HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Report 03-11-97 CARMEL CLAY PUBLIC LIBRARY
TAC SUBMISSION
MEgl o
MAR 12 1997
DOCD
March 11, 1997
Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle, Ltd.
119 North Second Street
Minneapolis, MN 55401-1420
TRAFFIC STUDY
CARMEL-CLAY PUBLIC LIBRARY
TRAFFIC IMPACT
STUDY
MARCH 1997
PREPARED BY:
PAUL I. CRIPE, INC.
Atlik
7172 Graham Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46250
317.842-6777
FAX # 317.841-4798
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures
List of Tables I;
Certification 1
Purpose of this Report 2
Description of Proposed Library 2
Scope of Work 2
Previous Studies 3
Existing Conditions 4
Accident Data 8
Generated Trips for Proposed Development 8
Assignment and Distribution of Site Generated Trips 9
Capacity Analysis 9
Levels of Service for Intersections 12
Capacity Analyses Scenarios 13
Level of Service Analyses Summary 15
- Conclusions 18
Recommendations 19
Appendix A
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 — Site Location Map
Figure 2 — Proposed Lane Configurations
Figure 3 — Existing Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 —Assignment and Distribution of Generated Traffic
Figure 5 — Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic Volumes
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Level of Service Summary — Main Street and
4th Avenue — Unsignalized Intersection
Table 2 — Level of Service Summary— Main Street and
4th Avenue — Signalized Intersection
Table 3 — Level of Service Summary— 4th Avenue and
Carmel Elementary School Entrance —
Unsignalized Intersection
ii
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this Traffic Impact Study has been prepared under my
supervision in accordance with industry guidelines and practices, and that I have
experience in the field of traffic and transportation engineering.
Philipat--
o/X-i,
L. Kun'� , P.E.
Manager, Transportation Division
Paul I. Gripe, Inc.
1
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed Carmel
Clay Public Library will have on the existing adjacent roadway system. Safe ingress and egress,
to and from the proposed site, with minimal interference to traffic on the public street system is
needed. This report compiles the information that was gathered and presents findings,
observations and recommendations to address these needs. This analysis will identify any
roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when the new library is in operation
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED LIBRARY
This Traffic Impact Study, prepared for the Carmel-Clay Public Library Board, is an assessment
of the impact traffic will have on the local roadway system resulting from the proposed Carmel-
Clay Public Library located at the intersection of 4th Avenue S.E. and Main Street (See Figure
No. 1) in Carmel, Indiana. The primary access route to the library will be via Main Street to 4th
Avenue.
The proposed Carmel-Clay Public Library will have approximately 110,000 square feet of floor
space. The library will have state of the art facilities, including automatic book check out and a
conveyor system book drop-off. The building will have two floors.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this analysis is:
1. Collect the existing traffic volume data at the following two intersections:
❑ Main Street and 4th Avenue
❑ 4th Avenue and entrance to Carmel Elementary School
2. Estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed library.
3. Prepare a capacity analysis and a level of service analysis for each intersection
included in the study area for each of the following scenarios:
a. Existing Conditions - Existing traffic volumes obtained from various
2
sources analyzed for the existing alignment.
b. Proposed Conditions - Proposed traffic volumes that will be generated
by the proposed library analyzed for the existing alignments.
4. Analyze a conceptual road improvement plan and proposed features which are
sufficient to accommodate the projected traffic volumes.
5. Prepare a Traffic Impact Study documenting all data, analyses, conclusions and
recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic
through the study area.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
In October 1995, A&F Engineering, Inc. prepared a Traffic Study for the Carmel Board of Zoning
Appeals at the request of Carmel High School. Renovation and expansion of C.H.S. is currently
underway with completion scheduled for 1997. The high school project involves expansion and
renovation of the building, expansion of parking areas, and improvement of access points. The
purpose of the A&F Engineering report, Traffic Operations Analysis and Internal Circulation
Study' was to determine what effect the traffic generated by the proposed C.H.S. expansion will
have on the existing access points, parking areas, bus routes, and surrounding public roadways.
Their study was prepared assuming that improvements would be made to the intersection of
Main Street and 4th Avenue. Figure No. 2 shows the proposed lane configurations included in
their study. These improvements also involved reconstruction and signalization of the
intersection. The proposed improvements included realignment of 4th Avenue N.E. and 4th
Avenue S.E. and added travel lanes on 4th Avenue and Main Street. Their report concluded that
the proposed signalized intersection at 4th Avenue and Main Street analyzed for the C.H.S.
generated traffic will operate above an acceptable level- of-service (L.O.S).
' Traffic Operations Analysis and Internal Circulation Study, Carmel High School,A&F Engineers,
October 1995.
