Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Operation Analysis 3-99`- ,_ F I E- ~- ~- ~ TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS PROPOSED SELF STORAGE DEVELOPMENT CARMEL DRIVE Sc KEYSTONE WAY CARMEL, INDIANA PREPARED FOR SKINNER & BROADBENT MARCH 1999 PREPARED BY: A 8o F ENGINEERING CO., INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5172 EAST 65'" STREET INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46220 PH 317-842-0864 FAx 317-849-6816 SKINNER & BROADBENT- CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS COPYRIGHT This Analysis and the ideas, designs and concepts contained herein are the exclusive intellectual property of A&F Engineering Co., Inc. and are not to be used or reproduced in whole or in part, without the written consent of A&F Engineering Co., Inc. ©1999, A&F Engineering Co., Inc. SKINNER & BROADBENT- CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ............................................II CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................... ..........................................III INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... ............................................ 1 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... ............................................ 1 - SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................................................... ............................................ 1 DESCRIPT[ON OF THE PROJECT ..................................................................................... ............................................ 2 STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................. ............................................4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET $YSTEM ......................................................... ............................................ 4 TRAFFIC DATA ............................................................................................................ ............................................ 4 GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................... ............................................ 5 TABLE 1 -GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................. ............................................ S INTERNAL TRIPS ......................................................................................................... ............................................ 5 PASS-BY TRIPS ........................................................................................................... ............................................ 5 _ PEAK HOUR ................................................................................................................ ............................................5 ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRB3UTION OF GENERATED TR[PS ............................................... ............................................ 6 PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENTGENERATEDTRIPSADDEDTOrHESTREETSYSTEM ............. ............................................8 MODIFICATION OF CARMELDRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY ............................................. ............................................ 8 CAPACITY ANALYSiS .................................................................................................. ............................................ 8 DESCRIPTION OF LE VELS OF SERVICE .......................................................................... .......................................... I I CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS ............................................................................... .......................................... 13 _ TABLE 2 -LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-CARidEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY ...... .......................................... 16 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. .......................................... 17 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... .......................................... 17 $UMMARY .................................................................................................................. .......................................... 18 I $R:INNER BC BROADBENT- CARMEL DBrvE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: AREA MAP ...............................................................................................................................""..........3 FIGURE 2: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC ....................................................................... 7 FIGURE 3: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED $ITE ............................................................................... 