HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Study
..RealWorld Solutions
u
[J
o
[J
u
o
o
o
[J
D
D
U
D
o
U
o
U
o
[J
Traffic Impact Study
Michigan Road MLyed-Use Development
Carmel, Indiana
Prepared For:
Pittman Partners
Prepared By:
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
222 East Ohio Street, Suite 400
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
317.636.1552
- I-~';"
, ._I~77>,~ March 12 2003
.A ')~A~ '
2."" ,.f.,,-.
OC0r-n,,-,,..., ~...~
"L.UIIVCU '\
N::R 28 2003 - I
Docsfh
/". !
. </
.'1\ ) '.~
. - _:~~~ ~~'
[J
u
u
u
u
o
o
o
D
D
D
u
u
D
D
o
D
D
u
EdflJ'iflir~
~Kelcey
Transportation
Communications
Building Technologies
Site and Facility Design
12 March 2003
Mr. Steve Pittman
Pittman Partners
P.O. Box 554
Carmel, Indiana 082
Re:
Traffic Impact Study
Carmel, Indiana
Dear Mr. Pittman:
This letter is to submit twenty (20) copies of our final Traffic Impact Study for the proposed
development along U.S. 421 bet\'leen 106th and 116111 Streets in Carolel, Indiana. Our analysis is
based on the best estimate of future land use that was available at the time this study was
undertaken. In addition to the subject site, the traffic Impacts of four vacant sites were analyzed
along with a background gro~wth rate of 2% per year within the study area.
Our recommendations address both site layout and traffic control issues. We have found that
U.S. 421 will accommodate the projected traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service in the
peak hours. However, a traffic signal is recommended at the proposed driveway upon buildout.
We would be happy to discllss our findings further with you. Please call if we can be of any
further assistance.
Very truly yours,
EDW ARDS ANTI KELCEY, INC.
C)--/~~
Jennifer A. Pyrz, P.E.
Enclosures
#0300.48.223
222 E. Ohio Street
Suite 400
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2156
Voice 317.636.1552
Fax 3176361345
wwwekcorp~com
o
D
u
D
D
o
D
U
D
o
U
u
o
o
o
D
D
U
D
Traffic impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Contents
Page
Preparer Qualifications ..... ...... ...... ............................ ................. ............. ....... .............................. ............ ..2
Introduction............................................................................... .................................................................3
Existing Roadway Conditions. ............... .... .............. .... ......... ........ ................ ................... ""...""'''' ...........5
Conm1itted Improvements... .... .................. ..... ................... ............ .......... ...... ............... ... ............... .... ........6
Existing Traffic Conditions........ ....................................... .... .... ................. .................. ............ ... ............... 7
Traffic Generation...................... ................................. .......... ... .......... ....... ........................... ....... ............ ...8
Traffic Distribution and Assignment.......................... .......... ............. .............. .............................. ....... ...1 0
Future Conditions... ................ ...................... ............... ......... ........ ...... .............. ..................................... ...11
Traffic Operations Issues ....... ....... ............ ................... ................ ...... .... ...... .................. .... ............... .......16
Conclusions and Recommendations........ ........................ ............... .......... ............... ...... ................... .......18
List of Tables
Table 1 - Level ofServlce Criteria for Signalized Interseetions...............................................................7
Table 2 - Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ...........................................................8
Table 3 ~ Intersection LOS: Existing Traffic Conditions with Proposed Geometries ..............................8
Table 4 - Trip Generation Estimates: Proposed DevelopmcnL................................................................9
Table 5 - Trip Generation Estimates: Anticipated Non-Site Developmcnt...............................................9
Table 6 - Trip Generation Estimates: Site As Zoned ..............................................................................10
Table 7 - Development Scenarios.................................................. ......... ........................................ ........ .11
Table 8 - Intersection LOS: Final Results ..............................................................................................16
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Location 11ap............................... ..... ....... ............. ....... .................... .............d d.......... ..............4
Figure 2 -Traffic Volumes, Scenario I ...................................................................................................12
Figure 3 - Traffic Volumes, Scenario II ..................................................................................................13
Figure 4 - Traffic Volumes, Scenario III...... ............ .................... ......... ....... .................. .......... ...... .........14
Figure 5 - Traffic Volumes, Scenario IV ..............................................................................................15
Appendix
Site Layout
Trip Generation Calculations
Highway CapaCIty Software Output
#0300.48223
Edwards alld Kelcey. fne.
u
D
u
u
o
o
u
u
D
D
[J
[J
D
o
o
o
D
D
u
Traffic Impact Swdy
Pittman Partners
Carmel. Indiana
Preparer Qualifications
I certify that this Transportation impact Study has been prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering.
~..~\\~\n., ~ m uU;~'JJI/1.
:>:~", Co t.li A /1/1>,
,>~>l:::~' \ \ ........... P 1~.0~.
,i:.' .:.,,~ .... <; - E.... r /" .~
~.(, '-.~ .....(:; \ c I . R ;:"" '7 ~?;.
.t;j......../ ~ ' ~./,-.. ~ "f-;.
..... '" ,<(. ~I v >. "
ff / .\ 0 ....'~
.....: \u <. . ''-
g-J,..; ..e ." en '~1r@
= ~"'; lonrJl1";) :('r-=::
S.-o~ ............ /{;-:~
% l' -.... S 1" AT t: 0 i= ./ !:l;~?
\'J:"'~'.....(!.'i D I f\ ~::~::~;(~~:/"
'",-.<'s" -.......... ,,;.\-,. c.::'
..~jJ:t.;.;lar1rJ\.L ~~~\i-~"\"
-I ";1J:I!l:-'!I:ii~a!.i\.~t~:.'O."'.
c~f2~
Jennifer A. Pyrz, r.E.
Indiana Registration # 10001153
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
This Study has been completed in accordance with the Applicant's Guide, Transportation Impact Studies
for Proposed Development, adopted by the City of Carmel Resolution 021892, February 18, 1992.
2
Edwards alld Kelcey, Inc.
u
u
D
u
[J
D
[J
D
o
o
o
u
o
o
D
u
u
D
U
TrafJic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Introduction
Pittman Partners is proposing to develop a 34-acre site in Carmel, Indiana. The site is located along
Michigan Road (U.S. 421), approximately halfway between l06th Street and 116th Street as shown in the
location map, Figure 1.
The development will consist of both owner-occupied townhouses and offices and will require re-zoning
of the subject property to a mixture of B2 and R4. The intersections of Michigan Road at l06th Street,
the proposed site drive, and 116lh Street were each analyzed as part of this study.
The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is currently making improvements to Michigan
Road in the site vicinity, including widening and signal system upgrades. All analyses assumed that
these improvements would be completed before full buildout of the subject site.
The conditions of each intersection were determined under the proposed configuration and four scenarios
were analyzed as follows:
,J'~:-~" ">:,,' "~"'liI'm'J(:.~~';g'~", ,,~ ,'C:; ~'IJ. ~'''' : . ""'."' '. '" - . 0 '00 < ~ .
. (-r . ~:'l '~'<<.,,~~~ - '" :;..~o,Uy ",! Y:" J"': Develo ment..Scenarlos;,.
?'"",' . :1:.'11.",.:1\' .~.!:>-~ ~R~" "'.:" ~",,,.' ~ .. " " y .., ."",R .. ". '6" ~.. ~... ""'''~<''
. "= . r; ,l;~ 1i";II ..' "'. ~. - , .' ~ 0'>. . .0 . , . '. '" .
;~'Ff'aftibJ.(}ondit:ioii ~j:: ~ ,,,~~.:~;;~..o_.).i#t~(~1'-IT~'- _.~:; ill> - ,w~t
C:~.. ~~.t';; j;-1:if~~~~O<:'f1i _p!): :; ~s... <1~, ~- ~ 'i .........;11 ~"~'r;....~t. ,5-' 'I" ..:i, I'
Existing ./ ./ ./ I ./
Background growth ./ ./ I ./
Development proposed by Pittman
Partners ./ ./
Anticipated Non-Site Development ./ ./
Development as zoned ./
3
Ed-wards and Kelcey, 111c-
u
~
o
u
~
U
D
u
o
D
u
u
~
~
U
~
u
~
~
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Pw1ners
Carmel, indiana
Figure 1. Location Map
4
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc..
u
u
[J
D
o
0'
o
D
D
u
u
u
u
[J
D
D
o
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, indiana
Scenario I represents existing traffic conditions, assuming that improvements to Michigan Road are
complete. Scenario II represents year 2013 traffic conditions, \vhich includes the effect of background
traffic growth and volumes generated by full build-out of the subject site. Scenario In also represents
year 2013 traffic conditions and is equivalent to Scenario II with the addition of traffic volumes from
four currently undeveloped sites. Finally, Scenario IV represents year 2013 traffic conditions assuming
the subject site is developed as currently zoned. Scenario IV includes existing, background growth, oon-
site, and as-zoned traffic volumes.
SItes A and B (see Figure 1) were identified for inclusion as anticipated non-site development in
Scenarios ill and N. Site A is directly opposite the subject site along Michigan Road and is currently
zoned for retail and industrial development. Land uses and building sizes were assumed based on the
current zoning and lot acreage for this site. Site B is located on the east side of Michigan Road, south of
1 06th Street. A home improvement store was assumed at this site for purposes of this study. In order to
account for traffic produced by the remaining vacant sites in the vicinity a background traffic growth rate
of 2% per year was used for Scenarios II, III, and IV to approximate Year 2013 conditions. This growth
rate was determined based upon growth rates developed by INDOT for thIS corridor, reduced to account
for our explicit analyses of traffic associated with the subject site and vacant sites A and B.
