HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Operations Analysis
Page 1 of 1
Official station daily observations: 16 Dee 2004 to 16 Dec 2004
Date Time Station AirTemp Prec Snow
EST Name Max Min Tot New Gnd
1216 700 IN Alexandria .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Anderson .00 . 0 0
1216 * IN CastletoI1 . 0'0
1216 700 IN Columbus 36 16 .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Danville .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Eagle Cree .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Elwood 36 17 .00 . 0 0
1216 1200 IN Frankfort 41 27 .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Franklin W 36 16 .00 . 0 0
1216 800 IN Greenfield 33 16 .00 . 0 0
1216 800 IN Greensburg 33 16 .00 . 0 0
1216 800 IN Indy SE Si 34 16 .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Indy Zoo .00 . 0 0
1216 800 IN Jamestown 35 16 .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Kokomo .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Lapel .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Lebanon .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Marion 35 17 .00 . 0 0
1216 800 IN Martinsvil 36 15 .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Morristown .00 . 0 0
1216 700 IN Noblesvill .00 . 0 0
1216 800 IN Rushville 34 17 .00 . 0 0
1216 600 IN Tipton 35 16 .00 . 0 0
1216 1700 IN Whitestown 40 24 .00 . 0 0
* flags an estimated data value
Official/Unofficial station rainfall reports
Precipitation Summary: December 16 - December 16 2004
Division 5
Station County
Date
16
http:// shadow .agry. purdue .edu/ cgi -bin/request
8/2/2005
I
,J
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 Carmel High School. As part of
this plan, traffic volume counts were collected and traffic flow patterns were recorded. As
with many area, schools, Carmel 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.
BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES - SMOKEY Row ROAD
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. ............................. II
CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................................................. .............................. III
INTRODUCTION..... ...... ................... .... ................... ........... ........................................ .............. ..................... ........ ....... ..... 1
PURPOS E .............................................................................................................................. . ... . ........ . . ... . .. . . .. . ... .... .... . .. .. 1
SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................................................. .. . . . .. .. . . ... . . . .. .. . . .. . .... 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED "ARDEN" DEVEWPMENT....................... ..... ... .......... .......... ............................ ..... .......... .....2
DESCRIPTION OF NEAR-BY PROJECTS................................................. ... ..... ... ....... .... ......... ... ...... ......... ........ ..... ........ .....2
STUD Y AREA........................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... .. .. . .......... . .. .. 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SySTEM........... ........... .......................... ..... ........ ... ................ ..... ................. ....4
TRAFFIC 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 AS S- By TRIPs........................................................................................................................... . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. 5
PEAK H 0 U R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS ............ .................................... .....................,......................... 6
GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM ....... ... ...... ..... ...... .... ....... ..... ... ......... ...... .......... .... .... ............. ..... .....6
CAPACITY ANAL YS IS .............................................................................................................................. ..................... 11
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE .... ...... ............. ........ ... ........ ..... ...... .... ... .... ......... .... ..... ....... .............. ....... ... ...... ... 11
CAPACITY ANAL YS ES SCENARIOS...................................................................................................................... .......... 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.......................................................................................................................... .................................... 18
RECOMMENDATIONS... ...... .................................................... ........... ..... ......... ....... .................. .... .............. ........ ........ ...20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 Carmel, 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 determine 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 Avenue
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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES - SMOKEY Row ROAD
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Fourth, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will serve to
provide access to the proposed "Arden" development.
Fifth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from the proposed site' onto the public roadway
system and intersections that have been identified in the study area.
Sixth, to prepare a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each intersection included in
the study area for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1 : Existing Conditions - This scenario will be based on the existing traffic
volumes, the projected traffic volumes from "The Traditions on the Monon"
and the existing roadway conditions.
SCENARIO 2: Proposed Development - Add the new traffic volumes that will be generated
by "Arden" to the Scenario 1 traffic volumes.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS documenting all data, analyses,
conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic
through the study area.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED "ARDEN" DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development is to be located along Smokey Row Road, between Rangeline Road and
Keystone Avenue in Carmel, Indiana. As proposed, the development will include approximately
100 townhomes and will be served by one access drive located along Smokey Row Road. Figure 1
is and area map of the proposed development.
