Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA036 - Presentation of findings for the E Lincoln Way (Duff Avenue to S Skunk River) Corridor StudyITEM #:40 DEPT:PW September 23, 2025 Staff Report EAST LINCOLN WAY STUDY FINDINGS BACKGROUND: The Ames Area MPO's (AAMPO's) 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Forward 2045, identified the E Lincoln Way corridor from Duff Avenue to the South Skunk River bridge (see Attachment A for study area map) as a potential location for a lane reconfiguration to three lanes. Additionally, the City of Ames' Bicycle-Pedestrian Master Plan, Walk Bike Roll Ames , identified high priority pedestrian crossing locations along this corridor. Because of the poor pavement condition along this corridor, a roadway reconstruction project in the amount of $3,600,000 is programmed in the City's Capital Improvements Plan as an FY 2026/27 Arterial Street Pavement Improvements Program project. In March 2023, the City submitted a project application to the AAMPO and was awarded a Federal Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) for the project. Of the $3,600,000 total construction budget, $2,880,000 would be from the STBG grant and $720,000 would be from General Obligation Bonds (local match). Because the location of this reconstruction project overlaps with the potential roadway reconfiguration identified in Forward 2045 and the high-priority pedestrian crossing locations identified in Walk Bike Roll Ames , the AAMPO programmed a corridor study to determine the best roadway cross section (including lane configuration and multi- modal improvements) for the corridor. The results of this corridor study would then identify the appropriate cross-section to move forward with for design and reconstruction. This study also included assessing the intersection of S Duff Avenue and E Lincoln Way, although that intersection is not currently a part of the reconstruction project that is programmed. The intersection assessment was included to review operational changes that may occur with different roadway cross sections. At its October 8, 2024, meeting, City Council approved a professional services agreement with Strand Associates, Inc. to conduct this study. The study had the following scope: Use vehicle, crash, transit, and multimodal data, along with forecasted volumes from the AAMPO’s Regional Travel Demand Model, to assess present and future traffic operations at the intersection of Duff Avenue and Lincoln Way and along the E Lincoln Way corridor from Duff Avenue to the South Skunk River bridge. Review the pedestrian crossing locations identified in Walk Bike Roll Ames along the study corridor. 1 Based on the above analyses, review alternative layouts for the intersection of Duff Avenue and E Lincoln Way and typical cross-sections of the corridor, and develop a preferred alternative. Develop an online survey for gathering public input on the corridor and preferred alternative. Develop probable construction costs for the preferred alternative. Prepare a study report summarizing the findings and present the report at an Ames City Council meeting. Using analyses from a prior Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) done for potential development south of E Lincoln Way (which included proposed extensions of SE 3rd Street and SE 5th Street into a new north-south roadway connecting to E Lincoln Way), evaluate the corridor with and without this development scenario and include this analysis in the study report appendix. S e e Attachment B for the final study report and Attachment C for the presentation slides. PREFERRED CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS: After assessing multiple alternatives, the study found that the following improvements would provide the best traffic operations, multimodal connectivity, and safety while remaining within the existing right-of-way: Reconstruct E Lincoln Way (Duff Avenue to the east end of the South Skunk River Bridge) as a 3-lane roadway with one 13-foot travel lane in each direction and a 14-foot two-way-left-turn lane in the center (see Figure 6 of the study report, Attachment B). Construct a 10-foot shared-use path along the south side of the roadway. Include pedestrian crossing improvements at the locations identified in Walk Bike Roll Ames as shown in Figures 7–9 of the study report (Attachment B). Reconfigure the intersection of Duff Avenue and Lincoln Way as shown in Figure 10 of the study report (Attachment B). The study shows that the recommended improvements are suitable to handle forecasted 2050 traffic volumes based on the latest projections from the AAMPO’s regional travel demand model, which accounts for anticipated development and committed roadway projects. Additionally, the study found that the recommended improvements would synergize well with any potential development and roadway extensions that could occur south of the study corridor. 2 PM Peak Intersection Operations at Duff Ave & Lincoln Way (LOS = Level of Service) Year Existing Geometry LOS/Delay Study Recommended Improvements LOS/Delay Delay Improvement 2027 (Build Year) LOS D (42.3 seconds)LOS C (26.2 seconds)16.1 seconds 2050 (Future Year) LOS E (63.9 seconds)LOS C (34.0 seconds)29.9 seconds In addition to operational benefits, the recommended alternative improves safety and multimodal connectivity: Pedestrian crossing safety Reduction of conflict points Separation of left-turning traffic from through lanes Calmer travel speeds PROJECT COST: As noted, a roadway reconstruction project in the amount of $3,600,000 ($2,880,000 in AAMPO STBG funds; $720,000 in GO Bonds) is already programmed in the CIP for FY 2026/27. A concept-level cost estimate for the recommended improvements was developed during the study. The total estimate is $3.1 million, which is within the $3.6 million budget. This estimate excludes water main replacement, which would be funded separately through the Water Utility Fund. It should be noted that reconstructing the corridor under the existing 4-lane geometry would likely result in similar construction costs to the recommended 3-lane cross-section. OPTIONS: 1. Utilize the study's recommended improvements when proceeding with final design of the 2026/27 Arterial Street Pavement Improvements project. This would include the reconfiguration of E. Lincoln Way to a 3-lane roadway section with a center turn lane, addition of a shared use path on the south side of the roadway, pedestrian crossing improvements, and intersection improvements at Duff Avenue and Lincoln Way. 2. Maintain the existing roadway and intersection geometry when proceeding with final design of the 2026/27 Arterial Street Pavement Improvements project. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff is presenting the findings of the study and its recommended improvements, but is not seeking direction from City Council at this time. Staff intends to bring this item back to the City Council at the next meeting on October 14, 2025, seeking direction regarding which of the two options mentioned above should 3 be utilized when preparing the final design of the 2026/27 Arterial Street Pavement Improvements project along E. Lincoln Way. ATTACHMENT(S): A - Study Area Map.pdf B - Study Final Report.pdf C - Study Presentation Slides.pdf 4 E Lincoln Way Study Area S 2nd St Du f f A v e LEGEND Study AreaS D u f f A v e E Lincoln Way SE 2nd St Hi g h A v e Ea s t A v e E 2nd St Bo r n e A v e Ch e r r y A v e 5 Report for City of Ames, IA East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by: STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC.® 910 West Wingra Drive Madison, WI 53715 www.strand.com 6 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.0 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 INTRODUCTION The City of Ames (City) hired Strand Associates, Inc to perform an evaluation of the East Lincoln Way Corridor from the South Duff Avenue intersection to the South Skunk River bridge. The evaluation included an intersection analysis of the South Duff Avenue and East Lincoln Way intersection to determine geometric changes that are within the existing curb lines that could provide future operational benefits. The evaluation also included a roadway cross section analysis to determine if the corridor could be converted to a three-lane section with a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) and then identify potential options for the three-lane section. The results of this study will inform the 2026/27 project currently programmed in the City of Ames Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and Ames Area MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the reconstruction of East Lincoln Way along this corridor. Figure 1 graphically details the study area. In addition to this analysis, the study team evaluated the corridor and intersection with the effects of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of a new roadway connector that may be developed near Cherry Avenue. This would include providing a connection from East Lincoln Way to 3rd Street and 5th Street along with planned developments on the east side of the connector. Appendix H has more details about this scenario. NEEDS IDENTIFICATION A.Existing Typical Section The existing roadway typical section consists of four vehicle lanes with the center lanes being 12 feet wide and the outside lanes 11 feet wide with a one-foot shoulder to the curb face. Both sides of the Background Source: Iowa State GIS Facility Figure 1 Study Area Map 7 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.1 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 roadway have a five-foot sidewalk with a three-foot grass terrace. The existing typical section is shown in Figure 2. B.Existing Bike and Pedestrian Accommodations Today the roadway has a mix of sidewalk and path along portions of the roadway to accommodate bikes and pedestrians. There is sidewalk present along both sides of the road from the South Duff Avenue intersection to 900 feet west of Sondrol Avenue. At this location the north sidewalk terminates with the exception of a small portion of sidewalk in front of a strip mall just west of Sondrol Avenue. On the south side of the roadway, the sidewalk transitions to a multi-use path at the access to the City well. The path along the south side of the roadway then proceeds east through the end of the project. The path also ties into a multi-use path that runs along the South Skunk River. C.Crash Analysis 1.Duff Avenue Intersection A crash analysis of the Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue intersection was performed using crashes from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023. The intersection has a total of 52 crashes reported in the 5-year time period, with four Non-Incapacitating Injury (B) crashes and 10 Possible Injury (C), and all other being Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes. No Fatal (K) or Incapacitating (A) crashes were recorded in the 5-year timeframe. Table 1 details the breakdown of crash severity Figure 2 Existing Roadway Typical Section 8 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.2 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 and type. The crash calculations are located in Appendix A. Intersection Crash Diagrams are located in Appendix B. Additionally, the Iowa Department of Transportation (IowaDOT) has an online map that includes a Potential for Crash Reduction metric (PCR) that can be used to roughly quantify which intersections have higher crashes relative to other intersections with similar geometrics and traffic volumes. The IowaDOT PCR Online map lists the Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue intersection as being negligible or having a PCR of under 0.2 for all crashes and under 0.05 for severe crashes (KAB) crashes. 2.East Lincoln Way Corridor The East Lincoln Way Corridor from Duff Avenue to the Skunk River had crashes analyzed from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023. This stretch of roadway had a total of 81 crashes within the time period, with nine of those crashes being K, A, or B crashes (0 K crashes, 2 A crashes, 7 B crashes). Using average annual daily traffic (AADT) information from the IowaDOT’s Traffic Data Map, the crash rate of this stretch of East Lincoln Way came out to 476 crashes per hundred million vehicle miles traveled and 52.9 KAB crashes per hundred million vehicle miles traveled. IowaDOT’s PCR Map lists this segment of Lincoln Way as negligible for all crashes (under 0.2), but in the medium category for KAB crashes (between 0.05 and 0.25), indicating a slight need for crash severity reductions for this segment. More details on the crash calculations can be found in Appendix A. D.Existing Operations Analysis Operations of the Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue intersection were analyzed using Synchro 12 software using the Highway Capacity Manual 7 (HCM 7) methodology. Existing volumes (previous and updated), peak hour factors (PHF), heavy vehicle percentages, and traffic signal timings were provided by the City. Geometric data was obtained from Bing maps that are integrated into Table 1 Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue Crash History (2019-2023) 9 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.3 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 Synchro 12. Intersection traffic volume development information is located in Appendix C. The intersection operational output information is located in Appendix D. Modeling indicates that the existing intersection has some movements with extended delays. Most movements operate at Level of Service (LOS) D with the northbound left-turn operating at LOS E in the PM peak hour. Table 2 details the HCM 7 operations of the existing intersection. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION A.Future Traffic Volume Development Demand model data provided by the City was used to develop the projected future traffic volumes for both the intersection analysis and the corridor typical section analysis. The intersection traffic volume development details are located in Appendix C and the corridor volume development details are located in Appendix E. Initial modeling for this project was with the Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) travel demand model that was current as of the project start in 2024. The original modeling also focused on the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. As this project was nearing completion an updated demand model for the Ames Area MPO was approved and the traffic operations evaluation was updated to use the new demand model output. During this change in volumes it was also determined that the midday peak hour was higher than the AM peak hour. The final analysis then evaluated the midday and PM peak hours. Prior to the change to the new demand model evaluation, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 had been dismissed. Those alternatives were not updated and the information presented below for them reflect the 2024 demand model volumes. 1.Duff Avenue Intersection Growth rates and future turning movement volumes for the years of 2035 and 2050 were provided by the City for the Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue Intersection. Traffic volumes for the opening year 2027 analysis were developed by interpolating existing and projected turning movement counts that were provided. 2.East Lincoln Way Corridor Table 2 Lincoln and Duff Existing Operations 10 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.4 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 Future AADT growth rates and volumes for the years of 2035 and 2050 were provided by the City for the East Lincoln Way Corridor. Existing traffic volumes and an hourly breakdown of traffic was also provided by the City to aid in evaluating the potential of a 3-lane TWLTL section for the corridor. B.Future Traffic Analysis 1.Future No-Build The future no-build scenario has the same geometric conditions as existing. The only changes to the models are to traffic volumes and traffic signal timing settings. The updated volumes with the midday peak are used for analysis as well as having two future analysis years: 2027 and 2050. HCM 7 operations for the 2027 future no-build show both peaks operating similar to existing conditions except with slightly higher delay and queuing. 2050 shows both peaks operating worse than 2027, with multiple movements operating at LOS F and/or at a volume to capacity ratio (v/c ratio) of 1.0 or greater. Table 3 summarizes the operations. 2.Alternative 1 - Remove Split Phasing Alternative 1 is similar to existing conditions except for changing the signal phasing to eliminate split phasing for the East Lincoln Way legs of the intersection as well as changing the lane movement options for these approaches to reflect the removal of split phasing. Alternative 1 was Table 3 Lincoln and Duff Future No-Build Operations 11 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.5 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 analyzed using the original volume set. Figure 3 graphically shows the intersection layout in Synchro 12. HCM 7 operations for Alternative 1 show the AM peak hour operating better than Future No-Build in 2035 and 2050. PM peak hour operations are worse in 2035 and 2050 compared to Future No- Build, with 2050 reaching an overall LOS F for the intersection. Table 4 summarizes the operations below. Figure 3 Alternative 1 Layout 12 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.6 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 3.Alternative 2 - Split Phasing with Geometric Changes Alternative 2 adds a dedicated eastbound right lane to the west leg of the intersection. This addition causes one less through movement for westbound to maintain overall similar roadway width as existing conditions. Signal timings were adjusted but the east and west legs retain the split phased operations. Alternative 2 was analyzed using the original volume set. Figure 4 graphically shows the intersection layout in Synchro 12. Table 4 Lincoln and Duff Alternative 1 Operations 13 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.7 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 HCM 7 operations for Alternative 2 show the AM peak hour operating similar Future No-Build in 2035 and 2050. PM peak hour operations are slightly better in 2035 and 2050 compared to Future No-Build, with 2050 being LOS D overall with no LOS F movements. However, there are still several LOS E movements during the 2050 PM peak hour. Table 5 summarizes the operations below. Figure 4 Alternative 2 Layout 14 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.8 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 4. Alternative 2.5 - Remove Phasing with Geometric Changes Alternative 2.5 has similar roadway geometric modifications as Alternative 2, but the split phased operations for the east and west legs was removed. Alternative 2.5 was analyzed with the original and updated volume set, as it was chosen as the preferred alternative before the revised volume set was provided. The intersection operations with the updated volume set are discussed in this report. Figure 5 graphically shows the intersection layout in Synchro 12. Table 5 Lincoln and Duff Alternative 2 Operations 15 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.9 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 HCM 7 operations for Alternative 2.5 show both the Midday and PM peak hours operating better than Future No-Build in 2027 and 2050. 2050 Midday peak hour operates at LOS C overall with three LOS C movements. The 2050 PM peak hour operates at LOS C overall with five LOS D movements. Table 4 summarizes the operations below. Figure 5 Alternative 2.5 Layout 16 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.10 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 C.Proposed Typical Section Evaluation Daily roadway traffic volumes were evaluated for the year 2050 on East Lincoln Way. The updated demand model indicated that this section would see a peak of about 17,000 vehicles per day by 2050. This is within the typical range of what a 3-lane with TWLTL section could accommodate. We performed a further evaluation using a daily traffic breakdown to evaluate peak hourly traffic conditions. This data combined with the 2050 AADT data showed that peak directional hourly volumes would range from 500 to 600 vehicles per hour during the midday and early afternoon hours. This hourly volume rate also supports the conversion of the roadway to a 3-lane section. Discussions with the City indicated that additional off roadway accommodation for bikes and pedestrians, including closing the existing gaps were desired for the corridor. Several variations of typical sections were discussed with the City and the key components that were selected were to have a multi-use path along the south side of the road and a sidewalk on the north side of the road. The overall goal was to maintain the roadway width and provide enough room between the sidewalk/path and the roadway to accommodate signage. The roadway will include a 14-foot wide TWLTL with one through lane in each direction consisting of an 11-foot lane and a two-foot shoulder along the curb for a total of 13 feet of width. The final selected roadway typical section is shown in Figure 6. Table 6 Lincoln and Duff Alternative 2.5 Operations 17 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.11 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 D.Multimodal Improvements In addition to improvements to the sidewalks and paths along East Lincoln Way, there is a desire to provide additional crossings on East Lincoln Way. Existing there is only a marked crossing at the South Duff Avenue intersection. Through discussions with the City, three potential crossing locations were developed. These unsignalized pedestrian crossings make use of the TWLTL are to construct a median island refuge for the crossing. They would be installed either with just the painted crosswalks, or could be considered for the installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) in addition to the island. The first pedestrian crossing location is between High Avenue and Center Avenue. The location of this crossing is shown in Figure 7. Figure 6 Proposed Roadway Typical Section 18 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.12 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 The second pedestrian crossing location is between Cherry Avenue and the City well access Road. The location of this crossing is shown in Figure 8. The third pedestrian crossing location is just west of Sondrol Avenue near the beginning of the TWLTL. The location of this crossing is shown in Figure 9. Figure 7 High Avenue and Center Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Figure 8 Cherry Avenue Pedestrian Crossing 19 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.13 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY The alternatives that were developed for this study were presented to the public along with operational information about the Duff Avenue intersection to collect input about the proposed improvements. Information was posted with a link to the City website from mid to late July. Over 600 responses were received for the corridor. Table 7 shows the most common responses received for the existing conditions. The full public comment summaries are included in Appendix G. The most common concerns focused on the conditions to turn left along the corridor, the undesirable nature of using the corridor as a pedestrian, and the impact that trains have on the corridor. Figure 9 Sondrol Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Table 7 Common Public Comments - Existing Conditions 20 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.14 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 Table 8 shows the most common responses received for the proposed conditions. For the proposed corridor there were mixed reactions. Several comments were received that were concerned about if the 3-lane cross section would cause congestion, but several other comments supported the 3-lane cross section to make left-turns easier. There were also a mix of comments about support of the bike and pedestrian accommodations, but also some comments stating that there are not enough out there today to warrant adding more accommodations. For the intersection there was concern about visiting traffic being able to navigate the intersection and also concern about the rail crossing. The proposed intersection will follow standard lane usage and should be easily adjusted to. While this project does not specifically address the rail crossing, providing improved operations at the intersection will allow it to recover quickly once the train has cleared. The City also has an ongoing study for the Duff Avenue corridor that will be evaluating options to improve the railroad crossing. Table 8 Common Public Comments - Proposed Conditions 21 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.15 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 RECOMMENDATIONS A.Duff Avenue Intersection Based on traffic operations across Future No-Build and the three alternatives, Alternative 2.5 provides the best overall traffic operations. The operations for the East Lincoln Way and South Duff Avenue Alternative 2.5 configuration continue to be acceptable in 2050 according to HCM 7 analysis, even with updated travel demand model volumes which tended higher than the previous volumes. Additionally, queueing is reduced for every single movement in Alternative 2.5 compared to Future No-Build, reducing potential queuing backing up into adjacent intersections. Alternative 2.5 also works well with the proposed TWLTL for the East Lincoln Way corridor recommended in the next section. Figure 10 shows the proposed Duff Avenue intersection. Figure 10 Proposed Duff Avenue Intersection Layout 22 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.16 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\East Lincoln Way Corridor Report.docx\091525 B.East Lincoln Way Corridor The traffic volume analysis showed that a 3-lane typical section with a center TWLTL option would be able to be implemented along the