HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Analysis
~j
:-
,~ I
)
--J
<--
~
G-
U ;/
~< \
\0 _ ,,'-
'-''',
'u,
n '
~ /1
/0
, !
U
U I' (
'\
(
'~Ui '''-
(Q
~.--
-Qi,
" ~'\i
\
Q
/0
D
01
\~,
r
\" I
\J
(
/
)
\
1\
I
(,j"
l
f
, "',
(-/
, \
\
\j
( -
\, 1<<
~tRAF~lcJMPAcr ANAL VSiS
,', L_I' ,<. -. 'i- '~
't._
(
\ ~ ~ ,"1/ ,- , ,_ _ _ ' \ 'I - - ,
,96TH! STREET~;&~RA'Y' ROAD
I '- \., 'v) " - ;.>,,-- \
,
j
-'j
/
/
--',
---,
~ROPO~E'D CAR dEAU~~SHI.P~ND~ 1,
'M I~E9"USE'DEV~l-bp,MENT
/ 'I
) /
G~RMEL~ INDIAN,A
\. ,I
"
,,'
(
, /-
'''-,-
---~
J'
,r ""
\
,~~ '
PREPARED FOR
/
I
, \ ),\
""
, "
Mio-STATES ENGINEERING!
CcGLENOALE PARTNERS DEVEL0PMENT~
~.--/ -:!--, i) -,__of
\\
I
)
,Y)
'-~
/'
\ \
'APRIL 2002
, \'
'-----------.-
\,;' I,
/'
-\,
'\.-
'A') \,' 'I
"
~
, (:-~-, -
)0" /<~"-
~ - ,- ; i
^A&FJ ENGINEERING'Ca..
CONSULTING ENGlF';'EERS' "
8425 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 200 \
INDIANAPOLIS, 'INDIANA. 46240'
,(317) 202-08&4,' ' I) ;,).
/ \.. ~_ ,/" I /j /
../
LLC
"
, I
I "
-,/
l., \
\:
~"
:1
,
~
,I,
(~
)
I
\.,
j--:
/
~.'----I
,f
')
\'"
I' '-
',-~
r-
\,
r
"
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSED CAR DEALERSHIP
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
96TH STREET & GRAY ROAD
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
MID-STATES ENGINEERING
GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
APRIL 2002
PREPARED By:
/.~,B/
(10'..<>/
I ~/ :... ..,~ /
~..>' ~
""'if _ ~::o
_~' _ r-r, r
o C'":) e
- n - r-r, ...
~' \ c..? ~ f-.
~\~ ~ g} /cy
/.tt: /"--. I
. ~ ~~/
~--;;-\\ \
-~
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
8425 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 200
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240
PHONE 317-202-0864
FAX 317-202-0908
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
Mm-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
COPYRIGHT
This Analysis and the ideas, designs and concepts contained herein are the
exclusive intellectual property of A&F Engineering Co., LLC. and are not
to be used or reproduced in whole or in part, without the written consent
of A&F Engineering Co., LLC.
@2002, A&F Engineering Co., LLC.
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
o
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................................... ... ....... ............. II
CERTIFICATION................ ........................................ .... ......... ......... ..... ............ ................ ................. ....... ........ ..... ......... III
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................................1
PURPOSE................................. ....................................... ....................................................................................... ....... ...1
SCOPE OF WORK.................................................... .................. ......... .................. ...................... ....... ........ ... .... ......... .......1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ....... ..................................... ............................................................... ................. ..... ...... 3
STUDY AREA................................................. ....................................................... ..................................................... ..... 3
DESCRIPTION OF VACANT PARCELS ........... ........................ ...... .............. .................................................... ....................3
TABLE 1 - VACANT PARCEL RECOMMENDED LAND USE...........................................................................................3
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM ...................................................................................... ....................5
TRAFFIC DATA.. ................................ .... ...... ... ........... ...... ........................................... .... ................................................5
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................6
TABLE 2 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................6
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR VACANT LANDS ...............................................................................;...................6
TABLE 3 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR VACANT PARCELS ...............................................................................................6
INTERNAL TRIPS ........... ......... ...................... ......... ......... ...... ...... .... ...................................... ......... ....... ........ ................... 7
PASS-BY TRIPs............................................................................................................................................. ..................7
TABLE 4 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................................................................... 7
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC ...................................................................................................8
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRffiUTION OF GENERATED TRIPs...................... .................................... ................... ................... 8
VACANT LAND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM ...........................................................................12
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM ...........................................................12
YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................ ................ ......................... ....................... ........................................12
REDISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES.... .................................... .............. ........ ............................ ....................................12
CAPACITY ANALySIS...... .................... ..................................................................... .................................................... .19
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE................................... ................................................ .......................... ..............19
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS......................................... ...... ....................... ............................. ..'...........................21
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD...............................................................27
TABLE 6 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-96TH STREET AND BRANDT ROAD...........................................................28
TABLE 7 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-96TH STREET AND PALMER DODGE DRIVE..............................................29
TABLE 8 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-96TH STREET AND PROPOSED SITE I ACCESS ..........................................30
TABLE 9 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-96TH STREET AND PROPOSED SITE II ACCESS .........................................30
TABLE 10 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-GRAY ROAD AND PROPOSED SOUTH ACCESS ......................................31
TABLE 11 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-GRAY ROAD AND PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS ....................................31
TABLE 12 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-GRAY ROAD AND PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS ........;.............................32
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. .33
RECOMMENDATIONS................. .............................................................................................................................. ..... 3 8
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
I
o
D
Mm-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
o
o
D
D
o
LIST OF FIGURES
D
FIGURE I: AREA MAP ........................ ......... ............................................................................................... .....................4
FIGURE 2: TOTAL ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF VACANT P ARCELS....................................................................9
FIGURE 3: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED SITE I & SITE II ...........................10
FIGURE 4: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL PASS-BY TRIPS FOR PROPOSED SITE I & SITE II ....................11
FIGURE 5: TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR VACANT PARCELS .................................................................13
FIGURE 6: TOTAL NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED SITE I & SITE 11.....................................................................................14
FIGURE 7: TOTAL PASS-BY TRIPS FOR PROPOSED SITE I & SITE II ..............................................................................15
FIGURE 8: TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMF;:S FOR PROPOSED SITE I & SITE 11....................................................16
FIGURE 9: YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................................................................................................................17
FIGURE 10: REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................................18
FIGURE II: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO I )..............................................................................................22
FIGURE 12: REDISTRIBUTED EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2) ...................................................................23
FIGURE 13: SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PROPOSED SITE I & SITE II TRAFFIC
VOLUMES (SCENARIO 3) .................... ........................ ........................ ....... ................. .................................... .....24
FIGURE 14: SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC VOLUMES & VACANT LAND TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO
4) .............................................................................................................................................................. ..........25
FIGURE 15: SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC VOLUMES, VACANT LAND TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND
PROPOSED SITE I & SITE II TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 5)............................................................................26
FIGURE 16A: CITY OF CARMEL PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS (SCENARIO 2A)............................................42
FIGURE 16B: PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS (SCENARIO 2B) ........................................................................43
FIGURE 17: PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS (SCENARIO 3)..............................................................................44
FIGURE 18: PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS (SCENARIO 4)..............................................................................45
FIGURE 19: PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS (SCENARIO 5)..............................................................................46
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
II
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this TRAFFIC IMPACT 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
engmeenng.
A&F ENGINEERING Co., LLC
;Z ~~ L-
\\11\\1111111/1/1/1
",\ -( -( HClA, 111/
". ~l>. \ \ LVV 1"'> /1
,............~, \111111111/ <:TL\ /-'/
.2 ,,<'u 1ST E:;f';"',''b ~
- .,~" <() - ~-
~Q: / \ 'Z-~
~ f No.1 0200056 ~ =
= STATE-
-;. ..... or ..:" _
~~ "'",/tVDI~~~,"'" ~~
-' Of'" 1'\" ~<.:"
'/11 r I'SS"'''' "",00,-\,,\'" ,,'::-
IIII /ONAl \.\" \",
/1/1111111111 \I 111\\\
R. Matthew Brown, P .E.
Transportation Engineer
Indiana Registration 10200056
-- Cl'\\ V~
Thomas S. Vandenberg, E.I.
Transportation Engineer
III
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of Mid-States Engineering / Glendale
Partners Development, is for a proposed car dealership and a proposed mixed-use development that
is to be located in Carmel, Indiana.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed
development 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 or will determine the modifications that will be required to the system if
it is determined 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 which 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 existing traffic volume counts at the following intersections:
. 96th Street and Gray Road
. 96th Street and Brandt Road
. 96th Street and Palmer Dodge Drive
. 106th Street and Gray Road
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated for each of the following:
Vacant Lands - These are traffic volumes generated by the surrounding vacant lands
assuming full build out of each parcel.
Proposed Development - This is the proposed car dealership and the proposed mixed-use
development.
Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will provide
access to each of the individual parcels that have previously been identified to be included in this
analysis.
Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from each parcel onto the public roadway system
and intersections which have been identified as the study area.
Fifth, to prepare an analysis including a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for the
intersections included in the study area for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - Based on existing roadway conditions and
existing traffic volumes.
SCENARIO 2: Redistributed Traffic Volumes - Based on the existing traffic volumes
redistributed due to the roadway changes proposed by the City of Carmel.
These changes are shown on Figure 16A.
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 Traffic Volumes and Proposed Site I and
Site II Traffic Va/urnes - Add the traffic volumes that will be generated by
the proposed Site I and Site II to the redistributed year 2012 volumes.
SCENARIO 4: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 Traffic Va/urnes and Vacant Land Traffic
Va/urnes - Add the traffic volumes that will be generated by the vacant land
parcels to the redistributed year 2012 volumes.
SCENARIO 5: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 Traffic Va/urnes, Vacant Land Traffic
Volumes and Proposed Site I and Site II Traffic Va/urnes - Add the traffic
volumes that will be generated by the vacant land parcels as well as the
proposed Site I and Site II to the redistributed year 2012 volumes.
2
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
U
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
u
u
Mm-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC IMPACT 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 is to be located along 96th Street and Gray Road in Cannel, Indiana. As
proposed, the development will consist of two sites. Site I will include a 48,568 square foot car
dealership while Site II will include 9,720 square feet of retail, a convenience store/gas station and
approximately 21,000 square feet of general office use. Figure 1 is an area map of the proposed
sites and the surrounding vacant land.
STUDY AREA
The study area as defined by the City of Cannel Department of Community Services for this
analysis will include the following intersections:
. 96th Street and Gray Road
. 96th Street and Brandt Road
. 96th Street and Palmer Dodge Drive
. 106th Street and Gray Road
. 96th Street and Proposed Site I Access
. 96th Street and Proposed Site II Access
. Gray Road and Proposed South Access
. Gray Road and Proposed Middle Access
. Gray Road and Proposed North Access
DESCRIPTION OF VACANT PARCELS
The recommended individual parcel land uses and vacant area for each parcel are listed in Table
1. The location ofthese vacant parcels is shown on Figure 1.
TABLE 1 - VACANT PARCEL RECOMMENDED LAND USE
DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDED VACANT AREA
LAND USE SIZE
Vacant Land A Single-Family 40DU
Vacant Land B Multi-Family 266 DU
Office Park 135,000 SF
Vacant Land C General Office 60,000 SF
Vacant Land D New Car Sales 120,000 SF
3
-3"~
I I I I
I I I I
L _ _ _ _ _ --L - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - -I [ Ot>'OIl.10A/W9
I I
I
I 3A/b'O 3:JNYb'.1AI3
Q 03S0dOb'd I 39000 b'3J11lYd
~----O------~
L___________J
OYOb'llYONYb'
OYOb' A /Tb'f)
--T--
I
I
c( !
I
I
~
~
~
~
~
"
-
m
W
I-
-
UJ
,..
A.
W ~
" c(
:) w
C) a:
- c(
u.
~
~
~
~
~
~
z
w
:::IE
A.
o
...
W
>
W
o
(1)0
a:e
~o
~a:
a:>
ee
A. a:
we"
...
CO
OZ
ze
w~
"'w
~w
e"a:
z~
-(I)
a:
w:c
w~
Zeo
(50)
z
w
(I)
w
~
c(
~
(I)
.
o
i
~
HM>I->Ilrl-l.:llJ w-,z-z 1=1 ~Ma'Hx3rooW\\:OOZO\ZOOZ\:Z
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
u
o
o
o
o
u
MID-STATES ENGINEERlNG/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes 96th Street,
106th Street and Gray Road.
961H STREET - is an east-west, five-lane major roadway that serves the northern suburbs of
Indianapolis.
1061H STREET - is an east-west, two-lane roadway that serves the northern suburbs of Indianapolis.
GRAY ROAD - is a north-south, two-lane collector that serves Hamilton County. Gray Road
terminates at its intersection with 96th Street.
96th Street & Gray Road - This intersection is controlled by a fully actuated traffic signal. The
eastbound and westbound approaches consist of an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive right-
turn lane, and two through lanes. The southbound approach consists of an exclusive left-turn
lane, an exclusive right-turn lane, and a single through lane. The northbound approach is a
development driveway that includes an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive right-turn lane, and
a single through lane.
96th Street & Brandt Road - This "T" intersection is controlled with Brandt Road stopping at 96th
Street. The geometries at this intersection include a right-turn lane and two through lanes in the
eastbound direction, a left-turn lane and two through lanes along the westbound approach and a
left-turn lane and right-turn lane along the northbound approach.
1 06th Street & Gray Road - This intersection is four-way stop controlled with all approaches
consisting of one shared lane. A roundabout is to be constructed at this intersection in the near
future.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak: hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made at the study intersections by
A&F Engineering Co., LLC. The traffic volume counts include an hourly total of all "through"
traffic and all "turning" traffic at the intersection. The traffic volume counts were made during the
hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM in January 2002. These counts are included
in Appendix A.
5
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
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 of the character of the land use. Trip Generationl 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 2 is a summary ofthe trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
TABLE 2 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS
LAND USE ITE AM AM PM PM
SITE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
I New Car Sales 841 48,568 SF 78 29 54 82
General Office 710 21,000 SF 47 6 17 85
II Retail 820 9,720 SF 24 16 65 70
Convenience Mart wi Gas 853 10 Pumps 86 86 96 96
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR VACANT LANDS
Trip Generation report was used to calculate the number of trips that will be generated by the vacant
lands. Table 3 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the vacant parcels.
TABLE 3 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR VACANT PARCELS
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS
PARCEL ITE AM AM PM PM
LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
A Single-Family 210 40DU 9 28 30 17
B Multi-Family 220 266 DU 22 114 109 54
Office Park 750 135,000 SF 251 31 38 232
C General Office 710 60,000 SF 109 15 25 122
D New Car Sales 841 120,000 SF 194 72 134 202
Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition, 1997.
6
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERlNG/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTERNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two land uses without using the roadway
system. A small portion of internal trips will occur between the developments considered in this
study. However, these trips have been ignored and no reductions are taken for these trips in order to
create a ''worst-case'' scenario.
PASs-BY TRIPS
Pass-by trips are trips already on the roadway system that decide to enter a land use.. The vacant
land developments within this study will not generate a significant number of pass-by trips.
Therefore, reductions were not applied to the generated trips for these developments. However,
the retail and convenience store/gas station land uses proposed for Site II will generate a
significant amount of pass-by trips. The pass-by rates published in the Trip Generation
Handbook2 have been applied and the resulting reductions are summarized in the following table.
TABLE 4 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS
SITE LAND USE lTE AM AM PM PM
CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
New Car Sales 841 48,568 SF 78 29 54 82
I Pass-By Trips 0 0 0 0
Total New Trips 78 29 54 82
General Office 710 21,000 SF 47 6 17 85
Pass-By Trips 0 0 0 0
Total New Trips 47 6 17 85
Retail I 820 9,720 SF 24 16 65 70
II Pass-By Trips (76.6%) 18 12 50 54
Total New Trips 6 4 15 16
Convenience Mart wI Gas 853 10 Pumps 86 86 96 96
Pass-By Trips (63.0%) 54 54 60 60
Total New Trips 32 32 36 36
TOTAL PASS-BY TRIPS FOR DEVELOPMENT 72 66 110 114
TOTAL NEW TRIPS FOR DEVELOPMENT 163 71 122 219
2 Trip Generation Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, March, 2001.
7
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
The Department of Community Services has prepared the estimate of the annual growth rate for
background traffic that will be generated on the street system included in the study area. The annual
growth rate of background traffic to be used for this analysis is one percent for all streets.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes from the vacant lands and the
proposed development that will be added to the street system 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 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 roadways at their
intersection with 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 generated traffic for all the vacant parcels is summarized on
Figure 2. The assignment and distribution of total new trips for proposed Site I and Site II is
summarized on Figure 3. The assignment and distribution of total pass-by trips for proposed Site I
and Site II is summarized on Figure 4.
8
~
><
I
><
~
,
...J
L<-
a:
96'TH STREET 1 r
N
a
I
~
a
I
'"
a
"
~
~
~
~
~
~
I
SITE II
__J
106'TH STREET
~
I~
~
I~
~ 1--1
I
I
I
I I
I I
SITE I
3 ---
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
~
Cl
:i
x
w
'"
a
a
N
a
./
'"
a
a
3- MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
./
N
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
9
'-'0;--....... "t. 11 % (7%)
~.......~
II') * .., "'17% (18%)
~.~
(7%) 12% ~ t
(15%) 19%..... ::.
o
4 ~
-; 2':::' "t. 12% (6%)
<0 ~
- * DO "'12% (6%)
~.~
(13%) 18% ~ ~ t
(12%) 4%..... * *
~~
~~
(24%) 12%.....
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SAlES (~,568 Sf)
SITE II = RETAil 19,720 SF)
CONVENfENCE llAIlT wi GAS STATION (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL OrnCE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAlIllY (<40 DU)
B = IIULTI-FAMllY (266 DU)
orncr PARK (135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL orner (160,000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SAlES (120,000 Sf)
... * (*)
~. . * (*)
(*) * ~ ~ t ,.
(*) *..... ~ ~ *
(1 %) 3% + ':'::2
~~
ee
NOTE. THIS FIGURE
REFERS TO TOTAL AM PEAK
HOUR TRIPS AS WELL AS T_OT AL
PM PEAK HOURS TRIPS
FIGURE 2
I
TOT AL ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
I FOR VACANT PARCELS
I
r-r------+ -
:: ?%
~ I I D
~ I I
~ i ci
~: : ~
~ I I ~ ~
I ssr:;:;
I I ~ c:s
L__L-_~
1r ~1'
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
106'TH STREET
~
:.:
I
:.:
'"
I
-'
'-'-
cr:
96'TH STREET
N
o
I
....
o
I
'"
o
r----l ---
I
I
I
A
~
I I ~
I I ~
r--------~ ~
I I ~
I I '-'J
I
B
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
Cl
:z'
x
w
'"
o
o
N
o
....-
'"
o
o
i MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
;G- 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
10
4 ~ ~
~ N
-;2 is ~ 7% (2%)
N * - "18% (11%)
~ . ~ ~ 1% (1%)
17%) 34%; t
(*) * -. ~
~
co
~
~ 5% (5%)
.. 18% (7%)
~ ~ ~ ~ * (3%)
N _.,., .. * (*)
~ . ~ ~8% (28%)
(2%) 1%; ... t ,.
(*) * -. ~ ~ ~
(1%) 1% ~ :: ~
+ -~-
~,..,.,~
m-,."
- -
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SAlES (48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9.720 SF)
CONVENIENCE IlAAT wI GAS STAnON (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL orner (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMilY (40 DU)
8 = IIULTI-FAMllY (266 DU)
ornCE PARK (135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160,000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
3 ~
,."
~
co
~ 11% (6%)
"9% (19%)
~.
