The URL can be used to link to this page

Public Works Committee Packet 7-15-13 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF MUSKEGO PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AGENDA DATE: July 15, 2013 TIME: 6:00 P.M. LOCATION: Aldermen’s Room – Upper Level of City Hall W182 S8200 Racine Avenue Muskego, WI 53150 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD June 17, 2013 STATUS OF PROJECTS Discussion update. No formal action may be taken on any of the following: 1. Janesville Road Reconstruction 2. Racine Avenue Recreational Trail 3. 2013 Road Program 4. Gold Drive Storm Sewer 5. Horn Park Drive Storm Sewer 6. Misc. Drainage Projects UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all of the following: NEW BUSINESS Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all the following: 1. Discuss drainage issue near Circle Drive & Richdorf Drive. 2. Presentation of Woods Road & Moorland Road/Durham Drive Intersection Alternatives Study. 3. Discuss Policy Regarding Maintenance of Subdivision Boulevard Entrance Islands. NEW BUSINESS PLACED ON FILE (The following items have been placed on file for staff review. Upon completion of review, staff will submit a supplement detailing options and possible course of action to committee members.) COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW ADJOURNMENT PLEASE NOTE: It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipality may be in attendance at the above-stated meeting to gather information; no action will be taken by any governmental body at the above-stated meeting other than the governmental body specifically referred to above in this notice. Also, upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through appropriate aids and services. For additional information or to request this service, contact Muskego City Hall, (262) 679-4100. CITY OF MUSKEGO Unapproved PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2013 Ald. Dan Soltysiak called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Also present were Ald. Neil Borgman, Ald. Bob Hammel and Public Works Director David Simpson. Ald. Soltysiak led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. The meeting was noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Laws on June 14, 2013. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2013 Ald. Borgman moved to approve the minutes of May 20, 2013. Seconded by Ald. Hammel. Motion carried 3-0. STAFF REPORTS None STATUS OF PROJECTS Director Simpson gave updates on the following projects: Janesville Road Reconstruction – A pre-construction meeting is set for this Friday. Musson is the same contractor as Phase I. Racine Avenue Recreational Trail – Received Army Corp permit late last week. DNR permit should be in a week or two. Should get bid out and to Council for approval in July. 2013 Road Program – Contracts are all signed. They are telling me the third or fourth week in July should start work. Miscellaneous Drainage Projects – All of them that we know about are taken care of except for Saroyan. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discuss Drainage Issue near the Intersection of Gold Drive and Diamond Drive – Director Simpson stated previously we discussed two homeowners near the intersection of Gold Drive and Diamond Drive having experienced flooding related to storm water runoff coming from a large drainage area to the west of Gold Drive; and four options possible. Installing a swale by clearing trees from approximately 1 acre of land and installing a swale to divert the water south to an existing wetland was the preferred alternative. Some residents were not in favor of this alternative so it was eliminated. After discussion with Committee and homeowners it was decided to go with installing 500 l.f. of storm sewer through an easement and City park land. Ald. Borgman made a motion to go ahead with 500 l.f. of storm sewer and if that fails, go with installing 715 l.f. of storm sewer in existing road right of way straight north on Gold. Ald. Hammel seconded. Motion carried 3-0. Discuss Drainage Issue on Field Drive near Annes Way – Homeowners of S75 W21497 Field Drive have expressed great concern related to storm water runoff coming from a large drainage area to the rear of their property that we previously discussed per Director Simpson. Since then we did an on-site review and have determined that adding culvert 2 capacity below Field Drive and under two driveways prior to entering the retention area will be possible. The homeowner on the NW corner of Field and Annes Way has asked that a berm be removed to the south of their driveway and some additional grading of a swale be completed to the north of the home near the roadway. We will also need to clean the swale that leads from the retention area to the cross culverts under Annes Way. Committee and residents discussed plan. Ald. Borgman made a motion to go ahead with plans as presented for Field and Annes Way, move ahead with the plan, once we get there evaluate where we are. Seconded by Ald. Hammel. Motion carried 3-0. NEW BUSINESS Review and Potential Approval of Revised Construction Plans for Belle Chasse Phase II – Director Simpson advised the second phase of the Belle Chasse subdivision was scheduled to move forward this Spring; however, a new wetland delineation was required prior to construction. The new wetland delineation was completed and confirmed by the WDNR which identified wetlands that were not previously mapped. A redesign of part of the subdivision is now required to work around the wetlands. There will be less lots now. The new redesign will have the road coming out further north on Mystic. We need the second connection to meet City ordinance. Concerned residents spoke in regard to increased traffic (short cuts) and speed, and safety of children. Director Simpson and subdivision developer explained ways to prevent this. Speed humps, street narrowing, and a traffic circle at intersection were ways to alleviate concerns of speeding through the subdivision. In order to keep the project moving ahead, staff would like the Committee to approve the revised construction plans contingent upon final revision being approved. Ald. Borgman made a motion to approve revised layout and construction plans contingent upon final revisions being approved by the Director of Public Works. Seconded by Ald. Hammel. Motion carried 3-0. Amendment to motion: Ald. Borgman made a motion that Public Works Director work with the developer to figure out the best traffic calming devices for the subdivision, and prepare a draft proposal for the Common Council meeting. Ald. Hammel seconded. Motion carried 3-0. Discuss Policy Regarding Signs with Public Right of Ways – Per Director Simpson, Community Development Director Jeff Muenkel put together a memo regarding “right-of-way signs”. Ald. Soltysiak stated we currently have a sign ordinance for permanent and temporary signage and it’s been operating in a fashion that only when there are complaints, it’s enforced. The biggest repeating complaint is about temporary signage that is placed illegally around the City. I talked to Director Simpson and Planner Adam about that. It was suggested that we come together as Public Works and develop a policing policy for this to enforce the existing ordinance that is on the books – not creating a new ordinance not modifying the ordinance just putting in the policy enforcing it. Hopefully every week remove any signs within a given defined area. We should communicate to the businesses that they have signs placed not according to code so they can remove them or relocate them. The City has a pretty strict ordinance that states that no sign shall be placed within the ultimate right-of-way of any street or highway with the exception of City gateway/directional signage and Community Event Signs that are approved by the CDD. With the new beautification of Janesville Road being completed, staff sees no issue in taking a more active role in enforcing our prohibition of signs in the City right-of-ways. Recommendation would be a Public Works Committee approval to have Public Works staff and Community Development Department staff remove any signs, within a given defined area, would work well in enforcing this ordinance. Ald. Borgman made a motion to have this policy developed. Ald. Hammel seconded. Motion carried 3-0. 3 Review and Potential Approval of the 2012 Compliance Maintenance Annual Report - Director Simpson advised one of our responsibilities in the operation of the City’s Sanitary Sewer Conveyance System comes from the WDNR. They require an annual report titled “Compliance Maintenance Annual Report” (CMAR). Part of the report is a requirement to have a resolution in order to ensure that elected officials are aware of the current state of the system by sharing the CMAR and ensuring adequate funding is available to the Utility. For the year 2012, the City’s grade was an A (4.0). Ald. Borgman made a motion to approve the resolution. Seconded by Ald. Hammel. Motion carried 3-0. NEW BUSINESS PLACED ON FILE None COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW Ald. Borgman gave heads up from the Conservation Commission they have approved the use of going through the conservation easement that goes out onto East Drive for the improvement of that drainage. ADJOURNMENT Ald. Hammel moved to adjourn the meeting 7:19 PM. Ald. Borgman seconded. Motion carried 3-0. Jeanne Struck Recording Secretary Page 1 of 1 CITY OF MUSKEGO Staff Report to Public Works Committee To: Public Works Committee From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject: Discuss drainage issue near Circle Drive & Richdorf Drive Date: July 12, 2013 Background Information: The attached memorandum discusses the report findings for the flooding that is occurring at Racine Avenue & Richdorf Drive and Circle Drive & Richdorf Drive. The findings have determined that the two areas are linked and that in order to alleviate flooding near Racine Avenue, we must also reduce the amount of flooding on Circle Drive. At the February 2012 Public Works Committee Meeting, staff was asked to work toward obtaining permission to install the swale discussed on the attached memorandum. I have worked since then to make contact with the owners and have come to a point in which I believe the owners will not offer a voluntary grading/drainage easement. This alternative would have allowed for the installation of a swale at an estimated cost of $68,000-$102,000. The other option discussed is replacing the existing culvert that drains to the lake with a much larger box culvert. The box culvert alternative has an estimated cost range (per the memorandum) of $468,000-$702,000. The existing culvert is believed to be approximately 25-30 years old so it may need replacement within the next 5-10 years. If we were to replace the existing pipe with a corrugated metal pipe of the same size, the approximate cost would be $175,000. Recommendation for Action by Committee: Discuss options and direct staff to move ahead with placement of chosen option in future capital budget request. AECOM 414.225.5100 tel 1020 N. Broadway 414.225.5111 fax Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 www.aecom.com To: David Simpson, PE City of Muskego Director of Public Works / City Engineer From: Aaron Volkening, AECOM Date: February 17, 2012 Subject: Circle Drive / Richdorf Drive flooding study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This memorandum summarizes the alternatives evaluated to mitigate stormwater flooding at two locations in the Circle Drive / Richdorf Drive area. These alternatives were studied as part of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’s Private Property Inflow/Infiltration (PPII) reduction study. The first flooding location is centered on Circle Drive North, east of Richdorf Drive. At least one private property (S75 W19020 Circle Drive) has experienced damaging stormwater flooding during heavy rainfall events. Hydrologic/hydraulic modeling indicates that several other private properties are at risk for structural flooding during a 100-year recurrence interval rainfall. The second flooding location is at several duplexes on the north side of the intersection of Racine Avenue and Richdorf Drive. A low driveway/yard area on the east side of these buildings floods during heavy rainfall events and floodwater has entered the buildings through the garage doors in at least one instance. The Detailed Discussion section of this memorandum contains additional information on the primary causes of these flooding problems. Alternatives and Recommendations For Circle Drive, there are two alternatives that are recommended for final consideration, and it is recommended that one of the two be selected by the City. The less expensive alternative is to construct a swale between two houses on the north side of Circle Drive North, to convey surface stormwater overflow to Little Muskego Lake during flood events. This alternative has an estimated construction cost of $68,000 without a contingency, $85,000 including a 25% contingency, and $102,000 including a 20% allowance for design and construction engineering, administrative costs and other City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 2 miscellaneous non-contractor costs. The more expensive alternative is to replace the existing large corrugated metal arch culvert from Richdorf Drive to the lake with an 11 ft wide or 12 foot wide by 4 foot high rectangular concrete box culvert. This alternative is more expensive, but reduces street flooding significantly more, and replaces the existing corrugated metal pipe. It is estimated that the corrugated metal culvert will have to be replaced in the next 10-15 years because of pipe age and condition, even if it is not upgraded for conveyance capacity. This alternative has an estimated construction cost of 468,000 without a contingency, $585,000 including a 25% contingency, and $702,000 including a 20% allowance for design and construction engineering, administrative costs and other miscellaneous non-contractor costs. Neither of the cost estimates for these alternatives include the cost for permanent and temporary easements, which would be necessary for either alternative. One of the next recommended steps for this solution is to begin considering in detail the likelihood and cost of obtaining permanent and temporary easements along the construction routes. For the duplexes at Racine Avenue and Richdorf Drive, the recommended alternative is floodproofing the rear sides of these structures by