HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrelim Traffic Operations Anlys
A&F Engineering collected additional data and conducted additional analyses in an effort to address
these issues. The results of this additional work are presented below:
1. As part of a previous project, traffic counts were collected by A&F Engineering in December
2004 at the intersection of Smokey Row Road and Rangeline Road. School was in session
during these counts and weather conditions at that time did not impact traffic conditions. The
counts collected during this time period were approximately 10 percent higher during the AM
peak period than the counts used in the Arden traffic study. Therefore, a new set of capacity
calculations were prepared using the December traffic counts. Although the existing traffic
was slightly higher, the new capacity analyses results showed that all conclusions and
recommendations made in the traffic study remain unchanged for all study intersections.
2. A&F Engineering used the ITE Trip Generation Manual to estimate the number of peak hour
trips that would be generated by the proposed 100 townhome "Arden" development. The
Trip Generation manual is a compilation of trip data for various land uses as collected by
transportation professionals throughout the United States in order to establish the average number
of trips generated by various land uses. The calculations estimated that 52 trips would be
generated during the AM peak hour by the "Arden" development Of these 52 trips, 9 trips
would enter the development and 43 trips would exit the development. To verify this data, traffic
volume counts were collected at an existing 85 unit townhome development that is very similar
to the proposed "Arden" development. The existing traffic volume counts yielded a total of 41
exiting trips (0.48 trips per townhome) and 6 entering trips (.07 trips per townhome) during the
AM peak hour. Applying these rates to the proposed 100 unit "Arden" development yields an
estimate of 48 exiting trips and 7 entering trips during the AM peak hour. A direct comparison
of the ITE trip estimate to these calculated trips confirms that the ITE data is a reliable source for
estimating trips for this type of development. Furthermore, A&F Engineering used the non-ITE
trip data to prepare a set of revised capacity analyses at each of the study intersections. The
results of these analyses did not differ from the results published in the original Traffic
Operations Analysis.
3. In 2003, A&F Engineering completed a traffic flow study for Cannel High School. As part of
this plan, traffic volume counts were collected and traffic flow patterns were recorded. As
with many area schools, Cannel utilizes several traffic control officers during peak arrival and
departure times. These control officers are a necessity in that they provide for safe and
efficient traffic operations for school traffic. In addition, these officers ensure that pedestrian
safety is maintained and that bus traffic is adequately served. As a result, traffic operations
along the main public roadways are typically delayed due to the emphasis on serving school
traffic. Thus, it is likely to experience above average queuing and delays due to the actions of
these control officers during short AM and PM time periods. The decrease in traffic
operations is typically viewed as a small trade-off to ensure vehicular and pedestrian safety in
and around a school site. The delays along 136th Street associated with school operations are
not likely to change as long as school traffic utilizes this corridor. However, the traffic
impacts of the proposed "Arden" development should not be associated with any impacts due
to the school. Trip generation data, as well as capacity analyses results demonstrate that the
traffic impact on the local roadways and intersections due to the proposed "Arden"
development is negligible and will not cause the need for major roadway/intersection
improvements.
(
\t
BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES - SMOKEY RoW ROAD
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST 0 F F 10 URES .............................................................................................................................. · .. · .... .. · · .. . .. .. .. ... · · . .. II
C ER TIFIC A TION .............................................................................................................................. .. .... ... · · · · .. · . .. · .. · .. · · .. . III
INTRODUCTION .............. ............. ................ ......... ....... ........ .... ...... ..... ..... .... ............. .... .... .... ..... .... .... ........ ... ........ ........ ... 1
P U RPOS E .............................................................................................................................. · · · · · ... · · · · · · · · .. · · · · · · . · · . · · · . · · · · · · · · .. 1
Seo PE OF WORK .............................................................................................................................. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. · · · · .. · · .. ..... 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED "ARDEN" DEVELOPMENT..... ............................ ............ ................. ............. ..... II II.... .... ....... 2
DESCRIPTION OF NEAR-BY PROJECTS. ......... ...... ............ ........ ......... ..... ..... ........ ...... ....... ...... ..... ... ........ ....... ........ ........... 2
STUD Y AREA........................................................................................................................... · · ...... .. · .. .. · · · .. .. ... · .. ... ... · · · · · 4
DESCRiPTION OF THE AB"UTIING STREET SYSTEM.. ...... .... .... .............. ...... ... ...... ....... .... ........ ..... ...... ....... ..... ... .... .... ... ..... 4
T RAFF IC D A T A .............................................................................................................................. .. · · · · · .. · · · .. · . · .. · .. .. . .. · · .. · · 4
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........... .... ..... .... .... .......... ................. ... ......... ............ ... ........ ...... ..... ..... ..... ......... ........ ....5
TABLE 1 .. GENERATED TRIPS FOR "TRADITIONS ON THE MONON" ......................... ........ ..... ............. ..... ................... 5
TABLE 2 ... GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED "ARDEN" DEVELOPMENT .......... .... ............................. ........ .... ....... ..... 5
INTERN AL TRiPS......................................................................................................................... ... .. . .. · . · · · · . · · · . · ... · · · .. · .. .. .. . 5
P Ass-BY TRiPS......................................................................................................................... .. · .. · . ... . . · . . · .. · · .. .. · · .. · · . .. · · ... 5