3
Existing traffic volumes were collected at various locations as part of the A&F study, including
the intersection of 4th Avenue and Main Street. We will utilize this traffic data in our report (See
Figure No. 3).
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Main Street is an east-west two lane secondary arterial that extends through the Carmel City
limits. The roadway serves both business and residents with access to downtown Carmel, U.S.
31, and Keystone Avenue. Main Street, from Range Line Road east to 4th Avenue, is a two-lane
roadway with parking available on both sides. Main Street, along the front of the high school,
consists of a through lane and a right turn lane in each direction. The right turn lane on the north
side of Main Street (westbound traffic) begins at the east school entrance and extends west to
4th Avenue. The right turn lane serves the east school entrance, the main school entrance, and
northbound 4th Avenue. The right turn lane on the south side of the roadway (eastbound traffic)
begins at the entrance to the Carmel Baptist Church and extends east to Lexington Boulevard.
This right turn lane serves the church, the existing Carmel Public Library, and Lexington
Boulevard. Main Street from Lexington Boulevard east to Keystone Avenue is a three-lane
roadway consisting of one through lane in each direction and a center continuous two-way left
turn lane.
4th Avenue intersects Main Street near the west entrance to the high school. 4th Avenue N.E.
and 4th Avenue S.E. consists of one travel lane in each direction. The existing 4th Avenue
roadway width varies from 28 ft. to 34 ft. The roadway centerline of 4th Avenue N.E. and 4th
Avenue S.E. are offset of each other by about 35 ft. At the offset intersection, opposing turning
vehicles do not turn in front of one other as they do at a normal intersection. Vehicles on 4th
Avenue going straight through the intersection have to make a right on Main Street and then a
left onto 4th Avenue. Offset intersections create hazardous situations and are confusing to
motorists. In addition, there are some pedestrians from both C.H.S. and Carmel Elementary
4
SITE LOCATION MAP
_, a t �.� ! I — 1 1
I OF -__
.r. o �:.1 WINrER CT c z:
lA w� s KY .$ �10`.�+'A, ?fir`¢� ah I
-- •A 0v ANGEL u 'O �• \'� �Ey1ER�• -
��t+ BouLorr me sT • ` I
ADro./74)* "W� ..'arra • u _ I i •C ?L - I Q ' SPPu[T
q .Nf R ? COICIE OR I ' E
u a, L aP pumpingpf
ab.",25•' '4c I aft s! ' � �' /'
C a- .?- CO S .Syr e `ram iiiI
S 1. •,,,$..
t 1' 1� _i`� a ,MARANA OR1 al �.. ' ' •�'
•a I kNEMtOCR ST I- a /
l• NAID Olt ..y: I i� e
THORN R.- ..7. - I IT R
Perd.
/S�► I I �$ .
t1ASRFM000, PASS RO A a,ia_ erl IOeTN ST ii .i 7
SMOKY E r-- 1
filirgo G,,ee z t C`--C/2Pk I$l n_Cc�y! Pock
1"alate --1
NW i gg - a ET w'
51.Yhlcenl i 7 e�tl� i 'STIPSTN( 6AUOtlgyCarmd oP;P`N qq �T .G ..c .., Mwnn
TN R UMW n//�WtDWO 00/ .,,,J Y ie.G. �.1 AIM q;NE 401. ,. HS �. a v' ..-. )t 1 -REO : N wA•
<-E�4 / - K ;a0 ORD _ • O ...: ma 3 i1,
z? tx 9Z ' CT a NOS .iri c'-. .0.' ♦ 3: , ,-°- •9F_O�I�T 7 >a
.ten m3 4.. 'arm•IiC' R i II(CDQ1aw0 C7,.Chl B- o Er .LIST • o. e7, z+ 'I' I ( fr'f�v0—•.0 7e
OR `' /Commove!, • ge SIZ,L - - �- -L,NYN V 1•s I NA HORNt -
y Pool vim ' na~al n -:CT+ "ST• "'a•I t STNEX ..MAIN- _"-- ST- I_ _ _j�_ lI" v5.
