Download Report

March 25, 2015
1516-03
Mr. Clarke Bullock
Alberta Transportation
2nd Floor, 803 Manning Road NE
Calgary, AB T2E 7M8
Dear Clarke,
Re:
Horse Creek Road Signalization Review
Transportation Engineering Services
As per Alberta Transportation’s request, Bunt & Associates conducted additional transportation analysis
related to the review of the Horse Creek Road/Highway 1A intersection in Cochrane, Alberta. The purpose
of this letter was to review the intersection traffic control along Highway 1A at the intersections of Horse
Creek Road and Heritage Gate, taking into account the proposed developments in the area. The outcome
identified a recommendation for the order in which intersections ought to be signalized, based on current
available information and approvals of development.
BACKGROUND
Bunt & Associates has completed a number of Transportation Impact Assessments (TIA) in support of
developments in the area, most recently including the following:

Mountain Ridge Plaza TIA (September 19, 2014)

Heartland Phases 2 and 3 TIA (May 26, 2014)

Heritage Hills Phase 3D TIA (June 17, 2014)
Each of the above studies assumed the same basic background traffic volumes within the analysis. To
determine the implications of developing all three of these projects, and with due consideration of
expected signalization needs along Highway 1A, a scope of work was established to review how best to go
about organizing the signalization of the three point of access along Highway 1A west of Highway 22. The
program included the following:

Estimate the Opening Day background traffic volumes by superimposing full build out of all
previously approved (DP) uses west of Highway 22 and north of Highway 1A onto the existing traffic
volumes.

Assign the site generated traffic volumes for the proposed Mountain Ridge Plaza, Heartland Phases 2
and 3, and Heritage Hills Phase 3D from the previous studies to the adjacent road network.

Include a sensitivity analysis that assigns traffic to a second access into Heartland as the fourth leg at
the Heritage Gate/Highway 1A intersection.

Complete signal warrant analyses.

Complete a VISSIM traffic simulation for the study area intersections, varying the order of
signalization, in order to identify the most appropriate and effective program for signalization (i.e.
which of the two intersections should be signalized first).
The results are summarized in the sections that follow.
TRAFFIC VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
This section describes the steps followed by Bunt & Associates in developing overall combined Post
Development traffic volumes for use in the simulation of flows along Highway 1A once all of the
considered projects have been developed. While all of the individual developments are “site” traffic in their
own right, Bunt & Associates necessarily separated them into Background and Site traffic volumes based
on their position in the approval process. Again, the main purpose of this letter was to summarize the
results of the post-development simulations, and so this section simply deals with how those total postdevelopment volumes were determined.
Background Conditions
Bunt & Associates obtained existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts from the Town at the
intersections of Horse Creek Road/Highway 1A and Heritage Gate/Highway 1A. These counts were
conducted in October 2013 and volumes were balanced between Horse Creek Road and Heritage Gate.
To develop background traffic volumes for Opening Day horizon, full build out of all previously approved
(DP) uses west of Highway 22 and north of Highway 1A were superimposed onto the existing traffic
volumes. The approved but not built development units were added to the existing turning movement
counts as outlined in Table 1.
Horse Creek Signalization Review – Letter Final
bunt & associates | 1516-03 | March 25, 2015
2
Table 1: Approved Units
Development
Approved Units
Occupancy
(October 2013)
Not Built Units
Heartland
281 single-family units,
350 multi-family units
51 single-family dwelling
units
230 single-family units,
350 multi-family units
Sunset Ridge
1,443 single-family,
616 multi-family
703 single-family units,
373 multi-family units
740 single-family units,
243 multi-family units
Heritage Hills
328 single-family units,
80 multi-family units
80 single-family units,
78 multi-family units
248 single-family units,
2 multi-family units
The Opening Day background traffic volumes were estimated by superimposing full build out of all
previously approved (DP) uses for Heartland, Sunset Ridge, and Heritage Hills onto the existing traffic
volumes.
Additional Site Traffic
Site traffic volumes were identified as those volumes of traffic not already accounted for in the above
noted background volumes. Site traffic for the proposed Mountain Ridge Plaza, Heartland Phases 2 and 3,
and Heritage Hills Phase 3D were sourced from previously completed TIAs. Table 2 outlines the land use
assumptions for each of the three proposed developments while the site traffic volume summary is shown
in Table 3.
Table 2: Land Use Assumptions
Development
Mountain Ridge Plaza
Approved Units