(7%) 4% +
NOTE. THIS FIGURE
REFERS TO TOTAL AM PEAK
HOUR TRIPS AS WELL AS TOTAL
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
FIGURE 3
I
A$SIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF
TO~ AL NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED
SITE I & SITE II
I08TH STREET
D
:I:
~
'"
I
'"
:;;
I
->
...
""
98TH STREET
~
~
~~
S:S::S:
I I ~ ~
L__L-__
H ~1~
s:s~
~~
~~
~~
~
N
o
I
v
o
I
...,
o
"
r----l ---
I
I
I
A
~
I~
~--------~ ~
I~
I I "-J
I
I
B
~
~
~
~
~
42%~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
Cl
:i
x
w
...,
o
o
N
o
./
...,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
./
N
11
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48,568 SF)
SITE " = RETAIL (9,720 sF)
CONVENfENCE IIART wI GAS STATION (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL ornCE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAIIILY (-40 DU)
8 = IIULTI-FAIotILY (266 DU)
ornCE PARK (135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL ornCE (160,000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
FIGURE 4
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF TOTAL PASS-BY TRIPS FOR
PROPOSED SITE I & SITE II
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACf ANALYSIS
VACANT LAND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the vacant land, within the study area, have
been prepared for each of the study area intersections. These trips have been added together and
illustrated on Figure 5. These data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data,
assignment of generated traffic, the distribution of generated traffic and previous Traffic Impact
Studies prepared by A & F Engineering Co., LLC.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE
STREET SYSTEM
The generated peak hour traffic volumes from each of the proposed sites have been prepared for
each of the study area intersections. The total new trips for the proposed Site I and Site II are shown
on Figure 6. The total pass-by trips for the proposed Site I and Site II are shown on Figure 7. In
addition, new trips and pass-by trips from each site have been added together and are summarized
on Figure 8. These traffic volumes are based on the previously discussed trip generation data,
assignment of generated traffic, and distribution of generated traffic.
YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To evaluate the future impact on the public roadway system, the existing traffic volumes must be
projected forward to a design year. The design year used for this project is year 2012. For this
analysis, an annual growth rate of one percent per year has been applied to the existing traffic
volumes to obtain year 2012 projected traffic volumes. These projected traffic volumes are
shown on Figure 9.
REDISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The City of Carmel is proposing to convert the intersection of 96th Street and Brandt Road into a
right-in/right-out access for the northbound approach by use of a median along 96th Street. This
will cause left-turn movements along the northbound and westbound approach to redistribute to
other intersections. The redistributed existing traffic volumes are shown on -Figure 12 and a
schematic showing the roadway reconfiguration proposed by the City of Carmel is shown on
Figure 16A. The year 2012 traffic volumes will also be effected if these roadway changes are
made. Therefore, Figure 10 is included to summarize the redistributed year 2012 traffic
volumes.
12
:I:
~
'"
I
'"
:>i
I
...J
.....
a:
90TH STREET 1 r
N
o
I
....
o
I
..,
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
I
SITE II :
__J
tOoTH STREET
~
I~
~
I~
~ .---,
I
I
I
I I
I I
SITE I
3 ---
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
Cl
:i
x
w
..,
o
o
N
o
,/
..,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
,/
N
13
1 8' ~
.:=.:se 'to. 91 (63
~ * ;=') ~142 (173)
~~~
(71) 103 ~ t
(151) 157 ~ ::....
~
,.....
....
.... <0
- 0
::-~.:=. 'to.99 (62
~ ~ U; ~106 (56)
~~~
(126) 159 ~ ~ t
(114) 30 ~ <0.0
,.....,.....
e.:!:..
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SAl.ES (48,568 Sf)
SITE II = RETAIL (9,720 sn
CONVENIENCE IIART wI GAS STlo.nON (10 PUMPS)
GENERIo.L omCE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE rAMILY (40 DU)
8 = MULn-rAMILY (266 DU)
omCE PARK (135,000 sr)
C = GENWL omCE (160,000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SAl.ES (120,000 SF)
* ~ .- * (*)
~ ~ -&' * (*)
(1) 1 ~ ~ t ,.
(*) * ~ ::: ~ *
(16) 30 + N'"",,:S
~~
FIGURE 5
I
ITOT AL GENERA TED TRAFFIC
VOLUMES FOR VACANT PARCELS
108TH STREET
r---l
I
I
I
A
~
I~
~--------~ ~
I~
I I ~
I
I
B
r-r-----+/-
I I y~
~ i i 0
~ I I
~ I C I
~ I I
~ I I
~ I I
~ I I
~
><
I
><
~
,
-'
...
cr
98TH STREET
~
Y5
~~
SS:S::
I I ~ ~
L__L-__
1r ~I~
~~
~~
~~
~lQ
~
N
o
I
.q-
o
I
'"
o
"
14
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
.--.
..-.. 00
10 .--..... ....
.:!...:!..-'-16 (6)
..., ~ ~ '-41 (39)
~ ~ ~ ~ 2 (3)
(59) 82 ~ t
* (*) ~ ..
~
__ 't.. 1 (9)
<<> N ~ .-* (*)
~ ~ ~ ~18(96)
(8) 3 ~ ~ t ,.
(*) * ~ ':J <<> ~
(8) 3~ ~e=
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SAlES (48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9,720 sr)
CONVENIENCE IlAIlT WI GAS STAnON (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL omCE (21,lloo SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMILY (40 00)
B = MUm-FAt.tILY~266 DU)
ornCE PARK 135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL om E (160,000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
I
I
I
"
3=
'"
:i
><
...,
.,
"
"
'"
"
,-
.,
"
"
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
'"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
,-
'-i
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 6
TOTAL NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED
SITE I & SITE II
t06'TH STREET
r---l ---
I
I
I
A
~
I~
i ________~ ~
r I~
I I "-J
96'TfI STREET
B
~
""
I
""
::!
I
-'
LL
a:
1"1-----+/-
I I y~
~ i i D
~ I I
;;j I C I
~ I I
~: : ~
~ I I ~ ~
I SS~
I I ~ c:s
L__L-__
H ~I~
SS~
~~
~~
~~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
~
~
~
~
~
N
o
I
....
o
I
'"
o
II
~
o
:i
x
w
'"
o
o
N
o
/
'"
o
o
3- MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/
N
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
15
4 -;n .......
- co
~.......:!..
m~co
I * N "'6 (17)
~~~
(46) 31.7 t
(-46) -31 ~ S
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SAlES (48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9,720 srl
CONVENIENCE MART wI GAS STATION (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OrnCE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLI FAMILY (40 DU)
B = MULTI-FAMILY (266 OU)
OrnCE PARK (135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL ornCE (160,000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SALIS (120,000 SF)
FIGURE 7
TOT AL PASS-BY TRIPS FOR
PROPOSED SITE I & SITE II
108TH STREET
r----l
I
I
I
A
~
I~
~--------~ ~
I~
I I "'"
I
4 0 ~
~~~ "t..16 (6)
I - Ln '-47 (56)
I{J ~ ~ . 2 (3)
(105) 113.1" t
(-46) 31.... ~
B
~
r-r-----+/-
I I y~
~ i i D
~ I I
~ i C i
~ I I
~ I I
~ I I
"'-
-co
_IN....
e~~ '-1 (9)
CON
'" I N .-* (*)
I{J ~ ~ .47 (147)
(8) 3.1" ~ t It
(*) *.... ~ '" ~
(8) 3. -:::-e=
~
Y3
~~
SS~
I I ~ ~
L__L-__
H ~1' ~
~~
c::s~
~~
~~
~
98TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
~
'"
I
'"
:;;
I
--'
...
Q:
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SIT[ I = NEW CAR SALES (48,568 SF)
SIT[ II = RETAIL (9,720 Sn
CONVENIENCE IIART '11/ GAS STATION (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL ornCE (21,000 SF)
'"
o
I
....
o
I
'"
o
>>
~
o
:i
x
w
'"
o
o
'"
o
,.-
'"
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
'"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
,.-
N
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAIIILY (40 OU)
8 = IIULTI-F A11ILY ~266 DU}
ornCE PARK 135,000 SF}
C = GENERAL om E (160,000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 sF)
FIGURE 8
TOliAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED SITE I & SITE II
I
16
..--.
4 ~--:;;
-.000
::;.::.;;:; ~ 50 (102)
:g g: ~ ... 2125 (876)
~ J ~ .23 (44)
(362) 52'" ~ t t+
(1845) 442.... g:"Ot- ~
(35) 8 ~ -::-~ ~
N _ 00
............'-"'~
... 1866 (832)
.26 (17)
~ t+
(1901) 458.... ~ 00
(31) 40 ~
"'1886 (838)
.931 (202)
~ t+
(1900) 449.... <D :ri
(36) 17~ E ~
~
106'TH STREET
1---1
I
I
I
A
~
I~
~--------~ ~
I~
I I "-J
I
I
I I
.--.------+--------~ 1---,
I I I II I
~i i D i "i
~ I I I
~ i C i i
:s:!1 I ~ I
~I l:;j I
~ I I ~ ~ I
SS~
I I ~ c::s I
L__'-__ __--1-___ 3 ---
1r ~l ~n
~~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~l.Q ~
~
r:::-
oo
.0 -
~;:;~ ~ 2 (30)
~ :ri"Ot- ... 273 (120)
~ J ~ . 183 (7)
(150) 40'" ~ t t+
(239) 87.... ~:8.....
(31) 74 ~ co~~
"Ot-__
-~
B
I
SITE II
__J
SITE I
96'TH STREET
~
'"
I
'"
'='
I
-'
.....
""
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (.tlI,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9,720 SF)
CONVENIENCE MA~T wI GAS STATION (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OFFICE (21,000 SF)
N
o
I
...
o
I
..,
o
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMILY (40 DU)
B = MUlTI-FAMilY (266 DU)
OFFICE PARK (135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL ornCE (160,000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SAlES (120,000 SF)
FIGURE 9
YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~
o
:i
x
w
..,
o
o
N
o
...-
..,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
...-
N
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
17
I
SITE II
__J
108TH STREET
~
""
I
""
:;;
I
-'
"-
'"
r---l ---
I
I
I A
I I ~
I I ~
~----------1 ~
I I '5
I
I
I I
r-r-----+--------~ .---,
I I I II I
I I I II I
~ I I D I I
~ I I I
~ i C i i
~ I I fN I
~ I I r"!.I I
~ I I ~ ~ I
s:s~
I I ~ c::s I
L - -I- - - - - ..l...- - - - 3 - - -
H ~I~
s:s~
~~
~~
~~
~
B
SITE I
98TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
N
o
I
....
o
I
'"
o
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
Ii
~
Cl
:i
x
w
'"
o
o
N
5!-
'"
o
Cl
3- MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/
N
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
18
.- 1866 (832)
..&" 26 (17)
... ,.
(1901) 458 -. ~ <0
(31) 40.
(1900) 449-'
(36) 17.
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (411,568 SF)
SITE " = RETAil (9,720 SF)
CONVENIENCE lIAIlT WI GAS STATION (10 PUIotPS)
GENERAL OrnCE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAIotllV (40 DU)
8 = IotUm-FAIotllV&66 DU)
OrnCE PARK 135,000 SF)
C = GENERAl om (160,000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
,.,
LO
N
"'<t"
~
4
NON ~50 (102)
"'<t"LON ( )
"'<t" N - '-1415 703
~ ~ ~ ..&" 733 (217)
(362) 52.r ... t ,.
(1845) 442 -. ~"'<t" ~
(35) 8. -:::-~~
,., _ <0
'-"'-"'e
r::-
LO
LO -
.:!:-:;~ ~ 2 (30)
g:ri"'<t" '-273 (120)
~ ~ ~ ..&" 183 (7)
(150) 40.r ... t ,.
(239) 87 -. ~::g""
(31) 74. co~~
"'<t"_-
-e
FIGURE 10
REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2012
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that
approach the intersection. The "efficiency" of an intersection is designated by the Level-of-
Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS of an intersection is determined by a series of
calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data into a capacity analysis include
traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes and, in the case of signalized
intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the level of service at each of the study
intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer program based
on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM;J.
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 all.
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.
3 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2000.
19
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
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
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 unsignalized 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
20
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS
To evaluate the proposed development's effect on the public street system, the traffic volumes
from each of the various parts must be aggregated to form a series of scenarios that can be
analyzed. The analysis of these scenarios determines the adequacy of the existing roadway
system. From the analysis, recommendations, if required, can be made to improve the public
street system so it will accommodate the increased traffic volumes.
An analysis has been made for the AM Peak. Hour and PM Peak Hour for each of the study
intersections considering the following scenarios:
SCENARIO I: Existing Traffic Volumes - These are the traffic volumes that were obtained
in January 2002. Figure 11 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the
study intersections for the peak hours.
SCENARIO 2: Redistributed Existing Traffic Volumes - These are the existing traffic
volumes that have been redistributed due to the roadway modifications
proposed by the City of Carmel. Figure 12 is a summary of these traffic
volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours.
SCENARIO 3: Redistributed Year 2012 Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes - Figure 13 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study
intersections for the peak. hours.
SCENARIO 4: Redistributed Year 2012 Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes -
Figure 14 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for
the peak hours.
SCENARIO 5: Year 2012 Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes + Proposed
Development Traffic Volumes - Figure 15 is a summary of these traffic
volumes at the study intersections for the peak. hour.
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 are a
summary of the results of the level of service analyses and are identified as follows:
Table 5 - 96th Street and Gray Road
Table 6 - 96th Street and Brandt Road
Table 7 - 96th Street and Palmer Dodge Drive
Table 8 - 96th Street and Proposed Site I Access
Table 9 - 96th Street and Proposed Site II Access
Table 10 - Gray Road and Proposed South Access
Table 11 - Gray Road and Proposed Middle Access
Table 12 - Gray Road and Proposed North Access
21
A
.- 1696 (756)
.24 (15)
~ ~
(1728) 416'" N r-
(28) 36 ~
..,
........
4 5~~
::;.:::.:: "t.. 45 (93)
::5 ~:: .- 1932 (796)
~ . '+ .21 (40)
(329) 47 7 ~ t ~
(1677) 402'" ~ ~ :!
(32) 7~ m~co
- _ 10
................'"
........
~
'"
I
'"
'"
,
-'
u-
'"
98TH STREET
~
I~
I~
~--------~ ~
I~
I I ~
I
I
I I
r-r------+--------~ .u-,
I I I II I
I I I II I
~ I I I:) I 8 I
~ I I I II
~iCi i "
~ I I fN I
~I 1;".1 I
~ I I ~ ~ I
SS~
I I ~ ~
L__'-__ __-1-___ 3 ---
H ~I~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
r---l
I
I
I
'-1715 (762)
.846 (184)
~ ~
(1727) 408'" 10 ~
(33) 15~ e ----
I08TH STREET
B
~ : ~ "t.. 2 (27)
~ ~ ~ .- 248 (109)
~ . '+ .166 (6)
(136) 367 ~ t ~
(217) 79'" ~ ~ <D
(28) 67 ~ ~r::-~
~ <D-
-.:!-
SITE I
I
SITE II
uJ
N
o
I
...
o
I
'"
o
~
~
~
~
~
LAND USE LEGEND
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48,568 SF)
SITE " = RETAIL (9,720 SF)
CONVENfENCE MART WI GAS STATION (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OrnCE (21,000 SF)
~
o
::i
x
w
'"
o
o
N
o
/'
'"
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
N
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMILY (-40 OU)
B = MUlTI-FAlIILY~266 DU)
OrnCE PARK 135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL om E (160,000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
FIGURE 11
! EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(SCENARIO 1)
22
I
SITE II
uJ
I08TH STREET
~
'"
I
'"
::!
~
t.-
o::
r---l ---
I
I
I A ~
: : ~
~---------1~
I I ~
I
I
I I
II"-----+--------~ ,----,
I I I II I
~i i D i .. i
~ I I I
~ i C i i
~ I I ~ I
~ I I ~ I
~ I I ~ ~ I
~~
I I ~ ~
L - _I- - - - - ...!...- - - - 3 - - -
1r ~1~
s;s~
~~
~~
~~
~
B
SITE I
98TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
N
C)
I
...
C)
I
'"
C)
~
Cl
:r'
x
.....
'"
C)
C)
N
C)
,...-
'"
a
a
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
,...-
N
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
23
... 1696 (756)
~ 24 (15)
~ t+
(1728) 416'" N ......
(28) 36.
(1727) 408'"
(33) 15.
t+
00
-.t-
~
~
4
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9,720 Sr)
CONVENIENCE MART WI GAS STATION (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OFFICE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMILY (40 OU)
B = MULTI-FAMILY (266 DU)
OrnCE PARK (135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160,000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
~ 00 ~ "t. 45 (93)
~ ~::: ....1298 (640)
~ ~ '+ ~655 (196)
(329) 47 ~ ~ t t+
I (1677) 402'" ;;; -.t- :!
(32) 7. co~ co
N~U")
--N
-
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
;:;:;-
-.t-
~:;~ "t. 2 (27)
~ ~ -.t- .... 248 (109)
~ ~ '+ ~166 (6)
(136) 36 ~ ~ t t+
(217) 79'" ~ ~ <0
(28) 67. ~r:::-~
-.t- <0-
-.:!-
FIGURE 12
REDISTRIBUTED
IEXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(SCENARIO 2)
I
I
I
r-r-----+/
I I V //
~ i i D
~ I I
~ i C i
~ I I
~ I I
~ I I
tOoTH STREET
~
><
I
><
:iE
I
--'
....
<>:
90TH STREET
~
~
~~
s::s~
I I ~ ~
L__'-__
1[ ~I ~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~'l
~
N
o
I
...
o
I
'"
o
"
r---l
I
I
I
A
~
I~
~--------~ ~
I~
I I ~
I
B
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
<.:>
~
o
I
x
w
'"
o
o
N
o
./
'"
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
./
N
24
... 1898 (940)
~ 26 (17)
~ ~
(1959) 538 -+ ~ co
(31) 40 ~
4
<0 ~ on -t.. 66 (108)
~ ~ s::: ... 1462 (759)
4(J . '+ ~ 735 (220)
(467) 165 ~ ~ t ~
(1799) 411-+ ~ co ~
(35) 8 ~ -:::- ~ aJ
,.., ~ on
-""-"'~
(1958) 529-+
(36) 17 ~
~
on
on
0;;-
"<t-
,..,
'-"
,..,
on
4(J
......
N_
N co
~:;~ -t.., (9)
<0 g ~ .... (*)
4(J l '+ ~47 (147)
(8) 3 ~ ~ t ~
(*) * -+ ~ ~ g::
(8) 3 ~
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SAlES (48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9,720 Srl
CONVENiENCE 11m wi GAS STATION (10 PUIotPS)
GENERAL ornCE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMILY (40 DU)
8 = IIULn-FAlIILY (266 DU)
ornCE PARK (135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL ornCE (160,000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
on
4(J
-
<0
<0
on ~
.:::..:;;~ -t.. 2 (30)
g ;;!; "<t- ... 273 (120)
4(J l '+ ~ 184 (8)
(150) 40~ ~ t ~
(239) 87 -+ ,..,......-
(36) 80 ~ e~S
I FIGURE 13
I
I
I
SUM OF ,EDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC
VOLUMES & PROPOSED SITE I & SITE II
I TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(SCENARIO 3)
1 r::-- .-
o U')
-=-...e. "t.. 91 (63
co-....
", * ", ... 2008 (1005)
~ . ~ -&"26 (17)
(71) 103.j'- ~ t ,.
(2052) 615 ~ ~ * co
31) 40 '" ........:s~
...... ~ ",
.:!. -
I08TH STREET
,.
",
U')
........
