mg78 tmap hydrology report - reno, nevada

I:\documents\PROJECTS\MOUNTAINGATE 78 - RYDER HOMES\HYDROLOGY\Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 2 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 RATIONAL METHOD .................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS METHOD .............................................................................................. 4 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY................................................................................................ 6

4 PROPOSED CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY .............................................................................................. 7 4.1 PROPOSED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 7 4.2 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 9 4.3 DETENTION ................................................................................................................................ 9 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 10

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1– EXISTING CONDITIONS RATIONAL METHOD MODEL SUMMARY FOR MG78 TABLE 2– PROPOSED CONDITIONS RATIONAL METHOD MODEL SUMMARY FOR MG78 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 – VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 – EXISTING HYDROLOGY DISPLAY FIGURE 3 – PROPOSED HYDROLOGY DISPLAY APPENDICES APPENDIX A – SUPPORTING DATA

APPENDIX B – EXISTING HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C – PROPOSED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

Mountaingate 78 Residential & Mountaingate 78 Commercial Preliminary Drainage Report

Odyssey Engineering Inc. 1 August 14, 2017 Project #3697

1 INTRODUCTION

The following report represents the preliminary storm drain analysis for the Mountaingate 78 Residential and

Mountaingate 78 Commercial Project (MG78 Project) which is located west of Wedge Parkway, north of

Whites Creek Lane, and south of Arrowcreek Parkway (Figure #1 – Vicinity Map) within the Wedge-

Dorostkar-Duxbury-Peigh Specific Plan. The MG78 Project consists of a proposed 78 lot single-family

residential project along with a 3.87+/- commercial parcel.

The MG78 Project is located within the Southern ½ of Section 20, Township 18 North, and Range 20 East

M.D.M., lying within the City of Reno, County of Washoe, State of Nevada. The site is bordered to the

north by the existing Mountaingate Subdivision, south by the existing Pine Tree Ranch subdivision, east by

the Washoe County Regional Park, and the west by undeveloped land (Figure #1 – Vicinity Map). The site

is currently undeveloped and consists of native vegetation. Site topography slopes generally to the northeast

with slopes ranging from 0% to 0.5%. Rainfall runoff from the developed portion of the site flows in an east-

northeasterly direction towards existing culverts that cross under Wedge Parkway.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)

Community-Panel Number 32031C3245G dated March 16, 2009, portions of the subject property lie within

Zone A and Zone X. Zone A is defined as a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1% annual

chance flood with no base flood elevations determined. There is no proposed development within this

portion of the site. Zone X is an area determined to be outside the 100-year floodplain. Reference FEMA

panel in Appendix A.

The purpose of this report is to analyze the existing and proposed conditions of the subject property based on

the 5-year and 100-year peak flow events. As part of the analysis, plans for Wedge Parkway were reviewed and

the storm drain information was included in this analysis. The report contains the following sections: (1)

Methodology, (2) Existing Hydrology, (3) Proposed Hydrology, and (4) Conclusion.



2 METHODOLOGY

Hydrologic Method

Hydrologic analyses were performed to determine the peak discharge for the 5-year and 100-year peak flow

events. AutoDesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis (SSA) was used to perform a Rational Method analysis to

model the hydrologic basins that contribute in the existing and proposed conditions.

2.1 RATIONAL ANALYSIS METHOD

The on-site analysis was performed using the Rational Method. Rational Method peak flows were used to

design the storm drain facilities for the proposed project. The hydrology was determined using the Truckee

Meadows Regional Drainage Manual (TMRDM) and the Rational Method (Appendix A). The parameters

for the Rational Method of analysis are:

1. The Drainage Area

2. Time of Concentration

3. Runoff Coefficient

4. Rainfall Intensity

The equations for determining the tc are:

tic ttt

Where:

tt = the travel time in ditch, channel, gutter, storm drain, etc. (min.)

V

Ltt 60



Where:

tc = the lesser of tic ttt where 4.05.0

2

8.0)(007.0

sP

nLti and

V

Ltt 60

or for urbanized basins 10180

L

tc

tc min. = 10 min. for urbanized basins and 10 min. for non-urban watersheds.

Where:

L = the travel distance (ft)

V = channel or overland velocity (fps) (obtained from SSA)

n = Manning’s roughness coefficient

P2 = 2-Year, 24-hour rainfall (in)

S = average overland basin slope (percent)

Reference Tables 1-2 for time of concentration calculations for all of the basins involved in this project. The

Rainfall-intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curve from the Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates from

NOAA Atlas 14 ((http://dipper.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/nv_pfds.html) was used to determine the 5-year

and 100-year rainfall intensities for this project. Reference Appendix A for the IDF curve and Tables 2-3 for

rainfall intensities for the storm events.

Peak runoff is calculated using the following equation:

CIAQ

Where:

Q = Peak Runoff

C = Coefficient of Runoff (Appendix A)

I = Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)

A = Total Area (acres) for each drainage sub-area



The runoff coefficients were obtained from the TMRDM (Reference Appendix A). The resulting “Rational

Method” developed flows determined from the above information was used to determine the proposed storm

drain facilities.

The rainfall characteristics were modeled using the NOAA database

(http://dipper.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/nv_pfds.html) to determine site specific depth of precipitation

(Appendix A).

2.2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS METHODS

Hydraulic analyses were performed using the associated hydrologic data to provide the estimates of the

elevation of floods for the selected recurrence intervals. Water-surface elevations were computed in SSA

using hydrodynamic routing. Hydrodynamic routing solves the complete Saint Venant equations throughout

the drainage network and includes modeling of backwater effects, flow reversal, surcharging, lopped

connections, pressure flow, and interconnected ponds. Hydrodyanmic routing provides a formulation for

channels and pipes, including translation and attenuation effects.

The Saint Venant equations describe one-dimensional unsteady flow in open channels. These equations

consist of the conservation of mass, continuity equation, Equation 3, and the momentum equation, Equation

4. The solution of these equations defines the propagation of a floodwave with respect to distance along the

channel and time.

qt

yB

x

yVB

x

VA

t

V

gx

V

g

V

x

ySS of

1

Where:

A = cross sectional flow area (ft2)

V = average velocity of water (ft/sec.)

x = distance along the channel (ft)



B = water surface width (ft)

y = depth of water (ft)

t = time (sec.)

q = lateral inflow per unit length of channel (cfs)

Sf = friction slope

So = channel bed slope (ft/ft)

g = gravitational acceleration (ft/sec2)

Using various assumptions and simplifications, the Saint Venant equations can be applied to various channel

routing situations. The most complex of these routing schemes is dynamic wave routing, followed by

diffusion wave routing, with the least complex method known as kinematic wave routing.

The proposed detention facilities, engineered channels, and the associated storm sewer system were modeled

in SSA using the Darcy-Weisbach equation. The Darcy-Weisbach Formula was developed for use in the

analysis of pressure pipe systems. However, the formula is sufficiently general so that it can be applied

readily to open channel flow systems, such as non-surcharged storm sewer systems

The roughness component in the Darcy-Weisbach equation is a function of both the channel material and the

Reynolds Number, which varies with velocity (V) and hydraulic radius (R). The familiar form of the

equation, which is applicable to circular pipes with full flow only, is:

5.05.08sAR

f

gQ

Where:

Q = flow rate

n = Manning roughness coefficient

A = cross-sectional area

R = hydraulic radius

S = energy slope

g = gravitational acceleration (ft/sec2)



f = Darcy-Weisbach friction factor

with the associated equation #6 calculating the headloss due to friction. The headloss equation is listed

below:

g

V

D

Lfh f 2

2

Where:

hf = headloss (ft)

D= pipe diameter (ft)

L = pipe length (ft)

V= flow velocity (ft/sec)

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY

For the existing catchments, a time of concentration (TC) and Rational Method coefficient were selected,

based on the Rational Method (Appendix A), taking into consideration the catchment characteristics, which

include catchment area, slope and length of the longest channel, watershed boundaries, urbanization, and

land cover. Table 1 and Figure 2 summarize the characteristics of the on-site catchment areas in the study

area. Reference Appendix B for the complete Rational Method analysis. Reference Figure 2 (Existing

Hydrology Display) for the existing hydrology drainage map and the associated hydrologic sub-area.

