HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Operations Analysis
,)
D~ "
D
,
D
D,n
,
O'! :
D
o
o
,
,D(
o
I
D
\
0,-
, ,
0:, -_
,D /
,.
,
D : ~
, '
o "
D
10
\.' ,
D,'
r . \
I
, ,
,
I _
, I
',-
I "
- . .-
TRAF'FIC QPEIRATIONS ANALYSIS
, I
0,
'J .,
, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
, ,
HAMIL ~dN C'QUNTY, INDIANA
~ 'I
PREPARED FOR
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
I,
,
"
, NOVEMBER 2001 "
, I
, I I
,;
_I,. '__
" -
A&F ENGINEERING CO., LLC \ ,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS-
- 8425 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE,200
INDIANAPOLIS, INDI~NA 46240 .
(317) 202-0864 .'
o
D
D
D
[j
D
[J
o
o
o
u
o
o
U
D
o
D
o
I
I U
I .
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
HAMilTON COUNTY, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
NOVEMBER 2001
PREPARED By:
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
8425 KEYSTONE CROSSING, SUITE 200
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240
PHONE 317~202-0864
FAX 317-202-0908
D
o
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY,INc:.
__I
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
u
TABLE OJ4-" CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
.................ll
n
U
CERTIFICA nON. .........
.....JII
INTRODUCTION ...........................
......... ...............................]
D
PURPOSE....
................................ ]
SCOPEOFWORK
. . . + _ + __. _ _ _ . .. . ....... . ...... ....... T . ,......., _ _ . _. __ -. . . - - -. ~.. . . ........ ... . . .. ... .. -.. , .
.. ............................1
o
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ...................
. ...... ........ .................... ......... ........ ....2
STUDY AREA ...................... ..........................
....2
[J
DESCRU'TION OF THE ABUTTINCj STREET SySTEM.....
.......4
u
TRAffiC DATA .................
.. ....... ....... ......... ....... .........4
GENERl.,lTD TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................
.4
u
TABLE I - GENERATED TRiPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................
..5
INTERNAL TRIPS ........
.5
o
PAss-BYTRIP$... .."
...5
PEAK HOUR....
.....5
o
ASSIGNMENT AND D1STRlBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS..............
.....5
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET 5YSTEwl .............
......6
D
CAPACITY ANALYSIS...
...9
D
DESCRIT'TION OFLEVELS OF SERVICE...................
.. .........9
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS
.............] 1
o
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERV1CE SUMMARY: SHELBORNE ROAD AND 131 'T STREET ....
......14
TABLE 3 - LEVEL or- SER VICE SUMMARY: SHELBURNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE ...........
..14
o
TABLE 4 - LEVEl. OF SERVICE SUMMARY: ] 3] H STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE.....
.........n...........] 5
CONCLUSIONS.................. ............
..........................16
o
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................
.....................17
D
[J
o
o
o
!.HOMPSON LAND COMP~.!NC.
-.,) _--"'~J\ _:-- .~ ,~ -,.~ ~ ' _~. "
b... _ c t -... . ~ "$ :"~I :"1':-g_~I-: ,~""": ,_-::'n _~~:.'-;; ::. ,~,::.~ ,,' ~ I'\'> 'l-.. ,~-~" ._.'l0'.J:
TRAFFle OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
o
LIST OF FIGURES
u
o
o
FJGURE I: AREA MAP .......................................................,....... .......................................................3
FIGURE 2: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIDUTJON OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENL.......7
FIGURE 3: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES fUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............. .__........................................--8
FIGURE 4: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................... __. _ ..__................................. ................__....................12
FIGURE 5: EXISTING PLUS GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...........__................................. ____........13
u
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
[J
D
o
[J
n
!u
I
D
U
o
D
D
D
U
o
U
o
o
u
U
D
[J
o
o
o
u
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, me.
~ ~ ;'il~ > i.' ~"J . ,.n.'-";:\ l': - ~I~ " =-':..:_""'-0;:: ~~'-:.;::- H = j H . "H~ :m--..... -'<.-11"_ ~~ :~- ~ ~ '_i-, e'~ If- .~l '".
TRAFFIC OPERA nONS ANALYSIS
CERTIFICATION
I ce11ify that this TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS has been prepared by me ancl under my
immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and
transportation engineering.
A&F ENGINEERING Co., LLC
cf3!JP~
Steven J. Fehribach, PE
Indiana Registration 890237
Thomas S. Vandenberg, E.I.
Transportation Engjneer
III
o
u
THOMPSON LAND. COMPANYlINc.
r" .
-
---.
TRAFFIC OPERA TlONS ANALYSIS
"" -.....
D
INTRODUCTION
This TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of Thompson Land Company, Inc.,
is for a proposed residential development which will be located along Shelbome Road and 131 st
Street in Hamilton County, Indiana.
o
u
o
o
PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed
development, when fully occupied, will have on the ex.isting adjacent roadway system. This
analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site
is developed.
D
u
Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the
anticipated traffic volumes. These conclusions \vill determine the modifications required if there
will he deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes.
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
Recommendations will be made that will address the conclusions resulting from this analysis.
These recommendations will address feasible roadway system improvements that 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 turning movement traffic volume counts at the interseclion of Shelbome Road and
131 ~l Street.
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
[J
o
u
Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the dri veways and/or roadways that wi]] provide
access to the proposed development.
u
u
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
1~~'.(l,"1" f,:.:.",- - " ~~./!'~~L_L-=-:~ -::_"_, j _~_:WI:--ii<."'-':-~~~'~-:'-(':-",".""'q"'<'1.. ~ ~fJ ~_",u il 11~,"_~\6~; '1'_:""1\,1' E
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
il
U
Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from the proposed site onto the public roadway
system and intersections identified in the study area.