corridor. By removing the one lane of vehicle traffic, some of the roadway cross section is able to be reused to provide for a better walking and biking experience on East Lincoln Way with the included multi-use path along the south side of the roadway and the continuous sidewalk on the north side. Additionally the consideration of some or all of the additional pedestrian crossing locations will improve mobility along the corridor significantly. The proposed corridor cross section for East Lincoln Way is shown in Figure 11. The layout for the proposed corridor improvements is shown in Appendix F. We completed a preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost (OPCC) for the corridor improvements, including the changes to the Duff Avenue intersection. The preliminary OPCC shows the cost for this corridor improvement at $3.1 million not including water main reconstruction that would be handled by the utility fund. A full breakdown of the OPCC is shown in Appendix F. Figure 10 Proposed East Lincoln Way Cross Section 23 APPENDIX A CRASH CALCULATIONS 24 Project Name: Lincoln Way + Duff Ave Intersection From Google Maps AADT Daily Entry Total Entering Volume 14,800 7,400 28750 Intersection Crash Rate 0.99 10,300 5,150 Crashes (2019-2023)52 19,300 9,650 Number of Years 5 13,100 6,550 Total Entering Volume 28,750 KAB Intersection Crash Rate 0.08 KAB Crashes (2019-2023)4 Number of Years 5 Total Entering Volume 28,750 Rear-End Crash Rate 0.57 Crashes (2019-2023)30 Number of Years 5 Total Entering Volume 28,750 Sideswipe Crash Rate 0.21 Sideswipe Crashes (2019-2023)11 Number of Years 5 Total Entering Volume 28,750 Other Crash Rate 0.21 Other Crashes (2019-2023)11 Number of Years 5 Total Entering Volume 28,750 Intersection Crash Rate Calculations 25 Project Name: Lincoln Way Corridor Date of Analysis: 12/4/24 Functional Class: Minor Arterial Road Segment Crash Rate 476.0 2023 AADT Length [ft]All Crashes (2019-2023) 81 West (Site 130753) 14,800 575 Number of Years (yrs) 5 East (Site 130755) 10,300 3950 Vehicles per day (vpd) 10,880 Length of Roadway (mi) 0.86 Average (Weighted) 10,880 Total Length [ft] 4,525 Total Length [mi] 0.86 KAB Road Segment Crash Rate 52.9 KAB Crashes (2019-2023) 9 Vehicles per day (vpd) 10,880 Length of Roadway (mi) 0.86 Number of Years (yrs) 5 From Google Maps From Iowa DOT's Traffic Data Map Two-Way Crash Rate Calculations 26 Project Name: Lincoln Way + Duff Ave Intersection Date of Analysis: 12/4/24 Source: Potential for Crash Reduction (PCR) - Iowa DOT Type Value (crashes/year) Category All Crashes -1.845303 Negligible KAB Crashes -0.126757 Negligible Type Value (crashes/year) Category All Crashes -0.780483 Negligible KAB Crashes 0.086569 Medium Both images from Iowa DOT's PCR Map (PCE Level Definitions Tab) Intersection PCR Lincoln Way Segment PCR 27 APPENDIX B CRASH DIAGRAMS 28 KAB CRASH RATE (2019-2023) Intersection: 0.08 Crashes Per Million Vehicles Entering CRASH RATE (2019-2023) Intersection : 0.99 Crashes Per Million Vehicles Entering EXHIBIT 1 INTERSECTION COLLISION DIAGRAM - REAR-END CRASHES LINCOLN WAY AND DUFF AVENUE CRASH FREQUENCY/SEVERITY 0 Fatal Crash (K) 0 Incapacitating (A-Level) 4 Non-Incapacitating (B-Level) 10 Possible (C-Level) 45 Property Damage Only 52 Crashes LEGEND K A B C S Y T U F N 2024-12-04 DRAFT Image Source: Google Earth Pro Entering Volume 28,750 vpd Du f f A v e 2019 BLUE 2020 RED 2021 GREEN 2022 PURPLE 2023 BLACK Lincoln Way Lincoln Way Gr a n d A v e 3rd St 10/08/2019, 4PM PROJECT MAP Du f f A v e Du f f A v e Lincoln Way C Du f f A v e , 4PM, SNOW C 04/01/2019, 11AM 06/01/2019, 1PM 06/30/2020, 8AM 09/24/2020, 4PM C 10/17/2020, 4PM 03/15/2021, 12PM, WET 08/09/2021, 11PM 05/31/2021, 7AM B 09/01/2021, 12PM 08/20/2021, 4PM 07/26/2021, 9AM 10/10/2022, 11AM 09/25/2022, 2PM 12/21/2022, 6PM, SNOW, DARK 11/15/2022, 5PM, WET, DARK 11/16/2022, 8AM, SLUSH C 6/10/2022, 4PM 09/10/2023, 4PM, WET 08/18/2023, 11AM, C 05/08/2023, 5PM 02/20/2023, 12PM 11/09/2023, 11AM C , 9AM, SNOW 08/24/2023, 8PM Rear-End Crashes (30) (Crash Severity + Rates are based on total crashes) 02/27/2019, 10AM 03/21/2019, 12PM 06/23/2020, 5PM 06/30/2020, 3PM Potential for Crash Reduction (PCR) -1.85 (Negligible) Intersection KAB Crashes : -0.13 (Negligible) From Iowa DOT PCR Map REAR-END CRASH RATE (2019-2023) Intersection : 0.57 Crashes Per Million Vehicles Entering 29 KAB CRASH RATE (2019-2023) Intersection: 0.08 Crashes Per Million Vehicles Entering CRASH RATE (2019-2023) Intersection : 0.99 Crashes Per Million Vehicles Entering EXHIBIT 2 INTERSECTION COLLISION DIAGRAM – SIDESWIPE CRASHES LINCOLN WAY AND DUFF AVENUE CRASH FREQUENCY/SEVERITY 0 Fatal Crash (K) 0 Incapacitating (A-Level) 4 Non-Incapacitating (B-Level) 10 Possible (C-Level) 45 Property Damage Only 52 Crashes LEGEND K A B C S Y T U F N 2024-12-04 DRAFT Image Source: Google Earth Pro Entering Volume 28,750 vpd YEAR 2019 BLUE 2020 RED 2021 GREEN 2022 PURPLE 2023 BLACK Lincoln Way Gr a n d A v e 3rd St PROJECT MAP Du f f A v e Du f f A v e Lincoln Way 01/27/2019, 11AM, SNOW Sideswipe Crashes (11) (Crash Severity + Rates are based on total crashes)08/12/2020, 2PM B 03/23/2020, 8AM, WET 04/06/2021, 5PM 02/11/2021, 12PM, SNOW 11/03/2022, 6PM, DARK C 09/03/2023, 5PM 08/25/2023, 12PM, WET 10/08/2023, 6PM 03/03/2020, 1PM 09/15/2023, 2PM Du f f A v e Lincoln Way Du f f A v e Intersection All Crashes : -1.85 (Negligible) Intersection KAB Crashes : -0.13 (Negligible) From Iowa DOT PCR Map SIDESWIPE CRASH RATE (2019-2023) Intersection : 0.21 Crashes Per Million Vehicles Entering 30 KAB CRASH RATE (2019-2023) Intersection: 0.08 Crashes Per Million Vehicles Entering CRASH RATE (2019-2023) Intersection : 0.99 Crashes Per Million Vehicles Entering EXHIBIT 3 INTERSECTION COLLISION DIAGRAM – OTHER CRASHES LINCOLN WAY AND DUFF AVENUE CRASH FREQUENCY/SEVERITY 0 Fatal Crash (K) 0 Incapacitating (A-Level) 4 Non-Incapacitating (B-Level) 10 Possible (C-Level) 45 Property Damage Only 52 Crashes LEGEND K A B C S Y T U F N 2024-12-04 DRAFT Image Source: Google Earth Pro Entering Volume 28,750 vpd YEAR 2019 BLUE 2020 RED 2021 GREEN 2022 PURPLE 2023 BLACK Lincoln Way Gr a n d A v e 3rd St PROJECT MAP Du f f A v e Du f f A v e Lincoln Way 05/20/2019, 12PM All Other Crashes (11) (Crash Severity + Rates are based on total crashes) 07/22/2019, 5PM B05/12/2020, 5PM, DARK C 09/07/2020, 3PM C 02/03/2021, 10AM 08/03/2021, 6PM B 01/14/2022, 3PM, SNOW07/26/2022, 9PM, WET C 11/29/2022, 7PM, DARK 12/25/2023, 9AM, WET 12/24/2020, 8AM, SNOW Du f f A v e Lincoln Way Intersection All Crashes : -1.85 (Negligible) Intersection KAB Crashes : -0.13 (Negligible) From Iowa DOT PCR Map OTHER CRASH RATE (2019-2023) Intersection : 0.21 Crashes Per Million Vehicles Entering 31 APPENDIX C INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUME DEVELOPMENT 32 50 186 66 56 208 74 65 241 86 39 77 44 85 51 99 161 106 179 119 208 138 77 172 86 191 99 222 111 245 75 124 273 84 144 317 97 72 416 95 80 464 106 93 538 123 53 94 59 105 68 122 244 152 273 170 316 197 303 268 338 299 392 347 232 361 152 259 403 169 300 468 196 Existing counts were averaged using data from 10/7/24-10/10/24 from the city's NoTraffic signal detection system. Growth rate of 1%/yr used for projecting future volumes. AM Peak Hour (7:45-8:45am) PM Peak Hour (4:30-5:30pm) 1% heavy vehicles for both existing peak hours. Use 2% for future years due to anticipated industrial development to the east. Peak Hour Factors (AM=0.88, PM=0.95) 2023 2035 2050 10,300 11,606 13,475 Existing AADT taken from Iowa DOT at: https://iowadot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0cce99afb78e4d3b9b24f8263717f910 Growth rate of 1%/yr used for projecting future AADT. E Lincoln Way AADT Lincoln Way & Duff 2024 AM Peak Hour Lincoln Way & Duff 2035 AM Peak Hour Lincoln Way & Duff 2050 AM Peak Hour Lincoln Way & Duff 2024 PM Peak Hour Lincoln Way & Duff 2035 PM Peak Hour Lincoln Way & Duff 2050 PM Peak Hour DATA FROM ORIGINAL DEMAND MODEL AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS 33 Street Count Location 2023 AADT 2050 Forecast Lincoln Way E of Grand Ave 14,800 15,428 E Lincoln Way E of S Duff Ave 10,300 13,054 <-- Let's use these volumes for the study corridor cross-section analysis. E Lincoln Way Skunk River Bridge 9,900 13,966 Duff Ave S of Main Street 13,100 13,965 S Duff Ave S of Lincoln Way 19,300 19,926 83 418 88 74 105 286 162 469 460 328 310 270 449 220 89 452 95 94 132 361 204 591 580 414 390 283 469 230 84 453 114 58 115 260 157 435 418 320 300 283 424 169 91 489 123 74 145 328 198 548 527 404 378 296 443 176 Midday Peak is Noon - 1 PM (much higher volumes compared to AM peak) PM Peak is 4:30-5:30 PM Existing Duff/LW TM counts = 85th Percentile Aggregate from Jan 1, 2025 - Apr 30, 2025 Lincoln Way & New Connector Existing 2025 PM Peak No Dev Scenario Lincoln Way & New Connector Projected 2050 PM Peak No Dev Scenario Lincoln Way & New Connector Existing 2025 Midday Peak No Dev Scenario Projected 2050 Midday Peak No Dev Scenario Lincoln Way & Duff Ave Existing 2025 Midday Peak No Dev Scenario Projected 2050 Midday Peak No Dev Scenario Existing 2025 PM Peak No Dev Scenario Lincoln Way & Duff Ave Projected 2050 PM Peak No Dev Scenario DATA FROM REVISED DEMAND MODEL MD AND PM PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS 34 Street Count Location 2023 AADT 2050 Forecast Lincoln Way E of Grand Ave 14,800 15,428 E Lincoln Way E of S Duff Ave 10,300 13,054 <-- Let's use these volumes for the study corridor cross-section analysis. E Lincoln Way Skunk River Bridge 9,900 13,966 Duff Ave S of Main Street 13,100 13,965 S Duff Ave S of Lincoln Way 19,300 19,926 83 418 88 7.23% 8.13% 7.95% 0.29% 0.33% 0.32% 84 421 89 74 105 27.03% 25.71% 1.08% 1.03% 76 108 286 162 469 460 26.22% 25.93% 1.05% 1.04% 292 166 328 310 26.22% 25.81% 1.05% 1.03% 335 317 270 449 220 4.81% 4.45% 4.55% 0.19% 0.18% 0.18% 272 451 221 89 452 95 361 204 591 580 414 390 283 469 230 84 453 114 8.33% 7.95% 7.89% 0.33% 0.32% 0.32% 85 456 115 58 115 27.59% 26.09% 1.10% 1.04% 60 118 320 300 26.25% 26.00% 1.05% 1.04% 327 307 283 424 169 4.59% 4.48% 4.14% 0.18% 0.18% 0.17% 285 426 170 91 489 123 74 145 328 198 548 527 404 378 296 443 176 Midday Peak is Noon - 1 PM (much higher volumes compared to AM peak) PM Peak is 4:30-5:30 PM Existing Duff/LW TM counts = 85th Percentile Aggregate from Jan 1, 2025 - Apr 30, 2025 2027 Volumes Midday Peak PM Peak Total Growth Midday Peak PM Peak Yearly Growth Midday Peak PM Peak Lincoln Way & New Connector Existing 2025 PM Peak No Dev Scenario Lincoln Way & New Connector Projected 2050 PM Peak No Dev Scenario Lincoln Way & New Connector Existing 2025 Midday Peak No Dev Scenario Projected 2050 Midday Peak No Dev Scenario Lincoln Way & Duff Ave Existing 2025 Midday Peak No Dev Scenario Projected 2050 Midday Peak No Dev Scenario Existing 2025 PM Peak No Dev Scenario Lincoln Way & Duff Ave Projected 2050 PM Peak No Dev Scenario DATA FROM REVISED DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT OF 2027 VOLUMES MD AND PM PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS 35 APPENDIX D INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS 36 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way Midday Peak 2025 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 05/21/2025 Lincoln Way + Duff Ave -ExistingUpdated.syn Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)74 286 328 310 162 105 270 449 220 88 418 81 Future Volume (veh/h)74 286 328 310 162 105 270 449 220 88 418 81 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 292 335 316 165 107 276 458 224 90 427 83 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, %1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 96 371 400 398 237 153 332 578 281 229 572 110 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 385 1481 1598 1795 1068 693 1795 2337 1135 1795 2994 578 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 368 0 335 316 0 272 276 350 332 90 254 256 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1866 0 1598 1795 0 1761 1795 1791 1681 1795 1791 1781 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.4 0.0 17.7 14.8 0.0 12.7 10.0 16.3 16.5 3.5 11.9 12.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.4 0.0 17.7 14.8 0.0 12.7 10.0 16.3 16.5 3.5 11.9 12.1 Prop In Lane 0.21 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 467 0 400 398 0 390 332 443 416 229 342 340 V/C Ratio(X)0.79 0.00 0.84 0.79 0.00 0.70 0.83 0.79 0.80 0.39 0.74 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 524 0 449 504 0 495 332 604 567 330 604 600 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.1 0.0 31.6 32.7 0.0 31.9 26.5 31.3 31.4 27.4 33.9 34.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.8 0.0 12.8 7.8 0.0 3.9 16.1 5.0 5.7 1.1 3.2 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 12.9 0.0 12.7 11.4 0.0 9.5 10.0 11.9 11.5 2.8 9.3 9.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 38.9 0.0 44.4 40.5 0.0 35.8 42.6 36.3 37.1 28.5 37.1 37.4 LnGrp LOS D D D D D D D C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 703 588 958 600 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.6 38.3 38.4 35.9 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 27.0 27.3 15.0 22.0 24.