HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Operations Analysis
,~'~ \ \ !
.,~
/)
\
J
/~
!L~' ~ \
, ,
.0'
/
.-~)
- _. l ;'..
,
~,!~\ J
.r
1
~"
'~. ,'r, ,
"":, ,-'
I-
, "', \ "
~" L
fl,' :,
'..
-', /1
o II
"J'
\ / r'
/!
u,
~,~
" :'/1
U~f
0,1)
;;/
u
,~'~
:o~')
0'
J
( \,/'
/ 1
~\ I :r\ I
/f ,
) J
\.. ,
)(
, \,1
"
..J ~\
,,'
'"
) '-./ \
I
, '
\
\
I-
/"
\
II
)
)
\
! J
\)
.,
\, 'I,
i..-
I, ,~
,\
!' 'y
'J,-.Y
)
(
)'-
c
~ j
t,
L
"",/
, /
"
)
i j
/1
,. ,
\.
) I"
\"
.. rRAFFltoiE~fION5'ANAkYSIs
, ,"'-';-. " \ '., ., / ' \ , '"' \. ( ,,\, ,,'" ," " " . ',n
"
\
\. 0
"
/
"I
..J\
\ /
,//
" 'f:
( i
(
i----".
'\
l-, 'f
~ ' ,\
,MIP,WE'ST'lSJO" / '
;: ~i l \) J r'
CARMElDRI\iE' & CITy,GENTER
j~i/\_~- ,I \) '~;_--,'C"" '-""
\,
(:
'\
?
\ ) i
DRIVE~
:'
,..-.,
/~!(, 1 ')"'." ,
" ! \ CARMEL JIN,bIANA!
I, /' - /_ \ I;" ! . , ! I '/ ~ ,
! !
y',' I \ .
, ...
\
I
\
I "
'- )'1'
, \~
( ;---\,
'j
PREPARED FOR'~
)
l,
,~
-< ,~_' J
,
J
" ,
LAUTH PROPERty GROllP
1',,-../- ,. ',;
(
)
, .-----"
."" /'
)
~c i'
F
(
'[Y' .
'T
-/'\,' . 1 'i
,/,'
I,
\
,"-.
I.
I
L"
/1,;., ',,_
SEPTEMBER 2006
Ii' )-"
, "
1_,
,
,
'"
1___/
1.(
(/ "'1/
! .
'v
'I
'7-' \
/
\
1
'. . (-i
'I
,,) /'
1
'I
j'; ,
)
,:';)~ 'L"
,
/ )
J
)
.. /
\
/
, '
, ,
') ,
/' ), '
y''',
'\
)
\' A&F..'E'NG'INEERINGCO.,( LLC,
- )
" ' CONSUL TING\E~GINEERS . ~ ' "
/.' "-' -! - -, . '
) :8365 KEYSTQNE CROSSING, $UITE 201)
" " . INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46240
\ /(317) 202-0864 .
/ "
\,
;'
1
1
1,'
....
\ \, "
/' -\
"I
,p \\
,;
_I' /
/:'
'.\.---
\1
....
,
r'-'
, f
/
( I
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL DRIVE & CITY CENTER DRIVE
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
LAUTH PROPERTY GROUP
SEPTEMBER 2006
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
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
MIDWEST ISO
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.
@2006, A&F Engineering Co., LLC.
Z:\2006\06088 Lauth-Cannel Dr\TOA.doc
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES........... ........ ..... .... ...... ......... ................................................ ........... ............. ........................ .................. I
CERTIFiCATION............................................................................................. ................................................................. II
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... ........ ............ ............................. ............... ..........1
PURPOSE ........... ............................................................................. .......................................................... .............. .........1
SCOPE OF WORK........................... ................ ............ .................. .......................................................... ................... ..... ..1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ............................................. .................................................................................. ........2
STUDY AREA................ ........................... ............................................ ...... .................. ...... ........................... ..................2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM .... ...................... ...................................... ........................ .... ..............5
EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA................. ................................ ..................................... ................................ .........................7
PEAK HOUR................................................................................. ...... .................................................... ........... ..... ......... 7
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 7
INTERNAL TRIPS......... ......................... ........................ ... ...................... ... .............................. ................................ .........7
PASS-BY TRIPs............................................................... ............................... ................................................... .............. 8
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS.............................................................................. .................. 8
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM .............................................................8
CAPACITY ANALySIS...................... ............................. ................................................ ........................................... ..... .11
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE.. ............. ............ ................................................ ........ ........ .......... ...... ................11
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS ....... ........ ..... ... ......................................... ........................ ................ ........................13
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: CARMEL DRIVE & CITY CENTER DRIVE ................................................16
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: CARMEL DRIVE & ADAMS STREET ........................................................16
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: CITY CENTER DRIVE & ADAMS STREET ................................................17
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: CITY CENTER DRIVE & PROPOSED RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUT ACCESS...... 17
CONCLUSIONS ........... ........... ............................ ....... ............... ...................... .............. .......... ..... ...... ......... .... ................18
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. ........................................... ....................................................... 19
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE lA: SITE LocATION MAP ............................... ............ ...................... .......... .............. .................... ......................3
FIGURE 1 B: DETAILED SITE MAP ................................................................. ........................ .................... ... ............... ....4
FIGURE 2: EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS ............ ............................ ................... ..... ........................ ..................6
FIGURE 3: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.........9
FIGURE 4: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................................................. 1 0
FIGURE 5: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ......................................................................................................................14
FIGURE 6: SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES & GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................... .............................. ........................................................................... ...15
I
Z:\2006\06088 Lauth-Cannel Dr\TOAdoc
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this TRAFFIC OPERA nONS ANALYSIS has been prepared by me and under my
immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and
transportation engineering.
A&F ENGINEERING Co., INC.
I/I~L
R. Matt Brown, P .E.
Indiana Registration 10200056
-r-tNl 'l;~
Thomas S. Vandenberg, P.E.
Indiana Registration 10606544
", ,III II "", III
""" ~ "\ H [W 111///
" "" 19 -/
~ ~Y' \\\\,U'll'"" ~ ~
~ "IST[I\>" 0 ~
~ . ............~<vu ('d"" ~ ~
20:::f ~~~
:: f No.1 0200056 ~ ~
_ _ STATE g _
~ ,,0 -==., or ...~ ~ 2
~~ "'"INDI/i.~~\\""'" ~~
'l ~ 11"'"111'\\\\ ~ ""
///// SSIONAL \.~\) "",
/11 ",
II/ '''"1111 \\",
1 1 1 \ \ 1111/1/, //
,\1 V III
,,\ C. 4 AI III
,," ) . 'VI) II
,-" L \111111111/ .I' /-"/
'- ~-)" "<-'/
.;::- '(""""("ST[I\>",, 4'~
.:::: ~ ,,' ~~ <0 ", 0:> ~
.:::: C) ::' ". ~-:::.
~ ;: t No.1 0606544 ~ ~ ~
::= STATE :::
- -
-:::. ", or :: .::::
~ 1J "'" IN-VI k~~ /' 0- 2
-/ O/' 1I11 t-\ \\\\ ~~ ..;;
"/ r~ /11111111\\ \""""
II///I/SIONAL \.~\),\"",
II//IJI/IIIII\\II\\
II
Z:\2006\06088 Lauth-Cannel Dr\TOA.doc
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERA110NS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of the City of Carmel on behalf of
Lauth Property Group, is for a proposed office building that will be located along Carmel Drive and
the newly constructed City Center Drive extension 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 as follows:
First, to make traffic volume counts at each of the following intersections:
. Carmel Drive & City Center Drive
. Carmel Drive & Adams Street
. City Center Drive & Adams Street
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will serve to
provide access to the proposed development.