[J
D
o
o
[J
u
u
o
u
u
[J
o
o
o
o
Fifth, to prepare a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each intersection included in
the study area for each of the following scenarios:
SCENARIO] : kxisting Conditions - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic
volumes.
SCENARIO 2: Proposed Development - New traffic volumes that will be generated by the
proposed development added to the existing traffic volumes.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS documenting all data, analyses,
conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic
through the study area.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed development will be located along Shelborne Road and 131 st Street in Hamilton
County, Indiana. As proposed, the development wiIJ consist of 288 single-family dweIJing units.
Figure 1 is an area map of the proposed development.
S'fUDY AREA
The study area has been defined to include the folJowing intersections:
.. Shelborne Road and 13151 Street
Co Shelborne Road and Proposed Access Drive
.. ] 3181 Street and Proposed Access Drive
u
2
D
U
[J
U
D
o
o
o
U
D
o
D
[J
o
o
o
o
o
o
AI
l~
-u~
l
,--------------l
---
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE .-
LLJ
>
~
Cl::
o
V1
UJ
W
U
Cl
<C
Cl
w
U1
o
(L
o
IY
0...
L----1L--
1- - lTl131ST STREET
I I
I I
I SITE I
I
I
L_____J
SITE
I::)
C3
Q::
~
,?
~
C)
~
~
k1
~
_ _ ---J
lr-
-'
;,;
J
"
'"
5
I
...
I
m
co
FIGURE 1
'"
'"
c:
J:
~
'"
AREA MAP
o
/
n
o THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
~ HAMilTON COUNTY, IN.
/
@ A & F Engineering Co~, LLC 2001
"ALL Rights Reserved"
N
3
u
I'
U
U
U
o
[j
o
u
u
[J
o
[J
u
u
u
o
o
o
u
~OMPSON LAND COMP~INC.
TRAme OPERATIONS ANM. YSIS
- -
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEl\1
This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes Shelborne
Road and 13] SI Street.
SHEl.BORNE ROAD- is a north/south two-lane road within Hamilton County. The posted speed limit
in the vicinity of the site along this roadway is 55 mph.
13]ST S'IREET-is an east/west two-lane road within Hamilton County. The posted speed limit in the
vicinity of the site along this roadway is 45 mph.
Shelborne Road and] 3 j'n Street - This intersection is controlled by a four-way stop with one
lane in each approach.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made by A&F Engineering Co.,
LLC at the intersection of Shelborne Road and 131 <;1 Street The counts include an hourly total of
all "through" traffic and an "turning" traffic at the intersection. The counts were made during the
hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM in August 2001. These traffic volume
counts arc summarized on Figure 4 and are included in Appendix A.
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUl\IlES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPJ\iIENT
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development js a function of the
development size and type of land use. Trip Generationl report was used to calculate the number of
trips that will be generated by the proposed development. This report is a compilation of trip data
for various land uses as collected by transportation professionals throughout the United States in
order to establish the average number of trips generated by various land uses Table 1 is a summary
of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
] Trip Generation, Institute of TranspmtatioIl Engineers (lTE), Sixth Edition, 1997.
4
[J
u
u
o
[J
D
o
o
U
D
o
D
U
U
D
D
D
o
U
1){OMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
0- i:".., ;~~::: 'b ~~ "'~~~'" --=-'1!1 _~q~ .~~rl~. 5 ;.....' j'I~I';'-'~ ~-....~-"'"-=.p.'" _~~ ,-" ~~~~' t.'; .~ ~,,""" -"I
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMA TlON GENERA TED TRIPS
ITE AM AM PM PM
LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
Single-Family 210 288 DU 53 158 178 100
INTERNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two land uses without traversing the roadway
system. Since the development will contain similar land use throughout, internal trips are assumed
to be negligible.
PAss-BY TRIPS
Pass-by trips are trips already on the roadway system that decide to enter a land use. The
development will contain single-family homes, which are destination land uses. Therefore, no
reduction will be applied for pass-by trips
PEAK HOUR
Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the peak hours for the
intersection of Shclbome Road and 131 Sl Street are 7: 15 AM to 8: 15 AM ,md 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM.
The traffic volumes at the peak hours wjJ] be used for this analysis to represent the maximum traffic
volumes at each intersection.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
Traffic volumes will be generated by the proposed development and added to the public street
system. The study methodology used to deteIl11ine the traffic volumes is defined as follows:
l. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the site must be assigned to the various access
points and Lo the public street system. Using the existing 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 detennine the volumes of traffic that will be added 10 the public roadway system, the
generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadway's intersection with
5
D
U
U
U
o
D
C
o
U
o
D
[J
~~
U
U
o
D
o
D
[j
THOI\lIPSON LAND COMPA~ _INC. TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
the driveway. For the proposed development, the distribution was based on the existing
traffic patterns and the assignment of generated traffic.
~... ~ {of;!. ~-: '"T~";:j' -: "'.{- - -:: .- l< J" c. ~_~""
_;, _::~. ~ ..... II nQ". f .~ -~: ~ ll':> :..,~",-Y~"'::l-'",~J~/J'~ ~ l!!. . .."~ " :==~'');?'_.~:
The assignment and distribution of the generated traffic volumes for the proposed development are
shown on Figure 2.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE
STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared
for each of the study area intersections. The peak hour generated traffic volumes are shown on
Figure 3. These data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of
generated traffic, and distJibution of generated traffic.