reconstructing the rear exterior wall to make it as watertight as possible, converting the existing garages to other interior uses so that no garage door openings are required, providing parking elsewhere on the site, and making other modifications to these structures to block floodwater entry. A detailed site inspection and assessment is needed to further scope and cost this floodproofing construction work, but a very preliminary construction cost estimate is included in the Detailed Discussion section of this memorandum. Initial estimates indicate that this alternative would be much less expensive than either another floodproofing alternative that was considered (regrading the yard and driveway areas so that the garages can continue to be used, while providing a stormwater pumping station to drain an enclosure that would be created) or constructing a large new storm sewer on Richdorf Drive from this area to Circle Drive North. Please refer to the second part of this memorandum, Detailed Discussion, for further description of both the recommended alternatives and numerous other alternatives that were considered but not recommended or determined to be infeasible. City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 3 DETAILED DISCUSSION Flooding Areas The first flooding location is centered on Circle Drive North, east of Richdorf Drive. At least one private property (S75 W19020 Circle Drive) has experienced damaging stormwater flooding during heavy rainfall events. Hydrologic/hydraulic modeling indicates that several other private properties are at risk for structural flooding during a 100-year recurrence interval rainfall. This flooding primarily occurs because Circle Drive North is a low area at the downstream end of a 270 acre drainage basin. There are several storm sewers that convey runoff from this area to Little Muskego Lake, but these storm sewers do not have enough hydraulic capacity to convey the expected 100-year peak flows. In addition, when the storm sewers are at capacity, there is no adequate surface flow path to convey additional water to the lake. Instead, the surface overflow path is directly into the garage of S75 W19020 Circle Drive. The peak water elevation at the intersection of Richdorf Drive and Circle Drive North is estimated at 798.4 for the 100-year rainfall event, based on computer modeling (a depth of 1.1 feet above the centerline of the Richdorf/Circle Drive North intersection, 2.5 feet above the centerline of the low point in Circle Drive North, and 2.6 feet above the garage floor elevation at S75 W19020 Circle Drive). The second flooding location is at several duplexes on the north side of the intersection of Racine Avenue and Richdorf Drive. A low driveway/yard area on the east side of these buildings floods during heavy rainfall events and floodwater has entered the buildings through the garage doors in at least one instance. Stormwater flooding at this location appears to be caused by a combination of several factors: 1. This area is below the peak water elevation at Circle Drive North, and during heavy flood events water will back up into this area. 2. Even if the peak flood elevations at Circle Drive North were reduced, there is not enough hydraulic capacity in the driveway culvert / roadside swale system on the north and west sides of Richdorf Drive to convey the 100-year peak flow from this duplex area, without continuing to flood the lower floor of the duplexes. Flood Mitigation Alternatives: Circle Drive North To reduce the 100-year peak water elevations at the low point in Circle Drive, east of Richdorf Drive, it is necessary to increase the conveyance of stormwater from Circle Drive and Richdorf Drive to Little Muskego Lake. The combined capacity of the existing pipes to the lake (48” x 68” corrugated metal arch pipe and 22”x36” concrete arch storm sewer) is not enough to convey the 100-year design storm event, and there is no adequate surface overflow route to the lake. City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 4 Alternatives evaluated for increasing the conveyance to the lake and therefore lowering upstream peak water elevations include: 1. Add a second storm sewer on Circle Drive North and Oak Court to the lake (with an outfall at the boat landing). The estimated size was a 38” x 60” elliptical pipe. 2. Replace the existing corrugated metal arch pipe from Richdorf Drive to the lake (in a side yard easement) with a larger concrete box culvert. Updated modeling indicates that an 11-ft wide and 4-ft high concrete box pipe would be required to achieve the necessary peak water elevation reduction during the 100-year event. 3. Replace the existing corrugated metal arch pipe from Richdorf Drive to the lake with an open channel. 4. Adding a new storm sewer north on Richdorf Drive to the Sochurek property, then east on the Sochurek property (via an easement that would have to be acquired) to the lake. 5. Grade an open channel between the houses at S75 W19020 Circle Drive and S75 W18970 Circle Drive, to convey excess surface flow from the low point on Circle Drive to the lake. The hydraulic analysis of these alternatives included an analysis of the effects of the 100-year Little Muskego Lake floodplain elevation of 794.2 on the upstream stormwater system hydraulics. Alternatives Determined to be Infeasible Alternative 1 was determined to be infeasible because there was not enough vertical clearance to fit the needed pipe size without the pipe sticking out of the ground, even using a horizontal elliptical pipe or rectangular pipe. Alternative 3 was determined to be infeasible because a large enough open channel could not be placed between the two adjacent houses to convey the 100-year flood while using acceptable side slopes. (The reason a concrete box sewer will provide the necessary conveyance here is its reduced hydraulic roughness). The remaining alternatives appeared to be feasible and the relative advantages/disadvantages were reviewed for each alternative. A conceptual construction cost estimate was also developed for each alternative. Replacing the existing corrugated metal arch culvert with a larger concrete box culvert (Alternative 2 from the above list) XPSWMM hydrologic/hydraulic computer modeling indicates that replacing the existing 48” x 68” corrugated metal arch culvert with an 11’ wide x 4’ high concrete box culvert will reduce the 100-year peak water elevation at Circle Drive and Richdorf Drive from City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 5 798.35 feet to 795.9 feet. In addition to this new pipe, a portion of the swale in the south side of Circle Drive North, east of Richdorf drive, would have to be raised 2 feet to an elevation of 796.5 to limit surface overflow to the east, and some swale regrading would be required to redirect flow away from this new high point. Also, under this alternative the Circle Drive relief storm sewer should be bulkheaded at Richdorf Drive (while remaining in service further east). These improvements will reduce the estimated peak 100-year water elevation at the Circle Drive low point to an elevation of 795.1 which is below the garage floor at S75 W19020 Circle Drive. The garage floor has an elevation of 795.77 and is the critical low point in this area. The estimated construction cost for this alternative is: Construction subtotal $468,000 Construction contingency (25%) $117,000 Construction subtotal with contingency $585,000 Engineering, admin, legal, etc.(20%) $117,000 Total estimated cost $702,000 The bulk of this project cost is in the 11x4 box culvert, including a higher-than-usual unit pricing where there will be tight clearances between the two houses and difficult construction maneuvering / staging. The estimate also includes temporary sheet pile shoring which would likely be necessary for trenching areas in close proximity to the existing houses.. The easement for the existing culvert is 10 feet wide, and modeling indicates that an 11- foot-wide inner width box culvert would be required to manage the 100-year peak storm flow. The outer width of the box culvert would be larger. Therefore, a narrow strip of additional permanent easement would have to be acquired under this alternative. Temporary construction easements would also be necessary. The estimated project cost listed above does not include the cost of these easements. If this project were selected for design and construction, an evaluation would be done during the design phase to determine if a 12x4 rectangular cross section would be a more appropriate pipe size than an 11x4 cross section, based on typical availability and pricing of these sections. City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 6 Install a new storm sewer north on Richdorf Drive to the Sochurek property, (Alternative 4 from the above list) Another route for additional conveyance to the lake is to install a new storm sewer from the intersection of Richdorf Drive and Circle Drive North, north along Richdorf Drive, to the “Sochurek property” at W191S7500 Richdorf Drive. The storm sewer will then run south of the Sochurek house into the backyard and to a new lake outfall. The existing arch metal culvert to the lake would be left in place. XPSWMM modeling indicates that a 6’ x 4’ rectangular concrete box culvert would manage the 100-year design event, resulting in a peak water elevation of 796.1 at the northeast corner of the intersection of Richdorf Drive and Circle Drive North. The Sochurek house and property is currently abandoned; the owner recently passed away and apparently has no heirs, so the status of the estate is uncertain. A permanent easement or right of way would have to be acquired on this property, as well as temporary easements for construction. In this alternative, like the previous one, the elevation of the ground on the south side of Circle Drive North, just east of Richdorf drive, would have to be raised to approximately 796.5 to limit surface overflow to the east. Also, under this alternative the Circle Drive relief storm sewer should be bulkheaded at Richdorf Drive. These modifications would reduce the estimated 100-year peak water elevation at the Circle Drive North low point to 796.1, below the elevation of the nearby floodprone garage. The preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is $546,000, as shown in the table below. Construction subtotal $364,000 Construction contingency (25%) $91,000 Construction subtotal with contingency $455,000 Engineering, admin, legal, etc.(20%) $91,000 Total estimated cost $546,000 As with the previous alternative, this alternative does not include the costs of land and easement acquisition. This alternative requires a longer run of new rectangular box culvert compared to the previous alternative (420 feet vs. 290 feet). However, initial construction cost estimates are lower for this project. Primary reasons include the significantly smaller sewer cross City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 7 section (6x4 vs. 11x4) and the fact that trenching and pipe installation will not be as tightly constrained along this route (for example, there appears to be a lesser chance of the need for temporary sheet piling to shore the trench sides in close proximity to buildings). However, this cost does not account for the replacement of the existing arch CMP, which is anticipated to be needed in the next ten-fifteen years because of pipe age and condition, regardless of whether its conveyance is increased or not. Construct an open channel between two houses on the north side of Circle Drive North to the lake, (Alternative 5 from the above list) In this alternative, a swale or shallow open channel would be excavated from the low point on the north side of Circle Drive North (in front of S75 W19020 Circle Drive), to the side lot line between this house and the house to the east, through the backyard and to the lake. This channel would convey surface runoff overflow that accumulates in the vicinity. XPSWMM modeling predicts that the 100-year peak water elevation adjacent to the garage at S75W19020 would be reduced to 795.5. This is just below the garage floor elevation of 795.77. One disadvantage / constraint for this alternative is the space between the two houses. To achieve enough capacity in the channel, the channel bottom would be excavated to an elevation of 793, from the existing ground elevation of approximately 796. Part of the grading would occur on the property to the east. With 3:1 side slopes on the channel, excavation would need to start about 5 feet from each house side wall. Therefore, the existing paved drive/parking area on the side of S75W19020 would have to be removed. This would still leave five feet of flatter ground for a walkway along the side of the house. Several utility service lines would also have to be relocated, and several large trees will likely have to be removed. An alternative for a shallower swale that preserved the paved area alongside the house was also hydraulically evaluated, but did not provide enough capacity. While this alternative appears to reduce the predicted 100-year peak water elevation below the low garage elevation, it does not provide as much freeboard (a margin of safety) as the alternatives of installing new pipes to the lake. With this swale, the 100- year peak water elevation is estimated to be 0.3 feet below the garage elevation, vs. 0.7 feet below with the new pipe alternatives. A larger / deeper swale to reduce this peak elevation further does not appear to be feasible, based on space constraints where the swale would pass between the two houses. The estimated cost for this option is $102,000, as shown in the next table. City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 8 Construction subtotal $68,000 Construction contingency (25%) $17,000 Construction subtotal with contingency $85,000 Engineering, admin, legal, etc.