DESCRIPTION OF NEAR-BY PROJECTS
Approximately 135 townhomes known as "The Traditions on the Manon" are currently being
developed on a site along Smokey Row Road, just west of Rangeline Road. A Traffic Operations
Analysis prepared by A&F Engineering was completed for this site in December 2004. Data used
as part of the December 2004 study will be used within this analysis.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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
Carmel 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 Carmel. 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 roundabout 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 Monon" 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BUCKINGHAM COMPANIES - SMOKEY Row ROAD
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that
approach the intersection. The "efficiency" of an intersection is designated by the Level-of-
Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS of an intersection is determined by a series of
calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data into a capacity analysis include
traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes and, in the case of signalized
intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the level of service at each of the study
intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer program based
on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCMl.
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following descriptions are for signalized intersections:
Level of Service A _ describes operations with a very low delay, less than or equal to 10.0
seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable,
and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not
stop at all.
Level of Service B _ describes operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds per
vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression. More vehicles stop
than LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
Level of Service C _ describes operation with delay in the range of 20.1 seconds to 35.0
seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from failed
progression. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,
although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
2 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2000.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 Monon" Traffic Volumes with Existing
Intersection Conditions (Scenario IA) - 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 IB) - 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 Manon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed
"Arden" Development Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions (Scenario 2A)
- When the traffic volumes from the proposed "Arden" development are added to the
Scenario 1 traffic volumes, this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels
with the existing intersection conditions.
Existing Traffic Volumes~ "Traditions on the Monon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed
"Arden" Development Traffic Volumes with Roundabout (Scenario 2A) - When the traffic
volumes from the proposed "Arden" development are added to the Scenario 1 traffic
18
fort Report
:;enerallnformation
Inalyst
IIfgency or Co.
Jate Performed
me Period
Page 1 0:
RMB
A&F Engineering
12/20/2004
AM Peak
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
Smofey Row Rd & Rangeline
Road
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 1
rea Type
u risd iction
nalysis Year
, 0 ume an Imlng npu
EB WB NB 5B
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
urn. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
.ne group ILTR LTR LTR LTR
I2.lume (vph) 11 109 23 97 203 26 20 185 42 47 485 40
% Heavy veh 0 1 0 2 4 3 0 2 0 8 1 0
IHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.84
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
=xt. eft. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
rrival type 3 3 3 3
nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
)ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 5 0 4 0 10 0 10
ne Width 9.0 11.0 15.0 13.0
'arking/Grad elP arki ng N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
arking/hr
us stops/hr 0 0 0 0
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Iha.sing EW Perm 02 03 04 N5 Perm 06 07 08
G = 22.8 G= G= G= G = 27.2 G= G= G=
Imlng y= 5 Y= Y= Y= y= 5 Y= y= Y=
I uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 ~ycle Length C = 60.0
ane Group Capacity Control Delav. and LOS Determination
d T. · t
j. flow rate
EB WB NB SB
172 467 296 669
604 567 849 826
0.28 0.82 0.35 0.81
0.38 0.38 0.45 0.45
12.9 16.8 10.6 14.2
0.11 0.36 0.11 0.35
0.3 9.6 0.2 6.1
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
13.2 26.4 10.9 20.3
B C B C
13.2 26.4 10.9 20.3
B C B C
19.6 Intersection LOS B
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version ~
Jnif. delay d1
elay factor k
ncrem. delay d2
F factor
,ontrol delay
ne group LOS
prch. delay
\pproach LOS
tersec. delay
I
I 4
il~.//r.\n()~llmpnt~O~?O:lnnO~?O~pttlno~\mhr()wn A FH()\T .()~~lO~?O~pttlno~\TPn'ln\~,)1rl L1 tmn
Page 1 of
SHORT REPORT
. ite Information
RMB
A&F Engineering
12/20/2004
PM Peak
rea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
Smokey Row Rd &
Rangeline Road
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 1
o ume an Imina nput
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT IT TH RT LT TH RT
urn. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Ie group LTR LTR LTR LTR
ume (vph) 53 286 22 39 98 42 21 518 123 44 322 23
10 Heavy veh 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
IMF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.81 0.81
.uated (PIA A A A A A A A A A A A A
tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
,.t. eft. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
.ival type 3 3 3 3
1nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Iid/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 5 0 10 0 30 0 5
"e Width 9.0 11.0 15.0 13.0
tarkinglGrade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
IIrking/hr
.s stops/hr 0 0 0 0
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
asing 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=
ration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0
ne Grou Ca acit Control Dela and LOS Determination
d T- -
EB WB NB S8
j. flow rate 391 214 680 474
517 509 994 868
0.76 0.42 0.68 0.55
0.33 0.33 0.50 0.50
if. delay d 1 17.8 15.5 11.4 10.3
"lay factor k 0.31 0.11 0.25 0.15
lcrem. delay d2 6.3 0.6 2.0 0.7
factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
,ontrol delay 24.2 16.1 13.4 11.0
ne group LOS C B B B
prch. delay 24.2 16.1 13.4 11.0
\ proach LOS C B B B
ersec. delay 15.5 Intersection LOS B
Copyright (b) 2000 University of Florida? All Rights Reserved Version ·
5
lp. / /r.\ nO~llmpntcO~ ,)O!lnt10~ ?O~pttin(J~\mhr()wn _ A FH 0\ T ,ocalO~20Settin QS\ T emn\s2k9 .tmn
,ort Report
;enerallnformation
I,alyst
'ency or Co.
