HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Packet 8-19-14 - with EAW attachmentsENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
Inwood Creek ‐ Lake Elmo
Contents
1. ..................................................................................................................................................Project Title 1
2. ...................................................................................................................................................... Proposer 1
3. ..............................................................................................................................................................RGU 1
4. .................................................................................................................... Reasons for EAW Preparation 1
5. ..........................................................................................................................................Project Location 1
6. ...................................................................................................................................................Description 2
7. ................................................................................................................................................. Cover Types 3
8. .................................................................................................................Permits and Approvals Required 4
9. ...................................................................................................................................................... Land Use 5
10. ..............................................................................................Geology, Soil, and Topography/Land Forms 7
11. ........................................................................................................................................Water Resources 9
12. ............................................................................................ Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Water 17
13. ....................................................................................... Fish, Wildlife, Plant Community and Water Use 19
14. .......................................................................................................................................Historic Property 20
15. ..........................................................................................................................................................Visual 20
16. ...............................................................................................................................................................Air 21
17. ..........................................................................................................................................................Noise 21
18. ...........................................................................................................................................Transportation 22
19. .....................................................................................................................Cumulative Potential Impact 27
20. ....................................Other Potential Impacts ‐‐ Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks 27
i
Lake Elmo EAW July 23, 2014
ii
EXHIBITS
A. Location Map
B. US Geological Map
C. Site Survey (2 pages)
D. Proposed Site Plan
E. Existing Land Use Plan
F. City Land Use Plan
G. Property Contour Map
H. Wetland Delineation Report
I. Watershed Map
J. Traffic Impact Study
July 2013 version
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the
Environmental Quality Board’s website at:
http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information
about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines
provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form.
Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be
addresses collectively under EAW Item 19.
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title: Inwood Creek – Lake Elmo
2. Proposer: Hans Hagen Homes 3. RGU: City of Lake Elmo
Contact person: John Rask Contact person: Kyle Klatt
Title: Vice President Land Development Title: Planning Director
Address: 941 NE Hillwind Road #300 Address: 3800 Laverne Avenue N
City, State, ZIP: Fridley, MN 55432 City, State, ZIP: Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Phone: 763-586-7202 Phone: 651-747-3911
Fax: 763-572-9417 Fax: 651-747-3901
Email: jrask@hanshagenhomes.com Email: kklatt@lakeelmo.org
4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required: Discretionary:
EIS Scoping Citizen petition
; Mandatory EAW RGU discretion
Proposer initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):
5. Project Location:
County: Washington County, Minnesota
City/Township: Lake Elmo
PLS Location (NE1/4, Section 33, T29N, R21W):
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): South Washington
GPS Coordinates: 44°57'34.1"N 92°55'57.4"W
Tax Parcel Number: 33-029-21-12-0001, 33-029-21-12-0003, 33-029-21-11-0002, 33-029-21-11-
0001
page 1
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:
• County map showing the general location of the project; See Exhibit A
• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable); and See Exhibit B
• Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post-
construction site plan. See Exhibit C and Exhibit D.
6. Project Description:
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10 LLC are proposing to develop a 157-acre property located
in the southern portion of Lake Elmo. The project will be known as Inwood Creek. This
mixed use neighborhood will contain detached single family homes, multi-family, and
commercial land uses.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility.
Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment
or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures,
and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC are proposing to construct a mixed use development
consisting of commercial, multi-family, and single family homes on approximately 157 acres.
The proposed land uses are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The detached
single family neighborhood occupies approximately 90 acres and will include 278 single
family lots. The multi-family will include an additional 458 units consisting of: 1) 176 rental
townhomes, 2) 120 senior housing units, 3) 150 multifamily units, and 4) 12 townhomes. The
commercial land uses will consist of approximately 73,000 square feet of office and retail uses.
Project development will convert approximately 157 acres of agricultural fields to a new mixed
use neighborhood that includes streets, homes, retail goods and services, offices, lawns,
landscaping, parkland, trails, and stormwater ponding. Public streets will serve the development
including the construction of a minor collector roadway, which will be known as 5th Street.
The City’s approved Comprehensive Land Use Plan provides for an additional 6,600 Residential
Equivalent Connections (RECs) of regional sewer service by 2030. The subject property is
guided for a mix of Urban High Density, Urban Low Density, and Commercial. Development of
the subject property will be consistent with the total level of density guided by the Land Use Plan.
Development of the property will occur in multiple phases with the first phase expected to begin
in 2014. Full build-out is anticipated in 2020; however, construction timing will ultimately
depend upon market conditions.
page 2
Project magnitude:
Total Project Acreage 157 acres
Linear project length 2,640 feet
Number and type of residential units 278 single family units
458 attached units
Commercial building area (in square feet) 73,000
Industrial building area (in square feet) n/a
Institutional building area (in square feet) n/a
Other uses – specify (in square feet) n/a
Structure height(s) 35 feet on single family
50 feet on multi-family
d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the
need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The purpose of this mixed use neighborhood is to meet the demand for additional residential
housing and commercial goods and services within the City of Lake Elmo. This development is
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive plan.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or
likely to happen? Yes ; No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
There are currently no planned future stages of the Inwood Creek neighborhood.
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes ; No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
Inwood Creek is not a subsequent stage of an earlier development project
7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
Before After Before After
Wetlands .28 .10 Lawn/landscaping 0 52
Deep
water/streams
.20
.20 Impervious
surface
0 60
Wooded/forest 14.7 5.0 Stormwater Pond 0 7.7
Brush/Grassland 0 0 Other (describe) 0 41.5
Cropland 142.8
TOTAL 157 157
page 3
Cover types identified as “Others” include road right-of-way, infiltration basins, park, berms, open
space, and undeveloped property.
8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals,
certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits,
governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including
bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are
prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules,
Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
City of Lake Elmo Concept Plan Approval To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Preliminary Plat Approval To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Final Plat Approval To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo EAW Negative Declaration To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Grading Permit To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Building Permit To be applied for
Municipal Water City of Lake Elmo Connection Permit To be applied for
Sanitary Sewer Connection City of Lake Elmo Permit To be applied for
City of Lake Elmo Rezoning To be applied for
Wetland Delineation City of Lake Elmo Confirmation Applied for
Wetland Conservation Act City of Lake Elmo No-Loss Determination Applied for
Washington County Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for
Washington County Access Permit To be applied for
Washington County Obstruction Permit To be applied for (if needed)
Washington County Transportation Permit To be applied for (if needed)
Sanitary Sewer Connection Metropolitan Council Permit To be applied for
Minnesota Department of Water Main Extension
Health Approval To be applied for
Minnesota DNR Division of Water Appropriation
Waters Permit To be applied for (if needed)
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency NPDES/SDS To be applied for
Minnesota Pollution Control Sanitary Sewer Extension
Agency Approval To be applied for
U. S. Army Corps of Section 404I Letter of No
Engineers Jurisdiction Applied for
MN DNR Division of Waters Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for (if needed)
page 4
MN Pollution Control
Agency
NPDES/SDS General
Permit
Covered under general
permit; submit NOI prior to
construction
South Washington Watershed
District Watershed Review/Permit To be applied for
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item
Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19.
If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested
in EAW Item No. 19
9. Land use:
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks,
trails, prime or unique farmlands.
The subject property consists primarily of tilled agricultural land with a few small stands of
trees. A small City park exists near the southeast corner of the site. Surrounding land use
as depicted in Exhibit E consists of 1) tilled agricultural land to the north, 2) office uses to
the south, 3) large lot residential to the east, and 4) a golf course to the west. As described
in the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, this portion of the City is guided as an
"urbanized zone" that will feature higher density residential development and commercial
uses. A natural buffer strip, located adjacent to existing rural development, is proposed
along the east property line.
Some of the soils in this area of Lake Elmo are classified as prime farmland. Because
adjacent land uses are urban in nature, or planned for future development, no farmland
preservation measures were considered.
ii. Plans, describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any
other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional,
state, or federal agency.
The planned land uses of the property consist of low density residential, multi-family, and
commercial. These uses are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the
property, see attached Exhibit F. Surrounding land uses in the City’s Comprehensive Land
Use Plan consist of Rural Development Area to the north, Business Park to the south,
Residential Estate to the east, and a public golf course and office uses to the west located in
the City of Oakdale.
The City of Lake Elmo’s Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by the Metropolitan Council,
adjacent communities, and other governmental agencies with review authority. The City’s
Land Use Plan was found to be consistent with these other local and regional plans.
page 5
Because Inwood Creek is consistent with the City’s Land Use Plan, no impacts to other
local or regional plans are anticipated.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and
scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The subject property is in a sewered holding district and will be rezoned concurrently with
the submission of a preliminary plat. The Development will be zoned PUD with
commercial and residential land uses. The property includes an unnamed creek that is
within the shoreland overlay zoning district. A portion of the northwest corner of the
property is also located in the shoreland district of Armstrong Lake. Armstrong Lake is
located in the City of Oakdale. There is no floodplain established for the unnamed creek or
Armstrong Lake.
The use and development of the Inwood Creek neighborhood would be consistent with the
shoreland regulations of the City.
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item
9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
The project will consist of a mix of residential, multi-family, and commercial uses as identified in
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is bounded by 10th Street to the north, an
office park to the south, a 100-foot wide buffer and large lot residential to the east, and Inwood
Avenue to the west. The planned use of the property is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and will not have any negative environmental effects on nearby land uses that cannot be
mitigated.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.
The project is compatible with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is not incompatible with
surrounding land uses, or future land uses identified in the City’s Plan. The Inwood Creek
neighborhood is designed to provide the appropriate land use transitions both within the project
itself, as well as with surrounding land uses. Specifically, the site provides the following
transitions to eliminate any potential incompatibilities that would have negative environmental
effects:
• The Inwood Creek detached single family lots will be located adjacent to the large lot
residential lots to the east. Residential use of this property is consistent with the adjacent
residential uses, and will be separated by a vegetative buffer that at a minimum is 100
feet wide.
• The Inwood Creek neighborhood includes multi-family development along the southern
edge of the property, which is adjacent to the existing office park. The multi-family
development is compatible with nearby office uses and will not have any negative
environmental impacts. Conversely, the office use will not adversely impact the multi-
family uses of the property.
• The proposed commercial land uses are on the west side of the property adjacent to
Inwood Avenue. Across the street from Inwood Creek is a public golf course. The
page 6
planned commercial is separated from the single family portion of Inwood Creek by a
large stormwater pond.
• North of the property is tilled agricultural fields. The agricultural fields are separated
from the project site by 10th Street (CSAH 10). Berms will be constructed on the south
side of 10th Street to buffer the single family homes form the road.
10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible
geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers,
or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the
project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to
address effects to geologic features.
American Engineering and Testing conducted soil borings on the subject property. The borings
identified a plowed section of topsoil overlying alluvial sands, silty sands, lean clays, and glacial
till.
Coarse alluvial soils exist below the topsoil and are interbedded within the mixed alluvium, fine
alluvium and till. They consist of silty sands, sands with silt and sands. The coarse alluvium
contains variable amounts of gravel and could also contain cobbles or boulders.
The Geologic Atlas of Washington County, Minnesota (1990) C-5, Plate 1 indicates there are no
known sinkholes, exposed bedrock, springs, or seeps on or near the site. If such features are
encountered on the site, actions will be taken to mitigate potential effects such as stormwater
routing, soil stabilization, and groundwater protection practices.
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly
permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading.
Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational
activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction
to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures.
Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to
Item 11.b.ii.
NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing
the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an
increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of
water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with
the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10.
The Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) digital database for Washington County (USDA NRCS,
Accessed 2013) indicates the soils that occur within the project area are predominantly non-hydric
silty and sandy loams.
page 7
Soils Classification
Map
Symbol Soil Classification Hydric
264 Freeon silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Not hydric
153B Santiago silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Not hydric
153C Santiago silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Not hydric
120 Brill silt loam, 0 to 2 percent Not hydric
266 Freer silt loam, 0 to 2 percent Not hydric
,
1847 Barronett silt loam, 0 to 2 percent Hydric
342B Kingsley sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Not hydric
49B Antigo silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Not hydric
49 Antigo sil loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Not hydric
1 Based on the NRCS List of Hydric Soils of Minnesota (1995).
Acres: Approximately 150 acres will be graded for streets, house and commercial pads, and stormwater
features.
Cubic Yards: Approximately 1,500,000 cubic yards of soil will be moved. The soils are generally
suitable for urban development and require very little correction. Furthermore, the proposed site plan
works with natural grade and topography and will not significantly alter the current topography of this
157 acre site. Most of the earth work is the result of stripping top soil, digging ponds, and constructing
berms for buffers.
The Highly Erodible Land (HEL) List for Washington County, Minnesota (USDA NRCS, 2006)
indicates there are no highly erodible soil within the study area.
According to the USDA NRCS SSURGO database for Washington County (Accessed 2014), there are
no substantial areas that contain steep slopes (12 percent or greater) associated with the soil mentioned
above. Contour mapping indicates that the majority of the surface topography is gently undulating.
Elevations range from 1,040 feet in the northern portion of the site to 996 feet in the southern portion of
page 8
the site Exhibit G. The majority of the site drains from north to south. With the majority of the project
area being over 1,000 above mean sea level, the site contains some of the highest elevations in the City.
Because the project will involve disturbance of more than one acre of land, application for coverage
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS)
General Permit will be submitted to the MPCA prior to initiating earthwork on the site. This permit is
required for discharge of stormwater during construction activity and requires that Best Management
Practices (BMPs) be used to control erosion, and that all erosion controls be inspected after each
rainfall exceeding 0.5 inches in 24 hours. Erosion control practices that will be implemented on the site
include:
1. Construction of temporary sediment basins in the locations proposed for
stormwater ponding, and development of these basins for permanent use
following construction.
2. Silt fence and other erosion control features installed prior to earthwork and
maintained until ground cover is established on exposed areas.
3. Periodic street cleaning and installation of a rock construction entrance to reduce
tracking of dirt onto public streets.
4. Stabilization of exposed soils, phased with grading, within 7 days for slopes steeper
than 3:1, 14 days for slopes less than 3:1 but greater that 10:1, and 21 days for slopes
flatter than 10:1.
5. Energy dissipation, such as riprap, installed at storm sewer outfalls.
6. Use of cover crops, native seed mixes, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed
surface soils after final grading.
Erosion control plans must be reviewed and accepted by the City of Lake Elmo and applicable South
Washington County Watershed District prior to project construction. Because the above BMPs will be
implemented during and after construction, potential adverse effects from construction-related
sediment and erosion on water quality will be minimized.
11. Water Resources:
Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.
i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial
ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes,
migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water
quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters
List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if
any.
The subject property contains an unnamed creek (07010206-745) that is on the current MPCA
303d Impaired Waters List. Excessive levels of chloride (salt) is found in the creek which has an
impact on fish and other aquatic organisms. The Inwood Creek neighborhood would comply
with the application City shoreland regulations.
page 9
A small portion of the subject property also lies within the shoreland overlay district of
Armstrong Lake. None of the subject property drains toward Armstrong Lake. The Inwood
Creek property is on the opposite side of a divided 4-lane highway from Armstrong Lake, and is
separated by a commercial/office development. As such, any development on the subject
property will not impact Armstrong Lake.
Both Armstrong Lake and the unnamed creek are regulated under the City’s Shoreland
Ordinance. The shoreland district extends 300 feet from the ordinary high water elevation of the
creek and 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water elevation of Armstrong Lake. The proposed
development would comply with the City’s Shoreland Ordinance. If flexibility to any standards
is necessary, the Developer would identify these in the PUD application, and will take the
appropriate actions to mitigate any potential negative impacts.
A farmed wetland basin will be impacted as part of the site development. In May of 2014,
Kjolhaug Environmental Services evaluated the project area for wetlands and other jurisdictional
waters. Three jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project boundary as depicted in
the Wetland Delineation Report attached as Exhibit H. Wetland 1 is listed on the National
Wetland Inventory Map and is classified as a Type 1 (PEMAf) palustrine emergent temporary
flooded farmed wetland. Wetland 2 is a Type 1 (PEMA) fresh meadow wetland dominated by
green ash saplings and inundated with reed canary grass. Wetland 3 is a Type 1 (PEMAf)
farmed, seasonally flooded wetland dominated by witch grass.
A review of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, was performed. According to Panel Number 27163C0335E dated February 3, 2010, the
Property is located in Flood Zone X. Flood Zone X consists of regions outside of the 100-year
and 500-year flood zones.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is
within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells,
including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or
nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
Groundwater elevations within the vicinity of the site are around 875 feet above sea level based
on The Geologic Atlas of Washington County, Minnesota (1990) C-5, Plate 5. Topographic
mapping indicates that elevations on the site range from approximately 1,070 above mean sea
level in the northwest corner of the site to 980 above mean sea level towards the eastern border of
the site. Consequently, the maximum depth to groundwater is estimated at about 195 feet.
Because surficial groundwater is sometimes encountered in seasonally wet areas, the minimum
depth to groundwater is estimated at 0 feet. The approximate average depth to groundwater was
calculated by averaging the topographic elevations on the site (1,025) and subtracting the
anticipated depth shown on the Washington County Atlas (875).
Depth to bedrock was estimated from the record of Unique Well No. 523649 (County Well Index,
2012) The well and boring record completed for this new well in April 1993 indicates that
Platteville Formation was reached at 60 feet below grade. The Geologic Atlas of Washington
County, Minnesota (1990) C-5, Plate 4 indicates that the distance to bedrock ranges between
approximately 50 and 200 feet below grade.
page 10
The City of Lake Elmo has a Part 1 and Part II MDH Wellhead Protection Plan. The plan does
not identify any well draw areas on the subject property.
Nova Consulting reviewed well log records provided by the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) County Well Index for the Property. No wells were identified. Further, no evidence of
wells or septic systems were observed by Nova at the time of the Phase I in May of 2014. If
wells and septic systems are discovered during any future construction activities, they will be
abandoned according to applicable regulations.
The Geologic Atlas of Washington County, Minnesota (1990) pollution sensitivity map indicates
that the sensitivity of groundwater to pollution in the project areas is generally moderate.
Sensitivity of groundwater systems to pollution is defined as the approximate time it takes from
the moment contaminant infiltrates the land surface until it reaches an aquifer. Although shallow
groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination, moderately permeable soils with finer
textures will slow or restrict the movement of water, which extends the time needed for chemicals
to break down before reaching the water table. As stated in Item 19, the average depth to
groundwater on the site is estimated at approximately 150 feet below ground surface, providing a
significant buffer between the soil surface and the groundwater aquifer.
Because development will be typical of residential and commercial uses, no unusual wastes or
chemicals are anticipated to be spread or spilled that would cause significant groundwater
contamination. The proposed project will provide continued groundwater protection by providing
adequate stormwater treatment and vegetated infiltration areas such as rain gardens, and buffers
to help capture runoff and filter pollutants.
Groundwater Protection and Mitigation Measures
The Inwood Creek residential development will offer a higher level of groundwater protection
than exists under current conditions. Chemical applications can be high in agriculturally-
dominated landscapes. The conversion of the site to urban uses will ensure greater protection of
groundwater by: (1) covering exposed soils with turf and landscape plants to reduce infiltration of
nutrients and pesticides; (2) reducing hazardous materials on the property to include only
household quantities; (3) providing 27 acres of park, woodland, and open space; (4) providing
stormwater treatment systems.
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate
the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition
of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the
site.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and
waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
wastewater infrastructure.
According to the City's approved Comprehensive Plan, the project area is situated within a
designated sewer service area (see Future Land Use - Sewer Plan, 2012). Current plans call for the
page 11
proposed development site to be served by municipal sewer extended from the Eagle Point
Business Park along Hudson Boulevard. All wastewater from the proposed project will be
discharged to the Woodbury, Oakdale, Northdale, and East Oakdale (WONE) Interceptor. From
the WONE Interceptor, wastewater from the development would flow to the Metropolitan
Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul. This facility currently treats approximately 215 million
gallons of wastewater each day, and has the capacity to treat up to 250 million gallons per day.
The Metropolitan Council projects ample capacity at this plant through 2030. Consequently, no
wastewater facility or treatment capacity issues are anticipated (MCES 2007).
Both the MPCA and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) have compiled
and documented extensive data that relates wastewater flow generation to population and land
use. Sanitary wastewater production for the proposed development was estimated based on the
methods outlined in the Service Availability Charge (SAC) Procedure Manual (MCES, 2012).
The MCES has established 274 gallons per day (gpd) to be the average daily wastewater
production from a typical residential connection. One SAC unit is defined as 274 gallons of
wastewater flow volume, which is based on the assumption of 2.74 persons per unit and 100
gallons per capita day (gpcd) of wastewater production.
Each single family residence and townhome was assigned one SAC unit. The estimated
maximum potential daily wastewater production for the entire development is 85,488 gpd. The
following table provides information on wastewater production based on land use.
Wastewater Production Predicted
Wastewater
Proposed Use SAC Rate Units SAC Units
(gallons/day)
Single Family Homes l/Unit 272 272 52,060
Townhomes I/Unit 188 188 33,428
Apartments* 1/unit 150 120 32,880
Senior Housing 1/2.5unit 120 48 23,016
Commercial** 1/3,000 21 21 5,754
Total 649 147,138
*Includes a 20 percent reduction per SAC manual
**Includes 15 percent reduction in square footage for restroom, mechanical rooms, storage, etc.
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a
system.
There will be no wastewater discharge to a subsurface treatment system.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment
methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate
impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
page 12
Wastewater from the development would flow to the Metropolitan Wastewater
Treatment Plant in St. Paul, Minnesota for treatment.
ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to
and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution
prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP
site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control,
sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and
after project construction.
The project must meet the requirements of the City's Stormwater Ordinance. The project also
must meet the requirements of the South Washington Watershed Districts (e.g. infiltration,
erosion), where applicable.
The City's Stormwater Ordinance is available on the City's website. Lake Elmo is also a
mandatory small MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) city, and is required by federal
and state law to obtain and implement a NPDES Stormwater permit administered by the MPCA.
MS4s are also required to develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan
program (SWPPP), and submit an annual report to the MPCA
Pre-Development Site Runoff
Existing site runoff likely contains pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer residues due to the
presence of agricultural fields. There is also likely a minor amount of runoff that flows to the site
from north of 10th Street. However, because the property is higher than most of the surrounding
properties, runoff primarily drains away from the site to the south. It is expected that a portion of
the runoff infiltrates into the site's permeable, silty and sandy soils and some likely reaches
existing onsite stormwater ponds located in the Eagle Point Business Park.
Post-Development Site Runoff
The change in land use will decrease the amount of agricultural chemicals and suspended solids,
and increase other components typical of urban runoff. It is expected that the volume of runoff
will increase during significant storm events as a result of the increase in impervious surface area.
It is anticipated that only extreme conditions such as those occurring in connection with 50- or
100-year storm events will result in measurable increases in runoff volume and associated
pollutant transport. The preservation and creation of open space in the form of buffers, parks,
woodlands, infiltration/filtration, and ponds will help to mitigate potential adverse effects from
the increase in impervious surface. The project proposer also plans to utilize a storm water reuse
system to irrigate open space areas with storm water, which will help to reduce runoff volumes.
Runoff water quality will be typical of residential and commercial developments found
throughout the state of Minnesota. Similar to current conditions, sediment, nutrient, and other
pollutant removal will occur when much of the stormwater filters through upland vegetation,
vegetated drainage swales, stormwater ponds, and other best management practices, including
infiltration. Preserved and newly seeded vegetation will provide filter strips to help remove
page 13
sediment and nutrients before runoff discharges to area wetlands and surface waters, mitigating
potential effects on water quality.
Potential adverse effects of runoff volume and quality will be further mitigated by the
construction of approximately seven acres of stormwater ponds, which will be designed to reduce
peak runoff rates and meet all requirements of the City of Lake Elmo and South Washington
Watershed Districts. The design of ponding areas and the quality of stormwater discharging from
the development will meet the requirements of the MPCA General Stormwater Permit for
Construction Activity (Minnesota Stormwater Manual), and applicable local regulations. In a
storm event, stormwater will be retained in the ponds and discharged at or below existing peak
runoff rates.
BMPs will be employed during construction to reduce erosion and sediment loading of
stormwater runoff. Inspection and maintenance of BMPs during construction will be consistent
with NPDES/SDS General Permit requirements, including site inspection after rainfall events,
perimeter sediment control maintenance, and sediment removal.
The project site is located within the South Washington Watershed District as depicted on
Exhibit I. Surface waters generally flow north to south towards an unnamed creek which
connects Armstrong Lake to Wilmes Lake. The site also receives some surface water runoff from
the north via a culvert located underneath 10th Street
The goal of the project will be to maintain peak discharge rates at or below the existing condition.
Post-construction drainage will follow similar pathways, with minor differences in drainage
routes and increases in the volume of road ditches and swale flows. Post-development stormwater
runoff will either travel overland, into stormwater ponds, or through storm sewers prior to
discharging to ponds or infiltration basins.
For the following reasons, it is anticipated that site development will have minimal effects on
receiving water quality:
• Impervious services will cover approximately 60 acres of the property, or 38% of
the site. Open space areas consisting of buffers, parks, infiltration areas, and
other landscaped areas will reduce runoff.
• Hydraulic storage within sediment basins will be designed, and BMPs
implemented, in accordance with the General NPDES/SDS Permit for
Construction Activities to protect water quality and control erosion.
iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any
well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells
to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water
infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an
assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation.
page 14
Dewatering
Dewatering will become necessary if groundwater is encountered during utility installation;
however, it is unlikely that dewatering will be necessary because the depth to groundwater
exceeds the planned depth of sanitary sewer, municipal water, and storm sewer. The quantity and
duration of potential construction dewatering is not known at this time, but it is expected that any
necessary dewatering for construction will be temporary. If groundwater is encountered during
utility installation, it will.be discharged to temporary sediment basins located within the project
site.
If construction dewatering and pumping from the proposed development exceeds the 10,000-
gallon per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year thresholds, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will
be obtained. If it becomes apparent that construction dewatering will not exceed 50 million
gallons in total and duration of one year from the start of pumping, the contractor or project
proposer will apply to the DNR Division of Waters for coverage under the amended DNR
General Permit 97-0005 for temporary water appropriations. It is not anticipated that construction
dewatering or pumping from the proposed development will be extensive or continue long
enough to impact domestic or municipal wells.
Connection to a public water supply system
The City of Lake Elmo currently operates two wells, which are permitted under DNR Water
Appropriations Permit No. 611031. The two wells range in depth from 285 to 808 feet deep, and
draw water from the Jordan-Mt. Simon and Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifers (2010 Drinking
Water Report). The City's DNR water appropriations permit allows a total system pumping
capacity of 260 million gallons per year (MGY).
According to DNR Water Appropriation records as of 2010, the city reported pumping 103 MGY
(average 282,192 gallons per day). The estimated water demand for the proposed development is
34.3 MGY (94,037 gallons per day) based on the assumption that consumption is approximately
110 percent of wastewater generation (see Item 18). Consequently, there are no water supply
issues anticipated as a result of adding the development to the city's water supply system.
According to the City Engineer, water may be supplied to the development either through an
existing services agreement with the City of Oakdale or via the Lake Elmo municipal water
supply system.
The current Comprehensive Plan calls for municipal water facilities to be extended from the southeast corner of the Eagle Point Business Park along Hudson Boulevard to service this portion of the City.
page 15
iv. Surface Waters
a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features
such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal.
Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of
wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may
have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives
that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands.
Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable
wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those
probable locations.
Kjolhaug Environmental evaluated the subject property for wetlands and other
jurisdictional water. Three wetland basins were found as depicted on Exhibit .
Wetland 1 is a 8,161 square foot PEMAf farmed wetland that is seasonally saturated.
Wetland 2 is a 8,895 PFO1C wetland that will be preserved within a future
park/buffer area. Wetland 3 is approximately 4,000 square feet PEMAf farmed
wetland that may be preserved as part of an open space area.
Wetland 2 will be impacted and mitigated off site. This wetland has been physically
altered and impacted by annual production crops. The primary source of hydrology
to this wetland basin is a culvert that drains water from 10th Street. Any development
of the northern portion of the site will result in the rerouting of the surface water from
the culvert away from the wetland; thereby causing an impact to this wetland basin.
The project proposer will either create wetland mitigation in the same watershed or
purchase wetland credits.
b) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to
surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial
ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream
diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss
direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water
features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to
surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are
proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the
water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft
on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
The subject property contains an unnamed creek (07010206-745) that is on the
current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List. Excessive levels of chloride (salt) is
found in the creek which has an impact on fish and other aquatic organisms.
The unnamed creek is also regulated under the City’s Shoreland Ordinance, which
extends 300 feet from the high water elevation of the creek.
The project will not involve the physical or hydrologic alteration of the unnamed
creek or other natural surface waters. The project site does not include any surface
waters used by watercraft.
page 16
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:
a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards
on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned
dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas
pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would
be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid,
minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental
hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.
Nova Consulting conducted a Phase I ESA of the property. The assessment found no evidence of
Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC), controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
(CREC), or Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HREC) in connection with the
Property.
The City of Lake Elmo is the home to two land disposal sites that contain Perfluorochemical (PFC)
waste. The two site are the 3M - Oakdale Disposal Site in Oakdale and the former Washington
County Landfill in Lake Elmo. The Oakdale disposal site is located approximately 3 miles northwest
of the project area, and the Washington County Landfill is located approximately 4 miles to the north.
PFCs were released from the two facilities resulting in contamination of groundwater and nearby
drinking water wells as outlined in a Public Health Assessment prepared by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (August 29, 2008), and the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry (ATSDR). The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has detected PFCs in several
surface waterbodies in the Lake Elmo, Oakdale, and Woodbury area through various sampling
studies. Surface water bodies north of the project area that have been found to contain PFCs include:
Raleigh Creek, Eagle Point Lake, and Lake Elmo. PFCs are suspected to infiltrate into the
groundwater from these water body sources. Sunfish Lake was found to contain perfluorobutanoate
(PFBA). Goose Lake, located 1.25-miles north of the project area, was sampled by the MDH in 2010
and was found to contain no PFCs.