(20%) $17,000 Total estimated cost $102,000 This does not include the costs of land easements. Another disadvantage of this alternative is that it does not reduce peak flood elevations along Richdorf Drive significantly, unlike the previous two alternatives which draw down the water around the intersection of Richdorf and Circle Drive North. The peak water surface at the intake to the existing culvert is reduced to 797.8 Therefore, there will still be substantial backwater on the upstream Richdorf Drive drainage system, which floods the low area at the Racine/Richdorf duplexes, as will be discussed later in this report. Floodproofing of three properties on Circle Drive North An alternative to pursuing a reduction in the peak water elevation on Circle Drive North is flood proofing the properties to minimize damage that occurs during high water events. A berm would be built across the front yards of the three houses to block floodwater from the structure. A key issue for this alternative is that part of the driveways must also be raised to keep floodwater from reaching the garage openings. However, it is assumed that the existing garage floor elevation must be maintained. Therefore, the driveways will have to be regraded and repaved to create an elevated section of the driveway that is higher than the expected 100-year peak water elevation, while sloping back down to the existing elevation of the public street and the garage floor. Based on available space, this will require driveway slopes up to 10%. The raised driveways and berms will also create small enclosed areas that are not connected to the rest of the drainage system. A method of draining these areas by gravity or pumping must be provided. For the two properties on the north side of Circle Drive, gravity drainage around the sides of the houses and to the north would be possible, using shallow swales or underground drain tile. For the property on the south side of the road, piping could be provided to drain the enclosed area to the roadside swale during low flow events, but during high flow events the water outside of the berm would surcharge back through the drainage pipe, so backflow prevention would have to be used. Therefore, a means of draining the enclosed area during high flow events needs to be provided. A small stormwater pump station appears to be the only feasible way of doing that. City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 9 The estimated cost for this option is $276,000, as shown in the table below. Construction subtotal $184,000 Construction contingency (25%) $46,000 Construction subtotal with contingency $230,000 Engineering, admin, legal, etc.(20%) $46,000 Total estimated cost $276,000 A major cost item in this alternative is the stormwater pumping station for the driveway of S75W18983 Circle Drive. That item is estimated to have a construction cost (without contingency or engineering) of $45,000. The estimated pumping rate to control the 100- year rainfall event is 200 gpm. Redundancies such as two pumps and a standby natural-gas generator would be included. There are several disadvantages of this alternative that should be considered in addition to reliance on a stormwater pumping station. This alternative does not reduce peak water elevations on the roads and only protects selected private properties from those high water elevations. Therefore, road flooding will continue to occur. The road flooding will make it impossible to implement conveyance improvements to reduce the peak water elevations in the Racine Ave. / Richdorf Drive area, as backwater from Circle Drive extends all the way to that area. Also, the driveway berming will affect the ease-of-use of those driveways, though the 10% slope will still be within the maximum driveway slope allowed by the City of Muskego. Flood Mitigation Alternatives: Racine Avenue / Richdorf Drive duplexes In existing conditions, the peak floodwater elevations in the vicinity of Richdorf Drive and Circle Drive North extend all the way up Richdorf Drive, to the floodprone duplexes at the intersection of Richdorf Drive and Racine Avenue. Therefore, unless steps are first taken to reduce the peak water elevations at Circle Drive North, there are no feasible alternatives to reduce the peak water elevations at the Racine/Richdorf area. However, there are several floodproofing options that would protect the Racine/Richdorf area duplexes against the existing high water elevations. However, even if downstream water elevations were reduced, the 100-year peak flood elevation at Richdorf/Racine is still predicted to be above the duplex lower floor elevations because of severe capacity restraints in the drainage system between this area and Circle Drive North. Therefore, a project would be needed to increase stormwater conveyance on the north and west sides of Richdorf Drive, from Racine Avenue to Circle Drive North. City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 10 Conveyance alternative: If a project were implemented at Richdorf / Circle Drive North to reduce water elevations there (such as replacement of the existing culvert to the lake, or installation of a relief storm sewer to the Sochurek property), then it would be feasible to reduce water elevations at the Richdorf / Racine area by increasing the capacity of the Richdorf Drive drainage system. We first evaluated the possibility of greatly enlarging the roadside swale/ditch on the north and west sides of Richdorf Drive, and replacing the existing driveway culverts with much larger driveway culverts. However, updated hydraulic modeling indicates that this is not an alternative that would reduce the 100-year peak elevation below the elevation of the duplex ground floor. The head losses in the numerous transitions between open ditch flow and culvert flow increased the hydraulic grade line too much. Therefore, we then considered an enclosed storm sewer along this route instead. The modeling indicates that a 7’ x 4’ rectangular concrete storm sewer (for a distance of approximately 700 feet) would be hydraulically adequate for the 100- year event. Some surface grading, repaving and piping would also be required in the rear yard/driveway area of the duplexes, in order to better drain this area to the new storm sewer. This estimated cost of this alternative is: Construction subtotal $680,000 Construction contingency (25%) $170,000 Construction subtotal with contingency $850,000 Engineering, admin, legal, etc.(20%) $170,000 Total estimated cost $1,020,000 This cost is in addition to the implementation of a downstream alternative which lowers the peak hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevation at Circle Drive, which is estimated to cost in the range of $550,000 to $700,000. Other downstream alternatives, such as the Circle Drive side yard swale or the Circle Drive floodproofing, do not provide the necessary HGL reduction. Floodproofing option #1: Driveway berming to protect existing garages If the existing 100-year water elevation on Richdorf Drive adjacent to the duplexes cannot be lowered, then floodproofing of the structures would be required to reduce flood damages. We evaluated two floodproofing options. The first option would be to create a high point in the driveway between the garage/ground floor and the roadway, and connect this high point to yard berming, blocking floodwater from the structure. This City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 11 alternative appears topographically feasible. Similar to the Circle Drive floodproofing option, driveway slopes will need to be at or close to 10% to approach the high point from either side, which will affect ease of use of the driveway. Also, this berming and regrading will create internally drained areas that will have no gravity drainage outlet during high flow events, like the Circle Drive floodproofing option. Pumping appears to be the only feasible option to drain the enclosed area during large runoff events. Therefore, a stormwater pump station with a capacity of approximately 400 gpm would be required. The estimated cost of this alternative is: Construction subtotal $134,000 Construction contingency (25%) $34,000 Construction subtotal with contingency $168,000 Engineering, admin, legal, etc.(20%) $34,000 Total estimated cost $202,000 The single most costly component of this alternative is the stormwater pumping station, including multiple pumps and a standby natural-gas generator. Floodproofing option #2: Convert garages to interior space, floodproof rear walls of duplexes A second floodproofing option was considered for the Racine / Richdorf duplexes, in which the rear (northeast) wall of the structures would be permanently closed off and floodproofed. (In contrast with Option 1, where the garage openings would remain and continue to be used). Water would be allowed to pond against/near the building or surrounding fill, but all current entrance points below the peak 100-year water elevation would be sealed off, and the exterior wall would be reconstructed to reduce the possibility of leakage. It is difficult to estimate a detailed scope and cost of construction prior to doing a detailed inspection and structural assessment of the existing duplexes, but this floodproofing alternative is likely to include all or most of the following components. 1. Reinforce, extend or replace the existing foundation along the rear wall, if a structural assessment indicates it would allow significant water infiltration in its current condition, could not safely support the reconstructed exterior wall that City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 12 would be placed above it, or could not support the expected hydrostatic and buoyancy forces that occur during a flood. 2. Replace all or portions of the rear exterior walls with watertight concrete or masonry construction that is designed to withstand the expected hydrostatic forces during a flood event. 3. Close off all existing garage doors, entry doors and windows that are below the estimated 100-year flood elevation (plus an allowance for freeboard). 4. Remodel the existing garages into other interior space. 5. Provide outdoor parking elsewhere on the property (ideally on a pad raised above the expected 100-year flood elevation). Or provide covered parking, though our cost estimate does not include replacement garages or carports. 6. Construct new rear entry doors into each unit that are inside of small concrete watertight stairwells, with the tops of the stairwells above the 100-year flood elevation so the stair structures would act as flood barriers. Consideration will be required on how to drain any water that will collect at the bottom of these stairwells – a direct piped connection to the nearest swale cannot be made without backflow prevention; otherwise floodwater would be able to bypass the stairwell barrier. 7. Install new windows in the rear exterior wall above the 100-year flood elevation (plus freeboard), or install watertight glass block windows. 8. Elevate or relocate the existing mechanical and HVAC equipment that is currently located at existing ground levels outside of the rear wall. 9. Backfill and grade against the new wall to provide positive drainage away from the buildings. 10. Apply sealants or other waterproofing to foundations and walls that will be below the 100-year flood elevation. 11. Regrade/restore the rear driveway/parking area. As mentioned above, a detailed cost estimate for this alternative cannot be developed until a detailed site inspection and structural assessment is done to determine which of the above items will be necessary. Also, discussions with the property owner should be held prior to development of a detailed cost estimate, to confirm what the scope of remodeling of the interior space will be and how parking will be provided for. Our very preliminary cost estimate for this type of project is for a $83,000 construction cost without contingency, a $104,000 construction cost if a 25% construction contingency is added in, and a $124,000 total cost when a 20% allowance for design, construction management, administration and other miscellaneous costs are added in. The important finding is that this alternative is likely to be 50-70% of the cost of the floodproofing option that keeps the garages and installs a stormwater pumping station, and hundreds of thousands of dollars less than installing a new storm sewer in Richdorf Drive to serve this area. City of Muskego: Circle/Richdorf Flooding Area February 17, 2012 Page 13 Conclusions The two alternatives recommended for final consideration to address the Circle Drive flooding are: 1. Replacement of the existing culvert to the lake with a new rectangular box culvert or 2. Construct an open channel/swale between two houses on the north side of Circle Drive north to the lake The culvert option has the higher cost than the swale option but will reduce peak water elevations on and adjacent to Richdorf Drive, not just the low properties on Circle Drive North. This reduced HGL would also allow conveyance improvements to be made on Richdorf Drive to reduce upstream flood elevations at some point in the future (though those upstream conveyance improvements are not recommended at this time). The swale in the side yard between the two Circle Drive houses appears to be much less expensive. The new swale would require negotiation with two new residents and a change in the potential use of areas of their property. The new storm sewer route to the Sochurek property is not recommended at this time because the existing culvert is anticipated to require replacement in the next ten years anyway because of the age and condition of the metal pipe, even if no conveyance improvements were made. The City prefers to operate and maintain one large conveyance route to the lake rather than two. If for some reason, the City could not come to terms with residents regarding replacing the aging corrugated metal pipe with a new box culvert or the construction of a new open channel/swale, this alternative would be a viable substitute. The Circle Drive floodproofing option is not recommended because of its reliance on a stormwater pumping station which has increased operational and maintenance expenses and a higher potential for failure, even with the redundant pumps and backup generator that would be recommended. Also, the driveway regrading would have an impact on ease-of-use and aesthetics of the driveways and front yards. The alternative recommended for the Racine/Richdorf flooding location is Floodproofing option #2, the conversion of the existing duplex garages to other interior space, provide alternate parking, and permanently floodproofing the rear walls of the duplexes. This alternative appears to be much less expensive than either a floodproofing option requiring a stormwater pump station, or a major storm sewer installation on Richdorf Drive, while still minimizing damage to private property during the 100-year event if done properly. The next recommended step for this solution is to conduct a home inspection and structural assessment of the rear wall / garage area of the duplexes, to refine the scope of the floodproofing work and refine the construction cost estimate. CITY OF MUSKEGO Public Works Committee