9 FIGURE 4: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................................... 10 FIGURE $: REDISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................................................................................................... 14 ~, FIGURE 6: SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED AND GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................... 15 II $ICIIQNIER Bt BBOADBENT- CARMEL DRIYE AND KEYSTONE WAY 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 ENGIIIEERIIdG CO., INC. `,~~~ununnrrp,~~. J / ( ~ J '~ISTF ~ 'i ~~ L~ + Steven J. Fehribach, P.E. 3~ ~ 89237 j Indiana Registration 890237 ~0,~, STATE OF ;~~~ ~~ NOIANP.•'•~J~C ,',~ry~~~~nin~G~`,`• G~~~~,~~~-~~ R. Matt Brown, E.I. Transportation Engineer III SKINNER a4C BROADBENT- CAR[vffiL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFPiC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepazed at the request of Skinner & Broadbent, is for a proposed self storage facility that is to be located northwest of the intersection of Carmel Drive and _ Keystone Way in Carmel, Indiana. PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed developmerrt, when fully occupied, will have on the existing adjacent roadway system. This analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site is developed. Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes or will determine the modifications that will be required to the system if _ it is determined there will be deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes. Recommendations will be made that will address the conclusions resulting from this analysis. These recommendations will address feasible roadway system improvements which will _ accommodate the proposed development traffic volumes such that there will be safe ingress and egress, to and from the proposed development, with minimal interference to traffic on the public street system. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for this analysis is: First, to obtain a traffic volume count at the intersection of Cannel Drive and Keystone Way. Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed development. 1 ~, SKINNER & BROADBENT - CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERAITONS ANALYSIS Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will serve to provide access to the proposed development. Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from each pazcel onto the public roadway system and intersections which have been identified as the study azea. Fifth, to prepare an analysis including a capacity analysis and level of service analysis far each intersection included in the study area for each of the following scenarios: SCENARIO I: Modred Conditions -Based on rewnstructed roadway conditions and existing traffic volumes. SCENARIO 2: Proposed Development -Add the new traffic volumes that will be generated '" by the proposed development to the existing traffic volumes. Finally, to prepare a TRAFFtc 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 self storage facility will be located northwest of the intersection of Carmel Drive and Keystone Way immediately west o€ State Road 431 in Carmel, Indiana. As proposed, the development will consist of 72,900 squaze feet of storage space when fully developed. Figure 1 is _ an area map which shows the location of the site relative to the study intersection. 2 H: NOT TO SCALE i i I SITE I i ~ i r a EXIST. OFFICE BOILING sl w z J EXIST. RETAIL ~I s SKINNER & BROADBENT T CARMEL DRIVE & KEYSTONE WAY EXIST. McDONALDS CARMEL DR , EXIST. RETAIL FIGURE i AREA MAP 3 ~, SKINNER & BROADHFNT- CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERwitONS ANALYSIS STUDY AREA _ The study area for this analysis as defined by the City of Carmel Department of Community Services will include the intersection of Carmel Drive and Keystone Way. DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes Carmel Drive and Keystone Way. CARMEL DRIVE- is a four lane east%west two-lane roadway. This roadway serves as a primary route for commercial development along the corridor. KEYSTONE WAY - is a north south two-lane roadway. This roadway provides access to several retail developments. Carmel Drive and Keystone Y~iry-This intersection is two-way stop controlled with Keystone _ way stopping for Carmel Drive. The northbound and southbound approaches of this intersection will be reconstructed to permit right-turns only. However, the eastbound and westbound approaches will continue to allow right-turns, left-turns and through vaffic. TRAFFIC DATA A peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume count was made at the intersection of Carmel Drive and Keystone Way by A&F Engineering Co., Inc. The traffic volume count includes an hourly total of all "through" traffic and all "fuming" traffic at the intersection. The traffic volume count was made during the hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM in February 1999. A summary of this count is included in Appendix A. 4 SKINNER SC BROADBENT- CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ~, The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the development size and of the character of the land use. Trip 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 GENERATED TRIPS LAND USE ITE CODE SIZE AM ENTER AM EXIT PM ENTER PM EXIT Mini-Warehouse 151 72,900 SF 6 4 10 9 _ INTERNAL TRIPS An internal trip results when a trip is made between two land uses without using the roadway _ system. Typically, internal trips occur in mixed-use developments. This is a single use development. Therefore, no reductions will be applied for internal trips. PASS-BY TRIPS Pass-by trips are trips already on the roadway system that decide to enter a land use. The proposed development is a destination land use. Therefore, no reduction will be applied for pass-by trips. PEAK HOUR Throughout this analysis, all reference to peak hours will be from 7:45 AM to 8:45 AM and from 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM. These peak hours are based on the traffic volume count collected at the intersection of Carmel Drive and Keystone Way. 1 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition, 1997. 5 SKIIVNER RC BROADBENT - CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY ~IYtAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes, from the proposed development, that -' will be added to the street system is defined as follows: 1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the site must be assigned to the various access points and to the public street system. Using the traffic volume data collected for this analysis, traffic to and from the proposed new site has been assigned to the proposed driveways and to the public street system that will be serving the site. 2. To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their irnersection with the driveway. For the proposed development, the distribution was based on the existing traffic patterns and the assignment of generated traffic. The assignment and distribution of the generated traffic volumes for the proposed development are shown on Figure Z. 6 ^ NOT TO SCALE EXIST. OFFICE BOILING w EXIST. '~ McDONALDS ---60% EXIST. EXIST. RETAIL RETAIL i i i SITE i i Mo I ~ 60X dOX~ fi0X-/ SKINNER & BROADBENT T CARMEL DRIVE & KEYSTONE WAY ~J l CARMEL DR. FIGURE 2 ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC 7 SI:mNER&BROADBENT-CARMELDRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared _ for the intersection of Carmel Drive and Keystone Way. The Peak Hour generated traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3. These data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, _ assignment of generated traffic, and distribution of generated traffic. MODIFICATION OF CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY The northbound and southbound approaches to this intersection culremly allow left-turns, right- toms and through movements. Figure 4 shows the existing traffic volumes with these existing intersection geometrics. However, the intersection of Carmel Drive and Keystone Way is to be reconstructed to permit right-turns only along these approaches. These modifications will be made regazdless of the proposed development. In order to accourn for this modification, existing traffic volumes must be redistributed according to the new intersection geometrics. Figure 5 shows the redistributed existing traffic volumes with these modified intersection geometrics. CAPACITY ANALYSIS The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that approach the intersection. The "efficiency" of an intersection is designated by the Level-of- Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS of an intersection is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes and, in the case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the level of service at each of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer program based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)2. z Transportation Reseazch Board, National Reseazch Council, Washington, DC, Special Report 209, 1985. 8 H: NOT TO SCALE ~ ~ ~ ~ SITE I i L J EXIST. OFFICE BOILING ~I EXIST. w McDONALDS Y CARMEL DR. EXIST. EXIST. RETAIL RETAIL ~; 'c< (e) (<) Z.? a (s) s-~ r r n SKINNER & BROADBENT T CARMEL DRIVE & KEYSTONE WAY LEGEND 00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR FIGURE 3 GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED SITE 9 i i SITE i a ~ 3 ~ z EXIST. 0 OFFICE ~ EXIST. BOILING Y McDONALDS NOT TO SCALE CARMEL DR. EXIST. EXIST. RETAIL RETAIL '' ° a ~ f BS1 (526) ~ ~ ,~ y X17 (116) (61) 611 h ~' s (1109) 249-- '" „°, ~ (65) 257, °°:-'.