluation and recommendation of projects are given below.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 125
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Mobility Options
Improve the travel options available for the movement of people and goods by providing an increased number of reliable, equitable, and accessible options that meaningfully respond to the mobility needs of the community and ensure an efficient use of the transportation system.
Community Building
Develop a transportation network to support the growth of healthy and vibrant communities in the region.
Safe, Livable Communities
Enhance the safety of the transportation system for all users. Ensure that investments in the transportation network serve all modes and enhance equity and accessibility by expanding access to jobs, services, and amenities regardless of age, ability, and travel choice.
Climate Mitigation
Provide protection against the negative impacts to the natural environment and reduce vehicle emissions to achieve the Province of Ontario’s Climate Change goals.
Economic & Financial Prosperity
Leverage transportation investment to catalyze economic growth and promote tourism through enhancing access to jobs, services, and amenities to support a more resilient regional economy. Invest strategically in new capital projects that will provide long-term benefit to the City, while ensuring that existing assets are maintained and supported.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 126
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
7.3 TMP Vision Statement The vision statement is a declaration of the project’s aspirations and articulates the future state of the City of Kawartha Lakes as it relates to its transportation network. It shapes decision-making and provides a road map for where the City wants to be at the end of the TMP update planning horizon. The vision statement also reflects the City’s priorities for transportation planning, which were established through extensive consultation and engagement process undertaken in developing the 2025 TMP update. The vision for the City of Kawartha Lake’s TMP update is stated below and was informed by existing City legislation with feedback from public and stakeholders.
Vision Statement To foster thriving and growing communities by creating an inclusive, sustainable, and barrier-free multi-modal transportation network. The TMP update aims to enhance mobility and accessibility for all residents and visitors while preserving the natural environment. This approach will establish an integrated transportation system that meets the needs of a growing population and promotes a connected multi-modal network through the year 2051.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 127
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
7.4 Alternative Solutions Phase 2 of the MCEA process includes identifying an opportunity or alternative solutions to the problem for the study area. These are the different approaches that the City can take to design the future transportation network to solve the issues identified. Four alternative strategies have been identified for this TMP update and are provided below:
Alternative 1: Do Nothing Maintain the current City’s transportation network and policy/programming. This alternative would not include further development of roads under the jurisdiction of the City but all City improvements would proceed as planned.
Alternative 2: Status Quo The City would continue infrastructure development and expansion at its current pace with new or refined policies/programming. New infrastructure development would continue to be based on recommendations within previous TMP and have incremental enhancements in response to local development.
Alternative 3: Road Network Strategy The City would focus investment on local traffic operation improvements, ensuring to close gaps in the road network, and improve safety through traffic calming measures, and identifying haul routes. Roads would prioritize active transportation facilities such as sidewalks and multi-use pathways. No additional policies/programming would be provided for sustainable travel modes.
Alternative 4: Multi-Modal Network Strategy (PREFERED ALTERNATIVE) Focus is placed on strategic road network capacity improvements, promoting and enhancing the active transportation network, transit opportunities, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. Takes a multi-modal approach, which includes a balance of traditional road network improvements and sustainable modes through policy and investment. | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 128
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
7.5 Selection of Preferred Solution The alternative solutions were evaluated against the strategic priorities and transportation vision to select the preferred alternative. Each strategy was ranked based on a relative score, Low, Medium, High, related to how well each alternative supports the TMP update priority. Evaluation of the four identified alternatives based on the strategic priorities is highlighted in Table 23.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 129
Table 23 - Alternative Solutions TMP Update Priority Provide Mobility Choice & Efficient Use of Existing Transportation System
Support Safe and Healthy Communities
Alternative 1: Do Nothing
Low – Does not address mobility issues, nor optimizes the existing infrastructure to manage future growth.
Low – Does not address existing safety concerns.
Alternative 2: Status Quo
Alternative 3: Road Network Strategy
Alternative 4: Multi-Modal Network Strategy
Medium – Gradually enhances mobility through incremental improvements to the active transportation system.
Low – Adds roadway capacity to the network rather than making use of the existing capacity, limited improvements to the active transportation system or non-auto mobility options.
High – New policies and programming will help shift travel demand to more sustainable modes, to make better use of existing infrastructure.
Medium – Expanding/Improving the road network may reduce collision occurrences related to congestion and the speeding problem.
High – A balanced approach has the highest potential to improve safety outcomes by addressing both the active transportation and road network ‘hot-spots’ and refining or adding to polices that enhance safety. This also encourages residents to use active modes of travel ensuring a healthier community.
Medium – the City addresses some safety concerns through its current approach (e.g. new pedestrian crossovers).
Low – Expanding/improving the road network in isolation does not support inclusivity or improve opportunities to those without access to a vehicle and may potentially increase barriers to vulnerable users. Low – Focuses expansion of the road network will have the highest potential negative impacts to the natural environment from construction.
High – A balanced approach that focuses on optimizing the existing system, and directing resources to support more sustainable, affordable, and accessible modes is likely to have the highest benefit to vulnerable users.
Create an Inclusive and Accessible Transportation System
Low – Does not address existing barriers and challenges for more vulnerable road users.
Medium – Current “as needed” approach will have limited potential benefit for inclusivity and accessibility.
Minimize Negative Environmental Impacts
High – Maintaining existing network will reduce construction impacts to the natural environment.
Medium – Planned improvements will have some negative impacts to the natural environment.
Support Climate Change Mitigation
Low – Does not help mitigate climate change impacts associated with auto-use and congestion
Medium – Maintains status-quo, which has limited focus on sustainable travel modes and lower potential to mitigate climate change.
Low – Encourages auto-use through focused road network expansion, creating the highest potential negative impact on mitigating climate change.
High – A balanced approach will have the greatest potential to mitigate climate change impacts by investing in sustainable travel modes to reduce congestion by reducing auto-use.
Support Financial Stability
High – Only requires maintaining existing infrastructure.
High – Future capital costs have already been planned.
Low – A road network expansion focus has higher potential capital and maintenance costs.
Medium – A balanced approach between road and active travel network has moderate potential capital and maintenance costs.
Support Economic Development
Low – does not address existing congestion and network connectivity issues that would restrict economic growth potential in the City.
Medium – Addresses some of the existing network issues, but unlikely to accommodate anticipated growth in the City.
High – Addresses several existing network issues through road network expansion and localized improvements.
Medium – Addresses network issues through strategic network expansion/improvements and reducing auto-dependency.
Medium – A balanced network expansion approach will have some negative impacts to the natural environment.
P a g e | 130
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 131
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
8.0 TMP Supportive Policies A range of City policies to support the management and operation of the transportation system, particularly the City’s road network have been prepared as part of this TMP update. It included a review of existing guidance and emerging issues to ensure the transportation policy framework reflects industry best practice and remains relevant for the objective decision-making now and into the future. City of Kawartha Lakes policy documents discussed in this section are provided in Appendix L. Roadway Safety and Operations Roadway safety was a big priority for the City and the policy developed included improving the safety for all users such as pedestrian, cyclists, motorists, and vehicle passengers. This section summarizes the safety and operational considerations for the City’s road network.
8.1 Speed Limit Policy Reduced speed limit signs should be considered where streets warrant lower limits based on surrounding land use and local context. The Speed Limit Policy aims to enhance roadway safety by establishing appropriate speed limits that reflect these factors. Reduced speed limits are particularly essential in areas with high pedestrian activity, vulnerable road users, or unique environmental features. Key strategies include assessing roadway conditions, gathering community input, and aligning speed limits with traffic calming measures to promote safer streets. The benefits of this policy include improved safety for all users, reduced collision rates, and increased encouragement of active transportation. It is recommended that the City adopt a systematic approach to speed limit evaluations, ensuring alignment with best practices and community needs to create a safer and more vibrant environment for everyone. Road safety may be enhanced through credible posted speed limits that match the expectation of drivers for a given roadway and its surrounding area. Speed limits set lower than the design speed can make a significant number of reasonable drivers “illegal” for each 10 km/h increment of speed decreased, place unnecessary burden on law enforcement personnel, lead to lack of credibility of speed limits and lead to increase tolerance by law enforcement. Therefore, speed limits should be carefully set to reflect the classification, function, and physical characteristics. The selection of posted speed limits must also take into consideration legislative regulation, public recognition and understanding, ease of implementation, and adherence to recognized engineering standards and practices.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 132
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update The Highway Traffic Act (HTA) establishes the regulatory framework for setting speed limits in Ontario. HTA Subsection 128.(1) states that no person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than the following:
50 km/h on a roadway within a local municipality or a built-up area.
80 km/h on roads not within a built-up area and within local municipality
These legislative provisions are more commonly known as statutory speed limits and apply to all roads without a Maximum Speed sign posted. HTA Subsection 128. (2) however, permits municipal councils to prescribe rates of speed that differ from these statutory limits on roads under their jurisdiction so long as they are posted less than 100 km/h. The City currently does not have a official speed limit policy, but uses the TAC guidelines. The TAC Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits (2009) were developed to provide guidance and to enhance consistency in the evaluation of posted speed limits. As part of the guidelines an automated spreadsheet was developed to facilitate application of the procedures involved in determining the recommended posted speed limit. It is also important to note that before this TMP update process began the spreadsheet was already in use by the City. It should be noted that there are circumstances when there is a desire to have a speed limit posted lower than the design speed of a road. In these circumstances a road may have been designed to accommodate higher speeds, however, development and land use changes overtime warrant consideration for a speed lower than the road was initial designed for. This is often observed in rural roads in areas that should see some degree of urbanization and development. In these circumstances consideration must be given to reducing the roadway design speed to that of the posted speed limit. This can be achieved through traffic calming.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 133
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Recommendations: 1. Apply the methodology set out in the TAC Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits in setting speed limits on municipal roads and refer to the City’s Traffic calming policy in instances whereby the recommended posted speed is lower than the design speed (in response to public petition or Council direction). 2. In addition to the Road Needs study the City conducts, it is recommended for the City to also conduct a comprehensive review of its posted speed limits every 5-years for all roads in the City to ensure that posted speed limits remain appropriate and effective in promoting safety for all road users.
8.2 Automated Speed Enforcement Policy In 2017, the provincial government amended the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) as part of the Safer School Zones Act, 2017 to allow municipalities to use Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) technology to address vehicle speed concerns and collisions involving speeding. ASE is an automated system that uses a camera and a speed measurement device to enforce speed limits in identified areas. The strategy is designed to work in tandem with other road safety measures such as engineering activities, education initiatives, and traditional police enforcement, to help improve safety for people of all ages and abilities by:
Increasing speed compliance
Altering driver behavior
Increasing public awareness about the consequences of inappropriate vehicle operating speeds and the critical need for drivers to slow down.
If a vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit in an ASE area, the system captures an image and records the speed of the vehicle and date and time of the offence. In Ontario, the recorded information is reviewed by officer appointed pursuant. ASE can be effective program if implemented correctly at appropriate locations. Early results of modern deployment show positive safety statistics in the form of reduced vehicle operating speeds and collision activity. Site selection has been a key area of consideration for many municipalities, with selection primarily being based on vehicle operating speeds,
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 134
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update collision activity, pre-existing Community Safety Zone and school zone presence, and community input. ASE program size needs to match the needs of the municipality, but also reasonably align with realistic constraints, such as potential capital and labor costs. Recommendations: 1. Engage vendors to present logistical and financial considerations to implementing an administrative monetary penalty system which includes an automated speed enforcement component. 2. Review safety statistics for potential sites to form a priority ranking. 3. Liaise with other agencies/municipalities for opportunities to share resources such as the use of pre-established joint processing centers.
8.3 Special Speed Zone Traffic conditions near school zones and playgrounds represent particular concern to communities. The safety of vulnerable road users as they arrive and depart from these community nodes is a sensitive issue that demands particular attention. One way to enhance safety near schools, is to alert drivers they are entering a section of roadway with a school or playground. This is accomplished through signing and pavement marking to define the area. Under the HTA, the City has authority to designate (through the installation of regulatory signs) the following types of zones for heightened safety and enforcement emphasis on roads abutting schools and community facilities: 8.3.1
School Zones and Areas
Advise drivers to reduce speed at certain times because they are entering an area where school children are present and may be crossing the road in increased frequency. The TAC School and Playground Areas and Zones: Guidelines for Application and Implementation (2006) provides a procedure for establishing and defining school zone areas. The procedure includes warrants based on a number of criteria and assigns a maximum point value (MPV) to each criterion, reflecting its relative importance. Table 24 provides the criteria and weightings and the appropriate selection based on the total score. Section 3 of the TAC guidelines provides details on the sign layouts for School Zones, and School Areas based on site specific conditions.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 135
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 24 - School Zones and Areas Installation Criterion
School Type
Road Classification
Fencing
Property Line Separation
School Entrance
Sidewalks
Maximum Point Value (MPV)
40
20
20
10
5
5
Weighting Factor (WF)
Description Elementary Middle / Junior High High School Post Secondary / College /University Rural Urban Land Use Land Use Local -
1 0.4 0.2 0
1
Local Collector
0.75 0.50
Major Collector / Minor Arterial
Arterial
0.25
Major Arterial / Expressway
Freeway
0
Abuts Roadway Within 50 metres Further than 50 metres Main Entrance / Multiple Secondary Entrances Secondary Entrance None None or Non-School Side School Side Both Sides
T=
Rural Land Use
Minor Collector / Minor Arterial
Fully Traversable Partially Traversable Non-Traversable
Score (MPV*WF)
C=
1 0.5 0.1 1 0.5 0
F=
L=
1 0.6 0 1 0.6 0
E=
S=
Total Score (Sum of T,C,F,L,E and S) Total Score
Area or Zone?
0 - 40
None
41 - 64
SCHOOL AREA
65 - 80
SCHOOL AREA or SCHOOL ZONE
81 - 100
SCHOOL ZONE
*Retrieved from TAC Guidelines (2018)
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 136
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 8.3.2
Playground Zones and Areas
Playground zones or areas can be considered for facilities used by children where there is a possibility of them entering the roadway. These facilities include playgrounds, recreation facilities such as sports fields, indoor or outdoor skating rinks, baseball diamonds, etc. Similar to school zones and areas, the TAC School and Playground Areas and Zones: Guidelines for Application and Implementation (2006) provides a procedure for establishing and defining playground areas and zones. The procedure includes warrants based on a number of criteria and assigns a maximum point value (MPV) to each criterion, reflecting its relative importance. Table 25 provides and illustrates the criteria and weightings and the appropriate selection based on the total score. Section 3 of the TAC guidelines provides details on the sign layouts for playground areas and zones based on site specific conditions.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 137
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
*Retrieved from TAC Guidelines (2018)
Table 25 - Playground Zones and Areas Installation Criterion
Maximum Point Value (MPV)
Description
Frontage
Playground Type
Road Classification
Fencing Property Line Separation Playground Entrance
Sidewalks
40 ≥ 50 m
20
20
10
5
5
*Retrieved from TAC Guidelines (2018) Weighting Score
Playground Capacity (number of children) 16 or more 5 to 15 1 to 4 No play equipment: sports field or open field only Any Facilities
< 50 m Urban Land Rural Land Use Use Local Minor Local Collector Collector Collector Major Collector / Arterial Minor Arterial Major Arterial Freeway / Expressway Fully Traversable Partially Traversable Non-Traversable Abuts Roadway Within 50 metres Further than 50 metres Main Entrance / Multiple Secondary Entrances Secondary Entrance None None (or Non-Playground Side) Playground Side Both Sides
Factor (WF)
(MPV*WF)
N/A 1 0.75 0.4 0.2 0.2 Rural Land Use 1
T=
0.75 0.5 0.25 0
C=
1 0.5 0.1 1 0.5 0
F=
1 0.6 0 1 0.6 0
E=
S=
Total Score (Sum of T,C,F,L,E and S) Total Score
Area or Zone?
0 - 40
None
41 - 80
Playground Area
81 - 100
Playground Zone
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 138
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update 8.3.3
Community Safety Zones
Community Safety Zones inform drivers they are entering an area the community has deemed paramount to the safety of its citizens. These sections of roadway are typically near schools, playgrounds, community centers, senior citizen residences, hospitals, etc. Traffic related offences within these zones carry increased fines, and in many cases are doubled. Implementation of Community Safety Signage and monetary penalty are established through municipal by-law. Community Safety Zone signs (Rc-9) and optional Begins tab signs (Rb-85t) inform drivers entering an area the community has deemed paramount to the safety of its citizens. The signage does not change the rules of the road but increase the penalties associated with any traffic act violation. The signage is installed to define the legal limits of the zone as prescribed in the zoning by-law and installed at the beginning and end of the zone. Depending on the length of the zone, signage may be installed within the zone as well. 8.3.4
Reduced Speed Zone Areas
World Health Organization (WHO) statistics show a significant improvement in survival rates when speed limits are decreased. For example, there is a reported 1.5 in 10 survival rates for pedestrians being struck at 50 km/h. However, at 30 km/h the survival rate is 9 in 10. In May 2018, the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) was amended to allow for speed limits other than 50 km/h without block-by-block signage in bounded zones. When a road authority through municipal by—law, designates an entire area to have a speed limit other than the default 50 km/h speed limit, standard Maximum Speed signs must be used with the Area tab sign. OTM Book 5, provides detailed application of the signage with respect to sign types and locations. City of Kawartha Lakes, currently enforces a speed by-law for designated areas within towns, villages, settlement areas and hamlets known as "community speed zones" that outlines a speed limit of 50 km/h. However, recently through the City’s Speed Limit Project, the
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 139
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update City’s community speed zones have been reduced to 40km/h. During phase one of the project, which focused on rural speed zones, the implementation began in October 2021 in 16 communities and was completed in November 2022 and during phase two, it focused on urban speed zones, and was completed in 2023. It is recommended that the City continue to implement reduced speed zone areas that are designated as community speed zones or in established residential and low / medium density areas. In addition to the reduced speed zone areas, and in consideration with the previous sections, School Zones should be reduced to 30 km/h with appropriate signage and identified as Community Safety Zones. Due the scope of the proposed changes to the overall City network, implementation is recommended to be phased, with sufficient time to assess adherence to the reduced speed areas and implementation of traffic calming measures as necessary. Appendix L1 provides the full Speed Limit Policy for the City.
Recommendations: 1. Utilize the TAC School and Playground Areas and Zones: Guidelines for Application and Implementation in considering new School and Playground Zones or Areas on local municipal roads. 2. OTM Book 5 and OTM Book 6 should be consulted, ensuring proper signage for existing and new School Zones or Areas is implemented on local municipal roads. 3. Update the criteria and process for establishing a Community Safety Zone on a municipal Road. 4. Implementation of 40 km/h neighborhood zones within the City with proper signage is complete. It is recommended to keep the 40 km/h signs in place and consider 40 km/h areas for future development. 5. School Zone speed limits within the neighborhood speed areas should be set at 30 km/h and marked as Community Safety Zone. 6. Implement traffic calming measures as necessary to facilitate new speed limits. Additionally, traffic calming measures for 30km/h areas would be needed in majority of school zones, requiring it’s own study 7. Assess the merit of implementing an Administrative Monetary Penalty System for adjudicating fines. Initial Implementation should be considered along Arterial and Collector Roads.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 140
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
8.4 Traffic Calming Policy Traffic calming refers to design strategies aimed at reducing vehicle speeds and enhancing safety for pedestrians and cyclists, contributing to vibrant and safe communities. Traffic calming is a way to slow down traffic that is too fast for the environment or divert traffic that is short-cutting through neighbourhoods to avoid congestion. It is a retroactive process whereby measures are applied by road authorities to address concerns about behaviour of motor vehicles on existing roads. Controlling vehicle speed is important for the safety of all road users and can prevent collisions and reduce their impact when they happen. It is also essential to consider traffic calming measures during the design and implementation of reconstructed streets and new residential subdivisions. The City’s Traffic Calming Policy provides policy directives for the application of traffic calming measures within the City. It provides screening criteria for identifying neighbourhoods for implementing traffic calming along with a tool kit of potential measures that can be applied when traffic calming is justified. Typically, a trial solution will be used to assess a traffic calming solution prior to a final installation. Key strategies include implementing physical measures such as speed bumps or tables, chicanes and curb extensions, raised crosswalks, and roundabouts. Benefits of such measures encompass improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and reduction in vehicle speeds and noise. Appendix L2 provides the full Traffic Calming Policy for the City. The following but not limited to are a few efficient and cost-effective traffic calming measures that could be used successfully such as:
Speed Display Device: An interactive sign that alerts drivers of their speeds. These can be solar powered and portable making them quite versatile and adaptive. They have the added benefit of illustrating speeds not only top drivers passing by but to the general public within the vicinity which can assist in addressing a public speeding perception which may not be supported by empirical data.
Speed Posted Bollard: Vertical posts installed at the edge of traffic lanes with the speed limit displayed. These alert drivers of a separation requirement without physically constraining the roadway. The objective is to narrow the road, guide traffic, and encourage drivers to slow down so they can pass through safely. One disadvantage is that the maintenance and roadway operations time may be increased.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 141
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Speed Hump: A raised area built across the entire roadway and causes vertical upward movement of a traversing vehicle. The objective is to cause a discomfort for drivers travelling at higher speeds resulting in reduced vehicle speeds. Seasonal speed humps can also be used, in place of constructing a permanent one, which are a rubber unit placed across an entire roadway width.
Raised Crosswalk: A marked pedestrian crosswalk constructed in a higher elevation than the adjacent roadway. The objective is to enhance awareness of pedestrian crossings, reduce vehicle speeds, improve pedestrian visibility, and reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflict. It may include the implementation of an appropriate level of PXO per OTM Book 18. Raised crosswalks will only be implemented at mid-block, unprotected pedestrian crossing locations and should be signed properly.
Curb Extension: A horizontal intrusion of the curb visually and physically narrowing the roadway width. The curb may be on one or both sides of the roadway. The objective is to reduce vehicle speeds, reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and prevent parking too close to an intersection. However, it can result in a potential loss of on-street parking.
It is essential to design the road for the posted speed. Signage is considered to only be marginally effective at controlling the operating speeds of a roadway. Drivers naturally operate at speeds appropriate to the features of a roadway which are reflective of the design speed. Should the City, reduce the posted speed limit of a roadway which has previously been designed for higher operating speeds, measures must be taken to ensure the roadway is designed for the new posted speed limit. This could include traffic calming measures which would encourage operating speeds more in line with the posted speed limit. It is recommended that City apply a systematic and data driven approach to responding to requests for traffic calming and follow industry guidelines for installation of best practices to ensure safe roadway operations.
8.5 Traffic Control Facilities The management of the movement of people and vehicles is critical to ensure the safety and efficiency of the transportation network. However, the appropriate selection of the traffic control treatment is of utmost important and is governed by existing or anticipated conditions and complexity of the surrounding environment. The selection of the most appropriate type of traffic control treatment should be done based on the hierarchy of controlled crossing treatment systems shown in Figure 40 and current policies and guidelines.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 142
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 40 - Hierarchy o f Controlled Crossing Treatment Systems (OTM Book 15) This section discusses the policies developed for traffic control treatment that should be adopted by the City to ensure the efficient deployment of the treatment systems. 8.5.1
All-Way Stop Control Policy
As part of this TMP update, an all-way stop policy was developed with the City staff. The policy followed the OTM Book 5 – Regulatory Signs which states, all-way stops should only be considered under the following situations:
As an interim measure where traffic signals are warranted but cannot be installed immediately.
At locations having a high collision frequency and less intrusive measures have not resulted in decreased collision frequencies.
As a transitionary period to accustom drivers to a change in right-of-way (ROW).
Key strategies include conducting traffic assessments, analyzing collision data, and engaging community input to ensure that all-way stops are placed where they can effectively improve
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 143
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update safety. Benefits of this policy include reduced collision rates, enhanced visibility for all road users, and improved pedestrian crossings. It is recommended that the City adopt a systematic approach to all-way stop evaluations, ensuring alignment with best practices and community needs to create safer intersections for everyone. It is also important to note that all-way stops should not be used as a traffic calming measure, which is to slow traffic or to deter traffic movement through residential area. Appendix L3 provides the full all-way stop control policy that was prepared as a part of this TMP update.
Recommendations: 1. Adopt an all-way stop policy to ensure fair access to the right-of-way for similar volumes of traffic travelling in opposing directions. 2. Ensure all-way stop control is not relied upon to manage or reduce vehicle speeds. 3. Ensure all-way stop control is not used as a traffic calming measure.
8.6 Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) Guideline provides a framework for evaluating the effects of proposed developments on the transportation network. This guideline is to ensure that potential traffic impacts are systematically analyzed to enhance safety and mobility within the City. Key strategies include assessing existing traffic conditions, estimating future traffic volumes, and identifying necessary mitigation measures. Benefits of this guideline include improved traffic flow, enhanced safety for all users, and informed decision-making for development approvals. Overall, a TIA serves to identify on-site and off-site measures to be taken by a developer to align the transportation network’s performance with the goals set forth by the City. The City of Kawartha Lakes TIA guidelines assess potential impacts of traffic changes caused by proposed development on municipal roads. They aim to identify any infrastructure improvements or mitigation measures needed to ensure the road network will operate acceptably and safely upon completion of the proposed development. It is recommended that the City adopt these TIA guidelines to align with best practices and community needs, fostering a sustainable and efficient transportation system.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 144
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update The TIA guidelines have been prepared to provide a structured framework for conducting TIAs, to ensure methodologies, data collection, and analysis approaches are consistent with industry best practices. As part of the requirements of a TIA or traffic brief a functional internal traffic study (FIT) is required to be completed as part of the submission. Where a TIA has not been required a FIT should be completed as part of the development application. Appendix L7 provides the full TIA Guidelines that have been prepared for the City to assist with informed decisionmaking regarding land use approvals, infrastructure investment, and mitigation measures.
8.7 Vision Zero Policy The ultimate goal of Vision Zero is to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on the road. As part of Canada’s Road Safety Strategy 2025 and the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario’s vision, Vision Zero prioritizes safety in transportation planning, recognizing that every life lost on the road is unacceptable. Key components include road safety assessments, improvements to roadway design for vulnerable users, targeted enforcement, enhanced signage and lighting, speed management, and public education on safe transportation practices. By adopting this approach, Vision Zero aims to ensure safe travel for all, fostering a culture of responsibility while promoting active transportation. It is recommended that the City of Kawartha Lakes adopt a data-driven, collaborative approach to engage stakeholders and the community, assess risks, and prioritize interventions based on best practices and industry standards to ensure road safety and create safer streets for everyone. Vision Zero can be achieved by addressing road safety through five main elements as shown in Figure 42.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 145
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 41 - Elements of Vision Zero. *Retrieved from City of Hamilton’s Action Plan (2019-2025)
All of the elements need to be implemented in a coordinated and strategic manner to achieve improvements to road safety and to strive towards the goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries on the City of Kawartha Lakes roads. 1. Evaluation – Identification of key challenges on Kawartha Lake’s Road network using a data driven approach. 2. Engineering – Strategic use of resources to improve existing engineering practices and policies, as they pertain to road safety. 3. Enforcement – Strategic use of enforcement resources in key areas for maximized effectiveness. 4. Education – Targeted and collaborative campaigns to address safety for all road users. 5. Engagement – Enhanced community engagement to create a safe roads culture The Vision Zero policy for Kawartha Lakes represents a pivotal step towards creating safer roads and promoting sustainable mobility within the community. Vision Zero policies adopted by municipalities typically include the goal of zero fatal and serious collisions by a
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 146
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update specific timeframe and involve the development of a detailed Vision Zero Action Plan. The action plan provides specific steps, timelines, and priorities to achieve this goal. The Key elements of Vision Zero include: safe speeds, safe vehicles, safe roads, and safe drivers. This TMP update acknowledges the principles of Vision Zero approach in planning and design of Kawartha Lake’s future transportation network. This initiative not only aligns with national and provincial road safety strategies but also aligns with the City’s 2024-2027 Strategic Plan, which focuses on creating a safe, accessible, and a connected transportation system. As the City implements a Vision Zero plan, it is essential to continue to refine it with input from all stakeholders, ensuring it serves as a model for safe, equitable, and vibrant transportation for future generations. The Vision Zero plan should be informed by best practices, extensive consultation, and thorough analysis of collision data. The plan should be designed to evolve over time and be adaptable. Overall achieving the ambitious goal of zero fatalities or serious injuries on Kawartha Lakes' roads will require commitment and collaboration from all stakeholders involved. Appendix L5 provides the policy document that has been prepared for the City to assist with informed decision-making regarding Vision Zero.
8.8 Goods Movement Policy The Goods Movement Policy aims to enhance the efficiency and safety of freight transportation within the City. This policy focuses on optimizing the movement of goods by identifying key corridors, assessing infrastructure needs, and promoting multimodal solutions. Key strategies include evaluating freight traffic patterns, coordinating with local businesses, and ensuring that road designs accommodate larger vehicles. Benefits of this policy include improved reliability for businesses, reduced congestion, and enhanced safety for all road users. It is recommended that the City adopt a proactive approach to goods movement planning, aligning with best practices and community needs to create a more efficient and sustainable transportation network. Appendix L6 contains the Goods Movement policy document, developed to support informed decision-making for the City.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 147
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
8.9 Infrastructure Guidelines The Infrastructure Guideline Policy developed for the City provides a comprehensive framework for the planning, design, and maintenance of transportation facilities within the City. This policy emphasizes safety, accessibility, and efficiency in all infrastructure projects. Key components include establishing design standards for sight triangles, road widths, and intersection visibility to ensure safe and efficient movement for all users. The guidelines also address the integration of multimodal transportation options and the consideration of environmental impacts. Benefits of this policy include improved safety at intersections, enhanced connectivity, and better support for active transportation. It is recommended that the City adopt the Infrastructure Guidelines as part of the TMP update to align with best practices and community needs, thereby creating a safe and functional transportation network for everyone. See Appendix L4 for the complete infrastructure guidelines policy document.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 148
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 149
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
9.0 Multi-Modal Network The TMP update provides an outline to move Kawartha Lake’s transportation network forward to address the City’s needs into 2051. By embracing a multi-modal strategy as the preferred alternative, the City will harness the ability to provide residents and visitors with a wider range of opportunities for travel mode choice that is not exclusively dependent on single-occupant vehicles. This section of the TMP update present recommendations for the network improvement, including active transportation, transit, and, roads that align with the vision of the City.
9.1 TMP Integration with ATMP Kawartha Moves, the City’s Active Transportation Master Plan (ATMP) completed in 2024 provides city-wide planning, design and implementation of active transportation (AT) facilities, policies, and programs. The ATMP provides recommendations for the City’s active transportation network identifying facilities across the City for both on and off-road locations. It is also important to note that, MTO operates three provincial highways within the City of Kawartha Lakes: Hwy 7, Hwy 7A, and Hwy 35. Any transportation improvements within MTO’s permit control areas require MTO’s review and approval. This includes improvements on, adjacent to, or crossing provincial highways. As such, recommendations for Active Transportation (AT) routes near Hwy 35 and Hwy 7, as outlined in the Active Transportation Master Plan, are subject to MTO endorsement and approval. 9.1.1
Principles
The integration of the City of Kawartha Lakes Active Transportation Master Plan (ATMP) into the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update is guided by several key principles that reflect the City's commitment to enhancing mobility, safety, and sustainability. These principles are designed to ensure that active transportation plays an integral role in shaping the future of transportation across the City. They include: 1. Connectivity: Ensuring a seamless and connected network for all modes of active transportation such as, pedestrian, cycling, and other non-motorized forms by linking residential areas, employment hubs, recreation spaces, and key public facilities. In the City’s Official Plan the transportation policies also state that where feasible, “pedestrian and bicycle networks will be integrated into transportation planning to … provide safe, comfortable travel (and) provide linkages between intensification areas.” 2. Accessibility: Prioritizing infrastructure that is universally accessible, inclusive, and safe for people of all ages and abilities, including those with mobility challenges. The active
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 150
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update transportation network will be designed to cater to diverse needs, making it easy for everyone to access and use. 3. Safety: Creating safe and well-designed routes that protect active transportation users from traffic-related incidents. This principle emphasizes the importance of both physical separation from vehicular traffic and traffic-calming measures to enhance user safety. 4. Sustainability: Supporting the City’s broader sustainability goals by promoting active transportation as an environmentally friendly alternative to single-occupancy vehicle use, reducing traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and reliance on fossil fuels. 5. Health and Well-being: Encouraging an active lifestyle through the promotion of walking, cycling, and other forms of non-motorized transport. This principle aligns with public health objectives by fostering physical activity, improving air quality, and enhancing the overall quality of life for residents. 6. Equity and Inclusion: Ensuring that active transportation options are equitably available across all areas of the City, regardless of socio-economic status or geographical location. The network will be developed with the goal of providing equal access to all residents, including underserved and rural communities. 7. Collaboration: Fostering partnerships between various stakeholders, including local government, community organizations, residents, indigenous communities, and regional agencies, to ensure that the active transportation network meets the needs of all users and is supported by a wide range of initiatives and programs. These guiding principles will ensure that the integration of the ATMP into this TMP update results in a holistic, user-centered, and sustainable transportation system that supports the City’s vision for a more connected and vibrant future. 9.1.2
Types of Recommendations
To guide City staff, recommendations are provided based on six (6) categories. The categories and associated recommendations were developed based on best and comparable practices as well as the most effective and impactful approach for the City. Categories for recommendations have been illustrated in Figure 42 and are summarized in Table 26.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 151
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 42 - TMP Update Integration with ATMP Recommendation
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 152
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 26 - Summary of ATMP Recommendations Network
Guidelines Policies The ATMP and OTM Book 18, will serve as the primary references for active transportation infrastructure, including road retrofits and new developments. The City will develop a traffic calming policy for both urban and rural areas, integrating it into the Transportation Development standards will be updated to ensure pedestrian and cycling Master Plan to complement the ATMP network. infrastructure is included on major arterials and collectors. Where space The active transportation network will serve as a blueprint for constraints prevent full accommodations, traffic calming measures and speed The 2024 ATMP will be incorporated into the City’s Official designing on-road infrastructure, prioritizing safe and comfortable reductions to 40 km/h will be implemented. Plan and Transportation Master Plan to ensure alignment connectivity within and between communities. with higher-level policies and facilitate implementation. AT planning will be coordinated with the City’s Public Works department, focusing To ensure a seamless system, the ATMP will be integrated with on speed reduction campaigns and enhanced safety measures. Site plan requirements should consider active the City's 2022 Trails Master Plan, aligning proposed trail transportation users, emphasizing strategic placemaking in Bicycle parking will be installed at key community destinations, guided by ATMP projects with other active transportation routes. parking lots and between buildings. recommendations. An assessment of parking needs in built-up areas will be Municipal guidelines, standards, and bylaws will be Rural roads undergoing rehabilitation will include a minimum 1.5 m asphalt conducted, and where demand is low, space may be reallocated reviewed and updated to align with the ATMP framework. shoulder, supported by a paved shoulder by-law, while urban areas will adhere to to support active transportation infrastructure, such as bike lanes OTM 18 surface and width standards. A Complete Streets policy will be developed to adapt road and pedestrian pathways. classifications to evolving land use and growth patterns. Bicycle repair stations will be placed at key community hubs, with designated bike corral stations. Emerging policy topics, such as e-mobility, will be continuously monitored and addressed. Intersection upgrades and crossing enhancements will align with OTM guidance, and primary corridor projects will prioritize fully separated facilities where feasible. Programs Implementation Monitoring The City will support and maintain the existing bike share The implementation of the AT will be monitored and updated to align with new program in partnership with community groups and external The ATMP will be revisited every five years, with annual developments, ensuring that site plans incorporate active transportation features. organizations. reports on implementation and priorities. The Planning and Development division will oversee the ATMP and meet annually The active transportation network will be reviewed The Planning and Development division will lead the with Public Works and Community Services to coordinate transportation plans. implementation of active transportation education and outreach annually to identify necessary updates, while bi-annual programs, targeting youth and seniors to foster a cultural shift Annual reviews will gather input from ATMP partners to prioritize infrastructure, walkability audits will help address sidewalk gaps and toward active travel. programming, and maintenance, with updates presented in an annual report to improvements. Council alongside the Trails Master Plan. Promotional materials will be updated regularly to reflect existing City staff will undergo regular training on active facilities, with coordination from the Parks and Recreation A dedicated staff member will support implementation, expanding to 1–2 full-time transportation best practices, and maintenance will follow department. positions as needed. minimum standards with seasonal considerations outlined in the ATMP. A comprehensive wayfinding and signage strategy will be A partnership strategy will be followed to engage stakeholders and enhance developed, aligning with the Trails Master Plan and City’s community outreach. The City's online reporting tool will be updated to track Tourism loop routes. active transportation-related maintenance issues. The Public Works capital budget will allocate $500,000 for AT projects, with an The City will explore expanding the Bicycle Friendly Businesses additional $200,000 for maintenance, increasing annually based on Sidewalk and trail connections will be prioritized for Program with Ontario by Bike and pursue a Bicycle Friendly implementation. improved maintenance, including enhanced winter upkeep Community designation with the Share the Road Cycling on primary routes. The Planning and Development capital budget will allocate $50,000 for education Coalition. and encouragement strategies, with potential growth to $100,000. Unsafe walking and cycling behaviors will be addressed A pilot active and safe routes to school program will be launched Municipal staff will seek external funding opportunities, while donations will be through an integrated enforcement program with the OPP within the first year of ATMP implementation. and community partners. encouraged and tracked through a dedicated account. Programs and outreach initiatives outlined in the ATMP will be The ATMP’s phasing strategy will guide project selection and will be reviewed and The City’s touring cycling routes will be monitored and reviewed annually, with at least one initiative undertaken each updated based on public and stakeholder feedback. updated every five years. year in collaboration with local agencies and stakeholders.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 153
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
9.2 Transit Network Transit is a basic mobility service that provides residents with access to key destinations within the City and beyond. Integrating transit planning into broader economic and land use planning helps to reduce sprawl, and create a sense of community by increasing street presence which enhances neighbourhood safety and security. A reliable, frequent and wellconnected transit network can also help reduce congestion, travel times, and pollution. To create more sustainable communities, provide residents with mobility options and support the forecasted growth, the City should consider exploring the opportunity to engage with its transit agency and Metrolinx to enhance viable and accessible transit services for its residents. One of the largest obstacles for small municipalities to enhance public transit is funding. However, there are certain programs the funding can come from such as, tax rebate programs, federal or provincial grants as well as municipal investments obtained through property taxes. Based on the evolving needs and forecasted growth for the City of Kawartha Lakes, it is recommended to explore the feasibility of the alternatives mentioned below in order to enhance the local transit network and ensure seamless connectivity with improved connections to surrounding regional and provincial networks: 1. Commuter Rail Link to Peterborough: There is no commuter rail link between Kawartha Lakes and Peterborough, with public transit between these areas primarily limited to bus services. While there have been discussions about regional transit improvements, establishing a commuter rail link would require significant investment and coordination among local, provincial, and federal governments. The Peterborough Rail Study, completed by Metrolinx in 2010, explored a potential rail connection between Toronto and Peterborough along the 120 km corridor owned by Canadian Pacific Railway (Havelock Subdivision), which has not had passenger service since 1990. The study identified substantial capital investments needed to bring the track to current passenger rail standards. As of 2025, there have been no significant changes, with no formal commitments or funding re-announced for the proposed link, which included a station in Pontypool in Kawartha Lakes. The rail link remains under consideration with no confirmed timeline. Given this, the City should review the 2010 study, assess feasibility, and evaluate ridership demand, infrastructure upgrades, and potential funding. If the assessment supports feasibility, the City could initiate discussions with provincial and federal governments to explore next steps for developing this regional connection to other urban settlements. 2. GO Bus Service Expansion: The City should consider reviewing the feasibility of introducing GO Bus service into Kawartha Lakes before moving forward with any recommendations for implementation. This process should include assessing the potential benefits, demand, and logistical considerations for expanding the City’s intermunicipal transit system to improve connectivity with the Peterborough GO Bus line. Specifically, the City should explore extending the transit system southward to the junction of Highways 115 and 35, connecting with the
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 154
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update existing Peterborough GO Bus route. However, expanding beyond the City limits would require approval from the Province. A thorough assessment will ensure that any proposed expansion is realistic, effective, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and funding. 3. Frequent Transit Network Corridors: The City should prioritize the implementation of Frequent Transit Network corridors with 15-minute or better service. These corridors would support key connections to Transit Priority Corridors and facilitate seamless links to neighboring transit services. An efficient and frequent transit network will be essential to meeting the growing demand for reliable public transportation within the City and connecting to the broader regional transit system. 4. Expansion of On-Demand and Local Routes: To accommodate the City’s growing service area and population, it is recommended that the City expand its on-demand and local transit routes. This will ensure that transportation services are accessible to more residents, particularly in areas that are currently underserved. The expansion of flexible, on-demand routes will also improve coverage for key residential, commercial, and recreational destinations. 5. Enhanced Service for Key Growth Areas: The City should focus on enhancing transit service for key growth areas identified in this Transportation Master Plan. This may include increasing frequency, extending service hours, or developing new routes that directly serve expanding residential and commercial zones, ensuring that new developments are wellintegrated into the overall transit network. 6. Rideshare Initiatives: The implementation of rideshare programs should be explored to complement existing public transit services. Rideshare initiatives can offer more flexible, sustainable, and cost-effective alternatives to conventional transit, particularly in areas where demand for public transport is lower or more localized. 7. Partnerships with Other Transit Agencies: The City should pursue partnerships with regional transit agencies such as Metrolinx and others in neighboring municipalities. Collaboration with these agencies will facilitate the coordination of schedules, improve transfer options, and create a more integrated transportation network that serves the region’s needs. Such partnerships are crucial for expanding transit access across jurisdictions and ensuring that Kawartha Lakes residents can seamlessly connect to regional and provincial transit networks. By potentially exploring these recommendations, the City of Kawartha Lakes could create a more robust, efficient, and accessible transit system that meets the current and future needs of its residents, while enhancing its connections to the broader regional transit network. 8. Intermunicipal Transit: The City of Kawartha Lakes is not directly serviced by any public intermunicipal transit system. Compared to the 2012 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the percentage of Home-to-Work trips within the City, particularly in the Lindsay area, has decreased from 62% to 56%. Conversely, the proportion of Home-to-Work | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 155
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update trips to areas outside the City has increased by 5% over the past few years. The highest demand for home-to-work trips from residents of Kawartha Lakes is directed toward Durham Region and Peterborough, with considerably less demand for travel to Toronto or other major employment centers. When evaluating intermunicipal transit options, the need for transit services for students traveling to Lindsay, as well as for trips between Lindsay and Peterborough, should be prioritized. As noted in the 2012 TMP, GO Bus service to the City is expected to become a feasible option only in the longer-term planning horizon (i.e., beyond five years). However, the expansion of intramunicipal transit services within the City could help lay the groundwork for more effective intermunicipal connections in the future. A few additional recommendations for consideration for the City of Kawartha Lake’s future transit network have also been listed below after consultation with the public and review of the existing transit network:
Consider looking at the opportunity to increase local transit service in Lindsay based on ridership demand to include Statutory Holidays. The City should also assess the feasibility of expanding transit services to other urban areas within the City of Kawartha Lakes and developing inter-city connections to nearby regional centers, such as Peterborough and Durham Region, to enhance local and regional mobility.
Explore opportunities to partner with neighbouring municipalities to leverage resources, reduce costs, and expand the ridership base to support a wider and more connected transit network.
Look for innovative ways to improve quality of service and increase ridership throughout the City of Kawartha Lakes.
Improve access to transit by prioritizing pedestrian facilities to transit, ensure AODA compliance and ensure links are prioritized for winter maintenance.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 156
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
9.3 Road Network The road network within the City of Kawartha Lakes is critical to its overall transportation system and the movement of people and goods. Streets are an integral part of the social fabric of the City where residents, commuters and visitors will interact. They also allow for utilities, goods movement, pick-up and drop-off of goods and people, parking, stormwater management, trees and greenery. 9.3.1
Urbanization
Road urbanization is a critical aspect of transportation planning, aligning infrastructure development with urban growth. As the City continues to grow, a well-designed road network is essential to accommodate increasing traffic volumes, support efficient mobility, and reduce congestion. The City should therefore urbanize the rural or semi-urban roads within its network, parallel to growth and expansion of urban boundaries where and when appropriate to meet the needs and requirements of communities. Decisions to urbanize specific roads are typically based on factors such as:
Traffic Volume and Safety: Roads experiencing increased traffic or higher accident rates may be prioritized for upgrades.
Community Development: Areas undergoing significant growth might necessitate the urbanization of adjacent roads to support new infrastructure.
Economic Considerations: Enhancing roads that facilitate commerce and tourism can boost local economies.
Urban road design must consider connectivity, safety, environmental impact, and fostering resilience to future demands. Strategic planning and phased implementation allow for adaptability, ensuring the road infrastructure grows in tandem with urbanization while enhancing the overall quality of life. Intersection type will also be considered as part of this process, including the use of roundabouts for new or refurbished intersections. A roundabout is a type of intersection where traffic circulates in a counter-clockwise direction around a central island, yielding to traffic already in the roundabout. The benefits of roundabouts include increased safety due to reduced conflicts points and lower speeds, reduced delay at the intersection and they are more environmentally friendly than traditional intersections. Potential implementation would be determined on a case-by-case basis through staff review.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 157
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Therefore, it is recommended that the City adopt a phased approach to urbanization of rural or semi-urban roads based on road-cross-sections, planned growth and level of development. 9.3.2
Complete Streets
Given the finite resource of available street space, it should be designed to provide the best use for public benefit. Streets and the overall road network must adapt to changing travel demand and travel modes. In addition to cars, it must accommodate people who walk, cycle or take transit, and people of all ages and abilities as illustrated in Figure 43. A “Complete Streets” approach provides primary tools for managing street space where multiple needs are factored, yielding streets that provide safety, comfort, mobility for all ages and abilities irrespective of travel mode. The relationship between transportation and land use is important in building communities with complete streets balancing the movement of people with economics, sustainability, health and the environment. There is no singular approach to creating a complete street, as each street is dependent on multiple factors including context and its own characteristics. Guidelines for complete streets can be implemented to assist in prioritizing the needs and requirements of individual streets, for new builds, rehabs or otherwise. As such, an urban local road and rural collector may both be complete streets but look and function very differently given that the concept of complete streets places emphasis on balancing needs of all users. Complete streets can provide multiple benefits to the communities they serve. Benefits provided can include reduction in pollution from active transportation whilst providing health benefits of the selected active mode choice. Improvements of adequate and accessible pedestrian and transit infrastructure through development planning, while providing faster and improved transit due to dedicated lanes or signal priority. Economic benefits may be yielded from complete streets benefitting local business1 due to reduced auto traffic. Traffic reductions through traffic calming measures can increase foot traffic for local business turning into increase sales. Traffic calming can also have the effect of increasing property values. Complete Streets can also assist benefit the City in supporting it’s Vision Zero policy, with further protections for vulnerable road users.
1 Transportation Canada, Complete Streets: Making Canada’s roads safer for all (2009).
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 158
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 43 - Multi -modal Street Cross-section Source: https://Streetmix.net
9.3.3
Protected Intersections
The City of Ottawa’s Protected Intersection Design Guide2 identifies a protected intersection as one where cyclist and pedestrians are separated from cars at grade. The application of this concept is on the rise and the City of Ottawa’s guide is aimed at providing a consistent approach to design. Protected intersections have been shown to reduce the number and severity of collisions involving vulnerable road users. These types of intersections minimize conflict points at intersection through the separation of pedestrians, cyclist, and motor vehicles providing separate spaces for each user. This separation thus improves the safety and comfort of road users. The implementation of protected intersections is being adopted by an increasing number of municipalities with considerations being incorporated in the planning and design stage of road networks. This type of approach to intersection design is becoming the preferred option in some City’s where dedicated cycling facilities are to be provided on at least one of the intersecting streets. An example of a fully protected intersection is provided in Figure 44.
2 Protected intersection designs are also applicable at some unsignalized intersections, as per the Protected Intersection Design Guide
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 159
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Figure 44 - City of Ottawa Protected Intersection Design Guide Source: City of Ottawa Protected Intersection Design Guide
9.4 Emerging Technologies 9.4.1
Micro-mobility
Micro-mobility is an umbrella term that typically refers to light weight personal transportation devices that include human and motorized vehicles that operate below 25 km/h. Types of micro-mobility vehicles include bicycles, electric assist bikes (e-bikes) and electric scooters (e-scooters). An e-scooter is a power-assisted scooter with a step-through frame where a single rider can stand while driving the vehicle with no seat. They can vary in design, weight, and speed and are available in a wide variety of configurations. Shared micro-mobility programs provide access to vehicles through a membership, pay-peruse, and/or time-based fares. Vehicles can be rented through a mobile app or kiosk, with picked up and dropped off on public property, and are meant for short trips. This allows for vehicles to be picked up and dropped off at any designated location. Ridesharing and rental of micro-mobility scooters have increased popularity especially in congested areas. Issues and safety concerns surrounding the use of micro-mobility vehicles are also at the forefront of usage and would require polices to reduce accidents and injury.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 160
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Helmet use, falls, collisions with objects, pedestrians, moving vehicles, braking problems, battery relates fires and charging issues are areas of concern regarding operation. Operation of e-scooters on higher speed, rural roads also poses safety concerns. It is unlikely that e-scooters would be considerable or desirable in a high-speed rural environment as they are most effective in built-up urban areas for short distance trips. Prohibiting e-scooter use on higher speed roads, would also provide clear direction for enforcement. In 2020, a pilot program was introduced by the Province of Ontario to permit the operation of e-scooters on public roads in Ontario. Pursuant to O.Reg. 389/19 under the Highway Traffic Act appropriate by-laws should be in place to govern the use of micro-mobility options within City limits. 9.4.2
Automated, Connected, and Electric Vehicles
The automotive industry is rapidly evolving due to innovation and advancement in technology which also has an impact on local governments. In the coming years transformative automobile technology will likely have significant impacts on municipal land use and transportation. Automated, connected, and electric (ACE) vehicles offer promise to improve the transportation system safety and efficiency in communities. At the same time, if not deployed and managed properly these technologies could lead to more traffic, inequitable access to mobility, and adverse environmental impacts. While large scale deployment of ACE vehicles is not immediately imminent, a strategic action plan can aide in outlining the tasks required to prepare for their inevitable introduction in Kawartha Lakes. The plan, should be completed in the next 5 to 10 years in collaboration with key stakeholders, should address potential implications, preparations, and public acceptance of ACE vehicles, ensuring the City is well-positioned to both maximize opportunities and mitigate impacts arising from their arrival. 9.4.3
Information Technology
Recent advancements in technology have opened new opportunities for municipalities to incorporate information technology (IT) solutions into the management of their transportation systems. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) is the broad term used to describe the application of IT in transportation. ITS are the control and information systems that use integrated communications and data processing technologies, such as cameras, Bluetooth detection, and advanced data analytics, for the purpose of:
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 161
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Improving the mobility of people and goods;
Increasing safety, reducing traffic congestion, and managing incidents effectively; and
Meeting transportation policy goals and objectives such as transportation demand management or public transportation priority measures.
The use of ITS will grow as new technologies such as automated and connected vehicles develop. ITS can be deployed for transit systems, parking and traffic signal operations in the City. The City does not have a policy pertaining to IT solutions for transportation purposes currently and should develop a strategic action plan outlining the tasks required to better leverage emerging technologies.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 162
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 163
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
10.0 Implementation Plan and Costs To address the future needs of the City of Kawartha Lakes, the plan for implementation of the TMP update must align with the goals and vision of the City. Network development builds on ongoing work and studies within the City which includes Ministry of Transportation work on Highway 35 and Highway 7 and opportunities for expansion and connection to the GO Transit system. Implementation timelines have been considered in three timeframes:
2031 (short term); 2041 (medium term), and; 2051 (long term).
10.1 Costing The recommended network improvements as part of this TMP update, not including development or MTO driven projects is projected to have the following capital costs:
➢ Short-Term – $30,955,000;
➢ Medium-Term – $11,873,500, and;
➢ Long-Term – $37,501,300
Across future planning horizons a total of $80,329,800 is anticipated. The City of Kawartha Lakes Capital Budget may be inadequate to fully fund all identified projects within the timelines identified. To supplement the City’s capital budgets opportunities exist to obtain external funding to achieve development targets.
10.2 Potential Funding Sources Funding for development will be obtained either by internal or external means. Internal funding sources would include development charges and property taxes. External funding sources would consist of federal, provincial or privately sourced funds. Funding opportunities exist at Federal, Provincial, and Private levels to fulfill project’s beyond the City’s annual capital budgets. Some funding options available are outlined below. The City should routinely review available funding programs at all government levels to fully utilize funding opportunities.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 164
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update Federal Funding Build Faster Fund - is a three-year, $1.2 billion program that is designed to encourage municipalities to address the housing supply crisis. The fund rewards municipalities that make significant progress against their targets by providing funding for housing-enabling and community-enabling infrastructure. Funding is provided to municipalities that have reached at least 80 per cent of their provincially assigned housing target for the year with increased funding for municipalities that exceed their target. Federal Gas Tax Funding - One-time top-up of approximately $4.66 million, to be used for infrastructure projects including: local roads and bridges; regional and local airports; broadband connectivity; public transit; drinking water; waste; recreation; culture and tourism. Provincial Funding Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) is a program that supports northern and rural municipalities who struggle with fiscal challenges. For 2025, the OMPF will provide $550 million in unconditional funding to 390 municipalities. Funding is designed to assist municipalities in providing critical municipal services to people across the province. Infrastructure Ontario Loan Program The program support local infrastructure investments across Ontario providing affordable, long-term financing to public sector clients, allowing them to modernize and renew their infrastructure to deliver to residents. Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund As part of the ongoing commitment to maintaining and improving a City's infrastructure, the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) offers a significant opportunity for funding transportation-related projects within the City of Kawartha Lakes. The OCIF is aimed at supporting municipalities with populations under 100,000, which makes the City of Kawartha Lakes eligible for both Top-Up funding and Application-Based funding. The OCIF can be a valuable resource for addressing key transportation infrastructure needs identified in the 2025 Transportation Master Plan (TMP), including road repairs, upgrades to bridges, and improvements to public transit facilities. By leveraging OCIF funding, the City can implement critical projects that enhance transportation safety, mobility, and sustainability, while reducing the financial burden on municipal budgets. The City of Kawartha Lakes should explore opportunities to apply for OCIF funding as part of the TMP update implementation process, prioritizing projects that align with the fund’s objectives of
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 165
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update ensuring the long-term viability and resilience of municipal infrastructure. Potential projects eligible for funding could include:
Road Rehabilitation: Addressing deteriorating road conditions to improve safety and efficiency.
Bridge Repairs and Upgrades: Ensuring the safety and durability of transportation infrastructure.
Traffic Management Improvements: Implementing measures that improve traffic flow and reduce congestion.
Incorporating OCIF funding into this TMP update implementation strategy will allow the City to accelerate its transportation infrastructure improvements and ensure that the City’s transportation network can support future growth and development. Municipal staff should continue to actively monitor upcoming funding opportunities and ensure timely applications for eligible projects.
10.3 Road Network Implementation Plan Transportation network improvement projects recommended for the City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan for the Short- (2023-2031), Medium- (2031-2041) and Long-terms (2041-2051) are summarized in Table 27, Table 28 and Table 29 respectively.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 166
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 27 - Short Term Improvements Short Term Improvements New Recommendations
Estimated Capital Costs
Angeline St
Improvement Areas
Kent St
Angeline Street at Kent Street
Future Existing
$2,575,000.00
Optimization of signal times including cycle length. Construction of dual eastbound left-turn lanes, southbound right-turn lane, and twinning of Angeline Street corridor northbound and southbound. Lindsay
Colborne Street and William Street
Intersection signalization as part of Colborne Street bridge project
Colborne Street and Lindsay Street
New signalized intersection to be developed as part of overall Colborne Street bridge project
Scugog River Crossing
No additional improvements proposed.
Verulam Road and Colborne Street Signalization recommended Kent Street and St. Joseph Road
Bobcaygeon
Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining existing cycle length.
Omemee
$550,000 $3,500
Verulam Road (CKL36) and Weldon Signalization recommended Road / Riverview Road
$550,000
East Street at Cedartree Lane / Duke Intersection Upgrade (Ongoing) - Implementation of Street Signalization proposed by 2025
$700,000.00
Intersection Upgrade (Ongoing) - Implementation of Signalization proposed by 2025 By-pass: Option has been brought forward. EA for crossing Fenelon River Crossing has been endorsed by council with study assessment to commence in 2025. Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining King Street and Sturgeon Road existing cycle length. Capital Cost East Street and Boyd Street
Fenelon Falls
$16.8 Million (On-going)
| Transportation Master Plan Update
$550,000.00 $9,223,000 $3,500 $30,955,000
P a g e | 167
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 28 - Medium Term Improvements Medium Term Improvements Improvement Areas
New Recommendations
Angeline Street and Connolly Road / Signalization recommended. Timing driven by demands of Orchard Park Road future area development. Introduction of an eastbound and westbound Colborne Street and Albert Street protected/permitted left-turn phase and optimization of signal times. Colborne Street and David Street
Lindsay
Signalization recommended.
$550,000
Queen Street and St. David Street Signalization recommended.
$550,000
Angeline Street and Mary Street
$330,100
Construction of a westbound left-turn lane.
$3,500
Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity. Twining from Hway 7 / 35 to north of Mary required. Corridor assessment required to confirm extent of improvement.
$3,960,000
Angeline Street North / Thunder Bridge Road
Corridor review study to assess future road needs.
$200,000
Angeline Street South
Corridor review study to assess future road needs.
$200,000
West Street and North Street Bolton Street and Canal Street East Street (CKL Rd 36)
Signalization of intersection and construction of an eastbound and westbound left-turn lane recommended. Upgrades driven by demands of future area development. Review signal times for optimization based on traffic patterns and bridge crossing. Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity. Twining recommended along corridor from King Street to Duke Street.
$957,400.00 $3,500.00 $1,980,000.00
North Street (CKL 8)
Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity. Twining recommended along corridor from Joseph Street to at least 500m west of West Street.
$1,980,000.00
Lindsay Street and Helen Street
Introduction of an eastbound protected/permitted left-turn phase and optimization of signal times.
$20,000
Colborne Street and Francis Street Increase cycle length and optimization of signal times.
$3,500
Colborne Street and Bond Street
Signalization recommended.
$550,000
County Road 121 and Northline Road / County Road 8
Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate. In-Town Crossing: Crossing recommended for implementation for medium to long term period.
Fenelon River Crossing Omemee
$20,000
$3,500
Lindsay Street
Fenelon Falls
$550,000
Optimization of phase (split) lengths while maintaining Wellington Street at William Street existing cycle length.
Wellington Street and Queen Street Increase cycle length and optimization of signal times.
Bobcaygeon
Estimated Capital Costs
King Street and Ski Hill Road
Monitor intersection for signalization driven by continued buildout of tourist traffic generator. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate. Capital Cost
$2000 (per warrant) $15-20 million* $2000 (per warrant) $11,873,500
Note: Cost for in-town crossing included in 2051 calculation *As identified in presentation for second crossing EA. Cost identified in secondary EA. Cost to be revised post covid.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 168
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 29 - Long Term Improvements Long Term Improvements Improvement Areas New Recommendations Colborne Street from Highway 35 to No additional changes. Colborne Study Underway . Albert Street Little Britain Road & Elm Tree Road Construction of a southbound right-turn lane.
Fenelon Falls Omemee
$264,500
Construction of a westbound, eastbound, southbound left-turn lanes and southbound right-turn lane.
$1,254,500
Adelaide Street and Colborne Street
Construction of an eastbound and westbound left-turn lane and optimization of signal times.
$660,250
Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate.
Wellington Street / Queen Street and Lindsay Street
$2,000 (per warrant)
Queen Street and Verulam Road
Construction of a southbound left-turn lane and optimize signal times. Construction of an eastbound and westbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn lane.
Parkside Drive and Verulam Road
Construction of an eastbound left-turn and right-turn lanes.
$594,200
Lindsay Street and Logie Street
Construction of a southbound left-turn lane.
$330,000
Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity from Hwy 35 to Verulam Road (CKL 36).
$7,920,000
Verulam Road (CKL36)
Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity. Twining recommened from Needham Street to Parkside Drive.
$495,000
Queen Street / Wellington Street
Corridor improvements required to provide additional capacity. Twining recommended from Victoria Street to Verulam Road (CKL 36). Review of road classification recommended along corridor.
$3,762,000
Kent Street
Corridor review study to assess future road needs.
$200,000
Fieldside Road
Corridor review study to assess future road needs.
$200,000
Pigeon Lake Road / Weldon Road
Corridor review study to assess future road needs.
$200,000
East Street and King Street
Increase of cycle length and optimization of signal times.
$3,500.00
Main Street and Duke Street
Monitor intersection for signalization. Signal warrant should be conducted annually or as deemed appropriate.
Main Street and East Street
All-way stop operating at an acceptable LOS for long term conditions. Recommend detail intersection study to identify geometric intersection improvements.
Colborne Street
Bobcaygeon
On-going
Colborne Street and David Street
Albert Street and Fair Avenue Lindsay
Estimated Capital Costs
Fenelon River Crossing King Street and Sturgeon Road
In-Town Crossing: Crossing recommended for implementation for medium to long term period. Addition of northbound left-turn lane recommended Capital Cost
$330,500 $924,350
$2,000 (per warrant) $20,000
$15-20 million* $330,500 $37,501,300
*As identified in presentation for second crossing EA. Cost identified in secondary EA. Cost to be revised post covid.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 169
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
10.4 TMP Monitoring A multi-modal approach to implementation of infrastructure improvements within the City is important to meet strategic goals and the City’s vision. Monitoring the progress of this TMP update will provide continued guidance on project implementation and required future updates. How and where the City grows, in addition to travel behaviour will impact how the City proceeds with improvements. Monitoring can be implemented by measuring of collected data against milestones or established performance indicators. Monitoring can be completed on an annual basis, coincide with City data collection programs or census. Implementation plan metrics to be applied in the monitoring process of the 2025 TMP are identified in Table 30. Table 30 - Measures for Monitoring Implementation Measure Number of Completed Projects Identified in the TMP
Network Development
Investment Levels
Indicator
Source
Frequency
Street Networks (# of projects)
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Bicycle Route (# of projects)
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Sidewalks (# of projects)
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Transit (# of projects)
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Road Network
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Cycling Network
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Sidewalk Network
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Road Network
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Transit
Lindsay Transit
Annual
Cycling
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Walking
Kawartha Lakes
Annual
Apply measures identified in Table 30, progress for the 2025 TMP update can be measured by the City using Table 31.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 170
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
Table 31 - Measures For Tracking Progress Measure Trips by Mode Mode Split
Indicator
Unit
Walking, Cycling, Transit, Auto Trips Transit ridership Mode split (daily)
Trips Trips Trips % of City within 400m of a bus stop % of City within 400m of existing bicycle route % of urban road network KM with sidewalks Collisions
Transit coverage Cycling coverage Proximity Sidewalk coverage
Collision Frequency and Severity
Cost
Total number of reported Collisions Number of reported vehicle collisions per year resulting in injuries or fatalities Number of vehicle collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists Capital cost by mode Operating cost by mode
Source Kawartha Lakes / TTS Lindsay Transit TTS
Frequency Every 5 Years Every 5 Years Every 5 Years Every 5 Years
Kawartha Lakes
Every 5 Years
Kawartha Lakes
Every 5 Years
Police reports
Annual
Collisions
Police reports
Annual
Collisions
Police reports
Annual
Dollars Dollars
Kawartha Lakes Kawartha Lakes
Annual Annual
10.5 TMP Updates This TMP update is intended as a living document. As the City of Kawartha Lakes grows, the TMP will require further updates that reflect the new paradigm following the development of this plan. It is recommended that a review of this TMP update be conducted at regular intervals to ensure that the underlying assumptions are still relevant and applicable. This TMP update built on the previous 2012 TMP and projected recommendations up to the planning horizon year of 2051. Many of the previous 2012 TMP recommendations were carried forward while some were removed as they were no longer relevant or no longer supported. The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process recommends a review of master plans every five years. The regular reviews are intended to determine if there is a need to undertake a formal TMP update. As a living document, is it recommended that version control and routine review are implemented to effectively manage the changes and updates to the plan over time. Instituting a version control system will not only streamline the management of future TMP updates but also enhance clarity, traceability, and coherence across all revisions of the plan.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 171
City of Kawartha Lakes – Transportation Master Plan Update
LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 172
Page | 173
CITY OF KAWARTHA LAKES TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION PLAN Prepared for:
City of Kawartha Lakes 26 Francis Street Lindsay, ON, K9V 5R8
Prepared By:
Egis Group 6240 Hwy 7, Suite #200, Woodbridge, ON L4H 4G3
October 2023
October 10th, 2023 Micheal Farquhar - Project Manager City of Kawartha Lakes 26 Francis Street Lindsay, ON K9V 5R8
Dear Micheal: Re: Communication and Consultation Plan for the City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Enclosed is the Communication and Consultation Plan for the City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The purpose of this Communication and Consultation plan is to set out the desired outcome, objectives, audience, and strategy for communication throughout the consultation period. Please note that this document is intended for internal use only. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, Egis Team
Kassel Prince, P.Eng.
Thomas Gryz, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.
Alina Ahmad, BES
Project Manager Kassel.PRINCE@egis-group.com
Traffic/Transportation Engineer Thomas.GRYZ@egis-group.com
Transportation Planner Alina.AHMAD@egis-group.com
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3 2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4 3.0 PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................................ 6 4.0 CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES............................................................................................. 6 5.0 COMMUNICATION PLAN .................................................................................................. 7 5.1 External Agency and Public Notices...................................................................................................... 8 5.2 Website Postings .................................................................................................................................. 8 5.3 Contact List ........................................................................................................................................... 8 5.4 Communication Log .............................................................................................................................. 8 5.5 Meetings with the City of Kawartha Lakes, and Review Agencies ....................................................... 9
6.0 CONSULTATION PLAN ...................................................................................................... 9 6.1. Public Notices........................................................................................................................................ 9 6.1.1 Notice of Study Commencement .................................................................................................... 9 6.1.2 Notice of Public Information Centres ............................................................................................. 9 6.1.3 Notice of Study Completion .......................................................................................................... 10 6.2 External Negotiations and Consultation ............................................................................................. 10 6.3 Public Information Centres ................................................................................................................. 11 6.4 Indigenous Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 11
7.0 QUALITY CONTROL ........................................................................................................ 11 8.0 ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES COMPLIANCE ................................. 12 9.0 SCHEDULING .................................................................................................................. 12 10.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 12
1
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process……………………………………………………………………………………….7
APPENDIX Appendix A – Notice of Study Commencement………………………………………………………………………………………..……14
2
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Egis has been retained by the City of Kawartha Lakes to undertake the development of the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. The TMP is a strategic policy document that will serve as a road map for shortrange, medium-range, and long-range transportation infrastructure investments, as well as multi-modal transportation planning to meet the demands up to the 2051 horizon year. The goal is to optimize existing infrastructure and adopt sustainable practices for accommodating new development, aligned with the city's Growth Management Strategy. The plan will guide how we:
Develop our roadways Coordinate infrastructure improvements with land uses Provide sustainable, multi-modal transportation facilities, and services to ensure enhanced mobility, accessibility and connectivity Respond to future growth and demand on our transportation network
Egis has prepared this Communication and Consultation Plan for implementation throughout this study. The purpose of the Communication and Consultation Plan is to describe the timing and means of communicating with the public, governing agencies, indigenous communities and other stakeholders throughout the study. Consultation with stakeholders is a fundamental component of the study. Consultation will be ongoing throughout the project and will be carried out in conjunction with the transportation, engineering and environmental protection principles. It is essential for the success of this study that the consultation program be fully transparent, open and inclusive, and all public / stakeholder communication be clear, accessible and timely. As such, the stakeholder management plan will be complemented by this consultation strategy which will outline the consultation program including milestones, roles and responsibilities, format, and preparation steps. Stakeholders will include agencies such as, but not limited to: 1. Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) 2. City of Kawartha Lakes Departments 3. Kawartha Region Conservation Authority 4. Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) 5. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) 6. Lindsay Transit 7. Utilities (i.e., Hydro One Ontario Power Generation) 8. Emergency services (Police, Fire, Paramedic) 9. Community and business group associations 10. Indigenous communities and Local residents Comments from these stakeholders will be vital in the development and completion of a TMP that is relevant, understood and broadly supported by the public. Prior to project commencement, the city will be engaged for the appropriate process to access and upload materials onto the city’s premier online consultation platform, Jump In Kawartha Lakes. The consultant team will commit to supporting the city in developing content for the webpage, including notices, records of consultation, presentation slides, and technical documents as the study
3
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP progresses. Once the study team is ready to commence the study, a Notice of Study Commencement will be prepared and published in local publications, as well as on the city’s website. Overall, Egis understands that actively engaging the community, not simply to receive input, but more importantly to foster a sense of ownership, community pride and commitment to the project is of great importance to the City. As such, we have developed this Public Communication and Consultation Plan to undertake a comprehensive public and stakeholder consultation program for the City of Kawartha Lakes TMP. The primary objectives of this Consultation Plan are to:
2.0
Identify and include potentially affected members of the public and stakeholders; Outline how to inform public / agencies / Indigenous Communities about the Study and how to receive input, comments, questions and concerns; and Use the information received to identify issues early in the process and address through the Study.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The scope of work for the City of Kawartha Lakes will place significant emphasis on traffic operations, active transportation connectivity, and assessing the City’s current transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges, and culverts) as well as updating existing and establishing new policies and design standards as well as road classifications. The TMP will also ensure forecasted future traffic volumes are adequately accommodated by the City and local road networks. Our understanding of the scope of work includes the following: 1. Perform traffic data collection at the identified intersections and arterials. 2. Coordinate and incorporate updates from the ongoing updates to the city’s Growth Management Strategy, Active Transportation Master Plan and Trails Master Plan Update. Collect other background studies, improvements and developments in the area done by others. 3. Build a traffic analysis model using industry standards and software to represent the current state, base year of 2023, of the city’s transportation network (roads and intersections). 4. Assess the city’s current transportation network with respect to screenline, level of service and capacity analysis. 5. Confirm and develop future development scenarios for the city based on updates to the city’s forecasted growth and incorporate planned and ongoing developments. 6. Build a traffic analysis model using industry standards and software to represent the forecasted year, horizon year of 2051, of the city’s transportation network (roads and intersections). 7. Assess the city’s current transportation network under future conditions with respect to screenline, level of service and capacity analysis to identify the problems and opportunities. 8. Develop a list of alternative solutions for problems identified as needed, based on the new 2023 MCEA process. 9. Review the city’s collision statistics and develop an empirical model suitable for conducting future safety and operational assessments.
4
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP 10. Develop a framework for the implementation of a Vision Zero/ Safe Systems program in the city using and building on comparable Canadian experience. 11. Review the city’s parking needs in key built-up areas and update programming and planning of parking initiatives for the new 2051 horizon year. 12. Review the city’s current transit needs and reaffirm or adjust recommendations to the 2051 horizon year. Ensure recommendations line up with planned improvements to higher order corridors within the city, such as provincial highways and intermunicipal arterials. 13. Review the city’s seasonal load restriction policies, review existing routes, review the feasibility of designating route(s), while considering ways to limit the disruption to local agricultural, tourist, and recreational activities. 14. Develop the city’s road classification system, assess the city’s future arterial and collector road needs, and update design standards for roads to consider multi-modal uses and safety. 15. Review and develop policies and plans uniquely tailored to the city including a traffic calming policy, a posted speed limit review policy, an aggregate truck route policy, a ‘Traffic Impact Study’ guideline policy, etc. 16. Perform consultation activities and coordinate with the city’s online engagement platform, Jump In Kawartha Lakes. 17. Complete the Transportation Master Plan in accordance with the 2023 MCEA Process for Master Plans. The Transportation Master Plan is being prepared in accordance with the Municipal Engineer’s Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document. This document planning process is designed to address concerns of those affected by the undertaking (i.e. local public, business community, etc.). The objective for completing this Study as a Master Plan will be to ensure that environmental assessment planning principles and stakeholders/ and public input are considered in the identification of existing and future transportation infrastructure requirements. The Municipal Class EA Master Planning process is wellsuited to address the objectives of the TMP study, since it examines transportation systems or groups of related projects within a common geographic area and implementation of subsequent projects with environmental protection and mitigation measures integrated into the project. The Master Plan process as prescribed in the “Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road projects, (the Class EA) document requires the completion of Phases 1 (Problem Identification) and Phase 2 (Alternative Solutions) of the five phases of the Municipal Class EA process. Depending on the scope and level of analysis of a Master Plan, the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 may be satisfied for projects identified through this process. The combined impact of alternatives of the multi-modal transportation network (active transportation, public transportation, motorized transportation) is also better understood, leading to other more positive and sustainable solutions.
5
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP The goal will be to develop and enhance the transportation network to help establish the City of Kawartha Lakes as a leader in building, preserving, and enhancing livable communities, which will be supported by economic development, tourism, sustainable transportation practices, and the emerging shared economy. Understanding the balance and interaction between modes will help us define a practical vision for the City, building on the City’s current and planned projects. Lastly, to meet the Master Planning requirements of the Municipal Class EA Process, the project team is committed to undertaking two (2) rounds of consultation. The “two rounds” of engagement will include public information sessions (PIC #1 and PIC #2) and stakeholder group meetings.
3.0
PROJECT TEAM
The project will be carried out by Egis in partnership with Concept Dash and in close consultation with the City of Kawartha Lakes. Following is a list of key Project Team members that will have direct involvement during the consultation process: City of Kawartha Lakes
Micheal Farquhar - Project Manager at the City of Kawartha Lakes (Primary Contact)
Joseph Kelly, CET - Traffic Lead at the City of Kawartha Lakes
Egis Group
Kassel Prince, P.Eng. - Project Manager at Egis (Primary Contact)
Thomas Gryz, Traffic Engineer
Alina Ahmad, Transportation Planner
Concept Dash
Vivek Sharma - QA/QC Review/ Transportation Engineer
Chandi Ganguly - Transportation Specialist/ Traffic Engineer
Sagar K.P - Transportation Specialist
Famitha Salam - Transportation Specialist
Preeti Nagarkar - Transportation Specialist
4.0
CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES
Consultation with local private and public stakeholders as part of this project is another critical component of achieving success and is required as part of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (“MCEA”) process. A TMP would follow the new MCEA and would typically cover Phase 1, Problem and Opportunity, and Phase 2, Alternative Solutions, of the MCEA process. Currently, our understanding of changes to the MCEA process include new criteria for classifying projects. Projects that would have previously been considered Schedule B/C
6
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP projects could now be Schedule A/A+, or exempted, subject to new conditions and cost thresholds. This would be relevant in categorizing improvements for the purposes of the TMP, and determining which projects require further detail investigation. The city confirms that it expects to follow Approach 1 detailed in Appendix 4, Section 4.5 of the 2023 MCEA, which approaches the TMP from broader and more general lens. We understand that all public consultation will be on the city’s online public engagement platform, Jump In Kawartha Lakes. Our consultation materials such as notices, presentations, reports, and design plates will be prepared with this in mind. Egis will guide the City of Kawartha Lakes though Phase 1-2 of the MCEA. Please refer to Figure 1 outlining the MCEA planning design and process.
Figure 1: Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process The above elements will be part of the consultation process involving external agencies (provincial, federal, municipal) and the public as an essential component of this MCEA process.
5.0
COMMUNICATION PLAN
As per the RFP, a communication plan must be established as part of the project management tools defining the communication methods, contact list and frequency of contacts with the City of Kawartha Lakes. The communication plan will include the following:
7
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP
5.1
The communication methods. Public Notices; External Agency/Public contact list; Communication log; Agency and Stakeholder Meetings and Consultation (i.e., MTO, MECP, MNRF, etc.); and Stakeholder meetings with Indigenous Communities
External Agency and Public Notices
Public Notices will be prepared by Egis as part of the Communication Plan and forwarded in draft format to the City of Kawartha Lakes for their review/input and approval. The notices will be distributed to the Contact List vie email and posted on the City’s project website, and social media. All notices will be provided to the City by Egis for review and acceptance a minimum of 2 weeks (10) working days prior to release.
5.2
Website Postings
Egis will work with the City of Kawartha Lakes staff to facilitate the posting of project information on the City’s website, including project notices and PIC materials. Any other relevant information, as identified through the course of the study, will also be posted so that interested members of the public have access to this information.
5.3
Contact List
Egis has compiled a Contact List of potentially interested stakeholders. The draft Contact List includes government ministries/agencies, municipal staff, emergency services, school boards, businesses, affected public, member of provincial parliament, Indigenous Communities, Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (KRCA) and public interest groups. The Contact List will be used as a mailing list for project notices. Contact with stakeholders will be via email and documented in the Study Report. The Contact List will be considered a “living document”, which will be regularly updated throughout the course of the project to add, remove or revise information as necessary.
5.4
Communication Log
Egis will maintain a Communication Log for this project. The Communication Log will record and document the individual contacted, date and time of the contact, topic of discussion and commitments made. The record will be maintained throughout the duration of the study and will provide a chronological history of consultation and commitments made. The Communication Log is a work-in-progress and will be regularly updated throughout the course of the project to add, remove or revise information as necessary.
8
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP
5.5
Meetings with the City of Kawartha Lakes, and Review Agencies
Egis will consult with the City of Kawartha Lakes Staff and outside stakeholders. We will ensure that all interested parties are provided a direct opportunity for input through correspondence and/or meetings (as necessary). During each stage of the Project, the Project Team will consult with the City of Kawartha Lakes and key agencies, such as the Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Environment, conservation and parks authorities, and stakeholders to discuss the progress of the study and provide an opportunity to discuss and address any concerns. Egis will be responsible for preparing all meeting agendas, invites, minutes, and materials.
6.0
CONSULTATION PLAN
Egis will ensure the City of Kawartha Lakes conducts the appropriate level of consultation to satisfy the TMP public consultation requirements, as well as emphasize the points of contact planned for the TMP, the detailed methods, contents, and purpose and time. The Consultation efforts will include, at a minimum:
Notice of Study Commencement
Notice of Public Information Centre #1 and #2; and
Notice of Study Completion.
External Consultations
Public Information Centres; and
Indigenous Communities Consultation
Egis has prepared this Consultation Plan to ensure that a thorough, coordinated and transparent consultation process is in place and properly documented for the duration of this project.
6.1
Public Notices
6.1.1 Notice of Study Commencement Egis will prepare a Notice of Study Commencement letter to distribute to the Contact List as the first form of contact with stakeholders. The Notice of Study Commencement letter outlines the purpose of the notice, the project study area, a description of the project and requirements for a TMP including whom to contact with questions and comments. Egis will email all letters and the notice to the contact list. It is our understanding that the City of Kawartha Lakes Communication Team will publish the notice in local publications, as well as post the notice as required on the City’s Jump In project website, The final Notice of Study Commencement is provided in Appendix A.
6.1.2 Notice of Public Information Centres Two in-person or virtual Public Information Centres (PIC) will be held to disseminate information related to the study. Egis will continue to discuss this with the City of Kawartha Lakes to determine the best approach
9
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP and review the schedule as required. A PIC Notice will be published at least two weeks in advance providing the date, time, and location of the meeting. A Notice of PIC will be distributed to inform stakeholders that the TMP review and update is being undertaken and to provide details regarding the PIC. The notice will provide a description of the project background, the MCEA process that will be followed, the purpose of the PIC being conducted and key detail such as the date, time, location or where to access the PIC. Egis will email the notice to the contact list. It is our understanding that the City of Kawartha Lakes Communication Team will post the notice as required on the City of Kawartha Lakes Jump In project website. The notices will be prepared by Egis as part of this Consultation Plan and forwarded in draft format to the City of Kawartha Lakes for their review and approval. Once finalized, Egis will provide the Notice to the City of Kawartha Lakes in a format suitable to arrange for publication. A draft of the PIC notice will be provided to the City a minimum of 2 weeks prior to distribution, as well as draft presentation (PowerPoint) at a minimum of 3-4 weeks prior to hosting PIC. Submission deadlines will be discussed with the City of Kawartha Lakes well in advance of the PIC.
6.1.3 Notice of Study Completion The purpose of the Notice will be to inform interested stakeholders that an updated TMP has been prepared and is available for a 30-day public review period. Egis will email all letters to the contact list. It is our understanding that the City of Kawartha Lakes Communication Team will post the notice as required on the City of Kawartha Lakes Jump In project website. If no concerns are raised by the conclusion of the 30-day review period, a letter will be prepared and submitted to the City of Kawartha Lakes indicating the successful completion of the study and identifying that this project is eligible to proceed to implementation. A draft Notice of Study Completion will be provided to the City of Kawartha Lakes a minimum of 2 weeks prior to distribution.
6.2
External Negotiations and Consultation
In addition to the Notice Letters, there will be the need for external consultation with stakeholders to obtain, input and address/discuss/ resolve if any issues. Any discussions held with external government ministries/agencies, interest groups or local landowners/residents regarding the study will be documented in a letter to the responsible individual(s) or agency. This record will ensure commitments and agreements are fully documented. The City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager will be copied on all external correspondence and subsequent responses related to the TMP study requirements. Discussions held with external contacts will be documented and forwarded to the City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager.
10
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP Responses to all letters, comments, and inquiries about the TMP study received from the public, ministries and agencies, and local government will be prepared by Egis staff and reviewed by the City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager prior to being sent. All formal written responses received from the aforementioned will be copied to the City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager. This transfer of information will be facilitated by email to expedite the review process. All drafts of external correspondence will be submitted to the City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager for review and approval a minimum of five (5) days prior to the date required.
6.3
Public Information Centres
The project team will host two (2) Public Information Centres (PIC) to gather public input and present findings of the study, with the first PIC anticipated later in 2023. The purpose of the first PIC will be to present findings of the existing conditions assessment and to disseminate information related to the study and gather feedback from the public. Additionally, the purpose of the second PIC will be to present future conditions assessment and proposed solutions for the City’s transportation network. Overall, these two public information centres will be held at key phases of the project to disseminate project information. The PICs will allow the project team to collect input on the existing and future conditions, needs and issues within the study area and allow the public an opportunity to review findings of investigations, proposed alternative solutions/design concepts, evaluation criteria, and preliminary preferred alternative solution and design concepts. Egis will be responsible for preparing all display materials including plans, presentation materials, questionnaires, etc. in draft format for City’s review prior to finalizing. Egis will work with the City to support in uploading all Public Information Centre materials to the project website and other social media platforms, as required.
6.4
Indigenous Consultation
Indigenous communities are an important stakeholder group for municipal consultation. Egis will acquire the contact information from the City of Kawartha Lakes. As per the RFP, MP will identify all Indigenous Communities to be consulted during the study and will finalize the consultation list and communication with the City’s Project Manager. An Indigenous Engagement Summary will be updated to ensure all communication is properly documented and taken into consideration. All written correspondence with Indigenous groups will be directly through the City of Kawartha Lakes; however Egis will be responsible for preparing the letters and background information.
7.0
QUALITY CONTROL
All correspondence, notices, plans, reports and documentation will be checked for quality, accurateness, conformity with the guidelines and applicability by the Egis team before forwarding to the City of Kawartha Lakes for review and approval.
11
Communication and Consultation Plan – City of Kawartha Lakes TMP
8.0
ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES COMPLIANCE
Egis will ensure that all documents prepared in support of the TMP study (i.e., notices, presentations, reports, etc.) for this assignment are in compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).
9.0
SCHEDULING
A Consultation Schedule has been prepared for the TMP study. The schedule is subject to change only through consultation with the City of Kawartha Lakes Project Manager.
10.0
SUMMARY
Egis has prepared this Consultation Plan for implementation throughout the TMP development process. The purpose of this Consultation Plan is to describe the timing and means of communicating with the public, agencies and other stakeholders satisfying the requirements of the MCEA planning process.
12
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT
Notice of Study Commencement Posted August 24th, 2023
Transportation Master Plan To strategically prepare for this growth and enhance the City’s existing transportation network, the City of Kawartha Lakes has retained Egis to undertake the development of the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. The TMP is a strategic policy document that will serve as a road map for short-range, medium-range, and long-range transportation infrastructure investments, as well as multi-modal transportation planning to meet the demands up to the 2051 horizon year. The goal is to optimize existing infrastructure and adopt sustainable practices for accommodating new development, aligned with the city's Growth Management Strategy. The plan will guide how we: o Develop our roadways o Coordinate infrastructure improvements with land uses o Provide sustainable, multi-modal transportation facilities, and services to ensure enhanced mobility, accessibility and connectivity o Respond to future growth and demand on our transportation network
Phases The TMP update will be developed in accordance with the Provincial Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, following the new Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Master Planning process. The TMP will cover Phase 1, Problem and Opportunity, and Phase 2, Alternative Solutions, of the MCEA process and facilitate streamlining and implementation of recommended capital works. Overall, the TMP will have three phases that will follow the MCEA process: 1. Assess the existing conditions, area context and specific challenges 2. Assess traffic operations and road safety o Assess the City’s transportation needs o Develop preferred solutions to meet those needs o Update and implement policies and develop design standards to align with the city’s goals 3. Refine the preferred solutions and develop a comprehensive TMP document
Have your say An important part of this study is consultation with the public, stakeholders, and the City’s agency partners. We want to hear from you on the issues and opportunities that you see for the City’s Transportation System to the horizon year of 2051. At any time during this study, you can provide comments, questions, and concerns to the project team. We will also organize Public and Stakeholder engagement events to present an overview of the study and existing conditions while outlining alternatives, evaluation, and study recommendations. The project team will host two (2) Public Information Centres (PIC) to gather public input and present findings of the study, with the first PIC anticipated later in 2023. A PIC Notice will be published at least two weeks in advance providing the date, time, and location of the meeting. Learn more All public input, consultations, and stakeholder engagement activities will be conducted through the exclusive City of Kawartha Lakes engagement platform called "Jump In" hosted by Engagement Headquarters. For regular updates and to share your valuable input, visit the project website at https://jumpinkawarthalakes.ca Stay connected and participate in shaping the future of our community!
Privacy Statement Information is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act. Information collected will be used and managed by the City of Kawartha Lakes in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. If you require additional information, please view our Freedom of Information and Routine Disclosure Policy
Contact Us For further information or to be added to the study mailing list, please contact the study team: Kassel Prince, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager Egis Group Phone: 1+ 365-509-2040 Kassel.PRINCE@egis-group.com
Micheal Farquhar Joseph Kelly, CET Project Manager Traffic Lead City of Kawartha Lakes City of Kawartha Lakes Phone: 705-324-9411x1156 Phone:705-324-9411x1168 mfarquhar@kawarthlakes.ca jkelly@kawarthalakes.ca
Appendix B: Public Consultation
Page | 191
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix B: Public Consultation
B.1 Notice of Commencement
Page | 193
Notice of Study Commencement Posted August 24th, 2023
Transportation Master Plan To strategically prepare for this growth and enhance the City’s existing transportation network, the City of Kawartha Lakes has retained McIntosh Perry to undertake the development of the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. The TMP is a strategic policy document that will serve as a road map for short-range, medium-range, and long-range transportation infrastructure investments, as well as multi-modal transportation planning to meet the demands up to the 2051 horizon year. The goal is to optimize existing infrastructure and adopt sustainable practices for accommodating new development, aligned with the city's Growth Management Strategy. The plan will guide how we: o Develop our roadways o Coordinate infrastructure improvements with land uses o Provide sustainable, multi-modal transportation facilities, and services to ensure enhanced mobility, accessibility and connectivity o Respond to future growth and demand on our transportation network
Phases The TMP update will be developed in accordance with the Provincial Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, following the new Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Master Planning process. The TMP will cover Phase 1, Problem and Opportunity, and Phase 2, Alternative Solutions, of the MCEA process and facilitate streamlining and implementation of recommended capital works. Overall, the TMP will have three phases that will follow the MCEA process: 1. Assess the existing conditions, area context and specific challenges 2. Assess traffic operations and road safety o Assess the City’s transportation needs o Develop preferred solutions to meet those needs o Update and implement policies and develop design standards to align with the city’s goals 3. Refine the preferred solutions and develop a comprehensive TMP document 1
Have your say An important part of this study is consultation with the public, stakeholders, and the City’s agency partners. We want to hear from you on the issues and opportunities that you see for the City’s Transportation System to the horizon year of 2051. At any time during this study, you can provide comments, questions, and concerns to the project team. We will also organize Public and Stakeholder engagement events to present an overview of the study and existing conditions while outlining alternatives, evaluation, and study recommendations. The project team will host two (2) Public Information Centres (PIC) to gather public input and present findings of the study, with the first PIC anticipated later in 2023. A PIC Notice will be published at least two weeks in advance providing the date, time, and location of the meeting. Learn more All public input, consultations, and stakeholder engagement activities will be conducted through the exclusive City of Kawartha Lakes engagement platform called "Jump In" hosted by Engagement Headquarters. For regular updates and to share your valuable input, visit the project website at https://jumpinkawarthalakes.ca Stay connected and participate in shaping the future of our community!
Privacy Statement Information is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act. Information collected will be used and managed by the City of Kawartha Lakes in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. If you require additional information, please view our Freedom of Information and Routine Disclosure Policy
Contact Us For further information or to be added to the study mailing list, please contact the study team: Kassel Prince, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager Egis Group Phone: 1+ 365-509-2040 Kassel.PRINCE@egis-group.com
Micheal Farquhar Joseph Kelly, CET Project Manager Traffic Lead City of Kawartha Lakes City of Kawartha Lakes Phone: 705-324-9411x1156 Phone:705-324-9411x1168 mfarquhar@kawarthlakes.ca jkelly@kawarthalakes.ca
2
Appendix B: Public Consultation
B.2 Public Information Centre 1 (Survey Results)
Page | 196
Jump In Kawartha Lakes Report Type: Form Results Summary Date Range: 22-09-2023 - 04-10-2024 Exported: 31-10-2024 11:16:19
Closed Transportation Master Plan Survey: City of Kawartha Lakes Needs your Input Transportation Master Plan Study
561 Contributors
590 Contributions
Contribution Summary 1. Select the option that best describes yourself. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Full Time Resident
89.66%
529
Seasonal Resident
5.93%
35
Business Owner
0.17%
1
Both a Resident and Business Owner
2.71%
16
Working in Kawartha Lakes but living elsewhere
0.68%
4
Visitor
1.02%
6
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 1 of 18
2. Do you think everyone in the community has equal access to transportation options? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Yes
16.61%
98
No
68.31%
403
Don't Know
15.25%
90
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 2 of 18
3. What area within Kawartha Lakes do you live or own a property? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Fenlon Falls and area
27.46%
162
Lindsay and area
42.88%
253
Omemee and area
2.88%
17
Bobcaygeon and area
7.97%
47
Kinmount and area
0.34%
2
Kirkfield and area
2.37%
14
Manvers and area
2.88%
17
Sebright and area
0.51%
3
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 3 of 18
Segrave and area
1.02%
6
Coboconk and area
5.76%
34
Woodville and area
0.34%
2
Other
6.27%
37
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 4 of 18
4. What is your most common reason for travelling on public transit within Lindsay? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Work or School
3.73%
22
Recreation or Leisure
6.27%
37
I don't travel on Public Transit
88.31%
521
Other
3.73%
22
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 5 of 18
5. What is your most common reason for travelling around the municipality? Select all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Work or School
34.92%
206
Recreation or Leisure
70.85%
418
Tourism
16.10%
95
Medical Appointments
52.54%
310
Other
32.37%
191
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 6 of 18
6. Which of the following (if any) limits you from using your ideal mode(s) of travel? Select all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Road safety or personal safety concerns (i.e., traffic and road conditions, lighting and dark areas)
40.17%
237
Accessibility issues or concerns (i.e., disability, age, injury)
4.58%
27
Inconvenient
16.78%
99
Environmental limitations (i.e., hot or cold weather, steep hills)
9.66%
57
Inadequate infrastructure (i.e., sidewalks, bike lanes, public transit, lack of connectivity)
44.58%
263
Cost
6.10%
36
No limitations
31.02%
183
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 7 of 18
7. Which of the following travel modes do you use most when travelling around the municipality? Select all that apply. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Walking
42.20%
249
Cycling
20.51%
121
Public Transit
3.39%
20
Local Ride Hailing Services (Y Drive, Taxi)
1.36%
8
Electric Bicycle (E-Bike) or Electric Scooter
5.08%
30
Car or Motorcycle
93.39%
551
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 8 of 18
8. Which transportation related issue do you think has the most significant impact in your community? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Traffic Congestion
28.98%
171
Lack of Parking Spaces
10.00%
59
Inadequate Public Transit Options
25.59%
151
Unsafe Pedestrian Crossings
9.83%
58
Poor Road Conditions
39.15%
231
Other
13.56%
80
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 9 of 18
9. Do you consider traffic congestion an issue on Kawartha Lakes' roads? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Yes
54.41%
321
No
45.59%
269
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 10 of 18
10. Should the municipality consider creating temporary “pedestrian only” areas on certain roads during summer months, reducing access to vehicular traffic in those areas to create auto-free zones? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Yes
39.83%
235
No
60.17%
355
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 11 of 18
11. What is the most important transportation improvement that needs to be made in Kawartha Lakes? Rank the following in order of importance (1 being the highest priority) Required Ranking | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
1
2
3
4
5
Count
Score
Avg Rank
Active Tran sportation (Trails, Bike Lanes, Bike Routes, etc.)
15.38% 88
15.03% 86
17.48% 100
24.83% 142
27.27% 156
572
2.58
3.34
Road Maintenan ce
46.79% 270
26.86% 155
12.65% 73
7.45% 43
6.24% 36
577
3.92
1.99
Public Transit/Bu s Services
14.64% 83
18.34% 104
21.52% 122
25.75% 146
19.75% 112
567
2.71
3.18
Local Oper ations/Roa dway Capacity (Traffic Signals, Road Widenings, etc.)
20.74% 117
28.90% 163
22.87% 129
14.18% 80
13.30% 75
564
3.15
2.70
Road Safety (Signage, Reduced Speeds)
5.70% 32
12.12% 68
25.31% 142
25.67% 144
31.19% 175
561
2.24
3.65
Score - Sum of the weight of each ranked position, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total contributions. Weights are inverse to ranked positions. Avg Rank - Sum of the ranked position of the choice, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total 'Count' of the choice.
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 12 of 18
12. What improvements could make travel options safer or more convenient in Kawartha Lakes? Rank the following in order of most to least importance (1 being the highest importance) Required Ranking | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
Score
Avg Rank
Providin g more public tr ansport ation services (i.e., bus, accessib le transit)
20.00% 112
9.64% 54
15.89% 89
13.57% 76
14.29% 80
11.25% 63
15.36% 86
560
3.91
3.88
Increas ed enfor cement of speed limits within C ommuni ty Safety Zones
10.87% 60
10.51% 58
11.96% 66
12.50% 69
13.77% 76
18.12% 100
22.28% 123
552
3.26
4.51
Increas ed Bylaw enfo rcement (i.e., parking restricti ons; load res
2.89% 16
11.37% 63
14.98% 83
14.80% 82
16.97% 94
23.65% 131
15.34% 85
554
3.16
4.64
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 13 of 18
trictions ; no trucks routes) Improvi ng the conditio n of roads and bridges
41.52% 240
21.97% 127
12.46% 72
7.09% 41
6.92% 40
5.54% 32
4.50% 26
578
5.38
2.51
Adding i ntersect ion impr ovemen ts (i.e., turning lanes, turn arrows, traffic signals, traffic circles) at more intersec tions
18.69% 106
30.16% 171
17.46% 99
11.64% 66
9.35% 53
7.23% 41
5.47% 31
567
4.74
3.06
Improvi ng pede strian crossing s
4.47% 25
12.16% 68
16.99% 95
26.48% 148
17.53% 98
15.92% 89
6.44% 36
559
3.66
4.14
Improvi ng trail crossing s or install cyclist crossing at inters ections
5.55% 31
6.98% 39
11.09% 62
13.42% 75
18.96% 106
15.92% 89
28.09% 157
559
2.91
4.93
Score - Sum of the weight of each ranked position, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total contributions. Weights are inverse to ranked positions. Avg Rank - Sum of the ranked position of the choice, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total 'Count' of the choice.
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 14 of 18
13. How important is having a connected, safe and inclusive active transportation network within Kawartha Lakes? Required Matrix | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 590 (100%)
Select any one of the following
Very Important
Fairly Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
Count
Score
54.92% 324
15.93% 94
14.58% 86
8.98% 53
5.59% 33
590
1.94
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 15 of 18
14. Where do you find traffic congestion an issue? Short Text | Skipped: 230 | Answered: 360 (61%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions No featured contributions
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 16 of 18
15. Do you know of a specific road or area of the municipality's transportation network requiring attention? Provide precise location(s). Long Text | Skipped: 143 | Answered: 447 (75.8%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions No featured contributions
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024)
Page 17 of 18
16. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for the Transportation Master Plan? Long Text | Skipped: 199 | Answered: 391 (66.3%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions No featured contributions
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (22 Sep 2023 to 04 Oct 2024) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 18 of 18
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix B: Public Consultation
B.3 Public Information Centre 2 (Survey Results)
Page | 215
Jump In Kawartha Lakes Report Type: Form Results Summary Date Range: 07-10-2024 - 29-10-2024 Exported: 31-10-2024 11:17:10
Open 93 Contributors
Transportation Master Plan Survey 2 Transportation Master Plan Study
99 Contributions
Contribution Summary 1. Please select the option that best describes yourself. Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Full time resident
83.84%
83
Seasonal resident
7.07%
7
Business owner
1.01%
1
Both a resident and business owner
6.06%
6
Working in Kawartha Lakes but living elsewhere
1.01%
1
Visitor
1.01%
1
Total
100.00%
99
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 1 of 22
2. Which age group applies to you? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
18 to 24
3.03%
3
25 to 34
5.05%
5
35 to 44
7.07%
7
45 to 54
14.14%
14
55 to 64
24.24%
24
65
43.43%
43
Prefer not to say
3.03%
3
Total
100.00%
99
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 2 of 22
3. What area within Kawartha Lakes do you live or own a property? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Fenelon Falls and area
49.49%
49
Lindsay and area
25.25%
25
Omemee and area
2.02%
2
Bobcaygeon and area
5.05%
5
Kinmount and area
0%
0
Kirkfield and area
2.02%
2
Manvers and area
2.02%
2
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 3 of 22
Sebright and area
0%
0
Seagrave and area
2.02%
2
Coboconk and area
7.07%
7
Woodville and area
0%
0
I do not live or own property within Kawartha Lakes
1.01%
1
Other
4.04%
4
Total
100.00%
99
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 4 of 22
4. How important are the following factors when choosing a mode of transportation? Required Matrix | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Very important
Important
Neutral
Somewhat important
Not important
Count
Score
Cost
31.31% 31
33.33% 33
24.24% 24
9.09% 9
2.02% 2
99
2.17
Convenience
54.55% 54
31.31% 31
11.11% 11
2.02% 2
1.01% 1
99
1.64
Safety
57.58% 57
34.34% 34
5.05% 5
2.02% 2
1.01% 1
99
1.55
Environment al impact
37.37% 37
28.28% 28
23.23% 23
6.06% 6
5.05% 5
99
2.13
Travel time
44.44% 44
34.34% 34
17.17% 17
2.02% 2
2.02% 2
99
1.83
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 5 of 22
5. What is the top factor influencing your transportation mode choice within the City? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Cost
10.10%
10
Reliability
48.48%
48
Travel time
41.41%
41
Total
100.00%
99
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 6 of 22
6. Which transportation modes do you believe will be most important in 2051 in Kawartha Lakes? (Select all that apply) Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Public transit
57.58%
57
Personal vehicles (cars, motorcycles, etc.)
76.77%
76
Bicycles
28.28%
28
Walking
28.28%
28
Rideshare services (Uber, Lyft, local)
27.27%
27
Autonomous vehicles
14.14%
14
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 7 of 22
7. Cycling Priorities: What are the top three factors influencing cycling as your preferred mode of transportation choice? (choose your top three, if applicable) Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Access to facilities
8.08%
8
Travel time
13.13%
13
Safety/Comfort
42.42%
42
Environmental impact
14.14%
14
Cost
4.04%
4
Health benefits
29.29%
29
I only cycle for recreation
32.32%
32
I don't use cycling as a travel mode
50.51%
50
Other
2.02%
2
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 8 of 22
8. What improvements would make travelling safer or more accessible for cyclists and pedestrians? (select all that apply) Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
More sidewalks or multi-use paths
50.51%
50
Convert all sidewalks to multi-use paths
15.15%
15
Pedestrian only roads or lanes in core areas
21.21%
21
More dedicated bicycle lanes
46.46%
46
Better connectivity of active transportation network
42.42%
42
Other
11.11%
11
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 9 of 22
9. What infrastructure improvements do you believe are necessary to support transportation in 2051 in Kawartha Lakes? (Select all that apply) Required
Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Expanded public transit networks
63.64%
63
More bike lanes and pedestrian pathways
38.38%
38
Enhanced road safety measures (ex. traffic calming)
43.43%
43
Increased parking facilities
33.33%
33
More electric vehicle charging stations
29.29%
29
Other
15.15%
15
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 10 of 22
10. What technological advancements do you think will impact transportation in the City by 2051? (Select all that apply) Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Electric vehicles
49.49%
49
Smart traffic management systems
55.56%
55
Rideshare services (Uber, Lyft, local)
33.33%
33
Autonomous transportation
23.23%
23
Other
11.11%
11
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 11 of 22
11. What improvements would most enhance your transportation experience? Required Matrix | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Very important
Important
Neutral
Somewhat important
Not important
Count
Score
Increases public transit network
29.29% 29
28.28% 28
17.17% 17
10.10% 10
15.15% 15
99
2.54
Better signage and information
26.26% 26
34.34% 34
24.24% 24
8.08% 8
7.07% 7
99
2.35
More bike lanes
16.16% 16
26.26% 26
18.18% 18
12.12% 12
27.27% 27
99
3.08
Improved pedestrian pathways
34.34% 34
30.30% 30
13.13% 13
14.14% 14
8.08% 8
99
2.31
Enhanced safety measures to ensure a safe road network
48.48% 48
27.27% 27
11.11% 11
7.07% 7
6.06% 6
99
1.95
Improved availability of public EV charging stations
14.14% 14
22.22% 22
23.23% 23
8.08% 8
32.32% 32
99
3.22
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 12 of 22
12. Which transportation related issue do you think has the most significant impact in your community? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Traffic congestion
26.26%
26
Lack of parking spaces
4.04%
4
Inadequate public transit options
19.19%
19
Unsafe pedestrian crossings
3.03%
3
Poor road conditions
23.23%
23
Dangerous driving/speeding
14.14%
14
Other
10.10%
10
Total
100.00%
99
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 13 of 22
13. What challenges do you face when navigating around Kawartha Lakes? (Select all that apply) Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Limited public transportation options
40.40%
40
Inadequate signage or wayfinding
11.11%
11
Poor road conditions
68.69%
68
Safety concerns (ex. traffic, crime, etc.)
34.34%
34
Lack of bike lanes or pedestrian pathways
27.27%
27
Limited information on transit routes and schedules
9.09%
9
Accessibility issues for people with disabilities
15.15%
15
Seasonal weather conditions that affect travel
38.38%
38
Other
14.14%
14
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 14 of 22
14. How important do you think sustainability should be in transportation planning for 2051? Required Select Box | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Very important
41.41%
41
Important
34.34%
34
Neutral
17.17%
17
Somewhat important
7.07%
7
Not important
0%
0
Total
100.00%
99
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 15 of 22
15. What traffic calming measures do you believe would be most effective in improving safety and reducing speed in Kawartha Lakes? (Select all that apply) Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Speed bumps or humps
34.34%
34
Raised crosswalks
17.17%
17
Narrower lanes
2.02%
2
Roundabouts
54.55%
54
Chicanes (curved road design)
10.10%
10
Enhanced signage and visibility
34.34%
34
Increased enforcement of speed limits
52.53%
52
Traffic circles
20.20%
20
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 16 of 22
16. What do you believe will be impacted the most due to development in Kawartha Lakes? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Environmental impact
16.16%
16
Increase in traffic
49.49%
49
Changes to community character
20.20%
20
Reduced availability of local resources (water, land, etc.)
6.06%
6
Other
8.08%
8
Total
100.00%
99
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 17 of 22
17. What is your vision for transportation in our community by the year 2051? (select all that apply) Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Congested roadways
63.64%
63
Increased safety concerns
42.42%
42
Long delays at intersections
52.53%
52
Improved pedestrian and active transportation facilities
31.31%
31
Enhanced transit service
48.48%
48
Improved sustainable transportation options (electric vehicles, micromobility)
29.29%
29
Other
7.07%
7
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 18 of 22
18. Do you know of a specific road or area of the municipality's transportation network requiring attention? Provide up to three precise location(s) where applicable and include the improvements needed. Long Text | Skipped: 21 | Answered: 78 (78.8%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions No featured contributions
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 19 of 22
19. How often do you use public transit, if at all? Required Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 99 (100%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
1 to 2 times per week
4.04%
4
3 to 4 times per week
0%
0
5 times per week
3.03%
3
I do not use public transit
92.93%
92
Total
100.00%
99
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 20 of 22
20. What factors influence your decision to use or not use public transit? Required Long Text | Skipped: 93 | Answered: 6 (6.1%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions No featured contributions
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024)
Page 21 of 22
21. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for the Transportation Master Plan? Long Text | Skipped: 28 | Answered: 71 (71.7%) Sentiment No sentiment data Tags No tag data Featured Contributions No featured contributions
Jump In Kawartha Lakes - Form Results Summary (07 Oct 2024 to 29 Oct 2024) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 22 of 22
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix B: Public Consultation
B.4 Notice of Completion
Page | 239
Notice of Study Completion Transportation Master Plan Update About the Study The City of Kawartha Lakes has completed the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update that incorporates updated population and employment forecasts to guide the enhancement of a multi-modal transportation network to the year 2051. The TMP will serve as a road map for short-range, medium-range, and long-range transportation infrastructure investments. It will guide how we:
develop our roadways
coordinate infrastructure improvements with land uses
provide sustainable, multi-modal transportation facilities, and services to ensure enhanced mobility, accessibility and connectivity
respond to future growth and demand on our transportation network
The Study Process The TMP Update was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Master Planning process, an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, including extensive public and agency consultation and input. As part of the TMP process, our consultants, Egis assessed the City of Kawartha Lake’s existing and future transportation challenges and opportunities and identified long-term transportation infrastructure needs. Recommendations in the TMP Update support plans, improve connectivity, enhance safety, and encourage active transportation. The TMP Update includes recommendations for operational, design, and transportation policies that supports the City’s transportation infrastructure through the year 2051. The study addresses transportation needs and justification at a broad level, so the recommended infrastructure projects will require further examination and detailed study to complete the requirements of the Municipal Class EA prior to implementation. Notice of Review Period By this notice, the TMP Update is being placed on public record for a 30 calendar-day review period in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class EA process. The review period will begin on February 24, 2025. Please provide written comments by March 26, 2025. All comments will become part of the public record of the study, except for personal information. The TMP Update report will be available for review online at the following link: Transportation Master Plan Study | Jump In Kawartha Lakes
Micheal Farquhar Project Manager City of Kawartha Lakes Phone: 705-324-9411 x1156 mfarquhar@kawarthlakes.ca
Kassel Prince, P.Eng Consultant Project Manager Egis Canada Ltd. Phone: 1+ 365-509-2040 Kassel.PRINCE@egis-group.com
Page | 241
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Page | 245
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Page | 255
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
E.1 Lindsay
Page | 257
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
31 31 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1573 0.73 1207 0.96 32 0 32 16% Perm
36 36 1900 7.1 1.00 0.92 1.00 1730 1.00 1730 0.96 38 29 49 3% NA 4
38 38 1900
12 12 1900
0.96 40 0 0 2%
0.96 12 0 0 2% Perm
29 29 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1794 0.92 1672 0.96 30 0 43 7% NA 8
79 79 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1498 1.00 1498 0.96 82 59 23 9% Perm
11 11 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.40 746 0.96 11 0 11 2% Perm
240 240 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1779 1.00 1779 0.96 250 0 250 8% NA 2
3 3 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 3 1 2 2% Perm
94 94 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.60 1138 0.96 98 0 98 2% Perm
489 489 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.96 509 0 509 4% NA 6
50 50 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1361 1.00 1361 0.96 52 23 29 20% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 420
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 418
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 638
0.02 0.05 23.4 1.00 0.1 23.5 C
0.01 0.03 8.7 1.00 0.1 8.8 A
0.00 0.00 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.6 A
0.09 0.15 9.4 1.00 0.2 9.6 A
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 338 0.03 0.09 23.7 1.00 0.6 24.2 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 485 c0.03
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 469 0.03 0.09 23.7 1.00 0.1 23.8 C 23.6 C
0.10 23.7 1.00 0.4 24.2 C 24.2 C 13.9 0.36 89.1 68.8% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 998 0.14 0.25 10.0 1.00 0.6 10.6 B 10.5 B
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1036 c0.28 0.49 11.8 1.00 0.6 12.5 B 11.8 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 763 0.02 0.04 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.8 A
B 14.1 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max Max None None 57 32.1 57 32.1 64.0% 36.0% 64.0% 36.0% 35 30.1 35 30.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 20 10 20 10 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 21 16 21 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 0 57 57 0 57 0 50 82 50 82 29 66 29 66 0 57 0 57 50 82 50 82 29 66 29 66
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 32 0.09 24.7 0.0 24.7 4.0 10.8 150.0 338 0 0 0 0.09
EBT WBT 78 43 0.15 0.09 14.5 24.4 0.0 0.0 14.5 24.4 4.8 5.4 14.8 13.2 1366.5 1368.7 514 0 0 0 0.15
469 0 0 0 0.09
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
WBR 82 0.17 6.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 10.0
NBL 11 0.03 9.0 0.0 9.0 0.8 3.0
170.0 479 0 0 0 0.17
250.0 418 0 0 0 0.03
NBT 250 0.25 10.8 0.0 10.8 20.3 33.1 1562.1 998 0 0 0 0.25
NBR 3 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SBL 98 0.15 10.2 0.0 10.2 7.5 15.2
135.0 920 0 0 0 0.00
200.0 638 0 0 0 0.15
SBT 509 0.49 13.9 0.0 13.9 49.2 73.7 1053.3 1036 0 0 0 0.49
SBR 52 0.07 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.0 4.5 200.0 786 0 0 0 0.07
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
91 91 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1695 1.00 1695 0.90 101 1 104 13% NA 4
4 4 1900
96 96 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.69 1261 0.90 107 0 107 5% Perm
67 67 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1642 1.00 1642 0.90 74 0 74 17% NA 8
92 92 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.90 102 68 34 2% Perm
143 143 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.66 1237 0.90 159 0 159 2% Perm
136 136 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.90 151 0 151 2% NA 2
0 0 1900
3 3 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.66 1085 0.90 3 0 3 17% Perm
142 142 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.90 158 0 158 4% NA 6
141 141 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.90 157 75 82 6% Perm
8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 534
2 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 644
0.02 0.06 21.8 1.00 0.2 22.0 C
c0.13 0.25 12.6 1.00 0.9 13.5 B
0.90 0 0 0 2%
0.90 4 0 0 7%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 420
32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 565 0.06
c0.08 0.25 23.3 1.00 1.5 24.7 C
0.18 22.7 1.00 0.2 22.8 C 22.8 C 16.6 0.25 95.9 62.7% 15
32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 547 0.05 0.14 22.3 1.00 0.5 22.8 C 23.2 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.90 0 0 0 2%
6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 565
50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 981 0.08
0.00 0.01 11.0 1.00 0.0 11.0 B
0.15 11.9 1.00 0.3 12.3 B 12.9 B
50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 962 0.09 0.16 12.0 1.00 0.4 12.4 B 12.1 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 803 0.05 0.10 11.6 1.00 0.3 11.9 B
B 13.9 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 SETL
4 6 NBTL NWTL
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
8 SBTL
C-Max None C-Max Max 57 38.9 57 38.9 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 39 32.9 39 32.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1 1.1 1 20 10 20 10 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 25 16 25 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 0 57 57 0 57 0 50 89 50 89 25 73 25 73 0 57 0 57 50 89 50 89 25 73 25 73
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 95.9 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
NBT 105 0.19 23.4 0.0 23.4 13.4 25.4 530.8 566 0 0 0 0.19
SBL 107 0.25 25.3 0.0 25.3 14.3 27.4 100.0 420 0 0 0 0.25
SBT 74 0.14 23.2 0.0 23.2 9.5 19.4 249.9 547 0 0 0 0.14
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
SBR 102 0.17 5.4 0.0 5.4 0.0 10.6
SEL 159 0.25 13.9 0.0 13.9 15.4 27.4
100.0 602 0 0 0 0.17
200.0 644 0 0 0 0.25
SET 151 0.15 12.5 0.0 12.5 13.9 24.1 374.7 981 0 0 0 0.15
NWL 3 0.01 11.0 0.0 11.0 0.3 1.6 200.0 565 0 0 0 0.01
NWT 158 0.16 12.6 0.0 12.6 14.6 25.2 359.2 962 0 0 0 0.16
NWR 157 0.18 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 8.8 100.0 878 0 0 0 0.18
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
16 16 1900
249 249 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1812 0.97 1761 0.84 296 6 336 5% NA 2
23 23 1900
8 8 1900
15 15 1900
10 10 1900
8 8 1900
0.84 18 0 0 2%
0.84 12 0 0 10% Perm
0.84 12 0 0 2%
0.84 10 0 0 2% Perm
33 33 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 0.99 1753 0.98 1727 0.84 39 20 68 3% NA 4
33 33 1900
0.84 10 0 0 2% Perm
20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 0.97 0.99 1738 0.95 1671 0.84 24 6 42 5% NA 8
10 10 1900
0.84 27 0 0 2%
279 279 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1835 0.98 1808 0.84 332 4 356 4% NA 6
0.84 19 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
8
6
4
15.0 15.0 0.29 6.0 3.0 516
15.0 15.0 0.29 6.0 3.0 530
25.1 25.1 0.49 5.0 3.0 820
25.1 25.1 0.49 5.0 3.0 848
0.19 0.65 15.8 1.00 2.9 18.7 B 18.7 B
c0.20 0.67 15.9 1.00 3.4 19.2 B 19.2 B
0.03 0.05 6.8 1.00 0.1 6.9 A 6.9 A
c0.04 0.08 6.9 1.00 0.2 7.1 A 7.1 A
17.0 0.30 51.1 39.6% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.84 39 0 0 2%
B 11.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
None Max None Max 41 41 30 30 57.7% 42.3% 57.7% 42.3% 25 25 41 41 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 41 41 0 0 41 0 41 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10 0 41 41 0 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBT 342 0.66 21.7 0.0 21.7 26.1 42.1 123.3
WBT 360 0.68 22.5 0.0 22.5 28.0 44.6 258.1
NBT 48 0.06 7.1 0.0 7.1 1.5 6.2 366.5
SBT 88 0.10 5.9 0.0 5.9 2.1 8.3 390.1
1212 0 0 0 0.28
1244 0 0 0 0.29
826 0 0 0 0.06
868 0 0 0 0.10
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
12 12 1900
253 253 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1860 0.98 1825 0.87 291 3 328 NA 6
23 23 1900
9 9 1900
16 16 1900
23 23 1900
9 9 1900
0.87 18 0 0
0.87 26 0 0 Perm
0.87 6 0 0
0.87 10 0 0 Perm
71 71 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1843 0.98 1814 0.87 82 5 100 NA 4
11 11 1900
0.87 10 0 0 Perm
42 42 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.98 1835 0.90 1687 0.87 48 3 77 NA 8
5 5 1900
0.87 26 0 0
284 284 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1868 0.99 1848 0.87 326 2 352 NA 2
0.87 14 0 0 Perm 6
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
8
2
4
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 803
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 813
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 742
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 798
0.18 0.41 19.1 1.00 1.5 20.7 C 20.7 C
c0.19 0.43 19.4 1.00 1.7 21.1 C 21.1 C
0.05 0.10 16.4 1.00 0.3 16.7 B 16.7 B
c0.06 0.13 16.6 1.00 0.3 16.9 B 16.9 B
20.0 0.28 100.0 39.0% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.87 13 0 0
C 12.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
8 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max Max Max Max 50 50 50 50 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 24 24 28 26 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 20 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 15 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 50 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29 50 50 0 0 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 EBTL
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBT 331 0.41 20.8 0.0 20.8 42.0 61.4 258.1
WBT 354 0.43 21.3 0.0 21.3 45.8 66.1 647.5
NBT 80 0.11 16.0 0.0 16.0 8.3 16.3 153.3
SBT 105 0.13 15.8 0.0 15.8 10.7 19.8 103.2
805 0 0 0 0.41
814 0 0 0 0.43
745 0 0 0 0.11
802 0 0 0 0.13
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
72 72 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.41 781 0.88 82 0 82 2% pm+pt 5 2 35.9 35.9 0.54 5.0 3.0 534 0.02 0.06 0.15 7.5 1.00 0.1 7.7 A
604 604 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3568 1.00 3568 0.88 686 2 698 2% NA 2
12 12 1900
71 71 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.32 600 0.88 81 0 81 2% pm+pt 1 6 35.9 35.9 0.54 5.0 3.0 457 c0.02 0.07 0.18 7.7 1.00 0.2 7.9 A
391 391 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3448 1.00 3448 0.88 444 20 521 3% NA 6
85 85 1900
61 61 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.58 1100 0.88 69 0 69 2% Perm
55 55 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1660 1.00 1660 0.88 62 33 74 2% NA 4
39 39 1900
131 131 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.69 1296 0.88 149 0 149 2% Perm
76 76 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1660 1.00 1660 0.88 86 61 136 2% NA 8
98 98 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.88 14 0 0 2%
28.3 28.3 0.42 5.0 3.0 1511 c0.20 0.46 13.8 1.00 1.0 14.8 B 14.1 B 15.7 0.43 66.8 73.3% 15
0.88 97 0 0 3%
28.3 28.3 0.42 5.0 3.0 1460 0.15 0.36 13.1 1.00 0.2 13.2 B 12.5 B
4 15.9 15.9 0.24 5.0 3.0 261 0.06 0.26 20.7 1.00 0.5 21.2 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.88 44 0 0 18%
8 15.9 15.9 0.24 5.0 3.0 308
15.9 15.9 0.24 5.0 3.0 395 0.04
c0.11 0.48 21.9 1.00 1.2 23.1 C
0.19 20.3 1.00 0.2 20.5 C 20.8 C
0.88 111 0 0 9%
15.9 15.9 0.24 5.0 3.0 395 0.08 0.34 21.1 1.00 0.5 21.6 C 22.3 C
B 15.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
2 6 4 8 5 1 WBL EBTL NBTL EBL WBTL SBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None None None None 33 33 20 30 20 30 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 15 33 15 33 26 26 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 15 10 28 28 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 18 18 10 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20 20 53 53 0 0 53 53 20 0 20 0 15 78 15 78 48 48 38 38 68 15 15 68 0 0 63 33 63 33 28 28 58 78 58 78 18 18 78 78 48 48 83 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 82 0.14 6.2 0.0 6.2 3.5 8.8 70.0 705 0 0 0 0.12
EBT 700 0.46 15.6 0.0 15.6 32.7 49.3 368.2 1538 0 0 0 0.46
WBL 81 0.16 6.3 0.0 6.3 3.4 8.7 120.0 637 0 0 0 0.13
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
WBT 541 0.36 13.7 0.0 13.7 22.4 35.7 68.4
NBL 69 0.26 24.7 0.0 24.7 7.3 16.7
NBT 107 0.25 15.9 0.0 15.9 6.6 17.2 306.6
1504 0 0 0 0.36
423 0 0 0 0.16
664 0 0 0 0.16
SBL 149 0.48 28.8 0.0 28.8 16.7 31.7 30.0 498 0 0 0 0.30
SBT 197 0.43 17.0 0.0 17.0 12.5 27.8 418.3 687 0 0 0 0.29
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
205 205 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.16 305 0.90 228 0 228 4% pm+pt 1 6 52.8 52.8 0.47 5.0 3.0 295 c0.08 c0.28 0.77 22.4 1.00 11.9 34.3 C
386 386 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.90 429 0 429 2% NA 6
219 35 35 219 1900 1900 5.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1601 1772 1.00 0.39 1601 726 0.90 0.90 39 243 0 150 39 93 2% 3% Perm pm+pt 5 2 6 43.0 40.9 43.0 40.9 0.37 0.38 5.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 309 614 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.13 0.15 23.4 22.6 1.00 1.00 0.2 0.5 23.6 23.1 C C
438 438 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.90 487 0 487 2% NA 2
75 75 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.90 83 56 27 3% Perm
204 204 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.23 442 0.90 227 0 227 2% pm+pt 3 8 47.2 47.2 0.42 5.0 3.0 357 c0.08 0.19 0.64 23.5 1.00 3.7 27.2 C
140 140 1900 6.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1768 1.00 1768 0.90 156 11 204 5% NA 8
53 53 1900
67 67 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.62 1152 0.90 74 0 74 4% pm+pt 7 4 35.1 35.1 0.31 5.0 3.0 399 0.01 0.05 0.19 27.6 1.00 0.2 27.8 C
123 123 1900 6.0 1.00 0.91 1.00 1700 1.00 1700 0.90 137 48 298 4% NA 4
188 188 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
43.0 43.0 0.38 6.0 3.0 722 0.23 0.59 27.5 1.00 3.6 31.1 C 29.7 C
35.2 0.76 112.0 82.0% 15
36.1 36.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 606 0.26 0.80 34.7 1.00 10.8 45.5 D 41.5 D
2 36.1 36.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 510 0.02 0.05 26.2 1.00 0.2 26.4 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.90 59 0 0 2%
35.1 35.1 0.31 6.0 3.0 554 0.12 0.37 29.8 1.00 1.9 31.7 C 29.4 C
0.90 209 0 0 2%
28.0 28.0 0.25 6.0 3.0 425 c0.18 0.70 38.2 1.00 9.3 47.5 D 44.0 D
D 22.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
2 6 4 7 8 1 3 5 NBL SBTL WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None Max None Max None 40 40 33 23 17 17 23 33 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 33 33 33 13 13 13 33 13 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17 17 80 57 57 80 0 0 0 17 57 80 57 80 17 0 51 51 75 107 12 75 107 12 34 34 90 75 12 90 75 12 0 0 63 40 96 96 40 63 34 34 90 108 58 108 58 90 17 17 73 58 108 108 58 73 113 Semi Act-Uncoord 95
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 228 0.76 36.5 0.0 36.5 28.5 #61.1 30.0 302 0 0 0 0.75
EBT 429 0.58 31.9 0.0 31.9 76.8 116.7 607.3
EBR 243 0.31 4.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 16.7
743 0 0 0 0.58
779 0 0 0 0.31
WBL WBT 39 487 0.83 0.11 17.4 49.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 49.0 4.3 96.4 10.6 #156.4 443.3 65.0 428 587 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0.83
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
WBR 83 0.14 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 3.9
NBL 227 0.62 27.9 0.0 27.9 30.8 47.9
581 0 0 0 0.14
100.0 414 0 0 0 0.55
NBT 215 0.37 29.7 0.0 29.7 33.4 55.8 278.0 580 0 0 0 0.37
SBL 74 0.17 19.9 0.0 19.9 9.1 17.9 300.0 578 0 0 0 0.13
SBT 346 0.74 41.8 0.0 41.8 56.2 #98.8 268.1 469 0 0 0 0.74
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Parking (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
4 4 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1460 0.51 776 0.95 4 0 4 25%
86 86 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1665 1.00 1665 0.95 91 3 96 15%
8 8 1900
86 86 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.52 963 0.95 91 0 91 4%
101 101 1900 6.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1629 1.00 1629 0.95 106 115 330 9%
322 322 1900
1 1 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.70 1310 0.95 1 0 1 2%
35 35 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1745 1.00 1745 0.95 37 21 47 3%
29 29 1900
280 280 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1165 0.95 295 0 295 2%
87 87 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1857 1.00 1857 0.95 92 1 94 3%
3 3 1900
Perm
NA 8
pm+pt 7 4 31.7 31.7 0.32 5.0 3.0 395 0.03 0.05 0.23 24.8 1.00 0.3 25.1 C
NA 4
Perm
NA 2
pm+pt 1 6 56.4 56.4 0.56 5.0 3.0 771 c0.07 c0.14 0.38 11.6 1.00 0.3 11.9 B
NA 6
8 15.2 15.2 0.15 6.0 3.0 117 0.01 0.03 36.2 1.00 0.1 36.3 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.95 8 0 0 2% 0
15.2 15.2 0.15 6.0 3.0 252 0.06 0.38 38.2 1.00 1.0 39.2 D 39.1 D 24.2 0.53 100.1 57.3% 15
0.95 339 0 0 3%
31.7 31.7 0.32 6.0 3.0 515 c0.20 0.64 29.3 1.00 2.6 31.9 C 30.8 C
2 32.9 32.9 0.33 6.0 3.0 430 0.00 0.00 22.6 1.00 0.0 22.6 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 31 0 0 2%
32.9 32.9 0.33 6.0 3.0 573 0.03 0.08 23.2 1.00 0.3 23.5 C 23.5 C
0.95 3 0 0 2%
56.4 56.4 0.56 6.0 3.0 1046 0.05 0.09 10.0 1.00 0.2 10.2 B 11.5 B
C 22.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
AM Peak Hour
4 7 2 8 1 6 SBL NBTL WBTL SBTL WBL EBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None None None 23 25 62 31 48 31 28.2% 28.2% 43.6% 56.4% 20.9% 22.7% 32 23 21 32 31 31 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 15 25 15 15 25 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 7 18 8 8 8 8 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 62 62 31 0 85 0 0 62 85 62 31 0 80 26 104 56 104 56 96 48 80 96 48 26 0 31 31 79 54 79 73 105 49 25 73 25 105 65 49 65 17 17
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
Splits and Phases:
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 4 0.03 38.8 0.0 38.8 0.7 3.8 50.0 150 0 0 0 0.03
EBT 99 0.38 43.3 0.0 43.3 17.6 33.5 648.3 323 0 0 0 0.31
WBL 91 0.21 24.6 0.0 24.6 12.4 23.5 60.0 456 0 0 0 0.20
WBT 445 0.72 25.1 0.0 25.1 46.8 81.3 112.7 792 0 0 0 0.56
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
NBL 1 0.00 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.1 1.4 50.0 434 0 0 0 0.00
NBT 68 0.11 16.5 0.0 16.5 5.1 15.2 118.6 599 0 0 0 0.11
SBL 295 0.37 13.3 0.0 13.3 29.8 46.5 30.0 840 0 0 0 0.35
SBT 95 0.09 11.3 0.0 11.3 8.5 16.3 52.7 1057 0 0 0 0.09
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128 128 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.37 688 0.89 144 0 144 2% Perm
233 233 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1757 1.00 1757 0.89 262 8 292 8% NA 4
34 34 1900
154 154 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.45 844 0.89 173 0 173 3% pm+pt 3 4 24.5 24.5 0.37 2.0 3.0 406 c0.04 0.11 0.43 14.9 1.00 0.7 15.6 B
297 297 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1787 1.00 1787 0.89 334 3 349 6% NA 4
16 16 1900
53 53 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.68 1274 0.89 60 0 60 2% Perm
79 79 1900 6.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1678 1.00 1678 0.89 89 53 134 6% NA 2
87 87 1900
5 5 1900
0.89 98 0 0 5%
0.89 6 0 0 2% Perm
107 107 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1845 0.99 1825 0.89 120 0 126 4% NA 2
159 159 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 179 103 76 2% Perm
4 17.6 17.6 0.26 6.0 3.0 181 c0.21 0.80 22.8 1.00 21.0 43.8 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.89 38 0 0 2%
17.6 17.6 0.26 6.0 3.0 464 0.17 0.63 21.6 1.00 2.7 24.3 C 30.6 C 21.8 0.42 66.6 59.9% 15
0.89 18 0 0 19%
17.6 17.6 0.26 6.0 3.0 472 0.20 0.74 22.4 1.00 6.0 28.4 C 24.2 C
2 28.1 28.1 0.42 6.0 3.0 537 0.05 0.11 11.7 1.00 0.4 12.1 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.1 28.1 0.42 6.0 3.0 770
28.1 28.1 0.42 6.0 3.0 707 c0.08
0.07 0.16 12.0 1.00 0.5 12.4 B 12.2 B
0.19 12.1 1.00 0.6 12.7 B 12.5 B
2 28.1 28.1 0.42 6.0 3.0 675 0.05 0.11 11.7 1.00 0.3 12.0 B
C 14.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
3 4 WBL EBWB Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 28 9 12.7% 39.4% 28 9 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 Yes No Yes Yes 43 34 43 0 41 65 41 58 43 34 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 144 0.80 54.8 0.0 54.8 16.5 #41.8 180.0 227 0 0 0 0.63
EBT 300 0.64 27.3 0.0 27.3 31.5 53.1 138.6 589 0 0 0 0.51
WBL 173 0.38 13.1 0.0 13.1 12.1 22.1 20.0 460 0 0 0 0.38
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
WBT 352 0.74 32.3 0.0 32.3 39.3 64.1 145.1
NBL 60 0.11 14.0 0.0 14.0 4.5 11.7
NBT 187 0.25 8.4 0.0 8.4 7.3 19.5 388.0
SBT 126 0.16 14.0 0.0 14.0 9.8 20.5 574.8
594 0 0 0 0.59
536 0 0 0 0.11
759 0 0 0 0.25
768 0 0 0 0.16
SBR 179 0.23 3.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 10.1 30.0 777 0 0 0 0.23
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
122 122 1900
71 71 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.97 1646 0.66 1114 0.91 78 11 247 6% NA 4
42 42 1900
9 9 1900
79 79 1900
0.91 46 0 0 5%
0.91 10 0 0 33% Perm
136 136 1900 6.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1736 0.98 1706 0.91 149 27 219 4% NA 8
28 28 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.67 1230 0.91 31 0 31 4% Perm
198 198 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1715 1.00 1715 0.91 218 0 218 12% NA 2
10 10 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1484 1.00 1484 0.91 11 5 6 10% Perm
29 29 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1601 0.62 1048 0.91 32 0 32 14% Perm
130 130 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1642 1.00 1642 0.91 143 0 143 17% NA 6
97 97 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.91 107 48 59 15% Perm
2 40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 812
6 40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 573
0.00 0.01 7.5 1.00 0.0 7.6 A
0.03 0.06 7.7 1.00 0.2 7.9 A
0.91 134 0 0 16% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.91 87 0 0 4%
8 19.7 19.7 0.27 6.5 3.0 298
19.7 19.7 0.27 6.5 3.0 457
c0.22 0.83 25.3 1.00 17.1 42.3 D 42.3 D
0.13 0.48 22.5 1.00 0.8 23.3 C 23.3 C 20.4 0.43 73.4 66.3% 15
2 40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 673 0.03 0.05 7.7 1.00 0.1 7.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 939 c0.13 0.23 8.6 1.00 0.6 9.2 A 9.0 A
40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 899 0.09 0.16 8.2 1.00 0.4 8.6 A 8.3 A
6 40.2 40.2 0.55 7.0 3.0 777 0.04 0.08 7.8 1.00 0.2 8.0 A
C 13.5 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
2 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 47 47 31.5 31.5 59.9% 40.1% 59.9% 40.1% 30 30 30 30 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 20 10 10 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 5 16 11 11 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 47 47 0 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 258 0.83 46.9 0.0 46.9 31.5 #64.7 544.5
WBT 246 0.51 22.7 0.0 22.7 24.0 43.5 206.8
391 0 0 0 0.66
607 0 0 0 0.41
NBL 31 0.05 9.6 0.0 9.6 1.9 6.2 75.0 672 0 0 0 0.05
NBT 218 0.23 10.5 0.0 10.5 15.2 29.5 173.0 938 0 0 0 0.23
NBR 11 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SBL 32 0.06 9.8 0.0 9.8 2.0 6.4
50.0 834 0 0 0 0.01
130.0 573 0 0 0 0.06
SBT 143 0.16 10.1 0.0 10.1 9.5 20.1 418.3 898 0 0 0 0.16