To: Public Works Committee From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject: Intersection Improvement Analysis- Woods Road & Moorland Road Date: July 12, 2013 The intersection of Woods Road and Moorland Road is currently a four way stop controlled intersection. During morning and afternoon peak hour traffic the intersection is experiencing high wait times. The Public Works Committee asked that we move ahead with an intersection improvement alternatives analysis and it has been completed in its draft form. The attached report outlines the findings. A representative from GRAEF will also be at the meeting to discuss the results and answer questions. It should be noted that I have applied for a grant that may allow for partial funding of the construction of a roundabout at this intersection but the decision will not be available until approximately December of this year. Recommendation for Action: Move ahead with placing design funding and construction funding into the Capital Improvement Plan for 2015 and 2016 respectively and continue discussion during budgeting meetings. One Honey Creek Corporate Center 125 South 84th Street, Suite 401 Milwaukee, WI 53214-1470 414 / 259 1500 414 / 259 0037 fax www.graef-usa.com MEMORANDUM TO: David Simpson, P.E. FROM: Shana Mogensen, P.E., PTOE DATE: July 11, 2013 SUBJECT: Woods Road & Moorland Road/Durham Drive Intersection Alternatives Study City of Muskego, Wisconsin Introduction The Woods Road intersection with Moorland Road/Durham Drive currently experiences congestion during the peak periods. The City of Muskego is planning for future capacity improvements for the intersection. GRAEF has prepared this study to evaluate improvements for three types of intersection traffic control including the existing all-way stop, roundabout and traffic signal. The study includes a safety assessment, traffic forecasts, signal warrant analysis, traffic operational analyses, conceptual intersection layouts and cost estimates. This technical memorandum documents the procedures, findings and recommendations of this intersection alternatives study. Study Area The Woods Road and Moorland Road/Durham Drive intersection is located in a residential area as shown on Exhibit 1. The intersection currently operates under all-way stop control with single lane approaches. The study area roadways are discussed below. Woods Road is an east-west two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph). According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), the Year 2012 annual average daily traffic (AADT) along Woods Road ranged from 7,600 vehicles per day (vpd) west of Moorland Road/Durham Drive to 4,800 vpd west of Tess Corners Drive. Moorland Road/Durham Drive is a north-south two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph in the vicinity of Woods Road. The roadway is designated as Moorland Road north of Woods Road and Durham Drive to the south of Woods Road. According to the WisDOT, the Year 2012 AADT for Moorland Road was 8,700 vpd south of CTH L (Janesville Road) and 5,400 vpd south of Woods Road. 2013-0170 -2- July 11, 2013 Safety Assessment The City provided crash reports for the study area intersection for the most recent five year period (January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2012). During the five years, ten crashes were reported at the intersection. It should be noted that property damage crashes with less than $1,000 of damage do not need to be reported in Wisconsin. Table 1 summarizes the type and severity of the crashes. Table 1 Year 2008-2012 Intersection Crash Summary Crash Type Crash Severity Total Property Damage Only Injury Fatal Angle 5 0 0 5 Sideswipe Opposite Direction 0 1 0 1 Single Vehicle 4 0 0 4 Total 9 1 0 10 For comparison purposes, intersection crash rates are expressed as crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) to account for the traffic volumes. Typically crash rates exceeding 1.0 crash per MEV should be evaluated further to identify safety enhancements. The study area intersection has a crash rate of 0.43 crashes per MEV and there isn’t a specific crash pattern than would warrant the need for further study. Existing Traffic In May of 2013, GRAEF conducted a turning movement traffic count at the Woods Road intersection with Moorland Road/Durham Drive. Based on the traffic count, the weekday morning peak hour was identified to be 7:00 to 8:00 am and the weekday evening peak hour was identified to be 4:45 to 5:45 pm. The existing (Year 2013) peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 2. The intersection traffic count is included in Appendix 1. Traffic Forecasts GRAEF evaluated the trends of the historic annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes for Woods Road, Moorland Road and Durham Drive in the vicinity of this intersection. Based on historic and anticipated traffic growth for this area, an annual growth rate of 1.5% was applied to the existing traffic to develop the traffic forecasts. The trips expected to be generated by Phase 2 and 3 of Belle Chasse development (86 total homes) are included in the traffic forecasts. For the purpose of this study, construction was estimated to occur in the Year 2015. The daily traffic forecasts for the anticipated construction year (Year 2015) and design year (Year 2035) are summarized in Table 2. 2013-0170 -3- July 11, 2013 Table 2 Daily Traffic Forecasts Existing AADT (Year 2012) Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Forecasts Year 2015 Year 2035 Woods Road (West of Moorland Road/Durham Drive) 7,600 8,000 10,700 Woods Road (West of Tess Corners Drive) 4,800 5,000 6,800 Moorland Road (South of CTH L) 8,100 8,500 11,400 Durham Drive (South of Woods Road) 5,400 5,700 7,600 As shown in Table 2, the Year 2035 AADT forecasts on Woods Road range from 10,700 vehicles per day (vpd) west of Moorland Road/Durham Drive to 6,800 vpd west of Tess Corners Drive. The Year 2035 forecasts on Moorland Road/Durham Drive range from 11,400 vpd south of CTH L to 7,600 vpd south of Woods Road. The design year (Year 2035) peak hour traffic volumes for the study area intersection are shown on Exhibit 3. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis The existing traffic volumes for the Woods Road intersection with Moorland Road/Durham Drive were compared to the warrants for traffic signal installation set forth in the 2009 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. The existing (Year 2013) traffic volumes do not meet any warrants for a traffic signal. It is estimated that the Year 2025 traffic will meet Warrant 2 (Four Hour Volume) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume). Unwarranted traffic signals can result in excessive delay, disobedience of the signal indications and increases in the frequency of crashes (especially rear end crashes). The signal warrant analyses are provided in Appendix 2. Traffic Operational Analysis Level of Service Definition The study area intersection was analyzed using procedures set forth in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Level of Service (LOS) is a quantitative measure that refers to the overall quality of flow at an intersection ranging from very good, represented by LOS ‘A’, to very poor, represented by LOS ‘F’. For analysis and design purposes, Level of Service (LOS) ‘D’ was used to define acceptable peak hour operating conditions. Table 3 summarizes the delay associated with the levels of service. 2013-0170 -4- July 11, 2013 Table 3 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Designations Stop Control & Roundabouts Traffic Signals Average Delay per Vehicle Average Delay per Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) A <10.0 <10.0 B 10.1 – 15.0 10.1 – 20.0 C 15.1 – 25.0 20.1 – 35.0 D 25.1 – 35.0 35.1 – 55.0 E 35.1 – 50.0 55.1 – 80.0 F >50.0 >80.0 Existing (Year 2013) Traffic Analysis Table 4 shows the existing (Year 2013) peak hour operating conditions with the existing all-way stop control and intersection geometrics. Table 4 Existing (Year 2013) Peak Hour Traffic Operations With All-Way Stop Control & Existing Geometrics Peak Hour Traffic Operations Traffic Operations per Movement by Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Al l - W a y S t o p Co n t r o l & E x i s t i n g Ge o m e t r i c s AM LOS E C E C Delay (sec) 41.7 17.9 37.9 18.6 Queue (feet) 250’ 75’ 225’ 75’ PM LOS D D C F Delay (sec) 28.8 26.2 23.4 68.2 Queue (feet) 150’ 125’ 100’ 350’ Note: Traffic queues represent the 95th percentile queue. As shown in Table 4, the northbound and eastbound approaches currently operate at LOS E conditions during the morning peak hour and the southbound approach operates at LOS F conditions during the evening peak hour. The existing traffic analysis is included in Appendix 3. Alternatives Analysis The three improvement alternatives identified for the Woods Road intersection with Moorland Road/Durham Drive are summarized below. All-Way Stop Alternative: The intersection continues to operate under all-way stop control operation with the intersection geometrics illustrated on Exhibit 4. Roundabout Alternative: The intersection operates under single lane roundabout control. Exhibit 5 shows a conceptual layout of the roundabout. Traffic Signal Alternative: The intersection operates under fully actuated traffic signal control. The intersection geometry for the traffic signal alternative is shown on Exhibit 6. 2013-0170 -5- July 11, 2013 Table 5 shows the design year (Year 2035) peak hour operating conditions for the three alternatives with the recommended geometrics. Table 5 Design Year (Year 2035) Peak Hour Traffic Operations Peak Hour Traffic Operations Traffic Operations per Movement by Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Al l - W a y S t o p Al t e r n a t i v e AM LOS D F E C C F C C C Delay (sec) 29.1 78.2 37.2 15.6 19.8 79.6 18.0 23.9 15.8 Queue (feet) 125’ 300’ 150’ 25’ 50’ 300’ 50’ 75’ 25’ PM LOS C F F C C F C F C Delay (sec) 22.5 83.6 85.2 17.8 23.0 61.3 19.2 83.5 20.8 Queue (feet) 50’ 300’ 275’ 50’ 50’ 225’ 50’ 300’ 75’ Ro u n d a b o u t Al t e r n a t i v e AM LOS B B D A Delay (sec) 13.4 14.6 27.8 8.4 Queue (feet) 125’ 100’ 250’ 50’ PM LOS C C B D Delay (sec) 15.3 12.2 10.3 30.2 Queue (feet) 125’ 100’ 75’ 300’ Tr a f f i c S i g n a l Al t e r n a t i v e AM LOS B B B B B B B B B B B Delay (sec) 18.3 12.9 11.4 15.1 12.2 11.1 13.3 14.3 19.9 10.5 10.0 Queue (feet) 120’ 135’ 60’ 25’ 105’ 45’ 70’ 230’ 55’ 75’ 45’ PM LOS C B B B B B B B B B A Delay (sec) 20.1 13.5 12.9 15.2 14.6 12.6 19.9 10.4 13.4 12.8 9.7 Queue (feet) 70’ 100’ 65’ 25’ 145’ 55’ 75’ 115’ 50’ 215’ 70’ Note: Traffic queues represent the 95th percentile queue. As shown in Table 5, specific movements are expected to operate unacceptably at LOS F conditions during the peak hours under all-way stop control. All movements are expected to operate acceptably at LOS D or better conditions with a single lane roundabout. For the traffic signal alternative, all movements are expected to operate acceptably at LOS C or better conditions. The Year 2035 traffic analysis is included in Appendix 4. Alternatives Comparison The all-way stop control alternative is expected to experience unacceptable delays during the peak hours. Therefore, the all-way stop control alternative is not a feasible improvement. Conceptual layouts for the roundabout and traffic signal alternatives are shown on Exhibits 5 and 6 respectively. Conceptual level cost estimates were developed for the two alternatives and are included in Appendix 5. Topographic survey is needed to design the intersection vertically and determine grading limits, utility impacts and costs. Table 6 compares the safety, traffic operations, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, maintenance, right-of-way impacts and construction cost estimates for the two alternatives. 2013-0170 -6- July 11, 2013 Table 6 Alternatives Comparison Roundabout Alternative Traffic Signal Alternative Safety Slower speeds than traffic signal resulting in less severe crashes. Roundabout geometry helps eliminate head-on and angle crash types. Higher speeds than roundabout and can result in more severe crashes. Installation of unwarranted traffic signals can increase the number of crashes. Traffic Operations Traffic yields, nonstop, continuous traffic flow. All movements are expected to operate at Level of Service D or better conditions in Year 2035. Less delay than traffic signal during off- peak hours. Cannot provide explicit priority to specific users (emergency vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles) unless supplemental traffic control devices are provided. All movements are expected to operate at Level of Service C or better conditions in Year 2035. Longer delay than roundabouts during off-peak hours. During emergencies, signalized intersections can preempt control. Pedestrian & Bicycle Accommodations Splitter islands provide pedestrian refuge and shorter one-directional traffic crossing. Pedestrians only need to consider one direction of traffic at a time. Pedestrians, especially handicapped, may experience increased delay in securing acceptable gaps to cross. Pedestrians with vision impairments may have the most trouble establishing safe opportunities to cross. Bicycles may have more difficulty navigating the roundabout. Cyclists traveling in specific directions may need to travel on the roadway through the roundabout unless sidewalk is added around the entire roundabout. Signal allows for pedestrian actuation to receive a walk phase for crossings. A 5 foot bicycle accommodation is provided on a paved shoulder allowing cyclists room to travel through the intersection without sharing a lane. Maintenance Central island landscaping Intersection lighting Maintenance of traffic signal with lighting Right-of-Way Impacts 0.10 acres in southwest quadrant 0.01 acres in southwest quadrant Construction Cost Estimate * $ 674,750 $ 786,000 * Construction cost estimate is based on conceptual level design and does not include utility impacts or cost for grading easements. 