Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
DRAFT                  2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                                                          Tw...
DRAFT                 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                                                      Two Pha...
DRAFT                           2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                                                   ...
DRAFT                                                           2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                   ...
DRAFT                             2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                                                 ...
DRAFT                                                 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                             ...
DRAFT                        2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                                                      ...
DRAFT                                                         2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                     ...
DRAFT                        2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                                                      ...
DRAFT                                                           2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                   ...
DRAFT                            2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                                                  ...
DRAFT                                              2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                                ...
DRAFT                        2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                                                      ...
DRAFT                                               2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                               ...
DRAFT                         2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study©
                                                     ...
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Super  Loop 2pi   Findings  &  Conclusions
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Super Loop 2pi Findings & Conclusions

283

Published on

La Joya, CA. Super Loop 2pi Report

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
283
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Super Loop 2pi Findings & Conclusions"

  1. 1. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ 2pi™ Evaluation Study - Findings & Conclusions. In order to evaluate the 2pi™ Traffic System effectiveness and applicability, a series of comprehensive traffic operations and comparisons were performed utilizing as baseline data on previous studies. These base studies are the Traffic Impact Study (Draft) Version-1 of August 24, 2006 and the Priority Treatment Plan (Final) of August 24, 2006 prepared by: STV Incorporated in association with: City Works, Katz & Associates, Katz, Okitsu & Associates, Teshima Design Group and URS Corporation. Naturally, methodologies applied in the studies vary. Therefore, only final results were considered when performance and measures of effectiveness (MOEs) were compared. As explained in the methodology chapter of this study two main, among others, traffic operation analysis software was utilized: the Static: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and the Dynamic: VisSim™, a visual language for mathematical modeling and simulation. At the core of this study is the critical PM peak hour traffic, transit and pedestrian operations forecasted for the targeted year 2030. Ten intersections along the identified segment on Nobel Drive from Lombard Place (ID. #1) in the east end to Villa La Jolla Drive (ID. #10) on the west end of the Super Loop are included in this study. Super Loop Transit Project 2pi™ Geometry, MOE’s & Applicability Study June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | I
  2. 2. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ 2pi Geometry and Operative Characteristics: The “typical” Intersection: In a typical four phase two way street intersection geometry, vehicles are queued in three phases, and move only in one. Left turns have a significant impact on the operation and performance of signalized intersections. The conflicts between left and through traffic movements yields low capacity and poor coordination, increasing delays and emissions. Pedestrian crossings further increase the points of conflicting, additional phases are required in order to provide pedestrian crossings with an acceptable level of safety. The Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ System (2pi) The 2pi™ unique characteristic is the physical treatment and time management of vehicles and pedestrians. Conflicts of opposing left turn movements are eliminated by crossing the left queuing vehicles lanes on the left side of the road at all four approaches prior to the intersection. This is achieved when cross road traffic is moving, at that time vehicles turning left queue in four advance crossing points. Left turners are transited to the left side of the road, crossing the opposite through traffic lanes without conflicting traffic flow. Then vehicles proceed to travel parallel and simultaneously to opposite oncoming through traffic lanes. After queuing, during only one phase, vehicles complete the left turn connection unobstructed. Pedestrians, through traffic, and right-turn vehicles negotiate the intersection without left turn conflicts, which were previously diverted. The same replicates in all four approaches. These among others physical, geometric and operational characteristics define the differences between the “standard/typical” geometry at intersections and the “2pi™” traffic system. Improvements in performance, capacity and overall traffic management as well as environmental impacts are considerable. This first assessment study in a build-up urban area like University City in La Jolla and in particular along the Super Loop Transit Project allows for the review the 2pi in a vast universe of space-geometric constrains and traffic operation conditions. Based on preliminary conceptual design it yielded valuable measurements of effectiveness and applicability in a specific studied project. The opportunity to compare the results of this 2pi™ study with recent and comprehensive studies like the Traffic Impact Study (Draft) Version-1 and the Priority Treatment Plan previously mentioned constitutes an added value. The following summarized findings, measures of effectiveness (MOEs,) LOS, Travel Time Savings, graphics and tables depict the results of this study and a comparison report with data from the previous studies as baseline. June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | II
  3. 3. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ 2pi™ Physical Geometry Improvements Actual Geometry configuration 3500
 3000
 2500
 2000
 1500
 1000
 500
 0
 
Veh(All)
 
AveDelay(Secs)
 2pi™ Configuration 





All
 3004
 11.3
 Forecasted year: 2030 LOS: C Average Speed: 15.818 mph 
Veh(All)
 