Existing Roadway Conditions
Michigan Road (U.S. 421) operates as a two-lane undivided roadway along the front of the site. Turn
lanes are constructed for vanous driveways along the highway and at major intersections. U.S. 421 is
under the jurisdiction ofINDOT, which classifies this section of it as urban principal arterial under the
statewide system.
The intersections of Michigan Road wi th 1061h Street and 116111 Street are both currently signalized. The
intersection with 11 61h Street remains more rural, although development is expected to begin expanding
north to this area.
The subject SIte is bordered by an undeveloped parcel and existing single family homes to the south, with
Altum's Nursery, and additional commercIal zoning and undeveloped land to the nOlih. The site directly
across Michigan Road is also vacant. A church and multi-family development are to the northwest of the
Edward~ and Kelcey. inc.
5
u
o
D
o
[J
D
D
D
u
u
[J
[J
o
o
u
u
u
o
u
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
site, with driveway access to Michigan Roa Although directly opposite each other, the driveways for
Altum's nursery an t e church / multI-family development are not in alignment across Michigan Road.
Committed Improvements
INDOT is currently constructing improvements to Michigan Road (U.S. 421) in front of the proposed
development The improvements are separated into two individual projects.
Phase I improvements to the interchange ofI-465 with Michigan Road and n0l1h will be completed this
summer, 2003. Improvements were designed to satisfy traffic demands through the year 2015.
In fall 2003, construction is expected to begin on Phase II, which involves the widening of Michigan
Road from l020d Street in Hamilton County to CR 550 in Boone County.
The intersection of Michigan Road with 106th Street will be improved to include the following:
Northbound: 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, and I right turn lane
Southbound: I left turn lane, 2 through lanes, and I right turn lane
Eastbound: I left turn lane and I through I right turn lane
Westbound: 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, and I right turn lane
The 106th Street intersection will operate under a three-phase signal, including a separate phase for
northbound and southbound left turn movements. The assumed timing plan is included in the Appendix
as part of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) output
The intersection of Michigan Road WIth 116'h Street \vilJ be improved to include the following:
Northbound: 2 left turn lanes, 2 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane
Southbound: 1 left turn Jane, 2 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane
Eastbound: 1 left turn lane, I through lane, and I right turn lane
Westbound: 2 left turn lanes, 1 through lane, and I right turn lane
This intersection will operate under a four-phase SIgnal, includmg separate phases for each set of left turn
movements. The assumed timing plan is included in the Appendix as part of the HCS output.
Edwards and Kelcey, hIe
6
o
o
o
o
o
u
o
u
o
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
Traffic impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, indiana
Existing Traffic Conditions
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for AM and PM peak hour conditions at each of the study
intersections. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used to produce Level of Service (LOS)
ratings for each traffic movement or combined traffic movement (if a lane is sharedl These LOS ratings
are measured in terms of average control delay, where delay IS a measure of driver discomfort,
frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The term "control" refers to the inclusion of
deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay in the final delay measure.
LOS A is the best operating condition, and LOS F has the longest delays, therefore being the worst
operating condition.
Table 1 provides thc critena for the various LOS ratings for a signalized intersection in terms of control
delay. Table 2 provides the LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 3 provides the LOS
results for existing AM and PM peak hours at each intersection in the study area, assuming the INDOT
proposed intersection configurations described in the preceding section. Peak hour turn movement
counts were conducted in March 2003. LOS results are based upon the peak hour of an average
weekday. These LOS results will occur during the peak hours, and will improve during the remainder of
the day.
Table 1
Level of Service CriteriaJor Signalized Intersections
A :::;10
B > 10 and ::;; 20
C >20 and :::; 35
D > 35 and::;; 55
E > 55 and :s; 80
F > 80
I The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) program is associated with the latest release of the Highway Capacity
Manual (HeM) as published by the Transportation Research Board.
Edwards a/ld Kelcey. [/lc.
7
[J
u
u
u
u
[J
D
D
D
D
Traffic Impact Sl!u(v
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Table 2
Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalizcd Intersections
; ~n..6>. ~ &;":' _- '" '"" .~, > 1?" = ,-<\ =".u' ~;! -~-'= ~ ... - - -~ <' '" _,
I ~~i~l;qJl~~r~~cJJ" S!9~{l~!I.;,:Qelay p'eJ~:V~hi~lel{~~~t)Jljl~j
A ~ 10
B > 10 and ~ 15
C > 15 and ~ 25
D > 25 and ~ 35
E > 35 and ~ 50
F > 50
Table 3
Intersection LOS: Existing Traffic Conditions with Proposed Geometries
~)~'~';;'-;'~fd"~'" 'I~~~$'~,;;'~ .~"SOl~:iJ'~~f<111 ":<t. Sf c'Q" "f r,t;";'~-R k; RNfR:'l ~
~~~~Ir:_~~'di .~I&F,!;~; ~'~;)'l~~~. iil~.f~&~~, "._ .~~.;'~ :''' ~QP!\;, J!Q.J~q!4~{F'~ "' ,~a ~ _- 0-~3 r,
,fiJh _ ~ ".... rl ~... ,"_" .... <",1'li>i A ~'r'~ _ , _}
" -
Michigan Road and l06th Street Signal B B
Michigan Road and 116th Street Signal C C
o Both intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak
hours based on existing traffic volumes and proposed geometries.
o
o
o
D
u
D
U
o
Traffic Generation
Table 4 summarizes the results of the trip generation for the proposed site. Table 5 summarizes the trip
generation for the anticipated non-site development, with pass-by trips accounted for, where appropriate.
All calculations are consistent with the methodology prescribed by the 6th Edition Trip Generation as
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1997). The commercial development mix was
assumed based on land area and a preliminary development concept. Trip generation calculations are
included in the Appendix. All land use assumptions for the undeveloped sites are consistent with a
previous Transportation Impact Study filed by this firm for the same site in 2000?
2 Traffic Impact Sturly, Michigan Road Mixed-Use Development. Carmel, Indiana. Prepared by Pflum, Klausmeier
& Gehrum Consultants, Inc, (now Edwards and Kelcey,lnc), October 2,2000.
Edwards and Kelcey. fne. 8
u
o
o
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
u
u
o
D
D
U
D
Traffic impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Table 4
Trip Generation Estimates: Proposed Development
...1',,-= ",-; 0,.- ~ -~~,.~~ 1fc. 1,\, <;:(''-"( '-II :f " ~ - - _ _ -)1 ~'.. .. ~-I'-_ _~,,-.'f_ ~~~ - .~:; '-1 "'..." -- - 'J':" I. I u ~. -2- ~ .'
"'T" d'T'T ~(a)c';rj"""'1";,,<j",1" ,'1"'"" "'.I,,~.,"~, -".t-..~ "''''lI.'II'P~k~' ,.. ~ - DM'P I~ "."
uan ''-Jse ~. .:-~,~~. -~t. ~&,~r:- . fl r..:t~II..I!)..c.;'>'". H~11tI- ,-,-,'~T..I.: ea -"';".i}-"~;<; *~, r~ ea~ z: .,~(11'';
J~ 1"-'~~""';'. ~\~ ""'~i~ Jt ,~::'"..r.f:i>~;;'~h,J i..."* III ~~~c.;. A,~.;! ~~"",'i:'~" '=.........~~~.,.--'7'"""._-~...._ ~ ,",~ ,,=<_.- ,.. r~'~k ~ ;.~~.
16~ ~'> :~:",)-'~t:d";I"'tt~ I"" ~<O~~( ~~.~j~\~~~ ~,.... ;""':@ode:...."^ !~_ ~ ,~~,,~. t-.. I 't".:f~~iff,.~: ':. ~."~ ~ / ","~. '!:-~< t i . 1, 11 ::-, ..".~ . ~ .. ::.
""Y ~~& !$.".\ 'W';;;/i";'",lw. ""'1 " - . '<;\! .;~:..~~- ~t'><>"o~'" Inr', ,'''' .-Oot'" ,. ''F.otar .In ';-, 0ut TO-tal
,~~_Q"~ \a\ A:f~'il""....~ 1~' :.~..,: ~~,"r;t.,~":.t-~p"I.,,, Q. oJ;;;~ ~_~':'"' S:.i-=-'-~wf'l ~.=I I k..ru,,", ...""<:.:t:_~;~_
-
112,500 SF General Office 710
37,500 SF Specialty Retail 814
180 DU Townhouses 230
170 I 205
55 97
33 100
-18 -28
180
(b)
14
25
(b)
67
205
(b)
81
35
42
67
-10
134
374
- internal trips (7% of PM peak)
Total External Trips
194
92
286
240
(a) Square footage amounts used are the best estimates at the time this study was conducted.
(b) Data not available for the AM peak hour of Specialty RetaiL Negligible trips are assumed.
