HomeMy WebLinkAbout16.0 Traffic Impact Study and PermitsPREPARED FOR:
Aspen Polo Partners, LLP
715 West Main Street 1 Suite 201 1 Aspen 1 CO 81611
TUTTLE
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY �
CARBONDALE, GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
FOX
HERNANDEZ
PREPARED BY: CASSIE SLADE, PE
DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2017
FTH PROJECT: #1 7046
TRANSPORTATION G R D W P
P.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, CO 80308-276B
PHONE: 303-652-3571 I FAX: 303-652-6574
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary 5
2.0 Introduction 7
3.0 Project Description 7
4.0 Study Considerations 8
4.1 Data Collection 8
4.2 Existing Signal Timing 10
4.3 Level of Service Criteria 10
5.0 Existing Conditions 11
5.1 Roadways 11
5.2 Intersections 12
5.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 13
5.4 Transit 13
5.5 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis 14
6.0 Future Background Traffic Conditions 16
6.1 Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology 16
6.2 Year 2020 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis 17
6.3 Year 2037 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis 18
7.0 Proposed Development Traffic 20
7.1 Trip Generation 20
7.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment 23
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
8.0 Future Traffic Conditions with Site Development 24
8.1 Year 2020 Background + Project Intersection Capacity Analysis 24
8.2 Year 2037 Background + Project Intersection Capacity Analysis 25
9.0 Queuing Analysis 25
10.0 Auxiliary Lane Evaluation 26
11.0 Access Design 27
12.0 Conclusion 28
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1A — Weekday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary 31
Table 1B — Saturday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary 32
Table 2A — Weekday Peak Hour Queue Summary 33
Table 2A — Saturday Peak Hour Queue Summary 34
Table 3A — Trip Generation Summary (Weekday — Summer) 35
Table 3B — Trip Generation Summary (Saturday — Summer) 36
Table 4 - Existing Auxiliary Lane Evaluation (Informational Purposes Only) 27
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 — Vicinity Map 37
Figure 2 — Conceptual Site Plan 38
Figure 3A — Year 2017 Existing Weekday Traffic Volumes 39
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Figure 3B — Year 2017 Existing Saturday Traffic Volumes 40
Figure 4A — Year 2020 Background Weekday Traffic Volumes 41
Figure 4B — Year 2020 Background Saturday Traffic Volumes 42
Figure 5A — Year 2037 Background Weekday Traffic Volumes 43
Figure 5B — Year 2037 Background Saturday Traffic Volumes 44
Figure 6A — Residential Site Trip Distribution 45
Figure 6B — Polo Club Site Trip Distribution 46
Figure 7A — Weekday Site -Generated Traffic Volumes 47
Figure 7B — Saturday Site -Generated Traffic Volumes 48
Figure 8A — Year 2020 Weekday Background + Site -Generated Traffic Volumes 49
Figure 8B — Year 2020 Saturday Background + Site -Generated Traffic Volumes 50
Figure 9A — Year 2037 Weekday Background + Site -Generated Traffic Volumes 51
Figure 9B — Year 2037 Saturday Background + Site -Generated Traffic Volumes 52
APPENDIX
Level of Service Definitions
Existing Traffic Data
CDOT Correspondence
Polo Club Trip Generation Reference
Intersection Capacity Worksheets
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 4
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group completed the traffic impact study for the
development of the Aspen Valley Polo Club that is proposed to be located just east of
Carbondale, CO on Highway 82 Access Road east of County Road 100. The project proposes
to develop two polo fields with a clubhouse, barns and stables, a horse exercise track,
employee housing, guest cabins, and a community center with tennis courts and gardens during
the first phase. Up to 43 single-family or multi -family homes will be constructed during the
second phase. The project also includes multi -use trails and open space throughout the
property for use by club members and residents. For conservative and evaluation purposes, this
study assumed that the property will be fully built by the short-term horizon.
This study focused on the summer weekday AM and PM peak hours which represents the
periods of highest trip generation for the proposed residential uses. The Saturday Midday peak
hour was also evaluated to understand the traffic impacts related to special events at the polo
club. CDOT agreed that the design of the accesses and impact to intersections will be based on
the typical weekday peak hour volumes and not the volumes associated with the three special
events per year (see Appendix for email documentation). The latest plan proposes to have two
accesses on Highway 82 Access Road.
The analysis estimated that the Aspen Valley Polo Club will generate approximately 482
weekday daily trips with 49 trips occurring in the AM peak hour and 56 trips occurring in the PM
peak hour at build -out. During a special event, it was assumed the polo club will generate
approximately 914 weekend daily trips with 195 trips occurring in the Midday peak hour. It was
determined that the majority of the existing roadway and intersection network can serve
the added traffic volumes in the short-term and long-term scenarios.
The volumes on SH 82 associated with the Aspen Valley Polo Club during a typical weekday do
not meet CDOT's 20% rule that requires improvement to auxiliary lanes or an access permit for
the highway. During the weekday peak hours, the Aspen Valley Polo Club trips will be only 7%
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
of the of the side -street volumes (includes inbound and outbound) in Year 2020 and 6% in Year
2037.
Based on the intersection capacity and queue analysis for the existing, Year 2020, and Year
2037 with and without the Aspen Valley Polo Club the following improvements are
recommended:
Existing and Background Conditions without Project Trips (CDOT responsibility)
• SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100: Construct one northbound right -
turn lane (storage back to Highway 82 Access Road, about 120 feet). Adjust the signal
timing to increase the green for the westbound left -turn phase. These mitigation
measures are due to the existing conditions and are not associated with Aspen Valley
Polo Club.
The existing and background volumes trigger the need for mitigation at the intersection
of SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100. Based on CDOT's auxiliary lane
requirement in the State Highway Access Code, the existing westbound left -turn lane is
620 feet short of the required 950 feet for the deceleration + storage length. An
adjustment in signal timing can significantly reduce the queue lengths, reduce the
potential for left -turn queues to back out of the left -turn lane, and minimize impacts to the
adjacent through lane.
It should be noted that Aspen Valley Polo Club trips only make up 4% of the of volume in
the westbound left -turn lane and 4% in the northbound right -turn lane in Year 2037at full
build -out.
With the Aspen Valley Polo Club (developer responsibility):
• Highway 82 Access Road at Chukka Trail (west access): Construct with one entering
lane and one exiting lane (full -movement) and side -street stop -controlled.
• Highway 82 Access Road at Riverstone Drive (east access): Construct with one
entering lane and one exiting lane (full -movement) and side -street stop -controlled.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 6
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact study has been prepared by the Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
for the development of the Aspen Valley Polo Club in east of Carbondale, CO. The project site
is 100± acres of vacant property that is located south of State Highway (SH) 82 and east of
Garfield County Road 100. The project proposes to develop two polo fields with a variety of
amenities for horse owners, club members, and residents during the first phase. In the second
phase, it is proposed that there will be single-family or multi -family homes on the south end of
the property near the Roaring Fork River.
The purpose of this study is to assist in identifying potential traffic impacts within the study area
as a result of this project. The traffic study addresses existing, short-term (Year 2020), and
long-term (Year 2037) peak hour intersection conditions in the study area with and without the
generated traffic for the Aspen Valley Polo Club. The information contained in this study is
anticipated to be used by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Garfield
County in identifying any intersection or roadway deficiencies and potential improvements for
both the short-term and long-term future scenarios. This study focused on the summer weekday
AM and PM peak hours which represents the periods of highest trip generation for the proposed
residential uses. The Saturday Midday peak hour was also evaluated to understand the traffic
impacts related to special events at the polo club.
This study is an update to the traffic impact study for TCI Lane Ranch' that proposed 71 single-
family homes and 18 townhomes. This updated traffic impact study has been completed
consistent with the requirements of CDOT and Garfield County.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Aspen Valley Polo Club proposes to develop two polo fields with a clubhouse, barns and
stables, a horse exercise track, employee housing, guest cabins, and a community center with
tennis courts and gardens during the first phase. One polo field will be oriented north -south
along the east property line and the other one will be oriented parallel to SH 82 located near the
center of the north property line. Up to 43 single-family or multi -family homes will be constructed
during the second phase. The project also includes multi -use trails and open space throughout
1 Level 2 Traffic Impact Study for TCI Lane Ranch. Drexel, Barrell & Co. September 2008.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
the property for use by club members and residents. For conservative and evaluation purposes,
this study assumes that the property will be fully built by the short-term horizon.
The latest plan proposes to have two accesses on Highway 82 Access Road. The main
entrance will be approximately 0.40 miles east of the intersection with County Road 100 and the
secondary access will be about 0.25 mile east of the first access. CDOT agreed that the
secondary access can be a minimum of 325 feet apart from the Waldorf School access instead
of the typical 450 feet typically required on 45 mph roadways due the low existing and future
volumes and minimal interactions between the driveways. CDOT also agreed that the auxiliary
lane requirements within the State Highway Access Code2 will be based on typical weekday
traffic and not based volumes associated the polo club events since they are infrequent.
A vicinity map is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site plan and accesses are shown on
Figure 2.
4.0 STUDY CONSIDERATIONS
The traffic operations analysis addressed the signalized and unsignalized intersection
operations using the procedures and methodologies set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM)3. Study intersections were evaluated using Synchro (version 9) software.
4.1 Data Collection
Weekday AM and PM and Saturday Midday peak hour turning movement volumes were
collected in July 2017 at four existing intersections. This is the same time period of the polo club
season and the highest seasonal volumes on the highway. The data indicated that the weekday
AM peak hour begins at 7:30 AM, the weekday PM peak hour begins at 4:15 PM, and the
Saturday Midday peak hour begins at 12:45 PM. The intersection counts included vehicular
volume per movement and pedestrian volume per crosswalk.
2 State Highway Access Code, State of Colorado, August 31, 1998, updated March 2002.
3 Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, 2010.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 8
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Average daily traffic (ADT) counts were collected for one weekday (24 -hours) and one Saturday
(24 -hours) on at three locations:
(1) Highway 82 Access Road east of County Road 100
(2) County Road 100 north of Highway 82 Access Road
(3) Highway 82 Access Road west of Valley Road
Daily volumes for SH 82 were gathered from the CDOT Transportation Management System
(TMS) and Online Transportation Information System (OTIS). The existing traffic weekday
volumes are illustrated on Figure 3A, while Saturday volumes are illustrated on Figure 3B. The
existing intersection geometry and traffic control are also shown on these figures. Count data
sheets are provided in the Appendix.
Since counts were collected during the summer months, the traffic associated with the Waldorf
School of Roaring Forks was not reflected within the counts. Since this is the highest trip
generator on Highway 82 Access Road, trips were estimated and added to the existing traffic
counts. School staff provided detailed information of their current operations. There are 185
students from pre -kindergarten to 8th grade and 30 faculty/staff. The school year begins at the
end of August and ends in early June. The school day starts at 8:15 AM and ends at 3:15 PM.
There is one up -valley school bus and one down -valley school bus that are underutilized
according to the staff. Parents utilize the east access and east parking lot to drop-off and pick-
up their student(s). Faculty/staff typically drive to the campus and park in the staff parking lot
accessed on the west side of the property. It was noted that the school has two big events per
year at the school for outreach and fundraising with a high volume of traffic; one occurs on the
first Saturday of December and the other occurs on the first Saturday of May. The school plans
to coordinate with the potential new neighbor, the Aspen Valley Polo Club, when these events
occur. For the purpose of this study, weekday and weekend trips were estimated based on trip
rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual4 for
land use #534 "Private School (K-8)".
4 Trip Generation 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 9 October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
4.2 Existing Signal Timing
Traffic signal timing information for the intersection of SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County
Road 100 was provided by CDOT and incorporated into this study. The CDOT signal timing
allows up to two minutes, or 120 seconds, to be allocated to the up -valley and down -valley
through traffic on SH 82, and additional time (up to defined maximums) to be allocated to the
signal phases serving side street movements. The signal currently operates as semi -actuated,
uncoordinated with dilemma zone detection on the highway. At the direction of CDOT staff on a
previous project just up -valley from this signal, the existing signal timing will remain in place into
the future and the analysis should reflect the changes in level of service with the additional
background and development traffic. At this time, CDOT plans to hold the highway through
phase at 120 seconds and will not reduce this phase to accommodate the increase in side
street and turning volumes. That said, we believe that signal timing adjustments will be made in
the future to efficiently and equitably accommodate all motorists accessing the SH 82 corridor.
This analysis adjusted signal timing as a mitigation measure when necessary.
4.3 Level of Service Criteria
To measure and describe the operational status of the study intersections, transportation
engineers and planners commonly use a grading system referred to as "Level of Service" (LOS)
that is defined by the HCM. LOS characterizes the operation conditions of an intersection's
traffic flow, ranging from LOS A (indicating very good, free flow operations) to LOS F (indicating
congested and sometimes oversaturated conditions). These grades represent the perspective
of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with traveling
through an intersection. The intersection LOS is represented as a delay in seconds per vehicle
for the intersection as a whole and for each turning movement.
Typically, LOS A through C are considered to be good for the overall intersection operations
with LOS D as acceptable in peak hours. Garfield County's Land Use and Development Code
indicate that all intersections should operate at LOS D or better during peak hours. Criteria
contained in the HCM was applied for this analysis in order to determine existing peak hour
performance. A more detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained in the Appendix for
reference.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 10
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
5.1 Roadways
The study area boundaries took into consideration the amount of traffic to be generated by the
project and potential impact to the existing roadway network as shown on Figure 1. The
primary public roadways that serve the Aspen Valley Polo Club are discussed in the following
text.
State Highway 82 is a four -lane major regional arterial (classified by CDOT as an
Expressway) that provides east -west access along the Roaring Fork Valley. It links
Glenwood Springs and the 1-70 corridor to the Town of Aspen and all the communities in
between. SH 82 currently carries approximately 20,000 vehicle trips per day (vpd) in the
vicinity of the Aspen Valley Polo Club (Year 2016). The posted speed limit is 65 miles per
hour (mph) within the study area. East of Valley Road the posted speed limit is reduced to
55 mph through the towns of El Jebel and Basalt.
The intersection of SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100 is controlled by a
traffic signal and the intersection includes:
• Two through lanes in each direction of SH 82;
• Bus queue jump/right-turn lanes on SH 82 to allow the VelociRFTA BRT buses
efficient service through the traffic signal;
• Left -turn deceleration lanes on SH 82;
• Right -turn deceleration and acceleration lanes on SH 82;
The intersection of SH 82 at JW Drive/Valley Road is side -street stop -controlled and the
intersection includes:
• Two through lanes in each direction of SH 82;
• Left -turn deceleration and acceleration lanes on SH 82;
• Right -turn deceleration and acceleration lanes on SH 82;
Highway 82 Access Road is a two-lane frontage road that currently provides access to
the existing RFTA park -n -ride within the southeast corner of SH 82 at Catherine Store
Road/County Road 100, as well as the Waldorf School on the Roaring Fork and a low
density single family home community. The Highway 82 Access Road extends from
County Road 100 in Garfield County to Valley Road in Eagle County. Highway 82 Access
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 11
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Road has two through lanes that are between 11 feet in width with two -foot shoulders near
the vicinity of the Aspen Valley Polo Club. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Highway 82
Access Road currently services approximately 1,700 vpd during the week and
approximately 1,300 vpd on Saturday (Year 2017) just east of County Road 100. West of
Valley Road, Highway 82 Access Road currently services approximately 1,300 vpd during
the week and approximately 1,200 vpd on Saturday (Year 2017). The roadway is the
northern boundary of the project property.
County Road 100 is a north -south, two-lane roadway that leads to the rural residential
area of east Carbondale. This roadway changes to east -west orientation and links
Carbondale's Main Street to SH 82. County Road 100 has a posted speed limit of 30 mph
and is approximately 28 feet in width. This roadway services roughly 10,900 vpd during
the week and nearly 7,100 vpd on Saturday just south of SH 82 (Year 2017).
Valley Road is a north -south, two-lane collector roadway that provides access to small
residential communities. This roadway changes to east -west orientation and leads to the
Willits Town Center in Basalt. According to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations5,
Valley Road is classified as a `suburban residential collector.' Valley Road has a posted
speed limit of 25 mph and has 11 -foot lanes with one -foot shoulders.
5.2 Intersections
The study area was developed from discussions with CDOT Region 3 staff and includes four
existing intersections. They are listed below with the current traffic control:
(1) SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100 (signalized)
(2) County Road 100 at Highway 82 Access Road (side -street stop -controlled)
(3) SH 82 at JW Drive/Valley Road (signalized)
(4) Valley Road at Highway 82 Access Road (side -street stop -controlled)
The lane configurations at each of the study locations are illustrated on Figures 3A and 3B.
5 Land Use Regulations. Appendix C. Eagle County. May 2012.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 12
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
5.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The study roadways do not provide sidewalks for pedestrians or bike lanes for cyclists. There is
a 10 -to -12 -foot multi -use path, the Rio Grande Trail, that connects Glenwood Springs to Aspen
that is just south of the Aspen Valley Polo Club property. The Rio Grande Trail is a rail -to -trails
project that provides multi -modal connectivity through the Roaring Fork Valley. It parallels the
southside of the river within the study area and future residents and polo club members will be
able to access the multi -use trail by traveling south on County Road 100.
5.4 Transit
The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) provides public transportation service
between communities adjacent to and within the Roaring Fork Valley. The Local Valley bus
route travels between Glenwood Springs and Aspen with stops along SH 82 east of Catherine
Store Road/County Road 100 to serve the local gravel park -n -ride. In the summer season, the
Local Valley buses operate between 4:00 AM to 1:20 AM with 30 -minute headways.
The Bus Rapid Transit, named
VelociRFTA, does not have a
stop within the study area;
however, patrons can catch the
express transit service by
parking at either the
Carbondale park -n -ride (Village
Road and Highway 133) or El
Jebel park -n -ride (Valley Road
and SH 82). RFTA has recently
installed new technology at the
VelociRFTA bus stops and an
online bus tracking system. In
the summer season, the
VelociRFTA buses operate between 4:30 AM to 8:00 PM with 12 -minute headways. Both bus
routes provide connections to the other six RFTA bus routes between Rifle and Aspen. A
snapshot of the RFTA bus map is shown to the right with the Catherine Store Road local bus
stop circled.
and Park A Rile
2711. St Station/Park dRde
Lui
•
•
b'
.2m '" my
n4;
w hr •
$.•'9°‘
.• n ®
....
0 6a d r
eedlePaJeheiPk&Ride n 0
Carhark ARlde ` ,cOl S'�` Willis LL -i! ,orA"
rr. x
01 $ FR,
4,?''' 449 • , y6q*--o-�b enter ,^Yb �r , Ralakhek&Ride all
0
0
ddb Gerbaxag
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 13
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
5.5 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
The results of the LOS calculations for the study intersections are summarized in Tables 1A
and 1B (weekday and Saturday, respectively). The intersection level of service worksheets are
attached in the Appendix. The data in the table shows that the side -street stop -controlled
intersections on either end of the Highway 82 Access Road are operating acceptably overall in
the peak hours during the weekday and on Saturday, with all movements operating at LOS C or
better. The highway intersections operate overall at LOS E/F in one or both peak hours. A
summary of the results for the intersections with overall or movements at LOS E or F is as
follows:
• SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100: This signalized intersection
currently operates overall at LOS E in both the AM and PM peak hours during the week
and LOS C in the Saturday Midday peak hour. In all three peak periods the eastbound
left -turn, westbound left -turn, northbound single -lane approach, and southbound single -
lane approach operate at LOS E or F due to the limited green time for traffic accessing
the side streets and long green phase on SH 82. The westbound left -turn has the
highest delay in the PM peak hour and the analysis indicated that the existing average
and 95th percentile queues6 are exceeding the existing storage. The average and 95th
percentile queues for the northbound lane is estimated to extend beyond the nearby
intersection of County Road 100 at Highway 82 Access Road in the three studied peak
hours but clears during the provided green time (listed in Table 2A and 2B, weekday
and Saturday, respectively). The analysis of the northbound and southbound
approaches are conservative as they assume one shared left-turn/through/right-turn
lane; however, the majority of the right -turning vehicles utilize the wide lane and radius
to pass waiting left -turn and through vehicles.
Recommendation: It is recommended that a northbound right -turn lane be constructed
to better utilize the existing eastbound right -turn acceleration lane and reduce impacts to
the intersection of County Road 100 at Highway 82 Access Road.
The current length of the westbound left -turn deceleration lane does not meet the
requirements set forth by the State Highway Access Code for a highway classified as
6 The 95th percentile queue length is a theoretical queue that is 1.65 standard deviations above the average queue
length. In theory, the 95th percentile queue would be exceeded 5% of the time based on the average queue length,
but it is also possible that a queue this long may not occur.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 14
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
`expressway'. The westbound left -turn lane is currently 330 feet which is 620 feet shorter
than the required length (refer to Section 10.0 for more discussion on auxiliary lanes).
An adjustment in the signal timing to allocate more time to the westbound left -turn phase
will reduce the need to extend the lane length.
It is recommended that 13 seconds from the eastbound through phase be reassigned to
the westbound left -turn phase in the PM peak hour. The eastbound through movement
has significantly less volume than the westbound approach in the PM peak hour due to
commuters headed down -valley. Even with the reduction in green time, the eastbound
through movement will remain LOS B and the delay is increased by 2 seconds. The
westbound left -turn will benefit from the additional green time with a significant reduction
in delay from nearly 8 minutes to just under 2 minutes. The average queue of the
westbound left -turn in the PM peak hour will be maintained in the existing storage length;
however, the 95th percentile will exceed the existing storage.
With the addition of a northbound right -turn lane and adjustments in the signal timing,
the intersection of SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100 will improve to
overall LOS C in both weekday peak hours and Saturday peak hour. The highway left -
turns and side -street approaches will still experience delays equating to LOS E or F;
however, the average queues will be maintained within the existing storage. Table 2A
and 2B illustrate the change in operations due to implementation of the recommended
improvements.
• SH 82 at JW Drive/Valley Road: This side -street stop -controlled intersection currently
operates overall at LOS E in the weekday AM peak hour, LOS C in the weekday PM
peak hour, and LOS A in the Saturday Midday peak hour. The side -street approaches
(northbound and southbound) both operate at LOS F in the weekday peak hours due to
the difficulty turning onto SH 82. The 95th percentile queues for the northbound approach
extends beyond the adjacent intersection with Highway 82 Access Road (up to 253 feet
or 10 vehicles). The southbound approach has a 951" percentile queue of 238 feet (about
10 vehicles) in the weekday AM peak hour due to the majority of vehicles turning left to
travel up -valley.
Recommendation: There are no mitigation measures warranted with current conditions.
The highway approaches provide left -turn and right -turn acceleration and deceleration
lanes in both directions. Additional turn lanes on the side streets will not provide
significant improvements in delay. The side -street volumes are not approaching signal
warrant thresholds.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 15
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
6.0 FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
6.1 Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology
In order to forecast the future peak hour traffic volumes, background traffic growth assumptions
were estimated based on the CDOT traffic data, previous traffic studies, and approved
developments. The average 20 -year factor on SH 82 between Carbondale and El Jebel is 1.315
which equates to 1.38% annual growth rate. Per the request of CDOT, a traffic growth rate of
1.38% annually was applied to the existing traffic volumes plus the following approved
development traffic:
• The Fields — Located on Valley Road east of Parkside Lane. The approved
development includes 26 single-family homes and 72 duplex homes. Volumes were
gathered from Traffic Impact Study The Fields'.
• Shadow Rock — Located in El Jebel on the north side of Shadowrock Drive. It was
assumed the second half of the townhome development (100 units) will be completed
in the short-term. Volumes were gathered from The Tree Farm Traffic Study8.
• Tree Farm — Located in east El Jebel on the Tree Farm property north of SH 82 at
Willits Lane. The proposed development plan includes a variety of residential and
commercial uses. It was proposed to include 340 multi -family homes, a 100 -room
hotel, up to 74,000 square feet of retail/office/restaurant space, and maintain the
existing water ski club and a portion of the tree farm. Volumes were gathered from The
Tree Farm Traffic Study6.
• Willits Town Center — Located in Basalt in the southeast corner of SH 82 and Willits
Lane. Currently, about half of the development has been constructed with a variety of
commercial businesses and services and residential units. The second half was
assumed to be constructed by the short-term scenario. Volumes were gathered from
Willits Town Center Traffic Analysis9.
7 Traffic Impact Study The Fields. SGM Inc. June 2016.
8 The Tree Farm Traffic Study. Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group. February 2017.
9 Willits Town Center Traffic Impact Analysis. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig. October 2015.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 16
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
The background traffic growth is considered conservative and highway volumes will most likely
include the approved developments within the valley. Using these assumptions, the 2020
background weekday traffic is provided on Figure 4A and Saturday traffic is summarized on
Figure 4B. The 2038 background weekday traffic is provided on Figure 5A and Saturday traffic
is summarized on Figure 5B.
6.2 Year 2020 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis
The study intersections were evaluated to determine baseline operations for the Year 2020
background scenario and to identify any capacity constraints associated with background traffic.
The recommended improvements suggested in the Year 2017 existing capacity analysis were
included in the Year 2020 scenario. The level of service criteria discussed previously was
applied to the study intersections to determine the impacts with the short-term background
volumes.
The results of the LOS calculations for the intersections are summarized in Tables 1A and 2B
(weekday and Saturday, respectively). The 95th percentile queues are listed in Tables 2A and
2B (weekday and Saturday, respectively). The intersection level of service worksheets are
attached in the Appendix. The evaluation shows that the side -street stop -controlled study
intersections at either end of Highway 82 Access Road are anticipated to continue to operate
acceptably overall during the weekday and weekend peak hours, with all movements operating
at LOS C or better. A summary of the results for the highway intersections is as follows:
• SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100: This signalized intersection will
continue to operate overall at LOS C in both the AM and PM peak hours during the week
and LOS C in the Saturday Midday peak hour with the construction of one northbound
right -turn lane and increase in green time for the westbound left -turn phase. In all three
peak periods the eastbound left -turn, westbound left -turn, northbound left-turn/through,
and southbound single -lane approach are estimated to operate at LOS E or F due to the
limited green time; however, the delays will remain under 130 seconds (just over two
minutes) which is near the maximum green time for the SH 82 through phase. The
westbound left -turn will continue to be LOS F in the peak hours, however, the delay will
remain near two minutes with the adjusted signal timing. The average queue length will
begin to extend outside the existing storage length (about one vehicle) since the
westbound deceleration lane is substandard to the State Highway Access Code
requirements.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 17
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
The analysis indicated that the 95th percentile queues for the eastbound and westbound
through movements will be extended with the additional background traffic but are
anticipated to be cleared during the green phase and not impact an upstream
intersection.
Recommendation: No additional improvements are warranted in the Year 2020
background scenario. Consider extending the westbound left -turn lane storage to meet
the State Highway Access Code to prohibit the queue from impacting the through lane.
• SH 82 at JW Drive/Valley Road: This side -street stop -controlled intersection will begin
to operate overall at LOS F in both the weekday AM and PM peak hour and continue to
operate overall at LOS A in the Saturday Midday peak hour. The side -street approaches
(northbound and southbound) continue to operate at LOS F with significant delays in the
weekday AM and PM peak hours due to the difficulty turning onto SH 82. Since the v/c
ratio was calculated to significantly exceed 1.0, Synchro was unable to estimate the 95th
percentile queue in the weekday peak hours.
