Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management

Technical Appendix Revised Draft Technical Appendix Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy

Prepared for

Prepared by

February 2014 November 2013 FAIRVIEW AVENUE CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Technical Appendix

Part 1

PMT Meeting #1 Summary

SC Meeting #1 Summary

PMT Meeting #2 Summary

SC Meeting #2 Summary

PMT Meeting #3 Summary

SC Meeting #3 Summary

Public Involvement Meeting #1 Comment Summary

PMT and SC Preferences for Strategies

Website Public Comment Summary

Website Comment List

Part 2

Technical Memo #1 Existing and Future Baseline Conditions

Technical Memo #2 Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria

Technical Memo #3 Corridor Strategies

Corridor Strategies Evaluation Matrix

Appendix for Technical Memo #1 Existing and Future Baseline Conditions

PMT#1 Meeting SUMMARY

Project Name: Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Project Number: 507022.001 Date: April 18, 2013 Meeting Time: 10:00AM to 12:00PM Location: ACHD – Site R (aka Retreat trailer) Prepared By: John Bosket

Meeting objectives: Convene the project team to discuss key findings from the existing and future baseline analysis and goals and objectives of Phase 1 of the Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management project. Agenda: I. Introductions 10:00 (Jeff) II. Review of Where We Are/Schedule 10:05 (Jeff) We are on schedule. The 4.18.13 (later that afternoon) Steering Committee meeting and membership were discussed. The project website and online comment map are live and mailings/ads will be out to announce to public next week. Jeff sent map web‐link and pdf version of the meeting PowerPoint presentation to members. III. Overview of Key Findings from Tech Memo #1 10:15 (John) Technical Memorandum #1 evaluates safety and operational conditions along the Fairview Avenue study corridor during existing conditions and during a future baseline year of 2035. Key finding include:

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 1 of 6 PMT#1 Meeting

PMT#1 Meeting SUMMARY

 While Fairview Avenue is classified as a principal arterial and mobility corridor, which would prioritize long and efficient trip movement, the presence of many commercial businesses introduces a mix of shorter trips as well. So there are competing interests in the corridor: longer through trips and shorter trips associated with destinations within the corridor.  There are many gaps in the sidewalk network along Fairview Avenue and crossing opportunities are few and far between (about every ½‐mile at the signals).  There are only short segments of bike lanes around Hickory to Records. Elsewhere, there are inconsistent shoulder treatments or no place for bikes at all.  There is currently on transit on Fairview Avenue from Five Mile Road to the east (an east‐west route from Cole through Orchard and north‐south routes crossing Fairview Avenue at Milwaukee, Maple Grove, and Five Mile). Service is planned to extend out to Eagle Road from the east.  The absence of pedestrian and bicycle facilities also limits safe and comfortable access to transit stops.  Traffic volumes along Fairview Avenue range from 13,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day (highest volumes generally from Cloverdale to Curtis).  Eastbound traffic is heavier in the AM Peak, but westbound traffic is heavier in the PM Peak. The PM Peak is the highest traffic flow period of the day (roughly 4 PM – 6 PM), but the midday peak from noon to 4 PM is also consistently high, which may be an indicator of shopping and business activity.  In contrast to the heavy westbound flow during the PM Peak, there is a heavy flow of traffic in the eastbound direction during the PM Peak heading to Curtis Road. This demand results in long queues of traffic in the right lane on Fairview Avenue.  Saturday traffic volumes remain high and can be higher than weekday traffic in the central area around Eagle Road.  Sunday traffic is much lower – about 25% lower than weekday traffic.  Future traffic volumes on Fairview Avenue are forecast to reach 63,000 vehicles per day. This level of demand assumed Fairview Avenue would be widened to seven lanes from Meridian Road to Curtis Road. That level of traffic is what is most commonly served by small (four‐lane) freeways, such as I‐84 in the west end of Nampa east of the Karcher Road interchange. The capacity of the current five‐lane arterial is probably somewhere between 40,000 and 45,000 vehicles per day. Karen asked if constructing medians will help mobility as the capacity of Fairview Avenue is approached – we need to be clear with this when addressing the Stakeholder Committee. Justin commented that it needs to be clear with the Stakeholder Committee that medians are about safety, not capacity.  Observations of traffic conditions under current conditions found very long queues of cars at some signalized intersections, frequent red light running, and conflicts between traffic moving through signals and traffic entering nearby driveways.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 2 of 6 PMT#1 Meeting

PMT#1 Meeting SUMMARY

 Operational analysis of existing signalized intersections found all to be operating within ACHD’s performance standard (no worse than Level of Service E). The intersections at Eagle Road and Cole Road were the most congested, operating at Level of Service E.  The analysis of operations in the future year of 2035 assumed Fairview Avenue was widened to seven lanes from Meridian Road to Curtis Road and that capacity improvements were made to the intersections at Linder Road, Locust Grove Road, Eagle Road, Cloverdale Road, Cole Road, and Curtis Road.  Even with these significant capacity additions, conditions by 2035 will be very congested. The intersections at Eagle Road, Cloverdale Road, Five Mile Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street will operate at Level of Service F. Seven other intersections will operate at Level of Service E. This means that 12 of the 19 signalized intersections will be at or over capacity by 2035 – even with significant investments made in capacity improvements.  The Fairview Avenue study corridor has the second most number of “high crash” intersections compared to all other corridors in the county. Only Eagle Road has more.  Four fatalities occurred between the years 2007 and 2011 (period of crash history analyzed), but no trends were noticed.  Despite the four fatalities, crash severities tend to be low.  Approximately 40% of all crashes occur at the signalized intersections, with the remaining 60% occurring within the segments of roadway in between.  Weekdays experience more crashes than weekends, with Fridays experiencing the most. Sundays experience far fewer crashes than any other day of the week.  Crashes most commonly occur between 12 PM and 6 PM, with the crash peak occurring from 5 PM to 6 PM. This trend is much like the trend seen in traffic volumes, which suggests many crashes may be congestion‐related.  The intersections with Eagle Road, Cole Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street experienced the highest rates of crashes (considering relative volume of traffic served). It was noted that the free/merging right turns at Eagle Road that were significant contributors to crash totals were recently removed (2012). Therefore, it is anticipated that the Eagle Road crash rate will drop in the coming years. It was questioned why Orchard Street crashes were significantly higher than others. The number of crashes that occurred at Orchard Street was in line with other intersections, but the volume of traffic served was much lower. Therefore, the amount of crashes that occurred at Orchard Street was disproportionate.  The segment of Fairview Avenue from Five Mile to Orchard experienced the highest rate of crashes. 35% of the crashes in this segment were related to driveways. The unsignalized intersection at Hampton Road experienced more crashes than any other unsignalized intersection. The unsignalized intersections at Fairmeadow, Allumbaugh, and Eldorado also experienced many crashes.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 3 of 6 PMT#1 Meeting

PMT#1 Meeting SUMMARY

 The segment of Fairview Avenue from Meridian to Locust Grove also had a fairly high crash rate, but the current construction project could mitigate some problems.  There were a fair number of crashes involving bicycles. The most common trends involved collisions with bikes when vehicles made right turns and collisions with bikes in crosswalks. The intersection at Meridian Road has twice as many bike‐related crashes as any other intersection. Bike crashes typically result in moderate to high‐severity injuries.  Research has consistency shown a relationship between high densities of access points and high crash rates. There are approximately 500 access points along the study corridor, which results in a high average density of just under 60 access points per mile. General correlations between access points and where crashes occur can be found along Fairview Avenue. It was noted that it would be helpful to map crashes in the corridor and to show each year of crashes.  At least 26% of all crashes in the Fairview Avenue study corridor were related to access points. Felicia noted that the new Petersen motors site was built knowing medians would be in‐ place. Bryan mentioned that the internal site circulation was designed with medians in mind.

In summary, priority areas for improvements include:  Walking and Biking o Five Mile to Orchard (secondary area extending west to Eagle) – need for completion of bike lanes and sidewalks, mid‐block crossings, and improved access to transit  Transit o Enhance existing service – Five Mile to Orchard o Prepare for future service – Eagle to Five Mile  Auto Mobility o Many projects are already planned, but the near‐term needs are at the intersections at Eagle and Cole  Safety o Primary area of need is from Five Mile to Orchard – safety improvements at the intersections at Cole, Curtis, and Orchard should be explored. Access management strategies, signal timing improvements, and bicycle lane construction are all needed o Secondary area of need is from Meridian to Locust Grove  Considering all needs, the priority area is from Five Mile to Orchard (could be expanded to Eagle). A secondary priority area is from Meridian to Locust Grove

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 4 of 6 PMT#1 Meeting

PMT#1 Meeting SUMMARY

IV. Review of Goals and Objectives (Tech Memo #2) 11:00 (John) The draft problem, purpose, need, goals, and objectives were reviewed and discussed. Key comments included:  The existing safety problem should be stressed more strongly in the problem statement, with access management being secondary.  The purpose statement should be changed to read, “The purpose of the Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Plan is to prioritize improvements to safety, operations, and capacity for Fairview Avenue through a cooperative plan that primarily manages access to this principal arterial.”  Phases of improvements should be all‐inclusive. As an example, if sidewalks are constructed but you don’t address access, you may not improve conditions.  It was noted that some improvements may need to occur later and be the responsibility of future development.  Emergency services providers should be coordinated with. Would medians increase emergency travel times? Medians could be made with mountable curbs, so emergency vehicles could pass over them.  Median breaks need to be located in logical and useful places. This has been a common complaint with the medians on Eagle Road.  In Goal 2, addressing neighborhoods, neighborhoods should have safe and efficient access. Cut through traffic should be avoided.  Don’t restrict north‐south connectivity at unsignalized intersections. Could this be restricted only by time of day?  Shopping trips should be accommodated.  No one is aware of any economic plans. This could be removed.  It needs to be very clear that frontage roads are a long‐range vision. These need to be non‐specific in alignment, but clear enough to provide needed direction so incremental improvements can be made. Maybe there are areas where they could be more easily constructed? Will need policy or code language to help cities implement such improvements with land use actions. This applies to access consolidations and cross easements as well.

V. Next Steps/Adjourn 11:55 (Jeff/John)  Stakeholder Committee Meeting #1 is this afternoon.  Jeff is to contact Karen and Brian to set up times to meet with EMS officials and elected officials.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 5 of 6 PMT#1 Meeting

PMT#1 Meeting SUMMARY

 DKS will begin work on improvement strategy concepts and forward to PMT for screening.  Mailings to advertise website will go out next week.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 6 of 6 PMT#1 Meeting

SC Meeting #1 SUMMARY

Project Name: Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Project Number: 507022.001 Date: April 18, 2013 Meeting Time: 2:00PM to 4:00PM Location: ACHD – Auditorium Prepared By: J Lowe

Attendees: Attend Invited Role X Jeff Lowe Project Manager, ACHD X John Bosket Project Manager, DKS Associates X Brian McClure City of Meridian X Bryan Huey ACHD Communications X Karen Gallagher City of Boise X Ken Marler Express Cafe X Mark Peterson Peterson Motors X Mary Barker / Rhonda Jalbert Valley Regional Transit X Mike Meuret Einstein’s Oilery X Moe Stark Honey Baked Ham & Café Stephen Loop West Valley Neighborhood Association X Steve Sedlacek Republic Services X Tom Barry Property Owner Meeting objectives: Convene the Steering Committee to introduce members and present the approach to Phase 1 of the Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management project. Agenda: I. Introductions II. Project History The Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management project has stopped and started several times. Most recently, it stopped after the public workshop in 2011. This effort is a continuation of the project that will take a new look at the issues in the corridor and identify a plan to address them. III. Approach to Completing the Plan Given the length of the corridor (8.5 miles), addressing all issues in detail would be very challenging. Therefore, improvements will be implemented in phases. The planning effort will also be completed in phases. The current stage is Phase 1, where we will be updating past information and reaffirming the needs in the corridor. Problem areas will be identified and prioritized and sets of strategies will be developed to address safety and mobility needs in the corridor. At the conclusion of this stage at the end of September, the goal is to have an initial set of projects identified for near‐term construction.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 1 of 8 SC Meeting #1

SC Meeting #1 SUMMARY

Phase 2 will begin immediately afterward, and will include conceptual design and further public outreach. Engineering design and construction of Phase 1/Phase 2 improvements will occur thereafter. The timing of implementation for subsequent phases will depend on funding. For this project, there is a Project Management Team and a Stakeholder Committee. The Project Management Team (PMT) is comprised of ACHD, City of Boise, and City of Meridian staff. The role of the Stakeholder Committee (SC) is to provide recommendations to elected officials and to talk to others in the community about the issues and potential solutions. It was asked if ACHD is seeking business owner support. Business owner recommendations are being requested and the goal is to have a sound and informed plan. Having business owner support would be desirable. IV. Review of Scope of Work and Schedule Phase 1 began in February 2013 and is scheduled to be completed at the end of September 2013. The construction of Phase 1 improvements could be as early as the summer of 2014. At this SC Meeting, the existing and future baseline conditions in the corridor will be discussed, along with goals and objectives for how the corridor should be managed. Following this meeting, a draft set of strategies will be developed to target identified needs. This effort will be complete in June and a second SC Meeting will be held to discuss the recommendations. SC member input will be obtained and addressed in a Draft Plan for the corridor from June to August. A third SC Meeting and a public open house will be held to review the Draft Plan. That input will be incorporated into a Revised Draft Plan, which will be presented to Boise and Meridian City Councils and the ACHD Commission in September. V. Overview of Key Findings (Tech Memo #1) Technical Memorandum #1 evaluates safety and operational conditions along the Fairview Avenue study corridor during existing conditions and during a future baseline year of 2035. Key finding include:  While Fairview Avenue is classified as a principal arterial and mobility corridor, which would prioritize long and efficient trip movement, the presence of many commercial businesses introduces a mix of shorter trips as well. So there are competing interests in the corridor: longer through trips and shorter trips associated with destinations within the corridor.  There are many gaps in the sidewalk network along Fairview Avenue and crossing opportunities are few and far between (about every ½‐mile at the signals).  There are only short segments of bike lanes around Hickory to Records. Elsewhere, there are inconsistent shoulder treatments or no place for bikes at all.  There is currently on transit on Fairview Avenue from Five Mile Road to the east (an east‐west route from Cole through Orchard and north‐south routes crossing Fairview Avenue at Milwaukee, Maple Grove, and Five Mile). Service is planned to extend out to Eagle Road from the east.  The absence of pedestrian and bicycle facilities also limits safe and comfortable access to transit stops.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 2 of 8 SC Meeting #1

SC Meeting #1 SUMMARY

 Traffic volumes along Fairview Avenue range from 13,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day (highest volumes generally from Cloverdale to Curtis).  Eastbound traffic is heavier in the AM Peak, but westbound traffic is heavier in the PM Peak. The PM Peak is the highest traffic flow period of the day (roughly 4 PM – 6 PM), but the midday peak from noon to 4 PM is also consistently high, which may be an indicator of shopping and business activity.  In contrast to the heavy westbound flow during the PM Peak, there is a heavy flow of traffic in the eastbound direction during the PM Peak heading to Curtis Road. This demand results in long queues of traffic in the right lane on Fairview Avenue.  Saturday traffic volumes remain high and can be higher than weekday traffic in the central area around Eagle Road.  Sunday traffic is much lower – about 25% lower than weekday traffic.  Future traffic volumes on Fairview Avenue are forecast to reach 63,000 vehicles per day. This level of demand assumed Fairview Avenue would be widened to seven lanes from Meridian Road to Curtis Road. That level of traffic is what is most commonly served by small (four‐lane) freeways, such as I‐84 in the west end of Nampa east of the Karcher Road interchange. The capacity of the current five‐lane arterial is probably somewhere between 40,000 and 45,000 vehicles per day. As demands increase beyond this level, congestion may divert many trips to other corridors.  Observations of traffic conditions under current conditions found very long queues of cars at some signalized intersections, frequent red light running, and conflicts between traffic moving through signals and traffic entering nearby driveways.  Operational analysis of existing signalized intersections found all to be operating within ACHD’s performance standard (no worse than Level of Service E). The intersections at Eagle Road and Cole Road were the most congested, operating at Level of Service E.  The analysis of operations in the future year of 2035 assumed Fairview Avenue was widened to seven lanes from Meridian Road to Curtis Road and that capacity improvements were made to the intersections at Linder Road, Locust Grove Road, Eagle Road, Cloverdale Road, Cole Road, and Curtis Road.  Even with these significant capacity additions, conditions by 2035 will be very congested. The intersections at Eagle Road, Cloverdale Road, Five Mile Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street will operate at Level of Service F. Seven other intersections will operate at Level of Service E. This means that 12 of the 19 signalized intersections will be at or over capacity by 2035 – even with significant investments made in capacity improvements.  The Fairview Avenue study corridor has the second most number of “high crash” intersections compared to all other corridors in the county. Only Eagle Road has more.  Four fatalities occurred between the years 2007 and 2011 (period of crash history analyzed), but no trends were noticed.  Despite the four fatalities, crash severities tend to be low.  Approximately 40% of all crashes occur at the signalized intersections, with the remaining 60% occurring within the segments of roadway in between. Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 3 of 8 SC Meeting #1

SC Meeting #1 SUMMARY

 Weekdays experience more crashes than weekends, with Fridays experiencing the most. Sundays experience far fewer crashes than any other day of the week.  Crashes most commonly occur between 12 PM and 6 PM, with the crash peak occurring from 5 PM to 6 PM. This trend is much like the trend seen in traffic volumes, which suggests many crashes may be congestion‐related.  The intersections with Eagle Road, Cole Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street experienced the highest rates of crashes (considering relative volume of traffic served). It was noted that the free/merging right turns at Eagle Road that were significant contributors to crash totals were recently removed (2012). Therefore, it is anticipated that the Eagle Road crash rate will drop in the coming years.  The segment of Fairview Avenue from Five Mile to Orchard experienced the highest rate of crashes. 35% of the crashes in this segment were related to driveways. The unsignalized intersection at Hampton Road experienced more crashes than any other unsignalized intersection. The unsignalized intersections at Fairmeadow, Allumbaugh, and Eldorado also experienced many crashes.  The segment of Fairview Avenue from Meridian to Locust Grove also had a fairly high crash rate, but the current construction project could mitigate some problems.  There were a fair number of crashes involving bicycles. The most common trends involved collisions with bikes when vehicles made right turns and collisions with bikes in crosswalks. The intersection at Meridian Road has twice as many bike‐related crashes as any other intersection. Bike crashes typically result in moderate to high‐severity injuries.  Research has consistency shown a relationship between high densities of access points and high crash rates. There are approximately 500 access points along the study corridor, which results in a high average density of just under 60 access points per mile. General correlations between access points and where crashes occur can be found along Fairview Avenue.  At least 26% of all crashes in the Fairview Avenue study corridor were related to access points.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 4 of 8 SC Meeting #1

SC Meeting #1 SUMMARY

 Safety o Primary area of need is from Five Mile to Orchard – safety improvements at the intersections at Cole, Curtis, and Orchard should be explored. Access management strategies, signal timing improvements, and bicycle lane construction are all needed o Secondary area of need is from Meridian to Locust Grove  Considering all needs, the priority area is from Five Mile to Orchard (could be expanded to Eagle). A secondary priority area is from Meridian to Locust Grove

Questions/Comments: Mary – Route 7 along Fairview Avenue is the second highest‐used transit route in the system. Two years ago, this route ran at 30‐minute headways, but congestion has increased travel times so it now runs at 40‐minute headways.

Ken – Why was the old plan scrapped? We are not scrapping the plan but utilizing all information/data we can, reaffirming and clarifying the purpose, and creating an implementation plan for making improvements.

Mark – As arterials become busier, users will find other routes. Corridors change over time and commercial areas will evolve elsewhere. We need to have an understanding of parallel routes.

Tom – Why is Fairview/Orchard identified as a high crash location? In the previous study, it was noted as having only 6% of the crashes.  Note: Since the SC Meeting, the project team has investigated this further. If crashes were distributed evenly among all signalized intersections in the corridor from Linder Road to Orchard Street (18 intersections), each would have a little less than 6% of the crashes. The 6% of crashes at Orchard Street is accurate and would be proportional if traffic volumes at each intersection were the same. However, the traffic volumes served at Orchard Street are much lower than other intersections in the corridor. Therefore, more crashes are occurring here than would be expected given the level of traffic present.

Mike – Is one accident a day a lot on average? How many crashes were rear‐ends and how many were related to turning movements (access related)? It seems medians would be a cure worse than the disease. It would be better to have frontage roads in place of the proposed roadway widening so turns could be separated from through traffic.

Tom – Is access management still on the table (part of the plan)? We should get better at being efficient with what we have rather than implementing full‐scale changes.

Other: Need to explain issues and when improvements are needed.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 5 of 8 SC Meeting #1

SC Meeting #1 SUMMARY

Would reducing speeds help? Is there data on actual and average speeds? Reducing speeds could improve safety, but simply lowering posted speeds is not an effective or safe way to do that. Drivers tend to drive at speeds that feel appropriate for the environment and posted speeds are based on that to best fit conditions. When posting speeds, a speed study is conducted and speeds are posted at the 85th percentile speed, which is what most drivers are traveling at. To safely and effectively reduce speeds, the roadside environment needs to change. This could be difficult on a mobility arterial where buildings are set back far from the roadway. The current design and development pattern suggests this is a higher speed, auto‐ oriented corridor.

Most crashes in the corridor are rear‐ends. If medians help reduce turning accidents, do they also help with rear‐ends?

Was legislation passed in Idaho this last session regarding access management (medians) (similar to Oregon)?

How will emergency vehicles use medians? The medians can be constructed with mountable curbs so emergency vehicles can drive over them if needed.

What is the status of the widening project to make Fairview Avenue seven lanes? It is not funded at this time and it is uncertain when it would happen. It is a costly improvement that would need to be done in several phases.

Where has DKS done projects like this and are there comparisons to look at? Would like to see accidents before and after these projects.

What is the impact of medians and access management treatments on business? Do you have examples of studies relating to business success?

Is Eagle Road better now that medians have been installed?

Has signal timing been done recently on Fairview? We should be looking at low‐cost improvements that are less permanent and less impactful first before looking to big capital projects.

Could we prevent crashes if we have smoother traffic flow and less starting and stopping?

Solutions should not be limited to access management. A combination of solutions is most likely needed. We need to look at all accidents and address each type appropriately.

There are too many driveways between Orchard and Curtis and many aren’t needed. Can we work with property owners in this area to reduce the number of driveways instead of installing medians?

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 6 of 8 SC Meeting #1

SC Meeting #1 SUMMARY

When we work with property owners, we need to have alternatives and data on cost/benefit.

VI. Goals and Objectives (Tech Memo #2) The goals and objectives in Draft Technical Memorandum #2 were discussed. Committee members were asked to describe what issues they feel are important and how we should measure whether a proposed strategy is beneficial. Are some issues more important than others?

Responses were written for all members to see and are documented below:

 Would like information on current studies: what are the effects on business volume and economics? Need to consider source of studies/data. What response would be given if businesses could decline/accept improvements?  Do not compromise ease of business access for vendors and customers.  Frontage roads/backage roads delineated on plans are not a good idea. Roads on plans cannot accommodate planned traffic without dramatically affecting traffic. Don’t propose improvements that require businesses to alter their site plans. How will, or can, ACHD require cross‐access?  Plan should not infringe on business operations or require changes to their property.  Utilize existing lanes for different types of traffic, such as one lane would act as a frontage or access lane. A new access/turning lane could be constructed instead of the future third lane.  Don’t implement anything big until we try small improvements first. What happens if we first try signal improvements? Exhaust efficiency‐enhancing projects first – be creative.  Questions in any survey need to be asked in a fair manner.  Look at signal timing, frontage roads, removing access, etc. as alternatives and compare them.  Medians are a concern and are shortsighted.  Run model for Fairview today with improvements – does it work or not work?  The forecasted growth and congestion is questionable. Time delay is not a big issue.  Why are we doing this project?  North/south roads: how are they affected by the issues on Fairview (travel, congestion, volume, etc.)?  Present numbers of crashes in context – are they good or bad, comparable?  What are triggers to implement improvements?  If you are going to do something, improve the section as a whole with all of the tools combined as a system. Don’t do partial improvements. Compare cost effectiveness of doing small things (i.e., one thing at a time) versus doing all the pieces together.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 7 of 8 SC Meeting #1

SC Meeting #1 SUMMARY

 Strike a balance between transportation mobility and livability (City of Meridian).  Safety is a priority. As one of only four mobility corridors in the region, mobility is important, but it is also acknowledged that access to businesses is needed as well (City of Boise).  Our top priority should be having a plan that is publicly supported.  Want to look forward, need to balance what is existing with future uses.  The title of the project pre‐supposes the outcome.  Projects need to improve access to transit stops, not just on Fairview on crossing corridors as well. Balance mobility and access – get people where they need to go (transit and stops) without affecting traffic movement. Locate stops in corridor to minimize traffic disruption.  How long do projects take to complete? How are projects developed through years?

VII. Next Steps/Adjourn  Jeff sent to the committee members a link to the online comment mapping tool and a pdf version of the PowerPoint.  Meeting notes will be prepared and sent to members for review.  Evaluation Criteria and Draft Strategies for the corridor will be developed and the next SC Meeting will be in June.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 8 of 8 SC Meeting #1

PMT#2 Meeting SUMMARY

Project Name: Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Project Number: 507022.001 Date: June 25, 2013 Meeting Time: 10:00AM to 12:00PM Location: ACHD – Site R (aka Retreat trailer) Prepared By: John Bosket

Attendees:* Attend Invited Role x Jeff Lowe Project Manager, P&P x John Bosket Project Manager, DKS Associates x Amar Pillai Planning & Programming x Brian McClure City of Meridian x Bryan Huey Communications x Christy Foltz‐Alrichs Communications Christy Little Development Services Chuck Spencer GIS Felicia Statkus Capital Projects x Josh Saak Traffic x Karen Gallagher City of Boise Meeting objectives: Convene the project team to discuss Corridor Strategies that could be applied to improve identified issues on Fairview Avenue as part of Phase 1 of the Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management project. Agenda: I. Introductions/ Agenda Overview II. Review of Where We Are/Schedule Jeff Lowe asked PMT members to please review the meeting summary from PMT Meeting #1 and send any requested revisions back to him. The focus of today’s meeting will be to discuss suggested strategies for addressing issues noted along Fairview Avenue. This discussion will also be had with the Stakeholder Committee (SC) later in the afternoon. Input will be incorporated into a Draft Plan, which will be brought back to the PMT and SC for review. It will also be shared at a public information meeting on August 15 in coordination with the public information meeting for the Fairview Avenue/Cole Road project. After today’s meeting, enough information will be available to share with elected officials. It was asked how far in advance of hearings each agency would need to have deliverables. Boise and Meridian both need information at least 2 weeks in advance of hearings.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 1 of 7 PMT#2 Meeting

PMT#2 Meeting SUMMARY

It was asked that DKS provide a summary of public comments received from the project website. Brian McClure and Jeff Lowe intend to talk to businesses on Eagle Road to discuss their experiences with medians prior to the August 15 public information meeting. It was noted that some business are new, so the timing of when businesses opened should be considered. It was thought that ITD may have completed before/after studies of older median applications. Josh Saak will provide ITD contact information DKS can use to follow up and obtain information. III. Review of Revised Goals and Objectives (Tech Memo #2) Goals and objectives have been refined since our last meeting. An evaluation matrix was developed to start the discussion about strategy selection.

It was asked if it was known how long congestion lasts in the corridor. According to the count data obtained, there is generally a single peak hour, but the preceding hour is nearly as congested. So on more congested days or when an incident occurs, the peak could easily spread to at least two hours.

It was noted that the City of Boise acknowledges that we can’t build our way out of congestion. It was noted that corridor travel time is a measure of more interest to Boise City Council than delay.

It was asked if this corridor was used for regional freight movement. Compass should have freight information from a truck study. After some discussion, PMT members did not believe this corridor was significant for anything other than local freight movement.

IV. Overview of Corridor Strategies from Tech Memo #3 John Bosket led a discussion of the proposed strategies from Tech Memo #3. The objective of the discussion was to determine the PMT’s preferences and outline an approach to phasing projects. The PMT agreed that none of the proposed strategies was fatally flawed and that all should be considered.

The following lists represent the outcome of that discussion. Tiers of strategies are used to show preferences, with higher ranked tiers including strategies of greater interest to the PMT. Phases of strategies are used to show how best to implement bundles of strategies. Phasing combines the preferences indicated through the tiers with other factors that could affect project readiness or cost savings.

TIER 1:  Non‐traversable medians (thought to potentially have the highest value among all strategies for crash reduction)  Reduce number of driveways  Remove access conflicts near intersections

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 2 of 7 PMT#2 Meeting

PMT#2 Meeting SUMMARY

 Frontage/service roads (recognized as a key strategies for long‐term improvement, but an incremental approach will be necessary that includes near‐term actions such as establishing supporting local policies/codes and filling gaps in existing street system)  Create inter‐parcel circulation  Complete sidewalk gaps  Complete bike lane gaps  Bike lane enhancements

TIER 2:  Reconstruct driveways to current ACHD standards  Update coordinated east‐west signal timing  Adaptive signal timing  Red light photo enforcement  Transit signal priority  Bus pullouts (should include establishing a “yield to bus law” as well)  Pedestrian and bicycle crossing enhancements  Traveler information

TIER 3:  Balancing lane utilization  Improved street lighting  Change protected‐permissive left turn phasing to protected only  Install reflectorized borders on signal backplates

TIER 4: It was agreed by the PMT members that there was no interest in pursuing Tier 4 strategies (therefore, not included in phasing).  Red light extensions  Automated speed enforcement

PHASE 1: Based on findings from the existing/future baseline conditions analysis, it was determined that the first phase of improvements should be implemented in the segment of Fairview Avenue from Five Mile Road to Curtis Road, with additional improvements at the intersection with Orchard Street. It was also agreed that any actions related to establishing policies, code amendments, or new laws should be included as part of Phase 1. It should be noted that the implementation of some strategies will be ongoing and may be primarily accomplished through incremental improvements as land use actions occur. These include: frontage/service road creation, removing access conflicts near intersections, reducing the

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 3 of 7 PMT#2 Meeting

PMT#2 Meeting SUMMARY

number of driveways, creating inter‐parcel circulation, and reconstructing driveways to current ACHD standards.  Non‐traversable medians  Update coordinated east‐west signal timing  Reduce number of driveways (During a phase 1 project, this would only be done as opportunities allow given needs of existing development. Most improvement through this strategy may need to occur incrementally over time through land use actions.)  Remove access conflicts near intersections  Complete sidewalk gaps  Complete bike lane gaps  Bike lane enhancements  Create inter‐parcel circulation (Phase 1 would only include establishing needed local policies/codes to facilitate creation of inter‐parcel circulation through land use actions and any voluntary changes agreed to by property/business owners)  Bus pullouts (Construct when constructing new sidewalk and through coordination with VRT. Should pursue establishment of a “yield to bus law.”)  Reconstruct driveways to current ACHD standards (where sidewalk is constructed and where other opportunities allow)  Frontage/service roads (Phase 1 would only include establishing needed local policies/codes to facilitate new road construction)  Red light photo enforcement (Phase 1 only includes exploring local interest in establishing supporting laws)

PHASE 2:  Frontage/service roads (Phase 2 would include construction of short road segments that would complete existing routes)  Pedestrian and bicycle crossing enhancements  Install reflectorized borders on signal backplates (ACHD would like to complete trial testing of this strategy before full‐scale implementation)  Improved street lighting  Adaptive signal timing

PHASE 3:  Transit signal priority  Change protected‐permissive left turn phasing to protected only  Balancing lane utilization  Traveler information

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 4 of 7 PMT#2 Meeting

PMT#2 Meeting SUMMARY

PHASE 4:  Red light photo enforcement (assuming necessary laws are in place)

V. Next Steps/Adjourn Action Items:  PMT members will review the meeting summary from PMT Meeting #1 and send any requested revisions to Jeff Lowe.  DKS will provide a summary of public comments received from the project website.  Brian McClure and Jeff Lowe will talk to businesses on Eagle Road to discuss their experiences with medians prior to the August 15 public information meeting.  Josh Saak will provide ITD contact information to DKS to obtain before/after studies regarding median installations.  Christy Foltz‐Alrichs will work with Jeff Lowe to get a summary or identification of themes for the August 15th public information meeting. The desire is to match themes with the Fairview Avenue/Cole Road project.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 5 of 7 PMT#2 Meeting

PMT#2 Meeting SUMMARY

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 6 of 7 PMT#2 Meeting

PMT#2 Meeting SUMMARY

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 7 of 7 PMT#2 Meeting

SC Meeting #2 SUMMARY

Project Name: Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Project Number: 507022.001 Date: June 25, 2013 Meeting Time: 2:00PM to 4:00PM Location: ACHD – Auditorium Prepared By: J Lowe

Attendees: Attend Invited Role X Jeff Lowe Project Manager, ACHD John Bosket Project Manager, DKS Associates X Brian McClure City of Meridian X Bryan Huey ACHD Communications X Karen Gallagher City of Boise Ken Marler Express Cafe X Mark Peterson Peterson Motors Mary Barker / Rhonda Jalbert Valley Regional Transit X Mike Meuret Einstein’s Oilery Moe Stark Honey Baked Ham & Café Stephen Loop West Valley Neighborhood Association X Steve Sedlacek Republic Services X Tom Barry Property Owner Meeting objectives: Convene the Stakeholder Committee to discuss Corridor Strategies that could be applied to improve identified issues on Fairview Avenue as part of Phase 1 of the Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management project. Agenda: I. Introductions/ Agenda Overview II. Review of Where We Are/Schedule Jeff Lowe asked SC members to please review the meeting summary from SC Meeting #1 and send any requested revisions back to him. The focus of today’s meeting will be to discuss suggested strategies for addressing issues noted along Fairview Avenue. This discussion was also had with the Project Management Team (PMT) earlier this morning. Input will be incorporated into a Draft Plan, which will be brought back to the PMT and SC for review. It will also be shared at a public information meeting on August 15 in coordination with the public information meeting for the Fairview Avenue/Cole Road project. III. Review of Revised Goals and Objectives (Tech Memo #2) Goals and objectives have been refined since our last meeting. An evaluation matrix was developed to start the discussion about strategy selection.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 1 of 8 SC Meeting #2

SC Meeting #2 SUMMARY

It was requested that optimization of the corridor be made a priority before major capital projects are pursued (e.g., ITS and signal timing strategies would be an efficiency item before “brick and mortar” solutions.)

A case study in median installation and potential impacts to business was shared with the SC following up on a request from the last meeting. The case study was from a project in Battle Ground, Washington where medians with left turn openings and U‐turns were installed on a commercial arterial over a one‐mile stretch. The medians were installed in 2005. The city did not conduct a before/after study following the project, but when asked about known operational problems or complaints from businesses they stated that they were not aware of any negative impacts and have heard no complaints. The Chamber of Commerce, whose office is in the corridor where medians were installed, was also unaware of any complaints or negative impacts on business. While not a definitive analysis of business impacts, DKS compared potential changes in property values between the affected corridor and the adjacent corridor where no medians were installed (also commercial arterial) by examining past property tax records. It appears that the assessed values of properties in the corridor where medians were installed have increased at a higher rate than those where no medians were installed. There have also been some new businesses established since the median installation, indicating economic growth is occurring.

Many SC members did not feel the Battle Ground case study was relevant or comparable to Fairview Avenue. SR 502 in Battle Ground is more of a commuter corridor where Fairview Avenue is more of a destination corridor. If corridor access were better managed, medians would not be needed. Eagle Road already has better management of access, so medians work better than they would on Fairview Avenue. Other solutions to better manage access and improve efficiency should be applied before median installation. It was also stated that improved vehicle technology will avoid future collisions, which is another reason that less invasive strategies should be applied first.

One SC member disagreed and stated that access on Eagle Road was not managed well in the past and that is why medians were needed. Access on Fairview is more comparable to Broadway Avenue, which has had medians for years and works well. It was agreed better management of access would make medians work better too.

It was also noted by the SC that comparing property taxes is not compelling. They would like to see information such as vacancy rates, business turnover, business relocations, and business closures.

Was the construction of right turn deceleration lanes to reduce conflicts between through traffic and turning traffic considered? – Yes, it was, but was not included as a recommended strategy for Fairview Avenue. Widening the corridor to include this lane would be very costly Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 2 of 8 SC Meeting #2

SC Meeting #2 SUMMARY

and would make left turn movements into and out of driveways more dangerous. If the corridor were widened further (to 6/7 lanes), median installation would be highly recommended for safety reasons. Also, bus volumes aren’t high enough to get much benefit out of a lane prioritized for transit movement and turn movements.

The following lists represent the outcome of the discussion that grouped strategies into Tiers and Phases. Tiers of strategies are used to show preferences, with higher ranked tiers including strategies of greater interest to the SC. Phases of strategies are used to show how best to implement bundles of strategies. Phasing combines the preferences indicated through the tiers with other factors that could affect project readiness or cost savings.

TIER 1:  Reduce number of driveways ‐ The SC felt this would be effective, but was concerned about the need for fair implementation. The needs of existing business operations must be respected. There should be a logical approach to applying this strategy. Most gains should be made as properties develop/redevelop, but reasonable requirements through the land use process are needed. If done through construction projects, it should be opportunity driven and applied on a property‐by‐property basis where appropriate.  Create inter‐parcel circulation – The SC liked this strategy as long it is referred to sharing driveways. They do not like arrangements where one business’ traffic drives through another business. This can be dangerous. There were three collisions with pedestrians at the Idaho Athletic Club site due to an arrangement such as this. Do not put a burden on private properties to manage traffic. Call this strategy “shared access” or “shared driveways.”  Update Coordinated East‐West Signal Timing ‐ Fewer stops would result in fewer rear‐end crashes. Hence the support for signal timing improvements.  Adaptive Signal Timing  Red Light Running Photo Enforcement ‐ SC noted that there is an epidemic today of running red lights.  Balancing Lane Utilization  Install Reflectorized Borders on Signal Backplates ‐ SC supports this strategy if the benefits are found to be significant.

TIER 2  Improved Street Lighting  Change Protected‐Permissive Left Turn Phase to Protected Only ‐ SC noted that removing Protected‐Permissive left turn phasing would result in a reduction in capacity. However, there is a Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 3 of 8 SC Meeting #2

SC Meeting #2 SUMMARY

potential for safety benefits. The trade‐offs must be understood first. SC would like to see this considered during rush hours  Transit Signal Priority ‐ SC wants to know if there is a conflict between this strategy and the signal timing improvements. This would not likely be a problem.  Complete Bike Lane Gaps ‐ What gaps? Is there a bike network here? Bicyclists tend to go the wrong way sometimes. There is a need to educate bicyclists. Does promoting bicycling create more congestion is bicycling habits are poor?  Complete Sidewalk Gaps  Pedestrian & Bicycle Crossing Enhancements ‐ SC supports this strategy at locations with high pedestrian activity. Watch for impacts to through traffic.  Bike lane enhancements

TIER 3:  Non‐Traversable Medians ‐ SC wants projects that require the least infrastructure improvements to be implemented first. “Bottom line is little infrastructure.” Medians have been applied unfairly in the past by ITD (Eagle Road). There is concern that the proposed applications of medians on Fairview will also be unfair. Citizens can’t stand medians. Cars are cutting through neighborhoods to avoid medians. Can we try other things that are more cost effective first? Not in support of medians for this corridor at this time. One SC member noted that Fairview Avenue is a principal arterial and medians will help move traffic along Fairview Avenue. However, ACHD should be specific about the applications of medians at each location. Jeff Lowe (ACHD) expressed that ACHD intends to work with property/business owners through the design process to fully understand and address potential problems with median installation.  Traveler Information – The SC saw little value in this as there are no clear alternatives to Fairview Avenue if congestion or an incident is present.  Reconstruct driveways to current ACHD standards ‐ The SC generally does not favor this strategy. There was concern about potential impacts to properties.

TIER 4:  Remove Access Conflicts Near Intersections ‐ SC found this strategy to be too vague in description and were concerned about business Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 4 of 8 SC Meeting #2

SC Meeting #2 SUMMARY

impacts. A set distance away from intersections is needed to know what the impact area is (100’ would be okay).  Frontage/Service Roads ‐ SC does not favor this strategy and is very concerned about impacts to properties/businesses.  Red Light Extensions ‐ SC does not see a need to consider this strategy for implementation.  Bus Pullouts ‐ This strategy was moved to Tier 4 for reasons of cost and difficulty for buses to pull back into the traffic stream.  Automated speed enforcement – SC is not interested in this strategy.

PHASE 1: (emphasis on low cost projects that maximize efficiency without impacting businesses)  Update Coordinated East‐West Signal Timing  Adaptive Signal Timing  Red Light Running Photo Enforcement  Balancing Lane Utilization  Install Reflectorized Borders on Signal Backplates  Improved Street Lighting  Change Protected‐Permissive Left Turn Phase to Protected Only – Implement time of day changes to improve safety with minimal impact on delay.

PHASE 2: (The SC is generally okay with moving Phase 2 improvements into phase 1 if funding allows.)  Reduce number of driveways ‐ Identify locations where implementation is easy. Implement other strategies first. Complete policy amendments in Phase 2 as well.  Create Inter‐Parcel Circulation (“Shared Driveways”)  Transit Signal Priority  Complete Bike Lane Gaps  Complete Sidewalk Gaps  Pedestrian & Bicycle Crossing Enhancements  Bike lane enhancements  Reconstruct driveways to current ACHD standards – only where sidewalks are being constructed/reconstructed.

PHASE 3:

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 5 of 8 SC Meeting #2

SC Meeting #2 SUMMARY

 Non‐Traversable Medians ‐ This is an invasive strategy. Rear end collisions are a concern. Can’t just put medians in throughout corridor. Takes time to strategically implement at specific locations.  Remove Access Conflicts Near Intersections  Frontage/Service Roads

PHASE 4:  Traveler Information  Red Light Extensions  Bus Pullouts – can include in Phase 2 if it can be incorporated as part of completing sidewalks.  Automated speed enforcement

V. Next Steps/Adjourn The project team will incorporate the SC comments along with the PMT comments into a Draft Plan for Fairview Avenue. This will be discussed at the upcoming PMT and SC meetings in August, as well as at a public information meeting.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 6 of 8 SC Meeting #2

SC Meeting #2 SUMMARY

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 7 of 8 SC Meeting #2

SC Meeting #2 SUMMARY

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Page 8 of 8 SC Meeting #2

PMT#3 Meeting Summary

Project Name: Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Project Number: 507022.001 Date: August 14, 2013 Meeting Time: 10:00AM to 12:00PM Location: ACHD – Site R (aka Retreat trailer) Prepared By: John Bosket, DKS Associates

Attendees: Attend Invited Role X Jeff Lowe Project Manager, P&P X John Bosket Project Manager, DKS Associates X Peter Coffey DKS Associates X Amar Pillai Planning & Programming X Brian McClure City of Meridian X Bryan Huey Communications Christy Foltz‐Alrichs Communications Christy Little Development Services Chuck Spencer GIS Felicia Statkus Capital Projects Josh Saak Traffic X Karen Gallagher City of Boise X Sabrina Anderson Planning & Programming X Ryan Head Planning & Programming Meeting objectives: Convene the project team to review and discuss the Draft Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy report. The primary focus will be on recommended strategies and phasing of implementation. Preparations for the upcoming Public Involvement Meeting will also be discussed. Agenda: I. Introductions/ Agenda Overview II. Review of Where We Are/Schedule Jeff Lowe asked PMT members to please review the meeting summary from PMT Meeting #2 and send any requested revisions back to him. No revisions were requested at the meeting. Today we will be discussing the Draft Plan with the PMT and SC. The following day, we will hold a Public Involvement Meeting (PIM) to discuss findings and recommendations to date. Following these meetings, we will revise the Draft Plan to incorporate comments. We will then begin the adoption process in September, presenting at public hearings in Meridian and Boise and before the ACHD Commission. We hope to have this process complete in October.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 1 of 3 PMT#3 Meeting

PMT#3 Meeting Summary

III. Review of Draft Corridor Management Strategy report PMT members had previously commented on an earlier version of the Draft Plan. Therefore, this review primarily focused on the recommended phasing plan for improvements. It was noted that an allowance for integration with other construction projects should be provided in the phasing plan. An example would be the Fairview/Cole project, which could create opportunities to implement improvements from the Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy within the project limits. What performance measures should we use to know if we were successful? Should we include an evaluation period following each phase and how long should it be? One likely measure would be a reduction in crashes. Measuring crash reductions typically requires an evaluation period of at least three years. Improvements in travel time or other mobility measures can typically be measured right away. Since improving safety is a key objective of the project, a three‐year evaluation period may be appropriate for most phases. DKS will include recommended performance measures and evaluation period/process in the revised plan. What should we assume for the timing of the 7‐lane widening of Fairview Avenue and how does this impact the construction of bike lanes and sidewalks in Phase 1? The timing is unknown. For the purpose of this effort, we should focus on “interim” bike lane/sidewalk improvements to improve connectivity right away at lower cost. This approach would fill gaps in existing sidewalks and bike lanes in adjacent to the existing travel lanes. We would not try to put bike lanes and sidewalks where they would ultimately go in a future 7‐lane cross‐section. It may still be difficult to construct bike lanes in Phase 1 in some areas. It was asked if bike facilities on Fairview are necessary if facilities are provided on parallel corridors. Bike facilities on Fairview are needed because parallel facilities are too far away, don’t provide access to destinations along Fairview Avenue, and don’t enhance connections to Fairview transit. Crash and count data show that cyclists are present now with no facilities, so the demand is already present. Table 1, Phase 1 Improvements: Regarding lighting (strategy B6), ACHD lights intersections, but not corridors. Cities would pay to light corridors if desired. Cities also pay for lighting maintenance and operations costs. Would lighting in corridors be pedestrian scale or vehicular scale? Vehicular scale – would also benefit pedestrians. A cost share agreement for additional lighting on Fairview Avenue needs to be worked out. For now, put new intersection lighting analysis and construction in Phase 1. Corridor lighting analysis can go in Phase 1, but construction would need to be deferred to Phase 2. For strategy B7, modify the description as follows: “Evaluate Change of Protected‐Permissive Left‐Turn Phasing to Protected Only.” Also, include both the evaluation and implementation in Phase 1. For strategy A1, “Reduce Number of Driveways”, joint policies between cities and ACHD are needed to strengthen authority to require desired changes through land use actions.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 2 of 3 PMT#3 Meeting

PMT#3 Meeting Summary

For A6, “Non‐traversable Medians with U‐turns”, change the note as follows: “Can be fully implemented. May be needed Needed in Phase 1 to provide notable safety improvements.” Also change the limits of implementation to end at Curtis instead of at Orchard. For B8, “Installation of Reflectorized Borders on Signal Backplates”, we are only proposing installation at Cole Road and Curtis Road in Phase 1. Additional installations in later phases would be pending evaluation of effectiveness. It was asked if Bus Pullouts should be included in Phase 1 given need for further coordination with VRT. It was agreed that they should be kept in Phase 1. For A2, “Create Inter Parcel Circulation”, we should better define what this is meant to represent. The Stakeholder Committee was okay with shared driveways, but don’t want to see circulation roads through neighboring properties because it would be unsafe. The objective of this strategy is not to encourage high levels of cut‐through traffic on neighboring properties, but to connect adjacent parking lots. Table 2, Phase 2 Improvements: For B8, “Installation of Reflectorized Borders on Signal Backplates”, change the note as follows: “If found to be beneficial following Phase 1, complete implementation at all select signals in corridor during Phase 2.” Move strategy D3, the Shamrock Avenue pedestrian and bicycle crossing, to Phase 1. Move strategy B5, the lane balancing improvement at the I‐184 eastbound ramp, to Phase 1. Table 4, Long Range and Incremental Improvements: Change the table title to: “Incremental and Long Range Improvements.” For C1, it was noted that a Transit Signal Priority pilot project is in process on State Street. E1, Traveler Information, is not currently listed in a phase. It was decided to leave it where it is. IV. Discuss August 15 Public Involvement Meeting The PIM will be held on August 15th at 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM. The first hour is intended to be dedicated to business/property owners, with the general public showing up at 5:30 PM. V. Next Steps/Adjourn Action Items:  PMT members will review the meeting summary from PMT Meeting #2 and send any requested revisions to Jeff Lowe.  The PIM will be held on August 15th at 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM.  DKS will revise the Draft Plan following receipt of comments from the PMT, SC, and PIM.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 3 of 3 PMT#3 Meeting

SC#3 Meeting Summary

Project Name: Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Project Number: 507022.001 Date: August 14, 2013 Meeting Time: 2:00PM to 4:00PM Location: ACHD Auditorium Prepared By: John Bosket, DKS Associates

Attendees: Attend Invited Role X Jeff Lowe Project Manager, ACHD X Sabrina Anderson Planning & Programming X Ryan Head Planning & Programming X John Bosket Project Manager, DKS Associates X Peter Coffey DKS Associates X Brian McClure City of Meridian X Bryan Huey ACHD Communications X Karen Gallagher City of Boise X Ken Marler Express Cafe X Mark Peterson Peterson Motors Rhonda Jalbert Valley Regional Transit X Mike Meuret Einstein’s Oilery X Moe Stark Honey Baked Ham & Café X Stephen Loop West Valley Neighborhood Association Steve Sedlacek Republic Services X Tom Barry Property Owner Meeting objectives: Convene the Stakeholder Committee to review and discuss the Draft Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy report. The primary focus will be on recommended strategies and phasing of implementation. Preparations for the upcoming Public Involvement Meeting will also be discussed. Agenda: I. Introductions/ Agenda Overview II. Review of Where We Are/Schedule Jeff Lowe asked SC members to please review the meeting summary from SC Meeting #2 and send any requested revisions back to him. No revisions were requested at the meeting. Today we will be discussing the Draft Plan with the PMT and SC. The following day, we will hold a Public Involvement Meeting (PIM) to discuss findings and recommendations to date. Following these meetings, we will revise the Draft Plan to incorporate comments. We will then begin the adoption process in September, presenting at public hearings in Meridian and Boise and before the ACHD Commission. We hope to have this process complete in October.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 1 of 6 SC#3 Meeting

SC#3 Meeting Summary

III. Review of Draft Corridor Management Strategy report John Bosket started the discussion with a review of the process followed to date.  It was important when taking a fresh look at this plan to understand and confirm the needs for improvement along Fairview Avenue. Therefore, the first step taken was to complete an evaluation of the “no build” condition today and 20 years from now. Many issues were identified, such as congestion, high projected traffic growth, incomplete walking and biking facilities, and limited access to transit stops, but safety was the greatest issue noted due to the significant crash history.  Next, we discussed goals and objectives with the PMT and SC. This provided a framework for evaluation criteria that will be used continuously throughout the design of each phase.  Then we considered more than 20 different types of solutions to address the needs found in the corridor. Some solutions considered (referred to as “strategies”) were able to address multiple needs, but most were targeted at a specific need. Therefore, a combination of complementary strategies was needed to achieve the greatest benefit.  Finally, the Draft Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy included recommended bundles of complementary strategies and outlines a plan for phased implementation. When building phases for improvements, key considerations included: o the evaluation criteria – used as a fatal flaw screen at this stage o the PMT’s interest in making safety improvements a top priority and the need to make significant improvements to safety quickly o SC request that a wider range of improvement options be considered, with a preference toward lower cost, efficiency‐enhancing improvements o SC request for an incremental phasing approach where the least impactful (to businesses) strategies are tried first and others are only implemented if still needed o A desire to minimize construction impacts on businesses by avoiding repeated construction activity in the same area of the corridor o Reducing project costs and maximizing benefits by bundling strategies

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 2 of 6 SC#3 Meeting

SC#3 Meeting Summary

 In balancing the many interests, many SC requests have been accommodated such as using a range of lower cost solutions and not just focusing on access management. However, in an effort to lower project costs and construction impacts, maximize benefits, and provide immediate improvement to the current safety problems, bundling strategies is recommended over a drawn‐out incremental implementation approach. In an attempt to respond to SC concerns over this, our incremental approach will be to limit the application of some strategies to defined areas of the corridor (highest priority areas first), then evaluate their effectiveness before applying them to other areas.  The process for advancing each phase would start with a design effort where the conceptual recommendations are refined to fit corridor opportunities and constraints. This design stage will include a significant public involvement effort where all property/business owners will be invited to discuss recommended improvements and how they might be modified to their needs. Prior to moving into construction, the recommended design would be taken to the ACHD Commission for approval. This offers another opportunity for public comment. Pending approval, improvements would be constructed. Following construction, ACHD would monitor and evaluate improvements achieved over a period of three years before advancing the next phase.  The first phase of improvements is focused on the area from Orchard Street to Five Mile Road, although it does include some strategies in other parts of the corridor. The Orchard to Five Mile segment was chosen for Phase 1 because it experienced the highest rate of crashes in the corridor. It should be noted that the installation of medians with U‐turns is only recommended from Five Mile Road to Curtis Road because the rate of crashes drops significantly east of Curtis Road.  The second phase of improvements would focus most improvements in the segment from Locust Grove Road to Meridian Road, which was noted as the area with the second highest rate of crashes.  The third phase would implement improvements in the remainder of the corridor.

It was noted that the fact that the recommended strategies are only conceptual at this stage should be more clearly and strongly stated. It should also be stated that further design work is required and that further public involvement will be included as part of each design phase. This should all be included in a thorough description of the

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 3 of 6 SC#3 Meeting

SC#3 Meeting Summary

implementation process detailing what ACHD will do during design phases to engage the public and property/business owners. What is the intended approach for involving property/business owners during the design of each phase? This hasn’t been determined yet. The intent is to reach out to every business/property owner in the project limits to discuss how the proposed improvements could affect them and how adjustments can be made to work better for them. A comment was made that this still looks like it is all about medians like the last plan was. The public already responded definitively against this. Businesses will continue to be opposed if this is presented in the same way as the previous plan. A distinction between shared driveways and circulation between parcels needs to be made. Do not create cut through traffic on properties due to medians. Creating cut through traffic across businesses is unsafe. Shared driveways would be okay, but don’t create access roads through properties. What can be done to promote establishment of shared driveways and connections between adjacent properties? This is an area ACHD, Boise, and Meridian want to improve on by strengthening local code requirements as part of Phase 1. Bryan Huey shared that he has spoken with more than 20 businesses on Eagle Road to discuss how the new medians have impacted them. The responses were largely positive. All but one had no problem with the medians and did not feel they had a negative impact on their business. Prior to closing the meeting, SC members were asked to provide any further comments. Moe Stark: Would like to come to the PIM tomorrow night and ask more questions. Could medians be tried with temporary materials when evaluated? Would permanent medians be attractive?  Temporary installation of medians isn’t likely. Temporary materials may not be clearly understood, could be violated easily, and could become a maintenance problem. Also, it will take 3 years to collect enough data to assess the effectiveness.  The design of medians, including possible aesthetic designs, hasn’t been discussed. ACHD may not be able to maintain landscaping. An “Adopt a Median” program is used in Santa Fe where partnerships with business owners and individuals have enabled the city to landscape and maintain medians. Mark Peterson: Appreciates that the SC gets to express an opinion and wants to make sure the SC opinions are expressed appropriately and fairly. The SC members represent others in the corridor. He can be Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 4 of 6 SC#3 Meeting

SC#3 Meeting Summary

satisfied with the process if the SC voice is heard and represented. Will the SC still exist after October when this plan is done? He is hesitant to approve of concepts that aren’t clearly defined. Does this give ACHD the freedom to do what they want later? Will property owners have any more say in this? Can we find the middle ground now?  It is unknown if the same SC will be used for future public involvement efforts. There may be more focus on stakeholders in the primary project area for each phase.  It is also important to ACHD and the cities of Boise and Meridian that the SC opinions are presented fairly. SC members are encouraged to review all meeting summaries and make sure opinions are appropriately documented. SC members are also encouraged to attend the PIM tomorrow night, as well as the public meetings with City Councils and the ACHD Commission.  ACHD will refine concepts into detailed designs as each phase is advanced. This effort will include much more public involvement and the ACHD Commission must approve it before construction. So approving concepts now does not free ACHD to build anything within that description at any time. Sabrina Anderson clarified the adoption process. The Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy (all phases) will be taken to the cities of Boise and Meridian and to the ACHD Commission for adoption. First, they want to know if the overall strategy makes sense. They want all sides to be represented in this discussion. Then they will ask if they should proceed with design. If approved, this would start more detailed design and further public involvement on the first phase. Stephen Loop: Fairview Avenue is the front door for the surrounding neighborhoods, so it should look good. Fairview Avenue is a principle arterial and it needs to function like one so traffic doesn’t divert through neighborhoods to avoid congestion. It needs to operate properly, be safe, present a good image, and have successful businesses. Mike Meuret: Expecting the public to accept the plan requires trust and there is a lot of distrust of government. He appreciates how the SC has been involved. The project team has done a great job in that regard. He believes medians do provide benefits and isn’t necessarily against them, but still has concerns about business impacts. Just because some business responses on Eagle Road have been positive regarding medians, we shouldn’t assume the experience will be the same on Fairview Avenue. Eagle Road is more of a commuter corridor, while Fairview Avenue is more of a destination corridor. We need to work with the public better than ITD did on Eagle Road. ITD’s actions were perceived as “mob‐like.”