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
MIDWEST ISO
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 Traffic Volumes - Based on existing roadway conditions and existing traffic
volumes.
Scenario 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Traffic Volumes - New traffic
volumes that will be generated by the proposed development added to the existing traffic
volumes.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS documenting all data, analyses,
conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic
through the study area.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed office building will be located along Cannel Drive and the newly constructed City
Center Drive extension in Cannel, Indiana. As proposed, the building will consist of approximately
147,200 square feet of office space. Access to the site will be provided by a right-inlright-out access
along City Center Drive and two unsignalized access points along Adams Street. The general
location of the site and a detailed site plan are illustrated on Figure 1A and Figure 1B.
STUDY AREA
The study area defined for this analysis will include the following intersections:
. Cannel Drive & City Center Drive
. Cannel Drive & Adams Street
. City Center Drive & Adams Street
. City Center Drive & Proposed Right-In / Right-Out Access
2
D
~
~
~
a
~
~
D
0
D
~
~
0
~
~ "-
a::
:g
I
co
'"
I
co
a a
"
~
Cl
:z::
x
D ..,
I
co
co
a
'"
;!-
a::
Cl
D ~
..,
:::li
a::
<
u
I
:I:
I-
:::l
<
~ ~
J
co
co
a
'"
;!-
'"
a
a
D N
./
N
LAUTH PROPERTY GROUP
CARMEL, INDIANA
FIGURE 1A
SITE LOCATION
MAP
@A & F' Engineering Co., LLC 2006
"ALL Rights Reserved"
3
1
~
~
~
~
~
D
~
~
D
D
~
D
~
~
~~
I
<Xl
a
nil
w ~
~
Q)
I
~i
'E
o
c
~i
....-
'"
a
a~
'"
:>i
~
;;l
y
~
JI~~
M I;!o: '1,
ALL DISTANCES ARE APPROXIMATE
FIGURE 18
DETAILED SITE MAP
MENARDS
W ARSA W, INDIANA
@A Be F Engineering Co., LLC 2006
"ALL Rights Reserved"
4
D
~
D
~
D
~
I
~
o
~
~
D
~
~
~
~
~
D
Q
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
The proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes Carmel
Drive, City Center Drive and Adams Street
CARMEL DRIVE - is an east/west four lane roadway with connections to Meridian Street (U.S. 31)
and Keystone Avenue (U.S. 431). The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 30 mph.
CITY CENTER DRIVE - is a north/south four lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 mph in
the vicinity of the site. The roadway has recently been extended from Carmel Drive to Guilford
A venue where it then continues as Mohawk Drive. An illustration of this extension is shown on
both Figure 1A and Figure 1B.
ADAMS STREET - is an east/west local two lane road that runs from Carmel Drive to the newly
constructed City Center Drive extension. The assumed speed limit for this roadway is 30 mph.
This roadway has recently been realigned in order to connect to the City Center Drive extension.
An illustration of this realignment is shown on both Figure 1A and Figure lB.
Carmel Drive & City Center Drive - This intersection is controlled with an automatic traffic
signal. Each approach consists of a left-turn lane, a through lane and a shared through/right-turn
lane. Figure 2 illustrates the existing geometries for this intersection.
Carmel Drive & Adams Street - This unsignalized intersection has Adams Street stopping for
Carmel Drive. The southbound approach along Adams Street consists of one shared lane for
both left-turn and right-turn movements. The eastbound approach along Carmel Drive consists
of a shared left-turn/through lane and a through lane. The westbound approach along Carmel
Drive consists of a through lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. Figure 2 illustrates the
existing geometries for this intersection.
City Center Drive & Adams Street - This unsignalized intersection has Adams Street stopping
for City Center Drive. The northbound approach along City Center Drive consists of a left-turn
lane and two through lanes. The southbound approach along City Center drive consists of a
through lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The eastbound approach along Adams Street
consists of one shared lane for both left-turn and right-turn movements. The westbound
approach of this intersection will provide access to the MISO building in the future. Figure 2
illustrates the existing geometries for this intersection.
5
D
~
a
~
~
D
o
~
~
~
~
~
o
AI
~ :
I II
m :
~ I ~
~ I
~
\
'-
CARIEL DRIVE
I! ".
s
~ Ii
'\ /
I ~ I
, I
, I
I II I
I I
I I
I I
CARMEL DRIVE AND CITY CENTER DRIVE
I
~
.-
"
~
I : ~:
~: : ~~
I I ':, ~~
ADAMS STREET : ~ 2
I . ~~
. . ~~
: ~-: ~~
, II I m
I I
"
CARIEL DRIVE
~:
I
<Xl
N
I
a ~
~
o
:::
D ;
o
,/
'"
o
D~
I
:r
....
::>
~~
,/
'"
o
~~
CARMEL DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET CITY CENTER DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET
FIGURE 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION
GEOMETRICS
LAUTH PROPERTY GROUP
CARMEL, INDIANA @A c!c F Engineering Co., LLC 2006
"ALL Rights Reserved"
6
U
D
~
~
D
~
~
~
D
o
a
D
o
D
~
I
~
~
D
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made by A&F Engineering Co.,
LLC at each of the existing study intersections. The counts include an hourly total of all
"through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at the intersections. The counts were made during the
hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM in August 2006. The traffic volume
counts are summarized on Figure 5 for the peak hours. The raw data from the counts are
included in the Appendix.
PEAK HOUR
Based on the traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the adjacent street peak hours vary
between each of the study intersections. Therefore, the peak hour traffic volumes collected at each
intersection will be used to represent the maximum traffic volumes on the roadway system at each
of the study intersections.
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 Generation) report was used to calculate
the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. This report is a
compilation of trip data for various land uses as collected by transportation professionals throughout
the United States in order to establish the average number of trips generated by those land uses.
Table 1 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
TABLE 1 - GENERA TED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS
ITE AM AM PM PM
LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
Office 710 147,200 SF 225 31 41 202
INTERNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two or more land uses without traversing the
external public roadway system. The proposed development will consist of a single land use only.
Therefore, internal trip reductions were not applied.
7
~
o
o
D
D
D
D
rn
.
~
a
I
D
D
~
I
~
~
~
~
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
P ASS- By TRIPS
Pass-by trips are trips already on the public roadway system that are captured by the proposed
development. Office developments do not typically generate a significant amount of pass-by trips.
Therefore, pass-by trip reductions were not applied.
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 3.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET
SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared
for each of the study area intersections. The peak hour generated traffic volumes are shown on
Figure 4. These data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of
generated traffic, and distribution of generated traffic.
I Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003.
8
o
~
D
D
~
D
D
~
D
D
~
~
D
D:
lX)
I
'"
D~
o
:r::
n;
iII~
'"
o
~
~
" ~,
LEGEND
...J
n ~<~,
ill ~ * = NEGLIGIBLE
iE
::>
<
~ i LAUTH PROPERTY GROUP
~ CARMEL, INDIANA
~~
FIGURE 3
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
@A Be F Engineering Co., LLC 2006
"ALL Rights Reserved"
9
~
D
U
~
~
~
D
~
D
a
~
~
a
~:
ex:>
I
n~
..~
Cl
:i
><
Di
;3-
a::
Cl
a~
i!:
::>
D~
~
'"
Cl
D~
,
[;,\t ,f
. ...' ",<!:>!
i<:~, ·
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 4
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
LAUTH PROPERTY GROUP
CARMEL, INDIANA
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2006
"ALL Rights Reserved"
10
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
D
D
Q
D
~
D
~
~
~
~
~
D
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommo~ate the traffic volumes that
approach the intersection. It is defined by the Level-of-Service (LOS) of the intersection. The
LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data
into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes
and, in the case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each
of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer
program Synchro2. This program allows multiple intersections to be analyzed and optimized
using the capacity calculation methods outlined within the Highway Capacity Manual (HCMl.