According to this Public Health Assessment, PFCs have been detected in public and private wells
across a wide area of Oakdale and Lake Elmo. In Lake Elmo, approximately 200 homes were
connected to municipal water to mitigate exposure to PFCs in the groundwater. Additional homes,
approximately 55, have had in home granular activated carbon filter systems installed to mitigate
exposure to PFCs in the groundwater. These homes have also been offered bottled drinking water.
Groundwater monitoring of PFCs is an ongoing program. The proposed project will mitigate risks to
new residents by providing access to municipal drinking water.
b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored during
construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential
environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify measures to
avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including
source reduction and recycling.
Construction activities will generate wastes typical of residential development operations. No solid or
hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge, and ash, will be produced during
page 17
construction and/or operation. The contractor will dispose of wastes generated at the site in an
approved method by using commercial dumpsters and disposing construction wastes at an MPCA-
permitted landfill. The contractor will recycle construction waste that can be recycled, when feasible.
Following project construction, solid waste generation will be typical of occupied residential and
commercial developments of this size. It is not anticipated that the proposed project will generate
significant amounts of wastes that would be considered hazardous aside from typical household
cleaners, paints, lubricants, and fuel storage for small power equipment. The majority of the solid
waste generated will include materials such as paper, organics (food wastes, wood, and rubber
products), yard waste, and inert solids. The remaining wastes will likely include plastics, metals, and
glass.
Residents and businesses within the new development will contract individually with waste haulers
for solid waste collection and recycling services under the city's open trash and recycling collection
system. According to the City’s web page, there are currently five licensed waste haulers. Curbside
recycling, including paper, plastics, glass, and metals is available to Lake Elmo residents through
their solid waste collector. Participation in the recycling program by future residents of the project
area is expected to reduce costs for solid waste trucking and disposal.
Waste generated in Washington County is delivered to the Resource Recovery Facility in Newport,
Minnesota. The majority of the waste is processed into Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). This fuel is
burned in place of coal at Xcel's power plants in either Red Wing or Mankato, Minnesota.
The commercial portion of the project could contain a gas/convenience store. If above or below
ground tanks are proposed on the site, they will be installed according to MPCA regulations, and
consideration will be given to spill and leak detection and prevention technologies, as well as double-
walled tank construction.
c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials
used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage.
Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or
other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of
hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include
development of a spill prevention plan.
Only normal construction and household hazardous wastes are anticipated from the residential and
commercial portions of the site. Toxic or hazardous material such as fuel for construction equipment
and materials used during the normal construction process of residential units (paint, adhesives,
stains, acids, bases, herbicides, and pesticides) will not involve quantities typically found during site
preparation and unit construction. Builders and contractors are responsible for proper management
and disposal of wastes generated during construction, which is typically handled by using
construction dumpsters and the appropriate certified landfills. No known hazardous materials are
currently located onsite. Use of toxic or hazardous materials, outside of vehicle fuels, standard
household cleaners, and lawn care chemicals, is not anticipated within the project area in conjunction
with the proposed residential and commercial development
page 18
The commercial portion of the project will likely include a gas station as well as other retail
businesses. Other than petroleum storage for the gas station, no other toxic or hazardous materials are
anticipated with the future use of the commercial property. The gas station will need to comply with
all applicable rules and regulations for the storage of petroleum products.
d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal.
Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal.
Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of
hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
Construction activities will generate wastes typical of residential and commercial development
operations. No solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge, and ash, will be
produced during construction process, and/or operation/use of the residential properties. No
commercial hazardous waste is anticipated at this time.
Residents and business owners within the new development will contract individually with waste
haulers for solid waste collection and recycling services under the City's open trash and recycling
collection system. According to the cities web page, there are currently five licensed waste haulers.
Curbside recycling, including paper, plastics, glass, and metals, is available to Lake Elmo residents
through their solid waste collector. Participation in the recycling program by future residents of the
project area is expected to reduce costs for solid waste trucking and disposal.
13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.
Fish and wildlife resources on and near the site consist of those typically found in developed
suburban communities. The subject property consists primarily of tilled agricultural fields with some
smaller strands of trees located around a former home site, as well as fence lines and drainage ways.
These habitats are used by a variety of animals common to central Minnesota. Wildlife resources that
exist throughout the site likely include those species that have adapted to open lands and cropland
habitats such as pheasant, meadowlark, field sparrow, cottontail, red fox, and white-tailed deer. The
open fields provide seasonal food and cover for these species.
b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native
plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other
sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement
number (LA-____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB _____________) from which the data
were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat
or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
The applicant has requested that the Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Program conduct a
database search of the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) to determine if
there are listed plants and animals; native plant communities; wildlife aggregations; geological
features; or state rare features that are known to occur within or near the project site. It is not
anticipated that the database search will identify rare features within an approximate one-mile
radius of the proposed project. The DNR Natural Heritage Review response letter will be
provided once complete.
page 19
c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be
affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the
project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered
species.
Conversion of agricultural fields and small strands of trees to residential development is expected
to result in some local decline in wildlife abundance. Populations of species that depend upon
cropland, woodland and fields, such as ring-necked pheasants, wild turkey, and meadowlarks,
will likely be displaced. Some songbirds that readily adapt to suburban habitats may become
more numerous.
There are no known threatened or endangered species on the property or within close proximity.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
The project is not expected to result in a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or
species diversity. Measures to reduce the effects on wildlife include preservation of buffers and
adjacent woodland integrated with open space and parkland, and construction of stormwater
ponding. These measures are expected to provide additional habitat for wildlife and help
mitigate adverse effects on some wildlife.
14. Historic properties:
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3)
architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation.
Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic
properties.
The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) conducted a search of the Minnesota
Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structure Inventory for the project area. Based on its
review, no previously-recorded archaeological sites or historic structures were identified in the
database for the project area. Consequently, no further review of archaeological, historical, or
architectural resources is considered warranted at this time.
15. Visual:
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual
effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the
project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
The project will not create adverse visual impacts. The proposed residential and commercial uses are
consistent with other established uses in the area, and therefore will not create a significant change in
visual aesthetics. Measures to soften visual transitions include providing buffers between existing
homes, landscaping, and berming between collector streets and other adjacent land uses
page 20
16. Air:
a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air
pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including
any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of
any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment.
Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
Because development of heavy industrial facilities is not proposed on this site, no stationary
source air emissions are anticipated as a result of this project.
b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.
Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic
operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or
mitigate vehicle-related emissions.
Increased traffic will generate a relatively small corresponding increase in carbon monoxide
levels and other vehicle-related air emissions. The project is expected to have a negligible impact
on air quality. Consequently, baseline air quality monitoring, or predictive air quality modeling,
has not been scheduled at this time, and no measures to mitigate air quality impacts have been
considered.
c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and
odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under
item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby
sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate
the effects of dust and odors.
Project development will not generate odors, noise or dust in excess of levels emitted during
typical construction practices of suburban developments. Any odors, noise, or dust produced
during construction will meet the requirements of the MPCA and applicable local regulations.
The project will not generate significant odors during construction or operation. The emission of
odor by any use shall be in compliance with City Code Section 96.03, 4(a).
The construction process is expected to generate some dust. Consideration will be given to
suppression of airborne dust by application of water, if significant dust generation occurs during
site grading and equipment operation. In general, incidental dust emissions generated during site
construction will be consistent with City Code Section 96.03, 4(a).
17. Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project
construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1)
existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise
standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the
effects of noise.
page 21
The project will be constructed in accordance with the City's established noise ordinance as outlined
in City Code Sections 130.45 to 130.47. It is anticipated that noise levels will temporarily increase
locally during project construction, but are expected to return to normal levels following project
completion. Noise levels on and adjacent to the site will vary considerably during construction
depending on the pieces of construction equipment being operated simultaneously, the percent of time
in operation, and the distance from the equipment to the receptors. The nearest receptors to the
proposed project are several single-family residences located to the east, and commercial businesses
to the south. In accordance with Section 130.47 of the City Code, construction equipment will not be
operated between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
18. Transportation
a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and
proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3)
estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip
generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative
transportation modes.
b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements
necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system.
If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a
traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures
described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter
5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local
guidance,
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
A traffic study was completed for the proposed project in July 2014. The traffic study examined the
potential traffic-related impacts of the proposed project on the adjacent roadway system and key
intersections near the site. A copy of the traffic study is included in Exhibit J, and summarized below.
Access and Trip Assignment
Access for the proposed project will be provided via a newly constructed collector roadway (5th Street
North) which will then intersect with Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). The newly constructed roadway was
originally identified in the City of Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The Transportation
Plan identified a new east-west roadway between 10th Street (CSAH 10) and the 1-94 frontage road. This
new roadway alignment has been incorporated into the site plan of the proposed project Designated as a
minor collector, this route would allow local traffic to access the north-south county roads. Rather than a
straight shot between points, this roadway curves between new developments to provide access."
According to the City's Transportation Plan, this new east-west roadway is expected to handle
approximately 5,000 vpd by the year 2030 between Keats Avenue and Inwood Avenue to the west. This
new east-west roadway will also likely reduce the traffic volumes along 10th Street to levels where
capacity improvements will not likely be needed by the year 2030.
page 22
Future Conditions
As shown in Table 2 of Exhibit J, the intersections near the project site will operate acceptably in the
2019 study scenarios with the exceptions of the CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard intersection in the p.m.
peak hour and the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection in both peak hours. It can be noted that the movement
at LOS F at the CSAH 13/9th Street intersection in the p.m. peak hour Build scenario is the eastbound left
turns out of the existing residential area. This movement has less than 10 vehicles in the peak hour and a
95thpercentile queue length of less than one vehicle, and the future access of the road will likely be
restricted by Washington County. Other than CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard and CSAH 13/5th Street
intersections, the LOS results between the No-Build and Build scenarios are similar. This means the
development will not have a significant enough impact on the other study intersections to warrant
improvements.
Table 2 shows that the side street stop sign controlled CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard and CSAH 13/5th
Street intersections are forecast to operate at LOS F in the 2019 p.m. peak hour build scenario with the
CSAH 13/5th Street intersection also forecast to operate at LOS F in the 2019 a.m. peak hour Build
scenario. One or both of these intersections will likely need to be signalized by the time the development
is fully built and operational. Due to the close spacing of these two intersections it is not recommended
that both of them be signalized. Since the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection is forecast to have higher
turning volumes in the future build scenarios, that intersection was analyzed with a signal. These results
can be seen in Table 3 of Exhibit J.
Conclusions
The traffic impacts of the proposed development on the study intersections were analyzed in the 2019
build-out conditions. The principal findings are:
i. All study intersections will operate acceptably through the 2019 build-out condition except the CSAH
13/Eagle Point Boulevard and CSAH 13/5th Street intersections.
ii. The CSAH 13/5th Street intersection will likely need a signal before the development is fully built and
occupied and should be monitored as construction occurs to determine when a signal should be installed.
iii. The CSAH 13/5th Street intersection should be built with an exclusive southbound left turn lane, a
northbound right turn lane, a westbound left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane.
iv. The traffic signal at the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection as well as alternate routes should allow the
CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard intersection to operate acceptably. The County should monitor the
intersection, however, in case the traffic balancing does not occur and a traffic signal is needed at the
intersection. The need for improvements to the CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard intersection are not due
to the proposed development. The site access at CSAH 13/9th Street and the CSAH 10/Western Site
Access should be built as ¾ intersections with vehicles exiting the development only able to make right
turns.
vi. The Eastern Site Access on CSAH 10 should be built as a full access intersection.
page 23
19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are
addressed under the applicable EAW Items)
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that
could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been
laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic
scales and timeframes identified above.
c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental
effects due to these cumulative effects.
The changes in regional land use in the Lake Elmo area from open agricultural land to more urbanized
uses is expected to have a cumulative impact on the area. Cumulative effects of this and future projects
on natural resources and infrastructure are expected to be roughly proportional to the impacts discussed in
this EAW. The City of Lake Elmo has planned for future growth and development in this particular area
as part of its Comprehensive Plan, and administration of zoning ordinances. These efforts will ensure that
the cumulative impacts of future growth and development to the environment, and to the City's service
capacity, are anticipated and mitigated.
Development of surrounding parcels will also result in cumulative impacts to City infrastructure such as
roads, sewer, and water. These cumulative impacts have been thoughtfully contemplated and addressed in
the City's Comprehensive, Transportation, Wastewater, and Water Plans. As the surrounding properties
develop, they will be evaluated under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) rules, and will
adhere to guidelines presented in the city's approved zoning and comprehensive plans for the area.
20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental
effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will
be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.
No other adverse environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Potential environmental
impacts have been addressed in Items I through 19.
page 24
page 25
RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental
Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.)
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
• The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other
than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or
phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively.
• Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature ________________________________ Date _______________________________
Title ________________________________
Site
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
10th Street N
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond City Park
Pond
Pond
Pond
Multi Family
Multi FamilyShowroom
RetailRetailDay Care
Pharmacy FoodGasStation
SeniorHo
u
s
i
n
g
Inwood Avenue NInwood Creek LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
This is a graphic illustration only and subject to change without notice.
Please refer to record plans for lot sizes, easements,
landscaping, water levels, and topography.
EXHIBIT D
Sources: Washington County & Metro GIS12-30-2013
5
Planned Land Use
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2030
Map 3-3
Village Open Space Overlay
Municipal Boundary
White hatching denotes possible mixed use areas
Planned Land Uses
Commercial
Limited Business
Business Park
Residential Estate
Rural Area Development
Rural Area Development Alt
Rural Single Family
Public/Park
Urban High Density
Urban Low Density
Urban Medium Density
Village Mixed Use
Village Urban Low Density
Village Urban Medium Density
EXHIBIT G
Inwood Ave North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
Prepared for
Hans Hagen Homes
by
Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc.
(KES Project No. 2014-032)
July 3, 2014
1
WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY
The Inwood Ave N site was inspected on June 17, 2014 for the presence and extent of
wetland.
The NWI map showed 3 wetlands within site boundaries.
The soil survey showed Barronett silt loam as the hydric soils present within site
boundaries.
The DNR Protected Waters map showed a DNR Protected Waterway within the
southwest corner of the site boundaries.
Two Type 1 (PEMAf) farmed, seasonally flooded wetland, and one Type 1 (PEMA)
fresh meadow wetland were delineated within site boundaries.
2
Inwood Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Wetland Delineation Report
I. INTRODUCTION
The Inwood Avenue North site was examined on June 17, 2014 for the presence and extent of
wetland. The 154-acre site was located in Section 33, Township 29N, Range 21W, City of Lake
Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota. Generally the site was located east of the terminus of
Inwood Avenue North and south of 10th Street N (Figure 1). Site limits were comprised of
Washington County PID 3302921110001, 3302921110002, 3302921120001 and
3302921120003.
The site consists primarily of cropland. For the 2014 growing season the site was planted with
corn (Figure 2). Two wetlands were located in the north area of the cropland. Along the eastern
300 feet of the property exists a woodland of various planted conifer and deciduous species. A
wetland was located in the northeast corner of the site within the woodland. An abandoned
farmstead site is located within the northwest corner of the site. In the southwest corner of the
site is a DNR Protected Waterway (Unamed).
Generally topography was higher on the north half of the site. The site topo sloped gradually
downhill toward the west and south.
Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site is a single family residential development. On the
western boundary is the Oak Marsh Golf Course. To the south is commercial industrial facility.
North of the site north of 10th Street North is additional cropland.
II. METHODS
Wetlands were identified using Routine Determination methodology described in the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: North Central-Northeast
Region (Version 2.0) as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act.
Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetlands, which met criteria for
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were
marked with pin flags and were located by E.G. Rudd.
Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at representative locations along the wetland-
upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal
coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, 15-foot radius for the
3
shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type being
sampled.
Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 18-20 inches (unless otherwise noted) utilizing
Munsell Soil Color Charts and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used
in reporting are from the NTCHS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service Version 7, 2010) which are commonly found in the
Midwest.
Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of
plant species was taken from the 2012 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, R.W. and Kartesz,
J.T. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0
(https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and
Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, and
BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC.).
A review of available Farm Service (FSA) Agency photographs followed the protocol outlined in
the document - Atypical Procedure: Offsite Hydrology Determination by Using Rainfall Data
with Farm Service Agency Imagery, Adapted from NRCS-Minnesota Guidance (August, 1994).
III. RESULTS
Review of Soils, NWI, and DNR Information
The National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) (Lake Elmo Quadrangle, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service 1991) showed 3 wetlands within site boundaries (Figure 3).
The Soil Survey of Washington County, Minnesota
(http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/) showed the following soil types within or near
site boundaries (Figure 4). For information regarding soil series present on site, refer to Table 1.
below.
The DNR Protected Waters Map, Washinton County (http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us/) showed a
DNR Protected Waterway within site boundaries (Figure 5).
4
Table 1. Soil Series Information
SMU Map Unit Name
Acres
in
AOI
Percentage
of AOI
Hydric Percent
of Map Unit Hyric Category
49 Antigo silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes 0.8 0.55% 1 Predominantly
Nonhydric
49B Antigo silt loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes 26.8 17.74% 1 Predominantly
Nonhydric
120 Brill silt loam 6.8 4.53% 5 Predominantly
Nonhydric
153B Santiago silt loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes 41.5 27.49% 0 Nonhydric
153C Santiago silt loam, 6 to 15
percent slopes 11.0 7.26% 0 Nonhydric
264 Freeon silt loam, 1 to 4
percent slopes 55.4 36.71% 2 Predominantly
Nonhydric
266 Freer silt loam 2.5 1.68% 5 Predominantly
Nonhydric
342B Kingsley sandy loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes 4.5 2.99% 3 Predominantly
Nonhydric
342C Kingsley sandy loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes 0.2 0.11% 0 Nonhydric
1847 Barronett silt loam, sandy
substratum 1.4 0.95% 90 Predominantly
Hydric
Wetland Determinations and Delineations
Potential wetlands were evaluated in greater detail during field observations on June 17, 2014.
Two wetlands were identified on the subject site (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are
included in Appendix A. The following description of the wetlands and adjacent upland reflects
conditions observed at the time of the field visit. At that date, herbaceous vegetation and crops
were actively growing and climatic/hydrologic conditions were assumed to be normal based on
available precipitation data (Appendix B). A survey of the wetland boundaries is included as
Appendix C.
Wetland 1 was a Type 1 (PEMAf) farmed, seasonally flooded wetland dominated by witch grass
with lesser amounts of velvetleaf and smartweed. The majority of the wetland had shallow
standing water with a saturated fringe.
Adjacent upland was cropped with healthy corn and had lamb’s quarter in between the rows.
The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation composition, cropping patterns and
landscape position was supported by signatures on aerial photos. Wetland 1 corresponded to a
PEM1Af wetland on the NWI map, but mapped in a non-hydric soil (Freeon) on the soil survey.
5
Wetland 2 was a Type 1 (PEMA) fresh meadow wetland dominated by a green ash saplings and
inundated with reed canary grass, Kentucky bluegrass, red-osier dogwood and giant goldenrod.
Adjacent upland at the sample location were cropped with corn and had giant goldenrod, thistle
and horsetail between the rows near the wetland boundary.
The delineated boundary followed a flat and gradual change in vegetation composition. Wetland
2 corresponded to a mapped PEM1A wetland on the NWI-map. However it was mapped in a
non-hydric soil (Freeon) on the soil survey.
Wetland 3 was a Type 1 (PEMAf) farmed, seasonally flooded wetland dominated by witch grass
with lesser amounts of smartweed. The majority of the wetland had shallow standing water with
a saturated fringe.
Adjacent upland was cropped with healthy corn and had lamb’s quarter in between the rows.
The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation composition, cropping patterns and
landscape position was supported by signatures on aerial photos. Wetland 3 corresponded to a
PEM1Af wetland on the NWI map, but mapped in a non-hydric soil (Freeon) on the soil survey.
FSA Photography Review
FSA photos from the years 1979 through 2000, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010 were available
for review. Each year was assessed for wet/normal/dry climatic conditions using the online
Minnesota Climatology Working Group, Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval from
a Gridded Database using a date of July 1 for the year assessed. Using this tool, only the years
1983,1989, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2006 and 2008 were calculated have normal
precipitation during the 3 months preceding the assumed photo date. Areas showing wetland
signatures in normal precipitation years were included in the FSA review.
Wetland 1 and 3, as well as three (3) additional areas exhibiting potential wetland signatures
were reviewed (Figure 6) and results of the review are included in Table 1 below. Area A is
within the delineated boundary of Wetland 3 and Area B is within the delineated boundary of
Wetland 1. None of the reviewed areas are located within hydric soils.
6
Table 1. FSA Review Inwood Avenue North
Normal Precipitation Year Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E
1983 C SW C AP AP
1989 DO DO C AP AP
1992 DO DO C AP AP
1995 SW DO C AP AP
1996 C CS C AP AP
1997 CS DO C AP AP
2000 CS CS C AP AP
2006 C DO C AP AP
2008 C DO C AP AP
Number of Significant Signatures 5 9 0 0 0
Percent Signatures in Normal Years 56% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Determination Wetland Wetland Upland Upland Upland
Note:
Area D is a vegetative swale with steep sloped sides.
Area E is a hilltop covered in trees.
According to protocol, areas exhibiting wetland signatures in 50% or more of normal climatic
years meet wetland hydrology criteria, and areas with wetland signatures in 30% to 50% of
normal climatic years must be field investigated. Based on FSA aerial photo review for this site,
only Areas A and B meet wetland hydrology criteria. Area A is encompassed within the
delineated boundary of Wetland 3 and Area B is encompassed within the delineated boundary of
Wetland 1.
Other Areas
A DNR Protected Waterway is located within the southwest corner of the site. This waterways is
an unnamed creek that flows to Wilmes Lake. The banks of the waterway are steep sloped and
lacked wetland fringe.
No other areas with wetland vegetation or hydrology were observed on the site. No other areas
were shown with hydric soil on the soil survey map, or as wetland on the NWI map.
7
V. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION
The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the COE 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act. Both the delineation and report were conducted in compliance with
regulatory standards in place at the time the work was completed.
All site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute
an official survey product.
Delineation Completed by: Melissa Lauterbach-Barrett, Soil Scientist
Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1085
Professional Soil Scientist No. 45067
Report reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date: July 3, 2013
Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845
Inwood Avenue North
Wetland Delineation Report
Figures:
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph
Figure 3 – NWI Map
Figure 4 – Soil Survey Map
Figure 5 – DNR Protected Waters Map
Figure 6 – FSA Review Areas
Figure 7 – FSA Aerial Wetland Signatures
Figure 1 - Site Location Map (Bing Maps)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 1,163 feet
Site Location
!H
!H
!H
!H
!H!H
!H!H
1028
101810081038
9
9
8
9889981038
99810181
0
3
81028
1
0
0
810081
0
0
8
1008
Figure 2 - Property Boundary Map (2013 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 500 feet
!H Sample Points
10ft Lidar Contours
Transects
Wetland boundary
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
T-1
T-2
SP-A
SP-B
Wetland 3
T-3
PEM1C
PEM1C
PUBGx
PEM1Ad
PEM1A
PUBGx
PABGx
PEM1Af
PEM1Af
PUBGx PEM1Ad
PUBGx
PUBGx
PEM1C
PEM1A
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
Figure 3 - NWI Map (2013 MN DNR)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 500 feet
Legend
264
264
49B
153B
49B 49
120
342B
153B
153B
153B
264
153C
153B
49B
49
153C
367B
189
153B
266
342C
1847
266
266
153B 367B 49B
264
342B
153B
342C
342C
367B
Figure 4 - Soil Survey Map
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 500 feetFor soil series information refer to Table 1. in text.
Non-Hydric Soils
Hydric Soils
Unnamed
to
W
i
lmes
Lake
Figure 5 - DNR Protected Waters Map
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 500 feet
Protected Watercourse
Protected Waters
Figure 6 - FSA Review Areas (2013 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 500 feet
Area D
Area E
Area A
Area B
Area C
FSA Review Areas
FSA Aerial Wetland Signatures - (2013 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 229 feet
Area A
Area B
Wetland Boundary
1983 PEMAR
1989 PEMAR.
1992 PEMAR
1995 PEMAR
1996 PEMAR
1997 PEMAR
2000 PEMAR
2006 PEMAR
2008 PEMAR
Inwood Ave North
Wetland Delineation Report
Appendix A: Data Forms
Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesXDepth (inches):YesX Depth (inches):Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionYesClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. NHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?NSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1AfNoneDrainage Patterns (B10)No XSUMMARY OF FINDINGSNNNHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope2 to 3Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:No6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen1-1USampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationDominance test is >50%1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)NHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro
logy must be present, unless d
isturbed or prob
lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v
ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.150150.00%3.33230230Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 300609000)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPanicum virgatum30YFAC Chenopodium album15Y FACU Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species 0 45 Sampling Point:1-1UVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 45015Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%90000 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):NHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:1-1USOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**6-24 10YR 4/3RemarksType*Redox FeaturesTextureL0-610010YR 3/2100LUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)XXXDescribe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesDepth (inches): 6YesX Depth (inches):Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionWetland 14Yes XClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. YXHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?YSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1AfConcaveDrainage Patterns (B10)NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSYYYHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression1 to 2Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:No6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen1-1WSampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationX Dominance test is >50%1X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)YHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro
logy must be present, unless d
isturbed or prob
lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v
ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.2101100.00%3.00170350Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 300021000)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPanicum capillare65YFAC Populus deltoides5NFAC Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species 0 70 Sampling Point:1-1WVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 7000Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%140000 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):YHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:1-1WSOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**12-24 10YR 4/2Remarks10 CType*Redox FeaturesTextureL0-1210010YR 3/210 10YR 4/6M CLUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen2-1USampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoInvestigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Flat1 to 3Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:NoWater Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)SUMMARY OF FINDINGSNNYHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionYesClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. NHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?NSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1ANoneDrainage Patterns (B10)No X(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesXDepth (inches): 14YesX Depth (inches):Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationX Dominance test is >50%1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%31541310 Sampling Point:2-1UVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)1 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:350 20501605 Vitis riparia5 155 FACWoody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesY Solidago canadensis50Y FACUPhalaris arundinacea10N FACW5N FACUTrifolium pratense 25Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPoa pratensis90Y FACUCornus alba10Y FACWDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusFraxinus pennsylvanica15 Y FACW20Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 305Picea pungensPopulus tremuloides064030700)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status15YYFACUFAC YHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro
logy must be present, unless d
isturbed or prob
lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v
ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.740457.14%3.61710783US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:100SiLType*Redox FeaturesTextureSiL0-1810010YR 3/2Sampling Point:2-1USOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**18-24 10YR 4/4RemarksPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):NHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)XXXDescribe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesDepth (inches): SurfaceYesX Depth (inches):Other (Explain in Remarks) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionWetland 2SurfaceYes XClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average.YXHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?YSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1ANoneDrainage Patterns (B10)NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSYYYHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression0 to 1Long.:NoSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:Yes6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen2-1WSampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationX Dominance test is >50%1X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)YHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro
logy must be present, unless d
isturbed or prob
lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v
ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.420466.67%2.6360603Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30Fraxinus pennsylvanica020002200)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status20Y FACW Y FACW20Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator StatusFraxinus pennsylvanica15 15Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPoa pratensis45Y FACU Phalaris arundinacea40Y FACWSolidago gigantea30Y FACW5N FACWEquisetum pratenseWoody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesY FACU5 Parthenocissus vitacea5 120 Sampling Point:2-1WVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)1 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:1100 160050Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%2434810 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):YHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:2-1WSOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix10 D MDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**10YR 4/16-18 10YR 4/2Remarks10 CType*Redox FeaturesTextureL0-610010YR 3/280 10YR 4/6M CLUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesXDepth (inches):YesX Depth (inches):WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionYesClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. NHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?NSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1AfNoneDrainage Patterns (B10)No XSUMMARY OF FINDINGSNNNHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Other (Explain in Remarks) Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope1 to 2Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:No7/2/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen3-1USampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationDominance test is >50%1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)NHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro
logy must be present, unless d
isturbed or prob
lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v
ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.75150.00%3.7525100Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 300601500)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusChenopodium album15Y FACU Panicum capillare5YFAC Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species 0 20 Sampling Point:3-1UVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 20015Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%40000 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):NHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:3-1USOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**17-24 10YR 4/4RemarksType*Redox FeaturesTextureSiL0-1710010YR 3/2100SiLUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)XXXDescribe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesDepth (inches): SurfaceYesX Depth (inches):WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionWetland 312Yes XClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. YXHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?YSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)PEM1AfConcaveDrainage Patterns (B10)NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSYYYHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Other (Explain in Remarks) Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Depression1 to 3Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:No7/2/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans Hagen3-1WSampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationX Dominance test is >50%1X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)YHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro
logy must be present, unless d
isturbed or prob
lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v
ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.1951100.00%3.00165330Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 300019500)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPanicum capillare60YFAC Populus deltoides5NFAC Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species 0 65 Sampling Point:3-1WVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 6500Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%130000 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):YHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:3-1WSOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix25 C MDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**20-24 10YR 4/2 75 10YR 4/612-20 10YR 4/2Remarks5CType*Redox FeaturesTextureSiL0-1210010YR 3/195 10YR 4/6CLPL SiLUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans HagenSP-ASampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoInvestigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Basin0 to 1Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:Other (Explain in Remarks) Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSNNNHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionYesClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. NHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?NSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)NoneConcaveDrainage Patterns (B10)No XMoss Trim Lines (B16)(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesXDepth (inches):Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)YesX Depth (inches):Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationDominance test is >50%1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%230000 Sampling Point:SP-AVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 1150450 115 Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species Arctium minus35Y FACUUrtica dioica20NFAC10N FACUChenopodium album 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusPanicum virgatum50YFAC Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30018021000)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status NHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro
logy must be present, unless d
isturbed or prob
lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v
ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.390150.00%3.39270580US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:90 10YR 3/1PL SLType*Redox FeaturesTextureL0-1210010YR 3/2Sampling Point:SP-ASOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**12-24 10YR 4/4Remarks10 DPolyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):NHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Slope (%):NWI Classification:Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are vegetation , soil , or hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland?Hydric soil present?Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID:Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Remarks:(includes capillary fringe)Field Observations:Surface water present?Water table present?Saturation present?Depth (inches):YesXDepth (inches):YesX Depth (inches):WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast RegionYesClimatic conditions wetter than normal based on 30-day rolling precipitation average. Cropping considered not normal circumstances, hence vegetation is disturbed. NHYDROLOGYNoMicrotopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) NoIndicators of wetland hydrology present?NSecondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)NoneConvexDrainage Patterns (B10)No XSUMMARY OF FINDINGSNNNHigh Water Table (A2)Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Other (Explain in Remarks) Water Marks (B1)Saturation (A3)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Marl Deposits (B15) Drift Deposits (B3)Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Shallow Aquitard (D3)Geomorphic Position (D2)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)Investigator(s): M Lauterbach-Barrett, A KrinkeSection, Township, Range:Datum:S33 T29 R21(If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present?Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Hillslope2 to 3Long.:NoXSoil Map Unit NameFreeon silt loamLat.:No6/17/14Sampling Date:Inwood Ave NHans HagenSP-BSampling Point:MNProject/Site:City/County:Applicant/Owner:State:Lake ElmoUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region50/20 ThresholdsTree Stratum1Sapling/Shrub Stratum2Herb Stratum3Woody Vine Stratum45Dominance Test Worksheet678(A)910(B)= Total Cover(A/B)1Prevalence Index Worksheet2Total % Cover of:3OBL speciesx 1 =4FACW species x 2 =5FAC speciesx 3 = 6FACU species x 4 =7UPL speciesx 5 =8Column totals (A)(B)9Prevalence Index = B/A = 10= Total CoverHydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetationDominance test is >50%1 Prevalence index is ≤3.0*23456789101112131415= Total Cover12345= Total CoverRemarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)NHydrophytic vegetation present?*Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydro
logy must be present, unless d
isturbed or prob
lematicDefinitions of Vegetation Strata:Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.Woody vines - All woody v
ines greater than 3.28 ft in height.4000.00%4.001050Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30040000)Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size ( 15 )Absolute % Cover Dominant SpeciesIndicator Status 0Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 )Absolute % CoverDominant SpeciesIndicator StatusChenopodium album10Y FACU Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size ( 30 )Absolute % CoverDominant Species 0 10 Sampling Point:SP-BVEGETATION - Use scientific names of plantsMorphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)0 Indicator StatusNumber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata:00 10010Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain)50%20%20000 US Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:Histosol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149BHistic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, LStratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)Other (Explain in Remarks)*Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematicRestrictive Layer (if observed):Remarks:Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149BLoamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)Depth (inches):NHydric soil present?Hydric Soil Indicators:Type:Sampling Point:SP-BSOIL*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixDepth (Inches)Matrix%Color (moist) Color (moist) %Loc**12-24 10YR 4/4 Remarks10 DType*Redox FeaturesTextureL0-1210010YR 3/290 10YR 3/1PL SLUS Army Corps of EngineersNorthcentral and Northeast Region
Inwood Ave North
Wetland Delineation Report
Appendix B: Precipitation Data
Inwood Ave, Lake Elmo: Precipitation Summary
Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group
Monthly Totals: 2014
Target: T29 R21 S33, Lat: 44.95597 Lon: 92.93401
mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn oooooooo pre
Jan 2014 82 29N 21W 32 SWCD 1.31
Feb 2014 82 29N 21W 32 SWCD 1.10
Mar 2014 82 29N 21W 32 SWCD .90
Apr 2014 82 29N 21W 32 SWCD 7.80
May 2014 82 29N 21W 32 SWCD 4.78
April/May/June Daily Records
Date Precip.
