No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout171114PD NOTICE OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh Councilmember Dennis Brown Councilmember Nick DePorter Councilmember Henry Leger TIME: 5:30 P.M. WHEN: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2017 WHERE: FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS Vice Mayor Alan Magazine Councilmember Art Tolis Councilmember Cecil A. Yates 16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town's various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. § 1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Town Council are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. § 1-602.A.9 have been waived. SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL — Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding the RECOMMENDATIONS of the Intersection Configuration Assessment Study: Avenue of the Fountains at La Montana Drive. 2. DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding the RECOMMENDATIONS of the Traffic Engineering Analysis Report: Shea Boulevard at Palisades Boulevard and Shea Boulevard at Fountain Hills Boulevard. 3. DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT for the Town of Fountain Hills. 4. ADJOURNMENT. DATED this 7th day of November, 2017. Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816- 5100 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in this meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk's office. z:\council packets\2017\spll71114\171114a.docx Last Printed: 10/31/2017 11:51 AM Page 1 of 1 /STAIN& kF tvNOTICE OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh Councilmember Dennis Brown Councilmember Nick DePorter Councilmember Henry Leger TIME: 5:30 P.M. WHEN: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2017 WHERE: FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS Vice Mayor Alan Magazine Councilmember Art Tolis Councilmember Cecil A. Yates 16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town's various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. § 1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Town Council are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. § 1-602.A.9 have been waived. SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL — Mayor Linda M. Kavanagh DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding the RECOMMENDATIONS of the Intersection Configuration Assessment Study: Avenue of the Fountains at La Montana Drive. 2. DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding the RECOMMENDATIONS of the Traffic Engineering Analysis Report: Shea Boulevard at Palisades Boulevard and Shea Boulevard at Fountain Hills Boulevard. 3. DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT for the Town of Fountain Hills. 4. ADJOURNMENT. DATED this 7th day of November, 2017. Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816- 5100 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in this meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk's office. z:\council packets\2017\spll71114\171114a.docx Last Printed: 10/31/2017 11:51 AM Page 1 of 1 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS z n TOWN COUNCIL 3� !._ \Z� = AGENDA ACTION FORM Meeting Date: 1111412017 Meeting Type: Special Session Agenda Type: Regular Submitting Department: Development Services Staff Contact Information: Randy Harrel; Town Engineer; rharrel@7fh.az.gov; 480-816-5112 REQUEST TO COUNCIL (Agenda Language): DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding the recommendations of the "Intersection Configuration Assessment Study; Avenue of the Fountains at La Montana Drive". Applicant: Amara Ibeji/CK Group Applicant Contact Information: Tele. 602-482-5884; E-mail: aibeii@theckgroup.com Owner: Town of Fountain Hills Owner Contact Information: NIA Property Location: Avenue of the Fountains at La Montana Drive Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle: N/A Staff Summary (background): CK Engineering has provided their contracted traffic engineering report assessing the configuration alternatives for the Avenue of the Fountains/La Montana Drive intersection. (Copy attached.) CK's report evaluated a number of alternative intersection concepts, as follows, including a schematic drawing (for Alternatives 1-5), and a Pro's/Con's Table (for Alternatives 1-4 ): * Concept 0 - Traffic Signal (Can't do. Doesn't/won't meet an MUTCD Warrant.) * Concept 1 - Tighten intersection (Concept Drawing attached.) * Concept 2 - Single Lane Oval Roundabout (Concept Drawing attached.) * Concept 3 -"Michigan" Left Turn (Concept Drawing attached.) * Concept 4 - One -Way Signing for Divided Roadway (Concept Drawing attached.) * Concept 5 - Do Nothing (Existing Aerial attached.) Additionally, the report evaluated modifications to two nearby traffic situations, which could be used in conjunction with most/all intersection alternatives, as follows: * Post Office Driveway Modifications - for the 2 driveways on AOTF, and for the mailbox drop-off lane on La Montana. Extensive coordination/acceptance by the U.S. Post Office will be needed for these modifications. * Street Diet along La Montana This intersection currently calculates as operating at a good Level of Service (LOS) B during all peak hours (AM, Noon, and PM peaks) (which is above the Town's calculated LOS C for major collector street design,. Scottsdale's LOS D for intersection design (ref: "Design Standards and Policy Manual", Section 5-1.901), and MCDOT's LOS C design for Urban Major Collectors (ref: "Roadway Design Manual, Section 2.1.2.4)). However, despite several past signingistriping modifications, the Avenue of the Fountains/La Montana intersection has never functioned well, due to the pre -incorporation, wide median width on Avenue of the Page 1 of 3 Fountains. (Note: Traffic Engineering textbooks recommend against having medians at this pre -incorporation median width; they're too wide to function well as one intersection, but too narrow to function well as two separate intersections. The other intersections having the wide median on Avenue of the Fountains have not been as big of an issue as La Montana to date since: * The Saguaro Blvd. intersection is a tee intersection, and so has much less complex traffic operations than does a 4 -way intersection like La Montana. * The Verde River intersection has had virtually no traffic on its southern leg to date, and consequently has effectively functioned similar to a tee intersection, and with only a small amount of traffic on its other (north) side street leg, it has not been a major issue to date. (Note: After opening the Park Place project, which accesses onto the south leg of this intersection, Staff is concerned that the Verde River intersection may experience the same type of issues as does the La Montana intersection, despite its traffic report to the contrary. The first future improvement to that intersection will likely be to implement an All -Way Stop configuration (when warranted), as is currently in place at A©TFILa Montana and at AOTF/Saguaro. The report makes no recommendation for which alternative to select, due to the amount of non -engineering (i.e. political & social) considerations that need to be evaluated/considered by the Town Council, including: • Public Acceptance * Cost vs. Traffic Flow Improvement * Access Modifications * Right -of -Way Acquisitions If desired to minimize initial costs or as a test, either Concept 1 (Tighten Intersection) or Concept 3 (Michigan Left Turn) could potentially be initially implemented with interim signing, striping, markings, and/or barricades; to test their effectiveness, public acceptance, and for any unanticipated consequences. However, full implementation of Concepts 1, 2, or 3; the Post Office driveway modifications; and/or the Street Diet along La Montana would need to be programmed into the Town's CIP, due to their extensive consultant design and contractor construction costs needed. Concept 4 ((ane -Way Signing for Divided Roadway) could be fully implemented at a reasonable cost, primarily by Town Staff. Risk Analysis (options or alternatives with implications): N/A Fiscal Impact (initial and ongoing costs; budget status): Evaluated qualitatively in report. Budget Reference (page number): NIA Funding 'Source: NA If Multiple Funds utilized, list here: N/A Budgeted; if No, attach Budget Adjustment Form: NA Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s): N/A Staff Recommendation(s): The intersection configuration for this intersection is a Town Council policy decision, including several alternatives that have not been previously used in Fountain Hills, so the Report and Town Staff have not made a recommendation as to which alternative to select. List Attachment(s): AOTF@ La Montana Drive Concept 1 - Concept 5 Plans; La Montana Road Diet Concept Plan; "Intersection Configuration Assessment Study" report, including Appendices A -F. SUGGESTED MOTION (for council use): Move to direct Staff to request an engineering design contract for Town Council consideration, for a pre -design study and cost estimate at/nearby the AOTFILa Montana intersection, for the following concept(s): Paget ora Page 3 oF3 INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION ASSESSMENT STUDY AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE eOPor AIN R� 0 z n 3 d b INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION ASSESSMENT STUDY AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE oo�z SCOTTSDALE SCOTTSDALE Vicinity Map AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DR TOWN HALL fo o NORTH SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY 00-:0 SCALE: 1' = 3500' FIGURE 2: TRAFFIC CONFIGURATION y 4 �/ l r°Untai `1 0/ •� 0o NOT ',,.�,. �.A ENTER 41 AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE FIGURE 3: EXISTING CONDITION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES TABLE DELAY Signalized 1'AVERAGE Intersections CONTROL Unsignalized Intersections LOS A 510.0 <_ 10.0 B 10.1 to 20.0 10.0 to 15.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 F >_ 80.1 >_ 50.1 Note. LOS F for critical volume-to-capacity more than 1.0 AVENUE OFiNEFOUNfIIIMSIIi1pMONfYI1DRIVF:2! M f 8 =��Zj TABLE LOS ANALYSIS La Montana Dr & Avenue Of The Founta - 411/2017 >E tp M � M 7 tt 12J 1 /201 5 1:00:00 P)t 12115/2015 4:00:00 PNi W1011 3/2015 12:00:00 P1 U192015 2:00:00 P %:m I" I/U190 71nIti 1:2B.FJ" 1/1/1900 w1 jlt 1Z:381`01 Straight F—I Stopped Unknown �-•• Backing Overtaking Sideswipe 0 2`to.21 ,"oink (ffl: 1pm (0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic I� Parked X Pedestrian �.,. Erratic X Bicycle as.r Out of control p Injury Right turn 0 Fatality ,v— Left turn z Nighttime 'Flo U-turn DUI Fixed objects: n General a Pole ® Signal a Curb ® Tree 35 Animal Q 3rd vehicle Extra data Nd' Proerammin^_. Inc 4'18'2017 FIGURE 4: PROJECTED YEAR 2040 TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES �r ro �. co �r C-4. A ' - �'' , r x.53 [61 ] (52) / r%. .^ cn cn 4-97 [130] (96) C47 (37] (59) �' r (46) [49] 50? 1 �' r . -* - �,:� ' • (94) [99176-+ (135] (111] I I $ •ZinF rs - t cpheuen N� At fob- / XX [XX] (XX) - AM [MD] TABLE 3 1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS RESULTS MUTCD Warrants AOTF 1 La Montana Drive Warrant 1, Eight Hour Vehicular Volume No Condition A No Condition B No Warrant 2, Four Hour Vehicular Volume No Warrant 3, Peak Hour No Condition A No Condition B No Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume NIA Warrant 5, School Crossing NIA Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System No Warrant 7, Crash Experience No Warrant 8, Roadway Network No Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing NIA Note: NO - Warrant analyzed but not met YES - Warrant analyzed and met Source: the CK Group, Inc. September 2017 �nrKa��s: PROS: CONS: 1. Minor geometric improvements. 1. Similar to existing conditions I• 2. Still a wide intersection for N/S movement. PROS: CONS: 1. Minor geometric improvements. 1. Similar to existing conditions 2. Tighter framework at Intersection similar to 2. Still a wide intersection for N/S movement. true all way stop intersection configuration: 3. Geometric improvements will be required, 3. Reduces potential for U tum movements. 4. Loss of existing parking spaces. 4. Low Cost. 5. Introduces "pork chop" islands to 5. Reduces pedestrian crossing length in traffic intersection. B. Reduces pavement area and increase landscape areas. ECKGROUPn& N� S Lz 10 `s�`� TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS .t ARIZONA AOTF @ LA MONTANA DRIVE CONCEPT #1 INTERSECTION TIGHTENING OS N PROS: CONS: 1. Reduced traffic speeds at the intersection. 1. Wide intersection footprint. 2. Improved traffic operations and left turn 2. Requires geometric improvements. conflicts. 3. New traffic control means. 3. Provide opportunity for scenic monument. 4. Inconvenience during construction. 4 Maintain existing parking spaces. 5. Potential initial driver confusion. 5. Discourages NB to WB cut through traffic. 6. Loss of parking space. 6. No right of way needs �nrKa��s: 6K bHUL EnflinHm Eon Eirunrion Ma i 76�z It 44 A PROS: CONS: 1. Minor striping and signage improvements. 1. Similar to existing conditions 2. Tighter framework at intersection similar to 2. Still a wide intersection for NIS movement. true all way stop intersection configuration; 3. Vehicles on La Montana may be trapped in the 3. Minimal changes to existing conditions middle of the intersection. 4. Reduces potential for wrong way tum movements. 4. May create vehicle slacking at the intersection. S. May increase ssign pollution at the intersection. II• lop �lil�[:l• PROS- CONS: 1. No geometric improvements. 1. Similar to existing conditions 2. No changes to existing conditions. 2.Still a wide intersection crossing for NIS movement. 9 CK GROUP [up neers & Cons] nuutian Man er;er Aw TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS ARIZONA AOTF Q LA MONTANA DRIVE CONCEPT #5 DO NOTHING p r p i4� 'f �� i „ py f �A nl + ' n I� i �• p Ills �• Xk €- � p m -4 '4 - . � • is . +a ll • SMF e w Yp � �' - Y5 r' ` 1 •� I _ PROS: CONS: 3. Minor geometric irniprovements. f_ Similar to existing oonditians 2. Tighter framework at intersection similar to 2. Still a wide intersection for N!S movement. (etre all way slop intersection configuration; 3_ Geornetric improvements will be required. 3. Reduces potential for U turn movements. 4. Loss of existing parking spaces. 4. Low Oost. S. Introduces "pork chap" islands to 5. Reduces pedestrian crossing length in traffic intersection. 6. Reduces pavement area and increase landscape areas. �5 [CNeGBGUP 4 "Alb"?Ar 4e a fir'"3a'� 'llw �Ir! rFp( Atg I� J `rayr _j I iA"1�4� f'r�n h�++ nI r, a ��f aI i 04 Lf oll N:i��'Mf P'a Heei 4 +t'�,11i5{ ri'fa+ r �� ff alb r 1 _ '�M1al,wYf t fir" < F arr rF`nT y 'yar'��p� rA s � p. , a� i � � I 7 Z•r_ _ 'e1.9 S.N. y &L. I PROS: CONS: 1. Reducedtralk Weds at he n@mection. i.I/Neimersedonfo4nnl. ' iOVuN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 2. Impmred trafficoperotlmsand Id Nm 2. Re4dms geombic lmpmuanents. v�{ ARIZONA conks. 1 Nea haft cnnad means. 6. Prandeoppodumly kascedc mmumml. 4.Inomreni ncedunngmndRdm. AOBFQ IA MONTANA DRIVE 4. Mairddn edding pairing spw 5. Polenhal migal dfkr=Lsion. CONCEPF92 5.OismMesNB a WB atthrMh tak 6. Loss of parking space, ROUNOABOL"DESIGN 6. No right of my needs mm00000000000l PROS: CONS: 1. Minx timing and agnage imerammarm 1. Simtimtomating conditions 2. Tighter fmmewA at imersaclion sunilarto 2. Stala wide inersection for NISmomment We all my stop interseclbnomfgmation; 3. Vehideson La Madera may he tapped M he 3. Minimal charges toeuairg conditions middle of the iraermction. 4. Reduces ponedialfor " way Wm mommenls. 4, Maycreale uahicle sooting at the hlasedim. 5. May ancamsesatin pollulanatthe intersection. 0 PROS CONS 1. Nogewnehicimprovemerds 1. Smgarto emstiagwnddions P. Noin 2.SRawde inWsmcmmong br NIS movement. n } INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION ASSESSMENT STUDY Avenue of the Fountains at La Montana Drive Prepared for: Town of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Prepared by: V CK GROUP Enainem 6 Donslruclion Manners 16448 N. 40th Street, Suite A Phoenix, AZ 85032 602.482.5884 AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE 11 11 11�1 Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...............................................................................5 2.1 Roadway Configuration...............................................................5 2.2 Data Collection............................................................................5 2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis....................................................7 3.0 ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE CONDITIONS..................................................8 3.1 Traffic Volume Forecasts.............................................................8 3.2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis....................................................8 3.3 Roundabout Analysis...................................................................8 4.0 SCHEMATICS —RECONFIGURATION ALTERNATIVES ..........................10 4.1 Concept 1 —Tighten Intersection .............................................. 11 4.2 Concept 2 — Install An Oval Roundabout .................................. 12 4.3 Concept 3 — Michigan Left Turn..............................................13 4.4 Post Office Driveway Modifications...........................................14 4.5 Concept 4 - One Way Signing for Divided Roadway.................14 4.6 Concept 5 - "Do Nothing" Alternative.........................................15 4.7 Street Diet Along La Montana Dr...............................................16 I<CK GROUP 12 AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE W=kl M + 1, M+ List of Figures Figure 1- Vicinity Map ................................................ .. 4 Figure 2 - Traffic Configuration......................................................... 4 Figure 3 - Existing Condition Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes..................6 Figure 4 - Projected Condition Turning Movement Volumes ............................8 Figure 5 - Concept 1 - Tighten Intersection Configuration .............................11 Figure 6 - Concept 2 - Install an Oval Roundabout Configuration .................... 12 Figure 7- Concept 3 - Michigan Left -Turn Configuration............ .................. 13 Figure 8 - Concept 4 - One -Way Striping for Divided Roadway ....................... 14 Figure 9 - Concept 5 - "Do Nothing" Alternative ....................................... 15 Figure 10 - Street Diet Along La Montana Dr .......................................... 16 List of Tables Table 1- Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (SECIVEH)...............................6 Table2 - LOS Analysis................................................................. 7 Table 3 - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results ...................................... 7 Table4 - Concept 1: Pros & Cons.....................................................11 Table5 - Concept 2: Pros & Cons .................................................... 12 Table 6 - Concept 3: Pros & Cons .................................................... 13 Table7 - Concept 4: Pros & Cons ..................................................... 16 List of Appendices Appendix A ..................................................... Raw Count Data Sheets AppendixB................................................................... Crash Data Appendix C .................................................. Traffic Analysis Worksheets Appendix D ...............................................Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Appendix E ...................................................... MAG AADT Projections Appendix F ................................................ Concept Drawings (11 by 17) CCK GROUP AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Town of Fountain Hills (Town) is located in Maricopa County, about 30 miles northeast of downtown Phoenix. The Town is bordered by McDowell Mountain Regional Park on the north, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community on the south, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation on the east, and the City of Scottsdale on the west. Refer to Figure 1 (right), for depiction of the general location of the Town on a regional map. At the request of the Town Council, the CK Group, Inc. (CK) was retained by the Town Development Services Department to conduct an engineering analysis to review the geometric and operational configuration for the intersection of Avenue of the Fountain (AOTF) and La Montana Dr. A primary concern of the Town is that the All -Way Stop control at the intersection may not be functioning efficiently as a result of the wide median widths and lane configuration. Figure 2 (below) depicts the traffic control configuration at this intersection. FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2: TRAFFIC CONFIGURATION CCK GROUP 4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Roadway Configuration The intersection of AOTF and La Montana Car is an All Way stop -controlled intersection. It is a wide intersection with a separation of approximately 160 feet between the north and south approach stop bars. There is a wide landscaped median separating the east and west approaches. This wide median defines the large layout of the intersection. Refer to Figure 2 on page 4. AOTF: is an east west curvilinear major collector roadway between Saguaro Blvd and Palisades Blvd, It is striped with two lanes in each direction between La Montana Dr and Palisades Blvd with a wide raised median, and exclusive left - turn pockets for the residential and business accesses, and there are bike lanes, curb and gutter in both directions. There is sidewalk on both sides of AOTF except for the section fronting the undeveloped parcel at the northwest corner of La Montana Dr and AOTF. AOTF is posted with a speed limit of 30 MPH in this section of the road. Between La Montana Dr and Saguaro Blvd, AOTF is striped as a wide 24 -foot lane single lane. It has angled on -street parking on both sides of the street. It has a posted speed limit of 25 MPH between La Montana Dr and Saguaro Blvd. The wide median separating the eastbound and westbound lanes is landscaped and decorated with artistic pedestrian friendly features. AOTF is regarded as an art friendly corridor. La Montana Dr: runs in a north -south direction with one travel lane in each direction, and a two-way center left turn lane. La Montana Dr is classified as a major collector and is approximately 64 feet curb to curb. It has a posted speed lit -nit of 25 MPH between AOTF and Palisades Blvd in the northbound direction and 30 MPH in the southbound direction. Northbound between El Lago Blvd and AOTF, the speed limit is posted at 30 MPH. 2.2 Data Collection Traffic Volumes: The Town provided 2014 24-- hour weekday counts collected along the project corridors within the vicinity of the intersection and conducted 24-hour weekend counts (April 7-10, 2017) to assist in determining the intersection peak hour periods. STUDS I Review of the 24-hour counts collected shows that the peak traffic occurs at slightly different times than the normal early morning or late evening peak periods. The peak hour for both the weekday and weekend periods were observed to occur between 1 DAM -Noon, Noon to 2PM and 3PM to 5PM. Field Data Services Inc. (I=DS) performed traffic turning movement data collection on Thursday, April 20 and Saturday, April 22, 2017, at the project intersection, as well as at the post office driveway and drop off locations. Although some individual movements had higher traffic volume on Saturday vs. Thursday peak hour, the higher traffic volumes were generally on Thursday. The existing traffic counts are summarized in Figure 3 (next page). Raw count data sheets are included in Appendix A. Crash Data Analysis: The Town provided crash data for the previous 5 -year period for the intersection. Crash data was provided for the period from 2012 to 2017. A total of 12 crashes occurred during the five-year period reviewed. Out of the 12 crashes, 2 were injury crashes with no fatalities. Six of the 12 crashes (50%) occurred on the west leg of the intersection and were eastbound to southbound angle accidents. The crash data provided is shown in Appendix B. Level of Service (LOS) Analysis — LOS is a term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment or intersection under varying traffic volumes, It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometry, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. LOS analysis provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. CC!