Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2460 Lancaster Road, Suite 200, Ottawa, Ontario, K1B 4S5
Telephone (613) 731-4052 Fax: (613) 731-0253
October 22nd, 2014 Mr. Enzo DiChiara Project Manager & Estimator Prestige Design & Construction 50 Camelot Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2G 5X8 Dear Mr. DiChiara: Re: 1110 Fisher Avenue Proposed Residential Development - Addendum No. 1
CastleGlenn Consultants prepared a Transportation Impact Brief (TIB) in December 2012
that addressed the proposed residential development of a 42-unit condominium on the land
located at 1110 Fisher Avenue. The TIB was completed and submitted to the City of
Ottawa for circulation and review in December 2012.
Subsequent to the TIB being submitted, a revised site plan was prepared and submitted to
Castleglenn. Exhibit 1 illustrates the proposed residential development that would involve
the conversion of an existing single-family dwelling into 9 townhomes. This represents a
reduction of 33 units from what was assumed in the previous TIB study. Parking provisions
involve providing 2-stalls per unit. The new site plan identifies a new access located in the
approximate center of the property (located approximately 60m south (centerline to centerline) of the
Trent Street/Fisher Avenue intersection), which would provide all-movement access onto Fisher
Avenue.
The anticipated completion date for the proposed residential development is anticipated to be
within the 2015 horizon year (to the best of CastleGlenn’s knowledge at the time of report preparation).
Build-out of the 9 townhomes would occur in a single phase.
The purpose of this addendum letter is to review and revise the conclusions identified in the
December 2012 TIB in relation to the new proposed site plan.
The main concerns identified as part of the December 2012 TIB were impacts of: traffic
operations upon adjacent intersections, the adjacent Turnbull School and transit activity. The
following points serve to provide a qualitative assessment of these impacts.
Exhibit 1: Site Plan
Page - 2 -
Page - 3 -
Existing Conditions
The previous TIB assumed a PHF of 1 and an analysis period of 60 minutes. The existing morning
and afternoon peak hour Synchro analysis was revised assuming a flow rate of 1800 vphpl, an
analysis period of 15 minutes and a PHF of 0.92 for all study area intersections (See Annex A). The
revised results remain similar to the December 2012 TIB in that:
• the existing traffic operational characteristics associated with the Trent Street/Fisher Avenue and Island Park Drive/Holland Avenue intersections remain acceptable; and
• select movements (the WB-TH in the morning and SB-TH and EB-LT in the afternoon) at the Baseline Road/Fisher Avenue intersection are congested. However this represents a pre-existing condition and is independent of the proposed development.
Forecast Traffic Operations
Traffic generated by the proposed residential development was determined by referencing
literature. The Residential Condominium/Townhouse, Land Use 2301 classification that was
referenced in the TIB remains applicable for the new proposed townhouse development.
For the Residential Condominium/Townhouse land use, the average trip rate in the morning is 0.44
vehicles/unit (83% exiting) and 0.52 vehicles/unit (67% entering) in the afternoon. To simulate the
worst-case scenario, the fitted equation for the land use was used for analysis purposes to
determine trip generation.
Table 1 indicates the results of applying the above traffic generation rates to the 9 townhome units
within the condominium development and represents the resulting traffic volumes generated by
the site during peak hours.
Table 1: Trip Generation of Residential Condominium/Townhouse Facilities
Morning Peak Hour Trips Afternoon Peak Hour Trips Development Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound
9-Unit Townhouse Condominium
8 1 7 8 5 3
42-Unit Condominium (Dec 2012 TIB)
26 4 22 30 20 10
Difference -18 -3 -15 -22 -15 -7
The impact of the proposed residential development upon the surrounding roadway network was
determined to result in less than 10 vph generated for either the morning or afternoon peak hours
of travel demand. This represents about one-third of the site generated traffic associated with the
original 42-unit development outlined in the TIB.
