HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Study
II
.
-
.
., .
..........
. . . II
" .' '., .' III .'
, ...'.. .'
II I .... ' .
. .' .'..' II".,.....'
...'.' ..
. 11<.- Ii .....' 'I., 11'I
.. -, II' ....., .'11 ,.'" , , ...'~~.
. ..'".,.... .., Ill" -...III.
I '. ' '~- .. _ Ii
. -11I'.-".
_. . II '. , .
. ..' -~ -lilii!'
. -:! . ' ' ,::.1, ~
-.'.' ",","-..!III!" "
Ii ."'1.."'11I/_.
.'--":-'r4!_, .,:,,"',,-:,,'1".,_, ._....'.., ; 1..,__
- 11II-., ,,' __ -...
. II.' .[iJC?~Xla'J[3(5}ff3
.-.. .; ,
'... ,:G1Lwrtl[JG@f::)., ,
:' . '~.&JQ"C.3'~L,;:\t...'.J.J($~70)ill.'. 0.: _
.....- -, ' .
... -;.. .,,',., \....-
.-. II ._ ,- . _
. . I ~.., r..'
. I.
.. .".
. II -.
..' .. I II .- .
.....-11111'I11
· II. _Ill' _..'.. III III ..
-:....' I' ,....1:.,.\::., .1.,. ',.".. ~ '.
. .- .,;...;,: .-., - .'
ill .. I ,'. ','. II
. ,: 11II'--'11'" . ..... .
.-.' -", .
.-. . '.'
.1..'., · _ .".
,., .' . ......' ... .t."
II.. II.." -,
11'I .'''',._:, _ _ _. .
....:;' .. ...'.'
.... _--.. II. . .
11'I .. - · ,..
- .-. .0.,- ., I.
.,. ... ':" -''.' . .11I1
-. .
.. , ..
-.' '-- .."... _.- .
.,.' .'.'..' ';,.' ..
'I' ,," , ..._, B; II' I,'
._ ; .; ... ..-i ..','
., .', ,,' , '-5-,;~11II.'- I .
_,II,. ',,' y , "~_I-..' , . -II. .
. - .. .,. '-,. I" ..'1'.<""'..
: _ .'-', I' .,," -'-11I-."'. ..
-.' .11I, II .
11'I . II' " '. - III
II -.'-...---,.'11'._.. .. ,_.~',I
ii' .-'. ."~..- .t':lI "_'......,
!. -,1IlII 1- ., 11I..-- II
II -' 'I' "
.' _ '. II ".". -,,' III iII~
: .. -III ," .,.'...
. ......
II '
IIII!.. .,
.-
r; ,
II'
. II
Ii,
III.
...
I
D
Q
o
'0
'0
'0
'0
'0
U
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
REAL WORLD CHALLENGES. . . REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
WAL-MART, MICHIGAN ROAD
4400-00 ZIONSVILLE SC W05-0481
ZIONSVILLE AND CARMEL, INDIANA
FEBRUARY 9, 2006
TRANSPORTATION
/~\~
/n"'>).Jl.."L.; 11\
/', "" ~ :'(<7'1
1,--", ,
I . l
COMMUNICATIONS / "/ :i,.\) ",
UTILITIES /:---1 O~C,t~ ';,~
I 'I ~\,.: ~~~ '
INSTITUTIONAUCOMMERCIAL \_j ~'i:.'tl \ ~ '] ~j
FEDERAL ,>\ \)~Cc::, .;
PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL
o
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
'1
U
Edward6
~Kelceg
222 E. Ohio Street
Suite 400
Indianapolis. IN 46204-2156
ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTORS
Voice 317.636.1552
Fax 317.636.1345
www.ekcorp.com
Note to the Reader:
The following list summarizes the studies that have been completed by Edwards and Kelcey for related
developments:
J)a Ie Client Sullject
March 2003 Pittman Partners Multi-use development on the east side of Michigan
Rd.; study includes traffic generated by a retail
development on the west side of Michigan Rd. and
other sites
July 20, 2005 Heritage RDG, Pittman study updated
LLC
September 14, 2004 Heritage RDG, Integrated commercial center on the west side of
LLC Michigan Rd. consisting ofa Wal-Mart store and
supporting retail; study includes traffic generated by
other sites
November 10, 2005 Heritage RDG, 176,000-196,000 SF Wal-Mart store with optional 12-
LLC pump fuel station; study includes traffic generated by
other sites
January 18, 2006 Weihe Engineers, 143,000 SF Wal-Mart store and 10-pump fuel station;
Inc. study includes traffic generated by other sites
February 9,2006 Weihe Engineers, 176,000 SF Wal-Mart store; study includes traffic
Inc. generated by other sites
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the content of this report or differences among
prior reports.
J~p~
Transportation Engineer
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsvi//e and Carmel, Indiana
Contents
Page
Preparer Qualifications.......................... ....................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .. ....... ........ ... ........ ... ...... ..... ......... .... ... ..... ..... ... ... ... .... ..... ..... ..... .............. ... ......... ........ ... ....... ...... 2
Existing Roadway Conditions.............................................................. ........................................................ 5
Committed Improvements.................... ............ ......... ......... ... ................. .......... ............................. ............... 6
Existing Traffic Conditions ................................ ....................................... ............. ...................... ................ 8
Traffic Generation ............................... ....................................................................................................... 10
Traffic Distribution and Assignment.......................................................................................................... 12
Future Conditions .................................. ..................................................................................................... 15
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................ .......... ..................................................... 20
List of Tables
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections .................................................................................... 9
Table 2. Intersection LOS: Base Year Traffic Conditions with Proposed Geometries .............................. 9
Table 3. Land Use and Size of Proposed Developments........................................................................... 10
Table 4. Trip Generation: Non-Pass-By Trips .......................................................................................... 11
Table 5. Trip Generation: Pass-by Trips ................................................................................................... 11
Table 6. Trip Generation Comparison................ ....................................................................................... 12
Table 7. LOS Results for Future Conditions ............................................................................................. 15
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location Map ............ ..... ....... ....... ........... ..... ... ....... ... ...... ... .................. ............... ..... ... ... ... ........... 4
Figure 2. Traffic Distribution to the Wal-Mart Site .................................................................................. 13
Figure 3. Traffic Distribution from the Wal-Mart Site ............................................................................. 14
Figure 4. Scenario C AM Peak Volumes .................................................................................................. 18
Figure 5. Scenario C PM Peak Volumes ................................................................................................... 19
Appendix
EK #060048017
4400-00 Zionsville SC W05-0481
Edwards and Kelcey
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsvi//e and Carmel, Indiana
D
o
Preparer Qualifications
o
D
I certify that this Traffic Impact Study has been prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I
have experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering.
D
D
\\\\111111/"///1
,,\ PA III
", \, 1. LM~ 1//
.:$' ,\V ........... ,L\ /~
~ ,J.. \ST'" '. '7 ~
~ ~~G ~~~~ ~
~ ....~ '~.... ~
2 : No 10403866 \ ~
~ i' i ~
=.~ :.=
~ 1-.... STATEOF /$:2
~ ~ -.. I. ..- J:"! ~
~ o~ '..I\1DIM~~." .:>.."V ~
~/ ~<S' ............. 0~ .$'
///1 SIONA\. €.~ ""
III ",
1///1/1/111\1\\\\
o
o
D
Palmer, P.E.
Indiana Registration # 1 0403 866
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
Edwards and Kelcey
1
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
o
o
o
o
Introduction
The subject of this analysis is. a proposed development by Wal-Mart. The site is located in
CannellHamilton County and Zionsville/Boone County, on the west side of U.S. 421/Michigan Road
between 106th Street and Bennett Parkway. Figure 1 shows the location of the site in relation to the
surrounding roadway network.
o
o
o
Edwards and Kelcey performed a traffic study in March 2003 for Pittman Partners that included the area
encompassing the Wal-Mart site. The Pittman site is on the east side of U.S. 421/Michigan Road, across
from the Wal-Mart site. That study included the likely development of several other parcels along
Michigan Road, including the Wal-Mart site. Therefore, assumptions and data from the Pittman study
were updated with the latest information available for use in this current study. The Pittman study is
provided in Appendix A for reference.
o
The proposed Wal-Mart site consists of a Supercenter store, which includes general merchandise,
grocery, and a garden center totaling about 176,000 square feet. A site plan is included in Appendix B.
o
o
o
D
D
o
The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is currently making improvements to Michigan
Road in the site vicinity, including widening and signal system upgrades. All analyses assume that these
improvements would be complete upon full buildout of the subject site.
The conclusions of the Pittman study stated that acceptable traffic conditions are anticipated with the full
buildout of all mentioned parcels, INDOT's planned improvements, plus improvements at the Pittman
site entrance. The Pittman site entrance at 111 th Street aligns with the proposed Wal-Mart site entrance
on the other side of Michigan Road (shown as intersection number 2 in Figure 1). The planned
improvements to that intersection include northbound and southbound left- and right-turn lanes and a
traffic signal. The current study re-examines traffic conditions with updated land use information and
provides additional recommendations to maintain acceptable traffic flow in the area.
o
o
Figure I shows an aerial photo of the Michigan Road corridor, including the various parcels under
construction or planned for development. The size and intensity of these developments were updated for
the current study. The following sites were included in the Pittman Study:
. Pittman site (offices, residential, and some retail)
D
Edwards and Kelcey
2
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel. Indiana
. Wal-Mart site (retail)
. Duke site (retail)
. REI site (industrial and multi-family residential)
. Bennett Family site, north of the Wal-Mart site and south of Bennett Parkway (retail)
In addition to the sites considered in the Pittman study, some additional parcels have been identified as
likely to develop or under construction. The following sites were added to the current analysis:
. Kite site, at the southwest corner of 106th and Michigan Road (retail)
. St. Vincent site, south ofthe Pittman site (medical office)
The following scenarios representing future traffic conditions were analyzed in this study:
A. Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site
(This is Scenario IT from the Pittman Study)
B. Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Wal-Mart Site
C. Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Wal-Mart Site + Other Sites
The following intersections were analyzed in the Pittman Study and are shown in Figure 1:
1. Michigan Road and 116th Street
2. Michigan Road and 111 th Street/Site Entrance
3. Michigan Road and 106th Street
The following intersection was added for the current study:
4. 106th Street and Andrade Drive
Edwards and Kelcey
3
D
D
~
D
o
D
D
D
,;;
...
D
[l
~ {i'
I.'
.
r~
~
i!'l;CI
::I <:J
II:I:;.'J ,,'!Ii
lA
o
II
d IC!I
f;J "
II
D
D
Q
D
D
Q
a
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
i'"
Q:J
"
~
~I II
!'I1!l I:'.~ "='fi=' .....
~ .1
~ (f.,
ilb .....
I
ill
~
'"
9 ..
,']
n
4J
~
.. ~
jJ
~
~
I!I
tl~" "~ _.:1
"Qt(f~ ~.~ I . . p
- Ju,..;~ \-i .
Figure 1. Location Map
a
4
Edwards and Kelcey
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Existing Roadway Conditions
Michigan Road (U.S. 421) operates as a two-lane undivided roadway along the front of the subject site.
Turn lanes are constructed for various driveways along the highway and at major intersections. U.S. 421
is under the jurisdiction of INDOT, which classifies this section of roadway as urban principal arterial
under the statewide system.
The intersections of Michigan Road with l06th Street and 1 16th Street are both currently signalized with
turn lanes on all approaches. The Pittman site driveway at 111 th Street has been constructed with a
northbound right-turn lane entering the site. Across from the Pittman site driveway, a field entrance
represents the proposed access to the Wal-Mart site.
Andrade Drive is actually two unconnected roadway segments, intersecting Bennett Parkway at the north
end and 106th Street at the south end. Each segment ends with a cul-de-sac, stopping short of connecting
in the middle.
The land uses surrounding the proposed development include:
North: vacant land (Bennett Family parcel); zoned for retail and industrial uses
South: existing industrial developments and a car dealership
East: planned multi-use development (Pittman Site) and a nursery
West: existing/planned industrial developments and multi-family residential
Currently, there is no fixed-route public transit service available at the subject site. The Indianapolis bus
system, IndyGo, has long-term plans for expansion into Hamilton and Boone Counties, but no precise
timeline has been established.
Edwards and Kelcey
5
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Committed Improvements
INDOT is currently constructing improvements to Michigan Road (U.S. 421) in front of the proposed
development. The current phase of the project involves widening Michigan Road from two lanes to four
lanes between 102nd Street in Hamilton County to CR 550 and Boone County.
The intersection of Michigan Road with 106th Street will operate under a three-phase signal, including a
separate phase for northbound and southbound left turn movements. The intersection geometries will be
improved to include the following:
Northbound: 1 left-turn lane, 2 through lanes, and 1 right-turn lane
Southbound: 1 left-turn lane, 2 through lanes, and 1 right-turn lane
Eastbound: 1 left-turn lane and I shared through/right-turn lane
Westbound: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right-turn lane
106th Street between Zionsville Road and Michigan Road is currently a narrow two-lane facility with two
right-angle turns. An improvement project planned for construction in late 2007 will include re-
alignment to improve geometric conditions, reconstruction to provide a pavement section suitable for
handling heavy truck traffic, wider lanes, a raised median, closed drainage system, and multi-use
pedestrian path. The 106th Street approaches to Michigan Road are being reconstructed as part of the
Michigan Road project.
The intersection of Michigan Road with 116th Street will operate under a four-phase signal, including
separate phases for each set of left turn movements. The intersection geometries will be improved to
include the following:
Northbound: 21eft-turn lanes, 2 through lanes, and 1 right-turn lane
Southbound: 1 left-turn lane, 2 through lanes, and I right-turn lane
Eastbound: 1 left-turn lane, I through lane, and 1 right-turn lane
Westbound: 2 left-turn lanes, 1 through lane, and I right-turn lane
A traffic signal is planned for the proposed Wal-Mart site access point on Michigan Road. This location
corresponds to the Pittman site access point on the other side of Michigan Road, where the drive is called
111 th Street. Warrant calculations are included in Appendix B.
Edwards and Kelcey
6
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
, 0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Left- and right-turn lanes northbound and southbound are planned at the intersection of Michigan Road
with the Wal-Mart entrance/Ill th Street. These improvements will be constructed as part of the INDOT
widening in anticipation of imminent development ofthe subject site, whether by Wal-Mart or others. A
right-turn lane servicing the Pittman site has already been constructed; the southbound left-turn lane will
be constructed in conjunction with the widening of Michigan Road. This intersection is planned for a
traffic signal, to be constructed with INDOT approvals in time for the opening of the Wal-Mart.
Edwards and Kelcey
7
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Existing Traffic Conditions
Peak hour traffic counts at the intersections of Michigan Road with l06th Street and ll6th Street were
conducted in 2003. Peak hour counts were conducted in August/September 2005 at the intersection of
106th Street and Andrade Drive. No counts were taken along Michigan Road in 2005. Traffic volumes
along Michigan Road are currently impacted by the ongoing construction project.
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for AM and PM peak hour conditions at each of the study
intersections. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used to produce Level of Service (LOS)
ratings for each traffic movement or combined traffic movement (if a lane is shared) I . These LOS ratings
are measured in terms of average control delay, where delay is a measure of driver discomfort,
frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The term "control" refers to the inclusion of
deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay in the final delay measure.
LOS A is the best operating condition, and LOS F has the longest delays, therefore being the worst
operating condition. LOS D or better is considered acceptable by most jurisdictions.
Table 1 provides the criteria for the various LOS ratings for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Table 2 provides the LOS results for base year AM and PM peak hours at each intersection in the study
area, assuming the INDOT proposed intersection configurations described in the preceding section. The
"base year" is the year that counts were conducted: 2003 for intersections on Michigan Road and 2005
for l06th Street and Andrade Drive. LOS results are based upon the peak hour of an average weekday.
These LOS results will occur during the peak hours and will improve during the remainder of the day.
1 The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) program is associated with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) as
published by the Transportation Research Board (2000).
Edwards and Kelcey 8
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
o
o
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections
o
Le\ cI Of Sen ice :o,ignalized Intencctions: Control U nsignalizcd Intersect ions: Stopped
Dela~ per \'ehicle (scconds) Del:l~ pl'!" \ ehide (seconds)
A ~ 10 ~1O
B > 10 and ~ 20 > 10 and ~ 15
C > 20 and ~ 35 > 15 and ~ 25
D > 35 and ~ 55 > 25 and ~ 35
E > 55 and ~ 80 > 35 and ~ 50
F >80 >50
o
D
o
D
o
Table 2. Intersection LOS: Base Year Traffic Conditions with Proposed Geometries
o
o
2 Michigan Road and Wal-Mart Entrance/Ill th
Street
3 Michigan Road and 106th Street
4 106th Street and Andrade Drive
N/A
Signal
One-Way Stop
B
B
A*
A*
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
* For a one-way stop controlled intersection, no overall intersection LOS is provided. The LOS shown is for
the minor-street approach with the lower LOS.
