HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Study
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
REAL WORLD CHALLENGES... REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
HERITAGE RDG/WAL-MART SITE
ON MICHIGAN ROAD
ZIONSVILLE AND CARMEL, INDIANA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNICATIONS
UTILITIES
INSTITUTIONAL/COMMERCIAL
FEDERAL
PLAN NI NG/ENVI RONMENTAl
~~~
@~
4:9 ,,\(:)'"t;
4> <\)~rf?
D
D
D
'0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Contents
Page
Preparer Qualifications.................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction..................................................................................................................... ................ 2
Existing Roadway Conditions ... ....... ................ ................. ................... ... ............ ..... ..... ..... .... ...... ... 6
Committed Improvements............................................................................................................... 7
Existing Traffic Conditions............................................................................................................. 9
Traffic Generation...................................................................................................................... ... 11
Traffic Distribution and Assignment ............ ................................... ....... ........................ .............. 15
Future Conditions....................................................................................................................... ... 20
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................ ....... ..................... ... .............. ........ ..... ..... ...... 22
List of Tables
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections ...................................................10
Table 2. Intersection LOS: Base Year Traffic Conditions with Proposed Geometries................ 10
Table 3. Land Use and Size of Proposed Developments ............................................................. 12
Table 4. Trip Generation: External Non-Pass-By Trips............................................................... 13
Table 5. Trip Generation: Pass-by Trips ...................................................................................... 13
Table 6. Trip Generation Comparison .................. .......................... ................ ........ ..................... 14
Table 7. LOS Results for Future Conditions................................................................................ 20
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location Map.................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2. Site Detail Map............................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Traffic Distribution to the Heritage/Wal-Mart Site ......................................................16
Figure 4. Traffic Distribution from the Heritage/Wal-Mart Site.................................................. 17
Figure 5. Access to TIF District ................................................................................................... 19
Appendix
#060048003
Edwards and Kelcey
o
D
D
Traffic Impact Study
HeritagelWal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
o
Preparer Qualifications
o
o
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.
o
o
o
o
o
\\\\\\1111/1/11//
,,\ ... P'^ //1
", \.. \. ,.,LIv1~ III
~" ,'v........... <.;: L:\ II"
~ ".' \ST~ '. 'T ~
~ ,'~0 c::1T~', ~
~ lq:. a\ ~
~ (NO. 10403866") ~
=.~ :.=
~~.... STATEOF '-:!J 2
~ o^.....I^'DIA~'" ......:>..<t; .f
" "~ ... ..." "
~ ''''& ......... 0' "
1"1" SIONA\. \:.~ ""
III \\'
11111/ 1/ II \I \I \ \\
~ P~'mJU\-
o
Jill Palmer, P .E.
Indiana Registration # 10403866
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
Edwards and Kelcey
D
D
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Waf-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
o
o
o
o
Introduction
The subject of this analysis is a proposed development by Heritage RDG, LLC and Wal-Mart. The site is
located in Carmel/Hamilton County and Zionsville/Boone County, on the west side of u.S. 421/Michigan
Road between 106th Street and I I 6th Street. The northern property line abuts Bennett Parkway.
o
o
D
Edwards and Kelcey performed a traffic study in March 2003 for Pittman Partners for the area
encompassing the Heritage/Wal-Mart site. The Pittman site is on the east side of u.S. 421/Michigan
Road, across from the Heritage/Wal-Mart site. That study included the likely development of several
other parcels along Michigan Road, including the Heritage/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.
o
The proposed Heritage/Wal-Mart site consists of retail space, including a big-box anchor store, outlots,
and retail shops of varying sizes. The total square footage of the development is approximately 318,900
square feet. A site plan is included in Appendix B.
D
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 complete upon full buildout of the subject site.
D
D
o
o
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 aligns with the proposed Heritage/Wal-Mart site entrance on the
other side of Michigan Road. The planned improvements to that intersection include northbound and
southbound left- and right-turn lanes and a traffic signal. The purpose of this study is to show that with
updated information, those conclusions are still valid.
D
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)
. Heritage/Wal-Mart site (retail)
D
D
o
Edwards and Kefcey
2
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
D
D
o
o
u
o
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
. Duke site (retail)
. REI site (industrial and multifamily residential)
In addition to the sites considered in the Pittman study, some additional vacant 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 comer of 106lh and Michigan Road (retail)
. St. Vincent site, south of the 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 II from the Pittman Study)
B. Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Heritage/Wal-Mart Site
C. Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Heritage/Wal-Mart Site + Other Sites
Figure 2 shows a more detailed aerial photo of the Heritage/Wal-Mart site. The following intersections
were analyzed in the Pittman Study and are shown on the aerial photo:
1. Michigan Road and 116lh Street
2. Michigan Road and Pittman site drive/East-West Street (Heritage/Wal-Mart site)
3. Michigan Road and 106lh Street
The following intersections were added for the current study:
4. Bennett Parkway and North-South Street (Heritage/Wal-Mart site)
5. Bennett Parkway and Andrade Drive
6. 106lh Street and Andrade Drive
D
o
D
Edwards and Kelcey
3
D
U
D
0
~
~
Q
~
Q
Q
0
0
a
0
D
a
Q
D
~ Edwards and Kelcey
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Figure 1. Location Map
4
j
D
D
~
a
0
a
0
~
~
D
~
a
a
~
~
~
~
0
D Edwards and Kelcey
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Figure 2. Site Detail Map
o
Studied
Intersection
Proposed
Roadway
5
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on 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 it as urban principal arterial under the
statewide system.
The intersections of Michigan Road with 106th Street and 116th Street are both currently signalized with
turn lanes on all approaches. The Pittman site driveway 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 Heritage/Wal-Mart site.
Bennett Parkway provides access to the mostly industrial property within Zionsville's TIF district. Near
the subject site, Bennett Parkway intersects with Michigan Road, extends west, and curves south to
intersect with 106th Street.
The TIF district is bounded by 96th Street, Zionsville Road, the Boone County Line (near Michigan
Road) and Bennett Technology Park.
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: a church north of Bennett Parkway
South: industrial developments and a car dealership
East: planned multi-use development (Pittman Site) and a nursery
West: industrial developments and multi-family residential
Edwards and Kelcey
6
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on 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. Segments south of the study area have already been constructed. The current phase of the
project involves widening Michigan Road from 102nd 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: 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 1 shared 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 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 of left turn
movements.
The proposed Heritage/Wal-Mart development would include a system of internal roadways. Some of
those are to be built to public street standards. The roadways labeled in Figure 2 as "East-West Street"
and "North-South Street" are intended to become public facilities. Zionsville, Carmel, Hamilton County,
and Heritage/Wal-Mart will arrange for the future maintenance of these roadways, which cross
jurisdictional boundaries. East-West Street connects the Heritage/Wal-Mart development with Michigan
Road at the planned signal across from the Pittman site. North-South Street connects East-West Street
with Bennett Parkway. North of Bennett Parkway, North-South Street is aligned with a driveway to a
church. A proposed roundabout at the intersection of North-South Street and East-West Street will
ensure smooth-flowing traffic movement about the site.
Edwards and Kelcey
7
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
D
o
D
D
D
Left- and right-turn lanes northbound and southbound are planned at the intersection of Michigan Road
with East-West Street. These improvements will be constructed as part of the INDOT widening in
anticipation of imminent development of the subject site, whether by Heritage/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 Heritage/Wal-Mart
site's major tenant.
D
D
D
D
As part of the system of roadways constructed with the proposed development, Heritage/Wal-Mart has
committed to constructing a connection between the two segments of Andrade Drive. This completed
roadway would serve as the western boundary of the subject site.
Bennett Parkway, which currently ends at 106th Street, is planned for future expansion south to 96th Street
by the Town of Zionsville.
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
Edwards and Kelcey
8
I
D
D
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
o
o
D
D
Existing Traffic Conditions
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
Peak hour traffic counts at the intersections of Michigan Road with 106th Street and I I 6th Street were
conducted in 2003. Peak hour counts were conducted in August/September 2005 at the intersection of
106th Street and Andrade Drive. 24-hour counts were collected on Bennett Parkway in August 2005 near
its intersection with Michigan Road. The church driveway which intersects with Bennett Parkway and
North-South Street was not counted; traffic volumes during weekday peak hours are expected to be
minimal. Andrade Drive south of Bennett Parkway was not counted; this segment serves only one
business. Traffic volumes for that segment were assigned based on estimated traffic generated by the one
business.
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)!. 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 I 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 other intersections. 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.
I 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 9
D
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
o
o
o
o
o
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
I ,e, eI Of Sen ice Signalized Intersections: Control Unsignalizcd Intersections: Stopped
Dela~ per Vehicle (seconds) l)e"l~ per Vehicle (seconds)
A ~1O ~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
Table 2. Intersection LOS: Base Year Traffic Conditions with Proposed Geometries
2 Michigan Road and Pittman Site Drivel East-
West Street
3 Michigan Road and 106th Street
4 Bennett Parkway and North-South Street
5 Bennett Parkway and Andrade Drive
6 106th Street and Andrade Drive
N/A
Signal
B
B
N/A
One- Way Stop
One-Way Stop
B*
B*
A*
A*
* For a one-way or two-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. HCS output is provided in Appendix
A and Appendix B.
Edwards and Kelcey
10
D
D
o
o
D
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Traffic Generation
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 Pittman,
Heritage/Wal-Mart, and REI Sites remain undeveloped. The Duke and St. Vincent sites are under
construction but unoccupied. The Kite site includes a bank branch opened in 2005 and tentative plans
(nothing approved) for additional retail space.
D
All calculations are consistent with the methodology prescribed by the 7th Edition Trip Generation as
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (2003). Trip generation calculations are included
in Appendix B.
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
The updated trip generation calculations were used in subsequent analysis.
Edwards and Kelcey
11
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
u
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
U
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Table 3. Land Use and Size of Proposed Developments
Parcel Land U'iC .\ssumption Updatcd Land Usc Sourcc of Nc"
in Pittman Stud~ .\ssumption for Currcnt I n forma tion
.\nal~sis
Pittman Site 112,500 sq.ft. General SAME Pittman confirms
Office that plans have not
37,500 sq.ft. Specialty changed.