1,979 square meters (21,300 ft2) of Multi-Use Commercial space

724 square meters (7,800 ft2) of Day Care463 square meters
(4,980 ft2) of Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through
Heartland – Phases 2 and 3
141 single-family units
Heritage Hills – Phase 3D
39 single-family units
Horse Creek Signalization Review – Letter Final
bunt & associates | 1516-03 | March 25, 2015
3
Table 3: Site Generated Traffic
AM Peak
PM Peak
Land Use
Inbound
Outbound
Total
Inbound
Outbound
Total
Mountain Ridge Plaza
102
95
197
108
116
224
Heartland – Phases 2 and 3
23
67
90
76
44
120
Heritage Hills – Phase 3D
6
19
25
21
12
33
Total
55
123
178
109
86
195
This site traffic was distributed based on the source TIA for each of the three developments.
Post Development Conditions
The site-generated traffic volumes were superimposed onto the Opening Day Background traffic volumes
resulting in the total post development traffic volumes that were then used as a basis of analysis in this
exercise.
It is noted that a second access to the Heartland development is expected in the future (as early as 2016)
as the fourth (south) leg of the Heritage Gate/Highway 1A intersection. Since this access will be available,
two scenarios were analysed in this study as follows:

Scenario 1: 75% of Heartland traffic accesses the site along Horse Creek Road while the remaining
25% utilized the new access across from Heritage Gate.

Scenario 2: Access to the Heartland development is split 50% to each of the Horse Creek Road and
Heritage Gate intersections.
The total post development volumes are illustrated in Exhibit 1.
Horse Creek Signalization Review – Letter Final
bunt & associates | 1516-03 | March 25, 2015
4
Vehicle Volumes
XX
AM Peak
(YY)
PM Peak
0(0)
0(0)
157(109)
25(30)
0(0)
143(97)
ate
itag
Her
6(7)
404(434)
0(0)
59(160)
239(407)
65(173)
Scenario 2 Post Development Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 1
Post Development Traffic Volumes
Horse Creek Signalization Review
March 2015 Scale NTS
Horse Creek Signalization Review
bunt & associates | Project No. 1516-03 | NS
&
59(160)
271(493)
33(87)
0(0)
0(0)
79(55)
25(30)
0(0)
143(97)
Scenario 1 Post Development Traffic Volumes
eG
LEGEND
Horse Creek Road
1A
6(7)
482(488)
090)
82(107)
116(158)
65(173)
11(5)
44(46)
109(157)
A
itag
eG
Horse Creek Road
1A
Her
6(7)
561(543)
14(27)
120(214)
4(11)
ate
A
59(160)
304(580)
Opening Day Post Development Traffic Volumes
Hig
hw
ay
1
14(27)
120(214)
4(11)
82(107)
116(158)
97(259)
11(5)
44(46)
235(163)
25(30)
143(97)
ate
Her
Hig
hw
ay
1
21(17)
11(26)
135(118)
Horse Creek Road
1A
itag
eG
A
11(5)
44(46)
314(218)
14(27)
120(214)
4(11)
21(17)
11(26)
135(118)
21(17)
11(26)
135(118)
Hig
hw
ay
1
82(107)
116(158)
130(345)
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Signal Warrants
With the total post-development volumes established, Bunt & Associates undertook a full signal warrant
analysis based on the methodology outlined in the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Traffic
Signal and Pedestrian Signal Head Warrant Handbook (June 2014). Under TAC methodology, a score of
100 points or more indicates a traffic signal is warranted. A score of 80 points or more indicates that a
traffic signal may be required in the near future and the intersection should be monitored to determine
the exact timing for a signal.
The signal warrant analysis is summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: TAC Signal Warrant Analysis
Intersection
Horse Creek Road &
Highway 1A
Heritage Gate &
Highway 1A
Horizon
Signal Warrant Score
Comment
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Total
Opening Day
Background
55
0
55
Not warranted
Opening Day Post
Development
133
0
133
Warranted
Sensitivity Analysis
Scenario 1
110
0
110
Warranted
Sensitivity Analysis
Scenario 2
89
0
89
Monitor, but not
warranted
Opening Day
Background
58
0
58
Not warranted
Opening Day Post
Development
68
0
68
Not warranted
Sensitivity Analysis
Scenario 1
91
0
91
Monitor, but not
warranted
Sensitivity Analysis
Scenario 2
106
0
106
Warranted
As may be seen from the table, the raw warrant scores do identify a need to signalize Horse Creek Road
ahead of the Heritage Gate intersection. However, it is the opinion of Bunt & Associates that signalizing
Horse Creek ahead of Heritage Gate represents a less desirable condition than reversing the order. There
are several reasons for this, as follows:
Horse Creek Signalization Review – Letter Final
bunt & associates | 1516-03 | March 25, 2015
6

Heritage Gate is further east, closer to Town and would logically be signalized before an intersection
on the further extremity of the area (all things being equal), as is the case with Horse Creek.