N/ A: This intersection does not exist in the base year.
All intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak
hours based on base year traffic volumes and proposed geometries. RCS output is provided in Appendix
A and Appendix B.
o
Edwards and Kelcey
9
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
o
o
D
Traffic Generation
o
o
Table 3 summarizes the changes in land use and square footage that were made to the Pittman study,
which included assumptions about the planned development of other parcels. Updates were made to
these assumptions based on information currently available from the various developers. The Wal-Mart,
Bennett Family, and REI Sites remain undeveloped. The Pittman site Townhouses have been
constructed, and the retail and office component is pending. The Duke and S1. Vincent sites are under
construction but primarily unoccupied. The Kite site includes a bank branch opened in 2005 and
tentative plans for additional retail space. The updated trip generation calculations were used in
subsequent analysis.
o
o
o
o
All calculations are consistent with the methodology prescribed by the 7th Edition Trip Generation and
Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip
generation calculations are included in Appendix B.
Table 3. Land Use and Size of Proposed Developments
o
Parcel Land Use \ssumption ill Updated Land Use SonJ"ce of Ne" Information
Pittman Stud~ \sslll11ption for Current
Anal~ sis
Pittman 112,500 sq.ft. General Office 112,500 sq. ft. General Office Pittman confirms that plans have
Site 37,500 sq.ft. Specialty Retail 37,500 sq. ft. Specialty Retail not changed.
180 units Townhouses 180 units Townhouses
Wal-Mart 217,800 sq.ft. Discount 176,000 sq.ft. Discount Traffic estimates by Edwards and
Site Superstore Superstore Kelcey
Bennett 87,120 sq.ft. Shopping 40,000 sq. ft. Shopping Center Traffic estimates by Edwards and
Site Center Kelcey
REI Site 268 units Apartments 200 units Apartments Traffic estimates by Edwards and
871,000 sq. ft. Warehouse 200,000 sq.ft. Industrial/ Office Kelcey, land use by REI
Duke Site 127,000 sq.ft. Home 502,000 sq.ft. Shopping Center Duke provided traffic study by
Improvement Store A&F Engineering
Kite Site None 99,215 sq. ft. Shopping Center Traffic estimates by Edwards and
Kelcey, site plan provided by Kite
St. None 39,000 sq. ft. Medical Office Traffic study by Edwards and
Vincent 40,000 sq.ft. General Office Kelcey
Site
Total 469,420 sq.ft. retail 854,715 sq.ft. retail
Square 112,500 sq.ft. office 191,500 sq.ft. office
Footage=
871,000 sq.ft. industrial 200,000 sq.ft. industrial
448 units residential 380 units residential
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
Edwards and Kelcey
10
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
For multi-use sites, trips made within the development and do not use external roadways are considered
internal trips. Internal trips have been deducted from those sites where appropriate. Table 4 summarizes
the external non-pass-by trip generation for these sites. Non-pass-by trips are new trips attracted to the
site drives and surrounding roadway network by the subject development.
Table 4. Trip Generation: Non-Pass-By Trips
Land U\e \i\1 Peak Pi\1 Peak
In Out rotal In Out rota I
Pittman Site 194 92 286 134 240 374
Wal-Mart Site 165 159 324 337 350 687
Bennett Family Site 55 35 90 131 142 273
REI Site 164 114 278 124 200 324
Duke Site 190 122 312 660 715 1375
Kite Site 95 61 156 182 198 380
St. Vincent Site 156 31 187 179 30 209
Total Non-Pass-By Trips 1019 614 1633 1747 1875 3622
Table 5 summarizes the pass-by trips generated by the sites. Pass-by trips are those that make an
intermediate stop at the site on the way to another ultimate destination. The trips are attracted from an
adjacent roadway, in this case Michigan Road, while passing by the site. They add traffic to the site
driveways but do not increase volumes on the adjacent street system. For the Wal-Mart, pass-by trips
comprise 28% of the PM peak hour.
Table 5. Trip Generation: Pass-by Trips
I.and Use Ai\1 Peak Pi\1 Peak
In Out rotal In Out rotal
Pittman Site 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wal-Mart Site 0 0 0 94 98 192
Bennett Family Site 0 0 0 67 72 139
REI Site 0 0 0 0 0 0
Duke Site 61 39 100 212 229 441
Kite Site 0 0 0 117 126 243
St. Vincent Site 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Pass-By- Trips 96 74 170 490 525 1015
Edwards and Kelcey
11
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Table 6 compares the trip generation reported in the Pittman study to the updated trip generation for
these sites. Non-pass-by trips only are shown here. The AM Peak traffic for all sites combined is 7%
higher in the current analysis. The PM Peak traffic for all sites combined is 44% higher in the current
analysis.
Table 6. Trip Generation Comparison
I.and Use Pittman St ud~ Current \nal~ sis
,\1\1 Pi\1 ~\ i\ 1 Pi\ I
Peak Peak Peak Peak
Pittman Site 286 375 286 374
Wal-Mart Site 337 350
Combined Waf-Mart and Bennett sites 554 1175 427 623
Bennett Family Site 90 273
REI Site 514 540 278 324
Duke Site 188 190 312 1375
Kite Site 0 0 156 380
St. Vincent Site 0 0 187 209
Total Non-Pass-By-Trips 1542 2280 1646 3285
The total weekday trip generation by the Wal-Mart is 9,068 trips, equally divided between entering and
exiting traffic.
Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Traffic was distributed according to patterns established by the provided traffic studies and by existing
traffic at the study intersections. The Wal-Mart site has two proposed access points, one on Michigan
Road at 111 th Street (across from the Pittman property) and one on Andrade Drive along the west side of
the site. Andrade Drive leads to 106th Street.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the distribution of traffic to and from the Wal-Mart site, respectively.
Edwards and Kelcey
12
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Bennett Pky.
]]6th St.
~
Q
~
~
t ~
:::::
~~~%
~
~
~
:::::
:::::
~
~ ~ ~
~
~
~f
::::: ~
L{)
~ ~
III th St.
..
\
l;Z
.-
cO
~2%
] 06th St.
13% "
Figure 2. Traffic Distribution to the Wal-Mart Site
Edwards and Kelcey
13
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
t
'Ioow
'Ioow
~
~
~
~
~
~ t ,.
116th St.
111 th St.
Bennett Pky.
~
o
+
~ ~
co N
~ ..
106th St.
Figure 3. Traffic Distribution from the Wal-Mart Site
Edwards and Kelcey
14
u
~
u
u
~
~
u
u
a
~
u
a
~
u
u
~
u
u
~
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Future Conditions
After computing base year LOS, a background growth rate of 2% per year was applied to simulate year
2013 conditions, which is the year that all sites are fully built out. Traffic from specific developments
was added to the 2013 traffic resulting in Scenarios A, B, and C. The background growth rate was
estimated based on INDOT traffic projections and is used in conjunction with the explicit analysis of the
other vacant sites. The following scenarios were analyzed for comparison:
A) Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site
(This is Scenario II from the Pittman Study)
B) Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Wal-Mart Site
C) Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Wal-Mart Site + Other Sites
Each of the study intersections was analyzed under each of the development scenarios. Table 7 provides
the results of these analyses. All results assume that the committed improvements as discussed
previously will be fully implemented. HCS output is provided in Appendix A and Appendix B.
Table 7. LOS Results for Future Conditions
3
Michigan Road and Wal-Mart C* F* B B C C
Entrance/Ill th Street
(unsignalized) (signalized) (signalized)
Michigan Road and 106th Street B B B B B C
106th Street and Andrade Drive B* B* B* C* B* D*
2
4
* For a one-way stop controlled intersection, no overall intersection LOS is provided. The LOS shown is for the minor-street
approach.
All of the study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service in all scenarios with
one exception. Under Scenario A, the intersection of Michigan Road and Pittman site driveway is not
signalized and experiences LOS F during the PM Peak. The signal is expected to be installed with the
Wal-Mart site development, which improves that LOS to C in later scenarios.
Edwards and Kelcey
15
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
For the intersection of Michigan Road and Wal-Mart Entrance/111th Street, signal warrant analyses were
performed based on estimated volumes. It was anticipated that warrants would be met with the existing
traffic generated by the partially constructed Pittman site (offices and townhouses) plus the estimated
traffic generated by the Wal-Mart site. Further volumes supporting the warrant application will be
generated by the pending retail portion of the Pittman site and Bennett Family parcel retail development.
The LOS for Scenario A, without the Wal-Mart site, and Scenario B, with the Wal-Mart site, are similar
and all LOS are within the acceptable range. This indicates that the improvements planned in
conjunction with the Wal-Mart site development are sufficient to mitigate the increase in traffic caused
by that development.
Scenario C includes the subject development as well as other proposed developments along Michigan
Road, all fully built out. The LOS results indicate that no additional improvements are needed to
maintain acceptable LOS at the study intersections. Though the LOS may change with the increase in
traffic, they remain within the acceptable range.
Turn lane warrants and lengths were calculated in accordance with the Indiana Department of
Transportation Design Manual. The standard taper length is 100' for a single lane and 150' for a double
turn lane. The optional deceleration distance for turn lanes on Michigan Road (45 mph) is 450 feet. If
desired, the deceleration length is added to the storage and taper lengths for the total turn lane length.
Michigan Road and 116th Street: the lane configuration planned by INDOT is sufficient to handle site
traffic. Recommended storage lengths are listed below for those turn lanes impacted by the proposed
site:
Eastbound Right Turn Lane 100 feet
Westbound Left Turn Lane 120 feet total for 2 lanes (60 feet each)
Northbound Left Turn Lane 280 feet total for 2 lanes (140 feet each)
Northbound Right Turn Lane 180 feet
INDOT design plans were reviewed, and the planned turn lane lengths are of sufficient length.
Michigan Road and Wal-Mart Entrance/111th Street: the westbound approach geometry and northbound
right turn lane were determined in the Pittman study. The southbound right turn lane is planned
independent of the subject development. Northbound and southbound left-turn lanes will be constructed
in conjunction with the traffic signal installation. The eastbound approach was examined using two
alternate lane configurations. The first includes one exclusive left-turn lane, one shared left/through lane,
Edwards and Kelcey
16
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
one right-turn lane, and split eastbound and westbound phases on the signal timings. The second
alternate includes two exclusive left-turn lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane, and eight-phase signal
timings. Right-turn arrows are included where appropriate. The first alternative has the advantage of an
exclusive right-turn lane, reducing delay for that movement; however, split-phase timings can increase
delay for the overall intersection. The second alternative produces less overall delay, but increased
storage distance required on the eastbound approach. Recommended storage lengths are listed below for
those turn lanes impacted by the proposed site.
Northbound Left Turn Lane 200 feet
Southbound Left Turn Lane 140 feet
Southbound Right Turn Lane 80 feet
First Alternate: Eastbound Left and Left/Thru Lanes
First Alternate: Eastbound Right Turn Lane
Second Alternate: Eastbound Left Turn Lanes (2)
Second Alternate: Eastbound Thru/Right Turn lane
80 feet each }
140 feet
60 feet each }
200 feet
Two alternate lane
configurations
provided.
Michigan Road and 106th Street: the lane configuration planned by INDOT is sufficient to handle site
traffic. Recommended storage lengths are listed below for those turn lanes impacted by the proposed
site:
Eastbound Left Turn Lane 120 feet
Westbound Right Turn Lane 100 feet
Northbound Left Turn Lane 120 feet
Southbound Left Turn Lane 120 feet
Southbound Right Turn Lane 120 feet
INDOT design plans were reviewed, and the planned turn lane lengths are of sufficient length.
106th Street and Andrade Drive: turn lane warrants and LOS results were examined for all turn
movements.
Eastbound Left Turn Lane Turn lane recommended
Westbound Right Turn Lane Warrant Not Satisfied
Southbound Left Turn Lane Warrant Not Satisfied
Southbound Right Turn Lane Warrant Not Satisfied
The eastbound left-turn lane does not satisfy warrants under Scenario B conditions, which includes the
Wal-Mart, but does satisfy warrants under Scenario C conditions, which includes traffic from other sites
along Michigan Road. 106th Street is planned for reconstruction in 2007-2008. The planned cross-
Edwards and Kelcey
17
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
section will include two 17' lanes and a 14' raised median. It is recommended that an eastbound left-turn
lane at Andrade Drive be constructed within the median as part ofthe planned improvement project.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show Scenario C traffic for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
Bennett Pky.
f
~
~
~
{j
~
~~ ~ ~.~~
!~%
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
116th St.
111 th St.
o 0
n ..,j-
~ ~
623-
306-
~ 76
-143
~224
59 3- ~ t ,.
66-
46 ~
~70
-196
106th St.
Figure 4. Scenario C AM Peak Volumes
Edwards and Kelcey
18
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~61
-190
-.F 107
~ t ~
116th St.
Bennett Pky.
t
111 th St.
.. t ,.
~45
-350
106th St.
O1r'-n ~131
:2g:;! -115
~ ~ ~ -.F174
163 ~ ~ t ,.
204 -- ~ C;; ~
178"" ~ 0) N
<.D ~
OCJ 0)
(J ~
64 ~
353-
Figure 5. Scenario C PM Peak Volumes
Edwards and Kelcey
19
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Conclusions and Recommendations
As in the Pittman study, the analyzed intersections were found to operate at LOS D or better under future
conditions, including all anticipated development:
. Michigan Road and I 16th Street
. Michigan Road and Wal-Mart Entrance/Ill th Street
. Michigan Road and 106th Street
. 106th Street and Andrade Drive
The intersection of Michigan Road and Wal-Mart Entrance/Ill th Street is recommended to be signalized
when permitted by INDOT. Based on estimated future traffic volumes, it is anticipated that signal
warrants will be met and the intersection will experience acceptable LOS with the traffic signal.
The updates in traffic from the Pittman study to this analysis do not cause significant changes in LOS.
One additional improvement is recommended. At the intersection of 106th Street and Andrade Drive,
warrants indicate that an eastbound left-turn lane should be considered. The eastbound left-turn lane
does not satisfy warrants under Scenario B conditions, which includes the Wal-Mart, but does satisfy
warrants under Scenario C conditions, which includes traffic from other sites along Michigan Road.
Since the Wal-Mart site alone does not trigger the need for the turn lane, the construction of the turn lane
does not need to coincide with the development of the subject site. This turn lane should be constructed
as part of the planned reconstruction of 106th Street in 2007-2008.
Otherwise, the improvements planned by INDOT and by Wal-Mart in conjunction with the proposed
development are sufficient to mitigate the increase in traffic caused by the proposed retail center. No
additional improvements to the study intersections are needed even with the traffic added by other
developments planned along Michigan Road.
Edwards and Kelcey
20
o
q
u
o
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0\
o
U
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Michigan Road Mixed-Use Development
Carmel, Indiana
Prepared For:
Pittman Partners
Prepared By:
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
222 East Ohio Street, Suite 400
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
317.636.1552
March 12,2003
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Contents
Page
Preparer Qualifications.. ........... .... ...... ........... ..... ..... ...... ....... ... .... ..... ............. ..... ... .... ........ .... .......... .... ...... 2
Introduction............. ..... ............... ............ ........ ...... .............. .............................. ........................... ............. 3
Existing Roadway Conditions................................ ...... ............... ................................... .......... ................. 5
Committed hnprovements ..... ............. ........ ........ ..... .................................................. .............. .................. 6
Existing Traffic Conditions. ............... ..... .............. ............................................... ...... ............................... 7
Traffic Generation ...... ... ........... ..... ..... ... .... ................... ...... ..... .... ................ ...... ............. ....... ............. ....... 8
Traffic Distribution and Assignment.............................. ........ ................... ........... .............................. ..... 10
Future Conditions..... ................................. .............. ..... ...................... ....................... .............................. 11
Traffic Operations Issues.............. .............. .............. .................. ..................................... ........................ 16
Conclusions and Recommendations......... ............ ....... ........ ................ ........... ...... ............... .................... 18
List of Tables
Table 1 - Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections .............................................................. 7
Table 2 - Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections........................................................... 8
Table 3 - Intersection LOS: Existing Traffic Conditions with Proposed Geometries.............................. 8
Table 4 - Trip Generation Estimates: Proposed Development ................................................................. 9
Table 5 - Trip Generation Estimates: Anticipated Non-Site Development.............................................. 9
Table 6 - Trip Generation Estimates: Site As Zoned.............................................................................. 10
Table 7 - Development Scenarios..... ....... .......... ....................... .................. ......... ................. ......... ......... 11
Table 8 - Intersection LOS: Final Results .............................................................................................. 16
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Location Map............ ............. .............. .................. ......................... ............. .................... ........ 4
Figure 2 - Traffic Volumes, Scenario I................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3 - Traffic Volumes, Scenario II ................................................................................................. 13
Figure 4 - Traffic Volumes, Scenario ill ................................................................................................ 14
Figure 5 - Traffic Volumes, Scenario IV ................................................................................................ 15
Appendix
Site Layout
Trip Generation Calculations
Highway Capacity Software Output
#0300.48.223
d
I
o
D
D
U
d
d
Cl
d
01
Of
01
oj
o
oj
01
OJ
UJ
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Preparer Qualifications
I certify that this Transportation Impact Study has been prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering.