Delay(Secs)
 946
 882
 1000
 800
 600
 9
 183
 99
 372
 120
 400
 25.2
 271
 122
 17.4
 45.5
 18.7
 200
 5.5
 10.6
 5.8
 18.8
 0
 20.9
 





E‐N
 





E‐W
 





E‐W
 





S‐E
 





N‐W
 





N‐W
 





W‐E
 





W‐S
 





W‐N
 1.- Nobel Dr. @ Lombard Place June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | III
  4. 4. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ Measures of Effectiveness Results 1 Nobel Drive @ Lombard Place WBT SB SBR Direction EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT 2 WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL T SBR 2 Lanes 1 <2> 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Input Volume 280 830 69 12 900 345 135 7 1 7 43 2 138 137 Model Volume 271 882 99 0 946 372 122 0 0 9 0 0 120 183 Delay (sec) 18.8 5.8 18.7 0.0 5.5 10.6 20.9 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 45.5 25.2 Max. Queue (ft) 341.4 301.3 302.1 na 156.9 156.1 150.1 na na 22.4 na na 154.1 150.8 Ave. Queue (ft) 64.9 42 40.8 na 29.2 16.1 27.4 na na 0.8 na na 30.9 31.0 LOS B A B na A B C na A B na na D C Approach Delay 9.6 6.9 17.4 45.5 Approach LOS A A B D Total Delay = 9.0 Signalized? Y Total LOS = A VisSim Average Delays: 11.3 seconds – LOS = “C” 40
 33.9
 33.1
 35
 29.6
 29.5
 30
 27.3
 31.9
 28.2
 29.4
 29.4
 26.6
 27.1
 26.7
 25
 27.5
 26.4
 26.1
 9.‐Nobel
Drive
@
La
Jolla
Village
Square
 25.1
 25.7
 6.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Caminito
Plaza
Ctr.
 3.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Costa
Verde
Blvd.
 10.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Villa
La
Jolla
Dr.
 20
 4.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Regents
Road
 2.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Genesee
Dr.
 19.2
 5.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lebon
Dr.
 1.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lombard
 15
 7.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
NB.
 8.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
SB.
 10
 5
 0
 Pl.
 0
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 A.D.T.
(1000'S)
 Year
2005
 Year
2010
 Year
2030
 DIRECTION:
EAST
TO
WEST
 1.- Nobel Dr. @ Lombard Place June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | IV
  5. 5. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ 2pi™ Physical Geometry Improvements Actual Geometry configuration 7000
 6000
 5000
 4000
 3000
 2000
 1000
 0
 
Veh(All)
 
AveDelay(Secs)
 2pi™ Configuration 





All
 6394
 25.1
 Forecasted year: 2030 LOS: C Average Speed: 15.818 mph 1800
 1671
 1600
 
Veh(All)
 
Delay(Secs)
 1400
 1200
 1019
 1000
 765
 800
 653
 600
 443
 343
 216
 400
 142
 59
 241
 140
 255
 256
 191
 200
 11.9
 24.3
 25.5
 32
 34.7
 30.2
 23.1
 29.3
 35.2
 29.6
 26.1
 29.6
 24.8
 11.5
 0
 





E‐N
 





E‐W
 





E‐E
 





E‐S
 





N‐E
 





N‐W
 





N‐S
 





W‐W






W‐N
 





W‐E
 





W‐S
 





S‐W
 





S‐E
 





S‐N
 W-W: “U” Turn 2.-Nobel Dr. @ Genesee Drive June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | V
  6. 6. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ Measures of Effectiveness Results 2 Nobel Drive @ Genesee Avenue Direction EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Input Volume 221 719 217 427 1011 154 274 680 199 240 1668 336 Model Volume 216 765 255 443 1019 142 256 653 191 241 1671 343 Delay (sec) 35.2 29.6 27.6 32.0 24.3 11.9 29.6 11.5 24.8 34.7 23.1 30.2 Max. Queue (ft) 219.9 440.2 225.7 272.8 343.2 324.6 440.2 154.7 139.8 112.1 791.6 777.9 Ave. Queue (ft) 78.4 66.4 52.2 86.7 77.6 60.4 66.4 19.6 17.4 19.5 173.5 159.9 LOS D C C C C B C B C C C C Approach Delay 30.2 25.3 18.0 25.4 Approach LOS C C B C Total Delay = 25.0 Signalized? Y Total LOS = C VisSim Average Delays: 25.1 seconds / LOS = “C” 40
 33.1
 33.9
 35
 29.5
 29.6
 28.2
 31.9
 27.3
 30
 29.4
 26.6
 29.4
 26.7
 27.1
 27.5
 25
 26.1
 26.4
 9.‐Nobel
Drive
@
La
Jolla
Village
Square
 25.7
 25.1
 6.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Caminito
Plaza
Ctr.
 3.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Costa
Verde
Blvd.
 20
 10.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Villa
La
Jolla
Dr.
 4.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Regents
Road
 2.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Genesee
Dr.
 1.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lombard
Pl.
 19.2
 5.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lebon
Dr.
 15
 7.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
NB.
 8.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
SB.
 10
 5
 0
 7
 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 1
 0
 A.D.T.
(1000'S)
 Year
2005
 Year
2010
 Year
2030
 DIRECTION:
EAST
TO
WEST
 2.-Nobel Dr. @ Genesee Drive June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | VI
  7. 7. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ 2pi™ Physical Geometry Improvements Actual Geometry Configuration 4500
 4000
 3500
 3000
 2500
 2000
 1500
 1000
 500
 0
 