PEAK HOUR......................................................................................................................... · · · · · .. · . · , · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · . . · . . · ... 6
AsSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS .. It .......... ..... ............ ....... ............ ....... ................ .......... ............ 6
GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM ......... ........ ....... ............ .......0 ..... .... ...................... I ....... ........ ........... 6
CAP AC ITY AN A L YS IS .. " . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . I . . '" ... . . . . " . . . .. . ... . ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . ... . . , . . .. .. .... .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . . ... .. . . .. · . . .. ... . · · . · · . .. .' .. · · · .. .. · · · · ... · · · I.. 11
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE .....,....'.... .................. II.. I...... ..... .... ........... ...... .... ....... ..... .... ........ ......... ...... ... ... ... 11
CAP AC ITV AN AL YS ES Sc EN ARIOS .. . . I . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . I . . . . I . . I I . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . · · . · · · .. · · · · . · . · · . .. . · . . . . . . · · . · . . . . · . . · . . .. 13
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-SMOKEY Row ROAD & RANGELINE ROAD ............................................16
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-SMOKEY ROW ROAD & KEYSTONE AVENUE .......................................... 17
TABLE 5 .. LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY..SMOKEY Row ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE ................................17
CONCLUS IONS I.................................. I . .. . . . . . .. ... . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .. . . . . . ... . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . · · · · .. .. .. · · .. · · · .. .. · · · · · · · · I .. · · .. .... .... ... · .. 18
RECOMMENDATIONS.... I...... ....... ........... ..................... I. ............ ............ ... . ....... ....... I.' . '" I........ I. ............... I.' .... .... ....... ...20
I
.
I
-
BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES - SMOKEY Row ROAD
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of Buckingham Companies, is for a
proposed residential site known as "Arden" that is to be located along Smokey Row Road between
Rangeline Road and Keystone Avenue in Cannel, Indiana.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed
development, when fully occupied, will have on the existing adjacent roadway system. This
analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site
is developed.
Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the
anticipated traffic volumes or will detennine the modifications that will be required to the system if
it is determined there will be deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes.
Recommendations will be made that will address the conclusions resulting from this analysis.
These recommendations will address feasible roadway system improvements that will
accommodate the proposed development traffic volumes such that there will be safe ingress and
egress, to and from the proposed development, with minimal interference to traffic on the public
street system.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this analysis is:
First, to collect peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts at the following intersections:
. Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road
. Smokey Row Road & Keystone A venue
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by a near-by townhome
development known as "The Traditions on the Monon".
Third, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed "Arden"
development.
t
BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES - SMOKEY Row ROAD
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
STUDY AREA
The study area has been defined to include the following intersections:
. 'Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road
. Smokey Row Road & Keystone Avenue
. Proposed Access Drive
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that 136th Street and
Rangeline Road.
KEYSTONE AVENUE (U.S. 431) - is a major north/south arterial that provides connectivity from
Cannel to Indianapolis. In the vicinity of the site, Keystone Avenue is a four lane, divided roadway
with a speed limit of 50 mph.
RANGELINE ROAD - is a north/south roadway that serves many residential and commercial areas
throughout Cannel. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site along this roadway is 30 mph.
SMOKEY Row ROAD - is an east/west two-lane roadway that travels from Gray Road to U.S. 31.
The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site along this roadway is 30 mph.
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road - This intersection is currently controlled by an automatic
traffic signal. All approaches at this intersection consist of a single lane used for all movements.
A single lane ro~ndabout could be constructed at this intersection in the near future. Therefore,
analysis included in this report includes scenarios that analyze this intersection as it exists today
and as it might exist if a roundabout was constructed.
Smokey Row Road & Keystone Avenue - This intersection is currently controlled by an automatic
traffic signal. The northbound and southbound approaches include an exclusive left-turn lane, an
exclusive right-turn lane and two through lanes. The eastbound and westbound approaches
include an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive right-turn lane and a through lane.
TRAFFIC DATA
Manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made at each of the study intersections by
A&F Engineering Co., LLC. The traffic volume counts include an hourly total of all "through"
traffic and all "turning" traffic at each intersection. The traffic volume counts were made during
the hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM in June 2005. The traffic volume
counts are included in Appendix A.
4
.
BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES - SMOKEY Row ROAD
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
PEAK HOUR-- ,
Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected, the adjacent street peak hours occur from
7:30 AM to 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Thus, the volumes collected during these hours will
be used for all analyses contained within this study.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes from the "Traditions on the Monon"
and from the proposed development, that will be added to the street system is defined as follows:
1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit each site must be assigned to the various access
points and to the public street system. Using the traffic volume data collected for this
analysis, traffic to and from the sites has been assigned to the proposed driveways and to the
public street system.