2013-0170 -7- July 11, 2013 Conclusions Based on the traffic analysis, the all-way stop alternative is expected to experience unacceptable delays with the design year (Year 2035) traffic and therefore is not a feasible improvement. The roundabout and traffic signal alternatives are expected to operate acceptably with the Year 2035 traffic. The existing traffic does not meet any warrants for a traffic signal and warrants are not expected to be met until approximately Year 2025. Unwarranted traffic signals can result in excessive delay, disobedience of the signal indications and increases in the frequency of crashes (especially rear end crashes). Therefore it is not recommended to install a traffic signal until it is warranted. Consider further investigation of the roundabout alternative through the design process. L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Reports\130711 Draft\130711 Draft Intersection Alternatives Study.doc EXHIBIT 1 STUDY AREA WOODS ROAD & MOORLAND ROAD/DURHAM DRIVE INTERSECTION MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project Information\Reports\130711 Draft Exhibits.cdr NORTH NOT TO SCALE W oods R o a d D u r h a m D r i v e Moorland Road Study Intersection EXHIBIT 2 EXISTING (YEAR 2013) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WOODS ROAD & MOORLAND ROAD/DURHAM DRIVE INTERSECTION MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN STOP SIGN WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR (7:00 - 8:00 AM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR (4:45 - 5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND XXX (XXX) NORTH NOT TO SCALE L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project Information\Reports\130711 Draft Exhibits.cdr Draft Woods Road (90) 150 (145) 200 (80) 70 55 (70) 155 (215) 5 (10) ( 8 5 ) 9 0 (1 7 0 ) 3 0 0 (5 ) 1 0 60 ( 1 0 5 ) 110 ( 3 1 5 ) 60 ( 6 5 ) Du r h a m D r i v e Mo o r l a n d R o a d EXHIBIT 3 DESIGN YEAR (YEAR 2035) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WOODS ROAD & MOORLAND ROAD/DURHAM DRIVE INTERSECTION MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN STOP SIGN WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR (7:00 - 8:00 AM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR (4:45 - 5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND XXX (XXX) NORTH NOT TO SCALE L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project Information\Reports\130711 Draft Exhibits.cdr Draft Woods Road (125) 210 (205) 280 (120) 105 80 (100) 220 (300) 15 (20) ( 1 2 5 ) 1 3 0 (2 6 0 ) 4 5 0 (1 5 ) 2 0 85 ( 1 5 0 ) 16 5 ( 4 7 5 ) 85 ( 9 5 ) Du r h a m D r i v e Mo o r l a n d R o a d EXHIBIT 4 ALL-WAY STOP ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS WOODS ROAD & MOORLAND ROAD/DURHAM DRIVE INTERSECTION MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN STOP SIGN RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS LEGEND NORTH NOT TO SCALE L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project Information\Reports\130711 Draft Exhibits.cdr Draft Woods Road Du r h a m D r i v e Mo o r l a n d R o a d Appendix 1 Intersection Traffic Count 125 S. 84th Street, Suite 401 Milwaukee, WI 53214-1470 (414) 259-1500 File Name : Woods&Durham Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/21/2013 Page No : 1 Woods Rd & Moorland Road/Durham Drive Weekday Traffic Count Muskego, WI 2013-0170 Groups Printed- Cars - Buses - Trucks Moorland Road From North Woods Road From East Durham Drive From South Woods Road From West Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Exclu. Total Inclu. Total Int. Total 06:00 AM 3 9 1 0 13 0 13 8 0 21 1 25 0 0 26 19 21 8 0 48 0 108 108 06:15 AM 7 17 1 0 25 2 3 10 0 15 4 41 0 0 45 18 23 16 0 57 0 142 142 06:30 AM 12 23 8 0 43 1 17 5 0 23 13 49 2 0 64 24 25 19 4 68 4 198 202 06:45 AM 7 22 11 0 40 1 29 7 0 37 24 56 1 0 81 41 34 14 1 89 1 247 248 Total 29 71 21 0 121 4 62 30 0 96 42 171 3 0 216 102 103 57 5 262 5 695 700 07:00 AM 15 24 21 0 60 1 54 12 0 67 33 72 1 0 106 32 48 16 1 96 1 329 330 07:15 AM 14 32 9 0 55 2 35 16 0 53 14 64 2 0 80 51 47 18 2 116 2 304 306 07:30 AM 16 31 15 0 62 0 36 12 0 48 27 78 3 0 108 28 53 13 0 94 0 312 312 07:45 AM 13 23 14 0 50 1 28 13 1 42 16 85 1 0 102 39 51 20 0 110 1 304 305 Total 58 110 59 0 227 4 153 53 1 210 90 299 7 0 396 150 199 67 3 416 4 1249 1253 08:00 AM 10 22 13 0 45 0 17 7 0 24 6 49 2 0 57 21 25 9 1 55 1 181 182 08:15 AM 5 24 8 0 37 0 17 8 0 25 10 48 1 0 59 20 22 11 0 53 0 174 174 08:30 AM 9 23 13 0 45 1 17 8 0 26 5 41 0 0 46 30 33 9 1 72 1 189 190 08:45 AM 5 24 6 0 35 2 14 7 0 23 7 44 2 0 53 25 18 7 1 50 1 161 162 Total 29 93 40 0 162 3 65 30 0 98 28 182 5 0 215 96 98 36 3 230 3 705 708 09:00 AM 4 20 12 0 36 2 12 12 1 26 6 32 0 1 38 27 18 4 1 49 3 149 152 09:15 AM 6 19 10 0 35 1 13 9 0 23 8 31 1 0 40 24 20 7 1 51 1 149 150 09:30 AM 8 17 7 0 32 0 15 6 0 21 9 31 1 0 41 21 20 9 1 50 1 144 145 09:45 AM 6 26 7 0 39 1 10 9 0 20 4 23 0 1 27 18 17 4 4 39 5 125 130 Total 24 82 36 0 142 4 50 36 1 90 27 117 2 2 146 90 75 24 7 189 10 567 577 10:00 AM 10 16 8 0 34 1 13 8 0 22 5 21 1 1 27 14 18 4 2 36 3 119 122 10:15 AM 6 23 14 0 43 0 20 7 0 27 5 32 3 0 40 21 16 11 3 48 3 158 161 10:30 AM 10 20 11 1 41 3 20 12 0 35 8 31 0 0 39 20 24 5 3 49 4 164 168 10:45 AM 6 29 12 0 47 0 20 10 0 30 10 31 0 0 41 23 12 4 3 39 3 157 160 Total 32 88 45 1 165 4 73 37 0 114 28 115 4 1 147 78 70 24 11 172 13 598 611 11:00 AM 10 17 15 0 42 2 19 8 0 29 8 24 3 0 35 7 19 9 1 35 1 141 142 11:15 AM 9 16 14 0 39 2 20 4 0 26 5 29 0 0 34 20 9 12 0 41 0 140 140 11:30 AM 14 38 20 1 72 1 17 11 0 29 3 27 2 0 32 16 16 11 0 43 1 176 177 11:45 AM 9 21 18 0 48 2 12 5 0 19 11 22 1 1 34 17 22 8 1 47 2 148 150 Total 42 92 67 1 201 7 68 28 0 103 27 102 6 1 135 60 66 40 2 166 4 605 609 125 S. 84th Street, Suite 401 Milwaukee, WI 53214-1470 (414) 259-1500 File Name : Woods&Durham Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/21/2013 Page No : 2 Woods Rd & Moorland Road/Durham Drive Weekday Traffic Count Muskego, WI 2013-0170 Groups Printed- Cars - Buses - Trucks Moorland Road From North Woods Road From East Durham Drive From South Woods Road From West Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Exclu. Total Inclu. Total Int. Total 12:00 PM 2 31 17 0 50 2 10 11 0 23 10 30 1 0 41 11 18 8 0 37 0 151 151 12:15 PM 10 30 13 0 53 3 18 9 0 30 7 20 1 0 28 17 21 9 1 47 1 158 159 12:30 PM 6 25 14 0 45 2 19 11 0 32 10 29 5 0 44 20 19 15 0 54 0 175 175 12:45 PM 3 28 19 0 50 1 18 9 1 28 8 20 0 0 28 14 14 9 0 37 1 143 144 Total 21 114 63 0 198 8 65 40 1 113 35 99 7 0 141 62 72 41 1 175 2 627 629 01:00 PM 16 25 18 0 59 1 16 6 0 23 6 30 1 0 37 21 13 12 1 46 1 165 166 01:15 PM 12 34 20 0 66 2 13 8 0 23 5 25 2 0 32 16 20 12 0 48 0 169 169 01:30 PM 12 23 18 0 53 0 25 8 0 33 10 27 2 0 39 17 22 6 0 45 0 170 170 01:45 PM 12 26 8 0 46 1 18 8 0 27 10 20 0 0 30 11 28 6 0 45 0 148 148 Total 52 108 64 0 224 4 72 30 0 106 31 102 5 0 138 65 83 36 1 184 1 652 653 02:00 PM 5 31 25 0 61 0 14 14 0 28 11 22 1 0 34 20 18 8 0 46 0 169 169 02:15 PM 15 38 30 0 83 0 20 4 0 24 13 23 2 0 38 14 17 14 0 45 0 190 190 02:30 PM 13 35 28 0 76 2 32 15 0 49 15 26 1 0 42 23 33 20 0 76 0 243 243 02:45 PM 10 29 27 0 66 5 40 16 0 61 13 31 1 0 45 25 38 22 0 85 0 257 257 Total 43 133 110 0 286 7 106 49 0 162 52 102 5 0 159 82 106 64 0 252 0 859 859 03:00 PM 8 41 19 0 68 1 37 14 0 52 18 27 0 0 45 14 34 18 0 66 0 231 231 03:15 PM 9 49 30 0 88 1 32 13 0 46 10 29 0 0 39 20 29 11 0 60 0 233 233 03:30 PM 14 52 43 1 109 1 42 14 0 57 16 41 1 0 58 29 33 15 0 77 1 301 302 03:45 PM 13 71 42 0 126 2 43 8 0 53 20 29 2 1 51 22 23 21 2 66 3 296 299 Total 44 213 134 1 391 5 154 49 0 208 64 126 3 1 193 85 119 65 2 269 4 1061 1065 04:00 PM 11 55 30 0 96 3 42 14 0 59 11 28 3 0 42 35 32 21 0 88 0 285 285 04:15 PM 20 55 32 0 107 2 53 13 0 68 15 43 2 1 60 16 37 15 1 68 2 303 305 04:30 PM 18 55 34 0 107 2 32 7 0 41 21 43 4 0 68 23 27 18 0 68 0 284 284 04:45 PM 16 70 32 0 118 2 55 18 0 75 22 36 1 0 59 26 38 22 0 86 0 338 338 Total 65 235 128 0 428 9 182 52 0 243 69 150 10 1 229 100 134 76 1 310 2 1210 1212 05:00 PM 16 76 28 1 120 0 57 17 0 74 14 35 0 0 49 23 47 15 0 85 1 328 329 05:15 PM 21 89 17 0 127 3 50 17 0 70 31 53 1 0 85 20 27 18 0 65 0 347 347 05:30 PM 12 77 24 0 113 3 53 14 0 70 15 43 1 0 59 18 32 22 0 72 0 314 314 05:45 PM 19 87 36 0 142 4 29 8 0 41 17 43 3 0 63 25 25 11 0 61 0 307 307 Total 68 329 105 1 502 10 189 56 0 255 77 174 5 0 256 86 131 66 0 283 1 1296 1297 Grand Total 507 1668 872 4 3047 69 1239 490 3 1798 570 1739 62 6 2371 1056 1256 596 36 2908 49 10124 10173 Apprch %16.6 54.7 28.6 3.8 68.9 27.3 24 73.3 2.6 36.3 43.2 20.5 Total %5 16.5 8.6 30.1 0.7 12.2 4.8 17.8 5.6 17.2 0.6 23.4 10.4 12.4 5.9 28.7 0.5 99.5 Cars 498 1631 849 2982 68 1211 478 1760 542 1688 60 2296 1042 1227 567 2872 0 0 9910 % Cars 98.2 97.8 97.4 100 97.7 98.6 97.7 97.6 100 97.7 95.1 97.1 96.8 100 96.6 98.7 97.7 95.1 100 97.6 0 0 97.4 125 S. 84th Street, Suite 401 Milwaukee, WI 53214-1470 (414) 259-1500 File Name : Woods&Durham Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/21/2013 Page No : 3 Woods Rd & Moorland Road/Durham Drive Weekday Traffic Count Muskego, WI 2013-0170 Groups Printed- Cars - Buses - Trucks Moorland Road From North Woods Road From East Durham Drive From South Woods Road From West Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Exclu. Total Inclu. Total Int. Total Buses 4 5 15 24 0 12 3 15 17 12 1 30 5 13 20 38 0 0 107 % Buses 0.8 0.3 1.7 0 0.8 0 1 0.6 0 0.8 3 0.7 1.6 0 1.3 0.5 1 3.4 0 1.3 0 0 1.1 Trucks 5 32 8 45 1 16 9 26 11 39 1 51 9 16 9 34 0 0 156 % Trucks 1 1.9 0.9 0 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.8 0 1.4 1.9 2.2 1.6 0 2.1 0.9 1.3 1.5 0 1.2 0 0 1.5 125 S. 84th Street, Suite 401 Milwaukee, WI 53214-1470 (414) 259-1500 File Name : Woods&Durham Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/21/2013 Page No : 1 Woods Rd & Moorland Road/Durham Drive Weekday Traffic Count Muskego, WI 2013-0170 Groups Printed- Buses - Trucks Moorland Road From North Woods Road From East Durham Drive From South Woods Road From West Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Exclu. Total Inclu. Total Int. Total 06:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 06:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 4 4 06:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 2 06:45 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 3 0 9 9 Total 0 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 5 3 0 9 0 18 18 07:00 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 4 0 8 0 11 11 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 5 5 07:30 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 3 4 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 11 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 3 0 5 5 Total 1 2 1 0 4 0 2 4 0 6 4 3 1 0 8 0 7 7 0 14 0 32 32 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 08:15 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 4 0 9 9 08:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 08:45 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 6 6 Total 1 1 3 0 5 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 4 2 2 3 0 7 0 18 18 09:00 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 09:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 3 09:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 3 09:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Total 0 3 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 2 0 12 12 10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 10:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 10:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 10:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 5 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 3 0 12 12 11:00 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 4 11:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 11:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Total 0 3 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 10 10 125 S. 84th Street, Suite 401 Milwaukee, WI 53214-1470 (414) 259-1500 File Name : Woods&Durham Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/21/2013 Page No : 2 Woods Rd & Moorland Road/Durham Drive Weekday Traffic Count Muskego, WI 2013-0170 Groups Printed- Buses - Trucks Moorland Road From North Woods Road From East Durham Drive From South Woods Road From West Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Exclu. Total Inclu. Total Int. Total 12:00 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 3 0 9 9 12:15 PM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 7 7 12:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 5 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 2 0 11 11 12:45 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 5 Total 0 7 1 0 8 1 1 2 0 4 6 6 0 0 12 4 3 1 0 8 0 32 32 01:00 PM 1 1 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 01:15 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 01:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 7 7 01:45 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 6 0 8 8 Total 1 5 3 0 9 0 2 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 8 4 3 1 0 8 0 27 27 02:00 PM 1 3 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 0 12 12 02:15 PM 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 7 7 02:30 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 8 8 02:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 Total 3 5 2 0 10 0 7 2 0 9 4 2 0 0 6 2 2 2 0 6 0 31 31 03:00 PM 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 0 1 2 0 3 0 12 12 03:15 PM 1 2 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 3 0 10 10 03:30 PM 1 2 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 10 10 03:45 PM 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 6 Total 2 8 6 0 16 0 2 0 0 2 3 9 0 0 12 1 3 4 0 8 0 38 38 04:00 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 7 7 04:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 04:30 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 2 0 9 9 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 Total 1 2 2 0 5 0 4 1 0 5 4 5 0 0 9 0 1 5 0 6 0 25 25 05:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 Grand Total 9 37 23 0 69 1 28 12 0 41 28 51 2 0 81 14 29 29 0 72 0 263 263 Apprch %13 53.6 33.3 2.4 68.3 29.3 34.6 63 2.5 19.4 40.3 40.3 Total %3.4 14.1 8.7 26.2 0.4 10.6 4.6 15.6 10.6 19.4 0.8 30.8 5.3 11 11 27.4 0 100 Buses 4 5 15 24 0 12 3 15 17 12 1 30 5 13 20 38 0 0 107 % Buses 44.4 13.5 65.2 0 34.8 0 42.9 25 0 36.6 60.7 23.5 50 0 37 35.7 44.8 69 0 52.8 0 0 40.7 125 S. 84th Street, Suite 401 Milwaukee, WI 53214-1470 (414) 259-1500 File Name : Woods&Durham Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/21/2013 Page No : 3 Woods Rd & Moorland Road/Durham Drive Weekday Traffic Count Muskego, WI 2013-0170 Groups Printed- Buses - Trucks Moorland Road From North Woods Road From East Durham Drive From South Woods Road From West Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Exclu. Total Inclu. Total Int. Total Trucks 5 32 8 45 1 16 9 26 11 39 1 51 9 16 9 34 0 0 156 % Trucks 55.6 86.5 34.8 0 65.2 100 57.1 75 0 63.4 39.3 76.5 50 0 63 64.3 55.2 31 0 47.2 0 