- RRACE^„i a. p ><•OI! a 1' IIl yell " > t 7yET 2,c I I BROOKSMRE?KW
I o .IST t w'+ Sc _; Library■ a 1 t CAPRI DR
L /• • pRU10 Nl '-'ICT a i I - _ a/�-o GR' sGlOYEC
oaf- Q-_',r o c- Fir/ _ pg. SE-< i', o OP N• D.FOSTER OR
I . z �` y - F,P= a AR tl Alm', r+ L-- a FOSTER CT
Carmel DRDIO HILL C7nt i q. Fir/I70 51, Imo- ^ flYORv - Cr4 _4 \,,,J S BRIARw000 TF
--- SC I ' •tKItnSJN "-- 6 ST sl. - 1 a .. i 46 v
Carmel JHS n . r`�J 'or.- at 2NO aeol ST ,•4- 'Carmel E ' ►_N.. - co .s., f
`� ollegcwood- I z�[,SONCq Da SW - _.- oay,', -tJi'r1 r- -...`Ckp? g, pP s
i ESs WIEcE WINDING I. _ ^<AMYSRUNOR �� ._- NIOGECT • ��' N ^Qe •
RANSBURG N W gr.._7A,,u .� I,' l UN M,x _ g .1 _ �+b M.� �,.'>°O P
dT ,0 1 "-,_WILSON I ar. T� �gr<' Ni 3v',- ' �t Mohaw
.�"� RANSBURG Io S`-" .,{SEE Y N'bt'OW ORE ST's","-_ i'DNCv'�w ON G ie N TradS E
a `ol EC J I way 7_,L RO'• 17STN ee y ,� `P OouGUS OR 1
3E �-
Llarmtl awn ndn '•%.. . `� �5 ,000, Ol^oosci••
PROJECT LOCATION 51 ,�� °R, E�a .�y '^ 1. I3C I
gE I0 1 '! � > oak Ar fsa
EE w
'a2�T - I OR MO f 'LA DEN,..4. .! AS 10
I // ; AT�ltb00 u' % OEI ' pp �. . 2 7., I- . 0 qqq OR Pt OR Co
j ?SF h ,. � NaPPufE Oa,�i �I ,i'01,4" „ 1 '0E` Ayc•. yi w o..q•
� .: - n '� ` S 6pEN WAY■ z
^.a'.•,• .s ;- �. Career Park w , IA. EC"
'`-' ' ►'p _ - .!+�cS'r r I Hunter Quest 30, mar7R i ofNO NORSFSNOE i?t,
�, ao Ii ;Z:c4.,� • . , Sbop Ctr 12,F1 T.2 Plana g gz.. u,a
4603 t aI �NTFRS5 u ,
.1 I COLLEGE I - .'. I r" TI FANN wc1C i'GS L7 .!
op, I Carmel Q{ � ' - FOz'°19 :�,.
I - I Walk SC ; ,�"A iQ A n �'
?� I G. Keystone •... _ -A N
- , ..
I M ,1 •
AL E Sm are _ „......1' b = ci-
y .,, u , l.••..,..- Loy S. - �. F-ir N-E8EN..`r.� e�
CONGRESSIONAL 'Ae P II J►CCSC _,.,,,V ,SS0 ,ISON O0. 3r • ''EBERR'r a E .EDTA1tI;. Ti
F 11•TN ST WI m���'`�JALK50 yYy .. R.N, ' SUGAR MRE(.7 , . $I
Q - i •J Rv�-TMANdI Hu OR
•I" g 115, S7�� ' The Corner SC1 a ;; �, PK 7gSM1�a w
-- i a �1 t o 'PP,F 'Midland Coaetri GIs• DD SPRIN eo rM/y G-
z i 'ST ;Cz NNnO il{ROUK. 'o .-..,,, `�O SPP`PGS F. �N RE O�Mr?c:
3 uIIITM j$T _rr DER 1 - "CR r _fI1f1NN 51 C
1. j� `1t :''-3.,„. .a ROE R E < �a, LAN
-- - 1 , ^A o•- °ahp..,`S t :a*Dfq,NqN( Awey YJtI
I
-f c_ PPPR A a CT CT 3 oMnArR taut
• a .OOd1aOd,� •�( d PRING_SPRINT
I L. cr '. : • 01 a"a'b7,1r. 6 C-9 wm,- RING y ... CT E CT
���:S �: " ?FRR ROLLING SPRING
P. HOMEWOOD cR: W I ?V yo 'w,'.�T 1�' 3+ ,_^
i o ¢ yo`"e0or ..:':,: - i ST 1 $1 I F v : eau kssn a
norm
`�_In _ ST I a z�`o ui _. t ��y , N I  ea t� �(aC7C
_ 11
g i �`L� ,o r. 1�� Y IDsm" G m. < - NEnSEE OR 4: • el. P•S
• PAM a-0 n ' z o r- v cr `: l�� b
•
r.- H lyau CT ? ¢�'` tour s,y t� j �--.4 I %'+AMIITON A of izcNENyi a. �' /. .`-o
o p 1 pc.�.