Recommendation: There are no mitigation measures warranted with future short-term
conditions. The highway approaches provide acceleration and deceleration lanes in both
directions. Additional turn lanes on the side streets will not provide significant
improvements in delay. The side -street volumes are not approaching signal warrant
thresholds. Drivers have the option to access the signals at El Jebel or Catherine Store
Road by traveling along the frontage or local roads.
6.3 Year 2037 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis
The study intersections were evaluated to determine baseline operations for the Year 2037
background scenario and to identify any capacity constraints associated with background traffic.
The recommended improvements suggested in the Year 2017 existing capacity analysis were
included in the Year 2037 scenario. It should be noted that the peak hour factor by approach
was adjusted to 0.90 where existing peak hour factors were below 0.90 since it is assumed that
the peak hour will spread more evenly over the hour in the long-term future than experienced
today. The level of service criteria discussed previously was applied to the study area
intersections to determine the impacts with the long-term background volumes.
The results of the LOS calculations for the intersections are summarized in Tables 1A and 2B
(weekday and Saturday, respectively). The 95th percentile queues are listed in Tables 2A and
2B (weekday and Saturday, respectively). The intersection level of service worksheets are
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 18
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
attached in the Appendix. The evaluation shows that the side -street stop -controlled study
intersections at either end of Highway 82 Access Road are anticipated to continue to operate
acceptably overall in during the weekday and weekend peak hours, with all movements
operating at LOS C or better. A summary of the results for the highway intersections is as
follows:
• SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100: This signalized intersection will
continue to operate overall at LOS C in both the weekday peak hours and LOS C in the
Saturday Midday peak hour with the construction of one northbound right -turn lane and
increase the green time for the westbound left -turn movement. In all three peak periods
the highway left -turns and side -street approaches are estimated to operate at LOS E or
F due to the limited green time; delays will remain at or under 130 seconds. The queues
for the eastbound and westbound through movements will be extended with the
additional background traffic but are anticipated to clear during the green phase.
Recommendation: No additional improvements are warranted in the Year 2037
background scenario. Consider extending the westbound left -turn lane storage to meet
the State Highway Access Code to prohibit the queue from impacting the through lane.
• SH 82 at JW Drive/Valley Road: This side -street stop -controlled intersection will
continue to operate overall at LOS F in both weekday peak hours and begin to operate
overall at LOS A in the Saturday Midday peak hour. The side -street approaches
(northbound and southbound) continue to operate at LOS F due to the difficulty turning
onto SH 82.
Recommendation: There are no mitigation measures warranted with future long-term
conditions. The highway approaches provide acceleration and deceleration lanes in both
directions. Additional turn lanes on the side streets will not provide significant
improvements in delay. The side -street volumes are not approaching signal warrant
thresholds. Drivers have the option to access the signals at El Jebel or Catherine Store
Road by traveling along the frontage or local roads.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 19
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
7.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
7.1 Trip Generation
A trip generation estimate was performed to determine the traffic characteristics of the proposed
polo fields and residential community of Aspen Valley Polo Club. The trip rates contained in the
ITE Trip Generation Manual for land use #210 "Single -Family Detached Housing" was applied to
estimate the proposed traffic for the 43 residential homes on the south end of the property. The
development of a polo club is unique and the national manual does not provide trip generation
rates for this special use. The polo club is proposed to include:
• 2 polo fields with limited parking for polo club members, spectators, and horse trailers
• 5 barns with attached lodging for horse owners, guests, trainers, groomers, etc.
• 1 maintenance barn with two employee housing units
• 4 guest cabins
• A 5,000 -square foot clubhouse with a kitchenette for caterers of special events, therapy
and massage rooms for athletes and club members, and two changing rooms with
lockers, showers, and bathrooms.
• A community center with a greenhouse, gardens, a tennis court, and local park
• A horse exercise track, an extensive trail system, a horse exercise track, and three small
ponds
Extensive data was gathered from the polo club owners in regard to how the current polo club
operates and the expectations for the new site on Highway 82 Access Road in Carbondale:
General Polo Club Characteristics
• The polo season occurs during July and August.
o Horses arrive at the end of June.
o In the off-season horses are moved to Florida and the barns will be unoccupied.
• The clubhouse requires membership; currently there are 38 members.
• Currently, the origin of spectators is split evenly between down -valley
(Carbondale/Glenwood Springs) and up -valley (Aspen/EI Jebel/Basalt).
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 20
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Weekday Polo Club Operations
• Horse owners visit 1-2 times per week to ride and care for their horse(s).
• There will be up to three employees working in the greenhouse.
• The barns will have 4-5 workers that work with the horses and will be allowed to live in
the barn living quarters or cabins.
• Twice a week there will be deliveries for horse food and supplies.
• Polo is not played on Mondays as it is considered the rest day. Athletes (up to 15) and
owners will visit on Tuesday, Wednesday, and/or Thursday to practice.
• There is potential for small private events to occur during the week which would only
include 25-50 friends and family of club members. It is anticipated the traffic for these
small events would be minimal and occur during off-peak hours.
Special Event Polo Club Operations
• There are three reoccurring large charity events scheduled at the current polo club which
are planned to continue at the proposed project site.
o Events occur at 10:00 AM, 1:00 PM, and the main event is at 3:00 PM. Typically
scheduled on a Sunday.
o Each charity event has historically attracted up to 300 spectators and have
typically only generated 80-100 parked vehicles on site.
o The special events are organized by the charities and the sponsors provide
volunteers for event day assistance.
o The same number of employees from the weekdays will be on-site during events.
o There will be two medical staff on-site.
o There will only be one food vendor on-site for events.
o There are up to 24 horses; four people per team and up to six teams.
o Only one polo field will be utilized at a time.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 21
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
• Non -special events may occur and will include a small group of people that are
associated with the club and are not anticipated to attract spectators. It is anticipated the
traffic for these small events would be a fraction of the charity events.
To estimate the trip generation of the polo club during the week and during a special event, a
traffic study from a polo club in Wellington, Florida was utilized. The International Polo Club
Traffic Analysis to Support Comprehensive Plan Amendment10 provided rates for the subject
polo club for the following land uses: barns/stables, event spectators, event staff/officials, and
vendors. The rates approved by the Village of Wellington and Palm Beach County Traffic
Engineering in Florida was utilized for the Aspen Valley Polo Club with adjustments for local
multi -modal options. The rates from the Wellington polo club are included in the Appendix.
The estimated trip generation for the weekday are shown in Table 3A and trips for Saturday are
shown in Table 3B. It should be noted that the traffic on SH 82 is higher on Saturday than
Sunday and for the purpose of this traffic study it was assumed the special polo events would
occur on a Saturday instead of the typical Sunday to ensure the most conservative analysis of
the study intersections.
The proposed project is expected to experience mostly new trips, also known as `primary trips'.
There will also be non -auto trips. These two trip types are discussed below:
Primary Trips. These trips are made specifically to visit the site and are considered
"new" trips. Primary trips would not have been made if the proposed project did not
exist. Therefore, this is the only trip type that increases the total number of trips made
on a regional basis.
Non -Auto Trips. These trips are those that are completed by walking, biking, or transit.
The existing transit, pedestrian and bicyclist amenities will encourage residents, visitors,
and employees to make non -auto trips to/from the Aspen Valley Polo Club.
With the easy access to the Rio Grande Trail and the frequency of the bus, it is assumed that
15% of the trips to/from residential, employee, and spectator trips will be non -auto. This
percentage accounts for higher occupancy vehicles for special events. The 15% is a
conservative rate especially when existing statistics indicate that 24% of the Carbondale
1° International Polo Club Traffic Analysis to Support Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Via Planning, Inc. April 2017.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 22
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
residents commute to work via walking, biking, and transit and an additional 12% typically have
more than one person in their vehicle" (Year 2014).
7.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
The estimated trip volumes presented in Tables 3A and 3B were distributed onto the study
area street network based on existing traffic characteristics of the area, existing and future land
use, and existing and future traffic patterns in the area. The overall assumed distribution is as
follows, as well as presented on Figures 6A and 6B:
Residential Trips
• AM and Midday: 55% from down -valley and 30% to down -valley on SH 82
• PM: 30% from down -valley and 55% to down -valley on SH 82
• AM and Midday: 30% from up -valley and 55% to down -valley on SH 82
• PM: 55% from up -valley and 30% to down -valley on SH 82
• AM, PM, and Midday: 5% to/from North Catherine Store Road
• AM, PM, and Midday: 5% to/from South County Road 100
• AM, PM, and Midday: 5% to/from South Valley Road
Polo Club Trips (Special Events)
• 40% to/from down -valley on SH 82
• 40% to/from up -valley on SH 82
• 5% to/from North Catherine Store Road
• 5% to/from South/West County Road 100
• 5% to/from North JW Drive
• 5% to/from South/East Valley Road
Using the distribution assumptions, the projected site traffic was assigned to the study area
roadway network for the weekday AM and PM peak hour periods during the summer season, as
11 Efficiency Review for the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority. Parsons. October 2016.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 23
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
well as Saturday Midday. The weekday site -generated trips for the Aspen Valley Polo Club are
shown on Figure 7A and trips associated with the polo club special events on Saturday are
shown on Figure 7B.
8.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT
This section discusses impacts associated with the new polo club and dwelling units in the
short-term and long-term scenarios.
8.1 Year 2020 Background + Project Intersection Capacity Analysis
The site -generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2020 background volumes to
analyze potential site impacts in the short-term build -out scenario. The Year 2020 background
+ site -generated traffic volumes for the weekday are illustrated on Figure 8A and Year 2020
background + site -generated traffic volumes for Saturday are illustrated on Figure 8B. The
level of service criteria discussed in prior sections was applied to the study intersections to
determine impacts with the addition of site -build out traffic volumes in the short-term. The
results of the LOS calculations for the intersections are summarized in Tables 1A and 2B
(weekday and Saturday, respectively). The average and 95th percentile queues are listed in
Tables 2A and 2B (weekday and Saturday, respectively).
The project trips have minimal impact on the study intersections and the majority of the
intersections can operate acceptably overall as estimated in the Year 2020 background
scenario. The intersection of SH 82 at JW Drive/Valley Road will operate the same as
estimated for Year 2020 background at LOS F in both peak hours during the weekday.
During the weekend events, the greatest impacts were estimated to be on the westbound left -
turn lane at SH 82 and Catherine Store Road/County Road 100; and northbound approach at
SH 82 and JW Drive/Valley Road. The calculated average and 95th percentile queues on
Saturday Midday are predicted to be maintained within the existing or proposed storage lengths.
The proposed accesses will operate acceptably in both weekday peak hours and can remain as
one lane approaches with side -street stop -controlled. Both accesses are predicted to operate
overall at LOS A and all movements will operate at LOS A even with the event traffic.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 24
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
8.2 Year 2037 Background + Project Intersection Capacity Analysis
The site -generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2037 background volumes to
analyze potential site impacts in the long-term build -out scenario. The Year 2037 background +
site -generated traffic volumes for the weekday are illustrated on Figure 9A and Year 2037
background + site -generated traffic volumes for Saturday are illustrated on Figure 9B. The
level of service criteria discussed in prior sections was applied to the study intersections to
determine impacts with the addition of site -build out traffic volumes in the long-term. The results
of the LOS calculations for the intersections are summarized in Tables 1A and 2B (weekday
and Saturday, respectively). The average and 95t" percentile queues are listed in Tables 2A
and 2B (weekday and Saturday, respectively).
The project trips have minimal impact on the study intersections and the majority of the
intersections can operate acceptably overall as estimated in the Year 2037 background
scenario. The intersection of SH 82 at JW Drive/Valley Road will operate the same as
estimated for Year 2037 background at LOS F in both peak hours during the weekday.
During the weekend events, the greatest impacts were estimated to be on the westbound left -
turn lane at SH 82 and Catherine Store Road/County Road 100; and northbound approach at
SH 82 and JW Drive/Valley Road. The calculated average and 95t" percentile queues on
Saturday Midday are predicted to be maintained within the existing or proposed storage lengths.
The proposed accesses will operate acceptably in both weekday peak hours and can remain as
one lane approaches with side -street stop -controlled. Both accesses are predicted to operate
overall at LOS A and all movements will operate at LOS A even with the event traffic.
9.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was performed to determine if the average and 95t" percentile queues would
be accommodated by the existing storage length and if any of the queues impacted an
upstream intersection/access. Tables 2A and 2B (weekday and Saturday, respectively)
provides the storage lengths, distance to nearest intersection/access, and the average and 95t"
percentile queues for each scenario (where calculated).
As shown in Tables 2A and 2B, all the queues are shorter than the provided storage length or
nearest upstream intersection/access, except the westbound left -turn and northbound approach
at SH 82 and Catherine Store Road/County Road 100 and the northbound approach at SH 82
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 25
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
and JW Drive/Valley Road in existing and future scenarios (highlighted with blue bold font).
With the recommendation of a northbound right -turn lane at SH 82 at Catherine Store
Road/County Road 100 the average queues will remain within the proposed storage lengths.
It should be noted that the project trips only slightly increase a few queues with up to two
vehicles per movement during the weekday. On the weekend during a special event, there
are two movements at SH 82 and Catherine Store Road/County Road 100 that will have queues
increased by up to six vehicles during the peak hour with the average queues being maintained
by the existing storage length.
10.0 AUXILIARY LANE EVALUATION
The volumes on SH 82 associated with the Aspen Valley Polo Club during a typical weekday do
not meet CDOT's 20% rule that requires an assessment of the auxiliary lanes. The following
assessment of existing auxiliary lanes on SH 82 within the study area is for informational
purposes only. During the weekday peak hours, the Aspen Valley Polo Club trips will be only
7% of the of the side -street volumes (includes inbound and outbound) in Year 2020 and 6% in
Year 2037.
The SH 82 corridor is maintained and operated by CDOT, which requires compliance with the
current State Highway Access Code auxiliary lane criteria. The existing and forecasted volumes
on SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100 and JW Drive/Valley Road were reviewed
to determine if auxiliary lane requirements are met with the existing infrastructure. Within the
study area SH 82 is classified as E -X (Expressway, Major Bypass) and has a posted speed limit
of 65 mph. Per the State Highway Access Code requirements, a left -turn deceleration lane is
required if the volume is greater than 10 vph and will include a taper, a deceleration length and
storage length. A right -turn deceleration and acceleration lane is required if the volume is
greater than 10 vph with a taper and a deceleration/acceleration length.
The deceleration length is required to be 800 feet with storage length based on volume and a
taper rate of 25:1, which equates to approximately 300 feet for a 12 -foot lane. An acceleration
lane on an Expressway is required to be 1,380 feet in length with a 300 -foot taper.
At SH 82 and Catherine Store Road/County Road 100, the eastbound right -turn, eastbound
acceleration lane, and the westbound left -turn serve the proposed project site. At SH 82 and JW
Drive/Valley Road, the eastbound acceleration lane and westbound left -turn serve the proposed
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 26
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
project traffic. The peak hour volumes for existing and future were reviewed to determine the
compliance with the required auxiliary lane lengths.
Table 4 provides the existing auxiliary lane dimensions and required design lengths based on
criteria set forth for Expressways.
Table 4: Existing Auxiliary Lane Evaluation (Informational Purposes Only)
Intersection /
Movement
Existing
State Code Design
Criteria
Criteria
Met?
Deceleration /
Storage
Length
Taper
Length
g
Total
Deceleration
+ Storage
Length
Taper
Length (2)
g
SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100
EB Right
WB Left
EB Acceleration
440'
330'
1,200'
210'
325'
300'
670'
655'
1,500'
800'
800' + 150'
1,380'
300'
300'
300'
/C
7C
7C
SH 82 at JW Drive/Valley Road
WB Left
EB Acceleration
670'
1,100'
160'
300'
830'
1,400'
800' + 50'
1,380'
300'
300'
XC
IC
The existing auxiliary lanes do not meet the standards set forth by the State Highway Access
Code. An Access Permit is not required at either intersection on SH 82 for Aspen Valley Polo
Club as the typical weekday traffic does not meet CDOT's 20% rule; therefore, Table 4 is for
informational purposes only.
11.0 ACCESS DESIGN
CDOT agreed that the access permitting requirement and design criteria for this project will be
based on the daily residential trips and club operations and not based on the special events
since it is anticipated there will be three events per year. Highway 82 Access Road was
assumed to be classified as F -R (Frontage Road) and based on the State Highway Access
Code deceleration lanes are required if the left -turn volume is greater than 10 vph and the right -
turn volume is greater than 25 vph. The predicted weekday volumes at the two proposed
accesses on Highway 82 Access Road do not meet the thresholds set forth for auxiliary lanes.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 27
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
It is recommended that the both accesses provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane.
The eastbound and westbound approaches should remain one lane as currently exists. The
analysis for the weekday and Saturday do not show operational or safety issues with
maintaining one shared lane in all directions. Both accesses will require an updated Access
Permit which has been submitted concurrently with this traffic impact study.
It would be beneficial for the Aspen Valley Polo Club to develop and implement an event traffic
plan for special events. The plan will evolve over time and be adjusted as appropriate to the
future conditions and changes within the area. Consider involving the local law enforcement and
CDOT Region 3 staff in developing an event traffic plan.
12.0 CONCLUSION
The Aspen Valley Polo Club proposes to construct two polo fields with a clubhouse, barns and
stables, horse exercise track, employee housing, guest cabins, and a community center with
tennis courts and gardens and up to 43 residential dwelling units. This study focused on the
summer season when the polo club would be operational with employee workings during the
week and special events on the weekends. The Aspen Valley Polo Club also includes multi -use
trails and open space throughout the property for use by club members and residents. The
previous traffic impact study for the TCI Lane Ranch proposed 71 single-family homes and 18
townhomes for this site.
The latest plan proposes to have two accesses on Highway 82 Access Road. The main
entrance will be approximately 0.40 miles east of the intersection of County Road 100 and the
secondary access will be about 0.25 mile east of the first access and 325 feet from the Waldorf
School staff driveway.
The project is estimated to generate approximately 482 weekday daily trips with 49 trips
occurring in the AM peak hour and 56 trips occurring in the PM peak hour at build -out. During a
special event, it was assumed the polo club will generate approximately 914 weekend daily trips
with 195 trips occurring in the Midday peak hour. It was determined that the majority of the
existing roadway and intersection network can serve the added traffic volumes in the short-term
and long-term scenarios.
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 28
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
The following improvements are recommended:
Existing and Background Conditions (without project trips)
• SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100: Construct one northbound right -
turn lane (storage back to Highway 82 Access Road, about 120 feet). Adjust the signal
timing to increase the green for the westbound left -turn phase.
With the Aspen Valley Polo Club:
• Highway 82 Access Road at Chukka Trail (west access): Construct with one entering
lane and one exiting lane (full -movement) and side -street stop -controlled.
• Highway 82 Access Road at Riverstone Drive (east access): Construct with one
entering lane and one exiting lane (full -movement) and side -street stop -controlled.
It should be noted that the Aspen Valley Polo Club trips will be only 7% of the weekday peak
hour volumes on the side -street (includes inbound and outbound) in Year 2020 and only 6% in
Year 2037 at SH 82 and Catherine Store Road/County Road 100. In the long-term horizon, the
trips by movements at the main highway access is listed below:
Intersection / Movement
SH 82 at Catherine
Store Road/ CR 100
Side -Street
EB Right
WB Left
NB Left
NB Right
% of Trip Volume (Year 2037)
Weekday AM
Peak Hour
Weekday PM
Peak Hour
5%
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 29
October 5, 2017
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Tables and Figures:
Table 1A — Weekday Peak Hour Intersection Level -of -Service Summary
Table 18 — Saturday Peak Hour Intersection Level -of -Service Summary
Table 2A — Weekday Peak Hour Queue Summary
Table 28 — Saturday Peak Hour Queue Summary
Table 3A - Trip Generation Summary (Weekday — Summer)
Table 38 - Trip Generation Summary (Saturday — Summer)
Table 4 — Existing Auxiliary Lane Evaluation (Informational Purposes Only) [IN REPORT]
Figure 1— Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 3A — Year 2017 Existing Weekday Traffic Volumes
Figure 38 — Year 2017 Existing Saturday Traffic Volumes
Figure 4A — Year 2020 Background Weekday Traffic Volumes
Figure 48 — Year 2020 Background Saturday Traffic Volumes
Figure 5A — Year 2037 Background Weekday Traffic Volumes
Figure 58 — Year 2037 Background Saturday Traffic Volumes
Figure 6A — Residential Site Trip Distribution
Figure 68 — Polo Club Site Trip Distribution
Figure 7A — Weekday Site -Generated Traffic Volumes
Figure 78 — Saturday Site -Generated Traffic Volumes
Figure 8A — Year 2020 Weekday Background + Site -Generated Traffic Volumes
Figure 88 — Year 2020 Saturday Background + Site -Generated Traffic Volumes
Figure 9A — Year 2037 Weekday Background + Site -Generated Traffic Volumes
Figure 98 — Year 2037 Saturday Background + Site -Generated Traffic Volumes
FTH# 17046
IFOX TUTTLE HERNANDEZI
TRANSPORTATION G ROUP
Aspen Valley Polo Club
Traffic Impact Study
Carbondale, CO
Table 1A - Weekday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary
9/27/2017
Intersection and
Lanes Groups
2017 Existing
AM Peak
PM Peak
2017 Existing with
AM Peak
Improvememts'
PM Peak
2020 Background
AM Peak
PM Peak
2020 Bkgrd
AM Peak
+ Project
PM Peak
2037 Background
AM Peak
PM Peak
2037 Bkgrd
AM Peak
+ Project
PM Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
STOP SIGN CONTROL
—
County Road 100 at Highway 82
2
A
3
A
2
A
3 A
2
A
4
A
2
A
2 A
2
A
3
A
Access Road
Eastbound Left+Through+Right
0
A
15
C
0
A
15 B
0
A
17
C
0
A
15 B
0
A 16
C
Westbound Left+Through+Right
11
8
16
C
11
B
16 C
11
B
16
C
12
8
14 8
12
8 14
B
Northbound Left+Through+Right
1
A
2
A
1
A
2 A
1
A
2
A
1
A
2 A
1
A 2
A
Southbound Left+Through+Right
3
A
1
A
1
A
1 A
3
A
1
A
3
A
3
A 2
A
Mr
SH 82 at JW Drive/ Valley Road
44
19
C
>120
F
>120 p F
>120
F
>120
F
>120
F
>120 F
>120
F >120
F
Eastbound Left
9
A
15
C
9
A
22 C
9
A
22
C
10
A
25 C
10
A 25
D
Eastbound Through
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A 0
A
Eastbound Right
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A 0
A
Westbound Left
16
C
10
A
21
C
11 B
21
C
11
B
25
D
11 B
26
D 11
B
Westbound Through
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A 0
A
Westbound Right
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A 0
A
Northbound Left+Throw h+Ri ht
9 9
245
F
205
>120
>120 F
>120
>120
F
>120
F
>120 F
>120
F >120
F
Southbound Left+Through+Right
900
377
F
>120
>120
>120
F
>120
>120
F
>120 F
>120
-- >120
Valley Road at Highway 82 Access
5
A
5
A
5
A
5 A
5
A
5
A
5
A
5 A
5
A 5
A
Road
Eastbound Left+Right
10
B
10
A
11
B
10 B
11
B
10
B
10
A
10 B
10
B 10
B
Northbound Left+Through
3
A
5
A
2
A
5 A
3
A
5
A
3
A
5 A
3
A 5
A
Southbound Through+Right
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A 0
A
Highway 82 Access Road at Chukka
1
A
1
A
1
A 1
A
Trail (West)
Eastbound Right+Through
0
A
0
A
0
A 0
A
Westbound Left+Through
1
A
1
A
1
A 1
A
Northbound Left+Right
9
A
9
A
10
A 9
A
Highway 82 Access Road at
Riverstone Drive (East)
i
0
A
0
A
0
A 0
A
Eastbound Right+Through
0
A
0
A
0
A 0
A
Westbound Left+Through
0
A
0
A
0
A 0
A
Northbound Left+Right
9
A
9
A
9
A 9
A
SIGNAL CONTROL
'
SH 82 at Catherine Store Rd/ County
55
D
75
E
24
C
28
C
26
C
31 C
27
C
34
C
28
C
28 C
29
C
32
C
Road 100
Eastbound Left
92
1 F
90
F
87
F
85
F
88
F
85 F
89
F
86
F
86
F
129 F
86
F
130
F
Eastbound Through
25
C
17
B
20
B
19
B
26
C
23 C
27
C
24
C
29
C
15 B
30
C
16
B
Eastbound Right
14
6
13
B
11
B
16
B
11
B
16 B
12
B
17
B
11
B
10 B
11
B
11
B
Westbound Left
105
F
475
F
98
F
114
F
99
F
124 F
102
F
141
F
104
F
130 F
110
F
148
F
Westbound Through
11
6
19
B
9
A
14
B
9
A
20 B
10
A
21
C
9
A
17 B
10
A
19
B
Westbound Right
10
A
10
A
7
A
7
A
7
A
8 A
8
A
8
A
7
A
6 A
7
A
7
A
Northbound Left+Through+Right
205
F
127
F
Northbound Left+Through
82
F
82
F
82
F
84 F
86
F
88
F
80
E
89 F
83
F
90
F
Northbound Right
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0 A
0
A
0
A
Southbound Left+Through+Right
174
F
67
E
81
F
71
E
81
F
71 E
81
F
70
E
79
E
73 E
79
E
72
E
Note: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle.
For the intersection of SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100, it is recommended with the existing conditions that the westbound left+tum phase be increased by 13 seconds and construct one northbound right -tum lane. These mitigation measures were assumed to be in place prior to Year 2020
background.