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 30.0 25.0 10.0 30.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 18.5 19.7 12.0 14.1 16.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.4 2.6 0.0 2.9 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 38.7 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 37 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way PM Peak 2025 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 05/21/2025 Lincoln Way + Duff Ave -ExistingUpdated.syn Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)58 260 320 300 157 115 282 424 169 114 453 84 Future Volume (veh/h)58 260 320 300 157 115 282 424 169 114 453 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 274 337 316 165 121 297 446 178 120 477 88 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 84 377 395 395 222 163 322 611 242 269 622 114 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 340 1528 1598 1795 1011 741 1795 2506 992 1795 3022 554 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 335 0 337 316 0 286 297 318 306 120 282 283 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1868 0 1598 1795 0 1752 1795 1791 1707 1795 1791 1785 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.1 0.0 18.4 15.3 0.0 13.9 10.0 14.9 15.2 4.7 13.6 13.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.1 0.0 18.4 15.3 0.0 13.9 10.0 14.9 15.2 4.7 13.6 13.7 Prop In Lane 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 461 0 395 395 0 385 322 437 416 269 369 367 V/C Ratio(X)0.73 0.00 0.85 0.80 0.00 0.74 0.92 0.73 0.74 0.45 0.76 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 0 436 490 0 478 322 586 559 338 586 585 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.7 0.0 32.9 33.8 0.0 33.3 29.3 31.8 31.9 26.5 34.3 34.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.2 0.0 14.9 8.5 0.0 5.7 30.8 3.0 3.4 1.2 3.3 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 11.7 0.0 13.4 11.8 0.0 10.5 7.9 10.9 10.7 3.8 10.3 10.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 36.9 0.0 47.8 42.4 0.0 39.0 60.1 34.8 35.3 27.7 37.6 37.8 LnGrp LOS D D D D E C D C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 672 602 921 685 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.4 40.8 43.2 36.0 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 27.3 27.6 15.0 23.9 25.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 30.0 25.0 10.0 30.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 17.2 20.4 12.0 15.7 17.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.2 2.2 0.0 3.1 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 40.8 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 38 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way Midday Peak 2027 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/25/2025 Lincoln Way + Duff Ave -ExistingUpdated.syn Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)76 292 335 317 166 108 272 451 221 89 421 84 Future Volume (veh/h)76 292 335 317 166 108 272 451 221 89 421 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 78 298 342 323 169 110 278 460 226 91 430 86 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, %1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 97 372 402 402 239 155 327 575 280 227 572 114 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 387 1479 1598 1795 1066 694 1795 2333 1138 1795 2978 591 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 376 0 342 323 0 279 278 352 334 91 257 259 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1866 0 1598 1795 0 1760 1795 1791 1680 1795 1791 1779 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.1 0.0 18.4 15.4 0.0 13.2 10.0 16.7 16.9 3.6 12.2 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.1 0.0 18.4 15.4 0.0 13.2 10.0 16.7 16.9 3.6 12.2 12.4 Prop In Lane 0.21 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 470 0 402 402 0 394 327 441 414 227 344 342 V/C Ratio(X)0.80 0.00 0.85 0.80 0.00 0.71 0.85 0.80 0.81 0.40 0.75 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 517 0 442 497 0 487 327 595 558 324 595 591 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.7 0.0 32.2 33.2 0.0 32.3 27.4 31.9 32.0 27.7 34.4 34.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 0.0 14.4 8.6 0.0 4.4 18.6 5.5 6.2 1.1 3.3 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 13.4 0.0 13.3 11.9 0.0 9.9 10.4 12.3 11.8 2.9 9.5 9.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 40.4 0.0 46.5 41.8 0.0 36.7 46.0 37.4 38.2 28.9 37.7 37.9 LnGrp LOS D D D D D D D C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 718 602 964 607 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.3 39.4 40.2 36.5 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 27.2 27.7 15.0 22.4 25.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 30.0 25.0 10.0 30.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 18.9 20.4 12.0 14.4 17.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.3 2.3 0.0 2.9 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 40.0 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 39 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way PM Peak 2027 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 07/25/2025 Lincoln Way + Duff Ave -ExistingUpdated.syn Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)60 266 327 307 161 118 285 426 170 115 456 85 Future Volume (veh/h)60 266 327 307 161 118 285 426 170 115 456 85 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 280 344 323 169 124 300 448 179 121 480 89 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 85 379 397 399 224 165 318 608 241 267 622 115 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 343 1525 1598 1795 1010 741 1795 2505 992 1795 3019 557 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 343 0 344 323 0 293 300 319 308 121 284 285 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1868 0 1598 1795 0 1752 1795 1791 1707 1795 1791 1785 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.7 0.0 19.1 15.8 0.0 14.5 10.0 15.2 15.5 4.8 13.9 14.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.7 0.0 19.1 15.8 0.0 14.5 10.0 15.2 15.5 4.8 13.9 14.0 Prop In Lane 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 464 0 397 399 0 389 318 434 414 267 369 368 V/C Ratio(X)0.74 0.00 0.87 0.81 0.00 0.75 0.94 0.73 0.74 0.45 0.77 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 503 0 430 484 0 472 318 579 552 332 579 577 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.1 0.0 33.4 34.3 0.0 33.7 30.2 32.4 32.5 26.9 34.8 34.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 0.0 16.6 9.4 0.0 6.4 35.9 3.3 3.8 1.2 3.4 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 12.2 0.0 14.0 12.3 0.0 10.9 8.7 11.2 10.9 3.9 10.5 10.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 37.9 0.0 50.0 43.6 0.0 40.1 66.1 35.7 36.2 28.1 38.1 38.3 LnGrp LOS D D D D E D D C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 687 616 927 690 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.0 41.9 45.7 36.5 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 27.5 28.1 15.0 24.1 25.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 30.0 25.0 10.0 30.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 17.5 21.1 12.0 16.0 17.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.2 1.9 0.0 3.1 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 42.3 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 40 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way Midday Peak 2050 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 05/21/2025 Lincoln Way + Duff Ave -ExistingUpdated.syn Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)94 361 414 390 204 132 283 469 320 95 452 89 Future Volume (veh/h)94 361 414 390 204 132 283 469 320 95 452 89 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 96 368 422 398 208 135 289 479 327 97 461 91 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 103 393 425 448 267 173 250 486 331 168 711 140 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 383 1468 1585 1781 1059 687 1781 2023 1376 1781 2962 581 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 464 0 422 398 0 343 289 420 386 97 275 277 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1851 0 1585 1781 0 1747 1781 1777 1623 1781 1777 1766 Q Serve(g_s), s 26.5 0.0 28.8 23.3 0.0 19.8 6.0 25.5 25.6 4.4 15.1 15.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.5 0.0 28.8 23.3 0.0 19.8 6.0 25.5 25.6 4.4 15.1 15.3 Prop In Lane 0.21 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 496 0 425 448 0 440 250 427 390 168 427 424 V/C Ratio(X)0.94 0.00 0.99 0.89 0.00 0.78 1.16 0.99 0.99 0.58 0.65 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 496 0 425 477 0 468 250 427 390 168 427 424 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.7 0.0 39.5 39.0 0.0 37.7 40.8 40.9 41.0 31.5 37.0 37.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.5 0.0 41.9 18.0 0.0 8.5 105.5 39.5 42.5 4.9 3.3 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 21.8 0.0 22.5 17.9 0.0 14.3 17.4 22.2 21.0 3.8 11.3 11.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 64.2 0.0 81.5 57.1 0.0 46.2 146.3 80.5 83.5 36.4 40.3 40.6 LnGrp LOS E F E D F F F D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 886 741 1095 649 Approach Delay, s/veh 72.4 52.0 98.9 39.8 Approach LOS E D F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 31.0 34.0 11.0 31.0 32.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 26.0 29.0 6.0 26.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 27.6 30.8 8.0 17.3 25.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 70.3 HCM 7th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 41 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way PM Peak 2050 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 05/21/2025 Lincoln Way + Duff Ave -ExistingUpdated.syn Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)74 328 404 378 198 145 296 443 176 123 489 91 Future Volume (veh/h)74 328 404 378 198 145 296 443 176 123 489 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 78 345 425 398 208 153 312 466 185 129 515 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 85 378 396 426 240 176 320 650 256 252 588 109 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 342 1512 1585 1781 1001 737 1781 2490 981 1781 2992 555 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 423 0 425 398 0 361 312 332 319 129 305 306 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1853 0 1585 1781 0 1738 1781 1777 1694 1781 1777 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 24.0 0.0 27.0 23.7 0.0 21.6 14.0 18.3 18.6 6.2 18.0 18.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 0.0 27.0 23.7 0.0 21.6 14.0 18.3 18.6 6.2 18.0 18.2 Prop In Lane 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 463 0 396 426 0 416 320 464 442 252 349 348 V/C Ratio(X)0.91 0.00 1.07 0.93 0.00 0.87 0.97 0.71 0.72 0.51 0.87 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 463 0 396 428 0 418 320 493 470 252 378 377 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.4 0.0 40.6 40.3 0.0 39.5 31.6 36.3 36.4 32.5 42.1 42.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.9 0.0 66.3 27.8 0.0 17.8 43.0 4.6 5.0 1.8 18.7 19.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 19.8 0.0 25.6 19.4 0.0 16.5 15.4 13.2 12.9 5.1 14.8 15.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 62.3 0.0 106.8 68.1 0.0 57.3 74.6 40.8 41.4 34.3 60.8 61.8 LnGrp LOS E F E E E D D C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 848 759 963 740 Approach Delay, s/veh 84.6 62.9 52.0 56.6 Approach LOS F E D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 33.2 32.0 19.0 26.2 30.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 30.0 27.0 14.0 23.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.2 20.6 29.0 16.0 20.2 25.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 63.9 HCM 7th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 42 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way 05/21/2025 Midday Peak 2050 -Build 8:46 am 10/25/2024 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)94 361 414 390 204 132 283 469 230 95 452 89 Future Volume (veh/h)94 361 414 390 204 132 283 469 230 95 452 89 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 96 368 422 398 208 135 289 479 235 97 461 91 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 358 506 661 466 531 345 379 656 320 253 581 114 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1038 1870 1585 1781 1059 687 1781 2315 1129 1781 2962 581 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 96 368 422 398 0 343 289 367 347 97 275 277 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1038 1870 1585 1781 0 1747 1781 1777 1667 1781 1777 1766 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 16.7 19.7 14.1 0.0 11.3 11.5 17.4 17.5 4.0 13.7 13.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 16.7 19.7 14.1 0.0 11.3 11.5 17.4 17.5 4.0 13.7 13.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 358 506 661 466 0 876 379 504 473 253 349 347 V/C Ratio(X)0.27 0.73 0.64 0.85 0.00 0.39 0.76 0.73 0.73 0.38 0.79 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 400 582 726 551 0 1022 414 649 608 272 477 474 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 30.9 21.6 19.8 0.0 14.4 24.4 30.1 30.2 27.9 35.6 35.