I PNEN o7TN r!Si vJ 1 o,• 1 I =!Forest 'P •IMGO Sr
'` j-- - V -I -,�'�,' I ,e cr" 'Oslo ES` c‘ .s =o f
1 9F O! ` 1 D WD D.I
I tOGTN ST I c CT i Mire Station �9, 3
Iyq A ()R iF �O d' « ,,, Wrmel•Clay. o c,, c 1 �or�y/,��N R T �:a
31 u OR •� 1, IN • ST )ola �0 :NACR6ERN} _ , QT - 74 "1
z 5E A * o.•.C.:.0 AOmin.1., $ CT DR Cw '�'.'
IOATN eARBIE U� 3 ... i 'l O�InO �9 0� l i i 3.� I I T5.. I�4.t e4S9.s r .
i
ARMEL-CLAY PAUL I. GRIPE, INC. : °"o SLRNE�CG
FIGURE 1
PUBLIC 7172 GRAHAM ROAD • LANo ARCHITECTURE
LIBRARY INDIANAPOUS, INDIANA 46250 • LANO PLANNING PIC JOB #97034-4-70000
(317) 842-6777 • TRANSPORTAT1oN
PROPOSED LANE CONFIGURATIONS
Q * 1 1 _ / 1 ul rl--�
(01 _ I 40
° •
°
- I I
I
I
1 d o
0 7 ..
° L i -10 C 0
/ 7 0 0` `
4//7/7///
1/4:4
„ -- - V
0_(
0
0 ) o
of- 7
. 6 .,�____a_n —
0
- - ° 0000u uowy o0000o II i t .,� - �°
1
�® ° „-----1
t P t . I. - t i _ _
-- r �rROrOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL' �f — — — —
i , t►.► 0 - - - -
os I (3 0:0
J o 44 -
i 0 ,
D 0 1
°
0] : C3
0 1 / \
° 6 .
1
e
__
I NN. 1)\\l'r\" i's.' s'\\'
!4� I .'ti
ARMEL-CLAY ArA PAUL I. GRIPE, INC. ••• °;;o EN GINEERIN, ,cc
• PUBLIC 7172 GRAHAM ROAD
INQIA • ARCHITECTURE FIGURE 2
LIBRARY NAPOLIS, INDIANA 46250 •
uwo PLANNING PIC JOB }1970344-70000
(317) 842-6777 • TRANSPORTATION
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
0
m
F
2nd St. S.E.
_ ---,,„t, \ • • 0
'''.0 N T
!g O
• ,,,,Ito ,
• o NOT DRAWN
TO SCALE
33)r o F • m
0
o ,� i
of P. P
•
18 4
•
12 ' t 14
r\15 • 278 . 0.
37 Z • •
r 41 • 5
•
74 e 64
0 1 + t .
.J - •
• 00000 ..
I I 1111 111 T IITI 11111 . I 1 '`' , t ; �, ° '�—�v
I 8 rt wr 4 jelir
u • �� � IOC 00a■
I ! .. 1 Ek6
cTzv
_ z o a /
0O0cs000 — m oo r
•
``.. , = o o�' Wo _, `w I d- -r--
ARMEL-CLAY llA PAUL I. GRIPE, INC. . D GI\IL EN Vic`
PUBLIC
I
7172 GRAHAM ROAD ARo+iTtc1uRE FIGURE 3
LIBRARY IND N'4APOIJs, INDIANA 46250 • LAND PLANNING PIC JOB #970344-70000
(317) 842-6777 • TRANSPCRTAT1al
School that cross Main Street daily at this intersection. The congestion and conflicting turning
movements at the offset intersection also create hazardous situations for crossing pedestrians.
During the school year, Carmel Police Officers and school funded security personnel direct traffic
in the morning and afternoon at both the main C.H.S. entrance and at 4th Avenue. Their two
primary purposes are to stop traffic in all directions so that students may safely cross Main Street
and so that school buses may enter onto Main Street from the C.H.S. parking lots. Traffic
sometimes backs up on Main Street while the officers have traffic stopped at these two
intersections.
From 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily, the posted speed limit on Main St. is 25 M.P.H. Flashing
yellow beacons are mounted on top of the speed limit sign to warn motorists of a school zone
area. At all other times the posted speed limit is 30 M.P.H. All side street approaches to Main
Street within the study area are controlled by stop signs.
ACCIDENT DATA
The Carmel Police Department accident records show that there were nine accidents reported
in the study area for the period 1/1/95 through 11/31/95. The accidents were primarily the result
of failure to yield or driver inattention. Nine accidents were characterized by the department as
a relatively small number compared to other intersections in the city.
GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED CARMEL-CLAY PUBLIC LIBRARY
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed library is a function of the library size and
the character of the land use. A Trip Generation2 report obtained from trip generation estimates
can be used to calculate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed facility. A
Trip Generation2 report is a compilation of trip data for various land uses as collected by
2 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Fifth Edition, January 1991,
8
transportation professionals throughout the United States in order to establish the average
number of trips generated by the various land uses. We have estimated that the new library will
generate approximately 451 trips in the peak hour.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRIPS
The methodology used to determine the traffic volumes that will be added to the roadway
system, as a result of the proposed development, is defined as follows:
1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the library is assigned to each of the
roadways that will be serving as primary access to this proposed library. The
assignment of generated traffic is shown in Figure 4.
2. To determine the volume of traffic that will be added to the public roadway
system, the generated traffic is distributed by direction to the public roadways at
each of the intersections included in this study. The distribution of traffic at the
Main Street and 4th Street intersection is shown in Figure 5.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the approaching traffic
volumes. 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, and number and use of lanes. To determine the level of service at each
of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been calculated using the recognized Highway
Capacity Software computer program based on the Hiahway Capacity Manual (HCM)3.
3 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, Special
Report 209, 1985.
9
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED TRAFFIC
0
i
m
r
m
v
2nd St. S.E
(7 • • 0
1!11FFII1iHiIt11it1t1!!tL..\ ri3O 0
./‘ •
4 SY • *04* °
] I,
_ C 0F : - o
limpw, . Oft
J ■
r1j •_ t
Or\5 h- dja, ..11
mem
I � `���''_ AI _ r
i1i :4iiIL
■ NOT DRAWN
MEM
000 00a� • `j • . !
111111111 IilltlIIIIIIIIIIIi
48%4-- �.43%
MAIN ST. 4 ► .♦41% t
0 Q u cu i? t • I v � MICINN A
z% 0000 .. o
111(11lThi 11 Ir. _ 1 ° ° Z
02, . • Q illPr., ill:
p
{ I 8 ,...
-• u u !^� \ I 0 00 °� .
> 0 9 00
• e d Q // m �° 0 '� _
l Z a
796Do°o°o o`oT L m o0 0 i `�
—'- / f . ° 0 R S'0 -Fa-
ARMEL-CLAY PAUL I. CRIPE, INC. : LAND SURNEYINGG
PUBLIC 7172 GRAHAM ROAD • ARCHITECTURE FIGURE 4
LIBRARY INDIANAPOUS INDIANA 46250 • LAND PLANNING PIC JOB /970344-70000
(317) •
842-6777 • TRANSPORTATION
EXISTING PLUS SITE GENERATED
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
lopp.
,? h >
K
m
r
m
3� 3r vF.2 04.
�� end St. SE.
•
IIIIIIIlIIIillliilliimIll aiio• 00
I
T7 1 = Ill'a s _ I- a; o
a • o
o C. t :
• 4109 12 92 IL"Of+ ,
J CTIFF-r?"-imPIA,P In ! • , 144 1
NE 278-.4 L 127
-2,01.�- LA
• - - 4 37 �394
raw= y1 i r 41
U1K
r-N3
1llhIWfflfflhIIIIJJ : itVu; A iI rT
U
IIg�: s m �/ —
J� • ■^ = NOT DRAWN
51111117 MI \� s �: = TO SCALE
• \.
e, 0 0 0 0 0 Arg el It tie`
o 1° .--
j L . • ,
I I 1 l i I I
91k „ II , , , I , , , , , I , , , f
MAIN of ' t
• •�
IIIIIIIIIIIII III i f ' • "' - t : 0000p o *11 ' 8 = u u • ,..._--;. lizEic) ,.,.
I III III Iffy o ,, p ,-
Ln '. 0 0 1 Ct:: att-
61 CM 6ta 'i I I
� 000c} uE Z o . -
000000, mD o �.
Z
ARMEL-CLAYPAUL I. GRIPE, INC. •• LAND SURVEYNCG
PUBLIC AlA
7172 GRAHAM ROAD ARCHITECTURE FIGURE 5
LIBRARY INDIANAPOUS, INDIANA 46250 • LAND PLANNING PIC JOB #970344-70000
(317) 842-6777 • TRANSPORTATION
LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR INTERSECTIONS
Levels of service for unsignalized and signalized intersections are defined in terms of delay.
Delay is measured in terms of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel
time. For an unsignalized intersection, total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when
a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs the stop line. This time includes
the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue
position. For a signalized intersection, level-of-service criteria are stated in terms of average
stopped delay. The delay at a signalized intersection is complex and varies based on quality
of progression, cycle length, green time, and saturation of the lanes.
The level-of-service for both a signalized and unsignalized intersection are shown below:
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections3
Level Average
of Stopped Delay Qualitative Description
Service per Vehicle (sec)
A <5.1 Good progression, few stops, and short cycle lengths.