17046_LOS_v2
FTH# 17046
FOX TLJTTLE HERNANDEZJ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Aspen Valley Polo Club
Traffic Impact Study
Carbondale, CO
Table 1B - Saturday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection and
Lanes Groups
2017 Existing
Saturday Peak
2017 Existing with
Improvements i
Saturday Peak
2020 Background
Saturday Peak
2020 Bkgrd + Project
Saturday Peak
2037 Background
Saturday Peak
2037 Bkgrd + Project
Saturday Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
■ STOP SIGN CONTROL
County Road 100 at Highway 82
3
A
3
A
5
A
2
A
5
A
Access Road
Eastbound Left+Through+Right
12
8
12
8
17
C
12
8
17
C
Westbound Left+Through+Right
11
8
12
8
14
8
12
8
13
8
Northbound Left+Through+Right
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
Southbound Left+Through+Right
1
A
1
A
4
A
1
A
4
A
SH 82 at JW Drive/ Valley Road
2
A
4
A
9
A
6
A
11
B
Eastbound Left
10
A
11
8
11
8
11
8
12
8
Eastbound Through
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
Eastbound Right
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
Westbound Left
9
A
10
A
10
A
10
8
11
8
Westbound Through
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
Westbound Right
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
Northbound Left+Through+Right
27
D
66
95
93
F
135
F
Southbound Left+Through+Right ht
42
E
125
■
258
205
I F
409
Valley Road at Highway 82 Access
4
A
3
A
3
A
4
A
4
A
Road
Eastbound Left+Right
9
A
9
A
9
A
9
A
9
A
Northbound Left+Through
5
A
4
A
5
A
4
A
5
A
Southbound Through+Right
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
Highway 82 Access Road at Chukka
2
A
2
A
Trail (West)
Eastbound Right+Through
0
A
0
A
Westbound Left+Through
3
A
3
A
Northbound Left+Right
10
A
10
A
Highway 82 Access Road at
1
A
1
A
Riverstone Drive (East)
Eastbound Right+Through
0
A
0
A
Westbound Left+Through
1
A
1
A
Northbound Left+Right
9
A
9
A
SIGNAL CONTROL
SH 82 at Catherine Store Rd/ County
Road 100
31
C
22
C
21
C
31
C
21
C
30
C
Eastbound Left
90
F
86
F
86
F
105
F
115
F
91
Eastbound Through
14
8
11
8
12
8
13
8
13
8
14
8
Eastbound Right
11
8
9
A
9
A
10
B
9
A
10
8
Westbound Left
115
F
104
F
109
F
200
F
118
F
198
F
Westbound Through
10
A
8
A
9
A
9
A
9
A
10
A
Westbound Right
8
A
6
A
6
A
6
A
6
A
7
A
Northbound Left+Through+Right
84
F
75
E
75
E
79
E
76
E
78
E
Northbound Right
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
0
A
Southbound Left+Through+Right
71
E
73
E
74
E
74
E
75
E
73
E
Note: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle.
For the intersection of SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100, it is recommended with the existing conditions that the westbound left+tum phase be increased by 13 seconds and construct one
northbound right -turn lane. These mitigation measures were assumed to be in place prior to Year 2020 background
9/27/2017
17046_LOS_v2
FTH# 17046
FDX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPoP-rATION GROUP
Aspen Valley Polo Club
Traffic Impact Study
Table 2A - Weekday Peak Hour Queue Summary
9/27/2017
Intersection and
Lanes Groups
Storage2017
OR
Upstream
Int.
2017 Existing
AM Peak
PM Peak
Existing
Improvements
AM Peak
with
PM Peak
2020 Background
AM Peak
PM Peak
2020 Bkgrd
AM Peak
+ Project
PM Peak
2037 Background
AM Peak
PM Peak
2037 Bkgrd
AM Peak
+ Project
PM Peak
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg. 95th
Avg.
95th
County Road 100 at Highway 82 Access Road
Eastbound Left+Through+Right
110'
-
0'
-
7'
-
0'
-
7'
-
0'
-
8'
-
0'
-
4'
- 0'
-
4'
Westbound Left+Through+Right
200'
-
3'
-
16'
-
3'
-
16'
-
7'
-
29'
-
4'
-
8'
- 8'
-
12'
Northbound Left+Through+Right
690'
-
1'
-
4'
-
1'
-
4'
-
1'
-
4'
-
1'
-
4'
- 1'
-
4'
Southbound Left+Through+Right
120'
-
6'
-
2'
-
6'
-
2'
-
8'
-
3'
-
5'
-
2'
- 6'-
4'
SH 82 at JW Drive/ Valley Road
Eastbound Left
515'
-
5'
-
19'
-
7'
-
30'
-
7'
-
30'
-
7'
-
37'
- 7'
-
38'
Eastbound Through
1800'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
- 0'
-
0'
Eastbound Right
515'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
- 0'
-
0'
Westbound Left
650'
-
0'
-
0'
-
14'
-
6'
-
16'
-
7'
-
19'
-
6'
- 21'
-
7'
Westbound Through
5400'
-
10'
-
4'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
- 0'
-
0'
Westbound Right
460'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
- 0'
-
0'
Northbound Left+Through+Right
120'
-
253'
-
132'
-
*
-
*
-
*
-
*
-
*
-
- *
-
*
Southbound Left+Through+Right
360'
-
238'
-
186'
-
*
-
*
-
*
-
*
-
*
-
*
- *
-
Valley Road at Highway 82 Access Road
Eastbound Left+Right
630'
-
16'
-
9'
-
17'
-
9'
-
18'
-
10'
-
14'
-
8'
- 15'
-
9'
Northbound Left+Through
175'
-
2'
-
4'
-
2'
-
4'
-
2'-
4'
-
1'
-
4'
- 1'
-
4'
Southbound Through+Right
120'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
-
0'-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
- 0'
-
0'
Highway 82 Access Road at Chukka Trail (West Access)
Eastbound Through+Right
2115'
-
0'-
0'
- 0'
-
0'
Westbound Left+Through
1175'
-
0'-
0'
- 0'
-
0'
Northbound Left+Right
110'
-
2'-
2'
- 2'
-
2'
Highway 82 Access Road at Riverstone Drive (East Access)
Eastbound Through+Right
1175'-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
Westbound Left+Through
375'-
0'
-
0'
0'
0' -
0'
Northbound Left+Right
600'
-
1'
-
0'
1' -
0'
SIGNAL CONTROL
i
SH 82 at Catherine Store Rd/ County Road 100
Eastbound Left
465'
32'
66'
26'
63'
30'
66'
24'
63'
34'
72'
24'
62'
34'
72'
24'
62'
29'
72'
29'
72'
29' 72'
29'
72'
Eastbound Through
4500'
617'
672'
187'
256'
522'
672'
197'
304'
781'
963'
345'
502'
812'
963'
360'
502'
892'
1450'
373'
548'
916' 1450'
386'
548'
Eastbound Right
440'
0'
23'
0'
0'
0'
23'
0'
0'
0'
23'
0'
0'
0'
23'
0'
0'
3'
37'
0'
0'
4' 38'
0'
5'
Westbound Left
330'
141'
260'
521'
766'
132'
260'
331'
608'
137'
272'
347'
634'
145'
288'
396'
672'
151'
311'
398'
695'
159' 326'
441'
734'
Westbound Through
4000'
116'
167'
519'
684'
95'
167'
421'
684'
134'
230'
707'
1104'
141'
230'
754'
1104'
164'
284'
768'
1224'
170' 284'
810'
1224'
Westbound Right
345'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0' 0'
0'
0'
Northbound Left+Through+Right
120'
435'
420'
291'
336'
Northbound Left+Through
120'
94'
129'
101'
143'
96'
130'
111'
156'
113'
"")'
134'
181'
85'
144'
104'
171'
99' 164'
122'
195'
Northbound Right
120'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0' 0'
0'
0'
Southbound Left+Through+Right
820'
141'
186'
64'
104'
116'
149'
63'
103'
115'
148'
70'
111'
116'
149'
72'
114'
110'
180'
62'
118'
110' 181'
64'
120'
Note: Queues estimated with Synchro (version 9). Blue font highlights queues that are predicted to exceed the available existing storage length.
* Synchro estimates that the v/c ratio is significantly above 1.00 therefore, it was unable to calculate the 95th percentile queue.
For the intersection of SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100, it is recommended with the existing conditions that the westbound left+turn phase be increased by 13 seconds and construct one northbound right -turn lane. These mitigation measures were assumed to be in place
prior to Year 2020 background.
17046_LOS_v2
FTH# 17046 Aspen Valley Polo Club 9/27/2017
Traffic Impact Study
Fox
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 2B - Saturday Peak Hour Queue Summary
Intersection and
Lanes Groups
Storage
2017 Existing
Saturday Peak
2017 Existing with
Improvements
Saturday Peak
2020 Background
Saturday Peak
2020 Bkgrd +
Project
Saturday Peak
2037 Background
Saturday Peak
2037 Bkgrd +
Project
Saturday Peak
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
Avg.
95th
STOP SIGN CONTROL
County Road 100 at Highway 82 Access Road
Eastbound Left+Through+Right
110'
-
6'
-
7'-
12'
-
7'
-
12'
Westbound Left+Through+Right
200'
-
7'
-
8'-
20'
-
6'
-
13'
Northbound Left+Through+Right
690'
-
0'
-
0'-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
Southbound Left+Through+Right
120'
-
1'
-
1'-
8'
-
1'
-
0'
SH 82 at JW Drive/ Valley Road
Eastbound Left
515'
-
5'
-
8'-
8'
-
9'
-
9'
Eastbound Through
1800'
-
0'
-
0'-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
Eastbound Right
515'
-
0'
-
0'-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
Westbound Left
650'
-
1'
-
1'-
3'
-
1'
-
3'
Westbound Through
5400'
-
0'
-
0'-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
Westbound Right
460'
-
0'
-
0'-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
Northbound Left+Through+Right
120'
-
11'
-
40'-
61'
-
40'
-
60'
Southbound Left+Through+Right
360'
-
33'
-
77'-
120'
-
93'
-
133'
Valley Road at Highway 82 Access Road
Eastbound Left+Right
630'
-
2'
-
2'-
3'
-
2'
-
3'
Northbound Left+Through
175'
-
1'
-
1'-
2'
-
1'
-
2'
Southbound Through+Right
120'
-
0'
-
0'-
0'
-
0'
-
0'
Highway 82 Access Road at Chukka Trail (West)
Eastbound Through+Right
2115'-
0'
-
0'
Westbound Left+Through
1175'-
1'
-
1'
Northbound Left+Right
110'-
3'
-
3'
Highway 82 Access Road at Riverstone Drive (East)
Eastbound Through+Right
1175'-
0'
-
0'
Westbound Left+Through
375'-
0'
-
0'
Northbound Left+Right
600'-
1'
-
1'
SIGNAL CON
SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/ County Road 100
Eastbound Left
465'
38'
93'
35'
93'
34'
91'
35'
91'
40'
109'
41'
109'
Eastbound Through
4500'
151'
234'
126'
234'
182'
326'
193'
326'
244'
428'
260'
428'
Eastbound Right
440'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
23'
0'
0'
0'
25'
Westbound Left
330'
164'
319'
154'
319'
159'
332'
255'
483'
165'
360'
258'
501'
Westbound Through
4000'
135'
211'
107'
211'
167'
315'
181'
315'
190'
365'
205'
365'
Westbound Right
345'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
Northbound Left+Through+Right
120'
154'
224'
Northbound Left+Through
120'
59'
100'
64'
106'
83'
131'
65'
115'
84'
143'
Northbound Right
120'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
Southbound Left+Through+Right
820'
55'
108'
54'
106'
66'
122'
77'
136'
66'
122'
77'
136'
Note: Queues estimated with Synchro (version 9). Blue font highlights queues that are predicted to exceed the available existing storage length.
17046_LOS_v2
FTH #17046
IFOx®HERNANDEZ
Taoane••131.1r.nriopl ROY,.
■
Aspen Valley Polo Club
Traffic Impact Study
Table 3A - Trip Generation Summary (Weekday - Summer)
9/13/2017
Land Use
Size
Unit
Non -Auto
Factor
Internal
Capture
Adjust
Rate
Average Daily
Trips
Total In
Out
Rate
AM Peak Hour
Trips
Total In
Out
Rate
PM Peak Hour
Trips
Total In
Out
ITE 210 Single Family Detached
Dwelling
0.85
1.00
(a)
411
206
205
(a)
34
9
25
(a)
42
26
16
Housing
Units
ITE 230 Residential
Dwelling
0.85
1.00
5.81
20
10
10
0.44
1
0
1
0.52
2
1
1
Condominium/Townhouse
Units
Barns/Stables (live -work employees)
7
Barns
1.00
1.00
1.62
11
6
5
0.15
1
1
0
0.15
1
0
1
Owners of horses (visting)
24
Horses
1.00
1.00
0.42
10
5
5
0.15
4
2
2
0.15
4
2
2
Employees (clubhouse, maintenance,
greenhouse, etc.)
10
Persons
0.85
1.00
3.00
26
13
13
1.10
9
7
2
0.80
7
1
6
Vendors/Services (food, supplies,
manure removal, etc.)
2
Unit
1.00
1.00
2.00
4
2
2
0.10
0
0
0
0.10
0
0
0
Subtotal for Residential Trips:
431
216
215
35
9
26
44
27
17
Subtotal for Polo Club Trips:
51
26
25
14
10
4
12
3
9
Total Weekday New Trips for Aspen Polo Club:
482
242
240
AM >
49
19
30
PM >
56
30
26
Source : ITE Trip Generation 9th Edition, 2012.
ITE 230 - Used rate since the number of dwelling units is below the data points.
Trip rates for the polo club were gathered from the traffic study for the International Polo Club in Wellington, FL with adjustments as necessary to reflect Aspen Valley
characteristics.
17046_Volumes - Trip Gen
FTH #17046
Fax 1`U I'LL HERNANDEZ]
Aspen Valley Polo Club
Traffic Impact Study
■
Table 3B - Trip Generation Summary (Saturday - Summer)
Land Use
Size
Unit
Non -Auto
Factor
Internal
Capture
Adjust
Rate
Average Weekend
Daily Trips
Total In
Out
Saturday Peak Hour
Trips
Rate Total In
Out
ITE 210 - Single -Family Detached
43
Dwelling
0.85
1.00
(a)
394
197
197
(a)
40
22
18
Housing
Units
ITE 230 - Residential
Dwelling
Condominium/Townhouse
4
Units
0.85
1.00
5.67
19
10
9
0.47
2
1
1
Barns/Stables (live -work employees)
7
Barns
1.00
1.00
1.62
11
6
5
0.15
1
1
0
Owners of horses (visting)
24
Horses
1.00
1.00
2.00
48
24
24
1.00
24
22
2
Employees (clubhouse, maintenance,
greenhouse, etc.)
10
Persons
0.85
1.00
3.00
26
13
13
0.80
7
6
1
Professional Riders
24
Persons
1.00
1.00
2.00
48
24
24
1.00
24
19
5
Event Staff/Volunteers
10
Persons
0.85
1.00
2.50
21
11
10
0.80
7
6
1
Spectators
300
Persons
0.85
1.00
1.33
339
170
169
0.34
87
78
9
Vendors (food)
1
Unit
1.00
1.00
2.50
3
2
1
0.80
1
1
0
Medical Staff
2
Persons
1.00
1.00
2.50
5
3
2
0.80
2
2
0
Subtotal for Residential Trips:
413
207
206
42
23
19
Subtotal for Polo Club Trips:
501
253
248
153
135
18
Total Weekend New Trips for Aspen Polo Club:
914
460
454
AM >
195
158
37
Source : ITE Trip Generation 9th Edition, 2012.
ITE 230 - Used rate since the number of dwelling units is below the data points.
Trip rates for the polo club were gathered from the traffic study for the International Polo Club in Wellington, FL with adjustments as necessary to reflect Aspen Valley
characteristics.
9/13/2017
17046_Volumes - Trip Gen
�afm i
o�Y=
Ferro
Bieck„ riege
GEokEr
inorntow
Wes:rooster' F
Arvada. e , :nmme.
WhKat P!dq_e FU
Denver ._
Lakewood
Englewood
u*nemn
Ken Calvi Cdun1Kine Conte
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 8/13/17
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
VICINITY MAP
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 1
Proposed Access #1
"Chukka Trail"
Full -Movement
Side -Street Stop -Controlled
Proposed Access #2
"Riverstone Drive"
Full -Movement
Side -Street Stop -Controlled
Barn .
Polo Field 1
Polo Field 2
Future
Residential
Lots: Area 1
41-1.0 ac
Future
Residential
Lots: Area 2
.61.7 ac
Wetlands
Future
Residential
Lots: Area 4
Future
Residential
Lots: Area 5
1.4 ac
Wetlands
Mitigation
Arra
Future
Residential
Lots Area 6
4/-1.4 ac
Wetlands
Flatire
Roeidential
Lots: Area 8
It, 0.6 ac
Opcn Space
Future
Residential
Lots: Area 1
4i- 2.] ac
BLM Public Land
eer Creek R
1ation
2We RP.
site plan september 2017
1F❑XLITra 1HERNANDEZ'
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Project # 17046
Original Scale
NTS
Date
9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 2
LC) rn N.
(V
co 0 0
(V CV
22 (21) 11 (32)
1264 (643) y 494 (1421)
121 (59) / 112 (271)
/ J 10,900
/
-
1,700
COUNTY
c-7-4
M
Z.(7.)
LO
CD o
CV
TATE H/CHW, 8
PROJECT
SITE
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
i
0(6)
0 (2)
.4
0 (8) •
CO
00
N. CV CO
00
N) (❑ CV
(❑
20,000
KEY
XXX (XXX) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
LANE CONFIGURATION
x,xxx
is
in
In CV CC)
• A
63 (79) 24 (45)
1500 (686) y 454 (1417)
16 (19) i\ C 40 (41)
/Gy
g0,y827
1,300
VALLEY ROAD
tit
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2016 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 3A
N N I-
N
KEY
XXX MIDDAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
x,xxx SATURDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
LANE CONFIGURATION
31
582
40
19
592
127
7,100
COUNTY ROAD 100
1,300
•
56 / /1\ 29
639 y 647
15 i\ 10
•
TATE H/CHW, 8
PROJECT
SITE
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
i
14,000
FRON
TqT
�Cy
q0 �q y 82/
1,200
VALLEY ROAD
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2016 EXISTING SATURDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 3B
25 (20)
1550 (965)
126 (60)
/ J 11,400
-
1,800
COUNTY
LC) O O
N N N
LC) O O
N N
LO In O
CO Li")
10 (35)
657 (1807)
115 (280)
TATE H/CHW, ,, 8
PROJECT
SITE
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
i
0 (5)
0 (2)
.4
0 (10) •
0
LO
LO r`
N O
26,300
KEY
XXX (XXX) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
LANE CONFIGURATION
x,xxx
Lti
N
• A
65 (80) / 25 (45)
1794 (987) y 617 (1802)
21 (43) i\ / 40 (44)
LC) LO
CD
N O
/06
,41,
82/
1,400
VALLEY ROAD
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2020 BACKGROUND WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 4A
In In
N N N
KEY
XXX MIDDAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
x,xxx SATURDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
LANE CONFIGURATION
30
773
40
20
824
130
7,400
COUNTY ROAD 100
1,400
I.C) o
N N N
•
60 / /1\ 30
817 y 884
31 10
TATE H/CHW, 8
PROJECT
SITE
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
i
18,500
TAT
�Cy
q0 �Ay 82/
1,300
VALLEY ROAD
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2020 BACKGROUND SATURDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 4B
25 (25).....j
1920 (1030)
140 (70)\
/ J 14,300
/.
2,200
COUNTY
0 0
r7 N N
o LO
M N
LO
Lf) M
N
15 (35)
800 (1950)
130 (310)
TATE H/CHW, 8
PROJECT
SITE
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
i
0 (5)
0 (2)
.4
0 (10) .
28,300
KEY
XXX (XXX) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
LANE CONFIGURATION
x,xxx
LO
110
LO N CO
•
70 (90) j
2165 (1050) ~
25 (45) i\
LO LO o
N LC)
g0�Ay827
1,700
30 (50)
760 (1945)
45 (45)
VALLEY ROAD
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2037 BACKGROUND WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 5A
KEY
XXX MIDDAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
x,xxx SATURDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
LANE CONFIGURATION
65 / 35
1015 y 1030
30 i 10
COUNTY ROAD 100
1,700
TATE H/CHW, 8
PROJECT
SITE
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
22,100
i
TqT
�Cy
q0 ""1y 827
1,600
VALLEY ROAD
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2037 BACKGROUND SATURDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
10
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 5B
ENTER 55% AM 30% PM
EXIT 30% AM 55% PM
To/From West SH 82
l --
AM PEAK HOUR
o In o
f 1
CATHERINE STORE ROAD
0% 0%
0% f 0%
55%--1\ fC 20%
0 0 Li
//5%AM&PM
PM PEAK HOUR
0 0'
In
f 1 i
0%J/ 0%
0% f 0%
30% f / C 45%
To/From North Catherine Store
o /
O
Ct
o
U
5% AM
& PM
T= H/GH AY 8
PROJECT
SITE
To/From South \\
County Road 100 \
A
20% f [20%]
65% / 10%
•
�
LO
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
0 0 CO
0%/ [80%]
0% - - [0%]
0 0 0
xxx [xxx]
KEY
ENTER 30% AM 55% PM
Exrr 55% AM 30% PM
To/From East SH 82
AM PEAK HOUR
0 0 0
PM PEAK HOUR
s.
0 0 0
0% ..„/ 0%
[20%] — f 45%
0 0
g0�gY827
5%AM&PM
/1
To/From South Valley Road /
/
ENTERING [EXITING] TRIP PERCENTAGE
TRIP DIRECTION
PROPOSED ACCESS
UD
Ln o
VALLEY ROAD
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
RESIDENTIAL SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 6A
40%
To/From West SH 82
/` 1
0% o%
0%— f 0%
40%--1\ c- 30%
CATHERINE STORE ROAD
COUNTY
5%
5%
To/From North
Catherine Store
To/From South \
County Road 100
5%
75%
T= it/GI./ A), 8
PROJECT
SITE
00
A
f [5%]
15%
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
IR •
0%
/ [75%]
0% f [0%]
0% [5%]
•
0 0 IIt)
\
[15%] y 15%
5% / 5%
xxx [xxx]
•
In
KEY
ENTERING [EXITING] TRIP PERCENTAGE
TRIP DIRECTION
PROPOSED ACCESS
40%
To/From East SH 82
0 0 0
691 R
0% / 0%
[30%] -- f 30%
0% / 10%
5%II
To/From North 1
JW Drive 1
FRO,VT TATE I Q\
Rn4 p If AY 8.27
1 ,
5%
To/From South
Valley Road
i
0
VALLEY ROAD
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
POLO CLUB SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 6B
0 o O
0 (0) / 0 (0)
0 (0) -- f 0 (0)
9 (10) � 5 (13)
/ 460
COUNTY ROAD 100
500
/
/ ct
/ O
Y
J 14.12
U PROJECT
SITE
ct
H/GH/A 8
3 (5) f 5 (4)
13 (20) - / 3 (4)
FOX
TUTTLE
N
HERNANDEZ
N
O O
O O
24 (21)
0 (0) — f 0 (0)
0 (0)•'\f( � � � / 1 (2)
0 0
200
13 (6) / 5 (13)
0 (0) c- 2 (4)
0 o
0 0
4 (3) — f 3 (4)
3 (5) c 0 (1)
LC)
KEY
XXX/XXX AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRIP VOLUME
TRIP DIRECTION
PROPOSED ACCESS
y
OqOckAY 82/
v o
N
100
VALLEY ROAD
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
WEEKDAY SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 7A
0 d�� 0
o : f 0
67 -'\ � / /('-46
r7 N
0 'A\,‘• 29
0 f 0
•'\from 2
600
c'
0
14
0
O CO O
0
46
16
COUNTY ROAD 100
12 y 5
116 / 22
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
KEY
XXX/XXX AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRIP VOLUME
TRIP DIRECTION
PROPOSED ACCESS
N
N O
/ /
5 /'
2
• . t
VALLEY ROAD
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
SATURDAY SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 7B
25 (20)
1550 (965) —.-
135
135 (70)
COUNTY ROAD 100
/ J 11,860
2,300
108 (81)
13 (20)
/ cc
/ O
Y
J ki2
U PROJECT
SITE
ct
FOX
TUTTLE
CO ND
0
N
•
10 (35)
657 (1807)
120 (293)
H/CH AY 8
29 (35)
3 (4 )
HERNANDEZ
0 (5)
0 (2)
.4
0 (10) .
26,500
• 45 (36)
0 (2)
4 (13)
xxx (xxx)
x,xxx
KEY
AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
LANE CONFIGURATION
PROPOSED ACCESS
0LO
(0 N IC)
•
65 (80) ` i
1807 (993)
21 (43)
N
N
25 (45)
622 (1815)
42 (48)
•
13co
\
109 (79)
3 (5)
7 27 (35)
0 (1)
•
LO
y
OqOck4 )- 82/
90 (38)
25 (27)
•
00
N CO
�fA+ N
N CO
CD M
o N
N �
1,500
VALLEY ROAD
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2020 WEEKDAY BACKGROUND + SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 8A
30
773
107
COUNTY ROAD 100
/ J 8,900
3,000
LC) N O
N
00 �
M N rr)
C
Q �
Y O
Y �
J 2
PROJECT
SITE
42 40
116 22
V •LO
N
FOX®HERNANDEZ
20
824
176
25
5
10
H/CH AY 8
1!)CO N
M N
19,100
i
39
5
22
KEY
XXX MIDDAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
SATURDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
LANE CONFIGURATION
PROPOSED ACCESS
QO N
•
f
60 i 1\\ 30
831 y 930
31 / 26
10
17
y
OqOcSAY 82/
•
ND
ND r.0
co
N
1,700
VALLEY ROAD
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2020 SATURDAY BACKGROUND + SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 8B
0
r) CV N
LCD LO
M CV
25 (25)
1920 (1030)
149 (80) \
COUNTY ROAD 100
14,760
2,700
123 (90)
13 (20)
r7 co
CO CD
N
/ J
/
15 (35)
800 (1950)
135 (323)
T= H/GH AY 8
0 (5)
0 (2)
.4
0 (10) .
28,500
• 49 (36)
0 (2 )
6 (17)
LO
LO N UD
CV CD. CD LC)
(V
xxx (xxx)
x,xxx
KEY
AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
LANE CONFIGURATION
PROPOSED ACCESS
LO
CO Lf)
L)
LO N CO
•
70 (90) _} 30 (50)
2178 (1056) y 765 (1958)
25 (45) i\ / 47 (49)
'I'•
/ t2
/ Y O
Y
J ki2
UZ 0
PROJECT
SITE
ct
FOX
TUTTLE
CO r7
0
CV
•
35 (34)
3 (4 )
HERNANDEZ
\
124 (88)
3 (5)
7 33 (34)
0 (1)
•
LO
TA
Gy
OqO k4 }- 82/
99 (43)
26 (31)
•
CT) LO
LO
L0
I— M
53
C0 (0
N
1,800
VALLEY ROAD
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2037 WEEKDAY BACKGROUND + SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 9A
35
975
112
/ J 10,800
CC) CV O
N I') CV
M r- o
N
20
970
191
25
5
10
O M
CV
O' N
22,700
44
5
22
KEY
XXX MIDDAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
SATURDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
LANE CONFIGURATION
PROPOSED ACCESS
00 rO
• IL
65 35
1029 y 1076
30 i 26
•
COUNTY ROAD 100
3,300
Y a \
Y \
O \
U PROJECT
SITE
ct
427 45
116 \ / 22
V •
N
FOX®HERNANDEZ
34
12
7 62
•
LC) C
8
15
17
•
ND ro
2,000
VALLEY ROAD
TRANSPORTATION GROUP
ASPEN VALLEY POLO CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2037 SATURDAY BACKGROUND + SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Project # 17046
Original Scale NTS
Date 9/13/17
Drawn by CRS
Figure # 9B
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Appendix:
Level of Service Definitions
Existing Traffic Data
CDOT Correspondence
Polo Club Trip Generation Reference
Intersection Capacity Worksheets
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Level of Service Definitions
FOX
TUTTLE
HERNANDEZ
TRANSPORTATION GRDUF
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic
volumes, "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good
operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. Levels of service at signalized and
unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in
seconds per vehicle. More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal
and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference.