Table 5
Trip Generation Estimates: Anticipated Non-Site Development
",""jf""''''''~'"'1Ill!1I':it~5.,t\!\,: ~ 1""" " 0;'" ir'." JtNnf'R' <,,~ , "" '". "JiM"1;, "i<i'"-:' ';
jf'-""t1i'Jt l.: t ~ - Hi 3 r;,tJJt. it 1i~~-1\ J"~'''t -- .f.Y;G',\""" ..~ ::'".!~ ea k'u'."'" .' ~ I"'". ~#", + .J ea ~~ ~^~ ~
~~. ar~':;;I"~tl,tJ f;)i;. ~B:'i.~ "'" ~J<."""'A ~";1}1} .,i~\,"i"i!1\." ' . ~ ' ;~, j-"" ,'~ ~. ~ l4L -~'~.''':''''''~<-f'~l'''',., ~
I' an ~ SC<'. j\, ~"it ~~;f ,,' '" Ji~~"br"'" 4 . ,""L',\," ';", ..'j~" _' ,~.. ,'. . ,1ii'l' l> ,.
. ~'c~'f!'~1'1~~ Jj, .ff"ti'tt ~,!~)if;, ,t'f:~' ~,,:~;;.J;~~~c: ,,,,)~:\\, .,I.pj.~ ~"<9,,pr 'J ":"1\oJak\i,,~'" In>",:,":,;: ,)@ut'~ .f<;.'tiEot~li'.
~ ,~ I "-. "" ~ =j~t ~... _ "'1..._ '1'"';-" .
Site AI: Apartments, rIE Code 220 22 114 136 110 54 164
Site AI: Industrial \Varehouse, ITE Code 150 310 68 378 90 286 376
Site A2: Shopping Center, ITE Code 820 90 57 147 275 298 573
Pass-By Trips -115 -115 -230
Site A3: Free Standing Discount Superstore, ITE 205 196 401 408 424 832
Code 813
Site B: Home Improvement Store, ITE Code 862 102 86 188 171 193 364
Pass-By Trips -87 -87 -174
TOT AI. NEW TRIPS 729 521 1250 852 1053 1905
Internal Capture Rate
Because the proposed site is to be developed with a mix of uses, it can be expected that a certain
percentage of the generated trips will have both origins and destinations within It. In this case, these
internal trips will not travel through any of the intersections on US. 421, but only along internal
roadways. The internal capture rate was calculated using the lTE Trip Generation Handbook (October
1998) procedure for Multi-Use Developments. Based on studies of actual multi-use developments, a 7%
Edwards and Kelcey, fnc.
9
u
o
D
D
o
u
o
D
o
D
[J
u
o
U
D
D
o
[J
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
internal capture rate was calculated for the site during the PM Peak hour. Internal trips are likely during
the AM peak hour as well, but were not considered due to lack of sufficient data. Calculations are
included lTI the Appendix.
Pass-By Trips
Pass-by trips are those that make an intermediate stop at a site on the way to another ultimate destination.
The trips are attracted from an adjacent roadway, in this case u.s, 421, while passing by the site. They
add traffic to the site driveway traffic, but do not increase volumes on the adjacent street system.
Pass-by trips were calculated using the research and procedure outlined in the ITE Tnp Generation
Handbook (October 1998). Based on that procedure, pass-by tnp percentages were calculated for the PM
Peak hour for each qualifying land use category. No data on pass-by trips was available for the land uses
within the subject site, however pass-by trips are expected to and from some of the vacant sites. These
pass-by trip percentages were applied only to trips made dunng the PM peak hour. Calculations are
included in the Appendix.
Table 6 presents the trip generation estimates for the subject site, if developed as currently zoned.
Table 6
Trip Generation Estimates: Site As Zoned
82 Smgle Family Homes, ITE Code210
Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Traffic was distributed for each of the scenarios based on existing traffic pattems, operational
charactenstics of the area, and future development potential. To the north, travelers can reach the Cities
of Carmel, Lebanon, and Zionsville, and gain access to 1-65. To the south, heavier retail and commercial
development, the City of Indianapolis and the City of Carmel are attractors. Further details are included
in the Appendix.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
10
I
10
D
D
D
o
o
o
u
D
o
o
u
D
u
D
D
o
D
D
Traffic impact Stlll~V
Pittman Partners
Cannel, Indiana
Future Conditions
The following scenarios were analyzed using the data generated in previous sections of this report:
Table 7
Development Scenarios
~ ~-I ::!'~':;-~~ '"f~ ':;:~ilt~- ,..'~_'~p.'~';'fI,;'~-. ~~r~ '" ~:: -~...,., -:r""".~'-lI-><I~ ."'~ /,. -":' .~ I
,~,~ ."J'.' ~,'.' ~ ,"" ~".' ".." "" II~ .' "., Il.e ~~ {, ,.;', & DevelopmenttSCenarlOS" .
~ ~"f..:::.l.\,~; ~~':<~.t-' '~~-~~\.." j'~l \;. "f.;f} ~,}l'~'~' -.;,'~, ~'!'>~""'7."~~ .-~~-, "'.-\r~"~ -" ;;'~~. .
, -Ttaffic Eon1litionsr" ": 1 . . '':;" ,. = r': 'I' ~ ;.5., ,~.w. 'i - ',~ n ,,~. '. . 'm"" .. . IV' ..
". ..;;:~ . ~ ,~ ~ _ ~ ~ ""~_ ,; ,,-.1'\ 'to ~ . I ~ .. l . it 't '" " ~'or. J; r",.~
Existing ./ ./ ../ ../
Background growth ./ ./ ../
Development proposed by Pittman
Partners ../ ./
Anticipated Non-Site Development ./ ./
Development as zoned ./
After computing existing levels of service, the Scenario I volumes were combined with background
traffic growth of 2% per year over 10 years to simulate year 2013 conditions. The background growth
rate was estimated based on rNDOT traffic projections and is used in conjunction with the explicit
analysis of several vacant sites (see Table 5). The proposed development traffic was then added to result
in Scenario II. Anticipated non-site development was added to that for Scenario m. Finally, Scenario N
is used to compare traffic impacts between conditions where the site is developed as zoned versus as
proposed.
Each of the study intersections was analyzed under each of thc development scenarios. Table 8 provides
the results of these analyses. Figures 2 through 5 illustrate the turning movement volumes for the M1
and PM peak hours of Scenarios I, II, III, and IV. All results assume that the improvements to Mi chigan
Road as discussed previously will be fully implemented.
Edwards and Kelcey, il1(',
11
u
o
u
U
D
D
o
D
o
o
D
o
[J
o
o
D
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
.1________ _____~------n116t~REET _______. _____1
\
\
\'f;
\,C}
\Gi
\1t:.
\
\-;0
o
\~
\-
\c:
Vlf\
\J,>
\t.:.
\
\
\
@_~~~ D~V~_
\
\
\
106th STREET
...~~
'l:i>~
-:::l~t:.
~
I'...... '- 28[50p
\ 54f169)../ ~'52 22 )
148 25(l)- / 64 50
49 32) "" ....... \ (
cl'';)....
~
~
@
not to scale
A~ (PM)
\
\
\
\
\
\
\,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
.-...@............
,
\
.", ................._..1
3
......J
....'f,,~
~
~
,......
1 '- J2M~
1052../ - 79 5
24~10~)- /166 0
15(82~"" \ (
....... ....
....~0'
~
...c.; v'
~.;::-
=-"
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
12
~
'3
C\
....l
~
2
FIGURE 2
SCENARIO I
EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
note: Traffic volume counts conducted in March 2003
[j
[J
D
o
o
u
o
u
u
[J
u
D
D
o
u
u
o
o
u
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
\
-~----------~---d!---~-'-----------------'- 11 6th ST~EE"!:_______.________________~___
\
\
\~
\0
\~
\0
\;.
\
-,
\~
\,d
\--
\C.
\ 'lfI
\ .
\.?-
\~
\,
(1)
\
\
106th STREET
~~~
~
~
J\........ "- 3m1p
B6C:~OB~ ./ -293 19 )
18030 )- ./ BB 0
6745, \ I
~~
~
~~
~5
\
\
\
\
SITE DRIVE
\
\
\
;"
\
\
\
\
\
-~
~~
~
~
i........ '
'-4-1(108)
/51(132)
\~
':So
",=->
~
-s:.~
OJ
2
ew
FIGURE 3
SCENARIO II
EXISTING + BACKGROUND +
not to scale
AM (PM)
dl'"
<r-~~
~
9-"-\'"
J -={<. "- 51~lOJ)
1 69./ - 96 73
29N;33~ - ,1"202 11 )
, B{ 100)...... \ I
....., ",<J'
'-"~
~
~
SITE TRAFFIC
3
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc,
13
D
u
D
o
u
[J
o
u
[J
o
D
D
D
o
D
D
U
o
u
106th STREET
~":i~
o:!a>-"
~
~
~,
I "- 34~Ei n
66(:~061 ./ -293 19b}
ISll 305)- ,-118129)
lD6121), \ /
""'- '-'
.....~o
-" &-::;.
~~
o-:J:/
~~
EW
not to scale
AM (PM)
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
.
\
_""_"CD~~_.~"__!"~.~t.f:1_~TRE~~~~__..__.__.___..______._...___..._..__.._.__,._
\
\
\
\~
\1
I. ___
\0
\~
'\
\-;0
\0
\
11)
\-
\c.
\'(j\
\.
\~
\~
\.->
\
\
@-
\
\
SITE DRIVE
\
\
\
,
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
. .""__Q)__ n'_"........."......__.__..__.....".,.,...__....'..._..._....n
""
COd'
~
--~
~
\ ......... '-41(108)
....-s1(132)
\ /
~-"
~
-"'::J
'Co...
t?/
~
cl'~
GCJuj"tP
~<a,C'
3!?
.........