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
SBR 107 0.13 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 6.9 100.0 825 0 0 0 0.13
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
44 44 1900
100 100 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1760 0.81 1447 0.78 128 6 196 5% NA 4
14 14 1900
89 89 1900
59 59 1900
292 292 1900 5.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1720 1.00 1720 0.78 374 20 521 5% NA 2
71 71 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.37 681 0.78 91 0 91 5% Perm
235 235 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1663 1.00 1663 0.78 301 8 347 8% NA 6
42 42 1900
0.78 114 0 0 2% Perm
41 41 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.52 987 0.78 53 0 53 2% Perm
130 130 1900
0.78 18 0 0 11%
108 108 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1789 0.81 1468 0.78 138 17 311 2% NA 8
0.78 56 0 0 8% Perm
0.78 76 0 0 3%
8
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
17.8 17.8 0.28 5.5 3.0 402
17.8 17.8 0.28 5.5 3.0 408
0.14 0.49 19.3 1.00 0.9 20.2 C 20.2 C
c0.21 0.76 21.2 1.00 8.2 29.3 C 29.3 C 15.6 0.62 64.0 88.8% 15
2 35.2 35.2 0.55 5.5 3.0 542 0.05 0.10 6.8 1.00 0.4 7.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.78 167 0 0 10%
6 35.2 35.2 0.55 5.5 3.0 374
35.2 35.2 0.55 5.5 3.0 946 c0.30
0.13 0.24 7.5 1.00 1.5 9.0 A
0.55 9.3 1.00 2.3 11.6 B 11.2 B
0.78 54 0 0 40%
35.2 35.2 0.55 5.5 3.0 914 0.21 0.38 8.2 1.00 1.2 9.4 A 9.3 A
B 11.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 8 35 34.6 8 3 3 3 3 1 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 35 65.5 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 25 55.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBT 202 0.50 22.6 0.0 22.6 18.9 29.3 158.8
WBT 328 0.77 32.4 0.0 32.4 32.7 46.6 158.6
NBL 53 0.10 9.2 0.0 9.2 2.7 7.7
NBT 541 0.56 12.5 0.0 12.5 34.6 58.2 321.6
572 0 0 0 0.35
590 0 0 0 0.56
542 0 0 0 0.10
965 0 0 0 0.56
SBL 91 0.24 11.5 0.0 11.5 5.2 13.0 50.0 374 0 0 0 0.24
SBT 355 0.39 10.5 0.0 10.5 20.8 37.1 760.4 921 0 0 0 0.39
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
76 76 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1601 0.74 1252 0.89 85 0 85 14% Perm
8 8 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1595 1.00 1595 0.89 9 103 24 12% NA 4
105 105 1900
4 4 1900
3 3 1900
275 275 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1814 1.00 1814 0.89 309 1 324 5% NA 2
3 3 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1372 0.56 815 0.89 3 0 3 33% Perm
184 184 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1746 1.00 1746 0.89 207 14 302 5% NA 6
97 97 1900
0.89 4 0 0 25% Perm
148 148 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.57 1061 0.89 166 0 166 3% Perm
14 14 1900
0.89 118 0 0 3%
13 13 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.99 1695 0.93 1595 0.89 15 3 19 8% NA 8
4 9.1 9.1 0.13 5.0 3.0 160 c0.07 0.53 29.0 1.00 3.4 32.3 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.89 3 0 0 2%
8 9.1 9.1 0.13 5.0 3.0 204
9.1 9.1 0.13 5.0 3.0 204 0.02
0.01 0.10 27.3 1.00 0.2 27.5 C 27.5 C
0.12 27.4 1.00 0.3 27.7 C 29.5 C 9.3 0.29 71.0 81.7% 15
2 51.9 51.9 0.73 5.0 3.0 775 0.16 0.21 3.0 1.00 0.6 3.7 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 16 0 0 7%
6 51.9 51.9 0.73 5.0 3.0 595
51.9 51.9 0.73 5.0 3.0 1326 c0.18
0.00 0.01 2.6 1.00 0.0 2.6 A
0.24 3.1 1.00 0.4 3.6 A 3.6 A
0.89 109 0 0 3%
51.9 51.9 0.73 5.0 3.0 1276 0.17 0.24 3.1 1.00 0.4 3.5 A 3.5 A
A 10.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 40.5 40.5 30.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 40.5 40.5 30.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 35 8 8 35 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 0 40.5 35.5 35.5 66 66 25.5 56 56 25.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35.5 66 66 35.5 25.5 25.5 56 56
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 85 0.45 34.5 0.0 34.5 10.6 21.1 30.0 449 0 0 0 0.19
EBT 127 0.37 9.8 0.0 9.8 1.1 12.9 1201.3
WBT 22 0.09 22.8 0.0 22.8 2.2 7.3 482.8
648 0 0 0 0.20
575 0 0 0 0.04
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
NBL 166 0.21 4.8 0.0 4.8 5.9 15.4 50.0 805 0 0 0 0.21
NBT 325 0.24 4.3 0.0 4.3 11.7 25.5 440.8 1379 0 0 0 0.24
SBL 3 0.00 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.1 0.8 35.0 619 0 0 0 0.00
SBT 316 0.24 3.8 0.0 3.8 9.3 21.7 214.1 1339 0 0 0 0.24
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
4 4
2 2 Stop 0% 0.90 2
113 113
5 5
1 1
116 116
1 1
0.90 1
0.90 129
0.90 8
0.90 1
54 54 Free 0% 0.90 60
5 5
0.90 6
44 44 Free 0% 0.90 49
7 7
0.90 126
4 4 Stop 0% 0.90 4
0.90 4
0.90 6
13 None
None
379
380
63
377
379
53
66
57
379 7.1
380 6.5
63 6.2
377 7.1
379 6.5
53 6.2
66 4.2
57 4.1
3.5 99 537
4.0 100 505
3.3 87 996
3.5 99 472
4.0 99 506
3.3 100 1014
2.3 91 1511
2.2 100 1547
EB 1 132 4 126 1043 0.13 3.3 9.3 A 9.3 A
WB 1 11 6 1 509 0.02 0.5 12.2 B 12.2 B
NB 1 186 129 8 1511 0.09 2.1 5.5 A 5.5
SB 1 67 1 6 1547 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1
6.0 27.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
67 67
127 127 Free 0% 0.96 132
1 1
30 30
1 1
2 2
3 3
0.96 1
0.96 2
0.96 57
0.96 3
31 31 Stop 0% 0.96 32
52 52
0.96 31
51 51 Stop 0% 0.96 53
55 55
0.96 1
130 130 Free 0% 0.96 135
0.96 54
0.96 70
None
None
136
133
540
470
132
554
470
136
136 4.1
133 4.1
540 7.1
470 6.5
132 6.2
554 7.1
470 6.5
136 6.3
2.2 95 1448
2.2 98 1446
3.5 99 382
4.0 88 457
3.3 94 911
3.5 99 359
4.0 93 456
3.4 94 892
EB 1 203 70 1 1448 0.05 1.2 2.9 A 2.9
WB 1 167 31 1 1446 0.02 0.5 1.5 A 1.5
NB 1 112 2 57 610 0.18 5.1 12.2 B 12.2 B 5.7 31.9% 15
SB 1 89 3 54 640 0.14 3.7 11.5 B 11.5 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
4 4
6 6 Stop 0% 0.83 7
29 29
57 57
66 66
19 19
58 58
0.83 80
0.83 23
0.83 36
0.83 70
204 204 Free 0% 0.83 246
5 5
0.83 69
116 116 Free 0% 0.83 140
30 30
0.83 35
3 3 Stop 0% 0.83 4
0.83 5
None
None
675
611
249
632
596
158
252
176
675 7.1
611 6.5
249 6.2
632 7.1
596 6.5
158 6.2
252 4.1
176 4.1
3.5 98 315
4.0 98 381
3.3 96 790
3.5 80 352
4.0 99 389
3.3 91 882
2.2 98 1313
2.2 95 1382
EB 1 47 5 35 598 0.08 1.9 11.5 B 11.5 B
WB 1 153 69 80 515 0.30 9.4 14.9 B 14.9 B
NB 1 199 23 36 1313 0.02 0.4 1.0 A 1.0
SB 1 322 70 6 1382 0.05 1.2 2.0 A 2.0
5.1 45.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.83 6
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
1 1 Stop 0% 0.79 1
80 80
66 66 0.79 84
32 32 Free 0% 0.79 41
4 4
0.79 101
13 13 Free 0% 0.79 16
None
None
228
44
46
228 6.4
44 6.2
46 4.1
3.5 100 720
3.3 90 1027
2.2 95 1555
EB 1 102 1 101 1022 0.10 2.5 8.9 A 8.9 A
NB 1 100 84 0 1555 0.05 1.3 6.3 A 6.3
SB 1 46 0 5 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.79 5
0.0
6.2 22.7% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1 1
5 5 Stop 0% 0.88 6
108 108
9 9
0 0
184 184
1 1
0.88 0
0.88 209
0.88 7
0.88 1
173 173 Free 0% 0.88 197
16 16
0.88 10
112 112 Free 0% 0.88 127
6 6
0.88 123
10 10 Stop 0% 0.88 11
0.88 1
0.88 18
None
None 382 762
760
206
882
766
130
215
134
762 7.1
760 6.5
206 6.2
882 7.2
766 6.5
130 6.2
215 4.1
134 4.1
3.5 100 275
4.0 98 284
3.3 85 829
3.6 95 190
4.0 96 282
3.3 100 919
2.2 85 1355
2.2 100 1451
EB 1 130 1 123 751 0.17 4.7 10.8 B 10.8 B
WB 1 21 10 0 229 0.09 2.3 22.3 C 22.3 C
NB 1 343 209 7 1355 0.15 4.1 5.5 A 5.5
SB 1 216 1 18 1451 0.00 0.0 0.0 A 0.0
5.3 43.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
113 113
78 78 Free 0% 0.89 88
1 1
3 3
9 9
3 3
5 5
0.89 10
0.89 3
0.89 4
0.89 6
19 19 Stop 0% 0.89 21
96 96
0.89 3
37 37 Stop 0% 0.89 42
4 4
0.89 1
136 136 Free 0% 0.89 153
0.89 108
0.89 127
None
None
163
89
625
512
88
532
507
158
163 4.2
89 4.1
625 7.1
512 6.6
88 6.5
532 7.5
507 6.5
158 6.3
2.3 91 1374
2.2 100 1506
3.5 99 311
4.1 90 414
3.5 100 910
3.9 98 345
4.0 95 420
3.4 88 867
EB 1 216 127 1 1374 0.09 2.3 5.0 A 5.0
WB 1 166 3 10 1506 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1
NB 1 49 3 4 424 0.12 3.0 14.6 B 14.6 B 5.9 36.7% 15
SB 1 135 6 108 703 0.19 5.4 11.3 B 11.3 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
46 46
4 4 Stop 0% 0.93 4
19 19
4 4
3 3
17 17
2 2
0.93 3
0.93 18
0.93 3
0.93 2
242 242 Free 0% 0.93 260
125 125
0.93 4
287 287 Free 0% 0.93 309
3 3
0.93 20
1 1 Stop 0% 0.93 1
0.93 49
None
None
681
679
327
700
744
310
394
312
681 7.2
679 6.5
327 6.3
700 7.3
744 6.5
310 6.2
394 4.2
312 4.1
3.6 86 348
4.0 99 367
3.4 97 696
3.7 99 309
4.0 100 337
3.3 100 730
2.3 98 1143
2.2 100 1248
EB 1 73 49 20 405 0.18 4.9 15.8 C 15.8 C
WB 1 8 4 3 400 0.02 0.5 14.2 B 14.2 B
NB 1 330 18 3 1143 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
SB 1 396 2 134 1248 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1
1.8 39.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.93 134
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
2 2
14 14 Stop 0% 0.88 16
4 4
33 33
8 8
0 0
1 1
0.88 9
0.88 0
0.88 2
0.88 1
46 46 Free 0% 0.88 52
0 0
0.88 38
64 64 Free 0% 0.88 73
2 2
0.88 5
0 0 Stop 0% 0.88 0
0.88 2
0.88 0
None
None
387 137
129
52
141
128
74
52
75
137 7.1
129 6.6
52 6.2
141 7.1
128 6.5
74 6.2
52 4.1
75 4.1
3.5 100 826
4.1 98 752
3.3 100 1016
3.5 95 809
4.0 100 762
3.3 99 988
2.2 100 1554
2.2 100 1524
EB 1 23 2 5 804 0.03 0.7 9.6 A 9.6 A
WB 1 47 38 9 838 0.06 1.4 9.6 A 9.6 A
NB 1 75 0 2 1554 0.00 0.0 0.0
SB 1 53 1 0 1524 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1
0.0
3.4 19.1% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
17 17
247 247 Free 0% 0.83 298
20 20
9 9
6 6
24 24
5 5
0.83 7
0.83 29
0.83 11
0.83 6
8 8 Stop 0% 0.83 10
16 16
0.83 11
17 17 Stop 0% 0.83 20
9 9
0.83 24
269 269 Free 0% 0.83 324
0.83 19
0.83 20
None
None
331
322
724
703
310
720
712
328
331 4.1
322 4.1
724 7.1
703 6.5
310 6.2
720 7.1
712 6.5
328 6.2
2.2 98 1228
2.2 99 1238
3.5 91 319
4.0 94 353
3.3 98 730
3.5 98 317
4.0 97 349
3.3 97 714
EB 1 342 20 24 1228 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
WB 1 342 11 7 1238 0.01 0.2 0.3 A 0.3
NB 1 60 29 11 369 0.16 4.4 16.7 C 16.7 C 2.3 34.6% 15
SB 1 35 6 19 472 0.07 1.8 13.2 B 13.2 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
2 2 Stop 0% 0.95 2
22 22
24 24 0.95 25
301 301 Free 0% 0.95 317
3 3
0.95 23
166 166 Free 0% 0.95 175
None
None
SB 1 317 0 0 1700 0.19 0.0 0.0
SB 2 3 0 3 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
542
317
320
542 6.9
317 6.3
320 4.1
4.0 100 419
3.4 97 697
2.2 98 1229
EB 1 25 2 23 661 0.04 0.9 10.7 B 10.7 B
NB 1 25 25 0 1229 0.02 0.5 8.0 A 1.0
NB 2 175 0 0 1700 0.10 0.0 0.0
0.95 3
0.0
0.9 29.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
3 3
42 42 Stop 0% 0.92 46
7 7
23 23
100 100
12 12
106 106
0.92 109
0.92 13
0.92 36
0.92 115
212 212 Free 0% 0.92 230
4 4
0.92 25
209 209 Free 0% 0.92 227
33 33
0.92 8
16 16 Stop 0% 0.92 17
0.92 3
0.92 4
None
None
197 832
751
232
762
735
245
234
263
832 7.1
751 6.5
232 6.2
762 7.1
735 6.5
245 6.2
234 4.1
263 4.1
3.5 99 221
4.0 85 307
3.3 99 807
3.5 90 261
4.0 95 313
3.3 86 794
2.2 99 1333
2.2 91 1301
EB 1 57 3 8 328 0.17 4.7 18.2 C 18.2 C
WB 1 151 25 109 526 0.29 9.0 14.6 B 14.6 B
NB 1 13 13 0 1333 0.01 0.2 7.7 A 0.4
NB 2 263 0 36 1700 0.15 0.0 0.0
SB 1 115 115 0 1301 0.09 2.2 8.0 A 2.6
SB 2 234 0 4 1700 0.14 0.0 0.0
5.1 43.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
15 15 Stop 0% 0.90 17
6 6
9 9 0.90 10
195 195 Free 0% 0.90 217
19 19
0.90 7
204 204 Free 0% 0.90 227
None
None
474
228
238
474 6.4
228 6.2
238 4.3
3.5 97 544
3.3 99 812
2.4 99 1220
EB 1 24 17 7 602 0.04 0.9 11.2 B 11.2 B
NB 1 237 10 0 1220 0.01 0.2 0.4 A 0.4
SB 1 238 0 21 1700 0.14 0.0 0.0
0.90 21
0.0
0.7 28.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h)
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
49 49 Stop 0% 0.90 54
93 93
358 358 Free 0% 0.90 398
40 40
43 43
0.90 44
0.90 48
220 220 Free 0% 0.90 244
Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
4 None
None
760
420
442
760 6.4
420 6.2
442 4.1
3.5 85 358
3.3 84 629
2.2 96 1118
WB 1 157 54 103 959 0.16 4.4 13.6 B 13.6 B
NB 1 442 0 44 1700 0.26 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
0.90 103
0.0
SB 1 292 48 0 1118 0.04 1.0 1.7 A 1.7
3.0 48.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1 1
27 27 Stop 0% 0.71 38
15 15
7 7
2 2
7 7
3 3
0.71 3
0.71 10
0.71 10
0.71 4
34 34 Free 0% 0.71 48
4 4
0.71 10
34 34 Free 0% 0.71 48
7 7
0.71 21
22 22 Stop 0% 0.71 31
0.71 1
None
None
150
137
51
172
135
53
54
58
150 7.1
137 6.5
51 6.2
172 7.1
135 6.5
53 6.2
54 4.1
58 4.1
3.5 100 784
4.0 95 747
3.3 98 1017
3.5 99 740
4.0 96 749
3.3 100 1014
2.2 99 1551
2.2 100 1546
EB 1 60 1 21 824 0.07 1.8 9.7 A 9.7 A
WB 1 44 10 3 760 0.06 1.4 10.0 B 10.0 B
NB 1 68 10 10 1551 0.01 0.1 1.1 A 1.1
SB 1 58 4 6 1546 0.00 0.1 0.5 A 0.5
4.9 16.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.71 6
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
7.8 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
8 8 0.80 2 10 0
98 98 0.80 3 123 1
4 4 0.80 2 5 0
2 2 0.80 2 3 0
86 86 0.80 4 108 1
10 10 0.80 10 13 0
5 5 0.80 2 6 0
5 5 0.80 2 6 1
3 3 0.80 2 4 0
17 17 0.80 2 21 0
5 5 0.80 2 6 1
6 6 0.80 2 8 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 7.9 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 7.8 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 7.6 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 7.7 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 2% 7% 38% 61% 38% 89% 88% 18% 4% 23% 21% 10% Stop Stop Stop Stop 110 98 13 28 2 17 8 5 86 98 5 5 4 10 3 6 122 16 138 35 1 1 1 1 0.02 0.157 0.138 0.044 4.478 4.108 4.069 4.51 Yes Yes Yes Yes 865 872 804 799 2.17 2.137 2.479 2.51 0.16 0.14 0.044 0.02 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.7 A A A A 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.1
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
56 56 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.73 1281 0.94 60 0 60 9% Perm
33 33 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1755 1.00 1755 0.94 35 21 43 2% NA 4
27 27 1900
7 7 1900
0.94 29 0 0 2%
0.94 7 0 0 2% Perm
37 37 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1824 0.96 1772 0.94 39 0 46 5% NA 8
121 121 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 129 93 36 2% Perm
35 35 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.46 855 0.94 37 0 37 3% Perm
534 534 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 568 0 568 3% NA 2
13 13 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 14 6 8 2% Perm
114 114 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.35 649 0.94 121 0 121 4% Perm
404 404 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 430 0 430 5% NA 6
60 60 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 64 28 36 15% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 479
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 364
0.02 0.08 23.6 1.00 0.1 23.7 C
0.04 0.08 9.0 1.00 0.3 9.3 A
0.00 0.01 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.6 A
0.19 0.33 10.5 1.00 0.9 11.5 B
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 359 c0.05 0.17 24.2 1.00 1.0 25.2 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 492 0.02
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 497 0.03 0.09 23.7 1.00 0.1 23.8 C 23.7 C
0.09 23.6 1.00 0.4 24.0 C 24.6 C 14.9 0.42 89.1 72.1% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 c0.30 0.54 12.3 1.00 2.0 14.4 B 13.9 B
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 0.24 0.42 11.2 1.00 0.5 11.7 B 11.4 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.05 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.8 A
B 14.1 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None None Max 57 57 32.1 32.1 64.0% 36.0% 64.0% 36.0% 35 35 30.1 30.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 20 10 20 10 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 21 16 21 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 57 0 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66 0 57 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 60 0.17 25.8 0.0 25.8 7.7 17.3 150.0 359 0 0 0 0.17
EBT WBT 64 46 0.09 0.12 24.4 15.9 0.0 0.0 24.4 15.9 4.4 5.8 13.6 13.7 1366.5 1368.7 513 0 0 0 0.12
496 0 0 0 0.09
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
WBR 129 0.24 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 12.3
NBL 37 0.08 9.6 0.0 9.6 2.7 7.1
170.0 542 0 0 0 0.24
250.0 479 0 0 0 0.08
NBT 568 0.54 14.8 0.0 14.8 57.1 84.8 1562.1 1046 0 0 0 0.54
NBR 14 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SBL 121 0.33 13.8 0.0 13.8 10.4 22.1
135.0 920 0 0 0 0.02
200.0 363 0 0 0 0.33
SBT 430 0.42 12.8 0.0 12.8 39.4 59.7 1053.3 1026 0 0 0 0.42
SBR 64 0.08 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 5.1 200.0 824 0 0 0 0.08
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
84 84 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1870 1.00 1870 0.93 90 2 93 2% NA 4
5 5 1900
155 155 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.70 1193 0.93 167 0 167 12% Perm
120 120 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 129 0 129 2% NA 8
219 219 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 235 188 47 3% Perm
166 166 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.63 1187 0.93 178 0 178 2% Perm
199 199 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 214 0 214 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
7 7 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1176 0.93 8 0 8 2% Perm
189 189 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 203 0 203 7% NA 6
96 96 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 103 35 68 11% Perm
8 19.1 19.1 0.20 6.9 3.0 315
2 63.0 63.0 0.66 6.9 4.5 779
0.03 0.15 31.7 1.00 0.2 31.9 C
c0.15 0.23 6.6 1.00 0.7 7.3 A
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 5 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
8 19.1 19.1 0.20 6.9 3.0 237
19.1 19.1 0.20 6.9 3.0 372 0.05
c0.14 0.70 35.8 1.00 9.2 44.9 D
0.25 32.4 1.00 0.4 32.7 C 32.7 C 20.4 0.34 95.9 65.8% 15
19.1 19.1 0.20 6.9 3.0 375 0.07 0.34 33.0 1.00 0.6 33.6 C 36.4 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 63.0 63.0 0.66 6.9 4.5 772
63.0 63.0 0.66 6.9 4.5 1137 0.12
0.01 0.01 5.7 1.00 0.0 5.7 A
0.19 6.4 1.00 0.4 6.8 A 7.0 A
63.0 63.0 0.66 6.9 4.5 1179 0.11 0.17 6.4 1.00 0.3 6.7 A 6.5 A
6 63.0 63.0 0.66 6.9 4.5 966 0.05 0.07 5.9 1.00 0.1 6.1 A
C 13.8 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 SETL
6 4 NBTL NWTL
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
8 SBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 57 38.9 38.9 57 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 39 38.9 38.9 39 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1 1 1 1 20 10 10 20 4.5 3 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 25 16 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 0 0 57 57 50.1 50.1 89 89 25.1 73 73 25.1 0 57 0 57 50.1 50.1 89 89 25.1 25.1 73 73
Intersection Summary 95.9 Cycle Length Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
NBT 95 0.25 30.8 0.0 30.8 14.5 24.8 530.8 625 0 0 0 0.15
SBL 167 0.71 50.8 0.0 50.8 29.1 45.3 100.0 397 0 0 0 0.42
SBT 129 0.34 33.7 0.0 33.7 20.8 32.6 249.9 628 0 0 0 0.21
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
SBR 235 0.47 7.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 16.5
SEL 178 0.23 8.9 0.0 8.9 11.8 27.6
100.0 685 0 0 0 0.34
200.0 780 0 0 0 0.23
SET 214 0.19 8.1 0.0 8.1 13.7 29.9 374.7 1137 0 0 0 0.19
NWL 8 0.01 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.5 2.5 200.0 772 0 0 0 0.01
NWT 203 0.17 8.0 0.0 8.0 12.9 28.2 359.2 1180 0 0 0 0.17
NWR 103 0.10 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 6.5 100.0 1002 0 0 0 0.10
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
26 26 1900
318 318 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1809 0.96 1742 0.96 331 6 386 5% NA 2
33 33 1900
9 9 1900
12 12 1900
27 27 1900
8 8 1900
0.96 12 0 0 2%
0.96 28 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 16 0 0 2%
0.96 8 0 0 2% Perm
42 42 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1778 0.98 1754 0.96 44 17 67 2% NA 4
31 31 1900
0.96 9 0 0 2% Perm
42 42 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1797 0.92 1678 0.96 44 8 80 2% NA 8
15 15 1900
0.96 34 0 0 3%
309 309 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1854 0.98 1828 0.96 322 3 341 3% NA 6
0.96 27 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
8
6
4
16.5 16.5 0.31 6.0 3.0 545
16.5 16.5 0.31 6.0 3.0 572
25.2 25.2 0.48 5.0 3.0 802
25.2 25.2 0.48 5.0 3.0 838
c0.22 0.71 16.0 1.00 4.2 20.2 C 20.2 C
0.19 0.60 15.3 1.00 1.7 17.0 B 17.0 B
c0.05 0.10 7.5 1.00 0.2 7.8 A 7.8 A
0.04 0.08 7.5 1.00 0.2 7.6 A 7.6 A
16.6 0.34 52.7 50.9% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 32 0 0 2%
B 11.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
None Max None Max 41 41 30 30 57.7% 42.3% 57.7% 42.3% 25 25 41 41 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 41 41 0 0 41 0 41 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10 0 41 41 0 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBT 392 0.71 23.2 0.0 23.2 31.2 54.1 123.3
WBT 344 0.60 19.6 0.0 19.6 26.5 45.8 258.1
NBT 88 0.11 8.4 0.0 8.4 3.4 11.7 366.5
SBT 84 0.10 6.9 0.0 6.9 2.4 10.0 390.1
1167 0 0 0 0.34
1222 0 0 0 0.28
809 0 0 0 0.11
854 0 0 0 0.10
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
26 26 1900
304 304 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1857 0.96 1780 0.94 323 2 372
22 22 1900
7 7 1900
10 10 1900
50 50 1900
4 4 1900
0.94 11 0 0 2
0.94 53 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 13 0 0 3
0.94 4 0 0 3 Perm
37 37 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1785 0.99 1768 0.94 39 10 50
16 16 1900
0.94 7 0 0 6 Perm
74 74 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.98 1811 0.88 1628 0.94 79 3 142
12 12 1900
0.94 23 0 0 6
310 310 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1872 0.99 1858 0.94 330 1 347
0.94 28 0 0 2 Perm
NA 6
6
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
NA 2
NA 8
8
2
NA 4
4
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 783
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 817
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 716
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 777
c0.21 0.47 19.8 1.00 2.1 21.9 C 21.9 C
0.19 0.42 19.3 1.00 1.6 20.9 C 20.9 C
c0.09 0.20 17.2 1.00 0.6 17.8 B 17.8 B
0.03 0.06 16.1 1.00 0.2 16.3 B 16.3 B
20.5 0.34 100.0 55.9% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 17 0 0 7
C 12.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
8 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max Max Max Max 50 50 50 50 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 24 24 28 26 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 20 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 15 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 50 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29 50 50 0 0 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 EBTL
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBT 374 0.48 22.1 0.0 22.1 49.4 74.6 258.1
WBT 348 0.42 21.2 0.0 21.2 44.9 67.8 647.5
NBT 145 0.20 17.4 0.0 17.4 16.0 28.6 153.3
SBT 60 0.08 12.9 0.0 12.9 4.7 11.8 103.2
785 0 0 0 0.48
819 0 0 0 0.42
719 0 0 0 0.20
787 0 0 0 0.08
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
151 151 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.22 411 0.89 170 0 170 2% pm+pt 5 2 38.8 38.8 0.50 5.0 3.0 395 c0.06 0.16 0.43 11.4 1.00 0.8 12.1 B
603 603 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.89 678 2 691 2% NA 2
13 13 1900
134 134 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.29 545 0.89 151 0 151 2% pm+pt 1 6 38.4 38.4 0.50 5.0 3.0 438 0.05 0.13 0.34 10.9 1.00 0.5 11.4 B
554 554 1900 5.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3427 1.00 3427 0.89 622 33 779 3% NA 6
169 169 1900
109 109 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.52 971 0.89 122 0 122 2% Perm
117 117 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1710 1.00 1710 0.89 131 33 198 2% NA 4
89 89 1900
234 234 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.54 1014 0.89 263 0 263 2% Perm
95 95 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 107 56 190 2% NA 8
124 124 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.89 15 0 0 2%
28.3 28.3 0.37 5.0 3.0 1312 0.19 0.53 19.1 1.00 1.5 20.6 C 18.9 B 22.3 0.68 76.9 73.8% 15
0.89 190 0 0 2%
28.1 28.1 0.37 5.0 3.0 1252 c0.23 0.62 20.0 1.00 1.0 21.0 C 19.5 B
4 23.3 23.3 0.30 5.0 3.0 294 0.13 0.41 21.4 1.00 1.0 22.3 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 100 0 0 9%
8 23.3 23.3 0.30 5.0 3.0 307
23.3 23.3 0.30 5.0 3.0 518 0.12
c0.26 0.86 25.2 1.00 20.3 45.5 D
0.38 21.1 1.00 0.5 21.6 C 21.9 C
0.89 139 0 0 3%
23.3 23.3 0.30 5.0 3.0 519 0.11 0.37 21.0 1.00 0.4 21.4 C 33.9 C
C 15.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
2 6 4 8 5 1 WBL EBTL NBTL EBL WBTL SBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None None None None 33 33 20 20 30 30 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 15 15 33 33 26 26 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 15 28 28 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 18 18 10 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20 20 53 53 0 0 53 53 20 0 20 0 15 15 78 78 48 48 38 38 68 15 15 68 0 0 63 63 33 33 28 28 58 78 78 58 18 18 78 78 48 48 83 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 170 0.43 12.3 0.0 12.3 11.5 20.2 70.0 500 0 0 0 0.34
EBT 693 0.53 21.2 0.0 21.2 41.8 58.2 368.2 1313 0 0 0 0.53
WBL 151 0.35 11.0 0.0 11.0 10.1 18.2 120.0 548 0 0 0 0.28
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
WBT 812 0.63 21.9 0.0 21.9 48.3 68.3 68.4
NBL 122 0.41 26.4 0.0 26.4 13.9 29.0
NBT 231 0.42 19.4 0.0 19.4 20.5 39.6 306.6
1283 0 0 0 0.63
316 0 0 0 0.39
588 0 0 0 0.39
SBL 263 0.86 52.8 0.0 52.8 35.2 #75.5 30.0 329 0 0 0 0.80
SBT 246 0.43 16.6 0.0 16.6 18.1 37.3 418.3 612 0 0 0 0.40
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
248 248 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 188 0.95 261 0 261 2% pm+pt 1 6 52.1 52.1 0.47 5.0 3.0 264 c0.11 c0.36 0.99 31.5 1.00 51.7 83.2 F
584 584 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 615 0 615 2% NA 6
305 52 52 305 1900 1900 5.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1601 1722 1.00 0.13 1601 233 0.95 0.95 55 321 0 166 55 155 2% 6% Perm pm+pt 5 2 6 40.4 41.8 40.4 41.8 0.38 0.37 5.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 179 589 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.31 0.26 24.7 24.2 1.00 1.00 1.0 1.1 25.7 25.3 C C
595 595 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 626 0 626 2% NA 2
72 72 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 76 52 24 2% Perm
197 197 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.22 419 0.95 207 0 207 2% pm+pt 3 8 44.3 44.3 0.40 5.0 3.0 337 c0.08 0.17 0.61 24.0 1.00 3.3 27.3 C
151 151 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1814 1.00 1814 0.95 159 6 189 3% NA 8
34 34 1900
103 103 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.64 1185 0.95 108 0 108 3% pm+pt 7 4 36.9 36.9 0.34 5.0 3.0 451 0.02 0.06 0.24 25.7 1.00 0.3 26.0 C
156 156 1900 6.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1713 1.00 1713 0.95 164 38 321 3% NA 4
185 185 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
40.4 40.4 0.37 6.0 3.0 693 0.33 0.89 32.5 1.00 15.6 48.2 D 49.7 D
52.8 0.89 109.7 93.8% 15
35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 602 0.33 1.04 37.3 1.00 47.4 84.7 F 74.5 E
2 35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 512 0.02 0.05 25.8 1.00 0.2 25.9 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 36 0 0 3%
30.8 30.8 0.28 6.0 3.0 509 0.10 0.37 31.7 1.00 2.1 33.7 C 30.4 C
0.95 195 0 0 3%
27.1 27.1 0.25 6.0 3.0 423 c0.19 0.76 38.3 1.00 12.1 50.4 D 44.7 D
D 22.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
2 6 4 7 8 1 3 5 NBL SBTL WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None Max None Max None 40 40 33 23 17 17 23 33 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 33 33 33 13 13 13 33 13 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17 17 80 57 57 80 0 0 0 17 57 80 57 80 17 0 51 51 75 107 12 75 107 12 34 34 90 75 12 90 75 12 0 0 63 40 96 96 40 63 34 34 90 108 58 108 58 90 17 17 73 58 108 108 58 73 113 Semi Act-Uncoord 95
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 615 261 0.98 0.88 81.4 49.2 0.0 0.0 81.4 49.2 40.4 124.6 #98.4 #210.8 607.3 30.0 700 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.98 0.88
EBR 321 0.42 8.1 0.0 8.1 8.4 31.6 760 0 0 0 0.42
WBL WBT 55 626 1.06 0.27 19.9 91.7 0.0 0.0 19.9 91.7 6.1 ~146.4 13.9 #225.0 443.3 65.0 265 590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 1.06
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
WBR 76 0.13 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.3
NBL 207 0.60 27.7 0.0 27.7 27.7 43.9
588 0 0 0 0.13
100.0 406 0 0 0 0.51
NBT 195 0.38 32.4 0.0 32.4 31.4 53.3 278.0 520 0 0 0 0.38
SBL SBT 108 359 0.23 0.77 20.5 45.8 0.0 0.0 20.5 45.8 13.6 61.6 24.3 #110.1 268.1 300.0 587 464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.77
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
10 10 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.27 475 0.97 10 0 10 10% Perm
125 125 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1844 1.00 1844 0.97 129 4 141 2% NA 8
16 16 1900
75 75 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.46 875 0.97 77 0 77 2% pm+pt 7 4 32.9 32.9 0.32 5.0 3.0 387 0.02 0.04 0.20 24.4 1.00 0.3 24.7 C
108 108 1900 6.0 1.00 0.88 1.00 1659 1.00 1659 0.97 111 138 401 2% NA 4
415 415 1900
6 6 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.70 1327 0.97 6 0 6 2% Perm
122 122 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1792 1.00 1792 0.97 126 14 172 2% NA 2
58 58 1900
281 281 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.52 965 0.97 290 0 290 4% pm+pt 1 6 56.5 56.5 0.56 5.0 3.0 684 c0.08 c0.16 0.42 12.2 1.00 0.4 12.6 B
73 73 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.97 75 2 79 2% NA 6
6 6 1900
8 16.4 16.4 0.16 6.0 3.0 76 0.02 0.13 36.4 1.00 0.8 37.2 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.97 16 0 0 6%
16.4 16.4 0.16 6.0 3.0 298 0.08 0.47 38.6 1.00 1.2 39.8 D 39.6 D 27.9 0.60 101.4 105.4% 15
0.97 428 0 0 2%
32.9 32.9 0.32 6.0 3.0 538 c0.24 0.75 30.5 1.00 5.6 36.1 D 34.7 C
2 32.6 32.6 0.32 6.0 3.0 426 0.00 0.01 23.4 1.00 0.1 23.5 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 60 0 0 2%
32.6 32.6 0.32 6.0 3.0 576 0.10 0.30 25.8 1.00 1.3 27.2 C 27.0 C
0.97 6 0 0 2%
56.5 56.5 0.56 6.0 3.0 1038 0.04 0.08 10.4 1.00 0.1 10.5 B 12.2 B
C 22.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
PM Peak Hour
4 7 2 8 1 6 SBL NBTL WBTL SBTL WBL EBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None None None 23 25 62 31 48 31 28.2% 28.2% 43.6% 56.4% 20.9% 22.7% 32 23 21 32 31 31 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 15 25 15 15 25 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 7 18 8 8 8 8 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 62 62 31 0 85 0 0 62 85 62 31 0 80 26 104 56 104 56 96 48 80 96 48 26 0 31 31 79 54 79 73 105 49 25 73 25 105 65 49 65 17 17
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
Splits and Phases:
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 10 0.13 41.8 0.0 41.8 1.8 6.7 50.0 93 0 0 0 0.11
EBT 145 0.48 43.8 0.0 43.8 26.2 44.9 648.3 366 0 0 0 0.40
WBL 77 0.18 23.6 0.0 23.6 10.4 20.2 60.0 455 0 0 0 0.17
WBT 539 0.81 29.2 0.0 29.2 61.1 101.6 112.7 818 0 0 0 0.66
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
NBL 6 0.01 27.5 0.0 27.5 0.8 4.2 50.0 430 0 0 0 0.01
NBT 186 0.31 26.7 0.0 26.7 24.8 49.1 118.6 595 0 0 0 0.31
SBL 290 0.41 14.6 0.0 14.6 29.4 52.3 30.0 759 0 0 0 0.38
SBT 81 0.08 11.8 0.0 11.8 6.9 15.8 52.7 1051 0 0 0 0.08
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
123 123 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.51 936 0.91 135 0 135 5% Perm
314 314 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1850 1.00 1850 0.91 345 7 381 2% NA 4
39 39 1900
146 146 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.32 607 0.91 160 0 160 2% pm+pt 3 4 23.3 23.3 0.35 2.0 3.0 310 c0.04 0.14 0.52 15.5 1.00 1.5 16.9 B
244 244 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1874 1.00 1874 0.91 268 1 270 2% NA 4
3 3 1900
89 89 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.66 1245 0.91 98 0 98 2% Perm
92 92 1900 6.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1672 1.00 1672 0.91 101 120 236 4% NA 2
232 232 1900
6 6 1900
0.91 255 0 0 2%
0.91 7 0 0 2% Perm
131 131 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1879 0.98 1849 0.91 144 0 151 2% NA 2
232 232 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 255 145 110 3% Perm
4 18.0 18.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 256 0.14 0.53 20.2 1.00 2.0 22.2 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.91 43 0 0 3%
18.0 18.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 506 c0.21 0.75 21.8 1.00 6.3 28.1 C 26.6 C 18.3 0.49 65.7 78.6% 15
0.91 3 0 0 33%
18.0 18.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 513 0.14 0.53 20.2 1.00 1.0 21.2 C 19.6 B
2 28.4 28.4 0.43 6.0 3.0 538 0.08 0.18 11.5 1.00 0.7 12.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.4 28.4 0.43 6.0 3.0 799
28.4 28.4 0.43 6.0 3.0 722 c0.14
0.08 0.19 11.5 1.00 0.5 12.1 B 11.9 B
0.33 12.3 1.00 1.2 13.5 B 13.3 B
2 28.4 28.4 0.43 6.0 3.0 685 0.07 0.16 11.4 1.00 0.5 11.9 B
B 14.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
3 4 WBL EBWB Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 28 9 12.7% 39.4% 28 9 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 Yes No Yes Yes 43 34 43 0 41 65 41 58 43 34 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 135 0.53 28.8 0.0 28.8 14.3 30.0 180.0 319 0 0 0 0.42
EBT 388 0.75 31.7 0.0 31.7 43.4 71.0 138.6 636 0 0 0 0.61
WBL 160 0.42 14.1 0.0 14.1 11.1 20.7 20.0 382 0 0 0 0.42
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
WBT 271 0.53 24.4 0.0 24.4 28.7 48.8 145.1
NBL 98 0.18 14.9 0.0 14.9 7.8 17.8
NBT 356 0.42 8.0 0.0 8.0 11.7 31.1 388.0
SBT 151 0.19 14.3 0.0 14.3 12.1 24.3 574.8
639 0 0 0 0.42
540 0 0 0 0.18
845 0 0 0 0.42
802 0 0 0 0.19
SBR 255 0.31 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 12.3 30.0 832 0 0 0 0.31
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
156 156 1900
152 152 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.98 1728 0.79 1387 0.95 160 8 368 5% NA 4
49 49 1900
21 21 1900
16 16 1900
0.95 52 0 0 2%
0.95 22 0 0 24% Perm
133 133 1900 6.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1705 0.93 1597 0.95 140 5 174 9% NA 8
60 60 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.59 1100 0.95 63 0 63 3% Perm
135 135 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 142 0 142 9% NA 2
23 23 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 24 11 13 17% Perm
72 72 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.67 1231 0.95 76 0 76 4% Perm
262 262 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 276 0 276 6% NA 6
142 142 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 149 71 78 6% Perm
2 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 731
6 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 645
0.01 0.02 8.7 1.00 0.0 8.8 A
0.06 0.12 9.2 1.00 0.4 9.6 A
0.95 164 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.95 17 0 0 6%
8 22.9 22.9 0.30 6.5 3.0 415
22.9 22.9 0.30 6.5 3.0 478
c0.27 0.89 25.6 1.00 19.9 45.4 D 45.4 D
0.11 0.36 21.1 1.00 0.5 21.5 C 21.5 C 22.0 0.51 76.5 84.6% 15
2 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 576 0.06 0.11 9.2 1.00 0.4 9.6 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 923 0.08 0.15 9.4 1.00 0.4 9.8 A 9.6 A
40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 949 c0.15 0.29 10.2 1.00 0.8 11.0 B 10.3 B
6 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 807 0.05 0.10 9.1 1.00 0.2 9.4 A
C 13.5 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
2 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 47 47 31.5 31.5 59.9% 40.1% 59.9% 40.1% 30 30 30 30 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 20 10 10 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 5 16 11 11 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 47 47 0 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 376 0.89 50.0 0.0 50.0 50.1 #96.5 544.5
WBT 179 0.37 22.6 0.0 22.6 19.4 35.4 206.8
461 0 0 0 0.82
527 0 0 0 0.34
NBL 63 0.11 10.7 0.0 10.7 4.6 10.7 75.0 576 0 0 0 0.11
NBT 142 0.15 10.6 0.0 10.6 10.6 19.8 173.0 923 0 0 0 0.15
NBR 24 0.03 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.5
SBL 76 0.12 10.7 0.0 10.7 5.6 12.3
50.0 755 0 0 0 0.03
130.0 644 0 0 0 0.12
SBT 276 0.29 11.8 0.0 11.8 22.4 36.9 418.3 949 0 0 0 0.29
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
SBR 149 0.17 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 8.0 100.0 878 0 0 0 0.17
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
35 35 1900
124 124 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1761 0.88 1561 0.86 144 12 215 4% NA 4
36 36 1900
116 116 1900
89 89 1900
277 277 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1746 1.00 1746 0.86 322 17 420 7% NA 2
94 94 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.44 833 0.86 109 0 109 2% Perm
315 315 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1768 1.00 1768 0.86 366 7 419 3% NA 6
52 52 1900
0.86 135 0 0 5% Perm
23 23 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.45 850 0.86 27 0 27 2% Perm
99 99 1900
0.86 42 0 0 2%
125 125 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1765 0.77 1388 0.86 145 20 363 2% NA 8
0.86 41 0 0 14% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.86 103 0 0 2%
8 21.8 21.8 0.31 5.5 3.0 479
21.8 21.8 0.31 5.5 3.0 426
0.14 0.45 19.8 1.00 0.7 20.4 C 20.4 C
c0.26 0.85 23.1 1.00 15.1 38.1 D 38.1 D 18.9 0.59 71.0 105.5% 15
2 38.2 38.2 0.54 5.5 3.0 457 0.03 0.06 7.8 1.00 0.2 8.1 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 115 0 0 2%
6 38.2 38.2 0.54 5.5 3.0 448
38.2 38.2 0.54 5.5 3.0 939 c0.24
0.13 0.24 8.7 1.00 1.3 10.0 B
0.45 10.0 1.00 1.5 11.5 B 11.3 B
0.86 60 0 0 27%
38.2 38.2 0.54 5.5 3.0 951 0.24 0.44 9.9 1.00 1.5 11.4 B 11.1 B
B 11.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 35 65.5 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 25 55.5 55.5
Intersection Summary 71 Cycle Length Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBT 227 0.46 20.7 0.0 20.7 21.1 35.4 158.8
WBT 383 0.86 41.1 0.0 41.1 42.1 #74.4 158.6
NBL 27 0.06 9.7 0.0 9.7 1.7 5.3
NBT 437 0.46 11.9 0.0 11.9 31.8 52.0 321.6
561 0 0 0 0.40
507 0 0 0 0.76
457 0 0 0 0.06
957 0 0 0 0.46
SBL 109 0.24 11.9 0.0 11.9 7.6 16.6 50.0 448 0 0 0 0.24
SBT 426 0.44 12.3 0.0 12.3 32.5 52.1 760.4 959 0 0 0 0.44
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
88 88 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.73 1382 0.93 95 0 95 2% Perm
15 15 1900 5.5 1.00 0.86 1.00 1592 1.00 1592 0.93 16 177 53 2% NA 4
199 199 1900
19 19 1900
2 2 1900
304 304 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1870 1.00 1870 0.93 327 2 341 2% NA 2
6 6 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.55 911 0.93 6 0 6 17% Perm
308 308 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1820 1.00 1820 0.93 331 8 391 3% NA 6
63 63 1900
0.93 20 0 0 2% Perm
106 106 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.52 982 0.93 114 0 114 2% Perm
15 15 1900
0.93 214 0 0 4%
13 13 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 0.97 1819 0.70 1317 0.93 14 2 34 2% NA 8
4 9.6 9.6 0.17 5.5 3.0 238 c0.07 0.40 20.4 1.00 1.1 21.5 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.93 2 0 0 2%
8 9.6 9.6 0.17 5.5 3.0 274 0.03
9.6 9.6 0.17 5.5 3.0 227 0.03 0.15 19.5 1.00 0.3 19.8 B 19.8 B
0.19 19.7 1.00 0.3 20.0 C 20.5 C 9.8 0.35 55.6 89.9% 15
2 35.0 35.0 0.63 5.5 3.0 618 0.12 0.18 4.3 1.00 0.7 5.0 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 16 0 0 2%
6 35.0 35.0 0.63 5.5 3.0 573
35.0 35.0 0.63 5.5 3.0 1177 0.18
0.01 0.01 3.8 1.00 0.0 3.9 A
0.29 4.7 1.00 0.6 5.3 A 5.2 A
0.93 68 0 0 2%
35.0 35.0 0.63 5.5 3.0 1145 c0.21 0.34 4.9 1.00 0.8 5.7 A 5.6 A
A 11.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 95 0.40 25.6 0.0 25.6 8.6 19.5 30.0 621 0 0 0 0.15
EBT 230 0.51 8.7 0.0 8.7 1.4 16.0 1201.3
WBT 36 0.16 20.2 0.0 20.2 2.9 9.1 482.8
832 0 0 0 0.28
592 0 0 0 0.06
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
NBL 114 0.18 5.8 0.0 5.8 3.8 11.1 50.0 617 0 0 0 0.18
NBT 343 0.29 5.7 0.0 5.7 12.2 27.1 440.8 1178 0 0 0 0.29
SBL 6 0.01 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.2 1.4 35.0 573 0 0 0 0.01
SBT 399 0.35 6.0 0.0 6.0 14.2 31.5 214.1 1153 0 0 0 0.35
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
13 13
2 2 Stop 0% 0.87 2
180 180
6 6
1 1
183 183
0 0
0.87 1
0.87 210
0.87 6
0.87 0
36 36 Free 0% 0.87 41
5 5
0.87 7
41 41 Free 0% 0.87 47
5 5
0.87 207
0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0
0.87 15
0.87 6
13 None
None
515
517
44
515
517
50
47
53
515 7.1
517 6.5
44 6.2
515 7.1
517 6.5
50 6.2
47 4.1
53 4.1
3.5 96 421
4.0 100 400
3.3 80 1026
3.5 98 335
4.0 100 400
3.3 100 1018
2.2 87 1560
2.2 100 1553
EB 1 224 15 207 1110 0.20 5.7 9.7 A 9.7 A
WB 1 8 7 1 366 0.02 0.5 15.1 C 15.1 C
NB 1 263 210 6 1560 0.13 3.5 6.3 A 6.3
SB 1 47 0 6 1553 0.00 0.0 0.0
7.3 31.2% 15
0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
136 136
203 203 Free 0% 0.91 223
3 3
60 60
5 5
0 0
3 3
0.91 5
0.91 0
0.91 55
0.91 3
52 52 Stop 0% 0.91 57
76 76
0.91 66
32 32 Stop 0% 0.91 35
50 50
0.91 3
172 172 Free 0% 0.91 189
0.91 84
0.91 149
None
None
194
226
958
848
224
918
848
192
194 4.1
226 4.1
958 7.1
848 6.5
224 6.3
918 7.1
848 6.5
192 6.2
2.2 89 1379
2.2 95 1342
3.5 100 156
4.0 86 252
3.4 93 805
3.5 98 186
4.0 77 253
3.3 90 845
EB 1 375 149 3 1379 0.11 2.8 3.7 A 3.7
WB 1 260 66 5 1342 0.05 1.2 2.3 A 2.3
NB 1 90 0 55 434 0.21 5.9 15.4 C 15.4 C 6.9 46.6% 15
SB 1 144 3 84 423 0.34 11.3 17.9 C 17.9 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
3 3
1 1 Stop 0% 0.90 1
26 26
36 36
102 102
25 25
76 76
0.90 113
0.90 28
0.90 61
0.90 84
171 171 Free 0% 0.90 190
7 7
0.90 40
235 235 Free 0% 0.90 261
55 55
0.90 29
9 9 Stop 0% 0.90 10
0.90 3
None
None
828
740
194
739
714
292
198
322
828 7.1
740 6.5
194 6.2
739 7.1
714 6.5
292 6.2
198 4.1
322 4.1
3.5 99 225
4.0 100 315
3.3 97 847
3.5 87 299
4.0 97 326
3.3 85 748
2.2 98 1375
2.2 93 1238
EB 1 33 3 29 650 0.05 1.2 10.8 B 10.8 B
WB 1 163 40 113 516 0.32 10.2 15.2 C 15.2 C
NB 1 350 28 61 1375 0.02 0.5 0.8 A 0.8
SB 1 282 84 8 1238 0.07 1.7 2.9 A 2.9
4.7 55.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.90 8
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
14 14 Stop 0% 0.88 16
85 85
111 111 0.88 126
19 19 Free 0% 0.88 22
4 4
0.88 97
26 26 Free 0% 0.88 30
None
None
306
24
27
306 6.4
24 6.2
27 4.1
3.5 97 631
3.3 91 1052
2.2 92 1587
EB 1 113 16 97 961 0.12 3.0 9.2 A 9.2 A
NB 1 156 126 0 1587 0.08 2.0 6.1 A 6.1
SB 1 27 0 5 1700 0.02 0.0 0.0
0.88 5
0.0
6.8 26.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
8 8
9 9 Stop 0% 0.99 9
172 172
10 10
1 1
187 187
4 4
0.99 1
0.99 189
0.99 21
0.99 4
158 158 Free 0% 0.99 160
18 18
0.99 10
291 291 Free 0% 0.99 294
21 21
0.99 174
12 12 Stop 0% 0.99 12
0.99 8
0.99 18
None
None 382 866
870
169
1038
868
304
178
315
866 7.1
870 6.5
169 6.2
1038 7.2
868 6.5
304 6.2
178 4.1
315 4.1
3.5 97 235
4.0 96 250
3.3 80 867
3.6 93 140
4.0 95 250
3.3 100 735
2.2 86 1392
2.2 100 1245
EB 1 191 8 174 706 0.27 8.3 12.0 B 12.0 B
WB 1 23 10 1 191 0.12 3.1 26.4 D 26.4 D
NB 1 504 189 21 1392 0.14 3.6 3.8 A 3.8
SB 1 182 4 18 1245 0.00 0.1 0.2 A 0.2
5.4 58.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
82 82
99 99 Free 0% 0.87 114
3 3
2 2
3 3
5 5
9 9
0.87 3
0.87 6
0.87 9
0.87 10
40 40 Stop 0% 0.87 46
179 179
0.87 2
26 26 Stop 0% 0.87 30
8 8
0.87 3
126 126 Free 0% 0.87 145
0.87 206
0.87 94
None
None
148
117
683
456
116
478
456
146
148 4.2
117 4.1
683 7.1
456 6.5
116 6.2
478 7.2
456 6.5
146 6.2
2.3 93 1403
2.2 100 1471
3.5 98 246
4.0 94 464
3.3 99 937
3.6 98 431
4.0 90 467
3.3 77 901
EB 1 211 94 3 1403 0.07 1.6 3.8 A 3.8
WB 1 150 2 3 1471 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1
NB 1 45 6 9 456 0.10 2.5 13.8 B 13.8 B 7.0 41.7% 15
SB 1 262 10 206 747 0.35 12.0 12.4 B 12.4 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
55 55
1 1 Stop 0% 0.89 1
22 22
3 3
0 0
8 8
2 2
0.89 0
0.89 9
0.89 3
0.89 2
401 401 Free 0% 0.89 451
101 101
0.89 3
291 291 Free 0% 0.89 327
3 3
0.89 25
4 4 Stop 0% 0.89 4
0.89 62
None
None
860
860
508
884
914
328
564
330
860 7.1
860 6.5
508 6.2
884 7.1
914 6.5
328 6.2
564 4.1
330 4.1
3.5 77 271
4.0 100 291
3.3 96 565
3.5 99 252
4.0 99 270
3.3 100 713
2.2 99 1008
2.2 100 1229
EB 1 88 62 25 318 0.28 8.4 20.6 C 20.6 C
WB 1 7 3 0 262 0.03 0.6 19.1 C 19.1 C
NB 1 339 9 3 1008 0.01 0.2 0.3 A 0.3
SB 1 566 2 113 1229 0.00 0.0 0.0 A 0.0
2.1 42.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.89 113
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
3 3
27 27 Stop 0% 0.89 30
8 8
46 46
13 13
0 0
4 4
0.89 15
0.89 0
0.89 10
0.89 4
65 65 Free 0% 0.89 73
0 0
0.89 52
82 82 Free 0% 0.89 92
9 9
0.89 9
0 0 Stop 0% 0.89 0
0.89 3
0.89 0
None
None
387 193
183
73
202
178
97
73
102
193 7.1
183 6.5
73 6.2
202 7.1
178 6.5
97 6.2
73 4.1
102 4.1
3.5 100 753
4.0 96 709
3.3 99 989
3.5 93 724
4.0 100 714
3.3 98 959
2.2 100 1527
2.2 100 1490
EB 1 42 3 9 758 0.06 1.3 10.0 B 10.0 B
WB 1 67 52 15 766 0.09 2.2 10.2 B 10.2 B
NB 1 102 0 10 1527 0.00 0.0 0.0
SB 1 77 4 0 1490 0.00 0.1 0.4 A 0.4
0.0
3.9 23.4% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20
307 307 Free 0% 0.91 337
33 33
8 8
4 4
19 19
2 2
0.91 4
0.91 21
0.91 10
0.91 2
21 21 Stop 0% 0.91 23 1 3.7 1.1 0
19 19
0.91 9
18 18 Stop 0% 0.91 20 5 3.7 1.1 0
9 9
0.91 36
291 291 Free 0% 0.91 320
0.91 21
0.91 22
None
None
325
378
776
747
360
760
763
323
325 4.1
378 4.1
776 7.1
747 6.5
360 6.2
760 7.1
763 6.5
323 6.2
2.2 98 1234
2.2 99 1175
3.5 93 281
4.0 94 331
3.3 99 681
3.5 99 296
4.0 93 324
3.3 97 717
EB 1 395 22 36 1234 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
WB 1 333 9 4 1175 0.01 0.2 0.3 A 0.3
NB 1 51 21 10 340 0.15 4.0 17.4 C 17.4 C 2.3 43.6% 15
SB 1 46 2 21 430 0.11 2.7 14.4 B 14.4 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0
12 12
11 11 0.91 12
246 246 Free 0% 0.91 270
2 2
0.91 13
347 347 Free 0% 0.91 381
None
None
SB 1 270 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0
SB 2 2 0 2 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
675
270
272
675 6.4
270 6.5
272 4.7
3.5 100 417
3.5 98 716
2.8 99 1009
EB 1 13 0 13 716 0.02 0.4 10.1 B 10.1 B
NB 1 12 12 0 1009 0.01 0.3 8.6 A 0.3
NB 2 381 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0
0.91 2
0.0
0.3 28.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
6 6
28 28 Stop 0% 0.92 30 11 3.7 1.1 1
20 20
46 46
96 96
20 20
93 93
0.92 104
0.92 22
0.92 36
0.92 101
203 203 Free 0% 0.92 221 7 3.7 1.1 1
7 7
0.92 50
173 173 Free 0% 0.92 188 102 3.7 1.1 10
33 33
0.92 22
41 41 Stop 0% 0.92 45 183 3.7 1.1 17
0.92 7
0.92 8
None
None
197 804
889
338
995
875
396
240
407
804 7.1
889 6.5
338 6.2
995 7.1
875 6.5
396 6.2
240 4.1
407 4.1
3.5 96 158
4.0 85 204
3.3 97 631
3.5 56 113
4.0 78 208
3.3 81 538
2.2 98 1313
2.2 89 955
EB 1 59 7 22 260 0.23 6.5 22.8 C 22.8 C
WB 1 199 50 104 234 0.85 51.2 70.7 F 70.7 F
NB 1 22 22 0 1313 0.02 0.4 7.8 A 0.7
NB 2 224 0 36 1700 0.13 0.0 0.0
SB 1 101 101 0 955 0.11 2.7 9.2 A 2.8
SB 2 229 0 8 1700 0.13 0.0 0.0
19.8 46.1% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
14 14 Stop 0% 0.87 16
13 13
17 17 0.87 20
251 251 Free 0% 0.87 289
12 12
0.87 15
175 175 Free 0% 0.87 201
None
None
537
296
303
537 6.4
296 6.5
303 4.1
3.5 97 497
3.6 98 680
2.2 98 1258
EB 1 31 16 15 571 0.05 1.3 11.7 B 11.7 B
NB 1 221 20 0 1258 0.02 0.4 0.8 A 0.8
SB 1 303 0 14 1700 0.18 0.0 0.0
0.87 14
0.0
1.0 33.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h)
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
36 36 Stop 0% 0.96 38
71 71
318 318 Free 0% 0.96 331
57 57
73 73
0.96 59
0.96 76
435 435 Free 0% 0.96 453
Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
4 None
None
966
360
390
966 6.5
360 6.2
390 4.1
3.6 85 260
3.3 89 684
2.2 93 1158
WB 1 112 38 74 765 0.15 3.9 14.4 B 14.4 B
NB 1 390 0 59 1700 0.23 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
0.96 74
0.0
SB 1 529 76 0 1158 0.07 1.6 1.8 A 1.8
2.5 60.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
8 8
29 29 Stop 0% 0.75 39
14 14
20 20
11 11
15 15
2 2
0.75 15
0.75 20
0.75 24
0.75 3
46 46 Free 0% 0.75 61
5 5
0.75 27
69 69 Free 0% 0.75 92
18 18
0.75 19
46 46 Stop 0% 0.75 61
0.75 11
None
None
260
226
64
253
218
104
68
116
260 7.1
226 6.5
64 6.2
253 7.1
218 6.5
104 6.2
68 4.1
116 4.1
3.5 98 627
4.0 94 663
3.3 98 1000
3.5 96 649
4.0 91 670
3.3 98 951
2.2 99 1533
2.2 100 1473
EB 1 69 11 19 723 0.10 2.4 10.5 B 10.5 B
WB 1 103 27 15 694 0.15 3.9 11.1 B 11.1 B
NB 1 136 20 24 1533 0.01 0.3 1.2 A 1.2
SB 1 71 3 7 1473 0.00 0.0 0.3 A 0.3
5.4 24.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 7
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
8 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
14 14 0.96 2 15 0
121 121 0.96 2 126 1
5 5 0.96 2 5 0
4 4 0.96 2 4 0
134 134 0.96 2 140 1
18 18 0.96 2 19 0
5 5 0.96 2 5 0
7 7 0.96 2 7 1
7 7 0.96 2 7 0
6 6 0.96 2 6 0
13 13 0.96 7 14 1
14 14 0.96 2 15 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 8.1 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 8.1 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 7.6 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 7.6 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 10% 18% 3% 26% 86% 86% 39% 37% 42% 12% 4% 37% Stop Stop Stop Stop 19 33 140 156 5 14 4 6 7 13 121 134 7 5 18 14 162 20 146 34 1 1 1 1 0.025 0.168 0.184 0.042 4.475 4.151 4.077 4.408 Yes Yes Yes Yes 871 855 817 805 2.476 2.222 2.145 2.409 0.025 0.171 0.186 0.042 8.1 8.1 7.6 7.6 A A A A 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.1
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
E.2 Bobcaygeon
Page | 355
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
5 5 1900
36 36 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1771 0.97 1724 0.77 47 16 64 2% NA 1
21 21 1900
46 46 1900
5 5 1900
10 10 1900
0.77 6 0 0 2%
0.77 13 0 0 2% Perm
34 34 1900 9.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1568 1.00 1568 0.77 44 0 44 3% Perm
10 10 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 0.98 1779 0.90 1641 0.77 13 5 27 2% NA 4
5 5 1900
0.77 60 0 0 6% Perm
0 0 1900 9.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.41 761 0.77 0 0 13 2% NA 2
10 10 1900
0.77 27 0 0 2%
28 28 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.97 1755 0.77 1397 0.77 36 0 102 2% NA 1
0.77 6 0 0 2% Perm 1
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
2
1 10.2 10.2 0.15 6.0 3.0 265
10.2 10.2 0.15 6.0 3.0 215
20.0 20.0 0.30 9.0 3.0 229
0.04 0.24 24.6 1.00 0.5 25.1 C 25.1 C
c0.07 0.47 25.6 1.00 1.7 27.2 C 27.2 C
0.02 0.06 16.4 1.00 0.1 16.5 B 16.6 B
23.5 0.51 66.2 53.3% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 20.0 20.0 0.30 9.0 3.0 473 c0.03 0.09 16.6 1.00 0.1 16.7 B
0.77 13 0 0 2% Perm
0.77 6 0 0 2%
4 15.0 15.0 0.23 6.0 3.0 371 c0.02 0.07 20.1 1.00 0.1 20.2 C 20.2 C
C 51.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBWB Lead
2 NBTL Lag
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
4 SBTL
6 Hold
None Ped Min None 31 31 31 29 25.4% 23.8% 25.4% 25.4% 31 21 29 29 2 4 4 4 28 2 2 5 1 8 20 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 8 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 91 60 0 31 0 31 60 91 92 85 25 51 92 85 17 41 60 0 29 91 61 116 54 20 61 108 54 10 122 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
17: Bolton St & Canal St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBT 80 0.28 22.5 0.0 22.5 6.7 14.1 149.9
WBT 102 0.48 33.3 0.0 33.3 11.6 20.6 179.7
NBT 13 0.06 18.3 0.0 18.3 1.1 4.2 223.5
663 0 0 0 0.12
527 0 0 0 0.19
229 0 0 0 0.06
NBR 44 0.09 18.1 0.0 18.1 3.8 9.3 20.0 473 0 0 0 0.09
SBT 32 0.09 19.0 0.0 19.0 2.5 7.5 92.3 624 0 0 0 0.05
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
101 101 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.95 1752 0.94 107 0 107 3% Perm
72 51 72 51 1900 1900 6.0 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1583 1752 1.00 0.55 1583 1017 0.94 0.94 77 54 45 0 77 9 2% 3% Perm D.P+P 1 4 2 10.5 36.8 10.5 36.8 0.17 0.60 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 271 708 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.11 5.1 21.2 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.3 5.4 21.2 C A
279 279 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1743 1.00 1743 0.94 297 0 297 9% NA 12
295 295 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.94 314 0 314 5% NA 2
137 137 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.94 146 78 68 2% Perm
38.8 38.8 0.63
1103 c0.17
28.6 28.6 0.47 6.0 3.0 844 c0.17
0.27 5.0 1.00 0.6 5.6 A 5.5 A
0.37 10.6 1.00 1.3 11.8 B 11.0 B
4 10.5 10.5 0.17 6.0 3.0 300 c0.06 0.36 22.4 1.00 0.7 23.1 C 22.5 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
10.8 0.35 61.3 47.2% 15
2 28.6 28.6 0.47 6.0 3.0 738 0.04 0.09 9.1 1.00 0.2 9.4 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
B 14.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 NBTL Lead Max 10 14.3% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 10 8 8 60 68 68
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
4 2 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 34 26 48.6% 37.1% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 44 10 44 0 38 64 38 64 0 34 28 54 28 54 70 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
20: East St S & King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 20: East St S & King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 107 0.26 22.9 0.0 22.9 10.6 22.4 452.1 597 0 0 0 0.18
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBR 54 0.13 7.7 0.0 7.7 0.0 7.5
NBL 77 0.10 4.3 0.0 4.3 2.7 6.3
25.0 575 0 0 0 0.09
70.0 794 0 0 0 0.10
NBT 297 0.24 4.9 0.0 4.9 12.1 21.1 128.0
SBT 314 0.36 13.3 0.0 13.3 24.1 41.4 311.0
1263 0 0 0 0.24
863 0 0 0 0.36
SBR 146 0.18 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 8.2 50.0 831 0 0 0 0.18
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
191 191 Free 0% 0.93 205
4 4
11 11
1 1
8 8
1 1
0.93 1
0.93 9
0.93 14
0.93 1
1 1 Stop 0% 0.93 1
0 0
0.93 12
0 0 Stop 0% 0.93 0
13 13
0.93 4
173 173 Free 0% 0.93 186
0.93 0
0.93 0
None
None
187
209
418
418
207
432
420
186
187 4.1
209 4.2
418 7.1
418 6.5
207 6.3
432 7.1
420 6.5
186 6.2
2.2 100 1387
2.3 99 1321
3.5 98 541
4.0 100 521
3.4 98 818
3.5 100 521
4.0 100 520
3.3 100 856
EB 1 209 0 4 1387 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 199 12 1 1321 0.01 0.2 0.5 A 0.5
NB 1 23 9 14 682 0.03 0.8 10.5 B 10.5 B 0.9 28.2% 15
SB 1 2 1 0 521 0.00 0.1 11.9 B 11.9 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
16 16
0 0 Stop 0% 0.89 0
173 173
11 11
4 4
158 158
3 3
0.89 4
0.89 178
0.89 9
0.89 3
296 296 Free 0% 0.89 333
6 6
0.89 12
205 205 Free 0% 0.89 230
8 8
0.89 194
6 6 Stop 0% 0.89 7
0.89 18
None
None
936
938
336
1119
932
230
340
239
936 7.4
938 6.5
336 6.3
1119 7.1
932 6.5
230 6.2
340 4.2
239 4.1
3.8 90 187
4.0 100 225
3.4 72 694
3.5 90 117
4.0 97 226
3.3 100 809
2.3 85 1192
2.2 100 1328
EB 1 212 18 194 564 0.38 13.2 15.2 C 15.2 C
WB 1 23 12 4 166 0.14 3.6 30.1 D 30.1 D
NB 1 178 178 0 1192 0.15 4.0 8.6 A 3.6
NB 2 230 0 0 1700 0.14 0.0 0.0
NB 3 9 0 9 1700 0.01 0.0 0.0
SB 1 3 3 0 1328 0.00 0.1 7.7 A 0.1
SB 2 340 0 7 1700 0.20 0.0 0.0
5.5 46.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.89 7
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Main St & Joseph St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
21 21 Stop 0% 0.85 25
19 19
15 15 0.85 18
28 28 Free 0% 0.85 33
21 21
0.85 22
25 25 Free 0% 0.85 29
None
None
110
46
58
110 6.4
46 6.2
58 4.1
3.5 97 869
3.3 98 1024
2.2 99 1546
EB 1 47 25 22 935 0.05 1.2 9.1 A 9.1 A
NB 1 47 18 0 1546 0.01 0.3 2.9 A 2.9
SB 1 58 0 25 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.85 25
0.0
3.7 18.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: East St S & Boyd St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
46 46
5 5 Stop 0% 0.95 5
4 4
1 1
21 21
14 14
13 13
0.95 22
0.95 15
0.95 4
0.95 14
393 393 Free 0% 0.95 414
139 139
0.95 1
382 382 Free 0% 0.95 402
4 4
0.95 4
9 9 Stop 0% 0.95 9
0.95 48
0.95 146
None
None 335 900
878
414
880
1020
402
560
406
900 7.1
878 6.5
414 6.2
880 7.1
1020 6.5
402 6.2
560 4.1
406 4.1
3.5 80 236
4.0 98 279
3.3 99 638
3.5 100 257
4.0 96 230
3.3 97 648
2.2 99 1011
2.2 99 1153
EB 1 57 48 4 251 0.23 6.5 23.6 C 23.6 C
WB 1 32 1 22 416 0.08 1.9 14.4 B 14.4 B
NB 1 417 15 0 1011 0.01 0.3 0.5 A 0.5
NB 2 4 0 4 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
SB 1 428 14 0 1153 0.01 0.3 0.4 A 0.3
SB 2 146 0 146 1700 0.09 0.0 0.0
2.0 47.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: East St S & Mill St
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h)
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
37 37 Stop 0% 0.95 39
63 63
260 260 Free 0% 0.95 274
17 17
50 50
0.95 18
0.95 53
302 302 Free 0% 0.95 318
Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
None
None
152 0.93 698
274
292
637 6.4
274 6.2
292 4.1
3.5 90 392
3.3 91 765
2.2 96 1270
WB 1 105 39 66 565 0.19 5.1 12.8 B 12.8 B
NB 1 274 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
0.95 66
NB 2 18 0 18 1700 0.01 0.0 0.0
0.0
2.3 32.9% 15
SB 1 53 53 0 1270 0.04 1.0 8.0 A 1.1
SB 2 318 0 0 1700 0.19 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 AWSC 13: Main St & Duke St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
9.2 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
59 59 0.92 5 64 0
157 157 0.92 5 171 1
8 8 0.92 2 9 0
9 9 0.92 2 10 0
141 141 0.92 8 153 1
5 5 0.92 2 5 0
4 4 0.92 2 4 0
23 23 0.92 2 25 1
10 10 0.92 2 11 0
3 3 0.92 33 3 0
25 25 0.92 2 27 1
78 78 0.92 2 85 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 9.7 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 8.9 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.2 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 9 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 6% 11% 26% 3% 70% 91% 24% 62% 3% 4% 74% 27% Stop Stop Stop Stop 224 155 37 106 9 4 59 3 157 141 23 25 5 78 10 8 168 40 243 115 1 1 1 1 0.055 0.311 0.215 0.161 4.6 4.597 5.028 4.907 Yes Yes Yes Yes 780 782 711 727 2.958 2.635 2.635 3.073 0.055 0.311 0.215 0.162 8.9 9.7 8.2 9 A A A A 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.6
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 AWSC 14: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Main St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
10.7 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
13 13 0.92 39 14 1
70 70 0.92 6 76 1
9 9 0.92 2 10 0
152 152 0.92 5 165 1
88 88 0.92 2 96 1
13 13 0.92 23 14 0
5 5 0.92 2 5 0
102 102 0.92 10 111 1
123 123 0.92 10 134 1
19 19 0.92 21 21 0
117 117 0.92 7 127 1
21 21 0.92 10 23 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 2 10 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 2 SB 1 11.1 B
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 9.7 A
SB NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 12 B
NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 12% 0% 0% 100% 5% 0% 100% 0% 87% 75% 0% 89% 95% 0% 13% 0% 0% 100% 0% 11% 13% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 157 152 101 13 107 123 79 5 0 13 0 152 0 19 117 0 0 102 0 88 70 21 0 0 0 123 13 9 171 110 14 116 86 165 134 5 5 5 5 5 5 4b 0.192 0.199 0.029 0.147 0.297 0.178 0.298 6.47 5.821 6.287 5.951 5.358 7.34 6.181 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 572 557 604 488 617 670 580 3.681 3.088 5.076 3.917 4.199 3.549 4.318 0.2 0.029 0.148 0.296 0.178 0.299 0.192 12 11.9 9.8 10.1 9.4 10.3 10 B B B A A A B 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.7
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 21: Bolton St & King St E
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
8 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
6 6 0.91 2 7 0
73 73 0.91 2 80 1
4 4 0.91 2 4 0
17 17 0.91 2 19 0
79 79 0.91 3 87 1
72 72 0.91 1 79 0
6 6 0.91 2 7 0
4 4 0.91 2 4 1
17 17 0.91 2 19 0
52 52 0.91 4 57 0
6 6 0.91 2 7 1
15 15 0.91 2 16 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 7.9 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 8.1 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 7.5 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.2 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 10% 71% 22% 7% 88% 47% 8% 15% 43% 21% 63% 5% Stop Stop Stop Stop 27 83 168 73 6 52 6 17 79 4 73 6 17 4 72 15 30 80 91 185 1 1 1 1 0.035 0.11 0.208 0.103 4.292 4.361 4.063 4.616 Yes Yes Yes Yes 888 836 825 779 2.308 2.374 2.063 2.63 0.036 0.11 0.208 0.103 7.5 8.1 7.9 8.2 A A A A 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.3
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
5 5 1900
37 37 1900 6.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1776 0.97 1727 0.95 39 13 50 2% NA 1
18 18 1900
66 66 1900
5 5 1900
14 14 1900
0.95 5 0 0 2%
0.95 15 0 0 2% Perm
55 55 1900 9.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.95 58 0 58 2% Perm
10 10 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 0.98 1780 0.90 1643 0.95 11 4 23 2% NA 4
5 5 1900
0.95 69 0 0 2% Perm
5 5 1900 9.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1795 0.60 1126 0.95 5 0 20 2% NA 2
10 10 1900
0.95 19 0 0 2%
49 49 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.97 1803 0.79 1473 0.95 52 0 126 2% NA 1
0.95 5 0 0 5% Perm 1
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
2
1 10.9 10.9 0.16 6.0 3.0 281
10.9 10.9 0.16 6.0 3.0 239
20.0 20.0 0.30 9.0 3.0 336
0.03 0.18 24.1 1.00 0.3 24.4 C 24.4 C
c0.09 0.53 25.6 1.00 2.1 27.7 C 27.7 C
0.02 0.06 16.7 1.00 0.1 16.8 B 17.1 B
23.5 0.57 66.9 53.3% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 20.0 20.0 0.30 9.0 3.0 473 c0.04 0.12 17.1 1.00 0.1 17.2 B
0.95 11 0 0 2% Perm
0.95 5 0 0 2%
4 15.0 15.0 0.22 6.0 3.0 368 c0.01 0.06 20.4 1.00 0.1 20.5 C 20.5 C
C 51.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBWB Lead
2 NBTL Lag
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
4 SBTL
6 Hold
None Ped Min None 31 31 31 29 25.4% 23.8% 25.4% 25.4% 31 21 29 29 2 4 4 4 28 2 2 5 1 8 20 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 8 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 91 60 0 31 0 31 60 91 92 85 25 51 92 85 17 41 60 0 29 91 61 116 54 20 61 108 54 10 122 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
17: Bolton St & Canal St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBT 63 0.21 20.9 0.0 20.9 5.1 14.1 149.9
WBT 126 0.53 33.9 0.0 33.9 14.5 29.1 179.7
NBT 20 0.06 18.5 0.0 18.5 1.8 6.6 223.5
654 0 0 0 0.10
550 0 0 0 0.23
336 0 0 0 0.06
NBR 58 0.12 18.9 0.0 18.9 5.2 13.6 20.0 472 0 0 0 0.12
SBT 27 0.07 19.5 0.0 19.5 2.2 8.1 92.3 617 0 0 0 0.04
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
283 283 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 0.93 304 0 304 2% Perm
92 93 92 93 1900 1900 2.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1583 1770 1.00 0.44 1583 816 0.93 0.93 99 100 75 0 99 25 2% 2% Perm D.P+P 1 2 4 36.0 16.6 36.0 16.6 0.25 0.54 2.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 555 394 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.18 7.6 19.1 1.00 1.00 0.7 0.1 8.3 19.1 A B
339 339 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.93 365 0 365 3% NA 12
366 366 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1776 1.00 1776 0.93 394 0 394 7% NA 2
184 184 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.93 198 115 83 2% Perm
38.0 38.0 0.57
1052 c0.20
28.0 28.0 0.42 6.0 3.0 746 c0.22
0.35 7.7 1.00 0.9 8.6 A 8.5 A
0.53 14.4 1.00 2.7 17.0 B 15.4 B
4 16.6 16.6 0.25 6.0 3.0 441 c0.17 0.69 22.7 1.00 4.5 27.1 C 25.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
15.9 0.55 66.6 54.9% 15
2 28.0 28.0 0.42 6.0 3.0 665 0.05 0.13 11.8 1.00 0.4 12.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
B 14.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 NBTL Lead Max 10 14.3% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 10 8 8 60 68 68
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
4 2 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 34 26 48.6% 37.1% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 44 10 44 0 38 64 38 64 0 34 28 54 28 54 70 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
20: East St S & King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 20: East St S & King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 304 0.69 31.5 0.0 31.5 34.1 57.6 452.1 531 0 0 0 0.57
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBR 100 0.21 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 9.5
NBL 99 0.16 6.1 0.0 6.1 4.1 10.2
25.0 545 0 0 0 0.18
70.0 604 0 0 0 0.16
NBT 365 0.31 7.0 0.0 7.0 17.6 34.7 128.0
SBT 394 0.53 18.2 0.0 18.2 34.6 63.1 311.0
1163 0 0 0 0.31
746 0 0 0 0.53
SBR 198 0.25 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 10.8 50.0 779 0 0 0 0.25
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
222 222 Free 0% 0.97 229
10 10
8 8
0 0
5 5
0 0
0.97 0
0.97 5
0.97 11
0.97 0
0 0 Stop 0% 0.97 0
0 0
0.97 8
0 0 Stop 0% 0.97 0
11 11
0.97 10
231 231 Free 0% 0.97 238
0.97 0
0.97 0
None
None
238
239
488
488
234
499
493
238
238 4.1
239 4.1
488 7.1
488 6.5
234 6.2
499 7.1
493 6.5
238 6.2
2.2 100 1329
2.2 99 1328
3.5 99 488
4.0 100 477
3.3 99 805
3.5 100 473
4.0 100 474
3.3 100 801
EB 1 239 0 10 1329 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 246 8 0 1328 0.01 0.1 0.3 A 0.3
NB 1 16 5 11 669 0.02 0.6 10.5 B 10.5 B 0.5 28.6% 15
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0 A 0.0 A
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
7 7
5 5 Stop 0% 0.91 5
190 190
15 15
5 5
215 215
5 5
0.91 5
0.91 236
0.91 21
0.91 5
308 308 Free 0% 0.91 338
13 13
0.91 16
341 341 Free 0% 0.91 375
19 19
0.91 209
3 3 Stop 0% 0.91 3
0.91 8
None
None
1208
1223
345
1406
1209
375
352
396
1208 7.1
1223 6.5
345 6.3
1406 7.1
1209 6.5
375 6.2
352 4.1
396 4.1
3.5 94 132
4.0 97 143
3.4 69 684
3.5 76 67
4.0 98 146
3.3 99 671
2.2 80 1201
2.2 100 1163
EB 1 222 8 209 554 0.40 14.6 15.8 C 15.8 C
WB 1 24 16 5 90 0.27 7.4 59.2 F 59.2 F
NB 1 236 236 0 1201 0.20 5.5 8.7 A 3.3
NB 2 375 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0
NB 3 21 0 21 1700 0.01 0.0 0.0
SB 1 5 5 0 1163 0.00 0.1 8.1 A 0.1
SB 2 352 0 14 1700 0.21 0.0 0.0
5.7 51.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.91 14
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Main St & Joseph St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
27 27 Stop 0% 0.78 35
37 37
37 37 0.78 47
29 29 Free 0% 0.78 37
28 28
0.78 47
36 36 Free 0% 0.78 46
None
None
195
55
73
195 6.4
55 6.2
73 4.1
3.5 95 769
3.3 95 1012
2.2 97 1520
EB 1 82 35 47 892 0.09 2.3 9.4 A 9.4 A
NB 1 93 47 0 1520 0.03 0.7 3.9 A 3.9
SB 1 73 0 36 1700 0.04 0.0 0.0
0.78 36
0.0
4.6 21.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: East St S & Boyd St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
73 73
1 1 Stop 0% 0.93 1
17 17
1 1
15 15
9 9
19 19
0.93 16
0.93 10
0.93 9
0.93 20
500 500 Free 0% 0.93 538
128 128
0.93 1
610 610 Free 0% 0.93 656
8 8
0.93 18
5 5 Stop 0% 0.93 5
0.93 78
0.93 138
None
None 335 538
0.81 1272
0.81 1392
0.81 656
676
0.81 665
1206 6.5
538 6.2
1218 7.1
1366 6.5
454 6.2
676 4.1
465 4.1
3.5 33 116
4.0 99 143
3.3 97 543
3.5 99 119
4.0 96 115
3.3 97 489
2.2 99 915
2.2 98 884
EB 1 97 78 18 136 0.71 31.0 79.7 F 79.7 F
WB 1 22 1 16 260 0.08 2.1 20.1 C 20.1 C
NB 1 666 10 0 915 0.01 0.3 0.3 A 0.3
NB 2 9 0 9 1700 0.01 0.0 0.0
SB 1 558 20 0 884 0.02 0.5 0.6 A 0.5
SB 2 138 0 138 1700 0.08 0.0 0.0
0.81 1272
0.81 1263
1218 7.1
5.8 60.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: East St S & Mill St
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h)
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
12 12 Stop 0% 0.91 13
47 47
368 368 Free 0% 0.91 404
17 17
44 44
0.91 19
0.91 48
384 384 Free 0% 0.91 422
Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
None
None
152 0.87 922
404
423
833 6.5
404 6.2
423 4.1
3.6 95 274
3.3 92 647
2.2 96 1136
WB 1 65 13 52 509 0.13 3.3 13.1 B 13.1 B
NB 1 404 0 0 1700 0.24 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
0.91 52
NB 2 19 0 19 1700 0.01 0.0 0.0
0.0
1.3 36.3% 15
SB 1 48 48 0 1136 0.04 1.0 8.3 A 0.8
SB 2 422 0 0 1700 0.25 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 AWSC 13: Main St & Duke St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
9.7 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
85 85 0.95 7 89 0
177 177 0.95 6 186 1
7 7 0.95 2 7 0
8 8 0.95 2 8 0
169 169 0.95 2 178 1
5 5 0.95 2 5 0
9 9 0.95 11 9 0
33 33 0.95 2 35 1
20 20 0.95 2 21 0
1 1 0.95 2 1 0
40 40 0.95 2 42 1
73 73 0.95 4 77 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 10.6 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9.4 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.8 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.7 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 4% 1% 15% 32% 66% 93% 35% 53% 3% 64% 3% 32% Stop Stop Stop Stop 114 62 269 182 1 8 9 85 40 33 177 169 5 73 20 7 192 120 65 283 1 1 1 1 0.094 0.373 0.251 0.159 5.203 4.745 4.716 4.758 Yes Yes Yes Yes 759 749 756 684 3.271 2.794 2.769 2.818 0.16 0.095 0.374 0.253 9.4 8.7 8.8 10.6 A A A B 1.7 0.6 1 0.3
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 AWSC 14: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Main St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
11.9 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20 0.94 2 21 1
93 93 0.94 2 99 1
4 4 0.94 2 4 0
180 180 0.94 2 191 1
89 89 0.94 2 95 1
22 22 0.94 2 23 0
3 3 0.94 2 3 0
147 147 0.94 2 156 1
189 189 0.94 2 201 1
15 15 0.94 20 16 0
140 140 0.94 6 149 1
25 25 0.94 4 27 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 2 10.9 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 2 SB 1 12.4 B
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 11 B
SB NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 13.4 B
NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 0% 8% 2% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 80% 78% 0% 96% 98% 0% 0% 20% 14% 0% 100% 0% 4% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 20 180 180 111 150 189 97 0 20 3 0 15 0 180 0 0 140 0 147 89 93 0 22 0 189 0 25 4 21 103 191 191 118 201 160 5 5 5 5 5 4b 5 0.276 0.308 0.043 0.191 0.365 0.204 0.355 7.2 6.66 6.859 6.209 6.668 6.232 5.513 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 576 538 496 523 574 649 537 4.73 3.99 3.27 4.969 4.429 4.616 3.966 0.279 0.31 0.042 0.192 0.365 0.205 0.355 10.6 13.4 10.3 13.5 11.4 10.7 11 B B B B B B B 1.7 1.1 0.1 1.3 0.8 1.6 0.7
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 21: Bolton St & King St E
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
9 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
17 17 0.89 2 19 0
131 131 0.89 2 147 1
10 10 0.89 2 11 0
39 39 0.89 2 44 0
72 72 0.89 2 81 1
85 85 0.89 2 96 0
9 9 0.89 2 10 0
6 6 0.89 2 7 1
42 42 0.89 2 47 0
100 100 0.89 2 112 0
5 5 0.89 2 6 1
12 12 0.89 2 13 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 9.1 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9.1 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.1 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 9.2 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 11% 16% 85% 20% 11% 83% 37% 4% 43% 6% 74% 10% Stop Stop Stop Stop 57 158 196 117 9 17 39 100 6 131 5 72 42 10 12 85 64 178 220 131 1 1 1 1 0.082 0.229 0.269 0.183 4.604 4.646 4.404 5.023 Yes Yes Yes Yes 774 815 770 713 2.656 2.686 2.442 3.069 0.27 0.184 0.083 0.231 8.1 9.1 9.1 9.2 A A A A 0.3 0.9 1.1 0.7
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
E.3 Fenelon Falls
Page | 385
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
138 138 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.65 1150 0.83 166 0 166 9% Perm
21 21 1900 5.5 1.00 0.88 1.00 1666 1.00 1666 0.83 25 66 42 2% NA 4
69 69 1900
28 28 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.58 1084 0.83 34 0 34 2% pm+pt 3 8 26.9 26.9 0.30 3.5 3.0 365 0.01 0.02 0.09 22.7 1.00 0.1 22.8 C
40 40 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1683 1.00 1683 0.83 48 82 83 2% NA 8
97 97 1900
54 54 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.57 1035 0.83 65 0 65 6% Perm
200 200 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1785 1.00 1785 0.83 241 3 275 6% NA 2
31 31 1900
75 75 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.57 1079 0.83 90 0 90 2% Perm
232 232 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.83 280 0 280 5% NA 6
129 129 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.83 155 45 110 5% Perm
4 18.0 18.0 0.20 5.5 3.0 229 c0.14 0.72 33.7 1.00 10.8 44.6 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.83 83 0 0 2%
18.0 18.0 0.20 5.5 3.0 332 0.02 0.13 29.6 1.00 0.2 29.8 C 38.7 D 17.6 0.37 90.1 76.7% 15
0.83 117 0 0 2%
26.9 26.9 0.30 5.5 3.0 502 c0.05 0.17 23.3 1.00 0.2 23.5 C 23.4 C
2 52.2 52.2 0.58 5.5 3.0 599 0.06 0.11 8.5 1.00 0.4 8.9 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.83 37 0 0 2%
6 52.2 52.2 0.58 5.5 3.0 625
52.2 52.2 0.58 5.5 3.0 1034 c0.15
0.08 0.14 8.7 1.00 0.5 9.2 A
0.27 9.4 1.00 0.6 10.0 B 9.8 A
52.2 52.2 0.58 5.5 3.0 1060 0.15 0.26 9.4 1.00 0.6 10.0 B 9.5 A
6 52.2 52.2 0.58 5.5 3.0 900 0.07 0.12 8.6 1.00 0.3 8.9 A
B 14.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
3 WBL Lead Yes None 21.5 18.0% 21.5 3.5 0 10 3 3 0 0 5 0 No Yes 56.6 78.1 74.6 74.6 56.6 74.6 74.6
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 78.1 0 114 114 78.1 114 114
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 56.6 0 114 114 56.6 114 114
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
119.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 166 0.71 51.1 0.0 51.1 28.5 45.0 25.0 475 0 0 0 0.35
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBT 108 0.27 12.4 0.0 12.4 3.7 14.0 148.3
WBL 34 0.08 19.5 0.0 19.5 4.0 9.1
WBT 165 0.29 8.7 0.0 8.7 5.9 15.9 296.8
NBL 65 0.11 12.4 0.0 12.4 5.4 13.2
NBT 278 0.26 12.1 0.0 12.1 25.0 43.9 119.3
737 0 0 0 0.15
504 0 0 0 0.07
1152 0 0 0 0.14
609 0 0 0 0.11
1053 0 0 0 0.26
SBL 90 0.14 12.6 0.0 12.6 7.7 17.2 20.0 634 0 0 0 0.14
SBT 280 0.26 12.4 0.0 12.4 25.9 45.0 126.0 1076 0 0 0 0.26
SBR 155 0.16 5.3 0.0 5.3 4.0 13.1 20.0 958 0 0 0 0.16
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
15 15 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1615 0.74 1254 0.89 17 0 17 13% Perm
14 14 1900 5.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1647 1.00 1647 0.89 16 71 27 2% NA 4
73 73 1900
83 83 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.69 1306 0.89 93 0 93 2% Perm
18 18 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1789 1.00 1789 0.89 20 9 21 2% NA 4
9 9 1900
34 34 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.48 902 0.89 38 0 38 2% Perm
296 296 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1786 1.00 1786 0.89 333 4 374 6% NA 2
40 40 1900
7 7 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.54 1009 0.89 8 0 8 2% Perm
391 391 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1817 1.00 1817 0.89 439 2 464 5% NA 2
24 24 1900
4 9.4 9.4 0.13 5.0 3.0 162 0.01 0.10 27.8 1.00 0.3 28.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.89 82 0 0 2%
4 9.4 9.4 0.13 5.0 3.0 169
9.4 9.4 0.13 5.0 3.0 213 0.02
c0.07 0.55 29.6 1.00 3.8 33.4 C
0.13 27.9 1.00 0.3 28.2 C 28.2 C 9.5 0.38 72.5 47.9% 15
0.89 10 0 0 2%
9.4 9.4 0.13 5.0 3.0 231 0.01 0.09 27.8 1.00 0.2 28.0 C 32.1 C
2 53.1 53.1 0.73 5.0 3.0 660 0.04 0.06 2.7 1.00 0.2 2.9 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 45 0 0 3%
2 53.1 53.1 0.73 5.0 3.0 739
53.1 53.1 0.73 5.0 3.0 1308 0.21
0.01 0.01 2.6 1.00 0.0 2.6 A
0.29 3.3 1.00 0.5 3.8 A 3.7 A
0.89 27 0 0 2%
53.1 53.1 0.73 5.0 3.0 1330 c0.26 0.35 3.5 1.00 0.7 4.2 A 4.2 A
A 10.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max 55 68.8% 35 3.5 1.5 30 3 3 0 0 25 0 Yes Yes 0 55 50 50 0 50 50
None 25 31.3% 20 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 15 0 Yes Yes 55 0 75 75 55 75 75 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 55
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 17 0.08 26.1 0.0 26.1 2.0 6.8 10.0 351 0 0 0 0.05
EBT 98 0.29 11.4 0.0 11.4 1.9 12.9 171.8 519 0 0 0 0.19
WBL 93 0.44 34.3 0.0 34.3 11.4 24.0 25.0 365 0 0 0 0.25
WBT 30 0.10 20.1 0.0 20.1 2.3 8.6 264.0 507 0 0 0 0.06
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
NBL 38 0.06 4.1 0.0 4.1 1.2 4.4 40.0 682 0 0 0 0.06
NBT 378 0.28 4.5 0.0 4.5 13.7 29.6 74.9 1355 0 0 0 0.28
SBL 8 0.01 3.9 0.0 3.9 0.3 1.5 50.0 764 0 0 0 0.01
SBT 466 0.34 5.0 0.0 5.0 18.5 38.9 125.1 1376 0 0 0 0.34
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
5 5
2 2 Stop 0% 0.93 2
21 21
11 11
3 3
20 20
5 5
0.93 3
0.93 22
0.93 10
0.93 5
393 393 Free 0% 0.93 423
15 15
0.93 12
296 296 Free 0% 0.93 318
9 9
0.93 23
4 4 Stop 0% 0.93 4
0.93 5
None
0.93 16
None
149 0.98 808
0.98 813
431
0.98 824
0.98 816
0.98 323
439
0.98 328
796 7.1
801 6.5
431 6.2
812 7.1
804 6.5
303 6.2
439 4.1
308 4.1
3.5 98 290
4.0 99 305
3.3 96 624
3.5 96 275
4.0 99 304
3.3 100 725
2.2 98 1121
2.2 100 1232
EB 1 30 5 23 495 0.06 1.5 12.7 B 12.7 B
WB 1 19 12 3 312 0.06 1.5 17.3 C 17.3 C
NB 1 22 22 0 1121 0.02 0.5 8.3 A 0.5
NB 2 328 0 10 1700 0.19 0.0 0.0
SB 1 5 5 0 1232 0.00 0.1 7.9 A 0.1
SB 2 439 0 16 1700 0.26 0.0 0.0
1.1 31.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Colborne Street/Short Street & Princes Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
9 9 Stop 0% 0.92 10
13 13
12 12 0.92 13
376 376 Free 0% 0.92 409
6 6
0.92 14
266 266 Free 0% 0.92 289
None
None
728
412
416
728 6.4
412 6.2
416 4.1
3.5 97 386
3.3 98 640
2.2 99 1143
EB 1 24 10 14 502 0.05 1.1 12.5 B 12.5 B
NB 1 13 13 0 1143 0.01 0.3 8.2 A 0.4
NB 2 289 0 0 1700 0.17 0.0 0.0
0.92 7
SB 1 416 0 7 1700 0.24 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.5 30.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 25: Northline Rd & CKL Rd 121
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
10.1 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
30 30 0.87 2 34 0
73 73 0.87 10 84 1
174 174 0.87 7 200 1
8 8 0.87 25 9 0
12 12 0.87 6 14 1
1 1 0.87 2 1 1
225 225 0.87 5 259 0
12 12 0.87 2 14 1
5 5 0.87 2 6 0
2 2 0.87 2 2 0
16 16 0.87 2 18 1
45 45 0.87 2 52 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 1 9.5 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 1 9.3 A
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 11.3 B
SB NB 1 WB 2 EB 2 8.3 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 93% 29% 0% 40% 0% 3% 5% 71% 0% 60% 0% 25% 2% 0% 100% 0% 100% 71% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 242 103 174 20 1 63 225 30 0 8 0 2 12 73 0 12 0 16 5 0 174 0 1 45 278 118 200 23 1 72 2 5 5 5 5 2 0.39 0.184 0.271 0.041 0.002 0.094 5.051 5.595 4.879 6.382 5.143 4.695 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 709 638 732 557 688 757 3.105 3.355 2.638 4.169 2.929 2.766 0.392 0.185 0.273 0.041 0.001 0.095 11.3 9.6 9.5 9.4 7.9 8.3 B A A A A A 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.1 0 0.3
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
195 195 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.62 1130 0.95 205 0 205 6% Perm
32 32 1900 5.5 1.00 0.90 1.00 1677 1.00 1677 0.95 34 58 52 2% NA 4
72 72 1900
32 32 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.59 1114 0.95 34 0 34 2% pm+pt 3 8 30.8 30.8 0.33 3.5 3.0 403 0.00 0.02 0.08 21.8 1.00 0.1 21.9 C
56 56 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1678 1.00 1678 0.95 59 103 112 2% NA 8
148 148 1900
43 43 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.48 830 0.95 45 0 45 12% Perm
324 324 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1839 1.00 1839 0.95 341 4 400 2% NA 2
60 60 1900
81 81 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.46 863 0.95 85 0 85 2% Perm
354 354 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.95 373 0 373 4% NA 6
170 170 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.95 179 41 138 5% Perm
4 21.9 21.9 0.23 5.5 3.0 262 c0.18 0.78 33.9 1.00 14.1 47.9 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.95 76 0 0 3%
21.9 21.9 0.23 5.5 3.0 390 0.03 0.13 28.6 1.00 0.2 28.7 C 41.2 D 19.4 0.49 94.1 82.9% 15
0.95 156 0 0 2%
30.8 30.8 0.33 5.5 3.0 549 c0.07 0.20 22.8 1.00 0.2 23.0 C 22.8 C
2 52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 461 0.05 0.10 9.8 1.00 0.4 10.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 63 0 0 2%
6 52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 479
52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 1022 c0.22
0.10 0.18 10.3 1.00 0.8 11.1 B
0.39 11.9 1.00 1.1 13.0 B 12.7 B
52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 1026 0.20 0.36 11.6 1.00 1.0 12.6 B 11.9 B
6 52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 864 0.09 0.16 10.2 1.00 0.4 10.6 B
B 14.5 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
3 WBL Lead Yes None 21.5 18.0% 21.5 3.5 0 10 3 3 0 0 5 0 No Yes 56.6 78.1 74.6 74.6 56.6 74.6 74.6
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 78.1 0 114 114 78.1 114 114
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 56.6 0 114 114 56.6 114 114
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
119.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 205 0.77 53.0 0.0 53.0 36.8 61.7 25.0 448 0 0 0 0.46
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBT 110 0.24 12.7 0.0 12.7 5.1 17.6 148.3
WBL 34 0.08 18.5 0.0 18.5 4.0 9.6
WBT 215 0.34 8.2 0.0 8.2 7.6 21.7 296.8
NBL 45 0.10 14.8 0.0 14.8 4.1 12.3
NBT 404 0.39 15.5 0.0 15.5 43.7 82.4 119.3
710 0 0 0 0.15
520 0 0 0 0.07
1119 0 0 0 0.19
468 0 0 0 0.10
1042 0 0 0 0.39
SBL 85 0.17 15.5 0.0 15.5 8.2 21.1 20.0 486 0 0 0 0.17
SBT 373 0.36 15.4 0.0 15.4 40.7 76.6 126.0 1042 0 0 0 0.36
SBR 179 0.20 7.9 0.0 7.9 8.0 23.4 20.0 917 0 0 0 0.20
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
51 51 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.73 1368 0.89 57 0 57 2% Perm
10 10 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1618 1.00 1618 0.89 11 141 37 2% NA 4
149 149 1900
65 65 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.55 1028 0.89 73 0 73 2% Perm
15 15 1900 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1682 1.00 1682 0.89 17 25 22 2% NA 4
27 27 1900
53 53 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.45 826 0.89 60 0 60 4% Perm
450 450 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1814 1.00 1814 0.89 506 6 580 4% NA 2
71 71 1900
20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.40 748 0.89 22 0 22 2% Perm
423 423 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1801 1.00 1801 0.89 475 2 502 6% NA 2
26 26 1900
4 11.5 11.5 0.16 5.0 3.0 214 0.04 0.27 27.1 1.00 0.7 27.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
0.89 167 0 0 2%
4 11.5 11.5 0.16 5.0 3.0 161
11.5 11.5 0.16 5.0 3.0 254 0.02
c0.07 0.45 28.0 1.00 2.0 30.0 C
0.15 26.6 1.00 0.3 26.9 C 27.1 C 10.6 0.45 73.2 74.6% 15
0.89 30 0 0 4%
11.5 11.5 0.16 5.0 3.0 264 0.01 0.08 26.3 1.00 0.1 26.5 C 28.6 C
2 51.7 51.7 0.71 5.0 3.0 583 0.07 0.10 3.4 1.00 0.4 3.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 80 0 0 2%
2 51.7 51.7 0.71 5.0 3.0 528
51.7 51.7 0.71 5.0 3.0 1281 c0.32
0.03 0.04 3.3 1.00 0.1 3.4 A
0.45 4.6 1.00 1.2 5.8 A 5.6 A
0.89 29 0 0 2%
51.7 51.7 0.71 5.0 3.0 1272 0.28 0.39 4.4 1.00 0.9 5.3 A 5.2 A
B 10.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max 55 68.8% 35 3.5 1.5 30 3 3 0 0 25 0 Yes Yes 0 55 50 50 0 50 50
None 25 31.3% 20 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 15 0 Yes Yes 55 0 75 75 55 75 75 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 55
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 57 0.27 29.4 0.0 29.4 6.8 16.0 10.0 373 0 0 0 0.15
EBT 178 0.45 9.6 0.0 9.6 1.3 15.6 171.8 564 0 0 0 0.32
WBL 73 0.45 36.6 0.0 36.6 9.0 20.2 25.0 281 0 0 0 0.26
WBT 47 0.16 15.2 0.0 15.2 2.0 9.7 264.0 482 0 0 0 0.10
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
NBL 60 0.10 4.5 0.0 4.5 1.9 6.6 40.0 583 0 0 0 0.10
NBT 586 0.46 6.2 0.0 6.2 24.5 53.6 74.9 1286 0 0 0 0.46
SBL 22 0.04 4.2 0.0 4.2 0.7 3.1 50.0 528 0 0 0 0.04
SBT 504 0.40 5.8 0.0 5.8 20.3 44.8 125.1 1272 0 0 0 0.40
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
15 15
4 4 Stop 0% 0.96 4
55 55
12 12
5 5
22 22
8 8
0.96 5
0.96 23
0.96 10
0.96 8
402 402 Free 0% 0.96 419
16 16
0.96 12
496 496 Free 0% 0.96 517
10 10
0.96 57
1 1 Stop 0% 0.96 1
0.96 16
None
0.96 17
None
149 0.90 1012
0.90 1016
428
0.90 1062
0.90 1020
0.90 522
436
0.90 527
959 7.1
964 6.5
428 6.2
1014 7.1
967 6.5
415 6.2
436 4.1
420 4.1
3.5 92 206
4.0 98 224
3.3 91 623
3.5 93 172
4.0 100 223
3.3 99 575
2.2 98 1124
2.2 99 1026
EB 1 77 16 57 412 0.19 5.2 15.7 C 15.7 C
WB 1 18 12 5 216 0.08 2.0 23.1 C 23.1 C
NB 1 23 23 0 1124 0.02 0.5 8.3 A 0.3
NB 2 527 0 10 1700 0.31 0.0 0.0
SB 1 8 8 0 1026 0.01 0.2 8.5 A 0.2
SB 2 436 0 17 1700 0.26 0.0 0.0
1.7 37.7% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Colborne Street/Short Street & Princes Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
3 3 Stop 0% 0.98 3
15 15
11 11 0.98 11
362 362 Free 0% 0.98 369
17 17
0.98 15
462 462 Free 0% 0.98 471
None
None
870
378
386
870 6.4
378 6.3
386 4.1
3.5 99 319
3.4 98 658
2.2 99 1172
EB 1 18 3 15 559 0.03 0.8 11.7 B 11.7 B
NB 1 11 11 0 1172 0.01 0.2 8.1 A 0.2
NB 2 471 0 0 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0
0.98 17
SB 1 386 0 17 1700 0.23 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.3 34.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 25: Northline Rd & CKL Rd 121
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
12 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
68 68 0.97 2 70 0
160 160 0.97 4 165 1
269 269 0.97 4 277 1
12 12 0.97 17 12 0
127 127 0.97 9 131 1
4 4 0.97 25 4 1
228 228 0.97 3 235 0
24 24 0.97 2 25 1
8 8 0.97 2 8 0
1 1 0.97 2 1 0
20 20 0.97 5 21 1
45 45 0.97 2 46 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 1 11.8 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 1 11.5 B
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 13.3 B
SB NB 1 WB 2 EB 2 9.4 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 88% 30% 0% 9% 0% 2% 9% 70% 0% 91% 0% 30% 3% 0% 100% 0% 100% 68% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 260 228 269 139 4 66 228 68 0 12 0 1 24 160 0 127 0 20 8 0 269 0 4 45 268 235 277 143 4 68 2 5 5 5 5 2 0.434 0.388 0.394 0.26 0.006 0.107 5.831 5.944 5.118 6.534 5.639 5.687 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 616 606 704 549 634 629 3.867 3.677 2.851 4.278 3.383 3.737 0.435 0.388 0.393 0.26 0.006 0.108 13.3 12.4 11.2 11.6 8.4 9.4 B B B B A A 2.2 1.8 1.9 1 0 0.4
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
E.4 Omemee
Page | 405
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
7 7 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1415 0.55 815 0.90 8 0 8 29% Perm
299 299 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1811 1.00 1811 0.90 332 0 334 6% NA 2
2 2 1900
4 4 1900
5 5 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1838 1.00 1883 0.90 6 0 12 2% NA 5
0 0 1900
27 27 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1706 0.75 1346 0.90 30 0 30 7% Perm
4 4 1900 7.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1617 1.00 1617 0.90 4 0 37 2% NA 6
30 30 1900
0.90 4 0 0 2% Perm
15 15 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1286 1.00 1286 0.90 17 7 10 27% Perm
5 5 1900
0.90 2 0 0 2%
318 318 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1779 1.00 1774 0.90 353 0 357 8% NA 2
2 42.9 42.9 0.60 7.0 3.0 489 0.01 0.02 5.7 1.00 0.1 5.8 A
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
2 42.9 42.9 0.60 7.0 3.0 1088 0.18
42.9 42.9 0.60 7.0 3.0 1065 c0.20 0.34 7.1 1.00 0.8 8.0 A 7.9 A
0.31 7.0 1.00 0.7 7.7 A 7.7 A 10.3 0.33 71.4 75.8% 15
2 42.9 42.9 0.60 7.0 3.0 772
0.90 6 0 0 2% Perm 5
0.01 0.01 5.7 1.00 0.0 5.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.90 0 0 0 2%
6 5.8 5.8 0.08 7.0 3.0 109
1.7 1.7 0.02 7.0 3.0 44 c0.01 0.27 34.2 1.00 3.3 37.6 D 37.6 D
0.02 0.28 30.8 1.00 1.4 32.2 C
0.90 33 0 0 3%
5.8 5.8 0.08 7.0 3.0 131 c0.02 0.28 30.8 1.00 1.2 32.0 C 32.1 C
B 21.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
5 NBTL Lead Yes None 22 25.3% 15 4 3 8 3 3 0 0
6 SBTL Lag Yes None 22 25.3% 17 4 3 10 3 3 0 0
Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 8 0.01 8.6 0.0 8.6 0.3 2.8 20.0 597 0 0 0 0.01
EBT 334 0.25 7.8 0.0 7.8 15.6 49.9 761.0
WBT 357 0.27 8.0 0.0 8.0 17.0 54.3 568.3
1327 0 0 0 0.25
1300 0 0 0 0.27
WBR 17 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 979 0 0 0 0.02
NBT 12 0.05 26.6 0.0 26.6 1.2 6.1 233.0 455 0 0 0 0.03
SBL 30 0.14 27.3 0.0 27.3 2.9 11.4 50.0 326 0 0 0 0.09
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
SBT 37 0.14 26.9 0.0 26.9 3.5 13.2 315.8 391 0 0 0 0.09
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Hwy 7 /King St W & Sibley Ave N
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
7 7
304 304 Free 0% 0.83 366
298 298 Free 0% 0.83 359
12 12
24 24 Stop 0% 0.83 29
9 9 0.83 11
None
None
373
748
366
373 4.1
748 6.4
366 6.3
2.2 99 1185
3.5 92 377
3.4 98 660
0.83 8
EB 1 374 8 0 1185 0.01 0.2 0.2 A 0.2
WB 1 373 0 14 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.83 14
SB 1 40 29 11 428 0.09 2.3 14.3 B 14.3 B 0.8 31.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Ski Hill Rd/Dean St & King St W/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
2 2
311 311 Free 0% 0.83 375
13 13
32 32
2 2
18 18
4 4
0.83 2
0.83 22
0.83 23
0.83 5
2 2 Stop 0% 0.83 2
0 0
0.83 39
3 3 Stop 0% 0.83 4
19 19
0.83 16
296 296 Free 0% 0.83 357
0.83 0
0.83 2
None
None
359
391
824
824
383
848
831
358
359 5.1
391 4.1
824 7.2
824 7.2
383 6.2
848 7.1
831 7.0
358 6.2
3.1 100 812
2.2 97 1162
3.6 92 272
4.6 98 236
3.3 97 658
3.5 98 261
4.5 99 248
3.3 100 686
EB 1 393 2 16 812 0.00 0.1 0.1 A 0.1
WB 1 398 39 2 1162 0.03 0.8 1.1 A 1.1
NB 1 49 22 23 369 0.13 3.4 16.2 C 16.2 C 1.7 48.1% 15
SB 1 7 5 0 257 0.03 0.6 19.4 C 19.4 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Queen St S/Queen St N & King St E/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
326 326 Free 0% 0.89 366
11 11
0 0
0 0
30 30
2 2
0.89 0
0.89 34
0.89 10
0.89 2
0 0 Stop 0% 0.89 0
5 5
0.89 0
0 0 Stop 0% 0.89 0
9 9
0.89 12
322 322 Free 0% 0.89 362
0.89 6
0.89 0
None
None
362
378
740
734
372
744
740
362
362 4.1
378 4.1
740 7.1
734 6.5
372 6.2
744 7.1
740 6.5
362 6.2
2.2 100 1197
2.2 100 1180
3.5 90 328
4.0 100 347
3.3 99 674
3.5 99 326
4.0 100 345
3.3 99 683
EB 1 378 0 12 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0
WB 1 362 0 0 1180 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
NB 1 44 34 10 372 0.12 3.0 16.0 C 16.0 C 1.0 29.6% 15
SB 1 8 2 6 536 0.01 0.3 11.8 B 11.8 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
43 43 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.45 850 0.96 45 0 45 2% Perm
453 453 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1853 1.00 1853 0.96 472 1 482 3% NA 2
11 11 1900
0 0 1900
12 12 1900 7.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1810 0.57 1053 0.96 12 0 31 2% NA 5
4 4 1900
35 35 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.74 1336 0.96 36 0 36 6% Perm
8 8 1900 7.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1563 1.00 1563 0.96 8 0 53 37% NA 6
43 43 1900
0.96 0 0 0 2%
31 31 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 32 14 18 2% Perm
13 13 1900
0.96 11 0 0 18%
432 432 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.96 450 0 450 2% NA 2
2 42.6 42.6 0.56 7.0 3.0 472 0.05 0.10 8.0 1.00 0.4 8.4 A
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023
2 42.6 42.6 0.56 7.0 3.0 1029 c0.26
42.6 42.6 0.56 7.0 3.0 1045 0.24
0.47 10.2 1.00 1.5 11.8 B 11.5 B
0.43 10.0 1.00 1.3 11.3 B 11.0 B 13.7 0.45 76.7 75.8% 15
2 42.6 42.6 0.56 7.0 3.0 889
0.96 14 0 0 2% Perm 5
0.01 0.02 7.7 1.00 0.0 7.7 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 4 0 0 2%
6 8.0 8.0 0.10 7.0 3.0 139
5.1 5.1 0.07 7.0 3.0 70 c0.03 0.44 34.4 1.00 4.4 38.9 D 38.9 D
0.03 0.26 31.6 1.00 1.0 32.6 C
0.96 45 0 0 2%
8.0 8.0 0.10 7.0 3.0 163 c0.03 0.33 31.8 1.00 1.2 33.0 C 32.9 C
B 21.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
5 NBTL Lead Yes None 22 25.3% 15 4 3 8 3 3 0 0
6 SBTL Lag Yes None 22 25.3% 17 4 3 10 3 3 0 0
Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 45 0.08 12.3 0.0 12.3 1.8 10.6 20.0 531 0 0 0 0.08
EBT 483 0.42 13.5 0.0 13.5 24.7 86.9 761.0
WBT 450 0.38 13.1 0.0 13.1 22.5 78.9 568.3
1160 0 0 0 0.42
1178 0 0 0 0.38
WBR 32 0.03 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 25.0 1054 0 0 0 0.03
NBT 31 0.18 29.7 0.0 29.7 2.8 11.7 233.0 228 0 0 0 0.14
SBL 36 0.18 32.5 0.0 32.5 3.4 13.6 50.0 289 0 0 0 0.12
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
SBT 53 0.23 32.7 0.0 32.7 5.1 18.0 315.8 338 0 0 0 0.16
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Hwy 7 /King St W & Sibley Ave N
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
12 12
433 433 Free 0% 0.95 456
419 419 Free 0% 0.95 441
45 45
18 18 Stop 0% 0.95 19
4 4 0.95 4
None
None
488
946
464
488 4.1
946 6.5
464 6.2
2.2 99 1075
3.6 93 282
3.3 99 598
0.95 13
EB 1 469 13 0 1075 0.01 0.3 0.4 A 0.4
WB 1 488 0 47 1700 0.29 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.95 47
SB 1 23 19 4 310 0.07 1.8 17.5 C 17.5 C 0.6 42.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Ski Hill Rd/Dean St & King St W/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
438 438 Free 0% 0.95 461
17 17
35 35
9 9
21 21
2 2
0.95 9
0.95 22
0.95 51
0.95 2
3 3 Stop 0% 0.95 3
0 0
0.95 37
1 1 Stop 0% 0.95 1
48 48
0.95 18
440 440 Free 0% 0.95 463
0.95 0
0.95 0
None
None
472
479
1013
1016
470
1063
1020
468
472 4.1
479 4.1
1013 7.2
1016 7.5
470 6.2
1063 7.1
1020 7.2
468 6.2
2.2 100 1090
2.2 97 1083
3.6 89 202
4.9 99 158
3.3 91 594
3.5 99 178
4.6 98 177
3.3 100 595
EB 1 479 0 18 1090 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 509 37 9 1083 0.03 0.8 1.0 A 1.0
NB 1 74 22 51 368 0.20 5.6 17.2 C 17.2 C 1.8 64.2% 15
SB 1 5 2 0 178 0.03 0.7 25.9 D 25.9 D
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Queen St S/Queen St N & King St E/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Existing Traffic 2023 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
438 438 Free 0% 0.97 452
18 18
13 13
0 0
16 16
1 1
0.97 0
0.97 16
0.97 10
0.97 1
0 0 Stop 0% 0.97 0
2 2
0.97 13
0 0 Stop 0% 0.97 0
10 10
0.97 19
500 500 Free 0% 0.97 515
0.97 2
0.97 0
None
None
515
471
1004
1002
462
1012
1012
515
515 4.1
471 4.1
1004 7.2
1002 6.5
462 6.2
1012 7.1
1012 6.5
515 6.2
2.2 100 1051
2.2 99 1091
3.6 93 214
4.0 100 239
3.3 98 600
3.5 100 212
4.0 100 236
3.3 100 560
EB 1 471 0 19 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 528 13 0 1091 0.01 0.3 0.3 A 0.3
NB 1 26 16 10 284 0.09 2.3 18.9 C 18.9 C 0.7 46.8% 15
SB 1 3 1 2 362 0.01 0.2 15.0 C 15.0 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Page | 419
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis Project No: CCO-0008 Prepared for: City of Kawartha Lakes
Prepared by: Egis in collaboration with Concept Dash
November 2024
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................4 1.1.
Collisions at Intersections.............................................................................4
1.1.1.
Methodology.........................................................................................4
1.1.2.
Results .................................................................................................4 1.1.2.1 Collision by Severity......................................................................4 1.1.2.2 Collision by Initial Impact Type .....................................................4 1.1.2.3 External factors ............................................................................5
1.1.3. 1.2.
Analysis of hotspot locations ................................................................12
Collisions at Road Segments.......................................................................16
1.2.1.
Methodology.......................................................................................20
1.2.2.
Results ...............................................................................................20 1.2.2.1 Collision by Severity....................................................................20 1.2.2.2 Collision by Initial Impact Type ...................................................20 1.2.2.3 External factors ..........................................................................20
1.2.3.
Analysis of Hotspot locations ...............................................................28
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Severity (2014-2022) ...................................................................................5 Table 2: Key Hotspots: Intersections .......................................................................12 Table 3: Collision summary – Hotspot intersections ...................................................14 Table 4: Hotspot Intersections – Severity & Initial impact type ..................................18 Table 5: Hotspot Intersections – Light conditions ......................................................19 Table 6: Hotspot Intersections – Environment conditions...........................................20 Table 7: Hotspot Intersections – Road Surface conditions..........................................21
1
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
Table 8: Severity (2014-2022) .................................................................................25 Table 9: Key Hotspots - Road segments ...................................................................31 Table 10: Collision Percentages................................................................................34 Table 11: Hotspot road segments – Severity & Initial impact type ..............................37 Table 12: Hotspot road segments – Light conditions .................................................38 Table 13: Hotspot road segments – Environmental conditions ...................................39 Table 14: Hotspot road segments – Road surface conditions .....................................40 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Collisions - Intersections By Temporal Distribution ........................................7 Figure 2: Collision Analysis – Intersections (Heat Map) ................................................9 Figure 3a: Collision Analysis – Intersections..............................................................10 Figure 3b: Collision Analysis – Intersections..............................................................11 Figure 4: Hotspots - Intersections ............................................................................13 Figure 5: Collisions - Road Segments By Temporal Distribution ..................................26 Figure 6: Collision Analysis – Road Segments (Heat Map) ..........................................28 Figure 7a: Collision Analysis – Road Segments..........................................................29 Figure 7b: Collision Analysis – Road Segments..........................................................30 Figure 8: Hotspot Locations – Road Segments ..........................................................32 Figure 9: Road Diet Example ...................................................................................42
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Collision Data Tables
2
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
1. Introduction A collision analysis for the City of Kawartha Lakes was undertaken to develop an empirical model to conduct future operational and safety assessments for its roadways and intersections. The study covered the period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2022, including all corridors and intersections in the City of Kawartha Lakes settlement areas. The 2023 traffic collisions were excluded as the data was unavailable for a whole year. Furthermore, traffic collisions outside of COKL municipal limits were omitted from the data analysis. Road cross-sections were classified as Urban, Rural, and Semi-urban to serve as a starting point. The collisions were analyzed separately, such as those that happened at intersections and those at road segments. The objective of the safety review and detailed traffic collision analysis was to identify possible contributing factors for higher overall collision frequency, subsequent identification of appropriate mitigation measures, and guide the City in prioritizing potential safety enhancements.
1.1. Collisions at Intersections 1.1.1.
Methodology
The intersections were classified into signalized, unsignalized, three-legged and fourlegged intersections. A review of historical traffic collision data was performed based on information provided by the City. Our review was to identify key hotspots and collision trends in terms of type and severity. A detailed desktop review of the hotspot area was performed at key hotspots to identify causal factors.
1.1.2.
Results
In total, 60 signalized and 872 unsignalized intersections were considered for the study. Among them, there were 548 three-legged and 384 four-legged intersections.
1.1.2.1
Collision by Severity
Over the course of the study, while considering the severity of collisions, 75% of collisions were classified as Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Only 0.2% of collisions were fatal and 22% were non-fatal. In addition, there were 4% non-reportable collisions.
1.1.2.2
Collision by Initial Impact Type
Analyzing initial impact type, Single motor vehicle collisions (other than unattended vehicle collisions) come around 41%, and turning movement and rear-end collisions together make up over 20% of the recorded collisions. Moreover, angle collisions, approaching, and sideswipe collisions make up around 15%. Turning movement collisions are often caused by inadequate vehicle clearance intervals at intersections or obstructing sight lines. Meanwhile, angle accidents can result from drivers running red lights or stop 4
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
signs, failing to yield at a yield sign, or changing lanes without properly checking for other vehicles. All drivers need to remain vigilant and follow traffic laws to prevent these types of accidents from happening.
1.1.2.3
External factors
External factors associated with a collision can further be classified into temporal distribution (by year, season/month, and time of day) and driving conditions (road surface, light, and weather conditions). Collisions were maximum in 2019, and there is a considerable reduction in the next few years. Table 1 shows the collision severity over the years (2014-2022). Table 1: Severity (2014-2022) Property Damage only Non-reportable
Year
Fatal Injury
Non-fatal injury
2014
0
69
273
0
2015
0
93
220
2
2016
1
84
188
7
2017
1
84
242
27
2018
0
84
274
14
2019
1
95
279
20
2020
0
38
203
13
2021
1
42
230
22
2022
1
29
236
23
5
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
Majority of collisions occurred in wintertime, occurring in clear and dry road conditions, during daylight hours during the week. The frequency of collisions was low in the dark and on weekends. Most collisions took place in off-peak hours, on Fridays, within 6 hours from 12 p.m. (noon) to 6 p.m. as illustrated in Figure 1. Accounting for Road users, about 2% of collisions involved pedestrians with less than 1% fatal injuries and 58% major injuries. No hanger-on or one sitting on the lap was injured in the collisions considered under intersections.
6
2019
2021
431
434
Number of Collisions
389
Figure 1: Collisions - Intersections by Temporal Distribution
Collisions according to the day of occurrence
395
482
March
258
12:00:00 PM 06:00:00 PM Time interval
06:01:00 AM 11:59:00 AM
7
06:00:00 PM 11:59:00 PM
193
Collisions according to time of occurrence
12:00:00 AM 06:00:00 AM
89
323
470
Collisions according to month of occurrence
April
444
January
2022
153
206
May
2020
271
206
June
321
2018
292
201
277
279 272
272
288
July
Collisions according to year of occurrence
2017
249
239
245
August
2016
279
387
September
2015
313
367
CCO-0008
October
2014
337
348
February Number of Collisions
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
November
Number of Collisions
December
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
The major reason for most of the collisions was "the driver lost control of the vehicle". Collisions kept on happening irrespective of the good road conditions. Drivers were NOT Under the Influence (Non-DUI) in most collisions; however, inattentive driving was the main reason for Angle Collisions. The details of collision analysis are depicted in Figure 2 Heat Map and Figures 3a & 3b Collision Analysis. Only five fatalities were recorded during the analysis period, one at each of the following intersections. ● ● ● ● ●
Cambridge Street & Durham Street Kent Street & Highway 35 Highway 7 & River Road Kirk field Road & Avery Point Road Monck Road & Cockburn Street
8
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
Figure 2: Collision Analysis – Intersections (Heat map)
9
Sideswipe 5%
Rearend 12%
Dry 62%
Figure 3a Collision Analysis – Intersections
Collision classification according to road surface conditions
Wet 18%
Loose sand or Mud Packed snow lce Other gravel 0% 4% 1% Spilled liquid 6% 1% Stush 0% 3% Loose snow 5%
Turning movement SMV 11% unattended vehicle 15% Collisions classification according to initial impact type
SMVother 42%
0ther ApproachingAngle 2% 6% 7%
Fatal Injury 0%
Non-fatal injury 21%
CCO-0008
Others 0%
Daylight 82%
Collision classification according to light conditions
Dawn 1%
Dusk 3%
Dark 14%
Property Damage only 74% Collisions classification according to severity
Nonreportable 5%
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
Pedestrian
56
Passenger
1
2840
10
Clear 74%
Other 1%
Collision classification according to environmental conditions
Rain 9%
Snow 9%
Drifting snow Fog, mist, smoke, 2% Strong wind dust 2% Freezing rain 1% 2%
Collisions according to involved persons
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1218
107 146 94
34
168 255
23
174
CCO-0008
Collision classification according to driver actions
Figure 3b: Collision Analysis – Intersections
Collision classification according to driver’s conditions
Normal
Fatigue inattentive Unknown Ability Medical or Other impaired, physical drugs disability Ability impaired, alcohol Ability impaired, alcohol(over. 08) Had been drinking
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
Number of Collisions
11
Good 98%
Under 0% repair or Constructi on 0%
Collision classification according to road conditions
Poor 2%
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
1.1.3.
CCO-0008
Analysis of hotspot locations
Intersections were sorted according to the number of collisions and the top ten intersections were identified as key hotspots. All the intersections considered in the study and the collisions associated with them are added to Appendix A. Key hotspots are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 4. Table 2: Key Hotspots: Intersections Sl.no
Intersection
Traffic control
Intersection geometry
Total No. of collisions
1
Kent Street & St. Joseph Road
Signalized
4 legged
127
2
Kent Street & Angeline Street
Signalized
4 legged
112
3
Kent Street & Commerce Road
Unsignalized
3 legged
36
4
Angeline Street & Colborne Street
Signalized
3 legged
34
5
Highway 35 & Highway 7
Signalized
4 legged
34
6
Kent Street & William Street
Signalized
4 legged
30
7
Lindsay Street & Russell Street
Signalized
4 legged
27
8
Victoria Avenue & Kent Street
Signalized
4 legged
26
9
Russell Street & William Street
Signalized
4 legged
24
10
Kent Street & Cambridge Street
Signalized
4 legged
23
12
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
Figure 4: Hotspots – Intersections
1.1.4.
Hotspot locations analysis
A summary table of concerns in each hotspot location is added in Table 3. All hotspot intersections follow the same trend as the City with a higher percentage of collisions under Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Lindsay Street & Russell Street, Angeline Street & Colborne Street, and Victoria Avenue & Kent Street intersections have more than 25% non-fatal collisions as listed in Table 4. It may be noted that there are no fatal collisions among these ten hotspots. From Table 4, it is obvious that every hotspot location has a higher percentage of Single motor vehicle collisions. Kent Street & Cambridge Street and Victoria Avenue & Kent Street have SMV collision percentages way more than the City percentage. A higher proportion of SMV collisions occur due to external factors such as environmental conditions, light conditions, and road surface conditions than other collisions. These external factors are analyzed in the next sections. 13
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
Among hotspots, Victoria Avenue & Kent Street have 23% rear-end collisions. Distracted Driving and Speeding are the main reasons for rear-ending collisions. This intersection is signalized, and the City should consider providing appropriate signage at regular intervals. It is noteworthy that no fatalities have happened at any of the hot spot locations. While analyzing hotspots for light conditions, it is clear from Table 5 that majority of the collisions happened in daylight only. However, the following intersections have the percentage of collisions that happened in the dark to be around 20%. • • •
Kent Street & Commerce Road Kent Street & William Street Russell Street & William Street
The City must monitor the sufficiency of roadway lighting and take necessary actions in these locations. Even though a higher proportion of collisions happened in clear environmental conditions at every hotspot location, it should be noted that Lindsay Street & Russell Street have 30% collisions under snow as shown in Table 6. Considering road surface conditions, collisions are higher irrespective of the fact that the road surface is dry. At Kent Street & Angeline Street, 18% of collisions happened during wet road surface conditions, which is clear from Table 7. Table 3: Collision summary – Hotspot intersections
No.
Location
Collision Percentage •
1 Kent Street & St. Joseph Road
• • • • • •
2 Kent Street & Angeline Street
• • •
45% single motor vehicle collisions 13% collisions in the dark 16% collisions in rain and snow 9% collisions in wet road surface 9% lost control collisions 9% collisions due to inattentive driving 38% single motor vehicle collisions 8% collisions in the dark 15% collisions in rain and snow 18% collisions in wet road surface 14
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis No.
Location
Collision Percentage • • •
3 Kent Street & Commerce Road
• • • • • •
4 Angeline Street & Colborne Street
• • • • • •
5
Highway 35 & Highway 7
• • • • • •
6 Kent Street & William Street
CCO-0008
• • • •
9% lost control collisions 16% collisions due to inattentive driving 36% single motor vehicle collisions 22% collisions in the dark 17% collisions in rain and snow 14% collisions in wet road surface 14% failed to yield collisions 14% collisions due to inattentive driving 41% single motor vehicle collisions 12% collisions in the dark 9% collisions in rain and snow 3% collisions in wet road surface 9% lost control collisions 12% collisions due to inattentive driving 41% single motor vehicle collisions. 9% collisions in the dark. 21% collisions in rain and snow. 6% collisions in wet road surface. 12% lost control collisions. 9% of collisions are due to inattentive driving. 43% of single motor vehicle collisions. 23% collisions in the dark. 17% collisions in rain and snow. 10% collisions in wet road surface. 13% lost control collisions. 15
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis No.
Location
7
Lindsay Street & Russell Street
Collision Percentage •
7% of collisions are due to inattentive driving.
•
37% single motor vehicle collisions. 4% collisions in the dark. 34% collisions in rain and snow. 7% collisions in wet road surface. 15% lost control collisions 15% of collisions were due to inattentive driving. 50% single motor vehicle collisions. 8% collisions in the dark. 12% collisions in rain and snow. 8% collisions in wet road surface. 12% lost control collisions. 15% of collisions were due to inattentive driving. 33% of single motor vehicle collisions. 17% collisions in the dark. 17% collisions in rain and snow. 17% failed to yield collisions. 4% of collisions are due to inattentive driving. 61% single motor vehicle collisions. 4% collisions in the dark. 17% collisions in rain and snow. 4% collisions in wet road surface.
• • • • • •
8
Victoria Avenue & Kent Street
• • • • • •
9 Russell Street & William Street
10
• • • • •
Kent Street & Cambridge Street
CCO-0008
• • •
16
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis No.
Location
CCO-0008
Collision Percentage • •
4% lost control collisions. 17% of collisions are due to inattentive driving.
17
Kent Street & St. Joseph Road Kent Street & Angeline Street Kent Street & Commerce Road Angeline Street & Colborne Street Highway 35 & Highway 7 Kent Street & William Street Lindsay Street & Russell Street Victoria Avenue & Kent Street Russell Street & William Street Kent Street & Cambridge Street
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Intersection
Sl. N o.
23
24
26
27
30
34
34
36
112
Total number of collision s 127
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Fata l Inju ry 0%
13%
21%
27%
37%
13%
18%
29%
22%
20%
23%
Nonfatal injury
83%
79%
65%
59%
87%
79%
71%
75%
77%
Severity Propert y Damag e only 75%
4%
0%
8%
4%
0%
3%
0%
3%
4%
2%
Nonreporta ble
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Othe r
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
3%
0%
6%
0%
1%
Approachi ng
9%
8%
4%
7%
3%
0%
15%
11%
9%
7%
Angl e
Table 4: Hotspot Intersections – Severity & Initial impact type
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
17%
13%
23%
15%
17%
9%
6%
14%
11%
8%
Rear end
4%
8%
8%
15%
3%
9%
3%
6%
8%
6%
0%
13%
4%
7%
17%
12%
15%
11%
15%
13%
Initial Impact Type Sideswip Turning e moveme nt
CCO-0008
9%
17%
4%
19%
7%
18%
18%
17%
12%
14%
SMV unattende d vehicle
18
61 %
33 %
50 %
41 % 43 % 37 %
41 %
36 %
38 %
45 %
SMV othe r
0%
8%
8%
0%
7%
9%
3%
0%
7%
6%
0the r
Kent Street & Angeline Street Kent Street & Commerce Road
Angeline Street & Colborne Street Highway 35 & Highway 7 Kent Street & William Street
Lindsay Street & Russell Street Victoria Avenue & Kent Street Russell Street & William Street
Kent Street & Cambridge Street
2 3
4
7 8 9
10
5 6
Kent Street & St. Joseph Road
Intersection
1
Sl. No.
23
27 26 24
34 30
34
112 36
127
Total number of collisions
87%
85% 81% 83%
76% 57%
85%
85% 69%
81%
Daylight
Table 5: Hotspot Intersections – Light conditions
0%
0% 0% 0%
0% 3%
0%
1% 6%
1%
Daylight, artificial
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
4%
0% 0% 0%
3% 7%
0%
2% 0%
0%
Dawn
0%
0% 4% 0%
0% 3%
0%
0% 0%
1%
Dawn, artificial
Dusk
0%
4% 4% 0%
6% 0%
0%
2% 3%
2%
4%
4% 0% 0%
0% 0%
0%
1% 0%
1%
Dusk, artificial
Light Conditions
CCO-0008
4%
4% 8% 17%
9% 23%
12%
8% 22%
13%
Dark
0%
4% 4% 0%
6% 7%
3%
2% 0%
2%
Dark, artificial
19
0%
0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
0%
0% 0%
0%
Other
Intersection
10
9
8
23
24
26
27
7 Lindsay Street & Russell
Street Victoria Avenue & Kent Street Russell Street & William Street Kent Street & Cambridge Street
30
34
34
112 36
127
Total number of collisions
5 6 Kent Street & William Street
4
2 3
Road Kent Street & Angeline Street Kent Street & Commerce Road Angeline Street & Colborne Street Highway 35 & Highway 7
1 Kent Street & St. Joseph
Sl. No.
78%
67%
81%
59%
76% 67%
82%
79% 69%
81%
Clear
4%
13%
0%
4%
4%
6% 7%
3%
8% 11%
Rain
Table 6: Hotspot Intersections – Environment conditions
4%
17%
8%
30%
15% 10%
6%
7% 6%
12%
Snow
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
0%
8%
4%
4%
0% 3%
3%
0% 0%
1%
0%
0%
4%
0%
0% 3%
3%
3% 0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
3% 10 % 0%
0%
3% 8%
2%
Environment Conditions Freezing Driftin Strong rain g snow wind
CCO-0008
0%
4%
0%
0%
0% 0%
0%
1% 6%
20
4%
4%
0%
4%
0% 0%
3%
0% 0%
Fog, Other mist, smoke, dust 0% 0%
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10
Sl. No.
34 30 27 26 24 23
Lindsay Street & Russell Street Victoria Avenue & Kent Street Russell Street & William Street
Kent Street & Cambridge Street
34
112 36
Angeline Street & Colborne Street Highway 35 & Highway 7 Kent Street & William Street
127
Kent Street & Angeline Street Kent Street & Commerce Road
Total number of collisions
Kent Street & St. Joseph Road
Intersection
50% 40% 44% 38% 46% 43%
35% 33% 39% 29%
Dry
6% 10% 7% 8% 0% 4%
9% 18% 14% 3%
Wet
3% 0% 0% 0% 8% 4%
4% 5% 3% 9%
Loose snow
Table 7: Hotspot Intersections – Road Surface conditions
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2% 4% 0% 0%
Stush
3% 3% 7% 0% 8% 0%
0% 2% 0% 3%
Packed snow
lce
0% 7% 0% 0% 8% 0%
2% 4% 0% 3%
Road Surface Condition
CCO-0008
Mud
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
Loose sand or gravel
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
Spilled liquid
21
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
0% 0% 3% 0%
Other
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
1.1.5.
CCO-0008
Conclusion and Recommendations
A review of historical traffic collision data was performed based on information provided by the City. The review identified key hotspots and collision trends in terms of type and severity. A detailed desktop review of the hotspot area was performed at key hotspots to identify causal factors. Based on a thorough review and analysis of the traffic collisions at the hotspot intersections in the City of Kawartha Lakes, the key recommendations are summarized as follows: 1. Recommendations based on the collision types: •
•
•
• •
•
Single motor vehicle collisions o Better Lighting and Visibility: Improve lighting on rural and remote roads, which are more prone to single-vehicle accidents due to low visibility at night. Collisions in the dark o Reflective Road Markings: Use reflective paint or road markers to improve visibility in low-light conditions. o Enhanced Headlights and Signage: Enforce regulations for properly functioning vehicle headlights and reflective signage. Collisions in the rain, snow and wet conditions o Road Maintenance: Ensure regular clearing of snow and ice in winter months, along with proper drainage to prevent water accumulation. o Improved Road Surface Materials: Invest in high-friction road surfaces that provide better traction in wet conditions. Collisions due to loss of control o Anti-Skid Surfaces: Install anti-skid road surfaces in high-risk areas like bridges, sharp curves, and downhill roads. Collisions due to inattentive driving o Driver Fatigue Management: Implement measures to detect and prevent driver fatigue, such as encouraging rest stops and implementing laws for maximum driving hours, especially for commercial drivers. Collisions due to failure to yield o Clearer Signage: Ensure that "Yield" signs, traffic signals, and right-of-way signs are clearly visible and placed at the correct locations (e.g., at intersections, pedestrian crossings). Reflective signs or illuminated traffic signals should be used, especially in low-light conditions.
2. Recommendations for pedestrian collisions at signalized intersections: • Use smaller curb radii to reduce the walking distance 22
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis •
CCO-0008
Modify traffic signal timings to provide pedestrians ahead start
Additionally, it is recommended that the City continue to monitor traffic and road safety conditions along the hotspots by proactively conducting safety audits by qualified professionals. The audit should identify hazards and risks and recommend eliminating them.
23
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
1.2. Collisions at Road Segments 1.2.1.
Methodology
A review of historical collision data was performed based on information provided by the City. Our review was to identify key hotspots and collision trends in terms of type and severity. At key hotspots, a detailed desktop review of the hotspot area was performed to identify causal factors.
1.2.2.
Results
Collisions that occurred over road segments were analyzed separately and the following conclusions were obtained.
1.2.2.1
Collision by Severity
Over the course of the study, while considering the severity of collisions, 78% of collisions were classified as Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Only 1% of collisions were fatal and 18% were non-fatal. In addition, there were 3% non-reportable collisions.
1.2.2.2
Collision by Initial Impact Type
Single motor vehicle collisions (other than unattended vehicle collisions) come around 42% and turning movement and rear-end collisions together make up over 20% of the recorded collisions. Moreover, angle collisions, approaching, and sideswipe collisions make up around 15%. Turning movement collisions are often caused by inadequate vehicle clearance intervals at intersections or obstructing sight lines. Meanwhile, angle accidents can result from drivers running red lights or stop signs, failing to yield at a yield sign, or changing lanes without properly checking for other vehicles. All drivers need to remain vigilant and follow traffic laws to prevent these types of accidents from happening.
1.1.2.1
External factors
External factors associated with a collision can further be classified into temporal distribution (by year, season/month, and time of day) and driving conditions (road surface, light, and weather conditions). Collisions were maximum in the year 2019, and there is a considerable reduction in collisions in the next few years. Table 8 shows the collision severity over the years (2014-2022).
24
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
Table 8: Severity (2014-2022) Year
Fatal Injury
Non-fatal injury
Property Damage only
Non-reportable
2014
5
86
416
5
2015
1
240
678
3
2016
11
183
630
14
2017
8
179
686
20
2018
6
139
740
22
2019
6
148
823
42
2020
2
130
532
34
2021
7
129
595
36
2022
5
96
610
55
The greatest number of collisions occurred in wintertime, occurring under clear and dry road conditions during daylight hours during the week. The frequency of collisions was lower in the dark and on the weekends. Most collisions occurred in off-peak hours, on Fridays, during the 6 hours from 12 p.m. (noon) to 6 p.m. as shown in Figure 5.
25
2017
2019
2020
1096
1239
Saturday
Friday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Monday
Sunday
Figure 5: Collisions - road segments by temporal distribution
685
06:01:00 AM 11:59:00 AM
12:00:00 PM 06:00:00 PM
1552
768
26
06:00:00 PM 11:59:00 PM
Collisions according to time of occurrence
12:00:00 AM 06:00:00 AM
615
1959
3279
900
November
Collisions according to the day of occurrence
1091
Thursday
1068
January
1066
March
Collisions according to month of occurrence
387
April
436
587
578
590
541
May
903
2022
2021
0
602
616
June
Year
2018
698
766
767
February
632
July
859
2016
907
August
Collisions according to year of occurrence
2015
838
893
September
2014
512
922
CCO-0008
October
Number of Collisions
1019
Number of Collisions
Number of Collisions
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
December
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
Taking road users into account, about 1% of collisions involve pedestrians. Among the people involved, there were less than 1% fatal injuries and 60% major injuries. Two hangers-on and no one sitting on the lap were injured in the collisions considered under road segments. The major reason for most of the collisions was that "the driver lost control of the vehicle". Collisions kept on happening, irrespective of the good road conditions. Drivers were NOT Under the Influence (Non-DUI) in most of the collisions; however, inattentive driving was the major reason for Angle Collisions. 39 fatal accidents occurred in the period considered in the collisions that happened at road segments. The details of collision analysis are illustrated in Figure 6 and Figure 7a & 7b.
27
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
Figure 6: Collision Analysis – Road Segments (Heat map)
28
Stush 2%
lce 6%
Dry 62%
Spilled Other liquid 1% 0%
Figure 7a: Collision Analysis – Road Segments
Collision classification according to road surface conditions
Wet 18%
snow 4%
Loose sand Mud or gravel 0% 1% Packed
Loose snow 6%
Turning movement 12%
Sideswipe 4%
Rearend 11%
SMV unattended vehicle 16% Collisions classification according to initial impact type
SMVother 42%
0ther Approaching Angle 2% 6% 7% Fatal Injury 1%
Others 0% Daylight 82%
Collision classification according to light conditions
Dusk 3% Dawn 1%
Dark 14%
Collision classification according to environmental conditions
Rain 8%
Fog, mist, Other smoke, dust 1% 2%
29
Clear 75%
Collisions according to involved persons Drifting snowStrong wind 2% 2% Freezing rain 2% Snow 8%
Non-fatal injury 18%
CCO-0008
Property Damage only 78% Collisions classification according to severity
Non-reportable 3%
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
Normal 85%
238
380 280 124 442 697
59
423
CCO-0008
Collision classification according to driver actions
3195
Figure 7b: Collision Analysis – Road Segment
Collision classification according to driver’s conditions
Had been Ability impaired, drinking alcohol(over.08) 1% 1%
Fatigue Ability 1% impaired, drugs Ability 0% impaired, alcohol 0%
inattentive Medical or physical Unknown Other 10% disability 0% 1% 1%
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
Number of Collisions
Good 97%
Under repair 0% or Constructio n 1%
Collision classification according to road conditions
Poor 2%
30
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
1.2.3.
CCO-0008
Hotspot location analysis
Road segments were also sorted according to the number of collisions, and the top ten were identified as key hotspots. All the road segments considered in the study and the collisions associated with them are provided in Appendix A. Key hotspots are listed in Table 9 and shown in Figure 8. A heatmap of these hotspots is added as Figure 9. Table 9: Key Hotspots - Road sections Sl. no Road Name
Number of collisions
1
Kent Street
908
2
Highway 35
579
3
Highway 7
471
4
Lindsay Street
329
5
Angeline Street
224
6
County Road 121
176
7
County Road 36
164
8
Glenarm Road
155
9
Pigeon Lake Road
147
10
Little Britain Road
143
31
Figure 8: Hotspot Road segment heat maps
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis CCO-0008
32
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
1.2.4. Collision by Impact Type and Driver Action
A summary table including all concerns associated with hotspot road segments are added in Table 10. All hotspot segments follow the same trend as the City with a higher percentage of collisions under Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. The following road segments had fatal accidents as listed in Table 11. • • • • • • • • • •
Kent Street - 5 Highway 35 - 6 Highway 7 - 1 Lindsay Street – 4 Angeline Street County Road 121 - 3 County Road 36 - 1 Glenarm Road - 1 Pigeon Lake Road – 1 Little Britain Road -
From Table 11, it is obvious that every hotspot location has a higher percentage of Single motor vehicle collisions. Single motor vehicle unattended collisions are around 20% for Highway 7, Lindsay Street, and Pigeon Lake Road. A higher proportion of SMV collisions occur due to external factors such as environmental conditions, light conditions, and road surface conditions than other collisions. These external factors are analyzed below. While analyzing hotspots for light conditions, it is clear from Table 12 that most collisions happen in daylight only. However, the percentage of collisions in the dark is about 25-30% at all locations. At Highway 7, it is coming to be around 35%, and at Highway 35, around 32%. The city must monitor the sufficiency of roadway lighting and take necessary actions in these locations. Even though a higher proportion of collisions happened in clear environmental conditions at every hotspot location, it should be noted that County Road 36 and Pigeon Lake Road have 13% and 11% collisions under rain respectively as depicted in Table 13. Considering road surface conditions, collisions are higher irrespective of the fact that the road surface is dry. At Pigeon Lake Road, 14% of collisions happened during wet road surface conditions which is clear from Table 14.
33
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
CCO-0008
Table 10: Collision Percentages
No.
Location
Concerns • •
1
Kent Street
• • • • • • •
2
Highway 35
• • • • • • •
3
Highway 7
• • • • •
5 fatal collisions 41% single motor vehicle collisions 30% collisions in the dark Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow 11% collisions in wet road surface 10% lost control collisions 7% collisions due to inattentive driving 6 fatal collisions 42% single motor vehicle collisions 32% collisions in the dark Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow 9% collisions in wet road surface 9% lost control collisions 9% collisions due to inattentive driving 1 fatal collision 41% single motor vehicle collisions 35% collisions in the dark Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow 11% collisions in wet road surface 8% failed to yield collisions 7% collisions due to inattentive driving 34
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis No.
Location
Concerns • •
4
Lindsay Street
• • • • • •
5
Angeline Street
• • • • • •
6
County Road 121
• • • • • •
7 County Road 36
CCO-0008
• • •
4 fatal collisions 38% single motor vehicle collisions 29% collisions in the dark Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow 12% collisions in wet road surface 8% lost control collisions 8% collisions due to inattentive driving 37% single motor vehicle collisions. 28% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 10% collisions in wet road surface. 9% lost control collisions. 6% collisions due to inattentive driving. 46% single motor vehicle collisions. 27% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 6% collisions in wet road surface. 13% lost control collisions. 9% collisions due to inattentive driving. 47% single motor vehicle collisions. 24% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 10% collisions in wet road surface. 35
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis No.
Location
Concerns • • •
8
• • Glenarm Road
• • • •
9
Pigeon Lake Road
• • • • •
10
Little Britain Road
CCO-0008
• • • • • •
9% lost control collisions 5% collisions due to inattentive driving. 44% single motor vehicle collisions. 29% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 10% collisions in wet road surface. 10% lost control collisions. 7% collisions due to inattentive driving. 39% single motor vehicle collisions. 27% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 14% collisions in wet road surface. 7% failed to yield collisions. 7% collisions due to inattentive driving. 41% single motor vehicle collisions. 30% collisions in the dark. Almost 20% collisions in rain and snow. 10% collisions in wet road surface. 7% lost control collisions. 8% collisions due to inattentive driving.
36
10
9
8
7
6
143
147
155
164
176
224
579 471 329
Highway 35 Highway 7 Lindsay Street Angeline Street County Road 121 County Road 36 Glenarm Road Pigeon Lake Road Little Britain Road
5
908
Kent Street
1 2 3 4
Total number of collisions
Road Segment
Sl. No.
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
0%
1% 0% 1%
1%
Fatal Injur y
15%
15%
22%
21%
18%
14%
18% 20% 23%
16%
Nonfatal injury
79%
82%
74%
76%
77%
83%
79% 77% 71%
80%
Property Damage only
Severity
6%
2%
4%
2%
3%
3%
2% 3% 5%
3%
Nonreportable
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 0% 0%
0%
Othe r
2%
2%
4%
1%
2%
2%
3% 1% 2%
2%
Approachin g
7%
6%
9%
4%
7%
8%
7% 8% 7%
8%
Angle
Table 11: Hotspot road segments – Severity & Initial impact type
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
12%
13%
8%
10%
13%
13%
12% 9% 12%
11%
Rear end
6%
5%
3%
3%
5%
6%
4% 6% 5%
4%
12%
13%
15%
11%
7%
13%
11% 10% 12%
13%
Turning movemen t
Initial Impact Type Sideswipe
CCO-0008
13%
19%
12%
18%
14%
16%
16% 19% 20%
15%
SMV unattended vehicle
37
41%
39%
44%
47%
46%
37%
42% 41% 38%
41%
SMV other
7%
3%
6%
5%
6%
5%
5% 6% 5%
6%
0ther
Highway 35 Highway 7
Lindsay Street Angeline Street
County Road 121 County Road 36
Glenarm Road
4 5
6 7
8
Pigeon Lake Road Little Britain Road
Kent Street
2 3
Intersection
1
9 10
Sl. No.
147 143
155
176 164
329 224
579 471
908
Total number of collisions
64% 61%
65%
65% 65%
62% 62%
58% 55%
63%
Daylight
0% 0%
0%
0% 1%
0% 1%
1% 0%
0%
Daylight, artificial
Table 12: Hotspot road segments – Light conditions
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
5% 3%
2%
3% 4%
3% 4%
3% 3%
2%
Dawn
0% 0%
0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0%
Dawn, artificial
Dusk
3% 5%
3%
2% 5%
5% 4%
5% 3%
3%
0% 0%
0%
0% 1%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0%
Dusk, artificial
Light Conditions
CCO-0008
27% 30%
29%
27% 24%
29% 28%
32% 35%
30%
Dark
0% 1%
1%
2% 1%
1% 0%
1% 1%
1%
Dark, artificial
38
1% 0%
0%
0% 0%
0% 1%
0% 1%
0%
Other
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sl. No.
908 579 471 329 224 176 164 155 147 143
Highway 35
Highway 7 Lindsay Street
Angeline Street County Road 121
County Road 36 Glenarm Road
Pigeon Lake Road Little Britain Road
Total number of collisions
Kent Street
Intersection
70% 78%
70% 78%
70% 76%
73% 78%
77%
74%
Clear
8% 9%
9% 6%
9%
9%
11% 9%
13% 6%
Rain
10% 6%
8% 7%
8% 8%
8% 9%
8%
9%
Snow
Table 13: Hotspot road segments – Environmental conditions
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
2% 1%
2% 2%
4% 2%
1% 1%
2%
2%
Freezing rain
2% 1%
2% 3%
4% 1%
4% 3%
1%
2%
Drifting snow
3% 4%
3% 3%
4% 1%
2% 1%
1%
1%
Strong wind
Environment Conditions
CCO-0008
1% 1%
0% 1%
1% 2%
2% 1%
2%
Fog, mist, smok e, dust 2%
39
1% 0%
2% 1%
2% 1%
1% 1%
1%
1%
Other
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sl. No.
908 579 471 329 224 176 164 155 147 143
Highway 35
Highway 7 Lindsay Street
Angeline Street County Road 121 County Road 36
Glenarm Road Pigeon Lake Road
Little Britain Road
Total number of collisions
Kent Street
Intersection
34%
32% 32%
37% 34% 37%
35% 34%
37%
37%
Dry
10%
10% 14%
10% 6% 10%
11% 12%
9%
11%
Wet
5%
3% 1%
2% 6% 2%
3% 3%
3%
3%
Loose snow
2%
2% 2%
3% 2% 2%
0% 2%
1%
1%
Stush
Table 14: Hotspot road segments – Road surface conditions
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
1%
3% 3%
2% 1% 1%
3% 2%
3%
2%
Packed snow
lce
7%
3% 4%
3% 5% 3%
3% 3%
2%
4%
Road Surface Condition
CCO-0008
Mud
0%
0% 0%
0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
0%
0%
1%
0% 0%
0% 1% 0%
0% 0%
1%
1%
Loose sand or gravel
2%
0% 1%
0% 1% 1%
0% 2%
1%
1%
Other
40
0%
0% 0%
0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
0%
0%
Spilled liquid
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Collision Analysis
1.2.5.
CCO-0008
Conclusion and Recommendations
A review of historical traffic collision data was performed based on information provided by the City. The review identified key hotspots and collision trends in terms of type and severity. A detailed desktop review of the hotspot area was performed at key hotspots to identify causal factors. Based on a thorough review and analysis of the traffic collisions at the highest 10 traffic collision segments in the City of Kawartha Lakes, the key recommendations are summarized as follows: Recommendations based on the road segment and collision types: • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
Enhanced Safety Regulations: Strengthen laws for seat belt use, and child safety restraints. Invest in Road Safety Infrastructure: Install barriers, guardrails, and improved intersection designs to reduce the severity of collisions. Install traffic islands to force drivers to slow down in high-risk zones. Better Lighting and Visibility: Improve lighting on rural and remote roads, which are more prone to single-vehicle accidents due to low visibility at night. Reflective Road Markings: Use reflective paint or road markers to improve visibility in low-light conditions. Enhanced Headlights and Signage: Enforce regulations for properly functioning vehicle headlights and reflective signage. Road Maintenance: Ensure regular clearing of snow and ice in winter months, along with proper drainage to prevent water accumulation. Improved Road Surface Materials: Invest in high-friction road surfaces that provide better traction in wet conditions. Anti-Skid Surfaces: Install anti-skid road surfaces in high-risk areas like bridges, sharp curves, and downhill roads. Driver Fatigue Management: Implement measures to detect and prevent driver fatigue, such as encouraging rest stops and implementing laws for maximum driving hours, especially for commercial drivers. Clearer Signage: Ensure that "Yield" signs, traffic signals, and right-of-way signs are clearly visible and placed at the correct locations (e.g., at intersections, pedestrian crossings). Reflective signs or illuminated traffic signals should be used, especially in low-light conditions. Posted speed limit: Periodic posted speed limit reviews are recommended on road segments that experience a high number of collisions. Police Speed Enforcement: The local police service is recommended to deploy officers for targeted speed enforcement during peak hours. 41
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan Update Existing Traffic Operations •
Road diet: it would be beneficial for road segments with two travel lanes in each direction with no dedicated left turn or right turn lanes and have too many driveways along the road segment. Motorists may suddenly slow down to turn, while other motorists may be following too closely, or being distracted. An example of a road diet is changing a four lane to three-lane roadway by providing one-lane per direction and a centre two-way left turn (TWLTL). The TWLTL will provide storage for left-turn movements, while additional space may be utilized for bike lanes, parking etc. based on the pavement width.
Figure 9: Road Diet Example Before
After
It is recommended that the City continue to monitor traffic and road safety conditions along the identified road segments by proactively conducting safety audits by qualified professionals. The audit should identify hazards and risks and recommend eliminating them.
42
Collision Rate Analysis Memo Data Provided Two sets of data was used for the analysis. 1. Road data for COKL including essential information, such as Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for 2016 and 2021, road segment lengths, and geographical locations of road segments. 2. Collision history data received for 2014-2022 – The number of collisions at each road segment for 2018 to 2022 are taken from this dataset.
Methodology A spatial analysis was performed on the known collision sites using QGIS, a Geographic Information System (GIS). Each collision was assigned to its corresponding road connection in the network. Buffer polygons were employed around each link to mimic the actual dimension of roads, making collision counting more effective. A complete spreadsheet was then created, detailing the number of collisions per link. This GIS-based approach enabled effective visualization of collision distributions across the road network. Using the available AADT value for 2021, the AADT value for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2022 was estimated based on the provided growth rate. The median AADT was then determined.
Challenges Encountered • •
• •
Misaligned collision locations: Several collision points fell slightly outside the borders of the road network, resulting in isolated data points with no associated link information. Duplicates: There was a possibility of double-counting owing to probable duplication in the collision data collection or reporting, which potentially resulted in an overestimation of collision counts. Missing link data: Some collisions were not associated with specific road segments because attribute data such as AADT, length, or link location were absent in the provided network files. Outliers in collision rate estimates: Collision rate estimates showed significant variations, which were generally caused by short connection segments or exceptionally low AADT values because they are inversely related to collision rate. The equation used to determine the collision rate was:
CMVK = Collisions per Million Vehicle Kilometers
1
Mitigation Strategies •
•
•
•
Correcting misaligned collision locations: To guarantee proper representation, isolated collisions that occurred near existing road linkages were modified by snapping them to the nearest link using GIS tools. Duplicate elimination: A comprehensive GIS-based procedure was used to discover and eliminate duplicate collision records. The geometrical overlapping of roads was isolated and collision points belonging to these overlapped areas were identified, hence reducing counting mistakes. Handling missing link data: These cannot be snapped to any nearby geometry, because they are completely isolated. Missing AADT data provided later was inadequate to accurately identify certain linkages. To remedy this, median AADT values for road links belonging to the same parent road were calculated, and connection lengths were estimated using OpenStreetMap geometry. Managing outliers: Due to significantly low AADT on some links, collision rate values were disproportionately high. To maintain data integrity, all links with extremely low AADT were excluded from the study. Moreover, links with very short length were either merged with adjacent links if possible or omitted. COKL average collision rate calculated to be 0.832. Collision rates exceeding the average collision rate of the city were flagged as hotspots and are shown in the figure below.
2
Figure 1: Road Segments with collision rate more than City average
3
Table 1: Collision rate analysis Label
Description
Length (km) 2.325
Total Collisions 30
Median AADT (2018-2022) 2442
Rate of Collision 2.895
Adelaide St. N.
From Elgin St Lnd To Pottinger St Lnd
Agnes St
From Woodville Rd Eld Mpo To John St Wdv
0.380
1
1178
1.224
1.437
48
2704
6.769
0.510
1
606
1.771
1.286
2
1867
0.456
0.934
2
1867
0.629
0.694
20
11884
1.329
0.379
14
10581
1.913
Angeline St. N.
From Fingerboard Rd Mpo To Pleasant Point Rd Mpo From Willow Glen Dr Ops To Kenrei Rd Fen Ops From Thunder Bridge Rd Ops To Willow Glen Dr Ops From Northlin Park Rd Lnd To David Dr Lnd From Kent St W Lnd To Colborne St W Lnd Near Orchard Park Rd Lnd
0.223
1
11884
0.207
Angeline St. N.
From Oak St Lnd To Flavelle Cr Lnd
0.098
1
11797
0.474
Angeline St. S.
From Mcdonagh Dr Lnd To Durham St W Lnd Near Auk Tl Lnd
0.863
20
8748
1.452
0.651
5
9912
0.425
Angeline St. S.
0.600
2
9912
0.184
Angeline St. S.
0.400
9
9912
1.244
Angeline St. S.
0.400
9
9912
1.244
0.147
2
8748
0.852
0.638
1
775
1.109
0.784
5
1392
2.511
From Mallard Bay Rd Emi To Birch Point Dr Emi From Cardinal Rd Emi To Skyline Rd Mpo From Yankee Li Emi To Mallard Bay Rd Emi From Miller Rd Crd To Kirkfield Rd Crd
2.389
3
951
0.723
1.466
5
951
1.965
1.398
5
1209
1.620
1.669
2
546
1.202
From Campbell Beach Rd Crd To Miller Rd Crd Near Country Rd 121 Smv
1.213
1
550
0.821
0.644
1
674
1.262
From The Glen Rd Mpo To Opmar Rd Mpo Ops Near Robin Rd Fen
1.940
1
1793
0.158
0.322
1
789
2.156
Cambridge St.
1.035
25
8833
1.498
Cameron Rd.
0.658
3
1414
1.767
Canal St. E.
0.514
7
2055
3.631
1.278
1
889
0.482
0.839
2
825
1.584
Albert St. Algonquin Rd. Angeline St. N. Angeline St. N. Angeline St. N. Angeline St. N.
Angeline St. S.
Angeline St. S. Bolsover Rd.
From Roosevelt St Lnd To Kent St W Lnd From Canal Rd Eld To Armitage Av Eld
Bond St. Boundary Rd. Boundary Rd. Boundary Rd. Brechin Rd. Brechin Rd. Burnt River Rd. Cambray Rd. Cambray Rd.
Centennial Park Rd. Centennial Park Rd.
From Portage Rd Eld To Driftwood Shores Rd Eld Near Driftwood Shores Rd Eld
4
Label
Description
Centreline Rd.
From Shamrock Rd Emi To Traceys Hill Rd Emi From St Lukes Rd Emi To Pigeon Lake Rd Emi From Traceys Hill Rd Emi To St Lukes Rd Emi From Peace Rd Emi To Clearview Dr Emi From Mark Rd Fen To Cameron Rd Fen
Centreline Rd. Centreline Rd. Centreline Rd. Chamber's Rd.
Length (km) 1.475
Total Collisions 3
Median AADT (2018-2022) 3790
Rate of Collision 0.294
1.448
6
3049
0.745
1.381
3
3049
0.390
1.145
3
3790
0.379
1.510
2
646
1.124
1.259
39
13005
1.305
From Green Forest Dr Ops To Monarch Rd Ops Near St Joseph Rd Lnd
0.769
3
1961
1.090
0.733
9
9265
0.726
From Angeline St N Lnd To Adelaide St N Lnd From Adelaide St N Lnd To Albert St N Lnd From Sussex St N Lnd To Victoria Av N Lnd From Charles St Lnd To St Joseph Rd Lnd From Cambridge St N Lnd To William St N Lnd From Angeline St N Lnd To Walker St Lnd From Ogemah Rd Mpo To Washburn Island Rd Mpo From Ogemah Rd Mpo To Dovehaven Rd Mpo From Somerville 7Th Concession Smv To Country Rd 49 Smv From Cedar Tree Rd Ver To Hughes Rd Ver From Somerville 9Th Concession Smv To Somerville 11Th Concession Smv From Burys Green Rd Smv To Somerville 3Rd Concession Smv From Somerville 3Rd Concession Smv To Wrex Rd Smv From Burnt River Rd Smv To Somerville 7Th Concession Smv From Somerville 11Th Concession Smv To Flintrock Rd Smv From Russett Rd Fen To Johnston Rd Fen From Country Rd 8 Ver To Cedar Tree Rd Ver From Poulsom Rd Ver To Burys Green Rd Smv From Country Rd 49 Smv To Union Creek Rd Smv From Union Creek Rd Smv To Somerville 9Th Concession Smv
0.282
2
13868
0.280
0.277
7
13868
0.998
0.256
4
13868
0.617
0.226
7
9265
1.832
0.193
1
13868
0.205
0.115
2
9265
1.029
1.515
2
2218
0.326
1.462
3
881
1.276
5.590
12
1868
0.630
3.173
11
2542
0.747
3.079
5
3505
0.254
2.978
4
2112
0.348
2.776
4
2112
0.374
2.621
3
2112
0.297
2.500
2
3505
0.125
2.034
1
6348
0.042
1.942
4
2542
0.444
1.744
2
2542
0.247
1.336
7
3505
0.819
1.318
3
3505
0.356
Colborne St. E. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Colborne St. W. Cottage Rd. Cottage Rd. Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121
5
Label
Description
Length (km) 1.306
Total Collisions 1
Median AADT (2018-2022) 6348
Rate of Collision 0.066
Country Rd. 121
From Ranchers Rd Fen To Long Beach Rd Fen Near Jenkins Rd Fen
0.929
6
6348
0.557
0.806
3
11837
0.172
Country Rd. 121
From Clifton St Fef To Country Rd 8 Fen Near Flintrock Rd Smv
0.760
4
3505
0.823
Country Rd. 121
Near Boundary Rd Smv
0.652
1
2542
0.331
Country Rd. 121
From Monck Rd Smv To The Avenue Smv From Long Beach Rd Fen To Russett Rd Fen Near West St S Fen
0.629
5
3505
1.243
0.617
1
6348
0.140
0.602
8
6348
1.148
From Ledge Hill Rd Smv To Burnt River Rd Smv Near Bobcaygeon Rd Smv
0.514
1
2112
0.505
0.370
2
2796
1.059
From Johnston Rd Fen To Jenkins Rd Fen From Station Rd Smv To Monck Rd Smv From Clifford Dr Ver To Scotch Line Rd Ver From Country Rd 36 Ver To Cedar Glen Rd Ver From Birch Point Rd Ver To Lodge Rd Ver Near Pine Park Rd Ver
0.215
1
6348
0.401
0.140
2
3505
2.233
2.502
5
1527
0.717
1.266
1
1973
0.219
0.694
1
1820
0.434
0.524
1
1820
0.575
2.291
15
6104
0.588
1.688
11
6104
0.585
Country Rd. 36
From Cheese Factory Rd Ops To Snug Harbour Rd Fen From Settlers Rd Ops To Pleasant Point Rd Fen Near Clover Dr Ver
1.601
3
4201
0.244
Country Rd. 36
Near Pigeon Lake Rd Ver
1.450
4
9400
0.161
Country Rd. 36
From Pleasant Point Rd Fen To Kenhill Beach Rd Ver From Beattys Rd Ver To Kenstone Beach Rd Ver From Cedar Glen Rd Ver To Emily Creek Rd Ver From Wilson Rd Ops To Cheese Factory Rd Ops From Birch Point Rd Ver To Clover Dr Ver From Pasture Rd Fen To Settlers Rd Ops From Snug Harbour Rd Fen To Post Rd Ops From Heights Rd Ops Emi To Gil-Mar Rd Ver From Ranch Rd Ver To Pigeon Lake Rd Ver From Dunsford Rd Ver To Sturgeon Rd Ver
1.391
4
6104
0.258
1.389
2
4201
0.188
1.330
2
4201
0.196
1.307
7
6104
0.481
1.288
1
4170
0.102
1.226
2
6104
0.146
1.151
1
6104
0.078
1.114
1
6104
0.081
1.101
1
4201
0.118
1.080
3
6104
0.249
Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121
Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 121 Country Rd. 24 Country Rd. 24 Country Rd. 24 Country Rd. 24 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36
Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36
6
Label
Description
Country Rd. 36
From Kennedy Bay Rd Fen To Heights Rd Fen Ver Near Beattys Rd Ver
Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36
Length (km) 1.052
Total Collisions 6
Median AADT (2018-2022) 6104
Rate of Collision 0.512
0.930
1
4201
0.140
0.874
3
4201
0.448
0.806
2
4201
0.324
0.731
2
6104
0.246
0.695
3
6801
0.348
0.502
1
6104
0.179
3.495
2
1696
0.185
3.181
1
1696
0.102
3.018
1
1696
0.107
2.891
4
1861
0.407
2.200
1
1861
0.134
From Peniel Rd Mpo To Black School Rd Mpo From Quaker Rd Mpo To Peniel Rd Mpo Near Skyline Rd Mpo
1.394
1
1169
0.336
1.378
2
1178
0.675
1.368
1
5145
0.078
From Skyline Rd Mpo To Quaker Rd Mpo From The Glen Rd Mpo To Linden Valley Rd Mpo Near French Settlement Rd Bex
1.342
1
5183
0.079
1.331
1
1178
0.350
3.198
21
3126
1.151
From South Mountain Rd Bex To Country Rd 41 Bex From Country Rd 41 Bex To Maritime Rd Bex From Balsam Lake Dr Bex To Blanchards Rd Bex From Maritime Rd Bex To Ferguson Rd Bex From Blanchards Rd Bex To South Mountain Rd Bex Near North Bay Dr Bex
2.879
3
3126
0.183
2.278
3
3126
0.231
2.275
2
3103
0.155
1.521
4
3126
0.461
0.856
1
3103
0.206
0.748
3
3126
0.703
From Ferguson Rd Bex To North Bay Dr Bex From Somerville 3Rd Concession Smv To Country Rd 121 Smv From Irwins Rd Ver To Burys Green Rd Smv From Anderson Li Ver To Irwins Rd Ver From Burys Green Rd Smv To Somerville 3Rd Concession Smv From Bick St Bob Ver To Anderson Li Ver
0.546
2
3126
0.642
5.644
6
2205
0.264
4.401
6
2634
0.284
3.035
15
2634
1.028
2.733
3
2321
0.259
1.837
6
2634
0.679
From Country Rd 24 Ver To Cedar Glen Rd Ver From Scotch Line Rd Ver To Hows Rd Ver From Sturgeon Rd Ver To Country Rd 24 Ver
Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 36 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46
From Gil-Mar Rd Ver To Dunsford Rd Ver From Eldon Station Rd Eld To Portage Rd Eld From Glenarm Rd Eld To Palestine Rd Eld From Palestine Rd Eld To Eldon Station Rd Eld Near Glenarm Rd Eld
Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 46 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 48 Country Rd. 49 Country Rd. 49 Country Rd. 49 Country Rd. 49 Country Rd. 49
7
Label
Description
Length (km) 1.536
Total Collisions 3
Median AADT (2018-2022) 3323
Rate of Collision 0.322
Country Rd. 8
From Patterson Rd Ver To Bulmers Rd Ver From St Albans Rd Ver To Coshs Rd Ver From Coshs Rd Ver To West St Bob
1.437
2
4732
0.161
1.422
3
4747
0.244
From Fairbairn Rd Ver To St Albans Rd Ver From Cable Rd Ver To Martins Rd Ver
1.374
6
4732
0.506
1.276
5
3323
0.646
From Country Rd 30 Ver To Providence Rd Ver From Hickory Beach Rd Ver To Patterson Rd Ver From Bulmers Rd Ver To Cable Rd Ver
1.255
3
4732
0.277
1.207
2
3575
0.254
1.125
2
3323
0.293
From Sturgeon Point Rd Ver Fen To Mitchells Rd Ver From Stanley Dr Ver To Fairbairn Rd Ver From Verulam Dr Ver To Stanley Dr Ver From Providence Rd Ver To Verulam Dr Ver From Martins Rd Ver To Country Rd 30 Ver From Fingerboard Rd Mpo To White Rock Rd Mpo From Elm Tree Rd Ops To Monarch Rd Ops Near Monarch Rd Ops
1.094
8
3323
1.206
1.020
5
3323
0.808
0.623
1
4732
0.186
0.607
4
4732
0.762
0.602
1
3323
0.274
3.030
2
675
0.536
1.384
2
2196
0.361
0.781
10
2196
3.194
Near Centennial Park Rd Eld
2.050
3
527
1.522
From Helen St Bob To East St N Bob
0.467
4
4732
0.992
Durham St. E.
From Lindsay St S Lnd To Mill St Lnd
0.122
1
1767
2.542
Durham St. W.
0.245
2
2293
1.951
0.193
2
2327
2.440
Durham St. W.
From Victoria Av S Lnd To Hamilton St Lnd From Sussex St S Lnd To Albert St S Lnd From Albert St S Lnd To Bay St Lnd
0.139
1
2760
1.429
Durham St. W.
From Bay St Lnd To Adelaide St S Lnd
0.137
1
2760
1.449
East St. S.
From Snake Point Rd Bob To Mill St Bob From Riverside Dr Bob To Duke St Bob From Country Rd 8 Ver To Lily Ln Ver
1.623
32
7191
1.502
0.223
4
7191
1.367
1.233
1
546
0.814
From Peniel Rd Mpo To Black School Rd Mpo From Cresswell Rd Mpo To Farmstead Rd Mpo From Zion Rd Mpo To Ranch Rd Mpo
1.416
3
1462
0.794
1.386
3
1834
0.647
1.385
2
2785
0.284
From Salem Rd Mpo To Cresswell Rd Mpo
1.383
1
1834
0.216
Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Country Rd. 8 Cresswell Rd. Dew Drop Inn Rd. Dew Drop Inn Rd. Driftwood Shores Rd. Duke St.
Durham St. W.
East St. S. Echo Bay Rd. Eldon Rd. Eldon Rd. Eldon Rd. Eldon Rd.
8
Label
Description
Length (km) 1.378
Total Collisions 1
Median AADT (2018-2022) 2765
Rate of Collision 0.144
Eldon Rd.
Eldon Rd.
From Ramsey Rd Mpo To Zion Rd Mpo From Skyline Rd Mpo To Quaker Rd Mpo From Linden Valley Rd Mpo To Woodville Rd Eld Mpo From Black School Rd Mpo To The Glen Rd Mpo Near Skyline Rd Mpo
1.367
2
1462
0.548
1.353
2
1462
0.554
1.279
2
1462
0.586
0.780
2
1462
0.961
Eldon Rd. Eldon Rd.
Near Perry St Mpo
0.762
3
2765
0.780
Near Whiteside St Mpo
0.816
4
2154
1.247
Elm Tree Rd.
From Cross Creek Rd Ops To Little Britain Rd Ops From Boulder St Ops To Cross Creek Rd Ops From Chambers Rd Fen To Islay Rd Fen From Little Britain Rd Ops To Dew Drop Inn Rd Ops From Islay Rd Fen To Glenarm Rd Fen
3.097
4
2356
0.300
3.094
9
1741
0.916
3.090
3
957
0.556
3.074
10
3087
0.577
3.060
3
869
0.618
From North St Fef To Chambers Rd Fen Near Thunder Bridge Rd Ops
2.899
1
1092
0.173
2.215
6
2391
0.621
From Thunder Bridge Rd Ops To Peniel Rd Mpo From Peniel Rd Fen Ops To Kings Ln Fen From Valentia Rd Mpo To Sand Bar Rd Mpo Ops From Beach Rd Ops To Boulder St Ops Near Dew Drop Inn Rd Ops
2.190
2
2391
0.209
1.540
2
2576
0.276
1.486
1
1253
0.294
1.008
2
1167
0.931
0.884
6
3245
1.146
From Sand Bar Rd Mpo Ops To Beach Rd Ops From Cambray Rd Fen To North St Fef
0.658
1
1159
0.718
0.186
1
1092
2.698
1.479
2
4806
0.154
1.468
5
4806
0.388
Emily Park Rd.
From Meadowview Rd Emi To Cottingham Rd Emi From Hayes Li Emi To Meadowview Rd Emi Near Grassy Rd Emi
1.441
13
5882
0.840
Emily Park Rd.
Near Cottingham Rd Emi
1.383
6
4806
0.494
Emily Park Rd.
From Valley Rd Emi To Peace Rd Emi
1.182
5
5589
0.415
Emily Park Rd.
0.817
1
5882
0.114
0.277
1
5589
0.354
0.476
1
589
1.955
Fenel Rd.
From Grassy Rd Emi To Andrew Ct Emi From Andrew Ct Emi To Lupton Ct Emi From Glengarry Rd Man To Loraine Dr Man Near Palestine Rd Eld
2.579
3
1452
0.439
Fenel Rd.
Near Portage Rd Eld
1.288
2
1452
0.586
Fenel Rd.
Near Highgate Rd Bex Fen
1.163
1
1452
0.324
Eldon Rd. Eldon Rd. Eldon Rd.
Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Elm Tree Rd. Emily Park Rd. Emily Park Rd.
Emily Park Rd. Erin Dr.
9
Label
Description
Length (km) 0.902
Total Collisions 1
Median AADT (2018-2022) 1452
Rate of Collision 0.418
Fenel Rd.
Near Fish Hawk Rd Fen
Fenel Rd.
From Glenarm Rd Eld To Branch St Fen From Concession Rd Fef Fen To Ridge Hill Ct Fen From Janlisda Dr Fef To Concession Rd Fef Fen From Colborne St Fef To Clifton St Fef
0.366
3
1446
3.105
0.505
1
611
1.776
0.462
1
2395
0.495
0.108
1
2395
2.118
1.418
2
2355
0.328
1.246
6
3886
0.679
0.819
2
2355
0.568
Frank Hill Rd.
From Valley Rd Emi To Sunrise Rd Emi From Lancaster Dr Emi To Peninsula Dr Emi From Windmill Rd Emi To Yankee Li Emi Near Dickie Rd Emi
0.693
7
4436
1.248
Frank Hill Rd.
From Dickie Rd Emi To Patricia Ct Emi
0.534
1
4403
0.233
Front St. W.
From West St Bob To Cole St Bob
0.403
1
1256
1.082
Gil-Mar Rd.
From Country Rd 36 Ver To Stone Gate Rd Ver From Sandringham Rd Eld To Kirkfield Rd Eld From Hartley Rd Eld To Fenel Rd Eld Fen From Kirkfield Rd Eld To Creek View Rd Eld From Windmere Rd Eld To Prospect Rd Eld From Country Rd 46 Eld To Windmere Rd Eld From Branch St Fen To Elm Tree Rd Fen From Killarney Bay Rd Fen To Balsam Grove Rd Fen From Birch Point Rd Fen To Killarney Bay Rd Fen From Prospect Rd Eld To Sandringham Rd Eld From Simcoe St Mpo To Farms Rd Eld
2.423
3
646
1.051
2.838
11
4087
0.520
2.161
12
4087
0.744
1.454
4
4087
0.369
1.373
4
3499
0.456
1.364
1
3499
0.115
1.354
15
4464
1.360
1.354
4
3487
0.464
1.342
5
4464
0.457
1.340
2
3499
0.234
1.329
6
4724
0.524
From Elm Tree Rd Fen To Birch Point Rd Fen Near Farms Rd Eld
1.264
2
4464
0.194
1.220
2
4724
0.190
From Lees Rd Fen To Kagawong Rd Fen Near Byrnell Av Fen
1.073
3
3618
0.423
1.003
4
5503
0.397
From Response St Fen To Gardiner Rd Fen Near Country Ln Fen
0.998
1
5503
0.100
0.952
5
3618
0.796
From Lees Rd Fen To Cameron Rd Fen From Balsam Grove Rd Fen To Lees Rd Fen
0.872
1
3618
0.174
0.531
1
3618
0.285
Francis St. E. Francis St. E. Francis St. E. Frank Hill Rd. Frank Hill Rd. Frank Hill Rd.
Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd.
10
Label
Description
Length (km) 0.531
Total Collisions 1
Median AADT (2018-2022) 4087
Rate of Collision 0.252
Glenarm Rd.
From Sandhills Rd Eld To Hartley Rd Eld Near Response St Fen
0.419
6
5503
1.426
From Creek View Rd Eld To Sandhills Rd Eld Near Country Rd 46 Eld
0.226
1
4087
0.593
0.180
3
4724
1.933
From Fenel Rd Eld Fen To Branch St Fen From Simcoe St Lnd To Georgian St Lnd From Victoria Av S Lnd To Sussex St S Lnd From Chipmunk Rd Man To Janetville Rd Man Near Janetville Rd Man
0.133
4
4087
4.032
0.120
1
517
8.838
0.794
21
1585
9.142
3.012
7
1509
0.844
2.490
4
1509
0.583
0.454
9
1816
5.981
Golf Course Rd.
From Stub Rd Man To Cartwright Manvers Boundary Rd Man Near Stub Rd Mpo
0.386
1
2124
0.668
Grandy Rd.
Near Shedden St Bex
0.511
1
616
1.740
Hayes Line
Near Orange Corners Rd Emi
2.031
3
778
1.041
Helen St.
From Bass St Fen To West St N Fen Fef Near Colborne St W Lnd
0.324
2
5503
0.615
0.261
1
1178
1.783
From North Bayou Rd Ver To Country Rd 30 Ver
1.887
1
752
0.386
Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenarm Rd. Glenelg St. E. Glenelg St. W. Golf Course Rd. Golf Course Rd. Golf Course Rd.
Heritage Way Hickory Beach Rd. Highway 35
5.900
17
7438
0.212
Highway 35
5.768
15
7438
0.192
Highway 35
5.043
5
7438
0.073
Highway 35
4.941
14
7438
0.209
Highway 35
4.636
10
7438
0.159
Highway 35
4.527
7
7438
0.114
Highway 35
4.223
7
7438
0.122
Highway 35
3.919
6
7438
0.113
Highway 35
3.894
5
7438
0.095
Highway 35
3.637
1
7438
0.020
Highway 35
2.748
11
7438
0.295
Highway 35
2.573
8
7438
0.229
Highway 35
2.489
2
7438
0.059
Highway 35
2.106
3
7438
0.105
Highway 35
1.879
6
7438
0.235
Highway 35
1.508
27
7438
1.319
Highway 35
1.399
4
7438
0.211
Highway 35
1.300
3
7438
0.170
Highway 35
1.269
4
7438
0.232
Highway 35
1.235
5
7438
0.298
Highway 35
1.110
1
7321
0.067
11
Label Highway 35
Length (km) 1.076
Total Collisions 2
Median AADT (2018-2022) 7321
Rate of Collision 0.139
Highway 35
0.790
2
7321
0.189
Highway 35
0.574
4
7438
0.513
Highway 35
0.264
1
7438
0.279
Highway 7
10.495
12
8966
0.070
Highway 7
8.146
9
8966
0.068
Highway 7
5.832
24
8966
0.251
Highway 7
4.960
4
8966
0.049
Highway 7
2.542
4
8966
0.096
Highway 7
2.400
10
8966
0.255
Highway 7
2.114
2
8966
0.058
Highway 7
1.727
2
8966
0.071
Highway 7
1.153
1
8966
0.053
Highway 7
1.100
2
8966
0.111
Highway 7
0.565
2
8824
0.220
Highway 7
0.505
1
8824
0.123
Highway 7
0.061
1
8824
1.025
Highway 7 / 35
2.710
7
8966
0.158
Highway 7 / 35
0.284
4
8966
0.861
Highway 7 / 35
0.175
5
8966
1.746
Highway 7 / 35
0.038
1
8966
1.608
Highway 7A
10.945
8
9089
0.044
Highway 7A
6.970
9
9089
0.078
From Fleetwood Rd Man To Pigeon Creek Rd Man From Sugar Bush Rd Man To St Alban Rd Man From St Alban Rd Man To Fleetwood Rd Man Near Golf Course Rd Man
1.465
2
882
0.848
1.458
3
1137
0.991
1.414
2
882
0.879
0.800
1
882
0.776
From Pigeon Creek Rd Man To Janet Dr Man
0.483
1
882
1.286
3.662
2
25025
0.012
3.642
3
25025
0.018
2.812
5
25025
0.039
2.733
6
25025
0.048
2.579
8
25025
0.068
Janetville Rd. Janetville Rd. Janetville Rd. Janetville Rd. Janetville Rd. John M. Turner Memorial Highway John M. Turner Memorial Highway John M. Turner Memorial Highway John M. Turner Memorial Highway John M. Turner Memorial Highway
Description
12
Label
Description
Length (km) 0.352
Total Collisions 3
Median AADT (2018-2022) 25025
Rate of Collision 0.187
1.339
6
986
2.489
Joseph St.
From Coulter Dr Man To Hooper Dr Man From Main St Bob To Queen St Bob
0.213
1
942
2.730
Kenrei Rd.
Near Angeline St N Lnd
1.701
4
628
2.052
2.738
414
15577
5.319
10.983
12
1796
0.333
28.833
46
1077
0.812
John M. Turner Memorial Highway John St.
Kent St. Killarney Bay Rd. Kirkfield Rd.
Near Chambers Rd Fen
Laurent Blvd.
From Mcgibbon Bv Lnd To Gee Cr Lnd
0.401
1
581
2.352
Lindsay St. N.
From Colborne St W Lnd To Pottinger St Lnd Near Logie St Lnd
1.137
29
15113
0.925
2.938
75
14490
0.965
3.059
6
2321
0.463
3.055
10
2321
0.773
Little Britain Rd.
From Fingerboard Rd Mpo To Beacroft Rd Mpo From Simcoe St Mpo To Fingerboard Rd Mpo Near White Rock Rd Mpo
2.592
6
2885
0.440
Little Britain Rd.
Near Davidson Rd Mpo
6.176
36
6176
0.517
Little Britain Rd.
1.382
3
5745
0.207
1.379
4
5745
0.277
1.376
3
5745
0.208
1.374
9
5658
0.634
Little Britain Rd.
From Monarch Rd Ops To Bridle Rd Ops From Opmar Rd Mpo Ops To Elm Tree Rd Mpo From Elm Tree Rd Ops To Monarch Rd Ops From Bridle Rd Ops To Ridgewood Rd Ops Near Beacroft Rd Mpo
1.036
6
2885
1.100
Long Beach Rd.
Near Manor Rd Fen
3.249
8
1362
0.991
Main St.
From Prince St E Bob To Duke St Bob
1.439
27
3704
2.776
1.628
13
3601
1.215
Lindsay St. S. Little Britain Rd. Little Britain Rd.
Little Britain Rd. Little Britain Rd. Little Britain Rd.
Mary St. Maryknoll Ave.
Near Logie St Lnd
0.404
1
589
2.303
McGibbon Blvd.
From Pearson St Lnd To Mcquarrie Rd Lnd From Kent St W Lnd To Moose Rd Lnd
0.448
1
942
1.298
0.366
7
3200
3.275
Near Maple Ridge Dr Emi
1.142
1
798
0.601
0.500
2
798
2.742
5.611
6
1416
0.414
3.153
4
1416
0.491
3.054
3
1462
0.368
Monck Rd.
From Woodcock Li Smv To Crego Lake Rd Smv From Buller Rd Smv To Base Line Rd Smv From Turner Rd Dal To Victoria Rd Crd Ldl Near Victoria Rd Crd Ldl
3.001
8
1462
0.999
Monck Rd.
Near Crego Lake Rd Smv
2.949
9
1416
1.181
McLaughlin Rd. Meadowview Rd. Meadowview Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd.
13
Label
Description
Length (km) 2.714
Total Collisions 5
Median AADT (2018-2022) 1752
Rate of Collision 0.576
Monck Rd.
From Laxton Twp 8Th Li Ldl To Als Av Ldl Near Ripleys Way Ldl
2.374
1
1462
0.158
From Laxton Twp 6Th Li Ldl To Deer Lake Rd Ldl Near Lake Dalrymple Rd Dal
2.318
2
1752
0.270
1.900
3
1439
0.601
From Nevison Dr Smv To Buller Rd Smv From Taylor Rd Dal To Rumohr Dr Dal
1.659
1
1405
0.235
1.627
8
1439
1.873
1.536
5
1462
1.220
1.249
3
1462
0.900
Monck Rd.
From Ripleys Way Ldl To DigbyLaxton Boundary Rd Ldl From Suter Dr Ldl To Laxton Twp 4Th Li Ldl From Hills Rd Dal To Watt Ln Dal
1.222
1
1439
0.312
Monck Rd.
From Turner Rd Dal To Turner Rd Dal
1.084
2
1439
0.703
Monck Rd.
1.042
2
1462
0.719
Monck Rd.
From Digby-Laxton Boundary Rd Ldl To Suter Dr Ldl Near Young St Dal
0.983
2
1439
0.775
Monck Rd.
Near Laxton Twp 6Th Li Ldl
0.937
3
1752
1.001
Monck Rd.
From Kirkfield Rd Crd To Taylor Rd Dal From Laxton Twp 4Th Li Ldl To Laxton Twp 4Th Li Ldl From Deer Lake Rd Ldl To Laxton Twp 8Th Li Ldl From Country Rd 121 Smv To Bobcaygeon Rd Smv From Base Line Rd Smv To Woodcock Li Smv Near Cockburn St Ldl
0.808
2
1439
0.942
0.706
2
1462
1.062
0.681
1
1752
0.459
0.680
6
1416
3.415
0.242
1
1416
1.599
0.137
1
1739
2.299
6.006
23
885
2.372
Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd.
Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Monck Rd. Mount Horeb Rd. Nappadale St.
Near Argyle St Wdv
0.174
1
1178
2.673
North St.
From Reid St Bob To Head St Bob
0.098
1
4732
1.182
Northlin Park Rd. Northline Rd.
From Weldon Ct Lnd To Redwing St Lnd
0.182
1
939
3.205
11.057
16
587
1.350
Ogemah Rd.
From Rainbow Ridge Rd Mpo To Cottage Rd Mpo From Ramsey Rd Mpo To August Ln Mpo From August Ln Mpo To Cottage Rd Mpo From Rogers Rd Lnd To Sanderling Cr Lnd From Lance St Bob To Mansfield St Bob From Esker Rd Emi To Sturgeon Rd Emi Near Sturgeon Rd Emi
1.420
2
652
1.184
1.372
1
1996
0.200
1.259
1
2218
0.196
0.385
4
2744
2.075
0.400
2
1820
1.505
2.340
7
1609
1.019
1.500
2
3503
0.208
Ogemah Rd. Ogemah Rd. Orchard Park Rd. Park St. Peace Rd. Peace Rd.
14
Label
Description
Length (km) 1.168
Total Collisions 1
Median AADT (2018-2022) 1609
Rate of Collision 0.292
Peace Rd.
From Heights Rd Ops Emi To Esker Rd Emi Near Centreline Rd Emi
1.033
3
3452
0.461
0.940
1
1509
0.386
Peace Rd.
From Lilac Rd Ops To Heights Rd Ops Emi From Marina Dr Bob To Marina St Emi
0.863
7
3452
1.287
Peace Rd.
Near Slanted Rd Ops
0.502
4
1509
2.895
Peace Rd.
0.231
1
3452
0.687
3.522
6
2427
0.385
3.232
6
5643
0.180
2.271
5
3429
0.352
1.705
5
2427
0.662
1.598
7
3766
0.637
Pigeon Lake Rd.
From Centreline Rd Emi To Cowans Dr Emi From Sturgeon Rd Emi To Centreline Rd Emi From Mcginnis Rd Emi To Sturgeon Rd Emi From Colony Rd Emi Ver To Old Surrey Ln Ver From Centreline Rd Emi To Cork Rd Emi From Old Surrey Ln Ver To Falls Bay Rd Ver Near Cork Rd Emi
1.501
1
2427
0.150
Pigeon Lake Rd.
From Post Rd Ops To Settlers Rd Ops
1.412
3
4711
0.247
Pigeon Lake Rd.
From Settlers Rd Ops To Lilac Rd Ops
1.412
2
4711
0.165
Pigeon Lake Rd.
From Falls Bay Rd Ver To Walmac Shores Rd Ver From Settlement Rd Emi To Perdue Rd Emi From Country Rd 36 Ops To Weldon Rd Ops From Short Dr Ver To Old Surrey Ln Ver From Lilac Rd Ops To Heights Rd Ops Emi Near Post Rd Ops
1.391
2
3766
0.209
1.230
2
3112
0.286
0.990
6
3384
0.981
0.891
6
3766
0.980
0.871
2
5643
0.223
0.835
5
4711
0.696
From Walmac Shores Rd Ver To Country Rd 36 Ver From Perdue Rd Emi To Shoreview Rd Emi From Perdue Rd Emi To Perdue Rd Emi Near Fieldside Rd Ops
0.806
6
3429
1.190
0.725
2
3112
0.486
0.625
1
3112
0.282
0.529
2
3384
0.612
Pleasant Point Rd. Pontypool Rd.
From Country Rd 36 Fen To Snug Harbour Rd Fen
1.408
1
1121
0.347
5.027
18
789
2.486
Portage Rd.
From Prospect Rd Eld To Rockview Rd Eld From Country Rd 46 Eld To Centennial Park Rd Eld From Hillcrest Av Eld To Fenel Rd Eld Fen From Simcoe St Mpo To Farms Rd Eld
2.779
2
2980
0.132
1.733
5
3675
0.430
1.550
1
3581
0.099
1.453
4
3675
0.411
From Centennial Park Rd Eld To Prospect Rd Eld
1.397
1
2980
0.132
Peace Rd. Peace Rd.
Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd.
Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd. Pigeon Lake Rd.
Portage Rd. Portage Rd. Portage Rd. Portage Rd.
15
Label
Description
Length (km) 0.974
Total Collisions 2
Median AADT (2018-2022) 3581
Rate of Collision 0.314
Portage Rd.
From Hartley Rd Eld To Hillcrest Av Eld Near Mitchellview Rd Eld
0.971
2
3581
0.315
From Orchard St Eld To Kirkfield Rd Eld From Mitchellview Rd Eld To Hartley Rd Eld From Kirkfield Rd Eld To Union St Eld
0.543
2
2969
0.680
0.515
1
3555
0.299
0.122
1
3581
1.254
From Solanum Wy Man To Ballyduff Rd Man Near Weston Rd Man
1.455
3
1817
0.622
1.398
2
1817
0.431
1.101
1
1817
0.274
0.774
1
1817
0.389
Porter Rd.
From Telecom Rd Man To Solanum Wy Man From Ballyduff Rd Man To Gray Rd Man From Gray Rd Man To Weston Rd Man
0.762
1
1817
0.396
Prince St. E.
From Helen St Bob To Anne St Bob
0.437
2
998
2.512
Portage Rd. Portage Rd. Portage Rd. Portage Rd. Porter Rd. Porter Rd. Porter Rd. Porter Rd.
Queen St.
1.515
37
9376
1.427
3.069
13
4979
0.466
3.053
7
4979
0.252
1.839
1
4979
0.060
1.838
1
1810
0.165
1.217
3
3586
0.377
1.214
5
4979
0.453
River Rd.
From Simcoe St Mpo To Fingerboard Rd Mpo From Fingerboard Rd Mpo To Beacroft Rd Mpo From Beacroft Rd Mpo To Port Hoover Rd Mpo From Ogemah Rd Mpo To Valentia Rd Mpo From Eldon Rd Mpo To Ogemah Rd Mpo From Port Hoover Rd Mpo To Eldon Rd Mpo Near Montys Inn St Ops
1.350
3
587
2.074
River Rd.
Near Montys Inn St Ops
0.616
1
587
1.515
Riverside Dr.
From East St N Bob To Birch Cr Bob
0.587
2
1201
1.555
Salem Rd.
From Eldon Rd Mpo To Bush Rd Mpo
3.031
2
640
0.565
Sanderling Cres.
0.411
2
1013
2.633
0.217
5
11837
1.067
1.444
1
4340
0.087
Simcoe St.
From Albert St N Lnd To Eglington St Lnd From Princes St W Fef To Clifton St Fef From Zion Rd Mpo To Little Britain Rd Mpo Near Skyline Rd Mpo
1.362
4
3818
0.421
Simcoe St.
Near Woodville Rd Eld Mpo
0.988
1
2933
0.189
Simcoe St.
0.782
1
4340
0.161
Simcoe St.
From Ramsey Rd Mpo To Hallett Cr Mpo Near Edward St Mpo
0.136
1
4273
0.943
Ski Hill Rd.
Near Hayes Li Emi
10.428
20
1518
0.692
Slanted Rd.
Near Post Rd Ops
1.864
3
1163
0.759
Slanted Rd.
From Settlers Rd Ops To Post Rd Ops
1.597
1
1163
0.295
Snake Point Rd.
From East St S Bob To Need St Bob
0.211
1
1133
2.292
Ramsey Rd. Ramsey Rd. Ramsey Rd. Ramsey Rd. Ramsey Rd. Ramsey Rd.
Short St. Simcoe St.
16
Label
Description Near Balsam Rd Fen
Length (km) 1.966
Total Collisions 1
Median AADT (2018-2022) 916
Rate of Collision 0.304
Snug Harbour Rd. Somerville 3rd Concession Somerville 3rd Concession Somerville 3rd Concession Somerville 3rd Concession Somerville 7th Concession St. Joseph Rd.
Near Northline Rd Smv
2.098
2
540
0.967
From Potters Rd Smv To Northline Rd Smv From Schell Li Smv To Country Rd 49 Smv Near Potters Rd Smv
1.872
2
622
0.941
1.840
1
9621
0.031
1.736
2
622
1.014
Near Northline Rd Smv
2.128
2
801
0.643
Near Colborne St W Lnd
0.320
2
2515
1.361
Sturgeon Point Rd. Sturgeon Point Rd. Sturgeon Rd.
From Country Rd 8 Ver To Country Rd 30 Ver From Gray Rd Fen Ver To Rutherford Rd Fen From Four Points Rd Ver Emi To Rehill Dr Ver From Fox Rd Emi To Peace Rd Emi
4.547
5
1435
0.420
0.633
1
646
1.340
1.926
2
1256
0.453
1.483
4
2152
0.687
From Shamrock Rd Emi To Traceys Hill Rd Emi From Pigeon Lake Rd Emi To January Ln Emi From Mustang Dr Emi To Kings Wharf Rd Emi From Kings Wharf Rd Emi To Cedar Glen Rd Ver From Beaver Rd Emi To Fox Rd Emi
1.479
1
2152
0.172
1.449
3
1256
0.903
1.425
2
1208
0.637
1.415
2
1208
0.641
1.394
1
2152
0.183
From January Ln Emi To Mustang Dr Emi Near Traceys Hill Rd Emi
1.370
3
1208
0.994
1.000
2
2152
0.509
0.765
2
1256
1.140
Sturgeon Rd.
From Cedar Glen Rd Ver To Four Points Rd Ver Emi Near Beaver Rd Emi
0.728
1
2152
0.350
Sturgeon Rd.
Near St Lukes Rd Emi
0.359
1
2152
0.709
Sturgeon Rd. N.
Near Church St E Ome
0.183
2
2152
2.783
Sweetnam Dr.
From Angeline St S Lnd To Cook St Lnd From Coulter Dr Man To Carscadden Rd Man From Monarch Rd Ops To Elm Tree Rd Ops Near Monarch Rd Ops
0.357
1
800
1.918
3.590
1
646
0.236
1.387
2
2911
0.271
1.327
1
2832
0.146
Near Thunder Bridge Rd Ops
1.125
2
3730
0.261
Near Springdale Dr Ops
0.359
2
3441
0.887
From Springdale Dr Ops To Angeline St N Lnd Near Country Rd 36 Ver
0.241
2
3441
1.322
2.407
4
705
1.292
Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd. Sturgeon Rd.
Telecom Rd. Thunder Bridge Rd. Thunder Bridge Rd. Thunder Bridge Rd. Thunder Bridge Rd. Thunder Bridge Rd. Thurstonia Rd.
17
Label
Description
Length (km) 2.331
Total Collisions 2
Median AADT (2018-2022) 605
Rate of Collision 0.777
Tracey's Hill Rd. Tracey's Hill Rd.
From Esker Rd Emi To Sturgeon Rd Emi From Post Rd Ops To Settlers Rd Ops
1.393
3
939
1.256
Tracey's Hill Rd.
From Settlers Rd Ops To Lilac Rd Ops
1.390
1
716
0.550
Tracey's Hill Rd.
1.178
1
605
0.769
Tracey's Hill Rd.
From Heights Rd Ops Emi To Esker Rd Emi From Post Rd Ops To Post Rd Ops
0.701
1
939
0.833
Tracey's Hill Rd.
Near Fieldside Rd Ops
0.226
1
1245
1.948
5.608
20
1239
1.577
2.033
20
6199
0.870
1.338
21
3316
2.594
From Cottage Rd Mpo To Hillside Dr Mpo From Snake Point Rd Bob To King St E Bob From Wellington St Lnd To Colborne St W Lnd From Stuart St Wdv To Country Rd 46 Mpo From Kirkfield Rd Eld To Hartley Rd Eld Near Simcoe St Mpo
1.417
1
824
0.469
1.740
28
4142
2.129
0.374
18
13868
1.902
1.560
6
1873
1.125
1.978
4
1138
0.973
1.227
2
1873
0.477
From Grasshill Rd Eld To Eldon Rd Mpo From White Rock Rd Mpo To Sandringham Rd Eld From Windmere Rd Eld To Dukelow Rd Mpo From Prospect Rd Eld To White Rock Rd Mpo Near Maple Hills Dr Wdv
0.992
1
1543
0.358
0.807
1
1543
0.440
0.747
1
1767
0.415
0.585
1
1543
0.607
0.421
1
1873
0.695
From Westview Dr Emi To Frank Hill Rd Emi From Ryan Rd Emi To Liberty Ln Emi
2.330
7
2489
0.661
1.475
1
2489
0.149
From Bethel Rd Emi To Kenedon Dr Emi From Frank Hill Rd Emi To Boundary Rd Emi From Kenedon Dr Emi To Mitchell Dr Emi From Corner Rd Man To Janetville Rd Man
1.134
2
2630
0.367
1.058
6
3874
0.802
1.489
5
2489
0.739
1.922
3
511
1.674
Valentia Rd. Verulam Rd. N.
Near Wilson Rd Ops
Victoria Ave. N. Washburn Island Rd. William St. William St. N. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Woodville Rd. Yankee Line Yankee Line Yankee Line Yankee Line Yankee Line Yelverton Rd.