Veh(All)
 
Delay(Secs)
 





All
 3907
 20.7
 2pi™ Geometry Configuration Forecasted year: 2030 LOS: C Average Speed: 15.818 mph 
Veh(All)
 
Delay(Secs)
 1111
 1200
 933
 1000
 800
 600
 343
 344
 301
 400
 135
 120
 190
 75
 182
 65
 5
 24
 79
 200
 11.7
 42.4
 20.6
 35.9
 11
 32.9
 11.5
 27.1
 18.7
 9.5
 29.8
 43.5
 26.1
 29
 0
 





E‐N
 




E‐NW





E‐NW
 





E‐S
 




N‐NW





NW‐S





NW‐E





NW‐N





S‐NW





S‐NW
 





S‐E
 





S‐N
 





N‐E
 





N‐S
 3.-Nobel Dr. @ Costa Verde Boulevard June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | VII
  8. 8. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ Measures of Effectiveness Results 3 Nobel Drive @ Costa Verde Boulevard Direction EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBT2 WBR NBL NBL2 NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Input Volume 320 897 108 132 631 630 197 40 40 70 68 182 88 297 Model Volume 190 1111 190 135 344 933 343 5 24 75 79 182 65 301 Delay (sec) 27.1 11.5 27.1 11.7 42.4 20.6 11.7 29.0 18.7 29.8 9.5 43.5 26.1 11.0 Max. Queue (ft) 255.9 177.9 255.9 186.0 369.4 369.4 341.1 87.2 87.2 109.2 108.5 194.5 194.5 163.2 Ave. Queue (ft) 62.9 27.0 62.9 25.2 83.7 83.7 67.7 5.2 5.2 13.7 7.1 38.5 38.5 17.3 LOS C B C B D C B C B C A D C B Approach Delay 15.5 11.5 19.3 23.6 B C Approach LOS B B Total Delay = 20.5 Signalized? Y Total LOS = C VisSim Average Delays: 20.7 seconds / LOS = “C” 40
 33.9
 33.1
 35
 29.6
 29.5
 30
 27.3
 31.9
 28.2
 29.4
 29.4
 26.6
 27.1
 26.7
 25
 27.5
 26.4
 26.1
 9.‐Nobel
Drive
@
La
Jolla
Village
Square
 25.1
 25.7
 6.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Caminito
Plaza
Ctr.
 3.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Costa
Verde
Blvd.
 10.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Villa
La
Jolla
Dr.
 20
 4.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Regents
Road
 2.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Genesee
Dr.
 19.2
 1.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lombard
Pl.
 5.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lebon
Dr.
 15
 7.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
NB.
 8.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
SB.
 10
 5
 0
 0
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 A.D.T.
(1000'S)
 Year
2005
 Year
2010
 Year
2030
 DIRECTION:
EAST
TO
WEST
 3.-Nobel Dr. @ Costa Verde Boulevard June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | VIII
  9. 9. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ 2pi™ Physical Geometry Improvements Actual Geometry Configuration 5000
 4500
 4000
 3500
 3000
 2500
 2000
 1500
 1000
 500
 0
 
Veh(All)
 
AveDelay(Secs)
 





All
 4440
 21
 2pi™ Geometry Configuration Forecasted year: 2030 LOS: C Average Speed: 15.818 mph 
Veh(All)
 
Delay(Secs)
 1111
 1200
 1000
 694
 800
 600
 345
 384
 400
 143
 253
 222
 193
 236
 183
 285
 181
 210
 200
 21.6
 13.6
 22.6
 30.7
 13.6
 14.3
 35.9
 24.6
 17.8
 17.8
 27
 13.5
 12.9
 0
 