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 5 of 6 SC#3 Meeting

SC#3 Meeting Summary

 Even after adoption of this strategy, there is more work to be done. We will need help working through design and implementation issues and must listen to constituents. Tom Barry: Likes the approach taken in the plan. Public outreach can be one‐directional or two‐directional. What are ACHD’s intentions for future public outreach? Engagement is more important than mere outreach and there is a need to articulate, “Yes, these are strategies but another strategy is the ability to have your say.” The process for implementation and how the public will be involved needs to be documented in the plan very clearly. It is difficult to trust in this otherwise. Also, while he agrees that medians can be beneficial, it depends on the users. His business has large trucks with trailers as customers. If they can’t get in and out, he will lose business. Ken Marler: Feels a well‐designed median wouldn’t be a problem. IV. Discuss August 15 Public Involvement Meeting The PIM will be held on August 15th at 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM. The first hour is intended to be dedicated to business/property owners, with the general public showing up at 5:30 PM. SC members are encouraged to attend and invite others. SC members are also encouraged to share the PIM comment sheets with customers and other property/business owners. V. Next Steps/Adjourn Action Items:  SC members will review the meeting summary from SC Meeting #2 and send any requested revisions to Jeff Lowe.  The PIM will be held on August 15th at 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM.  DKS will revise the Draft Plan following receipt of comments from the PMT, SC, and PIM.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 6 of 6 SC#3 Meeting

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETING #1 SUMMARY

Project Name: Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Project Number: 507022.001 Date: August 15, 2013 Meeting Time: 4:30 PM – 7:30 PM Location: The Clubhouse Event Center, 7311 W. Potomac Dr., Boise , ID Prepared By: Sai Sirandas, DKS Associates

Attendance: 73 people signed in Meeting objectives: Elicit public comment on Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy, including:  Developing a long‐range plan to increase safety and reduce congestion with access management (including center‐of‐the‐road medians) as just one element.  Evaluating and updating information from past efforts.  Developing an implementation plan that recommends improvements to occur over the next 20 years. Comment Summary: Eighteen comment sheets were received at the public involvement meeting, and eleven comments were received after the meeting. Comments from these 29 members of the public are summarized below and organized by topic area based on the comment form. Note that not all 29 members of the public provided comment on all topic areas. When similar comments and responses were provided by more than one member of the public, the number of similar comments is shown in parentheses. 1) Do you agree or disagree with the proposed Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Plan? Agree (11) Disagree (13) Not Sure (2) No Response (3) Why?  Medians limit/restrict access to property; Medians will have severe economic impacts (10)  There is a need for improvements; something needs to be done to improve safety, and existing and future traffic congestion (7)

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 1 of 6 PIM Meeting #1

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETING #1 SUMMARY

 Traffic too fast; reduce speed limit (2)  Needs better signal timing (2)  Do not agree with reduced driveways  Concerned about service roads bisecting properties  Concerned about driveway reduction  Five Mile Road to Orchard Street (Phase 1 Segment) is already facing economic crisis  Concerned about traffic noise  Speed up traffic  Need more lanes  Need bike lanes  Need better lighting  Plan does not meet its own listed goals (Transportation, Social & Economic)

What do you like about the plan?  Support pedestrian and bike improvements (5)  Support the effort to improve safety (4)  Support bus turnouts (3)  Public involvement and the exchange of ideas are great. Educational materials are helpful (2)  Support reducing access conflicts near intersections (2)  Support reconstruction of driveways (2)  Support the effort to improve mobility  Support medians  Support inter‐parcel circulation  Maintains economic growth  Support the three‐phase approach  Support proactive approach

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 2 of 6 PIM Meeting #1

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETING #1 SUMMARY

 Support driveway consolidation

What do you dislike about the plan?  Medians will limit access; No medians (11)  Construction work will impact property (2)  Needs signal at Wildwood Street instead of Steelwood Avenue (2)  Bike lanes  Reduced driveways  Frontage/Service roads will impact private properties  Plan lacks specifics  Do not support red light running cameras  Implementation could be long and drawn out  Negative feedback about Curtis Road project  The eastern portion of the corridor (Five Mile to Orchard) is the most “delicate” area, therefore it should not be considered for Phase 1. Do improvements in other areas of the corridor before improving the eastern portion

2) Do you believe the appropriate strategies are being applied in each area? No (7) Yes (8) Somewhat (2) No Response (12) Please explain  Do not support medians (6)  Medians will not work in Idaho because of too many large trucks (3)  Improve bicycle and transit facilities on other corridors, not on Fairview Avenue (2)  Apply medians at locations adjacent to undeveloped areas (west of Five Mile) (2)  Medians are not suitable in areas that get snow (2)

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 3 of 6 PIM Meeting #1

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETING #1 SUMMARY

 Consider improving parallel facilities (Franklin Road); Study additional I‐84 freeway exits  Focus on business access  Educate drivers to avoid using the phone while driving  Insufficient details on strategies being applied  Handouts of strategies were not provided at the Open House  Medians decrease access for emergency vehicles, increase blockages and decrease safety for everyone

3) Are there other strategies we should consider for the corridor?  Improve transit frequency, longer hours, and introduce express buses (2)  Develop off‐road bike paths (2)  Severe lack of street lighting from Hickory Avenue to Fred Meyer  Better to spend money on red light running cameras than medians  Buffer zone on along both sides of Fairview Avenue, which would include a combination of bike lane and a sidewalk with landscaping and lighting  Signal timing improvements should be applied immediately. Improve signal timing during non‐peak hours  Add more right turn lanes  Provide reasonable crossing walking and crossing opportunities to people with children, the elderly and the disabled  Change the direction of flow during peak hours. Use middle lane as a reversible lane (eastbound in the morning, westbound in the evening)

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 4 of 6 PIM Meeting #1

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETING #1 SUMMARY

4) Please rank the following in order of importance, with 1 being the most important and 6 being the least Average Scores: Safety 1.6 Efficient travel 1.7 Pedestrian crossings 3.1 Better sidewalks 3.3 Improved access to transit 3.4 Bike facilities 3.6

5) How do you use Fairview Avenue (choose all that apply)? Live on Fairview or in neighborhood adjacent to Fairview (11) Commuting (10) Shopping (9) Own/operate a business along Fairview (7) Work at a location on Fairview (2) Other (1)

6) General Comments  Signage and reflectors to help people see medians during snow, darkness and rain  Consider why people prefer Fairview to the parallel freeway and other parallel facilities  Business owner suffered through several construction phases over the years. Medians are “business killers”  One business owner experienced that it was faster to access their old location, which was adjacent to a section of Fairview Avenue with medians than the new location which is now adjacent to a section without medians. However, customers have a perception that the older location was faster and less difficult to access  The only Open House was held in late summer, with inadequate handouts. Due to this it had poor attendance, and the response time was too short to let others

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 5 of 6 PIM Meeting #1

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEETING #1 SUMMARY

know, and the online materials were illegible in many cases. Open House needs to be redone with improvements to allow for adequate input  Please listen to the residents instead of trying to convince them  Maintain the medians for weed and dirt control  Implementing flashing yellow arrows was a good decision by ACHD. It helped traffic flow and reduced engine idle time at the intersections  Bike lanes must be separate from the roadway

Fairview Avenue Corridor Management Strategy Page 6 of 6 PIM Meeting #1 Table: PMT and SC Preferences for Strategies Tiers Phases PMT & SC PMT & SC PMT & SC Strongly PMT & SC Strongly PMT SC Agreed Disagreed PMT SC Agreed Disagreed A1 Reduce Number of Driveways 1 1  12 A2 Create Inter Parcel Circulation 1 1  12 A3 Reconstruct Driveways to Current ACHD Standards 23 1 2 A4 Remove Access Conflicts near Intersections 1 4  13  A5 Frontage/Service Roads 1 4  23 A6 Non‐Traversable Medians 13  13  B1 Update Coordinated East‐West Signal Timing 2 1 1 1  B2 Adaptive Signal Timing 21 2 1 B3 Red Light Running Photo Enforcement 21 4 1  B4 Red Light Extensions 4 4  44  B5 Balancing Lane Utilization 3 1  31  B6 Improved Street Lighting 3 2 2 1 B7 Change of Protected‐Permissive Left‐Turn Phasing to Protected Only 32 3 1  B8 Installation of Reflectorized Borders on Signal Backplates 3 1  21 C1 Transit Signal Priority 22  32 C2 Bus Pullouts 2 4  14  D1 Complete Bike Lane Gaps 1 2 1 2 D2 Complete Sidewalk Gaps 1 2 1 2 D3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Enhancements 22  22  D4 Bike Lane Enhancements 1 2 1 2 E1 Traveler Information 2 3 3 4 E2 Automated Speed Enforcement 44  44  Table: Website Public Comment Summary Comments and Likes Combined Against Medians 782 For Better Signal Timing 160 For Bike Lanes 118 For Sidewalks 116 For Medians 23 Improve Parallel Corridors 23 Better Pedestrian Crossing 22 Improve Freeway Access 20 For Fewer Driveways 6 Table: Website Public Comment List Subject Datet Posted By Category Comment Votes

Comments: most of fairview ave, west of maple grove, already has ample amounts of room to allow three lanes in each direction, and i think that these areas not currently in use is a huge mistake. the simple addition of asphalt and maybe even curbs and sidewalks to these numerous areas would allow this corridor to go from a failing grade to at least a C… i cant understand why this has gone unnoticed, and so very obviously neglected… i would invited everyone in achd to pay more attention to out of state road building and design, because it is way too apparent that achd is very close minded about just how much traffic issues are being created by such an abundance of the lack of knowledge required to truly understand the needs of automotive transportation in fairview ave corridor 26-Jun recd. via email 0 ada county. why are we attempting to redo a corridor that has no realistic exit plan onto roads, that to this day, are still only two lanes?! 5 mile, cloverdale and many others, for example, should be expanded to at least 5 lanes for 2 miles on either side of fairview ave well before a fairview corridor rebuild should even be discussed by anyone. cole road intersection should be done already also, as there is no more school and plenty of room for widening for over two years now. how can achd explain to the people of ada county that it was more important to do every single intersection on fairview ave and then skip cole road? that intersection alone creates a back up for at least half a mile in all directions from 7 am to 7pm regularly, every single day. and worse yet cole road is an interchange for both I84 AND I184…. WTF ACHD! if there is money to do this big of a project, then push Driving some of the other smaller projects connected to fairview ave further up on the calendar and conduct yourselves accordingly. The intersection of Fairview Ave. and Cloverdale: vehicles east‐bound on Fairview, trying to make a left turn (north) onto Cloverdale. With the new blinking yellow light, there is not enough time for drivers to make their left turn onto Cloverdale AFTER Concern for safety 23-Jun Cheryl Danley the blinking yellow turns into a solid yellow. I’ve seen so many near‐misses and people getting angry and honking their horns, 0 There’s going to be a bad wreck there some day. Is there any way to keep the solid yellow, yellow just a little bit longer to allow Driving people to complete their left turn onto Cloverdale? The islands on Eagle Road are bad enough. Do not add more here. Leads to more congestion as people try to figure out how to NO ISLANDS 21-Jun Kayla Miller now get to the blocked off business and wastes fuel driving out of way to get to the correct business. Islands are very anti‐business 0 Driving and anti‐people! Leave alone!!! 14-Jun Admin Driving Leave Fairview alone.I use it at least twice a day and I don’t see any serious issues.I’ve lived right by it for 20 years 0

The corner of Maple Grove and Halstead has become unsafe due to tree growth that blocks view of cars and bicyclists traveling on Unsafe Corner 14-Jun Luann Hyde 0 Maple Grove. The trees need to be cut back on the corner. In order to see the traffic heading South on Fairview, you must pull out Driving onto Fairview to see traffic which causes motorists and cyclists to swerve to miss a waiting car to pull out.

I have lived in Boise now for more than 16 years and lived at the interseciton of Cole and Fairview for a period of time. Fairview Fairview Avenue as a regional c 11-Jun Heidi Carter Avenue has always been a street that I avoid due to the over abundance of driveways and lack of control for traffic entering and 0 exiting these approaches. This roadway does not function safely or efficiently due to the number of approaches and I am very glad Driving to see that this corridor will finally be getting some much needed access management in the near future. bus turnouts 9-Jun anonymous There should be turnouts at every bus stop to pick up passengers and it would keep traffic flowing. It would also be safer for 1 Bus people boarding the bus. Location: all bus stops. This would also be very good for school bus stops everywhere.

I am opposed to the median project on Fairview Ave. It will hurt business, increase drive times putting more emissions in the air, Fairview access 8-Jun Phillip 1 make truck deliveries very difficult and force U turns in front of oncoming traffic. I do not believe the cost of this project is justified Other in light of other road projects that are needed such as widening Five Mile, Cloverdale, Ustick ect. I figure in the last 10 years I have driven Boise City Taxis in excess of 400,000 miles within Ada Co.. With the exception of a few “hidden” curbs in the middle of the road, (the ones you can’t see at night) ACHD has done an amazing job keeping up with growth. spend it elsewhere 7-Jun Jason Plesner The medians on Eagle work well during the commute. The other 20 hours of the day they just make driving a pain for truckers, 1 taxis, delivery people and the elderly. How about shortening your corridor to one mile either side of Eagle Rd. and save a few Driving bucks?

Something for the cyclists 6-Jun Jon R. I ride my bike over the bridge here almost daily and something that warns motorists to watch out for cyclists on the southbound 0 Biking lane would be helpful. Better yet, repaint the bike lane so cyclists are placed on the correct lane going over the bridge. Speed Trap 6-Jun Joe Blow Driving Speed trap in the mornings around 8am on a regular basis 1 Cole Rd needs to be widened between Franklin and Farview. People are trying to make left hand turns into the residential and Center turn lane needed 5-Jun Admin business areas East and West of Cole and without center turn lanes block an entire lane of traffic on an already extremely busy 0 Driving road during rush hour times. Commuting on Fairview by bike is absolutely terrifying. Some nice bike lanes would improve our community’s health, and overall Bike Lanes 5-Jun Brady 6 Biking awesomeness. Bicycle lanes! 5-Jun Admin Biking More bicycle lanes! Get everyone out of their car, off their butt, and in to a local bicycle shop! 1 I live downtown but need to get out to eagle/fairview and even further at times. There needs to be a safe way for cyclists downtown to make it to at least eagle and fairview. There is sooooo much along fairview that could be opened up to people if they Bike lanes pleeeease 5-Jun Christian could safely bike there! If you’re on sidewalks you have to constantly get off the bike when there are people, or be an ass and ride 4 on through them, and it’s just unsafe to go down the side walk at a faster pace, which any pace on a bicycle is considerably faster Biking than what should be on the sidewalks anyway.

I travel Fairview daily and using the median to turn left into a business or coming out can be a scary thing during busy times. I have seen many accidents when two people who have crossing paths go for the same spot in the median not stopping to think about the apposing side. I have had many people pull out in front of me while I’m in the median and have the right of way, and my favorite is when someone is driving in the median, trying to merge like it’s the I‐5. Think if someone is coming the opposite and trying to enter the median, do they cause an accident or swerve back into traffic? I’m sorry to say the medians are needed. I’ve Fairview needs to be safer 4-Jun Lucifer 1 lived in parts of California and seen some of the busiest roads on earth, yet with raised medians and limited access I actually saw less accidents there than here and making a left turn into the grocery store wasn’t nearly as scary. You don’t have to worry about someone on the other side going into the median the same time as you or all the idiots that like to drive down the thing using it as an extra lane. I know people don’t want to see our roads become like California’s but let’s face it, the traffic is already there and we need to do something about it. PS, getting around in Fresno is easier than getting around here and almost every road has a Driving raised median.

I think the best way to streamline traffic would be to restrict entrances and exits to parking lots of strip malls. Reduce the access Access 31-May Darwin Zanders 1 to one per mall as far from intersections as possible. The Albertsons at Cole is an example. Eliminate Starbucks entrance and make Driving cars drive through the parking lot so there aren’t cars exiting or entering Fairview right st Cole. You keep coming up with projects: Bikelanes and sidewalks on Mountain View, How about some trees? “how is Fairview doing, etc. Why not complete a critical project first! For example, I submitted a petition to ACHD in January to improve the traffic flow on Improve Mountain View Drive 31-May Thomas Taylor 3 Mountain View Drive, Glenwood to Cole, where we have 15000 cars per day! I had approximately 60 signatures of local residents who live here! Not a word back from ACHD! are you listening to your citizens? Please complete a critical project before moving on. Driving This has been in the works as long as I have lived here (20 years) Please finish the Glenwood cuplet. It has been on the maps since the 70′s. With the Wal‐mart coming to the neighborhood it is Finished the Cuplet. 30-May Admin 2 Driving needed. It have been promised , please do it. you can’t turn into particular businesses due to the concrete dividers on Fairview. U‐turns are permitted. Many time i have seen u‐ middle concrete dividers 30-May Barbara Fox 0 Other turns in the middle of the intersection after the traffice light turns yellow. I am responding to Sunday Statesman request for comments on plans for changes to Fairview Ave. I frequently travel most roads in the west valley. Fairview Ave. is the LEAST of the areas that need quicker changes. The very most frustrating areas I feel need PRIORITY for this valley are widening projects at: McMillan West from Eagle Rd., at least to Meridian Rd. Ustic Rd. West from Five Mile at least to Meridian Rd. Five Mile So. from McMillan, as far South as possible. Cloverdale So. from Chinden, as far South as possible. Locust Grove, Fairview to Chinden, Overland South. Planned enhancement – Fairvi 29-May recd. via email 1 Chinden to Caldwell. I feel confident that if these areas were addressed first, it would ease traffic on Fairview and improve SAFETY issues for the routes above. Many of these areas have no bike lane or sidewalks. Sometimes I will choose Fairview Ave just to avoid congested alternate routes east or west/north or south, it moves BETTER on Fairview like it is. I am on all these roads frequently because I help transport kids to/from soccer/basketball practices and games/to‐from school, and frequent personal use. Driving Please consider these as priorities over Fairview. Bike Lane Transition from Maple Grove to North side of Fairview intersection is @ 6 inches wide for about 100 feet on both sides Unsafe bike lane 29-May X. Barrett 2 Biking of Maple Grove. I drive Fairview everyday from Eagle Rd. to Curtis, from Eagle rd to Milwaukee rd is the only busy part and only during rush hours. More than 1 solution 29-May Admin Nothing is needed from Milwaukee rd to Orchard rd very little traffic except at 5;00pm There needs to be a common sense 0 Driving approach t0 different stretches of Fairview and not one plan for the entire corridor. This busy street needs bike lanes if Boise is committed to reducing greenhouse gases, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and Bike Lanes 28-May M.Bergstrom 1 Biking combatting obesity in Idaho. Bike Lanes, simple!

Putting in a boulevard with nice trees with hanging slower pots, etc., in place of the current “suicide lane” will do the following: 1) Give pedestrians and cyclists more safety when crossing. 2) Tame drivers instincts – promoting ‘freeway’ drivers to go to the freeway.. It’s time to invest in this area o 25-May G. Horeczy But also… 1 3) Raise property values of a whole sector at risk of becoming a street of empty car lots. 4) Reduce crime (see point 2). 5) Introduce a sense of community, if it’s done aesthetically. Walking Items 3, 4 and 5 are the real payback for this investment.

I live on the southside of the intersection of Fairview and Wildwood (GoldenWheel and Dutch Bros). Im not sure what exactly Unsafe intersection 25-May Admin what to suggest, but I can tell you that the extensive traffic into Dutch Bros in the morning results in me and many others waiting 1 for 10 min max to pull out onto Fairview. I also feel that this intersection is VERY unsafe. There have been several “almost” Driving accidents. There are so many directions and factors to be considered before pulling out, and Im certain many dont consider them. One way achd can make less traffic on Fairview is more on and off ramps off the interstate. That way you don’t need to exit until Less traffic on Fairway 25-May Ken and Marte Abe much closer to the business you are going to, such as Maple Grove‐ 5 mile etc. It is so ridiculous that you have to travel so far on 2 Driving such a busy street just to get where you are going. Bikers 23-May Alyssa 0 Biking They need to be on the sidewalks or at least farther away from cars. I do not like driving with a biker on a busy street like fairview. People using the center lane lik22-May Admin 2 Driving I have seen people drive blocks down the center lane at 35‐40 mph to “merge” into traffic. This will get someone killed.

Unsafe parking lots 22-May mike goff With all the islands beinng added, the parking lots are now unsafe as people use them now to cut through at a high rate of speed. I 2 Driving have personally witnessed several children almost being hit in parking lots because of the people who cut through.

These medians are a complete waste of taxpayer money. I believe that powers that be have tried to justify this by using the keyword ‘Safety’. What a joke. My parking lot at Snake River Yamaha has now turned into an access road. We were forced to add speed bumps in order to preserve our own lives. People STILL speed through our parking lot and actually pass other cars. Danger Zone 22-May Steve Goff 3 I’ve seen several accidents out front directly related to the new ‘safe’ medians. The cars making new ‘legal’ Uturns are a serious safety hazard. The medians are a serious impediment to the very businesses that are paying the taxes to build these stupid things. All in all it’s a serious waste of time and money and has put the public as well as local businesses at risk. Whoever thought this up Driving should be tarred and feathered and run the hell out of town. Thinking of putting in a median on Fairview? You have got to be kidding! BAD IDEA! Bad for businesses – bad for customers – bad for tourists – bad for anyone who values safety. Really – drivers of all types – new drivers – experienced drivers – impeded drivers Another traffic disaster paid fo 22-May Suzy - Concerned – elderly drivers – truck and delivery drivers ‐it will be a nightmare! Vote NO for the idea and whoever promotes the idea! Fairview 5 is not nearly as dangerous now as it will be when you add a median. Surely there is a better more practical project on which to Driving spend our money.

ACHD has an irrational and unjustified love of medians on major roads, and they cause more frustration than a simple middle turn lane. Fairview Rd does NOT need restrictive medians – especially in the primarily residential neighborhoods west of Meridian Rd. No medians please! 22-May Brett Mayes 4 It’s an absurd idea that the public DOES NOT WANT – as evidenced by the comments here. It’s our money, they’re our roads. Don’t screw them up because you think every major road needs to have a median. No other large cities do this with the frequency Driving that ACHD tries to. That should tell you something. I have to agree with a previous poster on the new U‐turn points. The selling point ACHD used for the Medians was to eliminate dangerous left turns on these busy roads. Okay, that makes sense. Cool…. so now let’s create U‐Turn points. Say what? on a 55 MPH road? How is that safer than a normal left turn? It’s not! U‐Turn is safer than a left turn 21-May Admin I was born and raised in Boise and I’ve always felt that the ACHD cival engineers were subpar when it came to ‘bright ideas’. 2 Having driven in several other large cities across the US, and lived in Seattle for 6 years, I have to say that those experiences only bolster my feelings on this. The civil engineers in those places know what they’re doing, and know what good ideas really are. Driving ACHD has a long ways to go. Sorry! The right most, west‐bound straight through lane is basically a drag racing lane. Shortly after going through the intersection, the lane ends. What you end up with is all of the aggressive drivers (5 or 6) queued up in the right lane, and all the safe drives lined up Drag racing lane 21-May Admin in the next 2 lanes. Then when the light turns green the 5 o 6 drivers in the right lane gun it and force lane changes before the lane 6 ends. There’s always at least one aggressive cut off that occurs during each green light. This right lane before the intersection Driving needs to go! Is there a reason why Fairview and Meridian rd needed to be torn up at the same time? It takes 15 min. to get through the Finish Construction 21-May Admin 1 Driving intersection. Get someone to direct traffic so more can get through it.

I ride a bike to work every morning and I think that Fairview is dangerous for bikes. No bike lanes and the lack sidewalks that run Fairview Ave 21-May Russ 0 all along either side of Fairview. Plus, No street lights except for the intersections is a huge issue. I am in favor of The Fairview Other median project as long as the above issues are addressed and somehow worked into the project.. Light Synchronization 21-May Kevin A few weeks ago the lights on Fairview at Main and Meridian were very well synchronized, but lately it is taking 3 and 4 light cycles 2 to get through. This is true even in off‐peak hours. A little more time dedicated to studying this pattern could improve traffic flow. Driving I drive this route 4 times per day M‐F. Living and working on Fairview/Cherry, there is no logical way around the construction. I am opposed to installing center medians along Fairview Ave in speed zones that are 35mph max. The medians are cumbersome Proposed Center Medians alon 21-May Curtis when accessing businesses and creates a longer drive. 3 Driving However I favor the medians on Eagle Road because the speed limit is much higher than on Fairview Ave. Four Way Stop 21-May Curtis 0 Driving So glad that you removed the merge lanes at the corner of Fairview Ave and Eagle Road. The four‐way stop is so much safer. Once a cyclist gets here it is kind of over. It would be nice if Orchard can have some type of connection to the other side of End of the greenbelt spur line 20-May Admin 0 Biking Fairview. Or South on Orchard was hospitable for walking and biking.

PLEASE add median barriers on Fairview. Too many times I have seen drivers racing down the center turn lane for up to 1/2 mile Medians 20-May Admin 3 to reach the intersection, endangering other drivers that might use the center lane for the intended purpose (left turns/merging). Driving Adding barriers and controlling how one enters and exits parking lots and left‐turn lanes will make Fairview safer.

Going west on Fairview & Eagle is an intersection I find all over Meridian. I am going straight & am in the correct lane. People People going straight in lanes t 19-May Anonymous constantly get in the lane to the right of me, floor it when it turns green, and cut me off. It is a lane that peters out. Why do you 2 purposely cause Road Rage? People should get tickets for this. To know you are going straight & think YOU ARE SPECIAL so you get Driving in the far right lane & push everyone else aside to get a few car lengths ahead is just plain rude. I even see the cops here do it. The right turn lanes are too short here. I often have to wait for several light cycles to turn right. While no one in the intersection is Right turn lanes 17-May Ben P 1 Driving moving. Left turn signals 17-May Ben P 1 Driving Thank you for finally adding flashing yellow lights on all the left turns. I greatly reduces my waits during non‐rush hour times. The only entrance to my neighborhood is Bryson. Adding medians would force me to multiple U‐turns everyday. I find U‐turns much more dangerous than using a turn lane. when you are using a turn lane you can see all the directions that traffic is coming Bryson & Fairview 17-May Ben P 2 from and you can signal your intent. With a U‐turn you can’t effectively signal them and you can not tell all the directions that Driving traffic could be coming at you.

The medians are devastating to businesses. Plus, if a customer can not easily access a business, they will get frustrated and cause Stop the Medians 17-May LB 5 more problems on the roadways with their anger. U‐turns at major intersections cause further backup and confusion for drivers. Driving Please give our businesses a fighting chance and not eliminate access with medians.

I frequently attempt to turn left from westbound Fairview at Kimnball Street. If I am lucky enough to avoid the people trying to get Suicide left turns 16-May Admin 0 out of the Subaru dealership, I can wait for four or five minutes in the center turn lane for a break in east bound traffic. Normally I Driving get honked at from someone, either behind or coming towards me in the lane. I ride a bike for pleasure and avoid Fairview as much as possible. There are no bike lanes, the sidewalks are rough and uneven to Bikes on Fairview 16-May Stephanie Fox 2 Biking ride on. It is too scary to ride my bike on. I live a few blocks south of Fairview and drive it every day for work, etc. Evening rushhour is especially conjested heading home/west and I have to get into the center turn lane. I’ve obsered many traffic accidents at my intersection of Fairview and Unsafe intersection 16-May Stephanie Fox Allumbaugh, especially at this time. It is too busy! If I’m trying to cross Fairview from Allumbaugh to head west in the late 0 afternoon, I will have a long wait, again too busy! I observe people taking short cuts either trhough Jerry’s State Court Cafe parkng log or those new side streest between Allumbaugh, Liberty and the one in between those two.. There is a propose 168 unit Driving apartment comples on Allumbaugh. I can’t imagine what that will do to this intersection, Fairview and Allumbaugh. MAKING U TURNS IS A TRICKY AND DANGEROUS MOVE. I AM NOT HAPPY MAKING THEM OR AVOIDING OTHERS MAKING THEM. I U TURNS ARE DANGEROUS 16-May Admin AM REALLY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE PRACTICALLY ONE WAY DESIGN OF FAIRVIEW NOW. IT’S DIFFICULT TO GET TO SHOPPING 2 Driving AREAS WITHOUT MAKING A HUGE UN NECESSARY LOOPS. BAD BAD DECISION ACHD needs to listen to the people that utilize the Fairview corridor. A center median will be a disaster. The businesses will be Center Median’s Not Needed 16-May Jim devistated and the corridor will be more unsafe with everyone doing U‐turns at the major intersections. The traffic will become 3 Driving congested as well.

The light cycles at Fairview & Maple Grove, Mitchell, Five Mile, Cloverdale, and Eagle Road are too long. They lead to backups at the lights, especially Five Mile and Eagle Roads. A side effect of the long green lights given to Fairview traffic is the inability to Light Cycles Too Long 16-May Grace enter Fairview from side streets and business approaches. The wait to turn right or left onto Fairview is too long. Waiting to turn 2 left from Eagle Road onto Fairview in the late afternoon sometimes takes 3 cycles of 3 minutes each. If your car doesn’t have air conditioning, the wait can be very uncomfortable in the summer. I’ve driven in cities larger than Boise, and no where have I Driving encountered the long waits at red lights like in this area. Irving is nice, Orchard is crap until North of Fairview. There must be a way to allow cyclists an easier time getting past Fairview. Bicycle connection needed her 15-May Admin 1 Biking Maybe a “share the Road sign”, or “may use full lane sign”? I guess I’ll take the lane here? I know it is okay to do so, but the drivers around me seem to think it is not okay. Maybe a “may use Bike facilities 15-May Admin full lane” sign. 3 Biking thanks

For sure Fairview needs bike lanes. Also, there should be easier ways for people to cross Fairview to get to and from bus stops. Center of the road medians are a poor idea and will slow traffic as well as hurt businesses on Fairview. This comment map is a Access, safety, etc… 15-May John Weber difficult way to comment. To make Fairview safer reduce the speed limit and encourage people to take other routes or travel by 3 other means than being alone in a car by having better sidewalks, bike lanes, and consider a carpool lane. It seems we already commented on this in the past. ACHD need to listen to prior comments and not try to jamb center of the road medians on people Biking and businesses that don’t want them. Stoplight timing 15-May John Weber Driving Stop lights should be timed so traffic flows without stopping as much 1

It really doesn’t matter what WE the residents and users of Fairview have to say about the changes because you are going to do it anyway! This has already been demonstrated by your continuing to put in traffic barriers from Cloverdale to Eagle (and maybe beyond, I don’t go there any more). It seems to be prohibiting traffic into the businesses on the south side of Fairview while What a “SoCal” mess!! 15-May Extremely Disguste 2 promoting access to the new (out of state) development going in at Fairview/Eagle. There are so many barriers to travel, I just quit going to those businesses and order more and more and more online delivered directly to me. Problem solved!! Since no one is listening or willing to give up their preconceived “improvement” nothing but a disaster has been and continues to be created on Driving our major arterials. Businesses in the Fairview corridor have been beat down in the past few years by road construction. Commuters and other drivers are just now starting to readjust to their normal traffic patterns after years of delays in this area. By shutting down the medians, you will cut down on customers ability to enter the businesses by 30‐40%. I don’t know of a single business that can withstand Business Won’t Survive Media 15-May Admin 1 that level of a cut to the number of customers that can access their business. Some businesses can relocate and adjust when this sort of thing is imposed. Others are geographically bound by the type of business they operate. Car washes, gas stations, and other service retail companies can’t just pack up and move their stores down a few blocks to an area that doesn’t have medians Driving impeeding customer traffic. Medians will kill this corridor.

I may also be in a minority by saying that I actually like the medians installed on Eagle Road. The problem I run into with the medians is that the signals are timed poorly and I can’t hit a gap to merge left to make a U‐turn, notably at leaving Target on Eagle, and trying to hit the far left lane to U‐turn at Chinden and head south. If you can put medians on Fairview AND time the signals so U‐Turns are Okay 15-May Admin 0 thru traffic can flow smoothly, and still provide a good few second gap in traffic so I can quickly merge left and make a U‐turn, I’m okay with this. Medians are a learning curve, and I’ve visited many other cities like Las Vegas and Denver with lots of medians, it’s something I’m used to. It will take time to “enjoy” and get used to but it does help prevent left‐in/left‐out T‐bone accidents out of Driving businesses which can shut down highways for hours and cause even worse headaches for commuters. It is almost impossible to take a left at Wildwood to get on fairview. It will work early morning and late evenings. I have to go to Steelwood or Shamrock to take a left on Fairview. Forget about trying to get across the street on Wildwood to Primary Health. We Wildwood and Fairview 15-May Doret 0 have cars coming from every direction. It is like being at a race track, hoping to make it into the median with out being wiped out. Driving We could use a traffic light . Fairview traffic actually seems to flow very well, especially when compared to really bad roads like Eagle. There have to be some areas where biking is not the primary mode of transportation– like on Fairview. And, the City of Boise could learn a lot by Fairview Traffic 14-May Admin providing bike lanes where it makes sense instead of on EVERY single major arterial. 2 The busses run well on Fairview– timely and regular. Businesses seem to generally be doing pretty well. Other The death nail will be a median. It’s not working on Eagle Road and it won’t work on Fairview. This area is a safe place to drive. Fairview between Meridian Rd 14-May scott dechambeau The only problem will be fixed after the contruction 0 Driving is conpleted on Meridian Rd. The contruction make it terrible to travel or shop. I recently used Eagle Road and observed how the access management plan works there. I didn’t see any cars using the midmile uturn points, and quite frankly, the idea of doing it myself was terrifying. Who is going to make a uturn with oncoming traffic going Midmile Uturns 14-May Admin 5 55 mph? It’s unsafe! Even though Fairview has lower speeds overall, I can’t imagine making a uturn anywhere other than a Driving protected intersection.

After using Eagle Road recently and seeing how the forced uturns work, I’m convinced that doing the same thing on Fairview will Businesses Will Suffer 14-May Admin 1 destroy many of the businesses. I will avoid businesses on Eagle Road in the future because it is so difficult to do anything but Driving drive straight through. It’s great as a thoroughfare–but terrible if you’re trying to access a business. I observed several cars making uturns at Fairview & Records last night. I noticed that nearly all of them used three lane widths to complete their uturns, then scooted back into the second lane they were aiming for. These were not exceptionally large Uturns Not Practical 14-May Admin vehicles–two of them were average size family sedans (Toyota Camry type). Unless people are driving compact cars, I’m not sure 1 how they’re going to manage uturns on stretches of Fairview that don’t have three lane widths to work with. Please find an Driving alternative solution–forced uturns are simply not practical.

Islands preventing left turns 13-May Diana I have adjusted to the islands and believe that the traffic moves faster and safer. The public learns to adjust to making left hand 1 Driving turns before they reach their location. I know I am in the minority but I think there should be more islands. Safety Issue – Wildwood and F 13-May Diana It was an unsafe intersection before but now with the coffee stop added – it is a very unsafe intersection. Wish your original plan 0 Driving could have gone thru so that the left turns were eliminated and were done at the light (which you have removed). I have seen many near wrecks along Fairview as drivers attempt to make U‐turns. While a driver is attempting a U‐turn, there is generally another driver attempting to make a right hand turn at a red light. The drivers making the right hand turn are not medians and U‐turns 13-May Chad 4 expecting or looking for someone making a U‐turn. I believe the medians will cause more accidents and make Fairview more Driving congested. Please stop your project of adding the medians.

My biggest fear is that Fairview will be torn up for way too long, along with all of the other main roads being closed at the same time. I am constantly seeing multiple roads being torn up and absolutely no way to get anywhere because of it. I’d like to see one job started and finished before the whole place is a traffic jam. Meridian is a perfect example of that. Franklin, Pine, Meridian. Fairview all torn up in places. It’s a friggin wreck to get anywhere. I am forced to use Ustic to commute, along with everyone else. I have lived in areas where they use medians and frontage roads before, and they don’t make things safer in most cases. In fact it’s Traffic light timing needed. 13-May Ben Simpson 1 the opposite, People on foot, and in cars are blind to a lot of oncoming traffic. And there doesn’t seem to be enough room for all of this to be made to work effectively. There will be a lot of store front, side walk lost in the process. I think other things could work for effective travel on Fairview. Like traffic light timing, so one can move along at a descent rate without stopping at every light. It would speed up travel and keep things moving. There is no reason to stop traffic for three minutes to allow one car to turn left. Driving I know whatever happens will happen, but I said my piece.

Your medians are causing more harm than good regarding safety issues and damage to property and business owners along Fairview. I consistantly see trucks drive over the medians and failure to yield and confusion at the u‐turns. For example the medians that you installed at Eagle and Chinden are putting the shopping center located at the north east corner out of business. I Your medians suck. Whose stu 13-May Admin go to the gym there every day and approach if from the north on Eagle Road. I hate going in there now because every day 2 someone nearly runs in to the back of me when I u‐turn or they nearly run into the front of me when they fail to yield turning north on Eagle Road while I am in the process of making a u‐turn. The safety reasons for which you justify the installation of the medians is a joke. You create bigger traffic flow problems and safety issues not to mention serious economic impacts on business Other owners and property owners along those roads. Great job ACHD. I don’t ride Fairfiew very often because the road isn’t conducive to bicycles. Bike lanes along Fairview Ave. are important and Bike Lanes 13-May Michael 2 Biking should be included in the plan. I’ve heard of suggestions or plans to put islands in the center of Fairview. These islands do nothing but irritate drivers, cause disruptions in traffic flow as people have to make u‐turns and or pull into someplace to turn around, etc…. It would also be a No islands! 13-May Duane L. Martin headache for the businesses that line Fairview. Anyplace these islands have been installed, it’s just one huge headache. Rather 1 than adding more, how about removing a lot of the ones that are already around out there? You’d make life for the drivers around Driving here a whole lot easier.

the flashing yellow left turn signals at the Fairview‐Cole interection seem to help vehicular traffic flow. The downside seems to be pedestrian access 13-May Mike Sanders 1 that pedestrian flow is impeded. I requently cross at this interesection and frequently wait through 5 or 6 complete revolutions of Walking traffic before a pedestrian signal comes up. Can these 2 uses be integrated better? With this being such a high traffic area, it would be nice if we didn’t have to look at ugly jack and the bean stalk weeds growing Eye Sore (all of Fairview) 12-May Admin from the cracked pavement. This is the City of Trees and it would be nice if the beauty could be spread all across the town instead 0 Other of staying in the north end! Include right turn lanes!!! Right Turn Lane 12-May William Baker Not having right turn lanes impedes traffic flow. Without them, you always see vehicles waiting in line behind the ONE dipstick 1 Driving going straight instead of turning. Why is there supposed to be a light at Steelwood? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have one at Shamrock? Shamrock, both north and south, seem to serve more residences DIRECTLY and connects many more surrounding subdivisions right now! Having to wind Light at Steelwood? 12-May William 0 left and right and right and left to get from Shamrock to the Steelwood signal seems a bit silly. Steelwood dumps into a bunch of empty fields, and I doubt the single house on the south side of Fairview really needs it’s own signal right now. (I’m assuming the Driving house will be gone in the next couple of years, but still. How far ahead do we need to think?) I don’t know why all these streets have such slow speed limits. Fairview, Ustick, and Chinden should all be at least 40 MPH. Isn’t Increase Speed Limit 12-May William that what most of Franklin and Overland are, anyways? I’d say about 9 of 10 cars drive at least 40 MPH or more on Fairview and 4 Driving Chinden, from my observations. Intersection of Fairview and Cole is way too small. Needs to be updated ASAP with dual left turn lanes and a right turn lane on all New Intersection at Cole 12-May William 0 Driving four legs. However, try not to block all left turns into Albertsons or Hastings.

When I am driving Eastbound on Fairview, to turn north onto Barbara Dr to the trailer park, on multiple occasions I have almost been hit head on by someone in the opposite direction on Fairview looking to turn left into the apartment complex (N E 5th Ave Realignment at Barbara/N E 5t 12-May William on the map) and also entering the center lane at full speed. Other times, someone is already there trying to turn left into the 0 apartments, and I have to slow down in the travel lane to quickly merge behind that driver into the center lane to turn left onto Barbara, and that’s dangerous and frustrating for people behind me. These two streets are staggered awkwardly – consider Driving realigning N E 5th Ave (the apartment entrance) to the east to make these directly across from each other. LEAVE FAIRVIEW ALONE! Except remove the dividers at Steelwood. Reduce the volume of traffic is the best solution!! LEAVE FAIRVIEW ALONE!!! 11-May 20Kmiles per year 4 Try finishing the other roads that you started‐like Ustick, Maple Grove, 5 mile, Cloverdale, make chinden rd 40 mph west of Driving veterans. EAGLE RD? Oh, and Pierce Park WTF!!

We live just off Fairview with the turning lane just a mile we travel it almost daily,we find the flow to be comfortable.With four lanes we see traffic moving at a resonable speed and with most cases resonable time involved.NOW let’s address Ustick Rd.It seems our neighbors are all paniced over what is happening on Ustick.There is a LDS church west from us and a Day care center they both have traffic and lots of activity on a daily basis,and so far the dept has decided to make a cross walk further down towards Fivemile than closer to Cloverdale.Why?? when the traffic is consentrated more to in front of the church,varies excuses have been presented but why are the crosswalks so far away from the needed sorce? The plan from Five Mile thru to Cloverdale is revisit existing plan Fairview is 10-May Lawrence & Gloria 0 on the north side of Ustick now for some unknown reason its being changed to south side which will bring another problem to the area.From Albertsons on Five mile and Ustick there a snafo coming out of Albertson going west on Ustick,there is not ever a incendent of using this area that a driver doesn’t spped and try to outrun another vehicle going west.We witness this daily.What Ustick needs is a turning lane,we do not believe every street in the county needs to be five lanes,we are just a mile from five laned Fairview and further south both Overland and Franklin are five lanes for the most part,you are disturbing old established neighborhoods and not making them family friendly for the sake of 15‐20 min commute for some travelers when already east and west areas are established. Please consider these points before another part of our city is ruined by so called progress. Sincerely L Other G Ridenour

I drive Fairview 3 to 4 times everyday from Cole to Curtis this stretch is never real busy until 4;30. I do not want Isalnds to have to How about nothing needed for 10-May Brent 1 go around and make u urns on side streets or parking lots I’ve had more close calls because of trying to negotiate islands on Eagle Driving Road. I would use different controls for different stretches of road. One size does not fit all! I appreciate ACHD’s role in ensuring our customers have reliable roads on which to drive. Unfortunately, I see questionable safty improvements and definite negative impacts on our business as a result of the plan. The plan will have a significant impact an the ability of our customers to reach our business. Previously full accesses wil now be right‐in/right out, meaning east bound traffic Fairview Access Management 10-May Lew Stiner will be forced to travel a significant distance before deciding whether our existing customer or potential customers will tun around 6 to visit our dealership. We also have the issue of customer pulling their boat trailer of not being able to access us as they will be to long to make a u‐turn and delivery trucks will experience the same issue(How will a truck with a 40 foot trailer manuaver a u‐turn under this plan?) This will only create issues on the existing side streets. The existing turn lanes work very well and make for convient acess to all businesses on the Fairview corridor. The busness on Fairvew take great pride in keeping their facilities very Driving clean and modern. By limiting access Fairview business will begain to fail and the city, county and state will loose. Due to access to other businesses please don’t place medans in center of roads. Just keep turn lanes so we can acess businesses Median project 9-May Bonnie Demo 2 Driving on both sides of road. It also effects the business in income if blocked. There is no eastbound bike lane on W Fairview Ave between N Curtis Rd and N Orchard Rd. When a bicyclist crosses Curtis heading for Orchard he/she must pass the opening of the on ramp to I‐184, and if there is any traffic attempting to enter the ramp the bicyclist must pull to the side, stop, and wait until it is completely clear before crossing the opening of the on ramp. Drivers are usually in a hurry to get downtown and are aggressively speeding up and jockeying for position to make certain they can enter the ramp for I‐184, between nearly hitting me or braking hard and risking a rear end collision, it’s a dangerous situation for drivers and No problem – just run me over 9-May A brave rider bicyclists alike. 3 The solution might be to put up two signs, “Yield ahead” just past Curtis, and after another one hundred feet a sign with a flashing yellow light on it that reads “Yield to peds and bikes”, then extend the sidewalk on each side of the on ramp entry and put in a crosswalk and a dotted line bike lane across the entry. My suggestion is applicable only if we’re serious about having safe bike lanes and promoting low carbon emission transportation Biking like bicycles. If not, don’t complain about the smog, traffic congestion, and higher cancer rates. Irving is great, but then you have the poor corridor of Curtis road North/South over the connector. Maybe put a sign that says “you’re on your own”, or “sorry”. Connectivity from Irving to Cur 9-May Admin 3 Something as simple as Sharrows and a “may use full lane sign would help this connection. Biking thanks. poorly developed intersection 9-May Admin Why do intersections like this exist? The development to the North East of here is absurd as well. No housing planned, So traffic 2 Biking will increase in this area. Good luck ACHD, You have been doing a great job, but this intersection is so 10 years ago. Dear cyclists and pedestrians, Go %^&# yourselves, yours always, inhospitable intersection 9-May Admin 4 Fairview and Orchard. I mean can we get some facilities up in this piece. Shared lane markings, signs, traffic calming, better zoning, complete streets, Biking Smart Growth, etc. I am aware that bicycle may use the full lane in a situation like this…many motorists do not. Headed North/South over the connector is a pain. I have to control the lane of traffic. I don’t really mind doing it, but by having a lack of bicycle facilities here, Bicycles may use full lane 9-May Admin 2 you eliminate anyone who isn’t comfortable taking the lane, anyone with a trailer, kids, etc. Maybe we can install some singe or Biking enforce the laws in this stretch.

Suicide lane 8-May Admin Do away with suicide lane from Cloverdale to Orchard. With the additional traffic I find it more often that will have vehicles going 1 Driving both directions in the center turn lane. A nightmare. Would rather go down the island and make a u‐turn. With the increased traffic on N Locust Road and the reduction from 5 lanes to two between Fairview and East Chateau left hand Need left hand turn signals 8-May Admin 0 Driving turn signals are needed at the N Locust Grove and Chateau intersection

While I do appreciate a 5 lane road with no bicycle facilities and awful sidewalks, maybe we can make this Orchard/fairview area Can a sister get a bike lane? 8-May Admin 4 more accessible to anyone that doesn’t drive a single occupancy vehicle (about half of us). Bike lanes, sidewalks, trees, traffic Biking calming, road diets, education, enforcement for drivers and cyclist, “may use full lane signs”. Thank you for this project. When I look at Fairview, I see failed land use and transportation planning policy of the past. We have learned from those mistakes and are ready to build cities for people, not just cars. I have mentioned before…If you were to show a soldier a photo of Fairview and tell them that is what they were fighting for. You would break so many hearts of our brave service personnel. Please help Help make this road hospitable 8-May Admin 1 make this area a place worth fighting for. A place where people can walk, ride, bus and drive. Use Smart Growth principals and complete streets policies. Biking Thank you.

If possible, going east on Fairview trying to take a Right Turn going south on Curtis to get onto I‐184, the Right Turn lane needs to Right Turns on corner of E Fairv 7-May Kyle 2 be expanded (by the old Arby’s). Since that is a main connection on to the connector, if the R Turn lane is longer, it would help the Driving traffic flow better. There’s already enough traffic built up for vehicles wanting to take the connector by CH 7 going into town.

It would be great since I usually turn left to have a stoplight at Fairview and N. Allumbaugh but more important, my teenage son’s bus drops him off on the north side near the key bank and on weekdays he has to run across traffic just to get home. I find this Stoplight and crosswalk please 7-May M Rollins 2 very dangerous. I have tried to get the bus company to change the stop but they have refused numerous times. Since it is such a problem to turn onto Fairview anyway especially with the Jerry’s restraint entrance and exit where more than once I’ve had a Walking close call but it’s not a good situation for pedestrians at all.

All of these raised curbs are dangerous and are a traffic nightmare. First off, people just need to learn how to drive. I constantly see idiots turning left out of a business right into a turn lane – that is not for you! Go back to the driver’s manuals: if you can’t Raised medians are dangerous 6-May Erika make the turn completely without oncoming traffic either way, you don’t make the turn. It is not a waiting area. Second, I ride my 1 bike quite often and the medians pose quite a danger to cyclists. Third, shouldn’t we always be thinking of road designs easy for out of town people to navigate? When we have heavy snows, those medians can be covered. If you don’t know the area, or that Driving there are medians in the road, considerable damage can happen to a vehicle. Just look at the shape of medians all across town. Going to work in downtown Boise, I have driven east on Fairview Avenue, from Eagle Road every morning, 5 days a week, for many years. For the most part, I am very satisfied. However, I am still amazed at the number of inconsiderate drivers, who will insist on forcing their way out of the center lane into the right lane, after leaving the light at N Curtis Rd. They know they want to Fairview east‐bound at Curtis 6-May 'Still Waiting' turn off onto the connector at Channel 7, but are not willing to wait their turn in line in the right lane prior to the light at Curtis. I 8 don’t feel a lane change to the right should be allowed, on Fairview Avenue, between Curtis Road and the right turn onto the overpass over the connector near Amber Street. Perhaps even a block or two before Curtis Road. I can’t believe it’s gone on this Driving long. Boise, 05.05.2013 Dear Madams / Sirs, Subject: Proposed Mediums @ Fairview Avenue, Boise / Meridian. Mediums would be a death sentense, for every small business up and down Fairview Avenue, who are not right on a cross Street or Mall. For example: A potential customer comming from Boise going to Meridian trying to excess a store on the south side of the Street. He has to wait and pass a Medium to turn and go back to the diection where he came from. After Propsed mediums @ Fairview 5-May Fred leaving the business, again, he has to go back to the direction he came from, to find a suitable turnaround to proceed to go to 24 Meridian. No one we know, including us, is willing to do so. Commercial property values will plunch down, to zero. Who wants a business on a practically one way Street? Picture emerencies in the rush hour. Police, Fire department etc, are using the middle lane now, to get there fast. It is not practicle to put shrubs and trees in their ways. Other Fred

I would like to suggest the impossible. Reverse the multiple entrance and exits to the properties not only on Fairview but throughout the city. I believe it would reduce the possible head on accidents as drivers exit properties which we have to watch carefully as we exit entrance/exit saftey 5-May Norman Beattie Stanley street onto Emerald. There are too many ways for the drivers to exit and two opposing left turns put the drivers in head 0 on positions. This would also smoothout/level the sidewalks for pedestrians, bike riders and the handicapped. As a recent accident victem I have noticed how difficult it is to walk on the sidewalks with the continual change in pitch. Pity the wheelchair operators. Other Thank You ! Fairview is a very dangerous street for bikes and I avoid it as much as I can. Bike lanes that are separated from car lanes would be Poor for biking 5-May Jen the best solution, but at least something that is wide enough to make cyclists feel moderately safe would be an improvement over 4 Biking the current (very dangerous) situation. I would like to see access/frontage roads for safer access to streets which would lead to a stoplight. We only have two exits from a large subdivision–to Fairview or Ustick. Neither one of these exits have a traffic light which safely allows left hand turns. With these proposed medians, I will have to travel west when I really need to be driving east. Medians Cause Extra Driving 5-May Karen 2 There was a stoplight on Fairview between 5 Mile and Cloverdale (which shows on the map) but it was removed. I really hated to see that go. There was a stoplight on Fairview between 5 Mile and Cloverdale (which shows on the map) but it was removed. I really hated to Driving see that go. Instead of utilizing all your resources to finish one project (Meridian Road). You tore up lanes within the only usable and accessible area to drive (Cherry Lane/Fairview and Main along with the other side of Meridian Road). Finish one project utilizing all your manpower than complete the next project. It may not be bad for people just passing through to have it torn up for some time. The people who live and commute to work living near this area are having a terrible time. If we could have had one area accessible as mentioned above. Once Meridian Road was complete we could begin using this Huge Mess! 4-May Jake thruway. 5 Then once again come in with full manpower and finish the project in no time. This current area is terrible to traverse, making surrounding roads and bypasses clogged and irritating. On another note: When you have completely messed up a major intersection, please watch and change the light system on other intersections people use to avoid your terribly mis‐managed intersection. Thanks Driving Jake

No Left Turns 4-May Admin South‐bound cars on Hampton are making dangerous left (east) turns onto Fairview, many heading directly into the opposing 1 Driving traffic lanes (for up to a block!) in order to avoid west‐bound cars in median lane on Fairview waiting to turn south onto Hampton.

I’ve lived in the Boise area for nearly 40 years and have driven on Fairview Ave and Cherry Ln hundreds, if not thousands of times. Congestion has been a problem during all the years I’ve lived here. Synchronizing the stoplights on Fairview/Cherry to allow better Synchronized stoplights neede 4-May Bill Woodward traffic flow would be relatively inexpensive compared to some other changes. I recommend doing that first. In general, I’m against 2 adding center lane curbing unless there are documented cases of accident hazard zones. The center lane is very useful in many areas in allowing free access to businesses on the opposite side of the street. Synchronizing the stoplights will result in periodic Driving light traffic and safe use of center lanes.

I live on W Chateau Dr. and visit the Meridian Library often. To get there I make a left turn from Linder Rd to Cherry, then use the Center lane at Meridian Library 4-May Bill Woodward 1 center access lane to the library in order to make a safe left turn into the parking lot. This center lane is used very frequently for Driving cars entering and leaving the library. It has provided what appears to be a very safe method of access and egress. Please retain it.

This project was discussed at our recent Azure Meadows HOA meeting and those in attendance were strongly opposed to raised Opposed to Fairview Access M 4-May Gene N. Hain, Azu medians on Fairview. This would adversly impact hundreds, if not a thousand residents and many businesses. A better approach 1 would be more traffic signals that are coordinated at the speed limit to allow good traffic flow and safer left and u‐turns. Other cities have done this for years. What about the hazards of rear end collisions from slower cars making left turns? Driving By the way, the HOA endorses the Shamrock bicycle project. Why not extend shamrock south of Fairview to Executive?

Ohh yes!! I want to add to this project about traffic in Fairview Ave. I demand all speed in Fairview Ave down to 30 mph! I don’t care what impatient drivers complain. I don’t give a damn to them! I think about safely for oncoming vehicles to turn left and slow Fairview Ave. 3-May Earl Hafer Jr. speed will give enough time for drivers to slow down or stop for pedestrians and bicyclists. 0 When I lived in Gooding for 30 years, I used my bicycle to food stores, doctor and friends especially work at ISDB. Those speed limit is 25 mph. Driving Other thing! I want to have a new traffic light on Wildwood St, not Steelwood Ave! Please!!! A line divisor wall is needed at the intersection of Fairview Av & Five Mile Rd.: Traffic running eastbound Fairview, when entering the left line to turn towards North Five Mile, suddenly may find a car on the opposite direction invading the lane thinking that it’s Line divisor wall needed 3-May Frederick Ferber 0 the changing direction traffic lane. This is a problem I’ve experienced several times since I drive to the US Bank branch almost Driving every day during the rush time. With Dutch Bros, Primary Health, and now Napa Auto parts, a light is much needed. This intersection is also a bus stop, which Light at Wildwood 3-May Amanda 0 unfortunately, numerous mornings have involved slammed breaks due to children crossing or being too close to the edge of the Driving street. It also gets congested with people trying to turn left into Keeneland and the other side of Wildwood. Protected bike path 3-May Admin Biking Consider protected bike path similar to Federal Way all along Fairview. 3 Left turn signal 3-May Admin 0 Driving Very short turn lane makes it difficult to get into the turn lane and very long wait until next signal

Northside Shamrock Avenue, left turn onto Fairview going Eastbound is a major ordeal almost any time of day. The Center Lane is many times occupied with folks entering from Eastbound Fairview turning left onto Shamrock Avenue, north and folks entering from Westbound Fairview, turning right onto Shamrock Avenue, south — very nerve racking. Fairview and Shamrock 2-May Gary & Ilse Goff Several years ago, a traffic light was installed at Fairview and Steelwood Avenue, about a block East of Shamrock Avenue. It has 0 since been removed, but a Westbound, left turn divider was left intact on Fairview at that intersection essentially removing the Center Lane on Fairview for use on Eastbound turns from Steelwood Avenue. Suggest either re‐installing the light at Steelwood Avenue and Fairview as a safe option for the residents to use that are located in the communities North of Fairview, OR removing the divider on Fairview at that intersection so that the Center Lane is restored on Driving Fairview for Eastbound traffic turning from Steelwood Avenue. Is it possible to turn the sidewalk into a walk/bike share space like on the greenbelt? I drive on Fairview daily, and avoid it when bike/pedestrian lane 2-May Kit Herndon 2 Biking I’m biking.

I hope my letter finds you in good health. A few years ago, the intersection at Cole Road and Fairview Avenue was scheduled to be updated like Milwaukie and Maple Grove at Faierview Avenue. The project was set aside for the Milwaukie upgrage and was a good decision as the heavy traffic was moving west. Now Cole and Fairview need to be upgraded. It is the right thing to do now. The other major problem is .to reduce the huge number of access driveways to the businesses along Fairview by having the small Fairview Avenue Protect 2-May Admin 1 properties share wide driveways or accesses. If possible, have the access for a property along an intersecting street rather than a Fairview access. Also, as much as is possible, make Fairview Avenue a “right turn in and a right turn out”, and reduce the availability of left turns. I have lived near the Cole/Fairview intersection for over forty years and the the pedestrian and drivers seem to be alert and looking out for each other, The cyclists, however, are a much more dangerous driving problem as they are totally unpredictable. So, good luck with the biking problem. Other Thank you for allowing me to respond to our inquiry. I am the owner of Cloverdale Plumbing and I know if a center turn lane is removed and medians installed it would be hard for us to get to where we want to go by turning left. Expecially for our larger vehicals. However now that I see how the 180 degree turns Center Turn Lane 2-May Kenny Calkins 1 have worked out on eagle road seems to be the way to go. I would want anouther turn around half way between Fivemile and Driving Cloverdale Possibly at Wildwood. I commute, and bicycle and my tenants bicycle along fairview from our location on the south side of fairvew & Shamrock. 1st: The ramp up to Fairview is so steep no one can get onto Fairvew with any amount of snow or ice and many folks cut through Mary’s Antiques or go west throught the parking lots where it is still steep. 2nd: the road there is so narrow I have seen vehicles go onto Fariview & Shamrock 2-May John Butts the sidewalk to get by traffic. I am amased there have not been more accidents there. 3rd: Traffic moves terribly slow west bound 1 at 5pm and it seems the traffic signals could by syncronized better. 4th: I know may folks including my tenants who commute to downtown, a better East West bicycle corridor would help. and 5th you guys are wanting to make a North South bicycle corridor but what would be nice is a corridor to get me all the way to the river for Shamrock and Fairview. Right now it is best to go all the way via Cloverdale and down the hill across Chinden, I know you can do better than that because Cloverdale is “Death Ally” to Other bicycleists. Best Wishes, When are you going to widen 5mile, Ustick to Franklin? Thanks

Most of the stop lights on Fairview are fairly well placed, but the stop light going into Meridian proper and the one at the intersection of Meridian road and Fairview are too close together and really cause a bottleneck. I don’t think a change in the timing of the lights will help. Is there a way to remove one? I have lived in this valley since 1962. During that time I have seen the traffic get worse and worse. I have seen changes throughout the city in direction of traffic, the closing of intersections, and the addition of center lane dividers, and as a driver, I only see more traffic congestion. I have worked a good many years going to work before 4 am and having to wait at lights when there isn’t any traffic. I have had to straddle two lanes to be recognized by the lights just to get them to let me go. I have watched as Eagle road has gone from two lanes to almost six lanes with a stop light at ½ mile intervals causing traffic to come to a grinding halt most of the time. I take Fairview to Eagle and watch as only three cars can turn north and get through the stop light, four if the last one runs a red light and this when the intersection really isn’t busy. I don’t understand what is going on in your minds. All the changes you have made, to my perception, have only created more bottlenecks. I have wondered if your overall plan has been to keep people from moving into this valley by having such bad traffic congestion traffic planning 2-May Admin with bad planning or bad design. I have driven this city and had to stop at every stop light while going straight. I have driven across 0 town and counted the number of stop lights I have not had to stop at and been able to count them on one finger. That is about eleven miles of stopping about every half mile, and now Eagle road, which is a highway, where the speed limit is supposed to be between 50 and 55 miles per hour, and we have to stop every half mile. Now you want to make changes to Fairview Avenue. With the planning that has gone into the previous improvements, I wonder if it is more of a step backward. Highways should NOT have stop lights every half mile. One stop light every mile is more what Salt Lake does on its highways, but not here in Boise. At least ten times smaller with room to make good improvements and we have more terrible bottlenecks than they have. Are you going to continue the trend and put stop lights every quarter mile on Fairview and call it an improvement? Are you going to time the lights causing every car but a few lucky ones to stop at every light? Oh, and by the way, I am talking about non‐rush hour traffic. I know all your studies show traffic moving very well, but I wonder if your planners just moved here from some very large city and think this is good planing. Well it isn’t. This traffic burns more fuel sitting at intersections waiting for the light to turn green and depending on direction or change of direction only being able to move up 4 or 5 car lengths only to be stopped by Driving another red light and at the same intersection.

Red Light Cameras 2-May Admin I say you put red light cameras at every intersection and with the outrageous amount of money you will get from it, you can afford 0 Driving to expand Fairview to fit more cars. Medians won’t help your problem they will just make people upset. You NEED to add a lane.

Unsafe Area 1-May Karl Fengler North of Fairview the traffic volume is too heavy and unsafe merging & turning by Fred Meyers. 1 Driving In general the volume of traffic creates dangerous situations all the way along Locust Grove from Fairview to Ustick. I would love to see sidewalks. There is plenty of room, it just needs to be paved. We walk/ride our bikes on Fairview near Five Mile Sidewalks 1-May Admin 1 Walking and Cloverdale and it’s dangerous without sidewalks.

Boise is a growing city and Fairview is too big to be going 35 mph. Raise the speed limit to 40, and getting from one end of Fairview Speed, Right Turn Lanes, and L 1-May Julie to the other would be much easier. Also, lights need to be timed better so that drivers aren’t stopping at every single light. 4 It would be extremely beneficial to put in right turn lanes so drivers aren’t waiting in traffic just to turn right. Driving The new left turn lights are very helpful! I think we need more of those at nearly every signal.

live in the Colehaven subdivision at the southwest corner of Fairview/Cole intersection. There is an entrance/exit to Fairview frmf Owens St. and to Cole from Colehaven and Maxwell Streets. During the datetime on Mon‐Fri it is difficult to turn left from Fairview Ave plan 1-May rcd via e-mail Colehaven or Maxwell. That makes Owens at Fairview the primary exit if going west, north or east. I am concerned of the effect of 2 a barrier being placed down Fairview at that point. I would have to go right and then make a u‐turn somewhere is order to go west. I would like to suggest that any such barrier not block that left turn. I know a light signal is probably not feasible considering Driving the proximity to the Fairview/Cole intersection

fFirst of all you already had medians from Cloverdale to Eagle and that did not solve any problems it created them and so you , then removed them! Now to place them back would first of all “back up” traffic &, make U‐turns more dangerous and since we live in an unincoprated section, we have a problems’, now with ingress & egress, a park with very limited parking so our problem becomes making an enterance to the park a through ‐fair for traffic wanting to get to the business’ and park ,plus an additon of Medians? Turnabouts. 1-May Admin new business’ (car dealersships). What do you do with trying to go into the cemetaries access’ ( processions)on two of the busiest 0 roads on the project? If you put in more lights, (on demand signal) along the way and add lanes for access’ to all business’ on either the north/ south sides of Fairview you wouldn’t need your medians and if the light at Steelwood was put in an usable place rather then at Steelhead that would help. Put in better bike lanes, better walk ways, and not make it harder for those of us who have only one way to get in or out of the residential areas along the route would also go along way. Plus maybe a better way Other would be to see if roundbouts would be a viable alturnative at some points along the route. We really oppose the idea of putting medians on Fairview Ave. The center lane works well for crossing. I live here and sometimes the traffic gets congested but improving the stop lights could grately improve that. There seem to be alot of accidents but most of Medians 1-May Sharon Kelley them are because people are being inattentive and medians certainly won’t help that. Putting in more sidewalks would be helpful 31 but other than that leave it alone. Don’t make a mess out of it like you did on Eagle Road. I feel sorry for the businesses that have Driving next to impossible access to their property. I am highly apposed to medians being put down Fairview Ave. I think Eagle road is a mess since they went in. It makes access to No Medians 1-May James Pfost businesses much more difficult. When it’s hard to access a business people will just go on by and go to one that is much more 30 Driving easily accessed. U‐turns cause more problems then they help. The problem with Fairview is that there is not enough lanes for all the cars that are traveling on it. Also the turn lanes are really No right turn only 1-May Admin 1 Driving short DO NOT PUT IN MEDIANS ALONG FAIRVIEW!!!!! I now avoid Eagle Rd at all costs because traffic is so congested because of the medians that are supposed to help. Not to mention Dumb Medians 1-May Admin 35 it is extremely difficult to get to where you are going. I also work at a retail place on Eagle and customers complain to us how hard Driving it is to get in to our parking lot now. I make it a point to stay off Fairview == it should have its name changed to “BusyFairview” — We need another street to make Fairview safer and less busy. much too busy 1-May Jim Bowen 0 Think the only solution to to have other routes across this part of town. Driving I try and use Ustick and Franklin whenever possible. shamrock/steelwood/wildwoo 1-May chel Reactivate the steelwood signal light‐ really, how much can it cost? The light is in, the developer paid for it, so use it. Make 1 Driving wildwood and shamrock right turn only onto and off of Fairview. All left turns should be made at the light at steelwood. We have been amazed that you did not put right turn only lanes on all 4 corners of Cole Rd. & Fairview. Why??? That would Fairview Ave. 30-Apr Dick and Betty Blac 3 Driving relieve a lot of backed up traffic.