Retail
180 units Townhouses
A2 + A3 217,800 sq.ft. Discount 318,900 sq.ft. Shopping Traffic estimates by
(Heritage/Wal-Mart Superstore Center Edwards and
Site) 87,120 sq.ft. Shopping 6 pump Gas Station Kelcey, site plan
provided by
Center Heritage/Wal-Mart
Al (REI Site) 268 units Apartments 200 units Apartments Traffic estimates by
871,000 sq.ft. Warehouse 200,000 sq.ft. Industrial! Edwards and
Kelcey, land use
Office Flex Space provided by REI
B (Duke Site) 127,000 sq.ft. Home 502,000 sq.ft. Shopping Duke provided
Improvement Store Center traffic study by
A&F Engineering
Kite Site None 99,215 sq.ft. Shopping Traffic estimates by
Center Edwards and
Kelcey, site plan
provided by Kite
St. Vincent Site None 39,000 sq.ft. Medical Traffic study by
Office Edwards and Kelcey
40,000 sq.ft. General
Office
Total Square 469,420 sq.ft. retail 957,615 sq.ft. retail
Footage= 112,500 sq.ft. office 191,500 sq.ft. office
871,000 sq.ft. industrial 200,000 sq.ft. industrial
448 units residential 380 units residential
Edwards and Kelcey
12
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Table 4 summarizes the non-pass-by trip generation for these sites.
Table 4. Trip Generation: Non-Pass-By Trips
Land Use .\1\1 Peak PI\I Peak
In Ollt Total In Ollt Total
Pittman Site 194 92 286 134 240 374
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site 193 127 320 473 512 985
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 992 547 1539 1752 1895 3647
Table 5 summarizes the pass-by trips generated by the sites. 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 Michigan Road, while passing by the site. They add traffic to the site
driveways but do not increase volumes on the adjacent street system.
Table 5. Trip Generation: Pass-by Trips
Land Use .\1\1 Peak PI\I Peak
In Ollt Total In Ollt Total
Pittman Site 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site 15 15 30 197 212 409
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 76 54 130 526 567 1093
Edwards and Kelcey
13
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on 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 generated is approximately the
same for all sites combined. The PM Peak traffic for all sites combined is 60% higher in the current
analysis.
Table 6. Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use Pittman St\1d~ Curnnt .\nal~ sis
,\i\ I Pi\l Ai\l Pi\1
Peak Peak Peak Peak
Pittman Site 286 375 286 374
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site 554 1175 320 985
REI Site 514 540 278 324
Duke Site 188 190 312 1375
Kite Site 0 0 156 380
S1. Vincent Site 0 0 187 209
Total Non-Pass-By-Trips 1542 2280 1539 3647
Edwards and Kelcey
14
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
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 HeritagelWal-Mart site has multiple proposed access points, one on
Michigan Road across from the Pittman property, two on Bennett Parkway along the north side of the
site, and one on Andrade Drive along the west side of the site. Future access on the south side of the site
is possible, but is not part of the current site plan and was not considered in this analysis.
It was assumed that the intersection of Michigan Road and the East-West Street/Pittman site drive would
be signalized. The result is that the majority of left-turning traffic from Heritage/Wal-Mart will favor the
signalized site drive over the unsignalized Bennett Parkway intersection. Bennett Parkway was assumed
to maintain its current configuration as a full-access unsignalized intersection. Right-turning traffic is
distributed evenly between the two Michigan Road intersections at Bennett Parkway and East-West
Street.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the distribution of traffic to and from the Heritage/Wal-Mart site,
respectively.
Edwards and Kelcey
15
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
D
10
o
o
o
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
~
~
\u
~
~
\u
~
1 16th St.
Bennett Pky.
~6%
~
~
~
\u
"ti / E- W St.
~W
Pittman Dr.
~
t
\
~
L{)
~
o
\0
-\:..1%
l06th St.
4% "
Figure 3. Traffic Distribution to the Heritage/Wal-Mart Site
Edwards and Kelcey
16
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
+
1 16th St.
~ t ,.
\
-b
~
\
<J.l
!0
~
~
"'-
"'-
~
:;:::
:;:::
~
~
Pittman Dr.
~
i.D
~ ~
"'"
~ ~
l06th St.
.....8%
Figure 4. Traffic Distribution from the Heritage/Wal-Mart Site
Edwards and Kelcey
17
D
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
The Town of Zionsville planned the TIF district and Bennett Parkway with the assumption that a future
traffic signal would be installed at Bennett Parkway and Michigan Road. Due to circumstances on the
east side of Michigan Road, a signal is planned for installation at East-West Street/Pittman Site Drive
instead. INDOT has stated that the intersections at Bennett Parkway and East-West Street are closer than
the desired spacing between traffic signals, and that only one signal installation is likely. The
intersection of Bennett Parkway and Michigan Road is to remain a full-access, unsignalized intersection
in the short-term; long-term improvements are undetermined. Therefore, Zionsville is concerned that the
location of the proposed signal at East-West Street will have a negative impact on the development of
properties within the TIF district along Bennett Parkway.
Much of the land area within Zionsville's TIF district is conveniently accessed via l06th Street, 96th
Street, or other routes. An estimated 10% of the TIF land area is located such that Bennett Parkway at
Michigan Road is the closest access point, including the Heritage/Wal-Mart parcel, which will be
serviced by the proposed signal at East-West Street. Therefore, only a small fraction of the TIF district
land area is impacted by not having a signal at Michigan Road and Bennett Parkway. Traffic generated
by this vacant portion of the TIF district was calculated as one of the undeveloped parcels included in
this study. There are four traffic movements to consider at this intersection, as depicted in Figure 5:
1. Northbound Michigan Road to westbound Bennett Parkway left turn
2. Southbound Michigan Road to westbound Bennett Parkway right turn
3. Eastbound Bennett Parkway to southbound Michigan Road right turn
4. Eastbound Bennett Parkway to northbound Michigan Road left turn
The right-turn movements to and from Michigan Road are not impacted by the signal being located at
East-West Street instead of Bennett Parkway, because right turns can be accomplished at the
unsignalized intersection with minimal delay. Left-turn movements to and from Bennett Parkway may
experience significant delay due to the heavy traffic volume on Michigan Road. For drivers making the
northbound-to-westbound left turn, direct signalized access is available at 106th Street. For Bennett
Parkway drivers desiring the eastbound-to-northbound left turn movement, indirect signalized access to
the new intersection of Michigan Road and East-West Street is available via North-South Street. This
movement will be impacted to some extent by the location of the proposed traffic signal, because access
to a signal on Michigan Road would not be direct.
Using trip generation estimates for the undeveloped parcels in the TIF district along Bennett Parkway,
the number of vehicles that may be impacted by the location of the proposed traffic signal is estimated to
Edwards and Kelcey
18
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
ID
'0
D
D
D
D
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
be 5 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 7 vehicles during the PM peak hour. These are vehicles
making movement #4 as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Access to TIF District
Edwards and Kelcey
19
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
Future Conditions
After computing base year LOS, a background growth rate of 2% per year was applied to simulate 2013
conditions (full build-out of all sites). 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 + Heritage/Wal-Mart Site
C) Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Heritage/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
I Michigan Road and I I 6th Street C D C D C D
2 Michigan Road and Pittman Site C* F* B B B C
Drivel East-West Street
( unsignalized) (signalized) (signalized)
3 Michigan Road and 106th Street B B B B B C
4 Bennett Parkway and North-South N/A A* B* B* B*
Street
5 Bennett Parkway and Andrade A* A* A* A* B* B*
Drive
6 106th Street and Andrade Drive B* B* B* C* B* C*
* For a one-way or two-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: intersection does not exist in this scenario.
Edwards and Kelcey 20
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
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
Heritage/Wal-Mart site development, which improves that LOS to Band C in later scenarios.
For the intersection of Michigan Road and Pittman site driveway/East-West Street, signal warrant
analyses were performed in the Pittman study. It was anticipated that warrants would be met upon
development of both Pittman and Heritage/Wal-Mart sites.
The LOS for Scenario A, without the Heritage/Wal-Mart site, and Scenario B, with the Heritage/Wal-
Mart site, are nearly identical and all LOS are within the acceptable range. This indicates that the
improvements planned in conjunction with the Heritage/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.
Edwards and Kelcey
21
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsvil/e and Carmel, Indiana
Conclusions and Recommendations
As in the Pittman study, the intersections of Michigan Road at 106th Street and I 16th Street were found
operate at LOS D or better under future conditions, including all anticipated development.
The three Zionsville intersections added in this study operate with LOS C or better on the minor-street
approach under future conditions, including all traffic. Major-street approaches do not have to stop, and
experience minimal delay.
The intersection of Michigan Road and East-West Street/Pittman site drive 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 LOS within the acceptable range with the
traffic signal.
The updates in traffic from the Pittman study to this analysis do not cause significant changes in LOS.
The improvements planned by INDOT and by Heritage/Wal-Mart in conjunction with their 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.
The location of the proposed traffic signal on Michigan Road at East-West Street/Pittman site drive will
have minimal impact on traffic flow to and from future developments along Bennett Parkway. The
traffic generation and distribution estimates show that fewer than 10 vehicles per hour during the peak
hours will be impacted by the location of the traffic signal at East-West Street as opposed to Bennett
Parkway. Those vehicles will maintain indirect signalized access to Michigan Road via streets to be
constructed as part of the Heritage/Wal-Mart development.
Edwards and Kelcey
22
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
,0
o
D
D
o
o
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
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
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.
u
1\\\\\\\\11111 r "I/lllllll
~,,'i, ~ t R A 1111~
~~S...,\ ............:. I>y'~~
,~ ".... ....''''TEI:l.... ...
