Resolution 2006-299
RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 299
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO
RESCIND AND SUPERSEDE RESOLUTION NO. 2003-410 AND
TO ADOPT UPDATED STANDARD TRAFFIC IMPACT
STATEMENT PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE
REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN COLLIER
COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requires that
roadways be planned and constructed so as to provide adequate public facilities; and
WHEREAS, there are numerous references within the LDC referring to minimum
requirements for roadways and streets; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Planning Department's Development Review
Section is charged with assuring that all proposed new development will adequately
address the roadway needs of Collier County; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of a standard format, along with defined criteria
for the preparation of Traffic Impact Statements is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners
adopted Resolution No. 2003-410, which set forth Collier County's current Procedures
and Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies; and -
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners has requested more detailed AM and PM traffic analysis as well as
intersection analysis; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Planning Department's Development Review
Section has identified improved methods and criteria to provide a more accurate and
detailed review of transportation impacts from proposed development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Procedures and
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a
part hereof, is hereby authorized for implementation and shall be used for the preparation
of all Traffic Impact Statements required by the LDC.
THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote in
favor of adppti~m t)1is:. I ~ ~ 1-- day of tJ (}\l O.JI/V'- 6 p, (, 2006.
ATTEST~ . .
DW1GH17-~p:"BROCK, ~LERK
::. <;. ~..., -'.
By:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNT~_.
By: ~ ~
FRANK HALAS, Chairman
App
and
PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY
The purpose of the traffic impact study (TIS) is to quantify the potential traffic impacts, ensure compliance
with the transportation concurrency requirements consistent with the comprehensive plan and identify site
related operational deficiencies that impact the health, safety and welfare of the traveling public. The TIS
shall also, where applicable, analyze access points, median openings and intersections significantly
impacted by the development on the transportation system and develop mitigation strategies to offset the
impacts according to the methodologies and provisions as described herein. These guidelines are in
addition to the requirements of the access-management regulations and in the event of any conflict between
these guidelines and such regulations, the more stringent requirements shall apply. The TIS is required for
all applications for:
. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
. All zoning changes including DRIs
. Site Development Plans
. Subdivisions/Platting
· All development applications that produce additional traffic or modifies existing traffic
(Excluding applications for building permits)
1. METHODOLOGY STATEMENT
Prior to conducting any study, a methodology statement shall be prepared by the applicant and
submitted for review and approval by the Countyl. The purpose of the methodology statement is to
establish agreed upon methodologies and assumptions prior to the start of the study. A methodology
statement shall be prepared using the guidelines provided in the following paragraphs. The
methodology statement will be first reviewed by a County representative, if necessary, through a
methodology meeting with the applicant's consultant. The applicant's consultant will then revise the
statement based upon agreed methodologies. The applicant shall ensure the consultant does not
prepare a traffic study without an approved methodology statement signed by the appropriate County
representative. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable fee with the submittal of the
methodology statement and prior to the review of the TIS, the applicant shall pay any additional fees
due based on the schedule of fees as set forth in EXHIBIT "A".
2. APPLICANT AND REVIEWER QUALIFICATIONS
All Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) are to be prepared by a transportation professional with training and
experience in traffic analysis and transportation planning.
All Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) are to be reviewed by staff or consultants of the Collier County
Transportation Development Review Team (TORT) with training and experience in traffic analysis
and transportation planning.
I Any reference to the "County" In these guidelines shall mean the County or its consultants, contractors, or
employees, as applicable.
- I -
3. REVIEW FEES AND STUDY CLASSIFICATIONS
An applicable consultant review fee in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A shall be
paid to the appropriate County department, along with a minimum of four copies of the TIS and
methodology statement. Transportation studies will be classified and considered under the following
criteria. The Criteria is meant to be used as a guide but in no way prohibits the county from requiring
additional study information on a case by case basis.
1. Small Scale Study
(NO SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL OR ROADWAY IMPACTS)
CRITERIA
. The project generates less than 50 net new total 2-way AM and less than 50 net new total 2-
way PM peak hour trips, and
. The access point to the adjacent roadway network does not require modification inside the
Right-Of-Way above a standard driveway connection. (No turn lanes or median
modifications), and
. The project is a stand alone project and not part of a larger development, and
. If the project uses a shared access point, the addition of the project traffic does not trigger
any operational deficiencies or additional work within the right-of-way.
Small scale studies shall provide a trip generation and distribution consistent with the TIS guidelines.
The study shall provide this graphically and in a table format. The study shall use the data from the
latest County adopted concurrency and AUIR tables to demonstrate that the project will not generate
significant impacts, as defined by Section 8 of the TIS Guidelines, on the roadway network and that
the project does not directly access a roadway that is currently operating above 110% of the adopted
service volume capacity or wi 11 exceed 110% of the adopted service capacity with the addition of the
proposed project trips. The table shall include the existing roadway capacity, background traffic, trip
bank, project trips and subsequent remaining capacity for each impacted segment as stipulated by
Section 9 of the TIS Guidelines. For new access points the study shall define the access class if
applicable and demonstrate compliance with the access class guidelines. Please refer to EXHIBIT
"Small Scale Study" as a guideline for this application.
- 2 -
2. Minor Study
(NO SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL IMP ACTS WITH MINIMAL ROADWAY
IMPACTS AND WORK WITHIN THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY)
CRITERIA
. The project does not satisfy ALL of the criteria for a Small Scale Study.
. The project generates fewer than 100 net new total 2-way AM or fewer than 100 net new
total 2-way PM peak hour trips and less than 2% of adopted LOS service volume on the
roadway segment(s) it directly accesses, and
. The access point to the adjacent roadway network may not require modifications inside the
right-of-way beyond the scope of turn lanes and median modifications, and
. If the project uses a shared access point and the addition of the project traffic, based on the
applicable analysis scenario, does trigger or cause operational deficiencies or require
additional work within the right-of-way, and
· The only mitigation required is ingress and egress turn lane(s) and median modifications,
and
· No impacted major intersections, as defined by Section 8.b herein, are currently failing or
expected to fail with the addition of the project traffic
Minor studies shall provide a trip generation and distribution consistent with the TIS guidelines. The
study shall provide this graphically and in a table format. The study shall use the data from the latest
County adopted concurrency and AUIR tables to show that the significantly impacted roadway
network, as determined by the study trip generation and distribution, has sufficient capacity. The
table shall include, as appropriate, the existing roadway capacity, background traffic, trip bank,
project trips and subsequent remaining capacity for each impacted roadway as required by Section 9
of the TIS Guidelines. For new access points the study shall define the access class if applicable and
demonstrate compliance with the access class guidelines. The study shall provide detailed PM, and
when requested AM, analysis and conclusions consistent with this guide, the land development code,
and the most recently approved right-of-way ordinance that all modifications in the right-of-way
provide safe ingress and egress including but not limited to turn lane analysis. Please refer to the
EXHIBITS as referenced throughout this document as a guideline for this submittal.
- 3 -
3. Major Study
(SIGNIFICANT ROADWAY AND/OR OPERATIONAL IMP ACTS)
CRITERIA
. The project does not satisfy ALL of the criteria established for either a Small Scale or
MinOT Study. (ie. the project generates more than 100 net new total 2-way AM or PM peak
hour trips, the project significantly impacts one or more roadway facilities or causes them
to become deficient, or the project requires access management improvements and
intersection improvements above and beyond turn lanes and/or median modification)
Major studies shall provide a trip generation and distribution consistent with the TIS guidelines. The
study shall provide this graphically and in a table format. The study shall determine using the data
from the latest County adopted concurrency and AUIR tables whether the significantly impacted
roadway network, as determined by the study trip generation and distribution has sufficient capacity.
The table shall include the existing roadway capacity, background traffic, trip bank, project trips and
subsequent remaining capacity for each impacted roadway as required by Section 9 of the TIS
Guidelines. For new access points the study shall define the access class if applicable and
demonstrate compliance with the access class guidelines. The study shall provide detailed AM and
PM analysis and conclusions consistent with this guide and the most recently approved right-of-way
ordinance that all modifications in the right-of-way provide safe ingress and egress including but not
limited to turn lane analysis, roadway analysis and intersection analysis. Please refer to the
EXHIBITS as referenced throughout this document as a guideline for this submittal. If the Major
Study identifies capacity or traffic operations deficiencies, the applicant may elect, by way of their
TIS study submittal, to propose mitigation strategies and demonstrate the effectiveness of those
strategies at resolving the deficiencies.
4. TRIP GENERATION
The trips from/to the site shall be estimated using the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Trip Generation publication or other rates as requested and/or approved by the County. An
example of trip generation is shown in Exhibit 4A. In selecting between Trip Generation Average
Rates and Equation, ITE guidelines as depicted in Figure 3.1 page 10 of the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook should be followed. Figure 3.1 has been reproduced as Exhibit 4B. If the county and the
applicant cannot agree on an acceptable trip generation, the applicant shall provide a study of three
locally similar uses. The study shall be prepared consistent with ITE policies and procedures and
must be approved by the county prior to beginning the study.
In order to estimate the net new trips from a project, vested trips and trips from existing use, if any,
should be subtracted from the total trip generation potential of the proposed project. Trip reduction
for existing land use, however, will be permissible only if the site was operational within the last
twelve (12) months and will be determined at the Methodology Meeting.
- 4 -
5. INTERNAL CAPTURE
Internal capture is permitted for multi-use developments as defined in Chapter 7 of the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook. The multi-use developments should typically be between 100,000 to 2
million sq.ft. and should be planned as a single real-estate project. The calculation for internal
capture should be done according to the procedure outlined in Chapter 7 of the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook. Exhibit 5A depicts the ITE procedure for internal capture. Alternatively, use the county
developed Excel spreadsheet with an example of internal capture for estimating net external trips (the
trips at the site driveways). Exhibits 5B and 5C depict the county procedure for internal capture.
The internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips.
Internal capture rates higher than 20% shall be adequately substantiated and approved by the County
staff.
6. PASS-BY CAPTURE
The total gross external trips for retail uses may qualify to be reduced by a pass-by factor to account
for the project traffic that is already traveling on the adjacent roadway. As per FOOT's Site Impact
Handbook page 58, the number of pass-by trips should not exceed 10% of the adjacent street traffic
during the peak hour or 25% of the project's external trip generating potential (Exhibit 6A). If the
ITE Equation Ln(T)= - 0.29Ln(X) + 5.0 (ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Page 47) for estimating
pass-by capture for Shopping Centers (LUC 820) results in more than 25% pass-by capture, the pass-
by rate should be reduced to 25% for the peak hour. The daily capture rate is assumed to be 10%
lower than the peak hour capture rate. The entering pass-by trips should be equal to the exiting pass-
by trips and in the same direction as the entering pass-by trips i.e. if 20 pass-by trips heading EB
entered the project driveway, then 20 pass-by trips should exit the project driveway to go EB. The
approved pass-by percentage shall be applied to the total traffic and the resulting number of pass-by
trips should be equally split between the inbound and outbound trips. Exhibit 6B from ITE Trip
Generation Handbook (Figure 5.2 Page 32) depicts the application of pass-by trips. In the analysis of
the site-access intersections, the pass-by trips shall be included and separately identified.
The following pass-by rates may qualifY to be permitted for other land-uses with higher potential for
pass-by capture:
. 50% Pass-By:
Gasoline Stations with and without convenience store (LUC 844, 845)
Fast Food Restaurants with Drive-Thru Windows (LUC 834)
Pharmacy with and Without Drive-Thru Windows (LUC 880,881)
- Convenience Market with and without Gasoline Pumps (LUC 851, 853)
Drive-In Bank (LUC 912)
. 40% Pass-By:
Quality Restaurants and High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurants (LUC 831, 832)
The pass-by rates for all other retail land uses should comply with FOOT's guidelines. Any pass-by
rates higher than the above permitted rates shall require justification and prior approval from the
County staff.
- 5 -
7. TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT
The most current version of the appropriate Collier County Model is acceptable in determining the
trip distribution percentages and trip assignments. The results of the model will be reviewed by
Collier County for reasonableness to ensure the existing and future travel patterns are correctly
simulated. Manual trip distribution and assignments may also be acceptable as long as they are
reviewed and accepted by Collier County and logically replicate the existing and future travel
patterns. This review may take place during the Methodology Meeting if the manual trip distribution
has been performed at this juncture. Otherwise, the manual trip distribution must be reviewed and
approved by Collier County prior to identification of the Significantly Impacted Roadway Network or
other subsequent steps of the TIS process.
