Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97th Street Access REAL WORLD CHALLENGES . . . REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS 97th Street Access U.S. 421 I Michigan Road My Three Sons Ventures, LLC September 30, 2004 TRANSPORTATION COM M UN ICATIONS UTI LITI ES INSTITUTIONAL/COMMERCIAL FEDERAL PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL 97~h Street Access U.S. 421/Michigan Road Carmel, Indiana Contents Page Preparer Qualifications ................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 3 Proposed Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 7 List of Figures Figure 1. Location Map ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Proposed Site Traffic Patterns ......................................................................................... 6 List of Tables Table 1. Existing Land Uses on Subject Property ........................................................................... 2 Table 2. Proposed Land Uses on Subject Property ......................................................................... 2 Table 3. Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 4 Table 4. Summary of Illegal and U-Turn Movements .................................................................... 5 #0500.48.016 Edwards and Kelcey 97~h Street Access U.S. 421/Michigan Road Carmel, Indiana Preparer Qualifications I certify that this Traffic Operations Analysis 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. Jennifer A. Pyrz, P.E. Indiana Registration # 10001153 Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Edwards and Kelcey 1 97ih Street Access U.S. 421 / Michigan Road Carmel, Indiana Introduction My Three Sons Ventures, LLC is preparing to redevelop property along the east side of U.S. 421 / Michigan Road, between 96th Street and 97th Street in Carmel, Indiana. The site currently contains the following: Table 1. Existing Land Uses on Subject Property Land Use Size Storage Building 5,120 Square Feet (SF) Single Family Homes 1 Dwelling Unit Dentist Office 3,000 SF 2 Retail Buildings 13,000 SF The proposed uses for the redeveloped site in the initial phase include the following: Table 2. Proposed Land Uses on Subject Property Land Use Size Pharmacy/Drugstore/Retail 12,000 SF Automobile Care Center 3,000 SF Drive In Bank 3,200 SF Retail Shops 1,700 SF Medical Office 15,000 SF Future phases may include the redevelopment of one additional single family home for retail of approximately 3,200 SF. In order to provide adequate access to the proposed site for both patrons and delivery vehicles, My Three Sons is requesting that the center median along U.S. 421 be shortened to just south of 97th Street. The following study provides a summary of the implications of such a modification. Edwards and Kelcey 2 97th Street Access U.S. 421 /Michigan Road Carmel Indiana Existing Conditions Figure 1 provides a location map of the subject site in relation to the surrounding roadway network. A site plan is included in the Appendix. Figure 1. Location Map U.S. 421 was recently widened to a five-lane section with two through lanes in each direction, northbound and southbound, and a center two-way left-turn lane between major intersections. Between 96th Street and just north of 97th Street, this two-way left-turn lane transitions to a raised center median in order to channelize the 96th Street southbound left tum lane and prohibit turns across the centerline. The Edwards and Kelcey 3 97~ Street ~ccess U.S. ~£1 /M~¢h~n C~rmeL Table 4. Summary of Illegal and U-Turn Movements on U.S. 421 at 96t~/97~ Streets Day 'of ObServation Time Period U-Turns at Median Illegal Left-Turn Mvmts NB to SB SB to NB EB to NB SB to EB Thursday 7:00-8:30 AM 1 , , , Thursday 8:50-10:20 AM 3 1 2 Friday 4:15-4:45 PM 5 1 Saturday 8:45-9:15 AM I 2 Monday 9:45-10:05 AM Wednesday 9:30-I 