)ate Performed
me Period
Page 1 oj
RMB
A&F Engineering
12/20/2004
AM Peak
SHORT REPORT
ite Inforttlation
SmoJ/Jy Row Rd & Rangeline
Road
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 2
rea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
"0 ume an Imlng npu
. EB WB NB 5B
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
'm. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
IIfne group '/-TR LTR LTR LTR
~Iume (vph) 11 112 23 105 217 32 20 185 44 48 485 40
% Heavy veh 0 1 0 2 4 3 0 2 0 8 1 0
I HF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.84
ctuated (PIA A A A A A A A A A A A A
:> artup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
=xt. eft. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
trival type 3 3 3 3
nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
~ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 5 0 4 0 10 0 10
.ne Width 9.0 11.0 15.0 13.0
~arkinglGrade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
alarking/hr
Ius stops/hr 0 0 0 0
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ira.Sing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
G = 22.8 G= G= G= G = 27.2 G= G= G=
Imlng y= 5 y= Y= Y= y= 5 y= y= y=
I uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0
ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
dr- - t
EB WB NB 5B
176 507 298 670
603 567 849 825
0.29 0.89 0.35 0.81
0.38 0.38 0.45 0.45
Jnif. delay d 1 13.0 17.5 10.7 14.2
elay 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
pprch. delay 13.2 34.1 10.9 20.4
~pproach LOS B C B C
tersec. delay 22.1 Intersection LOS C
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version
I
I 6
i 1 e ~ / / r ~ \ f)ocnm ent~O~20:lnrlOh.20Settin t!s \m brown.AFH O\Local %2 OSettin l!s\ T emo \s2k 1 F . tmo
6/29/2C
Page 1 of
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
alyst
~ ency or Co.
)ate Performed
e Period
RMB
A&F Engineering
12/20/2004
PM Peak
rea Type
u risd iction
nalysis Year
Smokey Row Rd &
Rangeline Road
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 2
o ume an Imlng npu
I EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
~um. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
line group lTR LTR LTR LTR
alume (vph) 53 299 22 43 104 45 21 518 130 50 322 23
% Heavy veh 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
I ~~ated (PIA 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.81 0.81
A A A A A A A A A A A A
)tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
.i,xt. eft. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
II trival type 3 3 3 3
"nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
.ied/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 5 0 10 0 30 0 5
5ne Width 9.0 11.0 15.0 13.0
-SarkinglGrade/Parki ng N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
fking/hr
us stops/hr 0 0 0 0
Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ita.sing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
G = 20.0 G= G= G= G = 30.0 G= G= G=
Imlng Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= y= y=
uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0
.ane Group Capacity. Control Delav. and LOS Determination
dTe e t
EB WB NB SB
406 230 688 482
518 497 993 853
0.78 0.46 0.69 0.57
0.33 0.33 0.50 0.50
nif. delay d1 18.0 15.8 11.5 10.5
elay 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
Jontrol delay 25.8 16.4 13.6 11.3
.ane group LOS C B B B
pprch. delay 25.8 16.4 13.6 11.3
~pproach LOS C B B B
tersec. delay 16.1 Intersection LOS B
Copyright <9 2000 University of Florida, An Rights Reserved Version
I
I 7
,1 p. / /r. \ nO~11mpnt~O~? O:lnoo/n? OSettln p-~\m hrown. A FH O\Local 0/02 OSettin QS\ T emD \s2k2B. troD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INPUT
Intersection Information:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Date:
North/South Street:
East/W est Street:
Project ID:
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
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m
15.0 m
20.0 deg
36.59 m
En Width, E
Flare Len h, L'
Half Width, V
Ent Radius, R
Entry AngIe, PHI
Inscribed Circle
Diameter, D
Westbound
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m
] 5.0 m
20.0 deg
36.59 m
Southbound
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m
] 5.0 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 51 Exit 2nd 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 roach Flow Ratio Flow Time
Northbound 0.75 I .125 0.75 0 30 60
Westbound 0.75 1. I 25 0.75 0 30 60
Southbound 0.75 I .125 0.75 0 30 60
Eastbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
OUTPUT - Avera e Dela
A ,roach Avera e Delay
Northbound 3.0 sec
Westbound 3.6 see
Southbound 5.4 see
Eastbound 3.6 see
Intersection 4.4 sec
& LOS