^ a ,,, ~. / i w ao N 0 LEGEND 00 = A.M. PEAK NOUR (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR FIGURE 4 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES SKINNER B[ BROADBENT- CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS DESCRIPTTON OF LEVELS OF SERVICE The following descriptions are for signalized intersections: _ Level of Service A - describes operations with a very low delay, less than 5.0 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 5.1 to 15.0 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 15.1 seconds to 25.0 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 25.1 to 40.0 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. 11 - ~ SKINNER & BROADBENT- CARMEL DBrvE AND KEYSrONE WAY TRAPPiC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Level of Service E - describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 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 60.0 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 Average Dew (seconds/vehicle) A Less than or equal to 5 _ B Between 5.1 and l0 C Between 10.1 and 20 _ D Between 20.1 and 30 E Between 30.1 and 45 F greater than 45 12 SKINNER ~L pROAD$ENT- CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS v 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. The City of Cazmel Department of Community Services has requested that an analysis be made for the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour at the study intersection for each of the following scenarios: ` SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Modred Intersection- These are the traffic volumes that were obtained in February 1999. Figure 5 is a summary of the existing traffic volumes at the study intersection for the peak hour. _ SCINARIO 2: Existing Traffic l~olumes + Proposed Development Generated Trafftc Yohrmes with Modified Intersection -Figure 6 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersection for the peak hour. The requested analyses have been completed and the computer solutions showing the level of _ service results aze included in Appendix A. Table 2 is a summary of the results of the level of service analyses for the intersection of Carmel Drive and Keystone Way. 13 NOT TO SCALE r-----------~ 1 i SITE i EXIST. OFFICE BOILING a ~ ~ ~ t 68 (33) ~ a ~--832 (534) ~ ~ ,~77 (116) (61) 61~ r (1130) 277-- p (66) 297, ~. ~ z O t~n EXIST. w McDONALDS Y CAR~IEL DR EXIST. EXIST. RETAIL RETAIL SKINNER & BROADBENT CARMEL DRIVE & KEYSTONE WAY LEGEND 00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR FIGURE 5 REDISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 14 NOT TO SCALE i 1 I 51TE i i a EXIST. OFFICE BOILING `" a F 832((53a) ~ ~ r 77 (116) 1 (65) 63~ ~ (1135) 219 -~ N, x (65) 293, i h li 3 z 0 u~i EXIST. ~ McDONALDS w Y CARMEL DR. EXIST. EXIST. RETAIL RETAIL LEGEND 00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR SKINNER & BROADBENT CARMEL DRIVE & KEYSTONE WAY FIGURE 6 SUM OF REDISTRIBUTED & PROPOSED SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMES IS ___ $PIIYNER a~ BROADHENT- CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS TABLE 2 -LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY-CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 Northbound Ri ht-Tum A A Southbound Ri ht-Tum B B Eastbound A roach B B Westbound A roach A A Intersection A A PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 Northbound Ri ht-Turn B B Southbound Ri ht-Tum A A Eastbound A roach A A Westbound A roach C C Intersection A A SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Modified Intersection Geometrics SCENARIO 2: Sum of Existing and Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes with Modified Intersection Geometrics. Note: The modified geometrics include the reconstruction of the northbound and southbound approaches to permit right-turns only. 16 ~, $I+INNER RL BROADBENT- CARMEL DRrvE AND KEYSTONE WAY 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 prepazed for each of the study intersections, and the field review conducted at the site. These conclusions apply only to the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour that were addressed in this analysis. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, it can be assumed the remaining 22 - hours will have levels of service that are better than the peak hour, since the existing street traffic volumes will be less during the other 22 hours. 1. CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY _ Existing (Scenario I) - A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and modified geometrics, has shown this intersection is operating at acceptable levels. Proposed Development (Scenario 2) -When the traffic volumes from the proposed developmern are added to the existing traffic volumes, this intersection will corninue to operate at acceptable levels with the modified intersection conditions that are planned. 