HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Operations Analysis
u
u
o
o
o
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
o
D
U
TRAFFIC OPERA liONS ANALYSIS
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
136TH STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
BAY DEVELOPMENT
DECEMBER 2005
PREPARED By:
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240
PHONE 317-202-0864
FAX 317-202-0908
l
, u
u
U
10
D
U
U
iU
U
U
U
U
'U
U
U
U
U
D
U
I
BAY DEVELOPMENT-13f?' STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 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.
@2005, A&F Engineering Co., LLC.
Z:\2005\05145-Bay Development\TOA.doc
10
'U
BAY DEVELOPMENT-13~ STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
u
U
IU
'U
U
TABLE OF CONTENTS
:U
I
U
iU
I
U
U
D
D
U
D
I D
U
U
LIST OF FIGURES .... ........... ..... .................... ..... .............. .......... ........................ ................ ... ..... ... ................... ....... .... .......1
CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................................... ................... II
INTRODUCTION .................. ..................... ................................... ...... ... ............. ................ ... ..... ........ ..... ... .... ......... ... ... .... 1
PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................. .......................................... 1
SCOPE OF WORK ....... ........ ......... ................ .......................... ....... .... .............................. .................. ..... ............... ........... 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................... 2
DESCRIPTION OF NEAR-BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 2
STUDY AREA ... ... ..... ............. .... ...... ...................... ....... ....... ...... ...... ....... ... .............. ... ....... ... ............ ............... ..... .... .......4
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM... ......... ........................ .............. ...... .......... ................................. .... ... 4
EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA........ ...... .............. ....... .............. .......... .......... ................. ......... ...... ............ ............. ..... ............4
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................4
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................................................................... 5
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR NEAR-By DEVELOPMENTS ..................................................................................5
TABLE 2 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR "ARDEN" & "TRADITIONS ON THE MONON" ........................................................ 5
INTERNAL TRIPS.. ........ ............... ........ ...... .............. .......... ...... ........ .............. .......... .......... ........... ........ ..... ...................... 5
PASS-BY TRIPs................... ...................... ..... ................... ............ ................ ...... ....... ....... .............. ..... ...... .... ......... ..... ...5
PEAK HOUR....................................................................................................................................................................6
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS ............................................................................................... 6
GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 6
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE ............................................................................................................................ 9
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS.. ........ .......... ...... ....... ....... ........... .............. ........... ........... ........ ....... .......................... 10
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-SMOKEY Row ROAD & RANGELINE ROAD ............................................ 13
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-13I ST STREET & MEADOW LANE ........................................................... 14
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-136TH STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE ...........................................14
CONCLUSIONS ................... ........ ...................... ...................... ................. ......... ........ ........ ...... ............ ........ ........ ..... ...... 15
RECOMMENDATIONS .. ....... ...... .... ... ........ .... ... ... ... ..... ..... .... ........ .... ........ .... ............ .......... ... ........ ..... ..... ....... ...... ........... 17
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE I: AREA MAP ........ .............................................................................................................................................3
FIGURE 2: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........ 7
FIGURE 3: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................8
FIGURE 4: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................................................................................................................... II
FIGURE 5: SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES, "ARDEN" GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES "TRADITIONS ON THE
MONON" GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES........ 12
I
Z:\2005\05145-Bay Development\TOA.doc
BAY DEVELOPMENT -13f?H STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS has been prepared by me and under my
immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and
transportation engineering.
R. Matt Brown P .E.
Indiana Registration 10200056
\ \ \ \" \I"" //111
""," '\ "\ HEW 11111//
~' .....'\. '" ""U'"'' 6' L'J ~
.... ~ ,\\ Till 'ro"
S __'\.(;\5 E:R~/', ....<:.~
..... .......q.. ()',~."
~CJ:::/ \~~
~ ~ No.1 0200056 ~ ~
~ ;. STATE : :=
~ ....0 -:.~, OF ......~ ~ ~
~ ~ "'1 I tv D I A ~ ~ \,-- (<.;::; $
/" V.L'" I'I I" ~v'
'/ /' ('; ""U..", \""
"//// J'S/ONAL C~\) "",
III \. ",
1111//" \I" \ \ \ \\
A&F ENGINEERING Co., LLC.
/7f!~ ~--
II
Z:\2005\05145-Bay Development\TOA.doc
-~}
,
,)
,
, '
, /
/'
~
~ "
,/
! 1\7)
" 'I
(~
'-'/' /'
)1
I, \
v \\ )
>
,
. / i:
'"
) ,,;"
\)
\ '
,,\ \J
j
J '
/
, -)i~
, /\ '
I ~ ! .
c: I,
/
'v
,,,
/ I\:,.-
'.;\
,I
I
\ \'-.-'-
V \
'I ./ I
,j
'\
\~
(
\
'I
,( /
/ /' I. \ '_' 'I' / / " \ r' 'I \
TRAFFI'COJ)ERA TIONSAN"AL YSIS
" A.., I , ' ' "~' , ",,',
,---",
,'0,
If
J 'i
i '
I'
, '
A;
"
\/f
, )
ii, )
(-- I
. ' ,', - /', i \" ' " I, - -)- (- ) _ ( ,
'PROPOSED RESI/D'ENTI~l o EVE,lOPME'Nri
-136TH\.STREET~ J,' I>
/
'/ j
.'\ /
(, \ ~ '\
,I'
i,
./
,I
-,
)
/
) \
'/
c',
) )
,
f'
"
0'
, (
k \
---- ~ \, "
, I /
- \
CA~MEL, IN'DIANA'
, ,
'-.'
"-
'\
/,
"\~
) \ \-
.1
" I.
) f .
PREPARED FOR\u'
1\
/
, I.
-~ i
,
c:
',I ,
-, " I
J " 1\
, f I
\
BAY DEVELOPMENT
f
,-'
\ '
, \
(
--- \ \ \
DECEMBER 2005
~ l,
" ')
1\
\ "
~,:r
J\
//
.7
"
I
(~-, ~--~
/,
"
i '
, '
(v
)
- -\,; "C _ f \
\ ~.v ( I ,- r . I','" (
A&F ENGINEERING
, ,lCciNSUL TING ENGINEERS, ,\ I
8365,KEYSTONE'CRQSSING, SUITE 20)'
" INDIANAPOLlS,'If,.lIlIANA 46240,'
(317') 202:0864
\.:,-l
I I
Co..-lJ~t
--",:/
,~
j '1,
F>-
\,
,)
I
~ f\
l'
/ I I)
l[J
U
o
D
D
D
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
o
D
D
U
o
o
BAY DEVEWPMENT -13f1H STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepared on behalf of Bay Development, is for a proposed
residential development that will be located in Carmel, Indiana.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed
development, when fully occupied, will have on the existing adjacent roadway system. This
analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site
is developed.
Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the
anticipated traffic volumes 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 make traffic volume counts at the following locations:
. 136th Street & Rangeline Road
. 131 st Street & Meadow Lane
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed residential
development.
Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will serve to
provide access to the proposed development.
IU
U
IU
U
D
o
o
u
u
'U
U
U
o
U
,D
D
D
o
U
BAY DEVEWPMENT-136'" STREET
CARMEL. INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development onto the public
roadway system and intersections that have been identified as the study area.
Fifth, to prepare a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each intersection included in
the study area for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Conditions - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic
volumes.
SCENARIO 2: Proposed Development - Add the new traffic volumes that will be generated
by the proposed development to the existing traffic volumes and the traffic
volumes that will be generated by the near-by "Arden" and "Traditions on
the Monon" residential developments.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS documenting all data, analyses,
conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic
through the study area.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed development will include 48 townhomes and will be located just south of I 36th Street
between u.S. 31 and 1st Avenue NW in Carmel, Indiana. An area map showing the location ofthe
proposed development and each of the study intersections is shown on Figure 1.
DESCRIPTION OF NEAR-BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Two future residential developments will be located within the study area considered in this
analysis. The proposed "Arden" development will be located along 136th Street, between Rangeline
Road and Keystone A venue. As proposed, the development will include approximately 90
townhomes. In addition, approximately 135 townhomes known as "The Traditions on the Monon"
are currently being developed on a site along Smokey Row Road, just west ofRangeline Road. Due
to the fact that these projects are located within the study area, traffic generation estimates from
these developments are included within this analysis to determine the future impact at the study
intersections. A&F Engineering prepared traffic studies for each of these developments. Data used
within these previously submitted studies was incOIporated into this report.
2
0
a
~
0
~
~
0
0
a
0
0
0
I 0
.....
~ "-
'"
.,.,
0
I
~
I
0 ~
,!!.
~
0
::.:
><
0 ....
I
.,.,
....
;n
~
I-
Z
....
::!!
D a.
0
.....
~
....
0
>-
<(
lD
0 I
.,.,
....
;n
~
.,.,
0
0
N
U /'
N
FIGURE 1
AREA MAP
SA Y DEVELOPMENT
CARMEL, INDIANA
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2005
"ALL Rights Reserved"
3
l
U
U
D
o
o
u
o
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
o
o
o
D
o
BAY DEVEWPMENT-13f?H STREET
CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
STUDY AREA
The study area defined for this analysis will include the following intersections:
. I 36th Street & Rangeline Road
. 131 st Street & Meadow Lane
. I 36th Street & Proposed Access Drive
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes 136th
Street, Rangeline Road and Meadow Lane.
RANGELINE ROAD - is a north/south roadway that serves many residential and commercial areas
throughout Cannel. The posted speed limit in the vicinity ofthe site along this roadway is 30 mph.
SMOKEY Row ROAD - is an east/west two-lane roadway that travels from Gray Road to U.S. 31.
The posted speed limit in the vicinity ofthe site along this roadway is 30 mph.
MEADOW LANE- is a north/south roadway that serves an existing residential area north of 131 st
Street. The proposed development will have access to 131 st Street via a connection to Meadow
Lane through this residential area.
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road - This intersection is currently controlled by an automatic
traffic signal. All approaches at this intersection consist of a single lane used for all movements.
A single lane roundabout could be constructed at this intersection in the near future. Therefore,
this report includes a future scenario that analyzes this intersection as it exists today and as it
might exist if a roundabout was constructed.
EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA
In order to understand local travel patterns, peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts were
made at each of the existing study intersections. The traffic volume counts include an hourly total
of all "through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at each intersection. These counts were made during
the hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM in August and December 2005. A
summary of each count is included in Appendix A.
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the
development size and of the character of the land use. Trip Generation1 report was used to calculate
I Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003.
4
u
u
u
u
u
BAY DEVEWPMENT-136IH STREET
CARMEL. INDIANA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
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 of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
TABLE I - GENERA TED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
U
D
o
o
o
o
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS
ITE AM AM PM PM
LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
Residential 230 48 Dwelling Units 5 24 22 11
u
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR NEAR-BY DEVELOPMENTS
Trip Generation report was also used to calculate the number of trips that will be generated by the
future "Arden" and "Traditions on the Monon" developments. Table 2 is a summary of these
generated trips.
TABLE 2 - GENERA TED TRIPS FOR "ARDEN" & "TRADITIONS ON THE MONON"
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS
ITE AM AM PM PM
LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
Residential 230 90 Dwelling Units 8 39 37 18
Residential 230 135 Dwelling Units 11 54 52 25
INTERNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two or more land uses without accessing the
public roadway system. The proposed development will consist of a residential land use only.
Therefore, internal trip reductions are not applicable.
PASs-BY TRIPS
Pass-by trips are trips already on the public roadway system that are captured by the proposed
development. Residential developments do not typically generate a significant amount of pass-by
trips. Therefore, pass-by trip reductions were not applied.
5
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
o
o
o
o
o
BAY DEVELOPMENT -13~ STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
PEAK HOUR
Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the adjacent street peak
hour varies between the intersections. Therefore, the actual peak hour at each intersection is
analyzed to represent the maximum traffic volumes at each intersection.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes, from 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 location of the development, the existing traffic patterns and the assignment of
generated traffic.
The assignment and distribution of the generated traffic volumes for the proposed development are
shown on Figure 2.
GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the "Arden" development, "Traditions on
the Monon" development and the proposed development site have been prepared for each of the
study area intersections. The total peak hour generated traffic volumes for the "Arden" and
"Traditions on the Monon" sites are summarized on Figure A in the Appendix. On the other
hand, the generated traffic volumes for the proposed development are shown on Figure 3. These
volumes are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated
traffic, and distribution of generated traffic.
6
0
0
0
~
D
D
~
D
D
0
0
~
Q
-'
0 .....
""
'"
0
I
~
I
~
0 II
~
<>
:i
x
0 UJ
I
'"
...
;;;
;;..
I-
Z
UJ
::l!
a a..
0
-'
~
UJ
<>
>-
<(
CD
a r
'"
...
;;;
;;..
'"
0
0
N
D ".-
N
~
<D
+l
6% ~ ~
21%~ ~
<D
16% "l- -
LEGEND
FIGURE 2
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
· = NEGLIGIBLE
SA Y DEVELOPMENT
CARMEL, INDIANA
@A & F Engineering Co., llC 2005
"All Rights Reserved"
7
0
0
Q
D
D
0
D
0
!O
0
D
D
0
0 it
'"
<l)
0
r
~
I
~
0 "
~
0
,:
X
0 ....
I
<l)
....
;;:;
:3-
t-
Z
....