Level
of Service
Rating
Delay in seconds per vehicle (a)
Definition
Signalized
Unsignalized
A
0.0 to 10.0
0.0 to 10.0
Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is
low and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers
are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay.
B
10.1 to 20.0
10.1 to 15.0
Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction
of operating speeds due to traffic conditions. Vehicle maneuvering is
only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and
drivers are not subject to appreciable tension.
C
20.1 to 35.0
15.1 to 25.0
Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is
more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory
operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer
vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor.
D
35.1 to 55.0
25.1 to 35.0
Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in
volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in
ability to maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion.
Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable.
E
55.1 to 80.0
35.1 to 50.0
Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and
average travel speeds of one-half to one-third the free flow speed.
Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief
duration. High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor
signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at
signalized corridors.
F
> 80.0
> 50.0
Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays
at critical intersections. Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially and
stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of
downstream congestion.
(a) Delay ranges based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual criteria.
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Existing Traffic Data
N/S STREET: CR -100
E/W STREET: HWY-82
CITY:
COUNTY: GARFIELD
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER.COLORADO
303-333-7409
Groups Printed- 1 - VEHICLES
CR -100 HWY-82 CR -100 HWY-82
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
File Name : CRIOHWY8WEDNES
Site Code : 00000010
Start Date : 7/12/2017
Page No : 1
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
06:30 AM 2 0 2 0 13 46 0 0 5 0 52 0 11 362 13 0 506
06:45 AM 8 3 3 0 15 56 5 1 15 0 36 0 8 324 25 0 499
Total 10 3 5 0 28 102 5 1 20 0 88 0 19 686 38 0 ! 1005
Inti
Total
07:00 AM 10 3 6 0 10 76 2
07:15 AM 13 8 6 0 14 79 2
07:30 AM 15 3 6 0 21 139 3
07:45 AM 11 10 8 0 41 120 4
Total 49 24 26 0 86 414 11
08:00 AM 6 3 6 0 25 109 0
08:15 AM 8 4 6 0 25 126 4
Total 14 7 12
0 5 2 40 0 4 355 28 0 541
0 1 6 2 37 0 4 348 17 0 536
0 7 2 36 0 5 392 15 1 645
2 10 2 37 0 6 274 22 0 547
2; 28 8 150 0 19 1369 82 1 2269
7 5 70
5 5 59
50 235 4 0': 12 10 129
3 285 14 0 533
8 313 19 0 1 582
11 598 33 0 1115
04:00 PM 5 7 16 0 64 349 8 0 11 3 24 0 11 153 12 0 663
04:15 PM 4 3 8 0 60 340 11 0 ! 10 4 33 0 7 156 18 0 654
04:30 PM 4 6 7 0 64 361 6 0 17 2 30 0 3 152 10 1 663
04:45 PM 4 3 3 0 66 337 12 1 9 2 34 0 4 163 15 0 653
Total 17 19 34 0 254 1387 37 1 47 11 121 0 25 624 55 1 2633
05:00 PM 5 7 7 0 81 383 3 0 15 4 46
05:15 PM 4 8 4 0 78 338 8 0 21 2 31
05:30 PM 1 2 4 0 70 338 10 0 ! 18 5 24
05:45 PM 5 4 6 0 57 323 14 0 s 27 3 25
Total 15 21 21 0 286 1382 35 0 81 14 126
0i
0'
01
0.
7 172 11 0 741
13 141 3 0 651
6 120 8 0 ' 606
8 139 16 0 627
34 572 38 0' 2625
Grand Total 105 74 98 0 704 3520 92 4 188 43 614 0 108 3849 246 2 9647
Apprch % 37.9 26.7 35.4 0.0 16.3 81.5 2.1 0.1 22.2 5.1 72.7 0.0 ! 2.6 91.5 5.9 0.0
Total % 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.0 7.3 36.5 1.0 0.0 1.9 0.4 6.4 0.0 1.1 39.9 2.6 0.0
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
N/S STREET: CR -100 DENVER.COLORADO
E/W STREET: HWY-82 303-333-7409
CITY:
COUNTY: GARFIELD
CR -100 HWY-82 CR -100
Southbound Westbound Northbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App.
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total
Peak Hour From 06:30 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersecti
on 07:30 AM
Volume 40 20 26 0 86 112 494 11 2 619 29 14 202 0 245 22 124 70 1 1357 2307
46. 23. 30. 18. 79. 11. 82.93
Percent 5 3 2 0'0 1 8 1.8 0.3 8 5.7 0.0 1.6 5.2 0.1
07:30
Volume 15 3 6 0 24! 21 139 3 0 163 7 2 36 0 45 5 392 15 1 413 645
Peak
0.894
Factor
High Int. 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 08:00 AM 07:30 AM
Volume 11 10 8 0 29 ! 41 120 4 2 167 7 5 70 0 82 5 392 15 1 413
Peak 0.74 0.92 0.74 0.82
Factor 1 ! 7 7 1
File Name : CR1OHWY8WEDNES
Site Code : 00000010
Start Date : 7/12/2017
Page No : 2
HWY-82
Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
u ht s Total Total
CR -100
Out In Total
47 86 133'
26 20 40
Right Thru Left Peds
North
7/12/2017 7:30:00 AM
7/12/2017 8:15:00 AM
1 - VEHICLES
1,
Left Thru Right Peds
291 141 202 0'
20.2 245 447
Out In Total
CR -100
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
N/S STREET: CR -100 DENVER.COLORADO
E/W STREET: HWY-82 303-333-7409
CITY:
COUNTY: GARFIELD
CR -100 HWY-82
Southbound Westbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App.
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersecti 04:15 PM
on
Volume
Percent
05:00
Volume
Peak
Factor
High Int.
Volume
Peak
Factor
CR -100
Northbound
Thr Rig Ped App.
u ht s , Total
File Name : CR1OHWY8WEDNES
Site Code : 00000010
Start Date : 7/12/2017
Page No : 2
HWY-82
Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped App. Int.'
u ht s Total Total
17 19 25 0 61 271 141 32 1 1725 51 12 143 0 206 21 643 54 1 719 2711
27. 31. 41. 15. 82. 24. 69 89
9 1 0 0.0 7 4 1.9 0.1 8 5.8 4 0.0 2.9 4 7.5 0.1
5 7 7 0 19 81 383 3 0 467 15 4 46 0 65 7 172 11 0 190 741
0.915
05:00 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM
5 7 7 0 19 81 383 3 0 467 15 4 46 0 65 7 172 11 0 190
0.80 0.92 0.79 0.94
3 3 2 6
CR -100
Out In Total
61 126:
65
25 19 17' 0
Right Thru Left Peds
North
7/12/2017 4:15:00 PM •
7/12/2017 5:00:00 PM
1 - VEHICLES
1-1
Left_ Thru Right Peds
51_1- 121 1431 _ 0:
344 206 550
Out In Total
CR -100
N/S STREET: CR -100
EMI STREET: HWY-82
CITY:
COUNTY: GRRFIELD
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER.COLORADO
303-333-7409
Group s Printed- VEHICLES
CR -100 HWY-82 CR -100 HWY-82
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds : Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int.
Total
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0' 1.0' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
11:45 AM 2 0 6 1 35 162 5 1 8 5 30 3 6 148 15 0 427
Total 2 0 6 1` 35 162 5 1 8 5 30 3 6 148 15 0 427
File Name : CR1OHWY8SATUR
Site Code : 00000010
Start Date : 7/15/2017
Page No : 1
12:00 PM 5 2 4
12:15 PM 12 9 6
12:30 PM 2 4 6
12:45 PM 3 7 7
Total 22 22 23
2: 25 118 8 0 7 2 23 0 1 142 4 0 343
6 25 124 23 0 5 8 29 0 5 122 8 1 383
0 35 125 8 0 7 1 30 2 3 141 6 0 370
1 30 144 5 0 9 10 30 1 11 152 13 0 423
9 115 511 44 0 28 21 112 3 20 557 31 1 1519
01:00 PM 5 4 6 0 27 146 6 0 4 8 32 0 9 126 6 0 379
01:15 PM 3 5 4 3 34 131 6 0 2 3 36 0 4 148 11 0 390
01:30 PM 6 6 5 1 36 171 2 0 10 1 19 2 7 156 10 0 432
Grand Total 38 37 44 14 247 1121 63 1 52 38 229 8 46 1135 73 1 3147
Apprch % 28.6 27.8 33.1 10.5 17.2 78.3 4.4 0.1 15.9 11.6 70.0 2.4 3.7 90.4 5.8 0.1
Total % 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.4 7.8 35.6 2.0 0.0 1.7 1.2 7.3 0.3 1.5 36.1 2.3 0.0
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
N/S STREET: CR -100 DENVER.COLORADO
E/W STREET: HWY-82 303-333-7409
CITY:
COUNTY: GRRFIELD
File Name : CR1OHWY8SATUR
Site Code : 00000010
Start Date : 7/15/2017
Page No : 2
CR -100 HWY-82 CR -100 HWY-82
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left . Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total a ht c Total a ht s Total Total
Peak Hour From 11:45 AM to 01:30 PM Peak 1 of 1
Intersecti 12:45 PM
17 22 22 5 66 127 592 19 0 738 25 22 117 3 167 31 582 40 0 653 1624
25. 33. 33. 17. 80. 15. 13. 70. 89
8 3 3 76 2 2 2.6 0.0 0 2 1 1.8 4.7 1 6.1 0.0
6 6 5 1 18 36 171 2 0 209 10 1 19 2 32 7 156 10 0 173 432
0.940
on
Volume
Percent
01:30
Volume
Peak
Factor
High Int.
Volume
Peak
Factor
12:45 PM 01:30 PM 12:45 PM 12:45 PM
3 7 7 1 18: 36 171 2 0 209 9 10 30 1 50 11 152 13 0 176'!
0.91 0.88 0.83 0.92
7 3 5 8
O,,N
CR -100
Out In Total
72 66 138:
22, 22 17 5''
Right Thru Left Peds
a
North
7/15/2017 12:45:00 PM
7/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
`VEHICLES
4-- —P
Left Thru Right Peds
25[ 221 1171 3
189 167 356'
Out In Total
CR -100
NIS STREET: CR -100
E/W STREET: HWY -82 FRONTAGE RD
CITY:
COUNTY: GARFIELD
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER.COLORADO File Name : CR10HWY8WED
303-333-7409 Site Code : 00000015
Start Date : 7/12/2017
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 1 - VEHICLES
CR -100 HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD CR -100 RETAIL ACCESS
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds . Int.
Total
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 , 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
06:30 AM 0 26 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 53 4 0 2 0 0 0 89
06:45 AM 4 32 7 0 0 0 2 0 1 49 4 0 0 0 0 0 99
Total 4 58 7 0 1 0 4 1 1 102 8 0 2 0 0 0 188
07:00 AM 7 32 2 0 0 0 0
07:15 AM 11 20 8 0 0 0 0
07:30 AM 3 28 8 0 0 0 0
07:45 AM 3 61 9 0 0 0 0
Total 24 141 27 0 0 0 0
08:00 AM 2 36 4 0 0 0 0
08:15 AM 3 43 2 0 0 0 0
Total 5 79 6
0 3 47 9 0 0 0 0 0 100
0 5 45 11 0 0 0 0 0 100
0 5 45 15 0 0 0 0 0 104
0 5 49 7 0 0 0 0 0 134
0 18 186 42 0 0 0 0 0 438
2 82 9 0 0 0 0 0 135
6 69 7 0. 0 0 0 0 130
151 16
04:00 PM 3 78 2 0 7 0 0 0 5 37 14
04:15 PM 6 61 14 0 7 1 3 0 2 42 5
04:30 PM 6 68 6 0 4 0 1 0 20 44 14
04:45 PM 5 69 10 0 ! 0 1 0 0 15 45 12
Total 20 276 32 0 18 2 4 0 42 168 45
05:00 PM 4 88 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 65 13
05:15 PM 2 70 17 0 0 0 0 0 9 53 14
05:30 PM 3 74 3 0 0 0 0 0 22 47 24
05:45 PM 2 69 6 0, 0 0 00 6 55 22
Total 11 301 33 0 0 0 0 0 46 220 73
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0' 265
1
2
4
0
0 0
01 1
01 0
0
0
0 1 0 148
1 5 0 149
1 3 0 171
0 0 0 157
2 9 0 625
0 0 0 186
0 0 0 166
0 2 0 175
0 1 0 161
0 3 0 688
Grand Total 64 855 105 0 19 2 8 1 115 827 184 0 10 2 12 0 2204
Apprch % 6.3 83.5 10.3 0.0 63.3 6.7 26.7 3.3 10.2 73.4 16.3 0.0 41.7 8.3 50.0 0.0
Total % 2.9 38.8 4.8 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.0 5.2 37.5 8.3 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.0
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
N/S STREET: CR -100 DENVER.COLORADO File Name : CR1OHWY8WED
E/W STREET: HWY -82 FRONTAGE RD 303-333-7409 Site Code : 00000015
CITY: Start Date : 7/12/2017
COUNTY: GARFIELD Page No : 2
CR -100 HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD CR -100
Southbound Westbound Northbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App.
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total
Peak Hour From 06:30 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Interseocni 07:30 AM
Volume 11 168 23 0 202 ! 0 0 0 0 0 18 245 38 0 301 0 0 0 0
Percent 5.4 8 2 1 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 81. 12' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RETAIL ACCESS
Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
u ht s Total Total
08:00
Volume 2 36 4 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 2 82 9 0 93 0 0 0 0
Peak
Factor
High Int. 07:45 AM 6:15:00 AM 08:00 AM 6:15:00 AM
Volume 3 61 9 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 2 82 9 0 93
Peak 0.69 0.80
Factor 2 9
CR -100
Out In Total
245 202 447-
23 '
471
23' 168 11
Right Thru Left Peds
1
North
7/12/2017 7:30:00 AM
7/12/2017 8:15:00 AM
1 - VEHICLES
Left Thru Right Peds
181 2451. 381 0
168 301 469
Out In Total
CR -100
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
N/S STREET: CR -100 DENVER.COLORADO File Name : CR1OHWY8WED
E/W STREET: HWY -82 FRONTAGE RD 303-333-7409 Site Code : 00000015
CITY: Start Date : 7/12/2017
COUNTY: GARFIELD Page No : 2
CR -100 HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
Southbound Westbound
Start Left Thr Rig PedApp. Left Thr Rig Ped App.
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total
Peak Hour From 04:15 PM to 05:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersecti 04:15 PM
on
Volume
Percent
05:00
Volume
Peak
Factor
High Int.
Volume
Peak
Factor
CR -100
Northbound
Thr Rig Ped App.
u 1 ht l s Total
RETAIL ACCESS
Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
u ht s Total Total
21 286 37 0 344 11 2 4 0 17 46 196 44 0 286 6 2 8 0 16 663
83. 10. 64. 11. 23. 16. 68. 15. 37. 12. 50.
6.1 1 8 0.0 7 8 5 0.0 1 5 4 0.0 5 5 0 0.0
4 88 7 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 9 65 13 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 186
05:00 PM 04:15 PM 05:00 PM 04:15 PM
4 88 7 0 99 7 1 3 0 11 ! 9 65 13 0 87 2 1
0.86 0.38 ! 0.82
9 6! 2
5 0 81
0.50
0
CR -100
Out In Total
206 344 550!
37' 286 21
Right Thru Left Peds
North
7/12/2017 4:15:00 PM
7/12/2017 5:00:00 PM
1 - VEHICLES
a_ ►
Left Thru Right Peds
461 1961 441 0
305 286 591'.
Out In Total
CR -100
0.891
N/S STREET: CR -100
E/W STREET: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
CITY:
COUNTY: GARFIELD
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER.COLORADO
303-333-7409
Groups Printed- VEHICLES
CR -100 HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD CR -100
Southbound Westbound Northbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds { Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 F 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
11:45 AM 3 461 2 4 1 3 0 2 34 1 2
Total 3 46 1 2 4 1 3 0 2 34 1 2
12:00 PM 1 30 0 2 5 0 4 0
12:15 PM 3 38 1 0 6 0 8 6
12:30 PM 4 41 0 0 5 0 4 0
12:45 PM 5 45 0 29 0 5 1
Total 13 154 1 4
25 0 21 7
01:00 PM
01:15 PM
01:30 PM
Grand Total
Apprch %
Total %
1
2
3
22
6.0
2.8
36
47
49
332
90.7
41.8
0 0 3
1 2 6
0 1. 1
3 9i; 39
0.8 2.5 47.6
0.4 1.1 4.9
1
1
1
4
4.9
0.5
2
1
3
30
36.6
3.8
File Name : CR1OHWY8SAT
Site Code : 00000015
Start Date : 7/15/2017
Page No : 1
RETAIL ACCESS
Eastbound
Left Thru Right Peds
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
6 0 3 1 109
6 0 3 1 109
Int.
Total
1 26 3 0 2 1 1
1 31 3 0 3 2 0
0 33 4 1 1 0 1
0 40 1 1 4 1 4
2 130 11 2 10 4 6
2' 1
0 0
0 0
9 5
11.0 1.7
1.1 0.6
36 3 2' 6 3 2
31 6 0 9 0 1
23 2 1 4 0 2
254 23 7 35 7 14
87.9 8.0 2.4 60.3 12.1 24.1
31.9 2.9 0.9 4.4 0.9 1.8
0
0
0'
0
0
2
3.4
0.3
76
102
94
118
390
98
108
90
795
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
NIS STREET: CR -100 DENVER.COLORADO File Name : CR1OHWY8SAT
E/W STREET: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD 303-333-7409 Site Code : 00000015
CITY: Start Date : 7/15/2017
COUNTY: GARFIELD Page No : 2
CR -100 HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
Southbound Westbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App.
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total
Peak Hour From 12:45 PM to 01:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersecti 12:45 PM
on
Volume 11 177 1 5 194 19 3 11 3 36 1 130 12 4 147 23 4 9 1
91.52. 30 88 62. 10. 24.
Percent 5.7 0.5 2.6 8 8.3 6 8.3 0.7 4 8.2 2.7 2 8 3 2.7
12:45
Volume 5 45 0 2 52 9 0 5 1 15 0 40 1 1 42 4 1 4 0
CR -100 RETAIL ACCESS
Northbound Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
u ht s Total u ht s Total Total
Peak
Factor
High Int. 01:30 PM 12:45 PM 12:45 PM
Volume 3 49 0 1 53 9 0 5 1 15 0 40
Peak 0.91 0.60
Factor 5 !; 0
37 414
01:00 PM
1 1 42: 6 3 2 0 11
0.87 0.84
5i 1:
CR -100
Out In Total
164 194 358
1 177 11!
Right Thru Left Peds
4
North
7/15/2017 12:45:00 PM
7/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
VEHICLES
4 -
Left Thru _Right Peds
1I 1301 121 4
205 ' 147 352'
Out in Total
CR -100
118
0.877
N/S STREET: VALLEY RD
E/W STREET: HWY-82
CITY:
COUNTY: EAGLE
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER.COLORADO
303-333-7409
Groups Printed- 1 - VEHICLES
VALLEY RD HAY -82 VALLEY RD HAY -82
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds int.
Total
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
06:30 AM 6 0 0 0 3 49 1 0 0 0 6 0 6 416 4 0 491
06:45 AM 6 0 1 0 6 73 1 0 3 0 9 0 9 404 2 0 514
Total 12 0 1 0 9 122 2 0 3 0 15 0 15 820 6 0 1005
07:00 AM 6 0 2 0 6 57 1 0 3 0 11 0 11 388 17 0 502
07:15 AM 10 0 1 0 5 66 1 0 4 0 17 0 18 415 9 0 546
07:30 AM 6 0 3 0 2 112 7 0 4 0 21 0 16 436 3 0 610
07:45 AM 13 0 0 0 1 119 6 0 5 1 11 0 16 366 2 0 540
Total 35 0 6 0 14 354 15 0 16 1 60 0 61 1605 31 0 2198
08:00 AM 18 1 2 0 5 99 5 0 2 0 9 0 9 358 6 0 514
08:15 AM 18 1 0 0 7 124 6 0 0 0 20 0 22 340 5 0 543
File Name : VALLHWY8WED
Site Code : 00000005
Start Date : 7/12/2017
Page No : 1
Total 36 2 2 0 12 223 1
04:00 PM 2 0 16
04:15 PM 2 1 12
04:30 PM 4 1 14
04:45 PM 40 15
Total 12 2 57
0
0
0
0
0 29 0 31 698 11 0 1057
8 353 9 0 0 1 6 0 13 188 7 0 1 603
7 317 8 0 7 0 7 0 18 166 7 0 li 552
5 386 11 0 4 1 12 0 15 143 2 0 598
13 341 14 0 1 3 5 0 22 192 3 0 613
33 1397 42 0 12 5 30 0 68 689 19 0 2366
05:00 PM 4 2 15 0 7 373 12 0 4 0 13 0 24 185 7
05:15 PM 2 2 23 0 8 376 10 0 2 1 9 0 18 179 3
05:30 PM 3 0 26 0 14 278 8 0 2 0 13 0 17 121 1
05:45 PM 4 1 25 0 7 347 7 0 4 0 5 0 20 147 13
Total 13 5 89 0 36 1374 37 0 12 1 40 0 79 632 24
0:
0
0
0'
646
633
483
580
2342
Grand Total 108 9 155 0 104 3470 107 0 45 7 174 0 254 4444 91 0 8968
Apprch % 39.7 3.3 57.0 0.0 2.8 94.3 2.9 0.0 : 19.9 3.1 77.0 0.0 5.3 92.8 1.9 0.0
Total % 1.2 0.1 1.7 0.0 1.2 38.7 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 1.9 0.0 2.8 49.6 1.0 0.0
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
N/S STREET: VALLEY RD DENVER.COLORADO File Name : VALLHWY8WED
ENV STREET: HWY-82 303-333-7409 Site Code : 00000005
CITY: Start Date : 7/12/2017
COUNTY: EAGLE Page No : 2
VALLEY RD HAY -82
Southbound Westbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App.
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total
Peak Hour From 07:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Interseocni 07:30 AM
VALLEY RD
Northbound
Thr : Rig Ped App.
u : ht s Total
HAY -82
Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
u ht s Total Total
Volume 55 2 5 0 62 15 454 24 0 493 11 1 61 0 73 63 1500 16 0 1579 2207
88 15. 83
Percent 7 92 3.2 8.1 0.0 3.0 1 4.9 0.0 1 1.4 6 0.0 4.0 95' 1.0 0.0
07:30
Volume 6 0 3 0 9 2 112 7 0 121 4 0 21 0 25 16 436 3 0 455 610
Peak 0.905
Factor
High Int. 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM
Volume 18 1 2 0 21 7 124 6 0 137 4 0 21 0 25 16 436 3 0 455
Peak 0.73 0.90 ! 0.73 0.86
Factor 8 0 0 8
VALLEY RD
Out In Total
88 62 150
5: 2: 55 0
Right Thru Left Peds
`',
v
North
7/12/2017 7:30:00 AM
7/12/2017 8:15:00 AM
1 - VEHICLES
4
Left Thru Right Peds
111 11 611 °
4
33 73 106
Out In Total
VALLEY RD
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
NUS STREET: VALLEY RD DENVER.COLORADO File Name : VALLHWY8WED
E/W STREET: HWY-82 303-333-7409 Site Code : 00000005
CITY: Start Date : 7/12/2017
COUNTY: EAGLE Page No : 2
VALLEY RD HAY -82
Southbound Westbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App.
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total
Peak Hour From 04:15 PM to 05:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersecti
on 04:15 PM
Volume 14 4 56 0 74 32 147 45 0 1494 16 4 37 0 57 79 686 19 0 784 2409
18 75 94 28. 64 10. 87.
Percent 9 5.4 0.0 2.1 $ 3.0 0.0 1 7.0 9 0.0 1 5 2.4 0.0
05:00 4 2 15 0 21 7 373 12 0 392 4 0 13 0 17 24 185 7 0 216 646
Volume
Peak 0.932
Factor
High Int. 05:00 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM
Volume 4 2 15 0 21 5 386 11 0 402 4 1 12 0 17 22 192 3 0 217
Peak 0.88 0.92 0.83 0.90
Factor 1 ''; 9 ' 8 3
VALLEY RD
Northbound
Thr Rig Ped App.
u ht s Total
HAY -82
Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
u ht s Total Total
VALLEY RD
Out In Total
128 74 _ 202:
56 41111 14 0
Right Thru Left Peds
4
North
7/12/2017 4:15:00 PM
7/12/2017 5:00:00 PM
1 - VEHICLES
4
Left Thru Right Peds
16j 41 __ 371 0';
55 57 112
Out In Total
VALLEY RD
NIS STREET: VALLEY RD
E/W STREET: HWY-82
CITY:
COUNTY: EAGLE
VALLEY RD
Southbound
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER.COLORADO File Name : VALLHWY8SAT
303-333-7409 Site Code : 00000005
Start Date : 7/15/2017
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- VEHICLES
HWY-82 VALLEY RD HWY-82
Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru : Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int.
Total
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 , 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.1:45 AM 6 0 1 0 2 172 11 0 4 0 6 0 10 169 4 0 385
Total 6 0 1 0 2 172 11 0 4 0 6 0 10 169 4 0 385
12:00 PM 0 2 3 0 5 128 14
12:15 PM 4 1 5 0 4 137 4
12:30 PM 3 0 1 0 1 3 149 11
12:45 PM 4 0 3 0 1 133 5
Total 11 3 12 0 13 547 34
0
0
0
0
3 0 5 0 13 160 2 0 335
1 0 3 0 13 137 6 0 315
6 1 2 0 17 168 4 0 365
1 1 1 0 22 143 6 0 320
11 2 11 0 65 608 18 0 1335
01:00 PM 5 0 0 0 2 162 6 0 2 2 2 0 12 165 3 0 361
01:15 PM 8 2 2 0 2 161 9 0 1 2 2 0 14 159 5 0 367
01:30 PM 8 0 4 0 5 191 9 0 0 0 3 0 8 172 1 0 401
Grand Total 38 5 19 0 24 1233 69 0 18 6 24 0 109 1273 31 0 2849
Apprch % 61.3 8.1 30.6 0.0 1.8 93.0 5.2 0.0 37.5 12.5 50.0 0.0 7.7 90.1 2.2 0.0
Total % 1.3 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.8 43.3 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.0 3.8 44.7 1.1 0.0
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
N/S STREET: VALLEY RD DENVER.COLORADO File Name : VALLHWY8SAT
E/W STREET: HWY-82 303-333-7409 Site Code : 00000005
CITY: Start Date : 7/15/2017
COUNTY: EAGLE Page No : 2
VALLEY RD HWY-82 VALLEY RD HWY-82
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total Total
Peak Hour From 12:45 PM to 01:30 PM Peak 1 of 1
Intersecti 12:45 PM
on
Volume 25 2 9 0 36 10 647 29 0 686 4 5 8 0 17 ! 56 639 15 0 710 ! 1449
69 25 94 23. 29. 47. 90
Percent 4 5.6 0 0.0 1.5 3 4.2 0.0 5 4 1 0.0 7.9 2.1 0.0
0
flm
Volume
8 0 4 0 12 5 191 9 0 205 0 0 3 0 3: 8 172 1 0 181 401
e
Peak 0.903
Factor
High Int. 01:15 PM 01:30 PM 01:00 PM 01:30 PM
Volume 8 2 2 0 12 5 191 9 0 205 2 2 2 0 6 8 172 1 0 181
Peak 0.75 0.83: 0.70 0.98
Factor 0 7 8 1
VALLEY RD
Out In Total
90 36 126!