Table 1 – Existing Conditions Rational Method Model Summary for the MG78 Project, Reno, NV.

Sub-Basin Area

(Ac.)

Rational

Method

Coefficient

(C5/C100)

Time of

Concentration

(min)

Rainfall Intensity

(I5/I100)

(in/hr)

5-Year

Peak Flows

(cfs)

100-Year

Peak Flows

(cfs)

EX-01 39.42 0.20/0.50 29.05 0.98/2.38 7.72 46.95

EX-02 1.85 0.20/0.50 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.52 3.23

TOTAL 41.27 ----- ----- ----- 8.24 50.18



The total existing flows are 8.24 cfs and 50.18 cfs in the 5-year and 100-year peak flow events, respectively

(Appendix B). The flows from EX-01 discharge into Whites Creek into an existing box culvert under Wedge

Parkway, while the flows from EX-02 discharge into an existing 18” culvert under Wedge Parkway into the

adjacent undeveloped portion of the Washoe County property.

4 PROPOSED CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

4.1 PROPOSED HYDROLOGY

SSA, the hydrologic modeling software has the capacity to route the flows and analyze the attenuation

throughout the system. The proposed on-site storm drain system and the detention facility shall be designed

to aid in decreasing the 5-year and 100-year 24-hour peak runoff rates after the development of the MG78

Project. The discharge of the proposed sub-basins (Table 2) is directed through the proposed storm drain

system to the proposed detention facility located within the residential portion of the project. The outlet of

the detention pond shall be piped through the proposed commercial project ultimately discharging into the

“open space” area to the north of the developed portion of the project.

There is one undeveloped open space sub-basin, 21 proposed sub-basins within the subdivision, and 5

proposed sub-basins within the commercial portion of the MG78 development (Figures 3). The sub-areas

took into account the proposed on-site flows that affect the site. The calculated 5-year and 100-year peak

flows can be found in Table 2. Both pipe sizes and catch basins have been sized to accommodate the

proposed flows. Reference Figure 3 for the hydrologic sub-areas. Run-off coefficients were calculated for

each basin based on TMRDM (Table 2). A 5-year intensity of 1.40 in/hr and a 100-year intensity of 3.49

in/hr were used for all on-site sub-basins. All drainage from the basins will be contained in swales and

roadways and will travel to the proposed catch basins. The flows from the subdivision will be routed

through the storm drain network into the proposed detention basin. Flows are then discharged through the

commercial portion of the project into the “open space” near the White’s Creek channel. Drainage from the

commercial basins will be picked up by a storm drain network that connects downstream of the proposed

detention basin. Refer to Appendix C, Hydrologic Analysis for all data and supporting calculations using the

Rational Method. Reference Table 2 below for a summary of the proposed drainage conditions.



Table 2 – Proposed Rational Method Model Summary for the MG78 Project, Reno, NV.

Sub-Basin Area

(Ac.)

Rational

Method

Coefficient

(C5/C100)

Time of

Concentration

(min)

Rainfall

Intensity

(I5/I100)

(in/hr)

5-Year

Peak Flows

(cfs)

100-Year

Peak Flows

(cfs)

AREA P-0FF1 18.19 0.20/0.50 28.83 0.98/2.39 3.58 21.77

AREA P-01 0.98 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.76 2.46

AREA P-02 0.37 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.29 0.93

AREA P-03 0.69 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.53 1.73

AREA P-04 1.50 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 1.05 3.77

AREA P-05 0.51 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.39 1.28

AREA P-06 0.96 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.74 2.41

AREA P-07 0.47 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.36 1.18

AREA P-08 0.42 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.32 1.06

AREA P-09 0.91 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.70 2.29

AREA P-10 0.61 0.20/.0.50 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.17 1.06

AREA P-11 1.77 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 1.36 4.45

AREA P-12 1.49 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 1.15 3.74

AREA P-13 1.47 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 1.13 3.69

AREA P-14 1.49 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 1.15 3.74

AREA P-15 0.99 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.76 2.49

AREA P-16 0.76 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.59 1.91

AREA P-17 1.09 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.84 2.74

AREA P-18 1.14 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.88 2.87

AREA P-19 1.11 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.86 2.79

AREA P-20 0.24 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.18 0.60

AREA P-21 0.22 0.55/0.72 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.17 0.57

AREA C-01 0.76 0.65/0.80 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.69 2.12



Sub-Basin Area

(Ac.)

Rational

Method

Coefficient

(C5/C100)

Time of

Concentration

(min)

Rainfall

Intensity

(I5/I100)

(in/hr)

5-Year

Peak Flows

(cfs)

100-Year

Peak Flows

(cfs)

AREA C-02 1.23 0.65/0.80 10.00 1.40/3.49 1.12 3.43

AREA C-03 0.64 0.65/0.80 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.58 1.79

AREA C-04 0.71 0.65/0.80 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.65 1.99

AREA C-05 0.52 0.65/0.80 10.00 1.40/3.49 0.47 1.45

TOTAL 41.27 ----- ----- ----- 21.74 80.31

4.2 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEM

The proposed storm drain system was analyzed to accommodate the proposed development peak flows from

the on-site basins under gravity flow conditions and according to the TMRDM and COR drainage

requirements. Catch basins in continuous grade and sump conditions were modeled with capacity reduction

factors based on catch basin type and condition. To determine the theoretical intercepted flow by the catch

basins, Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC) 22 (USDOT, 2001) methods were utilized in SSA as specified

by the TMRDM and COS. The proposed streets were analyzed for the 5- and 100-year peak flow events.

The 5-year event runoff in excess of street capacity shall be piped and provide a 12-foot width dry center

drive aisle and the 100-year peak flow event will have flooded streets with the flows contained within the

street right-of-way.

The storm drain system will ultimately be designed to convey the 5-year storm event in a “gravity flow”

condition with the pipes below full flow capacity and in a “surcharged” or pressurized condition in the 100-

year event.

4.3 DETENTION The proposed detention basin, located within the residential portion of the project, will be designed to

decrease the overall net increase in the 100-year peak flow for both the residential and commercial portions

of the project.


Odyssey Engineering Inc. 10 August 14, 2017

Project #3697

5 CONCLUSIONS

The proposed improvements and the analyses presented herein are in accordance with drainage regulations

presented in Chapter II – Storm Drainage, in conjunction with the Truckee Meadows Regional Drainage

Manual (TMRDM, April 30, 2009) and adhere to the previous hydrology reports, master planning efforts, and

flood control and drainage documents.

With the development of the Mountaingate 78 Project, the proposed storm drain system will be designed to

convey the 5-year storm event in a "gravity flow" condition with the pipes below full flow capacity and in a

"surcharged" or pressurized condition in the 100-year event. The proposed detention basin and stormdrain

system will help to reduce peak runoff rates below the pre-developed (existing) conditions.

APPENDIX A

SUPPORTING DATA

APPENDIX B

EXISTING HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C

PROPOSED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

I:\documents\PROJECTS\MOUNTAINGATE 78 - RYDER HOMES\SEWER i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS 1 4 METHODOLOGY 2 5 CONCLUSION 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – SUPPORTING DATA

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1– VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2– SEWER DISPLAY MAP

Mountaingate 78 Residential and Commercial Preliminary Sewer Report

Odyssey Engineering Inc. 1 August 2017 Project #3697

1 INTRODUCTION

The following report represents the preliminary sanitary sewer analysis for the Mountaingate 78 Residential and

Mountaingate 78 Commercial Project (MG78 Project) which is located west of Wedge Parkway, north of

Whites Creek Lane, and south of Arrowcreek Parkway (Figure #1) within the Wedge-Dorostkar-Duxbury-

Peigh Specific Plan. The MG78 Project consists of a proposed 78 lot single-family residential project along

with a 3.87+/- commercial parcel.