I found the map; however, I could not figure out how to add comments. I’m sure it is easy….but can someone let me know how to do that? I live off Fairview and travel from Cole to Curtis in the morning on my way to work and get on I84 at Curtis. I’m sure others have Fairview project 30-Apr Connie Morgan commented on the short right turn lane, going east, at Fairview & Curtis, as it only accommodates around 7 cars. In the mornings, 1 traffic can back up to Liberty some times because the light changes so fast and not many cars make it through that right turn. I think the light is set for the traffic going straight through east and when there is a gap because the cars cannot get into that turn lane, it turns red. Just wondered if part of the project includes lenghtening that lane at all. Not sure that can even be done, Driving because of the businesses along that sounth side of Fairview. I doubt there is extra land that can be used. The following should be considered. Sidewalks the entire length of the project. Replace the signal between 5 mile and Cloverdale for ‘U’ turns. Increase the speed limit to 45 from 40 because of the divided road. Use as much concrete for the roadway surface as can be budgeted. Lighting is poor where some LED’s are used. Get better illumination. Provide additional temporary pavement Fairview Ave 30-Apr Nick Brizzi 2 during construction to keep at least 2 lanes open in each direction. Contractor incentive to complete the work ahead of schedule. Provide REAL bicycle lanes in each direction and sweep them on a regular so cyclists do not need to crowd or ride in the auto Other lanes. Fairveiw between Cloverdale and Fivemile needs to be chip sealed, its slick when it rains and very slick whe it snows. Fairveiw Fairveiw Ave. 30-Apr Kerry Covington from Cloverdale to Eagle has been done as well as Fairveiw from Fivemile to Maplegrove, but for some reason has not been done 0 Driving from Cloverdale to Fivemile. No Medians 30-Apr Michael Demo Driving Medians just add driving time and do not allow assess to the business that are on the other side of the road. 26 Are you really prepared for all of the business closures due to the lack of access to them? If one has to drive blocks ahead to gain access to a back entrance, only to turn back in the direction we already came from to patron a business, it won’t happen. PLUS, Medians 30-Apr Admin 17 how much gas are we wasting by having to go out of our way, instead of being allowed to make a left turn from an already existing Driving center turn lane?!

Honor the Maple Grove interse 30-Apr Popeyes Louisiana I was told and shown left turn access at 8840 Fairview Avenue for our agreement with ACHD with the Maple Grove intersection. 0 Driving I also expect ACHD to honor that agreement.

Simply TIME THE LIGHTS. Timing the lights is not that hard to do but it appears ACHD is bent on spending money on concrete even though the majority have Just Time The Lights 30-Apr Mark W spoken against the medians. The problem is that cars stop at almost every light on Fairview at all times of the day & night. 17 There are so many little businesses that cars go into. Adding medians down the middle simple cause cars to go down to a light and make a u‐turn…adding to the miles driven and traffic. Driving (I grew up in the 60s. Our city traffic lights were timed back then. It’s not that hard to do.)

I work on broadway ave. There are medians there and I hate them. I think it affects our business when people have to make a u No medians 30-Apr Pam turn to enter. People will use a business on the side of the street they are driving on. I have a home in the area also and having to 17 make a u turn to enter my place seems silly when there is already a center turn lane. Adding a median means more money in the Driving long run. Trees to water,grass to mow, and sprinklers to maintain. I’m sure our monies can be spent better than this. I live off Fairview and think medians would make it difficult to make a left hand turn out of my neighborhood .I dont like the idea no medians please 29-Apr Admin of having to go to Cloverdale to make a U‐turn. I dont really care for the medians in front of ShopKo, but at least you can turn on 13 Driving Records St. instead of going to Eagle Rd and making the U‐turn. As someone who uses Fairview a lot I feel that putting in medians would cause more confusion and traffic rage. I feel that Fairview faiirview median suggestions 29-Apr anonymous 10 Driving flows nicely as is. Medians on Fairview all the way are a fantastic idea. We were against them until we observed these in Phoenix this year and they do work once Medians Yes!!! 29-Apr Admin 0 people realize they need to plan ahead a little. Hope they will Driving include the cutout turns that protect the turners. I live just to the south of Fairview, off Alumbaugh. I am afraid to turn west/left onto Fairview because people use the center lane safety 29-Apr Admin as a 5th travel lane, and are not looking at oncoming turn traffic. I have had a few near misses, trying to get out of their way. I go 1 Driving all the way around .. Emerald, Cole, Fairview.

Outlaw drivers who do not use blinkers especially for turning onto Fairview from side streets, cutting in front of a bicyclist deserve Stoplight Needed at Allumbaug 29-Apr Anonymous to have a light at this intersection. And perhaps even a center‐of‐the‐road median will control these outlaws who insist on not 1 showing respect or giving proper right of way to anyone on the road. Much better even yet, would be a signal that can be Biking activated for only pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, but does not allow automobiles to cross or turn onto Fairview. need bike lanes 29-Apr Aaron von Lindern Biking Fairview needs safe bike lanes 4 The new yellow turn signals make driving in the morning marginally faster but as the east bound traffic is high it makes little New Traffic Signals 29-Apr Alan difference. When Walking / biking the intersection the yellow turn signals prove more to be more for a hazard as turners can cut 1 Walking off bikes and pedestrians. The medians near Eagle and Fairview are such a disaster, I don’t even try to shop in the area anymore. It’s impossible to get where one wants to go. (And this coming from someone who had no trouble navigating Los Angeles roads.) Please don’t add them to Don’t Add Medians! 28-Apr Chryssa R. 29 Fairview in Boise. You will kill the small businesses and just add accidents and congestion as people try to u‐turn when there’s no Driving other option. For those of us who live South of Fairview, the closest park is Winstead Park, North of Fairview. We have to walk a good 10 minutes out of our way, each way, to get to crosswalk. There is a huge amount of multi‐family housing in my area and we would Crosswalk Needed Near Allum 28-Apr Chryssa R. all benefit from having safe place to cross near Allumbaugh or McKinney St. 2 I also see lots of people trying to run across Fairview in a number of places, even adults with children on bikes. It’s only a matter of Walking time before someone is killed. Fairview is awful for bikes! The sidewalks are narrow and beat up with obstacles like metal hole covers and bus benches. Drivers Dangerous for Bicycling 28-Apr Chryssa R. coming out of fast food joints are never paying attention, and the space in front of Flying Pie is bad because drivers treat the 2 Biking whole thing as roadway – very dangerous for pedestrians and bikers.

Most left turn signals on Fairview have blinking yellow arrows while through traffic is green. I would like to see this implemented Blinking yellow left turn signal 28-Apr Matt 0 at the Fairview and Mitchell intersection. It is frustrating to wait at the light when there are plenty of breaks in traffic, and on Driving several occasions I have witnessed drivers turning left on red because the wait can be so long. Actual bike lanes could help make Fairview a route that cyclists could use. Currently this is a very dangerous road that cyclists Fairview is not safe for bikes 28-Apr Alex Mckinley 3 Biking avoid and bike lanes separated from car lanes would help to improve this situation. (entire area) I am questioning whether you really want any comments about this project. In the past when comments have been asked for from the public they have been ignored and if used it was only miniscule. This projedt is a waste of time, energy and materials and will ACHD‐ Arbitrary capricious hee 28-Apr Leonard Neiwert 20 serve no useful purpose to the public. This is just another excuse for you to get in the way of the peoples movements and 22 construct interference in the lthoroughfares. It is very obvious your only goal is to expand your control over the people and prove Driving to yourselves what a great organization you have. There needs to be a traffic light at wildwood and Fairview. There is too much traffic from the apartments and from everyone using traffic light needed at Wildwoo 28-Apr Admin wildwood as a through street. Too many people try to go straight across fairview. There is more traffic at the wildwood/fairview 0 Driving intersection then at shamrock. The intersection at wildwood and fairview is very dangerous. There are people that try to go straight across fairview and there is WE NEED A LIGHT AT WILDWO 28-Apr Admin 1 Driving too much congestion from both sides of fairview I live in this area and see a large number of pedestrians and middle school students trying to cross Cherry Lane to get to the Crosswalk/pedestrian light nee 28-Apr Admin convenience store and neighborhoods on the north side of the street. I know of at least one pedestrian that was hit by a car trying 0 Walking to cross in this area. Bike Lanes 28-Apr Anonymous Biking It would be nice to have bicycle lanes on both sides of Fairview. 2

Putting a median on Fairview will not decrease accidents, it will merely shift traffic to side streets where accidents will increase. Typically side streets have speed limits of 20 or 25 MPH. Drivers will speed through these neighbourhoods. Fairview fiasco 28-Apr Craig LaChance Additionally, business will suffer. Just look at Eagle road. Medians have crippled some small businesses. 23 No matter the outcome, bikers should NOT have a bike lane on Fairview. There is too much traffic for bikers and with current irrational laws allowing bikers to NOT have to stop at crossroads means a greater chance for accidents. I strongly oppose placing a median on Fairview. I live on a side street and there is already around 600 vehicle on my side street Driving daily as vehicles seek to avoid the Fairview‐Cole intersection.

Fairview Avenue Acess Manage 28-Apr Bill Hall STOP the continual out of control development. Meridian is all about tax base. Could care less about traffic or quality of life. Less 6 Driving shopping centers and more office would help. Go look at Eagle and Fairview, this is a created mess.

I lived near Fairview/Curtis for many years before purchasing a home on Cole a few blocks north of Fairview. I commute daily to the Northend for work. I definitely oppose coenter‐of‐the‐road meridians along that route because it would eliminate access to Fairview project 27-Apr Sandy Shaffer 2 the businesses I almost daily frequent. The greatest safety issues I encounter are over grown scrubs, signs, etc., obstructing view as drivers try to enter Fairview from a Driving side street. Further out toward Meridian, the congestion seems substantially greater than between Cole and Orchard. It would be very helpful if you could improve traffic lights synchronization along Fairview. Once you clear an intersection and go Traffic Lights 27-Apr Bruce Fuller 3 Other the speed limit, you should not have to stop at all the other lights!

The most important factor is to be able to make a left‐hand turn into the many businesses on this road. We do NOT want any medians. No Medians are Necessary 27-Apr David 14 We want left‐hand turns. We want a designated turn lane. This could be done for far less money. Just widen the road (increase lanes, where possible) and clearly mark a turn lane. Driving Medians, if installed, will kill a lot of customer traffic, unnecessarily.

Right‐turn lanes needed 27-Apr Admin I suggest putting in right‐turn lanes at all 4 corners of every major intersection coming onto or leaving Fairview. For example, a 4 right‐turn lane on Fairview for east‐bound traffic turing south onto Cole road would help the flow there. Driving Similarly, the south‐bound traffic on Milwaukee (Maple Grove, etc) turning west on Fairview would help in those areas as well. access on to Fairview at either Shamrock of Bryson is extremely dangerous. Suggest a stoplight at Shamrock to create a break in stoplight needed 27-Apr Paddy Rogers 0 Driving the traffic flow. I have a contract with ACHD for a left turn lane to cross the west bound lane of fairview avenue for access to 8904 fairview. This 8904 Fairview 27-Apr Ken Parsons contract was initiated with the purchase of frontage for the expansion of the intersection at fairview and maple grove. I expect 0 Driving ACHD to honor this contract. I like on Primrose St. and work in Meridian. I either take Fairview east to Curtis then on the freeway, or straight done Fairview to Meridian. The corner of Fairview and Curtis is the worst part of Fairview I think. Eastbound drivers cause tons of congestion to go Unsafe @ Fairview and Curtis 27-Apr Dan R. south on Curtis and to jump on the connector.Lots of accidents happen between Curtis and Liberty. I don’t believe medians will 1 help that much and will cut of a lot of access to businesses. My only other complaint would be Cole Rd. tends to get pretty backed Driving up at Fairview in the evenings. Don’t get to ‘carried away’ with media dividers. Keep the middle lane available as much as possible to access businesses on a Access 27-Apr Don B. 11 Driving drivers left. Otherwise, to much backtracking or U‐Turns will add to congestion.

At Fairview where Wildwood runs perpendicular to the street, a driver coming on to Fairview and turning east has their view obstructed by Golden Wheel’s sign. This crossing is already dangerous during busy traffic hours, but safety is further jeopardized because of drivers accessing Fairview both on the north and south side of the street in that particular area. Since I live just north of Fairview between Cloverdale and Five Mile, I am frequently using Fairview. This road is extremely Unsafe Crossing 27-Apr Admin dangerous for motorists, pedestrians, or bicyclists because of the heavy traffic (as you know). It is very common for me to see 0 accidents when I use this street. Center of the road medians are desperately needed!! Many times you will have cars trying to access Fairview from the north and south side of the street while you have a car turning off of Fairview all at the same time‐a recipe for an accident. Trying to maneuver on and off of Fairview is sometimes a “dodging bullets” experience for motorists and others. It would be an understatement to say that Fairview needs some immediate safety changes. I believe this is an urgent project due Driving to the extreme danger the heavy traffic poses. Implementing solutions for safer access to Fairview would be greatly appreciated. When going northbound on Maple Grove during high traffic, the traffic backs up for a couple of lights. Add a another northbound Maple Grove Intersection 27-Apr Jeff Cook 0 Driving lane. Being retired, I don’t have to use the corridor at peak times. The one thing I believe would help is to have mandatory driving tests response to postcard 27-Apr Kathleen Cady 0 Driving for older citizens. Some of those on the road now should not be driving.

Gentlemen; You have done an excellent job in creating a corridor for motor vehicles on Fairview. I do have some concerns however. It seems to me that the use of mass transit has been largely overlooked or forgotten in your efforts to provide for motor vehicle movement. I have lived in this valley for 35 years and have witnessed one attempt to provide mass transit which failed, mostly because the use of existing rails was uncomfortable. In the early 20th century we had a mass transit system in the valley. It Fairview project 27-Apr Barry D Mitchell 2 was done away with when cars came on the scene. If you were to look at restoring a light rail system to the main corridor of Fairview it may be worth your look. Or perhaps expanding the bus system to include Meridian and Nampa in its’ stops. The population of the valley is getting older and a good mass transit system would help the older public to get to shops and businesses better. Also as the cities grow the demand for public transit ill also grow. We cannot rely on cars forever. The inversion factor should also be taken into consideration. Air quality in the valley would be greatly improved if we cut back on car use and used a Bus mass transit system. Just a few thoughts for you to mull over. Thank you for your consideration;Barry D Mitchell I drive Fairview from Meridian Rd to Mitchell several times each day. (meridian School bus) I think the Divided road like was done on Eagle would be big improvement. Have had several close calls with cars turning left onto or off the road. Close off the first Fairview Ave 27-Apr David H Mills 0 entry way on the east side of Eagle Rd gong into the plaza, not needed and cars making left turn from Eagle to East bound Fairview Driving take chances cutting across traffic to enter there. I use an electric wheelchair and during the summer go along Fairview to get to Walmart. For the most part there are sidewalks but Flyer rec’d in mail ref: Fairview 27-Apr Mary-Lynn Hager there is a major portion of Fairview that does not. Riding along side in the curb with the cars flying by is scary and dangerous. Are 1 Walking there any plans to provide sidewalks in this area? Thank you. To Whom It May Concern: A lot is happening on Fairview! Changes should be made! I am a disabled veteran who walks, rides the bus, drives, and bicycles on that street. I have had “several” near collisions with motorists on my bike. Drivers on that street are “always” texting, on cell phones, weaving in and out of traffic, etc. As far as the buses are concerned, well the service from Cole to Five Mile does not exist at all! Fairview is an east/west street with a multitude of businesses that people need to reach via Valley Ride. There is absolutely what’s happening on fairview 27-Apr Stephen C. Borden 0 no service from Cole to Five Mile! Ask them why there isn’t any service. You won’t get a suitable answer and a lot of “dancing around the issue!” As far as pedestrian traffic is concerned, from Cole to Five Mile there are no cross streets to to get from one side to the other. NO LIGHTS OR CROSSWALKS! People have to break the law by jaywalking, and run the possible risk of being hit by a vehicle! In short, Fairview is one hell of a messed up street!! Unhappily yours, Other Stephen C. Borden

I don’t see any problems on Fairview from Orchard to Linder and I drive on it often, although not that far out…but between Orchard to Milwaukee often. Fairview Avenue 27-Apr Ann 3 Someone recently said that with the recent changes at Maple Grove, that change was then reversed…which is then a waste of valuable resources. So, I would hope that much thought goes into what needs to happen before doing it to have it later reversed. Driving To me, it seems that the money could better be spent on other things…as I see no problem with Fairview at all. I find myself sitting on Fairview behind a long line of cars just to get into the right turn lane onto Curtis. The southern‐most lane of Sitting in Traffic to Make a Righ 27-Apr MJ 1 Driving Eastbound Fairview is constantly backed up from the 184/City Center on‐ramp. Mitchel and Fairview. Depending on the time of day, a blinking yellow light here would make sense. During heavy traffic times, it Blinking Yellow Needed 27-Apr Brandon 0 Driving could be disabled but it would allow more flow on fairview during non peak hours.

Daily, I see several drivers driving in the painted median to bypass those legally using turn lanes. After living in Boise since 1976, I Median 27-Apr David shipman have never seen anyone stopped by police, but I have seen several near‐misses in those medians. 0 A safer solution would be raised medians, which would offer a safe haven to pedestrians and bike riders, while better controlling Driving traffic flow.

The new median between Records and Eagle Road is very inconvenient. When traveling west on Fairview, and with no left turns allowed between Records and Fairview Avenue, I find it difficult to gain access to Syringa Bank, Panda Express, Shopko, Petsmart, Bed, Bath & Beyond, etc. If I turn at the Records light, I must drive through the parking lots to reach these stores. Previously, the Median is Inconvenient 26-Apr Admin 8 short median did allow access to the west end of the shopping center from Fairview. Once past the light, you must either make a U‐turn on Eagle (okay if your vehicle can make the turn) or turn onto Eagle Road try to turn left across Eagle to reach those businesses. I’m not sure why this median was installed. I had not noticed any traffic problems there in the past. It seems that it negatively Driving impacts the existing Crossroads shopping center, and benefits the newer development across Eagle to the north. We find that shopping is plentiful and close on Fairview Avenue, but can’t get there safely unless we drive to it. It would be awesome if we could walk or cycle down Fairview to the new park or to one of the many shopping centers. Right now, it is just too dangerous. Make it Safe to Walk or Bike 26-Apr Ina Jaszkowiak PLEASE PUT IN A WALKING PATH OR BIKE PATH ALONG FAIRVIEW. Ideally this would run the entire length on both sides of the 3 street, but I know I’d be happy with even just one side! The important thing is to help keep non‐motorized travelers safe from vehicle traffic. I have seen bikes under the tires of cars just too often on Fairview. I have even seen a gentleman in a power wheelchair riding on Biking the street because he has no access to a safe pathway between Maple Grove and Five Mile. Why can’t this be accomplished?

Stoplight needed at N. Shamro 26-Apr Marilyn Rogers I live on North Bryson Road. The only way out of this street is at Fairview Ave. A stop light was installed at North Steelwood Ave 1 Driving for a short while which really helped. Because traffic had to stop at that light it changed the flow of heavy traffic on Fairview..

We have only one way “out” of our neighborhood, and that is to turn onto Fairview from Bryson. (Our neighborhood was built in 1958.) Development of commercial businesses along Fairview near Bryson and Shamrock have increased traffic and created a situation where cars are turning on/off Fairview from multiple intersections, a center turn lane, and from parking lots. Many wrecks have occurred in this location. N. Bryson Road @ Fairview Ave 26-Apr Admin 0 In prior years, ACHD told us that Shamrock would have a light. Then the Steelwood light was installed and removed. What is the new plan? Yes, a center median could be constructed, and a light at Shamrock might be helpful. The problem with this is that vehicles would have to make U‐turns at Cloverdale and Fairview. My minivan barely makes a U‐turn there, let alone a semi truck and trailer, or Driving even a pickup and trailer. The next intersection is Eagle and Cloverdale. Yikes! We avoid that intersection as much as possible.

Medians are not necessary on Fairview. They will destroy businesses and cause more congestion. I hate the ones on Eagle road and will avoid that section at all costs. The U‐turn lanes are not convenient or any safer than the center turn lane. The businesses Not on Fairview 26-Apr Admin 22 have to be suffering. I am a business owner on Fairview and I know that our business will suffer if access is reduced by medians. The comments you Driving received last time were across the board against medians. Please listen to our comments. Don’t do this. NO….NO….NO… No additional medium is necessary for Fairview Ave. Please stop the insanity of all the road work, that is not No Medium needed 26-Apr Admin 49 Driving necessary!! I live on Etheridge Ln. and at some times of the day I can’t even get out onto Fairview without someone letting me out. There is no chance of making a left turn to go west. If Cole had right turn lanes all around it would take some of the congestion away. It’s very annoying being forced to go east on Fairview when I want to go west and then have to sit through 4 long lights at Cole in order to Cole & Fairview 26-Apr Helen 0 get past the intersection to find a spot where I can turn around and then have to sit through several lights again at Cole before I can even start my journey. Unless I absolutely have to go out I wait until “peak” time is over and then it is still very hard to make a Driving left turn onto Fairview. What the Hell are you doing? Two years ago your own survey results said over 80% were opposed to the idea of a median on Fairview. People do not want another median like the inconveniencing and livelihood destroying one on Eagle Road and it certainly does not reduce congestion as you claim. A U‐turn every so often just does not work, not to mention it is nearly impossible in a long wheel base pickup, delivery truck or whatever. Heaven forbid you might be pulling a job trailer. We already said no!! 26-Apr Anthony Miller 92 As well as being inconvenient and business destroying eye sores, medians are dangerous and cause a lot of damage. Just take a look at the existing ones. They are covered with marks and gouges from people running into them with what has to be great damage to their vehicle and some injury to themselves. I know you folks have to do something to justify your jobs and bring home some income but I make my living from my real estate. Don’t do something to encumber the good people who make their living along the Fairview corridor. The center turn lane is fine. Driving Leave us alone. Bike lanes 26-Apr Admin 3 Biking I feel it is extremely unsafe to ride bikes on this read without bike lanes. The traffic is too heavy and fast for bicycling safety There is a car sales lot with a concrete berm area that pushes pedestrians and bicycles almost out into traffic. I walk and bike to Winco from Maple Grove quite a bit and this spot is always spooky if there is much traffic. Also I believe that adding medians will worsen the conditions on Fairview forcing more traffic into parking lots endangering pedestrians there. Traffic on Fairview flows Unsafe Missing Sidewalk – Less 26-Apr Brett Nelson 2 fairly well in spite of the amount of traffic. To reduce traffic develop bicycle corridors paralleling Fairview. Do not put them on Fairview as there is too much smog from traffic and since riding is often an aerobic activity the amount of soot from car exhaust is Walking unhealthy.

The traffic congestion in this area has become extremely difficult when leaving my development in the mornings to make a left Cormorant left on Fairview 26-Apr Eric V onto Fairview. Most times I have to wait up to 7min some mornings before I am able to make it out. Most times (hate doing) I 0 have to pull out to the center lane and wait for traffic to clear before I can merge. Understanding that is a highly used route, a Driving drive from Fairview, to Eagle road, State should not take as long as a drive from the town of Eagle to Middleton!

There are some improvements that could be made along Fairview, including sidewalks, street lights, bike paths, and turn lanes. I do not think adding medians between Linder and Orchard is the best way to resolve traffic issues. I am unsure if this plan is moving forward, but I urge you to reconsider if it is. I feel that medians restrict access to and from businesses and cause more Traffic Improvements 26-Apr rj 0 congestion than they relieve. Further, area road design from many years ago is affecting travel today; it seems that making other roadways, like Ustick, Franklin, and McMillan, able to handle higher volumes of traffic may be a better alternative, long‐term. I think the Treasure Valley will continue to grow and so considering a broader picture of traffic flow is important. I understand this Other is a difficult task and I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I hope that you will consider the future in your decisions. Too many people running red 26-Apr Admin Driving People run red lights like it’s nothing constantly. 4

I originally thought that the median that ACHD installed down eagle road was a good idea. However, after driving down eagle road for commuting and trying to access businesses, I dislike them. I have not noticed any improved commute times and if I am heading north on eagle and try to take a left at Ustick now I have to sometimes wait 3 or more lights in order to turn left due to slow U Fairview Ave. Medians 26-Apr Josh Jensen turns. I have also noticed more cars driving through the parking lots in front of stores located along eagle road in order to avoid 44 medians. I don’t think that this improvement safety for the shopper entering or leaving stores. I also now try to avoid going to businesses located along eagle road and so I am sure the business owners aren’t happy losing the revenue from me and probably many others that dislike the medians. Please do not put medians down fairview avenue because I do not want to see the same Driving issues there. I have had many near head on collisions in the center turn lane trying to make a left turn onto my street located between Five Mile and Cloverdale. It is usually someone trying to make a left turn into a business on the north side of Fairview and not paying attention to me already in the turn lane waiting. They either swerve back into traffic or slam on their brakes. I have also witnessed Dangerous Left Turns 26-Apr Admin 2 many accidents in my two years here. I would not be opposed to raised medians on this stretch of road, similar to Eagle Rd. with U‐turns at major intersections. It may Driving be a little inconvenient but I would feel safer on the road this way.

As I driver, I am generally opposed to medians. I also do not like red only left light in most cases. Adding a yellow left light at Hickory and Fairview has been wonderful and should be a standard. My real concern though is the lack of sidewalks on most of Fairview, west of Eagle road. I like to walk if I can. There are no side Sidewalks are needed for pede 26-Apr Admin 2 walks on the north side of Fairview between Eagle road and Locust Grove, with few exceptions. When there aren’t sidewalks, pedestrians take risky illegal crossings. There are no side walks on either side of Fairview between Hickory and Locust Grove. We drive more than we would because there isn’t a safe walkway. Any solution should involve a walkway for pedestrians. With the Walking new park and shopping plaza NE eagle/Fairview some raised led only crossings would be nice too. I disagree with plans to but medians on fairview avenue. Shortening lanes is not a good idea, as I have seen more traffic backups when this is done. I would like to see more right turn lanes, it would reduce traffic backups. When people turn right they need to no raised barriers 25-Apr Jason Phelps 9 slow down causing traffic behind to slow, and not as many cars make it through the light. This c,auses more frustration, more Driving people running lights, more frustrted drivers doing stupid things. I appreciate and understand the reasons behind adding a blinking yellow left‐turn light at many of the intersections in the area, but more often than not, people abuse the light and are stuck in the intersection when it turns red. Last month I witnessed an Yellow turn lights at intersectio 25-Apr C. Murphy eastbound truck slam into a vehicle that was turning south onto Cloverdale. WHAM. It was awful. Either the police need to patrol 2 the intersections until drivers get the message, or no more blinking lights. I’d like to know how many accidents have occured since Driving the change was made across the city. My wife and I are retired. We live very close to Linder and Cherry Lane. Almost all of our daily driving is down Cherry Lane/Fairview in order to Grocery shop, Doctors, Dentists, Eye Docters Restaurants, specialty shops……etc… Fairview/Cherry Lane traffic m 25-Apr Allan Walthers 2 My main concern is to keep as efficient left turn system as possible, to include middle lanes. In addition, access to Eagle road is Driving important to us also. Thanks for asking. I concur with the comments of the Tanners about this location. Shamrock is a death trap with drivers attempting to turn off and dangerous left turns between 25-Apr C. Murphy 2 Driving on to Fairview from both the north and south sides. Very inconsistent bike lanes on this street. Disappointing for such a busy street and it makes biking more dangerous. I try to avoid Bike Lanes 25-Apr Lisa 3 Biking this road because it is busy and lacks bike lanes in some parts. I’ve jogged along Fairview from Cloverdale to Maple Grove and it sucks as a runner/pedestrian. You will have periods of sidewalk and periods without it. Some of the spots without sidewalk are frighteningly close to traffic with trashy ground and rough surface. Sidewalks 25-Apr Lis 5 Some of the businesses don’t even have sidewalk and I’ve had to do things like weave through a car parking lot. Very Walking disappointing. I would like to see sidewalks on both sides of the road. I live in Meridian and there are many sections from Meridian to Orchard that need sidewalks. I don’t like to walk with my daughter Sidewalks on both sides of the 25-Apr Admin on the side of the road with all the traffic going by. Most of the drivers push the speed limit by 5 mph or more so that mean they 3 are going by about 40 to 45. One little second of looking away or swervering just a little could kill someone that is walking on the Walking side of the road because of no side walk. We have the connector for high flow traffic, Fairview doesn’t need access management. One of the reasons so many people visit No Median Needed 25-Apr Zach Fairview Avenue is the access to so many businesses. Medians in this area will only frustrate drivers and force people to shop 32 Driving elsewhere where access is easier. When this is complete, will efforts be made to synchronize the lights on Fairview/Meridian Road and Fairview/Main Street? In the Light Synchronizing 25-Apr Admin 0 past, the light on Main would change to allow east/west bound traffic to travel, then cars would be stopped at Meridian Road. Driving Only a small number of cars were able to get through both lights. There was no flow through on the busier east/west route.

One of the greatest safety hazards that I have witnessed on Fairview Avenue is the union picketing out in front of Les Schwab Tire Safety issue 25-Apr Mike Westover Center west of the Curtis Road interchange. Accidents occured weekly while the union reps picketed. 1 The wide center turn lane minimizes turning traffic tieups and I would hate to see center barriers since they are a real killer to the Driving small business traffic volumes for businesses that front Fairview.

First: As a business owner off Fairview I think you will lose alot of good small businesses that will not get to have two way access to there business because alot of peoplle do not like to have to go to the corner to do a u turn Second: As a comutter on Fairview I think you will make traffic worse with all the intersection traffic because the u turns really slow down the turn lane which in turn Fairview bad idea 25-Apr Russ Littlefield backs most of the traffic up. The majority of the wrecks that I have seen in the 21 years of using Fairview to commute is rear end 0 accidents which I don’t think you can do anything about. Third: As a Resident off Fairview I think this is going to get someone hurt. By blocking most of the side streets from cross traffic turning will turn the couple off street that they can turn down into race tracks which is going to get someone ran over, most likly the kids using the back street to go and come from school. Alot of those back streets don’t have side walks. I really think that you should be looking at more traffic light management to control traffic. And Other sorry to some but I believe that the bike lanes should be put on more of the side streets and stay off the major road ways

City of Meridian needs to put up a sign to point out businesses that are difficult to access a the intersection of Fairview and Signs identifying businesses im 25-Apr Mark Nielebeck Meridian Rd. (Southeast endcap) because we’re losing business and they’ve gone out of their way to put this up for Businesses on 0 Meridian (signs on Main) but not on Fairview. We’ve already run the tobacco shop out of business, I might be next! Driving www.BoiseInsure.net

I am a co‐owner of Sneke River Yamaha in Meridian and have been greatly affected by the concrete medians put in front of our store at 2957 E. Fairview Ave. Our parking lot is now a frontage road of Fairview Ave. We had to put speed bumps in our parking lot (at our expense) in an effort to slow traffic and hopefully prevent injury to our customers and our employees by speeding cars; there have been several close calls. Those drivers think they have the right of way as they are using it as a cily street; it is a parking Medians 25-Apr Curtis Moore 24 lot and not a thoroughfare. Backing out of parking spaces is often like backing out into a major city street. The reason I was given for installing the medians was “safety”, while the medians may have helped safety on Fairview; which I doubt as the illegal and unexpected U‐turns taking place, it has created a very unsafe situation for the businesses, their customers and employees along Fairview. Please help eliminate this issue for us and other businesses dealing with the same issues. Come see for yourselves what Driving is taking place here. Thank you for your time.

Hello & Thank you for your recent mailing regarding this project. We live just north of Fairview between 5 Mile and Cloverdale Rds, and it can be quite treacherous turning left onto Fairview from N. Shamrock during periods of heavy traffic, which is much of the time. At times there are 4 simultaneous left turns being negotiated from this intersection, and the combination of speeding Stoplight needed 25-Apr Steven & Judy Tan traffic, backups waiting to turn, and occasional blind spots to oncoming traffic makes for a dangerous situation. We would very 2 much support having a traffic signal installed at this intersection, which is a midway point between 5 Mile and Cloverdale. A location at N. Shamrock would me more functional and would promote safer driving conditions than if it was to be re‐established at Steelwood, where there is limited traffic volume and minimal business access. We are also in favor of the proposed bike path Driving route along Shamrock. Thank you for the opportunity to comment! Steve & Judy Tanner I am an avid cyclist, but do not cycle along Fairview. I would like to see bike lanes that are separated from the car lanes by concrete curbing or at least wide like on Eagle Rd. I would also like to see lanes at major intersections that are well marked and are Bike Lanes 25-Apr Wil Barrow 2 to the left of right turn lanes. It is really scary and dangerous to go straight through an intersection while being on the right side of Biking cars that are turning right. They often can’t see the bike. Carpool Lane? 25-Apr Greg T. Driving Perhaps add a capool lane during the busiest stretches of Fairview with peak‐hour implementation? 0 In after work commute: the right lane headed East on Fairview at the Curtis traffic light is typically backed up, you sit through multiple light cycles waiting to get through. To avoid this, cars who intend to use the connector ramp are moving in to the left Unsafe going east between Cu 25-Apr Admin 5 lane. This means those cars after moving through the Curtis light want to get back over immediately to use the connector and do Driving so very agressively. Considering the amount of traffic on Fairview, traffic flow is paramount. Shortening the left turn lanes by adding medians is (frankly) just plain dumb. Milwaukee and Fairview is a prime example of a bad Traffic flow barriers 25-Apr Admin design. You took away the right turn lane into Winco, and shortened up the left turn lane (going south) onto Milwaukee – creating 5 serious traffic backups. Driving Please do NOT design Fairview the same way that you have Eagle Road

I love to walk and I was walking from 8th St on Cherry Ln to Eagle to go shopping and walking around the new park. The section from just a ways past Locust Grove toward Eagle Rd there are no sidewalks on the North side. I popped the air cushioned pocked Insufficient sidewalks 25-Apr Amy in my shoes with goat heads! from walking on the side/ in the field. Who would have thought that would happen! Anyway, I made 3 it over to the South side to cross the Eagle/Fairview intersection and I couldn’t get the crosswalk to turn. I waited 3 cycles and ended up giving up and walking back home. It was a new kind of device to push? and I didn’t understand how to activate it. I tried Walking pushing it, touching it, speaking to it. It wouldn’t work.. For all of the business in this corridor it is esential that all of their customers have easy left or right turn access. Removing the left turn lane is not the answer. If you research the accident records I am confident you will find very few accidents in the turn lane. Most accidents are caused by inatentive drivers.. A better sync. of existing stop lights would assist in moving traffic. Many left turn No median strips. 25-Apr Lew Stiner 51 lights turn time seems to be shortened during rush hour, WHY? Aii of the merchants require delivery trucks for supplies the are unable to make a u turn at intersections. Our customers are towing boats in and out and are not able to make a u turn with a 20 Driving foot boat in toe. The majority of accidents that we witness at Boise Muffler, are rear enders in front of Les Schwab. How does a medium, or a third lane change the fact that if people aren’t paying attention there going to hit someone. At the interestion of Fairview and Curtis, ACCIDENTS 19-Apr Sean Page 32 traffic headong east around 5 o’clock pm, is not commen to see it backes up to Liberty. Would that problem better be solved by Driving the timing of the lights. To get traffic to move or consistently.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #1 720 SW Washington St. Suite 500 Portland, OR 97205

503.243.3500 www.dksassociates.com DATE: April 9, 2013

TO: Project Team

FROM: John Bosket Sai Sirandas

SUBJECT: Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management P13018‐001 Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

This memorandum documents the results of the existing and future baseline transportation conditions analysis for the Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management project. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the safety and operational efficiency of the corridor, and to support a clearly defined need for transportation improvements. The existing conditions section of this memorandum describes the existing roadway network, existing traffic volumes, safety analysis of recent crash data, and intersection traffic operations. The future baseline conditions section describes the projected future traffic volumes and intersection traffic operations. Included in this memorandum is a summary list of high priority transportation issues affecting the corridor. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The following key findings for Fairview Avenue between Linder Road and Orchard Street are separated into categories for safety, mobility, and multimodal accommodation. These findings include the highest priority issues affecting corridor operations and will be the focus of strategies developed to improve travel along Fairview Avenue.

Safety Characteristics of crashes  Fairview Avenue has the second most “high‐crash” intersections in Ada County. Only Eagle Road has more.  Approximately 40% of the crashes that occur in the study corridor happen at the signalized intersections, while the remaining 60% happen in the segments of roadway in between them.  The most common crash types in the study corridor are rear‐end and turning crashes (54% and 28%, respectively).  On average, crashes in the study corridor are of low severity, with 85% resulting in only minor injury or property damage.  There were four fatal crashes in five years, but no apparent trend in location or cause.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

 There are far more crashes on weekdays than on weekends, which is generally consistent with the changes in traffic volumes.  Fridays typically experience more crashes than any other day of the week. However, these crashes tend to be of lower severity.  The frequency of crashes generally increases steadily after noon and peaks between 5 PM and 6 PM before dropping off considerably.

Locations and Types of High‐Priority Crashes

 The intersections on Fairview Avenue with Eagle Road, Cole Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street experience more crashes than would be expected given the level of traffic being served. It is recommended that these intersections be considered for safety improvements. Key observations include: o Eagle Road: Recent improvements that removed right turn slip lanes may have addressed many of the past crash problems. o Cole Road: Red light running and conflicts between vehicles passing through the intersection and vehicles slowing to enter nearby driveways were observed. o Orchard Street: Northbound and eastbound left turning crashes were prevalent, which often result in higher severity injuries. Further investigation should be conducted to determine if the protected/permissive left turn phasing is a contributing factor. o While the rate of crashes that occurred was lower, the intersection at Locust Grove Road experienced a high number of nighttime crashes, which often resulted in higher severity injuries. Lighting analysis should be conducted to determine if adequate light levels are being provided. o Signal timing in the corridor should be reviewed and updated as needed to improve progression of east‐west traffic and reduce long queues. Long queues of cars extending well in advance of traffic signals could cause slowing/stopping of traffic at locations along Fairview Avenue that drivers do not expect.  The segment of Fairview Avenue from Five Mile Road to Orchard Street experiences the highest rate of crashes in the corridor. It is recommended that this area be considered for safety improvements. Key observations include: o Approximately 35% of crashes in this segment are related to driveways. o The Hampton Road intersection experienced more crashes than any other unsignalized intersection in the corridor. The intersections at Fairmeadow Drive, Allumbaugh Street, and Eldorado Street also experienced high numbers of crashes. o The severity of crashes was relatively low, which may be an indication that crashes are congestion‐related. o The segment between Cole Road and Orchard Street experienced the highest rate of crashes and more high‐severity crashes than any other area in the corridor.

April 9, 2013 Page 2 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

 The segment of Fairview Avenue between Meridian Road and Locust Grove Road also experienced a relatively high rate of crashes and had the second‐most high‐severity crashes in the corridor.  There were a significant number of crashes involving bicycles, which often result in moderate to high severity injuries. These crashes are most commonly related with right turning movements and bicycles crossing in crosswalks.  There is a high density of access points along the Fairview Avenue corridor, creating frequent opportunities for conflicts. Crashes related to driveways and unsignalized intersections account for approximately 26% of all crashes in the corridor.

Mobility Characteristics of Common Congestion Issues

 In some locations the use of the travel lanes provided can be very unbalanced, leaving a significant amount of the provided capacity unused. This was noted to occur in areas where short segments of added lanes were provided through intersections and leading up to common destinations (e.g., traffic heading for freeway on‐ramps near Curtis Road).  Conflicts with traffic entering driveways in close proximity to intersections was observed to reduce the potential traffic flow through intersections.  Long queues of cars at many signalized intersections were seen blocking access to driveways and turn lanes and spilling back to other intersections, which reduces the effective capacity of the system.

Key Congestion Locations

 Under existing conditions, drivers experience the longest delays at the intersections on Fairview Avenue with Eagle Road and Cole Road. However, congestion at the intersections with Meridian Road, Five Mile Road, and Curtis Road can also be substantial. Note: the intersection at Meridian Road is currently being improved and other improvements are planned for the Cole Road and Curtis Road intersections.  Projected traffic growth through 2035 is substantial – as high as 4% per year on average. At that time, even with several planned capacity improvements, most signalized intersections will be congested and the five intersections at Eagle Road, Cloverdale Road, Five Mile Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street will fail to comply with ACHD mobility policy.

Providing Facilities for all Modes of Travel Characteristics of Non‐auto Facilities

 There are many gaps in the sidewalk system along Fairview Avenue and bike lanes/shoulders are inconsistent.  Opportunities to cross Fairview Avenue for pedestrians and bicyclists are very far apart (only available at signalized intersections).

April 9, 2013 Page 3 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

 Transit service is only available on Fairview Avenue from Five Mile Road to Orchard Street, although a future route is planned between Eagle Road and Milwaukee Street.

Locations and High‐Priority Improvements

 Consideration should be given to completing sidewalks and bike lanes in the segment of Fairview Avenue between Eagle Road and Orchard Street to provide better access to existing and planned transit.  Improvements to enhance bicycle safety through intersections should be considered. Key conflicts for mitigation include collisions with right turning vehicles and bicycle crossings in crosswalks.  Work with Valley Regional Transit to accommodate future service expansions along Fairview Avenue. STUDY AREA

The project study area includes the approximately 8.5‐mile Fairview Avenue/Cherry Lane corridor extending from Linder Road on the west to Orchard Street on the east, connecting the cities of Meridian and Boise. The roadway is designated as Cherry Lane to the west of Meridian Road and Fairview Avenue to the east. For the purposes of this study, the entire corridor is referred to as Fairview Avenue. 18 intersections in the study corridor have been identified as “study” intersections. The unsignalized intersection at Steelwood Avenue, which is intended to be signalized in the future as part of the neighboring site development, is also identified as a study intersection. The nineteen study intersections are listed below: Signalized Intersections:  Fairview Avenue / Linder Road  Fairview Avenue / Cloverdale Road  Fairview Avenue / 8th Street  Fairview Avenue / Five Mile Road  Fairview Avenue / Meridian Road  Fairview Avenue / Mitchell Street  Fairview Avenue / Main Street  Fairview Avenue / Maple Grove Road  Fairview Avenue / Lakes Place  Fairview Avenue / Milwaukee Street  Fairview Avenue / Locust Grove Road  Fairview Avenue / Cole Road  Fairview Avenue / Hickory Avenue  Fairview Avenue / Liberty Street  Fairview Avenue / Eagle Road  Fairview Avenue / Curtis Road  Fairview Avenue / Records Way  Fairview Avenue / Orchard Street Unsignalized Intersections:

 Fairview Avenue / Steelwood Avenue

The study area and the study intersections are shown in Figure 1.

April 9, 2013 Page 4 of 38 UV44 UV55 HILL ROAD

HILL

EAGLE GARY UV44

CARTWRIGHT

EAGLE

CHINDEN GARDEN CITY ¤£20

COLLISTER

MCMILLAN GLENWOOD

GODDARD 36TH

BOGUS BASIN

MERIDIAN USTICK UV55 VETERANS MEMORIAL

HARRISON

HICKORY

RECORDS 27TH

MILWAUKEE LIBERTY MAIN STATE CHERRY FAIRVIEW FAIRVIEW 15TH

IDAHO 8TH

LAKES ¤£26 ¤£26 MITCHELL

STEELWOOD 184 9TH MAIN PINE MERIDIAN ¨¦§

EXECUTIVE EMERALD ¤£20 FIVE MILE FIVE £20 BOISE ¤ FRANKLIN GROVE LOCUST CAPITOL CLOVERDALE

FEDERAL MAIN ROSE HILL CURTIS LATAH BOISE

LINDER 84

¨¦§ ORCHARD

OVERLAND

Study Corridor Railroad GROVEMAPLE

Study Intersections Streams VISTA

BROADWAY Signalized o Airport Stop Controlled COLE Parks VICTORY Roadways LINDER 69 Local UV Fairview Avenue Collector Corridor Access Management Minor Arterial Figure 1 Principal Arterial STUDY FIVE MILE AREA ExpresswayAMITY Miles Interstate ± 00.5 1 2 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Land Use and Zoning Land use designations along Fairview Avenue range from low to medium‐density residential, limited office, general commercial, service commercial, and light‐industrial uses. In general, the land use along the corridor is characterized by commercial and industrial uses immediately adjacent to Fairview Avenue which are flanked by residential uses to the north and south. This mix of commercial and residential uses creates a demand for travel along Fairview Avenue by a diverse range of users. There are several parcels of land along Fairview Avenue that are undeveloped and designated as residential or commercial uses, providing support for future growth associated with the respective land use types. These pockets of potential growth are generally present between Five Mile Road and Linder Road, with the largest pockets between Locust Grove Road and Cloverdale Road.

Figure 2: Developments along Fairview Avenue

With heavy commercial development in the corridor, there is high demand for property access. This development pattern across varying lot sizes has resulted many closely spaced driveways on Fairview Avenue, with an average of more than 50 driveways per mile between Linder Road and Orchard Street. The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has adopted policies1 regarding the design and location of access points to principal arterials such as Fairview Avenue. Key policies related to driveway spacing include:

 Direct lot or parcel access to a principal arterial is typically prohibited  For property with frontage on more than one street, access shall be provided from the street having the lower current and projected average daily traffic volume, and/or the lesser functionally classified street.

1 Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, Section 7200, Revised by Ordinance No. 211, December 15, 2010, pp. 7200‐ 14, 15.

April 9, 2013 Page 6 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

 When it is necessary to take access to the higher classified street the minimum allowable spacing of driveways shall be 355 feet on roads posted at 35 mph, and 400 feet on roads posted at 40 mph (measured from existing or approved driveways or streets on either side of the street).  Driveways, when approved on a principal arterial shall operate as right‐in/right‐out only. The District will require the construction of a raised median in the principal arterial to restrict the left turning movements.  The District will require raised medians for a seven‐lane roadway and/or where the roadway volumes exceed 24,000 average daily vehicles.

Access conditions in the Fairview Avenue corridor do not typically reflect the current policies described above. While some developments have established access to lower classified streets (most commonly newer developments) and some raised medians have been installed to restrict turning movements to right‐in/right‐out, many properties maintain full and direct access to Fairview Avenue. Furthermore, the current frequency of driveways at more than 50 per mile is far greater than the desired frequency suggested by the spacing standards, which would result in less than 15 driveways per mile.

April 9, 2013 Page 7 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Street Network Fairview Avenue is classified as a principal arterial2 and is under the jurisdiction of ACHD. Within the study area, Fairview Avenue is generally a five‐lane roadway, consisting of two travel lanes in each direction and a center two‐way left turn lane, with the exception of the segment between Eagle Road and Records Way that has three travel lanes in each direction. The posted speeds on the corridor range from 35 miles per hour (mph) to 40 mph. The corridor is posted at 35 mph to the west of Locust Grove Road, 40 mph between Locust Grove Road and Five Mile Road, and 35 mph east of Five Mile Road. Figure 3 shows the number of travel lanes and the posted speed limits on Fairview Avenue.

Figure 3: Travel Lanes and Posted Speeds along Fairview Avenue

Table 1 summarizes the roadway characteristics of major facilities that run parallel to Fairview Avenue and provide east‐west connectivity, as well as important north‐south routes intersecting Fairview Avenue within the study area. Each of these roadways can be found on Figure 1.

2 2035 Functional Classification Map for Ada County and Canyon County, COMPASS, accessed online at http://tinyurl.com/CompassMap

April 9, 2013 Page 8 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Table 1: Roadway Characteristics of other Facilities in the Vicinity of the Fairview Avenue Study Corridor Roadway Functional Travel Lanes Posted Speeds Classification East‐West Facilities Parallel to Fairview Avenue Chinden Expressway west One or two travel lanes per direction with center 45 mph – 55 mph Boulevard of Eagle Rd. left‐turn lanes Principal Arterial east of Eagle Rd. Ustick Road Principal Arterial One or two travel lanes per direction with center 35 mph – 40 mph west of Eagle Rd. left‐turn lanes in some sections Minor Arterial east of Eagle Rd. Franklin Road Principal Arterial Two travel lanes per direction with center left 30 mph – 35 mph west of Cole Rd. turn lanes Minor Arterial east of Cole Rd. Interstate 84 Interstate Four Travel Lanes 65 mph Overland Road Principal Arterial Two travel lanes per direction with center left 35 mph – 40 mph west of Cole Rd. turn lanes Minor Arterial east of Cole Rd. North‐South Facilities Intersecting Fairview Avenue Linder Road Principal Arterial One travel lane per direction 35 mph Meridian Road Principal Arterial One travel lane per direction south of Fairview. 25 mph south of south of Fairview One travel lane with center left turn lanes north Fairview Minor Arterial of Fairview 35 mph north of north of Fairview Fairview Main Street Minor Arterial One travel lane with center left turn lanes 25 mph Locust Grove Road Minor Arterial One or two travel lanes with center left turn 35 mph – 40 mph lanes in some sections Eagle Road State Highway, Two travel lanes per direction with center left 55 mph north of Principal Arterial turn lanes. Three travel lanes in the northbound Fairview, 50 mph direction between Presidential Dr. and East south of Fairview. River Valley St. (includes Fairview Avenue intersection) Cloverdale Road Minor Arterial One or two travel lanes with center left turn 35 mph – 40 mph Five Mile Road lanes in some sections Maple Grove Road Milwaukee Street Cole Road Principal Arterial Two travel lanes per direction 35 mph Curtis Road Minor Arterial Two travel lanes with center left turn lanes 35 mph north of Fairview and 30 mph south of Fairview Orchard Street Principal Arterial Two travel lanes per direction with center left 30 mph turn lanes

April 9, 2013 Page 9 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Fairview Avenue generally has sidewalks on both sides of the street. There are several segments adjacent to undeveloped and open sites that are missing sidewalks. Crosswalks are provided on all four legs of the 18 signalized intersections along the corridor. These 18 locations provide the only crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists on Fairview Avenue. On an average, the signalized intersections are spaced about half a mile apart, making for infrequent crossing opportunities. The recently improved segment of Fairview Avenue between Hickory Avenue and Records Way (which includes the Eagle Road intersection) is the only stretch of Fairview Avenue that has bike lanes. There are many sections of the corridor that have paved shoulders wide enough to accommodate bicycles. However, there are locations where there are gaps in shoulders or the paved shoulder is not clearly defined.

Figure 4: Gaps in Sidewalks along Fairview Avenue The gaps in sidewalks and shoulders, long crossing distances across multi‐lane roads, infrequent crossing opportunities, absence of bike lanes, and heavy traffic volumes create significant barriers to walking and bicycling along Fairview Avenue. Figure 4 shows the gaps in sidewalks along the study corridor and Figure 5 shows the location of bike lanes along the study corridor.

April 9, 2013 Page 10 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Figure 5: Bike Lanes along Fairview Avenue Transit Valley Regional Transit (VRT) serves Ada County and Canyon County through the ValleyRide service. Route 7 runs from Downtown Boise to Towne Square Mall and travels along Fairview Avenue from Orchard Street to Cole Road. There are nine stops along Fairview Avenue in each direction for this route. This route runs with 40‐ minute headways from 6 AM to 6 PM during weekdays and with 60‐minute headways from 8 AM to 6 PM on Saturday. In addition to Route 7 that runs along Fairview Avenue, the following routes run along north‐south streets and serve stops at Fairview Avenue:

 Route 8 and Route 8x (Downtown Boise –Towne Square Center – Hewlett Packard) run along Five Mile Road. Route 8 runs with 20 to 60‐minute headways from 7 AM to 5 PM on weekdays. Route 8x provides two morning runs between 6 AM and 7 AM, and two evening runs between 5 PM and 6 PM on weekdays.  Route 10 (Downtown Boise – Capital High School – Towne Square Center) runs along Maple Grove Road with 60‐minute headways from 6 AM to 7 PM on weekdays. There are no transit stops along Fairview Avenue to the west of Five Mile Road. However, a future Secondary Service route (“neighborhood service” with 30 to 60‐minute headways and frequent stops) is planned along Fairview Avenue between Eagle Road and Milwaukee Street. Figure 6 shows the existing transit routes and locations of the stops in the study corridor.

April 9, 2013 Page 11 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

` Figure 6: Transit Routes and Stops in the Study Corridor

April 9, 2013 Page 12 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Safety Analysis The evaluation of safety conditions in the study corridor was primarily based on analysis of recent crash records spanning the years 2007 through 2011. These records were examined for trends indicating where crashes most commonly occur and the types and severities of those crashes. The findings of this evaluation will help identify priority locations for improvements and the types of treatments that may be most effective for enhancing safety in the corridor. Corridor Overview Signalized intersections and the segments of roadway between them represent two very different environments for travelers. There are typically more conflicting movements at signalized intersections, but for most movements, drivers are told when to proceed by the signal. In the roadway segments, drivers must determine when it is safe to proceed on their own. Therefore, much of the crash analysis conducted considers these environments separately. Figure 7 summarizes the crash characteristics of Fairview Avenue as a whole, showing that:

 Approximately 40% of the crashes within the 8.5‐mile study corridor between Linder Road and Orchard Street occur among the 18 signalized intersections.3  Rear‐end crashes are the most common crash type (54%), but turning crashes are also prevalent (28%).  Most (85%) crashes are of low severity, resulting in only minor injuries or only property damage.

Other Other Injury B 5% 10% 18% Turning Signalized Roadway 28% Segments Intersections PDO Injury C 60% 40% Rear End 56% 29% 54% Crash Location Crash Type Crash Severity

Injury severity descriptions: Fatality: an injury that results in death Injury A: incapacitating injury preventing the person from continuing normal activities Injury B: non‐capacitating injury that is evident at the scene Injury C: possible injury that is reported or claimed, but not evident at the scene PDO: property damage only – no injuries Data from 2007 through 2011

Figure 7: Fairview Avenue Crash Characteristics

3 For the purpose of this analysis, all rear‐end crashes within 200 feet of a signalized intersection were categorized as “intersection” crashes.

April 9, 2013 Page 13 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Figures 8 and 9 provide more insight into where crashes are most frequently occurring. These graphics show relative crash rates for signalized intersections and the roadway segments between them, with segments refined into smaller 0.10‐mile sections for further detail. Figure 8 accounts for all crashes, while Figure 9 shows only the most severe crashes (fatalities and Injury A crashes).

Crash rates4 differ from the frequency of crashes by accounting for the level of exposure to traffic. More crashes would be expected at a location with higher traffic volumes. Therefore, one location with the same amount of crashes as another location would have a higher crash rate if it served fewer cars during the day.

The relative scale used facilitates the identification of recurring crash locations and those that typically experience the most severe injuries. Tables with numerical crash rates for each intersection and larger segments are included in the appendix. Key findings from this analysis include:

 There are four intersections with crash rates exceeding the calculated critical crash rates5, indicating that further investigation is warranted. These include: o Eagle Road o Cole Road o Curtis Road o Orchard Street  Mitchell Road and Milwaukee Street also have higher crash rates than most other intersections, but are within the “normal” range.  Segments along Fairview Avenue that experience the highest rates of crashes include: o Meridian Road through Main Street o Five Mile Road to Mitchell Road o Cole Road to Curtis Road  Four crashes resulted in fatalities during the five‐year period analyzed. There was no trend related to the location of these crashes.  The rate of severe crashes is sporadically spread out along the corridor. However, there is a small cluster around the Locust Grove Road intersection where the rate of severe crashes appears to be more common.

4 Crash rates are reported as crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) for intersections and crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (MVM) for roadway segments. 5 Critical crash rates are used to identify locations where the rate of crashes is higher than would be expected given the type of facility and volume of traffic served. Critical crash rates were calculated according to the Highway Safety Manual methodology.

April 9, 2013 Page 14 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Figure 8: Rate of Crashes on Fairview Avenue (2007‐2011)

Figure 9: Rate of Severe Crashes on Fairview Avenue (2007‐2011)

April 9, 2013 Page 15 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

As might be expected, crash rates also vary by time of year, day of  There were only two‐thirds as many crashes on Saturdays as week, and time of day. However, many crash trends follow similar on an average weekday. On Sundays, there were only one‐ trends in traffic volume changes. Figure 10 illustrates these trends in a third as many. “crash calendar” that summarizes the temporal patterns of crashes  Fridays experience more crashes than any other day of the that occurred in the study corridor from 2007 through 2011. Key week. However, the proportion of higher severity crashes on findings include: Fridays appears to be lower.  More crashes occurred in the month of June than in any other  Most crashes occur between noon and 8 PM. The frequency of month. However, crashes were evenly distributed between the crashes gradually increases from noon, peaks between 5 PM seasons of the year. and 6 PM, and then drops off considerably.  Crashes are far more common on weekdays than on weekends.

Figure 10: Fairview Avenue Crash Calendar (2007‐2011)

April 9, 2013 Page 16 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

#1#Eagle#Rd/#Fairview#Ave Intersection Crashes #3#Cole#Rd/#Fairview#Ave ACHD tracks crash activity at intersections in the county on an #7#Cur7s#Rd/#Fairview#Ave annual basis and ranks intersections according to characteristics such as crash frequency and severity. Referencing this ranking #13#Milwaukee#St/#Fairview#Ave system for the years 2008 through 2011, the study corridor of #18#Locust#Grove#Rd/#Fairview#Ave Fairview Avenue between Linder Road and Orchard Street has 13 #21#Five#Mile#Rd/#Fairview#Ave intersections rated in the top 100 for most crashes experienced in the entire county. Only Eagle Road has more intersections (15) #29#Maple#Grove#Rd/#Fairview#Ave within the top 100. This demonstrates that Fairview Avenue has proven to be one of Ada County’s worst corridors for crashes in recent history. While Figure 8 illustrated relative differences in crash rates #46#Orchard#St/#Fairview#Ave between corridor intersections, a more detailed representation of intersection crash rates is provided in Figure 12. As previously noted, the intersections on Fairview Avenue with Eagle Road, Cole #55#Cloverdale#Rd/#Fairview#Ave Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street all have crash rates exceeding the critical crash rate, which indicates that further #62#Mitchell#St/#Fairview#Ave #63#Meridian#Rd/#Fairview#Ave investigation is warranted. Each of these intersections is discussed in more detail below. #71#Linder#Rd/#Fairview#Ave

#96#Main#St/#Fairview#Ave

Figure 11: Fairview Avenue Intersections Ranked Among Ada County’s Top 100 Most Common Crash Locations

April 9, 2013 Page 17 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Rate of Crashes per Critical Rate Average Crash Rate Million Entering Vehicles 1.20 1.01 0.97 1.00 0.96 0.82 0.80

0.66 0.61 0.60 0.55 0.52 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.34 0.27 0.25 0.20

0.00 Pl St St St St St

Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd

Way Way

8th Cole Mile Main Lakes

Eagle Curtis Grove Grove Liberty Linder

Orchard Mitchell Five Meridian Hickory Records Milwaukee Cloverdale Maple Locust

Figure 12: Study Intersection Crash Rate Comparison

Eagle Road Intersection

Injury A Other Injury B 4% 7% 6%

Rear‐ PDO Ends Injury C 56% 93% 34%

Crash Severity Crash Type

Ima gery Date 10/5/2012, Google Inc.

A very high percentage of the crashes recorded at this intersection from 2007 to 2011 involved a rear‐end collision. This included many rear‐end collisions related to merging movements, accounting for approximately 35% of all crashes.

April 9, 2013 Page 18 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

The Eagle Road intersection was recently improved in 2012, just after the end of the period when the crash data was recorded. Prior to that time, this intersection included right turn slip lanes that bypassed the intersection and used yield control to have drivers merge into traffic. This configuration appears to have been the cause for a significant number of the crashes that occurred. Therefore, the recent improvements may have mitigated this problem and the crash rate may drop in the future. However, a significant number of rear‐end crashes may continue to occur due to corridor travel speeds (40 mph posted speed) and the recurring congestion at this intersection. Therefore, coordinated signal timing should be maintained along Fairview Avenue to provide good progression of traffic and reduce the need to stop at signals.

Cole Road Intersection

Injury A Bicycle 4% Injury B Other 4% 11% 12% PDO 50% Rear‐ Ends 84% Injury C 35% Crash Severity Crash Type

Imagery Date 10/5/2012, Google Inc.

Similar to the Eagle Road intersection, the intersection on Fairview Avenue at Cole Road experienced a higher than typical percentage of rear‐end crashes from 2007 to 2011. During field observation of this intersection, significant congestion was noted with very long queues on all approaches. The long delays appeared to encourage aggressive driving, with red light running being a common occurrence. There were also several instances where through traffic stopped suddenly in the intersection, which was caused by vehicles slowing to turn right into driveways that were just beyond the intersection. Any of these characteristics could be contributing to the high crash rate at this intersection.

April 9, 2013 Page 19 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Curtis Road Intersection

Injury A Other Injury B 1% 8% Bicycle 8% 4%

Turning 19% Rear‐ Ends 69% Injury C 29% PDO 62% Crash Severity Crash Type

Imagery Date 10/5/2012, Google Inc.

This intersection has one of the highest crash rates in the corridor, but it is still much lower than those experienced at the Eagle Road, Cole Road, and Orchard Street intersections. No significant trends were noted in the analysis of crashes from 2007 to 2011.

Orchard Street Intersection

Injury A Other 8% Bicycle 4% 6% Injury B 19% Angle 17%

PDO Injury C Turning 48% 25% 73% Crash Severity Crash Type

Imagery Date 10/5/2012, Google Inc.