Although the raw numbers suggest that traffic will be drawn to Horse Creek, this overstates the true
combined impact of the corridor. The critical mass for the area is located between Heritage Gate and
Horse Creek Road, and the vast majority of traffic approaches and departs from/to the east. As such,
if one intersection were to be signalized ahead of another, it would be logical that it be Heritage Gate.

The signalization of Heritage Gate would attract internal traffic away from Horse Creek, as it
represents a more logical internal connection in the short term prior to community build out. With the
introduction of traffic signal just at Heritage Gate/Highway 1A, and retaining unsignalized conditions
at Horse Creek Road, it was assumed that the traffic from the Heritage Hills Phase 3D development
would be drawn to use the signalized intersection. As such, a considerable proportion of the
outbound site traffic from Heritage Hills Phase 3D could potentially be rerouted to the Heritage
Gate/Highway 1A away from Horse Creek Road/Highway 1A.

Input received from the Heritage Hills community during various Open House events in the area
suggested a desire for improved pedestrian and vehicular safety when leaving their community, and
since Heritage Gate was their focus, to signalize Horse Creek would be counterintuitive to community
expectations.
In short, the analysis clearly identified a need for signalization of intersections in the corridor as
development occurs. However, the face value of the analysis does not reflect some of the logic that should
be applied to the order in which intersections are signalized. For this reason, Bunt & Associates undertook
a simulation of the corridor to assess the differences if the order in which intersections were signalized
were to be altered. This is outlined in the following section.
CORRIDOR SIMULATION
Bunt & Associates created micro-simulation traffic models using the PTV VISSIM modeling program. The
aim of this exercise was to compare the benefit of signalizing Heritage Gate/Highway 1A intersection
ahead of Horse Creek Road/Highway 1A intersection. Three models were created to assess the variation in
traffic operation along Highway 1A. Major conclusions for each scenario are detailed below. All three
scenarios were analyzed utilizing the existing lane configuration and PM peak post development volumes.
Table 5 summarizes the average delays and 95th percentile queues at each intersection under three
different scenarios, compiled from multiple simulation runs. The simulation videos can be downloaded
from http://bit.ly/1NGJwWn.
Horse Creek Signalization Review – Letter Final
bunt & associates | 1516-03 | March 25, 2015
7
Table 5: VISSIM Output Summary
Only Heritage
Gate/Highway 1A
Signalized
Both Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersection
Horse Creek Road/
Highway 1A
Heritage Gate/
Highway 1A
Movement
Average
Delay (s)
95th
percentile
queue
(metres)
NBL
23
NBT/R
Only Horse
Creek/Highway 1A
Signalized
Average
Delay (s)
95th
percentile
queue
(metres)
Average
Delay (s)
95th
percentile
queue
(metres)
53
19
53
10
38
23
54
24
54
17
38
SBL/T/R
31
55
27
39
21
42
WBL/T
1
22
2
23
16
89
WBR
1
9
2
6
1
9
EBL/T
1
2
2
9
5
42
EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
EBL/T
4
0
8
0
6
13
WBT
0
0
7
75
0
0
WBR
1
5
1
6
1
0
SBL/R
19
34
27
42
15
29