~\\\,,\\ll\IlIlI'''1/lll
~\" ~ t. R A 11111~
~..,\ ..........: I>'-~~
is'_"'''' .., "'T ". r. ';i!
~~~,,""~\v ER'j.....?~
~ "S /Q;;-~ N <> .... ~
~: 0 \ ~
(*( 10001153 ):}
,::;-0.. ;~;:::
'~:~\ STATE OF /#ji
'\~"""!.ND If\.\-\~"'~~
~~~
Cl--/ Q~
Jennifer A. Pyrz, P.E.
Indiana Registration # 10001153
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
This Study has been completed in accordance with the Applicant's Guide, Transportation Impact Studies
for Proposed Development, adopted by the City of Carmel Resolution 021892, February 18, 1992.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
2
-=
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
o
o
Introduction
o
Pittman Partners is proposing to develop a 34-acre site in Carmel, Indiana. The site is located along
Michigan Road (U.S. 421), approximately halfway between 1061h Street and 1161h Street as shown in the
location map, Figure 1.
o
o
The development will consist of both owner-occupied townhouses and offices and will require re-zoning
ofthe subject property to a mixture ofB2 and R4. The intersections of Michigan Road at 106th Street,
the proposed site drive, and 1161h Street were each analyzed as part of this study.
o
The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is currently making improvements to Michigan
Road in the site vicinity, including widening and signal system upgrades. All analyses assumed that
these improvements would be completed before full buildout of the subject site.
o
o
The conditions of each intersection were determined under the proposed configuration and four scenarios
were analyzed as follows:
o
o
Dc, e10pmcnt Sccnal"ios
Traffic Conditions I II III IV
Existing ./ ./ ./ ./
Background growth ./ ./ ./
Development proposed by Pittman ./ ./
Partners
Anticipated Non-Site Development ./ ./
Development as zoned ./
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
3
o
~
a
~
~
o
D
~
~
Q
o
~
~
D
~
~
o
u
~
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
II
Figure 1. Location Map
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc..
4
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
~
Scenario I represents existing traffic conditions, assuming that improvements to Michigan Road are
complete. Scenario II represents year 2013 traffic conditions, which includes the effect of background
traffic growth and volumes generated by full build-out of the subject site. Scenario III also represents
year 2013 traffic conditions and is equivalent to Scenario II with the addition of traffic volumes from
four currently undeveloped sites. Finally, Scenario IV represents year 2013 traffic conditions assuming
the subject site is developed as currently zoned. Scenario IV includes existing, background growth, non-
site, and as-zoned traffic volumes.
U
I
~
D
Sites A and B (see Figure 1) were identified for inclusion as anticipated non-site development in
Scenarios III and IV. Site A is directly opposite the subject site along Michigan Road and is currently
zoned for retail and industrial development. Land uses and building sizes were assumed based on the
current zoning and lot acreage for this site. Site B is located on the east side of Michigan Road, south of
106th Street. A home improvement store was assumed at this site for purposes of this study. In order to
account for traffic produced by the remaining vacant sites in the vicinity a background traffic growth rate
of 2% per year was used for Scenarios II, III, and IV to approximate Year 2013 conditions. This growth
rate was determined based upon growth rates developed by INDOT for this corridor, reduced to account
for our explicit analyses of traffic associated with the subject site and vacant sites A and B.
I
I
~
I
I
Michigan Road (U.S. 421) operates as a two-lane undivided roadway along the front of the site. Turn
lanes are constructed for vadous driveways along the highway and at major intersections. U.S. 421 is
under the jurisdiction of INDOT, which classifies this section of it as urban principal arterial under the
statewide system.
I
I
I
I
Existing Roadway Conditions
The intersections of Michigan Road with 106th Street and l16th Street are both currently signalized. The
intersection with Il6th Street remains more rural, although development is expected to begin expanding
north to this area.
~
The subject site is bordered by an undeveloped parcel and existing single family homes to the south, with
Altum's Nursery, and additional commercial zoning and undeveloped land to the north. The site directly
across Michigan Road is also vacant. A church and multi-family development are to the northwest of the
I
a
I
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
5
~
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
site, with driveway access to Michigan Road. Although directly opposite each other, the driveways for
Altum's nursery and the church / multi-family development are not in alignment across Michigan Road.
Committed Improvements
INDOT is currently constructing improvements to Michigan Road (U.S. 421) in front ofthe proposed
development. The improvements are separated into two individual projects.
Phase I improvements to the interchange ofI-465 with Michigan Road and north will be completed this
summer, 2003. Improvements were designed to satisfy traffic demands through the year 2015.
In fall 2003, construction is expected to begin on Phase II, which involves the widening of Michigan
Road from 10200 Street in Hamilton County to CR 550 in Boone County.
The intersection of Michigan Road with 106th Street will be improved to include the following:
Northbound: I left turn lane, 2 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane
Southbound: 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, and I right turn lane
Eastbound: 1 left turn lane and 1 through / right turn lane
Westbound: 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right turn lane
The 106th Street intersection will operate under a three-phase signal, including a separate phase for
northbound and southbound left turn movements. The assumed timing plan is included in the Appendix
as part of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) output.
The intersection of Michigan Road with 116th Street will be improved to include the following:
Northbound: 2 left turn lanes, 2 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane
Southbound: 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane
Eastbound: 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right turn lane
Westbound: 2 left turn lanes, 1 through lane, and 1 right turn lane
This intersection will operate under a four-phase signal, including separate phases for each set ofleft turn
movements. The assumed timing plan is included in the Appendix as part of the HCS output.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
6
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Existing Traffic Conditions
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for AM and PM peak hour conditions at each of the study
intersections. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used to produce Level of Service (LOS)
ratings for each traffic movement or combined traffic movement (if a lane is shared)!. These LOS ratings
are measured in terms of average control delay, where delay is a measure of driver discomfort,
frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The term "control" refers to the inclusion of
deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay in the final delay measure.
LOS A is the best operating condition, and LOS F has the longest delays, therefore being the worst
operating condition.
Table 1 provides the criteria for the various LOS ratings for a signalized intersection in terms of control
delay. Table 2 provides the LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 3 provides the LOS
results for existing AM and PM peak hours at each intersection in the study area, assuming the INDOT
proposed intersection configurations described in the preceding section. Peak hour turn movement
counts were conducted in March 2003. LOS results are based upon the peak hour of an average
weekday. These LOS results will occur during the peak hours, and will improve during the remainder of
the day.
Table 1
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
I ,C\ cI Of Scn ice Control nela~ per \ chicle (seconds)
A ~1O
B > 10 and ~ 20
C > 20 and ~ 35
D > 35 and ~ 55
E > 55 and ~ 80
F > 80
1 The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) program is associated with the latest release of the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) as published by the Transportation Research Board.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. 7
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Table 2
Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
I ,n cl or SCr\ ice Stopped J)c1a~ pel" \ chicle (q'CO!Hj,)
A ~1O
B > 10 and ~ 15
C > 15 and ~ 25
D > 25 and ~ 35
E > 35 and ~ 50
F >50
Table 3
Intersection LOS: Existing Traffic Conditions with Proposed Geometries
Stop Con1 1"01 \\1 Peak 1'\1 !'eal,
Michigan Road and 106th Street Signal B B
Michigan Road and 1 16th Street Signal C C
Both intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak
hours based on existing traffic volumes and proposed geometries.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Generation
Table 4 summarizes the results of the trip generation for the proposed site. Table 5 summarizes the trip
generation for the anticipated non-site development, with pass-by trips accounted for, where appropriate.
All calculations are consistent with the methodology prescribed by the 6th Edition Trip Generation as
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1997). The commercial development mix was
assumed based on land area and a preliminary development concept. Trip generation calculations are
included in the Appendix. All land use assumptions for the undeveloped sites are consistent with a
previous Transportation Impact Study filed by this firm for the same site in 2000.2
2 Traffic ImDact Study. Michigan Road Mixed-Use DeveloDment. Cannel. Indiana. Prepared by Pflum, Klausmeier
& Gehrum Consultants, Inc, (now Edwards and Kelcey, Inc), October 2,2000.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. 8
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Table 4
Trip Generation Estimates: Proposed Development
Land lTse I.') IT\-: .\i\1 Peak Pi'1 Peak
Code
In Out Total In Out Total
112,500 SF General Office 710 180 25 205 35 170 205
37,500 SF Specialty Retail 814 (b) (b) (b) 42 55 97
180 DU Townhouses 230 14 67 81 67 33 100
- internal trips (7% of PM peak) -10 -18 -28
Total External Trips 194 92 286 134 240 374
(a) Square footage amounts used are the best estimates at the time this study was conducted.
(b) Data not available for the AM peak hour of Specialty Retail. Negligible trips are assumed.
Table 5
Trip Generation Estimates: Anticipated Non-Site Development
.\1\1 Peak Pl' 1 Pea\.;
I.and Use Total III Out I m;11
In Out
Site AI: Apartments, ITE Code 220 22 114 136 110 54 164
Site Al : Industrial Warehouse, ITE Code 150 310 68 378 90 286 376
Site A2: Shopping Center, ITE Code 820 90 57 147 275 298 573
Pass-By Trips -115 -115 -230
Site A3: Free Standing Discount Superstore, ITE 205 196 401 408 424 832
Code 813
Site B: Home Improvement Store, ITE Code 862 102 86 188 171 193 364
Pass-By Trips -87 -87 -174
TOTAL NEW TRIPS 729 521 1250 852 1053 1905
Internal Capture Rate
Because the proposed site is to be developed with a mix of uses, it can be expected that a certain
percentage of the generated trips will have both origins and destinations within it. In this case, these
internal trips will not travel through any of the intersections on U.S. 421, but only along internal
roadways. The internal capture rate was calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (October
1998) procedure for Multi-Use Developments. Based on studies of actual multi-use developments, a 7%
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
9
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
internal capture rate was calculated for the site during the PM Peak hour. Internal trips are likely during
the AM peak hour as well, but were not considered due to lack of sufficient data. Calculations are
included in the Appendix.
Pass-By Trips
Pass-by trips are those that make an intermediate stop at a site on the way to another ultimate destination.
The trips are attracted from an adjacent roadway, in this case u.s. 421, while passing by the site. They
add traffic to the site driveway traffic, but do not increase volumes on the adjacent street system.
Pass-by trips were calculated using the research and procedure outlined in the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook (October 1998). Based on that procedure, pass-by trip percentages were calculated for the PM
Peak hour for each qualifying land use category. No data on pass-by trips was available for the land uses
within the subject site, however pass-by trips are expected to and from some of the vacant sites. These
pass-by trip percentages were applied only to trips made during the PM peak hour. Calculations are
included in the Appendix.
Table 6 presents the trip generation estimates for the subject site, if developed as currently zoned.
Table 6
Trip Generation Estimates: Site As lAmed
Land Use
In
AM Peak
Ow
rota!
III
1'1\1 Peak
Out
Toul
82 Single Family Homes, ITE Code21O
------
Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Traffic was distributed for each of the scenarios based on existing traffic patterns, operational
characteristics ofthe area, and future development potential. To the north, travelers can reach the Cities
of Carmel, Lebanon, and Zionsville, and gain access to 1-65. To the south, heavier retail and commercial
development, the City of Indianapolis and the City of Carmel are attractors. Further details are included
in the Appendix.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
10
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
o
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
11
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Future Conditions
The following scenarios were analyzed using the data generated in previous sections of this report:
Table 7
Development Scenarios
Dn l'IopmC'nt Seena rins
I raffle Conditions I II III 1\'
Existing ./ ./ ./ ./
Background growth ./ ./ ./
Development proposed by Pittman
Partners ./ ./
Anticipated Non-Site Development ./ ./
Development as zoned ./
After computing existing levels of service, the Scenario I volumes were combined with background
traffic growth of 2% per year over 10 years to simulate year 2013 conditions. The background growth
rate was estimated based on INDOT traffic projections and is used in conjunction with the explicit
analysis of several vacant sites (see Table 5). The proposed development traffic was then added to result
in Scenario II. Anticipated non-site development was added to that for Scenario III. Finally, Scenario IV
is used to compare traffic impacts between conditions where the site is developed as zoned versus as
proposed.
Each of the study intersections was analyzed under each of the development scenarios. Table 8 provides
the results of these analyses. Figures 2 through 5 illustrate the turning movement volumes for the AM
and PM peak hours of Scenarios I, II, ill, and IV. All results assume that the improvements to Michigan
Road as discussed previously will be fully implemented.
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Table 8
Intersection WS: Final Results
Michigan Road and 106th B B B B C D C C
Street
Michigan Road and Site C F C F C F
Drive (unsignalized)*
Michigan Road and 116th C C C D C D C D
Street
* Note: For unsignalized intersections, the LOS for each movement is calculated, but no overall
intersection LOS is calculated. The reported LOS for Michigan Road at the site drive are the lowest
values that were calculated for anyone approach. The Levels of Service for each of the individual
movements can be found in the HCS output, provided in the Appendix.
The intersections of Michigan Road with 106th Street and 116th Street are expected to operate at
acceptable levels of service in all scenarios. Some movements will drop below acceptable levels in the
PM peak hour at Michigan Road and 116th Street under Scenarios III and IV, but the intersection as a
whole will continue to operate well. Conditions are expected to be satisfactory during all other periods
of the day.
The intersection of Michigan Road with the site drive is expected to operate below acceptable LOS in the
PM peak hour. The poor LOS is associated only with movements exiting the site. Traffic along
Michigan Road will continue to experience LOS C or better. A signal installed at the drive will provide
acceptable LOS during all periods. A signal in the vicinity will help to provide gaps, thereby also
improving LOS from the estimates presented in Table 8.
Traffic Operations Issues
Vehicular Connectivitv
South of the subject site, an adjacent neighborhood was constructed with a roadway stub-out (Monitor
Lane) to allow a future connection with the subject property. The extension of Monitor Lane would
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
16
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
allow vehicular traffic access between the existing neighborhood and the subject site, including access by
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Since the subject site has access to U.S. 421, this
additional connection through a residential neighborhood would provide little or no value to either site.
Emergency vehicles could reach the site more quickly and safely via U.S. 421 and travel of any sort
through the neighborhood would be slow and circuitous. Although the access point would provide
convenience to the existing residents, they are more concerned about through traffic in their
neighborhood and are therefore strongly opposed to such a connection. There appears to be no
persuasive reason for such a connection at this time, except perhaps for pedestrians / bicyclists.
Traffic Shmal Warrants
As described in previous sections ofthis report, the intersection of U.S. 421 and the site drive will
operate at poor levels of service until a signal is installed. The decision on whether or not a signal is
installed at this location rests with INDOT and is based upon state warrants set forth in the Indiana
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (IMUTCD).
Traffic control signals should not be installed unless one or more of the primary volume signal warrants
in lMUTCD are met. Supplemental warrants should be considered as an advisory condition, and do not
mandate the installation of a traffic signal. The supplemental guidelines are additional considerations in
the determination for the need to install traffic signals. Satisfaction of the requirements listed in the
guidelines is not sufficient cause, in itself, to install traffic signal.
PRIMARY WARRANTS
Warrant 1 - Minimum vehicular volume.
Warrant 2 - Interruption of continuous traffic.
Warrant 3 - Minimum pedestrian volume.
SUPPLEMENTAL WARRANTS
Warrant 4 - School crossings.
Warrant 5 - Progressive movement.
Warrant 6 - Accident experience.
Warrant 7 - Systems.
Warrant 8 - Combination of warrants.
Warrant 9 - New facilities.
Warrant 10 - Special Access.
Warrant 11 - Four hour volumes.
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDELINES
Guideline 12 - Peak hour delay.
Guideline 13 - Peak hour volume.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
17
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Discussions are currently underway between the City of Carmel, the Indiana Department of
Transportation, and area developers. A signal will be installed in the vicinity of the site, either at its
intersection with Michigan Road or immediately north of the site at the drive to Altum's Nursery.