:::E
D Q.
0
gj
....
0
>-
<
<II
~ I
<l)
....
;;:;
:3-
<l)
0
0
0 ;::J-
N
LEGEND
00 = A.t.!. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.t.!. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
SA Y DEVELOPMENT
CARMEL, INDIANA
FIGURE 3
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
@A Be f' Engineering Co., LLC 2005
"ALL Rights Reserved"
8
o
u
o
u
o
u
u
o
u
u
u
u
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
BAY DEVELOPMENT -13~ STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
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.
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.
9
u
u
u
u
u
u
U
!U
U
U
U
U
U
o
o
o
D
D
U
BAY DEVELOPMENT -13f?H STREET
CARMEL INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized intersections:
A
B
C
D
E
F
Control Delav (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
Level of Service
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS
To evaluate the effect on the public street system, the traffic volumes from each of the various
parts must be added together 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 can be made to improve the public street system so it will accommodate the
increased traffic volumes due to future development.
An analysis was made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study
intersections for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - These are the traffic volumes that were obtained
in August & December 2005. Figure 4 is a summary of these traffic
volumes at the study intersections.
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + "Arden" Deve/opment Generated Traffic
Volumes + "Traditions on the Manon" Generated Traffic Volumes +
Proposed Deve/opment Generated Traffic Volumes - Figure 5 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 3 - 136th Street & Rangeline Road
Table 4 - 131 st Street & Meadow Lane
Table 5 - 136th Street & Proposed Access Drive
10
~
u
o
Q
Q
D
D
D
U
Q
~
D
D
-'
a ;
~
I
N
o ;
o
:i
x
....
o t
I-
Z
....
:2
~ ~
>-
<(
<Il
~ t
oJ")
o
o
~
D N
'S
_N_
~,."o
-=- :;.:!.. "'t. 26 (42)
:;:; ~ ~ ~ 199 (81)
~ . ~ ~ 97 (39)
(52) 9 ~ ~ t ,.
(282) 100 ~ ~:16 ~
(20) 19 ~ N' :.-;;;-
~~~
e-
-
<0 ~
~e~ "'t.14 (61
l8 0 ~ ~ 486 (389)
~ . ~ .,. 0 (3)
(47) 11~ ~ t ,.
(511) 428~ N 0 ~
(2) 1~ SSE:
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
SA Y DEVELOPMENT
CARMEL, INDIANA
FIGURE 4
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
@A & F Engineering C,?, LLC 2005
>>ALL Rights Reserved
11
~
0
Q
a
D
Q
a
D
0
D
U
D
I 0
...
Q ....
Q::
.,.,
0
I
~
I
~
Q II
~
0
,:
x
....
D I
.,.,
....
:;;
~
I-
Z
....
:::E
~ g,
...
~
....
0
>-
<
lD
U I
.,.,
....
:;;
~
.,.,
8
;::!-
D N
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
SA Y DEVELOPMENT
CARMEL, INDIANA
~239 (136)
~ 2 (9)
~ ,.
(351) 105..;! ~
(11) 2~
-
N
_N_
...,. ~ 0>
N-"'" ..
-It'l- "'31 (45
~ ~ ~ ~217 (109)
+l + ~ ,&'" 104 (42)
(54) 12" ~ t ,.
(300) 117" N:g ~
(24) 27~ ~-_
eco~
r-.._
e,-
- -
<0 ...,.
N _~ ....
-.8.- '-14(61
:'8 o::g ~ 488 (390)
+l + ~ ~O (3)
(49) 12.:1" ~ t ,.
(513) 428" NO...,.
(2) 1~ 228
FIGURE 5
SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES,
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FROM
PROPOSED -ARDEN- & -TRADITIONS ON THE
MONON- TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS &
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
@A Be F Engineering Co., LLC 2005
It ALL Rights Reserved"
12
u
o
o \
o
o
o
u
o
u
u
u
U
Q
o
o
o
o
o
o
BAY DEVELOPMENT -13~ STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -SMOKEY Row ROAD & RANGELINE ROAD
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach B B A
Southbound Approach C C A
Eastbound Approach B B A
Westbound Approach B C A
Intersection B C A
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B
Northbound Approach B B A
Southbound Approach B B A
Eastbound Approach B B A
Westbound Approach B B A
Intersection B B A
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions
SCENARIO 2A: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes, "Arden" Traffic Volumes, "Traditions on the
Monon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with
Existing Intersection Conditions
SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes, "Arden" Traffic Volumes, "Traditions on the
Monon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with One
Lane Roundabout
13
D
o
o
o
o
o
-0
u
BAY DEVEWPMENT -13fIH STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -131 5T STREET & MEADOW LANE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach C C
Southbound Approach C C
Eastbound Left. Turn A A
Westbound Left. Turn A A
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach C C
Southbound Approach C C
Eastbound Left-Turn A A
Westbound Left-Turn A A
~l
U
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes, "Arden" Traffic Volumes, "Traditions on the
Monon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Existing
Intersection Conditions
o
u
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-136TH STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach B
Westbound Left. Turn A
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach B
Westbound Left-Turn A
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes, "Arden" Traffic Volumes, "Traditions on the
Monon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed
Intersection Conditions*
* The proposed intersection conditions include:
The construction of the access drive with one inbound lane and one outbound lane
The intersection stop controlled with the access drive stopping for 136th Street
The construction of a right-turn lane along 136th Street at the proposed access drive
14
u
U
D
D
o
o
u
u
u
u
BAY DEVEWPMENT -13fiH STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 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 better than the peak hour, since the existing street traffic volumes
will be less during the other 22 hours.
I. 1 36TH STREET & RANGELINE ROAD
Existing Traffic Volumes (Scenario 1) - A level of service review, with the existing traffic
volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that this intersection is operating at
acceptable levels during the peak hours.
~ 1
U
D
o
U
D
U
D
U
Existing Traffic Volumes, "Arden" Development Traffic Volumes, "Traditions on the
Manon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Existing
Intersection Conditions (Scenario 2A) - When the traffic volumes from the "Arden"
development, "Traditions on the Monon" development and proposed development are
added to the existing traffic volumes, this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable
levels with the existing intersection conditions.
u
Existing Traffic Volumes, "Arden" Development Traffic Volumes, "Traditions on the
Manon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Roundabout
(Scenario 2B) - When the traffic volumes from the "Arden" development, "Traditions on the
Monon" development and proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes,
this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours if a single
lane roundabout is constructed at the intersection.