6
0
u
0
U
D
0
D
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
D
~
".
r>'
0 I
Y'
'"
;:;
I
..
I
00
0 a
"
~
'"
~
0
~
U '.c.;
"'
c;
./
..-)
c;
U ~
'"
'"
,~
./
N
t
'*
CO
,--------------l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L__
~12%
,--
I
I
I SITE I
I I
I I
L_____J
w
>
U:'
Ci
(j)
Vi
W
LJ
U
-4.
o
w
(/)
o
0..
o
r:r
0..
LEGEND
= NEGLIGIBLE
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY~ INC.
HAMilTON COUNTY J IN.
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
~
co.
~ ~
8%..1' ~ t
X.
""
26% + '"
SITE
~ ~ "\:..10%
. ~ 2 ~ 20%
~~4
..:I'*lt
20%.... ~ ~
",. ...,
34 %""" '" ~
30%~
FIGURE 2
ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION
OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
@ A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Rights Reserved"
7
0
u
u
0
0
D
D
[J
0
0
[J
0
0
0
D
~
I,.
D '"
I
yo:
='
;:;
I
"
I
0 0'
CO
"
~
<=>
:i
[J ,,<
w
,..,
0
-;:;;
0
0 ./
;:;
Fl
---
..... ...
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
...,. ..
,--------------l
~ ~
(8) 13.:1" ~ t
~
<D
....
w
>
Ct:
o
U1
U1
w
U
U
<(
o
Ii.!
U}
o
Q..
o
0::'
o.
L____
,--
STREET
SITE
I SITE I
I I
I I
L_____J
o
...,. -"t.. 71 (71)
<.0 .....,
...- 'W< U)- --+-.
~ J ~ -.rB (2:')
(18) 51' ~ t (I
*~ l""")W N
N
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOllR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
.. = NEGLIGIBLE
FIGURE 3
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
HAMilTON COUNTY, IN.
@ A & r Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Righfs Reserved"
R
o
u
o
u
o
o
u
u
u
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
u
o
1~ ~ -I}.;:,;. "'~ I . ^" :<" 1. " J
THOj\1PSON LAND COMPANY ~c.
itH .~~~~ -:j ~~"'l< = .............~.,,-_~-...,-.".\...~ /'.. -' ~:>i. ~~_-_~ ;~--,;_ _"- ~ ~ ~ '" I~~ I} :':.J..':' ....t-'" "~.:? 1
TRAFFIC OPERATiONS ANALYSIS
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that
approach the intersection. It is defined by the Level-of-Service (LOS) of the intersection. The
LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data
into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes
and, in the case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each
of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using [he recognized computer
program based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HeMp'
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 ] 0.1 to 20"0 seconds per
vehicle. This generaJJy occurs with good progression. More vehicles Slop
than LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
Level of Service C - Describes operation with delay in the range of 20.1 seconds to 35.0
seconds per vehicle, These higher delays may result from [ailed
progreSSIOn, The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,
although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
l,evel of Service D - Describes operations with delay in the range of 35" I 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
2 Highway Capacity Manual (HL""M) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 2000.
9
u
o
o
o
U
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
[J
D
D
o
o
o
u
~Ol\,I]>SONLANDCOMP~, INc. TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
unfavorable progresslOn. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of
vehicles not stopping declines.
'J~ ... ~'?:~ _ ': -. '1 . _~ -!E~7 "'_'. t'i.........~ =-c- 1~\,'2. :;,--: 'f~=-t. ""'>.-11 __1! _,/)~~ b~'-' ,';.".7 .-'~'1
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 progress.ion and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized intersections:
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Control Delay ( seconds/vehicle)
Less than or equal to 10
Between 10. I and 15
Bet ween 15.1 and 25
Between 25.1 and 35
Between 35.1 and 50
greater than 50
10
o
u
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
u
o
o
o
u
o
o
o
o
[J
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY..LIfC.
I ". -l-''':' I "'"'J.'~ i1 _ ~ r' ~ "
II' _. = ~-~ .....'7f:..J..: -e-~ - _ -:::':. ii>"'.~1 ~ jf "",.~ "F, -~.~,' ~t I' r ::s~,,".1 ~'l~u,:._l
TRAFFIC OPERATIONSANALYSJS
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS
To evaluate the proposed development's effect on the public street system, the existing and
generated traffic volumes must be obtained to form a series of scenarios. 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 was made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study
intersections considering the following scenarios:
SCENARlO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - These are the existing traffic volumes that were
obtained in August 2001. Figure 4 is a summary of the existing traffic
volumes at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours.
SCENARJO 2: Existing Plus Generated Traffic Volumes -Figure 5 is a summary of these
traffic volumes at the study intersections for the AM and PM 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 summarize
the results of Ihe level of service analyses and are identified as follows:
Table 2 - She) borne Road and ) 3 l51 Street
THblc 3 - Shelbome Road and Proposed Access Drive
Table 4 - I 3 I st S Ireet and Proposed Access Ori ve
] ]
[J
0
0
0
0
u
[j
0
0
D
U
0
U
D
D
""-
Q
[J ,
'"
:$
0
.J
I
0 rn
0
"
'"
'"
C>
0 ~
w
"'
a
./
"'
a
U ./
G
g
./
N
j--------------l
w
>
~
Il
o
[/J
VJ
W
U
U
<t:
o
W
(/1
o
0...
o
Il
Q
L__
1--
-11
lTl
I
I
I
I
I
I
L_____J
SITE
LEGEND
00 = AJJ. PEAK HOUR
(DO) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
'* = NEGLIGIBLE
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
HAMIL TON COUNTY, IN.
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
SITE
131 ST. STREET
~
.-
-<t ~
0::;~ t2 (11)
'" ~ = -- 57 (107)
JI t ~ ..r 90 (32)
(6) 4.:1' ~ t tt
(57) 113 -?- C> ~ ~
(6) 13..
FIGURE 4
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
12
@ ^ & F Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Righls Reserved"
I U
0
0
c
0
0
u
u
0
0
u
0
[J
D
D
-'
"
""
D I
~
::>
5
I
V
I
D m
0
"
'"
"<
Co
:i
0 ~
n
'"
/
n
;:;
U /
0
~
/
r::..j
,--------------l
~ ~
(S) 131' ~ t
'" '"
~ ~
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
o
~ 1.:..21 (71
';". ~ ;2 __ 60 (122)
~ ~ ~ +" S (25)
(18) 5 Y ~ t If
(69) 130 -- ,., ~ ~
(4) 1 '+ ~
~
er::
o
SITE
Ul
U1
W
C)
U
-<{
o
w
UJ
o
Q
o
0:::
CL
L__
,--
I
I
I SITE I
I I
I I
L_____J
LEGEND
00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR
(00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR
,., NEGLIGIBLE
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INC.
HAMil TON COUNTY, IN.
11
V)~
'" <D
0:::-=- "t.7(29)
'0N~ __68(143)
II ~ ~ .r 90 (32)
(6) 4 l' ~ t t+
(77) 144 ~ ~ ~ ~
(40) 67 ~ o~~
..... ""CO
~---"'N~
STREET
FIGURE 5
EXISTING PLUS GIENERATED
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
@ A & r Engineering Co., LLC 2001
"ALL Rig his Reserved"
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
[J
[J
D
o
[J
u
u
U
D
D
U
THO~SONLAND COMPANY, INc.
::.,.w . \l,l{'='l:~.-~' , ~'''' ~ :I~~; ~ .::-~!l -~?t',;~1 ,,,' . '"' c.' '':'-.......1.." <<, ,F, ~ .,- ~ . ~j '," . _', _;t;= <="".7'_:-J',,,,,~
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: SHELBORNE ROAD AND 13] ST STREET
MOVEMENT SCENARIO I SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach A A
Southbound Approach B B
Eastbound Approach A B
Westbound Approach A B
Interseclion A B
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO I SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach B C
Southbound Approach A A
Eastbound Approach A B
Weslbound Approach A B
Intersection A B
PM PEAK HOUR
SCENARIO 1 :
SCENARIO 2:
Existing Traffic Volumes with Four-Way Stop
Existing PIllS Generated Traffic Volumes with Four-Way SLOp
TABLE 3 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: SHEL130RNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOYEMENI' SCENARIO 2
Northbound Left-Turn A
Eastbound Approach A
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2
Not1hbound Left-Tum A
Eastbound Approach A
SCENARIO 2: Existing Plus Generated Traffic Volumes with Two-Way Stop
]4
o
Ie
o
IU
[J
o
10
[J
U
,D
D
U
U
[J
o
o
u
o
D
THOMPSON LAND COM:PANY t INC.
i~( _ ~'~I j" "tI~~",. -~""~ _I" ,-, ~-f,=,--' -",-,- -i:;\~.l.~~~_'?t"~"'7.:1."-~~ :.~. '_t~:l::\.."k j.'-~~~~~ ~ y "' ~ ,!_ .;." '-,\'" . ..S':'
TRAFFIc OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMi\RY: 131 ST STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT seEN ARlO 2
Northbound Approach A
Southbound Approach B
Eastbound Left-Turn A
Westbound Left-Turn A
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2
Northbound Approach A
Southbound Approach B
Eastbound Left-Turn A
Westbound Left-Turn A
SCENARIO 2: Existing Plus Generated Traffic Volumes with Two-Way Stop
]5
D
[J
';..~~ l,~ f~\~-~" ~'f.-~-'~~11 --"l~ 1_~~Il<-~JI' 4-'~. '~'k:!lr~.7~_-':1 3'.~~ll '_'C'I'''',~ 0."'". Ih'~'\J.''..l!~ "".:-.:
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY , INC.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
u
u
o
u
o
u
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions thai follow are based on:
a Existing I'raffie Volume Data
· Trip Generation
a Assignment and Distribution of Generated Traffic
e Capacity Analysis with the Resulting Levels of Service for Each of the Study Intersections
. Field Review Conducted at the Site
u
o
D
U
o
o
o
u
[J
o
o
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. If the resulting level
of service is adequate during these Lime periods, it can generally be ,lssumed that the remaining 22
hours will have levels of service equal to or beller. This occurs because the roadway traffic volumes
during Lhe remaining 22 hours will be equal to or less than the peak hour traffic volumes.
1. SHELBORNE ROAD AND 131 ST STREET
EXIsting Traffic Volumes (Scenurio J) - A review of Ihe level of service for each of the
intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing geometries, has
shown that the intersection is operating at acceptable levels during the AM and PM peak
hours.
Existing Plus Generated TrujJle Volumes (Scenario 2) - \Vhen the Iraffic volumes from tbe
proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, the intersection \vill operate
at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours with existing intersection
geometries and existing iTJtersection control.
2. SHELBORNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
Existing Plus Generated Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the
proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, the approaches to the
intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours
with proposed intersection geometries and two-way SlOp.
J6
o
o
THOMPSON LAND CO:MPANYj INc.
3. 131 ST STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
Existing Plus Generated Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2) - When the traffic volumes from the
proposed development are added to the existing traffic volumes, the approaches to the
intersection will operate at acceptable .levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours
with proposed intersection geometries and two-way stop.
TRAme OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
~,~ .:-{"'"'~, ~ '~':;-J_- -.:~_-.....';.;--'",.-:_:_I'7.;.:-~"I'-~ """~.".",-~~..,,..,-=>,>. ~r':'" - ':-"'*":"::"";~l-I_""l-l--"'~I_ :. ... _":"' ~ iF ~-~'"'->~ '=' ',~ '!?
o
D
o
o
o
u
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations arc made to ensure that
the roadway system will operate at acceptab.le levels of service if the site is developed as proposed.
u
SHELBORNE ROAD AND 13] ST STREET
No changes to the intersection are required due to this development.
o
SHELBORNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRJ\lE
Recommendations for t11is intersection include:
e Shelborne Road - Develop a northbound passing blister and a southbound right-tum
lane.
G Proposed Access Drive - Provide two l2 foot outbound lanes and one] 6 footinbollnd
lane.
o Two-way stop control with Proposed Access Drive stopping for SheJbome Road.
o
u
u
o
D
D
13] ST STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
Recommendations for this intersection include:
o 13] SI Street - Develop a passing blister in both the eastbound and westbound direct ions
These lanes will act as righHum lanes when necessary.
e Proposed Access Drives - Provlde two] 2 foot outbound lanes and one] 6 foot inbound
lane.
e Two-way stop contra] with Proposed Access Dri ves stopping for 13] 51 Street.
o
u
o
17
[j
D
[J
U
D
D
U
D
U
o
o
o
u
u
Ie
o
o
o
u
THOMPSON L.AND COJVlPANy,lNC
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
>., -. ='""~ ...., ~,~ ,~-: .~"~-~ .--=:-91_ Ul: "'~'~ n~~'f_-l"';_' ~1~~~t(!:,"''1,~ "'.7'9..' .il ;.r;","jL. "'tf -:- ... '},,:il'~~j"""'~';'~.u~o.-
ApPENDIX A
This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS for
the proposed development.
Included are the intersection turning movement traffic volume counts and the intersection capacity
analyses for each of the study intersections for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour.
o
u
u
[J
D
U
U
D
D
o
o
u
u
o
o
u
u
u
u
THOMPSON LAND COMPANY, INc.
. '-:--=:",-' *r'>'---c'_~__.",-~':-~-~, -f:;..~- I. ~ ~ _ ~Ooll:~,-"'" .?~o:;-. +- t ,- ~I -"~, j "-'rl "1..:- ~ :tJ.':"~,,~;;-=
TRAFFIC OPERA nONS ANALYSIS
ApPENDIX A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SHELBORNE ROAD AND 131 5T STREET ............................................................................. ............................................1
SHELBORNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE .................................................................... ..............................9
131 ST STREET ANDPROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE ...... ...............................................................................................12
o
U
D
D
[J
o
U
D
U
o
o
o
IU
I[
o
U
D
o
U
THOMPSON LAND COMPA:N~~C.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANAl. YSIS
I,P'.. ~_J';:;=.. 4- -1 ,<,' ~ :' 0:'
9>- - t., ","" , ~~~;:, 0 \;:, _ w. I.... '<: .<("7. ;\.-"''''i' .=. --:-""'i';~ "~or~_';."-"
SHELBORNE ROAD AND 131sT STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
AND
CAPACITY ANALYSES
u
o
[J
u
u
u
o
D
o
D
U
D
U
U
D
[J
D
o
U
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
THOMPSON LAND CO., INC.
SHELBORNE ROAD & 131ST STREET (01)
AUGUST 29, 2001
PEAK HOUR DATA
NORTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
WESTBOUND
AM PEAK OFF PEAK PM PEAK
HR BEGIN 7:15 AM HR BEGIN 4:45 PM
L T R TOT L T R TOT L T R TOT
0 38 39 77 10 195 83 288
4 113 13 130 6 57 6 69
11 194 3 208 6 47 5 58
90 57 2 149 32 107 11 150
HOUR SUMMARY
HOUR NB SB NB+SB EB WB EB+WB TOTAL
- AM -
6- 7 35 88 123 35 62 97 220
7- 8 64 216 280 120 135 255 535
8- 9 62 113 175 84 120 204 379
- PM -
3- 4 89 30 119 56 98 154 273
4- 5 185 44 229 52 133 185 414
5- 6 271 44 315 67 160 227 542
TOTAL 706 535 1241 414 708 1122 2363
29.9% 22.6% 52.5% 17.5% 30.0% 47.5% 100.0%
-AM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 21 60 39 46
HOUR 77 216 130 158
PHF 0.92 0.90 0.83 0.86
- PM PEAK VOLUMES -
15-MIN 82 19 20 46
HOUR 288 58 69 160
PHF 0.88 0.76 0.86 0.87
U
Ii
U
o
o
U
D
U
D
o
o
D
U
U
IU
D
o
D
U
U
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
THOMPSON LAND CO., INC.