( GROUP 5 FIGURE 3: EXISTING CONDITION PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES STUDY I LOS designations range from "A" through "F", with LOS "A" representing the best operating conditions and LOS "F" representing the worst operating conditions. LOS designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments. Table 1 (below) shows LOS delay thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Calculations of LOS for signalized intersections is based on anticipated average control delays per vehicle over a 15 -minute analysis period for peak - hour turning movement volumes. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay. The current intersection operation analysis was conducted for the weekday and weekend RM and PM peak -hour conditions according to the Highway Capacity Manual requirements using Synchro 9 for an All Way Stop Controlled (AWSC) intersection. CCK GROUP 6 AVERAGETABLE I ,r w DELAY Signalized Intersections Unsignaiized Intersections LOS A :5 10.0 5 10.0 B 10.1 to 20.0 10.0 to 15.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 F X80.1 ?50.1 Note, LOS l' l'Qr critical volume -to -capacity more than 1.0 CCK GROUP 6 AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE i' TABLE 2 EXISTING CONDITION LOS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS RESULTS AOTF / La Montana Drive Warrant 1, Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A Condition B No No No Warrant 2, Four Hour Vehicular Volume No Warrant 3, Peak Hour Condition A Condition B No No No Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume NIA Warrant 5, School Crossing N/A Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System 000000000000 Warrant 7, Crash Experience No Warrant 8, Roadway Network No Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing N/A Note: NO- Warrant analyzed but not met YES - Warrant analyzed and met Source: the CK Group, Inc. October 2017 000000000 00 000000000000 The LOS analysis was performed using existing traffic counts collected on April 20 and 22, 2017. Traffic analysis worksheets are included in Appendix C. Table 2 (above) shows the results of the LOS Analysis. The overall intersection level of service was determined to operate at LOS "B" during both AM, Noon, and PM peak hour periods respectively. 2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis A signal warrant analysis was performed at the intersection of Avenue of the Fountains and La Montana Dr. to determine if any warrant for a traffic signal will be met under existing conditions. Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition, provides a description of the nine types of signal warrants. Only those warrants for which the data was available, were analyzed to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. Table 3 (below) shows the MUTCD traffic signal warrant analysis results. The worksheets and charts for the traffic signal warrant analysis are included in Appendix D. The results of the signal warrant analysis indicate Peak Hour Vehicular warrants for the installation of a traffic signal are not currently met at the intersection. TABLE3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT MUTCD Warrants ANALYSIS RESULTS AOTF / La Montana Drive Warrant 1, Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A Condition B No No No Warrant 2, Four Hour Vehicular Volume No Warrant 3, Peak Hour Condition A Condition B No No No Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume NIA Warrant 5, School Crossing N/A Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System No Warrant 7, Crash Experience No Warrant 8, Roadway Network No Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing N/A Note: NO- Warrant analyzed but not met YES - Warrant analyzed and met Source: the CK Group, Inc. October 2017 C"CK GROUP 1 7 3.0 ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.1 Traffic Volume Forecasts Future year 2040 volume projections for the Town were obtained from the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) travel demand model. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) projections obtained from MAG are included in Appendix F. Existing year traffic volumes were obtained from MAG for the project intersection and corridors. The future MAG traffic volumes were compared to the existing MAG traffic volumes to estimate the anticipated growth rate for the Town between current- and 2040 -year conditions. A growth rate of approximately 9% was obtained. The growth rate was applied to the existing turning movement counts at the project intersections to determine projected 2040 peak -hour turning movement counts. It should be noted that the nearby properties are currently undeveloped but planned to be soon developed more intensely than existing properties in that area (commercial vs. multifamily) with more floors, the intersection could experience moderately higher traffic growth sooner. Figure 4 (below) shows the projected 2040 turning movement volumes for the project intersections. EKCK GROUP STUDY I 3.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis A signal warrant analysis was performed using the volumes shown in Figure 4 (below). The results of the analysis indicate that warrants for a signal will not be met for Year 2040 conditions. 3.3 Roundabout Analysis CK researched other cities and towns in the state of Arizona and beyond to assess various ways traffic can be controlled at locations similar to the project intersection. The preferential use of roundabouts was observed as one of the top considerations. Locations observed include several intersections in the La Jolla community in San Diego, California; several intersections in the City of Carmel, Indiana: and several locations in the state of Washington. As part of this effort, CK also reviewed a prior Roundabout Feasibility Study prepared for the project intersection. Installing a roundabout at the project intersection was further reviewed due to the potential benefits of a roundabout over other modes of traffic control. According to studies done by others, including the FHWA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, roundabouts demonstrate the following FIGURE 4: PROJECTED YEAR 2440 TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES benefits over the traditional stop sign or signal controlled intersections: • 75% reduction in injury collisions 90% reduction in fatality collisions • 37% reduction in overall collisions 40% reduction in pedestrian collisions Encourages low travel speeds through the intersection • Reduction in travel delay • Improves traffic flow In addition to the benefits highlighted, roundabouts offer the opportunity to create an aesthetically pleasing gateway at major intersections in a community. Several municipalities both within the state and in the country have used roundabouts at intersections of significance. The Pictures 1-4 (right) show some of the locations we looked at as part of this analysis. The City of Scottsdale currently has several roundabouts and smaller traffic circles within Its jurisdiction. Other metro agencies including both phoenix and AQUT have installed a number of roundabouts. A roundabout analysis was performed to determine lane requirements if a roundabout is installed for traffic control at this intersection. The roundabout lane determination analysis was based on methodologies specified in NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd Edition (Guide), According to Exhibits 3-14 of the Guide, a single -lane entry is sufficient for an entry volume range of 0 to 1,000 veh./hour. The entry volumes to the project intersection from each direction during the peak hours are less than 300 veh.lhour for existing, as well as future year 2040 conditions, which indicates a single -lane roundabout will be sufficient at this location. This observation is in line with the observations made in the prior Roundabout 'Feasibility Study performed at the project intersection. CCK GROUP 9 41 4.0 SCHEMATICS — RECONFIGURATION ALTERNATIVES Several other alternatives to enhance traffic and safety operations were developed based on the review of the intersection. The potential improvements included implementing signing and striping modifications, as well as geometric improvements at the intersection. The potential improvements concepts have been developed with the goal of minimizing removal of existing improvements at the intersection. The proposed improvement alternatives include: 1. Tightening the intersection to reduce the distance between the approaches 2. Converting the intersection into an oval roundabout configuration 3. Implementing a Michigan left -turn concept 4. One-way signing 5. No action A concept for a road diet is also proposed along La Montana Dr. In tandem with the various improvements proposed, the following are recommendations: 1. Improve the roadway median opening at the westerly access to the post office into a full access opening 2. Restrict the easterly access into the post office to exit only 3. Relocate the mail drop off box location from adjacent to La Montana Dr into the post office and adjacent to ROTE The proposed alternative improvements are shown and presented in Concepts 1-5 (right) and are discussed in detail on the following pages. They are also included as Appendix F, The details include key pros and cons of proposed alternative improvements, as well as scale of cost. CCR GROUP CONCEPTS 1-5 . A. . IT F D 11 AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE 4.1 Concept 1— Tighten Intersection This concept minimizes removal of existing improvements at the intersection. The goal of the concept is to reduce the spread across the intersection and shorten the distance a motorist will transverse across the intersection. The Town can implement this concept on a temporary or interim basis using pavement markings or as a long term feature with raised curbs and signage to observe driver behavior and reaction. Table 4 (below) lists the pros and cons and Figure 5 (below) illustrates this concept. FIGURE 5' CONCEPT 1 • TIGHTEN INTERSECTION LFCKGAOUP 111 TABLE 4 CONCEPT — PROS _ 1: PROS & CONS CONS 1. Requires minor geometric 1. The distance between the north and improvements south legs (stop bar to stop bar length 2. Tightens intersection framework more is reduced from 160' to 120') is still closely reducing travel distance across wider than conventional stop condition the intersection intersections 3. Reduces potential for U-turn and/ 2. Introduces "pork chop' islands to or wrong way turn movements at the intersection intersection 3. Existing bike lanes on La Montana 4. Low cost through the intersection will be eliminated and existing parking on the 5. Reduces pedestrian crossing in traffic NB La Montana departure leg will be 6. Reduces pavement area and increases eliminated landscape areas. 4. Some geometric improvement will be required FIGURE 5' CONCEPT 1 • TIGHTEN INTERSECTION LFCKGAOUP 111 AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE 4.2 Concept 2— Install An Oval Roundabout As discussed above, use of roundabouts to control traffic operation can be an efficient way to improve traffic operations at locations such as the project intersection. Installation of a roundabout will utilize the existing wide layout of the intersection without need for additional right-of-way, while 1. Eliminates left -turn conflicts 2. Reduced traffic speeds at the intersection 3. Provides opportunity for scenic or artist features at roundabout 4. Provides opportunities to maintain existing parking along AOTF 5. Ideal for the traffic volume experienced at intersection 6. No right-of-way requirements 7. Somewhat discourages NB -WB cut -through traffic. minimizing impacts to existing landscape features at the intersection. To minimize impact to existing median noses on AOTF, the roundabout has been modified as an elliptical roundabout. Table 5 (below) lists the pros and cons and Figure 6 (below) illustrates -this concept. CONS 1. Major geometric improvements required 2. Introduces a new means of traffic control 3. Retains wide intersection footprints. 4. High cost 5. Potential initial driver confusion (first Town roundabout) 6. Eliminates two parking spaces on AOTF and parking spaces on the north departure leg of La Montana 7. Pedestrian crossings at roundabouts are farther from the intersection (potential high speeds and farther walking lengths) FIGURE 6: CONCEPT 2 - INSTALL AN OVAL ROUNDABOUT [CK GROUP 112 FO—TFAVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE 1 4.3 Concept 3 — Michigan Left Turn This concept utilizes the Michigan left -turn concept to improve operations at the project intersection. The Michigan left -turn concepts seeks to improve intersection operations by eliminating left turns at full access intersections. The concept proposes eliminating north south access through the intersection by connecting the raised median on AOTF. This concept will require a new access opening along the east median for northbound vehicles. Table 6 (below) lists the pros and cons and Figure 7 (below) illustrates -this concept. FIGURE 7: CONCEPT 3 - MICHIGAN LEFT TURN CCK GROUP 113 CONCEPTTABLE 6 •CONS CONS 1. Eliminates left -turn conflicts 1. Restricts north/south through movement 2. Reduced traffic speeds at the 2. Requires minor geometric intersection improvements 3. Provides for increased landscaped 3. Introduces a new means of traffic features along AOTF control 4. Improves pedestrian accessibility at the 4. Longer northbound and southbound intersection through movements 5. Extends usable AOTF median length by 5. NB traffic on La Montana is restricted/ 90' for special events prohibited during special events on 6. Discourages NB to WB cut -through AOTF median traffic 6. 52% of traffic is forced to change from straight -through to 360 degrees total turning and 700' additional travel distance FIGURE 7: CONCEPT 3 - MICHIGAN LEFT TURN CCK GROUP 113 10 11 AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE 4A Concept 4.One-Way Signing for Divided Roadway This concept mimics the ONE WAY signing concept used at Divided Highways with Median Widths of 30 feet or wider as detailed in the MUTCD. The concept utilizes the roadway segment within the wide median to queue vehicles through the intersection. Figure 8 is a graphical illustration of this concept while Table 7 below lists the pros and cons of the concept. FIGURE 8: CONCEPT 4 - ONE-WAY SIGNING FOR DIVIDED ROADWAY CCK GROUP 94 TABLE 7 CONCEPT P. P 4: PROS & CONS CONS 1. No geometric improvements required 1. Creates potential for queue problems 2. Minimal change from existing inside the intersection configuration 2. Introduces more signage in a short 3. Low cost distance 4. Improves pedestrian accessibility at the 3. May increase driver confusion intersection 4. May increase the side street (AOTF) 5. Channels north and southbound delays for left turning vehicles traffic into single lanes through the intersection FIGURE 8: CONCEPT 4 - ONE-WAY SIGNING FOR DIVIDED ROADWAY CCK GROUP 94 z01 STUDY I 4.5 Concept 5 - "Do Nothing" Alternative With these two recommendations implemented, it The "Do Nothing" concept maintains the existing is envisioned that the post office drop off location configuration and operation at the intersection. on La Montana Dr can be relocated into the post office site (and/or the AOTF frontage right-of-way) Figure 9 (below) illustrates this concept. and aligned parallel to AOTF. 4.6 Post Office Driveway Modifications The proximity of the post office driveways to the intersection was identified as a source of impediment to efficient traffic operation at the intersection. It was observed that vehicles use the easterly driveway to exit the post office and then make a quick U-turn at the intersection utilizing the southbound lanes to go back westbound. This movement places such motorists in conflict with southbound vehicles. To alleviate this condition, a recommendation to improve the westerly drive at the post office to a full access driveway is shown in the three concepts above. This would provide an opportunity for vehicles going west to exit the post office and avoid the intersection. Secondly, northbound vehicles on La Montana Dr were observed to make a left into the eastbound lanes on AOTF to utilize the easternmost post office driveway. The proposed options above also aim to minimize this movement, however it is recommended that this easterly driveway be converted to an exit only driveway. 43 Street Diet Along La Montana Dr As part of the intersection improvement analysis, opportunities for improving traffic flows along the two project corridors were reviewed. La Montana Dr was identified to present an opportunity for a street diet due to the wide lane configuration. This will complement it with pedestrian friendly improvements on AOTF. Picture 4 (page 9) shows a schematic illustration of the proposed street configuration for La Montana Dr. It is envisioned that La Montana Dr between AOTF and Fl Lago Blvd can be restriped to accommodate one northbound and one southbound lane, a center lane for two way left turn movement, bike lanes and a parallel parking lane. The travel lanes on La Montana Dr can be reduced to 11 -foot lanes. The bike lanes and parking lane will be separated by two or three foot buffer space. The proposed recommendation is anticipated to improve the livability of the immediate area especially in light of the current development under construction in the immediate vicinity. Figure 10 (next page) illustrates this concept. FfGUR;E 9: CONCEPT 5 - "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE � rG f 4 ! �'LAA i f, A 4 CCH GROUP 10 11 AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AT LA MONTANA DRIVE FIGURE 10: STREET DIET ALONG LA MONTANA DR CCK GROUP 116 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: E4o DATA. SERVICES o F ARIZONA, INC. 620,316.6745 Project #: 17-1159-001 TMC SUMMA Y OF I Montna & A venue of the fountains APPROACH LANES 1 11 IF N A C � � D ti �p a fn N J t7 p 0D 0 i V Avenue of the Fountains Cn Avenue of the Fountains I w AM MD PM TOTAL Ln TOTAL AM MD PFI w 133 42 45 46 CONTROL 247 86 91 70 � AWSC t a p 339 124 107 108 a A n 2 M M tn Icy a � ry 00 LOCATION #: 17-1159-001 rn M° 'n TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT n' La Montna & Avenue of the Fountains (Intersection Name) o r� G THURSDAY 04J20/17 Day Date a F APPROACH LANES COUNT PERIODS AM 1000AM 120OPM NOON 120OPM - 20OPM PM 30OPM - 50OPM AM PEAK HOUR 1100 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 12.00 PM PM PEAK HOUR 400 PM 49 5�r 48 1�3 89 119 88 296 43 34 54 131 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: ELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. 620.316.6745 Project #. 17-1159-002 TMC SUMMARY OF Post office mailbox drop rrf f APPROACH LANES a E N upN S C] C n 4 d a U AM MCI 111.1 TOTAL � w TOTAL AM MD PM _1 ® O 0 1 0 �� COMiROL 0 U U O U n 0 O 0 0 N. [ onFiais D71 0 Q U 0 `1 p 0 p a n s z rn tn CD 0 0 LOCATION #: 17-1159-002 ® o 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT i o 0 0 Post office mailbox drop off & a (Intersection Name) •E r u THURSDAY 04/20/17 Day Date a APPROACH LANES COUNT PERIODS D CL AM 1DOOAM 1200P I NOON 12DOPM - 20OPM PM 30OPM - 5007 AM PEAK HOUR 1015 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 1200 PM PM PEAK HOUR 315 PM Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: FIELD DATA SERVICES of ARIZONA, INC. fto 524.316.6745 Project #: 17-1159-003 TMC SUMMARY OF Post Office Western Dwy & Avenue of the Fountains APPROACH LANES El w: N o O C) Q o ~ �. W Lh C� o 0 a CD o o Avenue of the Fountains < � � � Avenue of the Fountains AM f•,Q P-7 ill"F.L TOTAL AM MD PM LU 0 0 0 CONTROL _ v 50U 167 178 155 1 -Way stop a 8p 31 30 19 N9 A - n x rn LA o a n LOCATION #- 17-1159-003 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT o L7 ¢ = Tice Western D & Avenue of the Foo `y ❑ (InEersection Name) V, c o W u THURSDAY 04/20/17 oDay Date w APPROACH LANES 0 COUNT PERIODS CL AM 1000AM - 120OPM NOON 120OPM - 20OPM PM 300PM 50OPM AM PEAK HOUR 1030 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 1230 PM PM PEAK HOUR 315 PM 0 f7 U U 153 158 1ti6 477 65 55 37 157 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: FJEtn DATA SERVICES or ARIZONA, INC. 'V 520.3116.6745 Project #: 17-1159-004 TMC SUMMA' Y OF Post Office East Dry Y & A venue of the Fountains APPROACH LANES Nr r� O lLJ a c o 0 f Avenue of the Fountains Avenue of the Fountains AM MD PM TOTAL vy LU TOFAL AM MD PM z o © © © CANTRDL � z a 528 180 181 167 ~j 2 -Way smP a 114 5 3 2 ee n x z rn Ln a LOCATION r,: 17-1159-004 I C) TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT C) C Office East Dwy & Avenue of the Foun p c �❑ � (Intersection Name) r o a m N � N 16 UJ QuTHURSDAY 04/20/17 © Day Date APPROACH LADES Q couwT PI=Rivos IL AM 1000AM 120OPM NOON 120OPM - 20OPM PM 30OPM 50OPM AM PEAK HOUR 1030 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 1215 PM PM PEAK HOUR 400 PM Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by; V LO DATA SERVICES OF (ARIZONA, INC. 620.316.6746 Project #: 17-1159-001 TMC SUMMA Y OF La Montna & A venue of the Fountains APPROACH LANES Li N o rn A J O ip -zr Wl Ln Ln Avenue of the Fountains ` `q Avenue of the Fountains AM MD PM TOTAL in TOTAL AM MD PM 129 60 43 26 AWS 143 v x' 188 71 59 S8 Controlf0l 322 116 113 93 Q n z a � w LOCATION #: 17-1159-001 i f M TURNING MOVEMENT Caulur f 0 � Lo c sb m La Montna & Avenue of the Fountains m (Intersecbon Name} L] SATURDAY 04/22/17 G Day Date 0 APPROACH LANES - COUNT PeRJODS J - AM 1000AM 120OPM NOON 120OPM - 200PM PM 30OPM - 500PM AM PEAK HOUR 1045 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 1200 PM PM PEAK HOUR 300 PM 58 53 32 83 76 67 226 43 4Q 27 110 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by. ELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. I . 