2. The land use proposed for this site generates minor traffic volumes. Therefore, traffic generated by the proposed development will have minimal impact on the surrounding street network. - RECOMMENDATIONS Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations aze made to ensure that - the roadway system will operate at acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as proposed. CARMEL DRNE AND KEYSTONE WAY In order to improve the traffic flow at this intersection, the northbound and southbound approaches to this intersection will be reconstructed to allow right-turns only. By eliminating conflicting left- - tum and through traffic from these approaches, the level of safety and the level of service at this intersection will be increased. The improvements planned for this intersection will be made regardless of the proposed development. 17 SKINNER BC BROADBENT- CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS SUMMARY The traffic generated by the proposed development is minimal and will not effect the operation of the ' ocal roadway system to a greater extent than the existing traffic conditions. Furthermore, the planned modifications at this intersection will improve both operations and safety at the intersection of Carmel Drive and Keystone Way. These improvements will be made with or without the proposed development. 18 SKINNER ~Yc BROADBENT-CARMELDRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TIWFFTC OPERATIONSANALYSIS APPENDIX A This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS for the proposed self storage facility. Included aze the intersection turning movement traffic volume counts and the intersection capacity analyses for each of the study intersections for the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. SKINNER & BROADHENT- CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS r CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY ..................................................................................................................... 1 SKINNER BC BROADBENT- CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS CARMEL DRIVE AND KEYSTONE WAY INTERSECTION DATA TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS AND CAPACITY ANALYSES 1 CLIENT LOCATION DATE NORTHBOUND EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND WESTBOUND A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC. TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY SxINRER fi BROADBENT KEYSTONE WAY AND CARMEL DRZVE FEBRUARY 22, 1999 PEAK HOUR DATA AM PEAK ~ OFF PEAK ~ PM PEAK HR BEGZN 7:45 AM ~ ~ HR BEGIN 4:45 PM L T R TOT ~ L T R TOT ~ L T R TOT 1 1 30 32 ~ ~ 8 2 151 161 61 249 25 335 ~ ~ 61 1109 65 1235 28 4 60 92 ~ ~ 21 0 35 56 ~ 77 831 67 975 I 1116 526 31 673 I HOUR SUMMARY HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL - AM - 6- 7 11 38 49 120 296 416 465 7- 8 18 99 117 262 877 1139 1256 8- 9 42 95 137 387 888 1275 1412 - PM - 4- 5 140 80 220 873 676 1549 1769 5- 6 159 67 226 1164 625 1789 2015 6- 7 194 89 283 730 560 1290 1573 TOTAL 564 468 1032 3536 3922 7458 8490 6.6% 5.5% 12.2% 41.6% 46.2% 87.8% 100.0% - AM PEAK VOLUMES - 15-MIN 15 30 120 303 HOUR 42 103 387 1009 PHF 0.70 0.86 0.81 0.83 - PM PEAK VOLUMES - 15-MIN 47 23 368 185 HOUR 161 80 1235 676 PHF 0.86 0.87 0.84 0.91 2 A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC. TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY CLIENT S~INNES S BROADBENT LOCATION XEYSTONE WAY AND CARMEL DRIVE DATE FEBRUARY 22, 1999 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL NORTHBOUND I HOUR I LEFT (PASS TRUCK SOTHI I PASS THRU TRUCK SOTHI I PASS RIGHT TRUCK BOTHI I PASS TOTAL TRUCX 1 BOTHI I I I ~ I I I 1 6- 7 I 3 0 3I 0 1 lI 7 0 7I 10 1 111 I 7- 8 I 0 0 OI 2 0 2I 14 2 161 16 2 181 I 8- 9 I 3 1 4I 1 0 lI 33 4 371 37 5 421 I I I PM I I I 1 4- 5 ( 10 0 l0I 3 0 3I 126 1 1271 139 1 1401 1 5- 6 I 9 0 9I 4 0 4I 144 2 1461 157 2 1591 I 6- i 7 I 14 i 0 14I i 5 0 SI i 175 0 1751 i 194 0 1941 i PASSENGER 39 15 499 97.5$ 93.8$ 98.2$ TRUCK 1 1 9 - 2.5$ 6.3$ 1.8$ BOTH 40 16 508 7.1$ 2.8$ 90.1$ DIRECTION OF TRAVEL EASTBOUND 553 98.0$ 11 2.0$ 564 100.0$ I HOUR I 1 I PASS LEFT TRUCK BOTH I THRU IPASS TRUCK BOTH ~ I IPASS RIGHT TRUCK BOTH I I PASS ~---- TOTAL TRUCK - 1 BOTHI J t- I T I _' ._._- ~ I ~ I ~ I 1 6- 7 I 25 0 15I 96 6 1021 3 0 3I 114 6 1201 1 7- 8 I 36 2 38I 194 17 2111 12 1 13I 242 20 2621 I 8- 9 I 57 4 61I 268 27 2951 29 2 31I 354 33 3871 I I I PM I I I I 4- 5 I 53 1 54I 750 18 7681 51 0 S1I 854 19 8731 I S- 6 I 57 0 57I 1046 9 1O55I 52 0 52I 1155 9 11641 I 6- i 7 I i 38 0 38~ i 637 1 6381 i 54 0 54I i 729 1 730{ i PASSENGER 256 2991 201 3448 97.3$ 97.5$ 98.5$ 97.5$ TRUCK 7 78 3 88 2.7: 2.5$ 1.5$ 2.5$ BOTH 263 3069 204 3536 7.4$ 86.8$ 5.8$ 100.0$ 3 A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC. TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY CLIENT SRINPEB S BEOADBENT LOCATION KEYSTONE WAY AND CARMEL DRIVE DATE FEBRUARY 22, 1999 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL SOUTHBOUND I HOUR I IPASS LEFT TRUCK BOTH I IPASS THRU TRUCK BOTH I IPASS RIGHT I TRUCK BOTHIPASS TOTAL I TRUCK BOTHI I I I AM I I I I 6- 7 I 14 0 14 I 2 0 2 I 22 D 22I 38 0 38I I 7- B I 27 2 29 I 6 0 6 I 61 3 64I 94 5 99I I 8- 9 I 27 6 33 I 4 0 4 I 58 0 58I 89 6 95I PM I 4- 5 I 33 0 33) 3 0 3I 49 0 44I 80 0 SOI I 5- 6 ~ 31 0 31I 0 0 0~ 36 0 36I 67 0 67I I 6- 7 I 46 1 47~ 2 0 2I 40 0 40I 88 1 89I + PASSENGER 178 17 261 456 95.2$ 100.0$ 98.9$ 97.4$ .