18
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Page | 481
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
G.1 Lindsay
Page | 483
G.2 Bobcaygeon
Page | 487
G.3 Fenelon Falls
Page | 491
G.4 Omemee
Page | 495
Page | 499
↑
Legend
(0)0 ↗ (84)91 → (5)4 ↘
↑
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Highway 35
(56)31↗ (33)36 → (27)38 ↘
(151)72 ↗ (603)604 → (13)12 ↘
5(5) 54(36) 1(0)
(13)4 ↗ (2)2 → (180)113 ↘
(3)4 ↗ (1)6 → (26)29 ↘
Connolly Rd
↖1(1) ←4(0) ↙ 5(6)
↖ 66(102) ←3(9) ↙ 57(36)
(248)205 ↗ (584)386 → (305)219 ↘
↖ 75(72) ← 438(595) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 35(52) Kent St W
(35)44 ↗ (124)100 → (36)14 ↘
Mary St W
↖ 59(89) ← 108(125) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 89(116)
(14)8 ↗ (121)98 → (5)4 ↘
Albert St N
Orchard Park Rd
(8)1↗ (29)27 → (14)15 ↘
Peel St
Figure - 1
(3)2 ↗ (27)14 → (8)4 ↘
↖ 8(13) ←0(0) ↙ 33(46)
↖10(18) ←86(134) ↙ 2(4)
Colborne St W
↖ 16(16) ← 284(310) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 9(46) (26)12 ↗ (304)253 → (23)23 ↘
Fair Ave
↖ 15(12) ← 279(309) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 8(9)
(26)16 ↗ (318)249 → (33)23 ↘
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
(8)1 ↗ (9)5 → (172)108 ↘
(10)4 ↗ (125)86 → (16)8 ↘
Peel St
Wellington St
↖ 2(11) ←22(46) ↙ 7(20)
(14)1 ↗ (85)80 ↘
↖ 0(1) ←10(12) ↙ 9(10)
(123)128 ↗ (314)233 → (39)34 ↘
(88)76 ↗ (15)8 → (199)105 ↘
↖ 3(2) ← 13(13) ↙ 4(19)
↖ 93(71) ↙ 49(36)
(82)113↗ (99)78 → (3)1↘
↖9(3) ←136(126) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙3(2)
(20)17↗ (307)247→ (33)20↘
↖6(4) ←269(291) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙9(8)
Logie St
Mary St E
↖ 16(3) ← 297(244) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 154(146)
Mary St W ↙ ↓ ↘
↖ 322(415) ←101(108) ↙ 86(75)
Colborne St W
Lindsay St S
William St N
Cambridge St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
2023 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - LINDSAY
↖ 85(169) ← 391(554) ↙ 71(134) Kent St W ↙ ↓ ↘
↖ 92(219) ← 67(120) ↙ 96(155)
Little Britain Rd
Lane Movement
(136)67↗ (203)127→ (3)1↘
↖1(5) ←130(172) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙30(60)
52(76) 31(52) 3(3)
Dew Drop Inn Rd ↙ ↓ ↘
(7)3 ↗ (189)142 → (96)141 ↘
0(0) 136(199) 143(166)
50(60) 489(404) 94(114)
98(124) 76(95) 131(234)
(183)116 ↗ (41)44 → (5)7 ↘
↖ 79(121) ← 29(37) ↙ 12(7)
↗ →
↑
(0)2 ↗ (32)51 → (50)55 ↘
33(31) 33(42) 8(8)
(35)11 ↗ (534)240 → (13)3 ↘ (109)61 ↗ (117)55 → (89)39 ↘
11(16) 71(37) 9(4)
0(0) 46(65) 1(4)
Thunder Bridge Rd ↙ ↓ ↘
(27)10 ↗ (42)20 → (15)10 ↘
6(14) 5(13) 17(6) (50)23 ↗ (74)42 → (7)5 ↘ (0)0 ↗ (82)64 → (9)2 ↘
(5)5 ↗ (7)5 → (7)3 ↘ 4(5) 34(46) 3(2)
4(4) 32(19) 16(18) 173(158) 1(4) 3(6) 87(73) 280(281)
(111)66 ↗ (26)13 → (187)184 ↗ (291)112 → (21)6 ↘ (6)1 ↗ (122)35 → (58)29 ↘
(0)2 → (12)22 ↘
Wilson Rd
(55)46 ↗ (1)4 → (22)19 ↘
(14)15 ↗ (13)6 ↘
Parkside Dr
(6)3 ↗ (28)42 → (20)7 ↘
Riverview Rd
(156)122 ↗ (152)71 → (49)42 ↘
↖100(96) ←16(41) ↙ 23(46)
Not to Scale
Weldon Rd
Pigeon Lake Rd
↖ 79(16) ← 136(133) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 9(21)
Colborne St E
CKL Rd 36
← 3(2) ↙ 301(246)
↖ 3(0) ← 1(4) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 4(3)
125(101) 242(401) 2(2)
5(7) 204(171) 58(76) 188(185) 123(156) 67(103)
42(52) 235(315) 71(94)
(89)53 ↗ (92)79 → (232)87 ↘
96(179) 19(40) 5(9)
16(19) 8(21) 5(2)
(25)19 ↗ (235)116 → (55)30 ↘ (197)204 ↗ (151)140 → (34)53 ↘ (23)41 ↗ (277)292 → (99)130 ↘
(15)7 ↗ (69)34 → (18)7 ↘
159(232) 107(131) 5(6)
97(63) 184(308) 3(6)
St Joseph Rd
220(435) 43(73)
Angeline St N
(106)148 ↗ (304)275 → (15)14 ↘
(5)3 ↗ (26)37 → (8)4 ↘
Elm Tree Rd
↗ → ↘ ↗ → ↘
→ ↘
(318)358 → (57)40 ↘
Cambridge St N
(19)24 ↗ (18)17 → (9)9 ↘
Trans Canada Highway
97(142) 130(262) 29(72)
Adelaide St N
↗ → ↘
4(7) 212(203) 106(93)
↗ → ↘ Albert St N
↗ → ↘
19(12) 195(251)
Highway 35
↗ → ↘
(11)24 ↗ (347)166 ↘
Angeline St N
↗ → ↘ William St N
(8)17 ↗ (291)287 → (3)3 ↘
Sanderling Cres → ↘
(60)28 ↗ (135)198 → (23)10 ↘
Lindsay St N
(20)12 ↗ (173)209 → (33)33 ↘
St David St
↗ → ↘
(17)9 ↗ (175)204 →
William St N
Verulam Rd N Verulam Rd N
St David St
↑
Legend
Little Britain Rd
(0)0 ↗ (95)103 → (6)5 ↘
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Highway 35
(71)39 ↗ (43)47 → (34)48 ↘
(171)82 ↗ (685)686 → (15)14 ↘
6(6) 61(41) 1(0)
(15)5 ↗ (2)2 → (237)149 ↘
(18)15 ↗ (16)17 → (30)33 ↘
Connolly Rd
↖ 97(192) ← 458(649) ↙ 81(152) Kent St W ↙ ↓ ↘
↖ 121(288) ← 85(152) ↙ 126(204)
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
↑
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
(154)76↗ (230)144→ (3)1↘
↖1(6) ←148(195) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙34(68)
59(86) 35(59) 3(3)
Dew Drop Inn Rd ↙ ↓ ↘
(8)3 ↗ (215)161 → (126)186 ↘
0(0) 154(226) 188(219)
57(68) 555(459) 124(150)
111(141) 86(108) 149(266)
↖1(1) ←5(0) ↙ 6(7)
↖ 75(116) ←13(45) ↙ 65(41)
(241)153 ↗ (47)50 → (6)8 ↘
↖ 104(159) ← 38(49) ↙ 16(44)
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
(291)240 ↗ (684)452 → (357)257 ↘
↖ 88(84) ← 513(697) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 41(61) Kent St W
(36)22 ↗ (435)341 → (45)31↘
Mary St W
Albert St N
Figure - 1
(44)11↗ (33)31 → (16)17 ↘
Peel St
(14)1 ↗ (85)80 ↘
(24)11 ↗ (212)140 → (38)16 ↘
↖12(47) ←25(52) ↙ 33(23) Peel St
Wellington St (46)15 ↗ (185)127 → (18)34 ↘
(33)47 ↗ (253)151→ (16)12 ↘
↖ 18(18) ← 353(238) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 175(166)
(100)86 ↗ (17)19 → (226)119 ↘
(93)128↗ (275)237 → (18)11↘
↖35(18) ←266(286) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙13(17)
(20)17↗ (307)247→ (33)20↘
↖6(4) ←269(291) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙9(8)
Logie St
↖122(93) ↙ 65(47)
Mary St E
↖ 13(17) ← 15(15) ↙ 15(22) ↓ ↙ ↘ Mary St W
↖107(110) ←149(160) ↙ 98(85)
Colborne St W
↖ 93(211) ←213(224) ↙ 35(11)
Lindsay St S
William St N
Cambridge St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - LINDSAY
(40)50 ↗ (141)114 → (41)16 ↘
↖ 67(101) ← 123(142) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 101(132)
(18)12 ↗ (40)21 → (44)15 ↘
↖11(19) ←10(25) ↙ 43(68)
Orchard Park Rd
Colborne St W
↖ 22(22) ← 389(424) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 12(63) (36)16 ↗ (416)346 → (31)31↘
Fair Ave
↖ 21(16) ← 382(423) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 11(12)
(14)8 ↗ (121)98 → (5)4 ↘
↖10(18) ←86(134) ↙ 2(4)
↗ →
↑
(2)2 ↗ (51)51 → (55)55 ↘
37(35) 37(48) 19(24)
(44)14 ↗ (606)272 → (17)14 ↘ (124)69 ↗ (133)62 → (101)44 ↘
12(18) 81(42) 35(20)
15(25) 52(96) 11(41)
Thunder Bridge Rd ↙ ↓ ↘
(31)36 ↗ (48)23 → (17)36 ↘
6(14) 5(13) 17(6) (57)26 ↗ (84)48 → (43)16 ↘ (25)10 ↗ (121)73 → (13)13 ↘
(5)5 ↗ (7)5 → (7)3 ↘ 15(21) 39(52) 13(17)
4(4) 32(19) 18(20) 19(36) 178(148) 13(22) 99(83) 31(45)
(111)66 ↗ (26)13 → (40)43 ↗ (120)34 → (24)17 ↘ (22)11 ↗ (139)40 → (66)33 ↘
(0)2 → (12)22 ↘
Wilson Rd
(216)190 ↗ (6)30 → (64)59 ↘
Colborne St E
(16)17 ↗ (15)17 ↘
Parkside Dr
(22)13 ↗ (32)48 → (23)33 ↘
Not to Scale
Weldon Rd
↖148(142) ←18(47) ↙ 34(68)
Pigeon Lake Rd
↖ 117(24) ← 151(148) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 13(31) (53)27 ↗ (174)56 → (56)48 ↘
Riverview Rd
CKL Rd 36
← 3(2) ↙ 301(246)
↖ 7(23) ← 43(65) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 8(26)
196(199) 287(462) 28(8)
16(23) 269(225) 66(86) 213(210) 162(205) 76(117)
48(59) 309(415) 81(107)
(72)30 ↗ (134)120 → (263)99 ↘
131(245) 26(55) 17(22)
16(19) 8(21) 5(2)
(28)22 ↗ (309)153 → (62)34 ↘ (224)232 ↗ (199)184 → (39)60 ↘ (26)47 ↗ (365)385 → (112)148 ↘
(52)33 ↗ (78)39 → (55)33 ↘
18(26) 151(181) 16(22)
110(72) 233(390) 14(43)
St Joseph Rd
279(551) 54(92)
Angeline St N
(120)168 ↗ (385)348 → (17)16 ↘
(21)13 ↗ (30)42 → (24)15 ↘
Elm Tree Rd
↗ → ↘ ↗ → ↘
→ ↘
(403)454 → (72)51 ↘
Cambridge St N
(19)24 ↗ (18)17 → (9)9 ↘
Trans Canada Highway
83(104) 192(387) 92(157)
Adelaide St N
↗ → ↘
15(23) 313(300) 157(137)
↗ → ↘ Albert St N
↗ → ↘
22(49) 288(371)
Highway 35
↗ → ↘ (11)24 ↗ (347)166 ↘
Angeline St N
↗ → ↘ William St N
(11)22 ↗ (240)249 → (9)29 ↘
Sanderling Cres → ↘
(89)41 ↗ (93)123 → (140)185 ↘
Lindsay St N
(23)39 ↗ (256)309 → (49)49 ↘
St David St
↗ → ↘
(19)35 ↗ (259)301 →
William St N
Verulam Rd N Verulam Rd N
St David St
↑
Legend
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Highway 35
(95)53 ↗ (61)67 → (46)65 ↘
(201)96 ↗ (802)804 → (17)16 ↘
7(7) 72(48) 1(0)
(17)5 ↗ (3)3 → (334)210 ↘
(24)20 ↗ (21)23 → (35)39 ↘
Connolly Rd
↖ 113(225) ← 558(791) ↙ 94(178) ↓ ↙ ↘ Kent St W
↖ 171(407) ← 114(204) ↙ 178(288)
Little Britain Rd
(0)0 ↗ (112)121 → (7)5 ↘
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
↑
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
(181)89↗ (270)169→ (4)1↘
↖1(7) ←173(229) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙40(80)
69(101) 41(69) 4(4)
Dew Drop Inn Rd ↙ ↓ ↘
(9)4 ↗ (252)189 → (178)262 ↘
0(0) 181(265) 266(308)
67(80) 651(538) 175(212)
130(165) 101(126) 174(311)
(354)293 ↗ (834)551 → (436)313 ↘
↖ 107(103) ← 626(850) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 50(74) Kent St W
Mary St W
Albert St N
Figure - 2
(24)18 ↗ (65)34 → (51)20 ↘
↖15(31) ←15(25) ↙ 61(111)
(51)16 ↗ (39)36 → (19)20 ↘
Peel St
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
↖13(24) ←114(178) ↙18(25) (19)16 ↗ (113)106 ↘
(31)16 ↗ (314)207 → (63)26 ↘
↖18(55) ←29(61) ↙ 39(27) Peel St
Wellington St (53)20 ↗ (301)207 → (21)41 ↘
(53)77 ↗ (412)245 → (26)19 ↘
↖ 21(24) ← 575(387) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 205(194)
(117)101↗ (20)26 → (265)140 ↘
Mary St W ↙ ↓ ↘
↖125(129) ←243(260) ↙114(100)
Colborne St W
↖109(248) ←316(332) ↙ 42(13)
Lindsay St S
William St N
Cambridge St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - LINDSAY
(47)59 ↗ (165)133 → (48)19 ↘
↖ 79(118) ← 144(166) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 118(154)
(19)41 ↗ (161)130 → (27)20 ↘
↖ 32(32) ← 575(628) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 18(93) (53)24 ↗ (616)513 → (47)47 ↘
Fair Ave
↖ 30(24) ← 565(626) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 16(18)
(53)32 ↗ (644)504 → (67)47 ↘
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
↖ 88(136) ←19(52) ↙ 76(48)
(340)215 ↗ (55)59 → (7)9 ↘
↖1(1) ←5(0) ↙ 7(8)
↗ →
↑
(2)2 ↗ (51)51 → (55)55 ↘
44(41) 44(56) 26(31)
(60)19 ↗ (711)319 → (24)21 ↘ (145)81 ↗ (156)73 → (118)52 ↘
15(21) 94(49) 42(25)
15(25) 61(156) 17(50)
↖ 147(225) ← 54(69) Thunder Bridge Rd ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 22(53)
(36)43 ↗ (56)27 → (20)43 ↘
23(19) 22(17) 23(28) (67)31 ↗ (98)56 → (49)22 ↘ (25)15 ↗ (197)85 → (22)20 ↘
(27)22 ↗ (49)22 → (49)19 ↘ 20(27) 45(61) 19(23)
20(25) 43(25) 21(24) 23(43) 209(173) 19(28) 116(97) 36(52)
(148)88 ↗ (35)17 → (47)51 ↗ (141)40 → (28)23 ↘ (28)16 ↗ (162)47 → (77)39 ↘
(20)17↗ (307)247→ (33)20↘
↖6(4) ←269(291) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙9(8)
Logie St
↖173(132) ↙ 91(67)
Mary St E
↖ 19(23) ← 17(17) ↙ 20(25)
(109)150↗ (322)278 → (24)16↘
↖42(24) ←393(423) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙19(23)
(0)3 → (16)29 ↘
Wilson Rd
(305)267 ↗ (93)157 → (75)69 ↘
Colborne St E
(19)20 ↗ (17)23 ↘
Parkside Dr
(28)19 ↗ (37)56 → (27)39 ↘
Not to Scale
Weldon Rd
↖ 241(231) ←21(55) ↙ 55(111)
Pigeon Lake Rd
↖ 190(39) ← 245(241) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 22(51) (63)32 ↗ (284)91 → (65)56 ↘
Riverview Rd
CKL Rd 36
← 4(3) ↙ 559(457)
↖ 94(106) ← 135(155) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 93(110)
277(280) 405(652) 156(96)
22(29) 379(318) 77(101) 250(246) 228(290) 89(137)
56(69) 437(585) 94(125)
(84)35 ↗ (157)141 → (309)116 ↘
194(363) 38(81) 90(98)
16(19) 8(21) 5(2)
(33)25 ↗ (437)215 → (73)40 ↘ (262)271 ↗ (280)260 → (45)71 ↘ (31)55 ↗ (515)542 → (132)173 ↘
(60)39 ↗ (92)45 → (64)39 ↘
21(31) 177(212) 22(28)
129(84) 313(524) 20(50)
St Joseph Rd
375(741) 73(124)
Angeline St N
(141)197 ↗ (518)468 → (20)19 ↘
(27)19 ↗ (35)49 → (31)20 ↘
Elm Tree Rd
↗ → ↘ ↗ → ↘
→ ↘
(541)609 → (97)68 ↘
Cambridge St N
(19)24 ↗ (18)17 → (9)9 ↘
Trans Canada Highway
97(122) 313(631) 149(255)
Adelaide St N
↗ → ↘
20(29) 510(489) 255(224)
↗ → ↘ Albert St N
↗ → ↘
25(56) 469(604)
Highway 35
↗ → ↘
(15)32 ↗ (645)308 ↘
Angeline St N
↗ → ↘ William St N
(15)32 ↗ (338)351 → (98)158 ↘
Sanderling Cres → ↘
(144)67 ↗ (152)200 → (228)301 ↘
Lindsay St N
(27)46 ↗ (416)503 → (79)79 ↘
St David St
↗ → ↘
(23)42 ↗ (421)491 →
William St N
Verulam Rd N Verulam Rd N
St David St
↑
Legend
↖ 241(574) ← 153(275) ↙ 252(406)
Little Britain Rd
(0)0 ↗ (131)142 → (8)6 ↘
↑
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
(212)104↗ (317)198 → (5)2↘
↖2(8) ←203(268) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙47(94)
81(119) 48(81) 5(5)
Dew Drop Inn Rd ↙ ↓ ↘
Highway 35
(128)71↗ (86)94 → (62)87 ↘
8(8) 84(56) 2(0)
(20)6 ↗ (3)3 → (472)296 ↘
(30)26 ↗ (27)29 → (41)45 ↘
Connolly Rd
↖ 2(2) ←6(0) ↙ 8(9)
(432)357 ↗ (1017)672 → (531)381↘
↖ 131(125) ← 763(1036) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 61(91) Kent St W
(55)69 ↗ (193)156 → (56)22 ↘
Mary St W
↖ 92(139) ← 168(195) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 139(181)
(22)12 ↗ (189)153 → (8)6 ↘
Albert St N
Figure - 3
(30)23 ↗ (106)55 → (57)26 ↘
↖ 21(51) ←20(25) ↙ 86(180)
Orchard Park Rd
↖16(28) ←134(209) ↙ 3(6)
(57)22 ↗ (45)42 → (22)23 ↘
Peel St
Colborne St W
↖ 48(48) ← 852(930) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 27(138) (78)36 ↗ (912)759 → (69)69 ↘
Fair Ave
↖ 45(36) ← 837(927) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 24(27)
(78)48 ↗ (954)747 → (99)69 ↘
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
↖103(159) ←25(56) ↙ 89(56)
Thunder Bridge Rd
(22)2 ↗ (133)125 ↘
(37)22 ↗ (465)306 → (102)43 ↘
↖ 23(62) ←34(72) ↙ 46(31) Peel St
Wellington St (61)26 ↗ (490)337 → (25)47 ↘
(86)125 ↗ (670)400 → (43)31↘
↖ 25(30) ← 937(631) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 240(228)
(137)119 ↗ (23)32 → (310)164 ↘
Mary St W ↙ ↓ ↘
↖147(151) ←396(423) ↙134(117)
Colborne St W
↖128(290) ←468(492) ↙ 49(16)
Lindsay St S
William St N
Cambridge St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - LINDSAY
↖ 133(264) ← 681(965) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 111(209)
(236)112 ↗ (940)942 → (20)19 ↘
Kent St W
(11)5 ↗ (295)221 → (252)369 ↘
0(0) 212(310) 375(435)
78(94) 763(630) 246(299)
153(193) 119(148) 204(365)
(479)304 ↗ (64)69 → (8)11 ↘
↖ 207(317) ← 76(97) ↙ 31(63)
↗ →
↑
(2)2 ↗ (51)51 → (55)55 ↘
51(48) 51(66) 32(37)
(80)25 ↗ (833)374 → (34)28 ↘ (170)95 ↗ (182)86 → (139)61 ↘
17(25) 111(58) 49(31)
15(25) 72(255) 24(61)
Thunder Bridge Rd ↙ ↓ ↘
(42)51 ↗ (66)31 → (23)51 ↘
9(22) 8(20) 27(9) (78)36 ↗ (115)66 → (56)28 ↘ (25)20 ↗ (321)100 → (35)28 ↘
(8)8 ↗ (11)8 → (11)5 ↘ 26(33) 53(72) 25(28)
6(6) 50(30) 25(28) 27(50) 245(203) 25(34) 136(114) 42(59)
(173)103 ↗ (41)20 → (55)59 ↗ (165)47 → (33)29 ↘ (34)22 ↗ (190)55 → (90)45 ↘
(31)27↗ (643)968→ (51)31↘
↙ ↓ ↘
Logie St
↖ 244(186) ↙128(94)
Mary St E
↖ 25(28) ← 20(20) ↙ 26(30)
(128)176↗ (377)326 → (30)22↘
↖19(30) ←582(627) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙25(28)
↖29(31) ←827(815) ↙49(57)
(0)3 → (19)34 ↘
Wilson Rd
(430)377 ↗ (302)219 → (87)81↘
Colborne St E
(22)23 ↗ (20)29 ↘
Parkside Dr
(34)25 ↗ (44)66 → (31)46 ↘
Not to Scale
Weldon Rd
↖ 392(376) ←25(64) ↙ 90(180)
Pigeon Lake Rd
↖ 310(63) ← 400(392) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 35(82) (73)37 ↗ (463)149 → (76)66 ↘
Riverview Rd
CKL Rd 36
← 5(3) ↙ 789(645)
↖ 277(229) ← 324(287) ↙ ↓ ↘ ↙ 275(234)
390(396) 571(920) 218(305)
28(36) 535(448) 90(119) 293(289) 322(409) 104(161)
66(81) 616(825) 111(147)
(98)41 ↗ (184)165 → (362)136 ↘
288(537) 57(120) 115(127)
25(30) 47(33) 28(28)
(39)30 ↗ (616)304 → (86)47 ↘ (307)318 ↗ (396)367 → (53)83 ↘ (36)64 ↗ (726)765 → (154)203 ↘
(68)46 ↗ (108)53 → (73)46 ↘
25(36) 207(248) 28(34)
151(98) 421(705) 27(59)
St Joseph Rd
503(995) 98(167)
Angeline St N
(165)231 ↗ (696)629 → (23)22 ↘
(33)25 ↗ (41)58 → (37)26 ↘
Elm Tree Rd
↗ → ↘ ↗ → ↘
→ ↘
(728)819 → (130)92 ↘
Cambridge St N
(30)37 ↗ (28)27 → (59)49 ↘
Trans Canada Highway
114(143) 510(1027) 243(416)
Adelaide St N
↗ → ↘
26(36) 831(796) 416(365)
↗ → ↘ Albert St N
↗ → ↘
30(64) 764(984)
Highway 35
↗ → ↘ (17)37 ↗ (909)435 ↘
Angeline St N
↗ → ↘ William St N
(21)45 ↗ (477)495 → (308)221 ↘
Sanderling Cres → ↘
(235)110 ↗ (248)326 → (371)489 ↘
Lindsay St N
(31)54 ↗ (678)819 → (129)129 ↘
St David St
↗ → ↘
(27)49 ↗ (686)800 →
William St N
Verulam Rd N Verulam Rd N
St David St
↑
↑
0(0)
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
Legend
(0)0 ↗ (222)191 → (10)4 ↘ (85)59 ↗ (177)157 → (7)8 ↘
King St W
Canal St W
(27)21 ↗ (37)19 ↘
(5)5 ↗ (37)36→ (18)21↘
↙ ↓ ↘
(17)6 ↗ (131)73 → (10)4 ↘
Joseph St
Duke St
78(73) 15(12)
1(0) 1(0)
13(22)
(15)19 ↗ (140)117 → (25)21 ↘
21(28)
North St
(0)0 → (11)13 ↘
88(89) 152(180) 25(40) 3(1) 28(29)
↖ 123(189) ← 102(147) ↙ 5(3)
↖5(5) ←28(49) ↙46(66)
↖ 72(85) ← 79(72) ↙ 17(39)
Duke St
East St N
4(5) 6(3) 11(15)
(5)3 ↗ (308)296 → (13)6 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
↖ 8(19) ← 205(341) ↙ 158(215)
21(15) 9(5) 1(1)
Figure - 2
(19)13 ↗ (500)393 → (128)139 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
↖4(8) ←382(610) ↙14(9)
Boyd St
Duke St
East St N
(366)295→ (184)137 ↘
2023 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BOBCAYGEON
King St E
Canal St E
↖ 5(5) ← 141(169) ↙ 9(8)
(20)13 ↗ (9)4 ↗ (37)15 ↗ (14)10 ↗
5(5) 10(10) 10(5)
(93)70 → (33)23 → (36)25 → (5)0 →
↖ 1(0) ← 173(231) ↙ 11(8)
(5)8 ↗
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
↑ ↗ → ↘ (9)6 ↗
6(5) 52(100)
(4)9 ↘ (20)10 ↘ (55)34 ↘
↗ → ↘ → ↘ (6)4 →
West St
↗ → ↘ Main St
(42)17 ↘
↗ → ↘ (7)16 ↗ (5)0 → (190)173 ↘
Main St
(73)46 ↗ (1)5 → (17)4 ↘
Cedartree Ln
←279(339) ↙72(92)
↙↘
Boyd St
37(12)
63(47)
(44)50 ↗ (384)302 →
↗ ↘
(283)101 (93)51
↖ 17(17) ← 260(368)
Mill St
King St S
Not to Scale
↑
↑
40(50)
Legend
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
↑
10(10) 40(50)
(50)0 ↗ (534)460 → (24)10 ↘
(50)19 ↗
North St
(26)31 ↘
(20)25 ↗
(133)92 ↗ (276)245 → (11)19 ↘
Canal St W
King St W
17(29)
(186)156 → (39)28 ↘
(36)28 ↗ (89)86 ↘
(62)52↗ (49)48→ (24)28 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
↖ 164(252) ← 136(196) ↙ 7(4)
↖7(7) ←37(65) ↙61(88)
↖ 72(113) ← 79(96) ↙ 17(52)
Duke St
King St E
Canal St E
↖ 5(7) ← 339(225) ↙ 9(8)
East St N
10(17) 18(10) 30(35)
(7)4 ↗ (410)394 → (17)14 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
↖ 11(25) ← 273(454) ↙ 246(335)
28(20) 12(7) 1(1)
Figure - 4
(25)17 ↗ (665)523 → (170)185 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
↖5(11) ←508(812) ↙19(12) East St N
(487)393→ (245)182↘
←371(451) ↙96(122)
King St S
Boyd St
Duke St
2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BOBCAYGEON
(23)8 ↗ (174)97 → (13)5 ↘
Joseph St
Duke St
117(139) 33(53) 28(37)
↖ 20(25) ← 416(556) ↙ 26(19)
(20)20 →
202(240) 4(1) 37(39)
(31)17 ↗ (22)10 ↗ (89)60 ↗ (19)13 ↗
188(176) 20(16)
(44)31 → (48)33 → (12)5 →
52(62) 13(13) 13(13) 8(7)
↗ → ↘ (12)8 ↗
69(133)
(145)93 → (5)12 ↘ (27)13 ↘ (73)45 ↘
↗ → ↘ → ↘ (8)5 →
West St
↗ → ↘ Main St
(56)23 ↘
↗ → ↘ (9)39 ↗ (8)15 → (296)270 ↘
Main St
(97)61 ↗ (1)7 → (23)5 ↘
Cedartree Ln
↙↘
Boyd St
84(63)
49(16)
(59)67 ↗ (511)402 →
↗ ↘
(377)134 (124)68
↖ 23(23) ← 346(490)
Mill St
Not to Scale
↑
↑
40(50)
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
Legend
(170)118 ↗ (353)313 → (14)31 ↘
(42)33 ↗
↖ 192(295) ← 159(229) ↙ 8(5)
↖ 72(133) ← 79(112) ↙ 17(61)
↖8(8) ←44(76) ↙72(103)
Duke St
East St N
11(18) 19(11) 32(38)
(8)5 ↗ (480)462 → (20)24 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
↖ 12(30) ← 320(532) ↙ 315(429)
33(23) 14(8) 2(2)
Figure - 5
(200)217 ↘
(30)20 ↗ (780)613 →
↙ ↓ ↘
↖6(12) ←596(951) ↙22(14) East St N
(571)460→ (287)214 ↘
←435(529) ↙112(143)
King St S
Boyd St
Duke St
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BOBCAYGEON
King St E
Canal St E
↖ 5(8) ← 553(264) ↙ 9(8)
(85)70↗ (58)56→ (28)33 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
(27)9 ↗ (204)114 → (16)6 ↘
Canal St W
(145)124 ↘
Joseph St
King St W
306(286) 23(19)
Duke St
9(8)
40(50)
(50)0 ↗ (870)749 → (39)16 ↘
(50)31 ↗
20(34)
(23)30 ↗ (218)182 → (50)33 ↘
81(156)
North St
(43)51 ↘
137(178)
(22)16 ↗
↖ 20(25) ← 678(906) ↙ 43(31)
(20)20 →
237(281) 5(2) 44(45)
(40)20 ↗ (35)16 ↗ (145)73 ↗
39(62) 33(44)
(9)14 ↘ (31)16 ↘
10(10)
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
↑ (14)9 ↗
(20)5 →
70(85) 16(16) 16(16)
(186)109 → (51)36 → (56)39 →
↗ → ↘ (9)6 →
↗ → ↘ → ↘ (66)27 ↘
West St
↗ → ↘ Main St
(86)53 ↘
↗ → ↘ (11)63 ↗ (20)15 → (379)345 ↘
Main St
(114)72 ↗ (2)8 → (27)6 ↘
Cedartree Ln
↙↘
Boyd St
58(19)
98(73)
(69)78 ↗ (599)471 →
↗ ↘
(441)158 (145)80
↖ 27(27) ← 406(574)
Mill St
Not to Scale
↑
↑
40(50)
Legend
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
↑
10(10) 40(50)
(50)0 ↗ (870)749 → (39)16 ↘
(50)31 ↗
North St
(43)51 ↘
39(62)
(170)118 ↗ (353)313 → (14)31 ↘
(42)33 ↗ (145)124 ↘
(85)70 ↗ (58)56→ (28)33 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
↖ 192(295) ← 159(229) ↙ 8(5)
↖8(8) ←44(76) ↙72(103)
↖ 72(133) ← 79(112) ↙ 17(61)
Duke St
King St E
Canal St E
↖ 5(8) ← 553(264) ↙ 9(8)
East St N
11(18) 19(11) 32(38)
(8)5 ↗ (480)462 → (20)24 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
(30)20 ↗ (780)613 → (200)217 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
33(23) 14(8) 2(2)
Figure - 6
↖ 12(30) ← 320(532) ↙ 315(429)
↖6(12) ←596(951) ↙22(14) East St N
(571)460→ (287)214 ↘
←435(529) ↙112(143)
King St S
Boyd St
Duke St
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BOBCAYGEON
(27)9 ↗ (204)114 → (16)6 ↘
Canal St W
King St W
137(178)
(23)30 ↗ (218)182 → (50)33 ↘
Joseph St
Duke St
20(34) 306(286) 23(19)
↖ 20(25) ← 678(906) ↙ 43(31)
(20)20 →
237(281) 5(2) 44(45)
(40)20 ↗ (35)16 ↗ (145)73 ↗ (22)16 ↗
33(44)
(186)109 → (51)36 → (56)39 → (20)5 →
70(85) 16(16) 16(16) 9(8)
↗ → ↘ (14)9 ↗
81(156)
(6)14 ↘ (31)16 ↘ (86)53 ↘
↗ → ↘ → ↘ (9)6 →
West St
↗ → ↘ Main St
(66)27 ↘
↗ → ↘ (11)63 ↗ (20)15 → (379)345 ↘
Main St
(114)72 ↗ (2)8 → (27)6 ↘
Cedartree Ln
↙↘
Boyd St
58(19)
98(73)
(69)78 ↗ (599)471 →
↗ ↘
(441)158 (145)80
↖ 27(27) ← 406(574)
Mill St
Not to Scale
Legend
97(148) 40(56) 28(32)
Commercial Access
↑
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
↖ ↑↗ (71)40 ↘
(53)34 ↗ (450)296 →
(22)20↗ (496)296→ (10)9↘
Figure - 3
↖ ↑ ↗ Colborne St
21(55) 2(4) 5(15)
↙ ↓ ↘ ↖ ↑↗ Colborne St
↖ 15(16) ← 393(402) ↙ 5(8)
Bond St E
Francis St E
(11)12↗ (462)266 →
↙↘
13(15) 9(3)
2023 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FENELON FALLS
Colborne St
73(149) 14(10) 15(51)
↙ ↓ ↘
9(27) 18(15) 83(65)
↑
(60)31 ↘
(43)54 ↗ (324)200 →
Lindsay St
↙ ↓ ↘
Helen St
↖24(26) ←391(423) ↙7(20)
Francis St W
↖ 129(170) ← 232(354) ↙ 75(81)
Bond St W
3(5) 4(1) 11(12)
↑
Hwy 121
↖6(17) ←376(362)
Princess St W
69(72) 21(32) 138(195)
45(45) 16(20) 2(1)
(269)174 ↘
(68)30 ↗ (160)73 →
↙ ↓ ↘
↖ ↑↗
Not to Scale
Hwy 121
↖ 1(4) ← 12(127) ↙ 8(12)
Northine Rd
5(8) 12(24) 225(228) Hwy 8
↙ ↓ ↘
Legend
110(168) 45(64) 32(36)
Commercial Access
↑
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
↖ ↑↗
Colborne St
83(169) 16(11) 17(58)
(25)23↗ (628)375→ (11)10↘
Figure - 7
↖ ↑ ↗ Colborne St
24(62) 2(5) 6(17)
↙ ↓ ↘ ↖ ↑↗ Colborne St
↖ 17(18) ← 498(509) ↙ 6(9)
Bond St E
Francis St E
(12)14↗ (585)337 →
↙↘
15(17) 10(3)
2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FENELON FALLS
(81)45 ↘
(60)39 ↗ (570)375 →
↙ ↓ ↘
10(31) 20(17) 94(74)
↑
(68)35 ↘
(49)61↗ (410)253 →
Lindsay St
Helen St
↖27(30) ←495(536) ↙8(23)
Francis St W
↖ 163(215) ← 294(448) ↙ 85(92)
Bond St W
3(6) 5(1) 12(14)
↑
Hwy 121
↖7(19) ←476(459)
Princess St W
78(82) 24(36) 175(247)
57(57) 18(23) 2(1)
(341)220 ↘
(86)38 ↗ (203)92 →
↙ ↓ ↘
↖ ↑↗
Not to Scale
Hwy 121
↖ 1(5) ← 75(161) ↙ 9(14)
Northine Rd
6(9) 14(27) 323(259) Hwy 8
↙ ↓ ↘
Legend
129(197) 53(75) 37(43)
Commercial Access
↑
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
↖ ↑↗
Colborne St
97(198) 19(13) 20(68)
↖ ↑ ↗ Colborne St
28(73) 3(5) 7(20)
Figure - 8
(29)27↗ (676)403→ (13)12↘
↙ ↓ ↘ ↖ ↑↗ Colborne St
↖ 20(21) ← 535(548) ↙ 7(11)
Bond St E
Francis St E
(15)16↗ (629)362 →
↙↘
17(20) 12(4)
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FENELON FALLS
(94)53 ↘
(71)45 ↗ (561)369 →
↙ ↓ ↘
12(36) 24(20) 110(86)
↑
(80)41 ↘
(57)72 ↗ (370)229 →
Lindsay St
Helen St
↖32(35) ←488(528) ↙9(27)
Francis St W
↖ 147(194) ← 265(404) ↙ 100(108)
Bond St W
4(7) 5(1) 15(16)
↑
Hwy 121
↖8(23) ←512(493)
Princess St W
92(96) 28(43) 147(208)
60(60) 21(27) 3(1)
(93)41 ↗ (218)99 → (366)237 ↘
↙ ↓ ↘
↖ ↑↗
Not to Scale
Hwy 121
↖ 1(5) ← 80(169) ↙ 11(16)
Northine Rd
7(11) 16(32) 339(303) Hwy 8
↙ ↓ ↘
Legend
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Commercial Access
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
↑
Signalized Intersection
151(231) 62(87) 44(50)
Lane Movement
↖ ↑↗
Colborne St
114(232) 22(16) 23(80)
↖ ↑ ↗ Colborne St
33(86) 3(6) 8(23)
Figure - 9
(34)31↗ (908)542→ (16)14↘
↙ ↓ ↘ ↖ ↑↗ Colborne St
↖ 23(25) ← 719(736) ↙ 8(12)
Bond St E
Francis St E
(17)19↗ (846)487 →
↙↘
20(23) 14(5)
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FENELON FALLS
(111)62 ↘
(83)53 ↗ (719)473 →
↙ ↓ ↘
14(42) 28(23) 129(101)
↑
(94)48 ↘
(67)84 ↗ (451)279 →
Lindsay St
Helen St
↖37(41) ←625(676) ↙11(31)
Francis St W
↖ 180(237) ← 323(493) ↙ 117(126)
Bond St W
5(8) 6(2) 17(19)
↑
Hwy 121
↖9(27) ←688(663)
Princess St W
108(112) 33(50) 172(243)
70(70) 25(31) 3(2)
(492)318 ↘
(124)55 ↗ (293)134 →
↙ ↓ ↘
↖ ↑↗
Not to Scale
Hwy 121
↖ 2(6) ← 87(198) ↙ 12(19)
Northine Rd
8(12) 19(37) 398(356) Hwy 8
↑
↙↘
9(4) 24(18)
King St W
↖ 12(45) ← 298(419)
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
Legend
(12)7 ↗ (433)304 →
Hwy 7
↑
↑
0(0) 2(3) 4(2)
27(35)
30(43) 4(8)
(43)7 ↗ (453)299 → (11)2 ↘
Figure - 4
King St W
King St E
↖ 15(31) ← 318(432) ↙ 4(0)
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
2023 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - OMEMEE
(0)2 ↗ (438)211 → (17)13 ↘
↖ 2(9) ← 296(440) ↙ 32(34) (21)18 ↗ (1)3 → (48)19 ↘
Sibley Ave N
↗ → ↘
5(2) 0(0) 2(1)
(438)326 → (18)11 ↘
← 322(500) ↙ 0(13) (16)30 ↗
Deane St N
↗ → ↘
(10)9 ↘
Sturgeon Rd N
↗ → ↘
(13)5 ↗ (12)5 → (4)0 ↘
Queen St N Queen St S Not to Scale
↑
↙↘
10(5) 27(20)
King St W
↖ 14(51) ← 338(476)
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
Legend
(14)8 ↗ (492)345 →
Hwy 7
↑
↑
0(0) 2(3) 5(2)
31(40)
34(49) 5(9)
(49)8 ↗ (514)339 → (12)2 ↘
Figure - 10
King St W
King St E
↖ 17(35) ← 361(490) ↙ 5(0)
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - OMEMEE
(0)2 ↗ (497)240 → (19)15 ↘
↖ 2(10) ← 336(500) ↙ 36(39) (24)20 ↗ (1)3 → (54)22 ↘
Sibley Ave N
↗ → ↘
6(2) 0(0) 2(1)
(497)370 → (20)12 ↘
← 366(568) ↙ 0(15) (18)34 ↗
Deane St N
↗ → ↘
(11)10 ↘
Sturgeon Rd N
↗ → ↘
(15)6 ↗ (14)6 → (5)0 ↘
Queen St N Queen St S Not to Scale
↑
↙↘
12(5) 32(24)
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
Legend
(16)9 ↗ (576)405 →
Hwy 7
↑
↑
King St W
↖ 16(60) ← 397(558)
0(0) 3(4) 5(3)
36(47)
40(57) 5(11)
(57)9 ↗ (603)398 → (15)3 ↘
Figure - 11
King St W
King St E
↖ 20(41) ← 423(575) ↙ 5(0)
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - OMEMEE
(0)3 ↗ (583)281 → (23)17 ↘
↖ 3(12) ← 394(586) ↙ 43(45) (28)24 ↗ (1)4 → (64)25 ↘
Sibley Ave N
↗ → ↘
7(3) 0(0) 3(1)
(583)434 → (24)15 ↘
← 428(665) ↙ 0(17) (21)40 ↗
Deane St N
↗ → ↘
(13)12 ↘
Sturgeon Rd N
↗ → ↘
(17)7 ↗ (16)7 → (5)0 ↘
Queen St N Queen St S Not to Scale
↑
↙↘
14(6) 37(28)
00 (00) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Stop-Controlled Intersection
Signalized Intersection
Lane Movement
Legend
(19)11 ↗ (675)474 →
Hwy 7
↑
↑
King St W
↖ 19(70) ← 465(653)
0(0) 3(5) 6(3)
Figure - 12
King St W
42(55)
47(67) 6(12)
(67)11 ↗ (707)466 → (17)3 ↘
King St E
↖ 23(48) ← 496(674) ↙ 6(0)
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - OMEMEE
(0)3 ↗ (683)329 → (27)20 ↘
↖ 3(14) ← 462(686) ↙ 50(53) (33)28 ↗ (2)5 → (75)30 ↘
Sibley Ave N
↗ → ↘
8(3) 0(0) 3(2)
(683)508 → (28)17 ↘
Not to Scale
← 502(780) ↙ 0(20) (25)47 ↗
Deane St N
↗ → ↘
(16)14 ↘
Sturgeon Rd N
↗ → ↘
(20)8 ↗ (19)8 → (6)0 ↘
Queen St N Queen St S
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix I: Future Conditions Capacity Analysis
Page | 517
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
I.1 Lindsay
Page | 519
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
71 71 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.69 1221 0.94 76 0 76 9% Perm
43 43 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1759 1.00 1759 0.94 46 26 56 2% NA 4
34 34 1900
44 44 1900
0.94 36 0 0 2%
0.94 47 0 0 2% Perm
49 49 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1812 0.83 1536 0.94 52 0 99 5% NA 8
159 159 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 169 122 47 2% Perm
44 44 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.41 769 0.94 47 0 47 3% Perm
606 606 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 645 0 645 3% NA 2
17 17 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 18 8 10 2% Perm
150 150 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.30 545 0.94 160 0 160 4% Perm
459 459 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 488 0 488 5% NA 6
68 68 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 72 32 40 15% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 431
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 305
0.03 0.11 23.8 1.00 0.1 23.9 C
0.06 0.11 9.1 1.00 0.5 9.6 A
0.01 0.01 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.7 A
0.29 0.52 12.2 1.00 2.6 14.8 B
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 342 0.06 0.22 24.6 1.00 1.5 26.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 493 0.03
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 430 c0.06 0.23 24.6 1.00 0.3 25.0 C 24.3 C
0.11 23.8 1.00 0.5 24.3 C 25.2 C 16.3 0.49 89.1 77.8% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 c0.35 0.62 13.1 1.00 2.7 15.8 B 15.3 B
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 0.27 0.48 11.7 1.00 0.6 12.3 B 12.5 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.05 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.9 A
B 14.1 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None None Max 57 57 32.1 32.1 64.0% 36.0% 64.0% 36.0% 35 35 30.1 30.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 20 10 20 10 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 21 16 21 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 57 0 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66 0 57 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 76 0.22 26.8 0.0 26.8 9.9 21.0 150.0 342 0 0 0 0.22
EBT WBT 82 99 0.23 0.16 26.5 15.9 0.0 0.0 26.5 15.9 5.8 13.0 25.5 16.3 1366.5 1368.7 519 0 0 0 0.16
430 0 0 0 0.23
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
WBR 169 0.30 5.7 0.0 5.7 0.0 13.9
NBL 47 0.11 10.0 0.0 10.0 3.5 8.7
170.0 570 0 0 0 0.30
250.0 430 0 0 0 0.11
NBT 645 0.62 16.3 0.0 16.3 69.0 102.2 1562.1 1046 0 0 0 0.62
NBR 18 0.02 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4
SBL 160 0.52 19.9 0.0 19.9 15.8 35.6
135.0 920 0 0 0 0.02
200.0 305 0 0 0 0.52
SBT 488 0.48 13.6 0.0 13.6 46.5 70.0 1053.3 1026 0 0 0 0.48
SBR 72 0.09 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 5.4 200.0 828 0 0 0 0.09
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
95 95 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1869 1.00 1869 0.93 102 2 106 2% NA 4
6 6 1900
204 204 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.69 1179 0.93 219 0 219 12% Perm
152 152 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 163 0 163 2% NA 8
288 288 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 310 207 103 3% Perm
219 219 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1158 0.93 235 0 235 2% Perm
226 226 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 243 0 243 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
8 8 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1141 0.93 9 0 9 2% Perm
215 215 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 231 0 231 7% NA 6
126 126 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 135 65 70 11% Perm
8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 528
2 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 603
0.07 0.20 22.8 1.00 0.8 23.6 C
c0.20 0.39 13.8 1.00 1.9 15.7 B
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 6 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 393
32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 623 0.06
c0.19 0.56 26.2 1.00 5.6 31.8 C
0.17 22.6 1.00 0.1 22.7 C 22.7 C 19.6 0.45 95.9 68.7% 15
32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 628 0.09 0.26 23.3 1.00 1.0 24.3 C 26.4 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 594
50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 902 0.14
0.01 0.02 11.1 1.00 0.0 11.1 B
0.27 12.8 1.00 0.7 13.5 B 14.6 B
50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 935 0.13 0.25 12.6 1.00 0.6 13.2 B 12.7 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 766 0.05 0.09 11.5 1.00 0.2 11.8 B
B 13.9 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 SETL
4 6 NBTL NWTL
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
8 SBTL
C-Max None C-Max Max 57 38.9 57 38.9 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 39 32.9 39 32.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1 1.1 1 1.1 10 20 10 20 3 4.5 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 16 25 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 0 57 0 57 0 57 50 50 89 89 25 73 25 73 0 57 0 57 50 50 89 89 25 73 25 73
Intersection Summary 95.9 Cycle Length Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
NBT 108 0.17 22.9 0.0 22.9 13.6 25.7 530.8 625 0 0 0 0.17
SBL 219 0.56 32.7 0.0 32.7 32.9 56.3 100.0 393 0 0 0 0.56
SBT 163 0.26 24.7 0.0 24.7 21.8 37.4 249.9 628 0 0 0 0.26
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
SBR 310 0.42 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.0 17.1
SEL 235 0.39 16.2 0.0 16.2 24.8 42.4
100.0 735 0 0 0 0.42
200.0 603 0 0 0 0.39
SET 243 0.27 13.8 0.0 13.8 23.8 38.3 374.7 902 0 0 0 0.27
NWL 9 0.02 11.2 0.0 11.2 0.8 3.1 200.0 594 0 0 0 0.02
NWT 231 0.25 13.5 0.0 13.5 22.3 36.1 359.2 935 0 0 0 0.25
NWR 135 0.16 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 8.3 100.0 831 0 0 0 0.16
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
36 36 1900
435 435 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1808 0.95 1720 0.96 453 6 532 5% NA 2
45 45 1900
12 12 1900
16 16 1900
31 31 1900
24 24 1900
0.96 17 0 0 2%
0.96 32 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 18 0 0 2%
0.96 25 0 0 2% Perm
48 48 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.99 1781 0.94 1688 0.96 50 21 90 2% NA 4
35 35 1900
0.96 12 0 0 2% Perm
48 48 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1797 0.91 1653 0.96 50 10 90 2% NA 8
17 17 1900
0.96 47 0 0 3%
423 423 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1855 0.98 1820 0.96 441 2 469 3% NA 6
0.96 38 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
6
8
4
23.1 23.1 0.39 6.0 3.0 667
23.1 23.1 0.39 6.0 3.0 706
25.4 25.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 705
25.4 25.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 720
c0.31 0.80 16.1 1.00 6.6 22.7 C 22.7 C
0.26 0.66 15.0 1.00 2.4 17.4 B 17.4 B
c0.05 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.4 10.7 B 10.7 B
0.05 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.4 10.7 B 10.7 B
18.6 0.45 59.5 60.3% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 36 0 0 2%
B 11.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
None Max None Max 41 41 30 30 57.7% 42.3% 57.7% 42.3% 25 25 41 41 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 41 41 0 0 41 0 41 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10 0 41 41 0 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBT 538 0.80 25.3 0.0 25.3 48.5 78.9 123.3
WBT 471 0.67 19.5 0.0 19.5 39.8 64.1 258.1
NBT 100 0.14 11.9 0.0 11.9 5.1 16.9 366.5
SBT 111 0.15 10.3 0.0 10.3 4.6 16.5 390.1
1028 0 0 0 0.52
1085 0 0 0 0.43
712 0 0 0 0.14
739 0 0 0 0.15
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
36 36 1900
416 416 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1856 0.94 1744 0.94 443 2 512
31 31 1900
63 63 1900
22 22 1900
57 57 1900
20 20 1900
0.94 23 0 0 2
0.94 61 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 46 0 0 3
0.94 21 0 0 3 Perm
42 42 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1786 0.91 1651 0.94 45 11 74
18 18 1900
0.94 67 0 0 6 Perm
84 84 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 1774 0.89 1597 0.94 89 11 185
43 43 1900
0.94 33 0 0 6
424 424 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1858 0.86 1610 0.94 451 2 539
0.94 38 0 0 2 Perm
NA 6
6
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
NA 2
2
NA 8
NA 4
4
8
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 767
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 708
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 702
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 726
0.29 0.67 22.2 1.00 4.6 26.8 C 26.8 C
c0.33 0.76 23.6 1.00 7.6 31.2 C 31.2 C
c0.12 0.26 17.7 1.00 0.9 18.6 B 18.6 B
0.05 0.10 16.4 1.00 0.3 16.7 B 16.7 B
26.7 0.51 100.0 66.6% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 19 0 0 7
C 12.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
8 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max Max Max Max 50 50 50 50 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 24 24 28 26 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 20 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 15 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 50 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29 50 50 0 0 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 EBTL
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBT 514 0.67 27.3 0.0 27.3 76.3 112.5 258.1
WBT 541 0.76 32.0 0.0 32.0 85.6 128.2 647.5
NBT 196 0.27 17.2 0.0 17.2 20.9 36.2 153.3
SBT 85 0.12 13.5 0.0 13.5 7.3 16.1 103.2
769 0 0 0 0.67
709 0 0 0 0.76
713 0 0 0 0.27
737 0 0 0 0.12
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
171 171 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 265 0.89 192 0 192 2% pm+pt 5 2 40.2 40.2 0.51 5.0 3.0 351 c0.08 0.20 0.55 13.1 1.00 1.7 14.8 B
685 685 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.89 770 2 785 2% NA 2
15 15 1900
152 152 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.24 448 0.89 171 0 171 2% pm+pt 1 6 38.4 38.4 0.48 5.0 3.0 392 0.06 0.15 0.44 12.4 1.00 0.8 13.2 B
649 649 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3430 1.00 3430 0.89 729 32 913 3% NA 6
192 192 1900
124 124 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.47 888 0.89 139 0 139 2% Perm
133 133 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1711 1.00 1711 0.89 149 32 230 2% NA 4
101 101 1900
266 266 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.50 934 0.89 299 0 299 2% Perm
108 108 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 121 55 224 2% NA 8
141 141 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.89 17 0 0 2%
28.9 28.9 0.36 5.0 3.0 1299 0.22 0.60 20.5 1.00 2.1 22.6 C 21.1 C 28.3 0.82 79.3 78.1% 15
0.89 216 0 0 2%
28.0 28.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 1211 c0.27 0.75 22.6 1.00 2.7 25.3 C 23.5 C
4 25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 279 0.16 0.50 22.1 1.00 1.4 23.5 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 113 0 0 9%
8 25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 294
25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 539 0.13
c0.32 1.02 27.1 1.00 56.9 84.0 F
0.43 21.5 1.00 0.5 22.0 C 22.5 C
0.89 158 0 0 3%
25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 540 0.13 0.41 21.4 1.00 0.5 21.9 C 54.0 D
C 15.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
2 6 4 8 5 1 WBL EBTL NBTL EBL WBTL SBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None None None None 33 33 20 20 30 30 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 15 33 15 33 26 26 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 15 28 28 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 10 10 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20 20 53 53 0 0 53 53 20 0 20 0 15 15 78 78 48 48 38 38 68 15 15 68 0 0 63 63 33 33 28 28 58 78 78 58 18 18 78 78 48 48 83 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 192 0.55 17.0 0.0 17.0 13.2 27.2 70.0 434 0 0 0 0.44
EBT 787 0.61 22.9 0.0 22.9 49.1 67.9 368.2 1298 0 0 0 0.61
WBL 171 0.43 12.7 0.0 12.7 11.6 20.2 120.0 496 0 0 0 0.34
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
WBT 945 0.76 26.5 0.0 26.5 59.9 88.1 68.4
NBL 139 0.50 30.0 0.0 30.0 16.4 35.7
NBT 262 0.46 21.1 0.0 21.1 24.5 47.8 306.6
1244 0 0 0 0.76
280 0 0 0 0.50
571 0 0 0 0.46
SBL 299 1.02 87.6 0.0 87.6 43.7 #97.6 30.0 294 0 0 0 1.02
SBT 279 0.47 18.5 0.0 18.5 22.3 45.9 418.3 596 0 0 0 0.47
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
291 291 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 188 0.95 306 0 306 2% pm+pt 1 6 52.1 52.1 0.47 5.0 3.0 262 c0.13 c0.42 1.17 32.1 1.00 108.8 140.8 F
684 684 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 720 0 720 2% NA 6
357 61 357 61 1900 1900 5.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1601 1722 1.00 0.11 1601 207 0.95 0.95 376 64 167 0 209 64 2% 6% Perm pm+pt 5 6 2 40.2 42.0 40.2 42.0 0.36 0.38 5.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 172 581 0.02 0.13 0.12 0.36 0.37 26.7 25.8 1.00 1.00 1.4 1.7 28.0 27.6 C C
697 697 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 734 0 734 2% NA 2
84 84 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 88 60 28 2% Perm
224 224 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.13 241 0.95 236 0 236 2% pm+pt 3 8 45.9 45.9 0.41 5.0 3.0 304 c0.10 0.22 0.78 25.4 1.00 11.7 37.1 D
199 199 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1819 1.00 1819 0.95 209 6 244 3% NA 8
39 39 1900
117 117 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.55 1022 0.95 123 0 123 3% pm+pt 7 4 37.3 37.3 0.34 5.0 3.0 414 0.03 0.07 0.30 26.2 1.00 0.4 26.6 C
205 205 1900 6.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1724 1.00 1724 0.95 216 33 404 3% NA 4
210 210 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
40.2 40.2 0.36 6.0 3.0 683 0.38 1.05 35.2 1.00 49.6 84.8 F 81.7 F
86.2 1.08 110.7 107.2% 15
35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 597 0.39 1.23 37.8 1.00 117.5 155.3 F 133.3 F
2 35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 507 0.02 0.06 26.3 1.00 0.2 26.5 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 41 0 0 3%
31.3 31.3 0.28 6.0 3.0 514 0.13 0.48 32.9 1.00 3.1 36.0 D 36.6 D
0.95 221 0 0 3%
27.0 27.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 420 c0.23 0.96 41.4 1.00 35.6 76.9 E 65.9 E
F 22.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
2 6 4 7 8 3 1 5 NBL SBTL WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None Max None Max None 40 40 33 17 17 23 23 33 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 33 33 33 13 13 13 13 33 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17 17 80 57 57 80 0 0 0 17 57 80 57 80 17 0 51 51 75 75 107 107 12 12 34 34 90 75 75 12 90 12 0 0 63 96 96 40 40 63 34 34 90 108 108 58 58 90 17 17 73 108 108 58 58 73 113 Semi Act-Uncoord 125
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 306 720 1.04 1.17 137.3 82.2 0.0 0.0 137.3 82.2 ~63.2 ~176.5 #122.7 #263.8 607.3 30.0 262 690 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.17 1.04
EBR 376 0.50 11.6 0.0 11.6 17.1 47.1 752 0 0 0 0.50
WBL WBT 64 734 0.32 1.26 21.4 162.9 0.0 0.0 21.4 162.9 7.3 ~198.1 15.5 #278.0 443.3 65.0 584 254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 1.26
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
WBR 88 0.15 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.0
NBL 236 0.77 40.6 0.0 40.6 32.2 58.7
583 0 0 0 0.15
100.0 358 0 0 0 0.66
NBT 250 0.48 35.3 0.0 35.3 42.6 69.1 278.0 523 0 0 0 0.48
SBL SBT 437 123 0.29 0.96 70.8 21.1 0.0 0.0 70.8 21.1 15.6 85.0 27.1 #152.4 268.1 300.0 456 546 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0.96
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
46 46 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.59 1028 0.97 47 0 47 10% Perm
185 185 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1851 1.00 1851 0.97 191 3 207 2% NA 8
18 18 1900
85 85 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 616 0.97 88 0 88 2% pm+pt 7 4 33.5 33.5 0.32 5.0 3.0 327 0.03 0.06 0.27 25.8 1.00 0.4 26.2 C
160 160 1900 6.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1769 1.00 1769 0.97 165 24 254 2% NA 4
110 110 1900
22 22 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.69 1293 0.97 23 0 23 2% Perm
139 139 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1792 1.00 1792 0.97 143 12 199 2% NA 2
66 66 1900
45 45 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.53 987 0.97 46 0 46 4% pm+pt 1 6 58.7 58.7 0.56 5.0 3.0 631 0.01 0.03 0.07 10.5 1.00 0.0 10.5 B
83 83 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.97 86 8 101 2% NA 6
22 22 1900
8 17.0 17.0 0.16 6.0 3.0 167 0.05 0.28 38.2 1.00 0.9 39.2 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.97 19 0 0 6%
17.0 17.0 0.16 6.0 3.0 301 c0.11 0.69 41.1 1.00 6.4 47.5 D 45.9 D 28.2 0.37 104.2 80.0% 15
0.97 113 0 0 2%
33.5 33.5 0.32 6.0 3.0 568 c0.14 0.45 28.0 1.00 0.6 28.6 C 28.0 C
2 43.4 43.4 0.42 6.0 3.0 538 0.02 0.04 18.1 1.00 0.1 18.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 68 0 0 2%
43.4 43.4 0.42 6.0 3.0 746 c0.11 0.27 20.0 1.00 0.9 20.8 C 20.6 C
0.97 23 0 0 2%
58.7 58.7 0.56 6.0 3.0 1027 c0.06 0.10 10.5 1.00 0.2 10.7 B 10.6 B
C 22.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
AM Peak Hour
4 7 2 8 1 6 SBL NBTL WBTL SBTL WBL EBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None None None 23 25 62 31 48 31 28.2% 28.2% 43.6% 56.4% 20.9% 22.7% 32 23 21 32 31 31 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 15 25 15 15 25 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 7 18 8 8 8 8 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 62 62 31 0 85 0 0 62 85 62 31 0 80 26 104 56 104 56 96 48 80 96 48 26 0 31 31 79 54 79 73 105 49 25 73 25 105 65 49 65 17 17
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
Splits and Phases:
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 47 0.27 43.1 0.0 43.1 8.5 19.4 50.0 195 0 0 0 0.24
EBT 210 0.67 51.1 0.0 51.1 40.2 64.3 648.3 354 0 0 0 0.59
WBL 88 0.23 24.2 0.0 24.2 11.9 22.6 60.0 417 0 0 0 0.21
WBT 278 0.47 25.7 0.0 25.7 37.1 59.5 112.7 763 0 0 0 0.36
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
NBL 23 0.04 25.5 0.0 25.5 3.3 9.4 50.0 556 0 0 0 0.04
NBT 211 0.27 23.4 0.0 23.4 29.8 51.0 118.6 782 0 0 0 0.27
SBL 46 0.07 12.0 0.0 12.0 4.2 9.9 30.0 762 0 0 0 0.06
SBT 109 0.11 10.7 0.0 10.7 8.7 17.8 52.7 1028 0 0 0 0.11
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
33 33 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.47 854 0.91 36 0 36 5% Perm
253 253 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.91 278 4 292 2% NA 4
16 16 1900
166 166 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.44 830 0.91 182 0 182 2% pm+pt 3 4 22.3 22.3 0.35 2.0 3.0 391 c0.05 0.11 0.47 15.4 1.00 0.9 16.3 B
238 238 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.91 262 5 277 2% NA 4
18 18 1900
72 72 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1166 0.91 79 0 79 2% Perm
134 134 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1685 1.00 1685 0.91 147 93 343 4% NA 2
263 263 1900
22 22 1900
0.91 289 0 0 2%
0.91 24 0 0 2% Perm
181 181 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1873 0.93 1756 0.91 199 0 223 2% NA 2
26 26 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 29 16 13 3% Perm
4 15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 202 0.04 0.18 19.5 1.00 0.4 20.0 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.91 18 0 0 3%
15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 443 c0.16 0.66 22.2 1.00 3.5 25.7 C 25.1 C 18.6 0.52 64.4 79.2% 15
0.91 20 0 0 33%
15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 433 0.15 0.64 22.1 1.00 3.2 25.3 C 21.8 C
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 508 0.07 0.16 11.0 1.00 0.7 11.6 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 766
28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 735 c0.20
0.13 0.29 11.7 1.00 1.0 12.7 B 12.4 B
0.47 12.8 1.00 2.1 15.0 B 14.5 B
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 691 0.01 0.02 10.3 1.00 0.0 10.4 B
B 14.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
3 4 WBL EBWB Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 28 9 12.7% 39.4% 28 9 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 Yes No Yes Yes 43 34 43 0 41 65 41 58 43 34 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 36 0.18 21.1 0.0 21.1 3.4 9.7 180.0 292 0 0 0 0.12
EBT 296 0.67 29.4 0.0 29.4 31.3 52.9 138.6 643 0 0 0 0.46
WBL 182 0.41 14.0 0.0 14.0 12.8 23.4 20.0 443 0 0 0 0.41
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
WBT 282 0.65 28.7 0.0 28.7 29.5 50.5 145.1
NBL 79 0.16 13.6 0.0 13.6 5.4 15.0
NBT 436 0.53 11.5 0.0 11.5 20.5 51.7 388.0
SBT 223 0.29 14.2 0.0 14.2 16.2 35.2 574.8
629 0 0 0 0.45
508 0 0 0 0.16
829 0 0 0 0.53
765 0 0 0 0.29
SBR 29 0.04 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 30.0 735 0 0 0 0.04
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900
174 174 1900 6.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1758 0.88 1560 0.95 183 13 285 5% NA 4
56 56 1900
31 31 1900
24 24 1900
0.95 59 0 0 2%
0.95 33 0 0 24% Perm
148 148 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1691 0.89 1511 0.95 156 7 207 9% NA 8
89 89 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.50 926 0.95 94 0 94 3% Perm
93 93 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 98 0 98 9% NA 2
140 140 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 147 64 83 17% Perm
157 157 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.69 1281 0.95 165 0 165 4% Perm
387 387 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 407 0 407 6% NA 6
104 104 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 109 47 62 6% Perm
2 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 789
6 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 724
0.06 0.11 7.1 1.00 0.3 7.4 A
0.13 0.23 7.7 1.00 0.7 8.4 A
0.95 56 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.95 25 0 0 6%
8 17.4 17.4 0.24 6.5 3.0 381
17.4 17.4 0.24 6.5 3.0 369
c0.18 0.75 24.8 1.00 7.8 32.7 C 32.7 C
0.14 0.56 23.5 1.00 2.0 25.5 C 25.5 C 15.6 0.50 71.1 76.4% 15
2 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 523 0.10 0.18 7.5 1.00 0.8 8.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 996 0.06 0.10 7.1 1.00 0.2 7.3 A 7.6 A
40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 1024 c0.22 0.40 8.7 1.00 1.2 9.8 A 9.1 A
6 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 871 0.04 0.07 7.0 1.00 0.2 7.2 A
B 13.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
2 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 47 47 31.5 31.5 59.9% 40.1% 59.9% 40.1% 30 30 30 30 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 20 10 10 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 5 16 11 11 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 47 47 0 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 298 0.76 36.1 0.0 36.1 34.6 59.0 544.5
WBT 214 0.57 28.5 0.0 28.5 23.8 42.5 206.8
561 0 0 0 0.53
539 0 0 0 0.40
NBL 94 0.18 10.2 0.0 10.2 5.5 15.6 75.0 523 0 0 0 0.18
NBT 98 0.10 8.9 0.0 8.9 5.5 14.4 173.0 995 0 0 0 0.10
NBR 147 0.17 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 8.0
SBL 165 0.23 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 24.3
50.0 852 0 0 0 0.17
130.0 724 0 0 0 0.23
SBT 407 0.40 11.2 0.0 11.2 27.7 57.0 418.3 1023 0 0 0 0.40
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
SBR 109 0.12 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 6.9 100.0 917 0 0 0 0.12
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
40 40 1900
141 141 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1760 0.87 1540 0.86 164 12 247 4% NA 4
41 41 1900
132 132 1900
101 101 1900
365 365 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1751 1.00 1751 0.86 424 15 539 7% NA 2
107 107 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 621 0.86 124 0 124 2% Perm
415 415 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1778 1.00 1778 0.86 483 7 545 3% NA 6
59 59 1900
0.86 153 0 0 5% Perm
26 26 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 624 0.86 30 0 30 2% Perm
112 112 1900
0.86 48 0 0 2%
142 142 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1765 0.76 1361 0.86 165 19 416 2% NA 8
0.86 47 0 0 14% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.86 117 0 0 2%
8 23.3 23.3 0.34 5.5 3.0 517
23.3 23.3 0.34 5.5 3.0 456
0.16 0.48 18.2 1.00 0.7 18.9 B 18.9 B
c0.31 0.91 22.1 1.00 22.3 44.4 D 44.4 D 22.1 0.73 69.4 109.4% 15
2 35.1 35.1 0.51 5.5 3.0 315 0.05 0.10 8.9 1.00 0.6 9.5 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 130 0 0 2%
6 35.1 35.1 0.51 5.5 3.0 314
35.1 35.1 0.51 5.5 3.0 885 c0.31
0.20 0.39 10.6 1.00 3.7 14.3 B
0.61 12.2 1.00 3.1 15.4 B 15.1 B
0.86 69 0 0 27%
35.1 35.1 0.51 5.5 3.0 899 0.31 0.61 12.2 1.00 3.0 15.3 B 15.1 B
C 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 8 35 34.6 8 3 3 3 3 1 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 35 65.5 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 25 55.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBT 259 0.49 20.5 0.0 20.5 24.2 41.0 158.8
WBT 435 0.91 47.1 0.0 47.1 49.9 #92.7 158.6
NBL 30 0.10 10.7 0.0 10.7 2.0 5.9
NBT 554 0.62 15.8 0.0 15.8 48.0 72.3 321.6
566 0 0 0 0.46
510 0 0 0 0.85
315 0 0 0 0.10
900 0 0 0 0.62
SBL 124 0.39 16.2 0.0 16.2 9.8 21.3 50.0 314 0 0 0 0.39
SBT 552 0.61 16.0 0.0 16.0 49.1 73.3 760.4 904 0 0 0 0.61
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
100 100 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.72 1355 0.93 108 0 108 2% Perm
17 17 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1591 1.00 1591 0.93 18 204 57 2% NA 4
226 226 1900
22 22 1900
17 17 1900
385 385 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1872 1.00 1872 0.93 414 1 431 2% NA 2
43 43 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.49 810 0.93 46 0 46 17% Perm
390 390 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.93 419 6 490 3% NA 6
72 72 1900
0.93 24 0 0 2% Perm
120 120 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.45 850 0.93 129 0 129 2% Perm
17 17 1900
0.93 243 0 0 4%
15 15 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.98 1768 0.56 1009 0.93 16 15 43 2% NA 8
4 11.4 11.4 0.16 5.0 3.0 217 c0.08 0.50 27.2 1.00 1.8 29.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.93 18 0 0 2%
8 11.4 11.4 0.16 5.0 3.0 162
11.4 11.4 0.16 5.0 3.0 255 0.04
0.04 0.26 26.1 1.00 0.9 27.0 C 27.0 C
0.22 25.9 1.00 0.4 26.4 C 27.2 C 11.2 0.41 71.0 93.2% 15
2 49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 593 0.15 0.22 3.8 1.00 0.8 4.6 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 18 0 0 2%
6 49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 565
49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 1307 0.23
0.06 0.08 3.4 1.00 0.3 3.7 A
0.33 4.2 1.00 0.7 4.9 A 4.8 A
0.93 77 0 0 2%
49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 1274 c0.27 0.38 4.4 1.00 0.9 5.3 A 5.2 A
B 10.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 40.5 40.5 30.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 40.5 40.5 30.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 35 8 8 35 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 0 40.5 35.5 35.5 66 66 25.5 56 56 25.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35.5 66 66 35.5 25.5 25.5 56 56
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 108 0.50 34.4 0.0 34.4 13.4 25.3 30.0 486 0 0 0 0.22
EBT 261 0.57 10.0 0.0 10.0 2.1 18.7 1201.3
WBT 58 0.33 23.9 0.0 23.9 4.8 13.3 482.8
727 0 0 0 0.36
373 0 0 0 0.16
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
NBL 129 0.22 5.7 0.0 5.7 4.8 13.8 50.0 592 0 0 0 0.22
NBT 432 0.33 5.5 0.0 5.5 17.6 37.7 440.8 1308 0 0 0 0.33
SBL 46 0.08 4.7 0.0 4.7 1.6 5.6 35.0 564 0 0 0 0.08
SBT 496 0.39 5.8 0.0 5.8 20.5 44.3 214.1 1280 0 0 0 0.39
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
47 47 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.95 1722 0.96 49 0 49 6% Prot 8
93 93 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 97 88 9 2% Perm
403 403 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.96 420 5 490 2% NA 2
72 72 1900
92 92 1900
0.96 75 0 0 2%
0.96 96 0 0 4% Perm
551 551 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1849 0.87 1628 0.96 574 0 670 3% NA 6
6.5 6.5 0.09 4.5 3.0 151 c0.03 0.32 31.7 1.00 1.3 33.0 C 31.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
8 6.5 6.5 0.09 4.5 3.0 140 0.01 0.06 31.0 1.00 0.2 31.2 C
6 58.6 58.6 0.79 4.5 3.0 1459 0.27 0.34 2.2 1.00 0.6 2.8 A 2.8 A 6.8 0.50 74.1 75.1% 15
58.6 58.6 0.79 4.5 3.0 1287 c0.41 0.52 2.8 1.00 1.5 4.3 A 4.3 A HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBT
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
8 WBL
Max None Max 56 24 56 70.0% 70.0% 30.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 56 0 0 56 56 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 0 56 0 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
WBL 49 0.28 32.9 0.0 32.9 6.4 14.6 194.8 460 0 0 0 0.11
WBR 97 0.38 11.6 0.0 11.6 0.0 11.6 30.0 499 0 0 0 0.19
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
NBT 495 0.33 3.1 0.0 3.1 14.1 27.5 343.1
SBT 670 0.51 4.9 0.0 4.9 25.2 51.3 224.5
1506 0 0 0 0.33
1324 0 0 0 0.51
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
15 15
2 2 Stop 0% 0.87 2
237 237
7 7
1 1
241 241
0 0
0.87 1
0.87 277
0.87 7
0.87 0
41 41 Free 0% 0.87 47
6 6
0.87 8
47 47 Free 0% 0.87 54
6 6
0.87 272
0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0
0.87 17
0.87 7
13 None
None
663
666
50
663
666
58
54
61
663 7.1
666 6.5
50 6.2
663 7.1
666 6.5
58 6.2
54 4.1
61 4.1
3.5 95 323
4.0 99 312
3.3 73 1018
3.5 97 236
4.0 100 312
3.3 100 1009
2.2 82 1551
2.2 100 1542
EB 1 291 17 272 1089 0.27 8.2 10.3 B 10.3 B
WB 1 9 8 1 258 0.03 0.8 19.5 C 19.5 C
NB 1 338 277 7 1551 0.18 4.9 6.7 A 6.7
SB 1 54 0 7 1542 0.00 0.0 0.0
7.8 35.7% 15
0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
154 154
230 230 Free 0% 0.91 253
3 3
68 68
6 6
2 2
3 3
0.91 7
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 3
59 59 Stop 0% 0.91 65
86 86
0.91 75
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 3
195 195 Free 0% 0.91 214
0.91 95
0.91 169
None
None
221
256
1088
964
254
1048
962
218
221 4.1
256 4.1
1088 7.1
964 6.5
254 6.3
1048 7.1
962 6.5
218 6.2
2.2 87 1348
2.2 94 1309
3.5 98 114
4.0 73 210
3.4 92 774
3.5 98 131
4.0 69 211
3.3 88 817
EB 1 425 169 3 1348 0.13 3.3 3.9 A 3.9
WB 1 296 75 7 1309 0.06 1.4 2.4 A 2.4
NB 1 118 2 60 326 0.36 12.2 22.2 C 22.2 C 8.7 50.6% 15
SB 1 163 3 95 365 0.45 16.9 22.6 C 22.6 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
18 18
16 16 Stop 0% 0.90 18
30 30
41 41
116 116
28 28
86 86
0.90 129
0.90 31
0.90 69
0.90 96
225 225 Free 0% 0.90 250
23 23
0.90 46
309 309 Free 0% 0.90 343
62 62
0.90 33
45 45 Stop 0% 0.90 50
0.90 20
None
None
1048
929
263
936
908
378
276
412
1048 7.1
929 6.5
263 6.2
936 7.1
908 6.5
378 6.2
276 4.1
412 4.1
3.5 85 129
4.0 92 239
3.3 96 776
3.5 77 203
4.0 80 246
3.3 81 669
2.2 98 1287
2.2 92 1147
EB 1 71 20 33 260 0.27 8.2 23.9 C 23.9 C
WB 1 225 46 129 361 0.62 30.5 30.1 D 30.1 D
NB 1 443 31 69 1287 0.02 0.6 0.8 A 0.8
SB 1 372 96 26 1147 0.08 2.1 2.8 A 2.8
8.9 62.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.90 26
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
16 16 Stop 0% 0.88 18
97 97
126 126 0.88 143
22 22 Free 0% 0.88 25
20 20
0.88 110
30 30 Free 0% 0.88 34
None
None
356
36
48
356 6.4
36 6.2
48 4.1
3.5 97 583
3.3 89 1036
2.2 91 1559
EB 1 128 18 110 934 0.14 3.6 9.5 A 9.5 A
NB 1 177 143 0 1559 0.09 2.3 6.2 A 6.2
SB 1 48 0 23 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.88 23
0.0
6.6 28.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24
212 212 Stop 0% 0.99 214
38 38
11 11
211 211
40 40
148 148
0.99 213
0.99 40
0.99 24
0.99 149
36 36 Free 0% 0.99 36
20 20
0.99 11
120 120 Free 0% 0.99 121
24 24
0.99 38
224 224 Stop 0% 0.99 226
0.99 24
0.99 20
None
None 382 883
569
46
702
567
133
56
145
883 7.1
569 6.5
46 6.2
702 7.2
567 6.5
133 6.2
56 4.1
145 4.1
3.5 75 98
4.0 43 377
3.3 96 1015
3.6 93 166
4.0 40 378
3.3 77 916
2.2 97 1542
2.2 90 1437
EB 1 276 24 38 325 0.85 57.6 55.7 F 55.7 F
WB 1 450 11 213 502 0.90 77.1 47.5 E 47.5 E
NB 1 185 40 24 1542 0.03 0.6 1.8 A 1.8
SB 1 205 149 20 1437 0.10 2.6 5.9 A 5.9
34.3 58.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93 93
275 275 Free 0% 0.87 316
18 18
17 17
18 18
21 21
22 22
0.87 21
0.87 24
0.87 28
0.87 25
55 55 Stop 0% 0.87 63
245 245
0.87 20
30 30 Stop 0% 0.87 34
24 24
0.87 21
286 286 Free 0% 0.87 329
0.87 282
0.87 107
None
None
350
337
1234
930
326
965
930
340
350 4.2
337 4.1
1234 7.1
930 6.5
326 6.2
965 7.2
930 6.5
340 6.2
2.3 91 1182
2.2 98 1222
3.5 64 68
4.0 86 237
3.3 96 715
3.6 86 178
4.0 74 239
3.3 60 703
EB 1 444 107 21 1182 0.09 2.3 2.7 A 2.7
WB 1 370 20 21 1222 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 86 24 28 160 0.54 20.5 51.0 F 51.0 F 15.7 68.0% 15
SB 1 370 25 282 459 0.81 56.6 38.0 E 38.0 E
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
216 216
6 6 Stop 0% 0.89 7
64 64
26 26
23 23
11 11
8 8
0.89 26
0.89 12
0.89 10
0.89 9
462 462 Free 0% 0.89 519
199 199
0.89 29
240 240 Free 0% 0.89 270
9 9
0.89 72
65 65 Stop 0% 0.89 73
0.89 243
1010
953
631
1024
1060
275
743
280
1010 7.1
953 6.5
631 6.2
1024 7.1
1060 6.5
275 6.2
743 4.1
280 4.1
3.5 0 154
4.0 97 254
3.3 85 481
3.5 83 175
4.0 67 219
3.3 97 764
2.2 99 864
2.2 99 1283
EB 1 322 243 72 184 1.75 172.1 404.8 F 404.8 F
WB 1 128 29 26 240 0.53 21.6 35.8 E 35.8 E
NB 1 292 12 10 864 0.01 0.3 0.5 A 0.5
SB 1 752 9 224 1283 0.01 0.2 0.2 A 0.2
90.5 68.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.89 224
None
None
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
18 18
40 40 Stop 0% 0.89 45
44 44
68 68
19 19
25 25
41 41
0.89 21
0.89 28
0.89 15
0.89 46
96 96 Free 0% 0.89 108
25 25
0.89 76
121 121 Free 0% 0.89 136
13 13
0.89 49
25 25 Stop 0% 0.89 28
0.89 20
0.89 28
None
None
387 448
421
122
485
428
144
136
151
448 7.1
421 6.5
122 6.2
485 7.1
428 6.5
144 6.2
136 4.1
151 4.1
3.5 96 468
4.0 91 497
3.3 95 929
3.5 82 417
4.0 94 493
3.3 98 904
2.2 98 1448
2.2 97 1430
EB 1 114 20 49 613 0.19 5.2 12.2 B 12.2 B
WB 1 125 76 21 477 0.26 7.9 15.2 C 15.2 C
NB 1 179 28 15 1448 0.02 0.4 1.3 A 1.3
SB 1 182 46 28 1430 0.03 0.8 2.1 A 2.1
6.5 33.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93 93
275 275 Free 0% 0.91 302
18 18
17 17
18 18
21 21
22 22
0.91 20
0.91 23
0.91 26
0.91 24
55 55 Stop 0% 0.91 60 1 3.7 1.1 0
245 245
0.91 19
30 30 Stop 0% 0.91 33 5 3.7 1.1 0
24 24
0.91 20
286 286 Free 0% 0.91 314
0.91 269
0.91 102
None
None
335
327
1182
894
317
922
894
325
335 4.1
327 4.1
1182 7.1
894 6.5
317 6.2
922 7.1
894 6.5
325 6.2
2.2 92 1223
2.2 98 1227
3.5 71 78
4.0 87 252
3.3 96 720
3.5 88 201
4.0 76 252
3.3 62 715
EB 1 424 102 20 1223 0.08 2.1 2.6 A 2.6
WB 1 353 19 20 1227 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 82 23 26 178 0.46 16.5 41.6 E 41.6 E 12.8 68.0% 15
SB 1 353 24 269 481 0.73 45.7 30.4 D 30.4 D
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0
14 14
12 12 0.91 13
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 15
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
26
0
0
26 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 985
3.5 99 1021
2.8 99 1301
EB 1 15 0 15 1021 0.01 0.3 8.6 A 8.6 A
NB 1 13 13 0 1301 0.01 0.2 7.8 A 7.8
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.2 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
22 22
32 32 Stop 0% 0.92 35 11 3.7 1.1 1
23 23
68 68
142 142
23 23
137 137
0.92 154
0.92 25
0.92 53
0.92 149
300 300 Free 0% 0.92 326 7 3.7 1.1 1
23 23
0.92 74
256 256 Free 0% 0.92 278 102 3.7 1.1 10
49 49
0.92 25
47 47 Stop 0% 0.92 51 183 3.7 1.1 17
0.92 24
0.92 25
None
None
197 0.97 1162
0.97 1212
0.97 452
0.97 1306
0.97 1198
1151 7.1
1202 6.5
418 6.2
1300 7.1
3.5 58 57
4.0 71 119
3.3 95 551
EB 1 84 24 25 111 0.76 31.8 101.6 F 101.6 F
WB 1 279 74 154 135 2.07 172.2 561.4 F 561.4 F
NB 1 25 25 0 1184 0.02 0.5 8.1 A 0.6
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
136.9 55.0% 15
494
0.97 362
514
1188 6.5
494 6.2
326 4.1
514 4.1
3.5 0 56
4.0 58 121
3.3 67 473
2.2 98 1184
2.2 83 872
NB 2 331 0 53 1700 0.19 0.0 0.0
SB 1 149 149 0 872 0.17 4.7 10.0 A 3.0
SB 2 351 0 25 1700 0.21 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
16 16 Stop 0% 0.87 18
15 15
19 19 0.87 22
371 371 Free 0% 0.87 426
49 49
0.87 17
259 259 Free 0% 0.87 298
None
None
796
454
482
796 6.4
454 6.5
482 4.1
3.5 95 349
3.6 97 550
2.2 98 1081
EB 1 35 18 17 424 0.08 2.0 14.2 B 14.2 B
NB 1 320 22 0 1081 0.02 0.5 0.8 A 0.8
SB 1 482 0 56 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0
0.87 56
0.0
0.9 39.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
44 44
33 33 Stop 0% 0.75 44
16 16
23 23
47 47
52 52
17 17
0.75 63
0.75 69
0.75 73
0.75 23
52 52 Free 0% 0.75 69
21 21
0.75 31
78 78 Free 0% 0.75 104
55 55
0.75 21
52 52 Stop 0% 0.75 69
0.75 59
None
None
505
444
83
450
422
140
97
177
505 7.1
444 6.5
83 6.2
450 7.1
422 6.5
140 6.2
97 4.1
177 4.1
3.5 84 378
4.0 91 477
3.3 98 976
3.5 93 450
4.0 86 491
3.3 93 907
2.2 95 1496
2.2 98 1399
EB 1 124 59 21 460 0.27 8.2 15.7 C 15.7 C
WB 1 163 31 63 585 0.28 8.6 13.5 B 13.5 B
NB 1 246 69 73 1496 0.05 1.1 2.4 A 2.4
SB 1 120 23 28 1399 0.02 0.4 1.6 A 1.6
7.5 33.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 28
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
8.8 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
16 16 0.96 2 17 0
137 137 0.96 2 143 1
21 21 0.96 2 22 0
20 20 0.96 2 21 0
152 152 0.96 2 158 1
20 20 0.96 2 21 0
21 21 0.96 2 22 0
43 43 0.96 2 45 1
43 43 0.96 2 45 0
22 22 0.96 2 23 0
15 15 0.96 7 16 1
16 16 0.96 2 17 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 8.9 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.5 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.3 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 10% 42% 9% 20% 79% 79% 28% 40% 10% 30% 12% 40% Stop Stop Stop Stop 53 174 192 107 20 22 16 21 15 137 152 43 20 16 21 43 55 181 200 111 1 1 1 1 0.145 0.227 0.25 0.074 4.668 4.503 4.495 4.845 Yes Yes Yes Yes 798 796 737 767 2.89 2.707 2.536 2.527 0.145 0.227 0.251 0.075 9 8.3 8.9 8.5 A A A A 1 0.2 0.9 0.5
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
71 71 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.69 1221 0.94 76 0 76 9% Perm
43 43 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1759 1.00 1759 0.94 46 26 56 2% NA 4
34 34 1900
44 44 1900
0.94 36 0 0 2%
0.94 47 0 0 2% Perm
49 49 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1812 0.83 1536 0.94 52 0 99 5% NA 8
159 159 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 169 122 47 2% Perm
44 44 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.41 769 0.94 47 0 47 3% Perm
606 606 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 645 0 645 3% NA 2
17 17 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 18 8 10 2% Perm
150 150 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.30 545 0.94 160 0 160 4% Perm
459 459 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 488 0 488 5% NA 6
68 68 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 72 32 40 15% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 431
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 305
0.03 0.11 23.8 1.00 0.1 23.9 C
0.06 0.11 9.1 1.00 0.5 9.6 A
0.01 0.01 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.7 A
0.29 0.52 12.2 1.00 2.6 14.8 B
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 342 0.06 0.22 24.6 1.00 1.5 26.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 493 0.03
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 430 c0.06 0.23 24.6 1.00 0.3 25.0 C 24.3 C
0.11 23.8 1.00 0.5 24.3 C 25.2 C 16.3 0.49 89.1 77.8% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 c0.35 0.62 13.1 1.00 2.7 15.8 B 15.3 B
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 0.27 0.48 11.7 1.00 0.6 12.3 B 12.5 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.05 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.9 A
B 14.1 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None None Max 57 57 32.1 32.1 64.0% 36.0% 64.0% 36.0% 35 35 30.1 30.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 20 10 20 10 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 21 16 21 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 57 0 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66 0 57 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 76 0.22 26.8 0.0 26.8 9.9 21.0 150.0 342 0 0 0 0.22
EBT WBT 82 99 0.23 0.16 26.5 15.9 0.0 0.0 26.5 15.9 5.8 13.0 25.5 16.3 1366.5 1368.7 519 0 0 0 0.16
430 0 0 0 0.23
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
WBR 169 0.30 5.7 0.0 5.7 0.0 13.9
NBL 47 0.11 10.0 0.0 10.0 3.5 8.7
170.0 570 0 0 0 0.30
250.0 430 0 0 0 0.11
NBT 645 0.62 16.3 0.0 16.3 69.0 102.2 1562.1 1046 0 0 0 0.62
NBR 18 0.02 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4
SBL 160 0.52 19.9 0.0 19.9 15.8 35.6
135.0 920 0 0 0 0.02
200.0 305 0 0 0 0.52
SBT 488 0.48 13.6 0.0 13.6 46.5 70.0 1053.3 1026 0 0 0 0.48
SBR 72 0.09 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 5.4 200.0 828 0 0 0 0.09
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
95 95 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1869 1.00 1869 0.93 102 2 106 2% NA 4
6 6 1900
204 204 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.69 1179 0.93 219 0 219 12% Perm
152 152 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 163 0 163 2% NA 8
288 288 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 310 235 75 3% Perm
219 219 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1158 0.93 235 0 235 2% Perm
226 226 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 243 0 243 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
8 8 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1145 0.93 9 0 9 2% Perm
215 215 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 231 0 231 7% NA 6
126 126 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 135 52 83 11% Perm
8 23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 385
2 58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 710
0.05 0.20 28.9 1.00 0.2 29.1 C
c0.20 0.33 9.0 1.00 1.2 10.3 B
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 6 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
8 23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 286
23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 454 0.06
c0.19 0.77 33.8 1.00 11.6 45.3 D
0.23 29.1 1.00 0.3 29.4 C 29.4 C 21.0 0.45 95.9 68.6% 15
23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 457 0.09 0.36 30.1 1.00 0.5 30.6 C 34.6 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 702
58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 1061 0.14
0.01 0.01 7.2 1.00 0.0 7.3 A
0.23 8.3 1.00 0.5 8.9 A 9.5 A
58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 1100 0.13 0.21 8.2 1.00 0.4 8.7 A 8.3 A
6 58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 901 0.06 0.09 7.6 1.00 0.2 7.8 A
C 13.8 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 SETL
6 4 NBTL NWTL
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
8 SBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 57 38.9 38.9 57 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 39 38.9 38.9 39 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1 1 1 1 20 10 10 20 4.5 3 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 25 16 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 0 0 57 57 50.1 50.1 89 89 25.1 73 73 25.1 0 57 0 57 50.1 50.1 89 89 25.1 25.1 73 73
Intersection Summary 95.9 Cycle Length Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
NBT 108 0.24 27.4 0.0 27.4 15.5 25.7 530.8 625 0 0 0 0.17
SBL 219 0.77 50.1 0.0 50.1 37.4 56.3 100.0 393 0 0 0 0.56
SBT 163 0.36 30.5 0.0 30.5 24.8 37.4 249.9 628 0 0 0 0.26
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
SBR 310 0.50 5.9 0.0 5.9 0.0 17.1
SEL 235 0.33 12.3 0.0 12.3 19.8 42.3
100.0 735 0 0 0 0.42
200.0 709 0 0 0 0.33
SET 243 0.23 10.4 0.0 10.4 19.0 38.2 374.7 1060 0 0 0 0.23
NWL 9 0.01 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.6 3.0 200.0 701 0 0 0 0.01
NWT 231 0.21 10.2 0.0 10.2 17.8 36.1 359.2 1099 0 0 0 0.21
NWR 135 0.14 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 8.3 100.0 953 0 0 0 0.14
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
36 36 1900
435 435 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1808 0.95 1720 0.96 453 6 532 5% NA 2
45 45 1900
12 12 1900
16 16 1900
31 31 1900
24 24 1900
0.96 17 0 0 2%
0.96 32 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 18 0 0 2%
0.96 25 0 0 2% Perm
48 48 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.99 1781 0.94 1688 0.96 50 21 90 2% NA 4
35 35 1900
0.96 12 0 0 2% Perm
48 48 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1797 0.91 1653 0.96 50 10 90 2% NA 8
17 17 1900
0.96 47 0 0 3%
423 423 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1855 0.98 1820 0.96 441 2 469 3% NA 6
0.96 38 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
6
8
4
23.1 23.1 0.39 6.0 3.0 667
23.1 23.1 0.39 6.0 3.0 706
25.4 25.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 705
25.4 25.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 720
c0.31 0.80 16.1 1.00 6.6 22.7 C 22.7 C
0.26 0.66 15.0 1.00 2.4 17.4 B 17.4 B
c0.05 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.4 10.7 B 10.7 B
0.05 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.4 10.7 B 10.7 B
18.6 0.45 59.5 60.3% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 36 0 0 2%
B 11.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
None Max None Max 41 41 30 30 57.7% 42.3% 57.7% 42.3% 25 25 41 41 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 41 41 0 0 41 0 41 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10 0 41 41 0 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBT 538 0.80 25.3 0.0 25.3 48.5 78.9 123.3
WBT 471 0.67 19.5 0.0 19.5 39.8 64.1 258.1
NBT 100 0.14 11.9 0.0 11.9 5.1 16.9 366.5
SBT 111 0.15 10.3 0.0 10.3 4.6 16.5 390.1
1028 0 0 0 0.52
1085 0 0 0 0.43
712 0 0 0 0.14
739 0 0 0 0.15
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
36 36 1900
416 416 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1856 0.94 1744 0.94 443 2 512
31 31 1900
63 63 1900
22 22 1900
57 57 1900
20 20 1900
0.94 23 0 0 2
0.94 61 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 46 0 0 3
0.94 21 0 0 3 Perm
42 42 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1786 0.91 1651 0.94 45 11 74
18 18 1900
0.94 67 0 0 6 Perm
84 84 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 1774 0.89 1597 0.94 89 11 185
43 43 1900
0.94 33 0 0 6
424 424 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1858 0.86 1610 0.94 451 2 539
0.94 38 0 0 2 Perm
NA 6
6
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
NA 2
2
NA 8
NA 4
4
8
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 767
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 708
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 702
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 726
0.29 0.67 22.2 1.00 4.6 26.8 C 26.8 C
c0.33 0.76 23.6 1.00 7.6 31.2 C 31.2 C
c0.12 0.26 17.7 1.00 0.9 18.6 B 18.6 B
0.05 0.10 16.4 1.00 0.3 16.7 B 16.7 B
26.7 0.51 100.0 66.6% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 19 0 0 7
C 12.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
8 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max Max Max Max 50 50 50 50 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 24 24 28 26 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 20 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 15 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 50 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29 50 50 0 0 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 EBTL
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBT 514 0.67 27.3 0.0 27.3 76.3 112.5 258.1
WBT 541 0.76 32.0 0.0 32.0 85.6 128.2 647.5
NBT 196 0.27 17.2 0.0 17.2 20.9 36.2 153.3
SBT 85 0.12 13.5 0.0 13.5 7.3 16.1 103.2
769 0 0 0 0.67
709 0 0 0 0.76
713 0 0 0 0.27
737 0 0 0 0.12
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
171 171 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 265 0.89 192 0 192 2% pm+pt 5 2 40.2 40.2 0.51 5.0 3.0 351 c0.08 0.20 0.55 13.1 1.00 1.7 14.8 B
685 685 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.89 770 2 785 2% NA 2
15 15 1900
152 152 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.24 448 0.89 171 0 171 2% pm+pt 1 6 38.4 38.4 0.48 5.0 3.0 392 0.06 0.15 0.44 12.4 1.00 0.8 13.2 B
649 649 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3430 1.00 3430 0.89 729 32 913 3% NA 6
192 192 1900
124 124 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.47 888 0.89 139 0 139 2% Perm
133 133 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1711 1.00 1711 0.89 149 32 230 2% NA 4
101 101 1900
266 266 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.50 934 0.89 299 0 299 2% Perm
108 108 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 121 55 224 2% NA 8
141 141 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.89 17 0 0 2%
28.9 28.9 0.36 5.0 3.0 1299 0.22 0.60 20.5 1.00 2.1 22.6 C 21.1 C 28.3 0.82 79.3 78.1% 15
0.89 216 0 0 2%
28.0 28.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 1211 c0.27 0.75 22.6 1.00 2.7 25.3 C 23.5 C
4 25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 279 0.16 0.50 22.1 1.00 1.4 23.5 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 113 0 0 9%
8 25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 294
25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 539 0.13
c0.32 1.02 27.1 1.00 56.9 84.0 F
0.43 21.5 1.00 0.5 22.0 C 22.5 C
0.89 158 0 0 3%
25.0 25.0 0.32 5.0 3.0 540 0.13 0.41 21.4 1.00 0.5 21.9 C 54.0 D
C 15.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
2 6 4 8 5 1 WBL EBTL NBTL EBL WBTL SBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None None None None 33 33 20 20 30 30 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 15 15 33 33 26 26 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 15 28 28 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 10 10 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20 20 53 53 0 0 53 53 20 0 20 0 15 15 78 78 48 48 38 38 68 15 15 68 0 0 63 63 33 33 28 28 58 78 78 58 18 18 78 78 48 48 83 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 192 0.55 17.0 0.0 17.0 13.2 27.2 70.0 434 0 0 0 0.44
EBT 787 0.61 22.9 0.0 22.9 49.1 67.9 368.2 1298 0 0 0 0.61
WBL 171 0.43 12.7 0.0 12.7 11.6 20.2 120.0 496 0 0 0 0.34
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
WBT 945 0.76 26.5 0.0 26.5 59.9 88.1 68.4
NBL 139 0.50 30.0 0.0 30.0 16.4 35.7
NBT 262 0.46 21.1 0.0 21.1 24.5 47.8 306.6
1244 0 0 0 0.76
280 0 0 0 0.50
571 0 0 0 0.46
SBL 299 1.02 87.6 0.0 87.6 43.7 #97.6 30.0 294 0 0 0 1.02
SBT 279 0.47 18.5 0.0 18.5 22.3 45.9 418.3 596 0 0 0 0.47
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
291 291 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 188 0.95 306 0 306 2% pm+pt 1 6 52.1 52.1 0.47 5.0 3.0 262 c0.13 c0.42 1.17 32.1 1.00 108.8 140.8 F
684 684 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 720 0 720 2% NA 6
357 61 357 61 1900 1900 5.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1601 1722 1.00 0.11 1601 207 0.95 0.95 376 64 167 0 209 64 2% 6% Perm pm+pt 5 6 2 40.2 42.0 40.2 42.0 0.36 0.38 5.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 172 581 0.02 0.13 0.12 0.36 0.37 26.7 25.8 1.00 1.00 1.4 1.7 28.0 27.6 C C
697 697 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 734 0 734 2% NA 2
84 84 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 88 60 28 2% Perm
224 224 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.13 241 0.95 236 0 236 2% pm+pt 3 8 45.9 45.9 0.41 5.0 3.0 304 c0.10 0.22 0.78 25.4 1.00 11.7 37.1 D
199 199 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1819 1.00 1819 0.95 209 6 244 3% NA 8
39 39 1900
117 117 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.55 1022 0.95 123 0 123 3% pm+pt 7 4 37.3 37.3 0.34 5.0 3.0 414 0.03 0.07 0.30 26.2 1.00 0.4 26.6 C
205 205 1900 6.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1724 1.00 1724 0.95 216 33 404 3% NA 4
210 210 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
40.2 40.2 0.36 6.0 3.0 683 0.38 1.05 35.2 1.00 49.6 84.8 F 81.7 F
86.2 1.08 110.7 107.2% 15
35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 597 0.39 1.23 37.8 1.00 117.5 155.3 F 133.3 F
2 35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 507 0.02 0.06 26.3 1.00 0.2 26.5 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 41 0 0 3%
31.3 31.3 0.28 6.0 3.0 514 0.13 0.48 32.9 1.00 3.1 36.0 D 36.6 D
0.95 221 0 0 3%
27.0 27.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 420 c0.23 0.96 41.4 1.00 35.6 76.9 E 65.9 E
F 22.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
2 6 4 7 8 3 1 5 NBL SBTL WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None Max None Max None 40 40 33 17 17 23 23 33 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 33 33 33 13 13 13 13 33 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17 17 80 57 57 80 0 0 0 17 57 80 57 80 17 0 51 51 75 75 107 107 12 12 34 34 90 75 75 12 90 12 0 0 63 96 96 40 40 63 34 34 90 108 108 58 58 90 17 17 73 108 108 58 58 73 113 Semi Act-Uncoord 125
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 306 720 1.04 1.17 137.3 82.2 0.0 0.0 137.3 82.2 ~63.2 ~176.5 #122.7 #263.8 607.3 30.0 262 690 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.17 1.04
EBR 376 0.50 11.6 0.0 11.6 17.1 47.1 752 0 0 0 0.50
WBL WBT 64 734 0.32 1.26 21.4 162.9 0.0 0.0 21.4 162.9 7.3 ~198.1 15.5 #278.0 443.3 65.0 584 254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 1.26
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
WBR 88 0.15 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.0
NBL 236 0.77 40.6 0.0 40.6 32.2 58.7
583 0 0 0 0.15
100.0 358 0 0 0 0.66
NBT 250 0.48 35.3 0.0 35.3 42.6 69.1 278.0 523 0 0 0 0.48
SBL SBT 437 123 0.29 0.96 70.8 21.1 0.0 0.0 70.8 21.1 15.6 85.0 27.1 #152.4 268.1 300.0 456 546 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0.96
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
46 46 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.59 1028 0.97 47 0 47 10% Perm
185 185 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1851 1.00 1851 0.97 191 3 207 2% NA 8
18 18 1900
85 85 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 616 0.97 88 0 88 2% pm+pt 7 4 33.5 33.5 0.32 5.0 3.0 327 0.03 0.06 0.27 25.8 1.00 0.4 26.2 C
160 160 1900 6.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1769 1.00 1769 0.97 165 24 254 2% NA 4
110 110 1900
22 22 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.69 1293 0.97 23 0 23 2% Perm
139 139 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1792 1.00 1792 0.97 143 12 199 2% NA 2
66 66 1900
45 45 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.53 987 0.97 46 0 46 4% pm+pt 1 6 58.7 58.7 0.56 5.0 3.0 631 0.01 0.03 0.07 10.5 1.00 0.0 10.5 B
83 83 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.97 86 8 101 2% NA 6
22 22 1900
8 17.0 17.0 0.16 6.0 3.0 167 0.05 0.28 38.2 1.00 0.9 39.2 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.97 19 0 0 6%
17.0 17.0 0.16 6.0 3.0 301 c0.11 0.69 41.1 1.00 6.4 47.5 D 45.9 D 28.2 0.37 104.2 80.0% 15
0.97 113 0 0 2%
33.5 33.5 0.32 6.0 3.0 568 c0.14 0.45 28.0 1.00 0.6 28.6 C 28.0 C
2 43.4 43.4 0.42 6.0 3.0 538 0.02 0.04 18.1 1.00 0.1 18.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 68 0 0 2%
43.4 43.4 0.42 6.0 3.0 746 c0.11 0.27 20.0 1.00 0.9 20.8 C 20.6 C
0.97 23 0 0 2%
58.7 58.7 0.56 6.0 3.0 1027 c0.06 0.10 10.5 1.00 0.2 10.7 B 10.6 B
C 22.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
PM Peak Hour
4 7 2 8 1 6 SBL NBTL WBTL SBTL WBL EBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None None None 23 25 62 31 48 31 28.2% 28.2% 43.6% 56.4% 20.9% 22.7% 32 23 21 32 31 31 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 15 25 15 15 25 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 7 18 8 8 8 8 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 62 62 31 0 85 0 0 62 85 62 31 0 80 26 104 56 104 56 96 48 80 96 48 26 0 31 31 79 54 79 73 105 49 25 73 25 105 65 49 65 17 17
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
Splits and Phases:
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 47 0.27 43.1 0.0 43.1 8.5 19.4 50.0 195 0 0 0 0.24
EBT 210 0.67 51.1 0.0 51.1 40.2 64.3 648.3 354 0 0 0 0.59
WBL 88 0.23 24.2 0.0 24.2 11.9 22.6 60.0 417 0 0 0 0.21
WBT 278 0.47 25.7 0.0 25.7 37.1 59.5 112.7 763 0 0 0 0.36
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
NBL 23 0.04 25.5 0.0 25.5 3.3 9.4 50.0 556 0 0 0 0.04
NBT 211 0.27 23.4 0.0 23.4 29.8 51.0 118.6 782 0 0 0 0.27
SBL 46 0.07 12.0 0.0 12.0 4.2 9.9 30.0 762 0 0 0 0.06
SBT 109 0.11 10.7 0.0 10.7 8.7 17.8 52.7 1028 0 0 0 0.11
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
33 33 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.47 854 0.91 36 0 36 5% Perm
253 253 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.91 278 4 292 2% NA 4
16 16 1900
166 166 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.44 830 0.91 182 0 182 2% pm+pt 3 4 22.3 22.3 0.35 2.0 3.0 391 c0.05 0.11 0.47 15.4 1.00 0.9 16.3 B
238 238 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.91 262 5 277 2% NA 4
18 18 1900
72 72 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1166 0.91 79 0 79 2% Perm
134 134 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1685 1.00 1685 0.91 147 93 343 4% NA 2
263 263 1900
22 22 1900
0.91 289 0 0 2%
0.91 24 0 0 2% Perm
181 181 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1873 0.93 1756 0.91 199 0 223 2% NA 2
26 26 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 29 16 13 3% Perm
4 15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 202 0.04 0.18 19.5 1.00 0.4 20.0 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.91 18 0 0 3%
15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 443 c0.16 0.66 22.2 1.00 3.5 25.7 C 25.1 C 18.6 0.52 64.4 79.2% 15
0.91 20 0 0 33%
15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 433 0.15 0.64 22.1 1.00 3.2 25.3 C 21.8 C
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 508 0.07 0.16 11.0 1.00 0.7 11.6 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 766
28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 735 c0.20
0.13 0.29 11.7 1.00 1.0 12.7 B 12.4 B
0.47 12.8 1.00 2.1 15.0 B 14.5 B
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 691 0.01 0.02 10.3 1.00 0.0 10.4 B
B 14.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
3 4 WBL EBWB Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 28 9 12.7% 39.4% 28 9 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 Yes No Yes Yes 43 34 43 0 41 65 41 58 43 34 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 36 0.18 21.1 0.0 21.1 3.4 9.7 180.0 292 0 0 0 0.12
EBT 296 0.67 29.4 0.0 29.4 31.3 52.9 138.6 643 0 0 0 0.46
WBL 182 0.41 14.0 0.0 14.0 12.8 23.4 20.0 443 0 0 0 0.41
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
WBT 282 0.65 28.7 0.0 28.7 29.5 50.5 145.1
NBL 79 0.16 13.6 0.0 13.6 5.4 15.0
NBT 436 0.53 11.5 0.0 11.5 20.5 51.7 388.0
SBT 223 0.29 14.2 0.0 14.2 16.2 35.2 574.8
629 0 0 0 0.45
508 0 0 0 0.16
829 0 0 0 0.53
765 0 0 0 0.29
SBR 29 0.04 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 30.0 735 0 0 0 0.04
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900
174 174 1900 6.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1758 0.88 1560 0.95 183 13 285 5% NA 4
56 56 1900
31 31 1900
24 24 1900
0.95 59 0 0 2%
0.95 33 0 0 24% Perm
148 148 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1691 0.89 1511 0.95 156 7 207 9% NA 8
89 89 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.50 926 0.95 94 0 94 3% Perm
93 93 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 98 0 98 9% NA 2
140 140 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 147 64 83 17% Perm
157 157 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.69 1281 0.95 165 0 165 4% Perm
387 387 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 407 0 407 6% NA 6
104 104 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 109 47 62 6% Perm
2 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 789
6 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 724
0.06 0.11 7.1 1.00 0.3 7.4 A
0.13 0.23 7.7 1.00 0.7 8.4 A
0.95 56 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.95 25 0 0 6%
8 17.4 17.4 0.24 6.5 3.0 381
17.4 17.4 0.24 6.5 3.0 369
c0.18 0.75 24.8 1.00 7.8 32.7 C 32.7 C
0.14 0.56 23.5 1.00 2.0 25.5 C 25.5 C 15.6 0.50 71.1 76.4% 15
2 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 523 0.10 0.18 7.5 1.00 0.8 8.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 996 0.06 0.10 7.1 1.00 0.2 7.3 A 7.6 A
40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 1024 c0.22 0.40 8.7 1.00 1.2 9.8 A 9.1 A
6 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 871 0.04 0.07 7.0 1.00 0.2 7.2 A
B 13.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
2 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 47 47 31.5 31.5 59.9% 40.1% 59.9% 40.1% 30 30 30 30 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 20 10 10 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 5 16 11 11 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 47 47 0 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 298 0.76 36.1 0.0 36.1 34.6 59.0 544.5
WBT 214 0.57 28.5 0.0 28.5 23.8 42.5 206.8
561 0 0 0 0.53
539 0 0 0 0.40
NBL 94 0.18 10.2 0.0 10.2 5.5 15.6 75.0 523 0 0 0 0.18
NBT 98 0.10 8.9 0.0 8.9 5.5 14.4 173.0 995 0 0 0 0.10
NBR 147 0.17 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 8.0
SBL 165 0.23 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 24.3
50.0 852 0 0 0 0.17
130.0 724 0 0 0 0.23
SBT 407 0.40 11.2 0.0 11.2 27.7 57.0 418.3 1023 0 0 0 0.40
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
SBR 109 0.12 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 6.9 100.0 917 0 0 0 0.12
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
40 40 1900
141 141 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1760 0.87 1537 0.86 164 12 247 4% NA 4
41 41 1900
132 132 1900
101 101 1900
365 365 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1751 1.00 1751 0.86 424 15 539 7% NA 2
107 107 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 625 0.86 124 0 124 2% Perm
415 415 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1778 1.00 1778 0.86 483 7 545 3% NA 6
59 59 1900
0.86 153 0 0 5% Perm
26 26 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 628 0.86 30 0 30 2% Perm
112 112 1900
0.86 48 0 0 2%
142 142 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1765 0.75 1355 0.86 165 19 416 2% NA 8
0.86 47 0 0 14% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.86 117 0 0 2%
8 23.7 23.7 0.33 5.5 3.0 513
23.7 23.7 0.33 5.5 3.0 452
0.16 0.48 18.8 1.00 0.7 19.5 B 19.5 B
c0.31 0.92 22.7 1.00 23.6 46.3 D 46.3 D 22.5 0.73 71.0 109.7% 15
2 36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 321 0.05 0.09 8.9 1.00 0.6 9.5 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 130 0 0 2%
6 36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 319
36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 895 c0.31
0.20 0.39 10.6 1.00 3.5 14.1 B
0.60 12.3 1.00 3.0 15.2 B 14.9 B
0.86 69 0 0 27%
36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 909 0.31 0.60 12.2 1.00 2.9 15.1 B 15.0 B
C 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 35 65.5 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 25 55.5 55.5
Intersection Summary 71 Cycle Length Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBT 259 0.49 20.8 0.0 20.8 24.2 41.0 158.8
WBT 435 0.92 49.2 0.0 49.2 50.0 #93.1 158.6
NBL 30 0.09 10.7 0.0 10.7 2.0 5.9
NBT 554 0.61 15.6 0.0 15.6 48.0 72.3 321.6
552 0 0 0 0.47
495 0 0 0 0.88
320 0 0 0 0.09
910 0 0 0 0.61
SBL 124 0.39 15.9 0.0 15.9 9.8 21.2 50.0 319 0 0 0 0.39
SBT 552 0.60 15.9 0.0 15.9 49.1 73.3 760.4 914 0 0 0 0.60
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
100 100 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.72 1355 0.93 108 0 108 2% Perm
17 17 1900 5.5 1.00 0.86 1.00 1591 1.00 1591 0.93 18 199 62 2% NA 4
226 226 1900
22 22 1900
17 17 1900
385 385 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1872 1.00 1872 0.93 414 2 430 2% NA 2
43 43 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.49 811 0.93 46 0 46 17% Perm
390 390 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.93 419 7 489 3% NA 6
72 72 1900
0.93 24 0 0 2% Perm
120 120 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.45 841 0.93 129 0 129 2% Perm
17 17 1900
0.93 243 0 0 4%
15 15 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1768 0.67 1206 0.93 16 15 43 2% NA 8
4 10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 245 c0.08 0.44 20.5 1.00 1.3 21.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.93 18 0 0 2%
8 10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 218
10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 288 0.04
0.04 0.20 19.6 1.00 0.4 20.0 C 20.0 C
0.22 19.6 1.00 0.4 20.0 C 20.5 C 10.2 0.43 56.3 94.4% 15
2 35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 524 0.15 0.25 4.7 1.00 1.1 5.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 18 0 0 2%
6 35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 505
35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 1167 0.23
0.06 0.09 4.2 1.00 0.4 4.6 A
0.37 5.2 1.00 0.9 6.1 A 6.0 A
0.93 77 0 0 2%
35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 1137 c0.27 0.43 5.5 1.00 1.2 6.6 A 6.5 A
B 11.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 108 0.44 26.4 0.0 26.4 9.9 21.7 30.0 602 0 0 0 0.18
EBT 261 0.54 8.6 0.0 8.6 1.5 16.8 1201.3
WBT 58 0.25 17.5 0.0 17.5 3.5 11.5 482.8
843 0 0 0 0.31
546 0 0 0 0.11
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
NBL 129 0.25 6.8 0.0 6.8 4.7 14.1 50.0 524 0 0 0 0.25
NBT 432 0.37 6.7 0.0 6.7 17.2 37.6 440.8 1168 0 0 0 0.37
SBL 46 0.09 5.5 0.0 5.5 1.5 5.6 35.0 505 0 0 0 0.09
SBT 496 0.43 7.1 0.0 7.1 20.1 44.3 214.1 1144 0 0 0 0.43
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
47 47 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.95 1722 0.96 49 0 49 6% Prot 8
93 93 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 97 88 9 2% Perm
403 403 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.96 420 5 490 2% NA 2
72 72 1900
92 92 1900
0.96 75 0 0 2%
0.96 96 0 0 4% Perm
551 551 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1849 0.87 1628 0.96 574 0 670 3% NA 6
6.5 6.5 0.09 4.5 3.0 151 c0.03 0.32 31.7 1.00 1.3 33.0 C 31.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
8 6.5 6.5 0.09 4.5 3.0 140 0.01 0.06 31.0 1.00 0.2 31.2 C
6 58.6 58.6 0.79 4.5 3.0 1459 0.27 0.34 2.2 1.00 0.6 2.8 A 2.8 A 6.8 0.50 74.1 75.1% 15
58.6 58.6 0.79 4.5 3.0 1287 c0.41 0.52 2.8 1.00 1.5 4.3 A 4.3 A HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBT
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
8 WBL
Max None Max 56 24 56 70.0% 70.0% 30.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 56 0 0 56 56 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 0 56 0 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
WBL 49 0.28 32.9 0.0 32.9 6.4 14.6 194.8 460 0 0 0 0.11
WBR 97 0.38 11.6 0.0 11.6 0.0 11.6 30.0 499 0 0 0 0.19
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
NBT 495 0.33 3.1 0.0 3.1 14.1 27.5 343.1
SBT 670 0.51 4.9 0.0 4.9 25.2 51.3 224.5
1506 0 0 0 0.33
1324 0 0 0 0.51
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
15 15
2 2 Stop 0% 0.87 2
237 237
7 7
1 1
241 241
0 0
0.87 1
0.87 277
0.87 7
0.87 0
41 41 Free 0% 0.87 47
6 6
0.87 8
47 47 Free 0% 0.87 54
6 6
0.87 272
0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0
0.87 17
0.87 7
13 None
None
663
666
50
663
666
58
54
61
663 7.1
666 6.5
50 6.2
663 7.1
666 6.5
58 6.2
54 4.1
61 4.1
3.5 95 323
4.0 99 312
3.3 73 1018
3.5 97 236
4.0 100 312
3.3 100 1009
2.2 82 1551
2.2 100 1542
EB 1 291 17 272 1089 0.27 8.2 10.3 B 10.3 B
WB 1 9 8 1 258 0.03 0.8 19.5 C 19.5 C
NB 1 338 277 7 1551 0.18 4.9 6.7 A 6.7
SB 1 54 0 7 1542 0.00 0.0 0.0
7.8 35.7% 15
0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
154 154
230 230 Free 0% 0.91 253
3 3
68 68
6 6
2 2
3 3
0.91 7
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 3
59 59 Stop 0% 0.91 65
86 86
0.91 75
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 3
195 195 Free 0% 0.91 214
0.91 95
0.91 169
None
None
221
256
1088
964
254
1048
962
218
221 4.1
256 4.1
1088 7.1
964 6.5
254 6.3
1048 7.1
962 6.5
218 6.2
2.2 87 1348
2.2 94 1309
3.5 98 114
4.0 73 210
3.4 92 774
3.5 98 131
4.0 69 211
3.3 88 817
EB 1 425 169 3 1348 0.13 3.3 3.9 A 3.9
WB 1 296 75 7 1309 0.06 1.4 2.4 A 2.4
NB 1 118 2 60 326 0.36 12.2 22.2 C 22.2 C 8.7 50.6% 15
SB 1 163 3 95 365 0.45 16.9 22.6 C 22.6 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
18 18
16 16 Stop 0% 0.90 18
30 30
41 41
116 116
28 28
86 86
0.90 129
0.90 31
0.90 69
0.90 96
225 225 Free 0% 0.90 250
23 23
0.90 46
309 309 Free 0% 0.90 343
62 62
0.90 33
45 45 Stop 0% 0.90 50
0.90 20
None
None
1048
929
263
936
908
378
276
412
1048 7.1
929 6.5
263 6.2
936 7.1
908 6.5
378 6.2
276 4.1
412 4.1
3.5 85 129
4.0 92 239
3.3 96 776
3.5 77 203
4.0 80 246
3.3 81 669
2.2 98 1287
2.2 92 1147
EB 1 71 20 33 260 0.27 8.2 23.9 C 23.9 C
WB 1 225 46 129 361 0.62 30.5 30.1 D 30.1 D
NB 1 443 31 69 1287 0.02 0.6 0.8 A 0.8
SB 1 372 96 26 1147 0.08 2.1 2.8 A 2.8
8.9 62.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.90 26
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
16 16 Stop 0% 0.88 18
97 97
126 126 0.88 143
22 22 Free 0% 0.88 25
20 20
0.88 110
30 30 Free 0% 0.88 34
None
None
356
36
48
356 6.4
36 6.2
48 4.1
3.5 97 583
3.3 89 1036
2.2 91 1559
EB 1 128 18 110 934 0.14 3.6 9.5 A 9.5 A
NB 1 177 143 0 1559 0.09 2.3 6.2 A 6.2
SB 1 48 0 23 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.88 23
0.0
6.6 28.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24
212 212 Stop 0% 0.99 214
38 38
11 11
211 211
40 40
148 148
0.99 213
0.99 40
0.99 24
0.99 149
36 36 Free 0% 0.99 36
20 20
0.99 11
120 120 Free 0% 0.99 121
24 24
0.99 38
224 224 Stop 0% 0.99 226
0.99 24
0.99 20
None
None 382 883
569
46
702
567
133
56
145
883 7.1
569 6.5
46 6.2
702 7.2
567 6.5
133 6.2
56 4.1
145 4.1
3.5 75 98
4.0 43 377
3.3 96 1015
3.6 93 166
4.0 40 378
3.3 77 916
2.2 97 1542
2.2 90 1437
EB 1 276 24 38 325 0.85 57.6 55.7 F 55.7 F
WB 1 450 11 213 502 0.90 77.1 47.5 E 47.5 E
NB 1 185 40 24 1542 0.03 0.6 1.8 A 1.8
SB 1 205 149 20 1437 0.10 2.6 5.9 A 5.9
34.3 58.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93 93
275 275 Free 0% 0.87 316
18 18
17 17
18 18
21 21
22 22
0.87 21
0.87 24
0.87 28
0.87 25
55 55 Stop 0% 0.87 63
245 245
0.87 20
30 30 Stop 0% 0.87 34
24 24
0.87 21
286 286 Free 0% 0.87 329
0.87 282
0.87 107
None
None
350
337
1234
930
326
965
930
340
350 4.2
337 4.1
1234 7.1
930 6.5
326 6.2
965 7.2
930 6.5
340 6.2
2.3 91 1182
2.2 98 1222
3.5 64 68
4.0 86 237
3.3 96 715
3.6 86 178
4.0 74 239
3.3 60 703
EB 1 444 107 21 1182 0.09 2.3 2.7 A 2.7
WB 1 370 20 21 1222 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 86 24 28 160 0.54 20.5 51.0 F 51.0 F 15.7 68.0% 15
SB 1 370 25 282 459 0.81 56.6 38.0 E 38.0 E
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
216 216
6 6 Stop 0% 0.89 7
64 64
26 26
23 23
11 11
8 8
0.89 26
0.89 12
0.89 10
0.89 9
462 462 Free 0% 0.89 519
199 199
0.89 29
240 240 Free 0% 0.89 270
9 9
0.89 72
65 65 Stop 0% 0.89 73
0.89 243
1010
953
631
1024
1060
275
743
280
1010 7.1
953 6.5
631 6.2
1024 7.1
1060 6.5
275 6.2
743 4.1
280 4.1
3.5 0 154
4.0 97 254
3.3 85 481
3.5 83 175
4.0 67 219
3.3 97 764
2.2 99 864
2.2 99 1283
EB 1 322 243 72 184 1.75 172.1 404.8 F 404.8 F
WB 1 128 29 26 240 0.53 21.6 35.8 E 35.8 E
NB 1 292 12 10 864 0.01 0.3 0.5 A 0.5
SB 1 752 9 224 1283 0.01 0.2 0.2 A 0.2
90.5 68.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.89 224
None
None
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
18 18
40 40 Stop 0% 0.89 45
44 44
68 68
19 19
25 25
41 41
0.89 21
0.89 28
0.89 15
0.89 46
96 96 Free 0% 0.89 108
25 25
0.89 76
121 121 Free 0% 0.89 136
13 13
0.89 49
25 25 Stop 0% 0.89 28
0.89 20
0.89 28
None
None
387 448
421
122
485
428
144
136
151
448 7.1
421 6.5
122 6.2
485 7.1
428 6.5
144 6.2
136 4.1
151 4.1
3.5 96 468
4.0 91 497
3.3 95 929
3.5 82 417
4.0 94 493
3.3 98 904
2.2 98 1448
2.2 97 1430
EB 1 114 20 49 613 0.19 5.2 12.2 B 12.2 B
WB 1 125 76 21 477 0.26 7.9 15.2 C 15.2 C
NB 1 179 28 15 1448 0.02 0.4 1.3 A 1.3
SB 1 182 46 28 1430 0.03 0.8 2.1 A 2.1
6.5 33.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93 93
275 275 Free 0% 0.91 302
18 18
17 17
18 18
21 21
22 22
0.91 20
0.91 23
0.91 26
0.91 24
55 55 Stop 0% 0.91 60 1 3.7 1.1 0
245 245
0.91 19
30 30 Stop 0% 0.91 33 5 3.7 1.1 0
24 24
0.91 20
286 286 Free 0% 0.91 314
0.91 269
0.91 102
None
None
335
327
1182
894
317
922
894
325
335 4.1
327 4.1
1182 7.1
894 6.5
317 6.2
922 7.1
894 6.5
325 6.2
2.2 92 1223
2.2 98 1227
3.5 71 78
4.0 87 252
3.3 96 720
3.5 88 201
4.0 76 252
3.3 62 715
EB 1 424 102 20 1223 0.08 2.1 2.6 A 2.6
WB 1 353 19 20 1227 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 82 23 26 178 0.46 16.5 41.6 E 41.6 E 12.8 68.0% 15
SB 1 353 24 269 481 0.73 45.7 30.4 D 30.4 D
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0
14 14
12 12 0.91 13
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 15
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
26
0
0
26 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 985
3.5 99 1021
2.8 99 1301
EB 1 15 0 15 1021 0.01 0.3 8.6 A 8.6 A
NB 1 13 13 0 1301 0.01 0.2 7.8 A 7.8
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.2 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
22 22
32 32 Stop 0% 0.92 35 11 3.7 1.1 1
23 23
68 68
142 142
23 23
137 137
0.92 154
0.92 25
0.92 53
0.92 149
300 300 Free 0% 0.92 326 7 3.7 1.1 1
23 23
0.92 74
256 256 Free 0% 0.92 278 102 3.7 1.1 10
49 49
0.92 25
47 47 Stop 0% 0.92 51 183 3.7 1.1 17
0.92 24
0.92 25
None
None
197 0.97 1162
0.97 1212
0.97 452
0.97 1306
0.97 1198
1151 7.1
1202 6.5
418 6.2
1300 7.1
3.5 58 57
4.0 71 119
3.3 95 551
EB 1 84 24 25 111 0.76 31.8 101.6 F 101.6 F
WB 1 279 74 154 135 2.07 172.2 561.4 F 561.4 F
NB 1 25 25 0 1184 0.02 0.5 8.1 A 0.6
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
136.9 55.0% 15
494
0.97 362
514
1188 6.5
494 6.2
326 4.1
514 4.1
3.5 0 56
4.0 58 121
3.3 67 473
2.2 98 1184
2.2 83 872
NB 2 331 0 53 1700 0.19 0.0 0.0
SB 1 149 149 0 872 0.17 4.7 10.0 A 3.0
SB 2 351 0 25 1700 0.21 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
16 16 Stop 0% 0.87 18
15 15
19 19 0.87 22
371 371 Free 0% 0.87 426
49 49
0.87 17
259 259 Free 0% 0.87 298
None
None
796
454
482
796 6.4
454 6.5
482 4.1
3.5 95 349
3.6 97 550
2.2 98 1081
EB 1 35 18 17 424 0.08 2.0 14.2 B 14.2 B
NB 1 320 22 0 1081 0.02 0.5 0.8 A 0.8
SB 1 482 0 56 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0
0.87 56
0.0
0.9 39.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
44 44
33 33 Stop 0% 0.75 44
16 16
23 23
47 47
52 52
17 17
0.75 63
0.75 69
0.75 73
0.75 23
52 52 Free 0% 0.75 69
21 21
0.75 31
78 78 Free 0% 0.75 104
55 55
0.75 21
52 52 Stop 0% 0.75 69
0.75 59
None
None
505
444
83
450
422
140
97
177
505 7.1
444 6.5
83 6.2
450 7.1
422 6.5
140 6.2
97 4.1
177 4.1
3.5 84 378
4.0 91 477
3.3 98 976
3.5 93 450
4.0 86 491
3.3 93 907
2.2 95 1496
2.2 98 1399
EB 1 124 59 21 460 0.27 8.2 15.7 C 15.7 C
WB 1 163 31 63 585 0.28 8.6 13.5 B 13.5 B
NB 1 246 69 73 1496 0.05 1.1 2.4 A 2.4
SB 1 120 23 28 1399 0.02 0.4 1.6 A 1.6
7.5 33.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 28
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
8.8 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
16 16 0.96 2 17 0
137 137 0.96 2 143 1
21 21 0.96 2 22 0
20 20 0.96 2 21 0
152 152 0.96 2 158 1
20 20 0.96 2 21 0
21 21 0.96 2 22 0
43 43 0.96 2 45 1
43 43 0.96 2 45 0
22 22 0.96 2 23 0
15 15 0.96 7 16 1
16 16 0.96 2 17 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 8.9 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.5 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.3 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 10% 42% 9% 20% 79% 79% 28% 40% 10% 30% 12% 40% Stop Stop Stop Stop 53 174 192 107 20 22 16 21 15 137 152 43 20 16 21 43 55 181 200 111 1 1 1 1 0.145 0.227 0.25 0.074 4.668 4.503 4.495 4.845 Yes Yes Yes Yes 798 796 737 767 2.89 2.707 2.536 2.527 0.145 0.227 0.251 0.075 9 8.3 8.9 8.5 A A A A 1 0.2 0.9 0.5
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
71 71 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.69 1221 0.94 76 0 76 9% Perm
43 43 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1759 1.00 1759 0.94 46 26 56 2% NA 4
34 34 1900
44 44 1900
0.94 36 0 0 2%
0.94 47 0 0 2% Perm
49 49 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1812 0.83 1536 0.94 52 0 99 5% NA 8
159 159 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 169 122 47 2% Perm
44 44 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.41 769 0.94 47 0 47 3% Perm
606 606 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 645 0 645 3% NA 2
17 17 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 18 8 10 2% Perm
150 150 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.30 545 0.94 160 0 160 4% Perm
459 459 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 488 0 488 5% NA 6
68 68 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 72 32 40 15% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 431
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 305
0.03 0.11 23.8 1.00 0.1 23.9 C
0.06 0.11 9.1 1.00 0.5 9.6 A
0.01 0.01 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.7 A
0.29 0.52 12.2 1.00 2.6 14.8 B
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 342 0.06 0.22 24.6 1.00 1.5 26.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 493 0.03
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 430 c0.06 0.23 24.6 1.00 0.3 25.0 C 24.3 C
0.11 23.8 1.00 0.5 24.3 C 25.2 C 16.3 0.49 89.1 77.8% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 c0.35 0.62 13.1 1.00 2.7 15.8 B 15.3 B
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 0.27 0.48 11.7 1.00 0.6 12.3 B 12.5 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.05 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.9 A
B 14.1 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 57 64.0% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 0 57 50 29 0 50 29
Max 32.1 36.0% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57 0 82 66 57 82 66
None 57 64.0% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 0 57 50 29 0 50 29
None 32.1 36.0% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57 0 82 66 57 82 66
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
15 15
2 2 Stop 0% 0.87 2
237 237
7 7
1 1
241 241
0 0
0.87 1
0.87 277
0.87 7
0.87 0
41 41 Free 0% 0.87 47
6 6
0.87 8
47 47 Free 0% 0.87 54
6 6
0.87 272
0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0
0.87 17
0.87 7
13 None
None
663
666
50
663
666
58
54
61
663 7.1
666 6.5
50 6.2
663 7.1
666 6.5
58 6.2
54 4.1
61 4.1
3.5 95 323
4.0 99 312
3.3 73 1018
3.5 97 236
4.0 100 312
3.3 100 1009
2.2 82 1551
2.2 100 1542
EB 1 291 17 272 1089 0.27 8.2 10.3 B 10.3 B
WB 1 9 8 1 258 0.03 0.8 19.5 C 19.5 C
NB 1 338 277 7 1551 0.18 4.9 6.7 A 6.7
SB 1 54 0 7 1542 0.00 0.0 0.0
7.8 35.7% 15
0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
95 95 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1869 1.00 1869 0.93 102 2 106 2% NA 4
6 6 1900
204 204 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.69 1179 0.93 219 0 219 12% Perm
152 152 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 163 0 163 2% NA 8
288 288 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 310 235 75 3% Perm
219 219 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1158 0.93 235 0 235 2% Perm
226 226 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 243 0 243 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
8 8 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1145 0.93 9 0 9 2% Perm
215 215 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 231 0 231 7% NA 6
126 126 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 135 52 83 11% Perm
8 23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 385
2 58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 710
0.05 0.20 28.9 1.00 0.2 29.1 C
c0.20 0.33 9.0 1.00 1.2 10.3 B
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 6 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8 23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 286
23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 454 0.06
c0.19 0.77 33.8 1.00 11.6 45.3 D
0.23 29.1 1.00 0.3 29.4 C 29.4 C 21.0 0.45 95.9 68.6% 15
23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 457 0.09 0.36 30.1 1.00 0.5 30.6 C 34.6 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 702
58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 1061 0.14
0.01 0.01 7.2 1.00 0.0 7.3 A
0.23 8.3 1.00 0.5 8.9 A 9.5 A
58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 1100 0.13 0.21 8.2 1.00 0.4 8.7 A 8.3 A
6 58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 901 0.06 0.09 7.6 1.00 0.2 7.8 A
C 13.8 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
2 SETL
4 NBTL
6 NWTL
8 SBTL
C-Max 57 59.4% 39 5.9 1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 25 Yes Yes 0 57 50.1 25.1 0 50.1 25.1
None C-Max 38.9 57 40.6% 59.4% 38.9 39 5.9 5.9 1 1 10 20 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 7 7 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes 57 0 0 57 89 50.1 73 25.1 57 0 89 50.1 73 25.1
None 38.9 40.6% 38.9 5.9 1 10 3 4.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57 0 89 73 57 89 73
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 95.9 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
154 154
230 230 Free 0% 0.91 253
3 3
68 68
6 6
2 2
3 3
0.91 7
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 3
59 59 Stop 0% 0.91 65
86 86
0.91 75
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 3
195 195 Free 0% 0.91 214
0.91 95
0.91 169
None
None
221
256
1088
964
254
1048
962
218
221 4.1
256 4.1
1088 7.1
964 6.5
254 6.3
1048 7.1
962 6.5
218 6.2
2.2 87 1348
2.2 94 1309
3.5 98 114
4.0 73 210
3.4 92 774
3.5 98 131
4.0 69 211
3.3 88 817
EB 1 425 169 3 1348 0.13 3.3 3.9 A 3.9
WB 1 296 75 7 1309 0.06 1.4 2.4 A 2.4
NB 1 118 2 60 326 0.36 12.2 22.2 C 22.2 C 8.7 50.6% 15
SB 1 163 3 95 365 0.45 16.9 22.6 C 22.6 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
18 18
16 16 Stop 0% 0.90 18
30 30
41 41
116 116
28 28
86 86
0.90 129
0.90 31
0.90 69
0.90 96
225 225 Free 0% 0.90 250
23 23
0.90 46
309 309 Free 0% 0.90 343
62 62
0.90 33
45 45 Stop 0% 0.90 50
0.90 20
None
None
1048
929
263
936
908
378
276
412
1048 7.1
929 6.5
263 6.2
936 7.1
908 6.5
378 6.2
276 4.1
412 4.1
3.5 85 129
4.0 92 239
3.3 96 776
3.5 77 203
4.0 80 246
3.3 81 669
2.2 98 1287
2.2 92 1147
EB 1 71 20 33 260 0.27 8.2 23.9 C 23.9 C
WB 1 225 46 129 361 0.62 30.5 30.1 D 30.1 D
NB 1 443 31 69 1287 0.02 0.6 0.8 A 0.8
SB 1 372 96 26 1147 0.08 2.1 2.8 A 2.8
8.9 62.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.90 26
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph)
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
16 16 0.96 17
Stop 137 137 0.96 143
21 21 0.96 22
20 20 0.96 21
Stop 152 152 0.96 158
20 20 0.96 21
21 21 0.96 22
Stop 43 43 0.96 45
43 43 0.96 45
22 22 0.96 23
Stop 15 15 0.96 16
16 16 0.96 17
Direction, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EB 1 182 17 22 -0.02 4.5 0.23 759 8.9 8.9 A
WB 1 200 21 21 -0.01 4.5 0.25 755 9.0 9.0 A
NB 1 112 22 45 -0.17 4.7 0.15 706 8.5 8.5 A
SB 1 56 23 17 -0.04 4.9 0.08 664 8.3 8.3 A
Intersection Summary Delay Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
8.8 A 27.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
16 16 Stop 0% 0.88 18
97 97
126 126 0.88 143
22 22 Free 0% 0.88 25
20 20
0.88 110
30 30 Free 0% 0.88 34
None
None
356
36
48
356 6.4
36 6.2
48 4.1
3.5 97 583
3.3 89 1036
2.2 91 1559
EB 1 128 18 110 934 0.14 3.6 9.5 A 9.5 A
NB 1 177 143 0 1559 0.09 2.3 6.2 A 6.2
SB 1 48 0 23 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.88 23
0.0
6.6 28.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
36 36 1900
435 435 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1808 0.95 1720 0.96 453 6 532 5% NA 2
45 45 1900
12 12 1900
16 16 1900
31 31 1900
24 24 1900
0.96 17 0 0 2%
0.96 32 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 18 0 0 2%
0.96 25 0 0 2% Perm
48 48 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.99 1781 0.94 1688 0.96 50 21 90 2% NA 4
35 35 1900
0.96 12 0 0 2% Perm
48 48 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1797 0.91 1653 0.96 50 10 90 2% NA 8
17 17 1900
0.96 47 0 0 3%
423 423 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1855 0.98 1820 0.96 441 2 469 3% NA 6
0.96 38 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
6
8
4
23.1 23.1 0.39 6.0 3.0 667
23.1 23.1 0.39 6.0 3.0 706
25.4 25.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 705
25.4 25.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 720
c0.31 0.80 16.1 1.00 6.6 22.7 C 22.7 C
0.26 0.66 15.0 1.00 2.4 17.4 B 17.4 B
c0.05 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.4 10.7 B 10.7 B
0.05 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.4 10.7 B 10.7 B
18.6 0.45 59.5 60.3% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 36 0 0 2%
B 11.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
None 41 57.7% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 41 35 10 0 35 10
Max 30 42.3% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 41 0 66 56 41 66 56
None 41 57.7% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 41 35 10 0 35 10
Max 30 42.3% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 41 0 66 56 41 66 56
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
36 36 1900
416 416 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1856 0.94 1744 0.94 443 2 512
31 31 1900
63 63 1900
22 22 1900
57 57 1900
20 20 1900
0.94 23 0 0 2
0.94 61 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 46 0 0 3
0.94 21 0 0 3 Perm
42 42 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1786 0.91 1651 0.94 45 11 74
18 18 1900
0.94 67 0 0 6 Perm
84 84 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 1774 0.89 1597 0.94 89 11 185
43 43 1900
0.94 33 0 0 6
424 424 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1858 0.86 1610 0.94 451 2 539
0.94 38 0 0 2 Perm
NA 6
6
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
NA 2
2
NA 8
8
NA 4
4
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 767
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 708
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 702
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 726
0.29 0.67 22.2 1.00 4.6 26.8 C 26.8 C
c0.33 0.76 23.6 1.00 7.6 31.2 C 31.2 C
c0.12 0.26 17.7 1.00 0.9 18.6 B 18.6 B
0.05 0.10 16.4 1.00 0.3 16.7 B 16.7 B
26.7 0.51 100.0 66.6% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 19 0 0 7
C 12.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
6 EBTL
8 NBTL
Max 50 50.0% 28 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 15 Yes Yes 0 50 44 29 0 44 29
Max 50 50.0% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 50 0 94 83 50 94 83
Max 50 50.0% 26 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 13 Yes Yes 0 50 44 31 0 44 31
Max 50 50.0% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 50 0 94 83 50 94 83
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24 1900
212 212 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1833 0.94 1732 0.99 214 10 266 2% NA 4
38 38 1900
11 11 1900
211 211 1900
40 40 1900
148 148 1900
0.99 213 0 0 2%
0.99 40 0 0 3% Perm
0.99 24 0 0 5%
0.99 149 0 0 2% Perm
36 36 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.96 1793 0.72 1345 0.99 36 7 198 2% NA 6
20 20 1900
0.99 11 0 0 10% Perm
120 120 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1820 0.90 1649 0.99 121 9 176 2% NA 2
24 24 1900
0.99 38 0 0 5%
224 224 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 1.00 1758 0.99 1741 0.99 226 57 393 2% NA 8
0.99 24 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8
2
6
12.9 12.9 0.39 4.5 3.0 683
12.9 12.9 0.39 4.5 3.0 686
10.8 10.8 0.33 4.5 3.0 544
10.8 10.8 0.33 4.5 3.0 444
0.15 0.39 7.1 1.00 0.4 7.4 A 7.4 A
c0.23 0.57 7.7 1.00 1.2 8.9 A 8.9 A
0.11 0.32 8.2 1.00 0.3 8.6 A 8.6 A
c0.15 0.45 8.6 1.00 0.7 9.3 A 9.3 A
8.6 0.51 32.7 59.9% 15
0.99 20 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 10: William St N & Colborne St W
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 30 46.2% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 30 25.5 25.5 0 25.5 25.5
None 35 53.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 30 0 60.5 49.5 30 60.5 49.5
Min 30 46.2% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 30 25.5 25.5 0 25.5 25.5
None 35 53.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 30 0 60.5 49.5 30 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 45
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
10: William St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93 93
275 275 Free 0% 0.87 316
18 18
17 17
18 18
21 21
22 22
0.87 21
0.87 24
0.87 28
0.87 25
55 55 Stop 0% 0.87 63
245 245
0.87 20
30 30 Stop 0% 0.87 34
24 24
0.87 21
286 286 Free 0% 0.87 329
0.87 282
0.87 107
None
None
350
337
1234
930
326
965
930
340
350 4.2
337 4.1
1234 7.1
930 6.5
326 6.2
965 7.2
930 6.5
340 6.2
2.3 91 1182
2.2 98 1222
3.5 64 68
4.0 86 237
3.3 96 715
3.6 86 178
4.0 74 239
3.3 60 703
EB 1 444 107 21 1182 0.09 2.3 2.7 A 2.7
WB 1 370 20 21 1222 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 86 24 28 160 0.54 20.5 51.0 F 51.0 F 15.7 68.0% 15
SB 1 370 25 282 459 0.81 56.6 38.0 E 38.0 E
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
216 216 1900
6 6 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.96 1760 0.75 1368 0.89 7 16 306 2% NA 4
64 64 1900
26 26 1900
23 23 1900
11 11 1900
8 8 1900
0.89 26 0 0 2%
0.89 12 0 0 2% Perm
0.89 10 0 0 33%
0.89 9 0 0 2% Perm
462 462 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1783 1.00 1777 0.89 519 25 727 4% NA 6
199 199 1900
0.89 29 0 0 2% Perm
240 240 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1742 0.97 1692 0.89 270 2 290 9% NA 2
9 9 1900
0.89 72 0 0 2%
65 65 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1811 0.90 1646 0.89 73 14 114 2% NA 8
0.89 243 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8
2
6
16.3 16.3 0.31 4.5 3.0 426
16.3 16.3 0.31 4.5 3.0 512
27.0 27.0 0.52 4.5 3.0 873
27.0 27.0 0.52 4.5 3.0 917
c0.22 0.72 16.0 1.00 5.7 21.7 C 21.7 C
0.07 0.22 13.3 1.00 0.2 13.5 B 13.5 B
0.17 0.33 7.4 1.00 0.2 7.6 A 7.6 A
c0.41 0.79 10.4 1.00 4.8 15.1 B 15.1 B
14.9 0.76 52.3 69.7% 15
0.89 224 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 40 61.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 40 35.5 35.5 0 35.5 35.5
None 25 38.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 40 0 60.5 49.5 40 60.5 49.5
Min 40 61.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 40 35.5 35.5 0 35.5 35.5
None 25 38.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 40 0 60.5 49.5 40 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
171 171 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 268 0.89 192 0 192 2% pm+pt 5 2 38.1 38.1 0.48 5.0 3.0 316 c0.08 0.21 0.61 14.5 1.00 3.3 17.8 B
685 685 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.89 770 2 785 2% NA 2
15 15 1900
152 152 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.22 416 0.89 171 0 171 2% pm+pt 1 6 38.1 38.1 0.48 5.0 3.0 368 0.06 0.16 0.46 13.2 1.00 0.9 14.1 B
649 649 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3430 1.00 3430 0.89 729 32 913 3% NA 6
192 192 1900
124 124 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.49 914 0.89 139 0 139 2% Perm
133 133 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1711 1.00 1711 0.89 149 34 228 2% NA 4
101 101 1900
266 266 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.51 957 0.89 299 0 299 2% Perm
108 108 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 121 59 220 2% NA 8
141 141 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.89 17 0 0 2%
28.1 28.1 0.35 5.0 3.0 1249 0.22 0.63 21.7 1.00 2.4 24.1 C 22.9 C 26.2 0.80 80.2 78.1% 15
0.89 216 0 0 2%
28.1 28.1 0.35 5.0 3.0 1201 c0.27 0.76 23.1 1.00 2.8 25.9 C 24.1 C
4 27.1 27.1 0.34 5.0 3.0 308 0.15 0.45 20.7 1.00 1.1 21.8 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 113 0 0 9%
8 27.1 27.1 0.34 5.0 3.0 323
27.1 27.1 0.34 5.0 3.0 578 0.13
c0.31 0.93 25.6 1.00 31.3 56.9 E
0.39 20.3 1.00 0.4 20.7 C 21.1 C
0.89 158 0 0 3%
27.1 27.1 0.34 5.0 3.0 579 0.13 0.38 20.2 1.00 0.4 20.6 C 39.4 D
C 15.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 WBL Lead Yes None 15 18.1% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 1 0 0 Yes Yes 0 15 10 10 68 78 78
2 EBTL Lag Yes Max 33 39.8% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 15 48 43 33 0 28 18
4 NBTL None 35 42.2% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 48 0 78 68 33 63 53
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
5 EBL Lead Yes None 15 18.1% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 Yes Yes 0 15 10 10 68 78 78
6 WBTL Lag Yes None 33 39.8% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 15 48 43 33 0 28 18
8 SBTL None 35 42.2% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 48 0 78 68 33 63 53
83 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
291 291 1900 5.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3471 0.16 568 0.95 306 0 306 2% pm+pt 1 6 49.5 49.5 0.45 5.0 3.0 539 c0.06 0.20 0.57 20.6 1.00 1.4 22.0 C
684 684 1900 6.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3394 1.00 3394 0.95 720 55 1041 2% NA 6
357 357 1900
61 61 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.11 207 0.95 64 0 64 6% pm+pt 5 2 41.9 41.9 0.38 5.0 3.0 173 0.02 0.12 0.37 24.3 1.00 1.3 25.6 C
697 697 1900 6.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3521 1.00 3521 0.95 734 8 814 2% NA 2
84 84 1900
224 224 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.54 1012 0.95 236 0 236 2% pm+pt 3 8 45.4 45.4 0.42 5.0 3.0 522 c0.06 c0.13 0.45 21.5 1.00 0.6 22.1 C
199 199 1900 6.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3457 1.00 3457 0.95 209 14 236 3% NA 8
39 39 1900
117 117 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.60 1113 0.95 123 0 123 3% pm+pt 7 4 37.4 37.4 0.34 5.0 3.0 443 0.03 0.07 0.28 25.3 1.00 0.3 25.7 C
205 205 1900 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3544 1.00 3544 0.95 216 0 216 3% NA 4
210 210 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.95 221 166 55 3% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.95 376 0 0 2%
38.9 38.9 0.36 6.0 3.0 1210 c0.31 0.86 32.6 1.00 8.1 40.7 D 36.6 D 34.0 0.68 109.1 81.1% 15
0.95 88 0 0 2%
35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 1132 0.23 0.72 32.6 1.00 3.9 36.6 D 35.8 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 41 0 0 3%
31.1 31.1 0.29 6.0 3.0 985 0.07 0.24 29.9 1.00 0.6 30.5 C 26.4 C
27.1 27.1 0.25 6.0 3.0 880 0.06 0.25 32.8 1.00 0.7 33.5 C 31.4 C
4 27.1 27.1 0.25 6.0 3.0 393 0.03 0.14 31.9 1.00 0.7 32.7 C
C 22.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBL Lead Yes None 17 15.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 17 12 12 96 108 108
2 WBTL Lag Yes Max 40 35.4% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 17 57 51 34 0 34 17
3 NBL Lead Yes None 23 20.4% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 57 80 75 75 40 58 58
4 SBTL Lag Yes Max 33 29.2% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 80 0 107 90 63 90 73
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
5 WBL Lead Yes None 17 15.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 17 12 12 96 108 108
6 EBTL Lag Yes Max 40 35.4% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 17 57 51 34 0 34 17
7 SBL Lead Yes None 23 20.4% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 57 80 75 75 40 58 58
8 NBTL Lag Yes Max 33 29.2% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 80 0 107 90 63 90 73
113 Semi Act-Uncoord 95
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
18 18
40 40 Stop 0% 0.89 45
44 44
68 68
19 19
25 25
41 41
0.89 21
0.89 28
0.89 15
0.89 46
96 96 Free 0% 0.89 108
25 25
0.89 76
121 121 Free 0% 0.89 136
13 13
0.89 49
25 25 Stop 0% 0.89 28
0.89 20
None
0.89 28
None 387
448
421
122
485
428
144
136
151
448 7.1
421 6.5
122 6.2
485 7.1
428 6.5
144 6.2
136 4.1
151 4.1
3.5 96 468
4.0 91 497
3.3 95 929
3.5 82 417
4.0 94 493
3.3 98 904
2.2 98 1448
2.2 97 1430
EB 1 114 20 49 613 0.19 5.2 12.2 B 12.2 B
WB 1 125 76 21 477 0.26 7.9 15.2 C 15.2 C
NB 1 179 28 15 1448 0.02 0.4 1.3 A 1.3
SB 1 182 46 28 1430 0.03 0.8 2.1 A 2.1
6.5 33.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
46 46 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.59 1028 0.97 47 0 47 10% Perm
185 185 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1851 1.00 1851 0.97 191 3 207 2% NA 8
18 18 1900
85 85 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 616 0.97 88 0 88 2% pm+pt 7 4 33.5 33.5 0.32 5.0 3.0 327 0.03 0.06 0.27 25.8 1.00 0.4 26.2 C
160 160 1900 6.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1769 1.00 1769 0.97 165 24 254 2% NA 4
110 110 1900
22 22 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.69 1293 0.97 23 0 23 2% Perm
139 139 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1792 1.00 1792 0.97 143 12 199 2% NA 2
66 66 1900
45 45 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.53 987 0.97 46 0 46 4% pm+pt 1 6 58.7 58.7 0.56 5.0 3.0 631 0.01 0.03 0.07 10.5 1.00 0.0 10.5 B
83 83 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.97 86 8 101 2% NA 6
22 22 1900
8 17.0 17.0 0.16 6.0 3.0 167 0.05 0.28 38.2 1.00 0.9 39.2 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.97 19 0 0 6%
17.0 17.0 0.16 6.0 3.0 301 c0.11 0.69 41.1 1.00 6.4 47.5 D 45.9 D 28.2 0.37 104.2 80.0% 15
0.97 113 0 0 2%
33.5 33.5 0.32 6.0 3.0 568 c0.14 0.45 28.0 1.00 0.6 28.6 C 28.0 C
2 43.4 43.4 0.42 6.0 3.0 538 0.02 0.04 18.1 1.00 0.1 18.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 68 0 0 2%
43.4 43.4 0.42 6.0 3.0 746 c0.11 0.27 20.0 1.00 0.9 20.8 C 20.6 C
0.97 23 0 0 2%
58.7 58.7 0.56 6.0 3.0 1027 c0.06 0.10 10.5 1.00 0.2 10.7 B 10.6 B
C 22.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 SBL Lead Yes None 31 28.2% 31 4 1 18 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 31 26 26 79 105 105
2 NBTL Lag Yes Max 31 28.2% 31 4 2 25 3 1 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 31 62 56 48 0 25 17
4 WBTL
6 SBTL
None 48 43.6% 32 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 62 0 104 96 31 73 65
Max 62 56.4% 32 4 2 25 3 3 0 0 18 8 Yes Yes 0 62 56 48 79 25 17
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
7 WBL Lead Yes None 23 20.9% 23 4 1 15 3 3 0 0 No Yes 62 85 80 80 31 49 49
8 EBTL Lag Yes None 25 22.7% 21 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 7 8 Yes Yes 85 0 104 96 54 73 65
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
33 33 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.47 854 0.91 36 0 36 5% Perm
253 253 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.91 278 4 292 2% NA 4
16 16 1900
166 166 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.44 830 0.91 182 0 182 2% pm+pt 3 4 22.3 22.3 0.35 2.0 3.0 391 c0.05 0.11 0.47 15.4 1.00 0.9 16.3 B
238 238 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.91 262 5 277 2% NA 4
18 18 1900
72 72 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1166 0.91 79 0 79 2% Perm
134 134 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1685 1.00 1685 0.91 147 93 343 4% NA 2
263 263 1900
22 22 1900
0.91 289 0 0 2%
0.91 24 0 0 2% Perm
181 181 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1873 0.93 1756 0.91 199 0 223 2% NA 2
26 26 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 29 16 13 3% Perm
4 15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 202 0.04 0.18 19.5 1.00 0.4 20.0 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.91 18 0 0 3%
15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 443 c0.16 0.66 22.2 1.00 3.5 25.7 C 25.1 C 18.6 0.52 64.4 79.2% 15
0.91 20 0 0 33%
15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 433 0.15 0.64 22.1 1.00 3.2 25.3 C 21.8 C
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 508 0.07 0.16 11.0 1.00 0.7 11.6 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 735 c0.20
28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 766 0.13 0.29 11.7 1.00 1.0 12.7 B 12.4 B
0.47 12.8 1.00 2.1 15.0 B 14.5 B
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 691 0.01 0.02 10.3 1.00 0.0 10.4 B
B 14.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
3 4 WBL EBWB Lead Lag Yes Yes None None 9 28 12.7% 39.4% 9 28 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 No Yes Yes Yes 34 43 43 0 41 65 41 58 34 43 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93 93
275 275 Free 0% 0.91 302
18 18
17 17
18 18
21 21
22 22
0.91 20
0.91 23
0.91 26
0.91 24
55 55 Stop 0% 0.91 60 1 3.7 1.1 0
245 245
0.91 19
30 30 Stop 0% 0.91 33 5 3.7 1.1 0
24 24
0.91 20
286 286 Free 0% 0.91 314
0.91 269
0.91 102
None
None
335
327
1182
894
317
922
894
325
335 4.1
327 4.1
1182 7.1
894 6.5
317 6.2
922 7.1
894 6.5
325 6.2
2.2 92 1223
2.2 98 1227
3.5 71 78
4.0 87 252
3.3 96 720
3.5 88 201
4.0 76 252
3.3 62 715
EB 1 424 102 20 1223 0.08 2.1 2.6 A 2.6
WB 1 353 19 20 1227 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 82 23 26 178 0.46 16.5 41.6 E 41.6 E 12.8 68.0% 15
SB 1 353 24 269 481 0.73 45.7 30.4 D 30.4 D
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900
174 174 1900 6.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1758 0.88 1560 0.95 183 13 285 5% NA 4
56 56 1900
31 31 1900
24 24 1900
0.95 59 0 0 2%
0.95 33 0 0 24% Perm
148 148 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1691 0.89 1511 0.95 156 7 207 9% NA 8
89 89 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.50 926 0.95 94 0 94 3% Perm
93 93 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 98 0 98 9% NA 2
140 140 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 147 64 83 17% Perm
157 157 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.69 1281 0.95 165 0 165 4% Perm
387 387 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 407 0 407 6% NA 6
104 104 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 109 47 62 6% Perm
2 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 789
6 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 724
0.06 0.11 7.1 1.00 0.3 7.4 A
0.13 0.23 7.7 1.00 0.7 8.4 A
0.95 56 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.95 25 0 0 6%
8 17.4 17.4 0.24 6.5 3.0 381
17.4 17.4 0.24 6.5 3.0 369
c0.18 0.75 24.8 1.00 7.8 32.7 C 32.7 C
0.14 0.56 23.5 1.00 2.0 25.5 C 25.5 C 15.6 0.50 71.1 76.4% 15
2 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 523 0.10 0.18 7.5 1.00 0.8 8.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 996 0.06 0.10 7.1 1.00 0.2 7.3 A 7.6 A
40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 1024 c0.22 0.40 8.7 1.00 1.2 9.8 A 9.1 A
6 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 871 0.04 0.07 7.0 1.00 0.2 7.2 A
B 13.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 47 59.9% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 0 47 40 24 0 40 24
None 31.5 40.1% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 47 0 72 61 47 72 61
Max 47 59.9% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 0 47 40 24 0 40 24
None 31.5 40.1% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 47 0 72 61 47 72 61
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0
14 14
12 12 0.91 13
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 15
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
26
0
0
26 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 985
3.5 99 1021
2.8 99 1301
EB 1 15 0 15 1021 0.01 0.3 8.6 A 8.6 A
NB 1 13 13 0 1301 0.01 0.2 7.8 A 7.8
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.2 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
22 22 1900
32 32 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 0.99 1720 0.86 1495 0.92 35 18 66
23 23 1900
68 68 1900
142 142 1900
256 256 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1783 1.00 1783 0.92 278 12 319
137 137 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.95 1597 0.56 943 0.92 149 0 149 183 Perm
300 300 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1859 1.00 1859 0.92 326 5 346
23 23 1900
0.92 74 0 0 102 Perm
23 23 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1778 0.55 1025 0.92 25 0 25 11 Perm
49 49 1900
0.92 25 0 0 102
47 47 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.93 0.99 1657 0.89 1491 0.92 51 75 204
0.92 24 0 0 7 Perm
NA 4
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.92 154 0 0 7
NA 8
8 9.9 9.9 0.30 4.5 3.0 441
9.9 9.9 0.30 4.5 3.0 440
0.04 0.15 8.7 1.00 0.2 8.9 A 8.9 A
c0.14 0.46 9.6 1.00 0.8 10.4 B 10.4 B 7.8 0.44 33.5 56.2% 15
2 14.6 14.6 0.44 4.5 3.0 446 0.02 0.06 5.5 1.00 0.1 5.5 A
0.92 53 0 0 183
NA 2
6 14.6 14.6 0.44 4.5 3.0 410
14.6 14.6 0.44 4.5 3.0 777 0.18
0.16 0.36 6.3 1.00 0.6 6.9 A
0.41 6.5 1.00 0.4 6.8 A 6.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 B
0.92 25 0 0 11
NA 6 14.6 14.6 0.44 4.5 3.0 810 c0.19 0.43 6.6 1.00 0.4 6.9 A 6.9 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 37 56.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 37 32.5 32.5 0 32.5 32.5
None 28 43.1% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 37 0 60.5 49.5 37 60.5 49.5
Min 37 56.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 37 32.5 32.5 0 32.5 32.5
None 28 43.1% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 37 0 60.5 49.5 37 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 45
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside Drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
16 16 Stop 0% 0.87 18
15 15
19 19 0.87 22
371 371 Free 0% 0.87 426
49 49
0.87 17
259 259 Free 0% 0.87 298
None
None
796
454
482
796 6.4
454 6.5
482 4.1
3.5 95 349
3.6 97 550
2.2 98 1081
EB 1 35 18 17 424 0.08 2.0 14.2 B 14.2 B
NB 1 320 22 0 1081 0.02 0.5 0.8 A 0.8
SB 1 482 0 56 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0
0.87 56
0.0
0.9 39.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 34
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
40 40 1900
141 141 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1760 0.87 1537 0.86 164 12 247 4% NA 4
41 41 1900
132 132 1900
101 101 1900
365 365 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1751 1.00 1751 0.86 424 15 539 7% NA 2
107 107 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 625 0.86 124 0 124 2% Perm
415 415 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1778 1.00 1778 0.86 483 7 545 3% NA 6
59 59 1900
0.86 153 0 0 5% Perm
26 26 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 628 0.86 30 0 30 2% Perm
112 112 1900
0.86 48 0 0 2%
142 142 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1765 0.75 1355 0.86 165 19 416 2% NA 8
0.86 47 0 0 14% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.86 117 0 0 2%
8 23.7 23.7 0.33 5.5 3.0 513
23.7 23.7 0.33 5.5 3.0 452
0.16 0.48 18.8 1.00 0.7 19.5 B 19.5 B
c0.31 0.92 22.7 1.00 23.6 46.3 D 46.3 D 22.5 0.73 71.0 109.7% 15
2 36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 321 0.05 0.09 8.9 1.00 0.6 9.5 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 130 0 0 2%
6 36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 319
36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 895 c0.31
0.20 0.39 10.6 1.00 3.5 14.1 B
0.60 12.3 1.00 3.0 15.2 B 14.9 B
0.86 69 0 0 27%
36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 909 0.31 0.60 12.2 1.00 2.9 15.1 B 15.0 B
C 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 35
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
C-Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None C-Max 30.5 40.5 43.0% 57.0% 30.5 40.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 8 35 3 3 3.5 1 0 0 0 0 15 25 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 40.5 0 0 40.5 65.5 35 55.5 25 40.5 0 65.5 35 55.5 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 3.5 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 36
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
100 100 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.72 1355 0.93 108 0 108 2% Perm
17 17 1900 5.5 1.00 0.86 1.00 1591 1.00 1591 0.93 18 199 62 2% NA 4
226 226 1900
22 22 1900
17 17 1900
385 385 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1872 1.00 1872 0.93 414 2 430 2% NA 2
43 43 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.49 811 0.93 46 0 46 17% Perm
390 390 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.93 419 7 489 3% NA 6
72 72 1900
0.93 24 0 0 2% Perm
120 120 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.45 841 0.93 129 0 129 2% Perm
17 17 1900
0.93 243 0 0 4%
15 15 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1768 0.67 1206 0.93 16 15 43 2% NA 8
4 10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 245 c0.08 0.44 20.5 1.00 1.3 21.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.93 18 0 0 2%
8 10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 288 0.04
10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 218 0.04 0.20 19.6 1.00 0.4 20.0 C 20.0 C
0.22 19.6 1.00 0.4 20.0 C 20.5 C 10.2 0.43 56.3 94.4% 15
2 35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 524 0.15 0.25 4.7 1.00 1.1 5.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 18 0 0 2%
6 35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 505
35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 1167 0.23
0.06 0.09 4.2 1.00 0.4 4.6 A
0.37 5.2 1.00 0.9 6.1 A 6.0 A
0.93 77 0 0 2%
35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 1137 c0.27 0.43 5.5 1.00 1.2 6.6 A 6.5 A
B 11.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 37
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 38
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
47 47 Stop 0% 0.96 49
93 93
403 403 Free 0% 0.96 420
72 72
92 92
0.96 75
0.96 96
551 551 Free 0% 0.96 574
0.96 97
4 None
None
1224
458
495
1224 6.5
458 6.2
495 4.1
3.6 72 177
3.3 84 603
2.2 91 1058
WB 1 146 49 97 526 0.28 8.6 19.1 C 19.1 C
NB 1 495 0 75 1700 0.29 0.0 0.0 0.0
SB 1 670 96 0 1058 0.09 2.3 2.3 A 2.3
3.3 73.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
D
Synchro 11 Report Page 39
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
44 44
33 33 Stop 0% 0.75 44
16 16
23 23
47 47
52 52
17 17
0.75 63
0.75 69
0.75 73
0.75 23
52 52 Free 0% 0.75 69
21 21
0.75 31
78 78 Free 0% 0.75 104
55 55
0.75 21
52 52 Stop 0% 0.75 69
0.75 59
None
None
505
444
83
450
422
140
97
177
505 7.1
444 6.5
83 6.2
450 7.1
422 6.5
140 6.2
97 4.1
177 4.1
3.5 84 378
4.0 91 477
3.3 98 976
3.5 93 450
4.0 86 491
3.3 93 907
2.2 95 1496
2.2 98 1399
EB 1 124 59 21 460 0.27 8.2 15.7 C 15.7 C
WB 1 163 31 63 585 0.28 8.6 13.5 B 13.5 B
NB 1 246 69 73 1496 0.05 1.1 2.4 A 2.4
SB 1 120 23 28 1399 0.02 0.4 1.6 A 1.6
7.5 33.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 28
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 40
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
71 71 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.69 1221 0.94 76 0 76 9% Perm
43 43 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1759 1.00 1759 0.94 46 26 56 2% NA 4
34 34 1900
44 44 1900
0.94 36 0 0 2%
0.94 47 0 0 2% Perm
49 49 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1812 0.83 1536 0.94 52 0 99 5% NA 8
159 159 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 169 122 47 2% Perm
44 44 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.41 769 0.94 47 0 47 3% Perm
606 606 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 645 0 645 3% NA 2
17 17 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 18 8 10 2% Perm
150 150 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.30 545 0.94 160 0 160 4% Perm
459 459 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 488 0 488 5% NA 6
68 68 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 72 32 40 15% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 431
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 305
0.03 0.11 23.8 1.00 0.1 23.9 C
0.06 0.11 9.1 1.00 0.5 9.6 A
0.01 0.01 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.7 A
0.29 0.52 12.2 1.00 2.6 14.8 B
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 342 0.06 0.22 24.6 1.00 1.5 26.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 493 0.03
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 430 c0.06 0.23 24.6 1.00 0.3 25.0 C 24.3 C
0.11 23.8 1.00 0.5 24.3 C 25.2 C 16.3 0.49 89.1 77.8% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 c0.35 0.62 13.1 1.00 2.7 15.8 B 15.3 B
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 0.27 0.48 11.7 1.00 0.6 12.3 B 12.5 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.05 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.9 A
B 14.1 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 57 64.0% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 0 57 50 29 0 50 29
Max 32.1 36.0% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57 0 82 66 57 82 66
None 57 64.0% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 0 57 50 29 0 50 29
None 32.1 36.0% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57 0 82 66 57 82 66
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
15 15
2 2 Stop 0% 0.87 2
237 237
7 7
1 1
241 241
0 0
0.87 1
0.87 277
0.87 7
0.87 0
41 41 Free 0% 0.87 47
6 6
0.87 8
47 47 Free 0% 0.87 54
6 6
0.87 272
0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0
0.87 17
0.87 7
13 None
None
663
666
50
663
666
58
54
61
663 7.1
666 6.5
50 6.2
663 7.1
666 6.5
58 6.2
54 4.1
61 4.1
3.5 95 323
4.0 99 312
3.3 73 1018
3.5 97 236
4.0 100 312
3.3 100 1009
2.2 82 1551
2.2 100 1542
EB 1 291 17 272 1089 0.27 8.2 10.3 B 10.3 B
WB 1 9 8 1 258 0.03 0.8 19.5 C 19.5 C
NB 1 338 277 7 1551 0.18 4.9 6.7 A 6.7
SB 1 54 0 7 1542 0.00 0.0 0.0
7.8 35.7% 15
0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
95 95 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1869 1.00 1869 0.93 102 2 106 2% NA 4
6 6 1900
204 204 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.69 1179 0.93 219 0 219 12% Perm
152 152 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 163 0 163 2% NA 8
288 288 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 310 235 75 3% Perm
219 219 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1158 0.93 235 0 235 2% Perm
226 226 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 243 0 243 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
8 8 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1145 0.93 9 0 9 2% Perm
215 215 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 231 0 231 7% NA 6
126 126 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 135 52 83 11% Perm
8 23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 385
2 58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 710
0.05 0.20 28.9 1.00 0.2 29.1 C
c0.20 0.33 9.0 1.00 1.2 10.3 B
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 6 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
8 23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 286
23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 454 0.06
c0.19 0.77 33.8 1.00 11.6 45.3 D
0.23 29.1 1.00 0.3 29.4 C 29.4 C 21.0 0.45 95.9 68.6% 15
23.3 23.3 0.24 6.9 3.0 457 0.09 0.36 30.1 1.00 0.5 30.6 C 34.6 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 702
58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 1061 0.14
0.01 0.01 7.2 1.00 0.0 7.3 A
0.23 8.3 1.00 0.5 8.9 A 9.5 A
58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 1100 0.13 0.21 8.2 1.00 0.4 8.7 A 8.3 A
6 58.8 58.8 0.61 6.9 4.5 901 0.06 0.09 7.6 1.00 0.2 7.8 A
C 13.8 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
2 SETL
4 NBTL
6 NWTL
8 SBTL
C-Max 57 59.4% 39 5.9 1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 25 Yes Yes 0 57 50.1 25.1 0 50.1 25.1
None C-Max 38.9 57 40.6% 59.4% 38.9 39 5.9 5.9 1 1 10 20 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 7 7 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes 57 0 0 57 89 50.1 73 25.1 57 0 89 50.1 73 25.1
None 38.9 40.6% 38.9 5.9 1 10 3 4.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57 0 89 73 57 89 73
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 95.9 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
154 154
230 230 Free 0% 0.91 253
3 3
68 68
6 6
2 2
3 3
0.91 7
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 3
59 59 Stop 0% 0.91 65
86 86
0.91 75
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 3
195 195 Free 0% 0.91 214
0.91 95
0.91 169
None
None
221
256
1088
964
254
1048
962
218
221 4.1
256 4.1
1088 7.1
964 6.5
254 6.3
1048 7.1
962 6.5
218 6.2
2.2 87 1348
2.2 94 1309
3.5 98 114
4.0 73 210
3.4 92 774
3.5 98 131
4.0 69 211
3.3 88 817
EB 1 425 169 3 1348 0.13 3.3 3.9 A 3.9
WB 1 296 75 7 1309 0.06 1.4 2.4 A 2.4
NB 1 118 2 60 326 0.36 12.2 22.2 C 22.2 C 8.7 50.6% 15
SB 1 163 3 95 365 0.45 16.9 22.6 C 22.6 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
18 18
16 16 Stop 0% 0.90 18
30 30
41 41
116 116
28 28
86 86
0.90 129
0.90 31
0.90 69
0.90 96
225 225 Free 0% 0.90 250
23 23
0.90 46
309 309 Free 0% 0.90 343
62 62
0.90 33
45 45 Stop 0% 0.90 50
0.90 20
None
None
1048
929
263
936
908
378
276
412
1048 7.1
929 6.5
263 6.2
936 7.1
908 6.5
378 6.2
276 4.1
412 4.1
3.5 85 129
4.0 92 239
3.3 96 776
3.5 77 203
4.0 80 246
3.3 81 669
2.2 98 1287
2.2 92 1147
EB 1 71 20 33 260 0.27 8.2 23.9 C 23.9 C
WB 1 225 46 129 361 0.62 30.5 30.1 D 30.1 D
NB 1 443 31 69 1287 0.02 0.6 0.8 A 0.8
SB 1 372 96 26 1147 0.08 2.1 2.8 A 2.8
8.9 62.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.90 26
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph)
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
16 16 0.96 17
Stop 137 137 0.96 143
21 21 0.96 22
20 20 0.96 21
Stop 152 152 0.96 158
20 20 0.96 21
21 21 0.96 22
Stop 43 43 0.96 45
43 43 0.96 45
22 22 0.96 23
Stop 15 15 0.96 16
16 16 0.96 17
Direction, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EB 1 182 17 22 -0.02 4.5 0.23 759 8.9 8.9 A
WB 1 200 21 21 -0.01 4.5 0.25 755 9.0 9.0 A
NB 1 112 22 45 -0.17 4.7 0.15 706 8.5 8.5 A
SB 1 56 23 17 -0.04 4.9 0.08 664 8.3 8.3 A
Intersection Summary Delay Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
8.8 A 27.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
16 16 Stop 0% 0.88 18
97 97
126 126 0.88 143
22 22 Free 0% 0.88 25
20 20
0.88 110
30 30 Free 0% 0.88 34
None
None
356
36
48
356 6.4
36 6.2
48 4.1
3.5 97 583
3.3 89 1036
2.2 91 1559
EB 1 128 18 110 934 0.14 3.6 9.5 A 9.5 A
NB 1 177 143 0 1559 0.09 2.3 6.2 A 6.2
SB 1 48 0 23 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.88 23
0.0
6.6 28.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
36 36 1900
435 435 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1808 0.95 1720 0.96 453 6 532 5% NA 2
45 45 1900
12 12 1900
16 16 1900
31 31 1900
24 24 1900
0.96 17 0 0 2%
0.96 32 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 18 0 0 2%
0.96 25 0 0 2% Perm
48 48 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.99 1781 0.94 1688 0.96 50 21 90 2% NA 4
35 35 1900
0.96 12 0 0 2% Perm
48 48 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1797 0.91 1653 0.96 50 10 90 2% NA 8
17 17 1900
0.96 47 0 0 3%
423 423 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1855 0.98 1820 0.96 441 2 469 3% NA 6
0.96 38 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
6
8
4
23.1 23.1 0.39 6.0 3.0 667
23.1 23.1 0.39 6.0 3.0 706
25.4 25.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 705
25.4 25.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 720
c0.31 0.80 16.1 1.00 6.6 22.7 C 22.7 C
0.26 0.66 15.0 1.00 2.4 17.4 B 17.4 B
c0.05 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.4 10.7 B 10.7 B
0.05 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.4 10.7 B 10.7 B
18.6 0.45 59.5 60.3% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 36 0 0 2%
B 11.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
None 41 57.7% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 41 35 10 0 35 10
Max 30 42.3% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 41 0 66 56 41 66 56
None 41 57.7% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 41 35 10 0 35 10
Max 30 42.3% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 41 0 66 56 41 66 56
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
36 36 1900
416 416 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1856 0.94 1744 0.94 443 2 512
31 31 1900
63 63 1900
22 22 1900
57 57 1900
20 20 1900
0.94 23 0 0 2
0.94 61 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 46 0 0 3
0.94 21 0 0 3 Perm
42 42 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1786 0.91 1651 0.94 45 11 74
18 18 1900
0.94 67 0 0 6 Perm
84 84 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 1774 0.89 1597 0.94 89 11 185
43 43 1900
0.94 33 0 0 6
424 424 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1858 0.86 1610 0.94 451 2 539
0.94 38 0 0 2 Perm
NA 6
6
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
NA 2
2
NA 8
8
NA 4
4
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 767
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 708
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 702
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 726
0.29 0.67 22.2 1.00 4.6 26.8 C 26.8 C
c0.33 0.76 23.6 1.00 7.6 31.2 C 31.2 C
c0.12 0.26 17.7 1.00 0.9 18.6 B 18.6 B
0.05 0.10 16.4 1.00 0.3 16.7 B 16.7 B
26.7 0.51 100.0 66.6% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 19 0 0 7
C 12.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
6 EBTL
8 NBTL
Max 50 50.0% 28 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 15 Yes Yes 0 50 44 29 0 44 29
Max 50 50.0% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 50 0 94 83 50 94 83
Max 50 50.0% 26 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 13 Yes Yes 0 50 44 31 0 44 31
Max 50 50.0% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 50 0 94 83 50 94 83
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24 1900
212 212 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1833 0.94 1732 0.99 214 10 266 2% NA 4
38 38 1900
11 11 1900
211 211 1900
40 40 1900
148 148 1900
0.99 213 0 0 2%
0.99 40 0 0 3% Perm
0.99 24 0 0 5%
0.99 149 0 0 2% Perm
36 36 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.96 1793 0.72 1345 0.99 36 7 198 2% NA 6
20 20 1900
0.99 11 0 0 10% Perm
120 120 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1820 0.90 1649 0.99 121 9 176 2% NA 2
24 24 1900
0.99 38 0 0 5%
224 224 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 1.00 1758 0.99 1741 0.99 226 57 393 2% NA 8
0.99 24 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
8
2
6
12.9 12.9 0.39 4.5 3.0 683
12.9 12.9 0.39 4.5 3.0 686
10.8 10.8 0.33 4.5 3.0 544
10.8 10.8 0.33 4.5 3.0 444
0.15 0.39 7.1 1.00 0.4 7.4 A 7.4 A
c0.23 0.57 7.7 1.00 1.2 8.9 A 8.9 A
0.11 0.32 8.2 1.00 0.3 8.6 A 8.6 A
c0.15 0.45 8.6 1.00 0.7 9.3 A 9.3 A
8.6 0.51 32.7 59.9% 15
0.99 20 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 10: William St N & Colborne St W
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 30 46.2% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 30 25.5 25.5 0 25.5 25.5
None 35 53.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 30 0 60.5 49.5 30 60.5 49.5
Min 30 46.2% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 30 25.5 25.5 0 25.5 25.5
None 35 53.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 30 0 60.5 49.5 30 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 45
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
10: William St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93 93
275 275 Free 0% 0.87 316
18 18
17 17
18 18
21 21
22 22
0.87 21
0.87 24
0.87 28
0.87 25
55 55 Stop 0% 0.87 63
245 245
0.87 20
30 30 Stop 0% 0.87 34
24 24
0.87 21
286 286 Free 0% 0.87 329
0.87 282
0.87 107
None
None
350
337
1234
930
326
965
930
340
350 4.2
337 4.1
1234 7.1
930 6.5
326 6.2
965 7.2
930 6.5
340 6.2
2.3 91 1182
2.2 98 1222
3.5 64 68
4.0 86 237
3.3 96 715
3.6 86 178
4.0 74 239
3.3 60 703
EB 1 444 107 21 1182 0.09 2.3 2.7 A 2.7
WB 1 370 20 21 1222 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 86 24 28 160 0.54 20.5 51.0 F 51.0 F 15.7 68.0% 15