520,31G.6746 Project #: 17-1159-002 TMC SUMMA Y OF Past office mailbox drop off & APPROACH LANES .p E N 4 O COCO 4 4 ~ u Q a © Ln CD N LS. g O0 L N O C7 ¢ O a AM MD PM TOTAL N TOTAL AM MD PM a 0 a 0 CONTROL a 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 C=:�> Na Controls a a a a 0 714 0 a a a a a a n T FnFn LA CD� CD o LOCATION #: 17.1159-002 x O O o TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT i C O C] O Past office mailbox drop aft & O (Intersection Name) M E U SATURDAY 04/22/17 t Day pale a APPROACH LANES O COUNT PERIODS CL AM 1000AM 120OPM NOON 120OPM - 20OPM PM 30OPM - 500PM AM PEAK HOUR 1100 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 1200 PM PM PEAK HOUR 400 PM Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: FIELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. or 520.316.6746 Project #: 17-1159-003 TMC SUMMARY OF Post t3ffi'ceWestern QW & A venue of the Fountains APPROACH LANES W 111 N y61 3 N �■ 0 o c4 C> o C! ~ ++ N O 4 4 a a i f E Avenue of the Fountains a 6 Avenue of the Fountains AM MD PM TOTAL N LU TOTAL AM MD PM o 0 0 0 � CONTROL � V 4�4 146 135 123 � a -war saoP [' 77 30 ¢ n z z a LOCATION #: 17-1159-003 c� TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT D s E Mice Western Dwy & Avenue of the Fui L (intersection Name) v SATURDAY 04/22/17 Day Date APPROACH LANES O COUNT PExipoS CL AM 1000AM 120OPM NOON 120OPM 20OPM PM 30OPM - 50OPM AM PEAK HOUR 1100 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 1200 PM PM PEAK HOUR 315 PM 0 0 © G 140 157 iao �.z 63 43 25 131 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: FIELD DATA .SERVICES OF ARIZONA. INC. 620.316.6746 Project #: 17-1159-004 TMC SUMMARY OF Post Office Eastern Dwy & A venue of the Fountains APPROACH LAMES m N r' LU ry d O - C7 1 a+ N O C:3 O Q a 6 f C7 C7 O Avenue of the Fountains ` o Avenue of the Fountains ori TOTAL tin LU TOTAL AM MD PM dr 0 fl fl cowrROL 0 [) 0 u VE 168 145 128 1-WayStup 703 195 145 543 Q EJ7 4 1 2 �] y ris 0 0 0 fl D n x _ � o m `r LOCATION #: 17-1159-004 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT Q o m c ffice Eastern Dwy & Avenue of the FOL (Intersection Name) °7 LU SATURDAY 04/22/17 QDay Date N APPROACH LANES O COUNT PERIODS 6 AM IOOOAM - 120OPM NOON 120OPM - 260PM PM 30OPM SOOPM AM PEAK HOUR 1100 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 1200 PM PM PEAK HOUR 315 PM 12 Crashes I 1V c to c-� C e 12/1/2015 1:00:00 PM` 12/15/2015 4:00:00 PM� v1011312015 12:00:00 PM -- 1/19/2015 M--1/19/2015 2:00:00 P ZA4 W►t 1),1/190 1/1/1900 I/;DIM ix3orM . Straight 14 Stopped < Unknown Backing <-� Overtaking < Sideswipe La Montana Dr & Avenue Of The Founta 1111?1^317 _ 4/1 /gnl7 Ccar Q 241 a►� 1_ ` 1 a j i i j ik &' pfsr (0) cr-aslics could not be placed in this schematic r Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: �- -• Erratic X Bicycle o General ® Pole .:i� Out of control 0 Injury Ea Signal @ Curb Right turn • Fatal ity ® Tree K- Animal ,j�— Left turn - > Nighttime q 3rd vehicle U-turn DUI Extra data I'df Ijl't4Lii11i31R111^. Iw: 1'Ih 017 HCM 21710 AWSC 3: 0511712017 Intersection Delay, slveh 11.9 Intersection LOS B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 VVBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % ESD EBL BT 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % Lane Configurations 79% 0% 100% 0% 0% ' 0% r 77% Vol Right, % 0% 21% Traffic Vol, vehlh 0 42 86 124 0 43 89 49 0 76 137 36 Future Vol, vehlh 0 42 86 124 0 43 89 49 0 76 137 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvrnt Flow 0 46 93 135 0 47 97 53 0 83 149 39 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 ff. 8 EBrCsach 8 - - 8 Degree of Util (X) - 0.342 A093 0.1780.23 Opposing Approach 0.189 WB 0.074 0.38 Departure Headway (Hd) EB 6.539 7.371 6.862 SB 7.536 7.026 Opposing Lanes 7.247 3 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes Yes Conflicting Approach Left Cap SB 547 483 519 NB 473 507 562 EB 542 Service Time Conflicting Lanes Left 4.323 2 4.652 3.939 5,333 2 4.108 5.033 4.372 3 0.167 0.344 Conflicting Approach Right 0.179 NB 0.099 0.191 0.094 SB 0.384 HCM Control Delay 11.4 WB 10.9 11.2 Conflicting Lanes Right 11.2 2 9.8 10.6 13.4 2 B B B 3 B B HCM Control Delay A 11 B HCM 95th -tile O 0.6 11 0.3 0.6 0.9 12.3 0.7 0,3 HCM LOS 1.8 B B B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 VVBLn1 WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 79% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 77% Vol Right, % 0% 21% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 23% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 76 173 42 86 124 43 89 49 34 191 LT Vol 76 0 42 0 0 43 0 0 34 0 Through Vol 0 937 0 86 0 0 89 0 0 148 RT Vol 0 36 0 0 124 0 0 49 0 43 Lane Flow Rate 83 188 46 93 135 47 97 53 37 208 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.165 0.342 A093 0.1780.23 0.098 0.189 0.093 0.074 0.38 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.187 6.539 7.371 6.862 6.149 7.536 7.026 6.312 7.247 6.586 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 496 547 483 519 580 473 507 562 492 542 Service Time 4.972 4.323 5,162 4.652 3.939 5,333 4,822 4.108 5.033 4.372 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.167 0.344 0.095 0.179 0.233 0.099 0.191 0.094 0.075 0.384 HCM Control Delay 11.4 12.7 10.9 11.2 10.8 11.2 11.5 9.8 10.6 13.4 HCM Lane LOS B B B B B B B A B B HCM 95th -tile O 0.6 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.7 0,3 0.2 1.8 AM Peak Condition 0510512011 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: 05/1712017 Intersection Lane Configurations Opposing Approach T, Opposing Lanes Traffic Vol, veli/h 0 34 146 43 Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 146 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 37 161 47 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 AM Peak Condition 05105/2017 Baseline Synchno 9 Report Page 2 Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 2 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 HCM Control Delay 13 HCM LOS B AM Peak Condition 05105/2017 Baseline Synchno 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC 08/21/2017 Intersection EB 0% 100% 0% 0% Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 3 3 Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.7 SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 3 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Intersection LOS B 2 3 HCM Control Delay 10.7 11.1 11.7 HCM LOS 8 B B Stop Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations 19 Yj t r 0 45 } jr 34 0 Ti 19 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 45 91 107 0 34 119 56 0 63 109 33 Future Vol, veh/h 0 45 91 107 0 34 119 56 0 63 109 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 49 99 116 0 37 129 61 0 68 118 36 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLnl EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2.. WBLn3 SBW SBLo2 Vol Left,% EB 0% 100% 0% 0% Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 3 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 3 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 3 HCM Control Delay 10.7 11.1 11.7 HCM LOS 8 B B NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLnl EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2.. WBLn3 SBW SBLo2 Vol Left,% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thm,% 0% 77% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 77% Vol Right,% 0% 23% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 23% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Slop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 63 142 45 91 107 34 119 56 19 204 LT Vol 63 0 45 0 0 34 0 0 19 0 Through Vol 0 109 0 91 0 0 119 0 0 158 RT Vol 0 33 0 0 107 0 0 56 0 46 Lane Flow Rate 68 154 49 99 116 37 129 61 21 222 Geometry Grp 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Ulil (X) 0.137 0.281 0.099 0.186 0.196 0.075 0.246 0.104 0.041 0.401 Departure Headway(Hd) 7.222 6.556 7.28 6.771 6.058 7,348 6.839 6.127 7.168 6.508 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 494 545 490 526 587 485 521 580 497 550 Service Time 5.007 4.341 5065 4.556 3.843 5.138 4.628 3,915 4.95 4.29 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.138 0.283 0.1 0.188 0.198 0.076 0.248 0.105 0.042 0.404 HCM Control Delay 11.2 11.9 10.9 11.1 10.3 10.7 11.9 9.6 10.3 13.6 HCM Lane LOS B B B B B B B A B B HCM 95th -tile 0 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.2 1 0.3 0.1 1.9 Midi Peak Condition 05/05/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 082112017 Intersection Lane Configurations f. Traffic Vol, vehlh 0 19 158 46 Future Vol, vehi 0 19 158 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Wort Flow 0 21 172 50 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 Conflicting Lanes Left 3 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 HCM Control Delay 13.3 HCM LOS B MidDay Peak Condition 05/052017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: 05117/2017 Intersection - Opposing Approach WB Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.4 EB SB Opposing Lanes 3 Intersection LOS B 2 Conflicting Approach Leff SB NS Movement EBU EBL EST EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations 3 T r T r R A WB Traffic Vol, vehlh 0 46 70 108 0 54 88 48 0 79 124 38 Future Vol, vehlh 0 46 70 108 0 54 88 48 0 79 124 38 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 50 76 117 0 59 96 52 0 86 135 41 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 PM Peak Condition 0 510 512 01 7 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page i Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 3 3 2 Conflicting Approach Leff SB NS EB Conflicting Lanes Leff 2 2 3 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 3 HCM Control Delay 10.5 10.7 11.8 HCM LOS B B B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLM EBLn2 EBL0. WBLnl WBLn2 WBLn3 SBLnt SBI -n2 Vol Left% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thm,% 0% 77% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100°% 0% 0% 80°% Vol Right,% 0% 23% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 20% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 79 162 46 70 108 54 88 48 29 179 LT Vol 79 0 46 0 0 54 0 0 29 0 Through Vol 0 124 0 70 0 0 88 0 0 144 RT Vol 0 38 0 0 108 0 0 48 0 35 Lane Flow Rate 86 176 50 76 117 59 96 52 32 195 Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Degree of Util (X) 0.168 0.313 0.101 0.143 0.197 0.12 0.182 0.089 0.063 0.351 Departure Headway(Hd) 7.059 6.392 7.276 6.767 6.054 7.345 6.836 6.124 7.14 6.5 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 506 560 490 527 588 485 522 581 499 551 Service Time 4.834 4.167 5.058 4.549 3.836 5.128 4.618 3.905 4,915 4.275 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.17 0.314 0.102 0.144 0.199 0.122 0.184 0.09 0.064 0.354 HCM Control Delay 11.3 12.1 10.9 10.7 10.3 11.1 11.2 9.5 10.4 12.8 HCM Lane LOS B B B B B B B A B B HCM 95th -tile Q 0.6 1.3 0,3 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.2 1.6 PM Peak Condition 0 510 512 01 7 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page i HCM 2010 AWSC 05117/2017 Intersection Delay, stveh Intersection LOS PM Peak Condition 05/05/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T. Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 29 144 35 Future Vol, veh/h 0 29 144 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt FIoW 0 32 157 38 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 2 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 3 HCM Control Delay 12.5 HCM LOS B PM Peak Condition 05/05/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 I IIIINIII Summary of Warrants Spot Number: 1 Major Street: AOTF Minor Street: La Montana Intersection: AOTF at La Montana City/Twp. Fountain Hills Date Performed: 5/12/2017 Performed By: Amara INi Date Volumes Collected: 4120/2017 Warrant Condition Is Warrant Met Data Validation Error WARRANT 1: Ei ht -Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A *NIA Condition e condition A&B WARRANT 2: Four -Hour Vehicular Volume 100 WARRANT 3: Peak -Hour Vehicular Volume {1000x0 Condition A Condition B WARRANT 4: Pedestrian Volume 70% Four Hour NIA Peak Hour NIA Threshold HAWIS Threshold RRFg WARRANT 5: School Crossing WARRANT 6: Coordinated Signal System WARRANT 7: Crash Experience _ Condition IACondition WARRANT 8: Roadway Network WARRANT 9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing #N/A Issue to Be Addressed by Signalization: 0 RRFB - Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon. Summary of Warrants Spot Number: 1 Maar Street: AOTF Minor Street: La Montana Intersection: AOTF at La Montana Cit /Tw : 'Fountain Hills Date Performed: 5/12/2017 Performed By. Amara Ibe'i Date Volumes Collected: 4/20/2017 Warrant Condition Is Warrant Met Data Validation Error NO WARRANT 1: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume NO Condition A NO Condition B NO Condition A&B N/A WARRANT 2: Four -Hour Vehicular Volume 100% NO WARRANT 3: Peak -Hour Vehicular Volume 100% NO Condition A NO Condition B NO WARRANT 4: Pedestrian Volume 70% NO Four Hour NIA Peak Hour NIA Threshold HAWK NO Threshold RRFI3 NO WARRANT 5: School Crossing_NO WARRANT 6: Coordinated Signal System NO WARRANT 7: Crash Experience NO Condition A NO Condition B NO WARRANT 8: Roadway Network NO WARRANT 9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing #N!A Issue to Be Addressed by Signalization: Signal Warrants for Future Year 2040 9 K _. Y I ,7a J L 2078 24 Hours Volumes 2035 24 hour volumes WTUMHC� F PROS: CORS: 1. Mmorgaomehicimpmvemenis 1. S'aniazto eSsling auditions 2. Tglaerhameworkatiniemation similar a 2. Still a wide intersection for RS movemaL We all way stop iatemedon w1guaear: 3. Geometric improvements will be required. 3. Redaas polential for O Nm movemenla. 4. Loss of existing parking spaces 4. Law Cost 5. hnoduas'pot ckr slendsta 5. Re=pedeslrian uossrg lengN n Infic hnazse*n. 6. Reduces pavememarea and increase landsapeareas _- Kano town PROS: CONS: 1. Reduced tralfic speeds atOve iraouclon. 1.Wde inmm cbDn WOW � TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 2 lmpmvedhalficopr*m and let am 2. Re9uiresgeomeMcimgoutunanls. ti�2 ARIZONA oft 3, NewlmfficcmWmeans. 3. Rmide opportmiVor acenic mmumtd. 4.1mmnvenie clumgcensauctim. AOTF@ IA MONTANA DRIVE 4. Maintain etisangpattng spaces. S. Po@n5al impel diver con mn. CONCEPT #2 5.Oimrages NBUWBoil Mmugh talic 6. Loss of parting space. ROUNDABOUT DESIGN 6.NodgMofwayreeeds 45 [CHGBGUP I I TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS ARIZONA AOTF@IA MONTANA DIRK PROS: cows: 1. Mmnale k%lum cordf�is. 1. Nodh6audl axssresMcdon. 2. Rekmseautlng parkag sells on AOTF. 2 RquhesgeomeMcimpmuxmwds. 3 Rouitle sonic oppaduniryfaAOTF. 3. New taficrordrol means. 4. Reduced imific speeds at IM1e Interaction. 4 long drive time for north wNh movement 5. Egends useadk AOTF mejianlengN. 5. N8 ResMctim on la Montana Drive.6. D'seaurages NBNWB W Through hafiw. MICHIGAN LEFT CONCEPT PROS; CONS: 1. Mrwsnpingand sgrallimpmvemenh 1.Simiarloeridngand5ors 2. Tighter framewodatinterai similar to 2 S6h aAll whemecbanfor WS movement. hue all way slop m@rsecton ardgumlbm 3 Verdes an La Monranamay betapped intoe 3. Minimal changes to eridng condilions inside ofthe inarsedon. 4. Reduces polengalJig wamg way tum reverserys. 4. May createvehke sadiingatthe intersedicl 5. May two ssgn poll atthe inameclion. 0 PRGS: CONS: 1. No gmmelnc imgrouemenls. 1. SimiWr b edsfing mndtiore 2. Wo charges b exdng mnftm.. 1.5111 a wide inlemecbn crossrig br WS momem. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 0� 4 z ri TOWN COUNCIL Q `• AGENDA ACTION FORM Meeting Date: 1111412017 Meeting Type: Special Session Agenda Type: Regular Submitting Department: Development Services Staff Contact Information: Randy Harrel; Town Engineer; rharrel er fh.az.gov; 480-816-5112 REQUEST TO COUNCIL (agenda Language): DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding the recommendations of the "Traffic Engineering Analysis Report: Shea Blvd. at Palisades Blvd. & Shea Blvd. at Fountain Hills Blvd." Applicant: Amara lbeji/CK Group Applicant Contact Information: Tele. 602-482-5884 Owner: Town of Fountain Hills Owner Contact Information: NIA Property Location: Shea Blvd. at Palisades Blvd. and at Fountain Hills Blvd. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle: NIA Staff Summary (background): CK Engineering has provided their contracted traffic signal evaluation report for the above -noted two existing traffic signals. (Copy attached.) CK Group's analysis showed that both of these existing traffic signals are currently operating at acceptable levels of service, as follows: Location: AM(PM) Peak Shea Blvd. at: Delay (seclveh) Level of Service Palisades Blvd. 15.1 {21.3} B (C) Ftn. Hills Blvd. 34.1 (17.4) C (B) (Note: Intersection Level of Service (LOS) ranges from A (best) - F (worst), and is based on the duration of intersection delay. For reference, both MCDOT and Scottsdale require an LOS D or better at its arterial intersections (ref: MCDOT's Roadway Design Manual, and Scottsdale's Design Policies and Standards Manual). Both of these intersections currently operate above that minimum acceptable level of service.) CK's recommendations are shown on page 18 of their report, and are summarized below (with Staff implementation recommendations shown in CAPITAL LETTERS. Page 9 of 3 SIHIA BLVD. AT RALISA❑BS BLVD.: 'I. Existing "Right TL rn circ Green Arraw Only" restriciian 8 signage - To rerrain. AGREB. ONote: -11- is nestricllion t as t een tt a sL t ject of a riurr ben of complaints o� er tt a years, and - t ased an field otserx,atiori - is violated fairly freqLEintly. Howe%er, 111-e storl sighiline io approaching westboL rid irafilia, the moving sigt i-lirie absinuation causec ty tt e c ual RT trafilia, and sun-in-yOL r -eyes isst, Eis during winter aftEirrioons ai t1- is t illcnest location on Shea Blvd., all conirit L ie to ihEi need io rr aintain this resiniation.] 2. L SO an off-FlEiak timing plain fon ofil-peak hOL rs, shortening the rr inirr L rr initial green tirrie to 10 sEiaands. ENGRG. CON SIU LTIANT TC PREFIAIRB AN C FF -PEAK SIGNAL -niMIN G BLAIN . SITIAFF W ILL RROGRAIM 9F PIT OFF-FIEAK TIMING PLAN INTC Th 8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL CC Nl1ROLLER. 3. 8)isiing L -Turn Restriaiioris - -Ho remain. AGREE. 4. No changEis werEi necomimended io tt a signal timing aric rit asing plans. AGREE. 5. [Covered in liem 2 at ove.] 6. Restore 11`0 dEigraded SIB approach sinirling. SITRI PING CIO NIIRAICITCRTC RE -:TRIPE. SIH BA BLVD. All FOU WHAIN H ILLI BLVD.: 1. Existing U-Tlunn resiriaiion on FHB io remiain. AGREE. 2. Existing U-iunn restriciian cm StEia is nai neeced and can be rerroved. STAFF TC REMOVE Th B "N 0 U-11URN" SIGNS. 3. SB Signal Head Layoui Options: * REimoxe the 5-sEiaiian 1-Eiad and tt a arrow t eads for the right-tL rn mioverrerii. * Modify the signal t eads. SITAFR WIL L MC ❑IFV lIH E SIGNAL H EA❑SI. 4a. If tt a Town desires, al^ ange frarr protected lefil tL rns (Ii.e. rEid, yellow, and green arrows) io proteciec- permissive left 1L rns ji.e. left tunns allowed on 111- a green ball, followed by a green arrow, if there is still inaffia waiting to make 111- is turn; ilor tt e N or t bouric and SOL It t ound approach iraffic, to improve the iniensection's level of senvice. ON GRG. CC N SIU LTANII 110 RRERARE A MC ❑IFIBD SIGNAL-nIMING KLAN FOR NC RTHBC L N ❑ & SIOUTH BOUND RRCTBCITED-PBRMISSR� E LEFT TURN S. STAFF WILL RROGRAIM 11HAT TIMIN G BLAIN INTC lIH E-HRAIFFIC SIGNAL CONIIROLL OR. 4b. If tt e Town desires, cit ange frarr protected left tL rns io Flashing Yellow Arraws for the Eastt ound appnoaal^ left-iunn moverrient, 11a irripirave the intensection lexel of service. QUtilize the Mashing Yellow Alnnows first c L ring ofil-peak hOL re as a lest.; ON GIN EBRING CONSIULIIAINT X RREPARB A MODIFIED SIGNAL TIMING PLAN FOR EASl1BC U N ❑ TRAFFIC, W IIIH FLASIH ING L EF -n -TURN ARRC W CC NTRC L, IN ITIAIL LY FC R AN OFF-PEAK TESl1, AND HF ON FOR BOTH C FF -PEAK AND FOR THE RBAK 11RAIFFIC RBRIC DSI. SITAFF WILL RROGRAIM TFIC SIE TIMING RLANS INTC 11HE-HRAIFFIC -SIGN AL CIONTRCLLBR. [The report nates 111- ai Flan' ing Yellow Arrows were implemented by their stafil in other \� alley sillies withoLl specific Clac ncil appiro%al al it ai signal aonfigunation. Howe%er, flown Staff asks fon Counail feedt ack on Page 2 of 3 whether Flashing Left -Turn Arrows should be permitted where appropriate within Fountain Hills, such as at this location. The above -noted modified traffic signal timing plans will need to be contracted with a registered engineer experienced in preparing traffic signal timing plans. The above -noted striping modifications will need to be contracted with an experienced striping contractor, and some traffic signal modifications may require contractor work. Risk Analysis (options or alternatives with implications): NIA Fiscal Impact (initial and ongoing costs; budget status): NIA Budget Reference (page number): NIA Funding Source: NA. If Multiple Funds utilized, list here: NIA Budgeted; if No, attach Budget Adjustment Form: NA Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s): NIA Staff Recommendation(s): Staff recommends implementation of CK Group's traffic engineering recommendations for the Shea/Palisades and the Shea/Fountain Hills Blvd. intersections, as noted above. List Attachment(s): Aerial Photos of the Shea/Palisades and the Shea/Fountain Hills Blvd. intersections; "Traffic Signal Analysis Report: Shea Blvd. at Palisades Blvd. & Shea Blvd. at Fountain Hills Blvd. Intersections", CK Group, June 2017 SUGGESTED MOTION {For Council use}: Move to direct Staff to implement the recommendations of CK Group's June 2017 Report, as recommended by Staff. Prepared by: Randy Harrel, Town Engin7' 10/25/2017 Page 3 of 3 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT SHEA BLVD AT PALISADES BLVD VIP SHEA BLVD AT FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS 61 IGHT 0 GREEN ARROW ONLY Vicinity Map ---------------------------------------- I ------------------------------.