The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTraffic Impact Analysis ________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ C OPYRIGHT This analysis and the ideas, designs, concepts and data contained herein are the exclusive intellectual property of A&F Engineering Co., LLC and are not to be used or reproduced in whole or in part, without the written consent of A&F Engineering Co., LLC. 2012, A&F Engineering Co., LLC TC .................................................................................................................................................... II ABLE OF ONTENTS LF .......................................................................................................................................................... III IST OF IGURES C ............................................................................................................................................................ IV ERTIFICATION I ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 NTRODUCTION P ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 URPOSE SW ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 COPE OF ORK DP&PR ................................................................................................ 2 ESCRIPTION OF THE ROJECT ROPOSED OADWAY SA .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 TUDYREA DASS .......................................................................................................... 3 ESCRIPTION OF THE BUTTINGTREET YSTEM ETD ............................................................................................................................................... 6 XISTING RAFFICATA PH .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 EAKOUR ABTGR .......................................................................................................... 6 NNUALACKGROUND RAFFIC ROWTHATE RSTV ................................................................................................................ 6 EDISTRIBUTION OF ITE RAFFIC OLUMES GTVPD ................................................................................... 7 ENERATED RAFFICOLUMES FOR ROPOSED EVELOPMENT T1-GTPD ................................................................................... 7 ABLEENERATED RIPS FOR ROPOSED EVELOPMENT IT ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 NTERNAL RIPS P-BT ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 ASSYRIPS ADGT ............................................................................................... 8 SSIGNMENT AND ISTRIBUTION OF ENERATED RIPS GTSS ....................................................................................................... 8 ENERATED RIPS ADDED TO THE TREET YSTEM CA ................................................................................................................................................... 15 APACITY NALYSIS DLS .......................................................................................................................... 15 ESCRIPTION OF EVELS OF ERVICE AS ................................................................................................................................................. 17 NALYSES CENARIOS AR ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 NALYSES ESULTS T2–LSS:CD&KP .............................................. 22 ABLEEVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYARMEL RIVEEYSTONE ARKWAY T3–LSS:126S&KP ................................................. 23 TH ABLEEVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYTREETEYSTONE ARKWAY T4-LSS:126S&MHD/MD ..................... 24 TH ABLEEVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYTREETOHAWK ILLS RIVEELARK RIVE T5-LSS:126S&PMAD ............................. 25 TH ABLEEVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYTREETROPOSED IDDLE CCESSRIVE T6-LSS:126S&KA .......................................................... 26 TH ABLEEVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYTREETINZERVENUE T7-LSS:KPC-D&PR- ABLEEVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYEYSTONE ARKWAY OLLECTORISTRIBUTOR ROPOSED IGHT /R-AD ............................................................................................................................. 27 INIGHTOUTCCESSRIVE C .............................................................................................................................................................. 28 ONCLUSIONS R .................................................................................................................................................... 31 ECOMMENDATIONS II F1:AM ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 IGUREREAAP F2:EIG .......................................................................................................... 5 IGUREXISTING NTERSECTION EOMETRICS F3A:ADGTVPD IGURESSIGNMENT AND ISTRIBUTION OF ENERATED RAFFIC OLUMES FOR ROPOSED EVELOPMENT KPC-DA(A) .......................................... 9 WITHOUT EYSTONE ARKWAY OLLECTORISTRIBUTOR CCESSPARTMENTS F3B:ADGTVPD IGURESSIGNMENT AND ISTRIBUTION OF ENERATED RAFFIC OLUMES FOR ROPOSED EVELOPMENT KPC-DA(R) .................................................. 10 WITHOUT EYSTONE ARKWAY OLLECTORISTRIBUTOR CCESSETAIL F4A:ADGTVPD IGURESSIGNMENT AND ISTRIBUTION OF ENERATED RAFFIC OLUMES FOR ROPOSED EVELOPMENT KPC-DA(A) .............................................. 11 WITH EYSTONE ARKWAY OLLECTORISTRIBUTOR CCESSPARTMENTS F4B:ADGTVPD IGURESSIGNMENT AND ISTRIBUTION OF ENERATED RAFFIC OLUMES FOR ROPOSED EVELOPMENT KPC-DA(R) ........................................................ 12 WITH EYSTONE ARKWAY OLLECTORISTRIBUTOR CCESSETAIL F5A:TGTVPD(WR-/R- IGUREOTAL ENERATED RAFFIC OLUMES FOR ROPOSED EVELOPMENT ITHOUTIGHTINIGHTOUT D) ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 RIVE F5B:TGTVPD(WR-/R- IGUREOTAL ENERATED RAFFIC OLUMES FOR ROPOSED EVELOPMENT ITHIGHTINIGHTOUT D) ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 RIVE F6:ETV ...................................................................................................................... 