SB 1 370 25 282 459 0.81 56.6 38.0 E 38.0 E
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
216 216 1900
6 6 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.96 1760 0.75 1368 0.89 7 16 306 2% NA 4
64 64 1900
26 26 1900
23 23 1900
11 11 1900
8 8 1900
0.89 26 0 0 2%
0.89 12 0 0 2% Perm
0.89 10 0 0 33%
0.89 9 0 0 2% Perm
462 462 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1783 1.00 1777 0.89 519 25 727 4% NA 6
199 199 1900
0.89 29 0 0 2% Perm
240 240 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1742 0.97 1692 0.89 270 2 290 9% NA 2
9 9 1900
0.89 72 0 0 2%
65 65 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1811 0.90 1646 0.89 73 14 114 2% NA 8
0.89 243 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
8
2
6
16.3 16.3 0.31 4.5 3.0 426
16.3 16.3 0.31 4.5 3.0 512
27.0 27.0 0.52 4.5 3.0 873
27.0 27.0 0.52 4.5 3.0 917
c0.22 0.72 16.0 1.00 5.7 21.7 C 21.7 C
0.07 0.22 13.3 1.00 0.2 13.5 B 13.5 B
0.17 0.33 7.4 1.00 0.2 7.6 A 7.6 A
c0.41 0.79 10.4 1.00 4.8 15.1 B 15.1 B
14.9 0.76 52.3 69.7% 15
0.89 224 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 40 61.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 40 35.5 35.5 0 35.5 35.5
None 25 38.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 40 0 60.5 49.5 40 60.5 49.5
Min 40 61.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 40 35.5 35.5 0 35.5 35.5
None 25 38.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 40 0 60.5 49.5 40 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
171 171 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 268 0.89 192 0 192 2% pm+pt 5 2 38.1 38.1 0.48 5.0 3.0 316 c0.08 0.21 0.61 14.5 1.00 3.3 17.8 B
685 685 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.89 770 2 785 2% NA 2
15 15 1900
152 152 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.22 416 0.89 171 0 171 2% pm+pt 1 6 38.1 38.1 0.48 5.0 3.0 368 0.06 0.16 0.46 13.2 1.00 0.9 14.1 B
649 649 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3430 1.00 3430 0.89 729 32 913 3% NA 6
192 192 1900
124 124 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.49 914 0.89 139 0 139 2% Perm
133 133 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1711 1.00 1711 0.89 149 34 228 2% NA 4
101 101 1900
266 266 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.51 957 0.89 299 0 299 2% Perm
108 108 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 121 59 220 2% NA 8
141 141 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.89 17 0 0 2%
28.1 28.1 0.35 5.0 3.0 1249 0.22 0.63 21.7 1.00 2.4 24.1 C 22.9 C 26.2 0.80 80.2 78.1% 15
0.89 216 0 0 2%
28.1 28.1 0.35 5.0 3.0 1201 c0.27 0.76 23.1 1.00 2.8 25.9 C 24.1 C
4 27.1 27.1 0.34 5.0 3.0 308 0.15 0.45 20.7 1.00 1.1 21.8 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 113 0 0 9%
8 27.1 27.1 0.34 5.0 3.0 323
27.1 27.1 0.34 5.0 3.0 578 0.13
c0.31 0.93 25.6 1.00 31.3 56.9 E
0.39 20.3 1.00 0.4 20.7 C 21.1 C
0.89 158 0 0 3%
27.1 27.1 0.34 5.0 3.0 579 0.13 0.38 20.2 1.00 0.4 20.6 C 39.4 D
C 15.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 WBL Lead Yes None 15 18.1% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 1 0 0 Yes Yes 0 15 10 10 68 78 78
2 EBTL Lag Yes Max 33 39.8% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 15 48 43 33 0 28 18
4 NBTL None 35 42.2% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 48 0 78 68 33 63 53
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
5 EBL Lead Yes None 15 18.1% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 Yes Yes 0 15 10 10 68 78 78
6 WBTL Lag Yes None 33 39.8% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 15 48 43 33 0 28 18
8 SBTL None 35 42.2% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 48 0 78 68 33 63 53
83 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
291 291 1900 5.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3471 0.16 568 0.95 306 0 306 2% pm+pt 1 6 49.5 49.5 0.45 5.0 3.0 539 c0.06 0.20 0.57 20.6 1.00 1.4 22.0 C
684 684 1900 6.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3394 1.00 3394 0.95 720 55 1041 2% NA 6
357 357 1900
61 61 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.11 207 0.95 64 0 64 6% pm+pt 5 2 41.9 41.9 0.38 5.0 3.0 173 0.02 0.12 0.37 24.3 1.00 1.3 25.6 C
697 697 1900 6.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3521 1.00 3521 0.95 734 8 814 2% NA 2
84 84 1900
224 224 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.54 1012 0.95 236 0 236 2% pm+pt 3 8 45.4 45.4 0.42 5.0 3.0 522 c0.06 c0.13 0.45 21.5 1.00 0.6 22.1 C
199 199 1900 6.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3457 1.00 3457 0.95 209 14 236 3% NA 8
39 39 1900
117 117 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.60 1113 0.95 123 0 123 3% pm+pt 7 4 37.4 37.4 0.34 5.0 3.0 443 0.03 0.07 0.28 25.3 1.00 0.3 25.7 C
205 205 1900 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3544 1.00 3544 0.95 216 0 216 3% NA 4
210 210 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.95 221 166 55 3% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.95 376 0 0 2%
38.9 38.9 0.36 6.0 3.0 1210 c0.31 0.86 32.6 1.00 8.1 40.7 D 36.6 D 34.0 0.68 109.1 81.1% 15
0.95 88 0 0 2%
35.1 35.1 0.32 6.0 3.0 1132 0.23 0.72 32.6 1.00 3.9 36.6 D 35.8 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 41 0 0 3%
31.1 31.1 0.29 6.0 3.0 985 0.07 0.24 29.9 1.00 0.6 30.5 C 26.4 C
27.1 27.1 0.25 6.0 3.0 880 0.06 0.25 32.8 1.00 0.7 33.5 C 31.4 C
4 27.1 27.1 0.25 6.0 3.0 393 0.03 0.14 31.9 1.00 0.7 32.7 C
C 22.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBL Lead Yes None 17 15.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 17 12 12 96 108 108
2 WBTL Lag Yes Max 40 35.4% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 17 57 51 34 0 34 17
3 NBL Lead Yes None 23 20.4% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 57 80 75 75 40 58 58
4 SBTL Lag Yes Max 33 29.2% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 80 0 107 90 63 90 73
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
5 WBL Lead Yes None 17 15.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 17 12 12 96 108 108
6 EBTL Lag Yes Max 40 35.4% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 17 57 51 34 0 34 17
7 SBL Lead Yes None 23 20.4% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 57 80 75 75 40 58 58
8 NBTL Lag Yes Max 33 29.2% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 80 0 107 90 63 90 73
113 Semi Act-Uncoord 95
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
18 18
40 40 Stop 0% 0.89 45
44 44
68 68
19 19
25 25
41 41
0.89 21
0.89 28
0.89 15
0.89 46
96 96 Free 0% 0.89 108
25 25
0.89 76
121 121 Free 0% 0.89 136
13 13
0.89 49
25 25 Stop 0% 0.89 28
0.89 20
None
0.89 28
None 387
448
421
122
485
428
144
136
151
448 7.1
421 6.5
122 6.2
485 7.1
428 6.5
144 6.2
136 4.1
151 4.1
3.5 96 468
4.0 91 497
3.3 95 929
3.5 82 417
4.0 94 493
3.3 98 904
2.2 98 1448
2.2 97 1430
EB 1 114 20 49 613 0.19 5.2 12.2 B 12.2 B
WB 1 125 76 21 477 0.26 7.9 15.2 C 15.2 C
NB 1 179 28 15 1448 0.02 0.4 1.3 A 1.3
SB 1 182 46 28 1430 0.03 0.8 2.1 A 2.1
6.5 33.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
46 46 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.59 1028 0.97 47 0 47 10% Perm
185 185 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1851 1.00 1851 0.97 191 3 207 2% NA 8
18 18 1900
85 85 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 616 0.97 88 0 88 2% pm+pt 7 4 33.5 33.5 0.32 5.0 3.0 327 0.03 0.06 0.27 25.8 1.00 0.4 26.2 C
160 160 1900 6.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1769 1.00 1769 0.97 165 24 254 2% NA 4
110 110 1900
22 22 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.69 1293 0.97 23 0 23 2% Perm
139 139 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1792 1.00 1792 0.97 143 12 199 2% NA 2
66 66 1900
45 45 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.53 987 0.97 46 0 46 4% pm+pt 1 6 58.7 58.7 0.56 5.0 3.0 631 0.01 0.03 0.07 10.5 1.00 0.0 10.5 B
83 83 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.97 86 8 101 2% NA 6
22 22 1900
8 17.0 17.0 0.16 6.0 3.0 167 0.05 0.28 38.2 1.00 0.9 39.2 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.97 19 0 0 6%
17.0 17.0 0.16 6.0 3.0 301 c0.11 0.69 41.1 1.00 6.4 47.5 D 45.9 D 28.2 0.37 104.2 80.0% 15
0.97 113 0 0 2%
33.5 33.5 0.32 6.0 3.0 568 c0.14 0.45 28.0 1.00 0.6 28.6 C 28.0 C
2 43.4 43.4 0.42 6.0 3.0 538 0.02 0.04 18.1 1.00 0.1 18.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 68 0 0 2%
43.4 43.4 0.42 6.0 3.0 746 c0.11 0.27 20.0 1.00 0.9 20.8 C 20.6 C
0.97 23 0 0 2%
58.7 58.7 0.56 6.0 3.0 1027 c0.06 0.10 10.5 1.00 0.2 10.7 B 10.6 B
C 22.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 SBL Lead Yes None 31 28.2% 31 4 1 18 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 31 26 26 79 105 105
2 NBTL Lag Yes Max 31 28.2% 31 4 2 25 3 1 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 31 62 56 48 0 25 17
4 WBTL
6 SBTL
None 48 43.6% 32 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 62 0 104 96 31 73 65
Max 62 56.4% 32 4 2 25 3 3 0 0 18 8 Yes Yes 0 62 56 48 79 25 17
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
7 WBL Lead Yes None 23 20.9% 23 4 1 15 3 3 0 0 No Yes 62 85 80 80 31 49 49
8 EBTL Lag Yes None 25 22.7% 21 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 7 8 Yes Yes 85 0 104 96 54 73 65
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
33 33 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.47 854 0.91 36 0 36 5% Perm
253 253 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.91 278 4 292 2% NA 4
16 16 1900
166 166 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.44 830 0.91 182 0 182 2% pm+pt 3 4 22.3 22.3 0.35 2.0 3.0 391 c0.05 0.11 0.47 15.4 1.00 0.9 16.3 B
238 238 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.91 262 5 277 2% NA 4
18 18 1900
72 72 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1166 0.91 79 0 79 2% Perm
134 134 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1685 1.00 1685 0.91 147 93 343 4% NA 2
263 263 1900
22 22 1900
0.91 289 0 0 2%
0.91 24 0 0 2% Perm
181 181 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1873 0.93 1756 0.91 199 0 223 2% NA 2
26 26 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 29 16 13 3% Perm
4 15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 202 0.04 0.18 19.5 1.00 0.4 20.0 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.91 18 0 0 3%
15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 443 c0.16 0.66 22.2 1.00 3.5 25.7 C 25.1 C 18.6 0.52 64.4 79.2% 15
0.91 20 0 0 33%
15.3 15.3 0.24 6.0 3.0 433 0.15 0.64 22.1 1.00 3.2 25.3 C 21.8 C
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 508 0.07 0.16 11.0 1.00 0.7 11.6 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 735 c0.20
28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 766 0.13 0.29 11.7 1.00 1.0 12.7 B 12.4 B
0.47 12.8 1.00 2.1 15.0 B 14.5 B
2 28.1 28.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 691 0.01 0.02 10.3 1.00 0.0 10.4 B
B 14.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
3 4 WBL EBWB Lead Lag Yes Yes None None 9 28 12.7% 39.4% 9 28 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 No Yes Yes Yes 34 43 43 0 41 65 41 58 34 43 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93 93
275 275 Free 0% 0.91 302
18 18
17 17
18 18
21 21
22 22
0.91 20
0.91 23
0.91 26
0.91 24
55 55 Stop 0% 0.91 60 1 3.7 1.1 0
245 245
0.91 19
30 30 Stop 0% 0.91 33 5 3.7 1.1 0
24 24
0.91 20
286 286 Free 0% 0.91 314
0.91 269
0.91 102
None
None
335
327
1182
894
317
922
894
325
335 4.1
327 4.1
1182 7.1
894 6.5
317 6.2
922 7.1
894 6.5
325 6.2
2.2 92 1223
2.2 98 1227
3.5 71 78
4.0 87 252
3.3 96 720
3.5 88 201
4.0 76 252
3.3 62 715
EB 1 424 102 20 1223 0.08 2.1 2.6 A 2.6
WB 1 353 19 20 1227 0.02 0.4 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 82 23 26 178 0.46 16.5 41.6 E 41.6 E 12.8 68.0% 15
SB 1 353 24 269 481 0.73 45.7 30.4 D 30.4 D
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900
174 174 1900 6.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1758 0.88 1560 0.95 183 13 285 5% NA 4
56 56 1900
31 31 1900
24 24 1900
0.95 59 0 0 2%
0.95 33 0 0 24% Perm
148 148 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1691 0.89 1511 0.95 156 7 207 9% NA 8
89 89 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.50 926 0.95 94 0 94 3% Perm
93 93 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 98 0 98 9% NA 2
140 140 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 147 64 83 17% Perm
157 157 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.69 1281 0.95 165 0 165 4% Perm
387 387 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 407 0 407 6% NA 6
104 104 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 109 47 62 6% Perm
2 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 789
6 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 724
0.06 0.11 7.1 1.00 0.3 7.4 A
0.13 0.23 7.7 1.00 0.7 8.4 A
0.95 56 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.95 25 0 0 6%
8 17.4 17.4 0.24 6.5 3.0 381
17.4 17.4 0.24 6.5 3.0 369
c0.18 0.75 24.8 1.00 7.8 32.7 C 32.7 C
0.14 0.56 23.5 1.00 2.0 25.5 C 25.5 C 15.6 0.50 71.1 76.4% 15
2 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 523 0.10 0.18 7.5 1.00 0.8 8.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 996 0.06 0.10 7.1 1.00 0.2 7.3 A 7.6 A
40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 1024 c0.22 0.40 8.7 1.00 1.2 9.8 A 9.1 A
6 40.2 40.2 0.57 7.0 3.0 871 0.04 0.07 7.0 1.00 0.2 7.2 A
B 13.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 47 59.9% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 0 47 40 24 0 40 24
None 31.5 40.1% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 47 0 72 61 47 72 61
Max 47 59.9% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 0 47 40 24 0 40 24
None 31.5 40.1% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 47 0 72 61 47 72 61
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0
14 14
12 12 0.91 13
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 15
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
26
0
0
26 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 985
3.5 99 1021
2.8 99 1301
EB 1 15 0 15 1021 0.01 0.3 8.6 A 8.6 A
NB 1 13 13 0 1301 0.01 0.2 7.8 A 7.8
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.2 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
22 22 1900
32 32 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 0.99 1720 0.86 1495 0.92 35 18 66
23 23 1900
68 68 1900
142 142 1900
256 256 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1783 1.00 1783 0.92 278 12 319
137 137 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.95 1597 0.56 943 0.92 149 0 149 183 Perm
300 300 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1859 1.00 1859 0.92 326 5 346
23 23 1900
0.92 74 0 0 102 Perm
23 23 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1778 0.55 1025 0.92 25 0 25 11 Perm
49 49 1900
0.92 25 0 0 102
47 47 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.93 0.99 1657 0.89 1491 0.92 51 75 204
0.92 24 0 0 7 Perm
NA 4
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.92 154 0 0 7
NA 8
8 9.9 9.9 0.30 4.5 3.0 441
9.9 9.9 0.30 4.5 3.0 440
0.04 0.15 8.7 1.00 0.2 8.9 A 8.9 A
c0.14 0.46 9.6 1.00 0.8 10.4 B 10.4 B 7.8 0.44 33.5 56.2% 15
2 14.6 14.6 0.44 4.5 3.0 446 0.02 0.06 5.5 1.00 0.1 5.5 A
0.92 53 0 0 183
NA 2
6 14.6 14.6 0.44 4.5 3.0 410
14.6 14.6 0.44 4.5 3.0 777 0.18
0.16 0.36 6.3 1.00 0.6 6.9 A
0.41 6.5 1.00 0.4 6.8 A 6.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 B
0.92 25 0 0 11
NA 6 14.6 14.6 0.44 4.5 3.0 810 c0.19 0.43 6.6 1.00 0.4 6.9 A 6.9 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 37 56.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 37 32.5 32.5 0 32.5 32.5
None 28 43.1% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 37 0 60.5 49.5 37 60.5 49.5
Min 37 56.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 37 32.5 32.5 0 32.5 32.5
None 28 43.1% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 37 0 60.5 49.5 37 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 45
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside Drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
16 16 Stop 0% 0.87 18
15 15
19 19 0.87 22
371 371 Free 0% 0.87 426
49 49
0.87 17
259 259 Free 0% 0.87 298
None
None
796
454
482
796 6.4
454 6.5
482 4.1
3.5 95 349
3.6 97 550
2.2 98 1081
EB 1 35 18 17 424 0.08 2.0 14.2 B 14.2 B
NB 1 320 22 0 1081 0.02 0.5 0.8 A 0.8
SB 1 482 0 56 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0
0.87 56
0.0
0.9 39.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 34
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
40 40 1900
141 141 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1760 0.87 1537 0.86 164 12 247 4% NA 4
41 41 1900
132 132 1900
101 101 1900
365 365 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1751 1.00 1751 0.86 424 15 539 7% NA 2
107 107 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 625 0.86 124 0 124 2% Perm
415 415 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1778 1.00 1778 0.86 483 7 545 3% NA 6
59 59 1900
0.86 153 0 0 5% Perm
26 26 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 628 0.86 30 0 30 2% Perm
112 112 1900
0.86 48 0 0 2%
142 142 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1765 0.75 1355 0.86 165 19 416 2% NA 8
0.86 47 0 0 14% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.86 117 0 0 2%
8 23.7 23.7 0.33 5.5 3.0 513
23.7 23.7 0.33 5.5 3.0 452
0.16 0.48 18.8 1.00 0.7 19.5 B 19.5 B
c0.31 0.92 22.7 1.00 23.6 46.3 D 46.3 D 22.5 0.73 71.0 109.7% 15
2 36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 321 0.05 0.09 8.9 1.00 0.6 9.5 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 130 0 0 2%
6 36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 319
36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 895 c0.31
0.20 0.39 10.6 1.00 3.5 14.1 B
0.60 12.3 1.00 3.0 15.2 B 14.9 B
0.86 69 0 0 27%
36.3 36.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 909 0.31 0.60 12.2 1.00 2.9 15.1 B 15.0 B
C 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 35
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
C-Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None C-Max 30.5 40.5 43.0% 57.0% 30.5 40.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 8 35 3 3 3.5 1 0 0 0 0 15 25 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 40.5 0 0 40.5 65.5 35 55.5 25 40.5 0 65.5 35 55.5 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 3.5 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 36
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
100 100 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.72 1355 0.93 108 0 108 2% Perm
17 17 1900 5.5 1.00 0.86 1.00 1591 1.00 1591 0.93 18 199 62 2% NA 4
226 226 1900
22 22 1900
17 17 1900
385 385 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1872 1.00 1872 0.93 414 2 430 2% NA 2
43 43 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.49 811 0.93 46 0 46 17% Perm
390 390 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1824 1.00 1824 0.93 419 7 489 3% NA 6
72 72 1900
0.93 24 0 0 2% Perm
120 120 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.45 841 0.93 129 0 129 2% Perm
17 17 1900
0.93 243 0 0 4%
15 15 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1768 0.67 1206 0.93 16 15 43 2% NA 8
4 10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 245 c0.08 0.44 20.5 1.00 1.3 21.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.93 18 0 0 2%
8 10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 288 0.04
10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 218 0.04 0.20 19.6 1.00 0.4 20.0 C 20.0 C
0.22 19.6 1.00 0.4 20.0 C 20.5 C 10.2 0.43 56.3 94.4% 15
2 35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 524 0.15 0.25 4.7 1.00 1.1 5.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 18 0 0 2%
6 35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 505
35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 1167 0.23
0.06 0.09 4.2 1.00 0.4 4.6 A
0.37 5.2 1.00 0.9 6.1 A 6.0 A
0.93 77 0 0 2%
35.1 35.1 0.62 5.5 3.0 1137 c0.27 0.43 5.5 1.00 1.2 6.6 A 6.5 A
B 11.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 37
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 38
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
47 47 Stop 0% 0.96 49
93 93
403 403 Free 0% 0.96 420
72 72
92 92
0.96 75
0.96 96
551 551 Free 0% 0.96 574
0.96 97
4 None
None
1224
458
495
1224 6.5
458 6.2
495 4.1
3.6 72 177
3.3 84 603
2.2 91 1058
WB 1 146 49 97 526 0.28 8.6 19.1 C 19.1 C
NB 1 495 0 75 1700 0.29 0.0 0.0 0.0
SB 1 670 96 0 1058 0.09 2.3 2.3 A 2.3
3.3 73.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
D
Synchro 11 Report Page 39
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2031 PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
44 44
33 33 Stop 0% 0.75 44
16 16
23 23
47 47
52 52
17 17
0.75 63
0.75 69
0.75 73
0.75 23
52 52 Free 0% 0.75 69
21 21
0.75 31
78 78 Free 0% 0.75 104
55 55
0.75 21
52 52 Stop 0% 0.75 69
0.75 59
None
None
505
444
83
450
422
140
97
177
505 7.1
444 6.5
83 6.2
450 7.1
422 6.5
140 6.2
97 4.1
177 4.1
3.5 84 378
4.0 91 477
3.3 98 976
3.5 93 450
4.0 86 491
3.3 93 907
2.2 95 1496
2.2 98 1399
EB 1 124 59 21 460 0.27 8.2 15.7 C 15.7 C
WB 1 163 31 63 585 0.28 8.6 13.5 B 13.5 B
NB 1 246 69 73 1496 0.05 1.1 2.4 A 2.4
SB 1 120 23 28 1399 0.02 0.4 1.6 A 1.6
7.5 33.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 28
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 40
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.70 1243 0.94 56 0 56 9% Perm
67 67 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1744 1.00 1744 0.94 71 40 100 2% NA 4
65 65 1900
22 22 1900
0.94 69 0 0 2%
0.94 23 0 0 2% Perm
54 54 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1819 0.89 1646 0.94 57 0 80 5% NA 8
147 147 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 156 112 44 2% Perm
19 19 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.26 487 0.94 20 0 20 3% Perm
319 319 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 339 0 339 3% NA 2
21 21 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 22 10 12 2% Perm
175 175 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.53 986 0.94 186 0 186 4% Perm
651 651 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 693 0 693 5% NA 6
67 67 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 71 31 40 15% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 273
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 553
0.03 0.10 23.7 1.00 0.1 23.8 C
0.04 0.07 8.9 1.00 0.5 9.5 A
0.01 0.01 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.7 A
0.19 0.34 10.6 1.00 0.6 11.2 B
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 348 0.05 0.16 24.1 1.00 1.0 25.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 489 c0.06
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 461 0.05 0.17 24.2 1.00 0.2 24.5 C 24.0 C
0.21 24.5 1.00 0.9 25.4 C 25.3 C 16.2 0.52 89.1 90.7% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 0.18 0.32 10.5 1.00 0.8 11.3 B 11.1 B
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 c0.38 0.68 13.8 1.00 2.1 15.9 B 14.5 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.05 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.9 A
B 14.1 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None None Max 57 57 32.1 32.1 64.0% 36.0% 64.0% 36.0% 35 35 30.1 30.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 20 10 20 10 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 21 16 21 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 57 0 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66 0 57 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 56 0.16 25.8 0.0 25.8 7.2 16.5 150.0 348 0 0 0 0.16
EBT WBT 80 140 0.17 0.27 25.5 16.8 0.0 0.0 25.5 16.8 10.3 11.0 21.3 25.2 1366.5 1368.7 528 0 0 0 0.27
461 0 0 0 0.17
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
WBR 156 0.28 5.7 0.0 5.7 0.0 13.4
NBL 20 0.07 9.9 0.0 9.9 1.5 4.8
170.0 561 0 0 0 0.28
250.0 273 0 0 0 0.07
NBT 339 0.32 11.6 0.0 11.6 29.0 45.1 1562.1 1046 0 0 0 0.32
NBR 22 0.02 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.0
SBL 186 0.34 12.7 0.0 12.7 16.0 29.6
135.0 920 0 0 0 0.02
200.0 553 0 0 0 0.34
SBT 693 0.68 18.0 0.0 18.0 78.1 116.3 1053.3 1026 0 0 0 0.68
SBR 71 0.09 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 5.3 200.0 828 0 0 0 0.09
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
103 103 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1872 1.00 1872 0.93 111 2 114 2% NA 4
5 5 1900
126 126 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.68 1170 0.93 135 0 135 12% Perm
85 85 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 91 0 91 2% NA 8
121 121 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 130 87 43 3% Perm
188 188 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.65 1220 0.93 202 0 202 2% Perm
154 154 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 166 0 166 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
3 3 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.65 1228 0.93 3 0 3 2% Perm
161 161 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 173 0 173 7% NA 6
186 186 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 200 96 104 11% Perm
8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 528
2 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 636
0.03 0.08 21.9 1.00 0.3 22.2 C
c0.17 0.32 13.2 1.00 1.3 14.5 B
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 5 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 390
32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 624 0.06
c0.12 0.35 24.1 1.00 2.4 26.5 C
0.18 22.7 1.00 0.1 22.8 C 22.8 C 17.1 0.33 95.9 64.4% 15
32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 628 0.05 0.14 22.4 1.00 0.5 22.9 C 24.0 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 640
50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 902 0.10
0.00 0.00 11.0 1.00 0.0 11.0 B
0.18 12.2 1.00 0.4 12.6 B 13.6 B
50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 935 0.10 0.19 12.2 1.00 0.4 12.6 B 12.4 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 766 0.07 0.14 11.8 1.00 0.4 12.2 B
B 13.9 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 SETL
4 6 NBTL NWTL
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
8 SBTL
C-Max None C-Max Max 57 38.9 57 38.9 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 39 32.9 39 32.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1 1.1 1 1.1 10 20 10 20 3 4.5 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 16 25 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 0 57 0 57 0 57 50 50 89 89 25 73 25 73 0 57 0 57 50 50 89 89 25 73 25 73
Intersection Summary 95.9 Cycle Length Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
NBT 116 0.19 23.1 0.0 23.1 14.7 27.4 530.8 626 0 0 0 0.19
SBL 135 0.35 27.2 0.0 27.2 18.7 34.4 100.0 390 0 0 0 0.35
SBT 91 0.14 23.2 0.0 23.2 11.7 22.5 249.9 628 0 0 0 0.14
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
SBR 130 0.21 5.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 11.8
SEL 202 0.32 14.9 0.0 14.9 20.4 35.2
100.0 615 0 0 0 0.21
200.0 636 0 0 0 0.32
SET 166 0.18 12.8 0.0 12.8 15.5 26.5 374.7 902 0 0 0 0.18
NWL 3 0.00 11.0 0.0 11.0 0.3 1.6 200.0 640 0 0 0 0.00
NWT 173 0.19 12.8 0.0 12.8 16.1 27.4 359.2 935 0 0 0 0.19
NWR 200 0.23 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 9.9 100.0 862 0 0 0 0.23
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
32 32 1900
504 504 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1810 0.95 1725 0.96 525 5 602 5% NA 2
47 47 1900
16 16 1900
30 30 1900
43 43 1900
26 26 1900
0.96 31 0 0 2%
0.96 45 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 45 0 0 2%
0.96 27 0 0 2% Perm
44 44 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 0.99 1765 0.93 1662 0.96 46 27 92 2% NA 4
44 44 1900
0.96 17 0 0 2% Perm
27 27 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 0.98 1740 0.87 1549 0.96 28 27 91 2% NA 8
43 43 1900
0.96 49 0 0 3%
565 565 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1852 0.98 1813 0.96 589 3 634 3% NA 6
0.96 33 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
6
8
4
25.9 25.9 0.42 6.0 3.0 718
25.9 25.9 0.42 6.0 3.0 754
25.3 25.3 0.41 5.0 3.0 630
25.3 25.3 0.41 5.0 3.0 676
0.35 0.84 16.3 1.00 8.5 24.7 C 24.7 C
c0.35 0.84 16.3 1.00 8.4 24.7 C 24.7 C
c0.06 0.14 11.6 1.00 0.5 12.1 B 12.1 B
0.06 0.14 11.6 1.00 0.4 12.0 B 12.0 B
22.7 0.50 62.2 64.5% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 46 0 0 2%
C 11.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
None Max None Max 41 41 30 30 57.7% 42.3% 57.7% 42.3% 25 25 41 41 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 41 41 0 0 41 0 41 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10 0 41 41 0 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBT 607 0.84 27.5 0.0 27.5 58.3 94.7 123.3
WBT 637 0.84 27.2 0.0 27.2 61.7 98.5 258.1
NBT 118 0.18 10.6 0.0 10.6 5.1 16.8 366.5
SBT 119 0.17 10.4 0.0 10.4 5.0 16.6 390.1
983 0 0 0 0.62
1032 0 0 0 0.62
656 0 0 0 0.18
701 0 0 0 0.17
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24 1900
513 513 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1854 0.96 1785 0.94 546 3 619
47 47 1900
18 18 1900
32 32 1900
31 31 1900
42 42 1900
0.94 34 0 0 2
0.94 33 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 23 0 0 3
0.94 45 0 0 3 Perm
94 94 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1822 0.90 1657 0.94 100 4 157
15 15 1900
0.94 19 0 0 6 Perm
56 56 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1790 0.89 1624 0.94 60 9 107
22 22 1900
0.94 50 0 0 6
575 575 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 0.98 1821 0.94 612 2 663
0.94 26 0 0 2 Perm
NA 6
6
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
NA 2
2
NA 8
8
NA 4
4
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 785
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 801
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 714
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 729
0.35 0.79 24.0 1.00 7.9 31.9 C 31.9 C
c0.36 0.83 24.7 1.00 9.6 34.3 C 34.3 C
0.07 0.15 16.8 1.00 0.4 17.2 B 17.2 B
c0.09 0.22 17.3 1.00 0.7 18.0 B 18.0 B
30.4 0.52 100.0 65.7% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 16 0 0 7
C 12.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
8 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max Max Max Max 50 50 50 50 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 24 24 28 26 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 20 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 15 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 50 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 94 94 44 44 83 83 29 31 50 50 0 0 94 94 44 44 83 83 29 31
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 EBTL
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBT WBT 622 665 0.79 0.83 32.6 35.3 0.0 0.0 32.6 35.3 99.7 110.1 145.5 #172.8 258.1 647.5
NBT 116 0.16 15.2 0.0 15.2 11.3 21.9 153.3
SBT 161 0.22 17.6 0.0 17.6 17.9 31.1 103.2
788 0 0 0 0.79
722 0 0 0 0.16
733 0 0 0 0.22
802 0 0 0 0.83
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
96 96 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.28 533 0.89 108 0 108 2% pm+pt 5 2 36.1 36.1 0.52 5.0 3.0 417 0.03 0.11 0.26 8.7 1.00 0.3 9.0 A
804 804 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3568 1.00 3568 0.89 903 2 919 2% NA 2
16 16 1900
94 94 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.20 381 0.89 106 0 106 2% pm+pt 1 6 36.1 36.1 0.52 5.0 3.0 354 c0.03 0.12 0.30 9.2 1.00 0.5 9.6 A
558 558 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3460 1.00 3460 0.89 627 18 736 3% NA 6
113 113 1900
81 81 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.48 901 0.89 91 0 91 2% Perm
73 73 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1718 1.00 1718 0.89 82 33 107 2% NA 4
52 52 1900
174 174 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.67 1257 0.89 196 0 196 2% Perm
101 101 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1715 1.00 1715 0.89 113 59 200 2% NA 8
130 130 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.89 18 0 0 2%
28.5 28.5 0.41 5.0 3.0 1475 c0.26 0.62 16.0 1.00 2.0 18.0 B 17.0 B 17.8 0.57 68.9 74.1% 15
0.89 127 0 0 2%
28.5 28.5 0.41 5.0 3.0 1431 0.21 0.51 15.0 1.00 0.3 15.4 B 14.7 B
4 17.8 17.8 0.26 5.0 3.0 232 0.10 0.39 21.1 1.00 1.1 22.2 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 58 0 0 9%
8 17.8 17.8 0.26 5.0 3.0 324
17.8 17.8 0.26 5.0 3.0 443 0.06
c0.16 0.60 22.5 1.00 3.2 25.6 C
0.24 20.2 1.00 0.3 20.5 C 21.2 C
0.89 146 0 0 3%
17.8 17.8 0.26 5.0 3.0 443 0.12 0.45 21.4 1.00 0.7 22.2 C 23.7 C
B 15.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
2 6 4 8 5 1 WBL EBTL NBTL EBL WBTL SBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None None None None 33 33 20 30 20 30 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 15 33 15 33 26 26 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 15 10 28 28 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 18 18 10 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20 20 53 53 0 0 53 53 20 0 20 0 15 78 15 78 48 48 38 38 68 15 15 68 0 0 63 33 63 33 28 28 58 78 58 78 18 18 78 78 48 48 83 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 108 0.23 8.2 0.0 8.2 4.8 13.7 70.0 595 0 0 0 0.18
EBT 921 0.61 19.3 0.0 19.3 47.6 79.4 368.2 1498 0 0 0 0.61
WBL 106 0.26 8.6 0.0 8.6 4.7 13.6 120.0 539 0 0 0 0.20
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
WBT 754 0.51 17.1 0.0 17.1 35.4 61.0 68.4
NBL 91 0.39 27.2 0.0 27.2 10.0 21.7
NBT 140 0.29 16.6 0.0 16.6 10.1 22.2 306.6
1469 0 0 0 0.51
336 0 0 0 0.27
670 0 0 0 0.21
SBL 196 0.59 31.2 0.0 31.2 23.0 41.5 30.0 471 0 0 0 0.42
SBT 259 0.51 19.0 0.0 19.0 19.9 38.7 418.3 691 0 0 0 0.37
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
293 293 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 188 0.95 308 0 308 2% pm+pt 1 6 52.1 52.1 0.46 5.0 3.0 255 c0.13 c0.43 1.21 32.7 1.00 124.4 157.1 F
551 551 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 580 0 580 2% NA 6
313 50 50 313 1900 1900 5.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1601 1722 1.00 0.15 1601 267 0.95 0.95 53 329 183 0 53 146 2% 6% Perm pm+pt 5 2 6 40.4 41.8 40.4 41.8 0.37 0.36 5.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 184 569 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.29 0.26 26.0 26.0 1.00 1.00 0.9 1.1 26.9 27.0 C C
626 626 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 659 0 659 2% NA 2
107 107 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 113 78 35 2% Perm
271 271 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.12 228 0.95 285 0 285 2% pm+pt 3 8 49.5 49.5 0.44 5.0 3.0 324 c0.13 0.26 0.88 30.4 1.00 22.7 53.0 D
260 260 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1805 1.00 1805 0.95 274 7 342 3% NA 8
71 71 1900
89 89 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.48 891 0.95 94 0 94 3% pm+pt 7 4 35.8 35.8 0.32 5.0 3.0 340 0.02 0.07 0.28 28.2 1.00 0.4 28.6 C
228 228 1900 6.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1719 1.00 1719 0.95 240 35 468 3% NA 4
250 250 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
40.4 40.4 0.36 6.0 3.0 669 0.31 0.87 34.1 1.00 14.2 48.3 D 70.1 E
78.8 1.15 113.6 109.8% 15
35.1 35.1 0.31 6.0 3.0 581 0.35 1.13 39.2 1.00 80.1 119.4 F 100.9 F
2 35.1 35.1 0.31 6.0 3.0 494 0.02 0.07 27.7 1.00 0.3 28.0 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 75 0 0 3%
36.8 36.8 0.32 6.0 3.0 584 0.19 0.58 32.0 1.00 4.2 36.3 D 43.8 D
0.95 263 0 0 3%
28.1 28.1 0.25 6.0 3.0 425 c0.27 1.10 42.8 1.00 74.2 117.0 F 103.1 F
E 22.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
2 6 4 7 8 3 1 5 NBL SBTL WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None Max None Max None 40 40 33 17 17 23 23 33 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 33 33 33 13 13 13 13 33 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17 17 80 57 57 80 0 0 0 17 57 80 57 80 17 0 51 51 75 75 107 107 12 12 34 34 90 75 75 12 90 12 0 0 63 96 96 40 40 63 34 34 90 108 108 58 58 90 17 17 73 108 108 58 58 73 113 Semi Act-Uncoord 115
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 580 308 0.85 1.19 147.9 47.9 0.0 0.0 147.9 47.9 ~68.1 122.0 #123.7 #193.3 607.3 30.0 681 258 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.19 0.85
EBR 329 0.43 7.3 0.0 7.3 6.8 28.7 760 0 0 0 0.43
WBL WBT 53 659 0.25 1.15 20.4 122.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 122.0 6.4 ~173.0 13.5 #241.2 443.3 65.0 269 574 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 1.15
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
WBR 113 0.20 4.9 0.0 4.9 0.0 10.5
NBL 285 0.86 52.0 0.0 52.0 44.8 #86.8
575 0 0 0 0.20
100.0 353 0 0 0 0.81
NBT 349 0.58 35.9 0.0 35.9 62.6 96.5 278.0 603 0 0 0 0.58
SBL SBT 94 503 0.25 1.12 20.7 114.4 0.0 0.0 20.7 114.4 11.8 ~121.1 21.7 #185.3 268.1 300.0 509 451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 1.12
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.54 937 0.97 21 0 21 10% Perm
207 207 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1825 1.00 1825 0.97 213 7 248 2% NA 8
41 41 1900
114 114 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.24 447 0.97 118 0 118 2% pm+pt 7 4 37.9 37.9 0.35 5.0 3.0 343 0.05 0.07 0.34 25.4 1.00 0.6 26.0 C
243 243 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1788 1.00 1788 0.97 251 18 362 2% NA 4
125 125 1900
16 16 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.67 1257 0.97 16 0 16 2% Perm
47 47 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1755 1.00 1755 0.97 48 21 67 2% NA 2
39 39 1900
36 36 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.63 1157 0.97 37 0 37 4% pm+pt 1 6 58.1 58.1 0.54 5.0 3.0 681 0.01 0.02 0.05 11.9 1.00 0.0 11.9 B
116 116 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1843 1.00 1843 0.97 120 5 135 2% NA 6
19 19 1900
8 17.9 17.9 0.17 6.0 3.0 155 0.02 0.14 38.4 1.00 0.4 38.8 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.97 42 0 0 6%
17.9 17.9 0.17 6.0 3.0 302 c0.14 0.82 43.5 1.00 16.3 59.8 E 58.2 E 33.0 0.38 108.0 68.7% 15
0.97 129 0 0 2%
37.9 37.9 0.35 6.0 3.0 627 c0.20 0.58 28.5 1.00 1.3 29.8 C 28.9 C
2 42.4 42.4 0.39 6.0 3.0 493 0.01 0.03 20.2 1.00 0.1 20.3 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 40 0 0 2%
42.4 42.4 0.39 6.0 3.0 689 0.04 0.10 20.7 1.00 0.3 21.0 C 20.9 C
0.97 20 0 0 2%
58.1 58.1 0.54 6.0 3.0 991 c0.07 0.14 12.4 1.00 0.3 12.7 B 12.6 B
C 22.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
AM Peak Hour
4 7 2 8 1 6 SBL NBTL WBTL SBTL WBL EBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None None None 23 25 62 31 48 31 28.2% 28.2% 43.6% 56.4% 20.9% 22.7% 32 23 21 32 31 31 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 15 25 15 15 25 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 7 18 8 8 8 8 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 62 62 31 0 85 0 0 62 85 62 31 0 80 26 104 56 104 56 96 48 80 96 48 26 0 31 31 79 54 79 73 105 49 25 73 25 105 65 49 65 17 17
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
Splits and Phases:
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 21 0.13 39.5 0.0 39.5 3.7 10.9 50.0 168 0 0 0 0.13
EBT 255 0.81 61.9 0.0 61.9 49.6 #86.1 648.3 334 0 0 0 0.76
WBL 118 0.33 25.4 0.0 25.4 16.3 29.0 60.0 391 0 0 0 0.30
WBT 380 0.58 29.6 0.0 29.6 58.3 87.9 112.7 725 0 0 0 0.52
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
NBL 16 0.03 25.8 0.0 25.8 2.3 7.3 50.0 502 0 0 0 0.03
NBT 88 0.12 16.9 0.0 16.9 7.9 19.3 118.6 723 0 0 0 0.12
SBL 37 0.05 12.2 0.0 12.2 3.5 8.4 30.0 769 0 0 0 0.05
SBT 140 0.14 12.4 0.0 12.4 13.2 23.4 52.7 980 0 0 0 0.14
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
32 32 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.18 333 0.91 35 0 35 5% Perm
245 245 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1858 1.00 1858 0.91 269 5 289 2% NA 4
23 23 1900
205 205 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.49 916 0.91 225 0 225 2% pm+pt 3 4 29.0 29.0 0.41 2.0 3.0 460 c0.05 0.15 0.49 14.3 1.00 0.8 15.1 B
575 575 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1854 1.00 1854 0.91 632 2 653 2% NA 4
21 21 1900
35 35 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1170 0.91 38 0 38 2% Perm
141 141 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1737 1.00 1737 0.91 155 42 240 4% NA 2
116 116 1900
22 22 1900
0.91 127 0 0 2%
0.91 24 0 0 2% Perm
177 177 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1873 0.95 1783 0.91 195 0 219 2% NA 2
21 21 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 23 14 9 3% Perm
4 22.0 22.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 103 0.11 0.34 18.9 1.00 2.0 20.9 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.91 25 0 0 3%
22.0 22.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 575 0.16 0.50 20.0 1.00 0.7 20.7 C 20.7 C 50.1 0.67 71.0 82.3% 15
0.91 23 0 0 33%
22.0 22.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 574 c0.35 1.14 24.5 1.00 81.6 106.1 F 82.8 F
2 28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 461 0.03 0.08 13.5 1.00 0.4 13.8 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 703
28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 685 c0.14
0.12 0.31 14.8 1.00 1.2 16.0 B 15.7 B
0.35 15.1 1.00 1.4 16.5 B 16.2 B
2 28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 625 0.01 0.01 13.1 1.00 0.0 13.1 B
D 14.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
3 4 WBL EBWB Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 28 9 12.7% 39.4% 28 9 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 Yes No Yes Yes 43 34 43 0 41 65 41 58 43 34 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 35 0.34 29.9 0.0 29.9 3.6 11.9 180.0 103 0 0 0 0.34
EBT 294 0.51 23.3 0.0 23.3 30.8 52.3 138.6 580 0 0 0 0.51
WBL WBT 655 225 0.44 1.14 13.7 107.9 0.0 0.0 13.7 107.9 16.3 ~104.2 28.7 #163.9 145.1 20.0 576 511 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.14 0.44
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
NBL 38 0.08 14.2 0.0 14.2 3.1 8.5
NBT 282 0.39 13.3 0.0 13.3 19.0 36.5 388.0
SBT 219 0.31 16.4 0.0 16.4 19.6 34.4 574.8
461 0 0 0 0.08
726 0 0 0 0.39
702 0 0 0 0.31
SBR 23 0.03 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 30.0 671 0 0 0 0.03
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
32 32 1900
91 91 1900 6.5 1.00 0.96 0.99 1738 0.80 1404 0.95 96 22 167 5% NA 4
56 56 1900
22 22 1900
190 190 1900
0.95 59 0 0 2%
0.95 23 0 0 24% Perm
245 245 1900 6.5 1.00 0.94 1.00 1668 0.98 1635 0.95 258 33 448 9% NA 8
67 67 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.54 1015 0.95 71 0 71 3% Perm
200 200 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 211 0 211 9% NA 2
301 301 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 317 152 165 17% Perm
149 149 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.63 1156 0.95 157 0 157 4% Perm
313 313 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 329 0 329 6% NA 6
97 97 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 102 49 53 6% Perm
2 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 727
6 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 602
0.12 0.23 10.0 1.00 0.7 10.8 B
0.14 0.26 10.2 1.00 1.1 11.3 B
0.95 34 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.95 200 0 0 6%
8 23.4 23.4 0.30 6.5 3.0 426
23.4 23.4 0.30 6.5 3.0 496
0.12 0.39 21.2 1.00 0.6 21.8 C 21.8 C
c0.27 0.90 25.7 1.00 19.5 45.2 D 45.2 D 20.9 0.55 77.0 78.0% 15
2 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 528 0.07 0.13 9.5 1.00 0.5 10.0 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 917 0.12 0.23 10.0 1.00 0.6 10.6 B 10.6 B
40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 943 c0.18 0.35 10.8 1.00 1.0 11.8 B 11.2 B
6 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 802 0.03 0.07 9.2 1.00 0.2 9.3 A
C 13.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
2 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 47 47 31.5 31.5 59.9% 40.1% 59.9% 40.1% 30 30 30 30 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 20 10 10 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 5 16 11 11 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 47 47 0 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT WBT 189 481 0.42 0.91 20.9 46.7 0.0 0.0 20.9 46.7 17.9 60.6 35.1 #113.9 544.5 206.8 477 0 0 0 0.40
564 0 0 0 0.85
NBL 71 0.13 11.0 0.0 11.0 5.2 12.0 75.0 528 0 0 0 0.13
NBT 211 0.23 11.3 0.0 11.3 16.5 28.5 173.0 917 0 0 0 0.23
NBR 317 0.36 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 11.3
SBL 157 0.26 12.2 0.0 12.2 12.5 23.8
50.0 878 0 0 0 0.36
130.0 602 0 0 0 0.26
SBT 329 0.35 12.6 0.0 12.6 27.6 44.6 418.3 943 0 0 0 0.35
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
SBR 102 0.12 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 6.7 100.0 851 0 0 0 0.12
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
59 59 1900
133 133 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1755 0.78 1392 0.86 155 5 241 4% NA 4
19 19 1900
118 118 1900
79 79 1900
542 542 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1750 1.00 1750 0.86 630 15 816 7% NA 2
94 94 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.13 241 0.86 109 0 109 2% Perm
437 437 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1786 1.00 1786 0.86 508 6 567 3% NA 6
56 56 1900
0.86 137 0 0 5% Perm
55 55 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 612 0.86 64 0 64 2% Perm
173 173 1900
0.86 22 0 0 2%
144 144 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1775 0.78 1402 0.86 167 16 380 2% NA 8
0.86 69 0 0 14% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.86 92 0 0 2%
8 21.5 21.5 0.32 5.5 3.0 442
21.5 21.5 0.32 5.5 3.0 445
0.17 0.54 19.0 1.00 1.4 20.4 C 20.4 C
c0.27 0.85 21.6 1.00 14.6 36.2 D 36.2 D 26.5 0.88 67.6 109.3% 15
2 35.1 35.1 0.52 5.5 3.0 317 0.10 0.20 8.7 1.00 1.4 10.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 201 0 0 2%
6 35.1 35.1 0.52 5.5 3.0 125
35.1 35.1 0.52 5.5 3.0 908 c0.47
0.45 0.87 14.3 1.00 51.7 66.0 E
0.90 14.6 1.00 13.5 28.2 C 26.9 C
0.86 65 0 0 27%
35.1 35.1 0.52 5.5 3.0 927 0.32 0.61 11.4 1.00 3.0 14.4 B 22.7 C
C 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 8 35 34.6 8 3 3 3 3 1 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 35 65.5 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 25 55.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 80
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBT 246 0.55 23.4 0.0 23.4 24.3 41.5 158.8
WBT 396 0.86 40.0 0.0 40.0 43.4 #79.0 158.6
NBT NBL 64 831 0.20 0.90 30.9 12.1 0.0 0.0 30.9 12.1 4.4 93.7 11.1 #158.7 321.6
521 0 0 0 0.47
535 0 0 0 0.74
317 0 0 0 0.20
SBL 109 0.87 77.9 0.0 77.9 12.4 #39.5
924 0 0 0 0.90
50.0 125 0 0 0 0.87
SBT 573 0.61 15.7 0.0 15.7 51.0 77.4 760.4 933 0 0 0 0.61
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
101 101 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.72 1352 0.93 109 0 109 2% Perm
26 26 1900 5.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1618 1.00 1618 0.93 28 127 52 2% NA 4
140 140 1900
20 20 1900
19 19 1900
468 468 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1873 1.00 1873 0.93 503 1 522 2% NA 2
20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.43 713 0.93 22 0 22 17% Perm
313 313 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1789 1.00 1789 0.93 337 13 463 3% NA 6
129 129 1900
0.93 22 0 0 2% Perm
197 197 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.46 874 0.93 212 0 212 2% Perm
19 19 1900
0.93 151 0 0 4%
17 17 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 0.98 1766 0.84 1505 0.93 18 17 43 2% NA 8
4 11.4 11.4 0.16 5.0 3.0 217 c0.08 0.50 27.2 1.00 1.8 29.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.93 20 0 0 2%
8 11.4 11.4 0.16 5.0 3.0 241
11.4 11.4 0.16 5.0 3.0 259 0.03
0.03 0.18 25.8 1.00 0.4 26.1 C 26.1 C
0.20 25.9 1.00 0.4 26.2 C 27.3 C 10.1 0.42 71.0 91.5% 15
2 49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 610 0.24 0.35 4.3 1.00 1.6 5.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 20 0 0 2%
6 49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 498
49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 1308 c0.28
0.03 0.04 3.3 1.00 0.2 3.5 A
0.40 4.5 1.00 0.9 5.4 A 5.5 A
0.93 139 0 0 2%
49.6 49.6 0.70 5.0 3.0 1249 0.26 0.37 4.4 1.00 0.8 5.2 A 5.1 A
B 10.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 40.5 40.5 30.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 40.5 40.5 30.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 35 8 8 35 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 0 40.5 35.5 35.5 66 66 25.5 56 56 25.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35.5 66 66 35.5 25.5 25.5 56 56
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 109 0.50 34.6 0.0 34.6 13.5 25.5 30.0 485 0 0 0 0.22
EBT 179 0.46 10.9 0.0 10.9 3.3 17.2 1201.3
WBT 60 0.23 20.1 0.0 20.1 4.7 13.0 482.8
677 0 0 0 0.26
553 0 0 0 0.11
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
NBL 212 0.35 6.9 0.0 6.9 8.9 24.2 50.0 610 0 0 0 0.35
NBT 523 0.40 6.1 0.0 6.1 22.7 48.3 440.8 1308 0 0 0 0.40
SBL 22 0.04 4.6 0.0 4.6 0.7 3.2 35.0 498 0 0 0 0.04
SBT 476 0.38 5.5 0.0 5.5 18.2 40.5 214.1 1261 0 0 0 0.38
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
91 91 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.95 1722 0.96 95 0 95 6% Prot 8
173 173 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 180 157 23 2% Perm
609 609 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1858 1.00 1858 0.96 634 4 701 2% NA 2
68 68 1900
73 73 1900
0.96 71 0 0 2%
0.96 76 0 0 4% Perm
375 375 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1847 0.83 1541 0.96 391 0 467 3% NA 6
9.3 9.3 0.13 4.5 3.0 219 c0.06 0.43 29.4 1.00 1.4 30.7 C 29.2 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
8 9.3 9.3 0.13 4.5 3.0 204 0.01 0.11 28.1 1.00 0.2 28.4 C
6 54.6 54.6 0.75 4.5 3.0 1391 c0.38 0.50 3.7 1.00 1.3 5.0 A 5.0 A 9.4 0.49 72.9 76.2% 15
54.6 54.6 0.75 4.5 3.0 1154 0.30 0.40 3.3 1.00 1.1 4.4 A 4.4 A HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBT
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
8 WBL
Max None Max 56 24 56 70.0% 70.0% 30.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 56 0 0 56 56 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 0 56 0 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
WBL 95 0.43 34.2 0.0 34.2 11.6 24.0 194.8 461 0 0 0 0.21
WBR 180 0.50 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 15.2 30.0 561 0 0 0 0.32
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
NBT 705 0.51 5.6 0.0 5.6 28.3 58.4 343.1
SBT 467 0.41 5.0 0.0 5.0 17.2 36.9 224.5
1392 0 0 0 0.51
1152 0 0 0 0.41
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
5 5
3 3 Stop 0% 0.87 3
210 210
7 7
1 1
215 215
1 1
0.87 1
0.87 247
0.87 10
0.87 1
72 72 Free 0% 0.87 83
7 7
0.87 8
59 59 Free 0% 0.87 68
9 9
0.87 241
5 5 Stop 0% 0.87 6
0.87 6
0.87 8
13 None
None
660
661
87
658
660
73
91
78
660 7.1
661 6.5
87 6.2
658 7.1
660 6.5
73 6.2
91 4.1
78 4.1
3.5 98 324
4.0 99 320
3.3 75 971
3.5 97 246
4.0 98 320
3.3 100 989
2.2 84 1504
2.2 100 1520
EB 1 250 6 241 1008 0.25 7.4 10.2 B 10.2 B
WB 1 15 8 1 287 0.05 1.3 18.2 C 18.2 C
NB 1 325 247 10 1504 0.16 4.5 6.3 A 6.3
SB 1 92 1 8 1520 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1
7.1 35.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
89 89
169 169 Free 0% 0.91 186
1 1
40 40
1 1
2 2
4 4
0.91 1
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 4
41 41 Stop 0% 0.91 45
69 69
0.91 44
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 1
173 173 Free 0% 0.91 190
0.91 76
0.91 98
None
None
191
187
760
662
186
749
662
190
191 4.1
187 4.1
760 7.1
662 6.5
186 6.3
749 7.1
662 6.5
190 6.2
2.2 93 1383
2.2 97 1387
3.5 99 244
4.0 84 343
3.4 93 845
3.5 98 247
4.0 87 344
3.3 91 846
EB 1 285 98 1 1383 0.07 1.7 3.1 A 3.1
WB 1 235 44 1 1387 0.03 0.7 1.7 A 1.7
NB 1 118 2 60 487 0.24 7.2 14.7 B 14.7 B 6.2 39.7% 15
SB 1 125 4 76 528 0.24 6.9 13.9 B 13.9 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20
23 23 Stop 0% 0.90 26
39 39
76 76
88 88
25 25
77 77
0.90 98
0.90 28
0.90 44
0.90 86
379 379 Free 0% 0.90 421
22 22
0.90 84
215 215 Free 0% 0.90 239
40 40
0.90 43
19 19 Stop 0% 0.90 21
0.90 22
None
None
1030
944
433
978
934
261
445
283
1030 7.1
944 6.5
433 6.2
978 7.1
934 6.5
261 6.2
445 4.1
283 4.1
3.5 86 161
4.0 89 238
3.3 93 623
3.5 54 182
4.0 91 242
3.3 87 778
2.2 97 1115
2.2 93 1279
EB 1 91 22 43 289 0.31 10.0 23.1 C 23.1 C
WB 1 203 84 98 301 0.67 34.5 38.6 E 38.6 E
NB 1 311 28 44 1115 0.03 0.6 1.0 A 1.0
SB 1 531 86 24 1279 0.07 1.6 1.9 A 1.9
9.9 65.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.90 24
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
16 16 Stop 0% 0.88 18
106 106
88 88 0.88 100
43 43 Free 0% 0.88 49
20 20
0.88 120
17 17 Free 0% 0.88 19
None
None
280
60
72
280 6.4
60 6.2
72 4.1
3.5 97 664
3.3 88 1005
2.2 93 1528
EB 1 138 18 120 942 0.15 3.9 9.5 A 9.5 A
NB 1 119 100 0 1528 0.07 1.6 6.4 A 6.4
SB 1 72 0 23 1700 0.04 0.0 0.0
0.88 23
0.0
6.3 26.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
16 16
207 207 Stop 0% 0.99 209
26 26
42 42
109 109
51 51
209 209
0.99 110
0.99 52
0.99 23
0.99 211
23 23 Free 0% 0.99 23
21 21
0.99 42
40 40 Free 0% 0.99 40
23 23
0.99 26
316 316 Stop 0% 0.99 319
0.99 16
0.99 21
None
None 382 880
622
34
742
622
52
44
63
880 7.1
622 6.5
34 6.2
742 7.2
622 6.5
52 6.2
44 4.1
63 4.1
3.5 51 33
4.0 38 336
3.3 97 1031
3.6 70 140
4.0 5 336
3.3 89 1016
2.2 97 1558
2.2 86 1540
EB 1 251 16 26 221 1.13 89.2 147.5 F 147.5 F
WB 1 471 42 110 347 1.36 175.7 208.6 F 208.6 F
NB 1 115 52 23 1558 0.03 0.8 3.5 A 3.5
SB 1 255 211 21 1540 0.14 3.6 6.6 A 6.6
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
125.8 63.7% 15
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
150 150
278 278 Free 0% 0.87 320
16 16
19 19
42 42
19 19
90 90
0.87 48
0.87 22
0.87 23
0.87 103
38 38 Stop 0% 0.87 44
194 194
0.87 22
49 49 Stop 0% 0.87 56
20 20
0.87 18
393 393 Free 0% 0.87 452
0.87 223
0.87 172
None
None
500
338
1438
1217
329
1244
1202
476
500 4.2
338 4.1
1438 7.1
1217 6.5
329 6.2
1244 7.2
1202 6.5
476 6.2
2.3 83 1039
2.2 98 1221
3.5 53 46
4.0 62 147
3.3 97 712
3.6 0 86
4.0 71 151
3.3 62 589
EB 1 510 172 18 1039 0.17 4.5 4.3 A 4.3
WB 1 522 22 48 1221 0.02 0.4 0.5 A 0.5
NB 1 101 22 23 114 0.89 41.1 126.8 F 126.8 F 121.2 83.7% 15
SB 1 370 103 223 198 1.87 203.1 451.1 F 451.1 F
ICU Level of Service
E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
267 267
157 157 Stop 0% 0.89 176
69 69
93 93
94 94
32 32
156 156
0.89 106
0.89 36
0.89 178
0.89 175
405 405 Free 0% 0.89 455
277 277
0.89 104
351 351 Free 0% 0.89 394
158 158
0.89 78
135 135 Stop 0% 0.89 152
0.89 300
None
None
1698
1604
610
1682
1671
483
766
572
1698 7.1
1604 6.5
610 6.2
1682 7.1
1671 6.5
483 6.2
766 4.1
572 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 83
3.3 84 494
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 76
3.3 82 584
2.2 96 847
2.2 83 1001
EB 1 554 300 78 0 Err Err Err F Err F
WB 1 362 104 106 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 608 36 178 847 0.04 1.0 1.1 A 1.1
SB 1 941 175 311 1001 0.17 4.8 4.2 A 4.2
Err 135.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.89 311
H
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
18 18
34 34 Stop 0% 0.89 38
20 20
61 61
15 15
15 15
17 17
0.89 17
0.89 17
0.89 22
0.89 19
61 61 Free 0% 0.89 69
15 15
0.89 69
85 85 Free 0% 0.89 96
20 20
0.89 22
15 15 Stop 0% 0.89 17
0.89 20
0.89 17
None
None
387 282
268
78
298
265
107
86
118
282 7.1
268 6.5
78 6.2
298 7.1
265 6.5
107 6.2
86 4.1
118 4.1
3.5 97 633
4.0 94 623
3.3 98 983
3.5 88 599
4.0 97 625
3.3 98 947
2.2 99 1510
2.2 99 1470
EB 1 80 20 22 696 0.11 2.9 10.8 B 10.8 B
WB 1 103 69 17 643 0.16 4.3 11.7 B 11.7 B
NB 1 135 17 22 1510 0.01 0.3 1.0 A 1.0
SB 1 105 19 17 1470 0.01 0.3 1.4 A 1.4
5.6 26.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
150 150
278 278 Free 0% 0.91 305
16 16
19 19
42 42
19 19
90 90
0.91 46
0.91 21
0.91 22
0.91 99
38 38 Stop 0% 0.91 42 1 3.7 1.1 0
194 194
0.91 21
49 49 Stop 0% 0.91 54 5 3.7 1.1 0
20 20
0.91 18
393 393 Free 0% 0.91 432
0.91 213
0.91 165
None
None
479
328
1380
1170
319
1191
1156
456
479 4.1
328 4.1
1380 7.1
1170 6.5
319 6.2
1191 7.1
1156 6.5
456 6.2
2.2 85 1082
2.2 98 1226
3.5 62 55
4.0 66 160
3.3 97 718
3.5 4 103
4.0 74 163
3.3 65 604
EB 1 488 165 18 1082 0.15 4.1 4.1 A 4.1
WB 1 499 21 46 1226 0.02 0.4 0.5 A 0.5
NB 1 97 21 22 129 0.75 33.1 89.1 F 89.1 F 85.7 83.8% 15
SB 1 354 99 213 225 1.57 168.2 317.5 F 317.5 F
ICU Level of Service
E
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
3 3 Stop 0% 0.91 3
29 29
32 32 0.91 35
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 32
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
70
0
0
70 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 914
3.5 97 1021
2.8 97 1301
EB 1 35 3 32 1011 0.03 0.8 8.7 A 8.7 A
NB 1 35 35 0 1301 0.03 0.6 7.8 A 7.8
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.3 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
19 19
56 56 Stop 0% 0.92 61 11 3.7 1.1 1
39 39
55 55
241 241
46 46
255 255
0.92 262
0.92 50
0.92 86
0.92 277
510 510 Free 0% 0.92 554 7 3.7 1.1 1
20 20
0.92 60
503 503 Free 0% 0.92 547 102 3.7 1.1 10
79 79
0.92 42
21 21 Stop 0% 0.92 23 183 3.7 1.1 17
0.92 21
0.92 22
None
None
197 1.00 2058
1.00 2046
1.00 678
1.00 2156
1.00 2014
2059 7.1
2048 6.5
676 6.2
2157 7.1
3.5 0 1
4.0 0 26
3.3 90 405
EB 1 124 21 42 7 18.21 Err Err F Err F
WB 1 345 60 262 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 50 50 0 977 0.05 1.2 8.9 A 0.7
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
Err 82.6% 15
780
1.00 587
816
2016 6.5
780 6.2
584 4.1
816 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 14 27
3.3 20 326
2.2 95 977
2.2 59 673
NB 2 633 0 86 1700 0.37 0.0 0.0
SB 1 277 277 0 673 0.41 15.3 14.0 B 4.6
SB 2 576 0 22 1700 0.34 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
E
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
20 20 Stop 0% 0.87 23
23 23
42 42 0.87 48
469 469 Free 0% 0.87 539
25 25
0.87 26
491 491 Free 0% 0.87 564
None
None
1214
554
568
1214 6.4
554 6.5
568 4.1
3.5 88 191
3.6 95 481
2.2 95 1004
EB 1 49 23 26 281 0.17 4.7 20.5 C 20.5 C
NB 1 612 48 0 1004 0.05 1.1 1.3 A 1.3
SB 1 568 0 29 1700 0.33 0.0 0.0
0.87 29
0.0
1.4 67.7% 15
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
16 16
36 36 Stop 0% 0.75 48
20 20
39 39
18 18
39 39
19 19
0.75 24
0.75 52
0.75 52
0.75 25
45 45 Free 0% 0.75 60
20 20
0.75 52
45 45 Free 0% 0.75 60
39 39
0.75 27
29 29 Stop 0% 0.75 39
0.75 21
None
None
357
340
74
364
327
86
87
112
357 7.1
340 6.5
74 6.2
364 7.1
327 6.5
86 6.2
87 4.1
112 4.1
3.5 96 531
4.0 91 552
3.3 97 988
3.5 90 517
4.0 93 561
3.3 98 973
2.2 97 1509
2.2 98 1478
EB 1 96 21 27 624 0.15 4.1 11.8 B 11.8 B
WB 1 115 52 24 590 0.19 5.5 12.6 B 12.6 B
NB 1 164 52 52 1509 0.03 0.8 2.6 A 2.6
SB 1 112 25 27 1478 0.02 0.4 1.8 A 1.8
6.6 26.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 27
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
8.6 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
41 41 0.96 2 43 0
130 130 0.96 2 135 1
20 20 0.96 2 21 0
18 18 0.96 2 19 0
114 114 0.96 2 119 1
13 13 0.96 2 14 0
22 22 0.96 2 23 0
22 22 0.96 2 23 1
19 19 0.96 2 20 0
23 23 0.96 2 24 0
22 22 0.96 7 23 1
23 23 0.96 2 24 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 8.9 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 8.5 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.2 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.2 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 12% 21% 34% 35% 68% 79% 32% 35% 9% 34% 10% 30% Stop Stop Stop Stop 68 191 145 63 41 23 22 18 22 130 114 22 23 19 20 13 151 71 66 199 1 1 1 1 0.086 0.244 0.187 0.092 4.701 4.407 4.449 4.67 Yes Yes Yes Yes 807 816 766 762 2.733 2.429 2.472 2.703 0.087 0.244 0.187 0.093 8.5 8.2 8.2 8.9 A A A A 0.7 0.3 0.3 1
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
95 95 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.67 1189 0.94 101 0 101 9% Perm
61 61 1900 7.1 1.00 0.94 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.94 65 30 84 2% NA 4
46 46 1900
53 53 1900
0.94 49 0 0 2%
0.94 56 0 0 2% Perm
69 69 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1813 0.82 1517 0.94 73 0 129 5% NA 8
225 225 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 239 134 105 2% Perm
60 60 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.35 650 0.94 64 0 64 3% Perm
711 711 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 756 0 756 3% NA 2
24 24 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 26 11 15 2% Perm
212 212 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.22 401 0.94 226 0 226 4% Perm
538 538 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 572 0 572 5% NA 6
80 80 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 85 37 48 15% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 364
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 225
0.07 0.23 24.7 1.00 0.3 25.0 C
0.10 0.18 9.5 1.00 1.1 10.6 B
0.01 0.02 8.7 1.00 0.0 8.7 A
c0.56 1.00 19.5 1.00 61.1 80.7 F
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 333 0.08 0.30 25.2 1.00 2.3 27.5 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 494 0.05
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 425 c0.09 0.30 25.2 1.00 0.5 25.7 C 25.2 C
0.17 24.2 1.00 0.7 25.0 C 26.2 C 24.5 0.77 89.1 84.9% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 0.41 0.72 14.4 1.00 4.3 18.8 B 17.8 B
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 0.31 0.56 12.5 1.00 1.0 13.5 B 30.2 C
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.06 8.9 1.00 0.1 8.9 A
C 14.1 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None None Max 57 57 32.1 32.1 64.0% 36.0% 64.0% 36.0% 35 35 30.1 30.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 20 10 20 10 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 21 16 21 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 57 0 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66 0 57 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 101 0.30 28.3 0.0 28.3 13.5 26.9 150.0 333 0 0 0 0.30
EBT WBT 129 114 0.22 0.30 27.6 17.2 0.0 0.0 27.6 17.2 9.2 17.3 21.7 32.1 1366.5 1368.7 524 0 0 0 0.22
425 0 0 0 0.30
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
WBR 239 0.41 9.3 0.0 9.3 6.7 24.7
NBL 64 0.18 11.1 0.0 11.1 5.0 11.7
170.0 583 0 0 0 0.41
250.0 365 0 0 0 0.18
NBT 756 0.72 19.5 0.0 19.5 89.0 132.7 1562.1 1046 0 0 0 0.72
NBR 26 0.03 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.5
SBL 226 1.00 85.5 0.0 85.5 ~36.6 #83.6
135.0 920 0 0 0 0.03
200.0 225 0 0 0 1.00
SBT 572 0.56 15.1 0.0 15.1 58.2 86.9 1053.3 1026 0 0 0 0.56
SBR 85 0.10 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.8 200.0 834 0 0 0 0.10
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
112 112 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1868 1.00 1868 0.93 120 3 125 2% NA 4
7 7 1900
288 288 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.67 1158 0.93 310 0 310 12% Perm
204 204 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 219 0 219 2% NA 8
407 407 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 438 306 132 3% Perm
308 308 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.58 1102 0.93 331 0 331 2% Perm
265 265 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 285 0 285 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
9 9 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.57 1078 0.93 10 0 10 2% Perm
252 252 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 271 0 271 7% NA 6
178 178 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 191 85 106 11% Perm
8 29.0 29.0 0.30 6.9 3.0 479
2 53.1 53.1 0.55 6.9 4.5 610
0.08 0.28 25.5 1.00 0.3 25.8 C
c0.30 0.54 13.7 1.00 3.4 17.1 B
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 8 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
8 29.0 29.0 0.30 6.9 3.0 350
29.0 29.0 0.30 6.9 3.0 564 0.07
c0.27 0.89 31.9 1.00 22.4 54.3 D
0.22 25.0 1.00 0.2 25.2 C 25.2 C 23.7 0.66 95.9 73.6% 15
29.0 29.0 0.30 6.9 3.0 569 0.12 0.38 26.4 1.00 0.4 26.8 C 35.2 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 53.1 53.1 0.55 6.9 4.5 596
53.1 53.1 0.55 6.9 4.5 958 0.16
0.01 0.02 9.6 1.00 0.1 9.7 A
0.30 11.4 1.00 0.8 12.2 B 14.8 B
53.1 53.1 0.55 6.9 4.5 993 0.15 0.27 11.3 1.00 0.7 11.9 B 11.4 B
6 53.1 53.1 0.55 6.9 4.5 814 0.07 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.3 10.6 B
C 13.8 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 SETL
6 4 NBTL NWTL
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
8 SBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 57 38.9 38.9 57 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 39 38.9 38.9 39 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1 1 1 1 20 10 10 20 4.5 3 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 25 16 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 0 0 57 57 50.1 50.1 89 89 25.1 73 73 25.1 0 57 0 57 50.1 50.1 89 89 25.1 25.1 73 73
Intersection Summary 95.9 Cycle Length Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
NBT 128 0.23 24.2 0.0 24.2 16.3 29.5 530.8 625 0 0 0 0.20
SBL 310 0.89 58.8 0.0 58.8 51.7 #95.0 100.0 386 0 0 0 0.80
SBT 219 0.38 27.8 0.0 27.8 30.3 49.1 249.9 628 0 0 0 0.35
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
SBR 438 0.56 5.4 0.0 5.4 0.0 19.7
SEL 331 0.54 18.9 0.0 18.9 39.8 67.1
100.0 820 0 0 0 0.53
200.0 610 0 0 0 0.54
SET 285 0.30 13.3 0.0 13.3 28.7 45.2 374.7 958 0 0 0 0.30
NWL 10 0.02 11.2 0.0 11.2 0.8 3.3 200.0 596 0 0 0 0.02
NWT 271 0.27 13.0 0.0 13.0 26.8 42.3 359.2 993 0 0 0 0.27
NWR 191 0.21 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 9.6 100.0 899 0 0 0 0.21
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900
644 644 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1808 0.92 1672 0.96 671 5 791 5% NA 2
67 67 1900
18 18 1900
24 24 1900
36 36 1900
31 31 1900
0.96 25 0 0 2%
0.96 38 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 21 0 0 2%
0.96 32 0 0 2% Perm
56 56 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.99 1780 0.92 1658 0.96 58 24 109 2% NA 4
41 41 1900
0.96 19 0 0 2% Perm
56 56 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1797 0.89 1620 0.96 58 11 106 2% NA 8
20 20 1900
0.96 70 0 0 3%
626 626 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1855 0.97 1803 0.96 652 2 694 3% NA 6
0.96 55 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
6
8
4
34.3 34.3 0.49 6.0 3.0 815
34.3 34.3 0.49 6.0 3.0 879
25.0 25.0 0.36 5.0 3.0 576
25.0 25.0 0.36 5.0 3.0 589
c0.47 0.97 17.5 1.00 24.4 41.9 D 41.9 D
0.38 0.79 15.0 1.00 4.8 19.8 B 19.8 B
0.07 0.18 15.6 1.00 0.7 16.3 B 16.3 B
c0.07 0.19 15.6 1.00 0.7 16.3 B 16.3 B
29.4 0.64 70.3 81.5% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 43 0 0 2%
C 11.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
None Max None Max 41 41 30 30 57.7% 42.3% 57.7% 42.3% 25 25 41 41 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 41 41 0 0 41 0 41 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10 0 41 41 0 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT WBT 796 696 0.97 0.79 45.0 23.2 0.0 0.0 45.0 23.2 94.9 71.5 #170.2 #118.8 123.3 258.1 836 0 0 0 0.95
899 0 0 0 0.77
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
NBT 117 0.20 14.8 0.0 14.8 9.0 19.6 366.5
SBT 133 0.22 12.9 0.0 12.9 8.6 19.7 390.1
587 0 0 0 0.20
613 0 0 0 0.22
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900
616 616 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1856 0.86 1605 0.94 655 3 758
47 47 1900
93 93 1900
32 32 1900
67 67 1900
25 25 1900
0.94 34 0 0 2
0.94 71 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 52 0 0 3
0.94 27 0 0 3 Perm
49 49 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1786 0.89 1615 0.94 52 10 91
21 21 1900
0.94 99 0 0 6 Perm
98 98 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 1776 0.88 1580 0.94 104 11 216
49 49 1900
0.94 50 0 0 6
628 628 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1859 0.72 1347 0.94 668 2 799
0.94 56 0 0 2 Perm
NA 6
6
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
NA 2
2
NA 8
8
NA 4
4
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 706
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 592
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 695
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 710
0.47 1.07 28.0 1.00 55.5 83.5 F 83.5 F
c0.59 1.35 28.0 1.00 168.6 196.6 F 196.6 F
c0.14 0.31 18.2 1.00 1.2 19.3 B 19.3 B
0.06 0.13 16.6 1.00 0.4 17.0 B 17.0 B
120.1 0.83 100.0 88.5% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 22 0 0 7
F 12.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
8 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max Max Max Max 50 50 50 50 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 24 24 28 26 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 20 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 15 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 50 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29 50 50 0 0 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 EBTL
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT WBT 761 801 1.07 1.35 84.0 194.6 0.0 0.0 84.0 194.6 ~164.7 ~205.7 #234.6 #276.5 258.1 647.5 709 0 0 0 1.07
594 0 0 0 1.35
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
NBT 227 0.32 18.2 0.0 18.2 25.4 42.5 153.3
SBT 101 0.14 14.3 0.0 14.3 9.2 19.0 103.2
705 0 0 0 0.32
720 0 0 0 0.14
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
201 201 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 265 0.89 226 0 226 2% pm+pt 5 2 40.2 40.2 0.50 5.0 3.0 358 c0.09 0.22 0.63 14.9 1.00 3.6 18.5 B
802 802 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.89 901 2 918 2% NA 2
17 17 1900
178 178 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.16 302 0.89 200 0 200 2% pm+pt 1 6 39.4 39.4 0.49 5.0 3.0 361 0.08 0.19 0.55 13.3 1.00 1.8 15.1 B
791 791 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3433 1.00 3433 0.89 889 31 1111 3% NA 6
225 225 1900
145 145 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.40 756 0.89 163 0 163 2% Perm
156 156 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1711 1.00 1711 0.89 175 32 276 2% NA 4
118 118 1900
311 311 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.43 806 0.89 349 0 349 2% Perm
126 126 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 142 56 271 2% NA 8
165 165 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.89 19 0 0 2%
28.4 28.4 0.36 5.0 3.0 1269 0.26 0.72 22.3 1.00 3.6 25.9 C 24.4 C 47.0 1.05 79.8 89.5% 15
0.89 253 0 0 2%
28.0 28.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 1204 c0.32 0.92 24.9 1.00 11.6 36.5 D 33.3 C
4 25.0 25.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 236 0.22 0.69 24.0 1.00 8.4 32.4 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 133 0 0 9%
8 25.0 25.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 252
25.0 25.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 536 0.16
c0.43 1.38 27.4 1.00 195.9 223.3 F
0.51 22.4 1.00 0.8 23.3 C 26.4 C
0.89 185 0 0 3%
25.0 25.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 536 0.16 0.51 22.4 1.00 0.8 23.1 C 126.5 F
D 15.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
2 6 4 8 5 1 WBL EBTL NBTL EBL WBTL SBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None None None None 33 33 20 20 30 30 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 15 15 33 33 26 26 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 15 28 28 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 10 10 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20 20 53 53 0 0 53 53 20 0 0 20 15 15 78 78 48 48 38 38 68 15 15 68 0 0 63 63 33 33 28 28 58 78 78 58 18 18 78 78 48 48 83 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 226 0.63 21.3 0.0 21.3 15.9 36.7 70.0 431 0 0 0 0.52
EBT 920 0.72 26.5 0.0 26.5 60.4 87.7 368.2 1271 0 0 0 0.72
WBL WBT 200 1142 0.92 0.55 38.3 17.0 0.0 0.0 38.3 17.0 81.1 13.8 28.1 #128.9 68.4 120.0 442 1236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.92 0.45
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
NBL 163 0.69 42.4 0.0 42.4 21.0 #51.4 237 0 0 0 0.69
NBT SBL 308 349 0.54 1.38 23.6 222.9 0.0 0.0 23.6 222.9 31.4 ~69.9 57.9 #123.0 306.6 30.0 568 252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.54 1.38
SBT 327 0.55 21.4 0.0 21.4 29.4 56.5 418.3 592 0 0 0 0.55
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
354 354 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 189 0.95 373 0 373 2% pm+pt 1 6 51.8 51.8 0.46 5.0 3.0 258 c0.15 c0.51 1.45 32.2 1.00 221.1 253.4 F
834 834 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 878 0 878 2% NA 6
436 74 74 436 1900 1900 5.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1601 1722 1.00 0.11 1601 207 0.95 0.95 78 459 0 169 78 290 2% 6% Perm pm+pt 5 2 6 42.2 39.8 39.8 42.2 0.38 0.36 5.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 175 568 0.03 0.14 0.18 0.45 0.51 27.3 28.5 1.00 1.00 1.8 3.3 29.1 31.7 C C
850 850 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 895 0 895 2% NA 2
103 103 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 108 74 34 2% Perm
262 262 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.12 235 0.95 276 0 276 2% pm+pt 3 8 48.1 48.1 0.43 5.0 3.0 324 c0.12 0.24 0.85 28.9 1.00 18.9 47.8 D
280 280 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1827 1.00 1827 0.95 295 5 337 3% NA 8
45 45 1900
137 137 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.40 737 0.95 144 0 144 3% pm+pt 7 4 38.1 38.1 0.34 5.0 3.0 352 0.04 0.10 0.41 26.9 1.00 0.8 27.7 C
290 290 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1737 1.00 1737 0.95 305 27 537 3% NA 4
246 246 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
39.8 39.8 0.36 6.0 3.0 668 0.47 1.31 36.1 1.00 152.0 188.1 F 160.4 F
162.7 1.34 112.1 127.5% 15
35.0 35.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 587 0.48 1.52 38.5 1.00 244.7 283.3 F 239.4 F
2 35.0 35.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 499 0.02 0.07 27.1 1.00 0.3 27.3 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 47 0 0 3%
32.0 32.0 0.29 6.0 3.0 521 0.18 0.65 35.1 1.00 6.1 41.2 D 44.1 D
0.95 259 0 0 3%
27.0 27.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 418 c0.31 1.28 42.5 1.00 144.9 187.5 F 155.0 F
F 22.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
2 6 4 7 8 3 1 5 NBL SBTL WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None Max None Max None 40 40 33 17 17 23 23 33 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 33 33 33 13 13 13 13 33 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17 17 80 57 57 80 0 0 0 17 57 80 57 80 17 0 51 51 75 75 107 107 12 12 34 34 90 75 75 12 90 12 0 0 63 96 96 40 40 63 34 34 90 108 108 58 58 90 17 17 73 108 108 58 58 73 113 Semi Act-Uncoord 145
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL EBT 373 878 1.45 1.30 246.5 179.1 0.0 0.0 246.5 179.1 ~97.7 ~257.8 #158.7 #343.3 607.3 30.0 258 674 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.45 1.30
EBR 459 0.62 17.4 0.0 17.4 35.5 74.2 741 0 0 0 0.62
WBL WBT 78 895 0.38 1.55 23.2 287.9 0.0 0.0 23.2 287.9 9.4 ~279.8 18.3 #355.8 443.3 65.0 576 251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 1.55
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
WBR 108 0.19 4.4 0.0 4.4 0.0 9.3
NBL 276 0.84 49.2 0.0 49.2 42.0 #82.4
577 0 0 0 0.19
100.0 355 0 0 0 0.78
NBT 342 0.64 40.9 0.0 40.9 63.4 98.8 278.0 531 0 0 0 0.64
SBT SBL 564 144 0.40 1.26 22.8 167.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 167.0 18.5 ~151.3 31.3 #219.4 268.1 300.0 449 471 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 1.26
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.53 919 0.97 55 0 55 10% Perm
301 301 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1860 1.00 1860 0.97 310 2 330 2% NA 8
21 21 1900
100 100 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.17 314 0.97 103 0 103 2% pm+pt 7 4 39.0 39.0 0.36 5.0 3.0 318 0.04 0.07 0.32 25.2 1.00 0.6 25.8 C
260 260 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1790 1.00 1790 0.97 268 17 384 2% NA 4
129 129 1900
28 28 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.67 1270 0.97 29 0 29 2% Perm
162 162 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1793 1.00 1793 0.97 167 13 233 2% NA 2
77 77 1900
52 52 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.46 853 0.97 54 0 54 4% pm+pt 1 6 57.0 57.0 0.53 5.0 3.0 570 0.01 0.04 0.09 12.9 1.00 0.1 13.0 B
97 97 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1820 1.00 1820 0.97 100 9 120 2% NA 6
28 28 1900
8 19.0 19.0 0.18 6.0 3.0 161 0.06 0.34 39.0 1.00 1.3 40.3 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.97 22 0 0 6%
19.0 19.0 0.18 6.0 3.0 327 c0.18 1.01 44.5 1.00 51.7 96.2 F 88.3 F 43.5 0.53 108.0 92.3% 15
0.97 133 0 0 2%
39.0 39.0 0.36 6.0 3.0 646 c0.21 0.60 28.1 1.00 1.5 29.6 C 28.8 C
2 37.6 37.6 0.35 6.0 3.0 442 0.02 0.07 23.5 1.00 0.3 23.8 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 79 0 0 2%
37.6 37.6 0.35 6.0 3.0 624 c0.13 0.37 26.4 1.00 1.7 28.1 C 27.6 C
0.97 29 0 0 2%
57.0 57.0 0.53 6.0 3.0 960 c0.07 0.13 12.9 1.00 0.3 13.2 B 13.1 B
D 22.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
PM Peak Hour
4 7 2 8 1 6 SBL NBTL WBTL SBTL WBL EBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None None None 23 25 62 31 48 31 28.2% 28.2% 43.6% 56.4% 20.9% 22.7% 32 23 21 32 31 31 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 15 25 15 15 25 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 7 18 8 8 8 8 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 62 62 31 0 85 0 0 62 85 62 31 0 80 26 104 56 104 56 96 48 80 96 48 26 0 31 31 79 54 79 73 105 49 25 73 25 105 65 49 65 17 17
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
Splits and Phases:
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 55 332 0.34 1.00 94.1 45.2 0.0 0.0 94.1 45.2 10.2 69.3 22.3 #126.1 648.3 50.0 163 332 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 1.00
WBL 103 0.32 25.2 0.0 25.2 14.1 25.8 60.0 365 0 0 0 0.28
WBT 401 0.60 30.3 0.0 30.3 62.9 94.1 112.7 718 0 0 0 0.56
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
NBL 29 0.07 26.9 0.0 26.9 4.3 11.0 50.0 446 0 0 0 0.07
NBT 246 0.38 28.0 0.0 28.0 37.4 59.9 118.6 642 0 0 0 0.38
SBL 54 0.09 12.5 0.0 12.5 5.2 11.1 30.0 673 0 0 0 0.08
SBT 129 0.13 11.5 0.0 11.5 11.1 20.6 52.7 961 0 0 0 0.13
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.25 456 0.91 58 0 58 5% Perm
412 412 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.91 453 4 478 2% NA 4
26 26 1900
194 194 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.21 387 0.91 213 0 213 2% pm+pt 3 4 27.6 27.6 0.40 2.0 3.0 294 c0.07 0.21 0.72 15.7 1.00 8.6 24.3 C
387 387 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1835 1.00 1835 0.91 425 3 448 2% NA 4
24 24 1900
84 84 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.57 1077 0.91 92 0 92 2% Perm
157 157 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1685 1.00 1685 0.91 173 99 414 4% NA 2
309 309 1900
28 28 1900
0.91 340 0 0 2%
0.91 31 0 0 2% Perm
212 212 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1872 0.86 1620 0.91 233 0 264 2% NA 2
31 31 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 34 20 14 3% Perm
4 20.6 20.6 0.30 6.0 3.0 134 0.13 0.43 19.8 1.00 2.2 22.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.91 29 0 0 3%
20.6 20.6 0.30 6.0 3.0 551 c0.26 0.87 23.2 1.00 13.6 36.8 D 35.2 D 26.4 0.71 69.6 93.7% 15
0.91 26 0 0 33%
20.6 20.6 0.30 6.0 3.0 543 0.24 0.83 22.8 1.00 9.9 32.7 C 30.0 C
2 28.0 28.0 0.40 6.0 3.0 433 0.09 0.21 13.6 1.00 1.1 14.7 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.0 28.0 0.40 6.0 3.0 651
28.0 28.0 0.40 6.0 3.0 677 c0.25
0.16 0.41 14.9 1.00 1.9 16.7 B 16.3 B
0.61 16.5 1.00 4.1 20.6 C 19.7 B
2 28.0 28.0 0.40 6.0 3.0 637 0.01 0.02 12.5 1.00 0.1 12.6 B
C 14.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
3 4 WBL EBWB Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 28 9 12.7% 39.4% 28 9 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 Yes No Yes Yes 43 34 43 0 41 65 41 58 43 34 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL EBT 58 482 0.87 0.43 41.2 31.2 0.0 0.0 41.2 31.2 6.0 58.4 16.9 #106.2 138.6 180.0 144 593 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 0.81
WBL 213 0.67 23.2 0.0 23.2 15.3 #31.5 20.0 317 0 0 0 0.67
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
WBT 451 0.83 37.4 0.0 37.4 53.8 #97.6 145.1
NBL 92 0.21 16.0 0.0 16.0 7.9 17.4
NBT 513 0.66 16.4 0.0 16.4 36.1 68.0 388.0
SBT 264 0.41 17.7 0.0 17.7 24.7 42.8 574.8
582 0 0 0 0.77
433 0 0 0 0.21
776 0 0 0 0.66
651 0 0 0 0.41
SBR 34 0.05 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.2 30.0 683 0 0 0 0.05
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
63 63 1900
284 284 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1772 0.85 1513 0.95 299 9 424 5% NA 4
65 65 1900
51 51 1900
39 39 1900
0.95 68 0 0 2%
0.95 54 0 0 24% Perm
241 241 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1691 0.82 1395 0.95 254 6 343 9% NA 8
144 144 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.26 486 0.95 152 0 152 3% Perm
152 152 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 160 0 160 9% NA 2
228 228 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 240 116 124 17% Perm
255 255 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.66 1211 0.95 268 0 268 4% Perm
631 631 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 664 0 664 6% NA 6
122 122 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 128 62 66 6% Perm
2 40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 723
6 40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 627
0.09 0.17 9.8 1.00 0.5 10.4 B
0.22 0.43 11.5 1.00 2.1 13.6 B
0.95 66 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.95 41 0 0 6%
8 23.7 23.7 0.31 6.5 3.0 464
23.7 23.7 0.31 6.5 3.0 428
c0.28 0.91 25.8 1.00 22.3 48.1 D 48.1 D
0.25 0.80 24.6 1.00 10.3 34.9 C 34.9 C 24.2 0.78 77.2 96.9% 15
2 40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 251 0.31 0.61 13.1 1.00 10.4 23.5 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 912 0.09 0.18 9.9 1.00 0.4 10.3 B 13.9 B
40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 938 c0.37 0.71 14.2 1.00 4.5 18.7 B 16.3 B
6 40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 798 0.04 0.08 9.4 1.00 0.2 9.6 A
C 13.5 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
2 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 47 47 31.5 31.5 59.9% 40.1% 59.9% 40.1% 30 30 30 30 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 20 10 10 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 5 16 11 11 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 47 47 0 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 65
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 433 0.92 52.3 0.0 52.3 58.8 #110.8 544.5
WBT 349 0.81 40.3 0.0 40.3 45.4 #86.3 206.8
499 0 0 0 0.87
457 0 0 0 0.76
NBL 152 0.61 26.6 0.0 26.6 15.2 #43.0 75.0 251 0 0 0 0.61
NBT 160 0.18 10.9 0.0 10.9 12.1 21.9 173.0 913 0 0 0 0.18
NBR 240 0.29 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 10.0
SBL 268 0.43 14.6 0.0 14.6 23.6 41.8
50.0 839 0 0 0 0.29
130.0 628 0 0 0 0.43
SBT 664 0.71 19.7 0.0 19.7 72.0 111.4 418.3 939 0 0 0 0.71
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
SBR 128 0.15 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 7.4 100.0 861 0 0 0 0.15
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
47 47 1900
165 165 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1760 0.84 1495 0.86 192 12 291 4% NA 4
48 48 1900
154 154 1900
118 118 1900
515 515 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1757 1.00 1757 0.86 599 13 739 7% NA 2
125 125 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.16 300 0.86 145 0 145 2% Perm
585 585 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1792 1.00 1792 0.86 680 6 754 3% NA 6
69 69 1900
0.86 179 0 0 5% Perm
31 31 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.15 288 0.86 36 0 36 2% Perm
132 132 1900
0.86 56 0 0 2%
166 166 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1765 0.73 1305 0.86 193 19 490 2% NA 8
0.86 55 0 0 14% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.86 137 0 0 2%
8 25.0 25.0 0.35 5.5 3.0 526
25.0 25.0 0.35 5.5 3.0 459
0.19 0.55 18.5 1.00 1.3 19.8 B 19.8 B
c0.38 1.07 23.0 1.00 61.3 84.3 F 84.3 F 40.6 1.02 71.0 121.3% 15
2 35.0 35.0 0.49 5.5 3.0 141 0.12 0.26 10.4 1.00 4.3 14.8 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 153 0 0 2%
6 35.0 35.0 0.49 5.5 3.0 147
35.0 35.0 0.49 5.5 3.0 866 0.42
c0.48 0.99 17.8 1.00 70.7 88.5 F
0.85 15.8 1.00 10.4 26.2 C 25.7 C
0.86 80 0 0 27%
35.0 35.0 0.49 5.5 3.0 883 0.42 0.85 15.8 1.00 10.3 26.1 C 36.1 D
D 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 25 55.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBT WBT 303 509 0.56 1.06 22.3 84.5 0.0 0.0 22.3 84.5 29.9 ~73.8 49.6 #119.3 158.8 158.6
NBT NBL 36 752 0.86 0.26 27.4 16.3 0.0 0.0 27.4 16.3 2.6 80.0 8.5 #135.3 321.6
538 0 0 0 0.56
141 0 0 0 0.26
478 0 0 0 1.06
878 0 0 0 0.86
SBL SBT 145 760 0.86 0.99 27.6 96.4 0.0 0.0 27.6 96.4 17.8 82.1 #48.8 #137.2 760.4 50.0 147 888 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.99 0.86
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
117 117 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.71 1340 0.93 126 0 126 2% Perm
20 20 1900 5.5 1.00 0.86 1.00 1592 1.00 1592 0.93 22 198 109 2% NA 4
265 265 1900
25 25 1900
23 23 1900
518 518 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1873 1.00 1873 0.93 557 2 577 2% NA 2
50 50 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.38 629 0.93 54 0 54 17% Perm
524 524 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1829 1.00 1829 0.93 563 6 647 3% NA 6
84 84 1900
0.93 27 0 0 2% Perm
141 141 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 627 0.93 152 0 152 2% Perm
20 20 1900
0.93 285 0 0 4%
17 17 1900 5.5 1.00 0.95 0.98 1759 0.58 1048 0.93 18 20 50 2% NA 8
4 11.1 11.1 0.19 5.5 3.0 260 c0.09 0.48 20.5 1.00 1.4 21.9 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.93 25 0 0 2%
8 11.1 11.1 0.19 5.5 3.0 203
11.1 11.1 0.19 5.5 3.0 308 0.07
0.05 0.25 19.5 1.00 0.6 20.1 C 20.1 C
0.35 19.9 1.00 0.7 20.6 C 21.0 C 11.5 0.55 57.2 101.3% 15
2 35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 384 0.24 0.40 5.6 1.00 3.0 8.7 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 22 0 0 2%
6 35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 385
35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 1149 0.31
0.09 0.14 4.7 1.00 0.8 5.4 A
0.50 6.2 1.00 1.6 7.7 A 7.9 A
0.93 90 0 0 2%
35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 1122 c0.35 0.58 6.6 1.00 2.2 8.8 A 8.5 A
B 11.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 126 0.49 27.0 0.0 27.0 11.8 24.6 30.0 586 0 0 0 0.22
EBT 307 0.61 11.0 0.0 11.0 5.4 22.9 1201.3
WBT 70 0.31 17.7 0.0 17.7 4.0 12.9 482.8
836 0 0 0 0.37
474 0 0 0 0.15
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
NBL 152 0.40 10.5 0.0 10.5 6.6 22.2 50.0 384 0 0 0 0.40
NBT 579 0.50 8.7 0.0 8.7 27.2 61.7 440.8 1150 0 0 0 0.50
SBL 54 0.14 6.8 0.0 6.8 1.9 7.5 35.0 385 0 0 0 0.14
SBT 653 0.58 9.7 0.0 9.7 32.2 74.0 214.1 1127 0 0 0 0.58
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
67 67 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.95 1722 0.96 70 0 70 6% Prot 8
132 132 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 138 124 14 2% Perm
541 541 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.96 564 5 660 2% NA 2
97 97 1900
124 124 1900
0.96 101 0 0 2%
0.96 129 0 0 4% Perm
741 741 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1849 0.83 1545 0.96 772 0 901 3% NA 6
7.1 7.1 0.10 4.5 3.0 170 c0.04 0.41 30.4 1.00 1.6 32.1 C 30.5 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
8 7.1 7.1 0.10 4.5 3.0 158 0.01 0.09 29.5 1.00 0.2 29.7 C
6 55.8 55.8 0.78 4.5 3.0 1431 0.36 0.46 2.8 1.00 1.1 3.9 A 3.9 A 9.4 0.71 71.9 95.6% 15
55.8 55.8 0.78 4.5 3.0 1199 c0.58 0.75 4.3 1.00 4.4 8.7 A 8.7 A HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBT
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
8 WBL
Max None Max 56 24 56 70.0% 70.0% 30.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 56 0 0 56 56 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 0 56 0 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
WBL 70 0.35 33.0 0.0 33.0 8.4 19.1 194.8 473 0 0 0 0.15
WBR 138 0.45 10.7 0.0 10.7 0.0 13.6 30.0 539 0 0 0 0.26
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
SBT NBT 901 665 0.45 0.73 4.4 10.4 0.0 0.0 4.4 10.4 23.1 50.9 47.2 #130.7 343.1 224.5 1476 0 0 0 0.45
1232 0 0 0 0.73
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
17 17
3 3 Stop 0% 0.87 3
334 334
8 8
1 1
340 340
0 0
0.87 1
0.87 391
0.87 8
0.87 0
48 48 Free 0% 0.87 55
7 7
0.87 9
55 55 Free 0% 0.87 63
7 7
0.87 384
0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0
0.87 20
0.87 8
13 None
None
909
912
59
910
912
67
63
71
909 7.1
912 6.5
59 6.2
910 7.1
912 6.5
67 6.2
63 4.1
71 4.1
3.5 90 205
4.0 99 204
3.3 62 1007
3.5 93 126
4.0 100 204
3.3 100 997
2.2 75 1540
2.2 100 1529
EB 1 407 20 384 1067 0.38 13.8 11.6 B 11.6 B
WB 1 10 9 1 138 0.07 1.8 33.2 D 33.2 D
NB 1 462 391 8 1540 0.25 7.7 7.2 A 7.2
SB 1 63 0 8 1529 0.00 0.0 0.0
8.9 42.5% 15
0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
181 181
270 270 Free 0% 0.91 297
4 4
80 80
7 7
2 2
4 4
0.91 8
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 4
69 69 Stop 0% 0.91 76
101 101
0.91 88
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 4
229 229 Free 0% 0.91 252
0.91 111
0.91 199
None
None
260
301
1278
1133
299
1217
1131
256
260 4.1
301 4.1
1278 7.1
1133 6.5
299 6.3
1217 7.1
1131 6.5
256 6.2
2.2 85 1304
2.2 93 1260
3.5 97 66
4.0 65 159
3.4 92 731
3.5 96 89
4.0 53 160
3.3 86 778
EB 1 500 199 4 1304 0.15 4.1 4.2 A 4.2
WB 1 348 88 8 1260 0.07 1.7 2.5 A 2.5
NB 1 118 2 60 254 0.46 17.4 30.9 D 30.9 D 12.1 58.5% 15
SB 1 191 4 111 289 0.66 32.9 38.9 E 38.9 E
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24
21 21 Stop 0% 0.90 23
35 35
48 48
136 136
33 33
101 101
0.90 151
0.90 37
0.90 81
0.90 112
318 318 Free 0% 0.90 353
29 29
0.90 53
437 437 Free 0% 0.90 486
73 73
0.90 39
52 52 Stop 0% 0.90 58
0.90 27
None
None
1374
1234
369
1244
1210
526
385
567
1374 7.1
1234 6.5
369 6.2
1244 7.1
1210 6.5
526 6.2
385 4.1
567 4.1
3.5 53 57
4.0 85 152
3.3 94 677
3.5 53 112
4.0 63 157
3.3 73 551
2.2 97 1173
2.2 89 1005
EB 1 89 27 39 131 0.68 28.3 77.2 F 77.2 F
WB 1 262 53 151 235 1.12 89.3 137.8 F 137.8 F
NB 1 604 37 81 1173 0.03 0.7 0.9 A 0.9
SB 1 497 112 32 1005 0.11 2.8 3.0 A 3.0
31.0 77.1% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.90 32
D
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
19 19 Stop 0% 0.88 22
113 113
148 148 0.88 168
25 25 Free 0% 0.88 28
25 25
0.88 128
35 35 Free 0% 0.88 40
None
None
418
42
56
418 6.4
42 6.2
56 4.1
3.5 96 527
3.3 88 1029
2.2 89 1549
EB 1 150 22 128 903 0.17 4.5 9.8 A 9.8 A
NB 1 208 168 0 1549 0.11 2.8 6.3 A 6.3
SB 1 56 0 28 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.88 28
0.0
6.7 31.4% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
31 31
314 314 Stop 0% 0.99 317
63 63
13 13
248 248
47 47
173 173
0.99 251
0.99 47
0.99 28
0.99 175
43 43 Free 0% 0.99 43
24 24
0.99 13
141 141 Free 0% 0.99 142
28 28
0.99 64
332 332 Stop 0% 0.99 335
0.99 31
0.99 24
None
None 382 1074
669
55
878
667
156
67
170
1074 7.1
669 6.5
55 6.2
878 7.2
667 6.5
156 6.2
67 4.1
170 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 1 321
3.3 94 1003
3.6 21 17
4.0 0 322
3.3 72 890
2.2 97 1528
2.2 88 1407
EB 1 412 31 64 0 Err Err Err F Err F
WB 1 599 13 251 284 2.11 337.7 539.9 F 539.9 F
NB 1 217 47 28 1528 0.03 0.7 1.8 A 1.8
SB 1 242 175 24 1407 0.12 3.2 6.0 A 6.0
Err 71.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
109 109
322 322 Free 0% 0.87 370
24 24
23 23
24 24
27 27
98 98
0.87 28
0.87 31
0.87 36
0.87 113
81 81 Stop 0% 0.87 93
363 363
0.87 26
35 35 Stop 0% 0.87 40
31 31
0.87 28
423 423 Free 0% 0.87 486
0.87 417
0.87 125
None
None
514
398
1650
1200
384
1242
1200
500
514 4.2
398 4.1
1650 7.1
1200 6.5
384 6.2
1242 7.2
1200 6.5
500 6.2
2.3 88 1026
2.2 98 1161
3.5 0 10
4.0 75 157
3.3 95 664
3.6 0 99
4.0 41 159
3.3 27 571
EB 1 523 125 28 1026 0.12 3.2 3.2 A 3.2
WB 1 540 26 28 1161 0.02 0.5 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 107 31 36 32 3.33 Err Err F Err F 840.5 96.8% 15
SB 1 623 113 417 253 2.46 386.0 698.5 F 698.5 F
ICU Level of Service
F
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
305 305
93 93 Stop 0% 0.89 104
75 75
110 110
106 106
15 15
96 96
0.89 119
0.89 17
0.89 110
0.89 108
652 652 Free 0% 0.89 733
280 280
0.89 124
338 338 Free 0% 0.89 380
98 98
0.89 84
155 155 Stop 0% 0.89 174
0.89 343
None
None
1782
1630
890
1712
1733
435
1048
490
1782 7.1
1630 6.5
890 6.2
1712 7.1
1733 6.5
435 6.2
1048 4.1
490 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 89
3.3 75 341
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 77
3.3 81 621
2.2 97 664
2.2 90 1073
EB 1 531 343 84 0 Err Err Err F Err F
WB 1 417 124 119 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 507 17 110 664 0.03 0.6 0.7 A 0.7
SB 1 1156 108 315 1073 0.10 2.5 2.9 A 2.9
Err 141.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.89 315
H
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24
65 65 Stop 0% 0.89 73
51 51
111 111
31 31
25 25
50 50
0.89 35
0.89 28
0.89 25
0.89 56
156 156 Free 0% 0.89 175
25 25
0.89 125
197 197 Free 0% 0.89 221
22 22
0.89 57
25 25 Stop 0% 0.89 28
0.89 27
0.89 28
None
None
387 640
603
189
684
604
234
203
246
640 7.1
603 6.5
189 6.2
684 7.1
604 6.5
234 6.2
203 4.1
246 4.1
3.5 92 335
4.0 81 387
3.3 93 853
3.5 55 276
4.0 93 387
3.3 96 806
2.2 98 1369
2.2 96 1320
EB 1 157 27 57 467 0.34 11.1 16.6 C 16.6 C
WB 1 188 125 35 331 0.57 25.3 29.3 D 29.3 D
NB 1 274 28 25 1369 0.02 0.5 1.0 A 1.0
SB 1 259 56 28 1320 0.04 1.0 2.0 A 2.0
10.1 44.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
109 109
322 322 Free 0% 0.91 354
24 24
23 23
24 24
27 27
98 98
0.91 26
0.91 30
0.91 34
0.91 108
81 81 Stop 0% 0.91 89 1 3.7 1.1 0
363 363
0.91 25
35 35 Stop 0% 0.91 38 5 3.7 1.1 0
31 31
0.91 26
423 423 Free 0% 0.91 465
0.91 399
0.91 120
None
None
492
385
1584
1154
372
1189
1154
479
492 4.1
385 4.1
1584 7.1
1154 6.5
372 6.2
1189 7.1
1154 6.5
479 6.2
2.2 89 1070
2.2 98 1168
3.5 0 15
4.0 78 170
3.3 95 671
3.5 7 116
4.0 48 170
3.3 32 586
EB 1 500 120 26 1070 0.11 2.9 3.1 A 3.1
WB 1 516 25 26 1168 0.02 0.5 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 102 30 34 44 2.29 81.7 787.3 F 787.3 F 239.2 96.8% 15
SB 1 596 108 399 280 2.13 338.6 550.0 F 550.0 F
ICU Level of Service
F
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0
16 16
15 15 0.91 16
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 18
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
32
0
0
32 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 975
3.5 98 1021
2.8 99 1301
EB 1 18 0 18 1021 0.02 0.4 8.6 A 8.6 A
NB 1 16 16 0 1301 0.01 0.3 7.8 A 7.8
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.2 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
28 28
37 37 Stop 0% 0.92 40 11 3.7 1.1 1
27 27
111 111
231 231
27 27
224 224
0.92 251
0.92 29
0.92 86
0.92 243
489 489 Free 0% 0.92 532 7 3.7 1.1 1
29 29
0.92 121
416 416 Free 0% 0.92 452 102 3.7 1.1 10
79 79
0.92 29
55 55 Stop 0% 0.92 60 183 3.7 1.1 17
0.92 30
0.92 32
None
None
197 0.79 1843
0.79 1824
0.79 661
0.79 1905
0.79 1797
1933 7.1
1909 6.5
442 6.2
2011 7.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 29
3.3 93 437
EB 1 99 30 29 0 Err Err Err F Err F
WB 1 432 121 251 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 29 29 0 962 0.03 0.7 8.9 A 0.5
Err 80.6% 15
685
0.79 575
721
1875 6.5
685 6.2
333 4.1
721 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 30
3.3 32 369
2.2 97 962
2.2 67 730
NB 2 538 0 86 1700 0.32 0.0 0.0
SB 1 243 243 0 730 0.33 11.1 12.4 B 3.7
SB 2 564 0 32 1700 0.33 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
D
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
19 19 Stop 0% 0.87 22
17 17
23 23 0.87 26
604 604 Free 0% 0.87 694
56 56
0.87 20
421 421 Free 0% 0.87 484
None
None
1262
726
758
1262 6.4
726 6.5
758 4.1
3.5 88 182
3.6 95 380
2.2 97 853
EB 1 42 22 20 242 0.17 4.7 23.0 C 23.0 C
NB 1 510 26 0 853 0.03 0.7 0.9 A 0.9
SB 1 758 0 64 1700 0.45 0.0 0.0
0.87 64
0.0
1.1 50.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
51 51
39 39 Stop 0% 0.75 52
19 19
27 27
55 55
60 60
23 23
0.75 73
0.75 80
0.75 85
0.75 31
61 61 Free 0% 0.75 81
27 27
0.75 36
92 92 Free 0% 0.75 123
64 64
0.75 25
61 61 Stop 0% 0.75 81
0.75 68
None
None
600
529
99
538
504
166
117
208
600 7.1
529 6.5
99 6.2
538 7.1
504 6.5
166 6.2
117 4.1
208 4.1
3.5 78 306
4.0 88 421
3.3 97 957
3.5 90 378
4.0 81 434
3.3 92 879
2.2 95 1471
2.2 98 1363
EB 1 145 68 25 390 0.37 12.8 19.6 C 19.6 C
WB 1 190 36 73 521 0.36 12.6 15.8 C 15.8 C
NB 1 288 80 85 1471 0.05 1.3 2.4 A 2.4
SB 1 148 31 36 1363 0.02 0.5 1.8 A 1.8
8.8 37.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 36
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
9.4 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
19 19 0.96 2 20 0
161 161 0.96 2 168 1
27 27 0.96 2 28 0
25 25 0.96 2 26 0
178 178 0.96 2 185 1
24 24 0.96 2 25 0
27 27 0.96 2 28 0
49 49 0.96 2 51 1
49 49 0.96 2 51 0
28 28 0.96 2 29 0
17 17 0.96 7 18 1
19 19 0.96 2 20 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 9.5 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9.7 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 9 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.7 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 11% 44% 9% 22% 78% 78% 27% 39% 11% 30% 13% 39% Stop Stop Stop Stop 207 227 64 125 25 28 27 19 161 178 17 49 24 19 49 27 216 236 67 130 1 1 1 1 0.176 0.278 0.304 0.094 4.871 4.634 4.629 5.063 Yes Yes Yes Yes 773 772 703 732 2.932 2.685 2.679 3.131 0.28 0.305 0.095 0.178 9.7 8.7 9.5 9 A A A A 1.3 0.3 0.6 1.1
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.70 1243 0.94 56 0 56 9% Perm
67 67 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1744 1.00 1744 0.94 71 40 100 2% NA 4
65 65 1900
22 22 1900
0.94 69 0 0 2%
0.94 23 0 0 2% Perm
54 54 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1819 0.89 1646 0.94 57 0 80 5% NA 8
147 147 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 156 112 44 2% Perm
19 19 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.26 487 0.94 20 0 20 3% Perm
319 319 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 339 0 339 3% NA 2
21 21 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 22 10 12 2% Perm
175 175 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.53 986 0.94 186 0 186 4% Perm
651 651 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 693 0 693 5% NA 6
67 67 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 71 31 40 15% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 273
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 553
0.03 0.10 23.7 1.00 0.1 23.8 C
0.04 0.07 8.9 1.00 0.5 9.5 A
0.01 0.01 8.6 1.00 0.0 8.7 A
0.19 0.34 10.6 1.00 0.6 11.2 B
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 348 0.05 0.16 24.1 1.00 1.0 25.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 489 c0.06
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 461 0.05 0.17 24.2 1.00 0.2 24.5 C 24.0 C
0.21 24.5 1.00 0.9 25.4 C 25.3 C 16.2 0.52 89.1 90.7% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 0.18 0.32 10.5 1.00 0.8 11.3 B 11.1 B
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 c0.38 0.68 13.8 1.00 2.1 15.9 B 14.5 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.05 8.8 1.00 0.0 8.9 A
B 14.1 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
Egis
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 57 64.0% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 0 57 50 29 0 50 29
Max 32.1 36.0% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57 0 82 66 57 82 66
None 57 64.0% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 0 57 50 29 0 50 29
None 32.1 36.0% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57 0 82 66 57 82 66
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
5 5
3 3 Stop 0% 0.87 3
210 210
7 7
1 1
215 215
1 1
0.87 1
0.87 247
0.87 10
0.87 1
72 72 Free 0% 0.87 83
7 7
0.87 8
59 59 Free 0% 0.87 68
9 9
0.87 241
5 5 Stop 0% 0.87 6
0.87 6
0.87 8
13 None
None
660
661
87
658
660
73
91
78
660 7.1
661 6.5
87 6.2
658 7.1
660 6.5
73 6.2
91 4.1
78 4.1
3.5 98 324
4.0 99 320
3.3 75 971
3.5 97 246
4.0 98 320
3.3 100 989
2.2 84 1504
2.2 100 1520
EB 1 250 6 241 1008 0.25 7.4 10.2 B 10.2 B
WB 1 15 8 1 287 0.05 1.3 18.2 C 18.2 C
NB 1 325 247 10 1504 0.16 4.5 6.3 A 6.3
SB 1 92 1 8 1520 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1
7.1 35.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
103 103 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1872 1.00 1872 0.93 111 2 114 2% NA 4
5 5 1900
126 126 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.68 1170 0.93 135 0 135 12% Perm
85 85 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 91 0 91 2% NA 8
121 121 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 130 107 23 3% Perm
188 188 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.65 1220 0.93 202 0 202 2% Perm
154 154 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 166 0 166 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
3 3 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.65 1228 0.93 3 0 3 2% Perm
161 161 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 173 0 173 7% NA 6
186 186 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 200 63 137 11% Perm
8 16.6 16.6 0.17 6.9 3.0 274
2 65.5 65.5 0.68 6.9 4.5 833
0.01 0.08 33.3 1.00 0.1 33.4 C
c0.17 0.24 5.8 1.00 0.7 6.5 A
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 5 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8 16.6 16.6 0.17 6.9 3.0 202
16.6 16.6 0.17 6.9 3.0 324 0.06
c0.12 0.67 37.1 1.00 8.1 45.2 D
0.35 34.9 1.00 0.7 35.6 D 35.6 D 18.2 0.33 95.9 64.2% 15
16.6 16.6 0.17 6.9 3.0 325 0.05 0.28 34.5 1.00 0.5 34.9 C 38.3 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 65.5 65.5 0.68 6.9 4.5 838
65.5 65.5 0.68 6.9 4.5 1182 0.10
0.00 0.00 4.8 1.00 0.0 4.8 A
0.14 5.3 1.00 0.2 5.6 A 6.1 A
65.5 65.5 0.68 6.9 4.5 1225 0.10 0.14 5.3 1.00 0.2 5.6 A 5.6 A
6 65.5 65.5 0.68 6.9 4.5 1004 0.09 0.14 5.3 1.00 0.3 5.6 A
B 13.8 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
2 SETL
4 NBTL
6 NWTL
8 SBTL
C-Max 57 59.4% 39 5.9 1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 25 Yes Yes 0 57 50.1 25.1 0 50.1 25.1
None C-Max 38.9 57 40.6% 59.4% 38.9 39 5.9 5.9 1 1 10 20 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 7 7 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes 57 0 0 57 89 50.1 73 25.1 57 0 89 50.1 73 25.1
None 38.9 40.6% 38.9 5.9 1 10 3 4.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57 0 89 73 57 89 73
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 95.9 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
Egis
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
89 89
169 169 Free 0% 0.91 186
1 1
40 40
1 1
2 2
4 4
0.91 1
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 4
41 41 Stop 0% 0.91 45
69 69
0.91 44
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 1
173 173 Free 0% 0.91 190
0.91 76
0.91 98
None
None
191
187
760
662
186
749
662
190
191 4.1
187 4.1
760 7.1
662 6.5
186 6.3
749 7.1
662 6.5
190 6.2
2.2 93 1383
2.2 97 1387
3.5 99 244
4.0 84 343
3.4 93 845
3.5 98 247
4.0 87 344
3.3 91 846
EB 1 285 98 1 1383 0.07 1.7 3.1 A 3.1
WB 1 235 44 1 1387 0.03 0.7 1.7 A 1.7
NB 1 118 2 60 487 0.24 7.2 14.7 B 14.7 B 6.2 39.7% 15
SB 1 125 4 76 528 0.24 6.9 13.9 B 13.9 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20 1900
23 23 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.99 1742 0.91 1600 0.90 26 34 57 2% NA 4
39 39 1900
76 76 1900
88 88 1900
25 25 1900
77 77 1900
0.90 98 0 0 2%
0.90 28 0 0 2% Perm
0.90 44 0 0 2%
0.90 86 0 0 2% Perm
379 379 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1857 0.90 1687 0.90 421 3 528 2% NA 6
22 22 1900
0.90 84 0 0 3% Perm
215 215 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1839 0.94 1735 0.90 239 10 301 2% NA 2
40 40 1900
0.90 43 0 0 2%
19 19 1900 4.5 1.00 0.93 0.98 1718 0.82 1445 0.90 21 79 124 2% NA 8
0.90 22 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8
2
6
6.8 6.8 0.20 4.5 3.0 318
6.8 6.8 0.20 4.5 3.0 287
18.4 18.4 0.54 4.5 3.0 933
18.4 18.4 0.54 4.5 3.0 907
0.04 0.18 11.4 1.00 0.3 11.6 B 11.6 B
c0.09 0.43 12.0 1.00 1.1 13.1 B 13.1 B
0.17 0.32 4.4 1.00 0.2 4.6 A 4.6 A
c0.31 0.58 5.3 1.00 1.0 6.3 A 6.3 A
7.5 0.54 34.2 66.2% 15
0.90 24 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 22.5 18 18 0 18 18
None 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 22.5 0 40.5 29.5 22.5 40.5 29.5
Min 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 22.5 18 18 0 18 18
None 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 22.5 0 40.5 29.5 22.5 40.5 29.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
45 Actuated-Uncoordinated 50
Splits and Phases:
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph)
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
41 41 0.96 43
Stop 130 130 0.96 135
20 20 0.96 21
18 18 0.96 19
Stop 114 114 0.96 119
13 13 0.96 14
22 22 0.96 23
Stop 22 22 0.96 23
19 19 0.96 20
23 23 0.96 24
Stop 22 22 0.96 23
23 23 0.96 24
Direction, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EB 1 199 43 21 0.01 4.4 0.24 784 8.9 8.9 A
WB 1 152 19 14 0.00 4.5 0.19 766 8.5 8.5 A
NB 1 66 23 20 -0.08 4.7 0.09 702 8.2 8.2 A
SB 1 71 24 24 -0.07 4.7 0.09 698 8.2 8.2 A
Intersection Summary Delay Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
Egis
8.6 A 28.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
16 16 Stop 0% 0.88 18
106 106
88 88 0.88 100
43 43 Free 0% 0.88 49
20 20
0.88 120
17 17 Free 0% 0.88 19
None
None
280
60
72
280 6.4
60 6.2
72 4.1
3.5 97 664
3.3 88 1005
2.2 93 1528
EB 1 138 18 120 942 0.15 3.9 9.5 A 9.5 A
NB 1 119 100 0 1528 0.07 1.6 6.4 A 6.4
SB 1 72 0 23 1700 0.04 0.0 0.0
0.88 23
0.0
6.3 26.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
32 32 1900
504 504 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1810 0.95 1725 0.96 525 5 602 5% NA 2
47 47 1900
16 16 1900
30 30 1900
43 43 1900
26 26 1900
0.96 31 0 0 2%
0.96 45 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 45 0 0 2%
0.96 27 0 0 2% Perm
44 44 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 0.99 1765 0.93 1662 0.96 46 27 92 2% NA 4
44 44 1900
0.96 17 0 0 2% Perm
27 27 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 0.98 1740 0.87 1549 0.96 28 27 91 2% NA 8
43 43 1900
0.96 49 0 0 3%
565 565 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1852 0.98 1813 0.96 589 3 634 3% NA 6
0.96 33 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
6
8
4
25.9 25.9 0.42 6.0 3.0 718
25.9 25.9 0.42 6.0 3.0 754
25.3 25.3 0.41 5.0 3.0 630
25.3 25.3 0.41 5.0 3.0 676
0.35 0.84 16.3 1.00 8.5 24.7 C 24.7 C
c0.35 0.84 16.3 1.00 8.4 24.7 C 24.7 C
c0.06 0.14 11.6 1.00 0.5 12.1 B 12.1 B
0.06 0.14 11.6 1.00 0.4 12.0 B 12.0 B
22.7 0.50 62.2 64.5% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 46 0 0 2%
C 11.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
None 41 57.7% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 41 35 10 0 35 10
Max 30 42.3% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 41 0 66 56 41 66 56
None 41 57.7% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 41 35 10 0 35 10
Max 30 42.3% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 41 0 66 56 41 66 56
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.18 335 0.94 26 0 26 2 Perm
513 513 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1854 1.00 1854 0.94 546 3 593
47 47 1900
18 18 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.22 419 0.94 19 0 19 6 Perm
575 575 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1866 1.00 1866 0.94 612 2 644
32 32 1900
31 31 1900
22 22 1900
42 42 1900
0.94 33 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 23 0 0 3
0.94 45 0 0 3 Perm
94 94 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1822 0.90 1657 0.94 100 4 157
15 15 1900
0.94 34 0 0 2
56 56 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1790 0.89 1624 0.94 60 9 107
6 44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 147 0.08 0.18 17.0 1.00 2.6 19.6 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.94 50 0 0 6
NA 6
2 44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 184
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 815 0.32
0.05 0.10 16.4 1.00 1.1 17.5 B
0.73 23.1 1.00 5.6 28.7 C 28.3 C 27.5 0.50 100.0 57.2% 15
NA 2
NA 8
8 44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 821 c0.34 0.78 23.9 1.00 7.4 31.3 C 30.9 C HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 16 0 0 7
NA 4
4 44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 714
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 729
0.07 0.15 16.8 1.00 0.4 17.2 B 17.2 B
c0.09 0.22 17.3 1.00 0.7 18.0 B 18.0 B C 12.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
6 EBTL
8 NBTL
Max 50 50.0% 28 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 15 Yes Yes 0 50 44 29 0 44 29
Max 50 50.0% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 50 0 94 83 50 94 83
Max 50 50.0% 26 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 13 Yes Yes 0 50 44 31 0 44 31
Max 50 50.0% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 50 0 94 83 50 94 83
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 60
Splits and Phases:
Egis
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
16 16 1900
207 207 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1846 0.96 1775 0.99 209 9 242 2% NA 4
26 26 1900
42 42 1900
109 109 1900
51 51 1900
209 209 1900
0.99 110 0 0 2%
0.99 52 0 0 3% Perm
0.99 23 0 0 5%
0.99 211 0 0 2% Perm
23 23 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.96 1789 0.69 1277 0.99 23 8 247 2% NA 6
21 21 1900
0.99 42 0 0 10% Perm
40 40 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1774 0.79 1427 0.99 40 15 100 2% NA 2
23 23 1900
0.99 26 0 0 5%
316 316 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1803 0.95 1726 0.99 319 25 446 2% NA 8
0.99 16 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8
2
6
13.4 13.4 0.39 4.5 3.0 695
13.4 13.4 0.39 4.5 3.0 676
11.8 11.8 0.35 4.5 3.0 492
11.8 11.8 0.35 4.5 3.0 440
0.14 0.35 7.3 1.00 0.3 7.6 A 7.6 A
c0.26 0.66 8.5 1.00 2.3 10.9 B 10.9 B
0.07 0.20 7.9 1.00 0.2 8.1 A 8.1 A
c0.19 0.56 9.1 1.00 1.6 10.7 B 10.7 B
9.8 0.61 34.2 64.5% 15
0.99 21 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 10: William St N & Colborne St W
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 22.5 18 18 0 18 18
None 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 22.5 0 40.5 29.5 22.5 40.5 29.5
Min 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 22.5 18 18 0 18 18
None 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 22.5 0 40.5 29.5 22.5 40.5 29.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
45 Actuated-Uncoordinated 45
Splits and Phases:
Egis
10: William St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
150 150 1900
278 278 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.98 1802 0.72 1322 0.87 320 3 507 3% NA 4
16 16 1900
19 19 1900
42 42 1900
19 19 1900
90 90 1900
0.87 48 0 0 2%
0.87 22 0 0 2% Perm
0.87 23 0 0 2%
0.87 103 0 0 11% Perm
38 38 1900 4.5 1.00 0.92 0.99 1666 0.87 1471 0.87 44 147 223 2% NA 6
194 194 1900
0.87 22 0 0 2% Perm
49 49 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1786 0.90 1629 0.87 56 17 84 4% NA 2
20 20 1900
0.87 18 0 0 2%
393 393 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1856 0.97 1807 0.87 452 7 515 2% NA 8
0.87 172 0 0 7% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8
2
6
18.2 18.2 0.49 4.5 3.0 641
18.2 18.2 0.49 4.5 3.0 876
10.3 10.3 0.27 4.5 3.0 447
10.3 10.3 0.27 4.5 3.0 404
c0.38 0.79 8.1 1.00 6.6 14.7 B 14.7 B
0.28 0.59 6.9 1.00 1.0 8.0 A 8.0 A
0.05 0.19 10.4 1.00 0.2 10.6 B 10.6 B
c0.15 0.55 11.6 1.00 1.6 13.3 B 13.3 B
11.7 0.70 37.5 85.0% 15
0.87 223 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 11: St David St & Colborne St E
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 22.5 18 18 0 18 18
None 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 22.5 0 40.5 29.5 22.5 40.5 29.5
Min 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 22.5 18 18 0 18 18
None 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 22.5 0 40.5 29.5 22.5 40.5 29.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
45 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
Egis
11: St David St & Colborne St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
267 267 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.54 1013 0.89 300 0 300 2% Perm
157 157 1900 4.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1797 1.00 1797 0.89 176 37 217 2% NA 4
69 69 1900
93 93 1900
94 94 1900
0.89 104 0 0 2% Perm
32 32 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.40 744 0.89 36 0 36 2% Perm
351 351 1900 4.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1572 1.00 1572 0.89 394 35 537 9% NA 2
158 158 1900
0.89 78 0 0 2%
135 135 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 0.99 1783 0.83 1501 0.89 152 35 327 2% NA 8
156 156 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.28 521 0.89 175 0 175 2% Perm
405 405 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.89 455 0 455 4% NA 6
277 277 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 311 179 132 2% Perm
4 15.5 15.5 0.36 4.5 3.0 369 c0.30 0.81 12.2 1.00 12.8 25.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.89 106 0 0 2%
8 15.5 15.5 0.36 4.5 3.0 655 0.12
15.5 15.5 0.36 4.5 3.0 547 0.22 0.60 11.0 1.00 1.8 12.7 B 12.7 B
0.33 9.8 1.00 0.3 10.1 B 18.1 B 15.2 0.81 42.5 84.5% 15
2 18.0 18.0 0.42 4.5 3.0 315 0.05 0.11 7.4 1.00 0.2 7.6 A
0.89 178 0 0 33%
6 18.0 18.0 0.42 4.5 3.0 220
18.0 18.0 0.42 4.5 3.0 665 c0.34
0.34 0.80 10.6 1.00 17.8 28.4 C
0.81 10.7 1.00 7.2 17.9 B 17.3 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 E
18.0 18.0 0.42 4.5 3.0 782 0.25 0.58 9.4 1.00 1.1 10.5 B 12.9 B
6 18.0 18.0 0.42 4.5 3.0 678 0.08 0.19 7.7 1.00 0.1 7.8 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 22.5 18 18 0 18 18
None 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 22.5 0 40.5 29.5 22.5 40.5 29.5
Min 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 22.5 18 18 0 18 18
None 22.5 50.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 22.5 0 40.5 29.5 22.5 40.5 29.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
45 Actuated-Uncoordinated 50
Splits and Phases:
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
96 96 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.28 533 0.89 108 0 108 2% pm+pt 5 2 36.1 36.1 0.52 5.0 3.0 417 0.03 0.11 0.26 8.7 1.00 0.3 9.0 A
804 804 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3568 1.00 3568 0.89 903 2 919 2% NA 2
16 16 1900
94 94 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.20 381 0.89 106 0 106 2% pm+pt 1 6 36.1 36.1 0.52 5.0 3.0 354 c0.03 0.12 0.30 9.2 1.00 0.5 9.6 A
558 558 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3460 1.00 3460 0.89 627 18 736 3% NA 6
113 113 1900
81 81 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.48 901 0.89 91 0 91 2% Perm
73 73 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1718 1.00 1718 0.89 82 33 107 2% NA 4
52 52 1900
174 174 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.67 1257 0.89 196 0 196 2% Perm
101 101 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1715 1.00 1715 0.89 113 59 200 2% NA 8
130 130 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.89 18 0 0 2%
28.5 28.5 0.41 5.0 3.0 1475 c0.26 0.62 16.0 1.00 2.0 18.0 B 17.0 B 17.8 0.57 68.9 74.1% 15
0.89 127 0 0 2%
28.5 28.5 0.41 5.0 3.0 1431 0.21 0.51 15.0 1.00 0.3 15.4 B 14.7 B
4 17.8 17.8 0.26 5.0 3.0 232 0.10 0.39 21.1 1.00 1.1 22.2 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 58 0 0 9%
8 17.8 17.8 0.26 5.0 3.0 324
17.8 17.8 0.26 5.0 3.0 443 0.06
c0.16 0.60 22.5 1.00 3.2 25.6 C
0.24 20.2 1.00 0.3 20.5 C 21.2 C
0.89 146 0 0 3%
17.8 17.8 0.26 5.0 3.0 443 0.12 0.45 21.4 1.00 0.7 22.2 C 23.7 C
B 15.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
Egis
1 WBL Lead Yes None 20 24.1% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 1 0 0 Yes Yes 0 20 15 15 63 78 78
2 EBTL Lag Yes Max 33 39.8% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 20 53 48 38 0 28 18
4 NBTL None 30 36.1% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 53 0 78 68 33 58 48
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
5 EBL Lead Yes None 20 24.1% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 Yes Yes 0 20 15 15 63 78 78
6 WBTL Lag Yes None 33 39.8% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 20 53 48 38 0 28 18
8 SBTL None 30 36.1% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 53 0 78 68 33 58 48
83 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
293 293 1900 5.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3471 0.17 629 0.95 308 0 308 2% pm+pt 1 6 49.9 49.9 0.45 5.0 3.0 553 c0.05 0.20 0.56 21.2 1.00 1.2 22.4 C
551 551 1900 6.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3384 1.00 3384 0.95 580 66 843 2% NA 6
313 313 1900
50 50 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.17 308 0.95 53 0 53 6% pm+pt 5 2 41.7 41.7 0.37 5.0 3.0 198 0.02 0.08 0.27 23.9 1.00 0.7 24.6 C
626 626 1900 6.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3500 1.00 3500 0.95 659 12 760 2% NA 2
107 107 1900
271 271 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.51 953 0.95 285 0 285 2% pm+pt 3 8 48.8 48.8 0.44 5.0 3.0 534 c0.08 c0.16 0.53 21.2 1.00 1.0 22.2 C
260 260 1900 6.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3430 1.00 3430 0.95 274 20 329 3% NA 8
71 71 1900
89 89 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.54 1012 0.95 94 0 94 3% pm+pt 7 4 35.7 35.7 0.32 5.0 3.0 375 0.02 0.06 0.25 27.3 1.00 0.4 27.6 C
228 228 1900 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3544 1.00 3544 0.95 240 0 240 3% NA 4
250 250 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.95 263 263 0 3% NA
28.1 28.1 0.25 6.0 3.0 892 0.07
0.0 0.0 0.00
0.27 33.5 1.00 0.7 34.2 C 42.7 D
0.00 55.8 1.00 0.0 55.8 E
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.95 329 0 0 2%
39.2 39.2 0.35 6.0 3.0 1188 c0.25 0.71 31.3 1.00 3.6 34.9 C 31.7 C 33.7 0.65 111.6 78.6% 15
0.95 113 0 0 2%
35.1 35.1 0.31 6.0 3.0 1100 0.22 0.69 33.5 1.00 3.6 37.1 D 36.3 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 75 0 0 3%
36.2 36.2 0.32 6.0 3.0 1112 0.10 0.30 28.2 1.00 0.7 28.9 C 25.9 C
0
C 22.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
Egis
1 EBL Lead Yes None 17 15.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 17 12 12 96 108 108
2 WBTL Lag Yes Max 40 35.4% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 17 57 51 34 0 34 17
3 NBL Lead Yes None 23 20.4% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 57 80 75 75 40 58 58
4 SBTL Lag Yes Max 33 29.2% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 80 0 107 90 63 90 73
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
5 WBL Lead Yes None 17 15.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 17 12 12 96 108 108
6 EBTL Lag Yes Max 40 35.4% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 17 57 51 34 0 34 17
7 SBL Lead Yes None 23 20.4% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 57 80 75 75 40 58 58
8 NBTL Lag Yes Max 33 29.2% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 80 0 107 90 63 90 73
113 Semi Act-Uncoord 95
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
18 18
34 34 Stop 0% 0.89 38
20 20
61 61
15 15
15 15
17 17
0.89 17
0.89 17
0.89 22
0.89 19
61 61 Free 0% 0.89 69
15 15
0.89 69
85 85 Free 0% 0.89 96
20 20
0.89 22
15 15 Stop 0% 0.89 17
0.89 20
None
0.89 17
None 387
282
268
78
298
265
107
86
118
282 7.1
268 6.5
78 6.2
298 7.1
265 6.5
107 6.2
86 4.1
118 4.1
3.5 97 633
4.0 94 623
3.3 98 983
3.5 88 599
4.0 97 625
3.3 98 947
2.2 99 1510
2.2 99 1470
EB 1 80 20 22 696 0.11 2.9 10.8 B 10.8 B
WB 1 103 69 17 643 0.16 4.3 11.7 B 11.7 B
NB 1 135 17 22 1510 0.01 0.3 1.0 A 1.0
SB 1 105 19 17 1470 0.01 0.3 1.4 A 1.4
5.6 26.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.54 937 0.97 21 0 21 10% Perm
207 207 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1825 1.00 1825 0.97 213 7 248 2% NA 8
41 41 1900
114 114 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.24 447 0.97 118 0 118 2% pm+pt 7 4 37.9 37.9 0.35 5.0 3.0 343 0.05 0.07 0.34 25.4 1.00 0.6 26.0 C
243 243 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1788 1.00 1788 0.97 251 18 362 2% NA 4
125 125 1900
16 16 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.67 1257 0.97 16 0 16 2% Perm
47 47 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1755 1.00 1755 0.97 48 21 67 2% NA 2
39 39 1900
36 36 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.63 1157 0.97 37 0 37 4% pm+pt 1 6 58.1 58.1 0.54 5.0 3.0 681 0.01 0.02 0.05 11.9 1.00 0.0 11.9 B
116 116 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1843 1.00 1843 0.97 120 5 135 2% NA 6
19 19 1900
8 17.9 17.9 0.17 6.0 3.0 155 0.02 0.14 38.4 1.00 0.4 38.8 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.97 42 0 0 6%
17.9 17.9 0.17 6.0 3.0 302 c0.14 0.82 43.5 1.00 16.3 59.8 E 58.2 E 33.0 0.38 108.0 68.7% 15
0.97 129 0 0 2%
37.9 37.9 0.35 6.0 3.0 627 c0.20 0.58 28.5 1.00 1.3 29.8 C 28.9 C
2 42.4 42.4 0.39 6.0 3.0 493 0.01 0.03 20.2 1.00 0.1 20.3 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 40 0 0 2%
42.4 42.4 0.39 6.0 3.0 689 0.04 0.10 20.7 1.00 0.3 21.0 C 20.9 C
0.97 20 0 0 2%
58.1 58.1 0.54 6.0 3.0 991 c0.07 0.14 12.4 1.00 0.3 12.7 B 12.6 B
C 22.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
Egis
1 SBL Lead Yes None 31 28.2% 31 4 1 18 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 31 26 26 79 105 105
2 NBTL Lag Yes Max 31 28.2% 31 4 2 25 3 1 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 31 62 56 48 0 25 17
4 WBTL
6 SBTL
None 48 43.6% 32 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 62 0 104 96 31 73 65
Max 62 56.4% 32 4 2 25 3 3 0 0 18 8 Yes Yes 0 62 56 48 79 25 17
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
7 WBL Lead Yes None 23 20.9% 23 4 1 15 3 3 0 0 No Yes 62 85 80 80 31 49 49
8 EBTL Lag Yes None 25 22.7% 21 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 7 8 Yes Yes 85 0 104 96 54 73 65
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
32 32 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.13 244 0.91 35 0 35 5% Perm
245 245 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1858 1.00 1858 0.91 269 4 290 2% NA 4
23 23 1900
205 205 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.51 969 0.91 225 0 225 2% pm+pt 3 4 37.0 37.0 0.47 2.0 3.0 532 c0.04 0.16 0.42 12.5 1.00 0.5 13.0 B
575 575 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1854 1.00 1854 0.91 632 2 653 2% NA 4
21 21 1900
35 35 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.60 1124 0.91 38 0 38 2% Perm
141 141 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1737 1.00 1737 0.91 155 37 245 4% NA 2
116 116 1900
22 22 1900
0.91 127 0 0 2%
0.91 24 0 0 2% Perm
177 177 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1873 0.94 1778 0.91 195 0 219 2% NA 2
21 21 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 23 15 8 3% Perm
4 30.0 30.0 0.38 6.0 3.0 93 0.14 0.38 17.3 1.00 2.5 19.9 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.91 25 0 0 3%
30.0 30.0 0.38 6.0 3.0 713 0.16 0.41 17.6 1.00 0.4 17.9 B 18.1 B 26.2 0.64 78.1 82.3% 15
0.91 23 0 0 33%
30.0 30.0 0.38 6.0 3.0 712 c0.35 0.92 22.9 1.00 16.6 39.5 D 32.7 C
2 27.1 27.1 0.35 6.0 3.0 390 0.03 0.10 17.2 1.00 0.5 17.7 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 27.1 27.1 0.35 6.0 3.0 602 c0.14
27.1 27.1 0.35 6.0 3.0 616 0.12 0.36 19.0 1.00 1.6 20.6 C 20.2 C
0.41 19.4 1.00 2.0 21.4 C 21.0 C
2 27.1 27.1 0.35 6.0 3.0 549 0.01 0.01 16.7 1.00 0.0 16.8 B
C 14.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 33 41.3% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 33 27 17 0 27 17
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
80 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
Egis
2 NBSB
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
3 4 WBL EBWB Lead Lag Yes Yes None None 9 38 11.3% 47.5% 9 28 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 No Yes Yes Yes 33 42 42 0 40 74 40 67 33 42 40 74 40 67
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
150 150 1900
278 278 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1841 0.73 1359 0.91 305 3 485
16 16 1900
19 19 1900
42 42 1900
19 19 1900
90 90 1900
0.91 46 0 0 1
0.91 21 0 0
0.91 22 0 0
0.91 99 0 0
38 38 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.99 1707 0.88 1517 0.91 42 87 267
194 194 1900
0.91 21 0 0 5 Perm
49 49 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 1806 0.91 1660 0.91 54 15 82
20 20 1900
0.91 18 0 0 5
393 393 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1852 0.97 1808 0.91 432 6 493
0.91 165 0 0 1 Perm
NA 4
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
NA 8
8
Perm
NA 2
Perm
2
NA 6
6
21.2 21.2 0.49 4.5 3.0 666
21.2 21.2 0.49 4.5 3.0 887
13.0 13.0 0.30 4.5 3.0 499
13.0 13.0 0.30 4.5 3.0 456
c0.36 0.73 8.7 1.00 4.0 12.7 B 12.7 B
0.27 0.56 7.7 1.00 0.8 8.5 A 8.5 A
0.05 0.16 11.1 1.00 0.2 11.3 B 11.3 B
c0.18 0.58 12.8 1.00 1.9 14.7 B 14.7 B
11.6 0.67 43.2 85.0% 15
0.91 213 0 0
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: St David St & Queen St
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 26 40.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 26 21.5 21.5 0 21.5 21.5
None 39 60.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 26 0 60.5 49.5 26 60.5 49.5
Min 26 40.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 26 21.5 21.5 0 21.5 21.5
None 39 60.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 26 0 60.5 49.5 26 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 60
Splits and Phases:
Egis
18: St David St & Queen St
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
32 32 1900
91 91 1900 6.5 1.00 0.96 0.99 1738 0.80 1404 0.95 96 22 167 5% NA 4
56 56 1900
22 22 1900
190 190 1900
0.95 59 0 0 2%
0.95 23 0 0 24% Perm
245 245 1900 6.5 1.00 0.94 1.00 1668 0.98 1635 0.95 258 33 448 9% NA 8
67 67 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.54 1015 0.95 71 0 71 3% Perm
200 200 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 211 0 211 9% NA 2
301 301 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 317 152 165 17% Perm
149 149 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.63 1156 0.95 157 0 157 4% Perm
313 313 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 329 0 329 6% NA 6
97 97 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 102 49 53 6% Perm
2 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 727
6 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 602
0.12 0.23 10.0 1.00 0.7 10.8 B
0.14 0.26 10.2 1.00 1.1 11.3 B
0.95 34 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.95 200 0 0 6%
8 23.4 23.4 0.30 6.5 3.0 426
23.4 23.4 0.30 6.5 3.0 496
0.12 0.39 21.2 1.00 0.6 21.8 C 21.8 C
c0.27 0.90 25.7 1.00 19.5 45.2 D 45.2 D 20.9 0.55 77.0 78.0% 15
2 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 528 0.07 0.13 9.5 1.00 0.5 10.0 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 917 0.12 0.23 10.0 1.00 0.6 10.6 B 10.6 B
40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 943 c0.18 0.35 10.8 1.00 1.0 11.8 B 11.2 B
6 40.1 40.1 0.52 7.0 3.0 802 0.03 0.07 9.2 1.00 0.2 9.3 A
C 13.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
Egis
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 47 59.9% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 0 47 40 24 0 40 24
None 31.5 40.1% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 47 0 72 61 47 72 61
Max 47 59.9% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 0 47 40 24 0 40 24
None 31.5 40.1% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 47 0 72 61 47 72 61
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
3 3 Stop 0% 0.91 3
29 29
32 32 0.91 35
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 32
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
70
0
0
70 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 914
3.5 97 1021
2.8 97 1301
EB 1 35 3 32 1011 0.03 0.8 8.7 A 8.7 A
NB 1 35 35 0 1301 0.03 0.6 7.8 A 7.8
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.3 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 34
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
19 19 1900
56 56 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 0.99 1667 0.87 1469 0.92 61 30 94
39 39 1900
55 55 1900
241 241 1900
503 503 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1764 1.00 1764 0.92 547 8 625
255 255 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.95 1608 0.34 576 0.92 277 0 277 183 Perm
510 510 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1870 1.00 1870 0.92 554 2 574
20 20 1900
0.92 60 0 0 102 Perm
46 46 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1777 0.38 705 0.92 50 0 50 11 Perm
79 79 1900
0.92 42 0 0 102
21 21 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.90 0.99 1597 0.93 1500 0.92 23 108 237
0.92 21 0 0 7 Perm
NA 4
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.92 262 0 0 7
NA 8
8 13.4 13.4 0.22 4.5 3.0 323
13.4 13.4 0.22 4.5 3.0 330
0.06 0.29 19.7 1.00 0.5 20.2 C 20.2 C
c0.16 0.72 21.9 1.00 7.2 29.2 C 29.2 C 14.2 0.75 60.8 83.9% 15
2 38.4 38.4 0.63 4.5 3.0 445 0.07 0.11 4.4 1.00 0.5 5.0 A
0.92 86 0 0 183
NA 2
6 38.4 38.4 0.63 4.5 3.0 363
38.4 38.4 0.63 4.5 3.0 1114 0.35
c0.48 0.76 8.0 1.00 14.1 22.1 C
0.56 6.4 1.00 2.0 8.4 A 8.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 E
0.92 22 0 0 11
NA 6 38.4 38.4 0.63 4.5 3.0 1181 0.31 0.49 6.0 1.00 1.4 7.4 A 12.2 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 35
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
Egis
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 42.5 65.4% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 42.5 38 27 0 38 27
None 22.5 34.6% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 42.5 0 60.5 49.5 42.5 60.5 49.5
Max 42.5 65.4% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 42.5 38 27 0 38 27
None 22.5 34.6% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 42.5 0 60.5 49.5 42.5 60.5 49.5
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
65 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 36
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside Drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
20 20 Stop 0% 0.87 23
23 23
42 42 0.87 48
469 469 Free 0% 0.87 539
25 25
0.87 26
491 491 Free 0% 0.87 564
None
None
1214
554
568
1214 6.4
554 6.5
568 4.1
3.5 88 191
3.6 95 481
2.2 95 1004
EB 1 49 23 26 281 0.17 4.7 20.5 C 20.5 C
NB 1 612 48 0 1004 0.05 1.1 1.3 A 1.3
SB 1 568 0 29 1700 0.33 0.0 0.0
0.87 29
0.0
1.4 67.7% 15
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 37
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
59 59 1900
133 133 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1755 0.66 1170 0.86 155 6 240 4% NA 4
19 19 1900
118 118 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.53 962 0.86 137 0 137 5% Perm
144 144 1900 5.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1783 1.00 1783 0.86 167 33 226 2% NA 8
79 79 1900
55 55 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.37 701 0.86 64 0 64 2% Perm
542 542 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1750 1.00 1750 0.86 630 12 819 7% NA 2
173 173 1900
94 94 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.21 387 0.86 109 0 109 2% Perm
437 437 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1786 1.00 1786 0.86 508 5 568 3% NA 6
56 56 1900
0.86 69 0 0 14% Perm
0.86 22 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8 16.6 16.6 0.23 5.5 3.0 224
16.6 16.6 0.23 5.5 3.0 273 c0.20 0.88 26.2 1.00 25.7 51.9 D 51.9 D
0.14 0.61 24.3 1.00 4.9 29.2 C
19.6 0.80 71.0 110.4% 15
0.86 92 0 0 2%
16.6 16.6 0.23 5.5 3.0 416 0.13 0.54 23.9 1.00 1.5 25.3 C 26.7 C
2 43.4 43.4 0.61 5.5 3.0 428 0.09 0.15 5.9 1.00 0.7 6.6 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 201 0 0 2%
6 43.4 43.4 0.61 5.5 3.0 236
43.4 43.4 0.61 5.5 3.0 1069 c0.47
0.28 0.46 7.5 1.00 6.4 13.9 B
0.77 10.1 1.00 5.2 15.3 B 14.7 B
0.86 65 0 0 27%
43.4 43.4 0.61 5.5 3.0 1091 0.32 0.52 7.9 1.00 1.8 9.6 A 10.3 B
B 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 38
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
C-Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None C-Max 30.5 40.5 43.0% 57.0% 30.5 40.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 8 35 3 3 3.5 1 0 0 0 0 15 25 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 40.5 0 0 40.5 65.5 35 55.5 25 40.5 0 65.5 35 55.5 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 3.5 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
Egis
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 39
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
101 101 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.72 1352 0.93 109 0 109 2% Perm
26 26 1900 5.5 1.00 0.87 1.00 1618 1.00 1618 0.93 28 124 55 2% NA 4
140 140 1900
20 20 1900
19 19 1900
468 468 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1873 1.00 1873 0.93 503 1 522 2% NA 2
20 20 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.43 703 0.93 22 0 22 17% Perm
313 313 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1789 1.00 1789 0.93 337 15 461 3% NA 6
129 129 1900
0.93 22 0 0 2% Perm
197 197 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.46 870 0.93 212 0 212 2% Perm
19 19 1900
0.93 151 0 0 4%
17 17 1900 5.5 1.00 0.95 0.98 1766 0.82 1484 0.93 18 16 44 2% NA 8
4 10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 241 c0.08 0.45 20.9 1.00 1.3 22.3 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.93 20 0 0 2%
8 10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 289 0.03
10.2 10.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 265 0.03 0.16 19.8 1.00 0.3 20.1 C 20.1 C
0.19 19.9 1.00 0.3 20.2 C 21.0 C 9.8 0.44 57.0 92.8% 15
2 35.8 35.8 0.63 5.5 3.0 546 0.24 0.39 5.2 1.00 2.1 7.3 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 20 0 0 2%
6 35.8 35.8 0.63 5.5 3.0 441
35.8 35.8 0.63 5.5 3.0 1176 c0.28
0.03 0.05 4.1 1.00 0.2 4.3 A
0.44 5.5 1.00 1.2 6.7 A 6.9 A
0.93 139 0 0 2%
35.8 35.8 0.63 5.5 3.0 1123 0.26 0.41 5.3 1.00 1.1 6.4 A 6.3 A
A 11.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 40
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
Egis
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 41
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
91 91 Stop 0% 0.96 95
173 173
609 609 Free 0% 0.96 634
68 68
73 73
0.96 71
0.96 76
375 375 Free 0% 0.96 391
0.96 180
4 None
None
1212
670
705
1212 6.5
670 6.2
705 4.1
3.6 47 180
3.3 61 457
2.2 91 884
WB 1 275 95 180 522 0.53 23.1 27.4 D 27.4 D
NB 1 705 0 71 1700 0.41 0.0 0.0 0.0
SB 1 467 76 0 884 0.09 2.1 2.4 A 2.4
6.0 75.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
D
Synchro 11 Report Page 42
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
Egis
AM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
16 16
36 36 Stop 0% 0.75 48
20 20
39 39
18 18
39 39
19 19
0.75 24
0.75 52
0.75 52
0.75 25
45 45 Free 0% 0.75 60
20 20
0.75 52
45 45 Free 0% 0.75 60
39 39
0.75 27
29 29 Stop 0% 0.75 39
0.75 21
None
None
357
340
74
364
327
86
87
112
357 7.1
340 6.5
74 6.2
364 7.1
327 6.5
86 6.2
87 4.1
112 4.1
3.5 96 531
4.0 91 552
3.3 97 988
3.5 90 517
4.0 93 561
3.3 98 973
2.2 97 1509
2.2 98 1478
EB 1 96 21 27 624 0.15 4.1 11.8 B 11.8 B
WB 1 115 52 24 590 0.19 5.5 12.6 B 12.6 B
NB 1 164 52 52 1509 0.03 0.8 2.6 A 2.6
SB 1 112 25 27 1478 0.02 0.4 1.8 A 1.8
6.6 26.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 27
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 43
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
95 95 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.67 1189 0.94 101 0 101 9% Perm
61 61 1900 7.1 1.00 0.94 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.94 65 30 84 2% NA 4
46 46 1900
53 53 1900
0.94 49 0 0 2%
0.94 56 0 0 2% Perm
69 69 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1813 0.81 1508 0.94 73 0 129 5% NA 8
225 225 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 239 148 91 2% Perm
60 60 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.36 672 0.94 64 0 64 3% Perm
711 711 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 756 0 756 3% NA 2
24 24 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 26 11 15 2% Perm
212 212 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.23 432 0.94 226 0 226 4% Perm
538 538 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 572 0 572 5% NA 6
80 80 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 85 35 50 15% Perm
8 23.0 23.0 0.26 7.1 3.5 413
2 52.0 52.0 0.58 7.0 4.5 392
2 52.0 52.0 0.58 7.0 4.5 934
6 52.0 52.0 0.58 7.0 4.5 252
0.06 0.22 26.0 1.00 0.3 26.3 C
0.10 0.16 8.5 1.00 0.9 9.4 A
0.01 0.02 7.8 1.00 0.0 7.8 A
c0.52 0.90 16.2 1.00 31.9 48.1 D
4 23.0 23.0 0.26 7.1 3.5 306 0.08 0.33 26.8 1.00 2.9 29.7 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8 23.0 23.0 0.26 7.1 3.5 454 0.05
23.0 23.0 0.26 7.1 3.5 389 c0.09 0.33 26.8 1.00 0.6 27.4 C 26.7 C
0.18 25.7 1.00 0.9 26.6 C 28.1 C 20.6 0.72 89.1 84.9% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
52.0 52.0 0.58 7.0 4.5 1088 0.41 0.69 13.0 1.00 3.7 16.7 B 15.8 B
52.0 52.0 0.58 7.0 4.5 1068 0.31 0.54 11.2 1.00 0.8 12.0 B 20.9 C
6 52.0 52.0 0.58 7.0 4.5 828 0.03 0.06 8.0 1.00 0.1 8.1 A
C 14.1 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 59 66.2% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 0 59 52 31 0 52 31
Max 30.1 33.8% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 59 0 82 66 59 82 66
None 59 66.2% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 0 59 52 31 0 52 31
None 30.1 33.8% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 59 0 82 66 59 82 66
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
17 17
3 3 Stop 0% 0.87 3
334 334
8 8
1 1
340 340
0 0
0.87 1
0.87 391
0.87 8
0.87 0
48 48 Free 0% 0.87 55
7 7
0.87 9
55 55 Free 0% 0.87 63
7 7
0.87 384
0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0
0.87 20
0.87 8
13 None
None
909
912
59
910
912
67
63
71
909 7.1
912 6.5
59 6.2
910 7.1
912 6.5
67 6.2
63 4.1
71 4.1
3.5 90 205
4.0 99 204
3.3 62 1007
3.5 93 126
4.0 100 204
3.3 100 997
2.2 75 1540
2.2 100 1529
EB 1 407 20 384 1067 0.38 13.8 11.6 B 11.6 B
WB 1 10 9 1 138 0.07 1.8 33.2 D 33.2 D
NB 1 462 391 8 1540 0.25 7.7 7.2 A 7.2
SB 1 63 0 8 1529 0.00 0.0 0.0
8.9 42.5% 15
0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
112 112 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1868 1.00 1868 0.93 120 3 125 2% NA 4
7 7 1900
288 288 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.67 1158 0.93 310 0 310 12% Perm
204 204 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 219 0 219 2% NA 8
407 407 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 438 306 132 3% Perm
308 308 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.58 1102 0.93 331 0 331 2% Perm
265 265 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 285 0 285 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
9 9 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.57 1078 0.93 10 0 10 2% Perm
252 252 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 271 0 271 7% NA 6
178 178 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 191 85 106 11% Perm
8 29.0 29.0 0.30 6.9 3.0 479
2 53.1 53.1 0.55 6.9 4.5 610
0.08 0.28 25.5 1.00 0.3 25.8 C
c0.30 0.54 13.7 1.00 3.4 17.1 B
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 8 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8 29.0 29.0 0.30 6.9 3.0 350
29.0 29.0 0.30 6.9 3.0 564 0.07
c0.27 0.89 31.9 1.00 22.4 54.3 D
0.22 25.0 1.00 0.2 25.2 C 25.2 C 23.7 0.66 95.9 73.6% 15
29.0 29.0 0.30 6.9 3.0 569 0.12 0.38 26.4 1.00 0.4 26.8 C 35.2 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 53.1 53.1 0.55 6.9 4.5 596
53.1 53.1 0.55 6.9 4.5 958 0.16
0.01 0.02 9.6 1.00 0.1 9.7 A
0.30 11.4 1.00 0.8 12.2 B 14.8 B
53.1 53.1 0.55 6.9 4.5 993 0.15 0.27 11.3 1.00 0.7 11.9 B 11.4 B
6 53.1 53.1 0.55 6.9 4.5 814 0.07 0.13 10.3 1.00 0.3 10.6 B
C 13.8 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
2 SETL
4 NBTL
6 NWTL
8 SBTL
C-Max 57 59.4% 39 5.9 1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 25 Yes Yes 0 57 50.1 25.1 0 50.1 25.1
None C-Max 38.9 57 40.6% 59.4% 38.9 39 5.9 5.9 1 1 10 20 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 7 7 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes 57 0 0 57 89 50.1 73 25.1 57 0 89 50.1 73 25.1
None 38.9 40.6% 38.9 5.9 1 10 3 4.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57 0 89 73 57 89 73
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 95.9 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
181 181
270 270 Free 0% 0.91 297
4 4
80 80
7 7
2 2
4 4
0.91 8
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 4
69 69 Stop 0% 0.91 76
101 101
0.91 88
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 4
229 229 Free 0% 0.91 252
0.91 111
0.91 199
None
None
260
301
1278
1133
299
1217
1131
256
260 4.1
301 4.1
1278 7.1
1133 6.5
299 6.3
1217 7.1
1131 6.5
256 6.2
2.2 85 1304
2.2 93 1260
3.5 97 66
4.0 65 159
3.4 92 731
3.5 96 89
4.0 53 160
3.3 86 778
EB 1 500 199 4 1304 0.15 4.1 4.2 A 4.2
WB 1 348 88 8 1260 0.07 1.7 2.5 A 2.5
NB 1 118 2 60 254 0.46 17.4 30.9 D 30.9 D 12.1 58.5% 15
SB 1 191 4 111 289 0.66 32.9 38.9 E 38.9 E
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24 1900
21 21 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.99 1746 0.89 1570 0.90 23 29 60 2% NA 4
35 35 1900
48 48 1900
136 136 1900
33 33 1900
101 101 1900
0.90 151 0 0 2%
0.90 37 0 0 2% Perm
0.90 81 0 0 2%
0.90 112 0 0 2% Perm
318 318 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1846 0.81 1504 0.90 353 4 493 2% NA 6
29 29 1900
0.90 53 0 0 3% Perm
437 437 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1844 0.96 1768 0.90 486 9 595 2% NA 2
73 73 1900
0.90 39 0 0 2%
52 52 1900 4.5 1.00 0.92 0.99 1716 0.91 1585 0.90 58 79 183 2% NA 8
0.90 27 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8
2
6
10.0 10.0 0.25 4.5 3.0 387
10.0 10.0 0.25 4.5 3.0 391
21.5 21.5 0.53 4.5 3.0 938
21.5 21.5 0.53 4.5 3.0 798
0.04 0.15 11.9 1.00 0.2 12.1 B 12.1 B
c0.12 0.47 13.0 1.00 0.9 13.9 B 13.9 B
c0.34 0.63 6.7 1.00 1.4 8.1 A 8.1 A
0.33 0.62 6.6 1.00 1.4 8.1 A 8.1 A
9.4 0.58 40.5 78.0% 15
0.90 32 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 42 64.6% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 42 37.5 37.5 0 37.5 37.5
None 23 35.4% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 42 0 60.5 49.5 42 60.5 49.5
Min 42 64.6% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 42 37.5 37.5 0 37.5 37.5
None 23 35.4% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 42 0 60.5 49.5 42 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph)
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
19 19 0.96 20
Stop 161 161 0.96 168
27 27 0.96 28
25 25 0.96 26
Stop 178 178 0.96 185
24 24 0.96 25
27 27 0.96 28
Stop 49 49 0.96 51
49 49 0.96 51
28 28 0.96 29
Stop 17 17 0.96 18
19 19 0.96 20
Direction, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EB 1 216 20 28 -0.03 4.7 0.28 723 9.5 9.5 A
WB 1 236 26 25 -0.01 4.7 0.31 730 9.7 9.7 A
NB 1 130 28 51 -0.16 4.9 0.18 666 9.0 9.0 A
SB 1 67 29 20 -0.04 5.1 0.10 626 8.7 8.7 A
Intersection Summary Delay Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
9.4 A 31.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
19 19 Stop 0% 0.88 22
113 113
148 148 0.88 168
25 25 Free 0% 0.88 28
25 25
0.88 128
35 35 Free 0% 0.88 40
None
None
418
42
56
418 6.4
42 6.2
56 4.1
3.5 96 527
3.3 88 1029
2.2 89 1549
EB 1 150 22 128 903 0.17 4.5 9.8 A 9.8 A
NB 1 208 168 0 1549 0.11 2.8 6.3 A 6.3
SB 1 56 0 28 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.88 28
0.0
6.7 31.4% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900
644 644 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1808 0.92 1672 0.96 671 5 791 5% NA 2
67 67 1900
18 18 1900
24 24 1900
36 36 1900
31 31 1900
0.96 25 0 0 2%
0.96 38 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 21 0 0 2%
0.96 32 0 0 2% Perm
56 56 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.99 1780 0.92 1658 0.96 58 24 109 2% NA 4
41 41 1900
0.96 19 0 0 2% Perm
56 56 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1797 0.89 1620 0.96 58 11 106 2% NA 8
20 20 1900
0.96 70 0 0 3%
626 626 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1855 0.97 1803 0.96 652 2 694 3% NA 6
0.96 55 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
6
8
4
34.3 34.3 0.49 6.0 3.0 815
34.3 34.3 0.49 6.0 3.0 879
25.0 25.0 0.36 5.0 3.0 576
25.0 25.0 0.36 5.0 3.0 589
c0.47 0.97 17.5 1.00 24.4 41.9 D 41.9 D
0.38 0.79 15.0 1.00 4.8 19.8 B 19.8 B
0.07 0.18 15.6 1.00 0.7 16.3 B 16.3 B
c0.07 0.19 15.6 1.00 0.7 16.3 B 16.3 B
29.4 0.64 70.3 81.5% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 43 0 0 2%
C 11.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
None 41 57.7% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 41 35 10 0 35 10
Max 30 42.3% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 41 0 66 56 41 66 56
None 41 57.7% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 41 35 10 0 35 10
Max 30 42.3% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 41 0 66 56 41 66 56
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1788 0.27 502 0.94 56 0 56 2 Perm
616 616 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1859 1.00 1859 0.94 655 4 701
47 47 1900
93 93 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1785 0.26 498 0.94 99 0 99 6 Perm
628 628 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1868 1.00 1868 0.94 668 3 699
32 32 1900
67 67 1900
49 49 1900
25 25 1900
0.94 71 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 52 0 0 3
0.94 27 0 0 3 Perm
49 49 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1789 0.89 1612 0.94 52 14 87
21 21 1900
0.94 34 0 0 2
98 98 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.98 1780 0.86 1554 0.94 104 16 211
6 40.0 40.0 0.57 6.0 3.0 286 0.11 0.20 7.2 1.00 1.5 8.8 A
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.94 50 0 0 6
NA 6
2 40.0 40.0 0.57 6.0 3.0 284
40.0 40.0 0.57 6.0 3.0 1062 c0.38
0.20 0.35 8.0 1.00 3.4 11.4 B
0.66 10.3 1.00 3.2 13.5 B 13.2 B 15.3 0.62 70.0 83.9% 15
NA 2
NA 8
8 40.0 40.0 0.57 6.0 3.0 1067 0.37 0.66 10.3 1.00 3.1 13.4 B 13.2 B HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 22 0 0 7
NA 4
4 18.0 18.0 0.26 6.0 3.0 399
18.0 18.0 0.26 6.0 3.0 414
c0.14 0.53 22.4 1.00 5.0 27.3 C 27.3 C
0.05 0.21 20.4 1.00 1.2 21.6 C 21.6 C B 12.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
6 EBTL
8 NBTL
Max 46 65.7% 28 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 15 Yes Yes 0 46 40 25 0 40 25
Max 24 34.3% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 46 0 64 53 46 64 53
Max 46 65.7% 26 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 13 Yes Yes 0 46 40 27 0 40 27
Max 24 34.3% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 46 0 64 53 46 64 53
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
70 Actuated-Uncoordinated 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
31 31 1900
314 314 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1829 0.94 1721 0.99 317 11 401 2% NA 4
63 63 1900
13 13 1900
248 248 1900
47 47 1900
173 173 1900
0.99 251 0 0 2%
0.99 47 0 0 3% Perm
0.99 28 0 0 5%
0.99 175 0 0 2% Perm
43 43 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.97 1793 0.70 1307 0.99 43 7 235 2% NA 6
24 24 1900
0.99 13 0 0 10% Perm
141 141 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1820 0.89 1638 0.99 142 9 208 2% NA 2
28 28 1900
0.99 64 0 0 5%
332 332 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 1.00 1772 0.99 1754 0.99 335 44 555 2% NA 8
0.99 31 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8
2
6
19.0 19.0 0.45 4.5 3.0 776
19.0 19.0 0.45 4.5 3.0 791
14.1 14.1 0.33 4.5 3.0 548
14.1 14.1 0.33 4.5 3.0 437
0.23 0.52 8.3 1.00 0.6 8.8 A 8.8 A
c0.32 0.70 9.3 1.00 2.8 12.1 B 12.1 B
0.13 0.38 10.7 1.00 0.4 11.1 B 11.1 B
c0.18 0.54 11.4 1.00 1.3 12.6 B 12.6 B
11.1 0.63 42.1 72.9% 15
0.99 24 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 10: William St N & Colborne St W
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 28 43.1% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 28 23.5 23.5 0 23.5 23.5
None 37 56.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 28 0 60.5 49.5 28 60.5 49.5
Min 28 43.1% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 28 23.5 23.5 0 23.5 23.5
None 37 56.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 28 0 60.5 49.5 28 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 50
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
10: William St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
109 109 1900
322 322 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1814 0.75 1380 0.87 370 3 520 3% NA 4
24 24 1900
23 23 1900
24 24 1900
27 27 1900
98 98 1900
0.87 28 0 0 2%
0.87 31 0 0 2% Perm
0.87 36 0 0 2%
0.87 113 0 0 11% Perm
81 81 1900 4.5 1.00 0.91 0.99 1671 0.92 1549 0.87 93 118 505 2% NA 6
363 363 1900
0.87 26 0 0 2% Perm
35 35 1900 4.5 1.00 0.95 0.99 1759 0.83 1475 0.87 40 22 85 4% NA 2
31 31 1900
0.87 28 0 0 2%
423 423 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1866 0.97 1806 0.87 486 3 537 2% NA 8
0.87 125 0 0 7% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8
2
6
25.4 25.4 0.45 4.5 3.0 620
25.4 25.4 0.45 4.5 3.0 811
22.1 22.1 0.39 4.5 3.0 576
22.1 22.1 0.39 4.5 3.0 605
c0.38 0.84 13.7 1.00 9.7 23.4 C 23.4 C
0.30 0.66 12.2 1.00 2.0 14.2 B 14.2 B
0.06 0.15 11.1 1.00 0.1 11.2 B 11.2 B
c0.33 0.83 15.5 1.00 9.7 25.2 C 25.2 C
20.5 0.84 56.5 98.0% 15
0.87 417 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 11: St David St & Colborne St E
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 32 49.2% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 32 27.5 27.5 0 27.5 27.5
None 33 50.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 32 0 60.5 49.5 32 60.5 49.5
Min 32 49.2% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 32 27.5 27.5 0 27.5 27.5
None 33 50.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 32 0 60.5 49.5 32 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 50
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
11: St David St & Colborne St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
305 305 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.47 891 0.89 343 0 343 2% Perm
93 93 1900 4.5 1.00 0.93 1.00 1757 1.00 1757 0.89 104 36 152 2% NA 4
75 75 1900
110 110 1900
106 106 1900
0.89 124 0 0 2% Perm
15 15 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.12 228 0.89 17 0 17 2% Perm
338 338 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1623 1.00 1623 0.89 380 13 477 9% NA 2
98 98 1900
0.89 84 0 0 2%
155 155 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 0.99 1784 0.84 1529 0.89 174 18 399 2% NA 8
96 96 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 616 0.89 108 0 108 2% Perm
652 652 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.89 733 0 733 4% NA 6
280 280 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 315 174 141 2% Perm
4 31.7 31.7 0.43 4.5 3.0 383 c0.38 0.90 19.5 1.00 22.5 41.9 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.89 119 0 0 2%
8 31.7 31.7 0.43 4.5 3.0 755 0.09
31.7 31.7 0.43 4.5 3.0 657 0.26 0.61 16.2 1.00 1.6 17.8 B 17.8 B
0.20 13.1 1.00 0.1 13.2 B 31.8 C 23.3 0.89 73.7 91.1% 15
2 33.0 33.0 0.45 4.5 3.0 102 0.07 0.17 12.1 1.00 0.8 12.9 B
0.89 110 0 0 33%
6 33.0 33.0 0.45 4.5 3.0 275
33.0 33.0 0.45 4.5 3.0 726 0.29
0.18 0.39 13.6 1.00 0.9 14.6 B
0.66 15.9 1.00 2.2 18.1 B 17.9 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 F
33.0 33.0 0.45 4.5 3.0 827 c0.40 0.89 18.6 1.00 11.2 29.9 C 23.7 C
6 33.0 33.0 0.45 4.5 3.0 716 0.09 0.20 12.3 1.00 0.1 12.5 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 41 51.3% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 41 36.5 36.5 0 36.5 36.5
None 39 48.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 41 0 75.5 64.5 41 75.5 64.5
Min 41 51.3% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 41 36.5 36.5 0 36.5 36.5
None 39 48.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 41 0 75.5 64.5 41 75.5 64.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