Apr 1, 2014 T
Apr 2, 2014 0
Apr 3, 2014 T
Apr 4, 2014 .88
Apr 5, 2014 0
Apr 6, 2014 0
Apr 7, 2014 0
Apr 8, 2014 0
Apr 9, 2014 0
Apr 10, 2014 0
Apr 11, 2014 0
Apr 12, 2014 -
Apr 13, 2014 -
Apr 14, 2014 -
Apr 15, 2014 -
Apr 16, 2014 .21
Apr 17, 2014 1.02
Apr 18, 2014 0
Apr 19, 2014 -
Apr 20, 2014 -
Apr 21, 2014 .24
Apr 22, 2014 0
Apr 23, 2014 -
Apr 24, 2014 .86
Apr 25, 2014 0
Apr 26, 2014 -
Apr 27, 2014 -
Apr 28, 2014 2.37
Apr 29, 2014 -
Apr 30, 2014 2.22
1981-2010 Summary Statistics
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WAT
30% 0.56 0.55 1.43 2.28 3.10 3.44 2.47 3.29 2.55 1.74 1.14 0.72 18.88 30.90 29.16
70% 1.34 1.05 2.22 3.26 4.14 5.61 4.73 5.21 4.31 3.55 2.42 1.62 21.59 35.13 35.44
mean 0.99 0.85 1.92 2.80 3.79 4.58 4.00 4.43 3.54 2.90 1.94 1.30 20.34 33.04 32.84
Date Precip.
May 1, 2014 .13
May 2, 2014 .01
May 3, 2014 -
May 4, 2014 -
May 5, 2014 T
May 6, 2014 0
May 7, 2014 0
May 8, 2014 .03
May 9, 2014 .55
May 10, 2014 -
May 11, 2014 -
May 12, 2014 .80
May 13, 2014 .17
May 14, 2014 0
May 15, 2014 0
May 16, 2014 0
May 17, 2014 0
May 18, 2014 0
May 19, 2014 0
May 20, 2014 2.01
May 21, 2014 0
May 22, 2014 0
May 23, 2014 0
May 24, 2014 0
May 25, 2014 0
May 26, 2014 0
May 27, 2014 .57
May 28, 2014 .51
May 29, 2014 0
May 30, 2014 0
May 31, 2014 -
Date Precip.
Jun 1, 2014 1.92
Jun 2, 2014 .16
Jun 3, 2014 0
Jun 4, 2014 0
Jun 5, 2014 0
Jun 6, 2014 .03
Jun 7, 2014 .37
Jun 8, 2014 0
Jun 9, 2014 .03
Jun 10, 2014 0
Jun 11, 2014 0
Jun 12, 2014 .43
Jun 13, 2014 0
Jun 14, 2014 .04
Jun 15, 2014 1.57
Jun 16, 2014 .07
Jun 17, 2014 .38 Site Visit
0123456789104/15/144/30/145/15/145/30/146/14/14Daily and monthly total precipitation (inches) monthly precipdaily precip30d rolling total30 - day rolling totalnormalprecip rangeSite Visit Climate ConditionsHans Hagen, Lake Elmo
Inwood Ave North
Wetland Delineation Report
Appendix C: Wetland Boundary Survey
Inwood Ave North
Wetland Delineation Report
Appendix D: FSA Review Photographs
Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1983 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 431 feet
Area A Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1989 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 431 feet
Area A Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1992 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 431 feet
Area A Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1995 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 431 feet
Area A Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1996 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 431 feet
Area A Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (1997 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 431 feet
Area A Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (2000 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 431 feet
Area A Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (2006 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 500 feet
Area A
Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
Appendix D: FSA Photo Review - (2008 FSA Photograph)
Inwood Ave N (KES No. 2014-032)Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary is approximateand does not constitute an official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 500 feet
Area A
Area B
Area C
Area D
Area E
¬«36
§¨¦94
§¨¦494
Pine
Springs
Grant
Stillwater
Oak
Park
Heights
Baytown
Twp.
West
Lakeland
Twp.
AftonWoodbury
Oakdale Valley Branch
South
Washington
Brown's
Creek
t
Ramsey
Washington
LIMITATION OF LIABILITYThis document is not a legally recorded map or survey and is not
intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records and information from various state, county, and city offices, and other sources.
00.510.25
Miles
K:\gis\LAKEELMO\PROJECTS\2009 SWMP\Maps\Figure 19-WatershedAuthoritiesMap.mxd
FIGURE 19:
WATERSHED AUTHORITY /Legend
City Boundary
Brown's Creek
Ramsey Washington
South Washington
Valley Branch
Sources: VBWD, Metropolitan Council, TKDA
2030 Comprehensive Plan
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Map date: January 2009
Prepared by:
Surface Water Management Plan
PO Box 16269 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 888-232-5512 www.SpackConsulting.com
Traffic Impact Study
Inwood Creek
Lake Elmo, MN
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
By: __________________________________
Michael P. Spack, P.E., P.T.O.E.
License No. 40936
Date: July 8, 2014
Executive Summary
Background: Hans Hagen Homes is proposing to develop the plot of land
on the southeast corner of the CSAH 13 & CSAH 10 intersection in Lake
Elmo, MN. The development will consist of a mix of residential and
commercial uses. This study analyzed the potential traffic impacts of the
built out development on key intersections surrounding the site.
Results: The traffic impacts of the proposed development on the study
intersections were analyzed in the 2019 build-out conditions. The
principal findings are that all study intersections will operate acceptably
through the 2019 build-out condition except the CSAH 13/Eagle Point
Boulevard and CSAH 13/5th Street intersections.
Recommendations:
i. The CSAH 13/5th Street intersection will likely need a signal before
the development is fully built and occupied and should be monitored
as construction occurs to determine when a signal should be
installed.
ii. The CSAH 13/5th Street intersection should be built with an
exclusive southbound left turn lane, a northbound right turn lane, a
westbound left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane.
iii. The traffic signal at the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection as well as
alternate routes should allow the CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard
intersection to operate acceptably. The County should monitor the
intersection, however, in case the traffic balancing does not occur
and a traffic signal is needed at the intersection. The need for
improvements to the CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard intersection
are not due to the proposed development.
iv. The site access at CSAH 13/9th Street and the CSAH 10/Western
Site Access should be built as ¾ intersections with vehicles exiting
the development only able to make right turns.
v. The Eastern Site Access on CSAH 10 should be built as a full
access intersection.
Traffic Impact Study i Lake Elmo Development
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................... 1
2. Proposed Development ............................................................ 2
3. Analysis of Existing Conditions ............................................... 2
4. Projected Traffic ........................................................................ 5
5. Traffic and Improvement Analysis for 2019 Scenarios .......... 6
6. Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................... 10
7. Appendix .................................................................................. 11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Existing Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS)1 ..................................... 4
Table 2 – 2019 Level of Service (LOS)1 ............................................................. 7
Table 3 – 2019 PM Peak Hour Improvement Level of Service (LOS)1 ............. 8
Traffic Impact Study ii Lake Elmo Development
1. Introduction
a. Purpose of Study
Hans Hagen Homes is proposing to develop the plot of land on the
southeast corner of the CSAH 13 & CSAH 10 intersection in Lake Elmo,
MN. The development will consist of a mix of residential and commercial
uses. The purpose of this study is to determine if improvements are
needed to nearby intersections that may be impacted by traffic from the
built out development.
b. Study Objectives
The objectives of this study are:
i. Document how the study intersections currently operate.
ii. Forecast the amount of traffic expected to be generated by the
proposed development.
iii. Determine how the study intersections will operate in the year 2019
with no development traffic.
iv. Determine how the study intersections will operate in the year 2019
with development traffic.
v. Determine how the surrounding roadways will operate in the year
2030 with development traffic added.
vi. Recommend improvements, if needed.
The study intersections are:
i. CSAH 13 & I-94 Southern Ramp
ii. CSAH 13 & I-94 Northern Ramp
iii. CSAH 13 & Hudson Boulevard
iv. CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Road
v. CSAH 13 & 5th Street Access Road
vi. CSAH 13 & 9th Street
vii. CSAH 13 & CSAH 10
viii. CSAH 10 & Western Site Access Road
ix. CSAH 10 & Eastern Site Access Road
x. Eagle Point Road & Site Access Road
Traffic Impact Study 1 Lake Elmo Development
2. Proposed Development
a. Site Location
The site is located southeast of the CSAH 10/CSAH 13 intersection in
Lake Elmo, Minnesota (see Figure 1 in the Appendix).
b. Land Use Intensity and Development Timing
The proposed site is planned to have a mix of residential and commercial
uses. The residential uses are proposed to be 272 single family homes,
12 townhome units, 176 rental townhome units, 120 senior housing units
in one building and 150 apartment units in two other buildings. The
commercial uses are proposed to be a 6,000 square foot office, a 12,000
square foot pharmacy, a 2,000 square foot coffee/food shop, a 3,000
square foot gas station, a 5,000 square foot daycare, two 12,500 square
foot retail buildings and a 20,000 square foot office showroom. In total,
there are 730 residential units and 73,000 square feet of commercial
space proposed. A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2 in the
Appendix.
The development is planned to have access to CSAH 13 via a 9th Street
extension as well as via 5th Street, which is to be constructed south of 9th
Street. There are also two planned accesses from CSAH 10 and an
access from Eagle Point Boulevard.
For the purposes of this study, the full development is anticipated to be
built out by 2019.
3. Analysis of Existing Conditions
a. Transportation Network Characteristics
Washington County State Aid Highway 10, also known as 10th Street
North, is a four lane, divided road that transitions to a two lane, undivided
road east of CSAH 13. CSAH 10 has a 55 mph speed limit near the site.
Washington County State Aid Highway 13 (CSAH 13) is known as Radio
Drive south of Interstate 94 and as Inwood Avenue north of Interstate 94.
It is a four lane, divided road with a 55 mph speed limit north of Eagle
Point Road and a 45 mph speed limit south.
Interstate 94 is a six lane, divided freeway with a 65 mph speed limit near
the site. It is a major east-west corridor through the Twin Cities region.
Traffic Impact Study 2 Lake Elmo Development
Woodbury Lakes Road is east of CSAH 13 and lines up with the
eastbound Interstate 94 ramps at CSAH 13. East of the ramps, it is a
local, one lane, one-way eastbound road.
3rd Street North is west of CSAH 13 and lines up with the westbound
Interstate 94 ramps at CSAH 13. It is a local, four lane, divided road with
a 30 mph speed limit.
Hudson Boulevard is Lake Elmo Municipal State Aid Street 120 east of
CSAH 13. East of the CSAH 13 intersection it is a two lane, undivided
road with a 40 mph speed limit near the site. West of CSAH 13 it is known
as 4th Street North and is Oakdale Municipal State Aid Street 239. There
it is a partially divided, four lane road with a 40 mph speed limit that
transitions to an undivided, two lane road further west.
Eagle Point Boulevard is Lake Elmo Municipal State Aid Street 112 east of
CSAH 13. It is a two lane, undivided road with a 30 mph speed limit near
the site. West of CSAH 13 it is a local City of Oakdale road known as Oak
Marsh. It is a two lane, undivided road with a 30 mph speed limit.
9th Street North is a local City of Oakdale road. It is a two lane, undivided
road with a 30 mph speed limit near the site.
Existing traffic control and travel lanes are shown in Figure 3 in the
Appendix for each study intersection.
b. Traffic Volumes
Intersection video was collected at each of the study intersections under
normal weekday conditions on Thursday, May 29, 2014 when there was
clear weather. Using these videos, a turning movement count was
collected from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the CSAH 10/CSAH 13
intersection. Based on the peak hours for that intersection, turning
movement counts were collected at each of the other existing study
intersections from 6:45 to 8:45 a.m. and 4:15 to 6:15 p.m. The peak hours
for each intersection were found to be:
• CSAH 13/I-94 Southern Ramp: 7:15 - 8:15 a.m. & 4:45 - 5:45 p.m.
• CSAH 13/I-94 Northern Ramp: 7:15 - 8:15 a.m. & 4:45 - 5:45 p.m.
• CSAH 13/Hudson Boulevard: 7:45 - 8:45 a.m. & 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.
• CSAH 13/Eagle Point Road: 7:15 - 8:15 a.m. & 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.
• CSAH 13/9th Street: 7:15 - 8:15 a.m. & 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.
• CSAH 13/CSAH 10: 7:15 - 8:15 a.m. & 4:45 - 5:45 p.m.
The turning movement count data from the counts are contained in fifteen
minute intervals in the Appendix.
Traffic Impact Study 3 Lake Elmo Development
Source: City of
San Jose, CA
c. Level of Service
An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for
the existing intersections per the Highway Capacity
Manual, 2010. Intersections are assigned a “Level of
Service” letter grade for the peak hour of traffic based
on the number of lanes at the intersection, traffic
volumes, and traffic control. Level of Service A (LOS
A) represents light traffic flow (free flow conditions)
while Level of Service F (LOS F) represents heavy
traffic flow (over capacity conditions). LOS D at
intersections is typically considered acceptable in the
Twin Cities region. Individual movements are also
assigned LOS grades. One or more individual
movements typically operate at LOS F when the
overall intersection is operating acceptably at LOS D.
The pictures on the left represent some of the LOS
grades (from a signal controlled intersection in San
Jose, CA). These LOS grades represent the overall
intersection operation, not individual movements.
The LOS results for the existing study hours are
shown in Table 1. These are based on the existing
traffic control and lane configurations as shown in
Figure 3 in the Appendix. The existing turning
movement volumes from the Appendix were used in the LOS calculations.
The LOS calculations were done in accordance with the Highway Capacity
Manual 2010 using VISTROTM software. Signal timings were provided by
Washington County except for the CSAH 13/CSAH 10 intersection which
was estimated. The complete LOS calculations, which include grades for
individual movements, are included in the Appendix.
Table 1 – Existing Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS)1
Intersection A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
CSAH 13 & Southern I-94 Ramp B (d) C (e)
CSAH 13 & Northern I-94 Ramp C (d) D (e)
CSAH 13 & Hudson Blvd C (e) C (e)
CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd A (d) C (f)
CSAH 13 & 9th St A (c) A (d)
CSAH 13 & CSAH 10 B (c) C (c) 1The first letter is the Level of Service for the intersection. The second letter
(in parentheses) is the Level of Service for the worst operating movement.
The study intersections currently operate acceptably at LOS D or better.
The eastbound and westbound left turns at the CSAH 13/Eagle Point
Boulevard intersection operate at LOS F in the p.m. peak hour.
LOS F = Unacceptable
LOS A
LOS C
LOS D = Acceptable
Traffic Impact Study 4 Lake Elmo Development
4. Projected Traffic
a. Site Traffic Forecasting
A trip generation analysis was performed for the development site based
on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th
Edition and the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. The resultant
trip generation is shown in Table A1 in the Appendix.
There are three different types of trips that will visit a development located
in the proposed site; new trips, pass-by trips and internal trips. New trips
are trips that visit the site specifically to go to a location in the site and
then return from where they came. Pass-by trips are trips that are passing
by the site when they decide to turn and go into the site. When these
vehicles leave the site they then continue in the direction they were
originally heading. Internal trips are trips to or from a location within the
site to or from a different location within the site. These would be vehicles
that visit two or more locations within the site and therefore do not
generate a new trip at the surrounding study intersections for each place
they visit. For this site, internal trips could include many different kinds of
trips such as residents of the site going to the coffee shop or people at the
pharmacy on site going to the gas station. Internal trips are a reduction
from the overall number of generated trips.
The site generated trips were then added to the study roadways through
the use of a trip distribution pattern. This pattern is based partially on the
trip distribution for the nearby Savona development (as shown in the
Traffic Impact Study completed in 2013 by Westwood) as well as taking
into account site access and access to the regional transportation system.
The trip distribution pattern is:
• 20% to/from the south on CSAH 13
• 35% to/from the west on I-94
• 20% to/from the east on I-94
• 2% to/from the west on 4th Street
• 15% to/from the west on CSAH 10
• 5% to/from the north on CSAH 13
• 3% to/from the east on CSAH 10
This trip distribution pattern can be seen in Figure 4 in the Appendix. The
traffic generated by the site development was assigned to the area
roadways per this distribution pattern. The resultant peak hour traffic
volumes due to the development are shown in the Appendix under the
capacity analysis section for the Build scenarios.
Traffic Impact Study 5 Lake Elmo Development
b. Non-site Traffic Forecasting
Traffic forecasts were developed for the year 2019 No-Build Scenario
based on the growth rate assigned to Washington County by MnDOT.
This compound growth rate is 1.7% per year which is taken from a 20 year
factor of 1.4. This growth rate was applied to all movements and the
resultant 2019 No-Build peak hour forecasts are shown in the Appendix
under the capacity analysis section for the No-Build scenarios.
c. Total Traffic
Traffic forecasts were developed for the year 2019 Build Scenarios by
adding the traffic generated by the proposed development to the 2019 No-
Build volumes. The resultant 2019 Build peak hour forecasts are shown in
the Appendix under the capacity analysis section for the Build scenarios.
5. Traffic and Improvement Analysis for 2019 Scenarios
a. Level of Service Analysis
The LOS results for the 2019 Scenario study hours are shown in Table 2.
These are based on the existing traffic control and lane configurations at
the study intersections with the addition of an eastern leg into the
development at the CSAH 13/9th Street intersection as well as a site
access at CSAH 13/5th Street, a site access at Eagle Point Boulevard and
two site accesses on CSAH 10. The site access at CSAH 13/5th Street,
the CSAH 10/Eastern Site access and the site access on Eagle Point
Boulevard are modeled as full access intersections. The site access at
CSAH 13/9th Street and the CSAH 10/Western Site Access are modeled
as ¾ access intersections. A ¾ intersection means vehicles can turn into
the site from either direction, but can only make right turns exiting the site.
The west leg of the CSAH 13/9th Street intersection is left as full
movement to be able to service the existing residential area. See Figure 5
in the Appendix for the intersection configurations assumed to be in place
for the Build Scenario.
The forecast turning movement volumes for the 2019 peak hour scenarios
as shown in the Appendix were used in the LOS calculations. The LOS
calculations were done in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity
Manual using VISTROTM software. Signal splits were optimized for each
scenario. The complete LOS calculations, which include queue lengths
and grades for individual movements, are included in the Appendix.
Traffic Impact Study 6 Lake Elmo Development
Table 2 – 2019 Level of Service (LOS)1
Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
No-Build Build No-Build Build
CSAH 13 & Southern I-94 Ramp B (d) B (d) C (e) C (e)
CSAH 13 & Northern I-94 Ramp C (d) C (e) D (e) D (f)
CSAH 13 & Hudson Blvd C (e) C (e) D (e) D (e)
CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd A (d) A (f) D (f) F (f)
CSAH 13 & 5th St n/a F (f) n/a F (f)
CSAH 13 & 9th St A (c) A (d) A (e) A (f)
CSAH 13 & CSAH 10 B (c) C (c) C (d) C (d)
CSAH 10 & Western Site Access n/a A (c) n/a A (b)
CSAH 10 & Eastern Site Access n/a A (c) n/a A (e)
Eagle Point Blvd & Site Access n/a A (a) n/a A (a) 1The first letter is the Level of Service for the intersection. The second letter
(in parentheses) is the Level of Service for the worst operating movement.
As shown in Table 2, the study intersections will operate acceptably in the
2019 study scenarios with the exceptions of the CSAH 13/Eagle Point
Boulevard intersection in the p.m. peak hour and the CSAH 13/5th Street
intersection in both peak hours. It can be noted that the movement at
LOS F at the CSAH 13/9th Street intersection in the p.m. peak hour Build
scenario is the eastbound left turns out of the existing residential area.
This movement has less than 10 vehicles in the peak hour and a 95th
percentile queue length of less than one vehicle.
Other than CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard and CSAH 13/5th Street
intersections, the LOS results between the No-Build and Build scenarios
are similar. This means the development will not have a significant
enough impact on the other study intersections to warrant improvements.
b. Improvement Analysis
Table 2 shows that the side street stop sign controlled CSAH 13/Eagle
Point Boulevard and CSAH 13/5th Street intersections are forecast to
operate at LOS F in the 2019 p.m. peak hour build scenario with the
CSAH 13/5th Street intersection also forecast to operate at LOS F in the
2019 a.m. peak hour Build scenario.
One or both of these intersections will likely need to be signalized by the
time the development is fully built and operational. Due to the close
spacing of these two intersections it is not recommended that both of them
be signalized. Since the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection is forecast to
have higher turning volumes in the future build scenarios, that intersection
was analyzed with a signal. The layout was also modified to include an
exclusive southbound left turn lane, a northbound right turn lane, a
Traffic Impact Study 7 Lake Elmo Development
westbound left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane. This new layout
without a signal was also analyzed. These results can be seen in Table 3.
Placing a signal at the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection may affect the
driving behaviors of some vehicles. Most notably, some vehicles that may
leave the development by taking the connection down to Eagle Point
Boulevard and accessing CSAH 13 there may reroute themselves to
access CSAH 13 at the 5th Street access if that intersection is signalized.
This is especially the case if there are long delays for vehicles turning from
Eagle Point Boulevard onto CSAH 13.
To see if the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection will be able to handle
additional traffic if a signal is placed there, that intersection was analyzed
with all of the development traffic that was entering/exiting at Eagle Point
Boulevard now going through the 5th Street access. The CSAH 13/Eagle
Point Boulevard intersection was also analyzed in this scenario. These
results can be seen in Table 3.
The forecast turning movement volumes for the 2019 p.m. peak hour Build
scenario as shown in the Appendix were used in the LOS calculations for
the various improvements. The p.m. peak hour was chosen over the a.m.
peak hour because there were worse operating conditions in the p.m.
peak hour. Any improvements that work in the p.m. peak hour should also
work in the a.m. peak hour. The LOS calculations were done in
accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual using VISTROTM
software. Signal cycles and splits were optimized for each scenario as
needed. The complete LOS calculations, which include queue lengths
and grades for individual movements, are included in the Appendix.
Table 3 – 2019 PM Peak Hour Improvement Level of Service (LOS)1
Intersection
P.M. Peak
Hour
Build
CSAH 13 & 5th St - Stop Controlled with Turn Lanes F (f)
CSAH 13 & 5th St - Signalized B (c)
CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd – Without Eagle Point Connection F (f)
CSAH 13 & 5th St - Signalized Without Eagle Point Connection B (c)
1The first letter is the Level of Service for the intersection. The second letter
(in parentheses) is the Level of Service for the worst operating movement.
As can be seen in Table 3, only adding turn lanes to the CSAH 13/5th
Street intersection does not allow it to operate better than LOS F. Placing
a signal at the intersection allows it to operate acceptably at LOS B with all
movements at LOS C or better. Even with the additional traffic that may
use the Eagle Point Boulevard access to CSAH 13, CSAH 13/5th Street
operates acceptably with a signal.
Traffic Impact Study 8 Lake Elmo Development
The CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard intersection is forecast to operate at
LOS F with the site traffic rerouted to 5th Street. The eastbound and
westbound left turns are the movements operating at LOS F. If the
queuing and delay become too large at this intersection for these
movements, both approaches do have the option to take alternate routes.
Eastbound left turns can go down to 4th Street and make a left to get to
CSAH 13 while westbound left turns can go up to 5th Street or down
around to Hudson Boulevard to be able to access CSAH 13 at a
signalized intersection. If a signal is placed at the CSAH 13/5th Street
intersection, it is not recommended that a signal be placed at the CSAH
13/Eagle Point Boulevard intersection as well due to the close proximity of
the signals on CSAH 13 at 4th Street and 5th Street.
c. Improvement Timeframe
It is recommended that a signal be placed at the CSAH 13/5th Street
intersection by the time the proposed development is built and fully
occupied. In order to determine when the signal should be installed, an
iterative analysis was performed for the intersection. This analysis looked
at how much of the development needs to be built for the peak hour signal
warrant at CSAH 13/5th Street to be fulfilled.
An iterative peak hour warrant analysis was done at this intersection for
the p.m. peak hour Build scenario. This was done by iterating the
development traffic generation and background growth rate and
performing peak hour warrant analyses with VISTROTM software. The
background growth rate iteration was tied to the development traffic
iteration (e.g., for 50% of development traffic, 50% of the final growth rate
was used). The intersection was modeled with free flowing traffic on
CSAH 13 and a stop sign on 5th Street with an exclusive southbound left
turn lane, a northbound right turn lane, a westbound left turn lane and a
westbound right turn lane.
It was found the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection will meet the peak hour
warrant for a traffic signal with 30% of the full forecast site traffic
accessing the development. The full results for the different iterations can
be seen in the capacity analysis section of the Appendix.
It is recommended the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection be monitored as
construction occurs to determine when the peak hour warrant will be met
and a signal is needed at the intersection. The intersection should be built
with an exclusive southbound left turn lane, a northbound right turn lane, a
westbound left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane to provide safe
access and facilitate the future construction of the traffic signal.
Traffic Impact Study 9 Lake Elmo Development
d. Daily Traffic Volumes
The City of Lake Elmo 2030 Comprehensive Plan lists forecast traffic
volumes on the roadways in the city for the year 2030. These volumes
are estimated using existing data and forecasts based on the planned land
uses in the city. The proposed development includes more commercial
space and less residential space than the Lake Elmo 2030 plan. In order
to be able to estimate the amount of traffic on the roadways surrounding
the site, the Lake Elmo 2030 plan volumes were adjusted to account for
the extra commercial space proposed on the site.
Comparing the concept plan shown in Figure 2 in the Appendix to the City
of Lake Elmo’s proposed land use, there are approximately 20 acres of
land the city had planned as residential that this development is planning
as commercial. Assuming the residential area was planned to be single
family homes and estimating five homes per acre, that leads to 100 single
family homes. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, this
leads to approximately 950 vehicles per day using this portion of the site.
Using the trip generation for the site shown in Table A1 in the Appendix,
there are approximately 2,860 new trips using the commercial spaces in
this portion of the site. That means that there are approximately 1,900
additional vehicles accessing the site with the added commercial space
than if the space was residential.