15
D
U
D
o
D
BAY DEVEWPMENT-13Q1' STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
2. 131 ST STREET & MEADOW LANE
Existing Trajjic Volumes - A level of service review, with the existing traffic volwnes and
existing intersection conditions, has shown that all approaches at this intersection are
operating at acceptable levels during the peak hours.
u
u
Existing Traffic Volumes, "Arden" Development Traffic Volumes, "Traditions on the
Monon" Traffic Volumes & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Existing
Intersection Conditions (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the "Arden"
development, "Traditions on the Monon" development and proposed development are
added to the existing traffic volwnes, all approaches at this intersection will continue to
operate at acceptable levels with the existing intersection conditions.
o
r~l
W
U
D
U
U
[J
o
o
u
o
o
3. 136TH STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
Existing Traffic Volumes, "Arden" Development Traffic Volumes, "Traditions on the
Monon" Trajjic Volumes & Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Existing
Intersection Conditions (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the "Arden"
development, "Traditions on the Monon" development and proposed development are
added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches at this intersection will operate at
acceptable levels with the proposed intersection conditions. These conditions include the
following:
. The construction of the access drive with one inbound lane and one outbound
lane
. The intersection stop controlled with the access drive stopping for 136th Street
. The construction of a right-turn lane along 136th Street at the proposed access
drive
16
u
u
u
U
D
U
U
U
o
BAY DEVEWPMENT-136"' STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations are made to ensure that
the roadway system will operate at acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as proposed.
136TH STREET & RANGELINE ROAD
D
. This intersection currently operates at acceptable levels of service and will continue to do so
when the traffic volumes from the "Arden" development, "Traditions on the Monon"
development and proposed development are added to the roadway network. Therefore, no
changes are required at this intersection.
. There is the possibility that a single lane roundabout will be constructed at this intersection
in the future. A roundabout capacity analysis was conducted that analyzed the existing and
future traffic volumes at this intersection. This analysis showed that a single lane roundabout
would operate above acceptable levels of service for each traffic scenario analyzed.
. The 48 townhomes proposed by Bay Development will not cause the need for any
improvements at this intersection. The roundabout considered in this report is not due to the
traffic impact associated with the development. Rather, this analysis was included because
the roundabout is a future City of Carmel project which is independent of the proposed
development. The traffic from the proposed development will not decrease the projected
levels of service at the future roundabout when compared to the levels of service that are
calculated without the proposed development. Therefore, the impact on the roundabout due
to the proposed development is negligible.
u
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
131 ST STREET & MEADOW LANE
. This intersection currently operates at acceptable levels of service and will continue to do so
when the traffic volumes from the "Arden" development, "Traditions on the Monon"
development and proposed development are added to the roadway network. Therefore, no
changes are required at this intersection.
136TH STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
. The proposed access drive should be constructed with one inbound lane and one
outbound lane.
. The intersection should be stop controlled with the access drive stopping for 136th Street.
. A right-turn lane should be constructed along 136th Street at the proposed access drive.
17
u
U
D
D
D
U
U
U
U
[J
U
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
136TH STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
SAY DEVELOPMENT
DECEMBER 2005
PREPARED By:
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240
PHONE 317.202.0864
FAX 317.202.0908
U
D
o
U
U
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
BAY DEVELOPMENT -13fl1I STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX
This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS for
the proposed residential development.
Included is an additional figure, the intersection turning movement traffic volume counts and the
intersection capacity analyses for each of the study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak
hour.
u
U
D
D
U
U
o
U
U
U
U
U
D
o
D
D
o
D
o
BAY DEVEWPMENT-13(iffl STREET
CARMEL INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADDITIONAL FIGURES ........ ........................ ... ...... ........ ............... ... ... ........... ...... ... .......... ..... .......... ..... ..... ...... ... ... ... ... ..... 1
136TH STREET & RANGELINE ROAD...... ....... ... ...... ....... ....... ........................ ............. ..... ................. ........... ... ..... ..... .... .....3
131 ST STREET & MEADOW LANE.................................................................................................................................. 10
136TH STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE.................................................................................................................. 17
U
D
D
o
D
o
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
BAY DEVELOPMENT -13(1H STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ADDITIONAL FIGURES
1
0
~
~
D
0
a
0
u
0
Q
0
0
0
.....
a ....
'"
on
0
I
'"
.,
~
D "
e>
~
Cl
,:
X
0 ....
I
on
...
~
~
I-
Z
....
~
~ 0..
0
.....
~
....
Cl
>-
""
CD
~ I
on
...
~
on
0
0
~
0 N
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
SA Y DEVELOPMENT
CARMEL, INDIANA
FIGURE A
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED "ARDEN" DEVELOPMENT
& "TRADITIONS ON THE MONON"
DEVELOPMENT
@A 8c F Engineering Co., LLC 2005
"ALL Rights Reserved"
2
U
IU
!U
U
IU
U
U
IU
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
U
U
U
D
BAY DEVEWPMENT -13(i"H STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
136TH STREET & RANGELINE ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
3
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
U
D
U
U
U
U
U
o
o
D
o
D
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE:
Bay Development
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road (01)
6/28/2005
TOTAL VEHICLES (PASSENGER CARS + TRUCKS)
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES OFF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
BEGINS 7:30 AM BEGINS BEGINS 5:00 PM
L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL
NORTHBOUND 18 185 42 245 12 518 123 653
SOUTHBOUND 38 480 37 555 40 320 14 374
EASTBOUND 9 100 19 128 52 282 20 354
WESTBOUND 97 199 26 322 39 81 42 162
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR OFF PEAK HOUR FACTOR PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
APPROACH INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION
NORTHBOUND 0.80 0.93
SOUTHBOUND 0.84 0.78 0.81 0.90
EASTBOUND 0.80 0.91
WESTBOUND 0.69 0.79
TRUCK PERCENTAGE
AM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE OFF PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE PM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL
NORTHBOUND 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%
SOUTHBOUND 7.9% 0.4% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
EASTBOUND 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%
WESTBOUND 2.1% 4.0% 3.8% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HOURLY SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
6:00 AM TO 7:00 AM 65 197 262 17 105 122 384
7:00 AM TO 8:00 AM 201 508 709 111 268 379 1088
8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM 222 408 630 84 251 335 965
4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM 540 394 934 238 165 403 1337
5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM 653 374 1027 354 162 516 1543