SE‐W
 




SE‐N
 



SE‐SW
 




N‐SE
 




N‐SW
 





N‐W
 




W‐SE
 




W‐SE
 




W‐SW
 





W‐N
 




SW‐W
 



SW‐SE
 




SW‐N
 4.-Nobel Dr. @ Regents Road June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | IX
  10. 10. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ Measures of Effectiveness Results 4 Nobel Drive @ Regents Road Direction EBL EBT EBT2 EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Input Volume 179 190 639 229 330 1080 171 214 175 260 235 414 203 Model Volume 183 193 694 236 345 1111 143 210 181 285 253 384 222 Delay (sec) 17.8 32.9 35.9 17.8 22.6 21.6 13.6 27.0 13.5 13.5 30.7 13.6 14.3 200. 217. 247. 234. 175.0 425.4 455.6 434.7 382.4 344.3 243.2 193.7 63.2 Max. Queue (ft) 3 0 5 9 Ave. Queue (ft) 17.8 72.6 72.6 63.9 104.9 74.2 12.0 28.2 17.8 17.9 39.9 28.8 18.5 LOS B C D B C C B C B B C B B Approach 32.3 21.1 17.7 18.8 Delay Approach LOS C C B B Total Delay = 23.1 Signalized? Y Total LOS = C VisSim Average Delays: 21 seconds / LOS = “C” 40
 33.9
 33.1
 35
 29.6
 29.5
 30
 27.3
 31.9
 28.2
 29.4
 29.4
 26.6
 27.1
 26.7
 25
 27.5
 26.4
 26.1
 25.1
 9.‐Nobel
Drive
@
La
Jolla
Village
Square
 25.7
 6.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Caminito
Plaza
Ctr.
 3.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Costa
Verde
Blvd.
 10.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Villa
La
Jolla
Dr.
 20
 4.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Regents
Road
 2.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Genesee
Dr.
 19.2
 1.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lombard
Pl.
 5.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lebon
Dr.
 15
 7.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
NB.
 8.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
SB.
 10
 5
 0
 0
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 A.D.T.
(1000'S)
 Year
2005
 Year
2010
 Year
2030
 DIRECTION:
EAST
TO
WEST
 4.-Nobel Dr. @ Regents Road June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | X
  11. 11. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ 2pi™ Physical Geometry Improvements Actual Geometry Configuration 5000
 4000
 3000
 2000
 1000
 0
 
Veh(All)
 
AveDelay(Secs)
 





All
 3935
 21.3
 2pi™ Geometry Configuration Forecasted year: 2030 LOS: C Average Speed: 15.818 mph 
Veh(All)
 
Delay(Secs)
 1400
 1225
 1200
 963
 1000
 800
 600
 400
 221
 259
 240
 69
 75
 245
 197
 131
 86
 149
 75
 200
 26.5
 13.3
 18.7
 26.3
 13
 14.6
 7
 16.1
 28.9
 31.6
 21.2
 28
 23.9
 0
 





S‐W
 





S‐E
 




S‐NE
 




NE‐E





NE‐W





NE‐S
 





W‐S
 





W‐E
 





W‐W





W‐NE





E‐NE
 





E‐W
 





E‐S
 *W-W: “U” Turn. 5.-Nobel Dr. @ Lebon Drive June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | XI
  12. 12. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ Measures of Effectiveness Results 5 Nobel Drive @ Lebon Drive Direction EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Input Volume 64 959 147 263 1169 78 194 240 192 103 296 90 Model Volume 69 963 149 245 1225 75 197 259 221 131 240 86 Delay (sec) 31.6 16.1 7.0 23.9 28.0 21.2 26.5 18.7 13.3 26.3 14.6 13.0 Max. Queue (ft) 184.8 267.9 251.6 256.4 357.0 341.0 176.1 88.2 153.8 170.0 86.7 92.8 Ave. Queue (ft) 25.2 47.3 35.2 26.9 109.6 98.7 24.1 13.3 14.5 16.1 11.8 5.3 LOS C B A C C C C B B C B B Approach Delay 15.9 27.0 19.2 17.7 Approach LOS B C B B Total Delay = 21.1 Signalized? Y Total LOS C VisSim Average Delays: 20.3 seconds / LOS = “C” = 40
 33.9
 33.1
 35
 29.6
 29.5
 30
 27.3
 31.9
 28.2
 29.4
 29.4
 26.6
 27.1
 26.7
 25
 27.5
 26.4
 26.1
 9.‐Nobel
Drive
@
La
Jolla
Village
Square
 25.1
 25.7
 6.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Caminito
Plaza
Ctr.
 3.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Costa
Verde
Blvd.
 10.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Villa
La
Jolla
Dr.
 20
 4.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Regents
Road
 2.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Genesee
Dr.
 19.2
 1.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lombard
Pl.
 5.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lebon
Dr.
 15
 7.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
NB.
 8.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
SB.
 10
 5
 0
 0
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 A.D.T.
(1000'S)
 Year
2005
 Year
2010
 Year
2030
 DIRECTION:
EAST
TO
WEST
 5.-Nobel Dr. @ Lebon Drive June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | XII
  13. 13. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ 2pi™ Physical Geometry Improvements Actual Geometry Configuration 3500
 3000
 2500
 2000
 1500
 1000
 500
 0
 