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following descriptions are for signalized intersections:
Level of Service A - describes operations with a very low delay, less than or equal to 10.0
seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable,
and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not
stop at 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.
2 Synchro 6.0, Trafficware, 2005.
3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 2000.
II
a
D
~
D
a
~
~
~
D
D
~
~
~
~
~
D
~
~
~
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 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 Control Delay ( seconds/vehicle)
A Less than or equal to 10
B Between 10.1 and 15
C Between 15.1 and 25
D Between 25.1 and 35
E Between 35.1 and 50
F greater than 50
12
~
~
~
~
Q
~
~
Q
D
~
~
~
Q
~
~
~
~
D
~
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 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 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.
An analysis has been 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 2006. Figure 5 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study
intersections for the peak hours.
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Traffic Volumes - New
traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed development added to
the existing traffic volumes. Figure 6 is a summary of these traffic volumes
at the study intersections for the peak hours.
The requested analyses have been completed and the computer solutions showing the level of
service results are included in the Appendix. The following 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 2 - Carmel Drive & City Center Drive
Table 3 - Carmel Drive & Adams Street
Table 4 - City Center Drive & Adams Street
Table 5 - City Center Drive & Proposed Right-In / Right-Out Access
13
D
D
~
D
~
Q
Q
~
~
o
~
~
Q
-'
~ ;
IX)
I
0>
o
~ ~
o
:i
x
~ i
./
""
o
-'
~ ~
IE
::>
of
<0
o
o
~;:
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
* = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 5
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
LAUTH PROPERTY GROUP
CARMEL, INDIANA
@A & f" Engineering Co., LLC 2006
"ALL Rights Reserved"
14
~
D
~
0
a
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
a
--'
i ....
'"
'"
0
I
IX)
I
'"
a 0
"
~
0
:r:
x
~i
....-
'"
Cl
D~
:I:
I-
:::>
...
~i
....-
'"
0
0
~~
l ·
..
lr..
"
,
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
· = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 6
SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
& GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
LAUTH PROPERTY GROUP
CARMEL, INDIANA
@A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2006
"ALL Rights Reserved"
15
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: CARMEL DRIVE & CITY CENTER DRIVE
AM PEAK HOUR
ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO I SCENARIO 2
City Center Drive Northbound Approach B B
Southbound Approach B B
Carmel Drive Eastbound Approach B B
Westbound Approach B B
Intersection B B
PM PEAK HOUR
ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO I SCENARIO 2
City Center Drive Northbound Approach B B
Southbound Approach B B
Carmel Drive Eastbound Approach B B
Westbound Approach B B
Intersection B B
SCENARIO I: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with
Existing Intersection Conditions
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: CARMEL DRIVE & ADAMS STREET
AM PEAK HOUR
ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO I SCENARIO 2
Adams Street Southbound Approach B B
Carmel Drive Eastbound Left-turn A A
PM PEAK HOUR
ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO I SCENARIO 2
Adams Street Southbound Approach B B
Carmel Drive Eastbound Left-turn A A
SCENARIO I: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with
Existing Intersection Conditions
16
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: CITY CENTER DRIVE & ADAMS STREET
AM PEAK HOUR
ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
City Center Drive Northbound Left-Turn A A
Adams Street Eastbound Approach B C
PM PEAK HOUR
ROADWAY MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
City Center Drive Northbound Left-Turn A A
Adams Street Eastbound Approach B B
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Conditions
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with
Existing Intersection Conditions
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: CITY CENTER DRIVE & PROPOSED RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-
OUT ACCESS
SCENARIO 2
ROADWAY MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Proposed Access Eastbound Approach B A
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with
Proposed Access Conditions*
* The proposed access conditions include the following:
. The proposed access constructed as a right-in / right-out access. A median exists along
City Center Drive in the vicinity of the access which will prevent left-turn traffic into and
out of the access
17
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
MIDWEST ISO
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 the analyses.
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 that the remaining 22
hours will have levels of service that are better than the peak hours, since the existing street traffic
volumes will be less during the other 22 hours.
CARMEL DRNE & CITY CENTER DRNE
Scenario 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - A review of the level of service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that
this intersection is currently operating at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours.
Scenario 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Traffic Volumes - When the
generated traffic from the proposed development is added to the existing traffic, this intersection
will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the existing
intersection geometries. In addition, the existing left-turn auxiliary lanes along all approaches will
provide for adequate storage.
CARMEL DRNE & ADAMS STREET
Scenario 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - A review of the level of service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that all
approaches to this intersection are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during the peak
hours.
Scenario 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Traffic Volumes - When the
generated traffic from the proposed development is added to the existing traffic, ail approaches to
this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with
the existing intersection geometries.
18
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY CENTER DRIVE & ADAMS STREET
Scenario 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - A review of the level of service for each of the intersection
approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that all
approaches to this intersection are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during the peak
hours.
Scenario 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Traffic Volumes - When the
generated traffic from the proposed development is added to the existing traffic, all approaches to
this intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with
the existing intersection geometries. In addition, the existing northbound left-turn auxiliary lane
along City Center Drive will provide for adequate storage.
CITY CENTER DRIVE & PROPOSED RIGHT-IN / RIGHT -OUT ACCESS
Scenario 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Traffic Volumes - When the
generated traffic from the proposed development is added to the existing traffic, all approaches to
this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the proposed
access conditions which include the following:
. The proposed access constructed as a right-in / right-out access. A median exists along
City Center Drive in the vicinity of the access which will prevent left-turn traffic into and
out of the access
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.
CARMEL DRIVE & CITY CENTER DRIVE
The existing intersection geometries and existing auxiliary lane lengths will adequately serve the
additional traffic generated by the proposed site. Therefore, no improvements are necessary at this
intersection due to the proposed development. However, this intersection should be monitored after
the proposed site is developed to determine if signal timing modifications are needed in the future.
19
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CARMEL DRIVE & ADAMS STREET
A capacity analysis has shown that the Adams Street approach will operate at level of service "B"
during the peak hours with the projected traffic, the existing intersection geometries and the existing
stop sign control. A traffic signal or geometric improvements along Adams Street are therefore not
needed at this intersection when the site is developed as proposed.
Carmel Drive is a four lane roadway (two travel lanes in each direction) in the vicinity of Adams
Street. Eastbound through vehicles currently use the outside lane to by-pass vehicles that use the
inside lane to turn left onto Adams Street. A capacity analysis has shown that eastbound left-turn
vehicles will continue to experience level of service "A" during the peak hours with the projected
traffic volumes and existing intersection geometries. SimTraffic4 simulations were performed for
the projected traffic volumes with the existing intersection geometries in order to visually model the
projected flow of traffic for the peak hours. Based on the projected traffic volumes and analyses,
this intersection will operate safely and efficiently without the need for an eastbound left-turn lane
along Carmel Drive.
In conclusion, the existing intersection geometrics and stop sign control will adequately serve the
additional traffic generated by the proposed site. Therefore, no improvements are necessary at this
intersection due to the proposed development.
CITY CENTER DRIVE & ADAMS STREET
The existing intersection geometries, stop sign control and northbound left-turn lane length will
adequately serve the additional traffic generated by the proposed site. Therefore, no improvements
are necessary at this intersection due to the proposed development.