The trip distribution shall be shown graphically in both percentages and number of trips. The total
project trip distribution and assignment at project driveways and adjacent intersections are different
for project sites with and without full access median openings. Therefore, the trip distribution shall
also be shown separately for Total Project Trips and the Net New Project trips. The maximum
directional project trips on roadway segments shall be highl ighted in these figures. Exhibits 7 A
through 7C provide a sample for trip distribution and assignment.
The trip distribution percentages in the study network should add up. Any mid-block reduction in trip
percentages shall be graphically depicted with adequate information and shall be discussed and
approved by staff at the methodology meeting.
8. SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED ROADWAYS/INTERSECTIONS
Significantly impacted roadways and intersections are identified based on the following
criteria:
a. The proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net new total trips) based on the peak
hour of the adjacent street traffic will determine the limits of the trip distribution and analysis.
· Trips distributed on links directly accessed by the project where the project traffic by
direction is equal to or exceeds 2% of the peak hour service volume for the adopted LOS
standard.
· Trips on one link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project where the project traffic
by direction is equal to or greater than 2% the peak hour service volume for the adopted LOS
standard.
· Trips on all subsequent Jinks where the project traffic by direction is equal to or greater than
3% the peak hour service volume for the adopted LOS standard.
b. Major intersections (signalized and/or unsignalized intersections of major roadways as
determined during methodology meeting) that are part of the significantly impacted roadways,
major intersections that are within 1,320 feet of the site access, and all site-access intersections
are considered significantly impacted.
c. With the Traffic Study Report, the applicant, on a separate page, shall provide a list and number
of the intersections studied for the purpose of establishing the review fee per the fee schedule as
outlined in EXHIBIT "A".
d. Any intersection or link which may be adversely impacted as identified by the County at the
methodology meeting based on the size and degree of the project that may, at the county's
discretion, be included for analysis in the Significantly Impacted Roadway/Intersection Network
- 6 -
9. ANALYSIS SCENARIOS and DEFINITIONS:
Scenarios:
a. Existing Scenario is defined as the documentation of existing traffic on the existing significantly
impacted roadway network.
b. Base Scenario is defined as the analysis of existing traffic, plus background traffic for the
estimated build-out year on the E+C (existing plus committed) significantly impacted roadway
network.
c. Proposed Scenario(s) As defined by Table 9.1 below
Table 9.1: Proposed Scenario(s) Requirements
Table 9.1
Background Traffic Incremental Operational
Build Out Horizon Development Trips (3) Network Capacities Scenarios Analysis
5 Years or Less Maximum Allowable AUIR + Background 5-year CIE NO Methodology
Comprehensive (1 ) Growth to Build-Out Meeting
Land Use
Amendment Over 5 Years Maximum Allowable AUIR + Background Methodology
(1 ) Growth to Build-Out 5-year CIE (4) 5 Year Increments Meeting
5 Years or Less AUIR + Background Methodology
Re-Zoning (from zoning Maximum Allowable Growth to 5-year 5-year CIE NO
(including application) Horizon Meeting
Conditional Use
applications) Over 5 years Maximum Allowable AUIR + Background 5-year CIE (4) 5 Year Increments Methodology
Growth to Build-Out Meeting
5 Years or Less Maximum Allowable AUIR + Background Methodology
(from zoning Growth to 5-year 5-year CIE NO
application) (2) Horizon Meeting
PUD Re-Zoning
Over 5 years Maximum Allowable AUIR + Background 5-year CIE (4) 5 Year Increments Methodology
(2) Growth Build-Out Meeting
2 Years or Less Proposed - Current AUIR E+C E+C Mandatory Per TIS
Site Phase (5) Study Guidlines
Plan/Subdivision Proposed - Current
Over 2 Years AUIR + Background E+C 2 year, 5 Year, Mandatory Per TIS
Phase (5) Growth to Build-Out Additional 5 Years Study Guidlines
(1) Maximum allowable Trip Generation may be reduced subject to the Methodology Meeting and adoption of corresponding
conditional or phasing language in the Land Use Ammendment
(2) Planned Unit Development rezoning may serve to limit the maximum allowable trips over the build-out horizon compared to
comparable Zoning
(3) Or as stipulated during methodology meeting
(4) Applicant may be allowed or required to consider additonal roadway networks (ie. Interim Cost Affordable Plan)
based on methodology Meeting
(5) The Significantly Impacted Network shall be determined based on the traffic generation and distribution of the current
proposed phase.
- 7 -
Scenario Definitions:
a. Significantly Impacted Roadway Network: As defined in Section 8, above.
b. Network Capacities: Based on either the E+C network, or in the case of zoning and land use
amendments, the existing roadway network + projects fully funded in the 5 year CIE
c. Build-Out Year: The year in which that quantity of development considered by the TIS is
anticipated to be substantially complete and eligible for Certificate of Occupancy. The build-out
year shall be documented in the approved methodology statement.
d. Background Traffic: As defined in Section 12, below.
e. E+C Network: The E+C network is defined as all the existing roads, plus all the improvements
that are funded for construction within the first two years of the local government's or the FOOT's
adopted Transportation Improvement Programs for applications requiring a Certificate Of Public
Adequacy (COA).
f. Incremental Scenarios: Future scenarios based on 5 year increments beyond the build-out
year.
10. GENERAL ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS AND SOFTWARE
a. Level of Service (LOS) and turn-lane length analysis (in accordance with the County's access
management standards) are required for all significantly impacted intersections described under
Section 8.
b. All roadway adopted LOS and corresponding Service Volumes will be taken from the currently
adopted AUIR or as agreed during the methodology meeting.
c. Use of the analysis software is allowed in accordance with the following:
(I) The latest version of Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and Synchro software can be used
for signalized and unsignalized intersection analysis. For certain complex and saturated
traffic conditions, the County may require traffic analysis through SimTraffic or CORSIM.
(2) The electronic copy of the analysis files shall be provided. The hard copy of the summary
sheets with sufficient details of the input data and the MOEs (measures of effectiveness)
shall be provided unless otherwise requested by the County. (See Sample Exhibits lA and
IB)
(3) Other analysis software may be used if requested and/or approved by the County.
(4) The input data to the software shall be field verified, where applicable, and provided in the
report including, but not limited to:
(a) Existing AM and PM peak hour volumes with geometry, including lane widths and
turn-lane storage lengths at intersections (without taper). Similar information should be
included for future analysis years. (See Sample Exhibits 2A through 2C)
(b) Traffic factors such as the K, 0, and T factors (See Sample Exhibit 3). The K factors
shall be documented when travel demand forecast volumes are used for developing
peak hour segment volumes and intersection turning movement volumes for the
analysis year(s). The documentation of K factor, however, will not be required if
historic growth rates are used for extrapolating the existing traffic data (segment
volumes and intersection turning movement volumes) for the analysis years(s).
- 8 -
(c) Heavy vehicle factor of five percent in the urban area if data is not available. Major
Studies outside the urban area will be required to verify the factor if not available from
existing sources less than I year old. This method will be established at the
methodology meeting.
(d) Directional distribution factor (0 Factor) from AUIR.
(e) Peak-hour factor (PHF) for the intersections. This value should not be greater than
0.95.
(f) Existing signal timing and phasing (to be obtained from the County with a hard copy
provided in the report). The existing signal timing of a signal which is part of a signal
system, including its maximum and minimum settings, shall not be changed pursuant to
determination of adequate intersection or roadway segment capacity without the prior
approval of the County staff.
(5) Other parameters that govern the roadway/intersection capacity analysis shall be based on
the parameters described in the latest version ofthe Highway Capacity Manual.
11. TRAFFIC COUNTS
All counts shall be conducted based on acceptable engineering standards. Raw turning movement
counts (TMCs) shall include passenger cars and trucks and shall be provided for all Significantly
Impacted intersections as agreed upon at the methodology meeting. Daily directional machine counts
(minimum 48 hours) for all Significantly Impacted road segments as deemed necessary by the County
staff for operational analysis purposes shall also be provided. If requested by the County, at least one
of the daily count locations for each impacted roadway facility will be a vehicle classification count
conducted for a minimum of 48 hours. The TMC data shall be summarized in the format similar to
the example depicted in Exhibits 8A or 8B. The raw TMCs shall be adjusted using the most recent
and appropriate Peak Season Conversion Factors (PSCF) published by FOOT or Collier County. The
machine counts shall be adjusted using the most recent PSCF and axle adjustment factors. To the
extent that any adjusted machine count volumes indicate lower traffic volumes than those adopted in
the current AUIR, these counts shall be discussed with and approved by Collier County prior to use
for subsequent components of the TIS. Adjustment factors shall be approved at the methodology
meeting.
The intersection turning movement volumes collected in the field indicate the throughput for every
individual movement at the intersection and mayor may not reflect the demand for the individual
movements. If residual queues are observed for any movement at an intersection, the turning
movement volume will not reflect the true demand for that movement. Approach counts will be
needed for those approaches where the demand is exceeding the capacity and residual queue builds up
during the peak hour. The placement of the approach count machine is equally important to measure
the demand. The count machines shall be placed at a location where the queues would not extend
past the count machines. The locations and need for approach counts will be determined during the
methodology meeting or requested as part of a sufficiency review.
The approach volume for the peak hour of the intersection shall be used to develop approach turning
movement volumes based on the approach turning movement percentages. This shall be done for
approaches with residual queue build-up during peak hours. The approach count machines shall be
placed at a location where the queues would not extend past the count machines. In no event,
however, should the estimated turning-movement counts be less than the existing field counts.
Segment tube counts shall be done concurrently with the intersection turning movement counts where
the segment is part of the intersection. The segment machine counts at mid-blocks shall be checked
against turning-movement counts at the adjacent intersections. In general, the mid-block counts and
turning-movement counts should not be substantially different unless the difference can logically be
explained. Approved FOOT or County-maintained counts may be used for verification if they are
- 9 -
less than one year old in the high growth areas. Counts from a similar approved study may be used if
the information is less than one (]) year old. New counts will be requested if there are recent
improvements to the transportation system that may cause significant traffic diversions. Counts more
than one year old from the year of the TIS submittal will not be acceptable unless otherwise approved
by Collier County. The counts will be done on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays of a typical
work week and are not to be done immediately before, during, or after a major holiday.
12. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH/FUTURE TRAFFIC
The existing traffic counts shall be increased by a growth factor up to the project's build-out date
(shall be reasonably specified) to account for increases in existing traffic due to other approved
developments. The build-out year shall be in accordance with table 9.1. The estimation of the
background traffic-growth rate and background traffic shall be based on the following:
a. Historical growth rates (minimum of the past three years) may be used in areas where the
expected growth is representative ofthe past growth. (See Sample Exhibit 9)
b. The growth/future traffic on committed roads that do not currently exist shall be based on the
most appropriate adopted model, as directed by the County staff for each specific application.
c. If the appropriate adopted model as directed by the County staff is used, the traffic growth rate for
existing roads shall be based on the growth rate as determined by comparing the most recent,
validated year, model volume to the future model volume. The future model volume is
determined by applying the project's build-out year, socioeconomic data to the committed
network. The build-out year, socioeconomic data may be obtained by interpolating between
MPO's or the County's adopted validated year and the adopted interim or future year,
socioeconomic data.
d. The socioeconomic data of the model shall reasonably represent, if appropriate, the recently
approved developments in the vicinity of the project as approved by the County during the
methodology process. At a minimum, the build-out year socioeconomic data is to consider
development approvals (DRls, Planned Unit Developments or major rezonings) that may not be
included in the model, a minimum of ten miles from the project boundary. It will be the
responsibility of the Applicant to review and prepare the amended data set unless otherwise
available from the County.
e. The TIS will consider all vested development on the significantly impacted links and
intersections. This information shall be obtained from the County and agreed upon at the
methodology meeting.
f. Minimum, annual growth rates in all cases shall be two percent, unless otherwise approved by the
County.
g. The assumed growth rate and method of calculation for each impacted roadway segment shall be
presented in a table.
h. Development of the future intersection turning movement count shall be adequately documented.