1:00AM I 2 1 . . Total 4.5 hours observed (off-peak) 10 I 5 4 Comparing the observed movement to count data from the same time period revealed the proportion of traffic making illegal movements. Of all eastbound traffic on the east leg of 97th Street during the observation period, 21% of vehicles arrived there via an illegal left turn movement from US 421. Similarly, of all eastbound traffic on the west leg of 97th Street during this observation period, 11% of vehicles made an illegal left turn movement onto US 421. Finally 10 U-roms were made at the north edge of the center median during this period. U-tums are legal maneuvers that are made by drivers when the median prevents them from making left tums at another location. U-turns at unsignalized locations without a separate turn lane may result in a higher number of rear-end crashes and conflicts at that location. Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for AM and PM peak hour conditions at 96* Street and U.S. 42 I. 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 shared).l 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. LOS D is generally considered acceptable in urban areas during peak hour conditions. In the AM peak hour at 96* Street and U.S. 42 l, the intersection Level of Service (LOS) is F with 85* percentile queue length in the southbound left-turn lane estimated at 4 vehicles or 80 feet. In the PM peak hour, the 85* percentile queue in that lane is estimated at 9 vehicles or 180 feet. The PM peak hour LOS is calculated as D. The southbound left-turn queue does not currently exceed the distance between ~ The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) program is associated with the latest release of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) as published by the Transportation Research Board. Edwards and Kelcey 5 97 Street Access U.S. 421 /Michigan Road Carmel, Indiana 96 Street and 97 Street in the peak hours of the average weekday. The 8 5 th percentile queue length estimate will cover field conditions approximately 85% of the time, with queues greater than the estimated volume occurring 15% of the time. d Conditions propose The subject site will be accessed from aright- in/right -out driveway on U.S. 421 and from a full access driveway located on 97 Street. The developer has agreed remove ts existing site drive along 96 Street at the request of the Hamilton County Engineer. This agreement, however, must be dependant upon the approval of the shortening of the median to provide full access at 97 Street and thereby sufficient access to the site. Figure 2 shows the proposed traffic patterns to and from the site with the requested median modification. Figure 2. Proposed Site Traffic Patterns s kji r 4 0 =emu j ms a, 1 'r ma c... a r' a G m.• _,ems Edwards and Kelcey 6 9 7~h Street Access U.S. 421 / Michigan Road Carmel, Indiana Traffic from the proposed site will not impact Levels of Service at the 96th Street/U.S. 421 intersection. AM peak hour LOS will remain at F and PM peak hour LOS will remain at D with the redevelopment of the site. The 85~ percentile southbound left turn queue at 96th Street will remain at 4 vehicles in the AM hour and will increase to 12 vehicles in the PM peak hour. With 12 vehicles queuing during the PM peak hour, the line of southbound left turning vehicles will stretch back approximately 240 feet under this analysis. The 97t~ Street intersection is approximately 330 feet from the 96~ Street stop bar. The expected queue at 96t~ Street will therefore not block the proposed 97t~ Street intersection. Conclusions The developer is requesting that the center median along U.S. 421 be cut back to end just south of 97th Street, thereby providing full access at the 97th Street and U.S. 421 intersection. Our analysis supports this request for both safety and capacity reasons. Most