HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.f. Receive Revised Feasibility Report/Set Public Hearing-Chippendale/CSAH 42 Improvements, City Project #3440
Ir
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 20, 2003
AGENDA ITEM: Receive Revised Feasibility Report/Set Public
Hearing — Chippendale /CSAH 42 Improvements, City Project #344
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer
AGEN1
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Amended Feasibility Report
APPROVED BY:
Please find attached a Feasibility Report for the Chippendale Avenue / CSAH 42 Reconstruction (145 Street to
151" Street), City Project 4344. This report has been revised from the original report received by Council in
2002. The original report addressed improvements to the intersection of CSAH 42 and Chippendale Avenue
and the reconstruction of Chippendale Avenue from 149 Street to 151S Street. The revised report includes the
reconstruction of Chippendale Avenue from 145 Street to 149 Street, a project currently included in the CIP
for 2004.
With delays to the original project schedule for the reconstruction of the Chippendale Avenue / CSAH 42
reconstruction, it was determined that it would be appropriate to review the combination of the reconstruction of
Chippendale Avenue from 145"' Street to 149 Street with the original project to coordinate the projects for
completion at the same time.
The total estimated project cost is $2,018,950. Funding for the project will consist of special assessments to
adjacent properties, Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds, Dakota County funds, Street CIP funds and City Core
funds.
At this time, Staff is requesting that Council receive the feasibility report and set the pubic hearing. Between
now and the public hearing, Staff will conduct a public informational meeting for the project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE REVISED
FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CHIPPENDALE /CSAH 42
IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT 4344
COUNCIL ACTION:
4'
0
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2003 -
A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE REVISED FEASIBILITY REPORT AND
SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CHIPPENDALE /CSAH 42 IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT #344
WHEREAS, the City Council deemed it necessary and expedient that the City of Rosemount, Minnesota,
construct certain improvements, to -wit: City Project #344, Chippendale /CSAH 42 Improvements, in the
City as described in and in accordance with the feasibility report prepared by the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised by the City Engineer that said utility and street
improvements, City Project #344 is feasible, and should best be made as proposed, and the City Engineer's
report to this effect has heretofore been received by Council, and filed with the City Clerk on May 7, 2002;
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer deemed it necessary to broaden the scope of the project, thus revising the
accepted Feasibility Report; and
WHEREAS, the statute provided that no such improvements shall be made until the Council has held a
public hearing on such improvements following mailed notice and two publications thereof in the official
newspaper stating time and place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated costs
thereof, and the area proposed to be assessed, in accordance with the law.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount accepts the revised
feasibility report for City Project #344 and places it on file.
NOW THEREFORE IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council ofthe Ci y of Rosemount that
the public hearing be scheduled to consider City Project #344, Chippendale /CSAH 42 Improvements be
held on Thursday, April 17, 2003 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, in the Council
Chambers of the City Hall.
ADOPTED this 20' day of March, 2003.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by:
Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
i
Date: March 7, 2003
Revised Date: March 20, 2003
2003 Chippendale Avenue
(Between 1 Sl st Avenue and 145th Street)
and C.S.A.H. 42 Reconstruction
City Project No. 344
Prepared for:
WSB Project No. 1399 -002
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55422 (763) 541 -4800
Prepared by:
A
WS B
& Associates, Inc.
1
1
FEASIBILITY REPORT
CHIPPENDALE AVENUE AND CSAH 42
STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND
APPURTENANT WORK
FOR THE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
CITY PROJECT NO. 344
March 20, 2003
Prepared By:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55422
(763) 541 -4800
(763) 541 -1700 (Fax)
City ofRosemount— Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
WS B
' & Associates, Inc.
' March 20, 2003
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Rosemount
'
2875-145 1h Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997
' Re: Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue between 151 St. and 145 St.
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
' City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
' Transmitted herewith for your review is a feasibility report which addresses the street
improvements on Chippendale Avenue between 151 and 145 Streets, including the
intersection of CSAH 42.
We would be happy to discuss this report with you at your convenience. Please don't
hesitate to contact me at (763) 541 -4800 if you have any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
David E. Hutton, P.E.
Vice President
Attachment
sb
4150 Olson
Suite 300 ,
Minneapolis
Minnesota
55422
763.541
763541.1700 FAX Minneapolis St. Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
David E. H
Date: March 20, 2003
Quality Control Review Completed By:
Lic. No. 19133
Mark Erichson, P.E.
Date: March 20, 2003
Lic. No. 40886
f•
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
, P.E.
L
1
F�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE SHEET
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. ..............................1
2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ............................... 2
2 .1 AUTHORIZATION ........................................................................... ............................... 2
2.2 SCOPE ........................................................................................... ............................... 2
2.3 DATA AVAILABLE ......................................................................... ............................... 2
3. GENERAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. ............................... 4
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................... ............................... 4
3 .2 PROJECT ZONING .......................................................................... ............................... 4
3.3 PROJECT HISTORY ......................................................................... ............................... 4
3.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................. ............................... 4
3.4.1 CHIPPENDALE AVENUE — 151 ST STREET TO CSAH 42 ...... ............................... 4
3.4.2 CHIPPENDALE AVENUE — CSAH 42 TO DODD BOULEVARD ........................... 5
3.4.3 CSAH 42 ......................................................................... ............................... 5
3.4.4 SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN ............................... ............................... 5
3.4.5 STORM SEWERS ............................................................... ............................... 5
4. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................ ............................... 6
4 .1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................ ..............................6
4.2 DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................... ............................... 6
4.3 ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... ............................... 6
4.4 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... ............................... 6
5. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................... ............................... 8
5.1 CHIPPENDALE AVENUE — SOUTH OF CSAH 42 ............................. ............................... 8
5.2 CHIPPENDALE AVENUE — NORTH OF CSAH 42 ............................. ............................... g
5.3 CSAH 42 AND CHIPPENDALE AVENUE INTERSECTION ................. ...............................
5.4 CSAH 42 RIGHT TURN LANE ONTO CANADA AVENUE ................ ............................... 8
5.4.1 STORM SEWERS ............................................................... ............................... 9
5.4.2 SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN ............................... ............................... 9
5.4.3 SIDEWALKS /TRAILS ......................................................... ............................... 9
5.4.4 RIGHT -OF- WAY /EASEMENTS ......................................... ............................... 10
6. FINANCING ........................................................................................ .............................11
6 .1 OPINION OF COST ........................................................................ ............................... 11
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
6.2 FUNDING ........................................................................................ ............................12•
6.2.1 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS .................................................. ............................... 12
6.2.2 DAKOTA COUNTY .......................................................... ............................... 12
6.2.3 MUNICIPAL STATE AID ACCOUNT ................................. ............................... 12
6.2.4 STORM SEWER CORE FUND ........................................... ............................... 13
6.2.5 STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND ........................ ............................... 13
6.2.6 SANITARY SEWER CORE FUND ...................................... ............................... 13
6.2.7 WATERMAIN CORE FUND .............................................. ............................... 13
7. PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................... ............................... 15
S. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION ................................ ............................... 16
Appendix A
Project Location Maps
Street Typical Sections
Appendix B
Traffic Analysis
Appendix C
Cost Estimates
Appendix D
Special Assessment Calculations
Appendix E
Soil Borings
City of Rosemount— Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
1
1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
City Project No. 344 consists of reconfiguring the intersection of CSAH 42 and Chippendale
Avenue and reconstructing Chippendale Avenue from south of 151 Street to 145 Street. The
proposed improvements consist of a new signal, additional right turn lanes on CSAH 42, a center
median on Chippendale Avenue, curb and trail replacement where necessary, and a new
sidewalk along the east side of Chippendale Avenue and widening of Chippendale Avenue
between CSAH 42 and 145 Street. The existing pavement on Chippendale Avenue would be
rehabilitated by milling and overlaying between 151 Street and CSAH 42, and by complete
removal and replacement between CSAH 42 and 145 Street.
This project was originally proposed in 1998 with the remainder of the Chippendale Avenue
reconstruction, but was deferred due to cost implications and concerns raised by Holiday Gas
Station.
The County has proposed significantly more improvements to CSAH 42 than was originally
anticipated; consequently, additional discussions should be held with Dakota County to make
sure the funding is available for all improvements in CSAH 42 outlined in this report. The City
will also need to confirm adequate funding to pay their share of the improvements.
In 2002, a feasibility report was completed for the segment of Chippendale Avenue from CSAH
42 south to 151s Street. The City Council held a public hearing on this segment and ordered the
plans and specifications prepared. This report amends that report by extending the project limits
from CSAH 42 north to 145 Street.
The total estimated project cost is $1,882,480. Of this amount, approximately $92,530 would be
assessed to adjacent property owners on Chippendale Avenue between CSAH 42 and 151
Street. The remainder of the project funding is predominantly Municipal and County State Aid
funds.
It is proposed that construction would take place in 2003.
This project is feasible, necessary, and cost - effective, and should be constructed as proposed.
City of Roseinount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale A venue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 1
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Authorization
On October 7, 1997 the Rosemount City Council authorized the preparation of an Engineering
Feasibility Report for Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42 Street Improvements. The report was
completed, but the segment of Chippendale Avenue from 151 Street to CSAH 42 was deleted
from the project due to funding. At that time, the project was slated for the 2002 CIP. This
report provides updated information for the aforementioned project, with the addition of
Chippendale Avenue from CSAH 42 to 145 Street, a turn lane on CSAH 42 onto Canada
Avenue, and costs of the proposed improvements. This project has been designated as City
Project No. 344.
1 2.2 Scope
This project primarily provides for the upgrading of existing Chippendale Avenue from 151
Street to 145 Street, sanitary sewer improvements on 146 Street West and upgrades to CSAH
42 / Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42 / Canada Avenue intersections. The proposed
improvements include a new signal, right turn lanes on CSAH 42, medians, and new curb and
sidewalk where necessary. The existing pavement on Chippendale Avenue would be
rehabilitated by milling and overlaying in between 151 Street and CSAH 42 and by complete
removal and replacement in between CSAH 42 and Dodd Boulevard.
For the segment of Chippendale Avenue between 151 Street and Carrousel Way, concrete curb
and gutter will replace the temporary bituminous curb on the east side to bring the street to City
standards. A new sidewalk is also proposed on the east side of Chippendale Avenue.
For the segment of Chippendale Avenue between CSAH 42 and 145 Street, the street will be
' widened to a 46 -foot wide street, and the existing pavement, as well as bituminous trail, will be
removed and replaced. A new sidewalk is proposed on the east side.
' Chippendale Avenue will be designed as a Municipal State Aid street due to the projected traffic
volumes and its benefit to the overall Rosemount street system. Consequently, a portion of this
project will utilize Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds and must be designed under MSA
' standards. This improvement project is intended to upgrade Chippendale Avenue to
accommodate the existing and projected development of the adjacent area.
Storm sewer improvements are proposed to collect storm water runoff in accordance with
Municipal State Aid standards and as necessary to facilitate improvements outlined in the
Rosemount Comprehensive Storm Water Study. Relocation of catch basins will be necessary in
' street widening areas, otherwise the existing storm sewer in this area is anticipated to be utilized
with only minor improvements associated with the street reconstruction.
2.3 Data Available
LJ
Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following:
City of Rosemount Utility Plans
..
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 2
• City of Rosemount Record Plans
• City of Rosemount Topography Maps
• Field Observations of the Area
• Rosemount Stormwater Management Plan
• Field Survey
• Sanitary Sewer Televising
• Soil Borings
• Previous Chippendale Avenue Feasibility Report from January 1998 (south of
151 s ` Avenue)
• Previous Chippendale Construction Plans and Soil Borings
• Previous Chippendale Avenue Traffic Studies
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 3
' 3. GENERAL BACKGROUND
3.1 Project Location
The project location consists of Chippendale Avenue from 151" Street to 145 Street, CSAH 42
east and west of Chippendale Avenue approximately 600 feet and CSAH 42 west of Canada
Avenue approximately 500 feet.
3.2 Project Zoning
Chippendale Avenue on the south side of CSAH 42 is zoned commercial and the north side is
zoned residential. The project areas adjacent to CSAH 42 are zoned commercial. The City's
Water Tower parcel is on the northeast corner of the intersection of Chippendale Avenue and
CSAH 42.
3.3 Project History
This project was initiated through the recognition of continually deteriorating street conditions,
' and continued development of the surrounding areas. The area adjacent to Chippendale Avenue
has been experiencing rapid development and development proposals are under consideration for
the majority of the remaining existing undeveloped area. The existing street section is not
adequate to accommodate the proposed traffic volumes and it is suggested that the street be
upgraded to current standards. The intersection of Chippendale Ave and CSAH 42 needs
upgrading with a new signal, turn lanes, and median to improve the intersection functions due to
increasing traffic volumes. The intersection of Canada Avenue and CSAH 42 needs upgrading
with a right turn lane.
In 1998, a feasibility report was prepared for all of Chippendale Avenue from 160 Street to
CSAH 42. The segment from 151 Street to CSAH 42 was deleted from the project due to
' funding concerns and commercial access issues.
3.4 Existing Conditions
3.4.1 Chippendale Avenue —151 Street to CSAH 42
L
The existing pavement is 68 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. The
pavement is experiencing transverse and longitudinal cracking. There is no center
median. There are two travel lanes in both directions, with a left turn and right
turn lane at the intersection of CSAH 42. From 151 Street to Carrousel Way, an
existing trail is located on the west side and temporary bituminous curb is located
along the east side.
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 4
' 3.4.2 Chippendale Avenue — CSAH 42 to 145' Street W.
The existing pavement width is approximately 36 feet wide with concrete curb
1 and gutter with no center median. An existing bituminous trail is located on the
east side. The Rosemount Water Tower and well are located in the southeast
quadrant.
' 3.4.3 CSAH 42
17
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
P-10P S
CSAH 42 is an existing four -lane urban road with concrete curb and gutter with
'
center medians and existing left turn lanes onto Chippendale Avenue. There is an
existing signal system at this intersection.
'
3.4.4 Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
There is an existing 16 -inch watermain on Chippendale Avenue and a 12 -inch
'
sanitary sewer line. An existing trunk sewer line is located in CSAH 42.
3.4. S Storm Sewers
'
There are existing storm sewer lines in both Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42,
which discharge into Wachter Lake. These are listed below:
Chippendale Avenue
• An existing 21 -inch RCP storm sewer flows from the east at the
t intersection
of Chippendale Avenue and 145 Street, then continues south
on Chippendale Avenue.
'
• This storm sewer run increases in diameter from 21 -inch diameter pipe to
30 -inch at the intersection of 146 Street.
'
• 175 feet south of 146 Street, this run increases from 30 -inch diameter
pipe to 42 -inch.
'
• At the intersection of CSAH 42 and - Chippendale Avenue, this 42 -inch
diameter pipe increases to a 48 -inch, which continues south to ultimately
discharge into Wachter Lake.
CSAH 42
'
• The Chippendale Avenue trunk line icks u storm sewer laterals from
p p the
west of CSAH 42.
'
• At the intersection of CSAH 42 and Canada Avenue, an existing catch
basin will have to be relocated due to widening of the road for the turn
'
lane.
17
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
P-10P S
4. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ••
4.1 Background
I Previous traffic studies were completed for the area between CSAH 42 and 151 Street in 1993
and 1996. Those studies concluded that a raised concrete median should be installed between
CSAH 42 and 151 Street. They further concluded that the median should be installed as
development occurs and traffic continues to grow on Chippendale Avenue. With this in mind, a
traffic analysis was conducted for Chippendale Avenue to determine if the median should be
installed with the proposed current improvements.
4.2 Data Collection
' Existing traffic volume counts were conducted on Chippendale Avenue at the intersections of
CSAH 42, Holiday gas station entrance, and 151 Street the week of April 14 -20, 2002. These
' counts included a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts. The peak hour volume
traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix B.
' Crash data was also collected for the corridor from CSAH 42 to 151 Street. The crash data
indicated that one crash occurred in 2001 at the Holiday entrance and five crashes occurred at
151 st Street in 2001.
4.3 Analysis
A traffic analysis was conducted using the Synchro Traffic Analysis program and simulated
through the Chippendale Avenue corridor using the SimTraffic Analysis program. The results of
that analysis conclude that the existing 2002 level of service of each intersection is operating at
satisfactory levels of service (i.e., C or better), during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. However,
the maximum queue length (back -up of traffic) on northbound Chippendale at CSAH 42 during
the p.m. peak hour is 170 feet and would back up through the existing left turn lane and the
Holiday gas station entrance. The analysis also indicated that the westbound existing site traffic
would back up approximately 200 feet into the site, blocking the access into the Holiday station.
The capacity analysis worksheets are included in Appendix B.
As a result of the number and type of crashes at the 151 Street intersection, an all -way stop
analysis was conducted. The analysis concluded that an all -way stop is warranted and would
operate a satisfactory level of service, which was installed in the fall of 2002. However, the
analysis showed that the queue of southbound traffic would back up 120 feet to the Holiday
station entrance.
u
4.4 Conclusions
Based on the results of the analysis that existing traffic is backing up from CSAH 42 to the
Holiday entrance, and traffic from 151 Street would be backing up to the intersection with an
all -way stop condition, it is concluded that a raised concrete median should be installed to
delineate and maximize the amount of left turn storage for these movements. A development
agreement was established between the City of Rosemount and Holiday to allow a median
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 6
opening for the driveway into the Carlson Property and Holiday. This agreement is in
negotiations to allow the median opening to remain until one of the following occurs first:
• Overall intersection level of service F, according to the latest version of the
Highway Capacity Manual.
• Any movement level of service E, according to the latest version of the Highway
Capacity Manual.
• Northbound PM peak hour traffic on Chippendale of 675 vehicles per hour.
• Average Daily Traffic of 11,500 vehicles per day on Chippendale Avenue.
• More than two (2) crashes in one year at the Holiday median entrance, or crashes
that were caused by the median opening, i.e., rear end crashes or left turns into
oncoming traffic on Chippendale, etc.
• Any documented queuing of traffic to CSAH 42 from the median opening during
any time of the day, any day of the week, any time of the year, as advised by
Dakota County.
• August 1, 2008.
In addition, the installation of the always stop sign at Chippendale Avenue and 151 Street
provides for a safer intersection for traffic on Chippendale Avenue and 151 St Street.
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 7
5. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
V.
5.1 Chippendale Avenue — South of CSAH 42
It is proposed to mill and overlay (1.5 -inch) the existing pavement from CSAH 42 to 151 Street.
The existing curb will generally remain although any cracked or settled sections would be
replaced. From 151 Street to Carrousel Way, the temporary curb will be replaced with
permanent concrete curb and gutter. The street pavement in this area is only a few years old and
will require no improvements. A center median will be installed between CSAH 42 and 151
Street to address the turning concerns with the Holiday station. New sidewalk will be
constructed on the east side from Carrousel Way to CSAH 42. See Appendix F, Figure 3, for
typical street sections.
5.2 Chippendale Avenue — North of CSAH 42
It is proposed to widen the street and the CSAH 42 intersection to develop three lanes
southbound (right turn, through, and left turn) and one lane northbound, along with a 5 -foot
median for a total width of approximately 75 feet. This will transition to a three -lane street north
of CSAH 42. Chippendale Avenue from 149 Street to Dodd Boulevard will be widened from a
two lane roadway to a three -lane section with the center lane designated for left turn movements.
The existing curb will be removed and replaced due the street widening. The street subgrade
would be excavated to a depth of one -foot and replaced with granular borrow (sand) to provide a
suitable base. Any unsuitable soils found below this depth will also be removed and replaced
with granular borrow. The trail on the east side will be replaced to accommodate the widening
' and a new 5 -foot wide sidewalk along the west side will be added. See Appendix F, Figures 3
and 4, for typical street sections.
5.3 CSAH 42 and Chippendale Avenue Intersection
The improvements originally proposed for CSAH 42 included:
■ New traffic signal.
■ New right turn lane onto southbound Chippendale Avenue.
■ Adjusting the curb radii to 40 feet for the new Chippendale street sections.
Upon presenting this to Dakota County, the following additional improvements were requested:
• Adding a right turn lane to northbound Chippendale Avenue.
'
• Adjusting the median curbs for both left turn lanes on CSAH 42 to make sure a 300 -foot
left turn lane exists with 15:1 tapers.
5.4 CSAH 42 Right Turn Lane onto Canada Avenue
This section includes the construction of a right -turn lane for eastbound CSAH 42 to southbound
Canada Avenue. All construction will be in accordance with Dakota County requirements. This
construction will include street widening to accommodate the extra width necessary for the turn
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00 Page 8
lane, and relocation of the 8 -foot wide bituminous bike trail. The relocation of the existing bike
trail will require ten extra feet of right -of -way to be obtained from McDonalds and Pizza Hut for
a length of approximately three hundred feet. Some trees will be relocated or removed to allow
room for the relocated bike trail. The construction of this turn lane will also require that a storm
sewer catch basin, an electrical box and light pole located in the southwest quadrant of Canada
Avenue and CSAH 42 be relocated.
The costs have been developed for all of these improvements on CSAH 42. It is recommended
that discussions be continued with Dakota County to make sure adequate funding exists to
complete all these projects. See Appendix F, Figure 2, for typical street sections.