2. To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the
generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their intersection
with the driveways. The distribution was based on the existing traffic patterns and the
assignment of generated traffic.
The assignment and distribution of the generated traffic volumes for the "Traditions on the Monon"
and the proposed "Arden" development are shown on Figure 2A and Figure 2B respectively.
GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the "Traditions on the Manon" site and the
proposed development site have been prepared for each of the study area intersections. The peak
hour generated traffic volumes, for the "Traditions on the Monon" are shown on Figure 3A while
the generated traffic volumes for the proposed "Arden" development are shown on Figure 3B.
These data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated
traffic, and distribution of generated traffic.
6
'.
BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES - SMOKEY Row ROAD
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment
and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have
been prepared for each of the study intersections, and the field review conducted at the site. These
conclusions apply only to the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour that were addressed in this
analysis. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the
resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed the
remaining 22 hours will have levels of service that are better than the peak hour, since the existing
street traffic volumes will be less during the other 22 hours.
1. SMOKEY Row ROAD & RANGELINE ROAD
Existing Traffic Volumes & "Traditions on the Manon" Traffic Volumes with Existing
Intersection Conditions (Scenario lA) - A level of service review for each of the
intersection approaches has shown this intersection is operating at acceptable levels during
the peak hours.
Existing Traffic Volumes & "Traditions on the Monon" Traffic Volumes with Roundabout
(Scenario lB) - A level of service review for each of the intersection approaches, has
shown that this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak
hours if a single lane roundabout was constructed at this intersection.
Existing Traffic Volumes, "Traditions on the Monon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed
l'Arden" Development Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions (Scenario 2A)
- When the traffic volumes from the proposed "Arden" development are added to the
Scenario J traffic volumes, this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels
with the existing intersection conditions.
Existing Traffic Volumes, UTraditions on the Monon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed
HArden" Development Traffic Volumes with Roundabout (Scenario 2A) .. When the traffic
volumes from the proposed "Arden" development are added to the Scenario 1 traffic
18
~ ;hort Report
Page
\nalyst
\gency or Co.
Jate Performed
rime Period
RMB
A&F Engin~e.ring
12/20/2004
AM Peak
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
Smofey Row Rd & Rangeline
Road
A/I other areas
Carmel
Scenario 1
rea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
t ;enerallnformation
VI dT- ·
o urne an Imlng nput
EB WB NB S8
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I
~um. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 I
.ana group iLTR LTR LTR LTR
lolume (vph) 11 109 23 97 203 26 20 185 42 47 485 4
% Heavy veh 0 1 0 2 4 3 0 2 0 8 1 ~
)HF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.84 o.
~ctuated (PIA A A A A A A A A A A A J
;tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
:xt. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
\rrival type 3 3 3 3
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
)ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 5 0 4 0 10 0 1
.ana Width 9.0 11.0 15.0 13.0
'arking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 I
'arking/hr
3us stops/hr 0 0 0 0
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
)hasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
aiming G = 22.8 G= G= G= G = 27.2 G= G =. G=
y= 5 y= y= y= y= 5 y= y= y=
)uratfon of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0
G
c
C t 101
d LOS D
.ane roup apaclty, on ro e ay, an etermlnatlon
EB WB NB 56
\dj. flow rate 172 467 296 669
.ana group cap. 604 567 849 826
'Ic ratio 0.28 0.82 0.35 0.81
~reen ratio 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.45
Jnif. delay d 1 12.9 16.8 10.6 14.2
)elay factor k 0.11 0.36 0.11 0.35
ncrem. delay d2 0.3 9.6 0.2 6.1
)F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
~ontrol delay 13.2 26.4 10.9 20.3
.ana group LOS B C B C
\pprch. delay 13.2 26.4 10.9 20.3
\pproach LOS B C B C
,tersec. delay 19.6 Intersection LOS B
CS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Vers
4
.. hort Report
Page 1
f. jenerallnformation
SHORT REPORT
Ite Information
\nalyst
\gency or Co.