From the results summarized in Table 5 it can be concluded that the two intersections can be expected to
operate within acceptable capacity parameters under typical weekday peak hour conditions, regardless of
whether both are unsignalized, or if one is signalized but not the other.
To this end, despite the fact that the signal warrant data suggested signalization of Horse Creek
Road/Highway 1A ahead of Heritage Gate, there is no obvious benefit to do so. As such, it is Bunt &
Associates’ opinion that since there is no materially significant benefit to signalizing one intersection
ahead of the other, that the Heritage Gate intersection therefore be signalized. This would provide more
immediate benefit in terms of safety and community expectations, as well as setting the stage for longer
term additional signalization at Horse Creek Road.
It is understood that signals will be required along Highway 1A as development progresses on both sides
of Highway 1A, however, it is recommended that the signalization at Heritage Gate/Highway 1A be given
priority over Horse Creek Road/Highway 1A under the current development assumptions.
*
Horse Creek Signalization Review – Letter Final
bunt & associates | 1516-03 | March 25, 2015
*
*
*
*
8
We trust that this letter is sufficient for your needs. Please call if you have any questions or wish to discuss
any issue in further detail.
Yours truly,
Bunt & Associates
per:
Glen Pardoe, P.Eng.
Principal
NS, GP/ns, gp
Horse Creek Signalization Review – Letter Final
bunt & associates | 1516-03 | March 25, 2015
9
APPENDIX A
Traffic Signal Warrants
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Main Street (name)
Highway 1A
Direction (EW or NS)
EW
Road Authority:
Side Street (name)
Horse Creek Road
Direction (EW or NS)
NS
City:
Quadrant / Int #
SE
for Warrant Calculation
Results, please hit 'Page
Down'
Opening Day Background
(AM + PM) x 2.61
Comments
Cochrane
Analysis Date:
2014 Dec 24, Wed
Count Date:
2013 Oct 01, Tue
CHECK SHEET
Other input
Speed
(Km/h)
80
EW
NS
Truck
%
11.0%
16.0%
Bus Rt
(y/n)
n
n
UpStream
Signal (m)
# of Thru Lanes
Highway 1A
WB
1
Highway 1A
EB
1
Horse Creek Road
NB
1
1
Horse Creek Road
SB
1
Are the Horse Creek Road NB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Are the Horse Creek Road SB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Excl RT
Th & RT
Th+RT+LT
Through
Excl LT
Th & LT
Date Entry Format:
Lane Configuration
Highway 1A
Horse Creek Road
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane
1
1
1,600
1,600
1
1
Demographics
Elem. School/Mobility Challenged
Senior's Complex
Pathway to School
Metro Area Population
Central Business District
n
n
NB
(y/n)
(y/n)
(y/n)
(#)
(y/n)
EB
Ped1
Ped2
Ped3
Ped4
NS
NS
EW
EW
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
W Side
E Side
N Side
S Side
(AM+PM)*2.61
34
29
1201
209
27
29
995
770
170
27
943
32
0
0
0
0
Total (6-hour peak)
34
29
1,201
209
27
29
995
770
170
27
943
32
0
0
0
0
Average (6-hour peak)
6
5
200
35
5
5
166
128
28
5
157
5
0
0
0
0
North -->
WB
Horse Creek Road
SB
LT
W=
35
Highway 1A
166
LT
0
Ped2
LT
176
SB
200
392
v
Traffic Signal Warrant Spreadsheet - v3H © 2007 Transportation Association of Canada
TH
RT
5
128
5
RT
RT
TH
157
211
TH
NB
167
28
0
Veh
Ped
RESET SHEET
323
WB
Highway 1A
6
EB
5
55
NOT Warranted
139
LT
55
38
LT
44
TH
5
RT
5
Ped1
0
WB
W = [Cbt(Xv-v) / K1 + (F (Xv-p) L) / K2] x Ci
NB
SB