(See Sample Exhibit 10)
- 10 -
13. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
a. The LOS standards for all major road segments shall be consistent with the letter standards per
the County's latest adopted concurrency tables in the Annual Update and Inventory Report
(AUIR).
b. Although it is acknowledged that Collier County does not have an adopted LOS concurrency
standard for intersections of major roadways, the performance of intersections on the network is
critical to maintaining the adopted LOS on the adjacent segments. As such, the operating LOS of
significantly impacted intersections (the intersections as a whole, as well as individual
movements) may be evaluated in the TIS using appropriate indicators such as volume to capacity
ratio (V /C), delay, and ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization), with respect to the identification
of any appropriate solutions or mitigation measures for the Existing, Base, and Future Scenarios.
c. The delay for individual turning-movements and through-movements may exceed the segment
standard by one letter grade, but not below LOS "E", provided that the volume/capacity (v/c)
ratio for the subject movement remains less than or equal to one. Average control delays up to
100 seconds are acceptable for individual turning movements and through movements where the
corresponding v/c ratio is less than 0.8.
d. All other design and traffic operations standards as specified in the Land Development
Regulations, Right-of-Way Handbook, Access Management resolution and other applicable
County ordinances.
14. INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
The following additional information may be required:
a. The Horizon (Build-Out) year of the project must be a reasonable date and in accordance with
table 9.1.
b. Tabular presentation of the LOS standard of all the existing significantly impacted roadways and
tabular presentation of the LOS standard for the significantly impacted segments with committed
roadway improvements.
c. Graphical presentation of the eXlstmg and E+C link and intersection geometry with storage
lengths for turn lanes, speed limits and traffic control devices. (Sample Exhibits 2A through
2C)
d. Tabular presentation of the date(s) of the traffic data collection and the appropriate peak season
and axle adjustment factors used for adjusting the raw traffic counts. (Sample Exhibit 3)
e. Graphical presentation of the existing link AADTs, directional peak hour volumes for the links,
and peak hour turning movement volumes at the intersections. (Sample Exhibits 2A through
2C)
f. Tabular presentation of the approved traffic factors (K, 0, T) for the roadway segments within the
study area. (Sample Exhibit 3)
g. Graphical presentation of the project's proposed access locations, types, and internal roads with
connections to the County's build-out or long-range plan of roadways. The graphic shall also
cover the area beyond the boundary of the project to include all the external, major roadways and
existing or future, access points and types of developments surrounding the project as agreed
upon at the methodology meeting.
h. Pavement marking plans/concept plans of roadways that provide direct access to the project and
have completed or are undergoing design or route study phase, if available.
- 11 -
1. Graphical presentation of total (adjusted for internal capture, if any) and net new project traffic
distribution both in percentages and number of project trips. (Sample Exhibits 7B and 7C)
F The trip distribution percentages in the study network should add up. Any mid-block reduction in
trip percentages shall be graphically depicted with adequate information.
15. PHASED DEVELOPMENTS
The traffic-generation estimate shall consider the total traffic generation of the cumulative
development (including traffic from previously developed or approved phases) for purposes of
operational analysis. For purposes of evaluating mitigation needs, only the impacts of the traffic
above and beyond the traffic from the previously developed uses or prior approved phases (where
mitigation is already accomplished in accordance with the TIS guidelines) need to be considered.
16. FREEWAY/INTERSTATE IMPACTS
Traffic studies will not be required to analyze the traffic impacts on interstate/freeways except at
interchanges. Interchange analysis shall include analysis of exit ramp storage capacity, as would be
the case with any intersection analysis, pursuant to maintaining safe operating conditions on the
limited access facility
17. EQUAL MITIGATION FOR OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
Operational impacts of the development project traffic will have to be mitigated for intersections
failing to achieve acceptable levels of service (as outlined under the APPLICABLE STANDARDS
section). To mitigate the impact of the development traffic, a concept called equal mitigation will be
used except as otherwise required by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Equal mitigation
shall mean the implementation of an improvement that, at minimum, results in the reduction of delay
per vehicle on each lane group at deficient intersections prior to the addition of the development
traffic. Equal mitigation will apply to improvements such as extending existing turn-lane lengths at
intersections but will require delay estimation through traffic simulation. Other improvements such
as installation of hard-wire signal coordination and installation of real-time demand responsive signal
coordination system such as SCOOT or equivalent intelligent traffic management systems (ITMS)
may also be acceptable if approved by the County staff.
Acceptable mitigation improvements will offset the impacts of the development without adversely
impacting the below-standard movements as measured by capacity and delay, and as further
described below.
Improvements will be deemed acceptable if capacity is added (through the addition of general
purpose through-lanes, auxiliary turn-lanes, or ITMS options that are accepted by Collier County) that
restores or improves the delay and V/C ratio to the level it was in the "base scenario."
The developer shall only be responsible for the equal mitigation improvement; however, for
informational purposes only, if equal mitigation improvements are identified at any deficient
location(s) that would result in delay being reduced to the "base scenario" but not to the acceptable
LOS, then additional improvements that may be needed to bring the entire deficient location(s) back
to the LOS standard, shall also be identified and reported separately. For example, an existing
intersection is operating at LOS F with 120 seconds of delay per vehicle. After adding the project
trips, the delay increases to 140 sec/veh. Providing a second left-turn lane reduces the overall delay
to 120 sec/veh but the intersection is still operating at LOS F. The applicant will only be responsible
for providing a second left-turn lane which brings down the intersection delay to the original level. If
the left-turn improvement reduces the overall delay from 140 sec/veh to 100 sec/veh, the applicant
will be required to pay only 50% of the cost of the left-turn lane improvement. However, the
intersection still failing and the applicant will need to identify other improvements that would be
- 12 -
required to achieve an acceptable LOS E with a delay of less than 80 sec/veh.
The design and construction of any mitigation improvements shall be in accordance with Collier
County or FOOT standards, as applicable.
The analysis of intersections to demonstrate the adequacy of an improvement to achieve equal
mitigation must be based on a consistent traffic-signal timing strategy and must follow the steps
below:
a. Analyze the "base scenario" condition which would include the eXlstmg traffic plus the
background traffic on an E+C network for the analysis year. For this scenario, the existing timing
plan is required. If the signal operates as an isolated intersection, optimization of cycle length,
phasing, and splits can be performed. However, if the si!!:nal is part of a si!!:nal system, anv
modifications or adiustments must be hi!!:hli!!:hted and approved bv the county before
finalizin!!: the analysis and submittin!!: the TIS. The choice of signal-timing methodology in
this step must be carried consistently into the next step. From the analysis, an overall Intersection
Signal Delay and an Intersection Capacity Utilization are reported by Synchro.
b. The next analysis is to evaluate the total future traffic (background plus project traffic) on E+C
network (future scenario). For this analysis, the si!!:nal timin!!: plan in Para!!:raph 17.a may be
optimized by Svnchro. If the LOS standard is met, no further analysis is required. If the LOS
standard is not met, further analysis to identify appropriate mitigation is required.
c. The next analysis is to evaluate total future traffic on an improved intersection concept (future
scenario with mitigation). The same signal-timing strategy used in Paragraph 17.a is required. If
the overall Intersection Signal Delay and the Intersection Capacity Utilization are equal or less
than in Paragraph No. 17.a, the improvement is considered to be adequate to offset the impacts of
the development.
d. Any changes to existing conditions, including traffic-signal timing or phasing changes shall be
noted and hi!!:hli!!:hted in the conclusions of the report.
e. If the developer presents evidence acceptable to the Transportation Administrator or designee that
the required equal mitigation improvements are not feasible in relation to the development
proposed, mitigation strategies at alternative location(s), other than the primary location(s), may
be proposed and may be accepted if approved by the Transportation Administrator or designee.
At minimum, the improvements shall meet the following criteria:
(1) The location(s) must be within the impacted area and must be at or near deficiency.
(2) The improvement must be other than simply a signal-timing or phasing change.
(3) Mitigation must, at the minimum, improve the overall vehicle-hours of delay, intersection-
capacity utilization, and/or speed of the alternative location(s) by the equivalent amount of
the reduced vehicle-hours of delay, intersection-capacity utilization, and/or speed at the
primary location(s).
(4) The improvements must not already be, or in the process of being condition of approval of
another development.
(5) All the applicable analysis requirements for the pnmary location(s) shall apply to the
analysis of alternate location(s).
- 13 -
18. ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION FOR OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
An applicant may request alternative mitigation in the local area when equal mitigation fails to
completely offset the impact of the development. Alternative mitigation recognizes that in certain
situations it may be a benefit to the county and the traveling public to allow for additional forms of
mitigation to be incorporated within the review and approval of new development and the
redevelopment of existing property. The following items may be considered and approved by the
Transportation Administrator or designee in conjunction with or as an alternative to equal mitigations
as defined above:
a. Donation of right-of-way for future improvements.
b. Payments of an additional roadway impact fees set to fund future improvements.
c. Installation and/or purchase of Intelligent Traffic Management Systems (ITMS) approved by the
county.
d. Participation in various forms of alternative transportation including but not limited to: the
inclusion of a park and ride site into the development, the inclusion of public transit shelters, the
purchase of a public transit vehicle and maintenance on an existing or new route.
e. Commuter subsidies.
f. Pedestrian connections.
g. Interconnections with existing developments.
h. Area wide system improvements to adjacent intersections and roadways that improve the level of
service above and beyond the impacts of the proposed project.
19. FAIR-SHARE MITIGATION
If the developer presents evidence acceptable to the Transportation Administrator or designee that the
required equal mitigation is not cost feasible in relation to the development proposal, the developer
may propose fair-share mitigation which must be approved by the Transportation Administrator or
designee.
The fair-share payment shall be calculated as follows:
a. Identify all the needed improvements to bring all deficient locations back to the LOS standard.
b. Submit a signed and sealed cost estimate of the required improvements as approved by the
County. The estimate will include all costs associated with the completion of the improvement
from concept to finished product.
c. Calculate the fair-share cost of those improvements per the following formula:
For Intersection Improvements
A = MOE for Base Scenario (Background Traffic with E+C network)
B = MOE for Total Traffic (Background plus Project Traffic) without Improvements
C = MOE for Total Traffic (Background plus Project Traffic) with Improvements
o = Cost of Improvement
Fair Share =
[Change in MOE from A to C]
[Change in MOE from B to C]
x Total Cost of Improvements [D)
For example, if A = 120 sec/veh delay; B = 140 sec/veh delay; C = 100 sec/veh delay
A - C = 120 - 100 = 20
Fair Share =
B - C = 140 - 100 = 40
- 14 -
x Total Cost of Improvements [0]
20. Construction Traffic
Any development (minor and major) anticipated to produce construction traffic that would
significantly affect the flow of traffic on adjacent roadways shall provide mitigation measures if
requested by the County. The County reserves the right to make this determination and the applicant
shall be responsible for providing details of the anticipated construction traffic volumes, hours of
operations, and proposed mitigation measures and obtain approval from the County. At the County's
discretion, the County may require all off site operational improvements identified and approved in
the TIS to be in place prior to any on site construction.
- 15 -
EXHIBIT A
Collier County
Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule
Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review, Analysis Review, and
Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below.
Methodolo!!V Review - $500 Fee
Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement, including review of submitted
trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study" determination,
written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement, and written confirmation of a re-
submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier County, if needed.
"Small Scale Studv" Review - No Additional Fee (Includes one sufficiency review)
Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a
concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip
generation, distribution and maximum threshold compliance.
"Minor Studv Review" - $750 Fee (Includes one sufficiency review)
Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: optional field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation,
distribution, and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review
of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of off-site improvements within the right-of-way, review
of site access and circulation, and preparation and review of "sufficiency" comments/questions.
"Maior Studv Review" - $1.500 Fee (Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiencv reviews)
Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, special
trip generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination,
confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of
traffic growth analysis, review of off-site roadway operations and capacity analysis, review of site access
and circulation, neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated
cost estimates, and preparation and review of up to two rounds of "sufficiency" comments/questions and/or
recommended conditions of approval.
"Additional intersection Review" - $500 Fee
The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the "Major Study
Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the "Major Study
Review"
"Additional Sufficiency Reviews" - $500 Fee)
Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the
additional Fee prior to the completion ofthe review.