18 IGUREXISTING RAFFIC OLUMES F7:Y2016BTV ............................................................................................ 19 IGUREEAR ACKGROUNDRAFFICOLUMES F8A:SY2016BTV&TGTV IGUREUM OF EARACKGROUNDRAFFIC OLUMES OTAL ENERATED RAFFIC OLUMES FOR PD(WR-/R-D) ................................................................. 20 ROPOSED EVELOPMENT ITHOUTIGHTINIGHTOUT RIVE F8B:SY2016BTV&TGTV IGUREUM OF EARACKGROUNDRAFFIC OLUMES OTAL ENERATED RAFFIC OLUMES FOR PD(WR-/R-D) ........................................................................ 21 ROPOSED EVELOPMENT ITHIGHTINIGHTOUT RIVE III TIA I certify that this has been prepared by me and under my immediate RAFFIC MPACT NALYSIS supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering. A&FEC.,LLC NGINEERING O R. Matt Brown, P.E. Indiana Registration 10200056 Abhishek Joshi, E.I. Traffic Engineer Kate Plummer, E.I. Traffic Engineer IV TIA This , prepared at the request of the City of Carmel on behalf of RAFFIC MPACT NALYSIS th Buckingham Companies, is for a proposed mixed-use development that will be located at 126 Street and Keystone Parkway in Carmel, Indiana. 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. 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 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 that will accommodate the proposed development traffic volumes such that there will be safe ingress and egress, to and from the proposed development, with minimal interference to traffic on the public street system. The scope of work for this analysis is as follows: First, obtain peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts between the hours of 6:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 7:00 PM at the following intersections: th 126 Street & Keystone Parkway th 126 Street & Mohawk Hills Drive/Existing Access Drive th 126 Street & Kinzer Avenue/Proposed Access Drive Keystone Parkway & Carmel Drive Second, estimate year 2016 traffic due to growth in background traffic through the study area. Third, estimate the number of peak hour trips that will be generated by the proposed development. 1 Fourth, prepare a capacity analysis and level of service analysis for each of the following scenarios: S1:Existing Traffic Volumes – Based on existing intersection conditions and CENARIO existing traffic volumes. S2:Horizon Year 2016 Traffic Volumes – Estimated traffic volumes that will be CENARIO generated from outside the study area through the year 2016 with a growth rate of 0.5% per year, not compounded. S3A: Proposed Development without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor CENARIO Access – Assign and distribute the traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed development, added to the traffic volumes in Scenario 2, without including a new access to Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor from the proposed development. S3B: Proposed Development with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access CENARIO – Assign and distribute the traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed development, added to the traffic volumes in Scenario 2, including a new access to Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor from the proposed development. Fifth, prepare recommendations for the roadway cross-sections that will be needed to accommodate the total volumes for each of the previously described scenarios. TIA Finally, prepare a report documenting all data, analyses, RAFFICMPACT NALYSIS conclusions and recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic through and around this proposed development. The study site consists of 548 existing apartment units. As proposed, the new development will add 728 additional apartment units along with 13,000 square feet of retail development. The proposed development will be served via one existing access drive, and two proposed full-access drives along th 126th Street. One full-access drive will be aligned with the existing intersection of 126 Street and Kinzer Avenue, toward the northwest corner of the study area. The second full-access drive will be between Ash Drive and Mohawk Hills Drive. There are future plans to connect the development to AAA Way at Carmel Drive to the south of the project site. A right-in/right-out access drive is 2 proposed along Keystone Parkway collector-distributor road. This study will analyze future conditions at the study intersections with and without the proposed Keystone Parkway collector- Figure 1 distributor access drive. is an area map showing the proposed site, the existing study intersections, and the proposed access drives. The study area for this analysis has been defined to include the following intersections: th 126 Street & Keystone Parkway th 126 Street & Mohawk Hills Drive/Existing Access Drive th 126 Street & Kinzer Avenue/Proposed Access Drive th 126 Street & Proposed Access Drive between Ash Drive and Mohawk Hills Drive Keystone Parkway & Carmel Drive Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor & Proposed Access Drive th The proposed development will be served by the public roadway system that includes 126 Street, Keystone Parkway and Carmel Drive. 