The percentage of high severity of crashes at the Orchard Street intersection from 2007 to 2011 was twice as high as the average rate for other intersections in the corridor. In addition, the prevalent crash types were unusual, with very high percentages of turning and angle crashes. Most of the turning crashes were related to the northbound and eastbound left turn movements. The causes of these crashes should be explored further to see if they are related to the current protected/permissive left turn phasing or some other factors.

In addition to the intersections with high crash rates described above, the intersection on Fairview Avenue at Locust Grove Road was noted as having a high percentage of crashes occurring at nighttime

April 9, 2013 Page 20 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

(47% compared to the corridor average of 21%). The nighttime crashes were often more severe, involving turning and angle collisions. Lighting analysis of this area should be conducted to determine if adequate light levels are being provided.

Roadway Segment Crashes For this analysis, the 8.5‐mile Fairview Avenue corridor was broken up into seven segments, with crash rates per million vehicle‐miles traveled calculated for each. Much like the intersection crash rate analysis, critical crash rates for each segment were calculated using the Highway Safety Manual methodology to determine if crash rates experienced were higher than would be expected. The results are shown in Figure 13. Similar to what is shown in Figure 8, the segments of Fairview Avenue from Five Mile Road to Orchard Street experience the highest rate of crashes. The segment from Meridian Road to Locust Grove Road also has a relatively high rate of crashes, but it is still within the range that would be expected for this facility (i.e., it is lower than the critical crash rate). The three segments of Five Mile Road to Maple Grove Road, Maple Grove Road to Cole Road, and Cole Road to Orchard Street that have crash rates exceeding the critical crash rate are discussed in more detail below.

Critical Rate Average Crash Rate

3.69 3.73 3.35

2.66 2.36

1.69 1.71

Linder ‐ Meridian ‐ Locust Grove Cloverdale ‐ Five Mile ‐ Maple Grove Cole ‐ Meridian Locust Grove ‐ Cloverdale Five Mile Maple Grove ‐ Cole Orchard

Figure 13: Fairview Avenue Segment Crashes per Million Vehicle‐Miles Traveled

April 9, 2013 Page 21 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Five Mile Road to Maple Grove Road Injury  This segment of Fairview Avenue is densely developed and has Injury A Fatal nearly 50 access points per mile serving surrounding land uses. B 4% 1% 7%  Approximately 35% of the crashes in this segment occurred at

Injury C driveways. 18%  The unsignalized intersection at Hampton Road accounted for

PDO 19 crashes, which is more than any other unsignalized intersection in 70% the corridor. Crash Severity  There were more rear‐end crashes (51%) than any other crash type. These may have been congestion‐related, since very long queues Other were observed around the Five Mile Road intersection. 13% Rear‐  The severity of crashes was typically low, with 88% of all crashes Ends resulting in only minor injury or property damage. The percentage of 51% property damage only crashes was much higher than the corridor Turning average. 36%  One of the four fatalities in the Fairview Avenue corridor Crash Type occurred in this segment. It happened on a Monday afternoon around 1 PM and involved a rear‐end collision. Inattention was listed as the only contributing cause. Maple Grove Road to Cole Road

Injury  This segment of Fairview Avenue is densely developed and has A Fatal approximately 55 access points per mile serving surrounding land uses. 1% Injury B 2% 11%  Approximately 30% of the crashes in this segment occurred at driveways.

Injury C PDO  The largest concentration of crashes outside of signalized 27% 59% intersections occurred at the unsignalized intersection with Fairmeadow Drive, where nine crashes were experienced.

Crash Severity  There were more rear‐end crashes (50%) than any other crash type. These may have been congestion‐related, since very long queues were observed in the area.

 The severity of crashes was typically low and aligned very well with the corridor average, with 86% of all crashes resulting in only minor injury or property damage.

April 9, 2013 Page 22 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Other  One of the four fatalities in the Fairview Avenue corridor 21% occurred in this segment. It happened on a Thursday between 6 PM and Rear‐ Ends 7 PM at a driveway just east of Maple Grove Road. The car overturned 50% attempting an avoidance maneuver. The crash occurred in a construction zone. Turning 29%

Crash Type

Cole Road to Orchard Street  This segment has the highest crash rate in the corridor. Injury A Fatal  This segment of Fairview Avenue is densely developed and has Injury B 6% 1% 7% approximately 90 access points per mile serving surrounding land uses. This is by far the greatest access density in the corridor. Injury C PDO 26% 60%  Approximately 35% of the crashes in this segment occurred at driveways.

 The largest concentration of crashes outside of signalized Crash Severity intersections occurred at the unsignalized intersections with Allumbaugh Street and Eldorado Street, which each had 10 crashes. Other 20% Rear‐  There were more rear‐end crashes (44%) than any other crash Ends 44% type, but the percentage of rear‐end crashes was lower than most other areas in the corridor. Turning 36%  While the overall severity of crashes experienced was low, the segment from Cole Road to Orchard Street experienced more high Crash Type severity (Injury A) crashes than any other area along Fairview Avenue.

 One of the four fatalities in the Fairview Avenue corridor occurred in this segment. It happened on a Saturday around 10 PM just west of Laurel Street. A car struck and killed a pedestrian at night. There are no streetlights along the roadway in this area.

In addition to the segments with high crash rates described above, the segment on Fairview Avenue between Meridian Road and Locust Grove Road experienced a relatively high crash rate and had the second greatest number of high severity (Injury A) crashes in the corridor.

April 9, 2013 Page 23 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes The number of recorded crashes in the Fairview Avenue corridor involving pedestrians was relatively low, with only 14 occurring in five years. The highest concentration of pedestrian crashes was from Linder Road to Meridian Road, where one crash occurred at the Linder Road intersection, three crashes occurred between Linder Road and Meridian Road, and two crashes occurred at the Meridian Road intersection.

During this same time period, there were 72 crashes involving bicycles. The intersection at Meridian Road experienced eight bicycle crashes, which is twice as many as any other intersection. The intersections at Linder Road, Cole Road, and Curtis Road each experienced four bicycle crashes.

There were many different actions associated with the pedestrian and bicycle crashes in the corridor, but collisions with right turning vehicles was by far the most prevalent. Collisions between cars and bicycles while bicyclists attempted to cross intersections in crosswalks were also very common.

While crashes involving pedestrians and bicycles make up a relatively small percentage of the overall number of crashes that occur in the corridor (about 4%), these crashes tend to result in more severe injuries. As shown in Figure 14, a traveler along Fairview Avenue is far more likely to be injured if involved in a crash while walking or biking compared to driving.

Crash Severity Bicycle Fatal Pedestrian Overall

Bicycle Injury A Pedestrian Overall

Bicycle Injury B Pedestrian Overall

Bicycle Injury C Pedestrian Overall

Bicycle PDO Pedestrian Overall

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 14: Comparison of Crash Severity by Mode of Travel

April 9, 2013 Page 24 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Crashes Related to Access Points Every access point (driveways and intersections) along Fairview Avenue presents the potential for conflicts between motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. With more than 450 access points in the study corridor from Linder Road to Orchard Street and posted speeds ranging from 35 to 40 mph, drivers on average will pass by an access point approximately every two seconds while traveling on Fairview Avenue. Unsignalized While maintaining adequate access is important for Intersections business vitality and overall street network connectivity, 7% Signalized the current access condition has been a significant factor Driveways Intersections in the crashes that have occurred in the corridor. The 19% 40% crash data from 2007 to 2011 shows that approximately 31% of all crashes that occurred in the roadway segments between the signalized intersections were Non‐access Related related to movements into or out of driveways. An 34% additional 12% were related to movements to and from Influence of Access on unsignalized side streets. This equates to 43% of all Fairview Avenue Crashes roadway segment crashes and 26% of the total number of crashes in the corridor.

The locations of access‐related crashes often align with the locations in the corridor with the highest overall rates of crashes. This finding is consistent with national research showing that as access density increases, crash rates also increase.6 Figure 15 overlays crashes related to access points (driveways and unsignalized intersections) with the graphic previously shown in Figure 10 that indicates where the highest rates of crashes occur along Fairview Avenue. Notice that the gaps between clusters of access‐related crashes generally align with segments of Fairview Avenue with low overall rates of crashes (colored green), while the segments with the highest rates of crashes (colored red) always align with clusters of access‐related crashes.

The typical severity of access‐related crashes is fairly consistent with the corridor average shown in Figure 7.

6 Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003, p. 16.

April 9, 2013 Page 25 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Figure 15: Rate of Crashes on Fairview Avenue Compared to Driveway Locations (2007‐2011)

April 9, 2013 Page 26 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Existing Traffic Volumes Average Daily Traffic Historical counts along Fairview Avenue indicate average daily traffic volumes ranging from a high of 35,650 vehicles west of Maple Grove Road to a low of 13,280 vehicles west of Orchard Street (typical five‐lane arterials can effectively serve 40,000 to 45,000 vehicles per day before congestion becomes severe). In general, volumes are lower at the east and west ends of the corridor and higher in between. Table 2 lists a summary of historical tube count data at different locations on Fairview Avenue. Table 2: Summary of Historical Count Data at Locations along Fairview Avenue Location Date Daily Traffic Volumes Eastbound Westbound Combined East of Linder Road November 2009 8,950 9,780 18,730 West of Meridian Road June 2011 11,170 11,710 22,880 East of Meridian Road December 2009 13,330 12,920 26,250 West of Locust Grove Road November 2009 13,360 12,650 26,010 East of Locust Grove Road November 2009 13,680 14,100 27,780 West of Eagle Road November 2009 14,560 14,390 28,950 West of Eagle Road March 2013 12,640 12,900 25,540 East of Eagle Road April 2011 15,250 16,300 31,550 East of Eagle Road March 2013 13,440 14,610 28,050 West of Cloverdale Road December 2009 14,910 14,740 29,650 East of Cloverdale Road June 2011 15,020 15,400 30,420 West of Five Mile Road June 2011 15,990 16,090 32,080 East of Five Mile Road November 2009 14,960 14,420 29,380 West of Mitchell Street April 2008 16,350 16,280 32,630 East of Mitchell Street April 2008 16,750 16,200 32,950 West of Maple Grove Road July 2010 15,160 11,440 26,600 East of Maple Grove Road July 2008 18,260 17,390 35,650 West of Milwaukee Street July 2010 15,380 15,730 31,110 East of Milwaukee Street August 2009 16,770 16,890 33,660 West of Cole Road June 2011 14,940 15,010 29,950 East of Cole Road December 2009 15,830 14,200 30,030 West of Curtis Road December 2009 15,810 14,580 30,390 West of Curtis Road March 2013 14,110 15,630 29,740 East of Curtis Road November 2012 11,720 9,030 20,750 West of Orchard Street December 2012 5,150 8,130 13,280

April 9, 2013 Page 27 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Figure 16 shows the daily traffic profiles at three different locations in the study corridor. The profiles generally show an AM peak period, followed by a gradual increase in traffic through the afternoon with local midday and PM peaks. This is representative of a combination of commuter and commercial travel patterns. The directional AM peak is typically in the eastbound direction and the PM peak in the westbound direction. The midday peak may be attributed to trips made for dining, shopping, and business within the commercial land uses along the corridor. The PM Peak period generally has the highest volume of the day and lasts for approximately two hours (4 PM to 6 PM) Other notable observations about the traffic patterns on Fairview Avenue include:

 To the east and west of Eagle Road, the traffic profiles for Saturday indicate a midday peak slightly higher than the weekday PM peak levels. The duration of this peak period is from approximately 12 PM to 3 PM. Further, the total daily traffic on Saturday is about 5% higher than the weekday average to the west of Eagle Road, and about 12% higher than the weekday average to the east of Eagle Road. It is likely that the high amount of traffic on Saturdays at these locations is because of the trips associated with the nearby retail centers.

 On Sunday, the total daily traffic to the west of Eagle Road is about 26% lower than the weekday average. The Sunday total daily traffic is about 21% lower than the weekday average to the east of Eagle Road.

 West of Curtis Road, there is a spike in the eastbound traffic during the PM peak hour. This is likely because of the traffic headed towards the I‐184 freeway. At this location, the total daily traffic is 12% lower than the weekday average on Saturday 34% lower than the weekday average on Sunday. Turn Movement Counts Turn‐movement counts were recorded at all study intersections during the weekday PM peak period (4 PM to 6 PM), and are illustrated in Figure 17. These counts are used to determine the operational performance at the study intersections, which is discussed later in this memorandum.

April 9, 2013 Page 28 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Figure 16: Average Daily Traffic at Three Locations on Fairview Avenue (Data Recorded in June 2011)

April 9, 2013 Page 29 of 38 LINDER RD 8TH ST MERIDIAN LOCUST EAGLE RD RECORDS MAPLE FIVE MILE MITCHELL RD LAKES PL GROVE RD AV GROVE RD MILWAUKEE COLE RD CLOVERDALE RD ST LIBERTY ST CURTIS RD STEELWOOD ST RDRD AV AV 1 2 3 4 ORCHARD 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ST Fairview Avenue Study Corridor

MAIN ST HICKORY AV 1 Linder Road 2 8th Street 3 Meridian Road 4 Main Street

RT 510 RT 525 105 780 280 65 60 135 RT 60 255 540 290 60 55 80 RT 110 TH 1610 TH 1685 RT TH LT RT TH LT TH 2030 RT TH LT RT TH LT TH 2140 LT 260 LT 265 LT 60 LT 335 LT LT 125 LT 20 160 30 LT 985 TH LT TH RT 1270 TH LT TH RT 1190 TH LT TH RT 1525 TH LT TH RT 45 RT 210 RT 210 RT 225 RT 40 50 90 455 190 365 190 405 125 320 1035 1005

5 Lakes Place 6 Locust Grove Road 7 Hickory Avenue 8 Eagle Road

RT 405 RT 175 RT 405

180 5 135 RT 130 290 670 260 TH 1890 50 35 120 TH 2380 365 850 355 TH 1625 RT TH LT TH 2680 RT TH LT LT 390 RT TH LT LT 80 RT TH LT LT 430 LT 15 UT 10 UT 15 UT 10 5 UT 125 LT 305 LT 380 LT 50 LT 1945 TH LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 1505 TH UT LT TH RT 1430 TH 1895 TH 20 RT 30 10 50 85 95 RT 10 340 875 320 315 320 305 RT 80 RT 555 425 1305

9 Records Avenue 10 Cloverdale Road 11 Steelwood Avenue 12 Five Mile Road

RT 405 RT 245 70 305 RT 290 775 305 205 0 130 RT 265 765 310 420 245 TH 1915 115 RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT TH 2000 TH 1975 LT 270 TH 2500 LT 165 LT 65 LT 255 30 UT 180 LT 340 LT 315 LT 160 LT 1995 TH LT TH RT 1665 TH LT TH RT LT TH RT 1575 TH LT TH RT 1880 TH 100 RT 0 45 95 60 295 RT 115

290 295 RT 275 945 365 465 840 295 95 RT

13 Mitchell Street 14 Maple Grove Road 15 Milwaukee Street 16 Cole Road

RT 715 RT 115 RT 170 TH 2080 TH 2215 RT 195 55 80 95 165 650 340 100 280 120 165 520 250 TH 1970 RT TH LT TH 2340 RT TH LT LT 275 RT TH LT LT 330 RT TH LT LT 35 UT 5 UT 5 LT 165

115 LT 5 UT 235 LT 1850 TH LT TH RT 255 LT LT TH RT 110 LT LT TH RT LT TH RT TH 80 RT 1665 TH 1725 TH 1660 75 115 100 540 735 265 710 290 285 RT 415 840 185 280 RT 325 RT 185

17 Liberty Street 18 Curtis Road 19 Orchard Street

RT 150 RT 45 220 715 5 85 20 110 RT 180 165 1125 165 TH 1535 RT TH LT TH 2385 RT TH LT LT 310 RT TH LT TH 1265 LT 120 UT 15 LT 250

165 LT 5 UT 175 LT 1735 TH LT TH RT 225 LT UT LT TH RT 10 TH LT TH RT 5 45 RT 5 570 RT 90 30 80 1160 TH 460 900 120

435 RT 1070 1355

LEGEND Figure 18 1 - Lane Configuration - Study Intersection - Lane Added in the future FUTURE (2035) BASELINE PM - Traffic Signal 000 - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES UT LT TH RT - Volume Turn Movement U-Turn RightThruLeft No Scale Fairview Avenue Corridor Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Existing Traffic Operations Field Observations Preliminary field observations were conducted during the weekday PM peak period at different locations along the corridor to help validate the operations and safety analysis. Summarized below are some of the key observations from the field visit:

 Cycle lengths for a majority of the 18 signalized intersections in the corridor range from 140 seconds to 200 seconds.

 The corridor widens to three through lanes from Hickory Avenue, through Eagle Road, to Records Way. It was observed at these locations that fewer vehicles tend to use the outside lane compared to the two middle lanes. In particular, at the Fairview Avenue/Eagle Road intersection, very few vehicles used the outside lane on the westbound and the northbound approaches.

 There is significant eastbound lane imbalance on Fairview Avenue at Curtis Road during the PM peak period, with heavy right lane overloading due to trips destined for the I‐184 on‐ramps.

 It was observed at some locations that the close proximity of driveways to intersections limits the saturation flow rate of certain traffic movements. In particular, the driveways on Cole Road north of the Fairview Avenue/Cole Road intersection (Papa Murphy’s, Axiom Fitness) affect the northbound traffic that was in the outside lane, reducing the capacity of that movement.

 There were a significant number of instances of red‐light running at the Fairview Avenue/Cole Road intersection during the weekday PM peak period.

 During the weekday PM peak hour, as reflected by the turn movement counts, the westbound direction experiences the higher directional volume. Significant queuing was observed in the westbound direction at several locations. The westbound queuing at the Fairview Avenue/Five Mile Road intersection appeared the most severe, with queues extending past Hampton Road (1300 feet) on two occasions and up to Mitchell Street (2600 feet) on one occasion. The westbound queue at the Mitchell Street intersection extended up to Linda Vista Lane (700 feet) on one occasion and up to Kimball Street (1300 feet) on one occasion.

 There were several instances when the left turn queues extended past the available storage bays. Such queues can block through movements and through movements can block upstream intersections. The result is an increased potential for rear‐end collisions and a significant loss in system capacity. Intersection Performance Measures and Mobility Standards Mobility is an important consideration because it measures how freely vehicle traffic can move to its intended destination. In general, roadway systems have their highest degree of conflicts and associated congestion at intersections. Therefore, the performance of a system is often defined by how well the intersections perform.

April 9, 2013 Page 31 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

In this study, three performance measures are used to assess the operations of study intersections: volume‐to‐ capacity (v/c) ratios, Level of Service (LOS), and control delay. These measures are determined based on the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) versions 2000 and 2010.7

 Volume‐to‐capacity (v/c) ratio is a decimal representation (between 0.00 and 1.00) of the proportion of capacity that is being used at a turn movement, approach leg, or an intersection. It is determined by dividing the peak hour traffic volume by the hourly capacity. A lower ratio indicates smooth operations and minimal delays. As the ratio approaches 1.00, congestion increases.

 Control delay (measured in seconds) includes delay associated with vehicles slowing in advance of an intersection, the time spent stopped on an intersection approach, the time spent as vehicles move up in the queue, and the time needed for vehicles to accelerate to their desired speed.

 LOS is a simple “report‐card” (A through F) representation of travelers’ perceptions of the quality of service provided by a facility, measured by the delay experienced. LOS A represents the best operating conditions from the traveler’s perspective and LOS F the worst. ACHD policy identifies a LOS D as the maximum level of desired congestion for intersections on a principal arterial, while segments between intersections can operate at a LOS E.8 For Fairview Avenue, a principal arterial with a continuous center left turn lane and two travel lanes per direction, this equates to a maximum peak hour volume of 1,780 vehicles per direction. Currently, the maximum hourly volume is approximately 1,500 vehicles and is experienced just west of Five Mile Road in the westbound direction during the weekday afternoon.

7 HCM 2000 methodology was used for v/c ratios, and HCM 2010 methodology was used for LOS and control delay. 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2000. 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2010. 8 ACHD 2012 Capital Improvements Plan, Exhibit C, p. C‐8.

April 9, 2013 Page 32 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Intersection Operations The existing year (2013) weekday PM peak hour intersection operations are summarized in Table 3. The operations were evaluated using Synchro 8 software, which employs methodologies from HCM 2000 and HCM 2010. The traffic volumes, traffic control, and lane configurations shown in Figure 8 were used in the analysis.

Table 3: Existing Year (2013) Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Intersection LOS Control Delay Intersection Worst Lane Group v/c (seconds) v/c Ratio Ratio (Corresponding Lane Group) Fairview Avenue /Linder Road D 47 0.88 1.00A (WBT) Fairview Avenue /8th Street A 10 0.57 0.59 (WBT) Fairview Avenue /Meridian Road D 46 0.95 1.00A (NBT) Fairview Avenue /Main Street C 29 0.67 0.75 (WBL) Fairview Avenue /Lakes Place B 12 0.62 0.66 (WBT) Fairview Avenue /Locust Grove Road D 46 0.78 0.94 (NBT) Fairview Avenue /Hickory Avenue C 26 0.72 0.76 (WBT,NBL) Fairview Avenue /Eagle Road E 68 0.79 1.00A (EBL) Fairview Avenue /Records Way C 25 0.46 0.78 (NBL) Fairview Avenue /Cloverdale Road D 35 0.72 0.80 (NBT) Fairview Avenue /Steelwood Avenue B/F 116 ‐ 0.64 (WB) Fairview Avenue /Five Mile Road D 54 0.92 0.90 (WBT,NBT) Fairview Avenue /Mitchell Street C 22 0.63 0.70 (NBT) Fairview Avenue /Maple Grove Road D 47 0.88 0.96 (EBL) Fairview Avenue /Milwaukee Street D 43 0.89 0.93 (NBL) Fairview Avenue /Cole Road E 64 0.97 0.98 (EBL,WBT) Fairview Avenue /Liberty Street B 18 0.56 0.60 (WBT) Fairview Avenue /Curtis Road D 48 0.91 0.91 (NBT) Fairview Avenue /Orchard Street C 23 0.75 0.76 (WBT) *Note: For TWSC intersection, delay corresponds to the worst minor street movement; LOS = major street left turn/minor street. *Bold and shaded values exceed the mobility standard. A The calculated v/c ratio slightly exceeds 1.0 for these movements.

Using ACHD’s policy requiring a maximum of LOS D for intersections on principal arterials, the analysis results in Table 3 show that nearly all study intersections currently provide the desired level of service. However, the intersections at Eagle Road and Cole Road are operating at LOS E and fail to meet ACHD’s policy. In addition, the minor street approach (southbound) on the Fairview Avenue/Steelwood Avenue intersection operates at LOS F, indicating that long delays are experienced. There is very little traffic using this approach today and the intersection is expected to be signalized in the future when the adjacent land develops.

April 9, 2013 Page 33 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

FUTURE CONDITIONS Roadway Network Assumptions Future year 2035 volumes on the Fairview Avenue Corridor were projected based on the regional travel demand model provided by ACHD. This model is generally consistent with the ACHD 2012 Capital Improvements Plan ( CIP) and accounts for the planned transportation improvements in the surrounding area that are reasonably expected to be funded and constructed by the year 2035. Table 4 lists the planned transportation improvements along the Fairview Avenue Corridor that are assumed to be in place for the 2035 baseline scenario. Traffic Forecasting Methodology Year 2035 traffic forecasts were developed by post‐processing model outputs10 provided by ACHD. This methodology involves adding the growth increment between the existing year (2012) and future year (2035) models to existing year traffic counts.11

Future Traffic Volumes Future year traffic projections indicate that overall, the combined eastbound and westbound traffic on Fairview Avenue would increase in the PM peak hour by values ranging from 1500 to 2600 vehicles at different locations. These increases correspond to average annual growth rates ranging from 3% to 4%. Figure 18 summarizes the future year 2035 lane configurations and forecasted weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes. In addition to growth during the peak hour, future traffic demand is likely to spread to adjacent time periods and create a longer “peak” demand. Existing peak hour factors (PHF) in the study area range between 0.88 and 0.97 and are assumed to slightly increase as the peak demand spreads in the future.12

10 For base year, “Peak Hour (5pm to 6pm) 2012 Build: 2012 Demographics with 2012 CIM Update Funded” model scenario was used. For future year, “Peak Hour (5pm to 6pm) 2035 Build: 2035 Demographics with 2031 CIP Update Funded” model scenario was used. 11 This approach is consistent with methodologies outlined in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design 12 Existing PHF less than 0.92 are assumed to increase to 0.92, existing PHF from 0.92‐0.94 are assumed to increase to 0.95, existing PHF of 0.96 and higher are assumed to increase to 0.98.

April 9, 2013 Page 34 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Table 4: Planned Transportation Improvements in the Fairview Avenue (2012 ACHD CIP) CIP # Location Year Description Intersection Projects on Fairview Avenue IN2012‐17 Fairview Ave @ Linder Rd. 2017‐2021 Replace/modify signal. Reconstruct/widen approaches. IN2012‐24 Fairview Ave @ Cloverdale Rd. 2017‐2021 Replace/modify signal. Reconstruct/widen approaches. IN2012‐25 Fairview Ave @ Cole Rd. 2022‐2026 Replace/modify signal. Reconstruct/widen approaches. IN2012‐26 Fairview Ave @ Curtis Rd. 2027‐2031 Replace/modify signal. Reconstruct/widen approaches. IN2012‐27 Fairview Ave @ Eagle Rd. 2022‐2026 Replace/modify signal. Reconstruct/widen approaches. IN2012‐28 Fairview Ave @ Locust Grove Rd. 2017‐2021 Replace/modify signal. Reconstruct/widen approaches. Street Projects on Fairview Avenue RD2012‐46 Fairview Ave ‐ From Meridian Rd. to 2017‐2021 Reconstruct/widen from 5‐lanes to 7‐ Locust Grove Rd. lanes. RD2012‐47 Fairview Ave ‐ From Locust Grove 2017‐2021 Reconstruct/widen from 5‐lanes to 7‐ Rd. to Eagle Rd. lanes. RD2012‐48 Fairview Ave ‐ From Eagle Rd. to 2022‐2026 Reconstruct/widen from 5‐lanes to 7‐ Cloverdale Rd. lanes. RD2012‐49 Fairview Ave ‐ From Cloverdale Rd. 2027‐2031 Reconstruct/widen from 5‐lanes to 7‐ to Five Mile Rd. lanes. RD2012‐50 Fairview Ave ‐ From Five Mile Rd. to 2027‐2031 Reconstruct/widen from 5‐lanes to 7‐ Maple Grove Rd. lanes. RD2012‐51 Fairview Ave ‐ From Maple Grove 2022‐2026 Reconstruct/widen from 5‐lanes to 7‐ Rd. to Cole Rd. lanes. RD2012‐52 Fairview Ave ‐ From Cole Rd. to 2027‐2031 Reconstruct/widen from 5‐lanes to 7‐ Curtis Rd. lanes. Street Projects on North‐South Streets Intersecting Fairview Avenue RD2012‐81 & Linder Rd. – From Franklin Rd. to 2022‐2026 Reconstruct/widen from 2‐lanes to 5‐ RD2012‐82 Ustick Rd. lanes. RD2012‐104 Meridian Rd. – From Cherry Rd. to 2017‐2021 Reconstruct/widen from 3‐lanes to 5‐ Ustick Rd. lanes. RD2012‐90 Locust Grove Rd. – From Fairview 2017‐2021 Widen from 3‐lanes to 5‐lanes. Ave. to Ustick Rd. RD2012‐30 & Cloverdale Rd. – From Franklin Rd. 2016 Widen roadway from 2‐lanes to 5‐ RD2012‐31 to Ustick Rd. lanes. RD2012‐56 & Five Mile Rd. – From Franklin Rd. to 2013/ 2015 Widen roadway from 2‐lanes to 5‐ RD2012‐57 Ustick Rd. lanes. RD2012‐94 Maple Grove Rd. – From Fairview 2017‐2021 Reconstruct/widen from 3‐lanes to 5‐ Ave. to Ustick Rd. lanes. RD2012‐102 Meridian Rd Split Corridor ‐ 2013 Construct the northern portion (north Phase II – From Franklin Rd. to of Franklin) of the Split Corridor Fairview Ave. roadway project.

April 9, 2013 Page 35 of 38 LINDER RD 8TH ST MERIDIAN LOCUST EAGLE RD RECORDS MAPLE FIVE MILE MITCHELL RD LAKES PL GROVE RD AV GROVE RD MILWAUKEE COLE RD CLOVERDALE RD ST LIBERTY ST CURTIS RD STEELWOOD ST RDRD AV AV 1 2 3 4 ORCHARD 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ST Fairview Avenue Study Corridor

MAIN ST HICKORY AV 1 Linder Road 2 8th Street 3 Meridian Road 4 Main Street

50 215 130 RT 275 20 15 50 RT 50 245 200 150 RT 245 50 50 65 RT 60 RT TH LT TH 1065 RT TH LT TH 1270 RT TH LT TH 1060 RT TH LT TH 960 LT 90 LT 50 LT 50 LT 175 50 LT 15 LT 150 LT 25 LT 455 TH LT TH RT 665 TH LT TH RT 595 TH LT TH RT 595 TH LT TH RT 60 RT 15 RT 75 RT 160 RT 75 20 40 50 45 115 185 360 205 430 400 230

5 Lakes Place 6 Locust Grove Road 7 Hickory Avenue 8 Eagle Road

RT 245 RT 150 RT 340

105 2 80 RT 70 145 445 135 TH 820 45 15 110 TH 1125 275 930 260 TH 705 RT TH LT TH 1290 RT TH LT LT 225 RT TH LT LT 15 RT TH LT LT 250 LT 10 UT <5 UT 10 UT 5 65 LT 205 LT <5 UT 245 LT RT 930 TH LT TH RT 585 TH LT TH RT 45 LT LT TH RT 625 TH UT LT TH RT TH 5 855 10 RT 155 RT TH 5 15 25 80 55 RT 180 670 175 195 180 LT 20 RT 315 235 1605 UT AA

9 Records Avenue 10 Cloverdale Road 11 Steelwood Avenue 12 Five Mile Road UT LT TH RT AA

50 25 60 RT 40 150 345 150 RT 205 10 0 10 RT 5 140 320 130 RT 180 RT TH LT TH 1000 RT TH LT TH 1030 RT TH LT TH 1495 RT TH LT TH 1100 LT 145 LT 125 LT 5 LT 110 15 UT LT 160 LT 5 155 LT 50 215 130 RT 275 50 215 130 RT 275 LT TH 15 LT TH RT 785 TH LT TH RT 1095 LT TH RT 780 TH LT TH RT RT TH LT TH 1065 RT TH LT TH 1065 870 TH 1 RT 1 0 1 20 125 RT 145 RT LT 90 LT 90 95 RT 290 100 145 475 185 300 420 150 50 LT 50 LT 455 TH UT LT TH RT 455 TH UT LT TH RT 60 RT 60 RT

Mitchell Street Maple Grove Road Milwaukee Street Cole Road 75 AA 13 14 15 16 XX 185 360

RT 350 RT 110 XXX

50 80 90 RT 165 80 385 150 TH 1140 85 395 105 TH 1085 115 470 170 RT 135 RT TH LT TH 1135 RT TH LT LT 185 RT TH LT LT 245 RT TH LT TH 960 LT 20 UT <5 UT <5 LT 100 90 LT 125 LT <5 UT 170 LT 815 TH LT TH RT 820 TH LT TH RT 95 LT LT TH RT 820 TH LT TH RT 35 RT 185 RT 795 TH 115 RT 45 35 105 370 445 160 275 865 120 215 RT 510 455 210

17 Liberty Street 18 Curtis Road 19 Orchard Street

RT 115 95 365 1 50 20 70 RT 70 110 820 150 TH 740 RT 10 RT TH LT TH 1225 RT TH LT LT 160 RT TH LT TH 455 LT 105 UT 10 LT 105

65 LT <5 UT 50 LT TH 940 TH LT TH RT 165 LT UT LT TH RT 10 LT TH RT

40 RT TH 300 RT 5 65 15 65 710 85 <5 410 500 565

215 RT 1160

LEGEND Figure 17 1 - Study Intersection - Lane Configuration EXISTING 2013 PM PEAK - Traffic Signal 000 - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES UT LT TH RT - Volume Turn Movement - Stop Sign U-Turn RightThruLeft No Scale Fairview Avenue Corridor

LT TH RT RightThruLeft Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Future Traffic Operations ACHD’s policy requiring intersection operation at an LOS D or better and segment operation at LOS E or better still applies to conditions in 2035, but with the planned widening projects along Fairview Avenue, the allowable peak hour traffic volume per direction will increase to 2,720 vehicles. With the significant increases in area traffic volumes forecast by 2035, peak hour traffic volumes will be close to this threshold in many areas and will exceed it around Lakes Place and Maple Grove Road with a maximum volume over 3,000 vehicles in the westbound direction. The future year 2035 baseline forecasted weekday PM peak hour intersection operations are summarized in Table 5. The operations were evaluated using the same methodology as used for the evaluation of existing conditions. The traffic volumes, traffic control, and lane configurations shown in Figure 18 were used in the analysis. The cycle lengths for signalized intersections have been kept the same as the existing cycle lengths. Some of these cycle lengths may have to change in the future to accommodate longer pedestrian crossing distances and higher traffic volumes. As indicated in Table 5, the five intersections at Eagle Road, Cloverdale Road, Five Mile Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street will operate at an LOS F and seven other intersections will operate at an LOS E, failing to comply with ACHD’s mobility policy. Furthermore, ten intersections will operate with v/c ratios greater than 1.0 (i.e., more cars will want to drive through than can be served). This shows that the congestion in the corridor will be significantly worse than the existing conditions even with the planned improvements in place. It is worth nothing that the proposed widening of streets in the study area (including Fairview Avenue and the intersecting streets) may drive additional traffic to the study intersections, and degrade the intersection operations.

April 9, 2013 Page 37 of 38 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Technical Memorandum #1: Existing and Future Baseline Transportation Conditions

Table 5: Existing 2013 and Future Year 2035 Baseline Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Intersection LOS Control Intersection LOS Control Intersection Worst Lane Delay v/c Ratio Delay v/c Ratio Group v/c (seconds) (seconds) Ratio (Corresponding Lane Group) Existing Future Fairview Ave/Linder Rd D 47 0.88 E 79 1.08 1.10 (SBL) Fairview Ave/8th St A 10 0.57 C 32 0.91 0.93 (WBT) Fairview Ave/Meridian Rd D 46 0.95 E 76 1.10 1.10 (NBT) Fairview Ave/Main St C 29 0.67 E 69 1.04 1.25 (WBL) Fairview Ave/Lakes Pl B 12 0.62 C 32 0.90 0.91 (WBT,SBL) Fairview Ave /Locust Grove Rd D 46 0.78 E 69 0.97 0.99 (NBT) Fairview Ave/Hickory Ave C 26 0.72 D 45 1.05 1.32 (NBL)

Fairview Ave/Eagle Rd E 68 0.79 F 80 0.92 0.94 (EBT) Fairview Ave/Records Way C 25 0.46 E 58 0.86 0.94 (SBL) Fairview Ave/Cloverdale Rd D 35 0.72 F 103 1.17 1.23 (EBL) Fairview Ave/Steelwood Ave B/F 116 ‐ C 33 0.92 0.99 (NBT) Fairview Ave/Five Mile Rd D 54 0.92 F 86 1.12 1.16 (NBL) Fairview Ave/Mitchell St C 22 0.63 C 28 0.84 0.88 (WBT) Fairview Ave/Maple Grove Rd D 47 0.88 E 78 1.05 1.09 (NBL) Fairview Ave/Milwaukee St D 43 0.89 E 60 1.08 1.28 (NBL) Fairview Ave. /Cole Rd E 64 0.97 D 48 0.94 0.93 (EBL,NBT) Fairview Ave /Liberty St B 18 0.56 D 51 0.83 0.94 (WBT)

Fairview Ave /Curtis Rd D 48 0.91 F 91 1.18 1.32 (NBL)

Fairview Ave /Orchard St C 23 0.75 F 107 1.45 1.47 (EBL,NBL) *Note: For TWSC intersection, delay corresponds to the worst minor street movement; LOS = major street left turn/minor street. *Bold and shaded values exceed the mobility standard.

April 9, 2013 Page 38 of 38

NM jk4 W a7 ae s a J 44 7Sa o Bjk4J J 4cekmcecJ 44 i i i e WWW7 a We 7 H s wcok4wc

H S7a

H 7 7W a H IA F A R EII EI SS R RD A S I D IE D D RDC E S R DA SC R A DER ID I wc4wTd44w

W 7S s 7s aWa S a 2S7 Wa a ao 7 W 7 ah Wo h s a 7 S a S 7S a Sh i h s 7SS 7S WW a2S7 ae 2S7 Wa a a WS Wi g a7 W S a o a 7 W 7 ah W s a 7S a7 7 22S72S a a7 Wa7 a o a h s a7 S a S a S W 7i i 2S727W a7 W i a a W 2S7Sa W 7 s a e W S a W S hW 2 S7 ga S7s 7saa 2S7 a W 2sa i W S h S7 Wa 7 S S7s 2W W i W i S e

Sh i h s ai S 7 S S aS a W h a7Wh d 2S 2 Sa S i a n Wa sa 7 W ag 72 S a7 Wa a S n2 a a7i 7SW 7h Sa e W ag2S7h W 27Sa a 7 a7 ai a a W7 S 7WoWSh 7 sa SWoS a 7h ao W722 aS 2We S S Sgm44 S W W2 Sg S a WW a Wh S a SW a7 Wa aS 7 a 7s ag5Wi 7SWa7S S WS 0s ge 7s ag i g WaS aO R W2 a7i W a7 W 7 Sh i h s W a a SW a7 Wa7 2 aga ai 7s aa SWSh sasS We 7i h So h i a a W 2 ago 7 Wa7 WWa a 2 a W ag 7 a7 W gi 7SW e aga7 W g ag WW sWW aa7 Sh i h s W W a 7 S e oa ag7 S o a ag7 7W S h 72 a Sh i h s 7SS 7S WW a a7 ag h s a WaS a W7S a W a WW 7 Sh i h s a S7s 2S7h aWa a 7 2 aa 7 dS 2 W7Sa 7SS 7Se

2sS27W7a Sh i h s 7SS 7S WW a Wa7 2S7Sat 2S7h aWa7 W ago 72 S a7 Wo 2 ag 7S Sh i h s a S7s 772 S ah 2 a a 2S S g W WWa7 a W 2S 2 Sa S e Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria – Revised DRAFT

NEED

The need for the Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Plan is to more thoroughly identify and evaluate the existing and future safety and operational conditions that must be addressed on Fairview Avenue between Linder Road and Orchard Street. These conditions include:

Safety • Fairview Avenue has the second most number of “high-crash” intersections among street corridors in Ada County • 20 crashes resulting in debilitating injuries or fatalities per year on average • There is a high density of access points creating frequent conflicts that are related to 26% of all crashes • Frequent conflicts with cars and bicycles at intersections related to right turn movements and bicycles in crosswalks

Operations • Serves up to 35,000 daily vehicle trips • Forecast to serve as many as 63,000 vehicle trips per day • Significant congestion is projected to occur by 2035, with 10 of the 19 study intersections failing to serve peak hour demands even with planned capacity improvements • Mix of users: commuters, shopping, freight movement • Multimodal users: cars, trucks, buses, bikes, pedestrians • On average, there are nearly 60 access points per mile serving adjacent land uses • There are many gaps in the sidewalk system and bicycle lanes/shoulders are not consistently provided • Transit is only available east of Five Mile Road

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Specific transportation goals will be developed for the Fairview Avenue corridor addressing the areas of transportation, social and economic, and community planning. An initial set of goals is identified below along with associated objectives. It is anticipated that these goals and objectives will be continuously refined throughout the project as participants provide feedback.

Goal 1: Transportation Provide a multimodal transportation corridor from Meridian to Boise to meet existing and future safety and mobility needs for all users Objective A. Improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicles, freight and transit Objective B. Maintain/enhance motor vehicle/freight mobility and traffic flow

June 13, 2013 Page 2 of 5 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria – Revised DRAFT

Objective C. Maintain convenient access for emergency vehicles Objective D. Maintain/enhance street connectivity Objective E. Complete pedestrian and bicycle systems Objective F. Support improved transit service

Goal 2: Social and Economic Support the economic viability of the region and business along Fairview Avenue; protect the livability and integrity of the residential areas; provide cost-effective projects that align with reasonable funding expectations Objective A. Provide convenient access to businesses Objective B. Support freight movement throughout the corridor Objective C. Minimize impacts to private properties Objective D. Provide safe and efficient access to neighborhoods Objective E. Avoid diversion of traffic through neighborhoods Objective F. Enhance multimodal transportation to provide accessibility to all members of the community Objective G. Minimize disruption to the community resulting from roadway construction Objective H. Maximize the cost effectiveness of transportation system investments Objective I. Identify improvements that can be funded in the near-term or implemented in fundable phases

Goal 3: Community Planning Be consistent with the adopted long-range goals and policies of the community and the region Objective A. Provide consistency with adopted state, county, regional and local policies

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Draft evaluation criteria were prepared for use in evaluating and comparing improvement strategies. These criteria will help provide consistency between project recommendations and the project purpose, need, goals, and objectives. This criteria has evolved throughout the project as input was received from stakeholders and new improvement strategies were developed.

Transportation • Reduces motor-vehicle crash potential

• Addresses bicycle-motor vehicle conflict areas at intersections

• Reduces transit-motor vehicle conflicts

• Reduces motor vehicle delay in the corridor

• Emergency vehicle response times are not significantly impacted

June 13, 2013 Page 3 of 5 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria – Revised DRAFT

• Maintains turn movements at unsignalized intersections

• Creates new streets that enhance circulation

• Completes pedestrian facilities along Fairview Avenue

• Completes bicycle facilities along Fairview Avenue

• Improves crossing opportunities of Fairview Avenue

• Bicycle and pedestrian access to existing transit stops is provided within 1/2-mile

• Bicycle and pedestrian access to future transit stops is provided within 1/2-mile

• Improves transit travel times

Social and Economic • Out of direction travel is no more than 1/2 mile or 1 minute during non-peak periods

• Business access is clearly visible or intuitive

• Reduces motor vehicle delay in the corridor (duplicated in Transportation Goals)

• Freight access is provided for businesses

• Strategy avoids impacts to private property

• Improves safety at unsignalized intersections acting as key gateways to neighborhoods

• Maintains turn movements at unsignalized intersections (duplicated in Transportation Goals)

• Does not result in diversion of traffic into residential neighborhoods

• Enhance multimodal transportation to provide accessibility to all members of the community (duplicated in Transportation Goals)

• Construction can be phased or mitigated to have minimal traffic disruption

• Strategy provides substantial benefit compared to cost

• Project or phases of project are fundable in near-term

Community Planning • Consistent with the ACHD Complete Streets Policy

• Consistent with the ACHD Livable Streets Design Guide

• Consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map

• Consistent with the ACHD Roadways to Bikeways Bicycle Master Plan

June 13, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria – Revised DRAFT

• Consistent with the ACHD Pedestrian-Bicycle Transition Plan

• Consistent with the City of Boise Comprehensive Plan “Blueprint Boise”

• Consistent with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan

• Consistent with Communities in Motion (COMPASS)

An evaluation matrix is included that will be used to ensure that consideration will be given to the goals and objectives when selecting strategies for the Fairview Avenue corridor. Within the matrix, each strategy has been scored according to how well it aligns with project objectives and evaluation criteria listed above (only objectives are shown in the matrix for simplicity). The intended use of this matrix is not to select strategies purely based on the resulting scores, but to better understand how strategies affect the corridor and to use the scores to stimulate a discussion about which strategies may be favorable and why. Strategies for use in the Fairview Avenue Corridor will be selected based on feedback provided by the Project Management Team, Stakeholder Committee, elected officials, and the general public.

June 13, 2013 Page 5 of 5

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #3 720 SW Washington St. Suite 500

Portland, OR 97205 503.243.3500 DATE: June 13, 2013 www.dksassociates.com TO: Project Team

FROM: John Bosket

SUBJECT: Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management P13018-001 Corridor Strategies

This memorandum provides a summary of strategies that could be applied to the Fairview Avenue study corridor to improve transportation issues identified in Technical Memorandum #1. Strategies recommended for consideration were identified in response to specific safety and mobility issues noted in the corridor for all modes of travel and input provided by the project Stakeholder Committee. The intent is to share these recommendations with the Project Management Team, the project Stakeholder Committee, and the general public and obtain feedback on which strategies are of most interest, if strategies should be modified, or if any others should be included. To aid in the evaluation of strategies, a matrix will be provided that can be used to rate each strategy according to the project goals and objectives documented in Technical Memorandum #2. Upon receiving feedback, the list of recommended strategies will be refined and included in a Draft Plan for Fairview Avenue. In what follows, each strategy is accompanied by a general definition, a description of the issues addressed by the strategy, a summary of its potential benefits, a description of how it may apply to the study area, and a discussion on the efforts needed to implement the strategy. Planning level cost estimates for implementing the proposed strategies are provided where feasible. For strategies that provide potential safety benefits, a rough estimate of the economic value of the safety benefits (dollar amount of savings to the public) is provided (see appendix for assumptions). A. ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

A1. Reduce the Number of Driveways What: Reducing the number of driveways to Fairview Avenue could occur primarily by closing ones that are not necessary to serve the property, replacing multiple driveways serving individual properties with driveways that are shared, or by relocating driveways to side streets.

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

Why: Every access point (driveways and intersections) along Fairview Avenue presents the potential for conflicts between motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. With more than 470 access points present between Linder Road and Orchard Street (most being driveways), a motorist traveling at 35 mph will pass an access every two seconds on average. This presents a high level of exposure to potential conflicts, which reduces the efficiency and safety of travel. Movements into and out of driveways contribute to approximately one-fifth of all crashes in the corridor (or about 75 every year). Research has shown a strong relationship between the frequency of access points along a roadway and the number of crashes that occur. While the frequency of access points on Fairview Avenue is currently very high (just over 55 access points per mile), even modest reductions can have meaningful impacts on corridor safety. As shown in the graph below, for every five driveways per mile that are removed, the rate of crashes is reduced by approximately 4 percent (rear-end crashes, which were the most common type in the corridor, drop by 3 percent).1 This equates to approximately six crashes per year and a public benefit of up to $360,000 annually.

Example: a reduction of 15 driveways per mile results in a 13 percent reduction in crashes

Where: This strategy could be applied to the entire corridor, but the potential for improvement in any area is limited by characteristics of existing development. Ideal locations would have multiple properties with more than one driveway each or adjacent developments where land use types and site designs would be compatible with a shared driveway.

June 13, 2013 Page 2 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

The segment of Fairview Avenue between Five Mile Road and Orchard Street had the highest rate of crashes, with approximately one-third of all crashes outside of signalized intersections being related to driveway movements. A slightly smaller subset of this segment, from Mitchell Street to Orchard Street has the highest number of driveways per property and many of the driveways are very close together. Therefore, the segment from Mitchell Street to Orchard Street would be the high priority area to target with this strategy. When/How: Closing or consolidating existing driveways requires close coordination and cooperation with affected property and business owners. In many cases, businesses may rely on secondary driveways to complete their on-site traffic circulation system. Removal of such driveways may require significant site modification to continue to meet the needs of the operating business. When establishing shared driveways, site conditions between adjacent developments must be suitable and easements may be required to provide the legal right to cross over neighboring properties. Applying this strategy also often requires construction work on private properties. Therefore, this may be a difficult strategy to apply on a broad scale in the near-term. A more feasible approach would be to close and create shared driveways between developments through the land use process when site circulation is being designed or modified. This would require cooperation with the cities of Meridian and Boise to make the desired site plan changes and to establish the necessary easements. Therefore, closing existing driveways and creating shared driveways is most appropriate as a long-range strategy with incremental improvements made through property development/redevelopment over many years. In the near-term, City of Meridian and City of Boise development codes should be amended as needed to support implementation. ACHD currently has policy in place to support a reduction in driveway densityi. City policies, however, may need to be implemented or strengthenedii. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

i ACHD Policy Manual, Section 7205, December 2010. ii Boise City Code Meridian City Code, December 2011

June 13, 2013 Page 3 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

A2. Create Inter-parcel Circulation What: Establishing inter-parcel circulation connects adjacent developments through on site roadways or parking lots. This allows drivers to make short trips between properties without using the adjacent arterial.

Why: When access is provided to allow vehicles to pass between adjacent properties without using the arterial, unnecessary conflicts are removed. Vehicles using the arterial for cross-circulation between adjacent properties can be particularly hazardous, as such drivers sometimes drive the wrong way in travel lanes and utilize very small gaps in traffic because they perceive that they will only be on the road for a short time. Additional benefits include providing more circulation options for large delivery vehicles and supporting opportunities to have multiple properties share access points.

Where: This strategy could be applied in many places throughout the corridor. The most likely opportunities would include: • Adjacent properties with compatible land uses (e.g., connecting retail to retail may be of more value than connecting retail to a small medical office) • Adjacent sites graded to the same elevation • Adjacent developments where site plans and on-site circulation routes would readily accommodate an accessway between properties

When/How: Site conditions between adjacent developments must be suitable and easements may be required to provide the legal right to cross over neighboring properties. Applying this strategy also often requires construction work on private properties. Therefore, this may be a difficult strategy to apply on a broad scale in the near-term. Design elements such as design speeds, roadway widths, visibility, and pedestrian and traffic volumes should be considered when applying this strategy for it to be implemented in a safe and effective manner. Similar to the strategy of reducing the number of driveways, a more feasible approach would be to establish inter-parcel circulation between developments through the land use process when site circulation is being designed or modified. This would require cooperation with the cities of Meridian and Boise to include accessways between properties and to establish the necessary easements to support their use. Therefore, creating inter-parcel circulation is most appropriate as a long-range strategy with incremental improvements made through property development/redevelopment over many years. In the near-term, City of Meridian and City of Boise development codes should be amended as needed to support the implementation of inter-parcel circulation. Currently, ACHD does not require cross access between adjacent properties. However, it encourages and recommends cities to require cross access in certain locations and include it in the ACHD site-specific conditions of approval.

June 13, 2013 Page 4 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

A3. Reconstruct Driveways to Current ACHD Standards What: Reconstruct existing driveways that do not conform to current ACHD design standards. Reasons for non- compliance could be surface type (e.g., dirt or gravel), width (e.g., overly wide or too narrow), steep grades, or design that does not meet Americans with Disability Act requirements. Why: Updating driveways to ACHD standards can have significant benefits to corridor safety. Driveways that are improperly designed can lead to unnecessary conflicts where right-of-way for exiting and entering vehicles is unclear. Where driveways are too wide or too narrow, turning vehicles may drive faster or slower than desired, resulting in slowing of following traffic on the roadway and the potential for conflicts with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other drivers on site. Loose surface material, such as gravel, dirt, or broken asphalt reduces roadway friction, which affects acceleration and braking rates. Many older styles of driveway design include cross slopes that are difficult for people with mobility devices to traverse. Where: This strategy can be applied anywhere throughout the corridor where driveways are found to be out of compliance with current ACHD design standards, targeting driveways that are notably too wide, too narrow, undefined, of improper surface material, or in need of improvement to accommodate disabled pedestrians. There are many opportunities throughout the corridor to make such improvements, with most occurring where sidewalk has not been constructed or where older development is present. When/How: Reconstructing existing driveways can be done as a near-term improvement. Coordination with property owners is necessary, but in most cases should not affect the ability to complete improvements in a timely manner. Costs for individual driveway reconstructions may average around $3,500. It may be most cost- effective to combine these improvements as part of sidewalk infill projects rather than target individual driveways unless there are significant safety concerns with their current condition. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☒ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

June 13, 2013 Page 5 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

A4. Remove Access Conflicts near Intersections What: Improve the safety and capacity of signalized intersections by removing potential conflicts within the functional area where drivers’ attention is primarily focused on the traffic signal indications and the presence of other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. This can be accomplished by either removing driveways within the functional area of signalized intersections or by restricting turn movement to allow only right-in and right-out movements. Why: Driveways that are too close to major intersections introduce turning conflicts that can have significant impacts to the safe and Source: Designing Walkable Urban efficient operation of the corridor. They can encourage improper Thoroughfares, ITE use of center left turn lanes (e.g., wrong way driving), create addition conflicts that many drivers are not expecting when traveling through traffic signals, and may not be visible to drivers turning around corners. There were also observations on Fairview Avenue where drivers slowing to enter driveways just beyond intersections stopped the flow of traffic, reducing the capacity of the signal and creating a rear-end collision hazard. Where: There are opportunities throughout the corridor, with 23 driveways within 200 feet of a signalized intersection. To define the limits of the functional area where conflicts should be minimized, ACHD access spacing standards should be referenced.iii Where posted speeds are 40 mph, the minimum access spacing is 400 feet. At 35 mph, the minimum access spacing is 355 feet. When/How: Issues related to closing existing driveways were noted above. The constraints of existing development circulation needs may make driveway closures difficult in the near term. Turn restrictions may be applied by ACHD at any time where restrictions occur through treatments within the right-of-way (e.g., non- traversable medians). A priority should be placed on restricting turn movements to right-in and right-out only where driveways are opposite dedicated left turn lanes for signalized intersections. Typical costs for installation of narrow non-traversable median along a left turn lane is approximately $7,000 (assumes adequate roadway width is available).

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

iii ACHD Policy Manual, Section 7205.4.7, December 2010

June 13, 2013 Page 6 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

A5. Frontage/Service Roads What: A frontage road is a smaller road that parallels a major road and is located between the major road and abutting building sites. When these smaller roads run behind abutting properties rather than in front (as shown in picture at right), they are referred to as service roads. Frontage/service roads are publically owned and maintained and provide access to major roads at regular intervals. Speeds and traffic volumes on frontage/service roads are typically moderate to low, making them better suited for accommodating a large number of access points.

Why: The purpose of these roads is to provide lower-speed access to commercial sites along a major roadway and to separate business traffic from higher-speed through traffic. With business access removed from the major roadway and relocated to the frontage/service road, congestion and safety can be improved on the major roadway.

Where: The use of frontage/service roads could benefit any area of the corridor. Like other access management strategies described, the most benefit may be realized in the segment on Fairview Avenue from Mitchell Street to Orchard Street. However, given the physical constraints associated with constructing such a roadway, opportunity may be a greater factor than maximum benefit. This could include planning new roads in areas where development has not yet occurred or making better use of existing roads that could act as frontage/service roads (e.g., Wilson Lane, Avest Lane, Jewell Street, Records Way, Elden Gray Street, King Street, and Opohonga Street).

When/How: The greatest constraint to establishing frontage/service roads is availability of right-of-way. It is generally not recommended that existing businesses be purchased or their site designs be significantly altered for the near-term construction of these roads. Instead, these roads should be phased in over time as opportunities allow, targeting combinations of existing public streets/rights-of-way, vacant lands, and property that is redeveloping. Because of the long-range nature of the planning and phasing of these roads, cooperation will be needed from the cities of Meridian and Boise to ensure needed right-of-way can be preserved through land use actions. Because these roads may not be suitable for access until significant segments are complete, site designs for redeveloping properties along these road alignments must be able to use a temporary access to Fairview Avenue as well as a future access to the frontage/service road.

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

June 13, 2013 Page 7 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

A6. Non-Traversable Medians What: Non-traversable medians are mostly commonly seen as raised concrete islands in the center turns lane of a roadways. Decorative treatments can be applied to add aesthetic value, such as landscaping or stamped and colored concrete. Non-traversable medians can include openings at intersections and driveways to allow for intermittent access and can include provisions for U-turning. Where the center turn lane is needed as a left turn pocket at a signalized intersection, a non-traversable median may just be narrow strip (18 inches or less) over the yellow painted stripe separating the left turn lane from opposing traffic. Why: Approximately 26 percent of all crashes in the corridor (or about 515) are related to movements into or out of driveways and unsignalized intersections. These crashes result in damages that average $5.4 million annually to the public. Non-traversable medians have a significant effect on safety compared to two-way left turn lanes (TWLTL) because they control where turning conflicts occur, resulting in a more orderly and predictable pattern of turn movements. A substantial amount of research has been conducted to evaluate the impacts of constructing non- traversable medians on urban arterials. It has been consistently found that safety is improved when a TWLTL is replaced by a non-traversable median, with expected crash reductions of at least 23 percent2 (although in many cases the reductions have been much higher). Such a reduction in access-related crashes on Fairview Avenue could equate to a savings of approximately $1.2 million annually to the public. Non-traversable medians also improve pedestrian safety and connectivity by providing a refuge for crossings. Reductions in crashes involving pedestrian crossings have been found to be as high as 40 percent3 when non- traversable medians are constructed. Many studies have also been conducted to determine the effects of non-traversable medians on motorist delay. When considered together the results are somewhat inconclusive, with some studies showing TWLTLs operating more efficiently and others showing non-traversable medians operating more efficiently. In any case, the differences in delay associated with the two treatments were relatively small. In conclusion, it appears that the positive or negative impacts on delay that might result from replacing the TWLTL with a non-traversable median would be relatively minor and would be far outweighed by the benefits gained in crash prevention. Where: Replacing the existing TWLTL on Fairview Avenue with a non-traversable median could improve safety at any location in the corridor. However, the segment of the corridor from Five Mile Road to Orchard Street should

June 13, 2013 Page 8 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies be considered the highest priority location due the high overall crash rate and the fact that approximately one- third of all crashes outside of signalized intersections occurred at driveways. When/How: Non-traversable medians would be constructed entirely within the right-of-way. Therefore, ACHD could construct them at any time. Typical construction costs could be around $60,000 per half-mile (assumes a combination of wider and narrower medians to accommodate left turn lanes). However, there are several critical issues that must be considered and addressed prior to construction.

• Accessibility: While limiting turning movements by constructing non-traversable medians is very effective at reducing crashes, a balance should be sought between safety improvement and maintaining accessibility to businesses and neighborhoods along the corridor. The construction of full non-traversable medians between signalized intersections would create a significant amount of out of direction travel and would force many U- turning movements to the traffic signals, which would worsen congestion. Therefore, directional openings in the non-traversable median allowing left turns and U-turns to be made from Fairview Avenue should be provided as needed where there are access and circulation benefits. On average, the traffic signals in the corridor are spaced approximately one-half mile apart. Therefore, a typical segment of Fairview Avenue may be able to accommodate up to two directional openings per direction of travel between signals. This means that most customers would have to travel less than 1,000 feet out of direction to reach a business. According to the 2009 National Household Trip Survey, this would add about 3 percent to the average shopping trip length.4 The location of directional openings should align with high-use driveways or intersections where space allows. Creating U-turn movements are often thought to be less safe than just allowing left turns from a TWLTL. However, research has shown that replacing direct left turn movements from driveways with right turns followed by U-turns eliminates many potential conflicts and can reduce crashes by 20 percent.5 Finally, where U-turns are allowed, they should be designed to accommodate large vehicles (e.g., delivery trucks). If the existing roadway isn’t wide enough, limited areas of shoulder widening can often be constructed.

• Visibility: Consideration should be given to applying paint and/or reflective markers to non-traversable medians to improve visibility at night and during inclement weather.

• Emergency Vehicle Access: Non-traversable medians should be constructed with mountable curbing so emergency service vehicles can pass over the top as needed to respond to incidents.

• Widening Fairview Avenue to Six Lanes in the Future: If Fairview Avenue is widened to six lanes (three travel lanes in each direction) in the future, the greater crossing distance for left turn movements into

June 13, 2013 Page 9 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

and out of driveways could become hazardous. This may necessitate the construction of non-traversable medians.