I' '- 71f13~
2 94./ - 10 (7
31N41~ - ,/'204113
55t248j........ \ I
""'-",
I-"..rt.-
tf.LPv.
~
~
3
2
FIGURE 4
SCENARIO III
EXISTING + BACKGROUND + VACANT + SITE TRAFFIC
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc,
14
u
u
U
D
D
o
o
[J
o
o
o
o
[J
D
D
D
D
U
D
I...._______~---~~-
r--
not to scale
106th STREET
.....--'
~
~~
;i<- '- 3t(61}
66~206j./ ~29J t90
180305 - /109 121
100 118 "" " \ I
""~c1\
~<p'"
~
~
0.;;.'
tW
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
~-_-.....-~~-STREg:-------------m. __I
\\ ~
\q.
1-
\(;l
\11:-
\
\s
\'b
\---.
\c;.
\ "If)
\ .
\~
\.->
\
\ SITE DRIVE
.~--_..._-------~@-_._-~_._-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
i
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
- -_.~..._.__._---_._~~.._.-
,
\
'"
't
~
.....---
~
\ ....... '-12(8)
/38(24)
\ I
':!:,.....
0'"
~
'K'
:=/
1
2
~
~
~-!;.
~
.......
1'\ '- 63~14~
Z 88./ - 10 (7
J1 tf41~- ,..-204 113
55tZ4Bj--.... \ I
'-",
~q',,&
~
~
3
FIGURE 5
SCENARIO IV
EXISTING + BACKGROUND + VACANT + SITE AS ZONED
AM (PM)
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
15
I
: .U
D
o
u
D
u
u
o
o
o
[J
o
r-1
lJ
o
o
u
D
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pillman Partners
Carmel,. indiana
Table 8
Intersection LOS: Final Results
Michigan Road and lO6th B B B B C D C C
S tree!
Michigan Road and Site C F C F C F
Drive (unsignalized)*
Michigan Road and 116th C C C D C D C D
Street
* Note: For unsignalized intersections, the LOS for each movement is calculated, but no overall
intersection LOS IS calculated. The repor1ed LOS for Michigan Road at the site drive are the lowest
values that were calculated for anyone approach. The Levels of Service for each of the individual
movements can be found in the HCS output, provided in the Appendix.
The intersections of Michigan Road with 106th Street and 1161h Street are expected to operate at
acceptable Jevels of service in all scenarios. Some movements will drop below acceptable levels in the
PM peak hour at Michigan Road and l16th Street under Scenarios III and N, but the intersection as a
whole will continue to operate well. Conditions are expected to be satisfactory during all other periods
of the day.
The intersection of MIchigan Road with the site dri ve is expected to operate below acceptable LOS in the
PM peak hour. The poor LOS is associated only with movements exiting the site. Traffic along
Michigan Road will continue to experience LOS C or better. A signal installed at the drive will provide
acceptable LOS during all periods. A signal in the vicinity WIll help to provide gaps, thereby also
improving LOS from the estimates presented in Table 8.
Traffic Operations Issues
Vehicular Connectivitv
South of the subject site, an adjacent neighborhood was constructed with a roadway stub-out (Monitor
Lane) to alIow a future connection wit], the subject property. The extension of Monitor Lane would
Edwards and Kelcey. Inc.
16
[J
u
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
u
o
o
u
o
u
o
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Cannel, indiana
allow vehicular traffic access between the existing neighborhood and the subject sIte, including access by
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Smce the subject site has access to U.S. 421, this
additional connection through a residential neighborhood would provide little or no value to either site.
Emergency vehlcles could reach the site more quickly and safely via U.S. 421 and travel of any sort
through the neighborhood would be slow and circuitous. Although the access point would provide
convenience to the existing residents, they are more concerned about through traffic in their
neighborhood and are therefore strongly opposed to such a connection. There appears to be no
persuasi ve reason for such a connection at this time, except perhaps for pedestrians / bicyclists.
Traffic Si2nal Warrants
As described in previous sections of this report, the intersection of U.S. 421 and the site drive will
operate at poor levels of service until a signal is installed. The decision on whether or not a signal is
installed at this location rests with INDOT and is based upon state warrants set forth in the Indiana
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (IMUTCD).
Traffic control signals should not be installed unless one or more of the primary volume signal warrants
in llvIUTCD are met. Supplemental warrants should be considered as an advisory condition, and do not
mandate the installation of a traffic signal. The supplemental guidelines are additional considerations in
the determination for the need to install traffic signals. Satisfaction of the requirements listed in the
guidelines is not sufficient cause, in itself, to install traffic signal.
PRllvI.ARY WARRANTS
Warrant 1 - Minimum vehicular volume.
Warrant 2 - Interruption of continuous traffic.
Warrant 3 - Minimum pedestrian volume.
SUPPLEMENT AL WARRANTS
Warrant 4 - School crossmgs.
Warrant 5 - Progressive movement.
Warrant 6 - Accident experience.
Warrant 7 - Systems.
Warrant 8 - Combination of wan ants.
Warrant 9 - New facilities.
Warrant 10- Special Access.
Warrant 11 - Four hour volumes.
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDELINES
Guideline 12 - Peak hour delay.
Guideline 1 J - Peak hour volume.
Edwards and Kelcey, lne.
17
[J
o
D
o
D
o
u
u
o
D
o
o
D
D
D
u
u
o
D
Traffic impact Study
Pillman Partners
Carmel, indiana
Discussions are currently underway between the City of Cannel, the Indiana Department of
Transportation, and area developers. A signal will be installed in the vicinity of the site, either at its
intersection with Michigan Road or immediately north of the site at the drive to Altum's Nursery.
Michigan Road traffic volumes will satisfy warrants at either location. Certain factors, however, make
the northern option a less desirable location for a signal. The driveways at that location are not in
alignment across Michigan Road and the Altum's Nursery drive does not provide for adequate storage for
vehicles that may queue at a signal. A signal at the subject site could also serve more motorists, with a
west approach to the intersection constructed for the various undeveloped sites west of Michigan Road.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Field survey and analyses as presented in Figures 2 through 5 and summarized in Table 8, lead to the
findings outlined as follo\vs:
Scenario II - Full Buildout of Subiect Site
· All signalized study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better upon buildout of
the subject site (Scenario II). This scenario accounts for eXlsting and site traffic, as well as
background growth equating to nearly 22% (growth rate of2% compounded over 10 years).
LOS D is considered acceptable for the peak hours in most municipal set1ings.
o The unsignalized intersection of U.S. 421 with the site drive will operate at LOS F in the PM
peak hour of Scenario II (full buildout of the subject site as shown in Table 4). This LOS
conesponds with poor conditions exiting the subject site. Traffic along Michigan Road will
continue to operate at good LOS under the unsignalized condition. With a signal, all
approaches to the mtersection are expected to improve to acceptable LOS.
Buildout (Scenarios III and IV) - Full Buildout of Subiect and Vacant Sites
" The vacant sites that were considered in thi s analysis account for a large portion of the traffic
in Scenarios III and IV. When traffic volumes from these sites are added to the network,
delays at the study intersections do increase, with LOS most affected at MlChigan Road and
106\h Street. None of these delays, however, will be significant enough to drop the
intersection LOS below acceptable levels.
· Scenarios III and IV are both buildout scenarios. Scenario III includes site traffic as proposed,
and IV includes site traffic as zoned. At MichIgan Road and 1061h Street, the as zoned
scenario provides one level of service better in the PM peak period than the as proposed
scenario, although both are still above acceptable levels. LOS during all other periods remain
the same for both scenarios.
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
18
u
u
u
[J
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
u
[J
U
D
o
u
u
o
Traffic fmpact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, indiana
Recommendations
· The proposed site drive approach to U.S. 421 should be constructed with one left turn lane,
one through lane, and one right turn lane. It should be positioned to align with a potential
future driveway on the west side of U.S. 421, directly opposite this one. U.S. 421 is within
the jurisdiction ofINDOT. The intersection should be constructed to meet with its standards
and specification.
· A right turn lane should be constructed northbound at the site drive with appropriate taper
designed to INDOT specifications.
· A left turn lane southbound into the site should be formalized. Design should meet with
INDOT specifications and conform to the future design of Michigan Road in terms of
centerline treatment (raised median, two-way-Ieft-turn lane, etc).
· A traffic signal should be installed at the site drive to facilitate safe and efficient traffic
operations. Further analysis is included in the previous section, titled Traffic Operations
Issues.
.. Some discussion has taken place with INDOT regarding a signal just north of the subject site,
at the intersection ofD.S. 421 at Altum's nursery. Two serious issues prevent this location
from being a desirable alternative for a signal:
1. The east (Altum's drive) and west legs of this intersection are not in alignment.
One or the other would need to be reconstructed if a signal were to be installed (see
following aerial photograph).
2. The Altum's drive provides very limited storage for vehicles to queue at a signal.
Site restrictions would make such an improvement difficult.
A signal as recommended at the proposed site drive would benefit Altum's Nursery as
well by controlling traffic flow along U. S. 421 and providing gaps at their eXisting
driveway. Further, connection would be made from propel1ies to the west of U.S. 421
into the proposed signalized intersection, once that area is developed, allowing an even
greater number ofmotorisls to be served.
Edwards and Kelcey, fllc.
