No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Study: I-465 & US 31, 11-8-00YRGERI1 II�1 G® •Specializing In7kfc Engineering Mr. Laurence M. Lillig, Jr. Mr. Mike Hollobaugh Department of Community Development City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 November 7, 2000 Re: Traffic Impact Study I -465 at US 31 Carmel, Indiana Dear Mr. Lillig and Mr. Hollobaugh, 1 Cor. 10:31 whatever you do, do it all for the gloryofGod 4 410 IVZ Docs 2000 Please find enclosed my traffic study and appendices for the proposed developments at I -465 and US 31. Originally this study was prepared for the development of three sites, but I have updated it for the new proposal of just the site in the southwest corner of the interchange with the new land use proposal. Because of the complex nature of diversion, I originally made five distributions in an attempt to find a reasonable distribution. With the new proposal and assumptions from this year, I have made two additional distributions. While the first five may be of some interest, only distributions 6 and 7 apply to the project currently under consideration of rezoning. There are also several scenarios in the study, but the ones to consider for this rezone petition are scenario 3, as currently zoned, and scenario 6, as currently proposed. Scenario 7 is the same land use for the site as what is in the A &F Engineering Co. study, but it is different than the petition. In this study, I have used the traditional approach as outlined in the Carmel Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. In distributions 6 and 7, I have used the base level of service of "C ", as prescribed in the guidelines. In the prior distribution, I used level of service "D" per our conversations last year, but that was for the previous project that has been withdrawn. The technical appendices are approximately 1,500 pages for distributions 6 and 7, so I have chosen to distribute them only to the engineers and planners. If anyone would like a copy, we can make more sets, but as you can see there are very technical and probably only understandable to traffic engineers and planners. As stated in the report, I plan to present a computer animation of the traffic operations at the meeting, but since it is an animation, I cannot submit it on paper prior to the meeting. It will demonstrate visually the impacts at the interchange in terms of queue lengths and stops that cannot be easily demonstrated in any other way. It also takes into direct consideration the progression between intersections. Please call me with your questions or comments at 317- 475 -1100. Sincerely, Yarger Engineering, Inc. W 7r 4.,4•4040. Bradley William Yarger, P.E. President BWY/bwy Enclosures: Traffic Study Report Traffic Study Appendices cc: Special Studies Committee Members (Report Only) John Myers, Parsons Brinkerhoff Bob Falk, Duke — Weeks Reality Steve Feribach, A &F Engineering, Inc. Gerry Wagner, Heartland Coalition (Report Only) Pam Lambert, Heartland Coalition (Report Only) 1401 Alimingo Drive Indianapolis, IN 46260 -4058 Voice: 317- 475 -1100 Fax: 317- 475 -0100 1 -465 at US 31 1lamilton County • Traffic Impact Study Preliminary Report I certify that this Traffic Impact Study has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering. Bradley William Yarger, P.E. Indiana Registration 8802967 President Yarger Engineering, Inc. November 6 , 2000 Yarger Engineering, Inc. Page i I Icartland Coalition • • • • Heartland Coalition Traffic Impact Study Preliminary Report INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Purpose of Report and Study Objectives Traffic impact studies are commonly performed to comply with governmental requirements for development. Governments require traffic impact studies to assess the impacts on the roadway network surrounding a site and determine mitigating measures. In addition, the same information is useful to design engineers to evaluate a site and layout an effective circulation plan. Impacts to the roadway are usually congestion and safety related. Congestion is measured in level of service (LOS), as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. Other Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) include volume to capacity ratios and delay measured in seconds per vehicle. Typical mitigating factors are additional lanes and traffic control devices such as signs and signals. For this study, the purpose is as stated above, to assess the impacts on the roadway network and identify potential mitigating measures. It is being performed at the request of the Heartland Coalition, which is a citizens' group of people in