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 4.5 2.0 11.8 0.0 0.4 7.6 3.0 3.3 1.0 6.1 6.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 3.1 12.6 11.7 11.2 0.0 7.7 9.3 12.2 11.7 3.2 10.7 10.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 27.9 35.4 23.6 31.6 0.0 14.8 31.9 33.1 33.5 28.8 41.8 42.3 LnGrp LOS C D C C B C C C C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 886 741 1003 649 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.0 23.8 32.9 40.1 Approach LOS C C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 31.4 21.5 30.2 18.2 23.3 51.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 34.0 21.5 29.0 15.5 25.0 54.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 19.5 16.1 21.7 13.5 15.9 13.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 1.0 3.5 0.2 2.4 3.4 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 31.2 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 43 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way 05/21/2025 PM Peak 2050 -Build 8:50 am 10/25/2024 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)74 328 404 378 198 145 296 443 176 123 489 91 Future Volume (veh/h)74 328 404 378 198 145 296 443 176 123 489 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 78 345 425 398 208 153 312 466 185 129 515 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 336 484 648 455 488 359 378 752 296 288 635 118 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1021 1870 1585 1781 1001 737 1781 2490 981 1781 2992 555 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 78 345 425 398 0 361 312 332 319 129 305 306 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1021 1870 1585 1781 0 1738 1781 1777 1694 1781 1777 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 16.8 21.7 15.6 0.0 13.4 13.1 16.0 16.2 5.7 16.3 16.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 16.8 21.7 15.6 0.0 13.4 13.1 16.0 16.2 5.7 16.3 16.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 336 484 648 455 0 848 378 537 512 288 377 376 V/C Ratio(X)0.23 0.71 0.66 0.88 0.00 0.43 0.83 0.62 0.62 0.45 0.81 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 358 524 682 474 0 904 378 658 627 288 498 496 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 33.7 23.9 22.1 0.0 16.6 25.5 29.9 30.0 28.9 37.5 37.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 4.7 2.5 16.7 0.0 0.5 14.0 1.2 1.3 1.1 7.3 7.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 2.8 12.8 12.9 12.9 0.0 8.9 11.1 11.2 10.9 4.5 12.4 12.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 30.2 38.4 26.4 38.8 0.0 17.0 39.5 31.1 31.3 29.9 44.8 45.2 LnGrp LOS C D C D B D C C C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 848 759 963 740 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.6 28.4 33.9 42.4 Approach LOS C C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 35.2 22.9 30.9 20.0 26.2 53.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 37.0 19.0 28.0 15.0 28.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 18.2 17.6 23.7 15.1 18.5 15.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.3 2.2 0.0 2.7 3.5 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 34.0 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 44 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way 06/30/2025 Midday Peak 2027 -Build 10:08 am 06/30/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)76 292 335 317 166 108 272 451 221 89 421 84 Future Volume (veh/h)76 292 335 317 166 108 272 451 221 89 421 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 78 298 342 323 169 110 278 460 226 91 430 86 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 364 462 623 468 496 323 406 664 324 276 583 116 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.47 0.47 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1100 1870 1585 1781 1058 689 1781 2315 1129 1781 2955 587 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 78 298 342 323 0 279 278 352 334 91 257 259 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1100 1870 1585 1781 0 1746 1781 1777 1667 1781 1777 1765 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 11.1 13.0 9.7 0.0 7.8 9.0 13.7 13.8 3.1 10.5 10.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 11.1 13.0 9.7 0.0 7.8 9.0 13.7 13.8 3.1 10.5 10.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 364 462 623 468 0 820 406 510 478 276 351 348 V/C Ratio(X)0.21 0.65 0.55 0.69 0.00 0.34 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.33 0.73 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 504 699 824 668 0 1226 501 778 730 324 572 568 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.7 26.2 18.2 16.9 0.0 13.0 19.8 24.6 24.7 23.1 29.2 29.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.2 1.1 2.6 0.0 0.3 2.8 1.7 1.8 0.7 3.0 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 2.1 8.7 8.0 7.0 0.0 5.1 6.9 9.7 9.3 2.4 8.2 8.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 24.1 28.3 19.3 19.5 0.0 13.4 22.6 26.3 26.5 23.8 32.2 32.4 LnGrp LOS C C B B B C C C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 718 602 964 607 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.6 16.6 25.3 31.0 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 27.3 17.3 24.2 15.9 20.3 41.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 34.0 21.5 29.0 15.5 25.0 54.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 15.8 11.7 15.0 11.0 12.7 9.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 1.1 4.2 0.3 2.6 2.7 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 24.3 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 45 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way 06/30/2025 PM Peak 2027 -Build 9:56 am 06/30/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)60 266 327 307 161 118 285 426 170 115 456 85 Future Volume (veh/h)60 266 327 307 161 118 285 426 170 115 456 85 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 280 344 323 169 124 300 448 179 121 480 89 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 343 443 615 456 459 337 406 723 287 320 634 117 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.46 0.46 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1086 1870 1585 1781 1002 736 1781 2485 985 1781 2995 552 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 63 280 344 323 0 293 300 319 308 121 284 285 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1086 1870 1585 1781 0 1738 1781 1777 1693 1781 1777 1771 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 11.2 14.2 10.7 0.0 9.2 10.4 13.0 13.2 4.4 12.5 12.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 11.2 14.2 10.7 0.0 9.2 10.4 13.0 13.2 4.4 12.5 12.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 343 443 615 456 0 796 406 517 493 320 376 375 V/C Ratio(X)0.18 0.63 0.56 0.71 0.00 0.37 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.38 0.75 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 449 625 769 572 0 1079 456 785 748 320 594 592 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.9 28.7 20.0 18.8 0.0 14.8 20.8 25.7 25.7 23.4 31.0 31.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.1 1.1 3.7 0.0 0.4 5.6 1.2 1.3 0.7 3.1 3.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 1.8 8.9 8.8 8.0 0.0 6.2 8.3 9.3 9.1 3.4 9.5 9.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 26.2 30.8 21.2 22.5 0.0 15.2 26.4 26.9 27.0 24.1 34.0 34.2 LnGrp LOS C C C C B C C C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 687 616 927 690 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.6 19.0 26.8 32.4 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 29.4 18.5 24.9 17.6 22.7 43.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 37.0 19.0 28.0 15.0 28.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 15.2 12.7 16.2 12.4 14.7 11.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.8 3.6 0.2 3.0 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 26.2 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 46 APPENDIX E CORRIDOR VOLUME ANALYSIS 47 Strand Associates, Inc.DRAFT AADT Volume Information provided by City of Ames 2023 AADT 2050 AADT Lincoln Way and Grand Ave Lincoln Way and Duff Ave Lincoln Way and Sondrol AveAADT AADT AADT Lincoln Way and Grand Ave Lincoln Way and Duff Ave Lincoln Way and Sondrol Ave 14,800 AADT AADT 10,300 15,428 13,054 13,966 AADT 9,900 48 Strand Associates, Inc.DRAFT ADT Volume Information provided by Cherry Ave Extention TIA EB WB EB WB 5692 5942 6668 7424 EB WB EB WB 6826 6868 8247 8994 666 687 17 213 17 142 EB WB EB WB 8686 8888 8777 9574 666 687 203 266 219 200 EB WB EB WB 1860 2020 530 580 0 0 186 53 202 58 2022 Volumes Lincoln Way and Cherry AveADT ADT 11,634 14,092 2045 Volumes - No Development Lincoln Way and Cherry AveADT ADT 13,694 17,241 Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave Development Volumes Only Lincoln Way and Cherry AveADT ADT 3,880 1,110 2045 Volumes - With Development Lincoln Way and Cherry AveADT ADT 17,574 18,351 49 Strand Associates, Inc.DRAFT EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EB WB EB WB 8686 8888 8777 9574 EB WB EB WB 1860 2020 530 580 2045 Volumes - With Development Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave 2050 AADT Lincoln Way and Grand Ave Lincoln Way and Duff Ave Lincoln Way and Sondrol Ave Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave Development Volumes Only Lincoln Way and Sondrol Ave 2050 AADT with Trip Volumes Lincoln Way and Grand Ave Lincoln Way and Duff Ave Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave 50 Strand Associates, Inc DRAFT To East of Intersection (EB) From East of Intersection (WB) To East of Intersection (EB) From East of Intersection (WB)Time To East of Intersection (EB) From East of Intersection (WB) To East of Intersection (EB) From East of Intersection (WB) To East of Intersection (EB) From East of Intersection (WB) 0:00:00 9.8 11 11.368 13.86 0:15:00 10 9 11.6 11.34 0:30:00 8.8 10 10.208 12.6 0:45:00 8.8 7 10.208 8.82 1:00:00 6 6 6.96 7.56 1:15:00 6 5 6.96 6.3 1:30:00 5.8 5 6.728 6.3 1:45:00 6 8 6.96 10.08 2:00:00 6 5 6.96 6.3 2:15:00 5 4.8 5.8 6.048 2:30:00 5 4 5.8 5.04 2:45:00 4 4 4.64 5.04 3:00:00 4 4.8 4.64 6.048 3:15:00 4.8 4 5.568 5.04 3:30:00 6 7 6.96 8.82 3:45:00 7 8 8.12 10.08 4:00:00 8.8 5 10.208 6.3 4:15:00 10.8 4 12.528 5.04 4:30:00 16 6 18.56 7.56 4:45:00 15 8 17.4 10.08 5:00:00 11.8 8 13.688 10.08 5:15:00 12.8 11 14.848 13.86 5:30:00 18 12 20.88 15.12 5:45:00 34 24 39.44 30.24 6:00:00 28.8 24 33.408 30.24 6:15:00 39.6 28 45.936 35.28 6:30:00 56.8 37 65.888 46.62 6:45:00 73.8 49 85.608 61.74 7:00:00 61 55.8 70.76 70.308 7:15:00 71 72.8 82.36 91.728 7:30:00 83.8 81 97.208 102.06 7:45:00 99.8 103 115.768 129.78 8:00:00 89.6 92.8 103.936 116.928 8:15:00 81 94.8 93.96 119.448 8:30:00 77 100.6 89.32 126.756 8:45:00 78.6 92.6 91.176 116.676 9:00:00 74.6 88.8 86.536 111.888 9:15:00 77.6 88 90.016 110.88 9:30:00 80.8 93.8 93.728 118.188 9:45:00 87 93 100.92 117.18 10:00:00 96.6 97.6 112.056 122.976 10:15:00 96 96 111.36 120.96 10:30:00 98.6 100.8 114.376 127.008 10:45:00 99 102 114.84 128.52 11:00:00 110.8 120 128.528 151.2 11:15:00 119.8 121.6 138.968 153.216 11:30:00 130.8 131.8 151.728 166.068 11:45:00 134.6 139.6 156.136 175.896 12:00:00 138 166.6 160.08 209.916 12:15:00 150.6 145.4 174.696 183.204 12:30:00 153 134 177.48 168.84 12:45:00 152.4 130.8 176.784 164.808 13:00:00 145 124.8 168.2 157.248 13:15:00 133 115.8 154.28 145.908 13:30:00 128.4 115.6 148.944 145.656 13:45:00 123.6 108.8 143.376 137.088 14:00:00 127.8 115.8 148.248 145.908 14:15:00 127.6 108.6 148.016 136.836 14:30:00 127.6 108.8 148.016 137.088 14:45:00 125.8 107.8 145.928 135.828 15:00:00 124 131.6 143.84 165.816 15:15:00 122.8 114.8 142.448 144.648 15:30:00 129 132.8 149.64 167.328 15:45:00 129 122.8 149.64 154.728 16:00:00 146.6 132 170.056 166.32 16:15:00 138 124.6 160.08 156.996 16:30:00 142.8 136.8 165.648 172.368 16:45:00 131 136.8 151.96 172.368 17:00:00 140.8 164.6 163.328 207.396 17:15:00 127.8 133.4 148.248 168.084 17:30:00 115 125.8 133.4 158.508 17:45:00 102.6 102.8 119.016 129.528 18:00:00 97.6 93.4 113.216 117.684 18:15:00 90 83.8 104.4 105.588 18:30:00 84 68.6 97.44 86.436 18:45:00 74.8 62.6 86.768 78.876 19:00:00 69.8 60 80.968 75.6 19:15:00 73.6 53.8 85.376 67.788 19:30:00 71.6 46.8 83.056 58.968 19:45:00 65 44 75.4 55.44 20:00:00 56 42 64.96 52.92 20:15:00 49 41.4 56.84 52.164 20:30:00 50 35 58 44.1 20:45:00 45 31.8 52.2 40.068 21:00:00 40.8 32.8 47.328 41.328 21:15:00 34.8 30.8 40.368 38.808 21:30:00 30 28.8 34.8 36.288 21:45:00 28 28.6 32.48 36.036 22:00:00 25 29 29 36.54 22:15:00 24 25 27.84 31.5 22:30:00 20.8 19.8 24.128 24.948 22:45:00 20.8 15.8 24.128 19.908 23:00:00 16.8 20.8 19.488 26.208 23:15:00 13.8 14 16.008 17.64 23:30:00 12 10 13.92 12.6 16% 75 77 274 231 189 181 127 129 632 685 463 435 375 308 647 591 647 656 708 692 635 664 749 745 672 619 412 474 413 465 501 517 92 71 237 179 389 393 28 27 29 31 59 32 2050 Cherry Ave TIA Volumes 53 54 35 35 2050 Cherry Ave TIA Volumes 55 60 36 39 22 24 116 126 95 103 74 80 142 154 149 161 145 158 155 168 142 154 138 150 93 101 110 120 139 151 41 73 80 85 93 90 53 53 15 17 11 11 8 9 7 7 8 9 15 16 38 205 200 151 134 121 531 487 527 347 309 465 509 441 505 502 397 496 513 594 577 313 327 381 320 364 23 77 55 199 138 24 20 18 22 24 24 51 316 391 530 559 280 91 19:00:00 20:00:00 21:00:00 22:00:00 23:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 2050 Combo of 26%, 8%, and 4.5% 38 37 2050 Hourly 0:00:00 1:00:00 2:00:00 3:00:00 4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00 7:00:00 8:00:00 2025 Time 0:00:00 4:48:00 51 APPENDIX F PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AND OPCC 52 DU F F A V E DE S M O I N E S A V E SU M M E R A V E PLOT SCALE :1IN:60FTLAYOUT NAME - Plan 1 IN 60 FT E L I N C O L N W A Y & D U F F A V E I N T E R S E C T I O N L A Y O U T 1 A S S O C I A T E S® SHEET JOB NO. PROJECT MGR. NO . RE V I S I O N S DA T E : KRH 4429.016 ST O R Y C O U N T Y , I O W A CI T Y O F A M E S PR O J E C T N O . EA S T L I N C O L N W A Y C O R R I D O R S T U D Y 285' TURN BAY 12 3 . 