6:00 PM TO 7:00 PM 443 342 785 206 182 388 1173
TOTAL VOLUME 2124 2223 4347 1010 1133 2143 6490
PERCENTAGE 32.7% 34.3% 67.0% 15.6% 17.5% 33.0% 100.0%
4
Release 11-18-04
u
D
o
o
u
D
I 0
I
U
o
u
u
u
IU
o
D
u
u
u
u
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE:
Bay Development
Smokey Row Road & Rangeline Road (01)
6/28/2005
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: NORTHBOUND
HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 1 0 1 59 0 59 5 0 5 65 0 65
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 12 0 12 153 2 155 34 0 34 199 2 201
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 13 0 13 174 6 180 28 1 29 215 7 222
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 18 0 18 445 3 448 74 0 74 537 3 540
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 12 0 12 517 1 518 123 0 123 652 1 653
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 18 0 18 350 1 351 74 0 74 442 1 443
PASSENGER 74 1698 338 2110
100.0% 99.2% 99.7% 99.3%
TRUCK 0 13 1 14
0.0% 0.8% 0.3% 0.7%
BOTH 74 1711 339 2124
3.5% 80.6% 16.0% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: SOUTHBOUND
HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 17 3 20 168 1 169 7 1 8 192 5 197
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 31 2 33 440 2 442 33 0 33 504 4 508
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 30 3 33 350 3 353 22 0 22 402 6 408
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 47 0 47 325 1 326 21 0 21 393 1 394
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 40 0 40 320 0 320 14 0 14 374 0 374
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 51 0 51 265 1 266 25 0 25 341 1 342
PASSENGER 216 1868 122 2206
96.4% 99.6% 99.2% 99.2%
TRUCK 8 8 1 17
3.6% 0.4% 0.8% 0.8%
BOTH 224 1876 123 2223
10.1% 84.4% 5.5% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: EASTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 1 0 1 12 0 12 4 0 4 17 0 17
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 7 0 7 85 1 86 18 0 18 110 1 111
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 8 0 8 62 2 64 12 0 12 82 2 84
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 42 0 42 171 0 171 25 0 25 238 0 238
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 52 0 52 281 1 282 20 0 20 353 1 354
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 36 0 36 162 0 162 8 0 8 206 0 206
PASSENGER 146 773 87 1006
100.0% 99.5% 100.0% 99.6%
TRUCK 0 4 0 4
0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4%
BOTH 146 777 87 1010
14.5% 76.9% 8.6% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: WESTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 20 0 20 75 5 80 5 0 5 100 5 105
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 81 2 83 159 2 161 20 4 24 260 8 268
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 65 0 65 153 8 161 24 1 25 242 9 251
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 39 1 40 83 0 83 42 0 42 164 1 165
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 39 0 39 81 0 81 42 0 42 162 0 162
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM 45 0 45 85 0 85 52 0 52 182 0 182
PASSENGER 289 636 185 1110
99.0% 97.7% 97.4% 98.0%
TRUCK 3 15 5 23
1.0% 2.3% 2.6% 2.0%
BOTH 292 651 190 1133
25.8% 57.5% 16.8% 100.0%
5
Release 11-18-04
SHORT REPORT
Site Information
Intersection
Area Type
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
EW Perm 02
G = 25.0 G =
y- 5 y-
, uration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25
.ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB
153 457
733 632
0.21 0.72
0.41 0.41
11.6 15.1
0.11 0.28
a1 ~1
1.000 1.000
11.8 19.2
B B
11.8 19.2
B B
19.6
l~hort Report
:;enerallnformation
~nalYst RMB
l gency or Co. A&F Engineering
ate Performed 12/14/2005
I ime Period AM Peak
..-volume and Timing Input
~ urn. of Lanes
,11_ane group
I Volume (vph)
% Heavv veh
IPHF
r' ~ctuated (PIA
-,startup lost time
Jl;:xt. eft. Qreen
r-~~rrival type
~nit Extension
r IPed/Bike/RTOR Volume
I lane Width
?arking/Grade/Parking
[I,?arking/hr
I. Jus stops/hr
Unit Extension
-'hasinQ
EB
TH
1
...TR
100
1
0.80
A
2.0
2.0
3
3.0
LT
o
RT LT
0 0
19 97
0 2
0.80 0.69
A A
9
o
0.80
A
o
5
o
12.0
o
N
N
N
o
3.0
03
G=
y=
04
G=
y-
iming
~dj. flow rate
Jane group cap.
ll;/C ratio
plJreen ratio
IUnif. delay d1
r 'elay factor k
Increm. delay d2
rF factor
~ontrol delay
l'lane group LOS
,Jpprch. delay
~ pproach LOS
~tersec. delay
HCS2000™
136th Street & Rangeline
Road
All other areas
Carmel
Existing
WB
TH
1
LTR
199
4
0.69
A
2.0
2.0
3
3.0
NB
TH
1
LTR
185
2
0.80
A
2.0
2.0
3
3.0
RT LT
0 0
26 18
4 0
0.69 0.80
A A
RT LT
0 0
42 38
0 8
0.80 0.84
A A
7
o
10
12.0
o
12.0
o
N
N
N
o
3.0
NS Perm
G = 26.0
Y - 5
o
3.0
06 07
G= G=
y- y-
Cycle LenQth C - 61.0
NB
293
736
0.40
0.43
12.1
0.11
0.4
1.000
12.4
B
12.4
B
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Intersection LOS
o
o 6
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mbrown.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k 1923.tmp
Page 1 of 1
5B
TH RT
1 0
LTR
480 37
1 0
0.84 0.84
A A
2.0
2.0
3
3.0
o
9
N
12.0
o N
o
3.0
08
G=
y-
5B
649
761
0.85
0.43
15.8
0.39
9.3
1.000
25.0
C
25.0
C
B
Version4.le
12/14/2005
Short Report
Page 1 of]
U SHORT REPORT
Generallnformation Site Information
~ 136th Street & Rangeline
nalyst RMB Intersection Road
gency or Co. A&F Engineering Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 12/14/2005
I I ime Period PM Peak Jurisdiction Carmel ,
Analysis Year Existing
'TVolume and Timing Input
~ EB WB NB SB
I urn. of Lanes LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
,.ane group ...TR LTR LTR LTR
Volume (vph) 52 282 20 39 81 42 12 518 123 40 320 14
T% Heavv veh 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
~.~HF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.81 0.81
I i\ctuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A
~tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
J;:xt. eft. Qreen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
~rrival type 3 3 3 3
nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
ilPed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 5 0 10 0 30 0 3
~ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
1Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Larking/hr
Jus stops/hr 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
-phasinQ EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
iming G = 21.0 G= G= G= G = 30.0 G= G= G=
Y- 5 Y= Y- Y- Y= 5 Y- Y- Y-
[';)uration of Analysis (hrs) - 0.25 Cycle Length C = 61.0
..Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
~dj. flow rate 383 193 670 458
Jane group cap. 597 540 899 836
Ci/C ratio 0.64 0.36 0.75 0.55
~reen ratio 0.34 0.34 0.49 0.49
[I~nif. delay d1 16.8 15.0 12.4 10.8 ,
Jelay factor k 0.22 0.11 0.30 0.15 I
Increm. delay d2 2.3 0.4 3.4 0.8
rF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
,eontrol delay 19.2 15.4 15.9 11.5
.',ane group LOS B B B B
~pprch. delay 19.2 15.4 15.9 11.5
!e-pproach LOS B B B B
}tersec. delay 15.4 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright @ 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1f
D
D 7
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mbrown.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kI92E.tmp
12/14/2005
[~hort Report
SHORT REPORT
Site Information
General Information
~~:~~~ or Co. A&F E~~~eering
D.ate Pe~ormed 12/14/2005
\- Ime Period AM Peak
., Volume and Tlmlna Inout
rlL
~um. of Lanes
II~ane group
I jVolume (vph)
% Heavv veh
,IPHF
I Actuated (PIA)
';tartup lost time
Ext. eft. Qreen
l,Arrival type
Unit Extension
r Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume
Lane Width
I
~arking/Grade/Parking
rl~arking/hr
)us stops/hr 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0
~. phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm
G - 25.0 G - G = G = G = 26.0
timing y = 5 Y - Y = Y = Y _ 5
[IDuration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25
l....ane Group Capacity. Control Delav. and LOS Determination
EB WB
187 500
722 629
0.26 0.79
0.41 0.41
11.9 15.8
0.11 0.34
Q2 ~o
1.000 1.000
12.1 22.8
B C
12.1 22.8
B C
22.4
Intersection
~rea Type
~urisdiction
~nalysis Year
LT
o
EB
TH
1
lTR
117
1
0.80
A
2.0
2.0
3
3.0
31
4
0.69
A
WB
TH
1
LTR
217
4
0.69
A
2.0
2.0
3
3.0
RT
o
LT
o
RT
o
12
o
0.80
A
27
o
0.80
A
104
2
0.69
A
o
6
o
N
12.0
o
N
12.0
o
N
~dj. flow rate
, ane group cap.