Michigan Road traffic volumes will satisfy warrants at either location. Certain factors, however, make
the northern option a less desirable location for a signal. The driveways at that location are not in
alignment across Michigan Road and the Altum's Nursery drive does not provide for adequate storage for
vehicles that may queue at a signal. A signal at the subject site could also serve more motorists, with a
west approach to the intersection constructed for the various undeveloped sites west of Michigan Road.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Field survey and analyses as presented in Figures 2 through 5 and summarized in Table 8, lead to the
findings outlined as follows:
Scenario II - Full Buildout of Subiect Site
. All signalized study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better upon buildout of
the subject site (Scenario II). This scenario accounts for existing and site traffic, as well as
background growth equating to nearly 22% (growth rate of2% compounded over 10 years).
LOS D is considered acceptable for the peak hours in most municipal settings.
. The unsignalized intersection of U.S. 421 with the site drive will operate at LOS F in the PM
peak hour of Scenario II (full buildout of the subject site as shown in Table 4). This LOS
corresponds with poor conditions exiting the subject site. Traffic along Michigan Road will
continue to operate at good LOS under the unsignalized condition. With a signal, all
approaches to the intersection are expected to improve to acceptable LOS.
Buildout (Scenarios III and IV) - Full Buildout of Subiect and Vacant Sites
. The vacant sites that were considered in this analysis account for a large portion of the traffic
in Scenarios ill and IV. When traffic volumes from these sites are added to the network,
delal'S at the study intersections do increase, with LOS most affected at Michigan Road and
106 Street. None of these delays, however, will be significant enough to drop the
intersection LOS below acceptable levels.
. Scenarios ill and IV are both buildout scenarios. Scenario ill includes site traffic as proposed,
and IV includes site traffic as zoned. At Michigan Road and 106th Street, the as zoned
scenario provides one level of service better in the PM peak period than the as proposed
scenario, although both are still above acceptable levels. LOS during all other periods remain
the same for both scenarios.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
18
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
19
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Recommendations
. The proposed site drive approach to U.S. 421 should be constructed with one left turn lane,
one through lane, and one right turn lane. It should be positioned to align with a potential
future driveway on the west side of U.S. 421, directly opposite this one. U.S. 421 is within
the jurisdiction of INDOT. The intersection should be constructed to meet with its standards
and specification.
. A right turn lane should be constructed northbound at the site drive with appropriate taper
designed to INDOT specifications.
. A left turn lane southbound into the site should be formalized. Design should meet with
INDOT specifications and conform to the future design of Michigan Road in terms of
centerline treatment (raised median, two-way-Ieft-turn lane, etc).
. A traffic signal should be installed at the site drive to facilitate safe and efficient traffic
operations. Further analysis is included in the previous section, titled Traffic Operations
Issues.
. Some discussion has taken place with INDOr regarding a signal just north of the subj ect site,
at the intersection of U.S. 421 at Altum's nursery. Two serious issues prevent this location
from being a desirable alternative for a signal:
1. The east (Altum's drive) and west legs of this intersection are not in alignment.
One or the other would need to be reconstructed if a signal were to be installed (see
following aerial photograph).
2. The Altum's drive provides very limited storage for vehicles to queue at a signal.
Site restrictions would make such an improvement difficult.
A signal as recommended at the proposed site drive would benefit Altum's Nursery as
well by controlling traffic flow along U.S. 421 and providing gaps at their existing
driveway. Further, connection would be made from properties to the west of U.S. 421
into the proposed signalized intersection, once that area is developed, allowing an even
greater number of motorists to be served.
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
. The proposed site plan illustrates potential connections to adjacent properties. One ofthose
connections would extend northwardly into undeveloped property and eventually connect
with 116th Street. Another would connect to the undeveloped commercial property adjacent to
and south ofthe subject site. A third would connect with the existing residential subdivision
to the south (Monitor Lane). The first two proposed connections are recommended. However,
there is no compelling reason for the connection at Monitor Lane. Such a connection is
considered undesirable by the neighborhood and would provide little or no benefit to either
community. Emergency vehicles can best reach the subject site via U.S. 421.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
20
01
01
g\
~1
~I
Dl
~'1
Q\
01
~I
QI
0\
01
Dl
~I
U\
D'
J
Ol
Q J Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
APPENDIX
-=
H I
-1 w ~
I- ..,
c::.
Z ~
- ~
0 ..,
.~
a.. ~
.....
.... ~
z ~ f
0 ~
I- Z
U) j
w ~ A
3: c::.
~
~
'i
">
~~
i-~
0..;..1
-s;~
~~
J
"j
.Q
~
;:t
~
~
d
~
~
.~
~
~
,it'
;J
}'~ii '~
I
i
i
~
~
~
~
o
I
~
I
u
~
~
~
~
I
y
~\
~
lo-
W
1
"I
o
o
o
u
,
D
D
o
\
d
U
d
[J
Dl
I
Ol
DI
Dl
01
01
1
01
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Trip Generation
Subject Site as Proposed:
General Office Building -ITE Code 710
assume 112,500 SF
AM Peak: Ln( T) = 0.797 Ln( 112.5) + 1.558
Ln( T ) = 5.3222
T = 205
88% in = 180
12% out = 25
PM Peak:
T = 1.121 ( 112.5) + 79.295
T = 205
Specialty Retail - ITE Code 814
assume 37,500 SF
AM Peak:
data not available
PM Peak:
T = 2.59(37.5)
T = 97
17%in = 35
83% out = 170
43% in = 42
57% out = 55
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
"'~ _e
r-
I
I
I
j
I
]
I
I
I
I
I
1
J
J
J
.1
_ J
J
,._.._. _n
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Townhouses - ITE Code 230
180 Dwelling Units
AM Peak: Ln(T) = 0.790 Ln( 180) + 0.298
Ln(T) = 4.4004
T = 81
17% in = 14
83% out = 67
PM Peak: Ln(T) = 0.827 Ln( 180) + 0.309
Ln(T) = 4.6036
T = 100
67% in = 67
33% out = 33
Trip Distribution for proposed site:
55% to/from the south
45% to/from the north
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~O
w-
o
b
b
,
o
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Subject Site tIS Zoned:
Single Family Detached Housing - ITE Code 2tO
82 dwelling units
AM Peak:
T = 0.700 ( 82) + 9.477
T = 67
25% in = 17
75% out = 50
PM Peak: Ln( T ) = 0.901 Ln( 82 ) + 0.527
Ln( T ) = 4.4975
T = 90
64% in = 58
36% out = 32
Adjacent Sites:
Site At:
Apartments- ITE Code 220
.268 Dwelling Units
AM Peak:
T = 0.497 (268) + 3.238
T = 136
16%in = 22
84%out = 114
PM Peak:
T = 0.541 (268) + 18.743
T = 164
67% in = 110
33% out = 54
Industrial Warehouse - ITE Code ISO
assume 871,000 SF
AM Peak:
Ln(T) = 0.707 Ln(871) + 1.148
Ln(T) = 5.9341
T = 378
82% in = 310
18% out = 68
PM Peak:
Ln(T) = 0.754 Ln(871) + 0.826
Ln(T) = 5.9303
T = 376
24%in = 90
76% out = 286
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
M ---
t-
1
1
-1
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
J
]
- j
.J
I
I
J
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Site A2:
assume Shopping Center - ITE Code 820 (See attached land use description)
assume 87,120 SF
AM Peak: Ln(T) = 0.596 Ln(87.12) + 2.329
Ln(T) = 4.9915
T = 147
61% in = 90
39% out = 57
PM Peak: Ln(T) = 0.660 Ln(87.l2) + 3.403
Ln(T) = 6.3514
T = 573
48% in = 275
52% out = 298
40% pass-by in PM Peak
Site A3:
assume Free-Standing Discount Superstore - ITE Code 813
assume 217,800 SF
AM Peak: T = 1.84(217.8)
T = 401
51% in = 205
49% out = 196
PM Peak: T = 3.82 (217.8)
T = 832
49% in = 408
51% out = 424
Trip Distribution for Sites AI, A2, and A3:
55% to/from the south
45% to/from the north
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A.~ 0
]
J
b
I
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
U
o
0\
01
OJ
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Site B: Home Improvement Superstore - ITE Code 862
127,000 SF
AM Peak: T = 1.48 (127)
T = 188
54% in = 102
46% out = 86
PM Peak: T = 2.87 (127)
T = 364
47% in = 171
53% out = 193
48% pass-by in PM Peak
Trip Distribution: 65% to/from the south
35% to/from the north
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
I4e _I
: I ~..- - ~
'-- i...-- ~
II
, I
I
Ii Analyst ~~'\l"2-
Date 'D -l...-O~
!j
-==:J-==:J-==:J-==:J-==:J-==:Jr=:Jr=:J-==:J-==:J-==:J-==:J-==:J-==:J-==:J,---rr--lrl.----r
i'
I
5!
"0
G)
CD
:J
(1)
a
o
:J
::c
~
C"
8
^
9
~
~
"l
.
=i
m
...
o
Co)
---- -
--
-..;-
MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT
TRIP GENERATION
AND INTERNAL CAPTURE SUMMARY
LAND USE A ~~~
ITE LU Code 1. '?-C'-t
Size \~~
Total
Name of Dvlpt
Time Period
V~an \h,~
1>~ ~'L
Exit to External
I I
I
Enter from Extemal
Enter
Exit
Total
%
1~lql
Demand
4
Salanced
ITE LU Code \
ITE LU Code ,\("'\ Size ~.." ~ ~t= EnllJr from Extemat
\ n I ~C'\{') ~ Demand SalatlC8d Demand I I
Exit to Extemal Size I~\%I \\ II L l~ Internal External
I I Total
Total Inlernal External
~~ Enter
Enter
~ ~I 1[00] Exit I
Exit
Total Exit to Extemal
T alai Demand Salanced Demand
Enter from Extemal %
% 21)0
Enter
Exit
Total
Single-Use Trip Gen. Est.
Net External Trips for Multi-Use Development
LAND USE A LAND USE B LAND USE C
~~
'lo~
10\
TOTAL
Source: K.ku Assocl.lea, Inc.
~,'2.
INTERNAL CAPTURE
c
o
o
I
U
6
6
o
o
o
o
o
D
1,0
I
D
I
o
D
,0
o
d
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Res Output - Scenario I
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
~~ _IS-
t-
1
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/05/03
period: AM -Peak - Scenario 1
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Existing 2003
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
Street
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R 1 L T R I L T R
1 I I I
No. Lanes I 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L TR IL T R 1 L T R I L T R
Volume 110 24 15 1166 79 32 144 238 43 178 483 49
Lane width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 2 I 3 1 4 I 5
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 32.0 3.0 30.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
I All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Apprl Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
, j Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) vlc glC Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
I L 406 1016 0.03 0.40 14.6 B
TR 720 1801 0.07 0.40 14.8 B 14.8 B
Westbound
L 546 1364 0.40 0.40 17.7 B
T 760 1900 0.13 0.40 15.2 B 16.7 B
R 627 1568 0.06 0.40 14.8 B
Northbound
L 305 1770 0.18 0.46 12.9 B
T 1242 3312 0.23 0.38 17.2 B 16.5 B
R 541 1442 0.10 0.38 16.3 B
Southbound
L 438 1752 0.23 0.46 12.8 B
T 1327 3539 0.44 0.38 18.9 B 17.9 B
R 582 1553 0.10 0.38 16.3 B
Intersection Delay = 17.1 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B
J
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~C\ 0
b
b
1
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
I
I
, 0
,0
o
d
o
o
o
o
o
~
HCS2000: signalized Intersections Release 4.1C
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
period: PM Peak - Scenario 1
project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Existing, 2003
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
Street
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
1 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I southbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
I 1 I I
No. Lanes I 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 I 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L TR I L T R I L T R I L T R
Volume 152 109 82 190 60 76 145 555 131 168 322 20
Lane width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 8 I 8 I 13 I 2
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
signal operations
Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 26.0 5.0 34.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr / Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 411 1264 0.17 0.32 19.5 B
TR 554 1705 0.39 0.32 21.4 C 20.9 C
Westbound
L 344 1060 0.35 0.32 21.2 C
T 600 1845 0.13 0.32 19.2 B 20.1 C
R 525 1615 0.17 0.32 19.5 B
Northbound
L 448 1626 0.13 0.54 9.3 A
T 1475 3471 0.38 0.43 16.0 B 15.2 B
R 660 1553 0.19 0.43 14.5 B
southbound
L 403 1752 0.23 0.54 9.9 A
T 1448 3406 0.29 0.43 15.2 B 14.2 B
R 572 1346 0.04 0.43 13.5 B
Intersection Delay = 16.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B
A\O _Ill-
t-
I
1
1
j
I
: 1
J
J
]
,J
J
1---- n ---- -
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/05/03
period: AM -Peak - Scenario 1
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Existing, 2003
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound I Northbound
IL T R IL T R
I I
1 I 211 I 221
R IL T R IL T R
49 164 240 28 155 235 43
12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
5 1 3 I 4
I Southbound
I L T R
I
I 1 2 1
I L T R
150 464 148
112.0 12.0 12.0
I 15
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
1 Eastbound
I L T R
I
1
1 L
154
112.0
I
1
T
148
12.0
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NB Left A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds 1 Peds
WB Left A I SB Left A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds 1 Peds
NB Right I EB Right A
SB Right I WB Right A
Green 10.0 19.0 9.0 24.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 221
T 447
R 641
Westbound
L 429
T 451
R 666
Northbound
L 368
T 959
R 461
Southbound
L 192 1703
T 1022 3406
R 480 1599
Intersection Delay
0.13 32.8
0.24 26.4
0.41 14.4
C
C 25.8
B
1770
1881
1553
0.33
0.41
0.08
C
0.13 31.6
0.24 33.2
0.41 14.1
C
C 31.5
B
3433
1900
1615
0.20
0.71
0.05
C
0.11 32.5
0.30 21.7
0.30 20.4
C
C 23.5
C
3273
3195
1538
0.20
0.30
0.11
C
0.11 33.8
0.30 23.6
0.30 22.4
(sec/veh)
C
C 24.2
C
Intersection
0.33
0.51
0.36
= 26.0
C
LOS
C
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
t\\\ 0
.~-
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
:0
o
d
d
d
o
d
U
o
o
o
HCS2000: signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
Period: PM -Peak - Scenario 1
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Existing 2003
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
Street
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
I I I I
No. Lanes I 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 I 2 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
Volume 1169 250 32 150 156 50 1159 620 85 123 263 72
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol 1 3 I 5 I 9 I 7
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right A
SB Right WB Right A
Green 14 .0 17.0 9.0 22.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 316 1805 0.54 0.17 32.1 C
T 404 1900 0.70 0.21 34.4 C 32.1 C
R 626 1615 0.06 0.39 15.4 B
Westbound
L 557 3183 0.11 0.17 27.8 C
T 400 1881 0.42 0.21 28.0 C 25.4 C
R 613 1583 0.09 0.39 15.6 B
Northbound
L 394 3502 0.44 0.11 33.9 C
T 955 3471 0.69 0.28 28.1 C 28.7 C
R 444 1615 0.21 0.28 22.5 C
southbound
L 195 1736 0.16 0.11 32.5 C
T 937 3406 0.34 0.28 23.4 C 23.9 C
R 419 1524 0.19 0.28 22.4 C
Intersection Delay = 28.1 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C
ill-
~ \2.. -
r-
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
j
j
. j
J
HCS Output - Scenario II
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
r----~_._-~~-.---. --------- "..-- -- --- -
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~\~O
b
b
'1
D
b
o
D
D
D
U
o
o
o
.0
u
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
period: AM Peak - Scenario 2
project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
Elw st: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex. + Bkgrnd + proposed
#0300.48.223
Nls st: Michigan Road (US 421)
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane width
RTOR Vol
I Eastbound
I L T R
1
I 1 1 0
1 L TR
116 29 18
112.0 12.0
I 2
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound I Northbound
\L T R IL T R
I I
I 111 I 121
IL T R IL T R
1202 96 51 154 381 52
112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
I 5 I 5
I Southbound
I L T R
I
I 1 2 1
I L T R
1102 629 64
112.0 12.0 12.0
I 6
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 32.0 3.0 30.0
Yellow 3 .0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2 .0 0 . 0 2 .0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Apprl Lane 'Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) vlc g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 398
TR 720
996
1800
0.05
0.08
0.40
0.40
14.8
14.9
B
B
14.9 B
Westbound
L 540 1350 0.50 0.40 18.7 B
T 760 1900 0.15 0.40 15.4 B 17.4 B
R 627 1568 0.09 0.40 15.0 B
Northbound
L 233 1770 0.29 0.46 14.1 B
T 1242 3312 0.37 0.38 18.3 B 17.6 B
R 541 1442 0.12 0.38 16.4 B
Southbound
L 361 1752 0.36 0.46 16.2 B
T 1327 3539 0.57 0.38 20.5 C 19.6 B
R 582 1553 0.13 0.38 16.5 B
Intersection Delay = 18.4 ( sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B
~ _a
l
1
1
1
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
period: PM Peak - Scenario 2
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound I Northbound
I L T R 1 L T R
1 1
I 111 I 121
IL T RIL T R
1110 73 101 155 737 160
112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
I 10 I 16
1 Southbound
I L T R
I
1 1 2 1
I L T R
1105 497 30
112.0 12.0 12.0
I 3
I Eastbound
I L T R
I
1 1 1 0
1 L TR
169 133 100
112.0 12.0
I 10
1
. }
1
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left A 1 NB Left A A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
WB Left A I SB Left A A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A 1 Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right
SB Right 1 WB Right
Green 26.0 5.0 34.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
, I
I
I
I
Eastbound
L 404
TR 554
0.23
0.48
0.32
0.32
20.0- B
22.3 C
1244
1705
21.7
C
Westbound
L 303
T 600
R 525
Northbound
L 343
T 1475
R 660
Southbound
L 321 1752
T 1448 3406
R 572 1346
Intersection Delay
0.49
0.16
0.23
0.32 22.9 C
0.32 19.4 B
0.32 19.9 B
0.54 10.0+ B
0.43 17.2 B
0.43 14.8 B
932
1845
1615
21. 0 C
I
1
..J
J
0.21
0.51
0.23
1626
3471
1553
16.3 B
0.44
0.44
0.06
= 17.5
o . 54 11 . 6 B
0.43 16.5 B 15.5 B
0.43 13.6 B
(sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B
,- -~----- - --- ---
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~5 0
\-
u
b
I
o
o
!
o
o
1
U
D
o
d
d
d
U
o
o
01
0\
OJ
OJ
HCS2000: unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: J. pyrz
Agency/Co.: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed: 03/07/03
Analysis Time Period: AM Peak - Scenario 2
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. CUstomary
Analysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + proposed
project ID: pittman Partners TIS, #0300.48.223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3 4
T R L
Southbound
5 6
T R
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
upstream Signal?
