HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Study June 1990 IMP
ta,
�1W
v_=
AC)
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FOR CARMEL CLAY SCHOOL CORP.
A Proposed Expansion of
Existing Campus and
New Physical Education Complex
in Carmel, Indiana
PRELIMINARY
Prepared for:
CARMEL CLAY SCHOOL CORPORATION
By:
PFLUM, KLAUSMEIER & GEHRUM CONSULTANTS
Indianapolis, IN
Cincinnati, OH Fort Wright, ICY
June, 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
INTRODUCTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF SITE 1
DESCRIPTION OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 1
Existing Roadway Descriptions 1
Existing Traffic Counts 2
ESTIMATE OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 3
l-"
Proposed Site Generated Traffic 3
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Description Page
1 Location Map 7
2 Conceptual Site Plan 8
3 136th St. and SR 431 Intersection (Schematic Drawing) 9
4 Main St. and SR 431 Intersection (Schematic Drawing) 10
5 Recommended Lane Configuration of 136th Street 11
5a Recommended Lane Geometrics of 136th Street 12
6 Recommend Changes to Site Plan 13
LIST OF TABLES
1 Traffic Volumes on 136th Street
14
2 Traffic Volumes on SR 431 15
3 High School Campus Generated Vehicle TripEnds
16
APPENDIX
A Left Turn Indication Warrant 17
1567
R-11/03/08
ff CARMEL CLAY SCHOOL AND STADIUM
INTRODUCTION
I{ This traffic impact analysis has been prepared at the request of Mr. Tim R. Stevens
of Campbell, Kyle & Profitt, Attorneys on behalf of the Carmel Clay School District.
The general location of the site within the Carmel metropolitan area is shown by Figure
1.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
Carmel High School is currently located just west of SR 431 (Keystone Avenue) and
north of East Main Street (131st Street). The current complex extends to the north
to Cool Creek, with Main Street comprising the majority of the southern boundary.
A new Physical Education Complex including a 6000 seat stadium is being planned for
construction on a vacant parcel of property located in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of SR 431 (Keystone Avenue) and Q 6t�Street. Additional properties are
being sought for purchase by the Carmel Clay School District that would provide direct
access between the existing campus and the proposed Physical Education Complex.
The current campus and proposed expansion is shown in Figure 2.
DESCRIPTION OF TRANSPORTATION FACILI'1'ihS
Existing Roadway Descriptions
SR 431 (Keystone Avenue) is a 4 lane divided highway which runs north/south just to
the east of the existing campus and proposed complex. The intersections with Main
Street and 136th Street are both signalized and interconnected with a master computer
controlled traffic signal system between 136th Street and I-465. Both intersections
have auxiliary left and right turn lanes on Keystone Avenue.
•
1� 1
I
136th Street is a two lane, east/west facility with no shoulders. As it approaches
Keystone Avenue from the east and west, it widens out to delineated three-lane
approaches. This allows for one receiving lane, one left-turn lane and a shared
through/right turn lane in both approaches. There is a bridge spanning Cool Creek which
carries 136th Street to the west of this project and this bridge has a width of 26 feet
of clear roadway surface.
Main Street (131st) is a two lane, east/west street that has been widened in front of
the High School to accommodate the turning movements. As it approaches Keystone
from the west it widens into a well delineated 4-lane approach. This accommodates
two receiving lanes, a left turn and a through/right turn lane. The approach geometrics
are the same on the east approach.
A schematic drawing of the intersections of SR 431 at 136th Street and SR 431 at Main
Street are given in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively.
Existing Traffic Counts
Traffic counts were conducted by this Consultant for 48 hours between June 19, 1990
and June 21, 1990 on all approaches at the intersection of SR 431 and 136th Street.
Regular school was not in session at this time. The 24 hour traffic counts for June
20, 1990 on 136th Street and SR 431 are given in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively.
The traffic counts revealed different levels of traffic volumes on the east and west
approaches on 136th Street. The east approach rose to the 200 + vehicle level between
6:00 and 7:00 AM and maintained that level throughout most of the daylight hours.
The peak hour occurred between 7:00 and 8:00 AM when 437 vehicles approached SR
431. The west approach was not as consistent as the east approach. The volumes rose
through the morning hours to approximately 90 vehicle per hour until around 3:00 PM
when it maintained a 100 + vehicle per hour level. The peak hour for this approach
occurred at 5:00 PM until 6:00 PM with 227 vehicles approaching SR 431.
2
The traffic volumes on SR 431 ranged between approximately 450 vehicles per hour
up to almost 1000 vehicles per hour throughout the daylight hours. The peak hour for
northbound traffic occurred between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM with 974 vehicles heading
` north. The peak hour for southbound occurred between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM with 703
vehicles going south.
