Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact AnalysisTRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 146TH STREET U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 or PREPARED FOR Docp i9: KITE DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER 1998 REVISED NOVEMBER 1999 PREPARED BY: A F ENGINEERING Co., INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5172 EAST 65 STREET INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46220 PH 317 842 -0864 FAx 317 849 -6816 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS COPYRIGHT This Analysis and the ideas, designs and concepts contained herein are the exclusive intellectual property of A &F Engineering Co., Inc. and are not to be used or reproduced in whole or in part, without the written consent of A &F Engineering Co., Inc. ©1999, A &F Engineering Co., Inc. KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES III CERTIFICATION IV INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE 1 SCOPE OF WORK 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 3 STUDY AREA 3 DESCRIPTION OF VACANT PARCELS 4 TABLE 1 VACANT PARCEL RECOMMENDED LAND USE 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM 6 TRAFFIC DATA 6 GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7 TABLE 2 GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7 GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR VACANT LANDS 8 INTERNAL TRIPS 8 PASS -BY TRIPS 8 ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 9 ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS 9 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM 12 VACANT LAND AND YEAR 2020 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM 12 CAPACITY ANALYSIS 16 DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE 16 CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS 18 TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -U.S. 31 AND GREYHOUND PASS 21 TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 22 TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 23 TABLE 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -STATE ROAD 431 AND 136TH STREET 23 TABLE 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 146TH STREET AND OAK RIDGE ROAD 24 TABLE 8 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 146TH STREET AND CAREY ROAD 25 TABLE 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 146TH STREET AND GRAY ROAD 26 TABLE 10 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION 27 TURN LANE DESIGN FOR ACCESS POINTS 27 TABLE 11 ACCESS POINT QUEUING ANALYSIS 27 WEAVING ANALYSIS 27 ALTERNATE RAMP INTERSECTION DESIGN 28 TABLE 12 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 RAMP INTERSECTION 27 CONCLUSIONS 29 RECOMMENDATIONS 34 TABLE 13 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 35 I KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) TABLE 14 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 35 TABLE 15 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 RAMP INTERSECTION 36 TABLE 16 INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS PROPOSED U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 OFF -RAMP INTERSECTION 36 TABLE 17 LARNE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION 38 SUMMARY 39 II KITE DEVELOPMENT 146" STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF PROPOSED SITE 5 FIGURE 2: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2A) 10 FIGURE 3: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2B) 11 FIGURE 4: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (SCENARIO 2A) 13 FIGURE 5: GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (SCENARIO 2B) 14 FIGURE 6: SUM OF EXISTING. VACANT LAND AND YEAR 2020 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 15 FIGURE 7: SUM OF EXISTING. VACANT LAND, YEAR 2020 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2A) 19 FIGURE 8: SUM OF EXISTING, VACANT LAND, YEAR 2020 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2B) 20 FIGURE 9: APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ACCESS POINT RAMP INTERSECTION 37 III KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146'" STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 I certify that this TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS has been prepared by me and under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering. A &F ENGINEERING CO., INC. Steven J. Fehribach, P.E. Indiana Registration 890237 R. Matt Brown, E.I.T. Transportation Engineer CERTIFICATION CO N0. 890237 1/i STATE OF 4..1.7. STATE IV TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, prepared at the request of Kite Development is for a proposed retail development that is to be located just south of 146`" Street near State Road 431 and U.S. 31 in Carmel, Indiana. PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic generated by the proposed development, when fully occupied, will have on the existing adjacent roadway system and a proposed interchange. This analysis will identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist today or that may occur when this site is developed. Conclusions will be reached that will determine if the roadway system can accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes or will determine the modifications that will be required to the system if it is determined there will be deficiencies in the system resulting from the increased traffic volumes. Recommendations will be made that will address the conclusions resulting from this analysis. These recommendations will address feasible roadway system improvements which will accommodate the proposed development traffic volumes such that there will be safe ingress and egress, to and from the proposed development, with minimal interference to traffic on the public street system. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for this analysis is: First, to obtain existing and/or projected traffic volume counts at the following intersections: U.S. 31 and Greyhound Pass Proposed East Ramp and 146 Street Proposed West Ramp and 146` Street State Road 431 and 136 Street 146 Street and Oak Ridge Road KITE DEVELOPMENT 146" STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 146 Street and Carey Road 146 and Gray Road Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated for each of the following: Vacant Lands These are traffic volumes created by the surrounding vacant lands assuming Rill build out for each parcel. Proposed Development This is the development as proposed by Kite Development. Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and/or roadways that will provide access to each of the individual parcels that have previously been identified to be included in this analysis. Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from each parcel onto the public roadway system and intersections which have been identified as the study area. Fifth, to prepare an analysis including a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each intersection included in the study area for each of the following scenarios: SCENARIO 1: Existing Conditions Based on existing roadway conditions and existing traffic volumes plus annual growth traffic volumes plus vacant land traffic volumes. SCENARIO 2A: Proposed Development (Partial Interchange)- Based on the volumes used in Scenario 1 plus the volumes generated by the proposed development. This scenario only considers partial completion of the proposed U.S. 31/146` Street interchange (includes U.S. 31 northbound off -ramp, S.R. 431 northbound off -ramp, and northbound U.S. 31 on -ramp only). SCENARIO 2B: Proposed Development (Complete Interchange)- Based on the volumes used in Scenario 1 plus the volumes generated by the proposed development. This scenario assumes total completion of the proposed U.S. 31/146` Street interchange (includes southbound U.S. 31 off -ramp, southbound U.S. 31 on- ramp, southbound S.R. 431 on -ramp, and the ramps included in Scenario 2A). 2 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Sixth, to prepare a weaving analysis and a queuing analysis based on the projected volumes for the proposed State Road 431 and U.S. 31 ramps. Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC IMPACT 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 residential development is to be located along U.S. 31 and State Road 431 at the proposed 146 Street interchange in Carmel, Indiana. As proposed, the development will consist of a 135,000 square foot home improvement store and a 63,000 square foot supermarket. Figure 1 is an area map and conceptual plan of the proposed development including the proposed access point. STUDY AREA The study area as defined by the Carmel Department of Community Services for this analysis will include the following intersections: U.S. 31 and Greyhound Pass Proposed East Ramp and 146 Street Proposed West Ramp and 146 Street State Road 431 and 136 Street 146 Street and Oak Ridge Road 146 Street and Carey Road 146 and Gray Road Proposed Development Access Point 3 VACANT PARCEL DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDED LAND USE VACANT AREA Danbury Estates Subdivision Single Family 10 Lots Foster Estates Subdivision Single Family 185 Lots Worthington Estates Subdivision Single Family 23 Lots Smokey Ridge Subdivision Single Family 43 Lots Autumn Lake Subdivision Single Family 24 Lots Village of Mount Carmel Subdivision Single Family 56 Lots Westfield Parcels 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION OF VACANT PARCELS The recommended individual parcel land uses and vacant area for each parcel are listed in Table 1. TABLE 1 VACANT PARCEL RECOMMENDED LAND USE 4 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146" STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM This proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes 146 Street, U.S. 31 and State Road 431. 146' STREET- is an east -west, two -lane collector street that runs from Willow Road to Cumberland Road. This roadway services many residential neighborhoods throughout Carmel and the north side of Indianapolis and will be reconstructed as a four -lane facility from Spring Mill Road to State Road 37 in 1999. U.S. 31 is a north south, four -lane divided highway that runs the entire length of Indiana and serves as a major arterial to several mid -size cities throughout the state. STATE ROAD 431 is a north south, four -lane divided state road that runs from I -465 to U.S. 31. This roadway serves as a major connection between the northern suburbs and central Indianapolis U.S. 31 Greyhound Pass This intersection is controlled by a full actuated traffic signal. The northbound approach of this intersection consists of an exclusive left -turn lane, an exclusive right -turn lane and three through lanes. The southbound approach consists of an exclusive right —turn lane, two exclusive left -turn lanes and three through lanes. The westbound approach to this intersection consists of two exclusive left -turn lanes and one shared through/right -turn lane. Finally, the eastbound approach consists of an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive right -turn lane, and one though lane. State Road 431 136 Street This intersection is controlled by a full actuated traffic signal. The northbound and southbound approaches consist of an exclusive left -turn lane, two through lanes and an exclusive right -turn lane that is controlled by a yield sign. The eastbound and westbound approaches consist of an exclusive left -turn lane, an exclusive right -turn lane, and a single through lane. TRAFFIC DATA Peak hour turning movement traffic volume data were taken from the following four sources. 