CITY CENTER DRIVE & PROPOSED RIGHT-IN / RIGHT -Our ACCESS
It is proposed to construct the access along City Center Drive as a right-in/right-out access. A
median exists along City Center Drive in the vicinity of the access which will prevent left-tmn
traffic into and out of the access. City Center Drive is a four lane roadway (two travel lanes in each
direction) in the vicinity of the access. Southbound through vehicles along City Center Drive will
be able to use the inside lane to by-pass vehicles using the outside lane that turn right into the
access. SimTraffic simulations were performed for the projected traffic volumes in order to visually
model the projected flow of traffic without the addition of a right-turn lane along City Center Drive.
Based on the projected traffic volumes and analyses, this intersection will operate safely and
efficiently without the need for a southbound right-turn lane along City Center Drive. Therefore, no
improvements are necessary along City Center Drive at the proposed right-in/right-out access.
4 SimTraffic 6.0, Trafficware, 2005.
20
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL DRIVE & CITY CENTER DRIVE
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
LAUTH PROPERTY GROUP
SEPTEMBER 2006
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
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX
This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS for
the proposed development.
Included are the intersection turning movement traffic volume counts and the intersection capacity
analyses.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CARMEL DRIVE AND CITY CENTER DRIVE .....................................................................................................................1
CARMEL DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET ..................... ............................................................. ...........................................8
CITY CENTER DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET ...................................................................................................................15
CITY CENTER DRIVE AND PROPOSED RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUT ACCESS.........................................................................22
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CARMEL DRIVE AND CITY CENTER DRIVE
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE:
Lauth Properties
Carmel Drive and City Center Drive (LP01)
8/31/2006
TOTAL VEHICLES (PASSENGER CARS + TRUCKS)
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES OFF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
BEGINS 7:30 AM BEGINS BEGINS 4:30 PM
L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL
NORTHBOUND 3 12 42 57 49 292 330 671
SOUTHBOUND 63 350 100 513 23 45 48 116
EASTBOUND 15 404 19 438 63 552 5 620
WESTBOUND 271 369 21 661 77 527 70 674
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR OFF PEAK HOUR FACTOR PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
APPROACH INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION
NORTHBOUND 0.71 0.69
SOUTHBOUND 0.79 0.87 0.81 0.85
EASTBOUND 0.88 0.87
WESTBOUND 0.89 0.88
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% 16.7% 2.4% 5.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.4%
SOUTHBOUND 1.6% 0.6% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 4.4% 0.0% 1.7%
EASTBOUND 13.3% 2.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 1.6%
WESTBOUND 0.4% 3.3% 14.3% 2.4% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.7%
HOURLY SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
6:00 AM TO 7:00 AM 17 99 116 123 191 314 430
7:00 AM TO 8:00 AM 44 408 452 349 564 913 1365
8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM 66 367 433 419 632 1051 1484
3:00 PM TO 4:00 PM 166 125 291 463 555 1018 1309
4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM 420 95 515 569 575 1144 1659
5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM 614 123 737 559 658 1217 1954
TOTAL VOLUME 1327 1217 2544 2482 3175 5657 8201
PERCENTAGE 16.2% 14.8% 31.0% 30.3% 38.7% 69.0% 100.0%
2
Release 11-18-04
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE:
Lauth Properties
Cannel Drive and City Center Drive (LP01)
8/31/2006
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 0 0 0 7 0 7 10 0 10 17 0 17
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 1 0 1 10 2 12 31 0 31 42 2 44
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 5 0 5 10 1 11 49 1 50 64 2 66
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 14 0 14 40 1 41 105 6 111 159 7 166
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 14 1 15 163 1 164 241 0 241 418 2 420
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 45 1 46 276 1 277 290 1 291 611 3 614
PASSENGER 79 506 726 1311
97.5% 98.8% 98.9% 98.8%
TRUCK 2 6 8 16
2.5% 1.2% 1.1% 1.2%
BOTH 81 512 734 1327
6.1 % 38.6% 55.3% 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 10 0 10 52 1 53 35 1 36 97 2 99
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 56 3 59 252 2 254 92 3 95 400 8 408
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 55 1 56 234 3 237 72 2 74 361 6 367
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 23 2 25 42 2 44 50 6 56 115 10 125
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 26 0 26 32 1 33 35 1 36 93 2 95
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 23 1 24 49 1 50 49 0 49 121 2 123
PASSENGER 193 661 333 1187
96.5% 98.5% 96.2% 97.5%
TRUCK 7 10 13 30
3.5% 1.5% 3.8% 2.5%
BOTH 200 671 346 1217
16.4% 55.1% 28.4% 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 13 1 14 96 8 104 5 0 5 114 9 123
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 17 5 22 304 10 314 13 0 13 334 15 349
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 19 0 19 369 13 382 18 0 18 406 13 419
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 30 4 34 390 16 406 22 1 23 442 21 463
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 54 1 55 493 9 502 12 0 12 559 10 569
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 61 0 61 489 7 496 2 0 2 552 7 559
PASSENGER 194 2141 72 2407
94.6% 97.1% 98.6% 97.0%
TRUCK 11 63 1 75
5.4% 2.9% 1.4% 3.0%
BOTH 205 2204 73 2482
8.3% 88.8% 2.9% 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 78 0 78 89 9 98 14 1 15 181 10 191
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 225 0 225 298 15 313 23 3 26 546 18 564
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 240 1 241 355 19 374 14 3 17 609 23 632
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 79 1 80 441 13 454 20 1 21 540 15 555
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 89 0 89 441 6 447 39 0 39 569 6 575
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 53 0 53 527 7 534 71 0 71 651 7 658
PASSENGER 764 2151 181 3096
99.7% 96.9% 95.8% 97.5%
TRUCK 2 69 8 79
0.3% 3.1 % 4.2% 2.5%
BOTH 766 2220 189 3175
24.1 % 69.9% 6.0% 100.0%
3
Release 11-18-04
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
2: Carmel Drive & City Center Drive
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
S1 - Existing Traffic
AM Peak
".
-\..
t
,..
'. ~
+-
"\
-. .
of'
\'~ @ ~~f~Ff@CGt~:;~,~~.i;;i j ,::~*g~5~~;~L~1i-~~~;'{~~J1 ~<I~' l~ffis~Jill~"l21i ;~A!.\!:1101t:[:i~~clJl~~~,~~j ~~J?J-:~~~~ .(l\U_:?-~Li:.~: ,AI ~1:ili2~~~:;;~j3j;~% ~- ~~G ~?t 1,~ t?i~ ~
Lane Configurations ., tit ., tit ., tit ., tit
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Uti I. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.97
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1597 3518 1805 3456 1805 3027 1770 3447
Fit Permitted 0.50 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.62 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 836 3518 572 3456 768 3027 1146 3447
Volume (vph) 15 404 19 271 369 21 3 12 42 63 350 100
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.79
Adj. Flow (vph) 17 459 22 304 415 24 4 17 59 80 443 127
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 41 0 0 35 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 476 0 304 434 0 4 35 0 80 535 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 2% 0% 0% 3% 14% 0% 17% 2% 2% 1% 2%
Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 15.2 27.6 23.4 18.5 17.5 23.9 20.2
Effective Green, g (s) 16.4 16.2 28.6 24.4 18.5 18.5 23.9 21.2
Actuated glC Ratio 0.27 0.26 0.46 0.39 0.30 0.30 0.39 0.34
Clearance Time(s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 224 922 432 1365 230 906 470 1182
vIs Ratio Prot 0.00 0.14 cO.10 0.13 0.01 cO.01 cO.16
vIs Ratio Perm 0.02 cO.23 0.01 0.06
vlc Ratio 0.08 0.52 0.70 0.32 0.02 0.04 0.17 0.45
Uniform Delay, d1 16.9 19.5 11.4 12.9 15.2 15.3 12.2 15.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.5 5.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.3
Delay (s) 17.1 19.9 16.5 13.1 15.3 15.4 12.4 17.0
Level of Service B B B B B B B B
Approach Delay (s) 19.8 14.5 15.4 16.5
Approach LOS B B B B
I~~~~C:t~~ (i)fil ~~C3illJ2f~Vf~:-~.t~~~~~~~~~~~~:~" ii,:J __:::'_l~'.i~_r~~~~)~::5:j:~:~.-~ <~1: .~"'~!Y::~~/:-- J;,~~~ ~ ~~~~.: :~3;::!Y:!;'~~~1;:-~t~<R,f~~~~~t~::__
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
16.5
0.59
61.8
49.7%
15
HCM Level of Service
B
Sum of losttime (s)
ICU Level of Service
12.0
A
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
4
~
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
2: Carmel Drive & City Center Drive
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Dev
AM Peak
.".