B 5.1-15.0 Good progression and/or short cycle lengths; more vehicle
stops.
C 15.1-25.0 Fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths, some cycle
failure; significant portion of vehicles must stop.
D 25.1-40.0 Congestion becomes noticeable; high volume-to-capacity
ratio, longer delays, noticeable cycle failures.
E 40.1-60.0 At or beyond limit of acceptable delay; poor progression,
long cycles, high volumes, long queues.
F >60.0 Unacceptable to drivers. Arrival volumes greater than
discharge capacity; long cycle lengths, unstable-
unpredictable flows.
12
Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections3
Level of Reserve Capacity Impact on
Service (pcph) Minor Street Traffic
A z 400 Little or no delay
B 300-399 Short traffic delays
C 200-299 Average traffic delays
D 100-199 Long traffic delays
E 0-99 Very long traffic delays
F * *
pcph = passenger cars per hour
*When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered
with queuing, which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the
intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection.
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS
To evaluate the proposed library's effect on the public street system, the generated traffic
volumes must be added together with the existing traffic volumes to form a series of scenarios
that can then be analyzed. The analysis of these scenarios determines the adequacy of the
existing roadway system. From the analysis, recommendations can be made to improve the
public street system so it will accommodate the increased traffic volumes.
An analysis has been made from the PM Peak Hour for each of the study intersections for each
of the following scenarios:
1. Existing Traffic Volumes - Current Lane Configurations - These are the existing
peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 3 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the
study intersections for the peak hour.
2. Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Library Generated Traffic Volumes - Current
Lane Configurations - These are the traffic volumes from Scenario 1 above plus
the library generated traffic volumes applied to the current lane configurations.
Figure 5 is a summary of the total of these traffic volumes at the study
intersections for the peak hour.
13
3. Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Library Generated Volumes - Proposed
Lane Configurations - These are the traffic volumes from Scenario 2 above
applied to proposed lane configurations. See Figure 2 for proposed lane
configuration details.
14
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES SUMMARY
The analyses have been completed and the computer solution showing the level of service
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:
Table 1 — Main Street and 4th Avenue - Unsignalized
Table 2 — Main Street and 4th Avenue — Signalized
Table 3 —4th Avenue and Carmel Elementary School Entrance - Unsignalized
15
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
TABLE 1 - UNSIGNALIZED
Main Street & 4th Avenue
PM PEAK HOUR
Scenario
Movement 1 2 3
Eastbound Left A A A
Westbound Left A A A
Northbound Approach B E D
Southbound Approach C E E (*)
TABLE 2 - SIGNALIZED
Main Street & 4th Avenue
PM PEAK HOUR
Scenario
Movement 4
Eastbound Approach A
Westbound Approach B
Northbound Approach B
Southbound Approach B
Table 1
Scenario 1 —Existing Traffic Volumes- Current Lane Configuration (Unsignalized)
Scenario 2—Proposed Library Traffic Volumes- Current Lane Configurations (Unsignalized)
Scenario 3—Proposed Library Traffic Volumes- Proposed Lane Configurations (Unsignalized)
Table 2
Scenario 4—Proposed Library Traffic Volumes- Proposed Lane Configurations (Signalized)
Cr) indicates the lowest level-of-service of the approach. This movement is the left turning movement.
16
TABLE 3 -UNSIGNALIZED
4th Avenue and Carmel Elementary School
Scenario
Movement 1 2
Eastbound Approach - -
Westbound Approach A A
Northbound Left A A
Southbound Left A A
Table 3—
Scenario 1 —Existing Traffic Volumes—Current Lane Configuration (Unsignalized)
Scenario 2—Existing Traffic Volumes+ Proposed Library Traffic Volumes (Unsignalized )
17
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on the existing traffic volume data, adjustment of existing
traffic volumes for library generated traffic, capacity analysis, the resulting level of service
analysis for each intersection, and a field observation conducted at the site. These conclusions
apply only to the peak hour that has been addressed in this analysis. This peak hour, which is
the worst case scenario, is when the largest volume of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the
resulting levels of service are adequate during this time period, it can generally be assumed that
the remaining 23 off-peak hours will have levels of service that are better, since the traffic
volumes will be less during those off-peak hours. It is anticipated that these maximum traffic
volumes will rarely, if ever, be met.
1. Main Street and 4th Avenue
Realignment and signalization of 4th Avenue plus adding travel lanes will
significantly improve the level-of-service of this intersection. We concur with the
A&F Engineering Study as presented to the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals in the
October 1995 report that improvements should be made at this intersection.
2. 4th Avenue and Carmel Elementary School
The capacity analysis of the existing intersection indicates levels-of-service that are
acceptable on each approach during the peak hour. With the addition of library
generated traffic, the intersection approaches will continue to experience
acceptable levels-of-service.