Other Miscellaneous Services:
Additional optional services, if necessary, will be provided per the schedule below
Optional Services:
I. Attend review meetings in Collier County outside of the office $300
2. Attend public meetings $600
- 16 -
SAMPLE EXHIBITS
- I -
Exhibit 1 A: Sample Synchro 6 Report (3 pages)
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
4: Univ Pkwv & US 41
/' -+ ~ . ...- '- ~ t I" \.. ~ ./
.....:GiRiD~~{l-<~ EBI... EaT EBR WB1. WBT WBR N8t. .NBT NBR SBL SBT. SBR
Lane Configurations l; . " l; 4 " l; .t. tI;tI; .t.
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost Time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95
Fit '- 0.850 0.850 0.961 0.995
Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.966 0.950 0.950
Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1681 1709 1583 1770 3401 0 3433 3522 0
Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.966 0.950 0.950
Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1681 1709 1583 1770 3401 0 3433 3522 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Said. Flow (RTOR) 9 286 36 4
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 682 738 985 875
Travel Time (5) 15.5 11.2 14.9 13.3
Volume (vph) 52 75 19 482 85 836 25 1048 364 945 1772 66
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Flow (vph) 52 75 19 482 85 836 25 1048 364 945 1772 66
Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 75 19 276 291 836 25 1412 0 945 1838 0
Turn Type Split pt+ov Split pt+ov Prot Prot
Protected Phases 2 2 23 6 6 67 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Detector Phases 2 2 23 6 6 67 3 8 7 4
Minimum Initial (5) 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 20.0 7.0 20.0
Minimum Split (5) 31.0 31.0 26.0 26.0 13.0 41.7 13.0 41.7
Total Split (5) 32.0 32.0 45.0 26.0 26.0 59.0 13.0 54.0 0.0 33.0 74.0 0.0
Total Split (%) 22.1% 22.1% 31.0% 17.9% 17.9% 40.7% 9.0% 37.2% 0.0% 22.8% 51.0% 0.0%
Maximum Green (5) 26.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 7.0 47.3 27.0 67.3
Yellow Time (5) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
All-Red Time (5) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.2
Lead/L.ag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (5) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode Min Min Min Min None None None None
Walk Time (5) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (5) 18.0 18.0 28.0 28.0
Pedestrian Calls (#lhr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (5) 12.6 12.6 21.8 22.0 22.0 55.0 9.0 50.0 29.0 75.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.42 0.07 0.39 0.22 0.58
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.41 0.07 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.06 1.23 0.90
Control Delay 58.8 61.8 18.7 99.2 107.6 58.2 63.2 79.6 157.4 32.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 58.8 61.8 18.7 99.2 107.6 56.2 63.2 79.6 157.4 32.5
LOS E E B F F E E E F C
Approach Delay 55.1 75.3 79.3 74.9
Approach LOS E E E E
Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 60 5 245 -261 530 20 -673 -504 750
Queue Length 95th (ft) 84 111 21 #451 #478 #868 52 #859 #663 #1008
Internal Link Dist (ft) 602 658 905 795
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 342 360 398 285 290 836 118 1333 768 2048
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SplJlback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced vlc Ratio 0.15 0.21 0.05 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.06 1.23 0.90
..~
Area Type: other
Cycle Length: 145
Actuated Cycle Length: 129.7
Natural Cycle: 145
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.23
Intersection Slgnel Delay: 75.6 Intelllection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.2% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (mln) 15
- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles.
201 Oam_ Univ Pkwy & US 41.sy7 Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
CH2M Hill
Lanes. Volumes, Timings
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles.
4: Univ Pkwv & US 41
201 Oam_ Univ Pkwy & US 41.sy7
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
CH2M Hill
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
26: Univ Pkwv & Shade Av
,J. -+ ~ t'" ..- '- "" t I" '. ~ ./
~;,.'i.,'it,;;ff~<:'t';'-',C >... .;." , .,EBL .EBT .'GRii: c,Mt'.'v '.WBT ;.'"WBR:. .NBL .,(NaT:., ,NBR: i_::'~"t"S81'y,1~:i'SI:lR
Lane Configurations ~ ~~t.. ~ ~~t.. 4.. 4..
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehlh) 54 2282 11 63 2599 111 5 0 47 30 0 21
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly flow rate (vph) 54 2282 11 63 2599 111 5 0 47 30 0 21
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft) ,
,
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX. platoon unblocked
vC. conflicting volume 2710 2293 3409 5232 766 3696 5182 922
vC 1. stage 1 cont vol
vC2. stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol 2710 2293 3409 5232 766 3696 5182 922
IC. single (5) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9
IC, 2 stage (5)
IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
pO queue free % 63 71 0 100 86 0 100 92
cM capacity (vehlh) 148 217 1 0 345 1 0 272
DInlction. Lane fI. El31 EB2 EB3 9. WB1 WB2 WB3 W84 NB1 : 88.1
Volume Total 54 913 913 467 63 1040 1040 631 52 51
Volume Left 54 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 5 30
Volume Right 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 111 47 21
cSH 148 1700 1700 1700 217 1700 1700 1700 15 1
Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.54 0.54 0.27 0.29 0.61 0.61 0.37 3.56 37.33
Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 Err Err
Control Delay (s) 42.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err Err
Lane LOS E D F F
Approach Delay (5) 1.0 0.6 Err Err
Approach LOS F F
Int8nIec:liOnSUll1ll8Y
Average Delay 198.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
2010am_Univ Pkwy & Shade Av.sy7
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
CH2M Hill
Exhibit 18: Sample HCS Report
Page 1 of2
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Intersection Univ Pkwy & US 41
Agency or Co. 2005AM_Existing Conditions Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 12/29/2005 Jurisdiction
Time Period 5:00 pm, Analysis Year
,.
Volume and Timin~ InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 0
Lane group L T R L LT R L TR L TR
Volume (vph) 52 75 19 482 85 836 25 1048 364 945 1772 66
% Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext. eff. oreen 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.0 4.7
~rrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 8 0 167 0 0 22 0 0 2
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/hr
Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Phasino EB Only WB On Iv 03 04 Excl. Left SB Onlv Thru & RT 08
iming G - 10.6 G = 20.0 G- G= G = 4.1 G - 16.9 G = 49.7 G=
y= 6 y= 6 y= y= y= 6 y= 6 y= 6.7 y=
Duration of Analysis (hrs = 0.25 Cvcle Lenath C = 132.0
Lane Groue Caeacitv, Control Dela, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
Adj. flow rate 55 79 12 289 307 704 26 1463 995 1932
Lane group cap. 169 178 224 295 300 660 82 1356 755 2013
v/c ratio 0.33 0.44 0.05 0.98 1.02 1.07 0.32 1.08 1.32 0.96
Green ratio 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.42 0.05 0.40 0.22 0.57
Unif. delay d1 55.7 56.4 49.0 54.8 55.0 38.5 60.9 39.8 51.5 26.9
Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.47
Increm. delay d2 1.1 1.8 0.1 46.7 58.1 54.2 2.2 48.7 152.3 12.0
PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Control delay 56.9 58.2 49.1 101.4 113.1 92.7 63.2 88.5 203.8 38.9
Lane group LOS E E D F F F E F F 0
~pprch. delay 56.9 99.4 88.1 95.0
~pproach LOS E F F F
Intersec. delay 93.3 Intersection LOS F
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 f
Page 2 of2
" B~CK-OF-QUEUE WORKSHEET
General Information
Project Description
Averaae Back of Queue
EB WB NB 5B
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
ane group L T R L LT R L TR L TR
Init. queue/lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flow rate/lane 55 79 12 289 307 704 26 1463 995 1932
Satflow per lane 1770 1863 1583 1770 1799 1583 1770 1794 1770 1852
Capacity/lane 169 178 224 295 300 660 82 1356 755 2013
Flow ratio 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.44 0.01 0.43 0.29 0.55
v/c ratio 0.33 0.44 0.05 0.98 1.02 1.07 0.32 1.08 1.32 0.96
I factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PF factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P1 1.9 2.7 0.4 10.6 11.3 25.8 0.9 28.2 18.8 35.3
ks 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.9
102 0.1 0.2 0.0 3.5 4.5 10.9 0.1 12.5 17.3 8.3
Ia avg. 2.0 3.0 0.4 14.1 15.7 36.8 1.0 40.6 36.1 43.6
Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile)
IFS% 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.6
800,0% 4. 1 6.0 0.8 25.0 27.5 58.0 2.1 63.5 57.1 67.7
Queue Storage Ratio
Q spacing 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Q storage 50 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 650 0
Avg. Ra 1.0 0.1 1.4
95% Ra% 2.1 0.2 2.2
HCS2000™
Copyrighlll:l 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1f
Exhibit 2A: Sample Existing Traffic Volumes
~;;::;
N'" ..,
g '-OC:v. .I . I.
CJ)
:::> SCv......
E
c..
~ .- SSl
.<is
~
.c ocs.....
:::>
~
~
0::
o
~
o
~
0::
c:
~ '-v.
Cll
~
~
co " .....
~
6
....
G .- SC:C
1::
~
:.a: SSc:.....
~j
.., '"
N
'"
.o ~
M 0>
'" ..""
.1.1.
o
'"
.., <0
'" 0 0>
~ '" '"
.I + I.
'" ..,
... '" ~
~ "'-
..J + I.
- 0>
~ 0> ..,
~ '-SOvC: ; r :
CJ)
:::> SSS...... ... j
.o 51
~ ....
-~,
~z
I~ <I
l.. re ~
__ 0
'" ~
,~
~ t ~
IB'
<00>'"
- .. '"
~ ~ "....
~
<0
-- '"
",0
~j
~ f r
~g~
....
~,
~'"
...
N
'" ..
.oM
. I.
,~
1 ~
N
'" N
0<0
- '"
~::;
..
...;;;
'"
j ~ f r
- '" ...
'" '"
'"
-,
o
~ ~
~..,
'"
'..,
. I.
f ~
M '"
N '"
'"
~ '"
, 0
~j
~ f ~
'" "'..,
~ ~
o ....
'"
"',
Lfe
~
"'~
~ 1 ~
... - ..
.., ~ N
~
a::
~
.~
.~
~
+-tlS.
sso.....
+-...
vC .....
+- 99S
9.C.....
+- 699
9S C .....
+-9C:
l v.....
~ ~.l.~
+-ccoz
6C:C . .....
Cll
>
.C
o
c:
5l
1::
~ !
j <(
1 Cll
l\'I OJ
CJ) ~
if
j
o
-'
Q)
>
.C
o
.~
:0
::l
~ c..
8
15
.C:
l\'I
~
v . .....
~
.C
o
1::
l\'I
E
1ij
~
..--
~m
III
::!:
'--,.....
8l ~ g;
~ <0 '" --
~ .., '" '-S9
6S ..J + I. , ;;;
S v..... ;::j ~ t r 6 v.....
'" ... '"
- .... '" 0 ~
'"
::;, '"
'"
... '"
~ ~
'-l6. ..J t
f
os ..... SI, re
'"
.., ~ ~
... - '" Ie
... N N --
'" - .., <0
'-lOS. t I. '" '-ssz.
..J , ~
SS " ..... ;~ ~ t ~ 9c:Z......
:i .... ;1; 0'"
.., '"
... , r"'"J ~ N
0>
.o
'" ...
~ ~
'-60. ..J +
f
9" ..... ~, ~
'"
- N I
~ ~ ~
.-.... ..J . ~
f
ss ...... ~, ~ ~
'" ~~
'" 0 .., '" ~
.-as ~ ~ ~ -- '-vC9
..J . l.. ''''
...
Z69..... ~j ~ 1 ~ CC9 .....
'" NO'"
<0 .... ~ S ~
'"
~,
;::
- N
'" -
.-.9 .,J t
.. f
vv..... .., '"
N
N
'"
'" ~ ~
<0
'" '" -- o .-CC.
.-s - - '" ,:::
..J t l..
c:9..... ",j ~ f ~ BC.....
.. '" '"
.., ...
- .... 0
N
~,
-'--
~<(
III
::!:
-
~
~
i!' .-
l\'I
0..