The same traffic distribution patterns outlined in the TIB report were applied to the site generated
traffic. The projected turning movement volumes distributed upon the study area roadway network
1 “Trip Generation”, 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers – Land Use 230, Pages 387-414.
Page - 4 -
resulted in 5-or-less vehicles-per-hour-per-direction on the affected roadway links within the study
area (See Exhibit 2).
At the Baseline Road/Fisher Avenue intersection, only one vehicle would be added to each of the
SB-TH and EB-LT movements in the afternoon peak hour and non to the WB-TH movement in
the morning. Therefore the future impacts to this intersection as a result of the proposed residential
development were considered to be negligible.
Therefore site generated traffic for the proposed 9-unit townhomes was found to be negligible. As
such, traffic operations as outlined in the December 2012 TIB would improve under the current
site plan and the overall conclusions regarding traffic operations remain valid.
Transit Share
The site generated volumes outlined above do not provide for any adjustments related to the share
of transit usage for residents. This is a conservative approach that may tend to over-emphasize
motor vehicle activity associated with the proposed development.
Assuming a 30% transit share would result in approximately 2 vehicle trips in the morning and 2
vehicle trips in the afternoon being removed from the network (this would reduce site generated traffic
volumes to 6 vph in the morning and 6 vph in the afternoon). Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.2
persons-per-vehicle would result in 2.4 persons in the morning and afternoon taking advantage of
the local transit service.
The proposed site is well serviced by transit and 2-3 additional persons per hour during the peak
hours of transit travel demand would not result in any additional required improvements to the
frequency of routes nor bus stop accommodations.
Site Access Configuration
The site access was evaluated in terms of the City of Ottawa’s Private Approach Bylaw (No. 2003-
447).
• The single two-lane access to the proposed site was found to conform to the requirements which permit a single access for sites with less than 34m frontage.
• The proposed access to the site is located 60 m (centerline to centerline) from the Trent Street/Fisher Avenue intersection (which exceeds the 18m minimum required under the Bylaw).
• The proposed site access is located approximately 28 m (centerline to centerline) from the Turnbull School private access (which exceeds the 15 m minimum required under the Bylaw).
• The location of the proposed access provides for a 12 m (centerline to centerline) offset from the adjoining property line north of the site as set out in the Bylaw (which exceeds the 3 m minimum required under the Bylaw).
The site plan exceeds the minimum separation requirements outlined by the City of Ottawa’s
Private Approach Bylaw.
Page - 5 -
Site Generated TrafficExhibit 2: AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Existing Configuration
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0
)
0 (2
)
0 (0
)
3
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0
)
0 (0
)
0 (0
)
0 (0
)
2 (2
)
0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (0
)
0 (1
)
0 (0
)
0 (0
)
4
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0
)
0 (0
)
0 (0
)
0 (0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (1
)
0 (0)
0 (0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (0)
1 (0
)
3 (1
)
0 (0
)
0 (0
)
1
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (0
)
0 (5
)
5 (0
)
0 (0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2
)
0 (0)
1 (0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0
)
5 (2
)
0 (0
)
5
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (0
)
0 (5
)
5 (0
)
0 (5
)
1 (3
)
2 (2)
5 (2)
0 (2
)
0 (0
)
1 (3
)
2
0 (5)
5 (5)
0 (0
)
0 (0
)
5 (0
)
0 (5
)
0 (0
)
Hol
land
Av e
Island Park Drive
Page - 6 -
Access Throat Length
The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Standards (1999) Section
3.2.9.10 suggests a 15m minimum clear throat length for apartment driveways with less than 100
units. The proposed 9-unit site layout exceeds this requirement.
Queue Analysis of the Trent Street/Fisher Avenue intersection
The proximity of the site access to the existing northbound left-turn lane along Fisher Avenue was
evaluated as part of the December 2012 TIB and it was determined that the access location was
adequate. The new proposed site plan provides even greater distance between the intersection and
the site access, as well as lower traffic volumes generated; therefore this impact is even further
improved.