Average 6-hour
Peak Turning
Movements
<
n
n
n
17,580
n
Median
(m)
Set Peak Hours
Traffic Input
(yyyy-mm-dd)
EB
>
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Main Street (name)
Highway 1A
Direction (EW or NS)
EW
Road Authority:
Side Street (name)
Heritage Gate
Direction (EW or NS)
NS
City:
Quadrant / Int #
SE
for Warrant Calculation
Results, please hit 'Page
Down'
Opening Day Background
(AM + PM) x 2.61
Comments
Cochrane
Analysis Date:
2014 Dec 24, Wed
Count Date:
2013 Oct 01, Tue
CHECK SHEET
Other input
Speed
(Km/h)
80
EW
NS
Truck
%
11.0%
6.0%
Bus Rt
(y/n)
n
n
# of Thru Lanes
1
UpStream
Signal (m)
Highway 1A
WB
1
Highway 1A
EB
1
1
Heritage Gate
NB
Heritage Gate
SB
1
Are the Heritage Gate NB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Are the Heritage Gate SB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Excl RT
Th & RT
Th+RT+LT
Through
Excl LT
Th & LT
Date Entry Format:
Lane Configuration
Highway 1A
Heritage Gate
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane
1,400
1,600
1
1
Demographics
Elem. School/Mobility Challenged
Senior's Complex
Pathway to School
Metro Area Population
Central Business District
n
n
NB
(y/n)
(y/n)
(y/n)
(#)
(y/n)
SB
WB
EB
Ped1
Ped2
Ped3
Ped4
NS
NS
EW
EW
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
W Side
E Side
N Side
S Side
(AM+PM)*2.61
0
0
0
671
0
29
0
1908
564
29
2321
0
0
0
0
0
Total (6-hour peak)
0
0
0
671
0
29
0
1,908
564
29
2,321
0
0
0
0
0
Average (6-hour peak)
0
0
0
112
0
5
0
318
94
5
387
0
0
0
0
0
WB
W = [Cbt(Xv-v) / K1 + (F (Xv-p) L) / K2] x Ci
Highway 1A
0
LT
0
Ped2
LT
0
SB
0
499
v
Traffic Signal Warrant Spreadsheet - v3H © 2007 Transportation Association of Canada
TH
RT
0
318
0
RT
RT
TH
387
0
TH
NB
392
94
0
Veh
Ped
RESET SHEET
412
WB
Highway 1A
0
EB
5
58
NOT Warranted
323
LT
58
99
LT
NB
W=
112
TH
0
RT
5
0
Ped1
117
SB
Average 6-hour
Peak Turning
Movements
North -->
Th
Heritage Gate
LT
<
n
n
n
17,580
n
Median
(m)
Set Peak Hours
Traffic Input
(yyyy-mm-dd)
EB
>
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Main Street (name)
Highway 1A
Direction (EW or NS)
EW
Road Authority:
Side Street (name)
Horse Creek Road
Direction (EW or NS)
NS
City:
Opening Day Post Development
(AM + PM) x 2.61
Analysis Date:
2014 Dec 24, Wed
Count Date:
2013 Oct 01, Tue
Quadrant / Int #
SE
for Warrant Calculation
Results, please hit 'Page
Down'
Comments
CHECK SHEET
Cochrane
Other input
Speed
(Km/h)
80
EW
NS
Truck
%
11.0%
16.0%
Bus Rt
(y/n)
n
n
UpStream
Signal (m)
# of Thru Lanes
Highway 1A
WB
1
Highway 1A
EB
1
Horse Creek Road
NB
1
1
Horse Creek Road
SB
1
Are the Horse Creek Road NB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Are the Horse Creek Road SB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Excl RT
Th & RT
Th+RT+LT
Through
Excl LT
Th & LT
Date Entry Format:
Lane Configuration
Highway 1A
Horse Creek Road
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane
1
1
1,600
1,600
1
1
Demographics
Elem. School/Mobility Challenged
Senior's Complex
Pathway to School
Metro Area Population
Central Business District
n
n
NB
(y/n)
(y/n)
(y/n)
(#)
(y/n)
EB
Ped1
Ped2
Ped3
Ped4
NS
NS
EW
EW
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
W Side
E Side
N Side
S Side
(AM+PM)*2.61
42
235
1388
659
97
99
1240
714
494
106
871
40
0
0
0
0
Total (6-hour peak)
42
235
1,388
659
97
99
1,240
714
494
106
871
40
0
0
0
0
Average (6-hour peak)
7
39
231
110
16
17
207