~. ~ ...... Q> iJ . 'T /::...... \..\ ~
~ "':) "'Q:- <<- N () ". ':,?,
S l 0 ... ~
;:: ". ~~
S : i 1(=
~ *! 10001153 !o::~
i-O\ !4..is
~~a\ STATE OF /f.:!.i~
~. "" ..'t::::!'>::
~ ~~ ......!.N D I p.:~,\~.:....~#
~~f~Y
CJ---/ ~~
Jennifer A. Pyrz, P.E.
Indiana Registration # 10001153
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
0\
01
01
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.
Dl
DI
DI
DI
DI
OJ
Q
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
2
-"
iJ
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Introduction
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 106th Street and 116th Street as shown in the
location map, Figure 1.
The development will consist of both owner-occupied townhouses and offices and will require re-zoning
of the subject property to a mixture of B2 and R4. The intersections of Michigan Road at 106th Street,
the proposed site drive, and 116th Street were each analyzed as part of this study.
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.
The conditions of each intersection were determined under the proposed configuration and four scenarios
were analyzed as follows:
Dc, dopment Scenarios
Traffic Conditions I II III IY
Existing ./ ./ ./ ./
Background growth ./ ./ ./
Development proposed by Pittman
Partners ./ ./
Anticipated Non-Site Development ./ ./
Development as zoned ./
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
3
__n______________ _ _1_
D
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
II
Figure 1. Location Map
D
o
~
Q
a
o
D
Q
D
Q
a
D
D
D
D
D
Q
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc..
4
ID
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Scenario I represents existing traffic conditions, assuming that improvements to Michigan Road are
complete. Scenario n 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 n 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.
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 n, 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.
Existing Roadway Conditions
Michigan Road (U.S. 421) operates as a two-lane undivided roadway along the front of the 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 it as urban principal arterial under the
statewide system.
The intersections of Michigan Road with 106th Street and 116th Street are both currently signalized. The
intersection with 116th 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 ofthe
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
5
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
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 of the 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 102nd 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 I right turn lane
Southbound: I left turn lane, 2 through lanes, and I right turn lane
Eastbound: I left turn lane and I through / right turn lane
Westbound: I left turn lane, I through lane, and I 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 ofthe Highway Capacity Software (HCS) output.
The intersection of Michigan Road with I 16th Street will be improved to include the following:
Northbound: 2 left turn lanes, 2 through lanes, and I right turn lane
Southbound: I left turn lane, 2 through lanes, and I right turn lane
Eastbound: I left turn lane, I through lane, and I right turn lane
Westbound: 2 left turn lanes, I through lane, and I right turn lane
This intersection will operate under a four-phase signal, including separate phases for each set of left turn
movements. The assumed timing plan is included in the Appendix as part of the HCS output.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
6
1D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
o
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)l. 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 "e\ d Of Sen ice Control nda~ per \ ehicle (seconds)
A ~ 10
B > 10 and ~ 20
C > 20 and ~ 35
D > 35 and ~ 55
E > 55 and ~ 80
F > 80
I 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
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Table 2
Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
o
o
o
D
o
o
ID
o
o
o
o
o
o
I ,e\ cI Of Ser\ ice Stopped ()ela~ per \ chicle (scconds)
A ~ 10
B > lOand ~ 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 Control ,\\1 Peak P'\ I Peak
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.
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 Studv. Michil!:an Road Mixed-Use Development. Carmel. Indiana. Prepared by Pflum, Klausmeier
& Gehrum Consultants, Ine, (now Edwards and Kelcey, Inc), October 2, 2000.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. 8
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.0
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Table 4
Trip Generation Estimates: Proposed Development
Land l!selll ITF \\1 Peak 1'1\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 1'1\1 Peak
Land Use Out rut,d 111 I c)tdl
III Out
Site AI: Apartments, ITE Code 220 22 114 136 110 54 164
Site AI: 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%
9
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
U
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
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 Zoned
Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Traffic was distributed for each of the scenarios based on existing traffic patterns, operational
characteristics of the 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
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
D
D
D
Future Conditions
The following scenarios were analyzed using the data generated in previous sections of this report:
Table 7
Development Scenarios
D
D
1>C\ e1opml.'nt SCl.'narios
I raffic Conditions I II III IV
Existing ./ ./ ./ ./
Background growth ./ ./ ./
Development proposed by Pittman
Partners ./ ./
Anticipated Non-Site Development ./ ./
Development as zoned ./
D
D
D
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.
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
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, n, Ill, and IV. All results assume that the improvements to Michigan
Road as discussed previously will be fully implemented.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
11
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
ID
D
D
D
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Table 8
Intersection LOS: Final Results
Michigan Road and I06th B B B B C D C C
Street
Michigan Road and Site C F C F C F
Drive (unsignalized)*
Michigan Road and I 16th 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 I06th 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 I 16th 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
1J
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
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 of this 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 !MUTeD 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
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
i D
D
D
D
D
D
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 n - 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 of 2% 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 IT (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 In and IV) - Full Buildout ofSubiect 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,
dela~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 106'h 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
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
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-left-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 INDOT regarding a signal just north of the subject 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 attheiI" 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.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
19
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
. The proposed site plan illustrates potential connections to adjacent properties. One of those
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 of the 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
I
'0
p
q
q
q
q
q
q
Dj
Dj
DI
Dj
D,
DI
DI
01
01
01
gj Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
APPENDIX
-=
r- 1 i II::J .' 1 E:J _~ _ I
_--I
JI::J
_I::J
JC:J
_1::1
--=:J
_I:::J
JI:::::J
-CJ
-I::J
E:I
EJ
a::::::J
-E:)
A Pittman Community
WESTON POINTE
on North Michigan Road
i'-
Sf/11th pf'()p~r!J J',;/;OIl (2)
J(M/t:I"'-ZQ'.{)"
N"""~ ,fH,k;....
T_....
Vj'~..~
SO'lh p,.P,rlJ S"lio. (1)
stIle 1"=20'.0"
e;
'"
'0
'Q
\Q
'Q
'Q
'Q
'~
Q
Q
o
~
o
o
q
q
q
q
q
q
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
17% in = 35
83% out = 170
Specialty Retail - ITE Code 814
assume 37,500 SF
AM Peak:
data not available
PM Peak:
T = 2.59(37.5)
T = 97
43% in = 42
57% out = 55
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
"'2. J"
D
o
o
o
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
D
o
o
lJ
o
o
~D
_D Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
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
~ -=--
lu
ID
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
10
Subject Site as Zoned:
iO
)0
ID
lD
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
~D
Single Family Detached Housing - ITE Code 210
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 AI:
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 150
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 _CO-
o
10
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
U
u
u
u
[J
;,Q
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(87.12) + 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.
A,7> -"'-
ID
lD
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
10
Site B: Home Improvement Superstore - ITE Code 862
127,000 SF
10
ID
ID
o
o
u
~
o
Q
Q
Q
Q
W
~
Q
Q
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.
J!4a -=-
~
5!
"0
G)
CD
::l
CD
~
a
cr
::l
:r
Q)
::l
a.
c-
o
o
^
9
~
~
"I
.
=t
m
~
o
(.,)
~
'II
L:J ".t=J '-a=:::J
Analyst
Date
Exit to Edemal
I
En/er from Edemal
-r=J
-t=JCJt=Jt:=J~t=Jt=JEJ
MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT
TRIP GENERATION
AND INTERNAL CAPTURE SUMMARY
LAND USE A ~~~
ITE LU Code 1.?'O
Exit to Edemal Size \~t)\)
I I Total
Enter
Exit
Total
r~'\) -z..
1> -l.:, -O"?-l
EJ CJ CJ r=J r=J E5
Name of Dvlpt V~\b,~
Time Period 1>",^ ~~'L
I
Enter from Edemal
%
4
Balanced
"1
ITE LU Code ,\c'\
\n,~Nl~ Demand Balanced Demend
Size ~I L l~
Total Internal External
Enter
Exit ~I I~
Total Demand Balanced Demand
% 2'0
ITE LU Code
Size
Total
\
'b""\, ~ 'Sr
Internal External
Enter
Exit
Total
Single-Use Trip Gen. Est.
Net External Trips for Multi-Use Development
LAND USE A LAND USE B LAND USE C
~'::> 0\
\lo~ 4~
'2..C' B:,
~'L.
TOTAL
Enter from Extemal
I I
Exit to External
Source: Kaku Associates. Inc.
u
o
10
10
ID
10
10
10
Q
U
Q
Q
P
i~
q
o
o
o
Q
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
HCS OUtput - Scenario I
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
~~ -"'-
lD
1D
10
Q
~
~
p
p
p
p
o
o
o
o
o
~
~
q
g
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 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 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 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 I 4 I 5
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 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 I Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right 1 EB Right
SB Right I 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
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) vlc g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
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
A'\ _IS-
10
10
o
o
o
~
u
u
~
u
~
u
_0
q
q
q
,0
,0
~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 Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Existing, 2003
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound
I 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 1 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 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NB Left A A
Thru A I 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 I Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right
SB Right I 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 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 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\C -"'--
fO
1D
1D
1D
ID
Q
Q
Q
~
~
o
o
IP
o
o
o
o
.0
,~
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.lc
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}
I Eastbound
1 L T R
1
I
I L
154
112.0
1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
1 Westbound I Northbound
IL T R IL T R
I I
1 I 211 1221
R I L T R I L T R
49 164 240 28 155 235 43
12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
5 I 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
1
T
148
12.0
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 I Thru A
Right A 1 Right A
Peds I Peds
WB Left A 1 SB Left A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I 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
1770
1881
1553
3433
1900
1615
3273
3195
1538
0.33
0.41
0.08
0.20
0.71
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.11
0.33
0.51
0.36
= 26.0
0.13
0.24
0.41
32.8
26.4
14.4
C
C
B
25.8
C
0.13
0.24
0.41
31.6
33.2
14.1
C
C
B
31.5
C
0.11
0.30
0.30
32.5
21.7
20.4
C
C
C
23.5
C
0.11 33.8 C
0.30 23.6 C 24.2
0.30 22.4 C
{sec/veh} Intersection
C
LOS
C
A.\\ -=-
[J
ID
lD
10
o
Q
Q
~
.~
Q
Q
W
P
o
q
o
o
,_0
~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 Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Existing 2003
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
I Eastbound
I L T R
1
I
1 L
1169
112.0
I
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
1 Westbound I Northbound
1 L T R I L T R
I I
1 I 211 122 1
R I L T R I L T R
32 150 156 50 1159 620 85
12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
3 I 519
I Southbound
I L T R
I
I 1 2 1
I L T R
123 263 72
112.0 12.0 12.0
I 7
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
1
1
T
250
12.0
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
EB Left A 1 NB Left A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
WB Left A I SB Left A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right A
SB Right I 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 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) vie g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
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
1805
1900
1615
3183
1881
1583
3502
3471
1615
0.54
0.70
0.06
0.11
0.42
0.09
0.44
0.69
0.21
0.16
0.34
0.19
= 28.1
0.17
0.21
0.39
32.1
34.4
15.4
C
C
B
32.1
C
0.17
0.21
0.39
27.8
28.0
15.6
C
C
B
25.4
C
0.11
0.28
0.28
33.9
28.1
22.5
C
C
C
28.7
C
0.11 32.5 C
0.28 23.4 C 23.9
0.28 22.4 C
(sec/veh) Intersection
C
LOS
C
~ \2. -=-
-0
o
o
:0
[0
lD
10
ID
ID
ID
1D
1D
Q
Q
P
P
P
P
.~
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
HCS Output - Scenario II
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
....