5.4.1 Storm Sewers
Only minor storm sewer adjustments are proposed to reflect the additional lanes
and new curb lines. All storm sewers would meet Dakota County and State Aid
' standards.
5.4.2 Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
r
On Chippendale Avenue there will be the need to adjust manholes, water valves,
etc. as part of the pavement reconstruction work. The sanitary sewer on
Chippendale was televised in the winter of 2003 and was determined to be in
satisfactory condition. Some manholes did warrant reconstruction, but no
improvements are proposed for the sewer pipe on Chippendale Avenue. From
Chippendale Avenue to the edge of the right -of -way, east and west on 146 Street
West, the project includes the removal of 50 feet of existing clay sanitary sewer
lines and replacement with PVC lines.
5.4.3 Sidewalks /Trails
• New sidewalk on the east side of Chippendale Avenue from Carrousel
Way to CSAH 42.
• New sidewalk on the west side of Chippendale Avenue from CSAH 42 to
Dodd Boulevard.
• Replacement of existing trail on east side of Chippendale Avenue from
CSAH 42 to Dodd Boulevard.
• Replacement of existing trail on CSAH 42 due to widening for right turn
lane onto Canada Avenue.
Trail and sidewalk connections will need to be made at the intersections and
radius points to match existing sidewalks /trails.
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 9
'
5.4.4 Right -of -Way /Easements V.
There may need to be some additional right -of -way /easement needs at the
intersection of CSAH 42 and Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42 and Canada
Avenue due to the new curb radii and turn lanes. This will be determined through
the final design process. No costs for right -of -way /easement acquisitions have
been included in the overall project costs.
1
1
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 10
t
6. FINANCING
6.1 Opinion of Cost
Detailed opinions of cost can be found in Appendix B of this report. The opinions incorporate
estimated 2003 construction costs and include a 10% contingency and 30% for all related
indirect costs (legal, administrative, engineering, and financing items). Land acquisition costs
associated with purchase of easements or right -of -way are NOT included in these cost estimates.
Also, any costs associated with negotiations with the Holiday gas station are not included in
these costs.
The opinions of cost are broken down into various segments in order to facilitate additional
discussions with Dakota County on funding and type of improvements desired to be constructed
in 2003.
The following table summarizes the opinions of cost for each segment:
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Intersection Reconstruction
Summary of Costs
SEGMENT /DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
1.
All Improvements on Chippendale Avenue South of CSAH 42
$167,430
2.
All Improvements on Chippendale Avenue North of CSAH 42
$1,045,320
3.
All Improvements on CSAH 42 West of Chippendale Avenue,
$63,600
Excluding the Right Turn Lane
4.
All Improvements for the Right Turn Lane on CSAH 42 to
$96,940
Southbound Chippendale Avenue
5.
All Improvements on CSAH 42 East of Chippendale Avenue
$163,480
6.
All Improvements for the Right Turn Lane on CSAH 42 to
$112,610
Southbound Canada Avenue
7.
New Signal at Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42 intersection
$243,100
TOTAL
$1,892,480
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 11
F1
I
t
f
6.2 Funding
Financing for this project will come from a combination of sources including Municipal State
Aid funds, Dakota County funds, Special Assessments, Street CIP funds, Storm Sewer funds,
and Sewer /Water Core funds.
6.2.1 Special Assessments
For Chippendale Avenue between CSAH 42 and Upper 149' Street, the existing
properties have frontage and driveways off Upper 149 Street, so no assessments
are proposed for Chippendale Avenue in this area. The remaining parcel is the
City -owned water tower site.
r.
For Chippendale Avenue between Upper 149 Street and Dodd Boulevard there
are four residential properties that have frontages and driveways. These properties
are zoned residential and will be assessed based on the 2003 City of Rosemount's
Schedule of Rates & Fees at an amount of $2,295 per lot with existing concrete
curb and gutter.
Current City policy requires that 35% of the project costs of milling overlaying
projects be assessed to the benefited properties. Benefited properties are defined
as those parcels that have frontage on the street or direct access.
For Chippendale Avenue south, which is predominantly commercial zoned, the
benefited improvements are felt to be Chippendale Avenue and the right turn lane
on CSAH 42. The benefited properties are the two commercial properties on the
east side of Chippendale Avenue and one on the west side. See Appendix A,
Figure 1, for the locations of assessed properties. Using 35% of those costs, the
assessment rate is calculated to be $118.48 per foot. If the right turn lane is
excluded from the assessments, the rate is $75.03 per front foot. If the median is
deleted, the assessment rate is approximately $73.61 per front foot. The
assessment calculations can be found in Appendix D. At this time, a draft
assessment roll has not been prepared pending further direction from the City
Council on which methodology to use.
6.2.2 Dakota County
Per existing County cost participation policy, Dakota County will pay for 50% of
the signal and 55% of the roadway improvements on CSAH 42.
6.2.3 Municipal State Aid Account
Chippendale Avenue is on the Municipal State Aid system and CSAH 42 is on the
' County State Aid system. Therefore, the City's Municipal State Aid Account can
fund a portion of the proposed improvements not funded by other sources.
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 12
1�,
6.2.4 Storm Sewer Core Fund
f.
The City's Storm Sewer Core Fund is available to fund any major storm sewer
improvements. For this project, there is approximately $68,350 in storm sewer
improvements. It is proposed that $59,600 of these improvements will be paid for
by the City Storm Sewer Care Fund. The remaining $8,750 will be paid for by
State Aid Funds and Dakota County.
6.2.5 Street Capital Improvements Fund
6.2.7 Watermain Core Fund
The City's Watermain Sewer Core Fund is available to fund any watermain
improvements. For this project, there is approximately $3,500 in watermain
improvements.
I
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 13
The City's capital improvements fund is proposed to fund 45% of the cost
associated with the improvements for the CASH 42 right turn lane onto Canada
Avenue and all remaining Chippendale costs not funded by the State Aid funds.
6.2.6 Sanitary Sewer Core Fund
'
The City's Sanitary Sewer Core Fund is available to fund any sanitary sewer
improvements. For this project, there is approximately $8,010 in sanitary sewer
improvements.
6.2.7 Watermain Core Fund
The City's Watermain Sewer Core Fund is available to fund any watermain
improvements. For this project, there is approximately $3,500 in watermain
improvements.
I
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 13
C
1
A summary of the proposed funding for this project is as follows:
f•
' Based on $118.48 per front foot
2 Based on $2,295 per foot
' County participation is 55% of the construction cost (50% for signals) plus 18% for engineering.
' City of Rosemount - Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
' Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 14
Storm
Sanitary
Special
Municipal
Dakota
Sewer
Sewer
Watermain
Segment
Assess.
State Aid
County'
Core Fund
Street CIP
Core Fund
Core Fund
TOTAL
Chippendale
$58,600'
$108,830
$167,430
South
Chippendale
$9,180
$48,830
$975,800
$8,010
$3,500
$1,045,320
North
CSAH 42
$31,210
$31,750
$640
$63,600
West
CSAH 42
Right Turn
$33,930
$12,810
$48,400
$1,800
$96,940
Lane onto
Chippendale
CSAH 42
$75,200
$81,620
$6,660
$163,480
East
CSAH 42
Right turn
lane onto
$54,720
$56,220
$1,670
$112,610
Canada
Signal
System
$132,770
$110,330
$243,100
TOTAL
$101,710
$415,540
$328,320
$59,600
$975,800
$8,010
$3,500
$1,892,480
' Based on $118.48 per front foot
2 Based on $2,295 per foot
' County participation is 55% of the construction cost (50% for signals) plus 18% for engineering.
' City of Rosemount - Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
' Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 14
7. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The proposed project schedule for these improvements is as follows:
Receive Feasibility Report ....................................................... ............................... March 20, 2003
Public Informational Meeting ...................................................... ............................... April 9, 2003
Public Hearing to Order Improvements ...................................... ............................... April 17, 2003
Design......................................................................... ............................... April 18 — May 23, 2003
State Aid Approval /County Approval / Agreement ......... ............................... May 19 — June 6, 2003
Bidding...................................................................................... ............................... June 6 -27, 2003
BidAward ............................................................ ............................... ...........................July 1, 2003
Construction* ...................................................... ............................... July 14 — November 30, 2003
Assessment Hearing ........................................... ............................... .......................November 2003
* The exact completion schedule for the construction is somewhat dependent on the delivery of
the signal poles and equipment, which could delay the completion of the project. The
existing signal may need to remain active or a temporary signal utilized until such time as the
new signal poles can be delivered.
City of Rosemount— Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
Page 15
u
8. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION
Due to the continued commercial development in this area, increased traffic, accidents,
deteriorating streets, and outdated signal system, this intersection should be reconstructed to
provide improved traffic flow, safer traffic movements, increased pavement rideability, and
improved pedestrian movements.
The total estimated cost of the intersection improvements is $1,892,480. Funding will be
provided by a combination of special assessments, State Aid funds (City and County), storm
sewer funds, watermain, sanitary sewer, and street care funds.
Additional discussions should be held with the County and property owners to further refine the
funding and implementation strategies.
This project is feasible, necessary, and cost - effective from an engineering viewpoint. We
recommend the reconstruction of the improvements as recommended in this report.
fr
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
PnoP 16
i
APPENDIX A
Figure 1
Overall Project Location Maps
and
Street Typical Sections
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
..
I
n
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u `li
LEGEND
CONCRETE I
SIDEWALK I f
r i
O - n . 0
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS ROAD (OVERLAY & NEW)
PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
PROPOSED CONCRETE MEDIAN
_ � -_- -- - _ _ -. _. �HIA LAS
PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS TRAIL
1 //
I-1 ��'
EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY
TEMPORARY EASEMENT
ASSESSED PROPERTIES
J:
4
A VE
If
cNOG
0 150 300
L
T
t
CHROME AVE. '� �� - -�
f DUSTING
ALL-WAY STOP
// CONDMON
0
>
0 REMOVE AND
c
REMOVE EXISTING C TLY REPLAC
BITUMINOUS CURB I %TALLEr. [- T
:L 50' - EXISTING
m OP
AND REPLACE WITH C ONDITIO CLAY SANITARY
CONCRETE CURB -
PROPOSED — m
D
Ll
z
[El
[T I
NG
I I - I
rr r1 rr rr rr r r r r r r r r r■ r rr rr rl rr
R/W S TREET SECTION CSAH 42 WEST OF CHIPPENDALE AV
I
R/W
I
R/W
S TREET SECTION CSAH 42 EAST OF CHIPPENDALE AVE
R/W
WESTBOUND EASTBOUND
D' -20' 12' 12' 0 -11' VARIABLE 14' 14'
I RT TURN LANE THRU LANE THRU LANE T LT TURN LANE r L[DIAN I 1HRU LANE i� INRU LANE
I r I F �
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I.5%_ 1__ I - 2.5% I 1 I _
TrF — —
— — — — — — — — e — �Ex.841B CONCRETE — — `\ L �—Ex.BITW INCOS TRAIL
B618 CONCRETE L1J118 AND GUTTER ` EX.B41t CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER
SEE INSET "A" 8418 ON CURB Alp GUTTER
CURB AND GUTTER
SEE INSET "A"
R/W STRE SECTION CSAH 42 RIGHT TURN LANE ONTO CANAD AVE. R/W
WESTBOUND EASTBOUND I EASEMENT i
/� I I 12' I 14' I VARIABLE I 12' I 14' I O' -14' I B' g' II
INSET /Y I THRU LANE THRU LANE MEDIAN THRU LANE ' THRU LANE RIGHT BIT,
I I I 1 TURN LANE I II PATH
E %. BIT.
EX.BITUMINDUS TRAIL
- ' I
P
2350 WEAR 1 HVWE37540F) _ C — — — — — T — — — — — — — — — _ _ — — —
2' 2350 NON -WEAR (HVNW37540a) i T — — — — — — — — — — ' — — — — I� r
4''= 2350 NON -WEAR (MVNW350355) (2 LIFTS) EX. B61B CONCRETE
12' CLASS 5 ACCRECA7E BASE (1001 CRUSHED) CURB AND ONCR I
24' SELECT GRANULAR BORROW
8611 CONCRETE
SEE INSET 'A' CURB AND GUI TER
4150 Olson Memorial Highway `'
CSAH 42 & Ci �P endale Ave. Street and Utili WSB Project No. 1399 - 00 0311312003
;
Suite 300 Reconstruction Project
City Project No. 344
/// /[B Minneapolis, MN 55422 .l
yYJ 763541 -0600 CSAH 42 TYPICAL SECTIONS
& Associates, Inc. FAX 763-541 -1700 FIGURE 2
R osemount, Minnesota m: \01399 -00 \Fens \fig -02- typt.dgn
150'
¢
WESTBOUND
EASTBOUND
i
VARIABLE ,VARIABLII_ 0' -14' N , 12 y ,
14'
0' -14'
L SHOLLDER� TNUU LANE
TNNU LANE i MEDIAN i LT TURN LANE TNRU lA1F
INRU LANE
RT TURN LANE
VARIES I I I I
I I
I t� RI�I
51 I I
I I
—
— — — — —
EX.6ITWINOA TRAIL
` EX.CONCRE1E WALK
EX.B618 CONCRETE
J
Ez. BUB CONCRETE
CUp ANO GUTTER
8618 CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER
8418 CONCRETE
CURB AM GUTTER
CURB AND GUTTER
SEE INSET 'A'
SEE INSET 'A'
R/W
S TREET SECTION CSAH 42 EAST OF CHIPPENDALE AVE
R/W
WESTBOUND EASTBOUND
D' -20' 12' 12' 0 -11' VARIABLE 14' 14'
I RT TURN LANE THRU LANE THRU LANE T LT TURN LANE r L[DIAN I 1HRU LANE i� INRU LANE
I r I F �
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I.5%_ 1__ I - 2.5% I 1 I _
TrF — —
— — — — — — — — e — �Ex.841B CONCRETE — — `\ L �—Ex.BITW INCOS TRAIL
B618 CONCRETE L1J118 AND GUTTER ` EX.B41t CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER
SEE INSET "A" 8418 ON CURB Alp GUTTER
CURB AND GUTTER
SEE INSET "A"
R/W STRE SECTION CSAH 42 RIGHT TURN LANE ONTO CANAD AVE. R/W
WESTBOUND EASTBOUND I EASEMENT i
/� I I 12' I 14' I VARIABLE I 12' I 14' I O' -14' I B' g' II
INSET /Y I THRU LANE THRU LANE MEDIAN THRU LANE ' THRU LANE RIGHT BIT,
I I I 1 TURN LANE I II PATH
E %. BIT.
EX.BITUMINDUS TRAIL
- ' I
P
2350 WEAR 1 HVWE37540F) _ C — — — — — T — — — — — — — — — _ _ — — —
2' 2350 NON -WEAR (HVNW37540a) i T — — — — — — — — — — ' — — — — I� r
4''= 2350 NON -WEAR (MVNW350355) (2 LIFTS) EX. B61B CONCRETE
12' CLASS 5 ACCRECA7E BASE (1001 CRUSHED) CURB AND ONCR I
24' SELECT GRANULAR BORROW
8611 CONCRETE
SEE INSET 'A' CURB AND GUI TER
4150 Olson Memorial Highway `'
CSAH 42 & Ci �P endale Ave. Street and Utili WSB Project No. 1399 - 00 0311312003
;
Suite 300 Reconstruction Project
City Project No. 344
/// /[B Minneapolis, MN 55422 .l
yYJ 763541 -0600 CSAH 42 TYPICAL SECTIONS
& Associates, Inc. FAX 763-541 -1700 FIGURE 2
R osemount, Minnesota m: \01399 -00 \Fens \fig -02- typt.dgn
= = M M = M = M = r = M = = 1=1 M = = M
STREET SECTION CHIPPENDALE AVE. SOUTH OF HOLIDAY DRIVEWAY
R/W R/W
STREET SECTION CHIPPENDALE AVE. NORTH OF HOLIDAY DRIVEWAY
R/W 1OU' R/W
WIU l TNRU LANE DIA L URN LAZE TNRU LANE URN L BITWINOUS
� TRAIL
I I I I I I I I I I II
I I I I I I I I I I II
I I I I I I I I 4 1 I II
Ex.BITUNINOUS TRAI /* �E %.BITUMINOUS TRAIL
J 8618 CONCRETE E X .0618 CONCRET
Ex.8618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER
CURB AND GUTTER
SEE INSET "B"
INSET "B"
7,5T 5" MILL ANO OVERLAY 2350 WEAR IHYWE3TSI0FI
BITUMINOUS TACK C STREET SECTION CHIPPENDALE AVE. BETWEEN CSAH 42 & 149TH ST
R/R 83' R/W
i
1
0' -11' 2' /
0' -t J' ' 11'
R IAN LAN TNRU LANE L IAN L DIA TH06 LANE IAWI
iMll
INSET "C" I I I I I I I I I
I.5" 2550 REAR INVWE3754DF) I I I I I I I I I I
2357 SITU INDUS TACK COAT ,
3" 2750 NONNEAR IHVNME3T540B)
2" CLASS
1 5 AGGREGATE BASE IIDOS CRUSHED LIMESTONE)
1' COMMON ExCAVA1JGN - -- - I I I I I I I 4X I I
REPLACE WITH SELECT GRANULAR BORROW - - - --' _
- - - - - - - v z �E%.BITUMINOW TRAIL
8618 CONCRETE 8618 CONCRETE 8618 CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER
SEE INSET "C"
4150 Olson Memorial Highway CSAH 42 & Cippendale Ave. Street and Utility
Suite 300 Reconstruction Project
/ Minneapolis, MN 55422 SB .l
Yy 763- 5414800 CHIPPENDALE AVE. TYPICAL SECTIONS
& Assoda(es, Inc. FAX 763541 -1700
Rosemount, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 1399 -00 03/13/2003
City Project No. 344
FIGURE 3
m: \01399- 00 \Feos \fig- 03- typ2.dgn
SOUTHBOUND
NORTHBOUND
I
IS'
tY' 0' -1l' /'
13' IL
xRU LANE LT URN L DI
HRU LAN HE L
ITWIlOU
TN RU LANE
I I I
I I I I
I I
(MIL
I II
I I I
E %.8618 CONCRETE J
CURB ANO GUTTER
1 5EE Ex.BITUMINOUS TRAI /
I I I I
8618 CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER
I I
al
E%.B61B CONCRET
CURB AND GUTTER
I II
E %BItWItDUS TRAIL
INSET "B"
STREET SECTION CHIPPENDALE AVE. NORTH OF HOLIDAY DRIVEWAY
R/W 1OU' R/W
WIU l TNRU LANE DIA L URN LAZE TNRU LANE URN L BITWINOUS
� TRAIL
I I I I I I I I I I II
I I I I I I I I I I II
I I I I I I I I 4 1 I II
Ex.BITUNINOUS TRAI /* �E %.BITUMINOUS TRAIL
J 8618 CONCRETE E X .0618 CONCRET
Ex.8618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER
CURB AND GUTTER
SEE INSET "B"
INSET "B"
7,5T 5" MILL ANO OVERLAY 2350 WEAR IHYWE3TSI0FI
BITUMINOUS TACK C STREET SECTION CHIPPENDALE AVE. BETWEEN CSAH 42 & 149TH ST
R/R 83' R/W
i
1
0' -11' 2' /
0' -t J' ' 11'
R IAN LAN TNRU LANE L IAN L DIA TH06 LANE IAWI
iMll
INSET "C" I I I I I I I I I
I.5" 2550 REAR INVWE3754DF) I I I I I I I I I I
2357 SITU INDUS TACK COAT ,
3" 2750 NONNEAR IHVNME3T540B)
2" CLASS
1 5 AGGREGATE BASE IIDOS CRUSHED LIMESTONE)
1' COMMON ExCAVA1JGN - -- - I I I I I I I 4X I I
REPLACE WITH SELECT GRANULAR BORROW - - - --' _
- - - - - - - v z �E%.BITUMINOW TRAIL
8618 CONCRETE 8618 CONCRETE 8618 CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER
SEE INSET "C"
4150 Olson Memorial Highway CSAH 42 & Cippendale Ave. Street and Utility
Suite 300 Reconstruction Project
/ Minneapolis, MN 55422 SB .l
Yy 763- 5414800 CHIPPENDALE AVE. TYPICAL SECTIONS
& Assoda(es, Inc. FAX 763541 -1700
Rosemount, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 1399 -00 03/13/2003
City Project No. 344
FIGURE 3
m: \01399- 00 \Feos \fig- 03- typ2.dgn
STREET SECTION CHIPPENDALE AVE. BETWEEN 149TH ST. & 146TH ST
Rev 100 R/W
' 10.67 SHOULDER 12' 14' 12' SHOULDER 10.61' '
CONC. NR) LAN LT TURN LAZE HRU L ITUNINOU
I I W.LK I I I I I I I I I iRA1L I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
8616 CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER
INSET 'C'
8618 CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER
S TREET SECTION CHIPPENDALE AVE. BETWEEN 146TH ST. & 145TH. ST.