The MG78 Project is located within the Southern ½ of Section 20, Township 18 North, and Range 20 East

M.D.M., lying within the City of Reno, County of Washoe, State of Nevada. The site is bordered to the

north by the existing Mountaingate Subdivision, south by the existing Pine Tree Ranch subdivision, east by

the Washoe County Regional Park, and the west by undeveloped land (Figure #1). The site is currently

undeveloped and consists of native vegetation. Site topography slopes generally to the northeast with slopes

ranging from 0% to 0.5%.

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

An existing 8” sanitary sewer stub has been provided on the east side of Wedge Parkway across from the

proposed commercial entrance. This 8” main was designed by Wood Rodgers with the Village South

Apartment Complex for the Mountaingate 78 project. This 8” main extends to the existing 18” trunk main

along the property line of the Washoe County Regional Park.

3- PROPOSED CONDITIONS

All proposed sanitary sewer mains will be public and shall consist of 8” SDR35 PVC pipe. There are no

special appurtenances associated with the existing sanitary sewer facilities. The proposed MG78 Project

sewer system will tie to the existing stub provided with the Village South Apartment Complex that

ultimately discharges to the existing 18” trunk main along the property line of the Washoe County

Regional Park.



The proposed sanitary sewer system is shown on the Sewer Display Map (Figure 2).

4 METHODOLOGY

On-site peak flow calculations were obtained from the City of Reno Public Works Design Manual -

Chapter 4 and are based on the following:

MG 78 Residential - Total flow: (# units)(350 G.P.C.D.)(3) = peak flow G.P.D.

MG 78 Commercial – Total flow: (10,000 G.P.A.D.) = peak flow G.P.D.

Calculations, using Autodesk Hydroflow Express (Manning’s Formula) are included in the Appendices

showing both half-full capacities and ultimate buildout flows for the proposed facilities as well. These

facilities were designed using City of Reno parameters, those being: Manning’s n value of 0.013, a

design depth of half-full, and a minimum design velocity of 2.00 feet per second. 350 GPCD were used

for analyzing on-site public mains for the residential portion, and 10,000 gallons per acre per day were

used for analyzing on-site public mains for the commercial portion.

Downstream facilities have been designed to serve the MG78 Project. The sewer contribution for these

villages were determined using occupancy rates and sewer generation per acre as shown in the City of

Reno Public Works Design Manual - Chapter 4. Each pipe section has been designed to adequately serve

the contributing area per City of Reno standards.

The entirety of the MG78 Project consists of a 78 single-family residential subdivision, which will

generate a peak flow of 81,900 gal/day and a 3.87 acre commercial site which will generate a peak flow

of 38,700 gal/day. The calculated flows are listed below and can be referenced in Appendix A:



Land Use Total Dwelling

Units / Acres

(du / acre)

Average

Daily Flow

Peaking

Factor

Total Flows

(gpd)

Flow Rate

(cfs)

MG78

Residential

78 du 350 gpd/du 3 81,900 0.13

MG78

Commercial

3.87 acres 10,000/acre n/a 38,700 0.06

Total 120,600 0.19

*Note: du = dwelling units, gpd = gallons per day, cfs = ft3/sec

5 CONCLUSION

The proposed sewage estimates from the MG78 Project will be routed through the proposed sewer system

to the existing 8” sewer stub provided with the Village South Apartment Complex. The estimated flows

from the MG78 Project (120,600 gpd) will not adversely affect the downstream sanitary sewer system.

Z

APPENDIX A

CAPACITY CALCULATIONS

SOLAEGUIENGINEERS, LTD

MOI.INTANGATE 78

TRAFFIC STI-IDY

ruLY,2017

Prepared by:Solaegui Engineers, Ltd.

715 H StreetSparks, Nevada 89431

(77s) 3sB-1004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTTVE SUMMARY............. ........3

INTRODUCTION...... ...........4STUDY AREA....... ...........4EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES ........4EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROADWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS ....................4

TRIP GENERATION ............6

TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT.......... ...................7

EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES .,...........7

INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS................ .............12

SITE PLAN REVIEW.. ........15

RECOMMENDATIONS ............ .......... 15

APPENDX .......16

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP..... ............5

FIGURE 2 - TRIP DISTzuBUTION .........................8

FIGURE 3 - TRIP ASSIGNMENT......... ..................9

FIGURE 4 - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............. ..........10

FIGURE 5 - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............11

SOLAEGUI ENGINEERS, LTD.

MOI.INTANGATE 78

TRAFFIC STUDY

EXECUTIVE STIMMARY

The proposed Mountaingate 78 development will be located in the City of Reno, Nevada. Theproject site is located in the northwest corner of the Wedge Parkway'Whites Creek Laneintersection. The project site is currently undeveloped land. The purpose of this study is to addressthe project's impact upon the adjacent street network. The Arowcreek Parkway/Wedge Parkwayintersection, the Wedge Parkway/Whites Creek Lane intersection, and the project accessintersections on Wedge Parkway and Whites Creek Lane have been identified for AM and PM peakhour capacity analysis for the existing and existing plus project scenarios.

The Mountaingate 78 development will include the construction of 78 single family dwelling unitsand four commercial buildings containing a total of 35,000 square feet of floor area. Project accesswill be provided from two access roads intersecting Wedge Parkway and one access roadintersecting Whites Creek Lane. The north access on Wedge Parkway will serve the commercialparcel and the south access on Wedge Parkway and the Whites Creek Lane access will serve theresidential portion of the project. The Mountaingate 78 development is expected to generate 2,238average daily trips with 93 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 208 trips occurring duringthe PM peak hour.

Traffic generated by Mountaingate 78 will have some impact on the adjacent street network. Thefollowing recommendations are made to mitigate project traffic impacts.

It is recommended that any required signing, striping or traffic control improvements comply withCity of Reno requirements.

It is recommended that the Wedge ParkwayAtrorth Project Access intersection be designed as a four-leg intersection with stop sign control at the east and west approaches. The North Project Accessshould align with the apartment access on the opposite side of Wedge Parkway.

It is required that the Wedge Parkway/South Project Access intersection be designed as a threeJegintersection with stop sign control at the west approach.

It is required that the Whites Creek Lane/Project Access intersection be designed as a three-legintersection with stop sign control at the north approach.


INTRODUCTION

STUDY AREA

The proposed Mountaingate 78 development will be located in the City of Reno, Nevada. Theproject site is located in the northwest comer of the Wedge Parkway/Whites Creek Laneintersection. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site. The purpose of this study is to addressthe project's impact upon the adjacent street network. The Arrowcreek Parkway/Wedge Parkwayintersection, the Wedge Parkway/Whites Creek lane intersection, ffid the project accessintersections on Wedge Parkway and Whites Creek Lane have been identified for AM and PM peakhour capacity analysis for the existing and existing plus project scenarios.

EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES

The project site is currently undeveloped land. Adjacent properties includes the Mountaingateresidential development to the north and west, an existing residential subdivision to the south, alibrary and sports complex to the southeast, and the Arrowcreek Apartment development to thenortheast. The Mountaingate 78 development will include the construction of 78 single familydwelling units and four commercial buildings containing a total of 35,000 square feet of floor area.Project access will be provided from two access roads intersecting Wedge Parkway and one accessroad intersecting Whites Creek Lane. The north access on Wedge Parkway will serve thecommercial parcel and the south access on Wedge Parkway and the Whites Creek Lane access willserve the residential portion ofthe project.

EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROADWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS

Arrowcreek Parkway is a two-lane roadway with one through lane in each direction in the vicinityof the site. The speed limit is posted for 35 miles per hour. Roadway improvements generallyinclude curb, gutter and bike lanes on both sides of the street and a raised center median near WedgeParkway. Sidewalk generally exists on one side of the street.

Wedge Parkway is a two-lane roadway with one through lane in each direction from ArrowcreekParkway to south of the project site. The speed limit is posted for 35 miles per hour. Roadwayimprovements generally include curb, gutter and bike lanes on both sides of the street and asidewalk on the west side of the street.

Arrowsprings Drive is a two-lane roadway with one through lane in each direction north ofArowcreek Parkway. Roadway improvements include curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides ofthe street. Arrowsprings Drive aligns with Wedge Parkway and is a gated access to theMountaingate residential development.