19
o
u
o
u
o
o
o
o
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
o
[J
o
o
Traffic impact Study
Pittman Partners
. Carmel. indiana
<> The proposed site plan illustrates potential connections to adjacent properties. One of those
connections would extend northwardly into undeveloped property and eventually connect
with 116\11 Street. Another would connect to the undeveloped commercial property adjacent to
and south of the subject site. A third would connect with the existing residential subdivision
to the south (Monitor Lane). The first two proposed connections are recommended. However,
there is no compelling rcason for the connection at Monitor Lane. Such a connection is
considered undesirable by the neighborhood and would provide little or no benefit to either
community. Emergency vehicles can best reach the subject site via U.S. 421.
Edwards and Kelcey. fne.
20
u
o
o
D
D
D
D
U
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pillmun Partners
Cannef, Indiana
APPENDIX
Edward~ and Kelcey, 1nc.
u
1LI '"\;:\
~
I- <;::,
Z ~
<::::
- ~
0 .::0
a... ~
"-
z ~
0 ~
I- <;::,
U) Z
\.LJ ;::::
<;::,
:s:
D
u
D
o
u
u
u
[J
[J
[j
u
o
D
u
u
~
';'::
;:l
~
~
()
.:
':i
B
~
"':::
o
o
[J
----'1,
: o~'
i:i
~
.~
~
'"
~.~
"";:
~.,1
.,'-
~1
~:'.'...~. ~El'.:.
u
, J
:'!..=I
I
1 ~
"
.;;
€'~
~7~
~:
~ ~
(:"~~
...
~II ~
........ ..,.
~~
~
~
i..J.
......
..~
I
'),:r.J
~
.~
~.
t''?
~:;;
~. "
"-~
i1!
<t: ,
"
1-
J
j
l
I
~ ....
. .
'" .
. ~
~~
~ 1:
. .
.C)
~
. ..,-.....
..t,"~~C~~~:;\'~.j
~ ';'~l...Ji;
~
b,\
[J
D
U
D
D
D
o
U
o
o
D
o
o
o
u
o
u
o
o
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, [ndiana
Trip Generation
Subject Site as Proposed:
General Office Building - ITE Code 71 0
assume 112,500 SF
AM Peak: Ln( T) = 0.797 Ln( 112.5 ) + 1.558
Ln( T ) = 5.3222
T = 205
88% in = 180
12% out = 25
Piv/ Peak:
T
T
1.121 (112.5) + 79.295
205
17% in 35
83% out 170
Specialty Retail -ITE Code 814
assume 37,500 SF
Alv! Peak:
data not available
PM Peak'
T
T
2.59 ( 37.5 )
97
43% in 42
57% out 55
Edwards and Kelcey, lIw
t>.'l
o
o
o
o
o
o
u
u
u
u
u
u
o
D
D
o
[J
D
U
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Townhouses - ITE Code 230
180 Dwelling Units
AM Peak: [nC T) = 0.790 Ln( 180) + 0.298
Ln( T ) = 4.4004
T = 81
17% in
83% out
PM Peak: Ln( T ) = 0.827 [nC 180) + 0.309
[nC T) = 4.6036
T = 100
67% in
33% out
Trip Distribution for proposed site:
55% to/from the south
45% to/from the north
14
67
67
33
Edwards and Kelcey, inc.
A.~
o
u
[J
D
U
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
D
U
U
U
o
U
Traffic Irnpact SllU(}i
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Subject Site as Zoned:
Single Family Detached Housing - ITE Code 210
82 dwelling units
AM Peak: T 0.700 (82) + 9.477
T 67
25% in 17
75% out 50
PM Peak: Ln( T ) = 0.901 Ln( 82 ) + 0.527
Ln( T ) = 4.4975
T = 90
64% in 58
36% out 32
Adjacent Sites:
Site AI:
Apartments- ITE Code 220
268 Dwelling Units
AM Peak
T
T
0.497 (268) + 3.238
136
16%) in
84% out
22
114
PM Peale
T
T
0.541 (268) + 18.743
164
67% in
33% out
110
54
Industrial \Varchouse - ITE Code 150
assume 871,000 SF
AAf Peale:
Ln(T)
Ln(T)
T
0.707 Ln(87l) + 1.148
5.9341
378
82% in
18% out
310
68
PM Peak:
Ln(T)
Ln(T)
T
0.754 Ln(871) + 0.826
5.9303
376
24% in
76% out
90
286
Edwards and Kelcey, Ifle
M
o
u
u
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
D
U
D
D
U
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
Site A2:
assume Shopping Center - ITE Code 820 (See attached land use description)
assume 87,120 SF
Ai\;[ Peak' Ln(T) 0.596 Ln(87.l2) + 2.329
Ln(T) 4.9915
T 147
61 % in 90
39% out 57
PM Peak: Ln(T) 0.660 Ln(87.12) + 3.403
Ln(T) --:c 6.3514
T 573
48'10 in 275
52% out 298
40% pass-by in PM Peak
Site A3:
assume Free-Standing Discount Superstore - ITE Code 813
assume 217,800 SF
AM Peak: T 1.84 (217.8)
T 401
51 % in 205
49% out 196
PM Peak: T 3.82 (217.8)
T 832
49% in 408
51 % out 424
Trip Distribution for Sites A1, A2, and A3:
55% to/from the south
45% to/from the north
Ed\vards and Kelcey, fne.
A':>
u
o
u
u
u
u
u
U
D
U
U
U
U
U
o
o
o
o
o
Trajjic Impact S{[{[Zv
Pittman Partners
Carmel. indiana
Site B: Home Improvement Superstore - ITE Code 862
127,000 SF
AM Peak: T 1 .48 (127)
T 188
54% in 102
46% out 86
PM Peak: T 2.87 (127)
T 364
47% in 171
53% out 193
48% pass-by in PM Peak
Trip Distribution: 65% to/from the south
35% to/from the north
Edwards and Kelcey. Inc.
Ak,
c::J CJ c::=J c=
c;l
-0'
C)
([l
':J
~
~
1S-
':J
I
ill
':J
0.
cr
o
o
T
Q
m
a
CD
'"
"J
II
=i
m
.....
o
w
~.
Analyst ~~,\\ 2
Date ~-l,,-6~
c=JCJC=:Jc=JC=:Jc=Jc=JCJCJ
MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT
TRIP GENERATION
AND INTERNAL CAPTURE SUMMARY
LAND USE A \O\N~':::,e~
ITE LU Code L?:a
Exit to Extllma' Size \~b\..)
Total Internal E'J(lernal
Enter (rom Ex/amal
Enter
Exit
Total
%
\L~o
Balanced
L\
Balanced
l
LAND USE B OWl
ITE LU Code \\()
E,itlo Extema' Size \ 1""2/''I(""{"'' ~ Demand BiJlanGed Demand
Tolal Internal External I~\./ol \\ II L II ~%I '21
Enter L ~~ Enter
Exit \10 L \G,5 ~I I~ Exit
Tolal '20' Total
_1C:b_ Demand Balanced Demand
Enter from E,lemar %
% 7..50 S~%
L::::1 c:::J c::J CJ c= c=J
Name of Dvlpt \\\\~'rI \=b\~ne:t~
Time Period \)\'A YE"O'L
LAND USE C ""Q~Q-' \
D\
~\r~'71.F
Enlorfrom brem.!
I I
Total Internal External
E,U /0 Ex/em.!
Net External Trips for Multi-Use Development
LAND USE A LAND USE B LAND USE C TOTAL
Source: Kaku Assocla
Ellter 5'-1 ~ -:...) ::Yl \L~
---..- , La e:. 41...:. 24'0
Exit 2~u___ _
---. ~O ~\L INTERNAL CAPTURE
Total 8;0 2.0\
Srngle~Use Tnp Gen, Est. \CO ;('0 ~I b? \50 I
leB, Inc.
U
D
[J
U
U
U
U
o
o
o
lJ
U
D
U
U
U
U
D
o
TraJJic Impact SW((v
Pillman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
HCS Output - Scenario I
Edwards and Kelcey, fnc.