------ 1 SCOTTSDALE SHEA BLVD - t PALISADES BLVD 1� SCOTTSDALE j • NORTH SCALE: P = 3500' TOWN ew HALL e M g� R ! SHEA BLVD AT ! ..o FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD a l z SKA I a ' W �Ur I S f+ &4a uvo 1 O SALT RIPER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES l 79-2 92 v V "p, to# 0 N (not to scale) t f � l 1 cv ,o,nrwo - �� VD NOV ff�D 4 v ►` ` 1 SHEAIPALISADES BLVD INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION :IN MAMMA 9111►SLEs1011Mwm# 1="Ile]0■UWAIII:[• AM (PM) Peak Location(s) Control Average Control Delay LOS' (sec/veh) 1. Shea Blvd at SIG 15.1 (21.3) B (C) Palisades Blvd Notes. SIG -Signalized Operation (Refer to Table 1) 1. LOS for signalized intersections based on average control delay per vehicle, according to the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2070.+ - ..mow. "^tel 9 Crashes G ,^I X `~ n4 - Y X016 5:14:00 PM 6:45,00 PM 4 1/30/2017 4:53:00 PM— _3/zo l5 8:39:00 PM Shea Blvd & Palisades Blvd 2 -Year 7f1/2015 - 7/1/2017 12/30/2016 6:16:00 PM 11'x- I Clear Legend: — Straight E;;:�= Parked 0 Stopped-. Erratic Unknown Out of control . Backing Right turn Overtaking v-- Left turn Sideswipe I,>-,— U-turn X Pedestrian Fixed objects: X Bicycle ❑ General ® Pole 0 Injury Fa Signal n Curb 'rree * Fatality ® 32 Animal d Nighttime 3rd vehicle I4 DUI rt Extra data (riot to scale) N CD too �a�k o 1 r r Shea Blvd.IP �, t private Street t n SHEAIFOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION TABLE LOS ► ►LYSIS SHEA/FOUNTAIN AM (PM) Peak Location(s) Control Average Control Delay (seclveh) LOS 1. Shea Blvd and Fountain Hills SIG 34.1 (17.4) C (B) Notes: SIG - Signalized Operation (See Table 1) 1. LOS for signalized intersections based on average control delay per vehicle, according to the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010, L. Shea Blvd & Fountain Hills Blvd 2 -Year 7/1/2015 - 7/1/2017 11 Crashes C>*— - 33/7�/2017 2:36:00 PM 6/20/2017 5:02:00 PM —5&1' 12/26/2016 3:09:00 PM — W 12/23/2016 10:57:00 AM me b b79Q016 12:36:00 PM Clew- 3/13/2017 lear 3/13/2017 9:20:00 AM 0C /11/2015 9:44:00 PM 6/8/2016 9:25:00 AM a Legend: — Straight — Stopped . Unknown . Backing Overtaking Sideswipe X Pedestrian X Bicycle * Injury * Fatality Nighttime a DUI E;;:�= Parked �-. Erratic Out of control �t,_ Right turn ,v-- Left turn I,>-,— U-turn Fixed objects: ❑ General ® Pole Fa Signal o Curb ® 'rree 32 Animal 3rd vehicle rt Extra data r' N • . , , (riot to scale) 4 w y All �f r� SHEAIFOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD SIGNAL MODIFICATION OPTION 'I 0 ?6,43ke tse h (not to scale) BHEAIFOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD SIGNAL MODIFICATION OPTION 2 Flashing Yellow Arrow Descriptions OF • Protected arrow for Left Turn • Perm itted/Protected arrow for Left turn • Flashing Yellow Left Turn Arrows (FYLTA's) Flashing Yellow arrow Turn Signal Scottsdale is a leader in incorporating new technology into our street and traffic signals, like the Flashing Yellow Arrow Turn Signal. The new Signals provide saferand more efficient travel through an intersection. National studies determined aflashing yellow lefttum signal is most easily understood indication for drivers turning left. Benefits: FlaihingYeRowArrow Tum Signal I • Flashing yellow signal alerts drivers to be more aware at inte rsections and to yie Id to ■ SlaklyRedAMY"- eeetm +*H ••lIf lMMrw[hM+. traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. ste tiryeeaw/araw- a�„», r...�H.a.l,•rwnwa uww u.naul w rwn,eo • Greaterfie xibilityinsign altiming and off rwm•.+-+mn+ rr, un Hop+drr v.lai.. r. coordination mpw••m•wm. FleAYrrpYA w,►rmw- • Eliminates motorists confusion >WiWpms><•nrq uri 1+•anal•n.l9ntwrr•! u.n Iw a qmn •yM 1 f k,rr. � .,, i 10 daCrmm � I.fNav le •n wLgwM • Provides more opportunitiesfor drivers to ••a«•+�.na turn left steady Green Arrow - wnr.�n,rwy.i.�nnn. m. qn 'a rw W& ��� yf«. ^ ' ` Ire 5 « \ 2 ��� lye AIN lyjt m .low: 9Q �h3(v�p0 is `v C CK GROUP EnglneeesmisTlucilon Managers - - 9 sited to TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS —> pared by the CK Group, Inc. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT Shea Blvd at Palisades Blvd & Shea Blvd at Fountain Hills Blvd Intersections Prepared for: Town of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Prepared by: C CK GROUP EnAlneem 6 GROUP mgete 16448 N. 40th Street, Suite A Phoenix, AZ 85032 602.482.5884 June 2017 SHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD S SHEA BLVD atT- FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....... ................... .e_e.............. _............................................................ 4 CCK GROUP 12 1.1 Shea Blvd at Palisades Blvd Intersection................................................... 4 1.2 Shea Blvd at Fountain Hills Blvd Intersection ............................................. 4 2.0 LOCATION OF STUDY....................................................................................................4 3.0 EXISTING CONDITION..................................................................................................5 3.1 Shea Blvd at Palisades Blvd....................................................................... 5 3.2 Shea Blvd at Fountain Hills Blvd................................................................. 8 4.0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ISSUES ANALYSIS........._. . .................e.........................11 4.1 Shea Blvd at Palisades Blvd......................................................................11 4.2 Shea Blvd at Fountain Hills Blvd............................................................... 13 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................._........__....................... .____..... ........... ....18 5.1 Shea Blvd at Palisades Blvd..................................................................... 18 5.2 Intersection of Shea Blvd at Fountain Hills Blvd ....................................... 18 CCK GROUP 12 -E=SNEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD 8 SHEA BLVD at 1 *14911111 ' FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS List of Figures Figure 1- Vicinity Map................................................................... 4 Figure 2 —Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..........................................6 Figure 3 — Shea/Palisades Blvd Intersection Configuration .............................7 Flgnre 4— Shea/Fountain Hills Blvd Intersection Configuration ........................10 Figure 5— Shea/Palisades Blvd U -Turn Analysis.......................................12 Figure 6 — Shea/Fountain Hills Blvd Signal Modification Option 1 ......................14 Figure 7— Shea/Fountain Hills Blvd Signal Modification Option 2 ......................14 Figure 8 — Shea/Fountain Hills Blvd U -Turn Analysis....................................15 List of Tables Table 1— Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Sec/Veh).................................5 Table 2 — Existing Intersection Peak Hour LOS Analysis — Shea/Palisades.............6 Table 3— Existing Intersection Peak Hour LOS Analysis Shea/Fountain Hills ........... 9 Table 4 — Left -Turn 'LOS for Permissive vs. Protected Phasing — Shea Blvd at Fountain Hills Blvd............................................16 Table 5 — East/Westbound Left -Turn LOS for Protected vs. FYA Phasing — Shea Blvd at Fountain Hills Blvd............................................17 List of Appendices Appendix A ....................................... Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts Appendix B ................... Synchro Work Sheets for Shea Blvd/Palisades Blvd LOS Appendix C ............... Synchro Work Sheets for Shea Blvd/Fountain Hills Blvd LOS Appendix a ................ Left -Turn Phasing Analysis at Shea Blvd/Fountain Hills Blvd Appendix E .........................Flashing Yellow Left -Turn Arrows, City of Scottsdale SCK GROUP .3 ASHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD a SHEA BLVD atYN, FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Town of Fountain Hills (Town) is located in Maricopa County, about 30 miles northeast of downtown Phoenix. The Town is bordered by McDowell Mountain Regional Park on the north, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community on the south, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation on the east, and City of Scottsdale on the west. Refer to Figure 1, for depiction of the general location of the Town on a regional map. At the request of the Town Council, the CK Group, Inc. (CK) was retained by the Town Development Services Department to conduct an engineering analysis to address recurring traffic concerns at the intersections of Shea Boulevard (Shea Blvd) at Palisades Boulevard (Palisades Blvd) and Fountain Hills Boulevard (Fountain Hills Blvd). The traffic issues identified are outlined below by location: 1.1 Shea Blvd at Palisades Blvd Intersection 1. Request to eliminate, modify, restrict (to peak hours) or continue to retain the "Right Turn on Green Arrow Only" restriction. 2. Request to eliminate existing "U -Turn" restriction. 3. Request to evaluate existing phasing scheme, cycle length and timing plan using recent traffic count data (including potentially eliminating the westbound (WB) to northbound (NB) right -turn overlap and or allowing the eastbound (EB) to NB left turn on a green ball or flashing left -turn arrow). 1,2 Shea Blvd at Fountain Hills Blvd Intersection 1. Evaluate existing traffic signal head type, layout, and locations for all directions, with focus on the southbound (SB) traffic. 2. Request to eliminate existing "U -Turn" restriction. 3. Request to evaluate existing phasing scheme, cycle length, and timing plan using recent traffic count data. Review possible elimination of the WB -NB right -turn overlaps and or allowing EB - NB left turn on a green ball or using flashing left -turn arrow. 2.0 LOCATION OF STUDY Primary vehicular access to the Town is provided by Shea Blvd. Shea Blvd connects the Town to the greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area through the City of Scottsdale. Shea Blvd terminates at State Route 87 (SR 87), which connects the Town to communities in the East Valley, including the cities of Mesa, Chandler and Gilbert. To the north, SR 87 crosses the Verde River, Goldfield Ranch and the entrance to the Saguaro Lake/ Salt River recreation areas and on to Roosevelt Lake, and the Town of Payson. There are approximately 165 miles of paved roadways in the Town. Arterial roadways form the foundation of the roadway system in the Town, providing regional access and major transportation links. Shea Blvd is classified as a principal arterial. Palisades Blvd and Fountain Hills Blvd are classified as minor arterials. CCH GROUP 4 f %I •�� EAVsd _ �� - - &-Den `n +r .¢ 00 t IA�+tl WEST RIR6E� ri MLAGE PAG71Ai ESI/ - xy�b q� _ 4yxal fy Lei end IIREPOCK FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP 2.0 LOCATION OF STUDY Primary vehicular access to the Town is provided by Shea Blvd. Shea Blvd connects the Town to the greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area through the City of Scottsdale. Shea Blvd terminates at State Route 87 (SR 87), which connects the Town to communities in the East Valley, including the cities of Mesa, Chandler and Gilbert. To the north, SR 87 crosses the Verde River, Goldfield Ranch and the entrance to the Saguaro Lake/ Salt River recreation areas and on to Roosevelt Lake, and the Town of Payson. There are approximately 165 miles of paved roadways in the Town. Arterial roadways form the foundation of the roadway system in the Town, providing regional access and major transportation links. Shea Blvd is classified as a principal arterial. Palisades Blvd and Fountain Hills Blvd are classified as minor arterials. CCH GROUP 4 tom; TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT 3.0 EXISTiNG CONDITION 3.1 Shea Blvd at Palisades Blvd A. Traffic Signal — The intersection is signalized and controlled using an 8 -Phase timing scheme.. Field investigation revealed that the right -turn movement for SB Palisades Blvd is controlled in a protected overlap mode with EB Shea Blvd left - turn movement, which operates in a lagging left mode. NB and SB Palisades Blvd are split phased This phasing configuration provides additional opportunity for the notably heavy SB Palisades Blvd right -turn movement to clear with minimal delay and queue backup during peak traffic conditions. Underground conduit and fiber optic cable is in place on Shea Blvd between the intersections of Palisades Blvd/Shea Blvd and Fountain Hills Blvd/Shea Blvd. However, there is no signal interconnection between the two intersections. B. Timing Plan —The existing timing and phasing plan was provided by the Town with a maximum cycle length of 140 seconds. The signal operates as semi -actuated uncoordinated with unused open time allocated to the main phase which is on Shea Blvd. C. Detection —Advance detection is present for the east, west and north approaches to the intersection along with presence video detection at the intersection for all approaches. A recent improvement linked the EB Shea Blvd through movement with the SB Palisades Blvd right -turn overlap using the SB Right presence video detection. D. Level of Service (LOS) Analysis — LOS is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment or intersection under varying traffic volumes. It is a qualitative analysis which takes into account factors such as roadway geometry, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. LOS provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. LOS designations range from "A" through "F", with LOS "A" representing the best operating conditions and LOS "F" representing the worst operating conditions. LOS designation is reported differently for signalized and un - signalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments. Table 1 shows LOS delay thresholds for signalized intersections. Calculations of LOS for signalized intersections is based on anticipated average control delays per vehicle over a 15 -minute analysis period for peak hour turning movement volumes, Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay. TABLE —AVERAGE CONTROL LOS Signalie d Intersections A 5 10.0 B 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F - 2: 80.1 !Vote: LOS F for critical volume-fo-capacity more than 1.0 rK_CK GROUP 1 5 ' lZZUM SHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD a SHEA BLVD at 11041131 FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS - An existing condition LOS analysis was conducted for the intersection during a typical weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions according to the Highway Capacity Manual requirements using Synchro 9. The LOS analysis was performed using existing peak hour traffic counts collected on Thursday December 22, 2016, shown in Figure 2. Raw data sheets for the traffic counts are included in Appendix A. The overall intersection existing LOS is LOS B and C during the AM and PM peak hour periods, respectively. For the purpose of this study, special attention was given to the LOS for the SB right - turn approach to the intersection. LOS A was obtained for the SB right -turn movements during both the AM and PM peak periods with less than 5 seconds of delay in both peaks. Table 2 presents the results of the intersection analysis. The associated Synchro worksheets are provided in Appendix B. AM (PM) Peak Location(s) Control Average Control Delay LOS' (sec.Jveh) 1. Shea Blvd at SIG 15.1 (21.3) B (C) Palisades Blvd Notes: SIG - Signalized Operation (Refer to Table 1) 1. LOS for signalized intersections ,based on average control delay per vehicle, according to the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.+ LUCK GROUP 6 SHER BLVD at PALISADES BLVD a SHEA BLVD at NP `41131 FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS - Dane Geometry &F Traffic Signal Features - Figure 3 shows graphical illustration of the traffic signal and lane configuration at the intersection. A (not to scale) s r y � r - Sloes ; C U) CD CD 1 FIGURE 3: SHEAIPALISADES BLVD INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION ' Shea Blvd — Shea Blvd is a six -lane divided roadway with a raised landscaped median. bike lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk on each approach to Palisades Blvd. It is posted with a speed limit of 50 MPH. The EB traffic lane drops from three (3) lanes to two (2) lanes east of the Palisades Blvd intersection. Palisades Blvd — Palisades Blvd is a four -lane divided roadway with bike lanes, curb and gutter north of Shea Blvd. There is existing sidewalk on the west side of Palisades Blvd for a short segment between the driveway to "the Summit subdivision" and Shea Blvd. South of Shea Blvd, Palisades Blvd becomes a two-lane divided private roadway with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west side of the road. Palisades Blvd is posted with a speed limit of 45 MPH to the north and 25 MPH to the south of Shea Blvd. The public roadway portion of Palisades Blvd begins at Shea Blvd as its southern terminus and ties into Saguaro Blvd at its northern terminus. There are no current truck restrictions on Palisades Blvd. CCK GROUP � 7 F 11MWU'W11'W1U-j OAINI� ESECBLVD at i ' UNBLVD BLVD INTERSECTIONS Shea Blvd/Palisades Blvd — The EB approach to the intersection has exclusive dual left -turn lanes, three (3) through lanes and a right -turn lane. The WB approach to the intersection has an exclusive left -turn lane, three (3) through lanes and a right -tum lane. The SB approaches to the intersection has an exclusive left - turn lane, one through lane and dual right -turn lanes, while the NB approach has an exclusive left - turn lane and a shared through and right -turn lane. Sight Distance —An intersection constraints review for sight distance was performed at the intersection to determine if adequate sight distance exists for the analyzed approaches. From field measurements and review of as -built plans for Shea Blvd, existing sight distance for the SB right to WB direction from Palisades Blvd is estimated at approximately 350 feet. Pictures I and 2 (right) show the potential view of a motorist making this right -turn movement from Palisades Blvd onto Shea Blvd. Available sight distance for the WB approach from Shea Blvd to Palisades Blvd was measured at 480 feet. Transit — The Phoenix Transit System, under contract with the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), provides limited bus service to the Town. Daily bus service consists of two morning inbound express and two afternoon outbound express routes between downtown Phoenix and the local transit stop in the Fountain Hills downtown area. The transit stop will relocate to La Montana north of EI Lago Drive in the near future. Local transit service does not currently exist within the rest of the Town. 3.2 Shea Blvd at Fountain Hills Blvd Traffic Signal — The intersection is signalized and controlled using an 8 -Phase timing scheme. The left -turn movements have protected phasing for all the approaches and operates as lagging lefts. The west to NB right -turn movement overlaps with the SB left turn, however the overlap is not currently being used by Town. Timing Plan — The existing timing and phasing plan was provided by the Town with a maximum cycle length of 180 seconds. The signal operates as semi -actuated uncoordinated with unused green time allocated to the main phase which is on Shea Blvd. CCK GROUP 1s SHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD & SHEA BLVD at ' 11 111, FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS Detection -Advance detection is present for the east, west and south approaches to the intersection along with presence detection at the intersection using video detectors for all approaches. LOS Analysis - The overall intersection LOS was determined to be LOS C and B during the AM and PM peak hour periods, respectively. Special attention was paid to determine the LOS for the SB right -turn movement at the intersection. LOS A was obtained for the SB right -turn movements during both the AM and PM peak periods with less than 5 seconds of delay in both peaks. The LOS analysis was performed using existing peals hour traffic counts collected on December 22, 2416 (see Figure 2 on page 6). Raw data sheets for the peak hour turning movement counts are included in Appendix A. Table 3 presents the results of the intersection peak hour LOS analysis for the intersections. The Synchro worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Shea Blvd - Shea Blvd is a five (5) lane divided roadway with a raised landscaped median, bike lanes, curb and gutter at the intersection of Fountain Hills Blvd. It has three (3) lanes in the WB direction and two (2) lanes in the EB direction. It is posted with a speed limit of 54 MPH. Fountain Hills 'Blvd - Fountain Hills Blvd (north leg of intersection) is a two-way, four lane divided roadway with curb and gutter and a raised median. It is posted with a speed limit of 35 MPH along the segment of Fountain Hills Blvd approaching the intersection. Firerock Country Club Dr - Firerock Country Club Dr (south leg of intersection) is a two-way, two lane private street with a raised landscaped median, curb, gutter and sidewalk. It is posted with a speed limit of 25 MPH. TABLE 3 - EXISTING INTERSECTION • LOS ANALYSIS SHEAIFOUNTAINr AM (PM) Peak Location(s) Control Average Control Delay , (seclveh) LOS 1. Shea Blvd and Fountain Hills SIG 34.1 (17.4) C (B) Notes; SIG - Signalized {operation (See Table 1) 1. LOS for signalized intersections based on average control delay per vehicle, according to the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010. CCK GROUP 9 SHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD & SHEA BLVD at ' ' i ' FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS - - Lane Geometry & Traffic Signal Features - Figure 4 shows a graphical illustration of the traffic signal and lane configuration at the intersection. r e ROE &rim N �, r ►� •�� 0 (not to scale) Is m m OR r Qsivate 51see1 r+i)� FIGURE 4: SHEAWOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION Shea Blvd/Fountain Hills Blvd — The EB approach to the intersection has exclusive dual left -turn lanes, two (2) through lanes and a right - turn lane. The WB approach to the intersection has one exclusive left -turn lane, three (3) through lanes and an exclusive right -turn lane. The NB and SB approaches to the intersection both have one exclusive left -turn lane, one through lane and a single right -turn lane. Trucks are not permitted on Fountain Hills Blvd. Sight Distance — A visual observation for sight distance was performed at the intersection to determine if adequate sight distance exists for the analyzed approaches. No sight distance constraints were observed, Transit — There is currently no transit service along Fountain Hills Blvd. CECK GROUP 110 SHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD a SHEA BLVD at 11 ' FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS 4.0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ISSUES ANALYSIS 4.1 Shea Blvd at Palisades Blvd A. Signal Phasing Analyses & Validation -- Result of the existing peak hour traffic operation analysis indicates that the current signal phasing and timing plan results in acceptable LCIS at the intersection. B. Use of Arrow vs. Bail — The existing traffic signal head type and configuration was reviewed against MUTCD section 4D requirements specifically for the SB approach from Palisades Blvd. The outcome indicates that the layout satisfies MUTCD requirements for number of signal heads for each movement and indication type. While the straight facing arrows on the 5 -section head and Type R head are used for the through movement, regular circular ball are commonly used in similar situations. It is our understanding that the Town has used the straight arrow indications to further guide traffic through the intersection. C. Overlapping Schemes—The signal phasing for the intersection has an overlap scheme for the EB dual left -turn movement with the SB dual right - turn movement, and for the SB left -turn movement with the WB right -turn movement. D. Right Turn on Green Arrow Only —An R10- 5 "Right on Green Arrow Only" sign is used to restrict right turns from Palisades Blvd onto Shea Blvd only during the green phase. The Town had received complaints about this restriction and asked for an evaluation of the need to either retain, remove or limit the restriction to the peak hour period. From review of available information including prior analysis at this intersection and discussion with Town staff, it was determined that this restriction is based on a safety concern. The following items were identified and reviewed: 1. The existing available sight distance of 350 feet for the SB right to WB movement from Palisades Blvd is less than the AASHTO recommended minimum unobstructed sight distance of 425 feet. 2. Staff indicated that during both AM and PM peak periods, sight distance is affected by the sun glare which further reduces available sight distance and limits driver decision making abilities. 