R/W 66'
4'
SHOULDER 12' 14'
ON 4,67• IMR LANE L TURN LANE
.HALE
RIN
4'
12' SHOULDER
THRU LAN BIT.
y TR \IL
I " I
I II I I EX all
l — —
INSET "C"
2350 WEAR IHVWE37540F)
2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT
3' 2350 NONWEAR INVNWEI154081
n CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE 1100% CRUSHED LINESTONEI
1'
CO ON EXCAVATION
REPLACE WIT. SELECT GRANULAR BORROW
.l 4150 Olson Memorial Highway
I / Vt . / Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55422
763 - 5414800
& Associates, lnc. FAX 753 -541 -1700
8618 CONCRETE -� `8678 CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER
SEE INSET 'C'
CSAH 42 & Cippendale Ave. Street and Utility
Reconstruction Project
CHIPPENDALE AVE. & 146TH ST. TYPICAL SECTIONS
Rosemount, Minnesota
FIGURE 4
m \01399- 00 \Feos \fig- 04- typ3.dgn
LIM
UM
WS13 Project No. 1399-00 0311312003
City Project No. 344 2
Map - M:101399- 001Synchro12002 Exist AM.sy6
Volumes
2002 Exist AM
n / ')o/ ')nrr»
n �
W
u
;R 42
holiday /B
1 51st Ave
Baseline
M:101399- 00\Synchro \2002 Exist AM.sy6
SimTraffic Simulation Summary 2002 Exist AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
Summary of Entire Ru
3§ 'P
,..� . ".
P 5 . txT��'Tp '3N" l'^ 'L ;:'F E D ; '"Y9Ya" �' e9LT h' T Y'
Start Time
6:57
End Time
End Time
8:02
F ...; �,.....
Total Time (min)
65
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth
Time Recorded (min)
60
Vehs Entered
# of Intervals
2
Vehs Exited
of Recorded Jntvls
1
Starting Vehs
Vehs Entered
2127
Ending Vehs
Vehs Exited
2111
Denied Entry Before
Starting Vehs
15
Denied Entry After
Ending Vehs
31
Travel Distance (mi)
Denied Entry Before
0
Travel. Time (hr)
Denied Entry After
0
���,_,a� ''
7.8
�'�,������.�:r, .�.,��:�3� . � • ., � „��,�,�yx' , ba „�,��.��..,,���.���,�,,'
Travel Distan ce (mi)
482
/
Travel Time hr
22.1
Total Delay (hr)
T8
Total Stops
1389
,r
Fuel Used (gal)
94.5
Interval #0 lnformatiort
Start Time 6:57
End Time 7:02 ,
Total Time (min) 5
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. `
No data recorded this interval.
interval` Information Recording
Start Time
7:02
End Time
8.02
Total Time (min)
60
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth
Factors. ��r F T�
Vehs Entered
2127
.,,,.
Vehs Exited
2111
g '
Starting Vehs
15
Ending Vehs
31..',
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
0
Travel Distance (mi)
482
Travel. Time (hr)
' 22.1
;fix e
Total Delay (hr)
7.8
Total Stops
1389
Fuel Used (gal) 94.5
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
1: External Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
0.1 0.1
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
1.6
0.0
1.6' y
0.0
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
0,2
0
0.2
0
StoplVeh
Travel Dist (mi)
_ 0,00
27.7
0.00:
277
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
1.0
27
1.0 z Y r
27
Fuel Used (gal ) ;
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
5,6
5.0
5.` a . ? y r
,,,� z..d ,
5.0
HC Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
13
775
13
775
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
48
266
48 s
266
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
266
266
266 A
e,u5,Y
266
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
2: External Intersection Performance
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
0.2
0.0
0.2,
0.0
St Del/Veh (5)
Total Stops
a,1
0
0.1
0
PER
:,_..; �fi ,..K...�R19,w
Stop/Veh
Travel Dist (mi)
0,00
6.5
0.00
6.5
� 3 1 214
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
02
31
0.2
31
Fuel Used al
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
0,5
12.0
0.5
12.0
s
m�
HC Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
2
111
2'
111
a
x.....,�auld va
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
6
92
6q
92
=���a
Vehicles Exited
92
92
Hourly Exit Rate
92
92
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
WSBASSMINN -ST51
' SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
3: CR 42 & Chippendale Av enue Perform by movement
Travel Dist (mi) 9.2 74.0 5,6 1.9 43.3 0.7 5.4 8.4 6.5 2.6 8.2 6.5
Travel Time (hr) 0.8 3.9 0.3 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.8 0.8; 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4
Avg Speed (mph) 11 19 18 11 19 19 7 10 11 11 15 16
Fuel Used (gal)
1 - -.3
EBL
,, ,, EBT .....
EBR
WBL
0.1
0.7
1.1
07
0.4
1.1
0.9
1
Total Delay (hr)
0.5
1.9
0.1
0.1
1.1
0,0
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
4
Delay / Veh (s)
19.7
9.2
5.9
24.7
10.7
4.9
16.2
' 10.1
6.8
15.8
10'9
6.7
1409
Stop Delay (hr)
0.4
1.1
0.0
0.1
0.8
0.0
05
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
17.3
St Del/Veh (s)
17.2
5.4
2.7
22.4
7.2
16
13.8
' 7.2
4.9
13.8
7.7
9
15
Total Stops
79
315
34
16
197
3
96
96
107
25
47
56
7.3
Stop/Veh
0,86
0.43
0 61
0.94
0.51
0.50
0.80
0.50
0.75
0.83
0.51
0.76
Travel Dist (mi) 9.2 74.0 5,6 1.9 43.3 0.7 5.4 8.4 6.5 2.6 8.2 6.5
Travel Time (hr) 0.8 3.9 0.3 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.8 0.8; 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4
Avg Speed (mph) 11 19 18 11 19 19 7 10 11 11 15 16
Fuel Used (gal)
1 - -.3
103
0.5
0.2
7.0
0.1
0.7
1.1
07
0.4
1.1
0.9
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
7.2
7.2
1 2.2
11.9
6.2
93
8.2
7.3
9.4
6.7
7.7
7.2
HC Emissions (g)
4
28
2
1
19
0
2
3
2
1
3
2
CO Emissions (g)
149
1409
101
21
1023
17
39
125
58
26
117
87
NOx Emissions (g) 11 92 5 1 64 1 6 11 7' 3 8 .7
Vehicles Entered 91 739 56 17 386 6 120 192 141 31 93 74
Vehicles Exited' 92 735 56 17 385 6 120 192 142 29`' 91 ,,7
Hourly Exit Rate 92 735 56 17 385 6 120 192 142 29 91 74
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
' 3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
2.5
1.3
1.3
0.5
5.6
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
1.6
0.9
1.0
0.4
3.9
s. >.
St Del/Veh (s)
6 4
� 7.2'
"1
Total Stops
428
216
299
128
1071
Stop /Veh
048
11.53
0.66
0.65
0.55
5 F ? ;s
Travel Dist (mi)
88.8
45.9
20.3
17.3
172.3
' Travel Time hr
5.0
;.
2.2
1.2
11.0 ;
Avg Speed (mph)
18
18
9
15
16
.£
Fuel Used (gal)
12.1
7.2
2.5
2.4
242 '
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
7.4
6.3
8.1
7.3
7.1
HC Emissions (9)
33
20
7
6
65',
CO Emissions (g)
1659
1060
222
231
3173
NOx Emissions (g)
109
66
24
18
216'
Vehicles Entered
886
409
453
198
1946
:w
Vehicles Exited
883
408
454
194
1939.
rte.
Hourly Exit Rate
883
408
454
194
1939
' Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0
0'
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 3
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
4: External Intersection Performance
N
,
Total �f
„r
Total Delay (hr)
0.4
0.4
Delay Veh (s)
2.5
2.$'
0.0
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St Del/Veh (s)
Stop/Veh
Travel Dist (mi)
Total Stops
0
0
Stop/Veh
0.00
0.00 ,
Travel Dist (mi)
66.3
66.3
Travel Time (hr} s
2.0
2.0'
`.,
Avg Speed (mph)
32
..s ,n •.r.,.vw•�» ,,.�,r.�; G..akl� ,�r.,,r.�: �, z ..
32
Fuel Used (gal) <
1`9.3
19.3
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
3.4
34
HC Emissions (g)
`54
54'
CO Emissions (g)
4034
4034
NOx Emissions (9)
203
203;
Vehicles Entered
579
579
Vehicles Exited
578
578
Hourly Exit Rate
578
578
Denied Entry Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
5: External Intersection Performance
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report
Page 4
Total Delay (hr)
0.7
0.7
Delay Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
2.8
0.0
2.$'
0.0
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
0.2
0
0.2'
0
Stop/Veh
Travel Dist (mi)
0.00
113.5
0.00
113.5
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
3.3
34
3.3 , J '
34
"I" , _M
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
33.8
3.4
33.8
3.4
HC Emissions ,(g)
CO Emissions (g)
72
5061
72
5061
q
NOx Emissions (g)
304
304, a
Vehicles Entered
906
906
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
899
899
899'''
899
">
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
, » x���
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report
Page 4
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
r 6: Holiday /Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue Performance by movement
SimTraffic Report
Page 5
WSBASSMINN -ST51
„.. .
Total Delay (hr)
EBDEBT
0.0
0.0
°.VlIBL
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
0.1
0.0 0.0
Delay/ Veh (s)
8.5
9.4
9.5
5.5 2.8
0.8 4.7
46
.3 ..,
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 01 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
St DeliVeh (s)
7`2
7.3
7.9
2.4 12 1.1
0.1 0.1
2.1
0,2 0.3
Total Stops
12
5
16
2 92 1
0 0
22
0 0
StopNeh
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 0.11
0.00 0.09
0.44
0.00 0.00
Travel Dist (mi)
0.6
03
0.9
0.1 4.9 0.4
1 6.4 2 f
2.4
5.0 0.8
Travel Time (hr)
01
0.0
0.11
0.0 0.3 0.0
0.6 01
0.2
0,2 0 1
Avg Speed (mph)
11
12
11
17 15 16
26 12
13
22 12
Fuel Used (gal)
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0 0.3 0.0
1.7 0.3
0.3
1,.5 0.1
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
16.4
16.5
13.4
13.5 14.6 12.8
9.6 8 2
8.3
3.4 6.6
#G` Emissions (g)
0
0
0
0 1 0
5 1
1
4 0 ...:.:.,..:
CO Emissions (g)
1
1
4
1 32 3
235 28
38
..<
271 17
NOx Emissions (g)
0
0
0
0 3 0
16 3
4
16 2
Vehicles Entered
12
5
16
92 9
348 49
50
103 17
Vehicles Exited
12
5
16
2 92 9
349 47
50'
103 17
Hourly Exit Rate
12
5
16
2 92 9
349 47
50
103 17
'
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0
"0 0
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0
t 6:
Holiday /Bank Access
& Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
j i l igi g piwo ffil mm i 11
Nl
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.1 0.2
0.1
0.5
'
Delay/ Veh s
y O
1 3
F 0.0
_
Stop Delay (hr)
0.1 Ob
0.0
0.2
.
St Del/Veh (s)
7 aa rK
Total Stops
17
110 1
a,
22
150
Stop /Veh
1.001
Travel Dist (mi)
0.9
5.9 19.1
8.2
34.1
Travel Time (hr)
Q.1
Avg Speed (mph)
11
14 22
17
19
Fuel Used (gal)
"
0.1
0.4 2.0
w a ` � "�, A '
,.rk.u';'U✓i �s?zsa�3"a.
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
16.5
1 41 , 4
4.4
7.8
HC Emissions (g)
0
1 6
6"
CO Emissions (g)
2
38 266
326
632
NOx Emissions (g)
0
3 20
21
45�
Vehicles Entered
17
111 406
" 70
704
Vehicles Exited
17
110 405
170
702
Hourly Exit Rate
17
110 405
- 70
702
Denied Entry Before
0
0 0
0
0 t1,. . Y, . l
Denied Entry After
0
0 0
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 5
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
7: External Intersection Performance
8: External Intersection Performance
°
r ?uz.
r A.' � a
2 '.3',
0.0
0.0
,3`f E+,.y %r.° t :.,I r''. ..r '.z „'� �ra2. �t
,.,F ,.+'�5,,
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay Veh (s)
- 0.3
0.3
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St DelNeh (s)
0.0
0.0 w. r. ,M?.:..
Total Stops
0
0
Stop/Veh
0;00
0.00 �t ", " ,� RIM
Travel Dist (mi)
1.7
1.7
Travel Time (hr)
01
0.1
Avg Speed (mph)
21
21
Fuel
Fuel Used (gal)
0.3
0.3' ON
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
6.7
" M
6.7
HC Emissions (9)
1
Denied Entry After
CO Emissions (g)
72
72
NOx Emissions (g)
4
4
Vehicles Entered
28
28
Vehicles Exited
28
28�
Hourly Exit Rate
28
28
Denied Entry Before
0
5
Denied Entry After
0
0
8: External Intersection Performance
°
r ?uz.
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay f Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
0.4
0.0
0.4 W
0.0
StDelNeh ( s )
Total Stops
0.1
0
0.1
0
Stop/Veh
Travel Dist (mi)
0.00
6.5
0.00 s
6.5
Travel Time (hr)
0.3
0.3 ,
Avg Speed (mph)
21
21
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
1.3
5.1
1.3"
5.1
HC Emissions (9)
4
WP 43 M
4' SO
..., °..-
CO Emissions (g)
257
257
NOx Emissions' (g)
1
, t ... 15' �A w
Vehicles Entered
102
102
Vehicles' Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
102
102
102'
102
Denied Entry Before
0
0��
Denied Entry After
0
0
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report
Page 6
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
' 9: 151 st Avenue & Chippen Avenue Perf ormance by movement
Travel Dist (mi) 5.0 24 !"., .0 1.5 3.1 0.4 18.8 1.2 1.3 3.2 1.1
Travel Time (hr) 0.3 0.2 0.0 01 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 01 0.1 0.1 0.1
Avg Speed (mph) 16 15 ' ? 1 7 22 32" 15 16 31 12
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
0.3
15.3
EBi'
E T
EBR
WBC,VtlBT •.WBR ='.NRC
02 0.0 1.4
18.6 23 ' 13 3
" ,NBl•
"NBR',
"SE3L. .SBT
0.1
8.4
SBR
1
Total Delay (hr)
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
Delay /`Veh (s)
6:9
91
3,5
8.5
8.8
19
1.6
' 0.3
3.9
3.4
0.4
4.9
Stop Delay (hr)
0.1
J,
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C" 1"
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'
St Del/Veh (s)
5 0
5.4
2.8
6.7
5.6
3.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
1.3
0.1
0
Fuel Used (gal)' �:
Total Stops
59
28
8
3.7
15
32
0
0
0
11
0
0
HC Emissions (g) y \
_.,..,.,.
StopNeh
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.00
Travel Dist (mi) 5.0 24 !"., .0 1.5 3.1 0.4 18.8 1.2 1.3 3.2 1.1
Travel Time (hr) 0.3 0.2 0.0 01 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 01 0.1 0.1 0.1
Avg Speed (mph) 16 15 ' ? 1 7 22 32" 15 16 31 12
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
0.3
15.3
0.2
5.6
0.0
7 .8
0.1
18
0.1
203 5
02 0.0 1.4
18.6 23 ' 13 3
0.1
10.9
0.1
14.6
1.1
3.0
0.1
8.4
HC Emissions (g)
1
0
0
0
0
1 0 3
0
0
1
0
CO Emissions (g)
37
14
3
6
4
¢ i28
11
8
97
18
' NCOx Emissions (g) 3 1 0 0 0 t 0 8 1 1 6 2
Vehicles Entered 60 28 8 1 115 20 28 69 23
Vehicles Exited' 59 28 8 15 15 32 7 313 20 28 69 23
Hourly Exit Rate 59 28 8 0 12 ` ' 20 28 69 23
Dented Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0& 0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'
9: 151 st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
Delay�l Veh(s)�
7.2
6.2
0.6
1.9 .," 2,4': ��•.
Stop Delay (hr)
0.1
0.1
0' 0
0.0
0.2
St Dei/Veh (s)
5.0
4;6
0,2
0.3 '
1.4
Total Stops
95
62
0
11
168
StopNeh
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.09
0.27
Travel Dist (mi)
8.1
6.2
20.4
5.6
40.2
Travel Time (lhr) "'7,0
1L ��
` 0.3
0.7
0.3
1.8,
,
Avg Speed (mph)
16
,
18
29
20
22
Fuel Used (gal)' �:
0.5
0.3
1 5
1.3
3.7
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
15 6
19 0
.'
13.3
4.4
11.0
HC Emissions (g) y \
_.,..,.,.
2
1`
8° e
CO Emissions (g)
54
26
__....
140
.;
122
�•$ .z, .¢:
343
'
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
4
96
2
61
10
340
8 23
120 617
Vehicles Exited �
95
62
340
617 1 °s
Hourly Exit Rate
95
62
340
120
617
Denied Entry `Before
0
0
0
0
0 E
'
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0
L�
SimTraffic Report
Page 7
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
10: External Intersection Performance
._ d q .SM {tf�l:
� s N,
.�
x .., .+ a �^ -r, ��
. ! «s �- sad.
,°�)
0.0
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
0.9
Delay/ `Veh (s}
0.7
0.7'
a , �� ss�
m,
Stop Delay (hr)
0 0
0.0
v. ,.
St Del/Veh (s)
0.1
0.1
A
Total Stops
0
0
0.00
Stop/Veh
MO
0 4 0 1 P
Travel Dist (mi)
43
4.3
Travel Time (hr)
Travel Time (hr)
0.2
02
Avg Speed (mph)
Avg Speed (mph)
24
24
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Used (gal)
0.5
0.5
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
01
0.1
HC Emissions (g)
HC Emissions (g)
2
2
CO Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
11 1
111
NOx`Emissions (g)
NOx Emissions
6
dry.
Vehicles Entered
Vehicles Entered
45
45
Vehicles Exited
Vehicles Exited
45SF
Hourly Exit Rate
45
45
Denied "Entry Before.
C)
0
r O
3.. .�«,i.n
Denied Entry After
0
0
11: External Intersection Performance
F .,...,
".,..,:...�..� .� . .
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay /Veh (s)
0.9
0.9
k 3
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
....�a
St Del/Veh (s)
0.2
0.2
Total Stops
0
0
StopNeh
0.00
0.00
Travel Dist (mi)
8.7
8.7
Travel Time (hr)
0.3
0 . 3 ``�aa
Avg Speed (mph)
25
25
:....
Fuel Used (gal)
1.1
1.1��}
.. <�
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
8.2
8.2
HC Emissions (g)
4
4
CO Emissions (g)
205
205
NOx`Emissions (g)
12
12
dry.
Vehicles Entered
76
76
Vehicles Exited
77
77`,
Hourly Exit Rate
77
77
Denied Entry Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 8
WSBASSMINN -ST51
' SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
t Chippendale Avenue Arterial Performance
f
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report
Page 9
Total Delay (hr)
2.4
Delay / Veh (s)
9.2
Stop Delay (hr)
1.5
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
5.9
461
Stop/Veh
0.49
Travel Dist (mi)
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
125.1
7.0
18
W, �.. ,4�1�'? S„a o
'
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
17.7
7.1
HC Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
45
2194
NOx Emissions (g)
154 ��
`
Vehicles Entered
952
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
948
948
0
0
I N I I I IBM.,�
'
Total Network Performance
Total Delay (hr)
7.8
belay/ Veh (s ) `
Stop Delay (hr)
13.2
4.5
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
7.6
1 389
Y26� .;•,.s. ✓.n .., f "" TF ^"�,i^Y, rftz si 1 x `.. / S �Fa' �w : ,'
Stop /Veh
Travel Dist (mi)
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
0.663
481.9
22.1
22
Fuel Used (gal)
94.5
'
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
HC Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
5.1
238
14771
way
Nq Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
882
2127
. � 5 � ;� I ��� I
, y," ee icles Exited
2111
Hourly Exit Rate
2111
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
0
0
f
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report
Page 9
Queuing and Blocking Report
2002 Exist AM
Baseline
Directions Served
4/29/2002
Intersection: 3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue
LTR
LT
IVlovernent VtVB NB"
"�
Maximum Queue (ft)
51
70
28
Directions Served T TR L T TR L
T R
L TR
Maximum Queue (ft ";, 87 166 149 46 33 85 92
! 12 108
52 f 10
Average Queue (ft) 42 84 78 12 47 36 53
45
21 44
95th Queue (ft) V1 75 141 141 36 73 70 91
97 82
53 76 ,
Link Distance (ft) 526 526 582 582
190 190
465
Upstream Blk Time
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Upstream Blk Time
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time ( %)
0.00
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
,.
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Intersection: 6: Holiday /Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Directions Served
L T R
LTR
LT
LT
Maximum Queue (ft)
Maximum Queue (ft)
51
70
28
72
36
Average Queue (ft)
17
38
1
16
57
95th Queue (ft ) "
Link Distance (ft)
42
276
61
282
9
190
47
190
444
Upstream Blk Time
4;- 1O
Upstream Blk Time
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time ( %)
150
120
r
U
Storage Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)-
--- - -
as, >.a :..« -'at r .. „ter: -. ,.,.,, r.R'�t,.,f�;»::z»✓;,u .,
ma x,
Intersection: 9: 151 st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue
Nework Summa
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Report '
Page 10
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Directions Served
LT
R
LTP
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
70
32
54
Average Queue (ft)
36
6
- )0
9
35th Queue (ft);
57
26
49
33."_
u
Link Distance (ft)
444
4;- 1O
Upstream Blk Time
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
150
120
r
U
Storage Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)`f'
-"
Nework Summa
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Report '
Page 10
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Actuated Signals, Observed Splits 2002 Exist AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
' Intersection: 3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue
I SimTraffic Report
Page 11
WSBASSMINN -ST51
'
Movement(s) Served
NBTL
WBL
EBT
SBTL
EBL
WBT
Maximum Green (s)
18.0
6.0
21,0
18.0
8.0
19.0
�2 v y,
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
,.....t .v.