~ TRUCK 9 0 3 12 4.83 0.0$ 1.1$ 2.63 BOTH 18? 17 264 468 40.0$ 3.6$ 56.4$ 100.0$ DIRECTION OF TRAVEL WESTBOUND I HOUR I IPASS LEFT TRUCK I THRU BOTHIPASS TRUCK I BOTH IPASS RIGHT TRUCK BOTH I IPASS TOTAL TRUCX BOTH A:4 I 6- 7 I 8 1 9I 270 11 2811 6 0 6 I 284 12 296) I 7- 8 I 41 2 43I 782 14 7961 37 1 38I 860 17 8771 I 8- 9 I 68 3 71I 732 20 7521 62 3 65I 862 26 8881 I I I PM I I I 4- 5 I 102 0 1021 510 20 5301 40 4 44I 652 24 6761 I 5- 6 I 115 1 1161 457 13 4701 39 0 39I 611 14 6251 I 6- 7 I 106 1 1071 431 4 4351 18 0 18I 555 5 5601 PASSENGER 440 3182 202 3824 98.2$ 97.5$ 96.2$ 97.5$ TRUCX 8 82 8 98 1.83 2.5$ 3.8$ 2.5$ BOTH 448 3264 210 3922 11.4$ 83.2$ 5.4$ 100.0$ 4 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g SBIAMSI.HCO Page 1 No. Lanes Stop/Yield volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 -------- --------------- Streets: (N-S) Keystone Way (E-W) Carmel Drive Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... RMB Date of Analysis.......... 3/10/99 Other Information......... Scenario 1 -Redist. Existing Conditions (AM Peak) Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R ( -L T -R-- L T R L T R - ---- ---- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 2 < 0 ---- --- N 61 277 29 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1 2 < 0 N 77 832 68 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 0 0 1 32 .95 0 1.10 0 0 1 92 .95 0 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) - -- ------ ------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road ---------------- 5.50 ---- - 2.10 - Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 5 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g SBIAMSI.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC I ntersection ------------------------------- - Step 1: RT from Minor Street --------------------- NB ---- SB ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) --------------------- 162 ---- 474 Potential Capacity: {pcph) 1146 796 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1146 796 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.87 ------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street --------------------- WB ---- EB ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) --------------------- 323 ---- 948 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1150 531 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1150 531 Prob. of Queue-Free State: ------------------------------- 0.92 --------------------- 0.87 ---- intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95~ Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ---- - --------- 3.2 NB R 37 1146 3.2 0.0 A 5.2 SB R 107 796 5.2 0.5 B EB L 70 531 7.8 0.5 B 1.3 WB L 89 1150 3.4 0.2 A 0.3 Intersection Delay = 0.9 sec/veh 6 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g SBIPMSI.HCO Page 1 No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 _______________________________________________________________________ ------------ Streets: (N-S) Keystone Way (E-W) Carmel Drive Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... RMB Date of Analysis.......... 3/10/99 Other Information......... Scenario 1 - Redist. Existing Condition s (PM Peak) Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T -R-- L T R L T R - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 2 < 0 N 61 1130 65 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1 2 < 0 N 116 534 33 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 i 0 0 1 161 .95 0 1.10 0 0 1 56 .95 0 1.10 Adjustment Factors , Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road ---------------- 5.50 -------------- 2.10 - Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.5C 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 7 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g SBiPMS1.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC I ntersection ------------------------------- - Step 1: RT from Minor Street --------------------- NB ---- SB ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) --------------------- 628 ---- 298 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 665 978 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 665 978 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.72 0.93 ------------------------------- _ Step 2: LT from Major Street --------------------- WB ---- EB ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph} --------------------- 1257 ---- 597 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 362 820 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 362 820 Prob. of Queue-Free State: ------------------------------- 0.63 --------------------- 0.91 ---- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95~ Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph} (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ - ------- ------- ---- - --------- 7.5 NB R 186 665 7.5 1.3 B 3.9 SB R 65 978 3.9 0.1 A EB L 70 820 4.8 0.2 A 0.2 _ WB L 134 362 15.8 1.9 C 2.7 Intersection Delay = 1.6 sec/veh 8 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g SBIAMS2.HC0 Page 1 No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 _______________________________________________________________________ -------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Keystone Way (E-W) Carmel Drive Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... RMB Date of Analysis.......... 3/10/99 Other Information......... Scenario 2 - Existing+Generated (AM P eak) Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound -L-- T -R--I-L T R L T R L T R ---- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 2 < 0 N 63 279 29 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1 2 < 0 N 77 832 72 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 0 0 1 32 .95 0 1.10 0 0 1 96 .95 0 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up _ Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road ---------------- 5.50 -------------- 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 9 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g SB1AM52.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection ------------------------------- - Step 1: RT from Minor Street ------------------------------- ----------------- NB ----------------- -------- SB -------- Conflicting Flows: (vph} 162 476 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1146 795 - Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1146 795 Prob. of Queue-Free State: - - ------ 0.97 ---- ------ --- 0.86 -------- ---------------- --- ---- - Step 2: LT from Major Street --- - WB EB ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) ----------------- 325 -------- 952 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1147 528 - Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1147 528 Prob. of Queue-Free State: ------------------------------- 0.92 ----------------- 0.86 -------- - Intersection Performance Summa ry Avg. 95% - Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) - -- (sec/veh) - - -------- ------ ------ ------ - ------- -- -- - -- --------- 3.2 NB R 37 1146 3.2 0.0 A 5.3 - SB R 111 795 5.3 0.5 B EB L 73 528 7.9 0.5 B 1.3 _ WB L 89 1147 3.4 0.2 A 0.3 Intersection Delay = 0.9 sec/veh 10 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g SBIPMS2.HC0 Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets (N-S) Keystone Way (E-W) Carmel Drive Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst. .......... Date of Analysis.......... Other Information......... Two-way Stop-controlled In -------------------------- -------------------------- Eastbound L T R ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (&) SU/RV's (~) CV's (g) PCE's RMB 3/10/99 Scenario 2 - Existing+Generated (PM P eak) tersection --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -LWestToundR--~-LNorthbounR--I-LSoutTbounR-- 1 2 < 0 N 65 1135 65 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 Vehicle Maneuver --------------- Left Turn Major Right Turn Mino Through Traffic Left Turn Minor 1 2 < 0 N 116 534 39. .95 .95 .95~i 0 1.10 0 0 1 161 .95 0 1.10 0 0 1 65 .95 0 1.10 Adjustment Factors Critical Follow-up Gap (tg) Time (tf) --------------------------------------------------- Road 5.50 2.10 r Road 5.50 2.60 Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Road 7.00 3.40 I1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g SBIPMS2.HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection ------------------------------- - Step 1: RT from Minor Street ----------------- NB -------- SB ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) ----------------- 632 -------- 302 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 662 973 _ Movement Capacity: (pcph) 662 973 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.72 0.92 ------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street ----------------- WB -------- EB ------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) ----------------- 1263 -------- 603 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 360 814 - Movement Capacity: (pcph) 360 814 Prob. of Queue-Free State: ------------------------------- 0.63 ----------------- 0.91 -------- Intersection Performance Summa ry Avg . 9 5's Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) - -- - - - (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) - ------ -- - ----- -- --- -- ------- ------- ----- --------- 7.6 NB R 186 662. 7.6 1.3 B 4.0 SB R 75 973 4.0 0.2 A EB L 75 8I4 4.9 0.3 A 0.3 WB L 134 360 15.9 1.9 C 2.7 Intersection Delay = 1.7 sec/veh 12