2 25 0
Right Thru Left Peds
® ►
North
7/15/2017 12:45:00 PM
7/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
VEHICLES
-�
Left Thru Right Peds
41 51 a( .__0
27. 17 44
Out in Total
VALLEY RD
N/S STREET: VALLEY RD
E/W STREET: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
CITY:
COUNTY: EAGLE
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER.COLORADO
303-333-7409
File Name : VALLHWY8WEDA
Site Code : 00000008
Start Date : 7/12/2017
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- 1 - VEHICLES
VALLEY RD VALLEY RD HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right ! Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int.
Total
Factor 1.0 1.0 ' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
06:30 AM 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 0 2 0 16
06:45 AM 0 4 4 00 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 6 0 3 0 24
Total 0 9 6 0
0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 10 0 5 0 40
07:00 AM 0 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 9 0 0 0 39
07:15 AM 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 13 0 7 0 50
07:30 AM 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 17 0 0 8 0 5 0 38
07:45 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 0 0 8 0 5 0 30
Total 0 31 14 0 0 0 0 0 18 39 0 0 38 0 17 0 157
08:00 AM 0 8 4
08:15 AM 0 7 6
Total 0 15 10
04:00 PM 0 8 7
04:15 PM 0 10 5
04:30 PM 0 4 4
04:45 PM 0 5 11
Total 0 27 27
0 0 0 0 3 3 0
0 0 0
5 2 0
5 0
8 0 6 0 32
18 0 3 0 41
26 0 9 0 73
0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 6 0 8 0 37
0 0 0 0 0 18 9 0 0 5 0 3 0 50
0 0 0 0 0 15 8 0 0 9 0 10 0 50
0 0 0 0 015 4 0 0' 5 0 4 0' 44
0 0 0 0 0
55 22 0
0 25 0 25 0 181
05:00 PM 0 7 9 0 0 0
05:15 PM 0 4 9 0 0 0
05:30 PM 0 4 11 0 0 0
05:45 PM 015 6 0 0 0
Total 0
30 35 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 6 0 0 11 0 8 0 52
22 3 0 0 9 0 5 0 52
17 3 0 0 12 0 6 0 53
14 4 0 0 5 0 7 0 51
64 16 0 0 37 0 26 0 208
Grand Total 0 112 92 0 0 0 0 0 147 90 0 0 136 0 82 0 659
Apprch % 0.0 54.9 45.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 62.4 0.0 37.6 0.0
Total % 0.0 17.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 13.7 0.0 0.0 20.6 0.0 12.4 0.0
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
N/S STREET: VALLEY RD DENVER.COLORADO
E/W STREET: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD 303-333-7409
CITY:
COUNTY: EAGLE
VALLEY RD
Southbound Westbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total
Peak Hour From 07:30 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Interseocni 07:30 AM
Volume 0 18 15 0 33 0 0 0 0
Percent 0.0 5 b 4 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
08:15 0 7 6 0 13 0 0 0 0
Volume
Peak
Factor
VALLEY RD
Northbound
Thr Rig Ped App.
u ht s : Total
File Name : VALLHWY8WEDA
Site Code : 00000008
Start Date : 7/12/2017
Page No : 2
HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
u ht s Total Total
16 31 0 0 47 42 0 19 0 61 141
34. 66. 0.0 00. 68. 0.0 31. 00
0 0 9 1 .
5 2 0 0 7 18 0 3 0 21 41
High Int. 08:15 AM 07:30 AM 08:15 AM
Volume 0 7 6 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 3 17 0 0 20 18 0 3 0 21
Peak 0.63 0.58 0.72
Factor 5 ' 8 6
VALLEY RD
Out In Total
73 F 33 106
151 18: 0, 0
Right Thru Left Peds
f
North
7/12/2017 7:30:00 AM
7/12/2017 8:15:00 AM
1 - VEHICLES
Left Thru Right Peds
161 31( 01 0'
37 47 84;:
Out In Total
VALLEY RD
0.860
NUS STREET: VALLEY RD
E/W STREET: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
CITY:
COUNTY: EAGLE
VALLEY RD
Southbound Westbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App.
Time u ht s Total u ht s Total
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersecti 04:15 PM
on
Volume 0 26 29 0 55 0 0 0 0 0
Percent 0.0 4 3 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
05:00
Volume
Peak
Factor
High Int. 04:45 PM
Volume 0 5 11 0 16
Peak 0.85
Factor 9
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER.COLORADO
303-333-7409
0 7 9 0 16 0 0 0 0
Left
File Name : VALLHWY8WEDA
Site Code : 00000008
Start Date : 7/12/2017
Page No : 2
VALLEY RD HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
Northbound Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int
u ht s Total u ht s Total Total
59 27 0 0 86 30 0 25 0 55 196
68. 31. 0.0 0.0 54. 0.0 45. 0.0
6 4 5 • 5
11 6 0 0 17 11 0 8 0 19 52
0.942
04:15 PM
0 0 0 0 0 18 9
04:30 PM
0 0 27': 9 0 10
0.79
6
VALLEY RD
Out In Total
57 55 112
29 26 0. 0
Right Thru Left Peds
North
7/12/2017 4:15:00 PM
7/12/2017 5:00:00 PM
VEHICLES
4- ►
Left Thru Right Peds
591 271- 01 0'
51 86 137__'-
Out In Total
VALLEY RD
0 19
0.72
4
N/S STREET: VALLEY RD
E/W STREET: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
CITY:
COUNTY: EAGLE
VALLEY RD
Southbound
Start Time Left Thru Right
Factor 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
11:45 AM 0
Total 0
Peds Left
1.0 1.0
0. 0
0
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER.COLORADO File Name : VALLHWY8FRONTSAT
303-333-7409 Site Code : 00000008
Start Date : 7/15/2017
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- VEHICLES
VALLEY RD HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int.
Total
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0 0 0 3 4 0 0 6 0 4 0 23
0 0 0 3 4 0 0 6 0 4 0 23
12:OOPM 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0' 9 3 0 0 5 0 5 0! 31
12:15 PM 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 3 0 4 0 23
12:30 PM 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 0 0 1 0 3 0 24
12:45 PM 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 18
Total 0 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 24 15 0 0 9 0 14 0 96
01:00 PM 0 3 2
01:15 PM 0 6 3
01:30 PM 0 1 5
Grand Total 0 32 28
Apprch % 0.0 53.3 46.7
Total % 0.0 17.9 15.6
0
0
0.0
0.0
0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 2 0 3 0 19
0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 3 0 4 0 23
0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 6 0 18
0 0 0 0 40 26 0 0 22 0 31 0 179
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.6 39.4 0.0 0.0 41.5 0.0 58.5 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 14.5 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 17.3 0.0
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
N/S STREET: VALLEY RD DENVER.COLORADO File Name : VALLHWY8FRONTSAT
E/W STREET: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD 303-333-7409 Site Code : 00000008
CITY: Start Date : 7/15/2017
COUNTY: EAGLE Page No : 2
VALLEY RD VALLEY RD HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Left Thr Rig Ped App• Left Thr ` Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
Time u ht • s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total Total
Peak Hour From 12:45 PM to 01:30 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Interseocni 12:45 PM
Volume 0 14 13 0 27 0 0 0 0
Percent 0.0 51. 48.
9 1
01:15
Volume
Peak
Factor
High Int.
Volume
Peak
Factor
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 6 3 0
01:15 PM
0 0 0 0
0 6 3 0 9, 0 0 0 0
0.75
0„
19 10 0 0 29 7 0 15 0 22 ! 78
65. 34. 0.0 0.0 31' 0.0 68. 0.0
2
5 2 0 0 7: 3 0 4 0 7 23
12:45 PM
01:30 PM
6 3 0 0 9 2 0 6 0 8!
0.80 0.68
6 8
VALLEY RD
Out In Total
17 27 44
13 14 0 0
Right Thru Left Peds
® i
North
17/15/2017 12:45:00 PM
7/15/2017 1:30:00 PM
'VEHICLES
1_,
Left Thru Right Peds
191 101 01 0
29, 29 581
Out In Total
VALLEY RD
0.848
Page 1
Location: CR -100 S/O HWY-82
City:
County: GARFIELD
Direction: NORTHBOUND -SOUTHBOUND
Start
Time
1200 AM
0100
0200
0300
04:00
05:00
0600
07:00
0800
0900
1000
11:00
12:00 PM
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
0700
08:00
09:00
10:00
11:00
Total
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER,COLORADO 80206
303-333-7409
13 -Jul -17
Thu NB SB
8 8
0 1
1 3
6 6
9 8
40 46
226 250
302 344
341 420
254 298
224 285
256 312
245 308
266 332
357 423
360 414
484 524
502 544
415 484
211 264
152 205
249 264
72 104
34 49
5014 5896
Site Code: 071210
Station ID: 071210
Total
16
1
4
12
17
86
476
646
761
552
509
568
553
598
780
774
1008
1046
899
475
357
513
176
83
10910
Percent 46.0% 54.0%
AM Peak 08:00 08:00
Vol. 341 420
PM Peak 17:00 17:00
Vol. 502 544
Grand
Total
Percent
08:00
761
17:00
1046
5014 5896 10910
46.0% 54.0%
ADT ADT 10,910 AADT 10,910
Page 1 COUNTER MEASURES INC.
Location: CR -100 S/0 HWY-82 1889 YORK STREET
City: DENVER,COLORADO 80206
County: GARFIELD
303-333-7409
Direction: NORTHBOUND -SOUTHBOUND
Start 15 -Jul -17
Time Sat
12:00 AM
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
0800
09:00
10:00
11:00
12:00 PM
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
NB
SB
8 10
10 14
9 9
3 4
8 6
26 23
84 90
108 123
158 180
188 242
188 232
250 296
236 286
256 308
242 285
235 298
260 298
0500 237 310
06:00 192 256
07:00 146 200
08:00 120 165
09:00 120 144
10:00 58 92
11:00 26 40
Total 3168 3911
Percent 44.8% 55.2%
AM Peak 11:00 11:00
Vol. 250 296
PM Peak 16:00 17:00
Vol. 260 310
Grand
Total
Percent 44.8% 55.2%
3168 3911
ADT ADT 7,079 AADT 7,079
Site Code: 071210
Station ID: 071210
Total
18
24
18
7
14
49
174
231
338
430
420
646
522
664
527
533
558
547
448
346
285
264
150
66
7079
11:00
546
13:00
564
7079
Page 1
COUNTER MEASURES INC.
Location: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD PO CR -100
City:
County: GARFIELD
Direction: WESTBOUND -EASTBOUND
Start 13 -Jul -17
Time Thu
12:00 AM
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
WB EB
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
8 6
38 50
07:00 54 70
08:00 38 43
09:00 36 38
1000 37 30
11:00 51 48
12:00 PM 45 32
01:00 57 50
02:00 48 39
03:00 65 51
04:00 78 64
05:00 141 88
06:00 106 62
07:00 26 23
08:00 28 21
09:00 38 36
10.00 26 26
11:00 6 8
Total 929 786
Percent 54.2% 45.8%
AM Peak 07:00 07:00
Vol. 54 70
PM Peak 17:00 17:00
Vol. 141 88
Grand
929 786
Total
Percent 54.2% 45.8%
ADT ADT 1,715
1889 YORK STREET
DENVER,COLORADO 80206
303-333-7409
AADT 1,715
Site Code: 071207
Station ID: 071207
Total
1
1
0
0
2
14
88
124
81
74
67
99
77
107
87
116
142
229
168
49
49
74
52
14
1715
07:00
124
17:00
229
1715
Pagel COUNTER MEASURES INC.
Location: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD E/0 CR -100 1889 YORK STREET
City: DENVER,COLORADO 80206
County: GARFIELD 303-333-7409
Direction: WESTBOUND -EASTBOUND
Start 15 -Jul -17
Time Sat WB
12:00 AM 6
01:00 4
02:00 3
03:00 1
04:00 2
05:00 2
06:00 22
07:00 21
08:00 38
09:00 42
10:00 40
11:00 77 57
12:00 PM 64 50
01:00 42 32
02:00 41 40
03:00 38 36
04:00 60 53
05:00 46 40
06:00 34 31
07:00 36 32
08:00 15 18
09:00 21 18
10:00 12 10
11:00 2 3
Total 669 584
Percent 53.4% 46.6%
AM Peak 11:00 11:00
Vol. 77 57
PM Peak 12:00 16:00
Vol. 64 53
Grand
669
Total
EB
4
8
4
1
2
1
21
28
26
30
39
Site Code: 071207
Station ID: 071207
Total
10
12
7
2
4
3
43
49
64
72
79
134
114
74
81
74
113
86
65
68
33
39
22
5
1253
11:00
134
12:00
114
584 1253
Percent 53.4% 46.6%
ADT ADT 1,253 AADT 1,253
Page 1 COUNTER MEASURES INC.
Location: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD W/O VALLEY RD 1889 YORK STREET
City: DENVER,COLORADO 80206
County: EAGLE 303-333-7409
Direction: WESTBOUND -EASTBOUND
Start 13 -Jul -17
Time Thu WB
12:00 AM
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
0800
09:00
10:00
11:00
1200 PM
01:00
02:00 54 38
03:00 40 40
04:00 52 45
05:00 79 28
06:00 110 34
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
11:00
Total
Percent
AM Peak
Vol.
PM Peak
Vol.
Grand
742 554
Total
Percent 57.3% 42.7%
EB
4 0
2 0
3 0
2 4
0 3
1 0
2 2
12 1
36 1
40 0
37 21
31 46
38 53
43 45
75 27
28 54
22 52
19 48
12 12
742 554
57.3% 42.7%
09:00 11:00
40 46
18:00 20:00
110 54
ADT ADT 1,296
AADT 1,296
Site Code: 071207
Station ID: 071207
Total
4
2
3
6
3
1
4
13
37
40
58
77
91
88
92
80
97
107
144
102
82
74
67
24
1296
11:00
77
18:00
144
1296
Page 1 COUNTER MEASURES INC.
Location: HWY-82 FRONTAGE RD VV/0 VALLEY RD 1889 YORK STREET
City: DENVER,COLORADO 80206
County: EAGLE
303-333-7409
Direction: WESTBOUND -EASTBOUND
Start 15 -Jul -17
Time Sat WB EB
12:00 AM 12 4
01:00 2 3
02:00 0 0
03:00 0 0
0400 1 0
05:00 1 1
06:00 0 1
07:00 4 7
08:00 15 12
09:00 22 28
10:00 28 28
11:00 38 36
12:00 PM 42 42
01:00 32 29
02:00 50 31
03:00 36 40
0400 60 40
05:00 71 46
06:00 94 48
07:00 74 65
08:00 29 37
09:00 20 20
10:00 22 20
11:00 11 8
Total 664 536
Percent 55.3% 44.7%
AM Peak 1100 11:00
Vol. 38 36
PM Peak 18:00 19:00
Vol. 94 55
Grand
664 536
Total
Percent 55.3% 44.7%
ADT ADT 1,200 AADT 1,200
Site Code: 071207
Station ID: 071207
Total
16
5
0
0
1
2
1
11
27
50
56
74
84
61
81
76
100
117
142
129
66
40
42
19
1200
11:00
74
18:00
142
1200
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
CDOT Correspondence
Cassie Slade
From: Harbert - CDOT, Kent <kent.harbert@state.co.us>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 10:20 AM
To: Jon Fredericks
Cc: Cassie Slade; Daniel Roussin
Subject: Re: Aspen Polo Club
A separate access would be acceptable if the 325' spacing is met.
Thanks, xent
T. Kent Harbert, PE
Access Engineer
CDOT Region 3, Traffic and Safety Residency
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
Region 3
222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501-3794
Phone: 970.683.6279 Cell: 970.812.6768
Kent.Harbert@State.CO.US 1 www.codot.gov 1 www.cotrip.org
Pie System
TecEln ,.ciyr
our gna I—to be the best OOT ROAD
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Jon Fredericks <jon@landwestcolorado.com> wrote:
Kent,
Thank you for the follow-up on this. With the understanding that a shared access is preferred, does that
mean that an access permit for an individual access (with 325' separation) would not be approved?
I bring this up because a shared access requires that the Waldorf School is a willing participant, which
may or may not be the case. In order to move forward with planning, the property owners need some
assurances from CDOT regarding acceptable access options.
Thank you -
Jon Fredericks
LAND
WEST
PLAPIr11II 1 LANt/SGAPE ARCI1I ECtUFiE 1 GEYELOPPEhT SERVICES
345 Colorado Ave. #106
Carbondale, CO 81623
c: 970-379-4155
1
Original Message
Subject: Re: Aspen Polo Club
From: "Harbert - CDOT, Kent" <kent.harbert@state.co.us>
Date: Wed, July 12, 2017 5:42 pm
To: Cassie Slade<cassie.slade@fthtransgroup.com>
Cc: Jon Fredericks <jon@landwestcolorado.com>, Daniel Roussin
<Daniel.Roussin@state.co.us>
My comments are interspersed in blue below.
Thanks, rKent
T. Kent Harbert, PE
Access Engineer
CDOT Region 3, Traffic and Safety Residency
COLORADO
Department of Transportation
RegIon 3
222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501-3794
Phone: 970.683.6279 Cell: 970.812.6768
Kent.Harbert@State.CO.US 1 www.codot.gov 1 www.cotrip.org
ur gam I -to he the best DOT
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Cassie Slade<cassie.slade@fthtransgroup.com> wrote:
Hi Kent,
Thank you for your time last Thursday to discuss the access and traffic impact
study for the proposed Aspen Polo Club on Old SH 82/Access Road just east of
Catherine Store Road/County Road 100. I wanted to verify the information you
provided to relay an accurate report to the design team:
Access
• The east access of the Polo Club can be a minimum of 325 feet from the Waldorf School
access.
o We have two options to look into to adjust the current design: (1) change access
location to 325 feet spacing or (2) share access with the Waldorf school. A shared
access is preferred. It can be on either property or straddle the property line.
Cross access easements should be executed and recorded.
• Since the polo events are infrequent, the auxiliary requirements of the State Code do not
apply. We will determine the need for auxiliary lanes based on daily volumes instead of
events. Correct.
• We will also look at the turning volumes during an event to determine best traffic
control/geometry options. Event traffic planning is not required, but is a good thing to
include. Typically the initial plan is will evolve over time as the event operators see what
works and what doesn't work or is of little benefit.
2
Counts Agreed
• Intersections to count (Weekday 6:30-8:30am and 4:00-6:OOpm + Saturday at
11:45am-1:45pm)
o SH 82 at Catherine Store Road/County Road 100
o Access Road (Old SH 82) at County Road 100
o Access Road (Old SH 82) at Valley Road
o SH 82 at JW Drive/Valley Road
• Daily counts (one weekday and one Saturday)
o County Road 100 between Access Road and SH 82
o Access Road east of County Road 100
o Access Road west of Valley Road
• Daily counts will be used to adjust intersection counts as needed for the analysis.
• Counts for SH 82 will be gathered from the CDOT database.
Concerns Agreed
• Geometry on County Road 100 between SH 82 and Access Road will be critical due to
spacing
• Geometry on Valley Road between SH 82 and Access Road will be critical due to spacing.
• There are three other projects approved in the area of JW Drive that will add traffic to
the area. Some of those other projects may be proposed ones we are aware of which
have not gone all the way through the approval processes.
• Need to determine event trip distribution based on demographics of guests (local or
visiting; Aspen or Glenwood) instead of traffic patterns.
Let me know if you have any edits or if you agree with the above information
for this project. Thank you!
CASSIE SLADE 1 PE
Senior Transportation Engineer
FOHERINANDEZ
T R A hl P❑ if Y A T 10 NF
P.O. Box 19768 1 Boulder, CO 80308
(o) 303-652-3571 1 (c) 720-379-7162
www.FTHtransgroup.com
1 cassie.slade@FTHtransgroup.com
Transportation planning and engineering for people.
Data Driven. Safety First.
3
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Polo Club Trip
Generation Reference
m
U
0
J
H
Z
W
H
Z
z
0
W
Z
W
W
DC
0
0
V
1-
oc
0
0
0
V)
0
1-
V)
V)
z
Q
AMENDMENT
Parcel Control Number: 73 41 44 22 00 000-5020
Petition Number: 17-015(01 1 CPA2)
• U O OrNN
U O 0
cn
Certification of Authorization No. 30843
pO
92 N }
Q N
c
• O
a
N 0
•c o
cO
O
X
O O
cn
N
N
cr)
N
ON
N
c
O
3-
-�,
Q 0
w )
00
E
0 3
w c
O
—
(3)'i
c O
L.L
(/)
via PN: 1026.07
Table 1 A - Trip Generation - Daily
Q
Net Trips
Proposed Land Use
L11
'0cv
47
qa
gL
cAAN
Existing Land Use
,
Pass -by Trips
O
N
O
O
p
p
p
p
N
cc
m
z
z
External Trips
49
gL
4,367
3,757
Internal Trips
R-
c+)
O
O
N
N"4
H
C,
N
Gross Trips
49
w
In Out
tol
r�
v
z
y
o
JQ
Trip Generation
Rate
I -r)
N
198
^
Intensity
du
E
C
person
person
o
unit
acre
_
-
O
p
O
N
N
�?
O
05
cpi
N
u
U
U
U
U
W ellingtonl
PBC
PBC
Land Use
Condo
Hotel
General Commercial
General Office
Barns/Stables
❑ailyEvent Spectators
Show Office
Event Staff/Officials
Vendors
Clubhouse
Commercial Rec
COVI
m
O
O
O
I I
X
D
C
0
Q
0
II
N
N
r
ri
oo
Lri
J
O
II
i-
J 0
a)'L
C D
<N y
N
O y a Q
L p 5 O
• o
a�
0. II U
6) X Q
a >•�
D
o L -0
o
O }O )
a II 20
N ,.43. ~ 3
Q
N >, N
U a 0 C
t y D
O
> L N W O U
Q a a M
� D y
pat + O a
O 'S 0 J ^ p
0 Ce N -0
n N a
• L O 0
T3 II p a)
>' 0 o y ' c
U- y C t y
C OJ 'X
Q Q E � N
U •C E O O
O C `n �D O C
N o E N 0
.) Q 2 N p
✓ y w `
w U C
L u)=m a 0 O
(y 0d y.-
_a _a 0 C C
N (1) C 0 0
a
E E
mom}
• ,
.2- a o o
a) a 0 i LL
Table 1B - Trip Generation - AM Peak
o
x
13-4.1
1o=KLO
Net Trips
In Out Total
Proposed Land Use
C+')
ca'�
p.
Ln
N
Existing Land Use
N
N
Net New Trips
Net New Trips 144 48 192
0,N
m
cRJ
O
No
Lo
R
h
N
O
N
0
N
M
N
N
Pass -by Trips
O
N
O
O
O
ONO
O
O
O
O
N
000
o
External Trips
In Out Total
N
("0
CC
Om.
Ln
'–
N
N
N
N
N N
Ln
Ln
'CN
O
R
p
�
N
N
Internal Trips
`n
0
O
m
Ln
Ln
LO
N
O
0
0
o''Q•
o''Q•
N
ao
P
b
N
O,
N
m
m
6
O'
�°
o
aa
,
O
Gross Trips
cN
I–
o
o
N
R
,o
,o
m
h
°
O
R
c+)
NN
N
�r7
�R,�
N
N
N
CO
v]
R
O
R
R
n�
N
CNNNV
V
V
N
N
N
New Trips
y
-
o
-0
h
Trip Generation
Rate
C;C;--
-
0.15
C;---C;d
d'
C;
Z•
2
"c
a)
du
O
C
-ca
O
O
•
.
C
O
O
a
C
O
Q)
a
unit
acre
unit
Source
m
m
m
m
W ellingtonl
m
N
N
0�
PBC
Land Use
Condo
Hotel
General Commercial
General Office
Barns/Stables
DailyEvent Spectators
Show Office
Event Staff/Officials
Vendors
Clubhouse
Commercial Rec
m
❑
C
0
0
a
>
D
a . Ti o O
o 0 o m
) II 3
a ,o ��
m > m m}
t O r _c O
> • cD 3 3
• Y R 0
aOD Ci�
a° -t ++
C a X X
O a) E C
_1-10
0 00 c
a)\ W O
o
>;3 11 11 p)
0 oo H
U - c — n
C
0 O O J J
a a E a
U CE C •N H
p O a) > > c
o ) E 0)7 D 0
.) a a) O
0 2- 2 0
> t O w U U C
▪ csj 20 0 U
O 0 c 0 a a 0
E E >-: }c
O O O m Q< c
Z^ N M V G * Z
Table 1C - Trip Generation - PM Peak
O
2
0_
d
Net Trips
In Out Total
Proposed Land Use
N
a
C7
Existing Land Use
^
m
Net New Trips
a
r
07
z
a
v
O
m
O
-0-
?
Pass -by Trips
o
N
b
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
N
O
O
O
External Trips
1-
C
N
pm,
N
m
N
m
a
a
N
N
8
m
oo
-
N
o
CT
C]
m
C7
^
C7
N
O
^
0
Internal Trips
O
0
V)
V)
P
O
O
C)
0
0
0
m
g
O
civ
O
mo
O
m
O
m
a
M
N
g
g
Gross Trips
2
4
N
pm,
N
n
o
O
-
N
NN
.-
NO
4
N
N
m
It
m
NN
N
at
I�
m
z
o
.6'-.
,n
0w -p
yh`
{Q�'
Trip Generation
Rate
a±^
a
a-
a
a
-
--
Intensity
du
rooms
du
person
s.f.
person
person
unit
acre
unit
n
^
,p
L?