Impacts to Turnbull School and Turnbull Learning Centre
The site generate traffic associated with the site plan is considered to be negligible and the 28 m
separation between the Turnbull School access and the proposed site access is sufficient to assure
that the queue into the development will not block the Turnbull School access. Consequently
impacts on the school as a result of the proposed development are anticipated to be negligible.
Parking Impacts
The proposed residential development would provide two parking stalls per unit. In total 18
parking stalls would be provided for residents and visitors.
Based on the City of Ottawa’s parking stall requirements, as defined in the City of Ottawa Zoning
By-law [No. 2008-250 - Part 4 – Parking, Queuing and Loading Provisions (Section 101)], a total of 7 parking
stalls are required for the residential development (assuming a rate of 0.75 parking stalls per dwelling unit,
i.e. 9 units * 0.75 stalls/unit = 7 stalls) and no visitor parking stalls are required. Therefore the 18 stalls
provided exceed the City’s Parking Bylaw requirements of 7 parking stalls.
Conclusions
This addendum letter yields the following conclusions:
• Vehicle traffic generated by the proposed residential development is anticipated to be low, with a maximum of 8 vph in the morning and 8 vph during the afternoon peak hour of travel demand;
• Assuming a 30% transit share, site generated traffic could be reduced to a maximum of 6 vehicles during the morning and afternoon peak hours of travel demand and would result in approximately 2-3 new transit patrons during the peak hours;
• The proposed residential development is anticipated to result in negligible changes to the traffic patterns within the study area;
Impacts to the TumbuU School and Learning Centre are anticipated to be negligible;
• Impacts to the transit network is anticipated to be negligible;
• The proposed access is located 60 m from the Trent Street/Fisher Avenue intersection to the north and 28 m from the TumbuU School and Learning Centre Access to the south, which satisfies the City's Private Approach Bylaw; and
The site satisfies the parking requirements under the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law (No. 2008-
250) by providing an adequate number of resident parking stalls.
The results indicate that the City of Ottawa should be encouraged to assemble the appropriate
conditions for development approval that would permit the re-zoning application to proceed.
The signature below indicates that the "1110 Fisher Avenue Proposed Residential Development -
Addendum No. 7" has been signed-off by the project manager who is a licensed and registered
professional engineer with experience in the field of transportation planning and traffic operations.
J. A. Gervais, P. Eng. Transportation Planning Engineer CastleGlenn Consultants Inc. October 22^^ 2014
CASTLEGLENN CONSULTANTS LTD. THIRD PARTY DISCLAIMER
This study has been prepared by CastleGlenn Consultants Inc. ("CGI") for the benefit of the Client to whom it is addressed. The information and data contained herein represents CGTs best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to CGI at the time of preparation. Except as required by law, this study and the information and data contained herein are to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the Client, its officers and employees. CGI denies any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this study for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, this study or any of its contents without the express written consent of CGI and the Client.
Page - 7 -
ANNEX A: INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXISTING (2012) TRAVEL DEMAND CONDITIONS
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Existing Traffic - AM3: Baseline & Fisher - City of Ottawa Traffic Count
03/05/2013 Synchro 6 ReportCastleGlenn Consultants Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.90Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1676 3320 1319 1676 3353 1470 1676 3353 1448 1676 3288 1344Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1676 3320 1319 1676 3353 1470 1676 3353 1448 1676 3288 1344Volume (vph) 174 1022 218 35 867 27 123 285 15 126 394 104Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 189 1111 237 38 942 29 134 310 16 137 428 113RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 82 0 0 18 0 0 13 0 0 91Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 1111 155 38 942 11 134 310 3 137 428 22Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 41 4 9 36Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2%Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot PermProtected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 18.5 61.6 61.6 6.0 49.1 49.1 15.1 22.2 22.2 15.6 22.7 22.7Effective Green, g (s) 20.8 63.7 63.7 8.3 51.2 51.2 17.0 24.5 24.5 17.5 25.0 25.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.49 0.49 0.06 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.19 0.19Clearance Time (s) 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.9 6.3 6.3 5.9 6.3 6.3Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 268 1627 646 107 1321 579 219 632 273 226 632 258v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.33 0.02 0.28 0.08 0.09 c0.08 c0.13v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.02v/c Ratio 0.71 0.68 0.24 0.36 0.71 0.02 0.61 0.49 0.01 0.61 0.68 0.08Uniform Delay, d1 51.7 25.4 19.2 58.3 33.2 24.1 53.4 47.2 42.9 53.0 48.8 43.1Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 8.2 2.3 0.9 2.0 3.3 0.1 5.0 0.6 0.0 4.5 2.9 0.1Delay (s) 59.9 27.8 20.0 60.3 36.5 24.1 58.4 47.8 42.9 57.5 51.6 43.2Level of Service E C C E D C E D D E D DApproach Delay (s) 30.5 37.1 50.7 51.4Approach LOS C D D D
Intersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 38.7 HCM Level of Service DHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Existing Traffic - AM3: Baseline & Fisher
03/05/2013 Synchro 6 ReportCastleGlenn Consultants Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.90Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1676 3320 1319 1676 3353 1470 1676 3353 1448 1676 3288 1344Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1676 3320 1319 1676 3353 1470 1676 3353 1448 1676 3288 1344Volume (vph) 300 1020 220 35 865 40 125 485 15 125 405 105Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 326 1109 239 38 940 43 136 527 16 136 440 114RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 86 0 0 30 0 0 13 0 0 90Lane Group Flow (vph) 326 1109 153 38 940 13 136 527 3 136 440 24Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 41 4 9 36Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2%Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot PermProtected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 27.2 59.5 59.5 5.6 37.9 37.9 15.2 24.7 24.7 15.6 25.1 25.1Effective Green, g (s) 29.5 61.6 61.6 7.9 40.0 40.0 17.1 27.0 27.0 17.5 27.4 27.4Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.21Clearance Time (s) 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.9 6.3 6.3 5.9 6.3 6.3Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 380 1573 625 102 1032 452 220 696 301 226 693 283v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.33 0.02 c0.28 c0.08 c0.16 0.08 0.13v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.02v/c Ratio 0.86 0.71 0.25 0.37 0.91 0.03 0.62 0.76 0.01 0.60 0.63 0.08Uniform Delay, d1 48.2 27.0 20.4 58.7 43.3 31.4 53.4 48.4 40.9 53.0 46.7 41.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 17.1 2.7 0.9 2.3 13.4 0.1 5.1 4.7 0.0 4.5 1.9 0.1Delay (s) 65.4 29.7 21.3 61.0 56.7 31.6 58.5 53.1 40.9 57.4 48.7 41.4Level of Service E C C E E C E D D E D DApproach Delay (s) 35.4 55.8 53.9 49.2Approach LOS D E D D
Intersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 46.0 HCM Level of Service DHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.6% ICU Level of Service DAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Existing Traffic - AM12: Trent & Fisher
03/05/2013 Synchro 6 ReportCastleGlenn Consultants Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1676 1406 1669 1765 1760Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1676 1406 712 1765 1760Volume (vph) 20 30 55 770 560 10Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 22 33 60 837 609 11RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 30 0 0 1 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 3 60 837 619 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 9 9Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2%Turn Type Perm PermProtected Phases 4 2 6Permitted Phases 4 2Actuated Green, G (s) 5.9 5.9 64.3 64.3 64.3Effective Green, g (s) 6.7 6.7 65.3 65.3 65.3Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.82 0.82 0.82Clearance Time (s) 4.8 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 140 118 581 1441 1437v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.47 0.35v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.08v/c Ratio 0.16 0.02 0.10 0.58 0.43Uniform Delay, d1 34.0 33.6 1.5 2.6 2.1Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.4 1.7 0.9Delay (s) 34.6 33.7 1.8 4.3 3.0Level of Service C C A A AApproach Delay (s) 34.1 4.1 3.0Approach LOS C A A
Intersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 4.7 HCM Level of Service AHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.9% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Existing Traffic - AM32: Fisher & Holland
03/05/2013 Synchro 6 ReportCastleGlenn Consultants Inc. Page 12
Movement EBL2 EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SWL SWRLane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1663 1761 1428 1658 1668 1471Flt Permitted 0.47 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 819 1663 1741 1428 1658 441 1471Volume (vph) 155 640 5 5 115 90 0 200 110 45 355Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 168 696 5 5 125 98 0 217 120 49 386RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 17 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 701 0 0 130 47 0 320 0 49 386Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 15 3 12 7 12Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4%Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm PermProtected Phases 4 2 6 8Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 8Actuated Green, G (s) 70.7 70.7 38.2 38.2 38.2 70.7 70.7Effective Green, g (s) 72.0 72.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 72.0 72.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.60 0.60Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.3 5.3Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 491 998 580 476 553 265 883v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 c0.19 0.26v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.07 0.03 0.11v/c Ratio 0.34 0.70 0.22 0.10 0.58 0.18 0.44Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 16.6 28.8 27.6 33.0 10.8 13.0Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 4.1 0.9 0.4 4.4 1.5 1.6Delay (s) 14.0 20.7 29.7 28.0 37.4 12.3 14.6Level of Service B C C C D B BApproach Delay (s) 19.4 29.0 37.4 14.3Approach LOS B C D B
Intersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service CHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Existing Traffic - PM3: Baseline & Fisher - City of Ottawa Traffic Count
03/05/2013 Synchro 6 ReportCastleGlenn Consultants Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.92Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1676 3353 1385 1676 3353 1467 1676 3353 1440 1676 3320 1383Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1676 3353 1385 1676 3353 1467 1676 3353 1440 1676 3320 1383Volume (vph) 143 950 303 131 1166 45 244 306 17 163 602 181Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 155 1033 329 142 1267 49 265 333 18 177 654 197RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 141 0 0 25 0 0 15 0 0 164Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 1033 188 142 1267 24 265 333 3 177 654 33Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 32 5 11 26Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2%Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot PermProtected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 53.0 53.0 13.6 52.6 52.6 19.1 21.9 21.9 16.9 19.7 19.7Effective Green, g (s) 16.3 55.1 55.1 15.9 54.7 54.7 21.0 24.2 24.2 18.8 22.0 22.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.17 0.17Clearance Time (s) 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.9 6.3 6.3 5.9 6.3 6.3Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 210 1421 587 205 1411 617 271 624 268 242 562 234v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.31 0.08 c0.38 c0.16 0.10 0.11 c0.20v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.02v/c Ratio 0.74 0.73 0.32 0.69 0.90 0.04 0.98 0.53 0.01 0.73 1.16 0.14Uniform Delay, d1 54.8 31.2 25.0 54.7 35.1 22.2 54.3 47.8 43.2 53.2 54.0 46.0Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 3.3 1.4 9.7 9.3 0.1 48.0 0.9 0.0 10.8 91.9 0.3Delay (s) 67.5 34.5 26.4 64.4 44.4 22.3 102.3 48.7 43.2 64.0 145.9 46.3Level of Service E C C E D C F D D E F DApproach Delay (s) 36.1 45.6 71.6 112.7Approach LOS D D E F
Intersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 60.9 HCM Level of Service EHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.6% ICU Level of Service EAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Existing Traffic - PM3: Baseline & Fisher