SHELBORNE ROAD & 131ST STREET (01)
AUGUST 29, 2001
NORTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 4 0 4 16 0 16 15 0 15 35 0 35
7- 8 0 0 0 33 0 33 31 0 31 64 0 64
8- 9 1 0 1 24 0 24 37 0 37 62 0 62
PM
3- 4 9 0 9 54 0 54 26 0 26 89 0 89
4- 5 7 0 7 124 0 124 54 0 54 185 0 185
5- 6 10 0 10 175 1 176 85 0 85 270 1 271
PASSENGER 31 426 248 705
100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 99.9%
TRUCK 0 1 0 1
0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%
BOTH 31 427 248 706
4.4% 60.5% 35.1% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL . EASTBOUND
.
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 2 0 2 32 0 32 1 0 1 35 0 35
7- 8 4 0 4 105 0 105 11 0 11 120 0 120
8- 9 1 0 1 76 0 76 7 0 7 84 0 84
PM
3- 4 4 0 4 47 1 48 4 0 4 55 1 56
4- 5 2 0 2 44 0 44 6 0 6 52 0 52
5- 6 5 0 5 55 0 55 7 0 7 67 0 67
PASSENGER 18 359 36 413
100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 99.8%
TRUCK 0 1 0 1
0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2%
BOTH 18 360 36 414
4.3% 87.0% 8.7% 100.0%
D
U
U
c
o
o
o
u
u
o
o
u
[J
o
o
o
o
D
D
CLIENT
LOCATION
DATE
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
THOMPSON LAND CO., INC.
SHELBORNE ROAD & 131ST STREET (01)
AUGUST 29, 2001
SOUTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 6 0 6 81 0 81 1 0 1 88 0 88
7- 8 12 0 12 201 0 201 3 0 3 216 0 216
8- 9 10 0 10 96 0 96 7 0 7 113 0 113
PM
3- 4 2 0 2 24 0 24 4 0 4 30 0 30
4- 5 3 0 3 38 0 38 3 0 3 .44 0 44
5- 6 5 0 5 34 0 34 5 0 5 44 0 44
PASSENGER 38 474 23 535
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TRUCK 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
BOTH 38 474 23 535
7.1% 88.6% 4.3% 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: WESTBOUND
HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL
PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH PASS TRUCK BOTH
AM
6- 7 38 1 39 20 1 21 2 0 2 60 2 62
7- 8 86 0 86 48 0 48 1 0 1 135 0 135
8- 9 56 0 56 62 0 62 2 0 2 120 0 120
PM
3- 4 27 0 27 60 0 60 11 0 11 98 0 98
4- 5 32 0 32 91 1 92 9 0 9 132 1 133
5- 6 34 0 34 114 0 114 12 0 12 160 0 160
PASSENGER 273 395 37 705
99.6% 99.5% 100.0% 99.6%
TRUCK 1 2 0 3
0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4%
BOTH 274 397 37 708
38.7% 56.1% 5.2% 100.0%
o
D
[J
u
[J
u
u
o
[j
D
[J
u
u
o
u
I 0
D
D
u
All-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
Analyst TSV Intersection Shelbome Rd & 131st St
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County. IN
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 1 . Existing
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project 10 Thompson Land Company. Inc.
East/West Street; 131st Sf North/South Street Shelborne Rd
Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 4 113 13 90 57 2
% Thrus LeH Lane 50 50
Approach Northbound Soulhbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume I 0 ] 38 39 11 194 3
%Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Flow Rate 143 165 85 230
% Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 I I
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 I
Geometry Group 1 1 1 1
Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1
Prop. Right-Turns 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0
Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
hLT-adj 0.2 0:2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 I
hHV.adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 I 1.7 I
hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
x, initial 0.13 0,15 0.08 0.20 I
hd. final value 4,98 4.98 4.98 4.98
x, final value 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.31 I
Move.uptime,m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 I
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 ~
Capacity 393 415 335 480
Delay 9.21 9.67 8.44 10.15
LOS A A A B
Approach: Delay 9.21 9.67 8.44 10.15
LOS A A A B
Intersection Delay 9.57
Intersection LOS A
HC52000™
Copyrighl ~. 2000 Universi1y of Florid", All Righls ReRerved
Version 4.1
fiJe:l/C:\Documents%20and %20Settings\tvandenberg\Local %20Settings\Temp\u2k2D 1. tmp 8/31/2001
o
u
D
o
D
o
[J
u
u
[J
o
D
u
o
o
o
o
u
c
All-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 1
ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS
mtfilltlI({1M~I;1If1!"
Analyst TSV Intersection She/borne Rd & 131st 51
Agency/Co, A&F Engineering Co" LLC Jurisdiction Humillon County, IN
Dale Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 1 - Existing
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company Inc,
EasliWesl Street: 131st 51 North/South Street: She/borne Rd
Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement l T R L T R
Volume 6 57 6 32 107 11
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Aooroach Northbound Southbound
Movemenl L T R L T R
Volume 10 195 83 6 47 5
% Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Easlbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 l2 L1 l2 L1 l2 l1 L2
Configuration LTR LTR LTR I LTR I
PHF 0,90 0.90 0,90 0.90
Flow Rate 75 165 319 63
% Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5
No, lanes 1 1 1 1
Geometry Group 1 1 1 1
Duration, T 0.25
Prop. Lei!. Turns 0,1 0.2 0,0 0.1
Prop, Right. Turns 0.1 o 1 0.3 0.1
Prop, Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0
hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
hRT.adj -0,6 -0,6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6
hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
hadj, computed 5.13 5.13 5.13 5.13
hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 I
x, initial 0.07 0.15 0.28 0.06
hd, final value 5,13 5.13 5.13 5.13
x. final value 0.11 0,23 0.40 0.09
Move.up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Eastbound Westbound Nortllbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2
Capacity 325 415 569 313
Delay 8.74 9.52 10,57 8.47
LOS A A B A I I
Approach: Delay 8.74 9.52 10.57 8.47
LOS A A B A
Intersection Delay 9.86
Intersection LOS A
HCS2oodl'M
Copyright iQ 2000 U"ivelsity of Florida, AlI Righls Reserved
VcrsiulJ 4,]
file ://e \Documcnts %20and%20Setlings\tvandenberg\Local %20SeLtings\Tcmp\u2k2D4. tmp 8/31/2001
u
o
D
u
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
[J
u
u
All-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of ]
ALlRW A Y STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS
~~talllf1ftQrmaitQ"1ii1lll:11:... .
Analyst TSV Intersection She/borne Rd & '31s1 SI
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County. IN
Date Performed 8/311200 1 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company, Inc.
East/West Slreet: 131st Sr North/Soulh Street: She/borne Rd
Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 4 144 67 90 68 7
%Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement I L T R L T R
Volume 18 46 39 27 219 3
%Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L1 l2 L1 l2 L1 l2 11 l2
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
PHF I 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Flow Rate 238 182 114 276
% Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1
Geometry Group 1 1 1 1
Duration, T 0.25
Prop. Lell.Turns 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1
Prop. Righi' Turns 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0
Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
hL T-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
hRT.ad) -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6
hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
hadj, computed 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21
hd. initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
x, initial 0.21 0.16 0.10 0.25
hd. final value 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21
x, final value 0.34 0.28 0.17 041
Move-up lime, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
11 L2 L1 L2 L1 l2 L1 l2
Capacity 488 432 364 526
Delay 10.92 10.71 9.56 12.03
LOS B B A B
Approach: Delay 10.92 10.71 9,56 12.03
LOS B B A B
Intcrseclion Delay 11.06
Inlerseciion LOS B
HCS2000™
Copyrighl <92000 UlIlvcrsiiy of Florid.. All Righls Reserved
Version 4.1
file:/IC: \DocumenlS% 20and%20Sctti ngs \tvandenberg\Local % 20Settings\ T emp\u2k2DB. tmp 8/31/200 1
u
o
o
o
o
[J
[J
o
u
o
D
o
u
u
u
D
D
o
u
All-Way Stop Control
Page [ of ]
~~ .J
Analyst T5V Intersection She/borne Rd & 131 sl 5t
AgencylCo_ A&F Engineering Co" LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, IN
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Exisling + Gen.
AnalysisTime Period PM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company, Inc.
East/West Street: 131st 51 Nol1hlSouth Street:- Shelborne Rd
Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement l T R l T R
Volume 6 77 40 32 143 29
%Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume 70 223 83 16 63 5
%Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
I Ll L2 II L2 Ll L2 l1 L2
Configuration LTR I LTR LTR LTR
PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Flow Rate 135 225 416 92
% Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1
Geometry Group 1 1 1 1
Duration, T 0.25
Prop_ Lefl-Turns 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Prop_ Right-Turns 0.3 0_1 0.2 0.1
Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
hL T-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 02 0.2 0.2 I 0.2 I
hRT-adj -0.6 cO.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0_6 -0.6 -0.6 I -0.6 I
hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 I
x, Initial 0.12 0.20 0.37 0.08
hd, final value 5.59 5.59 5.59 5.59
x, final value 0.21 035 0.59 0.15 I
Move-up time. m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Eastbound Westbound NOl1hbound Southbound
Ll L2 L1 L2 l1 L2 l1 L2
Capacity 385 475 666 342
Delay 10.07 11.48 15.07 9.66
LOS B B C A I I
Approach: Delay 10.07 11.48 15.07 9.66
LOS B B C A
Intersection Delay 12.79 I
Intersection LOS B
NCS2000™
Copyrigl1t @ 2000 University of Florid" All Rights Re,erved
versiOl14.1
fik://C:\DocuI11ents%20and %20Settings\tvandenberg\Local 1;7020Settings\Temp\u2k2DE.tmp 8/31/200 I
u
U
D
[J
o
o
U
D
o
o
o
u
u
o
D
o
o
[J
Ie
I
THorVIFSON LAND COMPAI~.~.?:NC.
,,- " -
n_"
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
- ,.
SHELBORNE ROAD AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
[J
u
o
u
D
o
o
o
o
u
o
u
u
u
D
u
D
o
[J
Two-Way Slop Control
Page 1 of 2
~~.
Analyst TSV Intersection She/borne Rd & Prop. Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, IN
Date Performed 8/31/200 1 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project ID Thompson Land Company,
Inc.
EasUWest Street: Prof) Access North/South Street: She/borne Rd
Maior Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R l T R
Volume 14 44 0 0 208 4
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90. 0.90 0.90 0.90.
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 48 0. a 231 4
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0. -- n a -- I --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0. 0.