1997 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by A &F Engineering for the City of Carmel This analysis provided AM and PM peak hour traffic counts for 1993 existing conditions as well as expected, 1996 generated traffic from vacant parcels that are in the proximity of the proposed site. 6 LAND USE ITE CODE SIZE AM ENTER AM EXIT PM ENTER PM EXIT Retail 862 135,000 SF 108 92 182 205 Retail 850 63,000 SF 166 106 341 328 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 146` Street Corridor Study that was conducted in 1997 by A &F Engineering Co., Inc. This corridor study provided year 1997 and 2020, AM and PM peak hour data for several of the study intersections that are to be analyzed in this report. These data were used to develop the existing and year 2020 volumes that were analyzed in this study. U.S. 31 Corridor Study that was conducted in 1997 by Bernardin, Lochmueller and Associates, Inc. This corridor study provided year projected 2020, AM and PM peak hour data the proposed freeway ramps that are to be analyzed in this report. Manually collected peak hour turning data for the intersection of U.S. 31 and Greyhound Pass These AM and PM peak hour counts were collected in August, 1998, and were projected into 2008 counts at a growth rate of three percent. These calculated 2008 volumes were then increased by a growth rate of one percent to determine year 2020 data. GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the development size and of the character of the land use. Trip Generation report was used to calculate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed development. This report is a compilation of trip data for various land uses as collected by transportation professionals throughout the United States in order to establish the average number of trips generated by various land uses. Table 2 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development. TABLE 2 GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 Traffic Impact Fee Analysis, A &F Engineering Co. Inc., June 1993, Revised 1997. 2 146 Street Corridor Study, A &F Engineering Co. Inc., December 1997. 3 U.S. 31 Corridor Study, Bernardin, Lochmueller and Associates Inc., March 1997. 4 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition, 1997. 7 GENERATED TRIPS KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR VACANT LANDS Traffic was to be generated for the following vacant lands as requested by the Carmel Department of Community Services. Danbury Estates Subdivision 10 Vacant Lots Foster Estates Subdivision 185 Vacant Lots Worthington Estates Subdivision 23 Vacant Lots Smokey Ridge Subdivision 43 Vacant Lots Autumn Lake Subdivision 24 Vacant Lots Village of Mount Carmel Subdivision 56 Vacant Lots Westfield Parcels 5 Transportation and Land Development, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1988. 8 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Traffic was generated for these, and several other vacant lands in the previously mentioned Carmel Traffic Impact Analysis and in the 146 Street Corridor Study. This traffic generation was performed assuming all vacant lands to be at full build out. Therefore, the vacant land generated traffic used in these previous studies can be applied to this analysis. INTERNAL TRIPS An internal trip results when a trip is made between two land uses without using the roadway system. Any internal trips occurring within the proposed development are included in the trip generation. Therefore, no reductions will be applied for internal trips. PASS -BY TRIPS Pass -by trips are trips already on the roadway system that decide to enter a land use. Transportation and Land Development report was used to estimate the reduction in trips for the proposed hardware store and supermarket to be approximately 8 percent and 28 percent respectively. These trip reductions will be applied to the study intersections. However, 100 percent of the generated will be applied to the driveway of the proposed development. KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC The Department of Community Services has prepared the estimate of the annual growth rate for background traffic that will be generated on the street system included in the study area. The annual growth rate of background traffic to be used for this analysis is three percent for all streets up to the year 2008. However, a growth rate of one percent was used in this analysis from 2008 to 2020. ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes from the proposed development that will be added to the street system is defined as follows: 1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the site must be assigned to the various access points and to the public street system. The traffic volume data presented in the Carmel Traffic Impact Analysis, 146 Street Corridor Study, U.S. 31 Corridor Study, and manually collected turning movement counts were used to assign traffic to and from the proposed site, the proposed driveways and to the public street system that will be serving the site. 2. To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their intersection with the driveway. For the proposed development, the distribution was based on the existing traffic patterns and the assignment of generated traffic. The assignment and distribution of the generated traffic volumes for the proposed development are shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3. The former represents partial completion of the proposed U.S. 31/146`" Street interchange. On the other hand, the latter represents total completion of the interchange. 