N
....
e
~
~
~
:~
4
", ....", "t.. 149 (164)
~::!3 ~ "'1521 (759)
~ l ~ -&" 733 (217)
(488) 211.j'- ~ t ,.
(1959) 472 ~ ~ 0> ~
(35) 8 ~ -:;-'0........
I")~~
--~
-~ .---,
I
I
I
I I
I I
'0
co
<0 ~
.:!. :::; ~ "t.. 2 (30)
:i5 :;;.... ... 273 (120)
~ l ~ -&" 183 (7)
(151) 41.j'- ~ t ,.
(239) 87 ~ ~:2......
(47) 104 ~ 'Or:::-~
co U') -
-e
~
~
:;j
~
~
~
I
SITE II
__J
SITE I
3 ---
98TH STREET 1 r
~
~
~
~
~
~
'"
I
'"
::E
I
-'
...
Q:
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (-48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9.720 sF)
CONVENIENCE IIART wI GAS STATION (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL OmCE (21,doo SF)
'"
o
I
...
o
I
'"
o
II
~
o
::i
x
w
'"
o
o
'"
o
./
'"
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
'"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
./
N
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMilY (40 DU)
B = IIUm-FAM1tMY 266 DU)
OmCE PARK 135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL 0 E (160,000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SAlES (120.000 SF)
FIGURE 14
SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC
VOLUMES l VACANT LAND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
i (SCENARIO 4)
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
25
~
""
I
""
:;;
I
...J
L.-
a::
98TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
..... U') <D "t.165 (170)
II') 11')"'" ,."
II') N N -+-1568 (815) U")
~ ~ ~ ..&' 735 (220) ~
(593) 324.:l" ~ t ,.
(1913) 441-" :; ~ ~
(35) 8 ~
1 r::-- .-
C> U')
.:::...-e "t. 91 (63
oo-~
",. ", ... 2040 (1113)
~ ~ ~ ..&' 26 (17)
(71) 103.:l" ~ t ,.
(2110) 695 -.. ~. 00
31) 40", .........E:-;tl
..... - ",
.::!... -
4
,.
U')
U')
I08TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
.........
",
~
",
-
CD
u:)oo-
~:::~ "t. 1 (9)
to ~ ~ ....* (*)
~ ~ ~ .47 (147)
(8) 3.:l" ~ t ,.
(*) * -.. ~ ~ ~
(8) 3 ~ -;:-.:.-;:-
",--
-00
t::;..
LAND USE LEGEND
U')
~
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
26
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48,568 SF)
SITE " = RETAIL (9.720 sr)
CONVENfENc[ IIART wI GAS STATION (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL ornCE (21.000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMILY (40 OU)
B = MULTI-FAMI~Y 266 DU)
ornCE PARK 135,000 SF)
. C = GENERAL 0 (160,000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SALES (12D,ooo SF)
.........
C>
en
<D _
.::!...:;;-~ "t. 2 (30)
~ :g ~ ... 273 (120)
~ ~ ~ . 184 (8)
(151) 41~ ~ t ,.
(239) 87 -.. ;:;; ~ 00
(52) 110 ~ co.........r::-
co~~
-e
FIGURE 15
SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2012 TRAFFIC
VOLUMES~ VACANT LAND TRAFFIC VOLUMES &
PROPOSI:D SITE I & SITE II TRAFFIC VOLUMES
I (SCENARIO 5)
N
o
I
...
o
I
..,
o
II
~
o
::C
x
w
..,
o
o
N
~
..,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
! 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
N
D
U
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-96TH STREET AND ORA Y ROAD
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
1 2A 2B 3 4 5
Northbound Approach D C C C C C
Southbound Approach E E C C D D
Eastbound Approach B E B C C D
Westbound Approach D E D C C C
Intersection D E C C C C
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
1 2A 2B 3 4 5
Northbound Approach D C C D D C
Southbound Approach D C C D D D
Eastbound AODfoach C D B C C D
Westbound Aooroach B B C C C C
Intersection C C C C C D
PM PEAK HOUR
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions
SCENARIO 2A: Redistributed Existing Traffic Volumes with the Roadway Modifications
Proposed by the City of Carmel * and the Existing Traffic Signal Control
SCENARIO 2B: Redistributed Existing Traffic Volumes with Proposed Intersection Oeometrics*
and Existing Traffic Signal Control
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
with Proposed Geometrics* and Existing Traffic Signal Control
SCENARIO 4: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Proposed
Geometrics* and Existing Traffic Signal Control
SCENARIO 5: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed Geometrics* and Existing Traffic Signal Control
* The proposed geometries are illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 16A - Scenario 2A
. Figure 16B - Scenario 2B
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3
. Figure 18 - Scenario 4
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5
27
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 6 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY _96TH STREET AND BRANDT ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
1 2A 3 4 5
Northbound Approach F A B B B
Westbound Left-Turn D -- -- -- --
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
1 2A 3 4 5
Northbound Approach F F F F F
Westbound Left-Turn E -- -- -- --
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions
SCENARIO 2A: Redistributed Existing Traffic Volumes with Proposed Right-In/Right-Out Traffic
Control *
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
with Proposed Right-In/Right-Out Traffic Control*
SCENARIO 4: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Proposed
Right-In/Right-Out Traffic Control*
SCENARIO 5: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed Right-In/Right-Out Traffic Control*
* The proposed geometries are illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 16A - Scenario 2A
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3
. Figure 18 - Scenario 4
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5
28
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 7 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY _96TH STREET AND PALMER DODGE DRIVE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
1 2 3 4 5
Northbound Approach C C F F
Southbound Approach -- SEE -- F F
Eastbound Left-Turn -- NOTE -- E E
Westbound Left-Turn A A A A
Note: The redistributed conditions do not differ trom the existing conditions at this intersection. Therefore, an analysis of Scenario 2 at
this intersection was not necessary.
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO
1 2 3 4 5
Northbound Approach F F F F
Southbound Approach -- SEE -- F F
Eastbound Left-Turn -- NOTE -- B B
Westbound Left-Turn C C C D
Note: The redistributed conditions do not differ from the existing conditions at this intersection. Therefore, an analysis of Scenario 2 at
this intersection was not necessary.
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions
SCENARIO 2: SEE NOTE
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
with Existing Conditions
SCENARIO 4: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Proposed
Geometrics* and Two-Way Stop Traffic Control
SCENARIO 5: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed Geometrics* and Two-Way Stop Traffic Control
* The proposed geometries are illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 18 - Scenario 4
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5
29
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 8 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY _96TH STREET AND PROPOSED SITE I ACCESS
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 5
Southbound Ricllt- Turn C D
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 5
Southbound Right-Turn B B
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
with Proposed Right-InlRight-Out Traffic Control*
SCENARIO 5: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed Right-In/Right-Out Traffic Control*
* The proposed conditions are illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5
TABLE 9 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY _96TH STREET AND PROPOSED SITE II ACCESS
AM PEAK HOUR
SCENARIO 3
E
SCENARIO 5
E
PM PEAK HOUR
SCENARIO 3
B
SCENARIO 5
C
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
with Proposed Right-InlRight-Out Traffic Control*
SCENARIO 5: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed Right-InlRight-Out Traffic Control*
* The proposed conditions are illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5
30
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 10 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -ORA Y ROAD AND PROPOSED SOUTH ACCESS
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 5
Eastbound Rigbt- Turn B B
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 5
Eastbound Right-Turn A B
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
with Proposed Right-In/Right-Out Traffic Control*
SCENARIO 5: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed Right-In/Right-Out Traffic Control*
* The proposed conditions are illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5
TABLE 11 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-ORA Y ROAD AND PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 5
Westbound Rigbt- Turn A B
PM PEAK HOUR
SCENARIO 3
B
SCENARIO 5
B
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
with Proposed Right-In/Right-Out Traffic Control*
SCENARIO 5: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed Right-In/Right-Out Traffic Control*
* The proposed conditions are illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5
31
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATBS ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE 12 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -GRAY ROAD AND PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS
AM PEAK. HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 5
Northbound Left-Turn B B
Southbound Left-Turn A A
Eastbound Approach C D
Westbound Approach C E
PM PEAK. HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 5
Northbound Left-Turn A A
Southbound Left-Turn A B
Eastbound Approach B C
Westbound Approach F F
SCENARIO 3: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
with Proposed Geometrics* and Proposed Two-Way Stop Control
SCENARIO 5: Sum of Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development Traffic
Volumes with Proposed Geometrics* and Proposed Two-Way Stop Control
* The proposed geometries are illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5
32
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment
and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have
been prepared for each of the study intersections, and the 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. Therefore, if the
resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed the
remaining 22 hours will have levels of service that are equal to or better than the peak hours.
96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
Existing (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 this
intersection is operating at acceptable levels during the PM Peak Hour. However, during
the AM Peak Hour this intersection might experience excessive delay.
Redistributed Existing Traffic (Scenario 2) - When the existing traffic volumes are
redistributed, this intersection will operate below acceptable levels of service during the
AM Peak Hour with the roadway modifications proposed by the City of Carmel shown on
Figure 16A. However, with the improvements shown on Figure 16B, this intersection
will operate at acceptable levels of service when the redistributed traffic volumes are added
to this intersection.
Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic
volumes, this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM Peak
Hour and PM Peak Hour with the proposed geometries illustrated on Figure 17.
Redistributed Year 2012 and Vacant Land (Scenario 4) - When the traffic volumes from
the vacant land are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, this intersection
will operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour
with the proposed geometrics illustrated on Figure 18.
33
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development (Scenario 5) - When
the traffic volumes from the vacant land and proposed development are added to the
redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of
service during the AM Peak Hour with the proposed geometries illustrated on Figure 19.
However, this intersection might experience periods of increased delay during the PM Peak
Hour with these proposed geometries.
96TH STREET AND BRANDT ROAD
Existing (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
northbound approach operates below acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM
Peak Hour.
Redistributed Existing Traffic (Scenario 2) - When the existing traffic volumes are
redistributed, the northbound approach will operate below acceptable levels of service
during the PM Peak Hour with the roadway modifications that are proposed by the City of
Carmel.
Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic
volumes, the northbound approach will operate below acceptable levels of service during
the PM Peak: Hour with the proposed right-inlright-out that is proposed by the City of
Carmel.
Redistributed Year 2012 and Vacant Land (Scenario 4) - When the traffic volumes from
the vacant land use are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, the northbound
approach will operate below acceptable levels of service during the PM Peak Hour with
the proposed right-inlright-out that is proposed by the City of Carmel.
Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development (Scenario 5) - When
the traffic volumes from the vacant land use and proposed development are added to the
redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, the northbound approach will operate below
34
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
acceptable levels of service during the PM Peak Hour with the proposed right-in/right-out
that is proposed by the City of Carmel.
961li STREET AND PALMER DODGE DRNE
Existing (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
northbound approach operates at an acceptable level during the AM Peak Hour and
below an acceptable level during the PM Peak Hour. The westbound left-turn movement
operates at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
Redistributed Existing Traffic (Scenario 2) - Traffic will not be redistributed at this
intersection. Therefore, an analysis of this scenario is not necessary at this location.
Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic
volumes, the northbound approach will operate at an acceptable level of service during
the AM Peak Hour and below an acceptable level during the PM Peak Hour. This is
with the proposed conditions illustrated on Figure 17. The westbound left-turn movement
will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
Redistributed Year 2012 and Vacant Land (Scenario 4) - When the traffic volumes from
the vacant land use are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, the northbound
and southbound approaches will operate below acceptable levels of service during the AM
Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. This is with the proposed conditions illustrated on Figure
18. The eastbound left-turn movement will operate below an acceptable level during the
AM Peak Hour and at an acceptable level during the PM Peak Hour. The westbound
approach will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development (Scenario 5) - When
the traffic volumes from the vacant land use and proposed development are added to the
redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, the northbound and southbound approaches will
operate below acceptable levels of service during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
35
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
This is with the proposed conditions illustrated on Figure 19. The eastbound left-turn
movement will operate below an acceptable level during the AM Peak Hour and at an
acceptable level during the PM Peak Hour. The westbound approach will operate at
acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
106TH SlREET AND GRAY ROAD
A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing
traffic volumes and existing geometries, has shown that this intersection operates below
acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. When the traffic
volumes from the vacant land use and proposed development are added to the redistributed
year 2012 volumes, this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the
AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour with either a traffic signal or roundabout control.
96TH SlREET AND PROPOSED SITE I ACCESS
Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic
volumes, the southbound right-turn movement will operate at acceptable levels of service
during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour with the proposed conditions illustrated on
Figure 17.
Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development (Scenario 5) - When
the traffic volumes from the vacant land use and the proposed development are added to the
redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, the southbound right-turn movement will operate
at acceptable levels of service during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour with the
proposed conditions illustrated on Figure 19.
96TH SlREET AND PROPOSED SITE II ACCESS
Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic
volumes, the southbound right-turn movement will operate below an acceptable level of
service during the AM Peak Hour and at an acceptable level during the PM Peak Hour.
This is with the proposed conditions illustrated on Figure 17.
36
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development (Scenario 5) - When
the traffic volumes from the vacant land use and the proposed development are added to the
redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, the southbound right-turn movement will operate
below an acceptable level of service during the AM Peak Hour and at an acceptable
level during the PM Peak Hour. This is with the proposed conditions illustrated on
Figure 19.
GRAY ROAD AND PROPOSED SOUTH ACCESS
Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic
volumes, the eastbound right-turn movement will operate at acceptable levels of service
during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour with the proposed conditions illustrated on
Figure 17.
Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development (Scenario 5) - When
the traffic volumes from the vacant land use and the proposed development are added to the
redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, the eastbound right-turn movement will operate at
acceptable levels of service during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour with the
proposed conditions illustrated on Figure 19.
GRAY ROAD AND PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS
Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic
volumes, the eastbound right-turn movement will operate at acceptable levels of service
during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour with the proposed conditions illustrated on
Figure 17.
Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development (Scenario 5) - When the
traffic volumes from the vacant land use and the proposed development are added to the
redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, the eastbound right-turn movement will operate ataacceptable levels of service during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour with the
proposed conditions illustrated on Figure 19.
37
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MIo.STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
GRAY ROAD AND PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS
Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development (Scenario 3) - When the traffic
volumes from the proposed development are added to the redistributed year 2012 traffic
volumes, the northbound and southbound left-turn movements will operate at acceptable
levels of service during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. This is with the proposed
conditions illustrated on Figure 17. The eastbound approach will operate at acceptable
levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. The westbound approach will
operate at an acceptable level during the AM Peak Hour and below an acceptable level
during the PM Peak Hour.
Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed Development (Scenario 5) - When the traffic
volumes from the vacant land use and the proposed development are added to the
redistributed year 2012 traffic volumes, the northbound and southbound left-turn
movements will operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM Peak Hour and
PM Peak Hour. This is with the proposed conditions illustrated on Figure 19. The
eastbound approach will operate below an acceptable level during the AM Peak Hour
and at an acceptable level during the PM Peak Hour. The westbound approach will
operate below acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
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.
96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
This intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service for Scenario 2B, Scenario 3 and
Scenario 4 with the proposed geometries. The proposed geometries are illustrated on the
following figures:
. Figure 16B - Scenario 2B (Redistributed Existing Traffic)
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3 (Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic)
. Figure 18 - Scenario 4 (Redistributed Year 2012 and Vacant Land Traffic)
38
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
In addition, when the proposed development traffic volumes are added to the vacant land and
the redistributed year 2012 volumes, the proposed geometries on Figure 19 should be
implemented.
96TH STREET AND BRANDT ROAD
It is proposed that the northbound approach of this intersection operate as a right-in/right-out.
The northbound approach will operate below acceptable levels of service during the PM Peak
Hour for Scenario 2, Scenario 3, Scenario 4 and Scenario 5 with the proposed geometries. This
is due to the amount of through traffic along 96th Street. However, a downstream signal should
create sufficient gaps for the northbound right-turn movement. The proposed geometries are
illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 16B - Scenario 2B (Redistributed Existing Traffic)
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3 (Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic)
. Figure 18 - Scenario 4 (Redistributed Year 2012 and Vacant Land Traffic)
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5 (Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed
Development Traffic)
96TH STREET AND PALMER DODGE DRIVE
A drive aligned with Palmer Dodge Drive that will provide access to the vacant parcel "D" is
proposed for Scenario 4 and Scenario 5. The northbound and southbound approaches will
operate below acceptable levels of service for Scenario 4 and Scenario 5 with the proposed
geometries. This is due to the amount of through traffic along 96th Street. However,
downstream signals should create sufficient gaps for the northbound and southbound
approaches. The proposed geometries are illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 18 - Scenario 4 (Redistributed Year 2012 and Vacant Land Traffic)
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5 (Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed
Development Traffic)
106TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
When the traffic volumes from the vacant land use and proposed development are added to the
redistributed year 2012 volumes, this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service
during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour with either a traffic signal or roundabout control.
39
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
96TH STREET AND PROPOSED SITE I ACCESS
The southbound right-turn movement of the proposed right-inlright-out access will operate at
acceptable levels of service for Scenario 3 and Scenario 5 with the proposed geometries
illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3 (Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic)
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5 (Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed
Development Traffic)
96TH STREET AND PROPOSED SITE II ACCESS
The southbound right-turn movement of the proposed right-inlright-out access will operate
below acceptable levels of service for Scenario 3 and Scenario 5 during the AM Peak Hour with
the proposed geometries. This is due to the amount of through traffic along 96th Street. The
proposed geometries are illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3 (Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic)
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5 (Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed
Development Traffic)
96TH STREET AND PROPOSED SOUTH ACCESS
The eastbound right-turn movement of the proposed right-inlright-out access will operate at
acceptable levels of service for Scenario 3 and Scenario 5 with the proposed geometries
illustrated on the following figures:
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3 (Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic)
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5 (Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed
Development Traffic)
96TH STREET AND PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS
The westbound right-turn movement of the right-inlright-out access will operate at acceptable
levels of service for Scenario 3 and Scenario 5 with the proposed geometries illustrated on the
following figures:
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3 (Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic)
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5 (Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and Proposed
Development Traffic)
40
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
96TH STREET AND PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS
The westbound approach will operate below acceptable levels of service for Scenario 3 and
Scenario 5 during the PM Peak Hour with the proposed geometries. This is due to the amount
of through traffic along Gray Road. However, a downstream signal should create sufficient
gaps for the westbound approach. The proposed geometries are illustrated on the following
figures:
. Figure 17 - Scenario 3 (Redistributed Year 2012 and Proposed Development Traffic)
. Figure 19 - Scenario 5 (Redistributed Year 2012, Vacant Land and.Proposed
Development Traffic)
41
98TH STREET
-
-
- - e
~-------------------------_ w
z
::i
:c
Co)
t-
e
:IE
-
-
Jf
Jf
Jf
Jf
- -
---~--------
~'rr 0
c:::i
~
~
~
- --
---------------------------
- --
)
S:i
~
~
~
"
~
V3~
~~
~~
~~
~
98TH STREET
e
w
z
::i
:c
Co) -
t-
e -
:IE
-
~--------------------------~------------
J
~
""
'"
o
I
...
o
I
..,
o
Ii
~
o
:i
x
w
..,
o
o
'"
o
.-'
")
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
.-'
<.j
42
-
-
-
...~
I
I
tit
I
\.
-
-
N.T.S.