importantly, our observations during four and a half hours of non-peak periods indicates that drivers are currently making hazardous maneuvers at the intersection of 97th Street, driving around the median to make illegal left turns WB to SB or EB to NB. By cutting back the existing median, these drivers will be able to make the desired movements legally and without traveling against oncoming traffic. Additionally, we do not find a significant impact on the 96th Street / U.S. 421 intersection with the redevelopment of this property and modification of the median. The LOS at that location will remain the same under existing and future scenarios and the southbound queue at 96th Street is not expected to reach beyond the 97th Street intersection to interfere with its operation. Full access at 97th Street will be necessary with the closing of the site drive along 96th Street. Without the median modification, patrons and delivery vehicles would not be able to access the site from the north or leave the site to travel southbound without making either a U-turn or an illegal movement around the end of the median. Edwards and Kelcey 7 9~h Street Access U.S. 421 / Michigan Road Carmel, Indiana APPENDIX Edwards and Kelcey 8 97th Street Access U.S. 421 / Michigan Road Carmel, Indiana Highway Capacity Software Output Existing Conditions Edwards and Kelcey 9 97th Street Access U.S. 421/Michigan Road Carmel, Indiana Highway Capacity Software Output Future Conditions Edwards and Kelcey 10 Oct-Ol-04 04:33P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 1345 P.01 ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNEI~$ CON STi~ UCTO FAX TRANSMISSION DATE: ! 0/01/04 TO: COMPANY: Advocati, ltc FAX N°.: PHONE N°.: PAGES: ! 7 (including this cover Site plan was reduced to 8.5xl 1 for faxing. 222 E. Ohio Street Suite 400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2156 Voice 317.636.1552 Fax 317.636.1345 www.ekcorp.c(x~ FROM: Jill Palmer RE: Appendix PROJECT N°.: 050048016 C: Fax 10-01-04,doc 0ct-01-04 04:34P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 1345 P.02 97'~ Street &:ce,~s 421/Mk'higan Road Carmel. Indiana AJ PENDIX F, dward~ and Kek'ey 0ct-01-04 04:34P Edwards and Kelcey ii +'!~ "---" P.03 Edwards and Kek'ey I 0ct-01-04 04:34P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 1345 P.04 ii , , i IEII I I ' I I I I I~,, I HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT Analyst J. Pyrz Intersection g6th Street af cl Michi~'~n ' ' Agency or Co. Edward= and Keicey Road Date Performed 9/21/2004 Area Type All other erea; ~ Time Period AM Peak Hour Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiai ~a Analysis Year Existing, 2004 , ,,Project iD EK # 050,0.48016 · ,Volume"and,, Timing Input.. , ..... ' , . ..... LT TH 'RT 'I'T TH 'RT I CT TH' RT I'T TH RT i i . Number of lanes, N~ I f 2 2 I I 2 3 I I 4 0 ,, , . Lane group L T R L T R L T R L TR '" Volume' V (vph) 51 118 315 840 296 81 584 1060 557 91 '1314 29 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 18 3 9 I I I 5 5 2 2 2 14 ....... Peak-hourfactor, pH-F~ 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.86 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.72 0.77 0.91 0.91 0.70 pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A ..... A A A A A A A A i_ A A A Start-up lost time, I~ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 , , , Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 ZO 2.0 ZO 2.0 2.0 2.0 ZO 2.0 2.0 · Arrival type, AT ' 3 3 3 ,3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 , , _ Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 i Fiit'ering/metering, l'" 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ...... Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 79 0 41 0 223 0 6 Lane width ........... 