A:a
o
u
D
o
D
o
o
u
[J
u
o
o
o
u
o
u
o
u
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1e
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/05/03
Period; AM Peak - Scenario 1
Project 10; pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Existing 2003
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
1 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I southbound
1 L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
1 I I
No. Lanes 1 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
LGConfig I L TR I L T R L T R I L T R
volume 110 24 15 1166 79 32 44 238 43 178 483 49
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 2 I 3 4 1 5
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NB Left A A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A 1 Right A
Peds 1 Peds
WB Left A I SB Left A A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds 1 Peds
NB Right I EB Right
SB Right I WB Right
Green 32.0 3.0 30.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Apprl Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (8) vie glC Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 406 1016 0.03 0.40 14.6 B
TR 720 1801 0.07 0.40 14.8 B 14.8 B
Westbound
L 546 1364 0.40 0.40 17.7 B
T 760 1900 0.13 0.40 15.2 B 16.7 B
R 627 1568 0.06 0.40 14.8 B
Northbound
L 305 1770 0.18 0.46 12.9 B
T 1242 3312 0.23 0.38 17.2 B 16.5 B
R 541 1442 0.10 0.38 16.3 B
Southbound
L 438 1752 0.23 0.46 12.8 B
T 1327 3539 0.44 0.38 18.9 B 17.9 B
R 582 1553 0_10 0.38 16.3 B
Intersection Delay '" 17.1 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS B
A.~
o
u
u
u
o
u
D
o
[J
o
D
o
o
o
u
o
u
u
u
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
Period: PM Peak - Scenario 1
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Existing, 2003
#0300.48.223
N/s St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound Northbound I Southbound
I L T R 1 L T R L T R I L T R
I 1 1
No. Lanes 1 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
LGConfig I L TR I L T R I L T R 1 L T R
Volume 152 109 82 190 60 76 145 555 131 168 322 20
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 8 1 8 1 13 I 2
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 26.0 5.0 34.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Apprl Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) vie g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 411 1264 0.17 0.32 19.5 B
TR 554 1705 0.39 0.32 21.4 C 20.9 C
Westbound
L 344 1060 0.35 0.32 21.2 C
T 600 1845 0.13 0.32 19.2 B 20.1 C
R 525 1615 0.17 0.32 19.5 B
Northbound
L 448 1626 0.13 0.54 9.3 ""
T 1475 3471 0.38 0.43 16.0 B 15.2 B
R 660 1553 0.19 0.43 14.5 B
Southbound
L 403 1752 0.23 0.54 9.9 A
T 1448 3406 0.29 0.43 15.2 B 14.2 B
R 572 1346 0.04 0.43 13.5 B
Intersection Delay '" 16.6 ( sec/veh) Intersection LOS B
A\O
o
[J
u
o
D
u
o
o
D
o
u
[J
u
o
u
[J
u
u
o
HCS200D: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
1 Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound
1 L T R I L T R I L T R 1 L T R
I 1 I 1
No. Lanes I 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 I 2 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R I L T R
Volume 154 148 49 164 240 28 155 235 43 150 464 148
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 5 I 3 1 4 1 15
Duration 1. 00 Area T:y-pe: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NB Left A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
WB Left A I SB Left A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A 1 Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right A
SB Right I WB Right A
Green 10.0 19.0 9.0 24.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr / Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) vlc g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/05/03
period: AM Peak - Scenario 1
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/w St: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Existing, 2003
#0300.48.223
Nls St: Michigan Road (US 421)
Eastbound
L 221
T 447
R 641
Westbound
L 429
T 451
R 666
Northbound
L 368
T 959
R 461
Southbound
L 192 1703
T 1022 3406
R 480 1599
Intersection Delay
1770
1881
1553
0.33
0.41
0.08
3433
1900
1615
0.20
0.71
0.05
3273
3195
1538
0.20
0.30
0.11
0.33
0.51
0.36
= 26.0
0.13 32.8 C
0.24 26.4 C
0.41 14.4 B
0.13 31.6 C
0.24 33.2 C
0.41 14.1 B
0.11 32.5 C
0.30 21.7 C
0.30 20.4 C
25.8 C
31.5 C
23.5 C
0.11 33.8 C
0.30 23.6 C 24.2 C
0.30 22.4 C
(see/veh) Intersection LOS
C
t..\\
u
u
[J
o
o
D
o
o
u
u
u
u
u
o
u
[J
u
u
D
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
1 Eastbound I Westbound Northbound 1 Southbound
I L T R I L T R L T R 1 L T R
I I 1
No. Lanes I 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1
LGConfig I L T R I L T R L T R I L T R
Volume 1169 250 32 150 156 50 159 620 85 123 263 72
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 3 I 5 9 I 7
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right A
SE Right WE Right A
Green 14.0 17.0 9.0 22.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
Period: PM Peak - Scenario 1
Project ID: Pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Existing 2003
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
Eastbound
L 316
T 404
R 626
Yle s tbound
L 557
T 400
R 613
Northbound
L 394
T 955
R 444
Southbound
L 195 1736
T 937 3406
R 419 1524
Intersection Delay
1805
1900
1615
0.54
0.70
0.06
3183
1881
1583
0.11
0.42
0.09
3502
3471
1615
0.44
0.69
0.21
0.16
0.34
0.19
= 28.1
0.17 32.1 C
0.21 34.4 C
0.39 15.4 B
0.17 27.8 C
0.21 28.0 C
0.39 15.6 B
0.11 33.9 C
028 28.1 C
0.28 22.5 C
32.1 C
25.4 C
28.7 C
0.11 32.5 C
0.28 23.4 C 23.9 C
0.28 22.4 C
(sec/veh) Intersection LOS
C
A\2.
o
D
[J
U
D
o
o
o
u
o
u
u
o
[J
lJ
D
D
U
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, [ndiana
HCS OUtput - Scenario II
Edwards and Kelcey lilC.
t>.. \ ~
o
u
D
D
o
D
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
D
o
o
u
D
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
Period: AM Peak - Scenario 2
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex. + Bkgrnd + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
1 I I I
No. Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 I 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
LGConfig 1 L TR I L T R I L T R 1 L T R
Volume 116 29 18 1202 96 51 154 381 52 1102 629 64
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 2 1 5 I 5 I 6
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NB Left A A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds 1 Peds
WB Left A 1 SB Left A A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right 1 EB Right
SE Right 1 WB Right
Green 32.0 3.0 30.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/e g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 398 996 0.05 0.40 14.8 B
TR 720 1800 0.08 0.40 14.9 B 14.9 B
Westbound
L 540 1350 0.50 0.40 18.7 B
T 760 1900 0.15 0.40 15.4 B 17.4 B
R 627 1568 0.09 0.40 15.0 B
Northbound
L 233 1770 0.29 0.46 14.1 B
T 1242 3312 0.37 0.38 18.3 B 17.6 B
R 541 1442 0.12 0.38 16.4 B
Southbound
L 361 1752 0.36 0.46 16.2 B
T 1327 3539 0.57 0.38 20.5 C 19.6 B
R 582 1553 0.13 0.38 16.5 B
Intersection Delay = 18.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS B
A.\4.
o
o
u
u
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
Period: PM Peak - Scenario 2
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
I I I I
No. Lanes I 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 I 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig I L TR I L T R 1 L T R I L T R
Volume 169 133 100 Ino 73 101 155 737 160 1105 497 30
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 10 I 10 I 16 I 3
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NB Left A A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
WB Left A I SB Left A A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right
SB Right I WB Right
Green 26.0 5.0 34.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr I Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) vie g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 404 1244 0.23 0.32 20.0- B
TR 554 1705 0.48 0.32 22..3 C 21.7 C
TtJestbound
L 303 932 0.49 0.32 22.9 C
T 600 1845 0.16 0.32 19.4 B 21. 0 C
R 525 1615 0.23 0.32 19.9 B
Northbound
L 343 1626 0.21 0.54 10.0+ B
T 1475 3471 0.51 0,43 17.2 B 16.3 B
R 660 1553 0.23 0.43 14.8 B
Southbound
L 321 1752 0.44 0.54 11.6 B
T 1448 3406 0.44 0.43 16.5 B 15.5 B
R 572 1346 0.06 0.43 13.6 B
Intersection Delay = 17.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS B
A\'"::>
o
D
o
D
D
D
o
[J
D
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
u
D
o
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.lc
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL S~~Y
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/co.: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed: 03/07/03
Analysis Time Period: ru~ Peak - Scenario 2
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + Proposed
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS, #0300.48.223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and
Northbound
2
T
Adjustments
3
R
Southbound
'I 5 6
L T R
87 724
0.90 0.90
96 804
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
373
0.90
414
107
0.90
118
No
2 1
T R
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade [%)
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
51
0.90
56
2
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
o
0.90
o
o
o
41
0.90
45
2
o
No
1 1
L T
1
R
JI.pproach
Movement
Lane Config
Delay,
NB
1
Queue
SB
4
L
Length, and Level of
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Service
Eastbound
10 11
12
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
v/c
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
96
1032
0.09
0.31
B.B
A
56 0 45
215 127 799
0.26 0.00 0.06
1. 01 0.00 0.18
27.5 33.3 9.B
0 0 A
19 .6
C
A\I..D
u
D
u
u
u
D
o
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
[J
[J
o
D
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL Sm~Y
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/Co.: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed: 03-07-03
Ana.lysis Time Period: PM Peak - Scenario 2
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + Proposed
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS - #0300.48.223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
60 461
0.90 0.90
66 512
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
944
0.90
1048
2 1
T R
No
74
0.90
82
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
132
0.90
146
2
RT Channelized:
Lanes
Configuration
o
0.90
o
o
o
1 1
L T
108
0.90
120
2
No
1
R
o
Delay,
NB
1
Queue
SB
4
L
Length, and Level of Sel~ice
Westbound Eastbound
7 B 9 10 11
L T R
12
Approach
Movement
Lane Config
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
v/c
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
66
614
0.11
0.36
11.6
B
146
111
1. 32
9.90
264.0
F
o
84
0.00
0.00
47.9
E
151.5
F
120
49B
0.24
0.93
14.5
B
)::1..\\
o
D
D
o
o
o
u
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
u
o
D
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/07/03
Period: AM Peak - Scenario 2
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUM!1ARY
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
1 L T R I L T R 1 L T R I L T R
1 1 I
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig 1 L T R L T R 1 L T R I L T R
Volume 166 180 67 88 293 34 174 315 57 161 636 180
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 7 3 1 6 1 18
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right A
SB Right WB Right A
Green 10.0 19.0 9.0 24.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c sic Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 221
T 447
R 641
Westbound
L 429
T 451
R 666
Northbound
L 368
T 959
R 461
Southbound
L 192 1703
T 1022 3406
R 480 1599
Intersection Delay
1770
1881
1553
0.40
0.50
0.11
0.13 33.4 C
0.24 27.3 C
0.41 14.6 B
0.13 32.1 C
0.24 48.4 D
0.41 14.2 B
0.11 32.9 C
0.30 22.6 C
0.30 20.6 C
26.3
c
3433
1900
1615
0.27
0.87
0.06
42.3
D
3273
3195
1538
0.27
0.40
0.14
24.2
C
0.41
0.70
0.44
~ 29.6
0.11 34.4 C
0.30 27.0 C 26.8 C
0.30 23.2 C
(sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
A.\'b
u
o
u
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
u
D
D
[J
o
u
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz Inter.: Michigan Road and 115th Street
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Area Type: All other areas
Date: 03/07/03 Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
period: PM Peak - Scenario 2 Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Proposed
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS, #0300.48.223
E/W St: 116th Street N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I southbound
L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
I I I
No. Lanes 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 I 2 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig L T R 1 L T R I L T R I L T R
Volume 206 305 45 170 190 51 1213 834 115 128 366 88
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol 5 I 6 I 12 I 9
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NE Left A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
WE Left A I SE Left A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right A
SB Right WB Right A
Green 14.0 17.0 9.0 22.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) vlc g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 316 1805 0.66
T 404 1900 0.85
R 626 1515 0.08
Westbound
L 557 3183 0.15
T 400 1881 0.51
R 613 1583 0.12
Northbound
L 394 3502 0.59
T 955 3471 0.93
R 444 1615 0.28
southbound
L 195 1736 0.19
T 937 3406 0.47
R 419 1524 0.23
Intersection Delay '= 36.6
0.17 36.1 0
0.21 48.2 0
0.39 15.6 B
0.17 28.1 C
0.21 28.9 C
0.39 15.8 B
0.11 36.1 D
0.28 47.3 D
0.28 23.2 C
41.2
D
26.1
C
42.7 D
0.11 32.7 C
0.28 24.5 C 24.7 C
0.28 22.7 C
(sec/veh) Intersection LOS D
~\a..
