HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Operations Analysis - Preliminary
l
pc
TRAFFIC OPERA liONS ANALYSIS
"'--."
PROPOSED ReSIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
t\l\MILTON COUNTY, INDIANA
PR~~ARED FOR
THOMPSON LAND COMPA...~ 'b'lC_
'-
SEPTEMBER 2001
A&F ENGINEERING Co.. LLC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
8425 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 200
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240
(317) 202-0864
1-
.
..
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES...... ........ .................... ........ ........ ...... ..... ...... ... .......... ....................................... ........ ........... .................. II
CERTIFICATION.................. ....... ....................... .................... ..... ........ ...... ...... ....... .............. ....... ...... .... .... ......... ........... ..III
INTRODUCTION..... ...... .... ........... .... ............. ........... ............. ... ......... ... ......... ......... ................ ........ ...... .... ................ ......... I
PURPOSE......... ..... .... ............. ........ ... ............... ... ..... ........ ............... ...... ...... ............... ........... ........... ....... .... ..... ...... ...... .... I
SCOPE OF WORK. .... ........ ... .... ......... ................................ .......... .................. .... ......... ............... .... .... .... .... ........... ... .... ...... I
DESCRIPT10N OF THE PROJECT ...................... ..... .... ... ....... .... .... ....... ........... ......... ............ ........... ..... ..... ............ ....... .......2
STUDY AREA. .......... ........... ............ ......... ... ......... .... .............. ......... ...... ... ..... ......................... ......... ........ ........... ......... ....2
DESCRIPT10N OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM ..... ...... .............. .......... ..... ............... ............. ...... .......... ... .......... .........4
TRAFFIC DATA........................ .... ............................................. ...... ......... ....... ...... .... ...... ...... ............ ...... ... ............. .... ....4
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................4
TABLE] - GENERA TED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................5
INTERNAL TRIPS... .......................................................... .... ...... ........ ... ........ ...................................... ......................... ....5
PASs-BY TRIPS ............................. .................... ......... ..... .... ..... ....... ............. .............. ......................................... ............5
PEAK HOUR..... .................... .......... ...... ...... ................................ .... .......... ............................................................... ........5
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS............................................... ..... .................... ........ ................5
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM ............................................................6
CAPACITY ANALySIS........................... .......... ............... ..... ........ ............. .... .................................... .............. .......... ........9
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE... ...... .................. ........ ............. ..................... ........................................... .............9
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS ............................................................................. .... ...... ........... .............................. ] ]
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: SHELBORNE ROAD AND] 3] ST STREET ...................................................]4
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: SHELBORNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE ...............................]4
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: ] 3] ST STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE........................................ ] 5
CONCLUSIONS ......................... ..... ....... .................... ...... ................ ......... ............. ............ ..... ..................... ... ................ ] 6
RECOMMENDATIONS... ............................ ..... .......... ........ ....... ...... .... .., ...... ..... ................. ..... ............................ ............. ] 7
i
..
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE J: AREA MAP..... .............. ... ............ ............... ............ .... ....................... ... ... .... ... ........ .................... ..... ........ .......3
FIGURE 2: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.........?
FIGURE 3: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................:..................................8
FIGURE 4: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................ ............................................... ............................................... ] 2
FIGURE 5: EXISTING PLUS GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES .........................................................................................13
]]
~
..
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS has been prepared by me and under my
immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and
transportation engineering.
A&F ENGINEERING Co., LLC.
Steven J. Fehribach, P.E.
Indiana Registration 890237
Thomas S. Vandenberg, E.I.
Transportation Engineer
III
i'
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFle OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of Thompson Land Company, Inc.,
is for a proposed residential development which will be located along Shelborne Road and 131 sl
Street in Hamilton County, Indiana.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed
development, when fully occupied, will have on the existing adjacent roadway system. This
analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site
is developed.
Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the
anticipated traffic volumes. These conclusions will determine the modifications required if there
will be deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes.