ESTIMATES OF SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
Proposed Site Generated Traffic
The proposed expansion plan (Figure 2) includes a 6000 seat stadium with additional
track and field facilities and parking north of 136th Street. The existing school campus
will be expanded to accommodate 3000 students and 300 employees. Currently, there
are approximately 1800 students and 225 employees. The trip generation characteristics
of these facilities were estimated separately in accordance with the informational data
andguidelinespublished bythe Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in its 1987
P g
Fourth Edition of Trip Generation as well as personal expertise and knowledge. The
results of traffic studies throughout the nation by members of ITE are presented in
Trip Generation for 93 different categories of development. As such, the document
is widely used and accepted to estimate traffic in the area of the high school. It is
estimated that there will be approximately 4200 vehicle trip ends based on 3000 students;
see Table 3. The stadium data however, carries a caution message as it is a small sample.
Therefore, this firm used a 3 person per vehicle occupancy rate which leads us to a
2000 vehicle level to be accommodated at capacity events.
t
It is assumed that the traffic arriving at the stadium will be divided as follows:
1. 60% approaching the stadium from the east
2. 40% approaching the stadium from the west.
This directional split was arrived at after a review of the Clay Township map and
reviewing the current zoning for residential areas.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The level of service at the intersection of SR 431 (Keystone Avenue) and 136th Street
will be governed by two major factors:
3
1. Peak hour flows (AM & PM)
2. Stadium events.
Fortunately, these two factors should rarely, if ever, coincide due to the nature of the
events.
As stated earlier, the peak hour for Keystone Avenue was recorded at near 1000 vehicles
in one direction. This is on a two lane facility with right turn and left turn auxiliary
lanes at this intersection. Allowing for a 50% growth over the next 20 years would
result in 1500 vehicles per hour. The traffic should be approximately equally distributed
between the two lanes which yields 750 vehicles per lane. Assuming a 120 second cycle
length and a 60% - 40% split between mainline and side street time allocation, the
F saturation flow rate as described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual is 1800 pcphgpl
(passenger cars, per hour of green time, per lane); which in this case would be 1800
x .60 = 1080 pcphgpl. Thus, the projection of 750 pcphgpl is about 75% of the saturation
flow rate. The stadium event will easily be the major generator for this segment of
136th Street. The anticipated inflow and outflow of 2000 vehicles, at capacity events,
will be a strain on 136th Street, because the majority of this traffic will be realized
within a 30 minute time span. Auxiliary lanes are being recommended on 136th Street
as well as traffic control personnel to help alleviate this congestion.
• The traffic signal controller at this intersection is a standard NEMA, 8 phase,
fully-actuated controller. Currently, only 4 phases are being utilized. The capability
•
s to add a left-turn phase from any approach currently exists with the addition of some
vehicle detection loops and minor additional equipment in the controller cabinet.
Discussions with the Greenfield District Office of INDOT has indicated that this
intersection will be closely monitored for the installation of any additional phases if
the warrant for a left-turn phase is met. The left-turn warrant is shown in the Appendix.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The expansion of the school campus and the construction of the Physical Education
Complex will have a minimal impact on the surrounding transportation facilities in
that area. The existing street and highway system surrounding the existing school campus
has been upgraded to accommodate the flow characteristics of today. The gradual
increase in student population and staff could be monitored and any additional
improvements that become needed could be implemented.
4
The only exception to this is the intersection of Main street at 4th Street. This
intersection is an offset intersection and should have further analysis performed on
it. This analysis should include any additional parking facilities and pedestrian traffic
that may be passing through that intersection. Preliminary site plans have indicated
,t
that a parking lot in the southeast quadrant of this intersection will be enlarged and
utilized by the school. Along with this work, this intersection should be realigned to
a standard 4 approach intersection with no offset.
As stated earlier, the major traffic generator of this project will be the 6000 seat
stadium. It is recommended that the following steps be taken to mitigate this impact
and move safely and efficiently accommodate this traffic:
1. 136th Street should be upgraded between SR 431 (Keystone Avenue) and
the bridge crossing Cool Creek. A schematic sketch is enclosed (Figure
5) giving the general recommended lane configurations.
s
2. It is recommended that the site plan be modified to allow two additional
entrances to the identified parking lots.
3. The original entrances to the parking lots should remain; however, portable
barricades should be used to simulate a one-way loop drive. This area would
c_ then function as a drop-off/pick-up point for busses and cars, an emergency
vehicle access point and parking for employees (on the basketball court
area).