126S–is an east/west, two-lane roadway and the posted speed limit is 30 mph. The TH TREET th proposed development will have direct access to 126 Street through one existing access drive, as well as two proposed full access drives. KP–is a north/south, four-lane divided highway and the posted speed limit is 50 EYSTONE ARKWAY mph. CD–is an east/west, four-lane roadway and the posted speed limit is 30 mph. ARMEL RIVE KP&CD–This intersection is controlled by a roundabout. The EYSTONE ARKWAY ARMELRIVE Figure 2 existing intersection geometrics are shown on . TH KP&126S–This intersection is controlled by a roundabout. The existing EYSTONE ARKWAY TREET Figure 2 intersection geometrics are shown on . TH 126S&MHD–This intersection is controlled by a two-way stop control TREETOHAWKILLSRIVE th with Mohawk Hills Drive stopping for 126 Street. The existing intersection geometrics are shown Figure 2 on. 3 Peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts were obtained at each study intersection by A&F Engineering Co., LLC. The counts include an hourly total of all "through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at the intersections. The counts were made between the hours of 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM in April 2012 while school was in session. The counts at the roundabouts were obtained from the City of Carmel, these counts were made in Figure October/November 2010. A summary of the peak hour intersection counts are shown in 6Appendix . The computer output summary sheets of all conducted counts are includedin the . The peak hour varies between each intersection. Therefore, the actual peak hour volumes collected at each intersection will be used for the analysis contained within this report in order to Figure 6 represent a “maximum traffic” condition at the intersection. shows the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at each location. In order to account for growth in traffic due to development outside of the study area, A&F Engineering has calculated an annual growth rate to be applied to the existing traffic volume counts at the study intersection. Based on research of historical traffic volume counts within the study area, the applied estimated annual growth rate was calculated to be approximately 0.5% per year. Therefore, the existing traffic volumes have been increased by 1.02 times (0.5% over 4 years non- compounded), before any projected traffic from the proposed development is added. It should be noted that traffic volume counts at the roundabouts were made in the year 2010; hence these counts Figure 7 have been increased by 1.03 times (0.5% over 6 years non-compounded). shows the year 2016 background traffic volumes with existing redistributed traffic volumes at each of the study intersections. In order to document the change in existing travel patterns at the study site resulting from the proposed new access drives, an analysis of the existing traffic data has been completed and a redistribution of these volumes has been estimated based on the location of existing apartment units and the proposed access drive. A growth rate is applied, as described earlier, to the existing redistributed traffic volumes to obtain year 2016 redistributed traffic volumes for the proposed 6 Figure EFigure F development. These volumes are shown on and in the Appendix for the peak hours. The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the 1 development size and character of the land use. Trip Generation report is used by transportation professionals 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 those land uses. T1-GTPD ABLE ENERATED RIPS FOR ROPOSEDEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT INFORMATIONGENERATED TRIPS ITEAM AM PM PM LAND USESIZE CODEENTEREXITENTEREXIT Shopping Center82013,000 SF28 18 79 83 Apartments 220 728 DU 72 288 272 146 Total Generated Trips 100 306 351 229 Note: In addition to the existing apartments that will remain on site. An internal trip results when a trip is made between two or more land uses without traversing the external public roadway system. There will be internal trips between the proposed land uses. However, in order to create a “worst-case”, maximum traffic scenario, internal trip reductions were not applied for this analysis. Pass-by trips are trips already on the roadway system that are captured by a land use. Pass-by trips will be generated by the retail portion of the proposed development. However, in order to create a “worst-case”, maximum traffic scenario, pass-by trip reductions were not applied for this analysis. 1 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Eighth Edition, 2008. Pgs 326-329, 1501- 1502. 7 The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes from the site that will be added to the street system is defined as follows: 1.The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the proposed site must be assigned to the access points and to the public street system. Using the traffic volume data collected for this analysis, traffic to and from the proposed development has been assigned to the proposed driveways and to the public street system that will be serving the site. 2.To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their intersection with the driveways. For the proposed development, the distribution was based on the location of the development, the location of near-by population centers, the existing traffic patterns, and the assignment of generated traffic. The assignment and distribution of the generated traffic volumes for the proposed development are Figure 3A (Apartments) Figure 3B (Retail) Figure 4A shown in andfor Scenario 3A and (Apartments)Figure 4B (Retail) and for Scenario 3B. The generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been applied to each of the study intersections. The total peak hour generated traffic volumes for the Figure 5A Figure 5B, proposed development are shown in and for Scenario 3A and Scenario 3B respectively. The peak hour generated traffic volumes for each land use of the proposed Appendix development are shown in the for Scenario 3A and Scenario 3B. These data are based on the previously discussed trip generation data and the assignment and distribution of the generated traffic. 