Recommendations will be made that will address the conclusions resulting from this analysis.
These recommendations will address feasible roadway system improvements that will
accommodate the proposed development traffic volumes such that there will be safe ingress and
egress, to and from the proposed development, with minimal interference to traffic on the public
street system.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this analysis is:
First, to obtain turning movement traffic volume counts at the intersection of Shelborne Road and
131 sl Street.
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will provide
access to the proposed development.
..
..
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY ,INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from the proposed site onto the public roadway
system and intersections identified in the study area.
Fifth, to prepare a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each intersection included in
the study area for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO I: Existing Conditions - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic
volumes.
SCENARIO 2: Proposed Development - New traffic volumes that will be generated by the
proposed development added to the existing traffic volumes.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS documenting all data, analyses,
conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic
through the study area.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed development will be located along Shelbome Road and 13151 Street in Hamilton
County, Indiana. As proposed, the development will consist of 288 single-family dwelling units.
Figure 1 is an area map of the proposed development.
STUDY AREA
The study area has been defined to include the following intersections:
. Shelbome Road and 13151 Street
. Shelborne Road and Proposed Access Drive
. 13 I 51 Street and Proposed Access Drive
2
i
;
i--------------l
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
w
>
~
n::
o
(/)
(/)
w
U
U
<t:
o
W
(/)
o
0..
o
n::
0..
L - - - -1
,-- lTl
SITE
C4
d
a::
~
a::
a
~
~
~
131 ST. STREET
11
SITE
L_____J
..J
"'-
'"
I
'"
:>
c;
I
...
I
en
o
FIGURE 1
'-'
3=
o
?i
w
,...,
AREA MAP
c;
/'
,...,
c; THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
~ HAMIL TON COUNTY, IN.
N
/'
N
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Rights Reserved"
3
..
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIc QPERATIONSANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes Shelbome
Road and 131 sl Street.
SHELBORNE ROAD - is a north/south two-lane road within Hamilton County. The posted speed limit
in the vicinity of the site along this roadway is 55 mph.
131 Sf SlREEf - is an east/west two-lane road within Hamilton County. The posted speed limit in the
vicinity of the site along this roadway is 45 mph.
Shelbome Road and 13rr Street - This intersection is controlled by a four-way stop with one
lane in each approach.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made by A&F Engineering Co.,
LLC at the intersection of Shelborne Road and 131 Sl Street. The counts include an hourly total of
all"through" traffic and all"turning" traffic at the intersection. The counts were made during the
hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM in August 2001. These traffic volume
counts are summarized on Figure 4 and are included in Appendix A.
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the
development size and type of land use. Trip Generation] report was used to calculate the number of
trips that will be generated by the proposed development. This report is a compilation of trip data
for various land uses as collected by transportation professionals throughout the United States in
order to establish the average number of trips generated by various land uses. Table 1 is a summary
of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Sixth Edition, 1997.
4
~
~
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TABLE 1 - GENERA TED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
TRAme OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
DEVELOPMENT INFORM A nON GENERA TED TRIPS
ITE AM AM PM PM
LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
Single-Family 210 288 DU 53 158 178 100
INTERNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two land uses without traversing the roadway
system. Since the development will contain similar land use throughout, internal trips are assumed
to be negligible.
PASs-BY TRIPS
Pass-by trips are trips already on the roadway system that decide to enter a land use. The
development will contain single-family homes, which are destination land uses. Therefore, no
reduction will be applied for pass-by trips.
PEAK HOUR
Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the peak hours for the
intersection of Shelbome Road and 131s1 Street are 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM and 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM.
The traffic volumes at the peak hours will be used for this analysis to represent the maximum traffic
volumes at each intersection.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
Traffic volumes will be generated by the proposed development and added to the public street
system. The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes is defined as follows:
1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the site must be assigned to the various access
points and to the public street system. Using the existing traffic volume data collected for
this analysis, traffic to and from the proposed new site has been assigned to the proposed
driveways and to the public street system that will be serving the site.