4 9 ' T U R N B A Y 74' TURN BAY 10:1 TAPER LEGEND EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS PROPOSED 8-INCH PM (WHITE) PROPOSED 6-INCH PM (YELLOW) PROPOSED STOP BAR (WHITE) PROPOSED ARROW (WHITE) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATH PROPOSED SEEDED TERRACE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 11 0 ' T U R N B A Y 53 ONLY E LINCOLN WAY DU F F A V E DE S M O I N E S A V E SU M M E R A V E EA S T A V E HI G H A V E CE N T E R A V E KI N G S B U R Y A V E CH E R R Y A V E CI T Y W E L L A C C E S S SO N D R O L A V E SK U N K R I V E R BO U R N E A V E BO U R N E A V E PROPOSED CROSSING WITH REFUGE ISLAND PROPOSED CROSSING WITH REFUGE ISLANDPROPOSED CROSSING WITH REFUGE ISLAND E 2ND ST PLOT SCALE :1IN:20FT 54 City of Ames PROJECT PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS: Item Description Unit Unit Price Total Price Mobilization 1 LS 150,000.00$150,000.00$ Construction Staking 1 LS 25,000.00$25,000.00$ Traffic Control 1 LS 35,000.00$35,000.00$ Construction Material Testing 1 LS 7,500.00$7,500.00$ Pavement Removal 23521 SY 9.00$211,693.00$ Subgrade Preparation 18060 SY 3.00$54,180.00$ Subbase 18060 SY 15.00$270,900.00$ Subdrain 8041 LF 25.00$201,025.00$ 9" Concrete Pavement 16129 SY 72.00$1,161,256.00$ Sidewalk/Path 3433 SY 60.00$205,993.33$ Pedestrian Ramps 25 EACH 3,000.00$75,000.00$ Pavement Markings (Yellow)9577 LF 2.00$19,154.00$ Pavement Markings (White)1709 LF 2.00$3,418.00$ Pavement Markings (SYMBOL)35 EACH 800.00$28,000.00$ Seeding, Fertilizer, and Mulch - Type 1 Lawn 1 AC 5,000.00$5,000.00$ Erosion Control 1 LS 9,500.00$9,500.00$ Storm Sewer Removal/Replacement (Cross Runs)500 LF 200.00$100,000.00$ Sanitary Sewer Structure Modifications 1 LS 25,000.00$25,000.00$ Sub-Total 2,587,619.33$ Construction Contingency (20%)517,523.87$ Right-of-Way Acquisition (Not Anticipated)-$ Estimated Project Costs 3,105,143.20$ Prepared by FOX Strand 414 S. 17th Street, Ste. 107, Ames, IA 50010 East Lincoln Way Conversion of East Lincoln Way from a four-lane undivided roadway to a three-lane roadway with a Two-Way Left-Turn Lane. Note: These concept level costs are presented for planning purposes only and are not based on actual design. 55 APPENDIX G PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Responses Count Many say there are no current concerns/operates well Hard to turn (left turns off and left turns on)109 Pedestrian uncomfortable/unsafe 58 Congestion 48 Not comfortable to bike 31 Train = bad (backups)11 Speeding on the road is a concern 8 Left turn arrows (waiting)6 Left turn signals are good and work 6 Signal timing (needs improvement)5 Entering businesses is difficult 4 General safety concern 4 Would appreciate right turn lanes at Duff 3 Want all turn lanes possible 3 Cars blocking intersections 3 Blindspots/visibility overall 3 People running lights 3 Avoid visiting businesses on road due to traffic concerns 2 Limited Cyride access 2 Aesthetics 2 Busy seasonally 1 Road condition (needs repair)1 Visibilty at intersection to see traffic coming from the east 1 Question 4 Summary Do you have any concerns with the operation of the existing roadway? (Ex: congestion, hard to turn left from Lincoln Way, hard to turn left onto Lincoln Way, uncomfortable for pedestrians) 68 Responses Count Concern for congestion from lane reduction 134 Believe there is not significant enough bike/ped usage to warrant 50 Large vehicle concern (trucks, tractors) (turning, want to be able to pass them)25 Like the addition of more pedestrian space/ shared use path 24 General support 22 Concern for increase in crashes 21 ISU events/traffic concern 16 Appreciate bike path (including concern for speed of vehicles making unsafe)14 Want more lanes/ like turn lane without decreasing thru lanes 12 Turning in and out of local businesses (make more difficult) (left turns in general)10 Concern for turning lane being used as passing lane/misuse 9 Need/expense (believe unwarranted)6 Traffic backup due to trains (concerned this would make that worse/interact with that congestion)5 Appreciate possibility of it having a traffic calming affect 5 Believe it would making turning into businesses/side streets EASIER 4 Improve signal timing rather than decrease lanes 4 Access to local businesses/hope for further development along road 3 Concerns bike lane wouldn’t be protected enough (vehicle conflict)3 Ped Crossing concerns (will it be included/safe enough)3 Want to be able to pass slow vehicles 3 Cyride (bus)3 Concern for impact to local businesses (decrease usage)2 Want repave/resurface improvement to roads (and that’s all they want done)2 Proposed lanes too wide (speeding/safety concern)2 Want a roundabout 2 Concern for traffic redistribution to other roads 1 Question 6 Summary Do you have comments/questions about the proposed 3-lane with TWLTL roadway typical section? 69 Responses Count Near Duff Ave intersection 8 Ped bridges suggested 7 At stoplights (only)6 Any 3 Dayton Intersection/east end 3 Concern for midblock crossings 3 Grand and Lincolnway 2 By the businesses 2 Crosswalks, give pedestrains more priority 1 Between East and Des Moines 1 West of Duff and Lincoln Way intersection 1 East Ave 1 Near Cherry Ave 1 Kellog 1 Anything on north side of roadway 1 Noted it was out of scope but near the CyRide yellow line 1 Question 10 Summary Are there other locations where you would be interested in seeing pedestrian crossing improvements along the East Lincoln Way study corridor? 70 Responses Count Separated shared use path/ bike path in general 19 Fix existing 6 Full end to end of Lincoln Way bike path 5 Widen sidewalk only 5 Safety accomodations to warn drivers along corridor (specifically flashing overhead lights)4 East second street, connect through to (bike/path)3 Aesthetics/shade 3 Dayton/Duff 3 River bike path extension 2 Path on north side of roadway 2 Bike lane on road 2 Bike/mixed connection to Skunk River facilities/path 2 Sidewalks on south side from Skunk River 1 Shared use path to Bourne/3rd and 5th 1 Crossing at East Ave 1 Connection to Ioway Creek mixed use path 1 Between Dayton and Alexander Avenue 1 Are there any other bicycle or pedestrian accommodations that you would like to see along the East Lincoln Way corridor? Question 11 Summary 71 Responses Count Railroad causes problems to intersection 40 Long waits between lights (long cycle lengths/poor light timing)25 Turning (left) difficult 20 Need turn lanes 20 Pedestrian crossing unfavorable 12 Turn lights not long enough 8 Sidestreet or business turns next to intersection are difficult to complete 4 Lefts and Rights at intersections have long queues 4 North/South works, East/West doesn’t as much 3 Peak times and game days queues don’t clear in a cycle 3 Signals separated 2 NB and SB straight and turning traffic needs longer time to clear at intersection 1 Motorists don’t look for bike or pedestrians 1 Traffic volume and delay vary based on ISU 1 Manhole at east side of intersection that people avoid 1 Provide additional description of the operational issues with the existing Duff Avenue and Lincoln Way intersection. Question 13 Summary 72 Responses Count Interseciton is fine the way it is 31 Seems like it will allow better traffic flow 19 Not sure one lane on East Lincoln Way will be enough 16 Dedicated turn lanes are good, but not if a through lane is lost 9 Train/railroad crossing concern 8 One lane will make turns harder 8 Use money on other roads 6 Add right turn lanes for all approaches 6 Concern for ISU traffic/visitors (confusion)5 Consider a roundabout 5 Push road that goes toward Target all the way through?4 Will help east/west commuters 3 Don’t add the bicycle and pedestrian area, no one uses it 3 Dislike for shared turning movements with through lane 2 Clearly mark crosswalks 2 Eastbound right turn will reduce queues 2 Will not help make pedestrian crossings safer 2 Ped/bike advance crossing signal 1 Bus route concern- adversely affect operations of Lincoln Way 1 Necessary for more N/S routes in the area 1 Suggest dedicated bus lanes 1 Concern for configuration of intersection for large truck turns 1 Two through lanes with single and dual left-turns would be needed 1 Just resurface the road 1 Would cause more crashes 1 Provide additional comments/questions for the revised Duff Avenue intersection. Question 15 Summary 73 Responses Count Do not make changes 36 Focus this money/attention to other corridors 13 Provide additonal connections 11 Don’t improve pedestrian accomodations, there are none there 4 Pot holes/ resurface 3 Push through bike path connection pat Skunk River 3 Make Lincoln Way 5 lanes 3 Prioritize ped/bike improvements 2 Interest in development along Lincoln Way 2 sidewalk between Dayton Avenue and Alexander Avenue on East Lincoln Way 2 Elevated pedestrian crossing at Duff 2 Change how the lights work 2 Put a roundabout in 2 Flashing lights to warn of peds 1 Aesthetics interest (make it look nicer)1 Duff NB to Lincoln Way WB might not be in scope, but I believe that is the biggest problem with the intersection 1 Do you have any other comments you would like to provide related to the East Lincoln Way corridor from South Duff Avenue to the South Skunk River Bridge? Once you are satisfied with all survey responses, please click the submit button below. Question 16 Summary 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 APPENDIX H SE CONNECTOR & DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO ANALYSIS 82 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Appendix H–SE Connector & Development Scenario Analysis Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.H-1 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\Appendix H_SE Connector Analysis.docx\091525 H.01 SE CONNECTOR TIA ANALYSIS A.East Lincoln Way Corridor Corridor wide updated volumes and forecasts were provided by the City to reflect the updated demand model in Spring 2025. In addition, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was provided detailing the extension of a roadway to East Lincoln Way from the south, which would be located about 1650 feet east of Duff Avenue. This extension provides a connection to 3rd Street and 5th Street along with plans for developments that will get access from this extension. A sizable amount of the traffic generated by the development would likely use this new connector. Therefore, additional analysis was performed to determine if the existing proposed corridor improvements would still suffice. Figure 1 below is a location map from the TIA report. 1.Daily Volume Analysis The Cherry Avenue TIA details anticipated volumes going to and from Cherry Avenue that would use East Lincoln Way as access to Cherry Avenue. The TIA included estimated daily volumes that the proposed development would generate. These generated volumes were added to the 2050 corridor forecasts to get an estimated 2050 plus Cherry Avenue development daily traffic volumes. The sum ended up being under 17,000 vehicles per day (vpd) for East Lincoln Way between Duff Avenue and Cherry Avenue, and under 14,200-15,100 vpd between Cherry Avenue and the Skunk River Bridge. Figure 1 SE Connector Extension Layout 83 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Appendix H–SE Connector & Development Scenario Analysis Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.H-2 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\Appendix H_SE Connector Analysis.docx\091525 The FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide details in Section 3.3.5 that roadways with 20,000 or less vpd in Average Daily Traffic (ADT) may be good candidates for a Road Diet. The document details that some studies have shown that roadways up to 23,000-25,000 vpd can work, so the estimated ADT of 17,000 for East Lincoln Way is anticipated to be acceptable for a Road Diet. More details can be found in Attachment 1 within this Appendix. 2.Hourly Volume Analysis In addition to the daily volumes, hourly volumes were analyzed to evaluate if the Cherry Avenue TIA volumes will be below typical Road Diet lane capacities. The City provided 15 minute counts of the Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue intersection. Those volumes were summed and grown (using the same growth percentages as the Peak Hour Counts) to become estimated hourly volumes for East Lincoln Way between Duff Avenue and High Avenue. The Cherry Avenue volumes were also added based on the demand profile of the estimated East Lincoln Way hourly volumes. The estimated hourly volumes peak at around 750 vehicles per hour (vph) at the highest, which is well under the 1,500 vph limit for Road Diets according to FHWA. More details can be found in Attachment 2 within this Appendix. 