)ate Performed
ime Period
RMB
A&F Enginef'-ring
12/20/2004
PM Peak
ea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
Smokey Row Rd &
Rangeline Road
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 1
'I I
d T- ·
t
o ume an Imina npu
EB we NB 58
LT TH RT IT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH R.
lurn. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
.ane group iLTR LTR LTR LTR
'olume(vph) 53 286 22 39 98 42 '21 518 123 44 322 2:3
% Heavy veh 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
)HF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.81 0.8
\ctuated (-PIA A A A A A A A A A A A A
;tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
:xl. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
\rrival type 3 3 3 3
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
)ed/BikeIRTOR Volume 0 5 0 10 0 30 0 5
.ane Width 9.0 11.0 15.0 13.0
)arking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
)arking/hr
Jus stops/hr 0 0 0 0
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
)hasing EW Perm 02 03 .. 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
.iming G = 20.0 G= G= G= G = 30.0 G= G= G=
y= 5 y= y= y= y= 5 y= y= y=
)uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0
G
c
c
I D I
d LOS D
.ane roup apac.ty, ontro e ay, an etermination
EB WB NB S8
\dj. flow rate 391 214 680 474
.ane group cap. 517 509 994 868
Ic ratio 0.76 0.42 0.68 0.55
,reen ratio 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.50
Jnif. delay d 1 17.8 15.5 11.4 10.3
)elay factor k 0.31 0.11 0.25 0.15
1crem. delay d2 6.3 0.6 2.0 0.7
)F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
;ontroJ delay 24.2 16.1 13.4 11.0
.ana group LOS C B B B
\pprch. delay 24.2 16.1 13.4 11.0
\pproach LOS C B B B
,tersec. delay 15.5 Intersection LOS B
CS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
VersjOJ
5
l,o..II~.\ n^~....___...,.,o/ ''In__ ..:In I ,,1\<:1_4.4.:_ _...\_L__........_ A rTTf"\ T _ _ _1n, I"'lonl"'t -.....
)hort Report
Page
~nalyst
~gency or Co.
Jate Performed
rime Period
RMB
A&F Engineering
12/20/2664
AM Peak
SHORT REPORT
ite Inforrrlation
Smo~y Row Rd & Range/ins
Road
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 2
ntersection
3enerallnformation
.
rea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
VI dTi
o urne an m ng nput
EB we NB S8
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT IT TH F
'Jum. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ~
_ana group LTR LTR LTR LTR
volume 1vph) 11 112 23 105 217 32 20 185 44 48 485 4
% Heavy veh 0 1 0 2 4 3 0 2 0 8 1 (
=>HF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.84 0...
~ctuated (PIA A A A A A A A A A A A J.
Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
:xt. eft. arean 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
l\rrival type 3 3 3 3
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
~ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 5 0 4 0 10 0 1~
_ana Width 9.0 11.0 15.0 13.0
:)arkinglGrade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 ^
=>>arking/hr
3us stops/hr 0 0 0 0
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
::>hasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
riming G = 22.8 G= G= G= G = 27.2 G= G= . G=
y= 5 y= y= y= y= 5 y= y= y=
Juration of AnalYSis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0
G
c
C t ID I
d LOS 0
L
ane roup apac.ty, on ro e ay, an etermlnatlon
EB WB NB SB
~dj. flow rate 176 507 298 670
_ana group cap. 603 567 849 825
lIe ratio 0.29 0.89 0.35 0.81
3reen ratio 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.45
Jnif. delay d 1 13.0 17.5 10.7 14..2
Jelay factor k 0.11 0.42 0.11 0.35
ncrem. delay d2 0.3 16.6 0.3 6.2
:)F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
:ontrol delay 13.2 34.1 10.9 20.4
_ane group LOS B C B C
t\pprch. delay 13.2 34.1 10.9 20.4
~pproach LOS B C B C
ntersec.. delay 22.1 Intersection LOS C
fCS2000™
Copyright e 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Versi(
6
~ 1.c · I If"" · \'n^"..'........~+nOL" nn_,.I01. "nQ 04-4-:_ _....\~ l..."'''''C'U_ It. T:'T T 1""\\ T _ ........10/ "1'\('1 _..u.= __ _ _\"., ___ \ ...~1..1 1"':' L.__ ..
.. )hort Report
Page 1
General Information
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
~nalyst
~gency or Co.