~
~
V3~
~~
~s.3
~~
~
~
- -
--r--------------
f f
_I _
-
-
= PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DRIVES
-
FIGURE 16A
CITY OF CARMEL
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
GEOMETRICS
(SCENARIO 2A)
J
-
-
-
-
~
96'TH STREET
-
-
- - c
~-------------------------- w
z
:J
:z:
(.)
t-
C
2
-
-
JI
JI
JI
JI
- -
---~--------
~!n-- 0
~
~
~
~
- --
---------------------------
- --
-~--------
~ 0
~
~
~
~
"
~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
98TH STREET
-
c
w
z
:J
:z:
(.) -
t-
C
2
-
---
- ~
J
J
-
-
'\
-
-
J
J
- -
----------------------------------------
- -
-
~
'"
'"
o
I
~
o
I
,..,
o
~
a
:r
x
w
,..,
o
o
'"
o
./
,..,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
'"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
./
N
43
....~
I
I
tit
I
~
-
-
-
-
-
- .
I '
I
- ~
-
= PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I
DRIVES
~
~
~~
~~
~S-3
9:~
~
~
-
-
I
I
-
-
o
FIGURE 168
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
GEOMETRICS
(SCENARIO 28)
J
N.T.S.
-
98TH STREET
~
~
~
'5
-
-
-
- oe
w
z:
:::i
:c
u
....
oe
:IE
-
~--------------------------
-
~ (-
~J
~L
~(
- -
---~--------
~lrr 0
~
~
~
~
- --
~-----------------~--------
------------~--------
~ 0
~ l"
~
~
~
PROPOSEO SOUTH
ACCESS
-
I
~
'"
........
~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
).
o
'"
a
I
~
a
I
'"
a
98TH STREET
---~
-
---
-
---
- ~
~
~
-
-
-..-
- -
------------------------
- -
oe
w
z:
:::i
:c
u
....
oe
:IE _
"
~
o
or
x
w
'"
a
a
'"
a
/'
'"
a
o
3- MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
'"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
N
~
~
~---------------------------------
-
-+
----------------------------------
-
-----~
44
l t
l~~tlt.
I
~~
N.T.S.
o
(
- I
PROPOSEO NORllf
ACCESS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tit
I
o
t
-
PROPOSEO MlOOLE
ACCESS I
FIGURE 17
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
GEOMETRICS
(SCENARIO 3)
~
~
~~
~~
~~
~t~~
o ~
.. I .!..
_~.l________________
_~L_________-____
-i -
( I (
( i (
~
-
-
-
-
-
-\
-vT
-
o
~
~
~
~
~~~
N.T.S.
96TH STREET
-
- -
~-------------------------~
e
1&1
Z
::;
:c
(.)
to-
e
_ :2
-
J(
J(
J(
- -
---"'V--------
~~rr 0
c::s
~
~
~
- --
---------------------------
- --
v
~ 0
~
~
~
~
~
V)~
~~
sgS3
~~
~
~
I
I
tit
I
.,~
96'TH STREET
t
=-t=========-====
-
---
- ~
J
J
-
-
-..-
-
-
-
e _
1&1
Z
::;
:c
(.) -
to-
e
:2
----
-
-,
(I
(:
-
(
(
J
J
-i -
--~--------------
-~I
-
-
-
-
- -
~--------------------------------------v
~
'"
'"
C)
I
...
C)
I
""
C)
FIGURE 18
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
GEOMETRICS
(SCENARIO 4)
~
Cl
:i
x
UJ
""
C)
C)
'"
o
,-
'"
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
,-
'-i
= PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DRIVES
45
~ t
N.T.S.
9::
~
~
~
s:
~ ~
q:
98TH STREET
S:i
~
~
'5
PROPOSED SOUTH
ACCESS
I
I
I
t~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tit
I
I
i
- I
,
PROPOSEO MlOOLE
,
ACCESS I
FIGURE 19
___~_______A
-
_ _ = J ~_ _ _ _ _ ~ ~
- -
---~--------
~~rr 0
~
~
~
~
J~
__1~
- oe
_ w
z
~
:c
u
....
oe
::E
- -
-
- --
---------------------------
- --
------------r--------
~ 0
~
~
~
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
GEOMETRICS
(SCENARIO 5)
-
N
o
I
...
o
I
..,
o
"
98TH STREET
~
~
~
~~
~~
~~
.~
q:
).
o
~
'"
.,~
~
~
V)~
~~
~~
.,t~~
o ~
. .!;
-~T--------------
- -
J
J
- 4
---
- -
---
- ~ -
J
J
- -
- -
-.. -
_I
~ '.
~ I
-
~
~
___-.i
'"
~
o
:i
x
.oJ
"l
o
o
'"
o
/'
.,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
'"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
'-.i
oe
w
z
~
:c
~ ~--------------------------------------~
oe
::E
- -
------------------------
-
- -
~--------------------------------------r
- -
-----------------
-! -
-~--'-
46
o
u
o
U
D
D
D
o
U
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
This docmnent contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS for the
proposed development.
Included are the traffic volume counts and the intersection capacity analyses for each of the study
intersections for the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour.
.:"....
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC COUNTS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID-STATES ENGINEERING / GLENDALE PARTNERS
96TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (01)
JANUARY 15, 2002
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
WESTBOUND
PEAK HOUR DATA
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
26 4 14 44 19 105 258 382
47 402 7 456 329 1677 32 2038
111 26 603 740 76 14 131 221
21 1932 45 1998 40 796 93 929
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 18 216 234 188 606 794 1028
7- 8 33 721 754 420 1848 2268 3022
8- 9 53 428 481 512 1467 1979 2460
- PM -
4- 5 142 184 326 1657 754 2411 2737
5- 6 374 240 614 1916 947 2863 3477
TOTAL 620 1789 2409 4693 5622 10315 12724
4.9% 14.1% 18.9% 36.9% 44.2% 81.1% 100.0%
- AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 19 207 140 542
HOUR 58 740 512 1998
PHF 0.76 0.89 0.91 0.92
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 140 68 582 248
HOUR 382 240 2038 947
PHF 0.68 0.88 0.88 0.95
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID-STATES ENGINEERING I GLFN>ALE PARTNERS
96TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (01)
JANUARY 15, 2002
NORTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 11 0 11 0 0 0 7 0 7 18 0 18
7- 8 21 0 21 2 0 2 10 0 10 33 0 33
8- 9 20 2 22 7 0 7 23 1 24 50 3 53
PM
4- 5 19 0 19 35 0 35 86 2 88 140 2 142
5- 6 19 0 19 102 0 102 253 0 253 374 0 374
PASSENGER 90 146 379 615
97.8% 100.0% 99.2% 99.2%
TRUCK 2 0 3 5
2.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8%
BOTH 92 146 382 620
14.8% 23.5% 61.6% 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 15 0 15 160 13 173 0 0 0 175 13 188
7- 8 40 1 41 353 23 376 2 1 3 395 25 420
8- 9 44 4 48 421 26 447 15 2 17 480 32 512
PM
4- 5 267 10 277 1341 14 1355 25 0 25 1633 24 1657
5- 6 295 2 297 1580 5 1585 34 0 34 1909 7 1916
PASSENGER 661 3855 76 4592
97.5% 97.9% 96.2% 97.8%
TRUCK 17 81 3 101
2.5% 2.1% 3.8% 2.2%
BOTH 678 3936 79 4693
14.4% 83.9% 1. 7% 100.0%
0
0
0
CLIENT
D LOCATION
DATE
DIRECTION
0 HOUR
0 6- 7
7- 8
0 8- 9
4- 5
5- 6
0 PASSENG
0 TRUCK
0 BOTH
0 DIRECTION
HOUR
0 6- 7
7- 8
0 8- 9
4- 5
0 5- 6
PASSENG
0 TRUCK
0 BOTH
0
0
0
-
OF TRAVEL
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID-STATES ENGINEERING / GLENDALE PARrNERS
96TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (01)
JANUARY 15, 2002
SOUTHBOUND
LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
ER
AM
48 1 49 2 0 2 165 0 165 215 1 216
106 0 106 21 0 21 593 1 594 720 1 721
94 0 94 6 0 6 325 3 328 425 3 428
PM
63 0 63 2 0 2 118 1 119 183 1 184
90 0 90 16 0 16 134 0 134 240 0 240
401 47 1335 1783
99.8% 100.0% 99.6% 99.7%
1 0 5 6
0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%
402 47 1340 1789
22.5% 2.6% 74.9% 100.0%
OF TRAVEL : WESTBOUND
LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
ER
AM
2 0 2 591 3 594 10 0 10 603 3 606
17 0 17 1787 4 1791 39 1 40 1843 5 1848
15 0 15 1398 17 1415 37 0 37 1450 17 1467
PM
16 0 16 655 1 656 78 4 82 749 5 754
41 0 41 810 1 811 95 0 95 946 1 947
91 5241 259 5591
100.0% 99.5% 98.1% 99.4%
0 26 5 31
0.0% 0.5% 1. 9% 0.6%
91 5267 264 5622
1. 6% 93.7% 4.7% 100.0%
o
o
Analyst: RMB
O-gency: A&F Engineering
ate: 2/21/02
eriod: AM Peak
Project ID: Mid-States
O/W St: 96th Street
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
D
No. Lanes
DGconfig
olume
Lane Width
[JTOR ~Ol
uratl.on
Road
Inter.: 96th Street & Gray
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel
Year Existing
N/S St: Gray Road
0.25
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
L T R L T R L T R L T R
47 402 7 21 1932 45 26 4 14 111 26 603
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
3 22 7 301
Dlhase Combination 1
B Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
r ~reen
Uellow
All Red
Qppr /
Lane
Orp
Eastbound
OT- 203
( 2063
1077
Westbound
O 633
2063
R 1077
C}orthbound
274
256
R 385
Dou thbound
277 1719
T 256 1810
O. 385 1538
Intersection Delay
o
WB
QB
A
A
A
8.0
3.0
0.0
Lane
Group
Capacity
1719
3438
1538
1719
3438
1538
1719
1810
1538
2
A
A
A
A
A
A
72.0
3.0
2.0
NB
5
A
6
A
A
A
7
8
EB
WB
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
Right
A
A
A
7.0 17.0
3.0 3.0
0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 120.0
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group
Flow Rate
(s)
SB
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
0.26
0.22
0.00
0.04
1. 04
0.02
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.44
0.11
0.87
= 47.8
0.23 40.1 D
0.14 45.1 D
0.25 62.4 E
(sec/veh) Intersection
0.69 27.0 C
0.60 11.1 B
0.70 5.4 A
0.69 6.0 A
0.60 55.4 E
0.70 5.5 A
0.23 36.9 D
0.14 44.3 D
0.25 33.9 C
A
A
A
secs
Approach
Delay LOS
12.7
B
54.2
D
37.1
D
55.7
E
LOS = D
o
n HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
'nalyst: RMB Inter.: 96th Street & Gray
Agency: A&F Engineering Area Type: All other areas
Date: 2/21/02 Jurisd: Carmel
eriod: PM Peak Year Existing
Project ID: Mid-States
[J/W St: 96th Street
N/S St: Gray Road
Eastbound
L T R
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R
D
No. Lanes
OGCOnfig
olume
Lane Width
CTOR Vol
uration
1
L
329
12.0
2
T
1677
12.0
1
R
32
12.0
16
1
L
40
12.0
2
T
796
12.0
1
R
93
12.0
46
L
19
12.0
0.25
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
Dhase Combination 1
IB Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
O;reen
ellow
All Red
Qppr I
Lane
rp
2
A
A
A
DB
QB
A
A
A
A
A
A
8.0
3.0
0.0
73.0
3.0
2.0
Lane
Group
Capacity
Eastbound
OT'J 422
~ 2091
1089
Westbound
0" 203
h 2091
R 1089
lIorthboun~ 64
~ 241
R 372
Dou thbound
229 1719
T 241 1810
rf 372 1538
U Intersection Delay
o
1719
3438
1538
1719
3438
1538
1719
1810
1538
1
1
T
105
12.0
Road
Southbound
L T R
1
R
258
12.0
129
L
76
12.0
1
1
T
14
12.0
1
R
131
12.0
65
NB
8
SB
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
Right
A
A
7.0 16.0
3.0 3.0
0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 120.0
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group
Flow Rate
(s)
EB
WB
5
A
6
A
A
A
7
sees
A
A
A
A
vie
g/C
Approach
0.87
0.89
0.02
0.22
0.42
0.05
0.08
0.49
0.38
0.37
0.07
0.20
= 24.0
Delay LOS
0.70 27.0 C
0.61 25.4 C
0.71 5.2 A
0.70 20.9 C
0.61 12.5 B
0.71 5.3 A
0.22 37.5 D
0.13 49.7 D
0.24 38.7 D
0.22 39.9
0.13 45.6
0.24 36.5
(sec/veh)
Delay LOS
25.5
12.5
43.2
D
D 39.0
D
Intersection
LOS = C
C
B
D
D
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
Ynalyst: TSV
Agency: A&F Engineering
Date: 03/04/02
eriod: AM Peak
Project ID: Mid-States
[J/W St: 96th St
Co ., LLC
Inter.: 96th St & Gray Rd
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, IN
Year Existing (Red.) - A
N/S St: Gray Rd
o
Eastbound
L T R
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R
Southbound
L T R
1
R
1
1
R
45
12.0
22
No. Lanes
QGCOnfig
olume
ane Width
RTOR Vol
[Juration
1
2
T
402
12.0
7
12.0
3
L
47
12.0
L
655
12.0
1
2
T
1298
12.0
L
31 4
12.0 12.0
0.25
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
Ohase Combination 1
B Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
[J~reen
ellow
All Red
2
A
A
A
GB
QB
A
A
A
A
A
A
18.0
3.0
0.0
34.0
3.0
2.0
Qppr /
Lane
"rp
Lane
Group
Capacity
Eastbound
U~J 478
r 1344
601
Westbound
O 673
1344
R 601
UNorthbound
261
250
R 619
0: ou thbound
304 1719
T 250 1810
R 619 1538
o Intersection Delay
o
1719
3438
1538
1719
3438
1538
1719
1810
1538
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
T
1
1
R
14
12.0
7
L
111
12.0
1
T
238
12.0
1
R
391
12.0
195
NB
8
SB
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
Right
7.0 12.0 0.0
3.0 3.0 0.0
0.0 2.0 0.0
Cycle Length: 87.0
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group
Flow Rate
(s)
EB
WB
0.0
5
A
6
A
A
A
7
0.0
secs
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
0.11
0.33
0.01
1.08
1. 07
0.04
0.13
0.02
0.01
0.40
1.06
0.35
= 65.0
0.63 11. 9 B
0.39 18.7 B
0.39 16.2 B
0.63 89.7 F
0.39 73.2 E
0.39 16.5 B
0.25 25.5 C
0.14 32.4 C
0.40 15.6 B
A
A
A
A
Approach
Delay LOS
18.0 B
78.0 E
24.4 C
0.25 27.2 C
0.14 109.9 F 60.1 E
0.40 18.5 B
(sec/veh) Intersection LOS = E
D
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
Ynalyst: TSV
Agency: A&F Engineering
Date: 03/04/02
eriod: PM Peak
Project ID: Mid-States
[J/W St: 96th St
Co., LLC
Inter.: 96th St & Gray Rd
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, IN
Year Existing (Red.) - A
NIS St: Gray Rd
D
Eastbound
L T R
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R
No. Lanes
QGCOnfig
olume
ane Width
RTOR Vol
Wuration
1
1
R
32
12.0
16
L
329
12.0
2
T
1677
12.0
Southbound
L T R
1
L
196
12.0
1
2
T
640
12.0
1
R
93
12.0
46
1
T
105
12.0
1
R
258
12.0
129
L
28
12.0
0.25
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
5
A
8
7.0
3.0
0.0
Cycle
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group
Flow Rate
(s)
O~hase Combination 1
B Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
[J"reen
.el1ow
All Red
Qppr I
Lane
"rp
2
A
A
A
OIB
QB
A
A
A
A
A
A
7.0
3.0
0.0
41.0
3.0
2.0
Lane
Group
Capacity
Eastbound
QI~ 483
1807
808
Westbound
O 291
1807
R 808
UNorthbound
291
162
R 375
Dou thbound
291 1719
T 162 1810
R 375 1538
o Intersection Delay
o
1719
3438
1538
1719
3438
1538
1719
1810
1538
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
vlc
g/C
0.76
1. 03
0.02
0.75
0.39
0.06
0.11
0.72
0.38
0.29
0.29
0.15
= 33.7
0.65
0.53
0.53
0.65
0.53
0.53
0.22
0.09
0.24
NB
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
Right
A
SB
EB
WB
1
1
T
42
12.0
L
76
12.0
6
A
A
A
7
A
A
A
7.0 0.0
3.0 0.0
2.0 0.0
Length: 78.0
1
R
103
12.0
51
0.0
secs
Approach
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
14.1 B
48.1 D
8.9 A
29.7 C
11.2 B
9.1 A
24.6 C
49.2 D
25.2 C
42.2
15.2
34.8
0.22 25.7 C
0.09 34.2 C 27.1
0.24 23.4 C
(sec/veh) Intersection
D
B
t
C
LOS = C
D
n HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
~alyst: TSV Inter.: 96th St & Gray Rd
Agency: A&F Engineering Co., LLC Area Type: All other areas
Date: 03/04/02 Jurisd: Carmel, IN
eriod: AM Peak Year Existing (Red.) - B
Project ID: Mid-States
[J/W St: 96th St
N/S St: Gray Rd
Eastbound
L T R
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R
o
1
R
No. Lanes
q- GConfig
olume
ane Width
RTOR Vol
Uuration
L
47
12.0
0.25
Ohase Combination 1
B Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
I~reen
I.{ellow
All Red
Qppr /
Lane
'rp
[1B
QB
Lane
Group
Capacity
2
2
T
402
12.0
7
12.0
3
2
1
R
45
12.0
22
Southbound
L T R
1
1
T
L
31 4
12.0 12.0
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
2
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
14.0
3.0
0.0
42.0
3.0
2.0
3438
3438
1538
3438
3438
1538
1719
1810
1538
L
655
12.0
2
T
1298
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
v/c
g/C
0.04 0.61
0.30 0.43
0.01 0.43
0.82 0.61
0.97 0.43
0.04 0.43
0.15 0.29
0.01 0.19
0.01 0.38
1
R
14
12.0
7
L
111
12.0
1
1
T
238
12.0
1
R
391
12.0
195
NB
8
SB
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
-Right
Peds
Right
Right
7.0
3.0
0.0
Cycle
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group
Flow Rate
(s)
EB
WB
5
A
6
A
A
A
7
18.0 0.0
3.0 0.0
2.0 0.0
Length: 97.0
0.0
secs
Delay LOS
15.4 B
18.0 B
15.6 B
18.2 B
43.2 D
15.9 B
26.3 C
32.3 C
18.7 B
0.35
0.79
0.37
= 32.0
0.29 27.2
0.19 49.3
0.38 22.0
(sec/veh)
C
D 35.0- C
C
Intersection LOS = C
A
A
A
A
Eastbound
0"(, 1361
. ~ 1489
666
Westbound
O 884
1489
R 666
Ol\!Orthbound
I. 234
336
R 587
O. ou thbound
356 1719
T 336 1810
R 587 1538
o Intersection Delay
o
Approach
Delay LOS
17.7 B
34.6 C
25.5 C
D
n HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
~nalyst: TSV Inter.: 96th St & Gray Rd
Agency: A&F Engineering Co., LLC Area Type: All other areas
Wate: 03/04/02 Jurisd: Carmel, IN
eriod: PM Peak Year Existing (Red.) - B
Project ID: Mid-States
[J/W St: 96th St
N/S St: Gray Rd
Eastbound
L T R
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R
Southbound
L T R
D
1
1
1
1
T
105
12.0
No. Lanes
DGconfig
olume
Lane Width
UTOR ~Ol
uratlon
L
329
12.0
0.25
Dhase Combination 1
IB Left A
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
O'reen
ellow
All Red
Qppr /
Lane
'rp
DB
YB
Lane
Group
Capacity
2
T
1677
12.0
1
R
32
12.0
16
L
196
12.0
2
T
640
12.0
1
R
93
12.0
46
L
28
12.0
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
2
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
7.0
3.0
0.0
41.0
3.0
2.0
1719
3438
1538
1719
3438
1538
1719
1810
1538
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
1
R
258
12.0
129
L
76
12.0
1
T
42
12.0
1
R
103
12.0
51
NB
8
SB
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
Right
7.0 7.0 0.0
3.0 3.0 0.0
0.0 2.0 0.0
Cycle Length: 78.0
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group
Flow Rate
(s)
EB
WB
0.0
5
A
6
A
A
A
7
0.0
secs
v/c
g/C
Delay LOS
0.76
1. 03
0.02
0.75
0.39
0.06
0.11
0.72
0.38
0.29
0.29
0.15
= 33.7
0.65 14.1 B
0.53 48.1 D
0.53 8.9 A
0.65 29.7 C
0.53 11.2 B
0.53 9.1 A
0.22 24.6 C
0.09 49.2 D
0.24 25.2 C
A
A
A
A
Eastbound
UT_, 483
\ 1807
808
Westbound
O 291
1807
R 808
Qorthbound
291
162
R 375
Dou thbound
291 1719
T 162 1810
~ 375 1538
D Intersection Delay
D
Approach
Delay LOS
42.2 D
15.2 B
34.8 C
0.22 25.7 C
0.09 34.2 C 27.1 C
0.24 23.4 C
(sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C
D
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
Qalyst: RMB
Agency: A&F Engineering
Date: 2/21/02
eriod: AM Peak
Project ID: Mid-States
O/W St: 96th Street
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R
2 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
L TR L T R L T R
735 1462 66 35 8 15 175 251 436
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
16 7 218
Eastbound
L T R
D
No. Lanes
YT-{;I Config
olume
ane Width
RTOR Vol
Duration
L
165
12.0
0.25
I rlease Combination
~ Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
Dteen
ellow
All Red
[1
~
~prl Lane
Lane Group
[FP Capacity
Eastbound
rk 381
U- 1361
Westbound
rl 985
~ 2247
2
3 0
TR
411 8
12.0
2
Inter.: 96th Street & Gray
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel
Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Road
N/S st: Gray Road
Type: All other areas
Signal operations
3 4
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
0.0 7.0 22.0 0.0 0.0
3.0 3.0 0.0
0.0 2.0 0.0
Cycle Length: 105.0
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Flow Rate
(s) vlc g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Area
1 2
A
A A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
12.0 14.0 31. 0
3.0 3.0 3.0
0.0 0.0 2.0
3335
4929
3335
4915
~orthbound
226
379
R 776
~- u thbound
380 1719
379 1810
fl 571 1538