Whites Creek Lane is a two-lane roadway with one through lane in each direction in the vicinity ofthe site. The speed limit is posted for 25 miles per hour west of Wedge parkway and 15 miles perhour east of Wedge Parkway. Roadway improvements generally include graded shoulders on bothsides of the street.


SOLAEGU I

ENGINEERS LTD.

l=

LEGEND

I pnorEcr strE

MOUNTAINGATE 78VICINITY MAP

FIGURE T

The Arrowcreek ParkwayiWedge Parkway/Arrowsprings Drive intersection is a signalized four-legintersection with permissive left tum phasing at the north and south approaches and protected/permissive phasing at the east and west approaches. The north Arrowsprings Drive approachcontains one shared left turn-through-right tum lane. The south Wedge Parkway approach containsone left turn lane and one shared through-right tum lane. The east and west Arrowcreek Parkwayapproaches each contain one left tum lane, one through lane and one right turn lane. Pedestriancrosswalks exist at the north, south, and west legs

The Wedge Parkway/Whites Creek Lane intersection is an unsignalized four-leg intersection withstop sign control at the east and west approaches. All approaches contain one shared left tum-through-right tum lane. A pedestrian crosswalk exists at the north leg.

The Wedge ParkwayAtrorth Project Access/Arrowcreek Apartment Access intersection is currentlyan unsignalized three-leg intersection with stop control at the east approach. The intersectioncontains single lanes at the north, south, and east approaches. With development of the commercialportion of Mountaingate 78 the intersection will be improved as a four-leg intersection with stopsign control at the east and west approaches. The four-leg intersection is anticipated to containsingle lanes at all approaches.

The Wedge Parkway/South Project Access intersection does not currently exist. The intersectionwill ultimately be constructed as an unsignalized three-leg intersection with stop sign control at thewest approach with development of the residential portion of Mountaingate 78. The intersection isanticipated to contain one shared through-right turn lane at the north approach, one shared left tum-through lane at the south approach, and one shared left turn-right tum lane at the west approach.

The Whites Creek Lane/Project Access intersection does not currently exist. The intersection willultimately be constructed as an unsignalized three-leg intersection with stop sign control at the northapproach with development of the residential portion of Mountaingate 78. The intersection isanticipated to contain one shared through-right tum lane at the east approach, one shared left turn-through lane at the west approach, and one shared left turn-right tum lane at the north approach.

TRIP GENERATION

In order to assess the magnitude of traffic impacts of the proposed Mountaingate 78 development onthe key intersections, trip generation rates and peak hours had to be determined. Trip generationrates were obtained from the Ninth Edition of ITE Trip Generation (2012) for Land Use 210: SingleFamily Detached Housing and Land Use 820: Shopping Center.

Chapter 5 of the AE Trip Generation Handbook provides guidelines for quantiffing pass-by tripsfor the shopping center land use. Pass-by trips are made as intermediate stops on the way from anorigin to a primary trip destination and are attracted directly from the adjacent traffic stream (WedgeParkway). The ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates that 34Yo of the PM peak hour tripsgenerated by the shopping center land use are pass-by trips. This same percentage was assumed forthe AM peak hour as well.


Trip generation was calculated for the weekday peak hours occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 AMand 4:00 and 6:00 PM, which correspond to the peak hours of adjacent street traffic. Table i showsa summary of the average daily traffrc (ADT) volume and peak hour volumes generated byMountaingateTS. The trip generation sunmary sheets are included in the Appendix.

TABLE ITRIP GENERATION

LAND USE ADT

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

Single Family Detached Housing (78 D.U.)Shopping Center (35,000 S.F.)

Total TripsPass-By TripsNew Trips

743

t.4952,238N/AN/A

l521

36-5

3l

44l357-5

52

593493

-1083

4962

111aa-zL

s9

2968

97aa

75

78130

208-44164

As shown in Table 1, the Mountaingate 78 development is expected to generate a total of 2,238average daily trips with 93 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 208 trips occurring duringthe PM peak hour.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT

The distribution of the new project trips to the key intersections was based on existing peak hourtraffic patterns and the locations of attractions and productions in the area. The anticipated tripdistribution is shown on Figure 2. The distribution of the pass-by trips was based on directionalpeak hour through traffic volumes on Wedge Parkway. The trips generated by the Mountaingate 78were subsequently assigned to the key intersections based on this trip distribution. Figure 3 showsthe trip assignment during the AM and PM peak hours.

EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLI]MES

Figure 4 shows the existing traffic volumes at the key intersections during the AM and PM peakhours. The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from midweek trafficcounts conducted in July of 2017. The traffic counts at the Arrowcreek Parkway/Wedge Parkwayintersection were compared to previous counts at the same intersection conducted in May of 2016and the highest traffic volume for each intersection movement was subsequently used in the analysisin order to ensure conservative results. Also, the existing traffic counts at the Wedge Parkway/Apartment Access intersection were compared to trip assignment volumes presented in theArrowcreek Apartment Traffic Study dated July of 2014 and the highest traffic volumes wereutilized in the analysis. Figure 5 shows the existing plus project traffrc volumes at the keyintersections during the AM and PM peak hours. The existing plus project traffic volumes wereobtained by adding the trip assignment volumes shown on Figure 3 to the existing traffic volumesshown on Figure 4.


SOLAEGUIENGINEERS LTD.

*

le

LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL(-) coMMERC|AL

x,MOUNTAINGATE 78TRIP DISTRIBUTION

FIGURE 2

SOLAEGU I

ENGINEERS LTD.

LEGEND

AM PEAK HOUR(-) PM PEAK HOUR

5g)-J2(1)-r

\AttF- (O

N:-o

\I

I

I

MOUNTAINGATE 78TRIP ASSIGNMENT

FIGURE 3

SOLAEGU I

ENGINEERS LTD.

ItLEGEND

AM PEAK HOUR(-) PM PEAK HouR

:rXt"';.).ir'^){ /'./ 1

,\

/\

+(a6'o)NNYf.-oN/

APARTMENTACCESS

/--'----t/

I

'\N

/^/- N$6N

I

v

\\\I+i

It

oI

(o/

N/

I

IJ

I

<-4(14)\\ 11(14)--->

MOUNTAINGATE 78

i Y lLzstrsl{ \l r-zzgz1

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMESFIGURE 4

SOLAEGU I

ENGINEERS LTD.

Lz(z)<- 4(14)

o(0)-J11(Ja)--->

ItLEGEND

AM PEAK HOUR(-) PM PEAK HouR

/^,/0,^@, o+^/ $Yr)

/ oNi-rNO

i+\-ru,,,<-0(1),22(12)

APARTMENTACCESS

sgqJ0(1)-->

4(27)-\

30(1e)-t7(5)-\

/^,/ o)os9;.rOrN

)+\lltNNNli

;tNN/

99oF-

/\^

MOUNTAINGATE 78

rc(qr l\ + /0(0)---> I A.l-.:-.a(+j-\

I g&*

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMESFIGURE 5

INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSI S

The key intersections were analyzed for capacity based on procedures presented in the HighwayCapacity Manual (2010), prepared by the Transportation Research Board, for unsignalized andsignalized intersections using the latest version of the Highway Capacity computer software.

The result of capacity analysis is a level of service (LOS) rating for each signalized intersectionand unsignalized intersection minor movement. Level of service is a qualitative measure oftraffic operating conditions where a letter grade "A" through "F", corresponding to progressivelyworsening traffic operation, is assigned to the intersection or minor movement.

The Highway Capacity Manual defines level of service for stop controlled intersections in termsof computed or measured control delay for each minor movement. Level of service is not definedfor the intersection as a whole. The level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections androundabouts is shown in Table 2.