0 59.3 Appendix 2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses Wisconsin Department of Transportation Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Worksheet The Worksheet(s) attached are provided as an attachment to the Engineering Investigation Study for: Intersection: Date: County: Town Village City Major Street Critical Approach Speed Lanes Minor Street Critical Approach Speed Lanes Note: The warrants for rural areas (70% of urban warrant) are used when the 85% speed on the major street exceeds 40 m.p.h. or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000. THE ANALYSIS IS BASED ON COUNTS CONDUCTED ON &, 20,, FROM A M TO A M P M P M DATES DAYS % Right Turns Included Warrant Evaluation Summary YES/NO/NOT EVALUATED Warrant 1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume………………………………………….. Condition A Minimum Vehicular Volume ………………………… Condition B Interruption of Continuous Traffic ………………… Condition C Combination: 80% of A and B ………………… Warrant 2 Four-Hour Volume …………………………………………………… Warrant 3 Peak Hour Volume …………………………………………………… Warrant 4 Pedestrian Volume …………………………………………………… Criterion A Four-Hour ………………………………………….. Criterion B Peak Hour …………………………………………... Warrant 5 School Crossing …………………………………………………… Warrant 6 Coordinated Signal System ………………………………………….. Warrant 7 Crash Experience …………………………………………………… Warrant 8 Roadway Network………………………………………………………… Warrant 9 Intersection Near a Grade Crossing …………………………………… This analysis was conducted by: (Name) (Agency) (Date) 100%URBAN Woods Rd & Moorland Rd/Durham Dr - 2013 Traffic July 5, 2013 Waukesha MuskegoMuskego Moorland Road/Durham Drive 35 mph 1 Woods Road 35 mph 1 5/21 5/22 13 6:00 AM 6:00 PM 0% No No No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Shana K. Mogensen, P.E. PTOE GRAEF July 5, 2013 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 1 Intersection: Date: County: Town Village City Major Street Critical Approach Speed Lanes Minor Street Critical Approach Speed Lanes Volume Level 1. Critical speed of major road traffic > 40 mph : Yes No 2. In built-up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop.: Yes No If Question 1 or 2 above is answered “Yes” then use “70%” volume level: 70% 100% WARRANT 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant is satisfied if Condition A or B is “100 % satisfied.” Warrant also satisfied if Condition C (80% of A and B) is satisfied. Record hours where condition is met and the corresponding volumes in boxes provided. Condition is 100% satisfied if the minimum volumes are met for eight hours. Condition A – Minimum Vehicular Volume Condition B – Interruption of Continuous Traffic (volumes in veh/h)Minimum Requirements (80% Shown in Brackets) Approach Lanes: 1 2 or more Volume Level: 100% Hours 100% Hours Major Road-Both Approaches 500 600 (400) (480) Minor Road- Highest Approach 150 200 (120) (160) 100% Satisfied: 100% Satisfied: 80 % Satisfied: 80 % Satisfied: Condition C – Combination of Condition A and B:Condition A and B Both 80% Satisfied?: Warrant Satisfied?: % Right Turns Included: 8 Highest Hours Hour Major Road Both App. vph Minor Road High App. vph (volumes in veh/h)Minimum Requirements (80% Shown in Brackets) Approach Lanes: 1 2 or more Volume Level: 100% Hours 100% Hours Major Road-Both Approaches 750 900 (600) (720) Minor Road- Highest Approach 75 100 (60) (80) Woods Rd & Moorland Rd/Durham Dr - 2013 Traffic July 5, 2013 Waukesha Muskego Moorland Road/Durham Drive 35 mph 1 Woods Road 35 mph 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ 17:00 758 199 16:00 657 191 15:00 584 159 7:00 623 157 14:00 445 113 10:00 312 77 13:00 362 76 11:00 336 75 4 5 4 4 1 3 8 8 No No No No No No 0% TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 2 Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below. If four points lie above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied. Figure A. Criteria for “100%” volume level. Satisfied?: Warrant 3 – Peak Hour Unusual condition justifying use of warrant: Record hour where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding delay or volume in boxes provided. Plot the peak hour volume combination on the applicable figure below. If all three criteria are fulfilled or the plotted point lies above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied. Criteria Approach Lanes No. of Approaches Hour Fulfilled? 1 2 3 4 Yes No 1. Delay on Minor Approach (veh-h) 4 5 2. Volume on Minor Approach (veh/h) 100 150 3. Total Entering Volume (veh/h) 650 800 Figure A. Criteria for “100%” volume level. Satisfied?: Hour Major Vol. Minor Vol. Hour Major Vol. Minor Vol. 17:00 758 199 16:00 657 191 15:00 584 159 7:00 623 157 No 17:00 758 199 No TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 3 Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below. Criterion A Criterion A Satisfied?: Plot the peak hour volume combination on the applicable figure below. Criterion B Criterion B Satisfied?: Warrant Satisfied?: Warrant 5 – School Crossing Record hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap frequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria are fulfilled. Criteria Fulfilled? Yes No 1. There are a minimum of 20 school children during the highest crossing hour. 2. There are fewer adequate gaps in the major road traffic stream during the period when the school children are using the crossing than the number of minutes in the same period. 3. The nearest traffic signal along the major road is located more than 300 ft away. Or, the nearest traffic signal is within 300 ft but the proposed traffic signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Satisfied?: Hour Major Vol. Ped. Vol. Hour Major Vol. Ped Vol. N/A N/A N/A N/A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 4 Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System Indicate if the criteria are fulfilled in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if either criterion is fulfilled. This warrant should not be applied when the resulting signal spacing would be less than 1000 ft. Criteria Fulfilled? Yes No 1. On a one-way road or a road that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicle platooning. 2. On a two-way road, adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and the adjacent signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. Satisfied?: Warrant 7 – Crash Experience Table 1: 80% Volume Comparison Criteria for Warrant 1 (Volumes in veh/h) Minimum Requirements Approach Lanes:12 or more Volume Level: 80% Hours 80% Hours Major Road Both App. vph 1A 400 480 1B 600 720 Minor Road High App. vph 1A 120 160 1B 60 80 Criterion 4A Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below. Draw vertical line for each of the four major road volumes. Where this line meets the graphed line, draw horizontal line to determine the minimum pedestrian volume to meet the warrant for this major road volume. Enter that value as the “Graph Ped. Volume.” Multiply the “Graph Ped. Volume” by 0.8. Enter this new value as the “80% of Graphed Ped. Volume.” If your actual “Pedestrian Volume” value exceeds the “80% of Graphed Ped. Volume” for each of the four hours, the 80% warrant is met. Hour Major Vol. Ped. Vol. Graphed Ped. Vol. 80% of Graphed Ped. Vol. Warrant Satisfied?: N/A N/A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 5 Criterion 4B Plot and establish the pedestrian volumes for the peak hour as explained in Criterion 4A. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria are fulfilled. Criteria (Must use 80% - Urban - Condition Warrant Volume Levels) Met? Fulfilled? Yes No Yes No A. Adequate trial of other remedial measures has failed to reduce crash frequency. Measures tried: B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by signal, have occurred within a 12-mo. period. Number of crashes per 12 months: C. One of the warrants to the right is met. Warrant 1, Condition A (80% satisfied from Table 1 above) Warrant 1, Condition B (80% satisfied from Table 1 above) Warrant 4, Criterion A (80% satisfied from above) Warrant 4, Criterion B (80% satisfied from above) Warrant Satisfied?: Hour Major Vol. Ped. Vol. Graph Ped. Volume 80% of Graphed Ped. Volume N/A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 6 Warrant 8 – Roadway Network Record hours where criteria are fulfilled, the corresponding volume, and other information in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if at least one of the criteria is fulfilled and if all intersecting routes have one or more of the characteristics listed. Criteria Met? Fulfilled? Yes No Yes No 1. Both of the criteria to the right are met. a. Total entering volume of at least 1,000 veh/h during typical weekday peak hour. Entering volume: b. Five-year projected volumes that satisfy one or more of Warrants 1, 2, or 3. Warrant(s) satisfied: 2. Total entering volume at least 1,000 veh/h for each of any 5 hrs of a non-normal business day (Sat. or Sun.) -Hr. -Vol. Characteristics of Major Routes Fulfilled? Yes No 1. Part of the road or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow. 2. Rural or suburban highway outside of, entering, or traversing a city. 3. Appears as a major route on an official plan. Warrant Satisfied?: Warrant 9 – Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Plot the peak hour volume combination on the applicable figure below. Use curve for D (where D = Clear Storage Distance as defined in 1A.13) that is nearest to the actual distance. Hour Major Vol. Minor Vol. Adjusted Minor Vol. Adjustment Factors Applied Rail Traffic % Buses % Trucks N/A 17:00 758 199 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 7 Figure 4C-9 – One Approach Lane at the Track Crossing Figure 4C-10 – Two or More Approach Lanes at the Track Crossing Warrant Satisfied?: CONCLUSIONS: N/A Wisconsin Department of Transportation Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Worksheet The Worksheet(s) attached are provided as an attachment to the Engineering Investigation Study for: Intersection: Date: County: Town Village City Major Street Critical Approach Speed Lanes Minor Street Critical Approach Speed Lanes Note: The warrants for rural areas (70% of urban warrant) are used when the 85% speed on the major street exceeds 40 m.p.h. or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000. THE ANALYSIS IS BASED ON COUNTS CONDUCTED ON &, 20,, FROM A M TO A M P M P M DATES DAYS % Right Turns Included Warrant Evaluation Summary YES/NO/NOT EVALUATED Warrant 1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume………………………………………….. Condition A Minimum Vehicular Volume ………………………… Condition B Interruption of Continuous Traffic ………………… Condition C Combination: 80% of A and B ………………… Warrant 2 Four-Hour Volume …………………………………………………… Warrant 3 Peak Hour Volume …………………………………………………… Warrant 4 Pedestrian Volume …………………………………………………… Criterion A Four-Hour ………………………………………….. Criterion B Peak Hour …………………………………………... Warrant 5 School Crossing …………………………………………………… Warrant 6 Coordinated Signal System ………………………………………….. Warrant 7 Crash Experience …………………………………………………… Warrant 8 Roadway Network………………………………………………………… Warrant 9 Intersection Near a Grade Crossing …………………………………… This analysis was conducted by: (Name) (Agency) (Date) 100%URBAN Woods Rd & Moorland Rd/Durham Dr - 2025 Traffic July 5, 2013 Waukesha MuskegoMuskego Moorland Road/Durham Drive 35 mph 1 Woods Road 35 mph 1 5/21 5/22 13 6:00 AM 6:00 PM 0% No No No No Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Shana K. Mogensen, P.E. PTOE GRAEF July 5, 2013 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 1 Intersection: Date: County: Town Village City Major Street Critical Approach Speed Lanes Minor Street Critical Approach Speed Lanes Volume Level 1. Critical speed of major road traffic > 40 mph : Yes No 2. In built-up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop.: Yes No If Question 1 or 2 above is answered “Yes” then use “70%” volume level: 70% 100% WARRANT 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant is satisfied if Condition A or B is “100 % satisfied.” Warrant also satisfied if Condition C (80% of A and B) is satisfied. Record hours where condition is met and the corresponding volumes in boxes provided. Condition is 100% satisfied if the minimum volumes are met for eight hours. Condition A – Minimum Vehicular Volume Condition B – Interruption of Continuous Traffic (volumes in veh/h)Minimum Requirements (80% Shown in Brackets) Approach Lanes: 1 2 or more Volume Level: 100% Hours 100% Hours Major Road-Both Approaches 500 600 (400) (480) Minor Road- Highest Approach 150 200 (120) (160) 100% Satisfied: 100% Satisfied: 80 % Satisfied: 80 % Satisfied: Condition C – Combination of Condition A and B:Condition A and B Both 80% Satisfied?: Warrant Satisfied?: % Right Turns Included: 8 Highest Hours Hour Major Road Both App. vph Minor Road High App. vph (volumes in veh/h)Minimum Requirements (80% Shown in Brackets) Approach Lanes: 1 2 or more Volume Level: 100% Hours 100% Hours Major Road-Both Approaches 750 900 (600) (720) Minor Road- Highest Approach 75 100 (60) (80) Woods Rd & Moorland Rd/Durham Dr - 2025 Traffic July 5, 2013 Waukesha Muskego Moorland Road/Durham Drive 35 mph 1 Woods Road 35 mph 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ 17:00 910 238 16:00 788 229 15:00 701 191 7:00 748 188 14:00 535 136 10:00 376 93 13:00 436 92 11:00 405 91 5 7 4 5 2 4 8 8 No No No No No No 0% TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 2 Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below. If four points lie above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied. Figure A. Criteria for “100%” volume level. Satisfied?: Warrant 3 – Peak Hour Unusual condition justifying use of warrant: Record hour where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding delay or volume in boxes provided. Plot the peak hour volume combination on the applicable figure below. If all three criteria are fulfilled or the plotted point lies above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied. Criteria Approach Lanes No. of Approaches Hour Fulfilled? 