3. The result of the intersection LOS analysis indicates that the intersection is functioning at an acceptable level. Vehicle delay for the SB to WB right -turn movements were measured at less than 5 seconds which seems to indicate that during the peak hours, the timing and phasing at the intersection adequately clears the right -turn movement without excess delays. Approximately 50% of the signal phase at this location is dedicated to the right -turn movement to ensure the right -turn lane is adequately cleared. The option of removing the "Right on Green Arrow Only" restriction during the off-peak periods was eliminated due to the above-mentioned sight distance deficiencies. Based on these findings, and discussions with Town staff, it was determined that the improvements made by the Town by the addition of advance vehicle detectors on Palisades Blvd and using an overlap phasing for the SB right turn during the EB left -turn movement has resulted in significant reduction in the stop delay experienced by motorists making right -turn movements from Palisades Blvd to WB Shea Blvd. It was identified that the delays experienced during the off-peak period can be attributed to use of the peak hour signal timing plan during the off-peak period. The current timing plan has 15 seconds of minimum green, 5 seconds of yellow and 2 seconds of red for a total split of 22 seconds for the minimum split and 40 seconds for the max split for Phase 215 (Shea Blvd). This means that a call on Phase 2 (WB Shea Blvd) will hold Palisades Blvd SB right movement a minimum of 22 seconds. To mitigate and reduce this time, it is recommended that a new signal timing plan be developed for the off-peak period. This new timing should provide a shorter "minimum" green time on Shea Blvd and allow the traffic signal to provide a green phase once a call is detected on Palisades Blvd from a right -turning vehicle. FHWA recommends a minimum green of 10 to 15 seconds for major arterials. A minimum green time of 10 seconds is recommended during the off-peak period for WB Shea Blvd to gain further reduction of 5 seconds of stop delay for the SB right -turn movement. EKCK GROUP 11 FO NAIN FILLS BLVD NTERSECTIONS BLVD at F E. No U -Turn Restriction Evaluation —Two No "U -Turn" restrictions are currently installed at the Shea Blvd/Palisades Blvd intersection. U-turn restrictions are in place for the SB to NB movement from Palisades Blvd and for EB to WB movement along Shea Blvd. Palisades Blvd U -Turn Restriction: The U-turn restriction on Palisades Blvd ensures no conflict occurs between vehicles making a U-turn and vehicles WB from Shea Blvd making a right towards NB Palisades Blvd. Since U-turn traffic is required to yield to right -turning vehicles, an increase in conflict is not anticipated by removal of this restriction. However, to verify if an adequate receiving lane width is available for U -turning vehicles at this location, an Auto -Turn template evaluation consistent with AASHTO requirements was performed for a Passenger vehicle. Figure 5 shows the vehicle wheel path for a Passenger vehicle making a U-turn at this location. The Auto - Turn analysis indicates that the wheel path of a passenger vehicle making a U-turn can potentially run into the outside curb of the receiving lane. Based on the outcome of this analysis, it is concluded that the existing U-turn restriction should remain in place. However, further evaluation indicates that the U-turn restriction for this movement can be removed with striping modifications to provide for a larger turning radius. This can be achieved by combining the SB left and through lanes into a single lane and providing a 2 feet striped buffer from the inside curb island. This option can be implemented if the Town continues to operate the NB and SB movements using a split phase signal timing plan. It would not be recommended if the Town desires to have a separate phase for the left -turn movements in the future. Shea Blvd U -Turn Restriction: Similar to the U-turn restriction on Palisades Blvd, the U-turn restriction on Shea Blvd eliminates potential conflict with the SB Palisades Blvd dual right turn to WB Shea Blvd movement and allows an overlap of this dual right -turn movement with the NB left -turn movement. Allowing U-turn movements at this location will result in the inside CCK GROUP 112 SHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD a SHEA BLVD at 'FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS 1.7 left -turn lane conflicting with the outside right - turn lane movement, as well as adversely affect the operation and safety of the intersection. The presence of the U-turn restriction is deemed necessary to allow the efficient operation of the dual right -turn movement from Palisades Blvd which is required to efficiently clear the high volume of right -turning vehicles at this location, and reduce stop delays as discussed above. It should be noted that industry practice is to avoid conflicts at locations with dual right or left -turn movements at intersections operating in overlap mode. Based on the results of the evaluation, it is recommended that the U-turn restriction on Shea Blvd remain in place. 4.2 Shea Burd at Fountain Hills Blvd A. Signal Phasing Analyses & Validation — From the results of the existing condition analysis, it is determined that the current signal phasing and timing plan results in an acceptable LOS at the intersection for both AM and PM peak periods. B. Signal Head Layout, Type and Placement —The existing traffic signal head type and configuration was reviewed against MUTCD section 4D requirements specifically for the SB approach. Figure 4 (page 10) shows the signal head layout for this approach. Three (3) left -turn signal heads are provided for the left -turn movement, and two (2) heads each for the through and right -turn movements. A five (5) section head is used to combine the signal heads for the through and right -turn movement. The Town has received complaints about motorist confusion due to the use of the five (5) section head at this location. Use of the Type R heads with arrow for the SB right -turn movement was reviewed based on MUTCD Section 4D requirements. MUTCD does not require use of Type R heads for permissive right -turn movements. During the project kickoff meeting, staff mentioned the Type R heads were used to ensure motorists understand a continuous right -turn flow with no need to stop while a green indication is given. There is a SB right -turn overlap with the EB left turn from Shea Blvd and a WB right -turn overlap with the SB left turn from Palisades Blvd. An analysis was conducted to determine if there is a significant reduction in delay using an overlap phase compared to a permissive phase for the SB right -turn movement for the AM peak period with higher right -turn volumes. Using existing signal timing parameters, a delay of 4.3 seconds occurs using a permissive phase for the right - turn movement compared to 2.3 seconds with an overlap phase resulting in a difference of 2 seconds during a 150 -second cycle length which does not appear significant. Based on these results, it is determined the Town can replace the Type R heads with arrows for the right -turn movement with regular ball heads, and replace the five -section signal assembly with a three -section head. This proposed configuration is shown in Figure 6 (next page). In the event, the Town prefers to maintain the Type R head with arrows for the right -turn movement, the following configuration can be implemented, - The existing median mounted A Pole and side mounted signal heads can be used for the left turn. MUTCD requires two (2) signal heads per movement. • The existing Type R heads for the left turn mounted on the mast arm can be converted to regular Type F heads for the through movement: • The five -section head on the mast arm replaced with a three -section Type R head with arrows for the right -turn movement. This will meet MUTCD signal head placement and number requirements, allowing the Town to retain the Type R head for the right -turn movement while eliminating confusion associated with the five - section head. This proposed configuration is shown in Figure 7 (next page). EKCK GROUP 13 SHER BLVD at PALISADES BLVD a SHEA BLVD at 70—l r"'TAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS - Y re r W A N a (not to scale �.. u\A r E D Shea Blvd. � le �tSBet ); peva FIGURE 6: SHEAIFOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD SIGNAL MODIFICATION OPTION 1 ti (not to scale) exisrin9 _ - - — r $nea Bl►I�. � ., _ F ovate Stse p; t FIGURE 7. SHEAIFOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD SIGNAL MODIFICATION OPTION 2 CK CK GROUP 1 14 SHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD a SHEA BLVD at ° FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS -_ - C. No U -Turn Restriction Evaluation — Two No "U -Turn" restrictions are currently installed at the Shea Blvd/Fountain Hills Blvd intersection. Fountain Dills Blvd U -Turn Restriction: The U-turn restriction on Fountain Hills Blvd ensures no conflict occurs between vehicles making a U-turn and vehicles WB from Shea Blvd making a right to NB Fountain Hill Blvd. It was also determined to be necessary as there is not adequate width on the receiving lane for a U-turn to occur. An Auto - Turn template evaluation consistent with AASHTO requirements was performed for a Passenger vehicle. Figure 8 shows the vehicle wheel path for a Passenger vehicle making a U-turn at this location. Based on the Auto -Turn analysis, it is observed that the wheel path of a passenger vehicle making a U-turn will run into the outside curb of the receiving lane. Therefore, removing the U-turn restriction on Fountain Hills Blvd is not recommended at this time. Shea Blvd U -Turn Restriction: Similar to the U-turn restriction on Fountain Hills Blvd, the U-turn restriction on Shea Blvd eliminates conflict between U turning vehicles on Shea Blvd and the SB right -turn movement. However, a review of the intersection does not indicate a "No U -Turn" sign is needed on Shea Blvd based on the following. a. No sight distance issues were observed. b. There are three (3) receiving lanes on Shea Blvd. KKK GROUP 15 FAM I SHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD a SHEA BLVD at 'I ' FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS -' c. A single SB right -turn lane to Shea Blvd from Fountain Hills Blvd. d, While the SB right -turn movement from Fountain Hills Blvd has an overlap phase, a U-turn on Shea Blvd can be allowed as U -turning motorists are required to yield to the right turn movements. The Town may additional install an R1 0-16 sign to further inform U-turn motorists to yield to the SB right -turn movement. Due to the observations above, it is determined that the existing No -U-turn sign on Shea Blvd can be removed. D. Overlapping Schemes —The signal phasing for the intersection has an overlap scheme for the SB left turn to EB Shea Blvd and WB Shea Blvd to north Fountain Hills Blvd right - turn movement. A review of the existing traffic volumes and signal phasing does not indicate the need for an overlap phase. During the field observation at this location, it was noticed the overlap phase is currently turned off. No impact to the operation of the intersection was observed. The intersection capacity analysis indicates a minor improvement to stop delay due to the presence of the overlap phase, and this is consistent with the WB to right -urn movement at Palisades Blvd and Saguaro Blvd. Use of the overlap phase with a Type G signal head with a green arrow ball is optional according to MUTCD requirements at a dedicated right -turn lane. E. Left -turn Phasing—The left -turn phasing at the project intersection was reviewed for potential improvements as a result of the lower traffic volumes experienced at the intersection. The existing phasing for the intersection has protected left -turn phase for all the left -turn movements. Left -turn signal phasing analysis was performed using guidelines in the ADOT Traffic Engineering Guidelines and Processes. A cross -product analysis was performed for the left -turn movements during the AM and PM peak periods. The ADOT criteria indicates left -turn phasing may be considered when the cross -product of the left - turn volume and opposing through volume exceed 150,000 vehicles for a 4 -lane street in an urban scenario; the left -turn volumes are greater than 2 vehicles per cycle during the peak; and there are more than 6 and 10 left -turn crashes in a 1 -year and 2 -year periods respectively for two opposing approaches. The ADOT criteria indicates protected -only left - turn phasing can be considered for locations with three or more through lane on the opposing leg, dual left turns, posted speed limit greater than 45 mph and where use of protected/permissive phasing has resulted in left -turn crash history as indicated above. The analysis for the left -turn movements did not meet criteria for the cross -product or crash threshold, however the left -turn volumes per cycle did exceed the ADOT threshold. There was a total of 29 crashes reported at the intersection over a five-year period. Thirteen crashes for left -turning movements was reported for this period. The EB left -turn movement met the requirements for a protected only left -turn phasing. An analysis was performed to determine if the use of permissive or protected/permissive left -turn phasing for the NB and SB left -turn movements would result in improved operation at the intersection. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4 below. The WB left -turn movement was also determined to operate at a LOS C or better as a permissive phased approach however a permissive phase is not currently recommended for this movement because of several factors including: Wide intersection layout 2. High speed for EB through traffic due to the EB lane slopes (approximately 3-6%) 3. Potential sun glare during PM rush periods. TABLE 4— LEFT -TURN LOS FOR PERMISSIVE VS. PROTECTED PHASING - SHEA BLVD AT FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD rAM- • rPermissive Prot./Perm.■ - r CCN[ GROUPS 16 SHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD a SHEA BLVD at *' ' 114 �il 111 FOUNUIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS p-�- ■ T l y, ! \ a 1 ► Direction AM P Protected FYA Protected FYA EBL E C C A WBL E B C A The results of analysis indicate the approach LOS for the NB and SB left turns improve when operated as a protected permissive phase. A further analysis was performed to determine if the EB and WB left -turn movements can be operated with a Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA). The results of the analysis as shown in Table 5 indicate a significant improvement when the EB and WB left turns are operated with a FYA. Worksheets for the analysis are included in Appendix D. The use of FYA at signalized intersections to control left turning traffic was recently approved by the federal government after studies concluded that flashing arrows provide numerous benefits including: • Enhanced understanding by motorists when using arrows instead of solid green indications; • Enhanced safety; and • improved operation by minimizing delays. CK analyzed the EB left -turn movement to determine appropriateness of using FYA for a dual left -turn movement. The City of Scottsdale, Arizona has a presentation showing results of the implementation of FYA at several intersections within Scottsdale. According to the information reported by the City of Scottsdale, a reduction in collision rate is observed with the implementation of FYA. The report is included in Appendix E. CK contacted City of Scottsdale to discuss any other observations at the locations with dual left turns operating with FYA, as well as contacted other agencies including the City of Peoria, AZ and City of Arlington, Texas to discuss their preference with regard to implementation of FYA at dual left -turn locations. In general„ feedback received indicated each of the agencies were comfortable implementing a FYA if a location can operate better with a FYA, preferably at locations with moderate through volume over opposing left - turn volume, The Cities of Scottsdale, Peoria, and Glendale were contacted to inquire if Council approval was required before implementation of FYAs. The feedback received was that their respective Councils were informed, however the improvements for FYA were mostly completed as part of safety improvements as determined by the respective engineering departments. City of Peoria indicated that they have completed several such improvements using HSIP funds. The City of Glendale is also currently upgrading 22 intersections with FYAs as safety improvements. Based on the above information and results of the analysis, a FYA will potentially improve the LOS for the EB dual left -turn movement. While a FYA will also benefit the WB left -turn movement, due to sight distance constraints, as well as high speed of traffic observed in the field for the EB through movement, a FYA is not currently recommended for the WB left -turn movement. To gradually introduce the FYA phasing to the motorists in the Town, we recommend that the FYA be limited to the off peak period when and if the Town opts to install FYA. A FYA is not currently installed at any Town signalized intersections, this location may be used as a pilot program if use of the FYA is approved by the Town. CCK GROUP . 17 11 iiLd SHEA BLVD at PALISADES BLVD a SHEA BLVD at + 1 ' FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD INTERSECTIONS 5.0 RECOMMENBUIONS The following recommendations are derived from results of the engineering analysis and evaluation performed for the study. The recommendations are broken up by the intersections analyzed. 5.1 Shea Blvdat Palisades Blvd 1. It is recommended that the current "Right Turn on Green Arrow Only" restriction for the SB right -turn movement remain. The Town has made modifications to minimize the stop delay to right -turn movements by installing advance loops on Palisades Blvd to detect approaching vehicles on Palisades Blvd during off peak hours with a call to the controller to allow right - turn movement once a gap is observed on Shea Blvd. 2. To further minimize stop -delay for SB right -turn movement, it is recommended that an off-peak timing plan be used during the off-peak period with a minimum initial green of 10 seconds. This will result in theoretically a maximum stop delay of 17 seconds for the SB right -turn movements at the intersection. 3. It is recommended that the existing U-turn restrictions on Palisades Blvd and Shea Blvd remain in place. The U-turn restriction on Palisades Blvd can be removed with modifications to the SB approach for the left and through movements by combining them into a single lane with a 2 -feet buffer from the median island. This will require modifications to the existing signal layout for the SB approach. 4. The operation of the intersection using the existing timing and phasing was determined to operate at acceptable LOS. No changes are proposed to the existing signal timing plans. 5. It is recommended that a separate timing plan be used for the off-peak period condition. 6. The existing striping for the SB approach appears degraded and needs to be restored. Other: Consideration and Recommendation Fairly high speeds were observed on Palisades Blvd. R speed advisory flasher is recommended on Palisades Blvd approximately 1,000 feet in advance of Shea Blvd. CCKGROUP 5.2 Intersection of Shea Blvd at Fountain Hills Blvd 1. Based on geometric considerations, the U-turn restriction on Fountain Hills Blvd is recommended to remain as is. 2. It does not appear the "No U-turn" sign on Shea Blvd is needed a. No sight distance issues observed. b. There are 3 receiving lanes. c. There is only a single right -turn lane to Shea Blvd from Fountain Hills Blvd with no overlap phase. 3. The signal layout for the SB traffic was reviewed with two options proposed. It is determined that the Town can remove the five -section head and Type R heads for the right -turn movement as there was no significant stop delay improvement observed by using the Type R heads for the right -turn movement. Alternatively, the Town can use the median mounted A Pole and side mounted Type R heads for the left -turn movement, while converting the Type R bead on the mast arm to a Type F head for the through movement. The five -section head on the mast arm can be converted to a Type R head with arrows for the right -turn movement. This option will meet MUTCQ requirements while allowing the Town to use a protected phase for the SB right -turn movement. 4. Use of a protected permissive left -turn phasing for the NB and SB movements will result in an improved LOS, and can be implemented if the Town desires. The existing protected phasing for the FB and WB left -turn movements is recommended to remain in place, however results of using a FYA for the EB left -turn movement indicate a noticeable improvement to the LCIS. It is recommended that if the Town chooses to implement the FYAs, it should be utilized during the off-peak periods and monitored. [is Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: FIELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. 