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INPUT
Intersection Information:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Date:
North/South Street:
East/W est Street:
Project ID:
Scenario:
Peak Period:
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road
Carmel, 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 h, L'
Half Width, V
Ent Radius, R
Entry Angle, PHI
Inscribed .Circle
Diameter, D
Westbound
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
Southbound
4.88 m
25.0 m
3.35 m
15.0 m
20.0 deg
36.59 m
Flows:
Approach peu Flows FLOF CL
1 st Exit 2nd Exit 3rd Exit U-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 Average Delay
Northbound 7.2 see
Westbound 4.2 see
Southbound 3.6 see
Eastbound 4.2 sec
Intersection 5.3 see
& LOS
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INPUT
Intersection Information:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Date:
North/South street:
East/W est Street:
Project ill:
Scenario:
Peak Period:
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road
Carmel, IN
6-30-05
Rangeline Road
Smokey Row Road
Buckingham Companies
Scenario 2
AM 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 h, L'
Half Width, V
En Radius, R
Entry Angle, 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 20 Exit 3rd Exit V-Turn
Northbound 1.05 95 155 14 0 1.00 50%
Westbound 1.05 19 149 83 0 1.00 50%
Southbound 1.05 27 498 61 0 1.00 50%
Eastbound 1.05 36 248 8 0 1.00 50%
A roach Flow Ratio Flow Time
Northbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
Westbound 0.75 I .125 0.75 0 30 60
Southbound 0.75 I .125 0.75 0 30 60
Eastbound 0.75 1.125 0.75 0 30 60
OUTPUT - Avera e Dela
A roach Avera e Delay
Northbound 3.0 sec
Westbound 3.6 see
Southbound 6.0 see
Eastbound 3.6 sec
Intersection 4.5 see
& LOS
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INPUT
Intersection Information:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Date:
North/South Street:
EastIW est Street:
Project ID:
Scenario:
Peak Period:
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road
Carmel, 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
Ent Width, E
Flare Len h, L'
Half Width, V
Entry Radius, R
Entry Angle, 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 3rd 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 - Avera e Dela
A roach Avera e Dela
Northbound 7.8 sec
Westbound 4.2 see
Southbound 3.6 sec
Eastbound 4.2 see
Intersection 5.5 see
& LOS
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
A
11
tort Report
;enerallnformation
Inalyst
gency or Co.
Jate Performed
Ime Period
Page 1 01
RMB
A&F Engineering
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
-'10 ume an Imlng npu
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
urn. 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 R
.olurne (vph) 35 88 72 346 315 12 61 596 88 6 819 30
% Heavy veh 15 17 7 1 5 0 7 11 5 0 8 7
IHF 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.83 0.83
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 2.0
..;xl. eft. 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
-'nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
)ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 36 0 3 0 44 0 15
ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
arking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
arkinglhr
us stops/hr 0 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 3.0
1.~a.Sing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT SB Only 08
G = 7.0 G = 22.0 G= G= G = 7.0 G = 15.0 G = 8.0 G=
Imlng y= 3 Y= 5 Y= Y= y= 3 Y= 3 Y= 5 y=
I )uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 78.0
ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
dj. flow rate 58 147 60 412 386 67 655 48 7 987 18
.ane group cap. 251 458 426 480 509 151 1045 493 185 1117 503
c ratio 0.23 0.32 0.14 0.86 0.76 0.44 0.63 0.10 0.04 0.88 0.04
reen ratio 0.41 0.28 0.28 0.41 0.28 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.33 0.33
Jnif. delay d 1 15.7 22.1 20.9 22.8 25.6 33.7 22.5 18.6 31.5 24.6 17.5
lelay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.39 0.31 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.41 0.11
ncrem. delay d2 0.5 0.4 0.2 14.4 6.5 2.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 8.6 0.0
.F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
~ontrol delay 16.2 22.5 21.1 37.3 32.1 35.7 23.7 18.7 31.6 33.2 17.6
.ane group LOS B C C 0 C 0 C B C C B
Ipprch. delay 20.8 34.8 24.5 32.9
\pproach LOS C C C C
"tersec. delay 30.0 Intersection LOS C
-
dT- · t
'CS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version t
I
I 13
ile:IICIDocum entsOJri20andOJri20Setti n QS \m brown .AFH O\LocalO~2 OSettin QS\ T etnO \s2k5F _ tmn
0/29/20
tort Report
;enerallnformation
I,alyst
~ency or Co.