TABLE2LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITEzuA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

LEVEL OF SERVICE DELAY RANGE (SEC/VEH)

A <10

B >10 and <15

C >15 and (25

D >25 and <35

E >35 and <50

F >50

Level of service for signalized intersections is statedvehicle for a peak 15 minute analysis period. Theintersections is shown in Table 3.

in terms of the average control delay perlevel of service criteria for signalized

TABLE 3

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC)

A <10

B >10 and <20

C >20 and <35

D >35 and <55

E >55 and <80

F >80

SOLAEGUI ENGINEERS, LTD. 12

TABLE 4INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY RESULTS

INTERSECTION

EXISTINGEXISTING+ PROJECT

AM PM AM PM

Anowcreek/Wedge (Signalized) 817.0 817.3 817.4 8t9.7

Wedge/Whites Creek (Stop at East and West Legs)EB Left-Thru-RightWB Left-Thru-RightNB LeftSB Left

81t.2A10.0A7.747.7

c20.8814.6A8.3A8.0

Bl1.7B10.047.81^1.7

c22.0c15.4A8.4A8.1

Wedge/Apartment Access (Stop at East Leg)WB Left-RightSB Left

WedgeA.,lorth Access/Apartment Access (Stop East/West Legs)EB Left-Thru-RightWB Left-Thru-RightNB LeftSB Left

Bl 1.3

1.7.7

N/AN/AN/AN/A

B 14.9A8.0

N/AN/AN/AN/A

N/AN/A

812.7Bl1.947.8A7.8

N/AN/A

c23.0c17.8A8.7A8.l

Wedge/South Access (Stop at West Leg)EB Left-RightNB Left

N/AN/A

N/AN/A

B 12.8A7.8

c19.7A8.7

Whites Creek/Project Access (Stop at North Leg)EB LeftSB Left-Right

N/AN/A

N/AN/A

1^7.2

A8.6A7.3A8.7

Table 4 shows a summary of the level of service and delay results at the key intersections for theexisting and existing plus project scenarios. The capacity worksheets are included in theAppendix.

on

The Arrowcreek Parkway/Wedge Parkway intersection was analyzed as a signalized four-legintersection for all scenarios. The intersection currently operates at LOS B with a delay of 17.0seconds per vehicle during the AM peak hour and 17.3 seconds per vehicle during the PM peakhour. For the existing plus project traffic volumes the intersection continues to operate at LOS Bwith delays slightly increasing to I7.4 seconds per vehicle during the AM peak hour and I9.7seconds per vehicle during the PM peak hour. The intersection was analyzed with the existingapproach lanes and signal phasing for all scenarios. The Arrowcreek Parkway/Wedge Parkwayintersection meets policy LOS D or better standards for the existing and existing plus projectscenarios.

SOLAEGUI ENGINEERS, LTD. l3

The Wedge Parkway/Whites Creek Lane intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized four-legintersection with stop control at the east and west approaches for all scenarios. The intersectionminor movements currently operate at LOS B or better during the AM peak hour and LOS C orbetter during the PM peak hour. For the existing plus project volumes the intersection minormovements are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better during the AM peak hour and LOS C orbetter during the PM peak hour. The intersection was analyzed with the existing approach lanes forall scenarios. Peak hour traffic signal warrant 3 per the Manual on Unifurm Trffic ControlDevices (2009) was reviewed at the Wedge Parkway/Whites Creek Lane intersection per therequest of City of Reno staff. Traffic signal wanant 3 is not met for either the existing or existingplus project traffrc volumes. The Wedge Parkway/Whites Creek Lane intersection meets policyLOS D or better standards for the existing and existing plus project scenarios.

Access Intersection

The Wedge ParkwayAtrorth Project Access/Apartment Access intersection was analyzed as anunsignalized three leg intersection with stop sign control at the east approach for the existingscenario and as a four-leg intersection with stop sign control at the east and west approaches forthe existing plus project scenario. The intersection minor movements currently operate at LOS Bor better during the AM and PM peak hours. For the existing plus project volumes theintersection minor movements are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better during the AM peakhour and LOS C or better during the PM peak hour. The intersection was analyzed with theexisting approach lanes for the existing scenario and with single lanes at each approach for theexisting plus project scenario. The Wedge Parkway/l.Jorth Project Access intersection meets policyLOS D or better standards for the existing and existing plus project scenarios.

n

The Wedge Parkway/South Project Access intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized three-legintersection with stop sign control at the west approach for the existing plus project scenario. Theintersection minor movements are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better during the AM peakhour and LOS C or better during the PM peak hour. The intersection was analyzed with singlelanes at each approach. The Wedge Parkway/South Project Access intersection meets policy LOS Dor better standards for the existing plus project scenario.

The Whites Creek LanelProject Access intersection was analyzed as an unsignalized three-legintersection with stop sign control at the north approach for the existing plus project scenario.The intersection minor movements are anticipated to operate at LOS A during the AM and PMpeak hours. The intersection was analyzed with single lanes at each approach. The Whites CreekLanelProject Access intersection meets policy LOS D or better standards for the existing plusproject scenario.

SOLAEGUI ENGINEERS, LTD. 14

SITE PLAN REVIEW

A copy of the preliminary site plan for Mountaingate 78 is included in this submittal. The siteplan indicates that project access will be provided from two access roads intersecting WedgeParkway and one access road intersecting Whites Creek Lane. The north access on Wedge Parkwaywill serve the commercial parcel and the south access on Wedge Parkway and the Whites CreekLane access will serve the residential portion of the project. The north and south accesses weresubsequently reviewed for spacing based on City of Reno standards. City of Reno standards indicatethat accesses shall be spaced a minimum of 150 feet on minor arterials. Wedge Parkway is listed as

a minor arterial in the City of Reno's Public Services, Facilities, and Infrastructure Plan. The siteplan indicates that the South Project Access will be located more than 325 feet north of WhitesCreek Lane and the North Project Access will be located more than 450 feet north of the SouthProject Access. Both project accesses meet City of Reno spacing requirements.

The need for exclusive north to westbound left tum lanes on Wedge Parkway at Whites Creek Laneand the north and south accesses was reviewed based on AASHTO guidelines for left turn lanes ontwo-lane roadways. The guidelines list traffic volumes and operating speeds which necessitate theinstallation of left turn lanes on two-lane roads. The traffic volumes to be considered includeadvancing traffic volumes, opposing traffic volumes, and the percent of advancing traffic whichis turning left. Exclusive left turn lanes are not required on Wedge Parkway at either WhitesCreek Lane or the north and south accesses based on the existing plus project traffic volumes.

The need for exclusive south to westbound right turn lanes on Wedge Parkway at Whites CreekLane and the north and south accesses was also reviewed. RTC's access management standardsindicate that right tum deceleration lanes are required on arterials with moderate access control(Wedge Parkway) if the right turn movement exceeds 60 vehicles during the peak hour. Right tumlanes are not required on Wedge Parkway at either Whites Creek Lane or the north or south accessbased on the existing plus project traffic volumes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Traffic generated by Mountaingate 78 will have some impact on the adjacent street network. Thefollowing recommendations are made to mitigate project traffic impacts.

It is recommended that any required signing, striping or traffic control improvements comply withCity of Reno requirements.

It is recommended that the Wedge ParkwayA.,lorth Project Access intersection be designed as a four-leg intersection with stop sign control at the east and west approaches. The North Project Accessshould align with the apartment access on the opposite side of wedge Parkway.

It is required that the Wedge Parkway/South Project Access intersection be designed as a three-legintersection with stop sign control at the west approach.

It is required that the Whites Creek Lane/Project Access intersection be designed as a three-legintersection with stop sign control at the north approach.