4r 524.316.6745 Project #: 16-1445-001 TMC SUMMARY OF Palisades Blvd & Shea Blvd. APPROACH LANES a ttfC N cD Ln Q a f Shea Blvd. Shea Blvd. AM MD PM TOTAL In LU TOTAL AM MD PM Z 443 263 680 CONTROL 3$ 71 109 > 16$1 464 1217 Signalized 856 440 1346 0 1 10 11 2S 0 25 �l c a zt7Fri LA LOCATION #- 16-1445-001 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT Palisades Blvd. & Shea Blvd. (Intersection Name) m a 01 TUESDAY 12/131'16 Clay Date APPROACH LANES �? .� COUNT PERIODS CL AM 700AM 900AM NOON PM 40OPM - 60OPM AM PEAK HOUR 715 AM NOON PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 445 PNI Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: FIELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. lo V 626.316.6745. Project #: 16-1445-002 TMC SUMMARY OF Fountain Hills Blvd. & She Blvd. a m V APPROACH LANES f r, n ry M r4 LOCATION #: 16-1445-042 AM 70DAM - 900AM TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT PM 40OPM 60UPM kn Fountain Hills Blvd. & Shea Blvd. Ln (IntersecHen Name) F rn • l} 0 M r H rt = .7 E m Imo„ lL3 .ti E � n � Shea Blvd. ` ^' 'i Shea Blvd. TOTAL AM MD PM 473 147 326 �CONTROL 1311 392 919 E:::::* sl�a�llxed 67 36 31 AM Mn GM Tr1TA4 56 165 221 683 389 1072 38 22 60 LO LU 2 g 1� V h � f r, n ry M r4 LOCATION #: 16-1445-042 AM 70DAM - 900AM TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT PM 40OPM 60UPM Fountain Hills Blvd. & Shea Blvd. (IntersecHen Name) F rn • l} 0 M r H rt TUESDAY 12/13/16 Day Date APPROACH LANES COUNT PERIODS AM 70DAM - 900AM NOON PM 40OPM 60UPM AM PEAK HOUR NOUN PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 736 AM 430 PM I I pr�' Lanes, Volumes, Timings 8: Shea Blvd & Palisades Blvd 06{1212017 Lane Configurations )) ++t r +tt r T Vii + rr Traffic Volume (vph) 263 464 25 1 856 38 9 2 10 57 0 772 Future Volume (vph) 263 464 25 1 856 38 9 2 10 57 0 772 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 500 150 300 150 0 0 170 170 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 0 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1626 0 1770 1863 2787 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1626 0 1770 1863 2787 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 125 125 11 756 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1102 606 266 281 Travel Time (s) 25.0 13.8 6.0 6.4 Confl. Peds. (#1hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid -Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 286 504 27 1 930 41 10 13 0 62 0 839 Turn Type Prat NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Split pt+ov Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 7 7 71 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 8 8 7 7 71 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 15,0 15.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 36.0 36.0 14.0 36.0 36.0 47.0 47.0 13.0 13.0 Total Split (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (010) 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 28,6010 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 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 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Nene None None Max Max None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 12,0 47.8 47.8 9.8 33.7 33.7 7.1 7.1 9.1 28.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.60 0.60 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.35 vfc Ratio 0.55 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.43 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.31 0.57 Control Delay 36,9 11.8 0.0 31.0 18.9 0.1 40.2 24.8 39.0 4.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.9 11.8 0.0 31.0 18.9 0.1 40.2 24.8 39.0 4.4 Existing AM 0611212017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 8: Shea Blvd & Palisades Blvd 0611212017 -.4 --1. ­* 'r '- `- *\ t �► 1 .6/ Jane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NSR SBL SBT SBR LOS D B A C B A D C D A Approach Delay 20.2 18.2 31.5 6.8 Approach LOS C B C A Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 79.6 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.57 Intersection Signal Delay: 15.1 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing AM 06/12/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 8: Palisades Blvd & Shea Blvd 0611212417 t 41 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi) W r ) ttf r 1� I f rr Traffic Volume (vph) 680 1217 25 10 490 71 13 7 14 65 0 350 Future Volume (vph) 680 1217 25 10 490 71 13 7 14 65 0 350 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (010) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (1) 500 150 300 150 0 0 170 170 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1680 0 1770 1863 2787 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1680 0 1770 1863 2787 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flaw (RTQR) 125 125 15 782 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 34 Link Distance (ft) 1102 606 266 281 Travel Time (s) 25.4 118 6.0 6.4 Confl. Peds. (#lhr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#lhr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#lhr) Mid -Block Traffic (°I0) 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (010) Lane Group Flow (vph) 739 1323 27 11 533 77 14 23 0 71 0 380 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Split pt+ov Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 7 7 71 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 8 8 7 7 71 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 36.0 36.0 14.0 36.0 36.0 46.0 46.0 19.5 19,5 Total Split (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 28.6% 28.6010 28.6% 28.6010 28.6% 28.6% 21.4% 21,4% 21.4% 21.4% Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 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 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None Max Max None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 26.6 60.5 60.5 11.7 33.7 33.7 7.1 7.1 8.9 42.7 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.28 0,63 0.63 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.07 0,07 0.09 0.44 vlc Ratio 0.78 0.42 0.03 0.05 0.30 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.44 023 Control Delay 39.5 14,6 0.0 37.4 25.8 1.6 49.9 31.5 53.6 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.5 14.6 0.0 37.4 25.8 1.6 49.9 31.5 53.6 0.3 Existing PM 0611212017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 8: Palisades Blvd & Shea Blvd 0611212017 -il 7 ~ t 4N t Ib. \D. 1 '1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS D B A D C A D C D A Approach Delay 23.3 23.0 38.5 8.7 Approach LOS C C D A Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 96.7 Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum We Rude: 0.78 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.3 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 Existing PM 06112/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 06112/2017 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL W11BT WBR NBL NST NBi1. SBL _ 5BT- _ SBR Lane Configurations ' tt r ) 'f `tf r t r t r `traffic Volume (vph) 147 392 36 38 683 56 12 4 13 144 8 273 Future Volume (vph) 147 392 36 38 683 56 12 4 13 144 8 273 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (1) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 250 370 200 230 300 300 154 0 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 123 89 123 297 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 2971 782 233 465 Travel Time (s) 67.5 17.8 5.3 10.6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#Ihr) Mid -Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 426 39 41 742 61 13 4 14 157 9 297 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 7 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7,0 15.0 15.0 7,0 15.0 7.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.0 26.0 12.0 41.0 12.0 12.0 41.0 41.0 12.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Total Split (%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 6,0 3.0 6.0 6.0 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 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 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 8.5 36.8 36.8 7.3 33.1 48.8 7.0 33.1 33.1 12.8 46.3 46.3 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.07 0,32 0.32 0.06 0.29 0.43 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.41 0,41 v1c Ratio 0.62 0.37 0.07 0,36 0.50 0.08 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.79 0.01 0.36 Control Delay 62.9 32,0 0.2 62.1 35.4 1.1 55.5 31.2 0.1 76,0 23,5 4.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 U 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0,0 Total Relay 62.9 32.0 0.2 62,1 35.4 1.1 55.5 31.2 0.1 76.0 23.5 4.3 Existing AM 0611212017 'Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 06112/2017 .ane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NET NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS E C A E D A E C A E C A Approach Delay 37.9 34.2 27.3 29.0 Approach LOS D C C C Intersection Summary Area Type. Other Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 113.4 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.79 Intersection Signal Delay: 34.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 Existing AM 06/12/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 06112}2017 Existing PM 06112/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 .-,* --► .4- ',- t 1&� i 4/ Lane Gaup EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBFT Lane Configurations _EBL tt r ) ttt r + r Vii t fir Traffic Volume (vph) 326 919 31 22 389 165 21 13 22 91 8 273 Future Volume (vph) 326 919 31 22 389 165 21 13 22 91 8 273 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1906 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 250 370 200 230 300 300 150 0 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 110 179 123 297 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 2971 782 233 465 Travel Time (s) 67.5 17.8 5.3 10.6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#Jhr) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (°f0) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#fhr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#!hr) Mid -Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 354 999 34 24 423 179 23 14 24 99 9 297 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perris Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 1 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 3 8 8 7 4 1 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.0 26.0 12.0 26.0 26.0 12.0 24.1 24.1 12.0 23.0 12.0 Total Split (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40,0 40.0 Total Split (%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 4.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 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 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 QO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 6.1 6.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 11.0 47.7 47.7 7.3 33.3 33.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 8.5 13.4 25.3 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.15 0.64 0.64 010 0.44 0.44 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.18 0.34 vfc Ratio 0.71 0.44 0.03 0.14 0.19 0.22 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.49 0.03 0.41 Control Delay 40.6 13.0 0.1 39.1 16.0 4.1 39.0 38.4 0.7 44.3 29.2 3.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 40.6 13.0 0.1 39.1 16.0 4.1 39.0 38.4 0.7 44.3 29.2 3.6 Existing PM 06112/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 06/12/2017 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS D B A D B A D D A D C A Approach Delay 19.7 13.5 23.6 14.1 Approach LOS B B C B Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 75 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.71 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.4 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.9°% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 5: Fountain Hills Blvd 8 Shea Blvd Existing PM 06/12/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5. Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT 06/13/2017 ..-* --► # 'r *-- *-- *N tt r ) ttf 4/ .ane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST $BR Lane Configurations 1) tt r ) ttf r '� t ' t r Traffic Volume (vph) 147 392 36 38 683 56 12 4 13 144 8 273 Future Volume (vph) 147 392 36 38 683 56 12 4 13 144 8 273 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 250 370 200 230 300 300 150 0 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (fl) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.293 0.470 0.752 0.662 Satd. Flow (perm) 1059 3539 1583 875 5085 1583 1401 1863 1583 1233 1863 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 205 177 314 314 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 2971 782 233 465 Travel Time (s) 67.5 17.8 5.3 10.6 Confl. Peds. (#fhr) Confl.. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (°l0) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#!hr) Mid -Block Traffic (010) 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 426 39 41 742 fit 13 4 14 157 9 297 Turn Type D.P+P NA Perm D.P+P NA pm+ov pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 2 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 7 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7:0 15.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.0 26.0 12.0 41.0 12.0 9.5 41.0 41.0 12:0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 31.0 31.0 12.0 31.0 13.0 13.0 24.0 24.0 13.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 38.8% 38.8% 15.0010 38.8% 16.3% 16.3% 30.0% 30.0% 16.3% 30.0% 30.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 6,0 3.0 3.5 6.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 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 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 5.0 4.5 8.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 43.0 37.8 37.8 45.0 33.0 43.8 42.5 33.0 33.0 47.6 41.4 41.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.42 0.31 0.41 0.40 0.31 0.31 0.45 0.39 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.34 0.06 0.10 0.47 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.27 0.01 0.37 Control Delay 21.1 27.5 0.2 17.4 31.1 0.2 15.9 25.8 0.1 18.8 23.6 3.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 21.1 27.5 0.2 17.4 31.1 0.2 15.9 25.8 0.1 18.8 23.6 3.9 Left Tum Phasing Analysis - AM Period 06/12/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 06/13/2017 Lane Group EBL 'EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS C C A B C A B C A B C A Approach Delay 24.2 28.2 10.0 9.3 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 106.8 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.47 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd i-- flZ 1 4\ 03 X34 --mss o� tos Lett Turn Phasing Analysis - AM Period 06112/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 06/12/2017 f- *- t 4'� t 1 1_ane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL - -5BT SBR Lane Configurations tt r ) +tt r t r Vi f r Traffic Volume (vph) 326 919 31 22 389 165 21 13 22 91 8 273 Future Volume (vph) 326 919 31 22 389 165 21 13 22 91 8 273 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 250 370 200 230 300 300 150 0 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 2.5 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.496 0.234 0.500 Satd. Flow (perm) 1792 3539 1583 436 5085 1583 1863 1863 1583 931 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 165 213 300 297 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (it) 2971 782 233 465 Travel Time (s) 67.5 17.8 5.3 10.6 Confi. Peds. (#Ihr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#Ihr) Mid -Block Traffic 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Trak (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 354 999 34 24 423 179 23 14 24 99 9 297 Tum Type D.P+P NA Perm D.P+P NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+ov Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 1 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 2 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 3 8 8 7 4 1 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 15.0 15,0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5,0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.0 26.0 9.5 26.0 26.0 9.5 24,1 24.1 9.5 23.0 12.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 31.0 31.0 12.0 31.0 31.0 13.0 24.0 24.0 13.0 24.0 12.0 Total Split (010) 15.0% 38.8% 38,8% 15.0% 38.8% 38.8% 16.3% 30.0% 30;0010 16.3% 30.0% 15.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 6.0 6.0 3.5 6.0 6.0 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.0 3.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 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 0.4 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 8.0 8.0 4.5 8.0 8.0 4.5 6.1 6,1 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max Max None Max Max None None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 34.0 34.6 34,6 38.2 23.7 23.7 9.2 7.2 7.2 11.7 10,2 18.5 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.65 0.41 0.41 0.16 0.12 0.12 0,20 0.17 0.32 vlc Ratio 0.28 0.48 0.03 0.06 0.20 0.23 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.33 0.03 0.42 Control Delay 7.4 14.0 0.1 6.5 13.8 2.7 18.7 27.9 0.2 22.1 22.9 3.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.4 14.0 0.1 6.5 13.8 2.7 18.7 27.9 0.2 22.1 22.9 3.7 Left Tum Phasing Analysis - PM Period 0611212017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Lancs, Volumes, Timings 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 06/12/2017 -',V -+- 4. 4\ t 'w Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT 1NBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LOS A B A A B A B C A C C A Approach Delay 12.0 10.4 13.6 8.7 Approach LOS B B B A Intersection summery --- - - - - Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 58.4 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Semi Act-Uncoord Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.48 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.1 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd ■-- aZ 1001 4\ 43 04 4,05 -11,06 "1.07 t08 Left Turn Phasing Analysis - PM Period 06112/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd -A t 10611312017 __,1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR. WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBI Lane Configurations n tt r Vi ttt r ' + r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 147 392 36 38 683 56 12 4 13 144 8 273 Future Volume (vph) 147 392 36 38 683 56 12 4 13 144 8 273 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 250 370 200 230 300 300 150 0 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.303 0.480 0.752 0.573 Satd. Flow (perm) 1095 3539 1583 894 5085 1583 1401 1863 1583 1067 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 205 177 314 245 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (fit) 2971 782 233 465 Travel Time (s) 67.5 17.8 5.3 10.6 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (010) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%n 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid -Plock Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 426 39 41 742 61 13 4 14 157 9 297 Turn Type D.P+P NA Perm D.P+P NA custom Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 2 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 7 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.0 26.0 12.0 41.0 12.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (s) 12.0 31.0 31.0 12.0 31.0 13.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 38.8% 38.8% 15.0% 38.8% 16.3% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 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 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 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Made None Max Max None Max None Max Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 43.1 38.1 38.1 45.2 33.1 43.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 42.5 42.5 42.5 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.42 0.37 0.37 0.44 0.32 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.41 0.41 0.41 v1c Ratio 0.26 0.33 0.05 0.09 0.46 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.01 0.37 Control Delay 20.0 26.4 0.1 17.0 29.7 0.2 25.8 25.2 0.1 23.8 17.8 5.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.0 26.4 0.1 17.0 29.7 0.2 25.8 25.2 0.1 23.8 17.8 5.8 Left Turn Phasing Analysis - AM Period 0611212017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report with permissive N15 phasing Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 06/13/2017 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL VVBT 1NBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR LCIS B C A B C A C C A C B A Approach belay 23.1 26.9 14.1 92.1 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 103.6 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 0.46 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.4 Intersection LCIS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 aplits and Phases: 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 02 0Y 04 ter^ ■ o 5 —006 07 X78 Lett Turn Phasing Analysis - AM Period 06/12/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report with permissive NfS phasing Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 06113/2017 N r '- t4-, t r d 1✓ .,* Lane Group T. EBR WBL WET WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 TT If vi ??} jT Vi ? r I T r Traffic Volume(vph) 326 919 31 22 389 165 21 13 22 91 8 273 Future Volume(vph) 326 919 31 22 389 165 21 13 22 91 8 273 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 250 370 200 230 300 300 150 0 Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane 1JUL Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fn 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 At Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.496 0,267 0.752 0.748 Said, Flow (pen) 1792 3539 1583 497 5085 1583 1401 1863 1583 1393 1863 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 104 179 239 251 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 2971 782 233 465 Travel Time (s) 67.5 17.8 5.3 10.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 354 999 34 24 423 179 23 14 24 99 9 297 Shared Lane Traffic I%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 354 999 34 24 423 179 23 14 24 99 9 297 Enter Blocked intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (In 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 Detectors Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tum Type D.P+P NA Perm D.P+P NA Perm Perm NA Penn Penn NA pm+ov Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 4 1 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 2 8 8 4 4 Left Tum Phasing Analysis - PM Period 06112/2017 Baseline Synchro 9 Report with permissive N/S phasing Page 1 L8OeS. \/DlUDles. 