80 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
201 201 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.13 240 0.89 226 0 226 2% pm+pt 5 2 41.4 41.4 0.43 5.0 3.0 263 c0.09 0.28 0.86 22.2 1.00 23.2 45.4 D
802 802 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3567 1.00 3567 0.89 901 1 919 2% NA 2
17 17 1900
178 178 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.12 234 0.89 200 0 200 2% pm+pt 1 6 43.0 43.0 0.45 5.0 3.0 278 0.08 0.24 0.72 19.7 1.00 8.6 28.3 C
791 791 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3433 1.00 3433 0.89 889 25 1117 3% NA 6
225 225 1900
145 145 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.45 852 0.89 163 0 163 2% Perm
156 156 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1711 1.00 1711 0.89 175 28 280 2% NA 4
118 118 1900
311 311 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.47 892 0.89 349 0 349 2% Perm
126 126 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 142 49 278 2% NA 8
165 165 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.89 19 0 0 2%
31.4 31.4 0.33 5.0 3.0 1161 0.26 0.79 29.5 1.00 5.5 35.1 D 37.1 D 40.5 0.95 96.4 89.5% 15
0.89 253 0 0 2%
32.2 32.2 0.33 5.0 3.0 1146 c0.33 0.97 31.7 1.00 20.5 52.2 D 48.6 D
4 39.2 39.2 0.41 5.0 3.0 346 0.19 0.47 21.0 1.00 1.0 22.0 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 133 0 0 9%
8 39.2 39.2 0.41 5.0 3.0 362
39.2 39.2 0.41 5.0 3.0 695 0.16
c0.39 0.96 27.9 1.00 37.6 65.5 E
0.40 20.3 1.00 0.4 20.7 C 21.1 C
0.89 185 0 0 3%
39.2 39.2 0.41 5.0 3.0 696 0.16 0.40 20.3 1.00 0.4 20.6 C 43.8 D
D 15.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 WBL Lead Yes None 16 16.0% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 1 0 0 Yes Yes 0 16 11 11 84 95 95
2 EBTL Lag Yes Max 36 36.0% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 16 52 47 37 0 31 21
4 NBTL None 48 48.0% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 52 0 95 85 36 79 69
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
5 EBL Lead Yes None 15 15.0% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 Yes Yes 0 15 10 10 84 94 94
6 WBTL Lag Yes None 37 37.0% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 15 52 47 37 99 31 21
8 SBTL None 48 48.0% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 52 0 95 85 36 79 69
100 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
354 354 1900 5.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3471 0.12 427 0.95 373 0 373 2% pm+pt 1 6 52.3 52.3 0.49 5.0 3.0 492 c0.07 0.30 0.76 19.8 1.00 6.6 26.4 C
834 834 1900 6.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3394 1.00 3394 0.95 878 62 1275 2% NA 6
436 436 1900
74 74 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.10 185 0.95 78 0 78 6% pm+pt 5 2 45.5 45.5 0.43 5.0 3.0 172 0.03 0.17 0.45 23.1 1.00 1.9 25.0 C
850 850 1900 6.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3521 1.00 3521 0.95 895 9 994 2% NA 2
103 103 1900
262 262 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.53 998 0.95 276 0 276 2% pm+pt 3 8 35.0 35.0 0.33 5.0 3.0 389 c0.05 c0.18 0.71 29.3 1.00 5.8 35.1 D
280 280 1900 6.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3471 1.00 3471 0.95 295 12 330 3% NA 8
45 45 1900
137 137 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.49 914 0.95 144 0 144 3% pm+pt 7 4 35.0 35.0 0.33 5.0 3.0 366 0.03 0.10 0.39 25.9 1.00 0.7 26.6 C
290 290 1900 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3544 1.00 3544 0.95 305 0 305 3% NA 4
246 246 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.95 259 165 94 3% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.95 459 0 0 2%
42.5 42.5 0.40 6.0 3.0 1362 c0.38 0.94 30.4 1.00 13.2 43.6 D 39.9 D 35.8 0.85 105.9 89.9% 15
0.95 108 0 0 2%
39.1 39.1 0.37 6.0 3.0 1300 0.28 0.76 29.4 1.00 4.3 33.7 C 33.1 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 47 0 0 3%
27.0 27.0 0.25 6.0 3.0 884 0.10 0.37 32.5 1.00 1.2 33.7 C 34.3 C
27.0 27.0 0.25 6.0 3.0 903 0.09 0.34 32.2 1.00 1.0 33.2 C 31.6 C
4 27.0 27.0 0.25 6.0 3.0 404 0.06 0.23 31.2 1.00 1.3 32.6 C
D 22.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBL Lead Yes None 15 14.3% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 15 10 10 90 100 100
2 WBTL Lag Yes Max 44 41.9% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 15 59 53 36 0 38 21
3 NBL Lead Yes None 13 12.4% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 59 72 67 67 44 52 52
4 SBTL Lag Yes Max 33 31.4% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 72 0 99 82 57 84 67
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
5 WBL Lead Yes None 13 12.4% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 13 8 8 90 98 98
6 EBTL Lag Yes Max 46 43.8% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 13 59 53 36 103 38 21
7 SBL Lead Yes None 13 12.4% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 59 72 67 67 44 52 52
8 NBTL Lag Yes Max 33 31.4% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 72 0 99 82 57 84 67
105 Semi Act-Uncoord 95
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24
65 65 Stop 0% 0.89 73
51 51
111 111
31 31
25 25
50 50
0.89 35
0.89 28
0.89 25
0.89 56
156 156 Free 0% 0.89 175
25 25
0.89 125
197 197 Free 0% 0.89 221
22 22
0.89 57
25 25 Stop 0% 0.89 28
0.89 27
None
0.89 28
None 387
640
603
189
684
604
234
203
246
640 7.1
603 6.5
189 6.2
684 7.1
604 6.5
234 6.2
203 4.1
246 4.1
3.5 92 335
4.0 81 387
3.3 93 853
3.5 55 276
4.0 93 387
3.3 96 806
2.2 98 1369
2.2 96 1320
EB 1 157 27 57 467 0.34 11.1 16.6 C 16.6 C
WB 1 188 125 35 331 0.57 25.3 29.3 D 29.3 D
NB 1 274 28 25 1369 0.02 0.5 1.0 A 1.0
SB 1 259 56 28 1320 0.04 1.0 2.0 A 2.0
10.1 44.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.53 919 0.97 55 0 55 10% Perm
301 301 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1860 1.00 1860 0.97 310 3 329 2% NA 8
21 21 1900
100 100 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.27 503 0.97 103 0 103 2% pm+pt 7 4 37.1 37.1 0.44 5.0 3.0 390 0.04 0.08 0.26 15.5 1.00 0.4 15.8 B
260 260 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1790 1.00 1790 0.97 268 21 380 2% NA 4
129 129 1900
28 28 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.67 1270 0.97 29 0 29 2% Perm
162 162 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1793 1.00 1793 0.97 167 13 233 2% NA 2
77 77 1900
52 52 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.58 1064 0.97 54 0 54 4% Perm
97 97 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1820 1.00 1820 0.97 100 8 121 2% NA 6
28 28 1900
8 20.8 20.8 0.24 6.0 3.0 225 0.06 0.24 25.7 1.00 0.6 26.3 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.97 22 0 0 6%
20.8 20.8 0.24 6.0 3.0 455 c0.18 0.72 29.4 1.00 5.6 35.0 D 33.8 C 21.7 0.48 84.9 92.3% 15
0.97 133 0 0 2%
37.1 37.1 0.44 6.0 3.0 782 c0.21 0.49 17.1 1.00 0.5 17.6 B 17.2 B
2 35.8 35.8 0.42 6.0 3.0 535 0.02 0.05 14.5 1.00 0.2 14.7 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 79 0 0 2%
6 35.8 35.8 0.42 6.0 3.0 448
35.8 35.8 0.42 6.0 3.0 756 c0.13
0.05 0.12 15.0 1.00 0.5 15.5 B
0.31 16.3 1.00 1.1 17.4 B 17.1 B
0.97 29 0 0 2%
35.8 35.8 0.42 6.0 3.0 767 0.07 0.16 15.2 1.00 0.4 15.6 B 15.6 B
C 17.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 WBTL
6 SBTL
Max 41 37.3% 31 4 2 25 3 1 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 0 41 35 27 0 35 27
None 69 62.7% 32 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 41 0 104 96 41 104 96
Max 41 37.3% 32 4 2 25 3 3 0 0 18 8 Yes Yes 0 41 35 27 0 35 27
7 WBL Lead Yes None 25 22.7% 23 4 1 15 3 3 0 0 No Yes 41 66 61 61 41 61 61
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8 EBTL Lag Yes None 44 40.0% 21 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 7 8 Yes Yes 66 0 104 96 66 104 96
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
53 53 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.25 456 0.91 58 0 58 5% Perm
412 412 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.91 453 4 478 2% NA 4
26 26 1900
194 194 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.21 387 0.91 213 0 213 2% pm+pt 3 4 27.6 27.6 0.40 2.0 3.0 294 c0.07 0.21 0.72 15.7 1.00 8.6 24.3 C
387 387 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1835 1.00 1835 0.91 425 3 448 2% NA 4
24 24 1900
84 84 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.57 1077 0.91 92 0 92 2% Perm
157 157 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1685 1.00 1685 0.91 173 99 414 4% NA 2
309 309 1900
28 28 1900
0.91 340 0 0 2%
0.91 31 0 0 2% Perm
212 212 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1872 0.86 1620 0.91 233 0 264 2% NA 2
31 31 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 34 20 14 3% Perm
4 20.6 20.6 0.30 6.0 3.0 134 0.13 0.43 19.8 1.00 2.2 22.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.91 29 0 0 3%
20.6 20.6 0.30 6.0 3.0 551 c0.26 0.87 23.2 1.00 13.6 36.8 D 35.2 D 26.4 0.71 69.6 93.7% 15
0.91 26 0 0 33%
20.6 20.6 0.30 6.0 3.0 543 0.24 0.83 22.8 1.00 9.9 32.7 C 30.0 C
2 28.0 28.0 0.40 6.0 3.0 433 0.09 0.21 13.6 1.00 1.1 14.7 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.0 28.0 0.40 6.0 3.0 677 c0.25
28.0 28.0 0.40 6.0 3.0 651 0.16 0.41 14.9 1.00 1.9 16.7 B 16.3 B
0.61 16.5 1.00 4.1 20.6 C 19.7 B
2 28.0 28.0 0.40 6.0 3.0 637 0.01 0.02 12.5 1.00 0.1 12.6 B
C 14.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
3 4 WBL EBWB Lead Lag Yes Yes None None 9 28 12.7% 39.4% 9 28 2 4 0 2 4.5 8 3 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 15 7 No Yes Yes Yes 34 43 43 0 41 65 41 58 34 43 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
109 109 1900
322 322 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1845 0.78 1448 0.91 354 3 497
24 24 1900
23 23 1900
24 24 1900
27 27 1900
98 98 1900
0.91 26 0 0 1
0.91 30 0 0
0.91 34 0 0
0.91 108 0 0
81 81 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.99 1698 0.92 1576 0.91 89 127 469
363 363 1900
0.91 25 0 0 5 Perm
35 35 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1773 0.84 1503 0.91 38 21 81
31 31 1900
0.91 26 0 0 5
423 423 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1864 0.97 1806 0.91 465 3 513
0.91 120 0 0 1 Perm
NA 4
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
NA 8
8
Perm
NA 2
Perm
2
NA 6
6
21.5 21.5 0.44 4.5 3.0 632
21.5 21.5 0.44 4.5 3.0 789
18.7 18.7 0.38 4.5 3.0 571
18.7 18.7 0.38 4.5 3.0 599
c0.34 0.79 11.9 1.00 6.4 18.3 B 18.3 B
0.28 0.65 10.9 1.00 1.9 12.7 B 12.7 B
0.05 0.14 10.0 1.00 0.1 10.1 B 10.1 B
c0.30 0.78 13.5 1.00 6.6 20.1 C 20.1 C
16.7 0.78 49.2 98.1% 15
0.91 399 0 0
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: St David St & Queen St
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 29 48.3% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 29 24.5 24.5 0 24.5 24.5
None 31 51.7% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 29 0 55.5 44.5 29 55.5 44.5
Min 29 48.3% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 29 24.5 24.5 0 24.5 24.5
None 31 51.7% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 29 0 55.5 44.5 29 55.5 44.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
60 Actuated-Uncoordinated 50
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
18: St David St & Queen St
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
63 63 1900
284 284 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1772 0.85 1513 0.95 299 9 424 5% NA 4
65 65 1900
51 51 1900
39 39 1900
0.95 68 0 0 2%
0.95 54 0 0 24% Perm
241 241 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1691 0.82 1395 0.95 254 6 343 9% NA 8
144 144 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.26 486 0.95 152 0 152 3% Perm
152 152 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 160 0 160 9% NA 2
228 228 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 240 116 124 17% Perm
255 255 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.66 1211 0.95 268 0 268 4% Perm
631 631 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 664 0 664 6% NA 6
122 122 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 128 62 66 6% Perm
2 40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 723
6 40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 627
0.09 0.17 9.8 1.00 0.5 10.4 B
0.22 0.43 11.5 1.00 2.1 13.6 B
0.95 66 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.95 41 0 0 6%
8 23.7 23.7 0.31 6.5 3.0 464
23.7 23.7 0.31 6.5 3.0 428
c0.28 0.91 25.8 1.00 22.3 48.1 D 48.1 D
0.25 0.80 24.6 1.00 10.3 34.9 C 34.9 C 24.2 0.78 77.2 96.9% 15
2 40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 251 0.31 0.61 13.1 1.00 10.4 23.5 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 912 0.09 0.18 9.9 1.00 0.4 10.3 B 13.9 B
40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 938 c0.37 0.71 14.2 1.00 4.5 18.7 B 16.3 B
6 40.0 40.0 0.52 7.0 3.0 798 0.04 0.08 9.4 1.00 0.2 9.6 A
C 13.5 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 47 59.9% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 0 47 40 24 0 40 24
None 31.5 40.1% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 47 0 72 61 47 72 61
Max 47 59.9% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 0 47 40 24 0 40 24
None 31.5 40.1% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 47 0 72 61 47 72 61
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 65
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0
16 16
15 15 0.91 16
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 18
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
32
0
0
32 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 975
3.5 98 1021
2.8 99 1301
EB 1 18 0 18 1021 0.02 0.4 8.6 A 8.6 A
NB 1 16 16 0 1301 0.01 0.3 7.8 A 7.8
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.2 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 34
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
28 28 1900
37 37 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.96 0.99 1678 0.82 1399 0.92 40 21 78
27 27 1900
111 111 1900
231 231 1900
416 416 1900 4.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1741 1.00 1741 0.92 452 10 528
224 224 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.95 1572 0.37 615 0.92 243 0 243 183 Perm
489 489 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.92 532 3 561
29 29 1900
0.92 121 0 0 102 Perm
27 27 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1777 0.35 660 0.92 29 0 29 11 Perm
79 79 1900
0.92 29 0 0 102
55 55 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 0.96 0.92 0.99 1609 0.88 1442 0.92 60 80 352
0.92 30 0 0 7 Perm
NA 4
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.92 251 0 0 7
NA 8
8 18.1 18.1 0.29 4.5 3.0 403
18.1 18.1 0.29 4.5 3.0 416
0.06 0.19 16.8 1.00 0.2 17.0 B 17.0 B
c0.24 0.85 21.0 1.00 14.7 35.7 D 35.7 D 17.7 0.75 62.7 81.8% 15
2 35.6 35.6 0.57 4.5 3.0 374 0.04 0.08 6.1 1.00 0.4 6.5 A
0.92 86 0 0 183
NA 2
6 35.6 35.6 0.57 4.5 3.0 349
35.6 35.6 0.57 4.5 3.0 988 0.30
c0.40 0.70 9.7 1.00 10.9 20.6 C
0.53 8.4 1.00 2.1 10.5 B 10.3 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 D
0.92 32 0 0 11
NA 6 35.6 35.6 0.57 4.5 3.0 1057 0.30 0.53 8.4 1.00 1.9 10.3 B 13.4 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 35
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 40 61.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 40 35.5 24.5 0 35.5 24.5
None 25 38.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 40 0 60.5 49.5 40 60.5 49.5
Max 40 61.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 40 35.5 24.5 0 35.5 24.5
None 25 38.5% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 40 0 60.5 49.5 40 60.5 49.5
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
65 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 36
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside Drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
19 19 Stop 0% 0.87 22
17 17
23 23 0.87 26
604 604 Free 0% 0.87 694
56 56
0.87 20
421 421 Free 0% 0.87 484
None
None
1262
726
758
1262 6.4
726 6.5
758 4.1
3.5 88 182
3.6 95 380
2.2 97 853
EB 1 42 22 20 242 0.17 4.7 23.0 C 23.0 C
NB 1 510 26 0 853 0.03 0.7 0.9 A 0.9
SB 1 758 0 64 1700 0.45 0.0 0.0
0.87 64
0.0
1.1 50.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 37
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
47 47 1900
165 165 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1760 0.67 1192 0.86 192 13 290 4% NA 4
48 48 1900
154 154 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.46 835 0.86 179 0 179 5% Perm
166 166 1900 5.5 1.00 0.94 1.00 1766 1.00 1766 0.86 193 41 289 2% NA 8
118 118 1900
31 31 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.23 436 0.86 36 0 36 2% Perm
515 515 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1757 1.00 1757 0.86 599 11 741 7% NA 2
132 132 1900
125 125 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.24 446 0.86 145 0 145 2% Perm
585 585 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1792 1.00 1792 0.86 680 5 755 3% NA 6
69 69 1900
0.86 55 0 0 14% Perm
0.86 56 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
8 18.5 18.5 0.26 5.5 3.0 217
18.5 18.5 0.26 5.5 3.0 310 c0.24 0.93 25.7 1.00 34.1 59.8 E 59.8 E
0.21 0.82 24.7 1.00 21.8 46.5 D
24.1 0.79 71.0 112.8% 15
0.86 137 0 0 2%
18.5 18.5 0.26 5.5 3.0 460 0.16 0.63 23.2 1.00 2.7 25.9 C 33.1 C
2 41.5 41.5 0.58 5.5 3.0 254 0.08 0.14 6.7 1.00 1.2 7.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 153 0 0 2%
6 41.5 41.5 0.58 5.5 3.0 260
41.5 41.5 0.58 5.5 3.0 1026 c0.42
0.33 0.56 9.1 1.00 8.4 17.5 B
0.72 10.6 1.00 4.4 15.0 B 14.7 B
0.86 80 0 0 27%
41.5 41.5 0.58 5.5 3.0 1047 0.42 0.72 10.6 1.00 4.3 14.9 B 15.3 B
C 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 38
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
C-Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None C-Max 30.5 40.5 43.0% 57.0% 30.5 40.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 8 35 3 3 3.5 1 0 0 0 0 15 25 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 40.5 0 0 40.5 65.5 35 55.5 25 40.5 0 65.5 35 55.5 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 3.5 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 39
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
117 117 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.71 1340 0.93 126 0 126 2% Perm
20 20 1900 5.5 1.00 0.86 1.00 1592 1.00 1592 0.93 22 198 109 2% NA 4
265 265 1900
25 25 1900
23 23 1900
518 518 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1873 1.00 1873 0.93 557 2 577 2% NA 2
50 50 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.38 629 0.93 54 0 54 17% Perm
524 524 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1829 1.00 1829 0.93 563 6 647 3% NA 6
84 84 1900
0.93 27 0 0 2% Perm
141 141 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 627 0.93 152 0 152 2% Perm
20 20 1900
0.93 285 0 0 4%
17 17 1900 5.5 1.00 0.95 0.98 1759 0.58 1048 0.93 18 20 50 2% NA 8
4 11.1 11.1 0.19 5.5 3.0 260 c0.09 0.48 20.5 1.00 1.4 21.9 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
0.93 25 0 0 2%
8 11.1 11.1 0.19 5.5 3.0 308 0.07
11.1 11.1 0.19 5.5 3.0 203 0.05 0.25 19.5 1.00 0.6 20.1 C 20.1 C
0.35 19.9 1.00 0.7 20.6 C 21.0 C 11.5 0.55 57.2 101.3% 15
2 35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 384 0.24 0.40 5.6 1.00 3.0 8.7 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 22 0 0 2%
6 35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 385
35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 1149 0.31
0.09 0.14 4.7 1.00 0.8 5.4 A
0.50 6.2 1.00 1.6 7.7 A 7.9 A
0.93 90 0 0 2%
35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 1122 c0.35 0.58 6.6 1.00 2.2 8.8 A 8.5 A
B 11.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 40
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 41
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
67 67 Stop 0% 0.96 70
132 132
541 541 Free 0% 0.96 564
97 97
124 124
0.96 101
0.96 129
741 741 Free 0% 0.96 772
0.96 138
4 None
None
1644
614
665
1644 6.5
614 6.2
665 4.1
3.6 24 92
3.3 72 491
2.2 86 915
WB 1 208 70 138 273 0.76 42.9 49.8 E 49.8 E
NB 1 665 0 101 1700 0.39 0.0 0.0 0.0
SB 1 901 129 0 915 0.14 3.7 3.5 A 3.5
7.6 93.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
F
Synchro 11 Report Page 42
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
PM Weekday 2041 Traffic Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
51 51
39 39 Stop 0% 0.75 52
19 19
27 27
55 55
60 60
23 23
0.75 73
0.75 80
0.75 85
0.75 31
61 61 Free 0% 0.75 81
27 27
0.75 36
92 92 Free 0% 0.75 123
64 64
0.75 25
61 61 Stop 0% 0.75 81
0.75 68
None
None
600
529
99
538
504
166
117
208
600 7.1
529 6.5
99 6.2
538 7.1
504 6.5
166 6.2
117 4.1
208 4.1
3.5 78 306
4.0 88 421
3.3 97 957
3.5 90 378
4.0 81 434
3.3 92 879
2.2 95 1471
2.2 98 1363
EB 1 145 68 25 390 0.37 12.8 19.6 C 19.6 C
WB 1 190 36 73 521 0.36 12.6 15.8 C 15.8 C
NB 1 288 80 85 1471 0.05 1.3 2.4 A 2.4
SB 1 148 31 36 1363 0.02 0.5 1.8 A 1.8
8.8 37.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 36
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 43
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
71 71 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.68 1205 0.94 76 0 76 9% Perm
94 94 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1747 1.00 1747 0.94 100 37 156 2% NA 4
87 87 1900
31 31 1900
0.94 93 0 0 2%
0.94 33 0 0 2% Perm
76 76 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1819 0.86 1596 0.94 81 0 114 5% NA 8
207 207 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 220 158 62 2% Perm
25 25 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.18 333 0.94 27 0 27 3% Perm
374 374 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 398 0 398 3% NA 2
28 28 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 30 13 17 2% Perm
246 246 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.48 894 0.94 262 0 262 4% Perm
763 763 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 812 0 812 5% NA 6
78 78 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 83 36 47 15% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 186
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 501
0.04 0.14 24.0 1.00 0.2 24.1 C
0.08 0.15 9.3 1.00 1.6 11.0 B
0.01 0.02 8.7 1.00 0.0 8.7 A
0.29 0.52 12.1 1.00 1.6 13.7 B
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 338 0.06 0.22 24.6 1.00 1.5 26.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 490 c0.09
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 447 0.07 0.26 24.8 1.00 0.4 25.2 C 24.5 C
0.32 25.3 1.00 1.7 27.0 C 26.8 C 18.7 0.63 89.1 98.9% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 0.21 0.38 10.9 1.00 1.1 12.0 B 11.7 B
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 c0.44 0.79 15.4 1.00 4.7 20.2 C 17.9 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.03 0.06 8.9 1.00 0.1 8.9 A
B 14.1 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None None Max 57 57 32.1 32.1 64.0% 36.0% 64.0% 36.0% 35 35 30.1 30.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 20 10 20 10 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 21 16 21 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 57 0 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66 0 57 57 0 50 82 50 82 66 29 29 66
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 76 0.22 26.8 0.0 26.8 10.0 21.0 150.0 338 0 0 0 0.22
EBT WBT 193 114 0.26 0.37 20.9 26.7 0.0 0.0 20.9 26.7 18.8 15.1 28.5 36.6 1366.5 1368.7 527 0 0 0 0.37
447 0 0 0 0.26
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
WBR 220 0.36 5.5 0.0 5.5 0.0 15.6
NBL 27 0.14 11.8 0.0 11.8 2.1 6.5
170.0 607 0 0 0 0.36
250.0 187 0 0 0 0.14
NBT 398 0.38 12.2 0.0 12.2 35.4 53.9 1562.1 1046 0 0 0 0.38
NBR 30 0.03 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.0
SBL 262 0.52 16.9 0.0 16.9 25.9 48.0
135.0 920 0 0 0 0.03
200.0 501 0 0 0 0.52
SBT 812 0.79 22.6 0.0 22.6 102.1 154.1 1053.3 1026 0 0 0 0.79
SBR 83 0.10 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 5.7 200.0 833 0 0 0 0.10
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
142 142 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1874 1.00 1874 0.93 153 1 158 2% NA 4
6 6 1900
252 252 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.66 1126 0.93 271 0 271 12% Perm
153 153 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 165 0 165 2% NA 8
241 241 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 259 173 86 3% Perm
375 375 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1150 0.93 403 0 403 2% Perm
212 212 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 228 0 228 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
5 5 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1161 0.93 5 0 5 2% Perm
221 221 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 238 0 238 7% NA 6
369 369 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 397 190 207 11% Perm
8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 528
2 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 599
0.05 0.16 22.5 1.00 0.7 23.2 C
c0.35 0.67 16.9 1.00 5.9 22.9 C
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 6 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 375
32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 625 0.08
c0.24 0.72 28.1 1.00 11.5 39.5 D
0.25 23.2 1.00 0.2 23.5 C 23.5 C 21.3 0.69 95.9 82.9% 15
32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 628 0.09 0.26 23.3 1.00 1.0 24.4 C 29.8 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 605
50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 902 0.13
0.00 0.01 11.0 1.00 0.0 11.1 B
0.25 12.7 1.00 0.7 13.3 B 19.4 B
50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 935 0.13 0.25 12.7 1.00 0.7 13.3 B 13.5 B
6 50.0 50.0 0.52 7.0 4.5 766 0.14 0.27 12.8 1.00 0.9 13.7 B
C 13.9 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 SETL
4 6 NBTL NWTL
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
8 SBTL
C-Max None C-Max Max 57 38.9 57 38.9 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 39 32.9 39 32.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1 1.1 1 1.1 10 20 10 20 3 4.5 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 16 25 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 0 57 0 57 0 57 50 50 89 89 25 73 25 73 0 57 0 57 50 50 89 89 25 73 25 73
Intersection Summary 95.9 Cycle Length Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
NBT 159 0.25 24.3 0.0 24.3 21.0 36.1 530.8 626 0 0 0 0.25
SBL 271 0.72 40.9 0.0 40.9 43.6 #79.7 100.0 375 0 0 0 0.72
SBT 165 0.26 24.8 0.0 24.8 22.1 37.7 249.9 628 0 0 0 0.26
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
SBR 259 0.37 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.0 15.9
SEL 403 0.67 23.8 0.0 23.8 52.3 87.3
100.0 701 0 0 0 0.37
200.0 600 0 0 0 0.67
SET 228 0.25 13.6 0.0 13.6 22.1 35.9 374.7 902 0 0 0 0.25
NWL 5 0.01 11.2 0.0 11.2 0.4 2.2 200.0 604 0 0 0 0.01
NWT 238 0.25 13.6 0.0 13.6 23.1 37.2 359.2 935 0 0 0 0.25
NWR 397 0.42 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 13.2 100.0 956 0 0 0 0.42
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
48 48 1900
747 747 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1810 0.91 1648 0.96 778 5 895 5% NA 2
69 69 1900
24 24 1900
45 45 1900
51 51 1900
32 32 1900
0.96 47 0 0 2%
0.96 53 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 53 0 0 2%
0.96 33 0 0 2% Perm
51 51 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 0.99 1766 0.92 1636 0.96 53 31 108 2% NA 4
51 51 1900
0.96 25 0 0 2% Perm
31 31 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 0.98 1739 0.85 1513 0.96 32 32 106 2% NA 8
51 51 1900
0.96 72 0 0 3%
837 837 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1852 0.97 1793 0.96 872 3 941 3% NA 6
0.96 50 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
6
8
4
35.0 35.0 0.49 6.0 3.0 812
35.0 35.0 0.49 6.0 3.0 883
25.0 25.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 532
25.0 25.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 576
c0.54 1.10 18.0 1.00 63.5 81.5 F 81.5 F
0.53 1.07 18.0 1.00 49.5 67.5 E 67.5 E
c0.07 0.20 16.0 1.00 0.8 16.9 B 16.9 B
0.07 0.19 16.0 1.00 0.7 16.7 B 16.7 B
66.9 0.73 71.0 87.8% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 53 0 0 2%
E 11.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
None Max None Max 41 41 30 30 57.7% 42.3% 57.7% 42.3% 25 25 41 41 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 41 41 0 0 41 0 41 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10 0 41 41 0 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT WBT 900 944 1.10 1.07 84.6 70.6 0.0 0.0 84.6 70.6 ~139.2 ~142.0 #205.0 #209.0 123.3 258.1 816 0 0 0 1.10
885 0 0 0 1.07
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
NBT 138 0.24 12.1 0.0 12.1 8.0 19.4 366.5
SBT 139 0.23 12.0 0.0 12.0 8.2 19.4 390.1
564 0 0 0 0.24
607 0 0 0 0.23
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
36 36 1900
759 759 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1854 0.89 1661 0.94 807 3 915
69 69 1900
27 27 1900
48 48 1900
36 36 1900
49 49 1900
0.94 51 0 0 2
0.94 38 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 30 0 0 3
0.94 52 0 0 3 Perm
111 111 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1824 0.89 1641 0.94 118 4 184
17 17 1900
0.94 29 0 0 6 Perm
66 66 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1786 0.89 1604 0.94 70 10 128
28 28 1900
0.94 73 0 0 6
852 852 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 0.95 1768 0.94 906 2 984
0.94 38 0 0 2 Perm
NA 6
6
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
NA 2
2
NA 8
8
NA 4
4
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 730
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 777
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 705
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 722
0.55 1.25 28.0 1.00 124.9 152.9 F 152.9 F
c0.56 1.27 28.0 1.00 129.9 157.9 F 157.9 F
0.08 0.18 17.0 1.00 0.6 17.6 B 17.6 B
c0.11 0.25 17.7 1.00 0.9 18.5 B 18.5 B
135.4 0.76 100.0 85.3% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 18 0 0 7
F 12.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
8 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max Max Max Max 50 50 50 50 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 24 24 28 26 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 20 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 15 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 50 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29 50 50 0 0 94 94 44 44 83 31 83 29
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 EBTL
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBT WBT 986 918 1.26 1.25 151.4 156.4 0.0 0.0 151.4 156.4 ~224.3 ~242.8 #297.5 #317.3 258.1 647.5
NBT 138 0.19 15.7 0.0 15.7 13.7 25.7 153.3
SBT 188 0.26 18.2 0.0 18.2 21.5 36.3 103.2
780 0 0 0 1.26
715 0 0 0 0.19
726 0 0 0 0.26
734 0 0 0 1.25
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
112 112 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.20 376 0.89 126 0 126 2% pm+pt 5 2 36.2 36.2 0.51 5.0 3.0 347 0.04 0.15 0.36 9.9 1.00 0.6 10.5 B
942 942 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3568 1.00 3568 0.89 1058 2 1077 2% NA 2
19 19 1900
111 111 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 264 0.89 125 0 125 2% pm+pt 1 6 36.2 36.2 0.51 5.0 3.0 302 c0.05 0.17 0.41 10.8 1.00 0.9 11.8 B
681 681 1900 5.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3463 1.00 3463 0.89 765 17 897 3% NA 6
133 133 1900
95 95 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.41 772 0.89 107 0 107 2% Perm
86 86 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1717 1.00 1717 0.89 97 32 134 2% NA 4
61 61 1900
204 204 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.65 1215 0.89 229 0 229 2% Perm
119 119 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1715 1.00 1715 0.89 134 58 248 2% NA 8
153 153 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.89 21 0 0 2%
28.5 28.5 0.40 5.0 3.0 1444 c0.30 0.75 17.9 1.00 3.6 21.4 C 20.3 C 20.3 0.68 70.4 79.8% 15
0.89 149 0 0 2%
28.5 28.5 0.40 5.0 3.0 1401 0.26 0.64 16.8 1.00 1.0 17.8 B 17.1 B
4 19.2 19.2 0.27 5.0 3.0 210 0.14 0.51 21.6 1.00 1.9 23.6 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 69 0 0 9%
8 19.2 19.2 0.27 5.0 3.0 331
19.2 19.2 0.27 5.0 3.0 468 0.08
c0.19 0.69 22.9 1.00 6.1 29.1 C
0.29 20.2 1.00 0.3 20.5 C 21.7 C
0.89 172 0 0 3%
19.2 19.2 0.27 5.0 3.0 467 0.14 0.53 21.8 1.00 1.2 22.9 C 25.6 C
C 15.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
2 6 4 8 5 1 WBL EBTL NBTL EBL WBTL SBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None None None None 33 33 20 30 20 30 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 15 33 15 33 26 26 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 15 10 28 28 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 18 18 10 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20 20 53 53 0 0 53 53 20 0 20 0 15 78 15 78 48 48 38 38 68 15 15 68 0 0 63 33 63 33 28 28 58 78 58 78 18 18 78 78 48 48 83 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 126 1079 0.74 0.31 9.7 23.2 0.0 0.0 23.2 9.7 6.5 64.7 15.6 #100.7 368.2 70.0 527 1468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.74 0.24
WBL 125 0.34 10.6 0.0 10.6 6.5 15.6 120.0 487 0 0 0 0.26
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
WBT 914 0.63 20.0 0.0 20.0 50.3 78.6 68.4
NBL 107 0.50 31.5 0.0 31.5 12.3 26.7
NBT 166 0.33 17.4 0.0 17.4 13.0 27.1 306.6
1441 0 0 0 0.63
283 0 0 0 0.38
658 0 0 0 0.25
SBL 229 0.68 34.7 0.0 34.7 28.0 50.1 30.0 446 0 0 0 0.51
SBT 306 0.57 21.0 0.0 21.0 26.0 48.3 418.3 680 0 0 0 0.45
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
357 357 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 188 0.95 376 0 376 2% pm+pt 1 6 52.0 52.0 0.46 5.0 3.0 254 c0.16 c0.52 1.48 32.8 1.00 236.1 268.9 F
672 672 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 707 0 707 2% NA 6
381 61 61 381 1900 1900 5.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1601 1722 1.00 0.11 1601 207 0.95 0.95 64 401 0 184 64 217 2% 6% Perm pm+pt 5 2 6 40.0 42.0 40.0 42.0 0.37 0.35 5.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 169 561 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.38 0.39 28.0 27.8 1.00 1.00 1.4 2.0 29.4 29.8 C C
763 763 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 803 0 803 2% NA 2
131 131 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 138 87 51 2% Perm
318 318 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.12 235 0.95 335 0 335 2% pm+pt 3 8 50.0 50.0 0.44 5.0 3.0 348 c0.15 0.27 0.96 32.9 1.00 38.2 71.0 E
367 367 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1814 1.00 1814 0.95 386 6 467 3% NA 8
83 83 1900
104 104 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.24 441 0.95 109 0 109 3% pm+pt 7 4 36.9 36.9 0.32 5.0 3.0 258 0.04 0.10 0.42 28.8 1.00 1.1 29.9 C
322 322 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1732 1.00 1732 0.95 339 29 618 3% NA 4
293 293 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
40.0 40.0 0.35 6.0 3.0 660 0.38 1.07 37.0 1.00 55.7 92.7 F 120.3 F
148.1 1.43 114.0 130.7% 15
35.0 35.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 578 0.43 1.39 39.5 1.00 185.7 225.2 F 185.7 F
2 35.0 35.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 491 0.03 0.10 28.3 1.00 0.4 28.7 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 87 0 0 3%
35.1 35.1 0.31 6.0 3.0 558 0.26 0.84 36.8 1.00 13.9 50.7 D 59.1 E
0.95 308 0 0 3%
27.0 27.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 410 c0.36 1.51 43.5 1.00 240.7 284.2 F 247.5 F
F 22.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
2 6 4 7 8 3 1 5 NBL SBTL WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None Max None Max None 40 40 33 17 17 23 23 33 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 33 33 33 13 13 13 13 33 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17 17 80 57 57 80 0 0 0 17 57 80 57 80 17 0 51 51 75 75 107 107 12 12 34 34 90 75 75 12 90 12 0 0 63 96 96 40 40 63 34 34 90 108 108 58 58 90 17 17 73 108 108 58 58 73 113 Semi Act-Uncoord 145
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL EBT 376 707 1.48 1.06 263.4 88.8 0.0 0.0 263.4 88.8 ~100.0 ~179.8 #159.8 #257.8 607.3 30.0 254 667 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.48 1.06
EBR 401 0.53 11.9 0.0 11.9 18.4 49.4 750 0 0 0 0.53
WBL WBT 64 803 0.33 1.42 22.3 230.7 0.0 0.0 22.3 230.7 7.7 ~239.3 15.5 #311.1 443.3 65.0 566 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.26 1.42
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
WBR NBL NBT 335 473 138 0.24 0.95 0.83 50.0 7.6 67.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 67.0 50.0 1.9 57.3 94.7 15.8 #112.6 #158.3 278.0 100.0 353 569 569 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 0.95 0.83
SBL SBT 109 647 0.41 1.46 24.1 250.8 0.0 0.0 24.1 250.8 13.7 ~190.7 24.4 #260.1 268.1 300.0 391 443 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 1.46
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
26 26 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.33 573 0.97 27 0 27 10% Perm
337 337 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1840 1.00 1840 0.97 347 4 391 2% NA 8
47 47 1900
134 134 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.16 299 0.97 138 0 138 2% pm+pt 7 4 40.2 40.2 0.36 5.0 3.0 311 0.06 0.10 0.44 26.3 1.00 1.0 27.3 C
396 396 1900 6.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1807 1.00 1807 0.97 408 13 547 2% NA 4
147 147 1900
22 22 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.65 1228 0.97 23 0 23 2% Perm
55 55 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1757 1.00 1757 0.97 57 21 82 2% NA 2
45 45 1900
42 42 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.62 1141 0.97 43 0 43 4% pm+pt 1 6 58.0 58.0 0.53 5.0 3.0 660 0.01 0.03 0.07 12.8 1.00 0.0 12.8 B
136 136 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1839 1.00 1839 0.97 140 6 160 2% NA 6
25 25 1900
8 20.2 20.2 0.18 6.0 3.0 105 0.05 0.26 38.6 1.00 1.3 39.9 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.97 48 0 0 6%
20.2 20.2 0.18 6.0 3.0 337 c0.21 1.16 45.0 1.00 99.9 144.9 F 138.2 F 62.2 0.54 110.2 78.1% 15
0.97 152 0 0 2%
40.2 40.2 0.36 6.0 3.0 659 c0.30 0.83 31.9 1.00 8.7 40.6 D 38.0 D
2 42.3 42.3 0.38 6.0 3.0 471 0.02 0.05 21.3 1.00 0.2 21.5 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 46 0 0 2%
42.3 42.3 0.38 6.0 3.0 674 0.05 0.12 21.9 1.00 0.4 22.3 C 22.2 C
0.97 26 0 0 2%
58.0 58.0 0.53 6.0 3.0 967 c0.09 0.17 13.5 1.00 0.4 13.9 B 13.7 B
E 22.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
AM Peak Hour
4 7 2 8 1 6 SBL NBTL WBTL SBTL WBL EBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None None None 23 25 62 31 48 31 28.2% 28.2% 43.6% 56.4% 20.9% 22.7% 32 23 21 32 31 31 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 15 25 15 15 25 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 7 18 8 8 8 8 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 62 62 31 0 85 0 0 62 85 62 31 0 80 26 104 56 104 56 96 48 80 96 48 26 0 31 31 79 54 79 73 105 49 25 73 25 105 65 49 65 17 17
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
Splits and Phases:
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 27 395 0.25 1.14 44.3 131.0 0.0 0.0 44.3 131.0 4.9 ~99.5 13.4 #151.7 648.3 50.0 106 347 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 1.14
WBL WBT 138 560 0.43 0.82 26.9 41.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 41.0 19.3 102.1 33.0 #147.9 112.7 60.0 361 713 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0.79
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
NBL 23 0.05 26.9 0.0 26.9 3.4 9.6 50.0 480 0 0 0 0.05
NBT 103 0.15 18.6 0.0 18.6 10.3 23.7 118.6 707 0 0 0 0.15
SBL 43 0.06 13.1 0.0 13.1 4.1 10.0 30.0 748 0 0 0 0.06
SBT 166 0.17 13.6 0.0 13.6 16.0 28.8 52.7 958 0 0 0 0.17
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
125 125 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.18 333 0.91 137 0 137 5% Perm
400 400 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1862 1.00 1862 0.91 440 4 470 2% NA 4
31 31 1900
240 240 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.23 441 0.91 264 0 264 2% pm+pt 3 4 29.0 29.0 0.41 2.0 3.0 313 c0.08 0.26 0.84 16.2 1.00 18.3 34.5 C
937 937 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1862 1.00 1862 0.91 1030 1 1056 2% NA 4
25 25 1900
41 41 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.57 1081 0.91 45 0 45 2% Perm
165 165 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1737 1.00 1737 0.91 181 42 288 4% NA 2
136 136 1900
28 28 1900
0.91 149 0 0 2%
0.91 31 0 0 2% Perm
207 207 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1872 0.93 1753 0.91 227 0 258 2% NA 2
25 25 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 27 16 11 3% Perm
4 22.0 22.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 103 0.41 1.33 24.5 1.00 200.7 225.2 F
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.91 34 0 0 3%
22.0 22.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 576 0.25 0.82 22.6 1.00 8.7 31.3 C 74.8 E 191.0 1.01 71.0 107.2% 15
0.91 27 0 0 33%
22.0 22.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 576 c0.57 1.83 24.5 1.00 381.5 406.0 F 331.7 F
2 28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 426 0.04 0.11 13.6 1.00 0.5 14.1 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 691
28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 685 c0.17
0.15 0.37 15.3 1.00 1.5 16.8 B 16.5 B
0.42 15.6 1.00 1.9 17.5 B 17.1 B
2 28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 625 0.01 0.02 13.1 1.00 0.0 13.2 B
F 14.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 150
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
3 4 WBL EBWB Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 28 9 12.7% 39.4% 28 9 2 4 2 0 4.5 8 3 3 7 3 0 0 0 0 15 7 Yes No Yes Yes 43 34 43 0 41 65 41 58 43 34 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 474 137 1.33 0.82 228.6 36.1 0.0 0.0 228.6 36.1 ~24.2 57.0 #55.3 #103.5 138.6 180.0 580 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.82 1.33
WBL WBT 264 1057 0.78 1.83 30.8 401.8 0.0 0.0 30.8 401.8 19.7 ~221.2 #43.4 #290.3 145.1 20.0 337 578 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 1.83
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
NBL 45 0.11 14.5 0.0 14.5 3.7 9.8
NBT 330 0.45 14.8 0.0 14.8 24.1 44.5 388.0
SBT 258 0.37 17.3 0.0 17.3 23.7 40.6 574.8
426 0 0 0 0.11
726 0 0 0 0.45
691 0 0 0 0.37
SBR 27 0.04 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 30.0 671 0 0 0 0.04
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
37 37 1900
149 149 1900 6.5 1.00 0.96 0.99 1753 0.65 1143 0.95 157 16 249 5% NA 4
66 66 1900
35 35 1900
310 310 1900
0.95 69 0 0 2%
0.95 37 0 0 24% Perm
400 400 1900 6.5 1.00 0.94 1.00 1668 0.97 1626 0.95 421 33 751 9% NA 8
110 110 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.36 663 0.95 116 0 116 3% Perm
326 326 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 343 0 343 9% NA 2
489 489 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 515 253 262 17% Perm
243 243 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.53 972 0.95 256 0 256 4% Perm
510 510 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 537 0 537 6% NA 6
114 114 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 120 59 61 6% Perm
2 40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 711
6 40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 495
0.19 0.37 11.6 1.00 1.5 13.1 B
0.26 0.52 12.8 1.00 3.8 16.6 B
0.95 39 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.95 326 0 0 6%
8 25.0 25.0 0.32 6.5 3.0 364
25.0 25.0 0.32 6.5 3.0 517
0.22 0.68 23.3 1.00 5.2 28.5 C 28.5 C
c0.46 1.45 26.8 1.00 214.5 241.3 F 241.3 F 76.2 0.92 78.5 106.4% 15
2 40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 337 0.18 0.34 11.4 1.00 2.8 14.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 897 0.19 0.38 11.7 1.00 1.2 13.0 B 13.2 B
40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 923 c0.30 0.58 13.4 1.00 2.7 16.1 B 15.5 B
6 40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 785 0.04 0.08 9.8 1.00 0.2 10.0 B
E 13.5 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
2 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 47 47 31.5 31.5 59.9% 40.1% 59.9% 40.1% 30 30 30 30 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 20 10 10 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 5 16 11 16 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 47 47 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61 0 0 47 47 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT WBT 265 784 0.70 1.43 32.9 226.5 0.0 0.0 32.9 226.5 31.1 ~156.6 #63.8 #221.9 544.5 206.8 380 0 0 0 0.70
550 0 0 0 1.43
NBL 116 0.34 15.1 0.0 15.1 9.7 21.4 75.0 337 0 0 0 0.34
NBT 343 0.38 13.3 0.0 13.3 29.3 47.1 173.0 897 0 0 0 0.38
NBR 515 0.53 3.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 13.8
SBL 256 0.52 17.5 0.0 17.5 23.9 44.9
50.0 963 0 0 0 0.53
130.0 495 0 0 0 0.52
SBT 537 0.58 16.6 0.0 16.6 52.4 81.3 418.3 923 0 0 0 0.58
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
SBR 120 0.14 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 7.2 100.0 844 0 0 0 0.14
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
69 69 1900
156 156 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1756 0.76 1349 0.86 181 5 282 4% NA 4
22 22 1900
139 139 1900
92 92 1900
765 765 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1756 1.00 1756 0.86 890 14 1112 7% NA 2
111 111 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.11 215 0.86 129 0 129 2% Perm
616 616 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1797 1.00 1797 0.86 716 6 787 3% NA 6
66 66 1900
0.86 162 0 0 5% Perm
64 64 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.13 247 0.86 74 0 74 2% Perm
203 203 1900
0.86 26 0 0 2%
168 168 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1775 0.75 1354 0.86 195 15 449 2% NA 8
0.86 80 0 0 14% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.86 107 0 0 2%
8 24.5 24.5 0.35 5.5 3.0 468
24.5 24.5 0.35 5.5 3.0 470
0.21 0.60 19.0 1.00 2.2 21.2 C 21.2 C
c0.33 0.96 22.5 1.00 30.1 52.6 D 52.6 D 86.4 1.14 70.5 127.6% 15
2 35.0 35.0 0.50 5.5 3.0 122 0.30 0.61 12.8 1.00 20.4 33.2 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 236 0 0 2%
6 35.0 35.0 0.50 5.5 3.0 106
35.0 35.0 0.50 5.5 3.0 871 c0.63
0.60 1.22 17.8 1.00 156.9 174.7 F
1.28 17.8 1.00 133.6 151.4 F 144.1 F
0.86 77 0 0 27%
35.0 35.0 0.50 5.5 3.0 892 0.44 0.88 15.9 1.00 12.3 28.2 C 48.7 D
F 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 8 35 34.6 8 3 3 3 3 1 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 35 65.5 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 25 55.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 80
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT WBT 464 287 0.61 0.95 24.9 55.3 0.0 0.0 24.9 55.3 29.8 56.2 49.8 #103.6 158.8 158.6 483 0 0 0 0.59
495 0 0 0 0.94
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
NBL NBT 74 1126 0.61 1.27 39.7 152.6 0.0 0.0 39.7 152.6 6.7 ~194.2 #25.5 #246.7 321.6 122 0 0 0 0.61
885 0 0 0 1.27
SBT SBL 793 129 0.88 1.22 30.1 183.6 0.0 0.0 30.1 183.6 ~21.5 88.5 #35.6 #147.1 760.4 50.0 897 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.88 1.22
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
119 119 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.81 1533 0.93 128 0 128 2% Perm
32 32 1900 5.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1620 1.00 1620 0.93 34 145 65 2% NA 4
164 164 1900
26 26 1900
25 25 1900
629 629 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1874 1.00 1874 0.93 676 1 699 2% NA 2
27 27 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.32 530 0.93 29 0 29 17% Perm
421 421 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1796 1.00 1796 0.93 453 11 604 3% NA 6
151 151 1900
0.93 28 0 0 2% Perm
231 231 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.37 702 0.93 248 0 248 2% Perm
22 22 1900
0.93 176 0 0 4%
20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 0.98 1762 0.77 1378 0.93 22 22 55 2% NA 8
4 12.4 12.4 0.17 5.0 3.0 267 c0.08 0.48 26.4 1.00 1.4 27.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.93 27 0 0 2%
8 12.4 12.4 0.17 5.0 3.0 240
12.4 12.4 0.17 5.0 3.0 282 0.04
0.04 0.23 25.2 1.00 0.5 25.7 C 25.7 C
0.23 25.2 1.00 0.4 25.6 C 26.4 C 11.3 0.53 71.0 98.7% 15
2 48.6 48.6 0.68 5.0 3.0 480 0.35 0.52 5.5 1.00 3.9 9.4 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 24 0 0 2%
6 48.6 48.6 0.68 5.0 3.0 362
48.6 48.6 0.68 5.0 3.0 1282 c0.37
0.05 0.08 3.7 1.00 0.4 4.2 A
0.55 5.6 1.00 1.7 7.3 A 7.9 A
0.93 162 0 0 2%
48.6 48.6 0.68 5.0 3.0 1229 0.34 0.49 5.3 1.00 1.4 6.7 A 6.6 A
B 10.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 40.5 40.5 30.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 40.5 40.5 30.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 35 8 8 35 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 0 40.5 35.5 35.5 66 66 25.5 56 56 25.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35.5 66 66 35.5 25.5 25.5 56 56
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 128 0.48 31.5 0.0 31.5 15.6 27.8 30.0 550 0 0 0 0.23
EBT 210 0.49 10.4 0.0 10.4 3.9 18.5 1201.3
WBT 77 0.29 19.8 0.0 19.8 5.8 15.0 482.8
694 0 0 0 0.30
512 0 0 0 0.15
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
NBL 248 0.52 11.5 0.0 11.5 13.1 39.8 50.0 481 0 0 0 0.52
NBT 700 0.55 8.4 0.0 8.4 37.9 80.1 440.8 1283 0 0 0 0.55
SBL 29 0.08 5.6 0.0 5.6 1.0 4.5 35.0 362 0 0 0 0.08
SBT 615 0.50 7.4 0.0 7.4 29.3 64.4 214.1 1240 0 0 0 0.50
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
128 128 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.95 1722 0.96 133 0 133 6% Prot 8
244 244 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 254 163 91 2% Perm
819 819 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1858 1.00 1858 0.96 853 4 945 2% NA 2
92 92 1900
98 98 1900
0.96 96 0 0 2%
0.96 102 0 0 4% Perm
503 503 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1847 0.64 1194 0.96 524 0 626 3% NA 6
10.9 10.9 0.15 4.5 3.0 259 c0.08 0.51 28.3 1.00 1.7 30.0 C 29.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
8 10.9 10.9 0.15 4.5 3.0 241 0.06 0.38 27.7 1.00 1.0 28.7 C
6 52.5 52.5 0.73 4.5 3.0 1347 0.51 0.70 5.6 1.00 3.1 8.6 A 8.6 A 13.4 0.69 72.4 98.9% 15
52.5 52.5 0.73 4.5 3.0 865 c0.52 0.72 5.8 1.00 5.2 11.0 B 11.0 B HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBT
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
8 WBL
Max None Max 56 24 56 70.0% 70.0% 30.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 56 0 0 56 56 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 0 56 0 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
WBL 133 0.52 35.0 0.0 35.0 16.6 31.7 194.8 464 0 0 0 0.29
WBR 254 0.63 15.7 0.0 15.7 7.4 27.1 30.0 571 0 0 0 0.44
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
SBT NBT 626 949 0.70 0.72 9.9 13.2 0.0 0.0 9.9 13.2 55.0 38.3 123.1 #108.4 343.1 224.5 1350 0 0 0 0.70
865 0 0 0 0.72
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
6 6
3 3 Stop 0% 0.87 3
296 296
8 8
2 2
304 304
2 2
0.87 2
0.87 349
0.87 13
0.87 2
84 84 Free 0% 0.87 97
8 8
0.87 9
69 69 Free 0% 0.87 79
11 11
0.87 340
6 6 Stop 0% 0.87 7
0.87 7
0.87 9
13 None
None
894
896
102
890
894
86
106
92
894 7.1
896 6.5
102 6.2
890 7.1
894 6.5
86 6.2
106 4.1
92 4.1
3.5 97 209
4.0 99 214
3.3 64 954
3.5 93 137
4.0 97 214
3.3 100 973
2.2 77 1485
2.2 100 1503
EB 1 350 7 340 982 0.36 12.4 11.2 B 11.2 B
WB 1 18 9 2 179 0.10 2.5 27.3 D 27.3 D
NB 1 441 349 13 1485 0.23 7.0 6.9 A 6.9
SB 1 108 2 9 1503 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1
8.1 42.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
104 104
198 198 Free 0% 0.91 218
2 2
47 47
2 2
2 2
5 5
0.91 2
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 5
48 48 Stop 0% 0.91 53
81 81
0.91 52
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 2
203 203 Free 0% 0.91 223
0.91 89
0.91 114
None
None
225
220
890
776
219
863
776
224
225 4.1
220 4.1
890 7.1
776 6.5
219 6.3
863 7.1
776 6.5
224 6.2
2.2 92 1344
2.2 96 1349
3.5 99 183
4.0 81 288
3.4 93 811
3.5 97 197
4.0 82 289
3.3 89 810
EB 1 334 114 2 1344 0.08 2.1 3.2 A 3.2
WB 1 277 52 2 1349 0.04 0.9 1.7 A 1.7
NB 1 118 2 60 422 0.28 8.6 16.8 C 16.8 C 6.8 45.6% 15
SB 1 147 5 89 461 0.32 10.3 16.4 C 16.4 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
26 26
29 29 Stop 0% 0.90 32
45 45
89 89
103 103
30 30
90 90
0.90 114
0.90 33
0.90 52
0.90 100
535 535 Free 0% 0.90 594
28 28
0.90 99
304 304 Free 0% 0.90 338
47 47
0.90 50
25 25 Stop 0% 0.90 28
0.90 29
None
None
1368
1266
610
1306
1255
364
625
390
1368 7.1
1266 6.5
610 6.2
1306 7.1
1255 6.5
364 6.2
625 4.1
390 4.1
3.5 64 81
4.0 79 149
3.3 90 495
3.5 0 93
4.0 82 151
3.3 83 681
2.2 97 956
2.2 91 1169
EB 1 111 29 50 165 0.67 29.8 63.1 F 63.1 F
WB 1 241 99 114 171 1.41 113.0 266.9 F 266.9 F
NB 1 423 33 52 956 0.03 0.8 1.1 A 1.1
SB 1 725 100 31 1169 0.09 2.1 2.1 A 2.1
48.9 80.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.90 31
D
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
22 22 Stop 0% 0.88 25
125 125
103 103 0.88 117
50 50 Free 0% 0.88 57
26 26
0.88 142
20 20 Free 0% 0.88 23
None
None
329
72
87
329 6.4
72 6.2
87 4.1
3.5 96 614
3.3 86 990
2.2 92 1509
EB 1 167 25 142 907 0.18 5.1 9.9 A 9.9 A
NB 1 140 117 0 1509 0.08 1.9 6.4 A 6.4
SB 1 87 0 30 1700 0.05 0.0 0.0
0.88 30
0.0
6.5 29.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
22 22
306 306 Stop 0% 0.99 309
43 43
49 49
128 128
59 59
245 245
0.99 129
0.99 60
0.99 29
0.99 247
27 27 Free 0% 0.99 27
25 25
0.99 49
47 47 Free 0% 0.99 47
29 29
0.99 43
468 468 Stop 0% 0.99 473
0.99 22
0.99 25
None
None 382 1080
730
40
912
728
62
52
76
1080 7.1
730 6.5
40 6.2
912 7.2
728 6.5
62 6.2
52 4.1
76 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 281
3.3 96 1023
3.6 0 0
4.0 0 282
3.3 87 1004
2.2 96 1548
2.2 84 1523
EB 1 374 22 43 0 Err Err Err F Err F
WB 1 651 49 129 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 136 60 29 1548 0.04 0.9 3.4 A 3.4
SB 1 299 247 25 1523 0.16 4.4 6.7 A 6.7
Err 78.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
D
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
176 176
326 326 Free 0% 0.87 375
22 22
25 25
49 49
25 25
115 115
0.87 56
0.87 29
0.87 30
0.87 132
57 57 Stop 0% 0.87 66
288 288
0.87 29
58 58 Stop 0% 0.87 67
26 26
0.87 25
582 582 Free 0% 0.87 669
0.87 331
0.87 202
None
None
725
400
1910
1574
388
1610
1559
697
725 4.2
400 4.1
1910 7.1
1574 6.5
388 6.2
1610 7.2
1559 6.5
697 6.2
2.3 76 855
2.2 97 1159
3.5 0 4
4.0 17 81
3.3 95 661
3.6 0 20
4.0 21 84
3.3 25 441
EB 1 602 202 25 855 0.24 7.0 5.7 A 5.7
WB 1 754 29 56 1159 0.03 0.6 0.7 A 0.7
NB 1 126 29 30 15 8.63 Err Err F Err F 3258.7 106.9% 15
SB 1 529 132 331 64 8.24 Err Err F Err F
ICU Level of Service
G
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
377 377
219 219 Stop 0% 0.89 246
81 81
275 275
277 277
45 45
218 218
0.89 311
0.89 51
0.89 248
0.89 245
571 571 Free 0% 0.89 642
390 390
0.89 309
495 495 Free 0% 0.89 556
221 221
0.89 91
324 324 Stop 0% 0.89 364
0.89 424
None
None
2626
2257
861
2347
2352
680
1080
804
2626 7.1
2257 6.5
861 6.2
2347 7.1
2352 6.5
680 6.2
1080 4.1
804 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 27
3.3 74 355
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 23
3.3 31 451
2.2 92 646
2.2 70 820
EB 1 761 424 91 0 Err Err Err F Err F
WB 1 984 309 311 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 855 51 248 646 0.08 1.9 2.2 A 2.2
SB 1 1325 245 438 820 0.30 9.5 9.6 A 9.6
Err 182.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.89 438
H
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
23 23
55 55 Stop 0% 0.89 62
26 26
86 86
21 21
20 20
24 24
0.89 24
0.89 22
0.89 31
0.89 27
72 72 Free 0% 0.89 81
15 15
0.89 97
100 100 Free 0% 0.89 112
28 28
0.89 29
20 20 Stop 0% 0.89 22
0.89 26
0.89 17
None
None
387 350
330
90
375
324
128
98
143
350 7.1
330 6.5
90 6.2
375 7.1
324 6.5
128 6.2
98 4.1
143 4.1
3.5 95 557
4.0 89 569
3.3 97 968
3.5 81 505
4.0 96 574
3.3 97 923
2.2 99 1495
2.2 98 1440
EB 1 117 26 29 631 0.19 5.1 12.0 B 12.0 B
WB 1 143 97 24 558 0.26 7.7 13.7 B 13.7 B
NB 1 165 22 31 1495 0.01 0.3 1.1 A 1.1
SB 1 125 27 17 1440 0.02 0.4 1.7 A 1.7
6.8 30.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
176 176
326 326 Free 0% 0.91 358
22 22
25 25
49 49
25 25
115 115
0.91 54
0.91 27
0.91 29
0.91 126
57 57 Stop 0% 0.91 63 1 3.7 1.1 0
288 288
0.91 27
58 58 Stop 0% 0.91 64 5 3.7 1.1 0
26 26
0.91 24
582 582 Free 0% 0.91 640
0.91 316
0.91 193
None
None
695
387
1830
1510
375
1539
1495
668
695 4.1
387 4.1
1830 7.1
1510 6.5
375 6.2
1539 7.1
1495 6.5
668 6.2
2.2 79 900
2.2 98 1166
3.5 0 7
4.0 30 92
3.3 96 668
3.5 0 33
4.0 33 94
3.3 31 458
EB 1 575 193 24 900 0.21 6.2 5.2 A 5.2
WB 1 721 27 54 1166 0.02 0.5 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 120 27 29 26 4.59 Err Err F Err F 3255.0 107.0% 15
SB 1 505 126 316 98 5.17 Err Err F Err F
ICU Level of Service
G
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
3 3 Stop 0% 0.91 3
34 34
37 37 0.91 41
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 37
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
82
0
0
82 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 896
3.5 96 1021
2.8 97 1301
EB 1 40 3 37 1011 0.04 0.9 8.7 A 8.7 A
NB 1 41 41 0 1301 0.03 0.7 7.9 A 7.9
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.3 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
25 25
66 66 Stop 0% 0.92 72 11 3.7 1.1 1
46 46
90 90
392 392
54 54
416 416
0.92 426
0.92 59
0.92 140
0.92 452
831 831 Free 0% 0.92 903 7 3.7 1.1 1
26 26
0.92 98
819 819 Free 0% 0.92 890 102 3.7 1.1 10
129 129
0.92 50
25 25 Stop 0% 0.92 27 183 3.7 1.1 17
0.92 27
0.92 28
None
None
197 0.88 3286
0.88 3163
0.88 1030
0.88 3256
0.88 3107
3527 7.1
3387 6.5
967 6.2
3492 7.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 0
3.3 79 243
EB 1 149 27 50 0 Err Err Err F Err F
WB 1 551 98 426 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 59 59 0 678 0.09 2.2 10.8 B 0.6
Err 122.7% 15
1150
0.88 942
1213
3323 6.5
1150 6.2
867 4.1
1213 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 0
3.3 0 199
2.2 91 678
2.2 5 477
NB 2 1030 0 140 1700 0.61 0.0 0.0
SB 1 452 452 0 477 0.95 87.9 58.8 F 19.2
SB 2 931 0 28 1700 0.55 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
H
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
23 23 Stop 0% 0.87 26
29 29
49 49 0.87 56
764 764 Free 0% 0.87 878
30 30
0.87 33
800 800 Free 0% 0.87 920
None
None
1927
895
912
1927 6.4
895 6.5
912 4.1
3.5 62 68
3.6 89 301
2.2 93 747
EB 1 59 26 33 119 0.49 17.1 61.5 F 61.5 F
NB 1 976 56 0 747 0.07 1.8 2.2 A 2.2
SB 1 912 0 34 1700 0.54 0.0 0.0
0.87 34
0.0
2.9 92.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
F
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
22 22
42 42 Stop 0% 0.75 56
23 23
46 46
23 23
46 46
25 25
0.75 31
0.75 61
0.75 61
0.75 33
53 53 Free 0% 0.75 71
26 26
0.75 61
53 53 Free 0% 0.75 71
46 46
0.75 31
34 34 Stop 0% 0.75 45
0.75 29
None
None
432
408
88
437
396
102
106
132
432 7.1
408 6.5
88 6.2
437 7.1
396 6.5
102 6.2
106 4.1
132 4.1
3.5 94 459
4.0 89 499
3.3 97 970
3.5 86 447
4.0 91 507
3.3 97 954
2.2 96 1485
2.2 98 1453
EB 1 116 29 31 559 0.21 5.9 13.1 B 13.1 B
WB 1 137 61 31 531 0.26 7.8 14.1 B 14.1 B
NB 1 193 61 61 1485 0.04 1.0 2.6 A 2.6
SB 1 139 33 35 1453 0.02 0.5 1.9 A 1.9
7.2 28.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 35
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
9.1 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
47 47 0.96 2 49 0
153 153 0.96 2 159 1
26 26 0.96 2 27 0
23 23 0.96 2 24 0
134 134 0.96 2 140 1
16 16 0.96 2 17 0
28 28 0.96 2 29 0
28 28 0.96 2 29 1
25 25 0.96 2 26 0
27 27 0.96 2 28 0
28 28 0.96 7 29 1
29 29 0.96 2 30 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 9.5 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.6 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.6 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 13% 21% 32% 35% 68% 77% 33% 35% 9% 12% 35% 31% Stop Stop Stop Stop 84 226 173 81 27 23 47 28 28 153 134 28 29 16 25 26 88 180 84 235 1 1 1 1 0.114 0.296 0.23 0.118 4.885 4.534 4.593 4.855 Yes Yes Yes Yes 736 780 791 731 2.57 2.631 2.903 2.934 0.12 0.115 0.297 0.231 8.6 9.5 8.6 9 A A A A 0.9 0.4 1.2 0.4
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128 128 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.65 1145 0.94 136 0 136 9% Perm
86 86 1900 7.1 1.00 0.94 1.00 1765 1.00 1765 0.94 91 29 128 2% NA 4
62 62 1900
63 63 1900
0.94 66 0 0 2%
0.94 67 0 0 2% Perm
97 97 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1815 0.81 1493 0.94 103 0 170 5% NA 8
317 317 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 337 98 239 2% Perm
80 80 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.28 517 0.94 85 0 85 3% Perm
833 833 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 886 0 886 3% NA 2
34 34 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 36 16 20 2% Perm
299 299 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.13 237 0.94 318 0 318 4% Perm
630 630 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 670 0 670 5% NA 6
94 94 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 100 44 56 15% Perm
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 449
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 290
2 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 898
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 132
c0.15 0.53 27.1 1.00 1.4 28.5 C
0.16 0.29 10.3 1.00 2.6 12.8 B
0.01 0.02 8.7 1.00 0.0 8.7 A
c1.34 2.41 19.5 1.00 656.6 676.2 F
4 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 321 0.12 0.42 26.2 1.00 4.1 30.2 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
8 25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 495 0.07
25.0 25.0 0.28 7.1 3.5 418 0.11 0.41 26.0 1.00 0.8 26.8 C 27.9 C
0.26 24.9 1.00 1.3 26.1 C 28.0 C 93.9 1.77 89.1 100.9% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1046 0.48 0.85 16.4 1.00 8.5 24.8 C 23.2 C
50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 1026 0.37 0.65 13.5 1.00 1.8 15.4 B 207.9 F
6 50.0 50.0 0.56 7.0 4.5 796 0.04 0.07 8.9 1.00 0.1 9.0 A
F 14.1 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None None Max 57 57 32.1 32.1 64.0% 36.0% 64.0% 36.0% 35 35 30.1 30.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 20 10 10 20 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 21 16 16 21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 57 0 57 0 50 82 82 50 66 29 66 29 0 57 57 0 50 82 82 50 66 29 66 29
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
89.1 Semi Act-Uncoord 130
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 136 0.42 31.1 0.0 31.1 18.9 35.7 150.0 321 0 0 0 0.42
EBT WBT 157 170 0.41 0.30 29.6 20.2 0.0 0.0 29.6 20.2 15.3 23.5 41.4 30.7 1366.5 1368.7 524 0 0 0 0.30
418 0 0 0 0.41
WBR 337 0.62 21.8 0.0 21.8 29.0 56.9 170.0 547 0 0 0 0.62
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
NBT NBL 85 886 0.85 0.29 26.1 13.7 0.0 0.0 26.1 13.7 7.1 117.9 16.7 #199.1 1562.1 250.0 290 1046 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.85 0.29
NBR SBL 36 318 2.41 0.04 1.9 674.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 674.5 0.0 ~69.1 2.8 #119.2 135.0 920 0 0 0 0.04
200.0 132 0 0 0 2.41
SBT 670 0.65 17.3 0.0 17.3 73.9 110.3 1053.3 1026 0 0 0 0.65
SBR 100 0.12 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 6.3 200.0 840 0 0 0 0.12
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
131 131 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1868 1.00 1868 0.93 141 3 147 2% NA 4
8 8 1900
406 406 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.66 1135 0.93 437 0 437 12% Perm
275 275 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 296 0 296 2% NA 8
574 574 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 617 333 284 3% Perm
435 435 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.54 1008 0.93 468 0 468 2% Perm
310 310 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 333 0 333 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
11 11 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.52 981 0.93 12 0 12 2% Perm
295 295 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 317 0 317 7% NA 6
252 252 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 271 129 142 11% Perm
8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 528
2 50.1 50.1 0.52 6.9 4.5 526
0.18 0.54 25.9 1.00 1.1 27.0 C
c0.46 0.89 20.4 1.00 19.8 40.2 D
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 9 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
8 32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 378
32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 623 0.08
c0.39 1.16 32.0 1.00 96.0 128.0 F
0.24 23.1 1.00 0.2 23.3 C 23.3 C 39.8 0.99 95.9 94.6% 15
32.0 32.0 0.33 6.9 3.0 628 0.16 0.47 25.3 1.00 0.6 25.8 C 59.4 E
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 50.1 50.1 0.52 6.9 4.5 512
50.1 50.1 0.52 6.9 4.5 904 0.19
0.01 0.02 11.1 1.00 0.1 11.2 B
0.37 13.5 1.00 1.2 14.7 B 29.6 C
50.1 50.1 0.52 6.9 4.5 937 0.18 0.34 13.3 1.00 1.0 14.3 B 13.5 B
6 50.1 50.1 0.52 6.9 4.5 768 0.10 0.18 12.1 1.00 0.5 12.6 B
D 13.8 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 SETL
4 6 NBTL NWTL
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
8 SBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 38.9 57 38.9 57 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 38.9 39 38.9 39 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1 1 1 1 10 10 20 20 3 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 16 16 25 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 0 0 57 57 50.1 50.1 89 89 25.1 73 73 25.1 0 57 0 57 50.1 50.1 89 89 25.1 25.1 73 73
Intersection Summary 95.9 Cycle Length Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
NBT SBL 150 437 0.24 1.15 23.8 126.6 0.0 0.0 23.8 126.6 19.4 ~96.1 34.0 #152.8 530.8 100.0 625 379 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 1.15
SBT 296 0.47 28.3 0.0 28.3 43.0 66.5 249.9 628 0 0 0 0.47
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
SBR SEL 617 468 0.89 0.72 10.9 42.3 0.0 0.0 10.9 42.3 15.5 73.4 55.2 #137.3 100.0 862 0 0 0 0.72
200.0 526 0 0 0 0.89
SET 333 0.37 15.0 0.0 15.0 34.7 53.5 374.7 904 0 0 0 0.37
NWL 12 0.02 11.4 0.0 11.4 1.0 3.7 200.0 512 0 0 0 0.02
NWT 317 0.34 14.6 0.0 14.6 32.4 49.9 359.2 937 0 0 0 0.34
NWR 271 0.30 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 11.2 100.0 897 0 0 0 0.30
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
78 78 1900
954 954 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1808 0.83 1499 0.96 994 5 1173 5% NA 2
99 99 1900
27 27 1900
36 36 1900
42 42 1900
37 37 1900
0.96 38 0 0 2%
0.96 44 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 24 0 0 2%
0.96 39 0 0 2% Perm
66 66 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.99 1781 0.91 1638 0.96 69 23 135 2% NA 4
48 48 1900
0.96 28 0 0 2% Perm
66 66 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1799 0.88 1600 0.96 69 11 126 2% NA 8
23 23 1900
0.96 103 0 0 3%
927 927 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1855 0.95 1770 0.96 966 2 1030 3% NA 6
0.96 81 0 0 2% Perm 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
6
8
4
35.0 35.0 0.49 6.0 3.0 738
35.0 35.0 0.49 6.0 3.0 872
25.0 25.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 563
25.0 25.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 576
c0.78 1.59 18.0 1.00 271.6 289.6 F 289.6 F
0.58 1.18 18.0 1.00 93.3 111.3 F 111.3 F
0.08 0.22 16.2 1.00 0.9 17.1 B 17.1 B
c0.08 0.23 16.2 1.00 1.0 17.2 B 17.2 B
184.1 1.02 71.0 112.9% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 50 0 0 2%
F 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
None Max None Max 41 41 30 30 57.7% 42.3% 57.7% 42.3% 25 25 41 41 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 25 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 41 41 0 0 41 0 41 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10 0 41 41 0 35 35 66 66 10 56 56 10
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Semi Act-Uncoord 120
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT WBT 1178 1032 1.58 1.18 289.9 114.4 0.0 0.0 289.9 114.4 ~231.0 ~169.4 #302.2 #237.9 123.3 258.1 744 0 0 0 1.58
874 0 0 0 1.18
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
NBT 137 0.24 15.6 0.0 15.6 11.0 22.7 366.5
SBT 158 0.26 14.0 0.0 14.0 11.2 23.7 390.1
573 0 0 0 0.24
600 0 0 0 0.26
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
78 78 1900
912 912 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1856 0.75 1406 0.94 970 2 1124
69 69 1900
138 138 1900
48 48 1900
78 78 1900
31 31 1900
0.94 51 0 0 2
0.94 83 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 60 0 0 3
0.94 33 0 0 3 Perm
58 58 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1785 0.87 1582 0.94 62 10 112
25 25 1900
0.94 147 0 0 6 Perm
115 115 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 1777 0.86 1560 0.94 122 11 254
56 56 1900
0.94 73 0 0 6
930 930 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1859 0.56 1043 0.94 989 2 1185
0.94 83 0 0 2 Perm
NA 6
6
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
NA 2
NA 8
NA 4
4
8
2 44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 618
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 458
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 686
44.0 44.0 0.44 6.0 3.0 696
0.80 1.82 28.0 1.00 374.6 402.6 F 402.6 F
c1.14 2.59 28.0 1.00 721.0 749.0 F 749.0 F
c0.16 0.37 18.7 1.00 1.5 20.3 C 20.3 C
0.07 0.16 16.9 1.00 0.5 17.4 B 17.4 B
500.0 1.48 100.0 120.9% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 27 0 0 7
F 12.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
6 EBTL
8 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max Max Max Max 50 50 50 50 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 24 24 28 26 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 20 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 15 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 50 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 94 94 44 44 83 83 31 29 50 50 0 0 94 94 44 44 83 83 31 29
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 130
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
Queues 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT WBT 1126 1187 1.82 2.57 396.9 733.4 0.0 0.0 396.9 733.4 ~334.5 ~393.6 #411.1 #471.0 258.1 647.5 620 0 0 0 1.82
461 0 0 0 2.57
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
NBT 265 0.38 19.4 0.0 19.4 31.0 50.7 153.3
SBT 122 0.17 15.2 0.0 15.2 11.7 22.8 103.2
696 0 0 0 0.38
706 0 0 0 0.17
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
236 236 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 264 0.89 265 0 265 2% pm+pt 5 2 41.0 41.0 0.51 5.0 3.0 370 c0.11 0.25 0.72 15.8 1.00 6.5 22.3 C
940 940 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3568 1.00 3568 0.89 1056 2 1076 2% NA 2
20 20 1900
209 209 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 268 0.89 235 0 235 2% pm+pt 1 6 40.2 40.2 0.50 5.0 3.0 362 0.10 0.23 0.65 14.7 1.00 4.0 18.7 B
965 965 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3437 1.00 3437 0.89 1084 29 1352 3% NA 6
264 264 1900
170 170 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.32 603 0.89 191 0 191 2% Perm
182 182 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1710 1.00 1710 0.89 204 32 328 2% NA 4
139 139 1900
365 365 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.35 662 0.89 410 0 410 2% Perm
148 148 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 166 56 327 2% NA 8
193 193 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.89 22 0 0 2%
28.5 28.5 0.35 5.0 3.0 1261 0.30 0.85 24.1 1.00 7.5 31.6 C 29.7 C 96.8 1.38 80.6 103.1% 15
0.89 297 0 0 2%
28.1 28.1 0.35 5.0 3.0 1198 c0.39 1.13 26.2 1.00 68.8 95.1 F 84.0 F
4 25.0 25.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 187 0.32 1.02 27.8 1.00 71.5 99.3 F
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.89 156 0 0 9%
8 25.0 25.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 205
25.0 25.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 530 0.19
c0.62 2.00 27.8 1.00 466.9 494.7 F
0.62 23.7 1.00 2.1 25.9 C 51.3 D
0.89 217 0 0 3%
25.0 25.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 531 0.19 0.62 23.7 1.00 2.1 25.8 C 268.3 F
F 15.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
2 6 4 8 5 1 WBL EBTL NBTL EBL WBTL SBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None None None None 33 33 20 20 30 30 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 24.1% 39.8% 36.1% 15 15 33 33 26 26 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 10 15 28 28 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 18 18 10 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20 20 53 53 0 0 53 53 20 0 20 0 15 15 78 78 48 48 38 38 68 15 15 68 0 0 63 63 33 33 28 28 58 78 78 58 18 18 78 78 48 48 83 Semi Act-Uncoord 120
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Queues 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 265 1078 0.71 0.85 26.4 32.8 0.0 0.0 26.4 32.8 21.6 77.8 45.8 #118.3 368.2 70.0 426 1261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.85 0.62
WBL WBT 235 1381 1.13 0.65 95.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 95.0 23.1 17.8 ~129.6 38.7 #173.4 68.4 120.0 426 1224 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 1.13
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
NBL 191 1.02 104.6 0.0 104.6 ~30.4 #70.8 187 0 0 0 1.02
NBT SBL 410 360 0.64 2.00 27.2 487.1 0.0 0.0 27.2 487.1 41.0 ~99.8 70.3 #153.6 306.6 30.0 205 563 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 0.64
SBT 383 0.65 25.2 0.0 25.2 39.6 69.9 418.3 587 0 0 0 0.65
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
432 432 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.11 206 0.95 455 0 455 2% pm+pt 1 6 48.5 48.5 0.43 5.0 3.0 257 c0.19 0.57 1.77 31.5 1.00 362.1 393.6 F
1017 1017 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 1071 0 1071 2% NA 6
531 91 91 531 1900 1900 5.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1601 1722 1.00 0.12 1601 213 0.95 0.95 96 559 177 0 96 382 2% 6% Perm pm+pt 5 2 6 43.5 36.5 36.5 43.5 0.39 0.32 5.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 209 518 0.04 0.14 0.24 0.46 0.74 26.7 33.8 1.00 1.00 1.6 9.1 28.3 42.9 C D
1036 1036 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 1091 0 1091 2% NA 2
125 125 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 132 88 44 2% Perm
307 307 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.12 235 0.95 323 0 323 2% pm+pt 3 8 49.6 49.6 0.44 5.0 3.0 346 c0.15 0.26 0.93 31.6 1.00 31.6 63.2 E
396 396 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1832 1.00 1832 0.95 417 4 469 3% NA 8
53 53 1900
161 161 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.17 324 0.95 169 0 169 3% pm+pt 7 4 39.4 39.4 0.35 5.0 3.0 272 0.07 0.15 0.62 28.0 1.00 4.4 32.3 C
409 409 1900 6.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1749 1.00 1749 0.95 431 23 712 3% NA 4
289 289 1900
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
36.5 36.5 0.32 6.0 3.0 610 0.57 1.76 38.0 1.00 346.8 384.9 F 295.1 F
283.7 1.64 112.6 153.0% 15
34.0 34.0 0.30 6.0 3.0 568 c0.58 1.92 39.3 1.00 420.9 460.2 F 385.5 F
2 34.0 34.0 0.30 6.0 3.0 483 0.03 0.09 28.2 1.00 0.4 28.6 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 56 0 0 3%
32.2 32.2 0.29 6.0 3.0 523 0.26 0.90 38.6 1.00 20.6 59.2 E 60.8 E
0.95 304 0 0 3%
27.0 27.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 419 c0.41 1.70 42.8 1.00 325.0 367.8 F 305.1 F
F 22.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
2 6 4 7 8 3 1 5 NBL SBTL WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None Max None Max None 40 40 33 17 17 23 23 33 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 15.0% 35.4% 20.4% 29.2% 33 33 33 13 13 13 13 33 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17 17 80 57 57 80 0 0 0 17 57 80 57 80 17 0 51 51 75 75 107 107 12 12 34 34 90 75 75 12 90 12 0 0 63 96 96 40 40 63 34 34 90 108 108 58 58 90 17 17 73 108 108 58 58 73 113 Semi Act-Uncoord 145
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
Queues 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL EBT EBR 455 1071 559 0.80 1.76 1.75 379.0 373.1 28.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 379.0 373.1 28.5 ~134.9 ~351.6 62.4 #199.7 #439.6 #126.3 607.3 30.0 259 696 611 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.76 1.75 0.80
WBL WBT 96 1091 1.92 0.45 25.1 446.5 0.0 0.0 25.1 446.5 11.8 ~371.9 21.6 #448.8 443.3 65.0 568 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 1.92
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
WBR NBL NBT 473 323 132 0.90 0.23 0.93 60.0 6.9 64.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 64.7 60.0 0.9 54.1 98.2 14.5 #110.4 #176.1 278.0 100.0 528 351 571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0.92 0.90
SBT SBL 735 169 0.61 1.66 30.0 337.6 0.0 0.0 30.0 337.6 22.1 ~233.9 36.2 #305.6 268.1 300.0 442 363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 1.66
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
61 61 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.27 473 0.97 63 0 63 10% Perm
490 490 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1866 1.00 1866 0.97 505 2 529 2% NA 8
25 25 1900
117 117 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.16 297 0.97 121 0 121 2% pm+pt 7 4 40.4 40.4 0.37 5.0 3.0 313 0.05 0.09 0.39 25.6 1.00 0.8 26.4 C
423 423 1900 6.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1809 1.00 1809 0.97 436 12 580 2% NA 4
151 151 1900
34 34 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.66 1243 0.97 35 0 35 2% Perm
190 190 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1793 1.00 1793 0.97 196 13 276 2% NA 2
90 90 1900
59 59 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.41 756 0.97 61 0 61 4% pm+pt 1 6 57.1 57.1 0.52 5.0 3.0 525 0.02 0.05 0.12 13.8 1.00 0.1 13.9 B
114 114 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1819 1.00 1819 0.97 118 10 143 2% NA 6
34 34 1900
8 20.4 20.4 0.19 6.0 3.0 88 0.13 0.72 41.8 1.00 24.0 65.9 E
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.97 26 0 0 6%
20.4 20.4 0.19 6.0 3.0 347 c0.28 1.53 44.5 1.00 250.7 295.3 F 270.9 F 109.8 0.75 109.5 105.6% 15
0.97 156 0 0 2%
40.4 40.4 0.37 6.0 3.0 667 c0.32 0.87 32.1 1.00 11.7 43.8 D 40.8 D
2 37.7 37.7 0.34 6.0 3.0 427 0.03 0.08 24.2 1.00 0.4 24.6 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 93 0 0 2%
37.7 37.7 0.34 6.0 3.0 617 c0.15 0.45 27.8 1.00 2.3 30.2 C 29.6 C
0.97 35 0 0 2%
57.1 57.1 0.52 6.0 3.0 948 c0.08 0.15 13.6 1.00 0.3 13.9 B 13.9 B
F 22.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
PM Peak Hour
4 7 2 8 1 6 SBL NBTL WBTL SBTL WBL EBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None Max None None None 23 25 62 31 48 31 28.2% 28.2% 43.6% 56.4% 20.9% 22.7% 32 23 21 32 31 31 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 15 25 15 15 25 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 7 18 8 8 8 8 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 62 62 31 0 85 0 0 62 85 62 31 0 80 26 104 56 104 56 96 48 80 96 48 26 0 31 31 79 54 79 73 105 49 25 73 25 105 65 49 65 17 17
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 120
Splits and Phases:
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Queues 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 63 531 0.72 1.50 82.7 273.5 0.0 0.0 82.7 273.5 12.6 ~157.8 #34.4 #219.5 648.3 50.0 88 353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 1.50
WBL WBT 592 121 0.38 0.86 25.8 44.8 0.0 0.0 25.8 44.8 16.7 111.2 29.5 #171.3 112.7 60.0 712 361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 0.83
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
NBL 35 0.08 28.3 0.0 28.3 5.3 13.2 50.0 431 0 0 0 0.08
NBT 289 0.46 30.5 0.0 30.5 46.6 74.0 118.6 635 0 0 0 0.46
SBL 61 0.11 13.5 0.0 13.5 6.0 12.9 30.0 636 0 0 0 0.10
SBT 153 0.16 12.7 0.0 12.7 14.0 25.7 52.7 949 0 0 0 0.16
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
86 86 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.18 333 0.91 95 0 95 5% Perm
670 670 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.91 736 3 780 2% NA 4
43 43 1900
228 228 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.18 342 0.91 251 0 251 2% pm+pt 3 4 29.0 29.0 0.41 2.0 3.0 282 c0.09 0.28 0.89 17.1 1.00 27.4 44.5 D
631 631 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.91 693 2 724 2% NA 4
30 30 1900
98 98 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.51 964 0.91 108 0 108 2% Perm
184 184 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1685 1.00 1685 0.91 202 100 500 4% NA 2
362 362 1900
34 34 1900
0.91 398 0 0 2%
0.91 37 0 0 2% Perm
248 248 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.99 1872 0.66 1237 0.91 273 0 310 2% NA 2
36 36 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 40 24 16 3% Perm
4 22.0 22.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 103 0.29 0.92 23.7 1.00 64.0 87.6 F
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.91 47 0 0 3%
22.0 22.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 577 c0.42 1.35 24.5 1.00 169.2 193.7 F 182.2 F 107.0 0.99 71.0 115.7% 15
0.91 33 0 0 33%
22.0 22.0 0.31 6.0 3.0 571 0.39 1.27 24.5 1.00 133.9 158.4 F 129.2 F
2 28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 380 0.11 0.28 14.7 1.00 1.9 16.5 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 487
28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 664 c0.30
0.25 0.64 17.4 1.00 6.2 23.6 C 22.4 C
0.75 18.5 1.00 7.7 26.3 C 24.8 C
2 28.0 28.0 0.39 6.0 3.0 625 0.01 0.03 13.2 1.00 0.1 13.2 B
F 14.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max 34 47.9% 33 4 2 17 3 0.2 0 0 17 10 Yes Yes 0 34 28 18 0 28 18
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 100
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBSB
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
3 4 WBL EBWB Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 28 9 12.7% 39.4% 28 9 2 4 2 0 4.5 8 3 3 7 3 0 0 0 0 15 7 Yes No Yes Yes 43 34 43 0 41 65 41 58 43 34 41 65 41 58
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
Queues 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 95 783 0.92 1.35 101.3 192.8 0.0 0.0 101.3 192.8 12.1 ~140.5 #38.6 #203.8 138.6 180.0 103 581 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.92 1.35
WBL WBT 251 726 0.83 1.27 38.0 159.3 0.0 0.0 38.0 159.3 18.5 ~125.3 #50.4 #187.1 145.1 20.0 301 573 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 1.27
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
NBT NBL 600 108 0.28 0.79 22.6 17.3 0.0 0.0 22.6 17.3 9.5 49.6 20.6 #103.1 388.0
SBT 310 0.64 24.6 0.0 24.6 32.3 58.0 574.8
764 0 0 0 0.79
487 0 0 0 0.64
380 0 0 0 0.28
SBR 40 0.06 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.1 30.0 671 0 0 0 0.06
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
73 73 1900
463 463 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1784 0.77 1378 0.95 487 7 637 5% NA 4
76 76 1900
82 82 1900
63 63 1900
0.95 80 0 0 2%
0.95 86 0 0 24% Perm
392 392 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1692 0.65 1111 0.95 413 6 559 9% NA 8
235 235 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.10 187 0.95 247 0 247 3% Perm
248 248 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 261 0 261 9% NA 2
371 371 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 391 71 320 17% Perm
416 416 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.60 1105 0.95 438 0 438 4% Perm
1027 1027 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1812 1.00 1812 0.95 1081 0 1081 6% NA 6
143 143 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 151 74 77 6% Perm
2 40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 711
6 40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 563
0.23 0.45 12.2 1.00 2.1 14.3 B
0.40 0.78 15.6 1.00 10.2 25.8 C
0.95 77 0 0 10% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.95 66 0 0 6%
8 25.0 25.0 0.32 6.5 3.0 438
25.0 25.0 0.32 6.5 3.0 353
0.46 1.45 26.8 1.00 217.0 243.8 F 243.8 F
c0.50 1.58 26.8 1.00 275.6 302.4 F 302.4 F 173.6 2.20 78.5 129.6% 15
2 40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 95 c1.32 2.60 19.2 1.00 749.6 768.8 F
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 897 0.15 0.29 11.1 1.00 0.8 11.9 B 220.9 F
40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 923 0.60 1.17 19.2 1.00 88.6 107.9 F 77.5 E
6 40.0 40.0 0.51 7.0 3.0 785 0.05 0.10 9.9 1.00 0.2 10.2 B
F 13.5 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
2 NBTL
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 47 47 31.5 31.5 59.9% 40.1% 59.9% 40.1% 30 30 30 30 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 20 10 10 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 5 16 11 11 16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 47 47 0 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61 0 47 47 0 40 72 72 40 24 24 61 61
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
78.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 65
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
Queues 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT WBT 565 644 1.57 1.45 238.9 295.7 0.0 0.0 238.9 295.7 ~133.1 ~121.9 #194.5 #180.7 544.5 206.8 445 0 0 0 1.45
359 0 0 0 1.57
NBL 247 2.60 766.6 0.0 766.6 ~49.8 #92.8 75.0 95 0 0 0 2.60
NBT 261 0.29 12.2 0.0 12.2 21.0 35.2 173.0 897 0 0 0 0.29
NBR SBT SBL 391 438 1081 0.50 0.78 1.17 10.2 27.7 110.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 27.7 110.6 21.0 49.8 ~195.0 42.9 #101.5 #264.5 418.3 50.0 130.0 782 563 923 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.50 1.17 0.78
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
SBR 151 0.18 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 8.0 100.0 859 0 0 0 0.18
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
55 55 1900
193 193 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1761 0.81 1442 0.86 224 12 341 4% NA 4
56 56 1900
181 181 1900
139 139 1900
726 726 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1763 1.00 1763 0.86 844 11 1012 7% NA 2
147 147 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.11 215 0.86 171 0 171 2% Perm
825 825 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1803 1.00 1803 0.86 959 5 1048 3% NA 6
81 81 1900
0.86 210 0 0 5% Perm
36 36 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.11 215 0.86 42 0 42 2% Perm
154 154 1900
0.86 65 0 0 2%
195 195 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1765 0.69 1238 0.86 227 19 580 2% NA 8
0.86 64 0 0 14% Perm
0.86 162 0 0 2%
8
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
25.0 25.0 0.35 5.5 3.0 507
25.0 25.0 0.35 5.5 3.0 435
0.24 0.67 19.5 1.00 3.5 23.0 C 23.0 C
c0.47 1.33 23.0 1.00 165.2 188.2 F 188.2 F 124.5 1.50 71.0 141.2% 15
2 35.0 35.0 0.49 5.5 3.0 105 0.20 0.40 11.4 1.00 11.0 22.4 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.86 179 0 0 2%
6 35.0 35.0 0.49 5.5 3.0 105
35.0 35.0 0.49 5.5 3.0 869 0.57
c0.79 1.63 18.0 1.00 321.9 339.9 F
1.16 18.0 1.00 86.8 104.8 F 101.5 F
0.86 94 0 0 27%
35.0 35.0 0.49 5.5 3.0 888 0.58 1.18 18.0 1.00 92.7 110.7 F 142.7 F
F 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
8 WBTL
C-Max None C-Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 3.5 1 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 25 55.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 71 Actuated-Coordinated Control Type Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Queues 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBT WBT 353 599 0.68 1.32 26.5 182.5 0.0 0.0 26.5 182.5 37.2 ~103.7 60.7 #151.2 158.8 158.6
NBT NBL 42 1023 0.40 1.16 25.3 107.1 0.0 0.0 25.3 107.1 3.3 ~164.7 12.1 #216.9 321.6
519 0 0 0 0.68
105 0 0 0 0.40
454 0 0 0 1.32
879 0 0 0 1.16
SBT SBL 171 1053 1.18 1.63 344.2 113.4 0.0 0.0 344.2 113.4 ~33.4 ~172.2 #51.3 #224.3 760.4 50.0 105 893 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.18 1.63
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
137 137 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.70 1323 0.93 147 0 147 2% Perm
23 23 1900 5.5 1.00 0.86 1.00 1592 1.00 1592 0.93 25 110 248 2% NA 4
310 310 1900
30 30 1900
28 28 1900
696 696 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1874 1.00 1874 0.93 748 1 772 2% NA 2
59 59 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.23 375 0.93 63 0 63 17% Perm
705 705 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1833 1.00 1833 0.93 758 6 857 3% NA 6
98 98 1900
0.93 32 0 0 2% Perm
165 165 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.17 316 0.93 177 0 177 2% Perm
23 23 1900
0.93 333 0 0 4%
20 20 1900 5.5 1.00 0.95 0.98 1759 0.60 1082 0.93 22 23 61 2% NA 8
4 14.5 14.5 0.24 5.5 3.0 315 0.11 0.47 19.8 1.00 1.1 20.9 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.93 30 0 0 2%
8 14.5 14.5 0.24 5.5 3.0 379 c0.16
14.5 14.5 0.24 5.5 3.0 258 0.06 0.24 18.7 1.00 0.5 19.2 B 19.2 B
0.66 20.9 1.00 4.0 24.9 C 23.8 C 20.7 0.87 60.8 116.8% 15
2 35.3 35.3 0.58 5.5 3.0 183 c0.56 0.97 12.2 1.00 58.5 70.7 E
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 25 0 0 2%
6 35.3 35.3 0.58 5.5 3.0 217
35.3 35.3 0.58 5.5 3.0 1088 0.41
0.17 0.29 6.4 1.00 3.4 9.8 A
0.71 9.1 1.00 3.9 13.0 B 23.8 C
0.93 105 0 0 2%
35.3 35.3 0.58 5.5 3.0 1064 0.47 0.81 10.0 1.00 6.5 16.6 B 16.1 B
C 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 57.0% 43.0% 57.0% 43.0% 30.5 40.5 40.5 30.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 2 35 8 35 8 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 15 10 10 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 40.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 40.5 0 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5 0 40.5 0 40.5 35 65.5 35 65.5 25 55.5 25 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 90
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
Queues 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 147 0.47 24.4 0.0 24.4 14.0 27.5 30.0 547 0 0 0 0.27
EBT 358 0.74 21.7 0.0 21.7 21.0 45.0 1201.3
WBT 84 0.30 15.5 0.0 15.5 4.8 14.0 482.8
743 0 0 0 0.48
466 0 0 0 0.18
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
NBL NBT 773 177 0.97 0.71 15.9 82.3 0.0 0.0 15.9 82.3 52.3 16.1 #62.2 #146.6 440.8 50.0 183 1088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.97 0.71
SBL SBT 63 863 0.81 0.29 13.3 20.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 20.0 3.0 63.7 14.0 #175.8 214.1 35.0 216 1069 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.81
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
94 94 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.95 1722 0.96 98 0 98 6% Prot 8
186 186 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 194 169 25 2% Perm
728 728 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.96 758 6 887 2% NA 2
130 130 1900
167 167 1900
0.96 135 0 0 2%
0.96 174 0 0 4% Perm
995 995 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1849 0.63 1167 0.96 1036 0 1210 3% NA 6
9.4 9.4 0.13 4.5 3.0 222 c0.06 0.44 29.3 1.00 1.4 30.7 C 29.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
8 9.4 9.4 0.13 4.5 3.0 206 0.02 0.12 28.0 1.00 0.3 28.3 C
6 54.4 54.4 0.75 4.5 3.0 1378 0.48 0.64 4.5 1.00 2.3 6.8 A 6.8 A 102.4 1.25 72.8 124.3% 15
54.4 54.4 0.75 4.5 3.0 872 c1.04 1.39 9.2 1.00 181.5 190.7 F 190.7 F HCM 2000 Level of Service
F
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBT
6 SBTL
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
8 WBL
Max None Max 56 24 56 70.0% 70.0% 30.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 56 0 56 0 56 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 0 56 0 75.5 51.5 51.5 64.5 40.5 40.5 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 150
25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
WBL 98 0.44 34.3 0.0 34.3 12.0 24.7 194.8 462 0 0 0 0.21
WBR 194 0.52 9.9 0.0 9.9 0.0 15.6 30.0 571 0 0 0 0.34
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
NBT SBT 893 1210 0.65 1.39 7.6 199.9 0.0 0.0 7.6 199.9 43.6 ~216.8 91.7 #305.2 343.1 224.5 1383 0 0 0 0.65
870 0 0 0 1.39
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20
3 3 Stop 0% 0.87 3
472 472
9 9
2 2
479 479
0 0
0.87 2
0.87 551
0.87 9
0.87 0
56 56 Free 0% 0.87 64
8 8
0.87 10
64 64 Free 0% 0.87 74
8 8
0.87 543
0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0
0.87 23
0.87 9
13 None
None
1251
1254
68
1250
1254
78
73
83
1251 7.1
1254 6.5
68 6.2
1250 7.1
1254 6.5
78 6.2
73 4.1
83 4.1
3.5 79 107
4.0 97 110
3.3 45 995
3.5 79 48
4.0 100 110
3.3 100 982
2.2 64 1527
2.2 100 1514
EB 1 569 23 543 1042 0.55 25.9 14.5 B 14.5 B
WB 1 12 10 2 57 0.21 5.4 84.4 F 84.4 F
NB 1 634 551 9 1527 0.36 12.7 8.0 A 8.0
SB 1 73 0 9 1514 0.00 0.0 0.0
11.1 51.0% 15
0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
212 212
317 317 Free 0% 0.91 348
5 5
94 94
8 8
2 2
5 5
0.91 9
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 5
81 81 Stop 0% 0.91 89
119 119
0.91 103
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 5
268 268 Free 0% 0.91 295
0.91 131
0.91 233
None
None
304
353
1498
1326
350
1410
1324
300
304 4.1
353 4.1
1498 7.1
1326 6.5
350 6.3
1410 7.1
1324 6.5
300 6.2
2.2 81 1257
2.2 91 1206
3.5 92 26
4.0 51 115
3.4 91 684
3.5 91 54
4.0 23 116
3.3 82 735
EB 1 586 233 5 1257 0.19 5.2 4.6 A 4.6
WB 1 407 103 9 1206 0.09 2.1 2.7 A 2.7
NB 1 118 2 60 181 0.65 28.8 56.0 F 56.0 F 27.8 67.6% 15
SB 1 225 5 131 217 1.04 73.8 118.6 F 118.6 F
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
30 30
27 27 Stop 0% 0.90 30
41 41
56 56
159 159
39 39
119 119
0.90 177
0.90 43
0.90 96
0.90 132
448 448 Free 0% 0.90 498
36 36
0.90 62
616 616 Free 0% 0.90 684
86 86
0.90 46
59 59 Stop 0% 0.90 66
0.90 33
None
None
1810
1648
518
1661
1620
732
538
780
1810 7.1
1648 6.5
518 6.2
1661 7.1
1620 6.5
732 6.2
538 4.1
780 4.1
3.5 0 11
4.0 62 80
3.3 92 558
3.5 0 43
4.0 21 83
3.3 58 421
2.2 96 1030
2.2 84 837
EB 1 109 33 46 31 3.57 Err Err F Err F
WB 1 305 62 177 115 2.65 211.7 826.9 F 826.9 F
NB 1 823 43 96 1030 0.04 1.0 1.1 A 1.1
SB 1 670 132 40 837 0.16 4.2 3.9 A 3.9
705.6 96.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.90 40
F
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
22 22 Stop 0% 0.88 25
133 133
173 173 0.88 197
30 30 Free 0% 0.88 34
31 31
0.88 151
41 41 Free 0% 0.88 47
None
None
492
52
69
492 6.4
52 6.2
69 4.1
3.5 95 467
3.3 85 1016
2.2 87 1532
EB 1 176 25 151 871 0.20 5.7 10.2 B 10.2 B
NB 1 244 197 0 1532 0.13 3.4 6.4 A 6.4
SB 1 69 0 35 1700 0.04 0.0 0.0
0.88 35
0.0
6.9 34.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
37 37
465 465 Stop 0% 0.99 470
102 102
16 16
290 290
55 55
203 203
0.99 293
0.99 56
0.99 33
0.99 205
50 50 Free 0% 0.99 51
28 28
0.99 16
165 165 Free 0% 0.99 167
33 33
0.99 103
492 492 Stop 0% 0.99 497
0.99 37
0.99 28
None
None 382 1312
787
65
1108
784
184
79
200
1312 7.1
787 6.5
65 6.2
1108 7.2
784 6.5
184 6.2
79 4.1
200 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 265
3.3 90 991
3.6 0 0
4.0 0 266
3.3 66 859
2.2 96 1513
2.2 85 1372
EB 1 610 37 103 0 Err Err Err F Err F
WB 1 806 16 293 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 256 56 33 1513 0.04 0.9 1.9 A 1.9
SB 1 284 205 28 1372 0.15 4.0 6.2 A 6.2
Err 89.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
E
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128 128
377 377 Free 0% 0.87 433
30 30
28 28
30 30
33 33
127 127
0.87 34
0.87 38
0.87 43
0.87 146
120 120 Stop 0% 0.87 138
537 537
0.87 32
41 41 Stop 0% 0.87 47
37 37
0.87 34
627 627 Free 0% 0.87 721
0.87 617
0.87 147
None
None
755
467
2232
1563
450
1612
1563
738
755 4.2
467 4.1
2232 7.1
1563 6.5
450 6.2
1612 7.2
1563 6.5
738 6.2
2.3 82 833
2.2 97 1094
3.5 0 0
4.0 47 88
3.3 93 609
3.6 0 37
4.0 0 89
3.3 0 418
EB 1 614 147 34 833 0.18 4.8 4.3 A 4.3
WB 1 787 32 34 1094 0.03 0.7 0.8 A 0.8
NB 1 128 38 43 0 Err Err Err F Err F Err 127.9% 15
SB 1 901 146 617 129 6.97 Err Err F Err F
ICU Level of Service
H
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
430 430
302 302 Stop 0% 0.89 339
87 87
234 234
229 229
21 21
305 305
0.89 257
0.89 24
0.89 346
0.89 343
920 920 Free 0% 0.89 1034
396 396
0.89 263
477 477 Free 0% 0.89 536
308 308
0.89 98
287 287 Stop 0% 0.89 322
0.89 483
None
None
3118
2872
1256
2967
2922
709
1479
882
3118 7.1
2872 6.5
1256 6.2
2967 7.1
2922 6.5
709 6.2
1479 4.1
882 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 9
3.3 53 209
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 8
3.3 41 434
2.2 95 455
2.2 55 767
EB 1 920 483 98 0 Err Err Err F Err F
WB 1 842 263 257 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 906 24 346 455 0.05 1.3 1.8 A 1.8
SB 1 1822 343 445 767 0.45 17.7 13.4 B 13.4
Err 220.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.89 445
H
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
30 30
106 106 Stop 0% 0.89 119
57 57
180 180
51 51
25 25
61 61
0.89 57
0.89 28
0.89 39
0.89 69
255 255 Free 0% 0.89 287
25 25
0.89 202
321 321 Free 0% 0.89 361
35 35
0.89 64
25 25 Stop 0% 0.89 28
0.89 34
0.89 28
None
None
387 946
895
301
999
890
380
315
400
946 7.1
895 6.5
301 6.2
999 7.1
890 6.5
380 6.2
315 4.1
400 4.1
3.5 82 190
4.0 54 258
3.3 91 739
3.5 0 122
4.0 89 259
3.3 91 667
2.2 98 1245
2.2 94 1159
EB 1 217 34 64 298 0.73 40.1 43.6 E 43.6 E
WB 1 287 202 57 155 1.85 163.1 454.5 F 454.5 F
NB 1 428 28 39 1245 0.02 0.5 0.7 A 0.7
SB 1 384 69 28 1159 0.06 1.4 2.0 A 2.0
107.1 69.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128 128
377 377 Free 0% 0.91 414
30 30
28 28
30 30
33 33
127 127
0.91 33
0.91 36
0.91 41
0.91 140
120 120 Stop 0% 0.91 132 1 3.7 1.1 0
537 537
0.91 31
41 41 Stop 0% 0.91 45 5 3.7 1.1 0
37 37
0.91 33
627 627 Free 0% 0.91 689
0.91 590
0.91 141
None
None
723
452
2141
1502
436
1544
1502
706
723 4.1
452 4.1
2141 7.1
1502 6.5
436 6.2
1544 7.1
1502 6.5
706 6.2
2.2 84 878
2.2 97 1103
3.5 0 0
4.0 54 99
3.3 93 618
3.5 0 49
4.0 0 99
3.3 0 435
EB 1 588 141 33 878 0.16 4.3 4.0 A 4.0
WB 1 753 31 33 1103 0.03 0.7 0.7 A 0.7
NB 1 122 36 41 0 Err Err Err F Err F Err 127.9% 15
SB 1 862 140 590 155 5.58 Err Err F Err F
ICU Level of Service
H
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0
19 19
17 17 0.91 19
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 21
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.16 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
38
0
0
38 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 965
3.5 98 1021
2.8 99 1301
EB 1 21 0 21 1021 0.02 0.5 8.6 A 8.6 A
NB 1 19 19 0 1301 0.01 0.3 7.8 A 7.8
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.22 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.2 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
34 34
44 44 Stop 0% 0.92 48 11 3.7 1.1 1
31 31
180 180
376 376
31 31
365 365
0.92 409
0.92 34
0.92 140
0.92 397
796 796 Free 0% 0.92 865 7 3.7 1.1 1
36 36
0.92 196
678 678 Free 0% 0.92 737 102 3.7 1.1 10
129 129
0.92 34
64 64 Stop 0% 0.92 70 183 3.7 1.1 17
0.92 37
0.92 39
None
None
197 0.54 2946
0.54 2818
0.54 998
0.54 2877
0.54 2767
4201 7.1
3961 6.5
561 6.2
4073 7.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 0
3.3 87 253
EB 1 119 37 34 0 Err Err Err F Err F
WB 1 675 196 409 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 34 34 0 610 0.06 1.3 11.2 B 0.4
Err 118.5% 15
997
0.54 915
1060
3867 6.5
997 6.2
407 4.1
1060 4.1
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 0
3.3 0 244
2.2 94 610
2.2 27 545
NB 2 877 0 140 1700 0.52 0.0 0.0
SB 1 397 397 0 545 0.73 46.1 27.3 D 8.3
SB 2 904 0 39 1700 0.53 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
H
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
22 22 Stop 0% 0.87 25
20 20
27 27 0.87 31
984 984 Free 0% 0.87 1131
64 64
0.87 23
686 686 Free 0% 0.87 789
None
None
2019
1168
1205
2019 6.4
1168 6.5
1205 4.1
3.5 59 61
3.6 89 206
2.2 95 579
EB 1 48 25 23 92 0.52 17.6 81.3 F 81.3 F
NB 1 820 31 0 579 0.05 1.3 1.5 A 1.5
SB 1 1205 0 74 1700 0.71 0.0 0.0
0.87 74
0.0
2.5 68.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
57 57
45 45 Stop 0% 0.75 60
22 22
31 31
62 62
68 68
28 28
0.75 83
0.75 91
0.75 97
0.75 37
72 72 Free 0% 0.75 96
33 33
0.75 41
108 108 Free 0% 0.75 144
73 73
0.75 29
72 72 Stop 0% 0.75 96
0.75 76
None
None
698
615
118
626
588
192
140
241
698 7.1
615 6.5
118 6.2
626 7.1
588 6.5
192 6.2
140 4.1
241 4.1
3.5 69 242
4.0 84 370
3.3 97 934
3.5 87 314
4.0 75 383
3.3 90 849
2.2 94 1443
2.2 97 1326
EB 1 165 76 29 325 0.51 20.7 26.9 D 26.9 D
WB 1 220 41 83 460 0.48 19.3 19.8 C 19.8 C
NB 1 332 91 97 1443 0.06 1.5 2.5 A 2.5
SB 1 177 37 44 1326 0.03 0.7 1.8 A 1.8
11.1 41.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 44
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
10.2 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
22 22 0.96 2 23 0
189 189 0.96 2 197 1
33 33 0.96 2 34 0
31 31 0.96 2 32 0
209 209 0.96 2 218 1
28 28 0.96 2 29 0
33 33 0.96 2 34 0
56 56 0.96 2 58 1
56 56 0.96 2 58 0
34 34 0.96 2 35 0
20 20 0.96 7 21 1
22 22 0.96 2 23 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 10.4 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 10.7 B
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 9.6 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 9.2 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 12% 9% 45% 23% 77% 78% 26% 39% 10% 29% 14% 39% Stop Stop Stop Stop 244 268 76 145 22 31 34 33 189 209 20 56 28 22 33 56 254 279 79 151 1 1 1 1 0.214 0.339 0.371 0.119 4.79 5.424 5.106 4.798 Yes Yes Yes Yes 743 742 665 695 3.201 2.878 2.869 3.424 0.217 0.342 0.376 0.119 10.7 10.4 9.2 9.6 B A A B 1.7 0.4 1.5 0.8
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
71 71 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.68 1205 0.94 76 0 76 9% Perm
94 94 1900 7.1 1.00 0.93 1.00 1747 1.00 1747 0.94 100 28 165 2% NA 4
87 87 1900
31 31 1900
0.94 93 0 0 2%
0.94 33 0 0 2% Perm
76 76 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1819 0.83 1529 0.94 81 0 114 5% NA 8
207 207 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 220 174 46 2% Perm
25 25 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.31 582 0.94 27 0 27 3% Perm
374 374 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 398 0 398 3% NA 2
28 28 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 30 15 15 2% Perm
763 763 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 812 0 812 5% NA 6
78 78 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 83 28 55 15% Perm
8 23.0 23.0 0.21 7.1 3.5 336
2 56.3 56.3 0.51 7.0 4.5 299
0.03 0.14 35.2 1.00 0.2 35.4 D
0.05 0.09 13.6 1.00 0.6 14.1 B
246 246 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.42 772 0.94 262 0 262 4% pm+pt 1 6 72.4 72.4 0.66 4.5 3.0 614 0.05 0.24 0.43 8.4 1.00 0.5 8.9 A
4 23.0 23.0 0.21 7.1 3.5 253 0.06 0.30 36.5 1.00 3.0 39.5 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8 23.0 23.0 0.21 7.1 3.5 366 c0.09
23.0 23.0 0.21 7.1 3.5 321 0.07 0.36 36.9 1.00 0.8 37.7 D 36.2 D
0.45 37.7 1.00 4.0 41.7 D 41.1 D 20.1 0.65 109.5 98.9% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
56.3 56.3 0.51 7.0 4.5 958 0.21 0.42 16.4 1.00 1.3 17.8 B 17.2 B
2 56.3 56.3 0.51 7.0 4.5 823 0.01 0.02 13.0 1.00 0.0 13.1 B
72.4 72.4 0.66 7.0 4.5 1209 c0.44 0.67 11.3 1.00 1.8 13.1 B 11.6 B
6 72.4 72.4 0.66 7.0 4.5 938 0.04 0.06 6.5 1.00 0.0 6.6 A
C 18.6 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 SBL Lead Yes None 21.6 18.8% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 21.6 17.1 17.1 93.4 110.5 110.5
2 NBTL Lag Yes Max 63.3 55.0% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 21.6 84.9 77.9 56.9 0 56.3 35.3
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 30.1 26.2% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 84.9 0 107.9 91.9 63.3 86.3 70.3
None 84.9 73.8% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 0 84.9 77.9 56.9 93.4 56.3 35.3
None 30.1 26.2% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 84.9 0 107.9 91.9 63.3 86.3 70.3
115 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
6 6
3 3 Stop 0% 0.87 3
296 296
8 8
2 2
304 304
2 2
0.87 2
0.87 349
0.87 13
0.87 2
84 84 Free 0% 0.87 97
8 8
0.87 9
69 69 Free 0% 0.87 79
11 11
0.87 340
6 6 Stop 0% 0.87 7
0.87 7
0.87 9
13 None
None
894
896
102
890
894
86
106
92
894 7.1
896 6.5
102 6.2
890 7.1
894 6.5
86 6.2
106 4.1
92 4.1
3.5 97 209
4.0 99 214
3.3 64 954
3.5 93 137
4.0 97 214
3.3 100 973
2.2 77 1485
2.2 100 1503
EB 1 350 7 340 982 0.36 12.4 11.2 B 11.2 B
WB 1 18 9 2 179 0.10 2.5 27.3 D 27.3 D
NB 1 441 349 13 1485 0.23 7.0 6.9 A 6.9
SB 1 108 2 9 1503 0.00 0.0 0.1 A 0.1
8.1 42.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
142 142 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1874 1.00 1874 0.93 153 1 158 2% NA 4
6 6 1900
252 252 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.65 1115 0.93 271 0 271 12% Perm
153 153 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 165 0 165 2% NA 8
241 241 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 259 183 76 3% Perm
375 375 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1150 0.93 403 0 403 2% Perm
212 212 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 228 0 228 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
5 5 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1161 0.93 5 0 5 2% Perm
221 221 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 238 0 238 7% NA 6
369 369 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 397 169 228 11% Perm
8 30.8 30.8 0.29 6.9 3.0 464
2 60.4 60.4 0.58 6.9 4.5 661
0.05 0.16 27.5 1.00 0.2 27.7 C
c0.35 0.61 14.6 1.00 4.2 18.7 B
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 6 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8 30.8 30.8 0.29 6.9 3.0 327
30.8 30.8 0.29 6.9 3.0 549 0.08
c0.24 0.83 34.6 1.00 15.7 50.4 D
0.29 28.6 1.00 0.3 28.9 C 28.9 C 22.6 0.68 105.0 82.7% 15
30.8 30.8 0.29 6.9 3.0 552 0.09 0.30 28.7 1.00 0.3 29.0 C 36.9 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 60.4 60.4 0.58 6.9 4.5 667
60.4 60.4 0.58 6.9 4.5 995 0.13
0.00 0.01 9.5 1.00 0.0 9.5 A
0.23 10.9 1.00 0.5 11.4 B 16.1 B
60.4 60.4 0.58 6.9 4.5 1032 0.13 0.23 10.9 1.00 0.5 11.4 B 11.8 B
6 60.4 60.4 0.58 6.9 4.5 846 0.16 0.27 11.2 1.00 0.8 12.0 B
C 13.8 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
2 SETL
4 NBTL
6 NWTL
8 SBTL
C-Max 57.5 54.8% 39 5.9 1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 25 Yes Yes 0 57.5 50.6 25.6 0 50.6 25.6
None C-Max 47.5 57.5 45.2% 54.8% 38.9 39 5.9 5.9 1 1 10 20 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 7 7 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes 57.5 0 0 57.5 98.1 50.6 82.1 25.6 57.5 0 98.1 50.6 82.1 25.6
None 47.5 45.2% 38.9 5.9 1 10 3 4.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57.5 0 98.1 82.1 57.5 98.1 82.1
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 105 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
104 104
198 198 Free 0% 0.91 218
2 2
47 47
2 2
2 2
5 5
0.91 2
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 5
48 48 Stop 0% 0.91 53
81 81
0.91 52
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 2
203 203 Free 0% 0.91 223
0.91 89
0.91 114
None
None
225
220
890
776
219
863
776
224
225 4.1
220 4.1
890 7.1
776 6.5
219 6.3
863 7.1
776 6.5
224 6.2
2.2 92 1344
2.2 96 1349
3.5 99 183
4.0 81 288
3.4 93 811
3.5 97 197
4.0 82 289
3.3 89 810
EB 1 334 114 2 1344 0.08 2.1 3.2 A 3.2
WB 1 277 52 2 1349 0.04 0.9 1.7 A 1.7
NB 1 118 2 60 422 0.28 8.6 16.8 C 16.8 C 6.5 43.0% 15
SB 1 58 5 0 278 0.21 5.9 21.3 C 14.5 B
SB 2 89 0 89 810 0.11 2.8 10.0 A
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
26 26 1900
29 29 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.99 1746 0.90 1592 0.90 32 38 73 2% NA 4
45 45 1900
89 89 1900
103 103 1900
30 30 1900
90 90 1900
0.90 114 0 0 2%
0.90 33 0 0 2% Perm
0.90 52 0 0 2%
0.90 100 0 0 2% Perm
535 535 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1860 0.89 1669 0.90 594 3 722 2% NA 6
28 28 1900
0.90 99 0 0 3% Perm
304 304 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1845 0.93 1719 0.90 338 8 415 2% NA 2
47 47 1900
0.90 50 0 0 2%
25 25 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.98 1721 0.84 1482 0.90 28 53 188 2% NA 8
0.90 29 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8
2
6
11.4 11.4 0.24 4.5 3.0 375
11.4 11.4 0.24 4.5 3.0 349
27.9 27.9 0.58 4.5 3.0 992
27.9 27.9 0.58 4.5 3.0 964
0.05 0.19 14.8 1.00 0.3 15.0 B 15.0 B
c0.13 0.54 16.2 1.00 1.6 17.8 B 17.8 B
0.24 0.42 5.7 1.00 0.3 6.0 A 6.0 A
c0.43 0.75 7.6 1.00 3.2 10.8 B 10.8 B
10.9 0.69 48.3 81.6% 15
0.90 31 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 42.5 65.4% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 42.5 38 38 0 38 38
None 22.5 34.6% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 42.5 0 60.5 49.5 42.5 60.5 49.5
Min 42.5 65.4% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 42.5 38 38 0 38 38
None 22.5 34.6% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 42.5 0 60.5 49.5 42.5 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph)
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
47 47 0.96 49
Stop 153 153 0.96 159
26 26 0.96 27
23 23 0.96 24
Stop 134 134 0.96 140
16 16 0.96 17
28 28 0.96 29
Stop 28 28 0.96 29
25 25 0.96 26
27 27 0.96 28
Stop 28 28 0.96 29
29 29 0.96 30
Direction, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EB 1 235 49 27 0.01 4.6 0.30 748 9.5 9.5 A
WB 1 181 24 17 0.00 4.6 0.23 737 9.0 9.0 A
NB 1 84 29 26 -0.08 4.9 0.11 665 8.6 8.6 A
SB 1 87 28 30 -0.08 4.9 0.12 662 8.6 8.6 A
Intersection Summary Delay Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
9.1 A 32.1% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
22 22 Stop 0% 0.88 25
125 125
103 103 0.88 117
50 50 Free 0% 0.88 57
26 26
0.88 142
20 20 Free 0% 0.88 23
None
None
329
72
87
329 6.4
72 6.2
87 4.1
3.5 96 614
3.3 86 990
2.2 92 1509
EB 1 167 25 142 907 0.18 5.1 9.9 A 9.9 A
NB 1 140 117 0 1509 0.08 1.9 6.4 A 6.4
SB 1 87 0 30 1700 0.05 0.0 0.0
0.88 30
0.0
6.5 29.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
48 48 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.11 212 0.96 50 0 50 2% Perm
747 747 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1809 1.00 1809 0.96 778 5 845 5% NA 2
69 69 1900
24 24 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.16 300 0.96 25 0 25 2% Perm
837 837 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1852 1.00 1852 0.96 872 3 916 3% NA 6
45 45 1900
51 51 1900
51 51 1900
32 32 1900
0.96 53 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 53 0 0 2%
0.96 33 0 0 2% Perm
51 51 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 0.99 1766 0.91 1626 0.96 53 20 119 2% NA 4
51 51 1900
0.96 47 0 0 2%
31 31 1900 5.0 1.00 0.95 0.98 1739 0.84 1497 0.96 32 20 118 2% NA 8
2 41.2 41.2 0.57 6.0 3.0 119 0.24 0.42 9.0 1.00 2.4 11.4 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.96 72 0 0 3%
6 41.2 41.2 0.57 6.0 3.0 169
41.2 41.2 0.57 6.0 3.0 1023 0.47
0.08 0.15 7.5 1.00 0.4 7.9 A
0.83 12.9 1.00 5.6 18.4 B 18.1 B 20.1 0.68 72.8 68.4% 15
8 41.2 41.2 0.57 6.0 3.0 1048 c0.49 0.87 13.6 1.00 8.3 21.8 C 21.5 C HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 53 0 0 2%
4 20.6 20.6 0.28 5.0 3.0 423
20.6 20.6 0.28 5.0 3.0 460
c0.08 0.28 20.3 1.00 1.6 22.0 C 22.0 C
0.07 0.26 20.2 1.00 1.4 21.6 C 21.6 C C 11.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
None 75 75.0% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 75 69 44 0 69 44
Max 25 25.0% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 75 0 95 85 75 95 85
None 75 75.0% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 75 69 44 0 69 44
Max 25 25.0% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 75 0 95 85 75 95 85
100 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
36 36 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.19 354 0.94 38 0 38 2 Perm
759 759 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1855 1.00 1855 0.94 807 3 877
69 69 1900
27 27 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.23 429 0.94 29 0 29 6 Perm
852 852 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1866 1.00 1866 0.94 906 2 955
48 48 1900
36 36 1900
28 28 1900
49 49 1900
0.94 38 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 30 0 0 3
0.94 52 0 0 3 Perm
111 111 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1827 0.84 1551 0.94 118 4 184
17 17 1900
0.94 51 0 0 2
66 66 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1789 0.81 1469 0.94 70 10 128
6 70.0 70.0 0.70 6.0 3.0 247 0.11 0.15 5.0 1.00 1.3 6.4 A
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.94 73 0 0 6
NA 6
2 70.0 70.0 0.70 6.0 3.0 300
70.0 70.0 0.70 6.0 3.0 1298 0.47
0.07 0.10 4.8 1.00 0.6 5.5 A
0.68 8.5 1.00 2.8 11.4 B 11.2 B 17.0 0.72 100.0 72.8% 15
NA 2
NA 8
8 70.0 70.0 0.70 6.0 3.0 1306 c0.51 0.73 9.2 1.00 3.6 12.9 B 12.6 B HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 18 0 0 7
NA 4
4 18.0 18.0 0.18 6.0 3.0 264
18.0 18.0 0.18 6.0 3.0 279
0.09 0.49 36.8 1.00 6.3 43.1 D 43.1 D
c0.12 0.66 38.1 1.00 11.6 49.7 D 49.7 D B 12.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
6 EBTL
8 NBTL
Max 76 76.0% 28 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 15 Yes Yes 0 76 70 55 0 70 55
Max 24 24.0% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 76 0 94 83 76 94 83
Max 76 76.0% 26 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 13 Yes Yes 0 76 70 57 0 70 57
Max 24 24.0% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 76 0 94 83 76 94 83
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
22 22 1900
306 306 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1843 0.95 1762 0.99 309 8 366 2% NA 4
43 43 1900
49 49 1900
128 128 1900
59 59 1900
245 245 1900
0.99 129 0 0 2%
0.99 60 0 0 3% Perm
0.99 29 0 0 5%
0.99 247 0 0 2% Perm
27 27 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.96 1788 0.73 1353 0.99 27 5 294 2% NA 6
25 25 1900
0.99 49 0 0 10% Perm
47 47 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1771 0.81 1460 0.99 47 15 121 2% NA 2
29 29 1900
0.99 43 0 0 5%
468 468 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1815 0.95 1734 0.99 473 15 636 2% NA 8
0.99 22 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8
2
6
22.9 22.9 0.48 4.5 3.0 845
22.9 22.9 0.48 4.5 3.0 832
15.8 15.8 0.33 4.5 3.0 483
15.8 15.8 0.33 4.5 3.0 448
0.21 0.43 8.1 1.00 0.4 8.5 A 8.5 A
c0.37 0.76 10.2 1.00 4.2 14.4 B 14.4 B
0.08 0.25 11.6 1.00 0.3 11.9 B 11.9 B
c0.22 0.66 13.6 1.00 3.4 17.1 B 17.1 B
13.2 0.72 47.7 78.8% 15
0.99 25 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 10: William St N & Colborne St W
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 26.1 40.2% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 26.1 21.6 21.6 0 21.6 21.6
None 38.9 59.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 26.1 0 60.5 49.5 26.1 60.5 49.5
Min 26.1 40.2% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 26.1 21.6 21.6 0 21.6 21.6
None 38.9 59.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 26.1 0 60.5 49.5 26.1 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
10: William St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
176 176 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1706 0.14 245 0.87 202 0 202 7% pm+pt 7 4 38.1 38.1 0.64 4.5 3.0 295 c0.06 0.37 0.68 9.6 1.00 6.4 16.0 B
326 326 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1849 1.00 1849 0.87 375 3 397 3% NA 4
22 22 1900
25 25 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.53 992 0.87 29 0 29 2% Perm
582 582 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1862 1.00 1862 0.87 669 4 721 2% NA 8
49 49 1900
25 25 1900
26 26 1900
0.87 56 0 0 2%
0.87 29 0 0 2% Perm
58 58 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.99 1784 0.92 1664 0.87 67 17 109 4% NA 2
115 115 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1644 0.72 1242 0.87 132 0 132 11% Perm
57 57 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.87 66 0 66 2% NA 6
288 288 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.87 331 219 112 2% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.87 25 0 0 2%
8 28.0 28.0 0.47 4.5 3.0 468
38.1 38.1 0.64 4.5 3.0 1187 0.22
0.03 0.06 8.5 1.00 0.1 8.6 A
0.33 4.8 1.00 0.2 5.0 A 8.7 A 16.7 0.73 59.3 68.7% 15
0.87 30 0 0 2%
2 28.0 28.0 0.47 4.5 3.0 879 c0.39 0.82 13.5 1.00 6.2 19.7 B 19.3 B HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
6 12.2 12.2 0.21 4.5 3.0 255
12.2 12.2 0.21 4.5 3.0 342 0.07 0.32 20.0 1.00 0.5 20.5 C 20.5 C
c0.11 0.52 20.9 1.00 1.8 22.7 C
12.2 12.2 0.21 4.5 3.0 387 0.04 0.17 19.4 1.00 0.2 19.6 B 21.1 C
6 12.2 12.2 0.21 4.5 3.0 329 0.07 0.34 20.1 1.00 0.6 20.7 C
B 13.5 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 11: St David St & Colborne St E
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Min 29 38.7% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 29 24.5 24.5 0 24.5 24.5
None 46 61.3% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 29 0 70.5 59.5 29 70.5 59.5
Min 29 38.7% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 29 24.5 24.5 0 24.5 24.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
75 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
7 EBL Lead Yes None 10 13.3% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 29 39 34.5 34.5 29 34.5 34.5
8 WBTL Lag Yes None 36 48.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 39 0 70.5 59.5 39 70.5 59.5
11: St David St & Colborne St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
377 377 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.17 311 0.89 424 0 424 2% pm+pt 7 4 46.4 46.4 0.50 4.5 3.0 509 c0.20 c0.22 0.83 22.1 1.00 11.2 33.3 C
219 219 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.89 246 0 246 2% NA 4
81 81 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 91 62 29 2% Perm
275 275 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.61 1142 0.89 309 0 309 2% pm+pt 3 8 32.3 32.3 0.35 4.5 3.0 485 0.09 0.14 0.64 23.8 1.00 2.7 26.6 C
324 324 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.89 364 0 364 2% NA 8
277 277 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 311 149 162 2% Perm
45 45 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.41 768 0.89 51 0 51 2% Perm
495 495 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3349 1.00 3349 0.89 556 0 556 9% NA 2
221 221 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1228 1.00 1228 0.89 248 154 94 33% Perm
571 571 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3510 1.00 3510 0.89 642 0 642 4% NA 6
390 390 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 438 239 199 2% Perm
8 19.7 19.7 0.21 4.5 3.0 339
2 20.1 20.1 0.22 4.5 3.0 166
0.10 0.48 32.0 1.00 1.1 33.1 C
0.07 0.31 30.5 1.00 1.1 31.6 C
218 218 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.19 356 0.89 245 0 245 2% pm+pt 1 6 37.4 37.4 0.40 4.5 3.0 341 c0.10 c0.19 0.72 20.7 1.00 7.1 27.7 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
29.3 29.3 0.32 4.5 3.0 594 0.13 0.41 25.0 1.00 0.5 25.5 C 29.4 C
4 29.3 29.3 0.32 4.5 3.0 505 0.02 0.06 22.1 1.00 0.0 22.2 C
31.2 0.84 92.8 78.7% 15
19.7 19.7 0.21 4.5 3.0 399 0.19 0.91 35.7 1.00 24.7 60.4 E 41.2 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
20.1 20.1 0.22 4.5 3.0 725 0.17 0.77 34.1 1.00 4.9 39.0 D 36.4 D
2 20.1 20.1 0.22 4.5 3.0 265 0.08 0.35 30.8 1.00 0.8 31.7 C
37.4 37.4 0.40 4.5 3.0 1414 0.18 0.45 20.2 1.00 0.2 20.5 C 21.4 C
6 37.4 37.4 0.40 4.5 3.0 645 0.12 0.31 18.9 1.00 0.3 19.2 B
C 18.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 SBL Lead Yes None 19 19.0% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 19 14.5 14.5 81 95.5 95.5
2 NBTL Lag Yes Min 28 28.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 19 47 42.5 42.5 0 23.5 23.5
3 WBL Lead Yes None 18.2 18.2% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 47 65.2 60.7 60.7 28 41.7 41.7
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 34.8 34.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 65.2 0 95.5 84.5 46.2 76.5 65.5
6 SBTL Min 47 47.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 47 42.5 42.5 81 23.5 23.5
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
7 EBL Lead Yes None 29 29.0% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 47 76 71.5 71.5 28 52.5 52.5
8 WBTL Lag Yes None 24 24.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 76 0 95.5 84.5 57 76.5 65.5
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
112 112 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.25 463 0.89 126 0 126 2% pm+pt 5 2 53.1 53.1 0.51 5.0 3.0 372 0.04 0.14 0.34 14.8 1.00 0.5 15.3 B
942 942 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3579 1.00 3579 0.89 1058 0 1058 2% NA 2
19 19 1900 5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 21 13 8 2% Perm
111 111 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.12 234 0.89 125 0 125 2% pm+pt 1 6 52.3 52.3 0.50 5.0 3.0 272 c0.05 0.18 0.46 17.3 1.00 1.2 18.6 B
681 681 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3544 1.00 3544 0.89 765 0 765 3% NA 6
133 133 1900 5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 149 65 84 2% Perm
95 95 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.57 1081 0.89 107 0 107 2% Perm
86 86 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.89 97 0 97 2% NA 4
61 61 1900 5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1498 1.00 1498 0.89 69 57 12 9% Perm
119 119 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1715 1.00 1715 0.89 134 43 263 2% NA 8
153 153 1900
6 41.8 41.8 0.40 5.0 3.0 639
4 17.7 17.7 0.17 5.0 3.0 182
0.05 0.13 19.9 1.00 0.1 20.0 C
c0.10 0.59 40.1 1.00 4.8 44.9 D
204 204 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.55 1042 0.89 229 0 229 2% pm+pt 3 8 37.0 37.0 0.35 4.5 3.0 473 c0.07 0.10 0.48 25.2 1.00 0.8 26.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
42.2 42.2 0.40 5.0 3.0 1442 c0.30 0.73 26.5 1.00 3.3 29.8 C 28.1 C
2 42.2 42.2 0.40 5.0 3.0 645 0.01 0.01 18.8 1.00 0.0 18.8 B
27.2 0.63 104.7 79.2% 15
41.8 41.8 0.40 5.0 3.0 1414 0.22 0.54 24.1 1.00 0.4 24.5 C 23.2 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
17.7 17.7 0.17 5.0 3.0 318 0.05 0.31 38.1 1.00 0.5 38.7 D 40.6 D
4 17.7 17.7 0.17 5.0 3.0 253 0.01 0.05 36.4 1.00 0.1 36.5 D
0.89 172 0 0 3%
37.0 37.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 606 0.15 0.43 25.8 1.00 0.5 26.3 C 26.2 C
C 19.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 WBL Lead Yes None 17 14.8% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 1 0 0 Yes Yes 0 17 12 12 98 110 110
2 EBTL Lag Yes Max 47 40.9% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 17 64 59 49 0 42 32
3 SBL Lead Yes None 23 20.0% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 64 87 82.5 82.5 47 65.5 65.5
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
4 NBTL Lag Yes None 28 24.3% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 87 0 110 100 70 93 83
5 EBL Lead Yes None 19 16.5% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 Yes Yes 0 19 14 14 98 112 112
6 WBTL Lag Yes None 45 39.1% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 19 64 59 49 2 42 32
8 SBTL None 51 44.3% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 64 0 110 100 47 93 83
115 Semi Act-Uncoord 85
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
357 357 1900 5.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3471 0.17 629 0.95 376 0 376 2% pm+pt 1 6 47.7 47.7 0.47 5.0 3.0 594 c0.07 0.23 0.63 18.1 1.00 2.2 20.3 C
672 672 1900 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3579 1.00 3579 0.95 707 0 707 2% NA 6
381 381 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 401 186 215 2% Perm
61 61 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.31 559 0.95 64 0 64 6% pm+pt 5 2 39.5 39.5 0.39 5.0 3.0 293 0.01 0.07 0.22 19.5 1.00 0.4 19.9 B
763 763 1900 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3579 1.00 3579 0.95 803 0 803 2% NA 2
131 131 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 138 93 45 2% Perm
318 318 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.51 952 0.95 335 0 335 2% pm+pt 3 8 35.0 35.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 397 c0.07 c0.23 0.84 28.5 1.00 15.0 43.5 D
367 367 1900 6.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3446 1.00 3446 0.95 386 19 454 3% NA 8
83 83 1900
104 104 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.38 704 0.95 109 0 109 3% pm+pt 7 4 35.0 35.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 329 0.03 0.09 0.33 23.0 1.00 0.6 23.6 C
322 322 1900 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3544 1.00 3544 0.95 339 0 339 3% NA 4
293 293 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.95 308 170 138 3% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
37.2 37.2 0.37 6.0 3.0 1323 0.20 0.53 24.9 1.00 1.6 26.4 C 24.4 C
6 37.2 37.2 0.37 6.0 3.0 592 0.13 0.36 23.1 1.00 1.7 24.8 C
29.5 0.75 100.6 80.6% 15
33.1 33.1 0.33 6.0 3.0 1177 c0.22 0.68 29.2 1.00 3.2 32.4 C 30.4 C
2 33.1 33.1 0.33 6.0 3.0 526 0.03 0.09 23.3 1.00 0.3 23.6 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 87 0 0 3%
27.0 27.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 924 0.13 0.49 31.0 1.00 1.9 32.9 C 37.3 D
27.0 27.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 951 0.10 0.36 29.8 1.00 1.0 30.8 C 30.0 C
4 27.0 27.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 425 0.09 0.32 29.5 1.00 2.0 31.5 C
C 22.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBL Lead Yes None 16 16.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 16 11 11 84 95 95
2 WBTL Lag Yes Max 38 38.0% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 16 54 48 31 0 32 15
3 NBL Lead Yes None 13 13.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 54 67 62 62 38 46 46
4 SBTL Lag Yes Max 33 33.0% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 67 0 94 77 51 78 61
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
5 WBL Lead Yes None 13 13.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 13 8 8 84 92 92
6 EBTL Lag Yes Max 41 41.0% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 13 54 48 31 97 32 15
7 SBL Lead Yes None 13 13.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 54 67 62 62 38 46 46
8 NBTL Lag Yes Max 33 33.0% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 67 0 94 77 51 78 61
100 Semi Act-Uncoord 95
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
23 23
55 55 Stop 0% 0.89 62
26 26
86 86
21 21
20 20
24 24
0.89 24
0.89 22
0.89 31
0.89 27
72 72 Free 0% 0.89 81
15 15
0.89 97
100 100 Free 0% 0.89 112
28 28
0.89 29
20 20 Stop 0% 0.89 22
0.89 26
None
0.89 17
None 387
350
330
90
375
324
128
98
143
350 7.1
330 6.5
90 6.2
375 7.1
324 6.5
128 6.2
98 4.1
143 4.1
3.5 95 557
4.0 89 569
3.3 97 968
3.5 81 505
4.0 96 574
3.3 97 923
2.2 99 1495
2.2 98 1440
EB 1 117 26 29 631 0.19 5.1 12.0 B 12.0 B
WB 1 143 97 24 558 0.26 7.7 13.7 B 13.7 B
NB 1 165 22 31 1495 0.01 0.3 1.1 A 1.1
SB 1 125 27 17 1440 0.02 0.4 1.7 A 1.7
6.8 30.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
26 26 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.45 793 0.97 27 0 27 10% Perm
337 337 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1840 1.00 1840 0.97 347 6 389 2% NA 8
47 47 1900
134 134 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.22 405 0.97 138 0 138 2% pm+pt 7 4 42.9 42.9 0.50 5.0 3.0 450 0.05 0.10 0.31 13.2 1.00 0.4 13.5 B
396 396 1900 6.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1807 1.00 1807 0.97 408 16 544 2% NA 4
147 147 1900
22 22 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.65 1228 0.97 23 0 23 2% Perm
55 55 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1757 1.00 1757 0.97 57 23 80 2% NA 2
45 45 1900
42 42 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.69 1275 0.97 43 0 43 4% Perm
136 136 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1839 1.00 1839 0.97 140 5 161 2% NA 6
25 25 1900
8 22.8 22.8 0.27 6.0 3.0 212 0.03 0.13 23.6 1.00 0.3 23.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.97 48 0 0 6%
22.8 22.8 0.27 6.0 3.0 493 c0.21 0.79 28.9 1.00 8.2 37.1 D 36.2 D 22.5 0.53 85.0 78.1% 15
0.97 152 0 0 2%
42.9 42.9 0.50 6.0 3.0 912 c0.30 0.60 14.9 1.00 1.1 16.0 B 15.5 B
2 30.1 30.1 0.35 6.0 3.0 434 0.02 0.05 18.1 1.00 0.2 18.3 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 46 0 0 2%
6 30.1 30.1 0.35 6.0 3.0 451
30.1 30.1 0.35 6.0 3.0 622 0.05
0.03 0.10 18.3 1.00 0.4 18.8 B
0.13 18.6 1.00 0.4 19.0 B 18.9 B
0.97 26 0 0 2%
30.1 30.1 0.35 6.0 3.0 651 c0.09 0.25 19.4 1.00 0.9 20.3 C 20.0 C
C 17.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 WBTL
6 SBTL
Max 36 32.7% 31 4 2 25 3 1 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 0 36 30 22 0 30 22
None 74 67.3% 32 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 36 0 104 96 36 104 96
Max 36 32.7% 32 4 2 25 3 3 0 0 18 8 Yes Yes 0 36 30 22 0 30 22
7 WBL Lead Yes None 23 20.9% 23 4 1 15 3 3 0 0 No Yes 36 59 54 54 36 54 54
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8 EBTL Lag Yes None 51 46.4% 21 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 7 8 Yes Yes 59 0 104 96 59 104 96
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
125 125 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.06 111 0.91 137 0 137 5% pm+pt 3 4 73.0 73.0 0.63 2.0 3.0 169 c0.05 0.46 0.81 31.4 1.00 24.6 56.0 E
400 400 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1862 1.00 1862 0.91 440 3 471 2% NA 4
31 31 1900
240 240 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.41 765 0.91 264 0 264 2% pm+pt 3 4 73.0 73.0 0.63 2.0 3.0 547 0.03 0.28 0.48 10.0 1.00 0.7 10.7 B
937 937 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1862 1.00 1862 0.91 1030 1 1056 2% NA 4
25 25 1900
41 41 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.47 890 0.91 45 0 45 2% Perm
165 165 1900 6.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1737 1.00 1737 0.91 181 26 304 4% NA 2
136 136 1900
28 28 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.29 546 0.91 31 0 31 2% Perm
207 207 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.91 227 0 227 2% NA 2
25 25 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 27 20 7 3% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.91 34 0 0 3%
66.0 66.0 0.57 6.0 3.0 1068 0.25 0.44 14.0 1.00 0.3 14.3 B 23.6 C 38.0 0.90 115.0 105.2% 15
0.91 27 0 0 33%
66.0 66.0 0.57 6.0 3.0 1068 c0.57 0.99 24.1 1.00 24.6 48.7 D 41.1 D
2 28.0 28.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 216 0.05 0.21 34.7 1.00 2.2 36.8 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.91 149 0 0 2%
2 28.0 28.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 132
28.0 28.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 422 c0.18
0.06 0.23 34.9 1.00 4.1 39.0 D
0.72 39.9 1.00 10.2 50.1 D 48.5 D
28.0 28.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 458 0.12 0.50 37.4 1.00 3.8 41.2 D 40.2 D
2 28.0 28.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 385 0.00 0.02 33.0 1.00 0.1 33.1 C
D 14.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 3 4 NBSB EBWBL EBWB Lead Lag Yes Yes Max None None 34 9 72 29.6% 7.8% 62.6% 33 9 28 4 2 4 2 0 2 17 4.5 8 3 3 3 0.2 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 15 10 7 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 34 43 34 43 0 28 41 109 18 41 102 0 34 43 28 41 109 18 41 102
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
115 Actuated-Uncoordinated 100
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
176 176 1900
326 326 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 1839 0.64 1195 0.91 358 1 574
22 22 1900
25 25 1900
49 49 1900
25 25 1900
115 115 1900
0.91 27 0 0 5 Perm
0.91 54 0 0 1
0.91 27 0 0
58 58 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 1802 0.90 1643 0.91 64 18 102
26 26 1900
0.91 24 0 0 5
582 582 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1858 0.97 1810 0.91 640 2 719
0.91 29 0 0
0.91 126 0 0
57 57 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1823 0.76 1427 0.91 63 0 189
288 288 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.91 316 138 178
NA 6
Perm
0.91 193 0 0 1 Perm
NA 4
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
NA 8
8
Perm
NA 2
Perm
2
6
41.7 41.7 0.64 4.5 3.0 770
41.7 41.7 0.64 4.5 3.0 1166
14.0 14.0 0.22 4.5 3.0 355
14.0 14.0 0.22 4.5 3.0 308
c0.48 0.75 7.9 1.00 3.9 11.8 B 11.8 B
0.40 0.62 6.8 1.00 1.0 7.8 A 7.8 A
0.06 0.29 21.2 1.00 0.4 21.6 C 21.6 C
c0.13 0.61 22.9 1.00 3.6 26.5 C 24.7 C
14.3 0.71 64.7 90.5% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 E
6 14.0 14.0 0.22 4.5 3.0 346 0.11 0.51 22.4 1.00 1.3 23.6 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: St David St & Queen St
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 44 48.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 44 39.5 39.5 0 39.5 39.5
None 46 51.1% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 44 0 85.5 74.5 44 85.5 74.5
Min 44 48.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 44 39.5 39.5 0 39.5 39.5
None 46 51.1% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 44 0 85.5 74.5 44 85.5 74.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Actuated-Uncoordinated 65
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
18: St David St & Queen St
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
37 37 1900 6.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.14 246 0.95 39 0 39 10% Perm
149 149 1900 6.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.95 157 0 157 5% NA 4
66 66 1900 6.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 69 48 21 2% Perm
35 35 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1472 0.57 879 0.95 37 0 37 24% pm+pt 3 8 35.9 35.9 0.39 4.5 3.0 364 0.00 0.04 0.10 17.4 1.00 0.1 17.5 B
400 400 1900 6.5 1.00 0.93 1.00 1667 1.00 1667 0.95 421 30 717 9% NA 8
310 310 1900
110 110 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.45 843 0.95 116 0 116 3% pm+pt 5 2 32.0 32.0 0.35 4.5 3.0 364 0.02 0.09 0.32 20.7 1.00 0.5 21.2 C
326 326 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 343 0 343 9% NA 2
489 489 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 515 373 142 17% Perm
243 243 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.31 573 0.95 256 0 256 4% pm+pt 1 6 42.0 42.0 0.46 4.5 3.0 422 c0.08 0.20 0.61 16.9 1.00 2.5 19.3 B
510 510 1900 7.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3444 1.00 3444 0.95 537 0 537 6% NA 6
114 114 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 120 80 40 6% Perm
4 28.4 28.4 0.31 6.5 3.0 76 0.16 0.51 25.8 1.00 5.7 31.6 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
28.4 28.4 0.31 6.5 3.0 568 0.09 0.28 23.8 1.00 0.3 24.0 C 24.6 C
4 28.4 28.4 0.31 6.5 3.0 497 0.01 0.04 22.0 1.00 0.0 22.0 C
43.5 0.94 91.4 85.6% 15
0.95 326 0 0 6%
35.9 35.9 0.39 6.5 3.0 654 c0.43 1.10 27.8 1.00 64.2 92.0 F 88.5 F
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
25.2 25.2 0.28 7.0 3.0 485 c0.19 0.71 29.8 1.00 8.4 38.2 D 31.5 C
2 25.2 25.2 0.28 7.0 3.0 384 0.10 0.37 26.7 1.00 2.7 29.4 C
30.7 30.7 0.34 7.0 3.0 1156 0.16 0.46 23.9 1.00 1.3 25.2 C 23.0 C
6 30.7 30.7 0.34 7.0 3.0 517 0.03 0.08 20.7 1.00 0.3 21.0 C
D 22.5 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 SBL Lead Yes None 18.6 20.7% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 18.6 14.1 14.1 71.4 85.5 85.5
2 NBTL Lag Yes Max 30.9 34.3% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 18.6 49.5 42.5 26.5 0 23.9 7.9
3 WBL Lead Yes None 9.5 10.6% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 49.5 59 54.5 54.5 30.9 35.9 35.9
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 31 34.4% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 59 0 83.5 72.5 40.4 64.9 53.9
5 NBL Lead Yes None 13.5 15.0% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 13.5 9 9 71.4 80.4 80.4
6 SBTL Lag Yes Max 36 40.0% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 13.5 49.5 42.5 26.5 84.9 23.9 7.9
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8 WBTL None 40.5 45.0% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 49.5 0 83.5 72.5 30.9 64.9 53.9
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
3 3 Stop 0% 0.91 3
34 34
37 37 0.91 41
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 37
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
82
0
0
82 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 896
3.5 96 1021
2.8 97 1301
EB 1 40 3 37 1011 0.04 0.9 8.7 A 8.7 A
NB 1 41 41 0 1301 0.03 0.7 7.9 A 7.9
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.3 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 34
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
25 25 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1779 0.28 520 0.92 27 0 27 7 Perm
66 66 1900 4.5 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.94 1.00 1560 1.00 1560 0.92 72 26 96
46 46 1900
90 90 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.95 1395 0.61 897 0.92 98 0 98 102 Perm
25 25 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.86 1.00 1560 1.00 1560 0.92 27 297 156
392 392 1900
54 54 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1775 0.32 600 0.92 59 0 59 11 Perm
819 819 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.92 890 0 890
129 129 1900 4.5 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.85 1.00 803 1.00 803 0.92 140 61 79 183 Perm
416 416 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.08 145 0.92 452 0 452 183 pm+pt 1 6 72.6 72.6 0.76 4.5 3.0 462 c0.21 c0.53 0.98 31.2 1.00 35.8 67.1 E
831 831 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1872 1.00 1872 0.92 903 1 930
26 26 1900
4 14.4 14.4 0.15 4.5 3.0 78 0.05 0.35 36.6 1.00 2.7 39.2 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.92 50 0 0 102
NA 4
8 14.4 14.4 0.15 4.5 3.0 134
14.4 14.4 0.15 4.5 3.0 234 0.06
c0.11 0.73 39.0 1.00 18.5 57.4 E
0.41 36.9 1.00 1.2 38.1 D 38.3 D 34.5 0.97 96.0 103.6% 15
0.92 426 0 0 7
NA 8 14.4 14.4 0.15 4.5 3.0 234 0.10 0.67 38.5 1.00 7.0 45.6 D 47.7 D
2 47.5 47.5 0.49 4.5 3.0 296 0.10 0.20 13.6 1.00 0.3 13.9 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
NA 2 47.5 47.5 0.49 4.5 3.0 931 0.47 0.96 23.2 1.00 19.5 42.7 D 37.4 D
2 47.5 47.5 0.49 4.5 3.0 397 0.10 0.20 13.6 1.00 0.2 13.8 B
0.92 28 0 0 11
NA 6 72.6 72.6 0.76 4.5 3.0 1415 0.50 0.66 5.7 1.00 1.1 6.8 A 26.5 C
C 13.5 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 35
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 SBL Lead Yes None 25 25.0% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 25 20.5 20.5 75 95.5 95.5
2 NBTL Lag Yes Min 52.4 52.4% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 25 77.4 72.9 72.9 0 47.9 47.9
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
None 22.6 22.6% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 77.4 0 95.5 84.5 52.4 70.5 59.5
Min 77.4 77.4% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 77.4 72.9 72.9 75 47.9 47.9
None 22.6 22.6% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 77.4 0 95.5 84.5 52.4 70.5 59.5
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 100
21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 36
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside Drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
23 23 Stop 0% 0.87 26
29 29
49 49 0.87 56
764 764 Free 0% 0.87 878
30 30
0.87 33
800 800 Free 0% 0.87 920
None
None
1927
895
912
1927 6.4
895 6.5
912 4.1
3.5 62 68
3.6 89 301
2.2 93 747
EB 1 26 26 0 68 0.38 11.1 88.2 F 49.2 E
EB 2 33 0 33 301 0.11 2.8 18.4 C
NB 1 976 56 0 747 0.07 1.8 2.2 A 2.2
2.6 92.2% 15
0.87 34
SB 1 912 0 34 1700 0.54 0.0 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
F
Synchro 11 Report Page 37
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
69 69 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1601 0.33 559 0.86 80 0 80 14% Perm
156 156 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1817 1.00 1817 0.86 181 6 201 4% NA 4
22 22 1900
139 139 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.52 946 0.86 162 0 162 5% Perm
168 168 1900 5.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1783 1.00 1783 0.86 195 24 278 2% NA 8
92 92 1900
64 64 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.36 678 0.86 74 0 74 2% Perm
765 765 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.86 890 0 890 7% NA 2
203 203 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.86 236 106 130 2% Perm
111 111 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.08 144 0.86 129 0 129 2% pm+pt 1 6 58.8 58.8 0.65 4.5 3.0 214 0.04 0.35 0.60 17.2 1.00 4.7 21.9 C
616 616 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.86 716 0 716 3% NA 6
66 66 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1286 1.00 1286 0.86 77 27 50 27% Perm
4 20.2 20.2 0.22 5.5 3.0 125 0.14 0.64 31.6 1.00 10.7 42.3 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.86 26 0 0 2%
8 20.2 20.2 0.22 5.5 3.0 212
20.2 20.2 0.22 5.5 3.0 407 0.11
c0.17 0.76 32.7 1.00 15.0 47.7 D
0.49 30.4 1.00 0.9 31.4 C 34.4 C 26.6 0.87 90.0 101.0% 15
0.86 107 0 0 2%
20.2 20.2 0.22 5.5 3.0 400 0.16 0.69 32.1 1.00 5.2 37.2 D 40.9 D
2 47.7 47.7 0.53 5.5 3.0 359 0.11 0.21 11.2 1.00 1.3 12.5 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
47.7 47.7 0.53 5.5 3.0 951 c0.50 0.94 19.7 1.00 17.3 37.0 D 30.4 C
2 47.7 47.7 0.53 5.5 3.0 848 0.08 0.15 10.8 1.00 0.4 11.2 B
58.8 58.8 0.65 5.5 3.0 1218 c0.38 0.59 8.8 1.00 2.1 10.9 B 12.0 B
6 58.8 58.8 0.65 5.5 3.0 840 0.04 0.06 5.6 1.00 0.1 5.8 A
C 15.5 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 38
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
1 2 SBL NBTL Lead Lag Yes Yes None C-Max 10 49 11.1% 54.4% 9.5 40.5 3.5 3.5 1 2 5 35 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 25 10 No Yes Yes Yes 80 0 0 49 85.5 43.5 85.5 33.5 80 0 85.5 43.5 85.5 33.5
4 EBTL
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
None C-Max 31 59 34.4% 65.6% 30.5 40.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 8 35 3 3 3.5 1 0 0 0 0 15 25 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 49 80 80 49 74.5 43.5 64.5 33.5 49 80 74.5 43.5 64.5 33.5
None 31 34.4% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 3.5 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 49 80 74.5 64.5 49 74.5 64.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 90 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 85 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 39
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
119 119 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.71 1331 0.93 128 0 128 2% Perm
32 32 1900 5.5 1.00 0.87 1.00 1620 1.00 1620 0.93 34 142 68 2% NA 4
164 164 1900
26 26 1900
25 25 1900
629 629 1900 5.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1874 1.00 1874 0.93 676 2 698 2% NA 2
27 27 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.30 496 0.93 29 0 29 17% Perm
421 421 1900 5.5 1.00 0.96 1.00 1796 1.00 1796 0.93 453 14 601 3% NA 6
151 151 1900
0.93 28 0 0 2% Perm
231 231 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.36 676 0.93 248 0 248 2% Perm
22 22 1900
0.93 176 0 0 4%
20 20 1900 5.5 1.00 0.95 0.98 1762 0.81 1460 0.93 22 22 55 2% NA 8
4 11.0 11.0 0.19 5.5 3.0 256 c0.10 0.50 20.6 1.00 1.5 22.1 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
0.93 27 0 0 2%
8 11.0 11.0 0.19 5.5 3.0 312 0.04
11.0 11.0 0.19 5.5 3.0 281 0.04 0.20 19.3 1.00 0.3 19.7 B 19.7 B
0.22 19.4 1.00 0.4 19.8 B 20.7 C 11.6 0.58 57.1 100.4% 15
2 35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 415 0.37 0.60 6.7 1.00 6.2 12.9 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 24 0 0 2%
6 35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 304
35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 1151 c0.37
0.06 0.10 4.5 1.00 0.6 5.1 A
0.61 6.8 1.00 2.4 9.1 A 10.1 B
0.93 162 0 0 2%
35.1 35.1 0.61 5.5 3.0 1104 0.33 0.54 6.4 1.00 1.9 8.3 A 8.2 A
B 11.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 40
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 80
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 41
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
128 128 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.95 1722 0.96 133 0 133 6% Prot 8
244 244 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 254 153 101 2% Perm
819 819 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1858 1.00 1858 0.96 853 6 943 2% NA 2
92 92 1900
98 98 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.15 286 0.96 102 0 102 4% Perm
503 503 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.96 524 0 524 3% NA 6
10.1 10.1 0.19 4.5 3.0 334 c0.08 0.40 18.3 1.00 0.8 19.1 B 18.8 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
8 10.1 10.1 0.19 4.5 3.0 310 0.06 0.33 18.0 1.00 0.6 18.6 B
32.9 32.9 0.63 4.5 3.0 1175 c0.51 0.80 7.1 1.00 4.1 11.2 B 11.2 B 11.0 0.71 52.0 72.5% 15
0.96 96 0 0 2%
6 32.9 32.9 0.63 4.5 3.0 180 0.36 0.57 5.5 1.00 4.0 9.5 A
32.9 32.9 0.63 4.5 3.0 1179 0.28 0.44 4.9 1.00 0.3 5.1 A 5.9 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 42
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBT
6 SBTL
8 WBL
Min 52.5 70.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 52.5 48 48 0 48 48
Min 52.5 70.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 52.5 48 48 0 48 48
None 22.5 30.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 52.5 0 70.5 59.5 52.5 70.5 59.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
75 Actuated-Uncoordinated 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 43
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 AM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
22 22
42 42 Stop 0% 0.75 56
23 23
46 46
23 23
46 46
25 25
0.75 31
0.75 61
0.75 61
0.75 33
53 53 Free 0% 0.75 71
26 26
0.75 61
53 53 Free 0% 0.75 71
46 46
0.75 31
34 34 Stop 0% 0.75 45
0.75 29
None
None
432
408
88
437
396
102
106
132
432 7.1
408 6.5
88 6.2
437 7.1
396 6.5
102 6.2
106 4.1
132 4.1
3.5 94 459
4.0 89 499
3.3 97 970
3.5 86 447
4.0 91 507
3.3 97 954
2.2 96 1485
2.2 98 1453
EB 1 116 29 31 559 0.21 5.9 13.1 B 13.1 B
WB 1 137 61 31 531 0.26 7.8 14.1 B 14.1 B
NB 1 193 61 61 1485 0.04 1.0 2.6 A 2.6
SB 1 139 33 35 1453 0.02 0.5 1.9 A 1.9
7.2 28.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 35
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 44
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128 128 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.58 1021 0.94 136 0 136 9% Perm
86 86 1900 7.1 1.00 0.94 1.00 1765 1.00 1765 0.94 91 22 135 2% NA 4
62 62 1900
63 63 1900
0.94 66 0 0 2%
0.94 67 0 0 2% Perm
97 97 1900 7.1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1815 0.74 1376 0.94 103 0 170 5% NA 8
317 317 1900 7.1 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 337 264 73 2% Perm
80 80 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.41 765 0.94 85 0 85 3% Perm
833 833 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.94 886 0 886 3% NA 2
34 34 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.94 36 18 18 2% Perm
630 630 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.94 670 0 670 5% NA 6
94 94 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1420 1.00 1420 0.94 100 32 68 15% Perm
8 23.0 23.0 0.20 7.1 3.5 320
2 56.3 56.3 0.49 7.0 4.5 374
0.05 0.23 38.6 1.00 0.4 39.0 D
0.11 0.23 16.9 1.00 1.4 18.3 B
299 299 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.07 122 0.94 318 0 318 4% pm+pt 1 6 77.9 77.9 0.68 4.5 3.0 325 c0.15 c0.52 0.98 38.9 1.00 43.6 82.5 F
4 23.0 23.0 0.20 7.1 3.5 204 c0.13 0.67 42.5 1.00 16.0 58.4 E
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
8 23.0 23.0 0.20 7.1 3.5 353 0.08
23.0 23.0 0.20 7.1 3.5 275 0.12 0.62 42.0 1.00 4.3 46.3 D 41.4 D
0.38 39.8 1.00 3.1 42.9 D 50.1 D 40.6 0.93 115.0 98.7% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
56.3 56.3 0.49 7.0 4.5 913 0.48 0.97 28.5 1.00 23.4 52.0 D 47.8 D
2 56.3 56.3 0.49 7.0 4.5 783 0.01 0.02 15.1 1.00 0.1 15.2 B
77.9 77.9 0.68 7.0 4.5 1239 0.37 0.54 9.4 1.00 0.7 10.2 B 31.0 C
6 77.9 77.9 0.68 7.0 4.5 961 0.05 0.07 6.3 1.00 0.1 6.3 A
D 18.6 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 SBL Lead Yes None 21.6 18.8% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 21.6 17.1 17.1 93.4 110.5 110.5
2 NBTL Lag Yes Max 63.3 55.0% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 21.6 84.9 77.9 56.9 0 56.3 35.3
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 30.1 26.2% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 84.9 0 107.9 91.9 63.3 86.3 70.3
None 84.9 73.8% 35 5.9 1.1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 21 Yes Yes 0 84.9 77.9 56.9 93.4 56.3 35.3
None 30.1 26.2% 30.1 5.9 1.2 10 3.5 3.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 84.9 0 107.9 91.9 63.3 86.3 70.3
115 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
1: Hwy 35 & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Angeline St N & CKL Rd 4 (Thunder Bridge Rd)
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20
3 3 Stop 0% 0.87 3
472 472
9 9
2 2
479 479
0 0
0.87 2
0.87 551
0.87 9
0.87 0
56 56 Free 0% 0.87 64
8 8
0.87 10
64 64 Free 0% 0.87 74
8 8
0.87 543
0 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0
0.87 23
0.87 9
13 None
None
1251
1254
68
1250
1254
78
73
83
1251 7.1
1254 6.5
68 6.2
1250 7.1
1254 6.5
78 6.2
73 4.1
83 4.1
3.5 79 107
4.0 97 110
3.3 45 995
3.5 79 48
4.0 100 110
3.3 100 982
2.2 64 1527
2.2 100 1514
EB 1 569 23 543 1042 0.55 25.9 14.5 B 14.5 B
WB 1 12 10 2 57 0.21 5.4 84.4 F 84.4 F
NB 1 634 551 9 1527 0.36 12.7 8.0 A 8.0
SB 1 73 0 9 1514 0.00 0.0 0.0
11.1 51.0% 15
0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
SEL
SET
SER
NWL
NWT
NWR
0 0 1900
131 131 1900 6.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 1868 1.00 1868 0.93 141 2 148 2% NA 4
8 8 1900
406 406 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.66 1135 0.93 437 0 437 12% Perm
275 275 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.93 296 0 296 2% NA 8
574 574 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.93 617 287 330 3% Perm
435 435 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.52 970 0.93 468 0 468 2% Perm
310 310 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1731 1.00 1731 0.93 333 0 333 11% NA 2
0 0 1900
11 11 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.50 941 0.93 12 0 12 2% Perm
295 295 1900 6.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.93 317 0 317 7% NA 6
252 252 1900 6.9 1.00 0.85 1.00 1471 1.00 1471 0.93 271 140 131 11% Perm
8 40.6 40.6 0.39 6.9 3.0 612
2 50.6 50.6 0.48 6.9 4.5 467
0.21 0.54 25.0 1.00 0.9 25.9 C
c0.48 1.00 27.2 1.00 42.2 69.4 E
0.93 0 0 0 2%
0.93 9 0 0 2%
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
8 40.6 40.6 0.39 6.9 3.0 438
40.6 40.6 0.39 6.9 3.0 722 0.08
c0.39 1.00 32.2 1.00 42.1 74.3 E
0.20 21.4 1.00 0.1 21.6 C 21.6 C 37.2 1.00 105.0 94.6% 15
40.6 40.6 0.39 6.9 3.0 728 0.16 0.41 23.4 1.00 0.4 23.8 C 41.1 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 0 0 0 2%
6 50.6 50.6 0.48 6.9 4.5 453
50.6 50.6 0.48 6.9 4.5 834 0.19
0.01 0.03 14.3 1.00 0.1 14.4 B
0.40 17.4 1.00 1.4 18.9 B 48.4 D
50.6 50.6 0.48 6.9 4.5 865 0.18 0.37 17.1 1.00 1.2 18.3 B 17.2 B
6 50.6 50.6 0.48 6.9 4.5 708 0.09 0.18 15.5 1.00 0.6 16.0 B
D 13.8 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
2 SETL
4 NBTL
6 NWTL
8 SBTL
C-Max 57.5 54.8% 39 5.9 1 20 4.5 4.5 0 0 7 25 Yes Yes 0 57.5 50.6 25.6 0 50.6 25.6
None C-Max 47.5 57.5 45.2% 54.8% 38.9 39 5.9 5.9 1 1 10 20 3 4.5 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 7 7 16 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes 57.5 0 0 57.5 98.1 50.6 82.1 25.6 57.5 0 98.1 50.6 82.1 25.6
None 47.5 45.2% 38.9 5.9 1 10 3 4.5 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 57.5 0 98.1 82.1 57.5 98.1 82.1
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 105 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SETL and 6:NWTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
3: Dew Drop Inn Rd/Hwy 7B & Hwy 7
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Elm Tree Rd & Little Britain Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
212 212
317 317 Free 0% 0.91 348
5 5
94 94
8 8
2 2
5 5
0.91 9
0.91 2
0.91 60
0.91 5
81 81 Stop 0% 0.91 89
119 119
0.91 103
51 51 Stop 0% 0.91 56
55 55
0.91 5
268 268 Free 0% 0.91 295
0.91 131
0.91 233
None
None
304
353
1498
1326
350
1410
1324
300
304 4.1
353 4.1
1498 7.1
1326 6.5
350 6.3
1410 7.1
1324 6.5
300 6.2
2.2 81 1257
2.2 91 1206
3.5 92 26
4.0 51 115
3.4 91 684
3.5 91 54
4.0 23 116
3.3 82 735
EB 1 586 233 5 1257 0.19 5.2 4.6 A 4.6
WB 1 407 103 9 1206 0.09 2.1 2.7 A 2.7
NB 1 118 2 60 181 0.65 28.8 56.0 F 56.0 F 17.6 61.0% 15
SB 1 94 5 0 109 0.86 38.4 123.6 F 58.0 F
SB 2 131 0 131 735 0.18 4.9 11.0 B
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
30 30 1900
27 27 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.99 1750 0.83 1478 0.90 30 35 74 2% NA 4
41 41 1900
56 56 1900
159 159 1900
39 39 1900