)ate Performed
me Period
Page 1 01
RMB
A&F Engineering
6/29/2005
PM Peak
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
Smokey Row Rd & Keystone
Ave
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 1
ea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
'0 ume an Imlng npu
I EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
-'um. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1
ne group L T R L TR L T R L T R
lume (vph) 80 296 56 195 133 15 73 1102 332 16 718 11
Yo Heavy veh 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 4 1 0 7 10
. HF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85
I 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 2.0
..;xt. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
~rival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
t;d/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 28 0 3 0 166 0 5
ne Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
--'arkinglG rad e/Parki ng N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
.arking/hr
Ius stops/hr 0 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 3.0
.hasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 58 Only 08
~ming 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
I ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
dT- · t
Page 1 of
alyst
~ ency or Co.
~ate Performed
e Period
RMB
A&F Engineering
6/29/2005
AM Peak
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
Smokey Row Rd & Keystone
Ave
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 2
rea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
w 0 ume an Imlng npu
EB WB NB 5B
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
urn. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1
ne group L T R L TR L T R L T R
lume (vph) 37 91 82 346 316 12 63 596- 88 6 819 30
Yo Heavy veh 15 17 7 1 5 0 7 11 5 0 8 7
I -IF 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.83 0.83
;tuated (P/A A A A A A A A A A A A A
) artup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
: t. eft. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
rival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
) d/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 41 0 3 0 44 0 15
ne Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
)arkinglG rad e/Parki ng N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
trking/hr
s 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 3.0
I ha.sing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT SB Only 08
G = 7.0 G = 23.0 G= G= G = 7.0 G = 15.0 G = 8.0 G=
mlng Y= 3 Y= 5 y= Y= y= 3 y= 3 y= 5 Y=
Irration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 79.0
ane GrOUD Ca acitv, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
dT- - t
EB WB NB SB
j. flow rate 62 152 68 412 387 69 655 48 7 987 18
258 473 439 486 525 149 1031 487 183 1103 497
0.24 0.32 0.15 0.85 0.74 0.46 0.64 0.10 0.04 0.89 0.04
0.42 0.29 0.29 0.42 0.29 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.33 0.33
Jnif. delay d1 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 1.000
,antral delay 16.0 22.3 21.0 35.9 30.7 36.5 24.4 19.1 32.1 34.8 18.0
ne group LOS B C C D C D C B C C B
pprch. delay 20.6 33.4 25.2 34.5
~pproach LOS C C C C
tersec. delay 30.3 Intersection LOS C
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, An Rights Reserved Version'
I
I 15
i 1 e~ I /r~~ f)ocnm ent~O~2 Oand O~2 OSettin t!s\mbrown.AFH O\Local %2 OSettines\ T emu \s2k 41 . tmp
Page 1 of
alyst
ency or Co.