SOLAEGUI ENGINEERS, LTD. l5

APPENDIX

SOLAEGUI ENGINEERS, LTD t6

Trip Generation Summary - Alternative 1

Project: New Project

Alternative: Alternative 1

Open Date: 712612017

Analysis Date: 712612017

Average Daily Trips

Enter Exit Total

372 371 743 15 44 59 49

AM Peak Hour ofAdjacent Street Traffic

Enter Exit Total

PM Peak Hour ofAdjacent Street Traffic

Enter Exit TotalITE

210

Land Use

29SFHOUSE 1

78 Dwelling Units

Unadjusted Volume

lnternal Capture Trips

Pass-By Trips

Volume Added to Adjacent Streets

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total AM Peak Hour lnternal Capture = 0 Percent

Total PM Peak Hour lnternal Capture = 0 Percent

Source: lnstitute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, 20'12

TRIP GENERATION 2014, TRAFFICWARE, LLC

Trip Generation Summary - Alternative 1

Project: New Project

Alternative: Alternative 1

Open Date: 712612017

Analysis Date: 712612017

ITE

820

Land [Jse

CENTERSHOPPING 1

35 Gross Leasable Area 1000 SF

Average Daily Trips

Enter Exit Total

748 747 1495

AM Peak Hour ofAdjacent Street Traffic

Enter Exit Total

21 13 34

PM Peak Hour ofAdjacent Street Traffic

Enter Exit Total

62 68 130

Unadjusted Volume

lnternal Capture Trips

Pass-By Trips

Volume Added to Adjacent Streets

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total AM Peak Hour lnternal Capture = 0 Percent

Total PM Peak Hour lnternal Capture = 0 Percent

Source: lnstitute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual9th Edition, 2012

TRIP GENERATION 2014, TRAFFICWARE, LLC

HCS 2010 Signalized lntersection Results Summary

General lnformation lntersection lnformationAgency Duration, h 0.25

Analvst Solaegui Engineers Analvsis Date 7 t27 t2017 Area Tvoe Other

Jurisdiction Reno llme Period AM Peak Hour PHF J.92

Urban Street Analvsis Year Existinq Analvsis Period '1> 7:00

lntersection \rrowcreek & Wedqe File Name ArWel Tax.xus

Proiect Description

Demand lnformation EB WB NB SB

Aooroach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R

Demand ( v), veh/h 3 404 17 188 251 18 21 6 205 46 11 1

Siqnal InformationJ, o.

(-F

rL..a frt

JJtltr 3

Cycle, s 75.O Reference Phase 2

Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 60 40 30.0 20 0 0.0 00

1

Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap EAIV On Yellow t0 00 4.0 14.0 00 00Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gao N/S On Red 10 00 10 10 00 00

Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Assiqned Phase 5 211 6 8 4

Case Number 11 3.0 I 1.1 30 6.0 80Phase Duration, s 11 .0 35.0 I 15.0 I 39.0 25.O 25.O

Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 I 5.0 50 50 50Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 31 3.0 I 31 30 34 34Queue Clearance Time ( q s ), s 2.1 15.9 I 64 9.0 12.6 11.5

Green Extension Time ( s " ), s 00 0.0 I 01 14 04 o4

Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Max Out Probability 0.09 1.00 I 0.64 0.00 004 0.02

Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB

Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R

Assiqned Movement 5 2 12 1 b 16 3 8 18 7 4 14

Adiusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 3 439 18 204 273 20 23 175 63

Adiusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1774 I 863 1 530 1774 1 863 1532 1 385 1532 881

Queue Service Time ( o "

). s 0't 13.9 06 44 70 05 11 71 24Cycle Queue Clearance Tlme ( g c ), s 01 13.9 06 4.4 7.0 05 10.6 71 95Green Ratio ( o/C ) 048 0.40 0.40 0.55 0.45 0.45 o.27 o.27 o27Capacity ( c), veh/h 605 745 612 536 844 695 290 409 321

Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X) 0.005 0.589 0.030 0.381 0.323 0.028 0.079 0.428 0.196

Back of Queue ( Q ), fUln ( 95 th percentile) 12 240.1 81 67.6 121.8 75 15.8 111.2 42.5Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 0.0 95 03 27 48 03 06 44 1.7

Queue Storaqe Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uniform Delay ( d r ), s/veh 10.3 17.7 13.7 10.6 131 11.4 28.2 22.8 25.1

lncremental Delay ( d z ), s/veh 00 08 00 o2 01 00 0.0 03 01lnitial Queue Delay ( d: ), s/veh 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00Control Delav ( d ), s/veh 10.3 18.5 13.7 10.8 13.2 11.4 28.2 23.0 25.2Level of Service (LOS) B B B B B B c c cApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 183 B 12 B 23.6 c 25.2 clntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.O

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SBPedestrian LOS Score / LOS 23 812.1 le 24 B 24 B

Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 12 A T 1.3 I A 08 A 06 A

Copyright @ 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2O1OTM Streets Version 6.90 Generated: 7l31l2O'17 10:09:19 AM


General lnformation lntersection I nformationAqency Duration, h ).25Analyst Solaeoui Enoineers Analvsis Date 7 t27 t2017 Area Type f,therJurisdiction Reno Time Period )M Peak Hour PHF ).92

Urban Street Analvsis Year lxistino Analvsis Period 1> 7:OO

lntersection Arrowcreek & Wedoe File Name ArWelTpx.xus

Proiect Description



Demand ( v), veh/h 11 235 42 428 363 42 20 8 276 40 4 4

Siqnal lnformationJl rr

rLFtT

R-..a FT

JJ:\,

4lr 3

Cvcle, s 75.0 Reference Phase 2

Offset, s 0 Reference Point EndGreen 6 40 30.0 20.0 00 00

1qUncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap EAIV On Yellow 40 00 4.O t4.0 UU 00

Force Mode F xed Simult. Gao N/S On ed '1 0 00 10 10 00 00


Assiqned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4

Case Number 1.1 30 11 3.0 60 8.0

Phase Duration, s 11.0 35.0 15.0 39.0 25.O 25.0

Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 50 50 50 50 50 50Max Allow Headway ( MAH't, s 31 31 31 31 34 34Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 23 92 12.0 13.0 16.4 15.4

Green Extension Time g"),s 00 00 00 14 03 04Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Max Out Probability o.23 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.92 0.44

Movement Grouo Results EB WB NB SB


Assioned Movement 5 2 12 o 16 3 8 '18 7 4 14

Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 12 255 46 465 395 46 22 254 52

Adiusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1774 1 863 1 530 1774 1 863 1532 1392 153't 571

Queue Service Time ( g " ),

s 0.3 72 14 10.0 11 .0 13 11 11.0 24Cycle Queue Clearance Tlme ( g

" ), s 0.3 72 14 10.0 11.0 13 14.4 11.0 13.4

Green Ratio ( s/C ) 0.48 0.40 0.40 0.55 0.45 0.45 o.27 o.27 0.27

Caoacitv(c).veh/h 514 745 612 673 844 695 219 408 240Volume-to-Caoacitv Ratio ( X) 0.023 0.343 0.075 0.691 0.467 0.066 0.099 0.623 o.217

Back of Queue Q ), fUln ( 95 th percentile) 43 128.1 20.4 200 6 191 17.9 16.2 181 37.9

Back of Queue Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 0.2 50 08 79 75 07 06 7.1 15Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uniform Delav ( d r ), s/veh 10.8 15.6 13.9 I 12.4 14.2 11.6 31.6 24.2 27.8

lncremental Delay ( dz ), s/veh 00 01 0.0 I 2.5 01 00 01 22 0.2lnitial Queue Delay ( d g ), s/veh 00 00 0.0 I 00 00 00 0.0 00 00Control Delay d), s/veh 10.8 15.7 13.9 I 14.9 14.4 11.6 31.7 26.4 28.O

Level of Service (LOS) B B BT B B B c c cAooroach Delav. s/veh / LOS 15.3 BT 14.5 B 26.8 c 280 clntersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.3

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SBPedestrian LOS Score / LOS 23 BI 2.1 B 24 B 2.4 B

Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 10 AI 20 A 09 A 06 A

Copyright @ 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 201OTM Streets Version 5.90 Generated: 713112017 10:'t1:03 AM


General lnformation lntersection lnformationAgencv Duration, h ).25Analyst Solaegui Engineers Analysis Date il27t2017 Area Tvoe )therJurisdiction Reno Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 1.92

Urban Street Analvsis Year xistinq + Proiect Analvsis Period 1> 7:00

lntersection Arrowcreek & Wedqe File Name ArWel Taw.xus

Proiect Description



Demand ( v), veh/h 3 404 23 204 251 18 27 7 1239 46 12 1

Siqnal lnformationJ' tr

rLE

rL,.a t+"