18
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the previously stated conclusions, it is recommended that improvements be made to
the Main Street and 4th Avenue intersection to provide acceptable levels-of-service. These
recommendations at Main Street and 4th Avenue will improve traffic flow and decrease delays
to the travelling and walking public during peak hours after the new library is open. Geometric
improvements will also enhance the safety of the travelling public at this location. With traffic
projected to increase in this area over the next several years, these improvements will help
provide a better, safer roadway at this location.
No improvements will be required on 4th Avenue at the Carmel Elementary School entrance.
Based on the capacity analysis at this location, the level-of-service should remain above
acceptable levels for many years to come.
19
APPENDIX A
This section contains the capacity analysis, which were used in this report for the
proposed intersections.
Included as part of the analysis are the intersection traffic volume counts, the
intersection geometric configurations, and capacity analysis.
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d CHS4PME.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) 4th Avenue (E-W) Main Street
Major Street Direction EW
Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst RJZ
Date of Analysis 2/20/97
Other Information Existing Geometrics and Traffic Volumes
- PM Peak
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 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N Y
Volumes 41 394 14 21 278 37 14 8 18 74 2 64
PHF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s (%)
SU/RV' s (%)
CV' s (%)
PCE' s 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1. 10 1 . 10
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
V
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d CHS4PME.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 422 293
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 846 984
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 846 984
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 98 0 . 92
Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 430 293
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1069 1243
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1069 1243
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 98 0 . 96
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State : 0 . 97 0 . 95
Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 780 788
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 425 421
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 . 92 0 . 92
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 393 389
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 98 0 . 99
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 814 794
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 358 367
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0 . 92 0 . 90
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 94 0 . 93
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 . 87 0 . 90
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 311 331
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2. 1d CHS4PME.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 17 311 >
NB T 9 393 > 459 8. 7 0 . 3 B 8. 7 "
NB R 21 846 >
SB L 86 331 >
SB T 2 389 > 476 11 . 5 1 . 7 C 11 . 5
SB R 74 984 >
EB L 47 1243 3 . 0 0 . 0 A 0 . 3
WB L 24 1069 3 . 4 0 . 0 A 0 . 2
Intersection Delay = 2 . 2 sec/veh
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2. 1d CHS4PMP.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) 4th Avenue (E-W) Main Street
Major Street Direction EW
Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst RJZ
Date of Analysis 2/20/97
Other Information Existing Geometrics and Proposed Traffi
c Volumes - PM Peak
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 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N Y
Volumes 41 394 127 144 278 37 92 12 109 74 7 64
PHF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC' s (%)
SU/RV' s (%)
CV' s (%)
PCE' s 1 . 10 1 . 10 1. 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10
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. 1d CHS4PMP .HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 482 293
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 789 984
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 789 984
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 84 0 . 92
Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 549 293
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 939 1243
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 939 1243
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 82 0 . 96
TH Saturation Flow Rate : (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0 . 79 0 . 94
Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 970 1037
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 338 312
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 .74 0 . 74
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 251 231
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 94 0 . 97
Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1006 1034
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 277 267
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0 . 72 0 . 70
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 78 0 . 77
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 . 72 0 . 64
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 200 172
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2. 1d CHS4PMP .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 107 200 >
NB T 14 251 > 330 41 . 8 7 . 6 E 41 . 8"
NB R 127 789 >
SB L 86 172 >
SB T 8 231 > 275 33 . 1 4. 5 E 33 . 1
SB R 74 984 >
EB L 47 1243 3 . 0 0. 0 A 0. 2
WB L 167 939 4 . 7 0. 7 A 1. 5
Intersection Delay = 10. 5 sec/veh
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d CHS4PMP3 .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) 4TH AVENUE (E-W) MAIN STREET
gajor Street Direction EW
,ength of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst RJZ
Date of Analysis 3/10/97
Jther Information PROPOSED GEOMETRICS AND PROPOSED TRAFFI
C VOLUMES PM PEAK
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Jo. Lanes 0 > 2 < 0 0 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Jolumes 41 394 127 144 278 37 92 12 109 74 7 64
?HF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95
Grade 0 0 0 0
1!C' s (%)
3U/RV' s (%)
CV' s (%)
PCE' s 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
4aneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2. 10
tight Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60
'hrough Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 . 30
Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 . 40
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d CHS4PMP3 .HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 274 293
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 1006 984
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1006 984
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0. 87 0 . 92
Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 549 332
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 939 1191