03/05/2013 Synchro 6 ReportCastleGlenn Consultants Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.92Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1676 3353 1385 1676 3353 1467 1676 3353 1440 1676 3320 1383Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1676 3353 1385 1676 3353 1467 1676 3353 1440 1676 3320 1383Volume (vph) 285 950 305 130 1165 90 245 605 15 145 525 160Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 310 1033 332 141 1266 98 266 658 16 158 571 174RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 142 0 0 50 0 0 13 0 0 145Lane Group Flow (vph) 310 1033 190 141 1266 48 266 658 3 158 571 29Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 32 5 11 26Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2%Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot PermProtected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6Actuated Green, G (s) 14.7 53.1 53.1 13.5 51.9 51.9 19.1 22.6 22.6 16.2 19.7 19.7Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 55.2 55.2 15.8 54.0 54.0 21.0 24.9 24.9 18.1 22.0 22.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.17 0.17Clearance Time (s) 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.9 6.3 6.3 5.9 6.3 6.3Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 219 1424 588 204 1393 609 271 642 276 233 562 234v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.31 0.08 c0.38 c0.16 c0.20 0.09 0.17v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.02v/c Ratio 1.42 0.73 0.32 0.69 0.91 0.08 0.98 1.02 0.01 0.68 1.02 0.13Uniform Delay, d1 56.5 31.1 25.0 54.8 35.7 23.0 54.3 52.5 42.6 53.2 54.0 45.8Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 211.7 3.3 1.5 9.7 10.3 0.3 49.3 42.0 0.0 7.6 42.0 0.2Delay (s) 268.2 34.4 26.4 64.4 46.0 23.2 103.6 94.6 42.6 60.8 96.0 46.1Level of Service F C C E D C F F D E F DApproach Delay (s) 76.1 46.2 96.2 80.2Approach LOS E D F F
Intersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 71.6 HCM Level of Service EHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.6% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Existing Traffic - PM12: Trent & Fisher
03/05/2013 Synchro 6 ReportCastleGlenn Consultants Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1676 1500 1676 1765 1758Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1676 1500 480 1765 1758Volume (vph) 10 20 40 905 840 25Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 11 22 43 984 913 27RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 21 0 0 1 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 1 43 984 939 0Turn Type Perm PermProtected Phases 4 2 6Permitted Phases 4 2Actuated Green, G (s) 4.5 4.5 70.7 70.7 70.7Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 5.3 71.7 71.7 71.7Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.84 0.84 0.84Clearance Time (s) 4.8 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 105 94 405 1489 1483v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.56 0.53v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.09v/c Ratio 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.66 0.63Uniform Delay, d1 37.6 37.4 1.1 2.4 2.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.5 2.3 2.1Delay (s) 38.1 37.5 1.7 4.7 4.3Level of Service D D A A AApproach Delay (s) 37.7 4.5 4.3Approach LOS D A A
Intersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 5.0 HCM Level of Service AHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.1% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Existing Traffic - PM32: Fisher & Holland
03/05/2013 Synchro 6 ReportCastleGlenn Consultants Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL2 EBL EBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SWL SWR SWR2Lane ConfigurationsIdeal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1671 1663 1763 1438 1646 1671 1485Flt Permitted 0.26 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 452 1663 1755 1438 1646 546 1485Volume (vph) 245 630 5 5 281 102 0 156 95 65 725 1Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 266 685 5 5 305 111 0 170 103 71 788 1RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 18 0 0 0 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 266 690 0 0 310 87 0 255 0 71 789 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 2 9 2 11 7 11Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2%Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm PermProtected Phases 4 2 6 8Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 8Actuated Green, G (s) 81.7 81.7 27.2 27.2 27.2 81.7 81.7Effective Green, g (s) 83.0 83.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 83.0 83.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.69 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.69 0.69Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.3 5.3Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 313 1150 424 348 398 378 1027v/s Ratio Prot 0.41 0.15 0.53v/s Ratio Perm c0.59 c0.18 0.06 0.13v/c Ratio 0.85 0.60 0.73 0.25 0.64 0.19 0.77Uniform Delay, d1 13.8 9.7 41.9 36.7 40.8 6.6 12.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 24.0 2.3 10.6 1.7 7.7 1.1 5.5Delay (s) 37.9 12.1 52.5 38.4 48.5 7.7 17.7Level of Service D B D D D A BApproach Delay (s) 19.2 48.8 48.5 16.9Approach LOS B D D B
Intersection SummaryHCM Average Control Delay 26.6 HCM Level of Service CHCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service FAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