119 119 1900
0.90 177 0 0 2%
0.90 43 0 0 2% Perm
0.90 96 0 0 2%
0.90 132 0 0 2% Perm
448 448 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.99 1850 0.76 1417 0.90 498 3 667 2% NA 6
36 36 1900
0.90 62 0 0 3% Perm
616 616 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1849 0.95 1760 0.90 684 7 816 2% NA 2
86 86 1900
0.90 46 0 0 2%
59 59 1900 4.5 1.00 0.92 0.99 1715 0.91 1574 0.90 66 81 224 2% NA 8
0.90 33 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
8
2
6
12.2 12.2 0.24 4.5 3.0 348
12.2 12.2 0.24 4.5 3.0 371
30.5 30.5 0.59 4.5 3.0 1038
30.5 30.5 0.59 4.5 3.0 835
0.05 0.21 15.9 1.00 0.3 16.2 B 16.2 B
c0.14 0.60 17.6 1.00 2.8 20.4 C 20.4 C
0.46 0.79 8.1 1.00 4.0 12.1 B 12.1 B
c0.47 0.80 8.2 1.00 5.4 13.6 B 13.6 B
14.2 0.74 51.7 96.9% 15
0.90 40 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 42.5 65.4% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 42.5 38 38 0 38 38
None 22.5 34.6% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 42.5 0 60.5 49.5 42.5 60.5 49.5
Min 42.5 65.4% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 42.5 38 38 0 38 38
None 22.5 34.6% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 42.5 0 60.5 49.5 42.5 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 65
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
5: Angeline St N & Connolly Rd/Orchard Park Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Sanderling Cres & Orchard Park Rd
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
Movement Lane Configurations Sign Control Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph)
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
22 22 0.96 23
Stop 189 189 0.96 197
33 33 0.96 34
31 31 0.96 32
Stop 209 209 0.96 218
28 28 0.96 29
33 33 0.96 34
Stop 56 56 0.96 58
56 56 0.96 58
34 34 0.96 35
Stop 20 20 0.96 21
22 22 0.96 23
Direction, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EB 1 254 23 34 -0.03 4.9 0.34 695 10.4 10.4 B
WB 1 279 32 29 -0.01 4.9 0.38 702 10.8 10.8 B
NB 1 150 34 58 -0.15 5.2 0.22 617 9.6 9.6 A
SB 1 79 35 23 -0.03 5.5 0.12 581 9.2 9.2 A
Intersection Summary Delay Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
10.3 B 36.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: William St N & Orchard Park Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
22 22 Stop 0% 0.88 25
133 133
173 173 0.88 197
30 30 Free 0% 0.88 34
31 31
0.88 151
41 41 Free 0% 0.88 47
None
None
492
52
69
492 6.4
52 6.2
69 4.1
3.5 95 467
3.3 85 1016
2.2 87 1532
EB 1 176 25 151 871 0.20 5.7 10.2 B 10.2 B
NB 1 244 197 0 1532 0.13 3.4 6.4 A 6.4
SB 1 69 0 35 1700 0.04 0.0 0.0
0.88 35
0.0
6.9 34.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
78 78 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.12 234 0.96 81 0 81 2% Perm
954 954 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1807 1.00 1807 0.96 994 4 1093 5% NA 2
99 99 1900
27 27 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.07 131 0.96 28 0 28 2% Perm
927 927 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1855 1.00 1855 0.96 966 2 1002 3% NA 6
36 36 1900
42 42 1900
23 23 1900
37 37 1900
0.96 44 0 0 4% Perm
0.96 24 0 0 2%
0.96 39 0 0 2% Perm
66 66 1900 5.0 1.00 0.96 0.99 1781 0.91 1635 0.96 69 16 142 2% NA 4
48 48 1900
0.96 38 0 0 2%
66 66 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1799 0.87 1596 0.96 69 8 129 2% NA 8
2 57.4 57.4 0.65 6.0 3.0 151 0.35 0.54 8.5 1.00 3.6 12.1 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.96 103 0 0 3%
6 57.4 57.4 0.65 6.0 3.0 84
57.4 57.4 0.65 6.0 3.0 1168 c0.60
0.21 0.33 7.1 1.00 2.3 9.4 A
0.94 14.0 1.00 13.5 27.6 C 26.5 C 23.2 0.79 88.8 84.7% 15
8 57.4 57.4 0.65 6.0 3.0 1199 0.54 0.84 12.1 1.00 5.2 17.3 B 17.1 B HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.96 50 0 0 2%
4 20.4 20.4 0.23 5.0 3.0 366
20.4 20.4 0.23 5.0 3.0 375
0.08 0.35 28.7 1.00 2.7 31.3 C 31.3 C
c0.09 0.38 28.8 1.00 2.9 31.7 C 31.7 C C 11.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 11
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
2 EBTL
4 SBTL
6 WBTL
8 NBTL
None 75 75.0% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 75 69 44 0 69 44
Max 25 25.0% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 75 0 95 85 75 95 85
None 75 75.0% 41 4 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 25 Yes Yes 0 75 69 44 0 69 44
Max 25 25.0% 25 3 2 10 3 3 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 75 0 95 85 75 95 85
100 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
8: Adelaide St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 12
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
78 78 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 273 0.94 83 0 83 2 Perm
912 912 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1859 1.00 1859 0.94 970 3 1040
69 69 1900
138 138 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.14 270 0.94 147 0 147 6 Perm
930 930 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1867 1.00 1867 0.94 989 2 1038
48 48 1900
78 78 1900
56 56 1900
31 31 1900
0.94 83 0 0 7 Perm
0.94 60 0 0 3
0.94 33 0 0 3 Perm
58 58 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 1792 0.76 1379 0.94 62 10 112
25 25 1900
0.94 51 0 0 2
115 115 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.98 1781 0.84 1518 0.94 122 11 254
6 70.0 70.0 0.70 6.0 3.0 191 0.30 0.43 6.5 1.00 7.0 13.5 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.94 73 0 0 6
NA 6
2 70.0 70.0 0.70 6.0 3.0 189
70.0 70.0 0.70 6.0 3.0 1301 c0.56
0.54 0.78 9.9 1.00 26.4 36.3 D
0.80 10.2 1.00 5.2 15.4 B 15.3 B 24.0 0.83 100.0 103.3% 15
NA 2
NA 8
8 70.0 70.0 0.70 6.0 3.0 1306 0.56 0.79 10.1 1.00 5.1 15.2 B 17.8 B HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.94 27 0 0 7
NA 4
4 18.0 18.0 0.18 6.0 3.0 273
18.0 18.0 0.18 6.0 3.0 248
c0.17 0.93 40.4 1.00 39.4 79.8 E 79.8 E
0.08 0.45 36.6 1.00 5.9 42.5 D 42.5 D C 12.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 13
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 WBTL
4 SBTL
6 EBTL
8 NBTL
Max 76 76.0% 28 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 15 Yes Yes 0 76 70 55 0 70 55
Max 24 24.0% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 76 0 94 83 76 94 83
Max 76 76.0% 26 4.5 1.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 13 Yes Yes 0 76 70 57 0 70 57
Max 24 24.0% 24 4.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 76 0 94 83 76 94 83
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 90
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
9: Albert St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 14
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: William St N & Colborne St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
37 37 1900
465 465 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1826 0.93 1707 0.99 470 12 598 2% NA 4
102 102 1900
16 16 1900
290 290 1900
55 55 1900
203 203 1900
0.99 293 0 0 2%
0.99 56 0 0 3% Perm
0.99 33 0 0 5%
0.99 205 0 0 2% Perm
50 50 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.97 1794 0.62 1149 0.99 51 6 278 2% NA 6
28 28 1900
0.99 16 0 0 10% Perm
165 165 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 0.99 1820 0.89 1642 0.99 167 8 248 2% NA 2
33 33 1900
0.99 103 0 0 5%
492 492 1900 4.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1786 0.99 1764 0.99 497 33 773 2% NA 8
0.99 37 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
8
2
6
28.4 28.4 0.51 4.5 3.0 875
28.4 28.4 0.51 4.5 3.0 904
18.0 18.0 0.32 4.5 3.0 533
18.0 18.0 0.32 4.5 3.0 373
0.35 0.68 10.1 1.00 2.2 12.4 B 12.4 B
c0.44 0.86 11.7 1.00 8.0 19.7 B 19.7 B
0.15 0.47 14.9 1.00 0.6 15.5 B 15.5 B
c0.24 0.75 16.7 1.00 7.9 24.5 C 24.5 C
17.6 0.81 55.4 91.1% 15
0.99 28 0 0 2%
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 15
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 10: William St N & Colborne St W
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 26.1 40.2% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 26.1 21.6 21.6 0 21.6 21.6
None 38.9 59.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 26.1 0 60.5 49.5 26.1 60.5 49.5
Min 26.1 40.2% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 26.1 21.6 21.6 0 21.6 21.6
None 38.9 59.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 26.1 0 60.5 49.5 26.1 60.5 49.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
65 Actuated-Uncoordinated 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
10: William St N & Colborne St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 16
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: St David St & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128 128 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1706 0.11 205 0.87 147 0 147 7% pm+pt 7 4 40.5 40.5 0.57 4.5 3.0 231 c0.05 0.31 0.64 14.3 1.00 5.6 19.9 B
377 377 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1846 1.00 1846 0.87 433 3 464 3% NA 4
30 30 1900
28 28 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.50 932 0.87 32 0 32 2% Perm
627 627 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1871 1.00 1871 0.87 721 2 753 2% NA 8
30 30 1900
33 33 1900
37 37 1900
0.87 34 0 0 2%
0.87 38 0 0 2% Perm
41 41 1900 4.5 1.00 0.95 0.99 1759 0.89 1594 0.87 47 25 103 4% NA 2
127 127 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1644 0.70 1207 0.87 146 0 146 11% Perm
120 120 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.87 138 0 138 2% NA 6
537 537 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.87 617 178 439 2% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.87 34 0 0 2%
8 30.5 30.5 0.43 4.5 3.0 397
40.5 40.5 0.57 4.5 3.0 1044 0.25
0.03 0.08 12.2 1.00 0.1 12.3 B
0.44 9.0 1.00 0.3 9.3 A 11.9 B 29.0 0.90 71.6 85.6% 15
0.87 43 0 0 2%
2 30.5 30.5 0.43 4.5 3.0 797 c0.40 0.94 19.7 1.00 19.5 39.2 D 38.1 D HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
6 22.1 22.1 0.31 4.5 3.0 372
22.1 22.1 0.31 4.5 3.0 492 0.06 0.21 18.3 1.00 0.2 18.5 B 18.5 B
0.12 0.39 19.5 1.00 0.7 20.2 C
22.1 22.1 0.31 4.5 3.0 581 0.07 0.24 18.5 1.00 0.2 18.7 B 34.2 C
6 22.1 22.1 0.31 4.5 3.0 494 c0.27 0.89 23.6 1.00 17.4 40.9 D
C 13.5 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 17
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 11: St David St & Colborne St E
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
Min 29 38.7% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 29 24.5 24.5 0 24.5 24.5
None 46 61.3% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 29 0 70.5 59.5 29 70.5 59.5
Min 29 38.7% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 29 24.5 24.5 0 24.5 24.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
75 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
7 EBL Lead Yes None 10 13.3% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 29 39 34.5 34.5 29 34.5 34.5
8 WBTL Lag Yes None 36 48.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 39 0 70.5 59.5 39 70.5 59.5
11: St David St & Colborne St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 18
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
430 430 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.17 326 0.89 483 0 483 2% pm+pt 7 4 47.4 47.4 0.49 4.5 3.0 531 c0.23 c0.22 0.91 24.4 1.00 19.4 43.8 D
302 302 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.89 339 0 339 2% NA 4
87 87 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 98 67 31 2% Perm
234 234 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.56 1049 0.89 263 0 263 2% pm+pt 3 8 30.9 30.9 0.32 4.5 3.0 432 0.08 0.12 0.61 25.8 1.00 2.4 28.3 C
287 287 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.89 322 0 322 2% NA 8
229 229 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 257 143 114 2% Perm
21 21 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.27 500 0.89 24 0 24 2% Perm
477 477 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3349 1.00 3349 0.89 536 0 536 9% NA 2
308 308 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1228 1.00 1228 0.89 346 225 121 33% Perm
920 920 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3510 1.00 3510 0.89 1034 0 1034 4% NA 6
396 396 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 445 149 296 2% Perm
8 18.6 18.6 0.19 4.5 3.0 310
2 20.4 20.4 0.21 4.5 3.0 106
0.07 0.37 33.6 1.00 0.7 34.3 C
0.05 0.23 31.2 1.00 1.1 32.3 C
305 305 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.20 372 0.89 343 0 343 2% pm+pt 1 6 39.5 39.5 0.41 4.5 3.0 368 c0.14 c0.24 0.93 22.2 1.00 30.1 52.3 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
30.6 30.6 0.32 4.5 3.0 600 0.18 0.56 27.1 1.00 1.2 28.3 C 35.8 D
4 30.6 30.6 0.32 4.5 3.0 510 0.02 0.06 22.7 1.00 0.1 22.7 C
34.6 0.99 95.9 84.0% 15
18.6 18.6 0.19 4.5 3.0 365 0.17 0.88 37.6 1.00 21.3 58.9 E 41.8 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
20.4 20.4 0.21 4.5 3.0 712 0.16 0.75 35.4 1.00 4.5 39.9 D 37.5 D
2 20.4 20.4 0.21 4.5 3.0 261 0.10 0.46 33.0 1.00 1.3 34.3 C
39.5 39.5 0.41 4.5 3.0 1445 0.29 0.72 23.5 1.00 1.7 25.2 C 29.3 C
6 39.5 39.5 0.41 4.5 3.0 659 0.19 0.45 20.4 1.00 0.5 20.8 C
C 18.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 19
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 SBL Lead Yes None 19 19.0% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 19 14.5 14.5 81 95.5 95.5
2 NBTL Lag Yes Min 28 28.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 19 47 42.5 42.5 0 23.5 23.5
3 WBL Lead Yes None 18.2 18.2% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 47 65.2 60.7 60.7 28 41.7 41.7
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 34.8 34.8% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 65.2 0 95.5 84.5 46.2 76.5 65.5
6 SBTL Min 47 47.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 47 42.5 42.5 81 23.5 23.5
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
7 EBL Lead Yes None 29 29.0% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 47 76 71.5 71.5 28 52.5 52.5
8 WBTL Lag Yes None 24 24.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 76 0 95.5 84.5 57 76.5 65.5
100 Actuated-Uncoordinated 90
12: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Colborne St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 20
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
236 236 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 179 0.89 265 0 265 2% pm+pt 5 2 55.0 55.0 0.48 5.0 3.0 267 c0.11 c0.36 0.99 33.0 1.00 52.8 85.8 F
940 940 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3579 1.00 3579 0.89 1056 0 1056 2% NA 2
20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 22 14 8 2% Perm
209 209 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 184 0.89 235 0 235 2% pm+pt 1 6 53.0 53.0 0.46 5.0 3.0 252 0.10 0.33 0.93 30.1 1.00 38.6 68.7 E
965 965 1900 5.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3544 1.00 3544 0.89 1084 0 1084 3% NA 6
264 264 1900 5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.89 297 80 217 2% Perm
170 170 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.53 1007 0.89 191 0 191 2% Perm
182 182 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.89 204 0 204 2% NA 4
139 139 1900 5.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1498 1.00 1498 0.89 156 87 69 9% Perm
148 148 1900 5.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 1714 1.00 1714 0.89 166 41 342 2% NA 8
193 193 1900
6 41.0 41.0 0.36 5.0 3.0 571
4 22.9 22.9 0.20 5.0 3.0 200
0.14 0.38 27.5 1.00 0.4 27.9 C
0.19 0.95 45.5 1.00 50.4 95.9 F
365 365 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.37 699 0.89 410 0 410 2% pm+pt 3 8 45.9 45.9 0.40 4.5 3.0 454 c0.15 c0.22 0.90 28.8 1.00 21.0 49.7 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
42.0 42.0 0.37 5.0 3.0 1308 0.30 0.81 32.8 1.00 5.4 38.2 D 47.4 D
2 42.0 42.0 0.37 5.0 3.0 585 0.01 0.01 23.2 1.00 0.0 23.3 C
45.4 0.99 114.9 88.7% 15
41.0 41.0 0.36 5.0 3.0 1264 0.31 0.86 34.2 1.00 6.0 40.2 D 42.1 D
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
22.9 22.9 0.20 5.0 3.0 375 0.11 0.54 41.3 1.00 1.6 42.9 D 60.2 E
4 22.9 22.9 0.20 5.0 3.0 298 0.05 0.23 38.6 1.00 0.4 39.0 D
0.89 217 0 0 3%
45.9 45.9 0.40 5.0 3.0 684 0.20 0.50 25.9 1.00 0.6 26.5 C 38.5 D
D 19.5 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 21
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 WBL Lead Yes None 17 14.8% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 1 0 0 Yes Yes 0 17 12 12 98 110 110
2 EBTL Lag Yes Max 47 40.9% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 17 64 59 49 0 42 32
3 SBL Lead Yes None 23 20.0% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 64 87 82.5 82.5 47 65.5 65.5
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
4 NBTL Lag Yes None 28 24.3% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 87 0 110 100 70 93 83
5 EBL Lead Yes None 18 15.7% 15 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 Yes Yes 0 18 13 13 98 111 111
6 WBTL Lag Yes None 46 40.0% 33 3.5 1.5 28 3 1 0 0 18 10 Yes Yes 18 64 59 49 1 42 32
8 SBTL None 51 44.3% 26 3.5 1.5 15 3 4 0 0 10 10 Yes Yes 64 0 110 100 47 93 83
115 Semi Act-Uncoord 85
13: St Joseph Road & Kent Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 22
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
432 432 1900 5.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3471 0.11 389 0.95 455 0 455 2% pm+pt 1 6 48.6 48.6 0.48 5.0 3.0 522 c0.09 c0.32 0.87 24.8 1.00 14.8 39.6 D
1017 1017 1900 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3579 1.00 3579 0.95 1071 0 1071 2% NA 6
531 531 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 559 171 388 2% Perm
91 91 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.12 220 0.95 96 0 96 6% pm+pt 5 2 39.4 39.4 0.39 5.0 3.0 180 0.03 0.17 0.53 22.0 1.00 3.0 25.0 C
1036 1036 1900 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3579 1.00 3579 0.95 1091 0 1091 2% NA 2
125 125 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 132 89 43 2% Perm
307 307 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.41 781 0.95 323 0 323 2% pm+pt 3 8 35.0 35.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 350 c0.07 c0.25 0.92 29.9 1.00 29.2 59.0 E
396 396 1900 6.0 0.95 0.98 1.00 3481 1.00 3481 0.95 417 10 463 3% NA 8
53 53 1900
161 161 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.38 702 0.95 169 0 169 3% pm+pt 7 4 35.0 35.0 0.35 5.0 3.0 328 0.04 0.14 0.52 24.0 1.00 1.4 25.4 C
409 409 1900 6.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3544 1.00 3544 0.95 431 0 431 3% NA 4
289 289 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.95 304 155 149 3% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
37.6 37.6 0.37 6.0 3.0 1332 0.30 0.80 28.4 1.00 5.2 33.6 C 34.4 C
6 37.6 37.6 0.37 6.0 3.0 596 0.24 0.65 26.3 1.00 5.5 31.7 C
37.6 0.92 101.0 89.6% 15
33.0 33.0 0.33 6.0 3.0 1169 0.30 0.93 32.9 1.00 14.5 47.5 D 43.5 D
2 33.0 33.0 0.33 6.0 3.0 523 0.03 0.08 23.5 1.00 0.3 23.8 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.95 56 0 0 3%
27.0 27.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 930 0.13 0.50 31.3 1.00 1.9 33.2 C 43.7 D
27.0 27.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 947 0.12 0.46 30.9 1.00 1.6 32.4 C 31.1 C
4 27.0 27.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 423 0.09 0.35 29.9 1.00 2.3 32.2 C
D 22.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 23
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBL Lead Yes None 16 16.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 16 11 11 84 95 95
2 WBTL Lag Yes Max 38 38.0% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 16 54 48 31 0 32 15
3 NBL Lead Yes None 13 13.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 54 67 62 62 38 46 46
4 SBTL Lag Yes Max 33 33.0% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 67 0 94 77 51 78 61
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
5 WBL Lead Yes None 13 13.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 13 8 8 84 92 92
6 EBTL Lag Yes Max 41 41.0% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 13 54 48 31 97 32 15
7 SBL Lead Yes None 13 13.0% 13 3 2 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 54 67 62 62 38 46 46
8 NBTL Lag Yes Max 33 33.0% 33 4 2 16 3 3 0 0 10 17 Yes Yes 67 0 94 77 51 78 61
100 Semi Act-Uncoord 95
14: CKL Rd 4 (Angeline St S) & Kent St W
Synchro 11 Report Page 24
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Albert St N & Fair Ave/Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
30 30
106 106 Stop 0% 0.89 119
57 57
180 180
51 51
25 25
61 61
0.89 57
0.89 28
0.89 39
0.89 69
255 255 Free 0% 0.89 287
25 25
0.89 202
321 321 Free 0% 0.89 361
35 35
0.89 64
25 25 Stop 0% 0.89 28
0.89 34
None
0.89 28
None 387
946
895
301
999
890
380
315
400
946 7.1
895 6.5
301 6.2
999 7.1
890 6.5
380 6.2
315 4.1
400 4.1
3.5 82 190
4.0 54 258
3.3 91 739
3.5 0 122
4.0 89 259
3.3 91 667
2.2 98 1245
2.2 94 1159
EB 1 217 34 64 298 0.73 40.1 43.6 E 43.6 E
WB 1 287 202 57 155 1.85 163.1 454.5 F 454.5 F
NB 1 428 28 39 1245 0.02 0.5 0.7 A 0.7
SB 1 384 69 28 1159 0.06 1.4 2.0 A 2.0
107.1 69.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 25
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
61 61 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.44 770 0.97 63 0 63 10% Perm
490 490 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1866 1.00 1866 0.97 505 2 529 2% NA 8
25 25 1900
117 117 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.15 277 0.97 121 0 121 2% pm+pt 7 4 51.7 51.7 0.55 5.0 3.0 395 0.05 0.12 0.31 14.1 1.00 0.4 14.5 B
423 423 1900 6.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1809 1.00 1809 0.97 436 14 578 2% NA 4
151 151 1900
34 34 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.66 1243 0.97 35 0 35 2% Perm
190 190 1900 6.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1793 1.00 1793 0.97 196 14 275 2% NA 2
90 90 1900
59 59 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.46 856 0.97 61 0 61 4% Perm
114 114 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1819 1.00 1819 0.97 118 9 144 2% NA 6
34 34 1900
8 31.6 31.6 0.34 6.0 3.0 259 0.08 0.24 22.5 1.00 0.5 23.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.97 26 0 0 6%
31.6 31.6 0.34 6.0 3.0 627 c0.28 0.84 28.9 1.00 10.1 38.9 D 37.3 D 25.4 0.67 93.9 105.6% 15
0.97 156 0 0 2%
51.7 51.7 0.55 6.0 3.0 996 c0.32 0.58 13.9 1.00 0.9 14.8 B 14.7 B
2 30.2 30.2 0.32 6.0 3.0 399 0.03 0.09 22.2 1.00 0.4 22.7 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.97 93 0 0 2%
6 30.2 30.2 0.32 6.0 3.0 275
30.2 30.2 0.32 6.0 3.0 576 c0.15
0.07 0.22 23.3 1.00 1.9 25.1 C
0.48 25.5 1.00 2.8 28.3 C 27.7 C
0.97 35 0 0 2%
30.2 30.2 0.32 6.0 3.0 585 0.08 0.25 23.5 1.00 1.0 24.5 C 24.7 C
C 17.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 26
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 WBTL
6 SBTL
Max 36 32.7% 31 4 2 25 3 1 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 0 36 30 22 0 30 22
None 74 67.3% 32 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 15 8 Yes Yes 36 0 104 96 36 104 96
Max 36 32.7% 32 4 2 25 3 3 0 0 18 8 Yes Yes 0 36 30 22 0 30 22
7 WBL Lead Yes None 23 20.9% 23 4 1 15 3 3 0 0 No Yes 36 59 54 54 36 54 54
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
8 EBTL Lag Yes None 51 46.4% 21 4 2 15 3 3 0 0 7 8 Yes Yes 59 0 104 96 59 104 96
110 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
16: William Street North & Wellington Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 27
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
86 86 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.10 182 0.91 95 0 95 5% pm+pt 3 4 50.0 50.0 0.53 2.0 3.0 243 0.04 0.17 0.39 16.9 1.00 1.0 18.0 B
670 670 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.91 736 2 781 2% NA 4
43 43 1900
228 228 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 184 0.91 251 0 251 2% pm+pt 3 4 50.0 50.0 0.53 2.0 3.0 248 c0.10 0.44 1.01 26.3 1.00 60.3 86.6 F
631 631 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.91 693 2 724 2% NA 4
30 30 1900
98 98 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.49 918 0.91 108 0 108 2% Perm
184 184 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1685 1.00 1685 0.91 202 75 525 4% NA 2
362 362 1900
34 34 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.13 243 0.91 37 0 37 2% Perm
248 248 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.91 273 0 273 2% NA 2
36 36 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.91 40 27 13 3% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.91 47 0 0 3%
41.0 41.0 0.43 6.0 3.0 804 c0.42 0.97 26.4 1.00 24.7 51.1 D 47.5 D 48.5 0.96 95.0 114.9% 15
0.91 33 0 0 33%
41.0 41.0 0.43 6.0 3.0 796 0.39 0.91 25.3 1.00 14.2 39.5 D 51.6 D
2 31.0 31.0 0.33 6.0 3.0 299 0.12 0.36 24.4 1.00 3.4 27.8 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.91 398 0 0 2%
2 31.0 31.0 0.33 6.0 3.0 79
31.0 31.0 0.33 6.0 3.0 549 c0.31
0.15 0.47 25.4 1.00 18.6 44.1 D
0.96 31.3 1.00 29.1 60.4 E 55.4 E
31.0 31.0 0.33 6.0 3.0 614 0.14 0.44 25.2 1.00 2.3 27.5 C 28.6 C
2 31.0 31.0 0.33 6.0 3.0 517 0.01 0.03 21.7 1.00 0.1 21.8 C
D 14.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 28
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 3 4 NBSB EBWBL EBWB Lead Lag Yes Yes Max None None 37 11 47 38.9% 11.6% 49.5% 33 9 28 4 2 4 2 0 2 17 4.5 8 3 3 3 0.2 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 15 10 7 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 37 48 37 48 0 31 46 89 21 46 82 0 37 48 31 46 89 21 46 82
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
95 Actuated-Uncoordinated 90
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
17: Lindsay Street N & Wellington St/Queen Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 29
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: St David St & Queen St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
128 128 1900
377 377 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1844 0.65 1212 0.91 414 2 586
30 30 1900
28 28 1900
30 30 1900
33 33 1900
127 127 1900
0.91 31 0 0 5 Perm
0.91 33 0 0 1
0.91 36 0 0
41 41 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1772 0.87 1557 0.91 45 23 99
37 37 1900
0.91 33 0 0 5
627 627 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1866 0.96 1805 0.91 689 1 752
0.91 41 0 0
0.91 140 0 0
120 120 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1836 0.80 1500 0.91 132 0 272
537 537 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.91 590 98 492
NA 6
Perm
0.91 141 0 0 1 Perm
NA 4
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
NA 8
8
Perm
NA 2
Perm
2
6
42.0 42.0 0.53 4.5 3.0 640
42.0 42.0 0.53 4.5 3.0 953
28.5 28.5 0.36 4.5 3.0 558
28.5 28.5 0.36 4.5 3.0 537
c0.48 0.92 17.1 1.00 17.8 34.9 C 34.9 C
0.42 0.79 15.2 1.00 4.4 19.6 B 19.6 B
0.06 0.18 17.5 1.00 0.2 17.6 B 17.6 B
0.18 0.51 20.0 1.00 0.8 20.7 C 31.1 C
27.6 0.89 79.5 96.4% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 F
6 28.5 28.5 0.36 4.5 3.0 573 c0.31 0.86 23.6 1.00 12.2 35.9 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 30
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: St David St & Queen St
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Min 44 48.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 44 39.5 39.5 0 39.5 39.5
None 46 51.1% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 44 0 85.5 74.5 44 85.5 74.5
Min 44 48.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 44 39.5 39.5 0 39.5 39.5
None 46 51.1% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 44 0 85.5 74.5 44 85.5 74.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Actuated-Uncoordinated 80
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
18: St David St & Queen St
Synchro 11 Report Page 31
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
73 73 1900 6.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1659 0.38 665 0.95 77 0 77 10% Perm
463 463 1900 6.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.95 487 0 487 5% NA 4
76 76 1900 6.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.95 80 58 22 2% Perm
82 82 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1472 0.14 214 0.95 86 0 86 24% pm+pt 3 8 32.9 32.9 0.37 4.5 3.0 134 0.03 0.21 0.64 21.8 1.00 10.1 31.8 C
392 392 1900 6.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1733 1.00 1733 0.95 413 6 473 9% NA 8
63 63 1900
235 235 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1772 0.17 308 0.95 247 0 247 3% pm+pt 5 2 33.2 33.2 0.37 4.5 3.0 262 0.09 0.26 0.94 22.3 1.00 40.0 62.4 E
248 248 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1762 1.00 1762 0.95 261 0 261 9% NA 2
371 371 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1396 1.00 1396 0.95 391 178 213 17% Perm
416 416 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.42 778 0.95 438 0 438 4% pm+pt 1 6 42.6 42.6 0.48 4.5 3.0 524 c0.13 0.27 0.84 17.6 1.00 11.1 28.6 C
1027 1027 1900 7.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3444 1.00 3444 0.95 1081 0 1081 6% NA 6
143 143 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.95 151 102 49 6% Perm
4 24.5 24.5 0.28 6.5 3.0 183 0.12 0.42 26.4 1.00 1.6 28.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
24.5 24.5 0.28 6.5 3.0 503 c0.27 0.97 31.9 1.00 31.7 63.6 E 54.4 D
4 24.5 24.5 0.28 6.5 3.0 440 0.01 0.05 23.7 1.00 0.0 23.7 C
41.4 0.99 89.0 94.6% 15
0.95 66 0 0 6%
32.9 32.9 0.37 6.5 3.0 640 c0.27 0.74 24.3 1.00 4.5 28.8 C 29.2 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
24.2 24.2 0.27 7.0 3.0 479 0.15 0.54 27.7 1.00 4.4 32.1 C 41.1 D
2 24.2 24.2 0.27 7.0 3.0 379 0.15 0.56 27.8 1.00 5.9 33.7 C
29.1 29.1 0.33 7.0 3.0 1126 c0.31 0.96 29.4 1.00 18.8 48.2 D 40.6 D
6 29.1 29.1 0.33 7.0 3.0 503 0.03 0.10 20.8 1.00 0.4 21.2 C
D 22.5 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 32
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 SBL Lead Yes None 18.6 20.7% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 18.6 14.1 14.1 71.4 85.5 85.5
2 NBTL Lag Yes Max 30.9 34.3% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 18.6 49.5 42.5 26.5 0 23.9 7.9
3 WBL Lead Yes None 9.5 10.6% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 49.5 59 54.5 54.5 30.9 35.9 35.9
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 31 34.4% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 59 0 83.5 72.5 40.4 64.9 53.9
5 NBL Lead Yes None 13.5 15.0% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 13.5 9 9 71.4 80.4 80.4
6 SBTL Lag Yes Max 36 40.0% 30 4.5 2.5 20 3 3 0 0 7 16 Yes Yes 13.5 49.5 42.5 26.5 84.9 23.9 7.9
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
8 WBTL None 40.5 45.0% 30 4.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 5 11 Yes Yes 49.5 0 83.5 72.5 30.9 64.9 53.9
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
19: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Queen St/Pigeon Lake Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 33
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: CKL Rd 36 & Wilson Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
0 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0
19 19
17 17 0.91 19
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
0 0
0.91 21
0 0 Free 0% 0.91 0
None
None
SB 1 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
SB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
38
0
0
38 6.4
0 6.5
0 4.7
3.5 100 965
3.5 98 1021
2.8 99 1301
EB 1 21 0 21 1021 0.02 0.5 8.6 A 8.6 A
NB 1 19 19 0 1301 0.01 0.3 7.8 A 7.8
NB 2 0 0 0 1700 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.91 0
0.0
8.2 13.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 34
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
34 34 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.22 407 0.92 37 0 37 7 Perm
44 44 1900 4.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.94 1.00 1578 1.00 1578 0.92 48 27 55
31 31 1900
180 180 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.95 1404 0.70 1040 0.92 196 0 196 102 Perm
64 64 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.87 1.00 1591 1.00 1591 0.92 70 233 246
376 376 1900
31 31 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1777 0.31 585 0.92 34 0 34 11 Perm
678 678 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.92 737 0 737
129 129 1900 4.5 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.85 1.00 889 1.00 889 0.92 140 80 60 183 Perm
365 365 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 185 0.92 397 0 397 183 pm+pt 1 6 57.7 57.7 0.68 4.5 3.0 443 c0.18 c0.43 0.90 24.6 1.00 20.2 44.7 D
796 796 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1868 1.00 1868 0.92 865 2 902
36 36 1900
4 18.5 18.5 0.22 4.5 3.0 88 0.09 0.42 28.7 1.00 3.2 32.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.92 34 0 0 102
NA 4
8 18.5 18.5 0.22 4.5 3.0 225
18.5 18.5 0.22 4.5 3.0 342 0.04
c0.19 0.87 32.2 1.00 28.7 60.9 E
0.16 27.1 1.00 0.2 27.3 C 28.7 C 30.5 0.92 85.2 95.4% 15
0.92 409 0 0 7
NA 8 18.5 18.5 0.22 4.5 3.0 345 0.15 0.71 30.9 1.00 6.8 37.7 D 44.4 D
2 36.3 36.3 0.43 4.5 3.0 249 0.06 0.14 14.9 1.00 0.3 15.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
NA 2 36.3 36.3 0.43 4.5 3.0 802 0.39 0.92 23.1 1.00 15.3 38.4 D 34.0 C
2 36.3 36.3 0.43 4.5 3.0 378 0.07 0.16 15.0 1.00 0.2 15.2 B
0.92 39 0 0 11
NA 6 57.7 57.7 0.68 4.5 3.0 1265 0.48 0.71 8.6 1.00 1.9 10.5 B 21.0 C
C 13.5 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 35
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 SBL Lead Yes None 22 24.4% 9.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 22 17.5 17.5 68 85.5 85.5
2 NBTL Lag Yes Min 44 48.9% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 22 66 61.5 61.5 0 39.5 39.5
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
None 24 26.7% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 66 0 85.5 74.5 44 63.5 52.5
Min 66 73.3% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 66 61.5 61.5 68 39.5 39.5
None 24 26.7% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 66 0 85.5 74.5 44 63.5 52.5
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
90 Actuated-Uncoordinated 80
21: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Riverview Rd/Weldon Rd
Synchro 11 Report Page 36
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: CKL Rd 36 (Verulam Rd N) & Parkside Drive
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EGIS
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
22 22 Stop 0% 0.87 25
20 20
27 27 0.87 31
984 984 Free 0% 0.87 1131
64 64
0.87 23
686 686 Free 0% 0.87 789
None
None
2019
1168
1205
2019 6.4
1168 6.5
1205 4.1
3.5 59 61
3.6 89 206
2.2 95 579
EB 1 25 25 0 61 0.41 11.9 101.0 F 64.4 F
EB 2 23 0 23 206 0.11 2.8 24.7 C
NB 1 820 31 0 579 0.05 1.3 1.5 A 1.5
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
2.1 68.0% 15
0.87 74
SB 1 1205 0 74 1700 0.71 0.0 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 37
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
55 55 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1601 0.27 456 0.86 64 0 64 14% Perm
193 193 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1793 1.00 1793 0.86 224 12 277 4% NA 4
56 56 1900
181 181 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1738 0.42 775 0.86 210 0 210 5% Perm
195 195 1900 5.5 1.00 0.94 1.00 1766 1.00 1766 0.86 227 29 360 2% NA 8
139 139 1900
36 36 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.13 244 0.86 42 0 42 2% Perm
726 726 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.86 844 0 844 7% NA 2
154 154 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.86 179 92 87 2% Perm
147 147 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.08 157 0.86 171 0 171 2% pm+pt 1 6 53.8 53.8 0.60 4.5 3.0 199 0.06 0.46 0.86 20.7 1.00 28.8 49.5 D
825 825 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.86 959 0 959 3% NA 6
81 81 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1286 1.00 1286 0.86 94 29 65 27% Perm
4 25.2 25.2 0.28 5.5 3.0 127 0.14 0.50 27.2 1.00 3.1 30.3 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.86 65 0 0 2%
8 25.2 25.2 0.28 5.5 3.0 217
25.2 25.2 0.28 5.5 3.0 502 0.15
c0.27 0.97 32.0 1.00 51.3 83.3 F
0.55 27.6 1.00 1.3 28.9 C 29.2 C 36.0 0.99 90.0 116.3% 15
0.86 162 0 0 2%
25.2 25.2 0.28 5.5 3.0 494 0.20 0.73 29.3 1.00 5.3 34.7 C 51.7 D
2 43.5 43.5 0.48 5.5 3.0 117 0.17 0.36 14.5 1.00 8.4 22.9 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
43.5 43.5 0.48 5.5 3.0 867 c0.47 0.97 22.7 1.00 24.8 47.5 D 40.7 D
2 43.5 43.5 0.48 5.5 3.0 773 0.05 0.11 12.7 1.00 0.3 13.0 B
53.8 53.8 0.60 5.5 3.0 1114 c0.51 0.86 15.0 1.00 8.8 23.8 C 26.1 C
6 53.8 53.8 0.60 5.5 3.0 768 0.05 0.08 7.7 1.00 0.2 7.9 A
D 15.5 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 38
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
1 2 SBL NBTL Lead Lag Yes Yes None C-Max 10 49 11.1% 54.4% 9.5 40.5 3.5 3.5 1 2 5 35 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 25 10 No Yes Yes Yes 80 0 0 49 85.5 43.5 85.5 33.5 80 0 85.5 43.5 85.5 33.5
4 EBTL
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
None C-Max 31 59 34.4% 65.6% 30.5 40.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 8 35 3 3 3.5 1 0 0 0 0 15 25 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 49 80 80 49 74.5 43.5 64.5 33.5 49 80 74.5 43.5 64.5 33.5
None 31 34.4% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 3.5 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 49 80 74.5 64.5 49 74.5 64.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length 90 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 85 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Splits and Phases:
EGIS
23: Angeline Street S & Mary Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 39
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
137 137 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.70 1323 0.93 147 0 147 2% Perm
23 23 1900 5.5 1.00 0.86 1.00 1592 1.00 1592 0.93 25 110 248 2% NA 4
310 310 1900
30 30 1900
28 28 1900
696 696 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1874 1.00 1874 0.93 748 1 772 2% NA 2
59 59 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1560 0.23 375 0.93 63 0 63 17% Perm
705 705 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1833 1.00 1833 0.93 758 6 857 3% NA 6
98 98 1900
0.93 32 0 0 2% Perm
165 165 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.17 316 0.93 177 0 177 2% Perm
23 23 1900
0.93 333 0 0 4%
20 20 1900 5.5 1.00 0.95 0.98 1759 0.60 1082 0.93 22 23 61 2% NA 8
4 14.5 14.5 0.24 5.5 3.0 315 0.11 0.47 19.8 1.00 1.1 20.9 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
0.93 30 0 0 2%
8 14.5 14.5 0.24 5.5 3.0 379 c0.16
14.5 14.5 0.24 5.5 3.0 258 0.06 0.24 18.7 1.00 0.5 19.2 B 19.2 B
0.66 20.9 1.00 4.0 24.9 C 23.8 C 20.7 0.87 60.8 116.8% 15
2 35.3 35.3 0.58 5.5 3.0 183 c0.56 0.97 12.2 1.00 58.5 70.7 E
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.93 25 0 0 2%
6 35.3 35.3 0.58 5.5 3.0 217
35.3 35.3 0.58 5.5 3.0 1088 0.41
0.17 0.29 6.4 1.00 3.4 9.8 A
0.71 9.1 1.00 3.9 13.0 B 23.8 C
0.93 105 0 0 2%
35.3 35.3 0.58 5.5 3.0 1064 0.47 0.81 10.0 1.00 6.5 16.6 B 16.1 B
C 11.0 H
Synchro 11 Report Page 40
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Max 40.5 57.0% 40.5 3.5 2 35 3 1 0 0 25 10 Yes Yes 0 40.5 35 25 0 35 25
None 30.5 43.0% 30.5 3.5 2 8 3 1 0 0 15 10 Yes Yes 40.5 0 65.5 55.5 40.5 65.5 55.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
71 Actuated-Uncoordinated 90
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
24: Lindsay Street S & Mary Street W
Synchro 11 Report Page 41
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
94 94 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.95 1722 0.96 98 0 98 6% Prot 8
186 186 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.96 194 165 29 2% Perm
728 728 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.96 758 7 886 2% NA 2
130 130 1900
167 167 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.23 422 0.96 174 0 174 4% Perm
995 995 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1865 1.00 1865 0.96 1036 0 1036 3% NA 6
8.9 8.9 0.15 4.5 3.0 257 c0.06 0.38 22.9 1.00 0.9 23.8 C 22.7 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
8 8.9 8.9 0.15 4.5 3.0 239 0.02 0.12 22.0 1.00 0.2 22.2 C
41.7 41.7 0.70 4.5 3.0 1290 0.48 0.69 5.2 1.00 1.5 6.7 A 6.7 A 9.9 0.72 59.6 71.9% 15
0.96 135 0 0 2%
6 41.7 41.7 0.70 4.5 3.0 295 0.41 0.59 4.6 1.00 3.0 7.6 A
41.7 41.7 0.70 4.5 3.0 1304 c0.56 0.79 6.1 1.00 3.4 9.5 A 9.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 42
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBT
6 SBTL
8 WBL
Min 52.5 70.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 52.5 48 48 0 48 48
Min 52.5 70.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 0 52.5 48 48 0 48 48
None 22.5 30.0% 22.5 3.5 1 5 3 3 0 0 7 11 Yes Yes 52.5 0 70.5 59.5 52.5 70.5 59.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
75 Actuated-Uncoordinated 75
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
25: Lindsay Street S & Logie Street
Synchro 11 Report Page 43
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Cambridge St N & Peel St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
2051 Total PM Peak Hour Optimized
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
57 57
45 45 Stop 0% 0.75 60
22 22
31 31
62 62
68 68
28 28
0.75 83
0.75 91
0.75 97
0.75 37
72 72 Free 0% 0.75 96
33 33
0.75 41
108 108 Free 0% 0.75 144
73 73
0.75 29
72 72 Stop 0% 0.75 96
0.75 76
None
None
698
615
118
626
588
192
140
241
698 7.1
615 6.5
118 6.2
626 7.1
588 6.5
192 6.2
140 4.1
241 4.1
3.5 69 242
4.0 84 370
3.3 97 934
3.5 87 314
4.0 75 383
3.3 90 849
2.2 94 1443
2.2 97 1326
EB 1 165 76 29 325 0.51 20.7 26.9 D 26.9 D
WB 1 220 41 83 460 0.48 19.3 19.8 C 19.8 C
NB 1 332 91 97 1443 0.06 1.5 2.5 A 2.5
SB 1 177 37 44 1326 0.03 0.7 1.8 A 1.8
11.1 41.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
0.75 44
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 44
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
I.2 Bobcaygeon
Page | 1075
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
37 37 1900
41 41 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 0.98 1774 0.87 1568 0.69 59 10 121 2% NA 1
24 24 1900
52 52 1900
6 6 1900
11 11 1900
0.92 7 0 0 2%
0.50 22 0 0 2% Perm
39 39 1900 9.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1568 1.00 1568 0.65 60 0 60 3% Perm
11 11 1900 6.0 1.00 0.92 0.99 1690 0.95 1621 0.92 12 31 33 2% NA 4
37 37 1900
0.68 76 0 0 6% Perm
5 5 1900 9.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1790 0.38 711 0.92 5 0 27 2% NA 2
11 11 1900
0.75 32 0 0 2%
32 32 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.97 1762 0.80 1443 0.58 55 0 138 2% NA 1
0.92 40 0 0 2% Perm 1
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
1
2
12.4 12.4 0.18 6.0 3.0 284
12.4 12.4 0.18 6.0 3.0 261
20.0 20.0 0.29 9.0 3.0 207
0.08 0.43 24.8 1.00 1.0 25.9 C 25.9 C
c0.10 0.53 25.4 1.00 1.9 27.3 C 27.3 C
0.04 0.13 17.8 1.00 0.3 18.1 B 18.0 B
24.0 0.61 68.4 53.3% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 20.0 20.0 0.29 9.0 3.0 458 c0.04 0.13 17.8 1.00 0.1 17.9 B
0.92 12 0 0 2% Perm
0.92 40 0 0 2%
4 15.0 15.0 0.22 6.0 3.0 355 c0.02 0.09 21.3 1.00 0.1 21.4 C 21.4 C
C 51.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBWB Lead
2 NBTL Lag
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
4 SBTL
6 Hold
None Ped Min None 31 31 31 29 25.4% 23.8% 25.4% 25.4% 31 21 29 29 2 4 4 4 28 2 2 5 1 8 20 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 8 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 91 60 0 31 0 31 60 91 92 85 25 51 92 85 17 41 60 0 29 91 61 116 54 20 61 108 54 10 122 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
17: Bolton St & Canal St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBT 131 0.45 27.4 0.0 27.4 13.6 20.0 149.9
WBT 138 0.53 33.0 0.0 33.0 16.1 18.7 179.7
NBT 27 0.13 21.3 0.0 21.3 2.5 8.8 223.5
580 0 0 0 0.23
527 0 0 0 0.26
207 0 0 0 0.13
NBR 60 0.13 20.0 0.0 20.0 5.6 10.3 20.0 458 0 0 0 0.13
SBT 64 0.17 13.4 0.0 13.4 2.5 11.8 92.3 618 0 0 0 0.10
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
115 115 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.95 1752 0.87 132 0 132 3% Perm
58 82 58 82 1900 1900 6.0 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1583 1752 1.00 0.49 1583 909 0.85 0.72 68 114 56 0 12 114 2% 3% Perm D.P+P 1 4 2 10.5 36.8 10.5 36.8 0.17 0.60 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 271 658 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.17 21.2 5.3 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.6 21.3 5.9 C A
317 317 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1743 1.00 1743 0.85 373 0 373 9% NA 12
335 335 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.90 372 0 372 5% NA 2
156 156 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.93 168 90 78 2% Perm
38.8 38.8 0.63
1103 c0.21
28.6 28.6 0.47 6.0 3.0 844 c0.21
0.34 5.3 1.00 0.8 6.1 A 6.0 A
0.44 11.0 1.00 1.7 12.6 B 11.7 B
4 10.5 10.5 0.17 6.0 3.0 300 c0.08 0.44 22.8 1.00 1.0 23.8 C 22.9 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
11.3 0.42 61.3 49.3% 15
2 28.6 28.6 0.47 6.0 3.0 738 0.05 0.11 9.2 1.00 0.3 9.5 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
B 14.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 NBTL Lead Max 10 14.3% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 10 8 8 60 68 68
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
4 2 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 34 26 48.6% 37.1% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 44 10 44 0 38 64 38 64 0 34 28 54 28 54 70 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
20: East St S & King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 20: East St S & King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 132 0.32 23.8 0.0 23.8 13.3 25.6 452.1 597 0 0 0 0.22
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBR 68 0.16 7.2 0.0 7.2 0.0 7.5
NBL 114 0.16 4.6 0.0 4.6 4.1 6.7
25.0 584 0 0 0 0.12
70.0 734 0 0 0 0.16
NBT 373 0.30 5.3 0.0 5.3 16.0 25.0 128.0
SBT 372 0.43 14.2 0.0 14.2 29.7 49.9 311.0
1263 0 0 0 0.30
863 0 0 0 0.43
SBR 168 0.20 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.0 8.8 50.0 843 0 0 0 0.20
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24 1900
15 15 1900 4.5 1.00 0.91 0.99 1563 0.95 1489 0.25 60 107 244 2% NA 4
211 211 1900
27 27 1900
10 10 1900
0.69 39 0 0 2% Perm
193 193 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1687 0.37 665 0.92 210 0 210 7% pm+pt 5 2 49.9 49.9 0.66 4.5 3.0 565 c0.05 0.20 0.37 6.2 1.00 0.4 6.6 A
233 233 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1759 1.00 1759 0.87 268 0 268 8% NA 2
9 9 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.67 13 4 9 2% Perm
3 3 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.59 1107 0.75 4 0 4 2% Perm
336 336 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1748 1.00 1748 0.87 386 2 402 6% NA 6
9 9 1900
0.87 243 0 0 7%
17 17 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1760 0.61 1101 0.75 23 16 66 2% NA 8
2 49.9 49.9 0.66 4.5 3.0 1042
6 35.9 35.9 0.47 4.5 3.0 524
0.01 0.01 4.4 1.00 0.0 4.5 A
0.00 0.01 10.5 1.00 0.0 10.6 B
0.50 48 0 0 31% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.50 20 0 0 2%
8 16.9 16.9 0.22 4.5 3.0 331
16.9 16.9 0.22 4.5 3.0 245
c0.16 0.74 27.4 1.00 8.3 35.6 D 35.6 D
0.06 0.27 24.4 1.00 0.6 25.0 C 25.0 C 18.0 0.54 75.8 55.4% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
49.9 49.9 0.66 4.5 3.0 1157 0.15 0.23 5.2 1.00 0.5 5.7 A 6.0 A
0.50 18 0 0 50%
35.9 35.9 0.47 4.5 3.0 827 c0.23 0.49 13.6 1.00 2.0 15.7 B 15.6 B
B 13.5 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
Max None 54 36 60.0% 40.0% 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 54 54 0 49.5 85.5 38.5 74.5 70.7 34.7 30.2 66.2 19.2 55.2
AM Peak Hour
6 8 5 NBL SBTL WBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None Max None 34.7 36 19.3 21.4% 38.6% 40.0% 22.5 9.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 54 0 19.3 54 19.3 0 49.5 85.5 14.8 38.5 74.5 14.8 0 34.7 70.7 30.2 66.2 85.5 19.2 55.2 85.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 351 0.80 30.4 0.0 30.4 28.7 0.0 173.5
WBT 82 0.31 21.8 0.0 21.8 7.3 14.1 258.1
703 0 0 0 0.50
472 0 0 0 0.17
NBL 210 0.37 8.4 0.0 8.4 10.1 26.5 80.0 638 0 0 0 0.33
NBT 268 0.23 7.2 0.0 7.2 13.2 32.1 387.9 1156 0 0 0 0.23
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
NBR 13 0.01 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.1
SBL 4 0.01 15.7 0.0 15.7 0.3 2.0
15.0 1046 0 0 0 0.01
40.0 521 0 0 0 0.01
SBT 404 0.49 18.9 0.0 18.9 36.7 80.9 200.5 826 0 0 0 0.49
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: East St S & Boyd St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
52 52 1900
6 6 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.96 1745 0.82 1492 0.42 14 5 91 2% NA 4
5 5 1900
1 1 1900
24 24 1900
16 16 1900
0.25 4 0 0 2% Perm
0.66 36 0 0 2%
0.70 23 0 0 2% Perm
434 434 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1775 0.97 1729 0.88 493 0 516 7% NA 2
5 5 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.50 10 2 8 2% Perm
15 15 1900
0.50 10 0 0 2%
10 10 1900 4.5 1.00 0.92 1.00 1701 0.98 1674 0.56 18 32 26 2% NA 8
446 446 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1824 0.97 1774 0.94 474 0 497 4% NA 6
158 158 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1568 1.00 1568 0.89 178 30 148 3% Perm
0.72 72 0 0 4% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
2
8 9.8 9.8 0.11 4.5 3.0 165
9.8 9.8 0.11 4.5 3.0 185
69.6 69.6 0.79 4.5 3.0 1361
c0.06 0.55 37.2 1.00 3.7 40.9 D 40.9 D
0.02 0.14 35.5 1.00 0.3 35.8 D 35.8 D
c0.30 0.38 2.8 1.00 0.8 3.7 A 3.6 A
7.4 0.40 88.4 53.5% 15
2 69.6 69.6 0.79 4.5 3.0 1246 0.00 0.01 2.0 1.00 0.0 2.0 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 A
0.65 23 0 0 2% Perm 6
69.6 69.6 0.79 4.5 3.0 1396 0.28 0.36 2.8 1.00 0.7 3.5 A 3.2 A
6 69.6 69.6 0.79 4.5 3.0 1234 0.09 0.12 2.2 1.00 0.2 2.4 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: East St S & Boyd St
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 67.5 67.5 22.5 22.5 75.0% 25.0% 75.0% 25.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 67.5 67.5 0 67.5 67.5 0 63 85.5 63 85.5 52 74.5 52 74.5 0 0 67.5 67.5 63 85.5 63 85.5 74.5 52 74.5 52
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 50
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
18: East St S & Boyd St
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 18: East St S & Boyd St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBT 96 0.49 41.2 0.0 41.2 14.1 11.5 175.8
WBT 58 0.24 18.8 0.0 18.8 3.3 5.9 293.2
NBT 516 0.37 4.4 0.0 4.4 21.8 43.5 311.0
312 0 0 0 0.31
374 0 0 0 0.16
1395 0 0 0 0.37
NBR 10 0.01 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 20.0 1280 0 0 0 0.01
SBT 497 0.35 4.3 0.0 4.3 20.4 42.2 166.1 1431 0 0 0 0.35
SBR 178 0.14 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.1 6.3 15.0 1292 0 0 0 0.14
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
282 282 Free 0% 0.96 294
6 6
16 16
20 20
12 12
40 40
0.25 80
0.50 24
0.65 29
0.25 160
10 10 Stop 0% 0.25 40
40 40
0.55 29
20 20 Stop 0% 0.25 80
19 19
0.50 12
256 256 Free 0% 0.85 301
0.25 160
0.25 0
None
None
381
306
879
739
300
768
705
341
381 4.1
306 4.2
879 7.1
739 6.5
300 6.3
768 7.1
705 6.5
341 6.2
2.2 100 1177
2.3 98 1216
3.5 87 186
4.0 76 337
3.4 96 726
3.5 35 245
4.0 89 352
3.3 77 701
EB 1 306 0 12 1177 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 410 29 80 1216 0.02 0.6 0.8 A 0.8
NB 1 133 24 29 327 0.41 14.5 23.4 C 23.4 C 26.7 43.9% 15
SB 1 360 160 160 362 0.99 87.2 80.1 F 80.1 F
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Main St & Joseph St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
24 24 Stop 0% 0.88 27
58 58
47 47 0.54 87
32 32 Free 0% 0.58 55
24 24
0.53 109
28 28 Free 0% 0.78 36
None
None
286
76
96
286 6.4
76 6.2
96 4.1
3.5 96 658
3.3 89 986
2.2 94 1498
EB 1 136 27 109 897 0.15 4.1 9.7 A 9.7 A
NB 1 123 87 0 1498 0.06 1.4 5.5 A 5.5
SB 1 96 0 41 1700 0.06 0.0 0.0
0.58 41
0.0
5.6 22.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: East St S & Mill St
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h)
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
42 42 Stop 0% 0.93 45
72 72
295 295 Free 0% 0.83 355
19 19
57 57
0.43 44
0.66 86
343 343 Free 0% 0.87 394
Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
None
None
152 0.91 921
355
399
861 6.4
355 6.2
399 4.1
3.5 83 272
3.3 87 689
2.2 93 1160
WB 1 132 45 87 453 0.29 9.1 16.2 C 16.2 C
NB 1 355 0 0 1700 0.21 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
0.83 87
NB 2 44 0 44 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.0
2.8 35.6% 15
SB 1 86 86 0 1160 0.07 1.8 8.4 A 1.5
SB 2 394 0 0 1700 0.23 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 AWSC 13: Main St & Duke St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
12.2 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
72 72 0.74 5 97 0
191 191 0.84 5 227 1
12 12 0.67 2 18 0
9 9 0.75 2 12 0
208 208 0.78 8 267 1
5 5 0.63 2 8 0
6 6 0.50 2 12 0
26 26 0.72 2 36 1
11 11 0.63 2 17 0
3 3 0.38 33 8 0
28 28 0.63 2 44 1
115 115 0.78 2 147 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 13.3 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 12 B
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 9.6 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 11.5 B
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 4% 2% 14% 26% 69% 94% 19% 60% 2% 4% 79% 26% Stop Stop Stop Stop 146 275 222 43 9 3 6 72 28 191 208 26 5 115 11 12 200 287 66 343 1 1 1 1 0.107 0.497 0.416 0.319 5.858 5.226 5.226 5.751 Yes Yes Yes Yes 625 688 689 610 3.909 3.261 3.263 3.794 0.32 0.108 0.498 0.417 12 11.5 13.3 9.6 B B A B 2.1 2.8 1.4 0.4
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 AWSC 14: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Main St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
12.5 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
15 15 0.81 39 19 1
79 79 0.83 6 95 1
10 10 0.75 2 13 0
173 173 0.81 5 214 1
100 100 0.92 2 109 1
15 15 0.81 23 19 0
6 6 0.42 2 14 0
116 116 0.85 10 136 1
140 140 0.81 10 173 1
22 22 0.79 21 28 0
133 133 0.86 7 155 1
24 24 0.88 10 27 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 2 11.3 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 2 SB 1 13.1 B
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 11.1 B
SB NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 14.2 B
NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 12% 0% 100% 0% 100% 5% 0% 0% 87% 0% 74% 0% 89% 95% 13% 0% 0% 100% 11% 13% 0% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 179 15 140 173 115 122 89 0 15 6 0 173 0 22 133 0 0 116 79 0 100 0 140 0 10 24 0 15 210 19 109 214 127 173 151 5 5 5 4b 5 5 5 0.268 0.279 0.041 0.204 0.411 0.222 0.395 6.78 6.41 5.813 7.921 6.756 6.934 6.281 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 529 615 528 517 558 450 570 4.175 3.577 5.697 4.532 4.697 4.043 4.846 0.271 0.281 0.042 0.206 0.414 0.223 0.397 14.2 10.8 11 11.3 14.5 11.5 10.8 B B B B B B B 1.9 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.8 2 0.8
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 21: Bolton St & King St E
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
8.6 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
7 7 0.50 2 14 0
83 83 0.83 2 100 1
5 5 0.50 2 10 0
17 17 0.61 2 28 0
79 79 0.79 3 100 1
72 72 0.82 1 88 0
7 7 0.50 2 14 0
5 5 0.33 2 15 1
19 19 0.53 2 36 0
59 59 0.72 4 82 0
7 7 0.75 2 9 1
17 17 0.63 2 27 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 8.5 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 8.8 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 8.8 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 10% 71% 23% 7% 87% 47% 8% 16% 43% 20% 61% 5% Stop Stop Stop Stop 31 95 168 83 7 17 7 59 79 5 83 7 5 72 19 17 216 65 124 118 1 1 1 1 0.082 0.158 0.256 0.158 4.522 4.59 4.28 4.822 Yes Yes Yes Yes 839 781 790 743 2.559 2.622 2.307 2.858 0.082 0.159 0.257 0.159 8.8 8.5 8 8.8 A A A A 0.3 0.6 0.6 1
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
47 47 1900
42 42 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 0.97 1738 0.69 1247 0.77 55 4 270 2% NA 1
20 20 1900
75 75 1900
6 6 1900
16 16 1900
0.25 24 0 0 2%
0.58 28 0 0 2% Perm
62 62 1900 9.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.81 77 0 77 2% Perm
11 11 1900 6.0 1.00 0.91 0.99 1678 0.94 1585 0.25 44 62 214 2% NA 4
47 47 1900
0.83 90 0 0 2% Perm
7 7 1900 9.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1817 0.38 704 0.25 28 0 56 2% NA 2
11 11 1900
0.64 31 0 0 2%
56 56 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1785 0.75 1366 0.82 68 0 182 2% NA 1
0.25 188 0 0 5% Perm 1
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
1
2
25.0 25.0 0.30 6.0 3.0 373
25.0 25.0 0.30 6.0 3.0 408
20.0 20.0 0.24 9.0 3.0 168
c0.22 0.73 26.2 1.00 6.9 33.0 C 33.0 C
0.13 0.45 23.7 1.00 0.8 24.4 C 24.4 C
c0.08 0.33 26.2 1.00 1.2 27.4 C 26.4 C
30.6 1.11 83.5 53.3% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 20.0 20.0 0.24 9.0 3.0 379 0.05 0.20 25.4 1.00 0.3 25.6 C
0.25 44 0 0 2% Perm
0.25 188 0 0 2%
4 17.5 17.5 0.21 6.0 3.0 332 c0.13 0.64 30.1 1.00 4.2 34.4 C 34.4 C
C 51.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBWB Lead
2 NBTL Lag
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
4 SBTL
6 Hold
None Ped Min None 31 31 31 29 25.4% 23.8% 25.4% 25.4% 31 21 29 29 2 4 4 4 28 2 2 5 1 8 20 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 8 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 91 60 0 31 0 31 60 91 92 85 25 51 92 85 17 41 60 0 29 91 61 116 54 20 61 108 54 10 122 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
17: Bolton St & Canal St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBT 274 0.73 39.8 0.0 39.8 36.9 57.7 149.9
WBT 182 0.45 28.7 0.0 28.7 22.5 40.6 179.7
NBT 56 0.33 34.1 0.0 34.1 7.2 4.8 223.5
377 0 0 0 0.73
408 0 0 0 0.45
168 0 0 0 0.33
NBR 77 0.20 28.2 0.0 28.2 9.5 20.1 20.0 379 0 0 0 0.20
SBT 276 0.70 31.8 0.0 31.8 29.0 4.3 92.3 529 0 0 0 0.52
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
321 321 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 0.91 353 0 353 2% Perm
104 106 104 106 1900 1900 2.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1583 1770 1.00 0.34 1583 630 0.89 0.88 118 119 77 0 118 42 2% 2% Perm D.P+P 1 2 4 36.0 17.6 36.0 17.6 0.26 0.53 2.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 470 412 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.25 8.5 19.0 1.00 1.00 1.3 0.1 9.8 19.1 A B
385 385 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.88 438 0 438 3% NA 12
416 416 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1776 1.00 1776 0.86 484 0 484 7% NA 2
209 209 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.87 240 141 99 2% Perm
38.0 38.0 0.56
1037 c0.24
28.0 28.0 0.41 6.0 3.0 735 c0.27
0.42 8.5 1.00 1.3 9.8 A 9.8 A
0.66 15.9 1.00 4.6 20.5 C 18.0 B
4 17.6 17.6 0.26 6.0 3.0 460 c0.20 0.77 23.1 1.00 7.5 30.6 C 27.7 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
18.0 0.65 67.6 59.7% 15
2 28.0 28.0 0.41 6.0 3.0 655 0.06 0.15 12.4 1.00 0.5 12.9 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
B 14.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 NBTL Lead Max 10 14.3% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 10 8 8 60 68 68
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
4 2 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 34 26 48.6% 37.1% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 44 10 44 0 38 64 38 64 0 34 28 54 28 54 70 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
20: East St S & King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 20: East St S & King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 353 0.77 35.5 0.0 35.5 41.0 #70.5 452.1 523 0 0 0 0.67
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBR 119 0.24 7.2 0.0 7.2 1.4 11.7
NBL 118 0.23 7.0 0.0 7.0 5.6 11.4
25.0 541 0 0 0 0.22
70.0 507 0 0 0 0.23
NBT 438 0.38 8.0 0.0 8.0 25.3 41.6 128.0
SBT 484 0.66 21.8 0.0 21.8 48.9 76.1 311.0
1146 0 0 0 0.38
735 0 0 0 0.66
SBR 240 0.30 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 10.6 50.0 796 0 0 0 0.30
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
8 8 1900
6 6 1900 4.5 1.00 0.87 1.00 1542 0.99 1526 0.63 10 212 55 2% NA 4
231 231 1900
32 32 1900
16 16 1900
0.63 51 0 0 2% Perm
262 262 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.37 685 0.78 336 0 336 3% pm+pt 5 2 52.8 52.8 0.73 4.5 3.0 659 c0.08 c0.30 0.51 4.6 1.00 0.6 5.2 A
387 387 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.96 403 0 403 2% NA 2
22 22 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.59 37 10 27 2% Perm
6 6 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.53 978 0.63 10 0 10 2% Perm
350 350 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1764 1.00 1764 0.85 412 2 438 4% NA 6
15 15 1900
0.93 248 0 0 8%
9 9 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1755 0.34 603 0.38 24 16 84 2% NA 8
2 52.8 52.8 0.73 4.5 3.0 1156
6 37.5 37.5 0.52 4.5 3.0 507
0.02 0.02 2.7 1.00 0.0 2.7 A
0.01 0.02 8.5 1.00 0.1 8.5 A
0.88 9 0 0 2% Perm
0.63 25 0 0 2%
8
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
10.5 10.5 0.15 4.5 3.0 221
10.5 10.5 0.15 4.5 3.0 87
0.04 0.25 27.4 1.00 0.6 28.0 C 28.0 C
c0.14 0.96 30.7 1.00 83.6 114.3 F 114.3 F 17.7 0.62 72.3 64.8% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
52.8 52.8 0.73 4.5 3.0 1360 0.22 0.30 3.4 1.00 0.6 3.9 A 4.4 A
0.54 28 0 0 46%
37.5 37.5 0.52 4.5 3.0 914 0.25 0.48 11.1 1.00 1.8 12.9 B 12.8 B
B 13.5 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
Max None 22.8 57.2 71.5% 28.5% 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57.2 0 57.2 75.5 52.7 64.5 41.7 32 54.8 50.3 27.5 39.3 16.5
PM Peak Hour
8 6 5 NBL SBTL WBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes Max None None 32 22.8 25.2 31.5% 40.0% 28.5% 22.5 9.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 25.2 57.2 25.2 0 57.2 75.5 52.7 20.7 64.5 41.7 20.7 0 32 54.8 50.3 27.5 75.5 39.3 16.5 75.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
80 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 267 0.62 11.8 0.0 11.8 2.3 4.2 173.5
WBT 100 0.97 109.2 0.0 109.2 11.1 8.2 258.1
572 0 0 0 0.47
167 0 0 0 0.60
NBL 336 0.51 6.8 0.0 6.8 11.8 22.9 80.0 805 0 0 0 0.42
NBT 403 0.30 4.6 0.0 4.6 14.6 33.3 387.9 1360 0 0 0 0.30
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
NBR 37 0.03 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.1
SBL 10 0.02 12.3 0.0 12.3 0.6 2.5
15.0 1165 0 0 0 0.03
40.0 506 0 0 0 0.02
SBT 440 0.48 15.3 0.0 15.3 34.2 72.9 200.5 916 0 0 0 0.48
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: East St S & Boyd St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
83 83 1900
1 1 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 0.96 1751 0.73 1337 0.25 4 8 164 2% NA 4
19 19 1900
1 1 1900
17 17 1900
10 10 1900
0.25 4 0 0 2% Perm
0.54 31 0 0 2%
0.56 18 0 0 2% Perm
693 693 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1861 0.98 1829 0.92 753 0 771 2% NA 2
9 9 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.67 13 3 10 2% Perm
22 22 1900
0.71 27 0 0 2%
6 6 1900 4.5 1.00 0.91 1.00 1682 0.98 1648 0.63 10 26 19 2% NA 8
568 568 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1808 0.95 1718 0.89 638 0 670 5% NA 6
145 145 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1553 1.00 1553 0.84 173 27 146 4% Perm
0.59 141 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
2
8 15.0 15.0 0.17 4.5 3.0 221
15.0 15.0 0.17 4.5 3.0 272
66.7 66.7 0.74 4.5 3.0 1345
c0.12 0.74 36.0 1.00 12.7 48.7 D 48.7 D
0.01 0.07 32.0 1.00 0.1 32.1 C 32.1 C
c0.42 0.57 5.5 1.00 1.8 7.3 A 7.2 A
11.2 0.60 90.7 67.7% 15
2 66.7 66.7 0.74 4.5 3.0 1164 0.01 0.01 3.2 1.00 0.0 3.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 C
0.68 32 0 0 2% Perm 6
66.7 66.7 0.74 4.5 3.0 1263 0.39 0.53 5.2 1.00 1.6 6.8 A 6.2 A
6 66.7 66.7 0.74 4.5 3.0 1142 0.09 0.13 3.5 1.00 0.2 3.7 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: East St S & Boyd St
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 67.5 67.5 22.5 22.5 75.0% 25.0% 75.0% 25.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 67.5 0 67.5 0 67.5 67.5 0 63 85.5 63 85.5 52 74.5 52 74.5 0 67.5 0 67.5 63 85.5 63 85.5 74.5 52 74.5 52
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
18: East St S & Boyd St
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 18: East St S & Boyd St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBT 172 0.75 53.8 0.0 53.8 25.9 10.0 175.8
WBT 45 0.15 16.1 0.0 16.1 2.0 5.9 293.2
NBT 771 0.57 8.1 0.0 8.1 53.3 88.7 311.0
273 0 0 0 0.63
352 0 0 0 0.13
1344 0 0 0 0.57
NBR 13 0.01 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.7 20.0 1168 0 0 0 0.01
SBT 670 0.53 7.6 0.0 7.6 43.9 72.3 166.1 1263 0 0 0 0.53
SBR 173 0.15 2.2 0.0 2.2 3.0 7.8 15.0 1168 0 0 0 0.15
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
50 50
328 328 Free 0% 0.97 338
15 15
12 12
25 25
50 50
50 50
0.25 100
0.63 79
0.69 23
0.25 200
10 10 Stop 0% 0.25 40
50 50
0.67 18
20 20 Stop 0% 0.25 80
16 16
0.63 24
341 341 Free 0% 0.92 371
0.25 200
0.25 200
None
None
471
362
1427
1257
350
1270
1219
421
471 4.1
362 4.1
1427 7.1
1257 6.5
350 6.2
1270 7.1
1219 6.5
421 6.2
2.2 82 1091
2.2 98 1197
3.5 0 52
4.0 42 138
3.3 97 693
3.5 0 65
4.0 72 145
3.3 68 632
EB 1 562 200 24 1091 0.18 5.1 4.6 A 4.6
WB 1 489 18 100 1197 0.02 0.3 0.5 A 0.5
NB 1 182 79 23 85 2.13 123.7 627.2 F 627.2 F 2699.6 55.0% 15
SB 1 440 200 200 120 3.65 Err Err F Err F
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Main St & Joseph St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
31 31 Stop 0% 0.75 41
55 55
55 55 0.71 77
33 33 Free 0% 0.60 55
32 32
0.77 71
41 41 Free 0% 0.75 55
None
None
282
73
91
282 6.4
73 6.2
91 4.1
3.5 94 672
3.3 93 989
2.2 95 1498
EB 1 112 41 71 843 0.13 3.5 9.9 A 9.9 A
NB 1 132 77 0 1498 0.05 1.2 4.6 A 4.6
SB 1 91 0 36 1700 0.05 0.0 0.0
0.88 36
0.0
5.1 23.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: East St S & Mill St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
14 14 Stop 0% 0.75 19
53 53
418 418 Free 0% 0.91 459
19 19
50 50
0.53 36
0.92 54
436 436 Free 0% 0.86 507
0.78 68
None
None
152 0.81 1074
459
495
974 6.5
459 6.2
495 4.1
3.6 91 209
3.3 89 602
2.2 95 1069
WB 1 87 19 68 427 0.20 5.7 15.6 C 15.6 C
NB 1 459 0 0 1700 0.27 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
NB 2 36 0 36 1700 0.02 0.0 0.0
0.0
1.6 39.4% 15
SB 1 54 54 0 1069 0.05 1.2 8.5 A 0.8
SB 2 507 0 0 1700 0.30 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 AWSC 13: Main St & Duke St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
13.5 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
104 104 0.79 7 132 0
216 216 0.79 6 273 1
9 9 0.88 2 10 0
8 8 0.67 2 12 0
192 192 0.86 2 223 1
6 6 0.63 2 10 0
13 13 0.56 11 23 0
37 37 0.75 2 49 1
23 23 0.71 2 32 0
1 1 0.25 2 4 0
45 45 0.71 2 63 1
108 108 0.83 4 130 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 16.6 C
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 11.7 B
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 10.5 B
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 10.9 B
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 4% 18% 1% 32% 66% 93% 29% 51% 3% 70% 32% 3% Stop Stop Stop Stop 154 73 329 206 8 13 104 1 37 45 216 192 9 6 108 23 245 198 105 415 1 1 1 1 0.177 0.615 0.37 0.301 6.089 5.331 5.448 5.487 Yes Yes Yes Yes 658 652 587 677 4.153 3.372 3.497 3.543 0.179 0.613 0.372 0.304 10.9 11.7 10.5 16.6 B B C B 1.7 4.2 1.3 0.6
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 AWSC 14: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Main St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
15.8 C
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
24 24 0.71 2 34 1
113 113 0.89 2 127 1
5 5 0.50 2 10 0
204 204 0.87 2 234 1
108 108 0.77 2 140 1
25 25 0.46 2 54 0
3 3 0.38 2 8 0
167 167 0.84 2 199 1
215 215 0.89 2 242 1
17 17 0.94 20 18 0
159 159 0.85 6 187 1
30 30 0.63 4 48 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 2 13.3 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 2 SB 1 16.2 C
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 14.4 B
SB NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 19.1 C
NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 0% 100% 2% 8% 0% 0% 100% 0% 77% 98% 0% 96% 0% 81% 0% 100% 15% 19% 0% 0% 4% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 206 170 24 215 204 133 118 0 24 3 0 17 0 204 0 167 159 0 108 113 0 0 215 0 25 0 5 30 207 253 34 137 242 234 195 5 5 5 5 5 5 4b 0.411 0.432 0.078 0.294 0.502 0.382 0.534 7.155 6.431 8.262 7.715 7.708 7.06 7.609 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 473 502 433 466 560 467 510 4.9 4.176 6.017 5.47 5.455 4.807 5.659 0.412 0.432 0.079 0.294 0.501 0.382 0.535 14 11.7 19.1 14.8 13.7 18 14.1 B B B B B C C 2.2 0.3 2 2.8 3.1 1.2 1.8
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 21: Bolton St & King St E
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
10.2 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
19 19 0.53 2 36 0
149 149 0.78 2 191 1
11 11 0.63 2 17 0
44 44 0.81 2 54 0
82 82 0.95 2 86 1
97 97 0.89 2 109 0
10 10 0.56 2 18 0
7 7 0.75 2 9 1
48 48 0.70 2 69 0
114 114 0.81 2 141 0
6 6 0.63 2 10 1
14 14 0.43 2 33 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 10.6 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 10.2 B
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.9 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 10.5 B
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 11% 15% 85% 20% 11% 83% 37% 4% 6% 43% 74% 10% Stop Stop Stop Stop 65 179 223 134 10 19 44 114 7 149 82 6 48 11 97 14 96 244 250 183 1 1 1 1 0.135 0.335 0.329 0.276 5.074 5.043 4.841 5.434 Yes Yes Yes Yes 711 718 746 665 3.08 3.043 2.841 3.434 0.34 0.335 0.275 0.135 8.9 10.6 10.2 10.5 A B B B 1.5 0.5 1.4 1.1
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
52 52 1900
48 48 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 0.98 1775 0.84 1512 0.69 70 9 155 2% NA 1
28 28 1900
61 61 1900
7 7 1900
13 13 1900
0.92 8 0 0 2%
0.50 26 0 0 2% Perm
45 45 1900 9.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1568 1.00 1568 0.65 69 0 69 3% Perm
13 13 1900 6.0 1.00 0.91 0.99 1680 0.95 1615 0.92 14 45 40 2% NA 4
52 52 1900
0.68 90 0 0 6% Perm
5 5 1900 9.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1788 0.33 616 0.92 5 0 31 2% NA 2
13 13 1900
0.75 37 0 0 2%
37 37 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.97 1762 0.75 1358 0.58 64 0 162 2% NA 1
0.92 57 0 0 2% Perm 1
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
1
2
14.3 14.3 0.20 6.0 3.0 307
14.3 14.3 0.20 6.0 3.0 275
20.1 20.1 0.29 9.0 3.0 175
0.10 0.51 24.9 1.00 1.3 26.2 C 26.2 C
c0.12 0.59 25.4 1.00 3.2 28.6 C 28.6 C
c0.05 0.18 18.9 1.00 0.5 19.4 B 19.1 B
25.0 0.71 70.4 53.8% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 20.1 20.1 0.29 9.0 3.0 447 0.04 0.15 18.8 1.00 0.2 19.0 B
0.92 14 0 0 2% Perm
0.92 57 0 0 2%
4 15.0 15.0 0.21 6.0 3.0 344 c0.02 0.12 22.4 1.00 0.2 22.5 C 22.5 C
C 51.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBWB Lead
2 NBTL Lag
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
4 SBTL
6 Hold
None Ped Min None 31 31 31 29 25.4% 23.8% 25.4% 25.4% 31 21 29 29 2 4 4 4 28 2 2 5 1 8 20 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 8 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 91 60 0 31 0 31 60 91 92 85 25 51 92 85 17 41 60 0 29 91 61 116 54 20 61 108 54 10 122 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
17: Bolton St & Canal St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBT 164 0.52 29.2 0.0 29.2 18.0 24.7 149.9
WBT 162 0.59 34.3 0.0 34.3 19.4 21.5 179.7
NBT 31 0.18 23.9 0.0 23.9 3.1 10.5 223.5
544 0 0 0 0.30
482 0 0 0 0.34
175 0 0 0 0.18
NBR 69 0.15 21.5 0.0 21.5 6.8 12.1 20.0 446 0 0 0 0.15
SBT 85 0.22 13.2 0.0 13.2 3.0 14.2 92.3 610 0 0 0 0.14
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
134 134 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.95 1752 0.87 154 0 154 3% Perm
68 96 68 96 1900 1900 6.0 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1583 1752 1.00 0.43 1583 789 0.85 0.72 80 133 66 0 14 133 2% 3% Perm D.P+P 1 4 2 10.7 36.8 10.7 36.8 0.17 0.60 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 275 600 0.03 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.22 21.2 5.6 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.9 21.2 6.4 C A
371 371 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1743 1.00 1743 0.85 436 0 436 9% NA 12
393 393 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.90 437 0 437 5% NA 2
182 182 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.93 196 105 91 2% Perm
38.8 38.8 0.63
1099 c0.25
28.6 28.6 0.47 6.0 3.0 841 c0.24
0.40 5.6 1.00 1.1 6.7 A 6.6 A
0.52 11.6 1.00 2.3 13.9 B 12.6 B
4 10.7 10.7 0.17 6.0 3.0 304 c0.09 0.51 23.0 1.00 1.3 24.3 C 23.3 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
12.0 0.49 61.5 52.4% 15
2 28.6 28.6 0.47 6.0 3.0 736 0.06 0.12 9.3 1.00 0.3 9.7 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
B 14.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 NBTL Lead Max 10 14.3% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 10 8 8 60 68 68
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
4 2 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 34 26 48.6% 37.1% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 44 10 44 0 38 64 38 64 0 34 28 54 28 54 70 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
20: East St S & King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 20: East St S & King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 154 0.36 24.3 0.0 24.3 15.7 29.1 452.1 595 0 0 0 0.26
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBR 80 0.18 6.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 8.0
NBL 133 0.20 5.0 0.0 5.0 4.9 8.0
25.0 591 0 0 0 0.14
70.0 668 0 0 0 0.20
NBT 436 0.35 5.8 0.0 5.8 19.7 31.7 128.0
SBT 437 0.51 15.5 0.0 15.5 36.5 62.3 311.0
1260 0 0 0 0.35
861 0 0 0 0.51
SBR 196 0.23 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.0 9.6 50.0 856 0 0 0 0.23
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
39 39 1900
15 15 1900 4.5 1.00 0.91 0.99 1545 0.93 1444 0.25 60 99 349 2% NA 4
270 270 1900
30 30 1900
10 10 1900
0.69 43 0 0 2% Perm
246 246 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1687 0.26 467 0.92 267 0 267 7% pm+pt 5 2 49.9 49.9 0.60 4.5 3.0 452 c0.08 0.27 0.59 10.4 1.00 2.1 12.5 B
273 273 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1759 1.00 1759 0.87 314 0 314 8% NA 2
11 11 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.67 16 6 10 2% Perm
4 4 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.57 1061 0.75 5 0 5 2% Perm
394 394 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1735 1.00 1735 0.87 453 2 479 6% NA 6
14 14 1900
0.87 310 0 0 7%
18 18 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1761 0.63 1143 0.75 24 13 74 2% NA 8
2 49.9 49.9 0.60 4.5 3.0 957
6 33.9 33.9 0.41 4.5 3.0 435
0.01 0.01 6.5 1.00 0.0 6.5 A
0.00 0.01 14.4 1.00 0.0 14.4 B
0.50 78 0 0 31% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.50 20 0 0 2%
8 23.6 23.6 0.29 4.5 3.0 413
23.6 23.6 0.29 4.5 3.0 326
c0.24 0.85 27.7 1.00 14.7 42.5 D 42.5 D
0.06 0.23 22.5 1.00 0.4 22.8 C 22.8 C 24.2 0.72 82.5 66.2% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
49.9 49.9 0.60 4.5 3.0 1063 0.18 0.30 7.8 1.00 0.7 8.6 A 10.2 B
0.50 28 0 0 50%
33.9 33.9 0.41 4.5 3.0 712 c0.28 0.67 19.8 1.00 5.0 24.8 C 24.7 C
C 13.5 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
Max None 54 36 60.0% 40.0% 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 54 54 0 49.5 85.5 38.5 74.5 70.7 34.7 30.2 66.2 19.2 55.2
AM Peak Hour
6 8 5 NBL SBTL WBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None Max None 34.7 36 19.3 21.4% 38.6% 40.0% 22.5 9.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 54 0 19.3 54 19.3 0 49.5 85.5 14.8 38.5 74.5 14.8 0 34.7 70.7 30.2 66.2 85.5 19.2 55.2 85.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 448 0.88 38.0 0.0 38.0 47.2 3.3 173.5
WBT 87 0.26 19.7 0.0 19.7 8.2 14.9 258.1
641 0 0 0 0.70
450 0 0 0 0.19
NBL 267 0.59 14.8 0.0 14.8 18.7 37.3 80.0 502 0 0 0 0.53
NBT 314 0.30 10.1 0.0 10.1 22.5 41.9 387.9 1063 0 0 0 0.30
NBR 16 0.02 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.6 15.0 963 0 0 0 0.02
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
SBT SBL 5 481 0.67 0.01 28.7 19.5 0.0 0.0 28.7 19.5 0.5 61.6 2.4 #117.8 200.5 40.0 713 435 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0.01
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: East St S & Boyd St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
61 61 1900
7 7 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.96 1747 0.79 1442 0.42 17 4 108 2% NA 4
5 5 1900
1 1 1900
28 28 1900
19 19 1900
0.25 4 0 0 2% Perm
0.66 42 0 0 2%
0.70 27 0 0 2% Perm
508 508 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1775 0.97 1718 0.88 577 0 604 7% NA 2
5 5 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.50 10 2 8 2% Perm
17 17 1900
0.50 10 0 0 2%
12 12 1900 4.5 1.00 0.92 1.00 1700 0.98 1679 0.56 21 37 30 2% NA 8
523 523 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1824 0.97 1765 0.94 556 0 582 4% NA 6
185 185 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1568 1.00 1568 0.89 208 31 177 3% Perm
0.72 85 0 0 4% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
2
8 10.4 10.4 0.12 4.5 3.0 171
10.4 10.4 0.12 4.5 3.0 199
68.2 68.2 0.78 4.5 3.0 1337
c0.07 0.63 36.8 1.00 7.1 43.8 D 43.8 D
0.02 0.15 34.6 1.00 0.4 35.0 C 35.0 C
c0.35 0.45 3.3 1.00 1.1 4.4 A 4.4 A
8.2 0.47 87.6 60.3% 15
2 68.2 68.2 0.78 4.5 3.0 1232 0.00 0.01 2.2 1.00 0.0 2.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 B
0.65 26 0 0 2% Perm 6
68.2 68.2 0.78 4.5 3.0 1374 0.33 0.42 3.2 1.00 1.0 4.2 A 3.8 A
6 68.2 68.2 0.78 4.5 3.0 1220 0.11 0.14 2.4 1.00 0.2 2.7 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: East St S & Boyd St
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 67.5 67.5 22.5 22.5 75.0% 25.0% 75.0% 25.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 67.5 67.5 0 67.5 67.5 0 63 85.5 63 85.5 52 74.5 52 74.5 0 0 67.5 67.5 63 85.5 63 85.5 74.5 52 74.5 52
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
18: East St S & Boyd St
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 18: East St S & Boyd St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBT 112 0.56 43.6 0.0 43.6 16.5 13.2 175.8
WBT 67 0.26 18.1 0.0 18.1 3.6 6.2 293.2
NBT 604 0.44 5.4 0.0 5.4 29.0 58.3 311.0
303 0 0 0 0.37
382 0 0 0 0.18
1371 0 0 0 0.44
NBR 10 0.01 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 20.0 1266 0 0 0 0.01
SBT 582 0.41 5.1 0.0 5.1 27.0 56.0 166.1 1407 0 0 0 0.41
SBR 208 0.16 1.6 0.0 1.6 2.1 8.6 15.0 1279 0 0 0 0.16
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
460 460 Free 0% 0.96 479
10 10
26 26
20 20
19 19
40 40
0.25 80
0.50 38
0.65 48
0.25 160
10 10 Stop 0% 0.25 40
40 40
0.55 47
20 20 Stop 0% 0.25 80
31 31
0.50 20
416 416 Free 0% 0.85 489
0.25 160
0.25 0
None
None
569
499
1292
1152
489
1200
1122
529
569 4.1
499 4.2
1292 7.1
1152 6.5
489 6.3
1200 7.1
1122 6.5
529 6.2
2.2 100 1003
2.3 95 1030
3.5 53 81
4.0 58 189
3.4 92 567
3.5 0 96
4.0 80 197
3.3 71 550
EB 1 499 0 20 1003 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 616 47 80 1030 0.05 1.1 1.2 A 1.2
NB 1 166 38 48 170 0.98 58.3 118.3 F 118.3 F 141.3 59.8% 15
SB 1 360 160 160 166 2.16 219.4 587.3 F 587.3 F
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Main St & Joseph St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
28 28 Stop 0% 0.88 32
86 86
60 60 0.54 111
37 37 Free 0% 0.58 64
28 28
0.53 162
33 33 Free 0% 0.78 42
None
None
352
88
112
352 6.4
88 6.2
112 4.1
3.5 95 592
3.3 83 970
2.2 92 1478
EB 1 194 32 162 878 0.22 6.4 10.3 B 10.3 B
NB 1 153 111 0 1478 0.08 1.8 5.7 A 5.7
SB 1 112 0 48 1700 0.07 0.0 0.0
0.58 48
0.0
6.2 25.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: East St S & Mill St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
49 49 Stop 0% 0.93 53
84 84
346 346 Free 0% 0.83 417
23 23
67 67
0.43 53
0.66 102
402 402 Free 0% 0.87 462
0.83 101
None
None
152 0.87 1083
417
470
1020 6.4
417 6.2
470 4.1
3.5 74 206
3.3 84 636
2.2 91 1092
WB 1 154 53 101 370 0.42 15.2 21.5 C 21.5 C
NB 1 417 0 0 1700 0.25 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
NB 2 53 0 53 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.0
3.5 39.8% 15
SB 1 102 102 0 1092 0.09 2.3 8.6 A 1.6
SB 2 462 0 0 1700 0.27 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 AWSC 13: Main St & Duke St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
25.8 D
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
92 92 0.74 5 124 0
245 245 0.84 5 292 1
19 19 0.67 2 28 0
9 9 0.75 2 12 0
339 339 0.78 8 435 1
5 5 0.63 2 8 0
10 10 0.50 2 20 0
31 31 0.72 2 43 1
13 13 0.63 2 21 0
4 4 0.38 33 11 0
33 33 0.63 2 52 1
188 188 0.78 2 241 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 29 D
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 29.3 D
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 12.4 B
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 19.4 C
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 2% 3% 26% 19% 69% 96% 15% 57% 84% 24% 5% 1% Stop Stop Stop Stop 225 356 353 54 4 10 92 9 33 245 339 31 13 19 5 188 304 455 84 444 1 1 1 1 0.18 0.785 0.792 0.585 6.36 6.276 6.927 7.724 Yes Yes Yes Yes 520 564 573 467 5.724 4.438 4.353 5.008 0.18 0.787 0.794 0.585 19.4 29 29.3 12.4 C D B D 3.7 7.4 7.6 0.6
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 AWSC 14: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Main St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
14.8 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
17 17 0.81 39 21 1
93 93 0.83 6 112 1
12 12 0.75 2 16 0
202 202 0.81 5 249 1
117 117 0.92 2 127 1
17 17 0.81 23 21 0
7 7 0.42 2 17 0
136 136 0.85 10 160 1
164 164 0.81 10 202 1
25 25 0.79 21 32 0
156 156 0.86 7 181 1
28 28 0.88 10 32 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 2 12.7 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 2 SB 1 15.8 C
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 12.9 B
SB NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 17.4 C
NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 12% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 5% 0% 0% 87% 75% 95% 0% 89% 13% 0% 11% 13% 0% 100% 0% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 209 164 202 134 17 105 143 0 17 7 0 202 0 25 0 156 0 0 117 93 136 0 12 28 0 17 0 164 245 202 249 148 21 128 177 5 5 4b 5 5 5 5 0.05 0.263 0.516 0.281 0.498 0.34 0.356 7.32 6.935 6.335 8.565 7.391 7.445 6.824 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 492 569 487 486 530 519 418 4.672 4.071 6.308 5.134 5.179 4.524 5.358 0.341 0.355 0.05 0.263 0.512 0.279 0.498 17.4 12.6 12.8 17.9 12.2 13.2 11.8 B C B C B B B 2.7 1.6 2.9 1 1.5 0.2 1.1
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 21: Bolton St & King St E
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
8.9 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
8 8 0.50 2 16 0
97 97 0.83 2 117 1
5 5 0.50 2 10 0
17 17 0.61 2 28 0
79 79 0.79 3 100 1
72 72 0.82 1 88 0
8 8 0.50 2 16 0
5 5 0.33 2 15 1
23 23 0.53 2 43 0
69 69 0.72 4 96 0
8 8 0.75 2 11 1
20 20 0.63 2 32 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 8.8 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.1 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 9.1 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 10% 71% 22% 7% 88% 47% 8% 14% 43% 21% 64% 5% Stop Stop Stop Stop 110 168 36 97 8 17 8 69 79 5 97 8 5 23 72 20 216 75 143 138 1 1 1 1 0.095 0.186 0.263 0.188 4.589 4.679 4.383 4.889 Yes Yes Yes Yes 817 764 777 731 2.72 2.419 2.936 2.641 0.097 0.187 0.264 0.189 8.1 8.8 9.1 9 A A A A 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.7
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
62 62 1900
49 49 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.97 1736 0.66 1184 0.77 64 4 346 2% NA 1
24 24 1900
88 88 1900
7 7 1900
19 19 1900
0.25 28 0 0 2%
0.58 33 0 0 2% Perm
73 73 1900 9.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.81 90 0 90 2% Perm
13 13 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 0.99 1673 0.94 1580 0.25 52 67 285 2% NA 4
62 62 1900
0.83 106 0 0 2% Perm
12 12 1900 9.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1826 0.38 699 0.25 48 0 81 2% NA 2
13 13 1900
0.64 38 0 0 2%
65 65 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1785 0.75 1366 0.82 79 0 213 2% NA 1
0.25 248 0 0 5% Perm 1
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
1
2
25.0 25.0 0.29 6.0 3.0 337
25.0 25.0 0.29 6.0 3.0 389
20.0 20.0 0.23 9.0 3.0 159
c0.29 1.03 31.3 1.00 56.4 87.7 F 87.7 F
0.16 0.55 26.5 1.00 1.6 28.1 C 28.1 C
c0.12 0.51 29.5 1.00 2.6 32.1 C 29.9 C
50.6 1.41 87.6 54.1% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 20.0 20.0 0.23 9.0 3.0 361 0.06 0.25 27.7 1.00 0.4 28.0 C
0.25 52 0 0 2% Perm
0.25 248 0 0 2%
4 21.6 21.6 0.25 6.0 3.0 389 c0.18 0.73 30.3 1.00 7.0 37.3 D 37.3 D
D 51.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBWB Lead
2 NBTL Lag
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
4 SBTL
6 Hold
None Ped Min None 31 31 31 29 25.4% 23.8% 25.4% 25.4% 31 21 29 29 2 4 4 4 28 2 2 5 1 8 20 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 8 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 91 60 0 31 0 31 60 91 92 85 25 51 92 85 17 41 60 0 29 91 61 116 54 20 61 108 54 10 122 Semi Act-Uncoord 140
17: Bolton St & Canal St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBT 350 1.03 89.7 0.0 89.7 ~65.6 #93.6 149.9
WBT 213 0.55 33.7 0.0 33.7 31.2 48.4 179.7
NBT 81 0.51 43.8 0.0 43.8 12.3 6.5 223.5
341 0 0 0 1.03
389 0 0 0 0.55
159 0 0 0 0.51
NBR 90 0.25 31.1 0.0 31.1 12.8 23.1 20.0 361 0 0 0 0.25
SBT 352 0.77 35.0 0.0 35.0 41.4 6.3 92.3 514 0 0 0 0.68
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
377 377 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 0.91 414 0 414 2% Perm
124 122 124 122 1900 1900 6.0 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1583 1770 1.00 0.25 1583 462 0.89 0.88 139 139 76 0 63 139 2% 2% Perm D.P+P 1 4 2 36.0 18.6 36.0 18.6 0.27 0.52 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 429 394 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.15 0.35 9.8 19.0 1.00 1.00 0.2 2.5 12.3 19.1 B B
451 451 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.88 512 0 513 3% NA 12
487 487 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1776 1.00 1776 0.86 566 0 566 7% NA 2
245 245 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.87 282 167 115 2% Perm
38.0 38.0 0.55
1022 c0.28
28.0 28.0 0.41 6.0 3.0 724 c0.32
0.50 9.5 1.00 1.8 11.2 B 11.4 B
0.78 17.6 1.00 8.2 25.9 C 21.8 C
4 18.6 18.6 0.27 6.0 3.0 479 c0.23 0.86 23.8 1.00 14.9 38.7 D 33.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
21.7 0.76 68.6 66.6% 15
2 28.0 28.0 0.41 6.0 3.0 646 0.07 0.18 13.0 1.00 0.6 13.6 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
C 14.0 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 NBTL Lead Max 10 14.3% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 10 8 8 60 68 68
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
4 2 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 34 26 48.6% 37.1% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 44 10 44 0 38 64 38 64 0 34 28 54 28 54 70 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
20: East St S & King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 20: East St S & King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 414 0.86 43.7 0.0 43.7 50.2 #93.8 452.1 515 0 0 0 0.80
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBR 139 0.28 8.5 0.0 8.5 3.3 14.6
NBL 139 0.33 8.3 0.0 8.3 7.0 13.2
25.0 535 0 0 0 0.26
70.0 421 0 0 0 0.33
NBT 513 0.45 9.1 0.0 9.1 33.0 50.8 128.0
SBT 566 0.78 27.8 0.0 27.8 63.2 #97.8 311.0
1129 0 0 0 0.45
724 0 0 0 0.78
SBR 282 0.35 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 11.3 50.0 812 0 0 0 0.35
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
9 9 1900
8 8 1900 4.5 1.00 0.87 1.00 1541 0.99 1528 0.63 13 266 75 2% NA 4
296 296 1900
35 35 1900
17 17 1900
0.63 56 0 0 2% Perm
335 335 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.27 494 0.78 429 0 429 3% pm+pt 5 2 52.9 52.9 0.71 4.5 3.0 614 c0.15 c0.35 0.70 7.5 1.00 3.5 11.0 B
454 454 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.96 473 0 473 2% NA 2
25 25 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.59 42 10 32 2% Perm
7 7 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.49 917 0.63 11 0 11 2% Perm
410 410 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1767 1.00 1767 0.85 482 2 511 4% NA 6
17 17 1900
0.93 318 0 0 8%
10 10 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.97 1755 0.31 566 0.38 26 16 93 2% NA 8
2 52.9 52.9 0.71 4.5 3.0 1131
6 33.0 33.0 0.45 4.5 3.0 408
0.02 0.03 3.1 1.00 0.0 3.1 A
0.01 0.03 11.5 1.00 0.1 11.6 B
0.88 10 0 0 2% Perm
0.63 27 0 0 2%
8
4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
12.1 12.1 0.16 4.5 3.0 249
12.1 12.1 0.16 4.5 3.0 92
0.05 0.30 27.2 1.00 0.7 27.9 C 27.9 C
c0.16 1.01 30.9 1.00 97.1 128.1 F 128.1 F 21.4 0.79 74.0 74.9% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
52.9 52.9 0.71 4.5 3.0 1331 0.25 0.36 4.0 1.00 0.7 4.8 A 7.5 A
0.54 31 0 0 46%
33.0 33.0 0.45 4.5 3.0 787 0.29 0.65 16.0 1.00 4.1 20.1 C 19.9 B
C 13.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
Max None 22.8 57.2 71.5% 28.5% 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57.2 0 57.2 75.5 52.7 64.5 41.7 32 54.8 50.3 27.5 39.3 16.5
PM Peak Hour
8 6 5 NBL SBTL WBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes Max None None 32 22.8 25.2 31.5% 40.0% 28.5% 22.5 9.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 57.2 0 25.2 25.2 0 57.2 75.5 52.7 20.7 64.5 41.7 20.7 0 32 54.8 50.3 27.5 75.5 39.3 16.5 75.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
80 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
Splits and Phases:
15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 341 0.66 11.3 0.0 11.3 2.8 3.0 173.5
WBT 109 1.01 118.3 0.0 118.3 12.8 8.9 258.1
617 0 0 0 0.55
154 0 0 0 0.71
NBL 429 0.70 12.7 0.0 12.7 18.8 34.5 80.0 705 0 0 0 0.61
NBT 473 0.36 5.7 0.0 5.7 20.9 44.1 387.9 1330 0 0 0 0.36
NBR 42 0.04 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.3 1.5 15.0 1140 0 0 0 0.04
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
SBT SBL 11 513 0.65 0.03 24.5 16.9 0.0 0.0 24.5 16.9 0.9 55.4 3.1 #110.3 200.5 40.0 788 407 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.65 0.03
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: East St S & Boyd St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
97 97 1900
1 1 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 0.96 1751 0.78 1431 0.25 4 8 192 2% NA 4
23 23 1900
1 1 1900
20 20 1900
12 12 1900
0.25 4 0 0 2% Perm
0.54 37 0 0 2%
0.56 21 0 0 2% Perm
812 812 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1861 0.98 1820 0.92 883 0 904 2% NA 2
11 11 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.67 16 4 12 2% Perm
25 25 1900
0.71 32 0 0 2%
7 7 1900 4.5 1.00 0.90 1.00 1677 0.98 1651 0.63 11 31 21 2% NA 8
665 665 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1808 0.94 1696 0.89 747 0 784 5% NA 6
170 170 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1553 1.00 1553 0.84 202 28 174 4% Perm
0.59 164 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
2
8 16.0 16.0 0.18 4.5 3.0 251
16.0 16.0 0.18 4.5 3.0 289
66.2 66.2 0.73 4.5 3.0 1321
c0.13 0.76 35.8 1.00 12.9 48.7 D 48.7 D
0.01 0.07 31.4 1.00 0.1 31.5 C 31.5 C
c0.50 0.68 6.8 1.00 2.9 9.7 A 9.6 A
13.0 0.70 91.2 76.2% 15
2 66.2 66.2 0.73 4.5 3.0 1149 0.01 0.01 3.5 1.00 0.0 3.5 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 D
0.68 37 0 0 2% Perm 6
66.2 66.2 0.73 4.5 3.0 1231 0.46 0.64 6.4 1.00 2.5 8.9 A 7.9 A
6 66.2 66.2 0.73 4.5 3.0 1127 0.11 0.15 3.9 1.00 0.3 4.2 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: East St S & Boyd St
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 67.5 67.5 22.5 22.5 75.0% 25.0% 75.0% 25.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 67.5 67.5 0 67.5 67.5 0 63 85.5 63 85.5 52 74.5 52 74.5 0 0 67.5 67.5 63 85.5 63 85.5 74.5 52 74.5 52
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
18: East St S & Boyd St
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 18: East St S & Boyd St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBT 200 0.77 53.8 0.0 53.8 30.6 11.4 175.8
WBT 52 0.16 15.3 0.0 15.3 2.1 6.2 293.2
NBT 904 0.68 10.8 0.0 10.8 79.1 122.2 311.0
290 0 0 0 0.69
355 0 0 0 0.15
1320 0 0 0 0.68
NBR 16 0.01 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.9 20.0 1153 0 0 0 0.01
SBT 784 0.64 9.8 0.0 9.8 64.1 97.5 166.1 1230 0 0 0 0.64
SBR 202 0.18 2.6 0.0 2.6 4.7 9.8 15.0 1154 0 0 0 0.18
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
50 50
534 534 Free 0% 0.97 551
24 24
19 19
25 25
50 50
50 50
0.25 100
0.63 79
0.69 38
0.25 200
10 10 Stop 0% 0.25 40
50 50
0.67 28
20 20 Stop 0% 0.25 80
26 26
0.63 38
556 556 Free 0% 0.92 604
0.25 200
0.25 200
None
None
704
589
1900
1730
570
1758
1699
654
704 4.1
589 4.1
1900 7.1
1730 6.5
570 6.2
1758 7.1
1699 6.5
654 6.2
2.2 78 894
2.2 97 986
3.5 0 14
4.0 0 67
3.3 93 521
3.5 0 0
4.0 42 69
3.3 57 467
EB 1 789 200 38 894 0.22 6.5 5.2 A 5.2
WB 1 732 28 100 986 0.03 0.7 0.7 A 0.7
NB 1 197 79 38 28 7.11 Err Err F Err F Err 66.0% 15
SB 1 440 200 200 0 Err Err Err F Err F
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Main St & Joseph St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
36 36 Stop 0% 0.75 48
89 89
89 89 0.71 125
39 39 Free 0% 0.60 65
37 37
0.77 116
48 48 Free 0% 0.75 64
None
None
400
86
107
400 6.4
86 6.2
107 4.1
3.5 91 555
3.3 88 973
2.2 92 1478
EB 1 164 48 116 797 0.21 5.9 10.7 B 10.7 B
NB 1 189 125 0 1478 0.08 2.1 5.3 A 5.3
SB 1 107 0 42 1700 0.06 0.0 0.0
0.88 42
0.0
6.0 28.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: East St S & Mill St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
16 16 Stop 0% 0.75 21
63 63
490 490 Free 0% 0.91 538
23 23
59 59
0.53 43
0.92 64
511 511 Free 0% 0.86 594
0.78 81
None
None
152 0.75 1260
538
581
1179 6.5
538 6.2
581 4.1
3.6 85 143
3.3 85 543
2.2 94 993
WB 1 102 21 81 345 0.30 9.2 19.8 C 19.8 C
NB 1 538 0 0 1700 0.32 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
NB 2 43 0 43 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.0
1.9 43.9% 15
SB 1 64 64 0 993 0.06 1.6 8.9 A 0.9
SB 2 594 0 0 1700 0.35 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 AWSC 13: Main St & Duke St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
26.9 D
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
133 133 0.79 7 168 0
276 276 0.79 6 349 1
11 11 0.88 2 13 0
8 8 0.67 2 12 0
225 225 0.86 2 262 1
7 7 0.63 2 11 0
22 22 0.56 11 39 0
44 44 0.75 2 59 1
27 27 0.71 2 38 0
1 1 0.25 2 4 0
53 53 0.71 2 75 1
176 176 0.83 4 212 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 42.1 E
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 16.3 C
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 13.2 B
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 16.1 C
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 0% 3% 32% 24% 66% 94% 23% 47% 3% 29% 77% 3% Stop Stop Stop Stop 230 93 420 240 1 8 22 133 53 44 276 225 7 176 27 11 291 285 136 530 1 1 1 1 0.276 0.903 0.513 0.514 6.37 7.301 6.133 6.485 Yes Yes Yes Yes 564 490 552 589 4.56 4.442 5.391 4.194 0.9 0.516 0.516 0.278 13.2 16.3 16.1 42.1 C C B E 2.9 2.9 1.1 10.9
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 AWSC 14: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Main St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
22.1 C
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
31 31 0.71 2 44 1
145 145 0.89 2 163 1
5 5 0.50 2 10 0
240 240 0.87 2 276 1
139 139 0.77 2 181 1
29 29 0.46 2 63 0
4 4 0.38 2 11 0
196 196 0.84 2 233 1
252 252 0.89 2 283 1
20 20 0.94 20 21 0
186 186 0.85 6 219 1
39 39 0.63 4 62 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 2 16.5 C
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 2 SB 1 22.7 C
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 19.5 C
SB NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 29.6 D
NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 0% 100% 2% 8% 0% 100% 0% 0% 76% 98% 0% 97% 0% 83% 0% 100% 16% 3% 17% 0% 0% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 31 200 252 245 150 240 168 0 31 4 0 240 0 20 0 0 139 0 196 145 186 0 252 0 29 0 5 39 44 173 244 283 302 276 244 5 5 5 5 5 4b 5 0.539 0.569 0.111 0.414 0.65 0.53 0.707 7.963 7.232 9.154 8.609 8.476 7.834 8.425 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 451 496 417 429 390 425 458 5.749 5.016 6.952 6.406 6.261 5.619 6.512 0.541 0.571 0.113 0.415 0.649 0.533 0.704 29.6 19.8 19.2 17.4 25.8 13.1 19.2 B C C C D D C 3.1 3.5 2 0.4 4.5 5.4 3
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 21: Bolton St & King St E
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
11.6 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
23 23 0.53 2 43 0
174 174 0.78 2 223 1
13 13 0.63 2 21 0
52 52 0.81 2 64 0
96 96 0.95 2 101 1
113 113 0.89 2 127 0
12 12 0.56 2 21 0
8 8 0.75 2 11 1
56 56 0.70 2 80 0
133 133 0.81 2 164 0
7 7 0.63 2 11 1
16 16 0.43 2 37 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 12.2 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 11.7 B
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 9.6 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 11.7 B
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 16% 11% 85% 20% 11% 83% 37% 4% 6% 74% 43% 10% Stop Stop Stop Stop 76 210 261 156 12 23 52 133 8 174 96 7 56 13 113 16 112 287 292 213 1 1 1 1 0.169 0.422 0.414 0.339 5.442 5.293 5.095 5.747 Yes Yes Yes Yes 657 680 704 625 3.497 3.334 3.136 3.794 0.17 0.422 0.415 0.341 9.6 12.2 11.7 11.7 A B B B 0.6 2.1 2 1.5
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0 1900
460 460 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1753 1.00 1753 0.96 479 2 497 8% NA 2
10 10 1900
26 26 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1656 0.21 362 0.55 47 0 47 9% pm+pt 1 6 32.0 32.0 0.46 3.5 3.0 225 0.01 0.09 0.21 12.7 1.00 0.5 13.2 B
416 416 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1764 1.00 1764 0.85 489 7 562 6% NA 6
20 20 1900
19 19 1900
31 31 1900
40 40 1900
0.50 38 0 0 2% Perm
0.65 48 0 0 8%
0.25 160 0 0 2% Perm
10 10 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.98 1713 0.80 1399 0.25 40 23 337 2% NA 4
40 40 1900
0.25 80 0 0 2%
20 20 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 0.99 1740 0.88 1543 0.25 80 12 154 2% NA 8
0.25 0 0 0 2% pm+pt 5 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
0.50 20 0 0 2%
25.2 25.2 0.36 4.5 3.0 628 c0.28 0.79 20.2 1.00 6.8 27.0 C 27.0 C 20.6 0.69 70.3 40.9% 15
8 32.0 32.0 0.46 4.5 3.0 802 c0.32 0.70 15.3 1.00 2.8 18.1 B 17.7 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.25 160 0 0 2%
4 29.3 29.3 0.42 4.5 3.0 643
29.3 29.3 0.42 4.5 3.0 583
0.10 0.24 13.3 1.00 0.9 14.2 B 14.2 B
c0.24 0.58 15.7 1.00 4.1 19.9 B 19.9 B C 12.5 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 12: West St & North St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
2 4 8 6 1 5 WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL NBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None Max None None 33 33 57 57.4 9.6 10 9.6% 57.4% 33.0% 10.0% 57.0% 33.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9.6 67 67 10 0 0 0 0 10 67 9.6 67 95.5 95.5 62.5 62.5 6.1 6.5 84.5 84.5 6.1 51.5 6.5 51.5 0 57 57 99.6 90 90 52.5 85.5 85.5 52.5 96.1 96.5 74.5 74.5 41.5 41.5 96.1 96.5 100 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
12: West St & North St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 12: West St & North St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 499 0.78 28.7 0.0 28.7 60.1 92.6 363.2 1384 0 0 0 0.36
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
WBL 47 0.17 10.4 0.0 10.4 3.1 4.5 50.0 282 0 0 0 0.17
WBT 569 0.73 20.5 0.0 20.5 54.5 76.0 286.3
NBT 166 0.25 15.8 0.0 15.8 12.8 6.1 363.1
SBT 360 0.58 21.5 0.0 21.5 33.7 11.4 106.4
1384 0 0 0 0.41
667 0 0 0 0.25
617 0 0 0 0.58
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
50 50 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.12 228 0.25 200 0 200 2% pm+pt 5 2 49.7 49.7 0.57 3.5 3.0 245 c0.06 c0.40 0.82 16.2 1.00 18.6 34.8 C
534 534 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.97 551 2 587 5% NA 2
24 24 1900
19 19 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.30 568 0.67 28 0 28 2% pm+pt 1 6 41.8 41.8 0.48 3.5 3.0 301 0.00 0.04 0.09 13.1 1.00 0.1 13.2 B
556 556 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1808 1.00 1808 0.92 604 7 697 3% NA 6
25 25 1900
50 50 1900
26 26 1900
50 50 1900
0.63 79 0 0 2% Perm
0.69 38 0 0 2%
0.25 200 0 0 2% Perm
10 10 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.98 1710 0.75 1304 0.25 40 28 412 2% NA 4
50 50 1900
0.25 100 0 0 2%
20 20 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1779 0.72 1308 0.25 80 8 189 2% NA 8
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
0.63 38 0 0 2%
44.0 44.0 0.50 4.5 3.0 901 0.33 0.65 16.1 1.00 1.7 17.8 B 22.1 C 33.2 0.90 87.6 53.3% 15
4
8 39.6 39.6 0.45 4.5 3.0 817 0.39 0.85 21.4 1.00 8.6 30.0 C 29.4 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.25 200 0 0 2%
28.9 28.9 0.33 4.5 3.0 431
28.9 28.9 0.33 4.5 3.0 430
0.14 0.44 23.0 1.00 3.2 26.2 C 26.2 C
c0.32 0.96 28.8 1.00 34.0 62.8 E 62.8 E C 12.5 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 12: West St & North St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
2 4 8 6 1 5 WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL NBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None Max None None 33 33 57 57.4 9.6 10 9.6% 57.4% 33.0% 10.0% 57.0% 33.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9.6 67 67 10 0 0 0 10 0 67 9.6 67 95.5 95.5 62.5 62.5 6.1 6.5 84.5 84.5 6.1 51.5 6.5 51.5 0 57 57 99.6 90 90 52.5 85.5 85.5 52.5 96.1 96.5 74.5 74.5 41.5 41.5 96.1 96.5 100 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
12: West St & North St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 12: West St & North St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 200 0.82 40.3 0.0 40.3 14.5 5.8 50.0 244 0 0 0 0.82
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBT 589 0.64 19.0 0.0 19.0 57.7 110.0 363.2 1128 0 0 0 0.52
WBL 28 0.07 7.8 0.0 7.8 1.8 3.6 50.0 382 0 0 0 0.07
WBT 704 0.88 35.0 0.0 35.0 98.9 144.3 286.3
NBT 197 0.44 27.1 0.0 27.1 23.2 10.6 363.1
SBT 440 0.94 57.9 0.0 57.9 63.5 18.4 106.4
1131 0 0 0 0.62
450 0 0 0 0.44
468 0 0 0 0.94
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
70 70 1900
56 56 1900 6.0 1.00 0.97 0.98 1774 0.81 1457 0.69 81 8 193 2% NA 1
33 33 1900
72 72 1900
8 8 1900
16 16 1900
0.92 9 0 0 2%
0.50 32 0 0 2% Perm
53 53 1900 9.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1568 1.00 1568 0.65 82 0 82 3% Perm
16 16 1900 6.0 1.00 0.91 0.99 1676 0.95 1609 0.92 17 61 49 2% NA 4
70 70 1900
0.68 106 0 0 6% Perm
5 5 1900 9.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1786 0.27 507 0.92 5 0 37 2% NA 2
16 16 1900
0.75 44 0 0 2%
44 44 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.97 1763 0.71 1289 0.58 76 0 191 2% NA 1
0.92 76 0 0 2% Perm
1
1
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
2
18.0 18.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 353
18.0 18.0 0.24 6.0 3.0 312
20.1 20.1 0.27 9.0 3.0 137
0.13 0.55 24.5 1.00 1.7 26.3 C 26.3 C
c0.15 0.61 25.0 1.00 3.5 28.5 C 28.5 C
c0.07 0.27 21.3 1.00 1.1 22.3 C 21.4 C
25.7 0.81 74.2 55.5% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 20.1 20.1 0.27 9.0 3.0 424 0.05 0.19 20.8 1.00 0.2 21.0 C
0.92 17 0 0 2% Perm
0.92 76 0 0 2%
4 15.1 15.1 0.20 6.0 3.0 327 c0.03 0.15 24.3 1.00 0.2 24.5 C 24.5 C
C 51.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBWB Lead
2 NBTL Lag
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
4 SBTL
6 Hold
None Ped Min None 31 31 31 29 25.4% 23.8% 25.4% 25.4% 31 21 29 29 2 4 4 4 28 2 2 5 1 8 20 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 8 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 91 60 0 31 0 31 60 91 92 85 25 51 92 85 17 41 60 0 29 91 61 116 54 20 61 108 54 10 122 Semi Act-Uncoord 110
17: Bolton St & Canal St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBT 201 0.56 29.4 0.0 29.4 23.3 29.9 149.9
WBT 191 0.61 33.7 0.0 33.7 23.7 24.9 179.7
NBT 37 0.27 29.5 0.0 29.5 4.1 13.2 223.5
498 0 0 0 0.40
436 0 0 0 0.44
137 0 0 0 0.27
NBR 82 0.19 23.9 0.0 23.9 8.8 14.6 20.0 423 0 0 0 0.19
SBT 110 0.28 13.5 0.0 13.5 3.9 17.3 92.3 594 0 0 0 0.19
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
158 158 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.95 1752 0.87 182 0 182 3% Perm
80 112 80 112 1900 1900 6.0 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1583 1752 1.00 0.33 1583 612 0.85 0.72 94 156 73 0 21 156 2% 3% Perm D.P+P 1 4 2 36.0 14.5 36.0 14.5 0.22 0.56 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 482 355 0.04 0.01 0.14 0.06 0.32 7.6 19.6 1.00 1.00 0.1 1.8 9.4 19.7 B A
435 435 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1743 1.00 1743 0.85 512 0 512 9% NA 12
460 460 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.90 511 0 511 5% NA 2
214 214 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.93 230 130 100 2% Perm
38.0 38.0 0.59
1026 c0.29
28.0 28.0 0.43 6.0 3.0 785 c0.28
0.50 7.7 1.00 1.7 9.4 A 9.4 A
0.65 14.4 1.00 4.2 18.6 B 16.4 B
4 14.5 14.5 0.22 6.0 3.0 393 c0.10 0.46 21.6 1.00 0.9 22.5 C 21.5 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
14.5 0.57 64.5 55.9% 15
2 28.0 28.0 0.43 6.0 3.0 687 0.06 0.15 11.0 1.00 0.4 11.5 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
B 14.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 NBTL Lead Max 10 14.3% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 10 8 8 60 68 68
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
4 2 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 34 26 48.6% 37.1% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 44 10 44 0 38 64 38 64 0 34 28 54 28 54 70 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
20: East St S & King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 20: East St S & King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 182 0.46 26.0 0.0 26.0 18.8 33.7 452.1 543 0 0 0 0.34
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBR 94 0.22 6.7 0.0 6.7 0.0 8.4
NBL 156 0.30 6.1 0.0 6.1 5.8 10.0
25.0 555 0 0 0 0.17
70.0 521 0 0 0 0.30
NBT 512 0.45 7.3 0.0 7.3 24.5 42.5 128.0
SBT 511 0.65 19.4 0.0 19.4 45.2 79.7 311.0
1134 0 0 0 0.45
785 0 0 0 0.65
SBR 230 0.28 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 10.8 50.0 816 0 0 0 0.28
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
63 63 1900
15 15 1900 4.5 1.00 0.91 0.99 1528 0.91 1401 0.25 60 85 498 2% NA 4
345 345 1900
32 32 1900
11 11 1900
0.69 46 0 0 2% Perm
315 315 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1687 0.12 205 0.92 342 0 342 7% pm+pt 5 2 49.5 49.5 0.55 4.5 3.0 356 c0.16 c0.37 0.96 25.5 1.00 37.2 62.8 E
320 320 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1759 1.00 1759 0.87 368 0 368 8% NA 2
12 12 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.67 18 8 10 2% Perm
5 5 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.54 1010 0.75 7 0 7 2% Perm
462 462 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1711 1.00 1711 0.87 531 3 576 6% NA 6
24 24 1900
0.87 397 0 0 7%
19 19 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1760 0.63 1139 0.75 25 12 81 2% NA 8
2 49.5 49.5 0.55 4.5 3.0 870
6 30.2 30.2 0.34 4.5 3.0 338
0.01 0.01 9.2 1.00 0.0 9.2 A
0.01 0.02 20.0 1.00 0.1 20.1 C
0.50 126 0 0 31% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.50 22 0 0 2%
8 31.5 31.5 0.35 4.5 3.0 490
31.5 31.5 0.35 4.5 3.0 398
c0.36 1.02 29.2 1.00 44.7 74.0 E 74.0 E
0.07 0.20 20.5 1.00 0.3 20.7 C 20.7 C 55.8 1.02 90.0 80.4% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
49.5 49.5 0.55 4.5 3.0 967 0.21 0.38 11.5 1.00 1.1 12.7 B 36.1 D
0.50 48 0 0 50%
30.2 30.2 0.34 4.5 3.0 574 0.34 1.00 29.9 1.00 38.3 68.2 E 67.6 E
E 13.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
Max None 54 36 60.0% 40.0% 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 54 54 0 49.5 85.5 38.5 74.5 70.7 34.7 30.2 66.2 19.2 55.2
AM Peak Hour
6 8 5 NBL SBTL WBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None Max None 34.7 36 19.3 21.4% 38.6% 40.0% 22.5 9.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 54 0 19.3 54 19.3 0 49.5 85.5 14.8 38.5 74.5 14.8 0 34.7 70.7 30.2 66.2 85.5 19.2 55.2 85.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
Splits and Phases:
15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 583 1.01 65.8 0.0 65.8 ~85.5 9.2 173.5
WBT 93 0.23 18.3 0.0 18.3 8.8 15.7 258.1
575 0 0 0 1.01
411 0 0 0 0.23
NBL 342 0.96 63.4 0.0 63.4 43.9 #96.2 80.0 356 0 0 0 0.96
NBT 368 0.38 13.0 0.0 13.0 33.9 50.1 387.9 967 0 0 0 0.38
NBR 18 0.02 4.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.8 15.0 878 0 0 0 0.02
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
SBT SBL 7 579 1.00 0.02 69.8 20.4 0.0 0.0 69.8 20.4 0.8 ~98.8 3.0 #157.6 200.5 40.0 338 577 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 0.02
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: East St S & Boyd St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
72 72 1900
8 8 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 0.96 1746 0.74 1338 0.42 19 4 127 2% NA 4
6 6 1900
2 2 1900
33 33 1900
22 22 1900
0.25 8 0 0 2% Perm
0.66 50 0 0 2%
0.70 31 0 0 2% Perm
596 596 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1775 0.96 1705 0.88 677 0 708 7% NA 2
6 6 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.50 12 3 9 2% Perm
20 20 1900
0.50 12 0 0 2%
14 14 1900 4.5 1.00 0.92 1.00 1703 0.97 1664 0.56 25 43 40 2% NA 8
613 613 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1824 0.96 1747 0.94 652 0 683 4% NA 6
217 217 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1568 1.00 1568 0.89 244 35 209 3% Perm
0.72 100 0 0 4% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
8
2
13.2 13.2 0.15 4.5 3.0 198
13.2 13.2 0.15 4.5 3.0 246
66.9 66.9 0.75 4.5 3.0 1280
c0.09 0.64 35.7 1.00 6.9 42.6 D 42.6 D
0.02 0.16 33.1 1.00 0.3 33.5 C 33.5 C
c0.42 0.55 4.7 1.00 1.7 6.5 A 6.4 A
9.6 0.57 89.1 68.1% 15
2 66.9 66.9 0.75 4.5 3.0 1188 0.01 0.01 2.8 1.00 0.0 2.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 C
0.65 31 0 0 2% Perm 6
66.9 66.9 0.75 4.5 3.0 1311 0.39 0.52 4.5 1.00 1.5 6.0 A 5.4 A
6 66.9 66.9 0.75 4.5 3.0 1177 0.13 0.18 3.2 1.00 0.3 3.5 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: East St S & Boyd St
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 67.5 67.5 22.5 22.5 75.0% 25.0% 75.0% 25.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 67.5 0 67.5 0 67.5 67.5 0 63 85.5 63 85.5 52 74.5 52 74.5 0 67.5 0 67.5 63 85.5 63 85.5 74.5 52 74.5 52
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
18: East St S & Boyd St
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 18: East St S & Boyd St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBT 131 0.65 48.4 0.0 48.4 19.4 15.1 175.8
WBT 83 0.29 17.8 0.0 17.8 4.7 7.2 293.2
NBT 708 0.55 7.4 0.0 7.4 41.2 78.4 311.0
274 0 0 0 0.48
376 0 0 0 0.22
1280 0 0 0 0.55
NBR 12 0.01 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 20.0 1192 0 0 0 0.01
SBT 683 0.52 6.9 0.0 6.9 38.2 75.3 166.1 1310 0 0 0 0.52
SBR 244 0.20 2.1 0.0 2.1 3.7 11.4 15.0 1212 0 0 0 0.20
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
749 749 Free 0% 0.96 780
16 16
43 43
20 20
31 31
40 40
0.25 80
0.50 62
0.65 78
0.25 160
10 10 Stop 0% 0.25 40
40 40
0.55 78
20 20 Stop 0% 0.25 80
51 51
0.50 32
678 678 Free 0% 0.85 798
0.25 160
0.25 0
None
None
878
812
1970
1830
796
1908
1806
838
878 4.1
812 4.2
1970 7.1
1830 6.5
796 6.3
1908 7.1
1806 6.5
838 6.2
2.2 100 769
2.3 90 785
3.5 0 14
4.0 0 69
3.4 79 378
3.5 0 0
4.0 44 71
3.3 56 366
EB 1 812 0 32 769 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 956 78 80 785 0.10 2.5 2.7 A 2.7
NB 1 220 62 78 37 5.91 Err Err F Err F Err 87.0% 15
SB 1 360 160 160 0 Err Err Err F Err F
ICU Level of Service
E
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Main St & Joseph St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
33 33 Stop 0% 0.88 38
124 124
73 73 0.54 135
44 44 Free 0% 0.58 76
33 33
0.53 234
39 39 Free 0% 0.78 50
None
None
424
104
133
424 6.4
104 6.2
133 4.1
3.5 93 527
3.3 75 950
2.2 91 1452
EB 1 272 38 234 854 0.32 10.5 11.2 B 11.2 B
NB 1 185 135 0 1452 0.09 2.3 5.8 A 5.8
SB 1 133 0 57 1700 0.08 0.0 0.0
0.58 57
0.0
7.0 28.9% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: East St S & Mill St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
58 58 Stop 0% 0.93 62
98 98
406 406 Free 0% 0.83 489
27 27
78 78
0.43 63
0.66 118
471 471 Free 0% 0.87 541
0.83 118
None
None
152 0.81 1266
489
552
1211 6.4
489 6.2
552 4.1
3.5 57 143
3.3 80 579
2.2 88 1018
WB 1 180 62 118 283 0.64 30.4 37.6 E 37.6 E
NB 1 489 0 0 1700 0.29 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
NB 2 63 0 63 1700 0.04 0.0 0.0
0.0
5.6 44.9% 15
SB 1 118 118 0 1018 0.12 3.0 9.0 A 1.6
SB 2 541 0 0 1700 0.32 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 AWSC 13: Main St & Duke St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
182.2 F
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
118 118 0.74 5 159 0
313 313 0.84 5 373 1
31 31 0.67 2 46 0
9 9 0.75 2 12 0
553 553 0.78 8 709 1
5 5 0.63 2 8 0
16 16 0.50 2 32 0
36 36 0.72 2 50 1
16 16 0.63 2 25 0
5 5 0.38 33 13 0
39 39 0.63 2 62 1
306 306 0.78 2 392 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 161.4 F
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 289.9 F
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 19.6 C
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 77.2 F
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 2% 1% 26% 24% 98% 68% 11% 53% 1% 7% 87% 24% Stop Stop Stop Stop 350 462 567 68 5 9 16 118 39 313 553 36 31 5 306 16 729 467 107 578 1 1 1 1 0.282 1.257 1.572 1.002 11.981 8.938 8.346 9.238 Yes Yes Yes Yes 445 397 302 411 9.981 6.938 6.346 7.238 0.354 1.406 1.638 1.176 77.2 19.6 161.4 289.9 F F F C 37.6 21.7 12.1 1.1
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 AWSC 14: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Main St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
18.9 C
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20 0.81 39 25 1
109 109 0.83 6 131 1
14 14 0.75 2 19 0
237 237 0.81 5 293 1
137 137 0.92 2 149 1
20 20 0.81 23 25 0
8 8 0.42 2 19 0
159 159 0.85 10 187 1
192 192 0.81 10 237 1
30 30 0.79 21 38 0
182 182 0.86 7 212 1
33 33 0.88 10 38 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 2 14.7 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 2 SB 1 20.8 C
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 15.6 C
SB NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 23.7 C
NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 12% 0% 100% 5% 0% 0% 100% 0% 87% 0% 74% 95% 0% 89% 13% 0% 0% 100% 11% 13% 0% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 245 237 157 192 167 20 123 0 20 8 0 237 0 30 0 137 0 182 0 159 109 0 20 0 192 0 14 33 287 206 237 293 174 25 150 5 5 5 5 4b 5 5 0.431 0.456 0.064 0.338 0.652 0.355 0.632 7.536 6.932 9.289 8.107 8.019 7.36 7.927 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 454 476 451 519 385 442 488 5.99 5.298 4.695 7.061 5.878 5.778 5.119 0.65 0.357 0.632 0.433 0.457 0.065 0.339 23.7 15.9 15.4 24.7 12.7 14.1 15 C C B C B C B 4.6 4.3 2.4 2.1 0.2 1.6 1.5
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 21: Bolton St & King St E
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
9.2 A
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
9 9 0.50 2 18 0
114 114 0.83 2 137 1
6 6 0.50 2 12 0
17 17 0.61 2 28 0
79 79 0.79 3 100 1
72 72 0.82 1 88 0
9 9 0.50 2 18 0
6 6 0.33 2 18 1
27 27 0.53 2 51 0
81 81 0.72 4 113 0
9 9 0.75 2 12 1
23 23 0.63 2 37 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 9.2 A
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 9.2 A
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 8.4 A
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 9.5 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 10% 72% 21% 7% 88% 47% 8% 14% 43% 20% 64% 5% Stop Stop Stop Stop 129 168 42 113 9 17 9 81 114 79 6 9 6 72 27 23 216 87 167 161 1 1 1 1 0.114 0.222 0.27 0.223 4.692 4.779 4.51 4.98 Yes Yes Yes Yes 792 748 758 716 2.757 2.834 2.561 3.039 0.115 0.223 0.273 0.225 9.2 8.4 9.2 9.5 A A A A 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.9
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
85 85 1900
58 58 1900 6.0 1.00 0.99 0.96 1735 0.62 1119 0.77 75 3 456 2% NA 1
28 28 1900
103 103 1900
8 8 1900
22 22 1900
0.25 32 0 0 2%
0.58 38 0 0 2% Perm
86 86 1900 9.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.81 106 0 106 2% Perm
16 16 1900 6.0 1.00 0.90 0.99 1669 0.93 1569 0.25 64 72 396 2% NA 4
85 85 1900
0.83 124 0 0 2% Perm
20 20 1900 9.0 1.00 1.00 0.98 1833 0.40 748 0.25 80 0 118 2% NA 2
16 16 1900
0.64 44 0 0 2%
76 76 1900 6.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1786 0.78 1422 0.82 93 0 249 2% NA 1
0.25 340 0 0 5% Perm 1
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
2
1 25.0 25.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 307
25.0 25.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 390
20.0 20.0 0.22 9.0 3.0 164
c0.41 1.49 33.0 1.00 235.2 268.2 F 268.2 F
0.18 0.64 29.0 1.00 3.4 32.4 C 32.4 C
c0.16 0.72 32.9 1.00 14.0 46.9 D 39.0 D
118.8 1.86 91.0 56.1% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
2 20.0 20.0 0.22 9.0 3.0 347 0.07 0.31 29.7 1.00 0.5 30.2 C
0.25 64 0 0 2% Perm
0.25 340 0 0 2%
4 25.0 25.0 0.27 6.0 3.0 431 c0.25 0.92 32.0 1.00 24.4 56.4 E 56.4 E
F 51.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 EBWB Lead
2 NBTL Lag
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
4 SBTL
6 Hold
None Ped Min None 31 31 31 29 25.4% 23.8% 25.4% 25.4% 31 21 29 29 2 4 4 4 28 2 2 5 1 8 20 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 8 10 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 91 60 0 31 0 31 60 91 92 85 25 51 92 85 17 41 60 0 29 91 61 116 54 20 61 108 54 10 122 Semi Act-Uncoord 150
17: Bolton St & Canal St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 17: Bolton St & Canal St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBT 459 1.48 261.0 0.0 261.0 ~112.4 #136.8 149.9
WBT 249 0.64 37.7 0.0 37.7 38.2 56.1 179.7
NBT 118 0.72 59.3 0.0 59.3 19.2 8.6 223.5
310 0 0 0 1.48
390 0 0 0 0.64
164 0 0 0 0.72
NBR 106 0.31 32.6 0.0 32.6 15.6 26.7 20.0 347 0 0 0 0.31
SBT 468 0.93 53.5 0.0 53.5 64.9 9.8 92.3 502 0 0 0 0.93
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
441 441 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 0.91 485 0 485 2% Perm
145 143 145 143 1900 1900 6.0 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1583 1770 1.00 0.14 1583 266 0.89 0.88 163 162 0 74 89 163 2% 2% Perm D.P+P 1 4 2 36.0 20.0 36.0 20.0 0.29 0.51 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 452 308 0.06 0.06 0.21 0.20 0.53 18.9 12.2 1.00 1.00 0.2 6.4 19.1 18.6 B B
529 529 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.88 601 0 601 3% NA 12
571 571 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1776 1.00 1776 0.86 664 0 664 7% NA 2
287 287 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.87 330 194 136 2% Perm
38.0 38.0 0.54
1001 c0.33
28.0 28.0 0.40 6.0 3.0 710 c0.37
0.60 10.9 1.00 2.7 13.5 B 14.6 B
0.94 20.1 1.00 21.2 41.3 D 32.4 C
4 20.0 20.0 0.29 6.0 3.0 505 c0.27 0.96 24.6 1.00 30.1 54.7 D 45.8 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
30.4 0.89 70.0 75.7% 15
2 28.0 28.0 0.40 6.0 3.0 633 0.09 0.22 13.8 1.00 0.8 14.6 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
C 14.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 NBTL Lead Max 10 14.3% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 10 8 8 60 68 68
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
4 2 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 34 26 48.6% 37.1% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 44 10 44 0 38 64 38 64 0 34 28 54 28 54 70 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
20: East St S & King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 20: East St S & King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 485 0.96 59.0 0.0 59.0 62.0 #116.6 452.1 505 0 0 0 0.96
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBR 163 0.31 10.0 0.0 10.0 5.7 18.3
NBL 163 0.50 13.0 0.0 13.0 8.4 17.4
25.0 526 0 0 0 0.31
70.0 323 0 0 0 0.50
NBT SBT 664 601 0.54 0.94 43.8 10.6 0.0 0.0 43.8 10.6 80.7 41.4 63.2 #133.0 128.0 311.0 1107 0 0 0 0.54
710 0 0 0 0.94
SBR 330 0.40 3.6 0.0 3.6 0.5 12.6 50.0 827 0 0 0 0.40
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
11 11 1900
20 20 1900 4.5 1.00 0.88 1.00 1552 0.99 1539 0.63 32 327 126 2% NA 4
379 379 1900
38 38 1900
18 18 1900
0.63 60 0 0 2% Perm
429 429 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.12 230 0.78 550 0 550 3% pm+pt 5 2 52.9 52.9 0.68 4.5 3.0 566 c0.26 c0.40 0.97 21.3 1.00 30.6 51.9 D
532 532 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.96 554 0 554 2% NA 2
30 30 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.59 51 11 40 2% Perm
8 8 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.46 851 0.63 13 0 13 2% Perm
480 480 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1766 1.00 1766 0.85 565 3 599 4% NA 6
20 20 1900
0.93 408 0 0 8%
11 11 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.98 1756 0.32 568 0.38 29 15 103 2% NA 8
2 52.9 52.9 0.68 4.5 3.0 1083
6 27.6 27.6 0.36 4.5 3.0 303
0.03 0.04 3.9 1.00 0.1 4.0 A
0.02 0.04 16.2 1.00 0.3 16.5 B
0.88 12 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.63 29 0 0 2%
8 15.4 15.4 0.20 4.5 3.0 306
15.4 15.4 0.20 4.5 3.0 113
0.08 0.41 27.0 1.00 0.9 27.9 C 27.9 C
c0.18 0.91 30.3 1.00 56.4 86.7 F 86.7 F 36.5 1.00 77.3 86.5% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
52.9 52.9 0.68 4.5 3.0 1274 0.30 0.43 5.5 1.00 1.1 6.6 A 28.0 C
0.54 37 0 0 46%
27.6 27.6 0.36 4.5 3.0 630 0.34 0.95 24.2 1.00 25.7 49.9 D 49.2 D
D 13.5 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
Max None 22.8 57.2 71.5% 28.5% 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57.2 0 57.2 75.5 52.7 64.5 41.7 32 54.8 50.3 27.5 39.3 16.5
PM Peak Hour
8 6 5 NBL SBTL WBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes Max None None 32 22.8 25.2 31.5% 40.0% 28.5% 22.5 9.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 11 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 57.2 0 25.2 25.2 0 57.2 75.5 52.7 20.7 64.5 41.7 20.7 0 32 54.8 50.3 27.5 75.5 39.3 16.5 75.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
80 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
Splits and Phases:
15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 15: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Duke St/Cedartree Ln
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 453 0.72 11.7 0.0 11.7 5.5 3.0 173.5 676 0 0 0 0.67
NBL WBT 550 118 0.97 0.92 54.2 90.0 0.0 0.0 54.2 90.0 14.4 ~68.5 9.6 #100.1 258.1 80.0 566 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.97 0.79
NBT 554 0.44 7.4 0.0 7.4 35.5 54.4 387.9 1273 0 0 0 0.44
NBR 51 0.05 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.7 1.9 15.0 1093 0 0 0 0.05
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
SBT SBL 13 602 0.04 0.95 52.9 18.1 0.0 0.0 52.9 18.1 1.3 89.0 3.4 #141.0 200.5 40.0 633 303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.95 0.04
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: East St S & Boyd St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
114 114 1900
2 2 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 0.96 1752 0.77 1411 0.25 8 7 232 2% NA 4
27 27 1900
2 2 1900
23 23 1900
14 14 1900
0.25 8 0 0 2% Perm
0.54 43 0 0 2%
0.56 25 0 0 2% Perm
951 951 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1861 0.97 1807 0.92 1034 0 1059 2% NA 2
12 12 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.67 18 5 13 2% Perm
30 30 1900
0.71 38 0 0 2%
8 8 1900 4.5 1.00 0.91 0.99 1683 0.97 1636 0.63 13 35 29 2% NA 8
780 780 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1808 0.76 1377 0.89 876 0 920 5% NA 6
200 200 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1553 1.00 1553 0.84 238 30 208 4% Perm
0.59 193 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
2
8 17.2 17.2 0.19 4.5 3.0 266
17.2 17.2 0.19 4.5 3.0 309
64.8 64.8 0.71 4.5 3.0 1286
c0.16 0.87 35.8 1.00 25.2 61.1 E 61.1 E
0.02 0.09 30.5 1.00 0.1 30.6 C 30.6 C
0.59 0.82 9.1 1.00 6.1 15.2 B 15.0 B
23.7 0.92 91.0 87.6% 15
2 64.8 64.8 0.71 4.5 3.0 1127 0.01 0.01 3.8 1.00 0.0 3.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 E
0.68 44 0 0 2% Perm 6
64.8 64.8 0.71 4.5 3.0 980 c0.67 0.94 11.4 1.00 17.3 28.7 C 23.8 C
6 64.8 64.8 0.71 4.5 3.0 1105 0.13 0.19 4.4 1.00 0.4 4.7 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: East St S & Boyd St
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 67.5 67.5 22.5 22.5 75.0% 25.0% 75.0% 25.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 67.5 67.5 0 67.5 67.5 0 63 85.5 63 85.5 52 74.5 52 74.5 0 0 67.5 67.5 63 85.5 63 85.5 74.5 52 74.5 52
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
18: East St S & Boyd St
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 18: East St S & Boyd St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBT 239 0.87 65.2 0.0 65.2 38.5 13.6 175.8
WBT 64 0.19 15.6 0.0 15.6 3.0 7.2 293.2
NBT 1059 0.82 16.7 0.0 16.7 113.7 183.9 311.0
286 0 0 0 0.84
357 0 0 0 0.18
1285 0 0 0 0.82
SBT NBR 18 920 0.02 0.94 1.9 31.4 0.0 0.0 31.4 1.9 0.0 122.9 1.1 #224.6 166.1 20.0 979 1131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.94 0.02
SBR 238 0.21 3.0 0.0 3.0 6.6 12.1 15.0 1135 0 0 0 0.21
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
50 50
870 870 Free 0% 0.97 897
39 39
31 31
25 25
50 50
50 50
0.25 100
0.63 79
0.69 62
0.25 200
10 10 Stop 0% 0.25 40
50 50
0.67 46
20 20 Stop 0% 0.25 80
43 43
0.63 62
906 906 Free 0% 0.92 985
0.25 200
0.25 200
None
None
1085
959
2675
2505
928
2557
2486
1035
1085 4.1
959 4.1
2675 7.1
2505 6.5
928 6.2
2557 7.1
2486 6.5
1035 6.2
2.2 69 643
2.2 94 717
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 18
3.3 81 325
3.5 0 0
4.0 0 19
3.3 29 282
EB 1 1159 200 62 643 0.31 10.1 10.0 B 10.0
WB 1 1131 46 100 717 0.06 1.6 2.2 A 2.2
NB 1 221 79 62 0 Err Err Err F Err F Err 84.5% 15
SB 1 440 200 200 0 Err Err Err F Err F
ICU Level of Service
E
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Main St & Joseph St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
42 42 Stop 0% 0.75 56
145 145
145 145 0.71 204
45 45 Free 0% 0.60 75
44 44
0.77 188
56 56 Free 0% 0.75 75
None
None
583
100
125
583 6.4
100 6.2
125 4.1
3.5 86 408
3.3 80 956
2.2 86 1455
EB 1 244 56 188 731 0.33 11.2 12.4 B 12.4 B
NB 1 279 204 0 1455 0.14 3.7 6.1 A 6.1
SB 1 125 0 50 1700 0.07 0.0 0.0
0.88 50
0.0
7.3 35.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: East St S & Mill St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
19 19 Stop 0% 0.75 25
73 73
574 574 Free 0% 0.91 631
27 27
69 69
0.53 51
0.92 75
599 599 Free 0% 0.86 697
0.78 94
None
None
152 0.66 1478
631
682
1467 6.5
631 6.2
682 4.1
3.6 70 83
3.3 80 481
2.2 92 911
WB 1 119 25 94 239 0.50 19.3 34.1 D 34.1 D
NB 1 631 0 0 1700 0.37 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
NB 2 51 0 51 1700 0.03 0.0 0.0
0.0
3.0 49.6% 15
SB 1 75 75 0 911 0.08 2.0 9.3 A 0.9
SB 2 697 0 0 1700 0.41 0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 AWSC 13: Main St & Duke St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
110.2 F
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
170 170 0.79 7 215 0
353 353 0.79 6 447 1
14 14 0.88 2 16 0
8 8 0.67 2 12 0
264 264 0.86 2 307 1
8 8 0.63 2 13 0
35 35 0.56 11 63 0
51 51 0.75 2 68 1
31 31 0.71 2 44 0
2 2 0.25 2 8 0
62 62 0.71 2 87 1
286 286 0.83 4 345 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 216 F
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 30 D
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 19.5 C
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 43.6 E
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 1% 3% 32% 30% 44% 66% 94% 18% 3% 26% 82% 3% Stop Stop Stop Stop 117 350 537 280 2 35 170 8 62 51 353 264 31 8 286 14 332 174 440 678 1 1 1 1 0.414 1.405 0.709 0.861 9.779 7.459 8.608 8.003 Yes Yes Yes Yes 424 371 457 488 7.779 5.552 6.608 6.003 0.469 1.389 0.783 0.963 30 43.6 19.5 216 E C F D 5.4 8.8 2 32
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 AWSC 14: CKL Rd 49 (East St N) & Main St
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
41.4 E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
40 40 0.71 2 56 1
186 186 0.89 2 209 1
6 6 0.50 2 12 0
281 281 0.87 2 323 1
178 178 0.77 2 231 1
34 34 0.46 2 74 0
5 5 0.38 2 13 0
229 229 0.84 2 273 1
295 295 0.89 2 331 1
23 23 0.94 20 24 0
218 218 0.85 6 256 1
50 50 0.63 4 79 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 2 23.8 C
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 2 SB 1 42.5 E
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 33.3 D
SB NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 66.9 F
NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 8% 2% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 75% 98% 0% 0% 97% 0% 84% 0% 100% 3% 17% 16% 0% 0% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 291 234 192 40 281 212 295 5 0 281 0 40 0 23 218 0 229 186 0 178 0 0 295 6 50 0 34 0 360 286 56 221 323 305 331 5 5 5 4b 5 5 5 0.723 0.77 0.161 0.599 0.86 0.758 0.953 9.52 9.107 8.366 10.313 9.763 9.59 8.949 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 382 397 371 406 348 434 378 7.56 6.852 6.111 7.51 7.337 6.695 8.06 0.72 0.763 0.161 0.596 0.854 0.751 0.942 32.4 66.9 26.1 49.6 34.9 15 34.1 D D D F B E D 5.6 3.7 10.5 6.6 6.2 0.6 8.2
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 21: Bolton St & King St E
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
14 B
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
27 27 0.53 2 51 0
204 204 0.78 2 262 1
16 16 0.63 2 25 0
61 61 0.81 2 75 0
112 112 0.95 2 118 1
133 133 0.89 2 149 0
14 14 0.56 2 25 0
9 9 0.75 2 12 1
66 66 0.70 2 94 0
156 156 0.81 2 193 0
8 8 0.63 2 13 1
19 19 0.43 2 44 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 1 SB 1 NB 1 15.1 C
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 14.4 B
NB SB 1 EB 1 WB 1 10.7 B
SB NB 1 WB 1 EB 1 13.8 B
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 11% 16% 85% 20% 10% 83% 37% 4% 6% 43% 74% 10% Stop Stop Stop Stop 89 247 306 183 14 27 61 156 9 204 112 8 66 16 133 19 131 338 343 249 1 1 1 1 0.52 0.427 0.22 0.531 5.66 5.465 6.163 6.045 Yes Yes Yes Yes 597 632 654 579 4.045 3.747 3.553 4.257 0.219 0.535 0.524 0.43 10.7 15.1 14.4 13.8 B C B B 0.8 3.1 2.1 3
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0 1900
749 749 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1753 1.00 1753 0.96 780 1 811 8% NA 2
16 16 1900
43 43 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1656 0.10 170 0.55 78 0 78 9% pm+pt 1 6 55.1 55.1 0.59 3.5 3.0 174 0.02 0.24 0.45 16.4 1.00 1.8 18.3 B
678 678 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1774 1.00 1774 0.85 798 3 875 6% NA 6
20 20 1900
31 31 1900
51 51 1900
40 40 1900
0.50 62 0 0 2% Perm
0.65 78 0 0 8%
0.25 160 0 0 2% Perm
10 10 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.98 1713 0.71 1237 0.25 40 28 332 2% NA 4
40 40 1900
0.25 80 0 0 2%
20 20 1900 4.5 1.00 0.95 0.99 1713 0.81 1407 0.25 80 19 201 2% NA 8
0.25 0 0 0 2% pm+pt 5 2
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
0.50 32 0 0 2%
47.0 47.0 0.51 4.5 3.0 885 c0.46 0.92 21.2 1.00 13.9 35.0 D 35.0 D 31.3 0.90 93.0 56.0% 15
8 55.1 55.1 0.59 4.5 3.0 1051 c0.49 0.83 15.2 1.00 5.7 21.0 C 20.8 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.25 160 0 0 2%
4 28.9 28.9 0.31 4.5 3.0 437
28.9 28.9 0.31 4.5 3.0 384
0.14 0.46 25.8 1.00 3.4 29.2 C 29.2 C
c0.27 0.87 30.2 1.00 22.1 52.3 D 52.3 D C 12.5 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 12: West St & North St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
2 4 8 6 1 5 WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL NBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None Max None None 33 33 57 57.4 9.6 10 9.6% 57.4% 33.0% 10.0% 57.0% 33.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9.6 67 67 10 0 0 0 10 0 67 9.6 67 95.5 95.5 62.5 62.5 6.1 6.5 84.5 84.5 6.1 51.5 6.5 51.5 0 57 57 99.6 90 90 52.5 85.5 85.5 52.5 96.1 96.5 74.5 74.5 41.5 41.5 96.1 96.5 100 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
12: West St & North St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 12: West St & North St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT 812 0.91 36.6 0.0 36.6 130.8 #210.9 363.2 1019 0 0 0 0.80
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
WBL 78 0.39 13.0 0.0 13.0 5.3 6.2 50.0 201 0 0 0 0.39
WBT 878 0.84 23.5 0.0 23.5 114.4 149.5 286.3
NBT 220 0.48 28.8 0.0 28.8 30.5 9.3 363.1
SBT 360 0.87 51.8 0.0 51.8 60.7 14.6 106.4
1130 0 0 0 0.78
459 0 0 0 0.48
415 0 0 0 0.87
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
158 158 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.95 1752 0.87 182 0 182 3% Perm
80 112 80 112 1900 1900 6.0 2.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1583 1752 1.00 0.37 1583 682 0.85 0.72 94 156 75 0 19 156 2% 3% Perm D.P+P 1 4 2 47.0 15.0 47.0 15.0 0.20 0.62 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 312 534 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.06 0.29 6.7 24.8 1.00 1.00 0.1 1.4 8.1 24.9 C A
435 435 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1743 1.00 1743 0.85 512 0 512 9% NA 12
460 460 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.90 511 0 511 5% NA 2
214 214 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.93 230 112 118 2% Perm
49.0 49.0 0.64
1123 c0.29
39.0 39.0 0.51 6.0 3.0 928 c0.28
0.46 6.8 1.00 1.3 8.1 A 8.1 A
0.55 12.6 1.00 2.3 14.9 B 13.4 B
4 15.0 15.0 0.20 6.0 3.0 345 c0.10 0.53 27.3 1.00 1.5 28.8 C 27.4 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
13.6 0.53 76.0 55.9% 15
2 39.0 39.0 0.51 6.0 3.0 812 0.07 0.15 9.7 1.00 0.4 10.1 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
B 14.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 NBTL Lead Max 10 11.1% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 10 8 8 80 88 88
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 45 35 50.0% 38.9% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 55 55 0 49 84 49 84 0 45 39 74 39 74 90 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
20: East St S & King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 20: East St S & King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 182 0.53 33.4 0.0 33.4 23.6 40.2 452.1 668 0 0 0 0.27
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBR 94 0.24 7.8 0.0 7.8 0.0 9.5
NBL 156 0.27 5.3 0.0 5.3 5.8 10.2
25.0 662 0 0 0 0.14
70.0 571 0 0 0 0.27
NBT 512 0.42 6.4 0.0 6.4 24.5 43.9 128.0
SBT 511 0.55 15.6 0.0 15.6 45.2 79.6 311.0
1215 0 0 0 0.42
929 0 0 0 0.55
SBR 230 0.25 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 10.0 50.0 924 0 0 0 0.25
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: West St & North St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
50 50 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.07 131 0.25 200 0 200 2% pm+pt 5 2 63.2 63.2 0.62 3.5 3.0 186 c0.07 c0.60 1.08 30.3 1.00 87.4 117.7 F
870 870 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.97 897 2 957 5% NA 2
39 39 1900
31 31 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.07 138 0.67 46 0 46 2% pm+pt 1 6 57.6 57.6 0.57 3.5 3.0 137 0.01 0.18 0.34 19.8 1.00 1.5 21.2 C
906 906 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1821 1.00 1821 0.92 985 4 1081 3% NA 6
25 25 1900
50 50 1900
43 43 1900
50 50 1900
0.63 79 0 0 2% Perm
0.69 62 0 0 2%
0.25 200 0 0 2% Perm
10 10 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.98 1710 0.70 1224 0.25 40 30 410 2% NA 4
50 50 1900
0.25 100 0 0 2%
20 20 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 0.98 1761 0.73 1305 0.25 80 14 207 2% NA 8
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
0.63 62 0 0 2%
56.7 56.7 0.56 4.5 3.0 1003 0.53 0.95 21.1 1.00 18.2 39.3 D 52.8 D 79.3 1.14 101.4 64.9% 15
4
8 53.9 53.9 0.53 4.5 3.0 967 0.59 1.12 23.8 1.00 67.1 90.9 F 88.0 F
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.25 200 0 0 2%
28.5 28.5 0.28 4.5 3.0 366
28.5 28.5 0.28 4.5 3.0 344
0.16 0.56 31.1 1.00 6.2 37.3 D 37.3 D
c0.33 1.19 36.5 1.00 111.3 147.7 F 147.7 F E 12.5 C
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 12: West St & North St
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
2 8 4 6 1 5 WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL NBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes Max None None Max None None 33 57 33 57.4 9.6 10 9.6% 57.4% 33.0% 10.0% 57.0% 33.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9.6 67 67 10 0 0 0 67 0 10 9.6 67 95.5 95.5 62.5 62.5 6.1 6.5 84.5 84.5 6.1 51.5 6.5 51.5 0 57 57 99.6 90 90 52.5 85.5 85.5 52.5 96.1 96.5 74.5 74.5 41.5 41.5 96.1 96.5 100 Semi Act-Uncoord 120
12: West St & North St
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 12: West St & North St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 959 200 1.06 0.94 109.0 39.6 0.0 0.0 109.0 39.6 ~28.4 ~181.1 5.8 #270.0 363.2 50.0 188 1020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.94 1.06
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
WBL WBT 46 1085 1.13 0.26 10.6 97.2 0.0 0.0 10.6 97.2 3.1 ~245.8 5.1 #321.9 286.3 50.0 181 959 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 1.13
NBT 221 0.57 34.5 0.0 34.5 33.2 10.5 363.1
SBT 440 1.16 130.3 0.0 130.3 ~95.8 18.5 106.4
386 0 0 0 0.57
378 0 0 0 1.16
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: East St S & King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
441 441 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 0.91 485 0 485 2% Perm
143 145 143 145 1900 1900 2.0 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1583 1770 0.18 1.00 327 1583 0.88 0.89 162 163 0 59 163 104 2% 2% Perm D.P+P 1 2 4 47.1 26.7 47.1 26.7 0.54 0.30 2.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 306 481 0.05 0.24 0.07 0.53 0.22 14.0 22.8 1.00 1.00 6.5 0.2 20.5 23.0 C C
529 529 1900 2.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.88 601 0 601 3% NA 12
571 571 1900 6.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1776 1.00 1776 0.86 664 0 664 7% NA 2
287 287 1900 6.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.87 330 148 182 2% Perm
49.1 49.1 0.56
1031 c0.33
39.1 39.1 0.45 6.0 3.0 790 c0.37
0.58 12.7 1.00 2.4 15.1 B 16.2 B
0.84 21.6 1.00 10.5 32.1 C 26.8 C
4 26.7 26.7 0.30 6.0 3.0 538 c0.27 0.90 29.3 1.00 18.2 47.5 D 41.3 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
27.4 0.83 87.8 75.7% 15
2 39.1 39.1 0.45 6.0 3.0 704 0.12 0.26 15.3 1.00 0.9 16.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
C 14.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 20: East St S & King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
1 NBTL Lead Max 10 11.1% 10 2 0 8 3 3 0 0 No Yes 0 10 8 8 80 88 88
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBL Lag Yes Max None 45 35 50.0% 38.9% 28 20 4 4 2 2 11 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 22 14 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 55 55 0 49 84 49 84 0 45 39 74 39 74 90 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
20: East St S & King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 20: East St S & King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 485 0.90 51.2 0.0 51.2 77.6 #130.0 452.1 585 0 0 0 0.83
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBR 163 0.30 13.1 0.0 13.1 9.5 23.5
NBL 163 0.51 13.9 0.0 13.9 11.8 20.0
25.0 580 0 0 0 0.28
70.0 321 0 0 0 0.51
SBT NBT 601 664 0.54 0.84 12.9 34.1 0.0 0.0 12.9 34.1 58.3 100.9 83.4 #151.6 128.0 311.0 1115 0 0 0 0.54
790 0 0 0 0.84
SBR 330 0.39 5.4 0.0 5.4 6.4 20.0 50.0 851 0 0 0 0.39
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
I.3 Fenelon Falls
Page | 1203
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
175 175 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.63 1115 0.78 224 0 224 9% Perm
24 24 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1667 1.00 1667 0.75 32 78 58 2% NA 4
78 78 1900
32 32 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.57 1081 0.88 36 0 36 2% pm+pt 3 8 32.7 32.7 0.34 3.5 3.0 407 0.00 0.03 0.09 21.4 1.00 0.1 21.5 C
45 45 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1683 1.00 1683 0.77 58 93 106 2% NA 8
110 110 1900
61 61 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.50 915 0.79 77 0 77 6% Perm
253 253 1900 5.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 1782 1.00 1782 0.81 312 4 362 6% NA 2
35 35 1900
85 85 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.48 913 0.82 104 0 104 2% Perm
294 294 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.86 342 0 342 5% NA 6
163 163 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.90 181 46 135 5% Perm
4 23.8 23.8 0.25 5.5 3.0 276 c0.20 0.81 34.0 1.00 16.4 50.4 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.75 104 0 0 2%
23.8 23.8 0.25 5.5 3.0 412 0.03 0.14 28.2 1.00 0.2 28.3 C 42.1 D 20.5 0.49 96.1 78.8% 15
0.78 141 0 0 2%
32.7 32.7 0.34 5.5 3.0 572 c0.06 0.19 22.3 1.00 0.2 22.5 C 22.3 C
2 52.4 52.4 0.55 5.5 3.0 498 0.08 0.15 10.9 1.00 0.7 11.5 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.65 54 0 0 2%
6 52.4 52.4 0.55 5.5 3.0 497
52.4 52.4 0.55 5.5 3.0 971 c0.20
0.11 0.21 11.2 1.00 1.0 12.2 B
0.37 12.5 1.00 1.1 13.6 B 13.2 B
52.4 52.4 0.55 5.5 3.0 997 0.19 0.34 12.2 1.00 0.9 13.2 B 12.5 B
6 52.4 52.4 0.55 5.5 3.0 847 0.09 0.16 10.9 1.00 0.4 11.3 B
C 14.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
3 WBL Lead Yes None 21.5 18.0% 21.5 3.5 0 10 3 3 0 0 5 0 No Yes 56.6 78.1 74.6 74.6 56.6 74.6 74.6
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 78.1 0 114 114 78.1 114 114
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 56.6 0 114 114 56.6 114 114
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
119.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 224 0.80 55.0 0.0 55.0 41.2 56.0 25.0 433 0 0 0 0.52
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBT 136 0.27 10.6 0.0 10.6 4.8 12.3 148.3
WBL 36 0.08 18.2 0.0 18.2 4.2 9.7
WBT 199 0.31 7.9 0.0 7.9 7.1 14.5 296.8
NBL 77 0.15 16.0 0.0 16.0 7.8 16.8
NBT 366 0.37 16.1 0.0 16.1 41.3 65.8 119.3
711 0 0 0 0.19
523 0 0 0 0.07
1099 0 0 0 0.18
506 0 0 0 0.15
989 0 0 0 0.37
SBL 104 0.21 16.4 0.0 16.4 10.8 22.8 20.0 505 0 0 0 0.21
SBT 342 0.34 16.0 0.0 16.0 38.7 67.1 126.0 1012 0 0 0 0.34
SBR 181 0.20 7.8 0.0 7.8 7.8 22.9 20.0 905 0 0 0 0.20
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
17 17 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1615 0.72 1228 0.63 27 0 27 13% Perm
16 16 1900 5.0 1.00 0.88 1.00 1650 1.00 1650 0.58 28 106 54 2% NA 4
83 83 1900
94 94 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1163 0.60 157 0 157 2% Perm
20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1766 1.00 1766 0.64 31 18 35 2% NA 4
10 10 1900
39 39 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.37 702 0.71 55 0 55 2% Perm
375 375 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1785 1.00 1785 0.85 441 6 498 6% NA 2
45 45 1900
8 8 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.43 817 0.58 14 0 14 2% Perm
495 495 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1818 1.00 1818 0.87 569 2 598 5% NA 2
27 27 1900
4 14.9 14.9 0.20 5.0 3.0 243 0.02 0.11 24.6 1.00 0.2 24.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.63 132 0 0 2%
4 14.9 14.9 0.20 5.0 3.0 231
14.9 14.9 0.20 5.0 3.0 327 0.03
c0.13 0.68 27.8 1.00 7.7 35.6 D
0.17 24.9 1.00 0.2 25.1 C 25.1 C 12.7 0.54 75.0 52.6% 15
0.45 22 0 0 2%
14.9 14.9 0.20 5.0 3.0 350 0.02 0.10 24.6 1.00 0.1 24.7 C 32.8 C
2 50.1 50.1 0.67 5.0 3.0 468 0.08 0.12 4.5 1.00 0.5 5.0 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.71 63 0 0 3%
2 50.1 50.1 0.67 5.0 3.0 545
50.1 50.1 0.67 5.0 3.0 1192 0.28
0.02 0.03 4.2 1.00 0.1 4.3 A
0.42 5.7 1.00 1.1 6.8 A 6.6 A
0.86 31 0 0 2%
50.1 50.1 0.67 5.0 3.0 1214 c0.33 0.49 6.2 1.00 1.4 7.6 A 7.5 A
B 10.0 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max 55 68.8% 35 3.5 1.5 30 3 3 0 0 25 0 Yes Yes 0 55 50 50 0 50 50
None 25 31.3% 20 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 15 0 Yes Yes 55 0 75 75 55 75 75 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 55
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 27 0.11 25.0 0.0 25.0 3.2 6.3 10.0 327 0 0 0 0.08
EBT 160 0.37 9.8 0.0 9.8 3.3 4.9 171.8 537 0 0 0 0.30
WBL 157 0.68 43.2 0.0 43.2 20.7 23.8 25.0 310 0 0 0 0.51
WBT 53 0.14 17.0 0.0 17.0 3.6 7.5 264.0 488 0 0 0 0.11
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
NBL 55 0.12 6.2 0.0 6.2 2.4 5.7 40.0 469 0 0 0 0.12
NBT 504 0.42 7.5 0.0 7.5 26.9 48.8 74.9 1197 0 0 0 0.42
SBL 14 0.03 5.5 0.0 5.5 0.6 1.7 50.0 545 0 0 0 0.03
SBT 600 0.49 8.5 0.0 8.5 35.4 65.2 125.1 1216 0 0 0 0.49
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
6 6
2 2 Stop 0% 0.50 4
24 24
12 12
3 3
23 23
6 6
0.38 8
0.83 28
0.75 13
0.31 19
498 498 Free 0% 0.94 530
17 17
0.46 26
375 375 Free 0% 0.82 457
10 10
0.58 41
5 5 Stop 0% 0.50 10
0.63 10
None
0.63 27
None
149 0.90 1108
0.90 1108
544
0.90 1130
0.90 1114
0.90 464
557
0.90 470
1064 7.1
1064 6.5
544 6.2
1090 7.1
1072 6.5
349 6.2
557 4.1
357 4.1
3.5 94 165
4.0 98 192
3.3 92 539
3.5 83 152
4.0 95 190
3.3 99 625
2.2 97 1014
2.2 98 1083
EB 1 55 10 41 350 0.16 4.2 17.2 C 17.2 C
WB 1 44 26 8 186 0.24 6.7 30.2 D 30.2 D
NB 1 28 28 0 1014 0.03 0.6 8.7 A 0.5
NB 2 470 0 13 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0
SB 1 19 19 0 1083 0.02 0.4 8.4 A 0.3
SB 2 557 0 27 1700 0.33 0.0 0.0
2.3 37.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Colborne Street/Short Street & Princes Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
10 10 Stop 0% 0.75 13
15 15
14 14 0.50 28
476 476 Free 0% 0.88 541
7 7
0.81 19
337 337 Free 0% 0.84 401
None
None
1002
546
550
1002 6.4
546 6.2
550 4.1
3.5 95 261
3.3 96 538
2.2 97 1020
EB 1 32 13 19 376 0.09 2.1 15.5 C 15.5 C
NB 1 28 28 0 1020 0.03 0.6 8.6 A 0.6
NB 2 401 0 0 1700 0.24 0.0 0.0
0.75 9
SB 1 550 0 9 1700 0.32 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.7 35.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 25: Northline Rd & CKL Rd 121
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
15.1 C
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
38 38 0.63 2 60 0
92 92 0.70 10 131 1
220 220 0.82 7 268 1
9 9 0.50 25 18 0
75 75 0.80 6 94 1
1 1 0.25 2 4 1
323 323 0.87 5 371 0
14 14 0.60 2 23 1
6 6 0.42 2 14 0
2 2 0.50 2 4 0
18 18 0.80 2 23 1
57 57 0.87 2 66 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 1 12.7 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 1 12 B
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 19.9 C
SB NB 1 WB 2 EB 2 10 A
NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 94% 29% 0% 11% 0% 3% 4% 71% 0% 89% 0% 23% 2% 0% 100% 0% 100% 74% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 343 130 220 84 1 77 323 38 0 9 0 2 14 92 0 75 0 18 6 0 220 0 1 57 409 192 268 112 4 92 2 5 5 5 5 2 0.666 0.343 0.426 0.225 0.007 0.15 5.862 6.441 5.718 7.251 6.149 5.862 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 613 556 628 493 578 607 3.914 4.201 3.477 5.03 3.926 3.939 0.667 0.345 0.427 0.227 0.007 0.152 19.9 12.6 12.7 12.1 9 10 C B B B A A 5 1.5 2.1 0.9 0 0.5
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
247 247 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.56 1009 0.89 278 0 278 6% Perm
36 36 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1666 1.00 1666 0.73 49 80 101 2% NA 4
82 82 1900
36 36 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.53 1006 0.62 58 0 58 2% pm+pt 3 8 44.4 44.4 0.41 3.5 3.0 473 0.01 0.04 0.12 19.1 1.00 0.1 19.2 B
64 64 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1681 1.00 1681 0.67 96 86 253 2% NA 8
168 168 1900
49 49 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.36 613 0.77 64 0 64 12% Perm
410 410 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1831 1.00 1831 0.88 466 6 565 2% NA 2
68 68 1900
92 92 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.27 515 0.75 123 0 123 2% Perm
448 448 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.95 472 0 472 4% NA 6
215 215 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.89 242 51 191 5% Perm
4 33.3 33.3 0.31 5.5 3.0 314 c0.28 0.89 35.0 1.00 24.3 59.3 E
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.62 132 0 0 3%
33.3 33.3 0.31 5.5 3.0 518 0.06 0.20 27.0 1.00 0.2 27.2 C 46.7 D 26.8 0.71 107.0 92.3% 15
0.69 243 0 0 2%
44.4 44.4 0.41 5.5 3.0 697 c0.15 0.36 21.6 1.00 0.3 21.9 C 21.5 C
2 51.6 51.6 0.48 5.5 3.0 295 0.10 0.22 16.0 1.00 1.7 17.7 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.65 105 0 0 2%
6 51.6 51.6 0.48 5.5 3.0 248
51.6 51.6 0.48 5.5 3.0 882 c0.31
0.24 0.50 18.9 1.00 6.9 25.8 C
0.64 20.7 1.00 3.6 24.3 C 23.6 C
51.6 51.6 0.48 5.5 3.0 890 0.26 0.53 19.3 1.00 2.3 21.5 C 20.9 C
6 51.6 51.6 0.48 5.5 3.0 749 0.12 0.26 16.4 1.00 0.8 17.2 B
C 14.5 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
3 WBL Lead Yes None 21.5 18.0% 21.5 3.5 0 10 3 3 0 0 5 0 No Yes 56.6 78.1 74.6 74.6 56.6 74.6 74.6
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 78.1 0 114 114 78.1 114 114
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 56.6 0 114 114 56.6 114 114
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
119.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 278 0.88 64.6 0.0 64.6 56.4 #101.5 25.0 344 0 0 0 0.81
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBT 181 0.30 12.4 0.0 12.4 9.9 17.0 148.3
WBL 58 0.11 17.4 0.0 17.4 6.9 9.6
WBT 339 0.44 13.5 0.0 13.5 26.1 26.7 296.8
NBL 64 0.22 20.9 0.0 20.9 8.2 14.9
NBT 571 0.64 25.7 0.0 25.7 93.1 127.4 119.3
645 0 0 0 0.28
565 0 0 0 0.10
983 0 0 0 0.34
297 0 0 0 0.22
895 0 0 0 0.64
SBL 123 0.49 29.8 0.0 29.8 18.6 29.2 20.0 249 0 0 0 0.49
SBT 472 0.53 23.3 0.0 23.3 72.9 104.2 126.0 896 0 0 0 0.53
SBR 242 0.30 11.9 0.0 11.9 18.2 34.7 20.0 805 0 0 0 0.30
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
58 58 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.71 1341 0.85 68 0 68 2% Perm
11 11 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.83 13 203 59 2% NA 4
169 169 1900
74 74 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.37 698 0.81 91 0 91 2% Perm
17 17 1900 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1673 1.00 1673 0.75 23 37 32 2% NA 4
31 31 1900
60 60 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.36 665 0.83 72 0 72 4% Perm
570 570 1900 5.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1805 1.00 1805 0.87 655 8 784 4% NA 2
81 81 1900
23 23 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.27 501 0.71 32 0 32 2% Perm
536 536 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1797 1.00 1797 0.92 583 3 626 6% NA 2
30 30 1900
4 13.8 13.8 0.19 5.0 3.0 250 0.05 0.27 25.7 1.00 0.6 26.3 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
0.68 249 0 0 2%
4 13.8 13.8 0.19 5.0 3.0 130
13.8 13.8 0.19 5.0 3.0 301 0.04
c0.13 0.70 28.1 1.00 15.2 43.3 D
0.20 25.4 1.00 0.3 25.7 C 25.8 C 13.3 0.65 73.9 81.7% 15
0.68 46 0 0 4%
13.8 13.8 0.19 5.0 3.0 312 0.02 0.10 24.9 1.00 0.1 25.1 C 35.4 D
2 50.1 50.1 0.68 5.0 3.0 450 0.11 0.16 4.3 1.00 0.8 5.1 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.59 137 0 0 2%
2 50.1 50.1 0.68 5.0 3.0 339
50.1 50.1 0.68 5.0 3.0 1223 c0.43
0.06 0.09 4.1 1.00 0.6 4.6 A
0.64 6.8 1.00 2.6 9.4 A 9.0 A
0.65 46 0 0 2%
50.1 50.1 0.68 5.0 3.0 1218 0.35 0.51 5.9 1.00 1.6 7.4 A 7.3 A
B 10.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max 55 68.8% 35 3.5 1.5 30 3 3 0 0 25 0 Yes Yes 0 55 50 50 0 50 50
None 25 31.3% 20 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 15 0 Yes Yes 55 0 75 75 55 75 75 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 68 0.27 28.2 0.0 28.2 8.2 17.1 10.0 363 0 0 0 0.19
EBT 262 0.52 8.4 0.0 8.4 1.5 14.4 171.8 619 0 0 0 0.42
WBL 91 0.70 56.1 0.0 56.1 11.9 23.5 25.0 189 0 0 0 0.48
WBT 69 0.20 13.1 0.0 13.1 2.7 9.0 264.0 487 0 0 0 0.14
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