12.0 12.0 12.0 ~12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N'm ..... Buses stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , Min. time for pedestrians, Gp. 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 .., Phasing Excl. Left Thru"& RT' 03 04 ExCj'. Left ' Thru.,& RT 07 08 G= 19.3 G= 8,0 G= G= G= 18.9 G= 23.3 (~"'= G= ..... Timing Y= 5 Y= 5.5 Y= Y= Y= 4.5 Y= 5.5 Y= Y= DUration o[. Analysis, T = 0.25 ' C)/cl,e Len. g h, C = go.o · : ' .'. ,.:..,., ............... ' ' . EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT' TH RT'" LT TH 'i{T LT TH' RT Adju~'sted flow rate, v 64 147 281 977 370 49 721 1472 4 ]4 100 1477 Lane group capacity, c 328 164 944 744 167 576 701 1276 8 ;6 372 1741 , ~ , V/c ratio, X 0.20 0.90 0,30 1.31 '2.22 0.09 1.03 1.15 O.51 0.27 O. 8~j Total green ratio, g~C 0.21 0.09 0,36 0.21 0.09 0.36 0.21 0.20 O.53 0.21 0.26 Uniform delay, dI 29,0 40.6 20.6 35.4 41.0 19.0 ~ 35.5 33.4 1;~.4 :29.8 31.7 , Progression factor,'PF 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.~00 1.000 !1.000 Delay, calibration, k 0,11 0.42 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 ~0.50 O.12 0.11 0.38 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 41,9 0.2 150.4 566.0 O. t 41.5 78.5 0 5 0.4 4.2 ...... , ,, , . ,, 0ct-01-04 04:35P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 13~ P.05 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay Lane group LOS Approach delay Approach LOS Intersection delay I t0,~000TM 4O. 3 116.4 F, F' I B'. 291.6 Xc = 1.29 86.1 t Intersection LOS Copytigh! © 20110 University of Florida, All Rights Rcs~r,'ed 35. 5 Version 4. I ¢ Oct-01-04 04:35P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 1345 P. 06 HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1e Analyst: J. Pyrz Agency: Edwards and Kelcey Date: 9/21/2004 Period: AM Peak Hour Project ID: EK ~ 0500.48.016 E/W St: 96th Street Eastbound L T R 0.0 0.0 0.0 64 147 158 1900 1900 1900 1 I 2 1530 1845 1482 328 164 533 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.20 0.90 0.30 0.21 0.09 0.36 1_.000 3 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.3 3.6 2.8 O.4 0.2 O.5 0.1 1.3 0.2 1.4 4.9 3.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 0.0 0.0 0.0 503 370 49 1900 1900 1900 2 1 1 1787 1881 1599 383 167 576 0.28 0.20 0.03 1.31 2.22 0.09 0.21 0.09 0.36 1.000 3 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.6 9.3 0.8 O.4 O.2 0.5 16.5 25.8 0.0 29.1 35.0 0.9 25.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 LaneGroup Init Queue F10w Rate So No. Lanes SL LnCapacity Flow Ratio v/c Ratio Grn Ratio I Factor AT or PVG Pltn Ratio PF2 Q1 kB Q2 Q Average Q Spacing Q Storage Q S Ratio 70th Percentile Output: Inter.: 96th Street and Area Type: Ail other ar Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana Year : Existing, 2004 N/S St: Michigan Road Michisan Road BACK OF QUEUE WORKSHEET Northbound L T R 0.0 0.0 0.0 371 540 434 1900 1900 1900 2 3 1 1719 1809 1583 360 468 846 0.22 0.30 0.27 1.03 1.15 0.51 0.21 0.26 0.53 1.000 3 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.3 33.5 7.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 4.9 11.6 0.6 14.2 25.1 7.6 25.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 ~as SDuthbound L TR 0.0 0.0 100 406 190 1900 1 I 4 0 177~ 1851 0.22 0.85 0.26 i 1.000 3 ~3 1.05 1.00 ~ 0 1.00 0 0.4 0.11 2.0 25 25.0 0 ,0 fB% 1~-.2 1.2 1.2 I1.1 1.z 1.2 11.2 1.2 1.2 1~.2 BOQ I1.7 5.8 3.6 (33.4 40.0 1.0 116.6 28.9 9.0 12.7 QSRatio I 85th percentile Output: fB% 11,6 1.6 1.6 11.4 1.4 1.6 I1.5 1.4 1.5 tl.6 BOQ 12.2 7.6 4.8 J41.1 48.8 1.4 J21.1 35.8 11.7 13.5 OSRatio I { I I 9otb percentile Output: fB% Jl.S 1.7 1.7 ll.5 1.5 1.8 fl.6 1.5 1.7 ll.8 ,OQ {2.5 8.¢ 5.3 143.4 51.5 ~.s 122,7 37.~ ~2.7 ~3.~ Os~atio I I I 95th Percentile Output: fs~ 12.i ~.o 2.0 11.~ i.6 2.i li.e i.~ i.~ ~oQ ~2.~ 9,6 6.i 1~7,i OSRatio t I I I 98th Percentile Output: lB{ 12.6 2.4 2.5 ll.8 1.8 2.6 {2.0 1.8 2.3 {2.5 BOQ {3.6 ll,? 