119
82
18
145
7
0
0
0
0
North -->
WB
Horse Creek Road
SB
LT
WB
W = [Cbt(Xv-v) / K1 + (F (Xv-p) L) / K2] x Ci
LT
Highway 1A
207
LT
0
Ped2
LT
230
SB
231
486
v
Traffic Signal Warrant Spreadsheet - v3H © 2007 Transportation Association of Canada
TH
RT
7
119
39
RT
RT
TH
145
278
TH
NB
170
82
0
Veh
Ped
RESET SHEET
408
WB
Highway 1A
7
EB
18
133
Warranted
143
LT
133
139
NB
W=
110
TH
16
RT
17
0
Ped1
143
SB
Average 6-hour
Peak Turning
Movements
<
n
n
n
17,580
n
Median
(m)
Set Peak Hours
Traffic Input
(yyyy-mm-dd)
EB
>
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Main Street (name)
Highway 1A
Direction (EW or NS)
EW
Road Authority:
Side Street (name)
Heritage Gate
Direction (EW or NS)
NS
City:
Opening Day Post Development
(AM + PM) x 2.61
Analysis Date:
2014 Dec 24, Wed
Count Date:
2013 Oct 01, Tue
Quadrant / Int #
SE
for Warrant Calculation
Results, please hit 'Page
Down'
Comments
CHECK SHEET
Cochrane
Other input
Speed
(Km/h)
80
EW
NS
Truck
%
11.0%
6.0%
Bus Rt
(y/n)
n
n
# of Thru Lanes
1
UpStream
Signal (m)
Highway 1A
WB
1
Highway 1A
EB
1
1
Heritage Gate
NB
Heritage Gate
SB
1
Are the Heritage Gate NB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Are the Heritage Gate SB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Excl RT
Th & RT
Th+RT+LT
Through
Excl LT
Th & LT
Date Entry Format:
Lane Configuration
Highway 1A
Heritage Gate
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane
1,400
1,600
1
1
Demographics
Elem. School/Mobility Challenged
Senior's Complex
Pathway to School
Metro Area Population
Central Business District
n
n
NB
(y/n)
(y/n)
(y/n)
(#)
(y/n)
SB
WB
EB
Ped1
Ped2
Ped3
Ped4
NS
NS
EW
EW
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
W Side
E Side
N Side
S Side
(AM+PM)*2.61
0
0
0
627
0
142
0
2308
572
33
2881
0
0
0
0
0
Total (6-hour peak)
0
0
0
627
0
142
0
2,308
572
33
2,881
0
0
0
0
0
Average (6-hour peak)
0
0
0
105
0
24
0
385
95
6
480
0
0
0
0
0
WB
W = [Cbt(Xv-v) / K1 + (F (Xv-p) L) / K2] x Ci
LT
Highway 1A
0
LT
0
Ped2
LT
0
SB
0
585
v
Traffic Signal Warrant Spreadsheet - v3H © 2007 Transportation Association of Canada
TH
RT
0
385
0
RT
RT
TH
480
0
TH
NB
486
95
0
Veh
Ped
RESET SHEET
480
WB
Highway 1A
0
EB
6
68
NOT Warranted
408
LT
68
101
NB
W=
105
TH
0
RT
24
0
Ped1
128
SB
Average 6-hour
Peak Turning
Movements
North -->
Th
Heritage Gate
LT
<
n
n
n
17,580
n
Median
(m)
Set Peak Hours
Traffic Input
(yyyy-mm-dd)
EB
>
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Main Street (name)
Highway 1A
Direction (EW or NS)
EW
Road Authority:
Side Street (name)
Horse Creek Road
Direction (EW or NS)
NS
City:
Opening Day Post Development
Sensitivity Analysis Scenario 2
(AM + PM) x 2.61
Analysis Date:
2014 Dec 24, Wed
Count Date:
2013 Oct 01, Tue
Quadrant / Int #
SE
for Warrant Calculation
Results, please hit 'Page
Down'
Comments
CHECK SHEET
Cochrane
Other input
Speed
(Km/h)
80
EW
NS
Truck
%
11.0%
16.0%
Bus Rt
(y/n)
n
n
UpStream
Signal (m)
# of Thru Lanes
Highway 1A
WB
1
Highway 1A
EB
1
Horse Creek Road
NB
1
1
Horse Creek Road
SB
1
Are the Horse Creek Road NB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Are the Horse Creek Road SB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Excl RT
Th & RT
Th+RT+LT
Through
Excl LT
Th & LT
Date Entry Format:
Lane Configuration
Highway 1A
Horse Creek Road
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane
1
1
1,600
1,600
1
1
Demographics