(,/c ratio
~reen ratio
Unif. delay d1
j>elay factor k
Increm. delay d2
rF factor
-,tontrol delay
[.!\ane group LOS
.p\pprch. delay
!\pproach LOS
I )1tersec. delay
136th Street & Rangeline
Road
All other areas
Carmel
Existing+ Total Gen
LT
o
NB
TH
1
LTR
185
2
0.80
A
2.0
2.0
3
3.0
RT LT
0 0
43 48
0 8
0.80 0.84
A A
21
o
0.80
A
7
o
10
N
12.0
o
N
N
o
3.0
06 07
G- G-
Y- Y-
Cycle LenQth C = 61.0
NB
298
730
0.41
0.43
12.2
0.11
0.4
1.000
12.5
B
12.5
B
HCS2000™
Copyright @2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Intersection LOS
U
D 8
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mbrown.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ Temp\s2k 1939 .tmp
Page 1 of'
SB
TH RT
1 0
LTR
485 40
1 0
0.84 0.84
A A
2.0
2.0
3
3.0
o
10
N
12.0
o N
o
3.0
08
G=
Y-
SB
670
750
0.89
0.43
16.2
0.42
13.2
1.000
29.4
C
29.4
C
C
Version 4.lt
12/14/2005
. ,~hort Report
Page 1 of 1
~ SHORT REPORT I
K enerallnformation Site Information
~naIYSI RMB Intersection 136th Street & Rangeline
Road
gency or Co. A&F Engineering Area Type All other areas
ate Performed 12/14/2005 Jurisdiction Carmel
PM Peak ,
ime Period Analysis Year Existing+ Total Gen
T 'olume and Timina InDut
'1 EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
1'Jum. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
(lane group TR LTR LTR LTR
Jolume (vph) 54 300 24 42 109 45 24 518 130 49 322 24
I % Heavy veh 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
r10HF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.81 0.81
I ~ctuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A
15tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
JExt. eft. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
I .
I ~rrival type 3 3 3 3
,enit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
JP,ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 6 0 11 0 32 0 6
I lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
lParking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
rlrking/hr
IUS stops/hr 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
I i'hasinQ EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08
~ming G = 22.0 G= G= G= G = 29.0 G= G= G=
Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y=
["Juration of Analysis (hrs) - 0.25 Cycle Length C - 61.0
~ane Group Capacity, Control Delay. and LOS Determination
J EB WB NB SB
fdj. flow rate 409 234 688 480
~ane group cap. 622 571 855 784
. Ic ratio 0.66 0.41 0.80 0.61
~reen ratio 0.36 0.36 0.48 0.48
J4nif. delay d1 16.3 14.6 13.6 11.8
Uelay factor k 0.23 0.11 0.35 0.20
Increm. delay d2 2.5 0.5 5.7 1.4
F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
~ ontrol delay 18.9 15.1 19.3 13.3
'~ane group LOS B B B B
..tpprch. delay 18.9 15.1 19.3 13.3
~pproach LOS B B B B
Jtersec. delay 17.0 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™ Copyright@2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
U
U 9
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mbrown.AFHO\Local%20Settings\ Temp\s2k 1944.tmp
Version 4.1e
12/14/2005
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
o
o
D
U
U
BAY DEVEWPMENT -1361" STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
131 ST STREET & MEADOW LANE
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
10
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE:
Bay Development
131st Street (Main Street) & Meadow Lane
12/8/2005
TOTAL VEHICLES (PASSENGER CARS + TRUCKS)
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES OFF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
BEGINS 7:00 AM BEGINS BEGINS 5:00 PM
L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL
NORTHBOUND 2 0 4 6 1 1 2 4
SOUTHBOUND 55 0 68 123 34 0 26 60
EASTBOUND 11 428 1 440 47 511 2 560
WESTBOUND 0 486 14 500 3 389 61 453
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR OFF PEAK HOUR FACTOR PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
APPROACH INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION
NORTHBOUND 0.50 0.50
SOUTHBOUND 0.79 0.78 0.79 0.89
EASTBOUND 0.73 0.83
WESTBOUND 0.82 0.89
u
u
u
u
u
U
D
o
o
u
o
TRUCK PERCENTAGE
AM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE OFF PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE PM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL
NORTHBOUND 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
SOUTHBOUND 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 1.7%
EASTBOUND 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%
WESTBOUND 0.0% 0.2% 7.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.2%
HOURLY SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
6:00 AM TO 7:00 AM 3 65 68 134 142 276 344
7:00 AM TO 8:00 AM 6 123 129 440 500 940 1069
8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM 2 80 82 276 339 615 697
3:00 PM TO 4:00 PM 4 66 70 462 472 934 1004
4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM 4 53 57 430 415 845 902
5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM 4 60 64 560 453 1013 1077
TOTAL VOLUME 23 447 470 2302 2321 4623 5093
PERCENTAGE 0.5% 8.8% 9.2% 45.2% 45.6% 90.8% 100.0%
Release 11-18-04
11
u
u
u
o
D
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
D
D
o
D
o
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE:
Bay Development
131st Street (Main Street) & Meadow Lane
12/8/2005
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: NORTHBOUND
HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 0 3
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 4 6 0 6
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 4
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 3 4 0 4
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 4
PASSENGER 7 1 15 23
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TRUCK 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
BOTH 7 1 15 23
30.4% 4.3% 65.2% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: SOUTHBOUND
HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 46 0 46 0 0 0 19 0 19 65 0 65
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 55 0 55 0 0 0 67 1 68 122 1 123
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 36 0 36 0 0 0 44 0 44 80 0 80
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 43 0 43 0 0 0 23 0 23 66 0 66
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 39 0 39 0 0 0 14 0 14 53 0 53
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 34 0 34 0 0 0 25 1 26 59 1 60
PASSENGER 253 0 192 445
100.0% #DIVlO! 99.0% 99.6%
TRUCK 0 0 2 2
0.0% #DIV/O! 1.0% 0.4%
BOTH 253 0 194 447
56.6% 0.0% 43.4% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: EASTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 7 0 7 125 1 126 1 0 1 133 1 134
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 11 0 11 428 0 428 1 0 1 440 0 440
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 8 0 8 268 0 268 0 0 0 276 0 276
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 32 0 32 424 1 425 5 0 5 461 1 462
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 23 0 23 407 0 407 0 0 0 430 0 430
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 47 0 47 510 1 511 2 0 2 559 1 560
PASSENGER 128 2162 9 2299
100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 99.9%
TRUCK 0 3 0 3
0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
BOTH 128 2165 9 2302