• Business Impacts: The primary concern raised with any non-traversable median in a commecial area is the potential for loss of business if customers can not make direct turns into and out of driveways. This issue has been studied in many areas around the country were non-traversable medians have been installed. However, attributing the role non-traversable medians have played in business activity is difficult because there are many other factors that may have a greater affect on the success of businesses, such as:6 o the experience of management, o how well customers are served, o the quality of the product or service provided, o adequate financing and investment, o well-trained employees, o the level and nature of competition, o and keeping costs competitive. The way in which changes in access could affect a business also depends on the type of business – drive- by or destination. "Drive-by businesses" are those that customers frequent more on impulse or while driving by, such as convenience stores, gas stations, or fast food restaurants. "Destination businesses" are businesses that customers plan to visit in advance of the trip. Examples include electronics stores, most offices, major retailers, insurance agencies, sit-down restaurants, etc. Customers of drive-by businesses generally expect to get in and out easily and may be less tolerant of out of direction travel. Visibility, signage, and convenient access are all important for drive-by- businesses. These businesses tend to be more affected by the construction of non-traversable medians. However, a perception of heavy congestion or unsafe conditions can have a similar effect on a customer’s choice to visit a drive-by business even where full access is provided. Where non-traversable medians are installed, close proximity to median openings is important. Customers of destination businesses typically plan their trips in advance. Convenience of access is generally of less importance than avoiding congested or unsafe corridors that may actually intimidate them from making the trip. Most customers will have driven several miles to their destination, so a little out of direction travel has a negligable effect on the length of their trip. These businesses are often unaffected by the construction of non-traversable medians and may even benefit by an increased market area where the medians improve safety and congestion, making the trip more desirable to a broader customer base. There have been a number of documented case studies assessing the economic impacts of access management applications, and specifically the construction of non-traversable medians, in states such as Texas, Florida, Minnesota, Iowa, Georgia, Kansas, and Utah. In most cases, it has been found that a majority of businesses do well or better than before the non-traversable median was constructed. Key findings inlcude: o Findings from studies in Baytown, Pleasantville, and San Antonio, Texas as well as Atlanta, Georgia confirm that “destination businesses” do not typically experience negative impacts

June 13, 2013 Page 10 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

from non-traversable median installation. However, “drive-by businesses” can be significantly impacted when not located near a median opening.7 o More than 70 percent of the businesses impacted by a project in Florida involving several median opening closures reported no change in property value, while 13 percent reported some increase in value.8 o A 2005 study of commercial property values along a major access management project in Minnesota found that property values depend more on the strength of the local economy and the general location of the property in the metropolitan area; changes in access seemed to have little or no effect on the value of parcels.9 o Business customers surveyed about access management projects in Iowa, Texas and Florida overwhelmingly supported the projects because their drive became quicker, easier and safer.10 A study aimed at developing a methodology for assessing the ecomonic impacts of non-traversable median installations conducted before and after surveys of a dozen corridors in Texas and provided the following key findngs:11 o When asked to rank order the factors that affect customers endorsing their businesses, business owners generally ranked accessibility to store fourth or lower below some combination of customer service, product quality, and product price. According to business owners, the most important elements used by customers to determine what businesses they will endorse are factors that may be controlled by the business owners themselves to some extent. o In surveys of customers at five selected businesses along the Texas Avenue corridor in College Station, the research team found that customers ranked accessibility to store with lower or equal value to the business owners. o A majority of customers indicated that while the non-traversable median made access more difficult, their level of customer satisfaction was better or remained about the same for the five businesses where customer surveys were performed. o There was almost always an increase in the number of total employees along several of the corridors. Those corridors that did experience a decrease in the number of employees experienced a decrease for only one year and not over consecutive years. This decrease often did not coincide with the construction years along the corridor. o Property values were indicated as increasing 6.7 percent after the non-traversable median installation by those business owners present before, during, and after the non-traversable median installation o The construction phase appears to have the most detrimental impacts on businesses. Suggestions to alleviate these impacts include: 1) ensuring adequate and highly visible access to businesses during construction, 2) reducing construction time, and 3) performing the construction in smaller roadway segments (phases) when possible. Another study also looking at the economic impact of non-traversable medians through three case studies in Utah provided additional findings:12 o For all three corridors where non-traversable medians were constructed, there was an increase in corridor-area retail sales and sales per square foot. Businesses in each corridor also performed as well as or better than the control corridors, study corridor zip codes, and county-wide areas. While the corridor as a whole experienced economic improvement, it was not shared by all businesses.

June 13, 2013 Page 11 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

o Analysis showed that in every case there was no evidence that the installation of a non- traversable median had a negative impact on retail sales. o When surveyed, business owners in corridors where non-traversable medians were installed had more negative perceptions of the impacts related to ease of deliveries, business access, sales, and number of customers before and after the project than those in corridors where non-traversable medians were not installed. However, their perceptions of improved traffic congestion and crashes were neutral or more positive. o The comparison of sales data to business owner survey results showed that perception (of individual businesses) often did not reflect reality (of the corridor as a whole). On study corridors, business owners reported neutral to negative perceptions of sales impacts, however, sales tax data shows an overall increase of 32 percent on the corridor. o Likewise, survey respondants reported that the expected safety benefits of the non- traversable median installation were not realized, despite crash data showing a 51 percent reduction in crashes. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☒ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

June 13, 2013 Page 12 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

B. INTERSECTION OPERATION AND SAFETY STRATEGIES

B1. Update Coordinated East-West Signal Timing What: Outdated coordinated signal timings limit the capacity of the roadway, resulting in unnecessary congestion, increased delay, and longer travel times. Signal timing is a process to allocate “green time” to specific movements (motor-vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles) at signalized intersections with the goal of optimizing the operation of the traffic signal. Signal coordination is a process to synchronize the signal timings of multiple intersections along a corridor to allow for a platoon of vehicles to travel together through the intersections with minimal or no stopping. The goal of signal coordination is to have multiple traffic signals operate as a group to minimize the travel time and delay of vehicles traveling the corridor. Why: Optimizing the signal timing throughout the Fairview Avenue corridor could reduce vehicle delay and travel times, while potentially improving intersection safety at low cost. Improved signal timing and coordination could also reduce vehicle stops, which could lessen rear-end collision frequency – one of the primary problems noted for the corridor. Operational analysis indicates that preliminary modifications to the existing signal timings at intersections along Fairview Avenue would result in slightly improved motor vehicle operations with reductions in average signal delay of 20 to 25 percent.iv However, in improving east-west travel, delays on some north-south routes increase. Therefore, a broader discussion of route priority at different times of the day is needed. Furthermore, the actual effectiveness of signal timing improvements on corridor throughput will be limited if many disruptions to smooth vehicle progression are present, such as frequent driveways and unsignalized intersections. Where: Signal timing improvements can be implemented along most of the Fairview Avenue corridor. Select north-south routes across Fairview Avenue have been recently retimed (Eagle Road in 2013; Curtis Road and Orchard Street in 2011), but there have not been recent updates to east-west coordinated signal timing. Currently, north-south coordinated systems exist along Curtis Road, Orchard Street, Eagle Road and Meridian Road. It may not be possible to modify the timing at these intersections to create better east-west coordination. Therefore, improving east-west coordination may need to occur using multiple coordinated systems in between the existing north-south systems. Considering the remaining opportunities, the 4 ½-mile east-west corridor between Records Way and Liberty Street should be a high priority.

iv Based on Synchro 8 Analysis with coordinated systems from Lakes Place to Records Way and from Cloverdale Road to Curtis Road.

June 13, 2013 Page 13 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

When/How: Can be done at low cost and more quickly than most other improvements that require new equipment and/or construction. Costs may range from $50,000 to $75,000 with implementation possible in under six months. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

B2. Adaptive Signal Timing What: In contrast to traditional coordinated signal timing plans, which are predetermined timing plans based generally on average conditions, adaptive signal timing systems can change in real time in response to varying traffic conditions that could result from many factors such as seasonal fluctuations, holiday peak conditions, detoured traffic, special events, lane closures, collisions, and many other factors. Adaptive signal timing systems are more flexible to varying traffic conditions throughout an hour, day, or year. Why: The installation of adaptive signal timing could better manage traffic flow during varying traffic conditions that don’t fit average “time of day” timing plans, such as when crashes occur that block lanes and unexpectedly restrict traffic flow. Studies have reported the following benefits of adaptive signal control systems:13 • Improved travel times by 9 to 19 percent. • Increased average speed by 7 to 22 percent. • Improved intersection level of service (LOS). • Reduced fuel consumptions by 2 to 7 percent. • Reduced pollution emissions by up to 17 percent. • Benefit-cost ratios ranging from 1.58 to 6.10. However, as previously noted, the actual effectiveness of signal timing improvements on corridor throughput will be limited if many disruptions to smooth vehicle progression are present, such as frequent driveways and unsignalized intersections. Where: Adaptive signal timing cannot be coordinated with current north-south timing plans. However, separate segments of signals in the east and west halves of the Fairview Avenue corridor could be established (as described above under Strategy A1). When/How: ACHD is currently in the process of procuring an adaptive signal system for signals along Eagle Road, State Street, Chinden Boulevard, and Glenwood Street, and could consider expanding the system to the signals along Fairview Avenue. The costs associated with adaptive signal timing are higher than those for typical signal timing improvements. Primary cost components include controller equipment and software, engineering labor, and construction labor. The estimated cost of implementing adaptive signal control varies by the type of system and existing infrastructure, and ranges from $22,000 to $82,000 per intersection.14

June 13, 2013 Page 14 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

B3. Red Light Running Photo Enforcement What: Red light cameras are an effective technique to reduce red light running. While red light cameras reduce the number of angle crashes at intersections, they often increase the number of rear-end crashes. However, red light cameras are effective at reducing the severity of collisions as angle crashes are typically more severe than rear-end crashes.

Why: Red light running cameras reduce intersection collision severity and frequency of angle crashes. It has been proven that their use can reduce angle and fatal red light running collisions by 25 percent and 24 percent, respectively.15 This could potentially save up to $132,000 per year to the public traveling on Fairview Avenue. Photo enforcement cameras will also help reduce the frequent red light running that has been observed in the corridor. The addition of photo enforcement cameras to traffic signals has been proven to be effective at reducing unintentional red light running at urban signalized intersections by 86 percent16. Where: Intersections with a high rate of crashes where records indicate drivers most often fail to obey the signal. Using these criteria, the high priority locations would be the intersections on Fairview Avenue with Cole Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street. When/How: This would be a long-range strategy as it requires laws allowing installation, operation, and administrative support to process citations. Currently, there are no laws or programs in Idaho that permit the operation of red light running cameras. Statewide or local legislation would have to be passed in order to approve the use of these devices. Currently, 21 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted laws permitting some form of red light camera use. Nine states prohibit their use, and 20 states have no state law concerning red light camera enforcement.v Each red light running photo enforcement camera’s installation and annual operations cost is usually picked up by the vendor as stipulated in the vendor contract. The cost incurred by the agency could be approximately $1,750/monitored lane/month.vi

v Governors Highway Safety Association, “Speed and Red Light Camera Laws”, June 2013, accessed online at http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/auto_enforce.html vi City of Beaverton RLR Program (Oregon)

June 13, 2013 Page 15 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

B4. Red Light Extensions What: All-red clearance intervals can be briefly extended when vehicles are detected entering the intersection during the onset of a red light, potentially avoiding a collision. Why: Crashes at intersection account for about 40 percent of all crashes along Fairview Avenue. Angle crashes are typically the most severe of intersection related crashes with red light running being a common cause. Approximately nine percent of all intersection crashes on Fairview Avenue are angle crashes. A red extension strategy can potentially reduce angle crashes by 36 percent17, resulting in a savings to the public of approximately $290,000 per year. Where: Intersections with a high rate of crashes where records indicate drivers most often fail to obey the signal. Using these criteria, the high priority locations would be the intersections on Fairview Avenue with Cole Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street. When/How: In order to implement a red light extension strategy, additional vehicle detection is typically required. One form of implementation is to add vehicle detection, such as inductive loops, in each lane of travel downstream from a crosswalk (within an intersection but not within a conflicting lane of travel). Intersections would need to be assessed to determine if the local signal controller can support a red extension implementation. If necessary, the local controller may need to be upgraded. The cost to implement red light extensions including additional vehicle detection and upgrading a controller is $25,000 to $35,000 per intersection. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

B5. Balancing Lane Utilization What: In some locations the use of the travel lanes can be unbalanced, resulting in unused capacity. Lane configuration modifications can often result in more balanced lane utilization for each movement. Traffic control devices such as variable lane-use signs, signing, and striping are also useful tools for modifying the lane configuration at desired locations.

June 13, 2013 Page 16 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

Why: There are locations along Fairview Avenue where the use of the travel lanes for a specific movement is very unbalanced. This leads to long vehicle queues at many signalized intersections that block access to driveways and turn lanes and spill back to other intersections, thereby reducing the effective capacity of the system. Where: Locations where there is a downstream lane reduction, or where downstream demand for one lane is significantly greater than the other lanes. One example is Fairview Avenue (eastbound) at Curtis Road. Traffic counts at this location indicate that 60 to 70 percent of the eastbound traffic on Fairview Avenue during the peak periods is destined for the I-184 on-ramp east of Curtis Road. As a result, there is heavy right lane overloading on the eastbound approach on Fairview Avenue at Curtis Road. Vehicle queues during the peak periods have been observed to be thousands of feet long. Another example is Fairview Avenue at Eagle Road where the westbound right-most through lane drops shortly after Eagle Road. It was observed in the field that very few vehicles use the right-most through lane. When/How: Most lane configuration modifications can be done within ACHD right-of-way and are relatively low cost improvements. Exhibit A (attached) illustrates a potential solution to mitigate the heavy right lane overloading on the eastbound approach at Curtis Road. The lane configuration shown provides for an exit only lane to I-184 (eastbound towards City Center) and only one through lane is maintained on eastbound Fairview Avenue towards Orchard Street. This would keep the vehicles heading towards the Orchard Street intersection on the left lane, thereby reducing the number of vehicles in the right lane. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

B6. Improved Street Lighting What: Upgrading poor or installing new street lighting can significantly improve nighttime safety. With improved street lighting, motorists are better able to see conflicting pedestrians/bicyclists and read regulatory signs. Improved street lighting also helps alert motorists of downstream driveways and intersections, especially unsignalized intersections. Why: Improved street lighting increases safety for all modes of transportation. Research shows that improved street lighting creates a 27 percent reduction in nighttime collisions resulting in injuries and a 32 percent reduction in nighttime property damage

June 13, 2013 Page 17 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies only collisions.18 Considering the history of nighttime crashes along Fairview Avenue where no lighting was present, the addition of more lighting could result in a savings to the public of approximately $75,000 annually from avoided collisions. Where: Street lighting improvement should take place on segments of roadway and intersections that are unlit or poorly lit, especially those with a history of nighttime crashes. Many intersections along Fairview Avenue experience nighttime crashes, but the intersection at Locust Grove Road was noted as having a relatively high number of them. Identification of areas needing lighting improvements should be verified by lighting analysis. When/How: Improvements can typically be done within ACHD right-of-way. They should be preceded by a corridor wide lighting analysis to measure the degree of potential improvement. The costs of installing new lighting could be shared between ACHD and the cities of Boise and Meridian and would cost approximately $25,000-$50,000 per intersection or $630,000 per mile. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☒ ☒ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

B7. Change of Protected-Permissive Left-Turn Phasing to Protected Only What: While protective-permissive phasing generally provides more capacity than protected only phasing, the potential for left-turn crashes is greater. For intersections where gaps are few for permitted left-turns, the number of opposing lanes is greater than three, and/or the number of left-turn collisions is high, it is recommended to investigate removing the permissive phasing. Why: Reduces left-turn collisions by as much as 48 percent.19 There are eight intersections throughout the corridor yielding 58 collisions involving a left-turning movement. By changing from protected- permissive left-turn phasing to protected only, the number of collisions could be cut in half, saving the public a potential of $360,000 per year in damages. Where: Signalized intersections using protected-permissive left turn phasing that also experience a high frequency of left turn collisions for those movements. This includes the intersections of Fairview Avenue at Orchard Street, Locust Grove Road, and Liberty Street. When/How: Improvements are low cost ($15,000-$25,000 per intersection) and can be implemented quickly by ACHD. Some applications of this strategy may increase motor vehicle delay. ACHD is currently in the process of installing flashing yellow arrows allowing for permissive left turns where feasible with the goal to increase mobility. Therefore, further investigation should be conducted at any candidate location for the use of protected only left turn phasing to determine the trade-offs between improved safety and improved mobility. An option could be to limit protected only left turn phasing during specific times of the day when the left turn crash potential is the greatest.

June 13, 2013 Page 18 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

B8. Installation of Reflectorized Borders on Signal Backplates What: Backplates are commonly applied to traffic signal heads to improve the visibility of the illuminated face by introducing a contrasting background. To further improve visibility, backplates can be framed with a reflective border. Adding reflective borders to existing signal backplates involves a simple application of 3-inch yellow strips of reflective sheeting. Why: Fairview Avenue has the second most “high-crash” intersections in Ada County and approximately 40 percent of all corridor crashes occur at traffic signals. Frequent red light running has been observed in the corridor. The addition of reflectorized backplates to traffic signals has been Photo: safety.fhwa.dot.gov proven to be effective at reducing unintentional red light running and reducing the number of right angle crashes at urban signalized intersections by up to 20 percent.20 If applied to all signalized intersections in the corridor, this could result in a potential savings of $89,000 to the public. Where: The high-crash intersections on Fairview Avenue at Eagle Road, Cole Road, Curtis Road, and Orchard Street should be high-priority locations. The intersection at Locust Grove Road should also be included due to the higher occurrence of nighttime crashes. However, considering the low cost of this strategy, it is recommended that it be applied to all signalized intersections in the corridor. When/How: All existing traffic signals in the corridor have backplates, but none have reflective borders. This is a very low-cost strategy (approximately $1,500 per intersection) that can be implemented any time by ACHD maintenance staff. In terms of color and size, reflective borders must be consistent with the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

June 13, 2013 Page 19 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

C. TRANSIT STRATEGIES

C1. Transit Signal Priority What: Transit Signal Priority (TSP) is a traffic signal operations strategy that helps to minimize bus delay at signalized intersections. TSP systems use sensors to detect approaching transit vehicles and alter signal timings to improve transit performance by minimizing bus delay and number of stops. The signal timing adjustments for buses typically consist of extra green time for the bus movement either at the beginning of the phase (early green) or at the end of the phase ”green extension.” Why: TSP is a cost-effective strategy that would help support and enhance the quality of transit services along the Fairview Avenue corridor by improving the transit travel times and service reliability, thereby increasing the attractiveness of transit as an alternative to motor vehicle travel. Studies21 report the following benefits of deploying TSP:

• Increases transit ridership by up to 25 percent depending on the route • Improves the average transit running time by 15 to 25 percent

Where: TSP can be implemented at all signalized intersections along Fairview Avenue (for both east-west and north-south approaches) where transit routes exist (east of Five Mile Road), and can be extended in the future to accommodate expanded service. When/How: The general steps in providing TSP include bus detection and traffic control actions to grant priority based on defined conditions. TSP can be deployed at various levels – at isolated intersections, along an entire corridor, or on a system-wide basis by integrating with the regional intelligent transportation systems. The stakeholders would include, at a minimum, representatives from ACHD and VRT. The capital costs to implement TSP range from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection. The key roadside cost components for TSP include software and control equipment. VRT is in the process of installing TSP equipment on its fixed route fleet. Their first TSP project is planned for State Street and they plan to develop a strategy for deploying TSP throughout the region based on the outcome of the State Street project.

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

June 13, 2013 Page 20 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

C2. Bus Pullouts What: Bus pullouts are widened areas of the roadway shoulder that allow transit vehicles to pick up and drop off passengers outside the traveled way and are generally provided on high-volume and/or high-speed roadways. They are frequently constructed at bus stops with a high number of passenger boardings such as large shopping centers, office buildings, and factories. Why: By removing stopped buses from travel lanes, traffic delays are considerably reduced by removing an obstruction from the traveled way. They also help better define bus stop locations, can be used for bus layovers, and create a more relaxed environment for loading and unloading. Disadvantages of bus pullouts can include difficulty of reentering traffic leading to transit delays and need for additional right-of-way. Where: Bus stops, especially if located near an intersection. Currently, there are eight bus stops along Fairview Avenue in the study area. Six of them are located in close proximity to signalized intersections (one per direction at Cole, Curtis and Orchard) and have potential for bus pullouts. When/How: Coordination with VRT is recommended to determine if such improvements are desired. The construction of bus pullouts may require roadway widening, which may require acquisition of additional right- of-way. Ease and cost of implementation largely depends on availability of right-of-way. The cost of constructing a bus pullout within the right-of-way is approximately $120,000. It is recommended that bus pullouts should generally be placed on the far-side of signalized intersections so that the signal can create gaps in traffic and allow buses to easily reenter the traffic stream. Placing bus-stops on the far side also minimizes conflicts between buses and right turning vehicles traveling in the same direction. It is VRT’s policy to place bus pullouts on the far side of intersections, unless site conditions or other factors prevent the installation of a far side pullout. Some bus stops on Fairview Avenue would have to be repositioned to the far-side of the intersections to better accommodate bus pullouts. However, this would move pedestrians using the bus farther from the signalized crossing. The use of pullouts can also make it more difficult for buses to reenter traffic, which impacts operation times and reliability for users. Passing and enforcing a yield-to-bus law may be considered to supplement this strategy.

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

June 13, 2013 Page 21 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

D. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE STRATEGIES

D1. Complete Bike Lane Gaps What: Bike lanes are lanes that have been marked on the road for exclusive bicycle use (bicycle rider decal on pavement). Bike lanes remove bicyclists from the motor vehicle space and significantly improve cyclist safety. Why: Currently, the majority of Fairview Avenue does not provide bike lanes or clearly defined shoulders for bicyclists. Bicycle facilities are an integral part of providing a balanced multimodal transportation corridor. Filling bike lane gaps improves connectivity and would provide safe access to existing and future transit stops for cyclists. Research indicates that major streets with bike lanes present about a 50 percent lower risk of injury to cyclists than major streets without bike lanes.22 Where: Segments along Fairview Avenue with bike lane or shoulder gaps (most areas along Fairview Avenue could be improved). Public outreach indicated that cyclists would benefit from bike lanes along the entire length of the corridor. The Draft West Bench Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan recommends the construction of bike lanes on Fairview Avenue from Orchard Street to Cloverdale Road. When/How: ACHD policy requires at a minimum a safety shoulder on principal arterials. The ease and cost of implementation of bike lanes or shoulders varies with availability of right-of-way and the need to widen the road to add bike lanes or shoulders. Bike lanes within the right-of-way are relatively easy to install, simply by adding the necessary signs and pavement markings. The approximate costs of installing bike lanes are summarized below:

• Right-of-way available, road-widening not needed: $19,000 per mile per direction • Right-of-way available, road-widening needed: $225,000 per mile per direction • Right-of-way not available: $595,000 per mile per direction ACHD’s Livable Street Design Guide recommends a minimum width of five feet for bike lanes. However, considering the travel speeds and traffic volumes, it is recommended that bike lanes or shoulders be at least six feet wide.

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

June 13, 2013 Page 22 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

D2. Complete Sidewalk Gaps What: Sidewalks remove pedestrians from the motor vehicle space. Good sidewalks are continuous, accessible to everyone, provide adequate travel width and feel safe. Why: Gaps in the sidewalk system force pedestrians to walk over uneven or muddy surfaces. Many such gaps are not passable by pedestrians with disabilities. As a result, some pedestrians choose to travel along the side of the roadway or are deterred from walking at all. Filling sidewalk gaps improves the connectivity of the pedestrian network and provides safe access to existing and future transit stops. Where: There are sidewalk gaps on Fairview Avenue at several locations throughout its length. Public outreach has identified several locations where these gaps cause inconvenience and safety issues to pedestrians. In addition, there are several locations along the corridor that have narrow or undefined sidewalks that push pedestrians in to traffic. Research indicates that the likelihood of a site with a paved sidewalk being a crash site for “walking along roadway” pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes is 88 percent lower than a site without a sidewalk.23 The following projects in the Boise area have been identified as recommended pedestrian projects in the Draft West Bench Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. Location Type Fairview Ave, Cloverdale Rd/Shamrock St Sidewalks (both sides) Fairview Ave, Curtis Rd/Orchard St Sidewalks (south side) Fairview Ave, Five Mile Rd/Mitchell St Sidewalks (south side) Fairview Ave, Maple Grove Rd/Milwaukee St Sidewalks (both sides)

Fairview Ave, Mitchell St/Maple Grove Rd Sidewalks (south side) Fairview Ave, Shamrock St/Five-Mile Rd Sidewalks (both sides) Fairview Ave, Venture St/Cloverdale Rd Sidewalks (both sides)

In Meridian, there are several sidewalk gaps along Fairview Avenue, including missing sidewalks on both sides of the street and sidewalks switching inconsistently from one side of the street to another. Major sidewalk gaps along Fairview Avenue in Meridian include:

• Fairview Avenue between Hickory Avenue and Eagle Road (north side) • Fairview Avenue between Dixie Lane and Hickory Avenue (both sides) • Fairview Avenue between Lakes Place and Stonehenge Way (south side)

June 13, 2013 Page 23 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

When/How: Ease of Implementation varies with availability of right-of-way to add sidewalks and other corridor conditions. Construction of sidewalks often impacts driveways, which may lead to additional coordination needs with business/property owners. Some sidewalk gaps can be easily filled, often as part of property development. The construction of curb and sidewalk also affects roadway drainage and can impact the stormwater system, which can significantly increase construction costs in some areas. ACHD Policy requires concrete sidewalks at least five-feet wide on both sides of all arterial streets. It also requires a parkway strip at least 6-feet wide between the back-of-curb and street edge of the sidewalk to provide increased safety and protection of pedestrians. Sidewalks constructed next to the back-of-curb shall be a minimum of 7-feet wide. Within the right-of-way, sidewalks would cost approximately in the range of $270,000 to $370,000 per mile of roadway per direction. If right-of-way needs to be acquired, sidewalks would cost approximately in the range of $640,000 to $740,000 per mile per direction. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

D3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Enhancements What: Pedestrian and bicycle crossing enhancements provide crossing opportunities at intersections and midblock locations. Intersection crossing enhancements include:

 Warning signs for pedestrian crossings  Elimination of the permissive phase for protected-permissive

operation intersections when the pedestrian phase is active  Improved illumination  Modified pedestrian phasing, such as providing a leading pedestrian interval (i.e., providing the “WALK” signal prior to giving green lights to conflicting vehicle movements) Mid-block crossing enhancements include:

 High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacons  Pedestrian traffic signals  Street lighting  Refuge medians  Warning signs and striping

A general examination of motor vehicle and pedestrian volumes and speeds, crossing distances along different locations on the corridor, and comparison to the criteria for considering pedestrian enhancements suggest that crossing treatments that show a red signal indication to the motorist are best suited for Fairview Avenue. The red signal

June 13, 2013 Page 24 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies devices have a high compliance rate and include high-intensity activated crosswalks (HAWK) signal beacons and pedestrian traffic signals. High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK): A pedestrian hybrid beacon (commonly referred to as a HAWK) uses a Yellow-Red lens configuration (two red lens on top and a yellow lens on bottom) to provide a signalized mid-block pedestrian crossing. This device is designed to require traffic to stop for the pedestrian walk interval (steady red) and to allow traffic movement during the flashing “don’t walk” stage of the pedestrian crossing (flashing red). The pedestrian hybrid beacon also provides flashing yellow and solid yellow warning indication to traffic that indicates the upcoming “walk” stage/steady red. Pedestrian Traffic Signal: A pedestrian traffic signal is a traffic signal used to control traffic at mid-block crosswalks or locations with high pedestrian volumes that do not warrant a full traffic signal. Signals remain “resting” in green until a pedestrian actuates a push button on either side of the crossing. These devices provide the pedestrian an opportunity to cross at a controlled crosswalk during a steady red pedestrian walk interval where gaps in vehicle traffic may be insufficient for pedestrians to cross. Why: Currently, the eighteen signalized locations provide the only crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists along Fairview Avenue. On average, the signalized intersections are spaced about one half mile apart making for infrequent crossing opportunities. This encourages unprotected mid-block crossings and use of the continuous two-way left turn lane as a refuge, and acts as a barrier by discouraging crossings altogether. Under future year conditions, Fairview Avenue is expected to experience significant increases in motor vehicle traffic volume (and possibly road widening) that will reduce the ability for pedestrians to safely cross.

Benefits could include: • Increases pedestrian safety and provide more accessible north-south travel route options. • Provides safe access to existing and future transit stops. • HAWK signals have proven to help reduce all crashes by 29 percent and pedestrian crashes by 69 percent at crossing locations.24

Where: Locations with high pedestrian and bicycle activity and locations close to transit stops and shopping areas are ideal locations for potential crossing enhancements. The following projects have been identified as recommended pedestrian crossing improvements in the Draft West Bench Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan.

Location Type Fairview Ave/Allumbaugh St Enhanced pedestrian crossing Fairview Ave/Eldorado St Install ADA Ramps

Fairview Ave/Shamrock Ave Enhanced bike/pedestrian crossing

Allumbaugh Street is being considered a high priority location for at least one new crossing due to the significant distance between existing crossing opportunities and the nature of the location. This area of West Bench has

June 13, 2013 Page 25 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies relatively high population densities and low car ownership, and Allumbaugh connects well with transit stops on Fairview Avenue. When/How: Pedestrian and bicycle crossings would be installed within ACHD right-of-way. The cost of these improvements varies by type of treatment. The estimated cost of installing a HAWK crossing or a pedestrian traffic signal is $150,000 per crossing. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒

D4. Bike Lane Enhancements What: Bike lane enhancements include painted bicycle lanes and widened bicycle lanes. Painted bicycle lanes help remind motorists to check for bicyclists when crossing the bicycle lane. It is often the case that bicycle lanes are designed to the minimum required width. Widening bicycle lanes along higher speed facilities (e.g., 5-foot bike lanes with 3-foot painted buffers where the speed limit is greater than 35 mph) increases bicyclist comfort and safety. Why: Making bike lane enhancements increases bicycle safety and comfort. Colored bike lanes at signalized intersections have been proven to help reduce collisions between right turning vehicles and bicycles by up to 39 percent.25 This could potentially reduce one to two vehicle/bicycle collisions per year at signalized intersections, saving the public an estimated $73,000 per year in damages. Where: Wider bike lanes could be installed where speeds are greater than 35 mph. Painted bike lanes could be considered where conflicts between right turning vehicles and bikes have repeatedly occurred such as the intersections of Fairview Avenue at Curtis Road, Linder Road, Locust Grove Road, and Meridian Road. When/How: This may be a long-range countermeasure as it requires the construction of bike lanes (see strategy D1). However, once bike lanes are constructed, painting them at the designated intersections is relatively inexpensive costing approximately $9 per linear foot for a six-foot wide bike lane. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

June 13, 2013 Page 26 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

E. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) STRATEGIES

E1. Traveler Information What: Traveler information can come in many forms including dynamic message signs, highway advisory radio, websites, and smartphone applications. Traveler information can notify drivers of adverse weather conditions, travel times to destinations, incidents, construction activities, and other pertinent information. Why: Today’s society has become accustomed to having up-to-date information at their fingertips. Providing traveler information using a variety of technologies (whether publicly or privately managed) allows travelers to make informed decisions about trip departure times, routes, and travel mode. Traveler information systems can alert travelers of incidents, special events, and congestion, which may avoid secondary crashes and help divert traffic around the congested location.

Benefits could include: • Reduces incident-related delays by up to 22 percent26 • Reduces incident-related traffic queues by up to 50 percent27 • Increases safety by improving drivers’ situational awareness28 • Potential to improve travel time reliability • Provides information for travelers to make informed choices • Increases traveler satisfaction with the transportation network

Where: Images from traffic monitoring cameras are already provided for Fairview Avenue on ACHD’s traveler information website and ITD currently broadcasts traveler information in the area using highway advisory radio. Traveler information on Fairview Avenue could be further advanced by developing a congestion flow map of the entire corridor, providing arterial travel times for the entire corridor, and installing dynamic message signs at key decision points (Meridian Road, Eagle Road, Milwaukee Street, Curtis Street, and Orchard Street) or where warnings of congestion or incidents ahead could reduce rear-end collisions. When/How: For a congestion flow map, ACHD will need to install detection along the corridor to measure travel speeds. The detector data could then be fed to ACHD’s website, which already has a system in place for congestion flow mapping for the interstate system and Eagle Road. As part of the Treasure Valley ITS Plan currently being updated, ACHD has identified a year 2017 project to develop an arterial travel time information system and then do a pilot implementation. ACHD is considering up to 10 corridors for the pilot implementation and this will likely include Fairview Avenue. Currently, the project has been assigned $200,000 for the pilot implementation.

June 13, 2013 Page 27 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

Dynamic message signs can be installed and operated in ACHD right-of-way at any time. The ACHD Traffic Management Center already has software in place for managing and posting messages to dynamic message signs. Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

E2. Automated Speed Enforcement What: Radar equipment detects vehicles that are exceeding a threshold speed above the speed limit and then triggers a camera that is linked to the radar equipment. A photograph is taken of the rear of the vehicle. The date, time, speed, location, and license plate number are recorded. Based on the license plate number, a citation is mailed to the vehicle's registered owner.

Why: Photo radar is a proven tool in slowing drivers and reducing collisions. Public opinion surveys in the U.S. in 2001 found that approximately 60 to 80 percent of drivers approve the use of automated enforcement. Photo: peds.org Benefits could include: • Potential for a reduction in all speeding-related crashes by 17 to 31 percent and speeding-related fatal and serious injury crashes by up to 56 percent29 (the number of speeding-related crashes on Fairview Avenue is unknown) • Reduced excessive speeding • Increased compliance without increasing man hours needed for law enforcement

Where: Roadway segments with a history of speeding or speeding-related crashes. Potential for significant benefits in any high-crash segment of Fairview Avenue. When/How: Automated photo enforcement requires legislation allowing installation, operation, and administrative support to process citations. Many agencies typically use a third party to operate and maintain enforcement systems since they do not have the resources in-house to support them. The cost components of automated speed enforcement include cameras, sensors and operational costs. Prior studies indicate that the annual cost of automated speed enforcement is approximately $27,000 per camera location. Some jurisdictions use revenue from citations to help cover the installation and ongoing operational costs.

June 13, 2013 Page 28 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

Primary Benefits Motor Vehicle Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Safety ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Mobility ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

June 13, 2013 Page 29 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

APPENDIX

Note on Estimation of Crash Reduction Benefits The potential reduction in crashes for each strategy was estimated based on information reported in published research studies. The potential dollar amount of savings was estimated based on the estimated unit crash costs published by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD).vii Table 1 below summarizes the cost estimates by severity as summarized in the ITD report.

Table1: Crash Cost Estimates by Severity Crash Type 2012 Cost Estimate Fatality $6,200,000 Injury A (Severe) $310,000 Injury B (Moderate) $86,000 Injury C (Minor) $57,000 Property Damage Only $6,600

vii Idaho Transportation Department, “Idaho Traffic Crashes 2011”, accessed online at http://itd.idaho.gov/ohs/2011Data/Analysis2011.pdf

June 13, 2013 Page 30 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

REFERENCES

1 Mauga, T. and Kaseko, M., "Modeling and Evaluating the Safety Impacts of Access Management (AM) Features in the Las Vegas Valley." Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., (2010)

Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse [quick search for “driveway density”] http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

2 Mauga, T. and Kaseko, M., "Modeling and Evaluating the Safety Impacts of Access Management (AM) Features in the Las Vegas Valley." Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., (2010)

3 Zegeer, C. V., Stewart, R., Huang, H., and Lagerwey, P., "Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines." FHWA-RD-01-075, McLean, Va., Federal Highway Administration, (2002)

4 Summary of Travel Trends, 2009 National Household Travel Survey, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.

5 Xu, L., "Right Turns Followed by U-Turns Versus Direct Left Turns: A Comparison of Safety Issues." ITE Journal, Vol. 71, No. 11, Washington, D.C., Institute of Transportation Engineers, (2001).

6 Holland, R., Planning Against a Business Failure, ADC Info #24, University of Tennessee, October 1998.

7 Wootan, C.V., H.G. Meuth, N.J. Rowan, and T.G. Williams. A Median Study in Baytown, Texas, Research Report 8-1, 8-3, 8- 21, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 1964.

Squires, C.A., and P.S. Parsonson. Accident Comparison of Raised Median and Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Median Treatments. Transportation Research Record, No. 1239, 1989, pp. 30-40.

8 Vargas, F.A. and Y. Guatam, Problem: Roadway Safety vs. Commercial Development Access, ITE, Compendium of Technical Papers, 1989.

9 Plazak, D. and H. Preston, Long-Term Impacts of Access Management on Business and Land Development along Minnesota Interstate-394, Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, CTRE - Iowa State University, 2005.

10 Iowa State University, Iowa Access Management Research and Awareness Project, CTRE, 1997.

11 Eisele, W. and Frawley, W., Assessment Of Economic Impacts At Selected Raised Median Installation Locations In Texas And Development Of Recommended Methodology For Economic Impacts Estimation, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, October 2000.

12 Riffkin, M., Allen, C., Baker, M., Richman, C., Dorwart, J., Raised Median Economic Impact Study, Prepared for Utah Department of Transportation Research Division, February 2013.

June 13, 2013 Page 31 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

13 Sprague, D. and Archambeau, J., “Adaptive Signal Timing Comparison between the InSync and QuicTrac Adaptive Signal Systems Installed in Colorado”, Colorado Department of Transportation, Greeley, CO (2012).

U.S. Department of Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Benefits Database http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/BenefitTerminators/AMS+Adaptive+Signal+Control

14 Sprague, D. and Archambeau, J., “Adaptive Signal Timing Comparison between the InSync and QuicTrac Adaptive Signal Systems Installed in Colorado”, Colorado Department of Transportation, Greeley, CO (2012).

15 Hu, W., McCartt, A.T., and Teoh, E. R. “Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Fatal Crashes in Large US Cities.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, VA, (2011).

Persaud, B., Council, F. M., Lyon, C., Eccles, K., and Griffith, M., "A Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras.", Transportation Research Record 1922, (2005) pp. 29-37.

Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse [quick search for “red light camera”] http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

16 Hu, Wen and McCartt, A.T. 2013. Effects of red light camera enforcement on red light violations in arlington county, virginia. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Arlington, VA

17 Olson, C., “Safety Effectiveness of Red Light Treatments for Red Light Running”, Portland State University, Portland, OR (2012).

18 Elvik, R. and Vaa, T., "Handbook of Road Safety Measures." Oxford, United Kingdom, Elsevier, (2004)

Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse [quick search for “illumination”] http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

19 Gan, A., Shen, J., and Rodriguez, A., "Update of Florida Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures to Improve the Development of District Safety Improvement Projects." Florida Department of Transportation, (2005)

Federal Highway Administration, “Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Intersection Crashes”, Intersection Safety Issue Briefs, Issue Brief 8, FHWA (2009)

20 Gan, A., Shen, J., and Rodriguez, A., "Update of Florida Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures to Improve the Development of District Safety Improvement Projects." Florida Department of Transportation, (2005)

Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse [quick search for “retroreflective backplate”] http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

21 Smith, H.R., B. Hemily, M. Ivanovic, and G. Fleming, “Transit Signal Priority: A Planning and Implementation Handbook”. U.S. Department of Transportation (2005)

22 Winters M, Babul S, Becker HJEH, Brubacher J, Chipman M, Cripton PA, Cusimano MD, Friedman SM, Harris MA, Hunte G, Monro M, Reynolds CCO, Shen H, Teschke K. Safe cycling: How do risk perceptions compare with observed risk? Canadian Journal of Public Health (2012)

June 13, 2013 Page 32 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Corridor Strategies

23 McMahon, P., Zegeer, C., Duncan, C., Knoblauch, R., Stewart, R., and Khattak, A., “An Analysis of Factors Contributing to ‘Walking Along Roadway’ Crashes: Research Study and Guidelines for Sidewalks and Walkways,” FHWA-RD-01-101, (2002)

24 Fitzpatrick, K. and Park, E.S. Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment, FHWA-HRT-10-042, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. (2010). Also published in: Fitzpatrick, K., E.S.Park, and S. Turner. "Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment". ITE Journal, Vol. 82, No. 4, Washington, D.C., (2012).

Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse [quick search for “hawk”] http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

25 Turner, S. A., Wood, G., Hughes, T., and Singh, R., "Safety Performance Functions for Bicycle Crashes in New Zealand and Australia." Presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., (2011).

Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse [quick search for “colored bicycle lanes”] http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

26 Shah, V. and K. Wunderlich. ”Detroit Freeway Corridor ITS Evaluation” FHWA, U.S.. Department of Transportation. July 2001. Trafik Stockholm (2004).

U.S. Department of Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Benefits Database http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/BenefitTerminators/TI+Pre-trip

27 I-95 Corridor Coalition – “Vehicle Probe Project. Agency Benefits (Regional) White Paper”. Retrieved November 7, 2012, from I-95 Corridor Coalition Project Database Highlights.(2012)

U.S. Department of Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Benefits Database http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/BenefitTerminators/TI+En-route

28 Nowakowski, C., Datta Gupta, S., Vizzini, D., Sengupta, R., Mannasseh, C., Spring, J., VanderWerf, J., and Sharafsaleh, A., “SafeTrip 21 Initiative: Networked Traveler Foresighted Driving Field Experiment Final Report”, California DOT (2011).

U.S. Department of Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Benefits Database http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/BenefitTerminators/TI+En-route

29 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Highway Safety Manual. Washington, DC, 2010.

Montella, A., Persuad, B., D’Apuzzo, M., Imbriani, L., "Safety Evaluation of an Automated Section Speed Enforcement System." Presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Paper No. 12-0226, Washington, D.C., (2012)

Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse [quick search for “speed enforcement”] http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

June 13, 2013 Page 33 of 33 Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Management Pedestrian and Corridor Strategies Evaluation Matrix Access Management Intersection Operation and Safety Transit Bicycle ITS

Signal Point Scale Timing Turn ‐ on

Access

1 ‐ Poor Effect ACHD

Left

Enhancements Signal

2 ‐ Slightly Negative Effect Intersections

Borders

3 ‐ Average/ No Effect Current West Enforcement near y

4 ‐ Good Effect Areas

to Unecessary Crossing

Onl Permissive East‐

of ‐ Gaps

5 ‐ Very Good Effect

Gaps Circulation

Photo Enforcement

Roads Medians

Lighting

Conflicts Timing Conflict Bicycle Utilization

Lane

Reflectorized Priority

otected Parcel Driveways

Number Speed of

and

Pr Protected

Lane Bike Sidewalk Street Lane

Running Extensions

Signal

Information Access to

of the Coordinated

Signal

Inter

Bike

Traversable Light Light ‐ Pullouts

Objectives Points Create Reduce Installation Backplates Transit Bus Complete Reconstruct Standards Remove Red Red Balancing Improved Change Complete Pedestrian Paint Frontage/Service Non Update Adaptive Phasing Traveler Automated GOAL 1 Improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicles, 1.A 4434443333344434334443 freight and transit Maintain/enhance motor vehicle/freight mobility and traffic 1.B 4434435533433334333353 flow Transportation: Provide a 1.C Maintain convenient access for emergency vehicles 3434434433434334333353 multimodal transportation corridor from Meridian to Boise to meet 1.D Maintain/enhance street connectivity 3333533333333333333333 existing and future safety and mobility needs for all users 1.E Complete pedestrian and bicycle systems 4344333333333333445433

1.F Support improved transit service 3333334433333343444443

AVERAGE GOAL 1 SCORE 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.7 3.8 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.1

GOAL 2

2.A Provide convenient access to businesses 3343233333333333333333

2.B Support freight movement throughout the corridor 4443434433433334333343

2.C Minimize impacts to private properties 2222233333333333323333 Social and Economic: Support the economic viability of the region 2.D Provide safe and efficient access to neighborhoods 3333443333333333334334 and business along Fairview Avenue; protect the livability and 2.E Avoid diversion of traffic through neighborhoods 3333233333333333333323 integrity of the residential areas; Enhance multimodal transportation to provide accessibility to 2.F 4334333333333333445433 provide cost‐effective projects that all members of the community Minimize disruption to the community resulting from align with reasonable funding 2.G 2332225555445542232244 expectations roadway construction Maximize the cost effectiveness of transportation system 2.H 5334455555555533555555 investments Identify improvements that can be funded in the near‐term 2.I 4444355433555532555553 or implemented in fundable phases AVERAGE GOAL 2 SCORE 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.8 3.3 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.1 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.4

GOAL 3 Community Planning: Be Provide consistency with adopted state, county, regional and 3.A 4443443333343333554433 consistent with the adopted long‐ local policies range goals and policies of the AVERAGE GOAL 3 SCORE4443443333343333554433 community and the region

AVERAGE OVERALL SCORE 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.1

Appendix A

Safety Analysis

Appendix

Critical Rate The critical crash rate described in the Highway Safety Manual (HSM)1 was used as a performance measure for screening the study intersections and segments to determine where safety conditions need to be investigated. With this method, the observed crash rate at each location is compared to a calculated critical crash rate that is unique to each location. Locations that exceed their respective critical rate are flagged for further review. The critical crash rate depends on the average crash rate at similar locations, traffic volume, and a statistical constant that represents a desired confidence level. The critical crash rate is calculated as follows:

• Calculate the crash rate for each intersection as crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV), and for each segment as crashes per million vehicle-miles travelled (MVMT). • Calculate a weighted average crash rate for intersections and segments separately. • Calculate a critical rate for each intersection and segment based on the weighted average crash rate, traffic volume, and a statistical constant representing the desired confidence level of the results. • Compare the crash rates to the critical crash rate for each intersection or segment. Intersections and segments with crash rates higher than the critical crash rate are flagged for further review.

The following tables summarize crash severity by intersection and segment.

1 Highway Safety Manual, Part B: Network Screening. Critical Crash Rate method. Table 1: Intersection Crashes

Intersection A Injury B Injury C Injury Property Grand Crash Critical Crash Crash Crash Damage Report Total Rate Rate Linder Rd 1 5 13 4 23 0.35 1.33 8th St 2 5 2 4 13 0.27 1.33 Meridian Rd 1 13 15 12 41 0.55 0.99 Main St 2 2 7 8 19 0.30 1.09 Lakes Pl 0 2 5 7 14 0.25 1.13 Locust Grove Rd 4 6 11 24 45 0.52 0.86 Hickory Way 2 2 10 13 27 0.46 0.97 Eagle Rd 5 8 43 70 126 0.97 0.74 Records Way 1 5 3 11 20 0.34 1.01 Cloverdale Rd 2 0 11 22 35 0.42 0.87 Five Mile Rd 1 5 15 19 40 0.47 0.90 Mitchell Rd 2 6 10 20 38 0.66 0.89 Maple Grove Rd 0 1 15 24 40 0.42 0.86 Milwaukee St 2 5 17 33 57 0.61 0.82 Cole Rd 4 10 33 48 95 1.01 0.77 Liberty St 1 2 11 14 28 0.47 0.95 Curtis Rd 1 7 26 55 89 0.82 0.76 Orchard St 4 9 12 23 48 0.96 0.87 Total 35 93 259 411 798

Table 2: Segment Crashes

Segment Segment Fatal A Injury B Injury C Injury Property Total Crash Critical Length Crash Crash Crash Crash Damage Report Rate Rate Linder - Meridian 1.01 0 3 9 17 33 62 1.69 3.49 Meridian - Locust Grove 0.96 0 10 11 36 68 125 2.66 3.27 Locust Grove - Cloverdale 2.01 1 8 21 48 109 187 1.71 3.20 Cloverdale - Five Mile 1.01 0 2 11 38 82 133 2.36 3.25 Five Mile - Maple Grove 1.01 1 9 14 55 129 208 3.69 3.17 Maple Grove - Cole 1.01 1 5 21 52 116 195 3.35 3.19 Cole - Orchard 1.54 1 17 19 74 170 281 3.73 3.12 Total 8.55 4 54 106 320 707 1191

Appendix B

Existing 2013 Traffic Counts

Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Liberty St -- W Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860201 CITY/STATE: Boise City, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

137 151 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 2.2 2.0 Peak 15-Min: 5:25 PM -- 5:40 PM 682049 2.90.02.0

1339 66 69 1399 1.0 3.0 1.4 0.9 941 0.96 1226 0.9 0.9 1048 41 104 1072 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 64 16 63 3.1 0.0 0.0 165 143 0.0 1.4

6 010

0 0

1 8 0 1

0 0

4 0 0 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Liberty St N Liberty St W Fairview Ave W Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 10 1 9 0 5 1 4 0 5 77 5 0 4 95 3 0 219 4:05 PM 3 2 2 0 2 3 4 0 6 72 2 0 5 91 4 0 196 4:10 PM 3 1 1 0 4 0 6 0 8 76 1 0 6 107 4 0 217 4:15 PM 2 0 4 0 3 0 5 0 7 71 7 0 3 90 4 0 196 4:20 PM 5 0 3 0 5 3 11 0 9 77 4 0 4 76 5 0 202 4:25 PM 1 2 6 0 7 1 7 0 7 78 2 0 4 103 4 0 222 4:30 PM 3 0 3 0 7 3 4 0 10 79 6 0 1 92 6 0 214 4:35 PM 8 3 8 0 3 0 5 0 2 90 1 0 9 98 8 0 235 4:40 PM 4 3 3 0 1 3 7 0 3 77 4 0 2 89 5 0 201 4:45 PM 3 1 4 0 7 3 4 0 5 74 3 0 9 109 1 0 223 4:50 PM 5 2 6 0 5 1 4 0 2 76 0 0 6 103 5 0 215 4:55 PM 5 0 6 0 7 3 2 0 8 76 4 0 9 89 5 0 214 2554 5:00 PM 6 1 6 0 7 2 3 0 8 69 2 0 10 99 3 0 216 2551 5:05 PM 4 2 5 0 6 1 5 0 6 75 3 0 12 95 6 0 220 2575 5:10 PM 8 0 4 0 3 3 10 0 7 97 6 0 6 88 14 0 246 2604 5:15 PM 4 3 5 0 6 5 2 0 4 75 2 0 4 103 7 0 220 2628 5:20 PM 6 2 2 0 3 1 2 0 4 84 2 0 12 111 5 0 234 2660 5:25 PM 9 0 5 0 2 0 3 0 8 74 4 0 12 111 6 0 234 2672 5:30 PM 7 3 7 0 9 0 5 0 4 76 6 0 7 98 5 0 227 2685 5:35 PM 5 2 8 0 4 0 6 0 9 81 0 0 12 114 8 0 249 2699 5:40 PM 2 0 5 0 9 1 3 0 1 84 9 0 5 106 4 0 229 2727 5:45 PM 7 3 13 0 6 1 4 0 8 103 10 0 1 78 3 0 237 2741 5:50 PM 11 3 13 0 4 0 1 0 9 72 5 0 13 87 7 0 225 2751 5:55 PM 9 2 5 0 9 1 4 0 9 71 5 0 3 87 3 0 208 2745 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 84 20 80 0 60 0 56 0 84 924 40 0 124 1292 76 0 2840 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 16 0 0 4 4 28 Pedestrians 0 0 0 12 12 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Locust Grove Rd -- E Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860206 CITY/STATE: Meridian, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

725 1125 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 1.2 0.9 Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM 135443147 0.02.00.0

1146 207 247 1289 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.9 586 0.93 818 0.5 1.1 946 153 224 899 1.1 3.9 0.9 0.7 181 671 174 0.0 1.2 1.7 816 1026 2.1 1.1

0 000

0 0

0 2 0 1

0 0

0 0 3 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Locust Grove Rd N Locust Grove Rd E Fairview Ave E Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 11 46 14 0 6 42 10 0 16 64 15 0 19 74 8 1 326 4:05 PM 11 53 17 0 16 39 19 0 23 57 15 0 19 65 12 0 346 4:10 PM 18 55 10 0 13 41 15 0 15 41 16 0 20 51 13 0 308 4:15 PM 22 48 17 0 10 41 15 0 12 53 13 0 19 82 21 0 353 4:20 PM 21 35 6 0 8 30 6 0 27 51 13 0 25 77 18 0 317 4:25 PM 21 43 24 0 14 37 10 0 14 52 18 0 17 78 17 0 345 4:30 PM 17 39 11 0 9 21 9 0 14 38 16 0 23 67 19 0 283 4:35 PM 11 50 12 0 9 46 12 0 10 48 13 0 15 77 25 0 328 4:40 PM 19 53 17 0 18 35 15 1 17 53 13 0 23 66 17 0 347 4:45 PM 14 62 23 0 18 34 18 0 17 41 13 0 21 47 20 0 328 4:50 PM 18 34 11 0 11 41 11 0 21 61 10 0 15 69 19 0 321 4:55 PM 13 46 12 0 11 18 8 0 13 52 17 0 15 80 16 0 301 3903 5:00 PM 14 49 17 0 6 33 16 0 23 45 18 0 31 62 26 0 340 3917 5:05 PM 11 68 13 0 14 46 12 0 29 43 13 0 20 81 19 0 369 3940 5:10 PM 12 66 15 0 12 46 11 0 13 57 12 0 17 79 23 0 363 3995 5:15 PM 23 49 13 0 11 36 11 0 16 51 13 0 24 60 15 1 323 3965 5:20 PM 14 47 12 0 11 46 13 0 18 51 15 0 25 68 23 0 343 3991 5:25 PM 11 63 11 0 4 20 11 0 14 56 8 0 10 93 23 0 324 3970 5:30 PM 16 67 17 0 9 47 12 0 10 37 8 0 12 72 20 2 329 4016 5:35 PM 20 65 10 0 14 42 13 0 20 51 15 0 16 65 28 1 360 4048 5:40 PM 15 55 20 0 14 34 11 0 13 41 11 0 14 42 15 0 285 3986 5:45 PM 23 30 14 0 9 38 11 0 18 44 8 0 21 81 31 0 328 3986 5:50 PM 17 54 17 0 12 14 12 0 21 47 9 0 23 89 18 0 333 3998 5:55 PM 15 40 17 0 10 48 7 0 21 35 15 0 16 70 20 0 314 4011 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 148 732 180 0 128 500 156 0 260 580 172 0 272 888 272 0 4288 Heavy Trucks 0 8 4 0 20 0 4 0 4 0 16 0 56 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Hickory Ave -- E Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860207 CITY/STATE: Meridian, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

167 274 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 0.0 0.0 Peak 15-Min: 5:10 PM -- 5:25 PM 1101344 0.00.00.0

1365 44 151 1300 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 855 0.88 1126 0.9 1.1 921 22 23 1030 0.9 0.0 4.3 0.9 194 80 57 0.5 0.0 1.8 50 331 2.0 0.6

0 001

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 2 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Hickory Ave N Hickory Ave E Fairview Ave E Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 15 1 2 0 6 1 2 0 1 74 1 0 4 85 12 0 204 4:05 PM 9 4 2 0 12 0 5 0 0 86 0 1 1 81 6 0 207 4:10 PM 10 4 1 0 4 3 4 0 1 63 3 0 3 100 4 1 201 4:15 PM 9 3 4 0 7 1 2 0 4 74 2 0 0 95 9 0 210 4:20 PM 17 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 73 2 0 2 103 12 0 218 4:25 PM 14 2 6 0 3 1 2 0 4 77 1 0 1 97 5 0 213 4:30 PM 9 3 2 0 5 1 4 0 0 61 1 0 1 95 13 1 196 4:35 PM 21 3 2 0 5 1 3 0 1 60 1 0 1 104 11 0 213 4:40 PM 10 9 1 0 7 0 4 0 5 90 0 0 2 93 7 0 228 4:45 PM 17 8 8 0 4 1 6 0 4 77 1 0 1 89 10 0 226 4:50 PM 13 5 3 0 11 1 1 0 5 78 3 0 2 83 10 0 215 4:55 PM 18 12 7 0 13 0 1 0 3 65 2 0 2 65 14 2 204 2535 5:00 PM 23 6 6 0 7 1 2 0 3 60 0 0 0 117 14 0 239 2570 5:05 PM 19 6 7 0 8 0 2 0 3 73 3 0 2 84 22 0 229 2592 5:10 PM 19 8 5 0 10 1 4 0 5 80 2 0 1 104 8 0 247 2638 5:15 PM 14 8 4 0 7 1 2 0 3 81 2 0 1 100 21 0 244 2672 5:20 PM 21 5 4 0 20 3 7 0 1 78 1 0 0 123 15 1 279 2733 5:25 PM 14 9 3 0 6 1 3 0 4 62 2 0 2 93 17 2 218 2738 5:30 PM 14 6 2 0 8 1 5 0 3 59 1 1 3 90 6 0 199 2741 5:35 PM 15 4 4 0 10 1 7 0 6 75 3 0 1 82 7 0 215 2743 5:40 PM 7 3 4 0 6 2 4 0 3 67 2 0 0 96 7 3 204 2719 5:45 PM 14 6 2 0 4 1 5 0 3 61 4 0 1 116 16 0 233 2726 5:50 PM 7 2 1 0 5 1 3 0 2 72 2 0 0 113 11 0 219 2730 5:55 PM 11 8 5 0 10 0 4 0 3 60 3 0 3 97 11 0 215 2741 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 216 84 52 0 148 20 52 0 36 956 20 0 8 1308 176 4 3080 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 16 0 24 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Eagle Rd -- E Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860208 CITY/STATE: Meridian, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

1462 2190 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 2.2 1.6 Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM 260929273 0.82.81.5

1294 247 338 1296 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.5 625 0.95 704 0.2 1.0 1052 180 254 1124 0.7 1.7 2.4 0.7 322 1605 234 1.2 1.7 2.1 1363 2161 2.6 1.7

0 000

0 0

1 2 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Eagle Rd N Eagle Rd E Fairview Ave E Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 20 79 26 0 25 52 26 0 28 62 9 0 26 58 26 2 439 4:05 PM 30 144 22 0 21 93 11 0 16 37 15 0 18 36 13 1 457 4:10 PM 12 76 21 0 19 64 26 0 27 70 17 0 29 76 44 2 483 4:15 PM 37 144 39 0 25 98 27 0 15 28 12 0 14 36 25 1 501 4:20 PM 20 87 19 0 28 81 31 0 32 63 17 0 31 72 27 0 508 4:25 PM 32 140 25 0 22 104 20 0 15 38 8 0 13 43 24 0 484 4:30 PM 18 69 25 0 25 69 21 1 28 58 4 0 27 58 38 0 441 4:35 PM 35 151 28 1 13 82 24 0 13 32 18 0 17 41 29 0 484 4:40 PM 15 91 11 0 21 64 31 0 23 65 13 0 30 72 31 0 467 4:45 PM 41 171 11 0 20 112 20 0 12 41 20 0 5 37 23 0 513 4:50 PM 13 100 20 0 15 51 24 0 24 63 17 0 30 62 42 0 461 4:55 PM 34 169 22 0 25 98 14 0 16 32 18 0 15 36 26 0 505 5743 5:00 PM 24 94 18 0 16 48 18 0 29 71 11 0 31 86 40 3 489 5793 5:05 PM 23 163 22 0 14 106 31 0 13 30 14 0 19 41 22 0 498 5834 5:10 PM 12 102 17 0 23 47 27 0 32 71 15 0 27 86 26 0 485 5836 5:15 PM 32 179 22 1 23 102 19 0 17 38 18 0 14 56 17 0 538 5873 5:20 PM 24 94 20 0 28 60 27 0 31 79 13 0 34 96 30 0 536 5901 5:25 PM 41 181 16 2 24 81 24 0 12 32 14 0 12 41 14 0 494 5911 5:30 PM 19 95 14 0 32 61 17 0 30 60 11 0 27 68 43 1 478 5948 5:35 PM 36 170 33 2 14 84 19 0 10 39 17 0 12 34 24 0 494 5958 5:40 PM 18 87 19 0 26 79 33 0 21 69 12 0 23 61 31 1 480 5971 5:45 PM 41 162 25 3 19 101 39 0 8 34 8 0 15 54 26 0 535 5993 5:50 PM 22 91 19 0 28 62 28 0 28 59 15 0 25 74 37 0 488 6020 5:55 PM 44 149 18 0 15 84 20 0 7 25 18 0 14 42 20 0 456 5971 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 388 1816 232 12 300 972 280 0 240 596 180 0 240 772 244 0 6272 Heavy Trucks 4 28 0 4 16 4 0 0 4 8 8 4 80 Pedestrians 0 0 0 8 8 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Records Way -- E Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860209 CITY/STATE: Meridian, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

134 73 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 0.7 0.0 Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM 582650 0.00.02.0

1358 30 41 1187 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 870 0.94 1000 0.8 1.0 995 95 146 1026 1.0 3.2 0.7 0.8 291 19 98 1.0 0.0 1.0 267 408 1.5 1.0

0 000

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Records Way N Records Way E Fairview Ave E Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 21 1 10 0 10 5 4 0 0 95 14 0 5 55 8 0 228 4:05 PM 24 0 10 0 2 1 3 0 2 61 14 1 12 85 1 0 216 4:10 PM 33 0 12 0 10 3 10 0 2 97 19 0 2 67 2 0 257 4:15 PM 26 0 11 0 7 2 12 0 5 60 13 0 16 84 3 0 239 4:20 PM 23 1 8 0 5 2 8 0 1 72 20 2 8 54 8 0 212 4:25 PM 21 0 11 0 5 1 3 0 3 57 10 1 21 106 4 0 243 4:30 PM 31 2 4 0 2 1 6 1 1 94 18 1 8 80 2 0 251 4:35 PM 19 2 19 0 4 1 5 0 2 48 16 1 11 89 2 0 219 4:40 PM 26 1 9 0 5 2 6 0 0 82 14 0 2 58 4 0 209 4:45 PM 29 0 5 0 7 0 10 0 0 61 4 0 17 77 6 0 216 4:50 PM 34 3 10 0 8 2 5 0 1 77 8 1 6 78 1 0 234 4:55 PM 12 2 10 0 1 1 5 0 1 62 11 3 15 78 4 0 205 2729 5:00 PM 14 1 4 0 6 4 8 0 1 80 7 1 7 96 2 0 231 2732 5:05 PM 25 0 13 0 5 0 2 0 2 46 7 1 18 105 4 0 228 2744 5:10 PM 16 1 7 0 7 6 0 0 0 89 6 1 1 81 4 0 219 2706 5:15 PM 43 1 9 0 0 2 4 0 0 68 8 1 16 101 4 0 257 2724 5:20 PM 18 0 8 0 11 4 4 0 2 88 17 1 1 86 3 0 243 2755 5:25 PM 22 2 6 0 0 0 4 0 2 71 5 3 20 89 1 0 225 2737 5:30 PM 37 4 9 0 4 4 6 0 2 80 6 2 10 63 4 0 231 2717 5:35 PM 14 2 8 0 0 1 1 0 1 66 6 0 20 92 4 0 215 2713 5:40 PM 27 3 9 0 9 2 1 0 1 82 10 3 15 54 4 0 220 2724 5:45 PM 22 3 5 0 0 1 6 0 2 56 8 2 16 101 2 0 224 2732 5:50 PM 15 0 8 0 3 5 3 0 0 74 12 2 8 89 10 0 229 2727 5:55 PM 30 0 10 0 1 0 2 0 2 52 8 2 17 82 8 0 214 2736 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 332 12 92 0 44 24 48 0 16 908 120 20 148 1104 32 0 2900 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 16 0 20 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Cloverdale Rd -- W Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860210 CITY/STATE: Boise City, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