Elem. School/Mobility Challenged
Senior's Complex
Pathway to School
Metro Area Population
Central Business District
n
n
NB
(y/n)
(y/n)
(y/n)
(#)
(y/n)
EB
Ped1
Ped2
Ped3
Ped4
NS
NS
EW
EW
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
W Side
E Side
N Side
S Side
(AM+PM)*2.61
42
235
694
659
97
99
620
714
494
106
871
40
0
0
0
0
Total (6-hour peak)
42
235
694
659
97
99
620
714
494
106
871
40
0
0
0
0
Average (6-hour peak)
7
39
116
110
16
17
103
119
82
18
145
7
0
0
0
0
North -->
WB
Horse Creek Road
SB
LT
WB
W = [Cbt(Xv-v) / K1 + (F (Xv-p) L) / K2] x Ci
LT
Highway 1A
103
LT
0
Ped2
LT
126
SB
116
371
v
Traffic Signal Warrant Spreadsheet - v3H © 2007 Transportation Association of Canada
TH
RT
7
119
39
RT
RT
TH
145
162
TH
NB
170
82
0
Veh
Ped
RESET SHEET
305
WB
Highway 1A
7
EB
18
89
NOT Warranted
143
LT
89
139
NB
W=
110
TH
16
RT
17
0
Ped1
143
SB
Average 6-hour
Peak Turning
Movements
<
n
n
n
17,580
n
Median
(m)
Set Peak Hours
Traffic Input
(yyyy-mm-dd)
EB
>
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Main Street (name)
Highway 1A
Direction (EW or NS)
EW
Road Authority:
Side Street (name)
Heritage Gate
Direction (EW or NS)
NS
City:
Opening Day Post Development
Sensitivity Analysis Scenario 2
(AM + PM) x 2.61
Analysis Date:
2014 Dec 24, Wed
Count Date:
2013 Oct 01, Tue
Quadrant / Int #
SE
for Warrant Calculation
Results, please hit 'Page
Down'
Comments
CHECK SHEET
Cochrane
Other input
Speed
(Km/h)
80
EW
NS
Truck
%
11.0%
6.0%
Bus Rt
(y/n)
n
n
# of Thru Lanes
1
UpStream
Signal (m)
Highway 1A
WB
1
Highway 1A
EB
1
1
Heritage Gate
NB
1
Heritage Gate
SB
1
Are the Heritage Gate NB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Are the Heritage Gate SB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Excl RT
Th & RT
Th+RT+LT
Through
Excl LT
Th & LT
Date Entry Format:
Lane Configuration
Highway 1A
Heritage Gate
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane
1,400
1,600
1
1
Demographics
Elem. School/Mobility Challenged
Senior's Complex
Pathway to School
Metro Area Population
Central Business District
n
n
NB
(y/n)
(y/n)
(y/n)
(#)
(y/n)
SB
WB
EB
Ped1
Ped2
Ped3
Ped4
NS
NS
EW
EW
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
W Side
E Side
N Side
S Side
(MA+PM)*2.61
0
0
694
627
0
142
620
1687
572
33
2188
0
0
0
0
0
Total (6-hour peak)
0
0
694
627
0
142
620
1,687
572
33
2,188
0
0
0
0
0
Average (6-hour peak)
0
0
116
105
0
24
103
281
95
6
365
0
0
0
0
0
WB
W = [Cbt(Xv-v) / K1 + (F (Xv-p) L) / K2] x Ci
LT
Highway 1A
103
LT
0
Ped2
LT
103
SB
116
585
v
Traffic Signal Warrant Spreadsheet - v3H © 2007 Transportation Association of Canada
TH
RT
0
281
0
RT
RT
TH
365
116
TH
NB
370
95
0
Veh
Ped
RESET SHEET
480
WB
Highway 1A
0
EB
6
106
Warranted
305
LT
106
101
NB
W=
105
TH
0
RT
24
0
Ped1
128
SB
Average 6-hour
Peak Turning
Movements
North -->
Th
Heritage Gate
LT
<
n
n
n
17,580
n
Median
(m)
Set Peak Hours
Traffic Input
(yyyy-mm-dd)
EB
>
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Main Street (name)
Highway 1A
Direction (EW or NS)
EW
Road Authority:
Side Street (name)
Horse Creek Road
Direction (EW or NS)
NS
City:
Opening Day Post Development
Sensitivity Analysis Scenario 1
(AM + PM) x 2.61
Analysis Date:
2014 Dec 24, Wed
Count Date:
2013 Oct 01, Tue
Quadrant / Int #
SE
for Warrant Calculation
Results, please hit 'Page
Down'
Comments
CHECK SHEET
Cochrane
Other input
Speed
(Km/h)
80
EW
NS
Truck
%
11.0%
16.0%
Bus Rt