2. To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the
generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadway's intersection with
5
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
the driveway. For the proposed development, the distribution was based on the existing
traffic patterns and the assignment of generated traffic.
The assignment and distribution of the generated traffic volumes for the proposed development are
shown on Figure 2.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE
STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared
for each of the study area intersections. The peak hour generated traffic volumes are shown on
Figure 3. These data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of
generated traffic, and distribution of generated traffic.
6
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
t
fI!.
CO
r---------------l
L__
~12%
,--
I
I
I SITE I
I I
I I
L_____J
w
>
>-<
0:::
(:)
(/)
(/)
w
u
u
<(
(:)
w
(/)
o
0...
o
0:::
0...
SITE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
30%--"
~
'"'-
IX
I
'"
s;
o
I
v
I
0>
a
LEGEND
* = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 2
'"
So
a
I
i:S
'"
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
o
/'
'"
o THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
i HAMIL TON COUNTY, IN.
/'
N
@ A & F Engineering Co., llC 2001
"All Righls Reserved"
7
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
,--------------l
L__
,--
I
I
I SITE I
I I
I I
L_____J
w
~
O:C
o
(f)
(f)
w
u
u
<(
o
w
(f)
o
Q..
o
O:C
Q..
SITE
STREET
~
'-'-
cr
I
""
'"
o
I
...
I
<Y>
o
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 3
<.?
3:
C>
:r:
x
w
n
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
o
./
n
o THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
"5 HAMIL TON COUNTY, IN.
o
N
./
N
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Righfs Reserved"
R
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that
approach the intersection. It is defined by the Level-of-Service (LOS) of the intersection. The
LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data
into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes
and, in the case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each
of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer
program based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCMl.
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following descriptions are for signalized intersections:
Level of Service A - Describes operations with a very low delay, less than or equal to 10.0
seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable,
and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehiCles do not
stop at alJ.
Level of Service B - Describes operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds per
vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression. More vehicles stop
than LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
Level of Service C - Describes operation with delay in the range of 20.1 seconds to 35.0
seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from failed
progression. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,
although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
Level of Service D - Describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per
vehicle. At level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes more
noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combinations of
2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 2000.
9
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY t INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
unfavorable progressIon. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of
vehicles not stopping declines.
Level of Service E - Describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per
vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high
delay values generally indicate poor progression and long cycle lengths.
Level of Service F - Describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle.
This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition
often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for un signalized intersections:
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Control Delay ( seconds/vehicle)
Less than or equal to 10
Between 10.1 and 15
Between 15.1 and 25
Between 25.1 and 35
Between 35.1 and 50
greater than 50
10
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS
To evaluate the proposed development's effect on the public street system, the existing and
generated traffic volumes must be obtained to form a series of scenarios. The analysis of these
scenarios determines the adequacy of the existing roadway system. From the analysis,
recommendations can be made to improve the public street system so it will accommodate the
increased traffic volumes.
An analysis was made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study
intersections considering the following scenarios:
SCENARlO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - These are the existing traffic volumes that were
obtained in August 200 1. Figure 4 is a summary of the existing traffic
volumes at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours.
SCENARlO 2: Existing Plus Generated Traffic Volumes - Figure 5 is a summary of these
traffic volumes at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours.
The requested analyses have been completed and the computer solutions showing the level of
service results are included in Appendix A. The tables that are included in this report summarize
the results of the level of service analyses and are identified as follows:
Table 2 - Shelbome Road and 13 I sl Street
Table 3 - Shelbome Road and Proposed Access Drive
Table 4 - 13 I SI Street and Proposed Access Drive
I I
,--------------l
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
w
>
~
0::
o
if)
if)
w
u
u
<(
o
w
if)
o
Q
o
0::
Q
L__
,--
-1
l-l
131 ST. STREET
SITE
I SITE
I
I
L_____J
~
"-
<r
I
'"
:>
c;
I
.,.