"-
t
'. ~
'"
+-
"\
~
-+ ,.
.f
iLt~i(Gf1~~~~ ~ .~;;~';~~ ~0:./'t~~~ ; .G.~L~~~'1~J=~~_~_~1~~ J:.:}i{~=:- ;'~A' ~~~~~~ ~ .~\!~~~~~ ,~~<:t~~~J~.:~.i~'f-;~: J~ z:~;~~~~~~, "~j~~_~_S-~~i:
Lane Configurations , +,. , +t. 'i +t. , +t.
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.97
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1597 3518 1805 3342 1805 3047 1770 3448
Fit Permitted 0.46 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.56 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 781 3518 579 3342 828 3047 1049 3448
Volume (vph) 15 404 19 271 369 84 3 37 42 72 354 100
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.79
Adj. Flow (vph) 17 459 22 304 415 94 4 52 59 91 448 127
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 28 0 0 41 0 0 33 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 475 0 304 481 0 4 70 0 91 542 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 2% 0% 0% 3% 14% 0% 17% 2% 2% 1% 2%
Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.7 15.5 25.6 21.4 19.0 18.0 26.2 22.2
Effective Green, g (s) 16.7 16.5 26.6 22.4 19.0 19.0 27.2 23.2
Actuated glC Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.43 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.44 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 214 939 370 1211 255 937 511 1294
vIs Ratio Prot 0.00 0.14 cO.08 0.14 0.02 cO.01 cO.16
vIs Ratio Perm 0.02 cO.27 0.00 0.07
vlc Ratio 0.08 0.51 0.82 0.40 0.02 0.07 0.18 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 16.7 19.2 13.7 14.7 14.9 15.2 10.4 14.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.4 13.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.0
Delay (s) 16.9 19.6 27.3 14.9 14.9 15.3 10.5 15.3
Level of Service B B C B B B B B
Approach Delay (s) 19.5 19.5 15.3 14.6
Approach LOS B B B B
~2i:~~=-~,Q'TI, &hGt~~'.;~lr;_~~:~y~ i~}. ; P"~:7~~..:~ ,~~-.:..l2.~s> -: ~ ~::~~_~!._--..:~~~.:..~~;~ ";~~ ~", ~ .1<~ ,~_~~.._
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Level of Service
17.7
0.62
61.8
49.8%
15
B
Sum of losttime (s)
ICU Level of Service
12.0
A
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
5
o
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
2: Carmel Drive & City Center Drive
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
S1 - Existing Traffic
PM Peak
~
'-
t
'. ~
.I
+-
"\
I"
-+ ..
-#
~~~t~illl~1ItJ'~},,'j~(;:<~ ~:K1'~ff1:3~~~~i~~"~~~s-t~_~~~~~i~A{~"I?1~;v~:~:>.~W~'rl~'f~ >\~~~~':~~ .:r~:~~~~~1~~) ~ -~"~ :l ~~ :':'~-~' ~_"~~} ~t?i_;)l ~ ~~~QJ.J
Lane Configurations " +t. " +t. " +t. " +t.
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.92
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3535 1805 3515 1805 3307 1805 3269
Fit Permitted 0.26 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.20 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 490 3535 506 3515 1211 3307 384 3269
Volume (vph) 63 552 5 77 527 70 49 292 330 23 45 48
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.81
Adj. Flow (vph) 72 634 6 88 599 80 71 423 478 28 56 59
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 17 0 0 273 0 0 38 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 639 0 88 662 0 71 628 0 28 77 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 4% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 14.5 18.0 14.5 23.6 20.1 21.0 18.8
Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 15.5 18.0 15.5 23.6 21.1 21.0 19.8
Actuated glC Ratio 0.32 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.42 0.37 0.37 0.35
Clearance Time (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 215 973 219 968 534 1239 174 1150
vis Ratio Prot 0.01 0.18 cO.02 cO.19 cO.01 cO.19 0.00 0.02
vis Ratio Perm 0.09 0.11 0.05 0.06
vie Ratio 0.33 0.66 0.40 0.68 0.13 0.51 0.16 0.07
Uniform Delay, d 1 13.9 18.0 14.0 18.2 9.9 13.6 11.7 12.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.6 1.2 2.0 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.1
Delay (s) 14.9 19.7 15.2 20.2 10.0 15.1 12.2 12.2
Level of Service B B B C B B B B
Approach Delay (s) 19.2 19.7 14.7 12.2
Approach LOS B B B B
.l~ : ;~~{f~~i.~}1!1;, e0-;'~'- : ':J~~:~' ~:'~~;~ :>~::zi~; :~~~_..:.:~~~ : :: _~ ~ >c, ,~::::>{ ~r: \,4: ~~ ; ~ ~~~~?~~_~;: -_;:~~i --=:.:~~~- ~ ,~:o " ~: ~y -,~,:t~ - ,;'~~2 ~ ~:,:;:''':",~:: ~'_~ ".. ~!... ~~_
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
17.3
0.51
56.3
49.4%
15
HCM Level of Service
B
Sum of losttime (s)
ICU Level of Service
12.0
A
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
6
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
2: Carmel Drive & City Center Drive
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Dev
PM Peak
"".