A.\~ .
1]
iD
ID
ID
ID
1D
1D
P
P
P
p
Ip
P
~
~
~
.~
-~
..~
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: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th
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
1 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound 1 Southbound
I L T R 1 L T R I L T R 1 L T R
1 I 1 I
No. Lanes I 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 I 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L TR 1 L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R
Volume 116 29 18 1202 96 51 154 381 52 1102 629 64
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 1 5 I 5 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
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 398 996 0.05 0.40 14.8 B
TR 720 1800 0.08 0.40 14.9 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~ -=-
ro
10
10
ID
Q
Q
~
P
P
o
o
o
p
o
Q
~
q
,Q
g
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
I Eastbound
I L T R
1
I 110
I L TR
169 133 100
112.0 12.0
I 10
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound 1 Northbound
I L T R I L T R
1 I
I 111 1 121
I L T R I L T R
1110 73 101 155 737 160
112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
I 10 1 16
1 Southbound
I L T R
I
I 1 2 1
I L T R
1105 497 30
112.0 12.0 12.0
1 3
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 A
Thru A I 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 I Right A
Peds 1 Peds
NB Right I EB Right
SB Right I 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 404
TR 554
1244
1705
0.23
0.48
0.32
0.32
20.0- B
22.3 C
21.7
C
Westbound
L 303 932 0.49 0.32 22.9 C
T 600 1845 0.16 0.32 19.4 B 21. 0 C
R 525 1615 0.23 0.32 19.9 B
Northbound
L 343 1626 0.21 0.54 10.0+ B
T 1475 3471 0.51 0.43 17.2 B 16.3 B
R 660 1553 0.23 0.43 14.8 B
Southbound
L 321 1752 0.44 0.54 11. 6 B
T 1448 3406 0.44 0.43 16.5 B 15.5 B
R 572 1346 0.06 0.43 13.6 B
Intersection Delay = 17.5 ( sec/veh) Intersection LOS B
A\'5 -=-
10
lD
to
10
u
Q
Q
Q
Q
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
q
,Q
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
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 373 107 87 724
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 414 118 96 804
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized? No
Lanes 2 1 1 2
Configuration T R L T
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R 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 0
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized? No
Lanes 1 1 1
Configuration 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) 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\ls, -=-
ro
10
10
10
lD
P
Q
P
p
o
o
o
o
o
Q
Q
Q
Q
.Q
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: 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):
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
0.25
Volumes and
Northbound
2
T
Adjustments
3
R
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
60 461
0.90 0.90
66 512
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
944
0.90
1048
74
0.90
82
No
2 1
T R
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
132
0.90
146
2
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
o
0.90
o
o
o
108
0.90
120
2
o
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
v/c 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
A\'
-=-
iJ
D
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 Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
ID
10
10
JO
10
10
tD
P
P
P
p
p
o
~
~
~
~
1 Eastbound
I L T R
I
1
I L
166
112.0
I
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound I Northbound
1 L T R I L T R
I I
1 I 211 122 1
R I L T R I L T R
67 \88 293 34 174 315 57
12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
7 I 316
I Southbound
I L T R
1
1 1 2 1
I L T R
\61 636 180
112.0 12.0 12.0
1 18
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
1
1
T
180
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 1 Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right A
SB Right 1 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
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
1770
1881
1553
3433
1900
1615
3273
3195
1538
0.40
0.50
0.11
0.27
0.87
0.06
0.27
0.40
0.14
0.41
0.70
0.44
= 29.6
0.13 33.4
0.24 27.3
0.41 14.6
o . 13 32.1
0.24 48.4
0.41 14.2
0.11 32.9
0.30 22.6
0.30 20.6
0.11 34.4
0.30 27.0
0.30 23.2
( sec/veh)
C
C 26.3
B
C
C
D 42.3
B
D
C
C 24.2
C
C
C
C 26.8
C
Intersection
c
LOS
c
~\e. -=-
lD
o
o
D
o
Q
Q
~
~
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
p
,Y
g
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)
I Eastbound
1 L T R
1
I
I L
1206
112.0
1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound I Northbound
1 L T R 1 L T R
I I
1 I 211 I 221
R 1 L T R 1 L T R
45 170 190 61 1213 834 115
12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
5 1 6 1 12
I Southbound
I L T R
1
1 1 2 1
I L T R
128 366 88
112.0 12.0 12.0
I 9
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
1
1
T
305
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 1 NB Left A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
WB Left A 1 SB Left A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds 1 Peds
NB Right 1 EB Right A
SB Right I 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 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 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
1805
1900
1615
3183
1881
1583
3502
3471
1615
0.66
0.85
0.08
0.15
0.51
0.12
0.59
0.93
0.28
0.19
0.47
0.23
= 36.6
0.17 36.1
0.21 48.2
0.39 15.6
0.17 28.1
0.21 28.9
0.39 15.8
0.11 36.1
0.28 47.3
0.28 23.2
0.11 32.7
0.28 24.5
0.28 22.7
( sec/veh)
D
D 41.2
B
D
C
C 26.1
B
C
D
D 42.7
C
D
C
C 24.7
C
Intersection
C
LOS
D
A.\~ _e-
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
Q
Q
~
Q
-Q
.~
o
~
.~
,0
'0
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
HCS OUtput - Scenario III
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Ii. '2C -=-
10
10
10
10
Q
Q
~
~
Q
P
P
W
P
p
P
q
~
~
L~
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: 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)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
1 Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound
I L T R 1 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 1 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L TR I L T R I L T R 1 L T R
Volume 128 31 55 1204 105 71 1215 649 55 1127 845 88
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 6 I 7 I 6 I 9
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 A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds 1 Peds
WB Left A I SB Left A A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right 1 EB Right
SB Right I 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 345 986 0.11 0.35 17.7 B
TR 604 1725 0.18 0.35 18.1 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 0.15 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
R 524 1553 0.20 0.34 19.0 B
Intersection Delay = 26.9 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
A2\ -=-
lJ
o
o
o
o
Q
Q
~
Q
Q
U
U
o
o
q
o
o
p
~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
Nls St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T R 1 L T R I 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 1 L T R I L T R I L T R
Volume 194 141 248 1113 76 136 1104 1182 163 1156 905 67
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 12 1 14 1 16 I 7
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 1 Thru A
Right A 1 Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right
SB Right I 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) vlc g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 450 1240 0.28 0.36 18.4 B
TR 583 1607 0.78 0.36 29.6 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
A'll.. -~
u
o
o
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
lD
ID
Q
P
P
p
P
P
P
P
~
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: 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
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 570 107 87 933
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 633 118 96 1036
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized? No
Lanes 2 1 1 2
Configuration T R L T
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R 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 0
Median Storage 1
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized? No
Lanes 1 1 1
Configuration 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) 96 56 0 45
C(m) (vph) 854 258 165 680
v/c 0.11 0.22 0.00 0.07
95% queue length 0.38 0.81 0.00 0.21
Control Delay 9.7 22.8 26.8 10.7
LOS A C D B
Approach Delay 17.4
Approach LOS C
~1.:, -=-
10
1D
10
10
ID
10
I
o
}
p
p
p
p
~
o
~
U
J
~
~
.~
.9
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
T R
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
60 812
0.90 0.90
66 902
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
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
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
A'24
-=-
o
Q
Q
Q
U
Q
~
~
o
~
o
q
q
o
o
o
o
o
h~
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 + Vcnt + Proposed
#0300.48.223
Nls St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
1 I I I
No. Lanes I 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 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
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) vlc 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
R 480 1599 0.44 0.30 23.2 C
Intersection Delay = 31.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
A2~
_e..