Jate Performed
rime Period
RMB
A&F Engin~~rjng
12/20/2004
PM Peak
ea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
Smokey Row Rd &
Rangeline Road
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 2
VI
d T-
t
o ume an 1m ng npu
EB WB NB S8
IT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH R
\Jum. of lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
_ane group ILTR LTR LTR LTR
~olume (vph) 53 299 22 43 104 45 21 518 130 50 322 2~
o~ Heavy veh 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
:;)HF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.81 0.8
~ctuated -(PIA A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
:xl. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
t\rrival type 3 3 3 3
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
:)ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 5 0 10 0 30 0 5
_ana Width 9.0 11.0 15.0 13.0
=>arking/Grade/Parki ng N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
=>ark;ng/hr
3us stops/hr 0 0 0 0
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
:)hasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
riming G = 20.0 G= G= G= G = 30.0 G= G=' G=
y= 5 y= Y= y= y= 5 y= y= y=
Juration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0
L
G
c
c
I D I
d LOS D
ane roup apaclty, antra e ay, an etermlnat on
EB WB NB 58
~dj. flow rate 406 230 688 482
_ana group cap. 518 497 993 853
lIe ratio 0.78 0.46 0.69 0.57
3reen ratio 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.50
Jnif. delay d1 18.0 15.8 11.5 10.5
Jelay factor k 0.33 0.11 0.26 0.16
ncrem. delay d2 7.7 0.7 2.1 0.9
=>F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
:;ontrol delay 25.8 16.4 13.6 11.3
..ana group LOS C B B B
~prch. delay 25.8 16.4 13.6 11.3
~pproach LOS C B B B
-
ntersec. delay 16.1 Intersection LOS B
lCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Versio'
7
11p'/ Ir.\ nn"...''l'''nA'n''c:'tO~ ",)(\.,,_...:IO} "nC" _"'4-':_ _...\_1.-.__......._ A T:'T T 1""'\ T .- _......10/ I"tl\n _ H' . ___\ 'T'__\ _"'1_~n 4.-.__
INPUT
Intersection Information:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Date:
North/South Street:
EastIW est Street:
Project 10:
Scenario:
Peak Period:
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road
Carmel, IN
6-30-05
Rangeline Road
Smokey Row Road
Buckingham Companies
Scenario 1
AM Peak
Roundabout Geometries:
Northbound Westbound Southbound Eastbound
En Width, E 4.88 m 4.88 m 4.88 m 4.88 m
Flare Len L' 25.0 m ' 25.0 m 25.0 m 25.0 m
,
Half Width, V 3.35 m 3.35 m 3.35 m 3.35 m
Entry Radius, R 15.0 m 15.0 m 15.0 m 15.0 m
Entry Angle, PHI 20.0 de 20.0 de 20.0 deg 20.0 de
Inscribed Circle 36.59 m 36.59 m 36.59 m 36.59 m
Diameter, D
Flows:
Approach PCU Flows FLOP CL
1 st Exit 2n Exit 3rd Exit U- Turn
Northbound 1.05 95 154 13 0 1.00 50%
Westbound 1.05 17 147 83 0 1.00 50%
Southbound 1.05 25 493 51 0 1.00 50%
Eastbound 1.05 32 239 5 0 1.00 50%
A oach Flow Ratio Flow Time
Northbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Westbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Southbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Eastbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
A . roach
Northbound
Westbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Intersection
& LOS
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
8
INPUT
Intersection Information:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Date:
North/South Street:
East/West Street:
Project 1D:
Scenario:
Peak Period:
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road
Cannel, IN
6-30-05
Rangeline Road
Smokey Row Road
Buckingham Companies
Scenario 1
PM Peak
Roundabout Geometries:
Northbound
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m
15.0 m
20.0 deg
36.59 m
En Width, E
Flare Len , L'
HaIfWidth, V
Entry Radius, R
Entry AngJe, PHI
Inscribed Circle
Diameter, D
Westbound
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m
15.0 m
20.0 de
36.59 m
Southbound
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m
15.0 m
20.0 de
36.59 m
Eastbound
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m
15.0 m
20.0 deg
36.59 m
Flows:
Approach PCU Flows FLOF CL
1 st Exit 2nd Exit 3rd Exit V-Turn
Northbound 1.05 99 568 13 0 1.00 50%
Westbound 1.05 43 132 66 0 1.00 50%
Southbound 1.05 6 320 39 0 1.00 50%
Eastbound 1.05 21 272 48 0 1.00 50%
A roach Flow Ratio Flow Time
Northbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Westbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Southbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Eastbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
OUTPUT - Avera e Dela
A roach Avera e Dela
Northbound 7.2 see
Westbound 4.2 see
Southbound 3.6 see
Eastbound 4.2 see
Intersection 5.3 see
& LOS
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
9
INPUT
Intersection Information:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Date:
North/South Street:
East/W est Street:
Project 10:
Scenario:
Peak Period:
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road
Cannel, IN
6-30-05
Rangeline Road
Smokey Row Road
Buckingham Companies
Scenario 2
AM Peak
Roundabout Geometries:
Northbound Westbound Southbound Eastbound
En Width, E 4.88 m 4.88 m 4.88 m 4.88 m
Flare Len L' 25.0 m 25.0 m 25.0 m 25.0 m
,
Half Width, V 3.35 m 3.35 m 3.35 m 3.35 m
En Radius, R 15.0 m 15.0 m 15.0 m 15.0 m
En An Ie, PHI 20.0 de 20.0 de 20.0 de 20.0 deg
Inscribed Circle 36.59 m 36.59 m 36.59 m 36.59 m
Diameter, D
Flows:
Approach peu 1 st Exit FLOF CL
U-Turn
Northbound 1..05 95 0 1.00 50%
Westbound 1.05 19 0 1.00 50%
Southbound 1.05 27 0 1.00 50%
Eastbound 1.05 36 0 1.00 500/0