Lanes 0 1 0. 0 1 1
Configuration LT T R
Upstream Siqnal a a
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume a a a 13 0. 41
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0..90. 0..90. 0.90. 0.90. 0..90. 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR a a a 14 0. 45
Percent Heavy Vehicles a 0 a 5 a 5
Percent Grade (%) 0 a
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0. a
RT Channelized a a
Lanes a 0 0. 1 a 1
Configuration ~
Be
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
v (vph) 15 14 45
C (m) (vph) 1344 669 80.1
vie 0.01 0..0.2 0.0.6
95% queue length 0..0.3 0..0.6 0.18
Control Delay 7.7 10.5 9.8
LOS A B A
Approach Delay n -- 9.9
Approach LOS -- u A
JJCS2000™
Copyright <D 2000 University 01 Flond" All Righls Rese,ved
Version 4.1
fi le:/ /e: \Documents%20and eyo 20Settings\tvanden berg\Local o/c.20Setti ngs \ Temp\u2k72. tmp
9/4/2001
u
u
o
o
o
D
u
u
o
[J
o
o
o
D
u
[J
o
o
[J
Two-Way Stop Control
Page I of 2
-
Analyst TSV Intersection She/borne Rd & Prop. Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, IN
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project 10 Thompson Land Company,
Inc.
EastlWest Street: Prop. Access North/South Street: Shelborne Rd
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 46 212 0 0 58 14
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 51 235 0 0 64 15
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 I n I -- 0 n I --
Median Tvpe Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT T R
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 8 0 26
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 8 0 28
Percent Heavv Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5
Percent Grade ('Yo) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Confi uration
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT L R
v (vph) 51 8 28
C (m) (vph) 1532 579 992
vie 0.03 0.01 0.03
95% queue length 0.10 0.04 0.09
Control Delay 7.4 11.3 8.7
LOS A I B I A
Approach Delay -- -- 9.3
Approach LOS -- -- A
IICS2000™
Copyright rD 2000 UniversiTY of Florida, AJI Righi:> Rt'~eJved
Version 4.]
fiJc:l/C: \DOClI menls %20and % 20Settings\tvanden berg\Local %20Sctti IlgS\ T emp\n2k 7 S. Imp
9/4/2001
[J
u
o
u
[J
o
u
o
o
u
o
o
o
o
o
u
[J
o
u
THOMPSON LAND COMPANJt.lNC.
TRAFFIC OPERA nONS ANALYSIS
.'~W.Ii' -' :~-.~.t ~ ~;,
<l -" ,~,< - ~ ~.'" ~ , -~ ~ - , ." ~ r< l J~~ - :: ""~ ~
131ST STREET AND PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
INTERSECTION DATA
CAPACITY ANALYSES
o
o
u
GI
o
o
u
o
o
u
o
u
o
o
o
u
D
u
[J
Two- Way Stop Control
Page ] of 2
~~
Analyst TSV Intersection 131st St & Prop. Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co., LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, IN
Date Perlormed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project 10 Thompson Land Company,
Inc.
EastlVVest Street 131st St North/South Street: ProD. Access
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (Ius): 0.25
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 5 130 1 8 60 21
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90. 0.90 0.90. 0.90 0.90. 0.90.
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 144 1 8 66 23
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- I 5 u I n
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0.
Lanes 0. 1 1 0 1 1
Configuration LT R LT R
Upstream Signal 0 0.
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 3 0. 22 63 0. 16
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0..90. 0.90. 0..90. 0..90. 0..90. 0.90.
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0. 24 70 0. 17
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 5 0 I 5
Percent Grade (%) a 0.
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0. 0. I I
RT Channelized 0. I 0. I
Lanes 1 1 0. 1 1 I 0
TR
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Contiguration LT LT L TR L TR
v (vph) 5 8 3 24 70 17
C (m) (vph) 1488 1419 674 895 675 989
vie 0.00 0.01 0.00 0,03 0..10 0.02
95% queue length 0.01 0..02 0.0.1 0.0.8 0..35 0..05
Control Delay 7.4 7.6 104 9.1 10.9 8.7
LOS A A B A B A
Approach Delay -- -- 9.3 10.5
Approach LOS -- -- A B
HCS2000™
Copyrigflb It;) 2000 Univ~rsity of Florida, All Righls Reserved
Version 4.1
fi Ie://C: \Documents %20and % 20Setti ngs \tv anden berg \Local % 20Settings \ T em p\u2 k78. tmp
9/4/200 I
u
u
D
[J
D
o
u
o
o
[J
o
D
D
o
o
u
o
[J
[J
Two-Way Stop Control
Page 1 of 2
~~
Analyst TSV Intersection 13151 SI & Prop. Access
Agency/Co. A&F Engineering Co" LLC Jurisdiction Hamilton County, IN
Date Performed 8/31/2001 Analysis Year Scenario 2 - Existing + Gen.
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project 10 Thompson Land Company,
Inc.
East/West Street: 131slSt North/South Street: ProD. Access
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 18 69 4 25 122 71
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 76 4 27 135 78
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 n --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes I 0 1 1 0 1 1
Configuration LT R LT R
Upstream Siqnal a 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R I
Volume 2 0 14 40 0 10. I
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0..90 0.,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.,90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 15 44 0 11
Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 5 0 5 I
Percent Grade (%) a 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 a
Configuration L TR L TR
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LT L TR L TR
v (vph) 20 27 2 15 44 11
C (m) (vph) 1340. 1499 576 977 60.6 90.6
vie 0.01 0.02 0.0.0 0.0.2 0.0.7 0.0.1
95% queue length 0.05 0.0.6 0..01 0.0.5 0..23 0.04
Control Delay 7.7 74 11.3 8.7 11.4 9.0
LOS A A B A B A
Approach Delay -- -- 9.0. 10,9
Approach LOS -- -- A B
IICS2000 TM
Copyrighl @ 2000 Universl1Y of Florida. All RighI> I{escrvcd
VersIOn 4.1
fj le:/ /C: \Documenls %20and %20SettingS\lvande 11 berg\Local % 20Seltings\ Temp \u2k 7B. tmp
9/4/2001