8 The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that approach the intersection. It is defined by the Level-of-Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes and, in the case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer 2 program Synchro. This program allows multiple intersections to be analyzed and optimized 3 using the capacity calculation methods outlined within the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). To determine the LOS at each of the study area roundabouts, a capacity analysis has been made 4 using the computer program Arcady. Arcady is an analysis tool that considers roundabout geometries to predict capacities, queues and delays. The following descriptions are for signalized intersections: Level of Service A - describes operations with a very low delay, less than or equal to 10.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Level of Service B - describes operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 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 20.1 seconds to 35.0 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. 2 Synchro 8.0, Trafficware, 2011. 3 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2010. 4 Arcady.Vers. 8.0. TRL, 2012. 15 Level of Service D - describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combinations of 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 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression and long cycle lengths. Level of Service F - describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor 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 ServiceControl Delay (seconds/vehicle) A Less than or equal to 10 B Between 10.1 and 15 C Between 15.1 and 25 D Between 25.1 and 35 E Between 35.1 and 50 F greater than 50 16 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. An analysis has been made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study intersections for each of the following scenarios: S1:Existing Traffic Volumes – Based on existing intersection conditions and CENARIO Figure 6 existing traffic volumes. is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. S2:Horizon Year 2016 Traffic – Based on year 2016 background traffic CENARIO Figure 7 volumes. summarizes these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. S3A:Proposed Development without Keystone Collector-Distributor Access – CENARIO Sum of year 2016 background traffic volumes and total generated traffic Figure 8A volumes for proposed development without Keystone Access. summarizes these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. S3B:Proposed Development with Keystone Collector-Distributor Access – Sum CENARIO of year 2016 background traffic volumes and total generated traffic volumes Figure 8B for proposed development with Keystone Access. summarizes these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours. The requested analyses have been completed and the results have been tabulated. The following tables are a summary of the capacity analyses and show the resulting levels of service. The Appendix computer solutions showing the capacity analyses are included in the . Table 2 – Keystone Parkway & Carmel Drive th Table 3 – Keystone Parkway & 126 Street th Table 4 – 126 Street & Mohawk Hills Drive/Melark Drive th Table 5 – 126 Street & Proposed Middle Access Drive th Table 6 – 126 Street & Kinzer Avenue Table 7 – Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor & Proposed Right-in/Right-out Access Drive 17 T2–LSS:CD&KP ABLE EVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYARMEL RIVE EYSTONEARKWAY AM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 1 2 3A 3B Northbound Approach A A A A Southbound Approach A A A A Eastbound Approach A A A A Westbound Approach A A A A Intersection A A A A PM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 1 2 3A 3B Northbound Approach A A A A Southbound Approach A A A A Eastbound Approach A A A A Westbound Approach A A A A Intersection A A A A S1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control CENARIO S2: Horizon Year 2016 Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and CENARIO Control S3A: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access S3B: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access 22 TH T3–LSS:126S&KP ABLE EVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYTREET EYSTONEARKWAY AM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 1 2 3A 3B Northbound Approach A A A A Southbound Approach A A A A Eastbound Approach A A A A Westbound Approach A A A A Intersection A A A A PM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 1 2 3A 3B Northbound Approach A A A A Southbound Approach A A A A Eastbound Approach A A A A Westbound Approach A A A A Intersection A A A A S1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control CENARIO S2: Horizon Year 2016 Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and CENARIO Control S3A: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access S3B: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access 23 TH T4-LSS:126S&MHD/MD ABLE EVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYTREET OHAWK ILLS RIVEELARK RIVE AM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 1 2 3A 3B Northbound Approach C C C C Southbound Approach D D E E Eastbound Left-Turn A A A A Westbound Left-Turn A A A A PM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 1 2 3A 3B Northbound Approach D D C C Southbound Approach D D E E Eastbound Left-Turn A A A A Westbound Left-Turn A A A A S1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control CENARIO S2: Horizon Year 2016 Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and CENARIO Control S3A: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Proposed Intersection Geometrics* without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access S3B: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Proposed Intersection Geometrics* with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access * The proposed intersection geometrics include the following: The eastbound approach to this intersection constructed with a right-turn lane to the drive, all other approaches maintain existing geometrics. 