Recall
Min ,
None
None
Min
None
None
'
Avg. Green (s)
12.9
5.7
18.2
12.9
6.9
12.6
g/C Ratio
0.30
'0.02
0.43
0.30
0.11
0.28
� r,
Cycles Skipped ( %)
0
83
0
0
32
41
'
Cycles cz Minimum (la)
0
0
0
0
0
0
9 �� sq
Cycles Maxed Out ( %)
29
4
48
29
24
18
Cycles with Peds ( °fa}
0
0
0
0
0
0
Controller Summary
Average Cycle Length (s): 42.8
Number of Complete Cycles : 83
I SimTraffic Report
Page 11
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Map - M:101399- 00 \Synchro12002 Exist PM.sy6 2002 Exist PM
Volumes d»or ,)nn,3
Baseline M: \01399- 00\Synchro12002 Exist PM.sy6
U
T
°
< ���
X36
<643
CR 42
<
83
118
660
149
o
�
m M
14 4 14
Holida
cn
3
�
,y.
co
48
151 st A
LIn
2
23
54
30
cv CO
Baseline M: \01399- 00\Synchro12002 Exist PM.sy6
G'
ii
SimTraffic Simulation Summary 2002 Exist PM Trial 2
Baseline 4/29/2002
Summary of Entire Run
h
Start Time
6:57
End Time
8:02
Total Time (min)
65
Time Recorded (min)
60
# of Intervals
2
# of Recorded Intvls
1
Vehs Entered
2912
Y'ehs Exited 5, ?
2905
Starting Vehs
25
Ending Vehs
32
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
M> 0
Travel Distance (mi)
623
Travel Time (hr)
33.6
Total Delay (hr)
14.2
Total Stops
"2157
Fuel Used (gal)
118.4
t� �.....C► infornatiort k ....... .,, Wg � ..:x
Start Time 6:57
End Time I
0 ., 6 �
Total Time (min) 5
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Anti PHF,50 %ile Adjustment.
No data recorded this interval.
Intervafl Information'
Recoiding;�,
Start Time
7:02
End Time
8:02
Total Time (min)
60 a,
Volumes adjusted by PHF,
Growth Factors, Anti PHF,50 %ile Adjustment.",.
Vehs Entered
,.._,..,
2912
Vehs Exited
2905
Starting Vehs
25
Ending Vehs
32
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
0 uM., ti�� 1T SM
Travel Distance (mi)
f.. „$feu
623
{>3N Y 3 S „3, l
Travel Time (hr)� 33.6
�.. a �w ' �,5
Total Delay (hr)
.in. .u. fiHY s��b r• .r; m ,3. <
14.2
het k �;s +E 4'
Total Stops 2157 x �� ,.�
Fuel Used (gal)
'5"O', �i;� -a1k�„ �?�.,u".1�..
118.4
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist PM Trial 2
Baseline 4/29/2002
1: External Intersection Performan
2: External Intersection Perfo
�SB
k:
Total Delay (hr)
0.1
0.1
Delay / Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
1.5
0.0
1.5
0.0
St DelNeh (s)
Total Stops
0.3
0
0.3 =r....>
0
StopNeh
Travel Dist (mi)
0.00
32.5
0.00...,. °��
32.5
Travel Time hr
Avg Speed (mph)
12
26
1.2
26
al
(gal) Fuel Used
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
'.5
43
7.5 l
,, AMA ° � , ..
4.3
HC Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
'
1020
1020
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
66
3'4
66.
314
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
3
3' 5
315
3 5
Entry
Denied Ent Before
0
0 " .
Denied Entry After
0
0
2: External Intersection Perfo
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
WSBASSMINN -ST51
�SB
Total
77
-
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
� �:: l
St Del/Veh s
()
Total Stops
0.1
0
0.1`
0
R °,`zs
_.,... µ,/w,,.
Stop/Veh
Travel Dist (mi)
0.00
23.1
, 0.00 ��
x
.. ?'._.....° ., >,,... s. is ..n4
23.1
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
0.8
30
0.8
30
.uel Used al
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
3 > 3 . 4 ;�
6.8 6.8
HC Emissions (g}
6
6
" WW W a. gKa $ ?°T.. r y �. 'Y �''"s, c� '"p
' "" ��� '� ; �� ��
CO Emissions (g)
367
367
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
22
290
22
290
K✓rm!�'»"mSL19v�� y= �:6.o3n.,$se�k: i� me4�w��1 a
Vehicles Exited
291
Hourly Exit Rate
291
291
Denied Entry Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report
Page 3
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report
2002
Exist PM Trial 2
Baseline
4/29/2002
3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue Performance by movement
EBL EBT
N" ESR
WBL WBT
`' WBR K NBC.; �
NBT�
SB' SBT =.'SBf
Total Delay (hr) 0.9 2.9
0.5
0.9 2.8
01 1.0
0.6
0.1
0.1 0.7 0.2
Delay/ Veh (s) 25.7 13.9
10.9
34.5 14,4
9.6 25,5
14.4
55
18,1_ 18.5 _10,5
Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 1.7
0.3
0.8 1.8
0.1 0.9
0.5
0.1
01 0.6 0.2
'
5t Del/Veh (s) 22,2 8,5
6.9
31.2 9.4
7.9 23,1
11.4
3.8
15.5 14.0 7.9
Total Stops 110 406
114
90 371
39 129
99
66
18 104 67
StopiVeh 0.88 0.55
0.71
1.00 0.53
0.87 0.91 '
0,67
0.67
0.95 0.73 0.81'
Travel Dist (mi) 12.8 74.4
15.9
9.2 71.6
4.6 6.2
6.5
4.2
1.7 12.6 7.3
'
Travel Time (hr) 1,4 _4.9
1.1
1.2 4.8
0.3 1,3
0.9
0.4
0,2 1.2 0,6
Avg Speed (mph) 10 15
14
8 15
15
8
11
10 11 13
Fuel Used (gal) 1,7 10.6
2.0
1,4 9.5
0,7 1.1
1,0
0.5
0;2 1.8 0,8
Fuel Eff. (mpg) 7.5 7.0
7.9
6.0 7.5
h .0 ..'p
6.3
8.3
9.5 6.8 9.3
0111 l Emissions (g) 5 28
5
4 28
2 3
3
2
1 5 2
CO Emissions (g) 162 1332
238
129 1326
v:.' 5 4
113
8
33 186 106
NOx Emissions (g) 16 90
16
12 89
5 11
13
5
2 15 7
'
Vehicles Entered 127 740
160
90 698
45 142
149
98
19 142 83
Vehicles Exited 124 741
160
90 697
45 142
145
98
19 143 83
Hourly Exit Rate 124 741
Denied Entry Before 0 0
160
0
90 697
0 0
45 142
0 0
145
0
98
0
19 143 83
0 0 <. a
Denied Entry After 0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0
3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
4.2
3.8
1.7 1.1
10.8
Delay / Veh (s), s 4.9
Stop Delay (hr)
2.8
2.7
1.5 0.8
7.8
St Del/Veh (s) 1 9.9
Total Stops 630
11.7
500
"..�
Yu 5 !
294 189 1613
Stop/Veh MIMMA tN.,
0:61
0.60
77 ,,.
Travel Dist mi
( )
103,1
85.4
16.9 21.6
227.0
Travel Time (hr },.... `.xr _.a,�.u.. ,` .......
4 ,
.......: 6 3
2.6 1.9
Avg Speed (mph)
14
14
i2
"3
Fuel Used (gal)
14.3
11.7
2.6 2.8
31 A
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
7.2
7.3
6.5 7.7
7.2
'
HC Emissions (g)
38
33
8 8
87'
CO Emissions (g)
1732
1552
221 32.5
3830
NOx Emissions
121
107
29 24
281.,,
Vehicles Entered
1027
833
389 244
2493
Vehicles Exited
1025
832
385 245
2487
1
Hourly Exit Rate
1025
832
385 245
2487
'
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0 0
z. ,... 1
Denied Entry After
0
0
0 0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 3
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist PM Trial 2 '
Baseline 4/29/2002
4: External Inters Performance ,
5: External Intersection Performance
�a°��� ��
�R"€
Total Delay (hr)
0.8
0.8
� ,�v§ = `r.,�.S,. ti
.� ...
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
31
0.0
3.1'
0.0
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
0.1
0
0.1'"
0
�Si' w Ae.Z... >. 5'd a±- 3rJ�.✓ a��'�.., �w5%..�r - 3is"�. '
StopNeh
Travel Dist (mi)
0:00
106.1
4,00��
106.1
ROME d i
s v ' :.
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
13
32
33
32
Ap y dg V W r: fk
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
28.2
3.8
28.2',
3.8
ah
h, wal 0 .
HC Emissions (g)
81
81
Travel Dist (mi)
CO Emissions (g)
5926
5926
Travel Time (hr)
NOx Emissions (''
( .7)
Vehicles Entered
326
922
326
922
jla` 3 _3,
a3rt ;� ' � E ��4 �.at a."*" �� �tiSa��
Vehicles Exited'
Hourly Exit Rate
923
923
923'
923
..��n .. y uy a.
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
Q z r s a
0 0
5: External Intersection Performance
SimTraffic Report
Page 4
W SBASSM I N N -ST51
�a°��� ��
�R"€
� ,�v§ = `r.,�.S,. ti
.� ...
Total Delay (hr)
0.8
0.8
Delay/ Veh (s)'
3.3
3.3
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
.
St Del/Veh (s)
0.1
0.1
Total Stops
2
2
Stop/Veh
0.00
0.00-"
y
Travel Dist (mi)
100.2
100.2
Travel Time (hr)
3.0
3.0
Avg Speed (mph)
33
33
Fuel Used (gal)
26.9
26.9
1
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
3.7
3.7
HC Emissions
76
76 a,
CO Emissions (g)
5579
5579
NOx Emissions (9)
304
304,
Vehicles Entered
858
858
Vehicles Exited
858
858�xa.
�}
Hourly Exit Rate
858
858
Denied Entry Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 4
W SBASSM I N N -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist PM Trial 2
Baseline 4/29/2002
6: Holiday /Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue Performance by movement
I SimTraffic Report
Page 5
WSBASSMINN -ST51
"EBT - 'EBR , ='/BL `fVBT =ttBR '' NBA r' �NBT' NBR SBL fE�T1gj
Total Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0
0.0
0.1
00 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Delay/ Veh (s) 9.2 9.9
3.5
10.8
20.5 4.3
1.9 0.7 3.3 39 '15 4.4
Stop Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0 0 1
0.0 0.1 0 C1, 01 0.0 0.0
'
St Del/Veh (s) 7.9 8.0
3.0
91
17A 3.8
0:1 02 0.1 1.8 0.2 03
Total Stops 21 16
3
36
2 142
0 1 3 46 3 0
Stop/Veh 1.00 0,94
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.06 037 0.01 0.00
Travel Dist (mi) 1.1 0.8
0.2
1.9
0.1 7.6
0.0 8.7 2.1 11.3 114 1.8
'
Travel Time (hr) 0.1 0.1
0.0
0.2
0 0 0.6
0.0 OA 0.2 0.4 07 0.2
Avg Speed (mph) 11 1'1
14
10
7 14
14 24 13 3 20 1 ll
Fuel Used (gal) 0.1 0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0 0.7
0.0 1.3 0.3 0.7 4.1 U.3
'
Fuel Eft. (mpg) 14.6 13.2
10.5
10.1
7.0 11.5
7.0 6.9 7.9 7,6 13 7.0
HC Emissions (g) 0 0
0
1
0 2
0 3 1 2 11 1
CO Emissions (g) 3 4
2
17
1 62
1 72 35 7 5 630 <9
NOx Emissions (g) 1 1
0
2
0 6
0 12 3 9 43 3
Vehicles Entered 21 16
3
30
2 14.4
1 208 54 125 306 41
Vehicles Exited a 21 17
3
36
2 141
1 207 54 125 307 41'
Hourly Exit Rate 21 7
3
36
L ��1
2
, 2
207 54 ,L7 30f 41
'
Denied Entry Before 0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
i 6:
Holiday /Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
: NE
N
y
lm
Total Delay (hr)
01
0.3
0.1
0.3 0.8
Delay/ Veh (s)
9.1
5.8``
4 .,.
Stop Delay (hr)
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1 0.4
St Del/Veh (s) �> 5.0
Total Stops 40 180
4
49 273
Stgp/Veh " g ,
....;
Travel Dist (mi)
2.1
91
101
a
20.5 43.1
'
: ave( Time (hr} ".., ,.
6. 2 '' 0.8
0a°
Avg Speed (mph)
11
13
20
17 16
Fuel Used (gal)'
0.2
0.9
1.5a
..; ,.
.��."
Fuel Eff. ( Pg) m
13.6
11 1
7.1
4.0 5.7
HC Emissions (g)
0
3
4
w
14
CO Emissions (g)
9
80
208
785 1082
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
1
40
8
182
15
263
55 �� ' - �3 s 1
472 957
Vehicles Exited
41
179
262
473 955
Hourly Exit Rate
41
179
262
473 955
Denied Entry Before �ey
9.....
0
0
'
. �A) W.... .......
Denied Entry After
,.
0
0
0
a 19 IM
0 0
I SimTraffic Report
Page 5
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist PM Trial 2
Baseline 4/29/2002
7: External Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
Delay/ Veh (s)'
Stop Delay (hr)
St DelNeh (s)
Total Stops
StopNeh
Travel Dist (mi)
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
HC Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
0.0 0
0.0
0.0 0
0.0
0.0 0
0.0
0 0
0
Q.00 0
0.00
2.6 2
2.6
0.1 0
0.1
20 2
20
4,6 4
4.6
2 2
2 1
1s1� .
..
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
44 44
X 4
44 44
0 0
0 0
8: External Intersection Performance
., �`9 �� �� $ z b ' `� � �' ota(�� t 1'� �,�'� &' a. 3' .�3K � a�+l'Sit _ •k'� "$'�`° �
Total Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0
Delay / Veh (s) 0.5 0.5
Stop Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0
St Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2 .
Total Stops 0 0
StopNeh 0.100 .. ,QO
Travel Dist (mi) 12.8 12.8
Travel Time hr 0.6 0.6
Avg Speed (mph) 22 22
Fuel Used (gal), 3.3 3.3
Fuel Eff. (mpg) 3.9 3.9
HC Emissions 8 8
CO Emissions (g) 480 480
NOx Emissions (g) 30 30 .L Y ar.•, �.,
Vehicles Entered 196 196
Vehicles Exited 196 196 M
„
Hourly Exit Rate 196 196
Denied Entry Before 0 0`
Denied Entry After 0 0
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report '
Page 6
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report '
Page 6
' SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist PM Trial 2
Baseline 4/29/2002
9: 151st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue Performance by movement
SimTraffic Report
Page 7
WSBASSMINN -ST51
.
i L
. EBT
EBR
WBL
- �t1lBT . WBll � BL
NBT;
NBR ti
0.3
-; aSBR
0.0
0.1
Total Delay (hr)
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
Delay/ Veh,(s)
8.9
10.5
4.1
9.3
10.6;
2 CI
0.2
3.7
10
0.5
4.5
St Del/Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'
St Del/Veh (s)
6.7
7.4
3.4
7.1
7.0
3.8
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.0
0.1'
50.3
Total Stops
27
60
46
20
59
44
3
0
0
9
0
1
28
StopNeh
1.00
1,00
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
023
OM
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.02
15.7
Travel Dist (mi)
16,7
4.9
37
1.8
5.4
4.0
0.9
9.9
1.7
2.4
11.2
2.3
'
Travel Time (hr)
22
0:2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
42
Avg Speed (mph)
14
14
17
15
15
18
21
32
16
17
29
13
179
Fuel Used (gal) al
0.1
0.3
^ 0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
2.5
0.3
'
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
15.1
154
6.6
14.3
13.6
13.9
218
18.1
103
12.3
44
8.5
HC Emissions (g)
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
5
1
CO Emissions (g)
15
30
20
13
47
3 .
L
92
16
14
343
46
'
NOx Emissions (g)
1
2
2
1
3
2
0
5
2
2
18
, 4
Vehicles Entered
27
60
46
20
59
45
13
143
24
51
245
50
Vehicles Exited
27
60
45
20
59
44
13
142
24
51
246
50
Hourly Exit Rate
27
60
45
20
59
44
13
142
24
51
246
50
'
Denied Entry Before
1 ,.W..,. 0
0
0
0
0,
0:
0
0
0
0
0
d
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
„ ,w
0
9: 151 st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
SimTraffic Report
Page 7
WSBASSMINN -ST51
.. 5 ., 1
,prty I_I�•
�� ,
Total Delay (hr)
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.8
Delay! Veh (s } s
8.0
8.1
0.8
Stop Delay (hr)
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
St Del/Veh (s)
5.9
5,9
0.2
0.1
20
'
Total Stops
133
123
3
1 0
269
�
StopNeh 1 a �
1 .01
1.00
0.02
0.03
0.34
Travel Dist (mi)
10.8
11.2
12.4
15.9
50.3
.....:; ..... .,
Travel Time (hr)
0.7
0 :7
` 0.5
0.7
2.6
Avg Speed (mph)
15
16
28
22
19
Fuel Used (gal),
0.7
0 :8
0.7
3.0
5.2
::
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
15.7
118
16,7
5.3
9.6
d
'
HC Emissions (g)
2
3
2
7
14
CO Emissions (g)
65
95
111
403
674
NOx Emissions (g)
5
7
7
24
42
m s"; 5
'
Vehicles Entered
133
124
180
346
783
.,
Vehicles Exited
132
123
179
347
781
3 w
Hourly Exit Rate
132
123
179
347
781
Denied Entry Before
O
�zs):: 0
0 1
` ®�
, ........
Denied Entry After
0
......
0
0
0
0
,...
SimTraffic Report
Page 7
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist PM Trial 2
Baseline 4/29/2002
10: External Intersection Performance
$ a :4
� s� � � Y V Cl ���'.,;' n�1.��V la ' `�� u: �'� "�� .� s � �'`'.,,� �, � � :y �C,•6 X"A+�F "��`
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay/ Veh (s)
1.2
Total Delay (hr)
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St DelNeh (s);
0.2
0.2' yy s
Total Stops
0
0
StopNeh
0.00
0.00w �M
Travel Dist (mi)
11.4
,
11.4
Travel Time (hr)
0.5
0.5- MO
Avg Speed (mph)
24
24
Fuel Used (gal)
1.7
1.7''
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
6.9
6.9
HC Emissions (g)
6
6'
CO Emissions (g)
328
328
NOx Emissions (g)
20
20 c�
Vehicles Entered
122
122
Vehicles Exited
122
122:13 :.,k,vz H MiA
Hourly Exit Rate
122
122
Denied Entry Before
0
0 ,
Denied Entry After
0
0
11: External Intersection Performance
y Y, B'r e - "'` q a ",. ''' '. " r'X"'
�,� ���,.
EB
-
Total• w
'`cY.. �..C�': •g �:lfV �,
•.,
t� Y PA��,� .§� :h . :; a"i. 3, , �',. o, 3...; �t �*cW,�; .i
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay/ Veh(s)
1.1
1.1..
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
>w�z
St DelNeh (s) _
0,2
0.2
Total Stops
0
0
Sto Neh yr
0.00
0.00
Travel Dist (mi)
14.1
14.1
Travel a
Avg Speed (mph)
24
24
Fuel Used (gal)',
2.6
2.6
w..' v
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
5.4
5.4
HC Emissions. (g)
6
6'
N '•,'1e B �.f.f Fh; A R ,=2. - ps°`*`v, €. Su "°e./'�:.E
CO Emissions (g)
317
317
NOx Emissions (g)
22
22
d
Vehicles Entered
135
135
Vehicles Exited
135
Hourly Exit Rate
135
135
Denied Entry Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report
Page 8
' SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Exist PM Trial 2
Baseline 4/29/2002
Chippendale Avenue Arterial Performance
P,
I SimTraffic Report
Page 9
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Total Delay (hr)
3.6
Delay/ Veh (s)
9.6
Stop Delay (hr)
2.4
St Del/Veh (s)
6.6
Total Stops
549
StopNeh
0.41
Travel Dist (mi)
Travel Time (hr)
153.7
9.4
Avg Speed (mph)
16
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
26.6
5.8
HC Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
67
3440
'
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
242
1329
,
Vehicles Exited
132$
Hourly Exit Rate
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
1328
d f
.0..
Total Network Performance
Total Delay (hr)
14.2
Delay/ Veh (s) `
Stop Delay (hr)
17
8.8
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
10.9
2157
p
a� \ \' Z ^'c,`2.' ) 3 9'n dC ,. �.✓£ ' .>?,`� tt ' 'k \ q g. f t9
Stop/Veh
Travel Dist (mi)
0.74
623.2
'
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
33.6
19
il,...::. - ii5.� fix', • /w tlE j•�C �" -u. m
Fuel Used (gal)
118.4
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
5.3
HC Emissions (9)
CO Emissions (g)
324i
19705
„ ,...