645 839 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 0.9 1.1 Peak 15-Min: 5:10 PM -- 5:25 PM 149345151 0.71.20.7

1326 162 203 1360 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 787 0.94 1030 0.5 0.8 1072 123 127 1119 0.7 1.6 0.8 0.6 145 474 183 0.0 1.5 1.1 595 802 1.2 1.1

1 010

0 0

0 4 0 0

0 0

0 0 2 1

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Cloverdale Rd N Cloverdale Rd W Fairview Ave W Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 9 25 10 0 13 37 11 0 12 66 12 0 8 86 12 0 301 4:05 PM 14 32 16 0 8 30 9 0 25 61 8 1 13 61 18 1 297 4:10 PM 7 29 10 0 13 25 12 0 12 99 6 0 11 86 15 0 325 4:15 PM 6 37 12 0 14 23 16 0 16 72 12 0 15 86 9 0 318 4:20 PM 10 32 15 0 11 27 14 0 14 78 6 0 11 90 17 0 325 4:25 PM 12 29 14 0 19 21 15 0 13 78 2 0 6 82 17 0 308 4:30 PM 6 34 12 0 4 29 17 0 15 63 3 0 4 71 14 0 272 4:35 PM 8 38 10 0 12 29 9 0 8 58 11 0 10 72 13 0 278 4:40 PM 10 43 15 0 10 29 10 0 16 70 11 0 14 72 12 0 312 4:45 PM 15 30 14 0 10 27 13 0 12 81 10 0 15 94 18 0 339 4:50 PM 10 31 12 0 8 23 16 0 15 54 8 0 10 86 11 0 284 4:55 PM 10 36 17 0 11 32 14 0 13 76 12 0 7 79 13 0 320 3679 5:00 PM 19 29 12 0 15 12 11 0 12 53 9 0 11 96 12 0 291 3669 5:05 PM 11 57 18 0 12 39 15 0 11 50 9 0 11 78 18 0 329 3701 5:10 PM 8 49 20 0 14 43 9 0 11 69 12 0 12 92 21 0 360 3736 5:15 PM 12 37 23 0 6 33 10 0 18 61 14 0 12 82 22 0 330 3748 5:20 PM 11 45 17 0 15 26 12 0 9 76 12 0 10 91 16 0 340 3763 5:25 PM 10 33 13 0 16 26 15 0 16 80 7 0 13 86 22 0 337 3792 5:30 PM 13 41 14 0 12 20 10 0 11 73 14 0 14 93 18 0 333 3853 5:35 PM 17 42 14 0 19 32 17 0 16 56 3 0 6 65 19 0 306 3881 5:40 PM 9 44 9 0 11 32 9 0 18 58 13 0 6 88 13 0 310 3879 5:45 PM 9 52 12 0 11 31 22 0 6 55 4 0 8 88 16 0 314 3854 5:50 PM 9 32 7 0 13 17 14 0 13 70 9 0 11 85 16 0 296 3866 5:55 PM 9 36 15 0 12 25 14 0 15 47 12 0 8 92 10 1 296 3842 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 124 524 240 0 140 408 124 0 152 824 152 0 136 1060 236 0 4120 Heavy Trucks 0 12 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 16 4 44 Pedestrians 0 0 0 4 4 Bicycles 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Five Mile Rd -- W Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860211 CITY/STATE: Boise City, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

590 756 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 1.7 0.7 Peak 15-Min: 5:05 PM -- 5:20 PM 132318140 1.51.91.4

1539 156 180 1393 1.0 0.6 1.7 0.9 781 0.94 1101 0.8 0.9 1084 147 112 1065 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 298 420 152 1.0 0.2 0.7 577 870 1.0 0.6

6 000

0 0

4 2 0 1

0 0

3 0 0 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Five Mile Rd N Five Mile Rd W Fairview Ave W Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 25 22 10 0 17 16 8 0 15 60 15 0 7 68 15 0 278 4:05 PM 31 36 18 0 15 25 13 0 14 59 15 0 9 75 11 0 321 4:10 PM 15 33 13 0 11 27 11 0 15 66 16 0 9 82 14 0 312 4:15 PM 18 21 11 0 10 31 12 0 9 68 12 0 7 82 15 0 296 4:20 PM 18 15 10 0 14 25 13 0 15 87 16 0 7 78 12 0 310 4:25 PM 15 30 15 0 6 22 15 0 10 70 16 0 8 88 15 0 310 4:30 PM 19 37 10 0 5 13 5 0 13 61 9 0 8 82 8 0 270 4:35 PM 26 38 10 0 14 21 8 0 10 74 11 0 10 81 14 0 317 4:40 PM 33 32 9 0 8 23 12 0 13 54 16 0 9 80 16 0 305 4:45 PM 20 37 11 0 12 41 14 0 12 57 10 0 7 79 8 0 308 4:50 PM 23 31 10 0 11 26 11 0 15 54 11 0 7 75 14 0 288 4:55 PM 24 26 11 0 9 20 11 0 12 76 12 0 15 93 19 0 328 3643 5:00 PM 22 27 13 0 8 17 13 0 14 63 18 0 12 90 13 0 310 3675 5:05 PM 33 40 11 0 15 22 15 0 12 62 17 0 10 109 13 0 359 3713 5:10 PM 29 38 15 0 10 24 12 0 9 67 11 0 9 105 15 0 344 3745 5:15 PM 38 36 19 0 15 29 8 0 16 66 12 0 6 83 19 0 347 3796 5:20 PM 22 44 17 0 8 29 12 0 12 63 9 0 9 88 13 0 326 3812 5:25 PM 26 48 14 0 12 31 12 0 9 59 14 0 10 81 12 0 328 3830 5:30 PM 21 34 13 0 10 24 6 0 13 96 11 0 8 94 18 0 348 3908 5:35 PM 21 30 9 0 11 31 11 0 14 62 17 0 8 99 14 0 327 3918 5:40 PM 19 29 9 0 11 24 15 0 18 56 5 0 11 105 22 0 324 3937 5:45 PM 29 26 15 0 13 19 15 0 9 58 11 0 6 102 15 0 318 3947 5:50 PM 28 34 11 0 7 22 17 0 11 55 10 0 12 89 16 0 312 3971 5:55 PM 21 22 11 0 8 19 10 0 12 54 14 0 4 86 14 0 275 3918 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 400 456 180 0 160 300 140 0 148 780 160 0 100 1188 188 0 4200 Heavy Trucks 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 20 0 36 Pedestrians 0 4 0 0 4 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Mitchell St -- W Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860212 CITY/STATE: Boise City, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

222 359 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 0.9 0.3 Peak 15-Min: 4:50 PM -- 5:05 PM 918249 0.01.22.0

1232 91 163 1321 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 815 0.89 1137 0.5 0.4 941 35 21 940 0.6 5.7 0.0 0.4 46 105 34 0.0 1.0 0.0 138 185 2.2 0.5

0 000

0 0

4 2 1 0

0 0

2 0 1 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Mitchell St N Mitchell St W Fairview Ave W Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 4 14 4 0 9 6 2 0 5 65 4 0 4 105 14 0 236 4:05 PM 5 18 3 0 7 11 4 0 7 79 4 0 1 107 20 0 266 4:10 PM 6 29 7 0 6 6 8 0 7 64 3 0 0 111 9 0 256 4:15 PM 9 26 5 0 8 7 8 0 17 76 5 0 5 116 24 0 306 4:20 PM 3 13 1 0 7 11 3 0 7 88 7 0 3 122 21 0 286 4:25 PM 2 8 7 0 7 8 7 0 9 67 9 0 3 129 28 0 284 4:30 PM 13 24 7 0 13 5 9 0 9 99 2 0 2 104 21 0 308 4:35 PM 5 20 1 0 12 3 6 0 13 77 4 0 3 111 17 0 272 4:40 PM 9 13 1 0 14 6 6 0 10 72 0 0 4 110 24 0 269 4:45 PM 3 15 2 0 6 11 3 0 9 71 5 0 3 104 13 0 245 4:50 PM 6 16 1 0 6 7 5 0 4 79 4 0 2 108 16 0 254 4:55 PM 6 6 5 0 6 6 2 0 5 79 4 0 3 108 14 0 244 3226 5:00 PM 4 9 3 0 10 9 8 0 9 75 3 0 2 102 16 0 250 3240 5:05 PM 2 9 3 0 7 5 1 0 8 47 2 0 2 125 11 0 222 3196 5:10 PM 7 8 3 0 6 4 5 0 9 69 5 0 0 95 12 0 223 3163 5:15 PM 6 10 3 0 13 8 8 0 5 66 3 0 1 91 16 0 230 3087 5:20 PM 1 8 3 0 8 10 3 0 6 54 0 0 3 85 9 0 190 2991 5:25 PM 0 4 3 0 5 2 5 0 12 67 3 0 2 91 13 0 207 2914 5:30 PM 3 6 2 0 5 5 2 0 6 90 2 0 0 71 14 0 206 2812 5:35 PM 6 10 3 0 11 8 3 0 7 53 1 0 0 63 10 0 175 2715 5:40 PM 2 4 3 0 8 7 4 0 11 65 3 0 3 94 19 0 223 2669 5:45 PM 6 2 1 0 3 1 6 0 9 68 5 0 0 70 12 0 183 2607 5:50 PM 3 5 2 0 12 2 5 0 6 56 2 0 3 50 10 0 156 2509 5:55 PM 5 6 2 0 9 4 5 0 3 57 3 0 2 64 11 0 171 2436 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 64 124 36 0 88 88 60 0 72 932 44 0 28 1272 184 0 2992 Heavy Trucks 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 12 0 0 8 0 28 Pedestrians 8 0 0 0 8 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Maple Grove Rd -- W Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860213 CITY/STATE: Boise City, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

620 919 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 1.1 0.7 Peak 15-Min: 5:05 PM -- 5:20 PM 15138782 0.71.31.2

1593 123 351 1675 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 822 0.95 1139 0.9 0.3 1130 185 185 1132 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.9 372 445 158 1.3 1.1 1.3 756 975 1.1 1.2

9 010

0 0

0 0 1 2

0 0

1 0 1 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Maple Grove Rd N Maple Grove Rd W Fairview Ave W Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 18 28 13 0 11 26 9 0 8 65 9 0 10 87 17 0 301 4:05 PM 26 29 16 0 13 19 8 0 8 73 15 0 8 88 21 0 324 4:10 PM 28 37 13 0 8 27 5 0 6 69 14 0 13 83 11 0 314 4:15 PM 32 38 19 0 17 17 5 0 11 78 17 0 12 74 17 0 337 4:20 PM 29 36 18 0 11 35 11 0 8 73 13 0 14 71 23 0 342 4:25 PM 16 34 13 0 12 29 4 0 18 57 20 0 21 86 17 0 327 4:30 PM 23 36 16 0 8 38 6 0 6 74 13 0 12 81 19 0 332 4:35 PM 25 36 10 0 17 35 5 0 16 86 16 0 10 87 21 0 364 4:40 PM 25 36 12 0 9 41 6 0 6 76 10 0 15 92 30 0 358 4:45 PM 44 38 16 0 14 32 8 0 9 75 16 0 7 81 27 1 368 4:50 PM 15 40 14 0 17 36 9 0 3 69 13 0 12 96 29 0 353 4:55 PM 19 42 10 0 10 35 4 0 11 80 11 0 12 88 24 0 346 4066 5:00 PM 28 31 11 0 13 23 8 0 10 45 22 0 22 86 31 0 330 4095 5:05 PM 30 43 17 0 8 30 4 0 11 83 15 0 19 100 28 0 388 4159 5:10 PM 33 33 16 0 10 32 9 0 8 76 18 0 17 108 33 0 393 4238 5:15 PM 24 37 11 0 9 36 3 0 12 62 20 0 10 120 39 0 383 4284 5:20 PM 43 38 6 0 21 32 12 0 11 55 7 0 12 87 30 0 354 4296 5:25 PM 41 27 11 0 13 22 3 0 15 52 18 0 18 86 26 0 332 4301 5:30 PM 36 48 16 0 9 49 11 0 10 80 12 0 19 87 36 0 413 4382 5:35 PM 28 39 16 0 13 35 7 0 14 73 14 0 20 83 26 0 368 4386 5:40 PM 31 29 14 0 14 25 4 0 9 72 19 0 16 117 22 0 372 4400 5:45 PM 24 28 14 0 18 20 7 0 14 67 14 0 3 95 24 0 328 4360 5:50 PM 29 26 11 0 20 34 9 0 6 61 12 0 16 81 20 0 325 4332 5:55 PM 34 35 22 0 16 33 7 0 8 65 13 0 9 82 26 0 350 4336 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 348 452 176 0 108 392 64 0 124 884 212 0 184 1312 400 0 4656 Heavy Trucks 8 0 0 0 4 0 0 12 8 4 12 0 48 Pedestrians 0 12 0 0 12 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Milwaukee St -- W Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860214 CITY/STATE: Boise City, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

587 662 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 0.7 1.1 Peak 15-Min: 5:10 PM -- 5:25 PM 10539587 1.00.80.0

1682 94 112 1444 0.7 1.1 3.6 0.8 796 0.93 1086 1.0 0.6 1106 216 246 1110 1.0 0.9 0.4 1.2 508 457 208 1.0 0.4 1.9 856 1173 0.7 0.9

8 000

0 0

14 0 2 2

0 0

0 0 2 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Milwaukee St N Milwaukee St W Fairview Ave W Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 24 26 20 0 7 26 6 0 6 62 23 0 12 79 7 0 298 4:05 PM 29 11 17 0 7 28 3 0 7 48 17 1 32 84 7 0 291 4:10 PM 36 30 11 0 13 22 9 0 6 61 16 0 17 85 4 0 310 4:15 PM 27 33 7 0 13 33 8 0 7 58 21 0 16 79 8 0 310 4:20 PM 25 40 13 0 11 44 7 0 10 59 19 0 16 88 7 0 339 4:25 PM 49 33 17 0 8 26 11 0 13 67 19 0 18 65 8 0 334 4:30 PM 37 31 18 0 9 24 4 0 10 76 26 0 20 75 10 0 340 4:35 PM 25 26 15 0 2 18 4 0 8 60 17 0 22 86 9 0 292 4:40 PM 25 27 26 0 7 19 5 0 8 71 18 0 24 84 2 0 316 4:45 PM 44 36 17 0 9 34 6 0 3 55 29 0 16 95 10 0 354 4:50 PM 51 36 15 0 11 35 10 0 7 63 20 0 18 70 4 0 340 4:55 PM 39 30 26 0 12 30 7 0 11 61 12 0 13 82 11 0 334 3858 5:00 PM 34 33 10 0 9 33 8 0 7 77 16 0 18 90 15 0 350 3910 5:05 PM 38 39 11 0 10 30 10 0 9 62 20 0 27 98 9 0 363 3982 5:10 PM 36 35 11 0 4 35 5 0 2 84 18 1 33 126 8 0 398 4070 5:15 PM 43 40 27 0 6 26 4 0 12 72 16 0 37 95 7 0 385 4145 5:20 PM 51 34 14 0 8 37 5 0 7 67 15 0 22 97 14 0 371 4177 5:25 PM 58 49 19 0 9 33 11 0 5 53 16 0 19 84 8 0 364 4207 5:30 PM 35 44 19 0 14 40 3 0 6 50 16 0 15 85 8 0 335 4202 5:35 PM 37 46 18 0 6 28 8 0 10 61 13 0 16 86 10 0 339 4249 5:40 PM 42 35 21 0 7 34 10 0 14 91 25 0 11 78 8 1 377 4310 5:45 PM 23 30 17 0 11 26 6 0 3 66 17 0 13 111 10 0 333 4289 5:50 PM 30 26 16 0 6 27 3 0 10 60 10 0 21 96 8 0 313 4262 5:55 PM 37 31 19 0 18 21 3 0 7 62 15 0 19 78 3 0 313 4241 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 520 436 208 0 72 392 56 0 84 892 196 4 368 1272 116 0 4616 Heavy Trucks 4 8 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 12 4 44 Pedestrians 0 8 12 0 20 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Cole Rd -- W Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860215 CITY/STATE: Boise City, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

754 1169 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 1.3 1.1 Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM 170469115 0.61.70.9

1350 168 134 1192 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 822 0.98 959 1.5 0.8 1106 116 99 1110 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.2 276 867 118 0.4 1.3 0.0 684 1261 1.5 1.0

8 000

0 0

3 9 3 0

0 0

8 0 0 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Cole Rd N Cole Rd W Fairview Ave W Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 28 58 13 0 17 39 7 0 11 59 14 0 12 75 7 0 340 4:05 PM 22 60 11 0 14 57 16 0 6 62 17 0 9 71 15 0 360 4:10 PM 18 59 11 0 11 32 5 0 16 58 7 0 5 59 20 0 301 4:15 PM 23 66 8 0 12 38 6 0 15 73 11 0 8 74 7 0 341 4:20 PM 20 61 9 0 15 35 7 0 13 74 10 0 8 94 14 0 360 4:25 PM 22 59 11 0 14 28 7 0 9 72 5 0 8 82 17 0 334 4:30 PM 18 52 7 0 17 31 9 0 11 63 11 0 7 67 16 0 309 4:35 PM 23 64 11 0 16 31 9 0 10 56 5 0 12 66 13 0 316 4:40 PM 22 73 7 0 10 43 8 0 12 71 6 0 8 58 11 0 329 4:45 PM 22 76 8 0 10 39 11 0 15 65 11 0 9 83 12 0 361 4:50 PM 21 59 14 0 14 39 8 0 19 74 12 0 8 73 13 0 354 4:55 PM 26 64 9 0 14 36 7 0 14 79 5 0 8 96 14 0 372 4077 5:00 PM 22 83 6 0 7 33 6 0 15 65 15 0 9 91 11 0 363 4100 5:05 PM 25 67 9 0 20 39 11 0 15 49 10 0 11 76 10 0 342 4082 5:10 PM 20 71 15 0 12 42 10 0 15 63 4 0 7 70 13 0 342 4123 5:15 PM 19 90 7 0 16 48 11 0 13 69 8 0 6 75 12 0 374 4156 5:20 PM 26 85 10 0 12 47 14 0 12 63 17 0 7 69 8 0 370 4166 5:25 PM 17 76 6 0 16 36 12 0 18 77 8 0 10 72 11 0 359 4191 5:30 PM 31 73 14 0 13 29 9 0 8 75 7 0 8 87 11 0 365 4247 5:35 PM 21 60 9 0 14 41 4 0 12 77 6 0 9 84 9 0 346 4277 5:40 PM 26 63 11 0 22 40 12 0 12 66 13 0 7 83 10 0 365 4313 5:45 PM 27 75 13 0 19 41 8 0 3 84 9 0 6 88 4 0 377 4329 5:50 PM 15 77 13 0 13 38 11 1 12 74 2 0 12 72 8 0 348 4323 5:55 PM 21 65 17 0 16 35 7 0 10 66 6 0 11 76 7 0 337 4288 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 248 1004 92 0 176 524 148 0 172 836 132 0 92 864 124 0 4412 Heavy Trucks 0 8 0 4 16 0 0 4 0 4 4 4 44 Pedestrians 4 20 0 12 36 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Curtis Rd -- W Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860217 CITY/STATE: Boise City, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

1077 1437 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 2.9 2.3 Peak 15-Min: 5:10 PM -- 5:25 PM 149819109 0.03.80.0

1413 163 117 1023 0.8 1.2 1.7 1.5 711 0.95 738 0.3 1.2 1089 215 168 955 0.6 1.4 2.4 0.4 567 1158 87 0.5 2.5 2.3 1196 1812 3.2 1.9

3 010

0 0

3 1 1 1

0 1

0 0 4 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Curtis Rd N Curtis Rd W Fairview Ave W Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 40 70 8 1 9 59 9 0 12 54 20 0 17 48 12 0 359 4:05 PM 49 95 9 1 9 63 9 0 18 47 16 0 19 56 9 0 400 4:10 PM 37 86 7 0 14 56 7 0 14 48 20 0 18 48 13 0 368 4:15 PM 34 85 8 1 13 59 7 0 11 50 22 0 7 41 10 0 348 4:20 PM 52 87 4 1 10 66 7 0 15 53 21 0 19 50 10 0 395 4:25 PM 40 76 8 2 18 63 16 0 17 59 11 0 10 38 4 0 362 4:30 PM 50 98 7 0 8 56 16 0 14 48 26 0 16 53 7 0 399 4:35 PM 43 92 4 1 9 67 13 0 12 53 23 0 16 51 8 0 392 4:40 PM 47 87 8 2 10 66 16 0 11 59 18 0 20 64 8 0 416 4:45 PM 39 98 9 0 16 65 13 0 14 51 15 1 11 59 5 0 396 4:50 PM 44 88 15 1 12 70 6 0 10 62 17 0 11 54 11 0 401 4:55 PM 49 88 8 0 14 62 12 0 16 57 16 0 16 61 12 2 413 4649 5:00 PM 46 81 5 0 11 76 5 0 10 55 25 0 12 52 11 0 389 4679 5:05 PM 50 85 5 0 14 69 8 0 14 53 23 0 21 51 8 1 402 4681 5:10 PM 46 92 4 1 8 71 7 0 16 57 20 0 13 66 12 3 416 4729 5:15 PM 60 99 6 0 13 78 9 0 12 57 22 0 11 77 9 1 454 4835 5:20 PM 45 104 6 0 18 78 6 0 16 61 17 0 10 78 12 0 451 4891 5:25 PM 41 107 5 0 8 68 13 0 11 53 19 0 11 59 7 0 402 4931 5:30 PM 47 104 8 0 13 58 15 0 11 71 11 0 15 74 12 0 439 4971 5:35 PM 42 107 8 0 15 73 4 0 13 64 6 0 17 61 8 0 418 4997 5:40 PM 56 105 8 0 7 51 11 0 19 70 24 0 12 46 10 1 420 5001 5:45 PM 30 82 4 0 26 71 14 0 20 73 17 0 8 46 13 0 404 5009 5:50 PM 39 84 10 0 10 70 14 0 13 64 27 1 13 49 13 2 409 5017 5:55 PM 55 83 6 0 10 67 18 0 5 50 17 0 11 35 4 0 361 4965 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 604 1180 64 4 156 908 88 0 176 700 236 0 136 884 132 16 5284 Heavy Trucks 0 24 4 0 32 0 4 4 4 4 8 0 84 Pedestrians 0 0 0 4 4 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: User-Defined Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N Orchard St -- W Fairview Ave QC JOB #: 10860218 CITY/STATE: Boise City, ID DATE: Thu, Feb 21 2013

463 558 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 2.2 0.9 Peak 15-Min: 5:10 PM -- 5:25 PM 136795 0.02.22.1

962 50 10 571 0.9 2.0 0.0 1.6 11 0.90 456 0.0 1.3 359 298 105 16 0.8 0.7 2.9 0.0 410 499 4 0.2 0.8 0.0 770 913 1.7 0.5

1 000

0 0

2 0 0 1

0 0

0 0 2 0

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

5-Min Count N Orchard St N Orchard St W Fairview Ave W Fairview Ave Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 39 12 0 0 0 21 7 0 4 4 17 0 8 25 1 0 138 4:05 PM 43 42 1 0 0 29 8 0 3 1 19 0 8 28 1 0 183 4:10 PM 27 24 0 0 0 28 4 0 11 2 28 0 12 36 0 0 172 4:15 PM 32 42 0 1 1 34 5 0 7 0 20 0 5 16 0 0 163 4:20 PM 34 44 1 0 0 23 4 0 3 0 21 0 7 30 0 0 167 4:25 PM 25 30 0 0 0 26 5 0 8 2 28 0 7 27 4 0 162 4:30 PM 40 36 0 0 0 30 9 0 3 0 20 0 11 16 1 0 166 4:35 PM 37 34 0 0 0 33 16 0 3 0 19 0 11 22 1 0 176 4:40 PM 33 31 1 0 0 21 13 0 5 0 29 0 11 44 1 0 189 4:45 PM 29 44 0 0 0 26 3 0 5 0 25 0 10 39 0 0 181 4:50 PM 34 43 0 0 0 25 9 0 6 0 29 0 13 30 0 0 189 4:55 PM 34 30 0 0 0 36 9 0 5 3 24 0 5 26 0 0 172 2058 5:00 PM 28 43 0 0 0 26 4 0 5 2 31 0 8 38 3 0 188 2108 5:05 PM 41 54 2 0 0 31 13 0 7 1 14 0 6 29 0 0 198 2123 5:10 PM 41 55 0 0 0 37 6 0 3 0 27 0 4 44 1 0 218 2169 5:15 PM 30 41 0 0 0 33 2 0 4 0 20 1 13 53 0 0 197 2203 5:20 PM 33 52 1 0 0 34 12 0 2 2 30 0 7 53 0 0 226 2262 5:25 PM 37 41 0 0 0 28 10 0 0 1 27 0 14 33 2 0 193 2293 5:30 PM 37 26 0 0 0 36 13 0 8 1 26 0 12 46 3 0 208 2335 5:35 PM 31 30 0 0 1 33 10 0 3 1 19 0 6 44 0 0 178 2337 5:40 PM 35 40 1 0 0 22 4 0 1 0 26 0 7 21 1 0 158 2306 5:45 PM 19 31 0 0 0 17 6 0 8 2 29 0 10 36 0 0 158 2283 5:50 PM 37 28 0 0 0 31 2 0 5 0 27 0 5 30 0 0 165 2259 5:55 PM 29 22 1 0 0 34 10 0 6 0 25 0 8 17 2 0 154 2241 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 416 592 4 0 0 416 80 0 36 8 308 4 96 600 4 0 2564 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 20 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 2/27/2013 11:34 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212

Appendix C

Existing 2013 Intersection Operations and Queuing

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 68: Cole Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 170 820 115 100 960 135 275 865 120 170 470 115 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 11 13 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1699 3523 1740 3438 1699 3414 1816 3365 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1699 3523 1740 3438 1699 3414 1816 3365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 173 837 117 102 980 138 281 883 122 173 480 117 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0800800800150 Lane Group Flow (vph) 173 946 0 102 1110 0 281 997 0 173 582 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8 8 8 9 3 3 9 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 14.6 47.6 13.0 46.0 25.8 44.1 15.3 33.6 Effective Green, g (s) 14.6 47.6 13.0 46.0 25.8 44.1 15.3 33.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.34 0.09 0.33 0.18 0.32 0.11 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 177 1197 161 1129 313 1075 198 807 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.27 0.06 c0.32 c0.17 c0.29 0.10 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.98 0.79 0.63 0.98 0.90 0.93 0.87 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 62.5 41.7 61.2 46.6 55.8 46.4 61.4 48.9 Progression Factor 0.74 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 54.1 4.4 5.9 23.0 26.4 13.3 31.1 2.7 Delay (s) 100.3 40.2 67.1 69.6 82.2 59.7 92.5 51.6 Level of Service FD EE FE FD Approach Delay (s) 49.4 69.4 64.6 60.8 Approach LOS D E E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 61.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 3/22/2011 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 164 710 215 8 162 740 115 1 564 1160 85 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 *0.90 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3376 3515 1661 3101 3403 3296 3331 1517 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3376 3515 1661 3101 3403 3296 3331 1517 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 173 747 226 8 171 779 121 1 594 1221 89 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 159 008000053 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 174 747 67 0 179 892 0 0 595 1221 36 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 1 6 5 5 2 3 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 40.7 40.7 12.6 44.3 34.0 60.4 60.4 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 40.7 40.7 12.6 44.3 34.0 60.4 60.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.30 0.23 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 202 953 450 260 1005 747 1341 610 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.21 c0.06 c0.26 0.18 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.78 0.15 0.69 0.89 0.80 0.91 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 69.9 50.6 41.5 66.8 50.5 54.7 42.3 27.4 Progression Factor 1.07 0.88 1.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 27.1 3.7 0.1 5.9 9.3 5.5 10.8 0.2 Delay (s) 101.9 48.4 70.5 72.7 59.8 60.3 53.0 27.6 Level of Service FDE EE EDC Approach Delay (s) 60.9 61.9 54.1 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 57.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 1/25/2011 Assumed Storage Length SBR: 280 ft c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 150 820 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 11 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 *0.90 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3296 4688 1552 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3296 4688 1552 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 158 863 116 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 86 Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 863 30 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.3 38.7 38.7 Effective Green, g (s) 12.3 38.7 38.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 270 1209 400 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.71 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 66.4 50.6 42.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 3.6 0.4 Delay (s) 69.6 54.2 42.5 Level of Service EDD Approach Delay (s) 55.2 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 98: Liberty Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 65 940 40 105 1225 70 65 15 65 70 20 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 14 13 12 14 14 12 11 14 12 10 15 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1820 3606 1874 3711 1639 1716 1607 1768 Flt Permitted 0.14 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.70 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 267 3606 462 3711 1224 1716 1188 1768 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 979 42 109 1276 73 68 16 68 73 21 52 RTOR Reduction (vph) 02003006000460 Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 1019 0 109 1346 0 68 24 0 73 27 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 4 4 6 8 1 1 8 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 4 Permitted Phases 6284 Actuated Green, G (s) 50.1 45.6 50.6 45.6 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Effective Green, g (s) 50.1 45.6 50.6 45.6 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.61 0.67 0.61 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 271 2192 405 2256 145 203 140 209 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.28 c0.02 c0.36 0.01 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.16 0.06 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.46 0.27 0.60 0.47 0.12 0.52 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 5.9 8.0 4.7 9.0 30.8 29.5 31.0 29.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.7 2.4 0.3 3.5 0.3 Delay (s) 6.1 8.7 2.3 4.5 33.2 29.8 34.5 29.9 Level of Service AA AA CC CC Approach Delay (s) 8.6 4.3 31.3 32.2 Approach LOS A A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: PM Peak Hour Count Date: 04/29/2008 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 99: Orchard Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 49 10 300 105 455 10 410 500 5 1 365 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 13 12 13 11 13 12 11 13 12 13 12 15 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1732 1800 1581 1621 3488 1653 3527 1766 3353 1650 Flt Permitted 0.27 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 499 1800 1581 1072 3488 707 3527 820 3353 1650 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 11 333 117 506 11 456 556 6 1 406 106 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 279 0200000067 Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 11 54 117 515 0 456 562 0 1 406 39 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.6 21.1 21.1 35.8 25.2 80.3 73.3 48.3 47.3 47.3 Effective Green, g (s) 27.6 21.1 21.1 35.8 25.2 80.3 73.3 48.3 47.3 47.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.28 0.19 0.62 0.56 0.37 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 292 256 339 676 633 1988 311 1219 600 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.01 c0.03 c0.15 c0.15 0.16 0.00 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.03 0.07 c0.30 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.04 0.21 0.35 0.76 0.72 0.28 0.00 0.33 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 41.9 45.9 47.2 36.9 49.6 14.1 14.7 25.7 29.9 26.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 4.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 Delay (s) 42.3 45.9 47.4 37.1 54.2 17.5 14.7 25.7 30.7 27.1 Level of Service DDDDD BB CCC Approach Delay (s) 46.7 51.0 16.0 29.9 Approach LOS D D B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 11/30/2010 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 206: Meridian Road & Cherry Lane/Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 150 595 75 50 1060 245 205 430 45 150 200 245 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 15 12 12 14 13 12 13 13 13 12 13 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1895 3388 1838 3461 1780 1874 1593 1723 1874 1542 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1895 3388 1838 3461 614 1874 1593 279 1874 1542 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 647 82 54 1152 266 223 467 49 163 217 266 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0700140003900183 Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 722 0 54 1404 0 223 467 10 163 217 83 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 71.9 7.1 65.0 44.2 29.2 29.2 37.8 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 71.9 7.1 65.0 44.2 29.2 29.2 37.8 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.51 0.05 0.46 0.32 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 1739 93 1606 318 390 332 197 348 286 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.21 0.03 c0.41 c0.07 c0.25 0.07 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.01 0.15 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.42 0.58 0.87 0.70 1.20 0.03 0.83 0.62 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 62.1 21.1 65.0 33.8 38.3 55.4 44.1 43.1 52.5 49.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.19 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 30.1 0.7 4.7 5.6 5.6 111.2 0.0 22.9 2.5 0.2 Delay (s) 92.1 21.8 81.9 29.5 43.9 166.6 44.1 66.0 55.0 49.3 Level of Service FC FC DFDEDD Approach Delay (s) 34.6 31.5 121.5 55.4 Approach LOS C C F E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 54.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 1/23/2008 Assumed Storage Length NBR: 300 ft Assumed Storage Length SBR: 300 ft c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 207: Main Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 25 595 160 175 960 60 400 115 230 65 50 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 14 14 12 12 12 12 12 14 16 12 12 11 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1838 3676 1542 1723 3416 3343 1935 1747 1764 1490 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1838 3676 1542 1723 3416 3343 1935 1747 1764 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 647 174 190 1043 65 435 125 250 71 54 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 78 030002050047 Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 647 96 190 1105 0 435 125 45 0 125 7 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.6 57.1 57.1 20.7 73.2 25.1 25.1 25.1 17.1 17.1 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 57.1 57.1 20.7 73.2 25.1 25.1 25.1 17.1 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.15 0.52 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 60 1499 628 254 1786 599 346 313 215 181 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.18 c0.11 c0.32 c0.13 0.06 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.43 0.15 0.75 0.62 0.73 0.36 0.14 0.58 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 66.5 29.8 26.2 57.2 23.6 54.2 50.4 48.4 58.1 54.2 Progression Factor 1.10 0.71 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.8 0.5 11.4 1.6 3.7 0.2 0.1 6.1 0.2 Delay (s) 74.6 22.0 10.9 68.5 25.2 57.9 50.7 48.5 64.2 54.4 Level of Service ECBEC EDD ED Approach Delay (s) 21.4 31.5 53.9 61.2 Approach LOS C C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 2/12/2008 Assumed Storage Length EBR: 85 ft Assumed Storage Length NBR: 300 ft Assumed Storage Length SBR: 25 ft c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 94 795 215 1 244 1085 110 510 455 210 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 13 11 12 12 11 11 13 11 11 12 11 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1798 3364 1572 3296 3398 1500 3263 1788 1506 3263 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1798 3364 1572 3296 3398 1500 3263 1788 1506 3263 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 101 855 231 1 262 1167 118 548 489 226 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 70 0 0 141 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 102 855 113 0 263 1167 48 548 489 85 113 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8 14 14 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 1 1 6 5 5 2 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.2 54.2 54.2 14.0 57.0 57.0 25.3 43.1 43.1 8.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.2 54.2 54.2 14.0 57.0 57.0 25.3 43.1 43.1 8.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 1302 608 329 1383 610 589 550 463 202 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.25 0.08 c0.34 c0.17 c0.27 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.03 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.66 0.19 0.80 0.84 0.08 0.93 0.89 0.18 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 62.8 35.3 28.3 61.6 37.5 25.4 56.5 46.2 35.6 63.8 Progression Factor 0.71 0.54 0.59 0.76 0.63 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.4 2.2 0.6 6.7 3.6 0.1 21.3 15.7 0.1 1.9 Delay (s) 55.7 21.2 17.4 53.8 27.3 4.1 77.7 61.8 35.6 65.7 Level of Service ECB DCAEEDE Approach Delay (s) 23.4 30.0 64.0 Approach LOS C C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 6/1/2011 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 395 85 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 Lane Width 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3308 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3308 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 425 91 RTOR Reduction (vph) 13 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 503 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% Turn Type NA Protected Phases 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 26.5 Effective Green, g (s) 26.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 626 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 54.3 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 Delay (s) 61.2 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) 62.0 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 125 820 185 1 184 1140 350 370 445 160 150 385 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 14 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1758 3515 1536 3409 3515 1499 3376 1832 1661 3410 3391 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1758 3515 1536 3409 3515 1499 3376 1832 1661 3410 3391 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 132 863 195 1 194 1200 368 389 468 168 158 405 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 114 0 0 0 165 0 0 68 0 12 Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 863 81 0 195 1200 203 389 468 100 158 477 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9119 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 58.4 58.4 11.6 59.0 59.0 18.3 39.1 39.1 10.9 31.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 58.4 58.4 11.6 59.0 59.0 18.3 39.1 39.1 10.9 31.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.42 0.42 0.13 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 138 1466 640 282 1481 631 441 511 463 265 767 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.25 0.06 c0.34 c0.12 c0.26 0.05 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.14 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.59 0.13 0.69 0.81 0.32 0.88 0.92 0.22 0.60 0.62 Uniform Delay, d1 64.3 31.5 25.1 62.5 35.6 27.1 59.8 48.9 38.7 62.4 48.7 Progression Factor 0.76 1.30 4.31 1.37 0.86 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 60.6 1.7 0.4 2.9 2.5 0.7 17.9 20.8 0.1 2.4 1.1 Delay (s) 109.3 42.5 108.7 88.3 32.9 22.4 77.7 69.6 38.8 64.8 49.9 Level of Service FDF FCCEEDED Approach Delay (s) 60.8 36.9 67.6 53.5 Approach LOS E D E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 52.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 5/18/2011 Assumed Storage Length EBL: 300 ft Assumed Storage Length WBL: 300 ft Assumed Storage Length NBL: 300 ft

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 84 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 211: Five Mile Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 155 780 145 110 1100 180 300 420 150 130 320 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 12 11 12 14 12 12 11 10 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1758 3515 1496 1758 3749 1526 3376 1788 1443 3376 1771 1534 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1758 3515 1496 1758 3749 1526 3376 1788 1443 3376 1771 1534 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 830 154 117 1170 191 319 447 160 138 340 149 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 98 0 0 125 0 0 115 0 0 114 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 830 56 117 1170 66 319 447 45 138 340 35 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 3 3 6 2 4 4 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6284 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 50.9 50.9 13.5 48.6 48.6 16.6 39.0 39.0 10.1 32.5 32.5 Effective Green, g (s) 15.8 50.9 50.9 13.5 48.6 48.6 16.6 39.0 39.0 10.1 32.5 32.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 1277 543 169 1301 529 400 498 401 243 411 356 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.24 0.07 c0.31 c0.09 c0.25 0.04 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.65 0.10 0.69 0.90 0.13 0.80 0.90 0.11 0.57 0.83 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 60.8 37.1 29.5 61.2 43.4 31.2 60.1 48.6 37.6 62.8 51.1 42.2 Progression Factor 1.12 1.28 3.85 0.79 0.71 1.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.9 2.2 0.3 8.0 8.7 0.4 9.9 18.6 0.1 1.8 12.6 0.1 Delay (s) 89.1 49.7 113.6 56.3 39.3 47.6 70.0 67.1 37.7 64.7 63.6 42.3 Level of Service FDFEDDEEDEED Approach Delay (s) 63.9 41.7 63.0 58.8 Approach LOS E D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 55.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 26.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 9/20/2011 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 212: Cloverdale Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 160 785 125 125 1030 205 145 475 185 150 345 150 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1758 3515 1557 1758 3515 1552 3410 3334 3410 3315 Flt Permitted 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 230 3515 1557 464 3515 1552 3410 3334 3410 3315 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 170 835 133 133 1096 218 154 505 197 160 367 160 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 71 0 0 95 0 31 0 0 36 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 170 835 62 133 1096 123 154 671 0 160 491 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 4 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 78.2 65.7 65.7 72.4 62.8 62.8 10.7 35.3 9.4 34.0 Effective Green, g (s) 78.2 65.7 65.7 72.4 62.8 62.8 10.7 35.3 9.4 34.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.47 0.47 0.52 0.45 0.45 0.08 0.25 0.07 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 264 1649 730 328 1576 696 260 840 228 805 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.24 0.03 c0.31 0.05 c0.20 c0.05 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 0.04 0.18 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.51 0.09 0.41 0.70 0.18 0.59 0.80 0.70 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 21.6 25.9 20.5 18.8 30.9 23.1 62.5 49.0 63.9 47.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.18 0.77 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 1.1 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.3 2.4 5.0 7.7 1.0 Delay (s) 25.6 27.0 20.8 22.5 25.2 25.0 64.9 54.0 71.7 48.1 Level of Service CCCCCCED ED Approach Delay (s) 26.0 24.9 56.0 53.6 Approach LOS C C E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 10/23/2012 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 245 625 180 5 250 705 340 5 315 1605 235 260 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 11 12 12 12 11 12 13 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3263 5050 1557 3231 5000 1609 3375 4890 3410 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3263 5050 1557 3231 5000 1609 3375 4890 3410 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 258 658 189 5 263 742 358 5 332 1689 247 274 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 146 0 0 0 127 00900 Lane Group Flow (vph) 258 658 43 0 268 742 231 0 337 1927 0 274 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 211 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 3 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 42.6 42.6 18.8 46.9 46.9 36.6 98.2 18.4 Effective Green, g (s) 14.5 42.6 42.6 18.8 46.9 46.9 36.6 98.2 18.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.49 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 236 1075 331 303 1172 377 617 2400 313 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.13 0.08 c0.15 0.10 c0.39 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.14 v/c Ratio 1.09 0.61 0.13 0.88 0.63 0.61 0.55 0.80 0.88 Uniform Delay, d1 92.8 71.2 63.7 89.5 68.8 68.4 74.2 42.8 89.7 Progression Factor 0.94 1.10 2.59 0.96 0.87 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 84.6 1.0 0.2 23.3 1.1 2.8 0.8 3.0 22.2 Delay (s) 171.3 79.1 165.2 109.3 60.7 53.5 74.9 45.7 111.8 Level of Service FEF FED ED F Approach Delay (s) 115.4 68.3 50.1 Approach LOS F E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 68.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 200.0 Sum of lost time (s) 22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 11/7/2012 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 930 275 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 13 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3446 1585 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3446 1585 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 979 289 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 125 Lane Group Flow (vph) 979 164 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1% Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 80.0 80.0 Effective Green, g (s) 80.0 80.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1378 634 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 50.3 40.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 1.0 Delay (s) 53.4 41.1 Level of Service DD Approach Delay (s) 61.5 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 214: Mitchell Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 90 815 35 20 1135 165 45 105 35 90 80 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 13 12 13 14 12 14 12 11 12 11 10 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1816 3515 1504 1875 3515 1677 1755 1701 1697 1596 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.35 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1816 3515 1504 1875 3515 1677 1033 1701 624 1596 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 101 916 39 22 1275 185 51 118 39 101 90 56 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 14 0 0 40 0 10 0 0 18 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 101 916 25 22 1275 145 51 147 0 101 128 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 4 4 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.1 88.8 88.8 4.3 81.0 81.0 24.1 17.5 29.7 20.3 Effective Green, g (s) 12.1 88.8 88.8 4.3 81.0 81.0 24.1 17.5 29.7 20.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.63 0.63 0.03 0.58 0.58 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 2229 953 57 2033 970 211 212 204 231 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.26 0.01 c0.36 0.01 c0.09 c0.03 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.41 0.03 0.39 0.63 0.15 0.24 0.70 0.50 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 61.9 12.7 9.5 66.6 19.5 13.6 49.4 58.7 46.6 55.6 Progression Factor 1.10 0.58 1.00 1.15 0.63 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.2 7.7 0.7 1.6 Delay (s) 73.8 7.8 9.6 77.5 13.2 9.0 49.7 66.4 47.2 57.3 Level of Service EAAEBADE DE Approach Delay (s) 14.2 13.6 62.3 53.2 Approach LOS B B E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 4/4/2012 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 205 585 155 4 221 820 245 180 670 175 135 445 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 14 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1875 3515 1527 1874 3480 1572 1757 3372 1758 3322 Flt Permitted 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.10 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 359 3515 1527 573 3480 1572 378 3372 188 3322 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 220 629 167 4 238 882 263 194 720 188 145 478 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 88 0 0 0 130 0 12 0 0 17 Lane Group Flow (vph) 220 629 79 0 242 882 133 194 896 0 145 617 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 3% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 68.8 55.1 55.1 72.0 56.7 56.7 55.9 40.8 52.9 39.3 Effective Green, g (s) 68.8 55.1 55.1 72.0 56.7 56.7 55.9 40.8 52.9 39.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.28 0.37 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 1337 581 422 1362 615 289 950 216 901 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.18 0.06 0.25 c0.07 c0.27 0.06 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 0.05 0.22 0.08 0.19 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.47 0.14 0.57 0.65 0.22 0.67 0.94 0.67 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 25.6 33.8 29.3 22.4 35.9 29.3 32.6 50.9 35.8 47.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 0.3 0.1 1.2 1.1 0.2 4.8 17.0 6.3 2.2 Delay (s) 31.3 34.2 29.4 23.6 37.0 29.5 37.4 67.9 42.1 49.4 Level of Service CCC CDCDE DD Approach Delay (s) 32.8 33.2 62.5 48.0 Approach LOS C C E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 144.8 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 6/7/2011 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 145 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 156 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 251: Linder Road & Cherry Lane 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 455 60 90 1065 275 185 360 75 130 215 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 13 12 11 13 12 12 12 14 12 12 13 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1723 3499 1666 3451 1723 1814 1644 1723 1814 1593 Flt Permitted 0.11 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 191 3499 563 3451 792 1814 1644 397 1814 1593 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 495 65 98 1158 299 201 391 82 141 234 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 060013000610040 Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 554 0 98 1444 0 201 391 21 141 234 14 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.3 38.0 49.5 41.1 39.8 27.4 27.4 37.6 26.3 26.3 Effective Green, g (s) 43.3 38.0 49.5 41.1 39.8 27.4 27.4 37.6 26.3 26.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.36 0.47 0.39 0.38 0.26 0.26 0.36 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 1265 353 1349 409 472 428 284 453 398 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.16 c0.02 c0.42 c0.06 c0.22 0.05 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.12 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.44 0.28 1.07 0.49 0.83 0.05 0.50 0.52 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 25.5 16.3 32.0 23.3 36.6 29.1 24.9 33.9 29.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.2 45.8 0.3 10.9 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 Delay (s) 24.9 25.5 16.5 77.8 23.7 47.5 29.1 25.4 34.3 29.8 Level of Service CC BE CDCCCC Approach Delay (s) 25.5 73.9 38.2 30.8 Approach LOS C E D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 51.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.1 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 6/6/2006 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 252: 8th Street & Cherry Lane 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 15 665 15 50 1270 50 20 40 50 50 15 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 13 12 12 14 13 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1780 3435 1838 3541 1723 1662 1723 1711 Flt Permitted 0.15 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.69 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 281 3435 657 3541 1328 1662 1259 1711 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 723 16 54 1380 54 22 43 54 54 16 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 01001004800200 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 738 0 54 1433 0 22 49 0 54 18 0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 4 Permitted Phases 6284 Actuated Green, G (s) 46.9 46.0 51.5 48.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 Effective Green, g (s) 46.9 46.0 51.5 48.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.65 0.73 0.68 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 205 2238 532 2422 120 150 114 155 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.21 c0.00 c0.40 0.03 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.07 0.02 c0.04 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.33 0.10 0.59 0.18 0.33 0.47 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 4.6 5.5 2.8 5.9 29.7 30.1 30.5 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 4.6 5.5 2.8 6.3 30.0 30.5 31.6 29.6 Level of Service AA AA CC CC Approach Delay (s) 5.5 6.2 30.4 30.8 Approach LOS A A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.6 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 5/20/2008 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 17 13 870 95 145 1000 40 290 20 100 60 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 14 12 12 14 13 12 11 13 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1854 4961 1875 5139 3263 1658 3410 1850 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1854 4961 1875 5139 3263 1658 3410 1850 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 14 926 101 154 1064 43 309 21 106 64 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0040010094000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 32 1023 0 154 1106 0 309 33 0 64 27 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 1 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 122.5 21.7 137.2 24.3 23.0 8.8 7.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 122.5 21.7 137.2 24.3 23.0 8.8 7.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.61 0.11 0.69 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.04 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 64 3038 203 3525 396 190 150 69 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.21 c0.08 0.22 c0.09 0.02 c0.02 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.50 0.34 0.76 0.31 0.78 0.17 0.43 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 94.8 18.9 86.6 12.6 85.3 79.9 93.1 94.0 Progression Factor 0.88 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.2 14.9 0.2 9.6 0.4 1.4 1.3 Delay (s) 85.0 20.9 101.5 12.8 94.9 80.4 94.6 95.4 Level of Service FC FB FF FF Approach Delay (s) 22.8 23.6 90.6 94.1 Approach LOS C C F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 200.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 5/14/2008 Counts prior to Records Way improvements c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1542 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1542 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 RTOR Reduction (vph) 51 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 57 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 92.8 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 Delay (s) 92.9 Level of Service F Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 23 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 352: Lakes Place & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 65 930 10 10 1290 70 15 5 25 80 2 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 11 13 12 11 12 12 16 12 11 13 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.92 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1723 3331 1593 1723 3306 1868 1666 1598 Flt Permitted 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.87 0.86 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 217 3331 1593 495 3306 1651 1502 1598 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 71 1011 11 11 1402 76 16 5 27 87 2 114 RTOR Reduction (vph) 003020024001010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 1011 8 11 1476 0 0 24 0 87 15 0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 74.6 69.8 69.8 66.6 65.8 11.4 11.4 11.4 Effective Green, g (s) 74.6 69.8 69.8 66.6 65.8 11.4 11.4 11.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.77 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.68 0.12 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 2396 1146 349 2242 194 176 187 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.30 0.00 c0.45 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.00 0.02 0.01 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.42 0.01 0.03 0.66 0.12 0.49 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 6.1 5.5 3.8 4.8 9.1 38.3 40.1 38.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.1 Delay (s) 6.4 5.6 3.8 4.8 9.9 38.4 40.9 38.2 Level of Service AAAAA D DD Approach Delay (s) 5.7 9.8 38.4 39.4 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 97.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 5/20/2008 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 44 855 20 8 17 1125 150 195 80 55 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 14 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 16 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1874 5033 1814 3423 1758 1850 1765 1758 Flt Permitted 0.09 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.63 Satd. Flow (perm) 178 5033 1814 3423 1318 1850 1765 1174 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 50 972 23 9 19 1278 170 222 91 62 125 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0020007000560 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 51 993 0 0 28 1441 0 222 91 6 125 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt NA Prot Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 1 1 6 5 5 2 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 6 6 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 60.6 55.9 4.2 55.4 19.0 9.0 9.0 20.8 Effective Green, g (s) 60.6 55.9 4.2 55.4 19.0 9.0 9.0 20.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.56 0.04 0.55 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 187 2813 76 1896 294 166 158 307 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.20 c0.02 c0.42 c0.08 0.05 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 c0.07 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.35 0.37 0.76 0.76 0.55 0.04 0.41 Uniform Delay, d1 12.6 12.1 46.6 17.2 37.6 43.6 41.5 33.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 1.0 2.6 9.4 3.7 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 12.9 12.5 50.0 34.8 47.0 47.2 41.6 34.1 Level of Service BB DC DDDC Approach Delay (s) 12.5 35.1 46.2 Approach LOS B D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 5/13/2008 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 25 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 15 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.89 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1642 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1642 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 17 51 RTOR Reduction (vph) 46 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% Turn Type NA Protected Phases 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 9.9 Effective Green, g (s) 9.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 162 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 Delay (s) 41.5 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 36.7 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 26 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 390: Steelwood Drive & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 5 1095 1 5 1495 510110010 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 1190 1 5 1625 510111011 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 1630 1191 2036 2843 596 2246 2841 815 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1630 1191 2036 2843 596 2246 2841 815 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 97 100 100 52 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 394 582 31 17 447 22 17 320 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 5 793 398 5 1083 547 2 11 11 Volume Left 5005001110 Volume Right 0010051011 cSH 394 1700 1700 582 1700 1700 59 22 320 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.47 0.23 0.01 0.64 0.32 0.04 0.48 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1001003363 Control Delay (s) 14.3 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 68.5 269.4 16.6 Lane LOS B B F F C Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 68.5 143.0 Approach LOS FF Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 27 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 68: Cole Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 170 820 115 100 960 135 275 865 120 170 470 115 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 190.7 185.0 183.2 185.0 185.0 185.0 183.4 185.0 192.4 183.5 185.0 Lanes 120120120120 Cap, veh/h 179 1090 152 165 1034 145 306 955 132 197 679 165 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1762 3191 446 1744 3092 435 1762 3072 424 1832 2778 673 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 173 475 479 102 557 561 281 501 504 173 300 297 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1762 1812 1825 1744 1758 1770 1762 1742 1755 1832 1743 1708 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.5 32.2 32.2 7.7 42.5 42.5 21.6 38.2 38.2 12.8 21.6 21.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.5 32.2 32.2 7.7 42.5 42.5 21.6 38.2 38.2 12.8 21.6 21.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.39 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 179 619 623 165 588 592 306 541 545 197 426 418 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.77 0.77 0.62 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.70 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 619 623 165 588 592 359 557 561 213 426 418 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.5 40.4 40.4 59.9 44.6 44.6 55.8 45.9 45.9 60.5 47.4 47.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 49.0 7.0 6.9 4.2 22.9 22.9 24.8 21.2 21.1 28.1 4.4 4.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 8.5 15.9 16.0 3.7 22.5 22.6 11.8 19.9 20.0 7.5 10.0 10.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 110.6 47.4 47.4 64.1 67.5 67.6 80.6 67.0 66.9 88.5 51.8 52.3 Lane Grp LOS F D D E E E F E E F D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1127 1220 1286 770 Approach Delay, s/veh 57.1 67.3 70.0 60.3 Approach LOS EEEE Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 52.0 18.0 51.0 28.9 47.8 19.8 38.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 47.0 13.0 46.0 28.0 44.0 16.0 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.5 34.2 9.7 44.5 23.6 40.2 14.8 23.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.2 2.6 1.2 0.4 2.5 0.0 7.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 64.2 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 1 164 710 215 8 162 740 115 1 564 1160 85 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 183.2 185.0 190.5 181.4 183.2 183.2 185.0 181.4 181.4 Lanes 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 Cap, veh/h 214 1035 476 216 908 141 706 1397 624 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.59 0.59 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 3384 3515 1614 3109 3019 469 3418 3446 1538 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 173 747 226 171 449 451 594 1221 89 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1692 1758 1614 1555 1740 1747 1709 1723 1538 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.1 21.6 11.4 7.7 34.6 34.6 23.7 46.4 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.1 21.6 11.4 7.7 34.6 34.6 23.7 46.4 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 214 1035 476 216 523 525 706 1397 624 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.72 0.48 0.79 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.87 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 214 1035 476 328 563 566 818 1397 624 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.2 25.0 22.9 65.1 46.8 46.8 54.1 38.9 26.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.1 1.9 0.2 2.5 7.8 7.8 6.2 7.8 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.4 7.6 3.8 3.2 16.4 16.4 11.2 21.9 2.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 78.3 27.0 23.2 67.6 54.6 54.6 60.3 46.7 27.1 Lane Grp LOS ECC EDD EDC Approach Vol, veh/h 1146 1071 1904 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.0 56.7 50.1 Approach LOS C E D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 47.9 15.9 48.7 35.4 63.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 40.0 15.0 46.0 34.0 56.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 23.6 9.7 36.6 25.7 48.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 13.2 0.2 6.2 3.7 6.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 150 820 110 Number 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 179.6 185.0 Lanes 2 3 1 Cap, veh/h 211 1263 408 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3418 4850 1567 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 158 863 116 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1709 1617 1567 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 22.8 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 22.8 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 211 1263 408 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.68 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 361 1263 408 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.6 47.3 26.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.3 3.0 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.0 9.7 2.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 70.9 50.3 28.1 Lane Grp LOS E D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1137 Approach Delay, s/veh 50.9 Approach LOS D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.8 43.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 24.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 8.3 Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 98: Liberty Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 65 940 40 105 1225 70 65 15 65 70 20 50 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.8 192.4 185.0 192.4 192.3 183.2 179.6 192.4 185.0 181.4 189.7 181.4 Lanes 120120110110 Cap, veh/h 285 1442 62 393 1443 82 363 65 276 356 98 243 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.08 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1779 3570 153 1832 3512 201 1296 318 1349 1296 481 1190 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 68 501 520 109 663 686 68 0 84 73 0 73 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1779 1828 1896 1832 1827 1886 1296 0 1667 1296 0 1670 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 11.1 11.2 1.6 16.6 16.7 2.3 0.0 2.1 2.5 0.0 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 11.1 11.2 1.6 16.6 16.7 4.1 0.0 2.1 4.6 0.0 1.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.81 1.00 0.71 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 285 738 766 393 751 775 363 0 341 356 0 342 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.68 0.68 0.28 0.88 0.89 0.19 0.00 0.25 0.21 0.00 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 553 738 766 657 751 775 844 0 960 837 0 961 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.6 12.1 12.1 8.5 13.5 13.5 18.1 0.0 16.5 18.4 0.0 16.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 2.5 2.4 0.1 7.7 7.6 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.3 4.4 4.6 0.5 7.5 7.9 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.7 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 10.7 14.6 14.5 8.6 21.2 21.1 18.3 0.0 16.9 18.7 0.0 16.7 Lane Grp LOS BBBACCB BB B Approach Vol, veh/h 1089 1458 152 146 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.3 20.2 17.5 17.7 Approach LOS B C B B Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 8 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 25.0 8.9 25.3 15.6 15.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 20.0 11.0 20.0 28.5 28.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 13.2 3.6 18.7 6.1 6.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.6 0.1 1.3 2.0 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.7 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 99: Orchard Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 49 10 300 105 455 10 410 500 5 1 365 95 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 188.6 185.0 192.4 181.4 190.5 185.0 185.0 192.4 185.0 192.4 181.4 188.6 Lanes 111120120121 Cap, veh/h 210 319 282 427 740 16 585 1915 21 413 1303 605 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1796 1850 1635 1727 3623 79 1762 3705 40 1832 3446 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 11 0 117 253 264 456 274 288 1 406 106 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1796 1850 1635 1727 1810 1891 1762 1828 1917 1832 1723 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.5 0.0 5.3 13.0 13.0 11.3 8.6 8.6 0.0 8.3 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.5 0.0 5.3 13.0 13.0 11.3 8.6 8.6 0.0 8.3 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 210 319 282 427 370 386 585 945 991 413 1303 605 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.03 0.00 0.27 0.68 0.68 0.78 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.31 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 319 663 586 512 684 715 688 945 991 611 1303 605 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.66 0.66 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.8 34.6 0.0 28.4 37.0 37.0 13.0 13.8 13.8 19.4 22.0 20.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.8 4.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.1 0.2 0.0 2.2 5.8 6.1 5.2 3.7 3.9 0.0 3.7 1.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 32.9 34.6 0.0 28.5 37.8 37.8 17.0 13.9 13.9 19.4 22.7 21.5 Lane Grp LOS C C C D D BBBBCC Approach Vol, veh/h 65 634 1018 513 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.2 36.1 15.3 22.4 Approach LOS C D B C Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 23.3 13.1 26.5 20.1 58.0 6.1 44.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 36.0 12.0 38.0 20.0 47.0 11.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 2.5 7.3 15.0 13.3 10.6 2.0 10.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.9 0.1 5.3 0.8 10.8 0.0 9.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 206: Meridian Road & Cherry Lane/Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 150 595 75 50 1060 245 205 430 45 150 200 245 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 188.6 181.4 181.4 188.6 188.6 181.4 188.6 188.6 188.6 181.4 188.6 181.4 Lanes 120120111111 Cap, veh/h 180 1523 193 69 1255 287 347 422 358 223 381 311 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.87 0.87 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1796 3078 390 1796 2897 664 1796 1886 1603 1727 1886 1542 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 163 362 367 54 709 709 223 467 49 163 217 266 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1796 1723 1745 1796 1792 1769 1796 1886 1603 1727 1886 1542 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.7 17.4 17.5 3.8 32.9 35.1 12.2 29.0 2.5 9.6 13.5 21.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.7 17.4 17.5 3.8 32.9 35.1 12.2 29.0 2.5 9.6 13.5 21.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 180 852 863 69 776 766 347 422 358 223 381 311 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.42 0.43 0.78 0.91 0.93 0.64 1.11 0.14 0.73 0.57 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 180 916 928 138 911 900 370 422 358 229 381 311 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.74 0.74 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.8 21.0 21.0 59.3 7.1 7.3 34.2 50.4 24.0 38.6 46.7 49.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 39.4 1.5 1.5 5.2 13.5 15.0 2.5 76.4 0.1 9.6 1.3 19.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 7.3 7.6 7.7 1.8 6.2 6.5 5.8 23.1 0.0 6.0 6.6 10.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 97.2 22.5 22.5 64.5 20.6 22.3 36.7 126.8 24.1 48.1 48.0 69.1 Lane Grp LOS F C C E C C D F C D D E Approach Vol, veh/h 892 1472 739 646 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.1 23.0 92.8 56.7 Approach LOS D C F E Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 69.2 10.0 61.2 19.3 34.0 16.6 31.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 69.0 10.0 66.0 16.0 29.0 12.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.7 19.5 5.8 37.1 14.2 31.0 11.6 23.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.9 0.0 19.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 45.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 6 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 207: Main Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 25 595 160 175 960 60 400 115 230 65 50 50 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 188.6 188.6 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 188.6 188.6 181.4 181.4 181.4 Lanes 121120211011 Cap, veh/h 46 1529 658 227 1753 109 533 300 255 100 76 154 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.57 0.57 0.13 0.53 0.53 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1796 3584 1542 1727 3295 205 3351 1886 1603 1002 762 1542 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 647 174 190 545 563 435 125 0 125 0 54 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1796 1792 1542 1727 1723 1777 1676 1886 1603 1764 0 1542 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 11.2 6.3 11.7 23.6 23.6 13.7 6.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 11.2 6.3 11.7 23.6 23.6 13.7 6.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 3.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.57 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 46 1529 658 227 917 946 533 300 255 176 0 154 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.42 0.26 0.84 0.59 0.59 0.82 0.42 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 165 1529 658 491 917 946 799 450 382 421 0 368 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.1 15.9 14.9 46.2 17.5 17.5 44.3 41.3 0.0 47.5 0.0 45.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.8 0.8 0.9 8.0 2.8 2.8 2.3 0.3 0.0 10.8 0.0 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.8 4.4 2.3 5.6 10.1 10.4 6.0 3.2 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.5 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 55.9 16.7 15.7 54.3 20.3 20.2 46.6 41.6 0.0 58.3 0.0 48.7 Lane Grp LOS E B B DCCDD E D Approach Vol, veh/h 848 1298 560 179 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.8 25.2 45.5 55.4 Approach LOS B C D E Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 8 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 51.5 19.3 63.0 22.3 15.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 37.0 31.0 58.0 26.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 13.2 13.7 25.6 15.7 9.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 18.6 0.6 23.7 1.7 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 1 94 795 215 1 244 1085 110 510 455 210 105 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 190.5 183.2 185.0 185.0 185.0 186.8 183.2 185.0 183.2 183.2 Lanes 1 2 1 2212112 Cap, veh/h 125 1310 586 315 1405 631 603 616 512 162 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.53 0.53 0.18 0.33 0.33 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1814 3480 1556 3418 3515 1578 3384 1850 1537 3384 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 101 855 231 262 1167 118 548 489 226 113 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1814 1740 1556 1709 1758 1578 1692 1850 1537 1692 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 27.0 11.6 10.0 37.0 5.2 21.1 31.8 15.3 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 27.0 11.6 10.0 37.0 5.2 21.1 31.8 15.3 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 125 1310 586 315 1405 631 603 616 512 162 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.65 0.39 0.83 0.83 0.19 0.91 0.79 0.44 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 178 1310 586 360 1405 631 662 641 532 255 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.17 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.0 34.2 19.5 57.3 27.3 19.9 53.5 40.1 34.6 62.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 2.5 2.0 2.3 1.1 0.1 14.8 5.9 0.2 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.8 12.1 4.8 4.3 14.6 2.0 10.5 16.1 6.0 2.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 72.3 36.8 21.5 59.6 28.4 20.0 68.4 46.1 34.8 64.3 Lane Grp LOS EDC ECBEDCE Approach Vol, veh/h 1187 1547 1263 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.8 33.0 53.7 Approach LOS D C D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 55.0 17.2 58.1 28.7 49.3 11.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 50.0 14.0 51.0 26.0 46.0 10.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.3 29.0 12.0 39.0 23.1 33.8 6.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 9.6 0.3 8.9 0.6 6.8 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.8 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 8 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 395 85 Number 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 185.0 Lanes 2 0 Cap, veh/h 583 124 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 2875 610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 258 258 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1758 1727 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.3 18.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.3 18.6 Prop In Lane 0.35 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 356 350 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 397 390 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.5 49.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 5.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 8.8 8.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 54.1 54.8 Lane Grp LOS D D Approach Vol, veh/h 629 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.2 Approach LOS E Timer Assigned Phs 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.6 Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 9 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 125 820 185 1 184 1140 350 370 445 160 150 385 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 00000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 185.0 183.2 185.0 185.0 185.0 183.2 183.2 190.5 185.0 183.2 Lanes 1 2 1 22121122 Cap, veh/h 145 1591 698 246 1554 691 440 483 427 211 562 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1762 3515 1541 3418 3515 1563 3384 1832 1619 3418 2876 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 863 195 194 1200 368 389 468 168 158 244 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1762 1758 1541 1709 1758 1563 1692 1832 1619 1709 1740 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 23.8 10.6 7.5 38.6 22.9 15.1 33.7 11.4 6.1 17.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 23.8 10.6 7.5 38.6 22.9 15.1 33.7 11.4 6.1 17.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 145 1591 698 246 1554 691 440 483 427 211 340 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.54 0.28 0.79 0.77 0.53 0.88 0.97 0.39 0.75 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 145 1591 698 333 1554 691 482 483 427 384 404 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.7 26.5 22.9 60.9 31.5 27.2 57.1 48.6 40.4 61.6 50.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.6 1.3 1.0 5.9 3.8 2.9 15.6 32.8 0.2 2.0 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 6.4 10.6 4.1 3.5 17.5 9.3 7.5 20.0 4.7 2.7 8.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 108.3 27.8 23.9 66.9 35.3 30.1 72.7 81.4 40.6 63.6 53.7 Lane Grp LOS FCC EDCEFDED Approach Vol, veh/h 1190 1762 1025 647 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.1 37.7 71.4 56.3 Approach LOS D D E E Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.0 65.4 14.6 64.0 22.3 40.2 13.3 31.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 57.0 13.0 59.0 19.0 35.0 15.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.9 25.8 9.5 40.6 17.1 35.7 8.1 19.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 30.3 0.2 18.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 6.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 10 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 80 Number 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 183.2 Lanes 0 Cap, veh/h 116 Arrive On Green 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 591 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 245 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1727 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.8 Prop In Lane 0.34 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 338 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 401 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 8.2 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 54.2 Lane Grp LOS D Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 11 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 211: Five Mile Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 155 780 145 110 1100 180 300 420 150 130 320 140 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 192.4 183.2 183.2 185.0 185.0 183.2 183.2 183.2 Lanes 121121211211 Cap, veh/h 191 1276 568 145 1220 517 376 543 459 191 437 370 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1762 3515 1565 1762 3656 1549 3384 1850 1566 3384 1832 1549 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 165 830 154 117 1170 191 319 447 160 138 340 149 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1762 1758 1565 1762 1828 1549 1692 1850 1566 1692 1832 1549 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.9 25.5 6.7 8.5 41.2 14.8 12.0 29.1 10.4 5.2 22.5 8.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.9 25.5 6.7 8.5 41.2 14.8 12.0 29.1 10.4 5.2 22.5 8.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 191 1276 568 145 1220 517 376 543 459 191 437 370 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.65 0.27 0.80 0.96 0.37 0.85 0.82 0.35 0.72 0.78 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 1276 568 184 1220 517 484 565 478 353 488 413 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.8 34.4 16.3 61.9 56.7 45.0 56.5 42.6 36.0 60.1 46.1 24.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.0 2.6 1.2 11.4 14.7 1.6 8.9 9.1 0.3 1.9 6.6 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 6.5 11.5 2.7 4.5 23.0 6.4 5.7 14.9 4.1 2.3 11.2 3.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 76.8 37.0 17.5 73.4 71.4 46.5 65.4 51.7 36.3 62.0 52.7 24.5 Lane Grp LOS E D B E E D E D D E D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1149 1478 926 627 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.1 68.4 53.7 48.0 Approach LOS D E D D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.5 53.0 17.2 49.7 21.9 44.5 14.8 37.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.5 6.0 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 47.0 13.5 43.0 18.5 39.5 13.5 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.9 27.5 10.5 43.2 14.0 31.1 7.2 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 11.6 0.3 0.0 0.4 5.1 0.2 5.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 12 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 212: Cloverdale Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 160 785 125 125 1030 205 145 475 185 150 345 150 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 185.0 183.2 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 183.2 183.2 185.0 183.7 185.0 Lanes 121121220220 Cap, veh/h 248 1503 665 310 1462 654 212 706 274 214 687 295 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.42 0.42 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1762 3515 1556 1762 3515 1571 3418 2449 950 3418 2377 1020 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 835 133 133 1096 218 154 358 344 160 268 259 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1762 1758 1556 1762 1758 1571 1709 1740 1659 1709 1745 1652 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.6 22.0 6.6 5.3 32.6 11.6 5.5 22.8 23.0 5.7 15.9 16.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 22.0 6.6 5.3 32.6 11.6 5.5 22.8 23.0 5.7 15.9 16.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.62 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 248 1503 665 310 1462 654 212 502 478 214 504 477 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.56 0.20 0.43 0.75 0.33 0.73 0.71 0.72 0.75 0.53 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 337 1510 668 419 1510 675 443 592 565 277 509 482 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.9 26.5 22.1 20.6 30.6 24.4 56.8 39.3 39.4 56.9 36.9 37.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 1.5 0.7 0.3 3.6 1.4 1.8 2.4 2.6 5.3 0.5 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.3 9.7 2.6 2.2 14.7 4.7 2.4 10.2 9.8 2.6 7.0 6.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 26.3 28.0 22.8 20.9 34.1 25.8 58.6 41.7 42.1 62.1 37.4 37.7 Lane Grp LOS CCCCCCEDDEDD Approach Vol, veh/h 1138 1447 856 687 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.1 31.7 44.9 43.2 Approach LOS CCDD Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 57.7 12.3 56.3 12.7 40.6 12.7 40.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 53.0 15.0 53.0 16.0 42.0 10.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 24.0 7.3 34.6 7.5 25.0 7.7 18.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 25.2 0.1 16.7 0.2 10.6 0.1 10.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 35.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 245 625 180 5 250 705 340 5 315 1605 235 260 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 183.2 185.0 183.2 181.4 183.2 190.5 183.1 182.9 181.4 185.0 Lanes 2 3 1 2 3 1 2302 Cap, veh/h 251 1177 363 299 1241 402 695 2097 305 305 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.48 0.48 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 3384 5051 1557 3351 5000 1619 3384 4404 641 3418 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 258 658 189 263 742 358 332 1275 661 274 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1692 1684 1557 1676 1667 1619 1692 1665 1715 1709 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.5 22.5 20.8 15.3 28.1 28.0 16.9 63.7 64.3 15.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.5 22.5 20.8 15.3 28.1 28.0 16.9 63.7 64.3 15.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 251 1177 363 299 1241 402 695 1585 817 305 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.56 0.52 0.88 0.60 0.89 0.48 0.80 0.81 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 251 1212 374 334 1328 430 695 1598 823 305 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 90.7 66.2 65.6 94.0 80.5 37.1 68.6 43.5 43.7 88.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 64.7 0.5 1.2 18.3 0.6 18.1 0.4 4.4 8.5 26.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 8.7 10.0 8.4 7.8 12.9 14.2 7.4 27.4 29.3 8.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 155.4 66.8 66.8 112.3 81.1 55.2 68.9 48.0 52.3 114.7 Lane Grp LOS FEE FFE EDDF Approach Vol, veh/h 1105 1363 2268 Approach Delay, s/veh 87.5 80.3 52.3 Approach LOS F F D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 50.6 23.0 53.6 46.2 99.2 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 47.0 19.5 52.0 36.5 94.0 17.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.5 24.5 17.3 30.1 18.9 66.3 17.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 18.9 0.2 18.5 17.2 26.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 67.9 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 14 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 930 275 Number 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 181.4 190.5 Lanes 2 1 Cap, veh/h 1232 578 Arrive On Green 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3446 1616 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 979 289 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1723 1616 Q Serve(g_s), s 49.9 21.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 49.9 21.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1232 578 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1320 619 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 29.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.3 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 22.7 8.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 61.8 32.2 Lane Grp LOS E C Approach Vol, veh/h 1542 Approach Delay, s/veh 65.7 Approach LOS E Timer Assigned Phs 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 76.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 75.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 51.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 18.1 Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 15 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 214: Mitchell Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 90 815 35 20 1135 165 45 105 35 90 80 50 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 192.4 185.0 183.2 192.4 185.0 192.4 185.0 183.6 185.0 185.0 182.5 181.4 Lanes 121121110110 Cap, veh/h 127 2138 946 32 1955 908 236 182 60 239 166 104 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.61 0.61 0.02 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1832 3515 1555 1832 3515 1632 1762 1319 436 1762 1050 653 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 101 916 39 22 1275 185 51 0 157 101 0 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1832 1758 1555 1832 1758 1632 1762 0 1755 1762 0 1704 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 15.9 1.2 1.4 29.1 6.5 2.8 0.0 9.7 5.4 0.0 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 15.9 1.2 1.4 29.1 6.5 2.8 0.0 9.7 5.4 0.0 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.38 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 2138 946 32 1955 908 236 0 242 239 0 270 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.43 0.04 0.68 0.65 0.20 0.22 0.00 0.65 0.42 0.00 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 207 2138 946 207 1955 908 316 0 503 282 0 489 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 11.9 9.1 56.2 17.8 12.8 40.0 0.0 46.9 37.7 0.0 44.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.3 0.5 0.1 9.1 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.0 6.5 0.4 0.7 12.3 2.6 1.3 0.0 4.5 2.4 0.0 4.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 56.0 12.4 9.1 65.3 19.5 13.3 40.2 0.0 48.0 38.2 0.0 45.2 Lane Grp LOS EBAEBBD DD D Approach Vol, veh/h 1056 1482 208 247 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.5 19.4 46.1 42.3 Approach LOS B B D D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 75.0 7.0 69.0 9.8 20.9 12.2 23.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 64.0 13.0 64.0 10.0 33.0 10.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.2 17.9 3.4 31.1 4.8 11.7 7.4 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 42.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 16 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 205 585 155 4 221 820 245 180 670 175 135 445 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 00000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 192.4 185.0 179.6 192.3 183.2 185.0 185.0 183.2 183.2 185.0 182.3 Lanes 1 2 1 12112012 Cap, veh/h 326 1502 652 428 1504 680 281 746 195 190 655 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1832 3515 1527 1832 3480 1572 1762 2731 713 1762 2571 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 220 629 167 238 882 263 194 459 449 145 321 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1832 1758 1527 1832 1740 1572 1762 1740 1704 1762 1731 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8 18.3 10.3 10.5 28.2 16.7 11.5 38.1 38.1 8.8 24.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 18.3 10.3 10.5 28.2 16.7 11.5 38.1 38.1 8.8 24.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 326 1502 652 428 1504 680 281 475 466 190 441 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.42 0.26 0.56 0.59 0.39 0.69 0.96 0.96 0.76 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 486 1681 730 580 1664 752 357 475 466 298 441 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.4 29.2 27.0 21.2 31.6 28.3 36.5 52.5 52.5 40.5 49.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 2.3 32.3 32.7 2.4 6.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 4.4 8.0 3.9 4.7 12.4 6.5 5.2 21.2 20.8 5.6 11.7 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 25.3 29.5 27.2 21.6 32.1 28.8 38.7 84.7 85.2 43.0 55.9 Lane Grp LOS CCC CCCDFFDE Approach Vol, veh/h 1016 1383 1102 779 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.2 29.7 76.8 53.7 Approach LOS C C E D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.2 67.5 17.9 68.3 18.7 45.0 16.0 42.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 70.0 25.0 70.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.8 20.3 12.5 30.2 13.5 40.1 10.8 27.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 39.7 0.4 33.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 7.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 45.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 17 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 145 Number 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 Lanes 0 Cap, veh/h 212 Arrive On Green 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 833 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 313 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1673 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.1 Prop In Lane 0.50 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 426 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 426 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 11.6 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 Lane Grp LOS E Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 18 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 251: Linder Road & Cherry Lane 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 50 455 60 90 1065 275 185 360 75 130 215 50 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 181.4 188.6 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 181.4 188.6 Lanes 120120111111 Cap, veh/h 146 1229 161 390 1125 287 415 518 458 290 475 420 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.39 0.39 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1727 3188 417 1727 2828 723 1727 1814 1603 1727 1814 1603 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 277 283 98 729 728 201 391 82 141 234 54 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1727 1792 1813 1727 1792 1759 1727 1814 1603 1727 1814 1603 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 11.3 11.4 3.3 40.0 40.0 8.1 19.7 3.9 5.9 11.0 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 11.3 11.4 3.3 40.0 40.0 8.1 19.7 3.9 5.9 11.0 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 691 699 390 713 699 415 518 458 290 475 420 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.40 0.40 0.25 1.02 1.04 0.48 0.75 0.18 0.49 0.49 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 422 713 721 645 713 699 581 902 797 497 541 478 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.6 22.5 22.5 17.1 30.3 30.3 22.4 32.7 27.0 25.6 31.5 28.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 39.7 45.0 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.4 4.8 4.9 1.3 24.9 25.5 3.3 8.8 0.0 2.5 4.9 1.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 22.6 22.6 17.2 70.0 75.3 22.7 33.6 27.1 26.0 31.8 28.4 Lane Grp LOS C C C B F F CCCCCC Approach Vol, veh/h 614 1555 674 429 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.8 69.2 29.5 29.5 Approach LOS C E C C Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 43.8 10.1 45.0 15.4 33.7 12.9 31.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 13.4 5.3 42.0 10.1 21.7 7.9 13.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 22.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 7.0 0.2 5.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 19 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 252: 8th Street & Cherry Lane 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 15 665 15 50 1270 50 20 40 50 50 15 20 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 188.6 181.4 181.4 188.6 188.6 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 Lanes 120120110110 Cap, veh/h 289 2077 46 558 2216 87 261 99 124 208 97 134 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.60 0.60 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1796 3447 76 1796 3517 137 1364 732 919 1293 721 991 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 361 378 54 702 732 22 0 97 54 0 38 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1796 1723 1800 1796 1792 1862 1364 0 1651 1293 0 1711 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 7.3 7.3 0.7 16.6 16.7 1.0 0.0 3.8 2.8 0.0 1.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 7.3 7.3 0.7 16.6 16.7 2.4 0.0 3.8 6.5 0.0 1.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.58 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 289 1038 1085 558 1129 1173 261 0 223 208 0 231 V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.62 0.62 0.08 0.00 0.43 0.26 0.00 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 900 1115 1165 1120 1160 1205 763 0 831 685 0 861 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.7 6.9 6.9 4.4 7.8 7.8 27.6 0.0 27.6 30.6 0.0 26.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.1 2.5 2.6 0.2 5.6 6.0 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.6 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 6.7 7.1 7.1 4.4 8.8 8.8 27.7 0.0 28.1 30.9 0.0 26.7 Lane Grp LOS AAAAAAC CC C Approach Vol, veh/h 755 1488 119 92 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.1 8.7 28.0 29.2 Approach LOS A A C C Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 8 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 46.9 8.2 48.8 14.4 14.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 45.0 25.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 9.3 2.7 18.7 5.8 8.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 32.6 0.1 24.6 1.0 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.9 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 20 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 17 13 870 95 145 1000 40 290 20 100 60 25 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 Initial Q (Qb), veh 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 190.3 184.5 179.6 192.4 190.6 185.0 183.2 190.8 183.2 185.0 185.0 Lanes 13013021021 Cap, veh/h 28 2432 264 188 3154 127 418 36 183 126 83 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.53 0.53 0.10 0.61 0.61 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1812 4612 501 1832 5130 207 3384 275 1388 3418 1850 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 673 354 154 719 388 309 0 127 64 27 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1812 1679 1756 1832 1734 1869 1692 0 1663 1709 1850 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 14.1 14.2 9.8 12.0 12.0 10.5 0.0 8.6 2.2 1.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 14.1 14.2 9.8 12.0 12.0 10.5 0.0 8.6 2.2 1.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.83 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 28 1771 926 188 2132 1149 418 0 219 126 83 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.38 0.38 0.82 0.34 0.34 0.74 0.00 0.58 0.51 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 365 1887 987 523 2240 1207 823 0 642 831 714 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.2 16.7 16.7 52.4 11.2 11.2 50.4 0.0 48.7 56.3 55.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.3 0.4 0.8 8.4 0.4 0.8 2.6 0.0 2.4 2.3 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.4 5.7 6.1 5.0 4.7 5.2 4.7 0.0 3.9 1.0 0.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 61.5 17.1 17.5 60.8 11.6 12.0 53.0 0.0 51.1 58.7 56.0 Lane Grp LOS EBBEBBD DEE Approach Vol, veh/h 1041 1261 436 144 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.8 17.7 52.5 51.7 Approach LOS B B D D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 68.9 18.3 79.3 20.7 21.7 10.4 11.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.0 67.0 34.0 77.0 29.0 46.0 29.0 46.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 16.2 11.8 14.0 12.5 10.6 4.2 5.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 46.7 0.5 56.8 2.2 2.6 0.2 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.7 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 21 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 50 Number 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 181.4 Lanes 1 Cap, veh/h 69 Arrive On Green 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1542 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 53 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1542 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 69 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 595 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.7 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 41.2 Lane Grp LOS D Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 22 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 352: Lakes Place & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 65 930 10 10 1290 70 15 5 25 80 2 105 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 Lanes 121120010110 Cap, veh/h 277 2363 1100 394 2203 119 93 43 114 195 4 247 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.69 0.69 0.01 0.66 0.66 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1727 3446 1603 1727 3325 180 295 273 731 1372 28 1580 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 1011 11 11 725 753 48 0 0 87 0 116 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1727 1723 1603 1727 1723 1782 1299 0 0 1372 0 1607 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 13.3 0.2 0.2 25.0 25.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 13.3 0.2 0.2 25.0 25.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.33 0.56 1.00 0.98 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 277 2363 1100 394 1141 1180 251 0 0 195 0 252 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.43 0.01 0.03 0.64 0.64 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 642 2363 1100 799 1267 1310 534 0 0 451 0 552 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.9 7.1 5.1 6.1 10.0 10.1 37.4 0.0 0.0 45.0 0.0 39.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.5 4.7 0.1 0.1 9.2 9.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 9.0 7.3 5.1 6.1 11.1 11.2 37.5 0.0 0.0 45.6 0.0 39.6 Lane Grp LOS AAAABBD D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1093 1489 48 203 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.4 11.1 37.5 42.2 Approach LOS A B D D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 8 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 75.0 6.1 72.6 20.9 20.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 60.0 25.0 75.0 35.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 15.3 2.2 27.2 8.7 15.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 43.6 0.0 40.4 1.0 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 23 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 1 44 855 20 8 17 1125 150 195 80 55 110 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 192.3 185.0 185.0 186.2 183.4 185.0 185.0 185.0 190.5 185.0 Lanes 1 3 0 1201111 Cap, veh/h 207 2404 57 39 1397 185 403 254 222 365 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.02 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 1832 5076 120 1773 3094 409 1762 1850 1619 1762 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 50 645 350 19 717 731 222 91 62 125 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1832 1684 1829 1773 1742 1762 1762 1850 1619 1762 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 8.8 8.8 0.8 27.2 27.6 7.4 3.2 2.4 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 8.8 8.8 0.8 27.2 27.6 7.4 3.2 2.4 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 207 1595 866 39 786 795 403 254 222 365 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.40 0.40 0.49 0.91 0.92 0.55 0.36 0.28 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 384 1595 866 250 787 795 419 653 571 538 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.4 12.1 12.1 34.3 18.1 18.2 21.8 27.7 27.4 25.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.8 1.4 3.5 16.6 17.5 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.4 3.3 3.7 0.4 13.6 14.2 3.2 1.5 0.0 1.9 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 15.6 12.9 13.6 37.7 34.7 35.7 22.5 28.6 28.1 26.1 Lane Grp LOS BBB DCDCCCC Approach Vol, veh/h 1045 1467 375 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.3 35.3 24.9 Approach LOS B D C Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 38.6 6.6 37.0 14.3 14.7 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 32.0 10.0 32.0 10.0 25.0 13.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 10.8 2.8 29.6 9.4 5.2 6.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 20.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.5 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 24 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 15 45 Number 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 185.0 Lanes 1 0 Cap, veh/h 37 111 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 408 1225 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 68 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1634 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 2.8 Prop In Lane 0.75 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 148 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 646 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 30.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 1.2 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 32.8 Lane Grp LOS C Approach Vol, veh/h 193 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.5 Approach LOS C Timer Assigned Phs 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 25 HCM 2010 TWSC 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 390: Steelwood Drive & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 1