~
c:
::l
o
U
~
<{
Q)
E
::l
I-
o
::l
.2"
-'
U
co
~
Ui
.c
;:::
M
Q)
~
~
.c
CJ)
I
~
i
UJ
c.
E
ell
0::
/Xl
Z
It)
~
;s '"
-1-::3
<0 ...
'" .. ,g
'" -
.-SOC. .,J t ~ +-.BS.
~ f
0'"
"'..,
... ~
0
<00
... 0
- 0>
. I.
'" f ~
c:BS..... ::: j OC6. .....
5? g
~ -. ~ ~
..,
.. -
'" -
.., '"
'-Bg ..J .
.. ~ f
69S..... ~j
'" ~ ::g
, N N
N '"
..,
~ ~
'-5v. .,I .
f
.B...... ~, '"
0
'"
N
~ '"
'" '"
'" '" <0 .., '"
~ ~ ~ ... '"
'-6B5 ... ~ '-896
.,I . l.. , 0>
..,
... ~ f ~ 6U .....
Z9v..... ~j
'" :!S '" '"
~ .... ".... ~ ~
~ ,
'" ~o
~ ~ N
. I. 0> '-6C
,-
f ~ 5S .....
'" ..,
'" ..,
:::J
'" ~~
CD ~ g: N ~
.-a. '" '" - -- .-.cc
..J . I. ,~
. v...... :ej ~ t ~ v LZ .....
~ 0 ..,
~ .... '" '" '"
0
on, N
0> :l
;l; :::
.-.lB ..J .
BOv..... ~ j .., f
N '" '"
'" N
'" , .., ~
~
:c-
J:!m
III
::!:
-
~
E
&.
co
CJ)
LO
~
~
iii
-"
~
u
~
8
~
.C:
o
8-
Cll
o
Q)
E
o
::I:
~
~
::I:
(J
.0
'is
~
~
CD
i!'
l\'I
c..
~
:2
Q)
'.5
:2
~
u
cE
~ e
cat-
CI) ..
U):=
.,x:: 0
ca:I:
(1).,x::
D.ca
&.nCl)
cD.
~:E
D.
C
::l
0::
I
~
1
rJ)
~
~
o
z
~ .
w
-'
Exhibit 2B: Sample Existing Lane Geometry
-
.s::. i;'
~<C
<<l ~
~ i!:
'--- ell
ll.
:g ~
<:
5 l.~ ::>
~ ~ 0
Cl - u
.IH~ -
c; ,~
M
l/) fg.) ~tt~ ~
::J
"'..... .<:
..... ~ fg Cl
~, <:
~
J .8
fg ~ IJl <(
ll. '" ~
....~ ell
~ ,fg ....J
.i?! ~
Gl "0.) ~ ,t. Gl
> I!? Cl
.E ~~ "tl
::J in ro Ii:
gj l/)
~ ~, "tl
~
""
"0 l.fg g
0 ....J
N '0
'0 .~
a:: ,~
.9
0 ~
UJ H~
Gl
Cl .1:
0 Cl
0 1::
M ro
E
iii
'0 ~
a:: "0
I: g ~
.9 ....~ .. ~
C
Gl
'0
ro "0.) ~tt. ~
cXi '" .1:
'0 .. ~ Cl
<5 .~
:is
::>
ll.
fg ~
~ .1:
H~ Cl
'5
,t. .C
ro Gl
:E ~
Gl
E
::>
I-
0 in
~ gj
... ~
u ~.H ~
1::
~ 0 .) ~~ , t.
<( ~ .)
0 .. ~
~
:g :g
5 '"
...
! ! ~
... ~ r~ ,8
'O:l' M
l/)
::J 8 .) ~,~
M .J 0
..... 51 [il
.. I
~
.t
.--7 z 5
-
.s::.
~1Xl
<<l
~-
"0 l. 8
~
...H~ N
,
t ~ttt.
"0
~
~
~.H
~ , '"
"0 ~
~ -.
... H~ on
, ~
~.J ~ttt.
N..... "0
.. ~
in
~
~H.
~ -. "t I
~
:!
~ .~
~.H 5
~ -. "t
0
~ ~
.... .~
fg .J ~ttt.
'"
..... 8
~ -. '"
fg
N
~.H
~, '"
~
"'H~ ~
t ~ttt.
~
~'--
~<C
<<l
~
5
::>
c:r
:.J
U
CD
$
U5
.J::
;::::
M
(l)
~
~
.J::
r/)
I
~
:!
f
~
IJl 0 fg l.
c- on
E '"
ro .IH ~ ,
a:: ,
CD
Z
.0 ~~ tt
~ ~~
IJl ~~
c- oo_
E H~~
ro
a::
CD "O.J H~
r/) ~.)
.0 :g
~ ~~, '"
...
8-
0
51 ~ "0
co ~
"" ~.H~
~
u in.J ~~ , 't
~ ~.J
"0 ~
8 g, N
U
Gl
> 0
(5 0
'"
8- .I .H
8 ~,
(l) tH
E
0
r
"0 fg 4- ~
~ ;!; -
.I. H~ ,- ~
~
0 12 .J
C ~~ tt t.
0 "'.J
r ..... 0
~ .. 0
on
in
.... fg
'" l.
C5 .H~ , fg
.u
i ~Ht.~
:E
0 [il
on
0 fg .+. <:
gj ::>
a::
51 .I.H ~ ,fg I
co
~ ~ 3
&. ..... ~Ht. 6
~ -. "0
~ ....J
~ 8 ~
'"
"tl .I.H ~
~ ~3 ~~ t t t
~ ~ .. 0
[il
L..--
~cc
<<l
~
'---
~
-
CP
E
o
CP
C)
C)
c
;:
CI)
';C
W
!
~
1 J2
VI
'" !
.::! E
e ~
.... ....
I in
. N
N
~
Exhibit 2C: Sample Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Geometry
M
'" N 1 ~ 1
~ N
0 c:o ... co -
" ~ It)
'"
~ _M "- ~ 0
~ t o~ ~ '" ~ ;: 0
~t:. t -...
"- a; <0 e.~ ~ N
..; '" ~. OJ
OJ ;: e -
OJ~. :::. "'''' ~
"'~
_S9~ (61S) ~H _s(J.) .{ ....
Q)
O<lY'/IIHfJN/KJn'a I )/d 7lI1<10Y'/3Y'/ 337 E
(~~) 9~ i1 (~~)ll--+ (t) :-t 1 0
(SH)OS~--+ Q)
(c9~1 ~t~ -. U,) (.!)
"-~ "'...
0" i2 Q)
~ ...
Ci)t:' ':::-0- C
"'''' i , -eo C'CI
!!22 , ~ e 1
'" ...I
~
OJ ~ 'C
eo ... '" '"
0 eo " '" 0 c
"- co en I ...
"- ~ ~ C'CI
co eo. eo II>
... :::. e
e ..,'" Q)
'" :s~ E
'" '"
". 0'" =
_~(~I I -'"
_Sl(S~~) .{ ~
-
0<1 Y'/ltHfJN/JI::Jne 31\ltN3MO C.)
(L~I ~s~. -1 (61) Bt~__ (tl ~8-t 1 IE
(sll 9~L C'CI
"'OJ "'... ~
" "'...
;::: OJ 1 '"
'" :;;:-Ui NM en
e -" E.e c
" ~ 0
i?i. :::. '" co i ..
eo OJ ~ II>
'" l co "
'" eo '" ;;; ';(
..; eo. ..; '"
:::. ... " W
l "
-'" ;:n
"... ;:n '"
~~ s~ e
'"
'" '"
..."! "
J1 "'''
_oc (~e~) _lL(BC) .{
3NlI7 INY'/O 1\'rI3::JV77ltM
(60~) 9~~-- (9.) 9--t 1 (z) 69-t +1
('6) 0.. (et) 69__ (~t) 0
"'" "''''
~ ~ " 1 ~...
'" '"
'" r::-N"
e r::-M' 1
'" 0'" "''''
" ~~ 0 iO -e
"'. :::. '" '"
'" t::.
" t a; '" 0
M '" '" " '"
~ "'. OJ " 0
:::. M l
iX)
a;_ '"
0'" ~ ~
~~ "'-
" ~~
~~ ... <='
"''''
...~ Q;
II -L- ~s (06~) _BL<L~~) II }-~; (9~) _ ~~ (B9) E
...- 9~ ( ~C) (os) ~
(!)
GI\7'awn<JO:i 771:iONII7 r- Ql
ir r o ~
(eBl 09~__ (oLlee--+ <:j
" "
co '" " i "'- i Il
" g" ~ " '"
e e '"
M 6i'a:i NCO
'" ...'" '" 0 0
"', ....- '" '" q- 0
'" " "
l :::. ~ l :::. co
0 I '"
~ o.
:::. :::. ~
;: '" g l5
'"
0 '"
N " - ..; ~ti
0-,,,,,,, -"'~ 1: -""
~~:!. "''''''' ,gj ~
::..c.~
'" "" ..5.m
'"
"!,, '" ~ ~ -L- 6a (611)) 0.5
" ~ '" (60L) =-0
'{ll +~B _ 61>0'L (1)9l>'~) j III :::: 901 (tB9.~) _ 6W'~ (~BL'zl ..::.:: ..:.t c: Q)
(~) _S~~(L9L) mm8~
~9 (os) _ ",-I>t (6~) c.. c.. 0. ~
0<1 <13131 01\7'a 711fN070::J lD :; :; .9 .2'
(e,) B~+ (B~) ~S-+ i1 r'- Q <:c..l/ll/l
(61) se__ (~) (ce~)~o~-- (61)~'~) 1>61>'~--+ (esB) OB9'~ ===t usn) ~90'~__ z " " " "
(1)9) III gi.o
"'''''' (99C) ~91 ~ " en ~ "
"'''''' III
q " M ~15l i ...I
5'~~ '"
:::. t::. Gi'M':;::'
~. C~- 0 ",~"
~ t::..~- "
~ IN
t N l a;
'" ~ s ..
ci
Exhibit 3: Sample Design Traffic Factors
BlE 2.ADOPTED TRAFFIC FACTORS
S~ 8~. Corridor Access Management Plan
, "
Time Period
Description Factors 5/2/2004 - 5/9/2004 - 5/16/2004 . 5/23/2004 -
5/812004 5/15/2004 5/22/2004 5/29/2004
2004 Seasonal Factors
Lee County (SR 82) PSCF(1) 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.10
SF (2) 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.03
Collier County (Countywide) PSCF(1) 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15
SF (2) 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.01
2004 Axle Correction Factors
Lee County 1-75 to CR 884 0.94
CR 884 to Alabama Rd 0.93
Alabama Rd to Hendry County Line 0.89
Collier County Hendry Countv Line to SR 29 0.89
2004 K D and T Factors
Dally Truck Peak Hr FDOT
Description K30 D30 Truck Count
T24 TdT2J2) Site
Lee Countv
SR 82 between 1-75 and Buckingham Rd 10.02 55.13 15.32 7.66 120064 (3)
SR 82 between Buckingham Rd and Colonial Blvd 10.02 55.13 9.91 4.96 120021 (3)
SR 82 between Colonial Blvd and Gunnery Rd 10.02 55.13 8.70 4.35 120077 (3)
SR 82 between Gunnery Rd and Alabama Road 10.02 55.13 10.25 5.13 120101 (3)
SR 82 between Alabama Road and Bell Blvd 10.02 55.13 18.91 9.46 120068 (3)
Collier Countv
SR 82 between Bell Blvd and South Church Road 10.47 54.99 9.45 4.73 030183 (3)
SR 82 between South Church Road and SR 29 10.47 54.99 18.64 9.32 030200 (4)
SR 29 south of SR 82 10.47 54.99 14.00 7.00 030143 (4)
(1) PSCF = Peak Season Conversion Factor (2) SF = Seasonal Factor
(3) Prior Year Data (4) Actual Data
Source: 2004 Traffic Information CD
Exhibit 4A: Sample Trip Generation
Ui
W
I-
~
>
cc
U,
II)
<
0..
~
W
ac:
:::l
I-
0..
<
U
..J
<
Z
ac:
w
I-
~
Z
0
0
w
II)
<
e. ~ ...
z on
0 N
~
W
Z
w
~ "
0.. i
" >' t
ol
I- ~ [
~ l!! l!!