1 2 3 4 Yes No 1. Delay on Minor Approach (veh-h) 4 5 2. Volume on Minor Approach (veh/h) 100 150 3. Total Entering Volume (veh/h) 650 800 Figure A. Criteria for “100%” volume level. Satisfied?: Hour Major Vol. Minor Vol. Hour Major Vol. Minor Vol. 17:00 910 238 16:00 788 229 15:00 701 191 7:00 748 188 Yes 17:00 910 238 Yes TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 3 Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below. Criterion A Criterion A Satisfied?: Plot the peak hour volume combination on the applicable figure below. Criterion B Criterion B Satisfied?: Warrant Satisfied?: Warrant 5 – School Crossing Record hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap frequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria are fulfilled. Criteria Fulfilled? Yes No 1. There are a minimum of 20 school children during the highest crossing hour. 2. There are fewer adequate gaps in the major road traffic stream during the period when the school children are using the crossing than the number of minutes in the same period. 3. The nearest traffic signal along the major road is located more than 300 ft away. Or, the nearest traffic signal is within 300 ft but the proposed traffic signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Satisfied?: Hour Major Vol. Ped. Vol. Hour Major Vol. Ped Vol. N/A N/A N/A N/A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 4 Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System Indicate if the criteria are fulfilled in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if either criterion is fulfilled. This warrant should not be applied when the resulting signal spacing would be less than 1000 ft. Criteria Fulfilled? Yes No 1. On a one-way road or a road that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicle platooning. 2. On a two-way road, adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and the adjacent signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. Satisfied?: Warrant 7 – Crash Experience Table 1: 80% Volume Comparison Criteria for Warrant 1 (Volumes in veh/h) Minimum Requirements Approach Lanes:12 or more Volume Level: 80% Hours 80% Hours Major Road Both App. vph 1A 400 480 1B 600 720 Minor Road High App. vph 1A 120 160 1B 60 80 Criterion 4A Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below. Draw vertical line for each of the four major road volumes. Where this line meets the graphed line, draw horizontal line to determine the minimum pedestrian volume to meet the warrant for this major road volume. Enter that value as the “Graph Ped. Volume.” Multiply the “Graph Ped. Volume” by 0.8. Enter this new value as the “80% of Graphed Ped. Volume.” If your actual “Pedestrian Volume” value exceeds the “80% of Graphed Ped. Volume” for each of the four hours, the 80% warrant is met. Hour Major Vol. Ped. Vol. Graphed Ped. Vol. 80% of Graphed Ped. Vol. Warrant Satisfied?: N/A N/A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 5 Criterion 4B Plot and establish the pedestrian volumes for the peak hour as explained in Criterion 4A. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria are fulfilled. Criteria (Must use 80% - Urban - Condition Warrant Volume Levels) Met? Fulfilled? Yes No Yes No A. Adequate trial of other remedial measures has failed to reduce crash frequency. Measures tried: B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by signal, have occurred within a 12-mo. period. Number of crashes per 12 months: C. One of the warrants to the right is met. Warrant 1, Condition A (80% satisfied from Table 1 above) Warrant 1, Condition B (80% satisfied from Table 1 above) Warrant 4, Criterion A (80% satisfied from above) Warrant 4, Criterion B (80% satisfied from above) Warrant Satisfied?: Hour Major Vol. Ped. Vol. Graph Ped. Volume 80% of Graphed Ped. Volume N/A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 6 Warrant 8 – Roadway Network Record hours where criteria are fulfilled, the corresponding volume, and other information in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if at least one of the criteria is fulfilled and if all intersecting routes have one or more of the characteristics listed. Criteria Met? Fulfilled? Yes No Yes No 1. Both of the criteria to the right are met. a. Total entering volume of at least 1,000 veh/h during typical weekday peak hour. Entering volume: b. Five-year projected volumes that satisfy one or more of Warrants 1, 2, or 3. Warrant(s) satisfied: 2. Total entering volume at least 1,000 veh/h for each of any 5 hrs of a non-normal business day (Sat. or Sun.) -Hr. -Vol. Characteristics of Major Routes Fulfilled? Yes No 1. Part of the road or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow. 2. Rural or suburban highway outside of, entering, or traversing a city. 3. Appears as a major route on an official plan. Warrant Satisfied?: Warrant 9 – Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Plot the peak hour volume combination on the applicable figure below. Use curve for D (where D = Clear Storage Distance as defined in 1A.13) that is nearest to the actual distance. Hour Major Vol. Minor Vol. Adjusted Minor Vol. Adjustment Factors Applied Rail Traffic % Buses % Trucks N/A 17:00 910 238 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sheet 7 Figure 4C-9 – One Approach Lane at the Track Crossing Figure 4C-10 – Two or More Approach Lanes at the Track Crossing Warrant Satisfied?: CONCLUSIONS: N/A Appendix 3 Existing (Year 2013) Traffic Operational Analysis With Existing Geometrics Existing (Year 2013) AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Existing Geometrics 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road HCM 2010 AWSC GRAEF L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Traffic\Analysis\130711 Analysis\2013AM.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 32.3 Intersection LOS D Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 150 200 70 5 155 55 90 300 10 60 110 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, %444333222222 Mvmt Flow 158 211 74 5 163 58 95 316 11 63 116 63 Number of Lanes 010010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1111 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1111 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1111 HCM Control Delay 41.7 17.9 37.9 18.6 HCM LOS E C E C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 23% 36% 2% 26% Vol Thru, % 75% 48% 72% 48% Vol Right, % 3% 17% 26% 26% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 400 420 215 230 LT Vol 300 200 155 110 Through Vol 10 70 55 60 RT Vol 90 150 5 60 Lane Flow Rate 421 442 226 242 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.84 0.871 0.487 0.512 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.179 7.096 7.75 7.734 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 501 508 468 470 Service Time 5.273 5.187 5.75 5.734 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.84 0.87 0.483 0.515 HCM Control Delay 37.9 41.7 17.9 18.6 HCM Lane LOS E E C C HCM 95th-tile Q 8.5 9.4 2.6 2.9 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined Existing (Year 2013) PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Existing Geometrics 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road HCM 2010 AWSC GRAEF L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Traffic\Analysis\130711 Analysis\2013PM.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 41.3 Intersection LOS E Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 90 145 80 10 215 70 85 170 5 65 315 105 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 94 151 83 10 224 73 89 177 5 68 328 109 Number of Lanes 010010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1111 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1111 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1111 HCM Control Delay 28.8 26.2 23.4 68.2 HCM LOS D D C F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 33% 29% 3% 13% Vol Thru, % 65% 46% 73% 65% Vol Right, % 2% 25% 24% 22% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 260 315 295 485 LT Vol 170 145 215 315 Through Vol 5 80 70 105 RT Vol 85 90 10 65 Lane Flow Rate 271 328 307 505 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.616 0.722 0.68 1 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.188 7.919 7.965 7.417 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 444 463 458 495 Service Time 6.172 5.881 5.927 5.417 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.61 0.708 0.67 1.02 HCM Control Delay 23.4 28.8 26.2 68.2 HCM Lane LOS C D D F HCM 95th-tile Q 4 5.7 5 13.5 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined Appendix 4 Year 2035 Traffic Operational Analysis With Recommended Geometrics Year 2035 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - All Way Stop Alternative 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road HCM 2010 AWSC GRAEF L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Traffic\Analysis\130711 Analysis\2035AM - All Way Stop Alt.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 50.4 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 210 280 105 15 220 80 130 450 20 85 165 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, %444333222222 Mvmt Flow 221 295 111 16 232 84 137 474 21 89 174 89 Number of Lanes 110011110111 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2232 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3222 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2322 HCM Control Delay 60.9 31.7 66.6 20.3 HCM LOS F D F C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 6% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 96% 0% 73% 94% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 4% 0% 27% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 130 470 210 385 235 80 85 165 85 LT Vol 0 450 0 280 220 0 0 165 0 Through Vol 0 20 0 105 0 80 0 0 85 RT Vol 130 0 210 0 15 0 85 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 137 495 221 405 247 84 89 174 89 Geometry Grp 888888888 Degree of Util (X) 0.394 1 0.63 1 0.728 0.231 0.275 0.51 0.245 Departure Headway (Hd) 10.477 9.951 10.256 9.57 10.591 9.863 11.071 10.573 9.875 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 346 371 351 381 341 365 325 340 364 Service Time 8.177 7.651 8.022 7.336 8.333 7.606 8.828 8.33 7.632 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.396 1.334 0.63 1.063 0.724 0.23 0.274 0.512 0.245 HCM Control Delay 19.8 79.6 29.1 78.2 37.2 15.6 18 23.9 15.8 HCM Lane LOS C F D F E CCCC HCM 95th-tile Q 1.8 11.6 4.1 11.8 5.4 0.9 1.1 2.8 0.9 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined Year 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - All Way Stop Alternative 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road HCM 2010 AWSC GRAEF L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Traffic\Analysis\130711 Analysis\2035PM - All Way Stop Alt.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 62 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 125 205 120 20 300 100 125 260 15 95 475 150 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 130 214 125 21 313 104 130 271 16 99 495 156 Number of Lanes 110011110111 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2232 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3222 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2322 HCM Control Delay 66.6 69.2 49.3 62 HCM LOS F F E F Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 6% 0% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 95% 0% 63% 94% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 5% 0% 37% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 125 275 125 325 320 100 95 475 150 LT Vol 0 260 0 205 300 0 0 475 0 Through Vol 0 15 0 120 0 100 0 0 150 RT Vol 125 0 125 0 20 0 95 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 130 286 130 339 333 104 99 495 156 Geometry Grp 888888888 Degree of Util (X) 0.425 0.892 0.421 1 1 0.305 0.312 1 0.444 Departure Headway (Hd) 11.747 11.205 11.638 10.884 11.278 10.552 11.366 10.961 10.224 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 306 324 311 335 323 343 318 336 356 Service Time 9.523 8.988 9.339 8.585 8.979 8.252 9.075 8.576 7.878 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.425 0.883 0.418 1.012 1.031 0.303 0.311 1.473 0.438 HCM Control Delay 23 61.3 22.5 83.6 85.2 17.8 19.2 83.5 20.8 HCM Lane LOS C F C F F C C F C HCM 95th-tile Q 2 8.4 2 11.1 10.9 1.3 1.3 11.1 2.2 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined ROUNDABOUT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Co. GRAEF Date Performed 7/10/2013 Time Period AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Intersection Woods Rd & Moorland/Durham E/W Street Name Woods Road N/S Street Name Moorland Road/Durham Drive Analysis Year Year 2035 Project ID Project Description: Volume Adjustment and Site Characteristics EB WB NB SB LTRULTRULTRULTRU Number of Lanes (N) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Volume (V), veh/h 210 280 105 5 15 220 80 5 130 450 20 5 85 165 85 5 Heavy Veh. Adj. (fHV), % 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pedestrians Crossing 20 0 0 20 Critical and Follow-Up Headway Adjustment EB WB NB SB Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (sec)5.1929 4.2000 5.1929 5.1929 4.2000 5.1929 5.1929 4.2000 5.1929 5.1929 4.2000 4.2000 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.1858 2.8000 3.1858 3.1858 2.8000 3.1858 3.1858 2.8000 3.1858 3.1858 2.8000 2.8000 Flow Computations EB WB NB SB Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Circulating Flow (Vc), pc/h 299 868 643 410 Exiting Flow (Vex), pc/h 425 475 805 314 Entry Flow (Ve), pc/h 657 347 650 365 Entry Volume veh/h 632 337 637 358 Capacity and v/c Ratios EB WB NB SB Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Capacity (cPCE), pc/h 1018 654 779 934 Capacity (c), veh/h 976 635 764 913 v/c Ratio (X) 0.65 0.53 0.83 0.39 Delay and Level of Service EB WB NB SB Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 13.4 14.5 27.8 8.4 Lane LOS B B D A Lane 95% Queue 4.9 3.1 9.4 1.9 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.43 14.55 27.79 8.42 Approach LOS, s/veh B B D A Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.37 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2012 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM 6.41 Roundabouts Generated: 7/11/2013 2:28 PM Page 1 of 1Formatted Report 7/11/2013file://C:\Users\1377\AppData\Local\Temp\u2k8A98.tmp ROUNDABOUT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Co. GRAEF Date Performed 7/10/2013 Time Period PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.96 Intersection Woods Rd & Moorland/Durham E/W Street Name Woods Road N/S Street Name Moorland Road/Durham Drive Analysis Year Year 2035 Project ID Project Description: Volume Adjustment and Site Characteristics EB WB NB SB LTRULTRULTRULTRU Number of Lanes (N) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Volume (V), veh/h 125 205 120 5 20 300 100 5 125 260 15 5 95 475 150 5 Heavy Veh. Adj. (fHV), % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pedestrians Crossing 20 0 0 20 Critical and Follow-Up Headway Adjustment EB WB NB SB Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (sec)5.1929 4.2000 5.1929 5.1929 4.2000 5.1929 5.1929 4.2000 5.1929 5.1929 4.2000 5.1929 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.1858 2.8000 3.1858 3.1858 2.8000 3.1858 3.1858 2.8000 3.1858 3.1858 2.8000 3.1858 Flow Computations EB WB NB SB Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Circulating Flow (Vc), pc/h 642 557 467 488 Exiting Flow (Vex), pc/h 340 616 521 659 Entry Flow (Ve), pc/h 483 452 430 770 Entry Volume veh/h 474 443 422 755 Capacity and v/c Ratios EB WB NB SB Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Capacity (cPCE), pc/h 780 833 894 879 Capacity (c), veh/h 762 817 876 860 v/c Ratio (X) 0.62 0.54 0.48 0.88 Delay and Level of Service EB WB NB SB Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 15.3 12.2 10.3 30.2 Lane LOS C B B D Lane 95% Queue 4.4 3.3 2.7 11.5 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.26 12.22 10.27 30.17 Approach LOS, s/veh C B B D Intersection Delay, s/veh 18.98 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2012 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM 6.41 Roundabouts Generated: 7/11/2013 2:28 PM Page 1 of 1Formatted Report 7/11/2013file://C:\Users\1377\AppData\Local\Temp\u2k43F8.tmp Year 2035 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - Traffic Signal Alternative 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary GRAEF L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Traffic\Analysis\130711 Analysis\2035AM - Signal Alt.