U Intersection Delay
o
1719
1810
1538
5
A
6
A
A
A
8
7
A
A
A
A
secs
0.48
0.34
0.83
0.75
0.17
0.02
0.01
0.51
0.74
0.42
= 31.6
0.11
0.28
44.5 D
30.5 C
40.6 D
24.9 C
27.5 C
33.0 C
13.0 B
26.1
c
34.5
C
0.30
0.46
30.0
C
0.30
0.21
0.50
0.30 30.8 C
0.21 46.1 D 34.9
0.37 25.1 C
(sec/veh) Intersection
C
LOS = C
D
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
[alyst: RMB
Agency: A&F Engineering
I~te: 2/21/02
~riod: PM Peak
Project ID: Mid-States
O/W St: 96th Street
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R
2 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
L TR L T R L T R
220 759 108 31 120 284 210 48 145
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
27 142 72
Eastbound
L T R
D
No. Lanes
~LGCOnfig
Ilume
ne Width
RTOR Vol
[ration
L
467
12.0
0.25
I~ase Combination
I.f Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
i'reen
~llow
All Red
[1
~
2
3
TR
1799 35
12.0
A
A
A
A
A
26.0 35.0 12.0
3.0 3.0 3.0
0.0 0.0 2.0
~pr/ Lane
Lane Group
uP Capacity
Eastbound
h 729
wC\ 2 651
Westbound
336
2046
o
8
Inter.: 96th Street & Gray
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel
Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Road
NIS St: Gray Road
Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
13.0 14.0
3.0 3.0
0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 119.0
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group
Flow Rate
(s)
Area
1 2
A
A A
A A
A
A
3335
4929
3335
4869
1719
1810
1538
vlc
g/C
0.71
0.77
0.73
0.46
0.10
0.62
0.47
0.82
0.25
0.14
= 31. 9
0.25 55.7 E
0.12 48.3 D
0.38 24.4 C
(sec/veh) Intersection
0.22
0.54
0.10
0.42
0.25
0.12
0.22
NB
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
Right
5
A
6
A
A
A
7
CC\
Northbound
U 327
213
R 336
~DU thbound
285 1719
213 1810
R 582 1538
U Intersection Delay
D
8
SB
A
A
A
A
EB
WB
secs
Approach
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
46.3 D
23.0 C
59.6 E
24.9 C
34.2 C
55.6 E
41.5 D
27.7
C
32.1
C
46.5
D
47.7
D
LOS = C
o
n HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
~alyst: RMB Inter.: 96th Street & Gray Road
OAgenCy: A&F Engineering Area Type: All other areas
ate: 2/21/02 Jurisd: Carmel
eriod: AM Peak Year Yr. 2012+Vacant
Project ID: Mid-States
DIW St: 96th Street
NIS St: Gray Road
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R
2 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
L TR L T R L T R
733 1521 149 41 9 15 183 254 563
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
37 7 281
o
Eastbound
L T R
No. Lanes
DGconfig
olume
Lane Width
[OR ~Ol
ratlon
L
211
12.0
0.25
Dhase Combination
B Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
Dreen
ellow
All Red
DB
YB
2
3 0
TR
472 8
12.0
2
Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
0.0 7.0 20.0 0.0 0.0
3.0 3.0 0.0
0.0 2.0 0.0
Cycle Length: 103.0
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Flow Rate
(s) vlc g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Area
1 2
A
A A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
12.0 14.0 31. 0
3.0 3.0 3.0
0.0 0.0 2.0
~prl
Lane
Group
Capacity
Lane
p
Eastbound
(In 3 89
~ 1388
Westbound
n 1004
~ 2278
3335
4930
3335
4889
Ul\TOrthbound
220
351
R 762
IPuthbound
~ 361 1719
T 351 1810
O 552 1538
Intersection Delay
D
1719
1810
1538
0.60
0.38
0.81
0.80
0.21
0.03
0.01
0.56
0.80
0.57
= 31. 9
5
A
6
A
A
A
7
8
A
A
A
A
secs
0.12
0.28
45.8 D
30.0 C
38.4 D
25.4 C
28.3 C
33.7 C
13.2 B
34.8
C
0.30
0.47
29.4
C
0.29
0.19
0.50
27.0
C
0.29 32.7 C
0.19 52.3 D 37.8
0.36 27.9 C
(sec/veh) Intersection
D
LOS = C
o
n HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
~nalyst: RMB Inter.: 96th Street & Gray
[jgency: A&F Engineering Area Type: All other areas
ate: 2/21/02 Jurisd: Carmel
eriod: PM Peak Year Yr. 2012+Vacant
Project ID: Mid-States
[J/W St: 96th Street
Road
N/S St: Gray Road
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R
Southbound
L T R
Eastbound
L T R
o
1
R
292
12.0
146
1
1
T
120
12.0
1
R
284
12.0
142
1
1
T
50
12.0
No. Lanes 2
nGConfig L
~olurne 488
Lane Width 12.0
r~TOR ~Ol
~uratJ.on 0.25
3 0
TR
1959 35
12.0
2
3 0
TR
759 164
12.0
L
190
12.0
L
34
12.0
L
217
12.0
41
8
Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
Area
1 2
A
A A
A A
A
A
Ohase Combination
B Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
Oreen
ellow
All Red
Yppr /
Lane
rp
6
A
A
A
8
5
A
7
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
DB
OB
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
21.0 35.0 10.0
3.0 3.0 3.0
0.0 2.0 2.0
10.0 13.0
3.0 3.0
0.0 2.0
Cycle Length:
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Flow Rate
(s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
110.0
secs
Lane
Group
Capacity
Eastbound
OR 637 3335 0.85 0.19
2644 4930 0.83 0.54
Westbound
DR 303 3335 0.80 0.09
2198 4836 0.45 0.45
53.7 D
23.9 C
62.7 E
20.7 C
33.1 C
51. 6 D
39.5 D
29.7 C
29.0 C
O. orthbound
295
214
R 322
Dou thbound
257 1719
T 214 1810
p 545 1538
U Intersection Delay
D
1719
1810
1538
0.13
0.62
0.49
0.24
0.12
0.21
43.7
D
0.24 55.7 E
0.12 44.8 D 43.0
0.35 25.9 C
(sec/veh) Intersection
0.82
0.26
0.30
= 31.7
D
LOS = C
D
D
Analyst: RMB
[J~gency: A&F Engineering
~ate: 2/21/02
eriod: AM Peak
Project ID: Mid-States
[J/W St: 96th Street
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.la
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
2 3 0 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
L TR L TR L T R L T R
324 441 8 735 1568 165 41 13 15 236 255 557
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
2 41 7 278
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A NB Left A A
A A Thru A
A A Right A
Peds
A SB Left A A
A A Thru A
A A Right A
Peds
A EB Right
A WB Right
14.0 10.0 29.0 0.0 7.0 19.0 0.0 0.0
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0
Cycle Length: 98.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Flow Rate
(s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
I
o
No. Lanes
DGconfig
olume
Lane Width
liTOR ~Ol
Yuratlon 0.25
Dhase Combination
B Left
Thru
Right
n Peds
.B Left
Thru
O Right
Peds
NB Right
SB Right
r rreen
~ellow
All Red
Yppr /
[j~~e
Eastbound
T 476
DR 1358
Westbound
D 987
R 2094
Lane
Group
Capacity
3335
4930
0.76
0.37
3335
4886
0.83
0.90
Oorthbound
232
351
R 753
Douthbound
365 1719
T 351 1810
D 596 1538
o Intersection Delay
D
1719
1810
1538
0.20
0.04
0.01
0.72
0.81
0.52
= 34.7
Inter.: 96th Street & Gray Road
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel
Year Yr. 2012+Vacant+Prop
N/S St: Gray Road
0.14
0.28
47.2 D
28.8 C
38.1 D
31.7 C
26.5 C
32.1 C
12.8 B
36.5
D
0.30
0.43
33.6
C
0.30
0.19
0.49
25.9
C
0.30 38.0 D
0.19 50.7 D 37.1
0.39 23.8 C
(sec/veh) Intersection
D
LOS = C
D
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1a
~alYS t: RMB
Agency: A&F Engineering
D1ate: 2/21/02
eriod: PM Peak
Project ID: Mid-States
O/W St: 96th Street
Eastbound
L T R
D
No. Lanes
[Jl:pCOnfig
olume
ane Width
RTOR Vol
Duration
L
593
12.0
0.25
2
UDhase Combination 1
B Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
SB Right
Qreen
ellow
11 Red
DB
WB
Dppr / Lane
Lane Group
rlrp Capacity
~as tbound
L 770
DR 2086
Westbound
n_ 299
~K 1365
2
3
TR
1913 35
12.0
o
A
A
A
A A
A A
A
A
7.0 12.0 18.0
3.0 3.0 3.0
0.0 0.0 2.0
1719
1810
1538
Inter.: 96th Street & Gray Road
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel
Year Yr. 2012+Vacant+Prop
v/c
g/C
0.86
1. 03
0.82
0.77
Northbound
D 392
302
R 493
Y"'"Ou thbound
376 1719
302 1810
R 611 1538
Intersection Delay
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R
2 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
L TR L T R L T R
220 815 170 34 124 284 316 54 322
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
42 142 161
8
N/S St: Gray Road
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
A
A
A
3335
4930
3335
4840
0.10
0.46
0.32
0.93
0.20
0.29
= 41. 9
0.23
0.42
0.09
0.28
0.32
0.17
0.32
NB
8
SB
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
Right
5
A
6
A
A
A
o
9.0 13.0
3.0 3.0
0.0 2.0
Cycle Length:
Intersection Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group
Flow Rate
(s)
EB
WB
Delay LOS
38.2 D
51. 5 D
50.8 D
28.4 C
18.7 B
30.4 C
20.4 C
7
A
A
A
A
78.0
secs
Approach
Delay LOS
48.3
D
32.6
C
24.4
c
0.32 56.5 E
0.17 28.3 C 41.5
0.40 16.3 B
(sec/veh) Intersection
D
LOS = D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
96TH STREET AND BRANDT ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC COUNTS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID-STATES ENGINEERING / &1"YtJ.'\a l'o~t"u.(~
96TH STREET & BRANDT ROAD (02)
JANUARY 9, 2002
PEAK HOUR DATA
AM PEAK
HR BEGIN 7:30 AM
L T R TOT
OFF PEAK
PM PEAK
HR BEGIN 5:00 PM
L T R TOT
L
T R
TOT
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
5
48 53
15 15
846
9
311 320
33 33
184
846
184
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR NB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 33 4 134 138 171
7- 8 33 10 729 739 772
8- 9 69 18 619 637 706
- PM -
4- 5 314 27 140 167 481
5- 6 320 33 184 217 537
TOTAL 769 92 1806 1898 2667
28.8% 3.4% 67.7% 71.2% 100.0%
- AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 20 6 255
HOUR 69 18 846
PHF 0.86 0.75 0.83
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 90 12 55
HOUR 320 38 184
PHF 0.89 0.79 0.84
o
o
D
U
D
o
D
o
[J
D
U
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID-STATES ENGINEERING I (,14-l'\J,,1a. ~(.ll'tl'\fl.r>
96TH STREET & BRANDT ROAD (02)
JANUARY 9, 2002
NORTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 5 0 5 27 1 28 32 1 33
7- 8 3 0 3 28 2 30 31 2 33
8- 9 4 1 5 63 1 64 67 2 69
PM
4- 5 9 2 11 298 5 303 307 7 314
5- 6 9 0 9 311 0 311 320 0 320
PASSENGER 30 727 757
90.9% 98.8% 98.4%
TRUCK 3 9 12
9.1% 1. 2% 1. 6%
BOTH 33 736 769
4.3% 95.7% 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 4 0 4 4 0 4
7- 8 9 1 10 9 1 10
8- 9 15 3 18 15 3 18
PM
4- 5 27 0 27 27 0 27
5- 6 33 0 33 33 0 33
PASSENGER 88 88
95.7% 95.7%
TRUCK 4 4
4.3% 4.3%
BOTH 92 92
100.0% 100.0%
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID- STATES ENGINEERING / &\lfl'\c\o.\fi. 1'1.1(+"(1.(5
96TH STREET & BRANDT ROAD (02)
JANUARY 9, 2002
WESTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 133 1 134 133 1 134
7- 8 727 2 729 727 2 729
8- 9 615 4 619 615 4 619
PM
4- 5 139 1 140 139 1 140
5- 6 183 1 184 183 1 184
PASSENGER 1797 1797
99.5% 99.5%
TRUCK 9 9
0.5% 0.5%
BOTH 1806 1806
100.0% 100.0%
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Brandt Road
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Existing
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Brandt Road
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 408 15 846 1715 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 453 16 940 1905 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0
Configuration T R L T
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 5 0 48 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 53 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration L R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L R
v (vph) 940 5 53
C (m) (vph) 1068 3 768
v/c 0.88 1.67 0.07
95% queue length 12.41 1.50 0.22
Control Delay 26.8 10.0+
LOS 0 F B
Approach Delay - - 208.8
Approach LOS - - F
HCS2000™
Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.la
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k64. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
u
u
o
lJ
o
o
o
u
u
o
[j
o
u
[j
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
~~nGm(r6IcrQlllfR", .' "::. '__&t\II1~t{~~~.
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Brandt Road
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Existing
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Brandt Road
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 1727 33 184 762 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1918 36 204 846 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0
Configuration T R L T
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 9 0 311 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 0 345 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration L R
~~~~~~:r';lii~lIt~~iii
..__"C_~_.._' ..~___;>,. ._.....__. .__.. '_'''.~ ...._... '~_~_'~'~"~""'.'_"" ::~. '_ _ '41: ~~,,'-~,~._. ."'>~.;.;.... ~< ~~~. -" _ _ ,~."'~
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L R
v (vph) 204 10 345
C (m) (vph) 284 48 252
v/c 0.72 0.21 1.37
95% queue length 5.07 0.69 18.59
Control Delay 44.4 98.7 227.6
LOS E F F
Approach Delay - - 224.0
Approach LOS - - F
HCS2000™
Copyright <0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 a
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k71. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
r!ilie . , , · a' ", '0
~iL,~,.,.... ._... ~..'.'" 'n' . _' _,'_ ..."b '.... .
Analyst TSV Intersection 96th Street & Brandt Rd
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 3/412002 Analysis Year Existing (Red.)
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th St North/South Street: Brandt Rd
Intersection Orientation: East-West StudY Period (hrs): 0.25
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 408 15 0 1715 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 453 16 0 1905 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0
Configuration T R T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 48 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 53 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 53
C (m) (vph) 783
v/c 0.07
95% queue length 0.22
Control Delay 9.9
LOS A
Approach Delay - - 9.9
Approach LOS - - A
HCS2000™
Copyright <0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1a
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k3CO. tmp 3/5/2002
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
Analyst TSV Intersection 96th Street & Brandt Rd
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 3/412002 Analysis Year Existing (Red.)
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th St North/South Street: Brandt Rd
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 1727 33 0 762 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1918 36 0 846 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0
Configuration T R T
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 311 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 345 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 345
C (m) (vph) 261
v/c 1.32
95% queue length 17.78
Control Delay 207.2
LOS F
Approach Delay - - 207.2
Approach LOS - - F
HCS2000™
Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.1a
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k3C3. tmp 3/5/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
N--'-" {ii!',r
~1fJtQ~
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Brandt Road
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Brandt Road
Intersection Orientation: East-West StudY Period (hrs): 0.25
..,..!;f",......,.,:.,,,"",>
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 529 17 846 1924 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 587 18 0 2137 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0
Configuration T R T
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 5 0 55 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 61 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 61
C (m) (vph) 693
v/c 0.09
95% queue length 0.29
Control Delay 10.7
LOS B
Approach Delay - - 10.7
Approach LOS -- - B
HCS2000™
Copyright 10 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4, 1a
file:1 Ie: \Doc~ments%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k68. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
i3:iij~ral~IO:(dRlil:
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Brandt Road
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Brandt Road
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 1958 36 846 957 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 2175 40 0 1063 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0
Configuration T R T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 5 0 343 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 381 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach I N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 381
C (m) (vph) 206
v/c 1.85
95% queue length 27.14
Control Delay 439.6
LOS F
Approach Delay - - 439.6
Approach LOS - - F
HCS2000™
Version4.Ja
Copyright Ci 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k7 4. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Brandt Road
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Yr.2012+Vacant
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Brandt Road
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 638 19 846 2125 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 708 21 0 2361 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0
Configuration T R T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 5 0 53 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 58 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 58
C (m) (vph) 634
v/c 0.09
95% queue length 0.30
Control Delay 11.2
LOS B
Approach Delay - -- 11.2
Approach LOS - - B
HCS2000™
Copyright tD 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
file://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k6B. tmp
Version 4.la
3/412002
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
~~rt~
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Brandt Road
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+ Vacant
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
East/West Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Brandt Road
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 2140 42 184 1085 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 2377 46 0 1205 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - -- 5 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0
Config u ration T R T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 9 0 342 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 380 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 380
C (m) (vph) 176
vlc 2.16
95% queue length 30.22
Control Delay 582.7
LOS F
Approach Delay -- - 582.7
Approach LOS -- -- F
HCS2000™
Copyright /C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.la
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k77. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
IgqV~!~ifnlc)'ml
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Brandt Road
Jurisdiction Carmel
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Yr.