D
o
o
D
D
D
[J
U
U
U
o
o
o
o
D
U
D
U
D
Traffic impact St1/dy
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
HCS OUtput - Scenario III
Edwards alld Kelcey, Inc.
f:..i.O
D
u
D
u
u
u
[j
o
u
D
o
D
o
o
D
[J
o
D
D
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/09/03
Period: AM Peak - Scenario 3
Project 10: pittman Partners TIS,
EjW St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T R L T R I L T R I L T R
I I I
No. Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 I 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig 1 L TR L T R I L T R I L T R
Volume 12 B 31 55 204 105 71 1215 649 55 1127 845 88
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 6 1 7 1 6 1 9
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NB Left A A
Thru A I Thru A
Right ]." 1 Right A
Peds 1 Peds
WB Left A 1 SB Left A A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A 1 Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right
SB Right I WE Right
Green 28.0 10.0 27.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr j Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (8) vlc g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 345 986 0.11 0.35 17.7 B
TR 604 1725 0.18 0.35 18.1 B 18.0 B
Westbound
L 453 1295 0.60 0.35 23.6 C
T 665 1900 0.19 0.35 18.3 B 21.3 C
R 549 1568 0.15 0.35 17.9 B
Northbound
L 314 1770 0.87 0.51 44.4 D
T 1118 3312 0.70 0.34 25.0 C 29.3 C
R 487 1442 0.13 0.34 18.5 B
Southbound
L 345 1752 0.47 0.51 13.6 B
T 1194 3539 0.85 0.34 31.2 C 28.0 C
R 524 1553 0.20 0.34 190 B
Intersection Delay = 26.9 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
A2\
u
u
o
u
D
o
o
D
[j
D
u
u
o
u
D
u
D
o
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/09/03
Period: PM Peak - Scenario 3
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
EjW St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Proposed
#0300.48.223
Nls St: Michigan Road (US 421]
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
RTOR vol
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound 1 Southbound
I L T R 1 L T R I L T R I L T R
I 1 I
I 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
I L TR L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R
194 141 248 113 76 136 1104 1182 163 1156 905 67
112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
I 12 14 I 16 1 7
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
EB Left A 1 NB Left A A
Thru A 1 Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 29.0 7.0 29.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0
Intersection Performance Summary
Apprl Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c glC Delay LOS Delay LOS
sees
Eastbound
L 450
TR 583
1240
1607
0.28
0.78
0.36
0.36
18.4
29.6
B
C
27.2
C
Westbound
L 198 546 0.76 0.36 40.1 D
T 669 1845 0.15 0.36 17.3 B 26.0 C
R 585 1615 0.28 0.36 18.3 B
Northbound
L 232 1626 0.60 0.50 20.2 C
T 1258 3471 0.96 0.36 48.5 D 42.8 D
R 563 1553 0.27 0.36 18.3 B
Southbound
L 245 1752 0.85 0.50 45.6 D
T 1235 3406 0.94 0.36 42.2 D 41.3 D
R 488 1346 0.16 0.36 17.4 B
Intersection Delay = 38.2 ( sec/veh] Intersection LOS D
A22.
u
[J
D
u
D
o
o
o
u
u
u
u
u
u
D
D
D
D
o
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections. Release 4.1c
TWO~WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
fu,alyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/Co.: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed: 03/09/03
Analysis Time Period: AM Peak - Scenario 3
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. Customary
k~alysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Proposed
Project ID: Pittman Partners TIS, #0300.48.223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs)
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
0.25
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
570
0.90
633
10.7
0.90
118
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
87 933
0.90 0.90
96 1036
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Raised curb
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
NO
2 1
T R
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage 1
Flared Approach: Exists?
Stol-age
51
0.90
56
2
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
o
0.90
o
o
o
41
0.90
45
2
o
No
1 1
L T
1
R
Delay,
NB
1
Queue
SB
4
L
Approach
Movement
Lane Config
Length, and Level of
\1e s tbound
7 8 9
L T R
Service
Eastbound
10 11
12
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
v/c
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
96
854
0.11
0.38
9.7
B_
56 0 45
258 165 680
0.22 0.00 0.07
0.81 0.00 0.21
22.8 26.8 10.7
C D B
17.4
C
~ 1. ::,
o
D
o
o
c
o
o
D
lJ
u
u
o
u
D
u
[J
u
u
u
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUM}ffiRY
Ar,alyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/Co. : Ed.....ards and Kelcey, Ine.
Date Performed: 03-09-03
Analysis Time Period: PM Peak - Scenario 3
Intersection: MiChigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + Vent + Proposed
Project 10: pittman Partners TIS - #0300.48.223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs)
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
0.25
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
1330
0.90
1477
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
60 812
0.90 0.90
66 902
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
74
0.90
82
No
2 1
T R
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
FlaTed Approach: Exists?
Storage
132
0.90
146
2
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
o
0.90
o
o
o
108
090
120
2
o
No
1 1
L T
1
R
Delay,
NB
1
Queue
SB
4
L
Approach
Movement
Lane Config
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
v/c
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
66
420
0.16
0_55
15.2
C
Length, and Level of
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Service
Eastbound
10 11
12
146 0 120
40 24 360
3.65 000 0_33
16.56 0.00 1. 43
155_0 19_9
F F C
777_ 8
F
A24
D
u
o
D
[J
[J
u
u
[j
[J
D
D
D
o
o
o
[J
o
u
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date; 03/09/03
Period: AM Peak - Scenario 3
Project 10: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
Inter.; Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex. + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound Southbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R L T R
I I I
No. Lanes I 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 I 2 2 1 1 2 1
LGConfig I L T R I L T R I L T R L T R
Volume 166 180 106 Ill8 293 34 1113 460 70 61 776 180
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 11 I 3 I 7 18
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right A
SB Right WB Right A
Green 10.0 19.0 9.0 24.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/e g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 221 1770 0.40 0.13 33.4 C
T 447 1881 0.50 0.24 27.3 C 25.3 C
R 641 1553 0.18 0.41 15.1 B
Westbound
L 429 3433 0.37 0.13 32.6 C
T 451 1900 0.87 0.24 48.4 0 41.8 0
R 666 1615 0.06 0.41 14.2 B
Northbound
L 368 3273 0.41 0.11 33.8 C
T 959 3195 0.58 0.30 24.7 C 26.0 C
R 461 1538 0.18 0.30 20.9 C
Southbound
L 192 1703 0.41 0.11 34.4 C
T 1022 3406 0.85 0.30 34.0 C 32.1 C
R 480 1599 0.44 0.30 23.2 C
Intersection Delay = 31.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
A'2S
D
u
[j
u
u
D
D
D
u
[J
u
u
[J
u
o
D
o
u
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/09/03
period: PM Peak - Scenario 3
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vent + Proposed
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound Northbound Southbound
I L T R I L T R L T R L T R
I I
No. Lanes I 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1
LGConfig I L T R I L T R L T R L T R
Volume 1206 305 121 1129 190 61 304 1174 145 28 622 88
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 12 1 6 15 9
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EE Left A I NB Left A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
WE Left A I 5B Left A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
NE Right I EE Right A
5B Right I WB Right A
Green 14.0 17.0 9.0 22.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr / Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 316 1805 0.66 0.17 36.1 0
T 404 1900 0.85 0.21 48.2 D 38.0 D
R 626 1615 0.23 0.39 16.7 B
Westbound
L 557 3183 0.28 0.17 28.9 C
T 400 1881 0.51 0.21 28.9 C 26.7 C
R 613 1583 0.12 0.39 15.8 B
Northbound
L 394 3502 0.84 0.11 51.4 D
T 955 3471 1. 31 0.28 591.0 F 436.7 F
R 444 1615 0.36 0.28 23.8 C
Southbound
L 195 1736 0.19 0.11 32.7 C
T 937 3406 0.80 0.28 32.1 C 31. 1 C
R 419 1524 0.23 0.28 22.7 C
Intersection Delay == 220.0 ( see/veh) Intersection LOS F
A 21..0
u
o
u
o
u
u
o
D
o
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
Traffic Impact Study
Pittman Partners
Carmel, Indiana
HCS OUtput - Scenario IV
Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
A2l
u
u
u
u
D
D
D
D
D
c
u
u
u
u
u
D
o
D
D
HCS2000: Signalized Int~rsections Release 4.le
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/10/03
period: AM Peak - Scenario 4
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 106th Street