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 210 280 105 15 220 80 130 450 20 85 165 85 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 182.7 182.7 182.7 184.5 184.5 184.5 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 111111110111 Cap, veh/h 427 675 573 377 681 579 515 711 31 302 748 636 Arrive On Green 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1039 1827 1553 966 1845 1568 1112 1770 78 899 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 221 295 111 16 232 84 137 0 495 89 174 89 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1039 1827 1553 966 1845 1568 1112 0 1849 899 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 6.4 2.5 0.7 4.8 1.9 4.9 0.0 11.5 4.7 3.2 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.0 6.4 2.5 7.0 4.8 1.9 8.1 0.0 11.5 16.2 3.2 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 427 675 573 377 681 579 515 0 742 302 748 636 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.44 0.19 0.04 0.34 0.15 0.27 0.00 0.67 0.29 0.23 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 802 682 444 810 689 600 0 883 370 889 756 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.3 12.4 11.2 15.1 11.9 11.0 13.0 0.0 12.8 19.4 10.3 9.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 2.3 2.5 0.8 0.1 1.9 0.6 1.1 0.0 4.6 1.0 1.2 0.6 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 18.3 12.9 11.4 15.1 12.2 11.1 13.3 0.0 14.3 19.9 10.5 10.0 Lane Grp LOS BBBBBBB BBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 627 332 632 352 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 12.1 14.1 12.8 Approach LOS BBBB Timer Assigned Phs 4826 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.3 25.3 27.0 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 23.0 25.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.0 9.0 13.5 18.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.4 3.9 4.0 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.6 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Year 2035 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - Traffic Signal Alternative 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road Timings GRAEF L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Traffic\Analysis\130711 Analysis\2035AM - Signal Alt.syn Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 210 280 105 15 220 80 130 450 85 165 85 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 6 Detector Phase 44488822666 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (s) 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 Total Split (%) 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 51.7% 51.7% 51.7% 51.7% 51.7% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min Min Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.48 0.21 0.04 0.38 0.16 0.29 0.69 0.34 0.24 0.14 Control Delay 20.9 15.8 13.0 11.9 14.3 12.5 12.6 18.0 15.1 11.2 10.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.9 15.8 13.0 11.9 14.3 12.5 12.6 18.0 15.1 11.2 10.7 LOS CBBBBBBBBBB Approach Delay 17.1 13.7 16.8 12.1 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 46 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.69 Intersection Signal Delay: 15.5 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road Year 2035 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - Traffic Signal Alternative 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road Queues GRAEF L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Traffic\Analysis\130711 Analysis\2035AM - Signal Alt.syn Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 221 295 111 16 232 84 137 495 89 174 89 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.48 0.21 0.04 0.38 0.16 0.29 0.69 0.34 0.24 0.14 Control Delay 20.9 15.8 13.0 11.9 14.3 12.5 12.6 18.0 15.1 11.2 10.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.9 15.8 13.0 11.9 14.3 12.5 12.6 18.0 15.1 11.2 10.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 45 58 20 3 44 15 22 98 15 28 14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 134 56 14 104 44 66 227 52 74 43 Internal Link Dist (ft) 821 921 1057 865 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Base Capacity (vph) 591 962 818 564 972 826 690 1060 389 1067 906 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.31 0.14 0.03 0.24 0.10 0.20 0.47 0.23 0.16 0.10 Intersection Summary Year 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - Traffic Signal Alternative 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary GRAEF L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Traffic\Analysis\130711 Analysis\2035PM - Signal Alt.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 125 205 120 20 300 100 125 260 15 95 475 150 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 111111110111 Cap, veh/h 336 636 540 400 636 540 314 758 45 494 810 689 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 966 1863 1583 1037 1863 1583 778 1742 103 1088 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 130 214 125 21 312 104 130 0 287 99 495 156 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 966 1863 1583 1037 1863 1583 778 0 1845 1088 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.6 4.6 3.0 0.8 7.1 2.5 8.3 0.0 5.6 3.6 11.0 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 4.6 3.0 5.4 7.1 2.5 19.3 0.0 5.6 9.2 11.0 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 336 636 540 400 636 540 314 0 802 494 810 689 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.34 0.23 0.05 0.49 0.19 0.41 0.00 0.36 0.20 0.61 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 421 799 679 490 799 679 338 0 860 528 868 738 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.4 13.1 12.6 15.2 14.0 12.5 19.1 0.0 10.1 13.2 11.7 9.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.5 1.8 1.0 0.2 2.9 0.8 1.5 0.0 2.1 0.8 4.2 1.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 20.1 13.5 12.9 15.2 14.6 12.6 19.9 0.0 10.4 13.4 12.8 9.7 Lane Grp LOS C BBBBBB BBBA Approach Vol, veh/h 469 437 417 750 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.1 14.1 13.4 12.2 Approach LOS BBBB Timer Assigned Phs 4826 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.3 24.3 29.3 29.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 23.0 25.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.7 9.1 21.3 13.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.6 3.7 2.1 4.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Year 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - Traffic Signal Alternative 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road Timings GRAEF L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Traffic\Analysis\130711 Analysis\2035PM - Signal Alt.syn Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 125 205 120 20 300 100 125 260 95 475 150 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 6 Detector Phase 44488822666 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Minimum Split (s) 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (s) 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 Total Split (%) 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 51.7% 51.7% 51.7% 51.7% 51.7% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min Min Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.37 0.25 0.06 0.53 0.21 0.46 0.38 0.23 0.66 0.24 Control Delay 17.2 14.6 13.8 12.3 17.1 13.4 16.7 11.6 10.9 16.1 10.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.2 14.6 13.8 12.3 17.1 13.4 16.7 11.6 10.9 16.1 10.5 LOS BBBBBBBBBBB Approach Delay 15.1 16.0 13.2 14.3 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 44.3 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.66 Intersection Signal Delay: 14.6 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road Year 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis - Traffic Signal Alternative 2: Moorland Road/Durham Drive & Woods Road Queues GRAEF L:\Jobs2013\20130170\Project_Information\Traffic\Analysis\130711 Analysis\2035PM - Signal Alt.syn Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 130 214 125 21 312 104 130 287 99 495 156 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.37 0.25 0.06 0.53 0.21 0.46 0.38 0.23 0.66 0.24 Control Delay 17.2 14.6 13.8 12.3 17.1 13.4 16.7 11.6 10.9 16.1 10.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.2 14.6 13.8 12.3 17.1 13.4 16.7 11.6 10.9 16.1 10.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 39 22 4 61 18 21 44 14 88 22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 70 97 61 17 142 53 73 115 48 215 66 Internal Link Dist (ft) 821 921 1057 865 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Base Capacity (vph) 564 1009 857 629 1009 857 415 1088 640 1096 931 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.21 0.15 0.03 0.31 0.12 0.31 0.26 0.15 0.45 0.17 Intersection Summary Appendix 5 Conceptual Level Cost Estimates CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE OF QUANTITIES - ROUNDABOUT Project I.D. 2013-0170 Title Roundabout Cost Estimate Limits Woods Road & Moorland/ Durham Highway N/A County City of Muskego, Waukesha County Date 7/11/2013 Item # Description Qty Unit Cost Total Category Rev (x) Excavation/ Grading 6,900 CY $ 10.00 $69,000.00 0010 305.0120 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-Inch 4,100 TON $ 11.00 $45,100.00 0010 416.0170 Concrete Driveway 400 SY $ 33.00 $13,200.00 0010 460.1110 HMA Pavement 5,600 SY $ 18.00 $100,800.00 0010 601.0405 Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,900 LF $ 22.00 $85,800.00 0010 Asphalt Path 5,400 SF $ 2.50 $13,500.00 0010 Truck Apron - Colored Concrete 350 SY $ 60.00 $21,000.00 0010 Storm Sewer Pipe 990 LF $ 55.00 $54,450.00 0010 Storm Sewer Structures 16 Each $ 900.00 $14,400.00 0010 Landscaping 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $50,000.00 0010 Lighting 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $50,000.00 0010 Area of ROW 0.1000 ACRE $ 120,000.00 $12,000.00 0010 Cost Subtotal $529,250.00 Miscellaneous Items 25% $ 132,300.00 Mobilization 10% $ 13,200.00 Construction Total $ 674,750.00 Construction Engineering and Construction Contingencies 15% $ 79,400.00 Project Total with E&C $ 754,150.00 Notes: 1 Utility adjustments or relocation costs are not included in the estimate. 2 Miscellaneous items include: signing, pavement marking, restoration, erosion control, traffic control, etc 3 Grading easements are not included in the estimate Page 1 of 1 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE OF QUANTITIES - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Project I.D. 2013-0170 Title Traffic Signal Cost Estimate Limits Woods Road & Moorland/ Durham Highway N/A County City of Muskego, Waukesha County Date 7/11/2013 Item # Description Qty Unit Cost Total Category Rev (x) Excavation/ Grading 7,800 CY $ 10.00 $78,000.00 0010 305.0120 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-Inch 5,600 TON $ 11.00 $61,600.00 0010 416.0170 Concrete Driveway 200 SY $ 33.00 $6,600.00 0010 460.1110 HMA Pavement 9,600 SY $ 18.00 $172,800.00 0010 601.0405 Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,400 LF $ 22.00 $52,800.00 0010 Asphalt Path 6,100 SF $ 2.50 $15,250.00 0010 Storm Sewer Pipe 870 LF $ 55.00 $47,850.00 0010 Storm Sewer Structures 6 Each $ 900.00 $5,400.00 0010 Traffic Signal 1 LS $ 175,000.00 $175,000.00 0010 Area of ROW 0.01 ACRE $ 120,000.00 $1,200.00 0010 Cost Subtotal $616,500.00 Miscellaneous Items 25% $ 154,100.00 Mobilization 10% $ 15,400.00 Construction Total $ 786,000.00 Construction Engineering and Construction Contingencies 15% $ 92,500.00 Project Total with E&C $ 878,500.00 Notes: 1 Utility adjustments or relocation costs are not included in the estimate. 2 Miscellaneous items include: signing, pavement marking, restoration, erosion control, traffic control, etc 3 Grading easements are not included in the estimate Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF MUSKEGO Staff Report to Public Works Committee To: Public Works Committee From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject: Discuss Policy Regarding Maintenance of Subdivision Boulevard Entrance Islands Date: July 12, 2013 Background Information: Staff has received some complaints regarding the aesthetics of the subdivision boulevard entrance on Sandalwood Drive (near Walgreens close to Moorland). The pictures below show the condition of this and two other subdivision entrances. Page 2 of 2 The majority of these types of islands are maintained by their respective associations or neighboring property owners. In cases where maintenance is not being completed, staff would like the Committee’s opinion on how to proceed. One option discussed by staff would be sending a letter to all owners in the subdivision asking that maintenance be completed regularly by the owners as a group or an individual, and if not, install a maintenance free solution would be completed by the City when feasible. A permanent maintenance free option might be stamped/colored concrete. Recommendation for Action by Committee: Discuss options and direct staff to move ahead with appropriate actions.