Veh(All)
 
AveDelay(Secs)
 





All
 3038
 12
 2pi™ Geometry Configuration Forecasted Year: 2030 LOS: B Average Speed: 15.818 mph 
Veh(All)
 
Delay(Secs)
 2000
 1452
 1500
 1158
 1000
 137
 37.8
 0
 31.1
 35.8
 67
 88
 91
 50.2
 500
 25
 9.9
 14.7
 53.6
 43.5
 5
 7.5
 0
 11
 4
 5
 0
 





E‐W
 





E‐N
 





N‐W
 





N‐W
 





N‐E
 





N‐S
 





W‐S
 





W‐E
 





S‐E
 





S‐W
 





S‐N
 6.-Nobel Dr. @ Caminito Plaza Centro June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | XIII
  14. 14. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ Measures of Effectiveness Results 6 Nobel Drive @ Caminito Plaza Centro Direction EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SBR2 Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Input Volume 989 28 1252 48 104 8 82 15 4 18 18 Model Volume 1158 67 1452 137 91 5 88 11 4 0 25 Delay (sec) 14.7 9.9 5.0 7.5 43.5 43.5 53.6 31.1 35.8 0.0 37.8 Max. Queue (ft) 288.5 287.1 168.2 139.9 157.0 157.0 157.0 55.7 55.7 55.7 55.1 Ave. Queue (ft) 86.6 85.9 19.0 14.4 38.2 38.2 38.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.0 LOS B A A A E E F D E A E Approach Delay 9.3 5.0 47.0 37.5 Approach LOS A A E E Total Delay = 10.5 Total LOS = B VisSim Average Delays: 12.0 seconds / LOS = “C” 40
 33.9
 33.1
 35
 29.6
 29.5
 30
 27.3
 31.9
 28.2
 29.4
 29.4
 26.6
 27.1
 26.7
 25
 27.5
 26.4
 26.1
 25.1
 9.‐Nobel
Drive
@
La
Jolla
Village
Square
 25.7
 6.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Caminito
Plaza
Ctr.
 3.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Costa
Verde
Blvd.
 10.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Villa
La
Jolla
Dr.
 20
 4.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Regents
Road
 2.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Genesee
Dr.
 19.2
 1.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lombard
Pl.
 5.‐Nobel
Drive
@
Lebon
Dr.
 15
 7.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
NB.
 8.‐Nobel
Drive
@
I‐5
SB.
 10
 5
 0
 0
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 A.D.T.
(1000'S)
 Year
2005
 Year
2010
 Year
2030
 DIRECTION:
EAST
TO
WEST
 6.-Nobel Dr. @ Caminito Plaza Centro June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | XIV
  15. 15. DRAFT 2pi™ Traffic System Feasibility Study© Two Phase Enhanced At-Grade Intersection™ 2pi™ Physical Geometry Improvements Actual Geometry Configuration 4000
 3500
 3000
 2500
 2000
 1500
 1000
 500
 0
 
Veh(All)
 
AveDelay(Secs)
 





All
 3393
 12.9
 2pi™ Geometry Configuration Forecasted year: 2030 LOS: B Average Speed: 15.818 mph 
Veh(All)
 
Delay(Secs)
 1000
 866
 703
 800
 629
 600
 468
 317
 400
 39
 34
 75
 108
 154
 200
 7.3
 10.8
 3.5
 21.8
 18
 13.3
 19.4
 19
 17.4
 18.2
 0
 





E‐E
 





E‐W
 





E‐W
 





E‐N
 





W‐E
 





S‐E
 





S‐W
 





S‐N
 





N‐W
 





N‐W
 *E-E: “U” Turn. 7. -Nobel Dr. @ I-5 Northbound Exit Ramp June 15, 2007 ©™ Page | XV

×