7lr0ingS 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd U6M3/2817 -~ * _0'�� �- 4I`~ ��� \� - | ^y � � � / � � Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 02 1001 04 165 -006 t08 Left Tum PM Period 06112/2017 Baseline SymohmOReport Switch Phase Minimum Initial hJ 7.0 15.0 15.8 6.0 15.0 15.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Tf 7.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.0 28.0 0.5 28.0 2H 24.1 241 24.1 23.0 23.0 12.0 Total Split (d 9.8 37.0 37.0 10.0 38.0 38.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 9.0 Total Split (%) 11.3% 48.3% 48.3% 12.5% 47.5% 47.5& 41.3% 41.3% 41.3% 41.3% 41.3% 11.3% Maximum Green (s) 4.0 20.0 29.0 5.5 30.0 30.0 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.0 28.0 4,0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 8.0 6.0 3.6 8.0 8.0 4.1 41 41 3.0 3.0 3.0 All -Red Time (s) 18 20 23 1.0 lO 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 lO 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 00 00 0.0 00 00 0.0 0.0 00 00 00 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 8.0 8.0 4.5 8.0 &O 81 81 6.1 5.0 5,0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? 0e Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (o) 02 8.0 8.0 3.0 8.0 8.0 8.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 02 Minimum Gap (n) 10 8.8 8.0 3.0 8.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 lO 2.0 2.O 2.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 15.8 15.8 15.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 Time ToReduce (s) 8.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode None Max Max Nona Max Max None None None None Nona None Walk Time (o) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (Nhr) 8 0 U O O 0 O O O Act EMrtGreen (s) 37.4 38.5 39.6 421 30.3 303 7.7 77 7.7 83 8.5 14.7 Actuated g1CRatio 0.64 8.68 0.88 0.72 0.52 0.52 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.25 mtRutio 0.28 8A1 0.03 8.05 0.18 020 8.12 0.06 0.08 0.49 0.03 0.51 Control Delay 4.5 7.5 0.1 3.4 8.4 2.4 25.1 23.7 0.3 32.8 22.4 7.5 Queue Delay 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 Total Delay 43 7.5 0.1 3.4 8.4 2.4 25.1 23.7 0.3 33.8 22.4 7.5 LOS A A A A A A C C A C C A Approach Delay 8.6 6.5 15.0 14.0 Approach LOS A A 8 8 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 8O Actuated Cycle Length: 68] Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Semi Azt-Uncomnd Maximum wtRatio: O.Si Intersection Signal Delay: 8.O Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.9& ICU Level ofService B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 5: Fountain Hills Blvd & Shea Blvd 02 1001 04 165 -006 t08 Left Tum PM Period 06112/2017 Baseline SymohmOReport SCOTTSUALE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REPORT 04 scorns Tcis 11ransportation Commission a From: 11aidc Tayloin, Senicir Tnafflic Bngineen Meeting Date: August 16, 2012 gAnON� TEM IN BRIEF Acticin: I riforrr ation Crily Suppose: 110 provide an overview of 11-e hisioryl and safety benefits assocliated wii1- the Liilizaiion ollflasl-ing yellow left IL rn signals in rIcotilsdale. Key Coinsidenations: A stanc and signalized intersection 1 -as "pe11rr1iilec" left tu11n movements — lefil turns a11e rrade w1- en there are gaps in the opposing traffic on on the yellow clearance interval. If the intersection experiences significant delay for 11-e left tu11n rrovements, o11 experiences an increase in the nL n- ben oil left turn collisions, i1- e City evaluates the signal operation io consider adding left tu11n eirrows. These coin be installed as "permitted/protected" o11 "protected only." Fou "permittedilprotected" crleration, left turns eire rr ade c using gaps in traffic; and if t1- ere are vehicles still wailing to turn left, green left turn arrows aiie activated to allow "protected" left turn mo%emerills. Some agencies 1- ave uiilizec a flashing yellow left tu11n eirrow to indicialle io the driven that they rr ust yielc io oncoming traffic L ntil the arrow turns glleen. 111- e flashing yellow eirrow 1- as been undell exrlerirr ent sincie 2003 and was identified by 11- a National ClooperaiN e H ig1- way Research Program (NCHRFI,' as the moss easily understood lefil turn treatment 1611 perry itted/pnoiecied left 1L rn operation. Othe11 national sig dies have shown an inciiease in seifety ai intersections with the irr plerr entation of flashing yellow left turn arrows. 111- e CHy oft.EIcobsc ale-liiaffici Engineering division received appro%al frorr the Federal Highway Administration I FF"PI; in May 200810 experimerii %0 flashing yellow arrows. 11wo Iodations were chosen for t1- a flas1- ing yellow left 1t rn inslallaiion - one at Norlhsight Boulevard and Rairitllee Diiive inteusection, and anot1- e11 at 68th Eltreel and McDowell Roac intersection. Afler three year's operation of the flashing yellow amiows, both irillersections experienced a decline in left tu11n collisions, improved 1ueifilic flow, and a dec111ease in resident complaints. Since R en the traffic collision nL rr bers fbr both of IT ese locations have continued to decrease. 111- e City oft .EIcotlsdale riow has twelve intersections will- flashing yellow arrows 1611 at least one direction of travel. In early 2012, 11- e City rr odified the inteusection oil Fuank Lloyd V1 rig1-1 BOL le�ard and 100'h EIlreet 10 dilize flashing yellow arrows fbr all approaches. Elincie then, two othell locations also 1- ave flashing yellow arrows inslallec fbr all direcltions of tray el. It is now the City's intent to install flashing yellow arrows for any new installations of permitted/protected lagging left turn arrows. The presentation will provide information regarding the history and improved safety benefits for the flashing yellow left turn arrow operation in Scottsdale. Attachment 1: PowerPoint presentation Staff Contact: Todd Taylor, Senior Traffic Engineer, 480-312-7641, ttavlor(a).scottsdaleaz.crov; Phillip percher, Principal Traffic Engineer, 480-312-7645, pkerchergscottsdaleaz.c;ov; Paul Porell, Traffic Engineering Manager„ 480-312-7651, orell scottsdaleaz. ov. f� Of til,f, SCO1�SbAlE Flashing Yellow Left Turn Arrows Transportation Commission August 16, 2012 Todd Taylor, P.E., PTOE City of Scottsdale Senior Traffic Engineer Educational Video Nevada OF Y Flashing Yellow Arrow Descriptions CI1Y SCOIYS�AII Protected arrow for Left Turn Permitted/Protected arrow for Left turn Flashing Yellow Left Turn Arrows (FYLTA's) FYLTA Timeline Manual as Ualfatm ttaffie Coattol Devices ie: m,..,..a 4186.1, J CI1YAV SCO�S�ALE FR intree and Northsight NIS)_ a+n ree rive f� SCOiy�bAlE Northsi hg t and Raintree (NIS) Since FYC '� r+nlli�inne Scottsdale and McCormick Video CIiY ,� SCOIYSOAIE J Public Reaction Of �T\ SCOiIE Majority of drivers recognize that FYLTA requires them to yield. Number of citizen complaints of aggressive driving went down significantly. Received some complaints from drivers who did not understand the indication; however, when questioned they had yielded to oncoming traffic. J FYLTA Collision Analysis (Safety)CI1Y � SCOIYS�AII First two sites are showing substantia reductions in collisions to date. All sites are showing reduction in left turn collisions. FYLTA that were changed from protected are showing improved traffic flow vs. few collisions. We will continue to monitor any new I nstallations. j� CI1Y Of rr - SCO1yS�AlE • Use of Flashing Yellow Left Turn Arrows has a positive impact on collision experience when used to replace green ball during permitted left turn phase. • Unwritten policy to install flashing yellow arrow for all new and modified Permitted/Protected Arrows • Growing number of agencies are adopting FYLTA as preferred indication for permitted left l LFYLTVin Scottsdale_ _ CIiY Northsight and Raintree (NIS) SCOIYS�AIE o 68th and McDowell (NIS) Pima and Indian Bend (NIS) Pima and Stadium (NIS) o Pima and Pavilions (NIS) Pima and Via De Ventura (NIS) 70th and Gold Dust (EIW) Frank Lloyd Wright and Cactus (NIS) Frank Lloyd Wright and 100th (NIS) Scottsdale and McCormick (S) Future Flashi_ nuc Yellow Arrows SCO1YS�lAIE a Scottsdale Rd and SkySong Blvd (NIS) s Scottsdale Rd and Westland Rd/Terrivita Rd (NIS) Scottsdale Rd and Dynamite Blvd (NIS) Scottsdale Rd and Lone Mountain Rd (NIS) r' Flashing Yellow Arrow Background SCOirS�All NCHRP Report 123 (2007) looked at numerous field installations of FYLTA . Improved safety if intersection was PIP before install . Safety not improved if Protected only before install . No change in safety if Permitted only before install Flaftq Yellow Arrow Background CI1Y SCOIYS�AIE NCHRP Report 493 (2003) looked at numerous displays for PIP left turn control Report recommended use of FYLTA based on high level of driver comprehension and versatility in signal phasing Driver who did not understand indication tended to yield Numerous requests to FHWA approved for experimentation between 2004 and 2006 FHWA Issued Interim Approval for use 3120106 FYLTA added to current version of MUTCD Raintree m Northsi h Clfl SCOi�S�AIE Investigated alternatives . Split phasing . Protected only phasing Synchro analysis showed that these would significant increase delay and congestion Implemented FYLTA for NB/SB in October 2008 "heCKGROUPeeIn TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS °� c TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ACTION FORM b rhHt �5 AtEry Meeting date: 1111412017 Meeting Type: Special Session Agenda Type: Regular Submitting Department. Public Works Staff Contact Information: ,Justin T. Weldy, Public Works director, jweldy@fh.az,gov REQUEST TO COUNCIL (Agenda Language): DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF regarding the Town's Pavement Management Program. Applicant: NIA Applicant Contact Information: NIA Owner: NIA Owner Contact Information: NIA Property Location: NIA Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle: 2017 Strategic Plan and 2013 Pavement Management Program Staff Summary (background): In 2013 the Town Council passed Resolution 2013-02 approving the creation of the Pavement Management Program. With the current Pavement Management Program, the focus has been on addressing the pavement needs by geographic zones based on street age and condition. Under normal circumstances, the zone approach would be a logical approach to address the town's pavement management needs. However, without sufficient funds to invest in street maintenance activities, the zone approach has taken longer to complete critical pavement management efforts overall. For instance, the Zone 1 Pavement Management Area is currently scheduled for pavement maintenance and will have taken several years to compete. Due to the age and conditions of the roads in Zones 1,2,3, and 4, staff has determined that certain collector and residential streets will require the top layer of asphalt to be replaced. At the Town Council retreat last February, the Town Council questioned the wisdom of continuing with the zone approach versus prioritizing the pavement maintenance activities based on the poorest street conditions. This again was brought up by members of the Town Council at a recent Town Council meeting. Staff supports moving away from the zone approach and believes that having an outside firm conduct a pavement management analysis will help the town move in this direction. In addition to better identifying the actual condition of all of the town's streets and the cost for recommended improvements, a pavement management assessment will help the town develop a strategy for maintaining its streets and prioritizing the use of resources. Staff is requesting to contract with a firm that will provide the mapping of the Town's roadway network, pavement data collection, asset management software, analysis and reporting. The data collection and reporting will help aid staff in determining the overall pavement condition of the Town's current roadway network and provide pavement management analysis based on current and future funding scenarios. The estimated cost of conducting a pavement management assessment is $ 59,995.00. Page 1 of 2 Risk Analysis (options or alternatives with implications): Fiscal Impact (initial and ongoing costs; budget status): Budget Reference (page number): 285 Funding Source: Highway User Revenue Fund If Multiple Funds utilized, list here: Budgeted; if No, attach Budget Adjustment Form: NA Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s): NIA Staff Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that the Town Council direct staff to pursue a firm to conduct a pavement management analysis. List Attachment(s): PowerPoint Presentation Scope of Services for Pavement 'Management Analysis SUGGESTED MOTION (roe Couricil use): Move to direct staff in pursuing a contract with a firm to assess the overall pavement condition of the Town's current roadway network and provide pavement management analysis based on current and future funding scenarios; and ultimately move away from the zone approach in pavement management after implementing the recommendations from the completed pavement analysis; and move forward in approving the cooperative purchasing agreement allowing the Public Works department to address pavement management needs in FY 17-18. Pk2e 2 of 2 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Pavement Management Program Justin T. Weldy - Public Works Director November 14, 2017 y - - � :; '.. �1BP .Y �� — r' % ': _ YGI G s � � r � � - �; f �. i ., _ �,. � ,.. � .:. ,, .. "' .- 2:_ ', - x t: � .. ;: ' � - � _ ^ - . 12o- - •f .� �.T' . . - ''i i � '�j�1S`l u�� �u�tlf�J!., �A}-���%'F`"�!���`.� ." ti��,i �y '' 4'r .° _'�y�•.�;I Fundamentals of Pavement Preservation A key factor in extending the life of asphalt pavement is to preserve the binder and stop oxidation! Most oxidation occurs within the first 2-4 years. Oxidation results in: • Raveling: Loss of bond between aggregate and binder • Cracking Del Cambre Ave. & Calaveras Ave. Fundamentals of Pavement Preservation A key factor in extending the life of asphalt pavement is to preserve the binder and stop oxidation! Most oxidation occurs within the first 2-4 years. Primary Causes of Oxidation are UV Rays and Moisture. June 2011: Sundown Drive after TRMSS Application June 2013: Sundown Drive Fundamentals of Pavement Preservation "An effective pavement preservation program will address pavements while they are still in good condition and before the onset of serious damage. By applying a cost- effective treatment at the right time, the pavement is restored almost to its original condition." "Preventive maintenance is typically applied to pavements in good condition having significant remaining service life. As a major component of pavement preservation, preventive maintenance is a strategy of extending the service life by applying cost- effective treatments to the surface... of structurally sound pavements. " "Examples of preventive treatments include asphalt crack sealing, chip sealing, slurry sealing or micro surfacing... " Source: Action: Pavement Preservation Definitions, Federal Highway Administration Fundamentals of Pavement Preservation Strategies to LOW COST Pavement Preservation "Many maintenance practices have not been effective, because they were applied reactively to roads in poor condition instead of proactively to roads still in good condition, Succinctly stated, the correct approach to preventative maintenance is to "place the right treatment on the right road at the right time." -Larry Galehouse, Director for Pavement Preservation at Michigan State University Fundamentals of Pavement Preservation Excellen Good Fair- Poor- Very airPoorVeer Poor Failed 0 116, h (� �, - � �), h t- (.5 . P J4� 0% Drop in Quality 5pendin_g $1 on preventivre 75% of Life maintenance here... ...,eliminates or delays spending 4clo Dropin Quality '" $5 to ,11 on Q tY rehabs itation or reconstruction here... 121% of Life Source: National Center for Pavement Preservation 5 10 15 20 IAlR�i Cana �v P'wr�ft W.eylrs�ma Pavement Lifecycle Re -Start Surface 00" Treatment New Street (Year 23-25) Mill & Overlay (Year 20-22) Crack Seal & Slurry Seal (Year 13-15) (Year o) Crack & Surface Seal (Year 2-4) Crack Seal & Slurry Seal (Year6-8) Pavement Management Funding Through Resolution 2013-02 and Ordinance 15-10 the Town has allocated $1,9oo,000 for annual pavement maintenance. Funding sources include: Vehicle License Tax General Fund/Sales Tax (if available) CI P Fund Transfer (if available) Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) Investment in Pavement Maintenance Current Scenario Possible Scenario (With Property Tax) Year Budget Year Budget 2018-19 $2M 2018-19 $7M 2019-20 $2M 2019-20 $61VI 2020-21 $2M 2020-21 $61VI 2021-22 $2M 2021-22 $6M 2022-23 $2M 2022-23 $6M Total $10M Total $31 M Current Pavement Maintenance Zone Approach Fountain Hills Roadway Statistics * 390 lane miles * 3,46o,000 SY of pavement surface * 7 Pavement Maintenance Zones -, Zone Approach vs. Need Base Approach zz SY 1 3" 11� 11 29-9 :.,.S 0 -lea t 1&2 4A 26.0 483A29 '14.1 ID7,101 3:31:11 I I ILT 6 5, 1 a 471 Vz ;17 0 A— - LEGEND ZONE AREA ....... ZONE AREA 7 PUBLIC ROAD P RIVATE ROAD GATMPRIVATE 4 SAGUARO BLVD SALT RIM ftm AWOFA mmm ccVMVMM Preferred Pavement Maintenance Approach Address streets in the poorest condition first "Alligator" Cracking — La Montana Drive 1 "Block" Cracking - Desert Vista Dr. MOM g9 Slurry Seal "Peeling" — Pinto Drive "Transverse" Cracking — Sunridge Drive Asphalt Pavement Distress 4 ! Bainbridge Ave. (Before) Bainbridge Ave. (After Mill & Overlay) • Stantec Engineering Pavement Management Report from Zoog showed that Bainbridge Ave. was in "very good" condition. • Without any pavement maintenance the roadway deteriorated to the point where a more costly mill and overlay was required in 2o16. Pavement Management Program - Next Steps 1. Contract with a Firm to Conduct Pavement Analysis to include: • Roadway Data Collection (RST) • Pavement Analysis & Report (Street Grading) • Street Network Mapping • Asset Management Software (Lucity) • Pavement Condition Analysis Based on Funding, Funding Increase, Bond Package, etc. i. Review and Approve New Pavement Management Strategy and Priorities Based on Completed Pavement Analysis (including Change in Approach) 3. Secure a Cooperative Purchase Agreement for Pavement Maintenance for balance of FY 1718 (Crack and Surface Seal, Crack Seal and Slurry seal, Mill and Overlay) Pavement Management Program - Next Steps Kul 85 Q6 70 65 a L'Cl 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year Pr', i,'f ..4, �. - � I �T Quotation for IMS IMS Infrastructure Management Services Services 1820 Drake ©r. Suite 144. 83ProfessIonal PPo6na:(80) 839-4347 Fax: (480) 8394348 www.ims-rst.com To: Justin Weldy, Public Works Director Date: November 6, 2017 From: Jim Tourek, Client Services Manager Project: Fountain Hills, AZ Subject: Pavement Management Services Project No: Thank you for taking the time to review the pavement data collection services offered by IMS Infrastructure Management Services. IMS excels in pavement and asset management solutions and can provide a full suite of data collection services. As we understand, the Town of Fountain Hills currently maintains approximately 179 centerline miles of roadway. IMS would collect data on approximately 214 test miles as we two pass test arterials roadways. The Town does not currently utilize PMS software and is contemplating implementing a PMS; as such IMS has developed a recommended approach for moving forward by implementing the Lucity PMS software (hosted by IMS) to meet all of the Town's pavement management needs. IMS collects all data in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data protocols, commonly referred to as ASTM D6433. The base scope also incorporates a comprehensive pavement analysis and report including budget scenarios and prioritization plans. Our approach, and key service differentiator, is based on three, time proven fundamentals: Answer the questions that are being asked — don't over -engineer the system or make it needlessly complicated. Databases and the application of technology are meant to simplify asset management, not make it more difficult. Service and quality are paramount to success — the right blend of technically correct data, condition rating, and reporting will provide the agency with a long-term, stable solution. Service to the client remains our top priority. Local control and communications are key — it is important that all stakeholders understand the impacts of their decisions and have the system outputs react accordingly. We excel in making ourselves readily available. Services we can offer Fountain Hills include: • Objective roadway performance data collection including a full suite of surface distresses. • Right of Way asset data collection and digital image and GPS coordinate data collection. • Provision of robust software solutions and an advanced knowledge of majority of 3'd party software vendors. IMS ft frastrueture Matiagetnetrf Services Foutttaitt Hills Quote 2017-14, docs page 1 Town of Fountain Hills Pavement Management Services Data Collection IMS is unique to the industry, as an objective and repeatable data collection effort will be completed. The Laser RST will be used to perform a surface condition assessment of all Town streets. instead of using the subjective feet on ground or windshield sampling method, all data will be collected continuously and recorded in 100 -foot intervals in the form of a detailed database complete with GPS coordinates. The data will also be aggregated to the section level, following the sectioning and referencing methodology determined after IMS and Town review. GIS and Pavement Management Linkage The role of GIS in pavement management cannot be overstated. It is a powerful tool that provides the capability to handle and present vast amounts of data in an efficient manner, IMS can provide a link between the Town's GIS program and the pavement management data to enable the Town to display and generate color -coded maps based upon existing pavement conditions, street rehabilitation plans or most of the data developed as a part of the pavement management program. An output of such a plot is illustrated in the adjacent image. Digital Images and Right of Way Asset Data Collection While the RST is traversing the roadway, up to 7 digital cameras can be mounted inside the RST to collect images of the pavement and right of way assets. The following views are typically captured; driver front (forward view), passenger front (ROW view), and driver rear (adjacent ROW view), Additional views can be mounted if deemed necessary by the Town of Fountain Hills. All video is processed in-house; developed as an image library at 25 -foot intervals for use in QA/QC and for optional development as a video log or for right of way asset inventories. IMS Infrastructure Management Services Fountain Hills Quote 201 7-I4.ttocr page 2 Town of Fountain Hills Pavement Management Services GIS Integration & Visual Presentation The role of GIS in asset management cannot be overstated. It is a powerful tool that provides the ability to handle and present vast amounts of data in an efficient manner. Not only does GIS allow a Town to visually plot textural data, it also establishes an easy access portal to the data through an efficient integration with many 3`d party asset management applications. IMS kicks off every project by completing a brief review of the Town's GIS environment to assess suitability for network referencing, survey map preparation, and pavement and right of way asset management purposes. IMS also compares the existing roadway inventory within any current asset management system to the Town's GIS environment. If they do not match, we will work with the Town to determine the correct referencing information. The data collected by IMS is linked to the existing GIS environment and is supplied as a personal geodatabase, spatial database engine, Auto CAD files, or a series of shape files. IMS collects XY coordinates for all data elements using GPS technology coupled with inertial navigation and integrates with most 3`d party GIS applications, including ESRI. For this assignment, GIS will be used in four key areas of work: 1. GIS will be used to verify the streets to be surveyed and to create the routing maps for use during the field surveys. Z The survey productivity will be tracked through the plotting of the GPS data collected during the field surveys. This will allow IMS to review all streets that have been covered, identify anomalies in the referencing, and spot missed streets. 