05-05-2022 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Lennar – Little Canada Traffic Analysis April 25, 2022 Page 13 Traffic Operations Analysis Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the intersections and proposed site access in the study area. The analysis was conducted for the following scenarios. 1. Existing Conditions 2. Projected 2025 No-Build 3. Projected 2025 Build 4. Projected 2040 No-Build 5. Projected 2040 Build The following sections describe the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations for each scenario. Methodology The intersections in the study area were evaluated during the AM and PM peak hours using Synchro/SimTraffic micro simulation software. The results are derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) The software was used to evaluate the characteristics of the roadway network including lane geometrics, turning movement volumes, traffic control, and signal timing. In addition, the signal timing parameters for future year conditions were optimized using Synchro. This information was then transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model, to estimate average peak hour vehicle delays and queues. Due to the stochastic nature of the simulation models, there can be minor variations in the MOEs reported by the model between various runs. One of the primary measures of effectiveness used to evaluate intersection traffic operations, as defined in the HCM, is Level of Service (LOS) – a qualitative letter grade, A – F, based on seconds of vehicle delay due to a traffic control device at an intersection. LOS A conditions represent high quality operations (i.e., motorists experience very little delay or interference) and LOS F conditions represent very poor operations (i.e., extreme delay or severe congestion). For side street stop intersections, the intersection LOS is reported as the worst side street movement. Figure 9 depicts a graphical interpretation of delay times that define level of service. The delay thresholds are lower for un-signalized intersections than signalized intersections due to the public’s perception of acceptable delays for different traffic controls as indicated in the HCM. In accordance with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) guidelines, this analysis used the LOS D/E boundary as an indicator of acceptable traffic operations. Figure 9: LOS Ranges for Signalized and Un-signalized Intersections 80 55 35 20 10 LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Not CongestedCongested50 35 25 10 LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Not CongestedCongested15 Signalized Intersection Unsignalized IntersectionControl Delay per Vehicle (sec.)Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.)SOURCE: Level of Service thresholds from the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.