NOx Emissions (9)
Vehicles Entered
1199
2912
f O M
E ���� w
y
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
2905
2905
2
VIN
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
0 , ^
0
P,
I SimTraffic Report
Page 9
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Queuing and Blocking Report 2002 Exist PM Trial 2
Baseline 4/29/2002
Intersection: 3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue
M 6f - 1U EB8
EB.. f -UVB
WB"
WB
NB Ni3 `NxSB>
Average Queue (ft
28 46 3 29
95th Queue (ft)
53 92 15 64
Link Distance (ft)
276 282 189 190
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
I f' ME, y „
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time ( %)
0 a
Queuing Penalty (veh)' y ;y. RUMP 2 A ,
25
2
Directions Served
L
T
TR
L
T
TR
L
T
R
L
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
122
219
227
143
215
158
130
148
91
52
130
Average Queue (ft)
61
112
106
51
87
8 1
7 6
62
33
15
76
95th Queue (ft)
103
183
190
104
158
128
123
121
56
45
122
Link Distance (ft)
526
526
532
532
190
190
465
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
250
250
120 --
200
Storage Blk Time ( %)
0.00
0.00
Queuing Penalty (veh)
1
1
Intersection: 6: Holiday /Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue
fUlovernent
Directions Served
LTR LTR TR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)
52 188 23 74
Average Queue (ft
28 46 3 29
95th Queue (ft)
53 92 15 64
Link Distance (ft)
276 282 189 190
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
I f' ME, y „
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time ( %)
0 a
Queuing Penalty (veh)' y ;y. RUMP 2 A ,
Intersection: 9: 151st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue
Storage Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Nework Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2
SimTraffic Report
Page 10
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Directions Served
LT
R
LTR
L
L
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
72
37
52
28
91
47
25
2
32
8
22
1
y�
xiax_nsm �.�;^� . t .elxL_��1�'aK 1.,xn�4aavJ
95th Queue (ft)
62
51
72
13
30
7
m m., ; �R
Link Distance (ft)
428
480
189
_.
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
150
150
120
Storage Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Nework Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2
SimTraffic Report
Page 10
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Actuated Signals, Observed Splits 2002 Exist PM Trial 2
Baseline 4/29/2002
Intersection: 3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue
I SimTraffic Report
Page 11
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Phase
Movement(s) Served NBTL
WBL
EBT
SBTL
EBL
WBT
s
Maximum Green ()
18:4
6:0
21.0
18.0
9.0
18 (1' <` k f
s „
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Recall ''
Min
None
None
Min
None
None
Avg. Green (s)
16.0
5.8
21.8
16.0
7.8
18.8
g/C Ratio
0.29
0.07
0.39
0129
0.12
0.34
j M K � 1
��
Cycles Skipped ( %)
0
29
0
0
16
0
'
Cycles @ Minimum
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cycles Maxed Out ( %)
63
43
71
63
42
71
'
Cycles with Peds (o
Controller Summary
0
0
0 0 0 0
Average Cycle Length (s):
55.4
Number of Complete Cycles
: 64
I SimTraffic Report
Page 11
WSBASSMINN -ST51
i
Map - M:\01399 -00 \Synchro \2002 Median AM.sy6
Volumes
2002 Median AM
0 �
CR 42
Holida
151st
3aseline
M:\01399 -00 \Synchro \2002 Median AM.sy6
1
SimTraffic Simulation Summary 2002 Median AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
' I ..,. 3, �..., .�. �,:D,�. - �� 1, �7 2a„ y ,�•.Z� k .•�,,w�4� ,�t -��`� 3�., �, � �, " ... � Y, f q
S �
Start Time 6:57
End Time
Total Time (min)
8:02
65
3 f =
Time Recorded (min)
# of Intervals
60
2
# of Recorded lntvls
Vehs Entered
1
1984
8:02
Vehs Exited
1980
��. ,; .. y •.. � � w
Starting Vehs
10
Ending 'Vehs
14
Vehs Entered
Denied Entry Before
1
Denied Entry After
0
f �s
Travel Distance (mi)
447
10
Travel Time (hr)
20.6
Ending Vehs
Total Delay (hr)
7.0
Denied Entry Before
itery l ##U - jnf
Start Time 6:57
Total Time (min) 5
s i - .,tFyFr �z'
Unit €�S ad ust:d by Growth Factors z ar
a
>,....aL•:., mt .. ., , �.u,..o` gyp. �„+.maa,� „.• '.r �ms.w•. c�.
No data recorded this interval.
16 fierva ' l 91 Information,
Recording
r,
Start Time
7:02
End Time
8:02
,. .
Total Time (min)
60
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors
Vehs Entered
1984
Vehs Exited
1980
f �s
Starting Vehs
10
Ending Vehs
14
Denied Entry Before
1
Denied Entry After
0�
Travel Distance (mi)
447
Travel Time (hr)
20.6
Total Delay (hr)
7.0
Total Stops
1322E°
Fuel Used (gal)
85.3
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
1: External Intersection Performance
2: External Intersection Performance
• ,!1..�� - t2 i3 Kwg
�"`,
Sri `B..} ., A „S'..
Total Delay (hr)
0.1
0.1
Delay/ Veh (s)
1.5
1 ..5:,,.
x � �T .� ''.f ¢ A 'y
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St Del /Veh (s)
0.3
0.3',
A °i3' S. ^a
r "
Total Stops
0
0
Sto Neh
0.00
0.00
K A
Travel Dist (mi)
26.0
26.0
..,,
Travel Time (hr)
0.9
0.9
Avg Speed (mph)
28
28
Fuel Used (gal)
6.3
6.3'
'MR
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
4.1
4.1
ON
HC Emissions (g)
13
13'
Fa d<
IWO
CO Emissions (g)
797
797
NOx Emissions (g)
49
49
2s,., '" Z "x M t��r.
Vehicles Entered
249
249
Vehicles Exited
249
249'
A i Z. "Ww
° `?.'a`?A.�.,F
Hourly Exit Rate
249
249
[tw.�
Denied Entry Before
0
®��
Denied Entry After
0
0
..
2: External Intersection Performance
• ,!1..�� - t2 i3 Kwg
�"`,
Sri `B..} ., A „S'..
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St Del/Veh (s)
0.2
0.2
Total Stops
0
0
StapNeh
0.00
0.00
u
Travel Dist (mi)
9.0
9.0
..,,
Travel Time (hr)
0.3
03
Avg Speed (mph)
28
28
Fuel Used (gal)
1.2
1.2
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
7.5
7.5
HC Emissions (g)
4
4
9 r �
,.., .. .. �` ..
CO Emissions (g)
232
232
NOx Emissions (g)
13
13'
Vehicles Entered
11 1
111
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
111
111
Denied Entry Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
WSBASSMINN -ST51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue Performance by movement
Total Delay (hr)
0.5
1.4
0.1
0.1
1.0
0,0
0.6
0.5
0.2
02
0.3
0.1
Delay / Veh (s)
24.0
7.5
5.3
23.1
10.1
4.7
16.7
8.8
5.7
21 .6
11,9
6.7
Stop Delay (hr)
0.5
0.8
M
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.5
03
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
St DelNeh (s)
21.4
4.3
2,6
21
6,9
2.1
14.4
5.9
4.2
19.5
8.7
4.8
Total Stops
75
244
35
21
180
3
100
89
98
32
46
52
Stop/Veh
0.91
037
0.66
0.95
0.50
0.50
0.83
0.47
0.80
0.97
0-55
0,83
Travel Dist (mi)
8.3
65.6
5-3
2.2
373
0.6
5.6
8.2
5.5
2.8
7.5
5-6
Travel Time (hr)
0,8
31
03
0.2
2.0
0.0
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.3
Avg Speed (mph)
10
21
19
10
19
19
7
11
11
9
14
16
Fuel Used (gal)
1.1
8.5
1.1
0.5
4,1
0.1
0.6
1.6
0,6
0.5
1.3
0.6
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
7.6
7 8
4.6
4.2
9.1
9.5
8.6
5.0
9.7
5.6
5.8
9.4
HC Emissions (g)
3
24
2
1
15
0
2
3
2
1
3
1
CO Emissions (g)
130
1254
89
42
785
18
36
126
48
35
120
42
NOx Emissions (g)
10
81
6
3
48
1
6
12 r
5
3
9
4"
Vehicles Entered
82
654
53
22
362
6
1 21
191
122
32
85
63
Vehicles Exited
82
654
53
22
363
6
121
190
123
33
84
63
Hourly Exit Rate
82
654
53
22
363
6
121
190
123
33
84
63
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0
0
21,
0
0
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
w -�, , 3 7
7, - "I'
r%
Total Delay (hr)
2.0
1.2
1.2
0.6
5.0
Delay / Veh (s)
9.1
10.7
10.1
11,8
10,0
Stop Delay (hr)
1.3
0.8
0.9
0
3.5
St Del/Veh (s)
7.7
7.8
9.3
7.1
Total Stops
354
204
287
130
975
om
t 2.
"0.45
0.52
0�60
0 72
0.54
Travel Dist (mi)
79.2
40.2
1 9.2
15.9
1 54.5
-A
Travel Time (hr) A 'A
2.3
2.1
11.2
Avg Speed (mph)
19
18
9
14
16
Fuel Used (gal)
10.7
4.7
29
2.4
20.6
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
7.4
8.5
67
6,7
7.5
HC Emissions (g)
29
16
7
5
56
ME
CO Emissions (g)
1473
845
210
197
2726
NOx Emissions (g)
98
52
23
16
189
Vehicles Entered
789
390
434
180
1793
Vehicles Exited
789
391
434
180
1794
Hourly Exit Rate
789
391
434
180
1794
Denied Entry Before
0 -111
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 3
WSBASSMINN-ST51
I
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
4: External Intersection Performance
yl;
<4�i
Total Delay (hr)
0.4
0.4
0.5
Delay / Veh (s).
2.4
2.4
'
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
0.2
St Del/Veh (s)
0.2
02
0
Total tops
0.00
0
Travel Dist (mi)
� il
Sto .. lVe.V pf ��l.7
af��i l!
V
0.00
` gli
Travel Dist (mi)
62.9
62.9
35
Travel Time (hr)
1.9
1.9
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
Avg Speed (mph)
33
33
62
Fuel Used (gal)
17.1
17.1
..�
5 ,f
Z wq�� XaY i S.?+xkG,` a� '. ���� ",W' ¢.
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
3.7
3.7
-. , ii� a. ra.a.Y i <i2�aa�•{a,F
HC Emissions (g)
50
50,..�_��
t z
CO Emissions (g)
3720
3720
804
NOx Emissions (g)
186
186
Denied Entry After
Vehicles Entered
547
547
Vehicles Exited
547
547'
Hourly Exit Rate
547
547
Denied Entry Before
0 l
0
° °
Denied Entry After
0
0
5: External Intersection Performance
d
Total Delay (hr)
0.5
0.5
Delay / Veh„ O ;
2.4
2.4
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St Del/Veh (s)
0.2
0.2
Total Stops
0
0
StopiVeit;.w.. �.,...
0.00
0 . 00 `..��.. .. �1 io .0 .<
s
Travel Dist (mi)
919
93.9
Travel Time
2.7
2.7_�
Avg Speed (mph)
35
35
Fuel Used (gal),,,'
25.0
25.0
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
3.8
3.8
HC Emissions (g) �..
62
62 �� .... E N
CO Emissions (g)
4465
4465
NOx Emissions (g)
247
247 5 `x y a : 1
Vehicles Entered
810
810
Vehicles Exited,
804
804
Hourly Exit Rate
804
804
Denied Entry Before
0
0'
Denied Entry After
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 4
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
6: Holiday /Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue Performance by movement
I SimTraffic Report
Page 5
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Stt1BT V1F R
NB
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1 0.1 0.0
0.0
Delay/ Veh (s)
- .16:1
16.6
3.6
' 0.8 4.9 `1.1
,� : 5.4 ` � 7 ,>
i ` _
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
01
0.0 0.0 0.0
,
0.0
St DelNeh (s)
14.0
14.4
3.3
0.1 0.1 0.2
0.3
Total Stops
2
2
95
0 0 0
0 _._ .... . _.w
StopNeh
1.00
1,00
0,99
0.00 0.00 " 0.00
0,00
Travel Dist (mi)
0)
0. 1
5 1
16.1 2.2 7.5
0.5
Travel Time (hr)
0;0
0.0
0.4
0.6 0.2 03
0.0
Avg Speed (mph)
8
8
15
25 12 22
12
Fuel Used (gal)
0.0
0.0
0.3
2.4 0.3 2.4
01
'
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
13.1
8,2
14,9
6.7 81 3.1
6
HC Emissions (g)
Q
0
1
6 1 6
Q< ,.
CO Emissions (g)
0
24
290 37 363
11 M
.O
NOx Emissions (g)
0
2
21 3 22
1
a-
Vehicles Entered
2
2
95
341 47 156
9
Vehicle s Exited'
`2
2
96
X341 47 156
9
Hourly Exit Rate
2
2
96
341 47 156
.�a�.
9
Denied Entry Before
".�� 0
Q
Q 0 Q,
';0 _..
y
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
6: Holiday /Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
De�� 1 �leF €s �: � ��. a.. 1 ' 4
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.1
'
St DelNeh (s)
Total Stops 2 97 0 0 99
Sfo Neh
p
1.t? ,
Travel Dist (mi)
0.1
5.2 18.3
8.0 31.6
Travel Time (hr)
0 0 i��,
�f g_, < y�
Avg Speed (mph)
8
E z
14 22
21 20
Fuel Used (gal)
Q 0
, . � 0.4�
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
131
147 6.8
3.2 5.7
'
HC Emissions (g)
0
1 r wNw- <
CO Emissions (g)
0
25 327
374 726
fOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
0
2
3 25
97 388
2 uz
165 652
Vehicles Exited
2
98 388
165 653° ti.
Hourly Exit Rate
2
98 388
165 653
'
Denied Entry Before
0
0 0
0 0
Denied Entry After
0
0 0
0 0
I SimTraffic Report
Page 5
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
7: External Intersection Performance
8: External Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay/ Veh (s)
0.4
0.4
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St DelNeh (s)
0.1
0.1
Total Stops
0
0
Stop/Veh
0,00
0.00
Travel Dist (mi)
0.7
0.7
Travel Time (hr)
0.0
0:0
Avg Speed (mph)
20
20
Fuel Used (gal)
0.1
0.1 _.
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
7.1
7.1
HC Emissions (g)
0
0
CO Emissions (g)
22
22
NOx Emissions (g)
1
1
Vehicles Entered
11
1 1
ehiclesExited
11
11 °:....
Hourly Exit Rate
11
...
11
(Denied 'Entry 'Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
8: External Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay/ Veh,(s)
9.2
U
r4 M . rat
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St DelNeh (s)
0.0
0.0
x
Total Stops
0
0
StopNeh
0.00
0.00
Travel Dist (mi)
10
3.0
Travel Time (hr)
0.1
0.1�
Avg Speed (mph �
21
21
'
Fuel Used (gal)
0.6
0.6
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
4.8
4.8
HC Emissions (g)
2
2
n
'
CO Emissions (g)
129
129
NOx Emissions (g)
7
T
Vehicles Entered
49
49
Vehicles Exited
49
49
Hourly Exit Rate
49
49
Denied Entry Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report '
Page 6
Travel Dist (mi) 7.2 2.7 0.7 19 1.8 3 1.0 18.7 0.9 3.4 2.8 1 1
Travel Time (hr) 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 O.1 0.1
Avg Speed (mph) 14 14 18 14 15 18 22 32 17 16 31
' Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
O :8
9.5
0.2
144
O.O
174
0.4
10 2
0.1 0.3
15.8 10.3
0.0
23,2
1.8
10.5
0.1
10.1
0.2 0.2
16.1 14.5
0.2
5.8
HC Emissions (g)
2
1
0
SimTraffic Performance
Report
0
4
0
1 1
0
CO Emissions (g)
53
2002 Median AM
6
Baseline
12 24
2
235
9
10 55
15
StoplVeh »�..r. " »n.,
Travel Dist (mi)
1:00
10.6
4/29/2002
'
9: 151 st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue Performance by movement
0.37
47.4
„. ,..
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
7
14
,..E r. 0..6
16
EBL
EBT "
EBR
VIIBL
WBT WBR ='
NBL :'
NBT "::
, NBR?
. S'BL "
" "SBT
SBFr
Total Delay (hr)
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
476
Delay /Veh (s ) ,
9`.4
10.6
3.6
10.3
11.2
3.9>
1.6
03
3.6
3.2
0A
5.0
298
298
Stop Delay (hr)
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
St DelNeh (s)
7.4
7,2
2.6
8.4
7.8
3.1
0.4
0.1
0.4
1.0
0.0
0.0
Total Stops
84
32
8
43
20
34
1
0
2
24
0
0
Stop/Veh
1.00
1.00
1',00
1.02
I.00
1.00
0.07
0.00
0.15
0.32
0.00
OM
Travel Dist (mi) 7.2 2.7 0.7 19 1.8 3 1.0 18.7 0.9 3.4 2.8 1 1
Travel Time (hr) 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 O.1 0.1
Avg Speed (mph) 14 14 18 14 15 18 22 32 17 16 31
' Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
O :8
9.5
0.2
144
O.O
174
0.4
10 2
0.1 0.3
15.8 10.3
0.0
23,2
1.8
10.5
0.1
10.1
0.2 0.2
16.1 14.5
0.2
5.8
HC Emissions (g)
2
1
0
1
0 1
0
4
0
1 1
0
CO Emissions (g)
53
29
6
2.5
12 24
2
235
9
10 55
15
' NOx Emissions (g) 4 2 0 2 1 2 0 12 1 1 2 1,
Vehicles Entered 84 32 8 42 20 34 15 270 13 74 61 23
Vehicles Exited 84 32 8 42 20 34 15` 270 13 74 61 22
' Hourly Exit Rate 84 32 8 42 20 34 15 270 13 74 61 22
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 U d
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'
9: 151st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
03
0.2
0.0
0.1
0 7
'
Delay/ Veh (s)
9.3
8.2
��
0 �. » ,. 17
.. E
Stop Delay (hr)
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
'
St Delflleh (s)
Total Stops
7.1
124
6 :4
97
0 ell F ? "' 0 W " 2.4s
3 24 248
StoplVeh »�..r. " »n.,
Travel Dist (mi)
1:00
10.6
1.01
8.8
0 01 ' °`�,,.
20.7
0.15
7.3
0.37
47.4
„. ,..
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
7
14
,..E r. 0..6
16
0.7
30
0.4
19
2.4'
20
Fuel Used (gal) a
1.0
0.8
1.9
0.6
4.3
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
HC Emissions (g)
10.7
3
11.0
2;
10.8
5
12.4
2 "
11.1
11
CO Emissions (g)
88
61
246
81
476
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
6
124
5
96
13
298
5
158
29`y¢
676
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
124
124
96
96
298
298
157
" 57
675
675
'
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report
Page 7
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
10: External Intersection Perf ormance
:.,�' E 'WB
Total Delay (hr) 0.0
TQtal'E
0.0
a's 1 1 1 F NO
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
1.0
0.0
1.0;�
0.0
y
St DelNeh (s)
Total Stops
0.2
0
0.2'
0
Stop /Veh
Stop/Veh
Travel Dist (mi)
0.00
5.7
0.00
5.7
€ �g a z y 5
1 R ,
Travel Time ( hr )
Avg Speed (mph)
0.2
24
0.2:
24
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Used al
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
1.2
4.6
1.2
4.6
HC Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
2 ae
136
136
NOx Emissions (9)
Vehicles Entered
9
57
9 gv� t�
57
Vehicles Exited
58
58
Hourly Exit Rate
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
58
0
0
58
0
0
�, xvr q.� ^ �� ,. N .
� 'a s £.r f �`
� t,a
11: External Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
Delay / Veh (s) _u.. a...,.
,. 0.8
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
St Del/Veh (s)
0.2
Total Stops
0
Stop /Veh
O. C70
Travel Dist (mi)
I2.3
Travel Time (hr)
0.5
Avg Speed (mph;
2 -'+
Fuel Used (gal)
3.3
Fuel Eff. (mpg).7
0.0
0. pp � x.
0.0
0.2
ffi ^.
12.3
0.5 jffl!�"11211 A K 1
24
Ca G k 1
3.7
HC Emissions (g) 5 5:
CO Emissions (g) 230 280
NOx Emissions / 2() 20 .a .,: q�,
Vehicles Entered 119 119
Vehicles Exited 119 119 p �
Hourly Exit Rate 119 119
Denied Entry Before 0 a �'
Denied Entry After 0 0
SimTraffic Report
Page 8
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
Chippendale Avenu Arterial Performance
I Total Network Performance
Total Delay (hr) 2.3
Total Delay (hr)
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
9.0
1.5
Delay /Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
St DelNeh (s) j���; � �,��. Ask � ���.��� �.��� ., ��,.�.� � •.,. �Q.,�� � ,;a
Total Stops 444
;���s h M NE
StopNeh
Travel Dist (mi)
0:49
124.3
'
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph) 18 N
StopNeh
Travel Dist (mi)
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
20 4�3
6.1
i 5 `& ':+'� a", x ,ra > a yre f"' x p °., a e` '% °' t 3 •� y t t
x
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
HC Emissions
CO Emissions (g)
J
HC Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
48,.}
2463
'.