5.6% 94.0% 0.4% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: WESTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THROUGH RIGHT TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM 0 0 0 134 0 134 8 0 8 142 0 142
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 485 1 486 13 1 14 498 2 500
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 321 2 323 16 0 16 337 2 339
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 5 0 5 424 0 424 43 0 43 472 0 472
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 2 0 2 365 1 366 47 0 47 414 1 415
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 3 0 3 389 0 389 60 1 61 452 1 453
PASSENGER 10 2118 187 2315
100.0% 99.8% 98.9% 99.7%
TRUCK 0 4 2 6
0.0% 0.2% 1.1% 0.3%
BOTH 10 2122 189 2321
0.4% 91.4% 8.1% 100.0%
Release 11-18-04
12
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of~
r I
I, TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
rlGenerallnformation ;ite Information
~nalyst MB Intersection 131 st Street & Meadow Lane
IlAgency/Co. &F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel
Date Performed 12/14/2005 Analvsis Year Existina ;
;Analysis Time Period lAM Peak
;)roiect Description Bay Development
rlF:astlWest Street: 131 st Street North/South Street: Meadow Lane
ntersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25
ehicle Volumes and Adjustments
aior Street Eastbound Westbound
ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Il\/olume (veh/h) 11 428 1 0 486 14
I ~eak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
'Jiourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 12 475 1 0 540 15
u;'roportion of heavy vehicles, 2 -- -- 2 -- --
rHV
lMedian type Undivided
(~T Channelized? 0 0
~anes 0 1 0 0 1 1
lConfiguration LTR LT R
.11 Jpstream Signal 0 0
:lUnor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
11 L T R L T R
rolume (veh/h) 2 0 4 55 0 68
Feak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Il;fourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 2 0 4 61 0 75
~~oportion of heavy vehicles, 2 2 2 2 2 2
HV
'7ercent grade (%) 0 0
,Jlared approach N N
Storage 0 0
n Channelized? 0 0
. anes 0 1 0 1 1 0
",onfiguration LTR L TR
~ontrol Delav. Queue Lenath Level of Service
t\pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
IMovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ane Configuration LTR LT LTR L TR
~olume, v (vph) 12 0 6 61 75
'1apacity, cm (vph) 1015 1086 317 204 542
"J/c ratio 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.30 0.14
laueue length (95%) 0.04 0.00 0.06 1.20 0.48
ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.6 8.3 16.6 30.0 12.7
'OS A A C D B
III pproach delay (s/veh) - - 16.6 20.5
r pproach LOS - - C C
o 13
file:/ /C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mbrown.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ Temp\u2k 196B.tmp
12/14/2005
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of~
l- ~
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
T
(l3enerallnformation Site Information
~nalyst RMB Intersection 131 st Street & Meadow Lane
~gency/Co. 6.&F Engineering ~urisdiction Carmel
(Date Performed 12/14/2005 IIlAnalysis Year [Existing ;
}\nalvsis Time Period PM Peak III
]project Description Bay Develooment ,
(~astlWest Street: 131 st Street orth/South Street: Meadow Lane i
ntersection Orientation: East-West tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 i
ehicle Volumes and Adjustments i
C" ajor Street Eastbound Westbound
ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
(' olume (veh/h) 47 511 2 3 389 61
leak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
1 ourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 52 567 2 3 432 67
rl~roportion of heavy vehicles, 2 -- - 2 - --
rHV
Median type Undivided
(~T Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
]Configuration LTR LT R
c)pstream Signal 0 0
inor Street Northbound Southbound
If ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12
. L T R L T R
[ Yolume (veh/h) 1 1 2 34 0 26
::leak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
(IrlOUrIY Flow Rate (veh/h) 1 1 2 37 0 28
, roportion of heavy vehicles, 2 2 2 2 2 2
HV
.7ercent grade (%) 0 0
.Jlared approach N N
Storage 0 0
~T Channelized? 0 0
,Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0
Ie onfiguration LTR L TR
ontrol Delav. Queue Lenath. Level of Service
pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
,If\ ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ane Configuration LTR LT LTR L TR
olume, v (vph) 52 3 4 37 28
~apacity, cm (vph) 1065 1003 251 174 624
rJ/c ratio 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.04
(l9..ueue length (95%) 0.15 0.01 0.05 0.78 0.14
ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.6 8.6 19.6 31.2 11.0
~OS A A C D B
I~pproach delay (s/veh) - - 19.6 22.5
)pproach LOS - - C C
[J 14
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mbrown.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ Temp\u2k196E.tmp
12/14/2005
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of~
~I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
(~enerallnformation Site Information
I nalvst MB ntersection 131 st Street & Meadow Lane
n Igency/Co. &F Enaineerina urisdiction Carmel
(Date Performed 12/14/2005 ~nalysis Year IExisting+ Total Gen
:Analysis Time Period 4M Peak
IProject Descriotion Bav Develooment
(~astlWest Street: 131 st Street orth/South Street: Meadow Lane
ntersection Orientation: East-West tudy Period (hrs): 0.25
ehicle Volumes and Adiustments
- ajor Street Eastbound Westbound
- ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6
I L T R L T R
(lOIUme (veh/h) 12 428 1 0 488 14
oeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
lHourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 13 475 1 0 542 15
~roportion of heavy vehicles, 2 - - 2 -- -
0
jHV
lMedian type Undivided
II~T Channelized? 0 0
anes 0 1 0 0 1 1
1C0nfiguration LTR LT R
[IIJPstream SiQnal 0 0
Jinor Street Northbound Southbound
IMovement 7 8 9 10 11 12
~Il L T R L T R
LJolume (veh/h) 2 0 4 55 0 68
lPeak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
(~OUrIY Flow Rate (veh/h) 2 0 4 61 0 75
, roportion of heavy vehicles, 2 2 2 2 2 2
HV
'''ercent grade (%) 0 0
I. lared approach N N
I Storage 0 0
I ~T Channelized? 0 0
~anes 0 1 0 1 1 0
1C0nfiguration LTR L TR
r ~ontrol Delav. Queue Lenath. Level of Service
"pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
,iii ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
I ane Configuration LTR LT LTR L TR
1V0lume, v (vph) 13 0 6 61 75
[ ~apacity, cm (vph) 1014 1086 316 202 540
pIc ratio 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.30 0.14
l2.ueue length (95%) 0.04 0.00 0.06 1.21 0.48
[ ~ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.6 8.3 16.6 30.4 12.7
'lOS A A C D B
I~pproach delay (s/veh) - - 16.6 20.6
Jpproach LOS - - C C
U 15
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mbrown.AFHO\Local%20Settings\ Temo\u2kI912.tmo
12/14/2005
~wo-Way Stop Control
[1'3enerallnformation
~nalyst MB
l\Agency/Co. &F Engineering
r~'Date Performed 12/14/2005
Analysis Time Period PM Peak
IProject Description Bay Development
r-l~astlWest Street: 131st Street
tersection Orientation: East-West
~ ehicle Volumes and Adjustments
( - aior Street
ovement 1
I L
r-IVolume (veh/h) 49
?eak-hour factor, PHF 0.90
lHourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 54
[_IProportion of heavy vehicles, 2
)HV
-,.1edian type
[11T Channelized?