84 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Appendix H–SE Connector & Development Scenario Analysis Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.H-3 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\Appendix H_SE Connector Analysis.docx\091525 B.Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue Intersection The generated traffic from the Cherry Avenue TIA was analyzed at the Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue intersection. The peak volume generated by the site likely would happen during the PM peak hour, so the Cherry Avenue TIA volumes were added to the westbound through, westbound right-turn, southbound left-turn, and northbound right-turn movements of the 2050 Build PM peak hour scenario. Modeling of the Alternative 2.5 geometry at Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue will have poorer operations than the base volumes with eastbound through and westbound left-turn operating at LOS E. Table 1 details the operations of 2050 Build PM peak hour with the generated Cherry Avenue TIA traffic. More details can be found in Attachment 3 of this Appendix. A 3rd Build Alternative (Alternative 3) was developed to address poor operations at the Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue intersection with the Cherry Avenue TIA volumes added. It is similar to Alternative 2.5 but it expands the westbound left-turn to be a dual left turn, and updates eastbound and westbound left- turns to be protected only phasing. Figure 1 visualizes the Alternative 3 geometry. Table 1 Lincoln and Duff 2050 Build Conditions with Cherry Avenue - Alt 2.5 85 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Appendix H–SE Connector & Development Scenario Analysis Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.H-4 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\Appendix H_SE Connector Analysis.docx\091525 Figure 2 Alternative 3 Layout 86 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Appendix H–SE Connector & Development Scenario Analysis Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.H-5 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\Appendix H_SE Connector Analysis.docx\091525 Synchro operations for Alternative 3 are slightly better than Alternative 2.5 for the 2050 PM peak hour volumes including generated traffic from Cherry Avenue. The main improvement is that westbound left- turn improves from LOS E to LOS D operation. Table 2 details the HCM 7 operations. More details can be found in Attachment 4 within this Appendix. C.Lincoln Way and Cherry Avenue Intersection The Lincoln Way and Cherry Avenue Intersection was analyzed in 2050 Build conditions based on the volumes from the TIA while being balanced along Lincoln Way between Duff Avenue and Cherry Avenue. The TIA recommended signalizing Lincoln Way and Cherry Avenue at full buildout (2045), and this supplemental analysis agrees with that recommendation for the 2050 Build scenario. 2050 Build operations in the PM Peak (controlling peak) are acceptable according to HCM 7 analysis. Figure 3 details the layout analyzed of Lincoln Way and Cherry Avenue. Table 4 details the HCM 7 operations of the intersection in 2050 Build conditions in the PM Peak. Table 2 Lincoln and Duff 2050 Build Conditions with Cherry Avenue - Alt 3 87 City of Ames, Iowa East Lincoln Way Corridor Report Appendix H–SE Connector & Development Scenario Analysis Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.H-6 S:\MAD\4400--4499\4429\016\Designs-Studies-Reports\Report\Appendix H_SE Connector Analysis.docx\091525 Figure 3 Lincoln Way and Cherry Avenue Layout Table 3 Lincoln and Cherry 2050 Build Conditions 88 Strand Associates, Inc.DRAFT AADT Volume Information provided by City of Ames 2023 AADT 2050 AADT Lincoln Way and Grand Ave Lincoln Way and Duff Ave Lincoln Way and Sondrol AveAADT AADT AADT Lincoln Way and Grand Ave Lincoln Way and Duff Ave Lincoln Way and Sondrol Ave 14,800 AADT AADT 10,300 15,428 13,054 13,966 AADT 9,900 89 Strand Associates, Inc.DRAFT ADT Volume Information provided by Cherry Ave Extention TIA EB WB EB WB 5692 5942 6668 7424 EB WB EB WB 6826 6868 8247 8994 666 687 17 213 17 142 EB WB EB WB 8686 8888 8777 9574 666 687 203 266 219 200 EB WB EB WB 1860 2020 530 580 0 0 186 53 202 58 2022 Volumes Lincoln Way and Cherry AveADT ADT 11,634 14,092 2045 Volumes - No Development Lincoln Way and Cherry AveADT ADT 13,694 17,241 Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave Development Volumes Only Lincoln Way and Cherry AveADT ADT 3,880 1,110 2045 Volumes - With Development Lincoln Way and Cherry AveADT ADT 17,574 18,351 90 Strand Associates, Inc.DRAFT EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EB WB EB WB 8686 8888 8777 9574 EB WB EB WB 1860 2020 530 580 2045 Volumes - With Development Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave 2050 AADT Lincoln Way and Grand Ave Lincoln Way and Duff Ave Lincoln Way and Sondrol Ave Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave Development Volumes Only Lincoln Way and Sondrol Ave 2050 AADT with Trip Volumes Lincoln Way and Grand Ave Lincoln Way and Duff Ave Lincoln Way and Cherry Ave 91 Strand Associates, Inc DRAFT To East of Intersection (EB) From East of Intersection (WB) To East of Intersection (EB) From East of Intersection (WB)Time To East of Intersection (EB) From East of Intersection (WB) To East of Intersection (EB) From East of Intersection (WB) To East of Intersection (EB) From East of Intersection (WB) 0:00:00 9.8 11 11.368 13.86 0:15:00 10 9 11.6 11.34 0:30:00 8.8 10 10.208 12.6 0:45:00 8.8 7 10.208 8.82 1:00:00 6 6 6.96 7.56 1:15:00 6 5 6.96 6.3 1:30:00 5.8 5 6.728 6.3 1:45:00 6 8 6.96 10.08 2:00:00 6 5 6.96 6.3 2:15:00 5 4.8 5.8 6.048 2:30:00 5 4 5.8 5.04 2:45:00 4 4 4.64 5.04 3:00:00 4 4.8 4.64 6.048 3:15:00 4.8 4 5.568 5.04 3:30:00 6 7 6.96 8.82 3:45:00 7 8 8.12 10.08 4:00:00 8.8 5 10.208 6.3 4:15:00 10.8 4 12.528 5.04 4:30:00 16 6 18.56 7.56 4:45:00 15 8 17.4 10.08 5:00:00 11.8 8 13.688 10.08 5:15:00 12.8 11 14.848 13.86 5:30:00 18 12 20.88 15.12 5:45:00 34 24 39.44 30.24 6:00:00 28.8 24 33.408 30.24 6:15:00 39.6 28 45.936 35.28 6:30:00 56.8 37 65.888 46.62 6:45:00 73.8 49 85.608 61.74 7:00:00 61 55.8 70.76 70.308 7:15:00 71 72.8 82.36 91.728 7:30:00 83.8 81 97.208 102.06 7:45:00 99.8 103 115.768 129.78 8:00:00 89.6 92.8 103.936 116.928 8:15:00 81 94.8 93.96 119.448 8:30:00 77 100.6 89.32 126.756 8:45:00 78.6 92.6 91.176 116.676 9:00:00 74.6 88.8 86.536 111.888 9:15:00 77.6 88 90.016 110.88 9:30:00 80.8 93.8 93.728 118.188 9:45:00 87 93 100.92 117.18 10:00:00 96.6 97.6 112.056 122.976 10:15:00 96 96 111.36 120.96 10:30:00 98.6 100.8 114.376 127.008 10:45:00 99 102 114.84 128.52 11:00:00 110.8 120 128.528 151.2 11:15:00 119.8 121.6 138.968 153.216 11:30:00 130.8 131.8 151.728 166.068 11:45:00 134.6 139.6 156.136 175.896 12:00:00 138 166.6 160.08 209.916 12:15:00 150.6 145.4 174.696 183.204 12:30:00 153 134 177.48 168.84 12:45:00 152.4 130.8 176.784 164.808 13:00:00 145 124.8 168.2 157.248 13:15:00 133 115.8 154.28 145.908 13:30:00 128.4 115.6 148.944 145.656 13:45:00 123.6 108.8 143.376 137.088 14:00:00 127.8 115.8 148.248 145.908 14:15:00 127.6 108.6 148.016 136.836 14:30:00 127.6 108.8 148.016 137.088 14:45:00 125.8 107.8 145.928 135.828 15:00:00 124 131.6 143.84 165.816 15:15:00 122.8 114.8 142.448 144.648 15:30:00 129 132.8 149.64 167.328 15:45:00 129 122.8 149.64 154.728 16:00:00 146.6 132 170.056 166.32 16:15:00 138 124.6 160.08 156.996 16:30:00 142.8 136.8 165.648 172.368 16:45:00 131 136.8 151.96 172.368 17:00:00 140.8 164.6 163.328 207.396 17:15:00 127.8 133.4 148.248 168.084 17:30:00 115 125.8 133.4 158.508 17:45:00 102.6 102.8 119.016 129.528 18:00:00 97.6 93.4 113.216 117.684 18:15:00 90 83.8 104.4 105.588 18:30:00 84 68.6 97.44 86.436 18:45:00 74.8 62.6 86.768 78.876 19:00:00 69.8 60 80.968 75.6 19:15:00 73.6 53.8 85.376 67.788 19:30:00 71.6 46.8 83.056 58.968 19:45:00 65 44 75.4 55.44 20:00:00 56 42 64.96 52.92 20:15:00 49 41.4 56.84 52.164 20:30:00 50 35 58 44.1 20:45:00 45 31.8 52.2 40.068 21:00:00 40.8 32.8 47.328 41.328 21:15:00 34.8 30.8 40.368 38.808 21:30:00 30 28.8 34.8 36.288 21:45:00 28 28.6 32.48 36.036 22:00:00 25 29 29 36.54 22:15:00 24 25 27.84 31.5 22:30:00 20.8 19.8 24.128 24.948 22:45:00 20.8 15.8 24.128 19.908 23:00:00 16.8 20.8 19.488 26.208 23:15:00 13.8 14 16.008 17.64 23:30:00 12 10 13.92 12.6 23:45:00 10 8 11.6 10.08 16% 75 77 274 231 189 181 127 129 632 685 463 435 375 308 647 591 647 656 708 692 635 664 749 745 672 619 412 474 413 465 501 517 92 71 237 179 389 393 28 27 29 31 59 32 2050 Total Development Volumes 53 54 35 35 2050 Cherry Ave TIA Volumes 55 60 36 39 155 168 142 154 138 150 93 101 110 120 139 151 41 73 80 22 24 116 126 95 103 74 80 142 154 149 161 145 158 85 93 90 53 53 15 17 11 11 8 9 7 7 8 9 15 16 38 205 200 151 134 121 531 487 527 347 309 465 509 441 505 502 397 496 513 594 577 313 327 381 320 364 24 51 316 391 530 559 280 91 19:00:00 20:00:00 21:00:00 22:00:00 23:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 77 38 37 2050 Hourly 0:00:00 1:00:00 2:00:00 3:00:00 4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00 7:00:00 8:00:00 23 55 199 138 24 20 18 22 24 2025 Time 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 2050 92 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way 06/30/2025 PM Peak 2050 -Build + Cherry Ave 8:02 am 06/24/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)74 463 404 378 289 259 296 443 176 175 489 91 Future Volume (veh/h)74 463 404 378 289 259 296 443 176 175 489 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 78 487 425 398 304 273 312 466 185 184 515 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 288 525 671 407 462 415 354 724 285 269 614 114 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.51 0.51 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 836 1870 1585 1781 908 815 1781 2490 981 1781 2992 555 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 78 487 425 398 0 577 312 332 319 184 305 306 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 836 1870 1585 1781 0 1724 1781 1777 1694 1781 1777 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 26.6 22.2 18.3 0.0 26.0 14.1 17.1 17.3 6.0 17.3 17.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 26.6 22.2 18.3 0.0 26.0 14.1 17.1 17.3 6.0 17.3 17.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 288 525 671 407 0 878 354 517 493 269 365 364 V/C Ratio(X)0.27 0.93 0.63 0.98 0.00 0.66 0.88 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.84 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 292 534 679 407 0 885 354 592 564 269 440 438 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.5 36.7 23.9 29.0 0.0 19.0 28.0 32.5 32.6 35.5 40.1 40.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 22.6 2.2 38.4 0.0 2.0 21.6 1.9 2.1 7.0 11.3 11.9 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 3.0 21.6 13.1 17.4 0.0 15.5 12.7 12.0 11.7 3.9 13.6 13.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 32.3 59.4 26.1 67.4 0.0 21.0 49.6 34.4 34.7 42.6 51.4 52.1 LnGrp LOS C E C E C D C C D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 990 975 963 795 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.9 40.0 39.4 49.6 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 35.6 24.0 34.5 20.0 26.6 58.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 35.0 19.0 30.0 15.0 26.0 54.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 19.3 20.3 28.6 16.1 19.5 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.1 5.9 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 42.7 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 93 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Lincoln Way 06/30/2025 PM Peak 2050 -Build + Cherry Ave 8:02 am 06/24/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Page 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)666 203 266 687 219 200 Future Volume (veh/h)666 203 266 687 219 200 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 666 203 266 687 219 200 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 762 645 370 1109 496 634 Arrive On Green 0.41 0.41 0.12 0.59 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1870 1585 1781 1870 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 666 203 266 687 219 200 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1870 1585 1781 1870 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.9 6.1 5.4 16.5 7.1 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.9 6.1 5.4 16.5 7.1 6.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 762 645 370 1109 496 634 V/C Ratio(X)0.87 0.31 0.72 0.62 0.44 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 762 645 370 1109 496 634 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.1 14.1 14.2 9.2 20.8 14.