'-
t
'. ~
~
4-
~
~
-+ ~
t'
{~q!~n :?-11~h_r. ,~~~:~- :~~ :'-,-./ ~~~i~}_{~2i~~l~~n _~~J~L~_ < ~~'K!~! i2(=~~<.:~~~~3_1.~~ "~~\:\!Ii2l~/ -.~ ~tj5~.;:':.'>~.~1~I~)f-: ,,~,l}\~J~l~~~ ":~~~=-~~.~~~~~i~~
Lane Configurations " t'ft " tft " tft " t'ft
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.94
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3535 1805 3507 1805 3309 1805 3308
Fit Permitted 0.27 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.20 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 512 3535 471 3507 1258 3309 384 3308
Volume (vph) 63 552 5 77 527 81 49 297 330 80 67 48
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.81
Adj. Flow (vph) 72 634 6 88 599 92 71 430 478 99 83 59
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 19 0 0 263 0 0 39 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 639 0 88 672 0 71 645 0 99 103 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 4% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.4 15.7 22.0 17.0 21.2 17.5 23.8 18.8
Effective Green, g (s) 19.4 16.7 22.0 18.0 21.2 18.5 23.8 19.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.28 0.37 0.30 0.36 0.31 0.40 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 227 997 265 1066 475 1034 250 1106
vis Ratio Prot 0.01 0.18 cO.02 'cO.19 0.01 cO.20 cO.03 0.03
vis Ratio Perm 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.13
vlc Ratio 0.32 0.64 0.33 0.63 0.15 0.62 0.40 0.09
Uniform Delay, d1 14.2 18.6 12.8 17.7 12.7 17.4 12.6 13.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.4 0.7 1.2 0.1 2.8 1.0 0.2
Delay (s) 15.0 20.0 13.5 19.0 12.8 20.2 13.6 13.7
Level of Service B C B B B C B B
Approach Delay (s) 19.5 18.3 19.7 13.7
Approach LOS B B B B
~~~~~@-_~^>1~;~C1'<(-?~rG,r~:?~ ~~_~~" ~t.'t~~":' ~',;,,~ ~~~, <z:"~ .:_~_<-~c <<).%~._:~:___ ,,'.:-'-::. ) <",~~~~~~,;, :_;~\ ~h/~'!':;-~" ~::}. _}i,:; ~""~ ~v - ;~ ~~.....::._
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Level of Service
B
18.7
0.55
59.2
57.2%
15
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
12.0
B
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
7
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CARMEL DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
8
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
D
o
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE:
Lauth Properties
Carmel Drive and Adams Street (LP02)
8/30/2006
TOTAL VEHICLES (PASSENGER CARS + TRUCKS)
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES OFF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
BEGINS 7:45 AM BEGINS BEGINS 4:30 PM
L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL
SOUTHBOUND 2 35 37 1 24 25
EASTBOUND 25 451 476 50 564 614
WESTBOUND 438 4 442 621 1 622
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR OFF PEAK HOUR FACTOR PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
APPROACH INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION
SOUTHBOUND 0.71 0.48
EASTBOUND 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.91
WESTBOUND 0.86 0.90
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
SOUTHBOUND 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
EASTBOUND 0.0% 3.5% 3.4% 0.0% 1.8% 1.6%
WESTBOUND 4.6% 0.0% 4.5% 2.1% 0.0% 2.1%
HOURLY SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
6:00 AM TO 7:00 AM 9 9 118 117 235 244
7:00 AM TO 8:00 AM 29 29 372 391 763 792
8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM 28 28 495 416 911 939
3:00 PM TO 4:00 PM 24 24 505 531 1036 1060
4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM 19 19 542 541 1083 1102
5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM 27 27 598 565 1163 1190
TOTAL VOLUME 136 136 2630 2561 5191 5327
PERCENTAGE 2.6% 2.6% 49.4% 48.1% 97.4% 100.0%
Release 11-18-04
9
o
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
o
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE:
Lauth Properties
Carmel Drive and Adams Street (LP02)
8/30/2006
o
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: SOUTHBOUND
D
o
o
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 9 0 9 9 0 9
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 28 1 29 28 1 29
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 2 0 2 26 0 26 28 0 28
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 3 0 3 17 4 21 20 4 24
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 19 0 19 19 0 19
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 1 0 1 26 0 26 27 0 27
PASSENGER 6 125 131
100.0% 96.2% 96.3%
TRUCK 0 5 5
0.0% 3.8% 3.7%
BOTH 6 130 136
4.4% 95.6% 100.0%
o 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 6 0 6 105 7 112 111 7 118
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 20 1 21 336 15 351 356 16 372
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 29 1 30 449 16 465 478 17 495
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 28 3 31 453 21 474 481 24 505
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 37 0 37 488 17 505 525 17 542
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 38 0 38 555 5 560 593 5 598
PASSENGER 158 2386 2544
96.9% 96.7% 96.7%
TRUCK 5 81 86
3.1% 3.3% 3.3%
BOTH 163 2467 2630
6.2% 93.8% 100.0%
o
o
o
o
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: WESTBOUND
o
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 109 8 117 0 0 0 109 8 117
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 371 19 390 1 0 1 372 19 391
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 389 21 410 6 0 6 395 21 416
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 510 16 526 3 2 5 513 18 531
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 523 17 540 1 0 1 524 17 541
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 557 6 563 2 0 2 559 6 565
PASSENGER 2459 13 2472
96.6% 86.7% 96.5%
TRUCK 87 2 89
3.4% 13.3% 3.5%
BOTH 2546 15 2561
99.4% 0.6% 100.0%
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Release 11-18-04
10
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
10: Carmel Drive & Adams Street
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
..". -+ +- '- \.. ./
S1 - Existing Traffic
AM Peak
'~9\(~~~~G1 ~k~~~=--_~ ':._.;~:.: '-"~:., ~ ~ "j~21~" Jj =j~J~ ''5.~'~\3 J - ~~ \ l~l~) ~ ;::;~lJJ;:<:;. f,~~ %~2{..-:,'W::~~ :'<i"~ :~~y~~ >>~t.r~_~: ~~,: {f: ~:~1;~!J;::",;~ ~;~}:~;!~i'~, ~$>?, ~ ~ 4;- 7 ": ".;.:
Lane Configurations 4+ +t. V
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 25 451 438 4 2 35
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.86 0.86 0.71 0.71
Hourly flow rate (vph) 26 475 509 5 3 49
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftIs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 1066
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 514 802 257
vC 1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2,. stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol 514 802 257
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
pO queue free % 98 99 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 1062 318 748
j:j~l-c~~2'; ~()r~ ~ -&r:'~' [1_,.' <~..~",- ~ l-~~ ~~' ;:~- !~iJ ,)_f ~"I~ -L~ ~1 "\A( L~' ~ ,,~ ,~,,~I:l, ~ .::: '~~"< ,'~'~ !'t;~~:~" ~"'-l;.~" (' -:,- ';::" -'~.',.'c . ~~) '>.'(~{ a:./->;x 1~?~ . >~~ ~ "_:"
- ~_, ~__ - - ____~____~________ __~_~~ ______0______-______0_- ___~___~___~______~___...._~ _~_
Volume Total 185 316 340 174 52
Volume Left 26 0 0 0 3
Volume Right 0 0 0 5 49
cSH 1062 1700 1700 1700 697
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.19 0.20 0.10 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 6
Control Delay (s) 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 10.6
Approach LOS B
~~~~~~~~~' ~1_~~~- :f 01G~~~~~~ 't" _ ~A ~:/_.c: ~~~~~__ ~_ ~~~~~~~:~ ~~~~~~_~-< ':~~,~c'"~:~~~ <'~-=:::" ::~:~~>~ 7":1-;: :; ~!~~~:..:~ ;; ~~~~:~ :=;';;i ?~-t~:_~~~~~:_2__
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
0.8
38.8%
15
ICU level ot Service
A
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
11
o
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
10: Carmel Drive & Adams Street
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
". -+ ~ '- '. ..I
S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Dev
AM Peak
~i:d~S1-1G~\~_ ~~~_~':~~~~::~~gI~j=-_, c l~j=~ ~-__~~~1~ ~_~~i~1_~~,~1)~ r, 'lli?f~ ~~~r,~_~+^,~ -_ ~ ~:~:_~' :~_-.: ~H, '.";.- ~,~~~r~ ~~>)_~~ 'ji!~~~~) _
Lane Configurations 4'+ +t. V
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehlh) 120 451 438 4 2 47
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.86 0.86 0.71 0.71
Hourly flow rate (vph) 126 475 509 5 3 66
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftIs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 1066
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 514 1002 257
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 confvol
vCu, unblocked vol 514 1002 257
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
pO queue free % 88 99 91
cM capacity (vehlh) 1062 214 748