I
'"
o
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 4
<;>
'"
o
:i
~
...,
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
c;
/'
...,
c; THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
~ HAMIL TON COUNTY, IN.
/'
N
@ A &: F Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Righfs Reserved"
12
,-:
PROPOSED ACCESS DR.VE
,,,,
'~~I
I
r---------------l
L__
I--
I
I
I SITE I
I I
I I
L_____J
w
>
~
0::
o
(f)
(f)
w
o
o
<t
o
w
(f)
o
D-
o
SITE
STREET
~
"-
cr
I
'"
=<
c;
I
...
I
0>
C>
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 5
EXISTING PLUS GENERA TED
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
<.:>
30
o
I
x
w
..,
c;
./
..,
c; THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
~ HAMIL TON COUNTY, IN.
./
N
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Rights Reserved"
11
lHOMPSON LAND COMPANY t INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 131 ST STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2
Northbound A roach A
Southbound A roach B
Eastbound Left-Turn A
Westbound Left-Turn A
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach A
Southbound Approach B
Eastbound Left-Turn A
Westbound Left-Turn A
SCENARIO 2: Existing Plus Generated Traffic Volumes with Two-Way Stop
15
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIc QpERATIONSANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on:
. Existing Traffic Volume Data
. Trip Generation
. Assignment and Distribution of Generated Traffic
. Capacity Analysis with the Resulting Levels of Service for Each of the Study Intersections
. Field Review Conducted at the Site
These conclusions apply only to the AM peak hour and PM peak hour that were addressed in this
analysis. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. If the resulting level
of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed that the remaining 22
hours will have levels of service equal to or better. This occurs because the roadway traffic volumes
during the remaining 22 hours will be equal to or less than the peak hour traffic volumes.
] . SHELBORNE ROAD AND 13] ST S1REET
Existing Traffic Volumes (Scenario 1) - A review of the level of service for each of the
intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing geometries, has
shown that the intersection is operating at acceptable levels during the AM and PM peak
hours.
Existing Plus Generated Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the
proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, the intersection will operate
at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours with existing intersection
geometries and existing intersection control.
2. SHELBORNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
Existing Plus Generated Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the
proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, the approaches to the
intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours
with proposed intersection geometries and two-way stop.
]6
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
3. 131 ST STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
Existing Plus Generated Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the
proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, the approaches to the
intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours
with proposed intersection geometries and two-way stop.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations are made to ensure that
the roadway system will operate at acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as proposed.
SHELBORNE ROAD AND 131 ST STREET
No changes to the intersection are required due to this development.
SHELBORNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
Recommendations for this intersection include:
. Shelbome Road - Develop a northbound passing blister and a southbound right-turn
lane.
. Proposed Access Drive - Provide two 12 foot outbound lanes and one l6 foot inbound
lane.
. Two-way stop control with Proposed Access Drive stopping for Shelborne Road.
13] ST STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
Recommendations for this intersection include:
. 13151 Street - Develop a passing blister in both the eastbound and westbound directions.
These lanes will act as right-turn lanes when necessary.
· Proposed Access Drives - Provide two 12 foot outbound lanes and one 16 foot inbound
lane.
. Two-way stop control with Proposed Access Drives stopping for 13151 Street.
17
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY t INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS for
the proposed development.
Induded are the intersection turning movement traffic volume counts and the intersection capacity
analyses for each of the study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour.
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIc QpERATIONSANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SHELBORNE ROAD AND 131 ST STREET ............................................................................................................................1
SHELBORNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRNE ................. ........... ............................. ........ ................ ....................... 9
131ST STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRNE ..............................................................................................................12
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY. INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
SHELBORNE ROAD AND 131sT STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
AND
CAPACITY ANALYSES
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
THOMPSON LAND CO., INC.