These additional 1,900 vehicles were added to the surrounding roadways
and the forecast 2030 volumes can be seen in Figure 6 in the Appendix.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
The traffic impacts of the proposed development on the study intersections were
analyzed in the 2019 build-out conditions. The principal findings are:
i. All study intersections will operate acceptably through the 2019 build-out
condition except the CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard and CSAH 13/5th
Street intersections.
ii. The CSAH 13/5th Street intersection will likely need a signal before the
development is fully built and occupied and should be monitored as
construction occurs to determine when a signal should be installed.
iii. The CSAH 13/5th Street intersection should be built with an exclusive
southbound left turn lane, a northbound right turn lane, a westbound left
turn lane and a westbound right turn lane.
iv. The traffic signal at the CSAH 13/5th Street intersection as well as
alternate routes should allow the CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard
intersection to operate acceptably. The County should monitor the
intersection, however, in case the traffic balancing does not occur and a
traffic signal is needed at the intersection. The need for improvements to
the CSAH 13/Eagle Point Boulevard intersection are not due to the
proposed development.
Traffic Impact Study 10 Lake Elmo Development
v. The site access at CSAH 13/9th Street and the CSAH 10/Western Site
Access should be built as ¾ intersections with vehicles exiting the
development only able to make right turns.
vi. The Eastern Site Access on CSAH 10 should be built as a full access
intersection.
Other than constructing the roadways per the concept plan and the above
recommendations, no modifications are needed to be made by the developer to
the existing study intersections.
7. Appendix
A. Trip Generation Table
B. Figures 1-6
C. Traffic Counts
D. Capacity Analysis Backup
• AM Existing
• PM Existing
• AM 2019 No-Build
• PM 2019 No-Build
• AM 2019 Build
• PM 2019 Build
• PM 2019 Build - CSAH 13/5th Street with Turn Lanes
• PM 2019 Build - CSAH 13/5th Street with Turn Lanes & Signal
• PM 2019 Build - CSAH 13/5th Street with Turn Lanes & Signal minus
Eagle Point Connection and CSAH 13/Eagle Point Blvd minus Eagle
Point Connection
• Iterative Signal Warrant Analysis - 25% of Development Traffic
• Iterative Signal Warrant Analysis - 30% of Development Traffic
Traffic Impact Study 11 Lake Elmo Development
Daily Volumes
DAILY ENTER EXIT INTERNAL INTERNAL PASSBY PASSBY
RATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS ENTER EXIT
Single Family Homes 210 Dwelling Units 272.0 9.52 50%50%14%363 0%0 1,113 1,113
Apartments 220 Dwelling Units 150.0 6.65 50%50%14%140 0%0 429 429
Rental Townhomes 224 Dwelling Units 176.0 5.81 50%50%14%143 0%0 440 440
Townhomes 230 Dwelling Units 12.0 5.81 50%50%14%10 0%0 30 30
Senior Housing 252 Dwelling Units 120.0 3.44 50%50%14%58 0%0 178 178
Daycare Center 565 1,000 GFA 5.0 74.06 50%50%12%44 0%0 163 163
Office 710 1,000 GFA 6.0 11.03 50%50%28%19 0%0 24 24
Office Showroom 710 1,000 GFA 20.0 11.03 50%50%28%62 0%0 79 79
Shopping Center 820 1,000 GFA 25.0 42.70 50%50%12%128 34%363 288 288
Pharmacy 881 1,000 GFA 12.0 96.91 50%50%12%140 49%570 227 227
Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive Thru 937 1,000 GFA 2.0 818.58 50%50%12%196 50%819 311 311
Gas Station w/ Convenience Market 945 Fueling Positions 16.0 162.78 50%50%12%313 56%1,459 417 417
TOTALS 1,614 3,210 3,699 3,699
AM Peak Hour
AM ENTER EXIT INTERNAL INTERNAL PASSBY PASSBY
RATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS ENTER EXIT
Single Family Homes 210 Dwelling Units 272.0 0.75 25%75%12%24 0%0 39 141
Apartments 220 Dwelling Units 150.0 0.51 20%80%12%9 0%0 11 57
Rental Townhomes 224 Dwelling Units 176.0 0.70 33%67%12%15 0%0 33 75
Townhomes 230 Dwelling Units 12.0 0.44 17%83%12%1 0%0 1 4
Senior Housing 252 Dwelling Units 120.0 0.20 34%66%12%3 0%0 7 14
Daycare Center 565 1,000 GFA 5.0 12.18 53%47%12%7 0%0 29 25
Office 710 1,000 GFA 6.0 1.56 88%12%20%2 0%0 7 0
Office Showroom 710 1,000 GFA 20.0 1.56 88%12%20%6 0%0 24 1
Shopping Center 820 1,000 GFA 25.0 0.96 62%38%12%3 34%8 9 4
Pharmacy 881 1,000 GFA 12.0 3.45 52%48%12%5 49%20 9 7
Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive Thru 937 1,000 GFA 2.0 100.58 51%49%12%24 50%101 40 36
Gas Station w/ Convenience Market 945 Fueling Positions 16.0 10.16 50%50%12%20 56%91 26 26
TOTALS 52 220 235 390
PM Peak Hour
PM ENTER EXIT INTERNAL INTERNAL PASSBY PASSBY
RATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS ENTER EXIT
Single Family Homes 210 Dwelling Units 272.0 1.00 63%37%12%33 0%0 155 84
Apartments 220 Dwelling Units 150.0 0.62 65%35%12%11 0%0 55 27
Rental Townhomes 224 Dwelling Units 176.0 0.72 51%49%12%15 0%0 57 54
Townhomes 230 Dwelling Units 12.0 0.52 67%33%12%1 0%0 4 2
Senior Housing 252 Dwelling Units 120.0 0.25 54%46%12%4 0%0 14 12
Daycare Center 565 1,000 GFA 5.0 12.34 47%53%12%7 0%0 25 29
Office 710 1,000 GFA 6.0 1.49 17%83%23%2 0%0 0 6
Office Showroom 710 1,000 GFA 20.0 1.49 17%83%23%7 0%0 2 21
Shopping Center 820 1,000 GFA 25.0 3.71 48%52%12%11 34%32 23 27
Pharmacy 881 1,000 GFA 12.0 9.91 50%50%12%14 49%58 23 23
Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive Thru 937 1,000 GFA 2.0 42.80 50%50%12%10 50%43 16 16
Gas Station w/ Convenience Market 945 Fueling Positions 16.0 13.51 50%50%12%26 56%121 35 35
TOTALS 63 254 409 336
NOTES:
1. GFA = Gross Floor Area
2. All trip generation rates based on "Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition.
3. Reduction for internal trips (Internal Percent) is based on "Trip Generation Handbook", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2nd Edition.
4. Reduction for pass-by trips (Passby Percent) is based on "Trip Generation Handbook", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2nd Edition.
5. A.M. Trip Generation is for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 7 and 9 a.m.).
6. P.M. Trip Generation is for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.).
7. No data is available in "Trip Generation" for the daily rate for the rental townhomes. The daily rate for Townhomes was used.
8. The Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive Thru (ITE code 937) does not have a pass-by percentage in "Trip Generation." A 50% pass-by rate was used. This is the same as a fast food w/ drive thru.
NEW TRIPSLAND USE ITE
CODE #
DEVELOPMENT
UNITS (GFA)QUANTITY
NEW TRIPS
LAND USE ITE
CODE #
DEVELOPMENT
UNITS (GFA)QUANTITY NEW TRIPS
LAND USE ITE
CODE #
DEVELOPMENT
UNITS (GFA)QUANTITY
Table A1
Forecast Trip Generation
Traffic Impact Study A1 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix A - Trip Generation Table
Figure 1
Location Maps
Proposed Site
Study Area
North
No Scale
Traffic Impact Study B1 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix B - Figures
Figure 2
Concept Plan
Traffic Impact Study B2 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix B - Figures
Figure 3
Existing Lanes & Traffic Control
Traffic Impact Study B3 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix B - Figures
Figure 4
Trip Distribution
North
No Scale
CSAH 10
4th St
I-94 CSAH 13 5%
20%
15%
5%
35% 20%
3%
Site
Location
Traffic Impact Study B4 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix B - Figures
Figure 5
Site Access Configurations
E D C B A
E
D C
B
A
Traffic Impact Study B5 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix B - Figures
Figure 6
Daily Volumes
North
No Scale
CSAH 10
4th St CSAH 13 Site
Location
11,000
(11,050) 13,000
(13,300)
LEGEND
City of Lake Elmo 2030 Volumes = ###
Site Adjusted 2030 Volumes = (###) 14,200 (14,300) 26,000 (26,500) 44,000 (45,400) 6,700
(6,800)
Traffic Impact Study B6 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix B - Figures
File Name : 1 - Radio Dr & Southern I-94 Ramp, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 1
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 1
Radio Dr & Southern I-94 Ramp
Woodbury, MN
Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks
Radio Dr
Southbound
Woodbury Lakes Rd
Westbound
Radio Dr
Northbound
Southern I-94 Ramp
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
06:45 AM 1 2 115 10 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 24 0 249 0 35 14 66 0 115 492
Total 1 2 115 10 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 24 0 249 0 35 14 66 0 115 492
07:00 AM 0 0 113 13 0 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 242 15 0 257 0 36 1 56 0 93 476
07:15 AM 0 0 128 16 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 21 0 311 0 68 3 71 0 142 597
07:30 AM 1 0 131 14 0 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 17 0 299 0 69 4 83 0 156 601
07:45 AM 1 6 180 7 0 194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 18 0 318 0 88 8 142 0 238 750
Total 2 6 552 50 0 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1114 71 0 1185 0 261 16 352 0 629 2424
08:00 AM 1 3 174 18 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 20 0 320 0 61 5 114 0 180 696
08:15 AM 0 4 159 14 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 20 0 261 0 54 9 94 0 157 595
08:30 AM 1 1 172 13 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206 17 0 223 0 43 6 103 0 152 562
Total 2 8 505 45 0 560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 747 57 0 804 0 158 20 311 0 489 1853
04:15 PM 0 19 266 68 0 353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 349 114 0 463 0 54 33 252 0 339 1155
04:30 PM 2 21 339 57 0 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 94 0 403 0 48 35 252 0 335 1157
04:45 PM 1 26 267 71 0 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 307 92 0 399 0 59 36 252 0 347 1111
Total 3 66 872 196 0 1137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 965 300 0 1265 0 161 104 756 0 1021 3423
05:00 PM 1 22 361 59 0 443 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 138 0 500 0 59 25 190 0 274 1217
05:15 PM 1 19 278 60 0 358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 352 125 0 477 0 53 42 244 1 340 1175
05:30 PM 3 17 314 64 0 398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 346 111 0 457 0 62 16 230 0 308 1163
05:45 PM 6 24 272 24 0 326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 306 75 0 381 0 42 26 243 0 311 1018
Total 11 82 1225 207 0 1525 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1366 449 0 1815 0 216 109 907 1 1233 4573
06:00 PM 0 11 237 29 0 277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 326 101 0 427 0 46 12 208 0 266 970
Grand Total 19 175 3506 537 0 4237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4743 1002 0 5745 0 877 275 2600 1 3753 13735
Apprch %0.4 4.1 82.7 12.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.6 17.4 0 0 23.4 7.3 69.3 0
Total %0.1 1.3 25.5 3.9 0 30.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.5 7.3 0 41.8 0 6.4 2 18.9 0 27.3
Cars +19 173 3463 527 0 4182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4677 986 0 5663 0 855 275 2560 0 3690 13535
% Cars +100 98.9 98.8 98.1 0 98.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.6 98.4 0 98.6 0 97.5 100 98.5 0 98.3 98.5
Trucks 0 2 43 10 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 16 0 82 0 22 0 40 1 63 200
% Trucks 0 1.1 1.2 1.9 0 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 1.6 0 1.4 0 2.5 0 1.5 100 1.7 1.5
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C1 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 1 - Radio Dr & Southern I-94 Ramp, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 1
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 2
Radio Dr & Southern I-94 Ramp
Woodbury, MN
Radio Dr Southern I-94 Ramp Woodbury Lakes Rd Radio Dr
Right
527
10 537
Thru
3463
43 3506
Left
173
2 175
UTrn
19
0 19
Peds
0
0 0
InOut Total5532 4182 9714
88 55 143 5620 9857 4237 Out19 0 19 In0 0 0 Total19 0 19 Right0 0 0 Thru0 0 0 Left0 0 0 UTrn0 0 0 Peds0 0 0 OutTotalIn1434 0 1434 18 0 18 1452 1452 0 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 UTrn0
0 0
Left0
0 0
Thru4677
66 4743
Right986
16 1002
Peds0
0 0
Out TotalIn
6023 5663 11686 83 82 165
6106 11851 5745 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 UTrn0 0 0 Left855 22 877 Thru275 0 275 Right2560 40 2600 Peds0 1 1 TotalOutIn527 3690 4217 10 63 73 537 4290 3753 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 5/29/2014 06:45 AM
5/29/2014 06:00 PM
Cars +Trucks
North
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C2 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 1 - Radio Dr & Southern I-94 Ramp, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 1
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 3
Radio Dr & Southern I-94 Ramp
Woodbury, MN
Radio Dr
Southbound
Woodbury Lakes Rd
Westbound
Radio Dr
Northbound
Southern I-94 Ramp
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:45 AM to 12:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 0 0 128 16 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 21 0 311 0 68 3 71 0 142 597
07:30 AM 1 0 131 14 0 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 17 0 299 0 69 4 83 0 156 601
07:45 AM 1 6 180 7 0 194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 18 0 318 0 88 8 142 0 238 750
08:00 AM 1 3 174 18 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 20 0 320 0 61 5 114 0 180 696
Total Volume 3 9 613 55 0 680 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1172 76 0 1248 0 286 20 410 0 716 2644
% App. Total 0.4 1.3 90.1 8.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93.9 6.1 0 0 39.9 2.8 57.3 0
PHF .750 .375 .851 .764 .000 .867 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .977 .905 .000 .975 .000 .813 .625 .722 .000 .752 .881
Peak Hour Analysis From 12:45 PM to 06:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 1 26 267 71 0 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 307 92 0 399 0 59 36 252 0 347 1111
05:00 PM 1 22 361 59 0 443 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 138 0 500 0 59 25 190 0 274 1217
05:15 PM 1 19 278 60 0 358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 352 125 0 477 0 53 42 244 1 340 1175
05:30 PM 3 17 314 64 0 398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 346 111 0 457 0 62 16 230 0 308 1163
Total Volume 6 84 1220 254 0 1564 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1367 466 0 1833 0 233 119 916 1 1269 4666
% App. Total 0.4 5.4 78 16.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74.6 25.4 0 0 18.4 9.4 72.2 0.1
PHF .500 .808 .845 .894 .000 .883 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .944 .844 .000 .917 .000 .940 .708 .909 .250 .914 .959
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C3 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 2 - Inwood Ave & Northern I-94 Ramp, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 2
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 1
Inwood Ave & Northern I-94 Ramp
Lake Elmo, MN
Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks
Inwood Ave
Southbound
Northern I-94 Ramp
Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
3rd St N
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
06:45 AM 0 15 75 3 0 93 0 43 36 16 0 95 0 14 78 158 0 250 0 1 5 6 1 13 451
Total 0 15 75 3 0 93 0 43 36 16 0 95 0 14 78 158 0 250 0 1 5 6 1 13 451
07:00 AM 0 15 70 4 0 89 0 41 26 9 1 77 0 14 83 176 0 273 0 1 6 3 0 10 449
07:15 AM 0 12 107 0 0 119 0 33 20 8 0 61 0 20 152 177 0 349 0 3 4 7 0 14 543
07:30 AM 0 14 98 2 0 114 0 29 19 9 0 57 0 18 151 186 0 355 0 2 7 11 0 20 546
07:45 AM 1 22 128 4 0 155 0 41 8 23 0 72 0 23 168 175 0 366 0 1 6 5 0 12 605
Total 1 63 403 10 0 477 0 144 73 49 1 267 0 75 554 714 0 1343 0 7 23 26 0 56 2143
08:00 AM 0 42 129 3 0 174 0 57 6 17 0 80 0 19 165 172 0 356 0 2 4 2 0 8 618
08:15 AM 0 42 106 1 0 149 0 52 5 15 0 72 2 23 122 145 0 292 0 3 5 9 0 17 530
08:30 AM 0 30 127 6 0 163 0 39 9 15 1 64 2 10 128 147 0 287 0 1 10 17 0 28 542
Total 0 114 362 10 0 486 0 148 20 47 1 216 4 52 415 464 0 935 0 6 19 28 0 53 1690
04:15 PM 0 42 215 18 0 275 0 66 17 17 0 100 1 52 232 120 0 405 0 9 15 43 0 67 847
04:30 PM 0 61 268 8 0 337 0 59 8 11 0 78 0 40 217 167 0 424 0 7 11 43 0 61 900
04:45 PM 0 40 251 12 0 303 0 50 14 15 0 79 0 35 184 152 0 371 0 15 11 61 0 87 840
Total 0 143 734 38 0 915 0 175 39 43 0 257 1 127 633 439 0 1200 0 31 37 147 0 215 2587
05:00 PM 0 68 270 7 0 345 0 61 10 21 0 92 2 54 262 160 0 478 0 8 26 79 2 115 1030
05:15 PM 0 46 214 13 0 273 0 55 14 10 0 79 1 60 252 129 0 442 0 6 20 70 1 97 891
05:30 PM 0 38 274 6 0 318 0 65 13 15 0 93 2 67 235 136 0 440 0 10 16 48 0 74 925
05:45 PM 0 40 201 6 0 247 0 35 12 13 0 60 0 49 193 148 0 390 0 8 13 60 0 81 778
Total 0 192 959 32 0 1183 0 216 49 59 0 324 5 230 942 573 0 1750 0 32 75 257 3 367 3624
06:00 PM 0 29 181 14 0 224 0 50 10 12 2 74 0 55 187 170 0 412 0 4 13 46 0 63 773
Grand Total 1 556 2714 107 0 3378 0 776 227 226 4 1233 10 553 2809 2518 0 5890 0 81 172 510 4 767 11268
Apprch %0 16.5 80.3 3.2 0 0 62.9 18.4 18.3 0.3 0.2 9.4 47.7 42.8 0 0 10.6 22.4 66.5 0.5
Total %0 4.9 24.1 0.9 0 30 0 6.9 2 2 0 10.9 0.1 4.9 24.9 22.3 0 52.3 0 0.7 1.5 4.5 0 6.8
Cars +1 546 2672 107 0 3326 0 763 226 212 1 1202 10 549 2756 2482 0 5797 0 81 166 508 0 755 11080
% Cars +100 98.2 98.5 100 0 98.5 0 98.3 99.6 93.8 25 97.5 100 99.3 98.1 98.6 0 98.4 0 100 96.5 99.6 0 98.4 98.3
Trucks 0 10 42 0 0 52 0 13 1 14 3 31 0 4 53 36 0 93 0 0 6 2 4 12 188
% Trucks 0 1.8 1.5 0 0 1.5 0 1.7 0.4 6.2 75 2.5 0 0.7 1.9 1.4 0 1.6 0 0 3.5 0.4 100 1.6 1.7
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C4 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 2 - Inwood Ave & Northern I-94 Ramp, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 2
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 2
Inwood Ave & Northern I-94 Ramp
Lake Elmo, MN
Inwood Ave 3rd St N Northern I-94 Ramp Inwood Ave
Right
107
0 107
Thru
2672
42 2714
Left
546
10 556
UTrn
1
0 1
Peds
0
0 0
InOut Total3049 3326 6375
67 52 119 3116 6494 3378 Out1 0 1 In0 0 0 Total1 0 1 Right212 14 226 Thru226 1 227 Left763 13 776 UTrn0 0 0 Peds1 3 4 OutTotalIn3194 1202 4396 52 31 83 3246 4479 1233 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 UTrn10
0 10
Left549
4 553
Thru2756
53 2809
Right2482
36 2518
Peds0
0 0
Out TotalIn
3943 5797 9740 57 93 150
4000 9890 5890 Out10 0 10 In0 0 0 Total10 0 10 UTrn0 0 0 Left81 0 81 Thru166 6 172 Right508 2 510 Peds0 4 4 TotalOutIn882 755 1637 5 12 17 887 1654 767 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 5/29/2014 06:45 AM
5/29/2014 06:00 PM
Cars +Trucks
North
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C5 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 2 - Inwood Ave & Northern I-94 Ramp, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 2
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 3
Inwood Ave & Northern I-94 Ramp
Lake Elmo, MN
Inwood Ave
Southbound
Northern I-94 Ramp
Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
3rd St N
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:45 AM to 12:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 0 12 107 0 0 119 0 33 20 8 0 61 0 20 152 177 0 349 0 3 4 7 0 14 543
07:30 AM 0 14 98 2 0 114 0 29 19 9 0 57 0 18 151 186 0 355 0 2 7 11 0 20 546
07:45 AM 1 22 128 4 0 155 0 41 8 23 0 72 0 23 168 175 0 366 0 1 6 5 0 12 605
08:00 AM 0 42 129 3 0 174 0 57 6 17 0 80 0 19 165 172 0 356 0 2 4 2 0 8 618
Total Volume 1 90 462 9 0 562 0 160 53 57 0 270 0 80 636 710 0 1426 0 8 21 25 0 54 2312
% App. Total 0.2 16 82.2 1.6 0 0 59.3 19.6 21.1 0 0 5.6 44.6 49.8 0 0 14.8 38.9 46.3 0
PHF .250 .536 .895 .563 .000 .807 .000 .702 .663 .620 .000 .844 .000 .870 .946 .954 .000 .974 .000 .667 .750 .568 .000 .675 .935
Peak Hour Analysis From 12:45 PM to 06:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 0 40 251 12 0 303 0 50 14 15 0 79 0 35 184 152 0 371 0 15 11 61 0 87 840
05:00 PM 0 68 270 7 0 345 0 61 10 21 0 92 2 54 262 160 0 478 0 8 26 79 2 115 1030
05:15 PM 0 46 214 13 0 273 0 55 14 10 0 79 1 60 252 129 0 442 0 6 20 70 1 97 891
05:30 PM 0 38 274 6 0 318 0 65 13 15 0 93 2 67 235 136 0 440 0 10 16 48 0 74 925
Total Volume 0 192 1009 38 0 1239 0 231 51 61 0 343 5 216 933 577 0 1731 0 39 73 258 3 373 3686
% App. Total 0 15.5 81.4 3.1 0 0 67.3 14.9 17.8 0 0.3 12.5 53.9 33.3 0 0 10.5 19.6 69.2 0.8
PHF .000 .706 .921 .731 .000 .898 .000 .888 .911 .726 .000 .922 .625 .806 .890 .902 .000 .905 .000 .650 .702 .816 .375 .811 .895
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C6 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 3 - Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 1
Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd
Lake Elmo, MN
Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks
Inwood Ave
Southbound
Hudson Blvd
Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
4th St
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
06:45 AM 0 5 53 13 0 71 0 9 22 2 0 33 0 27 49 10 0 86 0 2 5 28 2 37 227
Total 0 5 53 13 0 71 0 9 22 2 0 33 0 27 49 10 0 86 0 2 5 28 2 37 227
07:00 AM 0 2 62 25 0 89 0 6 15 4 1 26 0 31 48 16 0 95 0 3 3 20 0 26 236
07:15 AM 0 5 76 18 0 99 0 10 16 4 1 31 0 48 79 13 0 140 0 3 5 36 1 45 315
07:30 AM 0 4 87 20 1 112 0 6 25 7 1 39 0 42 88 28 0 158 0 11 9 32 0 52 361
07:45 AM 0 13 117 12 7 149 0 20 45 10 1 76 0 54 94 43 0 191 0 4 3 31 0 38 454
Total 0 24 342 75 8 449 0 42 101 25 4 172 0 175 309 100 0 584 0 21 20 119 1 161 1366
08:00 AM 0 8 98 16 0 122 0 40 37 7 0 84 0 57 77 42 0 176 0 1 9 45 0 55 437
08:15 AM 0 4 53 11 1 69 0 44 43 10 1 98 0 34 68 30 0 132 0 5 5 42 0 52 351
08:30 AM 0 8 105 13 3 129 0 33 42 21 1 97 0 31 75 24 0 130 0 4 5 31 0 40 396
Total 0 20 256 40 4 320 0 117 122 38 2 279 0 122 220 96 0 438 0 10 19 118 0 147 1184
04:15 PM 0 4 141 8 4 157 0 49 12 14 3 78 0 39 169 36 0 244 0 12 35 90 0 137 616
04:30 PM 0 6 228 11 0 245 0 51 14 9 0 74 0 30 160 30 0 220 0 10 25 87 1 123 662
04:45 PM 0 6 183 8 0 197 0 24 6 7 0 37 0 52 130 23 0 205 0 18 26 81 2 127 566
Total 0 16 552 27 4 599 0 124 32 30 3 189 0 121 459 89 0 669 0 40 86 258 3 387 1844
05:00 PM 0 7 181 10 0 198 0 48 6 10 0 64 0 67 161 19 1 248 0 14 37 113 0 164 674
05:15 PM 0 10 153 8 4 175 0 33 7 4 0 44 1 57 195 24 5 282 0 17 40 103 1 161 662
05:30 PM 0 10 217 14 0 241 0 36 11 7 0 54 0 42 150 24 1 217 0 16 24 82 0 122 634
05:45 PM 0 3 183 9 0 195 0 22 13 9 0 44 0 53 163 19 1 236 0 17 16 75 0 108 583
Total 0 30 734 41 4 809 0 139 37 30 0 206 1 219 669 86 8 983 0 64 117 373 1 555 2553
06:00 PM 1 3 156 9 3 172 0 28 12 6 0 46 0 33 140 13 0 186 0 15 12 41 0 68 472
Grand Total 1 98 2093 205 23 2420 0 459 326 131 9 925 1 697 1846 394 8 2946 0 152 259 937 7 1355 7646
Apprch %0 4 86.5 8.5 1 0 49.6 35.2 14.2 1 0 23.7 62.7 13.4 0.3 0 11.2 19.1 69.2 0.5
Total %0 1.3 27.4 2.7 0.3 31.7 0 6 4.3 1.7 0.1 12.1 0 9.1 24.1 5.2 0.1 38.5 0 2 3.4 12.3 0.1 17.7
Cars +1 96 2071 203 16 2387 0 446 326 130 8 910 1 670 1821 390 0 2882 0 151 258 928 3 1340 7519
% Cars +100 98 98.9 99 69.6 98.6 0 97.2 100 99.2 88.9 98.4 100 96.1 98.6 99 0 97.8 0 99.3 99.6 99 42.9 98.9 98.3
Trucks 0 2 22 2 7 33 0 13 0 1 1 15 0 27 25 4 8 64 0 1 1 9 4 15 127
% Trucks 0 2 1.1 1 30.4 1.4 0 2.8 0 0.8 11.1 1.6 0 3.9 1.4 1 100 2.2 0 0.7 0.4 1 57.1 1.1 1.7
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C7 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 3 - Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 2
Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd
Lake Elmo, MN
Inwood Ave 4th St Hudson Blvd Inwood Ave
Right
203
2 205
Thru
2071
22 2093
Left
96
2 98
UTrn
1
0 1
Peds
16
7 23
InOut Total2102 2387 4489
27 33 60 2129 4549 2420 Out1 0 1 In0 0 0 Total1 0 1 Right130 1 131 Thru326 0 326 Left446 13 459 UTrn0 0 0 Peds8 1 9 OutTotalIn744 910 1654 7 15 22 751 1676 925 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 UTrn1
0 1
Left670
27 697
Thru1821
25 1846
Right390
4 394
Peds0
8 8
Out TotalIn
3445 2882 6327 44 64 108
3489 6435 2946 Out1 0 1 In0 0 0 Total1 0 1 UTrn0 0 0 Left151 1 152 Thru258 1 259 Right928 9 937 Peds3 4 7 TotalOutIn1199 1340 2539 29 15 44 1228 2583 1355 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 5/29/2014 06:45 AM
5/29/2014 06:00 PM
Cars +Trucks
North
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C8 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 3 - Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 3
Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd
Lake Elmo, MN
Inwood Ave
Southbound
Hudson Blvd
Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
4th St
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:45 AM to 12:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 0 13 117 12 7 149 0 20 45 10 1 76 0 54 94 43 0 191 0 4 3 31 0 38 454
08:00 AM 0 8 98 16 0 122 0 40 37 7 0 84 0 57 77 42 0 176 0 1 9 45 0 55 437
08:15 AM 0 4 53 11 1 69 0 44 43 10 1 98 0 34 68 30 0 132 0 5 5 42 0 52 351
08:30 AM 0 8 105 13 3 129 0 33 42 21 1 97 0 31 75 24 0 130 0 4 5 31 0 40 396
Total Volume 0 33 373 52 11 469 0 137 167 48 3 355 0 176 314 139 0 629 0 14 22 149 0 185 1638
% App. Total 0 7 79.5 11.1 2.3 0 38.6 47 13.5 0.8 0 28 49.9 22.1 0 0 7.6 11.9 80.5 0
PHF .000 .635 .797 .813 .393 .787 .000 .778 .928 .571 .750 .906 .000 .772 .835 .808 .000 .823 .000 .700 .611 .828 .000 .841 .902
Peak Hour Analysis From 12:45 PM to 06:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 6 228 11 0 245 0 51 14 9 0 74 0 30 160 30 0 220 0 10 25 87 1 123 662
04:45 PM 0 6 183 8 0 197 0 24 6 7 0 37 0 52 130 23 0 205 0 18 26 81 2 127 566
05:00 PM 0 7 181 10 0 198 0 48 6 10 0 64 0 67 161 19 1 248 0 14 37 113 0 164 674
05:15 PM 0 10 153 8 4 175 0 33 7 4 0 44 1 57 195 24 5 282 0 17 40 103 1 161 662
Total Volume 0 29 745 37 4 815 0 156 33 30 0 219 1 206 646 96 6 955 0 59 128 384 4 575 2564
% App. Total 0 3.6 91.4 4.5 0.5 0 71.2 15.1 13.7 0 0.1 21.6 67.6 10.1 0.6 0 10.3 22.3 66.8 0.7
PHF .000 .725 .817 .841 .250 .832 .000 .765 .589 .750 .000 .740 .250 .769 .828 .800 .300 .847 .000 .819 .800 .850 .500 .877 .951
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C9 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 4 - Inwood Ave & Eagle Point Blvd, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 4
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 1
Inwood Ave & Eagle Point Blvd
Lake Elmo, MN
Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks
Inwood Ave
Southbound
Eagle Point Blvd
Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
Oak Marsh
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
06:45 AM 0 8 69 5 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 36 9 0 56 0 1 0 2 1 4 142
Total 0 8 69 5 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 36 9 0 56 0 1 0 2 1 4 142
07:00 AM 0 14 87 6 0 107 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 10 27 10 0 47 0 2 0 4 1 7 163
07:15 AM 0 17 99 11 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 63 19 0 96 0 1 0 2 2 5 228
07:30 AM 0 16 110 5 0 131 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 21 66 17 0 104 0 1 0 2 0 3 239
07:45 AM 0 26 142 10 0 178 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 14 82 25 0 121 0 3 0 2 1 6 307
Total 0 73 438 32 0 543 0 1 0 3 1 5 0 59 238 71 0 368 0 7 0 10 4 21 937
08:00 AM 0 33 123 6 0 162 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 12 65 23 0 100 0 3 0 3 0 6 272
08:15 AM 0 14 70 6 0 90 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 12 46 21 0 79 0 1 0 3 0 4 174
08:30 AM 0 23 100 9 0 132 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 14 78 14 0 106 0 1 0 6 0 7 249
08:45 AM 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Total 0 70 295 21 0 386 0 7 0 2 0 9 0 38 190 58 0 286 0 5 0 12 0 17 698
04:15 PM 0 3 141 5 0 149 0 17 2 13 0 32 0 15 185 3 0 203 0 3 0 9 0 12 396
04:30 PM 0 4 170 13 0 187 0 35 0 21 0 56 0 22 178 0 0 200 0 7 0 14 0 21 464
04:45 PM 0 5 168 12 0 185 0 23 0 19 0 42 0 21 160 1 0 182 0 6 0 16 2 24 433
Total 0 12 479 30 0 521 0 75 2 53 0 130 0 58 523 4 0 585 0 16 0 39 2 57 1293
05:00 PM 0 4 153 18 0 175 0 19 0 24 0 43 0 31 176 2 0 209 0 13 0 22 0 35 462
05:15 PM 0 2 140 26 0 168 0 12 0 14 0 26 0 21 220 0 0 241 0 12 0 16 1 29 464
05:30 PM 0 0 183 14 0 197 0 18 0 9 1 28 1 18 164 1 0 184 0 12 0 8 0 20 429
05:45 PM 0 1 163 14 0 178 0 9 1 16 0 26 0 22 166 1 0 189 0 7 0 8 1 16 409
Total 0 7 639 72 0 718 0 58 1 63 1 123 1 92 726 4 0 823 0 44 0 54 2 100 1764
06:00 PM 0 2 131 6 1 140 0 6 0 6 0 12 0 17 147 0 0 164 0 4 0 9 1 14 330
Grand Total 0 172 2051 166 1 2390 0 147 3 127 2 279 1 275 1860 146 0 2282 0 77 0 126 10 213 5164
Apprch %0 7.2 85.8 6.9 0 0 52.7 1.1 45.5 0.7 0 12.1 81.5 6.4 0 0 36.2 0 59.2 4.7
Total %0 3.3 39.7 3.2 0 46.3 0 2.8 0.1 2.5 0 5.4 0 5.3 36 2.8 0 44.2 0 1.5 0 2.4 0.2 4.1
Cars +0 171 2035 165 1 2372 0 147 3 127 0 277 1 273 1840 146 0 2260 0 76 0 125 4 205 5114
% Cars +0 99.4 99.2 99.4 100 99.2 0 100 100 100 0 99.3 100 99.3 98.9 100 0 99 0 98.7 0 99.2 40 96.2 99
Trucks 0 1 16 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 20 0 0 22 0 1 0 1 6 8 50
% Trucks 0 0.6 0.8 0.6 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 100 0.7 0 0.7 1.1 0 0 1 0 1.3 0 0.8 60 3.8 1
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C10 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 4 - Inwood Ave & Eagle Point Blvd, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 4
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 2
Inwood Ave & Eagle Point Blvd
Lake Elmo, MN
Inwood Ave Oak Marsh Eagle Point Blvd Inwood Ave
Right
165
1 166
Thru
2035
16 2051
Left
171
1 172
UTrn
0
0 0
Peds
1
0 1
InOut Total2043 2372 4415
21 18 39 2064 4454 2390 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 Right127 0 127 Thru3 0 3 Left147 0 147 UTrn0 0 0 Peds0 2 2 OutTotalIn317 277 594 1 2 3 318 597 279 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 UTrn1
0 1
Left273
2 275
Thru1840
20 1860
Right146
0 146
Peds0
0 0
Out TotalIn
2307 2260 4567 17 22 39
2324 4606 2282 Out1 0 1 In0 0 0 Total1 0 1 UTrn0 0 0 Left76 1 77 Thru0 0 0 Right125 1 126 Peds4 6 10 TotalOutIn441 205 646 3 8 11 444 657 213 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 5/29/2014 06:45 AM
5/29/2014 06:00 PM
Cars +Trucks
North
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C11 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 4 - Inwood Ave & Eagle Point Blvd, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 4
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 3
Inwood Ave & Eagle Point Blvd
Lake Elmo, MN
Inwood Ave
Southbound
Eagle Point Blvd
Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
Oak Marsh
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:45 AM to 12:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 0 17 99 11 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 63 19 0 96 0 1 0 2 2 5 228
07:30 AM 0 16 110 5 0 131 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 21 66 17 0 104 0 1 0 2 0 3 239
07:45 AM 0 26 142 10 0 178 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 14 82 25 0 121 0 3 0 2 1 6 307
08:00 AM 0 33 123 6 0 162 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 12 65 23 0 100 0 3 0 3 0 6 272
Total Volume 0 92 474 32 0 598 0 3 0 4 0 7 0 61 276 84 0 421 0 8 0 9 3 20 1046
% App. Total 0 15.4 79.3 5.4 0 0 42.9 0 57.1 0 0 14.5 65.6 20 0 0 40 0 45 15
PHF .000 .697 .835 .727 .000 .840 .000 .250 .000 .500 .000 .438 .000 .726 .841 .840 .000 .870 .000 .667 .000 .750 .375 .833 .852
Peak Hour Analysis From 12:45 PM to 06:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 4 170 13 0 187 0 35 0 21 0 56 0 22 178 0 0 200 0 7 0 14 0 21 464
04:45 PM 0 5 168 12 0 185 0 23 0 19 0 42 0 21 160 1 0 182 0 6 0 16 2 24 433
05:00 PM 0 4 153 18 0 175 0 19 0 24 0 43 0 31 176 2 0 209 0 13 0 22 0 35 462
05:15 PM 0 2 140 26 0 168 0 12 0 14 0 26 0 21 220 0 0 241 0 12 0 16 1 29 464
Total Volume 0 15 631 69 0 715 0 89 0 78 0 167 0 95 734 3 0 832 0 38 0 68 3 109 1823
% App. Total 0 2.1 88.3 9.7 0 0 53.3 0 46.7 0 0 11.4 88.2 0.4 0 0 34.9 0 62.4 2.8
PHF .000 .750 .928 .663 .000 .956 .000 .636 .000 .813 .000 .746 .000 .766 .834 .375 .000 .863 .000 .731 .000 .773 .375 .779 .982
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C12 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 5 - Inwood Ave & 9th St, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 5
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 1
Inwood Ave & 9th St
Lake Elmo, MN
Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks
Inwood Ave
Southbound Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
9th St N
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
06:45 AM 0 0 90 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 37 0 2 0 1 0 3 130
Total 0 0 90 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 37 0 2 0 1 0 3 130
07:00 AM 0 0 96 2 0 98 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 35 0 0 36 0 1 0 1 0 2 137
07:15 AM 0 0 125 2 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 69 0 3 0 3 1 7 203
07:30 AM 0 0 137 0 0 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 68 0 0 69 0 2 0 2 0 4 210
07:45 AM 0 0 168 1 0 169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 78 0 0 79 1 0 0 4 1 6 254
Total 0 0 526 5 0 531 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 250 0 0 253 1 6 0 10 2 19 804
08:00 AM 0 0 135 1 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 63 0 0 66 0 0 0 6 2 8 210
08:15 AM 0 0 86 1 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 45 0 0 0 4 0 4 136
08:30 AM 0 0 128 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 77 0 0 79 1 0 0 4 2 7 214
08:45 AM 0 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
Total 0 0 360 2 0 362 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 196 0 0 202 1 0 0 14 4 19 583
03:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 4
Total 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 4
04:15 PM 1 0 142 1 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 187 0 0 196 0 0 0 4 0 4 344
04:30 PM 1 0 191 3 0 195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 219 0 0 225 0 0 0 1 0 1 421
04:45 PM 1 0 195 2 0 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 175 0 0 180 0 3 0 3 1 7 385
Total 3 0 528 6 0 537 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 581 0 0 601 0 3 0 8 1 12 1150
05:00 PM 1 0 170 3 0 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 210 0 0 218 0 2 0 4 0 6 398
05:15 PM 0 0 171 4 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 228 0 0 232 0 1 0 5 1 7 414
05:30 PM 0 0 180 3 0 183 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 173 0 0 179 0 1 0 4 1 6 369
05:45 PM 1 0 160 4 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 176 0 0 184 0 0 0 4 0 4 353
Total 2 0 681 14 0 697 0 0 0 0 1 1 8 18 787 0 0 813 0 4 0 17 2 23 1534
06:00 PM 1 0 135 0 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 143 0 0 148 0 1 0 4 5 10 294
Grand Total 6 0 2320 28 0 2354 0 0 0 0 3 3 13 47 1994 0 0 2054 2 18 0 54 14 88 4499
Apprch %0.3 0 98.6 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 100 0.6 2.3 97.1 0 0 2.3 20.5 0 61.4 15.9
Total %0.1 0 51.6 0.6 0 52.3 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 1 44.3 0 0 45.7 0 0.4 0 1.2 0.3 2
Cars +6 0 2299 24 0 2329 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 47 1961 0 0 2021 0 17 0 53 5 75 4425
% Cars +100 0 99.1 85.7 0 98.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 98.3 0 0 98.4 0 94.4 0 98.1 35.7 85.2 98.4
Trucks 0 0 21 4 0 25 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 33 0 0 33 2 1 0 1 9 13 74
% Trucks 0 0 0.9 14.3 0 1.1 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 1.7 0 0 1.6 100 5.6 0 1.9 64.3 14.8 1.6
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C13 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 5 - Inwood Ave & 9th St, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 5
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 2
Inwood Ave & 9th St
Lake Elmo, MN
Inwood Ave 9th St N Inwood Ave
Right
24
4 28
Thru
2299
21 2320
Left
0
0 0
UTrn
6
0 6
Peds
0
0 0
InOut Total1978 2329 4307
34 25 59 2012 4366 2354 Out6 0 6 In0 0 0 Total6 0 6 Right0 0 0 Thru0 0 0 Left0 0 0 UTrn0 0 0 Peds0 3 3 OutTotalIn0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 3 Out0 0 0 In0 0 0 Total0 0 0 UTrn13
0 13
Left47
0 47
Thru1961
33 1994
Right0
0 0
Peds0
0 0
Out TotalIn
2352 2021 4373 22 33 55
2374 4428 2054 Out13 0 13 In0 0 0 Total13 0 13 UTrn0 2 2 Left17 1 18 Thru0 0 0 Right53 1 54 Peds5 9 14 TotalOutIn71 75 146 4 13 17 75 163 88 Out0 2 2 In0 0 0 Total0 2 2 5/29/2014 06:45 AM
5/29/2014 06:00 PM
Cars +Trucks
North
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C14 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 5 - Inwood Ave & 9th St, 5-29-14, 645-845am, 415-615pm
Site Code : 5
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 3
Inwood Ave & 9th St
Lake Elmo, MN
Inwood Ave
Southbound Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
9th St N
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:45 AM to 12:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 0 0 125 2 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 69 0 3 0 3 1 7 203
07:30 AM 0 0 137 0 0 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 68 0 0 69 0 2 0 2 0 4 210
07:45 AM 0 0 168 1 0 169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 78 0 0 79 1 0 0 4 1 6 254
08:00 AM 0 0 135 1 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 63 0 0 66 0 0 0 6 2 8 210
Total Volume 0 0 565 4 0 569 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 278 0 0 283 1 5 0 15 4 25 877
% App. Total 0 0 99.3 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 1.4 98.2 0 0 4 20 0 60 16
PHF .000 .000 .841 .500 .000 .842 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .500 .891 .000 .000 .896 .250 .417 .000 .625 .500 .781 .863
Peak Hour Analysis From 12:45 PM to 06:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 1 0 191 3 0 195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 219 0 0 225 0 0 0 1 0 1 421
04:45 PM 1 0 195 2 0 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 175 0 0 180 0 3 0 3 1 7 385
05:00 PM 1 0 170 3 0 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 210 0 0 218 0 2 0 4 0 6 398
05:15 PM 0 0 171 4 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 228 0 0 232 0 1 0 5 1 7 414
Total Volume 3 0 727 12 0 742 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 19 832 0 0 855 0 6 0 13 2 21 1618
% App. Total 0.4 0 98 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 2.2 97.3 0 0 0 28.6 0 61.9 9.5
PHF .750 .000 .932 .750 .000 .937 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .792 .912 .000 .000 .921 .000 .500 .000 .650 .500 .750 .961
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C15 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 6 - Inwood Ave & 10th St, 5-29-14, 6am-7pm
Site Code : 6
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 1
Inwood Ave & 10th St
Lake Elmo, MN
Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks
Inwood Ave
Southbound
10th St N
Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
10th St N
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
06:00 AM 0 2 22 9 0 33 0 0 14 5 0 19 0 6 17 3 0 26 0 1 8 5 0 14 92
06:15 AM 0 2 19 8 0 29 0 1 24 7 0 32 0 10 20 2 0 32 0 1 11 12 0 24 117
06:30 AM 0 7 41 9 0 57 0 3 45 13 0 61 0 5 16 0 0 21 0 3 8 15 0 26 165
06:45 AM 0 11 58 13 1 83 0 7 33 15 0 55 0 15 20 5 0 40 0 4 12 25 0 41 219
Total 0 22 140 39 1 202 0 11 116 40 0 167 0 36 73 10 0 119 0 9 39 57 0 105 593
07:00 AM 0 9 61 17 0 87 0 12 78 28 1 119 0 13 15 5 0 33 0 5 20 23 2 50 289
07:15 AM 0 12 64 20 0 96 0 21 74 29 0 124 0 22 38 9 0 69 0 3 31 44 0 78 367
07:30 AM 0 18 79 23 0 120 0 17 103 26 0 146 1 26 39 10 0 76 0 6 25 40 0 71 413
07:45 AM 0 11 83 21 0 115 0 27 124 32 0 183 3 29 47 8 0 87 0 9 42 57 1 109 494
Total 0 50 287 81 0 418 0 77 379 115 1 572 4 90 139 32 0 265 0 23 118 164 3 308 1563
08:00 AM 0 8 95 18 0 121 0 22 118 34 2 176 3 23 28 7 2 63 0 9 19 33 0 61 421
08:15 AM 0 8 39 8 0 55 0 19 109 26 0 154 1 24 20 2 0 47 0 11 27 29 0 67 323
08:30 AM 0 13 81 18 0 112 0 13 84 37 0 134 0 21 51 5 0 77 0 10 20 46 1 77 400
08:45 AM 0 22 73 9 0 104 0 14 54 14 0 82 0 27 33 3 2 65 0 2 35 52 1 90 341
Total 0 51 288 53 0 392 0 68 365 111 2 546 4 95 132 17 4 252 0 32 101 160 2 295 1485
09:00 AM 0 16 53 11 0 80 0 6 38 7 0 51 3 24 36 10 0 73 0 9 24 26 2 61 265
09:15 AM 0 11 34 10 0 55 0 8 25 15 0 48 0 18 31 5 0 54 0 2 27 40 2 71 228
09:30 AM 0 11 42 8 3 64 0 11 11 8 2 32 0 19 35 7 0 61 0 6 22 32 2 62 219
09:45 AM 0 7 48 5 0 60 0 11 27 13 0 51 0 27 38 6 1 72 0 5 26 28 2 61 244
Total 0 45 177 34 3 259 0 36 101 43 2 182 3 88 140 28 1 260 0 22 99 126 8 255 956
10:00 AM 0 15 30 4 5 54 0 4 36 4 0 44 0 32 30 5 0 67 1 2 25 21 0 49 214
10:15 AM 0 6 40 2 1 49 0 12 31 14 0 57 1 22 41 4 0 68 0 5 29 35 0 69 243
10:30 AM 0 9 40 13 0 62 0 9 41 8 0 58 0 23 37 7 0 67 0 4 20 52 0 76 263
10:45 AM 0 14 37 2 0 53 0 13 21 16 0 50 1 28 47 17 0 93 0 4 28 42 0 74 270
Total 0 44 147 21 6 218 0 38 129 42 0 209 2 105 155 33 0 295 1 15 102 150 0 268 990
11:00 AM 0 7 34 7 2 50 0 10 31 9 0 50 0 28 36 14 0 78 0 2 35 43 1 81 259
11:15 AM 1 15 44 4 0 64 1 8 27 8 0 44 1 36 52 11 6 106 0 4 40 33 2 79 293
11:30 AM 0 13 42 2 0 57 0 4 28 8 3 43 1 40 48 6 0 95 0 4 28 43 1 76 271
11:45 AM 0 16 45 7 0 68 0 10 21 8 0 39 1 28 39 11 0 79 0 12 26 36 0 74 260
Total 1 51 165 20 2 239 1 32 107 33 3 176 3 132 175 42 6 358 0 22 129 155 4 310 1083
12:00 PM 0 8 58 6 0 72 0 16 19 10 0 45 1 34 48 8 0 91 0 11 35 38 2 86 294
12:15 PM 0 5 28 10 0 43 0 14 16 15 0 45 0 43 57 27 0 127 0 4 31 48 0 83 298
12:30 PM 0 10 42 6 1 59 0 11 29 10 1 51 0 34 47 14 0 95 0 6 40 27 1 74 279
12:45 PM 0 9 38 6 0 53 0 16 39 15 0 70 3 60 47 16 0 126 0 11 31 35 0 77 326
Total 0 32 166 28 1 227 0 57 103 50 1 211 4 171 199 65 0 439 0 32 137 148 3 320 1197
01:00 PM 0 13 44 7 1 65 0 5 21 19 0 45 2 43 46 13 0 104 0 8 20 37 0 65 279
01:15 PM 0 6 45 7 0 58 0 8 21 10 0 39 1 31 47 8 0 87 0 5 39 30 0 74 258
01:30 PM 0 5 47 2 0 54 0 8 28 14 0 50 1 36 44 15 0 96 0 4 35 29 0 68 268
01:45 PM 0 17 47 11 0 75 0 15 37 10 0 62 1 29 55 8 0 93 0 5 26 33 0 64 294
Total 0 41 183 27 1 252 0 36 107 53 0 196 5 139 192 44 0 380 0 22 120 129 0 271 1099
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C16 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 6 - Inwood Ave & 10th St, 5-29-14, 6am-7pm
Site Code : 6
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 2
Inwood Ave & 10th St
Lake Elmo, MN
Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks
Inwood Ave
Southbound
10th St N
Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
10th St N
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
02:00 PM 0 12 35 5 0 52 0 10 39 15 0 64 2 38 42 8 0 90 0 6 37 29 0 72 278
02:15 PM 0 13 40 8 0 61 0 11 34 16 0 61 1 46 42 17 0 106 0 10 39 36 0 85 313
02:30 PM 0 14 37 10 0 61 0 17 24 13 0 54 0 40 55 13 0 108 1 12 29 50 0 92 315
02:45 PM 0 12 47 6 0 65 0 8 33 19 0 60 0 28 59 11 1 99 0 13 45 51 0 109 333
Total 0 51 159 29 0 239 0 46 130 63 0 239 3 152 198 49 1 403 1 41 150 166 0 358 1239
03:00 PM 0 23 42 5 0 70 0 8 24 17 0 49 1 43 69 11 0 124 0 20 58 38 0 116 359
03:15 PM 0 23 47 11 0 81 0 12 26 18 0 56 0 50 59 22 0 131 0 18 55 42 0 115 383
03:30 PM 1 32 73 10 0 116 0 8 42 12 0 62 0 48 74 15 0 137 0 9 62 58 1 130 445
03:45 PM 0 20 66 12 0 98 0 14 38 22 0 74 1 42 73 18 0 134 1 13 97 73 0 184 490
Total 1 98 228 38 0 365 0 42 130 69 0 241 2 183 275 66 0 526 1 60 272 211 1 545 1677
04:00 PM 0 26 66 13 1 106 0 13 31 22 0 66 2 60 78 16 1 157 0 17 85 61 0 163 492
04:15 PM 0 33 57 5 2 97 0 20 35 35 0 90 0 66 93 19 0 178 0 25 94 57 0 176 541
04:30 PM 0 53 81 8 1 143 0 12 33 14 0 59 2 70 110 27 2 211 0 38 121 98 2 259 672
04:45 PM 0 41 80 6 0 127 0 14 36 36 1 87 0 47 91 21 0 159 1 35 162 78 0 276 649
Total 0 153 284 32 4 473 0 59 135 107 1 302 4 243 372 83 3 705 1 115 462 294 2 874 2354
05:00 PM 0 39 83 9 0 131 0 11 30 22 0 63 1 64 125 44 0 234 0 35 132 70 0 237 665
05:15 PM 0 51 70 8 1 130 0 5 50 19 0 74 1 69 100 28 0 198 0 33 176 107 0 316 718
05:30 PM 0 50 92 9 0 151 0 15 40 35 0 90 1 50 118 22 0 191 0 28 183 76 3 290 722
05:45 PM 0 25 75 16 0 116 0 23 37 28 0 88 0 68 101 23 0 192 0 22 150 66 0 238 634
Total 0 165 320 42 1 528 0 54 157 104 0 315 3 251 444 117 0 815 0 118 641 319 3 1081 2739
06:00 PM 0 34 57 15 0 106 0 10 44 22 0 76 0 45 81 23 0 149 0 12 76 60 3 151 482
06:15 PM 0 28 57 8 1 94 0 10 37 25 0 72 0 33 61 17 0 111 0 19 66 45 0 130 407
06:30 PM 0 17 42 8 0 67 0 11 30 19 0 60 0 27 68 16 0 111 0 12 55 38 1 106 344
06:45 PM 0 13 52 4 0 69 0 8 28 16 0 52 0 31 47 12 0 90 0 14 53 36 4 107 318
Total 0 92 208 35 1 336 0 39 139 82 0 260 0 136 257 68 0 461 0 57 250 179 8 494 1551
Grand Total 2 895 2752 479 20 4148 1 595 2098 912 10 3616 37 1821 2751 654 15 5278 4 568 2620 2258 34 5484 18526
Apprch %0 21.6 66.3 11.5 0.5 0 16.5 58 25.2 0.3 0.7 34.5 52.1 12.4 0.3 0.1 10.4 47.8 41.2 0.6
Total %0 4.8 14.9 2.6 0.1 22.4 0 3.2 11.3 4.9 0.1 19.5 0.2 9.8 14.8 3.5 0.1 28.5 0 3.1 14.1 12.2 0.2 29.6
Cars +2 872 2714 473 1 4062 1 581 2043 887 5 3517 36 1788 2704 639 3 5170 4 557 2611 2224 15 5411 18160
% Cars +100 97.4 98.6 98.7 5 97.9 100 97.6 97.4 97.3 50 97.3 97.3 98.2 98.3 97.7 20 98 100 98.1 99.7 98.5 44.1 98.7 98
Trucks 0 23 38 6 19 86 0 14 55 25 5 99 1 33 47 15 12 108 0 11 9 34 19 73 366
% Trucks 0 2.6 1.4 1.3 95 2.1 0 2.4 2.6 2.7 50 2.7 2.7 1.8 1.7 2.3 80 2 0 1.9 0.3 1.5 55.9 1.3 2
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C17 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 6 - Inwood Ave & 10th St, 5-29-14, 6am-7pm
Site Code : 6
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 3
Inwood Ave & 10th St
Lake Elmo, MN
Inwood Ave 10th St N 10th St N Inwood Ave
Right
473
6 479
Thru
2714
38 2752
Left
872
23 895
UTrn
2
0 2
Peds
1
19 20
InOut Total4148 4062 8210
83 86 169 4231 8379 4148 Out2 0 2 In0 0 0 Total2 0 2 Right887 25 912 Thru2043 55 2098 Left581 14 595 UTrn1 0 1 Peds5 5 10 OutTotalIn4122 3517 7639 47 99 146 4169 7785 3616 Out1 0 1 In0 0 0 Total1 0 1 UTrn36
1 37
Left1788
33 1821
Thru2704
47 2751
Right639
15 654
Peds3
12 15
Out TotalIn
5519 5170 10689 86 108 194
5605 10883 5278 Out36 1 37 In0 0 0 Total36 1 37 UTrn4 0 4 Left557 11 568 Thru2611 9 2620 Right2224 34 2258 Peds15 19 34 TotalOutIn4304 5411 9715 94 73 167 4398 9882 5484 Out4 0 4 In0 0 0 Total4 0 4 5/29/2014 06:00 AM
5/29/2014 06:45 PM
Cars +Trucks
North
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C18 Lake Elmo Site
File Name : 6 - Inwood Ave & 10th St, 5-29-14, 6am-7pm
Site Code : 6
Start Date : 5/29/2014
Page No : 4
Inwood Ave & 10th St
Lake Elmo, MN
Inwood Ave
Southbound
10th St N
Westbound
Inwood Ave
Northbound
10th St N
Eastbound
Start Time UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total UTrn Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 0 12 64 20 0 96 0 21 74 29 0 124 0 22 38 9 0 69 0 3 31 44 0 78 367
07:30 AM 0 18 79 23 0 120 0 17 103 26 0 146 1 26 39 10 0 76 0 6 25 40 0 71 413
07:45 AM 0 11 83 21 0 115 0 27 124 32 0 183 3 29 47 8 0 87 0 9 42 57 1 109 494
08:00 AM 0 8 95 18 0 121 0 22 118 34 2 176 3 23 28 7 2 63 0 9 19 33 0 61 421
Total Volume 0 49 321 82 0 452 0 87 419 121 2 629 7 100 152 34 2 295 0 27 117 174 1 319 1695
% App. Total 0 10.8 71 18.1 0 0 13.8 66.6 19.2 0.3 2.4 33.9 51.5 11.5 0.7 0 8.5 36.7 54.5 0.3
PHF .000 .681 .845 .891 .000 .934 .000 .806 .845 .890 .250 .859 .583 .862 .809 .850 .250 .848 .000 .750 .696 .763 .250 .732 .858
Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00 PM
12:00 PM 0 8 58 6 0 72 0 16 19 10 0 45 1 34 48 8 0 91 0 11 35 38 2 86 294
12:15 PM 0 5 28 10 0 43 0 14 16 15 0 45 0 43 57 27 0 127 0 4 31 48 0 83 298
12:30 PM 0 10 42 6 1 59 0 11 29 10 1 51 0 34 47 14 0 95 0 6 40 27 1 74 279
12:45 PM 0 9 38 6 0 53 0 16 39 15 0 70 3 60 47 16 0 126 0 11 31 35 0 77 326
Total Volume 0 32 166 28 1 227 0 57 103 50 1 211 4 171 199 65 0 439 0 32 137 148 3 320 1197
% App. Total 0 14.1 73.1 12.3 0.4 0 27 48.8 23.7 0.5 0.9 39 45.3 14.8 0 0 10 42.8 46.2 0.9
PHF .000 .800 .716 .700 .250 .788 .000 .891 .660 .833 .250 .754 .333 .713 .873 .602 .000 .864 .000 .727 .856 .771 .375 .930 .918
Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 0 41 80 6 0 127 0 14 36 36 1 87 0 47 91 21 0 159 1 35 162 78 0 276 649
05:00 PM 0 39 83 9 0 131 0 11 30 22 0 63 1 64 125 44 0 234 0 35 132 70 0 237 665
05:15 PM 0 51 70 8 1 130 0 5 50 19 0 74 1 69 100 28 0 198 0 33 176 107 0 316 718
05:30 PM 0 50 92 9 0 151 0 15 40 35 0 90 1 50 118 22 0 191 0 28 183 76 3 290 722
Total Volume 0 181 325 32 1 539 0 45 156 112 1 314 3 230 434 115 0 782 1 131 653 331 3 1119 2754
% App. Total 0 33.6 60.3 5.9 0.2 0 14.3 49.7 35.7 0.3 0.4 29.4 55.5 14.7 0 0.1 11.7 58.4 29.6 0.3
PHF .000 .887 .883 .889 .250 .892 .000 .750 .780 .778 .250 .872 .750 .833 .868 .653 .000 .835 .250 .936 .892 .773 .250 .885 .954
Traffic Data Inc
PO Box 16296
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Appendix C - Traffic Counts
Traffic Impact Study C19 Lake Elmo Site
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/2/2014Report File: C:\...\AM Existing.pdf
Scenario 1: AM ExistingVistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
B18.50.348WBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & CSAH 107
C16.30.021EBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 9th St6
D29.60.000EBTHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd4
C29.80.292EBLHCM2010SignalizedInwood Ave & Hudson Blvd3
C21.40.383SBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Northern
Ramp2
B15.80.364SBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Southern
Ramp1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D1 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.364Volume to Capacity (v/c):
BLevel Of Service:
15.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#1: CSAH 13 & I-94 Southern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00500.00100.00500.00150.00100.00175.00400.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000201102100No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
0002232231129666134112740Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
0005657871673103180Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
0002052028627613123811720Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0002050028003800Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0004102028655613127611720Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D2 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.06.06.00.00.06.06.00.06.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.0100.0100.00.00.0400.020.00.0400.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nononononoPedestrian Recall
nonoyesnoyesMaximum Recall
nononononoMinimum Recall
0.00.00.05.05.00.00.04.03.00.03.50.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.00.00.02.03.00.00.04.62.00.04.60.0Vehicle Extension [s]
00017320061150630Split [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.01.52.00.01.00.0All red [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.04.53.00.04.50.0Amber [s]
00013250058100570Maximum Green [s]
0001010002070200Minimum Green [s]
--------Lag---Lead / Lag
000540061020Signal Group
PermissProtectePermissOverlapPermissPermissPermissPermissProtectePermissPermissPermissControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
81.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D3 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
106.82197.19197.1911.78159.157.9211.32145.3995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
4.277.897.890.476.370.320.455.8295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
59.34110.85110.856.5588.424.406.2980.7750th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
2.374.434.430.263.540.180.253.2350th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
yesnoyesnoyesnononoCritical Lane Group
CDDABDAALane Group LOS
31.9752.6952.698.5710.6953.255.086.83d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.300.760.760.030.310.170.040.36X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.225.615.610.060.380.410.060.29d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.500.500.040.500.50k, delay calibration
31.7547.0847.088.5110.3152.845.016.54d1, Uniform Delay [s]
75320520595721447511013528c, Capacity [veh/h]
27751757175715683512341215685025s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.080.090.090.020.190.000.030.25(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.270.120.120.610.610.020.700.70g / C, Green / Cycle
301313676727777g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
0.005.005.004.004.003.003.503.50l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
7.007.007.006.006.005.005.505.50L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D4 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
52.69 31.9752.69 0.00 0.000.008.570.00 6.83d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]10.695.08 53.25
D CDAAMovement LOS BAD
44.04 0.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]11.386.77
D AApproach LOS A B
15.83d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BIntersection LOS
0.364Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------65Ring 2
-------------421Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D5 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.383Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
21.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#2: CSAH 13 & I-94 Northern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00400.00100.00100.00175.00275.00100.00250.00100.00100.00325.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101002No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
30581741323945029938669187Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
814433621126259617322Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
28531601221844629135563680Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
2900130050035500Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
57531602521894629171063680Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D6 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0120.0120.00.0120.039.00.0300.039.00.0300.039.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.05.03.00.04.53.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.02.00.03.02.00.04.62.00.04.62.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02522018150552005015Split [s]
0.03.02.00.03.52.00.02.02.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.03.53.00.03.53.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
03018011100491504410Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
89.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D7 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
35.8970.34107.5716.0028.3110.851.68119.43123.87215.63179.9551.2895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.442.814.300.641.130.430.074.784.958.637.202.0595th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
19.9439.0859.768.8915.736.030.9466.3568.82124.2499.9728.4950th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.801.562.390.360.630.240.042.652.754.974.001.1450th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesnoyesnononoyesyesnonoCritical Lane Group
DDDDDDABDBBDLane Group LOS
47.6848.8551.5349.5750.0250.069.0710.8154.5713.8112.0850.51d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.220.360.720.140.200.100.000.240.790.420.330.43X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.821.401.490.640.880.180.010.274.231.400.440.53d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.040.110.110.040.500.500.040.500.500.04k, delay calibration
46.8647.4650.0448.9349.1449.889.0610.5450.3412.4111.6449.97d1, Uniform Delay [s]
135159243961138993320891259222064203c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.020.030.050.010.010.010.000.140.060.250.200.03(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.090.090.070.060.060.050.600.600.070.590.590.06g / C, Green / Cycle
9987766666865657g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.005.005.003.004.504.503.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.007.007.005.006.506.505.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D8 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
50.02 49.5750.06 51.53 47.6848.859.0750.51 12.08d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]10.8113.81 54.57
D DD DDDABMovement LOS D BBD
49.90 50.50d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]17.9615.53
D DApproach LOS B B
21.40d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CIntersection LOS
0.383Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D9 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.292Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
29.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#3: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesnoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00100.00100.00175.00100.00100.00100.00250.00100.00175.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101102No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
30110Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
26182149802415284053675341191Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
74537206471019198548Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
24167137742214263733369314176Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
2400750026007000Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
4816713714922145237333139314176Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D10 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0250.050.00.0250.050.00.0475.055.00.0300.055.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.04.53.00.04.03.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
03117031170411704521Split [s]
0.02.52.00.02.52.00.01.52.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.04.03.00.04.03.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
02512024120351203916Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lead--Lead--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
94.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D11 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
29.01221.7795.31101.4828.2021.0313.06101.8946.8832.4475.28119.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.168.873.814.061.130.840.524.081.881.303.014.7695th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
16.12128.7352.9556.3815.6711.687.2656.6126.0518.0241.8266.1150th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.645.152.122.260.630.470.292.261.040.721.672.6450th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
noyesnononoyesnoyesnononoyesCritical Lane Group
DDDDDEBBEAADLane Group LOS
42.8451.7654.1852.1146.8158.0210.5011.8256.149.359.8553.89d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.130.770.680.580.150.360.030.200.480.080.160.74X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.295.333.773.870.425.150.070.234.680.160.164.12d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
42.5546.4350.4148.2546.3952.8710.4411.5951.469.189.6849.77d1, Uniform Delay [s]
200236218137162428911996759432112258c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.020.100.040.050.010.010.020.120.020.050.100.06(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.130.130.060.090.090.020.570.570.040.600.600.08g / C, Green / Cycle
14147101036363566668g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.004.504.503.004.004.003.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.006.506.505.006.006.005.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D12 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
46.81 52.1158.02 54.18 42.8451.7610.5053.89 9.85d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]11.829.35 56.14
D DE DDDBAMovement LOS D BAE
51.79 52.12d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]15.1423.64
D DApproach LOS C B
29.78d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CIntersection LOS
0.292Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D13 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.000Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
29.6Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#4: CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0055.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.0050.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00200.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0300Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
4031009355151009130066Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
101202912925237517Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
40390832474928427661Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
40390832474928427661Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D14 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
DIntersection LOS
1.65d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BCAAApproach LOS
14.9618.041.291.28d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
0.350.351.101.041.044.090.000.007.080.000.005.2795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.010.010.040.040.040.160.000.000.280.000.000.2195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
ADCADDAAAAAAMovement LOS
9.1727.7422.689.9829.6227.000.000.008.410.000.008.84d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.000.000.010.010.000.050.000.010.090.000.000.07V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D15 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.021Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
16.3Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#6: CSAH 13 & 9th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.00300.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
400Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
16746143025Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
421154761Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
15645652785Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
15645652785Base Volume Input [veh/h]
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D16 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
CIntersection LOS
0.35d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BAAApproach LOS
12.360.000.14d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
3.523.520.000.000.000.4095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.140.140.000.000.000.0295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
BCAAAAMovement LOS
10.6316.320.000.000.008.83d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.020.020.000.010.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D17 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.348Volume to Capacity (v/c):
BLevel Of Service:
18.5Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#7: CSAH 13 & CSAH 10
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesyesCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
55.0055.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00275.00100.00275.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00250.00Pocket Length [ft]
101101101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
2102Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
65455959512729453495318165116Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
16114242432711871354129Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
60419878711727413214917152107Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
6100870041001700Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
1214198717411727823214934152107Base Volume Input [veh/h]
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D18 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononononononoMaximum Recall
yesnoyesnononononoMinimum Recall
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
04225027100342403424Split [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Amber [s]
04030040300303003030Maximum Green [s]
0105010501050105Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D19 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
20.4878.2047.4931.5419.7112.5513.9957.4620.895.6926.3757.2295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.823.131.901.260.790.500.562.300.840.231.052.2995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
11.3843.4526.3817.5210.956.977.7731.9211.603.1614.6531.7950th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.461.741.060.700.440.280.311.280.460.130.591.2750th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
noyesnononoyesnoyesnononoyesCritical Lane Group
BBCBBCBBCBBCLane Group LOS
15.6517.7427.7616.6515.8322.1215.4116.8920.3315.6816.3727.54d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.200.610.700.300.180.250.140.470.280.060.240.74X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.280.826.410.530.121.100.190.470.820.080.186.51d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.11k, delay calibration
15.3716.9221.3516.1115.7121.0215.2216.4219.5115.6016.1821.03d1, Uniform Delay [s]
332744136315706117330739187303680158c, Capacity [veh/h]
156835121757156835121757156835121757156835121757s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.040.130.050.060.040.020.030.100.030.010.050.07(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.210.210.080.200.200.070.210.210.110.190.190.09g / C, Green / Cycle
1010499310105994g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
5.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D20 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.348Intersection V/C
BIntersection LOS
18.49d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BBBCApproach LOS
19.0716.8617.1520.66d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
BBCBBCBBCBBCMovement LOS
15.6517.7427.7616.6515.8322.1215.4116.8920.3315.6816.3727.54d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D21 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D22 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Base Volume
Scenario 1: 1: AM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D23 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/2/2014Report File: C:\...\PM Existing.pdf
Scenario 2: PM ExistingVistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
C23.40.521WBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & CSAH 107
D30.30.047EBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 9th St6
F253.71.195WBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd4
C34.90.497SBLHCM2010SignalizedInwood Ave & Hudson Blvd3
D35.70.592EBRHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Northern
Ramp2
C23.10.659EBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Southern
Ramp1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D24 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.659Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
23.1Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#1: CSAH 13 & I-94 Southern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00500.00100.00500.00150.00100.00175.00400.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000201102100No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0100Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
00049812925313813269825314860Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
00012432633533224633710Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
00045811923312712209023313670Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000458001270023300Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
00091611923325412209046613670Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D25 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.06.06.00.00.06.06.00.06.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.0100.0100.00.00.0400.020.00.0400.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nononononoPedestrian Recall
nonoyesnoyesMaximum Recall
nononononoMinimum Recall
0.00.00.05.05.00.00.04.03.00.03.50.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.00.00.02.03.00.00.04.62.00.04.60.0Vehicle Extension [s]
00037310072150940Split [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.01.52.00.01.00.0All red [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.04.53.00.04.50.0Amber [s]
00013250058100570Maximum Green [s]
0001010002070200Minimum Green [s]
--------Lag---Lead / Lag
000540061020Signal Group
PermissProtectePermissOverlapPermissPermissPermissPermissProtectePermissPermissPermissControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
81.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D26 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
306.39210.14350.7778.25443.3277.04133.70273.2495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
12.268.4114.033.1317.733.085.3510.9395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
192.59120.22227.1743.47301.0442.8074.28167.2150th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
7.704.819.091.7412.041.712.976.6950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
yesnoyesnoyesnononoCritical Lane Group
DEEBBEABLane Group LOS
44.9955.2769.1910.9916.8966.219.7211.35d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.640.500.860.140.600.580.240.44X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.881.3611.780.301.231.180.550.42d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.180.500.500.040.500.50k, delay calibration
44.1153.9257.4010.6915.6665.039.1810.93d1, Uniform Delay [s]
778288276982220116910483358c, Capacity [veh/h]
27751835175715683512341215685025s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.180.080.130.090.380.030.160.30(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.280.160.160.630.630.050.670.67g / C, Green / Cycle
392222888879494g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
0.005.005.004.004.003.003.503.50l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
7.007.007.006.006.005.005.505.50L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D27 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
55.27 44.9966.88 0.00 0.000.0010.990.00 11.35d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]16.899.72 66.21
E DEBBMovement LOS BAE
53.20 0.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]19.4711.12
D AApproach LOS B B
23.09d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CIntersection LOS
0.659Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------65Ring 2
-------------421Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D28 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.592Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
35.7Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#2: CSAH 13 & I-94 Northern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00400.00100.00100.00175.00275.00100.00250.00100.00100.00325.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101002No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0300Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
335525114079422110972093131014240Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
814633520115274527825460Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
30512311297339191009192288933221Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
310012900190028900Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
61512312587339381009192577933221Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D29 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0120.0120.00.0120.039.00.0300.039.00.0300.039.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.05.03.00.04.53.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.02.00.03.02.00.04.62.00.04.62.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02718024150743506324Split [s]
0.03.02.00.03.52.00.02.02.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.03.53.00.03.53.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
03018011100491504410Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
89.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D30 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
52.5588.45199.39231.38121.8360.4613.78421.32300.18263.24422.78189.9895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
2.103.547.989.264.872.420.5516.8512.0110.5316.917.6095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
29.1949.14112.44135.8267.6833.597.66283.30187.80159.63284.48105.6850th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.171.974.505.432.711.340.3111.337.516.3911.384.2350th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesyesnonononoyesnoyesnoCritical Lane Group
EEEEEDBCECCELane Group LOS
63.2564.5064.7973.1059.9254.7014.2021.4965.3422.4724.9665.41d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.300.420.820.850.410.190.020.560.900.390.570.83X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
1.502.192.1711.581.380.150.051.195.541.441.312.39d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.040.110.110.040.500.500.040.500.500.04k, delay calibration
61.7562.3162.6161.5358.5454.5514.1520.2959.8021.0223.6563.03d1, Uniform Delay [s]
11013030416419322486819432327991789289c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.020.030.070.090.040.020.010.310.120.200.290.07(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.070.070.090.110.110.130.550.550.130.510.510.08g / C, Green / Cycle
101012151518777719717112g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.005.005.003.004.504.503.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.007.007.005.006.506.505.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D31 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
59.92 73.1054.70 64.79 63.2564.5014.2065.41 24.96d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]21.4922.47 65.34
E ED EEEBCMovement LOS E CCE
66.15 64.59d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]28.2830.66
E EApproach LOS C C
35.70d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
DIntersection LOS
0.592Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D32 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.497Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
34.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#3: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesnoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00100.00100.00175.00100.00100.00100.00250.00100.00175.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101102No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0440Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
163617020913964208103252702225Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
4942523516520281317656Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
153315619212859187452948646207Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
15001920019004800Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
303315638412859377452996646207Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D33 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0250.050.00.0250.050.00.0475.055.00.0300.055.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.04.53.00.04.03.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
04921048200551505616Split [s]
0.02.52.00.02.52.00.01.52.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.04.03.00.04.03.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
02512024120351203916Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
94.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D34 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
25.3757.67141.39314.14204.1190.9813.49305.0254.6731.69237.97186.3695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.012.315.6612.578.163.640.5412.202.191.279.527.4595th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
14.0932.0478.55198.59115.8550.547.49191.5330.3717.60140.70103.5350th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.561.283.147.944.632.020.307.661.210.705.634.1450th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesyesnononoyesnononoyesCritical Lane Group
EEEEEDBBEBBELane Group LOS
62.9064.2569.0368.5555.9252.2514.8419.6872.5212.5215.4470.46d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.160.310.750.880.500.230.020.420.510.060.340.84X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.781.534.8910.371.380.440.050.696.270.120.456.89d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
62.1262.7164.1458.1854.5351.8114.7918.9866.2412.4014.9963.57d1, Uniform Delay [s]
981152272372782738511907639192058268c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.010.020.050.130.080.040.010.230.020.030.200.07(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.060.060.070.150.150.160.540.540.040.590.590.08g / C, Green / Cycle
99921212276765828211g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.004.504.503.004.004.003.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.006.506.505.006.006.005.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D35 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
55.92 68.5552.25 69.03 62.9064.2514.8470.46 15.44d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]19.6812.52 72.52
E ED EEEBBMovement LOS E BBE
61.76 67.81d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]21.5327.93
E EApproach LOS C C
34.91d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CIntersection LOS
0.497Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D36 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.195Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
253.7Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#4: CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0055.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.0050.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00200.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0300Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
850977404175686163798103Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
2102418010191714119926Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
78089680386963115373495Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
78089680386963115373495Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D37 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
15.64d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
FEAAApproach LOS
140.8435.940.201.13d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
12.3412.34177.519.669.6650.390.000.001.510.000.0010.4995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.490.497.100.390.392.020.000.000.060.000.000.4295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
BFFBFFAAAAAAMovement LOS
12.0259.75253.7211.3054.1980.420.000.009.530.000.009.91d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.140.001.190.110.000.480.000.010.020.000.010.12V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D38 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.047Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
30.3Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#6: CSAH 13 & 9th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.00300.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
200Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
1471379090425Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
4231982266Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
1361272783223Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
1361272783223Base Volume Input [veh/h]
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D39 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
DIntersection LOS
0.35d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CAAApproach LOS
18.050.000.26d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
5.675.670.000.000.002.3995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.230.230.000.000.000.1095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
BDAAAAMovement LOS
11.9430.260.000.000.009.60d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.020.050.000.010.010.03V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D40 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.521Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
23.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#7: CSAH 13 & CSAH 10
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesyesCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
55.0055.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00275.00100.00275.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00250.00Pocket Length [ft]
101101101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
1310Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
61170491797101431735319762472253Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1542124517736488491511863Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
56156451656531321632518157434233Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
56001660016005800Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
1121564533165313232325181115434233Base Volume Input [veh/h]
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D41 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononononononoMaximum Recall
yesnoyesnononononoMinimum Recall
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02712056410313303941Split [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Amber [s]
04030040300303003030Maximum Green [s]
0105010501050105Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D42 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
28.6139.1832.6976.38168.1276.107.6386.87104.1328.29120.57142.3495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.141.571.313.066.723.040.313.474.171.134.825.6995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
15.9021.7718.1642.4393.4042.284.2448.2657.8515.7166.9879.0850th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.640.870.731.703.741.690.171.932.310.632.683.1650th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesnoyesnononoyesnoyesnoCritical Lane Group
CCCBCCCCCCCCLane Group LOS
21.6021.6333.8018.7921.4925.6020.4823.3425.3820.8024.3727.73d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.230.290.590.440.770.580.060.590.670.220.740.80X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.450.276.460.741.442.100.100.932.570.381.714.71d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.11k, delay calibration
21.1521.3627.3518.0620.0523.5020.3822.4122.8120.4222.6623.02d1, Uniform Delay [s]
26258683409917249267598296285638316c, Capacity [veh/h]
156835121757156835121757156835121757156835121757s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.040.050.030.110.200.080.010.100.110.040.130.14(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.170.170.050.260.260.140.170.170.170.180.180.18g / C, Green / Cycle
1010315158101010111110g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
5.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D43 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.521Intersection V/C
CIntersection LOS
23.38d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CCCCApproach LOS
23.7621.5923.9725.17d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
CCCBCCCCCCCCMovement LOS
21.6021.6333.8018.7921.4925.6020.4823.3425.3820.8024.3727.73d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D44 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D45 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Base Volume
Scenario 2: 2: PM Existing
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D46 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/2/2014Report File: C:\...\AM 2019 No-Build.pdf
Scenario 3: AM 2019 No-BuildVistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
B19.10.380WBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & CSAH 107
C17.60.027EBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 9th St6
D34.50.000EBTHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd4
C30.20.318EBLHCM2010SignalizedInwood Ave & Hudson Blvd3
C22.10.418SBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Northern
Ramp2
B16.30.396SBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Southern
Ramp1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D47 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.396Volume to Capacity (v/c):
BLevel Of Service:
16.3Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#1: CSAH 13 & I-94 Southern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00500.00100.00500.00150.00100.00175.00400.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000201102100No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
0002422433933726144513880Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
0006168581824113470Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
0002232231230668134112770Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0002240030004200Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0004102028655613127611720Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D48 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.06.06.00.00.06.06.00.06.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.0100.0100.00.00.0400.020.00.0400.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nononononoPedestrian Recall
nonoyesnoyesMaximum Recall
nononononoMinimum Recall
0.00.00.05.05.00.00.04.03.00.03.50.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.00.00.02.03.00.00.04.62.00.04.60.0Vehicle Extension [s]
00017310062120670Split [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.01.52.00.01.00.0All red [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.04.53.00.04.50.0Amber [s]
00013250058100570Maximum Green [s]
0001010002070200Minimum Green [s]
--------Lag---Lead / Lag
000540061020Signal Group
PermissProtectePermissOverlapPermissPermissPermissPermissProtectePermissPermissPermissControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
81.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D49 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
115.26210.58210.5813.84182.668.5113.07171.9495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
4.618.428.420.557.310.340.526.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
64.04120.55120.557.69101.484.737.2695.5250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
2.564.824.820.314.060.190.293.8250th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
yesnoyesnoyesnononoCritical Lane Group
CDDABDAALane Group LOS
31.5052.2752.278.9711.4253.115.427.52d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.310.770.770.030.340.180.040.40X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.235.665.660.070.440.390.070.34d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.500.500.040.500.50k, delay calibration
31.2746.6246.628.9010.9852.725.357.18d1, Uniform Delay [s]
77622022094421157910863481c, Capacity [veh/h]
27751757175715683512341215685025s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.090.100.100.020.210.000.030.28(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.280.120.120.600.600.020.690.69g / C, Green / Cycle
311414666627676g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
0.005.005.004.004.003.003.503.50l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
7.007.007.006.006.005.005.505.50L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D50 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
52.27 31.5052.27 0.00 0.000.008.970.00 7.52d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]11.425.42 53.11
D CDAAMovement LOS BAD
43.62 0.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]12.077.46
D AApproach LOS A B
16.28d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BIntersection LOS
0.396Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------65Ring 2
-------------421Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D51 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.418Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
22.1Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#2: CSAH 13 & I-94 Northern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00400.00100.00100.00175.00275.00100.00250.00100.00100.00325.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101002No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
3463189142510554810842175395Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
8164746211372710518824Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
31581741323955049938769387Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
3100140050038700Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
57531602521894629171063680Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D52 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0120.0120.00.0120.039.00.0300.039.00.0300.039.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.05.03.00.04.53.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.02.00.03.02.00.04.62.00.04.62.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02116017120621706015Split [s]
0.03.02.00.03.52.00.02.02.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.03.53.00.03.53.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
03018011100491504410Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
89.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D53 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
40.7376.54116.8917.1630.6711.972.16135.91134.75244.76204.3856.0995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.633.064.680.691.230.480.095.445.399.798.182.2495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
22.6342.5264.949.5317.046.651.2075.5074.86145.76116.0531.1650th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.911.702.600.380.680.270.053.022.995.834.641.2550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesnoyesnononoyesyesnonoCritical Lane Group
DDDDDDABDBBDLane Group LOS
47.7648.9651.4249.3349.8149.549.4111.4254.1715.2813.1450.59d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.250.390.740.140.210.100.010.270.800.470.370.46X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.931.531.570.630.890.170.010.324.161.730.530.60d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.040.110.110.040.500.500.040.500.500.04k, delay calibration
46.8347.4449.8548.6948.9249.379.4011.1050.0113.5512.6249.99d1, Uniform Delay [s]
1371622561001189892120631359032022206c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.020.030.060.010.010.010.000.160.060.270.210.03(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.090.090.070.060.060.060.590.590.080.580.580.06g / C, Green / Cycle
101087766565863637g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.005.005.003.004.504.503.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.007.007.005.006.506.505.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D54 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
49.81 49.3349.54 51.42 47.7648.969.4150.59 13.14d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]11.4215.28 54.17
D DD DDDABMovement LOS D BBD
49.62 50.44d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]18.3916.65
D DApproach LOS B B
22.14d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CIntersection LOS
0.418Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D55 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.318Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
30.2Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#3: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesnoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00100.00100.00175.00100.00100.00100.00250.00100.00175.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101102No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
30110Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
28198162882616304423983372209Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
749402274811110219352Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
26182149812415284073676342192Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
2600810029007600Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
4816713714922145237333139314176Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D56 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0250.050.00.0250.050.00.0475.055.00.0300.055.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.04.53.00.04.03.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
03622026120401404822Split [s]
0.02.52.00.02.52.00.01.52.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.04.03.00.04.03.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
02512024120351203916Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lead--Lead--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
94.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D57 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
31.10239.78103.38112.7830.5422.2514.51116.5850.6737.0485.13129.8295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.249.594.144.511.220.890.584.662.031.483.415.1995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
17.28142.0557.4362.6516.9712.368.0664.7728.1520.5847.3072.1250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.695.682.302.510.680.490.322.591.130.821.892.8850th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
noyesnononoyesnoyesnononoyesCritical Lane Group
DDDDDEBBEABDLane Group LOS
42.4952.8853.8952.9546.7357.5911.1012.6456.079.7910.3653.49d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.140.810.700.630.160.360.030.230.500.090.180.75X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.296.463.744.600.444.850.070.274.750.190.194.06d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
42.1946.4250.1448.3546.2952.7411.0212.3751.329.6010.1749.42d1, Uniform Delay [s]
207243232140164448731955799302084278c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.020.110.050.060.010.010.020.130.020.050.110.06(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.130.130.070.090.090.020.560.560.040.590.590.08g / C, Green / Cycle
14147101036161565659g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.004.504.503.004.004.003.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.006.506.505.006.006.005.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D58 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
46.73 52.9557.59 53.89 42.4952.8811.1053.49 10.36d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]12.649.79 56.07
D DE DDDBBMovement LOS D BAE
52.28 52.55d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]15.8623.86
D DApproach LOS C B
30.20d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CIntersection LOS
0.318Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D59 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.000Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
34.5Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#4: CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0055.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.0050.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00200.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0300Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
403110103856210910032772Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1013021014027258218Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
4031009355171009230166Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
40390832474928427661Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D60 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
DIntersection LOS
1.72d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CCAAApproach LOS
16.2920.331.321.31d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
0.350.351.291.181.185.450.000.008.050.000.006.0695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.010.010.050.050.050.220.000.000.320.000.000.2495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
ADDBDDAAAAAAMovement LOS
9.2631.9625.6610.1734.4531.510.000.008.550.000.009.05d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.000.000.020.020.000.070.000.010.100.000.000.07V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D61 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.027Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
17.6Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#6: CSAH 13 & 9th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.00300.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
400Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
17846703295Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
421167821Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
16746163035Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
15645652785Base Volume Input [veh/h]
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D62 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
CIntersection LOS
0.36d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BAAApproach LOS
13.090.000.14d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
4.204.200.000.000.000.4295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.170.170.000.000.000.0295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
BCAAAAMovement LOS
10.9617.610.000.000.009.02d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.030.030.000.010.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D63 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.380Volume to Capacity (v/c):
BLevel Of Service:
19.1Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#7: CSAH 13 & CSAH 10
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesyesCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
55.0055.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00275.00100.00275.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00250.00Pocket Length [ft]
101101101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
2102Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
7249710310313932483805820180127Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
18124262635812951454532Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
66457959512829443505318166117Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
6600950045001900Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
1214198717411727823214934152107Base Volume Input [veh/h]
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D64 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononononononoMaximum Recall
yesnoyesnononononoMinimum Recall
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
04225027100342403424Split [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Amber [s]
04030040300303003030Maximum Green [s]
0105010501050105Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D65 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
23.6390.4753.4035.4422.3113.9715.4865.6523.286.4929.6762.3195th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.953.622.141.420.890.560.622.630.930.261.192.4995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
13.1350.2629.6619.6912.397.768.6036.4712.933.6116.4834.6250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.532.011.190.790.500.310.341.460.520.140.661.3850th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
noyesnononoyesnoyesnononoyesCritical Lane Group
BBCBBCBBCBBCLane Group LOS
16.1818.7228.8817.1316.2222.2615.8717.6120.5615.9716.7327.05d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.220.680.730.330.200.250.150.520.300.070.260.73X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.331.117.170.600.141.050.210.580.840.090.205.90d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.11k, delay calibration
15.8517.6121.7116.5316.0821.2115.6617.0219.7215.8816.5221.15d1, Uniform Delay [s]
327733141314703126325727196305683173c, Capacity [veh/h]
156835121757156835121757156835121757156835121757s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.050.140.060.070.040.020.030.110.030.010.050.07(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.210.210.080.200.200.070.210.210.110.190.190.10g / C, Green / Cycle
101041010310105995g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
5.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D66 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.380Intersection V/C
BIntersection LOS
19.09d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CBBCApproach LOS
20.0017.2717.7920.69d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
BBCBBCBBCBBCMovement LOS
16.1818.7228.8817.1316.2222.2615.8717.6120.5615.9716.7327.05d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D67 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D68 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 3: 3: AM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D69 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/2/2014Report File: C:\...\PM 2019 No-Build.pdf
Scenario 4: PM 2019 No-BuildVistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
C24.90.564WBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & CSAH 107
E35.60.065EBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 9th St6
F466.51.664WBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd4
D36.20.542SBLHCM2010SignalizedInwood Ave & Hudson Blvd3
D38.80.644SBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Northern
Ramp2
C24.30.704EBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Southern
Ramp1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D70 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.704Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
24.3Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#1: CSAH 13 & I-94 Southern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00500.00100.00500.00150.00100.00175.00400.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000201102100No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0100Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
000542141276150144610727616200Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
00013635693836127694050Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
00049913025413813309825414900Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000499001390025400Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
00091611923325412209046613670Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D71 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.06.06.00.00.06.06.00.06.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.0100.0100.00.00.0400.020.00.0400.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nononononoPedestrian Recall
nonoyesnoyesMaximum Recall
nononononoMinimum Recall
0.00.00.05.05.00.00.04.03.00.03.50.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.00.00.02.03.00.00.04.62.00.04.60.0Vehicle Extension [s]
00017320091140940Split [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.01.52.00.01.00.0All red [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.04.53.00.04.50.0Amber [s]
00013250058100570Maximum Green [s]
0001010002070200Minimum Green [s]
--------Lag---Lead / Lag
000540061020Signal Group
PermissProtectePermissOverlapPermissPermissPermissPermissProtectePermissPermissPermissControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
81.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D72 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
330.61228.97378.4788.09513.1384.47154.40312.4095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
13.229.1615.143.5220.533.386.1812.5095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
211.39134.04249.0648.94357.9846.9385.78197.2450th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
8.465.369.961.9614.321.883.437.8950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
yesnoyesnoyesnononoCritical Lane Group
DDEBBEBBLane Group LOS
45.0354.7171.1011.5718.9066.6010.5212.55d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.680.530.870.150.670.630.270.49X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
1.011.4314.290.341.631.430.630.52d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.210.500.500.040.500.50k, delay calibration
44.0153.2856.8211.2317.2765.169.8912.03d1, Uniform Delay [s]
800305292970217317010333309c, Capacity [veh/h]
27751833175715683512341215685025s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.200.090.150.100.410.030.180.32(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.290.170.170.620.620.050.660.66g / C, Green / Cycle
402323878779292g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
0.005.005.004.004.003.003.503.50l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
7.007.007.006.006.005.005.505.50L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D73 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
54.71 45.0368.31 0.00 0.000.0011.570.00 12.55d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]18.9010.52 66.60
D DEBBMovement LOS BBE
53.60 0.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]21.2512.25
D AApproach LOS B C
24.31d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CIntersection LOS
0.704Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------65Ring 2
-------------421Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D74 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.644Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
38.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#2: CSAH 13 & I-94 Northern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00400.00100.00100.00175.00275.00100.00250.00100.00100.00325.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101002No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0300Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
366127415287472211962273411105262Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
915683822125299578527665Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
335625214080432011002093141017241Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
330014100210031500Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
61512312587339381009192577933221Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D75 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0120.0120.00.0120.039.00.0300.039.00.0300.039.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.05.03.00.04.53.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.02.00.03.02.00.04.62.00.04.62.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02520025200753006520Split [s]
0.03.02.00.03.52.00.02.02.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.03.53.00.03.53.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
03018011100491504410Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
89.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D76 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
57.4498.59213.58247.44133.4966.7415.21491.92347.95301.50493.71203.6595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
2.303.948.549.905.342.670.6119.6813.9212.0619.758.1595th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
31.9154.77122.73147.7774.1637.088.45340.59224.96188.83342.05115.5250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.282.194.915.912.971.480.3413.629.007.5513.684.6250th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesyesnonononoyesnoyesnoCritical Lane Group
EEEEEDBCECCELane Group LOS
63.4464.9964.4373.1359.2753.2715.4424.6776.9925.4828.8365.26d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.320.470.840.870.420.190.030.640.910.450.650.85X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
1.662.572.2512.041.370.140.061.6717.851.901.912.57d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.040.110.110.040.500.500.170.500.500.04k, delay calibration
61.7862.4262.1961.0957.9053.1315.3923.0059.1523.5826.9262.69d1, Uniform Delay [s]
11113132617520624683818762497631708308c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.020.030.080.100.050.030.010.340.130.220.310.08(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.070.070.100.110.110.140.530.530.140.490.490.09g / C, Green / Cycle
101013161620757520686813g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.005.005.003.004.504.503.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.007.007.005.006.506.505.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D77 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
59.27 73.1353.27 64.43 63.4464.9915.4465.26 28.83d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]24.6725.48 76.99
E ED EEEBCMovement LOS E CCE
65.65 64.43d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]32.7533.75
E EApproach LOS C C
38.75d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
DIntersection LOS
0.644Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D78 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.542Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
36.2Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#3: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesnoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00100.00100.00175.00100.00100.00100.00250.00100.00175.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101102No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0440Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
173918522715270228833557765246Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
41046573817522191419161Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
163617020914064208123252704226Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
17002100020005300Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
303315638412859377452996646207Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D79 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0250.050.00.0250.050.00.0475.055.00.0300.055.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.04.53.00.04.03.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02217039340631207221Split [s]
0.02.52.00.02.52.00.01.52.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.04.03.00.04.03.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
02512024120351203916Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
94.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D80 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
26.9262.50154.10339.61217.7298.0415.78352.3859.8236.57270.07198.6595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.082.506.1613.588.713.920.6314.102.391.4610.807.9595th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
14.9534.7285.61218.42125.7654.478.77228.4533.2320.32164.80111.9150th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.601.393.428.745.032.180.359.141.330.816.594.4850th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesyesnononoyesnononoyesCritical Lane Group
EEEEDDBCEBBELane Group LOS
62.7864.2769.0869.6154.9150.7916.3922.4372.7413.5717.1168.78d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.170.330.770.900.510.240.030.480.530.060.380.83X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.801.635.1712.141.350.410.060.926.600.140.565.93d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.130.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
61.9862.6463.9157.4753.5750.3816.3321.5166.1413.4316.5562.85d1, Uniform Delay [s]
1001182402542982968161827668932001296c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.010.020.050.140.080.040.010.250.020.040.220.07(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.060.060.070.160.160.170.520.520.040.570.570.09g / C, Green / Cycle
991023232473735808012g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.004.504.503.004.004.003.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.006.506.505.006.006.005.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D81 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
54.91 69.6150.79 69.08 62.7864.2716.3968.78 17.11d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]22.4313.57 72.74
D ED EEEBBMovement LOS E CBE
61.70 67.86d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]24.1628.82
E EApproach LOS C C
36.16d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
DIntersection LOS
0.542Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D82 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.664Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
466.5Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#4: CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0055.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.0050.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00200.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0300Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
9201058004582748173870113Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
2302620011201874121728Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
850977404175688163800104Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
78089680386963115373495Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D83 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
27.08d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
FFAAApproach LOS
254.5055.160.201.19d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
14.4114.41235.4511.1211.1273.990.000.001.710.000.0012.5095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.580.589.420.440.442.960.000.000.070.000.000.5095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
BFFBFFAAAAABMovement LOS
12.5976.07466.4611.7168.15132.390.000.009.830.000.0010.34d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.160.001.660.130.000.670.000.010.020.000.010.14V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D84 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.065Volume to Capacity (v/c):
ELevel Of Service:
35.6Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#6: CSAH 13 & 9th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.00300.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
200Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
1581486198627Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
4242152467Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
1471379290725Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
1361272783223Base Volume Input [veh/h]
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D85 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
EIntersection LOS
0.39d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CAAApproach LOS
20.720.000.26d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
7.467.460.000.000.002.7795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.300.300.000.000.000.1195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
BEAAAAMovement LOS
12.7835.610.000.000.009.92d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.030.060.000.010.010.04V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D86 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.564Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
24.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#7: CSAH 13 & CSAH 10
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesyesCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
55.0055.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00275.00100.00275.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00250.00Pocket Length [ft]
101101101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
1310Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
66185531967741571838521467514276Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1746134919339596541712969Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
61170491807121441735419762473254Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
61001810018006300Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
1121564533165313232325181115434233Base Volume Input [veh/h]
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D87 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononononononoMaximum Recall
yesnoyesnononononoMinimum Recall
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02712056410313303941Split [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Amber [s]
04030040300303003030Maximum Green [s]
0105010501050105Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D88 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
34.3447.3838.1789.19196.0185.868.96107.10129.6132.71142.41167.2495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.371.901.533.577.843.430.364.285.181.315.706.6995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
19.0826.3221.2149.55110.0047.704.9859.5072.0018.1779.1292.9150th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.761.050.851.984.401.910.202.382.880.733.163.7250th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesnoyesnononoyesnoyesnoCritical Lane Group
CCDBCCCCCCCCLane Group LOS
23.6023.6436.2519.2822.3225.1622.3426.1429.1821.6325.6629.05d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.270.330.620.450.790.530.070.680.760.220.760.82X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.560.357.160.731.501.480.121.474.180.371.834.91d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.11k, delay calibration
23.0323.2929.0818.5620.8323.6822.2224.6625.0021.2623.8424.14d1, Uniform Delay [s]
24955785436977295252564282301674337c, Capacity [veh/h]
156835121757156835121757156835121757156835121757s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.040.050.030.130.220.090.010.110.120.040.150.16(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.160.160.050.280.280.170.160.160.160.190.190.19g / C, Green / Cycle
10103171710101010121212g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
5.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D89 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.564Intersection V/C
CIntersection LOS
24.86d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CCCCApproach LOS
25.8322.1927.0826.44d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
CCDBCCCCCCCCMovement LOS
23.6023.6436.2519.2822.3225.1622.3426.1429.1821.6325.6629.05d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D90 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D91 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 4: 4: PM 2019 No-Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D92 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/2/2014Report File: C:\...\AM 2019 Build.pdf
Scenario 5: AM 2019 BuildVistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
B10.40.000SBLHCM2010Two-way stopEagle Point Blvd & Site
Access10
C20.70.146NBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 10 & Eastern Site
Access9
C21.00.000SBTHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 10 & Western Site
Access8
C20.90.417WBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & CSAH 107
D25.80.000EBTHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 9th St6
F431.31.716WBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 5th St5
F69.40.475WBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd4
C27.00.417EBLHCM2010SignalizedInwood Ave & Hudson Blvd3
C26.80.506SBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Northern
Ramp2
B17.90.446SBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Southern
Ramp1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D93 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.446Volume to Capacity (v/c):
BLevel Of Service:
17.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#1: CSAH 13 & I-94 Southern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00500.00100.00500.00150.00100.00175.00400.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000201102100No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
0002422442975812144514390Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
000616107192034113600Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
0002232239569747134113240Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0002240070004200Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0000083797900470Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0004102028655613127611720Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D94 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.06.06.00.00.06.06.00.06.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.0100.0100.00.00.0400.020.00.0400.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nononononoPedestrian Recall
nonoyesnoyesMaximum Recall
nononononoMinimum Recall
0.00.00.05.05.00.00.04.03.00.03.50.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.00.00.02.03.00.00.04.62.00.04.60.0Vehicle Extension [s]
00017340059120640Split [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.01.52.00.01.00.0All red [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.04.53.00.04.50.0Amber [s]
00013250058100570Maximum Green [s]
0001010002070200Minimum Green [s]
--------Lag---Lead / Lag
000540061020Signal Group
PermissProtectePermissOverlapPermissPermissPermissPermissProtectePermissPermissPermissControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
81.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D95 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
110.25252.04252.0435.37221.228.5114.82202.1295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
4.4110.0810.081.418.850.340.598.0895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
61.25151.21151.2119.65128.334.738.23114.4150th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
2.456.056.050.795.130.190.334.5850th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
yesnoyesnoyesnononoCritical Lane Group
CDDBBDAALane Group LOS
29.1850.7450.7410.6013.5053.116.409.00d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.280.800.800.080.400.180.040.43X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.185.645.640.180.600.390.080.41d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.500.500.040.500.50k, delay calibration
29.0045.1045.1010.4112.9052.726.328.60d1, Uniform Delay [s]
85026726790220217910443347c, Capacity [veh/h]
27751757175715683512341215685025s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.090.120.120.050.230.000.030.29(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.310.150.150.580.580.020.670.67g / C, Green / Cycle
341717636327373g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
0.005.005.004.004.003.003.503.50l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
7.007.007.006.006.005.005.505.50L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D96 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
50.74 29.1850.74 0.00 0.000.0010.600.00 9.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]13.506.40 53.11
D CDBAMovement LOS BAD
42.96 0.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]13.878.93
D AApproach LOS A B
17.86d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BIntersection LOS
0.446Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------65Ring 2
-------------421Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D97 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.506Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
26.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#2: CSAH 13 & I-94 Northern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00400.00100.00100.00175.00275.00100.00250.00100.00100.00325.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101002No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
5963189142510572025542189595Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
15164746211806410522424Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
545817413239566223538782387Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
5500140050038700Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
4700000015813601300Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
57531602521894629171063680Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D98 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0120.0120.00.0120.039.00.0300.039.00.0300.039.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.05.03.00.04.53.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.02.00.03.02.00.04.62.00.04.62.0Vehicle Extension [s]
01914017120662905013Split [s]
0.03.02.00.03.52.00.02.02.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.03.53.00.03.53.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
03018011100491504410Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
89.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D99 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
72.2976.19116.8617.1630.6712.012.16189.78297.85299.91298.9956.0995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
2.893.054.670.691.230.480.097.5911.9112.0011.962.2495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
40.1642.3364.929.5317.046.671.20105.54186.01187.60186.8931.1650th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.611.692.600.380.680.270.054.227.447.507.481.2550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesnoyesnononoyesyesnonoCritical Lane Group
DDDDDDABECCDLane Group LOS
49.3148.6051.3949.3349.8149.809.4212.2656.1122.3720.3450.59d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.420.380.740.140.210.110.010.350.900.550.520.46X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
1.961.421.550.630.890.180.010.4710.912.801.130.60d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.040.110.110.040.500.500.120.500.500.04k, delay calibration
47.3547.1849.8448.6948.9249.619.4111.8045.2019.5719.2149.99d1, Uniform Delay [s]
1411662571001189492120632857681721206c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.040.030.060.010.010.010.000.200.150.270.250.03(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.090.090.070.060.060.050.590.590.160.490.490.06g / C, Green / Cycle
1010877665651854547g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.005.005.003.004.504.503.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.007.007.005.006.506.505.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D100 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
49.81 49.3349.80 51.39 49.3148.609.4250.59 20.34d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]12.2622.37 56.11
D DD DDDACMovement LOS D BCE
49.67 50.43d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]23.6622.98
D DApproach LOS C C
26.80d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CIntersection LOS
0.506Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D101 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.417Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
27.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#3: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesnoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00100.00100.00175.00100.00100.00100.00250.00100.00175.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101102No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
30110Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
28198162882622357623983564209Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
7494022759190102114152Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
26182149812420327013676519192Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
2600810033007600Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0000058294001770Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
4816713714922145237333139314176Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D102 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0250.050.00.0250.050.00.0475.055.00.0300.055.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.04.53.00.04.03.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02919022120511205718Split [s]
0.02.52.00.02.52.00.01.52.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.04.03.00.04.03.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
02512024120351203916Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lead--Lead--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
94.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D103 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
31.30243.47102.67112.7830.5429.8917.04217.3950.6737.31138.72130.3795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.259.744.114.511.221.200.688.702.031.495.555.2195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
17.39144.8057.0462.6516.9716.619.46125.5228.1520.7377.0772.4350th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.705.792.282.510.680.660.385.021.130.833.082.9050th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
noyesnononoyesnoyesnononoyesCritical Lane Group
DDDDDEBBEABDLane Group LOS
42.9554.8253.2652.9546.7356.6811.1914.4556.079.8911.2653.89d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.140.840.680.630.160.390.040.390.500.090.270.76X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.327.913.334.600.444.460.090.594.750.190.324.34d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
42.6346.9049.9348.3546.2952.2211.1013.8651.329.7010.9449.54d1, Uniform Delay [s]
200235239140164568711952799272077275c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.020.110.050.060.010.010.020.220.020.050.160.06(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.130.130.070.090.090.030.560.560.040.590.590.08g / C, Green / Cycle
14148101036161565659g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.004.504.503.004.004.003.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.006.506.505.006.006.005.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D104 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
46.73 52.9556.68 53.26 42.9554.8211.1953.89 11.26d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.459.89 56.07
D DE DDDBBMovement LOS D BAE
52.37 53.31d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]16.2621.54
D DApproach LOS C B
27.00d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CIntersection LOS
0.417Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D105 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.475Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
69.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#4: CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0055.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.0050.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00200.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0300Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
11048110103884610913049572Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
301230210211273312418Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
1004410093577810012045566Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
604100002610281540Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
40390832474928427661Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D106 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
3.35d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
FDAAApproach LOS
58.2834.871.021.06d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
1.121.1251.731.471.4711.020.000.009.740.000.007.9395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.040.042.070.060.060.440.000.000.390.000.000.3295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
AFFBFFAAAAABMovement LOS
9.8758.3669.3711.4165.9560.670.000.009.300.000.0010.30d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.010.000.480.020.000.130.000.010.120.000.000.10V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D107 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.716Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
431.3Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
90340652114157359Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
2385163293990Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
83313600105144330Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
3674-747136-36Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
47239223410852Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0059800288Base Volume Input [veh/h]
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D108 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
108.23d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
FAAApproach LOS
428.551.320.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
747.40747.4021.4542.890.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
29.9029.900.861.720.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
FFAAAAMovement LOS
418.04431.330.008.890.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.121.720.010.110.000.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D109 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.000Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
25.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#6: CSAH 13 & 9th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00200.00100.00100.00100.00100.00300.00Pocket Length [ft]
000000100001No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0400Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
18001708472610433935Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
5004021182211981Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
1700160746689403625Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
0000000-33000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
1700000055640590Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.001.001.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
00015064565002785Base Volume Input [veh/h]
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D110 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
DIntersection LOS
0.56d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
ACAAApproach LOS
9.7015.310.110.10d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
1.760.000.005.355.355.350.0018.2436.470.000.000.4495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.070.000.000.210.210.210.000.731.460.000.000.0295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
ABDCAAAAAAMovement LOS
9.700.000.0011.4525.8323.520.000.008.260.000.009.23d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.020.000.000.030.000.040.000.010.010.000.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D111 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.417Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
20.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#7: CSAH 13 & CSAH 10
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesyesCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
55.0055.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00275.00100.00275.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00250.00Pocket Length [ft]
101101101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
2102Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
7450912911714832483906126199180Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
18127322937812981575045Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
6846811910813629443595624183166Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
68001090045002400Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
411242780093111749Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
1214198717411727823214934152107Base Volume Input [veh/h]
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D112 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononononononoMaximum Recall
yesnoyesnononononoMinimum Recall
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
03924025100322403729Split [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Amber [s]
04030040300303003030Maximum Green [s]
0105010501050105Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D113 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
27.71106.7169.6346.7727.3414.6917.8778.4125.299.6537.6690.6395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.114.272.791.871.090.590.713.141.010.391.513.6395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
15.3959.2938.6925.9815.198.169.9343.5614.055.3620.9250.3550th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.622.371.551.040.610.330.401.740.560.210.842.0150th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
noyesnononoyesnoyesnononoyesCritical Lane Group
BCCBBCBBCBBCLane Group LOS
17.8120.8328.9819.3418.0322.7717.7319.8520.3117.6718.5426.50d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.240.720.740.400.220.210.160.580.240.090.310.76X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.381.426.190.860.170.680.240.780.500.130.264.85d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.11k, delay calibration
17.4319.4222.7918.4917.8622.0917.4919.0719.8117.5418.2821.64d1, Uniform Delay [s]
315705173296663152302676250291652238c, Capacity [veh/h]
156835121757156835121757156835121757156835121757s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.050.140.070.070.040.020.030.110.030.020.060.10(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.200.200.100.190.190.090.190.190.140.190.190.13g / C, Green / Cycle
10105101051010710107g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
5.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D114 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.417Intersection V/C
CIntersection LOS
20.95d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CBBCApproach LOS
22.0019.0619.7022.02d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
BCCBBCBBCBBCMovement LOS
17.8120.8328.9819.3418.0322.7717.7319.8520.3117.6718.5426.50d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D115 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.000Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
21.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#8: CSAH 10 & Western Site Access
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nonononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0030.0030.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00275.00100.00100.00125.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001000000No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