O
R
N
Source
m
m
m
PBC
Wellington
PBC
N
N
CO
m
Land Use
Condo
Hotel
General Commercial
General Office
,,
o
C
m
Daily Event Spectators
Show Office
Event Staff/Officials
Vendors
Clubhouse
Commercial Rec
m
D
0.7
0
0
x
D
c
0
Q
•c
a
c a
3c N
0 aa.Q(I)
0 D
Cr,
T a
1
0 Q O -C II U
1-92
45 a 11 --
N N "
a N O
\oj
> LLo
12 M WO
Q� tX0 t
O x N
- Nap, Q a 0
O T3 II = 0)
o
~.d c
cN c c c v
O N O Q J• H N
p- Q s •E 0
0
O D n _ c
N E N yO
UN Q O .'4)-6(1"
0.ac0 U ,„> 0 U•-
u) ° 0 0 0 0
U: U
N c
N cN C p Cluj
c
N ? ? Q p 0
.- O c
Z N M V< t Z
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Intersection Capacity Worksheets:
2017 Existing
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2017 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1541 148 120 531 12 355 116
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.71 0.14 0.75 0.23 0.01 1.17 1.03
Control Delay 107.0 26.0 2.3 107.8 11.7 0.0 155.1 156.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 107.0 26.0 2.3 107.8 11.7 0.0 155.1 156.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 617 0 141 116 0 -435 -141
Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 672 23 #260 167 0 #420 #186
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 63 2162 1051 162 2348 1106 303 113
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.71 0.14 0.74 0.23 0.01 1.17 1.03
Intersection Summary
Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 22 1264 121 112 494 11 50 14 202 40 20 26
Future Volume (vph) 22 1264 121 112 494 11 50 14 202 40 20 26
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 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
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1654 1755
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.35
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1476 631
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74
Adj. Flow (vph) 27 1541 148 120 531 12 67 19 269 54 27 35
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 56 0 0 4 0 62 0 0 8 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1541 92 120 531 8 0 293 0 0 108 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.2 113.2 16.3 123.0 123.0 29.7 30.2
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.2 113.2 16.3 123.0 123.0 29.7 30.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.62 0.62 0.09 0.68 0.68 0.16 0.17
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 63 2162 996 160 2349 1082 241 104
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.44 c0.07 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.01 c0.20 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.71 0.09 0.75 0.23 0.01 1.22 1.04
Uniform Delay, d1 85.8 23.2 13.7 80.7 11.2 9.5 76.0 75.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 2.0 0.2 24.6 0.2 0.0 129.0 98.1
Delay (s) 92.1 25.3 13.9 105.4 11.4 9.5 205.0 173.8
Level of Service F C B F B A F F
Approach Delay (s) 25.3 28.4 205.0 173.8
Approach LOS C C F F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
54.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service
D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 181.7 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.8% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 3 0 21 18 245 42 62 168 23
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 3 0 21 18 245 42 62 168 23
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.69 0.69 0.69
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 3 0 23 22 302 52 90 243 33
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 834 838 260 812 828 328 276 354
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 834 838 260 812 828 328 276 354
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 99 100 97 98 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 260 276 782 278 280 716 1293 1210
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 0 26 376 366
Volume Left 0 3 22 90
Volume Right 0 23 52 33
cSH 1700 606 1293 1210
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 1 6
Control Delay (s) 0.0 11.2 0.6 2.6
Lane LOS A B A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.2 0.6 2.6
Approach LOS A B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 1500 16 40 454 24 11 1 102 55 2 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 63 1500 16 40 454 24 11 1 102 55 2 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.74
Hourly flow rate (vph) 72 1724 18 44 504 27 15 1 140 74 3 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
MPrlian tvnp Nnna Nnna
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 504 1724 2210 2460 862 1598 2460 252
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 504 1724 2210 2460 862 1598 2460 252
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 % 93 88 22 96 53 0 88 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1064 367 19 25 300 32 25 751
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 72 862 862 18 44 252 252 27 156 84
Volume Left 72 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 15 74
Volume Right 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 27 140 7
cSH 1064 1700 1700 1700 367 1700 1700 1700 121 34
Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.51 0.51 0.01 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.02 1.29 2.44
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 253 238
Control Delay (s) 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 244.7 900.2
Lane LOS A C F F
Approach Delay (s) 0.3 1.2 244.7 900.2
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 43.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - AM Peak Hour
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 83 23 20 31 18 40
Future Volume (Veh/h) 83 23 20 31 18 40
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.59 0.59 0.64 0.64
Hourly flow rate (vph) 114 32 34 53 28 63
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 180 60 91
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 180 60 91
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 86 97 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 793 1009 1510
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 146 87 91
Volume Left 114 34 0
Volume Right 32 0 63
cSH 832 1510 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.02 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 2 0
Control Delay (s) 10.2 3.0 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.2 3.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2017 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 677 62 295 1545 35 273 76
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.31 0.06 1.82 0.66 0.03 0.98 0.33
Control Delay 101.6 16.9 0.1 434.3 19.1 0.1 110.2 56.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 101.6 16.9 0.1 434.3 19.1 0.1 110.2 56.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 187 0 -521 519 0 -291 64
Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 256 0 #766 684 0 336 104
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 63 2158 1042 162 2348 1106 278 228
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.31 0.06 1.82 0.66 0.03 0.98 0.33
Intersection Summary
Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 21 643 59 271 1421 32 61 12 143 17 19 25
Future Volume (vph) 21 643 59 271 1421 32 61 12 143 17 19 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
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 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1673 1743
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.73
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1465 1292
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.80
Adj. Flow (vph) 22 677 62 295 1545 35 77 15 181 21 24 31
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 23 0 0 11 0 39 0 0 13 0
Lane Gro""n Flnw (vnhl 99 F,77 'IQ 7Q' 1r,4.r, 74 n 914 n n fi n
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.0 113.0 16.5 123.0 123.0 29.7 30.2
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.0 113.0 16.5 123.0 123.0 29.7 30.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.62 0.62 0.09 0.68 0.68 0.16 0.17
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 63 2158 994 162 2349 1082 239 214
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.20 c0.17 c0.45
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 c0.16 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.31 0.04 1.82 0.66 0.02 0.98 0.29
Uniform Delay, d1 85.5 16.1 13.3 82.6 17.1 9.6 75.7 66.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 0.4 0.1 392.6 1.5 0.0 51.6 1.0
Delay (s) 90.1 16.5 13.4 475.2 18.6 9.7 127.2 67.4
Level of Service F B B F B A F E
Approach Delay (s) 18.4 90.2 127.2 67.4
Approach LOS B F F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
74.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service
E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 181.7 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.4% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 2 8 12 2 14 46 196 45 26 286 37
Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 2 8 12 2 14 46 196 45 26 286 37
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.87 0.87 0.87
Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 4 16 31 5 36 56 239 55 30 329 43
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 828 816 350 807 810 266 372 294
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 828 816 350 807 810 266 372 294
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 95 99 98 89 98 95 95 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 260 291 695 276 293 775 1192 1273
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 32 72 350 402
Volume Left 12 31 56 30
Volume Right 16 36 55 43
cSH 386 409 1192 1273
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.18 0.05 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 16 4 2
Control Delay (s) 15.2 15.7 1.7 0.8
Lane LOS CC A A
Approach Delay (s) 15.2 15.7 1.7 0.8
Approach LOS C C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 79 686 19 41 1417 45 16 4 42 14 4 56
Future Volume (Veh/h) 79 686 19 41 1417 45 16 4 42 14 4 56
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 88 762 21 44 1524 48 19 5 50 16 5 64
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
MPrlian tvnp Nnna Nnna
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1524 762 1790 2550 381 2172 2550 762
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1524 762 1790 2550 381 2172 2550 762
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 % 80 95 32 75 92 1 75 82
cM capacity (veh/h) 438 853 28 20 620 16 20 350
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 88 381 381 21 44 762 762 48 74 85
Volume Left 88 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 19 16
Volume Right 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 48 50 64
cSH 438 1700 1700 1700 853 1700 1700 1700 74 60
Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.05 0.45 0.45 0.03 1.01 1.42
Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 132 186
Control Delay (s) 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 204.5 377.1
Lane LOS C A F F
Approach Delay (s) 1.5 0.3 204.5 377.1
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 18.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.1% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing PM Peak Hour
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 26 60 27 26 38
Future Volume (Veh/h) 35 26 60 27 26 38
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 49 36 75 34 30 44
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 236 52 74
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 236 52 74
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 93 96 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 717 1019 1532
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 85 109 74
Volume Left 49 75 0
Volume Right 36 0 44
cSH 820 1532 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.05 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 4 0
Control Delay (s) 9.9 5.3 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 9.9 5.3 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
21.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2017 Existing - Saturday Peak Hr
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 626 43 144 673 22 195 66
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.28 0.04 0.85 0.27 0.02 0.77 0.38
Control Delay 109.8 14.3 0.1 116.0 10.4 0.1 70.0 59.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 109.8 14.3 0.1 116.0 10.4 0.1 70.0 59.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 151 0 164 135 0 154 55
Queue Length 95th (ft) #93 234 0 #319 211 0 224 108
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 66 2249 1046 169 2448 1123 319 226
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.28 0.04 0.85 0.27 0.02 0.61 0.29
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 c0.09 0.04
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - Saturday Peak Hr
Lane Configurations 11 'tut ri 11 lit ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 31 582 40 127 592 19 25 22 117 17 22 22
Future Volume (vph) 31 582 40 127 592 19 25 22 117 17 22 22
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
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 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1546 1787 3471 1561 1687 1765
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.69
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1546 1787 3471 1561 1586 1241
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 33 626 43 144 673 22 30 26 139 18 24 24
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 15 0 0 6 0 51 0 0 12 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 626 28 144 673 16 0 144 0 0 54 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 3 3 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.3 113.3 16.5 123.3 123.3 22.4 22.9
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.3 113.3 16.5 123.3 123.3 22.4 22.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.65 0.65 0.09 0.71 0.71 0.13 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 2251 1002 168 2449 1101 203 162
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.18 c0.08 c0.19
v/c Katlo u.bu U. U.U3 U.bb U.2/ U.U1 U./1 U.33
Uniform Delay, d1 82.5 13.2 11.0 77.9 9.4 7.6 73.0 69.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.9 0.3 0.1 37.4 0.3 0.0 11.4 1.6
Delay (s) 90.4 13.5 11.0 115.3 9.7 7.7 84.4 70.6
Level of Service F B B F A A F E
Approach Delay (s) 16.9 27.7 84.4 70.6
Approach LOS B C F E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
31.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 174.7 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 23 4 9 19 3 11 1 130 12 11 177 1
Future Volume (Veh/h) 23 4 9 19 3 11 1 130 12 11 177 1
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 5 11 32 5 18 1 148 14 12 192 1
Pedestrians 1 3 4 5
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 400 384 198 394 378 163 194 165
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 400 384 198 394 378 163 194 165
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 95 99 99 94 99 98 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 538 544 842 547 548 878 1384 1415
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 43 55 163 205
Volume Left 27 32 1 12
Volume Right 11 18 14 1
cSH 594 624 1384 1415
Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.09 0.00 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 7 0 1
Control Delay (s) 11.5 11.3 0.1 0.5
Lane LOS B B A A
Approach Delay (s) 11.5 11.3 0.1 0.5
Approach LOS B B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
28.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 639 15 10 647 29 4 5 8 25 2 9
Future Volume (Veh/h) 56 639 15 10 647 29 4 5 8 25 2 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 57 652 15 12 770 35 6 7 11 33 3 12
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 770 652 1176 1560 326 1238 1560 385
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 770 652 1176 1560 326 1238 1560 385
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 % 93 99 95 93 98 72 97 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 847 937 133 103 673 117 103 616
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 57 326 326 15 12 385 385 35 24 48
Volume Left 57 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 6 33
Volume Right 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 35 11 12
cSH 847 1700 1700 1700 937 1700 1700 1700 186 145
Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.02 0.13 0.33
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 33
Control Delay (s) 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.2 41.7
Lane LOS A A D E
Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.1 27.2 41.7
Approach LOS D E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - Saturday Peak Hr
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 15 19 10 14 13
Future Volume (Veh/h) 7 15 19 10 14 13
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 22 23 12 19 17
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 86 28 36
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 86 28 36
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 98 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 905 1051 1581
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 32 35 36
Volume Left 10 23 0
Volume Right 22 0 17
cSH 1000 1581 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0
Control Delay (s) 8.7 4.8 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.7 4.8 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
18.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Intersection Capacity Worksheets:
2017 Existing
With Improvements
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2017 Existing with Improvements - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1541 148 120 531 12 86 269 116
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.67 0.13 0.72 0.21 0.01 0.62 0.17 0.65
Control Delay 102.0 21.3 2.2 99.9 9.3 0.0 90.7 0.2 82.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 102.0 21.3 2.2 99.9 9.3 0.0 90.7 0.2 82.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 522 0 132 95 0 94 0 116
Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 672 23 #260 167 0 129 0 149
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 67 2284 1102 171 2478 1163 204 1579 254
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.67 0.13 0.70 0.21 0.01 0.42 0.17 0.46
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing with Improvements - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 22 1264 121 112 494 11 50 14 202 40 20 26
Future Volume (vph) 22 1264 121 112 494 11 50 14 202 40 20 26
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 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 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
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1809 1579 1754
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.78
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1185 1579 1407
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74
Adj. Flow (vph) 27 1541 148 120 531 12 67 19 269 54 27 35
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 51 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1541 97 120 531 9 0 86 269 0 107 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.6 113.6 16.2 123.3 123.3 20.3 172.6 20.8
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.6 113.6 16.2 123.3 123.3 20.3 172.6 20.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.09 0.71 0.71 0.12 1.00 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 2284 1052 167 2479 1142 139 1579 169
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.44 c0.07 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.17 c0.08
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.67 0.09 0.72 0.21 0.01 0.62 0.17 0.63
Uniform Delay, d1 81.2 18.1 10.7 76.0 8.3 7.1 72.5 0.0 72.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.3 1.6 0.2 21.5 0.2 0.0 9.1 0.2 8.5
Delay (s) 86.5 19.8 10.9 97.5 8.5 7.1 81.5 0.2 80.7
Level of Service F B B F A A F A F
Approach Delay (s) 20.0 24.6 19.9 80.7
Approach LOS C C B F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
23.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 172.6 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.1% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2017 Existing with Improvements - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 677 62 295 1545 35 92 181 76
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.34 0.06 0.96 0.62 0.03 0.63 0.11 0.37
Control Delay 97.3 20.3 0.1 112.8 15.1 0.1 90.4 0.1 59.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 97.3 20.3 0.1 112.8 15.1 0.1 90.4 0.1 59.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 197 0 331 421 0 101 0 63
Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 304 0 #608 684 0 143 0 103
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 67 2015 981 306 2478 1163 215 1579 288
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.34 0.06 0.96 0.62 0.03 0.43 0.11 0.26
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing with Improvements - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 21 643 59 271 1421 32 61 12 143 17 19 25
Future Volume (vph) 21 643 59 271 1421 32 61 12 143 17 19 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
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 0.85 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1804 1579 1742
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1252 1579 1570
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.80
Adj. Flow (vph) 22 677 62 295 1545 35 77 15 181 21 24 31
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 14 0
Lane Groin Flnw (vnhl 99 R77 RF 9Q' 1.r,4c 7F n Q7 1R1 n F9 n
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 100.3 100.3 29.6 123.4 123.4 20.3 172.7 20.8
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 100.3 100.3 29.6 123.4 123.4 20.3 172.7 20.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.58 0.58 0.17 0.71 0.71 0.12 1.00 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 2015 928 306 2480 1142 147 1579 189
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.20 c0.17 c0.45
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 c0.07 0.11 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.34 0.04 0.96 0.62 0.02 0.63 0.11 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 81.0 18.9 15.5 71.0 12.7 7.1 72.6 0.0 69.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 0.5 0.1 42.9 1.2 0.0 9.1 0.1 1.4
Delay (s) 84.9 19.3 15.6 113.9 13.9 7.2 81.7 0.1 70.9
Level of Service F B B F B A F A E
Approach Delay (s) 20.9 29.5 27.6 70.9
Approach LOS C C C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
28.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 172.7 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2017 Existing with Improvements - Saturday Peak Hr
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 626 43 144 673 22 56 139 66
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.27 0.04 0.82 0.26 0.02 0.41 0.09 0.40
Control Delay 104.4 12.2 0.1 107.3 8.6 0.1 79.4 0.1 61.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 104.4 12.2 0.1 107.3 8.6 0.1 79.4 0.1 61.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 126 0 154 107 0 59 0 54
Queue Length 95th (ft) #93 234 0 #319 211 0 100 0 106
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 69 2339 1083 175 2546 1165 258 1599 298
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.27 0.04 0.82 0.26 0.02 0.22 0.09 0.22
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing with Improvements - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 31 582 40 127 592 19 25 22 117 17 22 22
Future Volume (vph) 31 582 40 127 592 19 25 22 117 17 22 22
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 0.85 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1547 1787 3471 1562 1832 1599 1765
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.90
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1547 1787 3471 1562 1464 1599 1602
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 33 626 43 144 673 22 30 26 139 18 24 24
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 14 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 13 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 626 29 144 673 16 0 56 139 0 53 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 3 3 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.4 113.4 16.6 123.5 123.5 15.7 168.2 16.2
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.4 113.4 16.6 123.5 123.5 15.7 168.2 16.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.67 0.67 0.10 0.73 0.73 0.09 1.00 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 69 2340 1042 176 2548 1146 136 1599 154
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.18 c0.08 c0.19
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 c0.04 0.09 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.27 0.03 0.82 0.26 0.01 0.41 0.09 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 79.2 10.9 9.1 74.3 7.4 6.0 71.9 0.0 71.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 0.3 0.0 29.5 0.3 0.0 2.8 0.1 1.8
Delay (s) 86.2 11.2 9.1 103.8 7.6 6.0 74.6 0.1 72.9
Level of Service F B A F A A E A E
Approach Delay (s) 14.6 24.1 21.5 72.9
Approach LOS B C C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
21.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 168.2 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.5% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Intersection Capacity Worksheets:
2020 Background
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2020 Background - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 1890 154 124 706 11 88 280 115
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.83 0.14 0.74 0.28 0.01 0.63 0.18 0.65
Control Delay 105.2 27.7 2.1 101.6 10.0 0.0 91.3 0.2 82.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 105.2 27.7 2.1 101.6 10.0 0.0 91.3 0.2 82.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 781 0 137 134 0 96 0 115
Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 963 23 #272 230 0 130 0 148
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 67 2282 1104 171 2478 1163 205 1579 251
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.83 0.14 0.73 0.28 0.01 0.43 0.18 0.46
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations 'Pi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 1550 126 115 657 10 51 15 210 40 20 25
Future Volume (vph) 25 1550 126 115 657 10 51 15 210 40 20 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 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 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
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1810 1579 1755
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.77
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1194 1579 1391
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74
Adj. Flow (vph) 30 1890 154 124 706 11 68 20 280 54 27 34
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 53 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 1890 101 124 706 8 0 88 280 0 106 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.5 113.5 16.3 123.3 123.3 20.3 172.6 20.8
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.5 113.5 16.3 123.3 123.3 20.3 172.6 20.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.09 0.71 0.71 0.12 1.00 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 2282 1051 168 2479 1142 140 1579 167
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.54 c0.07 0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.18 c0.08
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.83 0.10 0.74 0.28 0.01 0.63 0.18 0.64
Uniform Delay, d1 81.3 22.2 10.8 76.1 8.8 7.1 72.6 0.0 72.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.4 3.6 0.2 22.8 0.3 0.0 9.6 0.2 8.6
Delay (s) 87.7 25.9 11.0 98.9 9.1 7.1 82.2 0.2 80.9
Level of Service F C B F A A F A F
Approach Delay (s) 25.6 22.3 19.8 80.9
Approach LOS C C B F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
26.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 172.6 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 3 0 21 20 255 44 61 175 25
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 3 0 21 20 255 44 61 175 25
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.69 0.69 0.69
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 3 0 23 25 315 54 88 254 36
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 863 867 272 840 858 342 290 369
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 863 867 272 840 858 342 290 369
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 99 100 97 98 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 248 265 769 266 268 703 1278 1195
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 0 26 394 378
Volume Left 0 3 25 88
Volume Right 0 23 54 36
cSH 1700 591 1278 1195
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 1 6
Control Delay (s) 0.0 11.4 0.7 2.5
Lane LOS A B A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.4 0.7 2.5
Approach LOS A B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 1794 21 40 617 25 22 0 106 55 2 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 65 1794 21 40 617 25 22 0 106 55 2 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.74
Hourly flow rate (vph) 75 2062 24 44 686 28 30 0 145 74 3 7
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 686 2062 2644 2986 1031 1955 2986 343
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 686 2062 2644 2986 1031 1955 2986 343
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 % 92 84 0 100 38 0 72 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 910 271 7 11 232 12 11 656
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 75 1031 1031 24 44 343 343 28 175 84
Volume Left 75 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 30 74
Volume Right 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 28 145 7
cSH 910 1700 1700 1700 271 1700 1700 1700 37 13
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.02 4.71 6.50
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 Err Err
Control Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err Err
Lane LOS A C F F
Approach Delay (s) 0.3 1.2 Err Err
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 815.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background AM Peak Hour
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 86 24 19 42 26 40
Future Volume (Veh/h) 86 24 19 42 26 40
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.59 0.59 0.64 0.64
Hourly flow rate (vph) 118 33 32 71 41 63
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 208 72 104
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 208 72 104
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 85 97 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 766 992 1494
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 151 103 104
Volume Left 118 32 0
Volume Right 33 0 63
cSH 807 1494 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.02 0.06
Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 2 0
Control Delay (s) 10.5 2.4 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.5 2.4 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
22.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2020 Background - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 1016 63 304 1964 38 101 190 81
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.51 0.06 1.00 0.80 0.03 0.66 0.12 0.40
Control Delay 97.2 24.0 0.1 121.8 21.4 0.1 92.6 0.2 61.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 97.2 24.0 0.1 121.8 21.4 0.1 92.6 0.2 61.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 345 0 347 707 0 111 0 70
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 502 0 #634 1104 0 156 0 111
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 66 2003 976 304 2464 1157 213 1579 277
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.51 0.06 1.00 0.80 0.03 0.47 0.12 0.29
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 965 60 280 1807 35 65 15 150 20 20 25
Future Volume (vph) 20 965 60 280 1807 35 65 15 150 20 20 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
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 0.85 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1806 1579 1747
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.86
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1248 1579 1525
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.80
Adj. Flow (vph) 21 1016 63 304 1964 38 82 19 190 25 25 31
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 27 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 13 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 1016 36 304 1964 27 0 101 190 0 68 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 100.2 100.2 29.6 123.3 123.3 21.3 173.6 21.8
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 100.2 100.2 29.6 123.3 123.3 21.3 173.6 21.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.58 0.58 0.17 0.71 0.71 0.12 1.00 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 2003 922 304 2465 1135 153 1579 191
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.29 c0.17 c0.57
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 c0.08 0.12 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.51 0.04 1.00 0.80 0.02 0.66 0.12 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 81.4 21.9 15.9 72.0 16.8 7.4 72.7 0.0 69.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 0.9 0.1 51.6 2.8 0.0 11.2 0.2 1.6
Delay (s) 85.2 22.9 16.0 123.6 19.6 7.5 83.9 0.2 71.0
Level of Service F C B F B A F A E
Approach Delay (s) 23.7 33.1 29.2 71.0
Approach LOS C C C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
30.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 173.6 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.0% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 2 10 11 2 15 50 205 46 25 300 40
Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 2 10 11 2 15 50 205 46 25 300 40
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.87 0.87 0.87
Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 4 20 28 5 38 61 250 56 29 345 46
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 866 854 368 848 849 278 391 306
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 866 854 368 848 849 278 391 306
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 96 99 97 89 98 95 95 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 243 275 680 256 277 763 1173 1260
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 34 71 367 420
Volume Left 10 28 61 29
Volume Right 20 38 56 46
cSH 399 400 1173 1260
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.18 0.05 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 16 4 2
Control Delay (s) 14.9 15.9 1.8 0.8
Lane LOS BC A A
Approach Delay (s) 14.9 15.9 1.8 0.8
Approach LOS B C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 987 43 44 1802 45 21 5 45 15 5 60
Future Volume (Veh/h) 80 987 43 44 1802 45 21 5 45 15 5 60
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 89 1097 48 47 1938 48 25 6 54 17 6 68
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
MPrlian tvnp Nnna Nnna
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1938 1097 2341 3307 548 2762 3307 969
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1938 1097 2341 3307 548 2762 3307 969
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 % 71 93 0 0 89 0 0 73
cM capacity (veh/h) 303 638 0 6 483 0 6 255
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 89 548 548 48 47 969 969 48 85 91
Volume Left 89 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 25 17
Volume Right 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 48 54 68
cSH 303 1700 1700 1700 638 1700 1700 1700 0 0
Volume to Capacity 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.03 0.07 0.57 0.57 0.03 Err Err
Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Err Err
Control Delay (s) 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err Err
Lane LOS C B F F
Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.3 Err Err
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background PM Peak Hour
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 26 61 36 48 39
Future Volume (Veh/h) 35 26 61 36 48 39
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 49 36 76 45 56 45
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 276 78 101
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 276 78 101
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 93 96 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 680 985 1498
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 85 121 101
Volume Left 49 76 0
Volume Right 36 0 45
cSH 783 1498 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.05 0.06
Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 4 0
Control Delay (s) 10.2 4.9 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.2 4.9 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
22.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2020 Background - Saturday Peak Hr
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 831 43 148 936 23 60 143 76
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.36 0.04 0.85 0.37 0.02 0.44 0.09 0.46
Control Delay 103.7 13.4 0.1 110.8 9.7 0.1 80.8 0.1 66.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 103.7 13.4 0.1 110.8 9.7 0.1 80.8 0.1 66.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 182 0 159 167 0 64 0 66
Queue Length 95th (ft) #91 326 0 #332 315 0 106 0 122
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 69 2334 1081 175 2540 1163 251 1599 294
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.36 0.04 0.85 0.37 0.02 0.24 0.09 0.26
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background - Saturday Peak Hr
Lane Configurations 11 t4 ri 11 tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 773 40 130 824 20 25 25 120 20 25 25
Future Volume (vph) 30 773 40 130 824 20 25 25 120 20 25 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 0.85 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1547 1787 3471 1562 1835 1599 1765
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.88
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1547 1787 3471 1562 1425 1599 1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 32 831 43 148 936 23 30 30 143 22 27 27
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 14 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 12 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 831 29 148 936 17 0 60 143 0 64 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 3 3 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.4 113.4 16.6 123.5 123.5 16.1 168.6 16.6
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.4 113.4 16.6 123.5 123.5 16.1 168.6 16.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.67 0.67 0.10 0.73 0.73 0.10 1.00 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 68 2334 1040 175 2542 1144 136 1599 155
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.24 c0.08 c0.27
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 c0.04 0.09 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.36 0.03 0.85 0.37 0.01 0.44 0.09 0.41
Uniform Delay, d1 79.4 11.9 9.2 74.7 8.3 6.1 72.0 0.0 71.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.9 0.4 0.0 34.3 0.4 0.0 3.1 0.1 2.4
Delay (s) 86.2 12.3 9.3 109.0 8.7 6.1 75.1 0.1 73.9
Level of Service F B A F A A E A E
Approach Delay (s) 14.8 22.0 22.3 73.9
Approach LOS B C C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
20.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 168.6 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 5 10 20 5 10 1 135 15 10 185 1
Future Volume (Veh/h) 25 5 10 20 5 10 1 135 15 10 185 1
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 30 6 12 33 8 17 1 153 17 11 201 1
Pedestrians 1 3 4 5
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 414 400 206 409 392 170 203 173
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 414 400 206 409 392 170 203 173
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 94 99 99 94 99 98 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 526 534 833 533 539 870 1373 1406
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 48 58 171 213
Volume Left 30 33 1 11
Volume Right 12 17 17 1
cSH 580 603 1373 1406