R.l\~~ l~l~ ~l_l-f____l \; ~~ ~~_ ~~~~1~~~ ~ _~~~? ~ ~~~~_ _~ _ ~_~2~'~~: ~~___- .~~~L~ ~ ~) t ~~~~_,~:" ~~~_'~___~~~_~'~~_j2~;;:~ 2; ~~~~, ~ ~ ~~ -,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~_~~L____
Volume Total 285 316 340 174 69
Volume Left 126 0 0 0 3
Volume Right 0 0 0 5 66
cSH 1062 1700 1700 1700 679
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.19 0.20 0.10 0.10
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 0 8
Control Delay (s) 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 2.2 0.0 10.9
Approach LOS B
~JJf{=~i2.l:-(:{~Ct71 ~-,<1I,- :~S;,-~1/ ~':<,::;- ,,{. '" ~ .-~~~^-( r ~~ ~j:--;"~ " . ^ -~~'"': ~ >'1. ;>" <_",\" ' /~.:':, ':~~,,-~,s-<--':,P~.-:~''''~''___~~~ -'j~:':d '"'~A.;f~ v-tr;;J"';>':;7~-'::_<-'<~~ "!,-.:<.<~': ~~
-~~-~-~-~~--~--~-----~-----~ -~--~--.~-~------------~---~--- ~--~------
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
1.7
41.5%
15
ICU Level of Service
A
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
12
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
10: Carmel Drive & Adams Street
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
~ -+ .... " '. ~
S1 - Existing Traffic
PM Peak
~l~~~l-~G~i~~~~ ,~<: ~~~2~~ ~~i:-~~ {~_~r~~~~.~_~~~~~~r~_~~~S12~_~:_~Gl~ .~~~~_~~~_~ ~~:~~~~_-.:~~~~;:-~~.)~t~)i'2. e: '?:', ;C~_~_~_
Lane Configurations 4t tft V
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehlh) 50 564 621 1 1 24
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.48 0.48
Hourly flow rate (vph) 56 627 690 1 2 50
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftIs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 1066
pX, platoon unblocked 1.00 1.00 1.00
vC, conflicting volume 691 1115 346
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cent vol
vCu, unblocked vol 691 1115 345
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
iF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
pO queue tree % 94 99 92
cM capacity (vehlh) 913 193 656
2:\-32~r~~~=-~:~,~~'~~_~-=~_~__~~~~~_~_~_~_~~~_~~__~-;:l~_~~~j~~_~~~~L~-=-_~ ,,~~~!~ ~~_-:A; >' \~:~\~'~~<'~'J:,~,," ~__~~~~
Volume Total 264 418 460 231 52
Volume Left 56 0 0 0 2
Volume Right 0 0 0 1 50
cSH 913 1700 1700 1700 599
Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.25 0.27 0.14 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 7
Control Delay (s) 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 11.6
Approach LOS B
~~ir~~1~:~2-~~~_~~;TJ~0E~~~~~~'~:i_~.::~, ~_:-=-~ _~:~~_ ::..~_ .;-.:_ ~ A~ _~ __.:_~:_~?_~_,-__.:i'~__ ~'~~_ _: :::i.~::.~_~:~~~~~':::'-lT~,~.;~;_".f'-:_~i_~~.~i'; .~~_ :- _
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
0.9
47.6%.
15
ICU Level ot Service
A
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
13
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
10: Carmel Drive & Adams Street
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
/....4-" ~..I
S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Dev
PM Peak
~~\'l9-~~l'Jtl,:<::':<::~~::J~:~: 'I' ~< '"'~ :,;.~~t~-=-~i;~1~-~__~~~2:r--,-~ '~~~~~~j~~~~~...:::.~~_' ; _ ~0 -: _-:.';~~-;~ :>~13,~:_~ ~:';.:~~~ <-~~ ~~~~_
Lane Configurations 4+ +t. V
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehlh) 67 564 621 1 1 109
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.48 0.48
Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 627 690 1 2 227
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftIs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 1066.
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 691 1153 346
vC 1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol 691 1153 346
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
pO queue tree % 92 99 65
cM capacity (vehlh) 913 178 656
=~~:~?:;_"~~~.!~~~,:;;J:~,,,<':';~;,:::~I;i n<\.. ,"~?,,~ \c,~ ~.. ~y,:;~:,,~ lJ3~3 ~,~ ',_ ~ ~- -: ~ ~ ",\i:">~ 1: ~,~~~,,-:i:~:~' ~_' ~.~,~' :
----~------~---~~--- ---~----~----~----- ---------_._--~.~ ._~ -~---
Volume Total 283 418 460 231 229
Volume Left 74 0 0 0 2
Volume Right 0 0 0 1 227
cSH 913 1700 1700 1700 641
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.25 .0.27 0.14 0~36
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 40
Control Delay (s) 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0,0 13.7
Approach LOS B
j~'~?G~=~~~~\i;j.-=-ytr)~~/ ~'-"~,,,-~~~.~' ~:-.-:~~_2l~~:'"' ~ ~< ~,.--, ~ :~~~~ ';'''.';}~ :~~...:..~~~' ~1"'~~~-: ~ ~,r~:~Z:~1 );'\ J ~:; ~_~-.: .__~~.i.~~_
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
2.5
5t.5%
15
ICU Level ot Service
A
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
14
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY CENTER DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
CAPACITY ANALYSES
15
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
A & F ENGINEERING CO.. LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE:
Lauth Properties
City Center Drive and Adams Street (LP03)
8/30/2006
TOTAL VEHICLES (PASSENGER CARS + TRUCKS)
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES OFF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
BEGINS 7:30 AM BEGINS BEGINS 4:45 PM
L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL L T R TOTAL
NORTHBOUND 5 49 54 1 428 429
SOUTHBOUND 495 44 539 138 12 150
EASTBOUND 10 1 11 53 5 58
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR OFF PEAK HOUR FACTOR PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
APPROACH INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION APPROACH INTERSECTION
NORTHBOUND 0.79 0.79
SOUTHBOUND 0.79 0.79 0.91 0.84
EASTBOUND 0.69 0.81
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 20.0% 4.1% 5.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7%
SOUTHBOUND 1.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.9% 0.0% 2.7%
EASTBOUND 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 1.7%
HOURLY SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
6:00 AM TO 7:00 AM 24 102 126 5 5 131
7:00 AM TO 8:00 AM 58 474 532 16 16 548
8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM 47 418 465 14 14 479
3:00 PM TO 4:00 PM 118 149 267 27 27 294
4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM 250 119 369 45 45 414
5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM 426 144 570 47 47 617
TOTAL VOLUME 923 1406 2329 154 154 2483
PERCENTAGE 37.2% 56.6% 93.8% 6.2% 6.2% 100.0%
16
Release 11-18..()4
D
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
o
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE:
Lauth Properties
City Center Drive and Adams Street (LP03)
8/30/2006
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: NORTHBOUND
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
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 23 1 24 23 1 24
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 2 1 3 51 4 55 53 5 58
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 5 0 5 39 3 42 44 3 47
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 1 0 1 110 7 117 111 7 118
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 2 0 2 246 2 248 248 2 250
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 1 0 1 423 2 425 424 2 426
PASSENGER 11 892 903
91.7% 97.9% 97.8%
TRUCK 1 19 20
8.3% 2.1% 2.2%
BOTH 12 911 923
1.3% 98.7% 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 91 2 93 9 0 9 100 2 102
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 433 6 439 34 1 35 467 7 474
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 382 4 386 32 0 32 414 4 418
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 131 3 134 14 1 15 145 4 149
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 105 5 110 9 0 9 114 5 119
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 128 4 132 12 0 12 140 4 144
PASSENGER 1270 110 1380
98.1% 98.2% 98.2%
TRUCK 24 2 26
1.9% 1.8% 1.8%
BOTH 1294 112 1406
92.0% 8.0% 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 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 5
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 14 1 15 1 0 1 15 1 16
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 12 0 12 2 0 2 14 0 14
PM TIME PERIOD PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 24 3 27 0 0 0 24 3 27
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 40 1 41 4 0 4 44 1 45
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 44 0 44 3 0 3 47 0 47
PASSENGER 139 10 149
96.5% 100.0% 96.8%
TRUCK 5 0 5
3.5% 0.0% 3.2%
BOTH 144 10 154
93.5% 6.5% 100.0%
D
17
Release 11-18-04
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
8: Adams Street & City Center Drive
HeM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
f{~~~.s'ru:,~'~ :<ck'~?' 't ~~~:"~~M~:, !":l~~j?~~. ~Jif~i~_-<-rl~~~~~~~~_.,~!~J~-{ y~_~:~~____._~_~~___~~~_:~______~
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Grade
Volume (vehlh)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftIs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 confvol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
pO queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
S 1 - Existing Traffic
AM Peak
,J.
t
~
./
.