(y/n)
n
n
UpStream
Signal (m)
# of Thru Lanes
Highway 1A
WB
1
Highway 1A
EB
1
Horse Creek Road
NB
1
1
Horse Creek Road
SB
1
Are the Horse Creek Road NB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Are the Horse Creek Road SB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Excl RT
Th & RT
Th+RT+LT
Through
Excl LT
Th & LT
Date Entry Format:
Lane Configuration
Highway 1A
Horse Creek Road
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane
1
1
1,600
1,600
1
1
Demographics
Elem. School/Mobility Challenged
Senior's Complex
Pathway to School
Metro Area Population
Central Business District
n
n
NB
(y/n)
(y/n)
(y/n)
(#)
(y/n)
EB
Ped1
Ped2
Ped3
Ped4
NS
NS
EW
EW
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
W Side
E Side
N Side
S Side
(AM+PM)*2.61
42
235
1039
659
97
99
930
714
494
106
871
40
0
0
0
0
Total (6-hour peak)
42
235
1,039
659
97
99
930
714
494
106
871
40
0
0
0
0
Average (6-hour peak)
7
39
173
110
16
17
155
119
82
18
145
7
0
0
0
0
North -->
WB
Horse Creek Road
SB
LT
WB
W = [Cbt(Xv-v) / K1 + (F (Xv-p) L) / K2] x Ci
LT
Highway 1A
155
LT
0
Ped2
LT
178
SB
173
428
v
Traffic Signal Warrant Spreadsheet - v3H © 2007 Transportation Association of Canada
TH
RT
7
119
39
RT
RT
TH
145
219
TH
NB
170
82
0
Veh
Ped
RESET SHEET
356
WB
Highway 1A
7
EB
18
110
Warranted
143
LT
110
139
NB
W=
110
TH
16
RT
17
0
Ped1
143
SB
Average 6-hour
Peak Turning
Movements
<
n
n
n
17,580
n
Median
(m)
Set Peak Hours
Traffic Input
(yyyy-mm-dd)
EB
>
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Main Street (name)
Highway 1A
Direction (EW or NS)
EW
Road Authority:
Side Street (name)
Heritage Gate
Direction (EW or NS)
NS
City:
Opening Day Post Development
Sensitivity Analysis Scenario 2
(AM + PM) x 2.61
Analysis Date:
2014 Dec 24, Wed
Count Date:
2013 Oct 01, Tue
Quadrant / Int #
SE
for Warrant Calculation
Results, please hit 'Page
Down'
Comments
CHECK SHEET
Cochrane
Other input
Speed
(Km/h)
80
EW
NS
Truck
%
11.0%
6.0%
Bus Rt
(y/n)
n
n
# of Thru Lanes
1
UpStream
Signal (m)
Highway 1A
WB
1
Highway 1A
EB
1
1
Heritage Gate
NB
1
Heritage Gate
SB
1
Are the Heritage Gate NB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Are the Heritage Gate SB right turns significantly impeded by through movements? (y/n)
Excl RT
Th & RT
Th+RT+LT
Through
Excl LT
Th & LT
Date Entry Format:
Lane Configuration
Highway 1A
Heritage Gate
Alberta Transportation/Town of Cochrane
1,400
1,600
1
1
Demographics
Elem. School/Mobility Challenged
Senior's Complex
Pathway to School
Metro Area Population
Central Business District
n
n
NB
(y/n)
(y/n)
(y/n)
(#)
(y/n)
SB
WB
EB
Ped1
Ped2
Ped3
Ped4
NS
NS
EW
EW
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
LT
Th
RT
W Side
E Side
N Side
S Side
(MA+PM)*2.61
0
0
350
627
0
142
314
1995
572
33
2532
0
0
0
0
0
Total (6-hour peak)
0
0
350
627
0
142
314
1,995
572
33
2,532
0
0
0
0
0
Average (6-hour peak)
0
0
58
105
0
24
52
333
95
6
422
0
0
0
0
0
WB
W = [Cbt(Xv-v) / K1 + (F (Xv-p) L) / K2] x Ci
LT
Highway 1A
52
LT
0
Ped2
LT
52
SB
58
585
v
Traffic Signal Warrant Spreadsheet - v3H © 2007 Transportation Association of Canada
TH
RT
0
333
0
RT
RT
TH
422
58
TH
NB
428
95
0
Veh
Ped
RESET SHEET
480
WB
Highway 1A
0
EB
6
91
NOT Warranted
356
LT
91
101
NB
W=
105
TH
0
RT
24
0
Ped1
128
SB
Average 6-hour
Peak Turning
Movements
North -->
Th
Heritage Gate
LT
<
n
n
n
17,580
n
Median
(m)
Set Peak Hours
Traffic Input
(yyyy-mm-dd)
EB
>