A roach Flow Ratio Flow Time
Northbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 rO 30 60
Westbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Southbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Eastbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
OUTPUT - Avera e Dela
A roach Avera e Dela
Northbound 3.0 see
Westbound 3.6 see
Southbound 6.0 see
Eastbound 3.6 see
Intersection 4.5 see
& LOS
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
10
INPUT
Intersection Information:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Date:
North/South Street:
East/West Street:
Project ID:
Scenario:
Peak Period:
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road
Cannel, IN
6-30-05
Rangeline Road
Smokey Row Road
Buckingham Companies
Scenario 2
PM Peak
Roundabout Geometries:
Northbound
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m '
15.0 m
20.0 deg
36.59 m
En Width, E
Flare Length, L'
Half Width, V
En Radius, R
Entry An e, PHI
Inscribed Circle
Diameter, D
Westbound
4.88'm
25.0 m
3.35 m
15.0 m
20.0 deg
36.59 m
Southbound
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m
15.0 m
20.0 deg
36.59 m
Eastbound
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m
15.0 m
20.0 deg
36.59 m
Flows:
Approach PCU Flows FLOF CL
1 st Exit 2nd Exit 3 Exit u- Turn
Northbound 1.05 99 572 17 0 1.00 50%
Westbound 1.05 53 140 66 0 1.00 50%
Southbound 1.05 9 322 44 0 1.00 50%
Eastbound 1.05 23 276 51 0 1.00 50%
A roach Flow Ratio Flow Time
Northbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Westbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Southbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Eastbound 0.75 1 .125 0.75 0 30 60
OUTPUT - A vera e Dela
A roach Avera e Dela
Northbound 7.8 sec
Westbound 4.2 see
Southbound 3.6 see
Eastbound 4.2 see
Intersection 5.5 see
& LOS
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
11
. ;hort Report
Page 1
\nalyst
\gency or Co.
Jate Performed
rime Period
RMB
A&F Enginf!.f!.ring
6/29/2005
AM Peak
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
Smokey Row Rd & Keystone
Ave
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 1
rea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
--
:;enerallnformation
o ume an 1m ng nput
EB we NB S8
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH R
~um. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1
.ana group L T R L TR L T R L T Fi
lolume (vph) 35 88 72 346 315 12 61 596 88 6 819 3(
% Heavy veh 15 17 7 1 5 0 7 11 5 0 8 7
'HF 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.83 O.~
~etuated (PIA A A A A A A Ai A A A A A
3tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1
:xt. eft. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1
\rrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3
)ed/BikelRTOR Volume 0 36 0 3 0 44 0 1t
.ana Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.
)arking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
)arking/hr
3us stopslhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.
'hasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 . 04 NB Only Thru & RT 58 Only 08
riming G = 7.0 G = 22.0 G= G= G = 7.0 G = 15.0 G = 8.0 G=
y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 3 y= 3 y= 5 y=
)uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 78.0
V I dTI
G
c
-t C t I D I
d LOS D t
_ane roup apacl :y, on ro e ay, an e erm nation
EB WB NB 5B
~dj. flow rate 58 147 60 412 386 67 655 48 7 987 1E
.ana group cap. 251 458 426 480 509 151 1045 493 185 1117 50
'Ie ratio 0.23 0.32 0.14 0.86 0.76 0.44 0.63 0.10 0.04 0..88 0.0
3reen ratio 0.41 0.28 0.28 0.41 0.28 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.33 0.3
Joif. delay d1 15.7 22.1 20.9 22.8 25.6 33.7 22.5 18.6 31.5 24.6 17.
Jelay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.39 0.31 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.41 0.1
ncrem. delay d2 0.5 0.4 0.2 14.4 6.5 2.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 8.6 o.~
'F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0,
;ontrol delay 16.2 22.5 21.1 37.3 32.1 35.7 23.7 18.7 31.6 33.2 17.
..ane group LOS B C C D C D C B C C B
~pprch. delay 20.8 34.8 24..5 32.9
~pproach LOS C C C C
ntersec. delay 30.0 Intersection LOS C
'CS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Versie
13
~1_.1/"""'_\~ "'__ _.~ n/"^_ 1n/"'^~_.L.L. . _L__1___......._ AT':'TTA\T ___In/...,I\C'_......:__.....\',.......__\n'''ll,C'''I:' +""""_
, .hort Report
Page ]
~na Iyst
\gency or Co.
late Performed
ime Period
RMB
A&F Engineering
6/29/2005
PM Peak
t
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
Smokey Row Rd & Keystone
Ave
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 1
rea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
...
;enerallnformation
V I
d T- ·
o ume an Imina npu
EB WB NB 58
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH R
~um. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1
.ana group L T R L TR L T R L T F;
'alume (vph) 80 296 56 195 133 15 73 1102 332 16 718 1~
% Heavy veh 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 4 1 0 7 1(
)HF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 O.~
\ctuated (PIA A A A A A A A A A A A A
;tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1
:>Ct. eft. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2J
~rrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,
'ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 28 0 3 0 166 0 5
.ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.
)arking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
)arking/hr
Jus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.
)hasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 . 04 NB Only Thru & RT S8 Only 08
-iming G = 10.0 G = 18.0 G= G= G = 9.0 G = 21.0 G = 7.0 G=
y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 3 y= 3 y= 5 y=
)uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 lCycle Length C = 84.0
G
c
-t C t I D I
d LOS D t
t-
.ane roup apacl ty, on ro e ay, an e ennlna Ion
EB we NB 58
\dj. flow rate 91 336 32 235 174 79 1198 180 19 845 7
.ana group cap. 419 403 339 297 402 190 1366 628 150 1248 54~
'Ie ratio 0.22 0.83 0.09 0.79 0.43 0.42 0.88 0.29 0.13 0.68 0.0
;reen ratio 0.37 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.21 0.11 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.37 0.3
Jnif. delay d1 17.9 31.6 26.5 21.0 28.6 35.0 23.6 17.4 35.7 22.3 16.
)elay factor k 0.11 0.37 0.11 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.1
1crem. delay d2 0.3 14.0 0.1 13.5 0.7 1.5 6.8 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.(
)F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0t
;ontrol delay , 18.2 45.5 26.6 34.5 29.3 36.5 30.4 17.7 36.1 23.8 16.
.ana group LOS B D C C C D C B 0 C B
-
,pprch. delay 38.8 32.3 29.2 24.0
-
\pproach LOS D C C C
-
ltersec. delay 29.5 Intersection LOS C
-
CS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Versj(
14
: 1...... Ilrt.\ T'\..... .-.......- __........01 ,., f\..._ ....tOI 'l (\C' _.......:_ _n\ ~ 'k...."'T'W,"" ^ 1:U (\\ T _ ^no 10.1-. ,., f\C" ............:_ _.....\ 'T" 01""tl"\......\~,., 1,.'1 ~ "'--_
. hort Report
Page 1
\nalyst
\gency or Co.
)ate Performed
.ime Period
RMB
A&F Engineering
612912005"
AM Peak
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
Smokey Row Rd & Keystone
Ave
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 2
ea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
;enerallnformation
VI
d T- ·
t
o ume an Imlng npu
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT IT TH Rl
~um. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1
.ana group L T R L TR L T R L T R
lolume (vph) 37 91 82 346 316 12 63 596. 88 6 819 30
1'0 Heavy veh 15 17 7 1 5 0 7 11 5 0 8 7
)HF 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.83 0.8:
\ctuated (PIA A A A A A A A A A A A A
;tartup lost ti me 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
:xl. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
\rrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.t
)ed/BikelRTOR Volume 0 41 0 3 0 44 0 15
.ana Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.C
)arking/G rad e/Parki ng N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
)arking/hr
Jus stops/hr 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.(
)hasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 ,04 NB Only Thru & RT S8 Only 08
-iming G = 7.0 lG = 23.0 G= G= G = 7.0 G = 15.0 G =8.0 G=
y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 3 y= 3 y= 5 y=
)uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 79.0
G
c
-t C t I 0 I
d LOS D t
ti
..ane roup apacl ty J on ro e ay, an e ermlna on
EB we NB S8
\dj. flow rate 62 152 68 412 387 69 655 48 7 987 18
.ana group cap. 258 473 439 486 525 149 1031 487 183 1103 497
'Ie ratio 0.24 0.32 0.15 0.85 0.74 0.46 0.64 0.10 0.04 0.89 0.04
,reen ratio 0.42 0.29 0.29 0.42 0.29 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.33 0.33
Jnif. delay d 1 15.5 21.9 20.8 22.7 25.3 34.2 23.1 19.0 32.0 25.2 18.0
)elay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.29 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.42 0.11
ncrem. delay d2 0.5 0.4 0.2 13.2 5.4 2.3 1.3 0.1 0.1 9.6 0.0
'F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.004
;ontrol delay 16.0 22.3 21.0 35.9 30.7 36.5 24.4 19.1 32.1 34.8 18.0
.ana group LOS B C C D C 0 C B C C B
\pprch. delay 20.6 33.4 25.2 34.5
-
\pproach LOS C C C C
-
ntersec. delay 30.3 Intersection LOS C
CS2000™
Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version
15
ilp.llr~\ nl'\~l11nPntC'OL ')(\~"rlOI... ')()Co"'+';___n\~h...._..'U_ A L'il A\ T __" 10/ ,",^r. _~L':__ _.....\rr....__\ ,.."\1.. A 1 L h_
. ;hort Report
Page 1
~nalyst
\gency or Co.
)ate Performed
rime Period
RMB
A&F Engin~_ering
6/29/2005
PM Peak
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
Smokey Row Rd & Keystone
Ave
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 2
eaType
urisdiction
nalysis Year
:;enerallnformation
VI dTI ·
o ume an mlng nput
EB WB NB S8
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH R
~um. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1
.ane group L T R L TR L T R L T f,
lolume(vph) 81 297 61 195 135 15 83 1102 332 16 718 1~
% Heavy veh 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 4 1 0 7 1(
:)HF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 O.l.