373
0.90
414
107
0.90
118
87 724
0.90 0.90
96 804
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
No
2 1
T R
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
51 0 41
0.90 0.90 0.90
56 0 45
2 0 2
0
o
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
No
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
1 1
L T
1
R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane config L L T R
v (vph) 96 56 0 45
C(m) (vph) 1032 215 127 799
v/c 0.09 0.26 0.00 0.06
95% queue length 0.31 1.01 0.00 0.18
Control Delay 8.8 27.5 33.3 9.8
LOS A D D A
Approach Delay 19.6
Approach LOS C
~\~ _A
t-
1
.1
.J
,~----
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c
0
D
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~\1 0
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/Co.: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed: 03-07-03
Analysis Time period: PM Peak - Scenario 2
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + Proposed
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS - #0300.48.223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
6
R
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3 4
T R L
Southbound
5
T
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
944
0.90
1048
74
0.90
82
60 461
0.90 0.90
66 512
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
No
2 1
T R
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
132 0 108
0.90 0.90 0.90
146 0 120
2 0 2
0
o
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
No
1 1
L T
1
R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Config L L T R
v (vph) 66 146 0 120
C(m) (vph) 614 111 84 498
vlc 0.11 1.32 0.00 0.24
95% queue length 0.36 9.90 0.00 0.93
Control Delay 11.6 264.0 47.9 14.5
LOS B F E B
Approach Delay 151.5
Approach LOS F
b
b
o
o
u
o
1
U
o
o
D
D
U
o
D
o
U
o
o
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
period: AM Peak - Scenario 2
project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
Street
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
1 L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
I I I I
No. Lanes I 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 I 2 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
Volume 166 180 67 \88 293 34 174 315 57 161 636 180
Lane width 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 7 I 3 I 6 I 18
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right A
SB Right WB Right A
Green 10.0 19.0 9.0 24.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 221 1770 0.40 0.13 33.4 C
T 447 1881 0.50 0.24 27.3 C 26.3 C
R 641 1553 0.11 0.41 14.6 B
Westbound
L 429 3433 0.27 0.13 32.1 C
T 451 1900 0.87 0.24 48.4 D 42.3 D
R 666 1615 0.06 0.41 14.2 B
Northbound
L 368 3273 0.27 0.11 32.9 C
T 959 3195 0.40 0.30 22.6 C 24.2 C
R 461 1538 0.14 0.30 20.6 C
Southbound
L 192 1703 0.41 0.11 34.4 C
T 1022 3406 0.70 0.30 27.0 C 26.8 C
R 480 1599 0.44 0.30 23.2 C
Intersection Delay = 29.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C
~\~ _Ill-
l
1
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
Period: PM Peak - Scenario 2
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
1
1
T
305
12.0
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound I Northbound
IL T R IL T R
I I
1 1211 1221
R IL T R IL T R
45 170 190 61 1213 834 115
12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
5 I 6 I 12
I Southbound
I L T R
1
I 1 2 1
1 L T R
128 366 88
112.0 12.0 12.0
1 9
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane width
RTOR Vol
1 Eastbound
1 L T R
I
1
I L
1206
112.0
I
I
1
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NB Left A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A 1 Right A
Peds I Peds
WB Left A 1 SB Left A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A 1 Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right A
SB Right 1 WB Right A
Green 14.0 17.0 9.0 22.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
"I
j
1
,I
]
.J
J
I
Eastbound
L 316
T 404
R 626
Westbound
L 557
T 400
R 613
Northbound
L 394
T 955
R 444
Southbound
L 195 1736
T 937 3406
R 419 1524
Intersection Delay
0.66
0.85
0.08
0.17
0.21
0.39
36.1 D
48.2 D
15.6 B
1805
1900
1615
41.2
D
28.1 C
28.9 C
15.8 B
0.15
0.51
0.12
0.17
0.21
0.39
3183
1881
1583
26.1
C
0.59
0.93
0.28
0.11
0.28
0.28
36.1 D
47.3 D
23.2 C
3502
3471
1615
42.7
D
0.11 32.7 C
0.28 24.5 C 24.7
0.28 22.7 C
(sec/veh) Intersection
0.19
0.47
0.23
= 36.6
C
J
J
LOS
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
t\\'\ 0
b
b
o
o
o
D
U
o
o
o
.0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
HCS OUtput - Scenario III
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
A'20 _IS
r-
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
1
1
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/09/03
period: AM Peak - Scenario 3
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
I 1 I I
I 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 I 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
I L TR I L T R I L T R I L T R
128 31 55 1204 105 71 1215 649 55 1127 845 88
112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 \12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
I 6 I 7 I 6 1 9
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 28.0 10.0 27.0
Yellow 3 .0 4 . 0 4 . 0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 345
TR 604
17.7
18.1
B
B
0.35
0.35
0.11
0.18
986
1725
18.0
B
Westbound
L 453 1295 0.60 0.35 23.6 C
T 665 1900 0.19 0.35 18.3 B 21.3 C
R 549 1568 0.15 0.35 17.9 B
Northbound
L 314 1770 0.87 0.51 44.4 D
T 1118 3312 0.70 0.34 25.0 C 29.3 C
R 487 1442 0.13 0.34 18.5 B
Southbound
L 345 1752 0.47 0.51 13.6 B
T 1194 3539 0.85 0.34 31.2 C 28.0 C
j R 524 1553 0.20 0.34 19.0 B
Intersection Delay = 26.9 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
...J
'--~._-,- --.-- - -_._---~----
- ~-- ~ ~~~-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A2.\ 0
o
b
U
o
o
D
1
U
D
'0
.D
'0
o
d
U
o
o
o
u
o
HCS2000: signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/09/03
period: PM Peak - Scenario 3
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane width
RTOR Vol
I Eastbound
I L T R
I
III 0
IL TR
194 141 248
112.0 12.0
I 12
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound I Northbound
IL T R \L T R
I I
1111112 1
\L T RIL T R
1113 76 136 1104 1182 163
112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
I 14 1 16
I Southbound
1 L T R
I
I 1 2 1
I L T R
1156 905 67
112.0 12.0 12.0
1 7
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 29.0 7.0 29.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 450
TR 583
1240
1607
0.28
0.78
0.36
0.36
18.4
29.6
B
C
27.2
C
Westbound
L 198 546 0.76 0.36 40.1 D
T 669 1845 0.15 0.36 17.3 B 26.0 C
R 585 1615 0.28 0.36 18.3 B
Northbound
L 232 1626 0.60 0.50 20.2 C
T 1258 3471 0.96 0.36 48.5 D 42.8 D
R 563 1553 0.27 0.36 18.3 B
Southbound
L 245 1752 0.85 0.50 45.6 D
T 1235 3406 0.94 0.36 42.2 D 41. 3 D
R 488 1346 0.16 0.36 17.4 B
Intersection Delay = 38.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D
AZ1.. _a-
,-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~1.~ 0
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/Co.: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed: 03/09/03
Analysis Time Period: AM Peak - Scenario 3
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Proposed
Project ID: Pittman Partners TIS, #0300.48.223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25
I
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3 4
T R L
6
R
Southbound
5
T
Volume 570 107
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 633 118
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized? No
Lanes 2 1
Configuration T R
Upstream Signal? No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound
Movement 7 8 9
L T R
Volume 51 0 41
Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 56 0 45
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2
Percent Grade (%) 0
.J Median Storage 1
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized? No
Lanes 1 1 1
Configuration L T R
87 933
0.90 0.90
96 1036
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
o
Approach
Movement
Lane Config
Delay,
NB
1
Length, and Level of
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Queue
SB
4
L
I
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
v/e
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
96
854
0.11
0.38
9.7
A
56
258
0.22
0.81
22.8
C
o
165
0.00
0.00
26.8
D
17.4
C
J
Service
Eastbound
10 11
12
45
680
0.07
0.21
10.7
B
J
tJ
tJ
b
[]
D
U
U
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/Co.: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed: 03-09-03
Analysis Time Period: PM Peak - Scenario 3
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + vcnt + proposed
project ID: pittman Partners TIS - #0300.48.223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs):
0.25
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3 4
T R L
6
R
southbound
5
T
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
1330
0.90
1477
74
0.90
82
60 812
0.90 0.90
66 902
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
No
2 1
T R
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
132 0 108
0.90 0.90 0.90
146 0 120
2 0 2
0
o
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
configuration
No
1 1
L T
1
R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane config L L T R
v (vph) 66 146 0 120
C(m) (vph) 420 40 24 360
v/c 0.16 3.65 0.00 0.33
95% queue length 0.55 16.56 0.00 1.43
Control Delay 15.2 155.0 19.9
LOS C F F C
Approach Delay 777.8
Approach LOS F
AtA -~
r
J
I
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/09/03
period: AM Peak - Scenario 3
Project ID: Pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vent + Proposed
#0300.48.223
Nls St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
I I I I
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 I 2 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
Volume 166 180 106 1118 293 34 1113 460 70 161 776 180
Lane width 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 11 I 3 I 7 I 18
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
l Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A
Thru A Thru A
1 Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A
1 Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right A
1 SB Right WB Right A
Green 10.0 19.0 9.0 24.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
I Lane Group Flow Rate
I Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
,. .,
Eastbound
L 221 1770 0.40 0.13 33.4 C
T 447 1881 0.50 0.24 27.3 C 25.3 C
R 641 1553 0.18 0.41 15.1 B
Westbound
L 429 3433 0.37 0.13 32.6 C
T 451 1900 0.87 0.24 48.4 D 41.8 D
R 666 1615 0.06 0.41 14.2 B
Northbound
L 368 3273 0.41 0.11 33.8 C
T 959 3195 0.58 0.30 24.7 C 26.0 C
R 461 1538 0.18 0.30 20.9 C
Southbound
L 192 1703 0.41 0.11 34.4 C
T 1022 3406 0.85 0.30 34.0 C 32.1 C
. J R 480 1599 0.44 0.30 23.2 C
Intersection Delay = 31.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
J
---^~ -- - .--.-.-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Al~ 0
~-
D
I,
U
D
o
D
o
]
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
ency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
De: 03/09/03
per'od: PM Peak - Scenario 3
proj t ID: Pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt
#0300.48.223
N/S st: Michigan Road
Street
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound I Northbound I
I 1 L T R 1 L T R
I I I I
No. Lanes I I 2 1 1 I 2 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L I L T R I L I L T R
Volume 1206 1129 190 61 1304 128 622 88
Lane width 112.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol 1 I 6 I I 9
Duration 1.00 Type: All other
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Le A
Thru Tru A j
Right ight A
Peds Peds Q\~cJ
WB Left A Left A ~ yO~
Thru A Thru A ~~
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right Right A
SB Right Right A
Green 14.0 17.0 9.0 22.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersecti urmnary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat e Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) g/C Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 316 0.66 0.17 36.1
T 404 0.85 0.21 48.2 D
R 626 0.23 0,39 16.7
Westbound
L 557 0.28 0.17 28.9 C
T 400 0.51 0.21 28.9 C C
R 613 0.12 0.39 15.8 B
Northbound
L 394 3502 0.84 0.11 51.4 D
T 955 3471 1.31 0.28 591. 0 F 436.7
R 444 1615 0.36 0.28 23.8 C
Southbound
L 5 1736 0.19 0.11 32.7 C
T 37 3406 0.80 0.28 32.1 C 31.1 C
R 419 1524 0.23 0.28 22.7 C
Intersection Delay = 220.0 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F
A 2'-0 _e.
r
1
1
1
1
I
j
1
I
I
I
, I
1
I
, I
, I
1
,J torre-e:Ted 7-11..-05
HCS2000'" DETAilED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Analyst J. Pyrz Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 03109/03 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak - Scenario 3 Analysis Year Ex + Bkgmd + Vcnt +
Proposed
Project 10 Pittman Partners TiS,
#0300.48.223
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1
Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 206 305 121 129 190 61 304 1174 145 28 622 88
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 10 1 2 0 4 0 4 6 6
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.89 0.75 0.83 0.93 0.78 0.92 0.94 0.82 0.75 0.83 0.82
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 12 0 6 0 15 0 9
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Exe!. Left Thru & RT 07 08
G = 12.0 G = 18.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G = 33.0 G= G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 Y= y= Y= 4 y= 6 Y= Y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 1.00 Cvcle Length, C = 90.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Deiay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 210 343 145 155 204 71 330 1249 159 37 749 96
Lane group capacity, c 241 380 574 425 376 563 351 1275 592 174 1251 559
v/c ratio, X 0.87 0.90 0.25 0.36 0.54 0.13 0.94 0.98 0.27 0.21 0.60 0.17
Total green ratio, g/C 0.13 0.20 0.36 0.13 0.20 0.36 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.37 0.37
Uniform delay, d1 38.2 35.1 20.5 35.5 32.3 19.6 40.2 28.2 20.0 37.2 23.1 19.3
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A-2.~ A 0
~
10
o
o
Delay calibration, k 0.40 0.42 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.45 0.48 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11
Incremental delay, d2 35.1 31.6 0.2 0.5 1.6 0.1 49.9 34.1 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.1
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 73.4 66.7 20.8 36.1 33.9 19.7 90.2 62.2 20.3 37.9 23.9 19.4
Lane group LOS E E C D C B F E C D C B
Approach delay 59.2 32.3 63.7 24.0
Approach LOS E C E C
Intersection delay 49.9 Xc = 0.94 Intersection LOS D
Copyright Q 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1e
I
D HCS2000™
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
Dc orre.c..l<.d 7-( 2,...-05
_fill.
k-~~a
r-
1
I
]
1
I
"1
I
1
1
1
.1
J
1
I
I
I
J
J
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
HCS OUtput - Scenario IV
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
All 0
.-
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
:0
.0
o
o
D
D
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/10/03
period: AM Peak - Scenario 4
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Zoned
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane width
RTOR Vol
1 Eastbound
1 L T R
I
111 0
I L TR
124 31 55
112.0 12.0
I 6
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
1 westbound I Northbound
IL T R IL T R
I I
1111 1121
\L T RIL T R
1204 105 63 \215 567 55
112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
I 6 I 6
1 southbound
I L T R
I
I 1 2 1
I L T R
\131 832 84
112.0 12.0 12.0
I 8
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal operations
phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 28.0 10.0 27.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 345
TR 604
986
1725
0.09
0.18
0.35
0.35
17.6
18.1
B
B
18.0
B
westbound
L 453 1295 0.60 0.35 23.6 C
T 665 1900 0.19 0.35 18.3 B 21.3 C
R 549 1568 0.13 0.35 17.8 B
Northbound
L 314 1770 0.87 0.51 44.3 D
T 1118 3312 0.61 0.34 23.1 C 28.5 C
R 487 1442 0.13 0.34 18.5 B
Southbound
L 380 1752 0.44 0.51 12.8 B
T 1194 3539 0.84 0.34 30.3 C 27.1 C
R 524 1553 0.19 0.34 19.0 B
Intersection Delay = 26.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
A2a -=-
r
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/10/03
Period: PM -Peak - Scenario 4
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vent + Zoned
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound
\ L T R I L T R 1 L T R I L T R
I I I I
No. Lanes I 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 I 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L TR I L T R I L T R I L T R
Volume 188 141 248 1113 76 141 1104 1153 163 1141 818 61
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 \12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol 1 12 1 14 I 16 I 6
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
1 Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
1 Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A A
1 Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
I SB Right WB Right
Green 29.0 7.0 29.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 450 1240 0.26 0.36 18.3 B
TR 583 1607 0.78 0.36 29.6 C 27.3 C
Westbound
L 198 546 0.76 0.36 40.1 D
T 669 1845 0.15 0.36 17.3 B 25.9 C
R 585 1615 0.29 0.36 18.4 B
Northbound
L 232 1626 0.60 0.50 19.3 B
T 1258 3471 0.94 0.36 41.0 D 36.6 D
j R 563 1553 0.27 0.36 18.3 B
Southbound
L 245 1752 0.77 0.50 31.4 C
T 1235 3406 0.85 0.36 29.6 C 29.2 C
..J R 488 1346 0.15 0.36 17.3 B
Intersection Delay = 31.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
J
'-~_.- ------ n _ .. _ _ . - - - -
------- - - ------~--
[
[
C
C
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A 2..<1 0
~-
o
b
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000: unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/Co.: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed: 03/10/03
Analysis Time Period: AM Peak - Scenario 4
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
units: U. S. CUstomary
Analysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Zoned
project ID: pittman Partners TIS, #0300.48.223
East/West Street: site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs):
0.25
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3 4
T R L
6
R
Southbound
5
T
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized?