Janes
lConfiguration
[-",JPstream Signal
....!/Iinor Street
IMovement
Cl\
l.Jolume (veh/h)
IPeak-hour factor, PHF
[-I'jiourIY Flow Rate (veh/h)
,Oroportion of heavy vehicles,
:JHV
[_L)ercent grade (%)
. lared approach
I Storage
l ~T Channelized?
tlanes
lConfiguration
~ontrol Delay. Queue Length. level of Service
p.pproach EB
I"~ovement 1
ane Configuration L TR
lVolume, v (vph) 54
rapacity, Cm (vph) 1064
rl/c ratio 0.05
~~ueue length (95%) 0.16
ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.6
JOS A
J4.pproach delay (s/veh) --
...Jpproach LOS -
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
Site Information
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
131st Street & Meadow Lane
Carmel
Existinq+ Total Gen
North/South Street: Meadow Lane
Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Eastbound
2
T
513
0.90
570
3
R
2
0.90
2
4
L
3
0.90
3
2
Westbound
5
T
390
0.90
433
6
R
61
0.90
67
Undivided
o
LTR
1
o
o
o
LT
1
o
1
R
o
2
2
o
N
o
9 10
R L
2 34
0.90 0.90
2 37
2 2
o
Southbound
11
T
o
0.90
o
2
12
R
26
0.90
28
2
7
L
1
0.90
1
Northbound
8
T
1
0.90
1
o
N
o
o
1
LTR
o
o
1
L
1
o
o
TR
WB
4
LT
3
1001
0.00
0.01
8.6
A
7
Northbound
8
LTR
4
248
0.02
0.05
19.8
C
19.8
C
9
Southbound
10 11 12
L TR
37 28
171 623
0.22 0.04
0.79 0.14
31.8 11.1
D B
22.8
C
D 16
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mbrown.AFHO\Local%20Settings\Temo\u2k1910.tmo
12/14/2005 I
u
U
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
U
U
o
o
D
U
BAY DEVELOPMENT-13fi1'" STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
136TH STREET & PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
17
-1
U
O.
o
D'
U
o
D.........
. ~:.;- '".
U
U
~~WAySTOPCONTROLSUMMARy
General Information ;ite Information
nalvst IRMB Intersection 136th Street & Proposed
Access
,oencv/Co. A&F Engineerino Jurisdiction Carmel
ate Performed 12/14/2005 ~nalvsis Year Existing+ Total Gen
nalvsis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Bay Development
EastlWest Street: 136th Street lNorth/South Street: Proposed Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
ehicle Volumes and Adjustments
aior Street Eastbound Westbound
ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Jolume (veh/h) 0 105 2 2 239 0
)eak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
-fourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 116 2 2 265 0
)roportion of heavy vehicles, 0 2
PHV - - - -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
anes 0 1 1 0 1 0
Configuration T R LT
Upstream Sional 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 14 0 10 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 15 0 11 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy vehicles, 2 0 2 0 0 0
PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Jared approach N N
Storage 0 0
n Channelized? 0 0
anes 0 0 0 0 0 0
onfiguration LR
ontrol Delay. Queue lena h. level of Service
pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 2 26
Capacity, cm (vph) 1470 721
v/c ratio 0.00 0.04
Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.11
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 10.2
OS A B
~pproach delay (sIveh) - - 10.2
~pproach LOS - - B
i 1
W.
u
D
U
D
o
o
u
u
u
HCS2000™
Copyright Ci 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1d
18
u.
u
u
u
U..
u.
u
u
u
u
u
U.
D
o
o
o
HCS2000™
D.,'",' ',".!
. . ' ,
U
D.
~O.WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
\/lalyst RMB Intersection 136th Street & Proposed
4ccess
Igencv/Co. 4&F Enaineerina urisdiction Carmel
ate Performed 12/14/2005 nalvsis Year Fxistina+ Total Gen
nalvsis Time Period PM Peak
,
Proiect Descriotion Bav DeveloDment
EastlWest Street: 136th Street lNorth/South Street: Proposed Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
ehlcle Volumes and Adjustments
aior Street Eastbound Westbound
ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
olume (veh/hl 0 351 11 9 136 0
)eak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
ourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 390 12 10 151 0
roportion of heavy vehicles, 0 2
PHV - - - -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
anes 0 1 1 0 1 0
onfiguration T R LT
pstream Signal 0 0
lnor Street Northbound . Southbound
ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
olume (veh/h) 6 0 5 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 6 0 5 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy vehicles, 2 0 2 0 0 0
PHV
:lercent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
anes 0 0 0 0 0 0
onfiguration LR
ontrol Delav. Queue Lena h. Level of Service
~proach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
/-ane Configuration LT LR
~olume, v (vph) 10 11
Capacity, cm (vph) 1157 551
~/c ratio 0.01 0.02
Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.06
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 11.7
...OS A B
Approach delay (slveh) .- - 11.7
JApproach LOS
B
Copyright e 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.ld
. .~.:
19