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 8 0 1
Control Delay (s) 11.8 11.6 0.1 0.5
Lane LOS B B A A
Approach Delay (s) 11.8 11.6 0.1 0.5
Approach LOS B B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
28.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 817 31 10 884 30 12 5 10 25 2 10
Future Volume (Veh/h) 60 817 31 10 884 30 12 5 10 25 2 10
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 61 834 32 12 1052 36 17 7 14 33 3 13
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 1052 834 1508 2032 417 1618 2032 526
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1052 834 1508 2032 417 1618 2032 526
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 % 91 99 76 86 98 41 94 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 663 801 72 51 587 56 51 499
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 61 417 417 32 12 526 526 36 38 49
Volume Left 61 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 17 33
Volume Right 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 36 14 13
cSH 663 1700 1700 1700 801 1700 1700 1700 96 73
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.40 0.68
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 40 77
Control Delay (s) 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.5 124.6
Lane LOS B A F F
Approach Delay (s) 0.7 0.1 65.5 124.6
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background - Saturday Peak Hr
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 15 20 17 31 15
Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 15 20 17 31 15
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 22 25 21 41 20
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 122 51 61
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 122 51 61
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 98 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 862 1020 1549
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 29 46 61
Volume Left 7 25 0
Volume Right 22 0 20
cSH 977 1549 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0
Control Delay (s) 8.8 4.1 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 4.1 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Intersection Capacity Worksheets:
2037 Background
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2037 Background - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 2021 147 137 842 16 78 256 111
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.88 0.13 0.80 0.34 0.01 0.58 0.16 0.62
Control Delay 100.6 30.8 2.6 106.9 10.3 0.0 88.7 0.2 79.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 100.6 30.8 2.6 106.9 10.3 0.0 88.7 0.2 79.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 892 3 151 164 0 85 0 110
Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 #1450 37 #311 284 0 144 0 180
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 67 2287 1100 172 2489 1168 204 1579 266
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.88 0.13 0.80 0.34 0.01 0.38 0.16 0.42
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 1920 140 130 800 15 55 15 230 45 25 30
Future Volume (vph) 25 1920 140 130 800 15 55 15 230 45 25 30
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 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 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
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1809 1579 1756
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.82
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1182 1579 1469
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 26 2021 147 137 842 16 61 17 256 50 28 33
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 47 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 2021 100 137 842 11 0 78 256 0 102 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.3 113.3 16.5 123.3 123.3 19.5 171.8 20.0
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.3 113.3 16.5 123.3 123.3 19.5 171.8 20.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.10 0.72 0.72 0.11 1.00 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 2289 1054 171 2491 1147 134 1579 171
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.58 c0.08 0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.16 c0.07
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.88 0.09 0.80 0.34 0.01 0.58 0.16 0.60
Uniform Delay, d1 80.7 23.8 10.6 76.0 9.0 6.9 72.3 0.0 72.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 5.4 0.2 27.8 0.4 0.0 7.4 0.2 6.4
Delay (s) 85.7 29.2 10.8 103.9 9.4 6.9 79.7 0.2 78.5
Level of Service F C B F A A E A E
Approach Delay (s) 28.7 22.4 18.8 78.5
Approach LOS C C B E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
27.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 171.8 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 5 0 25 20 280 50 70 195 25
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 5 0 25 20 280 50 70 195 25
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 5 0 27 22 311 56 78 217 28
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 797 798 231 770 784 339 245 367
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 797 798 231 770 784 339 245 367
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 98 100 96 98 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 276 294 811 299 300 706 1327 1197
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 0 32 389 323
Volume Left 0 5 22 78
Volume Right 0 27 56 28
cSH 1700 582 1327 1197
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 1 5
Control Delay (s) 0.0 11.5 0.6 2.5
Lane LOS A B A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.5 0.6 2.5
Approach LOS A B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations " 't't rf
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 2165 25 45 760 30 25 1 115 65 2 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 70 2165 25 45 760 30 25 1 115 65 2 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 2279 26 47 800 32 28 1 128 72 2 6
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 800 2279 2922 3321 1140 2182 3321 400
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 800 2279 2922 3321 1140 2182 3321 400
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 % 91 79 0 83 35 0 67 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 825 223 4 6 196 6 6 603
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 74 1140 1140 26 47 400 400 32 157 80
Volume Left 74 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 28 72
Volume Right 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 32 128 6
cSH 825 1700 1700 1700 223 1700 1700 1700 20 7
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.67 0.67 0.02 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.02 7.76 11.94
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 Err Err
Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err Err
Lane LOS A D F F
Approach Delay (s) 0.3 1.4 Err Err
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 678.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background AM Peak Hour
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 95 25 25 45 25 45
Future Volume (Veh/h) 95 25 25 45 25 45
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 106 28 28 50 28 50
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 159 53 78
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 159 53 78
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 87 97 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 819 1017 1527
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 134 78 78
Volume Left 106 28 0
Volume Right 28 0 50
cSH 854 1527 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.02 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 1 0
Control Delay (s) 10.0 2.7 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 10.0 2.7 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2037 Background - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 1084 74 326 2053 37 95 183 77
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.54 0.08 1.07 0.83 0.03 0.64 0.12 0.38
Control Delay 101.1 24.4 0.2 136.0 22.7 0.1 90.9 0.2 57.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 101.1 24.4 0.2 136.0 22.7 0.1 90.9 0.2 57.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 373 0 -398 768 0 104 0 62
Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 548 0 #695 1224 0 171 0 118
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 67 2011 980 305 2474 1161 216 1579 286
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.54 0.08 1.07 0.83 0.03 0.44 0.12 0.27
Intersection Summary
Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 1030 70 310 1950 35 70 15 165 20 20 30
Future Volume (vph) 25 1030 70 310 1950 35 70 15 165 20 20 30
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
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 0.85 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1805 1579 1736
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.88
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1258 1579 1556
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 26 1084 74 326 2053 37 78 17 183 22 22 33
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 31 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 16 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 1084 43 326 2053 26 0 95 183 0 61 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 100.2 100.2 29.6 123.3 123.3 20.6 172.9 21.1
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 100.2 100.2 29.6 123.3 123.3 20.6 172.9 21.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.58 0.58 0.17 0.71 0.71 0.12 1.00 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 2011 926 305 2475 1140 149 1579 189
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.31 c0.18 c0.59
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.02 c0.08 0.12 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.54 0.05 1.07 0.83 0.02 0.64 0.12 0.32
Uniform Delay, d1 81.3 22.2 15.7 71.7 17.4 7.2 72.6 0.0 69.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 1.0 0.1 71.0 3.4 0.0 9.7 0.1 1.4
Delay (s) 86.3 23.3 15.8 142.6 20.8 7.3 82.3 0.1 70.7
Level of Service F C B F C A F A E
Approach Delay (s) 24.2 37.0 28.2 70.7
Approach LOS C D C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 172.9 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.9% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 2 10 15 2 15 55 225 50 30 330 40
Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 2 10 15 2 15 55 225 50 30 330 40
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 2 11 17 2 17 61 250 56 33 367 44
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 873 883 389 867 877 278 411 306
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 873 883 389 867 877 278 411 306
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 98 99 98 93 99 98 95 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 248 264 661 252 266 763 1153 1260
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 19 36 367 444
Volume Left 6 17 61 33
Volume Right 11 17 56 44
cSH 393 370 1153 1260
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 8 4 2
Control Delay (s) 14.6 15.8 1.8 0.8
Lane LOS BC A A
Approach Delay (s) 14.6 15.8 1.8 0.8
Approach LOS B C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
41.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 1050 45 45 1945 50 25 5 50 15 5 65
Future Volume (Veh/h) 90 1050 45 45 1945 50 25 5 50 15 5 65
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 95 1105 47 47 2047 53 28 6 56 17 6 72
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 2047 1105 2416 3436 552 2886 3436 1024
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 2047 1105 2416 3436 552 2886 3436 1024
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 % 65 93 0 0 88 0 0 69
cM capacity (veh/h) 275 633 0 4 480 0 4 235
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 95 552 552 47 47 1024 1024 53 90 95
Volume Left 95 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 28 17
Volume Right 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 53 56 72
cSH 275 1700 1700 1700 633 1700 1700 1700 0 0
Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.33 0.33 0.03 0.07 0.60 0.60 0.03 Err Err
Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Err Err
Control Delay (s) 24.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err Err
Lane LOS C B F F
Approach Delay (s) 1.9 0.2 Err Err
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.8% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background PM Peak Hour
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 30 70 35 55 45
Future Volume (Veh/h) 40 30 70 35 55 45
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 44 33 78 39 61 50
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 281 86 111
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 281 86 111
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 93 97 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 674 976 1485
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 77 117 111
Volume Left 44 78 0
Volume Right 33 0 50
cSH 777 1485 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.05 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 4 0
Control Delay (s) 10.1 5.2 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.1 5.2 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2037 Background - Saturday Peak Hr
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 1026 47 153 1021 21 61 150 76
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.44 0.04 0.87 0.39 0.02 0.46 0.09 0.45
Control Delay 108.7 14.6 0.1 115.5 9.5 0.1 81.5 0.1 66.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 108.7 14.6 0.1 115.5 9.5 0.1 81.5 0.1 66.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 40 244 0 165 190 0 65 0 66
Queue Length 95th (ft) #109 428 0 #360 365 0 115 0 122
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 69 2331 1094 175 2603 1189 245 1599 293
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.44 0.04 0.87 0.39 0.02 0.25 0.09 0.26
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 35 975 45 145 970 20 30 25 135 20 25 25
Future Volume (vph) 35 975 45 145 970 20 30 25 135 20 25 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 0.85 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1547 1787 3471 1562 1832 1599 1765
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.88
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1547 1787 3471 1562 1394 1599 1583
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 37 1026 47 153 1021 21 33 28 150 22 27 27
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 15 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 12 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 1026 32 153 1021 16 0 61 150 0 64 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 3 3 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.2 115.2 115.2 16.6 126.6 126.6 16.3 170.6 16.8
Effective Green, g (s) 5.2 115.2 115.2 16.6 126.6 126.6 16.3 170.6 16.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.68 0.68 0.10 0.74 0.74 0.10 1.00 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 54 2343 1044 173 2575 1159 133 1599 155
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.09 0.29
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 c0.04 0.09 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.44 0.03 0.88 0.40 0.01 0.46 0.09 0.41
Uniform Delay, d1 81.9 12.8 9.2 76.1 8.0 5.7 73.0 0.0 72.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 32.6 0.6 0.1 42.1 0.4 0.0 3.4 0.1 2.4
Delay (s) 114.5 13.4 9.2 118.1 8.5 5.8 76.4 0.1 74.7
Level of Service F B A F A A E A E
Approach Delay (s) 16.6 22.5 22.2 74.7
Approach LOS B C C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
21.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 170.6 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 5 10 20 5 15 1 150 15 15 205 1
Future Volume (Veh/h) 25 5 10 20 5 15 1 150 15 15 205 1
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 28 6 11 22 6 17 1 167 17 16 223 1
Pedestrians 1 3 4 5
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s)
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage
0 0 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 459 446 228 454 438 184 225 187
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 459 446 228 454 438 184 225 187
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free
94 99 99 96 99 98 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 490 501 809 497 506 855 1348 1389
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 45 45 185 240
Volume Left 28 22 1 16
Volume Right 11 17 17 1
cSH 544 592 1348 1389
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 6 0 1
Control Delay (s) 12.2 11.6 0.0 0.6
Lane LOS B B A A
Approach Delay (s) 12.2 11.6 0.0 0.6
Approach LOS B B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 1015 30 10 1030 35 10 5 10 30 2 10
Future Volume (Veh/h) 65 1015 30 10 1030 35 10 5 10 30 2 10
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 66 1036 31 11 1084 37 11 6 11 33 2 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
MPrlian tvnp Nnna Nnna
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1084 1036 1733 2274 518 1759 2274 542
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1084 1036 1733 2274 518 1759 2274 542
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 % 90 98 77 83 98 22 94 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 645 673 49 35 505 42 35 487
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 66 518 518 31 11 542 542 37 28 46
Volume Left 66 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 11 33
Volume Right 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 37 11 11
cSH 645 1700 1700 1700 673 1700 1700 1700 67 54
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.32 0.32 0.02 0.42 0.86
Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 40 93
Control Delay (s) 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.8 205.0
Lane LOS B B F F
Approach Delay (s) 0.7 0.1 92.8 205.0
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background - Saturday Peak Hr
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 15 20 15 30 15
Future Volume (Veh/h) 10 15 20 15 30 15
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 17 22 17 33 17
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 102 42 50
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 102 42 50
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 99 98 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 886 1032 1563
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 28 39 50
Volume Left 11 22 0
Volume Right 17 0 17
cSH 969 1563 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0
Control Delay (s) 8.8 4.2 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 4.2 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
18.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Intersection Capacity Worksheets:
2020 Background + Project
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2020 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 1890 165 129 706 11 102 297 115
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.84 0.15 0.77 0.29 0.01 0.68 0.19 0.66
Control Delay 106.5 28.9 2.1 105.2 10.4 0.0 95.1 0.3 83.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 106.5 28.9 2.1 105.2 10.4 0.0 95.1 0.3 83.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 812 0 145 141 0 113 0 116
Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 963 23 #288 230 0 149 0 149
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 66 2259 1098 169 2456 1153 203 1579 233
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.84 0.15 0.76 0.29 0.01 0.50 0.19 0.49
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 1550 135 120 657 10 61 16 223 40 20 25
Future Volume (vph) 25 1550 135 120 657 10 61 16 223 40 20 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 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 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
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1808 1579 1755
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.72
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1192 1579 1298
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74
Adj. Flow (vph) 30 1890 165 129 706 11 81 21 297 54 27 34
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 58 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 1890 107 129 706 8 0 102 297 0 106 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.4 113.4 16.4 123.3 123.3 21.8 174.1 22.3
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.4 113.4 16.4 123.3 123.3 21.8 174.1 22.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.65 0.65 0.09 0.71 0.71 0.13 1.00 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 2260 1041 168 2458 1132 149 1579 166
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.54 c0.07 0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.00 c0.09 0.19 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.84 0.10 0.77 0.29 0.01 0.68 0.19 0.64
Uniform Delay, d1 82.1 23.2 11.3 77.0 9.3 7.4 72.9 0.0 72.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 3.9 0.2 25.2 0.3 0.0 13.2 0.3 9.1
Delay (s) 88.7 27.1 11.5 102.2 9.6 7.5 86.1 0.3 81.2
Level of Service F C B F A A F A F
Approach Delay (s) 26.8 23.7 22.2 81.2
Approach LOS C C C F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 174.1 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.5% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 4 0 45 20 255 46 75 175 25
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 4 0 45 20 255 46 75 175 25
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.69 0.69 0.69
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 4 0 48 25 315 57 109 254 36
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 932 912 272 884 902 344 290 372
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 932 912 272 884 902 344 290 372
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 98 100 93 98 91
cM capacity (veh/h) 212 245 769 245 248 702 1278 1192
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 0 52 397 399
Volume Left 0 4 25 109
Volume Right 0 48 57 36
cSH 1700 614 1278 1192
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 7 1 8
Control Delay (s) 0.0 11.4 0.7 2.9
Lane LOS AB A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.4 0.7 2.9
Approach LOS A B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 1807 21 42 622 25 22 1 110 55 2 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 65 1807 21 42 622 25 22 1 110 55 2 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.74
Hourly flow rate (vph) 75 2077 24 47 691 28 30 1 151 74 3 7
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 691 2077 2668 3012 1038 1974 3012 346
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 691 2077 2668 3012 1038 1974 3012 346
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 % 92 82 0 90 34 0 70 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 906 268 7 10 229 10 10 653
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 75 1038 1038 24 47 346 346 28 182 84
Volume Left 75 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 30 74
Volume Right 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 28 151 7
cSH 906 1700 1700 1700 268 1700 1700 1700 35 11
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.02 5.14 8.00
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Err Err
Control Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err Err
Lane LOS A C F F
Approach Delay (s) 0.3 1.3 Err Err
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 829.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 25 20 42 26 42
Future Volume (Veh/h) 90 25 20 42 26 42
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.59 0.59 0.64 0.64
Hourly flow rate (vph) 123 34 34 71 41 66
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 213 74 107
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 213 74 107
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 84 97 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 760 990 1490
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 157 105 107
Volume Left 123 34 0
Volume Right 34 0 66
cSH 800 1490 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.02 0.06
Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 2 0
Control Delay (s) 10.6 2.5 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.6 2.5 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017 5: Chukka Trail (West) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 108 13 3 29 20 4
Future Volume (Veh/h) 108 13 3 29 20 4
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 120 14 3 32 22 4
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 134 165 127
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 134 165 127
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 97 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1457 826 926
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 134 35 26
Volume Left 0 3 22
Volume Right 14 0 4
cSH 1700 1457 840
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.00 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 9.4
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 9.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 6
09/26/2017 6: Riverstone Drive (East) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 109 3 0 27 5 1
Future Volume (Veh/h) 109 3 0 27 5 1
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 121 3 0 30 6 1
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 124 152 122
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 124 152 122
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1469 842 931
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 124 30 7
Volume Left 0 0 6
Volume Right 3 0 1
cSH 1700 1469 853
Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.00 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.3
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 7
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2020 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 1016 74 318 1964 38 119 197 82
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.51 0.08 1.06 0.81 0.03 0.72 0.12 0.39
Control Delay 98.3 24.9 0.2 135.2 22.8 0.1 96.4 0.2 61.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 98.3 24.9 0.2 135.2 22.8 0.1 96.4 0.2 61.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 360 0 -396 754 0 134 0 72
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 502 0 #672 1104 0 181 0 114
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 66 1979 966 300 2434 1144 210 1579 263
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.51 0.08 1.06 0.81 0.03 0.57 0.12 0.31
Intersection Summary
Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project- PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 965 70 293 1807 35 78 16 156 20 21 25
Future Volume (vph) 20 965 70 293 1807 35 78 16 156 20 21 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
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 0.85 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1804 1579 1748
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.82
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1242 1579 1463
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.80
Adj. Flow (vph) 21 1016 74 318 1964 38 99 20 197 25 26 31
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 32 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 12 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 1016 42 318 1964 27 0 119 197 0 70 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 100.2 100.2 29.6 123.3 123.3 23.4 175.7 23.9
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 100.2 100.2 29.6 123.3 123.3 23.4 175.7 23.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.57 0.57 0.17 0.70 0.70 0.13 1.00 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 1979 911 301 2435 1122 165 1579 199
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.29 c0.18 c0.57
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.02 c0.10 0.12 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.51 0.05 1.06 0.81 0.02 0.72 0.12 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 82.4 22.9 16.7 73.0 18.0 7.9 73.0 0.0 68.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 1.0 0.1 67.5 3.0 0.0 15.3 0.2 1.5
Delay (s) 86.2 23.9 16.8 140.6 21.0 8.0 88.3 0.2 70.3
Level of Service F C B F C A F A E
Approach Delay (s) 24.6 37.2 33.4 70.3
Approach LOS C D C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
33.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 175.7 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.4% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 2 10 13 2 36 50 205 47 49 300 40
Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 2 10 13 2 36 50 205 47 49 300 40
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.87 0.87 0.87
Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 4 20 33 5 92 61 250 57 56 345 46
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 975 909 368 902 904 278 391 307
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 975 909 368 902 904 278 391 307
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 95 98 97 86 98 88 95 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 186 250 680 231 252 763 1173 1259
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 34 130 368 447
Volume Left 10 33 61 56
Volume Right 20 92 57 46
cSH 343 459 1173 1259
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.28 0.05 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 29 4 3
Control Delay (s) 16.6 15.9 1.8 1.4
Lane LOS CC A A
Approach Delay (s) 16.6 15.9 1.8 1.4
Approach LOS C C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project- PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 993 43 48 1815 45 21 5 48 15 5 60
Future Volume (Veh/h) 80 993 43 48 1815 45 21 5 48 15 5 60
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 89 1103 48 52 1952 48 25 6 57 17 6 68
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 1952 1103 2364 3337 552 2788 3337 976
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1952 1103 2364 3337 552 2788 3337 976
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 % 70 92 0 0 88 0 0 73
cM capacity (veh/h) 299 635 0 5 480 0 5 252
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 89 552 552 48 52 976 976 48 88 91
Volume Left 89 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 25 17
Volume Right 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 48 57 68
cSH 299 1700 1700 1700 635 1700 1700 1700 0 0
Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.32 0.32 0.03 0.08 0.57 0.57 0.03 Err Err
Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Err Err
Control Delay (s) 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err Err
Lane LOS C B F F
Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.3 Err Err
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 27 62 36 48 43
Future Volume (Veh/h) 38 27 62 36 48 43
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86
Hourly flow rate (vph) 53 38 78 45 56 50
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 282 81 106
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 282 81 106
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 92 96 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 673 982 1491
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 91 123 106
Volume Left 53 78 0
Volume Right 38 0 50
cSH 775 1491 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.05 0.06
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 4 0
Control Delay (s) 10.3 4.9 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.3 4.9 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
22.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017 5: Chukka Trail (West) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project- PM Peak Hour
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 20 4 35 18 3
Future Volume (Veh/h) 81 20 4 35 18 3
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 90 22 4 39 20 3
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 112 148 101
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 112 148 101
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 98 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1484 844 957
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 112 43 23
Volume Left 0 4 20
Volume Right 22 0 3
cSH 1700 1484 857
Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.00 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 9.3
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 9.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
15.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 6
09/26/2017 6: Riverstone Drive (East) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project- PM Peak Hour
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 79 5 1 35 4 1
Future Volume (Veh/h) 79 5 1 35 4 1
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 88 6 1 39 4 1
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 94 132 91
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 94 132 91
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1506 864 969
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 94 40 5
Volume Left 0 1 4
Volume Right 6 0 1
cSH 1700 1506 883
Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.00 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 9.1
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 9.1
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 7
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2020 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 831 115 200 936 23 77 160 84
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.36 0.11 1.16 0.36 0.02 0.55 0.10 0.45
Control Delay 105.3 14.1 1.8 180.3 9.7 0.1 85.7 0.1 68.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 105.3 14.1 1.8 180.3 9.7 0.1 85.7 0.1 68.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 193 0 -255 181 0 83 0 77
Queue Length 95th (ft) #91 326 23 #483 315 0 131 0 136
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 68 2305 1069 173 2573 1176 230 1599 293
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.36 0.11 1.16 0.36 0.02 0.33 0.10 0.29
Intersection Summary
Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Lane Configurations 'Pi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 773 107 176 824 20 38 27 134 20 32 25
Future Volume (vph) 30 773 107 176 824 20 38 27 134 20 32 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1547 1787 3471 1562 1828 1599 1776
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.89
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1547 1787 3471 1562 1322 1599 1607
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 32 831 115 200 936 23 45 32 160 22 35 27
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 38 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 10 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 831 77 200 936 17 0 77 160 0 74 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 3 3 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.1 115.1 115.1 16.5 126.5 126.5 18.2 172.3 18.7
Effective Green, g (s) 5.1 115.1 115.1 16.5 126.5 126.5 18.2 172.3 18.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.67 0.67 0.10 0.73 0.73 0.11 1.00 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 52 2318 1033 171 2548 1146 139 1599 174
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.24 c0.11 c0.27
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 c0.06 0.10 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.36 0.07 1.17 0.37 0.01 0.55 0.10 0.43
Uniform Delay, d1 82.6 12.5 10.0 77.9 8.3 6.2 73.2 0.0 71.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 22.3 0.4 0.1 121.8 0.4 0.0 5.8 0.1 2.3
Delay (s) 104.9 12.9 10.1 199.7 8.7 6.2 79.0 0.1 74.1
Level of Service F B B F A A E A E
Approach Delay (s) 15.6 41.6 25.7 74.1
Approach LOS B D C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
30.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 172.3 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.1% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 5 10 22 5 39 1 135 23 129 185 1
Future Volume (Veh/h) 25 5 10 22 5 39 1 135 23 129 185 1
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 30 6 12 37 8 65 1 153 26 140 201 1
Pedestrians 1 3 4 5
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 724 666 206 672 654 174 203 182
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 724 666 206 672 654 174 203 182
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 89 98 99 89 98 92 100 90
cM capacity (veh/h) 284 341 833 330 347 865 1373 1395
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 48 110 180 342
Volume Left 30 37 1 140
Volume Right 12 65 26 1
cSH 349 523 1373 1395
Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.21 0.00 0.10
Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 20 0 8
Control Delay (s) 16.9 13.7 0.0 3.7
Lane LOS C B A A
Approach Delay (s) 16.9 13.7 0.0 3.7
Approach LOS C B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 831 31 26 930 30 12 6 14 25 8 10
Future Volume (Veh/h) 60 831 31 26 930 30 12 6 14 25 8 10
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 61 848 32 31 1107 36 17 8 20 33 11 13
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 1107 848 1591 2139 424 1719 2139 554
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1107 848 1591 2139 424 1719 2139 554
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 % 90 96 67 81 97 24 74 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 632 792 51 43 581 43 43 479
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 61 424 424 32 31 554 554 36 45 57
Volume Left 61 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 17 33
Volume Right 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 36 20 13
cSH 632 1700 1700 1700 792 1700 1700 1700 81 55
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.04 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.55 1.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 61 120
Control Delay (s) 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.6 257.8
Lane LOS B A F F
Approach Delay (s) 0.7 0.3 94.6 257.8
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 9.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 17 28 17 31 37
Future Volume (Veh/h) 10 17 28 17 31 37
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 25 35 21 41 49
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 156 66 90
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 156 66 90
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 98 98 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 818 1001 1512
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 39 56 90
Volume Left 14 35 0
Volume Right 25 0 49
cSH 927 1512 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.02 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 2 0
Control Delay (s) 9.1 4.7 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 9.1 4.7 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017 5: Chukka Trail (West) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 116 22 40 26 4
Future Volume (Veh/h) 42 116 22 40 26 4
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 47 129 24 44 29 4
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 176 204 112
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 176 204 112
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 96 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1406 774 944
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 176 68 33
Volume Left 0 24 29
Volume Right 129 0 4
cSH 1700 1406 791
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.02 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3
Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.8 9.7
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.8 9.7
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
26.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 6
09/26/2017 6: Riverstone Drive (East) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 34 12 8 57 5 2
Future Volume (Veh/h) 34 12 8 57 5 2
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 38 13 9 63 6 2
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 51 126 44
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 51 126 44
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1562 867 1028
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 51 72 8