NBL 72 0.16 6.4 0.0 6.4 2.9 8.9 40.0 450 0 0 0 0.16
NBT 792 0.64 10.4 0.0 10.4 48.9 100.7 74.9 1231 0 0 0 0.64
SBL 32 0.09 6.0 0.0 6.0 1.2 3.9 50.0 339 0 0 0 0.09
SBT 629 0.52 8.4 0.0 8.4 34.3 74.7 125.1 1221 0 0 0 0.52
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
17 17
5 5 Stop 0% 0.50 10
62 62
14 14
6 6
25 25
9 9
0.42 14
0.61 41
0.50 22
0.67 13
509 509 Free 0% 0.91 559
18 18
0.60 23
628 628 Free 0% 0.87 722
11 11
0.63 98
1 1 Stop 0% 0.25 4
0.63 27
None
0.67 27
None
149 0.77 1418
0.77 1424
572
0.77 1503
0.77 1427
0.77 733
586
0.77 744
1395 7.1
1402 6.5
572 6.2
1504 7.1
1406 6.5
508 6.2
586 4.1
522 4.1
3.5 67 83
4.0 90 102
3.3 81 516
3.5 58 55
4.0 96 102
3.3 97 437
2.2 96 989
2.2 98 807
EB 1 135 27 98 219 0.62 27.2 44.6 E 44.6 E
WB 1 41 23 14 84 0.49 15.7 83.1 F 83.1 F
NB 1 41 41 0 989 0.04 1.0 8.8 A 0.5
NB 2 744 0 22 1700 0.44 0.0 0.0
SB 1 13 13 0 807 0.02 0.4 9.5 A 0.2
SB 2 586 0 27 1700 0.34 0.0 0.0
6.4 45.3% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Colborne Street/Short Street & Princes Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
10 10 Stop 0% 0.75 13
15 15
12 12 0.69 17
476 476 Free 0% 0.95 501
7 7
0.75 20
585 585 Free 0% 0.95 616
None
None
1156
506
511
1156 6.4
506 6.3
511 4.1
3.5 94 214
3.4 96 556
2.2 98 1054
EB 1 33 13 20 341 0.10 2.4 16.7 C 16.7 C
NB 1 17 17 0 1054 0.02 0.4 8.5 A 0.2
NB 2 616 0 0 1700 0.36 0.0 0.0
0.71 10
SB 1 511 0 10 1700 0.30 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.6 40.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 25: Northline Rd & CKL Rd 121
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
18.1 C
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
86 86 0.85 2 101 0
203 203 0.89 4 228 1
341 341 0.89 4 383 1
14 14 0.43 17 33 0
161 161 0.91 9 177 1
5 5 0.25 25 20 1
259 259 0.95 3 273 0
27 27 0.60 2 45 1
9 9 0.67 2 13 0
1 1 0.25 2 4 0
23 23 0.71 5 32 1
57 57 0.80 2 71 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 1 18.9 C
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 1 15.5 C
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 20.2 C
SB NB 1 WB 2 EB 2 11.7 B
NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 88% 30% 0% 8% 0% 1% 9% 70% 0% 92% 0% 28% 3% 0% 100% 0% 100% 70% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 295 289 341 175 5 81 259 86 0 14 0 1 27 203 0 161 0 23 9 0 341 0 5 57 331 329 383 209 20 108 2 5 5 5 5 2 0.622 0.617 0.629 0.438 0.037 0.205 6.76 6.741 5.908 7.529 6.629 6.852 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 536 537 609 478 539 523 4.76 4.484 3.651 5.279 4.379 4.907 0.618 0.613 0.629 0.437 0.037 0.207 20.2 19.8 18.2 16.1 9.6 11.7 C C C C A B 4.2 4.2 4.4 2.2 0.1 0.8
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
147 147 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.61 1080 0.78 188 0 188 9% Perm
28 28 1900 5.5 1.00 0.88 1.00 1666 1.00 1666 0.75 37 95 65 2% NA 4
92 92 1900
37 37 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.52 982 0.88 42 0 42 2% pm+pt 3 8 30.0 30.0 0.32 3.5 3.0 362 0.01 0.03 0.12 22.1 1.00 0.1 22.3 C
53 53 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1684 1.00 1684 0.77 69 94 140 2% NA 8
129 129 1900
72 72 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.54 979 0.79 91 0 91 6% Perm
229 229 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1775 1.00 1775 0.81 283 5 341 6% NA 2
41 41 1900
100 100 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.51 957 0.82 122 0 122 2% Perm
265 265 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.86 308 0 308 5% NA 6
147 147 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.90 163 44 119 5% Perm
4 21.1 21.1 0.23 5.5 3.0 244 c0.17 0.77 33.8 1.00 13.9 47.8 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.75 123 0 0 2%
21.1 21.1 0.23 5.5 3.0 376 0.04 0.17 29.1 1.00 0.2 29.3 C 39.3 D 19.3 0.45 93.3 79.1% 15
0.78 165 0 0 2%
30.0 30.0 0.32 5.5 3.0 541 c0.08 0.26 23.4 1.00 0.3 23.7 C 23.5 C
2 52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 548 0.09 0.17 9.9 1.00 0.7 10.6 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.65 63 0 0 2%
6 52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 536
52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 994 c0.19
0.13 0.23 10.3 1.00 1.0 11.3 B
0.34 11.2 1.00 0.9 12.1 B 11.8 B
52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 1025 0.17 0.30 10.8 1.00 0.8 11.6 B 11.1 B
6 52.3 52.3 0.56 5.5 3.0 871 0.08 0.14 9.8 1.00 0.3 10.1 B
B 14.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
3 WBL Lead Yes None 21.5 18.0% 21.5 3.5 0 10 3 3 0 0 5 0 No Yes 56.6 78.1 74.6 74.6 56.6 74.6 74.6
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 78.1 0 114 114 78.1 114 114
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 56.6 0 114 114 56.6 114 114
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
119.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 188 0.76 53.6 0.0 53.6 33.5 47.3 25.0 431 0 0 0 0.44
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBT 160 0.34 11.0 0.0 11.0 5.6 13.5 148.3
WBL 42 0.10 19.0 0.0 19.0 4.9 11.0
WBT 234 0.38 10.8 0.0 10.8 11.9 20.0 296.8
NBL 91 0.16 14.7 0.0 14.7 8.6 18.3
NBT 346 0.34 14.4 0.0 14.4 35.2 58.8 119.3
740 0 0 0 0.22
499 0 0 0 0.08
1126 0 0 0 0.21
557 0 0 0 0.16
1015 0 0 0 0.34
SBL 122 0.22 15.2 0.0 15.2 11.9 25.1 20.0 544 0 0 0 0.22
SBT 308 0.30 14.3 0.0 14.3 31.6 57.4 126.0 1041 0 0 0 0.30
SBR 163 0.18 6.6 0.0 6.6 5.5 18.9 20.0 928 0 0 0 0.18
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1615 0.71 1215 0.63 32 0 32 13% Perm
19 19 1900 5.0 1.00 0.88 1.00 1651 1.00 1651 0.58 33 121 66 2% NA 4
97 97 1900
110 110 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.56 1062 0.60 183 0 183 2% Perm
24 24 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1766 1.00 1766 0.64 38 21 44 2% NA 4
12 12 1900
45 45 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.37 690 0.71 63 0 63 2% Perm
369 369 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1780 1.00 1780 0.85 434 7 502 6% NA 2
53 53 1900
9 9 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.42 799 0.58 16 0 16 2% Perm
488 488 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1816 1.00 1816 0.87 561 3 595 5% NA 2
32 32 1900
4 16.6 16.6 0.22 5.0 3.0 262 0.03 0.12 24.2 1.00 0.2 24.4 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.63 154 0 0 2%
4 16.6 16.6 0.22 5.0 3.0 229
16.6 16.6 0.22 5.0 3.0 357 0.04
c0.17 0.80 28.5 1.00 17.5 45.9 D
0.19 24.5 1.00 0.3 24.8 C 24.7 C 15.0 0.58 76.7 58.5% 15
0.45 27 0 0 2%
16.6 16.6 0.22 5.0 3.0 382 0.02 0.11 24.1 1.00 0.1 24.3 C 40.3 D
2 50.1 50.1 0.65 5.0 3.0 450 0.09 0.14 5.1 1.00 0.7 5.7 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.71 75 0 0 3%
2 50.1 50.1 0.65 5.0 3.0 521
50.1 50.1 0.65 5.0 3.0 1162 0.28
0.02 0.03 4.7 1.00 0.1 4.8 A
0.43 6.4 1.00 1.2 7.6 A 7.4 A
0.86 37 0 0 2%
50.1 50.1 0.65 5.0 3.0 1186 c0.33 0.50 6.9 1.00 1.5 8.4 A 8.3 A
B 10.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max 55 68.8% 35 3.5 1.5 30 3 3 0 0 25 0 Yes Yes 0 55 50 50 0 50 50
None 25 31.3% 20 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 15 0 Yes Yes 55 0 75 75 55 75 75 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 55
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 32 0.12 24.8 0.0 24.8 3.8 7.1 10.0 317 0 0 0 0.10
EBT 187 0.39 9.4 0.0 9.4 3.8 4.9 171.8 545 0 0 0 0.34
WBL 183 0.80 54.2 0.0 54.2 25.2 27.9 25.0 277 0 0 0 0.66
WBT 65 0.16 16.8 0.0 16.8 4.4 8.6 264.0 481 0 0 0 0.14
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
NBL 63 0.14 7.0 0.0 7.0 3.3 6.4 40.0 449 0 0 0 0.14
NBT 509 0.44 8.2 0.0 8.2 32.4 49.0 74.9 1170 0 0 0 0.44
SBL 16 0.03 5.9 0.0 5.9 0.8 1.9 50.0 521 0 0 0 0.03
SBT 598 0.50 9.2 0.0 9.2 42.1 64.8 125.1 1189 0 0 0 0.50
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
7 7
3 3 Stop 0% 0.50 6
28 28
15 15
4 4
27 27
7 7
0.38 11
0.83 33
0.75 16
0.31 23
535 535 Free 0% 0.94 569
20 20
0.46 33
403 403 Free 0% 0.82 491
12 12
0.58 48
5 5 Stop 0% 0.50 10
0.63 11
None
0.63 32
None
149 0.90 1204
0.90 1204
585
0.90 1231
0.90 1212
0.90 499
601
0.90 507
1170 7.1
1170 6.5
585 6.2
1200 7.1
1179 6.5
384 6.2
601 4.1
393 4.1
3.5 92 136
4.0 96 163
3.3 91 511
3.5 73 123
4.0 94 161
3.3 98 595
2.2 97 976
2.2 98 1046
EB 1 65 11 48 308 0.21 6.0 19.8 C 19.8 C
WB 1 54 33 11 154 0.35 11.0 40.4 E 40.4 E
NB 1 33 33 0 976 0.03 0.8 8.8 A 0.5
NB 2 507 0 16 1700 0.30 0.0 0.0
SB 1 23 23 0 1046 0.02 0.5 8.5 A 0.3
SB 2 601 0 32 1700 0.35 0.0 0.0
3.1 39.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Colborne Street/Short Street & Princes Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
12 12 Stop 0% 0.75 16
17 17
16 16 0.50 32
512 512 Free 0% 0.88 582
8 8
0.81 21
362 362 Free 0% 0.84 431
None
None
1082
588
593
1082 6.4
588 6.2
593 4.1
3.5 93 233
3.3 96 509
2.2 97 983
EB 1 37 16 21 336 0.11 2.8 17.0 C 17.0 C
NB 1 32 32 0 983 0.03 0.8 8.8 A 0.6
NB 2 431 0 0 1700 0.25 0.0 0.0
0.75 11
SB 1 593 0 11 1700 0.35 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.8 37.4% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 25: Northline Rd & CKL Rd 121
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
17 C
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
41 41 0.63 2 65 0
99 99 0.70 10 141 1
237 237 0.82 7 289 1
11 11 0.50 25 22 0
80 80 0.80 6 100 1
1 1 0.25 2 4 1
339 339 0.87 5 390 0
16 16 0.60 2 27 1
7 7 0.42 2 17 0
3 3 0.50 2 6 0
21 21 0.80 2 26 1
60 60 0.87 2 69 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 1 13.7 B
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 1 12.8 B
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 23.4 C
SB NB 1 WB 2 EB 2 10.5 B
NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 94% 29% 0% 12% 0% 4% 4% 71% 0% 88% 0% 25% 2% 0% 100% 0% 100% 71% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 362 140 237 91 1 84 339 41 0 11 0 3 16 99 0 80 0 21 7 0 237 0 1 60 433 207 289 122 4 101 2 5 5 5 5 2 0.724 0.38 0.473 0.257 0.007 0.175 6.019 6.617 5.892 7.592 6.479 6.215 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 598 541 607 476 556 580 4.095 4.402 3.677 5.292 4.179 4.222 0.724 0.383 0.476 0.256 0.007 0.174 23.4 13.5 13.9 12.9 9.2 10.5 C B B B A B 6.1 1.8 2.5 1 0 0.6
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
208 208 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.51 915 0.89 234 0 234 6% Perm
43 43 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1667 1.00 1667 0.73 59 81 133 2% NA 4
96 96 1900
43 43 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.47 892 0.62 69 0 69 2% pm+pt 3 8 40.7 40.7 0.39 3.5 3.0 416 0.01 0.05 0.17 20.2 1.00 0.2 20.4 C
75 75 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1680 1.00 1680 0.67 112 90 308 2% NA 8
197 197 1900
57 57 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.41 704 0.77 74 0 74 12% Perm
370 370 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1819 1.00 1819 0.88 420 7 536 2% NA 2
80 80 1900
108 108 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.31 587 0.75 144 0 144 2% Perm
404 404 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.95 425 0 425 4% NA 6
194 194 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.89 218 49 169 5% Perm
4 29.6 29.6 0.29 5.5 3.0 261 c0.26 0.90 35.5 1.00 30.0 65.5 E
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.62 155 0 0 3%
29.6 29.6 0.29 5.5 3.0 476 0.08 0.28 28.7 1.00 0.3 29.1 C 48.1 D 25.6 0.68 103.6 91.1% 15
0.69 286 0 0 2%
40.7 40.7 0.39 5.5 3.0 660 c0.18 0.47 23.4 1.00 0.5 23.9 C 23.4 C
2 51.9 51.9 0.50 5.5 3.0 352 0.11 0.21 14.4 1.00 1.4 15.8 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.65 123 0 0 2%
6 51.9 51.9 0.50 5.5 3.0 294
51.9 51.9 0.50 5.5 3.0 911 c0.29
0.25 0.49 17.1 1.00 5.7 22.8 C
0.59 18.3 1.00 2.8 21.1 C 20.4 C
51.9 51.9 0.50 5.5 3.0 925 0.23 0.46 16.8 1.00 1.6 18.4 B 18.3 B
6 51.9 51.9 0.50 5.5 3.0 779 0.11 0.22 14.5 1.00 0.6 15.1 B
C 14.5 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
3 WBL Lead Yes None 21.5 18.0% 21.5 3.5 0 10 3 3 0 0 5 0 No Yes 56.6 78.1 74.6 74.6 56.6 74.6 74.6
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 78.1 0 114 114 78.1 114 114
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 56.6 0 114 114 56.6 114 114
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
119.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 234 0.89 70.1 0.0 70.1 46.2 #85.7 25.0 324 0 0 0 0.72
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBT 214 0.38 16.0 0.0 16.0 15.8 23.1 148.3
WBL 69 0.15 18.1 0.0 18.1 8.2 11.0
WBT 398 0.54 16.7 0.0 16.7 36.4 35.1 296.8
NBL 74 0.21 19.8 0.0 19.8 9.1 16.4
NBT 543 0.59 23.1 0.0 23.1 82.3 118.8 119.3
663 0 0 0 0.32
522 0 0 0 0.13
1016 0 0 0 0.39
356 0 0 0 0.21
925 0 0 0 0.59
SBL 144 0.49 27.4 0.0 27.4 20.9 32.7 20.0 296 0 0 0 0.49
SBT 425 0.46 20.8 0.0 20.8 60.5 91.5 126.0 932 0 0 0 0.46
SBR 218 0.26 10.6 0.0 10.6 14.3 30.0 20.0 833 0 0 0 0.26
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
68 68 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.70 1328 0.85 80 0 80 2% Perm
13 13 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1616 1.00 1616 0.83 16 230 77 2% NA 4
198 198 1900
86 86 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.31 586 0.81 106 0 106 2% Perm
20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1675 1.00 1675 0.75 27 42 38 2% NA 4
36 36 1900
71 71 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.35 647 0.83 86 0 86 4% Perm
561 561 1900 5.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1799 1.00 1799 0.87 645 10 794 4% NA 2
94 94 1900
27 27 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.25 463 0.71 38 0 38 2% Perm
528 528 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.92 574 4 624 6% NA 2
35 35 1900
4 16.1 16.1 0.21 5.0 3.0 280 0.06 0.29 25.2 1.00 0.6 25.8 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
0.68 291 0 0 2%
4 16.1 16.1 0.21 5.0 3.0 123
16.1 16.1 0.21 5.0 3.0 341 0.05
c0.18 0.86 29.0 1.00 42.2 71.2 E
0.23 24.9 1.00 0.3 25.2 C 25.4 C 16.1 0.72 76.2 92.8% 15
0.68 53 0 0 4%
16.1 16.1 0.21 5.0 3.0 353 0.02 0.11 24.3 1.00 0.1 24.4 C 51.0 D
2 50.1 50.1 0.66 5.0 3.0 425 0.13 0.20 5.2 1.00 1.1 6.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.59 159 0 0 2%
2 50.1 50.1 0.66 5.0 3.0 304
50.1 50.1 0.66 5.0 3.0 1182 c0.44
0.08 0.12 4.9 1.00 0.8 5.7 A
0.67 8.0 1.00 3.1 11.1 B 10.6 B
0.65 54 0 0 2%
50.1 50.1 0.66 5.0 3.0 1180 0.35 0.53 6.9 1.00 1.7 8.6 A 8.4 A
B 10.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max 55 68.8% 35 3.5 1.5 30 3 3 0 0 25 0 Yes Yes 0 55 50 50 0 50 50
None 25 31.3% 20 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 15 0 Yes Yes 55 0 75 75 55 75 75 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 80 0.29 27.6 0.0 27.6 9.7 19.6 10.0 349 0 0 0 0.23
EBT 307 0.54 7.9 0.0 7.9 1.8 15.3 171.8 639 0 0 0 0.48
WBL 106 0.86 82.7 0.0 82.7 14.8 #33.7 25.0 154 0 0 0 0.69
WBT 80 0.20 12.5 0.0 12.5 3.1 9.7 264.0 479 0 0 0 0.17
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
NBL 86 0.20 7.6 0.0 7.6 4.6 10.4 40.0 425 0 0 0 0.20
NBT 804 0.67 12.1 0.0 12.1 63.5 103.3 74.9 1193 0 0 0 0.67
SBL 38 0.12 7.1 0.0 7.1 1.9 4.6 50.0 304 0 0 0 0.13
SBT 628 0.53 9.4 0.0 9.4 43.3 74.6 125.1 1184 0 0 0 0.53
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20
5 5 Stop 0% 0.50 10
73 73
16 16
7 7
29 29
11 11
0.42 17
0.61 48
0.50 26
0.67 16
548 548 Free 0% 0.91 602
21 21
0.60 27
676 676 Free 0% 0.87 777
13 13
0.63 116
1 1 Stop 0% 0.25 4
0.63 32
None
0.67 31
None
149 0.76 1542
0.76 1548
618
0.76 1641
0.76 1551
0.76 790
633
0.76 803
1555 7.1
1564 6.5
618 6.2
1687 7.1
1567 6.5
561 6.2
633 4.1
578 4.1
3.5 47 60
4.0 87 78
3.3 76 486
3.5 26 37
4.0 95 78
3.3 96 399
2.2 95 950
2.2 98 753
EB 1 158 32 116 176 0.90 50.4 95.6 F 95.6 F
WB 1 48 27 17 58 0.83 28.0 187.4 F 187.4 F
NB 1 48 48 0 950 0.05 1.2 9.0 A 0.5
NB 2 803 0 26 1700 0.47 0.0 0.0
SB 1 16 16 0 753 0.02 0.5 9.9 A 0.2
SB 2 633 0 31 1700 0.37 0.0 0.0
14.5 48.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Colborne Street/Short Street & Princes Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
4 4 Stop 0% 0.75 5
20 20
15 15 0.69 22
493 493 Free 0% 0.95 519
23 23
0.75 27
629 629 Free 0% 0.95 662
None
None
1241
535
551
1241 6.4
535 6.3
551 4.1
3.5 97 189
3.4 95 536
2.2 98 1019
EB 1 32 5 27 416 0.08 1.9 14.4 B 14.4 B
NB 1 22 22 0 1019 0.02 0.5 8.6 A 0.3
NB 2 662 0 0 1700 0.39 0.0 0.0
0.71 32
SB 1 551 0 32 1700 0.32 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.5 43.1% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 25: Northline Rd & CKL Rd 121
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
23.6 C
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
93 93 0.85 2 109 0
218 218 0.89 4 245 1
366 366 0.89 4 411 1
16 16 0.43 17 37 0
169 169 0.91 9 186 1
5 5 0.25 25 20 1
303 303 0.95 3 319 0
32 32 0.60 2 53 1
11 11 0.67 2 16 0
1 1 0.25 2 4 0
27 27 0.71 5 38 1
60 60 0.80 2 75 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 1 24.6 C
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 1 17.7 C
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 28.5 D
SB NB 1 WB 2 EB 2 12.7 B
NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 88% 30% 0% 9% 0% 1% 9% 70% 0% 91% 0% 31% 3% 0% 100% 0% 100% 68% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 346 311 366 185 5 88 303 93 0 16 0 1 32 218 0 169 0 27 11 0 366 0 5 60 389 354 411 223 20 117 2 5 5 5 5 2 0.754 0.705 0.722 0.496 0.039 0.239 6.983 7.16 6.323 8.005 7.097 7.362 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 517 503 572 450 503 487 5.027 4.913 4.076 5.765 4.856 5.43 0.752 0.704 0.719 0.496 0.04 0.24 28.5 25.4 23.9 18.4 10.1 12.7 D D C C B B 6.5 5.5 6 2.7 0.1 0.9
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
147 147 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.31 555 0.78 188 0 188 9% pm+pt 7 4 29.5 29.5 0.35 3.5 3.0 350 c0.08 c0.11 0.54 20.8 1.00 1.6 22.4 C
28 28 1900 5.5 1.00 0.88 1.00 1666 1.00 1666 0.75 37 94 66 2% NA 4
92 92 1900
37 37 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.66 1235 0.88 42 0 42 2% pm+pt 3 8 19.9 19.9 0.23 3.5 3.0 327 0.01 0.02 0.13 25.4 1.00 0.2 25.6 C
53 53 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1684 1.00 1684 0.77 69 99 135 2% NA 8
129 129 1900
72 72 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.54 971 0.79 91 0 91 6% Perm
229 229 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1775 1.00 1775 0.81 283 8 338 6% NA 2
41 41 1900
100 100 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.50 945 0.82 122 0 122 2% Perm
265 265 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.86 308 0 308 5% NA 6
147 147 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.90 163 72 91 5% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
0.75 123 0 0 2%
20.2 20.2 0.24 5.5 3.0 396 0.04 0.17 25.6 1.00 0.2 25.8 C 24.0 C 18.1 0.45 84.8 77.6% 15
0.78 165 0 0 2%
14.1 14.1 0.17 5.5 3.0 280 0.08 0.48 32.0 1.00 1.3 33.3 C 32.2 C
2 44.3 44.3 0.52 5.5 3.0 507 0.09 0.18 10.7 1.00 0.8 11.4 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.65 63 0 0 2%
6 44.3 44.3 0.52 5.5 3.0 493
44.3 44.3 0.52 5.5 3.0 927 c0.19
0.13 0.25 11.1 1.00 1.2 12.3 B
0.36 11.9 1.00 1.1 13.1 B 12.7 B
44.3 44.3 0.52 5.5 3.0 956 0.17 0.32 11.6 1.00 0.9 12.5 B 11.9 B
6 44.3 44.3 0.52 5.5 3.0 812 0.06 0.11 10.3 1.00 0.3 10.6 B
B 14.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL Max 49.7 55.2% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 49.7 44.2 44.2 0 44.2 44.2
AM Peak Hour
8 7 4 6 3 WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes None None Max None None 17 23.3 49.7 18.8 21.5 23.9% 20.9% 55.2% 18.9% 25.9% 18.5 9.5 30.5 18.5 21.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 0 0 25 10 5 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 5 0 0 0 0 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 71.2 66.7 49.7 49.7 0 0 49.7 0 66.7 71.2 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 71.2 66.7 49.7 49.7 0 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
Splits and Phases:
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 188 0.53 24.5 0.0 24.5 21.1 30.4 25.0 381 0 0 0 0.49
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBT 160 0.32 11.1 0.0 11.1 5.0 13.5 148.3
WBL 42 0.10 17.7 0.0 17.7 4.3 10.1
WBT 234 0.66 26.2 0.0 26.2 17.0 29.6 296.8
NBL 91 0.18 12.5 0.0 12.5 6.9 14.9
NBT 346 0.36 12.9 0.0 12.9 27.7 46.6 119.3
496 0 0 0 0.32
564 0 0 0 0.07
454 0 0 0 0.52
516 0 0 0 0.18
952 0 0 0 0.36
SBL 122 0.24 13.3 0.0 13.3 9.6 20.5 20.0 502 0 0 0 0.24
SBT 308 0.32 13.0 0.0 13.0 25.3 46.1 126.0 973 0 0 0 0.32
SBR 163 0.18 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.8 10.4 20.0 897 0 0 0 0.18
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1615 0.71 1215 0.63 32 0 32 13% Perm
19 19 1900 5.0 1.00 0.88 1.00 1651 1.00 1651 0.58 33 119 68 2% NA 4
97 97 1900
110 110 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.56 1058 0.60 183 0 183 2% Perm
24 24 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1766 1.00 1766 0.64 38 21 44 2% NA 4
12 12 1900
45 45 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.36 683 0.71 63 0 63 2% Perm
369 369 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1780 1.00 1780 0.85 434 6 503 6% NA 2
53 53 1900
9 9 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.42 792 0.58 16 0 16 2% Perm
488 488 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1816 1.00 1816 0.87 561 2 596 5% NA 2
32 32 1900
4 18.2 18.2 0.23 5.0 3.0 274 0.03 0.12 24.8 1.00 0.2 25.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
0.63 154 0 0 2%
4 18.2 18.2 0.23 5.0 3.0 239
18.2 18.2 0.23 5.0 3.0 373 0.04
c0.17 0.77 29.2 1.00 13.6 42.8 D
0.18 25.1 1.00 0.2 25.4 C 25.3 C 15.1 0.57 80.5 58.5% 15
0.45 27 0 0 2%
18.2 18.2 0.23 5.0 3.0 399 0.02 0.11 24.7 1.00 0.1 24.8 C 38.1 D
2 52.3 52.3 0.65 5.0 3.0 443 0.09 0.14 5.4 1.00 0.7 6.1 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.71 75 0 0 3%
2 52.3 52.3 0.65 5.0 3.0 514
52.3 52.3 0.65 5.0 3.0 1156 0.28
0.02 0.03 5.0 1.00 0.1 5.2 A
0.44 6.9 1.00 1.2 8.1 A 7.9 A
0.86 37 0 0 2%
52.3 52.3 0.65 5.0 3.0 1179 c0.33 0.51 7.4 1.00 1.5 8.9 A 8.8 A
B 10.0 B
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
AM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max None 57 33 63.3% 36.7% 35 20 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 30 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 25 15 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 52 85 52 85 0 57 52 85 52 85
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 55
Splits and Phases:
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 32 0.12 24.5 0.0 24.5 3.9 7.1 10.0 424 0 0 0 0.08
EBT 187 0.38 8.9 0.0 8.9 4.0 4.5 171.8 676 0 0 0 0.28
WBL 183 0.77 49.8 0.0 49.8 26.2 28.1 25.0 369 0 0 0 0.50
WBT 65 0.15 16.4 0.0 16.4 4.6 8.4 264.0 635 0 0 0 0.10
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
NBL 63 0.14 8.2 0.0 8.2 3.3 8.3 40.0 444 0 0 0 0.14
NBT 509 0.44 9.3 0.0 9.3 32.1 64.3 74.9 1161 0 0 0 0.44
SBL 16 0.03 7.3 0.0 7.3 0.8 2.4 50.0 513 0 0 0 0.03
SBT 598 0.51 10.4 0.7 11.1 41.4 83.8 125.1 1180 282 0 0 0.67
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
7 7 1900
3 3 1900 4.5 1.00 0.90 0.99 1681 0.95 1615 0.50 6 44 21 2% NA 4
28 28 1900
15 15 1900
4 4 1900
403 403 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1758 1.00 1758 0.82 491 1 506 9% NA 2
7 7 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.47 878 0.31 23 0 23 2% Perm
535 535 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1786 1.00 1786 0.94 569 1 600 7% NA 6
20 20 1900
0.46 33 0 0 2% Perm
27 27 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.42 787 0.83 33 0 33 2% Perm
12 12 1900
0.58 48 0 0 2%
5 5 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.97 1777 0.81 1490 0.50 10 10 44 2% NA 8
0.63 11 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
0.38 11 0 0 2%
8 7.2 7.2 0.07 4.5 3.0 120
7.2 7.2 0.07 4.5 3.0 110
0.01 0.17 42.1 1.00 0.7 42.7 D 42.7 D
c0.03 0.40 42.8 1.00 2.4 45.1 D 45.1 D 6.5 0.40 96.9 41.0% 15
2 80.7 80.7 0.83 4.5 3.0 655 0.04 0.05 1.4 1.00 0.1 1.6 A
0.75 16 0 0 2%
6 80.7 80.7 0.83 4.5 3.0 731
80.7 80.7 0.83 4.5 3.0 1464 0.29
0.03 0.03 1.4 1.00 0.1 1.5 A
0.35 1.9 1.00 0.6 2.6 A 2.5 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 A
0.63 32 0 0 2%
80.7 80.7 0.83 4.5 3.0 1487 c0.34 0.40 2.0 1.00 0.8 2.9 A 2.8 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 77 77 23 23 77.0% 23.0% 77.0% 23.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 77 77 0 77 77 0 72.5 95.5 72.5 95.5 61.5 84.5 61.5 84.5 0 0 77 77 72.5 95.5 72.5 95.5 61.5 84.5 61.5 84.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Semi Act-Uncoord 55
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
24: Colborne St & Bond St
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBT 65 0.35 22.0 0.0 22.0 3.1 4.2 232.7
WBT 54 0.39 41.7 0.0 41.7 7.9 8.9 312.4
350 0 0 0 0.19
296 0 0 0 0.18
NBL 33 0.05 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.8 2.6 40.0 669 0 0 0 0.05
NBT 507 0.34 2.9 0.5 3.4 16.7 28.0 125.1 1495 561 0 0 0.54
SBL 23 0.03 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.6 0.7 20.0 747 0 0 0 0.03
SBT 601 0.40 3.2 0.0 3.2 21.1 40.6 112.8 1520 0 0 0 0.40
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
208 208 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.19 340 0.89 234 0 234 6% pm+pt 7 4 34.1 34.1 0.38 3.5 3.0 327 c0.10 0.17 0.72 21.7 1.00 7.3 28.9 C
43 43 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1667 1.00 1667 0.73 59 92 122 2% NA 4
96 96 1900
43 43 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1176 0.62 69 0 69 2% pm+pt 3 8 25.7 25.7 0.29 3.5 3.0 392 0.02 0.04 0.18 23.6 1.00 0.2 23.8 C
75 75 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1680 1.00 1680 0.67 112 102 296 2% NA 8
197 197 1900
57 57 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1630 0.42 714 0.77 74 0 74 12% Perm
370 370 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1819 1.00 1819 0.88 420 12 531 2% NA 2
80 80 1900
108 108 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.32 594 0.75 144 0 144 2% Perm
404 404 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1847 1.00 1847 0.95 425 0 425 4% NA 6
194 194 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.89 218 74 144 5% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
0.62 155 0 0 3%
22.7 22.7 0.25 5.5 3.0 423 0.07 0.29 26.8 1.00 0.4 27.2 C 28.1 C 26.5 0.68 89.3 89.8% 15
0.69 286 0 0 2%
17.8 17.8 0.20 5.5 3.0 334 c0.18 0.89 34.8 1.00 23.4 58.2 E 53.1 D
2 44.2 44.2 0.49 5.5 3.0 353 0.10 0.21 12.7 1.00 1.3 14.1 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.65 123 0 0 2%
6 44.2 44.2 0.49 5.5 3.0 294
44.2 44.2 0.49 5.5 3.0 900 c0.29
0.24 0.49 15.0 1.00 5.7 20.8 C
0.59 16.1 1.00 2.8 18.9 B 18.3 B
44.2 44.2 0.49 5.5 3.0 914 0.23 0.46 14.8 1.00 1.7 16.5 B 16.3 B
6 44.2 44.2 0.49 5.5 3.0 769 0.09 0.19 12.6 1.00 0.5 13.1 B
C 14.5 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL Max 49.7 55.2% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 49.7 44.2 44.2 0 44.2 44.2
PM Peak Hour
8 7 4 6 3 WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes None None Max None None 17 23.3 49.7 18.8 21.5 23.9% 20.9% 55.2% 18.9% 25.9% 18.5 9.5 30.5 18.5 21.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 0 0 25 10 5 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 5 0 0 0 0 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 71.2 66.7 49.7 49.7 0 0 49.7 0 66.7 71.2 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 71.2 66.7 49.7 49.7 0 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
Splits and Phases:
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 234 0.70 30.8 0.0 30.8 27.0 #45.2 25.0 346 0 0 0 0.68
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBT 214 0.41 15.6 0.0 15.6 12.8 20.9 148.3
WBL 69 0.15 17.7 0.0 17.7 7.2 10.1
WBT 398 0.93 55.3 0.0 55.3 47.6 49.4 296.8
NBL 74 0.21 15.0 0.0 15.0 6.9 12.9
NBT 543 0.59 18.7 0.0 18.7 61.9 90.2 119.3
518 0 0 0 0.41
594 0 0 0 0.12
439 0 0 0 0.91
356 0 0 0 0.21
919 0 0 0 0.59
SBL 144 0.49 22.3 0.0 22.3 16.0 25.8 20.0 296 0 0 0 0.49
SBT 425 0.46 16.8 0.0 16.8 46.3 70.2 126.0 922 0 0 0 0.46
SBR 218 0.26 5.6 0.0 5.6 6.4 17.7 20.0 848 0 0 0 0.26
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
68 68 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.70 1328 0.85 80 0 80 2% Perm
13 13 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1616 1.00 1616 0.83 16 229 78 2% NA 4
198 198 1900
86 86 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.31 578 0.81 106 0 106 2% Perm
20 20 1900 5.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 1675 1.00 1675 0.75 27 42 38 2% NA 4
36 36 1900
71 71 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1755 0.35 647 0.83 86 0 86 4% Perm
561 561 1900 5.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1799 1.00 1799 0.87 645 8 796 4% NA 2
94 94 1900
27 27 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.25 465 0.71 38 0 38 2% Perm
528 528 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1795 1.00 1795 0.92 574 3 625 6% NA 2
35 35 1900
4 16.8 16.8 0.21 5.0 3.0 282 0.06 0.28 26.1 1.00 0.6 26.7 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
0.68 291 0 0 2%
4 16.8 16.8 0.21 5.0 3.0 122
16.8 16.8 0.21 5.0 3.0 343 0.05
c0.18 0.87 30.1 1.00 43.6 73.7 E
0.23 25.8 1.00 0.3 26.1 C 26.2 C 16.5 0.72 79.1 92.8% 15
0.68 53 0 0 4%
16.8 16.8 0.21 5.0 3.0 355 0.02 0.11 25.1 1.00 0.1 25.2 C 52.9 D
2 52.3 52.3 0.66 5.0 3.0 427 0.13 0.20 5.2 1.00 1.1 6.3 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.59 159 0 0 2%
2 52.3 52.3 0.66 5.0 3.0 307
52.3 52.3 0.66 5.0 3.0 1189 c0.44
0.08 0.12 4.9 1.00 0.8 5.8 A
0.67 8.1 1.00 3.0 11.2 B 10.7 B
0.65 54 0 0 2%
52.3 52.3 0.66 5.0 3.0 1186 0.35 0.53 7.0 1.00 1.7 8.6 A 8.5 A
B 10.0 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
PM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max None 57 33 63.3% 36.7% 35 20 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 30 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 25 15 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 52 85 52 85 0 57 52 85 52 85
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 80 0.28 27.8 0.0 27.8 10.1 19.6 10.0 472 0 0 0 0.17
EBT 307 0.54 7.6 0.0 7.6 1.9 14.6 171.8 762 0 0 0 0.40
WBL 106 0.87 82.7 0.0 82.7 15.4 29.2 25.0 205 0 0 0 0.52
WBT 80 0.20 12.3 0.0 12.3 3.3 9.6 264.0 629 0 0 0 0.13
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
NBL 86 0.20 8.5 0.0 8.5 4.1 13.3 40.0 427 0 0 0 0.20
NBT 804 0.67 13.1 0.0 13.1 57.9 134.1 74.9 1196 0 0 0 0.67
SBL 38 0.12 8.2 0.0 8.2 1.7 5.8 50.0 307 0 0 0 0.12
SBT 628 0.53 10.2 0.8 11.0 39.2 96.3 125.1 1188 270 0 0 0.68
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
20 20 1900
5 5 1900 4.5 1.00 0.90 0.99 1656 0.93 1563 0.50 10 105 53 2% NA 4
73 73 1900
16 16 1900
7 7 1900
676 676 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1839 1.00 1839 0.87 777 1 802 4% NA 2
11 11 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.32 594 0.67 16 0 16 2% Perm
548 548 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1799 1.00 1799 0.91 602 1 632 6% NA 6
21 21 1900
0.60 27 0 0 2% Perm
29 29 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.40 745 0.61 48 0 48 2% Perm
13 13 1900
0.63 116 0 0 4%
1 1 1900 4.5 1.00 0.95 0.97 1744 0.47 842 0.25 4 15 33 2% NA 8
0.63 32 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
0.42 17 0 0 2%
8 8.9 8.9 0.09 4.5 3.0 147
8.9 8.9 0.09 4.5 3.0 79
0.03 0.36 40.0 1.00 1.5 41.5 D 41.5 D
c0.04 0.41 40.2 1.00 3.5 43.7 D 43.7 D 8.6 0.53 94.3 49.6% 15
2 76.4 76.4 0.81 4.5 3.0 603 0.06 0.08 1.8 1.00 0.3 2.1 A
0.50 26 0 0 2%
6 76.4 76.4 0.81 4.5 3.0 481
76.4 76.4 0.81 4.5 3.0 1489 c0.44
0.03 0.03 1.7 1.00 0.1 1.9 A
0.54 3.0 1.00 1.4 4.4 A 4.3 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 A
0.67 31 0 0 6%
76.4 76.4 0.81 4.5 3.0 1457 0.35 0.43 2.6 1.00 0.9 3.6 A 3.5 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 77 77 23 23 77.0% 23.0% 77.0% 23.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 77 77 0 77 77 0 72.5 95.5 72.5 95.5 61.5 84.5 61.5 84.5 0 0 77 77 72.5 95.5 72.5 95.5 61.5 84.5 61.5 84.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
24: Colborne St & Bond St
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBT 158 0.63 24.1 0.0 24.1 6.9 4.4 232.7
WBT 48 0.51 46.2 0.0 46.2 5.1 2.1 312.4
399 0 0 0 0.40
178 0 0 0 0.27
NBL 48 0.08 2.8 0.0 2.8 1.2 2.9 40.0 603 0 0 0 0.08
NBT 803 0.54 5.1 1.2 6.2 33.0 71.5 125.1 1490 434 0 0 0.76
SBL 16 0.03 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.4 1.5 20.0 480 0 0 0 0.03
SBT 633 0.43 4.0 0.0 4.0 22.4 52.1 112.8 1459 0 0 0 0.43
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
172 172 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.59 1041 0.78 221 0 221 9% Perm
33 33 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1667 1.00 1667 0.75 44 105 83 2% NA 4
108 108 1900
44 44 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.49 929 0.88 50 0 50 2% pm+pt 3 8 36.8 36.8 0.37 3.5 3.0 407 0.01 0.04 0.12 20.7 1.00 0.1 20.9 C
62 62 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1684 1.00 1684 0.77 81 88 187 2% NA 8
151 151 1900
84 84 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.46 842 0.79 106 0 106 6% Perm
279 279 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1776 1.00 1776 0.81 344 5 413 6% NA 2
48 48 1900
117 117 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.43 808 0.82 143 0 143 2% Perm
323 323 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.86 376 0 376 5% NA 6
180 180 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.90 200 49 151 5% Perm
4 25.7 25.7 0.26 5.5 3.0 267 c0.21 0.83 35.0 1.00 18.6 53.6 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.75 144 0 0 2%
25.7 25.7 0.26 5.5 3.0 428 0.05 0.19 29.0 1.00 0.2 29.2 C 42.4 D 22.2 0.55 99.9 82.1% 15
0.78 194 0 0 2%
36.8 36.8 0.37 5.5 3.0 620 c0.11 0.30 22.4 1.00 0.3 22.7 C 22.4 C
2 52.1 52.1 0.52 5.5 3.0 439 0.13 0.24 13.1 1.00 1.3 14.4 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.65 74 0 0 2%
6 52.1 52.1 0.52 5.5 3.0 421
52.1 52.1 0.52 5.5 3.0 926 c0.23
0.18 0.34 13.9 1.00 2.2 16.1 B
0.45 14.9 1.00 1.6 16.5 B 16.0 B
52.1 52.1 0.52 5.5 3.0 954 0.21 0.39 14.4 1.00 1.2 15.6 B 15.0 B
6 52.1 52.1 0.52 5.5 3.0 810 0.10 0.19 12.7 1.00 0.5 13.2 B
C 14.5 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
3 WBL Lead Yes None 21.5 18.0% 21.5 3.5 0 10 3 3 0 0 5 0 No Yes 56.6 78.1 74.6 74.6 56.6 74.6 74.6
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 78.1 0 114 114 78.1 114 114
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 56.6 0 114 114 56.6 114 114
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
119.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 221 0.82 59.0 0.0 59.0 41.2 56.6 25.0 383 0 0 0 0.58
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBT 188 0.35 10.6 0.0 10.6 7.1 15.0 148.3
WBL 50 0.11 18.1 0.0 18.1 5.9 12.4
WBT 275 0.39 11.8 0.0 11.8 17.5 26.1 296.8
NBL 106 0.24 18.4 0.0 18.4 11.7 22.7
NBT 418 0.45 18.8 0.0 18.8 51.0 76.5 119.3
703 0 0 0 0.27
519 0 0 0 0.10
1049 0 0 0 0.26
442 0 0 0 0.24
936 0 0 0 0.45
SBL 143 0.34 20.1 0.0 20.1 16.7 32.4 20.0 423 0 0 0 0.34
SBT 376 0.39 18.3 0.0 18.3 45.5 74.6 126.0 960 0 0 0 0.39
SBR 200 0.23 9.0 0.0 9.0 10.1 26.4 20.0 864 0 0 0 0.23
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
23 23 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1615 0.71 1204 0.63 37 0 37 13% Perm
22 22 1900 5.0 1.00 0.88 1.00 1650 1.00 1650 0.58 38 137 82 2% NA 4
114 114 1900
129 129 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.51 967 0.60 215 0 215 2% Perm
28 28 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1767 1.00 1767 0.64 44 24 51 2% NA 4
14 14 1900
53 53 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.25 478 0.71 75 0 75 2% Perm
473 473 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1782 1.00 1782 0.85 556 7 636 6% NA 2
62 62 1900
11 11 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.33 615 0.58 19 0 19 2% Perm
625 625 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1817 1.00 1817 0.87 718 3 758 5% NA 2
37 37 1900
4 19.1 19.1 0.24 5.0 3.0 290 0.03 0.13 23.5 1.00 0.2 23.7 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.63 181 0 0 2%
4 19.1 19.1 0.24 5.0 3.0 233
19.1 19.1 0.24 5.0 3.0 398 0.05
c0.22 0.92 29.3 1.00 38.3 67.6 E
0.21 23.9 1.00 0.3 24.2 C 24.1 C 19.2 0.73 79.1 73.2% 15
0.45 31 0 0 2%
19.1 19.1 0.24 5.0 3.0 426 0.03 0.12 23.4 1.00 0.1 23.6 C 56.2 E
2 50.0 50.0 0.63 5.0 3.0 302 0.16 0.25 6.3 1.00 2.0 8.3 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.71 87 0 0 3%
2 50.0 50.0 0.63 5.0 3.0 388
50.0 50.0 0.63 5.0 3.0 1126 0.36
0.03 0.05 5.5 1.00 0.2 5.8 A
0.56 8.3 1.00 2.1 10.4 B 10.2 B
0.86 43 0 0 2%
50.0 50.0 0.63 5.0 3.0 1148 c0.42 0.66 9.2 1.00 3.0 12.2 B 12.0 B
B 10.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max 55 68.8% 35 3.5 1.5 30 3 3 0 0 25 0 Yes Yes 0 55 50 50 0 50 50
None 25 31.3% 20 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 15 0 Yes Yes 55 0 75 75 55 75 75 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 55
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 37 0.13 24.7 0.0 24.7 4.4 8.0 10.0 304 0 0 0 0.12
EBT 219 0.41 8.9 0.0 8.9 4.5 4.8 171.8 552 0 0 0 0.40
WBL 215 0.92 73.7 0.0 73.7 31.5 33.6 25.0 245 0 0 0 0.88
WBT 75 0.17 16.6 0.0 16.6 5.2 9.3 264.0 470 0 0 0 0.16
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
NBL 75 0.25 9.3 0.0 9.3 4.5 8.2 40.0 301 0 0 0 0.25
NBT 643 0.57 10.7 0.0 10.7 49.1 69.0 74.9 1133 0 0 0 0.57
SBL 19 0.05 6.3 0.0 6.3 1.0 2.1 50.0 389 0 0 0 0.05
SBT 761 0.66 12.9 0.0 12.9 65.7 95.0 125.1 1151 0 0 0 0.66
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
8 8
3 3 Stop 0% 0.50 6
33 33
17 17
5 5
31 31
8 8
0.38 13
0.83 37
0.75 19
0.31 26
719 719 Free 0% 0.94 765
23 23
0.46 37
542 542 Free 0% 0.82 661
14 14
0.58 57
6 6 Stop 0% 0.50 12
0.63 13
None
0.63 37
None
149 0.82 1590
0.82 1590
784
0.82 1622
0.82 1598
0.82 670
802
0.82 680
1610 7.1
1610 6.5
784 6.2
1649 7.1
1621 6.5
482 6.2
802 4.1
494 4.1
3.5 77 56
4.0 92 79
3.3 86 393
3.5 24 49
4.0 85 78
3.3 97 476
2.2 95 822
2.2 97 872
EB 1 76 13 57 167 0.45 16.0 43.3 E 43.3 E
WB 1 62 37 13 66 0.94 34.7 197.4 F 197.4 F
NB 1 37 37 0 822 0.05 1.1 9.6 A 0.5
NB 2 680 0 19 1700 0.40 0.0 0.0
SB 1 26 26 0 872 0.03 0.7 9.3 A 0.3
SB 2 802 0 37 1700 0.47 0.0 0.0
9.6 50.0% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Colborne Street/Short Street & Princes Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
14 14 Stop 0% 0.75 19
20 20
19 19 0.50 38
688 688 Free 0% 0.88 782
9 9
0.81 25
487 487 Free 0% 0.84 580
None
None
1444
788
794
1444 6.4
788 6.2
794 4.1
3.5 86 139
3.3 94 391
2.2 95 827
EB 1 44 19 25 219 0.20 5.5 25.5 D 25.5 D
NB 1 38 38 0 827 0.05 1.1 9.6 A 0.6
NB 2 580 0 0 1700 0.34 0.0 0.0
0.75 12
SB 1 794 0 12 1700 0.47 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 46.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 25: Northline Rd & CKL Rd 121
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
30.1 D
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
55 55 0.63 2 87 0
134 134 0.70 10 191 1
318 318 0.82 7 388 1
12 12 0.50 25 24 0
87 87 0.80 6 109 1
2 2 0.25 2 8 1
398 398 0.87 5 457 0
19 19 0.60 2 32 1
8 8 0.42 2 19 0
3 3 0.50 2 6 0
25 25 0.80 2 31 1
70 70 0.87 2 80 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 1 21.6 C
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 1 14.7 B
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 49.7 E
SB NB 1 WB 2 EB 2 12.3 B
NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 94% 29% 0% 12% 0% 3% 4% 71% 0% 88% 0% 26% 2% 0% 100% 0% 100% 71% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 425 189 318 99 2 98 398 55 0 12 0 3 19 134 0 87 0 25 8 0 318 0 2 70 508 279 388 133 8 118 2 5 5 5 5 2 0.934 0.563 0.704 0.311 0.016 0.232 6.619 7.266 6.536 8.444 7.321 7.088 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 549 496 555 425 488 505 4.657 5.013 4.283 6.204 5.08 5.149 0.925 0.563 0.699 0.313 0.016 0.234 49.7 19 23.4 15 10.2 12.3 E C C B B B 11.7 3.4 5.6 1.3 0 0.9
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
243 243 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.50 882 0.78 312 0 312 9% Perm
50 50 1900 5.5 1.00 0.90 1.00 1689 1.00 1689 0.75 67 64 152 2% NA 4
112 112 1900
50 50 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.50 935 0.88 57 0 57 2% pm+pt 3 8 47.3 47.3 0.43 3.5 3.0 464 0.01 0.04 0.12 18.6 1.00 0.1 18.7 B
87 87 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1679 1.00 1679 0.77 113 86 323 2% NA 8
231 231 1900
67 67 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.26 468 0.79 85 0 85 6% Perm
451 451 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1770 1.00 1770 0.81 557 7 695 6% NA 2
94 94 1900
126 126 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.15 285 0.82 154 0 154 2% Perm
493 493 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.86 573 0 573 5% NA 6
237 237 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.90 263 47 216 5% Perm
4 36.0 36.0 0.33 5.5 3.0 289 c0.35 1.08 36.8 1.00 75.8 112.5 F
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.75 149 0 0 2%
36.0 36.0 0.33 5.5 3.0 555 0.09 0.27 27.1 1.00 0.3 27.4 C 77.7 E 44.2 1.07 109.5 100.9% 15
0.78 296 0 0 2%
47.3 47.3 0.43 5.5 3.0 725 c0.19 0.45 21.9 1.00 0.4 22.3 C 21.9 C
2 51.2 51.2 0.47 5.5 3.0 218 0.18 0.39 19.0 1.00 5.2 24.2 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.65 145 0 0 2%
6 51.2 51.2 0.47 5.5 3.0 133
51.2 51.2 0.47 5.5 3.0 827 0.39
c0.54 1.16 29.1 1.00 126.7 155.9 F
0.84 25.6 1.00 10.0 35.6 D 34.3 C
51.2 51.2 0.47 5.5 3.0 855 0.31 0.67 22.6 1.00 4.2 26.8 C 44.8 D
6 51.2 51.2 0.47 5.5 3.0 727 0.14 0.30 18.0 1.00 1.0 19.1 B
D 14.5 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
3 WBL Lead Yes None 21.5 18.0% 21.5 3.5 0 10 3 3 0 0 5 0 No Yes 56.6 78.1 74.6 74.6 56.6 74.6 74.6
4 EBTL Lag Yes None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 78.1 0 114 114 78.1 114 114
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
Max 56.6 47.4% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 56.6 51.1 51.1 0 51.1 51.1
None 41.4 34.6% 18.5 3.5 2 10 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 56.6 0 114 114 56.6 114 114
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
119.5 Semi Act-Uncoord 130
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 312 1.07 109.5 0.0 109.5 ~77.1 #104.4 25.0 292 0 0 0 1.07
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBT 216 0.35 17.3 0.0 17.3 19.0 28.0 148.3
WBL 57 0.12 17.4 0.0 17.4 6.7 13.8
WBT 409 0.51 15.9 0.0 15.9 37.7 47.7 296.8
NBL 85 0.39 26.6 0.0 26.6 12.0 21.8
NBT 702 0.84 36.0 0.0 36.0 130.8 153.5 119.3
622 0 0 0 0.35
558 0 0 0 0.10
959 0 0 0 0.43
220 0 0 0 0.39
840 0 0 0 0.84
SBL 154 1.15 156.3 0.0 156.3 ~40.4 #70.8 20.0 134 0 0 0 1.15
SBT 573 0.67 27.6 0.0 27.6 95.9 125.9 126.0 861 0 0 0 0.67
SBR 263 0.34 13.7 0.0 13.7 22.8 41.8 20.0 778 0 0 0 0.34
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
80 80 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1615 0.67 1146 0.63 127 0 127 13% Perm
16 16 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1621 1.00 1621 0.58 28 161 235 2% NA 4
232 232 1900
101 101 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.21 402 0.60 168 0 168 2% Perm
23 23 1900 5.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1680 1.00 1680 0.64 36 70 59 2% NA 4
42 42 1900
83 83 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.21 396 0.71 117 0 117 2% Perm
719 719 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1778 1.00 1778 0.85 846 8 994 6% NA 2
111 111 1900
31 31 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.10 196 0.58 53 0 53 2% Perm
676 676 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1817 1.00 1817 0.87 777 3 822 5% NA 2
41 41 1900
4 20.0 20.0 0.25 5.0 3.0 286 0.11 0.44 25.3 1.00 1.1 26.4 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.63 368 0 0 2%
4 20.0 20.0 0.25 5.0 3.0 100
20.0 20.0 0.25 5.0 3.0 405 0.14
c0.42 1.68 30.0 1.00 345.4 375.4 F
0.58 26.3 1.00 2.0 28.3 C 27.9 C 42.3 1.12 80.0 105.0% 15
0.45 93 0 0 2%
20.0 20.0 0.25 5.0 3.0 420 0.04 0.14 23.3 1.00 0.2 23.5 C 222.5 F
2 50.0 50.0 0.62 5.0 3.0 247 0.30 0.47 8.0 1.00 6.4 14.4 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.71 156 0 0 3%
2 50.0 50.0 0.62 5.0 3.0 122
50.0 50.0 0.62 5.0 3.0 1111 c0.56
0.27 0.43 7.7 1.00 10.9 18.6 B
0.89 12.8 1.00 11.1 23.9 C 22.9 C
0.86 48 0 0 2%
50.0 50.0 0.62 5.0 3.0 1135 0.45 0.72 10.3 1.00 4.0 14.3 B 14.6 B
D 10.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max 55 68.8% 35 3.5 1.5 30 3 3 0 0 25 0 Yes Yes 0 55 50 50 0 50 50
None 25 31.3% 20 3.5 1.5 10 3 3 0 0 15 0 Yes Yes 55 0 75 75 55 75 75 80 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 127 0.44 31.2 0.0 31.2 16.3 20.9 10.0 286 0 0 0 0.44
EBT 396 0.70 19.7 0.0 19.7 23.7 17.8 171.8 566 0 0 0 0.70
WBL 168 1.68 371.2 0.0 371.2 ~37.9 #44.0 25.0 100 0 0 0 1.68
WBT 129 0.26 10.5 0.0 10.5 4.2 8.3 264.0 489 0 0 0 0.26
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
NBL NBT 117 1002 0.47 0.89 15.9 25.2 0.0 0.0 15.9 25.2 8.4 113.4 14.8 #173.8 74.9 40.0 247 1120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 0.89
SBL 53 0.43 21.5 0.0 21.5 3.7 6.4 50.0 122 0 0 0 0.43
SBT 825 0.73 14.9 0.0 14.9 75.9 110.5 125.1 1137 0 0 0 0.73
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
23 23
6 6 Stop 0% 0.50 12
86 86
19 19
8 8
34 34
12 12
0.38 21
0.83 41
0.75 21
0.31 39
736 736 Free 0% 0.94 783
25 25
0.46 41
908 908 Free 0% 0.82 1107
16 16
0.58 148
2 2 Stop 0% 0.50 4
0.63 37
None
0.63 40
None
149 803
0.49 2214
0.49 2100
0.49 1118
823
0.49 1128
2710 6.5
803 6.2
2963 7.1
2730 6.5
717 6.2
823 4.1
738 4.1
3.5 0 3
4.0 0 9
3.3 61 383
3.5 0 0
4.0 53 9
3.3 90 210
2.2 95 807
2.2 91 424
EB 1 197 37 148 16 12.52 Err Err F Err F
WB 1 66 41 21 0 Err Err Err F Err F
NB 1 41 41 0 807 0.05 1.2 9.7 A 0.3
NB 2 1128 0 21 1700 0.66 0.0 0.0
SB 1 39 39 0 424 0.09 2.3 14.4 B 0.6
SB 2 823 0 40 1700 0.48 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
0.49 2093
0.49 2091
2714 7.1
Err 62.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: Colborne Street/Short Street & Princes Street
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
5 5 Stop 0% 0.75 7
23 23
17 17 0.50 34
663 663 Free 0% 0.88 753
27 27
0.81 28
846 846 Free 0% 0.84 1007
None
None
1846
771
789
1846 6.4
771 6.2
789 4.1
3.5 91 79
3.3 93 400
2.2 96 831
EB 1 35 7 28 220 0.16 4.2 24.4 C 24.4 C
NB 1 34 34 0 831 0.04 1.0 9.5 A 0.3
NB 2 1007 0 0 1700 0.59 0.0 0.0
0.75 36
SB 1 789 0 36 1700 0.46 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.6 54.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 AWSC 25: Northline Rd & CKL Rd 121
Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
66 F
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Number of Lanes
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
124 124 0.85 2 146 0
293 293 0.89 4 329 1
492 492 0.89 4 553 1
19 19 0.43 17 44 0
198 198 0.91 9 218 1
6 6 0.25 25 24 1
356 356 0.95 3 375 0
37 37 0.60 2 62 1
12 12 0.67 2 18 0
2 2 0.25 2 8 0
31 31 0.71 5 44 1
70 70 0.80 2 88 0
Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS
EB WB 2 SB 1 NB 1 89.4 F
Lane Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile Q
EGIS
WB EB 2 NB 1 SB 1 24.3 C
NB SB 1 EB 2 WB 2 55 F
SB NB 1 WB 2 EB 2 15.1 C
NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 88% 30% 0% 9% 0% 2% 9% 70% 0% 91% 0% 30% 3% 0% 100% 0% 100% 68% Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 405 417 492 217 6 103 356 124 0 19 0 2 37 293 0 198 0 31 12 0 492 0 6 70 454 475 553 262 24 139 2 5 5 5 5 2 0.939 1.051 1.093 0.63 0.052 0.314 7.555 7.963 7.119 8.85 7.934 8.33 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 482 461 514 411 454 434 5.555 5.663 4.819 6.55 5.634 6.33 0.942 1.03 1.076 0.637 0.053 0.32 55 84.6 93.5 25.5 11.1 15.1 F F F D B C 11.3 14.9 17.6 4.2 0.2 1.3
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
172 172 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.25 435 0.78 221 0 221 9% pm+pt 7 4 31.3 31.3 0.36 3.5 3.0 337 c0.10 c0.14 0.66 21.2 1.00 4.5 25.8 C
33 33 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1667 1.00 1667 0.75 44 107 81 2% NA 4
108 108 1900
44 44 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.64 1204 0.88 50 0 50 2% pm+pt 3 8 21.0 21.0 0.24 3.5 3.0 331 0.01 0.03 0.15 25.6 1.00 0.2 25.8 C
62 62 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1684 1.00 1684 0.77 81 98 177 2% NA 8
151 151 1900
84 84 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.47 851 0.79 106 0 106 6% Perm
279 279 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1776 1.00 1776 0.81 344 8 410 6% NA 2
48 48 1900
117 117 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.43 815 0.82 143 0 143 2% Perm
323 323 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.86 376 0 376 5% NA 6
180 180 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.90 200 74 126 5% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
0.75 144 0 0 2%
22.0 22.0 0.25 5.5 3.0 423 0.05 0.19 25.3 1.00 0.2 25.5 C 25.7 C 19.8 0.55 86.6 80.8% 15
0.78 194 0 0 2%
15.2 15.2 0.18 5.5 3.0 295 0.11 0.60 32.9 1.00 3.3 36.2 D 34.6 C
2 44.3 44.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 435 0.12 0.24 11.8 1.00 1.3 13.1 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.65 74 0 0 2%
6 44.3 44.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 416
44.3 44.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 908 c0.23
0.18 0.34 12.5 1.00 2.2 14.8 B
0.45 13.4 1.00 1.6 15.1 B 14.7 B
44.3 44.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 936 0.21 0.40 13.0 1.00 1.3 14.3 B 13.7 B
6 44.3 44.3 0.51 5.5 3.0 795 0.08 0.16 11.2 1.00 0.4 11.7 B
B 14.5 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL Max 49.7 55.2% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 49.7 44.2 44.2 0 44.2 44.2
AM Peak Hour
8 7 4 6 3 WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes None None Max None None 17 23.3 49.7 18.8 21.5 23.9% 20.9% 55.2% 18.9% 25.9% 18.5 9.5 30.5 18.5 21.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 0 0 25 10 5 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 5 0 0 0 0 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 71.2 66.7 49.7 49.7 0 0 49.7 0 66.7 71.2 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 71.2 66.7 49.7 49.7 0 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 75
Splits and Phases:
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 221 0.64 27.9 0.0 27.9 25.4 35.4 25.0 359 0 0 0 0.62
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBT 188 0.35 10.7 0.0 10.7 6.0 14.7 148.3
WBL 50 0.12 17.6 0.0 17.6 5.1 11.6
WBT 275 0.74 32.0 0.0 32.0 24.3 37.9 296.8
NBL 106 0.24 14.2 0.0 14.2 9.2 17.6
NBT 418 0.45 15.0 0.0 15.0 39.3 58.0 119.3
537 0 0 0 0.35
574 0 0 0 0.09
446 0 0 0 0.62
442 0 0 0 0.24
931 0 0 0 0.45
SBL 143 0.34 15.9 0.0 15.9 13.1 25.2 20.0 424 0 0 0 0.34
SBT 376 0.40 14.7 0.0 14.7 35.7 57.3 126.0 951 0 0 0 0.40
SBR 200 0.23 4.4 0.0 4.4 3.7 15.0 20.0 881 0 0 0 0.23
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
23 23 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1615 0.71 1204 0.63 37 0 37 13% Perm
22 22 1900 5.0 1.00 0.88 1.00 1650 1.00 1650 0.58 38 134 85 2% NA 4
114 114 1900
129 129 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.52 975 0.60 215 0 215 2% Perm
28 28 1900 5.0 1.00 0.94 1.00 1767 1.00 1767 0.64 44 23 52 2% NA 4
14 14 1900
53 53 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.25 463 0.71 75 0 75 2% Perm
473 473 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1782 1.00 1782 0.85 556 6 637 6% NA 2
62 62 1900
11 11 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.32 601 0.58 19 0 19 2% Perm
625 625 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1817 1.00 1817 0.87 718 2 759 5% NA 2
37 37 1900
4 21.7 21.7 0.26 5.0 3.0 311 0.03 0.12 23.8 1.00 0.2 24.0 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
0.63 181 0 0 2%
4 21.7 21.7 0.26 5.0 3.0 251
21.7 21.7 0.26 5.0 3.0 426 0.05
c0.22 0.86 29.7 1.00 23.8 53.5 D
0.20 24.4 1.00 0.2 24.6 C 24.5 C 18.6 0.72 84.0 73.2% 15
0.45 31 0 0 2%
21.7 21.7 0.26 5.0 3.0 456 0.03 0.11 23.8 1.00 0.1 23.9 C 45.8 D
2 52.3 52.3 0.62 5.0 3.0 288 0.16 0.26 7.1 1.00 2.2 9.3 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.71 87 0 0 3%
2 52.3 52.3 0.62 5.0 3.0 374
52.3 52.3 0.62 5.0 3.0 1109 0.36
0.03 0.05 6.2 1.00 0.3 6.4 A
0.57 9.3 1.00 2.2 11.5 B 11.3 B
0.86 43 0 0 2%
52.3 52.3 0.62 5.0 3.0 1131 c0.42 0.67 10.3 1.00 3.2 13.4 B 13.3 B
B 10.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
AM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max None 57 33 63.3% 36.7% 35 20 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 30 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 25 15 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 52 85 52 85 0 57 52 85 52 85
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 55
Splits and Phases:
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 37 0.12 23.7 0.0 23.7 4.5 7.9 10.0 403 0 0 0 0.09
EBT 219 0.39 8.2 0.0 8.2 4.6 4.2 171.8 673 0 0 0 0.33
WBL 215 0.86 59.7 0.0 59.7 32.6 33.8 25.0 326 0 0 0 0.66
WBT 75 0.16 15.8 0.0 15.8 5.3 9.3 264.0 612 0 0 0 0.12
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
NBL 75 0.26 11.9 0.0 11.9 5.1 10.6 40.0 287 0 0 0 0.26
NBT 643 0.58 12.9 0.0 12.9 55.9 89.7 74.9 1114 0 0 0 0.58
SBL 19 0.05 8.5 0.0 8.5 1.1 2.7 50.0 373 0 0 0 0.05
SBT 761 0.67 15.3 2.1 17.4 74.2 122.9 125.1 1133 231 0 0 0.84
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
8 8 1900
3 3 1900 4.5 1.00 0.90 0.99 1678 0.95 1608 0.50 6 53 23 2% NA 4
33 33 1900
17 17 1900
5 5 1900
542 542 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1758 1.00 1758 0.82 661 1 679 9% NA 2
8 8 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.38 712 0.31 26 0 26 2% Perm
719 719 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1787 1.00 1787 0.94 765 1 801 7% NA 6
23 23 1900
0.46 37 0 0 2% Perm
31 31 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.32 607 0.83 37 0 37 2% Perm
14 14 1900
0.58 57 0 0 2%
6 6 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 0.97 1777 0.76 1399 0.50 12 11 51 2% NA 8
0.63 13 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
0.38 13 0 0 2%
8 7.6 7.6 0.08 4.5 3.0 126
7.6 7.6 0.08 4.5 3.0 110
0.01 0.19 41.5 1.00 0.7 42.2 D 42.2 D
c0.04 0.46 42.4 1.00 3.1 45.5 D 45.5 D 6.9 0.53 96.4 50.9% 15
2 79.8 79.8 0.83 4.5 3.0 502 0.06 0.07 1.5 1.00 0.3 1.8 A
0.75 19 0 0 2%
6 79.8 79.8 0.83 4.5 3.0 589
79.8 79.8 0.83 4.5 3.0 1455 0.39
0.04 0.04 1.5 1.00 0.1 1.6 A
0.47 2.3 1.00 1.1 3.4 A 3.3 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service
A
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 A
0.63 37 0 0 2%
79.8 79.8 0.83 4.5 3.0 1479 c0.45 0.54 2.6 1.00 1.4 4.0 A 3.9 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 77 77 23 23 77.0% 23.0% 77.0% 23.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 77 77 0 77 77 0 72.5 95.5 72.5 95.5 61.5 84.5 61.5 84.5 0 0 77 77 72.5 95.5 72.5 95.5 61.5 84.5 61.5 84.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Semi Act-Uncoord 60
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
24: Colborne St & Bond St
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBT 76 0.38 20.9 0.0 20.9 3.3 4.2 232.7
WBT 62 0.45 43.8 0.0 43.8 8.9 9.8 312.4
358 0 0 0 0.21
281 0 0 0 0.22
NBL 37 0.07 2.5 0.0 2.5 1.0 3.1 40.0 514 0 0 0 0.07
NBT 680 0.46 3.9 0.7 4.6 27.1 44.6 125.1 1487 465 0 0 0.67
SBL 26 0.04 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.7 0.8 20.0 602 0 0 0 0.04
SBT 802 0.53 4.6 0.0 4.6 35.4 69.9 112.8 1511 0 0 0 0.53
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
243 243 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1674 0.18 325 0.78 312 0 312 9% pm+pt 7 4 35.2 35.2 0.39 3.5 3.0 328 c0.14 c0.23 0.95 22.8 1.00 36.8 59.6 E
50 50 1900 5.5 1.00 0.90 1.00 1689 1.00 1689 0.75 67 77 139 2% NA 4
112 112 1900
50 50 1900 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1173 0.88 57 0 57 2% pm+pt 3 8 26.2 26.2 0.29 3.5 3.0 394 0.01 0.03 0.14 23.5 1.00 0.2 23.7 C
87 87 1900 5.5 1.00 0.89 1.00 1679 1.00 1679 0.77 113 105 304 2% NA 8
231 231 1900
67 67 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.29 518 0.79 85 0 85 6% Perm
451 451 1900 5.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 1770 1.00 1770 0.81 557 10 692 6% NA 2
94 94 1900
126 126 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.18 342 0.82 154 0 154 2% Perm
493 493 1900 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1830 1.00 1830 0.86 573 0 573 5% NA 6
237 237 1900 5.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1555 1.00 1555 0.90 263 67 196 5% Perm
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
0.75 149 0 0 2%
23.7 23.7 0.26 5.5 3.0 442 0.08 0.32 26.8 1.00 0.4 27.2 C 46.4 D 35.4 0.97 90.4 99.6% 15
0.78 296 0 0 2%
18.2 18.2 0.20 5.5 3.0 338 0.18 0.90 35.2 1.00 25.7 60.9 E 56.4 E
2 44.2 44.2 0.49 5.5 3.0 253 0.16 0.34 14.1 1.00 3.6 17.7 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.65 145 0 0 2%
6 44.2 44.2 0.49 5.5 3.0 167
44.2 44.2 0.49 5.5 3.0 865 0.39
c0.45 0.92 21.5 1.00 51.6 73.1 E
0.80 19.4 1.00 7.7 27.0 C 26.0 C
44.2 44.2 0.49 5.5 3.0 894 0.31 0.64 17.2 1.00 3.5 20.7 C 27.2 C
6 44.2 44.2 0.49 5.5 3.0 760 0.13 0.26 13.5 1.00 0.8 14.3 B
D 14.5 F
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
2 NBTL Max 49.7 55.2% 30.5 3.5 2 25 3 3 0 0 12 0 Yes Yes 0 49.7 44.2 44.2 0 44.2 44.2
PM Peak Hour
8 7 4 6 3 WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL Lag Lag Lead Lead Yes Yes Yes Yes None None Max None None 17 23.3 49.7 18.8 21.5 23.9% 20.9% 55.2% 18.9% 25.9% 18.5 9.5 30.5 18.5 21.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 0 0 25 10 5 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 5 0 0 0 0 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 71.2 66.7 49.7 49.7 0 0 49.7 0 66.7 71.2 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 71.2 66.7 49.7 49.7 0 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7 84.5 84.5 63.2 44.2 67.7
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
Splits and Phases:
22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 22: Lindsay St & Helen St/Commerical Access
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 312 0.93 58.5 0.0 58.5 38.2 #64.3 25.0 334 0 0 0 0.93
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBT 216 0.41 17.8 0.0 17.8 15.9 25.8 148.3
WBL 57 0.13 17.4 0.0 17.4 5.9 12.8
WBT 409 0.95 58.1 0.0 58.1 49.2 #74.3 296.8
NBL 85 0.33 18.6 0.0 18.6 8.6 16.6
NBT 702 0.80 26.9 0.0 26.9 94.6 117.0 119.3
523 0 0 0 0.41
600 0 0 0 0.10
437 0 0 0 0.94
255 0 0 0 0.33
882 0 0 0 0.80
SBL 154 0.91 76.1 0.0 76.1 23.5 #53.7 20.0 169 0 0 0 0.91
SBT 573 0.64 20.9 0.0 20.9 70.1 96.9 126.0 902 0 0 0 0.64
SBR 263 0.32 7.8 0.0 7.8 12.1 26.7 20.0 833 0 0 0 0.32
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
80 80 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1615 0.67 1146 0.63 127 0 127 13% Perm
16 16 1900 5.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1621 1.00 1621 0.58 28 129 267 2% NA 4
232 232 1900
101 101 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.29 551 0.60 168 0 168 2% Perm
23 23 1900 5.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1680 1.00 1680 0.64 36 64 65 2% NA 4
42 42 1900
83 83 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.17 319 0.71 117 0 117 2% Perm
719 719 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1778 1.00 1778 0.85 846 7 995 6% NA 2
111 111 1900
31 31 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.08 145 0.58 53 0 53 2% Perm
676 676 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1817 1.00 1817 0.87 777 3 822 5% NA 2
41 41 1900
4 28.0 28.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 356 0.11 0.36 24.0 1.00 0.6 24.6 C
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
0.63 368 0 0 2%
4 28.0 28.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 171
28.0 28.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 504 0.16
c0.30 0.98 30.8 1.00 63.3 94.0 F
0.53 25.6 1.00 1.1 26.6 C 26.2 C 33.6 0.97 90.0 105.0% 15
0.45 93 0 0 2%
28.0 28.0 0.31 5.0 3.0 522 0.04 0.12 22.2 1.00 0.1 22.3 C 62.9 E
2 52.0 52.0 0.58 5.0 3.0 184 0.37 0.64 12.7 1.00 15.6 28.3 C
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.71 156 0 0 3%
2 52.0 52.0 0.58 5.0 3.0 83
52.0 52.0 0.58 5.0 3.0 1027 c0.56
0.37 0.64 12.7 1.00 32.0 44.7 D
0.97 18.2 1.00 21.5 39.7 D 38.5 D
0.86 48 0 0 2%
52.0 52.0 0.58 5.0 3.0 1049 0.45 0.78 14.7 1.00 5.9 20.5 C 22.0 C
C 10.0 G
Synchro 11 Report Page 5
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
PM Peak Hour
2 4 NBSB EBWB Max None 57 33 63.3% 36.7% 35 20 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 30 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 25 15 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 57 57 0 52 85 52 85 0 57 52 85 52 85
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
90 Semi Act-Uncoord 80
Splits and Phases:
23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
Synchro 11 Report Page 6
Queues 23: Colborne St & Francis St W/Francis St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 127 0.36 27.6 0.0 27.6 16.9 21.1 10.0 356 0 0 0 0.36
EBT 396 0.63 18.5 0.0 18.5 29.6 21.6 171.8 633 0 0 0 0.63
WBL 168 0.98 99.2 0.0 99.2 28.6 #34.9 25.0 171 0 0 0 0.98
WBT 129 0.22 9.3 0.0 9.3 4.4 8.0 264.0 586 0 0 0 0.22
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
NBL NBT 117 1002 0.64 0.97 40.9 32.2 0.0 0.0 32.2 40.9 12.5 152.1 22.5 #222.3 74.9 40.0 184 1035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.64 0.97
SBL 53 0.64 52.6 0.0 52.6 5.7 10.5 50.0 83 0 0 0 0.64
SBT 825 0.78 21.3 10.4 31.7 101.3 142.3 125.1 1051 206 0 0 0.98
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
23 23 1900
6 6 1900 4.5 1.00 0.90 0.99 1677 0.93 1580 0.50 12 119 78 2% NA 4
86 86 1900
19 19 1900
8 8 1900
908 908 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1760 1.00 1760 0.82 1107 0 1128 9% NA 2
12 12 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.17 319 0.31 39 0 39 2% Perm
736 736 1900 4.5 1.00 0.99 1.00 1786 1.00 1786 0.94 783 1 822 7% NA 6
25 25 1900
0.46 41 0 0 2% Perm
34 34 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.30 567 0.83 41 0 41 2% Perm
16 16 1900
0.58 148 0 0 2%
2 2 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 0.97 1748 0.40 713 0.50 4 19 47 2% NA 8
0.63 37 0 0 2% Perm 4
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
0.38 21 0 0 2%
8 10.1 10.1 0.11 4.5 3.0 168
10.1 10.1 0.11 4.5 3.0 76
0.05 0.47 39.7 1.00 2.0 41.7 D 41.7 D
c0.07 0.62 40.4 1.00 14.8 55.2 E 55.2 E 12.2 0.78 94.6 63.1% 15
2 75.5 75.5 0.80 4.5 3.0 452 0.07 0.09 2.1 1.00 0.4 2.5 A
0.75 21 0 0 2%
6 75.5 75.5 0.80 4.5 3.0 254
75.5 75.5 0.80 4.5 3.0 1404 c0.64
0.12 0.15 2.2 1.00 1.3 3.5 A
0.80 5.4 1.00 5.0 10.3 B 10.0 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service
B
Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
9.0 B
0.63 40 0 0 2%
75.5 75.5 0.80 4.5 3.0 1425 0.46 0.58 3.6 1.00 1.7 5.3 A 5.2 A
Synchro 11 Report Page 8
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s)
Max None Max None 77 77 23 23 77.0% 23.0% 77.0% 23.0% 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 0 77 77 0 77 77 0 72.5 95.5 72.5 95.5 61.5 84.5 61.5 84.5 0 0 77 77 72.5 95.5 72.5 95.5 61.5 84.5 61.5 84.5
Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle
100 Semi Act-Uncoord 90
Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 NBTL
4 EBTL
6 SBTL
8 WBTL
24: Colborne St & Bond St
Synchro 11 Report Page 9
Queues 24: Colborne St & Bond St
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBT 197 0.68 26.7 0.0 26.7 10.6 5.9 232.7
WBT 66 0.70 64.2 0.0 64.2 7.7 9.1 312.4
416 0 0 0 0.47
156 0 0 0 0.42
NBL 41 0.09 3.4 0.0 3.4 1.2 4.3 40.0 452 0 0 0 0.09
NBT 1128 0.80 12.6 6.8 19.4 81.7 157.7 125.1 1403 234 0 0 0.96
SBL 39 0.15 4.7 0.0 4.7 1.2 1.4 20.0 253 0 0 0 0.15
SBT 823 0.58 6.2 0.0 6.2 39.3 93.9 112.8 1426 0 0 0 0.58
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 7
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
I.4 Omemee
Page | 1295
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
8 8 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1415 0.48 713 0.58 14 0 14 29% Perm
339 339 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.86 394 0 398 6% NA 2
2 2 1900
5 5 1900
6 6 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1830 0.66 1243 0.63 10 0 24 2% NA 5
0 0 1900
31 31 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1706 0.74 1332 0.68 46 0 46 7% Perm
5 5 1900 7.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1632 1.00 1632 0.50 10 0 64 2% NA 6
34 34 1900
0.33 15 0 0 2% Perm
17 17 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1286 1.00 1286 0.54 31 14 17 27% Perm
6 6 1900
0.50 4 0 0 2%
361 361 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1779 0.98 1748 0.90 401 0 416 8% NA 2
2 41.4 41.4 0.55 7.0 3.0 391 0.02 0.04 7.8 1.00 0.2 8.0 A
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
2 41.4 41.4 0.55 7.0 3.0 959
41.4 41.4 0.55 7.0 3.0 993 0.22
c0.24 0.43 10.1 1.00 1.4 11.5 B 11.2 B
0.40 9.8 1.00 1.2 11.0 B 10.9 B 14.0 0.41 75.4 75.8% 15
2 41.4 41.4 0.55 7.0 3.0 706
0.42 14 0 0 2% Perm 5
0.01 0.02 7.8 1.00 0.1 7.8 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.25 0 0 0 2%
6 8.2 8.2 0.11 7.0 3.0 144
4.8 4.8 0.06 7.0 3.0 79 c0.02 0.30 33.7 1.00 2.2 35.9 D 35.9 D
0.03 0.32 31.0 1.00 1.3 32.3 C
0.63 54 0 0 3%
8.2 8.2 0.11 7.0 3.0 177 c0.04 0.36 31.2 1.00 1.3 32.4 C 32.4 C
B 21.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
6 5 NBTL SBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 22 22 25.3% 25.3% 17 15 4 4 3 3 8 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 14 0.03 12.6 0.0 12.6 0.6 2.9 20.0 442 0 0 0 0.03
EBT 398 0.35 12.7 0.0 12.7 19.3 65.6 761.0
WBT 416 0.38 13.2 0.0 13.2 20.8 75.2 568.3
1123 0 0 0 0.35
1085 0 0 0 0.38
WBR 31 0.04 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 25.0 850 0 0 0 0.04
NBT 24 0.13 29.4 0.0 29.4 2.3 6.8 233.0 275 0 0 0 0.09
SBL 46 0.23 32.7 0.0 32.7 4.4 12.0 50.0 295 0 0 0 0.16
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
SBT 64 0.26 32.4 0.0 32.4 6.2 11.0 315.8 360 0 0 0 0.18
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Hwy 7 /King St W & Sibley Ave N
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
8 8
345 345 Free 0% 0.71 486
338 338 Free 0% 0.89 380
14 14
27 27 Stop 0% 0.86 31
10 10 0.75 13
None
None
403
896
392
403 4.1
896 6.4
392 6.3
2.2 99 1156
3.5 90 309
3.4 98 638
0.88 9
EB 1 495 9 0 1156 0.01 0.2 0.2 A 0.2
WB 1 403 0 23 1700 0.24 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.60 23
SB 1 44 31 13 364 0.12 3.1 16.2 C 16.2 C 0.9 34.6% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Ski Hill Rd/Dean St & King St W/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
2 2
240 240 Free 0% 0.71 338
15 15
36 36
2 2
20 20
5 5
0.50 4
0.64 31
0.68 32
0.50 10
2 2 Stop 0% 0.25 8
0 0
0.80 45
3 3 Stop 0% 0.38 8
22 22
0.81 19
336 336 Free 0% 0.88 382
1.00 0
0.50 4
None
None
386
357
834
832
348
866
839
384
386 5.1
357 4.1
834 7.2
832 7.2
348 6.2
866 7.1
839 7.0
384 6.2
3.1 99 790
2.2 96 1196
3.6 88 262
4.6 97 232
3.3 95 689
3.5 96 246
4.5 97 243
3.3 100 664
EB 1 361 4 19 790 0.01 0.1 0.2 A 0.2
WB 1 431 45 4 1196 0.04 0.9 1.2 A 1.2
NB 1 71 31 32 356 0.20 5.6 17.6 C 17.6 C 2.5 46.8% 15
SB 1 18 10 0 245 0.07 1.8 20.9 C 20.9 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Queen St S/Queen St N & King St E/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
370 370 Free 0% 0.85 435
12 12
0 0
0 0
34 34
2 2
0.25 0
0.63 54
0.56 18
0.50 4
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
6 6
0.25 0
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
10 10
0.69 17
366 366 Free 0% 0.88 416
0.31 19
0.25 0
None
None
416
452
878
860
444
878
868
416
416 4.1
452 4.1
878 7.1
860 6.5
444 6.2
878 7.1
868 6.5
416 6.2
2.2 100 1143
2.2 100 1109
3.5 79 259
4.0 100 294
3.3 97 614
3.5 98 261
4.0 100 290
3.3 97 637
EB 1 452 0 17 1700 0.27 0.0 0.0
WB 1 416 0 0 1109 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
NB 1 72 54 18 303 0.24 6.9 20.5 C 20.5 C 1.8 33.3% 15
SB 1 23 4 19 509 0.05 1.1 12.4 B 12.4 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
49 49 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.34 641 0.72 68 0 68 2% Perm
514 514 1900 7.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.90 571 2 591 3% NA 2
12 12 1900
0 0 1900
14 14 1900 7.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1808 0.18 338 0.50 28 0 61 2% NA 5
5 5 1900
40 40 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.72 1300 0.73 55 0 55 6% Perm
9 9 1900 7.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1539 1.00 1539 0.50 18 0 72 37% NA 6
49 49 1900
0.25 0 0 0 2%
35 35 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.78 45 24 21 2% Perm
15 15 1900
0.55 22 0 0 18%
490 490 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 516 0 516 2% NA 2
2 39.1 39.1 0.47 7.0 3.0 299 0.11 0.23 13.3 1.00 1.8 15.1 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031
2 39.1 39.1 0.47 7.0 3.0 860 c0.32
39.1 39.1 0.47 7.0 3.0 878 0.27
0.69 17.6 1.00 4.5 22.0 C 21.3 C
0.59 16.4 1.00 2.9 19.3 B 18.7 B 27.5 0.73 83.8 77.8% 15
2 39.1 39.1 0.47 7.0 3.0 747
0.65 23 0 0 2% Perm 5
0.01 0.03 12.1 1.00 0.1 12.1 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.50 10 0 0 2%
6 8.7 8.7 0.10 7.0 3.0 134
15.0 15.0 0.18 7.0 3.0 60 c0.18 1.02 34.4 1.00 121.0 155.4 F 155.4 F
0.04 0.41 35.1 1.00 2.0 37.2 D
0.90 54 0 0 2%
8.7 8.7 0.10 7.0 3.0 159 c0.05 0.45 35.3 1.00 2.0 37.4 D 37.3 D
C 21.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
6 5 NBTL SBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 22 22 25.3% 25.3% 17 15 4 4 3 3 8 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 68 0.22 17.8 0.0 17.8 6.4 12.3 20.0 303 0 0 0 0.22
EBT 593 0.68 23.3 0.0 23.3 73.4 119.3 761.0
WBT 516 0.58 20.5 0.0 20.5 60.0 97.3 568.3
877 0 0 0 0.68
894 0 0 0 0.58
WBR 45 0.05 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
NBT 61 1.00 154.5 0.0 154.5 9.6 #14.7 233.0
25.0 832 0 0 0 0.05
61 0 0 0 1.00
SBL 55 0.33 38.3 0.0 38.3 8.0 14.8 50.0 236 0 0 0 0.23
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
SBT 72 0.36 38.3 0.0 38.3 10.5 12.1 315.8 280 0 0 0 0.26
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Hwy 7 /King St W & Sibley Ave N
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
14 14
492 492 Free 0% 0.90 547
476 476 Free 0% 0.92 517
51 51
20 20 Stop 0% 0.33 61
5 5 0.25 20
None
None
581
1134
549
581 4.1
1134 6.5
549 6.2
2.2 98 993
3.6 72 216
3.3 96 535
0.75 19
EB 1 566 19 0 993 0.02 0.4 0.5 A 0.5
WB 1 581 0 64 1700 0.34 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.80 64
SB 1 81 61 20 253 0.32 10.1 25.8 D 25.8 D 1.9 47.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Ski Hill Rd/Dean St & King St W/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
497 497 Free 0% 0.90 552
19 19
39 39
10 10
24 24
2 2
0.56 18
0.75 32
0.80 68
0.25 8
3 3 Stop 0% 0.75 4
0 0
0.80 49
1 1 Stop 0% 0.25 4
54 54
0.71 27
500 500 Free 0% 0.95 526
0.25 0
0.25 0
None
None
544
579
1200
1208
566
1268
1212
535
544 4.1
579 4.1
1200 7.2
1208 7.5
566 6.2
1268 7.1
1212 7.2
535 6.2
2.2 100 1025
2.2 95 995
3.6 78 147
4.9 97 115
3.3 87 524
3.5 93 118
4.6 97 131
3.3 100 545
EB 1 579 0 27 1025 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 593 49 18 995 0.05 1.2 1.3 A 1.3
NB 1 104 32 68 272 0.38 13.1 26.2 D 26.2 D 3.1 71.4% 15
SB 1 12 8 0 122 0.10 2.4 37.6 E 37.6 E
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Queen St S/Queen St N & King St E/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
497 497 Free 0% 0.93 534
20 20
15 15
0 0
18 18
1 1
0.25 0
0.67 27
0.63 17
0.25 4
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
2 2
0.81 19
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
11 11
0.75 27
568 568 Free 0% 0.96 592
0.50 4
0.25 0
None
None
592
561
1182
1178
548
1194
1191
592
592 4.1
561 4.1
1182 7.2
1178 6.5
548 6.2
1194 7.1
1191 6.5
592 6.2
2.2 100 984
2.2 98 1010
3.6 83 160
4.0 100 187
3.3 97 537
3.5 97 156
4.0 100 184
3.3 99 506
EB 1 561 0 27 1700 0.33 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 611 19 0 1010 0.02 0.4 0.5 A 0.5
NB 1 44 27 17 220 0.20 5.5 25.5 D 25.5 D 1.3 52.0% 15
SB 1 8 4 4 238 0.03 0.8 20.6 C 20.6 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
49 49 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.35 667 0.72 68 0 68 2% Perm
514 514 1900 7.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.90 571 2 591 3% NA 2
12 12 1900
0 0 1900
14 14 1900 7.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1808 0.20 362 0.50 28 0 61 2% NA 5
5 5 1900
40 40 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.72 1300 0.73 55 0 55 6% Perm
9 9 1900 7.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1539 1.00 1539 0.50 18 0 72 37% NA 6
49 49 1900
0.25 0 0 0 2%
35 35 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.78 45 23 22 2% Perm
15 15 1900
0.55 22 0 0 18%
490 490 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 516 0 516 2% NA 2
2 40.1 40.1 0.49 7.0 3.0 323 0.10 0.21 12.2 1.00 1.5 13.7 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2031
2 40.1 40.1 0.49 7.0 3.0 895 c0.32
40.1 40.1 0.49 7.0 3.0 914 0.27
0.66 16.1 1.00 3.8 19.9 B 19.3 B
0.56 15.1 1.00 2.5 17.6 B 17.1 B 25.8 0.72 82.6 77.8% 15
2 40.1 40.1 0.49 7.0 3.0 777
0.65 23 0 0 2% Perm 5
0.01 0.03 11.1 1.00 0.1 11.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.50 10 0 0 2%
6 7.5 7.5 0.09 7.0 3.0 118
14.0 14.0 0.17 7.0 3.0 61 c0.17 1.00 34.3 1.00 115.2 149.5 F 149.5 F
0.04 0.47 35.6 1.00 2.9 38.5 D
0.90 54 0 0 2%
7.5 7.5 0.09 7.0 3.0 139 c0.05 0.52 35.8 1.00 3.2 39.1 D 38.8 D
C 21.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 42 48.3% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 42 35 35 0 35 35
Optimized Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
6 5 NBTL SBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 17 28 32.2% 19.5% 17 15 4 4 3 3 8 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes 42 70 63 63 42 63 63
Yes Yes 70 0 80 80 70 80 80
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 68 593 0.61 0.19 23.5 19.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 19.0 7.1 81.5 13.1 #138.1 761.0 20.0 980 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.61 0.19
WBT 516 0.52 21.1 0.0 21.1 66.6 103.4 568.3 999 0 0 0 0.52
WBR 45 0.05 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
NBT 61 0.82 100.0 0.0 100.0 9.3 11.4 233.0
25.0 914 0 0 0 0.05
98 0 0 0 0.62
SBL 55 0.33 41.0 0.0 41.0 8.4 15.7 50.0 168 0 0 0 0.33
Optimized Future Traffic 2031 AM Peak Hour
SBT 72 0.36 41.0 0.0 41.0 11.1 12.8 315.8 199 0 0 0 0.36
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
49 49 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.35 667 0.72 68 0 68 2% Perm
514 514 1900 7.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1845 1.00 1845 0.90 571 2 591 3% NA 2
12 12 1900
0 0 1900
14 14 1900 7.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1808 0.20 362 0.50 28 0 61 2% NA 5
5 5 1900
40 40 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.72 1300 0.73 55 0 55 6% Perm
9 9 1900 7.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1539 1.00 1539 0.50 18 0 72 37% NA 6
49 49 1900
0.25 0 0 0 2%
35 35 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.78 45 23 22 2% Perm
15 15 1900
0.55 22 0 0 18%
490 490 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 516 0 516 2% NA 2
2 40.1 40.1 0.49 7.0 3.0 323 0.10 0.21 12.2 1.00 1.5 13.7 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2031
2 40.1 40.1 0.49 7.0 3.0 895 c0.32
40.1 40.1 0.49 7.0 3.0 914 0.27
0.66 16.1 1.00 3.8 19.9 B 19.3 B
0.56 15.1 1.00 2.5 17.6 B 17.1 B 25.8 0.72 82.6 77.8% 15
2 40.1 40.1 0.49 7.0 3.0 777
0.65 23 0 0 2% Perm 5
0.01 0.03 11.1 1.00 0.1 11.2 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.50 10 0 0 2%
6 7.5 7.5 0.09 7.0 3.0 118
14.0 14.0 0.17 7.0 3.0 61 c0.17 1.00 34.3 1.00 115.2 149.5 F 149.5 F
0.04 0.47 35.6 1.00 2.9 38.5 D
0.90 54 0 0 2%
7.5 7.5 0.09 7.0 3.0 139 c0.05 0.52 35.8 1.00 3.2 39.1 D 38.8 D
C 21.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 42 48.3% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 42 35 35 0 35 35
Optimized Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
6 5 NBTL SBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 17 28 32.2% 19.5% 17 15 4 4 3 3 8 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes 42 70 63 63 42 63 63
Yes Yes 70 0 80 80 70 80 80
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 68 593 0.61 0.19 23.5 19.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 19.0 7.1 81.5 13.1 #138.1 761.0 20.0 980 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.61 0.19
WBT 516 0.52 21.1 0.0 21.1 66.6 103.4 568.3 999 0 0 0 0.52
WBR 45 0.05 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
NBT 61 0.82 100.0 0.0 100.0 9.3 11.4 233.0
25.0 914 0 0 0 0.05
98 0 0 0 0.62
SBL 55 0.33 41.0 0.0 41.0 8.4 15.7 50.0 168 0 0 0 0.33
Optimized Future Traffic 2031 PM Peak Hour
SBT 72 0.36 41.0 0.0 41.0 11.1 12.8 315.8 199 0 0 0 0.36
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
9 9 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1415 0.42 624 0.58 16 0 16 29% Perm
398 398 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.86 463 0 469 6% NA 2
3 3 1900
5 5 1900
7 7 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1828 0.66 1235 0.63 11 0 28 2% NA 5
0 0 1900
36 36 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1706 0.74 1327 0.68 53 0 53 7% Perm
5 5 1900 7.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1626 1.00 1626 0.50 10 0 73 2% NA 6
40 40 1900
0.33 15 0 0 2% Perm
20 20 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1286 1.00 1286 0.54 37 17 20 27% Perm
7 7 1900
0.50 6 0 0 2%
423 423 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1779 0.98 1749 0.90 470 0 485 8% NA 2
2 40.6 40.6 0.54 7.0 3.0 338 0.03 0.05 8.1 1.00 0.3 8.3 A
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
2 40.6 40.6 0.54 7.0 3.0 948
40.6 40.6 0.54 7.0 3.0 981 0.26
c0.28 0.51 10.9 1.00 2.0 12.8 B 12.5 B
0.48 10.6 1.00 1.7 12.3 B 12.1 B 15.1 0.48 74.9 75.8% 15
2 40.6 40.6 0.54 7.0 3.0 697
0.42 17 0 0 2% Perm 5
0.02 0.03 8.0 1.00 0.1 8.1 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.25 0 0 0 2%
6 8.4 8.4 0.11 7.0 3.0 148
4.9 4.9 0.07 7.0 3.0 80 c0.02 0.35 33.5 1.00 2.6 36.1 D 36.1 D
0.04 0.36 30.8 1.00 1.5 32.2 C
0.63 63 0 0 3%
8.4 8.4 0.11 7.0 3.0 182 c0.04 0.40 30.9 1.00 1.4 32.4 C 32.3 C
B 21.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
6 5 NBTL SBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 22 22 25.3% 25.3% 17 15 4 4 3 3 8 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 16 0.04 13.1 0.0 13.1 0.6 3.2 20.0 382 0 0 0 0.04
EBT 469 0.42 14.0 0.0 14.0 24.0 81.2 761.0
WBT 485 0.45 14.6 0.0 14.6 25.5 92.8 568.3
1109 0 0 0 0.42
1071 0 0 0 0.45
WBR 37 0.04 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 25.0 841 0 0 0 0.04
NBT 28 0.14 29.6 0.0 29.6 2.7 7.6 233.0 276 0 0 0 0.10
SBL 53 0.26 33.0 0.0 33.0 5.1 13.3 50.0 296 0 0 0 0.18
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
SBT 73 0.29 32.6 0.0 32.6 7.1 12.2 315.8 363 0 0 0 0.20
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Hwy 7 /King St W & Sibley Ave N
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
9 9
405 405 Free 0% 0.71 570
397 397 Free 0% 0.89 446
16 16
32 32 Stop 0% 0.86 37
12 12 0.75 16
None
None
473
1050
460
473 4.1
1050 6.4
460 6.3
2.2 99 1089
3.5 85 249
3.4 97 583
0.88 10
EB 1 580 10 0 1089 0.01 0.2 0.3 A 0.3
WB 1 473 0 27 1700 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.60 27
SB 1 53 37 16 302 0.18 4.8 19.5 C 19.5 C 1.1 38.5% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Ski Hill Rd/Dean St & King St W/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
3 3
281 281 Free 0% 0.71 396
17 17
43 43
3 3
24 24
5 5
0.50 6
0.64 38
0.68 37
0.50 10
3 3 Stop 0% 0.25 12
0 0
0.80 54
4 4 Stop 0% 0.38 11
25 25
0.81 21
394 394 Free 0% 0.88 448
1.00 0
0.50 6
None
None
454
417
984
980
406
1020
988
451
454 5.1
417 4.1
984 7.2
980 7.2
406 6.2
1020 7.1
988 7.0
451 6.2
3.1 99 737
2.2 95 1137
3.6 81 200
4.6 94 184
3.3 94 638
3.5 95 185
4.5 94 194
3.3 100 608
EB 1 423 6 21 737 0.01 0.2 0.2 A 0.2
WB 1 508 54 6 1137 0.05 1.1 1.4 A 1.4
NB 1 86 38 37 279 0.31 9.6 23.5 C 23.5 C 3.3 52.6% 15
SB 1 22 10 0 190 0.12 2.9 26.4 D 26.4 D
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Queen St S/Queen St N & King St E/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
434 434 Free 0% 0.85 511
15 15
0 0
0 0
40 40
3 3
0.25 0
0.63 63
0.56 21
0.50 6
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
7 7
0.25 0
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
12 12
0.69 22
428 428 Free 0% 0.88 486
0.31 23
0.25 0
None
None
486
533
1031
1008
522
1029
1019
486
486 4.1
533 4.1
1031 7.1
1008 6.5
522 6.2
1029 7.1
1019 6.5
486 6.2
2.2 100 1077
2.2 100 1035
3.5 69 202
4.0 100 240
3.3 96 555
3.5 97 204
4.0 100 237
3.3 96 581
EB 1 533 0 22 1700 0.31 0.0 0.0
WB 1 486 0 0 1035 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
NB 1 84 63 21 240 0.35 11.4 27.8 D 27.8 D 2.4 37.0% 15
SB 1 29 6 23 420 0.07 1.7 14.2 B 14.2 B
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
57 57 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.26 489 0.72 79 0 79 2% Perm
603 603 1900 7.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1844 1.00 1844 0.90 670 2 695 3% NA 2
15 15 1900
0 0 1900
16 16 1900 7.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1811 0.18 340 0.50 32 0 68 2% NA 5
5 5 1900
47 47 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.71 1292 0.73 64 0 64 6% Perm
11 11 1900 7.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1537 1.00 1537 0.50 22 0 85 37% NA 6
57 57 1900
0.25 0 0 0 2%
41 41 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.78 53 28 25 2% Perm
17 17 1900
0.55 27 0 0 18%
575 575 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 605 0 605 2% NA 2
2 39.1 39.1 0.46 7.0 3.0 227 0.16 0.35 14.4 1.00 4.2 18.5 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041
2 39.1 39.1 0.46 7.0 3.0 857 c0.38
39.1 39.1 0.46 7.0 3.0 875 0.32
0.81 19.3 1.00 8.2 27.6 C 26.7 C
0.69 17.7 1.00 4.5 22.2 C 21.4 C 32.4 0.84 84.1 82.6% 15
2 39.1 39.1 0.46 7.0 3.0 744
0.65 26 0 0 2% Perm 5
0.02 0.03 12.2 1.00 0.1 12.3 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.50 10 0 0 2%
6 9.0 9.0 0.11 7.0 3.0 138
15.0 15.0 0.18 7.0 3.0 60 c0.20 1.13 34.5 1.00 157.3 191.8 F 191.8 F
0.05 0.46 35.3 1.00 2.5 37.7 D
0.90 63 0 0 2%
9.0 9.0 0.11 7.0 3.0 164 c0.06 0.52 35.5 1.00 2.8 38.3 D 38.0 D
C 21.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
6 5 NBTL SBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 22 22 25.3% 25.3% 17 15 4 4 3 3 8 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 79 697 0.34 0.80 22.0 29.3 0.0 0.0 22.0 29.3 8.0 94.3 15.7 #172.2 761.0 20.0 873 231 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 0.80
WBT 605 0.68 23.8 0.0 23.8 75.3 124.1 568.3 890 0 0 0 0.68
WBR 53 0.06 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
NBT 68 1.11 186.2 0.0 186.2 ~12.2 #16.8 233.0
25.0 829 0 0 0 0.06
61 0 0 0 1.11
SBL 64 0.37 39.3 0.0 39.3 9.4 16.6 50.0 234 0 0 0 0.27
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
SBT 85 0.41 39.4 0.0 39.4 12.6 13.6 315.8 279 0 0 0 0.30
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Hwy 7 /King St W & Sibley Ave N
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
16 16
576 576 Free 0% 0.90 640
558 558 Free 0% 0.92 607
60 60
24 24 Stop 0% 0.33 73
5 5 0.25 20
None
None
682
1326
644
682 4.1
1326 6.5
644 6.2
2.2 98 911
3.6 56 164
3.3 96 473
0.75 21
EB 1 661 21 0 911 0.02 0.5 0.6 A 0.6
WB 1 682 0 75 1700 0.40 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.80 75
SB 1 93 73 20 191 0.49 18.1 40.5 E 40.5 E 2.9 53.2% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Ski Hill Rd/Dean St & King St W/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
583 583 Free 0% 0.90 648
23 23
45 45
12 12
28 28
3 3
0.56 21
0.75 37
0.80 80
0.25 12
4 4 Stop 0% 0.75 5
0 0
0.80 56
1 1 Stop 0% 0.25 4
64 64
0.71 32
586 586 Free 0% 0.95 617
0.25 0
0.25 0
None
None
638
680
1406
1414
664
1486
1420
628
638 4.1
680 4.1
1406 7.2
1414 7.5
664 6.2
1486 7.1
1420 7.2
628 6.2
2.2 100 946
2.2 94 912
3.6 64 103
4.9 95 82
3.3 83 461
3.5 85 78
4.6 95 94
3.3 100 483
EB 1 680 0 32 946 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 694 56 21 912 0.06 1.5 1.6 A 1.6
NB 1 121 37 80 207 0.58 24.6 44.2 E 44.2 E 4.9 81.8% 15
SB 1 17 12 0 82 0.21 5.5 60.0 F 60.0 F
ICU Level of Service
D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Queen St S/Queen St N & King St E/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
583 583 Free 0% 0.93 627
24 24
17 17
0 0
21 21
1 1
0.25 0
0.67 31
0.63 21
0.25 4
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
3 3
0.81 21
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
13 13
0.75 32
665 665 Free 0% 0.96 693
0.50 6
0.25 0
None
None
693
659
1384
1378
643
1399
1394
693
693 4.1
659 4.1
1384 7.2
1378 6.5
643 6.2
1399 7.1
1394 6.5
693 6.2
2.2 100 902
2.2 98 929
3.6 73 115
4.0 100 141
3.3 96 473
3.5 96 111
4.0 100 138
3.3 99 443
EB 1 659 0 32 1700 0.39 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 714 21 0 929 0.02 0.5 0.6 A 0.6
NB 1 52 31 21 165 0.31 9.6 36.4 E 36.4 E 1.8 59.6% 15
SB 1 10 4 6 202 0.05 1.2 23.8 C 23.8 C
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
9 9 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1415 0.42 630 0.58 16 0 16 29% Perm
398 398 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.86 463 0 469 6% NA 2
3 3 1900
5 5 1900
7 7 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 1.00 1883 0.42 17 0 17 2% Perm
7 7 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.63 11 0 11 2% NA 5
36 36 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1706 0.75 1347 0.68 53 0 53 7% Perm
5 5 1900 7.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1626 1.00 1626 0.50 10 0 73 2% NA 6
40 40 1900
0.33 15 0 0 2% Perm
20 20 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1286 1.00 1286 0.54 37 17 20 27% Perm
0 0 1900
0.50 6 0 0 2%
423 423 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1779 0.98 1749 0.90 470 0 485 8% NA 2
2 40.5 40.5 0.55 7.0 3.0 705
5 4.0 4.0 0.05 7.0 3.0 102
0.02 0.03 7.6 1.00 0.1 7.7 A
c0.01 0.17 33.3 1.00 0.8 34.1 C
2 40.5 40.5 0.55 7.0 3.0 345 0.03 0.05 7.7 1.00 0.3 8.0 A
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
2 40.5 40.5 0.55 7.0 3.0 959
40.5 40.5 0.55 7.0 3.0 993 0.26
c0.28 0.51 10.4 1.00 1.9 12.3 B 12.0 B
0.47 10.1 1.00 1.6 11.7 B 11.6 B 14.5 0.46 73.8 75.8% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.25 0 0 0 2%
6 8.3 8.3 0.11 7.0 3.0 151
4.0 4.0 0.05 7.0 3.0 102 0.01
0.04 0.35 30.3 1.00 1.4 31.7 C
0.11 33.2 1.00 0.5 33.7 C 33.9 C
0.63 63 0 0 3%
8.3 8.3 0.11 7.0 3.0 182 c0.04 0.40 30.4 1.00 1.4 31.9 C 31.8 C
B 21.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
6 5 NBTL SBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 22 22 25.3% 25.3% 17 15 4 4 3 3 8 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 16 0.04 12.1 0.0 12.1 0.6 3.1 20.0 391 0 0 0 0.04
EBT 469 0.42 13.1 0.0 13.1 24.0 78.8 761.0
WBT 485 0.45 13.6 0.0 13.6 25.5 90.1 568.3
1125 0 0 0 0.42
1086 0 0 0 0.45
WBR 37 0.04 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
NBL 17 0.06 29.1 0.0 29.1 1.7 3.5
NBT 11 0.04 28.9 0.0 28.9 1.1 4.1 233.0
25.0 851 0 0 0 0.04
425 0 0 0 0.04
425 0 0 0 0.03
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 AM Peak Hour
SBL 53 0.25 31.9 0.0 31.9 5.1 13.2 50.0 304 0 0 0 0.17
SBT 73 0.29 31.8 0.0 31.8 7.1 11.9 315.8 367 0 0 0 0.20
Intersection Summary
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
57 57 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.32 593 0.72 79 0 79 2% Perm
603 603 1900 7.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1844 1.00 1844 0.90 670 1 696 3% NA 2
15 15 1900
0 0 1900
17 17 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.62 1177 0.65 26 0 26 2% Perm
16 16 1900 7.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1816 1.00 1816 0.50 32 0 42 2% NA 5
47 47 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.73 1322 0.73 64 0 64 6% Perm
11 11 1900 7.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1537 1.00 1537 0.50 22 0 85 37% NA 6
57 57 1900
0.25 0 0 0 2%
41 41 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.78 53 25 28 2% Perm
5 5 1900
0.55 27 0 0 18%
575 575 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 605 0 605 2% NA 2
2 40.7 40.7 0.53 7.0 3.0 848
5 6.4 6.4 0.08 7.0 3.0 98
0.02 0.03 8.6 1.00 0.1 8.7 A
0.02 0.27 33.0 1.00 1.5 34.4 C
2 40.7 40.7 0.53 7.0 3.0 314 0.13 0.25 9.8 1.00 1.9 11.7 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2041
2 40.7 40.7 0.53 7.0 3.0 977 c0.38
40.7 40.7 0.53 7.0 3.0 997 0.32
0.71 13.6 1.00 4.4 18.0 B 17.4 B
0.61 12.5 1.00 2.7 15.3 B 14.7 B 18.5 0.63 76.8 82.6% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.50 10 0 0 2%
6 8.7 8.7 0.11 7.0 3.0 149
6.4 6.4 0.08 7.0 3.0 151 c0.02
0.05 0.43 31.7 1.00 2.0 33.7 C
0.28 33.0 1.00 1.0 34.0 C 34.2 C
0.90 63 0 0 2%
8.7 8.7 0.11 7.0 3.0 174 c0.06 0.49 32.0 1.00 2.2 34.1 C 33.9 C
B 21.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
6 5 NBTL SBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 22 22 25.3% 25.3% 17 15 4 4 3 3 8 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBT EBL 79 697 0.64 0.23 20.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 20.7 16.7 6.6 80.6 14.8 #172.2 761.0 20.0 348 1084 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.64 0.23
WBT 605 0.55 17.9 0.0 17.9 64.4 124.1 568.3 1106 0 0 0 0.55
WBR 53 0.05 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
NBL 26 0.15 32.3 0.0 32.3 3.4 7.5
NBT 42 0.16 31.3 0.0 31.3 5.5 8.0 233.0
25.0 997 0 0 0 0.05
250 0 0 0 0.10
387 0 0 0 0.11
Optimized Future Traffic 2041 PM Peak Hour
SBL 64 0.31 35.0 0.0 35.0 8.6 16.6 50.0 282 0 0 0 0.23
SBT 85 0.36 35.2 0.0 35.2 11.4 13.6 315.8 327 0 0 0 0.26
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
11 11 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1415 0.35 523 0.58 19 0 19 29% Perm
466 466 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.86 542 0 548 6% NA 2
3 3 1900
6 6 1900
8 8 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.97 1829 0.65 1225 0.63 13 0 32 2% NA 5
0 0 1900
42 42 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1706 0.74 1322 0.68 62 0 62 7% Perm
6 6 1900 7.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1626 1.00 1626 0.50 12 0 87 2% NA 6
47 47 1900
0.33 18 0 0 2% Perm
23 23 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1286 1.00 1286 0.54 43 20 23 27% Perm
8 8 1900
0.50 6 0 0 2%
496 496 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1779 0.98 1741 0.90 551 0 569 8% NA 2
2 40.7 40.7 0.54 7.0 3.0 282 0.04 0.07 8.2 1.00 0.5 8.7 A
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
2 40.7 40.7 0.54 7.0 3.0 978 0.30
40.7 40.7 0.54 7.0 3.0 941 c0.33 0.60 11.8 1.00 2.9 14.7 B 14.2 B
0.56 11.4 1.00 2.3 13.7 B 13.5 B 16.5 0.56 75.3 75.8% 15
2 40.7 40.7 0.54 7.0 3.0 695
0.42 19 0 0 2% Perm 5
0.02 0.03 8.1 1.00 0.1 8.2 A
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.25 0 0 0 2%
6 8.7 8.7 0.12 7.0 3.0 152
4.9 4.9 0.07 7.0 3.0 79 c0.03 0.41 33.8 1.00 3.4 37.2 D 37.2 D
0.05 0.41 30.9 1.00 1.8 32.7 C
0.63 75 0 0 3%
8.7 8.7 0.12 7.0 3.0 187 c0.05 0.47 31.1 1.00 1.8 33.0 C 32.8 C
B 21.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
5 NBTL Lead Yes None 22 25.3% 15 4 3 8 3 3 0 0
6 SBTL Lag Yes None 22 25.3% 17 4 3 10 3 3 0 0
Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 19 0.06 13.9 0.0 13.9 0.8 3.8 20.0 319 0 0 0 0.06
EBT WBT 548 569 0.50 0.54 15.6 16.8 0.0 0.0 15.6 16.8 29.9 32.1 101.9 #122.4 761.0 568.3 1104 0 0 0 0.50
1062 0 0 0 0.54
WBR 43 0.05 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 25.0 838 0 0 0 0.05
NBT 32 0.16 29.6 0.0 29.6 2.9 8.3 233.0 273 0 0 0 0.12
SBL 62 0.29 33.4 0.0 33.4 6.1 14.9 50.0 294 0 0 0 0.21
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
SBT 87 0.33 33.2 0.0 33.2 8.6 13.7 315.8 362 0 0 0 0.24
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Hwy 7 /King St W & Sibley Ave N
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
11 11
474 474 Free 0% 0.71 668
465 465 Free 0% 0.89 522
19 19
37 37 Stop 0% 0.86 43
14 14 0.75 19
None
None
554
1230
538
554 4.1
1230 6.4
538 6.3
2.2 99 1016
3.5 78 194
3.4 96 526
0.88 12
EB 1 680 12 0 1016 0.01 0.3 0.3 A 0.3
WB 1 554 0 32 1700 0.33 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.60 32
SB 1 62 43 19 240 0.26 7.6 25.1 D 25.1 D 1.4 43.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Ski Hill Rd/Dean St & King St W/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
3 3
329 329 Free 0% 0.71 463
20 20
50 50
3 3
28 28
6 6
0.50 6
0.64 44
0.68 44
0.50 12
3 3 Stop 0% 0.25 12
0 0
0.80 62
5 5 Stop 0% 0.38 13
30 30
0.81 25
462 462 Free 0% 0.88 525
1.00 0
0.50 6
None
None
531
488
1146
1142
476
1190
1152
528
531 5.1
488 4.1
1146 7.2
1142 7.2
476 6.2
1190 7.1
1152 7.0
528 6.2
3.1 99 682
2.2 94 1070
3.6 71 151
4.6 91 143
3.3 92 583
3.5 91 134
4.5 92 151
3.3 100 550
EB 1 494 6 25 682 0.01 0.2 0.3 A 0.3
WB 1 593 62 6 1070 0.06 1.4 1.5 A 1.5
NB 1 101 44 44 221 0.46 16.8 34.4 D 34.4 D 4.4 59.8% 15
SB 1 24 12 0 142 0.17 4.5 35.4 E 35.4 E
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Queen St S/Queen St N & King St E/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
508 508 Free 0% 0.85 598
17 17
0 0
0 0
47 47
3 3
0.25 0
0.63 75
0.56 25
0.50 6
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
8 8
0.25 0
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
14 14
0.69 25
502 502 Free 0% 0.88 570
0.31 26
0.25 0
None
None
570
623
1206
1180
610
1206
1193
570
570 4.1
623 4.1
1206 7.1
1180 6.5
610 6.2
1206 7.1
1193 6.5
570 6.2
2.2 100 1002
2.2 100 958
3.5 51 152
4.0 100 190
3.3 95 494
3.5 96 152
4.0 100 187
3.3 95 521
EB 1 623 0 25 1700 0.37 0.0 0.0
WB 1 570 0 0 958 0.00 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
NB 1 100 75 25 183 0.55 21.5 46.0 E 46.0 E 3.9 42.8% 15
SB 1 32 6 26 358 0.09 2.2 16.0 C 16.0 C
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
67 67 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.17 315 0.72 93 0 93 2% Perm
707 707 1900 7.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1844 1.00 1844 0.90 786 2 815 3% NA 2
17 17 1900
0 0 1900
19 19 1900 7.0 1.00 0.98 0.98 1811 0.18 340 0.50 38 0 81 2% NA 5
6 6 1900
55 55 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.70 1277 0.73 75 0 75 6% Perm
12 12 1900 7.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.50 24 0 98 37% NA 6
67 67 1900
0.25 0 0 0 2%
48 48 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.78 62 33 29 2% Perm
20 20 1900
0.55 31 0 0 18%
674 674 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 709 0 709 2% NA 2
2 39.1 39.1 0.46 7.0 3.0 145 0.30 0.64 17.4 1.00 19.8 37.2 D
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051
2 39.1 39.1 0.46 7.0 3.0 852 c0.44
39.1 39.1 0.46 7.0 3.0 870 0.38
0.96 21.9 1.00 22.0 43.9 D 43.3 D
0.81 19.6 1.00 8.3 27.9 C 26.7 C 45.8 0.99 84.6 88.2% 15
2 39.1 39.1 0.46 7.0 3.0 739
0.65 31 0 0 2% Perm 5
0.02 0.04 12.5 1.00 0.1 12.6 B
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.50 12 0 0 2%
6 9.5 9.5 0.11 7.0 3.0 143
15.0 15.0 0.18 7.0 3.0 60 c0.24 1.35 34.8 1.00 235.0 269.8 F 269.8 F
0.06 0.52 35.4 1.00 3.4 38.9 D
0.90 74 0 0 2%
9.5 9.5 0.11 7.0 3.0 173 c0.06 0.57 35.6 1.00 4.2 39.8 D 39.4 D
D 21.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
5 NBTL Lead Yes None 22 25.3% 15 4 3 8 3 3 0 0
6 SBTL Lag Yes None 22 25.3% 17 4 3 10 3 3 0 0
Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70
29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL EBT WBT 93 817 709 0.63 0.94 0.80 43.6 44.1 29.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.6 44.1 29.6 11.3 ~128.4 97.2 #26.2 #220.7 #176.2 761.0 568.3 20.0 148 869 886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.63 0.94 0.80
WBR 62 0.08 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 25.0 826 0 0 0 0.08
NBT 81 1.33 261.2 0.0 261.2 ~16.6 #20.6 233.0 61 0 0 0 1.33
SBL 75 0.42 40.7 0.0 40.7 11.1 18.8 50.0 230 0 0 0 0.33
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
SBT 98 0.46 40.4 0.0 40.4 14.6 15.3 315.8 277 0 0 0 0.35
Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Hwy 7 /King St W & Sibley Ave N
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
19 19
675 675 Free 0% 0.90 750
653 653 Free 0% 0.92 710
70 70
28 28 Stop 0% 0.33 85
6 6 0.25 24
None
None
798
1554
754
798 4.1
1554 6.5
754 6.2
2.2 97 824
3.6 28 118
3.3 94 409
0.75 25
EB 1 775 25 0 824 0.03 0.7 0.8 A 0.8
WB 1 798 0 88 1700 0.47 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.80 88
SB 1 109 85 24 140 0.78 36.0 87.9 F 87.9 F 6.1 60.8% 15
ICU Level of Service
B
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Ski Hill Rd/Dean St & King St W/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
683 683 Free 0% 0.90 759
27 27
53 53
14 14
33 33
3 3
0.56 25
0.75 44
0.80 94
0.25 12
5 5 Stop 0% 0.75 7
0 0
0.80 66
2 2 Stop 0% 0.25 8
75 75
0.71 38
686 686 Free 0% 0.95 722
0.25 0
0.25 0
None
None
747
797
1648
1657
778
1742
1664
734
747 4.1
797 4.1
1648 7.2
1657 7.5
778 6.2
1742 7.1
1664 7.2
734 6.2
2.2 100 861
2.2 92 825
3.6 32 65
4.9 85 54
3.3 76 396
3.5 72 43
4.6 89 63
3.3 100 420
EB 1 797 0 38 861 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 813 66 25 825 0.08 2.0 2.1 A 2.1
NB 1 146 44 94 138 1.06 60.4 157.7 F 157.7 F 15.2 95.3% 15
SB 1 19 12 0 49 0.39 10.6 119.4 F 119.4 F
ICU Level of Service
F
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: Queen St S/Queen St N & King St E/Hwy 7
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (m) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
EGIS
Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
0 0
683 683 Free 0% 0.93 734
28 28
20 20
0 0
25 25
2 2
0.25 0
0.67 37
0.63 25
0.25 8
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
3 3
0.81 25
0 0 Stop 0% 0.25 0
16 16
0.75 37
780 780 Free 0% 0.96 812
0.50 6
0.25 0
None
None
812
771
1620
1614
752
1640
1633
812
812 4.1
771 4.1
1620 7.2
1614 6.5
752 6.2
1640 7.1
1633 6.5
812 6.2
2.2 100 814
2.2 97 844
3.6 52 78
4.0 100 101
3.3 94 410
3.5 89 74
4.0 100 98
3.3 98 379
EB 1 771 0 37 1700 0.45 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB 1 837 25 0 844 0.03 0.7 0.8 A 0.8
NB 1 62 37 25 116 0.54 19.2 67.5 F 67.5 F 3.2 67.5% 15
SB 1 14 8 6 112 0.12 3.1 41.5 E 41.5 E
ICU Level of Service
C
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
AM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
11 11 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1415 0.35 527 0.58 19 0 19 29% Perm
466 466 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1810 1.00 1810 0.86 542 0 548 6% NA 2
3 3 1900
6 6 1900
8 8 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.95 1794 0.42 19 0 19 2% Perm
8 8 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.63 13 0 13 2% NA 5
42 42 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1706 0.75 1345 0.68 62 0 62 7% Perm
6 6 1900 7.0 1.00 0.87 1.00 1626 1.00 1626 0.50 12 0 87 2% NA 6
47 47 1900
0.33 18 0 0 2% Perm
23 23 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1286 1.00 1286 0.54 43 20 23 27% Perm
0 0 1900
0.50 6 0 0 2%
496 496 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1779 0.98 1741 0.90 551 0 569 8% NA 2
2 40.5 40.5 0.54 7.0 3.0 700
5 4.2 4.2 0.06 7.0 3.0 101
0.02 0.03 7.9 1.00 0.1 8.0 A
c0.01 0.19 33.5 1.00 0.9 34.4 C
2 40.5 40.5 0.54 7.0 3.0 286 0.04 0.07 8.0 1.00 0.4 8.5 A
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
2 40.5 40.5 0.54 7.0 3.0 947
40.5 40.5 0.54 7.0 3.0 985 0.30
c0.33 0.60 11.5 1.00 2.8 14.3 B 13.8 B
0.56 11.1 1.00 2.3 13.3 B 13.2 B 16.1 0.54 74.4 75.8% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.25 0 0 0 2%
6 8.7 8.7 0.12 7.0 3.0 157
4.2 4.2 0.06 7.0 3.0 106 0.01
0.05 0.39 30.4 1.00 1.6 32.0 C
0.12 33.3 1.00 0.5 33.9 C 34.2 C
0.63 75 0 0 3%
8.7 8.7 0.12 7.0 3.0 190 c0.05 0.46 30.6 1.00 1.7 32.4 C 32.3 C
B 21.0 D
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
6 5 NBTL SBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 22 22 25.3% 25.3% 17 15 4 4 3 3 8 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 70 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL 19 0.06 13.1 0.0 13.1 0.8 3.7 20.0 324 0 0 0 0.06
EBT WBT 569 548 0.49 0.53 16.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 16.0 14.8 32.1 29.9 100.8 #119.8 761.0 568.3 1114 0 0 0 0.49
1072 0 0 0 0.53
WBR 43 0.05 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
NBL 19 0.07 29.4 0.0 29.4 1.9 3.9
NBT 13 0.05 29.1 0.0 29.1 1.3 4.6 233.0
25.0 845 0 0 0 0.05
403 0 0 0 0.05
423 0 0 0 0.03
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 AM Peak Hour
SBL 62 0.29 32.4 0.0 32.4 6.1 14.8 50.0 302 0 0 0 0.21
SBT 87 0.33 32.4 0.0 32.4 8.6 13.8 315.8 366 0 0 0 0.24
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS
PM Peak Hour
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
67 67 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.22 413 0.72 93 0 93 2% Perm
707 707 1900 7.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1844 1.00 1844 0.90 786 1 816 3% NA 2
17 17 1900
0 0 1900
20 20 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1789 0.46 866 0.65 31 0 31 2% Perm
19 19 1900 7.0 1.00 0.96 1.00 1816 1.00 1816 0.50 38 0 50 2% NA 5
55 55 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1722 0.72 1313 0.73 75 0 75 6% Perm
12 12 1900 7.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 1541 1.00 1541 0.50 24 0 98 37% NA 6
67 67 1900
0.25 0 0 0 2%
48 48 1900 7.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1601 1.00 1601 0.78 62 30 32 2% Perm
6 6 1900
0.55 31 0 0 18%
674 674 1900 7.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1883 1.00 1883 0.95 709 0 709 2% NA 2
2 40.6 40.6 0.51 7.0 3.0 820
5 8.7 8.7 0.11 7.0 3.0 95
0.02 0.04 9.6 1.00 0.1 9.7 A
c0.04 0.33 32.5 1.00 2.0 34.6 C
2 40.6 40.6 0.51 7.0 3.0 211 0.23 0.44 12.2 1.00 6.6 18.7 B
Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group
EGIS
Optimized Future Traffic 2051
2 40.6 40.6 0.51 7.0 3.0 945 c0.44
40.6 40.6 0.51 7.0 3.0 965 0.38
0.86 16.9 1.00 10.3 27.2 C 26.3 C
0.73 15.1 1.00 5.0 20.0 C 19.2 B 24.7 0.74 79.2 88.2% 15
HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service
0.50 12 0 0 2%
6 8.9 8.9 0.11 7.0 3.0 147
8.7 8.7 0.11 7.0 3.0 199 0.03
0.06 0.51 33.1 1.00 3.0 36.1 D
0.25 32.3 1.00 0.7 32.9 C 33.6 C
0.90 74 0 0 2%
8.9 8.9 0.11 7.0 3.0 173 c0.06 0.57 33.3 1.00 4.2 37.5 D 36.9 D
C 21.0 E
Synchro 11 Report Page 2
Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Phase Number Movement Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Maximum Split (s) Maximum Split (%) Minimum Split (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Minimum Initial (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Minimum Gap (s) Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Dual Entry Inhibit Max Start Time (s) End Time (s) Yield/Force Off (s) Yield/Force Off 170(s) Local Start Time (s) Local Yield (s) Local Yield 170(s) Intersection Summary Cycle Length Control Type Natural Cycle Splits and Phases:
EGIS
2 EBWB Max 43 49.4% 38 4 3 31 3 3 0 0 24 0 Yes Yes 0 43 36 36 0 36 36
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
6 5 NBTL SBTL Lag Lead Yes Yes None None 22 22 25.3% 25.3% 17 15 4 4 3 3 8 10 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Yes Yes 43 65 58 58 43 58 58
Yes Yes 65 0 80 80 65 80 80
87 Semi Act-Uncoord 75 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Synchro 11 Report Page 3
Queues 29: Sturgeon Rd S/ Sturgeon Rd N & Hwy 7/King St E
Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (m) Queue Length 95th (m) Internal Link Dist (m) Turn Bay Length (m) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio
EBL EBT WBT 93 817 709 0.40 0.79 0.67 25.0 28.5 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 28.5 23.2 84.5 8.9 108.7 20.2 #220.7 #176.2 761.0 568.3 20.0 230 1032 1052 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 0.79 0.67
WBR 62 0.06 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
NBL 31 0.25 36.5 0.0 36.5 4.2 8.8
NBT 50 0.19 32.5 0.0 32.5 6.7 9.1 233.0
25.0 956 0 0 0 0.06
174 0 0 0 0.18
365 0 0 0 0.14
Optimized Future Traffic 2051 PM Peak Hour
SBL 75 0.38 37.6 0.0 37.6 10.2 18.8 50.0 264 0 0 0 0.28
SBT 98 0.42 37.8 0.0 37.8 13.5 15.3 315.8 310 0 0 0 0.32
Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
EGIS
Synchro 11 Report Page 1
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix J: Future Conditions Network LOS Summaries
Page | 1351
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix J: Future Conditions Network LOS Summaries
J.1 Unmitigated Base Condition
Page | 1353
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd Albert St N
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd
Mary St W
Lindsay St S
William St N
Cambridge St N Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR LINDSAY
Peel St
Logie St
Mary St E
Parkside Dr
Riverview Rd
Queen St
Colborne St E
CKL Rd 36
Not to Scale
Weldon Rd
Pigeon Lake Rd
Verulam Rd N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Angeline St N
Peel St
William St N
Mary St W
Wellington St
Lindsay St N
Mary St W
Kent St W
Wellington St
Colborne St E
Verulam Rd N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Angeline St N Cambridge St N
Kent St W
Sanderling Cres
Wellington St
Colborne St W
Wilson Rd
Verulam Rd N
LEGEND
Kent St W
Adelaide St N
Fair Ave
Colborne St W
William St N
Britain Rd
Angeline St N
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
St David St
Little
Hwy 35
Hwy 35
Connolly Rd
Orchard Park Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
Sanderling Cres
Dew Drop Inn Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
Verulam Rd N
St David St
Lindsay St S
St Joseph Rd
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd William St N
Albert St N
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd
William St N
Cambridge St N Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR LINDSAY
Logie St
Mary St E
Parkside Dr
Riverview Rd
Queen St
Colborne St E
Weldon Rd
Pigeon Lake Rd
CKL Rd 36
Not to Scale
Verulam Rd N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Angeline St N
Mary St W
Lindsay St S
LEGEND
Angeline St N
Peel St
Wellington St
St David St
Mary St W
Adelaide St N
Peel St
Wellington St
Lindsay St N
Mary St W
Kent St W
Cambridge St N
Kent St W
Sanderling Cres
Wellington St
Colborne St W
Wilson Rd
Verulam Rd N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Hwy 35
Kent St W
Fair Ave
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
William St N
Little Britain Rd
Angeline St N
Colborne St W
Sanderling Cres
Hwy 35
Connolly Rd
Orchard Park Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd William St N
Dew Drop Inn Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
Verulam Rd N
Lindsay St S
St Joseph Rd
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd William St N
Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Angeline St N
Logie St
Mary St E
Parkside Dr
Riverview Rd
Queen St
Colborne St E
Weldon Rd
Pigeon Lake Rd
CKL Rd 36
Not to Scale
Verulam Rd N
William St N
Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
St Joseph Rd
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR LINDSAY
Mary St W
Lindsay St S
LEGEND
Angeline St N
Peel St
Wellington St
Lindsay St N
Mary St W
Adelaide St N
Peel St
Wellington St
St David St
Mary St W
Kent St W
Cambridge St N
Kent St W
Sanderling Cres
Wellington St
Colborne St W
Wilson Rd
Verulam Rd N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Hwy 35
Kent St W
Fair Ave
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
William St N
Little Britain Rd
Angeline St N
Colborne St W
Sanderling Cres
Hwy 35
Connolly Rd
Orchard Park Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd William St N
Dew Drop Inn Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
Verulam Rd N
Lindsay St S
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd William St N
Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Angeline St N
William St N
Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR LINDSAY
Mary St W
Lindsay St S
LEGEND
Angeline St N
Peel St
Wellington St
Lindsay St N
Mary St W
Adelaide St N
Peel St
Wellington St
Logie St
Mary St E
St David St
Mary St W
Kent St W
Cambridge St N
Kent St W
Sanderling Cres
Wellington St
Colborne St W
Parkside Dr
Riverview Rd
Queen St
Colborne St E
Wilson Rd
Verulam Rd N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Hwy 35
Kent St W
Fair Ave
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
William St N
Little Britain Rd
Angeline St N
Colborne St W
Sanderling Cres
Hwy 35
Connolly Rd
Orchard Park Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd William St N
Dew Drop Inn Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
Verulam Rd N
Weldon Rd
Pigeon Lake Rd
CKL Rd 36
Not to Scale
Verulam Rd N
Lindsay St S
St Joseph Rd
North St.
LOS A LOS B LOS C
LOS D LOS E LOS F
LEGEND
West St
King St E
Canal St E
Duke St.
East St. N
Boyd St. Boyd St.
Cedartree Ln
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR BOBCAYGEON
King St W
Canal St W
Joseph St.
Duke St.
Main St Main St Main St Bolton St Bolton St
East St. N East St. N
Mill St
King St S
Not to Scale
LOS A LOS B LOS C
North St.
LOS D LOS E LOS F
LEGEND
West St
King St E
Canal St E
Duke St.
East St. N
Boyd St. Boyd St.
Cedartree Ln
2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR BOBCAYGEON
King St W
Canal St W
Joseph St.
Duke St.
Main St Main St Main St Bolton St Bolton St
East St. N East St. N
Mill St King St S
Not to Scale
LOS A LOS B LOS C
North St.
LOS D LOS E LOS F
LEGEND
West St
Cedartree Ln
King St E
Canal St E
Duke St.
East St. N
King St S
Boyd St. Boyd St.
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR BOBCAYGEON
King St W
Canal St W
Joseph St.
Duke St.
Main St Main St Main St Bolton St Bolton St
East St. N
East St. N
Mill St
Not to Scale
LOS A LOS B LOS C
North St.
LOS D LOS E LOS F
LEGEND
West St
King St E
Canal St E
Duke St.
East St. N
Boyd St. Boyd St.
Cedartree Ln
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR BOBCAYGEON
King St W
Canal St W
Joseph St.
Duke St.
Main St Main St Main St Bolton St Bolton St
East St. N East St. N
Mill St King St S
Not to Scale
Helen St
Commercial Access
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Francis St W
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Colborne St
Bond St E
Francis St E
Colborne St
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR FENELON FALLS
Colborne St
Bond St W
LEGEND
Lindsay St Hwy 121
Northine Rd Hwy 8
Princess St W
Hwy 121
Not to Scale
Helen St
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Francis St W
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Colborne St
Bond St E
Francis St E
Colborne St
2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR FENELON FALLS
Colborne St
Bond St W
LEGEND
Lindsay St Hwy 121
Northine Rd Hwy 8
Princess St W
Commercial Access
Not to Scale
Hwy 121
Helen St
Commercial Access
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Francis St W
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Colborne St
Bond St E
Francis St E
Colborne St
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR FENELON FALLS
Colborne St
Bond St W
LEGEND
Lindsay St Hwy 121
Northine Rd Hwy 8
Princess St W
Hwy 121
Not to Scale
Helen St
Commercial Access
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Francis St W
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Colborne St
Bond St E
Francis St E
Colborne St
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR FENELON FALLS
Colborne St
Bond St W
LEGEND
Lindsay St Hwy 121
Northine Rd Hwy 8
Princess St W
Not to Scale
Hwy 121
Sibley Ave N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Deane St N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
King St W
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
King St E
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR OMEMEE
King St W
Sturgeon Rd N
LEGEND
Hwy 7
Queen St N Queen St S Not to Scale
Sibley Ave N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Deane St N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
King St W
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
King St E
2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR OMEMEE
King St W
Sturgeon Rd N
LEGEND
Hwy 7
Queen St N Queen St S Not to Scale
Sibley Ave N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Deane St N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
King St W
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
King St E
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR OMEMEE
King St W
Sturgeon Rd N
LEGEND
Hwy 7
Queen St N Queen St S Not to Scale
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Deane St N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
King St W
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
Sibley Ave N
King St E
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR OMEMEE
King St W
Sturgeon Rd N
LEGEND
Hwy 7
Queen St N Queen St S Not to Scale
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix J: Future Conditions Network LOS Summaries
J.2 Mitigated Condition
Page | 1371
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd Angeline St N
William St N William St N
Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR LINDSAY
Peel St
Mary St W
Logie St
Mary St E
Parkside Dr
Riverview Rd
Queen St
Colborne St E
Weldon Rd
Pigeon Lake Rd
CKL Rd 36
Not to Scale
Verulam Rd N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Angeline St N Lindsay St S
LEGEND
Adelaide St N
Peel St
Wellington St
Lindsay St N
Mary St W
Wellington St
St David St
Mary St W
Kent St W
Cambridge St N
Kent St W
Sanderling Cres
Wellington St
Colborne St W
Wilson Rd
Verulam Rd N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Hwy 35
Kent St W
Fair Ave
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
William St N
Little Britain Rd
Angeline St N
Colborne St W
Sanderling Cres
Hwy 35
Connolly Rd
Orchard Park Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd William St N
Dew Drop Inn Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
Verulam Rd N
Lindsay St S
St Joseph Rd
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd William St N
Albert St N
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd
William St N
Cambridge St N Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR LINDSAY
Logie St
Mary St E
Parkside Dr
Riverview Rd
Queen St
Colborne St E
Weldon Rd
Pigeon Lake Rd
CKL Rd 36
Not to Scale
Verulam Rd N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Angeline St N
Mary St W
Lindsay St S
LEGEND
Angeline St N
Peel St
Wellington St
Lindsay St N
Mary St W
Adelaide St N
Peel St
Wellington St
St David St
Mary St W
Kent St W
Cambridge St N
Kent St W
Sanderling Cres
Wellington St
Colborne St W
Wilson Rd
Verulam Rd N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Hwy 35
Kent St W
Fair Ave
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
William St N
Little Britain Rd
Angeline St N
Colborne St W
Sanderling Cres
Hwy 35
Connolly Rd
Orchard Park Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd William St N
Dew Drop Inn Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
Verulam Rd N
Lindsay St S
St Joseph Rd
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd Angeline St N
William St N William St N
Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Trans Canada Hwy
Elm Tree Rd Cambridge St N
Albert St N
Adelaide St N
Angeline St S
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR LINDSAY
Peel St
Mary St W
Logie St
Mary St E
Parkside Dr
Riverview Rd
Queen St
Colborne St E
Weldon Rd
Pigeon Lake Rd
CKL Rd 36
Not to Scale
Verulam Rd N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Angeline St N Lindsay St S
LEGEND
Adelaide St N
Peel St
Wellington St
Lindsay St N
Mary St W
Wellington St
St David St
Mary St W
Kent St W
Cambridge St N
Kent St W
Sanderling Cres
Wellington St
Colborne St W
Wilson Rd
Verulam Rd N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Hwy 35
Kent St W
Fair Ave
Colborne St W
Orchard Park Rd
William St N
Little Britain Rd
Angeline St N
Colborne St W
Sanderling Cres
Hwy 35
Connolly Rd
Orchard Park Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd William St N
Dew Drop Inn Rd
Thunder Bridge Rd
Verulam Rd N
Lindsay St S
St Joseph Rd
North St.
LOS A LOS B LOS C
LOS D LOS E LOS F
LEGEND
West St
Cedartree Ln
King St E
Canal St E
Duke St.
East St. N
King St S
Boyd St. Boyd St.
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR BOBCAYGEON
King St W
Canal St W
Joseph St.
Duke St.
Main St Main St Main St Bolton St Bolton St
East St. N
East St. N
Mill St
Not to Scale
LOS A LOS B LOS C
North St.
LOS D LOS E LOS F
LEGEND
West St
King St E
Canal St E
Duke St.
East St. N
Boyd St. Boyd St.
Cedartree Ln
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR BOBCAYGEON
King St W
Canal St W
Joseph St.
Duke St.
Main St Main St Main St Bolton St Bolton St
East St. N East St. N
Mill St
King St S
Not to Scale
Helen St
Commercial Access
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Francis St W
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Colborne St
Colborne St
Princess St W
Bond St E
Francis St E
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR FENELON FALLS
Colborne St
Bond St W
LEGEND
Lindsay St Hwy 121
Northine Rd Hwy 8
Hwy 121
Not to Scale
Helen St
Commercial Access
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Francis St W
LOS A LOS B LOS C
Colborne St
Bond St E
Francis St E
Colborne St
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR FENELON FALLS
Colborne St
Bond St W
LEGEND
Lindsay St Hwy 121
Northine Rd Hwy 8
Princess St W
Not to Scale
Hwy 121
Sibley Ave N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Deane St N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
King St W
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
King St E
2031 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR OMEMEE
King St W
Sturgeon Rd N
LEGEND
Hwy 7
Queen St N Queen St S Not to Scale
Sibley Ave N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Deane St N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
King St W
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
King St E
2041 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR OMEMEE
King St W
Sturgeon Rd N
LEGEND
Hwy 7
Queen St N Queen St S Not to Scale
Sibley Ave N
LOS D LOS E LOS F
Deane St N
LOS A LOS B LOS C
King St W
Sturgeon Rd S
Ski Hill Rd
King St E
2051 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CRITICAL PEAK HOUR OMEMEE
King St W
Sturgeon Rd N
LEGEND
Hwy 7
Queen St N Queen St S Not to Scale
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Page | 1383
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
To
Francis Street
Princess Street
From
Helen Street
Francis Street
Capacity
Street
1000
Queen Street
Sturgeon Road
750
750
1000
To
Sturgeon Road
From
Capacity
Sibley Avenue
Lindsay Street / CKL 121
Highway 7
Street
Total
750 400 1150
East St
750 750
Main Street
Capacity
Bridge Crossing Screenline
To
Joseph Street Main Street
From
West Street Joseph Street
Street
North Street / Duke Street / (CR8)
69 804
735
378 313
WB/SB
525
549
WB/SB
651
825
EB/NB
536
755
WB/SB
2031 Peak Hr Vol (veh/hr)
559
553
EB/NB
2031 Peak Hr Vol (veh/hr)
60 853
793
394 329
EB/NB
2031 Peak Hr Vol (veh/hr)
0.87
1.10
EB/NB
81 1010
929
610 420
EB/NB
0.54
0.55
Total
0.71
1.01
WB/SB
0.79
1.05
Total
88 948
860
600 423
WB/SB
655
650
EB/NB
703
775
EB/NB
580
706
WB/SB
2041 Peak Hr Vol (veh/hr)
616
643
WB/SB
2041 Peak Hr Vol (veh/hr)
Link Capacity / Screenline Analysis
Fenelon Falls
0.53
0.55
WB/SB
Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c)
0.56
0.55
EB/NB
0.16 0.72
0.96
0.51 0.43
Total
2041 Peak Hr Vol (veh/hr)
Link Capacity / Screenline Analysis
Omemee
0.17 0.94
0.93
0.50 0.42
WB/SB
Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c)
1.00 1.00
1.00
0.53 0.44
EB/NB
Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c)
Link Capacity / Screenline Analysis
Bobcaygeon
0.22 0.82
1.15
0.80 0.56
WB/SB
0.62
0.64
WB/SB
0.94
1.03
EB/NB
0.77
0.94
WB/SB
Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c)
0.66
0.65
EB/NB
Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c)
0.20 0.88
1.24
0.81 0.56
EB/NB
Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c)
0.86
0.99
Total
0.64
0.65
Total
0.21 0.85
1.13
0.81 0.56
Total
113 1123
1010
962 585
WB/SB
722
753
WB/SB
939
925
EB/NB
773
856
WB/SB
2051 Peak Hr Vol (veh/hr)
768
761
EB/NB
2051 Peak Hr Vol (veh/hr)
117 1205
1088
963 537
EB/NB
2051 Peak Hr Vol (veh/hr)
0.28 0.98
1.35
1.28 0.78
WB/SB
0.72
0.75
WB/SB
1.25
1.23
EB/NB
1.03
1.14
WB/SB
Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c)
0.77
0.76
EB/NB
Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c)
0.29 1.41
1.45
1.28 0.72
EB/NB
Volume to Capacity Ratio (v/c)
1.14
1.19
Total
0.75
0.76
Total
0.29 1.01
1.40
1.28 0.75
Total
Appendix L: Policy Documents
Page | 1387
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix L: Policy Documents
L.1 Speed Limit Policy
Page | 1389
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
City of Kawartha Lakes
Speed Limit Policy
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................... 3 2.0 Speed Limits......................................................................................... 3 3.0 Automated Speed Enforcement ......................................................... 6 4.0 Special Speed Zones ........................................................................... 7 4.1
School Zones and Areas ................................................................................................... 7
4.2
Playground Zones and Areas ............................................................................................ 7
4.3
Community Safety Zones ................................................................................................ 10
4.4
Reduced Speed Zone Areas .......................................................................................... 11
4.5
Unposted Speed Limits for Low-Volume Rural Roads: ................................................... 12
4.6
Posting Speed Limits Based on Traffic Volumes or other Circumstances: ...................... 12
4.7
Transition from Gravel to Paved Roads: ......................................................................... 13
4.8
Appropriateness of 30 km/h Zones in Shoreline Communities ........................................ 13
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 2
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
1.0 Introduction A Speed Limit Policy establishes a framework to ensure that speed limits on roadways are set appropriately, promote road safety, protect residents and visitors, and encourage efficient traffic flow. This policy outlines guidelines for determining speed limits based on thorough assessment of road conditions, traffic patterns, and community needs, aiming to create a safe and reliable transportation network while fostering a culture of responsible driving behavior. By implementing this policy, it will enhance the overall quality of life for residents by reducing accidents, minimizing traffic-related injuries and fatalities, and improving the overall experience of traveling within the City of Kawartha Lakes.
2.0 Speed Limits Road safety may be enhanced through credible posted speed limits that match the expectation of drivers for a given roadway and its surrounding area. Speed limits set lower than the design speed make a significant number of reasonable drivers “illegal” for each 10 km/h increment of speed decreased, place unnecessary burden on law enforcement personnel, lead to lack of credibility of speed limits and lead to increase tolerance by law enforcement. Therefore, speed limits should be carefully set to reflect the classification, function, and physical characteristics. The selection of posted speed limits must also take into consideration legislative regulation, public recognition and understanding, ease of implementation, and adherence to recognized engineering standards and practices. The Highway Traffic Act (HTA) establishes the regulatory framework for setting speed limits in Ontario. HTA Subsection 128.(1) states that no person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than the following:
50 km/h on a roadway within a local municipality or a built-up area.
80 km/h on roads not within a built-up area and within local municipality
These legislative provisions are more commonly known as statutory speed limits and apply to all roads without a Maximum Speed sign posted. HTA Subsection 128. (2) however, permits municipal councils to prescribe rates of speed that differ from these statutory limits on roads under their jurisdiction so long as they are posted less than 100 km/h. The City currently does not have a official speed limit policy, but uses the TAC guidelines. The TAC Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits (2009) were developed to provide guidance and to enhance constancy in the evaluation of posted speed limits. As part of the guidelines an automated spreadsheet was developed to facilitate application of the procedures involved in determining the recommended posted speed limit. It is also
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 3
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
important to note that before the TMP process began the spreadsheet was already in use by the City. It should be noted that while it is bad practice, there are circumstances when there is a desire to have a speed limit posted lower than the design speed of a road. In these circumstances a road may have been designed to accommodate higher speeds, however, development and land use changes overtime warrant consideration for a speed lower than the road was initial designed for. This is often observed in rural roads in areas that should see some degree of urbanization and development. In these circumstances consideration must be given to reducing the roadway design speed to that of the posted speed limit. This can be achieved through traffic calming. Recommendations
Apply the methodology set out in the TAC Canadian Guidelines for Establishing Posted Speed Limits in setting speed limits on municipal roads and refer to the City’s Traffic calming policy in instances whereby the recommended posted speed is lower than the design speed (in response to public petition or Council direction).
Maintain the statutory 50 km/hr speed limit or 40 km/hr community speed area on roads within built-up urban, semi-urban and rural areas, except for designated School or Community Safety Zones.
In addition to the Road Needs study the City conducts, it is recommended for the City to also conduct a comprehensive review of its posted speed limits every 5years for all roads in the City to ensure that posted speed limits remain appropriate and effective in promoting safety for all road users.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 4
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
Figure 1: Automated Speed Limit Guidelines
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 5
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
3.0 Automated Speed Enforcement In 2017, the provincial government amended the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) as part of the Safer School Zones Act, 2017 to allow municipalities to use Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) technology to address vehicle speed concerns and collisions involving speeding. ASE is an automated system that uses a camera and a speed measurement device to enforce speed limits in identified areas. The strategy is designed to work in tandem with other road safety measures such as engineering activities, education initiatives, and traditional police enforcement, to help improve safety for people of all ages and abilities by:
Increasing speed compliance
Altering driver behavior
Increasing public awareness about the consequences of inappropriate vehicle operating speeds and the critical need for drivers to slow down.
If a vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit in an ASE area, the system captures an image and records the speed of the vehicle and date and time of the offence. In Ontario, the recorded information is reviewed by officer appointed pursuant. ASE can be effective program if implemented correctly at appropriate locations. Early results of modern deployment show positive safety statistics in the form of reduced vehicle operating speeds and collision activity. Site selection has been a key area of consideration for many municipalities, with selection primarily being based on vehicle operating speeds, collision activity, pre-existing Community Safety Zone and school zone presence, and community input. ASE program size needs to match the needs of the municipality, but also reasonably align with realistic constraints, such as potential capital and labor costs. Recommendations Engage vendors to present logistical and financial considerations to implementing an administrative monetary penalty system which includes an automated speed enforcement component. Review safety statistics for potential sites to form a priority ranking. Liaise with other agencies/municipalities for opportunities to share resources such as the use of pre-established joint processing centers.
| Interim Report – Transportation Master Plan
Page | 6
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
4.0 Special Speed Zones 4.1
School Zones and Areas
Advise drivers to reduce speed at certain times because they are entering an area where school children are present and may be crossing the road in increased frequency. The TAC School and Playground Areas and Zones: Guidelines for Application and Implementation (2006) provides a procedure for establishing and defining school zone areas. The procedure includes warrants based on a number of criteria and assigns a maximum point value (MPV) to each criterion, reflecting its relative importance. Table 1 provides illustrates the criteria and weightings and the appropriate selection based on the total score. Section 3 of the TAC guidelines provides details on the sign layouts for School Zones, and School Areas based on site specific conditions. 4.2
Playground Zones and Areas
Playground zones or areas can be considered for facilities used by children where there is a possibility of them entering the roadway. These facilities include playgrounds, recreation facilities such as sports fields, indoor or outdoor skating rinks, baseball diamonds, etc. Similar to school zones and areas, the TAC School and Playground Areas and Zones: Guidelines for Application and Implementation (2006) provides a procedure for establishing and defining playground areas and zones. The procedure includes warrants based on a number of criteria and assigns a maximum point value (MPV) to each criterion, reflecting its relative importance. Table 2 provides and illustrates the criteria and weightings and the appropriate selection based on the total score. Section 3 of the TAC guidelines provides details on the sign layouts for playground areas and zones based on site specific conditions.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 7
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
Table 1: School Zone and Area Selection Worksheet Installation Criterion
School Type
Road Classification
Fencing
Maximum Point Value (MPV)
40
20
20
Property Line Separation School Entrance
10
5
Sidewalks
5
Weighting Factor (WF)
Description Elementary Middle / Junior High High School Post Secondary / College /University Rural Urban Land Use Land Use Local -
1 0.4 0.2 0
1
Local Collector
0.75 0.50
Major Collector / Minor Arterial
Arterial
0.25
Major Arterial / Expressway
Freeway
0
Abuts Roadway Within 50 metres Further than 50 metres Main Entrance / Multiple Secondary Entrances Secondary Entrance None None or Non-School Side School Side Both Sides
T=
Rural Land Use
Minor Collector / Minor Arterial
Fully Traversable Partially Traversable Non-Traversable
Score (MPV*WF)
C=
1 0.5 0.1 1 0.5 0
F=
L=
1 0.6 0 1 0.6 0
E=
S=
Total Score (Sum of T,C,F,L,E and S) Total Score
Area or Zone?
0 - 40
None
41 - 64
SCHOOL AREA
65 - 80
SCHOOL AREA or SCHOOL ZONE
81 - 100
SCHOOL ZONE
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 8
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
Table 2: Playground Zone and Area Selection Worksheet Installation Criterion
Maximum Point Value (MPV)
Description
< 50 m
Playground Capacity (number of children) 16 or more 5 to 15 1 to 4 No play equipment: sports field or open field only Any Facilities
Urban Land Use
Rural Land Use
Frontage
Playground Type
Road Classification
Fencing
40 ≥ 50 m
20
20
Property Line Separation
10
Playground Entrance
5
Sidewalks
5
Local Minor Collector Local Collector Collector Major Collector / Arterial Minor Arterial Major Arterial / Freeway Expressway Fully Traversable Partially Traversable Non-Traversable Abuts Roadway Within 50 metres Further than 50 metres Main Entrance / Multiple Secondary Entrances Secondary Entrance None None (or Non-Playground Side) Playground Side Both Sides
Weighting Factor (WF)
Score (MPV*WF)
N/A 1 0.75 0.4 0.2 0.2 Rural Land Use 1 0.75 0.5
T=
0.25 0
C=
1 0.5 0.1 1 0.5 0
F=
1 0.6 0 1 0.6 0
E=
S=
Total Score (Sum of T,C,F,L,E and S) Total Score
Area or Zone?
0 - 40
None
41 - 80
Playground Area
81 - 100
Playground Zone
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 9
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
Recommendations
Utilize the TAC School and Playground Areas and Zones: Guidelines for Application and Implementation in considering new School and Playground Zones or Areas on local municipal roads.
OTM Book 5 and OTM Book 6 should be consulted, ensuring proper signage for existing and new School Zones or Areas is implemented on local municipal roads.
Update the criteria and process for establishing a Community Safety Zone on a municipal Road.
4.3
Community Safety Zones
Community Safety Zones inform drivers they are entering an area the community has deemed paramount to the safety of its citizens. These sections of roadway are typically near schools, playgrounds, community centers, senior citizen residences, hospitals, etc. Traffic related offences within these zones carry increased fines, and in many cases are doubled. Implementation of Community Safety Signage and monetary penalty are established through municipal by-law. Community Safety Zone signs (Rc-9) and optional Begins tab signs (Rb-85t) inform drivers entering an area the community has deemed paramount to the safety of its citizens. The signage does not change the rules of the road but increase the mentalities associated with any traffic act violation. The signage is installed to define the legal limits of the zone as prescribed in the zoning by-law and installed at the beginning and end of the zone. Depending on the length of the zone, signage may be installed within the zone as well.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 10
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
4.4
Reduced Speed Zone Areas
World Health Organization (WHO) statistics show a significant improvement in survival rates when speed limits are decreased. For example, there is a reported 1.5 in 10 survival rates for pedestrians being struck at 50 km/h. However, at 30 km/h the survival rate is 9 in 10. In May 2018, the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) was amended to allow for speed limits other than 50 km/h without blockby-block signage in bounded zones. When a road authority through municipal by—law, designates an entire area to have a speed limit other than the default 50 km/h speed limit, standard Maximum Speed signs must be used with the Area tab sign. OTM Book 5, provides detailed application of the signage with respect to sign types and locations. City of Kawartha Lakes, currently enforces a speed by-law for designated areas within towns, villages, settlement areas and hamlets known as "community speed zones" that outlines a speed limit of 50 km/h. However, recently through the City’s Speed Limit Project, the City’s community speed zones have been reduced to 40km/h. During phase one of the project, which focused on rural speed zones, the implementation began in October 2021 in 16 communities and was completed in November 2022 and during phase two, it focused on urban speed zones, and was completed in 2023.It is recommended that the City continue to implement reduced speed zone areas that are designated as community speed zones or in established Residential and Low / Medium Density areas. In addition to the reduced speed zone areas, and in consideration with the previous sections, School Zones should be reduced to 30 km/h with appropriate signage and identified as Community Safety Zones. Recommendations Implementation of 40 km/h neighborhood zones within the City with proper signage is complete. It is recommended to keep the 40 km/h signs in place and consider 40 km/h areas for future development. neighborhoods.
School Zone speed limits within the neighborhood speed areas should be set at 30 km/h and marked as Community Safety Zone.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 11
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
Implement traffic calming measures as necessary to facilitate new speed limits. Additionally, traffic calming measures for 30km/h areas would be needed in majority of school zones, requiring it’s own study.
Assess the merit of implementing an Administrative Monetary Penalty System for adjudicating fines. Initial Implementation should be considered along Arterial and Collector Roads.
4.5
Unposted Speed Limits for Low-Volume Rural Roads:
Determining appropriate speed limits for low-volume rural roads involves considering several factors related to road conditions, traffic volumes, and safety considerations. Here are some considerations regarding unposted speed limits and the transition from gravel to paved roads:
Appropriateness: Unposted speed limits are typically used for roads where conditions allow for safe travel at higher speeds, considering factors such as road width, sightlines, and absence of significant pedestrian or cyclist traffic.
Considerations: Low-volume rural roads with minimal traffic and good visibility may not require posted speed limits if conditions safely allow drivers to determine their own speeds based on road characteristics.
4.6
Posting Speed Limits Based on Traffic Volumes or other Circumstances:
Traffic Volumes: When traffic volumes increase due to residential development, industrial activity, or increased recreational use, it may become necessary to establish posted speed limits to enhance safety and manage traffic flow. As such, when establishing when a limit is warranted, the TAC speed guidelines should be used to determine the speed limit.
Safety Concerns: Based on engineering judgement , consider posting speed limits on roads with sharp curves, steep grades, limited sight distances, or frequent wildlife crossings, even if traffic volumes are low, to mitigate safety risks.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 12
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
4.7
Transition from Gravel to Paved Roads:
Unposted vs. Posted Speed Limits: When a low-volume gravel road is paved, reassessing the need for posted speed limits is essential.
New Conditions: Paved surfaces often lead to increased vehicle speeds due to improved traction and reduced vehicle wear, which can require establishing posted speed limits to maintain safety and accommodate changing road conditions.
Community and Stakeholder Input: Consult with local residents, road users, and stakeholders to determine if speed limits are necessary following the paving of a gravel road, considering factors such as safety concerns and community preferences.
In summary, while unposted speed limits may be appropriate for low-volume rural roads under certain conditions, including good visibility and minimal hazards, changes in road surface or traffic patterns may warrant the establishment of posted speed limits. It's crucial to assess each road segment individually, considering safety implications and community feedback, to determine the most appropriate speed management approach. 4.8
Appropriateness of 30 km/h Zones in Shoreline Communities
It is important to understand that, to avoid creating a situation where traffic calming is necessary for all shoreline communities, it is important to recognize that many shoreline roads primarily serve local traffic, which is expected to drive responsibly. Therefore, implementing a 30 km/h speed limit should be approached with caution; such limits should not be introduced in areas where traffic calming measures would be needed unless warranted and justified through the traffic calming process. This ensures that speed limits are both appropriate and effective, and tailored to the specific conditions of each roadway. Shoreline communities typically feature narrower roadways, mixed-use spaces, and heightened pedestrian and cyclist activity, particularly during peak tourist seasons. As such, the implementation of 30 km/h zones in these communities merits evaluation based on several key considerations: 1. Safety Enhancement: Lowering speed limits to 30 km/h aligns with the goal of enhancing safety for all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Reduced speeds mitigate the risk of accidents and injuries, especially in areas where interactions between vehicles and vulnerable road users are frequent. 2. Community Preferences: Many shoreline communities in Kawartha Lakes value a tranquil and pedestrian-friendly environment. Lower speed limits contribute to a quieter atmosphere, supporting community preferences for a relaxed and enjoyable living and visiting experience along the waterfront.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 13
City of Kawartha Lakes - Speed Limit Policy
3. Traffic Management: Lower speed limits can aid in managing traffic flow, particularly in areas with mixed-use streetscape and varying traffic volumes. By moderating vehicle speeds, 30 km/h zones promote smoother traffic movement and reduce congestion, and enhancing overall traffic volumes. 4. Enforcement and Compliance: Effective enforcement strategies are essential to ensure adherence to speed limits. Local authorities must consider resource allocation for enforcement activities and community education initiatives to foster compliance and raise awareness about the benefits of reduced speeds. 5. Consideration of Travel Impacts: While lower speed limits may marginally increase travel times, the trade-off in enhanced safety and community well-being is key. Educating residents and visitors about the rationale behind speed limit reductions can help manage expectations and mitigate concerns regarding potential impacts on travel times. In conclusion, the appropriateness of implementing 30 km/h zones in shoreline communities within CKL should be guided by thorough assessment of local conditions, community engagement, and a commitment to enhancing safety and quality of life. By carefully considering these factors, policymakers can effectively tailor speed limits to meet the specific needs and characteristics of each shoreline community, fostering a harmonious balance between safety, mobility, and community well-being.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 14
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix L: Policy Documents
L.2 Traffic Calming Policy
Page | 1405
City of Kawartha Lakes
Traffic Calming Policy
Traffic Calming Policy
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................. 4 1.1
Background ...................................................................................................................4
1.2
Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................4
1.3
What is Traffic Calming? ................................................................................................5
1.4
Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................5
1.5
Traffic Calming Advantages and Disadvantages ...............................................................7
1.6
Additional Considerations ...............................................................................................7 1.6.1 Potential Liability ...........................................................................................................7 1.6.2 Accessibility ...................................................................................................................8 1.6.3 Enforcement ..................................................................................................................8 1.6.4 Emergency Services .......................................................................................................8 1.6.5 Maintenance and Operations ..........................................................................................8 1.6.6 Modes of Transportation ................................................................................................9 1.6.7 City’s Land Use and Transportation Master Plans .............................................................9 1.6.8 Provincial Legislation/City’s By-Laws ...............................................................................9
2.0 Traffic Calming Measures.......................................................... 9 2.1
Physical Measures ..........................................................................................................9
2.2
Non-Physical Measures ................................................................................................. 10
2.3
Additional Measures ..................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Community Based Initiatives ........................................................................................ 10 2.3.2 Community Safety Zones.............................................................................................. 11
3.0 Traffic Calming Policy ............................................................. 11 3.1
Consideration for Traffic Calming .................................................................................. 11
3.2
City Administration Involvement ................................................................................... 12
3.3
Community Involvement .............................................................................................. 12
3.4
Future Developments ................................................................................................... 13
3.1
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process........................................................ 13
4.0 Traffic Calming Process .......................................................... 13 4.1
Traffic Calming Request ............................................................................................... 15
4.2
Pre-screening .............................................................................................................. 15
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 2
Traffic Calming Policy 4.2.1 Ineligibility for Traffic Calming based on Pre-Screening .................................................. 16 4.3
Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 16
4.4
Point Assessment System ............................................................................................. 17
4.5
Design Considerations .................................................................................................. 18
4.6
Consultation with Relevant Agencies ............................................................................. 18
4.7
Community Consultation .............................................................................................. 18
4.8
Community Support Survey .......................................................................................... 19
4.9
Finalize Preferred Traffic Plan ....................................................................................... 19
4.10
Council Notification ...................................................................................................... 20
4.11
Implementation ........................................................................................................... 20
4.12
Evaluation and Monitoring ............................................................................................ 20
4.13
Removal of Traffic Calming Measures ............................................................................ 20
Appendix A - Traffic Calming Measures Appendix B - Traffic Calming Request Form Appendix C - Traffic Calming Scoring Matrix Appendix D - Traffic Calming Measures Toolkit
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 3
Traffic Calming Policy
1.0 Introduction The City of Kawartha Lake’s envisions to build a safe and efficient roadway system for all users and to achieve that a traffic calming policy is needed. When applied appropriately, traffic calming measures can positively impact travel speeds, traffic volumes and overall road safety. They are also needed to restore the roadway to its intended function and ensure rules of the road are followed. Traffic calming measures are specifically intended to enhance the pedestrian and cyclist environment to make area residents feel safe when walking or cycling through local neighbourhoods and can aide in enhancing a community’s identity. 1.1
Background
Speed management is a significant challenge for small, urban communities where the main road through the community serves a dual role. Outside the community, the road provides high-speed travel over long distances; within the built-up area, however, the same road accommodates local access, pedestrians of all ages, on-street parking, bicycles, and many other features unique to the character of a community. This convergence of road purposes presents both an enforcement challenge for the community and a potential safety concern for the public. The City of Kawartha Lake’s Engineering and Public Works Department receives numerous concerns each year regarding speeding, poor sight lines, excessive volumes, and overall neighbourhood safety. In an effort to address these concerns, the City has decided to implement a comprehensive and consistent policy approach to formally address traffic related concerns from the public. This policy outlines the prerequisites, process, and criteria to consider when traffic calming concerns are voiced by residents within the City. 1.2
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this policy is to provide a systemic procedure for the initiation, investigation, and implementation of traffic calming measures for existing and future roadways in the City of Kawartha Lake’s. The ideal resolution for traffic calming under this policy is to reduce high traffic speeds within residential neighbourhoods and improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and area residents. It is intended to supplement the TAC’s Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming and Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads with “Kawartha Lake -specific” considerations. It should be emphasized that this document is a policy guideline and should be used in conjunction with other technical/policy guidance combined with sound engineering judgement. These Guidelines are not (and should not be interpreted as) comprehensive street design guidelines. The details of any traffic calming design must comply with all relevant City of Kawartha Lake’ design and construction standards and specifications. | Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 4
Traffic Calming Policy The goal of this policy document is to provide a clear and concise procedural framework from which the City Administration and the public may initiate, investigate, and implement traffic calming measures on roads within the City’s jurisdiction. This document also provides design guidance via typical applications/configurations and refers to existing standards where applicable. This policy also ensures that there is a formal process defined by which all traffic calming requests can be evaluated against the same screening criteria. 1.3
What is Traffic Calming?
