Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO020_CIVIC PLAZA PC- TPP APRIL 1980_VOL II *NEW FILE* CIVIC PLAZA PC - TPP APRIL 7980 VOL 11 1 FILE COPY 00 NOT REMOVE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VOLUME II CIVIC PLAZA - PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN APRIL, 1980 �Y A Wed" PVqk ad Aaaedain _.._.__. _..., . TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING I. 1�1 November 30, 1979 6p �J . 1 N �\ 4r. Ron Hendrickson ' Commercial/Industrial Division QI GN The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive tNewport Beach, California 92663 ' Dear Mr. Hendrickson: —=t ' This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the devel- opment of Civic Plaza with respect to circulation improvement phasing. The study ' was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the Newport Beach Citv Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement- phasing plan for ' this project. ' The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic studies related to this project. Previous studies include the following: ' 1. Newport Center 'Praffic Studv, Phase I1, Cronunelin-Pringle and Assoc- iates, Inc. 1976. ' 2. Civic Plaza EIJI Traffic Analysis, Crommelin-Pringle and Associates.. Inc. 1975. ' in addition, current (.1979) traffic volume data,, regional traffic growth data, .and committed projects were provided by the CiLy. ' p1I0y:C'1' DIiSCIt1PTI0N Civic Plaza is located within the Newport Center area at the southwest corner of n 'ded Lo access will hi r i I i s Road and Santa Cruz Drive. Vehicular 1 San Joaquin Itll ' San Joaquin •'ills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive and Santa Harbaia Privc. The San .Joaquin dills Road access is limited to right turns ouly. Proposed development includrS offic and re•staarant uses in addition to they ' existing art museum and library that is under construction. A total of 234,706• ' 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON. CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 ' squ•u•e feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 square foot restaurant- The library will include 14,000 square feet and a 10,000 square foot expansion of the ' :museum is planned . A theater is also proposed at some future date. Since this would line- a negligible traffic impact during critical hours, it is not included ill Lhe ' analysis. The project is planned for completion in 1981. TRIP GENERATION ' For this analysis, estimates were made of PM peak hour volumes and the 2.5 hour peak period.. Generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period are listed in 'fables 1. and 2. The existing art museum building was not included as it is included in existing traffic volume data. These generation rates are those ' utilized in previous studies of this site. ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution of traffic Iri:neratecl by this development has been dcv- ' eloped in the referenced previous studies. Figure 1 illustrates the traffic dis- tribution that has been utilized for this study. This distribution is for out- bound traffic from the site. inbound traffic would be tile! same percentage in the. ' opposite direction. By applying the distribution percentages to the trip genera- tion data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the ' nroject at various locations. The distribution in Figure 1 is for outbound traffic which must be reversed for inbound traffic. CRITICAL iNTRRSI:CTION INDENNFiCNMON ' I'he next step in rho analysis was to identify those inLcrSectiuns that cowld be imnnc•Led by the project , As a starling point., the 16 InlersucLiunS identili CAL ed ' for analysis under rile 'I'raCfic 11hnsing Ordinance for this area were examined. At the request of the City 'traffic Engineer the Brist.ul N./Birch intersection was added. For this examination, the "1% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinancu were utilized. Appendix A contains Lilt, d;iLa for Lho indi- vidual intersections and the results are summari%ed In Tab.ic 3. The basis for com- parison included existing traffic, regional growth traffic and approved project traffic. ' The criteria established by the City Council. indicates Lhat any inLursecL'ion where the project. traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds two percent of the existing plus ' regional grwoth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail . Table 3 tCRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION ' Civic Plaza LOCATTON 2.5 110UR PERCENTAGES 1983 aSB F_IS WB Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. - - - 4,2 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. - - 3.5 - Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - - 2.5. 3.3 ' Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. - - 1.9 49 Coast Ilighway & Jamboree Rd, 0.6 2.3 - Coast Highway & Newport Center Dr. - 1 .4 - 0.8 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 1.9 1.2 1.5 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. - - 2.J 1.3 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 4.2 1.3 - 14.2 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.5 3.0 - 13.4 ' Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 4.6 3.8 - - Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 5.0 1.4 4.0 ' Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 4.5 1 .0 - - Jamboree Rd. & Mac ArLhur Blvd. '1.,i 1 .0 2.9 1 .0 ' Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Ilil'ls Rd. 1 . 1 2,5 9,4 1 .6 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd, 5.4 2-_' Bristol St. N. & Birch Street - - - 4.7 1 ' I ' Table 1 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION ' Civic Plaza LAND USE RA7'F', VOLUHj IN OUT IN OUT ' Office (234,706 SF) 1.2 , 3.4 280 800 Restaurant ( 8,000 SF) 11.3 7.7 90 60. Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 ' Museum (10,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Totals 300 820 Table 2 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION 01v1c Plaza LAND USE, RA'I'P: VOLUMh: ' IN OUT 1N Owl, Office (234,706 SF) 0.6 1.7 140 400 Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 3.0 40 20 Library (14,000 SF) 1 .0 1.0 10 10 ' Museum (10,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Totals 160 420 FIGURE '1 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION a' o log• ss ,� get's BJZ�g�.O 9Q,. aJA- 25'/.. Ro. -, 359/, FpR� N) u ' 10 O o SANrA e4a8ga 3Sf S4N JOAQUlA4/p�CS ip0 � to5 /. 25 190. G COAST HIGHWAY( WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES -5- ' Review of Table 3 indicates that 15 of the 17 intersections exceed the maximum two percent on at least' one approach and must be considered critical. ' ANALYSIS The 15 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" ' forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined, including traffic increases due to regional growth and previously approved projects. The ICU calculations also considered circulation system improvements required' ' of previously approved projects and improvements recommmended to be accomplished by the subject project. These improvements are discussed in the next section of the ' report. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and 'summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that two intersections are projected to ' exceed the 0.90 ICU value in 1982. These are Bristol Street North and Birch Street and 'Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections ,are below ' the 0.90 level. Since City Council Rosol.uLiun Number 9422 allows :10 perecnL of development. wlLhuut ' improvement phasLug, the 14 crLLicaL intersections were nlso analyzed with 3U percent of the remaining development. These data are included in Appendix C and ' summarized in Table 4. No project related improvements were considered in these analyses. For these conditions, three intersections would have ICU values greater ' than 0.90: Bristol Street North and Birch Street Jamboree Road' and Mac Arthur Boulevard, and Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road. As indicated in the preeeeding paragraphs, two intersections have ICU values greater than 0.90 at full development and three at 30 percent development. It ' should be noted that these intersections have excessive ICU values without the project and that the project related improvements reduce all three ICU values. ' The three intersections are discussed in the following paragraphs. Bristol Street North and Birch Street. Review of Table 4 anti the. related ' streets in Appendices B and C indicates that the recommended project related improvements would reduce the ICU value at this .intersection from 1 .2199 ' to 0.9751 in 1.982. it also indicates that the WU value in 1.981 would be 1.2186. The project and its related improvements would Improve the operation ' of this intersection although it would exceed 0.90. -fi_ Table 4 ' ICU SUMMARY CIVIC PLAZA INTERSECTION EXISTING. EXISTING +(1) IiXdS'fING +(I) fi.XIS'CING +(2) ' RECLONAL + RECIONA1. + RWIONAL + COMMITTED CLW!M1TTL'D+ COMMITTED+ 30% PRO.IRCT PROJECT 1981 _ 1981 _ 1982 ' Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9262 0.8950 0.8950 0.8968 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.7650 0.6669 0.6694 0.6781 ' Coast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.9510 0.6788 0.6854 0.7017 Coast Highway & Bayside Dr, 0.8540 0.7753 0. 7820 0.7982 ' Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. •0.9140 0.8337 0.8381 0.8497 Coast Highway & Margarita Ave. 0.7957 0.8531 0.8572 0.869.1 ' Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.5745 0.6341 0.6404 0.6543 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7375 0.6966 0.6981 .0.7012 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.9128 0.7877 0.7971 0.8191 ' Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.6381 0.7446 0.7547 0.7792 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.8781 0.8298 0.8378 0.8563 ' Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.9934 1.1051 1.1095 1.0003 Mac Arthur Blvd.' & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7664 0.8333 0.8457 0.8757 ' Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.1631 0.8947 0.9047 0.8103 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 0.8569 1.2186 1 .2257 0.9751 ' (1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. ' (2) Project Related Improvements are Included. -7- ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard The ICU values at this intersection increase 0.0044 in 1981 as a result of the project. This increase would not be perceptible to drivers utilizing the ' intersection. Improvement of the intersection by the addition of a third south- bound through lane has been proposed in order to reduce these ICU values. ' This improvement results in an ICU value of 1.0003 with the full project in 1982. While this value is greater than 0.90, it is less than the ICU value of ' 1.1095 that would occur without this project related improvement. This indicatess that conditons would improve with the proposed improvements and project. ' Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road The current ICU value at this intersection is 1.1631 which will be reduced by ' the construction now underway. In 1981, without the subject .project, the ICU value would be 0.8947. This would increase to 0.9047 with 30 percent of the project. The conversation of the northbound right turn lane to an optional ' through or right turn lane will reduce the ICU level to 0.8103 with the full ' project. This project related •improvement would result in a future ICU value which is both less than 0.90 and below the current level. ' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ' The ICU analyses for the project included some circulation system improvements. Some of these improvements are currently required as part of approved projects or planned as governmental projects, while others would be required of 'this project. ' The improvements are summarized in Table 5 and illustrated in Figures 2 through 1.3. In accordance with City Policy, only 70 percent of the increased capacity due to project related improvements has been utilized in the analysts. ' TABLE 5 SUMMARY 01: RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Civic Plaza 114TERSECTION SYS'1_LM IMPROVEMENTS Bristol Strout North/ Add southbound rip,ht turn lane. ' Campus Drive Required by previously approved pro- ject. See Figure 2. ' Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. See Figure 3. Required' by previously approved project. 1 Coast Highway/liayside Drive Add eastbound through ]zinc. ' Add westbound through I:uw. Callrans ProjecL. See Figure 5. ' Coast Ili ghway/Jambo ree (toad Add westbound througli and west- bound lerl turn lanes. Required by previously approved project. tivc Figure b. ' Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. Add southbound left turn lane. ' Add westbound lane. Required by previously approved'. pro•ject. ' See Figure 7. .Jamboree Road./San Joaquin Add northbound through lane. ' hills Road Convert westbound t•brotigh -lane to optional through plus lel•t. Required by previously approved ' Project. See Figure 8. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes Lo optional through plus right. ' Add eastbound through lane. Convert. westbound through lane Lo lvl'1 Lurn lane. Re- ' quirvd by previously approved project. . ' See Figure 9. 1 ,p -9- ' Coast Highway/Dover Drive Add southbound lelt Lurn lane. Add southbound right turn lane. Add castbound left' lame. ' Add eastbound through lane. Add westbound r1kht turn lane. ' (ALy/Cal.'l'rans Project . See figure 4. Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road Convert• northbound through lane ' to northbound left turn lane. Required by previously ,approved ' project. See Figure 10. Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard Add northbound right turn lane. Required by previously approved project. Add southbound through lane Convert northbound right turn lane ' to opLional through or ri};hL turn and add southbound through lane. ' Estimated Cost: $4000.00 See Figure 11. Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road Add northbound l.eft ,and right turn lanes, southbound left turn lane ' and eastbound left turn lane. City of Newport 11pach project ' under construction. Convert northbound right turn lane ' to optional through or right turn lane Estimated Cost: $ 12,000.00 ' See Figure 12. Bristol Street North/Birch Street Add southbound right turn lane. ' Estimated cost: $1,000 Sec rigure 13. -10- ' SUMMARY The potential traffic impacts of the proposed' Civic Plaza project have been analyzed ' at 30 percent of development and at full. development. Both analyses have indicated that intersections would have ICU values }treater Lhan 0.90. Recommended improve- ' menLS at the Bristol SLreQL NorLh/Birch SLreeL , Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard and Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road intersections result in reduced ICU values with ' the project. Although the Jamboree/Mac Arthur and Bristol Street North/Birch Street intersections would be over 0.90, they would be below the' ICU level without the project related improvements. The Mac Arthur/Ford intersection would be below the ' 0.90 level. It can be concluded that the project and associated improvements would not make worse any intersections and would •improve three intersection's. ' We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport ' Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact US. ' Respectfully submitted, ' WESTON 1'R1NCLE AND ASSOCIATES ' Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:RS:cd #5452 1 ' 1 1 ADD RIGHT TURN II i LANE 1 W II NOT TO SCALE 1 BRISTOL ` STREET NORTH 1 I . 1 `n I i 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 1 1 H ► n ! I I I 1 1WIST01. S'I'LI;R'I' NORTH y 1 y , I ADD THROUGH LANE N 1 ( I NOT TO SCAN? 1 I ' 1 I I I ` I BRISTOL STREET 1 1 1 ADD THROUGH Lwl T7 1 • 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION INTERSECTION OF 1 CAMPUS DRIVE-IRVINE AVENUE/BRISTOL STREET 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3• u ADD LEFT TURN I I > LANE c ADD RIGHT TURN ADD RIGHT TURN 1 LANE I I LANE 1 COAST 1 t i HIGHWAY 1 � � a ' ADD LEFT TURN " LANE ` I ADD' THROUGH LANE I I w 1 > 1 ' -NOT TO SCALE ' RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE I' 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 , 1 1 � 1 ADD THROUGH LANE WITH BRIDGE WIDENING 1 � ADD THROUGH LA'N'E, COAST I HIGHWAY m 1 ADD THROUGH LANEkN 9�J; 1 NOT TOscALE 1 1 _RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT , INTERSECTION _OF 1 COAST HIGHWAY / BAYSIDE_DRIVE 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 1 c � I x o I I I Ann rnrnurll t.ANrt ADD TIIROUGII LANE I coART IITCIIWAY � 1114 iI Y ADD LEFT TURN LAN- ' I I 1 i i ' �ypZ Zp ScO I ' I I I I I 1 ' RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION INTERSECTION OF ' COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE ROAD ' FIGURE 6 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES F \ 1 � . ADD LEFT TURN I I LANE 1 I II 1 I I ADD RIGHT TURN LANE joo } 1 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 1 o i ADD THROUGH LANE w I � 1 w i , I O NOT TO SCALE m i . 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD / SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 7 1 1 yGA1� .to /,0000 JPOOO r ICONVERT TIIROUCIE LANE: 1 w TO OPTIONAL THROVCEI AND o LUT TURN LANE d I SAN JOAQIITN II/TIN ROAD 1 1 111 L L "- .___. • 1 I ry ADD TIIROItCII LANE: 1 . RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION ' INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 1 1 • ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 8 CONVERT RIGHT TURN IANF- TO OPTTONAT, THI(OIIGII AND 1 RIGHT TARN LANE 1 I I CONVERT' THROUGH LANE 1101 LEFT TURN LANE 1 RASTBLUFF ]DRIVEFUI:I I;(lAp 1 � . •sr_m J 1 TIAND Ann THROI1GH T.AN'iI'Itl' I:IGII'I' TARN LANI: N'I'IUNAL 'l'IIROUGIIRIGHT TURN LANE o 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION INTERSECTION OF 1 JAMBOREE ROAD/EASTBLUFF DRIVE-FORD ROAD 1 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND -ASSOCIRTES FIGURE 9 } ! � ( I RRIS'1'UI. SI'Rlilt'I' NURTII 1 r CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEVr TURN LANE NOT TO SCALE BRISTOL STRIiI-,I' J • ' I I t ' 1 1 r RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION ' INTERSECTION OF ' JAMBOREE ROAD/BRISTOL STREET NORTH ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES ' FIGURE 10 No SCALE ADD THROUGH 1 LANE ADD TURN LANE H OR RIGHT 11 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE: ROAD) MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 11 1 AN I 1 WIDEN TO P LANE TO 2 TRANSITIO 1 I LANE ADD EFT I NOT TO SCALE 1 ADD RIGHT 1 LANE FORD ROAD CONVERT RIGHT TURN LANE TO THROUGH ADD LEFT TURN LANE f PLUS. RIGHT I ADD LEFT TURN, 1 W I Fes- I Q � I I I 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD / FORD ROAD 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 12 1 r I ADD RIGHT TURN LANs: I I ' ( RRIS•f()I. STRICT NOR'fll ' H N NOT TO SCALE x U ' RECOhihIENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF ' BRISTOL STREET NORTH/BIRCH STREET FIGURE 93 ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES W! 4. ,A P,A W of" P+ qfz and /4wdaW _- _ . .. ' TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ti ' November 20, 1979 CLr:I IV ` o �� ' Mr. Ron Hendrickson V 2 6 1ylJ 01 V�r 19 g 04 Commercial/Industrial Division i lac fxvfxe The Irvine Company comm£R�gsP•xr V F' 550 Newport Center Drive Dxmear N ' Newport Beach, California 92663 � I Dear Mr. Hendrickson: ' This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the devel- opment of Civic Plaza with respect to circulation improvement phasing. The study ' was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for ' this project. ' The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic studies related to this project. Previous studies include the following: ' 1. Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II, Crommelin-Pringle and Assoc- iates, Inc. 1976. 2. Civic Plaza EIR Traffic Analysis, Crommelin^Pringle and Associates, Inc. 1975. ' In addition, current (1979) traffic volume data, regional traffic growth data, ' sand committed projects were provided by the City. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION Civic Plaza is located within the Newport Center area at the southwest corner of ' San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive. Vehicular access will be provided to San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive and Santa Barbara Drive. The San Joaquin Hills Road access is limited to right turns only. ' Proposed development includes offic and restaurant uses in addition to the existing art museum and library that is under construction. A total of 234,706 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 ' square feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 square foot restaurant- The library will include 14,000 square feet and a 10,000 square foot expansion of the museum is planned, A theater is also proposed at some future date. Since this would ' have a negligible traffic impact during critical hours, it is not included in the analysis. TRIP GENERATION For this analysis, estimates were made of PM peak hour volumes and the 2.5 hour peak period. Generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period ' are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The existing art museum building was not included as it is included in existing traffic volume data. These generation rates are those utilized in Previous studies of this site. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution of traffic generated by this development has been dev- eloped in the referenced previous studies. Figure 1 illustrates the traffic dis- tribution that has been utilized for this study. This distribution is for out- bound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be the same percentage in the opposite direction. By applying the distribution percentages to the trip genera- tion data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the oroject at various locations. The distribution in Figure 1 is for outbound traffic which must be reversed for inbound traffic. CRITICAL INTERSECTION INDENTIFICATION ' The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be impacted by the project. As a starting point, the 16 intersections identificated ' for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were examined. For this examination, Lhe "1% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from the Traff-.Lc Phasing t Ordinance were utilized, Appendix A contains the data for the individual inter- sections and the results are summarized in Table 3. The basis for comparison in- cluded existing traffic, regional growth traffic and approved project traffic. The criteria established by the City Council indicates that any intersection where ' the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds two percent of the existing plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail. ' -3- 1 ' Table 1 ' 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza ' LAND USE RATE VOLUME IN OUT IN OUT ' Office (234,706 SF) 1.2 3.4 280 800 Restaurant ( 8,000 SF) 11.3 7.7 90 60 ' Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Museum (10,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Totals 300 820 ' Table 2 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ' Civic Plaza ' LAND USE RATE VOLUME IN OUT - IN OUT Office (234,706 SF) 0.6 1.7• 140 400 Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 3.0 40 20 Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 ' Museum (10,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 , 10 Totals 160 420 ' FIGURE 'I' ' TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION h� !O % 10.T ' K ¢ $$ v N BQrsroL BRlsra �� 9y. 7 d� � s d� a J� 257. Ro au 5% 25 7. zo sAura s in ' 0 Q 64RBgR 3sq gAjJOAQ'UIN14ILLSRO m a 2.5% 5•/ 5'/. 25 ' vf? � G C OAST ,HIGHWAy N ' 3 /0% w z ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES -4- ' Table 3 ' CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Civic Plaza ' LOCATION 2.5 11OUR PERCENTAGES 1983 NB SB I?B WB Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. - - - 4.2 ' Bristol St. & Campus Dr, - 3.5 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - - 2.5 3.3 ' Coast Ilighway & Baysido Dr. = 1. 9 4.9 Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. 6.6 2.3 ' Coast Highway & Newport Center Dr. 1.4 - 0.8 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 1.9 1.2 1.5 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. - - 2.1 1.3 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 4.2 1.3 14.2 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.5 3.0 - 13.4 ' Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 4.6 3.8 - - Jamboree Rd. & Bristol' St. 5.0 1.4 4.0 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 4.5 1.0 - - Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 3.5 1.0 2.9 1.0 Mac Arthur Blvd. & San 'Joaquin Hills Rd. 1.1 2.5 9.4 1.6 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 5.4 2.2 1 1 t 1 ' 1 -5- ' Review of Table 3 indicates Lhat 14 of this 16 intersections exceed the maximum two percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. ' ANALYSIS ' The 14 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" ' forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined including traffic increases due to regional growth and previously approved projects. The ICU calculations also considered circulation system improvements required ' of previously approved projects and improvements recommended to be accomplished by the subject project. These improvements are discussed in the next section of the ' report. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that two intersections are projected to ' exceed the 0.90 ICU value in 1982. These are Bristol Street North and Campus Drive and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections are below ' the 0.90 level. Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development without timprovement phasing, the 14 critical intersections were also analyzed with 30 percent of the remaining development. These data are included in Appendix C and ' summarized in Table 4. No project related improvements were considered in these analyses. For these conditions, three intersections would have ICU values greater ' than 0.90: Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard, and Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road. ' As indicated in the preceeding paragraphs, two intersections have ICU values greater than 0.10 at full development and three at 30 percent development. It tshould be noted that these intersections have excessive ICU values without the project and that the project related improvements reduce all three ICU values. ' The three intersections are discussed in the following paragraphs. ' Bristol Street North, and Campus Drive Review of Table 4 and the related sheets in Appendices B and C indicates that the project would have no impact upon the ICU values at this intersection. ' Since project volumes are added to non-critical movements, the 1CU values are equivalent for both cases with and without the project. 1 1 _6_ 1 Table 4 1 ICU SUMMARY CIVIC PLAZA 1 INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING +(1) EXISTING +(1) EX'ISTING +(2) 1 REGIONAL + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT 1981 1981 1982 1 Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9262 0.9737 0:9737 0.9737 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.7650 0.6669 0.6694 0.6781 1 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.9510 0.6788 0.6854 0.7017 Coast Highway & Bayside •Dr, 0.8540 0.7753 0.7820 0. 7982 (Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. 0.9140 0.8337 0.8381 0.8497 Coast Highway & Margarite Ave. 0.7957 0.8531 0.8572 0.8691 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.5745 0. 6341 0.6404 0.6543 (Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7375 0.6966 0.6981 0. 7012 ' Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.9128 0:7687 0.7781 0.8001 (Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.6381 0.7446 0.7547 0.7792 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.8781 0.8298 0.8378 0.8563 (Jamboree Rd. & ,Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.9934 1.1051 1.1095 0. 9665 Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.7664 0.8333 0.8457 0.8757 Fac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.1631 0.9512 0.9612 0.8259 1(1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. 1(2) Project Related Improvements are Included. 1 1 1 ' '. -7- ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard The ICU values at this intersection increase 0.0044 in 1981 as a result of the project. This increase would not be percetable to drivers utilizing the ' intersection. Improvement of the intersection by the addition of a third southbound through lane has been proposed in order to reduce these ICU values. ' This improvement results in an ICU value of 0.9665 with the full project in 1982. While this value is greater than 0.90, it is less than the existing ICU value of 0.9934. This indicates that conditions would not deteriorate from those now occurring with the proposed improvements and projects. ' Mac Arthur Boulevard and Ford Road The current ICU value at this intersection is 1.1631 which will be reduced by ' the construction now underway. In 1981, without the subject project, the ICU value would be 0.9512. This would increase to 0.9612 with 30 percent of the ' project. The conversion of the northbound right turn lane to an optional through or right turn lane will reduce the ICU level to 0.8259 with the full ' project. This project related improvement would result in a future ICU value which is both lass than 0.90 and below the currenL level. ' CIRCULATION L"ll'ROVEML14[ NEEDS ' The ICU analyses for the project included some circulation system improvements. Some of these improvements are currently required as part of approved projects or planned as governmental projects, while others would be required of this project. ' The improvements are summarized in Table 5 and illustrated in Figures 2 through 12. Table 5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPRRVEMENTS ' Civic Plaza INTERSECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ' Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through ,lane. Ro- Campus Drive quired by previously approved pro- ject. See Figure 2. Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. ' See Figure 3. Required by pre- viously approved project. -8- Coast Highway/Bayside Drive Add eastbound through lane. ' Add wusLbound through lane. ' CalTrans Project. See Figure 5. ' Coast Highway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound left turn lanes. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 6. ' Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. Add soutlibound left turn lane. ' Add westbound lane. Required by previously approved project. ' See Figure 7, Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Add northbound through lane. Hills Road Convert westbound through lane to optional through plus left. Required by previously approved ' project. See Figure 8. tJamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to optional through plus right. ' Add eastbound through lane. Convert westbound through ' lane to left turn lane. Re- Quired by previously approved project. ' See Figure 9. ' -9- ' Coast Highway/Dover Drive Add southbound left turn lane. Add southbound right turn lane. Add eastbound left lane. Add eastbound through lane. Add westbound right turn lane. ' City/CalTrans Project. See Figure 4. Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane ' to northbound left turn lane. Required by previously approved ' project. See Figure 10. ' Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard Add northbound right turn lane. ' Required by previously approved project. 'Add southbound through lane Convert northbound right turn lane tto optional through or right turn and add southbound through lane. ' Estimated Cost: $4000.00 See Figure 11. ' Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road Add. northbound left and right turn lanes, southbound left turn lane ' and eastbound left turn lane. City of Newport Beach project ' under construction. Convert northbound right turn lane ' to optional through or right turn lane Estimated Cost: $ 12,0,00.00 ' See Figure 12. SUMMARY tThe 1);L(InLial LI'nlfle Imp.u:l :; ul Lhe 1)1'01)Med Clvir Pla::a prujocG Il.lVo b0oll analysed at 30 percent of development and at full. development. Both analyses have indicated ' that intersections would have ICU values greater than 0.90. The Bristol Street North/Campus Drive intersection ICU value is not affected by the project. Recommen- ded improvements at the Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard and Mac Arthur Boulevard'/ Ford Road intersections result in reduced ICU values with the project. Although ' the Jamboree/Mac Arthur intersection would' be over 0.90, it would be below the current level. The Mac Arthur/Ford intersection would be below the 0.90 level. It can be concluded that the project and associated improvements would not make ' worse any intersections and would improve two intersections. ' We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please con- tact us. ' Respectfully submitted, ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES ' Weston S. Pringle, P.E. ' WSP:RS:cd #5452 1 1 ADD THROUGH LANE i0 1 I \ NOT TO SCALE STREET NORTh BR ISTO L 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION 01- 1 BRISTOL STREET N0R'FH / CAMPUS DRIVE 1 1 FIGURE 2 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 `� � � I A BRISTOL STREET NORTH • y l O t t �� ' ADD THROUGH LANE NOT TO SCALE i BRISTOL STREET ' t t ADD THROUGH LANE- RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION Or ' CAMPUS DRIVE.-IRVINE AVENUE/BRISTOL ST. ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES' ^ » - F'MURE 3 1 • ADD LEFT TURN :'I I > 1 LANE I o 1 ADD RIGHT TURN /" ADD RIGHT TURN LANE i I LANE ' COAST 1 I HIGHWAY -10 rADD LEFT TURN LANE THROUGH LANE w 1NN 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE 1 • 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 1 i ADD THROUGH LANE I WITH BRIDGE I a� WIDENING I ADD THROUGH LANE 1 COASTJJA �` I HIGHWAY ADD THROUGH LANE \ s� Off, �G 1 NOT TO scALE 1 RECOMMENDED LANE _CONFIGU_ON 1 _ AT INTERSECTION OF COAST HIGHWAY / BAYSIDE DRIVE 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 FIGURE 5 1 • 1 o � I x � I I 1 I pq I ADD 191R0UG11 T,ANE ADD THROUGH LANE I COAST TIIGI114AY 1 -- 1 � . 1 i 1 i Y ADD LEFT TURN LANE I I I ' fps Tp SpAj'T � 1 I I I � 1 I 1 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 COAST 11ICHWAY/JAMBOREE ROAD 1 1 . FIGURE 6 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 1 1 1 I II ADD LEFT TURN ' LANE ADD RIGHT TURN LANE 1 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE O I 1 } r 1 I ADD THROUGH LANE o ' NOT TO SCALE a I 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF 1 JAMBOREE ROAD / SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 7 1 . 1 SGPti� tiy0`S 1 x CONVERT THROUGH LANE: w I TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND o LEFT TURN LANE ' I SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 1 •• � tit � � ADD THROUGH LANE 1 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 1 • 1 . 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 8 I I I . CONVERT RIGHT TURN LANE- TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND 511 RIGHT TURN LANE CONVERT, THROUGH LANE TO LEFT TURN LANE EASTBLUFF DRIw } } ` FORD ROAD - - - I 1 } } ADD T11R000I1 LANK dA I I I CONVERT RIGHT TURN LANE TO OPTIONAL THROUGH w I I AND RIGHT TURN LANE a o w NOT TO SCALE I , RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD/EASTBLUFF DRIVE-FORD ROAD I I " WESTON PRI,NGLE AND ASSOCIATES . . m'_ F'lGU E 9 1 11 1 I I BRISTOL STREET NORTH 1 I I I t f 1 w I I CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEFT TURN LANE a 1 NOT T0 SCALE 1 I I BRISTOL STREET 1 1 f f TT Y � I ' 1 1 . 1 RECOMMEND10) CONRICI1RATfi)N AT 1N'1'I'IZSI-1C'I'ION OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND BRISTOL STREET NORT11 1 ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 1'0 i �pP NOT TO SCAL ADD THROUGH LANE ►� / ADD THROUGH OR / \ RIGHT TURN LANE 1 . 1 ' RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD /MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND-ASSOCIATES FIGURE #11 WIDEN TO PROVIDE 1 3 LANE, TO 2 L,ANE TRANSITION m � 1 ADD LEFT TURN LANE 1 NOT TO SCALE ADD RIGHT 1 TURN LANE t i 4 FORD 1 ROAD 1 � 1 rADDLEFT I 4 CONVERT RIGHT TURN TURN LANE I LANE TO THROUGH PLUS RIGHT 1 ADD LEFT r ( I TURN LANE 1 cc � Q 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD / FORD ROAD 1 . FIGURE '12 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES o APPENDIX A Rio 0oae 19�0,4 1 2.5 HOUR INT);RStiCTION ANALYSES k 4r 2 Traffic Volume Analysis ' intersrct•ion Bristol Street North/Camlpus ,Driye (Existing traffic Volumes based on Average W nterjSp'ring 197— �`(� .r�,r.o.lec led �2 SPD of 14-n,lected ' Pr o•,eu AYnr�n•.r. rJ1•.ling Peak 2S Hour I AVVrovca � I n Iejx et, -IOU, Nnglonal I Projects I neak 2S Hour I Peak 2S NOUY PPek eS r10u1 rolamH •,rnwtr, I Peak 2S Hour Volume volume volume 'ae tMK'116d 1597 �¢ j _ 22 /643 _ 97. .} . IVVWuVWW 3286 IEastuuund ,_ --- -- I ... -.__._. 0 !l06 ?/7-0 /,V3 30-2 weatbuund 612 ...__ ...L__._.__...�L —•---r Project Traffic is estimated to be less than B% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 Ili+UJ El.l 1 11 Traffic Volume Analysis 1 intersection Bristol Street/Campus Drive — ;L/,isting Trdffic Volu m es based on Average Winter/Spring 19"/9 ) 1• hour �! Approvod I'rodec too I it of Pruwl tad .hoje,t FbM,d.t Y15I v;y iPd4 7•. 1 N,aA :S Ihnlr 1 Peak /11 Ilum- Paai .' mu, ;ral .5 •am, Re"lumil Pr0JeCLS .arena• W".t1. Peat 7S Houl i Volume Vol will, Volume 'rulumr hllmna i t 15$7it �. /Z 3/o i /90 9 Y9 Swtnbound 354$ ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21; Hour Traffic Volume 1 ❑ Project 11'dPf!r 1,• estimated to be Uredtcr• than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic VQ1W11e11. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ' 1 1 1 . 1 1 • 1 1 _-Df11L PROJECT: FORM [ 1 1 ' 2% traffic Volume Analys�iss�3y intersection—coast bwy. ,/Onv_er Qr - 9 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average-Winter/S rin 197 9) APpi nd�a —ts151 un1 I'Pai /,� IIUur Al-proved r IT Irgerted of�L9di prlrleCtrd 0-1`r p`•1 r Projects is 1 I4•dA 7S nuur I Peak 7% Ilium I Peal h Itaur r.v Iron peal :1. i4mr Heil Iunal 1 volume Vol umr, nrovtb —� peak 1S hour V01 ume Vuiume r• : Vul nine Volume _.__. ___ .. .. I -..•.. NarthWund ..._ __ 181 I,wurom.,C 2379 1 30--• 240? ¢8 ------- 3695 I 22 /22 36339 7,7 2,5 TO — -: - ' west band 6003 II/A� 65r1 6 T71 /3/ 7-/0/ — 1 ,L_!`f" — ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Projected Peak 23: Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2'Z of Projected. ' Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilizdtion (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJECT:- FORIM I tg'. traffic Volume Analysis tntersecLiurl Coast Hwy age W./Sayside (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Aver -inter/Spring 1919) TProjected Ize of Projected Pro.w,t Apt ruetr ' to 15 t,nr Peak. ?', Hour Approved Prak 2S hour Peak ?S HouY Peak ! nut 'irrCr u,n Peak !1, dour heq Ional Projects Lrowlh 1 Peak 2S Hour i volume MUM i volume ulume volume_ 1887 2(v 1913 _- herthUVUUU .� •. iSnothhuund ; .. 161 �3 -. -- 174 51/ (0 /0 3 96,1 _ ;eastbound `_ 49L£i__--�•— — —_ — i _ 3817 1 /4 y27 J--- 88 z16 !!y Po ' w,tI ound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 4•% of Projected Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2=2 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ukuJkl_? : fUkM I ' 2I". Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./Jamboree Road. - (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197-_) (,of.,wkI. E,fst ing Pray 2S eour Approved I Projecteduur 12P�eakf2S Hourted i project uour ct Pak 21, th r,,•+on Peak TS flour Regional Projects Volume Growth Peak TS Hour volume Volume I Volume _ _ Volume I V_olmm• 1411 52 143 --._z6. . .. suwdu�,d 1 2817 ! f76 37-9 6 ._.__ I 2/(, o •ertli•wnd ~ 83 4230 �.. 3¢ ___•_125°_-_i...45.!¢., L. . Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2.% of Projected Peak 2l, Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than ,1.% of Projected ' Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' . . .- _--._---•-------------- - - DALE._ ... .-----..... _ � I $;Y Traffic Volume Analysis nLer'tieition Coast Hwy./Newport Center Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring• 1979 ) I,r I.I.t 1n.1 'r`•11 Ilpur I AIg1111Ypd I'n111NtpJ IZyp.II I'I'o lOICd I f'rglatl r u VL.IA r 'L'W urq londt 11 1...t'. I h-,4 :I. tlr'br If.IF .'i ILlul' I••,U r IInW Yu 6nl,r I...... I 1-r•a4 lS Iluur• Vu Iuau• I Villmiit. Villnmr � 3 6y 4 : ,uatnbuund.— —28473O_.. r 317, '— -- 4 IasU.mulid _3863 i —2tg ..— ---'"_ _. _ 3 893_-- -78 -{----.-_-___; /o412¢! 48- =--.20 0183 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Projected Peak 2', Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 9% of Projected Peak 2y, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' PATE; Iraffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy./MacArthur Blvd. ;G:istiny Traffic Volume based on s Average Winter/Spring 1979 ) 6or• roJ trt:[u�y i'edr 'T; Hour .-I Approved _ �. PeaAProj`?yoilUur �2Ppdkf2jrlWurtrJ i ped4 ', Ho." r.t'tnn Pop �, Onur Me�todJl Projeut$ vot.me drowth Peak :S Hour Volume Volume Curvme volume 1 44 •oatnpu.nd 1995 S .._ z/? _.. . _._. _ . ... ._ --— a 44 z 90 ;to'.Umund 3431 3 2 /68 .. .. 36../ �� eN n,uuna 2609 ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 .P11.TLL �A 1 2"/ Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (bast Hwv. / ueri_te __ ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1g79) ' Ape,aur11 ' ' LAItt In., Peak ;S Huul• I npinuveu I Projected •2%of I'ruJCcted rroJert 4,nN htn Peak I, dour Very tonal I 1`rnjeC is I Peak 2511uur Peak ZS hour I I'eal eS Hour Volume Growth I Peak 25 flour Volume Volume Volume Yolelae I Volume ��/ ,r.erNwunC 477 ..._--�_.___.._� /O — Sou ttlbpend 707 I 7Q 7 �¢ ' 3791 I atmwnd T~ � 5-4- _ 3/0_ — �//Si 83' 8_(o Z•/ nN t Nnrd- i— 2776 �. l—=-3 4- — i96 �� _z9196 -- —_38� /3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Projected ' Peak 212 Hour' Traffic Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. i t t,RUUECT: . fOR?1 1 I ' 2 Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1979) Atgrnmuq r tR tltI M VeaA PS kour — —APpruvrd proJmted I2%of ProJetted � Prole,l ^u ttllan PCdA :5 dovi kentenal Prolett, PaaA ?S Hour I Volumes hour peel le`, nnul' Ynl ome (,ruuth I PeaA LS flour VolumC ' -Vol u1ne, --•--- 230z15z 4 -- .6 4.c�—4-- _-_- 2834 __. �lZ % ;Sou thbound _ ---•- -- I i ee•.Uwund L—_�_./:2 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2'Z of Projected Peak 2>, Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than Z% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 • PRUJECI : FORD; a7„ Traffic Volume Analysis ' intersec ti on tam loCe�.lioad/San� Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Sloaquin11i1_lspring 1979) I'rnA !': Hour �` Alrtn•IrvrA ' I'I nlru[ed IQ�nl Vru lc,ll•,t : ih n,lell ^II•.,.n,n L•r�l lu'I Prnlrets I 1'�-ur 7S Hum• 14.6 7y Hour 1'ede ly dour .. ,„•rol,' I'rJV !