7.5 {52,5 61,} 2.3 {28,9 46,2 17.2 {5.7 OSRatio m r { r 13.7 1.5 17.5 1.6 18.9 21.1 2.1 { 24.6 t I ERROR MESSAGES NO errors to report. 0ct-01-04 04:35P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 1345 P.07 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT 96th Street a~,d Michigan "' Analyst J. Pyrz Intersection Road Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey Area Type Ali other area~; Date Performed 9,/21/2004 Jurisdiction Cannel, fndia~;a Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Existing, 200,~ . ~ Proiect ID EK ti 0500.4~ 016 i Volume'and: Timine inppt :' .:.:~": i': ':'~ .. · .: .,. ' ...... EB WB '1 NB SB LT' TH RT LT TH RT LT TH ..L RT LT TH RT ...... klumber of lanes, N~ I 1 2 2 I I 2 3 I I 4 0 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L TR .... Volume, V (vph) 121 286 491 443 154 71 306 !1231 $15 130 1055 36 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 13 I 2 I 3 I 6 2 I I 2 8 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0,74 0.86 0.$2 0.95 0.77 0.8'5 0.92 i0.88 0.92 0.70 0.85 0.70 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I~ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ,, =, Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ....... Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 - ., Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped i Bike /'RTOR volumes 0 123 0 36 0 326 0 7 ....... Lanewidth 12.0 12.0 12.0 1ZO 12.0 '12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 .... Parking'"/Grade '/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm ........... Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time, for pedestriani-.,."G'P ,, 3.2 3.2 .,, 3.2 , 3.2 Phasing. Excl. Left Thru '& RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT "' o7 o8 G= ~2.0 ~= ~9.5 ~ G: G= ~3.0 ~: 3,~.5 G: G= Timing '"Y= 5 Y= 5.5 Y= .IY= Y-- 5 Y= 5.5 Y= Y= Dui~ti0n of Analysis, T = 0~25 , ,,, . Cycle 'Leng h, C = 100.0 ~~;-~h~~k~i. ahd?~'~$:'Oeterminat~on...: i.~'~::, '.,: '/':.." '":: - ~'. '- .' · .,., ..... . ........ ,,,, ',,, - .... ~ ..... ;, .;.-~.,,, - , ,, · ,,, ,, .......... EB WB NB ............... SB LT TH .I RT .i.LT TH RT LT TH {T ' LT" TH RT , , Adjusted flow rate, v 164 333 449 466 200 41 333 1399 ~32 186 1282 . Lane group capacity, c 192 367 1065 417 360 608 430 1751 ~1 232 2318 v/c ratio, X 0.85 0.91 0.42 1.12 0.56 0.07 0.77 0.80 0i64 0,80 0.,55 ,. ,., Total green ratio, g/c 0.12 0.19 0.38 !0.12 0.1~ 0.38 :0.13 0.34 0i52 0.13 0.34 Uniform delay, d~ ,43.1 39.4 22.9 i44,0 36.3 19.7 42.1 29.6 1;3 42.2 26.5 . ,, Progression factor,~'F 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.i)00 1.000 1,000 Delay calibration, 'k 0.39 0.43 0.11 0.50 0.15 O. 11 0.32 0.34 O.22 0.35 0.15 Incremental delay, d2 29.3 25.5 0.3 80.0 1.9 0.0 8.6 2.7 ~,7 18.0 0.3 ...... 0ct-01-04 04:36P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 1345 P. 08 Initial queue delay, d3 _ ,, Control delay 72.5 64,9 23.2 124.0 38.2 19.8 50.7 32.3 18.9 60.3 26.8 , _ Lane group LOS E E C F D B D C B E C , ,, , .... ,,. Approach delay 46.4 93.7 31.9 ! 3'1.0 Approach LOS O F C I C Intersection delay 42.3 Xc: 0.87 Intersection LO O ..... , HCS2000TM Copyright ~) 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. l e Oct-01-04 04:36P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 13¢5 P. OD HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1e Analyst: J. Pyrz Agency: Edwards and Kelcey Date: 9/21/2004 Period: PM Peak Hour Project ID: EK # 0500.48.016 E/W St: 96th Street LaneGroup Init Queue Flow Rate So No.Lanes SL LnCapacity Flow Ratio v/c Ratio Grn Ratio I Factor AT or PVG Pltn Ratio PF2 01 kB Q Average Q Spacing Q Storage Q S Ratio Eastbound L T R 0.0 O.0 0.0 164 333 253 1900 1900 1900 1 1 2 1597 1881 1584 192 367 601 0.10 0.18 0.16 0.85 0.91 0,42 0.12 0.19 0.38 1.000 3 3 3 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 4.5 9.0 5.2 0.3 O.4 0.5 1,2 2.5 0.4 5.7 11.5 5.6 25.