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 939 1191
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 82 0 . 96
H Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 3400
T Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0 . 79 0 . 95
Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB
:onflicting Flows : (vph) 1009 1037
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 322 312
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0. 75 0 . 75
+lovement Capacity: (pcph) 240 233
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0. 94 0 . 97
Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 1006 930
?otential Capacity: (pcph) 277 306
_7aj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0 . 72 0 . 70
adjusted Impedance Factor: 0. 78 0 . 77
rapacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0. 73 0 . 67
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 201 206
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d CHS4PMP3 .HCO Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Kovement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 107 201 37 . 8 3 . 3 E
VB T 14 240 15 . 9 0 . 1 C 19 . 3
VB R 127 1006 4 . 1 0 . 4 A
SB L 86 206 29 . 9 2 . 2 D
3B T 8 233 > 17 . 9
SB R 74 984 > 749 5 . 4 0 . 3 B
B L 47 1191 3 . 1 0 . 0 A 0 . 2
B L 167 939 4. 7 0 . 7 A 1 . 5
Intersection Delay = 5 . 4 sec/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2 . 4d 03-10-1997
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets : (E-W) Main Street (N-S) 4th Street
Analyst: RJZ File Name : PCHS4PM6 .HC9
krea Type: Other 3-10-97 PM peak
:omment: Proposed Geometrics and Proposed Traffic Volumes
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes > 2 < > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 <
Jolumes 42 394 127 144 278 37 92 12 109 74 7 - 64
bane W (ft) 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12. 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12. 0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
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
:B Left * NB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
dB Left * SB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
AB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
3reen 38 . OP Green 16 . OP
fellow/AR 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 . 0
Cycle Length: 62 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
:B LTR 1878 2986 0 . 332 0 . 629 4 . 1 A 4 . 1 A
WB LT 644 1024 0 . 691 0 . 629 7 . 9 B 7 . 6 B
R 996 1583 0 . 039 0 . 629 3 . 3 A
TB L 396 1443 0 . 245 0 . 274 13 . 4 B 13 . 4 B
T 511 1863 0 . 025 0 . 274 12 . 5 B
R 434 1583 0 . 265 0 . 274 13 . 5 B
B L 468 1705 0 . 167 0 . 274 13 . 0 B 13 . 0 B
TR 441 1610 0 . 168 0 . 274 13 . 0 B
Intersection Delay = 7 . 6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Jost Time/Cycle, L = 6. 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 562
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2. 1d CES4EXST.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) 4th Street (E-W) Carmel Elem. School
Major Street Direction EW
Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst RJZ
Date of Analysis 3/5/97
Other Information Existing Traffic Volumes and Geomtrics
PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----No. Lanes 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 20 0 70 0 5 12 35 8 0
PHF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (%)
SU/RV' s (%)
CV' s (%)
PCE' s 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1. 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10
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. 1d CES4EXST.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 0 37
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1385 1326
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1385 1326
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99 1 . 00
Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 0
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1714
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1714
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 .99
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99
Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 95 58
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 973 1017
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 .99 0 . 99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 959 1003
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99 0 . 99
Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 62 67
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 975 968
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 0 . 98
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 .98 0 . 98
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 .98 0 . 97
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 958 943
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d CES4EXST.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 0 958 >
NB T 6 959 > 1222 3 . 0 0 . 0 A 3 . 0'
NB R 14 1385 >
SB L 41 943 >
SB T 9 1003 > 953 4. 0 0 . 0 A 4 . 0
SB R 0 1326 >
WB L 23 1714 2. 1 0 . 0 A 0 . 5
Intersection Delay = 1 . 8 sec/veh
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d CES4PROP.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) 4th Street (E-W) Carmel Elem. School
Major Street Direction EW
Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min)
Analyst RJZ
Date of Analysis 3/5/97
Other Information Proposed Traffic Volumes and Geomtrics
PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 20 0 70 0 5 12 35 24 0
PHF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s (%)
SU/RV' s (%)
CV' s (%)
PCE' s 1. 10 1. 10 1. 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10
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 . 1d CES4PROP . HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 0 37
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1385 1326
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1385 1326
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99 1 . 00
Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 0
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1714
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1714
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99
Step 3 : TH from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 95 58
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 973 1017
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 . 99 0 . 99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 959 1003
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99 0 . 97
Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 70 67
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 964 968
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0 . 96 0 . 98
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 97 0 . 98
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 . 97 0 . 97
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 933 943
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d CES4PROP.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 0 933 >
NB T 6 959 > 1222 3 . 0 0 . 0 A 3 . 0 -
NB R 14 1385 >
SB L 41 943 >
SB T 28 1003 > 966 4. 0 0 . 1 A 4 . 0
SB R 0 1326 >
WB L 23 1714 2. 1 0 . 0 A 0 . 5
Intersection Delay = 2 . 0 sec/veh