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
NOx Emissions (g) Ir
Vehicles Entered
1.67
913
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
Denied Entry Before���� K � ; ���..,z;`.
Denied Entry After
912
912
0
0
'
I Total Network Performance
SimTraffic Report
Page 9
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Total Delay (hr)
70
Delay /Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
17.8
4.2
;���s h M NE
St DelNeh (s)
Total Stops
7 nx2 �
E �� +fffa^a .N of
1322
'
StopNeh
Travel Dist (mi)
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
0.67
446.8
20 6�
22
»,
a .,, ., >� ,,.k� - >•.� a�:
7_ v �, ; .'•
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
HC Emissions
CO Emissions (g)
85.3
5 2
219
13709
'.
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
802
1984
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
1980
1980
� iIO ,3 MANNAR� 'RA "'
'
Denied Entry
Denied Entry After
1
0
F � " ,max � z �y
M.
SimTraffic Report
Page 9
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Queuing and Blocking Report 2002 Median AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
Intersection: 3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue
Movement
EB""
"E
Directions Served
97
7 "
LTR
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
72
Maximum Queue (ft)
32
54
Average Queue (ft)
42
Average Queue (ft)
3
35
Directions Served
L
T
TR
L
T
TR
L
T
R L
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
85
123
131
46
97
120
11f
131
72 69
112
Average Queue (ft)
44
66
60
15
49
32
56
54
26
45
95th Queue (ft)
74
104
108
38
79
69
86
100
67 54
go
Link Distance (ft)
526
526
532
532
190
199
465
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
250
250
250
250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Holiday/Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue
ciuerricn
.. BB
WB
Directions Served
LT
Directions Served
LTR
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
72
Maximum Queue (ft)
32
54
Average Queue (ft)
42
Average Queue (ft)
3
35
95th Queue (ft)
66
95th Queue (ft)
15
49
Link Distance (ft)
453
Link Distance (ft)
276
282
Upstream Blk Time (%),
Upstream Blk Time (%)
g k" V
am NUMEM
Queuing Penalty (veh)
aim, W 6
W
I N 2
W11 1 3E W 1
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
150
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
250 16
Storage Blk Time (%)
Storage Blk Time (%)
11
"R NM ffi
Queuing Penalty (veh) M I MI
NOR M
.LAff5f,
Queuing Penalty (veh)
g .
Intersection: 9: 151st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue
I W6 � 61 We i F -,, VE, MF
N
Directions Served
LT
R
LTR
L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft)
72
32
72
22 11 50
Average Queue (ft)
42
8
37
1 1 21
95th Queue (ft)
66
30
. 63
5 52
Link Distance (ft)
453
480
354
Upstream Blk Time (%),
g k" V
am NUMEM
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
150
250 16
Storage Blk Time (%)
11
"R NM ffi
Queuing Penalty (veh) M I MI
NOR M
.LAff5f,
g .
Nework Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 AWN
WSBASSMINN-ST51
SimTraffic Report
Page 10
I
' Actuated Signals, Observed Splits 2002 Median AM
Baseline 4/29/2002
Intersection: 3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue
SimTraffic Report
Page 11
WSBASSMINN -ST51
i?hase,. P
Movement(s) Served NBTL WBL EBT SBTL
EBL
WBT
Maximum Green (s) 18.0
6.0`
21.0
18.0
8.0
19.0
Minimum Green (s) 4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Recall Min
None
None
Min
None
None
1 ,.F 31 z�
Avg. Green (s) 12.8
5.7
18.2
12.8
6.8
14.1
g/C Ratio 0.29
0.03
0.42
0.29
0.09
0.32
Cycles Skipped ( %) 0
75
0
0
40
0
Cycles ,'@ Minimum ( %) 0
0
0
0
0
0�.;.u£..,yr:
Cycles Maxed Out ( %) 26
5
39
26
16
26
Cycles with Peds ( %) 0
0
0
0
0
0
Controller Summary
Average Cycle Length (s): 43.7
Number of Complete Cycles : 81
SimTraffic Report
Page 11
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Map - M:101399- 00\Synchro \2002 Median PM.sy6
Volumes
2002 Median PM
Amamnnn
OF
u
ccess
CR 42
151st
3aseline
M: \01399- 00 \Synchro \2002 Median PM.sy6
u
SimTraffic Simulation Summary 2002 Median PM Trial 1
Baseline 4/29/2002
Start Time
6:57
End Time
8:02
7:02
Total Time (min)
65
Total Time (min)
Time Recorded (min)
60
Vehs Entered
# of Intervals
2
2566
# of Recorded - Intvls
1�
°
`N,�,rSs 9'
Vehs Entered
2552
, .... ,�..3 ...,.,..N., motet ,., »�z ...�w..'�' +:Y.wsrssu v�aw ..k�x.:•: ':.
Vehs Exited
2566
Travel Distance (mi)
Starting Vehs
35
Total Delay (hr)
Ending Vehs
21
,;.
'e,
Denied Entry Before
0
., r.. .,.:;.�.�
Denied Entry After
0
Travel Distance (mi)
540
Travel Time (hr)
27.0
Total Delay (hr)
11,0
Total Stops
1815
Wad- M
Fuel Used (gal)
100.2
lr terval' 0 146 rmafi66 Seeding ;
..- r.
Start Time 6:57
End Time 7:02
Total Time (min) 5
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors `.... ,
No data recorded this interval.
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
WSBASSMINN -ST51
: -
Start Time
7:02
Total Time (min)
60
Volumes adjusb4by
Vehs Entered
2552
Vehs Exited
2566
Starting Vehs
35
Ending Vehs
X ,
�;�'`' y
Denied Entry Before
KkW S,
0
Denied Entry After
Travel Distance (mi)
540
Travel Time (hr) 27 :: m ��, M`
Total Delay (hr)
.'
11.0
Total Stops
*�
Fuel Used (gal)
109.2
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median PM Trial 1
Baseline 4/29/2002
1: External Intersection Performance
Fuel Used (gal)
5.4
5.4
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
4.2
4.2
HC Emissions (g)
13
0.1
0
CO Emissions (g)
849
849
� � »� � z �� E � � 5� �
NOx Emissions' (g)
54
54"
Vehicles Entered
277
277
Vehicles Exited
275
275
G j
Hourly Exit Rate
275
275
;. a
-.
Denied Entry Before
0
0
3 1� rn "'
Denied Entry After
0
0
2: External Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay/ Veh (s)'
Stop Delay (hr)
0.3
0.0
0.0
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
0.1
0
0.1
0
Sto /Veh
Travel Dist (mi)
0.00
17.4
0.00'
17.4
� � »� � z �� E � � 5� �
Travel Time hr
0.6
0.6
Avg Speed (mph)
29
29
Fuel Used (gal)`
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
2.5
7.1
2.5
7.1
G j
HC Em (g)
CO Emissions (g)
7
400
400
;. a
-.
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
22
246
22,
246
t - ��
Vehicles Exited
247
247
Hourly Exit Rate
247
247
Denied Entry Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report '
Page 2
St Del/Veh (s) 213 7.0 5,5 22.4 7.3 43 25,5' 11:5 2.6 17.0 11.4 7.6
Total Stops 101 301 110 71 305 20 135 89 63 9 85 67
StopNeh 0:90 0.49 0.73 0.91 0.49 0.69 0.98 0,65 0,74 0,82 0M 0.80
Travel Dist (mi)
112
613
14.9
7.9
64.3
SimTraffic Performance Report
61
5.8
3.7
2002 Median PM Trial 1
8.8
Baseline
'
Travel Time (hr)
102
4/29/2002
1.0'
3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue Performance by movement
37
0.2
14
i.EBT�
EBR:tfVBLVIFBT NBA ° " NBT'. NBR�, . 58e:SBT .:SBR
'
Total Delay (hr) 0,8 1.9
0.4 0.5 1.9
0.0 1.1
0.5
0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2
17
Delay/ Veh (s) 24.3 11.3
8.7 25.1 11.2
6.1 27.9
14.4
4.1 19.2 152 9:5
8
Stop Delay (hr) 0. e 1.2
0.2 0.5 1.3
0.0 1.0
0,4
0.1 0. 0.4 0.2
St Del/Veh (s) 213 7.0 5,5 22.4 7.3 43 25,5' 11:5 2.6 17.0 11.4 7.6
Total Stops 101 301 110 71 305 20 135 89 63 9 85 67
StopNeh 0:90 0.49 0.73 0.91 0.49 0.69 0.98 0,65 0,74 0,82 0M 0.80
' NOx Emissions (g) 13 73 14 9 83 5 9 10 4` 1 12 5
Vehicles Entered 112 609 149 77 625 29 136 135 85 11 132 83
Vehicles Exited 112 612 150 78 624 29 139 136 85 11_ 135 84
' Hourly Exit Rate 112 612 150 78 624 29 139 136 85 11 135 84
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'
Travel Dist (mi)
112
613
14.9
7.9
64.3
3,0
61
5.8
3.7
0.7
8.8
5.5
'
Travel Time (hr)
102
3.6
1.0'
0.8
37
0.2
14
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.9
0.5
1.5
Avg Speed (mph)
10
17
16
10
18
18
4
8
12
8
10
12
0.59
Fuel Used (gal)
1.5
8.6
1,7
1.0
10.4
0.7
1.1
1,2
0.4
01
1.2
0`:5
'
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
7.4
7.1
8.8
8.0
6.2
4,0
5.6
4.7
9.1
8.2
7.3
10.2
14
HC Emissions (g)
4
22
5
3
24
1
3
3
1
0
4
2
5.7
7
CO Emissions (g)
155
1133
216
131
1199
71
56
105
40
11
135
62
' NOx Emissions (g) 13 73 14 9 83 5 9 10 4` 1 12 5
Vehicles Entered 112 609 149 77 625 29 136 135 85 11 132 83
Vehicles Exited 112 612 150 78 624 29 139 136 85 11_ 135 84
' Hourly Exit Rate 112 612 150 78 624 29 139 136 85 11 135 84
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'
3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
: :± u•�3�N � ..vk � � � <P. '.. �.. .,
..,'. ., A�. �:. , :: '.E �` .) �� � 3 i Tbtal -'U.
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh '(s)"
3.0
12.6
2.5
12.5
1.7
172
0.8
13.4
8.1
13.4
Stop Delay (hr)
2.1
1.8
1.5
0.7
6.0
'
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
8.6
512
8.8
396
14.8
287
103
161
'' °'
1356
Stop /Veh
0.59
0.54
0.80
0.71
0.621:.
Travel Dist (mi)
87.4
75.2
15.5
150
1912
Travel Time (hr)
5.7
47
2'
Avg Speed (mph)
15
16
6
11
14
Fuel Used (gal)
1`1.9
12.1
2.7
1.8
28.5
'
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
HC Emissions (g)
7.4
32
6.2
29
5.7
7
8,2
6
6.8
CO Emissions (g)
1505
1401
2.01
208
3314
NOx Emissions (g)
99
97
24
18
238
'
Vehicles Entered
870
731
356
226
2183
Vehicles Exited
874
731
360
230
2195'
Hourly Exit Rate
874
731
360
230
1) '95
Denied Entry Before
`,., .,...
,0w Win'
. 0
0 ilr'.�'....
.._ 0
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0
L�
SimTraffic Report
Page 3
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median PM Trial 1 '
Baseline 4/29/2002
4: External Intersection Performance
,
E ti� .3RFR 9i
�\ �!g(��Y, ... v,.. , ...... ...a ..+ ,..
Total Delay (hr)
0.6
0.6
Total Delay (hr)
0.6
0.6
g 7 g f'
belay / Veh (s}
M
2.7
2.7
1 s
0, p"I 11
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
., .,..'x,
a
St Del/Veh (s)
0.2
0.2
4269
Total Stops
0
0
231
Stop/Veh
0.00
0.00
.:
Travel Dist (mi)
97.5
97.5
703
703
Travel Time (hr)
3.0
3.0
0
Avg Speed (mph)
33
33
0
Fuel Used (gal)
29.5
29.5
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
3.3
33
HC Emissions (9)
73
73
,,. t� a
CO Emissions (g)
5339
5339
NOx Emissions (9)
292
292
Vehicles Entered
847
847
Vehicles Exited
848
848
Hourly Exit Rate
848
848
Denied Entry Before
0
0
p1,, >, ...V
Denied Entry After
0
0
5: External Intersection Performance
-- ti".t\ l'.,�@ ib M.
}•{�:. $@ $F* I F l i� `� L ESDi '8
. , , ,
E ti� .3RFR 9i
�\ �!g(��Y, ... v,.. , ...... ...a ..+ ,..
Total Delay (hr)
0.6
0.6
Delay/ Veh s
Stop Delay (hr)
2.9
0.0
2.9
0.0
g 7 g f'
St DelNeh (s )
Total Stops
�f
0 0
� +y '?E ?a � »"
Sto Neh r� p 4.00',��
Travel Dist (mi) 82.3 82.3
A 01
Travel Time (hr )
Avg Speed (mph)
� �a.,.. 2.4
34
2.4
34
Fuel Used (gal) ` A r 21.7
Fuel Eff. (mpg) 3.8 3.8
HC Emissions (9)
CO Emissions (g)
4269
58'
4269
�: .
..:.
NOx Emissions (cg)
231
231
.� g ....;�.
Vehicles Entered
708
708
Vehicles. Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
703
703
7031
703
✓a El g3`n� "" z�".� 'ye.cr E ',. .^�' ^,�� 11`�" .,
sL.� - iz„��r; K._..a.. '�4i ^]� ���I�,.., a,��✓w.;s tte o...m�S t.,4R�s�- rF. ,..,w4
Denied Entry Before
0
0>
ti€ ;ys
Denied Entry After
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 4
WSBASSMINN -ST51
'
SimTraffic Performance Report
2002 Median PM Trial 1
Baseline
4/29/2002
6: Holiday /Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue Performance by movement
'
�
EBT
W BT
W SR
_ v, 9 5
N BT fidBR °',SBT`„ ' SB R '��
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
b6lay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
7.5
0.0
14 4
0.0
x;3.4
0.1
0.8
0.0
3.8
0.0
1,1
0.0
4.2
0.0
St Del/Veh (s) `
5:3
12.1
3.0
0.2
0.1
0.2 `
0.2
Total Stops
10
2
141
1
0
0
0
StoplVeh
1.00
1.00
1:00
0.01 0:00
0.00
0.00
'
Travel Dist (mi)
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
0.5
0.0
13
0.1
0.0
8
7.3
0.5
15
8.2
0.3
24
1.5
0.1
12
17.7
0.9
21
13
0.1r k �rix „v
11
Fuel Used (gal)
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.9
0.2
-5.3
02
'
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
19.2
14.0
114.
9.3
8.4
3.4
7.1
HC Emissions (g)
0
0
2
4
1
15�
CO Emissions (g)
1
0
39
186
21
903
19
'
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
0
10
0
2
4
140
12
195
2
37
57
409
2 - � I MOM
29
Vehicles Exited
10
2
141
196
37
41'0
N '` 29 *
Hourly Exit Rate
Denied Entry Before
10
0
2
0
141
0
196
0
37
0
410
0
29
0 h
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0
0
o"
0
6: Holiday /Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
PyEB5 2
VB SR R. i; �t��?a1..� ..
Total Delay (hr)
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
7.5
0.0
0.1
3:6
0.1
0.1
1.3
0.0
0.2 0.4
: `� I .,c . 1 $`
0.0 0.2
St Del/Veh (s) _._ ..._, ..x. ,.
Total Stops
5.3
10
3.2
143
0 2 r } 0.8 , ...
1 �0 154 4
Stop /Veh
Travel Dist (mi)
1.00
0.5
1.00
7.4
0.00 Ct 19' F4 gf A Wm
9.6 19.0 36.5
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
0. 0
13
0.5,
15
0 5 1.0 2.0
21 20 19
Fuel Used (gal)
0.0
0.5
1.1
5.4 7.0'
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
HG Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g)
19.2
0
1
14.1
2
39
9.1
4
207
3.5 5.2
15 21 a\
922 1169
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
0
10
4
142
14
232
59 76
438 822
Vehicles Exited
Hourly Exit Rate
10
10
143
143
233
233
439 825. a
439 825
'
Denied Entry, Before
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
1 ,
0 0 0
SimTraffic Report
Page 5
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median PM Trial 1 '
Baseline 4/29/2002
7: External Intersection Performance
8: External Intersection Performance
e. ,' - 7 a Total x. �� .•
" �` , - u34$�
tNB
Totat
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay / Veh (s)
0.2
0.2
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St Del/Veh (s)
0.0
' 0.0"', r , w
Total Stops
0
0
StopfVeh
0.00
0.00
Travel Dist (mi)
?.9
1.9
Travel Time (hr)
0.1
0.1
Avg Speed (mph)
21
21
Fuel Used (gal)
0.7
0.7 G of ;
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
2.5
2.5
HC Emissions / '
1
21
CO Emissions (g)
87
87
N Ox Emissions (g)
6
6 `
Vehicles Entered
31
.�a m. °., -1 ,.....,....
31
Vehicles Exited
31
31
Hourly Exit Rate
31
31
Denied Entry Before ''
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
8: External Intersection Performance
e. ,' - 7 a Total x. �� .•
" �` , - u34$�
, ,
,., ° , , _
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St_DelNeh (s)
0.1
0.1'
Total Stops
0
0
Stop /Veh
0.00
0 . 00 .._...,._.
ra. _ ....
Travel Dist (mi)
2.8
2.8
Travel Time (hr)
0.1
0.1
Avg Speed (mph)
21
21
Fuel Used (gal)
0.6
0.6'
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
43
4.3
HC Emissions (g)
2
2
CO Emissions (g)
135
135
NOx Emissions
8
8
Vehicles Entered
47
47
Vehicles. Exited
46
46�.
'
Hourly Exit Rate
46
46
Denied Entry Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 6
WSBASSMINN -ST51
' SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median PM Trial 1
Baseline 4/29/2002
i 9: 151 st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue Performance by movement
SimTraffic Report
Page 7
WSBASSMINN -ST51
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBl NB[ JN BT,sI tVBR
:SBL SBTSBR
,
'
Total Delay (hr)
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2 0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
01 0.0 0.1
Delay /;Veh (s),
12.0
12.0
4.0
10.5
12.7 5.7
2.0
03
33
2.8 0.5 4.5
Stop Delay (hr)
0.1
0.2
0,0
0.1
0.2 0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
00 0.0 0,0
'
St DelNeh (s)
10.0
8.8
3.4
8.4
9.1 5.1
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.4 0.0 0.1
Total Stops
26
62
28
53
62 41
5
0
i
24 0 3
5top/Veh
1.00
1.00
1:00
1.00
1.02 1.00
0.28 0,00
0.04`
` 0.14 0.00 0,06
Travel Dist (mi)
1.9
4.6
2.0
4.3
5.0 3.4
1 1
7.3
1.7
8.0 83 2.3
'
Travel Time (hr)
0:2
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.4 0.2
0.1
02
0.1
0:5 0.3 0.2
Avg Speed (mph)
12
12
16
13
13 16
20
32
16
17 31 13,
Fuel Used (gal)
0.1
0.5
0.2
03
0.4 0.3
0.1
0,6
0.1
0.5 1.7 0.4
'
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
110
9.4
11.9
14.0
123 13.3
20.1
12.1
1 1.4
17.0 4.9 5.7
HC Emissions (g)
0
1
1
1
1 1
0
2
1
1 3 1
CO Emissions (g)
15
37
27
27
45 39
6
85
18
25 196 41
'
NOx Emissions (g)
1
4
2
2
3 3
0
4
2
4 9 4
Vehicles Entered
25
61
27
53
60 41
18
123
28
173 188 49
V' ehicles Exited
26
62
28
53
62 41
18
122
28
173 188 49
Hourly Exit Rate
26
62
28
53
62 41
18
122
28
1 73 188 49
'
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0
Qom; 0
0
0
0
0 0 0
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0
9: 151 st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue Intersection Performance
11111111 I 1>11911111 "' " RT EB, 11UB NB SE3
`
^ Tara
Total Delay (hr)
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.2
1.0
'
s Q ;,.
�
y � �
Delay/ Veh (s) 1.0
�
�.Jnu4a
2.0
k 3
� 3
�s W :.,, Ye �✓'
. .R$..
Stop Delay (hr)
x f- w.......xeHZ�".i
0.2
.� /�C,AVeA�tL3
0.3
0.0
,...
0.0
..
0.6
4 ., n , x
St DelNeh (s) �...
Total Stops
.,.w.
a.2
116 156 6 27
2.6 ...
305
StoplVeh �...,
I:01
1 . 01 �ti`
�: >' 0:07
0.36`
Travel Dist (mi)
8.6
12.6
10.1
18.6
49.9
Travel Time r) _, ,d
.'
0.7
0,9
0 0 9 2.9
11 a- F .3 .FS. <.