ro
1D
o
o
o
o
1J
U
~
~
Q
Q
.~
~
q
p
o
o
~O
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
gency: 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 Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I
I T R I L T R I L T R
1 I 1 1
No. Lanes I 1 2 1 1 1 2 I 1 2 1
LGConfig 1 L I L T R 1 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 T ru A etA
Right ight A
Peds Peds Q\~ 6
WB Left A Left A ~ J)
Thru A Thru A /\(\Y
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 ummary
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 1736 0.19 0.11 32.7 C
T 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. 2lo -=-
ro
10
10
10
lJ
'Q
Q
~
U
Q
o
o
p
p
o
o
o
o
,0
HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Analyst J. Pyrz Street
Area Type All other areas
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Date Performed 03/09/03 Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt +
Time Period PM Peak - Scenario 3 Analysis Year Proposed
Project ID Pittman Partners TIS,
#0300.48.223
Volume and Timina InDut
EB WB NB 5B
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 Excl. 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 Cycle Length, C = 90.0
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 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
corre..c..Ted 7-1"2..-05
1t-1-b A -=-
u
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
ID
ID
I D HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.le
ID
10
10
ID
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
o
o
Qon-t.ckd 7-(2..-05
"'-
k-2.~ a -
10
10
10
o
o
o
-Q
u
u
u
~
-~
--~
u
o
o
q
U
:~
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
HCS OUtput - Scenario IV
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
All -=-
10
ID
10
10
Q
Q
U
U
Q
~
~
~
o
p
o
o
q
o
~g
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1e
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 + Vent + 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 1 L T R I L T R I L T R
I I I 1
No. Lanes 1 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 I 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L TR 1 L T R I L T R 1 L T R
Volume 124 31 55 1204 105 63 \215 567 55 \131 832 84
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 6 I 6 I 6 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 345 986 0.09 0.35 17.6 B
TR 604 1725 0.18 0.35 18.1 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
A.~ -
10
10
1D
lD
Q
Q
-Q
U
~
U
o
U
p
o
o
o
~
Q
~~
HCS2000: signalized Intersections Release 4.lc
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 + Vcnt + Zoned
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 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 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 \ L T R
Volume 188 141 248 \113 76 141 1104 1153 163 1141 818 61
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 12 I 14 1 16 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 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 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
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
R 488 1346 0.15 0.36 17.3 B
Intersection Delay = 31.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
A 2..~
_e-
D
o
o
D
ID
[0
10
10
Q
Q
P
P
.P
P
P
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
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 570 13 4 933
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 633 14 4 1036
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized? No
Lanes 2 1 1 2
Configuration T R L T
Upstream Signal? No No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 38 0 12
Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 0 13
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Median Storage 1
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized? No
Lanes 1 1 1
Configuration 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
A.~ _c-
I'D
10
10
10
]0
o
o
Q
Q
Q
Q
~
o
o
o
o
u
~
o
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
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
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
1330
0.90
1477
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
44
0.90
48
No
2 1
T R
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
24
0.90
26
2
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
o
0.90
o
o
o
8
0.90
8
2
o
No
1
L
1 1
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) 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
A~\ _e-
]D
10
10
10
o
o
o
o
Q
W
U
U
o
~
o
y
~
,0
.~
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 1 westbound 1 Northbound 1 Southbound
1 L T R 1 L T R I L T R 1 L T R
I I I I
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 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/e 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
^?:J2 ~~
jO
lD
10
lD
o
Q
U
Q
~
~
~
~
~
q
q
q
q
q
q
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Anal st: J. Pyrz
Agenc : Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/10/03
period: M Peak - Scenario 4
Project I : pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 11 th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116t 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
Delay LOS
I
I
I
I
I L
1206
112.0
I
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Westbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R
I I
I 2 1 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
I L T R R I L T R
1121 190 61 135 \28 587 88
112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
I 6 14 I 9
Duration
a Type: All
Signal Opera
3 4
5
A
6
7
8
1.00
Phase Combination 1
EB Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
WB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
NB Right
SB Right
Green
Yellow
All Red
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
Right
A
A
A
A
rJ-~
~~ _ VI
~v
A
SB
A
A
A
A
A
Appr/
Lane
Grp
A
A
9.0 22.0
4.0 4.0
0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0
Int rsection Performance S mary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group
Flo Rate
(s)
sees
14.0
3.0
0.0
Approach
Lane
Group
Capaci ty
g/C
v/e
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
~~ ~=-
to
10
10
lD
o
o
D
D
U
~
Q
U
~
o
o
o
q
p
~ co rrt. C>\o<l
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Analyst J. Pyrz Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Ke/cey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 03110103 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak - Scenario 4 Analysis Year Ex + Bkgmd + Vcnt + Zoned
Project 10 Pittman Partners TIS,
#0300.48.223
Volume and Timina InlJut
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, 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 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 / 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
Timing G = 12.0 G = 19.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G = 32.0 G= G=
y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analvsis, T = 1.00 Cycle Length, 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
v/c 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-t 2.--05
A--33
-""-
~ Incremental delay, d2 35.1 19.1 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.1 28.8 19.9 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.2
C Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 73.4 53.3 20.0 35.9 32.6 19.0 68.7 48.1 20.8 37.9 24.3 20.1
Lane group LOS E D B D C B E D C D C C
[ Approach delay 52.6 31.4 49.5 24.4
Approach LOS D C D C
[ Intersection delay 42.1 Xc = 0.90 Intersection LOS D
HCS2000™
o
o
o
o
10
ID
ID
Q
Q
'q
P
o
o
-p
Pcorrc.C-k d
i-{ 2..-05
Copyright <<:> 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4Je
A-o~
-=-
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage/Wal-Mart Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
APPENDIX B
Site Plan................................................................................................................................ B-1
Highway Capacity Software Output, Base Year Conditions
Bennett Parkway and Andrade Drive ....... ............ ........ ...... .......... ........... ................ ........ B-2
106th Street and Andrade Drive ...................................................................................... B-4.2
Trip Generation..................................................................................................................... B- 5
Highway Capacity Software Output, Scenario B
Michigan Road and 116th Street........... .......................... ........ .......................... ............. B-1 0
Michigan Road and Pittman site drive/East-West Street (HeritagelWa1-Mart site) ..... B-18
Michigan Road and 1 06th Street.................................................................................... B-18
Bennett Parkway and North-South Street (HeritagelWa1-Mart site)............................. B-22
Bennett Parkway and Andrade Drive ....................... ................. ........................ ............ B-26
106th Street and Andrade Drive .................................................................................... B-28
Highway Capacity Software Output, Scenario C
Michigan Road and 116th Street.................................................................................... B-31
Michigan Road and Pittman site drive/East-West Street (Heritage/Wa1-Mart site) ..... B-35
Michigan Road and 106th Street. ......... .................... ....... ............... .................. .............. B-39
Bennett Parkway and North-South Street (Heritage/Wa1-Mart site)............................. B-41
Bennett Parkway and Andrade Drive.. ............. ....... ....... ............. .................... .............. B-45
106th Street and Andrade Drive .................................................................................... B-47
tJ
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
~
~~
q J:
~
~
(j\
iil
11
i
\
==='=="
110"'"
ct. MIC.rI:I~A.N (US 42t;"' - ,
i'
I
~~~~2~ # ()
~~~ ~ ~ "1J
~ZO~~ I -i
i~~~ <' ()
~-!!l :z
!~ g I
ConcePt~up :"..'::.":..
~ "....".",...... an""""4IIIl3
f&ll"(m.-n
MICHIGAN Retail
INDIANA
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage Site on 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 drivelEast-West Street (Heritage site)
. Michigan Road and 106th Street
Base Year Conditions contained in Appendix B:
. Bennett Parkway and North-South Street (Heritage site)
. Bennett Parkway and Andrade Drive
. 106th Street and Andrade Drive
Highway Capacity Software Output
Scenario A
Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site
--See Appendix A
Edwards and Kelcey
B-2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
nalvst Jill Palmer Intersection Bennett & Andrade
~gencv/Co. Edwards and Kelcev Jurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 9/2/2005 Analvsis Year 2005
Analvsis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Descriotion 060048003 Heritaae RDG
EastlWest Street: Bennett Parkway 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) 0 57 1 6 33 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 64 1 6 37 0
Proportion of heavy 11 10
lVehicles, PHV - - -- -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/hf 0 0 1 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 1 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy 10 0 10 7 0 2
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
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
olume, v (vph) 6 1
Capacity, cm (vph) 1488 978
~/c ratio 0.00 0.00
Queue length (95%) 0.01 0.00
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 8.7
LOS A A
Approach delay (slveh) -- - 8.7
Approach LOS - - A
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000™
Edwards and Kelcey
Copyright @ 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1d
B-3
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Jjll Palmer Intersection Bennett & Andrade
Agencv/Co. Edwards and Kelcev lJurisdiction Zlonsville
Date Performed 9/2/2005 I7\nalysis Year 2005
Analvsis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritage RDG
EastlWest Street: Bennett Parkway North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs : 0.25
Wehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
~olume (veh/h) 0 77 0 3 57 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 87 0 3 64 0
Proportion of heavy 11 10
~ehicles, P HV - -- - --
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
~olume (veh/h) 1 0 7 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.[J8 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 1 0 7 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy 10 0 10 7 0 2
~ehicles, 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) 3 8
Capacity, cm (vph) 1460 931
v/c ratio 0.00 0.01
Queue length (95%) 0.01 0.03
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 8.9
LOS A A
Approach delay (s/veh) -- - 8.9
~pproach LOS - -- A
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Edwards and Kelcey
Version4.1d
B-4 .1
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
nalyst Jill Palmer Intersection 106th & Andrade
\aencY/Co. Edwards and Kelcev Jurisdiction fZlonsville
Date Performed 9/2/2005 Analysis Year 2005
IAnalysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Descriotion 060048003 Heritaae RDG
EastlWest Street: 106th Street North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
lVehicle 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
Ivehicles, 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
1V0lume (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, 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
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
olume, 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
pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.8
!Approach LOS -- - B
HCS2000™
Copyright ro 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.ld
Edwards and Kelcey
B-4. ~
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
nalyst lJiII Palmer Intersection 106th & Andrade
\gency/Co. Edwards and Kelcey !Jurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 9/2/2005 IAnalysis Year 2005
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
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
Major 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 11 0
vehicles, PHV - -- - --
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
;volume (veh/h) 0 0 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 7 0 2
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
!Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
rvolume, v (vph) 7 110
Capacity, em (vph) 1212 541
~/c ratio 0.01 0.20
Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.76
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 13.3
LOS A B