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
East/West Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Brandt Road
Intersection Orientation: East-West StudY Period (hrs): 0.25
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 718 19 846 2157 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 797 21 0 2396 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- - 5 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0
Configuration T R T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 5 0 55 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 61 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 61
C (m) (vph) 593
v/c 0.10
95% queue length 0.34
Control Delay 11.8
LOS B
Approach Delay - - 11.8
Approach LOS - -- B
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k6E. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
G~'ijl~~I~Jn~
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Brandt Road
Jurisdiction Carmel
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Yr.
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Brandt Road
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 2198 42 184 1193 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 2442 46 0 1325 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0
Configuration T R T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 9 0 343 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 381 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
'" ,~~~-,
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 381
C (m) (vph) 167
vlc 2.28
95% queue length 31.31
Control Delay 639.3
LOS F
Approach Delay - - 639.3
Approach LOS - - F
file:1 IC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k7 A. tmp
3/4/2002
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
96TH STREET AND PALMER DODGE DRIVE
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC COUNTS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID-STATES ENGINEERING / GLENDALE PARI'NERS
96TH STREET & PALMER DODGE ENTRANCE (03)
JANUARY 10, 2002
PEAK HOUR DATA
AM PEAK
HR BEGIN 8:00 AM
L T R TOT
OFF PEAK
PM PEAK
HR BEGIN 5:00 PM
L T R TOT
L
T R
TOT
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
32 69
28 28
15
21
7 28
36 36
24
37
24
15
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR NB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 1 7 6 13 14
7- 8 12 19 20 39 51
8- 9 28 36 24 60 88
- PM -
4- 5 49 30 14 44 93
5- 6 69 28 15 43 112
TOTAL 159 120 79 199 358
44.4% 33.5% 22.1% 55.6% 100.0%
- AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 9 10 9
HOUR 28 36 26
PHF 0.78 0.90 0.72
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 24 8 5
HOUR 69 30 17
PHF 0.72 0.94 0.85
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o.
o
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID-STATES ENGINEERING / GLENDALE PARTNERS
96TH STREET & PALMER DODGE ENTRANCE (03)
JANUARY 10, 2002
NORTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
7- 8 6 0 6 6 0 6 12 0 12
8- 9 20 1 21 7 0 7 27 1 28
PM
4- 5 22 0 22 27 0 27 49 0 49
5- 6 37 0 37 32 0 32 69 0 69
PASSENGER 86 72 158
98.9% 100.0% 99.4%
TRUCK 1 0 1
1.1% 0.0% 0.6%
BOTH 87 72 159
54.7% 45.3% 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 7 0 7 7 0 7
7- 8 19 0 19 19 0 19
8- 9 35 1 36 35 1 36
PM
4- 5 30 0 30 30 0 30
5- 6 28 0 28 28 0 28
PASSENGER 119 119
99.2% 99.2%
TRUCK 1 1
0.8% 0.8%
BOTH 120 120
100.0% 100.0%
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID- STATES ENGINEERING / GLENDALE PARTNERS
96TH STREET & PALMER DODGE ENTRANCE (03)
JANUARY 10, 2002
WESTBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 6 0 6 6 0 6
7- 8 20 0 20 20 0 20
8- 9 24 0 24 24 0 24
PM
4- 5 14 0 14 14 0 14
5- 6 15 0 15 15 0 15
PASSENGER 79 79
100.0% 100.0%
TRUCK 0 0
0.0% 0.0%
BOTH 79 79
100.0% 100.0%
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
Two- Way Stop Control
Page I of2
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Palmer
Dodge
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Existing
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Palmer Dodge
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 416 36 24 1696 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 462 40 26 1884 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration T TR L T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 21 0 7 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 23 0 7 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration L R
- J.\' s"RltC. , """. "
." . " .
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L R
v (vph) 26 23 7
C (m) (vph) 1038 226 740
v/c 0.03 0.10 0.01
95% queue length 0.08 0.34 0.03
Control Delay 8.6 22.7 9.9
LOS A C A
Approach Delay - - 19.7
Approach LOS - - C
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k7D. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Palmer
Dodge
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Existing
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Palmer Dodge
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 1728 28 15 756 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1920 31 16 840 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration T TR L T
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 37 0 32 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 0 35 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration L R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L R
v (v ph) 16 41 35
C (m) (vph) 284 79 245
v/c 0.06 0.52 0.14
95% queue length 0.18 2.21 0.49
Control Delay 18.4 91.9 22.1
LOS C F C
Approach Delay - - 59.7
Approach LOS - - F
fill'" I If"\ Dor.nmpnt<:% ?O~mi% ?OSpttinO"<:\tv~ncipn herO"\ T ,oe:ll%20Settim1s\ T emn\u2kR9 _ tmn
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Palmer
Dodge
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/23/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Palmer Dodoe
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 538 40 26 1898 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 597 44 28 2108 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration T TR L T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 23 0 8 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 25 0 8 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration L R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L R
v (vph) 28 25 8
C (m) (vph) 919 187 667
v/c 0.03 0.13 0.01
95% queue length 0.09 0.45 0.04
Control Delay 9.0 27.2 10.5
LOS A D B
Approach Delay - - 23.1
Approach LOS - - C
file:1 Ie: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k80. tmp
3/4/2002
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
liIIIlFli'~~~ 571"""_
.,..l:g;:"""
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Palmer
Dodge
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/23/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Palmer Dodge
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 1959 31 17 940 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 2176 34 18 1044 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration T TR L T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 41 0 35 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 45 0 38 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration L R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L R
v (vph) 18 45 38
C (m) (vph) 224 57 201
v/c 0.08 0.79 0.19
95% queue length 0.26 3.43 0.68
Control Delay 22.5 177.9 27.0
LOS C F D
Approach Delay - - 108.8
Approach LOS - - F
file://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k8C. tmp
3/412002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~NTROLSUMMARY
. IIlftf~f8iml_
.,. ,..~......~+QL.."...
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Palmer
Dodge
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/23/02 Analysis Year Yr.2012+Vacant
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Palmer Dodge
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 103 615 40 26 2008 91
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 114 683 44 28 2231 101
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1
Configuration L T TR L T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 23 1 8 34 1 38
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 25 1 8 37 1 42
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Configuration L TR L TR
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR
v (vph) 114 28 25 9 37 43
C (m) (vph) 200 853 29 0 181
vIe 0.57 0.03 0.86 0.24
95% queue length 3.09 0.10 2.82 0.89
Control Delay 44.5 9.4 319.7 31.0
LOS E A F F D
Approach Delay - -
Approach LOS - -
file:1 Ie: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k83. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
G~iJQrir ii.i.in18;r&jati.Qo\~~
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street & Palmer
Dodge
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Yr.2012+Vacant
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Palmer Dodqe
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 71 2052 31 17 1005 63
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 78 2280 34 18 1116 70
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - --
Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1
Configuration L T TR L T R
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 41 1 35 95 1 107
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 45 1 38 105 1 118
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Configuration L TR L TR
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR
v (vph) 78 18 45 39 105 119
C (m) (vph) 568 203 22 167 61 406
v/c 0.14 0.09 2.05 0.23 1.72 0.29
95% queue length 0.47 0.29 5.79 0.87 9.60 1.20
Control Delay 12.3 24.5 857.7 33.0 494.7 17.5
LOS B C F D F C
Approach Delay - - 474.8 241.2
Approach LOS - - F F
fi le:1 Ie.: \ nocnment~%20and%20SettinQs\tvanden hem\T ,ocal%20SettinQs\ T emn\u2k 8F. tmn
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
~.~:
Intersection 96th Street & Palmer
Analyst RMB Dodge
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/23/02 Analysis Year Yr.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Palmer Dodge
;;
,.,QJl~
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 103 695 40 26 2040 91
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 114 772 44 28 2266 101
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1
Config u ration L T TR L T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street - Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 23 1 8 34 1 38
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 25 1 8 37 1 42
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Configuration L TR L TR
DeJa~;Ef'1'c"1i~mna__aii1l.ItiN11"~
,'. " . .IJQ, _~ QQ ",,',. . ,.."Q ".'
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR
v (vph) 114 28 25 9 37' 43
C (m) (vph) 194 788 24 0 175
vIe 0.59 0.04 1.04 0.25
95% queue length 3.23 0.11 3.13 0.93
Control Delay 47.0 9.7 429.7 32.1
LOS E A F F D
Approach Delay - -
file:/ /e: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k86. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
G~niFitffl.
Intersection 96th Street & Palmer
Analyst RMB Dodge
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Yr.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Palmer Dodae
;:;,=;
;,.@ I~L
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 71 2110 31 17 1113 63
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 78 2344 34 18 1236 70
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 1
Configuration L T TR L T R
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 41 1 35 95 1 107
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 45 1 38 105 1 118
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Configuration L TR L TR
il~ray~jitla~Ymll&,.7~ifi'tifQ""RJ
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR
v (vph) 78 18 45 39 105 119
C (m) (vph) 510 192 19 156 54 368
vlc 0.15 0.09 2.37 0.25 1.94 0.32
95% queue length 0.54 0.31 6.04 0.94 10.23 1.37
Control Delay 13.3 25.7 35.6 605.9 19.4
LOS B D F E F C
Approach Delay - - 577.5 294.3
file:IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settinl!s\tvandenbeflz\Local%20Settinl!s\ T emo\u2k92. tmo
3/412002
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
l06TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC COUNTS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID-STATES ENGINEERING / GLENDALE PARTNERS
106TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (04)
JANUARY 8, 2002
PEAK HOUR DATA
L
T R
TOT
PM PEAK
HR BEGIN 5:00 PM
L T R TOT
AM PEAK
HR BEGIN 7:15 AM
L T R TOT
OFF PEAK
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
WESTBOUND
15 62
36 79
4 484
166 248
6 83
67 182
73 561
2 416
44 467
136 217
4 143
6 109
24 535
28 381
41 188
27 142
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 20 208 228 50 61 111 339
7- 8 67 558 625 150 356 506 1131
8- 9 100 434 534 177 287 464 998
- PM -
4- 5 360 170 530 275 126 401 931
5- 6 535 188 723 381 142 523 1246
TOTAL 1082 1558 2640 1033 972 2005 4645
23.3% 33.5% 56.8% 22.2% 20.9% 43.2% 100.0%
- AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 27 145 60 127
HOUR 100 561 187 416
PHF 0.93 0.97 0.78 0.82
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 161 58 122 43
HOUR 535 188 381 149
PHF 0.83 0.81 0.78 0.87
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A& F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID-STATES ENGINEERING / ~p~
106TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (04)
JANUARY 8, 2002
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 13 2 15 1 0 1 18 2 20
7- 8 14 0 14 43 9 52 0 1 1 57 10 67
8- 9 21 0 21 70 3 73 3 3 6 94 6 100
PM
4- 5 34 0 34 309 2 311 '14 1 15 357 3 360
5- 6 44 0 44 467 0 467 24 0 24 535 0 535
PASSENGER 117 902 42 1061
100.0% 98.3% 89.4% 98.1%
TRUCK 0 16 5 21
0.0% 1. 7% 10.6% 1. 9%
BOTH 117 918 47 1082
10.8% 84.8% 4.3% 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 9 0 9 26 0 26 15 0 15 50 0 50
7- 8 27 4 31 59 0 59 60 0 60 146 4 150
8- 9 32 1 33 93 1 94 50 0 50 175 2 177
PM
4- 5 84 2 86 159 1 160 29 0 29 272 3 275
5- 6 135 1 136 214 3 217 28 0 28 377 4 381
PASSENGER 287 551 182 1020
97.3% 99.1% 100.0% 98.7%
TRUCK 8 5 0 13
2.7% 0.9% 0.0% 1. 3%
BOTH 295 556 182 1033
28.6% 53.8% 17.6% 100.0%
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
MID-STATES ENGINEERING / ~p~
106TH STREET & GRAY ROAD (04)
JANUARY 8, 2002
SOUTHBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 5 0 5 176 2 178 25 0 25 206 2 208
7- 8 2 0 2 488 0 488 64 4 68 554 4 558
8- 9 8 0 8 344 3 347 77 2 79 429 , 5 434
PM
4- 5 3 0 3 127 0 127 39 1 40 169 1 170
5- 6 4 0 4 140 3 143 41 0 41 185 3 188
PASSENGER 22 1275 246 1543
100.0% 99.4% 97.2% 99.0%
TRUCK 0 8 7 15
0.0% 0.6% 2.8% 1.0%
BOTH 22 1283 253 1558
1. 4% 82.3% 16.2% 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 13 0 13 47 0 47 1 0 1 61 0 61
7- 8 130 1 131 223 0 223 2 0 2 355 1 356
8- 9 70 1 71 208 4 212 4 0 4 282 5 287
PM
4- 5 10 0 10 99 1 100 16 0 16 125 1 126
5- 6 5 1 6 107 2 109 27 0 27 139 3 142
PASSENGER 228 684 50 962
98.7% 99.0% 100.0% 99.0%
TRUCK 3 7 0 10
1. 3% 1. 0% 0.0% 1. 0%
BOTH 231 691 50 972
23.8% 71.1% 5.1% 100.0%
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
All-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
Analyst RMB Intersection 106th Street & Gray Road
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Existing
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect 10 Mid-States
Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 36 79 67 166 248 2
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
IAooroach Northbound Southbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 15 62 6 4 484 73
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Eastbound Wes!bound 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 201 461 90 622
% 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 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0
Prop. Right-Turns 0.4 0.0 0.1 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 7.38 7.38 7.38 7.38
hd. initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
x, initial 0.18 0.41 0.08 0.55
hd, final value 7.38 7.38 7.38 7.38
x, final value 0.41 0.88 0.20 1.13
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 451 519 340 622
Delay 15.45 42.40 13.02 103.08
LOS C E B F
Approach: Delay 15.45 42.40 13.02 103.08
LOS C E B F
Intersection Delay 64.00
Intersection LOS F
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k3C6. tmp
3/5/2002
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
All- Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
Analyst RMB Intersection 106th Street & Gray Road
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/21/02 Analysis Year Existing
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Project 10 Mid-States
lAPProach Eastbound Westbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 136 217 28 6 109 27
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 44 467 24 4 143 41
% 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 423 157 592 207
% Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1
Geometry Group 1 1 1 1
Duration, T 0.25
Prop. Left-Tums 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0
Prop. Right-Turns 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2
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 7.18 7.18 7.18 7.18
hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
x, initial 0.38 0.14 0.53 0.18
hd, tinal value 7.18 7.18 7.18 7.18
x, final value 0.84 0.35 1.12 0.44
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 497 407 592 441
Delay 37.87 15.18 101.46 16.43
LOS E C F C
Approach: Delay 37.87 15.18 101.46 16.43
LOS E C F C
Intersection Delay 59.37
Intersection LOS F
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Loca1%20Settings\ T emp\u2k3CA. tmp 3/5/2002
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
96TH STREET AND PROPOSED SITE I ACCESS
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
ti:
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street and Site I
Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Access
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 584 0 0 1909 27
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 648 0 0 2121 30
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 15
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 16
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 16
C (m) (vph) 215
v/c 0.07
95% queue length 0.24
Control Delay 23.1
LOS C
Approach Delay - - 23.1
Approach LOS - - C
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kAB. tmp
I
3/4/2002
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
~;n;~aJ~llfrtma....
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street and Site I
Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr. 20 12+Proposed
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EasUWest Street: 96th Street I NorthlSouth Street: Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs 0.25
~'.Mlllr~'~
1~"'11~1IE"\'i.I~'~1.lfiaTfifi"1fllll~9111f_@~~.~~ _-c0."~f.' ""':~'Ji!_ f~,,_ i'l '''';;'v:;j;;P;'-'~ '-", -~. ,"
L.A.q_,;, .t_~-_-li~~",_ L"_,,-_~J'Jlll_,~,,_,>:",,,,~__;:_.1l',,-, ,:'11,...& _"_~;_ ,"^,'h.f.i.::"..", -'*~~b~.i,;;~);tll~i)!~iwL~~~I!to>~lt~t~,$ft;~_~,*'^l';>~:' -~, ,:~_,:~~~~t ..t!ii~~~ - >~~~- c~___ ,,"'~~-,~,:7'~
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 2301 0 0 914 19
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 2556 0 0 1015 21
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 43
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 47
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 47
C (m) (vph) 502
v/c 0.09
95% queue length 0.31
Control Delay 12.9
LOS B
Approach Delay - - 12.9
Approach LOS - - B
file:1 Ie: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%2 OSettings\ T emp\u2kAE. tmp
3/412002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
~ ",,' "... ,'"C:';c,/"',
.,,',.,,;..;,
Intersection 96th Street and Site /
Analyst RMB Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Car me/
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street 96th Street North/South Street: Access
;:~;;
"" J~..IC e,\.,Q
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 773 0 0 2142 27
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 858 0 0 2380 30
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- - 0 -- -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 15
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 16
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 16
C (m) (vph) 176
vie 0.09
95% queue length 0.30
Control Delay 27.5
LOS 0
Approach Delay - - 27.5
file:IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kB 1. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Gel'1'eraf,~ijfQnn~tiiQ&li~;f;J;:Jf:~~j~;i~f~~~" ~ ml'lrQ'lqMiatl~P!~iBWii~;K~~~ ...,.,}...., n.'
Intersection 96th Street and Site I
Analyst RMB Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Access
~~-
lelil,
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 2541 0 0 1150 19
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 2823 0 0 1277 21
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - --
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 43
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 47
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
-~
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 47
C (m) (vph) 412
v/c 0.11
95% queue length 0.38
Control Delay 14.9
LOS B
Approach Delay -- - 14.9
file:/ /e: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kB4. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Mm-STATES ENGINEERING
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
96TH STREET AND PROPOSED SITE II ACCESS
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
t~~.~~t" "":~~:"'~'~~f~~'~~~;:'-';~~~'fr~\P,~,~:'~r;~~;~,~,~~,:
,G'en'ilfl;fn ':'ifmalm ' gfi7,
~",-, _,,,,,,,J~,,,__ ,',' Q ,_, "''''_ ,'."
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street and Site /I
Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 600 0 0 2210 45
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 666 0 0 2455 50
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T , R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 53
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0_90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 58
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configu ration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 58
C (m) (vph) 166
v/c 0.35
95% queue length 1.45
Control Delay 37.9
LOS E
Approach Delay -- - 37.9
Approach LOS -- - E
file://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kB 7 .tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
~;'l"tlj;tQ . \<">lth~,'l-~-.,.~'-;","':";;t-""':- '.,'
~lfQil..,
Analyst RMB Intersection 96th Street and Site 1/
Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Access
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 2267 0 0 1001 66
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 2518 0 0 1112 73
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 -- -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 86
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 95
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 95
C (m) (vph) 467
v/c 0.20
95% queue length 0.75
Control Delay 14.7
LOS B
Approach Delay - - 14.7
Approach LOS - - B
file ://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kBA. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page I of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
S.j~ij.otonn. "'-"'.. '''''''''~\.:,'X\'''''''')'
Intersection 96th Street and Site /I
Analyst RMB Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak 2012+Vacant+Proposed
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Access
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 691 0 0 2415 45
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 767 0 0 2683 50
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 -- -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 53
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 58
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 58
C (m) (vph) 138
v/c 0.42
95% queue length 1.84
Control Delay 48.8
LOS E
Approach Delay - -- 48.8
file:IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kBD. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Gg([, ~imfr6(8rrn'ilfQI~li~_
Intersection 96th Street and Site /I
Analyst RMB Access
Agency/Co, A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Project Descriotion Mid-States
East/West Street: 96th Street North/South Street: Access
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 2487 0 0 1119 66
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 2763 0 0 1243 73
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - -- 0 -- -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Uostream Sional 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 86
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 95
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 95
C (m) (vph) 422
v/c 0.23
95% queue length 0.85
Control Delay 16.0
LOS C
Approach Delay - -- 16.0
file:1 IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kCO. tmp
3/4/2002
:0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
GRAY ROAD AND PROPOSED SOUTH ACCESS
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
.mr_
,': :]1.".,; . "&'
A I t RMB I t r Gray Road & Site / South
na ys .. n ersec Ion Acc
Agency/Co. A&F Engmeenng Jurisdiction Carmel
Date P~rf~rmed . 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr.2012+Proposed
AnalysIs Time Penod AM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: Site / South Access North/South Street: Grav Road
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 239 0 0 854 2
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 265 0 0 948 2
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 -- -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T 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 0 0 8
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 8
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 8
C (m) (vph) 529
vlc 0.02
95% queue length 0.05
Control Delay 11.9
LOS B
Approach Delay -- - 11.9
Approach LOS - - B
>
file:IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kC3. tmp
3/412002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
j{'gA~il~
A I t RMB I t r Gray Road & Site I South
na ys .. n ersec Ion Acc
Agency/Co. A&F Engmeenng Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 .