CSAH 10CSAH 10Western Site AccessName
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0784172530000300Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
019602630000100Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
0721162330000300Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
03816150000300Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0627002000000000Base Volume Input [veh/h]
CSAH 10CSAH 10Western Site AccessName
Volumes
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D116 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
CIntersection LOS
0.03d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
AACAApproach LOS
0.010.0017.629.05d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
0.000.000.060.000.000.000.000.000.000.250.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.010.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
AAAAABCCAMovement LOS
0.000.007.780.000.009.3710.9620.9820.929.050.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
FreeFreeStopStopPriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D117 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.146Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
20.7Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#9: CSAH 10 & Eastern Site Access
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
55.0055.0030.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
ThruLeftRightThruRightLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundNorthboundApproach
CSAH 10CSAH 10Eastern Site AccessName
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
747211245539Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1871361110Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
687210225536Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
42107536Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
6270020000Base Volume Input [veh/h]
CSAH 10CSAH 10Eastern Site AccessName
Volumes
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D118 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
CIntersection LOS
0.84d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
AACApproach LOS
0.020.0019.70d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
96.0696.060.000.0013.2513.2595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
3.843.840.000.000.530.5395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
AAAABCMovement LOS
0.007.770.000.0011.8120.71d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.010.000.000.000.010.15V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
FreeFreeStopPriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D119 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.000Volume to Capacity (v/c):
BLevel Of Service:
10.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#10: Eagle Point Blvd & Site Access
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruThruLeftRightLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundApproach
Eagle Point BlvdEagle Point BlvdSite AccessName
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0920930520Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
02528130Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
0819228480Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00028480Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
07176000Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Eagle Point BlvdEagle Point BlvdSite AccessName
Volumes
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D120 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
BIntersection LOS
2.21d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
AAAApproach LOS
0.000.918.54d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
0.000.0013.0913.093.833.8395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.000.000.520.520.150.1595th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
AAAAABMovement LOS
0.000.000.007.298.5410.36d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.000.000.000.020.050.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
FreeFreeStopPriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D121 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #4: CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd
01131824
01131823
12192722
12192721
12263720
25649119
267110018
41112818317
71922432016
71923132915
71923132914
72125035613
82327639312
92428841111
92428841110
9263084389
11323855488
12344045757
13374366216
14414876945
15435137304
18516038583
18526158762
19546419131
WESN
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
E, WMinor Approaches
N, SMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
NoPeak Hour#3
NoFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D122 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoNoWarrant Met for Approach
YesYesTotal Volume Condition Met
44Number of Approaches on Intersection
16271627Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoNoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
1954Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoNoDelay Condition Met
0:110:52VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
22Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
34.958.3Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
WEOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
0000000000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1431824
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1431823
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo3446822
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo3446821
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo3463820
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo74155819
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo84171818
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo154311817
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo264544816
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo264560815
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo264560814
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo284606813
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo314669812
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo334699811
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo334699810
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo35474689
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo43493388
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo46497987
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo504105786
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo554118185
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo584124384
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo694146183
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo704149182
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo734155481
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D123 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
814924
814923
12211422
12211421
16281920
40714719
44785218
791419517
13924716616
14325417115
14325417114
15427518513
17030320412
17831721311
17831721310
1903382289
2384232848
2494442997
2694793226
3015363605
3175643794
3726634463
3806774552
3967054741
ENS
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
EMinor Approaches
S, NMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
YesPeak Hour#3
YesFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
YesEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D124 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
YesWarrant Met for Intersection
YesWarrant Met for Approach
YesTotal Volume Condition Met
3Number of Approaches on Intersection
1575Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
YesHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
396Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
YesDelay Condition Met
47:08VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
1Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
428.6Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
EOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
916128741615128Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo8123424
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo8123423
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12135422
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12135421
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo16147420
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo401118419
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo441130418
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo791236417
NoYesNoNoNoNoYesNoNoNo1391413416
NoYesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoNo1431425415
NoYesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoNo1431425414
NoYesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoNo1541460413
NoYesYesNoNoNoYesYesYesNo1701507412
NoYesYesNoNoNoYesYesYesNo1781530411
NoYesYesNoNoNoYesYesYesNo1781530410
YesYesYesNoNoNoYesYesYesNo190156649
YesYesYesYesNoNoYesYesYesYes238170748
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYes249174347
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYes269180146
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYes301189645
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes317194344
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3721110943
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3801113242
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3961117941
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D125 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #6: CSAH 13 & 9th St
0014824
0014823
11201222
11201221
11271620
22684119
32754518
531368117
8623814216
8624514715
8624514714
9726615913
10729317512
10830618311
10830618310
1183271959
14104092448
14114292567
16124632776
17135183095
18145453264
22166403833
22166543912
23176814071
WENS
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
E, WMinor Approaches
S, NMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
NoPeak Hour#3
NoFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D126 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoNoWarrant Met for Approach
YesYesTotal Volume Condition Met
44Number of Approaches on Intersection
11281128Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoNoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
2317Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoNoDelay Condition Met
0:050:02VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
11Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
15.39.7Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
WEOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
0000000000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0222624
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0222623
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2232622
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2232621
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2243620
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo42109619
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo52120618
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo82217617
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo142380616
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo142392615
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo142392614
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo162425613
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo172468612
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo182489611
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo182489610
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo19252269
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo24265368
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo25268567
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo28274066
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo30282765
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo32287164
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo382102363
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo382104562
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo402108861
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D127 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #8: CSAH 10 & Western Site Access
0051424
0051423
0072222
0072221
00102920
00247219
00267918
014814417
018425316
018626015
018626014
019328213
0110331012
0110832511
0110832510
011153479
021434338
021514557
021634916
021825495
021915784
032256793
032296932
032397221
NSWE
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
S, NMinor Approaches
E, WMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
NoPeak Hour#3
NoFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D128 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoNoWarrant Met for Approach
YesYesTotal Volume Condition Met
44Number of Approaches on Intersection
964964Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoNoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
03Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoNoDelay Condition Met
0:000:00VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
11Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
17.69Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
NSOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
0000000000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0219624
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0219623
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0229622
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0229621
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0239620
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0296619
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo02105618
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12192617
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12337616
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12346615
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12346614
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12375613
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12413612
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12433611
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12433610
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1246269
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2257668
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2260667
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2265466
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2273165
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2276964
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo3290463
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo3292262
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo3296161
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D129 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #9: CSAH 10 & Eastern Site Access
151424
151423
172122
172121
292820
4246919
5267618
84713817
148224116
158524815
158524814
169226913
1810129612
1810631011
1810631010
201133319
251414138
261484347
281604696
311795245
331885514
392216483
392266612
412356891
SWE
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
SMinor Approaches
E, WMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
NoPeak Hour#3
NoFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D130 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoWarrant Met for Approach
YesTotal Volume Condition Met
3Number of Approaches on Intersection
965Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
41Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoDelay Condition Met
0:13VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
1Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
19.7Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
SOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
0000000000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1119224
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1119223
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1128222
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1128221
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2137220
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo4193219
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo51102218
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo81185217
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo141323216
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo151333215
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo151333214
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo161361213
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo181397212
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo181416211
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo181416210
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo20144429
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo25155428
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo26158227
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo28162926
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo31170325
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo33173924
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo39186923
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo39188722
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo41192421
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D131 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #10: Eagle Point Blvd & Site Access
14024
14023
17022
17021
29020
522119
524118
1044217
1777316
1779315
1779314
1986313
2195312
2299411
2299410
2310649
2913258
3013957
3315056
3616765
3817664
4520783
4621182
4822081
NWE
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
100%Warrant Factor
NoPopulation < 10,000
NoSpeed > 40mph
NMinor Approaches
E, WMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
NoPeak Hour#3
NoFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D132 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoWarrant Met for Approach
NoTotal Volume Condition Met
3Number of Approaches on Intersection
276Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
48Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoDelay Condition Met
0:06VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
1Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
8.5Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
NOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
0000000000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo114224
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo114223
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo117222
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo117221
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo219220
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo5123219
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo5125218
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo10146217
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo17180216
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo17182215
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo17182214
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo19189213
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo21198212
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo221103211
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo221103210
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo23111029
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo29113728
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo30114427
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo33115526
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo36117325
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo38118224
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo45121523
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo46121922
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo48122821
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D133 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D134 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D135 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D136 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D137 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D138 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 5: 5: AM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D139 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/2/2014Report File: C:\...\PM 2019 Build.pdf
Scenario 6: PM 2019 BuildVistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
B10.80.000SBLHCM2010Two-way stopEagle Point Blvd & Site
Access10
E41.30.194NBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 10 & Eastern Site
Access9
E39.20.000SBTHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 10 & Western Site
Access8
C27.20.612WBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & CSAH 107
F92.40.000EBTHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 9th St6
F3,367.17.815WBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 5th St5
F2,021.64.886WBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd4
D35.40.623EBRHCM2010SignalizedInwood Ave & Hudson Blvd3
D47.20.791EBRHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Northern
Ramp2
C27.00.750SBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & I-94 Southern
Ramp1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D140 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.750Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
27.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#1: CSAH 13 & I-94 Southern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00500.00100.00500.00150.00100.00175.00400.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000201102100No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0100Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
000542141432187152010727617080Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
000136351084738027694270Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
00049913039717213989825415710Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000499001730025400Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000143686800810Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.001.001.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
00091611923325412209046613670Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94I-94 RampCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D141 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.06.06.00.00.06.06.00.06.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.0100.0100.00.00.0400.020.00.0400.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nononononoPedestrian Recall
nonoyesnoyesMaximum Recall
nononononoMinimum Recall
0.00.00.05.05.00.00.04.03.00.03.50.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.00.00.02.03.00.00.04.62.00.04.60.0Vehicle Extension [s]
00017370086130900Split [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.01.52.00.01.00.0All red [s]
0.00.00.03.53.50.00.04.53.00.04.50.0Amber [s]
00013250058100570Maximum Green [s]
0001010002070200Minimum Green [s]
--------Lag---Lead / Lag
000540061020Signal Group
PermissProtectePermissOverlapPermissPermissPermissPermissProtectePermissPermissPermissControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
81.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D142 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
319.27381.02425.17122.50595.4384.47169.59360.7895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
12.7715.2417.014.9023.823.386.7814.4395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
202.56251.08286.4068.05426.1546.9394.22235.0650th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
8.1010.0411.462.7217.051.883.779.4050th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
yesnoyesnoyesnononoCritical Lane Group
DEEBCEBBLane Group LOS
41.7061.2868.9913.5922.6266.6012.0914.88d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.620.800.880.200.730.630.280.54X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.747.2814.050.492.281.430.700.65d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.180.230.500.500.040.500.50k, delay calibration
40.9654.0154.9413.1020.3465.1611.4014.23d1, Uniform Delay [s]
87034533793120851709933183c, Capacity [veh/h]
27751800175715683512341215685025s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.200.150.170.120.430.030.180.34(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.310.190.190.590.590.050.630.63g / C, Green / Cycle
442727838378989g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
0.005.005.004.004.003.003.503.50l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
7.007.007.006.006.005.005.505.50L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D143 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
61.28 41.7066.50 0.00 0.000.0013.590.00 14.88d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]22.6212.09 66.60
E DEBBMovement LOS CBE
53.81 0.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]24.2814.49
D AApproach LOS B C
27.03d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CIntersection LOS
0.750Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
--------------65Ring 2
-------------421Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D144 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.791Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
47.2Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#2: CSAH 13 & I-94 Northern Ramp
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00400.00100.00100.00175.00275.00100.00250.00100.00100.00325.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101002No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0300Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
796127415287472213433543411349262Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
2015683822125336898533765Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
735625214080432012363263141241241Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
740014100210031500Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
8100000013611702240Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
61512312587339381009192577933221Base Volume Input [veh/h]
I-94 Ramp3rd St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D145 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0120.0120.00.0120.039.00.0300.039.00.0300.039.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.05.03.00.04.53.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.02.00.03.02.00.04.62.00.04.62.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02417022150813606520Split [s]
0.03.02.00.03.52.00.02.02.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.03.53.00.03.53.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
03018011100491504410Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
89.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D146 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
135.5298.53215.55265.47133.9467.3714.99569.24527.91341.25767.15203.6095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
5.423.948.6210.625.362.690.6022.7721.1213.6530.698.1495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
75.2954.74124.18161.3274.4137.438.33404.35370.15219.71571.18115.4850th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
3.012.194.976.452.981.500.3316.1714.818.7922.854.6250th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesyesnonononoyesnoyesnoCritical Lane Group
EEEFEDBCFCDELane Group LOS
71.5464.9965.8484.5759.5854.0415.1126.3181.4132.9248.3565.20d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.710.460.870.880.430.200.030.710.950.520.910.85X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
7.952.543.0623.201.420.150.062.2727.142.8910.192.50d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.040.220.110.040.500.500.340.500.500.04k, delay calibration
63.5962.4562.7861.3658.1653.8915.0624.0454.2730.0438.1662.70d1, Uniform Delay [s]
11213131317320323684618953746591477309c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.050.030.080.100.050.030.010.380.200.220.380.08(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.070.070.090.110.110.130.540.540.210.420.420.09g / C, Green / Cycle
101013151519767630595913g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.005.005.003.004.504.503.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.007.007.005.006.506.505.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D147 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
59.58 84.5754.04 65.84 71.5464.9915.1165.20 48.35d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]26.3132.92 81.41
E FD EEEBDMovement LOS E CCF
71.95 66.80d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]37.5147.91
E EApproach LOS D D
47.19d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
DIntersection LOS
0.791Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D148 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.623Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
35.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#3: Inwood Ave & Hudson Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesnoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0045.0045.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00100.00100.00175.00100.00100.00100.00250.00100.00175.00Pocket Length [ft]
102001101102No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0440Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
17391852271527825115835571097246Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
41046573820628991427461Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
16361702091407223106532521009226Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
17002100024005300Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0000087253003050Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
303315638412859377452996646207Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Hudson Blvd4th St NCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D149 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.00.06.06.0Detector Length [ft]
0.0250.050.00.0250.050.00.0475.055.00.0300.055.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononoyesnoyesnoMaximum Recall
nonononononononoMinimum Recall
0.04.53.00.04.53.00.04.03.00.04.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
01916035320701207719Split [s]
0.02.52.00.02.52.00.01.52.00.01.52.0All red [s]
0.04.03.00.04.03.00.04.53.00.04.53.0Amber [s]
02512024120351203916Maximum Green [s]
0107010702070207Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
94.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern CoordinatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D150 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
26.9262.50154.46349.07217.95110.0517.87484.8259.8236.42403.35199.1995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.082.506.1813.968.724.400.7119.392.391.4616.137.9795th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
14.9534.7285.81225.84125.9361.149.93334.7933.2320.23268.89112.2950th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.601.393.439.035.042.450.4013.391.330.8110.764.4950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesyesnononoyesnononoyesCritical Lane Group
EEEEEDBCEBBELane Group LOS
62.7864.2769.3873.9155.0551.2816.2825.4772.7413.4819.7869.21d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.170.330.780.900.510.270.030.630.530.060.550.84X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.801.635.3916.321.370.480.071.666.600.141.086.26d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.170.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
61.9862.6463.9957.5953.6850.8016.2123.8066.1413.3418.7062.95d1, Uniform Delay [s]
1001182382522972938191835668962006294c, Capacity [veh/h]
156818453412156818451757156835121757156835123412s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.010.020.050.140.080.040.020.330.020.040.310.07(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.060.060.070.160.160.170.520.520.040.570.570.09g / C, Green / Cycle
991023232373735808012g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
4.504.503.004.504.503.004.004.003.004.004.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
6.506.505.006.506.505.006.006.005.006.006.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D151 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
55.05 73.9151.28 69.38 62.7864.2716.2869.21 19.78d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]25.4713.48 72.74
E ED EEEBBMovement LOS E CBE
63.77 68.09d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]26.6328.21
E EApproach LOS C C
35.43d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
DIntersection LOS
0.623Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D152 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
4.886Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
2,021.6Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#4: CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0055.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.0050.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00200.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0300Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
990142800458299517601153113Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
25036200112024941528828Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
910131740417591516551061104Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
603400002270522610Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
78089680386963115373495Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D153 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
112.96d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
FFAAApproach LOS
1197.32196.790.181.01d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
20.3420.34430.2813.7613.76127.350.000.002.320.000.0016.1195th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.810.8117.210.550.555.090.000.000.090.000.000.6495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
CFFBFFAABAABMovement LOS
15.03167.532021.6013.33161.49522.940.000.0011.570.000.0011.91d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.220.004.890.160.001.460.000.010.030.000.010.18V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D154 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
7.815Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
3,367.1Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
1123018231182711033Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
28752063068258Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
103277757109249950Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
6463-635564-64Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
39214135418582Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0074000855Base Volume Input [veh/h]
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D155 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
520.23d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
FAAApproach LOS
3344.171.740.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
1211.011211.01130.92261.830.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
48.4448.445.2410.470.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
FFABAAMovement LOS
3282.483367.120.0013.910.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.277.810.010.230.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D156 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.000Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
92.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#6: CSAH 13 & 9th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00200.00100.00100.00100.00100.00300.00Pocket Length [ft]
000000100001No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0200Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
21001508149251858106127Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
50040242315142657Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
1900140713851175397625Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
0000000-88000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
1900000067953690Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.001.001.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0001306127270083223Base Volume Input [veh/h]
9th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D157 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
0.69d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BDAAApproach LOS
13.0331.700.210.24d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
3.500.000.0012.4412.4412.440.0088.67177.340.000.002.9395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.140.000.000.500.500.500.003.557.090.000.000.1295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
BCFFAABAABMovement LOS
13.030.000.0015.5292.3862.030.000.0011.040.000.0010.22d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.040.000.000.030.000.120.000.010.030.000.010.04V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D158 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.612Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
27.2Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#7: CSAH 13 & CSAH 10
Intersection Level Of Service Report
yesyesyesyesCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
55.0055.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00250.00275.00100.00275.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00250.00Pocket Length [ft]
101101101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
1310Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
68192722207951571840122183530325Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
17481855199395100552113381Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
63177662027311441736920376488299Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
61002020018007700Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
2717431900156281545Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
1121564533165313232325181115434233Base Volume Input [veh/h]
CSAH 10CSAH 10CSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D159 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononononononoPedestrian Recall
nonononononononoMaximum Recall
yesnoyesnononononoMinimum Recall
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
000000000000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
000000000000Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02714053400293403944Split [s]
0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.02.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.03.0Amber [s]
04030040300303003030Maximum Green [s]
0105010501050105Minimum Green [s]
--Lag--Lag--Lag--LagLead / Lag
083047061025Signal Group
PermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtectePermissPermissProtecteControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
140Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D160 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
40.5456.4459.47114.44220.4791.5310.18128.80142.3445.84165.19210.8495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.622.262.384.588.823.660.415.155.691.836.618.4395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
22.5231.3533.0463.58127.7850.855.6571.5579.0825.4691.77120.7450th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.901.251.322.545.112.030.232.863.161.023.674.8350th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
nonoyesnoyesnonoyesnononoyesCritical Lane Group
CCDCCCCCCCCCLane Group LOS
26.5826.6242.3621.3124.3225.5424.8329.7329.3823.8128.0130.78d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.300.370.750.500.810.470.080.750.710.270.780.85X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.710.4510.750.881.621.040.132.163.040.482.005.30d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.110.11k, delay calibration
25.8626.1731.6120.4322.7124.5024.7027.5626.3323.3226.0125.48d1, Uniform Delay [s]
22951497440986333238533310303679383c, Capacity [veh/h]
156835121757156835121757156835121757156835121757s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.040.050.040.140.230.090.010.110.130.050.150.18(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.150.150.050.280.280.190.150.150.180.190.190.22g / C, Green / Cycle
10104191913101012131315g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
5.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D161 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.612Intersection V/C
CIntersection LOS
27.15d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CCCCApproach LOS
30.0323.9229.4728.60d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
CCDCCCCCCCCCMovement LOS
26.5826.6242.3621.3124.3225.5424.8329.7329.3823.8128.0130.78d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D162 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.000Volume to Capacity (v/c):
ELevel Of Service:
39.2Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#8: CSAH 10 & Western Site Access
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nonononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0030.0030.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00275.00100.00100.00125.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001000000No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
CSAH 10CSAH 10Western Site AccessName
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
039931111720000300Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
0100132930000100Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
036731010780000300Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
026310440000300Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.001.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.001.00Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0313009490000000Base Volume Input [veh/h]
CSAH 10CSAH 10Western Site AccessName
Volumes
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D163 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
EIntersection LOS
0.05d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
AACBApproach LOS
0.080.0023.9913.10d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
0.000.000.390.000.000.000.000.000.000.510.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.020.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
ABAAAAECBMovement LOS
0.000.0011.230.000.008.139.4739.2023.2913.100.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.000.000.010.000.010.000.000.000.000.010.000.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
FreeFreeStopStopPriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D164 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.194Volume to Capacity (v/c):
ELevel Of Service:
41.3Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#9: CSAH 10 & Eastern Site Access
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
55.0055.0030.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
ThruLeftRightThruRightLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundNorthboundApproach
CSAH 10CSAH 10Eastern Site AccessName
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
3787421132424Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
9521128316Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
3486391041422Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
76397422Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
3130094900Base Volume Input [veh/h]
CSAH 10CSAH 10Eastern Site AccessName
Volumes
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D165 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
EIntersection LOS
0.74d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
AAEApproach LOS
0.200.0039.24d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
118.24118.240.000.0018.9618.9695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
4.734.730.000.000.760.7695th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
ABAADEMovement LOS
0.0011.160.000.0027.1641.26d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.000.010.000.010.020.19V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
FreeFreeStopPriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D166 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.000Volume to Capacity (v/c):
BLevel Of Service:
10.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#10: Eagle Point Blvd & Site Access
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0030.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruThruLeftRightLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundApproach
Eagle Point BlvdEagle Point BlvdSite AccessName
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0920957420Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
025214110Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
0819252390Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00052390Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
07176000Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Eagle Point BlvdEagle Point BlvdSite AccessName
Volumes
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D167 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
BIntersection LOS
2.44d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
AAAApproach LOS
0.001.578.50d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
0.000.0014.8514.853.063.0695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.000.000.590.590.120.1295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
AAAAABMovement LOS