Jate Performed
me Period
RMB
A&F Engineering
6/29/2005
PM Peak
SHORT REPORT
ite Information
Smokey Row Rd & Keystone
Ave
All other areas
Carmel
Scenario 2
ntersection
rea Type
urisdiction
nalysis Year
o ume an Imlng npu
EB WB NB 5B
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
urn. of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1
.ne group L T R L TR L T R L T R
a>lume (vph) 81 297 61 195 135 15 83 1102 332 16 718 13
0/0 Heavy veh 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 4 1 0 7 10
I~ated (PIA 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85
A A A A A A A A A A A A
5tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
.ixt. eft. 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
-'nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
'd/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 30 0 3 0 166 0 6
ne Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
)arki nglG rad e/P arki ng N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
liarking/hr
Ius stops/hr 0 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 3.0
I [ha.sing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 5B Only 08
G = 10.0 G = 18.0 G= G= G = 9.0 G = 21.0 G = 7.0 G=
Imlng Y= 3 y= 5 Y= y= Y= 3 y= 3 Y= 5 y=
I~uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 84.0
ane GrOUD Ca acitv. Control Dela and LOS Determination
d T- · t
EB WB NB SB
92 338 35 235 177 90 1198 180 19 845 8
417 403 339 297 402 190 1366 628 150 1248 542
0.22 0.84 0.10 0.79 0.44 0.47 0.88 0.29 0.13 0.68 0.01
0.37 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.21 0.11 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.37 0.37
nif. delay d 1 18.0 31.6 26.5 21.0 28.6 35.3 23.6 17~4 35.7 22.3 16.8
elay factor k 0.11 0.37 0.11 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11
ncrem. delay d2 0.3 14.5 0.1 13.5 0.8 1.9 6.8 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.0
F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
-,ontrol delay 18.2 46.1 26.6 34.5 29.4 37.1 30.4 17.7 36.1 23.8 16.8
ane group LOS B 0 C C C 0 C B 0 C B
pprch. delay 39.1 32.3 29.2 24.0
~pproach LOS 0 C C C
tersec. delay 29.6 Intersection LOS C
Copyright C9 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version.
16
l1p. / Ir.\ f)nrllmpnt~o/^ ,)O~nr1o,l,.. ,)O~pttino~\mhr()wn A FH()\ T .or:llO/o?OSettlnp~\Temn\~?k4r_tmn
Page 1 01
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
ite Information
mole Row Rd & Access
Carmel
Scenario 2
Access Drive
0.25
e Ie e o umes an IJUS men 5
ajor Street Eastbound Westbound
ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
-*,olume (veh/h) 6 195 0 0 406 3
.eak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 6 216 0 0 451 3
I ~~oportion of heavy vehicles, 2 3
-- - - -
HV
Median type Undivided
T Channelized? 0 0
anes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
.stream Signal 0 0
inor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
olume (veh/h) 0 0 0 15 0 28
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
I rurlY Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 16 0 31
roportion of heavy vehicles, 3 3 3 2 3 2
HV
ereent grade (0/0) 0 0
lared approach N N
Storage 0 0
IT Channelized? 0 0
anes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration L R.
(ontrol Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service
pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
..bt1ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
.ane Configuration LT L R
...
Volume, v (vph) 6 16 31
Ifapaeity, cm (vph) 1107 415 608
./e ratio 0.01 0.04 0.05
Queue length (950/0) 0.02 0.12 0.16
!;ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.3 14.0 11.2
~OS A B B
_~pproach delay (s/veh) - - 12.2
~pproach LOS - - B
-
dAd- t t
I 18
i 1~. / Ie:. \ n()rl1mPl1t~O~? O:4nrlo~? OSettln p~\m hrown.A FH 0\ T Jocal 0/02 OSettln QS\ T emn \ 112ktlD _ tmn
6/29/2(
Page 1 of
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
ite Information
Intersection
urisdiction
nal sis Year
Smole Row Rd & Access
Carmel
Scenario 2
Access Drive
0.25
e Ie e o umes an IJUS men
lajor Street Eastbound Westbound
ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
flume (veh/h) 26 432 0 0 217 14
eak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
-iourly Flow Rate (vehlh) 28 480 0 0 241 15
Iroportion of heavy vehicles, 2 - - 3 - -
HV
V1edian type Undivided
tiT Channelized? 0 0
.anes 0 1 0 0 1 0
:;onfiguration LT TR
rstream Signal 0 0
inor Street Northbound Southbound
\I1ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
olume (veh/h) 0 0 0 7 0 13
::leak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
I ourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 7 0 14
roportion of heavy vehicles, 3 3 3 2 3 2
... HV
.ereent grade (O~) 0 0
.Iared approach N N
Storage 0 0
.T Channelized? 0 0
lIanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
:;onfiguration L R
lontrol Delay, Queue length, level of Service
pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ane Configuration LT L R
volume, v (vph) 28 7 14
~apacity, cm (vph) 1309 354 791
c ratio 0.02 0.02 0.02
)ueue length (950/0) 0.07 0.06 0.05
.ontrol Delay (s/veh) 7.8 15.4 9.6
~OS A C A
..t\pproaeh delay (s/veh) - - 11.5
.pproach LOS - - B
-
dAd- t ts
I 19
11 p.llr.\ n()rllmpnt~O~ ?O~nilO~ ?OSettlnp~\m hrown _ A FH 0\ T ,oc~ lO~20Settinp~\ T emn\nJk70 - tmn