4. A perimeter drive around the backside of the parking lots should be
constructed to access the north end of the complex.
A concern for spectators on foot was paramount while making these recommendations
concerning the site plan. The relocation of the main entrance points of the parking
lots to the back side of the lots and creating the perimeter road away from the stadium,
will reduce the potential conflicts of spectators walking to/from the stadium while
trying to avoid moving vehicles. A modified site plan is also enclosed showing these
recommendations to the area (Figure 6).
5
One final recommendation is that the intersection of 136th Street and Rangeline Road
be investigated further. The roadway limits are not very well defined on quadrants
that have adjoining parking lots. Sight distance is hampered by a hill in the northeast
quadrant for westbound traffic. Any recommended geometric improvements would
i- be hampered by limited right-of-way and utilities in the area.
The investigation should also entail a study for any additional traffic control that might
be beneficial. This control could be as little as changing the 2-way stop condition to
r
4
a 4-way stop or the installation of a flashing beacon (either yellow/red or all red) or
the installation of a full traffic signal.
N.
K•
F
1567/R-11/03
6
A: .
..T S . ... .. ... - w1F: :. .-... ... . .l"_-•.'.'V •': -:'!Rt•11C:'.1:'.!e'u-:-...Te.�' LL. S -!- .- i .. . .+tom -. '
•
L
or
n` OUa lT �� ,y4461g,
$P�•31 aft, •QP161
rinii
O �� LADY Of
w 20 Ia2ND 21 22 ST 2 l • 21N.tIlk-i7 HO CT ....A
,,
PRNCI Pligpt
SLH = r" , y� O W
IT
:,
to,
.irl IP hh MA , iii
.,_
t} H Z !'r nIID6 AN 9 2G J-��� NORt itsi 1 C O C
._ u a' c•l. o L. $T s.. NacN. 9 27 1. 2•
p r a)
s 30 a w 29 o I'OT112� G' oaf l ui93,. _ h
(: •U•.'yO ,�. .�. ... neeN I
vIK v lY CWO 't Y .(• CRR JCL OJ$G ./.�if J/�I
,.,,,,
ST 126'111 ST � CL .. lE w
�i P. ` E�// _ .C.` 5 LINN%OOI
4 "
L
'� le 31121711 C L` - u '.S4 �(y aI • Y V
sT up 32 o"Iaz. t I
,36 . 31 [NI...1 '-', ii,
/ „ :colt. r %HIT[GNrr Pf 6o-
s u m II.TN 1� IJ' ♦Y'�J■
'—..cc\ ..!•
10 11 �111 oolRND I u.s 'CHR /o ���111 •
n O VNTFY tip'.= w
2 E. II ITN. 1 ST. lve ' W Y
L 6 O¢ 5 �P� 4oD•[o 3 «ttt{YYY 6
1 'I l $TIGIt _ 77 t3 tl ..
fv f!! 7} (c1UH$ n er 17l p1 i O Z
,�1 177 >< (I 0:T E __,�! I'105t IZI T
w 106T11 5• ;T oci:C 0
v SHRIN( < l %I.I.S;
[1 • r
7 W OR$f PI }I 09GY8rraol= 10I111w31 1Ps°iA. 7 I ,
-: ca[[ O o inr �' �— -....It.. O I
� R ,
•® ?U GOVNT Rv 1J ``�ls__ff W {I i
TII GLUE T "n/Lj7 Ell�1 7} T' `'� 6TII V
L
°
aill � itiliti I R3E 31_ ti, =
i
0.
® PROPOSED SITE OF STADIUM
3
i
• EXISTING SITE OF HIGH SCHOOL AND EXPANSION
j
I
P
F
,
i`
FIGURE
1 CARMEL/CLAY SCHOOL DISTRICT
HIGH SCHOOL AND STADIUM
I
7
e Cs
C•mei-.-.71-'
F.' r-C:i.A•inir) 1
(,, ..:----- ---.1
3
\
I 1 .1 _t
1 i
r • •• ‘ i. t
1 r
\ ‘1 1
.)i r-k..._______,L._....__. i
- ----
______i ..
I' I k f •• ---.--•-[ ..„ (.1-q mil}iii • 7,174F; I . ,. .• t \\
,,,,.... ti •:-.y.- --3-8 14-1--'-94, ' ' 1 ,,..,,. .0
„.6'C.5.' i. • 14-1-1,... ',.., ..,-A.
, ......2,....../
I7 . \ ,•\-•-;----,--_,r-_ .T.-,--.7---7.5—_,-. -,
\ I
. .-, i ! ! i;is !„, . •-----71.-:\\
L.-
''• , '11
•:-.6--,;,. . 3 ! i 1 ;1 ,.3:,
,(1. .