Avg Speed (mph)
13
14
26
20
17
.< „
..dsm
Fuel Used (ga!)�
„' 1.0`
0.8
2.6
5.1
s
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
10.5
13.1
T3
97
'
HC Emissions (g)
2
3
2
5
13''
CO Emissions (g)
80
111
108
262
561
NOx Emissions (g)
Vehicles Entered
6
8
6
17
r
38
846
` �y
„.
Vehicles Exited
116
156
168
41 0
850
.�..,..,..
Hourly Exit Rate
�..
116
156
168
410
850
Denied Entry Before
u 0
0
., . 0
0
Q
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 7
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Performance Report 2002 Median PM Trial 1
Baseline 4/29/2002
10: External Intersection Performance
11: External Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
topNeh
Travel Dist (mi)
0,1
0.1
Total Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
Delay/ Veh (s)
1.2
1.2
0.0
Stop Delay (hr)
0.0
0.0
St Del/Veh ,(s)
0.2
0.2
Total Stops
0
0
Stop/Veh
MO
0
Travel Dist (mi)
11.3
11.3
Travel Time (hr)
0.5
0.5
Avg Speed (mph)
24
24
Fuel Used (gal)
2.4
2.4
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
4.6
4.6
HC Emissions (g)
6
6
CO Emissions (g)
344
344
NOx Emissions (9)
22
22
a zgmn
Vehicles Entered
129
129
.:.� a
Vehicles Exited
130
130
M
Hourly Exit Rate
130
130
Denied Entry Before
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
11: External Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
Delay/ Veh (s)
Stop Delay (hr)
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
topNeh
Travel Dist (mi)
0,1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0
0.00
24.8
1.0
24
5.6
4.4
11
Travel Time (hr)
Avg Speed (mph)
Fuel Used (gal)
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
HC Emissions (g)
CO Emissions (g) 636
NOx Emissions (g) 42
Vehicles Entered
Vehicles Exited'
Hourly Exit Rate
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
263
263
263 263
0 0
0 0
WSBASSMINN -ST51
SimTraffic Report ,
Page 8
'
SimTraffic Performance Report
2002 Median PM Trial 1
Baseline
4/29/2002
'
Chippendale Avenue Arterial Performance
Total Delay (hr)
3.2
Delay/ Veh (s)
9.6
Stop Delay (hr)
2.2
St Del/Veh (s) '
6.7
Total Stops
482
StopNeh
0.40
Travel Dist (mi)
127.7
Travel Time (hr) a , I $ u
kS �.u«.
:,,..�u G,
Avg Speed (mph)
16
� ,s,u ei'" arc ..zeta aF,., a, sw'3a w"ar`�&a,. �'.�"•a'�..
Fuel Used (gal)
22
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
5.7
HC Emissions (g)
60h.
' ir:...3zw. �' x�' a �'s12 �� `3
CO Emissions (g)
3157
�;€S .�'..,, �Ev�e ..h< ^.''i �. 1 >9?.d?i ,. .�''�i�m
NOx Emissions (g)
213
Vehicles Entered
1190
Vehicles Exited
1198
Hourly Exit Rate
1198
'
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
0��
Total Network Performance
Total Delay (hr)
Delay/ Veh (s)
11.0
15 5
Stop Delay (hr)
6.9
'
St Del/Veh (s)
Total Stops
9.7
1815
F a
StopNeh
0,71
n
Travel Dist (mi)
540.0
Travel Time (hr) 27.9
Vi n. ...St,..,...35,... ...
t
4lX .. ,v....., a..._.�.. B.�is^�Yr. M�, xF"o ,�. .xx e �
Avg Speed (mph)
19
.. .u:::,�
Fuel Used (gal)!
109.2
'
Fuel Eff. (mpg)
HC Emissions (g)
4.9
279
CO Emissions (g)
17104
NOx Emissions (g)
1029
I�
Vehicles Entered
2552
Vehicles Exited
2566
Hourly Exit Rate
2566
Denied Entry Before
Denied Entry After
0
k
t
' SimTraffic Report
Page 9
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Queuing and Blocking Report 2002 Median PM Trial 1
Baseline 4/29/2002
Intersection: 3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue
B ltiB' B `" NB - NB fitB'` '`SB; `SIB
Directions Served
L
T
TR L
T
TR
L
T
L TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
103
131
-184 101
138
121_
166
110
5 3 52 152
Average Queue (ft)
56
87
86 41
75
66
76
53
» ..
9 69
95th Queue (ft)
97
125
146 76
129
117
134
91
53 35 121
Link Distance (ft)
... C..:. a+i F .5:';k., a,,.a , ..,.4�t ..
526
526
532
532
190
190 349
Upstream Blk Time
��,.o.
A Rn.
nE
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Blk Time ( %)
. . ,.
Queuing Penalty (veh)
. � ....w . y, w.....,
Storage, Bay Dist (ft)
150
250
250
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
250
250
250
Storage Blk Time ( %)
,.
Queuing Penalty (veh)
a
Intersection: 6: Holiday /Bank Access & Chippendale Avenue
firfovement
EB
` AFB
"°
"MW ��k.� R,.�e
Directions Served
TP
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
72
Maximum Queue. (ft)
32
74
11
53
Average Queue (ft)
7
40
20
51
95th Queue (ft)
28
6
Link Distance (ft)
276
272
18
4
Upstream Blk Time (lo)zti�s
12
Link Distance (ft)
.
�Is
..:i, ...
F.w G,. ,✓..
... C..:. a+i F .5:';k., a,,.a , ..,.4�t ..
2.�,:' d >L' Ja.. �I...�.b�' ,. s3.'.�:.. P {.Z.�.K�. ,. :sti
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
��,.o.
A Rn.
nE
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Blk Time ( %)
. . ,.
Queuing Penalty (veh)'
. � ....w . y, w.....,
Storage, Bay Dist (ft)
Intersection: 9: 151 st Avenue & Chippendale Avenue
Directions Served
LT
R
LTR
L
TR
L
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
72
51
130
26
11
53
22 '
Average Queue (ft)
42
20
51
4
0
19
95th Queue (ft)
68
47
85
18
4
49
12
Link Distance (ft)
395
431
305
190
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
��,.o.
A Rn.
nE
Queuing Penalty (veh)
....�
. . ,.
. � ....w . y, w.....,
Storage, Bay Dist (ft)
150
250
250
" FH
Storage Blk Time ( %)
teuing`'Penalty (veh)
,.
Nework Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Report
Page 10
WSBASSMINN -ST51
Actuated Signals, Observed Splits 2002 Median PM Trial 1
Baseline 4/29/2002
' Intersection: 3: CR 42 & Chippendale Avenue
I SimTraffic Report
Page 11
W SBASSM I N N -ST51
Phasa'
Movement(s) Served
NBTL
WBL
EBT
SBTL
EBL
WBT
Maximum Green (s)
18.0
6.0
21.0 -
18.0
9,0
18.0
-'
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Recall
Min
None
None
Min
None
` None
} `x
Avg. Green (s)
13.7
61
19.3
13.7
7.6
18.0
g 1C'Ratia
027
0.08
0.38
0.27
0.10
0.36
Cycles Skipped ( %)
0
35
0
0
32
0
Cycles @ Minimum ( %)
3
0
0
3
0
0}
�;5'
Cycles Maxed Out ( %)
31
32
51
31
29
58
,,.de�t +a �e,'M.. >...ew. .sake✓ s -huf _..'a'i� ui,�:s -�`.sa
Cycles with Peds %
y O
0
0
0
0
0
0
a s wr
1
p �1 r
Controller Summary
Average Cycle Length (s): 50.2
Number of Complete Cycles
-. 70
I SimTraffic Report
Page 11
W SBASSM I N N -ST51
CHIPPENDALE & CSAH 42 - STREET & UTILITY RECONSTR UCH
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT PROJECT NO. 344
COUNTYPROJECT NO.
WSB PROJECT NO. 1399 -00
1
1
Line
No.
MN/DOT
Spec. No.
Description
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY
TOTAL PROJECT
Total
Quantity
Total
Cost
Total
Quantity
Total
Cost
Total
Quantity
Total
Cost
I
2021.501
MOBILIZATION
0.85
$21,994.25
0.15
$3,835.76
1.00
$25,830.00
2
2101.502
CLEARING
33.85
33.85
1,300.50
6,624.75
820.00
243.00
924.75
14,702.02
105.78
15.70
12,85
1,80
3,474.70
21
55.20
17,111.36
171114
8,572.77
23.50
$5,077.50
$5,077.50
$1,300.50
$23,186.63
$902.00
$2,430.00
$2,311.88
$44,106.05
$634.67
$6,280.00
$2,570.00
$540.00
$8,686.75
$548.75
$276.00
$85,556.81
$11,977.95
$94,300.43
$164.50
7.15
7.15
1,589.50
1,504.25
22.00
1,130.25
903.65
3.30
7.15
2.20
1,62030
6.05
8.80
2,543.53
254.35
1,683.95
16.50
$1,072.50
$1,072.50
$1,589.50
$5,264.88
$220.00
$2,825.63
$2,710.95
$1,320.00
$1,430.00
$660.00
$4,050.75
$151.25
$44.00
$12,717.63
$1,780.47
$18,523.40
$115.50
41.00
41.00
2,890.00
8,129.00
820.00
265.00
2,055.00
15,605.67
105.78
19.00
20.00
4.00
5,095.00
28.00
64.00
19,654.89
1,965.49
10,256.71
40.00
$6,150.00
$6,150.00
$2,890.00
$28,451.50
$902.00
$2,650.00
$5,137.50
$46,817.00
$634.67
$7,600.00
$4,000.00
$1,200.00
$12,737.50
$700.00
$320.00
$98,274.44
$13,758.42
$112,823.82
$280.00
3
2101.507
GRUBBING
4
2102.502
PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL
5
2104.501
REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER
6
2104.501
REMOVE BITUMINOUS CURB
7
2104.501
REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) (ALL TYPES & SIZES
8
2104.501
REMOVE SEWER PIPE (SANITARY) (ALL TYPES & SL
9
2104.503
REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN
10
2104.505
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (ALL DEPTHS)
11
2104.505
REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT (ALL DEPTHS)
12
2104.509
IREMOVE MANHOLES OR CATCH BASIN
13
1 2104.509
REMOVE HANDHOLE
14
1 2104.509
REMOVE LIGHT STANDARD BASE
15
2104.513
SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)
16
2104.523
SALVAGE SIGN
17
2104.523
SALVAGE CONCRETE PIPE STORM SEWER
18
2105.501
COMMON EXCAVATION
19
2105.507
SUBGRADE EXCAVATION
20
2105.522
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW(LV)
21
2105.525
TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)
13,293.11
1,367.44
1,742.55
2,919.96
374.06
1,131.66
71.20.
242.30
10.80
4
100.00
10.00
3,00
1.00
3L77
7
18
16.70
14.60
15.25
5.00
36.00
18,212.00
2,896.75
$119,638.03
$2,393.03
$60,989.13
$96,358.78
$12,343.91
$1,697.48
$712.00
$6,299.80
$302.40
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$600.00
$500.00
$5,559.75
58,195.00
$5,400.00
$5,010.00
$7,300.00
$7,625.00
$2,500.00
$3,600.00
$81,954.00
$57,935.00
1,531.61
152.39
304.79
457.18
184.72
8.80
18.70
13.20
14.30
0.55
330
4.40
2.75
88.00
470.25
$13,784.45
$5,33179
$10,058.00
$15,087.00
5277.08
$88.00
$486.20
$369.60
$2,502.50
5605.00
$990.00
$2,200.00
$1,375.00
$396.00
$9,405.00
14,824.72
1,367.44
1,894.94
3,224.75
831.24
1,316.38
80.00
261.00
24.00
4.00
100.00
10.00
3.00
1.00
46.07
8.00
18.00
20.00
19.00
18.00
500
36.00
18,300.00
3,367.00
$133,422.47
$2,393.03
$66,322.92
$106,416.78
$27,430.91
$1,974.56
$800.00
$6,786.00
$672.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$600.00
$500.00
$8,062.25
$8,800.00
$5,400.00
$6,000.00
$9,500.00
$9,000.00
$2,500.00
$3,600.00
$82,350.00
$67,340.00
22
2211.501
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS S
23
2232.501
MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (1 -1/2 ")
24
2350.501
TYPE RV 3 WEAR COURSE MIXTURE (1 -1/2 ")
25
1 2350.502
TYPE HV 3 NON -WEAR COURSE MIXTURE (3 ")
26
1 2350.502
TYPE MV 3 NON -WEAR COURSE MIXTURE (4 -1 /2 ")
27
2357.502
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT
28
2451.602
GRANULAR FOUNDATION AND /OR BEDDING
29
2503.541
15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V
30
2503.541
18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL 111
31
2503.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
32
2503.603
8" PVC PIPE SEWER SDR 34
33
1 2504.602
1ADJUST VALVE BOX
34
2504.602
VALVE BOX EXTENSION
35
2504.603.
HYDRANT RISER
36
2506.501
CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48 -4020
37
2506.502
CONST DRAINAGE STR. DES SPECIAL
38
2506.511
RECONSTRUCT MANHOLE (STORM)
39
2506.516
CASTING ASSEMBLY
40
2506.522
ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING (STORM)
41
2506.602
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER
42
2506.602
ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING (SANITARY)
43
2506.603
RECONSTRUCT SANITARY MANHOLE
44
2521.501
4" CONCRETE WALK
45
2521.603
BITUMINOUS BIKE PATH
CHIPPENDALE & CSAH 42 - STREET & UTILITYRECONSTRUC2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT PROJECT NO. 344
COUNTYPROJECTNO.
WSB PROJECT NO. 1399 -00
01
Line
No.
MN/DOT
Spec. No.
-
Description
46
2531.501
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN 8418
47
2531.501
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618
48
2531.537
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
6,948.00
$69,480.00
616.00
49
2531.618
4" CONCRETE MEDIAN
105.78
$5,288.89
50
2563.601
TRAFFIC CONTROL
51
2545.602
RELOCATE LIGHTING UNIT
52
2564.602
INSTALL SALVAGED SIGN
53
2564.602
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RT ARROW) POLY PREFORMU
54
2564.602
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) POLY PREFO
55
2564.603
4" SOLID LINE WHITE -EPDXY
56
2564.603
4" BROKEN LINE WHITE -EPDXY
57
2564.603
4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW -EPDXY
58
2564.603
24" SOLID LINE YELLOW -EPDXY
59
2564.604
ZEBEA CROSSWALK -WHITE POLY PREFORMED
3.45
$5,175.00
0.55
60
2565.511
FULL CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM )0
21.95
$4,390.00
6.05
61
2573.502
SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY
7.70
$2,310.00
3.30
62
2571.502
DECIDUOUS TREE 8' HT B &B
63
2575.505
SODDING TYPE LAWN
$660.00
16.00
SUBTOTAL
)0
7,235.50
$3,617.75
10% CONTINGENCY i0
$1,069.75
9,375.00
SUBTOTAL
)0
1,377.50
$688.75
18% ENGINEERING COUNTY PARTICIPATION
$453.75
2,285.00
SUBTOTAL
534.00
$427.20
12% ENG. AND ADMIN. CITY PARTICIPATION
534.00
30% ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 0
190.00
$190.00
GRAND TOTAL
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT I DAKOTA COUNTY I TOTAL PROJECT
Total
Quantity
Total
Cost
Total
Quantity
Total
Cost
Total
Quantity
Total
Cost
1,809.50
$12,214.13
797.50
$5383.13
2,607.00
$17,597.25
6,948.00
$69,480.00
616.00
56,160.00
7,564.00
$75,640.00
105.78
$5,288.89
105.78
$5,288.89
3,238.00
$8,095.00
1,672.00
$4,180.00
4,910.00
$12,275.00
0.61
$21,210.00
0.37
$13,090.00
0.98
$34,300.00
3.45
$5,175.00
0.55
$825.00
4.00
$6,000.00
21.95
$4,390.00
6.05
51,210.00
28.00
$5,600.00
7.70
$2,310.00
3.30
$990.00
11.00
$3,300.00
13.80
$4,140.00
2.20
$660.00
16.00
$4,800.00
7,235.50
$3,617.75
2,139.50
$1,069.75
9,375.00
$4,687.50
1,377.50
$688.75
907.50
$453.75
2,285.00
$1,142.50
534.00
$427.20
534.00
$42710
190.00
$190.00
190.00
$190.00
477.90
$3,823.20
584.10
$4,672.80
1,062.00
$8,496, OC
0.50
$85,000.00
0.50
$85,000,00
1.00
$170,000.00
1,217.50
$3,652.50
632.50
$1,897.50
1,850.00
$5,550.00
33.85
$10,155.00
7.15
$2,145.00
41.00
$12,300.00
8,315.30
$20,788.25
1,143.57
$2,858.92
9,458.87
$23,647.17
$1,070,481.13
$252,938.16
$1,323,419.29
$107,048.11
$25,29182
$132,341.93
$1,177,529.24
$278,231.97
$1,455,761.22
$50,081.75
$328,313.73
$33,387.84
$353,258.77
$436,728.36
$1.530,788.02
$361,701.56
$1,892,489.58
Special Assessment Calculations
W
Option 1: Costs for both Chippendale Avenue South and the Right Turn Lane on CSAH 42
A. Total Cost
Chippendale $ 167,430.00
Right Turn Lane $ 96,940.00
$ 264,370.00
B. Total Assessed Cost
35% x $264,370.00 = $ 92,529.50
C. Assessment Rate
$92,529.50 - 781 LF = $118.48 /Foot
Option 2: Costs for Chippendale Avenue South Only
A. Total Cost
$ 167,430.00
B. Total Assessable Cost
35% x $167,430.00 = $ 58,600.00
C. Assessment Rate
$58,600.50 _ 781 LF = $75.03 /Foot
Option 3: Costs for Chippendale Avenue Only with No Median Costs
A. Total Cost
$ 164,260.00
B. Total Assessable Cost
35 %x $164,260.00 = $ 57,491.00
C. Assessment Rate
$57,491.00 - 781 LF = $73.61/Foot
City of Rosemount— Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
L
L
I I
n
L
r
City of Rosemount — Feasibility Report
Chippendale Avenue and CSAH 42
t Street Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 344
WSB Project No. 1399 -00
APPENDIX E
Soil Borings
i
1
G 0 'C ICAL REPORT
CHIPPENDALE AVENUE
(Dodd Boulevard to Highway 42)
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
MBI #N4145/N3021
FEBRUARY 2003
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
CHIPPENDALE A VENUE
(Dodd Boulevard to Highway 42)
R OSEMO UNT, MINNESOTA
Prepared For:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Mr. Anthony Aderhold
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Prepared by:
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1604 Riverview Lane
Northfield, MN 55057
(507) 645 -0964
MBI #N4145/N3021
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Name: Mark W. Osborn Signature:
Date: Z Il - e f o 3- License #: 41362
February 12, 2003
I Land Surveying
I Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering
,construction Material Testing
Environmental Services
1
w
1604 Riverview Lane
' Northfield, MN 55057
Tel. 507.645.0964
Fax. 507.645.2842
e -mail. mlc @mbi- nf.com
Established 1995
Mr. Andrew Aderhold
WSB & Associates, Inc.
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Re: Geotechnical Report
Chippendale Avenue (Dodd Blvd to Highway 42)
Rosemount, Minnesota
MBI 4N4145/N3021
Dear Mr. Anthony Aderhold;
In accordance with the authorization of Mark Erichson with WSB & Associates,
Inc., McGhie & Betts, Inc. has conducted a geotechnical subsurface exploration
program for the referenced project. We are sending you two copies of our
report.
If you have any questions concerning this report or our recommendations, or if
you need construction materials testing for this project, please call us at
507- 645 -0964.
Very truly yours,
McGHIE & BETTS, INC.
ark W. Osborn, P.E.
MWO /mo
Northfield
,Minnesota
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... ..............................1
PURPOSE ............................................................................................................... ............................... I
SCOPE SERVICES .............................................................................................. ............................... I
SITECONDITIONS ............................................................................................... ..............................2
SURFACECONDITIONS .......................................................................................... ..............................2
SUBSURFACECONDITIONS .................................................................................... ..............................3
GROUNDWATER ..................................................................................................... ..............................4
PROJECTINFORMATION ................................................................................. ..............................4
ENGINEERING REVIEW .................................................................................... ..............................5
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... ..............................5
SOILPROPERTIES ............................................................................................... ..............................5
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY ......................................................................................... ..............................5
DRAINAGE PROPERTIES ......................................................................................... ..............................6
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... ..............................6
PAVEMENT DESIGN INFORMATION ....................................................................... ..............................6
EARTHWORK ......................................................................................................... ...............................
8
CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. ..............................9
SITE OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................. ..............................9
TESTING ................................................................................................................ .............................10
PLANREVIEW ....................................................................................................... .............................10
EXPLORATIONLIMITATIONS ....................................................................... .............................10
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................... .............................12
LOGS OF PENETRATION TEST BORINGS ................................................... .............................12
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
CHIPPENDALE AVENUE
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
MBI #N4145/N3021
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
It is McGhie & Betts' understanding that this report is to be used in connection
with the reconstruction of Chippendale Avenue from Dodd Boulevard to Highway
42 in Rosemount, Minnesota. This stated purpose was a significant factor in
determining the scope and level of service provided. Should the report's purpose
change the report immediately ceases to be valid and use of it without McGhie &
Betts' prior review and written authorization shall be at the user's sole risk.