southwestern Hamilton and northern Marion Counties. This study is an independent review of the traffic impacts of a proposed zoning change to properties near I -465 and US 31 in Hamilton County. This study is an update to a previous study that included three sites. This revised study includes proposed land use (zoning) changes to site number 2, but retains the numbering scheme and old information from the previous study for consistency. The new proposal from the developer is reflected as scenario 6 in distributions 6 and 7. Scenario 5 is the previous developer proposal and is no longer under consideration. The roadway network includes I -465, US 31 / Meridian Street, Spring Mill Road, College Avenue, 96th Street and 103` Street. Study Objectives are: 1. To forecasts traffic volumes at the driveways and surrounding intersections for a typical weekday AM and PM peak hour in ten years. 2. To calculate the level of service at the above intersections. 3. To identify congestion problems and their related causes. 4. To present potential mitigating actions that reflect information gained in the study. 5. To determine if the proposed change in zoning will result in congestion that cannot be practically mitigated. 6. To identify potential congestion resulting from diversion from other congested areas. 7. To present potential mitigating actions that reflects information from the diversion. Yargcr Engineering, Inc. I'agc I I kart land Coalition • 1 -465 at US 31 Hamilton County 'Emilie Impact Study • • Development Description Preliminary Report Location Site 1 is located in the northwest, Site 2 is located in the southwest, and Site 3 is located in the southeast quadrants of I -465 and US 31. (See figure 2 on previous page.) Zoning Site 1 is currently zoned as 315,488 square feet of office park. Site 2 is currently zoned f• 4 0'' esidential with 98 single- family dwelling units, and 197 180 s• uare feet of office park. ite 3 is currently zone • or 1.,:98 square eet o office park and 15,200 square feet of retail. SeZ ettetIr$ iiAl 01 WI Weirritlegr Land Use and Intensity The site is currently unoccupied. Duke -Weeks has proposed a mixture of office, retail, restaurant, and hotel. In the 1999 development proposal there were three parcels included in the proposal. The total proposed office space was 1,200,000 square feet. The proposed retail was 110,000 square feet. The proposed hotel had 300 rooms. The restaurants are assumed included within the other uses' areas. In the 2000 proposal, only site 2 is under consideration for development. That is for 546,000 sft of office and 15,000 of restaurants. In the A &F _ Engineering traffic study for Duke- Weeks, the office size is 632,205 sft with 15,000 of restaurants. Scenario 5 represents the 1999 development. Scenario 6 is has 2000 proposal with 546,000 of office and 15,000 of restaurant. Scenario 7 has the 632,000 of office and 15,000 of restaurant. (This report does not contain detailed information on scenario, but it is included in the technical appendix.) • • Phasing and Timing Phasing and timing of the site developments is unknown, but assumed complete within ten years. The horizon year for Distributions 1 — 5 was 2009. For Distributions 6 and 7, the horizon year is 2010. Scenarios 6 and 7 are included only in Distributions 6 and 7. Planned / Programmed Public Transportation Improvements INDOT is studying converting US 31 to a freeway. The I -465 interchange study portion started in August 1999 and is currently underway. Anticipated construction date is 2017, but may be sooner as the needs demonstrate. Improvements planned to occur beyond the horizon year of 2009/2010 have not been considered in this study. Methodology This study follows the typical trip generation, distribution, assignment, and analysis methodology required by the City of Carmel. Additional information on the distribution and background traffic growth rates was provided by previous studies in the area, the Metropolitan 'Planning Organization, and INDOT. Per the Carmel guidelines, an iterative process was used in the distribution, assignment, and analysis phases to adjust for anticipated congestion. Yurger Engineering, Inc. Page 3 I leartland Coalition • • • I -465 at US 31 Hamilton County Traffic Impact Study • • Preliminary IZeport Critical lane volume planning analyses were used to facilitate determining likely lane configurations in a quicker manner before using I -ICS to determine levels of service. Distribution 1 uses information from the A &F Engineering traffic impact study. Distribution 5 shows an extreme case where all background traffic growth into the area avoids I -465 ramp intersections and US 31 / Meridian Street. Some new site related trips use US 31 / Meridian Street, but avoid the I -465 off -ramp intersections except for the hotel related trips. Distribution 2 — 3 are progressively more skewed from Distribution 1 to 5. Distribution 4 uses information from the HNTB traffic impact study. Distribution 5 does not allow the Interstate traffic to grow, but redistributes the traffic growth to the surrounding street. Distribution 6 uses information from the HNTB traffic impact study, but adjusts for the new horizon year and applies adjustment factors to the January counts by A &F Engineering for seasonal variations. Distribution 7 uses distribution 6, but redistributes I -465 ramp traffic to other nearby streets. Findings I -465 and US 31 will be over capacity in 2009/2010 without the site development. Other streets in the area can be adapted to handle the 2009/2010 traffic with reasonable improvements to the roadway system. The over capacity situations on I -465 and US 31 resulted in seven directional distributions being reassigned and reanalyzed in an iterative fashion. Given the extreme congestion on the 1 -465 at US 31 interchange, the following findings are based the seven distributions, but not on the probable traffic volumes. Additional study on the background traffic is needed before realistic findings can be presented. In distributions 1 — 4 & 6, the intersections of the I -465 eastbound and westbound off ramps with US 31 were over capacity by a significant amount, even with only the background traffic growth of 1.5% per year for 10 years (1% for 11 years in distribution 6). Both capacity problems could cause vehicles to queue onto the I -465 mainline lanes. Other intersections within the study area could be modified to handle the diverted traffic volumes in all scenarios, but not without triple left and right turn lanes and as many as five or six through lanes in one direction on US 31 / Meridian Streets. As shown in Distribution 5, Scenario 5, extreme diversion away from I -465 and Meridian Streets with the proposed development would create the demand for major widening of 96th Street, Spring Mill Road, and College Avenue. For example, the intersection of 96`h Street and Spring Mill Road would go from its current four lanes entering the intersection to seventeen. Hamilton County plans for the intersection currently call for a round about. College Avenue and 96th Street would go from eight lanes to fourteen lanes entering the intersection. 96th Street between Meridian Street and Parkwood West Drive (Pennsylvania Street) would be ten lanes wide. Yarger Inginecring, Inc. Page 4 Heartland Coalition 1 -465 at US 31 1lawilton County Traffic Impact Study • • Preliminary Report In distributions 6 & 7, the background growth is less, so the needed improvements are also less. There will still be a need to address the over capacity situations at the interchange ramps. Because of the basic number of lanes needed for background traffic, there is little difference in the intersection geometries and levels of service for most intersections between the two distributions. Distribution 7 attempts to provide information on the results of all new trips from vacant land avoiding the interchange. This can be used to bracket the lane geometry for a worse case at several of the 96th Street intersections. The congestion on US 31 at I -465 indicates additional study is needed to determine the extent of the additional diversion to alternate routes. This study has made seven diversion iterations, but clearly, more work is necessary to better understand the magnitude of the diversion before any construction is undertaken. The issue of I -465 mainline to carry additional traffic in 2009/2010 should be investigated and considered in the directional distribution. Recommendations Given the magnitude of the findings, traffic demands should fit but not exceed the potentially available roadway capacity. Since the potential capacity at the interchange is basically fixed, the land use that most closely generates traffic to meet the capacity is recommended over those that exceed the capacity. The as -zoned scenario generates less traffic and is therefore recommended over the as- proposed case. Conclusions Development of the property in any fashion will have a negative impact on the roadway system. The I -465 interchange is critical to the study area and for many miles around. This project as proposed will have a • reater negative effect on surrounding roadways than developing the sites as they are currently zoned. Yargcr Engineering, Inc. 1 Ieartland Coalition Page 5