•. I
)
. 4 I I
[.-„ I t .1
•I'.-k.1 • i
A ' i
:41::"1"-Ick...,. .,:i4\--). ' . ' • ' . 5 i
4.-st_e.: 6-.,•,5 ,/ ,) ir ''';. k.,,
qa;•1-4,1_,U „ -II //1_,,v.: ,;;N, ..
r/
1-^,";-,.""'• 1. ^;1/4"..\ -'
L. •ri;.‹ ;b/ ; .
..,f,to \....___, ! ". • ,
,r,.7,, •
5'
i .....• , •-,.
•,,•'; / 7-5"::-..- --. 1.A,
.1 .1:-..,,_ . .6....1.z.1.7......,.:''j.....:,•.1,,leiC; :-"-;,.
' it/. ‘• :•-, r.••• .
, • 1,....,., , ...
' .._.
•
L•
r I
-....1 ,•'''' \ I r
g .
er, -...- •-
i' ' \ ••• s.; , I
: 7•-g.....r:-..?,--/;-.9,-.7.-. . ,-"-•-•-i--• . . (400 .
-„, : „ .,.2.,
c cgr......)
or,0 - :0.//,-.,. • . i ., ,....;
( •. 1 -1 tS I
,
in *L' ??s.
L . 1 . . —L.__ L,
'''''• L...._, ". . - LI.
I r';`) FIGURE 2
I ' ---7::i • r---1 1 ,
,
•Jr. L.,1 1 1
../ .
. • •,..)
i• ,
11 Li... . Existing High School
. -i.
ell, ,, I ',- X..:""... ..: :::,:::::17'. •—- —4 ---"'-,-‘---- i i l Campus with Proposed
1
Expansion and Physical
t --------n 1- Education Complex
L
i !:. tli [ Ti- i 8
. :, i;.. r ri I
4't
li... . .
Q
W
z
0
r--
A1NO A1NO >
- � W
� - O
136th ST.
r4" 1
ONLY ONLY
L._,
L
{R'
6 '
a
.
lc�
1..._ FIGURE 3
. SCHEMATIC DRAWING
(not to scale)
S.R. 431 and 136th ST.
INTERSECTION
9
L
•
f--
_ w
cA2I
N ST.
ONLY ONLY
410
it
ii
FIGURE 4
SCHEMATIC DRAWING
(not to scale)
c ' S.R. 431 and MAIN ST.
INTERSECTION
10
!TT, E ram-^ ( T c177 [T 7- ( _._ 1.777_ . _.
�. _. ...-- --. _ _ Ti�-; �"�.. Fes,
1
I r
FIGURE 5
RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATIONS
of 136th ST.
SCHEMATIC DRAWING (Not to Scale)
For more detail see
FIGURE 5A
r,_z r_��. -.-..., r...,_. :..- r --__ - r'''a ' - F ,..- r« r
-. _— _. `t..
`
•
\ ♦ \ ♦ \
nr1. ur 7 - - I ♦ ♦ ♦ \ \
R•7S R•]o' I1.7!' \/R.33' R.7. /1.7.3' / ♦
Y
._______i______________s....
———— -- --A�.♦�x♦\♦♦\�t�t>--b���Z�♦ - --—
__ ___- T
.\ \
`• , \
OS ].3' Co• Rr I:0' Cr \ `
FIGURE 5A
RECOMMENDED LANE GEOMETRICS
. OF I36th STREET
.
N
\ \
.....; .
r
•, FIGURE 6
:.._
7 • ,....L.) -sr.--\ ', . ...- ..„1\ \
RECOENDED CHANGES
.-N
MM
...-. . . TO THE SITE PLAN
.... ....... .. ....AWN PEDESTRIAN FLOW
•••••Cr.4 .,,... . 3;:i, -41------aw VEHICULAR FLOW
r) - -a.
... n{).-.
.. ,
1.•
1 '7'5' — (.4. \\ o •
-se
''..--A--
4-t.p.,;..\
,. ..
tJ ..........-. .. _.
I 5 iii .4-).)",,,,t
_ .
...
. ____--F , •,,,. ..\,,-.
NJ
rs, .
.LI
1 '' 1 --:1—--------,_ ----I=2 I r„
\\\;\
,-% ...
, ;...1 ... .,
-.<
L:_,,
----,
._._ _
i 1 - .--/
u. , I 1 1. PERIMETER
ROAD
—
_
4011..... .... p., .•• • 110. 4 ..,
,----. ..\ _ .