~ ~
w > ~
..J ~
cc
< III III
~ <C
l- ll.
,
,
!
z l l!l :1: N
l!l '"
i .. ~ c
~~
~~ > '"
I; ""
i N ... ~
... M ~
'" ...
5' g: N :!i ~
! '" ""
III ~ ~ '" ...
!It if ~ ;'l\
g f III ;:\ ~ '"
( ..
lU ~ ~ ~ ... N
Z '" .. ;
III
> >' ... ~ I ...
.... ~ ;:; ...
;c N '"
'" "! g
0 ~ ..; ~ ~
>'
.. N l)I
! '" 0 0
N N
..
;:;;~ ~ 0 0 ~
;;;iflll
!It :I
e: ll.
>
Gl ..
,;, III ~ ~
'" i 0 0
...
ll. III
~ >' N N
<C
;c ~ N 0 0 I N
"'. '"
0 ~ -
>' I
... '" '" '"
~ '" ;:; '" N
N
'" ..
ll.
ii :z: I:
... " 5\ ~ ..
ll. )( "
III III '"
.. f
::>
Ii:
... ..
.,
a III .. ~
i "" N '"
Z III II
..
III
...
;!; >' !
> ..
.... <C ... g '"
a ~ 0 "" ~.
6- '" N ~
f '" '" .. '"
'" N N l)I
'" -
~
..
-;1: .. ... ~
:'if~ '"
~f ;;; ~ ..
I
..
...
;i ..
5 ~ ~ '" ;; N
... '" s;
III
~ >' '" '" N '"
i '" '" 0
<C '" '" ;. '"
0 g ~ - :i
ltl ~ 8 8
iij g ~ N
N
... tu Cl
... III ~"'
III lIJ .......
! "- "- ~~
0 d
"' (/) 0 ;;l
...
0
~ ...
~ s ~~
!:!- ~ 1;. g~
III .... lIJ !Z~
" u
~ tu it ~~
z '" ~ ffi~
:l '"
!i
ii
c.l!i
~~
'5'"
.. oj
i!
."'1
~~
lr
~~
~ ~
'~~
~ ~
~ ~
~.~
15 .~
'Ii'"
H
~i
"0.5
~~
i,~
E ~
"U-9
IE ~
~~
.VI ~
5'~
o ~
"- ~
~-"
~-
~~
.. ~
~ g
~ ~
15.-"
~~
~o
~~
m c.
c.c
..;:.
N-"
'" .;,
.S ~
~ Q.
~.~
~ di
oc
'" ~
+ ~
g.::
S.z-.
'" ~
N>
91l
" co
E~
C ~
i~
~ m
.;;t
lIJ:!
"'0.
~~
~~
~~
~.,e
",,,,
_N
0."
~&CD
~~':::
~ _ 0>
~.eS!
~~ f
i~ .~
~rl
m ~
cn;
~ ~il
~~~~1
_ - Q.."O
] ~ ~~i
~~ Hi
~ % ;.! ~
! ~ :~ ~
s E ~g ~
~ ~ "1l~
8 ~ h f
]] ~h
-"." .!i at i
n Hg
~:g h..
-c e ~...,
; ; .l!~'2
,. !i ...." Iii
!i:E ~ i ~
~~ pffi
~ ~ ~ II
:::.t:!. a~~
i
w
-"
...
S
'1!
~
~
Q.
C
...
g>
.~
lIJ g> g>
...
N ~ .~
'" lIJ
-c ~ W
li; ..
'" <to ~
E ." -c
c
~ m li;
c g> f
lIJ
&': .C
~
.. W
-" w
i f ...
'"
0 -" '"
.. -"
'" i ..
+
~ <to ~
'" 0
...
'" + +
'" ~ ~
6
" ....
~ " ~
0
-' ... "
~ " ~
If
~ ~
... ...
Oi Oi ~
e e ~
ii'i (f, ...
c ~ ~
~ e
"C ~ ii'i
.. ~
'5 '5 m
~ j "C
<(
'" ... '5
m m 8
~ If.
0. :r
:! ~ ...
0. m
~
0.
'" '" ~
<to '"
<Ii '"
+ + '"
~ g '"
...
c :!:
-' ....
'" ... +
'" ... ~
c 0
" "
~ ,:- '"
:s "
...
.~ .~ .~
1 W '1!
~
~ ~ ~
Cl Cl
C. Q. Q.
.C .C .C
... ... ...
~ ~ ~
'" '" '"
0 0 0
6 ;: 1ii
N
<to
~ ~ ~
~ "8
u u
~ 3i 3i
:'S ::> ::>
." ] -c
e e
'" j
....
Exhibit 4B: Recommended Procedure for Selecting Between Trip Generation Average Rates
and Equations (Figure 3.1, Page 10 of ITE Trip Generation Handbook)
en
c
o
.-
..
ca
~
0-
W
"
'- c
o ca
....en
e CD
~i
"a:
CD CD
(.)m
e ca
Q.'-
"CD
CD~
~t:
CD.a
e+::
e ~
o CD
(.) t:
G>Q)
a:CJ
~.e.
Mt::
e c
~ G)
mCD
u:.!
CD
m
m
c
.-
..
(.)
CD
Gi
UJ
L~
1-
, :.c:.
i =5 ",. tIl ('-.
i:>(1) ~ en
[(1).'0 c: .CI)
ili~8 ... ~..~...
to.. 35 ~ x
r E':J ~w
;0 -0 .- co
() c (J) t:5
.,..::.:3 NO
tIl,
~1
~ -
o ('-.
'- C/'J
; Q) C
'.0 .-
:E 8-
.:J
z-m
w (':
cia
c) '- c'.!
L Z "
~ "
'oj;::
e ! . . '. ". ~ ' ;; . , _ .
~';<~~~!l
r '~!;J~:,qt1[~-?'::.
:.:C ii'
1,,0,..1.
;'(D." J
I. :~.::
';~'C
~:@~
la::~
\ (J). '::)
en 0"
::>w
+
+
co
III
L()
,
c
;c
; o.
f .~ ("0-
, (]) c:
'.J- 0
. 0)--
I (l) t5
a::>
.0-
oo;tW
~:, .
I:" .
f
f
I
(J)~ 0
~ le ,9"' z
\ 0',''(1')
:~.:C
: J- '0
00-
Om
N-ro
~o
I
l'
!' .
Lr'"
f';':;"/,
L~J:t5
I......'..~.:
L "S
'.,' ..:'ia
l'U.....!>....
. (j):>
.'0
roc:
0:><(
"0
~
""'<L:
109)
1'-. ......
.en
fO"O
'^IO
N c
0: .-
..c:.
<(:t=
coS
tIl i .
en I'D
? (,(I) ...~
,:Eco
..... r ,Q) ex;;
f~~;i>
),<1>15
I,(t.l ,>-
;=> .<(
,
f. .. [:
+ ,t ,t +
'> I., \
i, .:.. I :'., i
en (r i... l
;Iili\;
_". ,.,_.. f
.....I~ t~'c6
t fl r~ ! g
.!:'1 !.~ ',.$ ! ,fjJ
<t: ~ <( i <( '.... <(
00 I a:> 'co to
~ ': == t:t ~ ==
(")
....
<ll
g
<5
c
g
'6
w
1:)
c
C\J
~
o
o
.D
'0
C
ro
I
c
o
~
"-
en
c
Q'l
c:I
Q
~
UJ
~
o
z
c
o
~ .
.~<:'- (J) f Aa
'.0 'E ~ fS.
E .~ .....-\~
!41l ~ tG,
r leo \-m '('<
(tiS"'"' 10~
· to ~ !<<i5
o 0
Z Z
. . '(~'..M~" . .
. 1&:;~Ili':QI
\II' .... , 0,.
.
III
..
-
',;-<\ :.;
c
,..
Exhibit 5A: Sample ITE Internal Capture (Fig 7.5 Page 93, ITE Trip Generation Handbook)
i
I
E
CoG<
~:c
CI> e
0a.
=?CI>
:2'C.
:s E
~m
...UJ
o c:
-0
Q) .-
J ...
......m
0'5
CoU
CI)-
_co
UJO
&.DC
. 0
...... .-
-
~ f!
:s CI>
Q)C
.- CI>
Ll.e
.t
MI
II&'
D.c:
:If
no 't;.
!~
"E.l
t E
i t:::
II
;
1 C'<I col 0 #.
I : ~\ SI ~
~181 ~I
~J ~)
~'-l .. Bl ffiJ
N}' ("oW .!:
U) It 1~
~ E' '
N~
l'" ,
J
I~ 81
I 'it
':Ji:
v 0 -.:- Cl
'" II~N~~
U! -
IJR ~.t-C'?cg
= :;)tNNII'l..,
C"'; i ]
C NR --+---r .
J N ~ ' \ ~
... ia~<o~!~~
~ ! ~~I"
I ! 1
JQ ~~: J
.EJ v I
3l I
~J~) 001
~~
~!G~l ~
.- 1;.- 1
:. .-
~!
C":l
l~ ~I
lB 81
100 ~l
~I ~
. 0
II 1: _ ~
5 ~1"'~~Cl
i ~ I ~! M .- N ~
j3 \.e2tt:'i6;#;
~ ~ltl~
I~
! -
I It
I -
J -
! .- I ;I ~
f2 fC1 .-
... ...
I
1:
II I
I
I
i
~ ~ ~ ~
I .-
I I I
=ill --------- --I
E 1
:s CD I
.
~;lQ~~ C?
...
N
~
-
.
j ~I
I Iii S I I
~
!;!I~
] i
i t
II ii
I I
Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Chapter 7 . ITE 99
81
<<'(IU
!
I
Exhibit 58: Sample Internal Capture
,
,
W
0:::
:J
I-
0..
<
U
..J
<
Z
0:::
W
I-
Z
a: ~ ?fi. ~
0 0
..J :: ~ ~ ~
:$ :lIi: M N 0
A-
I- ~
Z A-
- W --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
c ?fi. ~ ~
~ 0 0
W ii5 ~ 0 ~ 0
I- W ...l N N 0
:c
z ~ c
W
-
W ~ ~ ~
en a: 0 0
:J :: 0 ~ ~
. :lIi: N 0 ....
C A-
Z W ~
c( U A-
..J LL --- --- --- --- --- _n --- ---
Z u.. ~ ?fi. ~
0 0
0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~
...l N 0 ....
i= :c
c( c
z
i= a: ~ ~ ~
en 0 0
:: 0 0 IJ')
W :lIi: ci M N
C A-
0 ..J ~
I- ~ A-
--- --- --- --- --- --- ---
W ~ ~ ~
0 0 0
~ ~ 0 0 IJ')
...l ci M N
:c
C
VJ ..J
c(
::E ZW ...J W i=
_VJt= ~ (.) Z
0 C):J- L&: W
_'x
~ ~CW w u.. C
u.. OZ;' a: 0 in
c( W
..J ~
~
W
..J
a:1
<
I-
en
W
I-
~
W
~
:J
I-
0..
c(
(.)
..J
c(
Z
~
W
I-
~
II: ~ ~ ~
is 0 0 0
..... to M
lIl: C'l Lri 0)
A-
ftj --- --- --- -- -- -- -- -- --- .-------..-. --
f a:
E = :: ~ ~ ?fi.
S'Q. :lIi: 0 te:! te:!
A- ~ ~ 0
.E ftl ::E to .... M
~ (.) A-
0 --- --- --- -- -- n -- --- --- ----------- n
~ ~ ~ ~
0 0
...l 0 cq co
:c cq 0
C ~ C'l
.... N
a:
::
:lIi: 0 0 ~ ~ co
A- IJ') .... ~ (0 to N
Z ...J ::E ....
c:; <t A-
I- --- u- n- --- -- -- -- --- --- --- --- --- --
ii 0
0 I- ~ ~
...l to ..... C'l N N 0
:c N lJ') IJ')
C ~ ..... ~ lJ') IJ') ....
....
a:
..J ::
c( :lIi: 0 ~ 0 ~
i= A- M M
:E
Z A-
- W --- --- n_ _n n n -- --- --- --- --- --- --
~ C
w ii5 ~ M ~
I- W ...l ....