Inter.; Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vent + Zoned
#0300.48.223
N/S St; Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound Northbound 1 Southbound
I L T R I L T R L T R 1 L T R
I 1 1
No. Lanes I 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
LGConfig I L TR I L T R L T R 1 L T R
Volume 124 31 55 1204 105 63 215 567 55 1131 832 84
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol I 6 I 6 6 1 8
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NB Left A A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds 1 Peds
WB Left A 1 SB Left A A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A 1 Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right
SB Right I WE Right
Green 28.0 10.0 27.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length; 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 345 986 0.09 0.35 17.6 B
TR 604 1725 0.18 0.35 18.1 B 18.0 B
Westbound
L 453 1295 0.60 0.35 23.6 C
T 665 1900 0.19 0.35 18.3 B 21.3 C
R 549 1568 0.13 0.35 17.8 B
Northbound
L 314 1770 0.87 0.51 44.3 D
T 1118 3312 0.61 0.34 23.1 C 28.5 C
R 487 1442 0.13 0.34 18.5 B
Southbound
L 380 1752 0.44 0.51 12.8 B
T 1194 3539 0.84 0.34 30.3 C 27.1 C
R 524 1553 0.19 0.34 19.0 B
Intersection Delay co 26.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
A~
u
u
D
[J
o
D
D
u
u
D
[J
D
D
o
o
u
u
o
D
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/10/03
Period: PM Peak - Scenario 4
Project ID; pittman Partners TIS,
E/w St: 106th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 106th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vent + Zoned
#0300.48.223
Nls St: Michigan Road (US 421)
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound
I L T R I L T R 1 L T R I L T R
I I 1 I
I 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 I 1 2 1
I L TR I L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R
188 141 248 1113 76 141 1104 1153 163 1141 818 61
112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
I 12 I 14 1 16 I 6
Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
S8 Right WB Right
Green 29.0 7.0 29.0
Yellow 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cyele Length: 80.0
Intersection Performance Summary
Apprl Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) vie glC Delay LOS Delay LOS
sees
Eastbound
L 450
TR 583
1240
1607
0.26
0.78
0.36
0.36
1B.3
29.6
B
C
27.3
c
Westbound
L 19B 546 0.76 0.36 40.1 D
T 669 1845 0.15 0.36 17.3 B 25.9 C
R 585 1615 0.29 0.36 18.4 B
Northbound
L 232 1626 0.60 0.50 19.3 B
T 1258 3471 0.94 0.36 41.0 D 36.6 D
R 563 1553 0.27 0.36 18.3 B
Southbound
L 245 1752 0.77 0.50 31.4 C
T 1235 3406 0.85 0.36 29.6 C 29.2 C
R 4B8 1346 0.15 0.36 17.3 B
Intersection Delay == 31.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS C
AL~
u
o
u
D
o
D
u
D
u
u
[J
D
D
o
D
o
u
o
u
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c
TWO-I'IAY STOP CONTROL SlTl'lHARY
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/Co.: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed: 03/10/03
Analysis Time Period: AM Peak - Scenario 4
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. Customary
Pnalysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + Vent + Zoned
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS, #0300.48.223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs)
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
0.25
13
0.90
14
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
4 933
0.90 0.90
4 1036
2
1 2
L T
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Raised
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
570
0.90
633
curb
2 1
T R
No
No
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
Flared ll"pproach:
1
Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized'
Lanes
Configuration
38
0.90
42
2
o
0.90
o
o
o
12
0.90
13
2
No
1
R
o
Delay,
NE
1
1 1
L T
Queue
SE
4
L
Length, and Level of
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
12
JI.pproach
Movement
Lane Config
Service
Eastbound
10 11
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
v/c
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
4
934
0.00
0.01
8.9
A
42
323
0.13
0.44
17.8
C
o
212
0.00
0.00
22.0
C
16.1
C
13
680
0.02
0.06
10.4
B
A.~
o
D
D
o
u
D
o
D
D
o
D
u
u
D
o
D
o
D
D
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.lc
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUHMARY
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency/Co. : Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date Performed; 03-10-03
Analysis Time Period: PM Peak - Scenario 4
Intersection: Michigan Road and Site Drive
Jurisdiction: Carmel, Indiana
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Zoned
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS - #0300.48223
East/West Street: Site Drive
North/South Street: Michigan Road / US 421
Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs)
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and
Northbound
2
T
0.25
Adjustments
3
R
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
1330
0.90
1477
2
T
No
44
0.90
48
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
Westbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HF~
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
24
0.90
26
2
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
o
0.90
o
o
o
1 1
L T
8
0.90
8
2
o
No
1
R
Approach
Movement
Lane Config
Delay,
NB
1
Queue
SE
4
L
Length, and Level of
vlestbound
789
L T R
12
Service
Eastbound
10 11
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
vlc
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
15
433
0.03
0.11
13.6
B
26
54
0.48
1. 1: 3
122.5
F
o
32
0.00
0.00
11 7.5
F
97.3
F
8
360
0.02
0.07
15.2
C
A~\
D
u
u
u
u
D
u
D
u
o
u
u
D
u
u
u
D
D
o
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.lc
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/10/03
Period: F~ Peak - Scenario 4
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Zoned
#0300.48.223
Nls St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound Westbound Northbound I southbound
1 L T R L T R L T R 1 L T R
I 1
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1
LGConfig 1 L T R L T R L T R 1 L T R
Volume 166 180 100 109 293 34 109 439 66 161 708 180
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vol 1 10 3 7 1 18
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
EB Left A I NB Left A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
WB Left A I SB Left A
Thru A I Thru A
Right A I Right A
Peds I Peds
NB Right I EB Right A
SB Right I WB Right A
Green 10.0 19.0 9.0 24.0
Yellow 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80.0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) vie g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 221 1770 0.40 0.13 33.4 C
T 447 1881 0.50 0.24 27.3 C 25.4 C
R 641 1553 0.17 0.41 15.0 B
Westbound
L 429 3433 0.34 0.13 32.4 C
T 451 1900 0.87 0.24 48.4 D 41. 9 D
R 666 1615 0.06 0.41 14.2 B
Northbound
L 368 3273 0.39 0.11 33.7 C
T 959 3195 0.56 0.30 24.3 C 25.7 C
R 461 1538 0.17 0.30 20.8 C
Southbound
L 192 1703 0.41 0.11 34.4 C
T 1022 3406 0.78 0.30 29.6 C 28.7 C
R 480 1599 0.44 0.30 23.2 C
Intersection Delay = 30.1 ( see/veh) Intersection LOS C
A?:>2
u
u
D
[J
u
u
u
[J
u
u
D
o
u
o
o
u
D
u
D
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c
Analyst: J. Pyrz
Agency: Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.
Date: 03/10/03
period: PM Peak - Scenario 4
Project ID: pittman Partners TIS,
E/W St: 116th Street
Inter.: Michigan Road and 116th Street
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana
Year Ex + Bkgrnd + Vcnt + Zoned
#0300.48.223
N/S St: Michigan Road (US 421)
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Eastbound 1 westbound I Northbound I Southbound
L T R 1 L T R I L T R I L T R
I I I
No. Lanes 1 1 1 I 2 1 1 I 2 2 1 I 1 2 1
LGConfig L T R L T R I L T R 1 L T R
Volume 206 305 118 121 190 61 1286 1102 135 128 587 88
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR vol 12 6 1 14 I 9
Duration 1. 00 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
WB Left A SB Left A
Thru A Thru A
Right A Right A
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right A
SB Right WB Right A
Green 14.0 17.0 9.0 22.0
YellO'.'1 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 80 .0 sees
Intersection Performance Summary
App r / Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 316 1805 0.66 0.17 36.1 D
T 404 1900 0.85 0.21 48.2 D 38.2 D
R 626 1615 0.23 0.39 16.6 B
Westbound
L 557 3183 0.26 0.17 28.8 C
T 4.00 1881 0.51 0.21 28.9 C 26.7 C
R 613 1583 0.12 0.39 15.8 B
Northbound
L 394 3502 0.79 0.11 45.7 D
T 955 3471 1. 23 0.28 447.9 F 332.7 F
R 444 1615 0.33 0.28 23.6 C
Southbound
L 195 1736 0.19 0.11 32.7 C
T 937 3406 0.75 0.28 30.1 C 29.4 C
R 419 1524 0.23 0.28 22.7 C
Intersection Delay = 168.7 ( sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F
A~~
o
o
www.eltcorp.com
o
o
D
D
o
D
Real World Challenges. . . . Real vVorld. Solutions
D
o
D
D
D
D
Edwarlb;
~Helcey
WE'LL TAKE YOU THER~
D
D
D
D
COPYRIGHT - 1999 EDWARDS AND KELCEY, INC.
o