The observations and conclusions described in this report are based solely on the
scope of service described in this report. McGhie & Betts has not performed any
observations, investigations, studies, or testing that is not specifically listed in the
scope of service. McGhie & Betts shall not be liable for failing to discover any
condition whose discovery required the performance of services not authorized by
the Agreement.
Scope of Services
In accordance with the authorization of Mr. Mark Erishson of WSB & Associates,
Inc., we have completed a subsurface exploration and prepared a geotechnical
report for the referenced site. Our authorized scope of work has been limited to:
MBI #N4145/N3021 Page 2 '
1. Putting down three (3) standard penetration test borings to
approximately 15 feet each.
2. Review of available project information.
3. Providing a data report containing a review of the subsurface
conditions including preparation of our conclusions and opinions
regarding:
A. Soil Properties
B. Soil R- Values
C. Earthwork
Our work program for accomplishment of the above objectives included putting
down three (3) standard penetration test borings, reviewing the project
information, and observing the recovered soil samples. This report will describe
our field observations, present the results of the field tests, and provide you with
our engineering recommendations.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
Our exploration was completed on Chippendale Avenue from Dodd Boulevard to
Highway 42 in Rosemount, Minnesota. The surface elevations taken at the boring
locations indicate the area generally slopes to the south towards Highway 42. The
surface elevations of the borings were taken by WSB & Associates, Inc. At the
time the borings were put down, the pavement was covered with snow and ice.
MBI #N4145/N3021 Page 3
Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered by the test borings are illustrated on the
attached boring logs. The depths and thickness of the subsurface strata indicated
on the boring logs were generalized from the drilling results. The transition
between materials is approximate and is usually far more gradual than shown.
Information on actual subsurface conditions exists only at the specific locations
indicated and is relevant only to the time exploration was performed. Subsurface
conditions and groundwater levels at other locations may differ from conditions
found at the indicated locations. Note, too, that these conditions may change over
time. These stratification lines were used for our analytical purposes and, unless
specifically stated otherwise, should not be used as a basis of design or
construction cost estimates.
Results of the test borings put down at this site indicate a general subsurface
profile of sandy and clayey fills overlying native sands and sands with gravel. The
borings encountered bituminous pavement and aggregate base to a depth of 1 ` /2
feet below grade. Boring PB -2 encountered clayey and sandy fills to 12'/2 feet
below grade. We also noted the presence of a few organics in the fill. The sands
and sands with gravel encountered were loose to medium dense in density and
were generally brown in color. At boring PB -1, we encountered a boulder at 10
feet below grade and were unable to continue the drilling. The other borings were
extended to a depth of 16 feet below grade and terminated within the coarse
alluvial soils.
The boring logs and related information included in this report are indicators of the
subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times noted. The
subsurface conditions, including groundwater levels, at other locations on the site
MBI #N4145/N3021 Page 4
may differ significantly from conditions that, in the opinion of McGhie & Betts,
exist at the sampling locations.
The test borings were put down by McGhie & Betts solely to obtain indications of
subsurface conditions as part of a geotechnical exploration program. No services
were performed to evaluate subsurface environmental conditions.
Groundwater
McGhie & Betts took groundwater level readings in the exploratory borings,
reviewed the data obtained, and discussed its interpretation of the data in the text
of the report. Note that groundwater levels may fluctuate due to seasonal
variations, i.e. precipitation, snowmelt and rainfall, and /or other factors not evident
at the time of measurement.
As noted on the logs, no subsurface water was encountered during the drilling
operation. It is important to note that the groundwater table could increase in the
coming months due to spring thaw conditions.
PROJECT INFORMATION
We understand the proposed work at this site consists of the reconstruction of
Chippendale Avenue from Dodd Boulevard to Highway 42. It is our
understanding that the new street elevations will be similar to the existing grades.
We were informed by WSB & Associates, Inc., that they were doing the pavement
design based upon the soil information and "R- values" provided within this report.
MBI #N4145/N3021 Page 5
ENGINEERING REVIEW
Discussion
The following sections of this report include comments related to issues such as
excavation, de- watering, lateral support, foundation construction, earthwork, and
related geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction. The recommendations
contained herein are not intended to dictate construction methods or sequences.
Instead, they are furnished solely to help designers identify potential problems
related to foundation and earthwork construction plans and specifications, based
upon findings derived from sampling.
The results of our subsurface exploration indicate the presence of fills overlying
native sands and sands with gravel. The fills consisted mostly of the bituminous
pavement, aggregate base, and sands with the exception of boring PB -2, where
clayey fills extended to 12 1 /2 feet below grade. Removal of the clayey fill and
replacement with a granular fill will reduce the risk of frost action, however, it is
typically cost prohibitive.
SOIL PROPERTIES
Frost Susceptibility
The clayey fills found at boring PB -2 have a medium to very high frost
susceptibility. If these soils become saturated, then large amounts of frost heaving
may occur. The sands and sandy fills encountered at the other borings would be
considered to have a low frost susceptibility. Pavements should be designed
MBI #N41451N3021 Page 6
accordingly.
Drainage Properties
The clayey fills found at boring PB -2 would generally be considered to have poor
drainage properties. These soil types tend to collect and retain surface water. The
sands and sandy fills encountered at the other borings would be considered to have
good to excellent drainage properties.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Pavement Design Information
The results of our subsurface explorations at this site indicate the presence of frost
susceptible clayey fills at boring PB -2. One option to reduce this risk requires
excavating all of the clayey soils and replacing with a granular fill material. We are
available to provide recommendations for this procedure should you wish to
pursue this option, however it is normally cost prohibitive.
The subbase soils at this site vary from sands and sandy fills to clayey fills
consisting of lean clays with sand. The Hveem Stabilometer "R- value's" presented
below are estimated values. Actual "R- value" tests can be performed, however,
these tests are time consuming and typically not cost effective on a project of this
size.
The sands and sandy fills encountered would be considered to have an "R- value"
MBI #N4145/N3021 Page 7
of 70. This is fairly indicative of a well drained, non -frost susceptible soil. The
clayey fills encountered would be considered to have an "R- value" of 15. This is
indicative of a poorly drained, moderately frost susceptible soil.
At boring PB -2 and wherever else cohesive soils are present beneath the pavement
section, we recommend subcutting a minim distance of 1 foot and that these
soils be thoroughly scarified dry to within 2% of optimum moisture and compacted
to a minimum of 95% of the Standard Proctor density. In areas where unsuitable
soils are encountered, excavation and replacement of these unsuitable materials
with a granular fill will be required. We recommend the pavement section be
placed above the water table on a dry subgrade.
Construction activities in cohesionless sands such as those encountered at this site
can cause the soils to become loose. We suggest that the sands and sandy fills
exposed at the bottom of the excavation be surface compacted to a minim of
95% of the Standard Proctor test, ASTM D698. This will provide a more uniform
subgrade. If these exposed soils are within the upper 3 feet of the pavement, then
they should be compacted to 100% of the Standard Proctor.
We recommend that any Class 5 Aggregate Base placed be compacted to 100% of
ASTM D698, the Standard Proctor. All materials used in the pavement
construction should meet current Minnesota Department of Transportation
requirements. Placement of the materials should also be as outlined in the
Mn/DOT specifications.
Soil proof - rolling tests of the clayey subgrade are recommended to determine any
soft regions that will need to be excavated and replaced with a granular fill. We
also recommend a qualified soils engineer or technician be available on -site to
MBI #N4145/N3021 Page 8
observe the roll - tests.
Earthwork
The owner and the contractor should make themselves aware of and become
familiar with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including current
OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Construction site safety generally
is the sole responsibility of the contractor. The contractor shall also be solely
responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and operations of
construction operations. McGhie & Betts is providing the following information
solely as a service to our Client. Under no circumstance should McGhie & Betts'
provision of the following information be construed to mean that McGhie & Betts
is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities;
such responsibility is not implied or should not be inferred.
Many geologic materials deteriorate rapidly upon exposure to air or water after
excavation. Unless otherwise specifically indicated in this report, walls and floors
of excavations must be protected from rain, water, and freezing temperatures
throughout the course of construction.
Where utilities are to be placed, we suggest careful selection of the backfill
material. Where frost action is not critical, such as in the embankment areas, reuse
of the on -site clays may be suitable. We do suggest that these soils be placed and
compacted with normal compactive efforts and, as a guide, we suggest compaction
be to 90% of the Standard Proctor in these non - critical areas.
If any fill is placed below the normal water level or on saturated soils, we
MBI #N4145/N3021 Page 9
recommend that a clean free - draining sand with less than 40% passing the #40
sieve and 5% passing the #200 sieve should be used for fill. We also suggest the
initial lift of fill be of sufficient depth to minimiz disturbance of the natural soils
during compaction.
The contractor(s) should be aware that the clayey fills at this site are compressible
and sensitive to construction activities. Unstable conditions, cave -in of
excavations, and inability to reuse these materials as fill has been experienced in the
past with similar soils.
CONSTRUCTION
Site Observations
The soil conditions illustrated on the attached boring logs are indicative of the
conditions only at the boring locations. We recommend that soil proof - rolling
tests of the subgrade be done to determine any soft areas that will need to be
excavated and replaced with an engineered fill. We recommend that a qualified
soils engineer or technician observe all of the proof - rolling tests at this site.
We recommend that the owner, engineer, and contractor be notified immediately if
the subsurface conditions encountered during construction differ from those
logged in the geotechnical report. We are available to review our
recommendations or complete further testing should a changed condition be
encountered. We request that we be notified of any suspected changed conditions.
MBI #N4145/N3021 Page 10
Testin
We also suggest a representative number of field density tests be taken in all
engineered fill placed to aid in judging its suitability. We suggest that at least one
density test be performed for every 2,500 square feet of engineered fill placed, for
every 2 feet of fill depth. Any proposed fill material should be submitted to the
laboratory for testing to verify compliance with our recommendations and project
specifications.
Performance of the engineered fill and backfill at this site is dependent upon all
unsuitable soils being removed prior to fill placement and that adequate
compaction is maintained as the fill is placed. We suggest that a qualified soil
engineer or technician observe all excavations prior to fill placement and that
density testing be performed within the fill material.
Plan Review
We recommend the owner retain McGhie & Betts to perform a review of final
design drawings and specifications to help assure that the geotechnical engineering
report has not been misinterpreted.
EXPLORATION LIMITATIONS
All reports, logs, field data, notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates and
other documents prepared by McGhie & Betts are instruments of service and as
such shall remain the property of McGhie & Betts.
MBI #N4145/N3021 Page 11
McGhie & Betts has endeavored to conduct the services identified herein in a
manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members
of the profession currently practicing in the same locality and under similar
conditions as this project. No other representation, express or implied, is included
or intended in this document.
MBI #N4145/N3021 Page 12
APPENDIX I
LOGS OF PENETRATION TEST BORINGS
SOIL BORING LOCATION
0
to
m
- - rn
rn �___�I �_.
tzj
CHIPPENDALE AVENUE
q'1M �� � -
C
m
m
m
CSA11 42 & Cippendalic Ave. Street and Utility
Reconstruction Project
Rosemount Minnesota
MB Pm NO.' 1399 CO
Soil Boring Map
z
0
�-3
A
4150 Otsw mm n.1 Kgl .j
S.0.300
WSB
L-m—Us IM S5422
763 341 -AW
FM n. W -1 1170
C
m
m
m
CSA11 42 & Cippendalic Ave. Street and Utility
Reconstruction Project
Rosemount Minnesota
MB Pm NO.' 1399 CO
Soil Boring Map
z
0
�-3
LOG OF TEST BORING
PROJECT: Chippendale Ave. CLIENT /MBI #: N4145/N3021
LOCATION: Rosemount, Minnesota BORING NUMBER: PB -1
DEPTH
DESCRIPTION OF-MATERIAL
GEOLOGIC
SAMPLE
LABORATORY TESTS
No.
TYPE
MC
DD
LL
PL
Qu /RQD
(FEET)
SURFACE ELEVATION: 960.1
USCS
ORIGIN
or
CR
3
0
Fill, Mostly Sand with Gravel, 3.5" of Bituminous,
Fill
18" of Aggregate Base
1
3.5' of Frost
1
HSA
Sand with Gravel, Fine to Grained,
SP
Coarse Alluvium
2
Brown, Moist, Loose to Very Loose
3
2
HSA
4
5
7
3
SB
6
7
.
8
4
4
SB
Boring Obstructed on Boulder at 10'
* N -Value Inaccurate due to Boulder
10
11
5011-
5
SB
END OF BORING
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
START: 2/6/03
END: 2/6/03
DATE
TIME
SAMPLED
CASING
CAVE -IN
WATER
BAILED DEPTHS
METHOD
CREW CHIEF
DEPTH
DEPTH
DEPTH
DEPTH
2/6/03
12:15
10'
10'
None
- - -
3 1/4" HSA 0' to 10'
R. Smith
°'� h» x,
LOG OF TEST BORING
PROJECT: Chippendale Ave. CLIENT /MBI #: N4145/N3021
LOCATION: Rosemount, Minnesota BORING NUMBER: P13-2
DEPTH
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
GEOLOGIC
N
SAMPLE
LABORATORY TESTS
No.
TYPE
MC
DD
LL
PL
Qu /RQD
(FEET)
SURFACE ELEVATION: 961.8
USCS
ORIGIN
or
CR
'�
0
Fill, Mostly Sand with Gravel, 3.5" of Bituminous,
Fill
IS" of Aggregate Base
1
3.5' of Frost
1
HSA
Fill, Mostly Sand with Silt, Some Lean Clay with
2
Sand
3
2
HSA
4
5
6
3
SB
6
7
s
8
4
SB
9
10
11
4
5
SB
Fill, Mostly Lean Clay with Sand, a few Organics
12
Sand with Gravel, Fine to Medium Grained,
SP
Coarse Alluvium
13
Brown, Moist, Loose
5
6
SB
14
15
5
7
SB
16
END OF BORING
17
18
19
20
'
21
22
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
START: 2/6/03
END: 2/6/03
DATE
TIME
SAMPLED
DEPTH
CASING
DEPTH
CAVE -IN
DEPTH
WATER
DEPTH
BAILED DEPTHS
METHOD
'
CREW CHIEF
2/6/03
11:30
16'
14.5'
- - -
None
- - -
3 1/4" HSA 0' to 10' R. Smith
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
1 F13-
NOTICE TO REPORT USERS
BORING LOG INFORMATION
Subsurface Profiles
The subsurface stratification lines on the graphic representation of the test borings shows an approximate
boundary between soil types or rock. The transition between materials is approximate and is usually far more
gradual than shown. Estimating excavation depths, soil volumes and other computations relying on the subsurface
strata may not be possible to any degree of accuracy.
Water Level
McGhie & Betts took groundwater level readings in the exploratory borings, reviewed the data obtained, and
discussed its interpretation of the data in the text of this report. The groundwater level may fluctuate due to
seasonal variations caused by precipitation, snowmelt, rainfalls, construction or remediation activities, and/or other
factors not evident at the time of measurement.
The actual determination of the subsurface water level is an interpretative process. Subsurface water level may not
be accurately depicted by the levels indicated on the boring logs. Normally, a subsurface exploration obtains
general infonnation regarding subsurface features for design purposes. An accurate determination of subsurface
water levels in not possible with a typical scope of work. The use of the subsurface water level information
provided for estimating purposes or other site review can present a moderate to high risk of error.
The following information is obtained in the field and noted under "Water Level Measurements" at the bottom of
the log.
Sampled Depth - The lowest depth of soil sampling at the time a water level measurement is taken.
Casing Depth - The depth to the bottom of the casing or hollow -stem auger at the time of water
level measurement.
Cave -In Depth - The depth at which the measuring tape slopes in the bore hole.
Water Level - The point in the bore hole at which free - standing water is encountered by a
measuring tape dropped from the surface inside the casing.
Drilling Fluid Level - Similar to the water level, except the liquid in the bore hole is a drilling fluid.
Obstruction Depths
Obstructions and/or obstruction depths may be noted on the boring logs. Obstruction indicates the sampling
equipment encountered resistance to penetration. It must be realized that continuation of drilling, the use of other
drilling equipment, or further exploration may provide information other than that depicted on the logs. The
correlation of obstruction depths on the log with construction features such as rock excavation, foundation depths,
or buried debris cannot normally be determined with any degree of accuracy. For example, penetration of
weathered rock by soil sampling equipment may not correlate with removal by certain types of construction
equipment. Using this information for estimating purposes often results in a high degree of misinterpretation.
Accurately identifying the obstruction or estimating depths where hard rock is present over the site requires a scope
of service beyond the normal geotechnical exploration program. The risk of using the information noted on the
boring logs for estimating purposes must be understood. _
SYMBOLS AND TERMINOLOGOY ON TEST BORING LOG
SYMBOLS
Particle Sizes
Drilling and Sampling
Soil layering and Moisture
Laboratory Testin
Symbol
Description
Svmbol
Description
HSA
3 -1/4" LD. Hollow stem auger
W
Water content, % (ASTM ** D2216)
_ FA
4 ", 6" or 10" diameter flight auger
D
Dry density, pcf
_HA
2 ", 4 ", or 6" hand auger
LL
Liquid limit (ASTM D4318)
_DC
2 -1/2 ", 4 ", 5 ", or 6" steel drive casing
PL
Plastic limit (ASTM D4318)
_RC
Size A, B or N rotary casing
Medium sand
#]0- #40 sieve
PD
Pipe drill or cleanout tube
Fine sand
- Inserts in last column (Qu or RQD)-
CS
Continuous split barrel sampling
Silt
100% passing #200 sieve and > 0.005mm
DM
Drilling mud
Qu
Unconfined compressive strength, psf (ASTM D2166)
JW
Jetting water
Pq
Penetrometer reading, tsf (ASTM D1558)
SB
2" 0. D. split barrel sampling
Ts
Torvane reading, tsf
L
2 -1/2" or 3 -1/2" O.D. SB liner sampler
G
Specific gravity (ASTM D854)
_T
2" or 3" thin walled tube sample
SL
Shrinkage limits (ASTM D427)
3TP
3" thin walled tube using pitcher sampler
OC
Organic content - combustion method (ASTM D2974)
_TO
2" or 3" thin walled tube using Osterberg
SP
Swell pressure, tsf (ASTM D4546)
Relative Density
sampler
PS
Percent swell under pressure (ASTM D4546)
W
Wash sample
FS
Free swell, % (ASTM D4546)
B
Bag sample
SS
Shrink swell, % (ASTM D4546)
P
Test pit sample
pH
Hydrogen ion content -Meter Method (ASTM D4972)
_Q
BQ, NQ, or PQ wire line system
SC
Sulfate content, parts /million or mg /1
_X
AX, BX, or NX double tube barrel
CC
Chloride content, parts /million or mg/I
N
Standard penetration test, blows per foot
C*
One dimensional consolidation (ASTM D2435)
CR
Core recovery, percent
Qc*
Triaxial compression (ASSTM D2850 and D4767)
WL
Water level
D.S.*
Direct Shear (ASTM D3080)
T
Water level
K*
Coefficient of permeability, cm sec (ASTM D2434)
NMR
No measurement recorded, primarily due
P*
Pinhole test (ASTM D4647)
to presence of drilling or coring fluid.
DH*
Double hydrometer (ASTM D4221)
MA*
Particle size analysis (ASTM D422)
R
Laboratory electrical resistivity, ohm -cm (ASTM G57)
E*
Pressuremeter deformation modulus, tsf (ASTM D4719)
PM*
Pressuremeter test (ASTM D4719)
VS*
Field vane shear (ASTM D2573)
IR*
Infiltrometer test (ASTM D3385)
RQD
Rock quality designation, percent
*Results shown on attached data sheet or graph
* *ASTM designates American Society for Testing and Materials
TERMINOLOGY
Particle Sizes
Soil layering and Moisture
Type
Size Range
Term
Visual Observation
Boulders
> 12"
Lamination
Up to 1/4" thick stratum
Cobbles
3" — 12"
Varved
Altering laminations of any combination of
Coarse gravel 3/4" — 3"
clay, silt, fine sand, or colors
Fine gravel
#4 sieve — 3/4"
Lenses
Small pockets of different soils in a soil mass
Coarse sand
#4 -#10 sieve
Stratified
Altering layers of varying materials or colors
Medium sand
#]0- #40 sieve
Layer
1/4" to 12" thick stratum
Fine sand
#404200 sieve
Dry
Powdery, no noticeable water
Silt
100% passing #200 sieve and > 0.005mm
Moist
Damp, below saturation
Clay
100% passing #200 sieve and < 0.005mm
Waterbearing
Pervious soil below water
Wet
Saturated, above liquid limit
Gravel Content
Standard Penetration Resistance
Coarse - Grained Soils
Fine - Grained Soils
Cohesionless Soils
Cohesive Soils
% Gravel
2 -15
Description
A little gravel
% Gravel Description
N -Value
Relative Density
N -Value Consistency
16 -49
With gravel
< 5 Trace of gravel
5 -15 A little gravel
0 -4
5 -10
Very loose
Loose
0 -4 Very soft
16 -30 With grave]
11 -30
Medium dense
5 -8 Soft
31 -49 Gravelly
31 -50
Dense
9 -15 Firm
> 50
Very dense
16 -30 Hard
>30 Very hard