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 5 1095 1 5 1495 510110010 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 150 0 150 0 0 0 100 0 Median Width 12 12 12 12 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 5 1190 1 5 1625 510111011 Number of Lanes 120120010110

Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Minor 1 Minor 2 Conflicting Flow All 1630 0 0 1191 0 0 2025 2843 596 2245 2841 815 Stage 1 ------1202 1202 - 1639 1639 - Stage 2 ------8231641 - 606 1202 - Follow-up Headway 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 394 - - 582 - - 34 17 447 23 17 321 Stage 1 ------196256-105157- Stage 2 ------334156-451256- Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 - - 0 - - 000000 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 394 - - 582 - - 32 17 447 23 17 321 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------3217-2317- Stage 1 ------194253-104156- Stage 2 ------320155-444253-

Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 67.2 116.1 HCM LOS - - F F

Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Cap, veh/h 60 394 - - 582 - - 23 76 HCM Control Delay, s 67.2 14.265 - - 11.244 - - 221.8 63.2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 0.01 - - 0.01 - - 0.32 0.19 HCM Lane LOS FB--B--FF HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.1 0.0 - - 0.0 - - 0.9 0.7 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 26 Queues Exceeding Available Storage Length and Through Queues Exceeding 1000 Feet (SimTraffic Output)

Table: Existing Year SimTraffic 95th Percentile Queue Length (Available Storage) in feet. Intersection Movement Queue Length Intersection Movement Queue Length (Available Storage) (Available Storage) Linder Road WBL 350 (190) Steelwood Drive - - WBT 2275(2545)* Five Mile Road WBL 525(400) NBL 225(105) WBT 1250(2580)* NBR 175(105) WBR 650(400) 8th Street - - NBL 425(300) Meridian Road EBL 225(90) NBR 350(300) WBL 175(90) Mitchell Street EBL 150(100) WBT 600(425) WBR 150(120) NBL 325(150) SB 150(95) NBT 2650(2600)* Maple Grove Road EBL 325(300) NBR 375(300) NBR 300(125) SBL 250(165) SBL 160(110) Main Street EBR 125(350) Milwaukee Street WBL 225(190) WBL 350(550) NBL 350(220) WBT 550(445) NBR 425(260) NBL 250(235) SBL 100(75) NBL 275(235) Cole Road EBL 425(260) SBR 125(25) WBL 400(230) Lakes Place SBL 100(75) WBT 2575(3380)* Locust Grove Road EBL 250(135) NBL 400(250) EBR 225(180) SBL 300(145) NBL 425(235) Liberty Street EBL 125(115) SBL 250(130) NBL 100(85) Hickory Avenue NBL 200(105) SBL 100(75) SBL 125(50) Curtis Road EBL 250(180) Eagle Road EBL 475(450) WBL 375(270) EBR 250(225) NBL 380(280) NBL 475(400) NBT 475(435) SBR 450(300) NBR 375(220) Records Way WBL 275(180) SBL 300(155) NBL 250(130) Orchard Street NBL 300(190) Cloverdale Road WBR 400(250) *Through queues exceeding 1000 feet.

Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 3: Bend

Movement NB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 94 Average Queue (ft) 3 95th Queue (ft) 71 Link Distance (ft) 420 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Intersection: 6: Bend

Movement SB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 91 Average Queue (ft) 3 95th Queue (ft) 67 Link Distance (ft) 428 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Intersection: 68: Cole Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 360 691 680 328 2228 2246 349 1590 1563 247 458 448 Average Queue (ft) 287 420 409 180 1526 1543 331 1139 1128 202 292 290 95th Queue (ft) 434 717 706 388 2483 2505 411 1912 1883 292 499 473 Link Distance (ft) 2558 2558 3377 3377 2522 2522 2620 2620 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 260 228 249 147 Storage Blk Time (%) 40 8 0 66 36 60 43 24 Queuing Penalty (veh) 163 13 1 66 156 166 101 40

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served UL L T T R UL L T TR UL L T Maximum Queue (ft) 188 278 451 472 345 163 368 610 622 328 378 476 Average Queue (ft) 101 140 262 283 100 75 167 376 395 246 357 452 95th Queue (ft) 181 262 411 431 269 137 365 566 576 351 438 481 Link Distance (ft) 1906 1906 2547 2547 435 Upstream Blk Time (%) 33 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 179 179 264 268 268 278 278 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 4 25 16 0 26 2 19 39 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 15 41 34 0 44 14 111 222

Intersection: 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB B907 B907 Directions Served TRLLTTTRTT Maximum Queue (ft) 483 321 166 253 408 344 334 197 174 98 Average Queue (ft) 452 139 79 172 302 254 199 59 19 5 95th Queue (ft) 477 378 150 296 415 342 300 135 97 50 Link Distance (ft) 435 316 316 316 1028 1028 Upstream Blk Time (%) 37 7100 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0000 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 221 153 153 280 Storage Blk Time (%) 51 1 3 44 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 43 2 8 65 1

Intersection: 98: Liberty Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 194 354 372 211 424 424 108 111 107 124 Average Queue (ft) 53 147 174 60 155 174 45 47 46 42 95th Queue (ft) 131 300 323 138 310 329 87 89 89 89 Link Distance (ft) 3377 3377 1906 1906 878 993 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 115 171 86 77 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 8 0 6 2131 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 5 0 7 2121

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 99: Orchard Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T TR L T TR L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 126 39 248 162 312 293 288 570 482 19 214 236 Average Queue (ft) 43 7 73 73 186 168 191 157 127 1 119 118 95th Queue (ft) 103 28 180 139 273 255 304 397 320 9 192 202 Link Distance (ft) 2547 2547 419 419 419 1302 1302 462 462 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 188 108 Storage Blk Time (%) 15 0 15 Queuing Penalty (veh) 41 1 0

Intersection: 99: Orchard Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 88 Average Queue (ft) 38 95th Queue (ft) 74 Link Distance (ft) 462 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 206: Meridian Road & Cherry Lane/Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 188 464 439 188 543 543 249 2664 400 251 369 312 Average Queue (ft) 162 269 243 74 407 438 208 2627 107 141 190 112 95th Queue (ft) 225 508 445 168 606 619 316 2644 361 251 328 232 Link Distance (ft) 2595 2595 423 423 2602 434 Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 14 96 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 64 99 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 89 88 149 300 163 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 65 16 11 36 22 73 12 15 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 193 25 61 18 105 184 52 60 0

Intersection: 206: Meridian Road & Cherry Lane/Fairview Avenue

Movement B1 Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 15 Average Queue (ft) 1 95th Queue (ft) 20 Link Distance (ft) 4765 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 207: Main Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB B858 B858 NB NB NB Directions Served L T T R L T TR T T L L T Maximum Queue (ft) 116 223 253 177 323 506 521 283 283 273 314 326 Average Queue (ft) 34 109 118 44 202 302 325 38 41 159 183 92 95th Queue (ft) 88 187 206 117 344 535 548 277 282 255 278 225 Link Distance (ft) 423 423 444 444 1666 1666 2590 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 44 52 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 106 85 223 233 233 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 15 26 0 9 16 1 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 4 42 1 44 29 3 11 1

Intersection: 207: Main Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB SB SB Directions Served R LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 36 173 125 Average Queue (ft) 3 110 49 95th Queue (ft) 55 185 114 Link Distance (ft) 153 Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 63 24 Queuing Penalty (veh) 32 28

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 5 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB B859 B859 WB WB WB WB WB NB Directions Served UL T T R T T UL L T T R UL Maximum Queue (ft) 250 298 313 276 76 245 186 287 470 471 281 321 Average Queue (ft) 102 175 181 56 3 11 91 128 222 236 43 242 95th Queue (ft) 194 274 278 147 54 111 160 234 442 463 187 346 Link Distance (ft) 2178 2178 267 267 2558 2558 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 197 209 188 188 413 222 Storage Blk Time (%) 1330 00162 12 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4370 12402 32

Intersection: 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB B990 Directions Served L T R L L T TR T Maximum Queue (ft) 628 911 362 119 176 324 319 116 Average Queue (ft) 305 409 197 48 90 198 201 9 95th Queue (ft) 549 728 425 100 186 304 289 72 Link Distance (ft) 1292 1292 263 263 2217 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 3 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 262 76 76 Storage Blk Time (%) 25 26 0 6 14 48 Queuing Penalty (veh) 64 55 1 11 28 50

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB B862 B862 WB WB WB WB WB B859 Directions Served L T T R T T UL L T T R T Maximum Queue (ft) 280 356 355 157 169 185 169 262 340 337 267 88 Average Queue (ft) 212 297 291 72 35 35 89 124 227 246 113 7 95th Queue (ft) 326 393 377 133 145 142 151 224 335 343 212 65 Link Distance (ft) 280 280 280 2259 2259 267 267 267 2178 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 17 11 0590 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 53 35 0 29 48 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 6 17 0 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 21 0 9

Intersection: 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement B859 NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served T L L T R L L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 127 313 1452 1684 225 144 209 330 330 Average Queue (ft) 14 186 773 1257 148 66 107 177 200 95th Queue (ft) 94 282 1786 2203 295 124 197 276 289 Link Distance (ft) 2178 3024 3024 410 410 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 125 110 110 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 67 0 2 7 29 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 3 107 1 4 13 43

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 211: Five Mile Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB Directions Served LTTRLTTRLLTR Maximum Queue (ft) 436 539 527 423 500 1024 1037 500 248 400 499 400 Average Queue (ft) 176 339 349 60 223 677 704 267 132 219 357 130 95th Queue (ft) 319 491 498 199 528 1240 1272 639 215 421 546 366 Link Distance (ft) 2102 2102 2577 2577 428 Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 400 400 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 5 7 30 32 0 0 21 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 10 33 58 0 1 96

Intersection: 211: Five Mile Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement B6 SB SB SB SB B3 Directions Served TLLTRT Maximum Queue (ft) 447 128 377 462 397 110 Average Queue (ft) 74 55 84 260 91 8 95th Queue (ft) 334 109 223 417 251 99 Link Distance (ft) 2912 420 4089 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 22

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 8 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 212: Cloverdale Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB B1042 B1042 WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served LTTRTTLTTRLL Maximum Queue (ft) 363 534 550 370 31 54 350 475 505 350 127 229 Average Queue (ft) 139 236 244 63 1 2 110 341 357 178 63 80 95th Queue (ft) 283 450 455 215 33 41 228 452 487 407 113 167 Link Distance (ft) 1963 1963 383 383 3063 3063 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 250 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 6 7 23 35 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 9 8 28 73 0

Intersection: 212: Cloverdale Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served T TR L L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 412 400 181 200 266 307 Average Queue (ft) 260 219 88 99 144 187 95th Queue (ft) 376 337 164 177 230 282 Link Distance (ft) 532 532 528 528 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 0

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 9 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB Directions Served L L T T T R UL L T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 393 421 400 338 386 324 317 326 399 428 384 292 Average Queue (ft) 267 283 203 204 215 109 171 187 234 257 210 125 95th Queue (ft) 454 476 349 308 333 241 285 297 366 394 350 233 Link Distance (ft) 927 927 927 1899 1899 1899 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 450 450 225 850 850 600 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 4 13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 8 23 0

Intersection: 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served UL L T T TR L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 285 500 653 629 628 330 382 598 612 400 Average Queue (ft) 150 236 428 430 420 204 227 382 380 180 95th Queue (ft) 251 480 635 627 632 416 445 566 569 454 Link Distance (ft) 892 892 892 2549 2549 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 625 625 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 14 0 1 0 18 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 46 1 4 1 51

Intersection: 214: Mitchell Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 174 206 199 80 105 253 270 205 117 273 191 247 Average Queue (ft) 93 52 54 5 25 147 163 54 38 114 78 108 95th Queue (ft) 158 149 141 39 70 231 244 147 89 215 157 199 Link Distance (ft) 2577 2577 2259 2259 1057 5208 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 98 109 118 102 97 Storage Blk Time (%) 25 1 2 0 21 24 0 1 18 9 17 Queuing Penalty (veh) 101 1 1 2 4 39 1 1 8 12 16

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 10 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R UL T T R L T TR L Maximum Queue (ft) 232 398 396 280 365 448 465 196 335 1569 1566 230 Average Queue (ft) 149 201 204 82 151 265 278 79 262 1183 1179 137 95th Queue (ft) 251 342 331 221 299 414 431 152 436 2040 2010 250 Link Distance (ft) 2212 2212 1308 1308 1308 2603 2603 Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 00 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 133 180 300 235 130 Storage Blk Time (%) 15 22 15 0 0 6 7 66 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 44 44 24 0 2 15 22 119 23

Intersection: 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement SB SB Directions Served T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 437 442 Average Queue (ft) 237 252 95th Queue (ft) 384 387 Link Distance (ft) 1263 1263 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) 32 Queuing Penalty (veh) 44

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 11 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 251: Linder Road & Cherry Lane

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 130 275 266 291 2071 2099 204 602 205 211 288 76 Average Queue (ft) 37 119 134 150 1669 1704 122 253 61 91 142 27 95th Queue (ft) 89 220 236 350 2234 2265 221 477 175 178 246 61 Link Distance (ft) 5216 5216 2544 2544 1704 218 218 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 5 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 192 191 104 105 189 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0 60 10 32 0 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 54 43 85 1 0 4

Intersection: 251: Linder Road & Cherry Lane

Movement B624 Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 94 Average Queue (ft) 4 95th Queue (ft) 46 Link Distance (ft) 2212 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Intersection: 252: 8th Street & Cherry Lane

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 49 173 184 118 273 290 62 122 97 69 Average Queue (ft) 11 64 71 26 112 135 17 49 37 25 95th Queue (ft) 37 142 154 74 218 241 49 95 79 59 Link Distance (ft) 2544 2544 2595 2595 1541 1391 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 73 117 102 127 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 0 4 0100 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 2 0000

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 12 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 298: Ten Mile Rd./Ten Mile Road & Cherry Lane

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T TR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 188 208 260 231 308 331 219 1739 1715 180 216 208 Average Queue (ft) 97 108 134 113 173 198 142 1367 1328 79 101 105 95th Queue (ft) 164 183 216 209 281 299 279 2182 2156 145 177 179 Link Distance (ft) 1115 1115 5216 5216 2610 2610 230 230 Upstream Blk Time (%) 000 Queuing Penalty (veh) 000 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 121 138 119 184 Storage Blk Time (%) 6 6 6 20 3 57 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 9 12 32 11 83 0 1

Intersection: 298: Ten Mile Rd./Ten Mile Road & Cherry Lane

Movement B884 Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 13 Average Queue (ft) 0 95th Queue (ft) 11 Link Distance (ft) 5019 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Intersection: 303: Lauderhill Way & Cherry Lane

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 29 96 93 53 153 159 75 36 Average Queue (ft) 2 29 26 15 44 47 32 12 95th Queue (ft) 16 73 70 43 114 122 62 38 Link Distance (ft) 3902 3902 1115 1115 568 443 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 13 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B1042 B1042 B861 NB Directions Served UL T T TR L T T TR T T T L Maximum Queue (ft) 108 404 433 380 278 418 365 370 71 57 2 180 Average Queue (ft) 39 161 183 148 168 156 123 145 4 3 0 131 95th Queue (ft) 90 331 358 312 280 366 300 325 50 41 2 228 Link Distance (ft) 1899 1899 1899 383 383 383 744 744 1963 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 1 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 180 130 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 18 4 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 62 6 9

Intersection: 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR L L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 230 329 137 159 93 79 Average Queue (ft) 196 199 18 70 34 33 95th Queue (ft) 262 384 72 135 81 65 Link Distance (ft) 306 476 Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 130 250 250 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 45 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 55 33

Intersection: 352: Lakes Place & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB B858 B858 WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served L T T R T T L T TR LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 111 228 240 50 41 49 54 510 452 71 135 135 Average Queue (ft) 42 78 89 3127134140265757 95th Queue (ft) 85 176 189 27 43 52 40 331 319 58 107 108 Link Distance (ft) 1666 1666 444 444 2212 2212 386 299 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 103 115 110 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 3 6 7 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 0 1 7 3

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 14 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB B879 B879 NB NB NB Directions Served UL T T TR UL T TR T T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 115 230 202 228 202 505 545 322 600 204 316 95 Average Queue (ft) 35 90 77 94 29 263 291 17 30 108 87 28 95th Queue (ft) 82 186 159 190 125 448 480 216 300 191 211 61 Link Distance (ft) 377 377 377 628 628 927 927 542 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 105 105 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 20 14 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 5 19 9 0

Intersection: 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue

Movement SB SB Directions Served L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 142 179 Average Queue (ft) 76 52 95th Queue (ft) 131 126 Link Distance (ft) 633 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 Storage Blk Time (%) 33 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 10

Intersection: 390: Steelwood Drive & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served L L TR LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 34 29 2 36 58 41 Average Queue (ft) 53041412 95th Queue (ft) 22 17 2 20 45 39 Link Distance (ft) 2102 345 472 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 15 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 422: Black Cat Road & Cherry Lane

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T R L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 75 99 111 104 223 124 60 214 103 151 Average Queue (ft) 28 49 41 38 96 52 18 93 44 63 95th Queue (ft) 63 84 87 81 180 95 50 169 81 119 Link Distance (ft) 249 249 3902 3902 680 750 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 0 0

Intersection: 844: Fairview Avenue

Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Intersection: 866: Bend

Movement NB NB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 572 52 Average Queue (ft) 46 2 95th Queue (ft) 311 55 Link Distance (ft) 528 528 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 16 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour 3/22/2013 Intersection: 884: Bend

Movement NB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 28 Average Queue (ft) 1 95th Queue (ft) 30 Link Distance (ft) 230 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 4859

Fairview Avenue Corridor Access Managment SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Page 17

Appendix D

Future Year 2035 Baseline Intersection Operations and Queuing

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 68: Cole Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 235 1660 185 165 1970 195 415 840 185 250 520 165 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 11 13 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 13 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3296 5167 1530 3376 5050 1530 3296 3480 1545 3523 3480 1527 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3296 5167 1530 3376 5050 1530 3296 3480 1545 3523 3480 1527 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 240 1694 189 168 2010 199 423 857 189 255 531 168 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 89 0 0 74 0 0 118 0 0 135 Lane Group Flow (vph) 240 1694 100 168 2010 125 423 857 71 255 531 33 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8 8 8 9 3 3 9 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6284 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 60.0 60.0 12.0 61.0 61.0 20.3 37.0 37.0 11.0 27.7 27.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 60.0 60.0 12.0 61.0 61.0 20.3 37.0 37.0 11.0 27.7 27.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 258 2214 655 289 2200 666 477 919 408 276 688 302 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.33 0.05 c0.40 c0.13 c0.25 0.07 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.77 0.15 0.58 0.91 0.19 0.89 0.93 0.17 0.92 0.77 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 64.1 34.0 24.5 61.6 37.0 24.3 58.7 50.3 39.7 64.1 53.2 46.0 Progression Factor 0.71 0.86 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 25.8 1.5 0.3 1.9 7.3 0.6 17.7 15.8 0.2 34.0 4.9 0.1 Delay (s) 71.4 30.7 28.1 63.5 44.3 24.9 76.4 66.1 39.9 98.1 58.1 46.1 Level of Service ECCEDCEEDFED Approach Delay (s) 35.1 44.0 65.7 66.7 Approach LOS D D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 3/22/2011 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 225 1160 435 15 310 1535 150 5 1070 1355 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3375 5050 1661 3343 5000 1533 3296 3331 1517 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3375 5050 1661 3343 5000 1533 3296 3331 1517 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 230 1184 444 15 316 1566 153 5 1092 1383 122 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 329 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 60 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 235 1184 115 0 331 1566 43 0 1097 1383 62 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 1 6 5 5 2 3 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 39.0 39.0 12.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 67.0 67.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 39.0 39.0 12.0 42.0 42.0 38.0 67.0 67.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 202 1313 431 267 1400 429 834 1487 677 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.23 c0.10 c0.31 c0.33 0.42 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.03 0.04 v/c Ratio 1.16 0.90 0.27 1.24 1.12 0.10 1.32 0.93 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 70.5 53.6 44.1 69.0 54.0 40.0 56.0 39.3 23.9 Progression Factor 1.09 0.84 2.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 109.8 7.5 0.1 135.6 63.5 0.0 150.4 11.7 0.3 Delay (s) 186.7 52.5 108.2 204.6 117.5 40.0 206.4 51.0 24.2 Level of Service FDF FFD FDC Approach Delay (s) 82.7 125.8 115.3 Approach LOS F F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 103.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.18 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 118.8% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 1/25/2011 Assumed Storage Length SBR: 280 ft c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 165 1125 165 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 11 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3296 4740 1552 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3296 4740 1552 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 1148 168 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 82 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 1148 86 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 37.0 37.0 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 37.0 37.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 175 1169 382 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.98 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 70.8 56.2 45.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 55.6 22.4 1.4 Delay (s) 126.4 78.5 46.4 Level of Service FED Approach Delay (s) 80.3 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 98: Liberty Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 165 1735 45 120 2385 180 90 30 80 110 20 85 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 14 13 12 14 14 12 11 14 12 10 15 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1820 5195 1875 5315 1639 1742 1607 1731 Flt Permitted 0.09 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.68 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 180 5195 201 5315 1187 1742 1157 1731 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 1770 46 122 2434 184 92 31 82 112 20 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 03008006900740 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 1813 0 122 2610 0 92 44 0 112 33 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 4 4 6 8 1 1 8 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 4 Permitted Phases 6284 Actuated Green, G (s) 50.8 42.6 44.7 39.3 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Effective Green, g (s) 50.8 42.6 44.7 39.3 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.57 0.60 0.52 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 301 2950 240 2785 182 267 177 265 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.35 0.04 c0.49 0.03 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 0.27 0.08 c0.10 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.61 0.51 0.94 0.51 0.16 0.63 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 15.2 10.8 7.9 16.7 29.1 27.6 29.8 27.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.93 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.8 2.2 0.3 7.2 0.2 Delay (s) 16.5 11.7 15.4 19.5 31.3 27.9 37.0 27.6 Level of Service BB BB CC DC Approach Delay (s) 12.1 19.3 29.4 32.4 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: PM Peak Hour Count Date: 04/29/2008 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 99: Orchard Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 175 10 570 250 1265 45 460 900 5 5 715 220 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Lane Width 13 12 13 11 13 12 11 13 12 13 12 15 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3361 1800 1581 3144 3481 1653 3531 1767 3353 1650 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3361 1800 1581 3144 3481 276 3531 481 3353 1650 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 190 11 620 272 1375 49 500 978 5 5 777 239 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 196 02000000155 Lane Group Flow (vph) 190 11 424 272 1422 0 500 983 0 5 777 84 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 41.0 66.0 59.0 42.0 41.0 41.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.0 34.0 34.0 12.0 41.0 66.0 59.0 42.0 41.0 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.32 0.51 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 470 413 290 1097 341 1602 165 1057 520 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.01 c0.09 c0.41 c0.21 0.28 0.00 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 c0.53 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 1.47 0.02 1.03 0.94 1.30 1.47 0.61 0.03 0.74 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 62.5 35.7 48.0 58.6 44.5 31.0 26.9 30.0 39.7 32.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 249.8 0.0 51.5 35.9 140.1 225.3 0.5 0.0 4.6 0.7 Delay (s) 312.3 35.7 99.5 94.5 184.6 256.3 27.4 30.0 44.2 32.8 Level of Service FDFFF FC CDC Approach Delay (s) 147.9 170.2 104.5 41.5 Approach LOS F F F D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 121.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.5% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 11/30/2010 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 206: Meridian Road & Cherry Lane/Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 160 1190 210 265 1685 525 365 1005 190 290 540 255 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 15 12 12 14 13 12 13 13 13 12 13 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3677 3446 1542 3566 3561 1542 3454 3561 1593 3343 3561 1542 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3677 3446 1542 3566 3561 1542 3454 3561 1593 3343 3561 1542 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 1253 221 279 1774 553 384 1058 200 305 568 268 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 78 0 0 141 0 0 120 0 0 132 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 1253 143 279 1774 412 384 1058 80 305 568 136 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6284 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 58.0 58.0 12.0 64.0 64.0 18.1 38.0 38.0 12.0 31.9 31.9 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 58.0 58.0 12.0 64.0 64.0 18.1 38.0 38.0 12.0 31.9 31.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 157 1427 638 305 1627 704 446 966 432 286 811 351 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.36 0.08 c0.50 0.11 c0.30 c0.09 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.27 0.05 0.09 v/c Ratio 1.07 0.88 0.22 0.91 1.09 0.59 0.86 1.10 0.18 1.07 0.70 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 67.0 37.7 26.5 63.5 38.0 28.2 59.7 51.0 39.1 64.0 49.7 45.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.23 1.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 91.7 7.9 0.8 13.5 44.8 1.2 15.1 58.5 0.1 71.9 2.2 0.3 Delay (s) 158.7 45.7 27.3 84.8 91.5 48.9 74.8 109.5 39.2 135.9 51.9 46.0 Level of Service FDCFFDEFDFDD Approach Delay (s) 54.8 81.7 92.8 73.0 Approach LOS D F F E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 76.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 1/23/2008 Assumed Storage Length NBR: 300 ft Assumed Storage Length SBR: 300 ft c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 207: Main Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 1525 210 335 2140 110 405 125 320 80 55 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 14 14 12 12 12 12 12 14 16 12 12 11 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5186 1723 4915 1723 1712 1660 1665 1416 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5186 1723 4915 1723 1712 1660 1665 1416 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1605 221 353 2253 116 426 132 337 84 58 63 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 00400201700149 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1814 0 353 2365 0 426 223 56 0 147 8 Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 84 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.0 23.0 71.0 34.6 34.6 34.6 19.4 19.4 Effective Green, g (s) 43.0 23.0 71.0 34.6 34.6 34.6 19.4 19.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.16 0.51 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1592 283 2492 425 423 410 230 196 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 c0.20 0.48 c0.25 0.13 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.14 1.25 0.95 1.00 0.53 0.14 0.64 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 48.5 58.5 32.8 52.7 45.6 41.1 57.0 52.2 Progression Factor 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 67.3 137.3 9.5 44.2 0.5 0.1 7.9 0.2 Delay (s) 95.3 195.8 42.3 96.9 46.2 41.1 64.9 52.4 Level of Service F FD FDD ED Approach Delay (s) 95.3 62.2 69.1 61.4 Approach LOS F E E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 73.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 2/12/2008 Assumed Storage Length EBR: 85 ft Assumed Storage Length NBR: 300 ft Assumed Storage Length SBR: 25 ft c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 110 1725 325 5 330 2215 115 710 290 285 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 13 11 12 12 11 11 13 11 11 12 11 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1797 4834 1572 3295 4882 1500 3263 1788 1506 3263 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1797 4834 1572 3295 4882 1500 3263 1788 1506 3263 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 116 1816 342 5 347 2332 121 747 305 300 126 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 69 0 0 158 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 121 1816 172 0 352 2332 52 747 305 142 126 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8 14 14 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 1 1 6 5 5 2 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.1 60.1 60.1 14.0 60.0 60.0 25.0 36.9 36.9 9.0 Effective Green, g (s) 14.1 60.1 60.1 14.0 60.0 60.0 25.0 36.9 36.9 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.26 0.26 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 2075 674 329 2092 642 582 471 396 209 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.38 0.11 c0.48 c0.23 0.17 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.03 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.88 0.26 1.07 1.11 0.08 1.28 0.65 0.36 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 60.7 36.5 25.6 63.0 40.0 23.7 57.5 45.8 41.9 63.8 Progression Factor 0.91 0.54 0.64 0.78 0.66 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 3.1 0.5 57.3 56.0 0.1 140.3 2.3 0.2 3.3 Delay (s) 59.5 22.8 16.8 106.7 82.5 6.1 197.8 48.1 42.1 67.1 Level of Service ECB FFAFDDE Approach Delay (s) 23.9 82.2 129.5 Approach LOS C F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 71.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 6/1/2011 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 280 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 Lane Width 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.96 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3264 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3264 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 295 105 RTOR Reduction (vph) 27 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 373 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% Turn Type NA Protected Phases 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 20.9 Effective Green, g (s) 20.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 487 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 57.2 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.4 Delay (s) 63.6 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) 64.4 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 255 1665 280 5 275 2080 715 540 735 265 340 650 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 14 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3410 5050 1536 3408 5050 1528 3376 3480 1661 3410 3375 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3410 5050 1536 3408 5050 1528 3376 3480 1661 3410 3375 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 260 1699 286 5 281 2122 730 551 750 270 347 663 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 142 0 0 0 194 0 0 95 0 16 Lane Group Flow (vph) 260 1699 144 0 286 2122 536 551 750 175 347 815 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9119 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 54.0 54.0 13.0 57.0 57.0 21.0 36.6 36.6 16.4 32.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 54.0 54.0 13.0 57.0 57.0 21.0 36.6 36.6 16.4 32.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.12 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 1947 592 316 2056 622 506 909 434 399 771 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.34 c0.08 c0.42 c0.16 c0.22 0.10 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.35 0.11 v/c Ratio 1.07 0.87 0.24 0.91 1.03 0.86 1.09 0.83 0.40 0.87 1.06 Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 39.8 29.2 62.9 41.5 37.9 59.5 48.7 42.7 60.7 54.0 Progression Factor 0.81 0.99 1.92 1.37 0.68 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 71.1 4.6 0.8 3.7 16.6 1.6 66.3 5.9 0.2 17.4 48.5 Delay (s) 123.7 44.0 56.8 89.7 44.7 18.9 125.8 54.6 42.9 78.1 102.5 Level of Service FDE FDBFDDEF Approach Delay (s) 54.8 42.8 77.5 95.3 Approach LOS D D E F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.1% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 5/18/2011 Assumed Storage Length EBL: 300 ft Assumed Storage Length WBL: 300 ft Assumed Storage Length NBL: 300 ft