`: Hoar lo.Hwnal Peat. �S Maur ; V. 1 umr• Yolumil I Mu me Ynl ume rdaMU1 ww ume ..J 90 ... 4 j---468 ��e� Bz i 20 urcn:,wna 3608 __—• �_ ' 4112 I' 13 3. i 47?—.{.._...— ZJ~88 3`T r0 A .rsL.Ju^a O ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less Chan 211, of Projt�cted Peak 211 Hour Traffic ValuIIW Project Traffic is estimated to be greater thdrr 2% of Projected Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required, 1 ' PAIL:.. •--•-- . . . .. PkUJECi : 1----•-----_.. __._._-.. f0i�l� I 1 1 �". I,raific Vulture Analy�.is Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastl31uff 0r. - Ford Road ' (E.cisting Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19/- ) ' r.,, ,Y !.1'Ub•,•••Y_ i'Ydk ln i dVUf ( Al....Al.... —I�?p Ut it...�.at tro•r —ira w,I-_ to"I n..I Prolog, Pvdk 7611nw Ivok ,,^y "our rr`rlk rr,•,) nlam,•• r,roH U: ' Park ?S Maur I Volume 9aloo". 4a dm. 4ulamr _ _ i 4ulmnr t I I 5f 4 "I:r "0( rt 302 76 r e ��.i I 90 cy Lastbound 3 1 3010. !o... ._ _.— �..._ - -0 !!os 2 1075 r •- ----- • ------ 899 nl'S t:nMnA Ic ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than Z% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic, is estimated to be greater tharl 2% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ' 17o Traffic Volume Analysis intersection Bristol Street/Jamboree Road ^ (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter,/Spriny 1979) i Pnf� — of fh'o ve Led I Project ApPrudtL Enstmq --I•raL 't4 hour AIgH•Uvrd I )ected 1�� J Peak ,.„„�•,pq Peak 1t, dou, Iteq,UnaI Pro,jf4 is Peak 2, Ilobr i Yulemetak S Hour i YOIamC`• Hour Volume broth Peak 2S hour ' _.- - ... .-._ .. _._ _..__ — J ..... .-• --""'.. i i ��� fi �z/~ 302 s:o �o 66yz' 'hcrt -, - . 5178 I ,.� _ �57 _.�' 53 I 2 z6Y _ ' Suutnbound— 2391_._ -- - 8 I t/D �• 2 370 338J- 69' /3� o ,Eastbound 2987 des uumnd ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 3Z of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Projected ' Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 t , ' _ ------- DATE;_ --- PROJECT: FORM ; 1 . , 1 �� Iratt is Volume Ana I,Y'.1S 1 Intersection_ ring 197 (3ri�tol StreEt�4rthlsl?IDh➢rEe-Bend (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Sp Projected a—of Projected 1_Project EzlStlnq Peak 24 Hour Approved i peak 2S flour P k 25 Hour Peak 2S Hour' i 1 APpn;ncF, Hrrronal Projects volume pi rrttion Peak 2S Hour Volume I i.rowth Peak 2S Hour 1 Volume Volume .-- 1 �_ _ / d rmrtnen"^d 5477 , .`t' t _ 1206! 3 p g 37SS' 75' 38 3445 _.. I IVlld i 1(a5101 1 .I.ah,lww =976_ _i• --/ -( �L._�`— `88 _ 20�.� 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2.% of Projected Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Projected, 1 Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 . i�ivi; l 1 I, 1 2;1 Traffic: Volume Analysis intersection Jamboreo Blvd./MacArthur Blvd. (1 ) 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average—WiI ng 1979) I•rluu, I•e.11 i'. hour •I, Aly,nw•d •_ •• V. Ir.Ie;: i� nl I-,,-uv len � ei..lip,I .V 11'.. 'an •hv ee1 dnm Nrq lunal 1 Vro l. I.. 1 Pent .'. i "I 1 1.1141 .... tlnur 1•enl , , dui.. Vo Lmid to Owl 1, 114-A ,S'tluur I Volume Vulume Vo lump _ Volune .. . I- Volume 1 Sortnuound 1943 38z j 233/ I — V7• 92 l'„u:aGmmd 3306 4 t.. 3. 11 37oy ! 7Y i 38 io 9/0 ld.tbound 2826 __..__.... -. . ..� — 2� y 3�d2 I 7f —38 /G udid• 3502- I 1 1E3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is 'estimated to be gredtor than 3'ti of Projected 1 Peak 2J;2 Huur Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 (1 ) MacArthur Blvd. is North/South 1 1 , 1 1 , 1 . 1 - PiUJE�I 1 �` 4 •t /tt I Traffic Volume Analysis ' intersection MgS rthur alvd_LSan Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Whiter/Spring 1979) Ap.0 natt L.t)t,ml PPO 2', Hour Approved 1 ProJecteo 1 24�of ProJevted PrIWO m,• ,Peal, 2; Hou, Regional I Project% I Ptak 21, Hour Peak 7y Hour 1 Ptak .5 Hour Vo Iumt drowth , Ptak 2S'Hour Volume Volume Volume :alumo _ 4- Volume St,Lnlrvuul i-• aQutn4pund 3442 3B3G /7 4 Z. s_ 38/ - - I. rr { �y kaNtOoOd 3190 I I 2�y 3Z/y 6f V /0 ' '.eitoound 1180 -- j —7y ' /03Y Z> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 9% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Projected Peak 2)2 Hour Traffic 'Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 ' ------- _ --..-_. - -- 1tAJJ:. �NJLI.r ; FORIN 1 1 ' 2,' Traffic Volume Analysis ' intersection MacArthur Blvd./Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter%Spring 1979 ) .te,..rnJ, f.I%t uo, I'nai ?y Hour 1 6P111aVOr1 — P.nlmt ed .2%,of Ih of u..lyd Protect u nn„'plu V ?I, umo Ihrtn coal I Iulecly I'rdk :', uur I.ak I d uu I: r r'eak 411 I', Hoar Yo lum.• mny.to I peak 1'I uuur � Yulum,. 4ulume Volume SC,VWund 3720 Z.Z 'soatnboand 3865 � 8 ---_----• - .- . .._- _ ----__--r • ;Eastbound 1504 I } ' ue',uruund 1291 Project Iraffi,c is estimated to be less than B„, of Projected ' . Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 'XY of Projected ' Peak 2k, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJEN : FORN i APPENDIX E ' INTERS;ECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES ' Existing + Regional + Committed + Project (1982) 1 1 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I Intersection Bristol_ Street North/Campus Drive a , � ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979} I I dl•,I IOld Ill WONA1 +MIMI III I' PRnJIr IIP Y;i Yalu I'nn ,Fr .• 7 + l ano•. r nr' I'I rlir Y't IiIt11Nd( I•frr,11• I ' p,.•,' 'I• Vul Ital IllVnimnr NJuru ,•N 1'ruu+I Volr ^aiw V.N unm NL 1600 94 .0588 21 o,o7/9 0XV 7 ' NT 1611 7 915 0, 1931 011931 NR _ — ' SE ST 3200 3(48ou) 1006 .3144 25 0. ZZ23 SR 1600 617 85 * ' EL - - ' ET WL 1600 705 .4406* 28 0,4581 ' WT 2040 3 Q 2(� 525 10,4114. 15/ 0,435.0 WR 42 1 ' YELLOWTIME 1000* i p /000 ; i' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION i I O't0 EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 O. 9737 1i ' IYISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTR -PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0, 97.37 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 ® Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less-than or-equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: f qOD G0117H80Je)0 oPTYONAL 7'NkoU6r11 or2 121C7H7' I-4aT (0) ' --- _ DATE: PROJECT FORM 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection_Bristol Street/Campus Drive,_ _ Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1919) ruoa¢cTlo !%l:d, Lx I51. RLGIUR�i WMMI I IfU V/C Ratio rRLM ' rFUJ;. !I.." a PHURUSLU {'n.IIH. Y/l. GRONLI F•RU•Il l i o, In ' '•` ` •••e� Ca;. Lanes CAi'. _ win I9 n,p'Yt Vniu^u ./C �t Vol. Ratio VVlunu• Yolumr VVlumv NI _ ' NT 3200 455 .1453 (P q.3 6,173/ 4,1731 NR 1600 221 1381 /P?_ 0, 17&q 0, M.,q SL 1600 106 .0663 1 o,066q 0.0667 ST 3200 4800 1648 .5150* 40 67 0,3�n56� SR — ' EL 198 31 ET 8000 918 .1500* IZ 315 O, 2Q,^f &7 O,ar25 ER 154 5 ' WL — WT WR , YELLOWTIME' .1000* I /000 I I � 0,1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7650 F ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 01 41 ' . ,IS?:NO PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0•67�/ ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ® Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be t - less than orequal+to 0.90 - Description of system improvement: AD-0 501J7"N'80J,V0 77-41200(a GAME, 60) DATE: FORM ORM I 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS '• Intersection_Coast Hwy./Dover Dr._- Dayshore Dr. . 4 t rY;,r;nq Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1970 I11.40NA, rNRI:'1111, PIIO,IIr 'rn I\:....... ............1.. Y,I Irnl nr 19aru ,no IrI ' 1Y 4P al rdtllLAI, V..I .....q Luu r q Vrl, Val ro Vulumi Vn Ln Vulvnu ?71 1600 - 23 .0144 O,O/4¢ O, 0/44 1 , NT 3200 46 .0206 — 0,020q 0,020q NR' 20 1 SL ' 3200 3)4800 834 .2606* 15 0,l7(a 9 0,l76 q IT 1600 1) 16 oo 114 .1713 0, 17/3 0, 17/3 SR _ ) !l000 160 0,/000 0,/000 ' EL 3000 * _ 0, 0,472 0,0472 ET 3200 4800 1363 4259 11 Cnl 0,2790 4 $ 0,3070 ' ER 1600 51 9 O,o3lq C3.0319 WL 1600 64 • .0400 I 0, 040(a 0.O406 WT 4800 )4800 1379 .4754* 7 215 0,3342'k 108 0,1,54, 1 WR (1) /600 903 SS 0,600% 0,600(, YELLOWTIME ' ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 9510* ; p /000I i0 /0 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENT•S I.C.U. 0,(o7y2 i ' IYI5'IN; PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 )� Projected plus project traffic I.C..U. with systems improvement will be I ' less than or equal to 0.90_ _ - _ - - - _ - - - - - - _ _ i ' Description of system improvement: Aoo SOUTyacu,UO 6EFT raem L.,gNE (0) AD.0 SOUTNBoUNO 2161-17' TUC'A/ CANE �O� 3, 4DD L�ASTl�OUN1J 6EFT 7'aleAl 6.41V6 CO,) ADA e,457780l1A/D Ti/,e006h( 6.4A1e CO) 400 evE57,e0U,VD .2/C+N7- TU`.eN 641"W C01) PRDJEt7 •- -- •---- • - -- -- - ---------•-----••---•---•------ ^. _ __ . . FORM' ? I . ..LKSLL11UN GAPALll icA11UA Wilk! i,SLJ Intersection Coast N�LL.JDa side __— : . 1•, •ur ; Traffit. VUIUlat•S Hales on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spririg 1979) ' I Rr.•, iar.r. udnn.0 Uwua;, r11 R a . u•rsr(.,V ldgp'• lnl'• 1', Ilit Y;r r.11I,WII V,.I w,d i'r•vr., Yn:, u,rl,. crrl Nat,r VJimnr nl unu• Ynlnnip ' NL 3200 808 .2525* 1�5 c, 2.5-6 * 0, z5/,6 NT 1600 26 .0238 — 0,0038 6,0238 ' NR 12 SL 1600 19 .0119 0,0/25 0,0/ZS ST 1600 6 .0281* — 0 0281'� 0,028/ SR 39 — ' EL 1600 57 .0356* — 0,03501 0,035-6 ET 3200 32460b 1479 .4622 7 87 0,3277 48 0,3377 ER 1600 . 551 .3444 — 0,3444 0,3444 ' WL 1600 9 .0056 — 0,0056 0,005(o WT 3200 3)4800 1400 .4378* z9Cc 0,35544 we 0,3779 � WR i . I 1 2 rELLOWTIME .1000* I 1 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 8540 ; O, l00 0 0 1000 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0,7 5 7 ; 0c"4C PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I .C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ' 4DO EA67-80UN0 7-NROU& Y 61Qu5 L� 2, A,00 6()55TB0UN0 7-AIROV&9 G 4.Ut Co,) ' DATE: ' naOJCri FORIM I1 ' INTERSLCTION CAPACITY UIILILATION ANALYSIti, Intersection Coast H j�V2_y/Jamboree Road ( Existing Traffic Volurlles Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 7� PNOA V I111 I KI .I EAIsr. NFId11NA1 nIMMI III 1/1 HnI I.I V]. 1+' 'I"•I•'1 1'r 111. VJC WIN W l'Iupvl VI I., +alh .., v, I.uu•. Inv Vnl R, m Voiunu Ynlmr' Vvhmm NL 11600 96 .0600 I 0. 06010 0,060 ' NT 3200 361 .1634* 22 0,1713 0.171.3 � Nk 162 '3 SL 84 .0525* 1 O,p531 0.053 ' 3200 �T 3200 467 .1459 21 0. 1550 0.1650 SR 1600 291 .1819 200 0. 3119 Io8 0, 87. ' EL 3200 570 1781* 77 ET 3200 1139 .3559 6 12 0,3016 0,36/,( ' ER 1600 44 .0275 - I 0,0?8/ 0,000/ WL 1600 p 3Zoa 351 .2194 5 0, 111-3 0,1113 ' WT 3200 (3,��800 1344 .4200* �"j I I S O,308I WR N.S. 228 2 . 1 YELLOWTIME 1000* 0,1000 i i0,1006* ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .9140 r 1 LTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. X:S 0,8 3 ' +'I�TlNS PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL. GROWTH PLUS PROIFCT I .C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' I] Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90 -' - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: I , A'DD (W�557-60JAJ0 LEFT 7-Llen/ e-,4NE C0) 40D W srao�rvo TNRoUcvh� G �•v� �o� DATL: ' PROJECT . ... - - -- •------... ------ •--•---------_.------ • ' FORM : 1 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY .•I .cIZATION ANALYSIS II Intersection _Coast Hwy./Marguerite ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19.79 • 161d IF111 fI LIJr.dl r11MP:11 Il;i VA V.,1 .. ". 1 1'n I:.11... I I'q,lll. V/r Volumv Vol..... 1 ' .u,e' l.eiI. Innvs i.0, — Vol Ignlrvl Vvium 'I!• 4allc Vol. k,u In Volum,. Vol Yuiumo NL 1600 67 .0419* o,09-19 0,0419 14T 1600 60 .0856 — 0,08570 0, 0656 Nk 77 SL 1600 127 .0794 - 0,07q 0,0794• I ' ST 1600 107 .1194 0, 1174 1 SR J 84 ' EL 1600 44 .0275 — Q,027E 0, 0Z7 i ET 3200 1542 .4819* 27 /53 o, 53£3i ' .43 0,55/4 { t ER 1600 64 .0400 2 0,o413 0,o4)3 j WL 1600 84 .0525* — 0,OSZ 0,OSZ S WT ' 3200 960 3234 l7 43 0,343e 119 0,349•- ' ' WR 75 t YELLOWTIME .1000* r r' ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY llllll'CATION 7957 i 0' /00 0 0,/000 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSEO INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0,8 59 G : ' , YI 7r, PLUS C&;17TED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Projected plus project traffic I'.C.U. will- be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C,.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -, _ ' Description of system improvement: 1 DATE: PROJECT FORM 11 INTERSECTION CAPALi . : UTILIZATION ANALYSIS f'y Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive j 5 - --- -- -- - -- ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) Ix:;TIhG PRUPOSEO EXIST_ Ex;,,i, Rh UNAI ObMI HW MAIit1- <t t Cvms Cap. Lanes Cap. Ilk-11R. V/6 GR(ILLI PRO. V/C Ratio PRCJE,' I•ROJELI RI I L'olm:u• W., P1.011.t Vol dno V/. Batty 'vui. Il,ll n: Vblwe' NL VDlunu• NT 3200 3)4800 721 .2253* I 20 0.154W, 10 y NR 1600 136 .0850 55 0, 1144 °a3 0,14•.31 / SL 1600 2�3zov 178 .1113* I SS Y, ST 3200 999 .3122 1 •37 0,32q 0,33 9 'A SR _ EL - ET ER n WL 2400 331 .1379* '132 act<o WT - j� WR 2400 '407 .1696 474 YELLOWTIME .1000* 1 i � I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION. 5745 iO, (ODU 0,1000 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. D.(o341 1 7tIS*?VG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL O GRWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' o, 54 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 12 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - Description Of system improvement: ' 1, 400 AJ04_r1460UAJ,0 7_h',2000y C.A,vSr CO) 2, ADD 50Ujy 600, o C.EFT TURN GAit/C �0� ' 3, AM WESTBOE/NP LAVE �p� - - -- '----'- -- -• DATE_: __. ..._ ' PROJECT FORM II i INTERSECTION CAPACITY 11IILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection__.JanlborP .Rt�l�n-,lo�qu Existing Traffic VOIIJIII `I', d3as1 , on Average Daly Tr•afric WinLer/Spring 1979) I AI'.1 Itl'•1 JI a1J4., IMl11•'Ib \/1 I,11'„ I'I IP• 14u I- • WSR 111 1^.•uu•, 165 .1031 /504800 1101 .3441* 0, 2736180 .1125 1 01 /?13569 .1778* O, l'1713 G,7 0,19Fs• 1034 .3231 I I g 0, %,c`7* O 31097 203 .1.269 — O,I'L6� 0,6Iol9 ' cL 1600 99 .0619 _ OIO(al9 ET 3200 72 .0225* 010225 0,0225 ER 1600 37 .0231 3� 0,0256 O.oZ50 WL 1600 3 4800 149 .0931* 2Cn 0, 0500 2'L 0,0546 WT 3200 65 .0203 i 891 .5569 WR 1600 /d5, , * 1 , ' YELLOWTIME 1000 i0,1000 i (0,1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7375 1 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0,7012 cYIS'ING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1 ' ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I 'I ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Description of System improvement: I1. APO A10R7N,80Un/0 T-NkoU&H L1.,vC (0) I ' �oKU -kr Cd�sT/SouND 7llROO&A) 6.4A1,5 To oPT/on�AL Ty�OrJG�} PC 0 S GEFT 7 7J RAI LANE CC) ' DATL : PRoJICT INTERSECTION CAPACITY 011.11/.ATION ANALYSIS ' I 'lamboreo Roil d/Iw Iltlul l Ih'ivt• Ior'd Road Irk JI• 1 • � I• tuuJ I rat llt Vullwn... tsa•.r'. un Avrralr Udlly Il III tlt ld.ulLo1•/tipl'iut; flt6.q, .•t IX:%I. "1 el,n0, .alVt;i'1�. V/t Rd o Jo4,, ,, RRUI'USII+ I• H V/C GROW:• I'RUdl.l l P . t a•..•' es raP• lanes Lap. RaUuVr.l.NL 320U 522 .1631 +5 O,/78/NT 3200 3) 4800 169h 5294* 4/4 0,43910 MR 1600 204 .1275 SSL 69 .0431 / '�1600ST 3200 (v')4$o0 1292 .4038 Z 05'7 0,3231 lSR 1600 26 .0163 EL 1600 52 .0325 0,n3ZS375V.9128 0, 121 O,l Z 19 4� ET 13200 2) 32ooERWL 1600 c2) 3Z00 197 �!WT 320 �1) I(o00 1330, 01WR 1600 29YELLOWTIME . ig�000Q1:000E%iSTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UIILILA EXISTING PLUS COM'IITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS ' MISTING PLUS COMIIT7E0 PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH- PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic 1 -'C-U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - ' Description of Vstam improvemenL: CONUER-7- A,(0R7-1V,60VNO 2/l1N7' 7-lt2d G.a,uE 1-a OPTiWAL 7'kAe0L16N Plus R/4KT lib) ' Q, GoNUFRT 50UT616abvD RJ&H7' 7VRN Lave To To OPTLOnAL T,496U& 10 2LGyT U g CcAlvEepr 4-Asne0UN0 .e/GNr TUa'N LANE ro OPro,vAL -M, ,00,06# ALus 4, ,400 01A7',eo u v0 op rO NAL 7-NR004,N PL vs R1641 z' c6) GONvERT Gr/�=sr OaO.vO ?N2uurs� LA^'E To LF�irT T✓RN LaN� God DATE: i 0RI.1 1 f' PROJECT INTEKSL).TIUN UM'AulI + \ 1' Intersection_ Sristol Street/Jamboree Road _ II.• ( Existing Traffic Volulae\, Bases on Average Daily Traffic Wintor/Spring 1'97•9) 1 ran.n I n n Ruannal MMilllb ,t lYb I'H11PU111' IaI'•1 IV/( I,ItUN7u 1•ItUdl l Y/l' Nnt In PNOJI I•ItlUl\ p, np V/l w/U 1'1 UIP.{ Vol 1pn, U\ 4.\Ili I rrti laP Lan"', Cal. V"I Iial u, Vu final Vulln'" VOl nm, I N7 8000 2377 .3053* .3 431- 0,3&00�` 151 0,3 769 1 NR 65 4 SL -- 1 ;1040R.2167132ST 4800SRo,lo44- EL ET 20,28.53 48 43tio3 ER 32 _ 1 WL WT — 1 WR YELLOWTIME 1000* 10, 1006 :0 )006� 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILI•LATION 6381 _ 1 I EXISTING PLUS CObMITTEO PLUS Tt?GIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 01'45• . rIS??NG PLUS COrMiTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PRQ)ECT I.C.U. 1 I 1 gf Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Description of system improvement: 1 . _. . . .. FORM 1 PROJE::I Intersect.run filistot - . . rPL NorLh/Jamborvr Itodd. , r ( Lxt,,tting Traffic Volumt,>, li•Lsr. „n Average Daily Tratfic Winter/51)r•ing 1979) PROJtf•li ' . ,xl L%ISr RB.10AAt .OMMIIIIU v/t: r„•. '<u.lEr• renJt PR.;n .t Pn.lp; Vic 6ROWN IRO.11rl n/n Ih•r.••.t voltmw :lC Rntt. ta., .anu•. r C..1. Rate, Yninmt Volumt Yulamc g�4800 1518 ~ .474-• 2 33 0,3`738 l0/O 01 4/5 NT 3200 _NT 4800 C2)3zoo 1065 •� .2219 1 233 0, 405q .�S o,4200' NR ' 9� 91 -- 61 .221 I 150 0,2525 f f ' 43 . 3394 0,34-1 0,341 _ t E MYELLOWTIME 0.084o 386 r.0827*9 1 i3D'i* so, 1006Y U11111AIIIN 878•I io.I000 LXISTING PLUS COMMIEGIONAL GROWTfI 'J/PROPOSED INPROVEMF.JTS L.C.U. O,b 30�� 0 CS(D S ttl""!9G PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' Projected plus project traffic I."..U. will be less than or equal to 0•.90 D ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.9,: t ' ® Projected plus-project-traffic-I .C-U, with-systems-improvement will be than or equal to 0.90 ' Description of system improvement: CONVC-AT dNE No2r/4160UA)'o THRo">q L/4nlE TO A7D,27 1'/$6v,Uto ��>c7' ruRn1 GaN� �o) ' DATE: _—... -- •--------------- ---•-------•-----_------•-•-- • FORM 1; PROJECT • any INICRSEC1ION CAPACIH'u, I AI ION ANALYSIS r5( Intersection Jamboree._81v_d_/MacArthur9lv ( Existing Traffic Volumes (lases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) ' PROJECII Ii IXI W L,:al R,o ,:'. f-xiS.l LL blufotl bUMMPl itb ViC Rat,, PROPSLL PNUJ:•' PRGaI W�p I'rnu.•PI •"'`'' .o,rs Lap. Lam'S lap• y„I, Nat i„ Vuhmu Vohmi" Volume ' NL 1600 60 .0375* 27 0,86-44 0.0544 ' NT 13200 �3>4800 751 .2347 3 143 61 4?13 20 0,1795 Nk 2/ SL 1600 104 .0650 C�. D650 J 0.0(n50 ST 3200 Lb)4aO0 1303 .4072* 2 147 10 0,3040 SR N.S. _ SO cl EL 1600 358 .2238 4 O, 2ZG3 ' 23 O1Z40� ET 4800 843 .1756* 85 01195 22 D, 1481., ER N.S. — ' 437 .2731* 4"9 0,303B C/ WL 1600 ' WT 4800 934 .1946 3 78 0, 2115 /0 d, 2135 WR N.S. , fELLOWTIME 1000* 1 D,I000i 0,1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .9934 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ; rlp,y!N0 PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C•U. '' ❑ Projected Plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 jRf Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 (1 ) MacArthur Blvd. is_NorthZSguth- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description, of system improvement: 1 ADD A/OJLTfI BOIIA/D 'rNR0U&Y PGus ' r'"17- 7-11e ✓ L4N� Co ' 2, ADD 50U7-yC300A)0 7-IWW&&q L4fijC ' FORM 1 '. PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY —ZAI-ION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Ford Rd. Existing Traffic. Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) Itl'.I lil LlJp.1I ,pDN9I'IU NMIIII• �` I ': .I IM1b I'¢UI'WII• n, m 5 , GROW11 P�20,10I V/1 II,11'n I'Lu , k,i..l' 1 mM LaU Imw, Inl' II,II Yul ,n l'nlupu 4ulln°1 V,Jnim ' NIL 1600 3Z00' 48 .0300 / 0, 0/5 '> O,D44 /53 NT 3200 L3)A6a 1504 .4II31* 5 /0(0 0,•�04/ �` 10$ a 366/ ' NR 42 2 0,(5275 SL 1600 (z) 3zDo 409 .2556* 35 0, 136611 0.13610 ' ST 3200 1276 .3988 4 191 o, •45c/ 48 . 0,4W SR 1600 104 .0650 — 01O&SO 0.0(cSo ' EL 1600 32o0 339 .2119* — O,lOS9 O, 1059' ET 1600 269 .1681 O,1ro8 8 o, lbF ER 1600 90 .0563 0,0569 WL 1600 43 .0269 0, 07-6R 0,02(o9 WT 1600 180 .1125* 0,113111 0, 031 'A tWR 1600 303 .1894 ?_ 0,(4Cv�l Q�PL9 YELLOWTIME 1000* ykl 1 10.1000 ! 011000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .1631 ) EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. D, C i MISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus projeLL traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C,U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: . //t 0/�//// le / �i1l �r/E . alA7 to/� z, �4v>°r� i�0i/mil OOliif 4' r/�'�lY' 74117 lagN 7b -J1i/•�110`oG/ Gf DATE : - IORM 1I INTERSECTION CAPACITY LIJI..LATION ANALYSIS tIntersection_MacArthur Blvd/San.Joaquip Hills Road Existing Traffic Volumes [lases on Average Daily Traffic: Winter/Spring 1979) RRpol a L' ,1 L);•,I I+l Id OAn, a.11W11'IU V/1 1611.o Ilu.h'- N�,_5 WIPNI•• win Ihnp.l JuhV"I Nl 1600 85 .0531" 0,o5j� t ONT 3200 490 .1531 3 3G� 0,1R W..i72 08000. 0600 O,000 1600 ' SL 3200 73 ST 3200 3 90 0, 319/ O,3/9/ � 0O SR ' N.S �0 0,3/4/ 1F EL 3200 O, 7 22 0, l5'G9 ET 4800RWR 3 / 1600 95 .0594 0,05J¢- o.o594 ' 4800 165 .0727* - /� O.OSo4 /D D,0$z> *•; 184 20 YELLOWTIME * 0,1000 i 1 l000 i 1 ;p,1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .7664 1 LXISTING PLUS COW ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IN EVE I.C.U. O, 33(G 0 8 757 ' FXISTTNG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTI4 PLUS PROJECT C.U.T. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' pl us lus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ❑ J ' less-than or-equal to 0.90- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: 1 - DATE: ---• PROJECT FORM 1 APPENDIX C 1 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES ' Existing + 30 Percent. of Project + Regional + Committed (1981) 1 t INTERSECTION CAPACITY LIIILILATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street North Campus_Drive ' ` ( Existing Traffic. Volumes [lases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) W.I 11i'J wblanm .OMM;LIIh V/I IM", I'nr.1 ..• • 132 WROW1n PROM I b/J lh,nu,l V,-1 . 1".L;1, Na(1„ oYuinn''' Vulunm94 .0588 21 0,07/y 0,07/9 .q 5 0, l9 1006 .3144 I� 3p3 4800 617 .385 tER ' -'1600 705 .4'406*2040 32 30. 41'02 45 0, '!•172 42 O I , 1 ' YELLOWTIME 10.1 1000* 000 � © (000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. p.`)73 7 c° 9l �J ' ! flc,y14; PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH. PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ❑ less than or equal to 0.96 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: ADD 50UT"00A0UG14 C�� 1.0 TN�2 DATL: __-- PP,UJLCT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTiLIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection_Hristol Street/Campus Drive Existing Traffic Volum(-, Bases on Average Daily Traffic: Winter/Spring 1979) n PL•111'I n I•L'1611 r I l o r ll.n I'IpOyr'.I lr IAI I 1 .1 1 I:I b1r11,0r y I:el r.. V": I'I 111. (' ' bl'Irlllll I lirlq 1 n 1'ury r I Vu:v. ' •• • ,. .a . I.uv . I n' -Pq it d I•. Y=Inm 4..I�in v.•lunu •,L ' NT 3200 455 .1453 5 �j3 O, 1728 1$ NR 1600 221 .1381 02 D, 1%fc4 OF] ,Cvy ' SL 1600 106 .0663 1 0. 0669 0,0&69 ST 3200 3 48 00 1648 .5150* 3633 dE SR - ' EL 198 31 ET 8000 918 .1500* S 31.5 2-0 9,2061 ' ER 154 5 WL 1 WT .WR YELLOWTIME .1000* 1 p,1606 �O,1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILILATION .7650 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I .C.U. 016 i %9 ' r1S•ING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.-U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ; - - - ' Description of system improvement: ,400 60u71-+ SoUNv 7-14Z0&0 C,4tir DATE: PROJECT FORM 1 t ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection.Coast Hw Dover Dr. - Bayshore Dr. 24 I Vxisting Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979 ). PROATI 0 L%I51, U151. RLGIONAL LOW IIIU VIC RDLIO PRO,.' PRO,LO U.fl INL PROPOSLU Pr. RR VIC GROWTH {'ROJ((I W/o Protect Vu:.• rC �.,t„ ' • ' '• -aP• L`Inis C'1'`' Vol. Ratio Volume Mow Volulliv O'O/ 7'JJ 1600 23 .0144 VI ©, 0l 4 4 - 3200 -- -._ 46 .0206 0,020 i C, 0209 ' NR 20 ' SL 3200 3�480o ' 834 .2606* 0, l 7G 9 ST 11600 (j) 1600 1,14 .1713 p, /7/3 0,17/3 SR 10 )600 160 - 0, 1000 O,1000 ' EL 1600 (?)3ZOO 151 * — 0. 047Z 0,0472 ET 3200 4800 1363 .4259 8 61 0,2983 1`+ 0.30/3 ' ER 1600 51 0319 — 0.0319 0.03l9 WL 1600 64 .0400 1 0,040G 0.0406 ' AT 4800 (3)4600 1379 4754* 5 216 a 333 6 32 0.3404 ,dR Q) !(o00 903 58 0.6004 0,(n00 , rELLOWTIME * I O 000 , , ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 9510 j �0,�004 . EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. O,G 76 3 t YI TT?NG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. O,G F364 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C:U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less-than or-equal-to 0.90- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - ' Description of system improvement: 40D 5OU77M1300n/,0 LEFT TuP'N 1-4,VE (o) 2 A00 s00r.'001JNp 21647- 7-vRN Z-4V,6" ' 3 44,0 E,1sreoumD e-EFr Tr/RA/ 4 App EAsr,600AIJ' Ty2ou&,v 6,4Iv, Coy 5 /SOD rvesraDUND /2/CvN7" TU)ev LAtiE �0) 1 DATE: FORM 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ter . ,.,uiON ANALYSIS lntersection__.Coast Hwy•JBa.,Yside x; ,:.lr•; Traffil Vululti-, Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) ' IAt .• IAltl. Wt W VNnI ,UMM I: 1. I'RILII.LI. . ,w nJ,'tl•1 V/f It.r(•o Ivu'. .pa. rt ,mr+ rM. Idnei fnR. I•r,rlH V;l Wlow]it PRV.11` I W,n rMuicrl Yal,,•r• ., Nallu tiul Hal1u VJlumr Vo Lnn' VJlunu• ' NL 3200 808 .2525* 15 0, '?s-& 1, O,zsz' � NT 1600 26 1 .0238 -- c9, 0238 O,0239 ' NR 12 SL 1600 19 .0119 O. oll9 O.OIl9 ' ST 1600 6 .0281* _ O. O7-8I SR 39 ' EL 1600 51 .0356* — 0. 03c$ ET 3200 3 46 00 1479 .4622 rj 87 0,3273 14- ' ER 1600 551 .3444 = Cr344d 0,34 WL 1600 9 .0056 0 ,05 G 01050 WT 13200 3)406D 1400 .4378* 5 2?& 0.3550 32 0,3 0l 7 WR 1 Y£LLOWTIME 1000* QI 1000* i 10 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8540 I Q I000 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 0.77�5'i iYII�TTNG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I,C.U. �,752O ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ® Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ' I, APO ERS7-646"nJ,p 7'NQ006F'41 CAN/_ (P) ' 2 /4p0 CO) ' G • DATE: ' �-;OjECT N '' I INTERSECTION• CAPACITY IlliL,LAT10N ANALYSIS intersection _Coast Hic�hw /Jamboree Road __ _._,•__ I:x1t Ling Traffir Vol"111W, lia r`. un Avvragr U,lily 1'raffic Winter/Spring 19 19 �-�{� •1 1•111611, It a i,l 1 I ,I' 1 '!I I•I lllidl �UMMi tllb !I I••• 11 II,uL C,I nIJ IWIu I'uu.11. l w.0 l• u�•` V, Ip `I, ' •i lam'. I•q` \ul UaI In 1'n loon Yi.l ne0 V"I...nr NL 1600 96 .0600' I O.0606 0,0(006 ' NT 3200 361 . 1634* i 22 6, 1713 Orl7/3 NR 162 3 44 2��0I 8EO, y1'3 1 c SL 1600 84 .0525* 291 .1819 ST .1459 CI SSO 9 31g0 Sk 32 c i4 0,20 22 EL 70 .1781* 7 f ET 3200 1139 .3559 Q 12 0. 366C1 0.3609 ' ER 1600 44 .0275 1 0.0281 0.028/ ' 6" .2194 3200 WL 1 3Z0o 351 C 113 0 01 ,'3110137/ WT 4200* 12 110 0, 307/ WR N.S. 228 Z _ YELLOWTIME 1000* �0. 1000 1 :0.1000 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION I 9140 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. O,u PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C,U. with systems improvement will be ' less-than or_equal to. O..90- - - _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: ADD (NEST40Un/D G5F7' 7"(.)kAl G 4NC LO) ' 2 ADp Q/E57 t3OVND 7"N20v&N GJaA.) co) 1 FORMPROJECT iI INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ,.{ Intersection Coast Hwy./Marguerite ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19_7� I lel •' IIbI I:I I,1 Upl; Illnlp;,Ill i' I•Itll.11pu ' 1'•'. IdP 1.11u' IAp 1'r, Ilh V,I IAfllltll 1'Itl 1,Ili i l I I'JI " ' - 1 lul It,ll b' Yo14Vu Wd emr u•n lh npvl V.rLr. •.• 41t I'. — RILmu• i NL 1600 _ 67 .0419* 0, 041 0,0419 NT 1600 60 .0856 — 0 ,0056 0.0as(o Nk P 77 — L 1600 127 .0794 — 0.07'?44 0.0794 ST 1600 107 .1194 Q, 1194 1 SR 84 — EL 1600 44 .0275 — 0, 0275- 0027S E; 3200 1542 .48'19* 11 153 (�,�� � " l3 0.5397 ER 1600 64 .0400 2 p,p413 p 0413 WL 1600 84 .0525* O.OS25 0.052,E ' WT 3200 960 .3234 /2 48 0,3¢ �> (�, 0)1,3q 4�-!' WR 75 YELLOWTIME 1000* i i0,1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7957 LAISTINQ, PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMLNTS I.C.U. Q,£35 31 !�•:N PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I,f,.U. Q E,STL Projected plus project traffic I.C.U.. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement willbe less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT ' FORM 1I INTERSECrl'ON CAPACITY U111. 1/ATION ANALYSIS ' . Intersection__ Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) I'NI1.11 l Ili' t\:`•Ilnrr VR\0'0''II IAI'•1 IYI'd III IJA'wl rUM+117111r \4l Ilnl rrr I9.0 1' rlJ.rlt: y Ih,IIR l t LIItlYIn 1'IttI III 1 Nln 1'r•u I'"I Yr`t n•n, r " u•'11. ' r^IaP IAllp� I.p' Vol It.. tr' \uhnur Vt�l^�.n YJiumr NL ' NT 3200 3 480o 721 .2253k 1 20 0. 1544 3 4r155?. NR 1600 136, 0850 E5 Or 1194 l( 0.12(03 SL 1600 2)3200 178 .1113* 18'j 011134 0. 1134, ' ST 3200 999 .3122 1 37 0.3241 7 0,3263 SR — — ' EL — ET ' ER — — — WL 2400 331 .1379* 132 WT - ��)64d0 — o,21 po 012141 tWR 2400 1 407 .1696 97� YELLOWTIME 1000* i� 1oU0 ' 0'1 Off() EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY tllllllATION 5745 i ; I LXISTING PLUS COMMITILD PLUS It161ONAL GROWTH W/PI1UP01t11l INPROYIMINTS IK*;NG PLUS COhMIITTW PLUS RIGIONAI GROWTH PLUS PROJGT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project-traffic L•.C.U,. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be han or ' less_t- - - -equal to0.90_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -- ' Description of system improvement: ADO 4)09774600/4 TNRd U64 L,gnlE Lo) 4,0,0 6cor*600mv (� ,EFr Takv L,"NF �0) 3 ADD tv6braovAIL) DATE: {'aU.iEi:r INTERSECTION CAPACITY ( 11LIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hill, Rd._ ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes [lases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) I.XI'I Exist. 11161 O6a( b0MM171ib PROALICo . ';•,_ I•VUPOSCI, wr Nat is Pkg11 PRO$17 I'r.Jgc, Yjr GROW1. 1It071, 1 ' 1 Cry Iam's Cat, W/01•rah it Vo7� r,C natl. Vul. Rnt ui Ynlumi Col.ac' Vt. ume NL 1600 165 .1031 Iq_ 0, 1/$0 0, 11So ' NT 3200 3)46ob 1101 .3441* I ZII 0, 2735- 0,2735 NR 1600 180 .1125 1 0. M1.3 3 O,1231 SL 3200 569 .1778* D, 1"l?K 20 ST 3200 1034 .3231 I 146 0,3(0 ] o3(4T SR 1600 203 .1269 — 0 l Z14 O 1 Z(o9 ' EL 1600 99 .0619 — 0.061 * 010619 ET 3200 72 .0225* — O,m2Z 5 0.01?ZS ' ER 1600 37 .0231 3 0,0ZSO O.OZEO WL 1600 3)4800 149 .0931* 2ln 0,0500 7 0,05/5 WT 3200 65 .0203 WR 1600 NS 891 .5569 ¢$ YELLOWIIME 1000* iQ OOO ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7375 1 I000 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0, 9 I iXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90- - - .- - - - - - _ - ' Description of system improvement: ,4D0 N027'7•/Ci0uvp ?-N, ou6hi LrJNC- L0) ' Z Go Nvt27- vVC5 7-80un10 THQOIrGR L14AJS 7b 0 P770lvt4L 71120UG y PLUS LGFT L '4NE �o) - ._. . . . veto,)l-C-T '--__—__—__—_ ___...�_._...------------------- - roRr•1 : . INflRticIIION tAPAL111( . I . AI ION ANAL Y ,I . Intersection Jamboree Road/_Ldsl.liluff Driv., - Ford Road Traffic Volow-- Bale', on Average. Daily traffic Winter/Spring 197q ; vll gO.4490 a4r I Idol". Idi. Itat,a l'.rlunir Hrim• VoluNI. 3200 522' .1631 4a 0, 178)NT 3200 3)480U 1694 .5L94* 2 414 C9,439G ' IiR_ 1600 204 .1275 I$ SL 1600 69 .0431* 0.0430- 0,0431 ST 3200 )4800 1292 .4038 1 2S7 9.3229 20 0,227/ �R 1600 26 .0163 EL 1600 52 .0325 — ©.P325 0.03Z5 ' ET 3200 2 7,00 375 .1172 — 0.0/2 C/ O, ZI ER lG' 1600 2 32a0 197 .1231* S 0.0(0¢� D,Ofo41 ` WT 3200 Wo 133 4 — 0. 0831 �t 3 ' WR 1600 29 .0181 YELLOWTIME 1000* ; 0/1006+ ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .9128 c EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0 -4 iX W'NO PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ?!SI ' ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be, less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Description of System improvement: ' lr ,eANil_/jT N0R74B60Ai) 91647' Tv,eAl e-AAI6 TO OPt'l(WAL 7-H/20614,Y / h�/vur Co) 2, [oA1v5RT SoUTgBOUND 21C-rH7, TueAI LADE -ro OPTiO,vAL Ty1,0UC14 I?LUS R14747' ' 3 r-otivERT EA57-80U v0 1240' 71WA) CANE TO OP710AhAL T74(2006H PLUS I214,Hr (0) 4 , 4D6 S,467-5ooA/.0 G)Pnon/AL 7 -Hp-oL)&H pl-us f2l&je j• Cp) .5- CO AJVe2r W,63r6 OUA-0 7-fl120u4,N LAND Ti7 G,EFT r L)'4v 64ALc'• Co) DATE: ' u Rol)I CT fVi Ii T • Yy` n INTERSECTION CAPACITY ui —,CATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection_Bristol Street/Jamboree Road _- 14" ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 192e ) ' PROJI t It 11 : 11�1 L'e. I'RUPp51(: . {,XI51 Ittf lPnAl 41)tAMll1111 V/4 R.rt toPFOJ:"I 1't V/C COIN III I ./a P".w"t Yulumi ''+/C a.lt l.+ uWu lA�, lnnvy laa' Vol. Ild nn Vol uu¢ Volm°i• Volumv NL NT 8000 2377 .3053* 2 4,31 NR 65 0.35y`i 4W 9-24!17� SL — ST 4800 1040 .2167 !32 0.2444 G SR ' EL o. 1044- 0, /05�¢ ET 3 7 .11473 1.7 O,1Z09 O+IZZe ' ER 2 45 * 7 /'5OJ O,2E�d? /4 O+?-89� WL WT WR - YELLOWTIME 1000* ip+(00 0 { 10, I000'� EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .6381 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. 7d 1 iYISTINO PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 77 y ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U.• will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ 'Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ' DATE: ' FORM i i4LC 1 ---- -- - - _------------- — - - --- . - - ; P1J • InLer•spc,ilUn Iirislul •f Nm�th/JdndHlrrr KOad I' ( Existing Traffic Vulullit", B,1Sr', •,n Average Daily Traffic Win�er)Spring 1913) t%14f. C%ISI. REI,IUhRt ..JMMI t1Fb jPROJ% /C x,...� aUJ" :R:::ii: PRi,•••.' PRH V/C OROWT•1 G•ROX13 /o Prw r.t Volum'. L,C RauoRatio Volunu L'olunm olumeNL 320U T4600 1518 .474- 2 ';?l.> , 3y3� J. 0,4W VT_ ,980o ) 3-00 106` - , It .2219 I 233 .40sg 14 0,4l03 NI+ ST 1061 .221-, I 15oARM SR 1600 54'3 . 33911 4 C. 341q o,3419 I ET ^ ER r A — - 2 I WT 4800 386 _ .0827* 3 _ O.DB 35 O.Og35 WR 9 1 1 YELLOWTIME .i�0i* �© (000� � � Q,I000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8781 1 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLU'i REGIONAL GROWTH 'W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I°T`4r PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. f7�7E Projected plus project traffic : . :,U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.9f (� Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Description of system improvement: D01n1E2'7- oni6 1V01e7'h'800ND 'rk4jeou&I{ LAA11= To "0krAJ8ovnin LE�� Tv�A/ LANE CO) 1 DATE: FORM 1 : PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY L, —,ZATION ANALYSIS Intersection—Jamboree Blvd. MacArthur Blvd. 1 ;_ ( Existing Traffic Volurdes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19.79) V/C H tl f.%Itil 1VP,i UROWNin IAM�MI I:LI• V/C aatw PRtl;n• P/C Rat ,..A.1 114t, NNt14%14 (-Y.IIIi Y,h Volta, PROV"I.IIiI wqr ly Dual VI.Iu•", :'!:' aaf 1.. ' luv`1 LnP• lam:} Inp. V„1 iLtl n, Rrlunu Yolu""' ViJunu• • NL 1600 60 .0375* 27 0. os44 0,0544 ' N? 3200 3)�BUU 751 .2347 2 /43 0. �910 P 0,1935 NR 21 �P SL • 1600 104 .0650 — O,O(oS0 4,0(ara ' ST 3200 1303 .4072* 147 0,Va-Sq 5R N.S. - - 50 — 3 358 .7.238 O.Z2(c3 7 O.Z307 ' EL 1600 843 .)756* 8s 0.10.)S 7 0.1 ET 4800 Z�{ _ ' ER N.S. WL 1600 437 .2731* ©.3035 O 30.S dT 4800 934 .1946 Z ,79 Or 21IS 30.21191 WR N.S. — — I ' YELLOWTIME 1'000* 16 ', Q (000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .9934 l EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1- /0 r l ' lxjr'p1; PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.,C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90(1 ) MacArthur Blvd. is_Nor•th(Sguth_ _ - - - ' Description of system improvement: �. ADD nloRTt/BvcJtin TNI?OU&AI PG615 p16117' Z-1-1n/L- L) 1 1 _ '-- DATE.:__ _ FORM 11 INTUSLCI'ION CAPACII u111.11ATION ANALY'>I', Intersection-_ MacArthur Blvd,/San.Joaquin HillsRoad Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) 7,1 PRPOI n1 U )I f&A . Gxlsl. GROW I' i wa^Itnu, y� E, EAI511 Nu PRUPUSEUIS V/C Ratio PR4JlfT PdUJLtf e : Pn.RR. V/C Voluw t•RUJI,1 Lanes Lap. lanes Lap. w/o PiroJett 'lohlnm Y;; Ratio Vol. Raho Vol unii Volam" Volume 'NL 1600 85 .0531* l 6,053$ O,C�.>`Slo NT 3200 490 . 1531 Q 3Cg 'a m'5n NR 1600 128 .0800 SL 3200 282 .0881 %3 p.,!(U9 G.11�r ' ST 3200 919 .2872* 2 99 0••3/c?eIlk ,3168� SR N.S. 387 2 ' EL 3200 811 .2534* 66 0. 803.� 32 0.29o3 ET 4800 499 .1379 45 0.1475' 7 I ER 163 / 7 WL 1600 95 .0594 - G.G59 D0;'9 WT 4800 165 .0727* 1.7 080-� 0 0810 ' WR 184 20 YELLOWTIME 1000* dU 1 I 4e ' I G./goo EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION L .7664 I I 1 LXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED 1NPROVEMENTS LC.U. "33 i ' FXIST!NG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 84 S ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ 'Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - Description of -;ystem improvement: 1 DATE: 1 PROJECT FORM 11 " INTERSECTION CAPACITY ., •_,iATION ANALYSIS Intersection MacArthur. Dlyd. Ford Rd__,_•_.•___`__, ' rll9 f Existing Traffic; Volulal's Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1979) rua.n 1 I 1 !Al.: L%1' I. INiillh:: .U�IYi 1'IU l'/l Ildiro I`NI i; •i:J„o • vo.. 'i'.o ?HPPU)!• ,..Ills. Yil IigONI`• hRpJ(.1 .,InO> ..1: IdIWs 101•' lids in VOl1M... V")., W/11111;�Ptl VPip'I�VPI"me NI. 1600 2)3ZOO 48 .0300 a 0153 0, 0153 IT 13200 1504 .4831* 4106 0,•6-044 MR (1) 1600 42 2 0, 0 V S O.O Z77 SL 1600 3Z00 409 .2556* O, 1278 a1/278 ' ST 3200 1276 .3988 3 1q1 0, 46g4 0,4(n39 SR 1600 104 .0650 0, O(050 0,0650 ' El. 1600 Z)3Z00 339 .2119* — 0. 10 s9* ' 0. 105� ET 1600 269 .1681 1 0,1&88 04668 ' ER 1600 90 .0563 1 0,05(09' 0105(09 WL 1600 43 .0269 0,0Z(09 0.0 a" 9 4T 1600 180 .1125* 0, 1(31 0, 1131 �9 WR 1600 303 .1894 1'L 0, 19(oq 0, 1?6 YELLOWTIME 1000* r 0.10a0 mk10.1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .1631 c EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 6,9610 11 y1S':V9 PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ©' 4tiiZ ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90- _ Description of system improvement: /. L��/�a��/i�auro// %�onc/✓/rlp�>L �vi� ��e�'� ,r'a o�i�vor�.td :����vi� DATL : Mift f QOfOfI �►ItlllJ� A �440CtA0 ' TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATI INEERING 9 W ' September 15, 1978 ri� opm ti o0Mg�pt. �91871 10 ' R F Ms Beverly Wood �/ S vJP EpCNr ,,Community Development Department / N City of Newport Beach ti ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 ' Dear Ms Wood: This letter summarizes our analysis of the proposed Civic Plaza development in ' Newport Center relative to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The analysis covers the one percent criteria review which is the first step in the overall analysis ' required •bt the Ordinance. We have followed the format and procedures established by the 0ity Traffic Engineer in this study. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is'w'ithin the Newport Center -development and, is bounded by San ' Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, Santa Barbara Drive and existing development along Jamboree Road. Land uses within the project and their ' size are as follows: ' 1. Office Park 320,000 square feet 2. Art Museum 30,000 square feet ' 3. Library 30,000 square feet 4. Theatre 20,000 square feet 5. Restaurant 8,000 square feet Building permits have been issued for the art museum and library and an EIR in- cluding a traffic impact analysis has been approved by the City. III ' TRIP GENERATION Since this phase of the analysis is concerned with traffic during a 2.5 hour ' peak period, trip generation rates must be established for each use during this 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 ' -2- ' period. Rates for -this period for office and restaurant use have been previously determined ,and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The 2.5 hour period is ' representdd by the 3:30 to 6:00 PM traffic volumes. •Trip generation from the theatre on an average weekday will be negligible and need not be considered in the ' analysis. The art museum and library will also have a minimal trip generation dur- ing this period,, Rates for the museum and library have been assumed at one per ' 1,000 square feet in and out for each use. The rates utliized in this study are summarized in the following table and have .been approved by the City Traffic En- gineer. LAND USE TRIPS PER 1,000 SQ. FT. In Out Office 1.8 2.8 Restaurant 11.3 7.7 Art Museum 1.0 1.0 ' Library 1.0 1.0 DISTRIBUTION The next step in the analysis is to determine the directional distribution of the ' projected traffic. A distribution was previously developed in the traffic analysis for the EIR for this project prepared by our firm in 19.75. Subsequent to that re- port, our "Newport Center Traffic •Study Phase II" report was completed which con- tained a distribution based upon the planned road system and 1990 development levels. ' Both of these sources were utilized to develop the distribution indicated in Figure 1. ' CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS ' The City Traffic Engineer identified the following critical intersections for anal- ysis with this project: ' Bristol Street North at Campus Drive Bristol Street South at Campus Drive - Irvine Avenue ' Coast Highway at Dover Drive Coast Highway at Bayside Drive Coast Highway at Jamboree Road ' -3- ' Coast Highway at Newport Center Drive Coast Highway at Mac Arthur Boulevard Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive ' Jamboree Road at San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road at Ford Road Jamboree Road at Bristol Street North ' Jamboree Road at Mac Arthur Boulevard Mac Arthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road Mac Arthur Boulevard at Ford Road Utilizing the estimated traffic generation during the 2.5 hour period and the trip ' distribution previously discussed, traffic from the project was determined for each . approach to each intersection. These volumes were then applied to the existing 2.5 hour volume to determine whether the project traffic would be more of less than one ' percent of existing traffic volumes. Form I, "l % Traffic Volume Analysis", pro- vided by the City Traffic Engineer have been completed for each intersection and ' are attached to this report. ' CONCLUSIONS The one percent analysis has indicated that all critical intersections will have ' peoject related traffic volumes which exceed one percent of the existing 2.5 hour volume. This would indicate that an ICU analysis should be conducted at each in- tersection to determine the ICU value with this project. We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you in the processing of this ' project and look forward to completing the next phase of the procedure. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. ' Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINCLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:cd #5451 ' FIGURE '1 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION ' 07 40 20 v N. 9¢ISTa� ' BRrsra� 25% W ti CD O d �i "A. 9-V err Val U ' % 25 5 to W R84 Sq,vTx e4 3$% SaNJ0AOiUIQk �S JC ' O O Rp_ > a' 25% 5%5• of � to 5% 25 ( ' QPG�F,G COAST HIGHWAY H ' /0% z ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection VE - IRYINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring T97_) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Vol.um Northbound 1504 15 O ' Sou hbound 3705 37 b Eastbound -- '- estbound 4790 48 Z Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: CIVIC PLAZA 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19)8 ) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound 1606 16 O ' Southbound 3164 32 O ' Eastbound 3027 30 14-5 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' aProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I-..C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: CIVIC PLAZA ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Highwav/Dover Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) tExisting 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 2 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 242 2 0 ' So*uthbound 2100 21 0 Eastbound 3489 35 /$I Westbound 5279 53 2.454. Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be -greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization, ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. t INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Dover Drive FORM I 'PROJECT: Civic Plaza 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection rnaet HigJlyldyJ�ySide Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound ' Southbound 180 Eastbound 4847 48 ' Westbound 3860 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of ,Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Bayside Drive FORM I �ROJECT: Civic Plaza ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection ����+ h�yglamhnnoo Rnarl (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour tDirection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Northbound I ni s 30 d ' Southbound 2959 3nZS¢ Eastbound /$ ' estbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume DProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. t t t . INTERSECTION Coast HighwayA amboree Road FORM I 9ROJEC—T: Civic Plaz - 1 I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Hiahwav/Newport Center Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 1978) ' ---------------------- Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound -- -- ' Southbound 2848 28 51 Eastbound 3142 31 5 1 ' Westbound 2566 26 36 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 2P2 Hour.Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing © Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Newport Center Drive FORM I PROJECT: Civic Plaza I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection (Existing Traffic' Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 Z Hour Peak 2: Hour Peak 2 2 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound -- -- ' outhbound 2258 23S1 ' Eastbound 3204 3 S� Westbound 3432 34 7 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' 0Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization, (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. t INTERSECTION Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard FORM I PROJECT: Civic Plaza ' 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Ave age Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 z Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VolumE Northbound ' Southbound 430 4 0 Eastbound 3 /OZ Westbound 2401... 24 73 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION Coast Highway/Marguerite Avenue FORM I ' PROJECT: Civic Plaza 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound 1895 1 ' Southbound 2653 2751 Eastbound -- -- ' estbound 1299 13 ZO 3 ; Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 • INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive FORM I PROJECT: Civic Plaza ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' lorthbound irection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volume 2581 26 3 6 ' Southbound 4134 41 264 Eastbound 385 4 O ' estbound 2533 25 466 ' QProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than l% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I 'PROJECT: civic Plaza 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 1 Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour 1 Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Northbound 4574 46 355 1 Southbound 2937 29 2 574 Eastbound 1 981 1 10 1Westbound 753 8 1 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1 © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INTERSECTION Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive-Ford Road FORM I 1 PROJECT: CIVIC PLAZA ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL STREET�dANiBORFE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197-8) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2z Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volurm Northbound 4996 50 355 ' Southbound 2359 24 /09 Eastbound 2778 1 28 /45 ' Westbound ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' MProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROJECT: CIVIC PLAZA I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 5153 52 3575 ' Southbound 2811 28 109 Eastbound -- -- 0 ' Westbound 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization t (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 t INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROJECT: Civic PLAZA 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' (1) Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) ' Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 22 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volunw Northbound 1681 17 /52 ' Southbound 2814 28 29 d ' Eastbound 2923 29 O Westbound 3037 30 225 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. (1) MacArthur Blvd. is assumed north and south INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I rPROJECT. Civic Plaza ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 22 Hour Peak 21 Hour Peak 22 Hour ' Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 1484 15 37 Southbound 3065 31 Eastbound 3140 31 355 Westbound 1451 15 36 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. • Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road FORM I PROJECT: Civic Plaza 1 � 1 _ 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 1 Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2: Hour Peak 2 2 Hour Peak 2 2 Hour 1 Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volum Northbound 3657 37 Z 5 3 1 Southbound 4032 40 /8 Eastbound 1584 16 iWestbound 1 1007 10 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Existing Peak• 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 1 1 . `INTERSECTION MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road FORM I 'PROJECT: Civic Plaza W + cab P A WebE.at�t 'PVq k aid Aooe aW ft' TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTIN s {NEERING August 14, 1979 �0F�l- cL 0! peg o�pa.Fp Mr. Ron Jonas n[/ pep�m@� 3 The Irvine Company �1 (�'1g 550 Newport Center Drive 6 19j9e ' Newoort Beach, California 92663 NpoRTOF cA<�F E4Qy 4 Dear Mr. Jonas: S ' v Enclosed are revised pages for the Civic Plaza Traffic Phasing Study. rn revisions cover the intersections of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road ' and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. In both cases, improvements were indicated by others that are not required by the project and are now not re- quired by others. These improvements were related to the Prudential project which was not approved by the City. ' At Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road, the northbound right turn lane is not recommended to be converted to an optional through or right turn lane. This change had no effect upon the ICU calculation. At Jamboree and Mac Arthur, the eastbound right turn lane is not recommended to be converted to an optional ' through or right turn lane. The conversion of the northbound right turn lane to an optional through or right turn is recommended. These changes resulted in a lowering of the ICU value at this intersection. These revised pages can be inserted into our July 5, 1979 report. If you have any questions, please contact me. ' Respectfully submitted, ' WESTON PRINGLE AND h.SSOCIATES Wes�S P�le, P.E. WSP: js #5452 • 2 • 2651 EAST CHAPM AN AVENUE • SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 931 714 871-2931 6 ( ) ' -5- Review of Table 3 indicates that 14 of the 16 intersections exceed the maximum ' two percent on at least one approach and must- be considered critical. ANALYSIS The 14 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to ' determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined and include regional growth and approved projects volumes. The ICU's also include improvements required by previously approved projects. These improvements art. discussed in the next section. The individual analysis sheets are contained in ' Appendix B and summarized in Table 4. Review of 'Cable 4 indicates that two inter- sections are projected to exceed 0.90: Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections are below the 0.90 level. ' Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development without improvement phasing, the 14 critical intersections were analyzed with existing plus 30 percent of the remaining development. 'Chose data are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 4. The CCU's for the L'wu intersections of Bristol Street ' North and Campus Drive, and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard still exceed the 0.90 level under these conditions. As indicated in the previous paragraphs, two intersections have ICU's that exceed ' 0.90 whether they are analyzed with 30' percent of the project development or with full develooment. It should also be noted theyboth of these intersections have ICU values greater than 0.90 without development- of Civic Plaza. These two inter- sections are discussed in the following paragraphs. 1 Bristol SLrect NurLh and Campus Urivo iwview of lable 4 and the related Sheets in Appendices B and C indicates that the project would have no impact upon the ICU values at this intersection. Since project volumes are added to non-critical movements, the ICU values are equivalent for both cases with and without the project. Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard The ICU values at this intersection increase 0.0052 in 1981 as a result of ' the project. This increase would not be perceptible to drivers utilizing the intersection. In addition, with observed driver Table 4 ' ICU SUMMARY Civic Plaza (1) (1) (2) INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + EXISTING + ' REGIONAL + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT 1981 1981 1982• Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9898 0.9256 0.9256 0.9279 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. 0.72 0,6467 0.6498 0.6613 toast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.99 0.6556 0.6623 0.6788 ■Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. 0.89 0.8051 0,8118 0.8282 oast Highway & Jamboree Rd. 0.83 0,7644 0.7644 0.7650 oast Highway & Marguerite Ave. 0.68 0.7425 0,7466 0.7566 tamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.53 0.6171 0.6233 0.6373 amboree Rd. & San Joaquin hills Rd. 0.64 0,6473 0.6487 0.6522 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.83 0.7449 0,7517 0.7739 ,Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.54 0,7944 0,8032 0,8247 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 0.72 0,8219 0.8298 0.8489 amboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.85 0.9326 0.9378 0.9284 Mac Arthur Blvd. & 'San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0..72 0.7945 0,8070 0,8368 tac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 1.01 0,8653 0.8753 0.8997 1(1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. '(2) Project Related Improvements are Included. characteristics in the area, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. ' Observations have indicated that, as intersections near capacity, the capacity is increased and yellow or lost time decreased. Construgtton of the Corona IDel Mar Freeway and San Joaquin corridor would also result in improved conditions. ' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS The ICU analyses for Lhe project included some circulation system improvements. All ' of these improvments arc currenLll' t'v(piired as part of approved projects or planned as governmental projecLs. The improvements are summarized in Table 5 and illustrated in Figures 2 through 13. Table 5 tSUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Civic Plaza ' INTERSECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through lane. Re- Campus Drive quired by previously approved pro- ject. See Figure 2. ' Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. See Figure 3. Required by previously ' approved project. Coast Highway/Dover Drive Add southbound left turn lane. ' Add southbound right turn lane. Add eastbound left turn lane. 1 Add eastbound optional through or right turn lane. Add westbound right turn lane. City/CnlTratts Prujoct. See Figure 4. Coast Highway/Bayside Drive Add eastbound through lane. ' Add westbound optional through or right turn lane. - 8 - CalTrans Project. ' See Figure 5. Coast Highway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound left turn lanes. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 6. Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. ' Add soutlibound left turn lane. Add westbound lane. Required by previously approved project, ' See Figure 7, Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Add northbound through lane. Hills Road Convert westbound through lane to optional through plus left•. ' Required by previously approved project. , ' See Figure 8. Jamboree Road/Eastblufk Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to optional through plus right. Add eastbound through lane. Convert westbound through ' lane to left turn lane. Re- Quired by previously approved ' project•. See Figure 9. ' Bristol Street/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. Required by previously approved project. ' See Figure 10. - 9 - i ' Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. ' Required by previously approved pro jccl . ' See Figure 11. Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard Add northbound right turn lane. ' Required by previously approved project. ' Convert northbound right turn lane to optional through or right and ' add southbound through lane. Estimated Cost: $2,000.00 ' See Figure 12. Mac Arthur- Boulevard/Ford Road Add northbound left and right 1 turn lanes, southbound left 0urn lane and eastbound left turn lane. ' City of Newport Beach project to be constructed 1979-80. See ' Figure 13. ' SUMMARY The ootentiaL impact of the proposed Civic Plaza site has been analyzed at 30 percent ' of development and at full development in 1982. . Both analyses have indicated that two intersections would have ICU's greater than 0.90. For one intersection, the analysis indicates LhaL with the project and improvements from approved projecLS, the ICU would be less than the existing ICU. It would also be equal to the 1981 and 1982 TCU without the project. Conversely, for the other intersection, the analysis indicates that the 1982 TCU would be more than the TCU without the project although would still be greater than 0.90. 1 w 1 1 1 1 7 �G�yC . �pR ,SO o 1 � CONVERT THROUGH LANE w I TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND a o LEFT TURN LANE 1 � SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAR 1 I ` ' I � ADD THROUGH LANE 1 1 RECOMMENDED CONPICURATION AT IN'ri,IZS1sCTTON OF JAMBOREE ROAD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 1 1 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE $ R \ \ \ NOT TO SCA ADD THROUGH LANE 1000, 1 / ADD THROUGH OR / \ RIGUT TURN LANE 1 1 . RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF ' JAMBOREE ROAD /MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD 1 FIGURE Ic WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 :V ' f1014 CAPACITY IITILUATION ANALYSIS 1 r I I1 C� Irrersnction �q �j0/�2 1G�7c �1 ��!/►� �0 4Lt1 �oc�. (Existing Traffic Volu ys Base on verage 17inter ring 197 Moaaknt EXISTING PPGPUSEO f EX I EXIST REGIONAL, COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PHOJf.GI Lanes Cal) CrP I Pr MR I V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Fati.� Vol. IcaLlo VOL. Vol. W/o Project Vol. -' — NL I �_—i.�I� � ' D I O,dB B � d.o6f8 ' NT ii) Z/Boo C2— o.i.3/f' N R o 13 _o. oP5' 10 ' SL 6-7 SR 0 1 ' El ET ER WL a As yo �? oc� �r3)ye�_ I-31 . :.r$ _aG �1r�YL� 1 wr }IKo 0 WR VELLOWTIVE rA d.i000 EXISTING' .-%SECTION CAPACITf I [7A7ION /[/IS-.i FG EtU: COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH WrPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 d•6f/%'b E!l STING PLJE COMMITTED PILS RE",!ONAI, GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' Projected I11V N•o,if'Ct t.r•uffic I .C.IJ. will he less than or equal to 0.90 ' E] Projectk plu . Prr.l.lt'Lt tl•affiC I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected piu:> in'nject Uatfic I .C.U. with systems improvements will be less than nr equal to 0.90 ' r•r"J,ripf. ioli io i•i'.I r'II' IIII!)I'IrVeIIIe IiL: V104h bcund 4-hYQu9 h lane . (o) CorvaYT Wev b'1'4 fh111o� IQna -0 op+io>1Q1 +hrough plus le-F+. (o) 1 ,••r I W11 WW.1 ION CAPACITY Ul IIAZAI ION ANALYSIS lnrersaction -, � U) ,_ rgQy�? �n��� ,�� a/ (Existing lrafflc Volurle ased on Average Winter/Spring 197_ Movtr�er.t EXISTING TppO,USED EXIST LXIST REGIONAL' CO7MITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap �..ne: .o 7 Pe: HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Val. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Protect 1 --_— i Vol. NL I 1 I 0. °/BB 1 NT '18a� C ~ ' 3 I CJ•Z°BS 20 O. 8 NR _ __ 1�1 o•/3B/ 1 SL ----7 d. zggw 0 ST ) /3 �ov a I 3 0.Z77S1 IQ 0. /871 SR 1 ( _af3 O.32B1 l EL d.3YZ3 '� 1 ET ----I _ 3 v. zzSo �� �.2z96 ER 5 . ja Wl 5 0 3/yy a•32oo 1 WT I I I0Q_ a. zaZy ro 0.Po7 WR 10 _ 1 rELLM:TIME 0•/OtlV � Q,/Dorf acr EXISTING .h.' CTIOM CAPACITY UT1l I:A1ION 1 WSTINL PLUS CORSITTED PI US REGIUNAL ',RUNIII W/PROPOSED IMPROVIMLNTS I.C.0 z,, 93 p Er;STING 1 PLUS�,COMMITTED PLUG R,r/GIONAI rRROOITII PIUS PROJECT I.C.U. G.9ZS�f(1) ///ltC 4,API' ,/ /1G- �ON/X. Projected plus ilmjrct traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal 1 to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 Projected ulu:, prul"c.l ! r,Itric 1 .C.11. with ;•, Lahti inlprovellivil will be lass than ur equal to 0.90 1 :,. r.rlp:. c��„ nl , .. 6I im:•r •,veuuanl.: - - - -\ Add YloY4bound t/,1_ouq � 1 i;'IrR:,I ::iItIN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Vd �1) (Existing } rnfP c Volume% Based on AVOrage Winter ISpring 19T Mn.Lrant IXISIIN—j— � IXIST REGIONAL COMMITTLO PRoJIL TLO PRWTCI Plow C1 Lanes Cap f •+^�'• "� { ••K RR V/L' GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/( Ret lO ' Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/oVol Project 401. NL 1) ko L_____'1A_' n 4 0.01 v.0I8 N T (2)3200�,� 3 5 0. O 9( 6 .2I06 NR ' 'Q 4000 W60 0. 13 6 O.r ST _ 34800 i 'a r r43 0.1850 3 O.1856 ' SR _.� 13 62 — 3 — _ _� EL _ a� 117 0.3281 7 0.33 ' ET ; - --- -i — 2 193 . zz5o X 7 0. zz6 ER WL _17�� 57 •3 4'` 3 O. 163 l02 O. 3 O.ZC63 WR _ — b.l i< o.l000 . v(1 LOWT IP.E i LX ISTI4G !N'.E55ERION CAPACITY UTII ItAT10N 000 ' EISST,P,� ;LUS COMMITTED TILLIS RECIO4AL—GrTO'rlTll W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 b 3Z EX:STI4G PtJS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAI ;ROWTW PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. BJG� ' (1) K%cAY4ku1- is "oY4l /Soufti Projected IIlu`. nro•jllct. traffic I .C.U. will be less than or rqual ' to 0.90 ' © Projected plu • IirIIJOCL LI-Offic-1 -C-11. will IIo greater than 0.90 ' Projected III,- . fI.'c:,l 'L.1 Ir,llfic I .C.U. with ',y',Lrur, inMilrovouu'ni.'. Will be le,., ;.hl.0 ur ewlal Co 0.90 rlUf i ,I. - ' I Add Yior4hbound right ii,U;6011ION CAPACITY UTILIT_A110N ANALYSIS -I M r _7T f "t1 J� Ot�t71 Incr.r<.^ction ' (Existing Traffic Volu s Base on verage Inter ring 197 MOVLMROt E%ISTING rPkINGSEU H EXIST 1 EXIST REGIONAL COIMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Gip 1 PR HR I V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volwv V/C Hatlo Lanes Cap Vol. RaL10 VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. ' NL I �115D 19 0.0838�k O.o8313 NT_ li)r/boo / 2f7 0,0312 O.Z3/Z NR o Q3 09 14- 0."MIX 3 D.O 7 ' SL —_-- 1 0. i547 ZU O.Ibo S,T 00 _ IIU� l I81— o•38r��k SR 1 --- a33 • 6_1466 6 ' ET - Q G.oJa. 21 ER WT o I 0 WR __ .j�� `�� — t ELLOWTIM.E 0 (5•/000 0 ./000 E%ISTISG INTZ4Md ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ' Er;iTi4v iLUS COtM17TED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W!PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS E.C.0 OI 3 EXISTING PLUS COM`IITTED PLUS kiGI0NA1 GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. p•(o'Y8J ' Projected plus oroject traffic I .C.11. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' Projected plu:. 1ir(JJ(! .t tr-affiC 1--C-U. will be greater. than 0.90 ' © Projected Plus in'OJI)Ct traffic I .C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ',r•;CrtT�;.�u,; ui iJq,rnvcrHent:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Add m4hbouvid +hrov�h lgne. 6)) z . Converf Loeshound fl,���,y 6 We -la op- iovlal �hl-OL, th plus lef4. Cb) 01 .Inn•-.. P A Wow Pewee Ad AUDD iaw TRAFFIC R TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ' July 5, 1979 ' Mr. Ron Hendrickson Commnercial/Industri'al Division 1'Le Irvine Company ' 550 Newport Cen U r Drive Newport BeacL, Calirornia 92063 Dear Mr, Hendrickson: ' This letter suimnarizes our analysis of'" the traffic requirements of Uie devcl- ' opment of Civic Plaza with respect 'to circulation improvement phasing. The study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for ' this project. ' The study was based upon current planning for Civic Plaza and previous traffic studies related to •this project. Previous studies include the following: ' 1. Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II, Crommelin-Pringle and Assoc- iates, Inc. 1976. . ' 2. Civic Plaza I?IR Traffic Analysis, Crommulin-Pringle and Associates, Inc. 1975, ' In addition, current traffic volume data, regional traffic growth data, and committed ' projects were provided by the City. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION Civic Plaza is located within Ihu Newport Center area aL the southwust corner of ' San Joaquin Hills Read and Saida Cruz: Drive. Vchicular ac•cu8a will ba provided to San Joaquin Hills head, SAnla Cruz Drivu, Sao Clement(• Drive and Santa Barbara Drive. The San Joaquin Ilills Road access is limited to right turns only. Proposed development includes offic and restaurant uses in addition to the ' existing art museum and library that is under constructi.ou. A total of 234,706 ' 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 ' -2- Y � square feet of office use is planned along with an 8,000 square• foot restaurant- The library will include 14,000 square feet and a 10,000 square foot expansion of the museum is planned, A theater is also proposed at some future date. Since this would ' have a negligible traffic impact during critical hours, it is not included in the analysis. ' TRTP GENERATION For this analysis, estimates were made of PM peak hour volumes and the •2,5 hour ' peak period. Generation rates and estimated volumes for each use and time period are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The existing art museum building,was not included as it t is included in existing traffic volume data. These generation rates are those utilized in precious studies of this site. ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution of traffic generated by this development- has been dev- eloped in the referenced previous studies. Figure 1 illustrates the traffic dis- tribution that has been utilized' for this study. This distribution is for out- bound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be the same percentage in the opposite direction. . By applying ,the distribution percentages to the trip genera- tion data in Tables 1 and 2, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the project at various locations. The distribution in Figure 1 is for outbound traffic ' which must be reversed for inbound traffic: CRITICAL INTERSECTION INDENTTFTCATION The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be ' impacted by the project. As a starting point, the 16 intersections identificated for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were examined. For this examination, the "1% Traffic Voliune Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing ' Ordinance were utilized. Appendi,x A contains the: data for the individual Inter- sections and the results are summarized In Table 3. The Laisis for comparison in- cluded existing traffic, regional growth traff-ic and approved project traffic. ' The criteria established .by the City Council 'indicates that any intersection where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds two percent of the existing ' plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail. 1 1 _3 r + 1 Table 1 ' 2.5 HOUR TRIP GENERATION Civic Plaza ' LAND US I? RATE VOLUME IN OUT 'I N OUT ' Office (234,706 SF) 1.2 3.4 280 800 Restaurant ( 8,000 SIB) 11.3 7.7 90 60 ' Library (14,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 Museum (10,000 SF) 1.0 1.0 10 10 ' Totals 300 820 Table 2 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP CENEI'. =ION Civic Plaza ' LAND USE RATE VOLUME IN OUT IN OUT ' office (234,706 Sr) 0.6 1.7• 140 400• . Restaurant (8,000 SF) 5.0 3.0 40 20 ' Library (14,000 SF) 1 .0 1.0 10 1.0 Museum (10,000, Sr) 1 .0 1.0 10 10 tTotals 160 420 1 . 1 1 . r FIGURE I TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 1 . 1 / z . to i, o N. B�ISTp� L O 2 0% a y, 5 /a 1 ws °t �d m � J I � Q A- 1 " v ' 5% 25 % Zo Oa SAN7, 6gR8gQ 3sy SgtiUOq�UlAlFIICLSRD W r z5% s% two 59• 01 S'/ I zs pPG��`G COAST HIGHWAY( H /O% W z WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 . -4- r � ' Table 3 ' CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Civic Plaza LOCATION 2.5 11011R PERCENTAGES 1983 ' NB SB EB WB Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 4.6 Bristol St. & Campus Dr. ' - 3.5 - ' Coast Highway & Dover Dr. = 2.6 3.6 Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. 1.9 4.8 ' Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. 6.2 2�1 - Coast Highway & Newport Center Dr. 1.4 0.7 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. = 1.6 1.3 1.1 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. 2.4 1:5 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara' Dr. 4.7 1.4 - 6.8 ' Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin llills lid. 0.6 3.0 - 13.4 Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 5.4 3.8 - - Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 4.7 1.4 4�1 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N. 4.4 1.2 ' Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd. 2.0 1.2 .2.6 1.1 Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin }tills Rd. 1.3 2.6 9:1 •1.3 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 5.5 2.1 - li Review of Table 3 indicates that 14 of the 16 intersections exceed the maximum Iwo percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. ANAVf S IS ' The 14 intersections identified in the previous section were further examined to determine potential impacts: Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" ' forms from the Traffic 'Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined and include regional growth and approved projects volumes. The ICU's also include ' improvements required by previously approved projects. Those improvements are discussed in the next- section. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that two inter- sections are projected to exceed- 0.90: Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard. All other intersections are below the 0.90 level. ' Since City Council Resolution Number 9422 allows 30 percent of development without improvement phasing, the '14 critical intersections were analyzed with existing plus ' 30 percent of the remaining development. These data are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 4. The ICU's for the two intersections of Bristol Street North and Campus Drive, and Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard still exceed the 0.90 level under these' conditions. ' As indicated in the previous paragraphs, two intersections have ICU's that exceed 0.90 whether they are analyzed with 30 percent of the project development or with ' full develooment. It Should also be noted that both of these intersections have ICU values greater than 0.90 without development of Civic Plaza. 'These two inter- sections are discussed in the following paragraphs. ' Bristol Street North and Campos Drive Review of 'i'able 4 and Lhc related Sheets in Appendices 1: and C indicates ' that the project would have no inipac•t upon the Wit values at Lhis inlersuc•tion. Since project volumes arc• added to nou-c1iLical movements, the fCll values are equivalent for buL•h cases with and wi.thottL the Projuc•L. ' Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard ' The ICU values at this intersection increase 0.0069 in 1981 and 0.0227 in 1982 as a result of the project. These increases would not be perceptible ' to drivers utilizing Lhe intersection. In addition, with observed driver -6- r Table 4 ' ICU SUMMARY Civic Plaza (1) (1) (1) 'INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + EXISTING + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + REGIONAL + COMMITTED COMMITTED+ COMMITTED+ 30% PROJECT PROJECT 1981 1981 1982 Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 0.9898 0.9256 0.9256 0.9279 Bristol St. & Campus Dr, 0.72 0.6467 0,6498 0.6613 oast Highway & Dover Dr. 0.99 0.6556 0.6623 0.6788 oast Highway & Bayside Dr, 0.89 0.8051 0,8118 0.8282 oast Highway & Jamboree Rd, 0.83 0.7644 0,7644 0,7650 Coast Highway & Marguerite Ave. 0.68 0,7425, 0.7466 0.7560 'Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.53 0.6171 0.6233 0.6373 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin ,Hills Rd. 0.64 0,6473 0.6487 0.6522 'Jamboree Rd. & Ford Rd. 0.83 0.7449 0.7517 0.7739 Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. 0.54 0,7944 0.8032 0.8247 amboree Rd, & Bristol St, N. 0.72 0,8219 0,8298 0.8489 Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur Blvd, 0.85 0.9269 0.9338 0.9496 �tac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.72 0.7945 0,8070 0.8368 ac Arthur Blvd, & Ford Rd. 1.01 0,8653 0.8753 0.8997 (1) No Project Related Improvements are Considered in Calculations. -7- t characteristics in the area, the intersection would operate satisfactorily. Observations have indicated that, as intersections near capacity, the capacity is increased and yellow or lost. time decreased. Construction of the Corona ' Del Mar Freeway and San Joaquin corridor would also result in improved conditions. ' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS The ICU analyses for the project included some circulation system improvements. ' All of these improvements are currently required as part- of approved projects or planned as governmental projects. Thu improvements are suimuarized in Table 5 and illustrated in Figures 2 through 13. Table 5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ' Civic Plaza ' INTERSECTION SYSTEM IMPROVERIN'I'S Bristol Street North/ Add southbound through lane. Re- Campus Drive quired by previously approved pro- ject. See Figure 2. Bristol Street/Campus Drive Add southbound through lane. See Figure 3'. Required by previously approved project. Coast Ilighway/Dover Drive Add southbound left turn .lane. ' Add southbound right turn lane. Add eastbound left turn lane. ' Add eastbound optional through or right' turn lane. Add west- bound right turn lane. City/CalTrans Project. ' See Figure 4. Coast Ilighway/Bayside Drive Add eastbound through lane. Add westbound optional through or right turn lane. Cal'frans Project. See Figure 5. Coast Ilighway/Jamboree Road Add westbound through and west- bound left turn lanes. Required by previously approved project. See Figure 6. ' Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Add northbound through lane. Add southbound left turn lane. Add westbound lane. Required by ' previously approved project. See Figure 7. ' Jamboree Road/SanJoaquin Add northbound through lane and ' Hills Road convert right turn lane to opt- ional through or right. Convert ' westbound left turn lane to optional through plus left. Req.uired by previously approved ' project. See Figure 8. ' Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive- Convert northbound and south- Ford Road bound right turn lanes to optional through plus right. Add eastbound through lane. Convert westbound through ' lane to left turn lano. Re^ quircd by previously approved project. ' See Figure 9. Bristol Street/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. ' Required by previously approved project. ' See Figure 10. ' -9- ' Bristol Street North/Jamboree Road Convert northbound through lane to northbound left turn lane. ' Required by previously approved project. ' See figure 11. ' Jamboree Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard Add northbound right turn lane. Convert eastbound right turn ' lane to optional through or right. Required by previously ' approved project. ' See Figure 12. ' Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road Add northbound left and right turn lanes,' southbound left turn ' lane and eastbound left turn lane. City of Newport Beach project to be constructed 1979-80. See ' Pi.gure 13. SUMMARY ' The potential impact bf the proposed Civic Plaza site has been analyzed at 30 percent of development and at full development, in 19'82. Both analyses have indicated that ' two intersections would have ICU's greater: than 0.90. For one intersection, the analysis indicates that with the project and- improvements from approved projects, ' the ICU would be less than the existing ICU. It would also be equal to the 1981 and 1982 ICU without the project. Conversely, for the other intersection, Lhe analysis ' indicates that efic 1982 ICU would be more than tilt, oxisLing rCU; however, the esti- mated 1982 ICU without the project- is only slightly less (0.0'227) than with the ' project and is still over 0.90. An optional improvement which would reduce the ICU value at Jamboree and Mae Arthur to less than 0.90 was also examined. Since this ' improvement would not be required for ultimate conditions, it touid be an interim solution. ' .10- 1 I ' We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please con- tact US. 1 Respectfully submitted, ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES ' Weston S. Pringle, P.li. ' 1,1$P:RS:cd #5452 1 1 • 1 1 t • 1 • ADD THROUGH LANE 1 wT ' I I 1L NJ NOT TO SCALE 1 BRISTOL STREET -NORTH i Q RECOMMENCED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION UI- BRISTOL STREET NOR-rH / CAMPUS DRIVE 1 1 FIGURE 2 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 ' BRISTOL STREET NORTH INI Ttf ' ADD THROUGH LANE I ' NOT TO SCALE 1 I , { { { ' BRISTOL STREET { f ' ADD THROUGH LANE ' RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF CAMPUS DRIVE-IRVINE AVENUE/BRISTOL ST. WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 ' ADD LEFT TURN ;'I I j LANE 0 ' ADD RIGHT TURN I ADD RIGHT TURN LANE ; i I LANE ' COAST L ` I HIGHWAY ' ADD LEFT TURN I 1 r ' LANE A DD THROU GH LANE - I I w ' I I w ' NOT TO SCALE ' RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION ' AT INTERSECTION OF COAST HIGHWAY / DOVER DRIVE 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 1 1 1 ADD THROUGH LANE WITH BRIDGE 1 WIDENING 1 ADD THROUGH LANE 1 COAST I HIGHWAY 1 ADD THROUGH LANE ' v� F 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF COAST HIGHWAY / BAYSIDE DRIVE 1 . 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 1 1 . 1 I 1 LADD 'L'lIROUG}I IANF ADD THROUGH lANr I I � I COAST IjIG}l}dAY f I t I i ADD LEFT TURN LANE I I 'NOT ZO SCALE I 1 ' RECOMMEINDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF COAST HIC1114AY/JAMBOREli ROAD 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 6 i ' 1 1 ADD LEFT TURN 1 LANE ADD RIGHT TURN LANE 1 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 1 o I f f r Q I 1 I I I ADD THROUGH LANE w O 1 NOT TO SCALE m 1 • 1 . 1 RECOMMENDED LANE .CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF 1 JAMBOREE ROAD / S.ANTA BARBARA DRIVE WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES . FIGURE 7 1 SAP x CONVERT LEFT TURN LANE w I TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND ' LEFT TURN LANE ti ' SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD f Il CONVERT RIGHT TURN LANE ' I TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND RIGHT TURN LANE 1 ADD THROUGH LANE 1 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT, INTERSECTION OF ' JAMBOREE ROAD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD ' WESTON PR'INGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE s 1 . 1 ' CONVERT RIGHT TURN LANE- 1' TO OPTIONAL THROUGH AND RIGHT TURN LANE 1 I I CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEFT TURN LANE 1 EASTBLUFF DRIVE; I I ` FORD ROAD 1 1 . � t i 1 ( ADD THROUGH LANE 1 i I CONVERT RIC11T TURN LANE a I TO OPTIONAL T11ROUGH w I AND RIC11T TURN LANE x 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT 1N'I'RRSECTION OR 1 JAMBOREE' ROADMASTBLUFF DRIVE-RORD ROAD 1 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 9 1 1 I I I • I I • i • I 1 f I I l I I BRISTOL STREET NORTH 1 r CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEFT TURN LANE w � I 1 NOT TO SCALE • ti I I 1 I I J I BRISTOL STREET I ► Y 1 CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEFT I . I TURN LANE 1 RECOMEWDED CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND BRISTOL STREET 1 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES . FIGURE 10 • 'II II ' lilt BRISTOL STREET NORTH - CONVERT THROUGH LANE TO LEFT TURN LANE • w I - t NOT TO SCALE I ti I ' , 'I I I BRISTOL STREET 1 I' f t Y ' RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION AT INT13RSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND BRISTOL STREET NORTH ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE II 1 1 NOT TO SCAL 1 / ADD RIGHT TURN LANE �G \ 1 . 1 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION 1 AT INTERSECTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD /MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD 1 . FIGURE 12 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 . ADD LEFT TURN J 1 LANE m 1 I I NOT TO SCALE 1 FORD ROAD 1 = ADD R L TU RIGHT ADD EFT RN LANE TURN LANE----a NOTE: 1 ALL IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN CITY PROJECT 1 RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT---I NTERSECT ION- OF MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 13 t APPENDIX A 2.5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSES 1 1 1 1 1 If, Traffic Volume Analysis 1 intersection Bristo] Strri't 1L)Kkir/,larlrµus_.17u�tL - Irvine Ave. mes (Existing Traffic Volu based on Average Winter/Spring 1978-) I I'GL r„ncn,, i :+r uu( real /•, •luur T Apprnvvd 1 �'nnoctr.l 131P of Prn,p-t'�•,; ' �Y.,r.'' r(•ctI Of-JI. :', 'Inm ReRul'm; ProlvCt, 'ral. ?I, llnm I•rak VI: ''n.i •••J. • '•... r1"Intl brow(1. I poai :': J�m,1, /o 1"111v ' 'lal umr volunt. •-I Witt i JC� �4artnUounJ ]504 ` 'l O ' CJ? i 7 V w j �• ; 1 '-'- --- - -- 3 --' - ' 'Soutnoouna _ s7os 8° 1 Ew000nJ —�. .escno(,na 4790 8�0 i %O .._ ._.._ —_ —.. _. _...— — 1 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be .less than 1': of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume 1 z © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than k�w of Projected Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required., 1 . 1• 1 . 1 • 1 • 1 - ' z� Traffic Volume Analysis intersection Bristol SL'rl'CL'/Cay�us_nriy Irvine Ave. (Existing Traffic Volumes Gas'e on Average Winter/_•_Spring 1978) ' AJtr act —. ' C,: :Iny P,'al :' ,lour. ApP,ov.•.1 .. •I ••...le,,tea 01,ow. :,•a rc;ri.l.. -0,0 12Pq IUPJ I Nwv(I, I V..II .'' Ilo:.• Ptak : .1..... .•ar . ' . .1 ama• ..to. N- A .", Hoot r.•Llmv Vrlume ru•unw, �olmm• � Vtd mn'• I I t 0 1606 `crot,Gund 3164 - l// I 13Ct A3�G .. .. ia,1,c.,.:j 3027 ' 6y / �Cv 13y 3SC/o ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I". of ProjeCted Peak 212 Hour Traffic 'Volume 2 ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than X% of Projected Peak 215 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilizarlon ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 ' ' Traffic Volume Analysis x ' ;11tel•suction CO, sr uta'.hwav/_n„v, r n1 1v,• (Er:tsting Traffic Volumes basod. on Averago lJintlr!Sininl; !9i8) 1 --. 1r,J •grw' . :-AI•Irl..an : .lu.' 1 7 ••of r, . n al Iry•�1 ••d,. I �I'0.114 L'. r•nl`. r4up PoA{ • ',L.•' ` r,4 Peal dour Sa Ilaw 1 .Julullw r • rul nir �•ohu, 242 Y�/ S i a/30 3 y� i ' EMt[I. au.._ I• ,e�:.:.•a 5279 37 (�190 a�lr ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1',r of Pro'Jocted Peak 21z Hour-Traffic Volume © z Project Traffic is estimated to be gl•eater than X"� of Projecteu Peak 2'2 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization, ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1' 1 1 1 1 Z•1.. 'Traffic Volume Analysis 1 intersection (:pasC IIi1;11wny� 'S'._ __ (Existing TraffiC.VOlUmes based on Aliuy5verage 'nl)nl;1.1nter/SPring 1V8 ) 1 ,•• _ _ - _ trl• [,,.a, %, "our A1'PurvrJ .' L•r,rrc'Cr:1..._ F• .:' •nvr "vgI'l el Pr, ... i :. doc,. 1 _.... • , .mr •Irnwth , PcaA :`. Ill m' I tuIJlllp r Volume. .' 1 ;r lu0.• .nlumv . {.. LUluroo I , 18Jt) fir lO:WuaJ i I i I 1 y . .. two I las::•a•.Iln 4847 I .f Y I /�a 9(0 /• 9 To 1 3860 a� �°°30__i._ YS/j - 9� /�P - yg% 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1", of Projocted Peak 212 tiour Traffic Volume. 1 , Z. © Project Traffic )s estimated to be grad ter than �.S of Pr;:figC trit Peak 2'. ilour Traffic Vo'lumen. Intersoct.ion Copacity llLitixaLion 1 ( 1 .C.U. ) Aiwlysi`; i', requirrd. 1 1 1 . 1 ' , wUr i . 1 ' ZP.' Traffic Volume Analysis ' in Lei 1.vt.L i on Co ms C_ II i 101wavI.1l11 r.111„VOC 1,01d (Lm%,tiny Traffic. Volu"Ws based oli Aveayo uJlnter/JFlriny l"/8) iCa, . . 4aur..-,.'-APIn1 Vrl -vt •'ra• [ n I(rq lun,,; I Proim l', lint Y', hem' Prat. ;y wiw �•.a, . . ,nu•' 11rowin I'vaP 2, rnur ! vu hmn• I Volume 'ru P.nu• i Voluaw ' '¢rtr pbun6 1015 Sau'.a✓Sur:U29594264 i . i /9a vv8� i qo 9� wry•,.•„rf 3185 1 / asO ' -Project rrai fic is estimated Lo be lc'ti', than P- of I'rujot.Led Peak 212 Hour Traffic VO1L11110 ' z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be yleater than'; of {'rujeC' ed Peak 2'� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 �I Trati"ic Volume Analysis ' iuter;CCtioII Goan_L' ,Ili ,liw yfN '}.`f,l,i'L, 4lgrl1J:_1)1'1vv (E/Asting Traffic Vol-umes based on Average Winter/SElriuy ' a.^ 1•;ISy• I'I•ol door i 41'i'tbVl•.1 •'•t•r• Led V. of �'Ir. pn •',o' ,y to Nanu,rnl PtU;vl 1� ma,. :. dl'.I• V„al old , v IIUur volumv : Volume .Ji•i r Yul'nup Yohmw i I I . I ' 330 O178 "',,d '314: S7 d Sao/ y 2566 ' Z © Project Traffic is estimated to be less thank.. of Plro?BCtetr Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than l;a of Projocled Peak 21, Hour Traffic VO1U111P11, into section C•aP,icity Utilitatfun ' ( l .C.U. Analyse:, is requirod. 