. •
[ , „,._____ ,, . _ ...
....._ _
,.,. , .....____"...., ,...._s_..,
,..._._. ...... i
..... ......... ......•111.1. ._ ci.t • 1 li
1 11
t;
1 ' li '4
\ i
t .do-- ———— ---sw • ,_____,...._______/,7
II.
BARRICADES 1 BARRCA2ES.....gl,
i-7
. i)
_____
[.:. ,. ••• i, . .
(1 J -- - B S PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF
r 1
q
U • '1 ---Z3 \ N SO r 11----
(41-7-1.....5._.5...... ,...•8_, 1_ 6 --/-1 r1.31 1:73-1 r . t t -
,. :.,,, li 11 ;. , t T.''':.- \—0 ) •0 •0 ;--01 •0 1:0 1 1—°"41 t
t: ..ss.
i-:i 3-LANE 1 •,....... , A.C--). , 77-bm_. i->,;...„.(5--. ,-.)--, J-----.i __,),i je--..'-'7 ,..• ..i DRIVEWAY ' - '.. j1 \ j ' ' __).--,..../} , ,Z) (_.'"3 3 LANE
----1 -----_-._ • --. ONE-WAY LOOP DRIVEWA1
-N—
___________ 5 ": P71-;,' P -11
-- -- • — 13-1 1
TABLE 1
136th STREET VOLUMES - APPROACHING SR 431 FROM:
Hour EAST WEST
Beginning (Westbound Traffic) (Eastbound Traffic)
AM 12 9 18
1 1 10
2 3 3
3 0 2
4 8 2
5 40 6
6 217 26
7 437 68
8 278 97
9 247 89
10 205 93
11 213 92
PM 12 248 109
1 205 95
2 202 96
3 195 102
4 207 152
5 201 227
6 211 167
7 - 176 110
8 135 106
9 84 79
10 59 56
11 27 36
TOTALS 3608 . 1841
is
1567/R-10/21
14
•—_
F✓ y b
cn O
cn
cn
0
N
rt�
� x r
1-4 � F✓ F✓
F. cD CD 07 7 C) en ,? W N F-+ N O CD CO -4 C) en at. W N I--' N Or! ^7
b
ro
o3-3
rt
0
C) t'"' o
� z N
C)
yz
5:12O
F-• N W 41. cm cm cm en cn en en cn IP cn .7
W W CO N 1-+ N N W cn 4=. CD en era -4 CO -4 CD Gn en 00 rA C) C) O C) Cl)
wC) c) eno41. C) a000N -4CD -4ao -4wo -4 ,Aoo -4N ••-•x
to
to
y
o 0
0
0
0-3
i Oy
•
M
•
• F. W T) 7 en Cn CCD CD -7 C) C) cm Q) cn en rA CA 4a0-+ F--r
CD O F-+ CD CD C4 -4 N CD C) W N W U) W N N CO O en en —) O 0
F� F� CO CO W CO rP W rP W CO CO O C) CO C) N CD O C) W rA
W
TABLE 3
L SITE GENERATED VEHICLE TRIP ENDS (VTE)
i . CAMPUS SITE
BASED ON TRIP GENERATION RATES VS STUDENTS
Vehicle Trip Ends on a Weekday
Current 1800 students - 2493 VTE
Future 3000 students - 4155 VTE
AM Peak Hour
Current 1800 students - 531 VTE/Hour
Future 3000 students - 885 VTE/Hour
1567/R-11/07
is
16
APPENDIX A
LEFT TURN INDICATION WARRANT
L
4C-10.I3 Left Turn Indications
A protected left turn indication may be installed for an approach to a signalized
intersection if the demand for left turns exceeds the left turn capacity for that ap-
proach and the delay time for left turn vehicles is excessive for four hours of an av-
erage day. Average delay time is considered to be excessive when left turn vehicles
are delayed for more than two complete signal cycles. The left turn capacity of an
• approach is 1,200 vehicles times the percent of green time minus the opposing
volume (1,200 (G/C) — opposing volume) but not less than two vehicles per cycle.
The data required for this analysis is obtained from the Standard Traffic Count
Summary Sheet as used to determine if a warrant for a traffic signal is met.
Other conditions may also warrant the installation of left turn indications. Con- .
sideration should be given to the geometries, the total volume demand, previous
accidents of a type susceptible to correction by this installation, speed, etc. Speed
•
and population volume reduction factors are not applicable for computing the left
turn needs and capacities. Engineering judgment must be used in the final deci-
sion for the installation of left turn indications.
•
!
F 1
•
%�: 17