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 Inter.: 96th Street an~Michigan Road Area Type: All other ar~as Jurisd: Carmel, IndianaI Year : Existing, 2004,.~ N/S St: Michigan Road i BACK OF QUEUE WORKSHEET ~ westbound Northbound Shuthbound L TR 0.0 0.0 186 352 1901 1900 1 4 0 178~ 1850 232' 638 0.11 0.19 0.S! 0.55 0.11 0.34 1.000 3 3 1,01 1.00 1.0 1.00 5.0 7.9 0.3 O.6 1.0 0.7 6.1 8.6 25.~ 25.0 0 0 1.2 10.1 L T R 0.0 0.0 0.0 '239 200 41 1900 1900 1900 2 1 1 1787 1845 1599 214 360 608 0.13 0.11 0.03 1.12 0.56 0.07 0.12 0.19 0.38 1.000 3 3 3 1,00 l. OO 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.6 5.0 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 4.9 0.5 0.0 11.5 5.5 0.8 25.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 b T R 0,0 0.0 0.0 171 513 532 1900 1900 1900 2 3 1 1703 1862 1599 221 642 831 0.10 0.28 0.33 0.77 0.80 0.64 0.13 0.34 0,52 1.000 3 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.6 12.9 10.6 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 2.0 1.1 5.5 14.9 11..8 25.0 25,0 25.0 0 0 0 70th Percentile Output, iS% [1.2 1.2 1.2 I1.2 1.2 1.2 11.2 1.2 1.2 11.2 BOQ 16.7 13.6 6.6 113.6 6.5 0.9 16.s 17.4 13.8 17.2 OsRatio t I I I 85th Percentile Output: Boo t8.8 17.4 s.6 117.4 8.5 1.2 18.5 22.z 17.7 [9.4 OsRatio I I I I 90th Percenti]Le Output: iS% I1,7 1.6 1.7 11.6 1.7 1.8 11.7 1.6 1.6 11.7 1.7 BOQ 19-6 18.7 ~.~ 1~"-" ~.4 ~.~ ~.~ ~.v ~.~ I~o.J, ~4.~ OSRatio I ~ I I ~ 95th Percentile Output: ) ~ 11.9 ~-~ x.~ l~." z.~ =.z Iz., ~." ~'"3 I~-~it z.~ BOQ I~.0 ~0.9 ZO.8 12~.0 ~O.V~.6 mzo.~~6.2 2~. ~., ~6.z Osza~o I I I I ~ 98th Percentile Output: : fB% t2.3 2.1 2.4 [2.1 2.4 2.6 12.49 2.00 2.18 12.3~ 2.2 BOQ ~13.3 24.4 13.1 ~24.4 13.0 2.0 ~12. 30. 24. ~14. : 19-0 QSRatio ~ I ~ [ ~ 1.5 13.1 NO errors to report. ERROR MESSAGES 0ct-01-04 04=37P EdwaPds and Kelcey 317 636 1345 P.lO 97~ Street Access 421 / Michigan Road Carmel, Inditma Highway Capacity SoJ~are Output Futut~ Conditions Edwards and Kck?cy Oct-O1-O4 O4:37P Edwards and Kelcay 317 636 1345 P.ll Analyst J. Pyrz 96th Street a~d Michi~an Agency or Co. Edward~ and Keicey Date Performed 10/01/2004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Road . ,, Area Type All other area~ Jurisdiction Carmel, India~ Analysis Year Future - Exist~g + Proposed Project ID EK fi 0500.481016., .... WB NB SB Number of lanes, N 1 Lane group Volume, V (vph) % Heavy vehicles, %HV Peak-hour factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) Start-up lost time, Extension of effective green, e Arrival type, AT Unit extension, UE Filtering/metering, I Initial unmet demand, Qb Ped / Bike t RTOR volumes Lane width Parking / Grade / Parking Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB Min. time for pedestrians, Timing Duration of 3.2 03 Excl. Left Thru & RT 04 G= 19.3 G= 6.0 G= G= G= 18.9 Y= 5 Y= 5.5 Y= Y= Y= 4.5 T= 0.25 EB WB 3.2 3.2 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 G= 23.3 G= = 5.5 Y= Cycle C= 90.0 NB 3.2 O8 G~ SB Adjusted flow rate, v Lane group capacity, c vic ratio, X Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d1 Progression factor, PF Delay calibration, k Incremental delay, d2 0ct-01-04 04:37P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 1345 P.12 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 29.3 82.5 20.0 184.0 607.0 19.3 77.0 117.3 0 30.2 36.7 Lane group LOS C F B F F B E F i B C D ,,, Approach delay 44. 