SHELBORNE ROAD & 131ST STREET (01)
: AUGUST 29, 2001
PEAK HOUR DATA
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
WESTBOUND
AM PEAK OFF PEAK PM PEAK
HR BEGIN 7:15 AM HR BEGIN 4:45 PM
L T R TOT L T R TOT L T R TOT
0 38 39 77 10 195 83 288
4 113 13 130 6 57 6 69
11 194 3 208 6 47 5 58
90 57 2 149 32 107 11 150
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 35 88 123 35 62 97 220
7- 8 64 216 280 120 135 255 535
8- 9 62 113 175 84 120 204 379
- PM -
3- 4 89 30 119 56 98 154 273
4- 5 185 44 229 52 133 185 414
5- 6 271 44 315 67 160 227 542
TOTAL 706 535 1241 414 708 1122 2363
29.9% 22.6% 52.5% 17.5% 30.0% 47.5% 100.0%
-AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 21 60 39 46
HOUR 77 216 130 158
PHF 0.92 0.90 0.83 0.86
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 82 19 20 46
HOUR 288 58 69 160
PHF 0.88 0.76 0.86 0.87
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
: .THOMPSON LAND CO., INC.
: SHELBORNE ROAD & 131ST STREET (01)
AUGUST 29, 2001
NORTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 4 0 4 16 0 16 15 0 15 35 0 35
7- 8 0 0 0 33 0 33 31 0 31 64 0 64
8- 9 1 0 1 24 0 24 37 0 37 62 0 62
PM
3- 4 9 0 9 54 0 54 26 0 26 89 0 89
4- 5 7 0 7 124 0 124 54 0 54 185 0 185
5- 6 10 0 10 175 1 176 85 0 85 270 1 271
PASSENGER 31 426 248 705
100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 99.9%
TRUCK 0 1 0 1
0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%
BOTH 31 427 248 706
4.4% 60.5% 35.1% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 2 0 2 32 0 32 1 0 1 35 0 35
7- 8 4 0 4 105 0 105 11 0 11 120 0 120
8- 9 1 0 1 76 0 76 7 0 7 84 0 84
PM
3- 4 4 0 4 47 1 48 4 0 4 55 1 56
4- 5 2 0 2 44 0 44 6 0 6 52 0 52
5- 6 5 0 5 55 0 55 7 0 7 67 0 67
PASSENGER 18 359 36 413
100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 99.8%
TRUCK 0 1 0 1
0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2%
BOTH 18 360 36 414
4.3% 87.0% 8.7% 100.0%
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
THOMPSON LAND CO., INC.
: SHELBORNE ROAD & 131ST STREET (01)
AUGUST 29, 2001
SOUTHBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 6 0 6 81 0 81 1 0 1 88 0 88
7- 8 12 0 12 201 0 201 3 0 3 216 0 216
8- 9 10 0 10 96 0 96 7 0 7 113 0 113
PM
3- 4 2 0 2 24 0 24 4 0 4 30 0 30
4- 5 3 0 3 38 0 38 3 0 3 44 0 44
5- 6 5 0 5 34 0 34 5 0 5 44 0 44
PASSENGER 38 474 23 535
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TRUCK 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
BOTH 38 474 23 535
7.1% 88.6% 4.3% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL . WESTBOUND
.
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 38 1 39 20 1 21 2 0 2 60 2 62
7- 8 86 0 86 48 0 48 1 0 1 135 0 135
8- 9 56 0 56 62 0 62 2 0 2 120 0 120
PM
3- 4 27 0 27 60 0 60 11 0 11 98 0 98
4- 5 32 0 32 91 1 92 9 0 9 132 1 133
5- 6 34 0 34 114 0 114 12 0 12 160 0 160
PASSENGER 273 395 37 705
99.6% 99.5% 100.0% 99.6%
TRUCK 1 2 0 3
0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4%
BOTH 274 397 37 708
38.7% 56.1% 5.2% 100.0%
All-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
Analyst TSV Intersection She/borne Rd & 131 st St
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, /N
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 1 - Existing
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company, Inc.