IApproach delay (s/veh) - -- 13.3
IApproach LOS -- - B
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
HCS2000™
Copyright@2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Edwards and Kelcey
Version 4.ld
B-5
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Heritafle Site
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Trip Generation
Shopping Center, 318,900 SF- ITE Code 820
AM Peak:
PM Peak:
Ln(T) 0.60 Ln(X) + 2.29
Ln(T) 0.60 Ln(318.9) + 2.29
T 314 trips
61 % in 192
39% out = 122
Ln(T) = 0.66 Ln(X) + 3.40
Ln(T) 0.66 Ln(318.9) + 3.40
T 1346
48% in 646
52% out = 700
Fuel Station, unknown SF, assume 6 fueling positions- ITE Code 945
AM Peak:
PM Peak:
T 10.06 (X)
T 10.06 (6)
T 60 trips
50% in 30
50% out 30
T = 13.38 (X)
T = 13.38 (6)
T = 80 trips
50% in 40
50% out 40
Internal Capture, Retail-Retail = 20%
Fuel Station: AM Peak = 20% x 60 trips = 12 internal trips
PM Peak = 20% x 80 trips = 16 internal trips
AM Peak = 60-12 = 48 trips
24 enter, 24 exit
PM Peak = 80-16 = 64 trips
32 enter, 32 exit
Fuel Station External Trips:
AM Peak = 314-12 = 302 trips
184 enter, 118 exit
PM Peak = 1346-12 = 1330 trips
638 enter, 692 exit
Shopping Center External Trips:
Edwards and Kelcey
B-6
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Pass-by Trips
Fuel Station: AM Peak
Shopping Center:
Kite Site
PM Peak
PM Peak
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
== 62% x external trips
== 62% x 48
== 30 pass-by trips; 18 non-pass-by trips
== 56% x external trips
== 56% x 64
== 36 pass-by trips; 28 non-pass-by trips
AM Peak
== 0% x external trips
= 0% x 302
= 0 pass-by trips; 302 non-pass-by trips
= 28% x external trips
= 28% x 1330
== 372 pass-by trips; 958 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
REI Site
Industrial Park, 200,000 SF- ITE Code 130
AM Peak:
PM Peak:
Edwards and Kelcey
Ln(T)
Ln(T)
T
0.77 Ln(X) + 1.09
== 0.60 Ln(200) + 2.29
176 trips
82% in 144
18% out 32
T
T
T
0.77 (X) + 42.11
0.77 (200) + 42.11
196 trips
21% in
79% out
41
155
B-7
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage Site on Michigan Road
Zionsvi/le and Carmel, Indiana
Apartments, 200 units- ITE Code 220
AM Peak: T 0.49 (X) + 3.73
T = 0.49 (200) + 3.73
T 1 02 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-8
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Highway Capacity Software Output
Scenario B
Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Heritage Site
Edwards and Kelcey
B-9
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Analyst Adam Tyra Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt +
Heritage
Proiect 10 060048003
Volume and TiminalnlJut
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 74 97 293 34 82 349 64 61 697 180
% 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 19 0 9 0 16 0 45
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, Na 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 Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, 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 65 114 345 29 96 411 56 72 783 159
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 0.27 0.78 0.04 0.27 0.40 0.11 0.39 0.72 0.31
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 15.3 32.7 29.6 14.9 33.5 21.9 19.8 33.9 24.8 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 0.28 0.11
Edwards and Kelcey
B-lO
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
Incremental delay, d2 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.4 9.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.3 2.4 0.4
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 34.1 28.1 15.4 33.0 38.6 14.9 33.9 21.6 19.4 35.2 26.6 21.0
Lane group LOS C C B C D B C C B D C C
Approach delay 27.1 35.9 23.5 26.3
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection delay 27.7 X = 0.64 Intersection LOS C
c
HCS2000™
Copyright <9 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1e
Edwards and Kelcey
B-11
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Analyst Adam Tyra Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt +
Heritage
Proiect ID 060048003
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) 206 305 62 99 190 61 251 981 135 28 510 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 16 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, Gp
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 = 26.0 G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 0 y= 6 y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 92.0
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 48 104 200 48 264 1033 106 29 537 69
Lane group capacity, c 275 454 632 485 450 619 610 1096 509 170 965 431
v/c ratio, X 0.76 0.71 0.08 0.21 0.44 0.08 0.43 0.94 0.21 0.17 0.56 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 0.28 0.28
Uniform delay, d1 37.4 32.0 17.6 34.2 29.8 17.6 33.9 30.7 23.1 38.1 28.1 24.8
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.974 0.974 1.000 0.999 0.999
Delay calibration, k 0.32 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.46 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.11
Edwards and Kelcey
B-12
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
Incremental delay, d2 12.0 5.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.5 15.4 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.2
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 49.4 37.1 17.6 34.4 30.5 17.6 34.4 45.3 22.7 38.6 28.8 24.9
Lane group LOS D D B C C B C D C D C C
Approach delay 39.9 29.9 41.5 28.8
Approach LOS D C D C
Intersection delay 37.1 Xc = 0.74 Intersection LOS D
HCS2000™
Copyright <<:>2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.1e
Edwards and Kelcey
B-13
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Rd and EW
Analyst Adam Tyra St/Pittman
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt +
Heritage
Proiect ID 060048003
Volume and Timino InDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Number of Janes, 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) 46 7 36 51 11 41 83 384 107 87 753 42
% 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 I Bike / RTOR volumes 0 4 0 10 0 27 0 11
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, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, Gp
Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
G= 4.0 G = 25.0 G= G= G= 3.1 G = 32.0 G= G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C - 82.1
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 44 57 12 34 92 427 89 97 837 34
Lane group capacity, c 477 491 466 579 492 222 1248 599 394 1330 623
v/c ratio, X 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.02 0.07 0.41 0.34 0.15 0.25 0.63 0.05
Total green ratio, g/C 0.39 0.30 0.39 0.30 0.30 0.48 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.39 0.39
Uniform delay, d1 15.9 20.4 16.0 20.0 20.3 13.4 17.6 16.2 12.2 20.3 15.6
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.801 0.905 0.905 0.801 0.905 0.905
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.11
Edwards and Kelcey
B-14
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.0
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 16.0 20.5 16.1 20.0 20.3 12.0 16.1 14.8 10.1 19.3 14.2
Lane group LOS B C B B C B B B B B B
Approach delay 18.1 17.9 15.3 18.2
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection delay 17.2 Xc = 0.47 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.I e
Edwards and Kelcey
B-15
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Rd and EW
Analyst Adam Tyra St/Pittman
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt +
Heritage
Proiect 10 060048003
Volume and Timing 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) 231 36 181 132 34 108 268 913 74 60 551 133
% 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 45 0 27 0 19 0 33
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, Ns 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= 4.0 G = 18.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G = 29.0 G= G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 6 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 1.00 Cycle Length, C = 77.0
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 257 191 147 38 90 298 1014 61 67 612 111
Lane group capacity, c 375 379 308 444 378 383 1704 819 191 1285 602
v/c ratio, X 0.69 0.50 0.48 0.09 0.24 0.78 0.60 0.07 0.35 0.48 0.18
Total green ratio, g/C 0.32 0.23 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.38 0.38 0.38
Uniform delay, d1 24.2 25.6 21.7 23.1 23.9 18.3 12.3 8.8 17.2 18.2 16.1
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.713 0.713 0.713 0.918 0.918 0.918
Delay calibration, k 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Edwards and Kelcey
B-16
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
Incremental delay, d2 5.3 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.3 10.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.1
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 29.5 26.7 22.9 23.1 24.3 23.5 9.4 6.3 17.0 17.0 14.9
Lane group LOS C C C C C C A A B B B
Approach delay 28.3 23.4 12.3 16.7
Approach LOS C C B B
I ntersection delay 17.1 Xc = 0.69 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright ~ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1e
Edwards and Kelcey
B-17
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 1 06th
Analyst Adam Tyra Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year Ex. + Bkgrnd + Pitt +
Heritage
Proiect 10 060048003
Volume and Timing Input
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 32 19 202 97 62 54 464 52 111 680 70
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 30 0 0 1 0 3 2 9 12 3 2 4
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.80
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
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 16 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, Ns 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 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 22 61 252 118 57 67 559 49 139 819 65
Lane group capacity, c 398 721 540 760 627 226 1245 541 328 1330 582
v/c ratio, X 0.06 0.08 0.47 0.16 0.09 0.30 0.45 0.09 0.42 0.62 0.11
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 17.7 15.4 14.9 13.4 18.8 16.2 16.6 20.3 16.3
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.820 0.920 0.920 0.820 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
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
Incremental delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.1
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 14.8 15.0 18.3 15.4 15.0 11.7 17.5 15.0 14.5 19.6 15.1
Lane group LOS B B B B B B B B B B B
Approach delay 14.9 17.1 16.8 18.6
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection delay 17.6 Xc = 0.58 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1e
Edwards and Kelcey
B-19
o
D
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection Michigan Road and 106th
Analyst Adam Tyra Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt +
Heritage
Proiect ID 060048003
Volume and Timina InlJut
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) 73 135 102 110 76 220 57 931 160 117 697 75
% 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 27 0 55 0 40 0 20
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 I Grade I 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
Min. time for pedestrians, GD
Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
G = 26.0 G= G= G= G= 5.0 G = 34.0 G= G=
Timing y= 5 y= y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analvsis, T = 0.25 Cvcle 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 81 233 122 84 183 63 950 125 130 774 61
Lane group capacity, c 409 563 331 600 525 308 1478 660 268 1451 572
v/c ratio, X 0.20 0.41 0.37 0.14 0.35 0.20 0.64 0.19 0.49 0.53 0.11
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 19.5 21.1 20.7 19.1 20.6 9.8 18.2 14.4 11.1 17.1 13.9
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.705 0.867 0.867 0.705 0.867 1.000
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.11
Edwards and Kelcey
B-20
u
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
Incremental delay. d2 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.1 1.4 0.4 0.1
Initial queue delay. d3
Control delay 19.7 21.6 21.4 19.2 21.0 7.2 16.7 12.6 9.2 15.2 13.9
Lane group LOS B C C B C A B B A B B
Approach delay 21.1 20.7 15.8 14.3
Approach LOS C C B B
Intersection delay 16.5 Xc = 0.60 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright (g 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4. Ie
Edwards and Kelcey
B-21
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Intersection Bennett & N-S Street /
IAnalyst Ijill Palmer Church
IAgency/Co. Edwards and Kelcev Uurisdiction 7;onsville
Date Performed 9/5/2005 nalysis Year Ex + Bkgmd + Pitt +
IAnalvsis Time Period ~M Peak Heritaae
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritage RDG
EastlWest Street: Bennett Parkway North/South Street: North-South Street / Church
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
~ehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 0 76 0 50 57 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 84 0 55 63 0
Proportion of heavy 11 10
vehicles, PHV - - -- --
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
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 0 38 0 0' 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 42 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy 10 0 10 7 0 2
vehicles, P HV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Delay. Queue Lenath. Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
lVolume, v (vph) 0 55 42 0
Capacity, cm (vph) 1484 1464 954
IV/c ratio 0.00 0.04 0.04
Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.12 0.14
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 7.6 8.9
LOS A A A
IApproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.9
Edwards and Kelcey
B-22
-0
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
JApproach LOS
HCS2000™
A
Copyright (Q 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.ld
Edwards and Kelcey
B-23
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Intersection Bennett & N-S Street /
IAnalyst !Jill Palmer Church
IAgency/Co. Edwards and Kelcev Uurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 9/5/2005 nalysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt +
IAnalysis Time Period PM Peak Heritaae
Project Description 060048003 Heritaae RDG
EastlWest Street: Bennett Parkway North/South Street: North-South Street / Church
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
iVolume (veh/h) 0 144 0 161 109 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 163 0 182 123 0
Proportion of heavy 11 10
~ehicles, P HV -- - -- -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0 .
