HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Operations Analysis
D',
]
]:
J /
]
Jc
]
J
J
U ~
D
oj
o \
o /
D
o
0,
o
D
<
1',,--,(
!"
, ,
( '" ,\
"
I
,-
" '~\
"
I
-~
F.r
\
I
) I
J
",
I r_
, /(
, '.
ii\ '
/ ,,,
'l ~)
I
--'
I" \.
j
IRAFFICOP'ERA liONS ANALYSIS
,. '[ . \ ~ . " . ,. '" .- , ~
~/
~. 'j
( :
, )
I - < " / / __ \- f _ I
! I ! J " ,\ j ,- > I:! ' ~- ) ,
) r) PROF-OSED ReSIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I
146THSTREET &RIVE~ ROAD
"-... t'
J, I'
\'
\1
\
/:;;'/
( "
. .CARMEL., )IN)DI~NA
! '
Iv
/ ( ) ;,---
PREPARED!~OR
EARLHAM COLLEGE
, J '
\i\ J
~- )
FEBRUARY 2005
\ \, /
, /
A&FE'NGINEERING Co.. LLC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
" / 8365 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 201
, (".
INDIANAPOLlS,INDIAN~ 46240
(317)202-0864
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
j
J
1
1
J
J
j
TRAFFIC OPERA liONS ANALYSIS
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
146TH STREET & RIVER ROAD
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
EARL HAM COLLEGE
FEBRUARY 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
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
EARLHAM COLLEGE - 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\05027 -Schneider\TOAdoc
~
~
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~
o
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 ..........................................................................................................4
EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA .............................................. ............................................ ....... ......... ...... ......... ........ ..............4
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................4
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................4
INTERNAL TRIPS ... ................................................................................................ ........ ................ ...... ............. ..... ..........6
PASS-BY TRIPS.... ........................................................................................... .... ....... .... .......... ....................... .......... ...... 6
PEAK HOUR.. ..................................... ..................................... ................................... ............... ......................................6
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS................................................................................................6
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM .............................................................8
CAPACITY ANALySIS................ ........................................ ................................ ......... .... ..... ...................... ...... .... ............ 8
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE...........................................................................................................................10
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS ................................................................................................................................11
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146TH STREET & RIVER ROAD................................................................ 14
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 146TH STREET & PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS (FULL ACCESS) ...............14
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #1...................................................15
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #2...................................................15
TABLE 6 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #3...................................................15
TABLE 7 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #4...................................................16
TABLE 8 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #5...................................................16
TABLE 9 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #6...................................................16
TABLE 10- LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #7.................................................17
CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................... ............................... ................... .17
RECOMMENDATIONS........................................ .......... .................................. ............................................................... .19
o
o
o
U
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
D
U
U
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: AREA MAP .... ....... ................................................ ...................... .......................... ........................ ..................3
FIGURE 2: EXISTING INTERSECTION SCHEMATICS ..........................................................................................................5
FIGURE 3: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT......... 7
FIGURE 4: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................9
FIGURE 5: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ......................................................................................................................12
FIGURE 6: SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES & GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 13
I
~
~
~
u
o
u
u
U
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
U
U
U
U
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMELt 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.
A&F ENGINEERING Co., INC.
s1i?f~
Steven J. Fehribach, P.E.
Indiana Registration 890237
/ 4'Ji h
R. Matt Brown, P .E.
Indiana Registration 10200056
~oVY1l 1/~
Thomas S. Vandenberg, E.I.
Transportation Engineer
"I I "" I 1/'"",
\\",'..., j. F END'III//
~ (\, If / /) 'l
"...\'\... ""UII", <T ~
....... (_~ \." T 't, 'Y'.'
~.. v ,",,-ul S tl?("" C" ~
2 c;:;- ........... q.. <?'~ ~ ~
~ (No.890237\ ~
_ :. STATE : ~
- ~ ... -
~ ^' -:"" OF .........~ ~ ~
~ ~ "''! Iv 0 I ,., ~ ~"" ~ ~
~ ~ ""'"1""'\\ ~ ~
////1 Ss /ONAL \.~\) ,\\\\
III ",
I",,,,, JJI II I II'
\111111111 1/'""
\"", "\ '\ H [W 111///
,\ ~ & 'l
~ ~ "",IIIII"'t, 1> ~
~ ,...' \ S T t I? I" 0 ~
~ . ...........q..~u ("<"'" ~ ~
20:::; ~~~
:= ~ No.1 0200056 ~ ~
~ . STATE , _
~ .-<) -::. or ~ ~ 2
__ :<')'. / ~ " c"....
~''Z2 "" IV D I A ~ ",,,, ~.$
"/ ~ ""'11'11""\ ':\""'''
'l/////S/ONAL \.~~""\~
'""" III" II I II
II
u
o
o
u
o
o
o
u
o
u
u
u
o
u
u
u
u
u
u
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of the Schneider Corporation, on
behalf of Earlham Collage, is for a proposed residential development that will be located along 146th
Street and River Road 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 obtain peak hour manual traffic volume counts at the intersection of 146th Street and River
Road.
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.
1
U
D
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
D
U
D
J
J
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 considering each of the following scenarios:
. Existing Traffic Volumes - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic volumes.
. Existing + Proposed Development - New traffic volumes that will be generated by the
proposed development added to the existing traffic volumes.
f)
~
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.
j
J
U
U
U
lJ
U
U
U
~
~
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed development is to be located along 146th Street and River Road in Carmel, Indiana.
As proposed, the development will consist of approximately 1,100 single-family homes. Figure 1
is an area map showing the location of the proposed development and its associated access drives.
STUDY AREA
The study area has been defined to include the following intersections:
. 146th Street & River Road
. All proposed access points
Figure 1 is an area map showing the location of the study intersections.
2
,
"
,
)
I
~
I
~
~
~
~
:>
~
..
I
~
~
~
5
:>
OJ
!:
5
n
I
~
~
"
:>
:>
;l-
:.;
EARLHAM COLLEGE
CARMEL, IN
146TH ST.
PROPOSED
RIGHT -IN/
RIGHT-OUT
ACCESS
PROPOSED
FUll ACCESS
PROPOSED
RIGHT -IN/
RIGHT -OUT
ACCESS
EXISTING
TRAmC
SIGNAL
FIGURE 1
AREA MAP
@A &: r Engineering Co., lie 2005
"ALL Rights Reserved"
~-- II
:DOI
IDOl
:DCJI
Il II
-----------
3
u
[j
D
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
IW
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes 146th
Street and River Road.
W
U
U
U
U
D
U
U
D
'0
D
o
o
o
D
I 46TH STREET - is an east/west four lane, divided roadway that travels through Carmel. The posted
speed limit along this roadway in the vicinity of the site is 45 mph.
RIVER ROAD - is a north/south two lane roadway that travels from 116th Street and past 146th Street.
The posted speed limit along this roadway in the vicinity of the site is 40 mph.
146th Street & River Road - This intersection is controlled with an automatic traffic signal. The
northbound and southbound approaches each consist of a left-turn lane, a through lane and a
right-turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches each consist of a left-turn lane, two
through lanes and a right-turn lane. Figure 2 shows the existing intersection schematics.
EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made by A&F Engineering Co.,
LLC at 146th Street and River Road for a previous study in 1999. The counts include an hourly
total of all "through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at the intersections. Computer printouts of
the traffic volume counts are included in Appendix A.
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the
development size and 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 various land uses.
Table 1 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERA TED TRIPS
ITE AM AM PM PM
LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
Residential 210 1,100 DU 195 585 584 343
I Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003.
4
u
o
D
U
U
U
o
iD
U
U
U
D
U
D~
""
Di
146TH STREET
Q
~
~
rt+l ~
~ ~
~
~
~
146TH STREET AND RIVER ROAD
ii
iOi
....
I
.....
D~
:?-
ffi
c
[ij
z
o
D~
:g
It)
8
D~
EARLHAM COLLEGE
CARMEL, IN
5
t
FIGURE 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION
SCHEMATICS
@A &: f Engineering Co., LLC 2004
"ALL Rights Reserved"
I
I
!U
I
U
D
U
D
U
U
IU
IU
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
D
U
D
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
INTERNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two land uses without accessing the public
roadway system. The proposed development will consist of single-family homes only. Therefore,
internal trip reductions were not applied.
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.
PEAK HOUR
Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the adjacent street peak
hours occur from 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM and 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. Therefore, the volumes collected
during these hours will be used for all analyses contained within this study.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
The study methodology used to determine the traffic volwnes, from the proposed development, that
will be added to the street system is defined as follows:
1. The volwne 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 volwne 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 volwnes 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.
6
LEGEND
00 = INBOUND TRAFFIC
[00] = OUTBOUND TRAFFIC
· = NEGUGIBLE
EARLHAM COLLEGE
CARMEL, IN
146TH ST.
"'17%
~-- II
:DOI
IDOl
:Dol
Il II
FIGURE 3
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
@A &: F Engineering Co., LLC 2005
"AU Rights Reserved"
7
U
IU
U
U
IU
I
iU
I
I
'D
,U
I
U
U
U
D
IU
U
U
I
:0
U
'w
U
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET
SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared
at each of the study area intersections. The peak hour generated traffic volumes for the proposed
development 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.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that
approach the intersection. The "efficiency" of an intersection is designated by the Level-of-
Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS of an intersection is determined by a series of
calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data into a capacity analysis include
traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes and, in the case of signalized
intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the level of service at each of the study
intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer program based
on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCMl.
2 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 2000.
8
146TH ST.
~-- II
:DOI
IDOl
:Dol
Il II
LEGEND
00 = A.... PEAK HOUR
(OO) = P.... PEAK HOUR
· = NEGUGIBLE
. FIGURE 4
\
I
I GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
! FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
EARLHAM COLLEGE
CARMEL, IN
@A Be r Engineering Co., LLC 2005
"ALL Rights Reserved"
9
I
I
I
U
iW
!
U
I
,U
I
IW
I
'U
I
D
~ U
U
BARHAM COLLEGE - 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.
tU
I
,
i U
!
,U
IU
D
!U
U
iW
U
U
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.
The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized intersections:
A
B
C
D
E
F
Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Less than or equal to 10
Between 10.1 and 15
Between 15.1 and 25
Between 25.1 and 35
Between 35.1 and 50
greater than 50
Level of Service
10
u
.. l
U
! U
I
'U
i
'U
U
I
IU
IW
U
!U
I
U
I
I
'U
U
I
,U
I
,0
o
o
,0
[
:U
I
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS
To evaluate the proposed developments' 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 considering each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Va/urnes - Figure 5 is a summary of these traffic volumes at
the study intersections for the peak: hours.
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Deve/opment Generated Traffic
Va/urnes - 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 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 2 - 146th Street & River Road
Table 3 -146th Street & Proposed Middle Access (Full Access)
Table 4 - River Road & Proposed Access #1
Table 5 - River Road & Proposed Access #2
Table 6 - River Road & Proposed Access #3
Table 7 - River Road & Proposed Access #4
Table 8 - River Road & Proposed Access #5
Table 9 - River Road & Proposed Access #6
Table 10 - River Road & Proposed Access #7
II
.J
i:
"
"
!.
"
I
"
!!.
:>
~
"
~
"
I
~
~
5
"
~
5
~
I
~
"
~
"
~
;:!.
>l
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
· = NEGUGIBLE
EARLHAM COLLEGE
CARMEL, IN
-
_<"I
In~::
e:;;::- ~ 72 (151)
-0>'" ()
...... - - '-382 391
tI f ~ .e 175 (74)
(54) 39 ~ ~ t ,.
(450) 360'" ...... ~ ~
(17) 33 ~ e-;;;--;n-
0> 0
-<"I
-
146TH ST.
PROPOSED
RIGHT -IN/
RIGHT -OUT
ACCESS
RIVER ROAD
ACCESS 11
IVER ROAD
ACCESS 12
EXISTING
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
PROPOSED
fULL ACCESS
~-- II
:DOI
IDOl
:Dol
Il II
-----------
-.-
l SITE C
I ~
I
)
RIVER ROAD
ACCESS #3
RIVER ROAD
ACCESS 14
12
r
I
I
t
FIGURE 5
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
@A &: F Engineering Co., U.C 2005
"AU. Rights Reserved"
,.
..,
on
146TH ST.
~-- II
:DOI
IDOl
:Dol
Il II
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
· = NEGUGIBlE
EARLHAM COLLEGE
CARMEL, IN
13
--I
I
I
I
-
_N
on_
.....on_
.:!.:;-; -t. 72 (1 51 )
on 0.., ()
..... N - .... 401 449
~ + ~ ~197 (138)
(61) 51" ~ t ,.
(498) 442'" ... CD CD
on on on
(64) 49... __-
.... CD 0 .........
..,ON
-- ...
-N
-
-
CI>
..,
_N
ao-
'::"0
CD :=: ,
~+ (
(10) 17" ~ t
N CI>
...
(3) 6~ e:'
ClQ
CD
..,
-
.... 507 (453)
~ 23 (70)
~ ,.
(611) 505'" ~ ~
(41) 13 ~ -:::-
..,
-
,.
N
-
i SITE C
I ~
I
)
FIGURE 6
SUM OF EXISTING
TRAFFIC VOLUMES.
GENERA TED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
@A &: F' Engineering Co., LLC 2005
"ALL Rights Reserved"
u
u
[J
u
u
u
u
u
u
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: l46TH STREET & RIVER ROAD
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach B B
Southbound Approach B B
Eastbound Approach B B
Westbound Approach B B
Intersection B B
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach B B
Southbound Approach B B
Eastbound Approach B B
Westbound Approach B B
Intersection B B
SCENARIO 1 :
Existing Traffic Volumes with the Existing Traffic Signal and Existing
Intersection Geometries
Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with the
Existing Traffic Signal and Existing Intersection Geometries
SCENARIO 2:
u
u
u
[j
u
u
U
D
[j
o
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: 1 46TH STREET & PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS (FULL
ACCESS)
SCENARIO 2
MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Northbound Approach B C
Westbound Left-Turn A A
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with
Proposed Access Conditions*
* The proposed access conditions include the following:
. Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for l46th Street.
. The construction of a westbound left-turn lane within the existing median of l46th Street
to accommodate vehicles entering the access.
. The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane.
14
IU
I
'u
I
I
:U
I
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #1
SCENARIO 2
U
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
o
D
U
D
MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Northbound Left-Turn A A
Eastbound Approach B B
SCENARIO 2:
Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with Proposed
Access Conditions.
* The proposed access conditions include the following:
. Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road.
. The proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one inbound
lane.
TABLE 5 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #2
SCENARIO 2
MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Southbound Left-Turn A A
Westbound Approach B B
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with
Proposed Access Conditions*
* The proposed access conditions include the following:
. Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road.
. The proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one inbound
lane.
TABLE 6 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #3
SCENARIO 2
MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Northbound Left-Turn A A
Eastbound Approach B B
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with
Proposed Access Conditions*
* The proposed access conditions include the following:
. Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road.
. The proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one inbound
lane.
15
u
u
u
u
u
U
iU
I
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
o
o
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 7 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #4
SCENARIO 2
MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Southbound Left-Turn A A
Westbound Approach B B
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with
Proposed Access Conditions*
* The proposed access conditions include the following:
. Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road.
. The proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one inbound
lane.
TABLE 8 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #5
SCENARIO 2
MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Northbound Left-Turn A A
Eastbound Approach B B
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with
Proposed Access Conditions*
* The proposed access conditions include the following:
. Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road.
. The proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one inbound
lane.
TABLE 9 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #6
SCENARIO 2
MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Southbound Left-Turn A A
Westbound Approach B B
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with
Proposed Access Conditions*
* The proposed access conditions include the following:
. Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for River Road.
. The proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one inbound
lane.
16
'U
I
I
U
U
iU
I
:0
,U
I
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
o
D
D
U
BARHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 10 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #7
SCENARIO 2
MOVEMENT AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Northbound Left-Turn A A
Southbound Left-Turn A A
Eastbound Approach B B
Westbound Approach C B
SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes and Generated Traffic Volumes with
Proposed Access Conditions.
· The proposed access conditions include the following:
. Stop sign control with each access drive stopping for River Road.
. The addition of a northbound left-turn treatment along River Road.
. The addition of a southbound right-turn treatment along River Road.
. Each access drive constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment
and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses, 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 levels of service are 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.
1. 146m STREET & RIVER ROAD
Existing Traffic (Scenario 1) - 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 operates at acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and
PM peak hour.
Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the
proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, this intersection will
continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the existing
intersection geometries.
17
u
u
u
u
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
2. 146m STREET AND PROPOSED WEST ACCESS (RIGHT-IN /RIGHT-OUT)
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The proposed access conditions include the following:
. This access constructed as a right-in / right-out access with one outbound lane and
one inbound lane.
IU
I
;U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
D
U
U
3. 146m STREET AND PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS (FULL ACCESS)
Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the
proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches to this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the
proposed access conditions that include the following:
. Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for 146th Street.
. The construction of a westbound left-turn lane within the existing median of 1 46th
Street to accommodate vehicles entering the access.
. The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one
inbound lane.
4. 146m STREET AND PROPOSED EAST ACCESS (RIGHT -IN / RIGHT-OUT)
The proposed access conditions include the following:
. This access constructed as a right-in / right-out access with one outbound lane and
one inbound lane.
5. RIvER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS #1 THROUGH ACCESS #6
Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the
proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches to each of
these intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the
proposed access conditions that include the following:
. Stop sign control with each proposed access stopping for River Road.
. Each proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one
inbound lane.
6. RIvER ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS #7
Existing Traffic + Proposed Development (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the
proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, all approaches to this
intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours with the
proposed access conditions that include the following:
18
u
u
U
I
U
D
I
I U
I
I
U
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
. Stop sign control with each access drive stopping for River Road.
. The addition of a northbound left-turn treatment along River Road.
. The addition of a southbound right-turn treatment along River Road.
. Each access drive constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound
lane.
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.
u
1 46TH STREET & RIvER ROAD
The existing intersection geometrics will adequately serve the additional traffic generated by the
proposed site. Therefore, no improvements are necessary at this intersection due to the proposed
development.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
U
D
U
1 46TH STREET & PROPOSED WEST ACCESS (RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUT)
The following access conditions are recommended if the site is developed as proposed:
. This access constructed as a right-in / right-out access with one outbound lane and one
inbound lane.
1 46TH STREET & PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS (fuLL ACCESS)
The following access conditions are recommended if the site is developed as proposed:
. Stop sign control with the proposed access stopping for 146th Street.
. The construction of a westbound left-turn lane within the existing median of 146th Street
to accommodate vehicles entering the access.
. The proposed access constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane.
146TH STREET & PROPOSED EAST ACCESS (RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUT)
The following access conditions are recommended if the site is developed as proposed:
. This access constructed as a right-in / right-out access with one outbound lane and one
inbound lane.
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #1 THROUGH ACCESS #6
The following access conditions are recommended for River Road Access #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6
if the site is developed as proposed:
. Stop sign control with each proposed access stopping for River Road.
· Each proposed access constructed with at least one outbound lane and at least one
inbound lane.
19
U
D
!D
U
'D
U
o
U
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #7
The following access conditions are recommended if the site is developed as proposed:
. Stop sign control with each access drive stopping for River Road.
. The addition of a northbound left-turn treatment along River Road.
. The addition of a southbound right-turn treatment along River Road.
. Each access drive constructed with two outbound lanes and at least one inbound lane.
u
'U
I U
U
U
U
D
U
U
D
U
20
U
D
o
D
D
U
o
o
u
u
u
U
D
U
U
U
o
D
U
TRAFFIC OPERA liONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
146TH STREET & RIVER ROAD
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
EARL HAM COLLEGE
FEBRUARY 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
il
U
:0
:0
I
:0
U
U
U
U
U
U
o
U
U
'U
o
U
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS for
the proposed residential development.
Included are the traffic volume counts and the intersection capacity analyses.
l
10
D
D
D
D
10
o
o
u
u
u
u
u
o
D
D
D
o
D
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
146TH STREET & RIvER ROAD ........................................................................................................................................1
146TH STREET & PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS (FULL ACCESS)........................................................................................ 9
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #1.........................................................................................................................12
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #2 ......................................................................................................................... 15
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #3 ......................................................................................................................... 18
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #4 .........................................................................................................................21
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #5 ............................................................................. ............................................24
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #6 ............................. ........................ .................................................................... 27
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #7 ......................................................................................................................... 30
1
I U
U
D
'u
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
o
o
D
o
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERAnoNsANALYSIS
146TH STREET & RIvER ROAD
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
AND
CAPACITY ANALYSES
1
IU
[J
U
! U
I
I
:u
U
:u
I
iU
I
U
iU
I
I
IU
I
U
U
U
o
o
o
D
o
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
nobl-tJiliJl<..
146TH STREET & RIVER ROAD f~ol/"
5/12/99
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
SOunlBOUND
WESTBOUND
PEAK HOUR DATA
I I
AM PEAK OFF PEAK I PM PEAK I
HR BEGIN 7:15 AM I HR BEGIN 4:00 PM I
L T R TOT L T" R TOT I L T R TOT I
I I
6 38 78 122 I 8 - 79 174 261 I
33 305 28 366 I 46 381 14 441 I
116 166 60 342 I 95 37 30 . 162 I
148 324 61 533 I 63 331 128 522 I
I I
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 39 109 148 125 203 328 476
7- 8 104 353 457 350 535 885 1342
8- 9 74 129 203 171 236 407 610
- PM -
4- 5 261 162 423 441 522 963 1386
5- 6 323 140 463 389 490 879 1342
TOTAL 801 893 1694 1476 1986 3462 5156
15.5% 17.3% 32.9% 28.6% 38.5% 67.1% 100.0%
- AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 42 104 96 151
HOUR 142 353 366 535
PHF 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.89
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 93 48 132 135
HOUR 323 163 441 522
PHF 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.97
2
u
o
U
!U
I
I
U
I
1
U
U
U
U
I
I
:U
I
I
U
I
I
U
U
U
0'
U
D
U
U
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
J\oblt5"illt. ",
: 146TH STREET & RIVER ROAD (.{)lj
5/12/99
NORTHBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOT
AM
6- 7 5 0 5 9 2 11 23 0 23 37 2 3
7- 8 4 1 5 17 8 25 70 4 74 91 13 10,
8- 9 8 0 8 20 5 25 36 5 41 64 10 7
PM
4- 5 8 0 8 74 5 79 156 18 174 238 23 26
5- 6 16 0 16 119 3 122 179 6 185 314 9 32
PASSENGER 41 239 464 744
97.6% 91.2% 93.4% 92.9%
TRUCK 1 23 33 57
2.4% 8.8% 6.6% 7.1%
BOTH 42 262 497 801
5.2% 32.7% 62.0% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOT
AM
6- 7 6 1 7 105 5 110 8 0 8 119 6 12
7- 8 5 18 23 282 19 301 24 2 26 311 39 35
8- 9 3 20 23 121 16 137 10 1 11 134 37 17
PM
4- 5 34 12 46 343 38 381 13 1 14 390 51 44
5- 6 42 8 50 298 24 322 16 1 17 356 33 38
PASSENGER 90 1149 71 1310
60.4% 91.8% 93.4% 88.8%
TRUCK 59 102 5 166
39.6% 8.2% 6.6% 11. 2%
BOTH 149 1251 76 1476
10.1% 84.8% 5.1% 100.0%
3
I
I
U
iU
!
U
IU
I
:U
I
i
:U
I
IU
IU
I
:U
iU
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
U
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
~ ""_'~lfttl. ... -- ~
"'J;u~'211. .o\IL t..:'_--__. _ _ .
146TH STREET & RIVER ROAD I~OLJ
5/12/99
SOUTHBOUND
. _ . _ a_ __ ..
~- .....~..;...'. :.;"1.! :.-; "_0._0'. _. _ ..
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOT]
AM
6- 7 40 14 54 31 1 32 14 9 23 85 24 10:
7- 8 84 42 126 149 19 168 28 31 59 261 92 35:
8- 9 32 24 56 34 12 46 4 23 27 70 59 12~
PM
4- 5 55 40 95 32 5 37 22 8 30 109 53 16:
5- 6 55 23 78 28 1 29 24 9 33 107 33 14C
PASSENGER 266 274 92 632
65.0% 87.8% 53.5% 70.8%
TRUCK 143 38 80' 261
35.0% 12.2% 46.5% 29.2%
BOTH 409 312 172 893
45.8% 34.9% 19.3% 100.0%
-
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : WESTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOn
AM
6- 7 53 3 56 95 5 100 23 24 47 171 32 202
7- 8 150 14 164 257 47 304 21 46 67 428 107 53~
8- 9 54 13 67 117 21 138 9 22 31 180 56 23E
PM
4- 5 56 7 63 306 25 331 92 36 128 454 68 52:;;
5- 6 69 1 70 284 _24 308 89 23 112 442 48 49C
PASSENGER 382 1059 234 1675
91.0% 89.7% 60.8% 84.3%
TRUCK 38 122 151 311
9.0% 10.3% 39.2% 15.7%
BOTH 420 1181 385 1986
21.1% 59.5% 19.4% 100.0%
4
iU
I
IU
I
iU
I
U
;U
I
I U
U
I U
U
I
,
IU
I
IU
I
U
U
U
U
D
o
U
U
Short Report
Page I of I
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Information
~nalyst TSV Intersection 146th St & River Rd
~gency or Co. A&F Engineering ~rea Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/1112005 Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Time Period AM Peak ~alysis Year S1 - Existing Traffic
Volume and Timing Input
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R
Volume (vph) 39 360 33 175 382 72 7 45 92 137 196 71
% Heavy veh 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
~ctuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext. eft. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
~rrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 16 0 36 0 46 0 35
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ParkinglGradelParking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parkinglhr
Bus stopslhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Phasina Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
~ming G= 7.0 G = 20.0 G= G= G= 7.0 G = 13.0 G= G=
y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 3 y= 5 y= y=
Duration of Analysis (hrs = 0.25 Cvcle Lenath C = 63.0
Lane Group Ca~ acitv. Control Delay. and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
!Adj. flow rate 43 400 19 194 424 40 8 50 51 152 218 40
Lane group cap. 437 1094 781 448 1094 781 354 373 610 420 373 610
~/c ratio 0.10 0.37 0.02 0.43 0.39 0.05 0.02 0.13 0.08 0.36 0.58 0.07
~reen ratio 0.48 0.32 0.51 0.48 0.32 0.51 0.37 0.21 0.40 0.37 0.21 0.40
Unif. delay d1 9.2 16.6 7.7 10.1 16.7 7.8 13.1 20.4 11.9 14.2 22.6 11.8
Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11
ncrem. delay d2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 2.4 0.0
PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Control delay 9.3 16.8 7.7 10.7 17.0 7.9 13.2 20.6 11.9 14.7 24.9 11.8
Lane group LOS A B A B B A B C B B C B
Apprch. delay 15.7 14.6 16.0 19.8
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersec. delay 16.3 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
5
Version4_le
file:1 Ie :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\s2k... 2/1112005
1
U
IU
[J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
I U
U
IU
U
U
U
U
U
U
Short Report
Page 1 of 1
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst TSV Intersection 146th St & River Rd
Agency or Co. A&F Engineering Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/1112005 Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Ifime Period PM Peak Analysis Year S1 - Existing Traffic
Volume and Timing Input
EB WB NB 5B
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R
Volume (vph) 54 450 17 74 391 151 9 93 205 112 44 35
% Heavv veh 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext. eft. areen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 8 0 75 0 102 0 17
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/hr
Bus stopslhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Phasing Exct. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
Timing G- 7.0 G - 25.0 G= G= G= 7.0 G = 11.0 G= G=
y- 3 Y= 5 Y= y= Y= 3 Y= 5 Y= Y=
Duration of Analysis (hrs -0.25 Cycle Length C = 66.0
Lane Group Cal acity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination
EB WB NB 5B
Adj. flow rate 60 500 10 82 434 84 10 103 114 124 49 20
Lane group cap. 484 1305 862 452 1305 862 361 302 536 352 302 536
v/c ratio 0.12 0.38 0.01 0.18 0.33 0.10 0.03 0.34 0.21 0.35 0.16 0.04
Green ratio 0.53 0.38 0.56 0.53 0.38 0.56 0.32 0.17 0.35 0.32 0.17 0.35
Unif. delay d1 7.8 14.9 6.4 8.1 14.6 6.7 15.6 24.3 15.1 16.7 23.6 14.2
Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Increm. delay d2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.0
PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Control delay 7.9 15.1 6.4 8.3 14.7 6.8 15.7 25.0 15.3 17.4 23.8 14.2
Lane group LOS A B A A B A B C B B C B
Apprch. delay 14.2 12.7 19.7 18.7
IApproach LOS B B B B
Intersec. delay 15.0 Intersection L05 B
HCS2000™
Copyright (;) 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
6
Version4.le
file:1 Ie :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\s2k... 2/1 1/2005
1
iU
I
IU
I
I
U
I
:U
I
'U
!
:U
I
U
:U
I
:U
I
i
U
U
U
'U
U
o
U
U
U
U
Short Report
Page 1 of 1
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst TSV Intersection 146th St & River Rd
Agency or Co. A&F Engineering Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/1112005 Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Time Period AM Peak Analysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Gen Traf
Volume and Timing Input
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT IT TH RT
Num. ot Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R
Volume (vph) 51 442 49 197 401 72 54 56 156 137 200 75
% Heavv veh 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext. eft. oreen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 24 0 36 0 78 0 37
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/hr
Bus stopslhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Phasina Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
Timing G= 7.0 G = 18.0 G= G= G= 7.0 G = 13.0 G= G=
y= 3 y= 5 y= y= y= 3 y= 5 y= y=
Duration ot Analysis (hrs = 0.25 Cycle length C = 61.0
Lane Group CaJ acitv. Control Delav. and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
Mj. flow rate 57 491 28 219 446 40 60 62 87 152 222 42
Lane group cap. 410 1017 756 391 1017 756 367 386 630 431 386 630
Iv/e ratio 0.14 0.48 0.04 0.56 0.44 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.35 0.58 0.07
~reen ratio 0.46 0.30 0.49 0.46 0.30 0.49 0.38 0.21 0.41 0.38 0.21 0.41
Unit. delay d1 9.6 17.7 8.0 10.8 17.4 8.1 12.7 19.6 11.3 13.2 21.5 10.9
Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11
Increm. delay d2 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 2.1 0.0
PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
~ontrol delay 9.8 18.0 8.0 12.6 17.7 8.1 12.9 19.8 11.4 13.7 23.6 11.0
lane group lOS A B A B B A B B B B C B
~pprch. delay 16.7 15.6 14.3 18.7
~pproach LOS B B B B
ntersec. delay 16.5 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved
7
Version 4_ Ie
file :/IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\s2k... 2/11/2005
1
i U
I
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
rU
i
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Short Report
Page I of 1
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Information
Analyst TSV Intersection 146th St & River Rd
Agency or Co. A&F Engineering Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 2/1112005 Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Time Period PM Peak Analysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Gen Traf
Volume and TiminQ Input
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R
Volume (vph) 61 498 64 138 449 151 36 100 242 112 55 47
% Heavy veh 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext. eft. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.'0 3.0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 32 0 75 0 121 0 23
ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/hr
Bus stopslhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
PhasinQ Exd. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08
TIming G= 7.0 G = 24.0 G= G= G= 7.0 G = 11.0 G= G=
y= 3 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 3 Y= 5 Y= Y=
Duration of Analysis (hrs =0.25 Cycle LenQth C = 65.0
Lane Group Cal acitv. Control Delav. and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
Adj. flow rate 68 553 36 153 499 84 40 111 134 124 61 27
Lane group cap. 447 1272 852 422 1272 852 365 306 544 357 306 544
'rIlc ratio 0.15 0.43 0.04 0.36 0.39 0.10 0.11 0.36 0.25 0.35 0.20 0.05
[Green ratio 0.52 0.37 0.55 0.52 0.37 0.55 0.32 0.17 0.35 0.32 0.17 0.35
Unif. delay d1 8.1 15.4 6.6 8.7 15.1 6.8 15.4 23.9 14.9 16.3 23.2 13.8
Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Increm. delay d2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0;2 0.6 0.3 0.0
PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
~ontrol delay 8.3 15.6 6.6 9.2 15.3 6.9 15.6 24.6 15.1 16.9 23.5 13.8
Lane group LOS A B A A B A B C B B C B
fA,pprch. delay 14.4 13.1 18.9 18.4
Approach LOS B B B B
I ntersec. delay 15.0 Intersection LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved
8
Version 4.Je
file:1 Ie :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFH Q\Local%20Settings\ T emp\s2k... 2/11/2005
l
10
10
10
I
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
o
D
o
o
u
EARLHAM COLLEGE. CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
146TH STREET & PROPOSED MIDDLE ACCESS
(FULL ACCESS)
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
9
u
u
u
u
u
u
o
o
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
o
D
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
3enerallnformation Site Information
Analyst TSV Intersection 146th St & Full Access
,gency/Co. &F EngineerinQ Jurisdiction Carmel, /N
ate Performed V11/2005 Analysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Gen Traf
nalysis Time Period M Peak
Project Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: 146th St INorth/South Street: Proposed Middle Access (Full)
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
l T R l T R
Volume (vehlh) 0 505 13 23 507 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate 0 561 14 25 563 0
vehlh)
Proportion of heavy 0 5
"ehicles, P HV - - - -
Median type Raised curb
RT Channelized? 0 0
lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0
ICon figuration T TR L T
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
!Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
l T R l T R
1V0lume (vehlh) 53 0 29 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate 58 0 32 0 0 0
veh/h)
Proportion of heavy 5 0 5 0 0 0
r.,rehicles, P HV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
~Iared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
1C0nfiguration L R
~ontrol Delay. Queue length. Level of Service
~pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
~ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ILane Configuration L L .R
rvolume. v (vph) 25 58 32
lCapacity.. cm (vph) 974 386 700
r.,r/c ratio 0.03 0.15 0.05
pueue length (95%) 0.08 0.52 0.14
1C0ntrol Delay (slveh) 8.8 16.0 10.4
OS A C B
Approach delay - - 14.0
s/veh)
Approach LOS - - B
I)
U
U
HCS2000™
Copyright 0 2003 Unil'Uity of Florida. All Rights Reserved
Version 4.ld
u
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
l:i enerallnformation ite Information
i)l nalyst TSV ntersection 146fh Sf & Full Access
IAQencv/Co. &F Enqineerina urisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 11/2005 a.nalvsis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Gen Traf
~nalvsis Time Period M Peak
Project Descriotion Schneider
EastlWest Street: 146fh Sf . INorth/South Street: Prooosed Middle Access (Full)
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
rvolume (veh/h) 0 611 41 70 453 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate 0 678 45 77 503 0
vehlh)
Proportion of heavy 0 5
vehicles, P HV - - - -
Median type Raised curb
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration T TR L T
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
N inor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 31 0 17 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate 34 0 18 0 0 0
vehni )
Proportion of heavy 5 0 5 0 0 0
vehicles, P HV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration L R
Control Delay. Queue Length. Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ane Configuration L L R
Volume, v (vph) 77 34 18
Capacity, cm (vph) 856 310 626
vlc ratio 0.09 0.11 0.03
Queue length (95%) 0.30 0.37 0.09
Control Delay (s/veh) 9.6 18.0 10.9
1"1
U
U.
D
U
U
U
U
o
U
U
U
U
o
U
o
o
o
u
A
C
B
HCS2000™
15.6
C
Copyright 0 2003 U'1'rsity of Florida. All Rights Reserved
Version 4. Jd
1
!U
o
o
D
U
o
U
EA1u.HAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #1
o
u
u
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
fl
U
u
u
o
u
u
u
o
u
12
U
D
o
U
U
iO
U
'\
U
'\
U
U
U
U
r 1
U
U
U
U
o
o
u
Two- Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
~nalyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #1
~gency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/1112005 Analysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Traf
~nalysis Time Period AM Peak
Project Description Schneider
EasVWest Street: Proposed Access #1 North/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
lIehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
~olume 2 249 0 0 440 6
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 276 0 0 488 6
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 17 0 6
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 18 0 6
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
lared Approach N N
~torage 0 0
RT Channelized . 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
~onfjguration LR
Delav. Queue Lenath and Level of Service
~pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
v (vph) 2 24
~ (m) (v ph) 1054 399
~/c 0.00 0.06
~5% queue length 0.01 0.19
Control Delay 8.4 14.6
~OS A B
Approach Delay - - 14.6
Approach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright 0 2003 Universitf Jf Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.ld
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ Temp\u2k... 2/18/2005
u
u
o
u
U
I U
~l
U
U
, \
U
, '\
U
U
U
r 1
U
U
U
U
o
D
U
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
l\nalyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #1
l\gency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/11/2005 l\nalysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Traf
l\nalysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #1 North/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 6 368 0 0 239 18
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 408 0 0 265 20
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Sianal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
l T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 10 0 3
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 11 0 3
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
~torage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gonfiguration LR
Delay. Queue Length and Level of Service
~pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
~ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
lane Configuration LT LR
~ (vph) 6 14
~ (m) (vph) 1260 447
~/c 0.00 0.03
~5% queue length 0.01 0.10
Control Delay 7.9 13.3
LOS A B
~pproach Delay - - 13.3
Approach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright 0 2003 Universit\.4f Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.Jd
file://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20SettingS\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
1
iU
U
o
iW
U
U
IU
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #2
u
INTERSECTION DATA
u
i I
1.1
CAPACITY ANALYSES
u
. 1
~I
r 1
U
o
o
u
o
u
u
15
u
U
iD
U
U
U
o
U
U
U
r\
U
U
-1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Two-Way Stop Control
Page I of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information $ite Information
I\nalyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #2
I\gency/Co. A&F Engineering ~urisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/11/2005 ~nalysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Traf
I\nalysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #2 lNorth/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
lVolume 0 234 2 6 440 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 260 2 6 488 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
~onfiguration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 6 0 17 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 0 18 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service
I\pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
II (vph) 6 24
C (m) (vph) 1285 604
II/C 0.00 0.04
95% queue length 0.01 0.12
Control Delay 7.8 11.2
LOS A B
6.pproach Delay - - 11.2
6.pproach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright 0 2003 Universi16 Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.Jd
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
1
tu
11
!U
IU
n
lJ
o
o
iD
U
U
U
U
II
W
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #2
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/11/2005 ~nalysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Traf
AnalYsis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #2 North/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiusbnents
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6.
L T R L T R
Volume 0 364 6 17 225 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 404 6 18 250 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 3 0 10 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 11 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delav. Queue Lenath and Level of Service
Approach N6 S6 Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
>I (vph) 18 14
C (m) (vph) 1133 565
>lIe 0.02 0.02
35% queue length 0.05 0.08
Control Delay 8.2 11.5
LOS A B
Approach Delay - - 11.5
Approach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright Ci 2003 Universil f1 Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.1d
file:1 IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
u
u
u
U
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
o
D
D
D
o
EARLIIAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #3
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
18
U
D
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
o
D
U
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #3
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/11/2005 Analysis Year S2 - Ex Trat + Prop Trat
Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Schneider
EastlWest Street ProDOSed Access #3 INorth/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 4 224 0 0 442 4
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 248 0 0 491 4
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
~olume 0 0 0 12 0 12
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 13 0 13
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delav. Queue Lenath and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
r.r (vph) 4 26
~ (m) (vph) 1053 452
~/c 0.00 0.06
95% queue length 0.01 0.18
~ontrol Delay 8.4 13.5
LOS A B
Approach Delay - - 13.5
Approach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright C> 2003 Universil} fJ Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.ld
tile:1 IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
u
u
u
u
u
u
o
u
u
[j
u
u
u
u
u
o
o
D
U
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
A.nalyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #3
A.gency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/11/2005 Analysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Traf
A.nalysis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #3 North/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
iVolume 12 363 0 0 217 11
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 403 0 0 241 12
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
....anes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 7 0 7
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 7 0 7
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
~torage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes .0 0 0 0 0 0
~onfiguration LR
Delay. Queue Length and Level of Service
~pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
r" (vph) 13 14
~ (m) (vph) 1295 538
'rJ/c 0.01 0.03
~5% queue length 0.03 0.08
~ontrol Delay 7.8 11.9
LOS A B
fA,pproach Delay - - 11.9
Approach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright (;) 2003 Universi~W Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.ld
file:/ /C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
[
!u
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
U
o
D
o
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #4
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
21
u
u
u
u
u
U
: U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
U
D
Two-Way Stop Control
Page I of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information ~ite Information
Analyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #4
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering ~urisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/11/2005 ~nalysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Traf
Analvsis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #4 INorth/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 205 4 8 446 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 227 4 8 495 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 11 0 23 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 12 0 25 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delay. Queue Length and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT Lk
v (vph) 8 37
C (m) (vph) 1319 588
v/c 0.01 0.06
95% queue length 0.02 0.20
Control Delay 7.7 11.5
LOS A B
Approach Delay - - 11.5
~pproach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright 0 2003 Universi~!f Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.ld
file:1 IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
I
iU
I
iU
U
U
U
Ii U
U
U
:u
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #4
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering ~urisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/11 i2005 ~nalysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Traf
Analvsis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Descriotion Schneider
EastlWest Street: ProDosed Access #4 North/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 361 11 23 201 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 401 12 25 223 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Uostream Sional 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 7 0 14 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 0 15 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
lConfiguration LR
Delav. Queue Lenoth and Level of Service
!Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
r.t (vph) 25 22
~ (m) (vph) 1130 538
~/c 0.02 0.04
~5% queue length 0.07 0.13
Control Delay 8.3 12.0
LOS A B
Approach Delay - - 12.0
Approach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright 0 2003 Unjversi~Jf Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4. Id
file:/ /C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
U
'l
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
RIVER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #5
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
24
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
U
D
U
U
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROlSUMMARY
General Information Isite Information
~nalyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #5
fAgency/Co. A&F Engineering ~urisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/11i2005 ~nalysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Traf
Analvsis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #5 INorth/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 6 203 0 0 455 2
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 225 0 0 505 2
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 6 0 17
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 6 0 18
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delay. Queue Length and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
v (vph) 6 24
C (m) (vph) 1043 499
v/c 0.01 0.05
95% queue length 0.02 0.15
Control Delay 8.5 12.6
LOS A B
Approach Delay - - 12.6
Approach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright 0 2003 Universi2~Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.ld
file:1 IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
[j
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
o
u
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
IAnalyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #5
IAgency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/11/l005 Analysis Year S2 - Ex Trat + Prop Trat
IAnalysis Time Period PM Peak
Proiect Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #5 INorth/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25
~ehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Wolume 17 369 0 0 202 6
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 18 410 0 0 224 6
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
~onfiguration LT TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 3 0 10
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 3 0 11
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
!Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
lConfiguration LR
Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service
IApproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Iv (vph) 18 14
Ie (m) (vph) 1320 667
IV/c 0.01 0.02
195% queue length 0.04 0.06
!control Delay 7.8 . 10.5
LOS A B
IApproach Delay - - 10.5
IApproach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright" 2003 Universi12 (!I Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.Jd
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFH Q\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
o
i U
U
U
o
U
r -1
U
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
o
U
EARLHAM COLLEGE - CARMEL. INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #6
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
27
'U
I
U
U
U
['-1
\.J
U
o
U
U
U
LJ
U
U
U
o
[J
D
o
U
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
.
General Information ~ite Information
~nalyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #6
~gencyICo. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/1112005 ~nalysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Traf
~nalvsis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #6 INorth/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 197 6 4 468 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 218 6 4 520 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Sional 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 18 0 12 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 0 13 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Rared Approach N N
IStorage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
~onfiguration LR
Delay. Queue Length and Level of Service
~pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
~ (vph) 4 33
C (m) (vph) 1327 475
vlc 0.00 0.07
95% queue length 0.01 0.22
Control Delay 7.7 13.1
LOS A B
Approach Delay - - 13.1
Approach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright 0 2003 UniversiQ8f Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.Jd
file:/IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFH Q\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
u
'-I
U
U
U
o
u
o
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
o
u
o
o
o
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information lSite Information
IAnalyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #6
Vo,gency/Co. A&F Engineering !Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/11i2005 IAnalysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Prop Traf
Vo,nalysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #6 North/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South !Study Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
~olume 0 379 18 12 200 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 421 20 13 222 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
~olume 11 0 7 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 12 0 7 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
onfiguration LR
elav. Queue Lenath and Level of Service
pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
~ (vph) 13 19
~ (m) (vph) 1103 466
~/c 0.01 0.04
~5% queue length 0.04 0.13
~ontrol Delay 8.3 13.1
LOS A B
~pproach Delay - - 13.1
~pproach LOS - - B
Rights Reserved
Copyright 0 2003 Unjversi~9r Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version 4. Jd
file:1 IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20SettingS\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
U
D
U
U
o
U
o
rl
W
U
EA1u.HAM COLLEGE - CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
RIvER ROAD & PROPOSED ACCESS #7
INTERSECTION DATA
: 1
U
U
CAPACITY ANALYSES
r I
U
f -1.
U
u
o
u
u
u
o
30
u
[J
r~
U
U
o
D
r~
U
U
U
U
U
r I
U
i \
l.J
U
U
U
U
U
D
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
lGenerallnformation Site Information
IAnalyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #7
IAgency/Co. A&F Engineering ~urisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/1112005 ~nalysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Gen Traf
!Analysis Time Period AM Peak
Proiect Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #7 North/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South ~tudy Period (hrs): 0.25
ehicle Volumes and Adjustments
aior Street Northbound Southbound
ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
rvolume 10 160 4 2 451 33
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 177 4 2 501 36
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1
~onfiguration L TR LT R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 12 5 6 37 5 29
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 5 6 41 5 32
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
Configuration L TR L TR
Delav. Queue Lenath and Level of Service
Approach NB 5B Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L LT L TR L TR
v (vph) 11 2 13 11 41 37
C (m) (vph) 1016 1376 302 503 334 521
vie 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.07
5% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.42 0.23
Control Delay 8.6 7.6 17.5 12.3 17.3 12.4
LOS A A C B C B
Approach Delay - - 15.1 15.0
Approach LOS - - C B
Rights Reserved
Copyright 0 2003 Universiii If Florida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.ld
file:/ IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005
u
o
o
u
1-1
u
u
u
u
u
u
',' \
U
--\
U
o
- l
U
U
o
U
U
{J
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of2
~O-WAYSTOPCONTROLSUMMARY
General Information Site Information
~nalyst TSV Intersection River Rd & Prop Access #7
~gency/Co. A&F Engineering Jurisdiction Carmel, IN
Date Performed 2/1112005 Analysis Year S2 - Ex Traf + Gen Traf
~nalysis Time Period PM Peak
Project Description Schneider
EastlWest Street: Proposed Access #7 North/South Street: River Road
Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 29 354 12 6 163 42
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 32 393 13 6 181 46
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 - - 5 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration L TR LT R
Upstream Si~mal 0 0
~ inor Street Westbound Eastbound
rlI ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 7 5 3 40 5 17
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 5 3 44 5 18
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
~torage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0
~onfiguration L TR L TR
Delav. Queue Lenath and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L LT L TR L TR
v (vph) 32 6 7 8 44 23
C (m) (vph) 1324 1137 335 419 358 663
v/c 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.03
95% queue length 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.42 0.11
Control Delay 7.8 8.2 16.0 13.8 16.5 10.6
LOS A A C B C B
Approach Delay - - 14.8 14.5
Approach LOS - - B B
Rights Reserved
Copyright 0 2003 Unjversi~~FJorida, All Rights Reserved
Version4.Jd
file:/ /C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\tvandenberg.AFHQ\Local%20Settings\ T emp\u2k... 2/18/2005