6 288.1 91.4 ; 36.3 Approach LOS D F F~ D Intersection delay 119.6 Xc = 1.29 Intersection LOS,[ F HC$2000TM Copyright cD 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4. I, Oct-01-04 04:38P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 1345 P.13 HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1e Analyst: J. Pyrz Agency: Edwards and Kelcey Date: 10/01/2004 Period: AM Peak Hour Project ID: EK ~ 0500.48.016 E/W St: 96th Street Inter.: 96th Street and~Michigan Road Area Type: All other ar~as Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana[ Year Future - Existihg + Proposed N/S St: Michigan Road BACK OF QUEUE WORKSHEET Westbound Northbound Eastbound LaneGroup IL T R IL T R IL T R tL i Tm Init Queue 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.01 0.0 Flow Rate 164 147 105 t501 370 62 1371 546 361 t104!~ 415 so li900 i900 i900 l i~oo i900 i900 [i~oo i900 i900 l i90~ i9oo Ne. Lanes [1 1 2 SL [1530 1845 1482 LnCapacity 1328 164 533 Flow Ratio ]0.04 0.08 0.07 v/c Ratio [0.20 0.90 0.20 Grn Ratio t0.21 0.09 0.36 1.000 3 3 3 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 3 3.6 1.8 0 4 O.2 0.5 0 1 1.3 0.1 1 4 4.9 1.9 25.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1787 1881 1599 383 167 576 0,28 0.20 0.04 1.31 2,22 0.11 0.21 0.09 0.36 1.000 3 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.5 9.3 1.0 0.4 0,2 0.5 16.2 25.8 0.1 28.8 35.0 1.1 25.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1719 1809 1583 360 468 846 0.22 0.30 0.23 1.03 1.17 0.43 0.21 0.26 0.53 1.000 3 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.3 13.6 5.4 0.4 0.4 0,6 4.9 12.2 0.5 14.2 25.8 5.9 25.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 S~uthbound ?0th Percentile Output: ~se li.2 i.2 i.2 li.i i.i i.2 li.2 i.2 i.2 li.2, i.2 BOO tl.7 5.8 2.3 [33.0 40.0 1.3 ]16.6 29.8 7.0 12.8 14.3 QSRatio I I I 85th Percentile Output: fbi ii.~ i.6 1.6 Ii.4 i.4 i.6 [i.5 i.4 1.~ li.~ i.5 BOQ {2,2 7.6 3.0 [40.7 48.8 1.7 [21.1 36.9 9.1 [3.7 18.2 QSRatio I t t 90th Percentile Output: fs~ 11.8 1.7 1.8 11.5 1.s 1.8 Il,6 i.s 1.v 11.8 1.6 BOQ 12.5 8.4 3.4 143.0 51.5 1.9 122.? 39.0 10.0 [4.1 Z9.7 QSRatio I I I 95th Percentile Output: fB% {2.1 2.0 2.0 {1.6 1.6 2.1 [t.8 i.6 i.9 ]2.0 i.8 BOQ 12.9 9.6 3.9 146.6 55.6 2.3 [25.1 42.5 11.4 {4.7 22.0 os.atio I I I I 98th Percentile Output: fB% 12.6 2.4 2.6 [1.8 1.8 2.6 [2,0 1.8 2.3 [2.5 BOQ 13.6 11.7 4.9 152.1 61.9 2.9 [28.9 47.5 13.8 15.9 25.4 OsRa~io I { I { ERROR MESSAGES I Factor AT or PVG Pltn Ratio PF2 Q1 kB Q2 Q Average Q Spacing Q Storage Q S Ratio 1 , 4 177~ 1852 372! 479 o. oI 0 0.87 0.2i 0.26 ! 1.000 3 ~ 3 1.00~ 1.00 1.o9 1.oo 2.21 9.9 0.4! 0.4 o.il 2.2 2.3! 12.2 25.0 25.0 0 0 Oct-O1-O4 O4:38P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 1345 P.14 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT ' .... 'ii.i[ii".". . . . " 96th Street an~! Michigan Analyst J. Py/-z Intersection Road Agency or Co. Edwards and Kelcey Area Type All other area~ Date Performed 10/01/2004 Jurisdiction Carmel, Indiar ,a Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Future - Existi, 3g + Proposed Project ID EK # 0500.48. 016 ~"~nfe:.di~l:Ti~ing:l_nPut = :.i:.'.' '. - ..:.* . ' ..: ,'i*...:....: EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH R~ LT TH RT Number of lanes, N~ 1 I 2 2 I 1 2 3 I 1 4 0 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L TR , ,, . ............. Volume, V (vph) 119 286 491 420 152 108 306 1309 815 150 1093 36 , % Heavy vehicles, %HV 13 I 2 I 3 I 6 2 I I 2 8 ....... Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.86 0.82 0.95 0.77 0.85 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.70 0.85 0.70 ..... , ........... I Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I~ 2.0 2.0 Z0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ............ Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 , , ,, , Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 I.O00 11.000 1.000 .,,, . , , Initial unmet demand, Q= 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 , Ped / Bike/' RToR volumes 0 246. . 0 56 0 t408. 0 .... g Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 ' '1 ' Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N .......... Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,i, 0 0 0 Min. time for podestrians,, G? 3.2 3.2 3.2 i 3.2 Phasing Excl. L,'~' Thru & RT .... 0;~ .... _ 04_ ....' ExCl._L'eff Th'nj & RT. O~ . '"' 08 o-- o o: o: 3.0 o: , Timing Y= 5 Y= 5.5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5.5 ; Y= Y= " ...... Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 .........Cycle Leng. h, C = 100.0. . . .. EB WB NB I SB '-i,T- =TH ........ RT" LT TH RT LT TH ~T LT TH RT AdjuSted flow rate, v 161 333 299 442 197 61 333 1488 442 214 1325 , Lane group capacity, c 192 367 1065 417 360 608 430 1751 831 232 2320 , vic ratio, X 0.84 0.91 0.28 1.06 0.55 0.10 0.77 0.85 53 0.92 0.57 Total green ratio, g/C 0.12 O. 19 0.38 O. 12 O. 19 0.38 O. 13 O. 34 0.t~.2 O. 13 0.34 , Uniform delay, dI 43.1 39.4 21.5 44.0 36.3 20.0 42.1 30.3.. 1~.9. 43.0 , 26.~ .7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.~00 1.000 1.000 , , ,, Delay calibration, k 0.37 0.43 0.11 0.50 0.15 0.11 0.32 0.38 0i13 0.44 0.17 Incremental delay, d2 26.7 '25.5 O. 1 60.8 1.8 O. 1 $.6 4.2~ 7 38.5 0.3 ..... Oct-Ol-04 04:39P Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 134~ P.15 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 69.7 64.9 21,7 104,8 38.0 20,1 50,7 34.5 ~6.6 81.5 27.1 .. . Lane group LOS E E C F D C D C !B F C Approach delay 49. 6 78. 6 33. 4 34. 6 Approach 'LoS D E C ~ C Intersection delay 42.2 Xc = 0.91 Intersection LOSI D ,,, .... HC$2OOOTM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.h Oct-01-04 04:3gP Edwards and Kelcey 317 636 134~ P.16 HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4,1e Analyst: J. Pyrz Agency: Edwards and Kelcey Date: 10/01/2004 Period: PM Peak Hour Project ID: EK ~ 0500.48.016 E/W St: 96th Street Inter.: 96th Street andlMichigan Road Area Type: Ail other ar~as Jurisd: Carmel, Indiana~ Year : Future - Existihg + Proposed N/S St: Michigan Road LaneGroup Init Queue Flow Rate So BACK OF QUEUE WORKSHEET Eastbound westbound Northbound S6uthbound o.o o.o o.o Io.o o.o o.o Io.o o.o o.o to.o o.o 161 333 168 1227 197 61 1171 546 442 t214 364 1900 1900 1900 11900 1900 1900 11900 1900 1900 11900 1900 No.Lanes SL LnCapacity Flow Ratio v/c Ratio Grn Ratio I Factor AT or PVG Pltn Ratio PF2 01 kB 02 Q Average Q Spacing Q Storage Q S Ratio 1 1 2 1597 1881 1584 192 367 601 0.10 0.18 0.11 0.84 0.91 0.28 0.12 0.19 0.38 1.000 3 3 3 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 O0 1.00 1.00 4 4 9.0 3.2 0 3 0,4 0.5 1 1 2.5 0.2 5 5 11.5 3.4 25.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 70th Percentile Output: fB% {1,2 1.2 1.2 BOQ {6.5 13,6 4.1 QSRatio I 85th Percentile Output: fB% I 1.5 1.5 1.6 BOQ 18.5 17,4 5.4 QSRatio I 90th Percentile Output: lB% 11.7 1.6 1.7 BOQ 19.3 18.7 6.0 QSRatio I 95th Percentile Output: lB% 11.9 1.8 2.0 BOQ 110.6 20,9 6.9 QSRatio I 98th percentile Output: fB% BOQ QSRatio 2 1 1 1787 1845 1599 214 360 608 0.13 0.11 0.04 1.06 0.55 0.10 0.12 0.19 0.38 1.000 3 3 3 1.00 1 O0 1 O0 1.00 1 O0 1 O0 6.3 49 1 1 0.3 04 0 5 3.8 O5 0 1 10.154 12 25.0 25,0 25.0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1703 1862 1599 221 642 831 0.10 0.29 0.28 0.77 0.85 0.53 0.13 0.34 0.52 1.000 3 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.6 14.1 8.1 0.3 0,6 0.7 0.9 2.6 0.7 5,5 16.7 8.9 25.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1789 1851 ~-321 638 0.12 0.20 0.9~ 0.57 0,18 0,34 1.000 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.9 8.2 0.3 0.6 1.9 0.7 7.8 9.0 25.0 25.0 0 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 {',.2 1.2 1.2 11.2 1.2 11.9 6.4 1.4 16.5 19,5 10.5 19.3 10.6 I I 15.3 8.4 1.8 [8.5 24.6 13.5 [12.0 13.7 I I 1.6 1,7 1,8 11.7 1.6 1.7 11.7' 1.7 16.6 9,2 2,0 19.3 26.3 14,7 113.1 14.9 18.6 10.5 2.4 110,7 29.0 16.6 114.S 16.7 I I 12.4 2.1 2.5 12.2 2.4 2.6 12.4 2.0 2.2 12.2' 2.2 {t2.9 24.4 8.5 {21,8 12.7 3.0 {12.9 33.0 19.6 117.6 19,8 ERROR MESSAGES