Lanes
configuration
upstream Signal?
570
0.90
633
13
0.90
14
4 933
0.90 0.90
4 1036
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
No
2 1
T R
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
38 0 12
0.90 0.90 0.90
42 0 13
2 0 2
0
o
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
Flared Approach:
1
Exists?
Storage
No
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
1 1 1
L T R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane config L L T R
v (vph) 4 42 0 13
C(m) (vph) 934 323 212 680
v/c 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.02
95% queue length 0.01 0.44 0.00 0.06
Control Delay 8.9 17.8 22.0 10.4
LOS A C C B
Approach Delay 16.1
Approach LOS C
J:\~ _1:1-
r-
[
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c
[
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/Co.: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed: 03-10-03
Analysis Time period: PM Peak - Scenario 4
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Zoned
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS - #0300.48.223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs):
[
[
[
0.25
c
I
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and
Northbound
2
T
Adjustments
1330
0.90
1477
44
0.90
48
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
14 812
0.90 0.90
15 902
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
o
3
R
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
o
No
o
2 1
T R
No
o
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
24 0 8
0.90 0.90 0.90
26 0 8
2 0 2
0
o
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
o
o
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
No
o
1 1
L T
1
R
o
j
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Config L L T R
v (vph) 15 26 0 8
C(m) (vph) 433 54 32 360
v/c 0.03 0.48 0.00 0.02
95% queue length 0.11 1. 83 0.00 0.07
Control Delay 13.6 122.5 117.5 15.2
LOS B F F C
Approach Delay 97.3
Approach LOS F
o
o
o
. J
o
J
A~\ 0
b
b
b
b
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
.0
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/10/03
Period: AM Peak - Scenario 4
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W st: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Zoned
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 L T R
I 1 I I
No. Lanes I 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 I 2 2 1 1 1 2 1
LGConfig I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
Volume 166 180 100 1109 293 34 1109 439 66 161 708 180
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 10 I 3 I 7 1 18
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right A
SB Right WB Right A
Green 10.0 19.0 9.0 24.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr / Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 221 1770 0.40 0.13 33.4 C
T 447 1881 0.50 0.24 27.3 C 25.4 C
R 641 1553 0.17 0.41 15.0 B
Westbound
L 429 3433 0.34 0.13 32.4 C
T 451 1900 0.87 0.24 48.4 D 41.9 D
R 666 1615 0.06 0.41 14.2 B
Northbound
L 368 3273 0.39 0.11 33.7 C
T 959 3195 0.56 0.30 24.3 C 25.7 C
R 461 1538 0.17 0.30 20.8 C
Southbound
L 192 1703 0.41 0.11 34.4 C
T 1022 3406 0.78 0.30 29.6 C 28.7 C
R 480 1599 0.44 0.30 23.2 C
Intersection Delay = 30.1 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C
A,:,2 _D-
t-
I
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Anal st: J. Pyrz
Agenc : Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/10/03
period: Mpeak - Scenario 4
Project I : pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 11 th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116 Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vc + Zoned
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan 421)
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane width
RTOR Vol
I
I
1
I
1 L
1206
112.0
I
Duration 1. 00
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound I I Southbound
I L T R I I L T R
1 I I
I 2 1 1 I 2 1 I 1 2 1
I L T R I L R I L T R
1121 190 61 1286 135 128 587 88
112.0 12.0 12.0 112. 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
I 6 I 14 I 9
Phase Combination 1
EB Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
WB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
NB Right
SB Right
Green
Yellow
All Red
Appr/
Lane
Grp
Lane
Group
Capacity
A
14.0
3.0
0.0
a Type: All
Signal Opera
3 4
A
A
A
A
SB
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
Right
Int rsection Performance S
Adj Sat Ratios
Flo Rate
(s) v/c g/C
5 6 7 8
A
A rJ-~
A
A ~~ P
A
A ~ f\10J
A
A
9.0 22.0
4.0 4.0
0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 secs
ary
Group Approach
Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 316 1805 0.66 0.17 36.1 D
T 404 1900 0.85 0.21 48.2 D D
R 626 1615 0.23 0.39 16.6 B
Westbound
L 557 3183 0.26 0.17 28.8 C
T 400 1881 0.51 0.21 28.9 C
R 61 1583 0.12 0.39 15.8 B
Northbound
L 3 4 3502 0.79 0.11 45.7 D
.T 55 3471 1.23 0.28 447.9 F 332.7 F
R 44 1615 0.33 0.28 23.6 C
Southbound
L 195 1736 0.19 0.11 32.7 C
T 937 3406 0.75 0.28 30.1 C 29.4 C
R 419 1524 0.23 0.28 22.7 C
Intersection Delay = 168.7 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS F
.J
"J
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~~O
------,
lo-
W
b
t
D
o
o
D
Q
D
D
D
o
d
o
o
o
o
o
o corre~
HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT
General Information Slte/nfonnatlon
Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Analyst J. Pyrz Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 03110/03 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak - Scenario 4 Analysis Year Ex + Bkgmd + Vent + Zoned
Project 10 Pittman Partners TIS,
#0300.48.223
Volume and Timing InIJut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1
Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 206 305 118 121 190 61 286 1102 135 28 587 88
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 -0 0 10 1 2 0 4 0 4 6 6
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.89 0.75 0.83 0.93 0.78 0.92 0.94 0.82 0.75 0.83 0.82
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped I Bike I RTOR volumes 0 12 0 6 0 14 0 9
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking I Grade I Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, Gp
Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08
G = 12.0 G = 19.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G = 32.0 G= G=
Timing Y= 3 Y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 6 Y= y=
Duration of Analvsis, T = 1.00 Cvcle Lenath, C = 90.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 210 343 141 146 204 71 311 1172 148 37 707 96
Lane group capacity, c 241 401 592 425 397 580 351 1237 574 174 1214 542
vIe ratio, X 0.87 0.86 0.24 0.34 0.51 0.12 0..89 0.95 0.26. 0.21 0.58 0.18
Total green ratio, g/C 0.13 0.21 0.37 0.13 0.21 0.37 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.36 0.36
Uniform delay, d1 38.2 34.2 19.8 35.4 31.4 18.9 40.0 28.2 20.6 37.2 23.6 19.9
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Delay calibration, k 0.40 0.39 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.41 0.46 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11
7-( 2..-05
A--~:3
_Ill.
D
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
APPENDIX B
Site Plan................................................................................................................................ .B-l
Highwal Capacity Software Ou~ut, Base Year Conditions
106 Street and Andrade Dnve ... ............... ....... ...... ........ ............................................... .B- 3
Trip Generation. .................................... ...... ........... .... ..... ............. .... ............. ........................ .B-5
Highway Capacity Software Output, Peak Hours, Scenario B
Michigan Road and 116th Street............ ..... ...... ........... .................................................... .B-8
Michigan Road and III th St/Site Drive .........................................................................B-12
Michigan Road and 111 th St/Site Drive alternate lane configuration ............................B-14
Michigan Road and 106th Street................... .............. ................... ........ ..... .......... ......... .B-18
106th Street and Andrade Drive ........................ ........ .................... ......... .................... ....B-22
Highway Capacity Software Output, Peak Hours, Scenario C
Michigan Road and 116th Street.... ......... ....................................................................... .B-24
Michigan Road and 111 th St./Site Drive ........................................................................B-28
Michigan Road and 111 th St/Site Drive alternate lane configuration ............................B-32
Michigan Road and 106th Street. ........ ................... ....................................................... ..B- 36
1 o 6th Street and Andrade Drive.. ....... ................. ...... .......... .......................................... .B-40
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis.. ................. ........ ...... ........ ........................ ...... .................. .B-42
t:::::::Jt:::::::J~r.=Jr:=JCJt:=Jr::=JCJr::=Jr::=Jr:=Jr::=Jt:::::::Jt::::=:Jt::::=:Jr::=JL:Jr:=J
~
~
~
l
~
~
~
.r
1
~
!
I
~
!
f
1
I
J
~
~
1
j
~
j
'Ii
~
;;
ttl ~
~ g
" i
"\
\
,.....,
o
w
o
z
W
f0-
X
W
'-"
w
>
0:::
o
w
o
<(
0:::
o
Z
<(
\
I
r--
I
I
I
Total Purchased Area =
Wal-Mart Tract =
Outlot Tracts =
CENTER ENtRY, CAAOEN RIOtT. tLE RlQtT CROSS U. (EXClUDINC n.E . CARDEN CENTER) .. 1711,459
GAOSS SF (INCWDlNG tLE BUT NOT GARDEN CENTER) .. 184,212
GROCERY FRONT CANCI"Y S.'. (NOT INa.uDED IN CROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE) .. 1,842
CN FRONT CANOPY S.f'. (MOT lNa..uoED IN llROSS SOUARE rOOf AGE) .. 1.250
I
I
II :
I :
I
II :
I
I :
I :
I
I :
I i
II \
II :
I :
I
22.7 ac. %
20,} ac. %
2.6 ac. %
----------
C-176-SGR-OR
SHIFTED DOCK
I
b
Site # 4400-00
Wal-Mart Supercenter
Zionsville, IN
------------
-:~~
I I
o 50 100 200
[!llj WEIHE ENGINEERS INC.
10505 NORTH COLLEGE A VENlJl!
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280
WWW.WE1HE.NET
317.846.6611
FAX317.llC3.0546
TOLL FREE 808.452.6408
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Highway Capacity Software Output
Base Year Conditions
Base Year Conditions contained in Appendix A:
. Michigan Road and 116th Street
. Michigan Road and Pittman site drive/East-West Street (Heritage/Wal-Mart site)
. Michigan Road and 106th Street
Base Year Conditions contained in Appendix B:
. Bennett Parkway and North-South Street (Heritage/Wal-Mart site)
. Bennett Parkway and Andrade Drive
. I06th Street and Andrade Drive
Highway Capacity Software Output
Scenario A
Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site
--See Appendix A
Edwards and Kelcey
B-2
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analvst 'Jill Palmer Intersection 106th & Andrade
Aaencv/Co. Edwards and Kelcey Jurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 9/2/2005 Analvsis Year 2005
Analvsis Time Period ~M Peak
Proiect Descriotion 060048003 Heritaae RDG
EastlWest Street: 106th Street North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 34 214 0 0 98 58
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 37 237 0 0 108 64
Proportion of heavy 0 0
. vehicles, P HV - - - -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
~olume (veh/h) 0 0 0 32 0 7
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 35 0 7
Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 12 0 9
vehicles, PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Control Delav. Queue Lenath. Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 37 42
Capacity, cm (vph) 1417 572
v/c ratio 0.03 0.07
Queue length (95%) 0.08 0.24
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 11.8
LOS A B
Approach delay (s/veh) - - 11.8
Approach LOS - - B
HCS2000™
Edwards and Kelcey
Copyright @ 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 f
B-3
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection 106th & Andrade
Agencv/Co. Edwards and Ke/cey Uurisdiction Zionsvil/e
Date Performed 9/212005 IIlAnalvsis Year 2005
Analysis Time Period PM Peak III
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritaae RDG
EastlWest Street: 106th Street North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 7 213 0 0 232 33
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 7 242 0 0 263 37
Proportion of heavy 0 0
~ehicles, P HV - - - -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
!Volume (veh/h) 0 9 0 73 0 25
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 82 0 28
Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 12 0 9
r"ehicles, P HV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Confiauration LR
Control Delav. Queue Lenath. Level of Service
pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
olume, v (vph) 7 110
Capacity, cm (vph) 1273 531
vlc ratio 0.01 0.21
Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.77
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 13.5
LOS A B
Approach delay (siveh) - - 13.5
Approach LOS - -- B
HCS2000™
Edwards and Kelcey
Copyright @ 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.lf
B-4
o
o
D
D
o
D
U
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Wal-Mart Site
Trip Generation
Discount Superstore, 176,000 SF- ITE Code 813
AM Peak:
PM Peak:
Pass-by Trips
Wal-Mart, ITE Code 823
Kite Site
T 1. 84(X)
T = 1.84(176)
T = 324 trips
51% in = 165
49% out 159
T 4.23(X) - 57.47
T = 4.23(176) - 57.47
T = 687
49% in = 337
51 % out = 350
PM Peak
= 28% x external trips
= 28% x 687
= 192 pass-by trips; 495 non-pass-by trips
Shopping Center, 99,215 SF- ITE Code 820
AM Peak:
PM Peak:
Ln(T) 0.60 Ln(X) + 2.29
Ln(T) = 0.60 Ln(99.215) + 2.29
T 156 trips
61 % in 95
39% out 61
Ln(T) 0.66 Ln(X) + 3.40
Ln(T) 0.66 Ln(99.215) + 3.40
T 623
48% in = 299
52% out = 324
Distribution: 40% north on Michigan Road, 5% west on 106th, 20% east on 106th,
35% south on Michigan Road
Edwards and Kelcey
B-5
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
REI Site
Industrial Park, 200,000 SF- ITE Code 130
PM Peak:
Ln(T) 0.77 Ln(X) + 1.09
Ln(T) = 0.60 Ln(200) + 2.29
T 176 trips
82% in 144
18% out 32
T 0.77 (X) + 42.11
T 0.77 (200) + 42.11
T 196 trips
21% in = 41
79% out 155
AM Peak:
Apartments, 200 units- ITE Code 220
AM Peak: T 0.49 (X) + 3.73
T = 0.49 (200) + 3.73
T = 102 trips
20% in = 20
80% out = 82
PM Peak: T = 0.55 (X) + 17.65
T = 0.55 (200) + 17.65
T 128 trips
65% in 83
35% out = 45
Distribution: 50% north on Bennett Parkway to Michigan Road; 50% south on
Bennett Parkway to 106th Street
Edwards and Kelcey
B-6
o
o
D
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsvi/le and Carmel, Indiana
Highway Capacity Software Output
Scenario B
Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Wal-Mart Site
Edwards and Kelcey
B-7
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
HCS2000™ DETAilED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Analyst Jill Palmer Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgmd + Pitt + Wal-
Mart
Proiect ID 060048017 Wal-Mart
Volume and Timino InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 66 180 70 93 293 34 82 347 63 61 676 180
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 1 4 2 0 0 7 13 5 6 6 1
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.85
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 18 0 9 0 13 0 44
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08
G = 10.0 G = 19.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G = 26.0 G= G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analvsis, T = 0.25 Cvcle LenQth, C = 82.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 78 212 61 109 345 29 96 408 59 72 760 160
Lane group capacity, c 216 436 625 419 440 650 360 1015 488 187 1082 507
v/c ratio, X 0.36 0.49 0.10 0.26 0.78 0.04 0.27 0.40 0.12 0.39 0.70 0.32
Total green ratio, g/C 0.12 0.23 0.40 0.12 0.23 0.40 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.32 0.32
Uniform delay, d1 33.1 27.3 15.2 32.6 29.6 14.9 33.5 21.9 19.9 33.9 24.6 21.2
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.972 0.972 1.000 0.972 0.972
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11
Edwards and Kelcey
B-8
Incremental delay, d2 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.3 9.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.3 2.1 0.4
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 34.1 28.1 15.3 33.0 38.6 14.9 33.9 21.6 19.4 35.2 26.0 21.0
Lane group LOS C C B C D B C C B 0 C C
Approach delay 27.2 35.9 23.4 25.9
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection delay 27.5 Xc = 0.63 Intersection LOS C
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
HCS2000™
Copyright lO 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.lf
Edwards and Kelcey
B-9
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Analyst Jill Palmer Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgmd + Pitt + Wa/-
Mart
Proiect ID 060048017 Wa/-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 206 305 52 80 190 61 223 908 133 28 420 88
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 10 1 2 0 4 0 4 6 6
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 12 0 15 0 34 0 22
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, Go
Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08
G = 14.0 G = 22.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G= 3.0 G = 27.0 G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 0 y= 6 y=
Duration of Analvsis, T = 0.25 Cvcle Length, C = 93.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 210 321 42 84 200 48 235 956 104 29 442 69
Lane group capacity, c 272 449 625 480 445 613 603 1122 521 168 991 442
v/c ratio, X 0.77 0.71 0.07 0.17 0.45 0.08 0.39 0.85 0.20 0.17 0.45 0.16
Total green ratio, g/C 0.15 0.24 0.39 0.15 0.24 0.39 0.17 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.29 0.29
Uniform delay, d1 38.0 32.6 17.9 34.5 30.3 18.0 34.2 29.4 22.8 38.6 26.9 24.5
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.967 0.967 1.000 0.993 0.993
Delay calibration, k 0.32 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Edwards and Kelcey
B-IO
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
Incremental delay, d2
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 25.1 24.3 3.2 26.2 25.2 25.8 14.8 16.9 15.6 12.4 20.6 14.9
Lane group LOS C C A C C C B B B B C B
Approach delay 13.4 25.9 16.4 19.5
Approach LOS B C B B
Intersection delay 18.4 Xc = 0.48 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright <9 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 f
Edwards and Kelcey
B-ll
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Rd and Site/111th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgmd + Pitt + Wa/-
Mart
Proiect ID 060048017 Wal-Mart