JJt4ilr 3

Cycle, s 75.0 Reference Phase 2

Offset, s 0 Reference Point EndGreen 60 40 30.0 20.o 0.0 00

7

Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap EAl/ On Yellow 40 oo 4.0 14.0 00 00Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 10 00 1.0 I 1.0 00 00


Assiqned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4Case Number 11 3.0 I 11 30 60 80Phase Duration, s 11 .0 35.0 I 15.0 39.0 25.0 25.O

Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 50 5.0 I 5.0 5.0 50 50Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 31 3.0 I 31 30 34 34Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 21 15.9 69 9.0 14.9 13.4

Green Extension Time ( s " ), s 00 00 01 14 03 04

Phase Call Probabilitv 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Max Out Probabilitv 0.09 't.00 0.98 0.00 0.29 0.10



Assioned Movement 5 2 12 I 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14

Adjusted Flow Rate ( v veh/h 3 439 25 222 273 20 29 213 64

Adiusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ). veh/h/ln 1774 1863 I 530 1774 1863 1532 1 385 1532 752

Queue Service Time ( g " ),

s 01 13.9 I o7 49 70 05 14 89 2.5

Cycle Queue Clearance Tlme ( g " ),

s 01 13.9 I 0.7 4.9 70 05 12.9 89 11.4

Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.48 0.40 I 0.40 0.55 0.45 0.45 o.27 0.27 0.27Capacity(c),veh/h 605 745 612 536 844 695 254 408 286Volume-to-Capacitv Ratio ( X) 0.005 0.589 I 0.041 0.414 0.323 0.028 0 115 o.522 0.224Back of Queue ( Q ), fUln ( 95 th percentile) 1.2 240.1 11 74.2 121.8 75 21.3 140.4 45.1

Back of Queue Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 00 95 04 29 48 03 08 5.5 1.8

Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00Uniform Delav ( d I ), s/veh 10.3 17.7 I 13.7 10.7 131 11.4 30.1 23.4 26.1

lncremental Delay ( d z ), s/veh 00 08 0.0 02 01 00 01 06 01lnitial Queue Delay ( d s ), s/veh 00 00 00 00 0.0 00 00 00 00Control Delav ( d ). s/veh 10.3 18.5 I 13.7 10.9 13.2 11.4 30.1 24.0 26.3Level of Service (LOS) B B B B B B C c cApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.2 B 12.2 B 24.7 C 26.3 C

lntersection Delav, s/veh / LOS 17.4

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SBPedestrian LOS Score / LOS 23 BI 21 B 24 B 24 B

Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 13 AI 13 A 0.9 A 06 A

Gopyright O 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2O1O'" Streets Version 6.90 Generated: 713112017 10:11:26 AM


General lnformation lntersection lnformationAgency Duration, h ).25

Analyst Solaegui Enqineers Analysis Date 7t27t2017 Area Type f,therJurisdiction Reno Time Period rM Peak Hour PHF ).92

Urban Street Analvsis Year -xisting + Project Analysis Period 1> 7:00

lntersection Arrowcreek & Wedoe File Name \rWe1 Tpw.xus

Project Description



Demand ( v), veh/h 11 235 57 478 363 42 35 I 1314 40 5 4

Siqnal lnformation3d-

rL,Fts-

..a t,+"JJt1tr 3

,&Cvcle, s 75.0 Reference Phase 2

Offset, s 0 Reference Point EndGreen 60 40 30.0 20.0 00 00 t 1

qUncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap EAN On Yellow 40 00 40 40 UU 00Force Mode F xed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 10 00 10 10 00 00


Assiqned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4

Case Number 11 30 11 30 60 80Phase Duration, s 11.0 35.0 15.0 39.0 25.O 25.O

Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 50 50 50 5.0 50 5.0

Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 31 31 31 31 34 34Queue Clearance Time ( s s ), s 2.3 92 12.0 13.0 19.8 17.8

Green Extension Time ( s " ), s 0.0 00 00 14 00 03

Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Max Out Probability 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00



Assiqned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14

Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 12 255 62 5201395146 38 297 53

Adiusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1774 '1863 1530 17741186311532 1392 1 531 431

Queue Service Time ( s " ), s 03 72 19 10.0 I 11 .0 I '1 .3 2.0 13.2 26

Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 03 72 '1 9 10.0 111.0 11.3 17.8 13.2 15.8

Green Ratio ( o/C ) 0.48 0.40 0.40 0.55 10.45 10.45 o.27 0.27 0.27

Capacity(c),veh/h 514 745 612 67318441695 174 408 202Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X) 0.023 0.343 0.101 0.77210.467 I 0.066 o.218 o.727 0.263

Back of Queue ( Q ), fuln ( 95 th percentile) 43 128.1 28 239.71 191 I 17.9 30.1 223.9 40.6Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 02 50 11 9.4 17.5 10.7 12 88 16Queue Storase Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay d r ), s/veh 10.8 15.6 14.1 14.0 114.2 111.6 34.3 25.O 29.3lncremental Delay ( dz ), s/veh 00 01 00 5.0 10.1 10.0 o.2 5.6 0.3lnitial Queue Delay ( d s ), s/veh 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00Control Delav ( d ), s/veh 10.8 15.7 14.1 19.0 114.4 111.6 34.6 30.6 29.5Level of Service (LOS) B B B B B B C c cApproach Delay, s/veh / LOS 15.3 B 16.8 B 31.1 c 29.5 clntersection Delav, s/veh / LOS 19.7

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SBPedestrian LOS Score / LOS 23 B 21 B 24 B 2.4 B

Bicvcle LOS Score / LOS 10 A 21 B 10 A 0.6 A

Copyright O 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010tM Streets Version 6.90 Generated: 713112017 10:11:54 AM

General lnformation Site lnformationAnalyst MSH I ntersection Wedge & Whites Creek

Agency/Co, Solaegui Engineers Jurisdiction Reno

Date Performed 7/27 /2017 East^Vest Street Whites Creek Lane

Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street Wedge Parkway

Time Analyzed AM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.90

lntersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25

Project Description

Lanes

Major Street: North-South

Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments

Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Configuratlon LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume, V (veh/h) 5 0 6 3 tt 17 2 191 12 10 223 2

Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Proportion Time Blocked

Percent Grade (%) 0 0

Right Turn Channelized No No No No

Median Type/Storage Undivided

Critical and Follow-up Headways

Base Critical Headway (sec)

Critical Headway (sec)

Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Follow-Up Headway (sec)

Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service

Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 13 22 2 11

Capacity, c (veh/h) 596 747 131 5 1 343

v/c Ratio 0.02 0.03 000 001

95% Queue Length, Qe5 (veh) 01 01 00 00

Control Delay (s/veh) 112 100 77

Level of Service, LOS B A

Approach Delay (s/veh) 112 100 01 04

Approach LOS B A

Copyright O 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HcS 2010'u TWSC Version 6.90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:13:03 AMWeWcl Tax.xtw

General lnformation Site lnformationAnalyst MSH I ntersection Wedge & Whites Creek

Agency/Co. Solaegui Engineers Jurisdiction Reno

Date Performed 7/27/2017 East^Vest Street Whites Creek Lane


Time Analyzed PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.90

I ntersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25

Project Description

Lanes




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4V 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 'I 0 o 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR

Volume, V (veh/h) 11 0 3 20 3 45 3 260 24 51 412 B











Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service


Capacity, c (veh/h) 256 449 1094 1243

v/c Ratio 0.06 017 000 005

95% Queue Length, Qgs (veh) 02 06 00 01

Control Delay (s/veh) 200 146 83 80

Level of Service, LOS c B A A

Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.0 146 01 13

Approach LOS c B

Copyright @ 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2O1O'" TWSC Version 6.90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:13:27 AMWeWclTpx.xtw

General lnformation Site InformationAnalyst MSH lntersection Wedge & Whites Creek


Date Performed 7/27/2017 East/West Street Whites Creek Lane


Time Analyzed AM Existing + Project Peak Hour Factor 0.90

lntersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) o.25

Project Description

Lanes

lVajor Street: North-5outh

lA+$.tu




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 n 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 10 0 B 3 0 17 J 198 12 10 232 3

Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2












Capacity, c (veh/h) 554 735 1 302 1 334

v/c Ratio 0.04 0.03 0.00 001

95% Queue Length, Qes (veh) 01 01 00 00

Control Delay (s/veh) 117 100 78 77

Level of Service, LOS B B A

Approach Delay (s/veh) 11 7 100 01 04

Approach LOS B B

Copyright @ 2017 Universlty of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010* TWSC Version 6 90 Generated: t/31/zo1] 10:13:51 AMWeWclTaw.xtw

General lnformation Site InformationAnalyst MSH lntersection Wedge & Whites Creek


Date Performed 7 /27 /2017 East^Vest Street Whites Creek Lane


Time Analyzed PM Existing + Project Peak Hour Factor 0.90


Project Description

Lanes

\-&<F

\_t+'rr

N'lajor Street



Movement tl L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 10 11 12 7 o 9 1U 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0,l

0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 15 0 4 20 3 45 6 279 24 51 431 12



Percent Grade (%) 0










Capacity, c (veh/h) 233 421 1 071 1221

v/c Ratio 0.09 018 001 00s

95% Queue Length, Qgs (veh) 03 06 00 0.1

Control Delay (s/veh) 22.0 154 84 81

Level of Service, LOS c c A A

Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.0 154 02 IJ

Approach LOS c c

Copyright O 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010'u TWSC Version 6 90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:14:23 AMWewclTpw.xtw

General lnformation Site lnformationAnalyst MSH lntersection Wedge & Apartment Access


Date Performed 7/27/2017 EastAVest Street Apartment Access


Time Analyzed AM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.90

I ntersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.2s

Project Description

Lanes

1'{*YtPrl"1rj.,' Sirr:!l: i'L.11h 5c,!iil




Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Configuration LR TR LT

Volume, V (veh/h) 22 25 207 R 3 213

Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 2 2


Percent Grade (%) 0


Median TypelStorage Und v ded







Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 52 3

Capacity, c (veh/h) 627 1329

v/c Ratio 008 0.00

95% Queue Length, Qss (veh) 03 00

Control Delay (s/veh) 113

Level of Service, LOS D

Approach Delay (s/veh) 113 01

Approach LOS B

Copyright O 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010* TWSC Version 6.90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:14:47 AMWeNalTax.xtw

General lnformation Site InformationAnalyst MSH I ntersection Wedge & Apartment Access

Agenry/Co. Solaegui Engineers Jurisdiction Reno

Date Performed 7 /27 /2017 East^Vest Street Apartment Access

Analysis Year 2017 North/5outh Street Wedge Parkway

Time Analyzed PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 090


Project Description

Lanes

Major Street: North-5outh


Approach Eastbou nd Westbound Northbound Southbound


Priority 10 11 12 7 a 9 IU 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes n 0 tJ 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Configuration LR TR LT

Volume, V (veh/h) 12 13 291 25 15 459



Percent Grade (%) 0











v/c Ratio 0.07 001

95% Queue Length, Qss (veh) 02 0.0

Control Delay (s/veh) 14.9 80

Level of Service, LOS B


Approach LOS B

Copyright O 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010'" TWSC Version 6.90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:15:07 AMWeNal Tpx.xtw

General lnformation Site lnformationAnalyst MSH Intersection Wedge & North Access


Date Performed 7/27/2017 East/West Street North Access

Analysis Year 2017 Nofth/5outh Street Wedge Parkway


lntersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) o.25

Project Description

Lanes

Nlajor Street: North-South

<l_

e

+




Priority 10 11 12 7 6 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 A

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 n 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 9 0 4 22 0 25 8 239 A 3 223 't3



Percent Grade (%) 0 n








Delay, Queue Length, and Levelof Service


Capacity, c (veh/h) 482 571 1 301 1289

v/c Ratio 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.00

95% Queue Length, Qe5 (veh) 01 03 00 00

Control Delay (s/veh) 12.7 119 78 AQ

Level of Service, LOS B B A A

Approach Delay (s/veh) 127 119 03 01

Approach LOS B B

Copyright O 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010'" TWSC Version 6.90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:15:30 AMWeNal Taw.xtw

General lnformation Site lnformation

Analyst MSH lntersection Wedge & North Access

Agenry/Co. Solaegui Engineers Jurisdiction Reno

Date Performed 7/27 /2017 East^Vest Street North Access


Time Analyzed PM Existing + Project Peak Hour Factor 090


Project Description

Lanes

n1{*YtPr1"13.,,r Si eei: li. th-Sr!lu




Priority 10 11 12 7 I v 1U 2 J 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0


Volume, V (veh/h) 40 1 27 12 1 13 21 30s 25 t5 485 40











Delay, Queue Length, anc Level of Service


Capacity, c (veh/h) 275 309 991 1 191

v/c Ratio 0.27 0.09 002 001

95% Queue Length, Qes (veh) 11 03 01 00

Control Delay (s/veh) 23.0 178 87 81

Level of Service, LOS c c A A

Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.0 178 08 04

Approach LOS c c

Copyright @ 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010* TWSC Version 6.90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:15:53 AMWeNa'l7pw.xtw

General lnformation Site InformationAnalyst MSH lntersection Wedge & South Access


Date Performed 7 /27 /2017 East^Vest Street South Access




Project Description

Lanes

Nlajor Slreet: North-5outh



Movement U L T R il L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 n 0 n 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Configuration LR LT TR

Volume, V (veh/h) 30 7 2 223 238 11



Percent Grade (%) 0











v/c Ratio 008 0.00

95% Queue Length, Qgs (veh) 03 00

Control Delay (s/veh) 128 78

Level of Service, LOS B A

Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.8 01

Approach LOS B

Copyright @ 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010* TWSC Version 6.90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:16:13 AMWeSa'l7aw.xtw

General lnformation Site lnformationAnalyst MSH I ntersection Wedge & South Access


Date Performed 7 /27 /2017 East^Vest Street South Access


Time Analyzed PM Existing + Project Peak Hour Factor 0.90


Project Description

Lanes

Nlajor Street: North-5outh


Approach Eastbou nd Westbound Northbound Southbound

Movement U L T R U L T R il L T R U L T R

Priority 10 'II 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6

Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Configuration LR LT TR

Volume, V (veh/h) 19 5 7 332 489 35



Percent Grade (%) n


fVedian Type/Storage Undivided









v/c Ratio 0.10 001


Control Delay (s/veh) 197 ot

Level of Service, LOS c A


Approach LOS c

Copyright O 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010* TWSC Version 6.90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:16:30 AMWeSa'l7pw.xtlv

General lnformation Site lnformation

Analyst MSH I ntersection Whiotes Creek & Access


Date Performed 7 /27 /2017 East^Vest Street Whites Creek Lane

Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street Project Access


lntersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25

Project Description

Lanes

J4lr+$^t

Major Street: East West




Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7q 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 n 0

Configuration LT TR LR

Volume, V (veh/h) 0 11 4 2 7 0



Percent Grade (%) 0











v/c Ratio 0.00 0 0.1



Level of Service, LOS A


Approach LOS

Copyright O 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010'" TWSC Version 6.90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:17:13 AMWcPalTaw.xtw

G€neral lnformation Site InformationAnalyst MSH lntersection Whiotes Creek & Access


Date Pedormed 7 /27 /2017 East^Vest Street Whites Creek Lane

Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street Project Access

Time Analyzed PM Existing + Project Peak Hour Factor 090

lntersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25

Project Description

Lanes

Major Street: East lvest



Movement lt L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R

Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 n I n 0 0 0 0 0 0

Configuration LT TR LR

Volume, V (veh/h) 0 14 14 7 5 0



Percent Grade (%) U










Capacity, c (veh/h) 1 s90 976

v/c Ratio 000 0 01

95% Queue Length, Qes (veh) 00 00


Level of Service, LOS A A


Approach LOS

Copyright O 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2O1O* TWSC Version 6.90 Generated: 7/31/2017 10:17:33 AMWcPal Tpw.xtw

mg78 tmap hydrology report - reno, nevada

Documents