9 KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 12 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 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 and the proposed access point. The Peak Hour generated traffic volumes for scenarios 2A and 2B are shown on Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively. These data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated traffic, and distribution of generated traffic. VACANT LAND AND YEAR 2020 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the vacant land developments have been prepared for the study area intersections. Also, in order to evaluate the future impact of this development on the public roadway system, the existing traffic volumes were projected forward to the design year of 2020. The vacant land volumes, as well as the design year volumes are based on the previously discussed Carmel Traffic Impact Analysis, 146 Street Corridor Study, U.S. 31 Corridor Study, and manually collected turning movement counts. The vacant land volumes and 2020 volumes have been combined at each of the study intersections. These aggregated volumes are shown on Figure 6. KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE The following descriptions are for signalized intersections: 16 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CAPACITY ANALYSIS The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that approach the intersection. The "efficiency" of an intersection is designated by the Level -of- Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS of an intersection is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis Input data into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes and, in the case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the level of service at each of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer program based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Level of Service A describes operations with a very low delay, less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression. More vehicles stop than LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C describes operation with delay in the range of 15.1 seconds to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from failed progression. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. 6 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, Special Report 209, 1985. 1 Km DEVELOPMENT- 146" STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. At level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combinations of unfavorable progression. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression and long cycle lengths. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized intersections: Level of Service Average Delay (seconds /vehicle) A Less than or equal to 5 B Between 5.1 and 10 C Between 10.1 and 20 D Between 20.1 and 30 E Between 30.1 and 45 F greater than 45 KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS To evaluate the proposed development's effect on the public street system, the traffic volumes from each of the various parts must be added together to form a series of scenarios that can be analyzed. The analysis of these scenarios determines the adequacy of the existing roadway system. From the analysis, recommendations can be made to improve the public street system so it will accommodate the increased traffic volumes. The Department of Community Services have requested that an analysis be made for the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour for each of the study intersections for each of the following scenarios: SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes Vacant Land Generated Traffic Volumes Year 2020 Traffic Volumes Figure 6 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. SCENARIO 2A: Existing Traffic Volumes Vacant Land Generated Traffic Volumes Year 2020 Traffic Volumes Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes Figure 7 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. Analyzed with completion of U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 northbound off -ramps and the northbound U.S. 31 on -ramp. SCENARIO 2B: Existing Traffic Volumes Vacant Land Generated Traffic Volumes Year 2020 Traffic Volumes Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes Figure 8 is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. Analyzed with completion of U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 southbound on- ramps, southbound U.S. 31 off -ramp, and the ramps included in Scenario 2A). 18 MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach B B B Southbound Approach D D D Eastbound Approach E E E Westbound Approach Intersection MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach Southbound Approach C D D Eastbound Approach C C C Westbound Approach Intersection 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 SCENARIO 1: SCENARIO 2A: TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -U.S. 31 AND GREYHOUND PASS AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 21 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The requested analyses have been completed and the computer solutions showing the level of service results are included in Appendix A. The tables that are included in this report are a summary of the results of the level of service analyses and are identified as follows: Table 3 U.S. 31 and Greyhound Pass Table 4 Proposed East Ramp and 146 Street Table 5 Proposed West Ramp and 146 Street Table 6 State Road 431 and 136 Street Table 7 146 Street and Oak Ridge Road Table 8 146 Street and Carey Road Table 9 146 and Gray Road Table 10 Proposed Development Access Point Sum of Existing, Year 2020, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions. Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Northbound Off Ramps, Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp, and Existing Intersection Conditions. SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31 MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach B B Southbound Approach B B Eastbound Approach B B Westbound Approach B B Intersection B B MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach B C Southbound Approach B B Eastbound Approach C C Westbound Approach B C Intersection B C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 Southbound Off -Ramp, the ramps included in Scenario 2A, and Existing Intersection Conditions. The intersection operates below acceptable levels. TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146 STREET AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SCENARIO 2A: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 Northbound Off -Ramp, S.R. 431 Northbound Off -Ramp, and Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp. SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31 Southbound Off -Ramp, and the ramps included in Scenario 2A. 22 MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach C C C Southbound Approach C C C Eastbound Approach D D D Westbound Approach D D Intersection C C MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach D C C Southbound Approach E D D Eastbound Approach C B B Westbound Approach F D D Intersection E D D MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach B Southbound Approach B Eastbound Approach B Westbound Approach B Intersection B MOVEMENT SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach B Southbound Approach B Eastbound Approach B Westbound Approach B Intersection B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146 STREET AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31 Southbound Off -Ramp, and the ramps included in Scenario 2A. TABLE 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -STATE ROAD 431 AND 136 STREET AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 23 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach B B Southbound Approach B B Eastbound Approach B B Westbound Approach B B Intersection B B MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach B B Southbound Approach C C Eastbound Approach B B Westbound Approach B B Intersection B B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146'" STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 SCENARIO 1: SCENARIO 2A: SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31 Southbound Off -Ramp, the ramps included in Scenario 2A, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics. The intersection operates below acceptable levels. TABLE 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -146 STREET AND OAK RIDGE ROAD AM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO 1: SCENARIO 2A: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Sum of Existing, Year 2020, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions. Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Northbound Off Ramps, Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics. PM PEAK HOUR Sum of Existing, Year 2020, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions. Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Northbound Off Ramps, Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics. SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31 24 MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach B B B Southbound Approach B 13 B Eastbound Approach B B Westbound Approach 13 B Intersection B B MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach B C C Southbound Approach B C C Eastbound Approach B B Westbound Approach B B Intersection B B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146" STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 SCENARIO 1: SCENARIO 2A: Southbound Off -Ramp, the ramps included in Scenario 2A, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics. The intersection operates below acceptable levels. TABLE 8 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -146 STREET AND CAREY ROAD AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31 Southbound Off -Ramp, the ramps included in Scenario 2A, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics. The intersection operates below acceptable levels. 25 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Sum of Existing, Year 2020, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Existing Conditions. Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Northbound Off Ramps, Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics. MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach C C Southbound Approach C C Eastbound Approach B B Westbound Approach B B Intersection C C MOVEMENT SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2A SCENARIO 2B Northbound Approach C C Southbound Approach C C Eastbound Approach C C Westbound Approach B B Intersection C C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 SCENARIO 2A: TABLE 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY -146 STREET AND GRAY ROAD AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO 1: Sum of Existing, Conditions. Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Northbound Off Ramps, Northbound U.S. 31 On -Ramp, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics. SCENARIO 2B: Sum of Existing, Year 2020, Vacant Land, and Proposed Development Traffic Volumes with Proposed U.S. 31 and S.R. 431 Southbound On- Ramps, U.S. 31 Southbound Off -Ramp, the ramps included in Scenario 2A, and Proposed Intersection Geometrics. The intersection operates below acceptable levels. Year 2020, and Vacant Land Traffic Volumes with Existing 26 MOVEMENT AM PEAK PM PEAK Northbound Approach A C Southbound Approach B B Eastbound Approach B D Intersection B C MOVEMENT QUEUE LENGTH Northbound Left -Turn 86 feet Southbound Right -Turn 49 feet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t WEAVING ANALYSIS According to the Highway Capacity Manual, weaving areas are defined as the crossing of at least 1 two traffic streams without the aid of traffic control devices. A weaving area exists in the roadway section that is located between the U.S. 31 and State Road 431 ramp merge point and the proposed access point