Volume and Timina Inout
EB WB NB 5B
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L LT R L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 46 8 81 51 9 41 85 373 107 87 724 48
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 1 4 2 0 0 7 13 5 6 6 1
Peak-hour factor, 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
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 20 0 10 0 26 0 12
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade I Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, Go
Phasing EB Only WB Only 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
G = 13.0 G = 12.0 G= G= G= 3.0 G = 25.0 G= G=
Timing Y= 4 Y= 5 y= y= Y= 4 Y= 6 Y= Y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 72.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 51 9 68 57 10 34 94 414 90 97 804 40
Lane group capacity, c 320 340 1100 295 317 269 206 1111 534 368 1185 555
vlc ratio, X 0.16 0.03 0.06 0.19 0.03 0.13 0.46 0.37 0.17 0.26 0.68 0.07
Total green ratio, g/C 0.18 0.18 0.71 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.44 0.35 0.35 0.44 0.35 0.35
Uniform delay, d1 24.9 24.3 3.2 25.8 25.1 25.5 13.2 17.6 16.3 12.0 20.1 15.7
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.946 0.946 1.000 0.946 0.946
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.6 0.1
Edwards and Kelcey
B-12
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
Incremental delay. d2
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 25.1 24.3 3.2 26.2 25.2 25.8 14.8 16.9 15.6 12.4 20.6 14.9
Lane group LOS C C A C C C B B B B C B
Approach delay 13.4 25.9 16.4 19.5
Approach LOS B C B B
Intersection delay 18.4 X = 0.48 Intersection LOS B
c
HCS2000™
Copyright ({:I 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4. If
Edwards and Kelcey
B-12
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Rd and Site/111th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgmd + Pitt + Wal-
Mart
Proiect 10 060048017 Wal-Mart
Volume and Tim/no InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L LT R L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 130 23 229 129 16 106 172 896 74 60 434 98
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 1 4 2 0 0 7 13 5 6 6 1
Peak-hour factor, 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
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped I Bike I RTOR volumes 0 56 0 26 0 18 0 24
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking I Grade I Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing EB Onlv WB Only 03 04 NB Onlv NS Perm 07 08
G = 12.0 G = 12.0 G= G= G= 7.0 G = 16.0 G= G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 6 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 1.00 Cycle Length, C = 67.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 144 26 192 143 18 89 191 996 62 67 482 82
Lane group capacity I c 317 337 440 317 340 289 354 1386 1056 123 815 811
v/c ratio, X 0.45 0.08 0.44 0.45 0.05 0.31 0.54 0.72 0.06 0.54 0.59 0.10
Total green ratio, g/C 0.18 0.18 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.43 0.43 0.69 0.24 0.24 0.51
Uniform delay, d1 24.6 22.9 19.6 24.6 22.8 23.9 12.8 15.6 3.4 22.3 22.6 8.6
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.857 0.310 1.000 1.000 0.755
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.28 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.11
1.0 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.6 1.7 1.9 0.0 5.0 1.2 0.1
Edwards and Kelcey
B-12
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Incremental delay I d2
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 25.6 23.0 20.3 25.6 22.9 24.5 14.4 15.3 1.1 27.4 23.8 6.5
Lane group LOS C C C C C C B B A C C A
Approach delay 22.6 25.0 14.4 21.9
Approach LOS C C B C
Intersection delay 18.6 Xc = 0.60 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright@ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.lf
Edwards and Kelcey
B-13
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
HCS2000™ DEl AILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Rd and Site/111th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt + Wal-
Mart
Proiect ID 060048017 Wal-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
Lane group L TR L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 46 8 81 51 9 41 85 373 107 87 724 48
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 1 4 2 0 0 7 13 5 6 6 1
Peak-hour factor, 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
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 8 0 10 0 27 0 12
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, Go
Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
G= 3.0 G = 16.0 G= G= G= 3.0 G = 28.0 G= G=
Timing y= 4 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 69.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 51 90 57 10 34 94 414 89 97 804 40
Lane group capacity, c 764 368 402 441 374 263 1299 825 438 1385 857
v/c ratio, X 0.07 0.24 0.14 0.02 0.09 0.36 0.32 0.11 0.22 0.58 0.05
Total green ratio, g/C 0.33 0.23 0.33 0.23 0.23 0.51 0.41 0.54 0.51 0.41 0.54
Uniform delay, d1 15.6 21.6 15.9 20.5 20.8 9.9 14.0 7.9 9.1 15.9 7.6
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.888 0.707 1.000 0.888 0.707
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11
0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0
Edwards and Kelcey
B-14
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Incremental delay, d2
Initial queue delay, da 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 15.6 21.9 16.1 20.5 20.9 10.7 12.6 5.6 9.3 14.8 5.4
Lane group LOS B C B C C B B A A B A
Approach delay 19.6 18.1 11.2 13.8
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection delay 13.7 Xc = 0.54 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright <0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 f
Edwards and Kelcey
B-15
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
iD
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
'0
o
o
HCS2000'" DETAilED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Rd and Site/111th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt + Wal-
Mart
Proiect 10 060048017 Wal-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L TR L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 130 23 229 129 16 106 172 896 74 60 434 98
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 1 4 2 0 0 7 13 5 6 6 1
Peak-hour factor, 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
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext9nsion of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1. 000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 23 0 26 0 18 0 24
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, Gp
Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NB Onlv NS Perm 07 08
Timing G= 3.0 G = 20.0 G= G= G= 5.0 G = 22.0 G= G=
y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 6 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analvsis, T = 1.00 Cycle Length, C = 70.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 144 255 143 18 89 191 996 62 67 482 82
Lane group capacity, c 825 453 312 543 461 375 1509 923 162 1073 708
v/c ratio, X 0.17 0.56 0.46 0.03 0.19 0.51 0.66 0.07 0.41 0.45 0.12
Total green ratio, g/C 0.37 0.29 0.37 0.29 0.29 0.47 0.47 0.60 0.31 0.31 0.44
Uniform delay, d1 14.4 21.3 18.5 18.0 18.9 11.5 14.2 5.8 18.9 19.2 11.5
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.808 0.575 0.974 0.974 0.845
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
0.1 1.6 1.1 0.0 0.2 1.2 1.1 0.0 1.7 0.3 0.1
Edwards and Kelcey
B-16
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
Incremental delay, d2
Initial queue delay, da 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 14.5 22.9 19.6 18.1 19.1 12.7 12.6 3.4 20.2 19.0 9.8
Lane group LOS B C B B B B B A C B A
Approach delay 19.9 19.3 12.1 17.9
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection delay 15.5 Xc = 0.67 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 f
Edwards and Kelcey
B-17
o
D
iD
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
D
o
D
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 1 o 6th
Analyst Jill Palmer Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year Ex. + Bkgmd + Pitt + Wa/-
Mart
Proiect ID 060048017 Wa/-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L TR L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 18 30 20 202 97 61 54 454 52 113 696 67
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 30 0 0 1 0 3 2 9 12 3 2 4
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 2 0 15 0 13 0 18
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, Gp
Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
G = 32.0 G= G= G= G= 3.0 G = 30.0 G= G=
Timing y= 5 y= y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 CY,cle Length, C = 80.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
. EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 21 56 238 114 54 64 534 46 133 819 58
Lane group capacity, c 400 717 542 760 627 226 1245 541 340 1330 582
v/c ratio, X 0.05 0.08 0.44 0.15 0.09 0.28 0.43 0.09 0.39 0.62 0.10
Total green ratio, g/C 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.46 0.38 0.38 0.46 0.38 0.38
Uniform delay, d1 14.7 14.9 17.5 15.3 14.9 13.4 18.6 16.1 16.0 20.3 16.2
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.920 0.920 1.000 0.920 0.920
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11
Edwards and Kelcey
B-18
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.1
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 14.8 14.9 18.0 15.4 15.0 14.0 17.4 14.9 16.7 19.6 15.0
Lane group LOS B B B B B B B B B B B
Approach delay 14.9 16.9 16.9 18.9
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection delay 17.8 Xc = 0.56 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright @ :1000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.lf
Edwards and Kelcey
B-19
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
HCS2000'" DETAilED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 106th
Analyst Jill Palmer Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgmd + Pitt + Wa/-
Mart
Proiect 10 060048017 Wa/-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L TR L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 71 136 104 110 75 118 58 842 160 136 641 34
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 0 11 1 3 0 11 4 4 3 6 20
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.98 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 10 0 55 0 40 0 9
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
Timing G = 26.0 G= G= G= G= 5.0 G = 34.0 G= G=
y= 5 y= y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Lenath, C = 80.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 79 255 122 83 70 64 859 125 151 712 28
Lane group capacity, c 409 555 312 600 525 331 1478 660 300 1451 572
v/c ratio, X 0.19 0.46 0.39 0.14 0.13 0.19 0.58 0.19 0.50 0.49 0.05
Total green ratio, g/C 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.54 0.43 0.43 0.54 0.43 0.43
Uniform delay, d1 19.4 21.4 20.9 19.1 19.1 9.6 17.6 14.4 10.8 16.7 13.5
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.867 0.867 1.000 0.867 1.000
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Edwards and Kelcey
B-20
o
o
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
Incremental delay, d2 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 1.4 0.3 0.0
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 19.7 22.0 21.7 19.2 19.2 9.9 15.8 12.6 12.1 14.7 13.5
Lane group LOS B C C B B A B B B B B
Approach delay 21.5 20.3 15.1 14.3
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection delay 16.2 Xc = 0.58 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright@2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.1f
Edwards and Kelcey
B-21
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection 106th & Andrade
Agency/Co. Edwards and Ke/cey 'Iurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 2/2/06 ~nalysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt + Wa/-
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Mart
Project Descriotion 060048017 Waf-Mart
EastlWest Street: 106th Street North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West StudY Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 60 250 0 0 117 70
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 66 277 0 0 130 77
Proportion of heavy 0 0
vehicles, PHV - - -- -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Sienal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 40 0 29
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 44 0 32
Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 6 0 5
vehicles, PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Control Delav. Queue Lenath. Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 66 76
Capacity, cm (vph) 1376 564
vie ratio 0.05 0.13
Queue length (95%) 0.15 0.46
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 12.4
LOS A B
Approach delay (s/veh) - - 12.4
Approach LOS - - B
Edwards and Kelcey
B-22
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
o
D
D
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst ill Palmer Intersection 106th & Andrade
AQency/Co. dwards and Kelcey nurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed '/2/06 IAnalysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd+ Pitt + Wa/-
Analysis Time Period M Peak Mart
Project Description 060048017 Wal-Mart
EastlWest Street: 106th Street North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Studv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 52 237 0 0 271 45
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourlv Flow Rate (veh/h) 59 269 0 0 307 51
Proportion of heavy 0 0
vehicles, PHV - - - -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 94 0 87
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 106 0 98
Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 6 0 5
vehicles, PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Control Delav. Queue Lenath. Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
olume, v (vph) 59 204
Capacity, cm (vph) 1212 479
Iv/c ratio 0.05 0.43
Queue length (95%) 0.15 2.10
!Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 18.0
LOS A C
~pproach delay (s/veh) - - 18.0
pproach LOS - - C
Edwards and Kelcey
B-23
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Wal-Mart, Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Highway Capacity Software Output
Scenario C
Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Wal-Mart Site + Other Sites
(ALL DEVELOPMENTS)
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06
Time Period AM Peak Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Analysis Year Scenario C
Proiect I D 060048017 Wa/-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB we NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R
Volume. V (vph) 66 180 87 117 293 34 96 416 76 61 180,
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 1 4 2 0 0 7 13 5 6 6 1
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.85
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type. AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 22 0 9 0 19 0 44
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking I Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, Go
Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08
G = 10.0 G = 19.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G = 26.0 G= G=
Tirr.ing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length. C = 82.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB we NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 78 212 76 138 345 29 113 489 67 72 912 160
Lane group capacity, c 216 436 625 419 440 650 360 1015 488 1e7 1082 507
v/c ratio, X 0.36 0.49 0.12 0.33 0.78 0.04 0.31 0.48 0.14 0.39 0.84 0.32
Total green ratio, g/C 0.12 0.23 0.40 0.12 0.23 0.40 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.32 0.32
Uniform delay, d1 33.1 27.3 15.4 32.9 29.6 14.9 33.7 22.6 20.0 33.9 26.1 21.2
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.972 0.972 1.000 0.972 0.972
Delay calibration. k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.11
1.0 0.9 0.1 0.5 9.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 1.3 6.2 0.4
Ec.lwards and Kelcey
B-24
D
D
o
o
o
o
10
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
Incremental delay. d2
Initial queue delay. da 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 34.1 28.1 15.5 33.4 38.6 14.9 34.2 22.3 19.6 35.2 31.6 21.0
Lane group LOS C C B C D B C C B D C C
Approach delay 26.8 35.9 24.0 30.3
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection delay 29.3 Xc = 0.69 Intersection LOS C
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1f
Edwards and Kelcey
B-25
o
D
o
o
ID
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Street
Date Performed 2/2/06 Area Type All other areas
Time Period PM Peak Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Analysis Year Scenario C
Proiect 10 060048017 Wal-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 206 305 87 107 190 61 265 1095 165 28 570 88
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 10 1 2 0 4 0 4 6 6
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped I Bike / RTOR volumes 0 19 0 15 0 41 0 22
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade I Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08
G = 14.0 G = 18.5 G= G= G= 9.0 G= 6.5 G = 27.5 G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 0 y= 6 y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cvcle Length, C = 93.5
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 210 321 72 113 200 48 279 1153 131 29 600 69
Lane group capacity, c 270 376 561 477 372 550 731 1265 587 167 1004 448
vlc ratio, X 0.78 0.85 0.13 0.24 0.54 0.09 0.38 0.91 0.22 0.17 0.60 0.15
Total green ratio, g/C 0.15 0.20 0.35 0.15 0.20 0.35 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.29 0.29
Uniform delay, d1 38.3 36.2 20.8 35.0 33.7 20.5 31.8 28.3 20.6 38.8 28.3 24.4
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.931 0.931 1.000 0.990 0.990
Delay calibration, k 0.33 0.39 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.43 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11
13.4 17.1 0.1 0.3 1.6 0.1 0.3 10.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.2
Edwards and Kelcey
B-26
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
Incremental delay, d2
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 51.7 53.3 20.9 35.3 35.2 20.6 32.1 36.4 19.4 39.3 29.0 24.3
lane group LOS D D C D D C C D B D C C
Approach delay 48.9 33.3 34.2 28.9
Approach LOS D C C C
Intersection delay 35.7 Xc = 0.78 Intersection LOS D
HCS2000™
Copyright@2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1f
Edwards and Kelcey
B-2?