3. GIS will be used in processing the distress and inventory data. By plotting the data, we can QA the data and identify data exceptions in addition to proofing out the GIS. 4. Personal geodatabases, spatial database engines, shape and/or KML files, can be created for the visual presentation of condition data and analysis results. MIS Infrastructure Management Services Fountain !-fills Quote 2017-19. docx page• Town of Fountain Hills Pavement Management Services Pavement Analysis and Report Immediately following the completion of the field survey's IMS will begin processing the pavement distress severity and extent scores in an effort to develop a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for each roadway segment. The condition results are then analyzed by a team of IMS engineers who will develop the Town of Fountain Hills' multi-year pavement management plans. This section provides a brief summary of the functionality of the IMS pavement analysis in order to emphasize our implementation expertise as well as the abilities and constraints within a pavement analysis. The purpose of pavement management is to produce cost effective maintenance programs that maximize available resources and roadway life. By incorporating key components of a cost benefit analysis into the analysis operating parameters, we can develop a game plan that is optimized to meet the needs of the Town of Fountain Hills. Field Inspection Data and Pavement Condition Index (PCI) The IMS analysis allows you to store information regarding your pavements, including surface types, number of lanes, patching estimates, cross slopes, and sidewalk & curb types with replacement estimates. Pavement condition data including surface distress, roughness, and deflection results can be stored and analyzed. Using an in-house Pavement. Manager Setup module, we can develop customized condition elements, distress types (load & non -load), Indices (SDI, RI, & SI), weightings, and overall PCI calculations. In addition to the yearly programs, the net impact each budget scenario has on the expected condition of the road network over time can be determined. This budget impact can be illustrated both in terms of the yearly increase or decrease in the average network PCI score, PCI distribution, or % Backlog of roads that were not selected by the budgets. IMS converts the difficult to understand FHWA and ASTM D6433 data to a 0-10 distress rating scale with distress weighted factors (DWF), where DWF = (Area under D6433 deduct curves/3000). Modeling and Performance Curves With an IMS analysis, you can forecast various budget scenarios to help you determine your ideal maintenance and rehabilitation schedule. The IMS approach will help you decide what rehab activities should be performed, when and where to perform them, and an ideal budget for your system to maintain it at a specific level of service. IMS engineers use pavement deterioration models that can be customized to reflect the climatic conditions and structural characteristics of the Town of Fountain Hills' road network. As a result, performance curves can be developed on factors such as functional class, pavement type and sub -grade strength. IMS Infrastructure Management Seniors Founfola Hills Quote 2017-19. doex page 4 Town of Fountain Hills Pavement Management Services Lucity Analysis Configuration & 5-Year Pian Immediately fallowing the completion of the field survey's IMS will begin processing the pavement distress severity and extent scores in an effort to develop a Pavement Condition Index (PC[) for each roadway segment, The condition results are analyzed by a team of IMS engineers, who then develop a 5-year pavement management plan for the Town. This section provides a brief summary of the functionality of the Lucity pavement analysis in order to emphasize our implementation expertise as well as the abilities and constraints within a pavement analysis. The purpose of pavement management is to produce cost effective maintenance programs that maximize available resources and roadway life. By incorporating key components of a cost benefit analysis into the program operating parameters, we can develop a game plan that is optimized to meet the needs of the Fountain Hilts staff. In addition, the Lucity analysis operating parameters described within this section will be delivered in an easy to understand Excel Spreadsheet including the segment PCI data, pavement deterioration curves, triggers (priority weight factors), and the prioritized 5-year plan. Everything is linked to GIS in the form of simple shape files or even a personal geodatabase. Lucity & Pavement Management Software Experience IMS has completed over 65 Lucity software implementation and data collection assignments throughout the United States and is the only ► r lucity dedicated asset management firm who participates in the software updates as they relate to the pavement and asset tools. IMS routinely utilizes the Lucity "pavement analysis tool" in-house to develop reports for our clients that do not maintain a pavement management software application. Our team of qualified engineers possesses the expertise and skill set to update, modify, and configure the City's existing Lucity application. In addition, we work closely with Lucity's Chief Executive Officer, Drab Pinkston, and his software development team to ensure their clients hamess the full potential and capability of the pavement management application. IMS excels in making ourselves available to the Client. The IMS method to client management is to create a seamless approach from project inception through completion. We pride ourselves in creating a client -consultant relationship that is second to none. Field Inspection Data and Pavement Condition Index (PCI) The Lucity analysis allows you to store information regarding your pavements, including surface types, number of lanes, patching estimates, and cross slopes with replacement estimates. Pavement condition data including surface distress, roughness, and deflection results can be stored and analyzed. Using the Lucity Pavement Manager Setup module, we can develop customized condition elements, distress types (load & non -load), Indices (SDI, RI, & SI), weightings, and overall PCI calculations. In addition to the yearly programs, the net impact each budget scenario has on the expected condition of the road network over time can be determined. This budget impact can be illustrated both in terms of the yearly increase or decrease in the average network PCI score, PCI distribution, or % Backlog of roads that were not selected by the budgets. IMS converts the difficult to understand FHWA and ASTM D6433 data to a 0-10 distress rating scale with distress weighted factors (DWF), where DWF = {Area under D6433 deduct curves/3000). PAIS Infrustndeture Management Services Fountain Hills Quote 2017-19.doa page 5 Town of Fountain Wills Pavement Management Services Set Points and Operating Parameters One of the most important aspects of the IMS approach is determining the 'set points' or thresholds of the performance curves and other factors. In general, these set points determine what type of treatment will be selected given the current or predicted condition of a road segment over time. For example, the scatter plot displayed below illustrates a potential rehab selection process that may be incorporated for Fountain Hills. Each dot represents the outcome of a pavement condition assessment on each segment in the road network. The X-axis is the pavement condition score while the Y-axis is a Structural Index (will be developed with deflection data). The boundaries created by the intersection of the vertical green lines and horizontal dashed black lines represent the potential rehabilitation strategy for those given conditions. Each maintenance and rehabilitation strategy is programmed to take place in the most optimal year for each roadway segment. The color bands are also an effective way of illustrating the activity priorities through an analysis that takes into account critical PCI drops, also known as "cost of deferment." The IMS analysis specifically targets "critical segments", which is defined as segments that will drop into a more expensive treatment category if they are not selected now. By presenting the rehab strategies in a visual format such as this, the user, Town staff, management, and Town Councils can easily understand, follow and potentially modify the results with confidence. 100 X1 8D – — ....... .. — I Y Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Rehab priority Chart 70 i Moderate Pavements a60 X -1-V 50 Q YS «1 E} 20, Strong Pavements J 10 156) Thk i 0W. - t r Weak Pavenwnts 1 Nay st nor 1431 UW 2nd P!12r'Otay 4•= R a. RR1. . rd I 3 Priority 150}Tlhi¢4 owl � �.�..� -- 111 Yhin Il11 I ih))CCth 4 IJ Priority e1 14RY« I lith Priority r231a May 1.i. ���.�� MAnnY+ 2.0 RRk r—.® ? -T- :._" ;7*• Otay 1:0i saw • _ -1 .. ! (361 Thin (A) Surf ��P� fi YJasy • famnl RR2 RR2 120) Susi �5 _..... —._. Tamm .... `,,•►y Sri 2J d3 a:i 1k 60 70 80 90 3010 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) IMS Infrastriteltere Management Services Fon ntain (fills Qiteate 2017-19. doer page 6 Town of Fountain Hills Pavement Management Services Rehabilitation Analysis An unlimited number of pavement maintenance and rehabilitation strategies can be defined within our system. An analysis is then run, incorporating the performance curves, set points, filter criteria and rehab alternatives to identify the overall need in terms of rehab strategies and costs for the Town's road network, for today as well as year on year for the next 5 to 10 years_ The IMS approach allows you to input any number of "what if' budget scenarios and produce prioritized yearly rehab programs based on those funding levels over a 10 -year analysis period. Typical budget scenarios include Budget Wear, Unlimited Budget $, "Do Nothing" Budget, and a Target PCI Budget. What is included in an IVIS analysis & report? • Street ownership and inventorylattribute report • Present condition ranking — detailed and summary condition data including; Good/Fair/Poor, Load Associated Distresses (LAD), Non -LAD, and SuperSegment reviews of each street in the network, as well as the network as a whole_ • Fix all budget analysis — this identifies the upper limit of spending by rehabilitating all streets assuming unlimited funding. • Do nothing analysis — this identifies the effects of not performing roadway rehabilitation projects. • Steady state rehabilitation life cycle analysis — this identifies the minimum amount of rehabilitation that must be completed in order to maintain the existing level of service over 3, 5, or 10 years. • PCI & funding levels — what funding will be necessary to maintain a PGI of 80, 85, & 95. • Plus or minus 50% and other additional runs — additional budget runs are completed at rates of +50% and -50% of the suggested steady state analysis_ Up to 10 budget scenarios will be run. • Integration of capital projects and Master Plans — ongoing and proposed projects that affect roadway rehabilitation planning will be incorporated into the analysis. • Draft 5 -year rehabilitation and prioritized paving plans — based on need, available budget and level of service constraints; a minimum of three budget runs will be compieted. Final prioritized paving plan — incorporating feedback from stakeholder departments and utilities, complete with budget and level of service constraints. IMS LTf rrrstruerrrre Management Services rorrulnin Hills Qu ate 2017-191. [face page City of Glendale Five Year Rost Rehab Network Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Versus Budget k K a 0 C E a a sreany OVA n $ISM gond Ooki , Flow 5 s 5 Yeu FRi • gg Y 41x5 f �. ow i 5aege, 4Yae: vt4 -fi5 � Annual Budget Each Year Tor Fire Years {$k[Year) rehab programs based on those funding levels over a 10 -year analysis period. Typical budget scenarios include Budget Wear, Unlimited Budget $, "Do Nothing" Budget, and a Target PCI Budget. What is included in an IVIS analysis & report? • Street ownership and inventorylattribute report • Present condition ranking — detailed and summary condition data including; Good/Fair/Poor, Load Associated Distresses (LAD), Non -LAD, and SuperSegment reviews of each street in the network, as well as the network as a whole_ • Fix all budget analysis — this identifies the upper limit of spending by rehabilitating all streets assuming unlimited funding. • Do nothing analysis — this identifies the effects of not performing roadway rehabilitation projects. • Steady state rehabilitation life cycle analysis — this identifies the minimum amount of rehabilitation that must be completed in order to maintain the existing level of service over 3, 5, or 10 years. • PCI & funding levels — what funding will be necessary to maintain a PGI of 80, 85, & 95. • Plus or minus 50% and other additional runs — additional budget runs are completed at rates of +50% and -50% of the suggested steady state analysis_ Up to 10 budget scenarios will be run. • Integration of capital projects and Master Plans — ongoing and proposed projects that affect roadway rehabilitation planning will be incorporated into the analysis. • Draft 5 -year rehabilitation and prioritized paving plans — based on need, available budget and level of service constraints; a minimum of three budget runs will be compieted. Final prioritized paving plan — incorporating feedback from stakeholder departments and utilities, complete with budget and level of service constraints. IMS LTf rrrstruerrrre Management Services rorrulnin Hills Qu ate 2017-191. [face page Town of Fountain Hills Pavement Manaqement Services Maintenance planning is used to determine the effects of multiple budgets and work plans for future conditions. When developing the analysis, IMS will run the scenarios for planning, scheduling, budgeting, and analyzing alternative pavement activities. The analysis utilizes the inventory data combined with inspection information, maintenance policies, maintenance costs, and predictions about future pavement condition. The resulting work plans will be specific to the Town of Fountain Hills, All factors used in determining the maintenance activities, and associated costs, can be configured to reflect the Town's pavement management practices. Work plan options include: determining budget consequences, eliminate backlog over time, maintaining current PCI, and reaching the Town's desired PCI in a set period of time. In the adjacent example, a series of budget scenarios have been developed for an existing client and is illustrated in a line graph format. The current level of funding, $800K will result in a decreasing network PCI and an increasing backlog of work. The blue funding level represents a steady state scenario where PGI and backlog is maintained at its current level. The client used this information to present the networks funding needs to council. IMS will be sure to maintain constant contact with the Town staff to make sure that all input from the Town is City of Glendale, AZ Annual Pavement CondlIon lndexIPCQ Cy Year 5—Par�e[iC+` i1{$i51RfFHr� "aaOf Sexx R]ISi514fPaM ....�..,. —FimnN6el �dN� 1fb 3t�w�1 s sF 4 J�� :a notes, and that all requirements will be satisfied. The report will be the guiding tool for the imminent and long-term future of the Town's pavements, so it is necessary to maintain this level of communication. IMS will submit a draft copy of the report for Town review. Key parameters of the analysis include: Rehabilitation strategies — Working together with the Town, IMS will determine which rehabilitation strategies will result in the largest cost benefit. If the Town is confident their current rehabilitation strategies are sufficient, those will be utilized in the program. Performance curves — Not all roads are created equal and the life of a roadway in Fountain Hills will vary from roadways in other geographic regions. Taking this into account, IMS can develop custom performance curves for the Town of Fountain Hills. Set points — One of the most important aspects of the software is determining the 'set points' or thresholds of the performance curves, These set points are what determine which type of treatment will be selected at a particular point in time. In essence, it becomes the trigger for activity. Unit rates — While often overlooked, the unit rates associated with each rehabilitation or maintenance strategy is vital information when determining rehabilitation costs, funding sources, or even cost benefit scenarios. Knowing whether these unit rates are inclusive of overheads will make a vast difference in the analysis results. IRIS Injrasmicture ll7arragentew Sen,iees Fownrairt Hills Qhrate 2017-19. dncr prWe 8 Town of Fountain Hills Pavement Management Services Project Budget The detailed budget presented below is based on the IMS work plan and deliverables. It represents a realistic budget to complete the work, and we are confident we can maintain an on-time, on -budget approach to the assignment. Fountain Hills, AZ - 2017-19 Base Scope of Services Task Activity Quant Units Unit Rate Total Project Initiation 1 Project Initiation & Kickoff Meeting 1 LS $3,250.00 $3,250.00 2 Network Referencing & GIS Linkage 214 T -Mi $27.50 $5,885.00 Field Surveys 3 RST Mobilization/Calibration 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 4 RST Field Data Collection (2 -pass test Arte rials; 1 -pass others] 214 T -Mi 5720.00 $25,680.00 Data Management 5 Data QA/QC, Processing, & Formatting 214 T -Mi $15.00 $3,210.00 6 Develop Pavement Spreadsheet, Analysis & Report (IMS-rwsu UotySomrare) 1 LS $9,000.00 $9,000.00 7 Council Presentations 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00 8 Project Management 1 LS $3,720.00 $3,720.00 9 New Client Discount 1 LS (54,750 00) {54,750 00; 10 IMSvue - IMS hosted 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 11 Lucity Reports w/'18-1 9 updates (Town prov des Rehabs, Inspections 8 Gs[Ds) wAMSwe Fee 1 LS $6,000.00 $6.000.00 Project sub -Total: $69,995.00 Software Implementation Options - IMS Recommended Lucity' • as used by Glendale, GllbeM Goodyear, Paradise Valley, Peoria, Pinal County, Scottsdale) SO 1. Lucity (Town Hosted. Staffed & Maintained(: SO 1a Assets & GIS Product Module - Install & Supply (2 Seats) 1 LS 573,000.00 $13.000.00 SO 1b Pavement Condition Data Load & GIS Integration 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 SO is Onsite Training & Remote Assistance (2 dayst12 hours) 1 LS $6,500.0065 .500,00 Lucity SO 1 Total' $27,500.00 SO 1d Annual Software Maintenance Fee: Elf. Year 2 (2 Seats) 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Thank you for considering IMS as a viable solution to your pavement management needs and we will strive to become an asset and extension of the f=ountain Hills' staff and team. Optional services have been included on the following page. If any questions arise please do not hesitate to contact me at (480) 833-4347 or jtourekia�ims-rst.com. Regards, IMS Infrastructure Management Services, LLC Jim Tourek West Region Client Services Manager IMS Infrastructure AVlanagentent Seraices Fountain Hills Quote 2617-19. docv pgfs v 9 Town of Fountain Hills Pavement Management Services Optional Service Items and Activities 12 10 -Year Analysis and Bond Report 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500,00 13 Dynailect Mobilization (Deflection Testing) 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 13a Deflection Testing: 2 -pass Arterials only ({ MJT 6 CL nrtoroais tar buagFr constrainis1 58 T -Ml $120.00 $6,960.00 13b Deflection Testing Traffic Control (provided by City; otherwise $1161hr.) 0 HR $115.00 $0.00 14 Provision of Digital Images @ 25 -foot Intervals (3 -Views & Video Lag) 214 T -Mi $20.00 $4,280,00 15 Crossfali, Radius of Curvature, & Grade 214 T -Mi $10.00 $2,140,40 16 Right of Way Assets Data Collection {GPS & Camera conTiguratlen) 214 T -Mi $15.00 $3,210.00 16a Sign & Support Database Development 214 T -M! $100.00 $21,400.00 16b Sidewalk. Database Development 214 T -Ml $50.00 $10.700,00 16c ADA Ramp & Obstructions Database Development 214 T -Mi $50.00 $12,840.00 16d Curb & Gutter Database Development 214 T -MI '$50,00 $10,700.00 16e Pavement StripinglMarking Database Development 214 T -M! $60.00 $12,840.00 17 Nighttime Retro-refiectivity- All Signs (100% Network) 214 T -MI Ineed #19 & 19a) Quote wlrequest 18 SST Mobilization for Detailed Sidewalk Survey 1 LS (need #19 & 19b -c) Quoto whequest 19 SST Enhanced Field Survey of Sidewalks and ADA Ramps 1 LS (need #19 & 19b -c) Quota wlrequest 20 Sidewalk & ADA Ramp Distress Data Processing 1 LS (need #19 & 19b -c) Quote wlrequest 21 Next Scheduled Pavement Survey 2019-2020(sameScope as°18=t7wl Same Mileage 1 LS $61,745.04 $$1,745.00 22 Luoity Reports wl '19220 Updates (Town provides Rehabs, Inspecbons & GGlDs) wAMSure Fee 1 LS $6,000.04 56,000.00 23 Lucity Reports wl '20221 updates (Town provides Rehabs. Inspections & GIS IDS) wAMSwe Fee 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 24 Lucity Reports wl '21=22 Updates (Town pmmdas Rehabs.. Inspeadons & GIStDs) MMSvue Fee 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000,00 IhfS Infrustnecture Management Services Fuuutrtin Hills Quote 20 17--19 daex page 10