HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Analysis TRAFFIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
126TH STREET-CARMEL INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
NOVEMBER 1993
PREPARED BY
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5160 EAST 65TH STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46220
(317) 842-0864
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures i
List of Tables
Certification
Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Scope of Work 1
Description of Project 3
Study Area 3
Description of Vacant Parcels 5
Description of Abutting Street System 5
Traffic Data 7
Generated Traffic Volumes for Proposed Development 8
Generated Traffic Volumes for Vacant Lands 8
Internal Trips 9
Pass-By Traffic 9
- Annual Growth Rate for Through Traffic 10
Peak Hours 10
Assignment and Distribution of Generated Trips 10
_ Proposed Development Generated Trips Added to the Street
System 11
Vacant Land Generated Trips Added to the Street System 11
Year 2003 Traffic Volumes 11
Total Traffic Volumes 15
Capacity Analyses 15
Conclusions 26
Recommendations 29
Summary 30
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Area Map 4
2 . Vacant Parcels 6
3 . Assignment and Distribution of Site Generated Traffic 12
4. Generated Traffic Volumes Proposed Development 19
5. Generated Traffic Volumes for Waterstone and Plum Creek 14
6. Existing Traffic Volumes Adjusted for 1993 Traffic 16
7. Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Traffic
Volumes + Year 2003 Traffic Volumes + Proposed Site
Traffic Volumes 17
— i
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Vacant Parcel Recommended Land Use 5
2 . Generated Trips - Proposed Development 8
3 . Generated Trips - Vacant Lands 9
4 . Level of Service Summary - 126th Street and Gray Road
AM Peak Hour 19
5. Level of Service Summary - 126th Street and Gray Road
PM Peak Hour 20
6. Level of Service Summary - 126th Street and Hazeldell
Road - AM Peak Hour 21
7 . Level of Service Summary - 126th Street and Hazeldell
Road - PM Peak Hour 21
8. Level of Service Summary - 116th Street and Gray Road
AM Peak Hour 22
9. Level of Service Summary - 116th Street and Gray Road
PM Peak Hour 23
10. Level of Service Summary - 116th Street and River Avenue
Hazeldell Road - AM Peak Hour 24
11. Level of Service Summary - 116th Street and River Avenue
Hazeldell Road - PM Peak Hour 25
-- ii
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS has been prepared by me
and under by immediate supervision and that I have experience and
training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering.
This TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS has been prepared based on the Carmel,
Indiana Applicant's Guide - Transportation Impact Studies for
Proposed Development and instructions provided by the staff of the
Department of Community Development.
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. ,,��► ).�Ff/R, ,,,,
/ 4.1%.744,
EQ•
•
;y
.
No. 12855
= i STATE OF sL:3c
William J. e %ibach, P.E. �NoNPf'4``
President '',4:410N ,
Indiana Registration 12855
iii
INTRODUCTION
This Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared at the request of Mr. George
Sweet representing Brenwick Development Company, Inc. , is for a
proposed single family residential development that will be located
on a new site along the south side of 126th Street between Gray
Road and Hazeldell Road extended in Carmel, Indiana.
PURPOSE
This analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the
proposed development, when fully occupied, will have on the
existing adjacent roadway system. Recommendations based on the
findings will be made to provide for the 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 estimate the number of new trips that will be generated
for each of the following scenarios:
a. Proposed Development - This is the development as
proposed by Brenwick Development Company, Inc.
b. Vacant Lands - The vacant lands within the study area
that have been identified by the Department of Community
Development (DOCD) which includes the adjacent Waterstone
Development and the proposed Plum Creek Development.
1
Second, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways
and/or roadways that will serve to provide access to each of the
individual parcels that have been previously identified to be
included in this analysis.
Third, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from each parcel
onto the public roadway system and intersections that have been
identified as the study area.
Fourth, to prepare an analysis including a capacity analysis and
level of service analysis for each intersection included in the
study area for each of the following scenarios:
a. Existing Conditions - Based on existing roadway condi-
tions, traffic signal timing, and traffic volumes.
b. Vacant Lands - The estimated number of trips that will be
generated by the vacant lands will be added to the
existing traffic volumes.
c. Year 2003 Traffic - Add the through traffic volumes that
will be generated from outside the study area through the
year 2003, at the rate of two and one half (2. 5) percent
per year to the sum of the existing traffic volumes and
the vacant land traffic volumes.
d. Proposed Development - Add the traffic volumes that will
2
be generated by the proposed development to the sum of
the existing traffic volumes, vacant land traffic
volumes, and the Year 2003 traffic volumes.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS documenting all data,
analyses, conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe
and efficient movement of traffic through the study area.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed development will be located along the southside of
126th Street between Gray Road and Hazeldell Road extended. This
tract will be developed into 150 single family home sites.
Figure 1 is an area map that shows the location of the proposed
development.
_ STUDY AREA
The study area as defined by the Department of Community Develo-
pment for this analysis is Gray Road to the west, 126th Street to
the north, Hazeldell Road extended to the east and 116th Street to
the south. The study area will include the intersections of:
a. Gray Road and 126th Street
b. Gray Road and 116th Street
c. Hazeldell Road Extended and 126th Street
d. Hazeldell Road Extended/River Avenue and 116th Street
This analysis assumes that Hazeldell Road will be extended south
from Cherry Tree Road to 116th Street.
3
RI
QO
QO
G`Z(Q o
a
cc
0
131ST STREET
J
J
W w
J Z
NW
a >
2 Q
126TH STREET
SITE
0
>- 3�
W
/
//
116TH STREET (�
W " //Z
W
CC
W
CC
LEGEND
= EXISTING ROAD
==== PROPOSED ROAD
FIGURE 1
SWEET AND COMPANY
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. AREA MAP
DESCRIPTION OF VACANT PARCELS
The Department of Community Development has identified the vacant
parcels that are to be included in this Traffic Impact Analysis and
the individual land uses that are to be assigned to each vacant
parcel. The vacant parcels with the recommended land uses and the
potential build-out for each parcel are listed in Table 1. Figure
2 shows the location of the included vacant parcels.
TABLE 1
VACANT PARCEL RECOMMENDED LAND USE
Recommended Potential
Parcel Land Uses Build-Out
1 Residential 417 Lots
2 Residential 633 Lots
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed development will be served by the public roadway
system that includes Gray Road, 126th Street, 116th Street, and
Hazeldell Road Extended.
Gray Road - is a north-south two lane secondary street that
serves Carmel/Clay Township from 96th Street (Marion County)
to 146th Street. At the intersection with 116th Street the
offset has been eliminated and exclusive turn lanes have been
added. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of Gray
Road and 116th Street. Gray Road and 126th Street is con-
trolled by a four way stop control.
5
RI
POP oho
Qy
P o.
2 131ST STREET
J
W PLUM w
CREEK
>
Q Q
126TH STREET '4-35 / = 633 D.U.
SITE acz-
o ICO
w
> -
W WATERSTONE
0
417 D.U.
o\o
//
t�
//
116TH STREET
CCZ ;I
W I(
CC
LEGEND
= EXISTING ROAD
= PROPOSED ROAD
FIGURE 2
SWEET AND COMPANY
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. VACANT PARCELS
126th Street - is an east-west two lane secondary street that
serves the area of Carmel/Clay Township from Rangeline Road to
River Avenue.
116th Street - is an east-west two lane arterial roadway that
serves the area of Carmel/Clay Township from east to west
linking I-69 in Fishers to I-65 in Boone County. 116th Street
has been widened to provide for exclusive turn lanes and major
intersection. This street is also under design to be widened
to three lanes which will add an exclusive left-turn lane at
all intersections and driveways.
Hazeldell Road Extended - Currently Hazeldell Road exists
between Cherry Tree Road and 146th Street. The Carmel/Clay
Township Thoroughfare Plan calls for Hazeldell Road to be
extended south from Cherry Tree Road to 116th Street forming
_ a four way intersection at River Avenue. Therefore, the
generated traffic from the various parcels will be assigned to
the street and included in this analysis.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made
during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour at the study area
intersections by the City of Carmel.