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Rd and Site/111 th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year Scenario C
Project ID 060048017 Wal-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB 5B
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L LT R L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 73 15 106 60 19 51 143 442 154 134 833 64
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 1 4 2 0 0 7 13 5 6 6 1
Peak-hour factor, 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
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 29 0 13 0 39 0
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing EB Onlv WB Only 03 04 Excl. Left N5 Perm 07 08
G = 18.0 G = 12.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G = 27.0 G= G=
Timing y= 4 y= 4 y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 81.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB 5B
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 81 17 86 67 21 42 159 491 128 149 926 52
Lane group capacity, c 393 418 460 262 281 239 214 1067 513 367 1138 533
v/c ratio, X 0.21 0.04 0.19 0.26 0.07 0.18 0.74 0.46 0.25 0.41 0.81 0.10
Total green ratio, g/C 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.46 0.33 0.33 0.46 0.33 0.33
Uniform delay, d1 25.7 24.7 21.2 30.5 29.7 30.2 16.2 21.3 19.6 13.6 24.7 18.6
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.958 0.958 1.000 0.958 0.958
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.35 0.11
Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.4 13.1 0.3 0.3 0.7 4.6 0.1
Edwards and Kelcey
B-28
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 25.9 24.8 21.4 31.1 29.8 30.5 29.3 20.7 19.1 14.3 28.3 17.9
Lane group LOS C C C C C C C C B B C B
Approach delay 23.7 30.7 22.2 26.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection delay 24.7 X = 0.57 Intersection LOS C
c
HCS2000™
Copyright@2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 f
Edwards and Kelcey
B-29
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Rd and Site/111th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year Scenario C
Project 10 060048017 Wal-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L LT R L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 156 31 211 184 26 159 233 1065 83 69 644 98
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 1 4 2 0 0 7 13 5 6 6 1
Peak-hour factor, 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
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, '1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pect / Bike I RTOR volumes 0 49 0 40 0 21 0 24
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking I Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing EB Only WB Only 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08
G = 12.0 G = 12.0 G= G= G= 7.5 G = 20.0 G= G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 6 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 1.00 Cycle Length, C- 71.5
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 173 34 180 204 29 132 259 1183 69 77 716 82
Lane group capacity, c 297 316 424 297 319 271 300 1500 1086 120 955 850
v/c ratio, X 0.58 0.11 0.42 0.69 0.09 0.49 0.86 0.79 0.06 0.64 0.75 0.10
Total green ratio, g/C 0.17 0.17 0.27 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.71 0.28 0.28 0.53
Uniform delay, d1 27.4 25.2 21.4 28.0 25.1 27.0 13.8 16.0 3.2 22.6 23.5 8.3
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.812 0.228 1.000 1.000 0.715
Delay calibration, k 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.39 0.34 0.11 0.22 0.30 0.11
Incremental delay, d2 2.9 0.2 0.7 6.7 0.1 1.4 26.9 3.0 0.0 11.6 3.4 0.0
Edwards and Kelcey
B-30
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 30.4 25.4 22.1 34.7 25.3 28.3 40.7 16.0 0.8 34.2 26.9 6.0
Lane group LOS C C C C C C D B A C C A
Approach delay 26.1 31.7 19.5 25.6
Approach LOS C C B C
Intersection delay 23.4 X = 0.72 Intersection LOS C
c
HCS2000™
Copyright <9 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.lf
Edwards and Kelcey
B-3!
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Rd and Site/111th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year Scenario C
Project ID 060048017 Wa/-Mart
Volume and Timino InIJut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L TR L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 73 15 106 60 19 51 143 442 154 134 833 64
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 1 4 2 0 0 7 13 5 6 6 1
Peak-hour factor, 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
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 11 0 13 0 39 0 16
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
G= 3.0 G = 17.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G = 25.0 G= G=
Timing y= 4 y= 4 y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cvcle Length, C = 69.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 81 123 67 21 42 159 491 128 149 926 53
Lane group capacity, c 771 393 392 468 398 258 1160 758 427 1237 788
v/c ratio, X 0.11 0.31 0.17 0.04 0.11 0.62 0.42 0.17 0.35 0.75 0.07
Total green ratio, g/C 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.51 0.36 0.49 0.51 0.36 0.49
Uniform delay, d1 15.0 21.2 15.4 19.8 20.1 11.6 16.6 9.7 9.5 19.3 9.2
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.932 0.778 1.000 0.932 0.778
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.30 0.11
Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 4.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 2.6 0.0
-
Edwards and Kelcey
B 32
o
D
iD
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Initial queue delay I d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 15.1 21.7 15.6 19.9 20.2 15.9 15.7 7.6 10.0 20.5 7.2
Lane group LOS B C B B C B B A B C A
Approach delay 19.1 17.8 14.4 18.5
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection delay 17.1 Xc = 0.67 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright@ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.1f
Edwards and Kelcey
B-33
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
o
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Rd and Site/111th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year Scenario C
Project I D 060048017 Wal-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L TR L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 156 31 211 184 26 159 233 1065 83 69 644 98
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 1 4 2 0 0 7 13 5 6 6 1
Peak-hour factor, 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
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 21 0 40 0 21 0 24
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, Go
Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08
G= 5.5 G = 14.5 G= G= G= 7.0 G = 23.0 G= G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 6 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 1.00 Cycle Length, C = 70.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 173 245 204 29 132 259 1183 69 77 716 82
Lane group capacity, c 766 331 280 394 335 339 1646 1538 141 1121 788
v/c ratio, X 0.23 0.74 0.73 0.07 0.39 0.76 0.72 0.04 0.55 0.64 0.10
Total green ratio, g/C 0.33 0.21 0.33 0.21 0.21 0.51 0.51 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.49
Uniform delay, d1 16.6 26.0 21.5 22.3 24.0 11.3 13.1 0.0 19.2 20.0 9.5
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.744 1.000 0.962 0.962 0.777
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.30 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.32 0.28 0.11 0.15 0.22 0.11
Incremental delay, d2 0.2 9.0 9.8 0.1 0.8 10.6 1.6 0.0 4.5 1.2 0.1
Edwards and Kelcey
B-34
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 16.8 35.0 31.3 22.4 24.7 21.9 11.3 0.0 23.0 20.5 7.4
Lane group LOS B D C C C C B A C C A
Approach delay 27.5 28.2 12.6 19.5
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection delay 18.3 Xc = O. 78 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright <<:> 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 r
Edwards and Kelcey
B-35
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Road and 106th
Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/2/06 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year Scenario C
Project ID 060048017 Wal-Mart
Volume and Tlmlno InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L TR L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 59 66 46 224 143 76 102 567 73 121 772 123
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 30 0 0 1 0 3 2 9 12 3 2 4
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 '2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 5 0 19 0 18 0 31
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
G = 32.0 G= G= G= G= 3.0 G = 30.0 G= G=
Timing Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 6 Y= Y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 65 118 246 157 63 112 623 60 133 848 101
Lane group capacity, c 384 716 512 760 627 216 1245 541 300 1330 582
v/c ratio, X 0.17 0.16 0.48 0.21 0.10 0.52 0.50 0.11 0.44 0.64 0.17
Total green ratio, g/C 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.46 0.38 0.38 0.46 0.38 0.38
Uniform delay, d1 15.4 15.4 17.8 15.7 15.0 14.0 19.2 16.3 17.1 20.5 16.7
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.920 0.920 1.000 0.920 0.920
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.11
0.2 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.3 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.1
Edwards and Kelcey
B-36
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Incremental delay. d2
Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 15.7 15.5 18.5 15.8 15.1 16.2 18.0 15.1 18.1 19.9 15.5
Lane group LOS B B B B B B B B B B B
Approach delay 15.6 17.2 17.5 19.3
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection delay 18.1 Xc = 0.60 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright@ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 f
Edwards and Kelcey
B-3?
o
o
D
o
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Michigan Road and 106th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Street
Date Performed 2/2/06 Area Type All other areas
Time Period PM Peak Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Analysis Year Scenario C
Proiect ID 060048017 Wa/-Mart
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of lanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
1
Lane group L TR L T R L T R L T R
Volume, V (vph) 163 204 178 174 115 131 142 991 218 143 797 109
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 6 0 11 1 3 0 11 4 4 3 6 20
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.98 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 18 0 31 0 54 0 26
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking maneuvers, Nm
Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
G = 23.0 G= G= G= G= 3.9 G = 24.6 G= G=
Timing Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 6 Y= Y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 66.5
Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 181 405 193 128 111 158 1011 171 159 886 92
Lane group capacity, c 418 586 228 638 559 222 1287 574 214 1263 498
v/c ratio, X 0.43 0.69 0.85 0.20 0.20 0.71 0.79 0.30 0.74 0.70 0.18
Total green ratio, g/C 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.49 0.37 0.37 0.49 0.37 0.37
Uniform delay, d1 16.7 18.7 20.1 15.3 15.3 11.5 18.6 14.8 12.3 17.8 14.2
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.925 0.925 1.000 0.925 1.000
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.26 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.33 0.11 0.30 0.27 0.11
0.7 3.5 24.5 0.2 0.2 10.2 3.3 0.3 13.1 1.8 0.2
Edwards and Kelcey
B-38
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Incremental delay, d2
Initial queue delay, da 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control delay 17.5 22.2 44.6 15.4 15.5 21.7 20.5 14.0 25.4 18.3 14.3
Lane group LOS B C D B B C C B C B B
Approach delay 20.7 28.5 19.8 18.9
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection delay 20.7 Xc = 0.86 Intersection LOS C
HCS2000™
Copyright@2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 f
Edwards and Kelcey
8-39
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
IAnalvst Jill Palmer Intersection 106th & Andrade
IlAgencv/Co. Edwards and Kelcey Uurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 2/2/06 ~nalvsis Year Scenario C
Analvsis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description 060048017 Wa/-Mart
EastlWest Street: 106th Street North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 62 306 0 0 196 70
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 68 340 0 0 217 77
Proportion of heavy 0 0
vehicles, P HV - - - -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Config u ration LT TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 0 f) 0 40 0 30
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 44 0 33
Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 6 0 5
\fehicles, PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Control Delav. Queue Length. Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 68 77
Capacity, cm (vph) 1279 470
\flc ratio 0.05 0.16
Queue length (95%) 0.17 0.58
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 14.2
LOS A B
Approach delay (s/veh) -- - 14.2
Approach LOS -- - B
HCS2000™
Edwards and Kelcey
Copyright @ 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.lf
B-40
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
;enerallnformation Site Information
nalyst 'Jill Palmer I Intersection 106th & Andrade
~aencv/Co. Edwards and Kelcev IIlJurisdiction !zionsville
Date Performed 2/2/06 IIlAnalvsis Year Scenario C
Analvsis Time Period PM Peak III
Proiect Description 060048017 Wal-Mart
EastlWest Street: 106th Street North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West StudY Period (hrs): 0.25
~ehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
!Volume (veh/h) 64 353 0 0 350 45
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 72 401 0 0 397 51
Proportion of heavy 0 0
iIIehicles, PHV - - - -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 91 0 86
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourlv Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 103 0 97
Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 6 0 5
vehicles, P HV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N ~
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Control Delav, Queue Lenath, Level of Service
IApproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
~olume, v (vph) 72 200
Capacity, cm (vph) 1123 362
iII/c ratio 0.06 0.55
Queue length (95%) 0.21 3.20
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 26.6
LOS A D
Approach delay (s/veh) -- - 26.6
pproach LOS - -- D
HCS2000™
Edwards and Kelcey
Copyright @ 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 f
B-41
CJ
~
~
a-
fi
~
~
~
~
t:l:l
I
~
N
CJ
CJ
LJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
ANALYSIS OF WARRANTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS
CRITERIA 1 a
Table 4C-1a. Elaht-Hour Vehicular Volume IADT Equivalent)
Equivalent Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Number of lanes on each approach: Approaching From Both Directions On:
Major Street I Minor Street Major Street I Minor Street
Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant
2 or more I 2 or more I 10,000 I 6,000
Interruption of Continuous Flow Warrant
2 or more I 2 or more I 15,000 I 3,100
Study Intersection I 17,500* I 3,674**
"estimate based on 200 I INDOT ADT volumes x 2% per year to 2006
""estimate based on weekday trip generation distributed to various site access points;
approach volumes at subject intersection minus 50% of right tums.
Wal-Mart Site, 176,000 SF:
Weekday Trip Generation = 9068
50% exiting = 4535
85% to Michigan Road = 3854
Subtract 50% of right turns = 2698
Pittman Site, estimated existing (Jan06)
Weekday Trip Generation = 2519
50% exiting = 1259
100% to Michigan Road = 1259
Subtract 50% of right turns = 976
Anticipated traffic at opening of Wal-Mart = existing Pittman traffic + Walrnart Traffic
= 2181+ 976 = 3674
-(
CJ
LJ
CJ
CJ
r::=J
CJ
t=J
LJ
ANALYSIS OF WARRANTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS
CRITERIA 1a
Table 4C-1a. Elaht-Hour Vehicular Volume IADT Eaulvalentl
Equivalent Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Number oflanes on each approach: Approaching From Both Directions On:
Major Street I Minor Street Major Street I Minor Street
Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant
2 or more I 2 or more r 10,000 I 6,000
Interruption of Continuous Flow Warrant
2 or more I 2 or more I 15,000 I 3,100
Study Intersection I 17,500* I 4,843**
"estimate based on 200 I INDOT ADT volumes x 2% per year to 2006
""estimate based on weekday trip generation distributed to various site access points;
approach volumes at subject intersection rninus 50% of right turns.
Wal-Mart Site, 176,000 SF:
Weekday Trip Generation = 9068
50% exiting = 4535
85% to Michigan Road = 3854
Subtract 50% of right turns = 2698
Pittman Site, total:
Weekday Trip Generation = 4161
50% exiting = 2081
100% to Michigan Road = 2081
Subtract 50% of right turns = 1613
Bennett Farnily Parcel, 40,000:
Weekday Trip Generation: 2658
50% exiting: 1329
50% to Mich/111 th: 664
subtract 50% of right turns: 532
l::=:J
t=J
Anticipated traffic at bulldout of Scenario C = Entire Pittman site + Wal-Mart + Bennett Family Parcel
= 2698+ 1613 + 532 = 4843
EJ r:=J r:=J t=J CJ EJ EJ
EJ CJ
t=J CJ
CJ CJ
EJ r=:J
EJ
EJ
a=J
CJ
~
~
l
~
;:;--
~
ANALYSIS OF WARRANTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS
LOCATION: Major Street Michigan Road/US 421 Minor Street: Site Drive Date: 2/2/2006
Major Street Approach Lanes: 2+ Minor Street Approach Lanes: 2+ By: Jill Palmer
Major Street Posted Speed: 45 MPH Minor Street Posted Speed: 30 MPH Date of Count: opening of Wal-Mart
Major Street 85th % Speed: >40 MPH Minor Street 85th % Speed: 30 MPH
CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA 4 CRITERIA 1, combination of Conditions A and B, 80%
Condition A: Condition B: Minimum Condition A: Condition B: Minimum
8-Hour Vehicular Interruption of Pedestrian 8-Hour Vehicular Interruption of Pedestrian
Major Minor Pedestriar Volume Continuous Traffic Volume . Volume Continuous Traffic Volume
Street Street Crossing MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES
Time Two-Way Highest Major Ma'or Minor Ma'or Minor Ma'or Peds, Ma'or Minor Ma'or Minor Ma'or Peds,
Volume** Volume* Street
Approach
- 50% of - 50% of MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES WHEN 85th % SPEED IS GREATER THAN 40 MPH
Right Tums Right Turns , .- 420 (3) 105 340 3) 84
420 (2) 140 (2) 630 (2) 70 (2) 340 (2) 112 (2) 500 (2) 56 (2)
10-11 630 100 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
11-12 630 159 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12-1 630 213 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1-2 630 221 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2-3 630 237 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3-4 630 240 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4-5 630 246 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5-6 630 256 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6-7 630 208 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7-8 630 189 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8-9 630 208 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9-10 630 246 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
NUMBER OF HOURS WARRANT IS MET 11 12 0 11 12 0
COMPLIANCE YES YES NO YES
(1) one lane approach
(2) two lane approach
(3) undivided roadway
(4) divided roadway
I::l:l * Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Land Use 820 Table 2 shows the hourly distribution of shopping center traffic. These hourly volumes were derived from that distribution,
I
t; **Hourly counts for Michigan Road are not currently available, Assume Michigan Road volumes will always satisfy warrants,
SOURCE: Indiana Supplement to Millennium Edition National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices , Part 3, with December 2001 Revisions, Indiana Department
of Transportation, 2001.
Dr
D
D
o
D
D
D
D'
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
Edward6
~Kelcey OFFICES NATIONWIDE
ENGINEERS
ARCH ITECTS
PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTORS
www.ekcorp.com