:c .... 0 ~
Z ~ C N M N
W
-
W
en a:
=> ::
I :lIi: 0 0 ..-
C A- N .... N
Z W ~
<t (.) A-
..J u: --- --- --- --- n -- -- --- --- --- --- --- --
Z LL
0 0 ~ M .....
...l ~
i= :c .... 0 N
C N .... N
c(
Z
i= II:
en
W =i
C lIl: 0 to M C'l
A-
0 ..J ~
I- < A-
I- --- --- --- --- -- -- -- -- --- --- --- --- --
w
a: ~
...l to IJ') ....
:c 0 ~ M CO
C
..
~ . .....
C C"') .
'P ,... . CO')
::.:: II) 'P ,...
en 0.. ..J Z
W --- --- -- c( --- 0 --
Z ..J W i= ~ ..J
::E C; enj:: ::.:: ~ u Z <t CD
~ =>- 0.. ~ LL CO') W . Z l- N
ii 'X ::E CO 'P N C'1
~~ W ~ u.. N C 'I'"' ~ e
LL 0 0.. ~ 0 in 'P
~ --- --- -- W --- W --
:8 II) ~ N Q C"')
~ 0
CD CO') 'I'"' ~
< C lit ~
'P 'P CO')
C 'P 'P
....
S
C/)
c..
l:
-
c:
o
~
~
'6
~
ctl
0)
c..
~
0..
~
0)
>
o
0)
.r;
-
,..j
c:
0)
E
c..
o
Ci3
>
0)
'0
0)
.r;
-
en
0..
~
I-
W
~
:J
I-
0..
c(
(.)
..J
c(
Z
~
W
I-
~
C)
c:
l:
0)
'E
0)
If)
0)
U
E
0)
>
0)
.r;
-
~
ctl
0)
If)
=i'...
'0 c:
c: 0)
~ E
c..
ctl 0
~Ci3
c: >
~ 0)
.- '0
If) 0)
~.r;
....-
S~
C/)~
c.. .-
._ X
.::. 0)
c: If)
OJ!:!
~ u
~~
'6 >
~ 0)
ctl=
~~
~ ctl
a..'E
~ ~
- c..
.r; 0
g>Qi
o >
.r; 0)
_'0
<( 0)
.. =
.!!!
c:
o
~
u
e
.$
.~
If)
E
I-
~
0)
.r;
'0
~
0)
'0
'iji
c:
o
u
c:
0)
0)
.c
-
o
c:
If)
ctl
.r;
~
o
II)
CD
a;
~
o
N
'P
cO
II
VJ
0..
~
'iB iii I-
0) 0) ..J
~J5c(
c: ;g I-
ctlO)O
== If) I-
ctl 0)
~ = ~
O)-g~
.~ c: ..J
ll::~c(
o 0 Z
-g ~ ~
ctl c: W
0) ctl I-
U.r;Z
!E~-
o ....
-::l
lj1'E.
~ ~
'Om
c: E
~ 0)
0)'E
E .-
l}l,g
-
c: 0)
0) C/)
0) ctl
.! ~
0) U
.c .~
c: ....
o 0)
~.r;
U1::
e ::l
.$~
c:-
.- '0
0) 0)
.r; -
1-[
CD T5
15~
Z ~
-
U
-
0)
Exhibit 5C: Sample Internal Capture Bubble Diagram
tOCO 'i!-
NO>COU')
M ..... N U)
~---~.,;
II II
f,/) >.
0- co
'C ~
I-
.... >
:::l 'C
00
I-
.::e. co
co E
CD CD
0..")(
co W
- -
0 co
l- f,/)
0-
'C
I-
a5
-
0
IIil: I-
~
C)
<(
c
W
..J
IX!
IX!
:;:)
IX!
W
0::
:;:)
~
0.
<(
(.)
..J
<(
Z
0::
W
~
Z
-
0::
:;:)
0
:J:
~
<(
W
0.
~
0.
. .
><
><
W
0::
:;:)
C)
u:
II II
f,/) C
0- 0
"C ;:;
I- .~
a5
E ftj
CD C
- ...
C G) ,
- ,
a5 oS
- ~
0
I- 0
M 0
M
to
Exhibit 6A: Pass-By Capture FOOT Guidelines
SITE IMPACT HANDBOOK
When considering pass-by trips, the distribution of
driveway volumes may change and be related to the
street traffic. The analysis of pass-by trips should
occur in two steps: (I) detennine the number of new
trips and pass-by trips for the site, then (2) assign the
pass-by trips in proportion to the street traffic and the
driveways and then assign the new trips in accordance
with standard trip distribution procedures.
The pass-by trips estimated in the trip generation step
are preliminary. Final pass-by trips are estimated
following assignment when the number of pass-by trips
considered can be compared with the total traffic on the
facility.
In general, the number or pass-by trips should not
exceed ]0 percent of the adjacent street traffic
during the peak hour or 25 percent of the project's
external trip generating potential.
Diverted trips, like pass-by trips, are not new to the
system overall; however, diverted trips are now
utilizing a segment of the transportation system that
they previously were not using to access the proposed
development site. The new roads a diverted trip uses
mayor may not have direct access to the proposed
development site. Facilities that receive diverted trips
may require analysis of the impacts of the development
trips. An example of a diverted trip is provided on
Figure 21.
With diverted trips, the total driveway volumes
are not reduced. Diverted trips are counted as new
trips where they travel on Sl.'gments required to
reach the site where they previously did not travel.
lTE proposes the following methodology for estimating
the percent of pass-by and diverted trips.
Npb = p(VOL,.J
ND= p(VOLJ
Where:
p = probability of a driver already in the traffic stream,
stopping at the generator, O;;;:p;;;: 1
VOLPb = volume available to produce pass-by trips
YOLo = volume on other streets available to produce
diverted trips
Average daily pass-by trip percentages trip and diverted
trip percentages are provided as a function ofGLA and
average daily traffic on the adjacent roadways for
several shopping centers in HE's Trip Generation for
shopping centers (HE: Trip Generation, p. ]-24-36).
Peak-hour percentages are suggested to be 10 percent
less than these daily percentages.
The percentage of pass-by trips in the PM peak hour
for shopping centers is provided in Figure VII-IA and
using the following equation in HE's Trip Generation.
Ln (PPB) = -0.341 Ln (X) + 5.376
Where:
P fB = percent pass-by
X = l,OOO GLA of shopping center
The PM peak-hour, pass-by trip percentages are usually
10 percent greater than in othertimes during day. (ITE:
Trip Generation, p. ]-23).
)n all cases, pass-by and diverted trip rates must
be justified by the applicant and approved by the
Department prior to use.
When retail land uses are involved with a mixed-use
development that attracts pass-by traffic, each land use
must be analyzed separately using the following
procedure:
1. Estimate the peak-hour, pass-by trip percentage for
each retail parcel (shopping centers, convenience
store, gas station, etc.) within the development.
ITE's Trip Generation (page l-21) provides
guidance on this step. The estimated pass-by trip
percentage depends on the retail site's square
footage.
2. Some of the pass-by trips will likely proceed to (or
come from) other proposed development project
land uses for their primary destinations. These
trips cannot be claimed as pass-by trips to be
reduced from total project trip generation because
they are new trips generated by the project. Trips
between the commercial parcel and other project
land uses are internal trips.
Unit JlI - Standard Site Impact Review Procedures
58 Step 4: Trip Generation
Exhibit 6B:. Sample ITE Pass-By Application (Fig 5.2 Page 30, ITE Trip Generation Handbook)
Figure 5.2 Application of Pass-By Trips
f ' '~"";':-": :', ,.-c. ~:t' -. ,>'.:>~..J<:"-:7~\~\; ,r._~::',~:;-:';;,,"_'>
~: . 'EtiieM '~,-; .,,~ ;," d./_
! ~:~~~~'
. '200 ~ ENTER ' TRlPS .; 15%
i2QO~,exr.r',~ "'. '60TQJAL
~ :' " ; ,; .. .. ,'PASS~.BV TRIPS
; .... ,\'.' .. 3OvPHEN1'I:Fl
';,; ><'i;' -3(HIPf-lEXIT
;C'::~9N';;PASS-BY TAl? ?ATrERN
, SITE
J'
;:
_ .JtN!If __. _ ~ -,~~
80% EXIT
32 ITE . Trip Generation Handbook. 2nd Edition Chapter 5
1?OX~20 = 34'"
f.P~'"8Y'1RlFW"()LU~~'fNleNT
;SITE
", '.. ...~... .."'.1...... ':.. 'J.;.., ... ,~...'....... ........><... .8. :.:. 3.. :=. 'ds .
....J ,.., . . ,. .... .. .......:25 \!PH
sox .17:5J
-5 VPH....
G. FINAL VOLUMES
SITE
200 EXIT ++ 200 ENTER
" . t.~:~:
39.1
195....
LEGEND
VPH = Vehicles per hour
Exhibit 7A: Sample Trip Distribution From Travel Demand Model
0
,.
,
,
,./ 0 ~I
, I
I 1
~l.- ~~ . L. ;"'i.- Z. i':~
, "
"
1- "
"
,.- ~......
- ,.,.,
" /
/
/ - - -
\ - -
-
,
",7 L.l L.L.
I
,
..J
,
-
-/ ......
;-
\ ~,
\ 1.-
- -
'"
r
-
"
"
,
,
,
,
........
,
"
........
"
........
,
.....
I
']
I
I
" I
I
I
,
........
(\
"
?
"
'C-i t
;::
(;
D
'J
Cl
0 ~
0
(\j
" Ll
3
[' c'
D
0 f
r
l u
U,l
,
(J D
L
r 0.
,,-, "'-
\111.-'1 D
-..0
0(1.[
N 0
_ N -
<!-
I!J~. J
~ ~ Il
">I
t1J. , '0/
D-
o .- Ul -v
No.. - In
o 0
- Q! I'
Q.Clnc
o 0
- N ~~
o DC
D. QJ_
~ U - ::;-
CJ O! .. -.
L~-O~
D III - r-
(!) 11', (L
Exhibit 78: Sample Total Project Trip Distribution
~ ~
*- I
0
M
1 , >I<
0
. 0
00 M
~
L~
N
... r
1 r
N
CO)
N
M
~
.--~
0
N
c
o
:;::
~
.c
'i:
-
III
is
Co
'i:
...
-
(j
Gl
'e
~
'iO
-
o
...
o
000
~~(O
II II II
III III I/l
0.0.0.
";:: .~ "C:
~~~
~.~.~
"e- .s ~
~c:w
-w
t1l
"0
~
+-~
ClO---+
El
>I< --+
o
o
N
~
co
...
1
>I<
o
o
M
1
N
+-~
+--~
>-
c
o
:;
9 '"
UJ - '"
C/)!::: ~ 2l
ex: (J
.~ <
:E
'"
ii':
N
~
J
Leo
+-?fl.
o
N
1
N
...
I
eJ
>I<
o
o
M
+-- CIO
~-+
~
?f!. ----...
o
N
E]
Q)
E
::l
"5
>
'E
Q)
E
Cl
Q)
C/)
'iii
c:
o
ts
~
C5
iii
Q)
.s::
Cl
:f
N
CO)
Exhibit 7C: Sample Net New Project Trips Distribution
c
o
:;:
:l
:2
::z:
III 'x
.- UI
Co
Q.....
"i: ..:
~2
_ c:
CJUI
CPo
-0' ,...~
~ '"
Q" .9-
~~
cpo
Z~
-
Q)~
Zo
N
El ~
?ft 1
0
M
1 , ~
, 0
0
U') M
....
L~
C1) r
1 r
~
'<I"
N
~
<Ct-- '?fl.
0
N
>.