A I . T p' d PM P k AnalysIs Year Yr. 20 12+Proposed
na YSls Ime eno ea
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: Site I South Access North/South Street: Gray Road
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 695 0 0 380 2
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 772 0 0 422 2
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 23
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 25
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Config u ration R
~
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 25
C (m) (vph) 785
v/c 0.03
95% queue length 0.10
Control Delay 9.7
LOS A
Approach Delay - - 9.7
Approach LOS - - A
>
file:1 IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kC6. tmp
3/4/2002
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
G~n~~~ljnf8~m
I t f Gray Road & Site J South
Analyst RMB n ersec Ion Acc
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: Site I South Access North/South Street: Grav Road
I,~~~~~-
~e6iiili1~\ ' ,e
,'0 ,,'., .'" JJj,4,""'N .,'.,
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
l T R l T R
Volume 0 502 0 0 1040 2
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 557 0 0 1155 2
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
l T R l T R
Volume 0 0 0 0 0 8
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 8
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
iieriytl;Ii"'ifU""fi!Wnm~n11f""e(Qfs~",*, . ~- i!
,.,~ 1!e:
..". '"" U, ,,1. Q",. ..... .." .t"....,'~..,,,. ~e.v."..~.... ""'M'~ ~~.
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
lane Configuration R
v (vph) 8
C (m) (vph) 452
v/c 0.02
95% queue length 0.05
Control Delay 13.1
LOS B
Approach Delay - - 13.1
Approach LOS -- - B
file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kC9 .tmp
3/412002
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
G'in~r[r::lrilomTiiil"f~~~r~'.*~1~~tr~ji~ii\~W2~i@~tI:~111iIf1l_Ilf.i~'ti_
c. ...0"",_ 'n.' "n'>>.-.A...t. ":',"i..',.,i..,,,__.,. ,..-',-..,' ,;_~,:~~~,::~~'~'<<,,~~iftf:<{'t,~;,:'1'/i\~;~~,y~:.tJA;~_~.r:i1:~,i.t~~t.- t:,;.::, , . ~"_,,,'~ ~~_",,~'_'_i". -"""M~'''-'':'~_'' l~f"~tt etl'n
I t r Gray Road & Site I South
Analyst RMB n ersec Ion Acc
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Project Description Mid-States
East/West Street: Site I South Access North/South Street: Gray Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 887 0 0 669 2
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 985 0 0 743 2
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T 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 0 0 23
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 25
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration R
ffela~l1lueT~aJtcll!!~VI8f,l"Si1~Wi~~~'i?-;'~ : ..,.~ "'" ~ '. ~I{~'''' " -t:' ..
... ".. ..~. ........ .... ..... .... e:..J~L .~. ..e.,. '" .....' .' "" "".,~ '" .. ~ , .. 1,'1;.
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 25
C (m) (vph) 617
v/c 0.04
95% queue length 0.13
Control Delay 11.1
LOS B
Approach Delay - - 11.1
Approach LOS - - B
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kCC. tmp
3/4/2002
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MID-STATES ENGINEERING
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
GRAY ROAD AND PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Gih;tal~in(8rmcitiQffli~}~t: .i;......(fSrmaitS_
Analyst RMB Intersecfon Gray Road & Site 1/ South
I Acc
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: Site 1/ South Access North/South Street: Grav Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
iZ"fi1~!~"'r;""'li47rlrml'.1'"t1''''''i;f!lIR(jM"'~im''0il'''fJr'!C:~'~''fi;~''F'.?\\;Ji~{l'f~~"~'~~~
,'~. l.o~k .,QIJ..,BJall J...,': . $.~'". ..:;',t~~k~'Mjj}j;~",;~~"",,:,,;(i&"'~i~~;~},l~":. '" '.' ."' ',.~~\. . d . -'~Jf ": .,~",,,,fi.
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 178 61 0 856 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 197 67 0 951 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0
Configuration T TR T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 6 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 6 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
0''''fW;~6i'';''e~i!ei'Qlft.",,''c7C1ri'''''nms'=M(fe.i'~i';r'i'';:;~~liE\Wl,,-~.;;;~~q;.'~;a~_
'..tit a .~' U.g~. Jl.~an }e~e kO;i .eJN,l. ,~*~1jf~~s,';~7!i'~,dli!.\s":""",*,w;{f";>:!1\,,,: -\1\ ";;'11 ,:'. '.:::.Ji.i>."!', ;" . .. ~.
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 6
C (m) (vph) 899
v/c 0.01
95% queue length 0.02
Control Delay 9.0
LOS A
Approach Delay - -- 9.0
Approach LOS - -- A
>
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kCF. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
~~o~~afiij{Q'rolitipd~~ti.~;;;lt{:~~'r~,:fi'~f;i{\;t\~'ir~I';ti;}\:]fi:~isf~r,'};\0 SifeiinfQrmiiJQn~s~l~f~~~~~~~~l&~~~{_
Analyst RMB I t r Gray Road & Site /I South
n ersec Ion Ace
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: Site /I South Access North/South Street: Gray Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 622 73 0 382 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 691 81 0 424 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0
Configuration T TR T
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 1 1 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 9 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 10 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
oejlv~QuellerllGill ~a1KffJ!iN;lQf~i&Ic;,.~~1I~~~:[~~;Jt%ii~~~~i~~~~J~1~!~~~Jji.~~iTll{r.~~.;
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 1 1 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 10
C (m) (vph) 618
v/c 0.02
95% queue length 0.05
Control Delay 10.9
LOS B
Approach Delay - - 10.9
Approach LOS -- - B
>
file:IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kD2. tmp
3/412002
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
$~nefal~,jnfd:mlcat.lliij'(;t~i3,%~~Ki~:~i4~)~~~~~~:':'tJ;;ff,~;ji.~(lJ.':~:'i?,j~; Site::lbfQnnitijj"~~W~t~j*_
I t r Gray Road & Site II South
Analyst RMB n ersec Ion Acc
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: Site II South Access North/South Street: Gray Road
~.~!:~~:c~~~~,?~!;nt~.tio.n~,,~
Vefim~y()il1m'.fn~'
,. ._.!:" ':.>, _', " ,"" ".,,,,,~. 5'0, ".-,,<-._ ~. ""'____ \- _ '. ._._-"1_'_.____.. . ._..._.~;.."'.... _ .
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 441 61 0 1042 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 490 67 0 1157 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0
Configuration T TR T
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 6 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 6 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
Dila~lii'ileuliUnQiB~anm,l!e~ill1)fise~)c~~i~l'~~~;E~~}!;~~$f~~~~~:f~~~t~~~.~~1;:~}Yl{~~0~~[llWJti
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 6
C (m) (vph) 725
v/c 0.01
95% queue length 0.03
Control Delay 10.0+
LOS B
Approach Delay -- - 10.0+
Approach LOS - - B
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kD5. tmp
3/4/2002
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
GEtneral~tnfdtm'ilI.QI\'~;~~_*:,%I~~$!~~:'~;~';;1}:~~R?',;,i~%i~;'1~fr;i;i;l~ Sitel.jilfQrmaii'Ql]l;~r1f[0Mt;~~y:!~,ri~'i'i;'ji~~l~~~~~{~~fc;j(~~;:\t,:;:;;,~~i~;;';i;
Intersection Gray Road & Site /I South
Analyst RMB Ace
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: Site /I South Access North/South Street: Gray Road
~;ffii;~~~~;;;lnl~ji~~~~fii
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 814 73 0 671 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 904 81 0 745 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 -- -
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0
Configuration T TR T
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 1 1 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 9 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 10 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
Q~e.Jav~rQQ[d;rlefi~'~tHDJimliV;I[olr$1flNr~11Iir~~~~~~1,~t[~f.i~~;~~~~~l;~~I!~~r~~i?~1f~g~~t~f;r.~ifu~~~{li~~~1~a~~~
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 1 1 12
Lane Configuration R
v (vph) 10
C (m) (vph) 528
v/c 0.02
95% queue length 0.06
Control Delay 11.9
LOS B
Approach Delay - - 11.9
Approach LOS - -- B
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ Temp \u2kD8. tmp
3/4/2002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
Mm-STATES ENGINEERING
TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
GRAY ROAD AND PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~MARY
" ~1\~I~j\~~~~JJ~~~;~~tlr'.~, ~~~!? ~" it - .'~~~~~~q;~~1j
""_'.,. u..__."~~,~~,,,~~~~.."'ii:
Analyst RMB Intersection Gray Road & Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: Site I/Site /I North Access North/South Street: Grav Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
.~
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 43 112 29 22 806 6
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 47 124 32 24 895 6
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration L T TR L T TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 47 1 1 3 1 3
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 52 1 1 3 1 3
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Configuration L TR L TR
Approach NB S8 Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR
v (vph) 47 24 52 2 3 4
C (m) (vph) 731 1400 283 287 151 348
v/c 0.06 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.02 0.01
95% queue length 0.21 0.05 0.66 0.02 0.06 0.03
Control Delay 10.3 7.6 20.6 17.6 29.3 15.5
LOS B A C C 0 C
Approach Delay - - 20.5 21.4
Approach LOS - - C C
>
Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.la
file:IIC: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kD F. tmp
3/412002
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page I of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
G,~ojf~i~JBfimatiS~i&1~~~~~gJi[1~~~~];~~~~~N~74[~~~:;J~~l~~*lli~t~ srte~jQtQmatl~of1%~~~~fi~~~~j~~&f~]I~~;~t!~~~i0~~j~EJ~~~:i'1;':i~~~~0~~E2\~'
Analyst RMB Intersection Gray Road & Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year Yr. 2012+Proposed
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street Site I/Site /I North Access North/South Street Gray Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 31 589 11 28 227 3
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 654 12 31 252 3
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration L T TR L T TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 147 1 9 8 1 8
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 163 1 10 8 1 8
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Configuration L TR L TR
D)tm[~irltrtlorf'iWcIm'lverolS'eiiVa_~a&~i~~~~~~
.'''"_v'____. '_'" _ _ ~~ ....... "... _ _n',.,_,._ h..__' .A', ,',,_, ........ _ ',._' co ~~._""" <__."""'" ..~ -. _ .~~ _~'4.... ~ ~~ ',' ~~'f..., _:);,,~., .,' '<....,~;1i~, ,."01 .&.~. ",-.. 1_,'., .1-.........
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR
v (vph) 34 31 163 11 8 9
C (m) (vph) 1285 899 210 549 294 652
v/c 0.03 0.03 0.78 0.02 0.03 0.01
95% queue length 0.08 0.11 5.41 0.06 0.08 0.04
Control Delay 7.9 9.1 64.1 11.7 17.6 10.6
LOS A A F B C B
Approach Delay - - 60.8 13.9
Approach LOS - - F B
>
Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1 a
file://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kE2. tmp
I
3/4/2002
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
nNO-WAYSTOPCONTROLSU~
G~o~ra~Jnt6:miitliJ.iI~&lf~;t~~:iiJ.@1;~;~;;;~:~if&~$f1fii~!iW.~f~~1~r~ 1I.$,IQfQMiI"'.~"
A I t RMB Intersection Gray Road & Access
na ys J'd' f C I
A /C A&F E" uns IC Jon arme .
gency o. ngmeenng Yr
Date P~rf~rmed . 2/25/02 Analysis Year 2012+Vacant+Proposed
AnalysIs Time Period AM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: Site I/Site /I North Access North/South Street: Gray Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
\l~[R"'""I\;;w,~l"ijlfJWi~ljlW~I'f;ItWmr'1'JIif~';;iS~}P~~~~~IfJ~~~' "',
"~Q J~.eL.;. ...\\L.~$f.J'l,'X,' US. ..JUL .~~~~,l1W'Jit~f' ~:';_''fij~~~.":,,,~,*,'y~'. .>"~. :~
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 43 375 29 22 992 6
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 47 416 32 24 1102 6
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration L T TR L T TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 47 1 1 3 1 3
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 52 1 1 3 1 3
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Configuration L TR L TR
frTiWQ'S'.".b......;rt..."~...~dm'''-.,.I~.'fS''~,..'''...''t.=.''\''fi~''''.'"~m.,~.~~_
ea .''''.:ue.e,{':enn JIn.,:.'ev.e.i.Q"elY'(:~~;' ~s"iIj;f.-&$",illl'",. ~~,~.," ,~~~lj'.,,;&~~,.,. '.
Approach NB S8 Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR
v (vph) 47 24 52 2 3 4
C (m) (vph) 609 1088 142 148 81 212
v/c 0.08 0.02 0.37 0.01 0.04 0.02
95% queue length 0.25 0.07 1.53 0.04 0.11 0.06
Control Delay 11.4 8.4 44.3 29.7 51.1 22.3
LOS B A E D F C
Approach Delay - - 43.8 34.7
Approach LOS -- - E D
>
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kE5. tmp
3/4/2002
D
D
D
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
D
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
~e'[I'irat~lnfQr.mlliipni;,~;!i,';.(,.~!(,;l".~;ifi;;;;{:,,';a';:\'~ SlteHnfQfmatlQ'of:J'~t,it~fi!&i,'Wf~~i~1$L;:~t;~;~:i?;jL'i:'lf\;i};K!~;i.iJJ,:it?
Analyst RMB Intersection Gray Road & Access
Jurisdiction Carmel
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Yr.
Date Performed 2/25/02 Analysis Year 2012+ Vacant+Proposed
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Mid-States
EastlWest Street: Site //Site /I North Access North/South Street: Gray Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 31 781 11 28 516 3
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 867 12 31 573 3
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Config u ration L T TR L T TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 147 1 9 8 1 8
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 163 1 10 8 1 8
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Configuration L TR L TR
[)'lVCQu""'"~fi'!:1reR:.QiIi$!"'~'(fl;""Ie"""'l~?"~"~"';''';W1@~~~i;,'i<".j~\;~~~F'1.l'''"'''"~~''~'~~t"-'~~'~~_M>~,'..d~')j;
',ea ,'j,' ,eU.!'; "en ,. ..-tan ~.'eVe ,zO", ,eJi.VlC.e~~,,~;';;'~ ~'"",.~'~""'~'c"mt:~;~~~; ,"'~4li:~~""1$f.1it~~'1Bl~"<'Ii..;~f,,,,,,;s;,";f;~$;1;ii';1f,;:"'
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR
v (vph) 34 31 163 11 8 9
C (m) (vph) 973 746 109 389 141 414
vlc 0.03 0.04 1.50 0.03 0.06 0.02
95% queue length O. 11 O. 13 11.89 0.09 0.18 0.07
Control Delay 8.8 10.0+ 335.6 14.5 32.1 13.9
LOS A B F B 0 B
Approach Delay - - 315.3 22.4
Approach LOS - - F C
>
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2kE8. tmp
3/4/2002
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS TRAFFIc IMPACT ANALYSIS
ADDITIONAL FIGURES
t
'#.
t-.
-+-3%
I08TH STREET
*~
B
-+-53%
I
I I
r-r-----+--------~ .---,
I I I II
~i i D i "I
~ I I I
~ i C i i
~ I I EN I
~ I I ~ I
I I ~ ~ I
I SS~
I I ~ ~
L__'-__ __-L___
H ~1 ~ · ' ---
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~
~
SITE I
98TH STREET
35%~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
* = NEGLIGIBLE
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SAlES (48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9.720 sr)
CONVENIENCE wAllT wI GAS STAnON (10 PUWPS)
GENERAL ornCE (21,000 sr)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE rAWILY (40 DU)
B = WULn-rAWILY (266 DU)
ornCE PARK (US.OOO sr)
C = GENERAL ornCE (160,OOO SF)
o = NEW CAR SAlES (120,ooo sr)
FIGURE A
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF' GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR VACANT PARCEL A
3%
~
'"
I
'"
~
I
--'
...
'"
~53%
96TH STREET
N
o
I
...
o
I
...,
o
tOoTH STREET
..-----
D
~ I I
~ I I
~ i C i
~ I I
~ I I
~ I I
~
YS
~~
SS~
I I ~ ~
L__L-__
H ~1~
~~
~~
~...
~
t
't1.
.-.
* ......
r---l
I
I
I A
~
I~
I~
~
I~
~ .--1
I
I
I
I I
I I
SITE I
--~---
3 ---
~ 11-
~,
~
~
~
35 %......
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
~
o
:i
x
w
...,
o
o
N
o
./
..,
o
o
~ MID-ST A TES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
./
N
*
= NEGLIGIBLE
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SIT[ I = NEW CAR SALES (48,568 SF)
SIT[ II = RETAil (9,720 SF)
CONVENIENCE IIART WI GAS STATION (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OFFICE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMilY (40 OU)
B = MUlTI-FAMilY (266 OU)
OFFICE PARK (13S.000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160,000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
FIGURE B
I
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR VACANT PARCEL B
(A~ARTMENT HOMES PORTION)
3% .....
~
""
I
""
51
~
"-
a::
53% .....
96TH STREET
N
o
I
...
o
I
'"
o
I06TH STREET
r-.------
~ I I
~ I I
I C I
~ I I
~ I I
~ I I
I I
D
r---l
I
I
I A
t1.
t-
~
J1
~*
~35%
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48.568 Sf)
SITE II = RETAil (9,720 Sf)
CONVENIENCE MART WI GAS STATION (10 PUlotPS)
GENERAl OmCE (21.000 Sf)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE f Alotll Y (40 OU)
B = lotUlTl-fAlotllY (266 OU)
OfncE PARK (135,000 Sf)
C = GENERAL omCE (160,000 Sf)
o = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 Sf)
FIGURE C
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF 'GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR VACANT PARCEL B
(OFFICE PARK PORTION)
I
r
~
~
~~
SS~
I I ~ ~
L__L-__
H ~'~
~S3
~~
~~
~~
~
~
I~
I~
~
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ .---,
I
I
I
~
o
:i
)(
u.J
'"
o
o
N
o
/'
'"
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
N
I I
I I
SITE I
--~---
3 ---
~
~t
~.
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
*
= NEGLIGIBLE
3%~
~
><
I
><
:i
..!,
...
l>:
53%~
96TH STREET 1 r
'"
o
I
..
o
I
'"
o
I
SITE II
--J...35%
I06TH STREET
'i/.
.....
~
II
~*
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SAllS (48,568 SF)
SITE U = RETAIL (9.720 SF)
COIMNIENCE MART WI GAS STATION (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OrnCE (21.000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMILY (40 DU)
8 = MULTI-FAMILY (266 OU)
OFFICE PARK (135.000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160.000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120.000 SF)
FIGURE D
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR: VACANT PARCELS C & D
r---l
I
I
I
~
C>
:x:
x
"-'
'"
o
o
'"
o
/
'"
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
'"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/
N
A
S:\
I I ~
I~
~---------1~
I I ~
I
I
B
~
~
~
~
~
--------~ .-----,
I
I
I
I I
I I
8
I I
I I
SITE I
3 ---
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
*
= NEGLIGIBLE
3%-'
t06TH STREET
r---l
I
I
I
~
I I ~
I~
~---------1~
I I ~
I
I
t/l.