24 TH T5-LSS:126S&PMAD ABLE EVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYTREET ROPOSEDIDDLE CCESS RIVE AM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 3A 3B Northbound Approach B B Westbound Left-Turn A A PM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 3A 3B Northbound Approach C C Westbound Left-Turn A A S3A: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Proposed Intersection Geometrics* without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access S3B: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Proposed Intersection Geometrics* with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access * The proposed intersection geometrics include the following: The proposed access drive constructed with one inbound lane and one outbound lane. One-way stop controlled intersection with proposed middle access drive stopping for th 126 Street. The eastbound approach to this intersection constructed with a right-turn lane to the drive. The westbound approach to this intersection constructed with a left-turn lane to the drive. 25 TH T6-LSS:126S&KA ABLE EVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYTREET INZER VENUE AM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 1 2 3A 3B Northbound Approach N/A N/A C C Southbound Approach C C D D Eastbound Left-Turn A A A A Westbound Left-Turn N/A N/A A A PM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 1 2 3A 3B Northbound Approach N/A N/A D D Southbound Approach C C D C Eastbound Left-Turn A A A A Westbound Left-Turn N/A N/A A A S1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control CENARIO S2: Redistributed Horizon Year 2016 Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection CENARIO Geometrics and Control S3A: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Proposed Intersection Geometrics* without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access S3B: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Proposed Intersection Geometrics* with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access * The proposed intersection geometrics include the following: The proposed access drive constructed with one inbound lane and one outbound lane. This access drive must be aligned with the existing Kinzer Avenue on the north side of th 126 Street. Two-way stop controlled intersection with Kinzer Avenue and proposed access drive th stopping for 126 Street. The eastbound approach to this intersection constructed with a right-turn lane to the drive. The westbound approach to this intersection constructed with a left-turn lane to the drive. 26 T7-LSS:KPC-D& ABLE EVEL OF ERVICE UMMARYEYSTONE ARKWAY OLLECTORISTRIBUTOR PR-/R-AD ROPOSED IGHTINIGHTOUTCCESSRIVE AM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 3B Eastbound Approach B PM PEAK HOUR SCENARIO MOVEMENT 3B Eastbound Approach C S3B: Redistributed Year 2016 Traffic Volumes plus Generated Traffic Volumes from CENARIO Proposed Development with Proposed Intersection Geometrics* with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access * The proposed intersection geometrics include the following: The proposed access drive constructed as a right-in/right-out only drive with one inbound lane and one outbound lane. Addition of a southbound right-turn lane along Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor to the proposed access drive. One-way stop controlled intersection with proposed access drive stopping for Keystone Parkway. 27 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 at 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. KP&CD EYSTONE ARKWAY ARMEL RIVE Scenario 1 – A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that this intersection operates above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Scenario 2 – A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the year 2016 background traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that this intersection will continue to operate above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Scenario 3A – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), the intersection will continue to operate above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour with the existing intersection geometrics. Scenario 3B – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), the intersection will continue to operate above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour with the existing intersection geometrics. 28 TH 126S&KP TREET EYSTONE ARKWAY Scenario 1 – A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that this intersection operates above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Scenario 2 – A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the year 2016 background traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that this intersection will continue to operate above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Scenario 3A – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), the intersection will continue to operate above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour with the existing intersection geometrics. Scenario 3B – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), the intersection will continue to operate above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour with the existing intersection geometrics. TH 126S&MHD/MD TREET OHAWK ILLS RIVEELARK RIVE Scenario 1 – A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that all approaches at this intersection will operate at level of service D or better. Scenario 2 – A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the year 2016 background traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that all approaches at this intersection will continue to operate at level of service D or better. Scenario 3A – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), the southbound approach to this intersection will experience delays during the AM and PM peak hour with the proposed intersection geometrics and control. 