These traffic volume counts include an hourly total of all
"through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at each of the study
7
intersections. These traffic volume counts were made during the
peak hours of 6: 00 AM to 9: 00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6: 00 PM on the
dates as noted on the individual intersection counts. These
traffic volume counts are included in Appendix A of the report.
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development
is a function of the development size and of the character of the
land use. Trip Generation' report was used to calculate the number
of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. This
report 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. Table 2 is a summary of the trips that will
be generated by the proposed development.
TABLE 2
GENERATED TRIPS - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Trips
ITE AM AM PM PM
Land Use Code Size Enter Exit Enter Exit
Residential 210 150 Lots 30 85 101 55
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR VACANT LANDS
Trip Generation report was use to calculate the number of trips
'. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Fifth Edition, January 1991.
8
that will be generated by the vacant lands. Table 3 is a summary
of the trips that will be generated by the vacant lands.
TABLE 3
GENERATED TRIPS - VACANT LANDS
Trips
ITE AM AM PM PM
Land Use Code Size Enter Exit Enter Exit
1. Residential 210 417 Lots 118 336 424 228
2 . Residential 210 633 Lots 104 296 371 199
-- INTERNAL TRIPS
This proposed development is to be all single family residential.
In this type of a development one can normally expect that there
will be internal trips between the residences. However, ITE Land
Use Code 210, Single Family, was used to estimate the number of
total trips. The data collected for this land use code includes
trips between residences. By using this land use code internal
trips are accounted for. Therefore, there will be no reduction in
the number of trips for this development that result from internal
trips.
PASS-BY TRAFFIC
The proposed land use for this development, single family, does not
generate trips from the traffic streams on the abutting roadways.
Because all of the generated trips are new trips there will be no
reduction taken for pass-by traffic.
9
I
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC
Through traffic is that traffic which enters the study area and
exits the study area without stopping in the study area.
The Department of Community Development has prepared the estimate
of the annual growth rate for through traffic that will be
generated on the street system included in the study area. The
annual growth rate of through traffic to be used for this analysis
is two and one half percent per year for all streets.
PEAK HOUR
Throughout this analysis all reference to peak hours will be:
a. AM Peak Hour will be 7:00 AM to 8: 00 PM
b. PM Peak Hour will be 5:00 PM to 6: 00 PM
The times are based on the traffic volume counts that were made at
the various intersections.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes, from
the proposed development and all vacant lands, that will be added
to the street system is defined as follows:
1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit each site will
be assigned and distributed to the various access points into
and out of the site and to the public street system using the
traffic volume data collected within the study area. Figure
10
3 shows the percentage of traffic that will be assigned and
distributed to each of the access points and to the public
street system.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed
- development have been prepared for each of the proposed access
points and for each of the study area intersections. The Peak Hour
generated traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4 . These data are
based on the previously discussed Trip Generation Data and the
Assignment and Distribution of the Generated Traffic.
VACANT LAND GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the vacant land
developments, within the study area, have been prepared for the
study area intersections. The Peak Hour generated traffic volumes
are shown on Figure 5. These data are based on the previously
discussed Trip Generation Data and the Assignment and Distribution
of the Generated Traffic.
YEAR 2003 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To evaluate the future impact of this development on the public
roadway system, the existing through traffic volumes must be
projected forward to a design year. The design year used for this
project, based on a ten year projection , will be the year 2003 .
The Department of Community Development has established a rate of
2 . 5 percent per year for this area.
11
IV4....1
Z6%
E-16%
— 4 j25% 4) F2%
16% � rp QPO 6% 1 `1
.....0.. N__________,2
- U / Q� 18%2%
°�
41/4'
I
/1ST
STREET (-(11-
-1(c)
47%�26%
—
wo1 - 126TH STREET
— 16 % —+ l <- 2X
0 J
i LICt.
o SITE o ccw
w cc
--/
_I I ��
0
Hs
4 7 Z-11% H
LEGEND
— 16% 1
/J( I --- = EXISTING ROAD
J = PROPOSED ROAD
K //
116TH STREET (L o
35 % —� /
- � —2
w
_ Z
w
cu t- 14% E- 14%
f, I ,t27. > 4 4 - 9%
CC
21%-? t 9%-0- +1 I+
14/.-0- vN 2%-4, x x
N
- f (::
FIGURE 3
to
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
SWEET AND COMPANY OF
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
RI
....
•"D Z 5 (3)
cu —14 (9) cu
4 4-21 (14) `n
(1 F1 (2)
.... (16) 5 —31. �Q& 3 �
,p� (1) 2 —t `15 tn
N QPy o
131ST STREET I
r8 (26)
(47) 14 h fI w
N
Z
W
(lJ Q
— J 126TH STREET
, _J i
— SITE w
II
Ncc
W
— o =1
>- ..I/
_` o I 1f= 78PMPEAK
LEGEND
4) 4 L 5 (16) = EXISTING ROAD
5 s J
)(16)
I = PROPOSED ROAD
7-8AM PEAK HOUR
HOUR
//
116TH STREET II
Airw
D
Z -
N >. N
Q
co (9 E- 12 (8) ch N— E— 4 (14)
—
r2 Cll W 4 y .4.- 3 (9)
CC
(21) 61 t r+ (5) 8-11.- 4) r*
— (14) 4 —— (1) 2-.4, —
C N 2 V
—
FIGURE 4
SWEET AND COMPANY GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. PROPOSED SITE
111
RI
N
�'a Z 20 (13) N Z- 18 (12)
<-51 (35) 105 (75)
4 t55 (37) O `) 4 ,r 104 (70)
P
(64) 18 -� `l f f ��O I (8) 121 e
(8) 2 Z ,o Q, J•<. ' (133) 40-� M
-`r v, Q.P o
131ST STREET cc
i
-JII
w w
w z
I i<1 / Q
/, 126TH STREET
1tLir
SITE W
isl
a I
o
LEGEND
= EXISTING ROAD
:=== = PROPOSED ROAD
00 = 7-8AM PEAK HOUR
)/ (00) = 7-8PM PEAK HOUR
//
116TH STREET (( ,
w
Cu z
WM N
(-) M
> v) Auiri
E- 38 (25) > uIl:" m ro Z 13 (47)
4 (3) > 4) � 25 (64)
G
(115) 32-t T e (71) 20 1 h f
(46) 13--> in— (42) 50-0-
(8) 12 3 _
R to N
FIGURE 5
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SWEET AND COMPANY FOR
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. WATERSTONE AND PLUM CREEK
TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES
— To evaluate the proposed development's effect on the public street
system, the traffic volumes from each of the various parts must be
— added together to form a series of scenarios that can then be
analyzed as to the adequacy of the existing roadway system. The
following scenarios will be reviewed as a part of this analysis:
1. Existing Traffic Volumes- These are the traffic volumes
that were obtained by the City of Carmel and then updated
to 1993 . Figure 6 is a summary of these traffic volumes
at the study intersections for the peak hours.
2 . Existing Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Generated Traffic
Volumes + Year 2002 Traffic Volumes + Proposed Develop-
ment Generated Traffic Volumes - Figure 7 is a summary
of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for
the peak hours.
-- CAPACITY ANALYSES
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 includes traffic
volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes and, in the
case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To
15
RI
2
E,,,
u)m�
t-39 (38)
m ^v <-156 (74)
I 4 j-93 (87) O
(99) 39 1 +1 r1 QOP
(113) 132 -OP- •D�Mo KR'
(96) 47 7, - Qy
Q`
�
m� G�� o
O (---
'. 131ST STEET �
I _il
wo
w
NJ
Z>
a
1
126TH STREET
= I cr
Ee
SITE I w
>
o ��
CC
g I
LEGEND
= EXISTING ROAD
=== = PROPOSED ROAD
/j/
00 = 7-8AM PEAK HOUR
(00) = 7-8PM PEAK HOUR
/j
116TH STREET (C_. /
w
L?) R° z
o> m� w
N —m L 110 (232) Q
`• CU N f 685 (396) fr 4— 914 (783
7 r 124 (56) > 4- 22 (4)
CC
(276) 30-r 41 t r* '1075) 589- h
(764) 2-. :2,.9,CU (0) 16-4, a
(22)28 -3,
-N h Cu
FIGURE 6
SWEET AND COMPANY EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. ADJUSTED FOR 1993 TRAFFIC
Fre
u=>
Z 64 (54) ''M (,.\-I, t. 20 (16)
.-.C' o .-260 (139) Q2,Cu a` <— 253 (161)
`) f 4 r133 (106) O 4) 1 4 p 161 (124)
P
(99) 39 -? 4) +' �QO I I (57) 731 h
(250) 141 -� --- ,q�i (273) 117 0 0
(99) 46 Cucu° .N (39) 29-4, °\ v
vim ` �� �) I ^ 0
G Q vv
il-(-----
131ST STREET I
—
JII
W
- 0 W
f w
=
i 126TH STREET I Q
— ct
o SITE cc
I I
rc
o I I I.
— ,- ��
c
— II
—— LEGEND
= EXISTING ROAD
— JI) j ) ; 78PMPEAK
_—- = PROPOSED ROAD
7-8AM PEAK HOUR
_
116TH STREET (( r
W 11
o v D
— ----
N /7.,,,,...7.,,
ooiw z � cu�
s_, ,,,_, LU ., cu -
m N N Z- 72 (145) `>::C. m N Z 81 (206)
Cu v N F 1032 (622 Ct Cu Cu F 1170 (1052
(J y = 161 (74) j `) 4 4 r 27 (5)
CC
(395) 60 1 4, f (156) 55 1 41 f e
(927) 378—O► v co (1390) 794-4.- R,in R,
— (26) 4 Z (9) 24-v _
433 cud
FIGURE 7
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
- SWEET AND COMPANY VACANT PARCEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES
BRENWICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. PROPOSED SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
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 (HCM)2.
The Department of Community Development has requested that an
analysis be made for both the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour for
each of the scenarios that were identified in the section titled
"Total Traffic Volumes" at each study intersection. These analyses
have been completed and the computer solution showing the LOS
results are included in Appendix A.
The tables that are included in this report are a summary of the
results of the LOS analyses and are identified as follows:
126th Street and Gray Road
Table 4 - AM Peak Hour
Table 5 - PM Peak Hour
126th Street and Hazeldell Road Extended
Table 6 - AM Peak Hour
Table 7 - PM Peak Hour
116th Street and Gray Road
Table 8 - AM Peak Hour
Table 9 - PM Peak Hour
116th Street and River Avenue/Hazeldell Road Extended
Table 10 - AM Peak Hour
Table 11 - PM Peak Hour
2. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C. , Special Report 209 , 1985.
18
TABLE 4
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
126TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR
Scenario
Movement 1 2
Eastbound Left B
Eastbound Through B
Eastbound Right B
Eastbound Approach B
Westbound Left B
Westbound Through B
Westbound Right B
Westbound Approach B
Northbound Left B
Northbound Through B
Northbound Right B
Northbound Approach B
Southbound Left B
Southbound Through B
Southbound Right B
Southbound Approach B
Intersection C B
Scenario 1 - Existing Traffic Volumes (1993) and Existing Condi-
tions With a 4-Way Stop
Scenario 2 - Existing Traffic Volumes + Waterstone + Plum Creek
+ Proposed Development Traffic Volumes With Hazel-
dell Road Extended With a Traffic Signal
19
TABLE 5
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
126TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
- PM PEAK HOUR
_ Scenario
Movement 1 2
Eastbound Left B
- Eastbound Through B
Eastbound Right B
_ Eastbound Approach B
Westbound Left B
Westbound Through B
Westbound Right B
Westbound Approach B
Northbound Left B
Northbound Through B
Northbound Right B
Northbound Approach B
Southbound Left B
Southbound Through B
Southbound Right B
Southbound Approach B
Intersection C B
Scenario 1 - Existing Traffic Volumes (1993) and Existing Condi-
tions With a 4-Way Stop
•
Scenario 2 - Existing Traffic Volumes + Waterstone + Plum Creek
+ Proposed Development Traffic Volumes With Hazel-
dell Road Extended With a Traffic Signal
20
TABLE 6
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
126TH STREET AND HAZELDELL ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR
Scenario
Movement 1 2
Intersection C
TABLE 7
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
126TH STREET AND HAZELDELL ROAD
PM PEAK HOUR
Scenario
Movement 1 2
- Intersection C
Scenario 1 - Intersection does not exist.
Scenario 2 - Existing Traffic Volumes + Waterstone + Plum Creek
+ Proposed Development Traffic Volumes With Hazel-
- dell Road Extended With a Four-Way Stop
21
TABLE 8
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
116TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR
Scenario
Movement 1 2
Eastbound Left A C
Eastbound Through B A
Eastbound Right B A
Eastbound Approach B B
Westbound Left A A
Westbound Through C E
Westbound Right A A
Westbound Approach C D
Northbound Left A A
Northbound Through C C
Northbound Right B C
Northbound Approach B B
Southbound Left C D
Southbound Through C C
Southbound Right C E
Southbound Approach C D
Intersection C D
Scenario 1 - Existing Traffic Volumes (1993) and Existing Condi-
tions With a Traffic Signal
Scenario 2 - Existing Traffic Volumes + Waterstone + Plum Creek
+ Proposed Development Traffic Volumes With Hazel-
dell Road Extended With a Traffic Signal
22
TABLE 9
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
116TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
PM PEAK HOUR
Scenario
Movement 1 2
Eastbound Left B C
Eastbound Through C B
Eastbound Right C B
Eastbound Approach C B
Westbound Left A F
Westbound Through B C
Westbound Right A B
Westbound Approach B D
Northbound Left A D
Northbound Through C C
- Northbound Right B D
Northbound Approach B D
Southbound Left C D
Southbound Through C C
Southbound Right B B
Southbound Approach C C
Intersection B C
Scenario 1 - Existing Traffic Volumes (1993) and Existing Condi-
tions With a Traffic Signal
Scenario 2 - Existing Traffic Volumes + Waterstone + Plum Creek
+ Proposed Development Traffic Volumes With Hazel-
dell Road Extended With a Traffic Signal
23
TABLE 10
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
116TH STREET AND RIVER AVENUE/HAZELDELL ROAD
_ AM PEAK HOUR
Scenario
Movement 1 2
Eastbound Left A
Eastbound Through A
Eastbound Right A
Eastbound Approach A
Westbound Left A A
Westbound Through C
Westbound Right A
Westbound Approach C
Northbound Left E C
Northbound Through C
Northbound Right A C
Northbound Approach D C
Southbound Left C
Southbound Through C
Southbound Right B
Southbound Approach C
Intersection B
Scenario 1 - Existing Traffic Volumes (1993) and Existing Condi-
tions - River Avenue Stops for 116th Street
Scenario 2 - Existing Traffic Volumes + Waterstone + Plum Creek
+ Proposed Development Traffic Volumes With Hazel-
dell Road Extended With a Traffic Signal
24
TABLE 11
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
116TH STREET AND RIVER AVENUE/HAZELDELL ROAD
PM PEAK HOUR
Scenario
Movement 1 2
Eastbound Left D
_ Eastbound Through C
Eastbound Right C
Eastbound Approach C
Westbound Left B A
Westbound Through B
_ Westbound Right A
Westbound Approach B
Northbound Left E C
Northbound Through C
Northbound Right C C
Northbound Approach D C
Southbound Left D
Southbound Through C
Southbound Right B
Southbound Approach C
Intersection B
Scenario 1 - Existing Traffic Volumes (1993) and Existing Condi-
tions - River Avenue Stops for 116th Street
Scenario 2 - Existing Traffic Volumes + Waterstone + Plum Creek
+ Proposed Development Traffic Volumes With Hazel-
dell Road Extended With a Traffic Signal
25
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that fol
the resulting level of low are based on the capacity analysis and
each of analyses that have
the study intersections, been prepared for
These analyses Yes have been prepared for the highest
during the morning and street
the hest
g street peak hour
eet peak hour
These represent theduring the
afternoon,
worst case scenarios.
when the new development is residential, all when
other hours of thgtheral,
will generate coe day
nsiderable less traffic resulting in
a much
improved level of service at each int
be noted intersection. Further, it should
that the new traffic volumes from this development will be
generated over a
period of time. Therefore, the changes in
of service will be incremental, level
126th Street and Gra
Road
1. During both the AM and PM Peak Hours, at this four-way
stop intersection, the existing traffic volumes
greater than the level of service C traffic volumes bu are
less than the capacity volume. t
2. After Hazeldell Road has been added to the roadway system
the existing traffic will redistribute itself. This will
result in a reduction of traffic volumes at this inter-
section.
3 . It appears that a traffic signal will be required at this
26
intersection. If installed, the result will be that the
- intersection will operated at an acceptable level of
service.
126th Street and Hazeldell Road Extended
1. Based on the four-way stop analysis the traffic volumes
at this new intersection will be almost equal to the
traffic volumes for level of service C. Therefore, this
intersection should be operated with a four-way stop
until such time as additional traffic is added to the
roadway system.
116th Street and Gray Road
1. This intersection is currently operating at a level of
service C during the AM Peak Hour. However, with the
addition of Hazeldell Road to the system and the result-
ing redistribution of existing traffic, the additional
generated traffic will only reduce the level of service
-- to D. This level is acceptable in urban areas.
2 . During the PM Peak Hour the impact is less resulting in
only a drop to level of service C.
116th Street and River Avenue/Hazeldell Road Extended
1. Currently, the traffic volumes entering 116th Street from
River Avenue are minimal with a resulting minor impact on
the level of service.
27
2 . After Hazeldell Road is added to the intersection and the
existing traffic is redistributed it appears that a
traffic signal will be required. If the traffic signal
is installed the intersection will operate at an accept-
_ able level of service B.
126th Street Site Access
1. Based on a review of the estimated traffic volumes that
will be using the 126th Street access point, it appears
that they will not cause a negative impact to 126th
Street.
28
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommen-
dations are made:
1. Based on this analysis it appears that the construction of
Hazeldell Road will greatly improve the levels of service at
many of the existing intersections without a negative impact
to the new roadway. Therefore, the City should be encouraged
to proceed with this project.
2 . Provide an acceleration lane and a deceleration lane. The
construction of a passing blister will not be required due to
the fact that this proposed entrance will be directly across
for an existing driveway that has an acceleration lane and a
deceleration lane which will serve as the passing blister for
the entrance to this development.
3 . The internal roadway that will provide access to 126th Street
should be constructed with a minimum of two outbound lanes and
one inbound lane. The outbound lanes should be 12 feet in
width and the inbound lane should be 14 feet in width.
29
SUMMARY
The development of a residential at this location will not
adversely affect the operation of the roadway system within the
study area.
The capacity analyses and resultant levels of service have shown
that the construction of this proposed facility will not have an
adverse affect on the roadway system.
An "on-site" review of the roadway system did not indicate that
there would be any sight distance problems at the approaches.
With the construction of the access road as recommended the
additional traffic generated by this proposed development will
operate in a safe and efficient manner.
30
APPENDIX A
This document contains the traffic data that were used in the
Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed residential development to
be located on the south side of 126th Street between Gray Road and
Hazeldell Road extended as proposed by Brenwick Development
Company, Inc.
Included are the intersection turning movement traffic volumes
counts and the intersection capacity analyses for each of the study
intersections for the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour.
31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Gray Road and 126th Street Intersection Data
1
126th Street and Hazeldell Road Intersection Data
9
Gray Road and 116th Street Intersection Data
12
116th Street and River Avenue/Hazeldell Road Intersection
Data
21
32
GRAY ROAD & 126TH STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT : CITY OF CARMEL
LOCATION : 126TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (47)
DATE : MARCH 24, 1992
DESIGN DATA
+ +
I AM PEAK + +
OFF PEAK PM R TOT
PEAK
L T R TOT L T R TOTIL I
+ +
NORTHBOUND 67 160 105 332 + +
EASTBOUND 47 129 51 227 65 3163 73 454
SOUTHBOUND 56 296 96 448 99 6 77 241
5194 306
98 246
WESTBOUND 91 152 38 2813
+ + + 98 93 50 241
HOUR SUMMARY
+ HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB 1 TOTAL
- AM - + +
6- 7 69 146 215 78
150
7- 8 316 412 728 21372 494 365
8- 9 208 293 501 113 281 1222
96 209 710
- PM -
- 4 292
3
3- 5 296 588 188 187 375 963
348 327 675 245 194 439
5- 6 432 357 789 301 166 467 1
+ + 12255 6
6
TOTAL 1665 1831 3496 1138 996 2134 + +
29 . 6% 32 . 5% 62 . 1% 20. 2% 17. 7% 37. 9% 0030
100. 0%
15-MIN - AM PEAK VOLUMES -
101 120 79 110
HOUR 332 419 213 281
PHF 0. 82 0.87 0. 67 0. 64
HR BEGIN 7 :30 7: 30 7:00 7: 00
15-MIN - PM PEAK VOLUMES -
121 106 85 69
HOUR 432 357 301 217
PHF 0. 89 0. 84 0. 89 0. 79
HR BEGIN 5: 00 5: 00 5: 00 4 : 30
2
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT : CITY OF CARMEL
LOCATION : 126TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (47)
DATE : MARCH 24, 1992
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : NORTHBOUND
HOUR + + +
LEFT THRU RIGHT +
PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK
+ + + + I BOTHI
• 6- 7 AM +
9 0 9 35 1 36 24 0
303 13 316
7- 8 55 01
0 55 154 6 160 94 7 24 68 1 69
8- 9 49 0 49 113 7 120 22 17 139 184 24 208
PM
3- 4 58 0
4- 5 58 172 5 177 36 21 57 266 26 292
63 1 64 204 7 211 68 5 73 335 13 348
5- 6 62 0 62 311 5 316 54 p
+ + + 54 427 5 432
PASSENGER 296 + + +
298
989 1583
99. 7% 97. 0% 85. 6%
95. 1%
TRUCK 1
31 50 82
0. 3% 3 .0% 14 .4% 4.9%
BOTH 297 1020
348
° 1665
•8� 61. 3% 20. 9% 100. 0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
HOUR + + +
LEFT THRU RIGHT +
PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK B
+ + + + I OTHI
AM + +
6- 7 14 0 14 31 0 31 33 0 33 78 0
78
7- 8 37 1 38 125 4 129 44 2 46 206 7 213
8- 9 30 0 30 37 11 48 33 2 35 100 13 113
PM
3- 4 64 3
67 67 15 82 38 1 39 169 19 188
4- 5 98 1 99 86 9 95 51 0 51 235 10 245
5- 6 97 0 97 109 1 110 92 2 94 298 3 301
PASSENGER 340 + + +
455 291 1086
98. 6% 91.9% 97 . 7% 95.4%
TRUCK 5
40 7 52
1.4% 8. 1% 2 . 3% 4 . 6%
BOTH 345
495 2981138
30. 3% 43 .5% 26. 2%
100. 0%
3
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT : CITY OF CARMEL
LOCATION : 126TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (47)
DATE : MARCH 24, 1992
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : SOUTHBOUND
I HOUR + +
T THRU + +
LEF
PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTH GHT
TRUCK
+ + + + BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHI
6— 7 8
+ +
0 AM
7_ 8 8 103 2 105 33 0 33 144
53 3 56 263 3 266 872 1462
8— 9 6 0 6 208 4 212 75 3 90 0 75 289 4 403 29 292
PM4 3
3— 4 31 3 34 178 9 187 73
4— 5 44 0 44 212 7 2192 75 282 14 327
5— 6 34 0 34 244 2 246 64 10 64 320 37 357
+ + + 1 77 354 3 357
PASSENGER 176 + +
96. 7% 1208 408 +
97.8% 98. 6% 97. 9%97
TRUCK
6 27
3 . 3% 2.2% 6 39
1.4% 2. 1%
BOTH 182
1235414 1831
9 . 9% 67.4% 22 . 6% 100. 0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : WESTBOUND
I HOUR + + +
FT THRU RIGHT +
LE
PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK
+ + + + BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTH!
AM + +
6— 7 ?-7
4 16 33 18 51
7— 8 77 14 91 5 0 5 50 22 72
8— 9 32 1 142 10 152 38 0 38 257 24 281
33 54 2 56 7 0 7 93 3 96
PM
3— 4 53 6 59 87 6 93 34
4— 5 85 0 85 70 2 72 35 2 37 190 4 35 174 134 194
187
5— 6 71 0 2
+ 71 52 2 54 41 0 41 164 2
+ + 166
PASSENGER 330 + + +
438 160 928
93 . 0% 91. 6% 98 . 2% 93 . 2%
TRUCK 25
40
3 68
7. 0% 8.4% 1. 8% 6. 8%
BOTH 355
° 478 163 996
5. 6 ° 48 .0o 16. 4% 100. 0%
4
1985 HCM: MULTI-WAY STOP INTERSECTION
******************************************************************
INTERSECTION: 126th Street & Gray Road (Existing Conditions)
*****************************************************************
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: AM Peak Hour
******************************************************************
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
NORTHBOUND: 323
SOUTHBOUND: 422
EASTBOUND: 218
WESTBOUND: 288
TOTAL: 1251
******************************************************************
DEMAND SPLIT: 60/40
******************************************************************
NUMBER OF LANES:
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND: 2
EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND: 2
******************************************************************
TRAFFIC VOLUME AT LEVEL OF SERVICE C (TABLE 10-7) : 1080
******************************************************************
ACTUAL VOLUME VS LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME: 1251 vs 1080
******************************************************************
CAPACITY: 1700
******************************************************************
5
_ HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. 11-27-1993
Streets: (E-W) 126TH ST
_ Analyst: SJF (N-S) GRAY ROAD
Area Type: Other File Name: SWGRPAM.HC9
Comment: EXIST+ANTICIPATED+SITE T.V. 11-27-93 AM PEAK
-
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R L T Southbound
---- -- R L T
No. ---- ---- ----
---- R
' Volumes. Lanes 1 1 < --- 1 1 < - -1 ---- -1 -1 ----
39 141 46 133 260 64 1 1 < 1 346<
Lane Width 12. 0 12. 0 86 211. 91 12. 00 115
RTOR Vols 12. 0 12. 0 12.0 12.0 12. 0
11 16 23
29
Phase Combination 1 Signal Operations
EB Left * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Thru * NB Left *
Right * Thru *
Peds Right *
WB Left * Peds
Thru * SB Left *
Right * Thru *
Peds Right *
NB Right Peds
SB Right EB Right
Green 27. OA WB Right
Yellow/A-R 4. 0 Green 37. OA
Lost Time 3. 0 Yellow/A- 4. 0
Cycle Length: 72 . 0 secsPhase combinationst LoTime 3order: #. 0
#1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c
Mvmts Cap Flow Raio g/C Approach:
Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
'B L 388 997
TR 710 0. 11 0.39 10.7 B 9.9 B
TB L1825 0. 26 0. 39 9.7 B
510 1312 0. 27 0. 39 11.5 B
TR 715 1839 0. 45 0. 39 10.8 B 11. 0 B
fB L 469 888
TR 0. 19 0.53 6.8 B 6.4 B
B L 957 1813 0. 31 0.53 6.2 B
608 1152 0. 11 0.53
TR 963 1825 0.47 0.53 .1 B 7. 1 B
7
Intersection Delay = 7. 1 B
ost Time/Cycle, L = . sec 8.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Critical v/c(x) = 0. 464
6
1985 HCM: MULTI-WAY STOP INTERSECTION
- ***************************************************************
INTERSECTION: ***
126th Street & Gray Road (Existing Conditions)
*****************************************************************
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: PM Peak Hour
******************************************************************
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
NORTHBOUND: 440
SOUTHBOUND: 366
EASTBOUND: 308
WESTBOUND: 199
TOTAL: 1313
******************************************************************
DEMAND SPLIT: 65/35
******************************************************************
NUMBER OF LANES:
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND: 2
EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND: 2
******************************************************************
TRAFFIC VOLUME AT LEVEL OF SERVICE C (TABLE 10-7) : 1010
******************************************************************
ACTUAL VOLUME VS LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME: 1313 vs 1010
******************************************************************
CAPACITY: 1600
******************************************************************
7
_ HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. 11-27-1993
Streets: (E-W) 126TH ST
_ Analyst: SJF (N-S) GRAY ROAD
Area Type: Other File Name: SWGRPPM.HC9
Comment: EXIST+ANTICIPATED+SITE T.V. 11-27-93 PM PEAK
-
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R L T Southbound
---- R
No. Lanes 1 1 < ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ____
- Volumes 99 250 99 1 1 < 1 1 < 1 1 <
Lane Width 12. 0 12 . 0 106 139 54 91 409 128 66 335
RTOR Vols 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 99
25 13 32 12. 0 12 . 0
25
Phase Combination 1 Signal Operations
EB Left * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Thru * NB Left
Right * Thru *
Peds Right *
WB Left * Peds
Thru * SB Left *
Right * Thru *
Peds Right *
NB Right Peds
SB Right EB Right
Green 27. OA WB Right
Yellow/A-R 4 . 0 Green 37. OA
Lost Time 3 . 0 Yellow/A- 4. 0
_ycle Length: 72 . 0 secsPhase combinationst LoTime 3order: #. 0
#1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c
C
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delayo ch:
,B L LOS Delay Delay LOS
505 1298 0.21 0. 3911_ ---
iB TR
706 1816 0.48 0. 39 1 B 11. 1 B
6 969 11. 1 B
TR 706 0. 30 0. 39 11.7 B 10.5 B
B L 1816 0.27 0. 39 9.7 B
488 925 0.20 0.53
TR B
B L 404 1827 0.55 0.53 7.8 B 7. 6
TR 966 765 0.17 0.53 6. 7 B 6. 9 B
1830 0.45 0.53 7. 0 B
Intersection Delay = 8. 7 sec/veh Intersection LOS
Dst Time/Cycle, L = 6. 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.523 B
8
126TH STREET & HAZELDELL ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
9
1985 HCM: MULTI-WAY STOP INTERSECTION
- ******************************************************************
INTERSECTION: 126th Street & Hazeldell Road Extended
Conditions) (Proposed
*****************************************************************
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: AM Peak Hour
******************************************************************
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
NORTHBOUND: 139
SOUTHBOUND: 307
EASTBOUND: 219
WESTBOUND: 434
TOTAL: 1099
******************************************************************
DEMAND SPLIT: 60/40
******************************************************************
NUMBER OF LANES:
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND: 2
EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND: 2
******************************************************************
TRAFFIC VOLUME AT LEVEL OF SERVICE C (TABLE 10-7) : 1080
******************************************************************
ACTUAL VOLUME VS LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME: 1099 vs 1080
******************************************************************
CAPACITY: 1700
******************************************************************
10
1985 HCM: MULTI-WAY STOP INTERSECTION
- ******************************************************************
INTERSECTION: 126th Street & Hazeldell Road Extended
Conditions) (Proposed
*****************************************************************
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: PM Peak Hour
******************************************************************
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
NORTHBOUND: 376
SOUTHBOUND: 233
EASTBOUND: 369
WESTBOUND: 301
TOTAL: 1279
******************************************************************
DEMAND SPLIT: 50/50
******************************************************************
NUMBER OF LANES:
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND: 2
EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND: 2
******************************************************************
TRAFFIC VOLUME AT LEVEL OF SERVICE C (TABLE 10-7) : 1200
******************************************************************
ACTUAL VOLUME VS LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME: 1279 vs 1200
******************************************************************
CAPACITY: 1900
******************************************************************
11
GRAY ROAD & 116TH STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
I
12
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION : CITY OF CARMEL
` DATE 116TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (34)
APRIL 6, 1992
DESIGN DATA
+----------------- +
IAM PEAK OFF PEAK + +
+ L T R TOT I R TOT I PM PEAK
L T L T R TOT I
NORTHBOUND 15 11 38 64 + +
EASTBOUND 28 27 124 179 +
51 315 8 374
SOUTHBOUND
WESTBOUND 204 24 173 401 269 778 29 1076
136 668 125 929 163 25 86 274
+ + 55 413 226 694
HOUR SUMMARY
+-------+
HOUR SB NB+SB +
+----_-_+ NB EB WB EB+WB � TOTAL +
6- 7 27 - AM - + +
_ 159 186 266
387
8_ 9 51 386 437 307 1203 573
256 317 357 607 964 1640
- 4 111 - PM -
3 1281
3- 5 11 201 333 521 554 1075 1408
5- 1379 1699
6 320 762 617
+_-5--6 155 265 420 1035 667 1702 2122
TOTAL 524 1489 2013 +
3103 3607 6710
6. 0% 17. 1% 23. 1% 35. 6% 41.4% 76.9% 00
100..87230%
15-MIN - AM PEAK VOLUMES -
HOUR15-1 19 118 107 296
61 386 372 923
PHFHRBEGIN 0. 80 0. 82 0. 87 0. 78
8: 00 7: 00 7:30 7:30
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 44 81 294 189
HOUR
U 155 265 1035 667
PHHRF
BEGIN 0. 88 0. 82 0. 88 0.88
5: 00 5: 00 5: 00 5: 00
13
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION : CITY OF CARMEL
DATE = 116TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (34)
APRIL 6, 1992
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : NORTHBOUND
I -HOUR I LEFT THRU + +---------------+
PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTH
___ + TOTALR
-+ -'-'------- PASS TRUCK BOTH!
+-
0 AM + +
6- 7 9
9
8- 9 15 0 15 9 1 10 30 1 15/
0 30 50 1 27
3
7 1 8 27 14
34 1 51
0 11
3- 4 PM 4 38 56 5 61
28 0 28 25 2
56 105
5- 6 17 0 17 18 52
5 23 75 4 6 111
18 1 19 12 0 4 79 110 9 119
--+
PASSENGER 12 120 4 124 150
+ + 5 155
+-----
98 74 + +
325 497
99. 0% 89.2%
95. 0% 94 .8%
TRUCK 1
1. 0% 9 17
10.8% 5. 0% 27
BOTH 5. 2%
99 83
18. 9% 15.8% 342 524
65. 3% 100. 0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
+ +
I HOUR + +
T THRU + +
LEF
PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TTOTRUAL BOTHI
6_ 7 AM +
9 2 11 104 4 108
7- 8 29 0 29 262 13 275 2 0 2 115 6 121
8- 9 49 2 51 275 23 298 3 0 3 294 13 307
3- 4 91 2 PM
8 0 8 332 25 357
4- 5 93 381 23 404 21 3 24 493 28 521
123 0 123 601 15 616
5- 6 267 2 269 738 7 745 23 0 23 747 15 762
+-------+ 0 21 1026 9 1035
PASSENGER + +
007
98. 6%568 2361 78 + +
96. 5% 96. 3% 96. 9
TRUCK 96. 9%
8 85
3
1.4% 3.5% 3 . 7% 96°
BOTH 3 . 1�
576 2446
3103
18 . 6% = = 78. 8% 81
2 . 6 °,
100. 0%
14
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION CITY OF CARMEL
DATE : 116TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (34)
: APRIL 6, 1992
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : SOUTHBOUND
+PAPP---+----------PAPP-+
I HOUR LEFT +PAPP--PAPP-- - -------
(PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK -+THRU RIGHT +
+PAPP---+PASS-TRACKPBOT-+
BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK B
+ +---PAPP-- OTHI
6- 7 78 AM -PAPP-+
0 78 7 0 7/ 74 0 74
8- 9 121 03 204 4 22 2 24 158 0 158 1 50 38656
10 0 10 123 3814 5 2
3- 4 PM 2 125 254 2 256
_ 108 5 113 20 3 23
5- 65 10062 6 106 19 1 20 84 2 865 2129 10 222
+-------+PAPPPAPP-1 163 19 0 19 2 75 192 9 201
PASSENGER -+ 81 2 83 262 3 265
770 + +__
98. 1% 97 --------PAP +
94.2% 98. 7% 18
TRUCK 98. 1%
15
1. 9% 5. 6 8 29
BOTH 785 1. 3% 1. 9%
52 . 5% 103
°
601 1489
' 9° 40.4% 100. 0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : WESTBOUND
+-------+-------
I HOUR + +
LEFT THRU RIGHT
+ +
PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS+ TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK Bp TOTAL
+PAPP---+PASS- - -
----- + BOTHIPASS PASS TRUCK BOTH/
6- 7 AM + +
32 0 32 199 7 206
8- 9 119 2 121 659 9 668 28 0 28 259 7 266
56 1 57 430 19 449 104 3 107 882 14 896
94 7 101 580 27 607
3- 4 25 2 27 PM
4- 5 357 20 377 145 5 150 527 27
5- 554
6 546 3 29 394 8 402 181 5 186 601 16 617
+------- 1 55 373 13 386 225
+PAPP--PAPP-- + 1 226 652 15 667
PASSENGER 312 + +
97.2% 2412 777 +
1
96.9% 97. 4% 937. 1
TRUCK 97. 1%
9 76
1
2
1. 9
' 8 ° 3. 1% 2. 6% °
BOTH = 321 2. 90
2488 798
8. 9%
° 69. 0% 22 . 1% 0
100. 0%
15
SF
_--____________--- _ A & F ENGINEERING CO. , PM PEAKOEXIST+'a`NTICIPAT
StreStreets: __ _____________ INC.
ets: (E-W) 116TH ST (34) ----N____ _______________________
SF
(N-S) GRAY RD
_Area Type: Other File Name: SW34EAM.HC9
Comment:-EXISTING-CONDITIONS
---_----- 1-12-93 AM PEAK
v Eastbound Westbound --__ ----
-L T R L Northbound Southbound
TRLT R L
No. Lanes ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- T R
Volumes. La1 1 < 1 1 - -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
30 282 3 134 685 110 1 1 1 1 1 1
'Lane Width 12. 0 12. 0 11 10 31 209
RTOR Vols 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 25
1 26
---------------------
Sign_____3l
--- ----- 1_5___ 79
Phase Combination 1 2 Signal Operations ------------
EB Left * 4 6
Thru * NB Left 5 7 8
Right * Thru
Peds Right *
WB Left * Peds
Thru * SB Left * *
Right * Thru *
Peds Right *
JB Right * Peds
3B Right * EB Right
=
rn 6WB Right *
'7' eeow/A-R . OA 35. OA Green 12. OA 6. OA
post 4 . 0 4 . 0 Yellow/A- 4. 0 4. 0
'yce Time the 3 . 0 3 . 0 Lost Time 3 . 0
g 75. 0 secsPhase combination order: 3. 0
#1 #2 #5 #6
Lane Intersection Performance Summary
LaneMymtGroup: Adj Sat v/c
---- -Cap Flow Ratio Ratio
Delay Approach:
Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
B L 167 ------- -----
1787 0. 61 -B-
3 TR 901 1878 0. 360 0.48 8 . 0 A 7. 3
1787 8. 0 B
T 9037 18817 0. 00 0. 61 0. 0 A 18. 1 C
R 1109 1599 0.95 0.48 23 . 6 C
3 L 310 1787 0. 09 0. 69 2.4 A
0. 00 0.31 0. 0
R T 172 76 1881 0. 07 0. 09 20. 0 C 11. 6 B
1599 0.23 C
0
L 310 1787 . 06 14. 7 B
T 176 1881 0. 48 0. 31 0. 09 0. 1 C 16. 9 C
R 362 0. 17 20. 3 C
1599 0.28 0. 23 15. 6 C
Intersection Delay = 15. 7 sec/veh Intersection LOS
st Time/Cycle, L = 6. 0 =
sec Critical v/c(x) = 0. 655 C
16
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. 11-27-1993
Streets: (E-W) 116TH ST (34)
_ Analyst: SF (N-S) GRAY RD
Area Type: Other File Name: SW34PAM.HC9
1-12-Comment: EXIST+ANTICIPATED+SITE T.V. & EXIST93 GE AM PE
MTRICS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
_L-- _T-- -------- - - Southbound
- R L T
Noanes - ---- ---- --- R
• No. LLas 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 - -1 -1 -1-- -1--
60 378 4 161 1032 72 1 1 1 1 1
18 41 229 47 293
Lane Width 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12 . 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0
RTOR Vols 1
36 20
146
Phase Combination 1 Signal Operations
EB Left * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Thru * NB Left
Right * Thru *
Peds Right *
WB Left * Peds
Thru * SB Left
Right * Thru *
Peds Right *
NB Right Peds
SB Right EB Right
Green 48. OA WB Right *
Yellow/A-R 4 . 0 Green 8. OA 8. OA
Lost Time 3 . 0 Yellow/A- 4. 0 4 . 0
Cycle Length: 76. 0 secsPhase combinationst Time order: 3. 0 3. 0
#1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat c v/ g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
!",B L 97 150 --- --
TR 1211 0. 71 0. 64 20. 9 C 6.4 B-
1878 0. 36 0. 64 4. 1 A
7B L
632 981 0.32 0. 64 4 . 7
T 1213 1881 1. 06 0. 64 42.8 A 36. 6 D
E
R 1283 1599 0. 04 0. 80 E
13L 212 1787 1. 0 A
T 2231 0. 00 0. 28 0. 0 A 14. 3 B
R 1881 0. 10 0. 12 19.3 C
B L 189 1599 0. 14 0. 12 19.4 C
212 1787 0. 72 0.28 26.4 D
T 223 1881 0.26 0. 12 19.8 C 34 . 6 D
R 189 1599 0.95 0. 12 52. 1
E
Intersection Dela
est Time/Cycle, L = Delay = 29.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
6. 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.958
17
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. 11-27-1993
Streets: (E-W) 116TH ST (34)
_ Analyst: SF (N-S) GRAY RD
Area Type: Other File Name: SW34EPM.HC9
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS 1-12-93 PM PEAK
- Eastbound Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R Southbound
---- ---- --- L T R
T R
No. Lanes 1 1 - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -
- Volumes 276 1 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-- -1-- ----
No.
Width 12 . 0 12. 07 56 396 232 19 12 127 167 19 85
Rang Vols 12. 0 12 . 0 12.0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12 . 0 12. 0
6 113
. 62 41
Phase Combination 1 Signal Operations
EB Left 2 3 4
Thru * * NB Left * * 7 8
Right * Thru
Peds Right *
WB Left * * Peds
Thru * SB Left * *
Right * Thru
Peds Right
NB Right * Peds
SB Right * EB Right
Green 7. OA 37. OA WB Right *
Yellow/A-R 4 . 0 4. 0 Green 8. OA 6. OA
Lost Time 3 . 0 3 . 0 Yellow/A- 4 . 0 4. 0
3.
Cycle Length: 74 . 0 secsPhase combinations t order: #1Time 3. 0#2 #50#6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay/C ach:
;B L --- LOS
193 1787 0. 45 0. 66 5.7 B ---
TR 963 1875 0.92 0. 51 19.2 15.7 C
flB L 193 1787 0. 00 0. 66 C
T 966 1881 7 .7 A 5.9 B
R 1080 0.47 0.51 7.7 B
FB LR 1599 0. 13 0. 68 2.8 A
217 1787 0. 00 0. 26 0. 0 A 12 . 2 B
T 178 1881 0. 08 0. 09 19. 7
R 389 1599 0. 19 0.24 14.4 B
'B L 217 1787 0.49 0.26 19.2
T 178 1881 0. 13 0. 09 19.9 C 18 . 3 C
R 389 1599 0. 14 0.24 C
Intersection Delay =
14.2 B
13 . 0
ost Time/Cycle, L = 6. 0 sec Critical v/c(x)h Inte00. 646ion LOS = B
18
_ HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. 11-27-1993
Streets: (E-W) 116TH ST (34) (N-S) GRAY RD
_ Analyst: SF
Area Type: Other File Name: SW34PPM.HC9
1-12- PM PE
Comment: EXIST+ANTICIPATED+SITE T.V. & EXIST93 GEOMETRICS
-
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R
LT R L T R L T
R
No. Lanes 1 1 < 1 -i-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -
- Vo1umes 395 927 26 74 622 145 134 136 166 184 1 1135 11
80
Lane Width 12 . 0 12. 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12 . 0 12. 0
RTOR Vols 6
. 72 83 90
Phase Combination 1 2 Signal Operations 4 5
EB Left * *6
Thru * * NB Left 7 8
* Thru *
Right *
Peds Right
WB Left Peds
* SB Left * *
Thru
Right *Thru * *
Peds Right * *
NB Right Peds
SB Right * EB Right
Green 20. OA 36. OA WB Right
Yellow/A-R 4 . 0 4 . 0 Green 8. OA 7. OA
Lost Time 3 . 0 3 . 0 Yellow/A- 4 . 0 4. 0
3 .
Cycle Length: 87. 0 secsPhase combinations order: #1t Time 3. 0#2 #50#6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c
Mvmts / g/C Approach:
Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 431 1787 0. 85 0.70 17. 5 C
TR 1315 1875 0. 82 0.70 8. 4 B 11. 1 B
aB L 86 203 0.97 0.43 83 . 9 F
T 800 1881 0.88 0.43 21.8 C 26.2 D
R 901 1599 0. 09 0.56 5. 7 B
JB L 96 1048 0.40 0. 09 29.8 D
T 173 1881 0.24 0. 09 23 . 8 C 28.5 D
R 147 1599 0. 65 0. 09 30. 1 D
iB L 185 1787 0.76 0.23 35. 1 D 24 .9 C
T 432 1881 0. 10 0.23 17. 1 C
R 809 1599 0. 14 0.51 7. 4 B
,ost Time C Intersection Delay = 18.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
/ y 6. 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.813
19
116TH STREET & RIVER AVENUE/
HAZELDELL ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
20
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT : CITY OF CARMEL
LOCATION : 116TH STREET & RIVER AVENUE (SOUTH LEG) (35)
- DATE : MARCH 2, 1992
DESIGN DATA
I + + +
AM PEAK OFF PEAK PM PEAK
L T R TOT I L T R TOT I L T R TOT
NORTHBOUND + + + I
6 6 12 +
EASTBOUND 594 35 629 4 21 253
7
WESTBOUND 22 892 914 10494 1770
+ + + 6 764 770
HOUR SUMMARY
+ +
+ HOUR + NB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 + +
6- 8 4 198 240 438 442
8 9 7 517 591
587 114 05 1513
3- 4
- PM - 1104 1111
4- 5 16 597 519 1116 1132
5- 23 6 16 18810 0 600 1410 1433
+ 768 1817 1833
TOTAL 74 3762 3628 + +
7390
1.0% 50.4% 48. 6% 7464
99.0% 100.0%
15-MIN - AM PEAK VOLUMES -
HOUR 4 174 269
F 9 621 914
PH
HRPH BEGIN 0. 56 0.89 0.85
6:30 7:30 7:00
15-MIN - PM PEAK VOLUMES -
OUR 9 304 200
H
O23 1049 768
PHFHR BEGIN 0. 64 0.86 0.96
4: 00 5:00 5:00
21
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT : CITY OF CARMEL
LOCATION : 116TH STREET & RIVER AVENUE (SOUTH LEG
DATE : MARCH 2, 1992 ) (35)
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : WESTBOUND
I HOUR + + +
T THRU RIGHT +
LEF
PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTH
+ + + I
6- 7 0
9
+ + +
1 AM
7- 8 1 231 8 239 231 9 240
13 22 877 15 892
8- 9 1 3 4 568 15 583 890 28
PM 5699 18 587
914
3- 4 2 4 6 494 19 513
4- 5 1 1 2 577 21 598 578 496 22 23 519
5- 6 3 1 4 747 17 764 600
+ + + 750 18 768
PASSENGER + + +
20 3494
51. 3% 97.4% 3514
96. 9%
TRUCK 19
5
48. 7% 2.6%9 114
3 . 1%
BOTH 39 3589
1. 1% 98.9% 3628
100. 0%
22
-
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT : CITY OF CARMEL
LOCATION : 116TH STREET & RIVER AVENUE (SOUTH LEG
DATE : MARCH 2, 1992 ) (35)
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : NORTHBOUND
I HOUR + + +
THRU RIGHT +
LEFT
PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BO
+ THI
6- 7 AM +
7 8 1 2 4
2 60 2 3 1
8- 9 41 0 1 2 0 2 6 2 8
4 2 6 5 2 7
PM
3- 4
4- 5 2 1 2 12 2 14 13 3 16
5- 6 4 0 4 20 1 21 22 1 23
+ + 12 0 12 16 0 16
PASSENGER 13 + + +
+
76.5% 52 65
91.2% 87.8%
TRUCK 4
23 .5% 5 9
8.8% 12.2%
BOTH 17
57
23 . 0% 77. 0% 74
100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
HOUR LEFT + + +
PASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTHIPASS TRUCK BOTH
+ + + I
AN
6- 7
7- 8 197 0 197 1 0 1 198 0 198
8- 9 574 1 575 15 1 16 589 2 591
480 2 482 35 0 35 515 2 517
PM
3- 4
571 23 594 4- 5 785 24 809 2 100 3 573 24 597
5- 6 1039 10 1049 0 0 1 786 24 810
+ + + 0 1039 10 104949
PASSENGER + + +
3646 54 3700
98.4% 96.4% 98.4%
TRUCK 60
2 62
1. 6% 3. 6% 1.6%
BOTH 3706
56 3762
98.5% 1.5% 100. 0%
23
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
****************************************************************Pg -
*****
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET30
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
.9
AREA POPULATION 60000
• NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET 116TH ST (35)
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET RIVER AVE
NAME OF THE ANALYST SF
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) 12-28-1992
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED AM PEAK HOUR
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXISTING CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EB WB NB SB
LEFT 0 22 6 --
THRU 589 914 0 --
RIGHT 16 0 2 --
NUMBER OF LANES
EB WB NB SB
LANES 1 1 1 --
24
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0. 00 90 20
N
WESTBOUND 0. 00 90 20
N
NORTHBOUND 0. 00 90 40
N
SOUTHBOUND ---
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
% SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES
EASTBOUND 2 0 0
WESTBOUND 3 0
0
NORTHBOUND 12 0 0
SOUTHBOUND ___
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL
(Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
NB 5.50 5.50 0. 00 5. 50
MAJOR LEFTS
WB 5. 00 5. 00 0. 00 5. 00
MINOR LEFTS
NB 6.50 6.50 0. 00 6. 50
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET 116TH ST (35)
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREETRIVER AVE
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12-28-1992 ; AM PEAK HOUR
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXISTING CONDITIONS
25
CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
Page-3
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED
RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) cc
P M SHIP c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
R SH
MINOR STREET
NB LEFT 7 95 93 >
93 > 86 > E
RIGHT 2 514 514 > 116 > 107 >D
514 > 511 > A
MAJOR STREET
WB LEFT 25 583 583
583 558 A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET 116TH ST (35)
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREETRIVER AVE
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12-28-1992 ; AM PEAK HOUR
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXISTING CONDITIONS
26
- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. 11-27-1993
Streets: (E-W) 116TH ST
_Analyst: SJF (N-S) HAZELLDALL RD
Area Type: Other File Name: SWHAPPM.HC9
Comment: EXIST+ANTICIPATED+SITE T.V. 11-27-93 AM PEAK
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
-L-- -T-- -R L T R L T R LSoutTbound R
No. Lanes -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
1 1 < -1-- -1-- -1
•Volumes 55 794 34 1
Lane lu Widths12 . 0 12. 0 27 1170 81 12 5 2 207 29 183
Lane Vols 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12. 0 12. 0
8 40 0
91
Phase Combination 1 2 Signl Operations
a
EB Left 4
* NB Left *
Thru * 6 7 8
* Thru *
Right *
Peds Right
WB Left Peds
* SB Left *
Thru
*
Right * Thru *
Peds Right
NB Right Peds
SB Right * EB Right
Green 6. OA 48 . OA r night
G
Yellow/A-R 0. 0 4 . 0 Lollo 14 . 0AoTime 4. 0
Lost Time 3 . 0 3 . 0 Lost
Time 3
.7ycle Length: 74 . 0 secsPhase combinations order: #. 0
#1 #2 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS DelayachLOS
;B L 72 1787 0. 00 0. 74 0. 0 --- ---
TR 1392 1873 0. 62 0.74 3 . 5 A 3 .2 A
TB L 298 450 0. 09 0. 66 3 .4 A 21. 6 C
T 1246 1881 0.99 0. 66 22. 6 C
R 1059 1599 0. 04 0.66 2.8 A
B L 251 1431 0.05 0. 18 19. 3 C 18.2 C
TR 316 1799 0. 02 0. 18 16. 3 C
B L 330 1881 0. 66 0. 18 24 .9 C 21. 1 C
T 330 1881 0.09 0. 18 16. 5 C
R 411 1599 0.24 0.26 14 . 1 B
ost Time C Intersection Delay = 15. 0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
/ Y 6. 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.839
27
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
***************************************************************P*****
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET30
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
. 9
AREA POPULATION 60000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET
116TH ST (35)
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET RIVER AVE
NAME OF THE ANALYST SF
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) 12-28-1992
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK HOUR
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXISTING CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- --
LEFT 0 4 ---4 ----
THRU 1075 783 0 --
RIGHT 1 0 12 --
NUMBER OF LANES
EB WB NB SB
LANES 1 1 1 --
28
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Page-2
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20
N
WESTBOUND 0. 00 90 20
N
NORTHBOUND 0. 00 90 40
N
SOUTHBOUND
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
% SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES
EASTBOUND 2 0 0
WESTBOUND 3 0 0
NORTHBOUND 12 0 0
SOUTHBOUND
CRITICAL GAPS
TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL
(Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP
MINOR RIGHTS
NB 5. 50 5.50 0. 00 5.50
MAJOR LEFTS
WB 5. 00 5.00 0. 00 5. 00
MINOR LEFTS
NB 6.50 6.50 0. 00 6.50
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET 116TH ST (35)
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREETRIVER AVE
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12-28-1992 ; PM PEAK HOUR
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXISTING CONDITIONS
29
CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
Page-3
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) cp(pcph) cM(pcph) cSH(pcph) c = c - v LOS
R SH
MINOR STREET
NB LEFT 5 95 94 > 94 >
> 179 > 89 > E
161 >D
RIGHT 14 257 257 >
257 > 243 > C
MAJOR STREET
WB LEFT 5 312 312 312
307 B
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET 116TH ST (35)
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREETRIVER AVE
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12-28-1992 ; PM PEAK HOUR
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . EXISTING CONDITIONS
30
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. 11-27-1993
Streets: (E-W) 116TH ST
. Analyst: SJF (N-S) HAZELLDALL RD
Area Type: Other File Name: SWHAPAM.HC9
Comment: EXIST+ANTICIPATED+SITE T.V. 11-27-93 PM PEAK
Eastbound Westbound
Northbound
Southbound bounLTRLTR TRLTd---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- __ __
__No Lanes 1 1 <
Volumes 156 1390 olu Wsdth 12. 0 13 0 9 5 1052 206 22 18 15 151
RTOR Vols 12 . 0 12. 0 12. 0 12. 0 12.0 22 133
2 103 4 12.Lane0 12. 0 12. 0
66
Phase Combination 1 Signal Operations
5
EB Left 2 3 4
Thru * * NB Left * 6 7 8
Right * * Thru
Peds Right *
WB Left * Peds
Thru * SB Left *
Right * Thru *
Peds Right *
0 Right Peds
3B Right * EB Right
;reen 6. OA 48. OA WB Right
ellow/A-R 0. 0 4. 0 Yello 7. 0A
Yell
Jost Time 3 . 0 3 . 0 ow/A- 4. 0
Time 3
'ycle Length: 69. 0 secsPhase combinationst order: #. 0
#1 #2 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS DelayC
oach:
B L LOS
TR 78 1787 0. 77 0. 80 26. 7 --- ---
1499 1881 0. 80 16.2 D 17. 2 C
B L 109 0. 98 C
Z, 154 0. 05 0. 71 2. 3 A
1336 1881 0. 83 0. 71 6. 8 B
B
R 1136 1599 0. 10 0. 71 2 . 0 A
3 L 201 1732 2. 0 A
TR 205 0. 11 0. 12 20.8 C 19. 0 C
3 L 1771 0. 15 0. 12 17.8 C
218 1881 0. 73 0. 12 30.2
T 218 1881 0. 11 0. 12 17.6 C 24 .8 C
R 324 1599 0. 22 0.20
Intersection Delay14 .9 B
st Time/Cycle, I, = = 13.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
6. 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0. 949
31