1 • II z d Traffic Volume Analysis inter-section Coasl_Iligliw_iy1�lac-;lgthil�,-,iS ulcYard )78 (Exi•ttiny, Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring ) :'. nour- I �I'Irl'I wed Ih om,ted +- d: of i•,Ie•-vd 1 •• , .p N'd\ •I,np lo•q bvetl {'1'a,141� ' ''rd 1, i'. dabs' CwA • •..... ' ` , .lunn'. 'a mil❑ , Pont .`. dbw � Ynlunu' � Val vnu. ':uix• . —1690 tlnne I tul•nur , I { 1 s2258 _ —._. . _ 3?p4 �$ J//,30 I (p 9 yy /. 3 %a ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be' less than of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be .greater than •1'/, of Projected . Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. t 1 • ' 2 • ,l`• Traffic Volume Analysis ' i Average I t to r'S i'cti o n Cuast 11i?J lx"Z121a I-Llgyyj t.t' [\v_rnrli� (EAi sting 'Traffic- Vol lames based on Winter/SPriny 1118) . i. :ILrr i•vdl awl. i- Approved i IIuw,Ied ! �{: 0 PIvwo,: ' I .r. rr " n•n uaq lorldl 1 Pro lee is I'r nl :', Ih•m Prdk P •nv ' •.1. , ' • rn,• r„nwlnl Prnk :`, ,how At I amr Vu Iumr .�I•np will. VOI ullw I 1 • •,Cr woa,nd 1 O7 �3:•:..ram 3132 7g 03/0 0'3.5 a0 ! 7D tq ' --- - - - f . .. - 2401 60 I C/�O i a5�5'� Jr/ 28 /. 5 Co ' . Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1':; of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume' 1 z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be grl;ater than �'� of I'r,�jectc•u Peak 2', Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity M iliz,itinn ' . ( I .CJ1. ) Analysis is required. Z/r Traffic Volume Analysis ntersectiUn JambnreL' I_uFld/Srtnld. ISnI_I)al'a nriy�•(Gcisting traffic. Vr,l•umes based on Averago Winter!Sprin(i l9/8 ) 'lour " ..� 'Apiy uved i I'Irpv led i v: of Prnw.:rd '•r,, . • Pea In.lr hruI1:A1.1: Pro I:Y I, n1 :. IIIIIII 1'e•rA , -fill" •ndl if., +LOw•' la uvlh I Pvak • ❑VIII 1 hmlr hrl 'I, I •in nny. ' Vo loon• h Vo Lnm i I 1 18 9� ' y � i5-o � �os�9 � y-7��, 2653 ..Jr � yvy ! ��oa ' 1299 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 'L't, of Projoc ted Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. ' z ' ® Project Traffic is estimated do be greater than X;G of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 t " 1 1 ' •-X•, Traffic Volume Analysis ' :ntersectioil ,Jamboree Rua�San Io�sS!u1_lli]1sJtoad (E,<isting Traffic. Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 151r8) ,��. i.;•,t iu i'nJ /'. 'lour AI'prUt„a - 1-• 'rpp•r lrU �c: of 01:.,p,'...: 7,.�• .. t't •In• Iq•'1iur,Il I•rojml-. �''al Pte.' PraA '•Uu• '.0 , .. low 'a Ubt•i Vvak :•, nnur �Qltmr I Vt-IUmc '.olmm 1'U lunit• i r f 'crr••u•.'w :1581 ✓ I 5 •o�i JOL?(a ao 0.6 %O 4134 8 1 3//6a ' •v,110y 9Q0 ; 1t3y ac To 12533 ' Project Traffic is estimated to he less than 1%, of Projected Peak 2'2 Hour Traffic Volume' Z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than d of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 " 1 2 X� Traffic; Volume Analysis 1 intersection ,Jamboree; I:o;�dL; _rbl�ft_Driv-. lord Road (Cfictiny Trdffir. Volumes based on Average Winter/Spriny , r78_) .e. t •1 ray i44U IIOUr I Atyv...v... r PI ..I., bvl r(r Of 1'P•.il'.I Pu rlr orr �tl•r n•V• • r.IJ fool 1.•Ir I PI1'lly l•. Ir414 :I11 i'Id IIAI i� 'rbl' 11 1 . LAr •,Irrxlh I I'rdL :1. tlnm ) b•Lnnr I LI.I ulltl• .o l.,ur• n Lrm i 11.1•ner I ' O 4574 I 9iy doa 1 '1937 Cv .— -� _.5` �/ ! 3s'/ 7 .,r981r 1 753 190 9 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 11i• of Projected Peak 2'; Hour -Traffic Volume 1 z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than iYG of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Cdpdcit,V UtiliUlirrn 1 (1.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 Z� Traffic Volume Analysis ' intersection Bristol Stroet/Jamboree_ Foad (Existing Traffic VO'11-6 es based on Average Winter%Spring 1978) 'r I '+d✓ IPII h,,O 11mr I Appe•ved I'r O1 el tell j �% J( i1:.10001 I.w I n+.• . � I.Ir. NI'91pn I' I h'n pv 1♦ t''.dA ."•a IIPur• I 11'nA i!. no1,l .`dl :. :.I J,.mfl 6,nr.tp Frill ;•r 110m. Oh"111• WI OMO tPldv l VI'tlllllp n I •- ; /o '.a tnnuunJ 4996 t.all•t•o1J le 40 0/0 13•.f{ru'W ... 7778 Y �P I I ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than IA', of Projected Peak 2'2 Hour -Traffic Volume t Z Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than ,2�� of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U•. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 —_.._ ... .. ._ . .......- _ i. 1 ' , r • 1 . 1 Z Traffic Vnilunr Analysis 1 Ilttl'1'Sectlun ISVisIoI !:[ I'vel. Nol'Lh/.Lun101-00 1"WRI (t/cisting Traffic V0 umes t,ased on Average idilltEr%SPrin( 19/8 ) .:r•n.r c.r:l r,l I1:0 , . 'bur --I -Al'i.rUP¢1 rrn lt•r Iera I p' r _r:':crt • .r,rrn l;rrlrc'w. Pr�IV. ty ° 1'a.0 71, flour Pe A 2• ... ,-t d. ? •. , , r?ewip VPdA , IIOe r � 'ra mail• I V6I Wiitl �U NILe 1 urx 'in l,nnr � V'uli•nu • t t l<058 13 `7 3Da 1 ' . .._... _.. _. . 2811 .. �7 -- �l �b o3��P✓� . I ... _� . . � g �. a �o 1 1162 a� _l. _.. yy� M0,73 2 .a. .__..:._ _. . .-.. .. . 1 Project lraffiC is estimated to be less than ls, of Protected Peak 21, Hour -Traffic Volume 1 Z ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than X% of Projected Peak 2'2 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . I i I 1 ��.• Traffic Volume Analysis 1 .... —?tad/ • (1) Intersection ,Tamhor_rc Ptac_i�I:ht�-�yS1�• (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) . :.' J•t❑n, fonl . . rllNl ' AI'I'nmpri i 14'o'Pf lCrl I OI I-I'U Il`.t2: , rn• I•o .•'r r •rn• .I •'•u IA•q un.n: � Pn.p•r 1+ rraA :. Ilnur 1•raA ." arr,r a• r MO muell. R+II _ Ilea' hJ unu• Vol mnr•• .:•lunr I ru Lnu• i• \nl nnu•r i 1 I 1e81 '�!8 �rio y� va a o % 2814 <�/� �a3o �.J�.. _ . 8 __.. /.a 17/0 2923 70 ¢.p a.ra % t<:rr•. . ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2+z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater thank of Projected Peak 20 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization • ( I .C.U. ) Analysis Is required. (1) Mac- Arthur Boulevard is assumed north and sr+uth 1 1 . 1 • 1 • 1 � . 1 1 , Traffic Volume Analysis ' III tersect'ioil _Mac Artinlr_Il ulcypi l[ti,3i�• ;Io au agitin II! IIs Ml (Existing Traffic. Volumes based on Averago Winter/Spring 191 8) . tt •_ •ii..l io,ll, Ilnuf •_�..Appl uv..I i .,.v" led . ulL.i• •d 'i . .. ' 1 i grghn I I A Ilnur i'..glj •v,. r.0 •r' a nwlle I'raA nuur 1 lunir luluno• . ••.r.n• . yal .nw i 5tl hnnr I i , ..... 1484 �a ._ ' /oy /boo ; J3 2 ao i 3 C7o wt^ao.,r•o I . . '3140 aoa 1 ,33V-2 i 67 ,goy RiOlo ' a 1451 :.. :�. ._. .. ... - 7y ' El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I"a of Prodccted Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. z ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than d`6 of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 " Iraff'ic Volume Analysis • t intel'S(.'CtiOn Mac Arthur Boulevard/Ford Road (E/,isting Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter%Spring lyi ) � -_• - .i :u•I PPpI Ilntif- f_4pprnvr rl � 19u7(•l lotl I /. UI I'r .IP 'rt •. nyt _ lnpl • •1(Ir•r itl'rlrnun. I Pro IPr 1'i I I'M111 lr. Hour, • 14'd1 "au• mod. •..I I,ar la nwllr I I'c0 .�. Ilma• lol omr• Val mur ume r :3657 78 o2/lo - ' :.•.rtnca na 4032 a o r8d i Y6 vo ! 93 Y(e a. %O ta;:au�r•d 84 ' 1033 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1,2r of Projected Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume z ® Project Tra.ffic is estimated to be greater than 4'. Of ProjeCt.ed Peak 21; Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection. Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis 'is required. 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSRS ' Existing + Regional + Committed + Project (1982) 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' !tI ! t6I ' IION CAAPACIITY UT It. I/AI ION ANAL Y:jIS Inierrlo;ction !.7/iS4/sv ( NJ (Existing Tra,' f,r V(llumes Based on Average W tn,er Spring 19l EXISTING N116101Au i M" EXIST REGIONAL COMMED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJCCI MU\enknt Lanes CeP i.vm. C :P Y :'L I:N V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio volume V/C Nadu 'Jul. : ILltlo VOL. YOl`�— Jrct t � Vol.Yol NL i o s 4.o6lG I Q.a�6 0,076 NT oo _—_-- lJ /•1 ./87g /a R� o. aa/a a•aaia NR — f SL - ST ) j2oo 3Z4800 I CSC .313/+ 3Cn 36 0.230� 0,23u4- SR ) o —_. I-& TZ 12 o.4094- 0.409¢ - 1 EL ET - - - --I A -� ' _._ -_LK>__ ' WR YEI LN'T:ME A/tom O•/ddrJ ,/OOU ' EXISTING INT-C-ECTION CAPACITY Uf 11 IJAI ION --9ff9 —_ EEIS:iI.G PLUS CCJMITTED PLUS RI'G104M GROWIN W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENIS I.C.0 0. 9279 Etl S*LNG PLUS COMMITTED P: !1!CIMAI 411OW11t 1,16 PROJECT I.C.II. O•-7Z19 ' Projected tl! us r urn, 'j c.l i.raffic •I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' ® Projected plu; pro•lrc.l, l.raffic-I .C-U: will ho cmeater than 0.i10 Projected pit,,, m'o,i'o0 l.ral'fic I .G.U. wil:h",q'.lelilr, rlupl'ovenlent•, will be le, , Uim :n t'qu.tl to 0.'!0 ' ,!1 ,Crl!)t llu� ,.' '.b',I rli. •IugJ UV('IIIL'il I-: . "a SOLA bouvld op1imlaf 4hrouu k ov- ri9l�t lane .(o) 1 ' h: illl'i RSFC'I1(1N CAPACITY U1ILI/Al ION ANALYSIS (� [nr^rs+zcVolu1m�A u� r,uc �YVIV)e I !Ut ` (Existing Traf•f�Y. Volumes Base on verage Winte Spring 197 ' Mnvert,ent EXISTING pp6P0•,l0 : EXISI EXIST REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lane; Cap lane, ✓.p ! 1't MR V/C • GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio Vol V/C Ratlu i Vol• i Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. NL �} NT I �3 O./90 O•/�o NR _ _ O•/b�/ o•/bB/ ST Moo (3 v/Soo i I-eL Jo- 333 " a.3333 ' SR -- --- ' ET 6 _- ?Q�( ( I �I J o.217 �� o.z ZSP— E WL — — — WT WR — - YELLNT IKE 0,/0 oe/ EXISTING INTE-�SECTI ON CAPACITY b L I7P TI ON ' E/.ISTiNG ;LCS COMMITTED PIUS RLGIONAL GROWTH W/PRQPOSEO IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.SO EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PL'J', I4r40NAl GROWTH P111% PROJECT I.C.II. • 6�-,/j tProjected hlu proloct l.ratfic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' Projected plus project Lraffic-I .C.U:.wTll be greater than 0.90 ' © Projected p1w, prgjncl, 1'roftic I .C.U. `wi.Lh vs Lems improvements ,gill be less th„n or oclual Lo 0.90 ' �r. rrlpl,i„I ,' .-,• ' ,•�, rul'ruvrmcnl .- - - - - - - - � - - - - 1. Add sou4 bound +hrougti la oe. (o) j ' il•II! i6i 11ON t.APACI IY Ul IL.IZA1ION ANALYSIS inl:F:rsccf.ian ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based kin Avevage Winter Spring 1979) EXISTING IwOrOS1.I I EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COIMITIED PROJECTLO PROJECT PR0JFC1 °r'"ie"t Lane$ Cap lane; C•p i PX HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C katiu ' Vol. L Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project 1 Vol. D. a/3/ D•o/3/ NT i ( '0 .o2f0 o.o fv ' NR U _—Ian _ SL o� OD (3) /Bo�� I l S d. /�/29 o./177 ' ST 1 1 0) Ibou D. ay9`/ 0,9 SR Cif t&c o .a7 1 I t EL o '1 ' ET (D ���� I (,I o.3oz3 �f8 o.3/Z3 ER _ WT (3) S/6na -� (7 aS O.3S/D 'l l08 v-520 YELLOWTI�!E EXISTING INTE".SECTION CAPAC(Tr UTILI,AIION EXiS-,ihG :LUS CO"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 r ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REC,10:1AL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Projected plus orairct traffic •I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Projected plus ur'udc(A lrtrffic I .C.U. will br greater than 0.90 ' © Projected plus proi•ect Lraii'ic I .C:II. with •y •lLHns impr'ovemvnt'> will be less Lhan nr 'qual 'to 0.90 ' �'r"•C'1"ipl IUI� f, .J .: 1'1, I i'1'll•I'voillullI _ - - ' Add sou+hboulAd lek4 .+urvi lavle . (0) Z. Add sou4-hbound 1-�4 +urvi lane. (0) ' 3. Add eastbound le4 4urn (uvle. (o) 4. Add easy bound 4roup (a vie. Co) ' S. Add Wes+ bowed righ } 4urvi lane. (o) ' Ilt6ii•1 iON CAPACITY UIILIIAIION ANALYSIS ' (Existing I'ra;f c Volunie�s Ba�sedd o ver, g • Wg'rytter Spring 1978 Movenant EXISTING PRPI'OS,.I rXi$l 1 EXIST REGION,4. COMIITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Ear.et �•p } Pr. lilt V/C V/C GRMffH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/( Ratio '• Vol, 1 Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project I - Vol. �f rY ' NL a0 —� � I p Zy7 d•z�/7B NI I 0zo.oiB av�BP ' NR SL ' ST SR ' E7 00 (374 ' L5-0gI •35'Zf ER _ I O ' WL WT 77 lOg /oS/ 1 WR . 2 . YELLNrr l?!E ID ' EXISTING !NTE-SECTION CAPACITY UNLILt!ION , EX:STit.G itUS COMiITTEO PIUS REGIONAL CROHTII W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMPNIS I.C.0 E X!STING PLdS COMMITTED 110 ,d;BUNAI CRO14rlf PIIIS PROJECT I.C.U. Z&Z. �^! Projected plus. pro,lvct traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' Projected 011.1<. pr ,lect Lraific I .•C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ® Projected 111W, ;,, n,incl 'It',IMC I'.C.U. wil'h '.y,,Wm,, improvellwill •, will be logy.!, t.l„,li n! oepI„ l Ln 0.90 i m� Cr1 pLI�n pl � I � 'n Im;•I �w,9ur.nl 1 1. Add e-c!546'ound +hrougti 'Iane• (o) ' Z. Add west- bound +hrmi-jh lame. (o) ' ;;�1; l•',`it '. 1 llllr %tt'nC11Y tIT 1LIlA(101 ANAI YSIS u iI-ITI.I•,,�.,tjnn-cp-a2s .f'/ l t 11 c S C1.. (Existin�j ra' P ',: llc,inl•le , base c� eer g6-c rater Spring 197 1!- I x:Srin;, ' PN': n•,+ ' +>,.'I , ;+iSl NFGIO!;AL COWI`10 1.60Jkt iLO PROJECT "R,l �M.+.Pdrrvt Larles CdG I '". - ,r r '!' S y;br ORONT!I PN it L7 Y/I Nath, Yri1 mIP 1' Ir.LL t•. t•61u VOL� YOI I VE.I. a,lryt 1 � Yol. 31 �-N-R— i ---7 110 3 — ST ii�I OCk fi z9 D. /63/ �-i0•/83�� ' SR i. ... _ . . _ z % � o.SY _ 7P4 ET �13g 1o_.37y3 E R — WL Ili Qd tz 3zco WT voco _'L- 2/6 J- t R , ,+f � YE:.LOy71Wr _- I(] Q/OOU 46./DOO LXG'IVu /a- - °C(ION CFY.1f rTY t_1�I l(IN --.--•--PO• I ::+I'P11TTI0 PIPS Nka Lna•;8'O,ll l' W/PNOPOSkU IMPROVCM(NIS I T..0 Q/ ('w' ! ry 51:`!: 1.•.: %W ITTEN P 01 RIWO'U,I ',K)Wk111'11!. PROJECT I,C.II. — El Projected ;'lu . rl+ rl. ( 1',Iffit. .f .C.11. Will Irr jl Ih(u) u1' IvltT11 ' uo 0.90 ' Projected p I.P. I'r'L. I,a,L !,1',T 1 t 1 C-1 .(r.II, h11 I i I+(` grea LCl tharl 0. 911 1 is I .C .U. 1:1 IJI .V .fl+!II`, 11"jIYU it'. 1 t be l t•`•♦ ' 1 1, nll:. ) 4t) 0.90 Add wes+bound /ell •-b.Lrvl lalle• (v) 2. Kidd wes+ bound -41 ' b 1•ane.'(o) - ' 1!,I ( ITS) ! ION /APAC11Y U11r.1!.1/Al I ANAI VISI •ir.� 1•rE.�,rtitrn.SSlg � � .• ' (Existing ira 'fic `fnlunies Based n ve al. w•, Ler/Spring 197�) Ea ISIISI ING l'Rru O'J 1 ...' `YI' I IILIST REGIONAl COWIIIE0� VIaU1CTED PROJECT P4UJ— ILi , ' Mo nrrent Lines Cap I Iona•. t p " LR /C GRONnt PRO,II Ct V/r Ratio Volume M Ratio WI. 14a1i10 VOL. Vol. w/o Project L Vol. jf '' a.osi9 NT _ r { .p po o.p9ov _ 1A SL 1 00 ___— I� G.CS_//y O•ps"y/1 ST f _ { •Q p./oae" ao SR I -- --" ' ET 3 as 3 aysia " 11-3 ER _ l I OEM wE I'I ' WT _ i5" 4-8 o a 9 ' YELR04T NE I0 p./C'DG N p,/Oov ' EXISTING !NTS::SCTION CAPACITY Litl UmION--= Lx;RiNu %.L': CCMtTTEO PLLiS RIn;DNAL GRUIlI❑ W/Ikol'OSED IMPROVFMF.NIS I.C..0 y�Jr EYISTINa PLUS %"ITTED PL;•'. RICI0111 GROWTII PHIS PROJLCT I.C.U. © Projected Iglus nruject traffic I .C.U. Tail1 lu>. less than 014 equ<II ' to 0.90 ' Projected 1,1ris uv%ject trotfic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' � L''•ojectetl i' lu , ;• 'nit•+ I tl' 1 : 1 is I .l. .lt. Lvll•i+ ,y•.Irur, nnlu'uvt�DlrnL . I ;:ill be IT-- t h, ': Ili rtpl.t I Lo 0.90 ' 'n.;1:r'lllt tLt• rt J .' +4 ' Ial'tr'•PJQIlll111 t.: - - . CAPACITY U111.11AT10N ANALYSIS In*er,��ctinn '2' Qg� cCl h I` IC 1'o�� R✓� ' (Existing lr) f'fi<: Volur(iids ase on verage i ter Spring 197 ( Murpn�mt 4X I ST INO PX'UI O'.ID I tXISI LXIST REGIONAL L-OhMITTED PROJICTLD PROJECT PRAMI I Lanes Cep Lam••. Ctp I PK tilt V/C GROWTH PROJLCT V/t Ratio Volume V/i RaUu t( Vul. uatlo VOL. Vol . w/o P,o)ect Vol —A N7 m I(3)Y600� /SW 10 NR I r S 0 rJS U 38 9 St 1 Cz�3zoo i1Q� I o� v.oyo9 SI --!Ln _ 3 3yy fog ' SR_ — — EL ER - — }-- WI. _ _ �0 13� ' WT (y)6Y00 1 O/73a 0./,6 WR YELLOWTIME •I D••i��� O,iooU LXISTING :NTE+SECTION CAPACIIY UTILIZATION U;'�'iNG :.LG COMMITTED PLUS RrCMNAL GPOWTW W/PROPOSED JMPROYEMENTS I.C.0 0.6/7 EXISTING PI.JS COMMITTED PLUS REGIoDAt Gl,ovirn PIUS PROJECT I.C.U. ,3 Projected plu,, i,rciocc traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' Projected plus ;u"u•Iet.l Lratf•ic J .Q.U. wil i he than 11.90 ' Projected plu, Iniljt : , Lraff is I .C.II. wll,h ',y,LruP, nnfn•oveRlt'nLI, 211 be 1P55 '.1.311 Or frGµlal LO 0.90 ' 1+'ST rlp1.1 LI• t•' / It^• IIli�l"U l'f!IIICIIL: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .. _ _ - ' 1. AJJ vlor+kbound +hr6u3h lane . (o) ' Z• Add sou4I bound Ie-W 4tkrn lane. (o)' 3 Add Wes+ bound lane. (o) ' }•LTt "Si t'IWN CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAIYSIS Ir,u!rs^ction (Existing Traffic vol d e l�s oc�U ' u i�ss Based on�(verage inter ring 19Ic E%ISi1N�pPlnvS''U F%[S! I EXIST REGIONAL COIMIITED PItOJl LTED PROJECT PR0.110 Movenanl Lanes Cal ( Lanes C w 1 I'1 MR ' VIC GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Lill.• 1 Vo1. ratlo VOL. Vol.. _ w;o Project Vol.� — 1 ' NIL —!11� D O.oB P O,oB36 t NT (4)69oo I / ' NR n _..__ � I 3 _ I 11' ------ 10 6-7 SL ST CO I I I 36/9l o. 3Br ' SR t lbon _ oZ33 19,16-6 EL i I c0 0.o3z ' *� ET �__ D z7 ozz ER ' A I) �3 Yet i. 1 . .:. _ aG d c_YY� �2 a.lq 'Y" wT K009 110 1 wR tqa 1S/ YELLOWTIME ' E%ISTItiU :'•:--+SECTION CAPAEIlf Ul IL17A1I0H UISTir.G ;LUC COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W!PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 �, G!/76 E!:STING PLUS COMMITTED Pi LS RE-11ONAL GROWTH PIUS PROJECT I.C.U. Projected illw. I-roi-cL I1111fic I .C.U. will hr I('sti than or ('(lual ' to 0.90 ' Projected Iglu . Iw'.hlea ' I.raffic I ..C.U: will he greater than 0.90 ' Projected piLu ;r'•nyt ct traffic I .C.U. with SytLeuls imPl'ovenlents will be less tl,a'l nr egual to 0.90 ' .n frl 11:. I�Ni 1.• • . II'li• 1911i�i'li'/('lll('til - _ •. _ - _ ' /, Co�verf nor�hbowndYi9ti � )urn IGne la oPii(nTal �hrvuyti plus ric�t7><. ��� ' Z Add 1,10Y4 band 4-hromh lame . (o) 3. Comer+ weaAbowirj leaf fuYvl Taut¢ fr) oo mial +hrou9h pAis leF+• (o) ' pki. 2E 1 + •'t ..APA(.13Y U1ILIIATION ANAIYSiS ^ �1 'l� u - -fOY�'Pockb( (Existing ar'aif`•�: UOlul,l s Fiased on e_Y' e Winter Spring 19ig} FX1571NG 1 nl'• Il'!U F)151 FEAST RLGIONAL COMIITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PNO11.0 Mu+c*-ent Lanet Cap I I•"'� b tr. NR e;C GROWTH PROJLC+ V/C Ratio Volume VIC Rnuu 1 I 7u1. Rath VOL. vOl_-- Project Vol. ol — — ' NTe ye_av i133q k 3 G4 o.4o% )'S o.44.10 1 NR SL ST ►i 3aoo 3)Lr8bn fll GZ O.3ay 6� 0.318 1 SR El (1 (E7 — - -Qj t?.0/oo C.o/oo 1 ET r Z)32oo .� I 0. 1179 ER 1 Ao.06/Z 0.06/Z WT Q (1�I6Go �' p.o6/ O.od/9 1 WR 117Qn YELLOv.M LI /Poo Q,/G'OV 1 tt1Sil Nb :N:ER'JECTION D 11111 If Uilt 1 I.IDN _/ ---_— O.;S:Pr,• CO`iM17TFD PI iIS RI 610RAI 6RI1NI11 N/Pltlll'OSLII IMVftOYCMI Nil I L.0 D. 7yld LYISIING P:JS COMMITTCH PINS 1,11 IONAI (MOWlll Pill:. PIIU,II f.I I.f.,ll. -- _- .7/39 1 Projecteu plu:•^pru.juct traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal 1 to 0.90 1 Projected plut, P'rv ;rCl. Lr(Ifric-I ,C.U, will be yr'eater than 0-ck) 1 Projected plus proloO Lr•,11 f is I .C.U. wT Ih ,'; •LE'ur, inq)rovunuvlt', will be les, th,.n I)' I•yu<rl to 0.90 1 ;t' ., rlhl '''' I ' . i'.I , li, Inlut 'Ivolm:nl.: - 1 4.�Ver>L YIOY-Ikbound •rig314 lurvl lavle -!a optiovlal +hrou3l pbus rit3kf (o) 2. Comert sm+hbound righ furvl Ict" -fo opfioNal +hrou9k pLL(,S Y'i3kf• Co) 1 3• 6Colverf. e0_s+b0und righ+ -hark) lane -la optional -FhrogA plus right-. Cn) 4. a6d eas4bound• o.ptiovlal +hrzJLJk 1)Itt r(5 f. (o) ' S . 60_r1ver'I- wes4.1found +krottgbi lalie +c) le- + ILme. (o) ' Ilrl•lIN it(IN I.APACIIY IIIILI/AIION ANAIY515 (Existing 'Ira; f Tr 1loIunles [lase on veragc ,v)ilter Spring 19/S E1lST ING IR(•.41r1t I i)151 kY.IST kEGI0NA1. COkMfTIED P^•WCCI EO PRWECT PRCJ:CI Moubknt lanes CIO ,vm :_,p 1 'i-F•P i/C GROHTII PRWEC7 Y/C Ratio •Volume V/, Ratn ' 7 Vni Ratio VOL. Vol. - tr!o I`ruJecl -- 3 i Vol. ' NL 0 r(3�y8av_Ij�QS(• - d.z996 d . SZ1 NT } 0�5( NR SL SR E: E I 0. 05 So 0.05-ra O. //aC e"liw _ J� 11: 2 .s o•z9 0 ER '•--•-- -t'- I _ ' WL WT — -- - 10 ' EWM—iil :7i11c>ECTION CAPACIT! ;•E:L I'A'ION EJ:S-;'G fL1.' C."ITTEO PLIIS Rf6/0NAL'7ROt17lI 1100OPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 O pr& Ef:Sf 3hC P,.IS C"ITTEC PLUS 111".FMA1 GROUnI 11111 PROJECT I.L.U. Projecteo plu.. nroi-ct t.loffic- I .C.0, will be less than or rtµl,ll tto 0.90 Projected plu, aruj ct traffic I.C.U. i,J11 lia Treater than 0.90 © Projected 1.1 j , ;nn;;^cl, LI'dific I .C.11. With ......t"ll" Iwpr•ovenlrnt.:. ,gill be Ivival to 0.90 • '.f;ll: I�r I . ••II, in„n pill•1111911.:Comer+ ore, Y,Cir boumd 4-kroi/9,[1 lane. --f o IIOY14 kolkmd /C-4 " L rn kyle. (0) 1 11IN LAPA : • Y 11 t I t. t A I MU ANA I ') kq ' i:liLrs_'ctic)n l _I N„r ]FL� p 9 ,Slvoi (Existing `(ratflc Volumes Base on wera e WTntett rTn 197 ' Nuvt+nent EtII TING II— r�^�U•' -->!" !tltil REGIONAL C0"1111 ED 1`110,11 LTLD PRUJLCT PROM(I Lanes Cap 1 lam•• •1• 't• I11 t;'C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/t Rat", ;,)I R,100 VOL. VOL. wio Project Vol. NL a 3)yeav _1(00 _' Sa 0.379Z a•3s'i7- ' NT Irz) ?,zSL NR S R (1) %60 LaS [147 ' ER t --- -- ' WL -- --- 1'- .1 Tit -- --- ---- WT --. - -'51._ itlto.tlrt _ EZISTING !NP,SECTIOR CAPACITY UI!L I/411oN ' EY!STIGC ;4U: COL•1HITTED oLUJ RLCIONAL_9ROWTH W/PROPOSED [HPROVEMf.NTs LC.0 BZZ7 Ef!STING PLUS '"ITTEO KU Rf' IG;Ud GI.OWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. O•B�/g/ ' Projected plur --roi,--i traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 Projected plus, projecl. traffic I .C.U. will be greater -than 0.9!l ' ® Projected plu' .• 'o ;rt.t Ir,Ltfic I .C.U. 1•i'ith ,ystun, lu1pr0V0l1UliL -Jill be les': '. , n 1': L'q11,11 Lo 0.90 I. Converf one •rlo;-AbouO +hrou�t7 lane -ko iior- bi bound le 4 4-u•rv1 lane. (o) ' it%'l1.16t ' I ION CAPACITY Ul II.If.AIION ANALYSIS 1 ' (Existing lra . f,c Volur-let Basedon veRr ge Y,Tnter pring 197_ MOv(rier.t EX1ST iNC PvO,O's'd EXIST 1 CXIS7 REGIONAL LOMiITTLD PROJECTED PROJECT PRQtI Cr 1 Lanes cap I '•'"e. .0 1 vr: HR \yl: GROWTH PROJECT Y/L' Ratio Volume Y/C Hatt" • 1 -`.-- Yul, uatio VOL. VOL. W/oVol Project 1 i I Vol. NL Ijf _ jj !• `I" O. o/B8 o.aiBB NT (e)iZn_o I 3 I 0.7-058 20 o.zlSv NR ( l6ev� j Y 0,Im/ C2l S -- 3 0 0.o9 _ v.oBy ST 3) /Boo �4F •RL 4-3 D, /gf0 10 0. 1971 R E 3 �� 013ZB7 a5,/23 ET (N)69oo i Q a 13 0./�20 • a� D/�fS' ER wT 10, O,zo7 t ERLOVTIME ---"'-- �— YL p./oov �c�ov EXISTING :NTEPSECTION CAPACITY WIT L'A:Il1N CX:STVIG :LUS COTMITTED PI US RECIOYAI-'91UdIN N/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 Zi� •,//// E(WIN, PLJS :CMMITTED PLUS REGI^NAL SPOdrR PIUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' (1) ledc 4/4- i1 no./n/�oul�7 Projected plus nr-n,jrct Lrlaffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ® Projected plus prn,1,2CL traffic-I .C.U. will be groater than 0.90 ' P.rojected plu•. ;wtui, I Ir-llfic I .C.II. with ,;, •Lrnr, impruvonu'nt. , will be l sti in,m 111- ryiol to 0.90 ' )Y•yl riUt lure „i Y�,j •d llh:jt'uVelllent: ' Add nor4boamd righ+ +uYv) Iola . co) ' Z Comer+ eats bouvid r;gh� 4urll lane 4r) o•p+ ovlal Through plus righ ♦. (v) 1 , ' '10: 10-11 ' ION CAPACITY Ul ILI1AI JON ANALYSIS il,Tar•.. ,:tinrrMl¢l 1. , ! fL ydl1. � .�C•_ l�CR (Existing ira f c 'f'<'lomes Mass,+e oI raoe W ter pri g ' C11511NG I•k)i __I EMS' ,1f1ciST HCGIONAL COM•t11ICD PNOJICILD PNWICI ,19.ita,1 Mprt+aent ' 1 ^� Hk I t;L GHOWIII PHWFCT Y L Ratio Volume 1, •Hatfu LdneS Cap Jar. ' p i / Vol. IeiLfo VOL. VOL. w!o ProJmt — --- • • Yol. Nl I a U 1 NT ����' •I J' �I 0.170 b O./7cn NR ' sL ST oo - - -; _�tL SR _- - - I �5C' - - ' EL o8 n.-19LC ' ET s 5 n•/64 Z ER aa- WT 'age; 10 G/0 WR a0 . ,ELLM!—E e9/po0 O•/e' ' EAIST:Nu a:TER3ECTION WAIIIY WIL11A ION J:SCi'�'. E_�: C:nMfiTTED PLUS Rtf,l0•'Idt 'ROWT11 W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 7 Et;<,*IN7 PLUS :OMITTED P,US -14AL 8ROW111 PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. © Projected DIX. .t traffic -I .C.-U. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' I'rajectrad nl ,r• :nt .ti I 1n 11ic 1-f.'U. L4il1 Iv` oveator L11a1; O.'Iti ' 1`1,ojected L'I..'' n•n n'c.l 1 r,1 I ( i c ! .l..11, t•I I :II ; LNn'. nnlu nvouu'I I el: ll be le" , 1 1•'1 " I•11:1,11 I.o 0.90 ' I'llil i.i iir; I t •It'1111.1-1 .. - 1 Y II l i i +:n' 1`)'i nNnl Y''t I S (� r _I I t I;rfh r, t Inn j 1 , �� VC. �J l r n (Existing i'ra ( + /r'1;I:nF's Lased on �V 1`1gr� WTrAer Spring ' 1A1571nG f f"•"+••�. :•1 I tzl<r HCf(Orifd COtTt11IC0 rl•I�n:aD � PHQICfI •'xo I � M�.wert lanes Ckp I aru ••I. t %r nu I lyf GROWTH 1'H),II CT v;. Ilal It, Volumt 1 • h•+tt. ✓ul P.(It, VOL. VOI . H:r I l.I ril o/Z( O.o/Zs NT f NR ICI 16ev o3/ O.o3/9 SL I I(n 3zoo E: +III Cz� izop , O.//o3 o.//03 'f -- Qr- --- ! ET � 1) i6pU WT (0 I60o _111 I o-7/Z -Y ' kR 1ELL'00!uc IV �/D Ol7 ' 0I5174u :.TS-CECTION 6,1Pll- %:�i CGI7 1 bill llL!lUN- - --_--•- '_-- DM iIS: Pill- HF 61 U:141 :119:1111 N/I'I'01'051-U IMPItDVCMI NIS l C.0 0 J TW5 ':JMiITTCL 1'.!i'•-BI:4001 •I,u0un11';ll'. PROJECT I.C.N. Orojected ;-iw t'r li— L' dlfic I: .C.n. will bt' 10"", Lhall (1I' e(Illnl ' to 0.90 Projected pl(E'• j'1 . ni,i II'r' tl lc I .(i.tt. I411 la •II'l`dlf`1' Lhall ' ® Projected L 1W, pin,;rl t 11'd11IL I .C.11, with Lr'ar• IIIII-'ovoillelll wi 1 I be !( v, I It. 't 11, t'Iµl,l I Lo 0.90 m ,r, rtEti +'r• U411 I vl'N1011": t /• Add 'nor4boamd le •4'61rv1 la we. <�) 2• Add vlotr4h bound Yigh+ -lure lane. c'o) ' S. Add sou4 bound left 4urn lane. (o) 4. Add ectz� ound We 4uyvi lane. <o) ' APPEND IN C ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI3S ' Existing + 30 Percent- of Project- + Regional + Conunitted (1981 ) IIII ! HSI I ( ION CAPACI IY LII ILI/Al ION ANAL Yk,IS •lnrersection �4 " C�--- (Existing Traffic Vrllumes 6a^ seTon average Wlnter/Spring 197�j / /6 79 Ea ISTING ONO;OFJ 0 ' 7,YISIEXIST REGIONAL COFMITICD PROJLCTED PROJECT PROJECT °�ie"t Lanes Cap L!•¢•, ('<V :,• V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratlu ' Ratio VOL: VOL. w/o Project Vol. — ' NL / O _--------c1.G_ _.II.v6iG 21 o.���K O.o7G9 4` NT oa __� j_�o/ ,/87g /S 9S 0_� 2 Co•2222 NR SL ' - ST ) 3 Zdo 3 4800 ' OS4/ .313 c2�� 3 6� 0.2281 k 0 22B1 4e SR ee ) o l�9 48 o.4049 0.4049 EL k — ' ET ER ' WL 0.52q�i1° WT U yc�' ._ c� •OJO 29 800 09 45 6 YELLOWIINE /G✓x/ DUr7`I` 0:1000 `k ' TASTING !NTEtECT•1ON CAPACITY UIII IIAT10N .�9 • ' ESISCiIu: EEC; C—"LITTEO PLUS RICTONA! GNOWIN W/PROPoSCD INPROVEMCNTS I.C.0 �, 2 I rt SI IN.i P:JF :.U`V!IT1C0 PIS'- ply IONAI id,GWIII PI IC• PHOJLCL .I.C,II FJ Projected plus uro.joct traffic' I .C.LI. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' © Projected plus project traffic I:C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected plus, nln•ircf Lr,!Ifis 1 .C.11. with .r .trau; improveWl(,1111. will be le . . ' h u: ,o' I,nu,i I Lo 0.90 : :• Lrtu' „•. i ,.'! !9N.I0vr111011lt: ' 1. A&I SoEi.TYI bou}id '7`717r0•igh /Ot7C :E-T: ' INTiI?SR'lION CAPACITY III ILIZATION ANAL YSI`r Iraffsrctian�Qhjn y -�7�-, "T -1YL'INf' hl/� ' (Existing lratflC UnTutmes (lase on Average WTnte Spring 197 _ Movement EXISTING ' PRCI'U;t,d ` EXISr { EXIST REGIONAL COMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap ! Lane. Cep PK kiR I Y/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Hativ ' ( i Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. ' NL _ ---) NT NR (2 0.16 1 0.//081 SL i 1 0.o57Z 0.05 ST Z1 , 67 0,3300,c 0.33 53 ' SR — _ •EL 0 31 0./001 O./o8/ ET 6 ( 3/5 214.7* 2-00.2198 ER �.. .. -}-�-� S ' WL — W T e -- -- — -- WR YELLOV.TIME — O,IOOOrk O./OOP ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY Ur1LVAl1UN 2 , EXISTING PLUS COFMITTED P(US RLGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSEU IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. O. 6 6 11 EXISTING PLUS CWITTED PL•JS REf IONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. O Projected plus nro.jl°ct. traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Projected Plug, Iir0jecL LrdffiC-I .C-U. will be greater than 0-90 ' © Projected Plus pcoil:c.t traffic, I .C.U. with ,ystzns Improvements will be le , , thoti of r>qual Lo 0.90 ' I J1dd 50u+61 bound •+hrouyll lane- (o) . ' ! •r wN CAPACITY UlILIIAl10C1 ANALYSIS rs r- (Existing •lyd ,`ic volumes Base n ve a e Winter Spring 197g MOKttent ELISi1NG I'Hu•'91.d ! ixlSf I),IST REGIONAL COMIITTED PROJECTED PNOJEG7 PRDJICI Lanes Cap i tanw. t -p t•a UN Y/C GRONTP PROM CT V/C Ratio Volume VIC R.ILW ' Vol Hato VOL. Vol.. w/o Prnjeet Vol. ' NL �I 6 �_al._�'n _ D.•o131 0.0131 NT O I I O o o K NR l 0 ova 1 SL a DO (3)48o0 I S o`l4 0.1429 ST 1 I1koCU lr�oa_ _ I o o4ga.0494 ' SR CI I(000 D.O?9 0.0 EL O-C)3444, o ' ET Ca)4 �I� r 11 61 ra. 14 D a ER -- - j�� ' WL j b _ —t ;b 1_ 0.0156 v.0156 WT (3) Bov i 291 0. 3 533 32 0.36o 0 6I)/600 6 SB . D. 4731 04731 YELLO�T I':E (' O./OOO 0:/Ooo .>R ' CSISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY U1I11lAtION—_ , D iS:iNG i;O: C3MITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 D IpCJ'D 6 EfMING P'--JS C"ITTED PI US FEGIONAI G'owill PI US PROJECT I.C.U. tProjected plu', nrnjr,ct Lraffic I .C.U. will be less than or, equal ' to 0.90 ' Projected plllt, orn,w, I 11 ,11 1 ic.-I C.U. w:i 11 br tlr otit.or Ulan ' © Projected plus ,lrn,l:•r-f. IraIIic I .C.U. with .,y ,Ieur, lmprovenlrnL" will be lecc. Ilion or t'tlual Lo 0.90 ' a' !r.'t 1P':1'"rV4111Crf .- - '. - - - _ - - - - - - - - �Grlptinr. t-f I ' /. AJd sou+ll bound le++ -Fury 1a17e • (0) 2. Add souA bound rfSh f -lu rm la vle. Co), ' 3. ,odd ea&+ bouvld /e4+ -Furl,f lane. (o) 4• Add eas+ bouncJ -I-hr-oush lame. I'o) ' 5• Add was bound right +ttrn lane— Co) rr� �„ iNI F1 1: ['IION CAPACITY UlILIIAIION ANAIYSIS Intersection t !' (Existing Traffic Volumes based AverAge WT er Spring 197y. ' Movement EXISTING 1`40POSVII EXIST 1 LXIST REGIONAL C"11TED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap I.aee, :+p 1 PK DR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project + Vol. NL 0 �� 13 0.247 +1 0•2 7 NT 2 0! ' SL SL 1 qn —� I • 0 I 0.0088 0. ST WO U0 g SR ---t EL 1 o_ 0.0312 * 0.0312 k ' ET 00 (31kpo 15-ol_ 7& o. 33 / 14 0.330 ER I) p Sdp :Z 3I2S' 0.312r� - WT I 3 0. 0. 2- YELL06R:ME I(� 0. ID00 0.1o0c) .* ' EXISTING lhl-z EMION CAPACITY U11L1"/A-i ON-- , EJESfING i.Li CGMtITTED PIIA PEGIONAI SRDWTII W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 0 EYISTING PLUS :DMIITTED PIUS K111001. GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. o•8j1$ ' Projected plug, oro,r•r.t. traffic I .C.U. will be loss than or ('nual ' to 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. T'fiil he Treater than 0.90 ' ® Projected piu% pvkljr•,-I Lratfic I .C.Il. with t,y••Leuis improvement.% Oil II be IP%%' Lw,li (,I, ogilo ' I,o 0.90 ' 14'%(,r1i1L i,�ll of . 'i•i 'I Ip11,111VUIRIIIL: ' 1. Acid easy bound -I h i-ou9 h lane. 60) ' z. Aid ores+ bound Ar=3h lane. (0) INTERSFM ION CAPACITY U11LIZAIION ANALYSIS . •Intersect:ion - (Existing Tra•ifir_ Volumes Bawer g) 19/ ' EXISTING i PNGI'OC'.D f CXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMiIT rEO PROJECTED Volume PROJICI VICRat Movement Lanes cap I 1•ane5 C•p I PK lip V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume Y/P, Ratio ' r Vol. r Ratio VOL. Vol.. w/o Project T Vol. ' NL �I 1 �. •D 1 0 0Z56 NT 1,33 _ 2 2 v,l ' NR 3 SL Iboo —i D 1 0.0 19 0.0719 ST DO �` 29 0./831 � 0.183 ` SR I I O f z ZQ 1 0.48�,. '3 2 0_`55b19 EL __.,��3 0. ZI 14 azlm ' ET a 138 12 0. 79 ER _ I ' A 1 00 l2)3200 I- _ 5 0•0766 0•07 WT I� (3)4600 _ / / A( - o. 2r 0215� WR s Z_ -- ` YELLN''TIM.E I D C).1000 O•I000 ' ' EXISTING :hTStiECTION CAPACITY LfILIiAIION EI;S"LNG PLI', COMMITTED PLUS PCGIONAI GROWlfl W/PROPOSED IMPROYCMFNTS I.C.0 0, 764 q EXISTING PLUS COMITTEO NUS Iif G10NAt i,POWnI PIUS PROJECT I.C.A. 0 1 ' Projected plus pr•o,j_ct traffic• I .C.U. will btu less than or equal to 0.90 ' Projected Plus In•0•11•Ct 0-01fi.c I .C.IY will lu' IlreaLer than 0.91) © Projected plus Protect Lrolfic I .C..U. kith ,;;.Louis improvements. will be less t10,1 In' equal Lo 0.90 ' r•...r'1p11� I• . . '•u: rn;n•"JrLk'I�; ' I. Add weSl bound la+ -kAYV1 lake• lo) ' Add west bcuyid 4-hrou9h I one . (0) 1 I14T; RSl ; t11ii CAPACI IY Ul ILILATION ANALYSISI r inters+ ction CA L rt h i r / t ' Ak (Existing lraffic volumes Base n ve a e W er Spring 197 Mov1,r.Knt EXIST IHG hvOPOSf.) ! LXI51 11 EXIST REGIONAL COhMITTED PROJk CTED PROJECT PROJLCi Lines Cap Lanes C.•p j D1: bR 1 ':/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Vol Ume VIC Na UD ' Vol. H,Ttlo VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. NT NR 11_" 1 SL 1 Oct 1 O.o ST I I fi _ 6d o.l oob 0.1006 ' SR EL I _ 1 '03 - 0.0 69 ' ET 153 0. 1p* 13 0• 5Y ER l 00 6�_ 2 D.o43i ' WL W7 48 300 6 0. a8 WIR YFLLo',4:r,E 10 O./000 +k 0.IU00 ' EXISTING iNTERSECTIDN CAPACITY UTILIVATION Ef:SiihG i-V: COMITTTD PLU: RiWONAL r,HOWill W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 -74) . EXISTI4G PLUS CLWITTEG PLUS Rfr IO!1A1 npOWTN PIUS PROJECT I.C.U. Q,'¢L^� © Projected 1! 1w, ;no,i' rl. tr,Ift'ic •I .C-[i- alill br Ir .ti than ur i',111,11 to 0.90 71 Projected plus in'!,,lect trdtfic I .C.U. 'ill be greater than 0,90 Frojected f.lU nralt:rl, traFfic I .C.U. wit!' 'ySteu!s inlprovenWents -will be less• !I1ci! or ofµlal to 0.90 ' '',• ,�,1'llr'. �u" n' Ihi'•!' lt'll!1•IIL: • ' IN! ;K6kr '1I0N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intertection� k ' 'Pock e I'� l'olz'o� (Existing Traffic Volul(ie�s Base on Average 1 T ter Spring I ' MovMmint EA I51 ING PR(d'OSID ( i7151 EXIST REGIONAL COMIITTED PROJECTEO PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap lams .'it) � PK HR V/C GROW711 PROJLCT Y/C Ratio Volume V/C HatTu ' Vol. Ra 0o VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. ' NL NT OEO (-3)AB00 1!�qc) I 7,0 o. l ' 3 0.1550 NR 1 —1 5 -OLF 65- 0.0700 1I 0.070 ' SL _ 1 I (z)-3zW 185 6.0909 0.0909 ST Op ! D 2 37 0.3 1�k 7 Q-3A3 EL s ET ER ' WL �p _ 132 -- 26 WT C4)6g00 e^ I 0.17304C 0,1-770 WR �31 474 ' 11111111 1NTrZM10N CAPACITY UIMIA11011 .� . EA;"> iAG F_0 CODMITTEO PLUS RFGIONAL GROWTH B/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 0• 1 1 E+nSt1NG PLUS :OMMITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GPOWIII PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1 Projected plus uroiecL Lraffic I :C.LI. will be less than or equal ' to 0.90 ' Projected plus ;,ro,jr 4 .Lraffic I .C.U. will be tireater than 0.90 Projected plu•, pru,IOT.I II,IIfi(.• I .C.II. w11.11 ." •,Irllr, nnpruvenH•nLt. will be lo , . '.hon nl 01111,11 Lo 0.90 tr�•• r.rlptiT . �,T .: r,,.� iur,rT�.•.,nient: • - - - - - - - ' �. Add hor•Fhbound +hrou9k Iane . Co) Z. A- cf sou-Fhbound le4 _I-uxvl lane. (0) ' 3. 48d uj s• 'bouvld lane. Co) IIXTC6K1JON CAPACITY LITILIZA110N ANALYSIS inters.^ lion "1GlrxLO G�OGt� I QCNQ k w ;.'�� J GC�Vt ' (Existing Traffic Volu s Based an Average 1Tinter ring I 197 Movement EI ISTING PkuPGSE,I i MSI I EXIST REGIONAL [OWI11ED PROJCCTLD PR0.IFCT PR0.11ft Lanes CallPa�Ie: t'yr I PI. NilI t'/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V'/L Will, ' — 1'0l, R,'L10 VOL. VOL. w/nVol Protect , I Vol. ' NL I —i.�15 �' 0 19 O.v83g�k O.os3S NT C�6 % _ 217 0. y8 0I 53 NR ' SL -- 2v a/e2 ST po -- [ . l ISI o.381H 0.381 SR I lbona33 b. lQS6 . 14sb EL I 0o 0 0•03254- 0,�03 ' ET 0 ' G.O ER {T 3 WL (01600 4 00{ 131_ , 26 .o i -7 OD509 k WR �Io2 _ 457 _ rELL06'i1ME '�.I000. 0•l000 'If' E115TAG !NTZ;SECTION CAIAIIH DTIL11A110N tE1;STiho •rLL: CODMITTED PLUS REGIONAL SRO41il WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C,U o•6,4, 9. WSI INS PWS COMIITTED PLC, kF610NAt GROWTH PLUS PROJECT J.C.U. p.4,y87 ' Projected rliu- I'r•olt'(:t, t.ratfic .1 .C.H. w I I I br ,le's t.hon or• equal to 0.90 ' Projected 1,1U_. iW0,1OLL tI-01,HC 1-C-lt, lviil tth Itredltrr than t1.9tl © Projected plus i,to•Icct LralfiC 1 .C.11. with s�^• Lews 1Ttlprovo111011"; will be less Lhp-1 or equal to 0.90 ' r.t• .Crl(1!, n � (.' • i 1 •'h 19!,t'„yelll(Jll t•: _ _ _ _ _ _ _.- _ ' /. CUntlerF northbound right -turn lane 4c) opfiov!al -through plus (o) Z. Add >7 4hbound +hrot�ti l4ne. (a) ' 3. Conver+ westbound le� 4-two We -6- op+ional �hrott A PIUS le-f4. (o) IM,,F :6rt 10N CAPACITY U1ILIZAII0N ANALYSIS I ra 1-rse?i. of L1 1P.5 Based ��� u 11 - foY� KUQv� (Existing lraff�r Volui�l .s [lase on verA9e Winter Spring 197g} ht+t emnt EXISTING "R+•0'� i t E71S1 I%1ST REGIONAL COMIITTEO PROJECTLO PROJECT PROJECT'Lanes Cep I i PA 1iR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C katio ' w/o Project 7ol. Ratio VOL. VOL. i Vol. 1 - NT ! 0c7 3Z4800 IL It a 416 0.4093 45 0.4188 ' NR 1 ( 00 I� 23 18 0.0531 S31 ST tJ �00 Z¢ D 2 269 . 0 2-03 O ' SR boo _ 03 El ( Jb __ . 01 O.olDo ' ET ' ' I*� 15 0.11 9 * 4-6 �(ER 23 0•0612WL ?) 300 1173 -JI . WT I Z 0' C�Iboo _1 O•o619 * o.o619 'k ' WR o bon [• 72 b.0(o5b 06 1S0 YELLOWTII!L • I 0•I ow• .1000 ' EXISTING INTE_KSE_CTION CAPACITY U111.114TIONv—� T EA:S-ING ILV2 COMITTED PIUS REOEONAI ^roiil1T W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 o•7(l, EXISTING PLUS CWITTED PIUS 14r,10HAI ,RJVT)l PHIS PROJECT I.C.U. - 0.7517 ' Projected I lugwo I t I. l.rdf f is •I .C.U. wi 11 br lrtiti lhan ur riluol ' to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus nruierL t.raftic I :C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' © Projected pill,, prn,jrl.l, 1•roific I .C.U. with ,•y ,lour, nuproveillent•. will be Ivs-, Ilwii tt. 1•tltiol Lo 0.t)0 ' '�• l rlpl (p ' + Iri ' UlNlr nVl!IIII.11 t.: - - _ - •+ - ' 1. Cower+ north boLIAd 6-(3H4 iurn lavle -k) optional fhroiLSt plus rigkf. Co) 2. Convert sclv+hbound risk+ •Furs lave ,-la opfiicl,,Ial -F-hrou9ti p[U-S I-I5k l'• '(a) 3. Convert easfbouwd r;gh+ -►urn June -b optional fhrolk Plus risk.+• (o) 4. Acid eas+bound optional -J'hrojs rplus riSki. lo). ' S. Convert wes� �uv�d Fhrougti Jahe leaf iurvl Javie. (e) ' ).illIWE IWN CAPACITY UIILI?.AIION ANALYSIS .1n*crsection 1 01._ T �S of e�AO o� (Existing lr•affic Volumes Based on Average tl nter Spring 191 Movement E%1 STING PPI+LOSaU = CX:51 6%15T REGIONAL LOHit T1 ED PROVIC ECTEDRatio PROJECVolume PROV/L Rd Lanes Cap 1 I.w,e Cep P!, Pk I V/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio Volume Y/L Nat1u . 'Ratio VOL. VOL. Vw/ool Project I Yol, NL Do J(3)9800 I,�QS I 4-31 O. 299 •Y 32 D.3o6a NT C2) 3200 ) S ' / 241 9 ' NR — SL ST a 14-7 o.zsss 6 0.2, ' SR EL I _..-.... i �� _�� D.OSSD O o5 ii ' ET —� h-D. S 3-7v14D o ER (j 182 D. -6W I 0.27 WL WT ' WR _ YELL01M,E D•IDGY� U•IDOO 64 ' EIIST146 :NTERSECTION CAPACITY UrILILAIION Ei:571NG ;,40 COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 0, 9 Y E%IST14G PLUS IWITTEC PLUS REGIONAL GkoWrH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Q•SOPIa Q Projected plus, prujecl, traffic -I .C.U. will be less than or eyudl ' to 0.90 ' Projected plus :irc;joct Lrdffic-I-C.U, hill he Llr•eater than 0-90 ® projected 1,11: :wojo [, Ira) fic I .C.U. with ,l^.Ilnr, nHllrovonllnt , Will be lrti . ' } , :1 nr 1.11ual to 0.90 ' lwsrrlp' I(,, 1 ' 1••.tom hmirovelMnt: I. Comet-+ o17e. Y)or�hbollhd khrouyll (ane +o )1or-PIl bouKd /e4 -fprvl 10)-Le.fo) 1 MI W;F1110H CAPACITY 011L1IAII `OIN,•`ANALYSIS ' Inr.T:'rsvctioil I�pl jP'TNf/fi�fL r L ✓o� ' (Existing Trai'fTc Volumes E1ase on verage WTnte ring 197 IING - I r M<,•emenl Lane$ Ca s'RnrU` - n. :SI t MST REO T11 COMITTED PROJECTED Volume PHO,IILI ' lanes Cap iaur C•p Pt Vol1 itt I PROJECT V/o Ratio Volume Y/i Hatlu l. Ratio VOL.YOL. VOL. w/o Protect 4 Vol. ' NL a C3J�gBP'ADO �i I 625 0. 31904, 32 0.3256 'K NT C2 3�00 4 2 319 0• '7 14- oAz NR - -• _ - - ST OU _- 1 �� 1 1(b5 b.252 * 6 0.254o SR -��(� _ 4 o_I3B8 0.1388 E r z EL — - ER uT } 7 119 0,1 a 0.150.1 ' kR - ^^ YELLCr%gWE d.I000'k 0.1COD ' Ea1ST14L :h E.- CAPA CITY ACITY UT.LIIAIION EE;S:i45 KI ::d] C.#HITTEO PUJJ Hfi•IONAL OltOWTII W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I,C.0 191 e E f;S,T 14� cCCS :OK4ITTEL PCU', •:!I W4AI •J+OWTII Pill!, PROJECT I.C.U. D.BagB Projected hlu`, uro•TeL.r, traffic •I .C.11. will be less than or equai ' to 0.90 Projected IIbu In , l 't•1. 1•roftic I .C.U. will bo groalvr (than 0.1I1l ' ® !trojecte9' ,,In' I 'u.;t•, f ltv! fic I .C.II. wil.h ',y',l.cnu•, nnl,rovenlrnl•, ;.ill be It-s- I n u r•Tµl(jl 1.0 0.90 Ccmver� onelloli4kbound -I-hrclu3l lane 4P )1*0r+hbouhd IR4 -6rh Iahe . (0) t , 1;1) i t,'!o :.i WN CAPACITY UI II.17AI WN ANALYSIS n (Existing i on v ratf1'. 4o111 ase era9e Wlnte.r SPA 19Td'? Ex ISTING P`-, I —E,BI I LxIST REGIONAL COMIITTED PROJLLTLO PROJECT PROM[T Norer.ent I l Lanes Cap I +nr ', { °r, NR , V/C PROJECT Y/C_Ratfo _ Volume V;C-Ratio VOL. Vol. I Ratio VOL,YOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. rN T NR '�1/�oo� I�t 60 0. 1351 6 O.l st__ I -- - --•--�13 •� o. oa � 0.�4 � ' ST 3 4800 7�• a I 143 o./850 3 0•.1856 'SR 62 3 _ 39� ` EL f I ___ '�-a� 17 0.3281 7 0.33 E7 —'}' + 2 193 ER -5 ' Wes— 57 o.3i44 3 O. l63 WT --- --� '1_._I_.�� 4 loz p.�O �k 3 O.Zo W'R - _ _ vEl lI>tiT(YE o./000 4c o•/ ' EXISTING IN`.EUECTION CAPACIH btll Vs`ION— E/15�iS,: CC+M1iTE0 Pt P`. PEG TONAL SRddlll N/PP.OPOSEO IHPROVEKNIS I-C.0 2(09 E/ISTING PLJS COW{ITTED r^(L". RFGIPNAI SPO1JT1I 11111S PROJECT I.C.U. 338 (1) Mar-Ay4hur is v1oy-4k /Sou+- Projected i:tur. ,'0Jf,ct traffic •I .C.U. 'will be less - than or equal ' to 0.90 ' a Projecteti pII,', f+ nlr: I Ir,lffic 1 .4— I. LvilI he 11rr,llrr• Chun ll•`111 ' ihnjecht' 1•!. i 1 11 .111 iI I .(..II, with . . '•1t+ur, nnilruVl+nu'nl •. will be lt•- - o,111,11 !.0 0.901 ,•I 11,;$1 .'vc1111!Ill iI. Add vlor4hbound right +" lavle. Co). 2. (follve{--f- e"s bound rgh� +Urn IAvle -la opfiwial -I- "Jh plus righT. Co) ' lu1FNS'r'':[ It 'd CAP�ACpI�,T�Y,� U�T�ILIIZZAvIION ANALYSIS lnrors ction �`— ,r`�_A ,,L��„ 2u�(�,OC�G� (Existing TralM c Volumes Base on veagerWTnte prT g 197� EE IS TING 1,01UM t LUST !! kXIST HLGIONAI COFMI II LD PNWI CTID PHWECI PRO."tl i Mnv,n nt Lanes Cep IJa•. 'I, l +'v TIN 'I VIC !;ROWTII PROJECT VIC Retin Vnlume VIC Ratio ' - F VolUjIlo VOL. YOI. w/o 1'ru,l,mt 1 Vni. - 0� 3 o,o419 NL I � b 0.040 — i-,— NT 3 I SI o.I �y o. cx> ' NR SL O _ a 1 -73 o.,5116 o.l ih ST O 3 185 0.291 * 0.29l9 SR — — —��� — Zo — --- — 14 EL 3a i 55 * -32 0.2.6B ' ET ER —�—So 1 ' WL I I p 0.0 38 0.04�38 WT lag J 1-7 o. /o 2* 3 0. WR . 20 . ' YE I.1.0611PE I O./OOo- 0•���� ' EXISTING INTERCECTION CAPACITY UII1.I14TION k,;STi•.:. ;L4i COWITTED PLUS Rk G10NAI GROWN W/PR01'DSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 C>.794.h' E(:51I43 Pl..0 :0WITTE0 INU% RMN)U1 .g0NIM 1110S PROJECT I.C.U. O•gp"70 © Projected plus aroj^ct Lraffic • I .C.U. Will be less 'than or equal to 0.90 ' Projected plug ;n'olect. traffic I ,C.U: Will be greater than 0.90 Projected i lus prolocl Li'affic I .C.U. With ';Y"Lollls impromilonts Will be les'. than u' oqual to 0.90 _ .. - - - - - - - - - - - ' ,1:rlpl. ,.• nl I �••r Im; rr'/VIIII'nl IIJi Rtil . 1 I EIN (.APMA I Y Ul I!.I I A I O`" ANAi C F-) hnrerc.. on y( - 11_� ' (Existing TraIE1c Volumes Base on vera«e WinterSpring 19787 I Alii lNO 4n„n `•1 i ,X•Sl j IMT IIEf,10NN LOM11f III) f`RlUIUID PROJECT P�nU'C1 Mo•ertRnt Lane. Cop t ""' ✓ ! '' fiN ',/L GROWTH11R(A11.C1 VIC Rath, volume V, a„11.• w/o _... .bl. l.LL�a VUL. Vl1L VD) Pro.lo(t ' Vol. Nilr { /D 1 D.0125 O.OIZS NT i (z),32oo i_ 1 _ 112 0.457a* 3z oAE ' NR CI) lbvo i _ 2 6.0319 0.o319 SL I ; 1 C3�20o 35 o.lzb6 o i266 ST tl^ I 1 11�1 5-' 241 0_51 1 _0_52a8 SR QL f'(I I lboo I 7 0.11o3'X O.11o3 ET h b j i 1 0_1431 - O.IQ31 wT pD 11 _ _I? _.. 1.._— o_o�lz o• 12 �` ' WR I) —__ la — 4z o. 19- 8 0.12 8 6.0604 0. 1000 ' EX[STING 4•••:ECf IDN rpp}r IT{ i,l -!_Ff10N •- 1, j LX;',-;•,: : ;itM1T'!G 011; k11,:UAI 'IIOWTR H/PROPOSED IMPROVE MFNIS I.C.0 o.eG 5 3i E r,S•Iti; rt.. :IXPIf TTEC I'I•'• aICIv1Id `J'O�IIU MI'., PROJECT I.C.U. ' Projet ed ,`lu —,•, I, •kl troll'ic I .C.H. will hr Ir',', Than or 1'Ipinl Projected film ;'rw,cct tl'atfic I -CU. v',;iil he gre(iter than 0.-' ' © Projected ill;, III , •I", i 0 . , 1 ic IDll,l ovellwill ., /. Add vlor4-H bound le-4 +um Z. Add Y)m4h bowed ri 9 h Fa re 1a h e. (u) 3 . Add soa Abotmd tc4- ftlrvl lane. (o).• 4. Add• easfbouvfd /e•,f +Urvl (ane. Co)