0.000.000.007.338.5010.82d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.000.000.000.040.040.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
FreeFreeStopPriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D168 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #4: CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd
24242024
24242023
37373022
37373021
59494020
122212210119
132413411118
234424420117
407842735216
418043936215
418043936214
458747639213
499552543312
5210054945311
5210054945310
551075864839
691337326048
721407696347
781518306846
871699277655
921789768054
10820911479463
11021311719662
115222122010061
WESN
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
E, WMinor Approaches
N, SMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
YesPeak Hour#3
YesFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
YesEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D169 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
YesWarrant Met for Intersection
NoYesWarrant Met for Approach
YesYesTotal Volume Condition Met
44Number of Approaches on Intersection
25632563Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoYesHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
115222Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
YesYesDelay Condition Met
6:1773:50VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
22Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
196.81197.3Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
WEOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
913161615118753Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo6444824
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo6444823
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo10467822
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo10467821
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo14489820
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo344223819
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo374245818
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo674445817
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo1184779816
NoNoYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo1214801815
NoNoYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo1214801814
NoYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo1324868813
NoYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo1444958812
NoYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNo15241002811
NoYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNo15241002810
YesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNo1624106989
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo2024133688
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo2124140387
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo2294151486
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo2564169285
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo2704178184
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3174209383
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3234213782
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3374222681
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D170 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
8172424
8172423
11263622
11263621
15354820
388712019
429513218
7617324017
13330342016
13731243215
13731243214
14833846813
16337251612
17139054011
17139054010
1824165769
2285207198
2395467557
2585898156
2896589115
3046939594
35781411273
36583111512
38086611991
ENS
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
EMinor Approaches
S, NMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
YesPeak Hour#3
YesFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
YesEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D171 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
YesWarrant Met for Intersection
YesWarrant Met for Approach
YesTotal Volume Condition Met
3Number of Approaches on Intersection
2445Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
YesHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
380Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
YesDelay Condition Met
352:59VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
1Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
3344.2Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
EOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
16161616161116161612Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo8141424
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo8141423
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo11162422
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo11162421
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo15183420
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo381207419
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo421227418
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo761413417
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesNo1331723416
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesNo1371744415
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesNo1371744414
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesNo1481806413
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYes1631888412
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes1711930411
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes1711930410
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes182199249
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes2281123948
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes2391130147
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes2581140446
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes2891156945
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3041165244
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3571194143
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3651198242
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3801206541
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D172 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #6: CSAH 13 & 9th St
00182124
00182123
11263222
11263221
11354220
228810519
229711618
4417621117
7730836916
8731737915
8731737914
8734441113
9837945312
9939647411
9939647410
1094235069
13115296328
13125556647
14135997176
16146708015
17157058434
20188289913
201884610122
211988110541
WENS
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
E, WMinor Approaches
S, NMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
NoPeak Hour#3
NoFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D173 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoNoWarrant Met for Approach
YesYesTotal Volume Condition Met
44Number of Approaches on Intersection
19751975Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoNoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
2119Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoNoDelay Condition Met
0:110:04VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
11Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
31.713Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
WEOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
0000000000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0239624
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0239623
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2258622
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2258621
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2277620
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo42193619
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo42213618
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo82387617
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo142677616
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo152696615
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo152696614
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo152755613
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo172832612
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo182870611
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo182870610
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo19292969
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo242116168
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo252121967
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo272131666
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo302147165
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo322154864
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo382181963
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo382185862
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo402193561
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D174 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #8: CSAH 10 & Western Site Access
0022724
0022723
00331122
00331121
00441520
001093719
001204118
012187417
0138113016
0139213315
0139213314
0142414413
0146815912
0149016711
0149016710
015221789
026532228
026852337
027402526
028272815
028702964
0310233483
0310443552
0310883701
NSWE
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
S, NMinor Approaches
E, WMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
NoPeak Hour#3
NoFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D175 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoNoWarrant Met for Approach
YesYesTotal Volume Condition Met
44Number of Approaches on Intersection
14611461Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoNoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
03Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoNoDelay Condition Met
0:000:00VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
11Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
2413.1Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
NSOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
0000000000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0229624
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0229623
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0244622
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0244621
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo0259620
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo02146619
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo02161618
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12292617
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12511616
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12525615
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12525614
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12568613
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12627612
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12657611
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12657610
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1270069
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2287568
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2291867
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2299266
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo22110865
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo22116664
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo32137163
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo32139962
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo32145861
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D176 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #9: CSAH 10 & Eastern Site Access
122724
122723
1321122
1321121
1431420
31083519
31193918
52167117
937812416
938912715
938912714
1042113813
1146415212
1248615911
1248615910
125181709
166482128
166802237
187342416
208212695
218642834
2410153333
2510373402
2610803541
SWE
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
SMinor Approaches
E, WMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
NoPeak Hour#3
NoFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D177 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoWarrant Met for Approach
YesTotal Volume Condition Met
3Number of Approaches on Intersection
1460Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
26Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoDelay Condition Met
0:17VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
1Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
39.2Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
SOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
0000000000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1129224
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1129223
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1143222
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1143221
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1157220
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo31143219
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo31158218
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo51287217
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo91502216
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo91516215
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo91516214
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo101559213
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo111616212
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo121645211
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo121645210
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo12168829
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo16186028
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo16190327
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo18197526
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo201109025
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo211114724
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo241134823
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo251137722
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo261143421
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D178 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #10: Eagle Point Blvd & Site Access
15024
15023
17022
17021
210020
424119
427118
849217
1485316
1488315
1488314
1595313
17105312
18110411
18110410
1911749
2314658
2515457
2716656
3018565
3119564
3722983
3723482
3924481
NWE
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
100%Warrant Factor
NoPopulation < 10,000
NoSpeed > 40mph
NMinor Approaches
E, WMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
NoPeak Hour#3
NoFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D179 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoWarrant Met for Approach
NoTotal Volume Condition Met
3Number of Approaches on Intersection
291Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
39Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoDelay Condition Met
0:05VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
1Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
8.5Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
NOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
0000000000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo115224
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo115223
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo117222
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo117221
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2110220
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo4125219
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo4128218
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo8151217
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo14188216
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo14191215
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo14191214
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo15198213
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo171108212
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo181114211
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo181114210
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo19112129
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo23115128
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo25115927
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo27117126
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo30119125
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo31120124
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo37123723
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo37124222
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo39125221
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D180 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D181 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D182 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D183 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D184 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D185 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 6: 6: PM 2019 Build
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D186 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/7/2014Report File: C:\...\PM 2019 Build - Turn Lanes at 5th St.pdf
Scenario 7: PM 2019 Build - ImprovementsVistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
F1,745.94.597WBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 5th St5
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D187 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
4.597Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
1,745.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00100.00250.00250.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
100110No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
1123018231182711033Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
28752063068258Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
103277757109249950Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
6463-635564-64Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
39214135418582Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0074000855Base Volume Input [veh/h]
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D188 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D189 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
198.93d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
FAAApproach LOS
1276.301.740.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
21.23821.830.0021.570.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.8532.870.000.860.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
BFABAAMovement LOS
14.241745.910.0013.910.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.224.600.010.230.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D190 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
8172424
8172423
11263622
11263621
15354820
388712019
429513218
7617324017
13330342016
13731243215
13731243214
14833846813
16337251612
17139054011
17139054010
1824165769
2285207198
2395467557
2585898156
2896589115
3046939594
35781411273
36583111512
38086611991
ENS
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
EMinor Approaches
S, NMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
YesPeak Hour#3
YesFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
YesEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D191 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
YesWarrant Met for Intersection
YesWarrant Met for Approach
YesTotal Volume Condition Met
3Number of Approaches on Intersection
2445Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
YesHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
380Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
YesDelay Condition Met
134:43VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
2Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
1276.3Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
EOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
1616161616111613128Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo8241624
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo8241623
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo11262622
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo11262621
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo15283620
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo382207619
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo422227618
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo762413617
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesNoNoNo1332723616
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesNoNoNo1372744615
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesNoNoNo1372744614
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesNoNo1482806613
YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesNo1632888612
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo1712930611
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo1712930610
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo182299269
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes2282123968
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes2392130167
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes2582140466
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes2892156965
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3042165264
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3572194163
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3652198262
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes3802206561
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D192 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D193 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D194 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D195 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/7/2014Report File: C:\...\2019 PM Build - Signal at 5th St.pdf
Scenario 7: PM 2019 Build - ImprovementsVistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
B12.90.534WBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & 5th St5
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D196 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.534Volume to Capacity (v/c):
BLevel Of Service:
12.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00100.00250.00250.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
100110No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
553018231181351033Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
14752063034258Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
51277757109124950Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
520001250Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
6463-635564-64Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
39214135418582Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0074000855Base Volume Input [veh/h]
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D197 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.00.06.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.06.00.06.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononoPedestrian Recall
noyesnoyesMaximum Recall
nonononoMinimum Recall
0.03.03.03.00.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.02.00.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
010100010Pedestrian Clearance [s]
055005Walk [s]
0.03.03.03.00.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0244610036Split [s]
0.02.02.02.00.02.0All red [s]
0.03.03.03.00.03.0Amber [s]
0303030030Maximum Green [s]
010155015Minimum Green [s]
-Lag-Lead--Lead / Lag
086102Signal Group
PermissivePermissivePermissiveProtectedPermissiPermissivePermissiveControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Semi-actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
70Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D198 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
33.45227.1470.8921.7939.80189.5295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.349.092.840.871.597.5895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
18.58132.6939.3812.1122.11105.3550th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.745.311.580.480.884.2150th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
noyesnoyesnoyesCritical Lane Group
CCAAABLane Group LOS
23.3334.105.897.589.3212.78d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.170.850.360.230.170.57X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.267.230.441.010.441.29d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.140.500.500.500.50k, delay calibration
23.0726.865.456.578.8811.49d1, Uniform Delay [s]
31735622995208131821c, Capacity [veh/h]
15681757351273915683512s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.040.170.230.160.090.29(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.200.200.660.660.520.52g / C, Green / Cycle
141446463636g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
3.003.003.000.003.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
5.005.005.005.005.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RLCLRCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D199 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
5.89 34.10 23.3312.78d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]7.589.32
CA CBMovement LOS AA
32.436.10d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]12.38
CAApproach LOS B
12.88d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BIntersection LOS
0.534Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8-6-Ring 2
--------------21Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D200 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D201 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D202 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 7: 7: PM 2019 Build - Improvements
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D203 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/7/2014Report File: C:\...\PM 2019 Build - Signal at 5th St no Eagle
Point Connection.pdf
Scenario 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2Vistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
B14.00.556WBLHCM2010SignalizedCSAH 13 & 5th St5
F1,738.44.162WBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd4
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D204 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
4.162Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
1,738.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#4: CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
noyesnonoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0055.0045.00Speed [mph]
100.00100.00200.00100.00100.0050.00250.00100.00250.00250.00100.00200.00Pocket Length [ft]
001001101101No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0300Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
920105800458210301731210113Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
2302620011202584130228Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
8509774041759481631113104Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0000000260003130Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
78089680386963115373495Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Eagle Point BlvdOak Marsh RdCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D205 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
77.21d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
FFAAApproach LOS
933.74231.190.171.04d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
19.5719.57325.0014.1914.19133.450.000.002.320.000.0016.7295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.780.7813.000.570.575.340.000.000.090.000.000.6795th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
CFFBFFAABAABMovement LOS
15.38192.611738.3913.60171.12618.020.000.0011.570.000.0012.17d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.210.004.160.160.001.630.000.010.030.000.010.18V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nonononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
nonononoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D206 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.556Volume to Capacity (v/c):
BLevel Of Service:
14.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
#5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
250.00100.00100.00250.00250.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
100110No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
nonononononoPresence of On-Street Parking
593378231181631027Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
15842063041257Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
54310757109150945Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
550001500Right-Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
6463-635564-64Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
45247135423677Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.091.091.091.091.091.09Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0074000855Base Volume Input [veh/h]
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D207 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
1.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.06.00.06.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.06.00.06.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
nonononoPedestrian Recall
noyesnoyesMaximum Recall
nonononoMinimum Recall
0.03.03.03.00.03.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.02.00.02.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
010100010Pedestrian Clearance [s]
055005Walk [s]
0.03.03.03.00.03.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0254510035Split [s]
0.02.02.02.00.02.0All red [s]
0.03.03.03.00.03.0Amber [s]
0303030030Maximum Green [s]
010155015Minimum Green [s]
-Lag-Lead--Lead / Lag
086102Signal Group
PermissivePermissivePermissiveProtectedPermissiPermissivePermissiveControl Type
Phasing & Timing
5.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
LeadGreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Semi-actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
70Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
noLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D208 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
34.79252.4680.7124.2452.64199.2695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
1.3910.103.230.972.117.9795th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
19.33151.5244.8413.4729.24112.3550th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.776.061.790.541.174.4950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
noyesnoyesnoyesCritical Lane Group
CCAABBLane Group LOS
22.2134.956.578.2710.4313.88d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.170.860.370.230.210.59X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.238.770.471.070.611.45d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.170.500.500.500.50k, delay calibration
21.9926.186.107.209.8212.44d1, Uniform Delay [s]
34939122295087821751c, Capacity [veh/h]
15681757351274815683512s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.040.190.230.160.100.29(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.220.220.640.640.500.50g / C, Green / Cycle
161644443535g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
3.003.003.000.003.003.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
5.005.005.005.005.005.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
RLCLRCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D209 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
6.57 34.95 22.2113.88d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]8.2710.43
CA CBMovement LOS AB
33.056.79d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]13.41
CAApproach LOS B
14.02d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
BIntersection LOS
0.556Intersection V/C
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8-6-Ring 2
--------------21Ring 1
Sequence
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D210 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #4: CSAH 13 & Eagle Point Blvd
1151821220103924
110175117199723
108171114797722
9214697683121
8713892779020
7812483070719
7211576965518
6910973262317
558758649916
528254946815
528254946814
497852544713
457147640512
416643937411
416643937410
40644273649
23362442088
13201341147
12181221046
5749425
3537314
3537313
2424212
2424211
WESN
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
E, WMinor Approaches
N, SMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
YesPeak Hour#3
YesFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
YesEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D211 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
YesWarrant Met for Intersection
NoYesWarrant Met for Approach
YesYesTotal Volume Condition Met
44Number of Approaches on Intersection
25562556Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoYesHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
115182Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
YesYesDelay Condition Met
7:2347:12VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
22Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
231.2933.7Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
WEOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
81116131187430Hours
Met
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo29742259824
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo28542168823
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo27942124822
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo23841807821
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo22541717820
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo20241537819
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo18741424818
YesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNo17841355817
NoYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo14241085816
NoYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo13441017815
NoYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo13441017814
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo1274972813
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo1164881812
NoNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1074813811
NoNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1074813810
NoNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNo104479189
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo59445288
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo33424887
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo30422686
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo1249185
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo846884
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo846883
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo644582
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo644581
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D212 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D213 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D214 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 8: 8: PM 2019 Build - Improvements 2
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D215 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/8/2014Report File: C:\...\Signal Warrant - 25%.pdf
Scenario 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal WarrantVistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
F73.30.616WBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 5th St5
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D216 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.616Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
73.3Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
200.00100.00100.00250.00250.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
100110No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
28758072970953Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
719202717238Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
26697422764877Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
1616-161416-16Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
10533134821Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.021.021.021.021.021.02Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0074000855Base Volume Input [veh/h]
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D217 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D218 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
3.13d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
FAAApproach LOS
56.660.370.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
4.1678.300.003.400.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.173.130.000.140.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
BFABAAMovement LOS
12.1473.280.0010.630.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.050.620.010.040.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D219 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
2151924
2151923
3232822
3232821
4313820
10779419
108510418
1915418817
3326932916
3427733915
3427733914
3730036713
4133140512
4334642311
4334642310
463694529
574615658
604845937
655236406
725847155
766157534
897238853
917389032
957699411
ENS
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
EMinor Approaches
S, NMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
NoPeak Hour#3
NoFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D220 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoWarrant Met for Approach
YesTotal Volume Condition Met
3Number of Approaches on Intersection
1805Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
95Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoDelay Condition Met
1:29VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
2Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
56.7Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
EOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
0385300000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2234624
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2234623
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo3251622
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo3251621
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo4269620
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo102171619
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo102189618
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo192342617
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo332598616
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo342616615
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo342616614
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo372667613
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo412736612
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo432769611
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo432769610
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo46282169
NoNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNo572102668
NoNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNo602107767
NoNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNo652116366
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo722129965
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo762136864
NoYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo892160863
NoYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo912164162
NoYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo952171061
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D221 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D222 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D223 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D224 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Intersection Analysis Summary
7/8/2014Report File: C:\...\Signal Warrant - 30%.pdf
Scenario 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal WarrantVistro File: C:\...\Lake Elmo.vistropdb
Lake Elmo Development
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
F98.90.762WBLHCM2010Two-way stopCSAH 13 & 5th St5
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D225 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
0.762Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
98.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM2010Analysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
#5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
Intersection Level Of Service Report
nononoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0055.0055.00Speed [mph]
200.00100.00100.00250.00250.00100.00Pocket Length [ft]
100110No. of Lanes in Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Intersection Setup
000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
34888123682963Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
822203920241Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.92000.92000.92000.92000.92000.9200Peak Hour Factor
31817473375886Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
1919-191719-19Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
12624165624Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.031.031.031.031.031.03Growth Rate
3.003.003.003.003.003.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
0074000855Base Volume Input [veh/h]
5th StCSAH 13CSAH 13Name
Volumes
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D226 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
nononoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
nononoFlared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D227 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
FIntersection LOS
4.72d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
FAAApproach LOS
74.800.460.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
5.14106.890.004.350.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft]
0.214.280.000.170.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh]
BFABAAMovement LOS
12.2998.950.0010.810.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.060.760.010.050.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D228 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Signal Warrants Report For Intersection #5: CSAH 13 & 5th St
2161924
2161923
3232922
3232921
4313820
11789619
128610618
2215619217
3927333616
4028134615
4028134614
4430437513
4833541312
5035143211
5035143210
543744619
674685778
714916057
765306536
855937305
906247694
1057339033
1087499232
1127809611
ENS
Minor StreetsMajor StreetsHour
Warrant Analysis Traffic Volumes
70%Warrant Factor
YesPopulation < 10,000
YesSpeed > 40mph
EMinor Approaches
S, NMajor Approaches
Intersection Warrants Parameters
YesPeak Hour#3
YesFour Hour Vehicular Volume#2
NoEight Hour Vehicular Volume#1
Met?NameWarrant
Warrants Summary
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D229 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
NoWarrant Met for Intersection
NoWarrant Met for Approach
YesTotal Volume Condition Met
3Number of Approaches on Intersection
1853Total Entering Volume on All Approaches During Same Hour
NoHigh Minor Volume Condition Met
112Volume on Minor Street Approach During Same Hour
NoDelay Condition Met
2:19VehicleHours of Stopped Delay on Minor Approach ([h]h:mm)
2Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach
74.8Total Stopped Delay Per Vehicle on Minor Approach (s)
EOrientation
Warrant 3 Condition A
3587531000Hours
Met
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2235624
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo2235623
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo3252622
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo3252621
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo4269620
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo112174619
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo122192618
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo222348617
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo392609616
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo402627615
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo402627614
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo442679613
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo482748612
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo502783611
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo502783610
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo54283569
NoNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNo672104568
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo712109667
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNo762118366
NoYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo852132365
NoYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNoNo902139364
YesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNo1052163663
YesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNo1082167262
YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo1122174161
Condition
B56%70%80%100%56%70%80%100%VolumeNumberVolumeNumber
Warrant 3Warrant 2Warrant 1 Condition BWarrant 1 Condition AMinor LanesMajor LanesHour
Warrant Analysis by Hour
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D230 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Lane Configuration and Traffic Control
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D231 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D232 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup
Version 2.00-06
Generated with
Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume
Scenario 9: 9: PM 2019 Build - Signal Warrant
Lake Elmo Development
Traffic Impact Study D233 Lake Elmo Development
Appendix D - Capacity Analysis Backup