East/West Street: 131st St North/South Street: She/borne Rd
Aooroach Eastbound Westbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 4 113 13 90 57 2
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Aooroach Northbound Southbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 0 38 I 39 11 194 3
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0_90
Flow Rate 143 165 85 230
% Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1
Geometry Group 1 1 1 1
Duration, T 0.25
Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1
Prop. Right-Turns 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0
Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
hL T-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6
hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
hadj. computed 4.98 4.98 4.98 4.98
hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
x, initial 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.20
hd, final value 4.98 4.98 4.98 4.98
x, final value 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.31
Move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Capacity 393 415 335 480
Delay 9.21 9.67 8.44 10.15
LOS A A A B
Approach: Delay 9.21 9.67 8.44 10.15
LOS A A A B
Intersection Delay 9.57
Intersection LOS A
HCS2000™
Copyright lid 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file ://C: \Documents% 20and% 20Settings\tvanden berg\Local % 20Settings\ Temp \u2k2D 1 . tmp 8/31/2001
All-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
Analyst TSV Intersection She/borne Rd & 131st St
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, /N
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 1 - Existing
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company, Inc.
East/West Street: 131st St North/South Street: She/borne Rd
Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 6 57 6 32 107 11
%Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 10 195 83 6 47 5
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Flow Rate 75 165 319 63
% Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1
Geometry Group 1 1 1 1
Duration, T 0.25
Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1
Prop. Right-Turns 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1
Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
hL T -adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6
hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
hadj. computed 5.13 5.13 5.13 5.13
hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
x, initial 0.07 0.15 0.28 0.06
hd, final value 5.13 5.13 5.13 5.13
x, final value 0.11 0.23 0.40 0.09
Move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Capacity 325 415 569 313
Delay 8.74 9.52 10.57 8.47
LOS A A B A
Approach: Delay 8.74 9.52 10.57 8.47
LOS A A B A
Intersection Delay 9.86
Intersection LOS A
HCS2000™
Copyright tj;) 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
fi Ie ://C :\Documents % 20and % 20Settings\tvandenberg\Local % 20Settings\ Temp \u2k2D4. tmp 8/3112001
All- W ay Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
Analyst TSV Intersection She/borne Rd & 131st St
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, /N
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company, Inc.
EastlWest Street: 131st St North/South Street: She/borne Rd
Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 4 144 67 90 68 7
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 18 46 39 27 219 3
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Flow Rate 238 182 114 276
% Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1
Geometry Group 1 1 1 1
Duration, T 0.25
Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1
Prop. Right-Turns 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0
Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
hL T-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6
hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
hadj, computed 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21
hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
x, initial 0.21 0.16 0.10 0.25
hd, final value 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21
x, final value 0.34 0.28 0.17 0.41
Move-up lime, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Capacity 488 432 364 526
Delay 10.92 10.71 9.56 12.03
LOS B B A B
Approach: Delay 10.92 10.71 9.56 12.03
LOS B B A B
Intersection Delay 11.06
Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright Ii) 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file:IIC: \Documents % 20and % 20Settings\tvanden berg\Local % 20Settings\ Temp\u2k2D B. tmp 8/31/2001
All-Way Stop Control
Page ] of ]
Analyst TSV Intersection She/borne Rd & 131st St
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hami/ton County, /N
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company, Inc.
EasVWest Street: 131st St North/South Street: She/borne Rd
Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 6 77 40 32 143 29
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 70 223 83 16 63 5
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Flow Rate 135 225 416 92
% Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1
Geometry Group 1 1 1 1
Duration, T 0.25
Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Prop. Right-Turns 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1
Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
hL T -adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6
hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
hadj, computed 5.59 5.59 5.59 5.59
hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
x, initial 0.12 0.20 0.37 0.08
hd, final value 5.59 5.59 5.59 5.59
x, final value 0.21 0.35 0.59 0.15
Move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Capacity 385 475 666 342
Delay 10.07 11.48 15.07 9.66
LOS B B C A
Approach: Delay 10.07 11.48 15.07 9.66
LOS B B C A
Intersection Delay 12.79
Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright @2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file:IIC: \Documents % 20and % 20Settings\tvandenberg\Local % 20Setti ngs\ T emp\u2k2DE. tmp 8/3] /200]
THOMPSON LAND COMP ANYrlNe.