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
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 0 191 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 217 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy 10 0 10 7 0 2
~ehicles, PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Delav. Queue Lenath. Level of Service
IApproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
rvolume, v (vph) 0 182 217 0
Capacity, cm (vph) 1410 1368 861
~/c ratio 0.00 0.13 0.25
Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.46 1.00
Control Delay (slveh) 7.6 8.0 10.6
LOS A A B
fA.pproach delay (slveh) - -- 10.6
Edwards and Kelcey
B-24
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
!ApproaCh. LOS
HCS2000™
B
Copyright ({:) 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.1d
Edwards and Kelcey
B-25
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
~nalyst lJiII Palmer Intersection Bennett & Andrade
~Qency/Co. Edwards and Kelcey Jurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 9/5/2005 IAnalysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt +
Analysis Time Period lAM Peak Heritaae
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritaae RDG
EastlWest Street: Bennett Parkwav 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) 0 66 1 19 38 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 75 1 21 43 0
Proportion of heavy 11 10
vehicles, P HV -- - - --
Median type Undivided .
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
rvolume (veh/h) 0 0 10 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 11 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy 10 0 10 7 0 2
~ehicles, 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 L.T LR
!volume, v (vph) 21 11
Capacity, cm (vph) 1474 963
~/c ratio 0.01 0.01
Queue length (95%) 0.04 0.03
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 8.8
LOS A A
~pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.8
Approach LOS - -- A
Edwards and Kelcey
B-26
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
!Analyst Jill Palmer Intersection Bennett & Andrade
IAQency/Co. Edwards and Kelcey urisdiction IZionsville
Date Performed 9/5/2005 ~nalysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt +
IAnalysis Time Period PM Peak Heritaae
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritaqe RDG
EastlWest Street: Bennett Parkway North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study PeriodChrs): 0.25
iVehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
!Volume (veh/h) 0 89 0 43 66 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 101 0 48 75 0
Proportion of heavy 11 10
vehicles, PHV -- -- -- --
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 1 0 55 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 1 0 62 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy 10 0 10 7 0 2
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
ConfiQuration LR
Control Delay. 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) 48 63
Capacity, cm (vph) 1443 927
v/c ratio 0.03 0.07 ~~
Queue length (95%) 0.10 0.22
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 9.2
LOS A A
Approach delay (s/veh) - -- 9.2 .
IApproach LOS -- -- A
Edwards and Kelcey
B-27
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
IAnalyst Jill Palmer Intersection 106th & Andrade
IlAgency/Co. Edwards and Kelcev urisdiction lZionsville
Date Performed 9/6/2005 Analysis Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Pitt +
iA.nalysis Time Period AM Peak Heritaae
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritaae RDG
EastlWest Street: 106th Street North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Studv Period lhrSf: 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) 47 248 0 0 114 69
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 52 275 0 0 126 76
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 38 0 13
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 42 0 14
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 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) 52 56
Capacity, cm (vph) 1382 527
~/c ratio 0.04 0.11
Queue length (95%) 0.12 0.35
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 12.6
LOS A B
pproach delay (s/veh) - -- 12.6
pproach LOS - -- B
Edwards and Kelcey
B-28
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
~nalvst Jill Palmer Intersection 106th & Andrade
~gencv/Co. Edwards and Kelcey Jurisdiction 'Zionsville
Date Performed 9/6/2005 Analysis Year Ex + Bkarnd+ Pitt + Heritaae
~nalysis Time Period PM Peak I
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritaae RDG
EasUWest Street: 106th Street North/South Street: Andrade Drive
I ntersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Wehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 35 247 0 0 269 46
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 39 280 0 0 305 52
Proportion of heavy 0 0
lVehicles, 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
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 92 0 59
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 104 0 67
Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 12 0 9
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
[Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 39 171
Capacity, cm (vph) 1213 466
v/c ratio 0.03 0.37
Queue length (95%) 0.10 1.66
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 17.1
LOS A C
Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.1
Approach LOS - - C
HCS2000™
Edwards and Kelcey
Copyright <1::12003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.1d
B-29
U
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Heritage Site on Michigan Road
Zionsville and Carmel, Indiana
Highway Capacity Software Output
Scenario C
Existing Traffic + Background Growth + Pittman Site + Heritage Site + Other Sites
(ALL DEVELOPMENTS)
Edwards and Kelcey
B-30
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
iD
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Adam Tyra Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05
Time Period AM Peak Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Analysis Year Total
Project 10 060048003
Volume and Timing Input
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 89 119 293 34 95 411 76 61 823 180
% 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 0.85 085 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, '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
Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 22 0 9 0 19 0 45
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, 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=
Timing 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 WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Adjusted flow rate, v 78 212 79 140 345 29 112 484 67 72 925 159
Lane group capacity, c 216 436 625 419 440 650 360 1015 488 187 1082 507
v/c ratio, X 0.36 0.49 0.13 0.33 0.78 0.04 0.31 0.48 0.14 0.39 0.85 0.31
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 33.0 29.6 14.9 33.6 22.5 20.0 33.9 26.2 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 0.39 0.11
1.0 0.9 0.1 0.5 9.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 1.3 6.9 0.4
Edwards and Kelcey
B-3!
U
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
'0
o
o
o
o
o
o
Incremental delay, d2
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 34.1 28.1 15.5 33.4 38.6 14.9 34.1 22.3 19.6 35.2 32.4 21.0
Lane group LOS C C B C D B C C B D C C
Approach delay 26.7 35.8 24.0 31.0
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection delay 29.6 Xc = 0.69 Intersection LOS C
HCS2000™
Copyright ~ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1e
Edwards and Kelcey
B-32
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
to
HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Adam Tyra Intersection Michigan Road and 116th
Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05
Time Period PM Peak Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Analysis Year Total
Project ID 060048003
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 81 127 190 61 289 1179 175 28 653 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 20 0 15 0 44 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, 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 NB Only Thru & RT 08
G = 14.0 G = 18.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G= 6.0 G = 27.0 G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 0 y= 6 y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 92.0
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 64 134 200 48 304 1241 138 29 687 69
Lane group capacity, c 275 372 737 485 368 551 724 1248 579 170 1002 447
v/c ratio, X 0.76 0.86 0.09 0.28 0.54 0.09 0.42 0.99 0.24 0.17 0.69 0.15
.
Total green ratio, g/C 0.15 0.20 0.46 0.15 0.20 0.35 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.29 0.29
Uniform delay, d1 37.4 35.8 14.1 34.5 33.3 20.2 31.7 29.4 20.7 38.1 28.7 24.1
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.936 0.936 1.000 0.991 0.991
Delay calibration, k 0.32 0.39 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11
12.0 18.4 0.1 0.3 1.7 0.1 0.4 24.1 0.2 0.5 2.0 0.2
Edwards and Kelcey
B-33
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
Incremental delay, d2
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 49.4 54.2 14.2 34.8 35.0 20.2 32.1 51.6 19.6 38.6 30.4 24.0
Lane group LOS 0 0 B C C C C 0 B 0 C C
Approach delay 48.2 33.1 45.4 30.2
Approach LOS 0 C 0 C
Intersection delay 41.1 Xc = 0.82 Intersection LOS 0
-
HCS2000™
Copyright ~ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1e
Edwards and Kelcey
B-34
o
o
-0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Adam Tyra Intersection Michigan Rd and EW
Sf/Pittman
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05
Time Period AM Peak Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Analysis Year Total
Proiect 10 060048003
Volume and Timing InlJut
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) 64 12 51 60 19 51 116 448 154 134 850 58
% 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 0.90 090 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 13 0 13 0 39 0 15
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 I Grade I 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
Min. time for pedestrians, Gp
Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
G= 4.0 G = 25.0 G= G= G= 3.1 G = 32.0 G= G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 6 y= y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C - 82.1
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 71 55 67 21 42 129 498 128 149 944 48
Lane group capacity, c 474 496 462 579 492 188 1248 599 360 1330 623
v/c ratio, X 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.04 0.09 0.69 0.40 0.21 0.41 0.71 0.08
""-
Total green ratio, g/C 0.39 0.30 0.39 0.30 0.30 0.48 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.39 0.39
Uniform delay, d1 16.1 20.6 16.0 20.1 20.4 22.9 18.1 16.7 15.9 21.1 15.8
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.801 0.905 0.905 0.801 0.905 0.905
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 10.0 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.8 0.1
Edwards and Kelcey
B-3S
u
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
Incremental delay, d2
Initial queue delay I d3
Control delay 16.2 20.6 16.2 20.1 20.5 28.3 16.6 15.3 13.6 20.9 14.3
Lane group LOS B C B C C C B B B C B
Approach delay 18.2 18.2 18.4 19.7
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection delay 19.0 Xc = 0.53 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright <9 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.le
Edwards and Kelcey
B-36
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Adam Tyra Intersection Michigan Rd and EW
St/Pittman
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year Total
Proiect ID 060048003
Volume and Timing Input
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) 259 45 204 186 39 161 289 1101 83 69 734 143
% 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 52 0 40 0 21 0 36
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, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min. time for pedestrians, Gp
Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08
G= 7.0 G = 24.0 G= G= G= 3.0 G= 6.0 G = 40.0 G=
Timing y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 4 y= 0 y= 6 y=
Duration of Analysis, T = 1.00 Cycle Length, C - 98.0
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 288 219 207 43 134 321 1223 69 77 816 119
Lane group capacity, c 431 398 324 465 396 376 1503 722 183 1393 653
v/c ratio, X 0.67 0.55 0.64 0.09 0.34 0.85 0.81 0.10 0.42 0.59 0.18
Total green ratio, glC 0.35 0.24 0.35 0.24 0.24 0.54 0.47 0.47 0.44 0.41 0.41
Uniform delay, d1 28.5 32.3 28.3 28.6 30.5 15.4 22.3 14.4 16.7 22.6 18.5
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.699 0.811 0.811 0.850 0.886 0.886
Delay calibration, k 0.24 0.15 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.39 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11
4.0 1.6 4.3 0.1 0.5 20.0 3.7 0.1 1.6 0.6 0.1
-
Edwards and Kelcey
B 37
o
D
D
10
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
I ncremental delay I d2
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 32.6 33.9 32.6 28.7 31.0 30.8 21.8 11.8 15.7 20.6 16.6
Lane group LOS C C C C C C C B B C B
Approach delay 33.2 31.6 23.1 19.8
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection delay 24.5 Xc = 0.80 Intersection LOS C
HCS2000™
Copyright @ :000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.le
Edwards and Kelcey
B-38
o
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000™ DETAILED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Adam Tyra Intersection Michigan Road and 106th
Street
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 9/6/05
Time Period AM Peak Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Analysis Year Total
Proiect 10 060048003
Volume and Timina Inout
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) 57 68 45 224 143 74 102 552 73 116 741 125
% Heavy vehicles, %HV 30 0 0 1 0 3 2 9 12 3 2 4
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
Extansion 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 19 0 18 0 32
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, Ns 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 63 114 249 159 61 113 613 61 129 823 103
Lane group capacity, c 384 722 514 760 627 224 1245 541 304 1330 582
v/c ratio, X 0.16 0.16 0048 0.21 0.10 0.50 0.49 0.11 0.42 0.62 0.18
I:.