,...
~
~
A
B
r-r-----+~-
I I I
I I
~ I I
~ I I
~ i C i
~: :
I I
~
><
I
><
:i
I
..J
...
'"
53% ...
96TH STREET
N
<>
I
...
<>
I
'"
<>
D
~
5.?5
~~
SS~
I I ~ ~
L__L-__
1r ~1~
~~
~~
~\Q
~
~ t
~ .
~
~
~
.--1
I
I
.-*
I
SITE II
--J...35%
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW c.R SALES (48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAil (9,120 SF)
CONVENIENCE MART WI GAS STAnoN (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OFFICE (21,000 SF)
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
~
<>
:i
x
w
'"
<>
<>
N
<>
/'
'"
<>
<>
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
N
* = NEGLIGIBLE
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMilY (40 DU)
B = MUlTI-FAMilY (266 DU)
OFneE PARK (135.000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160.000 SF)
D = NEW c.R SALES (120,000 SF)
FIGURE E
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
, FOR PROPOSED SITE I
3% ....
i
'"
I
'"
:i
.!..
...
l>:
53% ....
96TH STREET
N
o
I
....
o
I
..,
o
t06TH STREET
'i!.
....
~
~
~*
~35%
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48.568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9,720 SF)
CONVENIENCE IIART WI GAS STATION (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL OFFICE (21.000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE F AIIIL Y (40 DU)
B = IIULTI-FAIIILY [266 00)
OFFICE PARK 135.000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160.000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120.000 SF)
~
o
,:
x
!oJ
..,
o
o
N
o
/'
..,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
N
r---l
I
I
I
FIGURE F
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF 'GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR SITE II
(OFFICE PORTION)
A
~
I~
I I N
~----------1~
I I ~
I
I
I I
r--r---..+..------~ ~-
I I I II
I I I I
~ I I D I
~ I I I
I C I I
~ I I I
~ I I ~ I
~ I I ~ I
I I ~ ~ I
SS~
I I ~ ~
L__'-__ __--L___ 3 ---
H ~1~ ~ t
~ ~ ~.
It ~ ~
~~ ~
~
B
SITE I
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
*
= NEGLIGIBLE
5%....
i
"
I
"
:i
~
...
Q::
39% ....
96TH STREET
N
o
I
...
o
I
...,
o
I06TH STREET
'#.
o
...
~
II
~1%
~39%
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SAlES (48.568 Sf)
SITE II = RETAIL (9,720 Sf)
CONVENIENCE lIART WI GAS STATION (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OffiCE (21.000 Sf)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGlE f AMIL Y (40 OU)
B = MULTI-fAMILY (266 00)
OffiCE PARK (135.000 SF)
C : GENERAL ornCE (160,000 Sf)
o = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 Sf)
\E
o
:i
x
w
...,
o
o
N
o
/'
8
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
N
r---l ---
I
I
I
FIGURE G
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF : GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED SITE II
(RETAIL PORTION)
A
S\
I~
~--------~~
I~
I I ~
B
I
I
r-r-----+--------~ r:7--
I I I IY/
~ i i D i '
~ I I I
I C I I
~ I I I
~ I I ~ I
~ I I........ I
I I ~ ~ I
. SS~
. I ~ ~
L__L-__ __...L___ 3 ---
1 r ~I ~
~~
~~
~~
~
SITE I
S\
~t
~'#.
~(W)
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
*
= NEGLIGIBLE
t06TH STREET
r---l
1
1
I
A
S:l
I~
~--------~~
I~
1 1 ~
:I:
3
><:
I
><:
~
~
...
'"
I B 1 ~
1 1 ~
r--r-----+--------~ f7~-
1 1 1 '0/
~i i 0 i "
~ 1 1 1
1 C I I
~ I I I
~ I 1 ~ 1
~ I 1 ~ 1
I I ~ ~ I
SS~
1 · ~ c:s
L__'-__ __...1-___ 3 ---
1r ~'~
SS~
c:s~
~~
~~
~
SITE I
96TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
42%~
N
o
I
...
o
I
'"
o
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
~
<>
:to
x
w
'"
o
o
N
o
,/
'"
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
,/
N
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
4 -;::-
.2-....E
",--
I . 10 '--1 (9)
+'~~
(21) 8~ t
(-21) -8" ·
-
~
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAil (9,720 SF)
CONVENIENCE lIART wI GAS STATION (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OFFICE (21.000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMILY (40 DO)
9 = MULTI-FAMilY (266 DU)
OFFICE PARK (135.000 SF)
C = GENERAL orncE (160,ooD SF)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120.000 SF)
xx = IN
XX = OUT
FIGURE H
~SSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
GENERATED PASS BY TRAFFIC FOR SITE II
! (RETAIL PORTION)
5%"
~
'"
I
'"
:i!
..'..
....
'"
39% ..
96TH STREET
N
o
I
...
o
r
..,
o
106TH STREET
~ I I
~ I I
I C I
~ I I
~ I I
~ I I
I I
D
1---1
I
I
I
~
o
....
~
II
.- 1% .
~
YS
~~
SS~
I I ~ ~
L__L-__
1f ~1~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
A
Sl
I~
I I ~
~---------1 ~
I I G
I
I
B
SITE I
__-1-___
3 ---
~
~t
~~
~(f)
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
Cl
:i
x
w
..,
o
o
N
o
/'
..,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
N
....39%
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW C"R SAUS (48.568 SF)
SITE II = RET"ll (9.720 SF)
CONVENIENCE lIART WI G.t.S SUTlON (10 PUMPS)
GENER.t.l OFFICE (21.000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
" = SINGU F"MllY (40 OU)
B = MUlTl-F"MllY (266 DU)
OFFICE PAAK (135.000 SF)
C = GENER.t.l OFFICE (160,000 SF)
D = NEW C"R SAUS (120,000 SF)
FIGURE I
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF. GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
I FOR PROPOSED SITE II
(CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION PORTION)
106TH STREET
r---l
I
I
I
A
~
'"
I
'"
~
I
...J
...
'"
~
I~
I I N
~--------~ ~
I I ~
I
I B I ~
I I l
r-r-----+--------~ P'7
I I I IV/"
~ i i 0 i
~ I I I
I C I I
~ I I I
~ I I ~ I
~ I I ~ I
I I ~ ~ I
SS~
I I ~ c:s
L__L-__ __-1-___ 3 ---
H ~1~
SS~
~~
~~
~~
~
SITE I
96TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
42%~
'"
o
I
...
o
I
..,
o
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
~
o
:i
x
w
..,
o
o
N
o
/'
..,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
'"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
N
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
· = NEGLIGIBLE
LAND USE LEGEND
~ "t... ~ "t...
<D~ <D~
-II') - <D
I ... 1_
~ ~ ~ + 451. xx = IN
t,. t,. XX = OUT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SAlES (48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAil (9,720 SF)
CONVENIENCE lotART Wi GAS STAnoN (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL OmCE (21,000 SF)
FIGURE
J
4 co -
-.!...-~
. -
",-...,
I . ('oj .... 7 (8)
~~~
(25) 23 ~ t
(-25) -23'" :.
~
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAlIllY (40 00)
B = IIUlTI-FAlIllY (266 OU)
OFFICE PARK (135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL omCE (160,000 SFl
o = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF
I
I
i
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
I
GENERATED PASS BY TRAFFIC FOR SITE II
(CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION PORTION)
106TH STREET
~
/~~
-/4~
B
I
I I
r-r-----+--------~ .---,
I I I II I
~i i D i .. i
~ I I I
I C I I
~ I I I
~ I I ~ I
~ I I ~ I
I I ~ ~ I
SS~
I I ~ c:s
L__L-__ __...L___ 3 ---
H ~i~~'
SS ~ ~
~ ~ ~
tli~ ~
~~ 'lS
~
SITE I
96TH STREET
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(OO) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48.568 Sf)
SITE " = RETAil (9.720 Sf)
CONVENIENCE IIART WI GAS STAnON (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL OffiCE (21.000 Sf)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE fAllllY (40 00)
B = IIUlTI-f Allll Y [266 DU)
OffICE PARK 13S.000 Sf)
C = GENERAL OffiCE 1160,000 Sf)
D = NEW CAR SALES 120,000 Sf)
~ * (*)
+I ~ . * (*)
(1) 1 ~ ~ t ,.
(*) *... .... - .
(7) 12"l- ~~:S
FIGURE K
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR VACANT PARCEL A
~
~
~~
SS::S:
I I ~ ~
L__L-__ __..1-___
1r ~I~
~~
~~
~...
~
I06TH STREET
~-----
D
~ I I
~ I I
I C I
~ I I
~ I I
~ I I
I I
96TH STREET
r---l
I
I
I A
~
I~
I~
~
I~
~ ,---,
I
I
I
I I
I I
8
I I
I I
SITE I
3 ---
I
SITE II :
__J
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A..... PEAK HOUR
(00) ::: P..... PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SlIT I = NEW CAR SALES (48,S68 SF)
SITE II = RETAil (9,720 SF)
CONVENIENCE WART WI GAS STAOON (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL OFFICE (21,000 SF)
V ACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE F AllllY (40 00)
B = IIUlTl-FAllllY (266 00)
OFneE PARK (135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160,000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
FIGURE L
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR VACANT PARCEL B
(APARTMENT HOMES PORTION)
~
~
~~
ss~
I I ~ ~
L__L-__ __-L___
H ~I~
ss~
~~
~~
~'"
~
I06TH STREET
11-----
I I
I I
~ I I
~ I I
~ i C i
:::s::!I I I
~ I I
I I
D
:I:
;0:
><
I
><
:i
I
..J
c..
0::
96TH STREET
N
o
I
...
o
I
.,
o
r---l
I
I
I A
~
I~
I~
~
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ .------,
I
I
I
I I
I I
SITE I
3 ---
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.t.!. PEAK HOUR
(OO) = P.t.!. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
'"
:i
x
<oj
.,
o
o
N
'"
./
.,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
./
N
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48.568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9.720 SF)
CONVENIENCE IIART WI GAS STAnON (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OFFICE (21.000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMILY (40 DU)
8 = MUlTI-FAMILY (266 00)
OFFICE PARK (135.000 SF)
C = GENERAl OFFICE (160.000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SALES (120.000 SF)
FIGURE M
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR VACANT PARCEL B
(OFFICE PARK PORTION)
i
'"
I
'"
~
I
.j
...
'"
96TH STREET 1 r
'"
o
I
....
o
I
...,
o
t06TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
r---l
I
I
I
A
~
I~
~--------~ ~
I~
I I ~
B
--------~ ,---,
I
I
I
I I
I I
8
I I
I I
SITE I
3 ---
I
SITE II :
__J
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(OO) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
o
:z:
~
o
o
'"
o
./
...,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
'"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
./
N
1 r:::' .-..
o II')
'::::"S.e t 91 (53
~ * ~ .... 51 (12)
~.~
(71) 103 ~ t
(57) 7-..
-
.
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48.568 SF)
SITE II = RETAil (9.720 SF)
CONVENIENCE lIART WI GAS STATION (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OFFICE (21.000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAMilY (40 OU)
B = MUlTI-FAMilY (266 OU)
OFFICE PARK (l3S.000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160.000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SAlES (120.000 SF)
I FIGURE N
I
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
F10R VACANT PARCELS C & D
i
""
I
""
~
~
...
a:
96TH STREET
'"
o
I
....
o
I
..,
o
106TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
r---l ---
I
I
I A
I I ~
I I SS
~---------1~
I I ~
I
I B
~
~
~
~
~
II
~
o
:i
><
....
..,
o
o
'"
;;.
..,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
'"
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
./
N
I
__J
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.t.!. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.t.!. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
I
)
I FIGURE 0
I
I
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
! FOR PROPOSED SITE I
t06TH STREET
r---l
I
I
I
A
~
I~
~--------~ ~
I~
I I '-l
B
~
'"
I
'"
~
~
.....
<>:
I
I I
r-r-----+--------~ ~
I I I I ;/ //
I I I II
~ I I D I
~ I I I
~ i C i i
~: : ~ :
I I ~ ~ I
SS~
I I ~ ~
L__'-__ __--1-___ 3 ---
1r ~I ~
SS~
~~
~~
~...
~
SITE I
96TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
N
o
I
...
o
I
'"
o
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
~
o
:I'
x
"-'
'"
o
o
N
o
/'
'"
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
N
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48.568 Sf)
SITE " = RETAIL (9,720 Sf)
CONVENIENCE IIART WI GAS STAnON (10 PUMPS)
GENERAL OfTICE (21,000 Sf)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE fAMILY (40 DU)
8 = MUlTI-fAMILY (266 DU)
OrnCE PARK (135,000 Sf)
C = GENERAL OrnCE (160,000 Sf)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120,OOO Sf)
FIGURE P
I
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
I FOR SITE II
(OFFICE PORTION)
.~
:r
~
""
I
""
:i!
~
....
0::
90TH STREET
N
o
I
...
o
I
...,
o
tOoTH STREET
r---l
1
1
I
A
~
I 1 ~
I~
~---------1~
I~
1 1 ~
1
B
I
1 1
r-r-----+--------~ ~
1 1 1 1('//
1 1 1 1
~ I I D I
~ 1 1
1 C 1
~ I I
~
~
SITE I
~
~
~~
ss~
1 1 ~ ~
L__L-__ __-L___
1r ~L
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
3 ---
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
~
o
:i
x
w
...,
o
o
N
o
..--
...,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
..--
N
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48.568 SF)
SITE II = RETAIL (9.720 SF)
CONVENIENCE IIART W! GAS STATION (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL OrnCE (21,000 SF)
V ACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE F AIIIL Y (40 OU)
B = IIULTI-FAIIILY (266 OU)
ornCE PARK (135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160,000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
FIGURE Q
GENERA TED NON-PASS BY
I TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR
SITE II
(CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION PORTION)
t08TH STREET
r---l ---
I
I
I
A
~
I : ~
r--------~ ~
: : ~
I
I
r-r-----+--------~
I I I ~
~ i i D i '
~ I I
~ i C i
~ I I
~ I I
I I
B
~
'"
I
'"
:;E
I
.....
...
Q:
98TH STREET
~
~
~~
ss~
I I ~ ~
L__L-_~
1r ~i
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
I
I
I
I
SITE I
__-1.--___
3 ---
~
~
~
~
~
N
o
I
"'
o
I
...,
o
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
00 = A.t.4. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
~
C>
I
x
w
...,
o
o
N
o
/'
...,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
N
4 co -
I 0'>
:::~~ -t.. * (*)
U")
I . .... .... 19 (22)
~ . \; + 2 (2)
(40) 36; t
(-25) -23.... -
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48.568 SF)
SITE II = RETAil (9,720 SF)
CONVENIENCE IIART Wi GAS STATION (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL OFTICE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE FAIIILY (40 DU)
B = IIULTI-FAIIILY 1266 DU)
ornCE PARK 135,000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160,000 SF)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
I
! FIGURE R
I
"TOT AL GENERA TED TRAFFIC
! VOLUMES FOR SITE II
(CONVIEN8,NCE STORE/GAS STATION PORTION)
!
I
I
I
I
t06TH STREET
r----l ---
I
I
I
A
~
I~
I~
~---------1 ~
I I G
I
I
. I
r-r- -- - - - -+ -- - -- - - - ~ ~-
I I I .1
I I I .
~ I I D I
~ I I
~ i C i
~
B
SITE I
:J:
~
'"
I
'"
~
~
a:
96TH STREET
~
~
~~
SS~
I I ~ ~
L__'-__ __...L___
H ~1~
SS~
c:s~
~~
~~
~
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
3 ---
~
~
~
~
~
'"
o
I
...
o
I
...,
o
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
~
Cl
or
x
..,
...,
o
o
'"
o
./
...,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
./
N
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITf: I = NEW CAR SALES (48.568 SF)
SITE /I = RETAIL (9.720 SF)
CONVENIENCE lIART wI GAS STATION (10 PUlIPS)
GENERAL OFFICE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE F AlIlL Y (40 DU)
B = lIULTI-FAlIILY (266 DU)
OFFICE PARK (135.000 SF)
C = GENERAL OFFICE (160.000 SF)
o = NEW CAR SALES (120.000 SF)
FIGURE S
GENERAljED NON-PASS BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
'; FOR SITE II
I (RET AIL PORTION)
I
IOoTH STREET
r---l
.
t
I
A
~
. t ~
I~
~---------1 ~
I~
I I '-J
t
B
~
:.::
I
:.::
::E
~
t.-
O::
I
I I
r--.------+--------~ 177
I I I .v/
~ i i D i
~ I I I
~ i C i i
~ I I ~ I
~ I I ~ t
I I ~ ~ I
SS~
I I ~ ~
L__L-__ __-L___ 3 ---
1r ~f~
SS~
~~
~~
~~
~
SITE I
90TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
N
o
I
..
o
I
'"
o
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
<:>
'"
o
:t
x
.....
'"
o
o
N
o
....-
'"
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
....-
N
4 -
.... -
I "'.....
-... <"I '- * (*)
<"I--
I . <D ... I (IS)
~ ~ '+ ,&"* (I)
(27) 11~ t
-21) -8....
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48,568 Sf)
SITE II = RETAil (9,720 Sf)
CONVENIENCE IIART WI GAS STATION (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL OfTICE (21,000 Sf)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE f AlIll Y (40 DU)
B = IIUlTl-fAlIllY 1266 DU)
OffiCE PARK 135,000 Sf)
C = GENERAL OfTICE (160,000 Sf)
D = NEW CAR SALES (120,000 Sf)
I FIGURE T
I
TOT AL GENERA TED TRAFFIC
VOLUMES FOR SITE II
:(RET AIL PORTION)
I06TH STREET
r----l
1
1
I
A
~
I~
~--------~ ~
I~
1 1 "-J
B
~
'"
I
'"
~
~
...
'"
I
1 1
r-r-----+--------~ P'7
1 1 1 1;'//
1 1 1
~ I I D I
~ 1 1 1
~iCi i
~ 1 1 ~ 1
~ 1 1 ~ 1
I I ~ ~ I
SS~
1 1 ~ ~
L__'-__ __--L___ 3 ---
1 r ~1 ~
ss~
~~
[G~
~\Q
~
SITE I
96TH STREET
~
~
~
~
~
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
LEGEND
N
o
I
...
o
I
...,
o
~
o
I
x
w
...,
o
o
N
o
/'
...,
o
o
~ MID-STATES ENGINEERING/GLENDALE PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT
N
~ 96TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD
/'
N
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
4 --- ---
o .....
,." _0> ...
:;~-'-16 (6)
I . '::1 ~ 20 (37)
I(l ~ ~ ,&'2 (3)
(76) 72 ~ t
(-46) 31~ N
-
~
LAND USE LEGEND
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE I = NEW CAR SALES (48,568 SF)
SITE II = RETAil (9,720 SF)
CONVENIENCE IIART WI GAS STATION (10 PUIIPS)
GENERAL ornCE (21,000 SF)
VACANT PARCELS
A = SINGLE F AIIIL Y (40 OU)
B = IIULTI-FAIIILY (266 OU)
ornCE PARK (135.000 SF)
C = GENERAL ornCE (!5O,OOO SF)
o " NEW CAR SALES (120,000 SF)
FIGURE U
TOT A~ GENERA TED TRAFFIC
VOLUMES FOR SITE II
(TOTAL DEVELOPMENT)