northbound left -turn lane. Therefore, a weaving analysis was 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 311S.R. 431 TABLE 10 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY- PROPOSED ACCESS POINT IN 1 ERSECTION Note: Results in Table 10 represent Scenario 2A and 2B 27 TURN LANE DESIGN FOR ACCESS POINTS Based on the generated traffic volumes and the assignment and distribution of generated traffic, the left -turn lanes and right -turn lanes have been designed for the developments northern access point. The northbound left -turn lane and the southbound right -turn lane should be developed with 150 foot tapers to provide safe entrance conditions. A queuing analysis was carried out for both turn lanes in order to determine the expected length of the northbound and southbound queue at the access point. Table 11 summarizes the results of this queuing analysis. The access point turn lanes should be developed to accommodate these expected queue lengths. TABLE 11 ACCESS POINT QUEUING ANALYSIS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS conducted according to the methods detailed in the Highway Capacity Manual. This analysis uses information pertaining to the weaving section geometrics and traffic volumes to determine MOVEMENT AM PEAK PM PEAK Northbound Approach B B Eastbound Approach B B Intersection B B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS an associated level -of- service. Highway Capacity Software was used to perform a weaving analysis for the previously defined weaving section. The results of this analysis show that a minimum distance of 775 feet needs to be maintained between the ramp merge point and the left turn lane in order to provide a safe and efficient weave section which operates at an acceptable level -of- service. ALTERNATE RAMP INTERSECTION DESIGN An investigation of the proposed plans has shown that the minimum required distance of 775 feet cannot be achieved. Therefore, the alternative method of joining the two ramps as a signalized intersection was examined. Both ramps are one way roadways, therefore, the proposed intersection will effectively operate as a form of ramp metering. Ramp metering uses a traffic control device to control the entrance of ramp vehicles to an adjacent roadway. This technique is most often used to reduce the amount of turbulence that is created by the merging of two or more roadways. Therefore, the associated benefits of ramp metering include reduced congestion at the ramp merge point, and an increase in the level -of- service and safety along the roadway. An intersection capacity analysis and level -of- service analysis was conducted for this two -way ramp intersection. The resulting computer solutions are located in Appendix A and Table 12 is a summary of these results. TABLE 12 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPOSED U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 RAMP INTERSECTION 28 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS The conclusions that follow are based on existing traffic volume data, trip generation, assignment and distribution of generated traffic, capacity analyses with the resulting levels of service that have been prepared for each of the study intersections, and the field review conducted at the site. These conclusions apply only to the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour that were addressed in this analysis. These peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur. Therefore, if the resulting level of service is adequate during these time periods, it can generally be assumed the remaining 22 hours will have levels of service that are better than the peak hour, since the existing street traffic volumes will be less during the other 22 hours. 1. U.S. 31 AND GREYHOUND PASS Existing (Scenario 1) A review of the level -of- service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes with the existing geometrics has shown this intersection to be operating below acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection continues to operate below acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection continues to operate below acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. 2. PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146 STREET Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic 29 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. 3. PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146 STREET Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. 4. STATE ROAD 431 AND 136 STREET Existing (Scenario 1) A review of the level -of- service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes with existing geometrics, has shown this intersection to be operating below acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and 30 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997, City of Carmel, Traffic Impact Analysis are implemented. Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable Levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997, City of Carmel, Traffic Impact Analysis are implemented. 5. 146 STREET AND OAK RIDGE ROAD Existing (Scenario 1) A review of the level -of- service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing, year 2020, and vacant Iand traffic volumes with the existing geometrics, has shown this intersection to be operating below acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour. Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997, Hamilton County, 146` Street Corridor Study are implemented. Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997, Hamilton County, 146`" Street Corridor Study are implemented. 31 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 146 STREET AND CAREY ROAD Existing (Scenario 1) A review of the level -of- service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes with existing geometrics, has shown this intersection to be operating below acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour. Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997, Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study are implemented. Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997, Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study are implemented. 7. 146 STREET AND GRAY ROAD Existing (Scenario 1) A review of the level -of- service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes with existing geometrics, has shown this intersection is operating below acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour. Proposed Development with Partial Interchange (Scenario 2A) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997, Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study are implemented. 32 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Proposed Development with Complete Interchange (Scenario 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, the intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour after the intersection improvements that are outlined in the 1997, Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study are implemented. 8. PROPOSED U.S. 31 AND STATE ROAD 431 RAMP INTERSECTION Proposed Development (Scenario 2A 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, this proposed signalized intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. 9. PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION Proposed Development (Scenario 2A 2B) When the traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing, year 2020, and vacant land traffic volumes, this proposed signalized intersection will operate at acceptable levels during the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. ACCESS POINTS A queuing analysis for the northern access point has determined that there is sufficient distance between this access and 146 Street to accommodate southbound queuing vehicles. This queuing analysis also showed that sufficient distance exists between this access point and the intersection of the U.S 31 /S.R. 431 off -ramps to accommodate northbound traffic. To increase safety and efficiency at this access point, left-turn lanes and right -turn lanes should be constructed on the approaches to the access point as identified in Table 11. Finally, a right in -right out southern access point should be developed so that traffic volumes and the resulting signal green time can be reduced at the northern access point. 33 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations are made to insure that the roadway system will operate at acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as proposed. STUDY INTERSECTIONS The following intersections will operate at or above acceptable levels -of- service for both proposed development scenarios. In order to achieve these results, the intersection improvements recommended in the 1997, Hamilton County, 146 Street Corridor Study should be implemented. 146 Street and Oak Ridge Road 146 Street and Carey Road 146 Street and Gray Road The following intersection will operate at or above acceptable levels -of- service for both proposed development scenarios. In order to achieve these results, the intersection improvements recommended in the 1997, City of Carmel, Traffic Impact Analysis should be implemented. State Road 431 and 136 Street The following proposed intersections will intersections operate at or above acceptable levels -of- service when the proposed development traffic is added to the vacant land and year 2020 traffic. Proposed East Ramp and 146 Street Proposed West Ramp and 146 Street Proposed U.S. 31 Off -Ramp and State Road 431 Off -Ramp Intersection Proposed East Ramp and Access Point Intersection PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146 STREET This signalized intersection should be constructed to include the following lane requirements. 34 MOVEMENT REQUIRED LANES Northbound 2 Left-Turn Lanes 1 Through Lane 2 Right -Turn Lanes Southbound 2 Left-Turn Lanes 1 Through Lane 1 Right -Turn Lane Eastbound 1 Left -Turn Lane 2 Through Lanes 1 Right -Turn Lane Westbound 1 Left-Turn Lane 2 Through Lanes 1 Right -Turn Lane Note: All lanes should be 12 foot (12) wide MOVEMENT REQUIRED LANES Northbound 1 Left -Turn Lane 1 Through Lane 1 Right -Turn Lane Southbound 2 Left -Turn Lanes 1 Through Lane 1 Right -Turn Lane Eastbound 1 Left -Turn Lane 2 Through Lanes 1 Right -Turn Lane Westbound 2 Left -Turn Lanes 2 Through Lanes 1 Right -Turn Lane Note: All lanes should he 12 foot (12) wide 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE 13 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146 STREET PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146 STREET This signalized intersection should be constructed to include the following lane requirements. TABLE 14 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146 STREET 35 MOVEMENT REQUIRED LANES Northbound 2 Though Lanes Eastbound 2 Left -Turn Lanes Note: All lanes should be 12,foot (12) wide MOVEMENT QUEUE LENGTH Northbound Through 230 feet Eastbound Left -Turn 271 feet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED U.S. 31 OFF -RAMP AND STA Ili ROAD 431 OFF -RAMP INTERSECTION The weaving analysis that was discussed earlier in this report concluded that this intersection should be developed as a signalized intersection instead of the originally designed merge system. This signalized intersection should be constructed to include the following lane requirements. TABLE 15 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED U.S. 31 AND S.R. 431 OFF -RAMP INTERSECTION These lanes should be constructed to a length that will provide adequate storage for queuing vehicles. Therefore, a queuing analysis was carried out for this proposed intersection. Table 16 summarizes the results of this queuing analysis. The turn lanes identified in Table 15 should be developed to accommodate these expected queue lengths. TABLE 16 INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS In order to avoid limited access right -of -way, this intersection should be constructed no less than 590 feet (180 meters) from the proposed access point so that the standards set forth by the INDOT Design Manual are maintained. However, a distance of 790 feet (240 meters) between the intersection and this access point is ideal and should be met if design conditions permit. A preliminary review of the conceptual interchange has shown that these standards can be achieved. Figure 9 illustrates the approximate locations of the access point and ramp intersection. 