29 Scenario 3B – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), the southbound approach to this intersection will experience delays during the AM and PM peak hour with the proposed intersection geometrics and control. TH 126S&PMAD TREET ROPOSED IDDLE CCESS RIVE Scenario 3A – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), all approaches to this intersection will operate at or above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour with the proposed intersection geometrics and control. Scenario 3B – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), all approaches to this intersection will operate at or above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour with the proposed intersection geometrics and control. TH 126S&KA TREET INZER VENUE Scenario 1 – A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that all approaches to this intersection operates at or above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Scenario 2 – A review of the level of service for each of the intersection approaches, with the year 2016 background traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, has shown that all approaches to this intersection will continue to operate at or above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Scenario 3A – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (without Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), all approaches to this intersection will operate at level of service D or above with proposed intersection geometrics. 30 Scenario 3B – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), all approaches to this intersection will operate at level of service D or above with proposed intersection geometrics. KP&PR-/R-D EYSTONE ARKWAY ROPOSED IGHTINIGHTOUT RIVE Scenario 3B – When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the year 2016 background traffic volumes (with Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor Access), all approaches to this intersection will operate at or above acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour with the proposed intersection geometrics and control. Based on the analysis and the conclusions, the following recommendations are made to ensure that the roadway system will operate at acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as proposed. KP&CD EYSTONE ARKWAY ARMEL RIVE The existing intersection geometrics and control will accommodate the projected traffic volumes for all the scenarios. Therefore, no improvements are needed at this location. TH 126S&KP TREET EYSTONE ARKWAY The existing intersection geometrics and control will accommodate the projected traffic volumes for all the scenarios. Therefore, no improvements are needed at this location. The addition of the proposed right-in/right out access drive along the Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor will reduce the future generated traffic volumes at this location by 2% and 1% during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour respectively. 31 TH 126S&MHD/MD TREET OHAWK ILLS RIVEELARK RIVE Analysis has shown that the southbound approach to this intersection will experience delays during th the peak hours primarily due to the amount of through traffic along 126 Street. However the existing southbound traffic from Melark Drive is low. Therefore, no improvements are recommended for this approach at this time. When the proposed development is constructed, the following conditions are recommended for safe and efficient movement of traffic at this drive: The eastbound approach to this intersection constructed with a right-turn lane to the drive. The addition of the proposed right-in/right out access drive along the Keystone Parkway Collector- Distributor will reduce the future generated traffic volumes at this location by 4% and 3% during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour respectively. TH 126S&PMAD TREET ROPOSED IDDLE CCESS RIVE When the proposed development is constructed, the following conditions are recommended for safe and efficient movement of traffic at this drive: The proposed access drive constructed with one inbound lane and one outbound lane. One-way stop controlled intersection with the proposed middle access drive stopping for th 126 Street. The eastbound approach to this intersection constructed with a right-turn lane to the drive. The westbound approach to this intersection constructed with a left-turn lane to the drive. The addition of the proposed right-in/right out access drive along the Keystone Parkway Collector- Distributor will reduce the future generated traffic volumes at this location by 3% and 2% during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour respectively. 32 TH 126S&KA TREET INZER VENUE When the proposed development is constructed, the following conditions are recommended for safe and efficient movement of traffic at this drive: The proposed access drive constructed with one inbound lane and one outbound lane. This access drive must be aligned with the existing Kinzer Avenue on the north side of th 126 Street. Two-way stop controlled intersection with Kinzer Avenue and the proposed access drive th stopping for 126 Street. The eastbound approach to this intersection constructed with a right-turn lane to the drive. The westbound approach to this intersection constructed with a left-turn lane to the drive. The addition of the proposed right-in/right out access drive along the Keystone Parkway Collector- Distributor will reduce the future generated traffic volumes at this location by 1% during the AM and PM peak hour. KPC-DR&PR-/R-A EYSTONE ARKWAY OLLECTORISTRIBUTOR OAD ROPOSED IGHTINIGHTOUT CCESS D RIVE When the proposed development is constructed, the following conditions are recommended for safe and efficient movement of traffic at this drive: The proposed access drive constructed as a right-in/right-out only drive with one inbound lane and one outbound lane. Addition of a southbound right-turn lane along Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor to the proposed access drive. One-way stop controlled intersection with the proposed access drive stopping for Keystone Parkway Collector-Distributor. 33