Traffic calming is defined as the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behaviour and improve conditions for nonmotorized street users1. Traffic calming can be an effective tool to combat issues related to vehicle speed, unsafe behaviours of drivers, and overall neighbourhood safety. It uses geometric design and other physical measures to improve the safety for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Traffic calming is designed to encourage safe, responsible driving, improve the quality of life of residents/non-motorized street users on calmed streets, and reduce the overall motor vehicle volumes. Overall, it aims to improve the active transportation conditions of a community by implementing proven methods to reduce overall traffic speeds and volumes. Engineering, education, and enforcement are the three main approaches used to change drivers’ behaviour and improve road safety and the liveability of neighbourhoods. 1.4
Goals and Objectives
The fundamental goal of all traffic calming strategies is to make streets slower in support of their intended purpose, thereby preserving and enhancing the quality of individual communities. To address the undesirable traffic conditions such as poor sight lines, speeding and excessive volumes on local and collector roads, the main objectives of traffic calming and this policy document are to: 1. Increase the Safety of Neighbourhoods Excessive traffic volume and speeding in residential roads is the basis for many of the concerns received from residents. Therefore, using physical measures can alter driver behaviour through reducing the risk of collisions and injuries and can improve the safety of neighbourhood streets and urban communities. As a result, the reduction in volume and speed will foster a safe environment for all residents including, cyclists, children, disabled persons, and seniors.
1
Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2018, Page 1
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 5
Traffic Calming Policy 2. Improve the Livability of Neighbourhoods Traffic calming is intended to uphold and restore the livability and sense of community within neighbourhoods by minimizing the volume and speed of through traffic. This results in minimizing negative impacts such as, excessive noise, air pollution, visual intrusion, and potential safety hazards. In addition, when attractively designed, traffic calming can enhance the aesthetics of a neighbourhood and improve streetscapes. Residents also report feeling safer when traffic calming efforts are put in place to minimize the speed and volume of through traffic. 3. Restore Streets to their Intended Function Local roadways are intended to accommodate low to moderate volumes of traffic travelling at low speeds in and out of neighbourhoods or from points of origin to the collector road system. Local roadways provide direct vehicle access to residences that typically front onto these roads, therefore, through traffic should be discouraged from using local roadways. The City’s collector roads are intended to provide access to properties as well as linkages between local roadways and other collector and arterial roadways at lower operating speeds. 4. Encourage Active Transportation through Infrastructure Safety Modifications Traffic calming measures incorporate the preferences and requirements of the people using the area along the streets or at intersections which results in safe and attractive streets and promotes pedestrian and cycle use. 5. Maintain Access Routes and Minimize Impact to Emergency Services, Maintenance Services, and Public Transit The potential impacts to these services were considered in the development of this policy and will continue to be considered throughout the implementation of the traffic calming measures. The needs of these services will be balanced against the need to slow and/or reduce traffic. Furthermore, this policy outlines the process through which all potentially impacted services will have the opportunity to comment on any proposed plans before implementation. 6. Promote Public Participation and Community Support Traffic calming measures directly impact neighbourhoods and their residents. Therefore, resident communication and feedback is of utmost importance as it leads to finding the appropriate solution to specific local traffic issues. Community involvement provides staff with the opportunity to explain to residents the benefits of traffic calming measures while deterring them from less effective counter measures.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 6
Traffic Calming Policy 1.5
Traffic Calming Advantages and Disadvantages
The main advantages and disadvantages of traffic calming measures are outlined below:
Advantages •
Reduce motor vehicle speeds
•
Reduce vehicle traffic volume
•
Discourage through vehicle traffic
•
Improve overall road safety
•
Disadvantages •
Increase emergency vehicle response time
•
Reduce ease of vehicle access to/from neighbourhoods
•
Results in expensive solutions (time and resources)
Improve neighbourhood livability and quality of life for residents
•
Direct vehicle traffic onto neighbourhood roads
•
Reduce conflicts between roadway users
•
•
Increase compliance with regulatory signs
Increase maintenance time and costs (e.g. snow clearing, garbage pickup)
•
Result in implementation of some visually unattractive measures
1.6
Additional Considerations
The implementation of permanent engineered traffic calming measures can be costly and difficult to modify. Therefore, several topics must be discussed prior to implementing a traffic calming measure, particularly if existing policies or standards may preclude or contradict the proposed initiatives. It is also important to note that when effectiveness of a proposed solution is not known, most cities begin with a pilot project before committing to permanent infrastructure. Pilot projects or programs should be prioritized in the planning process to gather valuable data and community feedback. This approach ensures that any permanent solutions are effective and aligned with the needs of residents. 1.6.1
Potential Liability
Municipal decision-makers are often concerned by potential liabilities that may result from the introduction of traffic calming measures on public roadways under their jurisdiction. Although these concerns continue to be voiced, experience has proven that the most effective means of mitigating the risk of litigation is to establish and follow a set
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 7
Traffic Calming Policy procedure/policy document. Policy documents should include an approval guide, defined process, design guideline and standards, a uniform approach to signing and marking roadway environments, and a prudent maintenance program that addresses the additional attention required when operating in traffic-calmed areas. Although the applied procedures and/or policy document may not eliminate potential liability exposure risks, it is believed that the benefits associated with traffic calming far outweigh the risks involved. It should also be noted that the road authority may be held liable due to their inaction, particularly if procedures, policies, and/or reports conclude that traffic calming measures are warranted within the context of a community. 1.6.2
Accessibility
The design of traffic calming measures needs to consider the accessibility of road users of all ages and abilities, and not impede or negatively impact their independence or safety. Features impacting pedestrians specifically should provide a barrier-free path and designed to address a range of capabilities. 1.6.3
Enforcement
Enforcing speed limits and other traffic regulations constantly can be challenging and costly solely with police patrol. However, some traffic calming measures can reduce the need for police enforcement. Measures that calm traffic through vertical deflection (e.g. speed hump, raised crosswalk) and horizontal deflection (e.g. curb extension, raised median island) are considered self enforcing and do not require police presence to be effective. 1.6.4
Emergency Services
When traffic calming has the potential to slow down motor vehicle traffic, it can also affect emergency service response times. Traffic calming designs have progressed in mitigating impacts to emergency service vehicles; however, prior to implementation, the proposed traffic calming measures should be evaluated with respect to the City’s emergency response times and equipment to ensure that the recommended changes are compatible with efficiencies required by emergency services. 1.6.5
Maintenance and Operations
Consultation with operations and maintenance staff is recommended to ensure that traffic calming measures do not conflict with general road maintenance operations. Traffic calming measures mainly impact maintenance needs and costs, which must be considered in addition to the upfront capital costs. Snow clearing, street sweeping, drainage, and infrastructure damage are common concerns expressed by operations and maintenance workers.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 8
Traffic Calming Policy 1.6.6
Modes of Transportation
As traffic calming is intended to enhance the safety of all right-of-way users, active transportation must be considered in the application of the traffic calming measures. For example, traffic calming measures support active transportation by reducing vehicle speeds and volumes, creating safer and more inviting streets for all users. By implementing traffic calming strategies, we enhance the environment for both pedestrians and cyclists. 1.6.7
City’s Land Use and Transportation Master Plans
Traffic calming policies and the implementation of traffic calming measures should be incorporated into other short-term and long-term plans to ensure uniformity across the entire City as they include all modes of travel and policies or guidance regarding traffic calming. 1.6.8
Legislation and Reduction in Serious Injuries and Fatalities
The implementation of traffic calming in a community may be impacted by existing legislation and or by-laws. While the City has no control over provincial legislation, slight modifications to by-laws may be required to ensure that the traffic calming policy does not conflict with current and relevant by-laws. Reducing loss of life through traffic calming is very important. Traffic calming measures are designed to slow down vehicle speeds and reduce traffic volumes, leading to safer road environments. By implementing these strategies, communities often see a significant decrease in serious injuries and fatalities. Slower speeds give drivers more time to react, enhance visibility for pedestrians and cyclists, and create a more inviting atmosphere for all road users, ultimately improving overall safety.
2.0 Traffic Calming Measures There are two main categories of traffic calming measures which are known as physical and non-physical. These are provided in the subsequent sections. 2.1
Physical Measures
Physical traffic calming measures are classified either as speed control or volume control measures. Physical measures are also known as engineering measures and involve physically altering the road layout or appearance to reduce traffic speeds actively or passively. These include: •
Raised Crosswalks
| Transportation Master Plan Update
•
Roundabouts
Page | 9
Traffic Calming Policy •
Raised Intersections
•
Curb Extensions
•
Speed Cushions
•
On-Street Parking Spaces
•
Speed Humps
•
Raised Median Islands
•
Speed Tables
•
Road Diets
•
Traffic Circles
•
Textured Crosswalks
For specifics on each physical traffic calming measure and its respective advantages and disadvantages, please refer to Appendix A. 2.2
Non-Physical Measures
Most non-physical traffic calming methods are intended to visually reduce the effective lane width for a vehicle operator, consecutively reducing the comfortable operating speed. They are usually implemented through enforcement, signage, and pavement markings and include: •
Pavement Marking Legends
•
Speed Display Devices
•
Speed Enforcements
•
Targeted Education Programs
2.3
Additional Measures
Apart from the main traffic calming measures listed above, there are some additional traffic calming initiatives that can be considered to ensure safe communities. 2.3.1
Community Based Initiatives
Community based traffic calming initiatives are tools and programs that residents can implement with support from the City. This approach reflects the desire by some residents, community groups and other stakeholders to address concerns in areas where City-led interventions are not yet planned or committed. Some examples include: •
Road Safety Lawn Sign Program: Residents can encourage safe driving on their street by picking up a “Slow Down” lawn sign. These can provide visual cue reminding drivers to check their speed and slow down while driving in a residential neighbourhood and be on the lookout for other road users.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 10
Traffic Calming Policy •
Community Pace Car Program: Drivers in the City can get a rear window decal or trunk magnet by displaying the Community Pace Car logo to encourage safer driving throughout the City. This can show the commitment of drivers to drive at or below the speed limit, follow the rules of the road, and be courteous and cautious around pedestrians and cyclists.
•
Road Watch Program: This initiative gives residents and visitors the opportunity to report dangerous and aggressive drivers to the police. It is usually operated by the City’s police department and Citizen Report Forms can be picked up from the Stations or obtained online.
2.3.2
Community Safety Zones
Community Safety Zones (CSZ) are a distinct and regulatory tool that are intended to remind motorists that they are driving in an area with higher volumes of pedestrians and vulnerable road users. Schools, daycares, playgrounds, parks, and hospitals are some of the where safety is a special concern. They help change driver behavior including reducing speed and distracted driving. The rules of the road don't change within these zones, but the penalties for violations are increased. Under the Highway Traffic Act, many set fines are doubled such as speeding and traffic signal-related offences.
3.0 Traffic Calming Policy 3.1
Consideration for Traffic Calming
Traffic calming measures should be considered under the following circumstances: a) When there is a demonstrated concern regarding safety, speed (e.g. 85th % > 10 kph over posted speed limit) or short-cutting traffic and all acceptable alternative measures have been addressed. b) When education and enforcement efforts have failed to produce the desired results. c) When consideration has been given as to whether an area-wide plan versus a streetspecific plan is more suitable: an area wide plan should be considered if a streetspecific plan would likely result in displacement of traffic onto adjacent streets. d) When applications for new plans of subdivision are being reviewed. Consider traffic calming during site plan or other infill projects as well. e) Can be predominantly restricted to one-way or two-lane roads. f) Will support non-motorized, alternative modes of transportation and be designed to encourage pedestrian and cycling traffic.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 11
Traffic Calming Policy g) Not impede emergency and transit services access unless alternate measures are agreed upon. h) Maintain reasonable automobile access to City roads. i) Balances the parking needs of residents with the equally important functions of traffic, emergency vehicle access, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movement and considers introducing on-street parking on a project-by-project basis in a residential area which is also a traffic calming strategy. j) Only be installed after staff has investigated existing traffic conditions and the necessary approvals have been received, or after piloting projects/programs. k) Be monitored; follow-up studies will be conducted to assess effectiveness and the results will be communicated to the community and council. 3.2
City Administration Involvement
Broader administration (public works, emergency services, etc.) should be consulted in each application. However, following internal circulation of the proposal and consideration of the resulting commentary, any final decisions should be made at the discretion of Engineering Services. Monitoring and follow-up studies should be completed to evaluate effectiveness of the prescribed treatment. Ideally, a before / after study should be undertaken, with the results provided to the affected community and to Council. 3.3
Community Involvement
To achieve the goal of restoring neighbourhoods to their intended function and improving overall livability, community involvement and support is of utmost importance. Throughout the process, residents are encouraged to participate in the development of the traffic calming plan suitable to the neighbourhood and the concerns within it. Communication with residents should be made at various stages throughout the process as the traffic calming plan is developed and implemented. Traffic calming measures should be developed with an understanding of current and historical traffic patterns within the area under investigation. To ensure the success of a traffic calming plan, the community must support and be committed to the solution proposed. Therefore, to gain this commitment the residents should be involved and informed of the study location being considered for traffic calming measures. Community involvement is beneficial as it generates support for a traffic calming program and assists in the implementation of a plan without significant opposition upon completion. It also enhances the credibility of the program especially when it is presented to Council for approval.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 12
Traffic Calming Policy The success of any traffic calming endeavor is typically determined by neighbourhood support, enforcement, education of motorists, bicyclists and enforcement, and education of all road users, appropriate engineering applications, and economics. To obtain a working partnership with the community, meetings will be scheduled, and surveys delivered to residents affected by the implementation of traffic calming measures. This will provide the community with an opportunity to offer input into the development of the plan, as well as publicize and increase awareness of the study. Therefore, to ensure the success of the project, a cooperative partnership between the City and affected residents is essential. 3.4
Future Developments
A traffic calming review should be conducted during the draft plan design stage for new area developments. It should be discussed during pre-consultation and included as part of the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) submission, at the road authority’s discretion. Any recommended traffic calming measures should then be added to the respective development’s draft plan conditions after a review of the traffic calming plan. It is important to incorporate speed control as a design objective in road design guidelines for new developments. Wide and straight roadways tend to encourage speeding. While the total travel modes and volumes may not be fully determined, forecasted traffic volumes will be available. The design within the right-of-way such as landscaping, active transportation facilities, accessibility treatments, and horizontal and vertical deflections are elements that can be considered and included. The goals are to use these designs as passive speed control devices and to set the expectation from the beginning. Speed control measures should be described as part of the development application. Monitoring and evaluation of traffic is a critical next step once the location is fully developed and occupied. Prior to the City assuming responsibility for a road, a traffic review should be completed to evaluate whether active traffic calming is needed. 3.1
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process
Traffic calming is exempt from the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and is not an undertaking subject to the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (2023). However, public consultation elements from the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) have been incorporated in this policy as a best practice where appropriate.
4.0 Traffic Calming Process The purpose of establishing a formal process is to provide consistency and fairness in determining whether traffic calming is warranted and implemented. To implement traffic calming methods, the process shown in | Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 13
Traffic Calming Policy Figure 1 should be applied: Figure 1 – Traffic Calming Process
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 14
Traffic Calming Policy
4.1
Traffic Calming Request
To initiate the traffic calming process, residents with traffic related concerns are instructed to submit a Traffic Calming Request Form to the City by mail or drop it off at the City’s office address for the City to investigate traffic calming within their neighbourhood. A standard submission form to start the traffic calming process is provided in Appendix B. 4.2
Pre-screening
Following a successful request for traffic calming consideration, City staff will conduct a speed study to determine if the requested roadway meets the criteria provided in the following “Initial Screening Criteria” template, provided in Table 1. Table 1 – Pre- screening Form Initial Screening Criteria
Yes
No
Roadway Is it a Local or Collector Roadway maintained by the City of Kawartha Lakes? Posted Speed Urban: Is the posted speed 50 km/h or lower? Rural: Is the posted speed 60 km/h or lower? Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Does the location have a minimum AADT volume of 500 vehicles? Street Length Does the road have a minimum uncontrolled (i.e. no stop signs or traffic signals) length of 120 metres? Previous Evaluation Has the road been evaluated within the last 24 months for traffic calming? Zoning Is the zoning primarily residential? If the initial screening indicates a “Yes” response to the above questions, the City will relay the results to residents and whether their location meets the initial screening criteria. Residents will then receive information about the traffic calming process. At the discretion of the road authority, roadways that do not meet the above-noted criteria may still be eligible for other mitigating measures and / or police enforcement initiatives. For road sections with restrictive horizontal and / or vertical alignment (restricted sight lines), traffic calming measures should be considered in conjunction with reduced speed limits and adequate warning signs.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 15
Traffic Calming Policy
4.2.1
Ineligibility for Traffic Calming based on Pre-Screening
For locations that do not meet the above-noted criteria, staff will consider front-line mitigating measures to address the neighbourhood traffic concerns. These methods could include tools such as the use of driver feedback boards, targeted police enforcement, sign installation and pavement marking modifications. These measures may require monitoring and evaluation to assess their effectiveness. 4.3
Data Collection
If the requested location meets the initial screening criteria, then analysis will commence. The collection of additional data as deemed necessary by City Staff will serve to provide a better understanding of the current traffic conditions and to prioritize locations for the investigation of traffic calming. Staff will conduct the necessary traffic studies to quantify and qualify the submitted traffic concerns. The data collected may include traffic volumes and composition (cars and trucks), vehicle speeds, collisions, sight lines related to deficient horizontal and/or vertical alignment and stopping distance, pedestrian activity, and origin/destination study if the request related to short-cutting traffic, and historical site-specific information. For vehicle speeds, it is not prudent to consider the highest speed at which motorists drive. Rather the 85th percentile speed is considered which is the speed at which 85% of the total traffic volume on a road is travelling at or below. Ideally, the 85th percentile speed should be ±10 km/h of the posted speed limit. With respect to sight distances and the need for traffic calming to reduce travel speeds upon approach to intersections, the existing sight distances at intersections must be less than the distances outlined in Table 2 for traffic calming to be warranted. As a factor of speed, for lower speed roads, the design speed is typically taken as 10 km/h over the posted speed, whereas for higher speed roads, design speed is 20 km/h greater. Table 2 – Stopping Sight Distance Considerations Design Speed
Minimum Sight Distance
40 km/h
45 m
50 km/h
65 m
60 km/h
85 m
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 16
Traffic Calming Policy Design Speed
Minimum Sight Distance
70 km/h
110 m
80 km/h
130 m
Once collected and summarized, the data will be used in the overall assessment to determine the need for traffic calming and assist in setting priority for locations of consideration. 4.4
Point Assessment System
The point assessment system is a screening process focused on various attributes of a roadway in order to quantify its potential need for traffic calming. By means of assigning weighted points based on the severity of certain road attributes (e.g. 85 th percentile speed), this process will bring forth roadways requiring consideration while quantifying the current conditions. The point system can be found in Appendix C. The point system will also be used to prioritize locations for consideration. Those location with an extremely high point assessment will be given priority based on the quantitative nature of the point system. Depending on funding availability, the locations will be selected based on the point system which those locations with the highest points addressed first. If funding does not permit all locations to be constructed in one year, roadways will be carried forward to the next year when they will be re-prioritized to include new locations. However, City staff will continue to address the concerns of the residents through front-line mitigation measures. The minimum threshold required to proceed with the investigation of traffic calming measures differs based on the classification of road in keeping with the objective of restoring roads to their intended function. Local and Collector roads are designed and expected to convey varying levels of traffic volume. This, in turn, has a bearing on the minimum point value required to proceed, as traffic volume is a major consideration. Based on this, the following are minimum point values for each road type: 1. Local road – 35 points 2. Collector road – 52 points Should a location fail to meet this requirement, residents will be notified in writing that requests not attaining these minimum scores will only be considered for non-physical traffic calming measures such as education and enforcement.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 17
Traffic Calming Policy 4.5
Design Considerations
The data collected in combination with site visits, historical information, future maintenance and construction plans, as well as resident feedback will be taken into consideration to determine the potential traffic calming measures. The appropriate traffic calming measures will be determined based on the list of traffic calming measures outlined in this policy. The traffic calming design should include one or more different types of traffic calming techniques. The proposed traffic calming measures will be in accordance with the design guidelines outlined in the TAC Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming and the judgment and experience of City Staff. While determining the potential permanent measure for traffic calming, the City can implement a temporary solution until removed (such as seasonal speed humps, radar feedback signs, speed posted bollards) and monitor it for one season prior to a final installation of the permanent measure. In doing so, the City will be able to gather community feedback and monitor the results to see if the measure is effective before implementing a more permanent solution. The City can also consider introducing a pilot project to collect data on traffic patterns, safety improvements, and community concerns. This approach would ensure that any final decision is well-informed and responsive to the needs of residents. 4.6
Consultation with Relevant Agencies
The preferred design will be presented to the relevant agencies (e.g.: emergency services, road maintenance department, transit services, etc.). Comments from the potentially affected services will be solicited and feedback with respect to possible impacts will be encouraged. City Staff will work with agencies to modify the design, as necessary. While it is preferable to modify the traffic calming design, if modifications are not able to remedy agency concerns, the traffic calming process will be discontinued for the road under consideration and residents will be notified. 4.7
Community Consultation
After approval from emergency and maintenance services, the public will be notified of the meeting being held to present the purpose, objectives, and implementation process corresponding to the recommended traffic calming measure. Notification will be published on the City of Kawartha Lake’s social media pages and official website. Staff may determine alternative notification methods at their discretion. The purpose of this notice is to provide notification to the public regarding the meeting date, time, and location of the community consultation. It will also present an opportunity to solicit comments on the alternative traffic calming measures.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 18
Traffic Calming Policy City staff will then hold a public information meeting to present and explain the rationale behind the specific preferred traffic calming design. The public meeting will provide residents with the opportunity to become involved in the process, learn more about the proposed traffic calming treatment and to provide feedback. It will enable the City to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and decisions as well as work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and addressed. 4.8
Community Support Survey
The feedback from the agencies and public will provide the preferred design. This design shall be distributed to the residents owning property on the roadway or flanking the roadway affected by the traffic calming methods to allow an opportunity to oppose the implementation of the methods. The surveys at a minimum will contain: •
A brief description of traffic calming, including its advantages and disadvantages;
•
The results of the traffic studies undertaken by staff;
•
A survey question asking if residents are in favour, opposed or neutral to the implementation of traffic calming measures in the identified location(s);
•
The preferred traffic calming design;
•
A request for comments and feedback; and
•
An indication that this is the final opportunity to modify and improve the preferred design to address any outstanding concerns and to incorporate resident input.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of the surveys returned to the City must be in support of the traffic calming methods. If less than majority support the traffic calming design, a written notice will be distributed to those members of the public directly affected informing them that the project will not proceed due to lack of public support. Written notice will also be delivered to those affected if the project is to proceed. 4.9
Finalize Preferred Traffic Plan
Using technical data, community feedback, and in keeping with the goals, objectives and principles set out in this guide staff will finalize the preferred traffic calming design to be put forward as the preferred traffic calming measure. In finalizing the preferred traffic calming measure, general consideration will be given to the various aspects of road design such as utility placement, landscaping, sign requirement and drainage.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 19
Traffic Calming Policy 4.10 Council Notification A report recommending the implementation of the preferred traffic calming measure will be submitted to City Council if it is determined by City Staff that the traffic calming measure may be contentious. The recommendation will be accompanied by an amending By-law for the inclusion of traffic calming measures, as required. 4.11 Implementation Following approval from council, notification to the residents and funding approval, traffic calming methods can be implemented. If it is feasible, City staff may decide to phase the traffic calming methods, to provide time to examine the impact of the methods and their effectiveness, prior to installing permanent methods. 4.12 Evaluation and Monitoring City staff will monitor the implemented traffic calming methods annually. The monitoring will produce data that determines the effectiveness of the traffic calming methods and their impact on the traffic network. The data collected will provide information for future use of similar traffic calming measures. 4.13 Removal of Traffic Calming Measures Traffic calming devices may be removed, at the request of residents provided that at least the same level of support exists to remove as was measured for installation. Traffic calming measures must be installed for at least a one (1) year trial before starting the process to remove them. If traffic calming devices are removed, the subject street must wait at least two (2) years before requesting a new traffic calming measure at which point the approval process will start over. If a request to remove a single traffic calming device, within an overall traffic calming measure, is received, all traffic calming devices will be considered for removal. Depending on circumstances, it could be possible to remove a single device constructed as part of an overall plan, however, in most cases all devices work together to be effective and to ensure that traffic is not diverted where it should not be. The City reserves the right to remove traffic calming measures if it determines that they are ineffective or unsafe or if they have created a negative impact that cannot be corrected. The City will mail out a notification and advertise on the City’s website and social media pages informing of its decision to remove traffic calming measures.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 20
Traffic Calming Policy
Appendix A - Traffic Calming Measures
Traffic Calming Policy Table 3 - A1.1 Permanent Measures
Permanent Measures Type
Curb Radius Reduction
Description The reconstruction of an intersection corner to accommodate a smaller (tighter) radius. The objective of curb radius reductions is to reduce speeds of right-turning vehicles, reduce crossing distances for pedestrians, and to improve visibility of pedestrians.
Advantages •
• • • •
Curb Extensions
Also known as neckdown, choker, curb bulb, bulb-out is a horizontal intrusion of the curb visually and physically narrowing the roadway width. The curb may be on one or both sides of the roadway. The objective is to reduce vehicle speeds, reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and prevent parking too close to an intersection.
• • • •
Raised Crosswalk
A marked pedestrian crosswalk constructed in a higher elevation than the adjacent roadway. The objective of a raised crosswalk is to enhance awareness of pedestrian crossings, reduce vehicle speeds, improve pedestrian visibility, and reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflict.
•
Note: Raised crosswalks implementation may include the implementation of appropriate level of PXO per OTM Book 18. Raised crosswalks will only be implemented at mid-block, unprotected pedestrian crossing locations and should be signed appropriately.
•
• •
•
Vehicle speeds are reduced for right turning traffic Improve pedestrian visibility Traffic noise may be reduced Pedestrian crossing distance is reduced Police enforcement is not required Vehicle speeds are reduced Improves pedestrian visibility Pedestrian crossing distance is reduced Police enforcement is not required Vehicle speeds are reduced Improves pedestrian visibility Pedestrian crossing area is better defined Traffic noise may be reduced Police enforcement is not required
Disadvantages • •
•
• • • •
• •
•
Emergency response may be delayed Active transportation/transit operations may experience delay Maintenance and roadway operations may be affected
Emergency response times may be delayed Potential loss of on-street parking May interrupt bike lanes Maintenance and roadway operations times may be increased Emergency response is slightly delayed Active transportation/transit operations may experience delay Maintenance and roadway operations may be affected
Picture1
Traffic Calming Policy
Permanent Measures Type
Raised Intersection
Description An intersection that may include crosswalks and is constructed at a higher elevation than the adjacent roadway. The objective is to enhance awareness of pedestrian crossings, reduce vehicle speeds, improve pedestrian visibility, and reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflict.
Advantages • • • • •
Chicanes
A series of curb extensions on alternating side of the roadway, which narrow the roadway to force drivers to steer from one side of the roadway to the other to travel through the chicane. The objective is to discourage shortcutting and through traffic and reduce vehicle speeds.
• • • • • •
A circular island located at the centre of an intersection, which requires vehicles to circulate through the intersection in a counter-clockwise direction. The objective is to reduce vehicle speeds and minimize the speed/impact of intersection conflicts. Traffic Circles / Roundabouts
• • • • •
Vehicle speeds are reduced Improves pedestrian visibility Pedestrian crossing area is better defined Traffic noise may be reduced Police enforcement is not required Vehicle speeds are reduced Traffic volumes a Traffic noise may be reduced Increase motorist awareness Discourage shortcutting Police enforcement is not required Vehicle speeds are reduced Traffic volumes may be reduced Collision rates are reduced Traffic noise may be reduced Police enforcement is not required
Disadvantages • •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
Emergency response is slightly delayed Active transportation/transit operations may experience delay Maintenance and roadway operations may be affected May impact drainage patterns
Emergency response is delayed Active transportation/transit operations may experience delay Maintenance and roadway operations may be affected Loss of on-street parking
Emergency response is may be delayed Active transportation/transit operations may experience delay Maintenance and roadway operations may be affected Restricted access for trucks and longer school buses
Picture1
Traffic Calming Policy
Permanent Measures Type
On-Street Parking
Description Reduces the roadway width available for vehicle movement, however, provides surplus parking opportunities along a street segment. The objective is to reduce traffic speeds by narrowing the effective roadway space and to discourage potential short-cutting.
Advantages • •
• • •
Raised Median Island
An elevated median constructed at the centreline of a two-way roadway, reducing the overall width of the adjacent travel lanes. The objective of raised medians is to reduce traffic speeds by narrowing the effective roadway space and reduce the number of potential conflict areas.
• • •
A reconfiguration of the roadway whereby the number of travel lanes and/or effective width of the road is reduced. The objective us to reduce speeds by limiting vehicular servicing capacity and reallocating the reclaimed space for other uses (i.e. wider sidewalks, turning lanes, bus lanes, refuge islands, bike lanes, parking, etc.) Road Diet
•
• • • •
Vehicle speeds are reduced Provides buffer between traffic and pedestrians on sidewalks Traffic volumes may be reduced Police enforcement is not required Deters cut-through traffic Vehicle speeds are reduced Traffic volumes are reduced Provides refuge for pedestrians Police enforcement is not required
Vehicle speeds are reduced Traffic volumes are reduced Provides refuge for pedestrians Police enforcement is not required
Disadvantages • •
• •
• • • •
• • • •
Emergency response times may be delayed Maintenance and roadway operations times may be increased Driveway visibilities may be reduced Increases risk of rear-end and sideswipe collisions Emergency response time may be delayed May reduce on-street parking May restrict driveway access Additional maintenance required if landscaped
Emergency response time may be delayed May reduce on-street parking May restrict driveway access Additional maintenance required if landscaped
Picture1
Traffic Calming Policy
Permanent Measures Type
Textured Crosswalk
Description Comprised of different colour and/or texture than the roadway to highlight the pedestrian crossing area. The objective of textured crosswalks is to reduce potential pedestrianvehicle conflicts by visually enhancing the controlled crossing areas.
National Association of City Transportation Officials
1
Advantages • • •
Vehicle speeds are reduced Improves pedestrian safety Police enforcement is not required
Disadvantages • •
Increased maintenance Traction or stability problems for seniors, disabled individuals, wheelchairs, etc.
Picture1
Traffic Calming Policy Table 4 - A1.2 Temporary Measures
Temporary Measures Type
Flexible Bollards
Seasonal Speed Hump/Table
Description
Advantages
Flexible plastic posts spaced evenly along a roadway. Without physically constraining the roadway environment, flexible bollards alert drivers of a separation requirement. The objective is to narrow the perceived roadway width and alter driver behavior.
• •
A rubber unit that is placed across an entire roadway width and causes the vertical upward movement if a traversing vehicle. The objective is to cause discomfort for drivers travelling at higher speeds and results in reduced vehicle speeds.
• • • •
•
Vehicle speeds are reduced Requires little to no maintenance Police enforcement is not required
Vehicle speeds are reduced Easy to construct Deters cut-through traffic Police enforcement is not required
Disadvantages
•
Maintenance and roadway operations time may be increased
• •
•
•
Emergency response is delayed Active transportation/transit operations may experience delay Maintenance and roadway operations may be affected Added wear-and-tear on vehicles over time
Picture2
Traffic Calming Policy
Permanent Measures Type
Description • •
Pavement Markings
Painted lines on a roadway, which aide in perceptively narrowing the travel lanes. These markings can be painted in various styles/configurations. The objective is to influence drivers to reduce speeds by creating optical effects that affect driver behaviour.
• •
Speed Display Device
An interactive sign that displays vehicle speeds as oncoming vehicles approach. Vehicle speeds are captured and reported using radar, and the device can flash when vehicles exceed a predetermined speed. The objective is to alert drivers to their errant or unsafe travel speeds.
• •
SpeedPosted Bollards
Vertical posts installed at the edge of traffic lanes with the speed limit displayed. Without physically constraining the roadway environment, these bollards alert drivers of a separation requirement. The objective is to narrow the road, guide traffic, and encourage drivers to slow down so they can pass through safely.
Advantages
•
•
•
Vehicle speeds are reduced No impact to emergency vehicles Can be implemented quickly
Vehicle speeds are reduced Reduction in speed related collisions Police enforcement is not required
Vehicle speeds are reduced Reduction in speed related collisions Police enforcement is not required
Federal Highway Administration Transportation Association of Canada – Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming City of Sarnia National Association of City Transportation Officials 2
Disadvantages • •
• •
•
Regular maintenance will be required May be less effective in winter months due to snow
Requires regular maintenance Driver behaviour may be unchanged if no further enforcement is observed
Maintenance and roadway operations time may be increased.
Picture3
Traffic Calming Policy
Appendix B - Traffic Calming Request Form
Traffic Calming Policy
Traffic Calming Measure Request Form Application Date: Name: Address: Contact Phone #: Email: Requesting Traffic Calming Measure:
Implementation
Description of Location:
Provide sketch on back
Office Use Only STAFF REVIEWING: DATE: APPROVED/BYLAW: Mail or Drop off this form to: 26 Francis Street Lindsay, Ontario K9V 5R8 Tel: 705-324-9411
Removal
Traffic Calming Policy * Please provide a sketch of issues or concerns including street names and traffic control (stop signs or traffic signals if applicable)
Sketch
Traffic Calming Policy
Appendix C - Traffic Calming Scoring Matrix
Traffic Calming Policy
Traffic Calming Scoring Matrix Road Section:
Road Class:
Prepared By:
Date:
Traffic Data Features
Range
Criteria
1. Speed
0 to 35
5 points for every 2km/h that the 85th percentile speed is greater than 10km/h over the posted speed limit
2. High Speed
0 to 5
5 points if minimum of 5% of daily traffic exceeds posted speed by 15-20 km/h
3. Volume
0 to 20
Local Roadways: 1 point for every 100 AADT Collector Roadways: 1 points for every 200 AADT
4. Presence of Schools
0 to 15
7.5 points for each school located along the roadway 5 points for designated school walking routes that are along the roadway
5. Other Pedestrian Generators
0 - 25
5 points for each community generator (i.e. park, school, recreation centre, senior’s centre, community centre, place of worship) with a direct link to the roadway (frontage, trail, sidewalk, or other access point) 10 points for a singed bicycle route
6. Short-Cutting Traffic
0 to 15
5 points if there is a presence of 25% or more short-cutting traffic, additional 5 points for every 10% increments above 25%
7. Collision
1 to 10
1 point for every collision/year over a three-year period
Features
Range
Criteria
1. Sidewalks
0 to 10
10 points for no sidewalk with evidence of pedestrian activity; 5 points if sidewalk on only one side
2. Sight Lines
0 to 10
0 points for excellent sight lines 5 points for impaired sight lines 10 points for very poor sight lines
Score
Road Characteristics
Overall Characteristics Does the location meet the minimum requirements? Total Score: Where does this location rank on the Priority List? Minimum 35 points needed for Local Roads / Minimum 52 points needed for Collector Roads
Score
Traffic Calming Policy
Appendix D - Traffic Calming Measures Toolkit
Traffic Calming Policy Table 5 – D1.1 Potential Benefits and Implications of Traffic Calming Measures
Legend
Substantial Benefits
Substantial Disbenefits
Moderate Benefits
Moderate Disbenefits
No Benefits or Limited Data Available
No Disbenefit or Limited Data
Potential Benefits Traffic Calming/ Speed Management Measures Vertical Deflection Raised Crosswalk Raised Intersection Speed Cushion Speed Hump/Table Horizontal Deflection Chicane (One-Lane) Chicane (Two-Lane) Traffic Circle/Mini Roundabout Curb Radius Reduction Roadway Narrowing Curb Extension/Neckdown/ Choker Lane Narrowing On-street Parking
Speed reduction
Volume Reduction
Conflict Reduction
Potential Disbenefits Environment
Local Access
Emergency Response
Active Transportation
Enforcement
Parking
Maintenance
Traffic Calming Policy Potential Benefits Traffic Calming/ Speed Management Measures
Speed reduction
Volume Reduction
Conflict Reduction
Potential Disbenefits Environment
Local Access
Emergency Response
Active Transportation
Raised Median Island Road Diet Vertical Centreline Treatment Surface Treatment Sidewalk Extension/Textured Crosswalk Textured Pavement Pavement Markings Communication and Enforcement Speed Display Device Speed Enforcement Speed Watch Program Pace Car Program Targeted Education Programs
Legend
Substantial Benefits
Substantial Disbenefits
Moderate Benefits
Moderate Disbenefits
No Benefits or Limited Data Available
No Disbenefit or Limited Data
Enforcement
Parking
Maintenance
Traffic Calming Policy Table 6 – D1.2 Potential Benefits and Implications of Traffic Calming Measures
Legend
Substantial Benefits
Substantial Disbenefits
Moderate Benefits
Moderate Disbenefits
No Benefits or Limited Data Available
No Disbenefit or Limited Data
Potential Benefits Traffic Calming/ Speed Management Measures
Speed reduction
Communication and Enforcement Speed Display Device Speed Enforcement Speed Watch Program Pace Car Program Targeted Education Programs
Volume Reduction
Conflict Reduction
Potential Disbenefits
Environment
Local Access
Emergency Response
Active Transportation
Enforcement
Parking
Maintenance
Traffic Calming Policy Table 7 - D1.3 Applicability of Traffic Calming Measures Location Applicability Measure
Urban Streets Local
Collector
Cost
Rural Streets Arterial
Local
Collector
Arterial
Communication and Enforcement Information Signage Speed Display Device Targeted Education Programs Speed Enforcements Pace Car Program Speed Watch Program Vertical Deflection Raised Crosswalks Raised Intersections Speed Cushions Speed Humps Speed Tables Flexible Bollards Horizontal Deflection Chicanes Curb Radius Reductions Traffic Circles Roundabouts Curb Extensions / Bulb-Outs On-Street Parking Raised Median Island Road Diet Surface Treatments Pavement Markings Textured Pavement = Appropriate Measure
= Use with Caution
= Not Recommended
Appendix L: Policy Documents
L.3 All-Way Stop Policy
Page | 1443
City of Kawartha Lakes
All-Way Stop Policy
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................... 3 2.0 Approval Process of All-Way Stop ..................................................... 4 3.0 Technical Review Process .................................................................. 5 3.1
All-Way Stop Control Conditions ....................................................................................... 5
3.2
Warrant Criteria ................................................................................................................. 6
3.3
Warrant A – Collision History............................................................................................. 6
3.4
Warrant B – Volume of Traffic ........................................................................................... 7
3.5
Warrant C – Visibility ......................................................................................................... 8
4.0 Technically Unwarranted All-Way Stops ........................................... 8 5.0 Physical Installation of All-Way Stop Controls ............................... 10
Appendix A: Sample Survey Letter All-Way Stop Policy
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 2
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
1.0 Introduction The primary aim of implementing all-way stop control is to ensure fair access to the right-ofway for similar volumes of traffic traveling in opposing directions. Furthermore, according to provincial regulations, it is emphasized that an all-way stop control should not be relied upon to manage or reduce vehicle speeds. This policy follows the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 5 – Regulatory Signs which states, allway stops should only be considered under the following situations: •
As an interim measure where traffic signals are warranted but cannot be installed immediately.
•
At locations having a high collision frequency and less intrusive measures have not resulted in decreased collision frequencies.
•
As a transitionary period to accustom drivers to a change in right-of-way (ROW).
All-way stops within the City of Kawartha Lake’s road network should be installed when specific criteria are fulfilled and upon approval by the City of Kawartha Lake’s Council. This policy outlines the criteria for determining the necessity of all-way stop control and describes the public process in cases where the technical criteria is not met. Additionally, in alignment with the City of Kawartha Lakes practices, the following guidelines below outline the use of two-way and one-way stop controls, as well as yield controls, at intersections: Type of other Stop Controls
Two-Way Stops: Recommended for intersections where traffic on the through road has a higher volume. This ensures that side road traffic yields to the main road.
One-Way Stops: Used at T-intersections where traffic must stop from one direction, allowing free flow from the other.
Yield Controls: Yield signs may be considered for rural intersections where sightlines and traffic patterns allow for safe merging. The use of yield signs will be assessed based on the specific conditions of the intersection, including traffic volume and visibility.
Uncontrolled Intersections: When uncontrolled intersections are identified, it is essential to install the most appropriate control measure. This could include stop or yield signs based on traffic conditions and safety assessments.
Overall, the goal is to enhance safety and efficiency at intersections by implementing the most suitable traffic control measures. | Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 3
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
2.0 Approval Process of All-Way Stop The approval process from request to implementation is provided in Figure 1. Requests for an all-way stop are referred to the City of Kawartha Lake’s staff. Upon receipt of a public petition, or Council direction for consideration of an all-way stop control, staff will undertake a technical review to determine if the request is warranted. If the technical review process is satisfied, a Council-approved by-law amendment is required before installation. If the technical review process is not satisfied and does not meet the necessary criteria for an all-way stop, the request will be concluded without additional work. Alternative traffic management solutions may be explored only if the warrant process identifies operational or safety issues that are not addressed by the warrant criteria. In such cases, engineering judgment will guide the decision on whether further evaluation is warranted. This ensures a focused approach on implementing effective traffic control measures that enhance safety and operational efficiency. Figure 1: All-Way Stop Process Flow Chart
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 4
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
3.0 Technical Review Process 3.1
All-Way Stop Control Conditions
The first step of the technical review process is to identify the feasibility of all-way stop control at the subject site. OTM Book 5 identifies conditions in which all-way stop control should or must not be used. The following considerations must be made prior to advancing the technical review process: All-way stops must not be installed solely: •
As a speed control device (or traffic calming tool).
•
On roads where progressive signal timing exists.
All-way stops should not be used under the following conditions: •
Where the protection of pedestrians, school children in particular, is a prime concern and the concern cannot be directly addressed by other means.
•
On roads within urban areas having a posted speed limit of 60 km/h or more.
•
At intersection that are not roundabouts having fewer than three or more than 4 approaches.
•
At intersections that are offset, poorly defined, or geometrically substandard.
•
On truck or bus routes except in an industrial area or where two such routes cross.
•
On multi-lane approaches where a parked or stopped vehicle on the right will obscure the STOP sign.
•
Where traffic would be required to stop on grades.
•
As a means of deterring the movement of through traffic in a residential area.
•
Where visibility of the sign is reduced by curves or grades, and sufficient safe stopping distance does not exist.
•
Where any other traffic device controlling right-of-way is permanently in place within 250 m with the exception of a YIELD sign. If required closer than 250 m, all-way stop control should be supported by a traffic operations study and sound engineering judgement.
Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 5
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
3.2
Warrant Criteria
Once it is determined that no conditions exist which would exclude the usage of all-way stop control, warrants must be completed as described in OTM Book 5. Table 1 summarizes the warrant criteria for different road classifications. As illustrated, there are three general warrants based on collision history, traffic and pedestrian volumes and visibility or sight distances. If any of the warrants are satisfied, then all-way stop control may be warranted. The following subsections provide additional clarity relating to the warrant assessments. Table 1: Warrant Criteria Summary Urban Arterial Roads
Collector Roads and Rural Arterial Roads
Local Roads
Collision History (3 Years)
4 / Year
3 / Year
3 / Year
Total Vehicle Volume on All Intersection Approaches
> 500
> 375
>200
Vehicle + Pedestrian Volume on Minor Street
> 200
> 150
> 75
Warrants
A
B
C
Percentage of Traffic on Major Road
<70 (4-leg intersection) < 75 (3-leg intersection)
Visibility
*See Section 3.5
Warrant A – Collision History
3.3
All-way stop control may be warranted on roadways which are experiencing an unusually high number of ‘right-angle’ or ‘turning’ collisions. The following thresholds are used to determine if an all-way stop control is warranted based on collision frequency:
Local/Collector/Rural Arterial: If the collision rate is in excess of three collision per year averaged over the last three years of collision data (i.e., 9 collisions in 36 months).
Urban Arterial: If the collision rate is in excess of four collisions per year averaged over the last three years of collision data (i.e., 9 collisions in 36 months).
For the purposes of the collision warrant, only those collision types susceptible to improvement through all-way stop control (right-angle or turning) should be considered.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 6
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy Warrant B – Volume of Traffic
3.4
The criteria for determining the need for an all-way stop based on traffic and pedestrian volumes are described as follows: Urban Arterials
Condition 1: The total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches exceeds 500 vehicles per hour (vph) for each of any eight hours of the day.
Condition 2: The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume on the minor street should exceed 200 units per hour or 150 units per hour with an average delay to traffic on the minor street of greater than 30 seconds.
Condition 3: The volume split does not exceed 70/30. Volume on the major street is defined as vehicles only. Volume on the minor street includes all vehicles plus any pedestrians wishing to cross the major roadway. For three-legged intersections a volume split of 75/25 is permissible.
Collector Roads and Rural Arterials
Condition 1: The total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches exceeds 375 vph for each of any eight hours of the day.
Condition 2: The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume on the minor street should exceed 150 units per hour or 120 units per hour with delay.
Condition 3: The volume split does not exceed 70/30. Volume on the major street is defined as vehicles only. Volume on the minor street includes all vehicles plus any pedestrians wishing to cross the major roadway. For three-legged intersections a volume split of 75/25 is permissible.
Local Roads
Condition 1: The total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches should be 200 vehicle per hour for each highest four hours.
Condition 2: The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume on the minor street should be 75 vehicle per hour (all vehicles plus pedestrians wishing to enter the intersection) for each of the same four hours, with an average delay to traffic on the minor street greater than 30 seconds.
Condition 3: The volume split does not exceed 70/30. Volume on the major street is defined as vehicles only. Volume on the minor street includes all vehicles plus any
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 7
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
pedestrians wishing to cross the major roadway. For three-legged intersections a volume split of 75/25 is permissible. Warrant B can be considered met if all three conditions are met for the respective road classification. 3.5
Warrant C – Visibility
If it is determined that an intersection has insufficient sight distance for traffic exiting the existing stop-controlled approaches and all efforts to improve sight distance have been exhausted, conversion to all-way stop control may be considered. The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads should be referred to when determining if sight distances meet minimum standards. Lastly, in situations to not have an all-way stop because of visibility of the sign is reduced by curves or grades, and sufficient safe stopping distance does not exist, a special advance warning or flashing beacons (overhead, or on top of the stop sign) will be necessary to augment the control.
4.0 Technically Unwarranted All-Way Stops Using all-way stops primarily for speed control is not recommended. Drivers may become frustrated with frequent stops and may even increase their speed between stops to compensate. All-way stops should be implemented based on specific traffic conditions, such as high pedestrian activity or sightline issues, rather than solely for speed control. It is advisable for the City to follow the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) guidelines, as they are based on comprehensive studies and best practices for traffic management. Installing unwarranted all-way stops can lead to driver confusion and may not effectively improve safety or speed control. Encouraging Council to adhere to OTM standards helps maintain consistent traffic control measures, promotes public safety, and ensures that any changes made are justifiable and supported by data. Instead of all-way stops, the City should explore other traffic calming measures, such as speed humps or roundabouts, which might be more effective without contravening established guidelines. Engaging the community in discussions about traffic concerns can also provide valuable insights and support for proposed measures. Additionally, due to limited resources for managing an official process for the installation of unwarranted all-way stops, the City can establish a threshold that must be met before Council can direct staff to take identified steps. This threshold will help limit the significant resources applied for this purpose.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 8
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
If the technical criteria are not met, City staff may be directed by the Council as a whole to initiate public consultation to understand local resident support for installing an all-way stop. In such instances:
City staff will first assess operational deficiencies, before proceeding with public consultation.
Council would not be able to introduce an unwarranted all-way stop if the following conditions are met: o Failure to Meet Warrant Criteria: If the traffic volume and delay metrics are less than 80% of the established criteria Council cannot justify the installation. o Lack of Safety Concerns: If assessments indicate that there are no significant safety issues at the intersection that warrant additional control measures, the request cannot be approved. o Community Opposition: If there is substantial opposition from the community or stakeholders regarding the installation of an unwarranted all-way stop, Council may choose not to proceed. o Engineering Recommendations: If engineering assessments advise against an all-way stop due to potential negative impacts on traffic flow or safety, Council would not be able to introduce it.
A survey will be distributed to only residents living within 250 meters of the intersection in question, requesting them to indicate their preference with a "yes" or "no" regarding the potential installation of an all-way stop. For distribution, hand delivery to houses is acceptable and can ensure better engagement. Additionally, posting notices on parcel lockers can also serve as an effective way to reach residents who may not be home during delivery.
If the intersection falls within 250 meters of a school or if it is known that school children cross at that intersection, the survey will also be provided to the school principal.
The survey as shown in Appendix A will inform residents of the potential adverse effects of installing an all-way stop that does not meet technical warrants, as outlined in the Ministry of Transportation's Ontario Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Residents will have three weeks to return their completed surveys.
A minimum of 66% of respondents must vote "yes" for the recommendation to install an all-way stop to be forwarded to the Council for consideration of passing the required by-law. To achieve a reliable sample, a common practice is to aim for at
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 9
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
least 20-30% of responses. If 100 notices are sent, it is ideal to receive at least 20-30 responses to consider the results valid. For example, if 30 responses are received, 20 of those would need to be in favor to meet the 66% threshold (20 out of 30). If only 1 response is received, that 100% “yes” does not meet the requirement of a valid sample size. In summary, while 66% support is required, the return percentage to consider the results valid should be at least 20-30% of total notices sent, ensuring that the decision reflects a broader community consensus. If the distributed survey fails to achieve the required 66% support, no further surveys should be conducted in the affected area for a minimum of 12 months. Overall, unwarranted all-way stops can lead to increased delays and travel times, driver frustration and non-compliance, wasted fuel and emissions, noise and air pollution, reduced pedestrian and cyclist safety, potential impacts on emergency response times, and unnecessary maintenance and enforcement costs. These factors highlight the importance of adhering to established warrant criteria when considering the installation of all-way stops.
5.0 Physical Installation of All-Way Stop Controls After council approval has been received and the by-law amendments adopted, the procedure for installation of a new all-way stop control shall be as follows:
Install STOP AHEAD (Wb-1) signs NEW signs (Wb-3) at the proper location in advance of the intersection on the newly controlled approaches. Flashing yellow beacons on top of the sign should also be considered if stopping sight distances cannot be achieved.
New STOP (Ra-1) signs should be installed on the newly controlled approaches with ALL-WAY (Ra-1t) tabs installed on all STOP signs. STOP signs must be installed on the right side of the roadway facing traffic, no closer than 1.5 m and no further than 15 m from the edge of the intersecting roadway. Flashing red beacon on top of the sign or overhead flashing beacons should also be considered if stopping sight distances cannot be achieved.
On paved roadways, STOP signs should be supplemented with appropriate pavement markings, prescribed in OTM Book 11 – Pavement, Hazard, and Delineation Markings). At a minimum all approaches should be painted with a stop bar and crosswalks where pedestrian facilities exist.
After a two-month period, the NEW and STOP AHEAD signs may be removed. If in the opinion of staff that the NEW and STOP AHEAD signs should remain, then they are authorized to remain. Overall, STOP AHEAD to remain without the NEW if site distances cannot be achieved.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 10
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
Appendix A: Sample Survey Letter All-Way Stop Policy
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
Sample Survey Letter [Your Name] [Your Position] [City/Department Name] [Date] [Recipient's Name] [Recipient's Address] Dear [Recipient's Name], The City is considering the installation of an all-way stop at [specific intersection]. Your input is valuable in this decision-making process. Please take a moment to complete the following survey regarding your preference for an all-way stop at this location. Survey Question: Do you support the installation of an all-way stop at [specific intersection]? Yes No How often do you use this intersection? Daily Weekly Monthly Rarely What time of day do you most often use this intersection? Morning Afternoon Evening Night Have you observed any safety concerns at this intersection? Yes No If yes, please specify: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Do you believe an all-way stop would improve safety for pedestrians? Yes No
City of Kawartha Lakes - All-Way Stop Policy
Are you aware that installing an all-way stop that does not meet technical warrants could have adverse effects? Please indicate your level of concern for the following: Increased delays for drivers o Very Concerned o Somewhat Concerned o Not Concerned Reduced compliance with stop signs o Very Concerned o Somewhat Concerned o Not Concerned Negative impacts on traffic flow o Very Concerned o Somewhat Concerned o Not Concerned Driver confusion due to frequent stops o Very Concerned o Somewhat Concerned o Not Concerned Any additional comments or suggestions regarding any intersections within City? Please Specify below: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Please return this survey by [deadline date]. Your feedback is essential in helping us create safer streets for everyone. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Position] [City/Department Name] [Contact Information]
Appendix L: Policy Documents
L.4 Infrastructure Guidelines
Page | 1457
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads The design portion of these guidelines should be considered as minimum criteria. This document provides the City’s design preferences under normal circumstances. The Engineer must use their best judgment to find innovative solutions when abnormal design conditions are encountered. Deviation from these design guidelines requires written approval of the Director of Engineering & Corporate Assets or designate. All proposed works within the City of Kawartha Lakes Right-of-Way (ROW) shall comply with all applicable current industry standards and specifications for design, installation, modification, quality management and quality control, such as:
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads Ontario Provincial Standards (OPS), their most recent editions or revisions thereof American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) ANSI / IESNA RP-8-00 Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Ontario Electrical Safety Code Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) O. Reg. 413/12: Integrated Accessibility Standards The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes By-Law 2017-151 “A By-law to Regulate Access to Municipal Right of Ways in the City of Kawartha Lakes” The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes By-Law 2018-017 “City Lands Encroachment By-Law” The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes By-Law 2017-216 “A By-law to Regulate Fences in the City of Kawartha Lakes”
CKL Road Standard Drawings Standard Drawing No.
Description
CKL-401
Standard Turning Basins for Terminated Roadways
CKL-403
20.0 m Urban Local ROW Sidewalk on One Side
CKL-404
20.0 m Urban Local ROW Sidewalk on Both Sides
CKL-405
26.0 m Urban Collector ROW
CKL-406
26.0 m Urban Collector ROW Pathway on One Side
CKL-407
20.0 m Rural Local ROW
CKL-411
Emergency Access
CKL-413
3 Meter Multi-Use Walkway
Page 1 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
Standard Drawing No. CKL-413 ‘B’
Description 3 Meter Multi-Use Walkway with Bollards
CKL-LID
Draft Low Impact Development (LID) for information only
CKL-201
Deciduous Tree Planting
CKL-501 ‘B’
Typical Street Name Sign Detail
CKL-609
Typical Chain Link Fence Detail
CKL-609 ‘B’
Typical Privacy Fence Detail
Page 2 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
Contents City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads ........................................ 1 1.0 Road Classification ....................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Geometric Design Elements ......................................................................................... 5 3.0 Intersecting Road and Right-of-way Characteristics ..................................................... 6 4.0 Minimum Curb Radius Requirements ........................................................................... 6 5.0 Intersections.................................................................................................................. 7 6.0 Standard Turning Basins for Terminated Roadways ..................................................... 7 6.1 Permanent Standard Turning Basins ...................................................................... 7 6.2 Temporary Turning Circles ...................................................................................... 7 7.0 Pavement Design.......................................................................................................... 7 7.1 Tack Coat ................................................................................................................ 9 7.2 Pavement Construction ........................................................................................... 9 7.3 Pavement Markings ................................................................................................. 9 7.4 Subdrains ................................................................................................................ 9 8.0 Concrete Curb and Gutter ........................................................................................... 10 9.0 Sidewalks.................................................................................................................... 10 10.0
Boulevards ............................................................................................................. 10
11.0
Entrances and Driveways ...................................................................................... 11
11.1 Operational Considerations ................................................................................... 11 11.2 Sight Distances ..................................................................................................... 11 11.3 Turning Characteristics ......................................................................................... 11 11.4 Angle of Driveway .................................................................................................. 12 11.5 Spacing of Adjacent Driveways ............................................................................. 12 11.6
Setback Requirements .......................................................................................... 12
11.7
Culverts ................................................................................................................. 13
11.8
Number of Driveways ............................................................................................ 13
11.9
Grades ................................................................................................................... 13
12.0
Roadside Ditching.................................................................................................. 13
13.0
Signage ................................................................................................................. 13
13.1 Street Name Signs................................................................................................. 13 Page 3 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
13.2 Traffic Control and Advisory Signs......................................................................... 14 14.0
Fencing .................................................................................................................. 14
15.0
Streetscape ........................................................................................................... 15
15.1 Streetscape Requirements .................................................................................... 15 16.0
Utilities ................................................................................................................... 16
17.0
Street Lighting ....................................................................................................... 17
17.1 General ................................................................................................................. 17 17.2 Lighting Levels....................................................................................................... 18 17.3 Poles 17.4 Brackets ................................................................................................................ 20 17.5 Luminaires ............................................................................................................. 20 17.6 Photocell Control ................................................................................................... 21 17.7 Control and Supply ................................................................................................ 22 17.8 Cable ..................................................................................................................... 22 17.9 Duct 17.10
Grounding .................................................................................................... 23
17.11
Photometrics ................................................................................................ 23
17.11.a. Qualified Designers ...................................................................................... 23 17.11.b. Design Parameters – Light Trespass............................................................ 23 17.11.c. Drawings ...................................................................................................... 24 17.12
Assumption of Subdivision............................................................................ 24
17.13
References ................................................................................................... 24
Page 4 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
1.0
Road Classification
All roadways shall be classified and designed in accordance with the City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan. The proposed classification shall be confirmed with the City of Kawartha Lakes before the design begins. 2.0
Geometric Design Elements Table 1 Geometric Design Criteria
Geometric Detail
Local
Collector
Arterial
Minimum Right-of-Way (m)
20.0
26.0
26.0-36.0
Posted Speed (km/h)
40
50-80
Minimum Design Speed (km/h)
40-50
40-50 Industrial: 50 50-60
60-180
Minimum Safe Stopping Sight Distance (m) (Follow TAC guidelines)
65
65-85
85-140
Minimum Crest Curve (K Value)
7
13
23-36
Minimum Sag Curve – Comfort Control (K Value) Minimum Sag Curve – Headlight Control (K Value) Pavement Width (Face of Curb to Face of Curb) (m) Minimum Crossfall (%)
6
9
12-16
12
18
25-32
8.5
9.4
2.0
2.0
Min. 3.5 m per lane 2.0
Minimum Crossfall Through Intersection (%)
1.0
1.0
1.0
Minimum Grade (%)
0.5
0.5
0.5
Maximum Grade (%)
6.0
6.0
6.0
80°-90°
80°-90°
80°-90°
Minimum Tangent Length at Intersections (m)
45
60
75
Minimum Tangent Length between Reverse Curves (m)
30
50
120
Intersection Angle (degrees)
Page 5 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
3.0
Intersecting Road and Right-of-way Characteristics Table 2 Minimum Sight Triangle Requirements
Road Classification
Intersecting Road
Sight Triangle (m)
Local Collector
Local, Collector Collector, Arterial
5x5* 10x10
Arterial
Arterial
15x15
*Provided that the applicable zoning by-law contains provisions for a “sight triangle” or “daylighting triangle” restricting structures and vegetation of a specified height being located within the triangle. 4.0
Minimum Curb Radius Requirements Table 3 Minimum Curb Radius Requirements
Intersecting Road Types
Radius (m)
Local - Local
7.5
Local - Collector
10
Collector - Arterial
10
Collector - Collector
10
Collector - Arterial
10
Arterial - Arterial
13
Industrial* 15 *Based on the assumption that WB-20 turning vehicles will not encroach onto opposing traffic on collector and arterial roads. **The curb radius for collector and arterial roads are sufficient to accommodate transit bus maneuvering.
Page 6 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
5.0 Intersections Table 4 Minimum Intersection spacing Requirements Intersection Spacing Arterial roads Collector roads
Minimum Spacing 400m between signalized intersection 60 m
Local roads (Four-legged intersection)
60 m
Local roads (Three-legged intersection)
40m
Minimum curb radius requirements for various intersecting roadways shall be confirmed with Table 3 – Minimum Curb Radius Requirements. On routes with high volumes of truck traffic compound radii shall be used. Intersection curb radii may need to be increased on truck and bus routes where higher volumes of large traffic are expected. In determining curb radii for truck routes in areas with heavily pedestrian movement consideration should be given to maintaining minimum curb radii to reduce pedestrian crossing distance. At the intersection of two roads, the transition of the minor road classification shall not interfere with the normal cross-fall of the major road, unless otherwise required by the overland flow route design. A 1.0% to 2.0% backfall shall be provided on all road profiles. Intersections shall be designed according to TAC Section 2.3.2.3, Vertical Alignment and Cross-Slope. 6.0 Standard Turning Basins for Terminated Roadways 6.1 Permanent Standard Turning Basins Permanent standard turning basins shall be constructed in accordance with CKL-401 “Standard Turning Basins for Terminated Roadways”. All standard turning basins and intersections shall be detailed at a scale larger than the road plan. The minimum gutter grade of 1.0% shall be maintained. 6.2 Temporary Turning Circles Temporary turning circles are required where a road currently dead ends but will be continued for future development. Temporary turning circles are to be constructed to the same standards as 6.1 Permanent Standard Turning Basins. 7.0 Pavement Design Pavement design for all roads will be considered individually. Minimum pavement design thickness according to the different road classifications are shown in Table 4. The Developer shall retain a qualified soils consultant, the qualified soils consultant shall be responsible for sampling, testing and designing a suitable pavement design. Page 7 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
Asphalt mix designs are to be supplied to the City and to the retained qualified geotechnical consultant for review prior to commencing construction. Asphalt placed before the approval of the asphalt mix design will be removed and disposed of offsite at the Owner’s expense. Reclaimed Asphalt Product (RAP): The use of RAP is not permitted in surface asphalt. The maximum percentage of reclaimed asphalt material shall be 20% of the volume of aggregate used for the base course (HL8 only). Reclaimed material shall conform to OPSS 1154. Performance Graded Asphalt Cement (PGAC): The PGAC specified shall be PGAC 58-34 unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering and shall be in accordance with OPSS 1101.
The composition and construction thickness of the road pavement shall be design based upon the following factors: a) Mechanical analysis of the sub-grade soil b) Frost susceptibility c) Drainage d) Future volume and class of traffic expected to use the pavement e) Construction loading considerations. Sub-grade samples for mechanical analysis laboratory testing shall be taken at a maximum of 50.0 m intervals along all road alignments and at any locations judged to be lower in bearing capacity. California Bearing ratio (C.B.R.) tests shall be performed for each representative soils type. All tests must be conducted by a qualified soils consultant. Copies of all tests and the road design proposed by the soils consultant shall be submitted for the approval of the Engineering Department. Where the construction will involve trenching for installation of sewers and watermains, the soils report shall comment on trenching, pipe bedding, cover, backfill, and compaction requirements. It shall provide recommendations with respect to construction methods to be employed to reduce the risk of settlement occurring. Before placing concrete and asphalt pavement, the Consulting Engineer must submit the concrete and asphalt mix designs to Engineering for approval. Table 5 Minimum Pavement Design Thickness Road Class
Local Collector Arterial
Topcoat Asphalt (HL4)
Base Coat Asphalt (HL8)
Granular ‘A’ (mm)
Granular ‘B' (mm)
40 mm 40 mm 40 mm
50 mm 90 mm 100 mm
150 150 150
300 450 450
Notes: 1. The Granular ‘B’ thickness may require adjustment depending upon subgrade soil condition, weather conditions during construction and use by heavy construction traffic. Page 8 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
2. The pavement design thickness assumes adequate positive drainage of the subbase. 3. These are minimum requirements only and may require additional depths subject to specific design considerations. 4. Minimum 10:1 taper at transitions in road make up. 7.1 Tack Coat Tack Coat shall be applied in accordance with OPSS 308 – Construction Specification for Tack Coating and Joint Painting and OPSS 310 – Construction Specification for Hot Mix Asphalt or as amended. Tack coat shall be applied to the following but not limited to:
Protection board Existing pavement surfaces including, but not limited to, hot mix and Portland cement concrete Milled pavement surfaces Expanded asphalt surface Cold-in-place recycled surfaces Vertical surfaces include all edges of concrete curbs, catch basins and other appurtenances, longitudinal joints, and transverse joints for application of tack coat.
7.2 Pavement Construction Paving construction shall be in accordance with OPSS.MUNI 310 – Construction Specification for Hot Mix Asphalt or as amended. Where segregation or other asphalt deficiencies are identified within the maintenance period, the defective areas shall be removed and replaced from edge of pavement to edge of pavement and for an unspecified length depending on the severity of the defect. Defective areas shall be replaced with acceptable hot mix of the same type and compacted to the satisfaction of the City. All maintenance holes, catch basins, valves and hand wells that have a deviation more than 10mm from surface asphalt elevation shall be milled, re-adjusted, and re-paved to suit final grades. 7.3 Pavement Markings Plastic pavement markings shall be provided in accordance with the latest standards of the “Ontario Traffic Manual – Book 11” and “Ontario Traffic Manual – Book 15”. Pavement markings are required for lane separation, road centerline, turning lanes, stop bars, cross walks, turning arrows and island markings. Pavement markings are to be shown on the applicable plan drawings and shall be in accordance with the latest OPSS requirements.
7.4 Subdrains Page 9 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
All subdrains shall be 100mm diameter perforated corrugated plastic pipe with filter cloth shall be C.S.A. approved or approved equivalent and shall be installed in accordance with OPSS.MUNI 405 and OPSD 216.021 Subdrain shall be installed in a separate 300mm x 300mm trench below subgrade with a minimum 50mm Granular ‘A’ bedding and Granular ‘A’ backfill. 8.0
Concrete Curb and Gutter
For all urban roads, curb and gutter as per OPSD 600.040 - Concrete Barrier Curb with Standard Gutter is required and may be of two-stage construction as per OPSD 600.070 – Concrete Barrier Curb with Standard Gutter, Two Stage Construction. Before concrete is placed, the Consulting Engineer must submit the concrete mix designs to Engineering for approval. Concrete to be a minimum of 32 MPa compressive strength at 28 days and conform to OPSS.MUNI 1350. Contraction joints are to be placed at intervals not exceeding 3.0 meters. If OPSD 600.070 is the method of construction for the curb and gutter, there are additional requirements prior to a base curb inspection and placement of the top curb. Prior to the City’s inspection of the base curb, a minimum width of 300 mm of HL-8 base asphalt requires to be cut and removed from face of curb. 9.0
Sidewalks
The location and width requirements for sidewalks in new developments shall be designed in accordance with CKL typical road cross-sections. Sidewalks are generally required on both sides of collector and arterial roadways. On local roads, sidewalks are required on at least one side and on both sides if significant pedestrian volumes are anticipated or located near schools, parks, churches, hospitals and so forth. All sidewalks are to be designed in accordance with OPSD 310.010. There is to be a minimum of 150mm thickness of Granular ‘A’ material below sidewalk compacted to 100% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). If the typical cross-section design incorporates a 3.0 m multi-use pathway, the pathway shall be designed in accordance with CKL-413. Sidewalks shall meet the requirements of O.Reg. 413/12: Integrated Accessibility Standards. The sidewalks shall be increased in thickness at all commercial, industrial and apartment entranceways to 200 mm and welded wire mesh reinforcement shall be installed. Concrete sidewalks at entranceways shall be designed according to OPSD 310.050. If the sidewalk has been constructed prior to the establishment of an entrance, the existing sidewalk shall be removed and shall be replaced with the appropriate sidewalk thickness. Dummy joints and contraction joints shall be achieved by saw cuts the day after placement. Tooled joints will not be permitted. Contraction joints shall be placed at every third dummy joint and shall be saw cut that is 0.25 of the sidewalk thickness. Contraction joints should be placed to produce panels that are as square as possible and never exceeding a length to width ratio of 1.5 to 1.
10.0
Boulevards Page 10 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
The grade of the boulevard shall be constant from the back of curb to the ROW limit or sidewalk. Terracing or embankments within the ROW shall not be permitted. All debris and construction materials shall be removed from the boulevard area upon completion of the initial stage of road construction and the boulevards shall be maintained in a clear state. For all boulevard areas, prior to sodding, 150 mm in depth of clean, screened topsoil shall be placed. Number 1 nursery sod shall be used for all boulevard areas. 11.0
Entrances and Driveways
Driveways in new subdivisions are to be designed at the maximum width of 6.0m. Refer to CKL-112 and CKL-112B for service connection locations. The designs of all new commercial, industrial and multi-residential site plan entrances shall conform to OPSD 350.010 and City of Kawartha Lakes By-Law 2017-151. 11.1 Operational Considerations
Two-way driveways should be at or near 90 degrees to the road. Minimum use driveway (<25 vehicles/day) serving single family residential land uses the two-way movements may consist of a single lane, drive in and back out maneuver. For high volume two-way driveways, the driveway will consist of two one-way driveways divided by a centerline for traffic exceeding 100 peak hours of 750 vehicles per day. Where pedestrians routinely cross the one-way driveway, it is desirable to provide a driveway intersection angle of 70 degrees with the sidewalk rather than something less to encourage vehicular deceleration and provide the driver and pedestrian with a better opportunity to observe a possible conflict. Avoid positioning driveways on the inside of horizontal curves or on the far side of crest vertical curves
11.2 Sight Distances The provision of adequate sight distance for the exit maneuver from the driveway is one of the most critical elements. The sight distance is determined considering the design speed on the intersecting roadway. The placement of road hardware, such as utility cabinets and mailboxes, and landscaping in the right of way shall be placed to prevent obstructions to the required sight lines. Table 6 Sight Distances Posted Speed 80 km/h 60 km/h 40 km/h 11.3 Turning Characteristics
Required Visibility 140 meters 85 meters 65 meters
Page 11 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
The two styles of driveway entrances commonly used to accommodate vehicle turning paths are: 1. The straight flared design 2. The curb return design. The straight flared style is recommended for driveways with volumes less than 750 vehicles/day along roadways with low to moderate volume. 11.4 Angle of Driveway
Two-way driveways normally intersect the roadway curb at or near 90 degrees. However, a minimum acute angle of 70 degrees, as measured from the roadway curb line, normally operates acceptably. For one-way driveways, where a skewed intersection assists in the efficient traffic operation, skews in the range of 45 to 60 degrees are appropriate in industrial areas where pedestrians are infrequent. For residential and commercial land uses, where pedestrian volumes are normally moderate to high, minimum skew angles in the range of 60 to 70 degrees are preferred to improve the drivers’ visibility of pedestrians and encourage lower turning speeds.
11.5 Spacing of Adjacent Driveways Driveways are normally located considering their physical relationship to existing or possible future driveways. The following criteria shall be taken into consideration:
Minimum spacing between driveways Minimum offset to property line Maximum number of driveways based on property frontage.
The application of these design criteria assists in meeting the following objectives: To clearly identify to the user which property each driveway serves To ensure that sufficient space is available between driveways for the positioning of traffic signs, lighting poles and other surface utility fixtures, and road hardware To separate the conflict areas for each driveway To provide appropriate space between driveways for on street parallel parking, where permitted and in consideration of sight line requirements To increase the length of potentially collision free pedestrian areas by minimizing the number and width of driveways. The minimum spacing between driveways is measured between the end and start of the curb returns on the adjacent driveways. A 1.0-meter minimum spacing is recommended between adjacent low volume driveways for residential properties along local and collector roadways. A 3.0-meter minimum is suggested for both industrial and commercial land uses. Where the speed limit is 80 km/hr the required spacing is 120 m. 11.6
Setback Requirements Page 12 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
11.7
Entrances shall be a minimum of 15 meters from the limits of a right of way at a street intersection. Culverts
11.8
Minimum 450 mm diameter culvert for driveways at a minimum length of 7 meters. Minimum 600 mm diameter culvert for roadways at a minimum length of 7 meters. Number of Driveways
Residential properties are restricted to one driveway, irrespective of frontage. For large site plan developments, the location and design elements of driveways are determined by a detailed traffic impact study. 11.9
Grades
A minimum 2.0% grade change at the edge of road is required, up to a maximum of 8.0% on low volume local roads. 12.0
Roadside Ditching
Rural roads shall confirm to standard drawing CKL-407 unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering. Rural roadside ditches shall be designed as follows:
3:1 front and back slope Minimum 4.5 m in width Minimum 0.25 m wide flat bottom Ditch inverts shall be a minimum 0.3 m below the granular/subgrade interface where its daylights into the ditch unless an invert subdrain is designed to pick up subgrade drainage Desirable minimum longitudinal ditch grade shall be 1.0% with minimum being 0.3% Ditch grades greater than 3.0% shall have staked sod protection and ditches greater than 5.0% shall have hand laid rip rap protection.
13.0
Signage
13.1
Street Name Signs
Street name signs shall be installed at all intersections and shall identify each street at the intersection. As per CKL-501 ‘B’ “Typical Street Name Sign Detail” the street name sign shall be 100 mm white reflective uppercase lettering on a reflective green background 150 mm in height and 610 to 915 mm in length. Signs shall be anodized aluminum and at least 2.3 mm thick. All street name signs shall be fastened to either of the following:
Page 13 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
Steel U-Flange posts in accordance with OPSS.MUNI 703 and OPSD 990.110 Telspar sign support system hardware, including signpost, two-piece breakaway anchor and hardware as supplied by UCC Industries International Inc.
All street name signs (temporary or permanent) are required to be installed upon the completion of the base course asphalt and must be maintained by the Owner as identified in the subdivision agreement until final assumption by the City. 13.2 Traffic Control and Advisory Signs All traffic control and advisory signs shall be installed facing and at right angles to the flow of traffic that they are intended to serve. All signs shall be fastened either of the following:
Steel U-Flange posts in accordance with OPSS.MUNI 703 and OPSD 990.110 Telspar sign support system hardware, including signpost, two-piece breakaway anchor and hardware as supplied by UCC Industries International Inc.
Signs are to be installed on street light posts where practical to minimize clutter in boulevards. All traffic control and advisory signs (temporary or permanent) are required to be installed upon the completion of the base course asphalt and must be maintained by the Owner as identified in the subdivision agreement until final assumption by the City. In rural developments all stop signs shall be a minimum Ra-101 (75 cm x 75 cm). All traffic control and advisory signs shall conform to the latest “Ontario Traffic Manuals – Book 5, 6 and 7” and the latest “Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Ontario” as applicable. All proposed location and type of traffic control and advisory signs shall be indicated on the applicable plan drawings. 14.0
Fencing
The proposed location and type of fence or sign shall be shown on the plan drawings. All lands are to be fenced where residential lots abut City of Kawartha Lakes lands. Fencing which is to be installed as part of a subdivision or development agreement shall be located as outlined in the agreement and shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the following criteria: a) All acoustic fencing is to be constructed as per OPSS.MUNI 760 “Construction Specification for Noise Barrier Systems” and manufacturer’s specifications. The acoustic fencing shall be certified by a qualified Engineer prior to assumption of the subdivision. The certification shall include the section of fence being certified, materials used, construction method, structural integrity (including wind loading), and certification that the required noise abatement levels for the acoustic fencing have been met. b) All chain link fencing to be black vinyl and shall be constructed in accordance with CKL-609 “Typical Chain Link Fence Detail” unless otherwise approved by the City. Gates, when required shall be constructed in accordance with OPSD 972.102. c) All privacy fencing shall be constructed in accordance with CKL-609 ‘B’ “Typical Privacy Fence Detail” unless otherwise approved by the City. Page 14 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
All fencing shall require a certificate and survey from an Ontario Land Surveyor, confirming the as-constructed elevations (top and bottom) and location in relationship to property lines of all regulatory fencing installed. 15.0
Streetscape
As per the City of Kawartha Lakes subdivision agreement, the owner shall install trees within the right of way of all streets with an urban cross-section to be dedicated to the City in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All plant material must conform to the most recent version of the Canadian Nursery Trades Association “Canadian Standards and Specifications for Nursery Stock”. All trees shall:
be undamaged and disease free have a reasonably straight trunk, free of any decay, sunscald, wounds or mechanical damage possess a straight single central leader, with no multiple competing stems be a minimum of 60 mm caliber be 3000 mm to 3500 mm height, with a minimum 1500 mm branching height clearance from grade at the time of planting have their root ball secured in a wire basket have a balanced canopy with uniform branching be planted in accordance with CKL Standard Detail 201, Deciduous Tree Planting.
For acceptable tree species used within the City’s right of way and parkland, refer to List of Acceptable Tree Species for City of Kawartha Lakes Planting. 15.1 Streetscape Requirements Street trees shall be on the boulevards according to the CKL Road Cross- Section Standard Drawings. Street trees shall be spaced in accordance with the growth habits of the particular species and in accordance with the following guidelines:
Generally, one tree per 10.0 metres shall be provided. Smaller species shall be spaced 5.0 to 6.0 metres. Larger species shall be spaced 10 metres apart. A minimum of one tree shall be provided for every lot frontage. A minimum of two trees shall be provide for every flankage yard Species biodiversity and the use of at least fifty percent of native species is required unless otherwise approved by the City. Monoculture arrangements are not acceptable for streetscape. No trees shall be permitted in a drainage swale. The City may request that trees are to be planted at closer intervals, of higher calibre and in greater quantities if desired. Page 15 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
Trees within subdivision developments shall be planted in accordance with the following requirements:
after buildings on pertinent lots or blocks are completed after pertinent lots or blocks including boulevards are graded and sodded after curbs are complete after utility locates have been complete.
Table 7 Minimum Clearance for Streetscape Planting Description
Minimum Clearance Required (m)
Edge of Sidewalk
1.5
Edge of Driveway
1.5
Underground Utilities
1.0
Utility Pedestals
1.5
Concrete Base of any Cabinet
1.5
Back of Curb
2.0
Fire Hydrant
3.0
Streetlight
5.0
Stop Sign / Traffic Signal / Intersections
15.0
Hydro Transformer Mailbox 16.0
1.5 (5.0 from access door) 1.5
Utilities
Roadway cross sections are such that the width of the boulevard allows snowbanks to accumulate. Utilities and street furniture shall be located such that space for snow storage from roadway and sidewalk maintenance is sufficient. All utilities shall be installed in a Joint Utility Trench (J.U.T.) as per Hydro One Joint Trench – Power, Communication & Gas Distribution Lines – Typical Detail. All utility street crossings shall be installed by Hydro One Trench, Street Crossing – Typical drawing. Utility pedestals shall be paired with streetlights if possible or with other utilities. A minimum of 1.0 m clearance is required between the edge of a driveway and any proposed above ground utility. Community mailboxes shall be placed according to the Canada Post Corporation requirements. Community mailbox locations shall be indicated on the Utility Coordination Plans and Plan & Profile drawings. Where possible a streetlight will be placed adjacent to Page 16 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
a community mailbox location to ensure appropriate lighting levels are met. The required width of the curb depressions shall be dimensioned on both the Utility Coordination Plans and the appropriate Plan and Profile drawings. 17.0
Street Lighting
17.1
General
All street lighting systems for new development in the City of Kawartha Lakes shall be 120volt with LED luminaires. All components of street lighting systems for roadways in the City shall be CSA approved and shall meet the requirements of the Ontario Electrical Safety Code and the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA). In an effort to reduce light pollution, the City of Kawartha Lakes requires that all street lighting and facility lighting be designed and constructed such that the lighting design is dark sky compliant/friendly. As such, standard luminaires are full cut-off except for decorative which are semi-cut-off. An ESA certificate will be required prior to the street lighting systems being energized. The Developer’s Engineer shall make the necessary arrangements to obtain an ESA certificate. Streetlights shall be energized prior to the first occupancy of any development. The Electrical Consultant shall perform inspections of the streetlight system during installation and provide inspection reports documenting the inspections. The Electrical Consultant shall provide a letter to the City certifying that the street light system has been installed per their design and inspected and passed by Electrical Safety Authority. A copy of the ESA inspection report shall be included with this letter. When the system installation is complete and has been certified by the Consultant the developer shall submit a written request to the City to energize the lights. Streetlights shall not be energized without written approval of the City of Kawartha Lakes. The Developer shall arrange with the Local Distribution Company (Hydro One) for the connection of all lighting systems. The Developer shall provide easements wherever they are required. The location of street lighting poles and transformers shall be shown on the Utility Coordination Plan. For urban cross-sections, poles shall be located not greater than 40 meters apart. For roadways with 60 km/h or less design speed and barrier curb, poles shall be located 2.0 meters behind the face of the curb. For rural cross-sections, poles shall be located behind the ditch on the same side of the street, preferably at common lot lines. Due to the variability that may occur in rural subdivision design, the location of the poles may vary between developments. However, the guiding principles for the location shall be;
no closer than 1.0 m to the property line (frontage) in a consistent offset from the property line for each street a minimum of 1.0 m behind the top of the ditch Page 17 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
at a location where the luminaire height is within the manufacturer’s guidelines.
For rural roadways with a design speed of 60km/h or less the minimum pole setback shall be 3.0 m minimum subject to the guiding principles outlined above. For all roadways with design speeds greater than 60 km/h pole offset shall be in accordance with TAC guidelines for clear zone requirements based on roadway design speed. Poles and base-mounted transformers shall have a minimum separation of 3.0 m. Where super mailboxes are proposed within a plan of subdivision, streetlights should be located within 10 m of the super mailboxes whenever possible. 17.2 Lighting Levels For straight sections of roadway lighting levels shall be determined based on the luminance method. The Illumination Engineering Society (IES) defines ‘luminance’ as the amount of light reflected from the pavement in the direction of the driver. The average maintained luminance levels and uniformities shall comply with the values shown in the following table. Table 8 Lighting Levels – Straight Sections Average Luminance Lavg2 (cd/m2) (Min.)
Uniformity Ratio Lavg/Lmin (Max. Allowed)
Uniformity Ratio Lmax/Lmin (Max. Allowed)
Local
0.3
6.0
10.0
Veiling Luminance Ratio Lvmax/ Lavg (Min.) 0.4
Collector
0.4
4.0
8.0
0.4
Low 1
Arterial
0.6
3.5
6.0
0.4
Low 1
Roadway Classification
Pedestrian Conflict Area Classification
Low1
Note: 1: Pedestrian Conflict Area Classification as defined in ANSI / IESNA RP-8-00 in paragraph 2.2 on 4. The only standard exception to the low PCC used in lighting calculation in the City is in school zones, where a medium PCC shall be used. L = Luminance Veiling Luminance = the veiling effect produced by bright sources or areas in the visual field that result in decreased visual performance and visibility. cd/m2 = candela per square meter Lavg/Lmin = average luminance / minimum luminance Lmax/Lmin = maximum luminance / minimum luminance Lvmax/Lavg = maximum veiling luminance / average luminance For curved sections of roadway or where luminance cannot be calculated accurately Page 18 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
lighting levels shall be based on illuminance. IES defines ‘illuminance’ as the amount of light incident on the roadway surface from the roadway lighting system. The average maintained illuminance levels and uniformities shall not be less than the values shown in the following table. Table 9 Lighting Levels – Curved Sections Average Illuminance Eavg2 (Lux)
Uniformity Ratio Eavg/Emin
Veiling Luminance Ratio Lvmax/Lavg
Pedestrian Conflict Area Classification
Local
4.0
6.0:1
0.4
Low1
Collector
6.0
4.0:1
0.4
Low 1
Arterial
9.0
3.0:1
0.3
Low 1
Roadway Classification
Note 1: Pedestrian Conflict Area Classification as defined in ANSI / IESNA RP-8-00 in paragraph 2.2 on 4. The only standard exception to the low PCC used in lighting calculation in the City is in school zones, where a medium PCC shall be used. E = Illuminance Veiling Luminance = the veiling effect produced by bright sources or areas in the visual field that result in decreased visual performance and visibility. Lux = unit of illuminance (illuminance on a surface one square meter in area on which there is a uniformly distributed flux of one lumen). Eavg/Emin = average illuminance / minimum illuminance Lvmax/Lavg = maximum veiling luminance / average luminance Average illuminance levels at intersections should be equal to the sum of the average levels for the two intersecting roadways. The uniformity of the intersection should be equal to the criteria of the roadway with the highest level. For LED conventional lighting calculations, a light loss factor (LLF) of 0.85 shall be utilized.
17.3 Poles Street light poles shall be direct buried Ontario Stresscrete or equivalent (subject to the Page 19 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
approval of the Director of Engineering & Corporate Assets), spun round concrete of Class B strength or better, and with Burndy ground lug in handhole. Street light poles shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of OPSD 2210.020. Poles on local or collector roads shall be 9.1 m overall (30 feet), and arterial roadway poles shall be 13.7 m (45 feet). All street lighting poles shall be supplied with an above grade handhole and cover, a ground lug at the handhole, and two below grade wiring apertures. For poles with disconnects, a second handhole shall be required. Poles shall be installed such that maintenance personnel are facing oncoming traffic while facing the handhole. Table 10 Approved Concrete Poles (Direct Buried)
Manufacturer
Utility Structures Inc (USI)
Stresscrete
StressCrete – Telecommunication Pole
Local or Collector Roads – Decorative Octagonal 7.6m (Above Grade)
Local or Collector Roads Rounds 7.6 m (Above Grade)
Arterial Roadways Round 11.9m (Above Grade)
Madison MA-300-B-2-BE-60-F (1.8m Scroll Arm)
Hampton HA-300-B-1-PG-10 (1.8m Elliptical Bracket)
Hampton HA-450-B-1-PG-10 (3.0m Elliptical Bracket)
Octagonal Class “B” E-300-BPO-G-S11 c/w FC (Blk) (1.8m Scroll Arm)
Round Class “B” E-300-BPR-G-MOO (1.8m Elliptical Bracket)
Round Class “B” E-450-BPR-G-MOO (3.0m Elliptical Bracket)
Alexander KAH25-E-11-DB (1.8m Scroll Arm)
17.4 Brackets Elliptical Brackets shall be 1.8 m long with 0.9 m rise tapered elliptical aluminum (or steel), single member type complete with pole plate Utility Supply Specialists TER-6-MA, or equivalent. Brackets on arterial roads shall be 3 m with a 1.5 m rise. Decorative scroll arms shall be 1.8 m long, USI Style 60, Stresscrete Style 170 or approved equivalent. Colour of decorative arms and bracket shall match pole and luminaire colour. 17.5 Luminaires All new developments shall use LED type cobrahead and decorative style luminaires. Correlated Colour Temperature (CCT) shall be 4000K. Table 11 Local and Collector Roadways – Cobrahead Luminaires Page 20 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
Manufacturer
Luminaire Type
Mount Type
NVN Series
Arm Mount
Cree Lighting
XSP Series
Arm Mount
General Electric
Evolve ERS Series
Arm Mount
Philips Lumec
RoadStar
Arm Mount
Eaton Lighting Solutions (formerly Cooper Lighting)
Table 12 Decorative Coach Style Luminaries Manufacturer
Luminaire Type
Mount Type
Eaton Lighting Solutions (formerly Cooper Lighting)
UTLD Traditionaire LED downlight
Post-top
Eaton Lighting Solutions (formerly Cooper Lighting)
SDL
Arm Mount
King Luminaire
Empress (K601)
Post-top / Arm Mount
Philips Lumec
L40U Series
Post-top / Arm Mount
Table 13 Arterial Roadways – Street Light Luminaires Manufacturer
Luminaire Type
Mount Type
NVN Series
Arm Mount
Cree Lighting
XSP Series
Arm Mount
General Electric
Evolve ERS Series
Arm Mount
Philips Lumec
RoadStar
Arm Mount
Eaton Lighting Solutions (formerly Cooper Lighting)
17.6 Photocell Control Luminaires shall be equipped with NEMA 7 prong twist lock connector sockets with dimmable drive. The photocell port shall be 7 pin compatible. The developer can continue to use the 3-pin photocell, but the port must be configured to also accept a 7-pin photocell should CKL upgrade the photocell in the future. Page 21 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
Photocells shall be/have:
omnidirectional Ambient Light Sensor type operating voltages between 105 and 305 volts at 50/60Hz a load rating of 1800VA and 1000W capable of a continuous load current of 16 amps maximum power consumption less than 0.5 Watts nominal @ 230V AC a 10-year manufacturer’s warranty of the complete photocell unit an IP rating of 67 an operating ambient temperature range of minus 35 to 70 degrees Celsius a life expectance of 25 years run maintenance free for a minimum of 20 years.
The photocell and all subcomponents are to be free of designated hazardous substances that would otherwise prevent it from being disposed of in a normal regulated Ontario landfill site or recycled without any special type of treatment of disassembly. The photocell unit shall have visible identification which shall contain the manufacturer serial number and date of manufacture in a location which can be viewed when accessing. Photocells shall be safety certified to standards or have an equivalent listing from a recognized testing laboratory for the approved sale and use in Canada. Photocell shall contain a surge protection device (SPD) to protect all electrical and electronic components from harmful line transient voltage surges as a result of utility line switching, lightning strikes, or other electrical supply system disturbances. 17.7 Control and Supply Street lighting systems shall be controlled by a ‘Service Entrance ‘rated disconnect to comply with the current Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) requirements. The disconnect shall be Square D Model CQO112M100C60 or approved equal. The branch breakers shall be 20 A Square D Model QO140HID or approved equal. Handhole breakers shall be used and placed in a separate hand hole. Final connection to secondary supply is to be completed by local hydro authority at transformer or secondary supply pole. The Developer shall be responsible for the payment of all fees and costs to be paid to local utility for the energizing of the street lighting system until “Formal Acceptance” of the subdivision. 17.8 Cable Low voltage single conductor cables for roadway lighting shall be stranded copper conductors with RWU90 cross linked polyethylene insulation rated for 600-volt according to CSA C22.2 No. 38. The insulation colour of “Line” conductors shall be RED and BLACK for a120/240 V, 1-phase, 3-wire system and RED for 120 V, 1-phase, 2-wire system. The insulation colour of Neutral conductor shall be WHITE. Wire sizes allowed shall be #8, #6, #4 and #2 AWG. The wire shall be sized so as to satisfy Ontario Electrical Safety Code Page 22 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
maximum voltage drop requirements. Splices shall be made only in the pole handholes with CSA approved Burndy compression connectors and electrical insulating tape. Electrical insulating tape shall be rated for 600 V and -10°C to 90°C working temperature and shall be according to CSA C22.2 No. 197. Riser wires in lighting poles shall be #12 AWG, stranded copper, type TW90 insulation. Riser wires shall be connected to the lighting circuit wiring in the pole handhole with an inline fuse holder rated 600 V complete with protective boot and 10 A type KTK fuse. 17.9 Duct Lighting conductors and ground wires shall be installed in 50 mm rigid duct suitable for direct bury. For under pavement crossing, install 100 mm rigid PVC duct encased in 20 MPa concrete. Cover over direct buried duct and under pavement crossing shall not be less than 0.75 m. 17.10 Grounding The separate system ground wire shall be #6 stranded copper, insulation colour green RWU90 cross linked polyethylene, 600-volt according to CSA C22-2 No. 38. The system ground shall be connected to the ground lug in each pole handhole and to the main ground bus at the supply disconnect. The power supply shall be grounded with two (2) ground rods by means of 2-#6 RWU90 (green) running from the supply to approved ground rods. The disconnect shall be grounded using two (2) ground rods. A ground rod shall also be installed at a minimum of every 5th lighting pole in each circuit as well as at the last lighting pole in each circuit. Ground rods to be steel, 19 mm diameter, 3.0 m long, copper clad for full length and shall be according to CSA. C22.2 No. 41. Ground rods shall be driven to a depth of 300 mm below finished grade. 17.11 Photometrics 17.11.a.
Qualified Designers
A photometric plan for exterior lighting shall be prepared by a licensed electrical lighting specialist competent in lighting and photometrics or a licensed professional electrical engineer and submitted to the City of Kawartha Lakes for review. The plan must be legible and have sufficient information to show light levels throughout the site and in particular at all property lines 17.11.b.
Design Parameters – Light Trespass
In general, the City of Kawartha Lakes policy is that the exterior lighting system shall be designed to ensure readings of 0.0 Lux at all property lines within the municipal right-ofway. Page 23 of 24
City of Kawartha Lakes Infrastructure Guidelines – 2025 Roads
17.11.c.
Drawings
In addition to the Photometric Plan an Underground Electrical/Schematic Plan and a Detail Plan shall be prepared by a licensed electrical lighting specialist or a licensed professional electrical engineer and submitted to the City of Kawartha Lakes for review. As built drawings shall be provided to the City upon energizing the system. 17.12 Assumption of Subdivision Prior to the assumption of a subdivision, the developer shall ensure all poles are installed correctly and in the proper location as per the approved drawings. All LED lamps are to be cleaned according to manufacturer’s recommendations 17.13 References
The Corporation of the Town of Whitby Public Works Department Design Criteria The Corporation of the Town of Ajax Design Criteria, Section I Streetlighting The Corporation of the City of Barrie Transportation Design Manual The Corporation of the Town of Whitby Development Control, Design and Technical Services “Landscape Plan Guidelines for Site Plan and Subdivision Development”
Page 24 of 24
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix L: Policy Documents:
L.5 Vision Zero Policy
Page | 1483
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan
City of Kawartha Lakes
Vision Zero/ Safe Systems Plan
1 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan
Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................. 3 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................. 4 2.1
About this Plan ..............................................................................................................4
2.2
Vision Zero and Safe System Approach: Frameworks for improving Road Safety ................5
2.3
What is Vision Zero ........................................................................................................5
2.4
Vision Zero in City of Kawartha Lakes .............................................................................7
3.0 The Vision Zero Plan ................................................................. 7 3.1
Elements of Vision Zero..................................................................................................8 3.1.1
Evaluation ...............................................................................................................9
3.1.2
Engineering ........................................................................................................... 10
3.1.3
Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 12
3.1.4
Engagement .......................................................................................................... 13
3.1.5
Education .............................................................................................................. 14
4.0 Implementation ...................................................................... 15 5.0 Best Practices in North America ............................................. 15 6.0 Conclusion .............................................................................. 16
2 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan
1.0 Executive Summary The City of Kawartha Lakes remains an attractive place to live, offering a high quality of life. The city experiences significant population increases, ranging from 20-25% during peak tourist and recreational seasons, typically observed in the summer. The city's road network spans approximately 2,700 kilometers, with approximately 70% designated as collector roads, 28% as rural roads, and 2% as arterial roads. Additionally, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) manages key provincial routes within the city, including Highway 7, Highway 7A, Highway 35, and Highway 115. Kawartha Lakes is surrounded by the Regional Municipality of Durham to the west, the County of Peterborough to the east, the City of Peterborough to the southeast, and the Counties of Simcoe, Muskoka, and Haliburton to the north, with the City of Orillia to the northwest. Internally, Kawartha Lakes comprises the urban areas Bobcaygeon, Fenelon Falls, Lindsay, and Omemee as well as numerous hamlets and rural and waterfront areas, each with distinct identities and varying needs. The city is also situated within the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) area and is experiencing growth. According to Statistics Canada, City of Kawartha Lakes population was reported to be 79,247 in 2021. The City’s Growth Management Strategy to be completed in Fall of 2024 shows the population is forecasted to be 105,600 by 2036 and 130,000 by 2051. With increasing roadway utilization and concerns over traffic collisions, the safety of all road users has become a pressing issue. On average, there are 316 collisions annually in Kawartha Lakes (averaged over a 9-year period from 2014 to 2022), with most being vehicle-only incidents. The city has already taken steps to address road safety through educational programs and updates to existing plans and policies. However, recognizing the need for further improvement, Kawartha Lakes is exploring the Vision Zero approach to road safety. Vision Zero utilizes a data-driven strategy aimed at reducing serious injuries and fatalities related to traffic incidents, striving for the ultimate goal of zero casualties.
3 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan
2.0 Introduction Each year, more than 1.2 million people worldwide lose their lives in road traffic crashes. In the City of Kawartha Lakes, fatal crashes account for 0.2% of incidents, with 75% classified as Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions and 22% as non-fatal. Vision Zero has emerged as a leading road safety approach in Ontario and the broader transportation industry, aiming to increase safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. . Vision Zero is grounded in the belief that while drivers may make errors, the road system itself should not. It prioritizes life and health over other societal benefits, advocating for comprehensive strategies encompassing education, enforcement, engineering, evaluation, and engagement. Municipalities adopting Vision Zero policies set ambitious targets of zero fatal and serious collisions within specific timeframes, guided by detailed Vision Zero Action Plans outlining precise steps, timelines, and priorities. Key elements of Vision Zero include ensuring safe speeds, vehicles, roads, and drivers. This Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update acknowledges these principles, integrating them into the planning and design of the City of Kawartha Lakes' future transportation network. As the City of Kawartha Lakes continues to grow and evolve, consideration should be given to adopting a formal Vision Zero policy. This would expand current recommendations into a comprehensive Road Safety Action Plan, ensuring continued progress towards safer roads for all residents and visitors. 2.1.1
About this Plan
This guide provides essential insights to assist municipalities (as well as other public and private organizations) in initiating effective Vision Zero programs, improving existing ones, or developing new road safety initiatives and action plans. Its purpose is to support the City of Kawartha Lakes in its quest to achieve zero fatal and serious injury collisions on its road network. City staff can utilize this guide as a toolkit of actionable strategies to safeguard vulnerable road users and enhance overall road safety efforts.
4 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 2.1.2
Vision Zero and Safe System Approach: Frameworks for improving Road Safety
Worldwide, Vision Zero and the Safe System Approach have become widely embraced frameworks for road safety initiatives. Growing emphasis on health and environmental considerations has expanded road safety strategies to include innovative and sustainable mobility solutions, while also fostering collaborations with non-traditional partners. 2.1.3
What is Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a global traffic safety initiative and framework designed to eradicate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while promoting safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for everyone. Employing a data-driven approach to road safety, Vision Zero strives to minimize serious injuries and fatalities caused by traffic incidents to zero. Originating in Sweden in 1997, the Vision Zero concept has been embraced globally, including in countries like Canada and the United States. The basic principles of Vision Zero are as follows. 1. No loss of life is acceptable – traffic fatalities and serious injuries are preventable; 2. We all make mistakes – the transportation system should be designed to anticipate error, so the consequences are not serious injury or fatality; 3. We are all responsible for road safety – those of us who design and maintain the roads, those of us who make and enforce the rules of the roads, and those of us who use the roads; and 4. Working together will contribute to a safer road network. Overall, Vision Zero is a framework adopted by cities to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries, aiming for safer streets for all road users. The framework includes several key elements and strategies as identified below: 1. Safe Road Design: Cities redesign streets to prioritize safety, often by implementing measures such as traffic calming (speed bumps, roundabouts), separated bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and improved crosswalks.
5 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 2. Safe Speeds: Lowering speed limits in urban areas to reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes. This can involve setting default speed limits and using traffic calming measures to enforce them. 3. Education and Public Awareness: Campaigns to educate drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists about safe behavior and the importance of following traffic rules. This may include driver training, school programs, and public engagement events. 4. Enforcement: Police enforcement of traffic laws to ensure compliance with speed limits, yielding to pedestrians, and other regulations. This can involve increased patrols, automated enforcement systems (like speed cameras), and penalties for traffic violations. 5. Data-Driven Approaches: Using data to identify high-risk areas and prioritize interventions. This includes analyzing collision data, conducting safety audits, and using predictive modeling to anticipate and prevent crashes. 6. Collaboration and Partnerships: Engaging with community groups, transportation agencies, public health officials, and other stakeholders to implement and support Vision Zero goals. Collaboration helps in getting support, funding, and diverse perspectives. 7. Policy and Legislation: Implementing policies and laws that support safer streets, such as zoning changes that prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety, funding for infrastructure improvements, and regulations on vehicle design and safety features. 8. Evaluation and Continuous Improvement: Regularly assessing progress towards Vision Zero goals, adjusting strategies based on data and feedback, and sharing lessons learned with other cities. Evaluation helps cities refine their approach and improve effectiveness over time. Cities that adopt Vision Zero typically customize these elements to their specific needs and challenges, but the overarching goal remains the same: to create streets where traffic fatalities and severe injuries are eliminated through a holistic approach to safety.
6 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 2.1.4
Vision Zero in City of Kawartha Lakes
The Vision Zero approach to road safety is consistent with Canada’s Road Safety Strategy 2025 (Towards Zero: The Safest Roads in the World) and the Ministry of Transportation (MTO)’s vision to be a leader in moving people and goods safely, efficiently and sustainably, and to support a globally competitive economy. It is also consistent with the City of Kawartha Lakes existing strategic plans and policies which call for a safe and integrated transportation network that offers a choice of integrated travel modes. In particular, Vision Zero would support the City of Kawartha Lakes 2024-2027 Strategic Plan. Vision Zero supports the priorities outlined in the City of Kawartha Lakes Strategic Plan by fostering an inclusive and community-oriented program that promotes local prosperity through the development of a safe and integrated transportation network. Moreover, Vision Zero enhances these objectives by promoting active transportation modes and addressing road safety for vulnerable road users of all ages and abilities, thereby reducing Kawartha Lakes' carbon footprint and promoting a healthy lifestyle.
3.0 The Vision Zero Plan Addressing fatalities and serious injuries related to transportation presents complex challenges that demand a unique approach to finding solutions. This Action Plan is adaptable and anticipated to develop, as the Vision Zero program advances and safety data becomes more targeted to its specific needs.
7 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 3.1.1
Elements of Vision Zero
Vision Zero can be achieved by addressing road safety through five main elements (the five E’s).
All of the elements need to be implemented in a coordinated and strategic manner to achieve improvements to road safety and to strive towards the goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries on the City of Kawartha Lakes roads. 1. Evaluation – Identification of key challenges on Kawartha Lake’s Road network using a data driven approach. 2. Engineering – Strategic use of resources to improve existing engineering practices and policies, as they pertain to road safety.
8 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 3. Enforcement – Strategic use of enforcement resources in key areas for maximized effectiveness. 4. Education – Targeted and collaborative campaigns to address safety for all road users. 5. Engagement – Enhanced community engagement to create a safe roads culture 3.1.2
Evaluation
The evaluation component involves identifying the underlying causes of traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries, with a focus on methods to enhance the collection, sharing, maintenance, and refinement of data. This evidence-based approach to safety enables the strategic implementation of effective measures to address fatalities and serious injuries across the transportation network. Improving the availability of traffic and collision data is crucial for identifying engineering, enforcement, engagement, and education programs. Key Actions for Evaluation: 1. Review the current collision and traffic to propose enhancements that will enable the identification and reporting of collision patterns, trends, and high-risk areas. 2. Integrate all collision reports, into the database and evaluation process. 3. Explore innovative methods for monitoring and gathering data. Record, monitor, evaluate, and share data among stakeholders to identify trends and assess the effectiveness of collision mitigation efforts in Kawartha Lakes. Incorporate emerging trends into ongoing and future Vision Zero initiatives. 4. Coordinate a data-driven program to prioritize locations and corridors with high volumes and severity of collisions, as well as emerging collision trends, to strategically allocate resources. Use cost-benefit analysis to prioritize projects and programs. 5. Conduct regular reviews to identify root causes of traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries. Conduct field assessments within a week of each fatality to examine the conditions and circumstances leading to the incident. Coordinate with Kawartha Lakes Police Services as necessary.
9 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 6. Evaluate Vision Zero initiatives and programs regularly. Recommend adjustments or new programs through a multi-disciplinary committee within the City to gain diverse perspectives on successes and challenges. Assess the effectiveness of engineering, education, enforcement, and engagement programs as integrated efforts. 7. Identify additional focus areas for secondary emphasis. 3.1.3
Engineering
The Vision Zero approach to safety aims to design and manage roads to mitigate the consequences of human errors by road users. With the rising popularity of active transportation, proactive design strategies, including a review of speed limits, are essential to safely accommodate all road users. Continuous monitoring of the road network using safety and traffic data will facilitate the integration of strategic engineering solutions in street design, traffic engineering, transportation planning, and land use to prevent fatal and severe collisions. Key Actions for Engineering: 1. Clearly designate Roads and Traffic as the City's road authority. 2. Annually implement five Priority Safety Projects identified through the evaluation of collision and safety data. 3. Conduct a Safe Speeds Review based on findings from the evaluation of collision and safety data, and provide recommendations. 4. Evaluate Road Maintenance practices, identify areas for enhancement (e.g., keeping cycling and pedestrian facilities clear of snow and ice), and implement appropriate changes. 5. Prioritize Traffic Engineering efforts in identified areas of concern following industry standards. 6. Establish a review mechanism within the City to ensure that road safety best practices, complete street principles, and cycling and pedestrian networks are integrated into all new or rehabilitation projects and development initiatives.
10 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 7. Explore opportunities to incorporate collision costs into capital works budgets and asset management, ensuring a return on investment for all new and rehabilitation projects. 8. Review construction budget practices to ensure safety considerations are integrated and reviewed for each project, with allocated funds addressing identified concerns. 9. Conduct a cross-section and design standard review from a complete streets perspective, recommending adjustments to the City's current standards to support safe speeds, address collision trends, and better accommodate vulnerable road users, including the visually impaired. Evaluate traffic calming and speed reduction methods and other design details prior to implementation. 10. Research safety initiatives related to roadway design, maintenance, and operation, proposing recommendations for inclusion in the Action Plan. 11. Identify opportunities for policy changes within the City, such as assessing the need for new roadway classifications and evaluating current road uses like trucking and bike routes. 12. Identify and address gaps in the cycling and pedestrian networks. 13. Evaluate the issue of secondary incidents resulting from driver frustration during road closures (scheduled or unscheduled), reviewing contingency plans for improvements and making recommendations. 14. Identify opportunities for policy and legislative changes related to traffic operations and engineering, such as considering winter tires as a requirement. 15. Assess the performance of improvements implemented in previous year's Priority Safety Projects and Safe Speeds Review, applying lessons learned to future projects. These actions are integral to advancing the Vision Zero initiative, ensuring safer roads through comprehensive engineering strategies that prioritize safety, accessibility, and efficient transportation for all users.
11 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 3.1.4
Enforcement
Given that human error is the primary cause of fatal and serious collisions involving vehicles, effective law enforcement is crucial for enhancing roadway safety. The collaborative and data-driven approach of Vision Zero ensures that limited law enforcement resources are allocated efficiently for maximum effectiveness. Enforcement – Key Actions: 1. Establish a specialized Traffic Enforcement Unit. 2. Implement focused enforcement efforts at locations with high speeds and frequent collisions. 3. Develop a protocol to identify and monitor locations with safety concerns. 4. Collaborate with engagement and education teams to create and implement community-driven programs that educate and enforce road rules equitably for all users. 5. Recommend targeted enforcement and educational initiatives addressing issues like distracted driving, speeding, school zone safety, and parking violations that obstruct road users. 6. Assess road maintenance practices, identifying areas for enhancement (e.g., keeping cycling and pedestrian facilities clear of illegally parked vehicles) and implementing necessary improvements. 7. Explore additional safety measures (e.g., radar message boards, speed cameras) and provide recommendations for implementation. 8. Identify opportunities to revise policies and legislation concerning traffic operations and enforcement practices. These actions are integral to the comprehensive strategy of Vision Zero, aiming to reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities through proactive and targeted enforcement efforts supported by community engagement and continuous evaluation of safety initiatives.
12 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 3.1.5
Engagement
The Vision Zero engagement initiative aims to inspire Kawartha Lakes residents to actively contribute to achieving zero fatalities and serious injuries. It seeks to involve citizens of all ages and encourage engineering and enforcement efforts. Engagement – Key Actions: 1. Expand the Kawartha Lakes Road Safety Committee by including representatives from City departments, external agencies, neighborhood representatives, private companies, and supportive external organizations. 2. Adopt an open data approach to share information, empowering the public to make informed decisions that improve their lives. 3. Develop an interactive Vision Zero website to disseminate community information, enable road users to voice safety concerns, announce new initiatives, and more. 4. Utilize technology to enhance road safety and promote safe driving behaviors. 5. Explore diverse media outlets, including traditional and social media, to effectively communicate with the community. 6. Establish a Road Safety Pledge initiative. 7. Create a community engagement program to raise awareness of Vision Zero, address concerns, highlight successes, and engage reluctant participants through local working groups. 8. Design a dedicated road safety program for school-aged children, in consultation with school boards. 9. Develop age-specific road safety programs based on collision analysis results, consulting with community partners. 10. Launch pedestrian and cyclist road safety programs. 11. Develop a Vision Zero Neighborhood Toolkit in collaboration with local community groups.
13 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 12. Establish a centralized point of contact/resource for Vision Zero inquiries from internal City staff, councillors, and the community. 13. Introduce a Community Vision Zero Events program, exploring fundraising opportunities. 14. Coordinate engagement activities with Engineering, Enforcement, and community groups. 15. Advocate for financial support from other levels of government. 16. Require established neighborhood Vision Zero committees to develop comprehensive neighborhood Traffic Calming plans instead of individual street requests. 17. Collaborate with other levels of government to advocate for policy or legislative changes. 18. Publish annual Vision Zero Reports to update the community on progress and challenges. These actions are essential for fostering community involvement, advancing safety initiatives, and achieving the Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries in the City of Kawartha Lakes. 3.1.6
Education
A yearly education plan should be formulated. Education campaigns should reinforce previously communicated messages to maintain ongoing awareness among Kawartha Lakes residents. The plan must also be adaptable to allocate resources for unforeseen educational opportunities and to address unexpected road safety challenges effectively.
14 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan
4.0 Implementation Future resources may be necessary to implement the Vision Zero Action Plan; however, several of the action items identified would have minimal cost implications. For example, implementing a review mechanism for all new or rehabilitated projects would incur no capital costs. Similarly, exploring opportunities to integrate collision costs into capital works budgets and asset management would require modest resources and could potentially lead to cost savings for the City. Moreover, by integrating safety into all construction projects and including it in the planning and design phases of new developments, significant savings could be achieved by avoiding retrofitting existing conditions later on. Addressing these safety measures could also reduce the severity of collisions. A reduction in fatalities and serious injuries would serve as a clear measure of the program’s success. Furthermore, success could be gauged by the impact of revised engineering practices on reducing costs for the City overall. Ultimately, success should also be assessed by public perception of the program and confidence in the City's commitment to prioritizing the safety of all road users.
5.0 Vision Zero Best Practices Vision Zero is a groundbreaking approach to road safety that aims to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, making streets safe for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Originating in Sweden in the late 1990s, Vision Zero challenges the traditional belief that traffic accidents are inevitable and instead asserts that human life and health are paramount. Sweden has achieved the world's lowest annual rates of road fatalities over 20 years of implementation, marking one of the most successful Vision Zero campaigns globally. Overall, by prioritizing safe system design, data-driven strategies, and community engagement, Vision Zero seeks to create transportation networks that are not only efficient but also equitable and safe for everyone. This holistic approach has since gained traction worldwide, with cities and regions implementing tailored initiatives to reduce road-related deaths and injuries through comprehensive, evidence-based interventions. Below are examples of vision zero plans being implemented in North America. 1.
The City of Toronto - Has devised a five-year Vision Zero Action Plan that identifies and prioritizes six key areas: pedestrians, school children, older adults, cyclists, motorcyclists, aggressive driving, and distraction.
15 | Transportation Master Plan Update
Vision Zero / Safe Systems Plan 2.
The City of Edmonton – In 2015 adopted Vision Zero, launching a five-year road safety improvement plan with the goal of making 2020 the safest year in Edmonton. The strategy is grounded in an evidence-based approach and involves partnerships with road safety stakeholders, educators, the Office of Traffic Safety, the Edmonton Police Service, and the City of Edmonton.
3.
The City of New York - Has formed a Vision Zero task force that engages the community through initiatives aimed at addressing safety issues on city streets. These efforts have led to significant successes, culminating in New York City achieving its safest year on record in 2016.
6.0 Conclusion This Vision Zero plan for Kawartha Lakes represents a pivotal step towards creating safer roads and promoting sustainable mobility within the community. By adopting a holistic approach that integrates education, enforcement, engineering, and engagement, it will aim to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on the city’s roadways. This initiative not only aligns with national and provincial road safety strategies but also supports the local goals of enhancing quality of life and fostering a healthier, more connected city. As the City implements this plan, it is essential to refine it with input from all stakeholders, ensuring it serves as a model for safe, equitable, and vibrant transportation for future generations. The Vision Zero Plan should be informed by best practices, extensive consultation, and thorough analysis of collision data. The plan should be designed to evolve over time and be adaptable and overall achieving the ambitious goal of zero fatalities or serious injuries on Kawartha Lakes' roads will require sustained commitment and collaboration from all stakeholders involved.
16 | Transportation Master Plan Update
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Appendix L: Policy Documents
L.6 Goods Movement Strategy
Page | 1501
City of Kawartha Lakes
Goods Movement Strategy
City of Kawartha Lakes - Goods Movement Strategy
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction to Goods Movement ...................................................... 3 2.0 Purpose................................................................................................. 3 3.0 Background .......................................................................................... 4 3.1
Truck Volumes .................................................................................................................. 4
3.2
Aggregate Appeals ............................................................................................................ 6
4.0 Commercial Vehicle Movement .......................................................... 6 4.1
Non-Aggregate Based ....................................................................................................... 6
4.2
Aggregate Based............................................................................................................... 7
5.0 Truck Route Designation .................................................................... 8 6.0 Operational Requirements .................................................................. 8 7.0 Environmental and Safety Measures ................................................. 8 8.0 Emerging Technologies ...................................................................... 8 9.0 Recommendations ............................................................................... 9
| Interim Report – Transportation Master Plan
Page | 2
City of Kawartha Lakes - Goods Movement Strategy
1.0 Introduction to Goods Movement Goods movement is a critical component of the transportation network, facilitating the transfer of essential items from manufacturers and farms to markets and, in some cases, directly to individuals. Ensuring safe and efficient goods movement is vital for the City's economy, as it not only provides employment opportunities within the goods movement sector but also supports commerce by enabling the transport of freight. Additionally, given the distinct differences between heavy trucks and passenger vehicles, specialized strategies are needed for the management of high-truck-volume routes to ensure both safety and efficiency. Despite higher volumes of passenger vehicles, truck traffic has a greater impact on pavement durability. Therefore, understanding truck traffic patterns such as, volumes and routes is vital for effective network planning and accurate capital budget forecasting process.
2.0 Purpose This strategy provides guidance for the City of Kawartha Lakes in managing truck haul activities and balancing operational needs with community impact. The City should refer to this document to ensure a sustainable approach to truck traffic management, addressing both logistical requirements and minimizing disruptions to residents and local infrastructure. This policy establishes guidelines for the management of truck haul activities within the City of Kawartha Lakes. This document is designed to ensure the safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible movement of commercial trucks within the City. Its primary objectives are: 1. Enhance Road Safety: Establish guidelines and regulations to minimize risks associated with truck traffic, ensuring the safety of all road users, including motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. 2. Protect Infrastructure: Implement measures to prevent excessive wear and tear on roadways caused by heavy truck traffic, thereby extending the lifespan of road infrastructure and reducing maintenance costs. 3. Manage Traffic Flow: Optimize traffic patterns and truck routes to reduce congestion and improve overall traffic flow, particularly in residential and commercial areas. 4. Minimize Environmental Impact: Address environmental concerns such as noise, dust, and emissions by setting standards for truck operations and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 3
City of Kawartha Lakes - Goods Movement Strategy
5. Support Economic Activities: Facilitate the effective transportation of goods to support local businesses and industries, ensuring that economic activities can proceed smoothly without undue disruption. 6. Balance Community Interests: Consider the needs and concerns of residents, businesses, and other stakeholders by implementing strategies to manage the impact of truck traffic on quality of life and community well-being. By setting clear guidelines and enforcing regulations, this strategy aims to identify a balanced approach that supports economic growth while maintaining safety.
3.0 Background The City of Kawartha Lakes is recognized for its substantial agricultural and small-scale industrial activities. The City also possesses major mineral aggregate reserves, and plays a key role in supporting agricultural operations through the movement of commercial goods related to farming. Agricultural activities generate seasonal truck traffic, which primarily uses major routes to connect with urban centers. Small-scale industrial operations on agricultural land also contribute to local commercial goods movements, though their impact on the road network is currently modest. It is crucial to ensure that these operations have access to safe and efficient roadways and routes, especially as they intersect with major transportation corridors. Equally important is having a plan to manage truck traffic to minimize disruptions in key corridors that serve residential, recreational, tourism, and commercial activities. This involves effectively balancing heavy vehicle traffic with other road users. Additionally, the City currently does not have any designated trucking or haul routes, but rather imposes seasonal load restrictions and lists routes that are not affected by the restriction on its website. Restrictions are put into place in accordance with By-Law 2022190, when road damage is most likely to occur due to heavy loading. This should provide the City with a starting point to determine appropriate commercial truck routes, and the feasibility of designating routes instead of the current strategy of imposing seasonal load restrictions. As such, utilizing this policy guideline will be important to minimize the disruption of truck movements to local, agricultural, tourist, and recreational areas, and maintaining and improving road infrastructure to support local economic activities remains essential for the continued growth and prosperity for the City of Kawartha Lakes. 3.1
Truck Volumes
Using available Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR's) data over the 2023-2024 years on selected corridors, the counts of categorized vehicles were analyzed based on their number of axels. This analysis aimed to identify corridors with higher volumes of trucks (more than 5% of total traffic). As shown in, Table 1, 17 roadways within the City of Kawartha Lakes were found to experience over 10% of commercial vehicle traffic. | Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 4
City of Kawartha Lakes - Goods Movement Strategy
Colborne St & Francis St W in Fenelon Falls
Table 1 - Commercial Vehicle Percentages
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 5
City of Kawartha Lakes - Goods Movement Strategy
3.2
Aggregate Appeals
Recently, the Planning Division of Development Services updated the City's Official Plan mineral aggregate policies through an Official Plan Amendment ('OPA 11'). This Amendment aims to identify, protect, and manage mineral aggregate resources while addressing and mitigating the social, environmental, and health impacts of both existing and future aggregate operations and their associated haul routes. The Amendment applies to all lands within the City of Kawartha Lakes. It is important to note that while most appeals noted in Schedule K of the Official Plan have been resolved, the appeals related to aggregates have not. Additionally, in terms of haul routes, a section of the City’s Official Plan that remains under appeal is Section 24.3.2, which states the City would develop a secondary plan for aggregates that would include establishing preferred haul routes. Overall, the appeals related to transportation and specifically haul routes are related to an Aggregate Secondary Plan. The City’s Official Plan states says it should be completed within 6 months of its final approval however, this is still under appeal and awaits further confirmation. Overall, the few haul routes policies in the previous Victoria County Official Plan should still apply to Kawartha Lakes. These would be found in sections 6.9.4, 6.10.4, and a site-specific exception detailed in section at 6.10.13 of the document.
4.0 Commercial Vehicle Movement To categorize commercial vehicle movements within the City of Kawartha Lakes, two main types can be identified: aggregate-based and non-aggregate-based traffic. For this review, non-aggregate-based traffic refers to commercial vehicles delivering goods to and from developed areas that support urban activities such as commercial, retail, and industrial operations. In contrast, aggregate-based traffic involves commercial vehicles associated specifically with the aggregate industry within the City. While traffic count data does not differentiate between these types, this review provides insights into their respective characteristics and impacts on the City's road network. 4.1
Non-Aggregate Based
Non-aggregate commercial traffic in Kawartha Lakes is primarily driven by the presence of urban centers. These centers, which have concentrated populations and/or significant commercial and industrial activities, are where commercial goods are typically manufactured, purchased, or consumed. Accordingly, commercial vehicles generally follow routes that connect these urban centers. Thus, the movement of non-aggregate commercial goods tends to be relatively predictable.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 6
City of Kawartha Lakes - Goods Movement Strategy
Kawartha Lakes is predominantly rural with a few key urban centers, including Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, and Fenelon Falls. These urban centers generate a substantial amount of commercial goods traffic, serving both their local populations and the surrounding rural areas. They are well linked to each other and to regional markets through major roads and highways and the impact of commercial traffic on the Kawartha Lakes road network would be minimal. Also, while there is a clear link between non-aggregate commercial traffic and urban activity in Kawartha Lakes, it is important to recognize that the region has a vibrant agricultural sector, which contributes significantly to commercial goods movements. These agricultural-related truck movements are often seasonal and generally do not place excessive strain on the road network. Typically, these trucks use major routes when traveling to and from urban centers. 4.2
Aggregate Based
Overall. truck traffic from the aggregate industry is less predictable compared to nonaggregate traffic because each aggregate pit generates its own trips. Aggregate resources are often located far from urban centers due to their natural deposits, and while urban development does create a demand for aggregate, construction projects are not always within these urban areas. Unlike conventional commercial goods that typically travel between urban centers, aggregate truck routes tend to be more varied. Consequently, aggregate-related truck traffic depends more heavily on the City’s road network than nonaggregate traffic. As demand for aggregate resources in Kawartha Lakes increases, the pressure on the road network will also rise. It is crucial for the City's policy on aggregate operations to account for the road network, ensuring that suitable haul routes are established and designated. Road design standards should address the specific pavement management needs for these truck routes. Additionally, it is important to minimize the impact on existing urban centers to avoid excessive disruption in these areas. The aggregate industry in Kawartha Lakes is less prominent compared to some other regions in Ontario but still plays an important role in the City’s local economy. The City of Kawartha Lakes has several aggregate operations, including pits and quarries, but they are smaller in scale compared to major aggregate-producing regions. The aggregate industry in Kawartha Lakes typically involves the extraction of sand, gravel, and crushed stone. These materials are used for construction, road maintenance, and other local infrastructure projects. Aggregate pits and quarries in Kawartha Lakes are generally located in rural areas rather than in urban centers. This is typical for aggregate operations, as resources are often found away from densely populated regions. When it comes to transportation routes, trucks transporting aggregate from these operations often use local roads to connect with major highways. This can lead to increased truck traffic on rural roads, impacting road maintenance and safety. It is also important to note that local demand for aggregate materials is driven mostly by construction projects, road maintenance, and other on-going | Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 7
City of Kawartha Lakes - Goods Movement Strategy
developments within the City and surrounding areas. As the City continues to develop and grow, there may be increased demand for aggregate materials. Planning and policy will need to address how to manage this growth while minimizing disruptions to the community and maintaining road infrastructure.
5.0 Truck Route Designation Primary Routes: The primary routes for haul routes should be the City’s arterial roads. The City should designate specific primary routes for truck haul operations, including aggregate transport, to minimize impact on residential and commercial areas. Routes should connect key industrial sites with major transportation corridors and should be chosen based on factors such as road capacity, safety, and proximity to residential areas. Restricted Areas: Prohibit trucks from entering sensitive areas, including densely populated residential zones, parks, and other high-traffic regions, unless necessary.
6.0 Operational Requirements Hours of Operation: Limit truck operations to specified hours, Monday through Friday, to reduce noise and disruption. Speed Limits: Implement reduced speed limits for trucks in residential and sensitive areas to enhance safety and reduce road damage. Weight Restrictions: Adhere to weight restrictions as per local and provincial regulations to prevent excessive road damage.
7.0 Environmental and Safety Measures Noise Management: Ensure compliance with noise regulations Road Maintenance: Mandate regular maintenance of roads used by trucks to address wear and tear.
8.0 Emerging Technologies Emerging technologies, such as drones for goods delivery and autonomous trucking, are expected to gain prominence throughout the Kawartha Lakes TMP update timeframe as these technologies evolve and are deployed in appropriate contexts. For example, autonomous trucks might handle deliveries or pickups within Kawartha Lakes if they reach a level of safety deemed consistently reliable. Similarly, drones and driverless delivery systems are already operational in various locations and are looking to expand their service
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 8
City of Kawartha Lakes - Goods Movement Strategy
areas. The City should keep track of these technological advancements, evaluate their progress, and prepare to integrate them in the future to enhance the safety and efficiency of goods movement.
9.0 Recommendations Goods movement within and through the City of Kawartha Lakes is necessary for the economic health of the City. The movement of trucks should be efficient and effective to meet the needs of industry while minimizing impacts to residents. It is recommended that to better accommodate truck traffic in support of the City’s economic objectives and needs, the following initiatives be undertaken:
1. Investigate specific network changes for CKL Rd 34, CKL Rd 33 and Kent St W. 2. Ensure to have mobile homes be far away from hailing routes and attention being given to haulage routes impact on concentrations of residential dwellings. 3. Actively promote alternate routes around urban areas. 1. Develop supplementary signage strategy for alternate haul routes and incorporate into the City’s future road signage initiatives if available. Develop asupplementary signage strategy for alternate routes 2.4.Establish design policy that defines pavement design haul and road and incorporate into the City’s future road signage initiatives design elements that meet the needs of primary and secondaryif available. truck routes and incorporate truck loading regulations (which include the development a separate road.design and road 5.could Establish a design policy that of defines pavement design elements that meet the needs of primary and secondary truck routes and incorporate truck loading regulations (which could include the development of a separate road.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 9
Appendix L: Policy Documents:
L.7 Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines
Page | 1511
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
City of Kawartha Lakes
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 1
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
Table of Contents 1.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Development Planning Authority .....................................................................................4 1.2 Applicability ...................................................................................................................5 1.3 Pre-Consultation and Qualifications .................................................................................5 1.4 Historical Report Relevance ............................................................................................6 1.5 References ....................................................................................................................6
2.0
TIA Methodology Requirements.................................................................................. 7 2.1 Objectives .....................................................................................................................7 2.2 Type of TIA Required .....................................................................................................8 2.3 Analysis Parameters and Methodologies ..........................................................................9 2.3.1 Study Area ..........................................................................................................9 2.3.2 Traffic Data.........................................................................................................9 2.3.3 Analysis Periods ..................................................................................................9 2.3.4 Study Horizons .................................................................................................. 10 2.3.5 Site Generated Traffic ........................................................................................ 10 2.3.6 Trip Distribution ................................................................................................ 12 2.3.7 Trip Assignment ................................................................................................ 12 2.3.8 Background Traffic Volumes............................................................................... 13 2.3.9 Transportation Capacity Analysis ........................................................................ 13 2.3.10 Safety Analysis .................................................................................................. 15 2.3.11 Site Access and Circulation................................................................................. 16 2.3.12 Parking Assessment........................................................................................... 16
3.0
Transportation Impact Study .................................................................................... 17 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 17 3.1.1 Project and Site Context .................................................................................... 17 3.1.2 Existing Transportation Conditions...................................................................... 17 3.1.3 Future Background Conditions............................................................................ 17 3.1.4 Site Travel Demand ........................................................................................... 17
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 2
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines 3.1.5 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................. 17 3.1.6 Safety Assessment ............................................................................................ 17 3.1.7 Site Plan, Access and Parking ............................................................................. 17 3.1.8 Transportation Demand Management ................................................................. 17 3.1.9 Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................... 19 3.1.10 Appendices ....................................................................................................... 20 4.0
Transportation Brief .................................................................................................. 21
5.0
Functional Internal Traffic Study ………………………………………………………………22
Appendix A - Screening Form Appendix B - TDM Measures Checklist Appendix C – Functional Internal Traffic (F.I.T) Study Guidelines
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 3
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
1.0 Introduction It is essential to ensure that development driven growth and its impact on the City of Kawartha Lake’s transportation network are adequately assessed and understood. A Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) serves to identify on-site and off-site measures to be taken by a developer to align the transportation network’s performance with the goals set forth by the City through its Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan by:
Evaluating alignment of proposed development’s transportation characteristics with City goals and policies.
Evaluating transportation network performance before and after development.
Enabling negotiations between the City and developers for costs of any required transportation network modifications.
The City has prepared these guidelines to provide a structured framework for conducting TIAs to ensure study methodologies, data collection, and analysis approaches, are consistent with industry best practices. This structural framework is intended to outline the expectations and requirements for stakeholders and assist the City with informed decisionmaking regarding land use approvals, infrastructure investment, and mitigation measures.
1.1
Development Planning Authority
The Province of Ontario’s Planning Act gives the City authority to impose conditions when considering planning or development applications. Additional authority on development conditions may come from the current Provincial Policy Statement and various other regulatory documents including but not limited to the Municipal Act, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and the Ontario Building Code. The City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan establishes the overall road use strategy for the City. The Official Plan reflects the authority to impose development conditions based on the road jurisdictions (Province, City, or Local Municipality) when it deems that a proposed development could impact the performance of its transportation network.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 4
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
1.2
Applicability
These guidelines are applicable for all TIAs submitted to the City of Kawartha Lakes. All applications may be subject to additional requirements from applicable approving authorities or agencies. Applicants with developments within Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Controlled Areas should request a pre-consultation with the MTO early in the planning stage. Furthermore, in municipal planning, TIA’s serve distinct purposes for Site Plan Approval (SPA) and Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval (DPSA). Site Plan Approval TIA’s focus on evaluating how a specific development site will impact local traffic flow, parking, and pedestrian access. They ensure compliance with transportation standards and mitigate sitespecific transportation impacts. In contrast, Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval TIA’s assess the broader impacts of subdividing land into multiple lots, examining infrastructure capacity, road network connectivity, and community transportation integration. Both TIA’s are essential for guiding development decisions that align with municipal transportation goals and standards. The policies, standards, and methodologies included and referenced in these guidelines are relevant at the time of publishing. Guideline revisions may be performed to reflect future changes to the City’s policies, practices, or accepted standards. The City does not have the resources to confirm the scope of every TIA until after the TIA is submitted. As such, all applicants should make every effort to reference up to date guidelines by downloading the latest published version at Transportation Master Plan Study | Jump In Kawartha Lakes.
1.3
Pre-Consultation and Qualifications
Prior to commencement of any TIA, the City must confirm the type of TIA, if any, is required and identify any non-standard analysis parameters. To support discussion with City staff and to determine the type of TIA required, applicants are encouraged to complete the City of Kawartha Lake’s TIA Screening form, in advance of pre-consultation meetings. The City’s TIA Screening form, provided in Appendix A, is intended to provide an initial screening to determine the number of trips generated by the development and whether the development and/or boundary street conditions have high potential for safety concerns. All studies will require engineering judgement and the seal of a registered member of the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) on the final report and all subsequent updates.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 5
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines Furthermore, the review of the TIA shall also be conducted by a registered professional engineer.
1.4
Historical Report Relevance
The ‘shelf-life’ of a TIA is five years. As such, if development assessed within a TIA has not occurred within the five-year time frame, a new TIA will be required. Additionally, where developments are phased, or references made to previous documents, only reports completed within the five-year time frame prior to the completion of the subject analysis will be considered relevant. In addition, any newly required TIA must adhere to the latest available published TIA Guidelines regardless of compliance to the guidelines at the time of the original assessment.
1.5
References
All applicants are encouraged to utilize industry best practices in completion of all TIAs. To assist in this endeavour, references are recommended, but not limited to the most recent editions of following:
City of Kawartha Lakes Transportation Master Plan (TMP).
City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan.
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) – Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads.
Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Design Supplement to the TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads.
Transportation Association Board (TRB) - Highway Capacity Manual.
TAC – Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming.
TAC – Canadian Roundabout Design Guide.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) – Trip Generation Manual.
ITE – Parking Generation.
ITE – Trip Generation Handbook.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 6
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
Ontario Traffic Manuals (OTM) – Books 1 – 19.
Ontario Traffic Council (OTC) – Multi Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Guidelines.
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) – Urban Bikeway Design Guide.
NACTO – Urban Street Design Guide.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) – Report 672 Roundabouts: An Information Guide.
NCHRP – Report 716 Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – Highway Safety Manual.
2.0 TIA Methodology Requirements 2.1
Objectives
The overall purpose of a TIA is to develop and maintain a safe, accessible, and wellconnected transportation network for the City of Kawartha of Lakes. The main objectives of any TIA include but are not limited to:
Identify the benefits and impacts of a proposed project/development or redevelopment.
Identify the transportation impacts associated with the proposed development/redevelopment and how they can be mitigated in a manner consistent with the objectives and policies of the City.
Identify any existing or potential safety concerns and countermeasures to enhance the level of safety for all road users.
Identify roadway and access improvements to ensure acceptable levels of service for the roadway system.
Any TIA must be completed in accordance with established transportation planning and traffic engineering principles, supplemented, when possible, with local survey data and
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 7
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines experience. TIAs should ensure equitable access to all modes of transportation including active transportation (cycling, walking), transit, automobiles, and trucks. The City recognizes two types of TIAs. These include Transportation Impact Studies (TIS) and Transportation Briefs. Both TIAs focus on assessing impacts of a proposed development on the City’s transportation network, providing recommendations for mitigation measures, and ensuring that the site design features align with City’s policies and planning principles. Transportation Briefs are intended for proposed sites which are anticipated to have fewer transportation network impacts.
2.2
Type of TIA Required
The TIA Screening form provided in Appendix A, identifies triggers based on the volume of estimated site generated traffic in addition to various safety related considerations. Figure 1 Figure 1 below assists in identifying the type of TIA report required based on the outcome of the screening form triggers. Figure 1 – TIA Screening
*The City retains the right to request, at its discretion, any level of TIA.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 8
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
2.3
Analysis Parameters and Methodologies
Prior to undertaking a TIA, there are a number of parameters which need to be defined such as the study area, traffic data, horizon years, analysis periods, trip generation and distribution estimates, and analysis performance metrics. The following sections describe these parameters.
2.3.1 Study Area The study area includes the development property and boundary roads and includes all aspects of the transportation network such as roads, intersections, accesses, sidewalks, cycling and transit facilities, etc. The exact limits of the study area should be discussed with the City prior to commencing the TIA; however, at a minimum the study area must include intersections directly adjacent to the site, as well as any site accesses.
2.3.2
Traffic Data
The most recent available traffic data should either be obtained from the City or collected by a transportation specialist where existing count data is not available or more than three years old. Traffic data should include 8-hour Turning Movement Count (TMC) data, pedestrian volumes and cyclist volumes and vehicle count data should be aggregated by 3 classes at a minimum (cyclist, car, truck). The City also reserves the right to request new traffic counts for any reason, regardless of the submitted data’s fit for purpose.
2.3.3
Analysis Periods
Impacts to the road network should generally be evaluated during typical morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours. Depending on the proposed development, weekend peak hour assessment may be required. Analysis periods for developments which generate high volumes of traffic that do not typically occur during the overall network peak hours (seasonal resorts, schools, event venues, etc.) should reflect the peak hour of development generated traffic as opposed to the peak hour of adjacent street traffic.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
Page | 9
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines Table 1 - Analysis Periods based on Land Use Category Land Use Category
AM Peak
PM Peak
X
X
X
X
Residential (e.g., single family, townhouse, condominium, apartments, senior homes) Employment (e.g., business park, industrial park, office, warehouse) Retail Commercial (e.g., shopping centre, restaurant, specialty store, supermarket) Institutional (e.g., Seasonal resorts, school, hospital, church, banquet hall, entertainment centre, community centre)
Saturday Peak
X
X
Site Specific
The outlined time periods shown in Table 1 should be confirmed with City staff before commencement of the study.
2.3.4
Study Horizons
Study Horizons should include:
Existing conditions (date TIA is being undertaken).
The expected year of development build-out or full occupancy (if not the same as build-out).
Five years post build-out or full occupancy.
Should a development proceed in phases, the TIA analysis must be completed for each development phase. Additionally, depending on complexity and scale of the development, the City reserves the right to request for a ten-year post build or a horizon year in line with the latest Transportation Master Plan.
2.3.5
Site Generated Traffic
The number of site trips entering and exiting the proposed development during applicable analysis periods will be estimated using one of the following methods:
Trip generation surveys at proxy sites from similar developments in the City of Kawartha Lake’s or comparable municipalities. The proxy sites and data collection methodology must be approved by the City staff.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 10
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
The latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
“First Principles” calculations of anticipated trips to/from the site. First Principles calculations involve breaking down problems into basic components to accurately estimate trips. In the context of anticipated trips to/from a site, it means analyzing the basic factors that drive trip generation—such as land use, demographics, and access to derive a more accurate estimate of vehicle trips. This method emphasizes questioning assumptions and clear framing. As a TIA reviewer, it suggests that wellsupported findings, even if they diverge from standard guidelines, could or not be accepted.
Where appropriate, trip reductions may be justified to account for the following:
Synergy/Internal Trips that are shared between two or more land uses on the same site.
Pass-by Trips that enter the site as an intermediate stop on the way from their primary origin to their primary destination. Pass-by trips should account for turning movements at the access intersections. Pass-by trips are considered for applicable land uses.
Travel Mode Share adjustment applicable to a proposed development that will reduce automobile travel to the site to account for non single occupancy vehicle travel to/from the site, such as transit, active transportation, and carpooling trips. As the majority of sites surveyed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual typically have a modal split included within their rates, in many cases, no modal split reduction should be applied. Transportation planning projections/goals are to be considered, however, they shall not replace good engineering judgment and actual modal split data (current or historic). It is also important to note that the City's transit system currently lacks ridership numbers sufficient to justify trip reductions for these modes. Additionally, the City’s active transportation network is still developing, making it unlikely that such adjustments will be accepted. Furthermore, a Transportation Demand Model will be required, as outlined in the TMD section later in this guide, to support any proposed adjustments.
Redundant Land Use trips which are generated by existing land use activity and reflected in current traffic volumes and will be replaced by the proposed
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 11
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines development. Unless otherwise accounted for, these trips will normally be subtracted from the trip generation estimates. Sensitivity analysis may be required to support the analysis where trip generation parameters have the potential to vary considerably. Sensitivity analysis is a technique used to evaluate how changes in trip generation parameters such as, land use, traffic patterns, or modal splits can impact the overall trip generation estimates. TIAs must include a table identifying the categories and quantities for each land use, along with the corresponding trip generation rates or equations and the resulting number of trips.
2.3.6
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution assumptions will be supported by one or more of the following methods:
Origin-destination surveys.
Comprehensive travel surveys.
Planning models.
Market studies.
Other recognized trip distribution methodology.
All trip distribution assumptions must be documented and justified. Consideration should also be given to potential differences in trip distribution patterns associated with different time periods, days of the week, and development land-use types. Engineering judgement should be used to determine the most applicable of the above methodologies.
2.3.7
Trip Assignment
Trip assignments should consider logical routings, projected roadway capacities, road network restrictions, and travel time. Assumption for route assignments shall be supported by:
Existing travel patterns.
Anticipated future travel patterns.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 12
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
2.3.8
Background Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes should be projected to the applicable TIA horizon years in consideration of background area growth and future traffic from other approved developments within the vicinity of the site. Background growth rates should be established in consultation with City staff through one of the following methods:
Regression analysis of historical traffic data.
Growth rate based on area transportation studies.
In the absence of these methods, and as established by the Transportation Master Plan a growth rate of 1.6% compounded annually should be used. Should a reduction in future background traffic volumes be warranted to account for any modal split changes (increased active transportation modes), justification and rationale should be communicated to the City staff for review and approval.
2.3.9
Transportation Capacity Analysis
Operational evaluation of signalized and unsignalized intersections including proposed site accesses is required as part of any TIA. Analysis should be completed utilizing the most recent version of one of the following software packages:
Synchro/SimTraffic for intersection analysis involving signalized or unsignalized intersections.
ARCADY, Sidra, or Rodel, for intersection analysis involving roundabouts.
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) / Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
Analysis results should include the following performance metrics: Level of Service (LOS), Volume to Capacity (V/C), 95th percentile delays, and average delays. Results should be output from applicable software packages utilizing the most recent version of HCM when possible. The TIA appendix should detail all assumptions used in the analysis concerning lane configuration/use, pedestrian/cyclist activity, saturation flows, traffic signal cycle length, phasing and timing, utilization of the inter-green phase, and other relevant parameters. Existing signal timings must be used for existing intersections and signal timing
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 13
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines modifications may be considered as a measure to address capacity or level of service deficiencies. Full documentation for the outputs from the analysis software should be provided. The identification and required modifications and improvements of signalized intersections should be included in the analysis where the addition of background growth plus sitegenerated traffic/transit volumes create the following:
Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratios for overall intersection operations, through movements or shared through/turning movements increased to 0.85 or above.
V/C ratios for exclusive movements increased to 0.95 or above or,
Queues for an individual movement are projected to exceed available turning lane storage.
The identification and required modifications and improvements of unsignalized intersections should be included in the analysis where the addition of background growth plus sitegenerated traffic/transit volumes cause the following:
Level of Service (LOS), which is based on average delay per vehicle, for individual turning movements at an intersection, exceeds LOS “D”, or
The estimated 95th queue length for an individual movement exceeds the available queue storage.
Adequate storage space should be ensured for all exclusive turning lanes used by sitegenerated traffic. All proposed new traffic signals shall be evaluated regarding signal warrants, distance from other intersections, effects on existing signal coordination, likely timing of implementation, and sightlines. All proposed adjustments to the traffic signal timing, phasing, and cycle lengths must clearly be identified and clear of any changes made to the existing signal timing plan. Overall, a full signal timing plan should be provided as well as a summary of changes from the original signal timing plan. Any traffic signal operational deficiencies that have been identified in the TIS must be addressed and solutions provided that are feasible to implement. All warrants must be supported by an Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 12 traffic control signals warrant to determine when a traffic signal or provision for signals are warranted, each one required to be included in the appendix of the TIS.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 14
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
2.3.10 Safety Analysis Safety for all road users shall be taken into consideration as part of any TIA. The safety review should identify and address potential safety or operational issues arising from the following:
Insufficient sight distance and sight triangle at access or intersections.
Vehicle-pedestrian or vehicle-cyclist conflicts.
Access conflicts.
Heavy truck movement conflicts.
Collision history.
Weaving and merging.
Emergency vehicle response.
Transit operational conflicts.
Internal circulation, if applicable.
Cut-through traffic.
Critical gap acceptance at unsignalized intersections.
The safety review must include all modes of transportation that might access or travel through, or are in the proximity of, the proposed development. A detailed review of the roadway geometry related to MTO/TAC guidelines for:
Sight distances (stopping distance, intersection sight triangles, departure sight distance, decision sight distance) utilizing MTO guidelines for approach and departure sight distances for all existing roadways to be impacted directly by the development, accesses, entrances, new roadways, etc.
Roadway curves (vertical and horizontal) standards.
Roadway cross-sections & lane widths.
Clear zone.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 15
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
Conflicting vehicle movements within and adjacent to the developments.
2.3.11 Site Access and Circulation All site access points on the local municipal and City roads should be evaluated in terms of capacity, safety (for all road users), vehicular and sight distance, location, corner clearance, alignment, clear throat distance, and adequacy of queue storage capacity, based on the TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads or other City-approved document. The proposed access points should be evaluated with respect to existing access points and intersections on street weaving problems, need for acceleration or deceleration lanes and pedestrian and cycling safety. Where identified by the City, the applicant will complete vehicle swept path analysis using accepted software (AutoTURN or Autodesk Vehicle Tracking). Analysis should be completed utilizing the proper design vehicles (buses, fire trucks, garbage trucks, etc.) as appropriate that will access the site. Analysis must demonstrate that design vehicles can adequately access and circulate through the site according to their intended purpose. For the purposes of this guideline, the minimum design vehicle size to represent general traffic will be a fullsize pickup truck. Site circulation should demonstrate satisfactory maneuverability, to avoid any possible queuing onto public right-of-way, especially as related to drive-through operations. Site assessment should ensure proper integration between pedestrian walkways, cycling paths and transit routes and vehicular access to development, identifying conflicts between the parking areas and potential pedestrian desire lines.
2.3.12 Parking Assessment Applicants must demonstrate the proposed parking facilities meet all City by-law requirements. Should the proposed supply not satisfy by-law requirements, justification of the proposed parking supply must be provided. The applicant must complete a first principles assessment, which can be completed using the ITE Parking Generation Manual (Latest Edition), proxy site survey data from similar land use, propriety data from applicant or other suitable source. In this context, a first principles assessment involves analyzing the proposed parking supply by breaking down the fundamental factors that influence parking demand, rather than relying solely on standard ratios or assumptions. This assessment must justify the
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 16
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines proposed parking supply by utilizing detailed data and methodologies, such as those outlined in the latest edition of the ITE Parking Generation Manual. When considering multiple land uses, applicants should consider time-of-day demand and illustrate that the overall, peak parking demand does not exceed the proposed parking supply.
3.0 Transportation Impact Study 3.1
Introduction
A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) is intended to determine the impacts of the site generated trips on the transportation network, recommending mitigation measures as required, and assessing the suitability of the site design features in relation to the planning principles and goals of the City. A TIS is required as determined in Section 2.2 The TIS should generally follow the structure outlined in the following sections.
3.1.1 Project and Site Context This section will include information regarding the project, the location of the site, adjacent land uses, and adjacent transportation infrastructure, and should include the following:
Description and illustration of the proposed study area including the site location and surrounding land uses.
Description of the proposed development. This should include all relevant information pertaining to the development including but not limited to: o A drawing and a written description of the type of land uses proposed and a detailed site plan showing structures, parking, access, and site circulation for all modes of transportation. o The characteristics of the proposed development, such as property size (area), number of residential units, industrial gross floor area, number of employees, number of hotel rooms, commercial gross leasable floor area, parking spaces, active transportation facilities, transit stops, etc. o The anticipated phasing scheme of the development and the expected dates of full and partial build-out.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 17
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
Description and illustration of the existing transportation network, including but not limited to: o Study area roadway jurisdictions, classifications, posted speed limits, adjacent land uses, and entrances (abutting and across the street), etc. o Intersection traffic control types and lane configuration. o All active transportation facilities including sidewalks, cycling facilities (on road or off road), nearby trails, pedestrian crossings, etc. o All nearby transit routes and transit stops within walking distance of the site (400 m).
3.1.2 Existing Transportation Conditions This section will include information on available traffic data, traffic volumes, and the existing study area traffic operations. This section should include but not be limited to the following:
Figure illustrating the existing study area traffic volumes including heavy vehicle percentages and pedestrian volumes.
Capacity analysis summary as outlined in Section 2.3.9
Identification of safety issues through assessment of the most recent 5-year collision data (if available) and consultation with the City.
Key field observations (desktop review or on site).
3.1.3 Future Background Conditions This section outlines the anticipated future study area conditions including but not limited to the following:
Identify all developments under construction or in the approval process within the vicinity of the site. Respective development land uses, location, and site-generated traffic should be identified.
Identify all anticipated roadway improvements or modifications and the planned completion dates.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 18
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
Figure illustrating the future background traffic volumes for study horizons outlined in Section 2.3.4. Background Traffic volumes should be developed according to Section 2.3.8
Capacity analysis summary of future background traffic as outlined in Section 2.3.9
3.1.4 Site Travel Demand This section includes description of methodology for estimating site generated trips, distribution and assignment to the transportation network. This section should include but not be limited to the following:
Trip generation estimates and methodology for study periods, outlined in Section 2.3.3
Description of trip distribution assumptions and methodology, as outlined in Section 2.3.6 and Section 2.3.7.
Figures illustrating the site generated trips. Additional figures should be included to illustrate any pass-by trips.
Figures illustrating the future total traffic (future background traffic + site generated traffic).
3.1.5 Impact Analysis This section should provide a summary of the anticipated impacts of the proposed development on the transportation network and should include but not be limited to the following:
Capacity analysis of future total traffic as outlined in Section 2.3.9.
Identification of potential operation issues (capacity deficiencies, queues, weaving conflicts, signal timings, etc.).
Warrant assessments including auxiliary lane warrants (left, right or taper), left turn lane warrants (MTO Supplement to the TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads), traffic signal warrants (OTM Book 12), Pedestrian Crossing Treatments (OTM Book 18), etc.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 19
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
3.1.6 Safety Assessment The safety review should identify and address potential safety or operational issues. Outlined in Section 2.3.10, the safety assessment should include but not be limited to the following:
Identify any sight distance deficiencies.
Identify any roadway design element issues relating to cross-section elements, conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists.
Collision or speeding related concerns. If available 85th percentile speeds should be reviewed and compared to posted speed limits
Safety issues arising from operation deficiencies such as inadequate gaps at stopcontrolled intersections or conflicts with nearby accesses.
3.1.7 Site Plan, Access, and Parking This section should evaluate the on-site components of the proposed development to ensure they adequately align with the City’s by-laws, planning principles, and goals. This section should include but not be limited to the following assessments:
Identification of all site accesses, location, and type (full move, right-in / right-out, etc.).
Identification of any potential on-site pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and identification of any on-site pedestrian facilities.
Site Access and Circulation review for all design vehicles (emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, site specific vehicles, etc.) as outlined in Section 2.3.11
Identification of on-site parking supply and facilities including accessible parking rates and location, bicycle parking supply, parking space dimensions and drive aisle widths, etc.
Evaluation of on-site parking supply, demonstrating proposed parking facilities meets the City requirements. Should proposed parking supply not meet City by-law requirements, first an assessment should be completed utilizing ITE Parking Generation Manual considering development land use/uses and time-of day demand.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 20
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
3.1.8 Transportation Demand Management If Transportation Demand Management (TDM) reductions are being applied to trip generation, a TDM plan should be prepared that identifies existing and future (proposed) sustainable forms of transportation, routes, and infrastructure within the study area. The plan should describe and evaluate the potential impacts and changes to pedestrian, cycling, and transit modal split associated with the development/redevelopment. Appendix B provides a TDM checklist of the various TDM measures that can be included as part of the TIS.
3.1.9 Conclusion and Recommendations The key findings and recommendations should be provided in this section. It should serve as a quick reference for the future to determine specific conditions which will be attached to a particular development. The impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway network and any transit and active transportation infrastructure should be provided including the mitigation measures to support the future traffic demands. Moreover, an implementation strategy outlining the timings of all identified operational and roadway improvements should also be included.
3.1.10 Appendices All relevant reference documents for the report should be provided in the appendices. These should include all supporting information which was used in completing the report, analysis, and assumptions.
4.0 Transportation Brief A Transportation Brief is undertaken for developments anticipated to have fewer impacts on the transportation network and can generally be considered as a TIS with a reduced scope. Its main focus is to determine existing network deficiencies and establish site design features needed to support the transportation systems objectives. The reporting of a Transportation Brief should follow those outlined in Section 3.0, with the following changes and omissions:
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 21
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
Section 3.1.3 (Future Background Conditions) is omitted.
Section 3.1.4 (Site Travel Demand) is omitted, however, trip generation estimates must still be provided.
Section 3.1.5 (Impact Analysis) – This section should include a qualitative assessment of the development’s impact on the study area.
5.0 Functional Internal Traffic Study (F.I.T) Guidelines A functional internal traffic study (F.I.T) must be completed as part of for all draft plan submissions. The F.I.T study should be accompanied by a transportation impact study (TIS), where required. The F.I.T will address the internal transportation system needs of the proposed development, including road functions and design requirements. The functional designs proposed for the site’s internal street system are to be based on relevant on all applicable and relevant design guidelines. Appendix C provides the City’s guidelines for preparation of a F.I.T study.
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 22
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
Appendix A - Screening Form
| Transportation Master Plan Update
P a g e | 23
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines 26 Francis Street Lindsay, Ontario K9V 5R8
City of Kawartha Lakes TIA Guidelines Screening Form 1. Description of Proposed Development Municipal Address
*Please attach a sketch of the development or Site Plan to this form, if available.
Description of Location Land Use Classification Development Size (units) Development Size (m2) Number of Accesses and Locations Phase of Development Buildout Year 2. Trip Generation Trigger
Considering the proposed Development’s Land Use type and Size, the total volume of development trips must be estimated in accordance with the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Total Trips*
0-25 vph**
26– 75 vph**
>75 vph**
What is the Volume of Site Generated Traffic? * Total Trips – Highest of the AM and the PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic **vph – vehicles per hour (The total trips are calculated as the higher volume of traffic observed during either the AM peak hour
or the PM peak hour on adjacent streets).
If the proposed site is anticipated to generate 26 vph or more, the Trip generation Trigger is satisfied. 3. Safety Triggers
Yes Are posted speed limits on a boundary street 80 km/h or greater? Are there any horizontal/vertical curvatures on a boundary street that limit sight lines at a proposed driveway? Is the site access located within 200m of a signalized intersection?
No
If any of the above questions were answered with a ‘Yes,’ then the Safety Trigger is satisfied.
Is the proposed access within auxiliary lanes of an intersection? Does the proposed driveway make use of an existing median break that serves an existing site? Is there a documented history of traffic operations or safety concerns on the boundary streets within the 500 m of the development? (This will be assessed by reviewing existing traffic operation records, safety reports, and historical data related to traffic incidents within 500 meters of a development. This information can be obtained from local traffic authorities, accident databases, and previous completed traffic studies).
Does the development include a drive-thru facility? Is there a high percentage of truck traffic on the boundary streets surrounding the development? 4. Type of TIA Report Required
If either the Trip Generation or Safety Triggers are satisfied then a TIA is required. Also, The City retains the right to request, at its discretion, any level of TIA. As identified in the City of Kawartha Lakes TIA guidelines, two types of TIA reports are identified: Transportation Briefs and Traffic Impact Studies. If the proposed site is anticipated to generate more than 75 vph, a Traffic Impact Study is required. A Transportation Brief is required at 25-75 vph or if only the safety trigger is satisfied.
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
Appendix B - TDM Measures Checklist
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
TDM Measures Checklist: Residential (Muti-Family, Condominium or Subdivision) and Non Residential Developments (Office, Institutional, Retail, or Industrial)
Legend Basic
The measures are feasible and effective, and in most cases would benefit the development and its users;
Better The measures could maximize support for users of sustainable modes, and optimize development performance; The measure is one of the most dependably effective tools to encourage the use of sustainable modes
TDM Measures: Residential & Non-Residential Developments 1. TDM Program Management 1.1 Designate a program coordinator 1.2 Conduct periodic travel surveys to identify travel-related behaviours, attitude, challenges and solutions, and to track progress 2. Walking and Cycling 2.1 Display local area maps with walking/cycling access routes and key destinations at major entrances 2.2 Offer secure valet bike parking during public events when demand exceeds fixed supply (e.g., festivals, concerts, games) 3. Transit 3.1 Display relevant transit schedules and route maps at entrances 3.2 Provide real-time arrival information display at entrances 3.3 Provide shuttle service for senior homes or lifestyle communities (e.g. schedules mall or supermarket runs) 4. TDM Marketing and Communications 4.1 Provide a multi-modal travel option information package to new/relocating employees and students 4.2 Include multi-modal travel information in invitations or advertising that attract visitors or customers (e.g., festivals, concerts, games)
Check if proposed & add description
Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines
Appendix C - Functional Internal Traffic (F.I.T) Study Guidelines
City of Kawartha Lakes I Functional Internal Traffic Study (FIT) Guidelines
City of Kawartha Lakes I Functional Internal Traffic Study (FIT) Guidelines
Table of Contents City of Kawartha Lakes I Functional Internal Traffic Study (FIT) Guidelines ....................... 1 1.0 Functional Internal Traffic (F.I.T) Study ........................................................................ 2 2.0 Components of the Functional Internal Traffic Study .................................................... 2
Page 1 of 5
City of Kawartha Lakes I Functional Internal Traffic Study (FIT) Guidelines
1.0
Functional Internal Traffic (F.I.T) Study
A functional internal traffic study is required for all draft plan submissions. The F.I.T study should be accompanied by a transportation impact study (TIS), where required. The following items help to determine the roadway network types and classifications and ensures that the critical design elements of the road network are confirmed. The list is further complemented by items which deal with the provision of adequate parking, proper access for major attractors and generators, and the formation of a satisfactory traffic control plan. Where applicable, additional items should be added that include traffic calming measures and active transportation measures. Associated with each item are specific criteria which require measurement, calculation and/or demonstration of adherence to standards and operating parameters. It is recognized that not all items may be applicable to all applications. Items identified with an asterisk (*) indicate that this item must be completed at the initial stages of any Draft Plan submissions. Other items may be deferred, subject to the City’s concurrence, but it must be emphasized that a proper geometric and standards fit must occur. Otherwise, many conditions and red lining of plans may occur. 2.0
Components of the Functional Internal Traffic Study 1. Road Network Layout and Design Volumes * - The built-out traffic flows are to be determined on each internal road for the typical weekday and/or weekend peak hours. In addition, if the development application contains a collector road which forms an intersection with another collector road or any type of road bounding an arterial road, the typical peak hour turning volumes must be identified. It is imperative that any associated exclusive turning lanes, particularly left turns, are provided with their ultimate storage and taper length dimensions. It is understood that collector roads at intersections with other collector roads and arterial roads may require a rightof-way widening to permit the introduction of necessary vehicle turning lanes. All projected traffic volumes are to be consistent with projections in a T.I.S., where a T.I.S. is required. 2. Internal Road Classification and Right-of-Way * - Standards are available from accredited associations identifying the acceptable range of traffic flows that a type of road can satisfactorily accommodate, either in a 24-hour period or during the roadway peak hours. The road type and classification being considered must be capable of serving the traffic flow demand within the identified level and comply with the City’s Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan. 3. Horizontal and Vertical Geometry * - Acceptable standards pertaining to horizontal curves, vertical curves, intersection angles and Safe Vehicle Stopping and turning decision criteria are contained in Manuals available from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, the Transportation Association of Canada and Institute of Transportation Engineers. All road elements are to be evaluated and made to conform to the applicable criteria. 4. Intersection Spacing * - Standards are available from accredited associations i.e. TAC that identify the minimum spacing of intersections from each other. The development application must meet these minimum standards. Page 2 of 5
City of Kawartha Lakes I Functional Internal Traffic Study (FIT) Guidelines
5. Intersection Warrants – Turning Lanes, Traffic Signals, Roundabouts * - The forecast demand volumes and the forecast intersection turning movements will dictate the appropriate traffic control device as well as the intersection lane configuration. The forecast demand volumes will be used to calculate required storage lengths for any turning lanes. If a traffic signal is to be considered, then a signal warrant analysis must be conducted that follows the O.T.M. A roundabout can be considered as an alternative to an intersection controlled by a traffic signal or all-way stop. A functional plan is to be provided. 6. Street Elbows * - Certain internal local roads may have center line radii greater than 90 degrees to continue the lot fabric. At these locations, pavement width analysis must be conducted to ensure that opposing design vehicles (design vehicles to be determined by the city) can negotiate the maneuver with no impacts. In addition, individual driveways must be located such that the road maneuvering area and sidewalk is not compromised. Formation of land use patterns incorporating such street elbows are not encouraged. 7. Rear Laneways * - The laneway layout and operation must be thoroughly addressed. This includes pavement widths, shoulder treatments, garage (building) setbacks (including ability to maneuver an automobile into and out of the garage), automobile, emergency vehicle and garbage truck circulation and turning movement capability. The assessment must be done along a typical cross-section of the laneway and at each intersection or bend formed by a laneway. Bends in laneways are discouraged. 8. Temporary Turnarounds and Cul-de-Sacs * - Any proposed temporary turnaround or cul-de-sac must be capable of satisfactorily accommodating service and emergency vehicle turning capability. 9. On Street Parking * - The location of on-street parking must be done in a consultative manner with all disciplines involved in the preparation of the development application. The location of on-street parking will be guided by many factors including adjacent land uses, roadway geometrics and traffic demand flows. There is expected to be no parking on laneways. It is expected that parking will only be permitted on one side of local roads. It is expected that parking will be introduced sensitively on collector roads. Additional pavement on collector roads must not encourage speeding or diminish the operation of future transit. Consideration of parking bays (indent parking) with protected intersection conditions minimizing pedestrian walking distances are considered appropriate. The development application must demonstrate through scaled plans that the required parking supply for residents and visitors can be achieved. On street parking must respect vehicle sight line requirements, parking space width and length, emergency vehicle needs, snow storage and intersection setbacks. No portion of a vehicle parked in a driveway can protrude onto the curb. 10. Traffic Calming - All roadway cross-sections must consider pavement widths that are conducive to reducing vehicle speeds. On-street parking should be strategically placed such that the additional pavement does not encourage greater vehicle speeds. If necessary, traffic calming devices can be considered excluding speed humps or other devices that are not acceptable to transit or emergency service vehicles. Should further traffic calming features be desired the traffic tables, medians and boulevard treatments can be considered. All proposed traffic calming is to be consistent with the Canadian Guide to Neighborhood Traffic Calming. 11. Headlight Screening - “Window Streets” or other internal roads may parallel a bounding arterial road. Vehicle headlight movements must be examined on the local Page 3 of 5
City of Kawartha Lakes I Functional Internal Traffic Study (FIT) Guidelines
road and preventative measures must be brought forth which prevent headlight glare from reaching the eye level of drivers on the bounding arterial road. 12. Service and Emergency Vehicle Circulation - All internal roads including laneways must demonstrate that the available driving surface can efficiently accommodate the free flow movement of emergency and service vehicles. 13. Emergency Vehicle Access - Where a subdivision proposes only one vehicular access, secondary emergency vehicle access is to be considered in consultation with City staff. 14. Curb Radii - Curb radii can be introduced which reduce vehicle speeds and benefit pedestrians. The curb radii must demonstrate to scale that sufficient capacity is provided for vehicle turning demands and that all service and emergency vehicles can efficiently negotiate turns. 15. Corner Daylighting - The ability to minimize the required space providing the necessary clear sight line distances for vehicle turning and stopping can be accomplished through corner daylighting. Each intersection must be examined to verify that clear vehicle sight lines are available. Any special circumstances must be justified. 16. Pedestrian and A.O.D.A. Accommodation - Sidewalks must be available to serve primary pedestrian flows. At curb locations grading must be provided to accommodate wheelchair movements and meet the A.O.D.A. requirements. 17. Surface Treatments - As part of traffic calming at intersections and to accommodate major pedestrian flows, consideration can be given to providing alternative surface treatments. These surface treatments are meant to give textural and noise signals to drivers that increased awareness is necessary. 18. Roundabouts - Any proposed roundabout must be designed to meet forecast traffic demands as well as the turning paths required for all municipal services including transit and emergency vehicles. Larger vehicles such as moving trucks should also be examined. Pedestrian crosswalks must be properly located to provide maximum visibility to all users and comply with the O.T.M. 19. Driveway Locations - Driveways to individual uses must respect the adjacent traffic flow demands and resultant intersection lane configuration requirements. The driveway location must minimize impacts on the role and function of adjacent boundary lanes, particularly turning lanes. At internal collector to collector road or arterial road intersections, consideration should be given to a land use form served by rear laneways, thereby reducing the impact on intersection lane functions. 20. Sidewalks - The placement of sidewalks must conform to Municipal guidelines and the A.O.D.A. requirements. Sidewalks should not be across residential lot frontages less than 11 m in width to increase driveway parking capacity on smaller lots. Continuity and connectivity are imperative to providing an environment which encourages walking. Special pedestrian crossings outside of intersection locations must be examined in detail and the justification for pedestrian actuated controls brought forward that comply with the O.T.M. 21. Bicycle Paths, Bicycle Lanes and Multiuse Paths - Bicycle paths and lanes must be in conformity with Municipal goals and objectives. Those bicycle routes, whether lanes, paths or multiuse paths must be clearly identified, and the appropriate geometric standards incorporated into the roadway cross-sections or where bicycles cross a roadway. 22. Transit Route Pattern - Where so directed by the City, the primary route pattern to serve the development application will be identified and the following related items Page 4 of 5
City of Kawartha Lakes I Functional Internal Traffic Study (FIT) Guidelines
are to be addressed. 23. Bus Stop and Pedestrian Pad - Major bus stop locations along each route will be identified. At these locations the necessary concrete pad to serve boarding and deboarding passengers will be identified and included in the development application. 24. Development Integration - Opportunities should be examined at significant locations where adjacent land uses can provide an integration opportunity with transit. This could range from integrated shelter/building conditions to a minor pick-up and dropoff area near the bus stop. 25. Major Public Generators & Attractors * – Driveway and Entrance Locations - Within the development application there could be uses such as public schools, high schools and community centers, parks, etc. These land uses generate unique vehicle circulation and parking demands. The vehicle flow demands should be examined in the context of planning driveway and entrance locations which minimize impacts on bounding intersections and major pedestrian flows. 26. Major Public Generators & Attractors * – On Street Parking Assessment - Many of these generators are also located next to parks. The bounding road network should be examined to determine if on-street parking can serve multiple parking demands. How the on-street parking is incorporated with the roadway cross-section should be examined in detail. The intent is not to increase the asphalt surface area continuously, leading to increased vehicle speeds. 27. Major Public Generators & Attractors * – Traffic Control Plan for Entrances Providing Direct Access - The appropriate traffic control device plan which directly serves these uses must be brought forth. The accommodation of pedestrian flows must also be identified. 28. Traffic Control and Pavement Marking Plan - The development application must provide the definition and location of all traffic control, pavement marking and parking control signage to be installed in accordance with the Ontario Traffic Manual and related specifications.
Page 5 of 5