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 165 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 211: Five Mile Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 315 1575 295 255 2000 420 465 840 295 310 765 265 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 12 11 12 14 12 12 11 10 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3410 5050 1496 3410 5387 1526 3376 3398 1443 3376 3364 1534 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3410 5050 1496 3410 5387 1526 3376 3398 1443 3376 3364 1534 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 332 1658 311 268 2105 442 489 884 311 326 805 279 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 168 0 0 166 0 0 140 0 0 150 Lane Group Flow (vph) 332 1658 143 268 2105 276 489 884 171 326 805 129 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 3 3 6 2 4 4 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6284 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 50.0 50.0 12.0 49.5 49.5 17.5 37.7 37.7 13.8 34.0 34.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.5 50.0 50.0 12.0 49.5 49.5 17.5 37.7 37.7 13.8 34.0 34.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 7.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 304 1803 534 292 1904 539 422 915 388 332 816 372 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.33 0.08 c0.39 c0.14 c0.26 0.10 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.08 v/c Ratio 1.09 0.92 0.27 0.92 1.11 0.51 1.16 0.97 0.44 0.98 0.99 0.35 Uniform Delay, d1 63.8 43.1 32.0 63.5 45.2 35.7 61.2 50.5 42.4 63.0 52.8 43.8 Progression Factor 1.14 1.36 3.20 0.68 0.57 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 71.6 7.1 0.9 20.2 52.4 1.9 94.9 21.7 0.6 44.2 27.9 0.4 Delay (s) 144.1 65.5 103.3 63.2 78.1 20.1 156.1 72.2 43.0 107.1 80.7 44.2 Level of Service FEFEECFEDFFD Approach Delay (s) 82.0 67.6 91.2 79.6 Approach LOS F E F E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 78.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 26.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 9/20/2011 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 212: Cloverdale Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 340 1665 295 270 1915 405 275 945 365 305 775 290 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3410 5050 1557 3410 5050 1552 3410 3335 3410 3332 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3410 5050 1557 3410 5050 1552 3410 3335 3410 3332 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 358 1753 311 284 2016 426 289 995 384 321 816 305 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 128 0 0 120 0 29 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 358 1753 183 284 2016 306 289 1350 0 321 1093 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 4 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 51.0 51.0 12.0 51.0 51.0 12.0 46.0 11.0 45.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 51.0 51.0 12.0 51.0 51.0 12.0 46.0 11.0 45.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.33 0.08 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 1839 567 292 1839 565 292 1095 267 1071 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.35 0.08 c0.40 0.08 c0.40 c0.09 0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.20 v/c Ratio 1.23 0.95 0.32 0.97 1.10 0.54 0.99 1.23 1.20 1.02 Uniform Delay, d1 64.0 43.3 32.1 63.8 44.5 35.2 63.9 47.0 64.5 47.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.64 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 128.2 12.5 1.5 28.2 47.8 1.7 49.2 112.9 121.1 32.8 Delay (s) 192.2 55.9 33.6 93.2 76.2 22.1 113.1 159.9 185.6 80.3 Level of Service F E C F E C F F F F Approach Delay (s) 73.1 69.5 151.8 103.8 Approach LOS E E F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 93.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.17 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.4% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 10/23/2012 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 305 1505 320 10 430 1625 405 10 555 1305 425 355 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 11 12 12 12 11 12 13 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3263 5050 1557 3231 5000 1609 3375 5000 1521 3410 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3263 5050 1557 3231 5000 1609 3375 5000 1521 3410 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 311 1536 327 10 439 1658 413 10 566 1332 434 362 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 145 0 0 0 174 0 0 0 165 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 311 1536 182 0 449 1658 239 0 576 1332 270 362 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 211 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 3 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 64.4 64.4 30.1 73.0 73.0 38.8 60.0 60.0 23.5 Effective Green, g (s) 21.5 64.4 64.4 30.1 73.0 73.0 38.8 60.0 60.0 23.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.36 0.36 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 350 1626 501 486 1825 587 654 1500 456 400 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.30 c0.14 c0.33 0.17 c0.27 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.15 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.94 0.36 0.92 0.91 0.41 0.88 0.89 0.59 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 88.1 66.1 52.1 83.8 60.3 47.4 78.4 66.8 59.6 87.1 Progression Factor 1.08 1.26 1.85 0.83 1.31 2.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.0 7.9 0.3 14.1 3.9 0.2 13.1 8.2 5.5 22.9 Delay (s) 110.4 91.0 96.5 83.5 82.7 106.7 91.5 75.0 65.1 110.0 Level of Service FFF FFF FEEF Approach Delay (s) 94.6 86.8 77.2 Approach LOS F F E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 85.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 200.0 Sum of lost time (s) 22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.8% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 11/7/2012 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 850 365 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 13 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4951 1585 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4951 1585 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 867 372 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 157 Lane Group Flow (vph) 867 215 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1% Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.7 44.7 Effective Green, g (s) 44.7 44.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1106 354 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 73.1 69.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 7.6 Delay (s) 78.7 77.3 Level of Service EE Approach Delay (s) 85.5 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 214: Mitchell Street & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 115 1850 80 35 2340 170 100 115 75 95 80 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 13 12 13 14 12 14 12 11 12 11 10 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1816 5050 1504 1875 5050 1677 1756 1660 1697 1589 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.30 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1816 5050 1504 1875 5050 1677 883 1660 535 1589 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 125 2011 87 38 2543 185 109 125 82 103 87 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 32 0 0 40 0 18 0 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 2011 55 38 2543 145 109 189 0 103 128 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 4 4 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 88.3 88.3 5.5 80.5 80.5 26.2 20.2 26.2 20.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 88.3 88.3 5.5 80.5 80.5 26.2 20.2 26.2 20.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.63 0.63 0.04 0.58 0.58 0.19 0.14 0.19 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 172 3185 948 73 2903 964 202 239 149 229 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.40 0.02 c0.50 0.02 c0.11 c0.03 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.63 0.06 0.52 0.88 0.15 0.54 0.79 0.69 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 61.6 15.9 9.9 66.0 25.5 13.8 50.5 57.9 51.5 55.8 Progression Factor 1.13 0.83 0.85 1.32 0.32 0.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 1.4 15.2 10.6 1.7 Delay (s) 75.3 13.5 8.5 87.5 8.4 0.4 51.9 73.1 62.1 57.4 Level of Service EBAFAADE EE Approach Delay (s) 16.8 9.0 65.8 59.4 Approach LOS BAEE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 4/4/2012 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 380 1430 305 10 390 1890 405 340 875 320 260 670 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 14 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3637 5050 1527 3635 5000 1572 3410 3480 1557 3410 3446 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3637 5050 1527 3635 5000 1572 3410 3480 1557 3410 3446 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 400 1505 321 11 411 1989 426 358 921 337 274 705 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 152 0 0 0 128 0 0 152 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 400 1505 169 0 422 1989 298 358 921 185 274 705 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 3% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 69.4 69.4 23.6 73.0 73.0 20.9 47.0 47.0 15.0 41.1 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 69.4 69.4 23.6 73.0 73.0 20.9 47.0 47.0 15.0 41.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.40 0.40 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 415 2002 605 490 2085 655 407 934 418 292 809 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.30 c0.12 c0.40 c0.10 c0.26 0.08 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.19 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.75 0.28 0.86 0.95 0.45 0.88 0.99 0.44 0.94 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 77.1 45.4 35.8 74.1 49.4 36.7 75.8 63.7 53.1 79.5 64.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 34.4 1.7 0.3 13.9 10.9 0.6 18.5 25.8 0.7 35.8 10.2 Delay (s) 111.6 47.1 36.1 88.0 60.3 37.3 94.3 89.5 53.9 115.3 74.6 Level of Service FDD FEDFFDFE Approach Delay (s) 57.1 60.9 83.1 79.1 Approach LOS E E F E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 67.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 175.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 6/7/2011 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 290 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1546 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 305 RTOR Reduction (vph) 162 Lane Group Flow (vph) 143 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 41.1 Effective Green, g (s) 41.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 363 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 56.4 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 Delay (s) 57.1 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 251: Linder Road & Cherry Lane 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 125 985 225 260 1610 510 455 1035 190 280 780 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 13 12 11 13 12 12 12 14 12 12 13 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3343 3561 1542 3231 3561 1542 3343 3446 1644 3343 3446 1593 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3343 3561 1542 3231 3561 1542 3343 3446 1644 3343 3446 1593 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 132 1037 237 274 1695 537 479 1089 200 295 821 111 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 104 0 0 128 0 0 88 0 0 85 Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 1037 133 274 1695 409 479 1089 112 295 821 26 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6284 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 59.4 59.4 14.6 68.0 68.0 21.0 44.0 44.0 12.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 59.4 59.4 14.6 68.0 68.0 21.0 44.0 44.0 12.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 1410 610 314 1614 699 468 1010 482 267 804 371 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.29 c0.08 c0.48 c0.14 c0.32 0.09 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.26 0.07 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.99 0.74 0.22 0.87 1.05 0.58 1.02 1.08 0.23 1.10 1.02 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 72.0 38.6 29.9 66.8 41.0 30.5 64.5 53.0 40.2 69.0 57.5 44.8 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 75.4 1.7 0.1 21.8 36.9 0.8 47.7 51.9 0.1 86.1 37.2 0.0 Delay (s) 147.3 40.4 30.0 88.6 77.9 31.3 112.2 104.9 40.3 155.1 94.7 44.8 Level of Service FDCFECFFDFFD Approach Delay (s) 48.7 69.1 99.6 104.7 Approach LOS D E F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 79.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.1% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 6/6/2006 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 252: 8th Street & Cherry Lane 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 20 1270 45 90 2030 60 40 50 90 135 60 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 13 12 12 14 13 12 12 12 12 12 13 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.92 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1780 3429 1838 3546 1723 1639 1723 1728 Flt Permitted 0.06 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.56 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 114 3429 246 3546 1099 1639 1017 1728 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 1337 47 95 2137 63 42 53 95 142 63 68 RTOR Reduction (vph) 01001006100370 Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 1383 0 95 2199 0 42 87 0 142 94 0 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 4 Permitted Phases 6284 Actuated Green, G (s) 67.7 65.9 74.5 69.3 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 Effective Green, g (s) 67.7 65.9 74.5 69.3 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.64 0.72 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 103 2179 256 2369 186 278 172 293 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.40 c0.02 c0.62 0.05 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.25 0.04 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.63 0.37 0.93 0.23 0.31 0.83 0.32 Uniform Delay, d1 20.7 11.5 8.1 15.0 37.2 37.7 41.6 37.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.6 0.3 7.0 0.2 0.2 25.3 0.2 Delay (s) 21.0 12.2 8.4 22.1 37.4 38.0 66.9 38.0 Level of Service CB AC DD ED Approach Delay (s) 12.3 21.5 37.8 53.0 Approach LOS B C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 103.7 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 5/20/2008 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 30 160 1880 95 165 1975 245 290 45 115 305 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 14 12 12 14 13 12 11 13 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1869 5007 1875 5087 3263 1693 3410 1850 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1869 5007 1875 5087 3263 1693 3410 1850 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 168 1979 100 174 2079 258 305 47 121 321 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0020070049000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 200 2077 0 174 2330 0 305 119 0 321 74 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 1 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 24.2 109.0 22.0 106.8 23.3 25.0 20.0 21.7 Effective Green, g (s) 24.2 109.0 22.0 106.8 23.3 25.0 20.0 21.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.54 0.11 0.53 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 226 2728 206 2716 380 211 341 200 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.41 0.09 c0.46 c0.09 0.07 c0.09 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.88 0.76 0.84 0.86 0.80 0.56 0.94 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 86.5 35.4 87.3 40.1 86.1 82.4 89.4 82.8 Progression Factor 1.44 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.2 0.9 25.8 3.8 11.6 3.4 33.7 0.4 Delay (s) 140.6 16.7 113.1 43.9 97.7 85.8 123.1 83.2 Level of Service FB FD FF FF Approach Delay (s) 27.6 48.7 93.5 114.9 Approach LOS C D F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 51.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 200.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 5/14/2008 Counts prior to Records Way improvements c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 245 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1542 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1542 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 258 RTOR Reduction (vph) 119 Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.7 Effective Green, g (s) 21.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.83 Uniform Delay, d1 87.3 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 26.4 Delay (s) 113.7 Level of Service F Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 23 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 352: Lakes Place & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 125 1945 20 15 2680 130 30 10 50 135 5 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 11 13 12 11 12 12 16 12 11 13 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.93 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1723 4786 1593 1723 4753 1871 1666 1600 Flt Permitted 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.55 0.61 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 68 4786 1593 141 4753 1048 1076 1600 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 132 2047 21 16 2821 137 32 11 53 142 5 189 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00503003000640 Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 2047 16 16 2955 0 0 66 0 142 130 0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 116.2 109.7 109.7 102.7 101.2 21.4 21.4 21.4 Effective Green, g (s) 116.2 109.7 109.7 102.7 101.2 21.4 21.4 21.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.74 0.74 0.70 0.69 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 165 3557 1183 114 3258 151 156 231 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.43 0.00 c0.62 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.57 0.01 0.10 0.06 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.58 0.01 0.14 0.91 0.44 0.91 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 47.7 8.5 4.9 7.6 19.3 57.6 62.2 58.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 4.2 0.7 45.9 1.9 Delay (s) 70.0 8.8 4.9 7.8 23.5 58.3 108.1 60.6 Level of Service EAAAC E FE Approach Delay (s) 12.4 23.4 58.3 80.7 Approach LOS B C E F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 147.6 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 5/20/2008 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 50 1895 80 15 80 2380 175 315 85 95 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 14 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 16 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1871 5020 1808 4953 1758 1850 1765 1758 Flt Permitted 0.08 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.70 Satd. Flow (perm) 155 5020 1808 4953 1122 1850 1765 1290 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 54 2060 87 16 87 2587 190 342 92 103 130 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0040006000910 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 59 2143 0 0 103 2771 0 342 92 12 130 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt NA Prot Prot NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 1 1 6 5 5 2 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 6 6 8 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.5 50.8 11.7 57.8 19.0 11.5 11.5 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 55.5 50.8 11.7 57.8 19.0 11.5 11.5 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.51 0.12 0.58 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 166 2550 211 2862 260 212 202 234 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.43 c0.06 c0.56 c0.10 0.05 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 c0.15 0.01 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.84 0.49 0.97 1.32 0.43 0.06 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 20.0 21.1 41.3 20.2 39.8 41.2 39.4 38.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.19 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 3.5 0.4 7.4 166.5 1.4 0.1 1.6 Delay (s) 20.5 24.7 49.7 30.8 206.3 42.6 39.5 39.7 Level of Service CC DC FDDD Approach Delay (s) 24.6 31.5 146.3 Approach LOS C C F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: Count Date: 5/13/2008 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 25 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 35 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.91 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 49 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% Turn Type NA Protected Phases 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 168 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 41.6 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 Delay (s) 42.4 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 40.8 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 390: Steelwood Drive & Fairview Avenue 3/23/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 180 1995 100 65 2500 115 95 0 60 130 0 205 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 14 12 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1723 4916 1723 4919 1668 1723 1644 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.33 0.63 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1723 4916 1723 4919 561 1147 1644 Peak-hour factor, 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 Adj. Flow (vph) 189 2100 105 68 2632 121 100 0 63 137 0 216 RTOR Reduction (vph) 030030080001280 Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 2202 0 68 2750 0 0 83 0 137 88 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.7 95.0 8.8 86.1 21.2 21.2 21.2 Effective Green, g (s) 17.7 95.0 8.8 86.1 21.2 21.2 21.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.68 0.06 0.61 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 217 3335 108 3025 84 173 248 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.45 0.04 c0.56 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.66 0.63 0.91 0.99 0.79 0.35 Uniform Delay, d1 60.0 13.1 64.0 23.5 59.3 57.3 53.3 Progression Factor 1.30 0.27 0.63 1.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.1 1.0 0.5 94.9 21.5 0.9 Delay (s) 81.7 3.7 41.4 38.4 154.2 78.7 54.1 Level of Service FA DD F ED Approach Delay (s) 9.8 38.5 154.2 63.7 Approach LOS A D F E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 27 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 68: Cole Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 235 1660 185 165 1970 195 415 840 185 250 520 165 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 190.5 185.0 183.2 185.0 185.0 185.0 183.2 185.0 192.4 183.2 185.0 Lanes 231231221221 Cap, veh/h 270 2238 673 291 2210 684 474 909 406 280 701 312 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.44 0.44 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 3418 5201 1564 3384 5051 1564 3418 3480 1556 3555 3480 1551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 1694 189 168 2010 199 423 857 189 255 531 168 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1709 1734 1564 1692 1684 1564 1709 1740 1556 1777 1740 1551 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.7 38.4 8.0 6.7 51.8 11.4 17.0 33.7 14.2 9.9 20.0 10.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 38.4 8.0 6.7 51.8 11.4 17.0 33.7 14.2 9.9 20.0 10.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 270 2238 673 291 2210 684 474 909 406 280 701 312 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.76 0.28 0.58 0.91 0.29 0.89 0.94 0.47 0.91 0.76 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 2238 673 291 2210 684 515 924 413 280 701 312 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.32 0.32 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 33.5 13.9 61.3 36.6 25.3 59.0 50.5 43.3 63.7 52.5 32.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.8 1.2 0.5 0.6 2.5 0.3 16.5 17.3 0.8 30.6 4.3 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 4.9 16.7 3.0 2.9 22.1 4.5 8.5 16.9 5.7 5.8 9.3 4.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 79.4 34.7 14.4 61.9 39.1 25.6 75.5 67.8 44.1 94.3 56.7 33.1 Lane Grp LOS E C B E D C E E D F E C Approach Vol, veh/h 2123 2377 1469 954 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.0 39.6 67.0 62.6 Approach LOS D D E E Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.0 65.0 17.0 66.0 24.3 41.4 16.0 33.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 60.0 12.0 61.0 21.0 37.0 11.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.7 40.4 8.7 53.8 19.0 35.7 11.9 22.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 16.2 3.2 6.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 4.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 5 225 1160 435 15 310 1535 150 5 1070 1355 120 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 183.1 185.0 190.5 181.4 183.2 183.2 185.0 181.4 181.4 Lanes 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 Cap, veh/h 203 1313 420 268 1400 435 866 1539 687 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.52 0.52 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 3384 5051 1614 3351 5000 1552 3418 3446 1539 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 230 1184 444 316 1566 153 1092 1383 122 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1692 1684 1614 1676 1667 1552 1709 1723 1539 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 31.8 39.0 12.0 42.0 6.3 38.0 55.6 7.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 31.8 39.0 12.0 42.0 6.3 38.0 55.6 7.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 203 1313 420 268 1400 435 866 1539 687 V/C Ratio(X) 1.13 0.90 1.06 1.18 1.12 0.35 1.26 0.90 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 203 1313 420 268 1400 435 866 1539 687 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.0 34.3 36.0 69.0 54.0 12.4 56.0 38.4 24.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 96.9 7.1 55.5 84.2 54.4 0.0 126.8 8.7 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 6.4 11.8 20.5 8.3 24.8 2.4 32.1 26.1 2.9 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 162.9 41.3 91.5 153.2 108.4 12.5 182.8 47.1 25.5 Lane Grp LOS FDF FFB FDC Approach Vol, veh/h 1858 2035 2597 Approach Delay, s/veh 68.4 108.1 103.1 Approach LOS E F F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 45.0 18.0 48.0 44.0 73.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 39.0 12.0 42.0 38.0 67.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.0 41.0 14.0 44.0 40.0 57.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 90.6 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 165 1125 165 Number 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 179.6 185.0 Lanes 2 3 1 Cap, veh/h 182 1210 386 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3418 4903 1567 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 168 1148 168 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1709 1634 1567 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 34.5 10.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 34.5 10.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 182 1210 386 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.95 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 182 1210 386 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.7 55.6 29.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 44.8 16.2 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 4.4 16.2 4.6 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 115.5 71.8 33.1 Lane Grp LOS F E C Approach Vol, veh/h 1484 Approach Delay, s/veh 72.4 Approach LOS E Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 43.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.3 36.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.4 Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 98: Liberty Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 165 1735 45 120 2385 180 90 30 80 110 20 85 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.8 192.4 185.0 192.4 192.3 183.2 179.6 192.4 185.0 181.4 189.3 181.4 Lanes 130130110110 Cap, veh/h 257 2314 60 291 2116 157 347 109 290 347 72 315 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.44 0.44 0.09 0.56 0.56 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1779 5264 137 1832 4983 371 1259 464 1228 1265 307 1335 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 168 1177 639 122 1698 920 92 0 113 112 0 107 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1779 1751 1899 1832 1750 1854 1259 0 1692 1265 0 1642 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 17.4 17.4 2.2 26.0 26.0 3.9 0.0 3.3 4.9 0.0 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 17.4 17.4 2.2 26.0 26.0 7.2 0.0 3.3 8.2 0.0 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.81 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 257 1539 835 291 1486 787 347 0 399 347 0 387 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.76 0.77 0.42 1.14 1.17 0.26 0.00 0.28 0.32 0.00 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 263 1539 835 310 1486 787 626 0 774 627 0 751 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.8 14.5 14.5 11.8 13.3 13.3 22.1 0.0 19.2 22.5 0.0 19.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 2.2 3.9 0.0 65.0 77.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.2 6.8 7.8 0.7 20.4 24.3 1.2 0.0 1.4 1.5 0.0 1.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 16.3 16.6 18.4 11.9 78.3 90.7 22.5 0.0 19.5 23.1 0.0 19.5 Lane Grp LOS BBBBFFC BC B Approach Vol, veh/h 1984 2740 205 219 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.2 79.5 20.9 21.3 Approach LOS B E C C Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 8 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 31.9 9.4 31.0 19.9 19.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 26.5 5.0 26.0 28.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 19.4 4.2 28.0 9.2 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 50.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 99: Orchard Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 175 10 570 250 1265 45 460 900 5 5 715 220 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 188.6 185.0 192.4 181.4 190.6 185.0 185.0 192.4 185.0 192.4 181.4 188.6 Lanes 211220120121 Cap, veh/h 134 484 428 309 1125 40 378 1698 9 225 1087 504 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.26 0.00 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.46 0.46 0.01 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 3485 1850 1635 3351 3566 127 1762 3729 19 1832 3446 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 190 11 0 272 697 727 500 479 504 5 777 239 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1743 1850 1635 1676 1810 1883 1762 1828 1921 1832 1723 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 0.6 0.0 10.4 41.0 41.0 19.0 25.2 25.2 0.2 25.9 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 0.6 0.0 10.4 41.0 41.0 19.0 25.2 25.2 0.2 25.9 15.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 134 484 428 309 571 594 378 832 874 225 1087 504 V/C Ratio(X) 1.42 0.02 0.00 0.88 1.22 1.22 1.32 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.71 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 134 484 428 309 571 594 378 832 874 284 1087 504 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.42 0.42 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.5 35.7 0.0 58.3 44.5 44.5 35.3 26.2 26.2 30.2 39.3 35.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 205.2 0.0 0.0 23.1 114.5 115.3 162.2 0.6 0.6 0.0 4.0 3.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 6.1 0.3 0.0 5.5 36.6 38.2 29.9 11.6 12.2 0.1 11.9 6.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 267.7 35.7 0.0 81.4 159.0 159.8 197.4 26.8 26.8 30.2 43.4 39.0 Lane Grp LOS F D FFFFCCCDD Approach Vol, veh/h 201 1696 1483 1021 Approach Delay, s/veh 255.0 146.9 84.3 42.3 Approach LOS F F F D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 40.0 18.0 47.0 25.0 65.2 6.8 47.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 34.0 12.0 41.0 19.0 55.0 5.0 41.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 2.6 12.4 43.0 21.0 27.2 2.2 27.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 10.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 106.5 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 206: Meridian Road & Cherry Lane/Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 160 1190 210 265 1685 525 365 1005 190 290 540 255 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 188.6 181.4 181.4 188.6 188.6 181.4 188.6 188.6 188.6 181.4 188.6 181.4 Lanes 221221221221 Cap, veh/h 149 1428 639 299 1638 705 434 973 435 287 834 359 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3485 3446 1542 3485 3584 1542 3485 3584 1603 3351 3584 1542 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 168 1253 221 279 1774 553 384 1058 200 305 568 268 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1743 1723 1542 1743 1792 1542 1743 1792 1603 1676 1792 1542 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.0 46.9 13.7 11.2 64.0 30.9 15.2 38.0 12.3 12.0 20.2 22.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.0 46.9 13.7 11.2 64.0 30.9 15.2 38.0 12.3 12.0 20.2 22.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 1428 639 299 1638 705 434 973 435 287 834 359 V/C Ratio(X) 1.12 0.88 0.35 0.93 1.08 0.78 0.88 1.09 0.46 1.06 0.68 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 149 1428 639 299 1638 705 473 973 435 287 834 359 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.22 0.22 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.0 37.7 28.0 67.6 59.4 21.6 60.3 51.0 30.2 64.0 49.0 49.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 99.7 5.8 1.1 12.0 40.2 2.0 15.9 55.7 0.3 70.4 1.9 7.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 4.8 21.0 5.5 5.8 40.2 13.2 7.9 25.1 5.0 8.0 9.4 9.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 166.7 43.6 29.1 79.6 99.7 23.6 76.2 106.7 30.5 134.4 50.9 57.4 Lane Grp LOS F D C E F C E F C F D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1642 2606 1642 1141 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.2 81.4 90.3 74.7 Approach LOS D F F E Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 63.0 17.0 69.0 22.4 43.0 17.0 37.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 58.0 12.0 64.0 19.0 38.0 12.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 48.9 13.2 66.0 17.2 40.0 14.0 24.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 76.0 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 6 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 207: Main Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 1525 210 335 2140 110 405 125 320 80 55 60 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 0.0 188.6 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 188.6 188.6 181.4 181.4 181.4 Lanes 030130111011 Cap, veh/h 0 1544 212 312 2686 137 379 393 334 110 76 155 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.56 0.56 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 4749 629 1727 4824 247 1727 1792 1523 1042 720 1465 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1202 624 353 1537 832 426 132 337 142 0 63 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1717 1775 1727 1650 1770 1727 1792 1523 1762 0 1465 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 43.0 43.0 23.0 49.2 50.1 28.0 7.9 28.0 10.0 0.0 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 43.0 43.0 23.0 49.2 50.1 28.0 7.9 28.0 10.0 0.0 5.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.35 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1158 599 312 1838 986 379 393 334 187 0 155 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.04 1.04 1.13 0.84 0.84 1.12 0.34 1.01 0.76 0.00 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1158 599 312 1838 986 379 393 334 359 0 299 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.41 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 56.7 56.7 52.3 23.4 23.6 49.8 41.9 49.8 55.4 0.0 53.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 27.9 35.3 91.9 4.7 8.8 84.0 0.2 51.1 12.7 0.0 3.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 24.5 26.6 18.1 20.2 23.2 21.4 3.7 15.8 5.2 0.0 2.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 84.5 91.9 144.2 28.1 32.4 133.7 42.1 100.9 68.1 0.0 56.9 Lane Grp LOS F F F C C F D F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1826 2722 895 205 Approach Delay, s/veh 87.1 44.5 107.9 64.6 Approach LOS F D F E Timer Assigned Phs 6 5 2 8 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.0 28.0 76.0 33.0 18.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 43.0 23.0 71.0 28.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 45.0 25.0 52.1 30.0 12.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 69.0 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 5 110 1725 325 5 330 2215 115 710 290 285 120 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 190.4 183.2 185.0 184.9 185.0 186.8 183.2 185.0 183.2 183.2 Lanes 1 3 1 2312112 Cap, veh/h 93 1943 605 351 2222 695 620 575 477 174 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.21 0.88 0.88 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1813 5000 1556 3417 5051 1579 3384 1850 1536 3384 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 1816 342 347 2332 121 747 305 300 126 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1813 1667 1556 1709 1684 1579 1692 1850 1536 1692 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 47.5 18.7 13.8 60.0 1.5 25.0 18.6 22.8 5.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 47.5 18.7 13.8 60.0 1.5 25.0 18.6 22.8 5.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 93 1943 605 351 2222 695 620 575 477 174 V/C Ratio(X) 1.25 0.93 0.57 0.99 1.05 0.17 1.20 0.53 0.63 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 93 1943 605 351 2222 695 620 583 484 248 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.7 40.0 20.7 54.1 8.2 4.7 55.7 38.8 40.3 63.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 173.3 9.9 3.8 26.2 27.4 0.2 106.6 0.4 1.9 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 7.8 21.5 7.8 6.7 8.9 0.5 20.2 9.0 9.3 2.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 238.0 49.9 24.5 80.3 35.6 4.9 162.3 39.2 42.2 66.2 Lane Grp LOS FDC FFAFDDE Approach Vol, veh/h 2274 2800 1352 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.7 39.8 107.9 Approach LOS E D F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 58.0 19.0 65.0 30.0 47.4 12.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 53.0 14.0 60.0 25.0 43.0 10.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 49.5 15.8 62.0 27.0 24.8 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 59.5 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 8 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 280 100 Number 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 185.0 Lanes 2 0 Cap, veh/h 455 158 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 2543 884 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 202 198 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1758 1669 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.5 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.5 15.1 Prop In Lane 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 314 298 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 361 343 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.0 52.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 6.8 6.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 53.9 54.8 Lane Grp LOS D D Approach Vol, veh/h 526 Approach Delay, s/veh 57.2 Approach LOS E Timer Assigned Phs 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.7 Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 9 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 255 1665 280 5 275 2080 715 540 735 265 340 650 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 00000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 185.0 183.2 184.9 185.0 185.0 183.2 183.2 190.5 185.0 183.2 Lanes 2 3 1 23122122 Cap, veh/h 244 1948 596 317 2056 636 508 917 427 394 629 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.12 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3418 5051 1546 3417 5051 1562 3384 3480 1619 3418 2752 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 260 1699 286 281 2122 730 551 750 270 347 419 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1709 1684 1546 1708 1684 1562 1692 1740 1619 1709 1740 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 43.6 19.5 11.4 57.0 57.0 21.0 28.3 20.6 14.0 32.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 43.6 19.5 11.4 57.0 57.0 21.0 28.3 20.6 14.0 32.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 1948 596 317 2056 636 508 917 427 394 398 V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.87 0.48 0.89 1.03 1.15 1.09 0.82 0.63 0.88 1.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 244 1948 596 317 2056 636 508 917 427 415 398 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.0 39.8 32.4 62.8 41.5 41.5 59.5 48.4 45.6 61.0 54.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 75.8 5.7 2.7 23.7 28.6 83.9 65.1 5.5 2.3 17.8 59.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 7.0 19.3 7.9 6.0 29.1 36.7 13.7 13.3 8.7 7.1 20.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 140.8 45.5 35.2 86.5 70.1 125.4 124.6 53.9 47.9 78.8 113.9 Lane Grp LOS FDD FFFFDDEF Approach Vol, veh/h 2245 3133 1571 1178 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.2 84.5 77.7 103.9 Approach LOS E F E F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 59.0 18.0 62.0 26.0 41.9 21.1 37.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 54.0 13.0 57.0 21.0 36.0 17.0 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 45.6 13.4 59.0 23.0 30.3 16.0 34.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 77.9 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 10 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 165 Number 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 183.2 Lanes 0 Cap, veh/h 159 Arrive On Green 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 697 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 412 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1709 Q Serve(g_s), s 32.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 32.0 Prop In Lane 0.41 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 391 V/C Ratio(X) 1.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 391 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 60.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 20.5 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 114.7 Lane Grp LOS F Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 11 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 211: Five Mile Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 315 1575 295 255 2000 420 465 840 295 310 765 265 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 192.4 183.2 183.2 185.0 185.0 183.2 183.2 183.2 Lanes 231231221221 Cap, veh/h 304 1797 557 304 1851 546 422 943 420 332 842 375 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 3418 5051 1565 3418 5253 1549 3384 3515 1565 3384 3480 1549 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 332 1658 311 268 2105 442 489 884 311 326 805 279 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1709 1684 1565 1709 1751 1549 1692 1758 1565 1692 1740 1549 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.5 44.2 15.7 11.0 49.5 39.1 17.5 34.5 25.5 13.5 32.0 17.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.5 44.2 15.7 11.0 49.5 39.1 17.5 34.5 25.5 13.5 32.0 17.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 304 1797 557 304 1851 546 422 943 420 332 842 375 V/C Ratio(X) 1.09 0.92 0.56 0.88 1.14 0.81 1.16 0.94 0.74 0.98 0.96 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 304 1797 557 304 1851 546 422 943 420 332 842 375 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.39 0.39 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.0 43.4 17.7 67.4 62.1 57.5 61.5 50.2 46.9 63.2 52.5 28.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 70.2 6.9 2.8 11.1 64.9 5.2 95.4 16.2 6.5 43.9 20.9 7.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 8.5 19.9 6.2 5.6 34.6 17.2 13.2 17.5 10.9 7.9 16.6 7.5 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 134.2 50.3 20.6 78.5 127.0 62.7 156.9 66.4 53.5 107.1 73.4 36.0 Lane Grp LOS F D C E F E F E D F E D Approach Vol, veh/h 2301 2815 1684 1410 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.4 112.2 90.3 73.8 Approach LOS E F F E Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 56.0 19.0 56.0 25.0 44.2 21.3 40.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.5 6.0 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 50.0 12.0 49.5 17.5 37.7 13.8 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.5 46.2 13.0 51.5 19.5 36.5 15.5 34.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 86.1 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 12 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 212: Cloverdale Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 340 1665 295 270 1915 405 275 945 365 305 775 290 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 185.0 183.2 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 183.2 183.2 185.0 183.7 185.0 Lanes 231231220220 Cap, veh/h 293 1840 567 293 1840 572 293 809 309 269 799 298 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 3418 5051 1556 3418 5051 1571 3418 2462 939 3418 2486 928 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 358 1753 311 284 2016 426 289 700 679 321 572 549 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1709 1684 1556 1709 1684 1571 1709 1740 1662 1709 1745 1669 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.0 47.3 22.2 11.6 51.0 35.1 11.8 46.0 46.0 11.0 45.0 45.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 47.3 22.2 11.6 51.0 35.1 11.8 46.0 46.0 11.0 45.0 45.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.56 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 293 1840 567 293 1840 572 293 572 546 269 561 536 V/C Ratio(X) 1.22 0.95 0.55 0.97 1.10 0.74 0.99 1.22 1.24 1.20 1.02 1.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 293 1840 567 293 1840 572 293 572 546 269 561 536 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.0 43.3 35.4 65.8 52.9 46.9 63.9 47.0 47.0 64.5 47.5 47.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 126.6 12.5 3.8 21.2 46.2 2.6 48.6 115.7 124.6 118.3 43.3 44.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 10.4 21.9 9.1 6.1 30.3 14.8 7.2 38.4 38.0 9.3 26.4 25.4 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 190.6 55.8 39.2 87.0 99.1 49.5 112.5 162.7 171.6 182.8 90.8 92.3 Lane Grp LOS F E D F F D FFFFFF Approach Vol, veh/h 2422 2726 1668 1442 Approach Delay, s/veh 73.6 90.1 157.6 111.8 Approach LOS E F F F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 56.0 17.0 56.0 17.0 51.0 16.0 50.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 51.0 12.0 51.0 12.0 46.0 11.0 45.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 49.3 13.6 53.0 13.8 48.0 13.0 47.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 102.7 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 305 1505 320 10 430 1625 405 10 555 1305 425 355 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 183.2 185.0 183.2 181.4 183.2 190.5 183.1 183.2 181.4 185.0 Lanes 2 3 1 2 3 1 2312 Cap, veh/h 347 1637 505 480 1825 591 640 1521 468 397 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 3384 5051 1557 3351 5000 1619 3384 5000 1539 3418 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 311 1536 327 439 1658 413 566 1332 434 362 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1692 1684 1557 1676 1667 1619 1692 1667 1539 1709 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.8 57.8 35.2 25.5 64.1 29.4 31.9 49.4 53.5 20.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.8 57.8 35.2 25.5 64.1 29.4 31.9 49.4 53.5 20.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 347 1637 505 480 1825 591 640 1521 468 397 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.94 0.65 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.88 0.88 0.93 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 393 1637 505 539 1835 594 671 1521 468 428 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 86.8 64.2 56.6 92.0 82.8 28.5 77.2 64.6 66.0 85.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.7 10.9 2.9 8.5 3.1 1.5 12.7 7.4 26.9 21.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 8.9 27.0 14.3 12.3 29.8 13.0 15.0 22.1 24.5 10.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 106.5 75.1 59.5 100.5 85.9 30.0 90.0 72.0 92.9 107.4 Lane Grp LOS FEE FFC FEFF Approach Vol, veh/h 2174 2510 2332 Approach Delay, s/veh 77.3 79.3 80.2 Approach LOS E E F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.5 68.4 33.6 76.4 43.0 65.5 28.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.7 63.0 31.5 71.8 38.8 59.0 24.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.8 59.8 27.5 66.1 33.9 55.5 22.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 3.2 0.5 5.3 3.1 3.4 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 80.3 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 14 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 850 365 Number 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 181.4 190.5 Lanes 3 1 Cap, veh/h 1131 369 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 4951 1615 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 867 372 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1650 1615 Q Serve(g_s), s 32.0 33.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 32.0 33.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1131 369 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 1.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1131 369 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.6 41.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 49.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 14.1 18.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 75.6 90.1 Lane Grp LOS E F Approach Vol, veh/h 1601 Approach Delay, s/veh 86.2 Approach LOS F Timer Assigned Phs 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 50.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 44.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 35.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.0 Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 15 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 214: Mitchell Street & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 115 1850 80 35 2340 170 100 115 75 95 80 55 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 192.4 185.0 183.2 192.4 185.0 192.4 185.0 183.9 185.0 185.0 182.4 181.4 Lanes 131131110110 Cap, veh/h 149 3136 966 49 2860 925 229 161 106 181 156 108 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.62 0.62 0.03 0.57 0.57 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1832 5051 1555 1832 5051 1633 1762 1034 679 1762 1004 692 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 125 2011 87 38 2543 185 109 0 207 103 0 147 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1832 1684 1555 1832 1684 1633 1762 0 1713 1762 0 1696 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 33.2 3.0 2.7 58.2 7.3 6.0 0.0 15.4 6.0 0.0 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 33.2 3.0 2.7 58.2 7.3 6.0 0.0 15.4 6.0 0.0 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.41 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 3136 966 49 2860 925 229 0 267 181 0 264 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.64 0.09 0.77 0.89 0.20 0.48 0.00 0.78 0.57 0.00 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 3136 966 83 2860 925 229 0 362 181 0 359 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.35 0.35 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.9 15.8 10.1 64.0 25.1 14.0 46.8 0.0 53.7 47.0 0.0 51.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 0.4 0.1 9.1 4.6 0.5 0.6 0.0 4.7 2.6 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 4.7 13.0 1.1 1.4 24.3 3.0 0.6 0.0 7.2 0.7 0.0 4.7 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 72.2 16.2 10.1 73.1 29.7 14.5 47.4 0.0 58.4 49.7 0.0 52.4 Lane Grp LOS EBBECBD ED D Approach Vol, veh/h 2223 2766 316 250 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.1 29.3 54.6 51.2 Approach LOS B C D D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.8 87.2 8.6 80.0 11.0 25.6 11.0 25.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 80.0 6.0 75.0 6.0 28.0 6.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.9 35.2 4.7 60.2 8.0 17.4 8.0 12.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 44.7 0.0 14.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 27.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 16 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 380 1430 305 10 390 1890 405 340 875 320 260 670 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 00000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 192.4 185.0 179.6 192.3 183.2 185.0 185.0 183.2 183.2 185.0 181.4 Lanes 2 3 1 23122122 Cap, veh/h 410 2014 609 456 2060 648 398 943 421 296 831 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 3555 5051 1527 3553 5000 1572 3418 3480 1553 3418 3446 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 400 1505 321 411 1989 426 358 921 337 274 705 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1684 1527 1776 1667 1572 1709 1740 1553 1709 1723 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.5 44.3 27.8 19.8 67.4 37.9 17.9 45.5 35.0 13.8 33.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.5 44.3 27.8 19.8 67.4 37.9 17.9 45.5 35.0 13.8 33.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 410 2014 609 456 2060 648 398 943 421 296 831 V/C Ratio(X) 0.98 0.75 0.53 0.90 0.97 0.66 0.90 0.98 0.80 0.93 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 410 2014 609 533 2104 662 434 943 421 296 831 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 76.5 44.7 39.7 74.5 49.8 41.1 75.7 62.7 58.9 78.7 62.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 37.9 1.6 1.0 15.4 12.5 2.5 19.4 23.7 10.6 33.3 8.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 11.2 19.3 10.9 10.2 30.7 15.5 9.1 23.6 15.2 7.6 16.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 114.4 46.3 40.7 89.9 62.3 43.6 95.1 86.4 69.4 112.0 71.1 Lane Grp LOS FDD FEDFFEFE Approach Vol, veh/h 2226 2826 1616 1284 Approach Delay, s/veh 57.7 63.5 84.8 80.5 Approach LOS E E F F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.0 74.2 27.3 76.5 25.2 52.0 20.0 46.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 67.0 26.0 73.0 22.0 47.0 15.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.5 46.3 21.8 69.4 19.9 47.5 15.8 35.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 20.7 0.5 2.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 68.9 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 17 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 290 Number 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 Lanes 1 Cap, veh/h 378 Arrive On Green 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1569 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 305 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1569 Q Serve(g_s), s 31.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 378 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 378 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 14.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 74.1 Lane Grp LOS E Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 18 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 251: Linder Road & Cherry Lane 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 125 985 225 260 1610 510 455 1035 190 280 780 105 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 181.4 188.6 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 181.4 188.6 Lanes 221221221221 Cap, veh/h 134 1429 615 317 1625 699 469 1011 470 268 804 374 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.45 0.45 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3351 3584 1542 3351 3584 1542 3351 3446 1603 3351 3446 1603 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 1037 237 274 1695 537 479 1089 200 295 821 111 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1676 1792 1542 1676 1792 1542 1676 1723 1603 1676 1723 1603 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 36.7 16.4 12.1 68.0 43.8 21.0 44.0 15.1 12.0 35.0 8.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 36.7 16.4 12.1 68.0 43.8 21.0 44.0 15.1 12.0 35.0 8.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 134 1429 615 317 1625 699 469 1011 470 268 804 374 V/C Ratio(X) 0.98 0.73 0.39 0.87 1.04 0.77 1.02 1.08 0.43 1.10 1.02 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 134 1429 615 335 1625 699 469 1011 470 268 804 374 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 72.0 38.1 32.0 67.0 41.0 34.4 64.5 53.0 42.8 69.0 57.5 47.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 72.7 1.6 0.1 18.6 34.5 4.7 47.0 51.5 0.2 84.5 37.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.9 16.9 6.3 6.1 37.8 17.6 12.1 26.5 6.1 8.4 19.6 3.5 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 144.7 39.8 32.2 85.5 75.5 39.1 111.5 104.5 43.0 153.5 94.7 47.5 Lane Grp LOS F D C F F D F F D F F D Approach Vol, veh/h 1406 2506 1768 1227 Approach Delay, s/veh 48.3 68.8 99.5 104.5 Approach LOS D E F F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 64.8 19.2 73.0 26.0 49.0 17.0 40.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 59.0 15.0 68.0 21.0 44.0 12.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.9 38.7 14.1 70.0 23.0 46.0 14.0 37.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 19.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 78.8 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 19 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 252: 8th Street & Cherry Lane 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 20 1270 45 90 2030 60 40 50 90 135 60 65 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 188.6 181.4 181.4 188.6 188.6 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 Lanes 120120110110 Cap, veh/h 111 2018 71 279 2191 64 267 130 233 246 185 200 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.59 0.59 0.04 0.62 0.62 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1796 3396 119 1796 3556 104 1254 583 1046 1235 831 897 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 21 678 706 95 1072 1128 42 0 148 142 0 131 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1796 1723 1793 1796 1792 1868 1254 0 1629 1235 0 1728 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 28.4 28.5 2.0 61.6 63.1 3.1 0.0 8.4 12.0 0.0 6.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 28.4 28.5 2.0 61.6 63.1 10.0 0.0 8.4 20.3 0.0 6.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.52 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 111 1024 1065 279 1104 1151 267 0 364 246 0 386 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.66 0.66 0.34 0.97 0.98 0.16 0.00 0.41 0.58 0.00 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 156 1024 1065 350 1113 1161 371 0 499 349 0 529 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.6 14.6 14.7 12.4 19.8 20.1 39.4 0.0 35.8 44.5 0.0 35.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 1.6 1.6 0.3 20.1 21.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.6 11.2 11.6 0.8 30.6 32.9 1.0 0.0 3.5 3.9 0.0 3.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 26.9 16.2 16.2 12.6 39.9 41.7 39.5 0.0 36.1 45.3 0.0 35.4 Lane Grp LOS C B B B D D D D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1405 2295 190 273 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.4 39.7 36.8 40.5 Approach LOS B D D D Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 8 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 69.1 9.7 71.4 29.1 29.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 63.0 9.0 67.0 33.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 30.5 4.0 65.1 12.0 22.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 32.5 0.1 1.3 2.2 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.7 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 20 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 30 160 1880 95 165 1975 245 290 45 115 305 70 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 Initial Q (Qb), veh 00000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 191.8 184.7 179.6 192.4 190.7 185.0 183.2 191.0 183.2 185.0 185.0 Lanes 13013021021 Cap, veh/h 186 2666 134 194 2568 314 460 54 138 359 153 Arrive On Green 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 1827 4918 248 1832 4701 575 3384 474 1221 3418 1850 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 168 1351 728 174 1527 810 305 0 168 321 74 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1827 1681 1804 1832 1735 1806 1692 0 1695 1709 1850 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.1 0.0 0.0 16.9 64.1 66.4 15.4 0.0 17.5 16.7 6.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.1 0.0 0.0 16.9 64.1 66.4 15.4 0.0 17.5 16.7 6.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.72 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 186 1822 978 194 1896 986 460 0 192 359 153 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.74 0.74 0.90 0.81 0.82 0.66 0.00 0.87 0.90 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 254 1833 983 234 1896 986 460 0 330 380 340 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.7 0.0 0.0 79.3 33.0 33.6 73.8 0.0 78.4 79.5 78.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.2 0.9 1.7 29.1 3.8 7.7 3.6 0.0 12.3 21.7 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 7.6 0.2 0.5 9.6 28.6 31.8 7.1 0.0 8.5 8.6 3.4 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 79.9 0.9 1.7 108.5 36.8 41.2 77.3 0.0 90.7 101.1 79.7 Lane Grp LOS E A A F D D E F F E Approach Vol, veh/h 2247 2511 473 653 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.1 43.2 82.1 271.5 Approach LOS A D F F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.3 103.4 25.1 104.2 30.4 26.4 24.9 20.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 98.0 23.0 96.0 22.0 35.0 20.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.1 2.0 18.9 68.4 17.4 19.5 18.7 14.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 95.4 0.2 27.6 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 57.9 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 21 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 245 Number 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 181.4 Lanes 1 Cap, veh/h 127 Arrive On Green 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 1542 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 258 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1542 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 V/C Ratio(X) 2.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 283 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 484.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 22.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 538.6 Lane Grp LOS F Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 22 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 352: Lakes Place & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 125 1945 20 15 2680 130 30 10 50 135 5 180 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 Lanes 131130010110 Cap, veh/h 154 3533 1144 174 3270 156 61 31 73 83 7 268 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.71 0.71 0.01 0.68 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1727 4951 1603 1727 4842 232 165 179 425 1332 41 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 2047 21 16 1909 1049 96 0 0 142 0 194 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1727 1650 1603 1727 1650 1773 769 0 0 1332 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4 29.5 0.6 0.4 65.1 68.8 4.6 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 16.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4 29.5 0.6 0.4 65.1 68.8 21.2 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 16.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.33 0.55 1.00 0.97 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 154 3533 1144 174 2229 1197 164 0 0 83 0 275 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.58 0.02 0.09 0.86 0.88 0.58 0.00 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 208 3589 1162 199 2229 1197 164 0 0 83 0 275 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.9 10.2 6.1 9.3 18.3 18.9 58.9 0.0 0.0 72.4 0.0 57.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 3.6 7.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 361.7 0.0 6.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 5.8 10.7 0.2 0.2 25.5 30.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 7.5 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 66.6 10.5 6.1 9.4 21.9 26.6 62.5 0.0 0.0 434.1 0.0 64.0 Lane Grp LOS EBAACCE F E Approach Vol, veh/h 2200 2974 96 336 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.8 23.5 62.5 220.4 Approach LOS B C E F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 8 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.5 109.3 6.9 103.8 30.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 106.0 4.0 98.0 25.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 31.5 2.4 70.8 23.2 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 72.8 0.0 27.1 0.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 32.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 23 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 5 50 1895 80 15 80 2380 175 315 85 95 120 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 192.1 185.0 185.0 185.6 183.3 185.0 185.0 185.0 190.5 185.0 Lanes 1 3 0 1301111 Cap, veh/h 171 2518 106 111 2507 181 291 202 177 295 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.53 0.53 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.07 Sat Flow, veh/h 1829 4971 209 1767 4765 343 1762 1850 1619 1762 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 1393 754 87 1796 981 342 92 103 130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1829 1684 1813 1767 1668 1772 1762 1850 1619 1762 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 28.2 28.4 3.9 42.6 42.6 5.0 3.8 4.9 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 28.2 28.4 3.9 42.6 42.6 5.0 3.8 4.9 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 171 1706 919 111 1755 932 291 202 177 295 V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.82 0.82 0.78 1.02 1.05 1.17 0.46 0.58 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 205 1706 919 131 1755 932 291 617 540 295 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.8 16.8 16.9 37.4 19.2 19.2 35.3 33.8 34.3 28.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 4.5 8.1 18.7 27.7 44.1 108.4 1.6 3.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.5 11.1 13.2 2.3 22.1 27.7 8.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 19.2 21.3 25.0 56.1 46.8 63.2 143.7 35.4 37.3 28.8 Lane Grp LOS BCC EFFFDDC Approach Vol, veh/h 2201 2864 537 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 52.7 104.8 Approach LOS C D F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 46.0 10.1 47.6 10.0 13.8 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 41.0 6.0 42.0 5.0 27.0 6.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 30.4 5.9 44.6 7.0 6.9 7.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 45.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 24 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 35 50 Number 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 185.0 185.0 Lanes 1 0 Cap, veh/h 84 120 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 692 984 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 92 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1676 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 4.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 4.1 Prop In Lane 0.59 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 204 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 580 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 33.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 1.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 34.6 Lane Grp LOS C Approach Vol, veh/h 222 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.2 Approach LOS C Timer Assigned Phs 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 Intersection Summary

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 25 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 390: Steelwood Drive & Fairview Avenue 3/20/2013

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 180 1995 100 65 2500 115 95 0 60 130 0 205 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 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 Sat Flow veh/h/ln 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 181.4 188.6 181.4 Lanes 130130010110 Cap, veh/h 209 3200 159 85 2868 130 83 9 32 52 0 289 Arrive On Green 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1727 4832 241 1727 4855 221 229 52 178 1334 0 1603 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 1432 773 68 1780 973 163 0 0 137 0 216 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1727 1650 1771 1727 1650 1775 459 0 0 1334 0 1603 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 17.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.12 0.61 0.39 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 209 2187 1173 85 1950 1048 125 0 0 52 0 289 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.65 0.66 0.80 0.91 0.93 1.31 0.00 0.00 2.64 0.00 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 224 2187 1173 149 1950 1048 125 0 0 52 0 289 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.00671088.63671088.63 0.00671088.63671088.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.8 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.0 0.0 64.4 0.0 0.0 69.4 0.0 53.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.9 0.2 0.3 1.6 0.8 1.9 184.9 0.0 0.0 790.7 0.0 10.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 6.2 0.1 0.1 2.3 0.2 0.6 10.9 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 8.2 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 57.7 0.2 0.3 63.4 0.8 1.9 249.3 0.0 0.0 860.1 0.0 64.2 Lane Grp LOS EAAEAAF F E Approach Vol, veh/h 2394 2821 163 353 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.8 2.7 249.3 373.1 Approach LOS A A F F Timer Assigned Phs 1 6 5 2 8 4 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.8 96.9 11.9 87.0 30.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 88.0 12.0 82.0 25.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.7 2.0 7.3 2.0 27.0 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 85.5 0.1 79.5 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management Synchro 8 Report DKS Associates Page 26 Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 68: Cole Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB Directions Served LLTTTRLLTTTR Maximum Queue (ft) 195 247 380 391 403 358 120 327 527 550 576 330 Average Queue (ft) 96 113 219 241 260 74 49 100 287 307 333 136 95th Queue (ft) 173 195 334 361 375 250 100 253 441 474 508 349 Link Distance (ft) 2539 2539 2539 3360 3360 3360 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 260 260 260 228 228 230 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 2 6 13 21 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 5 11 22 41 0

Intersection: 68: Cole Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served LLTTRLLTTR Maximum Queue (ft) 353 475 1418 1412 350 228 323 427 416 275 Average Queue (ft) 216 380 979 973 285 136 173 229 237 118 95th Queue (ft) 332 590 2079 2031 470 231 290 366 365 261 Link Distance (ft) 2498 2498 2595 2595 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 375 250 225 225 175 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 42 59 1259271 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 5 175 110 2 6 12 24 45 1

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB Directions Served UL L T T T R UL L T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 275 325 876 839 809 502 316 400 500 514 531 250 Average Queue (ft) 247 291 533 447 409 232 192 227 354 368 391 145 95th Queue (ft) 321 389 984 804 633 455 351 405 506 487 505 312 Link Distance (ft) 1906 1906 1906 2548 2548 2548 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 225 425 325 325 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 50 70 18 11 0 6 11 9 49 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 193 270 41 49 1 31 58 28 74 1

Intersection: 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB B907 Directions Served UL L T T R L L T T T R T Maximum Queue (ft) 370 420 458 463 321 198 253 390 377 374 293 933 Average Queue (ft) 362 418 442 416 147 126 212 369 334 321 169 555 95th Queue (ft) 393 431 450 499 383 220 310 381 387 392 350 1048 Link Distance (ft) 423 423 293 293 293 1028 Upstream Blk Time (%) 18 32 18 55 33 25 1 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 00000 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 320 320 221 153 153 280 Storage Blk Time (%) 9 58 13 41 16 40 61 29 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 64 395 141 49 59 150 101 49 3

Intersection: 69: Curtis Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement B907 Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 902 Average Queue (ft) 504 95th Queue (ft) 1004 Link Distance (ft) 1028 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 98: Liberty Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T T TR L T T TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 244 688 420 498 270 494 520 571 118 138 132 129 Average Queue (ft) 112 199 240 306 87 256 297 329 55 57 62 52 95th Queue (ft) 208 540 401 469 216 445 475 513 103 111 113 104 Link Distance (ft) 3360 3360 3360 1906 1906 1906 771 547 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 171 86 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 9 0 21 4431 Queuing Penalty (veh) 18 14 1 25 4331

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates

Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 206: Meridian Road & Cherry Lane/Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served LLTTRLLTTRLL Maximum Queue (ft) 181 250 1423 1444 300 209 408 528 512 419 375 425 Average Queue (ft) 109 187 993 1028 215 107 248 444 457 230 290 407 95th Queue (ft) 201 315 1958 1983 414 186 487 595 594 397 452 514 Link Distance (ft) 2576 2576 408 408 408 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 4 0 26 34 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 27 28 0 224 292 13 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 200 500 500 325 325 Storage Blk Time (%) 12 19 49 51 0 26 32 46 Queuing Penalty (veh) 72 111 79 107 3 68 162 229

Intersection: 206: Meridian Road & Cherry Lane/Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB B1 B1 Directions Served TTRLLTTRTT Maximum Queue (ft) 2643 2640 400 300 350 519 469 399 4604 4598 Average Queue (ft) 2604 2603 294 286 347 490 210 162 3314 3296 95th Queue (ft) 2658 2657 544 333 356 505 440 353 5630 5651 Link Distance (ft) 2581 2581 415 415 4765 4765 Upstream Blk Time (%) 84 76 94 2 0 30 29 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 00000 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 250 250 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 57 63 55 97 5 6 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 207 120 149 261 16 14 4

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 207: Main Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B858 B858 B858 NB NB Directions Served T T TR L T T TR T T T L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 564 546 550 700 845 825 813 1480 1483 1452 333 2636 Average Queue (ft) 503 448 458 690 804 602 537 1039 1037 981 331 2605 95th Queue (ft) 629 542 542 749 913 903 877 1873 1887 1888 337 2621 Link Distance (ft) 408 408 408 742 742 742 1359 1359 1359 2582 Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 12 16 66 8 6 22 20 14 95 Queuing Penalty (veh) 91 66 88 632 78 54 208 188 129 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 600 233 Storage Blk Time (%) 82 25 88 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 583 85 392 11

Intersection: 207: Main Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB SB SB Directions Served R LTR R Maximum Queue (ft) 400 158 81 Average Queue (ft) 321 145 6 95th Queue (ft) 558 157 46 Link Distance (ft) 134 Upstream Blk Time (%) 96 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 95 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 28 1

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB NB Directions Served UL T T T R UL L T T T R UL Maximum Queue (ft) 299 507 498 500 423 231 399 914 759 591 430 750 Average Queue (ft) 159 243 257 265 99 130 163 285 312 339 51 748 95th Queue (ft) 287 447 434 435 252 214 302 632 584 521 238 758 Link Distance (ft) 1437 1437 1437 2539 2539 2539 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 325 300 300 413 650 Storage Blk Time (%) 13 7 3 0 0 6 5 76 Queuing Penalty (veh) 74 8 11 0 1 22 6 269

Intersection: 209: Milwaukee Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB B990 Directions Served L T R L L T TR T Maximum Queue (ft) 1318 1311 373 130 199 276 254 25 Average Queue (ft) 1300 1300 182 55 84 141 155 2 95th Queue (ft) 1308 1307 354 111 160 230 238 33 Link Distance (ft) 1281 1281 252 252 2217 Upstream Blk Time (%) 67 63 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 87 752728 Queuing Penalty (veh) 310 21 16 2 10 34

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB B862 B862 B862 WB WB WB Directions Served L L T T T R T T T UL L T Maximum Queue (ft) 347 400 581 563 569 375 181 140 64 210 296 405 Average Queue (ft) 275 306 418 396 415 259 30 13 3 120 144 262 95th Queue (ft) 420 480 630 555 556 489 165 96 30 190 226 368 Link Distance (ft) 548 548 548 1990 1990 1990 996 Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 75 4 5 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 275 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 28 42 15 20 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 154 231 39 56 11

Intersection: 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement WB WB WB B859 B859 NB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served TTRTTLLTTRLL Maximum Queue (ft) 475 534 604 271 143 525 575 2288 2256 375 279 397 Average Queue (ft) 291 320 315 9 5 517 566 1445 1345 189 149 363 95th Queue (ft) 411 463 542 195 143 559 619 2617 2596 379 251 508 Link Distance (ft) 996 996 1437 1437 3011 3011 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 2 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 725 475 475 275 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 48 71 1 18 1 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 178 259 4 47 2 1 2

Intersection: 210: Maple Grove Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement SB SB B964 B964 Directions Served T TR T T Maximum Queue (ft) 479 496 3149 3160 Average Queue (ft) 472 474 2166 2170 95th Queue (ft) 478 486 3452 3446 Link Distance (ft) 397 397 4114 4114 Upstream Blk Time (%) 64 77 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) 74 Queuing Penalty (veh) 252

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 211: Five Mile Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB Directions Served LLTTTRLLTTTR Maximum Queue (ft) 294 314 462 488 497 381 198 500 1065 1108 1187 525 Average Queue (ft) 171 184 344 368 382 129 100 314 693 725 772 412 95th Queue (ft) 295 316 448 464 472 283 174 633 1131 1172 1253 713 Link Distance (ft) 2091 2091 2091 2569 2569 2569 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 400 400 400 425 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 3 8 29 33 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 5 9 23 74 139 0

Intersection: 211: Five Mile Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB NB NB NB B6 B6 SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served LLTTRTTLLTTR Maximum Queue (ft) 409 410 516 486 400 2701 2688 323 400 489 490 400 Average Queue (ft) 397 408 487 399 257 1771 1726 230 339 433 426 299 95th Queue (ft) 410 412 501 561 478 3187 3209 381 500 568 557 514 Link Distance (ft) 410 410 2912 2912 401 401 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 40 72 11 1 14 12 5 35 32 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0000000 0000 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 425 425 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 4 40 72 28 1 12 20 42 48 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 18 169 333 83 5 45 78 131 127 2

Intersection: 211: Five Mile Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement B3 B3 Directions Served TT Maximum Queue (ft) 691 698 Average Queue (ft) 346 350 95th Queue (ft) 1015 1030 Link Distance (ft) 4089 4089 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 212: Cloverdale Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB B861 B861 B1042 WB WB WB Directions Served LLTTTRTTTLLT Maximum Queue (ft) 350 400 1473 1439 1346 400 3 5 5 247 400 941 Average Queue (ft) 314 374 1001 924 729 248 0 0 0 138 280 629 95th Queue (ft) 420 479 1872 1770 1414 505 3 5 5 223 491 1102 Link Distance (ft) 1963 1963 1963 744 744 383 3063 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 43 67 14 28 0 0 0 32 Queuing Penalty (veh) 238 371 49 83 1 0 2 87

Intersection: 212: Cloverdale Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement WB WB WB NB NB NB NB B881 B881 SB SB SB Directions Served T T R L L T TR T T L L T Maximum Queue (ft) 1000 1047 500 190 400 612 618 2451 2457 332 400 595 Average Queue (ft) 646 682 367 106 354 590 591 2425 2425 286 382 586 95th Queue (ft) 1128 1192 671 175 526 604 603 2440 2438 432 481 591 Link Distance (ft) 3063 3063 514 514 2404 2404 510 Upstream Blk Time (%) 62 69 94 85 71 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0000 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 300 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 29 0 66 41 54 50 Queuing Penalty (veh) 116 0 181 157 209 154

Intersection: 212: Cloverdale Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement SB B866 B866 Directions Served TR T T Maximum Queue (ft) 603 2098 2118 Average Queue (ft) 586 1673 1684 95th Queue (ft) 594 2607 2622 Link Distance (ft) 510 3463 3463 Upstream Blk Time (%) 59 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh)

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB Directions Served L L T T T R UL L T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 288 550 740 764 805 425 392 408 692 729 788 699 Average Queue (ft) 164 243 456 475 508 285 239 254 522 548 566 298 95th Queue (ft) 262 483 691 715 779 554 376 389 692 716 727 570 Link Distance (ft) 915 915 915 1888 1888 1888 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 450 450 325 850 850 600 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 11 31 0 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 32 98 1 35

Intersection: 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement NB NB NB NB NB NB B880 B880 SB SB SB SB Directions Served UL L T T T R T T L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 523 582 654 651 674 525 45 41 371 390 439 436 Average Queue (ft) 334 363 456 456 432 297 2 2 229 248 293 287 95th Queue (ft) 493 541 643 645 637 523 49 45 361 383 421 415 Link Distance (ft) 892 892 892 1595 1595 2549 2549 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 725 725 425 625 625 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 11 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 47 8

Intersection: 213: Eagle Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement SB SB Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 452 438 Average Queue (ft) 265 225 95th Queue (ft) 415 396 Link Distance (ft) 2549 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 7

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 214: Mitchell Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B862 B862 Directions Served LTTTRLTTTRTT Maximum Queue (ft) 209 238 285 288 165 96 208 235 268 115 5 8 Average Queue (ft) 110 99 114 135 22 40 114 146 171 32 0 0 95th Queue (ft) 192 207 231 259 106 83 183 208 236 80 5 8 Link Distance (ft) 2569 2569 2569 1990 1990 1990 548 548 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 98 109 175 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 8 0 1 10 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 0 7074 17

Intersection: 214: Mitchell Street & Fairview Avenue

Movement B862 NB NB SB SB Directions Served T L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 4 259 356 219 273 Average Queue (ft) 0 92 167 81 116 95th Queue (ft) 4 190 317 162 220 Link Distance (ft) 548 1040 5192 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 175 175 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 13 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 13 1 4

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB Directions Served L L T T T R UL L T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 281 298 591 444 485 400 292 502 667 687 738 500 Average Queue (ft) 167 182 267 283 300 162 182 227 424 447 467 301 95th Queue (ft) 257 269 405 432 459 363 275 414 603 623 663 565 Link Distance (ft) 2195 2195 2195 1290 1290 1290 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 425 425 300 450 450 400 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 15 0 7 18 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 45 1 27 73 2

Intersection: 215: Locust Grove Road & Fairview Avenue

Movement B2 NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB B841 Directions Served TLLTTRLLTTRT Maximum Queue (ft) 5 351 472 2083 2053 425 301 399 690 691 400 11 Average Queue (ft) 0 202 389 1559 1556 375 175 227 346 346 216 0 95th Queue (ft) 5 308 598 2580 2550 552 291 391 570 570 404 4 Link Distance (ft) 1681 2584 2584 1244 1244 563 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 5 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 372 372 325 300 300 300 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 56 61 3 1 3 16 16 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 190 195 12 4 11 41 47 3

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 251: Linder Road & Cherry Lane

Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served LLTTRLLTTRLL Maximum Queue (ft) 159 300 640 646 325 194 350 1024 1080 600 426 550 Average Queue (ft) 85 135 324 341 166 107 233 583 606 353 234 519 95th Queue (ft) 174 286 570 593 385 177 426 978 1025 686 353 674 Link Distance (ft) 5181 5181 2527 2527 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 225 250 250 500 450 450 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 4 23 22 1 0 33 15 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 19 28 50 3 1 87 79 0 1 1

Intersection: 251: Linder Road & Cherry Lane

Movement NB NB NB B1043 B1043 SB SB SB SB SB B624 B624 Directions Served TTRTTLLTTRTT Maximum Queue (ft) 1811 1806 300 894 890 196 201 299 302 201 2228 2221 Average Queue (ft) 1759 1758 217 780 768 154 188 277 278 108 1964 1942 95th Queue (ft) 1852 1854 410 1117 1129 219 235 287 289 247 2573 2568 Link Distance (ft) 1687 1687 833 833 201 201 2212 2212 Upstream Blk Time (%) 67 62 60 46 1 10 69 68 1 45 39 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 000000000 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 275 275 180 Storage Blk Time (%) 60 68 1 1 10 69 69 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 271 130 4 5 40 193 72 2

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 252: 8th Street & Cherry Lane

Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 128 593 637 219 568 611 113 211 214 218 Average Queue (ft) 22 259 287 63 236 275 36 88 113 93 95th Queue (ft) 77 730 758 157 472 514 84 164 209 220 Link Distance (ft) 2527 2527 2576 2576 937 563 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 73 150 102 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 20 0 12 1740 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 2 10 1350

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B1042 B1042 B1042 B861 Directions Served UL T T TR L T T TR TTTT Maximum Queue (ft) 456 341 456 490 382 458 458 458 296 320 367 198 Average Queue (ft) 268 117 155 185 243 388 405 424 92 124 169 7 95th Queue (ft) 437 255 357 392 421 551 552 539 254 306 369 192 Link Distance (ft) 1888 1888 1888 383 383 383 744 744 744 1963 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 17 22 30 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 139 179 243 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 425 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0 0 17 Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 0 1 28

Intersection: 310: Records Way & Fairview Avenue

Movement B861 NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served T L L TR L L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 192 314 354 371 415 458 399 313 Average Queue (ft) 7 172 216 155 232 269 97 145 95th Queue (ft) 192 285 322 295 399 437 265 276 Link Distance (ft) 1963 541 776 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 600 600 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0210004 Queuing Penalty (veh) 03301213

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 352: Lakes Place & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB EB B858 B858 WB WB WB WB NB Directions Served L T T T R T T L T T TR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 275 378 385 422 121 177 6 163 1671 1745 1704 213 Average Queue (ft) 118 137 135 156 7 9 0 19 788 806 802 82 95th Queue (ft) 241 338 344 383 58 155 6 93 1735 1775 1783 195 Link Distance (ft) 1359 1359 1359 742 742 2195 2195 2195 368 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0000 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3340 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 115 110 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 2 8 39 Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 3 2 6

Intersection: 352: Lakes Place & Fairview Avenue

Movement SB SB Directions Served L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 268 300 Average Queue (ft) 180 193 95th Queue (ft) 309 343 Link Distance (ft) 280 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 26 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 20 15 Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 20

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB B966 B966 B966 B2 WB WB WB WB Directions Served UL T T TR TTTTULTTTR Maximum Queue (ft) 221 440 439 456 45 56 111 126 249 514 560 588 Average Queue (ft) 57 220 239 282 3 5 11 4 92 195 235 268 95th Queue (ft) 157 425 445 483 29 40 66 126 198 422 465 501 Link Distance (ft) 380 380 380 1681 1681 1681 1290 628 628 628 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 2 5 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 14 34 2 3 8 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 14 2 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 19 11

Intersection: 363: Hickory Avenue/Hickory Way & Fairview Avenue

Movement B879 B879 B879 NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served T T T L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 418 359 84 500 565 156 208 266 Average Queue (ft) 15 17 4 495 552 49 103 92 95th Queue (ft) 190 203 54 544 660 115 198 268 Link Distance (ft) 915 915 915 542 494 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 83 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 100 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 94 7 3 10 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 170 30 11 9 0

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates Queuing and Blocking Report 2035 Baseline (CIP) PM Peak Hour 3/24/2013 Intersection: 390: Steelwood Drive & Fairview Avenue

Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served L T T TR L T T TR LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 322 262 234 227 249 625 797 691 239 259 284 Average Queue (ft) 188 90 115 139 90 529 568 585 126 118 124 95th Queue (ft) 322 225 202 211 218 622 734 670 221 212 233 Link Distance (ft) 3063 3063 3063 2091 2091 2091 227 454 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 325 150 225 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 1 29 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 22 0 5 19 3 2

Fairview Avenue Access Corridor Management SimTraffic 8 Report DKS Associates