~ctuated (PIA A A A A A A A A A A A A
3tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.f
:xt. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.t
~rrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.
=>ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 30 0 3 0 166 0 6
_ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.
)arking/GradelParking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
=>arking/hr
3us stopslhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.
=>has;ng Excl. Left EW Perm 03 . 04 NB Only Thru & RT 58 Only 08
riming G = 10.0 G = 18.0 G= G= G = 9.0 G = 21.0 G= 7..0 G=
y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 3 y= 3 y= 5 y=
)uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 84.0
G
c
-t C t I D I
d LOS D
_ane roup apacl tv, on ro e ay, an eterm nation
EB WB NB 58
~dj. flow rate 92 338 35 235 177 90 1198 180 19 845 8
.ane group cap. 417 403 339 297 402 190 1366 628 150 1248 54.
fie ratio 0.22 0.84 0.10 0..79 0.44 0.47 0.88 0..29 0.13 0.68 0.0
3reen ratio 0.37 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.21 0.11 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.37 0.3
Jnif. delay d1 18.0 31.6 26.5 21.0 28.6 35.3 23.6 17.4 35.7 22.3 16.
Jelay factor k 0.11 0.37 0.11 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.1
ncrem. delay d2 0.3 14.5 0.1 13.5 0.8 1.9 6.8 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.(
3F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0~
:;ontrol delay 18.2 46.1 26.6 34.5 29.4 37.1 30.4 17.7 36.1 23.8 16.
.ana group LOS B D C C C D C B D C B
\pprch. delay 39.1 32.3 29.2 24.0
\pproach LOS D C C C
ntersec. delay 29.6 Intersection LOS C
rCS2000™
Copyright ~ 2000 University of Floridat All Rights Reserved
V ersi <
16
lit .. , I _ \.,..,.
'In' _ ^_ . .. \ 1
fwo-Way Stop Control
Page
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
ite Information
Intersection
urisdiction
nal sis Year
Smole Row Rd & Access
Carmel
cenario 2
Access Drive
0.25
V h- I V I
dAd- t
t
e Ie e o ,umes an IJUS men s
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h)" 6 195 0 0 406 3
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0..90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (vehlh) 6 216 0 0 451 3
Proportion of heavy vehicles, 2 3
PHV - -- - --
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbouod
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
l T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 15 0 28
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 16 0 31
Proportion of heavy vehicles, 3 3 3 2 3 2
PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration . . L . R
on ro e av, ueue Length, level of erv ce
t\pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
Volume, v (vph) 6 16 31
Capacity, em (vph) 1107 415 608
vie ratio 0.01 0.04 O.Dt
Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.12 O. 1f
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 14.0 11.~
LOS A B B
Approach delay (s/veh) - -- 12.2
Approach LOS - - B
C t 10 I Q
5
18
';le~1 Ie: ~\ nO~llm~nt~O~ 'O~nnO/n ?O~pttlnO'~\mhrnwn A PH ()\ T n~~ lO~ ?()~ptt~1'\nC'l\ T pT"nn\11,)lr~n +"I'V\....
. ~wo-Way Stop Control
Page 1
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
ite Information
Intersection
uris diction
nal sis Year
Access Drive
0.25
e Ice o umes an IJUS en
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
\t1ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
volume (vehlh) 26 432 0 0 217 14
:;)eak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
-fourly Flow Rate (vehlh) 28 480 0 0 241 15
::)roportion of heavy vehicles, 2 :3
:> -- -- - -
HV
\1edian type Undivided
:"{T Channelized? 0 0
_anes 0 1 0 0 1 0
:onfiguration LT TR
Jpstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
\Aovement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
v'olume (veh/h) 0 0 0 7 O. 13
=>eak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
-fourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 7 0 14
=>roportion of heavy vehicles, 3 3 3 2 3 2
:J
HV
=>ercent grade (%) 0 0
=Iared approach N N
Storage 0 0
~T Channelized? 0 0
_anes 0 0 0 1 0 1
::onfiguration L R
",on ro e ay, ueue Length. Level of ervice
~pproach EB we Northbound Southbound
\Aovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
_ana Configuration LT L R
"olume, v (vph) 28 7 14
~apacity, em (vph) 1309 354 791
lIe ratio 0.02 0.02 O.O~
Jueue length (950/0) 0.07 0.06 D.Ol
tontrol Delay (s/veh) 7.8 15.4 9.~
15 A C A
'roach delay (s/veh) - -- 11.5
-
'fJach LOS - -- B
-
V h- I V I
dAd- tm ts
" t I D I Q
s
19
'l'\Pl1tnpnt~Ok ?O~nAOk ')nQpH-inlT"'n'\hrn,un A PUr.\ T ^i"~ 10L ')(\C OlH;....nC"\ 'T'~....\.n"')l,.~f\ 1-..-_
~ ,,, ("\ I'