TRAFFIe OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
SHELBORNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
Two-Way Stop Control
Page] of2
Analyst TSV Intersection Shelborne Rd & Prop. Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, IN
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project 10 Thompson Land Company,
Inc.
East/West Street: PrOD. Access North/South Street: Shelborne Rd
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period Ihrs): 0.25
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 14 44 0 0 208 4
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 48 0 0 231 4
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- a -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT T R
Upstream Siqnal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 13 0 41
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 14 0 45
Percent Heavv Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
L R
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
v (vph) 15 14 45
C (m) (vph) 1344 669 801
v/c 0.01 0.02 0.06
95% queue length 0.03 0.06 0.18
Control Delay 7.7 10.5 9.8
LOS A B A
Approach Delay -- -- 9.9
Approach LOS -- -- A
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4,1
file://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local % 20Settings\ Temp\u2k72.tmp
9/4/2001
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst TSV Intersection Shelborne Rd & Prop. Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, IN
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company,
Inc.
East/West Street: ProD. Access North/South Street: Shelborne Rd
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 46 212 0 0 58 14
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourlv Flow Rate, HFR 51 235 0 0 64 15
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT T R
Uostream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 8 0 26
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourlv Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 8 0 28
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
v (vph) 51 8 28
C (m) (vph) 1532 579 992
v/c 0.03 0.01 0.03
95% queue length 0.10 0.04 0.09
Control Delay 7.4 11.3 8.7
LOS A B A
Approach Delay -- -- 9.3
Approach LOS -- -- A
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4,)
file://C: \Documents % 20and% 20Settings\tvandenberg\Local %20Settings\ Temp\u2k75 .tmp
9/4/2001
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
131ST STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 2
Analyst TSV Intersection 131st St & Prop. Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, IN
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company,
Inc.
East/West Street: 131st St North/South Street: PrOD. Access
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 5 130 1 8 60 21
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 144 1 8 66 23
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1
Configuration LT R LT R
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 3 0 22 63 0 16
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 24 70 0 17
Percent Heavv Vehicles 5 0 5 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Confi uration L TR L TR
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LT L TR L TR
v (vph) 5 8 3 24 70 17
C (m) (vph) 1488 1419 674 895 675 989
vlc 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.02
95% queue length 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.35 0.05
Control Delay 7.4 7.6 10.4 9.1 10.9 8.7
LOS A A B A B A
Approach Delay -- -- 9.3 10.5
Approach LOS -- -- A B
HCS2000™
Copyright <D 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
file://C :\Documents % 20and% 20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k78 .tmp
I
9/4/2001
-
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 2
Analyst TSV Intersection 131 st St & Prop. Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, IN
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company,
Inc.
East/West Street: 131st St North/South Street: Prop. Access
Intersection Orientation: East- West Stud Period hrs: 0.25
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 18 69 4 25 122 71
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourlv Flow Rate, HFR 20 76 4 27 135 78
Percent Heavv Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- --
Median T vpe Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1
Confiouration LT R LT R
Upstream Sional 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 2 0 14 40 0 10
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 15 44 0 11
Percent Heavv Vehicles 5 0 5 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Confi uration L ~ L TR
-
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LT L TR L TR
v (vph) 20 27 2 15 44 11
C (m) (vph) 1340 1499 576 977 606 906
v/c 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.01
95% queue length 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.23 0.04
Control Delay 7.7 7.4 11.3 8.7 11.4 9.0
LOS A A B A B A
Approach Delay -- -- 9.0 10.9
Approach LOS -- -- A B
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 Universily of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.]
fi1e://C: \Documents%20and% 20Settings\tvandenberg\Loca1 % 20Settings\ T emp\u2k7B. tmp
I
9/412001