~
~ <I)
~ l: ~
en- ~"iS
co:(
.7
:c
Cl
C2
m
III
M
El
J
Lw
....-'#.
o
N
+-~
+-~
+-- re
+-- Ul
(/J Cf.I UJ U)
~~~~
'C 'C: "C 'C
f-f-f-f-
tstienen
Q) Q) '2 .S
'2' 'e- .! ~
Cl.Cl.c:U1
_~U1
.l!!Q)
~z
Qi
z
CD---+ ~ ---+
El 1 ~ CIl
E
:;)
~-+ ?;ft--+ g
0 c:
0 0
N II) C1) N Q)
... E
1 en
Q)
en
ro
c:
@] I 0
t5
~
?ft is
0 El U;
M Q)
.t:
1 en
?ft r
0 N
M '(0)
;>,
.Q
ell
'"
III
Cl.
o
0000
~COC"")Lt)
II II II II
Exhibit 8A: Sample Existing TMC Summary 1
Type 01 ~ _ being ,.porleCI: _ Peak
INTERSECTION: Browatd SI-..lJS-41
WEATHER:
~: 0 3:~L
oJ . ~
1030 . 135 .J .. 19!> . 1142
1105. : .~~~ f · 93t
1240. 0 ~ J ~ 10 . 1241
l~t"l
o 0 0
. .
o 0
[ Broward 51 ]
~..L
o t.",* >t 1
I~I
~++L
t .......~.." t
..J''tJ
c; .,.,
1++1
541N COUNT I -.Browwd $I
PERIOD _._ JNorthb~~ 'h ..,
BEGINNING AT ~,.Jhru RlghL'L
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
4:05 PM 0 0 0 0
4:10 PM 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
4:20 PM 0 0 0 0
4:25 PM 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0
4:35 PM 0 0 0 0
4:40 PM 0 0 0 0
4~5PM 0 0 0 0
4:50 PM 0 0 0 0
4:55 PM 0 0 0 0
6:00PM 0 0 0 0
5:05 PM 0 0 0 0
[ 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
5:20PM 0 0 0 0
5:25PM 0 0 0 0
&-.30 PM 0 0 0 0
5:35PM 0 0 0 0
5:40PM 0 0 0 0
5:45PM 0 0 0 0
5:50PM 00 0 0
5;56 PM 00001
PEAK 150MlN __. Northbound
FLOWRATES Left Thru Right U
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0
Pedestrians 4
Bicycles
Railroad
Stopped Buses
Counter Commenta:
Repor1__ on 7/1ll/2Olltl
Peak.Hour: 4:55 PM .. 5:55 PM
\ ~
~;l
~
--+
--+
--+
I
Broward 51
. h (Southbound)
J:!!t Thru Right U
14 0 7 0
8 0 8 0
8 0 2 0
9 0 1 0
11 0 6 0
7 0 3 0
12 0 4 0
13 0 5 0
15 0 2 0
11 0 3 0
10 0 5 0:
9 0 10 0
14 0 8 0
7 0 8 0
13 0 6 0
9 0 7 0
12 0 3 0
10 0 " 0
12 0 5 0
13 0 9 0
13 0 12 0
4 ~ 6 0
10 [J 3 0
10 0 8 0
8outllbound
Left Thru Right U
136 0 64 0
4 0 0
o
I U5-41 I
~ ."
j
0--
0--
0--
..-
11I_ 'or de~"""'"'9 ,*,' hour: TolIII Enlel'lnll VOlUme
QC JOB': 10177101
DATE: 6/2812006
~o:: 0.0 :eL
J . ~
0.6 . O.D .J .. 21 . 09
0.2. ,_... 0.6
0.2 . 0.0 '\ I' 00 . 0.2
10: ~o :.01
0.0 0,0
[ Broward 51 ]
~J.~L
~~;
t "1
.
L
. ~ .
1
I t 1
"$EHLGUlO SHEH
'\
{} ~
LHI
~
~
1JS:,:41
(Eastbound)
Left Thru Righi
10 6B 0
4 81 0
4 85 0
6 eo 0
7 70 0
16 93 0
6 78 (J
8 6tl (J
15 100 0
3 85 0
4 65 0
8 85 0
13 86 0
5770
15 110 (l
11 106 0
13 114 0
8 -~- 0
7840
12 88 0
8 76 0
9 81 0
13 100 0
15 77 0
EII.tbound
Left Thru ltight U
156 1320 0 8
000
o
---'--US~1-.
(Wfttboundl_-J TOTAL
Left Ttlru~L~...L.
o 86 24 I! 212
o 84 19 2 207
o 80 16 0 195
o 80 28 0; 204
o 69 17 o! 181
o 86 9 1! 216
o 83 12 0 195
o 76 16 0 j 187
o 78 16 1.1 228
o 80 17 1 202
o 71 8 2! 165
o 80 13 :I 2f17
o 71 9 0 201
o 93 14 0 205
o 14 24 2 244
o 82 9 0 226
090230255
o 70 24 4 21:3
o 96 13 1 220
o 67 19 1 210
070200200
o 68 13 0 189
o 76 14 0 218
o 52 12 0 ,eo
Wntbound
Left Thru RIGht U
o 984 224 8
o 12 8
o
Ui
:I
1
o !
o '
1 i
~ I
! I
o i
o
o
1
o
:I
o
2
2
1
1
2
2
6
HOURLY
TOTALS
2399
2388
2386
2435:1
2457
2631
21521I
2S63
2576
2548
::
2561
TOTAL
2900
24
4
SOURCE: Qu8lity CouIlIa. LLC {tIIIp:/_,QU8lI1y_.nel)
Exhibit 88: Sample Existing TMC Summary 2
co
~o
~oo
"Oo~
Q)o~
-0
~o~
co......
::::l00~
(1)Q)CI)
E"Oij 0
coooz
zOt:Q)
~.sm2l
.- ..- .... ,..,
u..enenD..
(")
.0
ON
c:
-.so
-.- 0)
~::JO)
_enC')
.~ "C C')
O~ctl
0>"0
CIJ Q)'C
CIJ-o
<::J_
"Cou..
e en ...:
ctlo~
E"CO
o~O
:z:D..Q)
I - a.
>'CI)ctl
~OO
E......
.- C\I
~N
.....
(/)
E
.~
~
-
o
.E
eGi
m=
mo
~O
~cn
...,.~<
en g.:J:
:JZ~
ci->-
.2 em
o::::l"O
Q) 8 .!
I!? -. c
Q) >. ::::l
-:t:::o
.Eoo
19
{!.
~
'" .... ",.1') l..;r
CDW)W)..;r....
N
.2 jU1"'.... N W)..;r
u 0 ,CD W) W) ..;r N
.E .... i
:;i'jij
~o
w....
'100000
1N""~""N
N..-.-rCD
,
!
R i
< 1 '
~ I' i . ~:.'" If) ..;r ..;r 0>
E ,2> I....', -
III 'BI 0:: i
:.:: :)1 ::
= 21 i
3:~. ,
-8 131 2 iC!lo 0 0 0 0
..... wi. E. ,-.
II) ''-
..
CIlIll
ECD
:::l
I-
::)
1
i 4:: 101"'0)..-.....:M
, CI) ~ .i....... .- tv
...J :.....1 ,
en
CI.l
<3 -~--~ '
1: 'jij
ell (5
> ....
ci '
III 0.1
::f "0 < i
ct-----
~.... :::ll :E 1000... """..;r
CI.l..;r .8' Cl .,..;
<3 CIJ ..c: I ,- I 1
.- ;:) 1::1 0:: ,
..c: 01 I
~ Z
~ ~ Cl) "'i~
.. ,
ell,
~
ell'
Cl)1
en
~!
..;r
....
N
'It
....
N
o
~
0)"'0>
"'gcci
o
~"ft,....
0)0
'" N
Ol
..,
"If .., Ol
ci~
....
'i ~~~coP")~ ~r-:"ft,
-J 0> o,p
ClO ....
'jij '-j;:;,..,..;r N..;r ..;r an
0 I .... .... u:i
....
ci
0.
<
:E OiN I") ..;r N ... .... <D ...
.2> ~i ...... -cei.,;
0:: i "
I
I
-I
2 0'1") 0 0 0 .., <')~"ft,
..c: -=1 N....
....
lrs
C:iC
ctl~
~W'E
:::ll~ :;J
ellll 2
ClI~~
I :lIB
i~3:
it)
1-
ig
JW
",uu,u I
liiO 10> 0 ..;r CDI'O>
... INN N N.O>
.... I . I
R i I
'E' < ~
::.8'1" IONO~~'~
~,f;, .2> i""; ... ... ....;..;r
;:)"5 0::
o
ClJt. =1~ .... 0 '" CO)!il8
~ ~ ~..... ~........... .,...
, Ql
, E
i=
1::
III
US
I
l~~~~~ 19
1Il 0.. Q. 0.. 0.. 0
lu.~~~~""
1/)1/')1/)1/')
0000
;
!
j
s
~~....
~~
~"!~
lfl~
'jij~~
15..:-
....eS
I ~{!.
C>
'iii'
0;
H
oJ
Q.;
<I
I
'C l:a
....S:c... ~~~
..;r.8.:1tl ...
CIJ ix: III ..;r
;:)~ G1
o 0..
en .
~
~~::tl8~~ ::t~
......0..." ~
~8 8
Son Vi
::EO 0
'~gC~-~~~~"
i-..t!5~:;JlloC!5i
1: ~ fI ~ cf ~ u. ,go~ u.
SEii .:1tl:I: """
U)~:5 ~i I
5 0
I~
I~
~
o
g
...
i
I
I~ <
E'C ,
ca c-;
== :;JoCl
.- .8.9'
3:_0::
_en
~8l
f
;t3 ~!
..J:
o
o
o
0;
N
N
cO
...
'0'
.,-5~
"it Bl.~
~€1O::!
01 i
Z I
!<I::
ell
i-J
<')
~
f'
~
....
~
.".
...
N
~
....
N
'"
0> o,p co
"'0
..,
~:~
co
'iii,
Ol
....,
ci;
Q.;
<
0>
CO)
..;r1")0
o
....
01')1'-0
P)ai-
CXl
is
l~
"'It
...
...~N
.....co
....
I")~'"
N
<r>
(7)
~
~
....
Oii
o
N
N
N lI)
NO
....
o
to
~~
ll.
o
o
on
o
o
..;r '"
.... Ol
co
c:i
o
~~
ll.
\l)
on
o
."
01) 0
R
c:i
N
~M
ll.
o
o
00
o
0>
N
0') C")
Nan
co
c:i
N
....
Exhibit 9: Sample Growth Rate Estimation
Project: Barefoot Plaza
Location: Collier County
Date: 7/10/2006
Analyst: KHA
Notes:
Line Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Volume Source #1: US 41 east of Rattlesnake Hammock Road
Volume Soruce #2:
Volume Source #3:
Volume Source #4:
Volume Source #5:
Volume , Volume Volume Volume Volume Average
Year Source #1 Source #2 Source #3 Source #4 Source #5 Volume
2004 37973 27758 32866
2003 36199 27069 31634
2002 36301 26082 31192
Line
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
INPUT DATA
Month
OUTPUT DATA
Aggregate
Traffic
Year Volume Line
1
2004 32866 2
2003 31634 3
2002 31192 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I
I 40,000 I
I 35~t
~ 30 000---
is '
> .
25,000 ~
I
20,000 I
2002
Best Fit
Volume
Trend
Month
Year
2004
2003
2002
32734
31897
31060
Slope:
Intercept:
R2:
Standard Error:
837
-1644614
0.931
322
Exponential
Growth Rate:.i.~1
Future = Existing (1 +Growth)^N
Linear
Growth Rate:~;f~i~~)<1
Future = Existing (1 +Growth*N)
Growth Rate
.
.
2003
Year
2004
Exhibit 10: Sample Future Intersection Traffic Volume Development Using Growth Rate
I NTERSECTI ON TRAFFI C VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
U.s. 41 & Broward Street
TRAFFIC CONTROL:
COUNT DATE:
TIME PERIOD:
PEAK HOUR FACTOR:
Signalized
June 28, 2006
4:55 p.m. - 5:55 p.m.
0.89
2006 PEAK-SEASON VOLUMES
"EXISTING TRAFFIC"
Raw Turning Movement Counts
Peak-Season Correction Factor
"NON-PRO.JECT TRAFFIC" EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL
BACI[GlRAllJllIta.......""'ElROWTH ~
NBT NBR SBL SBT
c=r==1 0 I
SBR
I 0
2OH......cPBOUII&1\"(~C 3 3 3 3 3 I 3
Yearly Growth Rate 2.0% 2.0% ::>.0% 1:>.0%
o
I 104
Barefoot Plaza
"PRO.JECT TRAFFIC"
CT TRAF~PE
~I
o
~
"TOTAL TRAFFIC"
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
!
SBR
I 104