Volume Left 0 9 6
Volume Right 13 0 2
cSH 1700 1562 902
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 9.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 9.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 7
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Intersection Capacity Worksheets:
2037 Background + Project
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2037 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 2021 157 142 842 16 90 270 111
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.89 0.14 0.84 0.34 0.01 0.64 0.17 0.63
Control Delay 101.1 31.7 2.6 112.1 10.6 0.0 92.7 0.2 80.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 101.1 31.7 2.6 112.1 10.6 0.0 92.7 0.2 80.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 916 4 159 170 0 99 0 110
Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 #1450 38 #326 284 0 164 0 181
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 67 2273 1098 170 2474 1161 202 1579 250
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.89 0.14 0.84 0.34 0.01 0.45 0.17 0.44
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 1920 149 135 800 15 65 16 243 45 25 30
Future Volume (vph) 25 1920 149 135 800 15 65 16 243 45 25 30
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 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 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
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1807 1579 1756
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.77
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1180 1579 1388
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 26 2021 157 142 842 16 72 18 270 50 28 33
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 51 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 2021 106 142 842 11 0 90 270 0 102 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.3 113.3 16.5 123.3 123.3 20.6 172.9 21.1
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.3 113.3 16.5 123.3 123.3 20.6 172.9 21.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.10 0.71 0.71 0.12 1.00 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 2274 1047 170 2475 1140 140 1579 169
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.58 c0.08 0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.01 c0.08 0.17 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.89 0.10 0.84 0.34 0.01 0.64 0.17 0.60
Uniform Delay, d1 81.3 24.6 11.0 76.9 9.4 7.2 72.6 0.0 71.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 5.7 0.2 33.2 0.4 0.0 10.8 0.2 6.9
Delay (s) 86.3 30.3 11.2 110.1 9.8 7.2 83.4 0.2 78.9
Level of Service F C B F A A F A E
Approach Delay (s) 29.6 24.0 21.0 78.9
Approach LOS C C C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
28.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 172.9 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.2% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 6 0 49 20 280 52 84 195 25
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 6 0 49 20 280 52 84 195 25
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 6 0 53 22 311 58 93 217 28
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 854 830 231 801 815 340 245 369
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 854 830 231 801 815 340 245 369
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 98 100 92 98 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 240 278 811 282 284 705 1327 1195
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 0 59 391 338
Volume Left 0 6 22 93
Volume Right 0 53 58 28
cSH 1700 612 1327 1195
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 8 1 6
Control Delay (s) 0.0 11.5 0.6 2.8
Lane LOS AB A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.5 0.6 2.8
Approach LOS A B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations " 't't rf
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 2178 25 47 765 30 25 1 119 65 2 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 70 2178 25 47 765 30 25 1 119 65 2 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 2293 26 49 805 32 28 1 132 72 2 6
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 805 2293 2942 3344 1146 2198 3344 402
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 805 2293 2942 3344 1146 2198 3344 402
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 % 91 78 0 82 32 0 65 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 822 220 4 6 194 5 6 600
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 74 1146 1146 26 49 402 402 32 161 80
Volume Left 74 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 28 72
Volume Right 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 32 132 6
cSH 822 1700 1700 1700 220 1700 1700 1700 19 6
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.67 0.67 0.02 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.02 8.27 13.56
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 Err Err
Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err Err
Lane LOS A D F F
Approach Delay (s) 0.3 1.4 Err Err
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 685.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.5% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 99 26 26 45 25 47
Future Volume (Veh/h) 99 26 26 45 25 47
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 110 29 29 50 28 52
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 162 54 80
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 162 54 80
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 87 97 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 815 1016 1524
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 139 79 80
Volume Left 110 29 0
Volume Right 29 0 52
cSH 850 1524 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.02 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 1 0
Control Delay (s) 10.1 2.8 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.1 2.8 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017 5: Chukka Trail (West) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations T4
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 123 13 3 35 20 4
Future Volume (Veh/h) 123 13 3 35 20 4
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 137 14 3 39 22 4
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 151 189 144
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 151 189 144
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 97 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1436 801 906
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 151 42 26
Volume Left 0 3 22
Volume Right 14 0 4
cSH 1700 1436 815
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.00 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 9.6
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 9.6
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 6
09/26/2017 6: Riverstone Drive (East) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 124 3 0 33 5 1
Future Volume (Veh/h) 124 3 0 33 5 1
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 138 3 0 37 6 1
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 141 176 140
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 141 176 140
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1448 816 911
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 141 37 7
Volume Left 0 0 6
Volume Right 3 0 1
cSH 1700 1448 828
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.00 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.4
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 7
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2037 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 1084 84 340 2053 37 110 190 78
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.54 0.09 1.13 0.84 0.03 0.69 0.12 0.36
Control Delay 102.3 25.2 0.6 152.2 23.9 0.1 94.0 0.2 57.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 102.3 25.2 0.6 152.2 23.9 0.1 94.0 0.2 57.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 386 0 -441 810 0 122 0 64
Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 548 5 #734 1224 0 195 0 120
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 66 1991 971 302 2449 1151 213 1579 282
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.54 0.09 1.13 0.84 0.03 0.52 0.12 0.28
Intersection Summary
Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project- PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 1030 80 323 1950 35 83 16 171 20 21 30
Future Volume (vph) 25 1030 80 323 1950 35 83 16 171 20 21 30
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
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 0.85 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1804 1579 1738
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.88
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1599 1787 3471 1599 1251 1579 1549
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 26 1084 84 340 2053 37 92 18 190 22 23 33
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 36 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 15 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 1084 48 340 2053 26 0 110 190 0 63 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 100.2 100.2 29.6 123.3 123.3 22.3 174.6 22.8
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 100.2 100.2 29.6 123.3 123.3 22.3 174.6 22.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.57 0.57 0.17 0.71 0.71 0.13 1.00 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 1991 917 302 2451 1129 159 1579 202
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.31 c0.19 c0.59
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.02 c0.09 0.12 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.54 0.05 1.13 0.84 0.02 0.69 0.12 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 82.1 23.1 16.3 72.5 18.4 7.7 72.9 0.0 68.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 1.1 0.1 90.1 3.6 0.0 13.1 0.2 1.2
Delay (s) 87.3 24.1 16.5 162.6 22.1 7.7 86.0 0.2 70.0
Level of Service F C B F C A F A E
Approach Delay (s) 25.0 41.5 31.6 70.0
Approach LOS C D C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
36.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service
D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 174.6 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 2 10 17 2 36 55 225 51 54 330 40
Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 2 10 17 2 36 55 225 51 54 330 40
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 2 11 19 2 40 61 250 57 60 367 44
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 950 938 389 922 932 278 411 307
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 950 938 389 922 932 278 411 307
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 97 99 98 92 99 95 95 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 210 239 661 228 241 763 1153 1259
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 19 61 368 471
Volume Left 6 19 61 60
Volume Right 11 40 57 44
cSH 355 423 1153 1259
Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 12 4 4
Control Delay (s) 15.7 14.9 1.8 1.5
Lane LOS C B A A
Approach Delay (s) 15.7 14.9 1.8 1.5
Approach LOS C B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project- PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 1056 45 49 1958 50 25 5 53 15 5 65
Future Volume (Veh/h) 90 1056 45 49 1958 50 25 5 53 15 5 65
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 95 1112 47 52 2061 53 28 6 59 17 6 72
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 2061 1112 2440 3467 556 2914 3467 1030
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 2061 1112 2440 3467 556 2914 3467 1030
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 % 65 92 0 0 88 0 0 69
cM capacity (veh/h) 271 630 0 4 477 0 4 232
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 95 556 556 47 52 1030 1030 53 93 95
Volume Left 95 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 28 17
Volume Right 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 53 59 72
cSH 271 1700 1700 1700 630 1700 1700 1700 0 0
Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.33 0.33 0.03 0.08 0.61 0.61 0.03 Err Err
Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Err Err
Control Delay (s) 25.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err Err
Lane LOS D B F F
Approach Delay (s) 1.9 0.3 Err Err
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay Err
Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 43 31 71 35 55 49
Future Volume (Veh/h) 43 31 71 35 55 49
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 48 34 79 39 61 54
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 285 88 115
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 285 88 115
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 93 97 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 670 973 1480
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 82 118 115
Volume Left 48 79 0
Volume Right 34 0 54
cSH 769 1480 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.05 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 4 0
Control Delay (s) 10.2 5.2 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.2 5.2 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017 5: Chukka Trail (West) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project- PM Peak Hour
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 20 4 34 18 3
Future Volume (Veh/h) 90 20 4 34 18 3
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 100 22 4 38 20 3
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 122 157 111
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 122 157 111
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 98 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1472 834 945
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 122 42 23
Volume Left 0 4 20
Volume Right 22 0 3
cSH 1700 1472 847
Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.00 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 9.4
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 9.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 6
09/26/2017 6: Riverstone Drive (East) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project- PM Peak Hour
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 88 5 1 34 4 1
Future Volume (Veh/h) 88 5 1 34 4 1
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 6 1 38 4 1
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 104 141 101
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 104 141 101
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1494 854 957
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 104 39 5
Volume Left 0 1 4
Volume Right 6 0 1
cSH 1700 1494 873
Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.00 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 9.1
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 9.1
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
14.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 7
09/26/2017
Queues
1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
2037 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 1026 118 201 1021 21 78 166 84
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.45 0.11 1.16 0.41 0.02 0.56 0.10 0.45
Control Delay 110.6 15.4 1.9 182.5 10.8 0.1 86.2 0.1 68.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 110.6 15.4 1.9 182.5 10.8 0.1 86.2 0.1 68.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 260 0 -258 205 0 84 0 77
Queue Length 95th (ft) #109 428 25 #501 365 0 143 0 136
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1364 1453 128 794
Turn Bay Length (ft) 465 440 330 345
Base Capacity (vph) 68 2302 1068 173 2505 1148 227 1599 293
Starvation Cap Reductn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.45 0.11 1.16 0.41 0.02 0.34 0.10 0.29
Intersection Summary
Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
09/26/2017 1: County Road 100/Catherine Store Road & State Highway 82
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations vi t4 ri vi tt ri 4 ri
Traffic Volume (vph) 35 975 112 191 970 20 43 27 149 20 32 25
Future Volume (vph) 35 975 112 191 970 20 43 27 149 20 32 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 6.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3471 1547 1787 3471 1562 1825 1599 1776
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.89
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3471 1547 1787 3471 1562 1310 1599 1607
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 37 1026 118 201 1021 21 48 30 166 22 35 27
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 40 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 10 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 1026 78 201 1021 15 0 78 166 0 74 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 3 3 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Free Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 Free 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 113.4 113.4 16.5 123.4 123.4 18.4 170.8 18.9
Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 113.4 113.4 16.5 123.4 123.4 18.4 170.8 18.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.10 0.72 0.72 0.11 1.00 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 8.5 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 68 2304 1027 172 2507 1128 141 1599 177
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.11 0.29
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 c0.06 0.10 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.45 0.08 1.17 0.41 0.01 0.55 0.10 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 80.7 13.7 10.2 77.2 9.3 6.6 72.3 0.0 70.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 10.7 0.6 0.1 121.3 0.5 0.0 5.7 0.1 2.2
Delay (s) 91.4 14.3 10.3 198.4 9.8 6.7 78.0 0.1 73.0
Level of Service F B B F A A E A E
Approach Delay (s) 16.3 40.3 25.0 73.0
Approach LOS B D C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
29.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service
C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 170.8 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
09/26/2017 2: County Road 100 /County Road 100 & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 5 10 22 5 44 1 150 23 134 205 1
Future Volume (Veh/h) 25 5 10 22 5 44 1 150 23 134 205 1
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 28 6 11 24 6 49 1 167 26 146 223 1
Pedestrians 1 3 4 5
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 208
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 756 714 228 718 702 188 225 196
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 756 714 228 718 702 188 225 196
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 90 98 99 92 98 94 100 89
cM capacity (veh/h) 276 318 809 305 324 850 1348 1379
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 45 79 194 370
Volume Left 28 24 1 146
Volume Right 11 49 26 1
cSH 336 510 1348 1379
Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.15 0.00 0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 14 0 9
Control Delay (s) 17.4 13.3 0.0 3.7
Lane LOS C B A A
Approach Delay (s) 17.4 13.3 0.0 3.7
Approach LOS C B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
09/26/2017 3: Valley Road/JW Drive & State Highway 82
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 1029 30 26 1076 35 10 6 14 30 8 10
Future Volume (Veh/h) 65 1029 30 26 1076 35 10 6 14 30 8 10
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 66 1050 31 27 1133 37 11 7 16 33 9 11
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 1133 1050 1807 2369 525 1848 2369 566
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1133 1050 1807 2369 525 1848 2369 566
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 % 89 96 67 77 97 0 70 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 618 665 34 30 500 33 30 470
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 66 525 525 31 27 566 566 37 34 53
Volume Left 66 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 11 33
Volume Right 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 37 16 11
cSH 618 1700 1700 1700 665 1700 1700 1700 57 40
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.04 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.59 1.32
Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 60 133
Control Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 134.8 408.5
Lane LOS B B F F
Approach Delay (s) 0.7 0.2 134.8 408.5
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 11.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 4
09/26/2017 4: Valley Road & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
4\ t
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 17 28 15 30 37
Future Volume (Veh/h) 15 17 28 15 30 37
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 17 19 31 17 33 41
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 132 54 74
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 132 54 74
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 98 98 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 846 1017 1532
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 36 48 74
Volume Left 17 31 0
Volume Right 19 0 41
cSH 928 1532 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.02 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 2 0
Control Delay (s) 9.0 4.8 0.0
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 9.0 4.8 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 5
09/26/2017 5: Chukka Trail (West) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 116 22 45 26 4
Future Volume (Veh/h) 42 116 22 45 26 4
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 47 129 24 50 29 4
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 176 210 112
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 176 210 112
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 96 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1406 768 944
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 176 74 33
Volume Left 0 24 29
Volume Right 129 0 4
cSH 1700 1406 786
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.02 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3
Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.6 9.8
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.6 9.8
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
26.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 6
09/26/2017 6: Riverstone Drive (East) & Old SH 82 Frontage Road
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Background + Project - Saturday Peak Hr
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 34 12 8 62 5 2
Future Volume (Veh/h) 34 12 8 62 5 2
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 38 13 9 69 6 2
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 51 132 44
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 51 132 44
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1562 860 1028
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 51 78 8
Volume Left 0 9 6
Volume Right 13 0 2
cSH 1700 1562 897
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.1
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 9.1
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Aspen Polo Club Traffic Impact Study - Carbondale, CO
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group
Synchro 9 Report
Page 7
Aspen Valley Polo Club (FTH#17046)
Traffic Impact Study
Access Permit Applications
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT APPLICATION
Issuing authority application
acceptance date:
Instructions: - Contact the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
- Contact the issuing authority to determine what plans and
- Complete this form (some questions may not apply to you)
Please print - Submit an application for each access affected.
or type - If you have any questions contact the issuing authority.
- For additional information see CDOT's Access Management
or your local government to determine your issuing authority.
other documents are required to be submitted with your application.
and attach all necessary documents and Submit it to the issuing authority.
website at http://www.dot.state.co.us/AccessPermits/index.htm
1) Property owner (Permittee)
Aspen Polo Partners, LLP
2) Applicant or Agent for permittee (if different from property owner)
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Groupr
Street address
715 West Main Street, Suite 201
Mailing address
P.O. Box 19768
City, state & zip
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone #
561-310-3336
City, state & zip
Boulder, CO
Phone # (required)
303-652-3571
E-mail address
MGanzi@digitalbridgellc.com
E-mail address if available
cassie.slade@fthtransgroup.com
3) Address of property to be served by permit (required)
16411 Old Highway 82, Carbondale, CO 81623
4) Legal description of property: If within jurisdictional limits of Municipality, city and/or County, which one?
county subdivision block lot section township range
Garfield I 6th Principal I n/a I 8,9,10 & 5,13 31 & 32 17 South I 87 West
5) What State Highway are you requesting access from?
Highway 82 Access Road (adj. to 082A)
6) What side of the highway?
E W
N • S
7) How many feet is the proposed access from
the nearest mile post?
16 (082A)
How many
3175
feet is the proposed access from the nearest cross
street?
Road 100
805 feet l N M S E U W) from:
feet pN ■ S _ E
■ W) from: County
8) What is the approximate date you intend to begin construction?
11/1/2017
9) Check here if you are requesting a:
anticipated:
removal of access
to existing access
of an existing access (provide detail)
• new access • temporary access (duration
) • improvement
change in access use
relocation
10) Provide existing property use
TCI Lane Ranch (2 Residential Units)
11) Do you have knowledge of any State Highway
access permits serving this property, or adjacent properties in which you have a property interest?
permit number(s) and provide copies: 308135 and/or, permit date: 7/31 /2008
• no p yes, if yes - what are the
12) Does the property owner own or have any
interests in any adjacent property?
I no ' yes, if yes - please describe:
13) Are there other existing or dedicated public
streets, roads, highways or access easements bordering or within the property?
on your plans and indicate the proposed and existing access points.
■ no p yes, if yes - list them
14) If you are requesting agricultural field access - how many acres will the access serve?
N/A
15) If you are requesting commercial or industrial access please indicate the types and number of businesses and provide the floor area square footage of each.
business/land use square footage business square footage
Polo Club (2 fields, 5k clubhouse) 5,000
16) If you are requesting residential developement access, what is the type (single family, apartment, townhouse) and number of units?
type number of units type number of units
Single Family or Multi -Family 43
Employee Units 2
Barn/Cabin Units 9
17) Provide the following vehicle count estimates for vehicles that will use the access. Leaving the property then returning is two counts.
Indicate if your counts are
# of passenger cars and light trucks at peak hour volumes
11
# of multi unit trucks at peak hour volumes
0
jd peak hour volumes or • average daily volumes.
# of single unit vehicles in excess of 30 ft.
0
# of farm vehicles (field equipment)
0
Total count of all vehicles
11
Previous editions are obsolete and may not be used
Page 1 of 2 CDOT Form #137 01/10
18) Check with the issuing authority to determine which of the following documents are required to complete the review of your application.
a) Property map indicating other access, bordering roads and streets. e) Subdivision, zoning, or development plan.
b) Highway and driveway plan profile. f) Proposed access design.
c) Drainage plan showing impact to the highway right-of-way. g) Parcel and ownership maps including easements.
d) Map and letters detailing utility locations before and after h) Traffic studies.
development in and along the right-of-way. i) Proof of ownership.
1- It is the applicant's responsibility to contact appropriate
to their activities. Such clearances may include Corps of
permits, or ecological, archeological, historical or cultural
Information Summary presents contact information for agencies
prohibited discharges, and may be obtained from Regional
CDOT Planning/Construction-Environmental-Guidance webpage
2- All workers within the State Highway right of way shall
procedures, and all applicable U.S. Occupational Safety
limited to the applicable sections of 29 CFR Part 1910 - Occupational
- Safety and Health Regulations for Construction.
Personal protective equipment (e.g. head protection, footwear,
respirators, gloves, etc.) shall be worn as appropriate for
minimum, all workers in the State Highway right of way,
protective equipment: High visibility apparel as specified
accompanying the Notice to Proceed related to this permit
that complies with the ANSI Z89.1-1997 standard; and at
feet, workers shall comply with OSHA's PPE requirements
1926.96. If required, such footwear shall meet the requirements
Where any of the above -referenced ANSI standards have
apply.
3- The Permittee is responsible for complying with the Revised
under the American Disabilities Act (ADA). These guidelines
use of a defined pattern of truncated domes as detectable
can be found on the Design and Construction Project Support
<http://www.dot.state.co.us/DesignSupport/>, then click
agencies and obtain all environmental clearances that apply
Engineers 404 Permits or Colorado Discharge Permit System
resource clearances. The CDOT Environmental Clearances
administering certain clearances, information about
CDOT Utility/Special Use Permit offices or accessed via the
http://www.dot.state.co.us/environmental/Forms.asp.
comply with their employer's safety and health policies/
and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations - including, but not
Safety and Health Standards and 29 CFR Part 1926
high visibility apparel, safety glasses, hearing protection,
the work being performed, and as specified in regulation. At a
except when in their vehicles, shall wear the following personal
in the Traffic Control provisions of the documentation
(at a minimum, ANSI/ISEA 107-1999, class 2); head protection
all construction sites or whenever there is danger of injury to
for foot protection per 29 CFR 1910.136, 1926.95, and
of ANSI Z41-1999.
been revised, the most recent version of the standard shall
Guidelines that have been adopted by the Access Board
define traversable slope requirements and prescribe the
warnings at street crossings. The new Standards Plans and
web page at:
on Design Bulletins.
If an access permit is issued to you, it will state the terms and conditions for its use. Any changes in the use of the
permitted access not consistent with the terms and conditions listed on the permit may be considered a violation of the
permit.
The applicant declares under penalty of perjury in the second degree, and any other applicable state or federal
laws, that all information provided on this form and submitted attachments are to the best of their knowledge
true and complete.
I understand receipt of an access permit does not constitute permission to start access construction work.
Applicant or Agent Jor Permittee signature
- -4,0,_'''.e�a t_..
Print name
Cassie Slade
Date
10/5/2017
If the applicant is not the owner of the property, we require this application also to be signed by the property owner or
their legally authorized representative (or other acceptable written evidence). This signature shall constitute agreement
with this application by all owners -of -interest unless stated in writing. If a permit is issued, the property owner, in most
cases, will be listed as the permittee.
Property owner si nature
Print name
Marc Ganzi
Date
10 ` (g` ( 7
Previous editions are obsolete and may not be used
Page 2 of 2 CDOT Form #137 01/10
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT APPLICATION
Issuing authority application
acceptance date:
Instructions: - Contact the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
- Contact the issuing authority to determine what plans and
- Complete this form (some questions may not apply to you)
Please print - Submit an application for each access affected.
or type - If you have any questions contact the issuing authority.
- For additional information see CDOT's Access Management
or your local government to determine your issuing authority.
other documents are required to be submitted with your application.
and attach all necessary documents and Submit it to the issuing authority.
website at http://www.dot.state.co.us/AccessPermits/index.htm
1) Property owner (Permittee)
Aspen Polo Partners, LLP
2) Applicant or Agent for permittee (if different from property owner)
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Groupr
Street address
715 West Main Street, Suite 201
Mailing address
P.O. Box 19768
City, state & zip
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone #
561-310-3336
City, state & zip
Boulder, CO
Phone # (required)
303-652-3571
E-mail address
MGanzi@digitalbridgellc.com
E-mail address if available
cassie.slade@fthtransgroup.com
3) Address of property to be served by permit (required)
16411 Old Highway 82, Carbondale, CO 81623
4) Legal description of property: If within jurisdictional limits of Municipality, city and/or County, which one?
county subdivision block lot section township range
Garfield 1 6th Principal 1 n/a 18,9,10 & 5,131 31 & 32 1 7 South 1 87 West
5) What State Highway are you requesting access from?
Highway 82 Access Road (adj. to 082A)
6) What side of the highway?
E W
N • S
7) How many feet is the proposed access from
the nearest mile post?
16 (082A)
How many feet is the proposed access from the nearest cross street?
1900 feet pN M S _ E M W) from: County Road 100
465 feet CIN U S • E = W) from:
8) What is the approximate date you intend to begin construction?
11/1/2017
9) Check here if you are requesting a:
anticipated: ) improvement to existing access
removal of access [Telocation of an existing access (provide detail)
LI new access • temporary access (duration
change in access use
10) Provide existing property use
TCI Lane Ranch (2 Residential Units)
11) Do you have knowledge of any State Highway
access permits serving this property, or adjacent properties in which you have a property interest?
permit number(s) and provide copies: 308134 and/or, permit date: 7/31/2008
• no p yes, if yes - what are the
12) Does the property owner own or have any
interests in any adjacent property?
I no ' yes, if yes - please describe:
13) Are there other existing or dedicated public
streets, roads, highways or access easements bordering or within the property?
on your plans and indicate the proposed and existing access points.
■ no p yes, if yes - list them
14) If you are requesting agricultural field access - how many acres will the access serve?
N/A
15) If you are requesting commercial or industrial access please indicate the types and number of businesses and provide the floor area square footage of each.
business/land use square footage business square footage
Polo Club (2 fields, 5k clubhouse) 5,000
16) If you are requesting residential developement access, what is the type (single family, apartment, townhouse) and number of units?
type number of units type number of units
Single Family or Multi -Family 43
Employee Units 2
Barn/Cabin Units 9
17) Provide the following vehicle count estimates for vehicles that will use the access. Leaving the property then returning is two counts.
Indicate if your counts are
# of passenger cars and light trucks at peak hour volumes
45
# of multi unit trucks at peak hour volumes
0
jd peak hour volumes or • average daily volumes.
# of single unit vehicles in excess of 30 ft.
2
# of farm vehicles (field equipment)
0
Total count of all vehicles
47
Previous editions are obsolete and may not be used
Page 1 of 2 CDOT Form #137 01/10
18) Check with the issuing authority to determine which of the following documents are required to complete the review of your application.
a) Property map indicating other access, bordering roads and streets. e) Subdivision, zoning, or development plan.
b) Highway and driveway plan profile. f) Proposed access design.
c) Drainage plan showing impact to the highway right-of-way. g) Parcel and ownership maps including easements.
d) Map and letters detailing utility locations before and after h) Traffic studies.
development in and along the right-of-way. i) Proof of ownership.
1- It is the applicant's responsibility to contact appropriate
to their activities. Such clearances may include Corps of
permits, or ecological, archeological, historical or cultural
Information Summary presents contact information for agencies
prohibited discharges, and may be obtained from Regional
CDOT Planning/Construction-Environmental-Guidance webpage
2- All workers within the State Highway right of way shall
procedures, and all applicable U.S. Occupational Safety
limited to the applicable sections of 29 CFR Part 1910 - Occupational
- Safety and Health Regulations for Construction.
Personal protective equipment (e.g. head protection, footwear,
respirators, gloves, etc.) shall be worn as appropriate for
minimum, all workers in the State Highway right of way,
protective equipment: High visibility apparel as specified
accompanying the Notice to Proceed related to this permit
that complies with the ANSI Z89.1-1997 standard; and at
feet, workers shall comply with OSHA's PPE requirements
1926.96. If required, such footwear shall meet the requirements
Where any of the above -referenced ANSI standards have
apply.
3- The Permittee is responsible for complying with the Revised
under the American Disabilities Act (ADA). These guidelines
use of a defined pattern of truncated domes as detectable
can be found on the Design and Construction Project Support
<http://www.dot.state.co.us/DesiqnSupport/>, then click
agencies and obtain all environmental clearances that apply
Engineers 404 Permits or Colorado Discharge Permit System
resource clearances. The CDOT Environmental Clearances
administering certain clearances, information about
CDOT Utility/Special Use Permit offices or accessed via the
http://www.dot.state.co.us/environmental/Forms.asp.
comply with their employer's safety and health policies/
and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations - including, but not
Safety and Health Standards and 29 CFR Part 1926
high visibility apparel, safety glasses, hearing protection,
the work being performed, and as specified in regulation. At a
except when in their vehicles, shall wear the following personal
in the Traffic Control provisions of the documentation
(at a minimum, ANSI/ISEA 107-1999, class 2); head protection
all construction sites or whenever there is danger of injury to
for foot protection per 29 CFR 1910.136, 1926.95, and
of ANSI Z41-1999.
been revised, the most recent version of the standard shall
Guidelines that have been adopted by the Access Board
define traversable slope requirements and prescribe the
warnings at street crossings. The new Standards Plans and
web page at:
on Design Bulletins.
If an access permit is issued to you, it will state the terms and conditions for its use. Any changes in the use of the
permitted access not consistent with the terms and conditions listed on the permit may be considered a violation of the
permit.
The applicant declares under penalty of perjury in the second degree, and any other applicable state or federal
laws, that all information provided on this form and submitted attachments are to the best of their knowledge
true and complete.
I understand receipt of an access permit does not constitute permission to start access construction work.
Applicant or Agent for Permittee signature
CY '
Print name
Cassie Slade
Date
10/5/2017
If the applicant is not the owner of the property, we require this application also to be signed by the property owner or
their legally authorized representative (or other acceptable written evidence). This signature shall constitute agreement
with this application by all owners -of -interest unless stated in writing. If a permit is issued, the property owner, in most
cases, will be listed as the permittee.
Property own sign e
Print name
Marc Ganzi
Date
10/(9/(1
Previous editions are obsolete and may not be used
Page 2 of 2 CDOT Form #137 01/10