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.3 1.3 11.5 2.6 2.8 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 17.4 4.0 5.2 10.0 5.7 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 32.4 15.4 25.6 11.8 23.6 15.7 LnGrp LOS C B C B C B Approach Vol, veh/h 869 953 419 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.5 15.6 19.8 Approach LOS C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 13.0 33.0 46.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 8.5 28.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 7.4 24.9 18.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.1 1.7 4.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 21.4 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 94 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Duff Ave & Lincoln Way 06/30/2025 PM Peak 2050 -Build + Cherry Ave -Alt 3 8:18 am 06/30/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)74 463 404 378 289 259 296 443 176 175 489 91 Future Volume (veh/h)74 463 404 378 289 259 296 443 176 175 489 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 78 487 425 398 304 273 312 466 185 184 515 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 100 560 717 488 354 318 380 662 261 320 634 118 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.39 0.39 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 3456 908 815 1781 2490 981 1781 2992 555 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 78 487 425 398 0 577 312 332 319 184 305 306 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1728 0 1724 1781 1777 1694 1781 1777 1770 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 25.3 20.6 11.5 0.0 31.6 13.4 17.3 17.5 8.2 16.8 16.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 25.3 20.6 11.5 0.0 31.6 13.4 17.3 17.5 8.2 16.8 16.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 100 560 717 488 0 671 380 472 450 320 376 375 V/C Ratio(X)0.78 0.87 0.59 0.81 0.00 0.86 0.82 0.70 0.71 0.57 0.81 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 165 619 766 639 0 738 420 622 593 335 501 499 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.9 34.1 21.1 42.8 0.0 28.8 26.1 34.1 34.1 28.2 38.5 38.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.2 12.4 1.4 7.1 0.0 9.9 11.3 2.4 2.6 2.2 7.3 7.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 4.1 19.1 12.1 9.1 0.0 20.5 11.0 12.2 11.9 6.6 12.7 12.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 60.0 46.5 22.5 50.0 0.0 38.7 37.4 36.4 36.8 30.4 45.8 46.3 LnGrp LOS E D C D D D D D C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 990 975 963 795 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.3 43.3 36.9 42.4 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.2 32.3 19.5 35.8 20.7 26.8 10.3 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 36.0 19.0 34.0 18.0 29.0 9.5 44.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.2 19.5 13.5 27.3 15.4 18.9 6.4 33.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 1.0 3.4 0.3 2.8 0.0 3.7 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 39.8 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 95 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Lincoln Way 06/30/2025 PM Peak 2050 -Build + Cherry Ave -Alt 3 8:18 am 06/30/2025 Baseline Synchro 12 Report Page 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)666 203 266 687 219 200 Future Volume (veh/h)666 203 266 687 219 200 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 666 203 266 687 219 200 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 762 645 370 1109 496 634 Arrive On Green 0.41 0.41 0.12 0.59 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1870 1585 1781 1870 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 666 203 266 687 219 200 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1870 1585 1781 1870 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.9 6.1 5.4 16.5 7.1 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.9 6.1 5.4 16.5 7.1 6.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 762 645 370 1109 496 634 V/C Ratio(X)0.87 0.31 0.72 0.62 0.44 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 762 645 370 1109 496 634 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.1 14.1 14.2 9.2 20.8 14.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.3 1.3 11.5 2.6 2.8 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 17.4 4.0 5.2 10.0 5.7 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 32.4 15.4 25.6 11.8 23.6 15.7 LnGrp LOS C B C B C B Approach Vol, veh/h 869 953 419 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.5 15.6 19.8 Approach LOS C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 13.0 33.0 46.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 8.5 28.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 7.4 24.9 18.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.1 1.7 4.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 21.4 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 96 PLOT SCALE :1 IN:40 FTLAYOUT NAME - Cherry Int Layout Dim E L I N C O L N W A Y & S E C O N N E C T O R I N T E R S E C T I O N CO N C E P T U A L I N T E R S E C T I O N L A Y O U T 1 E LINCOLN WAY SE C O N N E C T O R 15 0 ' 150'150'103' 11 ' 14 ' 11 ' 10 ' LEGEND EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS PROPOSED 8-INCH PM (WHITE) PROPOSED 6-INCH PM (YELLOW) PROPOSED STOP BAR (WHITE) PROPOSED ARROW (WHITE) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATH PROPOSED SEEDED TERRACE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION NOTE: THE EXISTING 50' RIGHT OF WAY OF CHERRY AVENUE WILL PROVIDE LONG-TERM OPERATION ISSUES FOR THIS CONNECTION. TO ELIMINATE THESE ISSUES, ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS ALLOWING STANDARD RIGHT OF WAY WIDTHS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. A S S O C I A T E S® SHEET JOB NO. PROJECT MGR. NO . RE V I S I O N S DA T E : KRH 4429.016 ST O R Y C O U N T Y , I O W A CI T Y O F A M E S PR O J E C T N O . EA S T L I N C O L N W A Y C O R R I D O R S T U D Y 97 Strand Associates, Inc.®( ) City of Ames, IA September 23, 2025 East Lincoln Way Corridor Study 98 •Study Area and Roadway Configuration •Existing Roadway Analysis –Operations and Crashes •Proposed Roadway Improvements •Proposed Roadway Analysis •Public Comment Summary •Next Steps •Questions East Lincoln Way Corridor Study Summary 99 East Lincoln Way Study Area •Includes East Lincoln Way from Duff Avenue to the South Skunk River bridge •Duff Avenue intersection was evaluated for potential traffic operations improvements Source: Iowa State GIS Facility 100 •Four-lane undivided roadway Center lanes = 12 ft wide, outside lanes = 11 ft wide, 1 ft shoulder to curb face Daily traffic peaks at 10,300 vehicles per day (current) Daily traffic peaks at 13,100 vehicles per day (2050) •Existing bike and pedestrian accommodations Duff Avenue to 1300 ft west of Skunk River -Both sides have sidewalk with a grass terrace of varying dimensions 1300 ft west of Skunk River to Skunk River -No accommodations on north side of corridor -Multi-use path on south side of corridor Existing Lincoln Way Corridor 101 Existing Roadway Analysis – Operations •Operations focused on Duff Avenue intersection Current geometry utilizes shared left-through lanes on Lincoln Way Requires split phasing (eastbound and westbound traffic cannot go at the same time) •AAMPO’s regional travel demand model used to establish 2050 traffic volume projections •Existing Geometry Operations (2050) Intersection operates at LOS E with overall delays of 64 to 71 seconds during peak hours Some movements have over 100 seconds of delay 95th percentile queue extends past adjacent driveways/intersections 102 •Lincoln Way corridor 81 reported crashes between January 2019 and December 2023 -No Fatal (K), but 2 Serious Injury (A) crashes •Lincoln Way and Duff intersection 52 reported crashes between January 2019 and December 2023 -No Fatal (K) or Serious Injury (A) injury crashes -30 crashes were rear-end crashes -Intersection congestion likely a contributing factor Existing Roadway Analysis – Crashes 103 •Information about the study was posted for public comment from mid to late July to obtain feedback on the existing and proposed conditions Existing Roadway – Public Feedback Common Public Comments – Existing Conditions Roadway Corridor Duff Avenue Intersection Operations •Hard to turn left onto or off of the roadway •It is uncomfortable or unsafe to use as a pedestrian •Congestion along the roadway •Uncomfortable to use a bike on the corridor •Railroad causes problems at the intersection •Long waits between lights •Turning left is difficult •Need dedicated turn lanes •Pedestrian crossings are uncomfortable 104 Proposed Roadway Improvements •Three-lane roadway with 2 travel lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane Center left-turn lane = 14 ft wide Travel lanes = 11 ft wide (w/ 2 ft wide shoulder to curb face) Proposed roadway fits within the existing ROW •Proposed bike and pedestrian accommodations North side – 5 ft sidewalk South Side – 10 ft multi-use path 4.5 ft terrace between curb and sidewalk/multi-use path Additional pedestrian crossings (discussed next slide) •Anticipated volumes 2050 daily and hourly volumes projected to be within the acceptable range of 3 lane roadway 105 •Three new pedestrian crossings are included •All utilize the center left turn lane to provide a median refuge Proposed Roadway Improvements – Pedestrian Crossings 106 •Benefits of a three-lane roadway vs. a four-lane undivided roadway 1.Improved safety: Reduces rear-end and left-turn crashes due to dedicated left-turn lane (19 to 47 percent reduction in total crashes) 2.Reduced right-angle crashes: Side street motorists cross three versus four travel lanes 3.Fewer lanes for pedestrians: Opportunity to install pedestrian refuge islands at crossings and expand off-road bike and pedestrian accommodations 4.Traffic calming: More consistent speeds and a community-focused environment that accommodates the needs of all road users Proposed Roadway Improvements – Safety Benefits Source: FHWA Road Diets One Page Summary 107 •East leg begins three-lane section •West leg provides transition from three-lane section to four-lane existing section •No changes to Duff Avenue approaches •Fits within the footprint of the existing roadway •Lincoln Way approaches allow for removal of split phasing Proposed Roadway Improvements – Duff Avenue Intersection West leg is restriping only 108 Proposed Roadway Analysis – Operations •Signal operation improvements Remove split phasing Allow the eastbound right-turn movements to operate freely during a green right turn arrow (overlap phase) •Future proposed improvements operations (2050) Intersection operates at LOS C with overall delays of 31 to 34 seconds during peak hours 95th percentile queues reduced for all movements -Eastbound and westbound show most improvement -Off peak queues will also reduce as intersection will process traffic better at all times of day Year Existing Geometry LOS/Delay Study Recommended Imp. LOS/Delay Delay Improvement w/ Recommended Alternative 2027 (Build Year) LOS D (42.3 seconds)LOS C (26.2 seconds)16.1 seconds 2050 (Horizon Year) LOS E (63.9 seconds)LOS C (34.0 seconds)29.9 seconds PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations at Lincoln Way & Duff Avenue *Delays shown are the average delay experienced at the intersection for each vehicle during the PM peak hour. 109 Proposed Roadway 110 Proposed Roadway – Public Feedback •683 responses were received for the public feedback survey E Lincoln Way Three-Lane Section Duff & Lincoln Way Improvements 5 = Strongly Support 1 = Strongly Oppose *Many who opposed the recommended improvements believed that reducing the number of through travel lanes from four to two would cause significant vehicle congestion. 111 Proposed Roadway – Public Feedback Common Public Comments – Proposed Conditions Roadway Cross Section Duff Avenue Intersection •Concerns about congestion from conversion to three-lane roadway •Believe there is not enough pedestrians or bikes to warrant path/sidewalk •Concerns about large vehicles moving slow and not being able to pass them •Like the addition of bike and pedestrian accommodations •Support the three-lane roadway improvement •Railroad crossing will still cause delays •ISU traffic or visitors will get confused with the new layout •Make a new connection to the east •Clearly mark crosswalks 112 Proposed Opinions of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) •Proposed improvement OPCC: $3.08M •Similar cost for reconstructing with existing roadway geometry •Current construction budget (per CIP): $3.6M ($2.88M in AAMPO STBG Funds; $720K in GO Bonds) •Above costs do not include water main replacement (handled through the utility fund) 113 Project Next Steps •Direction from City Council on whether to utilize the study's recommended improvements when proceeding with final design of the 2026/27 Arterial Street Pavement Improvements project. October 14, 2025 •Final design of the preferred corridor improvements Late 2026 – Early 2027 •Reconstruction of the roadway 2027-2028 (dependent on project phasing) 114 Questions? Source: © marish – vectorstock.com 115