Total green ratio, g/C 0040 0040 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 17.9 15.7 15.0 13.9 19.2 16.3 16.7 20.3 16.7
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.820 0.920 0.920 0.820 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
0.2 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.9 0.1
Edwards and Kelcey
B-39
D
o
10
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
Incremental delay, d2
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 15.6 15.5 18.6 15.9 15.1 13.2 17.9 15.1 14.7 19.6 15.5
Lane group LOS B B B B B B B B B B B
Approach delay 15.5 17.2 17.0 18.6
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection delay 17.6 Xc = 0.59 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright@20oo University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.1e
Edwards and Kelcey
B-40
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
HCS2000™ DETAilED REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst Adam Tyra Intersection Michigan Road and 106th
Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Street
Date Performed 9/6/05 Area Type All other areas
Time Period PM Peak Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiana
Analysis Year Total
Project 10 060048003
Volume and Timing Input
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) 163 204 178 174 116 226 141 1066 218 129 873 150
% 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 47 0 57 0 55 0 39
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 EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
G = 22.0 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 = 65.5
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 181 373 193 129 188 157 1088 170 143 970 123
Lane group capacity, c 406 576 242 620 542 207 1306 583 217 1282 506
v/c ratio, X 0.45 0.65 0.80 0.21 0.35 0.76 0.83 0.29 0.66 0.76 0.24
Total green ratio, g/C 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.50 0.38 0.38 0.50 0.38 0.38
Uniform delay, d1 17.0 18.5 19.7 15.5 16.3 11.6 18.6 14.3 12.2 17.8 14.1
Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.772 0.919 0.919 0.772 0.919 1.000
Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.23 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.37 0.11 0.23 0.31 0.11
0.8 2.5 16.9 0.2 0.4 15.0 4.8 0.3 7.2 2.6 0.3
Edwards and Kelcey
B-41
1J
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Incremental delay, d2
Initial queue delay, d3
Control delay 17.8 21.0 36.6 15.7 16.7 24.0 21.9 13.5 16.6 19.0 14.3
Lane group LOS B C D B B C C B B B B
Approach delay 19.9 24.0 21.1 18.3
Approach LOS B C C B
Intersection delay 20.4 Xc = 0.86 Intersection LOS C
HCS2000™
Copyright 1!:l2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1e
Edwards and Kelcey
B-42
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst lJiII Palmer Intersection Bennett & N-S Street /
Church
Agency/Co. Edwards and Kelcev 'urisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 9/5/2005 'Analysis Year Total
Analysis Time Period lAM Peak
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritage RDG
EasUWest Street: Bennett Parkway North/South Street: North-South Street / Church
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) 0 95 19 50 82 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 105 21 55 91 0
Proportion of heavy 11 10
rvehicles, P HV -- - -- -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 29 0 38 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 32 0 42 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy 10 0 10 7 0 2
vehicles, P HV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Delav. Queue Length. Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
Volume, v (vph) 0 55 74 0
Capacity, cm (vph) 1449 1412 746
v/c ratio 0.00 0.04 0.10
Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.12 0.33
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 7.7 10.4
LOS A A B
Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.4
Approach LOS -- -- B
Edwards and Kelcey
B-43
1]
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst lJill Palmer Intersection Bennett & N-S Street /
Church
AQencv/Co. Edwards and Kelcev urisdiction lZionsville
Date Performed 9/5/2005 nalvsis Year Total
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritage RDG
East/West Street: Bennett Parkway North/South Street: North-South Street / Church
Intersection Orientation: East-West Studv Period (hrs): 0.25
lV.ehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
!Volume (veh/h) 0 172 66 161 124 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 195 75 182 140 0
Proportion of heavy 11 10
Ivehicles, PHV - - - -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 23 0 161 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 26 0 182 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy 10 0 10 7 0 2
vehicles, PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Delav. Queue Lenath. Level of Service
pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
Volume, v (vph) 0 182 208 0
Capacity, cm (vph) 1390 1249 646
v/c ratio 0.00 0.15 0.32
Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.51 1.39
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 8.4 13.2
LOS A A B
pproach delay (s/veh) - - 13.2
pproach LOS -- - B
Edwards and Kelcey
B-44
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Intersection Bennett & Andrade
Agency/Co. Edwards and Kelcev Jurisdiction 'lionsville
Date Performed 9/5/2005 Analysis Year Total
Analvsis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritage RDG
EastlWest Street: Bennett Parkway NorthlSouth Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Wehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 0 104 20 19 92 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 118 22 21 104 0
Proportion of heavy 11 10
vehicles, PHV - - - --
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 28 0 10 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 31 0 11 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy 10 0 10 7 0 2
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
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 21 42
Capacity, cm (vph) 1395 732
vlc ratio 0.02 0.06
Queue length (95%) 0.05 0.18
Control Delay (slveh) 7.6 10.2
LOS A B
~pproach delay (s/veh) - - 10.2
Approach LOS -- -- B
HCS2000™
Copyright <<:> 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.ld
Edwards and Kelcey
B-45
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
nalyst Intersection Bennett & Andrade
\oency/Co. Edwards and Kelcey Jurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 9/5/2005 Analysis Year Total
IlAnalysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description 060048003 Heritaae RDG
EastlWest Street: Bennett Parkway North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
~ehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
iVolume (veh/h) 0 183 6 43 104 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 207 6 48 118 0
Proportion of heavy 11 10
vehicles, P HV - - - -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Sional I) 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 25 0 55 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 28 0 62 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy 10 0 10 7 0 2
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
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 48 90
Capacity, cm (vph) 1311 707
vlc ratio 0.04 0.13
Queue length (95%) 0.11 0.44
Control Delay (slveh) 7.9 10.8
LOS A B
pproach delay (slveh) -- -- 10.8
fA.pproach LOS - -- B
HCS2000™
Copyright@2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.ld
Edwards and Kelcey
B-46
o
o
D
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
nalyst Intersection 106th & Andrade
~Qency/Co. Edwards and Kelcey Jurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 9/6/2005 ~nalysis Year Total
~nalvsis Time Period AM Peak
Project 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 Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 47 302 0 0 192 69
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 52 335 0 0 213 76
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 Signal 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 38 0 13
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 42 0 14
Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 12 0 9
IIehicles, 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
~pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 52 56
Capacity, cm (vph) 1284 435
v/c ratio 0.04 0.13
Queue length (95%) 0.13 0.44
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 14.5
LOS A B
pproach delay (s/veh) - -- 14.5
pproach LOS - -- B
HCS2000™
Edwards and Kelcey
Copyright @ 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.ld
B-47
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
'A nalyst Intersection 106th & Andrade
Agency/Co. Edwards and Kelcev Uurisdiction Zionsville
Date Performed 9/6/2005 IAnalysis Year Total
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Description 060048003 Heritage RDG
EastlWest Street: 106th Street North/South Street: Andrade Drive
Intersection Orientation: East-West Studv Period (hrs): 0.25
ehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
1V0lume (veh/h) 47 330 0 0 315 46
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 53 375 0 0 357 52
Proportion of heavy 0 0
r,tehicles, 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 92 0 72
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 104 (j 81
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
pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 53 185
Capacity, cm (vph) 1161 390
v/c ratio 0.05 0.47
Queue length (95%) 0.14 2.47
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 22.3
LOS A C
pproach delay (s/veh) - - 22.3
Approach LOS -- -- C
HCS2000™
Copyright I!:i 2003 University ofFlorida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1d
Edwards and Kelcey
B-48
o r
D
D
D
Q
Q
D
01
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
Edwardll
ANDHelceg OFFICES NATIONWIDE
ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTORS
www.ekcorp.com