Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> THE VILLAGE LLC 11/11/2016 <br />TRAFFIC STUDY <br />CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY <br />WSB PROJECT NO. 2170-380 PAGE 18 <br /> <br /> <br />TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS <br /> <br />Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the intersections and <br />driveway in the study area. The analysis was conducted for the following scenarios: <br /> <br />1. Existing 2016 <br />2. Projected 2018 Build <br />3. Projected 2030 No-Build <br />4. Projected 2030 Build <br /> <br />This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a <br />summary of traffic operations for each scenario. <br /> <br />A. Methodology <br /> <br />The intersections in the corridor were evaluated during the AM and PM peak <br />hours using Synchro/SimTraffic micro simulation software. The results are <br />derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity <br />Manual (HCM) 2010. The software was used to evaluate the characteristics of the <br />roadway network including lane geometrics, turning movement volumes, traffic <br />control and signal timing. In addition, the signal timing parameters for future <br />year conditions were optimized using Synchro. This information was then <br />transferred to SimTraffic (the traffic simulation model) to estimate average peak <br />hour vehicle delays and queues. <br /> <br />One of the primary measures of effectiveness used to evaluate intersection traffic <br />operations, as defined in the HCM, is Level of Service (LOS) – a qualitative letter <br />grade, A – F, based on seconds of vehicle delay due to a traffic control device at an <br />intersection. By definition, LOS A conditions represent high quality operations <br />(i.e., motorists experience very little delay or interference) and LOS F conditions <br />represent very poor operations (i.e., extreme delay or severe congestion). Figure <br />12 depicts a graphical interpretation of delay times that define level of service. <br />The delay thresholds are lower for un-signalized intersections than signalized <br />intersections due to the public’s perception of acceptable delays for different <br />traffic controls as indicated in the HCM. In accordance with the Minnesota <br />Department of Transportation (MnDOT) guidelines, this analysis used the LOS <br />D/E boundary as an indicator of acceptable traffic operations. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />117