Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Study Addendum 11-16-00 ;f.Y A & F ENGINE RING C o. , LLC• .MN! VH ENGINEERING STUDIES•TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES STREETAESIGN•HIGHWAY DESIGN•TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • STU ES ENGINEERS & PLANNERS PARKING LOT DESIGN•CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION ON OBSERVATION REGISTRATION r INDIANA WILLIAM J. FEHRIBACH, P.E. ILLINOIS IOWA PRESIDENT KENTUCKY MICHIGAN OHIO STEVEN J. FEHRIBACH, P.E. VICE PRESIDENT MEMORANDUM `�I C°��11 0 To: City of Carmel Plan Commission DOCS From: Steve Fehribach, P.E. R. Matt Brown, E.I. A&F Engineering Co., LLC. Date: 11/16/00 Subject: Long Branch Estates Introduction This addendum is written in response to the City of Carmel area plan commission's request for an additional analysis to be conducted at the intersections of 116th Street and Shelborne Road and 121 ' Street and Shelborne Road. This analysis is in addition to the original traffic operations analysis that was prepared for the proposed Long Branch Estates residential development that is to be located along Shelborne Road between 116th Street and 121 ' Street. Purpose The purpose of this analysis is to determine the level-of-services results at the intersections of 116th Street and Shelborne Road and 121' Street and Shelborne Road for the following: 121 ' Street and Shelborne Road SCENARIO 1: Existing Conditions-Based on the existing traffic volumes. SCENARIO 2: Proposed Development— Add the new traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed development to the existing traffic volumes. SCENARIO 3: Proposed Development with Future Surrounding Development — Add the new traffic volumes that will be generated by future surrounding development to the traffic volumes in Scenario 2. HI 8425 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 200 - INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240 - TELEPHONE (317) 202-0864 FACSIMILE (317) 202-0908 t . 116th Street and Shelborne Road 1998 Traffic Volumes — Based on the one lane approaches (existing) and stop sign controlled. 2013 Traffic Volumes — Based on the one lane approaches (existing) and stop sign controlled. 2020 Traffic Volumes — Based on the one lane approaches (existing) and stop sign controlled. 1998 Traffic Volumes — Based on the proposed lane configurations and traffic signal controlled. 2013 Traffic Volumes — Based on the proposed lane configurations and traffic signal controlled. 2020 Traffic Volumes — Based on the proposed lane configurations and traffic signal controlled. Level of Service Results The following tables summarize the level of service results for the scenarios described above at the intersections of 116th Street and Shelborne Road and 121x` Street and Shelborne Road. TABLE 1 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-116TH STREET AND SHELBORNE ROAD AM PEAK HOUR 1998 2013 2020 1998 2013 2020 Movement Existing Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Proposed Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions Ea116thnd A A B A A B Westbound 116th A A F A A E Northbound B B F B B B Shelborne Southbound B D F C C C Shelborne Overall A A F A A C Intersection PM PEAK HOUR 1998 2013 2020 1998 2013 2020 Movement Existing Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Proposed Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions Eastbound A A B A A D Westbound 116th A A F A A D Northbound C F F C C E Shelborne Southbound B E F B B B Shelborne Overall A B F A A D Intersection Existing conditions include one travel lane in each direction, for each leg of the intersection and the intersection being stop controlled for Shelborne Road. Proposed conditions include the intersection being controlled by a traffic signal and the following lane configurations as approved by the Hamilton County Highway Department. Eastbound, 116t Street: 2-through lanes and one designated left-turn lane Westbound, 116t Street: 2-through lanes, one designated right-turn lane, and one designated left- turn lane Northbound, Shelborne: one through lane, one designated right-turn lane, and one designated left-turn lane Southbound, Shelborne: one through lane, one designated right-turn lane, and one designated left-turn lane Traffic volumes assume that Shelborne Road has been realigned in all cases. All information pertaining to 116t Street and Shelborne Road was provided by Cripe Engineering and was approved by the Hamilton Highway Department and the County Commissioners. TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-1213T STREET AND SHELBORNE ROAD AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Northbound Left-Turn A A A Eastbound Approach B B B PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Northbound Left-Turn A A A Eastbound Approach B B B SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions SCENARIO 3: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes, Proposed Development Traffic Volumes and Year 2010 Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions Conclusions The capacity analysis performed at each intersection have shown that the intersection of 116`h Street and Shelborne Road and 121 si Street and Shelborne Road will operate at or above an acceptable level of service C for all scenarios through the year 2013 with the following recommended geometric changes. Recommended Geometrics • No improvements are needed at the intersection of 121'` Street and Shelborne Road • The following improvements are needed at the intersection of 116`h Street and Shelborne Road. These geometrics are the proposed conditions by the Hamilton County Highway Department. Eastbound 116th Street: 2-through lanes and one designated left-turn lane Westbound 116th Street: 2-through lanes, one designated right-turn lane, and one designated left-turn lane Northbound Shelborne: one through lane, one designated right-turn lane, and one designated left-turn lane Southbound Shelborne: one through lane, one designated right-turn lane, and one designated left-turn lane A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. 1 TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY CLIENT : PLATINUM PROPERTIES LOCATION : 121ST STREET & SHELBORNE ROAD (03) DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2000 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : NORTHBOUND HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH AM 6- 7 0 0 0 23 3 26 23 3 26 7- 8 2 0 2 70 0 70 72 0 72 8- 9 8 1 9 50 2 52 58 3 61 PM 3- 4 16 1 17 76 3 79 92 4 96 4- 5 12 1 13 164 1 165 176 2 178 5- 6 13 0 13 297 0 297 310 0 310 PASSENGER 51 680 731 94 . 4% 98 .7% 98 . 4% TRUCK 3 9 12 5. 6% 1. 3% 1. 6% BOTH 54 689 743 7 . 3% 92 .7% 100. 0% DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH AM 6- 7 5 1 6 8 0 8 13 1 14 7- 8 19 0 19 20 2 22 39 2 41 8- 9 9 2 11 16 0 16 25 2 27 PM 3- 4 9 0 9 7 1 8 16 1 17 4- 5 8 0 8 11 0 11 19 0 19 5- 6 10 0 10 9 1 10 19 1 20 PASSENGER 60 71 131 95. 2% 94 . 7% 94 . 9% TRUCK 3 4 7 4 . 8% 5. 3% 5. 1% BOTH 63 75 138 45. 7% 54 . 3% 100. 0% A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY CLIENT : PLATINUM PROPERTIES LOCATION : 121ST STREET & SHELBORNE ROAD (03) DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2000 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : SOUTHBOUND HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH AM 6- 7 110 0 110 1 0 1 111 0 111 7- 8 328 0 328 11 0 11 339 0 339 8- 9 185 1 186 , 4 1 5 189 2 191 PM 3- 4 49 1 50 11 1 12 60 2 62 4- 5 52 1 53 5 0 5 57 1 58 5- 6 87 1 88 8 0 8 95 1 96 PASSENGER 811 40 851 99 . 5% 95 . 2% 99 . 3% TRUCK 4 2 6 0. 5% 4 . 8% 0.7% BOTH 815 42 857 95. 1% 4 . 9% 100. 0% A & F ENGINEERING CO. , INC. TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY CLIENT : PLATINUM PROPERTIES LOCATION : 121ST STREET & SHELBORNE ROAD (03) DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2000 PEAK HOUR DATA f I I I AM PEAK OFF PEAK PM PEAK HR BEGIN 7:15 AM HR BEGIN 5:00 PM L T R TOT L T R TOT L T R TOT NORTHBOUND 5 75 80 13 297 310 EASTBOUND 16 18 34 10 10 20 SOUTHBOUND 330 10 340 88 8 96 HOUR SUMMARY HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB TOTAL - AM - 6- 7 26 111 137 14 151 7- 8 72 339 411 41 452 8- 9 61 191 252 27 279 - PM - 3- 4 96 62 158 17 175 4- 5 178 58 236 19 255 5- 6 310 96 406 20 426 TOTAL 743 857 1600 138 1738 42 . 8% 49. 3% 92 . 1% 7 . 9% 100. 0% - AM PEAK VOLUMES - 15-MIN 23 101 14 HOUR 80 340 41 PHF 0.87 0. 84 0. 73 - PM PEAK VOLUMES - 15-MIN 89 30 9 HOUR 310 96 24 PHF 0.87 0. 80 0. 67 HCS : Uns ' talized Intersections Rel( e 3 . 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: 121st Street and Shelborne Roa Analyst: RMB Project No . : S1-Existing Date: 11/16/00 East/West Street : 121st Street North/South Street : Shelborne Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0 . 25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R 1 L T R Volume 5 75 330 10 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 83 366 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street : Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 16 18 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LT 1 1 LR v (vph) 5 37 C (m) (vph) 1181 613 v/c 0 . 00 0 . 06 95% queue length 0 . 00 0 . 06 Control Delay 8 . 1 11 . 2 LOS A B Approach Delay 11 .2 Approach LOS B HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 . 2 HCS : Uns ' ialized Intersections Rel( a 3 . 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: 121st Street and Shelborne Roa Analyst : RMB Project No . : S1-Existing Date: 11/16/00 East/West Street : 121st Street North/South Street : Shelborne Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0 . 25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R 1 L T R Volume 13 297 88 8 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 14 330 97 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street : Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 10 10 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LT I 1 LR v (vph) 14 22 C (m) (vph) 1486 702 v/c 0 . 01 0 . 03 95% queue length 0 . 00 0 . 00 Control Delay 7 . 4 10 . 3 LOS A B Approach Delay 10 . 3 Approach LOS B HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 . 2 HCS : Una ' ialized Intersections Relf 3 . 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: 121st Street and Shelborne Roa Analyst : RMB Project No . : S2-Existing+Proposed Date : 11/16/00 East/West Street : 121st Street North/South Street : Shelborne Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0 . 25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 6 75 330 10 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 83 366 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street : Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 16 22 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 24 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LT 1 1 LR v (vph) 6 41 C (m) (vph) 1181 617 v/c 0 . 01 0 . 07 95% queue length 0 . 00 0 . 10 Control Delay 8 . 1 11 . 2 LOS A B Approach Delay 11 . 2 Approach LOS B HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 . 2 HCS : Uns ialized Intersections Reli e 3 . 2 - TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: 121st Street and Shelborne Roa Analyst : RMB Project No . : S2-Existing+Proposed Date : 11/16/00 East/West Street : 121st Street North/South Street : Shelborne Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0 . 25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street : Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 18 297 88 8 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 330 97 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street : Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 10 13 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 14 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LT 1 1 LR v (vph) 20 25 C (m) (vph) 1486 716 v/c 0 . 01 0 . 03 95% queue length 0 . 00 0 . 00 Control Delay 7 . 5 10 . 2 LOS A B Approach Delay 10 .2 Approach LOS B HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 . 2 HCS : Uns alized Intersections RelE 3 . 2 - TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: 121st Street and Shelborne Roa Analyst : RMB Project No . : S3-Existing+proposed+2010 Date : 11/16/00 East/West Street : 121st Street North/South Street: Shelborne Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0 .25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 I 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 6 75 330 10 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 83 366 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street : Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 16 22 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 24 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LT 1 1 LR v (vph) 6 41 C (m) (vph) 1181 617 v/c 0 . 01 0 . 07 95% queue length 0 . 00 0 . 10 Control Delay 8 . 1 11 . 2 LOS A B Approach Delay 11 . 2 Approach LOS B HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 . 2 1 HCS : Uns Lalized Intersections RelE : 3 . 2 - TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: 121st Street and Shelborne Roa Analyst : RMB Prdject No . : S3-Existing+Proposed+2010 Date: 11/16/00 East/West Street : 121st Street North/South Street : Shelborne Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0 . 25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street : Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R 1 L T R Volume 18 297 88 8 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 330 97 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street : Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 10 13 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 14 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LT 1 1 LR v (vph) 20 25 C (m) (vph) 1486 716 v/c 0 . 01 0 . 03 95% queue length 0 . 00 0 . 00 Control Delay 7 . 5 10 . 2 LOS A B Approach Delay 10 . 2 Approach LOS B HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 . 2 • HCS: Unsignalized I ;rsections Release 2 . 1f 1998AM.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida . 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) Shelbourne Road (E-W) 116th Street Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst RDR Date of Analysis 10/1/98 Other Information 1998 (am) EXISTING LANES Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L TRLTRLTR ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 5 241 5 41 219 4 3 19 31 19 82 61 PHF . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 6 1 0 3 13 0 4 2 PCE ' s 1 . 06 1 . 01 1 . 00 1 . 03 1 . 13 1 . 00 1 . 04 1 . 02 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 1998AM.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 271 245 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1009 1040 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1009 1040 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 96 0 . 93 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 274 247 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1269 1307 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1269 1307 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 96 1 . 00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 96 0 . 99 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 570 571 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 548 547 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 95 0 . 95 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 522 521 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 96 0 . 82 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 648 596 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 446 478 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 78 0 . 91 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 83 0 . 93 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 77 0 . 90 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 345 429 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 1998AM.HCO Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) NB L 3 345 > NB T 22 522 > 712 5 . 5 0 .2 B 5 . 5 NB R 38 1009 > SB L 21 429 > SB T 95 521 > 622 8 .2 1 .4 B 8 .2 SB R 69 1040 > EB L 6 1307 2 .8 0 . 0 A 0 . 1 WB L 46 1269 2 . 9 0 . 0 A 0 .5 Intersection Delay = 2 .4 sec/veh ' HCS': Unsignalized I :rsections Release 2 . 1f 1998PM.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida . 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) Shelbourne Road (E-W) 116th Street Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst RDR Date of Analysis 10/1/98 Other Information 1998 (pm) EXISTING LANES Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L TRLTR ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 15 260 1 37 286 13 11 102 73 7 43 7 PHF . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 7 7 12 4 9 10 2 6 PCE' s 1 . 07 1 . 07 1 . 12 1 . 04 1 . 09 1 . 10 1 . 02 1 . 06 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 1998PM.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 290 325 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 987 948 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 987 948 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 91 0 . 99 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 290 332 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1247 1191 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1247 1191 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 96 0 . 98 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 96 0 . 98 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 680 673 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 480 484 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 94 0 . 94 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 451 454 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 74 0 . 89 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 700 770 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 416 379 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 84 0 . 69 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 88 0 . 76 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 87 0 . 69 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 361 263 HCS : Unsignalized I..-,:rsections Release 2 . 1f 1998PM.HCO Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) NB L 13 361 > NB T 118 451 > 566 10 .4 2 . 1 C 10 .4 NB R 88 987 > SB L 9 263 > SB T 49 454 > 438 9 .7 0 . 6 B 9. 7 SB R 8 948 > EB L 18 1191 3 .1 0 . 0 A 0 .2 WB L 44 1247 3 .0 0 . 0 A 0 .3 Intersection Delay = 3 .1 sec/veh HCS : Unsignalized I. rsections Release 2 . 1f 2013AM.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida . 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL- 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) Shelbourne Road (E-W) 116th Street Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst Derek Date of Analysis 8/27/98 Other Information 2013 Traffic Data (am) Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 6 301 6 51 274 5 4 24 39 24 102 76 PHF .42 . 9 . 625 . 73 . 87 .25 .375 . 53 .55 .475 . 8 . 85 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 3 4 0 5 16 0 4 2 PCE' s 1 . 03 1 . 04 1 . 00 1 . 05 1 . 16 1 . 00 1 . 04 1 . 02 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 - HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 2013AM.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 339 325 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 932 948 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 932 948 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 91 0 . 90 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 344 335 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1175 1187 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1175 1187 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 94 0 . 99 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 92 0 . 99 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 758 753 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 437 439 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 91 0 . 91 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 397 399 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 88 0 . 67 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 856 806 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 338 361 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 61 0 . 80 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 69 0 . 85 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 63 0 . 77 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 212 279 'I _ HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 2013AM.HCO Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) NB L 11 212 > NB T 47 397 > 542 9 . 0 1 .2 B 9 . 0 NB R 82 932 > SB L 51 279 > SB T 132 399 > 449 20 .4 4 . 7 D 20 .4 SB R 91 948 > EB L 14 1187 3 . 1 0 . 0 A 0 . 1 WB L 73 1175 3 .3 0 . 1 A 0 . 5 Intersection Delay = 5 .4 sec/veh HCS : Unsignalized Ii rsections Release 2 . 1f 2013PM.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) Shelbourne Road (E-W) 116th Street Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst Derek Date of Analysis 8/27/98 Other Information 2013 Traffic Data (pm) Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No . Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 19 325 1 46 357 16 14 127 91 9 54 9 PHF .42 . 93 .25 . 77 . 84 . 54 . 7 . 67 . 8 . 35 . 67 . 35 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC ' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 5 4 9 3 5 14 0 0 PCE' s 1 . 05 1 . 04 1 . 09 1 . 03 1. 05 1 . 14 1 . 00 1 . 00 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 HCS : Unsignalized intersections Release 2 . 1f 2013PM.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 351 440 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 919 829 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 919 829 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 87 0 . 97 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 353 455 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1164 1041 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1164 1041 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 95 0 . 95 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 93 0 . 94 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 911 898 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 363 369 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 87 0 . 87 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 317 323 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 .38 0 . 75 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 950 1048 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 298 262 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 66 0 . 33 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 73 0 .46 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 71 0 .40 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 211 106 _ HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 2013PM.HCO Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) NB L 22 211 > NB T 196 317 > 396 54 . 3 11 . 9 F 54 .3 NB R 120 919 > SB L 30 106 > SB T 81 323 > 242 33 . 8 3 . 8 E 33 . 8 SB R 26 829 > EB L 47 1041 3 . 6 0 . 0 A 0 .2 WB L 62 1164 3 . 3 0 . 0 A 0 .4 Intersection Delay = 14 .3 sec/veh HCS': Unsignalized I: rsections Release 2 . 1f 2020AM.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) Shelbourne Road (E-W) 116th Street Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst RDR Date of Analysis 10/1/98 Other Information 2020 (am) EXISTING LANES Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 32 1600 22 181 724 25 3 19 31 19 82 61 PHF . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 6 1 0 3 13 0 4 2 PCE' s 1 . 06 1 . 01 1 . 00 1 . 03 1 . 13 1 . 00 1 . 04 1 . 02 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 2020AM.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 1790 818 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 172 533 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 172 533 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 78 0 . 87 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 1802 832 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 237 688 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 237 688 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 14 0 . 94 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 00 0 . 00 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 2859 2857 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 34 35 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 00 0 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 0 0 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 00 0 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 2924 2872 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 21 23 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 00 0 . 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 00 0 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 00 0 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 0 0 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 2020AM.HCO Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) NB L 3 0 > NB T 22 0 > 0 * * F * NB R 38 172 > SB L 21 0 > SB T 95 0 > 0 * * F * SB R 69 533 > EB L 38 688 5 .5 0 . 0 B 0 . 1 WB L 203 237 86 .3 10 .4 F 16 .8 Intersection Delay = * * The calculated value was greater than 999 . 9 . HCS : Unsignalized I rsections Release 2 . 1f 2020PM.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) Shelbourne Road (E-W) 116th Street Major Street DirectionEW Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst RDR Date of Analysis 10/1/98 Other Information 2020 (pm) EXISTING LANES Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 95 1726 4 163 946 82 36 647 485 46 190 23 PHF . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 .9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' s (%) 7 7 12 4 9 10 2 6 PCE ' s 1 . 07 1 . 07 1 . 12 1 . 04 1 . 09 1 . 10 1 . 02 1 . 06 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 - HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 2020PM.-ICO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 1920 1096 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 147 385 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 147 385 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 00 0 . 93 Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 1922 1142 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 208 490 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 208 490 Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 07 0 . 77 TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State : 0 . 00 0 . 00 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 3349 3306 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 19 20 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 00 0 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 0 0 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 00 0 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 3422 3932 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 11 6 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 00 0 . 00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 00 0 . 00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 00 0 . 00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 0 0 - HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1f 2020PM.HCO Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) NB L 45 0 > NB T 748 0 > 0 * * F * NB R 588 147 > SB L 56 0 > SB T 215 0 > 0 * * F * SB R 28 385 > EB L 113 490 9 .5 1 . 0 B 0 . 5 WB L 194 208 137 . 6 13 . 0 F 18 .8 Intersection Delay = * * The calculated value was greater than 999 . 9 . HCM Analysis Summary 116th and Shelbourne Road 116 th Street/Shelboume Road Rick 11/15/2000 1998 am Case: 1998AM Analysis Duration: 15 minutes Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (meters) IApproachiOutbound Lane 1 I Lane 2 Lane 3 _ Lane 4 Lane 5 I Lane 6 EB 3 I 2 L 3.60 I T 3.60 TR 3.60 1 WB I 4 I 2 L 3.60 T 3.60 T 3.60 R 3.60 NB I 3 I 1 L 3.60 T I 3.60 R 3.60 I SB I 3 I 1 L 3.60 T 3.60 R I 3.60 , East West North South Data L T R L T R L T R L T R Movement Volume(vph) 5 241 5 41 219 4 3 19 31 19 82 61 PI-IF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 %Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lane Groups L TR L T R L T R L T R Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 __ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vol(vph) 0 0 0 0 Peds/Hour 0 0 I 0 0 %Grade 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour - - - - _ Buses/Hour 0 0 I 0 0 Signal Settings:Actuated Optimization Analysis Cycle Length: 60.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle: 8.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 I 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP WB I LTP NB I LTP SB I LTP I I • Green 39.7 12.3 0 Yellow 2.3 2.3 All Red 1.7 1.7 I 1 - Capacity Analysis Results i Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay I Delay App Group (vph) Ratio Ratio Group Ratio (sec/veh) LOS I (sec/veh) LOS EB 1 L 735 0.005 0.661 L 0.008 3.5 I A l 3.7 A * TR 2317 0.078 0.661 TR 0.118 3.8 I A WB L 714 0.043 0.661 L 0.064 3.6 A i 3.7 A I T 2324 0.069 0.661 T 0.105 3.7 A i R 1040 0.003 0.661 R 0.004 3.4 A NB I 1 L 265 I 0.002 0.205 L 0.011 19.0 B 19.4 B T 380 I 0.011 I 0.205 T 0.055 _ 19.2 I B R 323 0.022 I 0.205 R 0.105 19.5 I B SB ' i I I i I I L I 282 0.015 I 0.205 f L i 0.074 1 19.4 I B 20.1 I C I ' T 380 I 0.049 0.205 I_ T i 0.239 I 20.3 C , I R 323 0.043 0.205 •I R 1 0.211 20.1 C • I Intersection: Delay= 8.5 sec/veh Int. LOS=A Y = 0.15 "Critical Lane Group Z(vis)Crit=0.13 SIG/Cinema v2.13 Page 1 HCM Analysis Summary 116th and Shelbourne Road 116 th Street/Shelbourne Road Rick 11/15/2000 1998 pm Case: 1998PM Analysis Duration: 15 minutes Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (meters) I Approach I Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB I 3 2 L I 3.60 T 3.60 TR 3.607 j WB I 4 2 L I 3.60 � T , 3.60 I T 3.60 , R 3.60 NB 3 1 L 3.60 T 3.60 R F 3.60 SB 3 1 L 3.60 T I3.60 R 3.60 East West North South Data L T R L T R L T R L T R Movement Volume(vph) 15 260 1 37 286 13 _ 11 102 73 7 43 7 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 %Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 , 2 2 2 Lane Groups L TR L T R L T R L T R Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vol(vph) 0 0 0 0 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 %Grade 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour - - - - Buses/Hour 0 I 0 0 0 Signal Settings:Actuated Optimization Analysis Cycle Length: 60.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle: 8.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I Ped Only EB LTP WB LTP NB LTP I SB LTP Green 40.1 11.9 I 0 Yellow 2.3 2.3 I All Red 1.7 1.7 1 Capacity Analysis Results Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay App Group (vph) Ratio Ratio Group Ratio (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS EB L 691 0.016 0.668 L 0.025 3.4 i A 1 3.6 I A TR 2346 0.083 0.668 TR 0.124 3.6 A l I , WB I i L 709 0.039 0.668 L 0.058 3.5 A I 3.6 A ' T 2347 0.090 0.668 T 0.135 3.7 A R I 1050 0.009 0.668 R 0.013 3.3 A ._ _ NB _ L 267 1 0.009 0.199 I L 0.045 I 19.5 I B 20.8 I C * T 368 0.061 I 0.199 I T 0.307 21.0 I C R 313 I 0.052 0.199 I R 0.259 20.7 I C SB ! [ j L 252 0.006 0.199 I L 0.032 19.4 B 19.8 I B T 368 I 0.026 I 0.199 I T I 0.130 19.9 B R I 313 i 0.005 0.199 R I 0.026 I 19.4 B ' i Intersection: Delay.. 8.4sec/veh Int. LOS=A Xc= 0.17 'Critical Lane Group 2.(vis)Crit=0.15 SIG/Cinema v2.13 Page 1 . HCM Analysis Summary 116th and Shelbourne Road 116 th Street/Shelbourne Road Rick 11/15/2000 2013 am Case: 2013 am Analysis Duration: 15 minutes Arca Type: Non CBD Lanes I Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (meters) I Approach Outbound) Lane 1 i Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 I Lane 5 T Lane 6 EB 3 2 L I 3.60 T I 3.60 TR I 3.60 I I WB 4 2 L I 3.60 T 3.60 T 3.60 R 3.60 I NB I 3 1 L I 3.60 I T I 3.60 R I 3.60 SB 3 I 1 L I 3.60 I T I 3.60 R 3.60 I 1 I ( East West North South Data L T R L T R L T , R L T R Movement Volume(vph) 6 301 6 I 51 274 5 4 24 I 39 24 102 76 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 %Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lane Groups L I TR L T R L T R L T R Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vol(vph) 0 0 0 0 . Peds/Hour 0 0 I 0 0 %Grade 0 I 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour - - - - Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0 Signal Settings:Actuated Optimization Analysis Cycle Length: 60.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle: 8.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 I 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP WB LTP NB I LTP SB I LTP Green 39.6 I 12.4 0 Yellow I 2.3 1 2.3 All Red I 1.7 I 1.7 I Capacity Analysis Results Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay App Group (vph) Ratio Ratio Group Ratio (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS EB 1 I I L I 691 1 0.007 0.660 L 0.010 3.5 A 3.9 A _ ' TR I 2311 I 0.097 0.660 TR 0.148 3.9 A I I , WB I I_ L 667 0.056 0.660 L 0.085 3.7 A 3.8 A T 2318 0.087 I 0.660 T 0.131 3.8 A R 1037 0.004 0.660 R 0.006 3.5 I A _ NB I I I I I I L I 262 ( 0.003 0.207 L 0.015 I 18.9 B 19.4 I B T I 383 0.015 0.207 T I 0.070 j 19.2 I B I R I 326 0.027 0.207 R 0.132 I 19.6 B SB I ! I I I _ I L 233 0.020 0.207 I L I 0.095 1 19.4 B 20.3 C • T 383 . 0.061 I 0.207 I T 0.295 20.5 C R 326 0.053 I 0.207 I R 0.258 1 20.3 C Intersection: Delay= 8.6sec/veh Int.LOS=A Xc= 0.18 *Critical Lane Group 2(v/s)Crit0.16 SIG/Cinema v2.13 Page 1 HCM Analysis Summary 116th and Shelbourne Road 116 th Street/Shelbourne Road Rick 11/15/2000 2013 pm Case: 2013 pm Analysis Duration: 15 minutes Area Type: Non CBD Lanes I Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (meters) IApproachiOutboundl Lane 1 I Lane 2 I Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB 3 I 2 I L I 3.60 T 3.60 I TR 3.60 WB 4 2 I L 3.60 I T 3.60 T I 3.60 R 1_ 3.60 NB 3 1 1 L 3.60 T 3.60 R 3.60 I SB 3 1 I L 3.60 T 3.60 R 3.60 I 1 I I 1 East West North South Data L T R L T R L T R L T R Movement Volume(vph) 19 325 1 46 357 16 14 127 91 9 54 9 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 , 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 _ %Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ Lane Groups L TR L T R L T R L T R Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vol(vph) 0 0 0 0 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 %Grade 0 0 0 I 0 Parkers/Hour - -- - I - Buses/Hour 0 0 0 I 0 Signal Settings:Actuated Optimization Analysis Cycle Length: 60.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle: 8.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 I 3 4 5 I 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP I WB LTP NB LTP I SB I LTP Green 39.8 I 12.2 0 Yellow 2.3 2.3 All Red 1.7 1.7 I Capacity Analysis Results I Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay App Group (vph) Ratio Ratio Group Ratio (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS EB L 635 I 0.022 0.663 L 0.033 3.5 A 3.8 A TR 2330 I 0.103 0.663 TR 0.155 3.8 A I I I I I I I WB L 657 0.051 0.663 L 0.078 3.6 A 3.8 A * T 2331 0.113 0.663 T 0.170 i 3.9 A I j R 1043 0.011 0.663 R 0.017 I 3.4 A I NBI I i I. I I I L I 270 I 0.012 1 0.203 L 0.059 19.4 B 21.0 I C * T 376 I 0.076 1 0.203 I T I 0.375 21.2C R 320 0.064 I 0.203 j R 0.316 I 20.9 I C SB i ; I L 249 0.008 I 0.203 L I 0.040 ! 19.3 I B I 19.7 B T 376 0.032 0.203 T I 0.160 19.9 I B I R 320 0.006 0.203 I R I 0.031 19.2 r B ' Intersection: Delay= 8.6sec/veh Int.LOS=A Xc= 0.22 *Critical Lane Group 2(ws)Crit= 0.19 SIG/Cinema v2.13 Page 1 HCM Analysis Summary 116th and Shelbourne Road 116 th Street/Shelbourne Road Rick 11/15/2000 2020 am Case: 2020 AM Analysis Duration: 15 minutes Area Type: Non CBD Lanes I Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (meters) I Approach I Outboundi Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 I Lane 4 i Lane 5 Lane 6 EB 3 I 2 I L 3.60 T 3.60 TR , 3.60 I WB 4 I 2 L 3.60 T 3.60 T 3.60 I R ' 3.60 I I NB 3 1 L 3.60 T 3.60 R 3.60 I I SB 3 1 L 3.60 T 3.60 R I 3.60 I ! I I East West North South Data L T R L T R L I T R I L T I R Movement Volume(vph) 31 1600 22 181 724 25 10 I 121 206 126 362 I 202 PHF 0.90 _ 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 _ 0.90 0.90 I 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 I 0.90 %Heavy Vehicles 2 2 , 2 2 , 2 2 2 I 2 2 2 2 I 2 Lane Groups L TR L T R L T R L T R Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vol(vph) 0 0 0 0 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 I 0 %Grade 0 0 0 I 0 Parkers/Hour - - - I - Buses/Hour 0 0 I 0 I 0 1 Signal Settings:Actuated Optimization Analysis Cycle Length: 60.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle: 8.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 I 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP I I I WB LTP NB LTP I SB LTP I Green 36.5 15.5 I I a 0 Yellow 2.3 2.3 I I All Red 1.7 1.7 I � I Capacity Analysis Results Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay App Group (vph) Ratio Ratio Group Ratio (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS EB I I L 357 0.058 0.609 L 0.095 I 5.0 A 12.6 B TR 2135 0.514 0.609 TR 0.844 I 12.7 B WB I I I * L 124 0.990 0.609 L I 1.621 i 325.0 F 68.1 l E T 2140 0.229 0.609 T I 0.376 I 6.1 A R 957 0.018 0.609 R I 0.029 ; 4.7 A 1 I NB I I I 1 I L I 123 0.023 0.258 L 0.089 I 17.2 I B I 20.0 I B T 477 I 0.072 0.258 T 0.281 I 18.1 B R 405 I 0.146 0.258 R 0.565 21.2 I C SB ! I 1 I ! ! I L 320 0.113 0.258 L 0.438 19.6 I B I 27.6 , C • T 477 0.217 0.258 T 0.843 34.0 I C ' R I 405 I 0.142 0.258 I R I 0.553 20.9 C I Intersection: Delay= 30.4 sec/veh Int.LOS=C Xc= 1.39 •Critical Lane Group 2(v/s)Crit= 1.21 SIG/Cinema v2.13 Page 1 HCM Analysis Summary 116th and Shelbourne Road 116 th Street/Shelbourne Road Rick 11/15/2000 2020 pm Case: 2020 PM Analysis Duration: 15 minutes Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (meters) Approach I Outbound Lane 1 I Lane 2 I Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 i Lane 6 EB 3 2 L 3.60 I T I 3.60 I TR 3.60 I _ WB 4 2 L 3.60 1 T 3.60 I T 3.60 1 R 3.60 NB 3 1 L 3.60 T 3.60 R 3.60 1 SB 3 1 L 3.60 I T I 3.60 I R I 3.60 East West North South Data L T R L T a R L T R L T R Movement Volume(vph) 95 1726 , 4 163 946 82 36 647 485 46 , 190 23 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 _ 0.90 , 0.90 0.90 0.90 _ 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 %Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 . 2 2 2 _ 2 2 2 2 2 Lane Groups L TR L T R L a T R L T R , Arrival Type 3 3 _ 3 3 3 _ 3 3 3 a 3 3 3 RTOR Vol(vph) 0 0 0 0 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 %Grade 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour - - - - _Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0 Signal Settings:Actuated Optimization Analysis Cycle Length: 60.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle: 8.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP WB LTP NB LTP SB LW Green 31.4 20.6 0 Yellow I 2.3 2.3 All Red I 1.7 1.7 f 7 Capacity Analysis Results Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay App Group (vph) Ratio Ratio Group Ratio (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS EB I L 190 0.291 0.523 1 L 0.558 13.3 B 1 46.6 D TR 1838 0.547 0.523 I TR a 1.046 48.4 D _ I WB I I * L 124 0.767 0.523 L 1.460 260.0 I F 44.1 D T 1839 0.299 0.523 I T 0.572 10.2 B I R 823 0.058 0.523 R 0.111 I 7.3 A NB I - - -- - I ' L 374 I 0.037 0.343 L 0.107 13.6 B 78.6 E • T 635 I 0.389 0.343 T 1.132 97.7 F R 540 I 0.343 f 0.343 R 0.998 57.9 E SB I I I I I I I L 1 12.3 I 0.142 I 0.343 L I 0.415 I 17.3 B 15.2 1 B I T I 635 0.114 1 0.343 T I 0.332 I 14.9 B I I I R ! 540 I 0.017 0.343 R 0.048 13.2 I B I I Intersection: Delay= 52.5 sec/veh Int.LOS=D Xc= 1.33 *Critical Lane Group 2(v/s)Crit= 1.16 SIG/Cinema v2.13 Page 1 7Rood Indlanopo172Grahamlls.Indiana 46250 317-842-6777 FAX#317-841-4798 PAUL I.CRIPE,INC. February 26, 1999 Mr. Jeff Hill Hamilton County Highway Department 1717 East Pleasant Street Noblesville, IN 46060 116TH STREET AND SHELBORNE ROAD INTERSECTION • Dear Jeff: This letter and subsequent documentation is in response to your request for a speed limit impact study in regard to the. above-referenced project. This letter will outline the project variations for a 90 km/h design speed versus a 70 km/h design speed. The project limits, construction cost, and impacts to the surrounding residences would all be reduced if the design speed were to be lowered. By reducing the design speed, the taper rates for lane shifts and lane drops would be reduced from a 65:1 to a 45:1 transition rate. The reduced transition rates would aid in reducing the project limits along the ends of each leg. A reduced design speed would also allow for the use of a smaller centerline radius through the reverse curves along the northern leg of Shelborrle Road. The following are approximate distances that the roadways may be reduced if a 70 km/h design speed were to be used. The south leg of Shelbome Road would require approximately 53 m (175 ft.) less roadway widening and resurfacing towards the south end of the project. • The north leg of Shelbome Road would be realigned through the two reverse curves such that the centerline radius of both curves would be approximately 250 m. The • reduced design speed would also reduce the amount of superelevation transition distance required between the reverse curves. It is anticipated that approximately 151 m (495 ft.) of centerline distance may be saved with the 70 km/h design speed. The end of project along the north leg of Shelbome Road would be moved approximately 124 m (407 ft.) south from the anticipated end of project for the 90 km/h design speed. Along 116th Street, we are presenting two options for you to consider for the 70 km/h design speed. Both options would apply to each leg approximately equally. Architects 1 Engineers A Landscape Architects A Land Planners A Land Surveyors 1 Environmental Consultants A Transportation Engineers Mr. Jeff Hill Hamilton County Highway Department February 26, 1999 Page 2 The first option would be to design the second through lane past the intersection according to the INDOT Design Manual. The acceleration lane (De) would extend 145 m (107 m beyond the intersection) before entering a simultaneous lane drop taper for the second through lane and lane shift taper for the main through lane. This option would not create any substantial project length savings along either leg of 116th Street as compared to the 90 km/h design as previously presented. However, this option would bring the intersection geometry in accordance with design standards. This option along with the design speed modifications outlined above for Shelbome Road would reduce the construction cost by approximately $125,000. The second option would be to design the lane drop length with a reduced acceleration lane and reduced taper rates as previously outlined in design alternates for the 90 km/h design speed. The second through lane would be 98 m long (60 m beyond the intersection) and have a 25:1 land drop taper rate. This would allow the project length along each end of 116th Street to be reduced by approximately 38 m (125 ft.). This option along with the design speed modifications outlined above for Shelbome Road would reduce the construction cost by approximately $150,000. If you should have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. We will look forward to hearing from you regarding your decision on this project. Sincerely, PAUL I. CRIPE, INC. Rick Radabaugh Project Engineer RR/blh 0119981480401V0000TOCS 98401102Aoc Architects A Engineers A Landscape Architects A Land Planners A Land Surveyors PAUL I. CRIPE, INC. Environmental Consultants A Transportation Engineers I IT T T -1 I I I .6, UMW MP.I TOM IA Imo,m. su'.WI 11 m1 v WI n 11101007l1 CM v M ri pesosrtn MO TONT MOIIMW MMM NOT PUTT NON lOuors l7M 9 MOM • I. I -f - - rt -y T ".f,/ tV 1 1.%\ I• Or -.'N.) . . rlli or/ .. V, • / N77-1d 7 O Pr/oA1 2. /'loenl- AinsLA4 (N-... I De-ii, V847 J •. \j, + ._.� =v rra 0 ..�.st ...a .Rfr la .•s..:;� ^ ' _ _ _ _... 1 ` I I il+l i I I 10/11 1 w[7 IL.0111111 rawt®s SOK t Mr NMI NiQ t(N[M IMO a c t Toru Al w.I.IV MO..001011 la IK M P. IL In I.IU sai BIZ I .ras a waw 1,0111 I I I I1 __1__ _l II n i9 . I NOV; Nok . Yal.r.o f 7 7o Kms./� 17E5i6d 6 t ' - JZ, M.MIMS4.4 I. / , 4'. ....erm.aw / /ir .11 El 01110.1.01 / i• // j ji • I 1 NMI.aar OM 0.4101 ct o.m i..r.x s Ill 41110111111rs.10..0 fli k fi ]V] • J • 4. ., I WW1 MU OIL prom I- - 1 1....10.111010 e OIIY 1uro 011111001a ff11111041J f ; 7172 Graham Road Indianapolis.Indiana 46250 317-842-6777 FAXt 317-841-4798 PAUL I.CRIPE, INC. November 6, 1998 Mr. Jeff Hill Transportation Development Engineer Hamilton County Highway Department 1717 East Pleasant Street Noblesville, IN 46060 116th STREET AND SHELBORNE ROAD INTERSECTION Dear Jeff: This letter is in response to the October 26, 1998 Hamilton County Board of Commissioners meeting concerning the Traffic Study for the Intersection Improvement of 116th Street and Shelborne Road in Clay Township as prepared by our firm. At this meeting the Board of Commissioners asked us to further investigate two design items. The first request was to possibly shift the proposed centerline of Shelbome Road to the east, such that the proposed construction would not require taking additional right-of-way along the west side of Shelbome Road. This would mean that the west right-of-way line would remain unchanged along the south leg of Shelbome Road. The above request may be accomplished by increasing the right-of-way acquisition along the east side of Shelbome Road. Additional right-of-way acquisition from the east side will increase the amount of impacts to the now vacant residential lots but serve to decrease the impacts along the west side of the roadway. The residential lots on the east will be reduced in area to approximately 0.51 ha (1.25 ac) for the north lot and 0.61 ha (1.50 ac) for the south lot. By moving the roadway further to the east, the amount of new full depth pavement will increase. It is also anticipated that the project length will be increased to the south by approximately 30 m (100 ft) to accommodate additional lane shift taper requirements to move the travel lanes back to the west. Both of these items would increase the overall project cost. It is anticipated that the above changes would increase the project cost by approximately $90,000. This cost includes additional right-of-way, excavation, and additional pavement. The new north leg of Shelbome Road will also be required to be shifted to the east to remain in line with the south leg. This would slightly decrease the amount of remaining land between the new north leg and the existing north leg of Shelbome Road. The second request was to further explore the potential for adding a right turn lane for eastbound 116th Street turning onto southbound Shelbome Road. The addition of a right turn lane was explored during the initial report of this project. It was determined that, according to criteria outlined in Chapter 46 of the INDOT Design Manual, the volume of right turning vehicles for eastbound traffic was below the level of required turning movements to consider the addition of a right turn lane. Architects A Engineers A Landscape Architects A Land Planners 1 Land Surveyors A Environmental Consultants A Transportation Engineers Mr. Jeff Hill Transportation Development Engineer Hamilton County Highway Department November 6, 1998 Page 2 The addition of a right turn lane was also analyzed within the Highway Capacity computer software. It was determined that the addition of a right turn lane for eastbound traffic would not increase the overall Level-of-Service (LOS) for the eastbound traffic or the overall intersection. The eastbound traffic approach delay for the PM peak hour time period would decrease from 49.9 seconds to 49.1 seconds. See attached capacity analysis sheets. For the AM peak hour time period, the addition of a right-turn lane for the eastbound traffic will not increase the overall intersection LOS. The approach delay for eastbound traffic without a right turn lane is 32.0 seconds. With a right turn lane, the approach delay is reduced to 28.2 seconds. The overall intersection delay decreases from 24.4 to 22.6 seconds per vehicle. It was our recommendation not to install the additional turn lane since it did not serve to greatly increase the capacity of the intersection. The additional lane would also create more severe impact to the residences on the south side of 116th Street where the turn lane would be built. This is especially true for the residence in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The additional cost of adding a right turn lane for the eastbound traffic would be approximately $60,000, including right-of-way, damages, and additional pavement. It should be noted that if the Board of Commissioners chooses to add the right turn lane for eastbound 116t Street, the residences in the southwest quadrant will be greatly impacted. The proposed re-alignment of the south leg to the east to lessen impacts along the west side would be negated with the added impacts created from the right turn lane. It is our recommendation that if the board chooses to add a right turn lane for eastbound traffic, that the west right-of-way line for the south leg be moved to the west as previously detailed in the original Traffic Study Report. By adding the right turn lane to eastbound116th Street and moving the centerline of Shelbome Road to the west, due to heavy impacts and damages, the residence in the southwest quadrant will most likely require complete acquisition. The cost of this acquisition is not included in the above mentioned additional cost of the project. If you should have any questions, please contact this office. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, PAUL I. CRIPPE, INC. ZLZ7Z--- Rick Radabaugh Project Engineer RDR Enclosure cc: File 980401-70000 0:11998\980401\70000\DOCS\98401 L01.DOC Architects A Engineers A Landscape Architects A Land Planners A Land Surveyors PAUL I. CRIPE, INC. Environmental Consultants A Transportation Engineers HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version z .4f 11-04-1998 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation . Streets : (E-W) 116 TH STREET (N-S) SHEL3OURNE Analyst : RDR File Name : R-2020A.HC9 Area Type : Other 10-1-98 60 Comment : 2020 A.M. NEW LANE CONFIGURATIONS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LTRL T R L TRLT R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 < 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 32 1600 22 181 724 25 10 121 206 126 362 202 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vols 2 15 40 40 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right * WB Right Green 8 . OA 24 . OP 9 . OA Green 16 . OA Yellow/AR 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 Yellow/AR 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 69 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 #2 #3 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group : Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 197 1703 0 . 182 0 . 116 17 . 8 C 32 . 0 D TR 1850 3647 1 . 022 0 . 507 32 .3 D WB L 233 1787 0 . 862 0 . 130 37 .2 D 12 . 5 B T 1888 3619 0 .447 0 .522 6 . 8 B R 795 1524 0 . 014 0 . 522 5 . 1 B NB L 110 475 0 . 100 0 .232 13 . 5 B 11 .4 B T 428 1845 0 . 313 0 .232 14 . 3 B R 580 1429 0 . 319 0 .406 9 . 2 B SB L 261 1127 0 . 536 0 . 232 16 . 7 C 27 . 5 D T 424 1827 0 . 949 0 .232 39 . 4 D R 620 1583 0 . 291 0 . 391 9 . 4 B Intersection Delay = 24 .4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 978 1 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 11-04-1998 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets : (E-W) 116 TH STREET (N-S) SHELBOURNE Analyst : RDR File Name : R-2020P.HC9 Area Type : Other 10-1-98 60 Comment : 2020 P.M. NEW LANE CONFIGURATIONS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L TRLT R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 < 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 95 1726 4 163 946 82 36 647 485 46 190 23 Lane W (ft) 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 15 40 10 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right * WB Right Green 9 . OA 24 . OA 8 . OP Green 16 . OA Yellow/AR 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 Yellow/AR 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 69 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 #2 #3 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group : Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 220 1687 0 .482 0 . 130 19 . 3 C 49 . 9 E TR 1870 3584 1 . 079 0 . 522 51 . 5 E WB L 196 1687 0 . 925 0 . 116 50 . 7 E 13 . 7 B T 1836 3619 0 . 601 0 .507 8 . 2 B R 752 1482 0 . 098 0 . 507 5 . 7 B NB L 156 674 0 . 256 0 .232 14 . 2 B * * T 424 1827 1 . 697 0 . 232 * * R 580 1482 0 . 854 0 . 391 20 . 7 C SB L 104 432 0 .490 0 .232 17 . 7 C 15 . 5 C T 432 1863 0 .488 0 . 232 15 . 5 C R 618 1524 0 . 024 0 .406 7 . 9 B Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = * (g/C) * (V/c) is greater than one . Calculation of D1 is infeasible . • HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 11-04-1998 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation . Streets : (E-W) 116 TH STREET (N-S) SHELEOURNE Analyst : RDR File Name: R-2020A.HC9 Area Type : Other 10-1-98 60 Comment : 2020 A.M. NEW LANE CONFIGURATIONS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LTRLTRLTRLTR ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 32 1600 22 181 724 25 10 121 206 126 362 202 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vols 2 15 40 40 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right * WB Right Green 8 . OA 24 . OP 9 . OA Green 16 . OA Yellow/AR 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 Yellow/AR 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 69 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 #2 #3 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 197 1703 0 . 182 0 . 116 17 . 8 C 28 . 2 D T 1853 3654 1 . 007 0 . 507 28 . 7 D R 738 1455 0 . 030 0 . 507 5 . 5 B WB L 233 1787 0 . 862 0 . 130 37 . 2 D 12 . 5 B T 1888 3619 0 .447 0 .522 6 . 8 B R 795 1524 0 . 014 0 . 522 5 . 1 B NB L 110 475 0 . 100 0 . 232 13 . 5 B 11 . 4 B .. T 428 1845 0 .313 0 . 232 14 . 3 B R 580 1429 0 .319 0 .406 9 . 2 B SB L 261 1127 0 . 536 0 .232 16 . 7 C 27 . 5 D T 424 1827 0 . 949 0 . 232 39 . 4 D R 620 1583 0 .291 0 .391 9 .4 B Intersection Delay = 22 . 6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 970 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 .4f 11-04-1998 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets : (E-W) 116 TH STREET (N-S) SHELBOURNE Analyst : RDR File Name: R-2020P.HC9 Area Type : Other 10-1-98 60 Comment : 2020 P.M. NEW LANE CONFIGURATIONS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L TRLTRL T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 95 1726 4 163 946 82 36 647 485 46 190 23 Lane W (ft) 12 . 0 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 15 40 10 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right * WB Right Green 9. OA 24 . OA 8 . OP Green 16 . OA Yellow/AR 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 Yellow/AR 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 69 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 #2 #3 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 220 1687 0 .482 0 . 130 19 . 3 C 49 . 1 E T 1870 3585 1 . 077 0 . 522 50 . 7 E R 843 1615 0 . 004 0 . 522 5 . 1 B WB L 196 1687 0 . 925 0 . 116 50 . 7 E 13 . 7 B T 1836 3619 0 . 601 0 . 507 8 . 2 B R 752 1482 0 . 098 0 . 507 5 . 7 B NB L 156 674 0 .256 0 .232 14 .2 B * * T 424 1827 1 . 697 0 .232 * * R 580 1482 ' 0 . 854 0 .391 20 . 7 C SB L 104 432 0 . 490 0 . 232 17 . 7 C 15 . 5 C T 432 1863 0 .488 0 .232 15 . 5 C R 618 1524 0 . 024 0 .406 7 . 9 B Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = * (g/C) * (V/c) is greater than one . Calculation of D1 is infeasible .