"\
V
Stop
0%
10
0.69
14
" tt
Free
0%
5 49
0.79 0.79
6 62
44
0.79
56
tt.
Free
0%
495
0.79
627
1
0.69
1
Raised
1
809
698 341 682
654
44
698 341 682
6.9 7.0 4.2
5.9
3.5 3.3 2.2
97 100 99
415 646 887
Volume Total 16 6 31 31
Volume Left 14 6 0 0
Volume Right 1 0 0 0
cSH 429 887 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 1 0 0
Control Delay (s) 13.7 9.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (5) 13.7 0.8 0.0
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 0.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
18
U
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
8: Adams Street & City Center Drive
HeM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
~."\ t~
S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Dev
AM Peak
..;
_~~ ~~~~1_C?1 ~ ~ ~_: i-=--=- _~_~_ _ _J~G3~~~J1~; ~ _~_~~~_ _ =-~~~-~ -. --~__~~~~-- ~u~"~l~~_~~ ~~:_~~_~ _~_____ _ __~~__~_: _~__. _ _.~~ _ ___
Lane Configurations V , ++ +t.
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehlh) 16 2 93 49 533 48
Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.69 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 3 118 62 675 61
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftIs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type Raised
Median storage veh) 1
Upstream signal (ft) 809
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 972 368 735
vC1, stage 1 cont vol 705
vC2, stage 2 cont vol 266
vCu, unblocked vol 972 368 735
tC, single (s) 6.9 7.0 4.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.9
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
pO queue free % 93 100 86
cM capacity (veh/h) 330 621 846
Volume Total 26 118 31 31
Volume Left 23 118 0 0
Volume Right 3 0 0 0
cSH 348 846 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.14 0.02 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 12 0 0
Control Delay (s) 16.2 9.9 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 16.2 6.5 0.0
Approach LOS C
Average Delay 1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.7% ICU Level ot Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
19
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
8: Adams Street & City Center Drive
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
.". ~ "\ t ~
S1 - Existing Traffic
PM Peak
.I
}~jf~~~~f~~~:~~:.y.:~~:;:..,,-';~ '~~~~i~~i~_~.::~~35~~.~~~~~i~ ;-,t~". ~f~1 :.~__~~__.__~~ - ,,'~ ______~_~_~_~ __
Lane Configurations V 1i ++ +t.
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 53 5 1 428 138 12
Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph) 65 6 1 542 152 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftIs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type Raised
Median storage veh) 1
Upstream signal (ft) 809
pX, platoon unblocked
ve, conflicting volume 432 82 165
vC1, stage 1 cont vol 158
vC2, stage 2 cont vol 273
vCu, unblocked vol 432 82 165
tC, single (s) 6.9 7.0 4.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.9
tF (5) 3.5 3.3 2.2
pO queue tree % 89 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 604 951 1389
Volume Total 72 1
Volume Left 65 1
Volume Right 6 0
cSH 624 1389
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0
Control Delay (s) 11.5 7.6
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (5) 11.5 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.8% ICU Level ot Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
20
o
o
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
8: Adams Street & City Center Drive
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Dev
PM Peak
,}-
.
"\
t
~
./
\!IQ\f(~}(lC~ if . ~'5~~ ,:1<",<_,"_:. ~~ l}ii~" v L=-I3~~~ ~ r ~(2t_ - [\.111-' Si[~~!; ,~])~ ,y l: -^ l ~ -> v v/, .~ ~
~ ~---~ ---- ---~---~-- -- ~ - --- - --~ ------~-~-_._-_._._---~~~-- ~ - - -~ - -
Lane Configurations V , tt t~
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 91 7 17 428 145 13
Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph) 112 9 22 542 159 14
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type Raised
Median storage veh) 1
Upstream signal (ft) 809
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 480 87 174
vC1 , stage 1 cont vol 166
vC2, stage 2 cont vol 314
vCu, unblocked vol 480 87 174
tC, single (s) 6.9 7.0 4.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.9
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
pO queue free % 80 99 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 568 945 1379
Volume Total 121 22 271 271 106 67
Volume Left 112 22 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 9 0 0 0 0 14
cSH 585 1379 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.21 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 1 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 12.8 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 12.8 0.3 0.0
Approach LOS B
_1~~~(,~ ~:::'"'l' ,,)~_____~ ~~ ~ ~(; ~~~/~ ~_~~_-=-*_&~_:~ __ cx~;'~ ~~ _---2~~~:.:..~~~~_~_:_~~_~_.l_ ~~._:;_-.::-~____. ___ ~
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
2.0
24.0%
15
ICU Level ot Service
A
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
21
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
MIDWEST ISO
CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY CENTER DRIVE AND PROPOSED RIGHT-IN /
RIGHT-OUT ACCESS
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
22
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
5: Proposed Right-ln/Right-Out Access & City Center Drive
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
~ . "'\ t l <41'
82 - Ex Traf + Prop Dev
AM Peak
:~~~~O~D=1YJ!:S~TjQ;~;;;>~.~~ ~ ~~ ",J~i?l; x~~?_~~~\Jn~~~ 'Y ~:1'\'11_~~~~_j,~~~.~_~~~~~~~_>> ~"-~~_~~ ~; _~~b:-':~_ :_::~__~{'__~
Lane Configurations " ++ +t.
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 0 12 0 142 497 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 13 0 158 552 42
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 393
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 652 297 594
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol 652 297 594
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (5) 3.5 3.3 2.2
pO queue tree % 100 98 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 401 699 978
~":;~~~~-' \;~~~.~~~~~r ~_"~~I~~~~~__ ,~~~ :~~-1~-i~~~~~~ i ~ ~~~~3~~~~~___ ~~e ~~: ~'~~~_s~___2-~_~\A~_
Volume Total 13 79 79 368 226
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 13 0 0 0 42
cSH 699 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.22 0.13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s) 10.3 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.9% ICU Level ot Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
23
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
5: Proposed Right-ln/Right-Out Access & City Center Drive
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
82 - Ex Traf + Prop Dev
PM Peak
".
.
"\
t
~
~
:dlS]\!(~L11~J.J ~2~~~~_~g~~__ ~_ ~~~~~J_ ~~~~iiJ~~ ~ ~C<2'~ ~~__jg~=j:;~~~-.:.~_ _~ ~~- ~ ~ ~_ __~~ ~~_:~_~ ~_~~~___~__~__
Lane Configurations ." tt tt.
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h) 0 77 0 445 145 7
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (v ph) 0 86 0 494 161 8
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftIs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 393
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 412 84 169
vC1, stage 1 cenf vol
vC2, stage 2 cenf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 412 84 169
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (5) 3.5 3.3 2.2
pO queue free % 100 91 100
cM capacity (vehlh) 568 958 1406
Volume Total 86 247 247 107 61
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 86 0 0 0 8
cSH 958 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (5) 9.1 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS A
j~~~2-lI.?L~ :~}_ ~; ~~l-::T~'~,: \__ .-:_~_~~~__~ _ ~_ ': ::___~ ~~~ _~'-~ _'-_.:....2/~~_~__~~=-______ ~.~ ~2 _~__~~_~__~~~_~_~___:- _. ~~~
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
1.0
15.7%
15
ICU Level of Service
A
Baseline
A & F Engineering Co., LLC
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
24