36 MOVEMENT REQUIRED LANES Northbound 1 Left -Turn Lane 2 Through Lanes Southbound 1 Through Lane 1 Right -Turn Lane Eastbound 1 Left -Turn Lane 1 Right -Turn Lane Note: All lanes should be 12 foot (12) wide 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND PROPOSED NORTHERN ACCESS POINT This signalized intersection should be constructed to include the following lane requirements. 38 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE 17 LANE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND ACCESS POINT ACCESS POINTS PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND PROPOSED NORTHERN ACCESS POINT This access point should be developed with two- twelve foot (12') wide outbound lanes and one sixteen foot (16') wide inbound lane. A twelve foot (12') wide northbound left -turn lane, and a twelve foot (12') wide southbound right -turn lane should be developed along the proposed ramp as identified in Table 11. This access point should be constructed so that a minimum distance of 600 feet is maintained between the access center line and the center line of 146 Street. Also, this access point should be developed 790 feet (240 meters) from the proposed intersection of the State Road 431 Off -Ramp and U.S. 31 Off'-Ramp. However, this distance can be reduced to a minimum of 590 feet (180 meters) if design limitations exist. PROPOSED RIGHT IN- RIGHT -OUT ACCESS POINT This access point should be developed with one twelve foot (12') wide outbound lane and one twelve foot (12') wide inbound lane. KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY The traffic generated by the proposed development will not adversely affect the operation of the public roadway system to a greater extent than if the development was not constructed. The future levels -of- service at all of the existing study intersections will be below acceptable levels with or without the proposed development. The recommendations that were outlined in the 1997 Traffic Impact Analysis for the City of Carmel, and the recommendations outlined in the 1997, Hamilton County, 146`" Street Corridor should be implemented so that these intersections will operate at acceptable levels -of- service in the future. Furthermore, the proposed intersections will work at or above acceptable levels -of- service assuming they are constructed to the recommendations made in this report. Finally, it is imperative that the access point be constructed at least 600 feet from 146 Street and no closer than 580 feet (180 meters) to the proposed U.S. 31 /State Road 431 off -ramp intersection. 39 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 APPENDIX A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This document contains the traffic data that were used in the TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for the proposed residential development. Included is the intersection capacity analyses for each of the study intersections for the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour. KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS U.S. 31 AND GREYHOUND PASS 1 PROPOSED EAST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 11 PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146TH STREET 16 STATE ROAD 431 AND 136TH STREET 19 146' STREET AND OAK RIDGE ROAD 26 146 STREET AND CAREY ROAD 33 146 STREET AND GRAY ROAD 40 PROPOSED U.S. 31 OFF -RAMP AND S.R. 431 OFF -RAMP INTERSECTION 47 PROPOSED ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION 53 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 U.S. 31 AND GREYHOUND PASS INTERSECTION DATA TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS CAPACITY ANALYSES 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KrrE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED RAMP AND 146 STREET INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 11 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 PROPOSED WEST RAMP AND 146 STREET INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 16 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 STATE ROAD 431 AND 136 STREET INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 19 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KITE DEVELOPMENT 146'" STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 146 STREET AND OAK RIDGE ROAD INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 26 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KITE DEVELOPMENT- 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 146 STREET AND CAREY ROAD INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 33 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31/S.R. 431 146 STREET AND GRAY ROAD INTERSECTION DATA CAPACITY ANALYSES 40 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KITE DEVELOPMENT 146 STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED U.S. 31 OFF -RAMP AND S.R. 431 OFF RAMP INTERSECTION WEAVING ANALYSIS QUEUING ANALYSIS CAPACITY ANALYSES 47 KITE DEVELOPMENT 146"' STREET AND U.S. 31 /S.R. 431 PROPOSED ACCESS POINT INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS CAPACITY ANALYSES 53 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS