HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Analysis PrelimTRI4FFIC IMP4c1 STUDY
PROPOSED Ruiiiit DEVELOPMENT
tis 4z1 & 9S" STREET
CARMFL, INDIAAII
PRFPARFD FOR
Hc�H RFSTAIJRANT MANAGEMENT
NOVEMBER 2012
A&F ENGINEERING
Tran portation Engineering Services
COPYRIGHT
HRH RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY- CARMEL, INDIANA
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.
A.
02012, A &F Engineering Co., LLC
A&F ENGINEERING
Trap portation Engineering Services
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY- CARMEL, INDIANA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS II
LIST OF FIGURES III
CERTIFICATION N
INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE 1
SCOPE OF WORK 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2
STUDY AREA 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM 4
EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA 4
PEAK HOUR 4
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6
INTERNAL TRIPS 6
PASS -BY TRIPS 7
TABLE 2 — INTERNAL TRIP AND PASS -BY TRIP REDUCTIONS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS 8
GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM 8
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS 12
TABLE 3 — 24 -HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALONG US 421 12
TABLE 4 — 24 -HOUR GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 13
TABLE 5 — GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (24 -HR) 13
US 421 AND 98TH STREET /PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE 13
TABLE 6 — SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC AND GENERATED TRAFFIC FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: US 421 & 98TH
STREET /PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE 14
CAPACITY ANALYSIS 15
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE 15
CAPACITY ANALYSES SCENARIOS 17
ANALYSES RESULTS 17
TABLE 7 — LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: US 421 & 96TH STREET 20
TABLE 8 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: US 421 & 98TH STREET /PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE 21
TABLE 9 — LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: US 421 & 99TH STREET /COMMERCE DRIVE 22
TABLE 10 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: US 421 & PROPOSED RIGHT -IN /RIGHT -OUT ACCESS DRIVE 23
CONCLUSIONS 24
RECOMMENDATIONS 25
II
A&F ENGINEERING
Transportation Engineering Services
,�.
i:isi- OF fiGuREs
HRH RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY- CARMEL, INDIANA
FIGURE 1: AREA MAP 3
FIGURE 2: EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS 5
FIGURE 3A: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED NON PASS -BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT 9
FIGURE 3B: ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED PASS -BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT 10
FIGURE 4: TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 11
FIGURE 5: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 18
FIGURE 6: SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 19
III
A&F ENGINEERING
NG
Transportation Engineering Services
c,.. tird Oniee sue.
HRH RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
CEimFIcLi 11041
I certify that this TRAFFIC IMracT STUDY 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., LLC
R. Matt Brown, P.E.
Indiana Registration 10200056
``` \\\\IIIIIIIii,,, /� //
\ ��� E '✓ / /,,
„, .,
®1
IF
F
// /111111 ►00
Abhishek A. Joshi, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
IV
A&F ENGINEERING
Trrnn Aorta bon Engineering Service5
C.rot 0r +ee F
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY- CARMEL, INDIANA
I,%JTRODVCIIO,%J
This TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, prepared at the request of H &H Restaurant Management is for a
proposed retail development that will be located at US 421 (Michigan Road) & 98th Street 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. 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.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this analysis is as follows:
First, to obtain peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts between the hours of 6:00 and
9:00 AM and 4:00 and 7:00 PM at all existing study intersections.
Second, to obtain 48 -hour average daily traffic counts along US 421 & 98th Street adjacent to the
subject site.
Third, to estimate the daily and peak hour generated traffic volumes by the proposed development.
1
#, A&F ENGINEERING
H &HRESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
Transportairon Engineering Servic TRAFFIC IMPACT ETUDE- CARMEL, INDIANA
Fourth, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the driveways and /or roadways that will provide
access to the proposed development and to distribute these volumes onto the public roadway system
and intersections that have been identified as the study area.
Fifth, to prepare a Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis at the intersection of US 421 & 98th
Street /Proposed Access Drive based on the sum of existing traffic and generated traffic from the
proposed development.
Sixth, to prepare a capacity analysis and level of service analysis at each study intersection based on
the following scenarios:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes - Based on existing roadway conditions and traffic
volumes.
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Traffic Volumes — Traffic
generated by full build out of the proposed development added to the existing traffic volumes.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY documenting all data, analyses, conclusions and
recommendations to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic through the study
area.
DEscRIPrioN OF THE PROJECT
The proposed development will be a retail development that will be served via a proposed full -
access drive and a right - in/right -out drive along US 421. The full- access drive will be aligned with
the existing 98th Street on the east side of US 421. As proposed, the development will consist of a 12
fuel position gas station with a convenience store, a 2,300 square foot Dunkin Donuts coffee shop
and 6,000 square feet of general retail development. Figure 1 is an area map showing the proposed
site, the existing study intersections, and the proposed access drives.
STVDYARn
The study area for this analysis has been defined to include the following intersections:
• US 421 & 96th Street
• US 421 & 98th Street/Proposed Access Drive
• US 421 & 99th Street
• US 421 & Proposed Right- in/Right -out Drive
2
e EVELOPMENT D RIPS FOR Trip Generation
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 Manualisused by transportation
professionals to calculate the number of trips that will be generated by aproposed 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 thoseland uses.There is not a clearly defined land-use for a Co-Branded Gas Station
in ITE’s Trip GenerationManual. Therefore, in order to estimate the amount of traffic generated
from the Co-Branded Gas Station,Trip-Generation Models for Multiuse Highway Commercial
2
Appendix
Developmentswas used(see for article).The estimate of traffic generated by the
The estimate of traffic generated by The estimate of traffic generated by
remainingportion of the proposed development was obtained from theTrip GenerationManual.
portion of the proposed development was obtained from thportion of the proposed development was obtained from th
Trip Generation
e
Table 1
is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
T1-GTPD
ABLE ENERATED RIPS FOR ROPOSED EVELOPMENT
PPD
RIPS FOR ROPOSED ROPOSED EVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATIONGENERATED TRIPS
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATIONDEVELOPMENT INFORMATION
AM PEAK HOURPM PEAK HOUR
ITE
AM PEAK HOUR
AM PEAK HOUR
SIZE
SIZESIZE
LAND USECODE
ENTEREXITENTEREXIT
12 Fueling Positions/
12 Fueling Positions/ 12 Fueling Positions/
Co-Branded Gas Station- 4,429 SF C-Store/117117128128
Store/Store/
4,429 SF429 SF C- C-
4,
2,300 SF Dunkin Donut
2,300 SF Dunkin Donut2,300 SF Dunkin Donut
Retail8206,000 SF17114348
8208206,000 SF6,000 SF
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two or more land useswithout traversing the
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two An internal trip results when a trip is made between two
external roadway system. There will be internal trips between the land uses considered in this
study. However, these trips have been assumed negligible in order to create a maximum traffic
“worst-case” scenario.
1th
Trip GenerationManual, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9Edition, 2012. Pgs. 1562-
1563.
2
ITE Journal, “Trip-Generation Models for Multiuse Highway Commercial Developments”,Datta,
Datta and Nannapaneni, February 1998. Pgs 24-30.
6
A&F ENGINEERING
Trrnn Aorta bon Engineering Service5
C.rot 0r +ee F
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
DEscRIPrioN OF THE ABVHJI%JG STREET SYSTEM
The proposed development would be served by the public roadway system that includes US 421
and 98th Street.
US 421 (MIcHIGAN ROAD) — is north -south roadway. The proposed development will have direct
access to US 421 through a proposed full access drive as well as a proposed right- in/right -out access
drive. In the vicinity of the proposed development, US 421 is a four -lane roadway with a two-way
left-turn lane and the posted speed limit is 45 mph.
98' STREET — is an east /west two -lane roadway and the posted speed limit is 25 mph.
US 421 & 96th Street — This intersection is controlled by an actuated traffic signal. The existing
intersection geometrics are shown on Figure 2.
US 421 & 98th Street — This intersection is a stop controlled "T- intersection" with 98th Street
stopping for US 421. The existing intersection geometrics are shown on Figure 2.
US 421 & 99th Street — This intersection is controlled by an actuated traffic signal. The existing
intersection geometrics are shown on Figure
EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour turning movement traffic volume counts were conducted 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 intersection. The counts were made during the hours of 6:00 AM to 9:00
AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM during April 2012 and November 2012, when school was in
session. In addition, average daily traffic counts were made along 98th Street east of US 421. A
summary of the peak hour intersection counts are shown on Figure 5. Computer output
summary sheets of all conducted counts are included in the Appendix.
PMK HouR
Based on the existing traffic volumes that were collected for this analysis, the AM peak hour occurs
between 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM at the three study intersections and the PM peak hour varies for the
three intersections. The actual peak hour volumes collected at each intersection during these times
will be used within this analysis in order to consider the maximum amount of traffic along the
adjacent roadway system.
4
-
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
To determine the volumes of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the 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
generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their generated traffic must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their
intersection with the driveways. For the proposed development, the distributionwas based
intersection with the driveways. For the proposed development, the distributionintersection with the driveways. For the proposed development, the distribution
on the location of the development, the location of near-by population centers, the existing
on the location of the development, the location of nearon the location of the development, the location of nearby population centers, the existing by population centers, the existing
--
traffic patterns, and the assignment of generated traffic.
traffic patterns, and the assignment of generated traffic.traffic patterns, and the assignment of generated traffic.
The assignment and distribution of the generated non pass-by and pass-by traffic volumes forthe
The assignment and distribution of the generated non passThe assignment and distribution of the generated non passby and passby and pass
-
Figure 3A Figure 3B
proposed development are shown onandrespectively.
andand
Figure 3A Figure 3B Figure 3B
Figure 3A
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been
prepared
at each of the study intersections. The total (non pass-by and pass-by) peak hour generated traffic
at each of the study intersections. Tat each of the study intersections. The total (non passhe total (non pass
Figure 4
volumes for the proposed development are shown on .These data are based on the
volumes for the proposed development are shown on volumes for the proposed development are shown on
previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated traffic, and distribution of
previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated traffic, and distribution of previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated traffic, and distribution
of
Appendix
generatedtraffic. Figures included in the show the generated non pass-by and generated
Figures included in the Figures included in the
pass-by traffic volumes separately.
8
A&F ENGINEERING
Transportation Engineering Service5
Gros,' 0r +ee r E
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ETUDE- CARMEL, INDIANA
GENERATED TR4FFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development is a function of the
development size and character of the land use. Trip Generation Manual' is used by transportation
professionals to calculate the number of trips that will be generated by a 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. There is not a clearly defined land -use for a Co- Branded Gas Station
in ITE's Trip Generation Manual. Therefore, in order to estimate the amount of traffic generated
from the Co- Branded Gas Station, Trip - Generation Models for Multiuse Highway Commercial
Developments2 was used (see Appendix for article). The estimate of traffic generated by the
remaining portion of the proposed development was obtained from the Trip Generation Manual.
Table 1 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by the proposed development.
TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION
GENERATED TRIPS
LALAND USE
N US
ITE
CODE
CO
SIZE
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
ENTER
EXIT
ENTER
EXIT
Co- Branded Gas Station
-
12 Fueling Positions/
4,429 SF C- Store/
2,300 SF Dunkin Donut
117
117
128
128
Retail
820
6,000 SF
17
11
43
48
1
INI1fRNAL TRIPS
An internal trip results when a trip is made between two or more land uses without traversing the
external roadway system. There will be internal trips between the land uses considered in this
study. However, these trips have been assumed negligible in order to create a maximum traffic
"worst- case" scenario.
1 Trip Generation Manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2012. Pgs. 1562-
1563.
2 ITE Journal, "Trip- Generation Models for Multiuse Highway Commercial Developments ", Datta,
Datta and Nannapaneni, February 1998. Pgs 24 -30.
6
A&F ENGINEERING
Tr 'sport Iron Engineering Service5
Crow%Or +ee F944
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
Piss-Bv IRIPS
Pass -by trips are trips already on the roadway system that are captured by a proposed development.
The pass -by trip percentages published in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook3 were used to
estimate the reduction in trips for the retail portion of the proposed development. An estimate of the
pass -by trip percentages for the co- branded gas station was made by A &F Engineering based on the
pass -by trip percentages for a service station with convenience market and a Dunkin Donuts
(Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop) with a drive-through as published in the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook. Table 2 summarizes the pass -by trip reductions for the proposed development.
TABLE 2 — INTERNAL TRIP AND PASS -BY TRIP REDUCTIONS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION
GENERATED TRIPS
LALAND USE
N US
ITE
CODE
CO
SIZE
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ENTER
EXIT
ENTER
EXIT
Co- Branded Gas Station
-
12 Fueling Positions/
4,429 SF C- Store/
2,300 SF Dunkin Donut
117
117
128
128
Co- Branded Gas Station Pass -by Trips (55 %)
64
64
70
70
Co- Branded Gas Station Non Pass -by Trips (45%)
53
53
58
58
Retail
820
6,000 SF
17
11
43
48
Retail Pass -by Trips (80 %)
14
8
34
39
Retail Non Pass -by Trip (20 %)
3
3
9
9
Total Pass -by Trips
78
72
104
109
Total Non Pass -by Trips
56
56
67
67
3 Trip Generation Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001. Pass -By Trips pg. 69.
7
*ALF ENGINEERING
Trans ort iron Engineering Service5
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY- CARMEL, INDIANA
ASSIG4JMEI%JTAI%JD DIsrRIBvrioN OF GENERATED IRIPS
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 non pass -by and pass -by traffic volumes for the
proposed development are shown on Figure 3A and Figure 3B respectively.
GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the proposed development have been prepared
at each of the study intersections. The total (non pass -by and pass -by) peak hour generated traffic
volumes for the proposed development are shown on Figure 4. These data are based on the
previously discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated traffic, and distribution of
generated traffic. Figures included in the Appendix show the generated non pass -by and generated
pass -by traffic volumes separately.
8
t at the intersection of US 421approach the intersection. It is defined by the Levt at the intersection of US 421
CRITERIA 4C-2 (B1) - INTERRUPTION OF CONT. TRAFFIC (ADT EQUIVALENT)
Required VolumeProjected VolumeProjected > Required?
US 42115,00046,851Yes
th
98Street/
3,100751No
Proposed AccessDrive
Requirement: Projected volumes must be greater than required volumes for both streets
Criteria 4C-2 (B1) is not met.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS RESULTS
Based on the projected traffic volumes of the warrant analysis, the 24-hour volume
requirements of Criteria 4C-2 (A1 & B1)will not be met at the intersection of US 421and
th
98 Street/proposed access drive.
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that 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
elel-of--of-
approach the intersection. It is defined by the LevService (LOS) of the intersection. The Service (LOS) of the intersection. The
LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data
LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data 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
into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use
of lanes
and, in the caseof signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each
of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each 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
of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer
4
program Synchro. This program allows multiple intersections to be analyzed and optimized
. This program allows multiple intersections to be analyzed and . This program allows multiple intersections to be analyzed and
5
using the capacity calculation methods outlined within the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
using the capacity calculation methods outlined within the using the capacity calculation methods outlined within the
The following descriptions are for signalized intersections:
The following descriptions are for signalized intersections: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.
4
Synchro 8.0,Trafficware, 2011.
5
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 2010.
15
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.
Level of Service D
- describes operations with delay inthe 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.
delay values generally indicate poor progression and long cycle delay values generally indicate poor progression and long cycle
Level of Service F
- describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle.
describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle.
This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition
This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition
often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the
often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
y of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may y of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
Note:Typically, the minimum acceptable LOS is C for minor roadway signalized intersections,
Typically, the minimum acceptable LOS is C for minor roadway signalized intersections, Typically, the minimum acceptable LOS is C for minor roadway signalized intersections,
while LOS D is considered the lowest acceptable standard at major signalized
while LOS D is considered the lowest awhile LOS D is considered the lowest acceptable standard at major signalized cceptable standard at major signalized
intersections.
The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized intersection:
The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized intersection: The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized
intersection:
Level of ServiceControl Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Level of ServiceLevel of Service
ALess than or equal to 10
AA
BBetween 10.1 and 15
BB
CBetween 15.1 and 25
CC
DBetween 25.1 and 35
EBetween 35.1 and 50
Fgreater than 50
Note:LOS D is typically considered the lowest acceptable level of service along minor
roadway approaches.However, at intersections with major roadways, LOS E or Fis not
uncommon on minor approaches during the peak hours.
16
Figure thth
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 – These are the existing traffic volumes that were
CENARIO
existing existing
Figure 5
obtained during April 2012and November 2012. is a summary of
and November 2012. and November 2012.
Figure
these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours.
these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours.these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours.
S2:ExistingTraffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Traffic
CENARIO
Proposed Development Proposed Development
Volumes – Generated traffic volumes from thefull build-out of theproposed
Generated traffic volumes from theGenerated traffic volumes from thefull buildfull build
Figure 6
development added to the existingtraffic volumes.summarizes
existingexistingtraffic volumestraffic volumes
these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours.
these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours.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
The requested analyses have been completed and the results have been tabulated. TThe requested analyses have been completed and the results have been tabulated. T
tables are a summary of the capacity analyses and show the resulting levels of service. The
tables are a summary of the capacity analyses and show the resulting levels of service. The 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 inthe.
computer solutions showing the capacity analyses are includecomputer solutions showing the capacity analyses are include
th
th
Table 7
– US 421 & 96Street
US 421 & 96US 421 & 96StreetStreet
th
th
Table 8
– US 421 & 98Street/Proposed Access Drive
Street/Proposed Street/Proposed
US 421 & 98US 421 & 98
th
th
Table 9
– US 421 & 99Street
US 421 & 99US 421 & 99Street
th
Street
Table 10
– US 421 & Proposed Right-in/Right-out Access Drive
US 421 & Proposed RightUS 421 & Proposed Right
17
ALF ENGINEERIPG H &HRESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
Transportation Engineering Services
ofig TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
TRAFFIC SIGNLiL WARRANT ANALYSIS
A traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted in order to determine if a traffic signal would
be warranted at the intersection of US 421 and 98th Street/ Proposed Access Drive when the study
site is developed as proposed. The analysis is based on the existing traffic volumes and the
additional traffic generated by the proposed development. The analysis was performed according to
the procedures outlined in Criteria 4C -2 (Al & B1) of the Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Streets and Highways.
EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA — US 421 & 98TH STREET
A &F Engineering obtained an average daily traffic counts along US 421 and 98th Street near the
subject site. The following table summarizes the 24 -hour traffic volume counts, while an hourly
breakdown of these counts is summarized on computer printouts included in the Appendix.
TABLE 3 — 24 -HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALONG US 421
TIME
US 421
98TH STREET
NORTHBOUND
APPROACH
SOUTHBOUND
APPROACH
NB +SB
WB
24 -hour
23,475
22,667
46, 143
67
GENERATED TRAFFIC DATA — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Trip Generation report was used to predict the 24 -hour trips that the retail portion of the
proposed development will generate. An estimate of the 24 -hour trips generated by the co-
branded gas station was made by A &F Engineering based on the 24 -hour and peak hour
generated trips by the fast -food restaurant with drive through land use and service station with
convenience market land use as published by the ITE. From this data it was concluded that the
sum of the AM and PM peak hour trips for these type of land uses are roughly 15% of the 24
hour trips. Thus, in order to obtain a 24 hour trip estimate for the co- branded gas station the
peak hour volumes we summed together and divided by 15 %. The resulting 24 -hour trips
generated by the proposed development are shown on Table 4. The pass -by trip reductions
were applied based on the earlier discussion in this report.
12
A&F ENGINEERING
Trrnn portaton Engineering Se rvice
ors &ott
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
TABLE 4 — 24 -HOUR GENERATED TRIPS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION
24 -HOUR GENERATED TRIPS
LAND USE
ITE
CODE
SIZE
ENTER
N
EXIT
Co- Branded Gas Station
-
12 Fueling Positions/
4,429 SF C- Store/
2,300 SF Dunkin Donut
1634
1633
Co- Branded Gas Station Pass -By Trips (55 %)
899
898
Co- Branded Gas Station Non Pass -By Trips (45%)
735
735
Retail
820
6,000 SF
545
546
Retail Pass -By Trips (80 %)
436
437
Retail Non Pass -By Trips (20 %)
109
109
Total External Pass -By Trips
1335
1335
Total External Non Pass -By Trips i
844
844
A.
The 24 -hour generated traffic volumes listed in the table above were then assigned and
distributed to the intersection of US 421 and 98th Street /Proposed Access Drive according to the
assignment and distribution percentages shown on Figure 3A and Figure 3B. Table 5
summarizes the generated 24 -hour traffic volumes from the proposed development that will be
added to the study intersection.
TABLE 5 — GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (Z4 -HR)
US 421 AND 98TH STREET /PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
TIME PERIOD
US 421
981H STREET/
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
NB
SB
NB +SB
EB
WB
EB +WB
24 -hour
270
439
709
684
Negligible
684
TRAFFIC SIGNAL CRITERIA
The following criteria from the Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets
and Highways were used for the warrant analysis:
Criteria 4C-2 (Al) — Minimum Vehicular Volume (ADT Equivalent)
Criteria 4C -2 (B1) — Interruption of Continuous Traffic (ADT Equivalent)
These criteria are the 24 -hour volume equivalents of Criteria 4C-1A and Criteria 4C-1B.
According to the Indiana MUTCD, the volumes needed for these criteria for the 24 -hour volume
requirements are the sum of both approaches along the major road and the sum of both
13
A&F ENGINEERING
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
Transportairon Engineering rvic TRAFFIC IMPACT ETUDE— CARMEL, INDIANA
moo+ � � �
approaches along the along the minor road. For this analysis, US 421 is the major road while
98th Street /proposed access drive is the minor road.
In order to determine if a traffic signal will be warranted, the volumes shown in the Table 6 are
compared to the 24 -hour volumes required to meet either Criteria 4C -2 (Al) or Criteria 4C-2
(B1).
TABLE 6 — SUM OF EXISTING TRAFFIC AND GENERATED TRAFFIC FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
US 421 & 98TH STREET /PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
TIME PERIOD
US 421
981H STREET/
PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
NB
SB
NB +SB
EB
WB
EB +WB
24 -hour
23,745
23,106
46,851
684
67
751
CRITERIA IA AND CRITERIA IB: US 421 and 98`h Street /Proposed Access Drive
The following is a step -wise breakdown of Criteria 4C -2 (Al) and Criteria 4C -2 (B1) for the
intersection in question.
US 421 & 98TH STREET/PROPOSE D ACCESS DRIVE
CARMEL, INDIANA
Qualifiers:
School Crossing No
Existing Signal No
Isolated Community under 10,000 No
Rural Criteria Applicable N/A
Speed on Major Street 45 mph
40 MPH Speed Exceeded Criteria Applicable Yes
US 421: Major Street 2+ Lane Approach
98th Street/Proposed Access Drive: Minor Street 2 Lane Approach
CRITERIA 4C -2 (Al) - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME (ADT EQUIVALENT)
Required Volume Projected Volume
Projected > Required?
US 421 10,000 46,851 Yes
98th Street/
Proposed Access Drive
Requirement: Projected volumes must be greater than required volumes for both streets
Criteria 4C -2 (Al) is not met.
6,000
751 No
14
A&F ENGINEERING
1• nnsportabon Engineering ervice
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY- CARMEL, INDIANA
CRITERIA 4C -2 (B1) - INTERRUPTION OF CONT. TRAFFIC (ADT EQUIVALENT)
Required Volume Projected Volume Projected > Required?
US 421 15,000
98th Street/
Proposed Access Drive
Requirement: Projected volumes must be greater than required volumes for both streets
Criteria 4C -2 (Bi) is not met.
3,100
46,851 Yes
751 No
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS RESULTS
Based on the projected traffic volumes of the warrant analysis, the 24 -hour volume
requirements of Criteria 4C -2 (Al & B1) will not be met at the intersection of US 421 and
98th Street /proposed access drive.
CwicirvAivitvsis �•
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
program Synchro4. This program allows multiple intersections to be analyzed and optimized
using the capacity calculation methods outlined within the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)5.
DEscRIPrioN OF tfl' Si_ it VICE
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.
4 Synchro 8.0, Trafficware, 2011.
5 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 2010.
15
A&F ENGINEERING
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
Transportairon Engineering Services' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
1
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.
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.
Note: Typically, the minimum acceptable LOS is C for minor roadway signalized intersections,
while LOS D is considered the lowest acceptable standard at major signalized
intersections.
The following list shows the delays related to the levels of service for unsignalized intersection:
Level of Service Control 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
Note: LOS D is typically considered the lowest acceptable level of service along minor
roadway approaches. However, at intersections with major roadways, LOS E or F is not
uncommon on minor approaches during the peak hours.
16
A&F ENGINEERING
Trrnnsportabon Engineering Service5
C.rot 0r +ee r E
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
CLiPLicIn'ANLit YSES SCENLIRIOS
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:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes — These are the existing traffic volumes that were
obtained during April 2012 and November 2012. Figure 5 is a summary of
these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours.
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Traffic
Volumes — Generated traffic volumes from the full build -out of the proposed
development added to the existing traffic volumes. Figure 6 summarizes
these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours.
ANALYSES RESULTS
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
computer solutions showing the capacity analyses are included in the Appendix.
Table 7 — US 421 & 96th Street
Table 8 — US 421 & 98th Street/Proposed Access Drive
Table 9 — US 421 & 99th Street
Table 10 — US 421 & Proposed Right - in/Right -out Access Drive
17
US421&PR-I/R-O
ROPOSED IGHTNIGHTUT
When the proposed development is constructed, this drive shouldbe constructed toinclude the
following intersection conditions:
Right-in/right-out access drive with one inboundlane and oneoutbound lane.
Intersection stop controlled with the access drive stopping for US 421.
A turn lane analysis carried out at this intersection per the INDOT permit manualshows that
a southbound right-turn lane will not be warranted at this intersection. However, if required
th
by INDOT, the proposed southbound right-turn lane at the intersection of US 421 and 98
Street/Proposed Access Drive couldbe extended along US 421 to the proposed right-
in/right-out access drive.
26
C/R IN.RIVEROPOSED ITE S-O
AF……………………………………………………………..
1
DDITIONAL IGURES
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………..
48-HVC:US421……………………………………………
4
OUR OLUME OUNTS
…………………………………………………………………………………………
TH
48-HVC:98S………………………………………
6
OUR OLUMEOUNTSTREET
………………………………………………………………………………
ITEJPTGC-BS……..…..
10
OURNAL APER ON RIP ENERATION FOR ORANDED ITE
CS
B
B
ENERATION FOR ENERATION FOR O
RANDED RANDED ITE
-
TH
US421&96S………….….………………………………………..…..
17
TREET
………….….………………………………………..…………….….………………………………………..…
TH
US421&99S……………………………..……………….…………...
24
TREET
……………………………..……………….…………...……………………………..……………….…………...
TH
US421&98S/PAD.……………….…………...
31
TREETROPOSED CCESS RIVE
AAD
ROPOSED CCESS CCESS
RIVE
D
.
……………….…………...……………….…………...
US421&PR-/R-AD……….…………...
38
ROPOSED IGHTINIGHTOUT CCESS RIVE
/RAAD
IGHTIGHTOUT CCESS CCESS
RIVERIVE
OUT
IN
--
D
*A&F ENGINEERING
Transportation Engineering Se rvice
o &nte r
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
TABLE 7 — LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: US 421 & 96TH STREET
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO
MOVEMENT
LOS /Delay (s /veh)
Northbound Approach
1
2
Northbound Approach
F/138.9
F/139.1
Southbound Approach
D/43.1
D/43.3
Eastbound Approach
F/230.7
F/229.1
Westbound Approach
D /53.1
D /53.0
Intersection
F/98.8
F/98.6
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO
LOS /Delay (s /veh)
1
2
Northbound Approach
D /50.2
D/52.7
Southbound Approach
C/29.9
C /30.1
Eastbound Approach
F/97.6
F/97.3
Westbound Approach
D/45.6
D/45.6
Intersection
D /51.3
D/52.3
DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Existing
Signal Timings.
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes added to the Traffic Generated by the Proposed
Development with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Existing Signal Timings.
20
. F ENGINEERING
1ru /sp Fta tron Engineering Se rvice
ors &ott
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
TABLE 8 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: US 421 & 98TH STREET /PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO
1
2
Northbound Approach
N/A
Northbound Approach
A
Southbound Approach
A
Southbound Approach
A
Eastbound Approach
N/A
Eastbound Approach
F
Westbound Approach
C
Westbound Approach
D
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO
1
2
Northbound Approach
N/A
Northbound Approach
A
Southbound Approach
A
Southbound Approach
A
Eastbound Approach
N/A
Eastbound Approach
F
Westbound Approach
C
Westbound Approach
C
DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Control.
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes added to the Traffic Generated by the Proposed
Development with Proposed Intersection Conditions *.
* The proposed intersection conditions include the following:
• The proposed development access drive constructed with two outbound lanes and one
inbound lane. This access drive will be aligned with the existing 98th Street on the east side
of US 421.
• Two -way stop controlled intersection with the Proposed Access Drive /98th Street stopping
for US 421.
• The construction of a southbound right turn lane along US 421 at the proposed access drive.
• A northbound and southbound left turn lane along US 421. These turn lanes are provided
by the existing two -way left turn lane.
21
*A&F ENGINEERING
Transportation Engineering Se rvice
o+ &ott
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
TABLE 9 — LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: US 421 & 99TH STREET /COMMERCE DRIVE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO
LOS /Delay (s /veh)
1
2
Northbound Approach
D /50.0
D/49.1
Southbound Approach
G33.7
D/36.2
Eastbound Approach
D/40.7
D/40.7
Westbound Approach
D/39.1
D/39.1
Intersection
D/40.6
D/41.6
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO
LOS /Delay (s /veh)
1
2
Northbound Approach
D/38.7
D/45.3
Southbound Approach
G25.6
G26.8
Eastbound Approach
E /75.1
E /75.1
Westbound Approach
D/42.0
D/42.0
Intersection
D/37.0
D/40.6
DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS:
SCENARIO 1: Existing Traffic Volumes with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Existing
Signal Timings.
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes added to the Traffic Generated by the Proposed
Development with Existing Intersection Geometrics and Existing Signal Timings.
22
A&F ENGINEERING
Tran port Lion Engineering e r-v'ice
Cr/NOV 0 +ee 04E
T
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
TABLE 10 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY: US 421 & PROPOSED RIGHT -IN /RIGHT -OUT ACCESS
DRIVE
AM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO
LOS
2
Eastbound Right -Turn
B
PM PEAK HOUR
MOVEMENT
SCENARIO
LOS
2
Eastbound Right -Turn
w. B
DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS:
SCENARIO 2: Existing Traffic Volumes added to the Traffic Generated by the Proposed
Development with Proposed Intersection Conditions *.
* The proposed intersection conditions include the following:
• The proposed development access drive constructed as a right - in/right -out only with one
inbound lane and one outbound lane.
• Stop controlled "T" intersection with the proposed access drive stopping for US 421.
23
A&F ENGINEERING
Trrnnsportabon Engineering Service5
C.rot 0r +ee r E
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
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 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.
US 421 & 96TH STREET
A level of service review with the existing intersection geometrics and existing traffic signal timings
shows that this intersection operates below acceptable levels of service with existing traffic volumes
during the AM peak hour. When the proposed development generated traffic volumes are added to
the existing traffic volumes the delays change very little and the level of service results for the
intersection remain the same.
US 421 & 98TH STREET /PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
A level of service review for each of the intersection approaches, with existing intersection
geometrics and control, has shown that all approaches to this intersection operate above acceptable
levels of service with existing traffic volumes.
When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic
volumes, analysis has shown that a traffic signal will not be warranted at this location. Hence this
intersection was analyzed as a two -way stop controlled intersection with 98th Street /Proposed
Access Drive stopping for US 421. Capacity analysis results show that the eastbound approach to
this intersection will experience delays during the peak hours. However, upstream and downstream
traffic signals along US 421 will provide gaps in the through traffic stream which should help to
reduce delays for vehicles exiting the proposed development.
24
A&F ENGINEERING
T nnsporta bon Engineering Se rvice
co c.tiriefilet&ott MSC
US 421 & 99TH STREET /COMMERCE DRIVE
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
A level of service review with the existing intersection geometrics and existing traffic signal timings
shows that this intersection operates at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours. When the
proposed development generated traffic volumes are added to the existing traffic volumes this
intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours.
US 421 & PROPOSED RIGHT -IN /RIGHT -OUT ACCESS DRIVE
When the generated traffic volumes from the proposed development are added to the existing traffic
volumes, all approaches to this intersection will operate above acceptable levels of service with the
proposed intersection geometrics.
RECOMMENDLI JJOI%JS
Based on the analysis completed for this study the following recommendations are formulated.
US 421 & 96TH STREET
Improvements at this intersection are not recommended based on the small percentage of added
delay and traffic volumes at this location due to the proposed development.
US 421 & 98TH STREET /PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE
The following intersection conditions are recommended when the subject site is developed as
proposed:
• The proposed development access drive constructed with two outbound lanes and one
inbound lane. This access drive will be aligned with the existing 98th Street on the east.
• Two -way stop controlled intersection with the Proposed Access Drive /98th Street stopping
for US 421.
• The construction of a southbound right turn lane along US 421 at the proposed access drive.
• The use of the existing two -way left turn lane along US 421 to create northbound and
southbound left turn lanes to access 98th Street and the proposed access drive.
US 421 & 99' STREET
No improvements are recommended at this intersection.
25
A&F ENGINEERING
Transportation Engineering Se rvice
cmtirief.de, &ott
H &H RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY— CARMEL, INDIANA
US 421 & PROPOSED RIGHT -IN /RIGHT -OUT
When the proposed development is constructed, this drive should be constructed to include the
following intersection conditions:
• Right - in/right -out access drive with one inbound lane and one outbound lane.
• Intersection stop controlled with the access drive stopping for US 421.
• A turn lane analysis carried out at this intersection per the INDOT permit manual shows that
a southbound right -turn lane will not be warranted at this intersection. However, if required
by INDOT, the proposed southbound right -turn lane at the intersection of US 421 and 98th
Street /Proposed Access Drive could be extended along US 421 to the proposed right -
in/right -out access drive.
26
TRJL1FFIC OPERzi !JOAIS AAIAL YS /S
APPEAIDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADDITIONAL FIGURES 1
48 -HOUR VOLUME COUNTS: US 421 4
48 -HOUR VOLUME COUNTS: 98TH STREET 6
ITE JOURNAL PAPER ON TRIP GENERATION FOR CO- BRANDED SITE 10
US 421 & 96TH STREET 17
US 421 & 99TH STREET 24
US 421 & 98TH STREET /PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE 31
US 421 & PROPOSED RIGHT -IN /RIGHT -OUT ACCESS DRIVE 38
iNurf
A &F ENGINEERING
Transportation Engineering Services
Creating Order Since 1966
8365 Keystone Crossing Boulevard, Suite 201
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Phone: (317) 202 -0864 Fax: (317) 202 -0908
A&F ENGINEERING
Transportation Engineering Services
cm., Ord. Sian RN lain ft: iliPACI SILDV
Hitt/ RESTILIMI MAIMGFlit tl
1
ltA&F ENGINEERING
Transportation Engineering Services
C h der Ulm NA
RESr Wittiof oV4MG1111-V1
ritifflii "WWI 811 C11111E1, NOMA
48-Muff TRAFFIC VOL OUNTS
11S42
4
• 11
Indiana Department of Transportation
Daily Volume from 08/29/2011 through 08/31/2011
Site 290200, US 421 Seasonal Factor Type: 14
County: Hamilton Daily Factor Type: 14
Funct. Urban Principal Arterial - Other Axle Factor Type: 14
Locatio ON US 421 0.06 MI N OF MARION CiL Growth Factor Type: 14
00:00
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:09
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Volume
AM Peak
AM Peak
AM Pak
PM Peak
PM Pcalc
PM Peak
Seasonal
Daily Pet
Axle Fet
Pulse Fc(
Mon 08/29/2011 Tue 08/30/2011
Wed 08/31/2011 u 09/01/2011
ROAD 7,NN' EC POS ROAD NEG POS ROAD NEG POS ROAD NEG POS
249 115 13,1 190 93 97
165 71 94 142 66 76
87 40 47 82 38 44
129 60 69 100 47 53
197 116 81 217 106 111
684 404 280 719 407 312
2,033 1233 800 2,052 1,251 801
3,924 2,388 1.536 3.860 2.280 1,580
1707 2,092 1,705 3.708 2,119 1_679
3,023 1531 1,492 2,951 1.393 1,558
2,933 1,500 14332.#t 1,437 1.388
3,273 1.569 1.704 3,378 1,568 111/18#
3.835 1,861 1,974 3,816 1,854
3,543 1,744 1,799 3,557 1,701 1,856
3.369 1.612 1,757 3288 1,503
3„689 1,711 1,976 3_631 1,676
4,192 1,887 2J05 4,245 41P- 4,03 2.
4,373 1,942 2,431 4521 1,984 2.537
3279 1,417 1,862 3,481 549 1932 ,
2210 .77 1,233 65 1,316
1,837 853 9 900
1,193 593 600
648 334 407
380 210 170 404 230 174
27,227 16,936 9.237 7,699
2388 L#10
1.00 [00
•,00 11_00
4373 1,984 2,537
1.00 1.00 1,00
17.00 17,00 17.00
35,821 16,712
1,942 2,431°
1.00 1 00
17.00 17,00
53.496
3,924
1.00
7.00
4,521
1,00
17,00
0.939
0.986
0,476
2.000
0.939
0_986
0_476
2,000
0.939
0.986
0.476
2,000
0.939
0.965
0.476
2.000
0.939 0.939 0.939 0.939 0.939
0.965 0.965 0.962 0.962 0.962
0.476 0.476 0.476 0.476 0.476
2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000
##############tiMi ROAD AADT 46,143 NEC AADT 22,667 POS AADT 21,475
5
1AA&F ENGINEERING
Transportation Engineering Services
Order a 4d4
rail aII(. j p Cf RUH, — CARMEL ADAM
48 -HOUR TR4FHC I/OL v COUNTS
98 "' Sr
0<e
■
6
Weekly 24 Hour Volume Report; 120245 1
Info Line 1 : ON 98TH ST EAST OF US 421
Info Line 2 : 30003000
GPS LatiLon
Last Connected Device Type Unic-L
Serial Number : 00307UL94003
# Lanes : 2
111M=1111.111line #1 (EB) Weakly Data 1110512012 to 1111112114iiiiiik
11/05 11/06 11/07 11/08 11/09 Weekday
Time MON TUE WED THU FR/ Average
- AM
12 - 1
1 -2
2 -3
3 -4
4 - 5
5 - 6
6 - 7
7 - 8
8 - 9
10
10 - 11
11 - 12
- PM -
12 - 1
1 2
2 -3
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 6
7
• 8
10
10 - 11
11 -12
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 2
1 0
0 0
2 2
2 1
8 3
6 6
6 10
3 8
7 2
2 8
91101111in. 6
6
11 15
7 13
8 3
4 3
2 8
1 5
0 2
2 2
TOTALS
% Avg Day :
16 Minute
One Hour :
P.H.F. :
PH Begins :
67 110 15
1 14% 109% 36%
11/10
SAT
11/11
SUN
Weekend Week
Average Average
101
100%
AM (12am-10am) Peak Volumes
4 3 3
8 6 7
0.67 0.75 0.58
8:00am 9:00am 7:45am
Mid (10am 2pm) Peak Volumes
15 Minute : 4 5 3
One Flour : 7 11 9
P.1-IF. : 0.44 0.55 0_75
PI-I Begins : 11:15am 10:15arn 10:00am
PM (2pm-12am) Peak Volumes
15 Minute : 6 7
One Hour : 11 20
P.H,F. : 0.46 0_71
PH Begins : 2:45pm 4:15pm
Cenlarion Weekly 24 Hour Volume Report
5
16
0.80
4:15pm
101
3
7
0.58
7:45am
3
0.75
10:00am
A&F Erigirieering Co., LLC
8365 Keystone Crossing. Suite 201 Indianapolis, IN 46240
Tel 317-202.0864 Fax 317-202-0908 E-Mail afengineering@af.eng corn
7
5
16
0.80
4:15pm
Prinired• It/12/12 Peg I
&allot?• 12024S 1
Lane #2 (WS) Dala From. 10:00 - I/0712012 To 09.59 - •I/•912012
Lane #2 (WB) Weekly Data llIOSl2011to 1111112012
Time
-AM -
12 - 1
1 -2
2 - 3
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 6
6 - 7
7 -8
8 -9
9 - 10
10 - 11
11 - 12
- PM -
12 - 1
I -2
2 - 3
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 6
6 - 7
7 - 8
8 - 9
9 - 10
10 - 11
1• - 12
TOTALS
% Avg Day
15 Minute
One 1-lour:
PH Begins :
11/05 11/06° 11/07 11/08 11/09 Weekday 11/10 11/11
MON TUE WED THU FR( Average SAT SUN
15 Minute
One Hour:
PAT. :
PH Begins :
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
iiimmoitt 2
4 2
5 4
5 5
3 2
5 4
5 0
3 4
.m•mii4illamo 5 7
3 5
11111011011°1 1.11. 8
2 5
@I= 2
4
6
4
-.6
4
4
4
3
1
0
2
67
1% 100%
'NO
AM (12am 10am) Peak Volumes
3 3
7 6
0.88 0.50
7:30am 7:30am
3
6
0.50
11:15am
3
8
0.67
7:30ann
MId (10am-2pm) Peak Volumes
3 2
4 6
0.50 0.75
11:00am
11.00am
PM (2pm-12am) Peak Volumes
15 Minute : 3 3 3
One Hour : 6 9 8
P.H.F. : 0.50 0.75 0.67
PH Begins : 2:30pnri 3:30pm 2:00prn
Cenhajon Weekly 24 Hour Volome Report
Weekend Week
Average Average
1
1
0
0
2
3
5
5
3
5
4111013
4
6
4
6
4
4
4
3
1
0
2
67
A&F Engineering Co . LLC
8365 Keystone Crossing, Suite 201 Indianapolis, IN 48240
Tel. 317-202-0864 Fax 317-202-0908 E-Mad afengineefing@af-eng con)
8
3
8
0.67
7:30am
2
6
0.75
11:00arn
3
8
0.67
2:00pm
Prialed. 11/1'2/12 Rage 2
Salo: 12024S 1
Weekday Average Summary (by Direction)
Weekday Average Summary (by Direction)
Time
- AM -
12 - 1
1 -2
2 - 3
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 6
6 - 7
7 - 8
8 - 9
9 - 10
10 -11
11 -12
- PM -
12 - 1
1 -2
2 - 3
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 6
6 - 7
7 - 8
8 - 9
9 -10
10 - 11
11 -12
TOTALS
% Total :
Ar
15 Minute :
One Hour
P.H.F,
PH Begins :
15 Minute :
One Hour
PI-1 Begins :
15 Minute :
One Hour
P.H.F.
PH Begins :
Centurion Weekly 24 Hour Volume Report
EB
1
0
0
1
0
2
2
6
6
8
6
LAO
EB+ WB TOTAL
0 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 1 1
0 1 1
1 1 1
2 4 4
3 5 5
5 11 11
5 11 11
3 11 11
5 11 11
5 8 11 8
5 4 9 9
8 6 14 14
6 4 10 10
13 6 19 19
•10 4 14 •14
6 4 10 10
4 4 8 8
5 3 8 8
3 1 4 4
1 0 1 1
2 2 4 4
101 67
60.1% 39_9%
AM (12am-iCiam) Peak Volumes
3
7
0_58
7:45am
Mid (10am-2pm) Peak Volumes
3
9
0.75
10:00am
PM (2pm-12am) Peak Volumes
5
16
0.80
4:15pm
168 168
100 0%
3
6
0_67
7:30am
3 3
8 8
0.67 0.67
7:30am 7:30am
2
6
0.75
11:00am
3 3
8 8
0.67 0.67
10:00am 10:00am
3
8
0.67
2:00pm
4 4
12 12
1,00 1_00
4:OOpm 4:OOpm
A&F Engineering Co , LLC Prinled: 11/12/12 Page 3
8355 Keystone Crossing, Suite 201 Indianapolis, IN 46240
rel 317-202-0864 Fax 317-202-0908 E-Mall afengineering@af-eng com
9
A&F ENGINEERING
Transportation Engineering Services
orci*ord.s..
%
11,01 fits mum"- MI& IGEffEW
ralf fir • IMMO' S fl - CIRRI ADLIV-1
ITE JOURNAL PAPER ON TRIP 6 ER4 HON FOR
CO-BRANDED
10
Trip-Generation Models for Multiuse
Highway Commercial Developments
TRIP-GENERATION
CHARACTERISTICS FOR
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENTS THAT
COMBINE GASOLINE
STATION/CONVENIENCE
STORE/FAST-FOOD
RESTAURANT ARE
IMPORTANT IN
DETERMINING THE
POTENTIAL TRAFFIC
IMPACT ON ADJACENT
ROADWAYS.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
commercial development near a freeway
or aiong an arterial street requires careful
investigation of its traffic impact on the
existing highway nerwork. Some critical
issues related to such a development
often faced by developers and local road
agencies are as follows:
• How many vehicles will he added to
the existing traffic due to such a com-
mercial development?
• How many vehicle trips are attracted to
such a development during the a.m.,
midday and p.m. peak periods when
the adjoining roadways often experi-
ence the worst traffic congestion?
• What percentage of trips are captured
from the existing traffic to make an
intermediate srop a r such a highway
commercial developnient, and what
percentage of r ps are newly generated
at various times of the day?
• Do multipurpose trips reduce vehicle-
miles traveled since they often satis&
several travel needs under one roof?
While all of these questions are
important, this study addresses only the
second question.
In the past, most gasoline stations
i ded auto repair Facilities. The next
eration of gasoline stations elimi-
nated the repair facilities and included
convenience stores. Later, car wash
services were combined with the con-
venience stores. Such multiuse develop-
ments often created concerns regarding
the potential traffic impact it would cre-
ate. Finally, the
multiuse highway
commercial develop-
ments added the fast-
food/Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) to
the gasoline station and convenience
store. These multiuse developments ini-
tially created even more of a concern
because their trip- and parking-genera-
tion characteristics were unknown. Traf-
fic engineers and planners have struggled
BY TAPAN H. DATTA, SUE DATTA AND
PRASAD NANNAPANENI
to estimate future traffic scenarios and ro
predict potential traffic impacts pro-
duced by these new multipurpose and
uses.
Traffic impact assessment studies are
based on the number of trips generated
by a proposed development. Trip-genera-
tion characteristics of multipurpose com-
mercial land use are important to the
Pp lanners, engineers and other interested
parties in estimating the number of vehi-
cle trips likely to be generated by this
particular development. Gasoline sta-
tions, convenience stores and QSRs in
one building are being developed all over
the United States. However, the Institute
of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip
Generation informational report' does
not address this type of multipurpose
land use. The nearest related land use
category included in the TTE report is
"Service Station with Convenience Mar-
ker and Car Wash" (land use #846). Trip-
generating characteristics for he
multiuse developments described in this
paper may be substantially different from
service stations with convenience mar-
kets and car wash (#846) and fast-food
restaurants without a drive-through win-
dow (#833) and those with a drive-
through window (#834) taken alone or
in combination with each other. This
type of multiuse development is gener-
ally located at the corners of intersections
of major arterial roads and near freeway
interchanges to capture the pass-by
traffic.
The objective of this research was to
develop a database on trip-generaring
characteristics of multiuse highway com-
mercial developments, and models that
can be used for forecasting future trip-
generation characteristics for a proposed
multiuse development which includes
gasoline stations with convenience stores
and Q5Rs.
24 ITC JOURNAL / fEBRUARY 199B
11
WHAT IS AVAILABLE TODAY?
In the early 1970s, ITE initiated a
program of collecting trip - generation
characteristics for various land use from
published literature, unpublished study
reports and traffic i react analyses, The
profession participated in providing
information and shared its experiences
with ITE. The accumulation of this data-
base over the years has produced the ITE
publication. Trip Generation. Over the
past few decades, this publication has
been updated several times, m ost recently
in October 1997, to include more land
uses and improved analysis results.
Most of the analysis has included lin-
ear and/or polynomial regression analysis
with single independent variables such as
gross floor area or the number of seats or
the number of fueling positions. Depen-
dent variables such as daily or hourly
t ri pen ds have been used for highway
commercial land uses. The publication
also provides average rripcnd rates;
ranges for a.m. and p.m. peak periods of
the adjacent roadways; and a.m. and
p.m. peak periods of the generator and
weekend peak periods.
The use of single independent vari-
able models i n here n tly assumes that the
planning and design of such commercial
developments are performed using only
the required amount of space for the
building and gasoline fueling positions,
in response to objectively predicted
potential customer demand at a particu-
lar location. However, the design of such
a development often is based on practical
considerations of issues, such as land
availability, local agency requirements
and standardized building plans com-
monly used by various companies.
Therefore, it is very unusual to expect
that tri pe nd rates will vary predictably
with any one independent variable such.
as Gross Moor Area (.p), number of
seats in the QSR or the number of fuel -
ing positions.
MULTIUSE DEVEL PMENTS-
A NEW PHENOMENON
The recent advert of multiuse devel-
opments with gasoline service stations,
convenience stores and QSRs with drive -
through facilities built all at the same
site, under one roof, often creates a situa-
tion where customers can sat -
isfy several of their trip pur-
poses in one single Trip. Mosr
of these developments in
Michigan, USA, in fact, have
been built within the past year
or two.
From the developer's point
of view, providing several
goods and seer ices at one loca-
tion is a reasonable approach
when considering the various
economic and marker factors. Such fac-
tors include the following:
• The high cost of highway commercial
land in urbanized areas is difficult for a
single- purpose development to sustain.
The cost of development per individual
sales opportunity reduces dramatical
formal ri use developments.
Single - purpose trips often r silt in
multipurpose uses by the customers,
thus increasing the sales potential for
more than one business.
*The cost of developing such an estab-
lishment is lower than individual free-
standing units. Therefore, the prot,
potential of individual units increases
dramatically.
1 The multiuse developments generally
include smaller S Ids that rewire less
operating staff and as such, results in
reduced operating costs.
These and other factors make the
development of these types an attractive
proposition, I t is expected that these
developments will continue to find their
way i nto our urban fabric. Traffic engi-
neers and planners are faced with this
new phenomenon in land development,
The estimate of trips to evaluate the
impact of such a development has
become more subjective than other
established land uses due to the lack of
data for existing multiuse developments,
individual perceptions and intuitions
often play major roles in various local
governmental agency zoning and site -
plan related decisions across the country.
This study was initiated to develop a
database upon which trip-generation
estimates could be based in the future.
A muitiuse commercial facility
multiuse developments of gasoline sta-
tions, convenience stores and fast -food
developments. Eleven such sites were
selected in Michigan. The sites included a
variety of QSRs, including 'lcf ornalds,
Subway, Taco bell, Arby's, Dunkin'
o n u is and Dawn Donuts. These sites
included a combination of various gaso-
line companies and QSRs and therefore,
represent a good cross section of the
multiuse development industry. How-
ever, five our of the 1 1 study sites
included a McLo n ald's restaurant. The
variations among the types ofSRs, such
as a Mc onald s restaurant and a donut
shop, are expected ro bring variability in
the model. However, a trip - generation
model for each brand of a QSR is unreal-
istic and becomes proprietary data.
Nine out of the 11 study sites used for
the development of the multiple regres-
sion model are located within one -half
mile of a freeway interchange. The other
two sites are located on major highway
routes. The two sites used for model test-
ing and validation were built later and
also are located in close proximity to free-
way interchanges. However, all 13 sites
were on arterial streets that carry a signif-
icant amount of th rough traffic in addi-
tion to providing access to the freeways.
Traffic counts at all the study sites were
conducted at the driveways for the peak
periods (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.n1., noon to
1 :00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.rn.)
when the adjacent roadways had high
traffic volumes.
The sites studied in Michigan all con-
tained a gasoline station, convenience
s tore and a QSR. Many of the sites
included a drive - through window, wi th
the exception of a Tco Bell, a Subway and
an Arby's restaurant. The drive - through
STUDY SITES
The study sires were selected to help
identify trip-generation characteristics of
ITE JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 1998 25
12
window is an added convenience for the
patrons and also cuts down on the num-
ber of parking stalls required on site Two
recently opened multiuse developments
consisting of a gasoline station, a conve-
nience store and a McDonald's restaurant
in southeastern Michigan were used for
model validation purposes. These two
sites were not used for model building
purposes and, as such, can provide a
good test for validation. It is important
to note that sites used for empirical
model building can never he used for
model validation purposes.
TRAFFIC SURVEY
AND DATA COLLECTION
Recognizing the vastness of variables
and issues that encompasses the trip-
generation characteristics of such multi-
use developments, the following were
assumed in this study:
Traffi
Table 2. Averages of tTip destinations observed.
AM. Peak
Fast-food only 34%
Gasoline/convenience store 58%
Multipurpose 8%
Midday Peak
36%
51%
13%
P.M. Peak
25%
62%
13%
Table 3. Summary of regression analysis resufts.
No of variables
A.M. Peak Results
(NFP, AFF, NS, GFA) 0,969
3 (AFF, NS, CFA) 0.899
3 (NFP, NS, GFA) 0,967
3 (NFP, AFF, GFA) 0.802
0,942
0.548
3 (NH, AFF, NS)
1
(NFP)
1 (AFF)
1 (NS)
1 (GFA)
0.539
0.856
0.297
R2
0+939
0.809
0.935
0.644
0.887
0301
0.290
0.732.
0.088
Standard error
40.735
62.478
36+390
85.195 r
48,064
97.497
98.202
60.306
111.314
Midday Peak Results
quantitative assessment of single-pur-
pose and multipurpose trips can provide
very important data for assessing future
traffic impacts of proposed highway
commercial developments. The inter-
view of customers was not performed
since more than half of the site operators
did not cooperate in this study.
Specific destinations of each cus-
tomer on the study sites were observed
and noted. It is important to point our
that in many instances, it was quite diffi-
cult to identify if customers simply were
paying a gasoline bill or also were buying
merchandise from the convenience
store. See Table 2 for the averages of trip
destinations observed. Further studies
using customer interviews can provide
more refined data regarding customer
destinations.
DATA ANALYSIS
The analysis of the field data included
the development of the mean and the
standard deviation of the tripend rates
based on gross floor area of the buildings
"Iv 1 and a regression analysis based on one to
four independent variables and all vari
ous combinations.
The mean and standard deviation of
the tripend rates during the three time
periods are as follows:
No. of variables
R
R2
Standard error
4 (NFP, AFF, NS, GFA) 0.911
3 (AFF, NS, GFA) 0.889
3 (NFR NS, GFA) 0.904
3 (NFP, AFF, GFA) 0.821
3 (NFf AFF, NS) 0.847
1 (NFP)
1 (AFF)
1 (IsiS)
1 (CFA)
0,335
0,702
0.747
0.829
0.792
0.816
0.674
0.717
0.112
0.493
38.683
39.518
37.112
49.431
46.085
71+981
54_368
50.798
61.917
0.558
0.58
6
0.343
P.M. Peak Results
No. of variables
R
R2
Standard error
4 (NFP, AFF, NS, GFA) 0.913 0.833
3 (AFF, NS, GFA) 0+826 0+682
3 (NFP, NS, GFA) 0.902 0.814
3 (NFP, AFF, GFA) 0.840 0.706
3 (NFP, AFF, NS) 0.886 • 0,784
1 (NFP) 0.524 0.274
1 (AFF) 0.631 0.397
1 (NS) 0.743 0.552
1 (GFA) 0.466 o.217
40.637
51_876
39.64
49,899
42.728
69.114
62.965
54.321
71185
Note: NFP = number of Fueling positions, AFF = area of fast food, NS = number of seats
and GFA gross floor area.
28
14
A.M. Peak Hour
Mean tripends = 43 per 1 ,000 Gross
Floor Area (GFA)
Standard deviation 24.99
Midday Peak Hour
Mean tripends 49.75 per 1,000 GFA
Standard deviation 23.37
PM, Peak Hour
Mean tripends = 56.2 per 1,000 GFA
Standard deviation 26.9
The above analysis indicates that the
standard deviations are quite high in all
three time periods; therefore, the use of
gross floor area as a single independent
variable for predicting allure trip charac-
teristics for a multiuse development may
be i naccurate.
Tripend rates based on one indepen-
dent variable are based on the assump-
tion that the single independent variable
ITE JOURNAL FEBRUARY 1998
can explain most of the variability of the
dependent variable. As a part of this
study a multiple regression analysis was
performed. In multiple regression analy-
sis, it is desirable to predict one variable
by using several other variables as a team
of predictors. The following are the vari
ables used in the multiple regression
analysis:
Dependent Variables
• Number of trips (tripends) per hour
during a.m. peak
6 Number of trips (tripends) per hour
during midday peak
• Number of trips (tripends) per hour
during p.m. peak
Independent Variables
• Number of gasoline fuel i ng positions in
the development
• Area of QSR development
• Number or available seats at the QSR
development
• Gross floor area oldie building
The regression analysis was performed
using a single independent variable and
all different combinations of two three
and four variables. The summary of the
correlation coefficients and standard
errors of the various regression models
tested in this study are shown in Table 3.
The following are the best results of
the multiple regression analysis using all
Four independent variables:
For A.M. Peak Periods—Regre
Model
Number (no.) of tripsihour = 5.289 x no.
of fueling positions + 0.0105 x area of
fast-food 'development + 2.9776 x no.
of sears + 0.0111 x gross floor area –
55.3892
Multiple R 0.97, R2 = 0.94, Standard
error = 40,73
For P.M. Peak Periods—Regression
Model
No. of trips/hour 4.2642 x no of fuel-
ing positions + 0.0193 x area of
Fast-food development + 1.53 x no. of
seats + 0.0084 x gross floor area +
44.4254
Multiple R = 0.91, R2 0.83, Standard
error 40.63
The above analysis indicates a reason-
ably good relationship between the inde-
pendent variables and the dependent
variable "number of trips per hour" for
the various time periods.
The statistical rest provides enough of
an indication that the multiple variables
most probably influence the trip-genera-
tion characteristics of these multiuse
developments. There are probably
locational and market variables tha4may
further improve the quality of tfte multi-
ple regression models, esp y to h
reduce the standard-error term.
Trip-generation analysis for big way
multiuse commercial development
always starts after a site plan is developed
based on the developer's market analysis.
Such a site plan contains the gross floor
areas for the QSR as well as for the total
building. It also clearly indicates the
number of fueling positions and the
number of seats for the QSR; therefore,
input data used in this multiple regres-
sion model are readily available to predict
Future trip-generation characteristics.
such multiuse development is served by
eight gasoline fueling positions with an
area for QSR of 2,383 square feet (sq ft),
32 seats in the common area and a gross
floor area of 4,003 sq Ft. The other site is
served by eight gasoline fueling positions
with an area for QSR of 2,970 sq ft, 60
seats for QSR customers and a gross floor
area of 4,587 sq E.
The expected number of trips for
a.m., midday and p.m. peak hours was
calculated using the models developed
from Trip Generation's average rates. See
Table 4 for the trips compared with
actual field observations.
This comparison shows that the mul-
tiple regression tnoclel produced much
closer results as compared to the tradi-
tional approach of using average rates of
e independent variables from Trip
-,tion. In every case, the trip rates
from TE report predicted a substan-
tially hig er amount of traffic than the
observed data.
For Midday Peak Periods—Regression
Model
No. of trips/hour = 1.9945 x no. of fuel-
ing positions + 0.015 x area of fast-
food development( + 1.5901 x no. of
seats + 0.0121 x gross floor area +
42.5564
Multiple i? 0.91, R2 = 0.83, Standard
error 38.68
ItE JOURNAL 1 FEBRUARY 1991
EL VALIDATION
wo recently opened multiuse devel-
opments in southeastern Michigan were
used to test the predictability of the four
variable multiple regression models
developed as a parr of this study. One
POTENTIAL USE Of MODELS
This study of multiuse highway com-
mercial developments has resulted in
multiple regression models which can be
used in Michigan for future traffi c-
impact studies. In the past, such studies
were performed using field observations
of similar sites. This required identifying
one or more similar sites, collecting phys-
ical characteristics of the similar site(s),
preparing diagrams of the site(s) and per-
forming peak period traffic counts.
These activities and others would gener-
ally consume the time of two to three
professionals, for two to three days. Use
of the multiple regression models devel-
oped as a part of this study will eliminate
these activities related to similar sites,
Ta 4. Summary of model validation.
Observed tripends
Projection by multiple regression
model
Projection by average trip rates
from !TES Trip Gcnerathin
Site No. 12
—a.m. -
206 215
Site No. 13
aim. p.m.
182 216
248 266 152 194
301 269 269 247
0, 14 /./Y) ?1")
7 a 1 ,6 dv) •
i441 1.112611/‘
15
1.iv iod
_..04/„.49
ei
The Future peak-period trip predictions
can be done using the models economi
cally, yet it also will increase the credibil-
ity of forecasts tO city and township
officials.
This study did not attempt to collect
customer inwrview data to ascertain per-
centages of "pass-by" or "diverted" traf-
fic. Such data is available in 1TE.'s Trip
Generation and can be used in conjunc-
tion with the models developed as a part
of this study.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Multiuse highway commercial devel-
opments are a fairly new phenomenon in
Michigan. These developments include
gasoline stations, convenience stores and
Fast-food restaurants all on the same
piece of property. Oftentimes, a car wash
is included in such a development. Of
the 11 study sites used in the model
development, some included such
diverse developments as a laundromat
30
and an insurance agents office.
The evolution of these developments
are desirable when one considers that a
customer can satisfy two or more travel
needs, such as filling his or her gasoline
tank, buying breakfast/lunch/dinner,
buying a carton of milk, getting a car
wash and other conveniences, by making
only one trip. A few years ago, a cus-
tomer with such travel needs would have
made two or more trips, to two or more
destinations. Thus, he or she would have
incurred increased travel distance, travel
time and the travel cost would have been
more than what one can do today by
stopping at a multiuse development.
Such an increased number of trips also
would have added to the increased num-
ber of vehicle counts on the roads and
highways.
This study has utilized 11 existing
multiuse highway commerctal develop-
ments in Michigan for model buildir%
and two newly built sites for validation.
All traffic-related data were collected on
16
typical weekdays. It is expected that such
a development may experience higher
trips on a weekend day such as a Satur-
day. However, the adjacent roadway traf
fic on a typical Saturday generally is
much lower than typical weekday traffic.
The multiple regression models devel-
oped as a part of this study indicate a rea
sonable correlation and provide superior
predictions in comparison to the single
variable models. U
Reference
1. Trip Generation, Update co the 5th Edi-
tion. Washington, DC „ USA: Institute or
Tran.5portation Engineers, 1995.
1 14 4 1.4
TAPAN K. DATTA
is a Professor of Civil
Engineering in the
Civil and
Environmental
Engineering
Department at Wayne
State Universit),
Deovit, Mich., USA. He received his Ph.D. fioni
Michigan State Universiq and is a eonsultant
with over 30 years ofexperience in traffic and
Jafity engineering. He is a Member of ITE
SUE DATTA
is a Transportation
Planner firr Goodell
Grivas Inc. She iticeived
her master's dere from
tiVayne State University
and has worked in the
fields of tninsportation
and environmental planning
PRASAD
NARNAPANENI
is a Ph. D. candidate in
civil engineering at
Wayne State Universti".
Detroit, Mich., USA.
fie is a Gmeillate
Research and Taring
Assistant within the department, Nannapaneni is
0 Student Member of ITE
ITE JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 1998
A&F ENGINEERING
Transpor Lion Engineering Scrviccs
S.ce 190
TortiFFIC hiP4CT STUDY — Gillifflo B101,1M
11S421&ff#"Sr c /NTERSECT/ D
VOLUME COUNTS
FJlcIfl/ ANAL 1'S /S
17
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION
DATE :
COUNTED BY:
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
H & H Restaurant Managernent
US 421 & 96th Street
4/10/2012
CF
TOTAL VEHICLES (PASSENGER CARS + TRUCKS)
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
BEGINS 7:30 AM
L
T
NORTHBOUND 436
58
43
862
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
1092
1418
92
225
R
305
56
354
70
TOTAL
1833
1532
489
1157
OFF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
BEGINS
L
T
TOTAL
PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
BEGINS 4:45 PM
L
215
89
118
341
T R TOTAL
141d
1333
207
107
662
67
479
108
2315
1489
804
556
Ilk HOURLY SUMMARY
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
OFF PEAK HOUR FACTOR
PM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
APPROACH
INTERSECTION
APPROACH
INTERSECTION
APPROACH
INTERSECTION
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
0.92
0.97
0.76
0.95
0.95
L
T
0.96
0.92
0.91
0.84
0.96
Ilk HOURLY SUMMARY
TRUCK PERCENTAGE
NB
AM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
OFF PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
PM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
L
T
R
TOTAL
L
T
R
TOTAL
L
T
R
• TOTAL
NORTH BOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
8.0%
1.7%
34.9%
0,8%
6.8%
2.4% 1
1.1%
1.3%
2.6%
17.9%
9.0%
1 5%
6.4%
9.8%
„
7.4%
0.0%
1.7%
2.6%
1.9%
3_5%
0_0%
1.9%
0,6%
0.0%
2_7%
2.8%
2.0%
3,2%
1.9%
2.5%
Ilk HOURLY SUMMARY
HOUR 1
NB
SB
NB+SB EB
1642 r155
3154 405
3099 451
3555 742
3791 784
3134 456
\NB ,
521
1020
1015
498
538
415
EB+WB
676
1425
1466
1240
1322
871
TOTAL
2318
4579
4565
4795
5113
4005
6:00 AM TO 7:00 Alli
7:00 AM TO 8:00 AM
8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM
5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM
6:00 PM TO 7:00 PM
922
1792
1720
2178
2287
2025
720
1362
1379
1377
1504
1109
TOTAL VOLUME
PERCENTAGE
10924
431%
7451
29.4%
18375 2993
72.4% 11.8%
4007
15.8%
7000
27.6%
25375
100.0%
Release 1118-04
18
CLIENT :
INTERSECTION :
DATE
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : NORTHBOUND
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
1-1& H Restaurant Management
us 421 & 96th Street
4/10/2012
HOUR
LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM
700 AM - 8:00 AM
8-.00 Alvi - 900 AM
PASS
332
437
316
TRUCK
10
23
4
BOTH
342
460
364
PASS
436
1004
937
TRUCK
29
56
79
BOTH
465
1060
1016
PASS
111
267
327
TRUCK
4
5
13
BOTH
115
272
340
PASS
879
1708
1580
TRUCK •
43
84
140
BOTH
PM TIME PERIOD
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 7-00 PM
PASS •
228
200
146
TRUCK
16
18
14
BOTH
244
218
160
PASS
1347
1375
1256
TRUCK
47
25
18
BOTH
1394
1400
1274
PASS
536
665
589
TRUCK
4
4
2
BOTH
540
669
591
PASS
2111
2240
1991
TRUCK
67
47
34
BOTH
PASSENGER
1659
92.8%
6355
96_2%
2495
98.7%
10509
96.2%
TRUCK
129
7.2%
254
3.8%
, 32
1.3%
415
3.8%
BATH
1788
16_4%
6609
60_5%
2527
23.1%
10924
100,0%
IDIRECT1ON OF TRAVEL : SOUTHBOUND
HOUR
LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
TOTAL
AM TIME PERrOD
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM '
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 1
8:00 AM - 9:C10 AM 1
PASS
:4
46
68
TRUCK
5
2
0
BOTH
39
48
68
PASS
633
1248
1170
TRUCK
18
33
42
BOTH
651
1281
1212
PASS
26
30
82
TRUCK
4
3
17
BOTH
30
33
99
PASS
693
1324
1320
TRUCK
27
38
59
BOTH
720
1362
1379
PM TIME PERIOD
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM /
r
I 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM i
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM I
PASS
82
104
69
TRUCK
0
0
1 i
BOTI I
82
104
70
PASS
1147
1302
966
TRUCK
51
37
12
BOTH
1198
1339
978
PASS
87
60
59
TRUCK
10
1
2
BOTH
97
61
61
PASS
1316
1466
1094
TRUCK
61
38
15
BOTH 1
1377
1504
1109
PASSENGER
403
98.1%
6466
97.1%
344
90.394
7213
96.8%
TRUCK
8
1.9%
193
29%
37
9.7%
_________
238 •
3.2%
BOTH
411
5.5%
6659
89.4%
381
5.1%
7451
L 100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
HOUR
LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD
6:00 AM - 7100 AM
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM
8:00 AM - 900 AM
PASS
9
21
43
TRUCK
13
12
9
BOTH
22
33
r 52
PASS
31
79
106
TRUCK
1
n
3
BOTH
32
79
109
PASS
57
268
260
TRUCK
44
25
30
BOTH
101
293
290
PASS
97
368
409
TRUCK
58 '
37 I
I
42 1
BOTH
155
405
451
PM TIME PERIOD
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
PASS
111
128
84
TRUCK
4
1
1
BOTH
115
129
85
PASS
j 148
222
102
TRUCK
1
0
1
BOTH
149
222
103
PASS
462
418
255
TRUCK
16
15
13
BOTH
478
433
268
PASS
721
768
441
TRUCK
21
16
15
BOTH
742
784
456
PASSENGER
396
90_8%
688
99_1%
-6
1720 r
92_3%
2804
93.7%
TRUCK
40
9.2%
0.90/
143
7.7%
189
6_3%
BOTH
436
14.6%
694
23_2%
1863
62.2%
2993
100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : WESTBOUND
HOUR
LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD
600 AM - 7:00 AM
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM
PASS
386
765
1 728
TRUCK
3
11
4
BOTH
389
776
732
PASS
94
180
202
TRUCK
1
2
3 r
BOTH
95
182
205
PASS
36
58
77
TRUCK
1
4
1
BOTH
37
62
78
PASS
516
1003
1007
TRUCK
5
17
8
BOTH
521
1020
1015
PM TIME PERIOD
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
6;00 PM - 7:00 PM
, PASS
292
324
274
TRUCK
7
4
2
BOTH
299
328 ,
276
PASS
96
105
69
TRUCK
6
2
0 /
BOTH
102
107
69
PASS
96
100
69
TRUCK
1
3
1
BOTH
97
103
70
PASS
484
529
412
TRUCK
14
9
3
BOTH
498
538
415
P ASSENGER
2769
98.9%
746
98_2%
436
97.5%
3951
98.6%
TRUCK
31
1.1%
14
1.8%
11
2.5%
56
1.4%
BOT H
2800
69.9%
760
19.0%
447
11.2%
4007
100.0%
Release 11-18-04
19
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Michioan Road & 96th Street
Existing AM Peak
11113/2012
f 4- Ak''' 4\ t P \111' lei
Movement EBL EBT EBR VVBL WBT WM NBL l' lErilMilillMil
Lane Configurations 'I
Hume (vph) 43 92 jai 354 862 225 70 436 1092 305 58 1418 50
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 •1 6 16
Initial grypuer veh OA 0 0*. 0 am. Omin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
EgriLg(in LayLAdi IE -TOO Milarl Jo) TO 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00
AO Sat Flow Rate 1407 1881 1743 1881 1881 1792 1759 1776 1845 1863 1863 1610
Lanes 4111111111 1.11•1100•11, 1 eili 1 2
Capacity, vehth 51 177 245 921 603 488 237 1629 527 96 1612 434
Arriving On Green 0.04 0.09 0,09 0,26 0,32 0.32 0.07 0.34 0.34 0,0101"(111111
Sat Flow, veht 1340.4 2607.7 2607.7 3475.7 1523.6 1523.6 3250.4 1568.0 1568.0 1774.0 1368.6 1368.6
Grp Volurne(v), vehth 45.3
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehihiln 1340.4
Se rve(g11777' 3.4
96.8
1881.2
4.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 4.9
Propogalkhafellimire 1,000 SIM
Lane Grp Cap(c) vTh 51.5 176.8
Vinaii•(g) 0.879 0.548
Avail Cap(c_a), 100.5 178.8
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 1.000
Uniform Delay (d), siveh 47,8 43.3
Ina Delay (d2), Oven 15.8 2.0
IniUaI Q Delay(d3),siveh 0.0 0.0
Lane Group Delay (4 siveh 63.7 45.3
Lane GTOU LOS
Approach Volume, vehlh 515
WirciarUgdy'i &A/eh 230,7
Approach LOS
372.6
1303.9
9.4
9.4
1.000
245.1
1.520
245.1
1.00
1.000 1.000
45.3 36.6
253.9 25.9
0.0 0.0
299.2 62.4
F E
907.4
1737.9
26.0
26.0
1.000
921.1
0.965
921.1
236.8
1881.2
9.8
9.8
603.1
0.393
6031
73.7
1523.6
3.5
3.5
1.000
488.5
0.151
488.5
458.9
1625.2
7,3
7.3
1.000
237.3
4
237.3
1.00
1.000
46.3
435.5
0.0
481.9
F
26. 24.3
0.2 0.1
0.0 0.0
26.6 24.3
C C
1218
53.1
D
1149.5
1615.9
20.6
20.6
1628.7
0.706
1628.7
1.00
1.000
28.9
2.6
0.0
31.5
c
1929
138.9
F
321.1
1568.0
17.1
17.1
1.000
526.8
0.609
526.8
1.00
1.000
27.7
5.2
0.0
32.9
c
61,1
1774,0
3,4
3.4
1.000
95.8
0.637
253.7
1.00
1.000
46.3
2.6
0.0
48.9
0
1492.6
1695.1
28.4
28.4
1612.0
0.926
1612.0
140
1.000
33.6
10.6
0.0
43.6
1613
43.1
D
58,9
1368.6
3.1
3.1
1.000
433.9
0,136
433.9
1.00
1.000
24.4
0.7
0.0
25.0
c
••.1.1■1•1.•
Assigned Phase 7
Phase Duration (re+Re), s 9,34
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5 50
Max Green Set (Galax), s 7.50
Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.36
Green Extension Time (pc) 0.01
4
16.00
6.60
9.40
11.40
0.00
3 8 5 2
32a 34,2L.,_14. OP _ 39.90
5.50 6.60 6.70 6.30
26.50 28.40 ,MEllaja____
27.97 11 79 9.30 22.64
0.00 2.14•1Emmi 0.00 L2.05
1 6
12.10 38.00
6.70 6.30
14.30 31.70 j_
5.37 30.38
0.03 1.3211111.
rritersection Summary
I-CM 2010 Control Delay
HCM 2010 Level of Service
■■■
98,8
F
AM Timings 10130/2012
20
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Michigan Road & 96th Street
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Number
Initial Queue, veh 4111MMIls, 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking, Bus Adj illowo- 1.00
EBL EBT
118 207
7 4
Adj Sat Flew Rate
Lanes
Capacity, veht
Arriving On Green
Sat Flow, vehlh
Grp Volume(v), vehin
Grp Sat Flow(s)ivehlhiln
Q Serve(g_s),
Cycle 0 Clear(g_ic),.
Proportion In Lane
Lane Grp Capd(c). vehih
Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), siveh
Incr Delay (d2), siveh
Initial ID Delay(d3),siveh
Lane Group Delay (d), siveh
Lane Grou LOS
Approach Volume, vehfh
Approach Delay, siveh
Approach LOS
1863
1
153
0,09
1774.0
122.9
1774.0
6.7
6_7
1.000
152.8
0.805
280.9
1.00
1.000
43.9
3.7
0.0
47.7
EBR B.L. v
r.f llpi
479 341
14
0 0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1 ,6010 1.00
1900 1845 1845 1863
1 2 ir27/10 1
299 434 422 363
0.16 0.16 0.12 0.19
2759.6 2759.6 3408.2 1568.0
VIBT
107
8
215.6
1900.0
10.6
10.6
298.9
0.721
298.9
1.00
1.000
39,2
7.2
0.0
46.4
D
830
97.6
F
499.0
1379.8
15.4
15.4
1.000
434.1
1.149
434.1
1,00
1.000
41.2
90.8
0.0
132,1
F
355.2 111.5
1704.1 1862.7
10.0 5,0
10.0 5,0
1.615711616.
421_8
0.842
470.0
1.00
1.000
42.0
10.5
0.0
52_8
D
Timer
Assigned Phase 4
Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13 93 -72.00 1111Pir
Change Period (Y+Rc). s 5.50 6.60
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.50 15.40
Max Q Clear Time (g c+11), s 8.66 17.40
Green Extens[on Time (Rs) 0,08 0.00
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Control Delay
HCM 2010 Level of Service
PM Timings 10/30/2012
363.2
0.307
363.2
1.00
1.000
33.7
0.2
0.0
33.9
c
579
45.6
D
3 8
17.61 469
5.50 6.60
13.50 13,40
11.98 8.09
0.14 1,50
51.3
D
4.... 4\
BR NIBL NBT NBR SBL .$T. SBR
t
Existing PM Peak
11/13/2012
108
18
0
1.00
1.00
1845
1
306
0.19
1568.0
112.5
1568.0
6.1
6.1
1.000
3_p5.7
T.368
305.7
1.00
1.000
34.2
0.3
0.0
34.4
c
21
+ft
1438
2
0
215 662
5 12
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1776 1863 1881
2 3 _1
287 1991 626
0.09 0.39.00
3280.8 1599.0 1599.0
224.0 1497.9 689.6
1640.4 1695.1 1599.0
6.6 24.9 38.3
6_5 24.9 38.3
1.000 1.000
287.5 1991.1 626.1
0.779 0.752 1,101
311.7 1991.1 626.1
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.000 1,000 1.000
41,7_ 25.7 29.8
9.7 2,7 66.9
0.0
96.7
0.0
53 4
D
5
15t.4
6.70
9.30
8.54
0.03
0.0
28.4
c
2411
50,2
D
2
44+63
6.30
33.70
40.33
0.00
89
0
1.00
1.00
1900
128
1809.5
92.7
1809_5
4.9
4.9
1.000
128.5
0.722
227.4
1,00
1.000
44.5
2.9
0.0
47.4
itatt
1333
1.00
1827
3
1870
0.37
1615.0
1388,5
1662.5
23.6
23_6
1869.8
0.743
1869.8
1.00
1,000
26.5
2.7
0.0
29.2
c
1551
29.9
c
67
16
0
1.00
1.00
1900
1
605
0.37
1615.0
69,8
161a0
2,8
2.8
1.000
605.5
0.115
605.5
1.00
1.000
20+0
0.4
0.0
20.4
C
1 6
13.65 43.00 --
6.70 6.30
w 3I
6.91 25.61
0.04 11.02
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Michigan Road & 96th Street
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Number
Initial Queue, veh
Ped-Bike AdRA jbT)
Part11115),is Adj
Adj Sat Flow Rate
LanessW
Capacity, veht
Arriving On Green
Sat Flow, vehlh
Grp Volume(v), vehlh
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhilh
Serve(Ls), s
Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s
Proportion In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh
V/tRatio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), vehih
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(1)
Uniform Delay (d), &A/eh
lncr Delay (d2), &A/eh
Initial Q Delay(d3),siveh
Lane Group Delay (d), slush
Lane Group LOS_
47
7
0
1.00
1.00
1407
1
57
0.04
1340.4
49.5
1340.4
3.7
3_7
1.000
56.8
0.671
100.5
1.00
1.000
47.6
13.8
0.0
61.4
E
EBT EBR
efr
92 354
4 14
0 0
•.00
1,00
1743
2
245
0.09
2607.7
372.6
1303.9
9.4
9.4
1.000
245.1
1.520
245.1
1.00
1.000
45.3
253.9
0.0
299.2
F
1.00
1881
1
177
0.09
2607.7
96.8
1881,2
4.9
4.9
Approach Volume, veh/h
Approach Uay, sive!'
Approach LOS
Tinior
Assigned Phase
Phase Duration (G+Y+Ro), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max 0 Clear Time (g. c+I1), s
Green Extension Time (p_c)
Intersecton Summary
HCM 2010 Control Delay
HCM 2010 Level of Service
AM Timings 10130/2012
176.8
0.548
176.8
1.00
1.000
43.3
2_0
0.0
45.3
519
229.1
F
WBL WBT WBR NBL f\IBT
4
9.74 16.00
5.60 6.60
7.50 9.40
5.67 11.40
0.01 0.00
111V
t tem.
862 225 79 436 1097
3 8 18 5 2
0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00
1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1881 1881 1792 1759 1776
2 wail 1 2 3
921 596 482 237 1606
0.26 0,32 0.32 0,07 0.33
3475_7 1523.6 1523.6 3250.4 1568.0
907.4 236.8 83.2 458.9 1154.7
1737.9 1881.2 1523.6 1625.2 1615.9
26.0 9,8 3.9 7.3 20.9
26.0 9.8 3,9 7.3 20.9
1+000 1.000 1.000
921.1 595.6 482.4 237.3 1605.9
0.986 0.398 0,172 1.934 0.719
921.1 595.6 482.4 237.3 1605.9
1,00 1.00 1,00 top too
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 tom
36.6 26.7 24.7 4.3 29.4
25.9 0.2 0.1 435.5 2.8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
62.4 26.9 24.8 481.9 32.2
Ec C F C
1227 1935
53.0 139.1
imp!
3 8
32.00 38.26
5.50 6.60
26.50 28.40
27.97 11.84
0.00 2.16
98.6
F
5
14.00
6.70
7.30
9.30
0.00
22
2
39,43
6.30
24.70
22.91
1.78
Future AM Peak
11/1312012
NBR
305
12
0
1.00
1.00
1645
1
519
0.33
1568.0
321.1
1568.0
17.2
17.2
1.000
519_4
0.618
519_4
1,00
1.000
28.1
5.4
0.0
33.6
c
SBL
66
0
1
1.00
1.00
1863
104
0.06
1774_0
69.5
1774.0
3,8
3.8
1.000
104.2
0.667
253.7
1.00
1.000
46.1
2.7
0.0
48.8
D
1
12.57
6.70
14.30
5.84
0.04
SBT
ttat
1421
6
1,00
1863
3
1612
0.32
1368.6
1495.8
1695.1
28.5
28.5
1612.0
0.928
1612_0
1.00
1.000
33.0
10.8
0.0
43.8
D
1627
43.3
0
6
38.00
6_30
31.70
30.46
1.23
4,1
SBR
69
16
0
1.00
1.00
1610
1
434
0.32
1368.6
62.1
1368.6
3.2
32
1.000
433.9
0.143
433.9
1,00
1.000
24.4
0.7
0.0
25.1
c
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Michigan Road & 96th Street
Future PM Peak
11/13/2012
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Number
Initial Queue, veh
Ped-Bike Ad(A_pbT)
Parking, Bus Adj
Adj Sat Flow Rate
Lanes
Capacity, veh/h
Arriving On Green
Sat Flow, vet*
Grp Volume(v), vehlh
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehihiln
Serve{g_s), s
Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s
Proportion In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh!h
VIC Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), vehin
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), siveh
Incr Delay 02), siveh
Initial Q Delay(d3)siveh
Lane Group Delay (d), siveh
Lane Group LOS
Approach Volume, veh/h
Approach Delay, siveh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phase 7
Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.18
Change Period ((+Rc), s 5.50
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.50
Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.88
Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.08
EBL
122
0
1.00
1.00
1863
1
157
0.09
1774.0
127.1
1774.0
6.9
6_9
1.000
157.3
0.808
280.9
1.00
1.000
43.8
3.7
0.0
47.5
D
4-
.■111101
EBT EBR WBL WBT
t rrir
207 479k 341 107
4 14 3 8
0 marbmer-0
1.00
1900
1
299
0.16
2759.6
215.6
1900.0
10.6
10.6
298,9
0.721
298.9
1.00
1.000
39.2
7.2
0.0
46.4
D
842
97.3
F
1.00
1.00
1845
2
434
0.16
2759.6
499.0
1379.8
15.4
15.4
1.000
434.1
1.149
434 1
1.00
1.000
41.2
90.8
0.0
132.1
F
1.00
1.00
1845
2
422
0.12
3408.2
355.2
1704.1
10.0
10.0
1+000
421.8
0.842
470.0
1.00
1.000
42.0
10.9
0.0
52.8
D
1.00
1863
1
358
0.19
1568.0
111.5
1862.7
5.0
5.0
358.4
0.311
358.4
1.00
1.000
34.0
0.2
0.0
34.1
c
591
45.6
I3
4. t '1r 41
WBR
119
18
0
1.00
1.00
1845
302
0.19
1568.0
124.0
1568.0
6.8
6.8
0
1.7
0.411
301.7
1.00
1.000
34.7
0.3
0.0
35.0
c
NBL
1111
215
5
1.00
1.00
1776
2
287
0.09
3280.8
224.0
1640_4
6.5
6.5
1.000
287.5
0.779
311.7
1.00
1.000
43.7
9.7
0.0
63.4
0
NBT NBR SBL SBT SE1R
Ift r ttt rf
1444 662 100 1341 71
2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1,00 1,01:1_ 1.00
1863 1881 1900 1827 1900
3 ..&.L 1 W 3 1
1959 616 140 1870 605
0.39 0,39 w0.08 0.37 1P 0.37
1599.0 1599.0 1809.5 1615_0 1615.0
1504,2 689.6 104.2 1396.9 74.0
1695.1 1599.0 1809.5 1662.5 1615.0
25.3 37.7 5.5 23.8 2.9
25.3 37.7 5,5 23.8 2.9
1.000 1.000 1.000
1959.4 616.1 139.7 1869.8 605.5
0.768 1.11 0.745 0.747 0.122
1959.4 616.1 227.4 1869.8 605.5
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1_000 1.000 1.000 1_000 1.000
26.3 30.1 44.2 26.6 20.0
3.0 73.7 3.0 2.8 0.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
29.2 103.7 47.2 29.3 20.5
F DCC
2418 1575
52.7 30.1
4
22.00
6.60
15.40
17.40
0.00
3 8
17.61 2543
5.50 6,60
13.50 13.40
11.98 8.79
0.14 1,38
5
15.28
6.70
9.30
8.54
0.03
2
44.02
6.30
33.70
39.72
0.00
1
6
14.26 43.00
6.70 6.30
12.30 36.70
7.52 25.81
0.04 10.83
Intersection Sunimary
HCM 2010 Control Delay
HCM 2010 Level of Service
52.3
D
PM Timings 10130/2012
23
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
4,A&F ENGINEERING mil gr.,04.11 fi-tVi etiAIMGEWV1
Transportation Engineering Services
Orler Soca 1966 Mohr ifitptcf Nil -
jo
US 421 ti, 991" S ET
ANTERSECTI DI 4
OLVME COUNTS
APAICITY ANALYSIS
24
CLIENT :
INTERSECTION :
DATE
COUNTED B`
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
H&H Restaurant Management
US 421 & 99th Street
11/1 -11/2 2012
AJ
Release 11 -18 -04
25
TOTAL VEHICLES (PASSENGER CARS +TRUCKS)
AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
OFF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
INTERSECTION
BEGINS 7:30 AM
BEGINS
BEGINS 5 :00 PM
I TER E TIO J
_^ L
T
R
TOTAL
L
T
.'
TOTAL
L r T
R
TOTAL
NORTHBOUND
200
922
!
1157
3.3% 1.6%
1,2%
SOUTH BOUND
30
1544
166
1 740
SOUTHBOUND
31
1471
62
1564
0.0%
3.B%
EASTBOUND
14.3%
55
1248
28
1 331
EASTBOUND
28
4
23
55
0_3%
WESTBOUND
5,1%
4.3%
103
0
163
296
WESTBOUND
7
23
16
118
1336
1078
2414
130
120
11
71
202
Release 11 -18 -04
25
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
OFF PEAK HOUR FACTOR
R PEAK H R FA T R
APPROACH
INTERSECTION
APP ROA H
INTERSECTION
AP PROA F
I TER E TIO J
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
0.94
0.94
0.6
0.74
R
TOTAL
L T i
0.95
0,94
0.52
0.83
.'
Release 11 -18 -04
25
TRUCK PERCENTAGE
HOURLY SUMMARY
AM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
OFF PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
PM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
NB
L
T
R
TOTAL
L
T
R
TOTAL
L T i
R
TOTAL
NORTHBOUND
3.0%
6.2%
2.9%
5.5%
7 :00 AEI TO
8 :00 AM
968
3.3% 1.6%
1,2%
1..6%
SOUTH BOUND
3.2%
3.1%
1.6%
'3.0%
9:00 AM
1196
1354
2550
0,0% 4.1% !
0.0%
3.B%
EASTBOUND
14.3%
0.0%
26.1%
1842%
1188
2795
259
225
0.0% 0.0%
0.6%
0_3%
WESTBOUND
5,1%
4.3%
a °
5.1°
296
(
498
3569
1.7 0 0.0%
0.0%
1.0% ci
Release 11 -18 -04
25
HOURLY SUMMARY
HOUR
NB
SB
NB+SB B
EB
WB
EB+WB
TOTAL
6 :00 AM TO
7 :00 AM
492
679
1171
12
30
42
1213
7 :00 AEI TO
8 :00 AM
968
1420
2388
37
' 103
140
2528
8 :00 AM TO
9:00 AM
1196
1354
2550
57
104
151
2711
4, )0 PM TO
5:00 PM
1607
1188
2795
259
225
484
3279
5:00 PM TO
6:00 PM
1740
1 331
3071
296
202
498
3569
6:00 PM TO
7:00 PM
1336
1078
2414
130
217
347
2761
TOTAL VOLUME
7339
7050
14389
791
881
1 672
16061
I
PERCENTAGE
45.7%
43.9%
89.6%
4.9%
5.5%
10.4%
100,0%
Release 11 -18 -04
25
HOUR
LEFT
THROUGH
RFGHT
TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM
8:00 AM , 9:00 AM
PASS •
10
16
29
TRUCK
0
0
1
BOTH
10
16
30
PASS
625
1301
1228
TRUCK
23
31
62
BOTH
648
1332
1290
PASS '
21
72
33
TRUCK
0
0
1
BOTH
21
72
34
PASS
656
1389
1290
TRUCK
23
31
64
BOTH
679
1420
1354
PM TIME PERIOD
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
PASS
34
55
44
TRUCK
0
, 0
0
BOTH
34
55
44
PASS :
1079
1197
985 i
TRUCK
67
51
36
BOTH
1136
1248
1021
PASS
18
28
13
TRUCK
0
0
0
BOTH
18
28
13
PASS
1131
1280
1042
TRUCK
57
51
36
BOTH
1188
1331
1078
PASSENGER
188
99.5%
6415
96.1%
185
99.5%
6788
TRUCK
1
0_5%
260
3.9%
1
0.50/0
262
3_71%
BOTH
159
2.7%
6675
94,7%
186
2.6%
7050
100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : EASTBOUND
HOUR
LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM
8:00 Alivl - 9:00 AM
PASS
4
18
19
1 TRUCK
I 0
2
2
BOTH
4
20
21
PASS
1
1
6
TRUCK
1
0
0
BOTH
2
1
6
PASS
6
11
27
TRUCK
0
5
3
BOTH
6
16
30
PASS
11
30
52
TRUCK
1
7
5
BOTH
12
37
57
PM TIME PERIOD
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
5:00 PM • 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
PASS
76
103
45
TRUCK
1
0
0
BOTH
77
103
45
PASS
14
30
9
TRUCK
0
0
0
BOTH
14
30
9
PASS
166
162
76
TRUCK
2
1
0
BOTH
168
163
76
PASS
256
295
130
TRUCK
3
1
0
BOTH
259
296
130
PASSENGER
265
98_1%
61
98.4%
448
97_6%
774
97.9%
TRUCK
5
1.9%
1
1_6%
11
2.4%
17
2.1%
BOTH
270
34.1%
62
7_8%
459
58_0%
791
100_0%
CLIENT :
iNTERSECTION :
DATE :
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL NORTHBOUND
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
H&H Restaurant Management
US 421 & 99th Street
1111 - 11/2 2012
HOUR
LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
' TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD
8:00 AM - 7:00 AM
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM
8:00 Aryl - 9:00 AM
AM TIME PERIOD
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM
1 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM
TRUCK
2
2
5
BOTH
78
156
186
PASS
336
733
906
TRUCK BOTH
58 394
56 789
66 972
PASS
15
22
37
PASS
128
164
113
TRUCK
5
1
1
0
2
1
H
BOTH
20
23
38
BOTH
128
166
114
PASS
427
909
1124
PASS
1563
1712
1310
TRUCK
65
59
72
BOTH
492
968
1196
PM TIME PERIOD
4:00 PIA - 5100 PM
5100 PM - 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
BOTH
30
103
104
TRUCK
2
1
2
BOTH
48
30
15
PASS
1389
1519
1184
TRUCK BOTH
42 1431
25 1544
23 1207
TRUCK
44
28
26
BOTH
1607
1740
1336
PASSENGER
499
97,3%
TRUCK
2
0
0
479
98_0%
7045
TRUCK
"14
PASSENGER
1 0
2,0%
294
4_0%
BOTH
513
1 7.0%
6337
86.3%
439
6.7%
7339
100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL SOUTHBOUND
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : WESTBOUND
HOUR
LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
TOTAL
AM TIME PERIOD
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM
1 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM
PASS
20
54
65
TRUCK
2
6
6
BOTH
22
60
71
PASS
6
23
20
TRUCK
0
1
0
6
24
20
•
PASS
2
18
13
TRUCK
0
1
0
BOTH
2
19
13
PASS
28
95
98
TRUCK I
2
8
6
BOTH
30
103
104
PM TIME PERIOD
4:00 PM • 5:00 PM
1 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
PASS
148
118 1
152
TRUCK
0
2
3
BOTH
148
120
155
PASS
10
11
6
TRUCK
0
0
0
BOTH
10
11
8
PASS
65
71
54
TRUCK
2
0
0
BOTH
67
71
54
PASS
223
200
214
! TRUCK
J 2
2
3 •
BOTH
225
202
217
PASSENGER
557
96.7%
78
98.7%
,
223
98,7%
858
97_4%
T RUCK
9
3.3%
1
1,3%
1.3%
23
2.6%
BOT H
576
65.4%
79
9.O%
226
25,7%
881
100.0%
Release 11-18-04
26
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Michizan Road & 99th Street/Commerce Drive
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Number
Initial Queue, veh
Red-Bike Adp_pbT)
Parking, Bus Adj
Adj Sat Flow Rate
Lanes
Capacity, veht
Arriving On Green
Sat Flow, vehih
GrpVoIunrie(v), vehlh
Grp at Flow(s)vehiniln
Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g c), s
Proportion In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), vehih
VIC Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_.a), vehlh
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Unilarm Delay (4 siveh
Iner Delay (c12), siveh
luistakOy(d3),siveh
Lane Group Delay (d), siveh
Lane Grous LOS
Approach Volume, veht
Approach Delay, siveh
Approach LOS
Timer
Existing AM Peak
11/13/2012
EBL EBT_ EBR _WBT 13,, NBL NBT NBR SBL
'Ft
4 23 79 n W 16 200 922 35 31
4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1
0 0 0 0 isuP 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00
1554 1554 1810 1812 1812 1845 1792 1845 1845
1 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 1
14 78 221 85 59 157 1890 870 43
0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0,09 0.09 0.56 0.56 0.02
200.1 1150.6 2593.8 996.7 693.4 1766.8 1568.0 1568.0 1756.8
0.0 28.1 82.3 0.0 11110.6 208.3 960.4 38.5 32.3
0.0 1350.7 1296.9 0.0 1690.1 176.8 1702.8 1568.0 1756.8
0.0 1.8 2.7 0.0 . .0 15.7 1.0 1.6
0.0 1.8 2.7 0.0 1 8.0 15.7 1.0 1.6
0.852 1.000 CL 1010 1.000 1.000
0.0 91.6 220.5 0.0 143.7 A56.7 1890.2 870_2 43.3
0.000 0.307 0.373 0.000 0.283 7330 0.508 0.042 0.746
0.0 180.7 347,0 0.0 226.1 156.7 1890.2 870.2 156.7
1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00
0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.0 39.8 38.8 0.0 38.5 40.9 12.4 9.1 43,5
0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.4 185.5 1.0 0.1 9.1
0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0
0.0 40.5 39,2 0.0 38.9 226.3 13,3 9_2 52.5
D D D F B A D
1205
28
7
0
1,00
1.00
1667
1
83
0,07
1217.6
29.2
1217.6
2,1
1.000
82.5
0.353
162.9
1,00
1.000
39.9
1.0
0.0
40.9
Assigned Phase
Phase Duration (G+Y+Re), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Cl Clear Time (g_o+ I 1), s
Green Extension Time (pc)
Iteaction Summa
ilaggicontrol Delay
HCM 2010 Level of Service
AM Timings 10/30/2012
57
40.7
4
12,08
6.00
12.00
4,05
0.05
40.6
0
123
39.1
0
8
13.63
6.00
12.00
4.69
0.13
27
50.0
0
5 2
14.00 55.79
6.00 6.00
8.00 44.00
10.00 17.68
0.00 24,95
1
8.21
6.00'
8.00
3.64
0.01
lir
SBT
tr.-)
1471
SBR
62
6 16
0 0
1.00
1,00 1.00
1845 1345
2 0
1725 72
0.49 0.49
3516,9 147.8
801.8 795.1
1845.4 1819.3
35.1 35.5
35,1 35.5
0.081
905.1 892.3
0.886 9.891,
905.1 892.3
1.00 1,00
1.000 1.000
20.6 20.7
12.4 13.0
0.0 0+0
33.0 33.7
C C
1629
33.7
c
6
50.00
6.00
44.00
37.43
6.40
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Michkan Road & 99th Street/Commerce Drive
Movement EBL
Lane Configurations .11
Volume (vph) 103
Number 7
Initial Queue, veh
Fed-Bike Adj(A pbT} 1.00
Parking, Bus Adj 1,00
Adj Sat Flow Rate 1900
Lanes 1
Capacity, veh!h 174
Arriving On Green 0.13
Sat Flow, vehlh 1329.6
Grp Volurne(v), vehlh
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhiln 1
Q Serve(m)1 s
Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s
Proportion In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), vet*
ViC Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a),
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), siveh
Ina Delay (d2), siveh
Initial Q Delay(d3),siveh
Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh
Lane Group LOS
Approach Volume, vehiti
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
4\
Existing PM Peak
11/13/2012
EBT EBR VVBL \NBT WBR NOL NBT NBR SBL SOT SBR
r
71 30 1544 166
18 5 2 •2
0 0 0
1_00 1.00 .1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1900 1045 1863 1881
2
14
30 _AL. 163 120 11
4 14 3 8
0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1884 1884 1863 1900
1 2111.1P 0 1
19 124 43
0.09 0.09 4°40,02
221.1 1427.1 1756 8
178.5 59.1
1599,0 •1809.5
6.0 3.0
6.0 3.0
1.000 1.000
766.0 76.5
0,233 0.773
766.0 157.6
1.00 • 1.0O
1.000 1.000
14.0 loan
0.7 6 1
0.0 0.0
14.7 49.6
B D
3 181 197
0.13 0.13 0.09
254.9 1384_8 2268.9
110.8 004207.5 129.0
329.6 0.0 1639.7 1134,5
7.3 0.0 11.6 5.1
7.3 0,0 11,6 5_1
1.000 J11.110.0. 1,000
173.7 0.0 214.2 196.8
0.638 0.000 0.969 0,655
173.7 0.0 214.2 296.4
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000
37,9 0.0 39.7 40.6
5.9 0.0 52.1 1.4
0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0
43.7 0.0 91.9 42.0
F D
318
75,1
E
Assigned Phase
Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc),
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max 0 Clear Time (9 _0+11•, s
Green Extension Time (p_c)
Intersection Summary
HCM 2Q10 Control Detay
I-1CM 2010 Level of Service
PM Timings 10/3012012
4
18.00
6.00
12.00
13.57
0.00
1695 766
0.48 048
1599.0 1599.0
1660+2
1769+6
42.3
42.3
0.0
0.0
0+0
0.0
0.0
0.000
0.0
1.00
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.0
D
217
42.0
D
88.2
1648.2
4.7
4.7
0.866
143.0
0.617
215.3
1.00
1.000
40,5
1.6
0.0
42.1
0
32.3
1756.8
1.7
1.7
1.000
42.9
0.752
153.0
1.00
1.000
44,5
9.4
0.0
53.9
D
8
13+97 _
6.00
12.00
7.06
0.24
28
1695.4
0.979
1695.4
1.00
1.000
23.5
17_5
0.0
40.9
D
55 1248
1 6
0 0
1_00
1.00 1.00
1900 1828
1., 2
76 1770
0.04 0.50
1809.5 3562.9
688.2
1828.5
27.9
27.9
1871
38.7
0
5 2 1
8,24 iik.0.00 9.88
6.00 6.00 6.00
8.00 .r44.00 wie. 8.00
3.68 44.28 4,97
0.01 0.00 0.01
908.5
0.758
908.5
1.00
1.000
18.6
5.9
0+0
24.5
c
1431
25.6
6
51.64
6.00
44,00
29.95
13.90
28
16
0
1.00
1.00
1828
0
40
0.50
79.9
683.8
1814.4
28.0
28.0
0+044
901.5
0+759
901 5
1.00
1.000
18.7
5,9
0.0
24.6
c
Syrichro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Michi an Road & 99th Street/Commerce Drive
IvloverpAit
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Number
Initial Queue, veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_ pbT)
Parking, Bus Adj
Adj at Flow Rate
Lanes
Capaci(y, vehTh
Arriving On Green
Sat Flow, vehTh
Grp Volume(v),
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhiln
Serve(g_s), s
Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s
Proportion In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veht
VIC Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), siveh
lncr Delay (d2), slveh
Initial CI Delay(d3),siveh
Lane Group Delay (d), siveh
LaneGroui LOS
Approach 'Volume, vehTh
Approach Delay, siveh
Approach LOS
pL.
28
7
0
1.00
1.00
1667
1
83
0.07
1217.6
29.2
1217.6
2.1
2.1
1.000
82.5
0.353
162.9
1.00
1.000
39.9
1.0
0.0
40_9
Timer
Assigned Phase
Phase Duration (G+Y-Ffic), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Extension Time (ps)
Intersection Summag
HCM 2010 Control Delay
HCM 2010 Level of Service
AM Timings 10130,12012
Future AM Peak
11/1312012
EBT
4
4
0
1.00
1554
1
14
0.07
200.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
0.0
1.00
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0_0
57
40.7
D
EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Sa.
VI '14
79 23 16 200 958 35 31
3 8 18 5 2 12 1
.1111111- 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1i00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00
1810 1812 1812 1845 1792 1845 1845 1845
1 2 1 1 2
157 1890 870 43 1727
0.09 0+56 0.56 0.,02 0,49
1756.8 1568.0 1568.0 1756.8 3521.1
208.3 997.9 36.5 32.3 821.3
1756.8 1702.8 1568.0 1756.8 1845.4
8.0 16.5 1.0 1.6 36.7
8.0 16.5 1.0 1.6 36.7
1.000 1.000 1.000
156.7 1890.2 870,2 43.3
1.330 0+528 0.042 0+746
156.7 1890.2 870.2 156.7
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
40.9 12.6 9.1 43.5
185.5 1.1 0.1 9.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
226.3 13.6 9.2 52.5
F B A D
23
14
0
1.00
1.00
1554
0
78
0.07
1150.6
28.1
1350.7
1.8
1.8
0.852
91_6
0.307
1801
1.00
1.000
39.8
0]
0.0
40.5
0
4
12.08
6.00
12.00
4.05
0.05
41.6
0
SBT 9151R
4'14
1509
6
0
2 1 0
221 85 59
0.09 0.09 0.09
2593.8 996.7 693.4
82.3 0,0 40.6
1296.9 0.0 1690.1
2.7 0.0 2.0
2.7 0.0 2.0
1.000m■rmir 0.410
220.5 0.0 143.7
0.373 0.000 0.283
347.0 0.0 226.1
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.000 0.000 1.000
38.8 0.0 38+5
0.4 0,0 0.4
0.0 0.0 0.0
39.2 0.0 38.9
123
39.1
D
8
13.63
6.00
12.00
4.69
0,13
29
1243
49,1
D
5 2
14.00 55.79
6.00 6.00
8.00 44.00
10.00 18.54
0.00 24.35
62
16
0
1.00
1.00
1845
0
71
0.49
144.2
905.1
0.907
905.1
1.00
1.000
21.0
14.5
0.0
35,4
0
1669
36.2
D
8.21
6.00
8.00
3.64
0.01
6
50.00
6.00
44.00
39.08
4.85
815.2
1819.9
37.1
37.1
0.079
892.6
0.913
892.6
1.00
1.000
21.1
153
0.0
36.3
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Michi an Road & 99th Street/Commerce Drive
Movement EBL
Lane Configurations 111
Volume (vph) 103
Number 7
Initial Queue, veh 0
Ped-Bike Adp_pbT) 1.00
Parking, Bus Adj 1.00
Adj Sat Flow Rate 1900
Lanes 1
Capacity, vehih 174
Arriving On Green 0.13
Sat Flow, vehih 1329.6
Grp Volume(v), vehlh 110.8
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehilln 1329.6
Serve(g_s), s 73
Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s 7.3
Proportion In Lane 1.000
Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 173.7
VIC Ratio(X) 0.638
Avail Cap(c_a), vehth 173.7
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.000
Uniform Delay (d), siveh 37.9
lncr Delay (d2), siveh 5.9
Initial 0 Delay(d3),siveh 0,0
Lane Group Delay (d), siveh 43.7
Lane Group LOS
Approach Volume, vehih
Approach Delay, siveh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phase
Phase Duration (G-i-Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y-EIRc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+11), s
Green Extension Time (p_c)
Intersection Summar
HCM 2010 Control Delay
HCM 2010 Level of Service
EBT
30
4
0
1.00
1884
1
33
0i3
254,9
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
0.0
1.00
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
EBR
163
0
1.00
1.00
1884
0
181
0.13
1384.8
207.5
1639.7
11.6
11.6
0.845
214.2
0.969
214.2
1.00
1.000
39,7
52.1
0.0
91,9
F
WBL
120
0
1.00
1.00
1863
2
107
0.09
2268.9
129,0
1134.5
6.1
5.1
1,000
196.8
0.655
296.4
1.00
1.000
40.6
1.4
0.0
42.0
D
318
75.1
E
4
18.00
6.00
12.00
13 57
0.00
IDI"vl Timings 10/3012012
40.6
D
4-
VVBT
11
8
1‘,.
VVBR NBL
1.00
1900
1
19
0.09
221.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
0.0
1.00
0.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
217
42.0
D
71
18
0
1.00
1.00
1900
0
124
0,09
1427,1
88.2
1648.2
4.7
4,7
0.866
143.0
0.617
215.3
1.00
1.000
40.5
1 6
0.0
42.1
D
NBT
30
5
0
1.00
1,00
1845
1
43
0.02
1756.8
32.3
1756.8
1.7
1.7
1.000
42.9
0.752
153.0
1.00
1.000
44.5
9.4
0.0
53,9
0
1593
2
1.00
1863
2
1695
0.48
1599.0
1712.9
1769.6
44.0
44.0
1695.4
1.010
1695.4
1.00
1.000
23.9
24.4
0.0
48.3
F
NBR
166
12
0
1.00
1.00
1881
766
0.48
1599.0
178.5
1599.0
6.0
60
1.000
766.0
0.233
766.0
1.00
1.000
14.0
07
0.0
14.7
B
Future PM Peak
11/13/2012
SBL SBT SBR
ft+
55 1294 28
1 6 16
0 0 0
1.00 1.00
1.,00 1.00 1.00
1900 1828 1828
1 2 0
76 1772 38
0.04 0.50 0.50
1809.5 3566.1 77.1
59.1 712.8 708.7
1800.5 1828.4 1814.8
3.0 29.5 29.6
3.0 29.5 29.6
1.000 0.042
76.5 008.5 901.7
0:773 0.785 0.786
157.6 908.5 901.7
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.000 1.000 1.000
43,5 19.1 19.1
6.1 6.7 6.8
0.0 0.0 0.0
49.6 25.8 25.9
D C C
1924
45.3
D
8
13.97
6.00
12.00
7.06
0.24
30
5 2
8.24 50,00
6.00 6.00
8.00 44.00
3.68 46.00
0.01 0,00
1481
26.8
c
1
9.88
6.00
8,00
4.97
0.01
6
51.64
6.00
44.00
31.61
12.30
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
AF ENGINEERING
Tntns ort ticn Engineering Services
&mil Ord., Sittie 1914
HMI RUM( RIV I 114i416114141
rilifFIC /WW1 Sn Y f , hliftrit4
US 421 & 98'" STREET /PRyi SED /ICCESS
DRn't
I%rERSE TA
C. VOLUME COUNTS
Ciimcln'i-I%iw 'sis
31
CLIENT
INTERSECTION
DATE :
COUNTED BY:
A & F ENGINEERING CO , LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
H&I-1 Restaurant Mgmt
US 421 & 98th Street
1017/2012
CP
)-7APPROACH
TOTAL VEHICLES (PASSENGER CARS + TRUCKS),
AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
OFF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
L
BEGINS 7:30 AM
BEGINS
BEGINS 4:30 PM
0.94
0.89
0.25
L
: T
R
TOTAL
L
T
R
TOTAL
L
T
R
TOTAL
NORTHBOUND
2676
1169 .
2
1171
1.8%
3.1%
25.0%
0.0%
1.9%
3.1%
0..0%
0
2635
1770
4
1774
SOUTHBOUND
2
1710
6
1712
5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM
1795
1394
3189
13
1451
4
1464
WESTBOUND
1
1197
8
9
2
2
2653
TOTAL VOLUME
0
7876
5
5
)-7APPROACH
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
AM PEAK HOUR FACTOR
OFF PEAK HOUR
FACTOR PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECT107— APPROACH
FACTOR
INTERSECTION
L
INTERSECTION
APPROACH
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
VVESTBOUND
0.94
0.89
0.25
0.93
R
0.94
44w 0.94
0 0.63
0.97
HOURLY SUMMARY
TRUCK PERCENTAGE
•
AM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
OFF PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
PM PEAK HOUR PERCENTAGE
L
T
R
TOTAL
L
T
R
TOTAL
L
T
R
TOTAL
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
WESTBOUND
0.0%
100.0%
3.8%
3..6%
50.0%
12,5%
3.8%
3,6%
22,2%
11
2676
8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
1177
0.0%
0 0%
1.8%
3.1%
25.0%
0.0%
1.9%
3.1%
0..0%
HOURLY SUMMARY
HOUR
NB
SB
NB+SB
EB
WB
EB+WB
TOTAL
6:00 AM TO 7:00 AM
545
816
1361
4
4
1365
7:00 AM TO 8:00 AM
1044
1621
2665
1 1
11
2676
8:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
1177
1458
2635
0
0
2635
4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM
1632
1390
3022
6
6
3028.
5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM
1795
1394
3189
4
4
3193
600 PM TO 7:00 PM
. 1454
1197
2651
2
2
2653
TOTAL VOLUME
7647
7876
15523
27
27
15550
PERCENTAGE
49.2%
50.6%
99,8%
0,2%
0.2%
100.O%
Release 1 1-18O4
32
BOTH
1
1
2
A & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC
TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY
CLIENT:
INTERSECTION:
DATE :
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL : NORTHBOUND
H&H Restaurant Mgrnt
US 421 & 98th Street
10/712012
HOUR
LEFT
THROUGH
AM TIME PERIOD
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM
8-.00 AM - 9:00 AM
PASS
PM TIME PERIOD
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
PASSENGER
TRUCK
BOTH
PASS
TRUCK
TRUCK
BOTH
PASS
491
1000
1115
TRUCK
52
43
61
BOTH PASS
1599
1767
1435
TRUCK
27
24
14
7407
97.1%
221
2.9%
BOTH
543
1043
1176
BOTH
1626
1791
1449
RIGHT
PASS
1
0
1
PASS
4
4
5
TRUCK
0
TRUCK
2
0
0
15
78,9%
4
21 1%
TOTAL
BOTH PASS
2 492
1 1000
1 1116
BOTH PASS
6 1603
4 1771
5 1440
7628
99.8%
19
0.2%
TRUCK
53
44
61
TRUCK
29
24
14
BOTH
545
1044
1177
BOTH
1632
1796
1454
7422
. 97.1%
225
2.9%
7647
100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL SOUTHBOUND
HOUR
AM TIME PERIOD
6:00 AM - 7:00 AM
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM
PM TIME PERIOD
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
PASSENGER
TRUCK
BOTH
LEFT
PASS
1
1
2
PASS
12
9
6
TRUCK
0
0
0
TRUCK
1
0
0
BOTH
13
9
6
31
96,9%
1
3.1%
32
0.4%
THROUGH
PASS
788
1565
1392
PASS
1329
1358
1163
TRUCK
27
55
64
TRUCK
48
27
28
BOTH
815
1620
1456
BOTH
1377
1385
1191
7595
96,8%
249
3,2%
7844
99_6%
RIGHT
PASS
PASS
TRUCK
TRUCK
BOTH
BOTH
TOTAL
PASS
789
1566
1394
PASS
1341
1367
1169
TRUCK
27
55
64
TRUCK
49
27
28
BOTH
816
1621
1458
BOTH
1390
1.394
1197
7626
96 8'ici
250
3.2%
7876
100.0%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL WESTBOUND
r HOUR
AM TIME PERIOD PASS
6:00 AM - 700 AM 1
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 1
8100 AM - 9130 AM 0
LEFT
TRUCK
0
0
PM TIME PERIOD PASS
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
PASSENGER
TRUCK
BOTH
BOTH
1
2
0
TRUCK .3C1171
0 1
0 1
0 0
4
80.0X
20.0%
5
18,5%
THROUGH
PASS
PASS
TRUCK BOTH
TRUCK BOTH
33
PASS
3
8
0
PASS
5
3
2
RIGHT
TRUCK
0
1
0
TRUCK
0
0
BOTH
3
90
BOTH
5
3
2
21
95.5%
4 5%
22
81 5%
PASS
4
9
0
PASS
6
4
2
TOTAL
TRUCK
0
2
0
TRUCK
0
0
0
BOTH
4
11
0
BOTH
6
4
2
26
92.6%
2
7 4%
27
100.0%
Release 1 1- 18,04
HCM 2010 TWSC
9: Michi9an Road & 98th Street
Existing AM Peak
11/13/2012
Intersection
Intersection Delay (seciveh): 0.1
1•1111111
Movement
Volume (vph)
WBL
1
WBR
8
NBT NBR SBL SBT
1169 2 2 1710
Conflicting Peds.(#ihr)
Sign Control
Right Turn Channelized
Storage Length
Median Width
Grade(%)
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles(%)
Movement Flow Rate
Number of Lanes
Ma'or/Minor
Conflicting Flow Rate - All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Follow-up Headway
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Time blocked-Platoon(%)
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Approach
0
Stop
None
0
12
0.93
100
1
1
0
Stop
None
0
0
Free
None
Free
one
0
0
Free
None
200
0
Free
None
16 12
0% 0%
0.93 0.93 0.93 0,93 0.92
13 4 50 0 4
9 1257 2 2 1659
0 dimialng 2 OAK 1 2
2192
1258
934
4.5
*8)
*104
*516
66
*82
*82
*104
*514
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM LOS
W13
18.4
c
630
Ma=14.1111.1111
0 1259 D c
3.43 2.2
399 659
399
NB
0
A
559
SB
0
A
Lane
NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (vph)
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane VC Ratio
RCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh)
*279
18.4 11.465
0.035 0,004
0.107 0.012
AM Timings 10130/2012
34
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
9: Michi an Road & 98th Street
Intersection
Intersection Delay (seciveh): 0.1
Existing PM Peak
11/13/2012
Movement
Volume (vph)
WBL WBR
0 5
NBT NBR SBL SBT
1770
4 13 1451
Conflicting Peds.(#ihr)
Sign Control
Right Turn Channelized
Storage Length
Median Width
Grade (%)
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles(%)
Movement Flow Rate
Number of Lanes
Ma or/Minor
0
Stop
None
0
12
0.97
0
1
Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2601
Stage 1 1827
Stage 2 774
Follow-up Headway 3.5
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver *20
Stage 1 *116
Stage 2 *635
Time blocked-Platoon(%) 54
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver *19
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver *19
Stage 1 *116
Stage 2 *659
Ajproach
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM LOS
0
Stop
None
0
0.97
0
5
0
915
3,3
279
0
279
0
Free Free Free Free
None None None None
0 200
16 12
0% 0%
0.97 0.97 0.97 0,97
2 25 0 3
1825 4 13 1496
2 0 1 2
Major
0
Ma or 2
0 1827 0
2.2
339
0
339
Lane
Capacity (ph)
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane VC Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh)
PM Timings 10130/2012
NEtaralia WBLni SBL SBT
279
18.1 16.056
0_018 0.04
C C
0.056 0.123
35
0.1
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
NBL NBT NBR Sal Tr.
52 list
HCM 2010 TWSC
9: Michi an Road & Pro osed Access Drive/98th Street
Future AM Peak
11/1412012
Intersection Delay (seciveh): 59.1
111111.11P 11111.1111111111111
=
Volume (vph)
Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0
Sign Control Stop
Right Turn Channelized None
Storage Length 0
Median Width
Grade(%)
Peak Hour Factor 0_92
Ve c es A • 0
7610111Pr ICTW
1
Mr
0
Stop
None
0
Stop Stop
None None
0
0
0%1I1
0,92 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.92
0 i0O 0 1 0
0
Stop
None
'7 •
0
Stop
None
0
0
Free
None
0
Movement Flow Rate 76 0 25 1 0 9 57
a or/Mino
Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2694 3206 950 2255 3239
Stage 2 724 1336 - 920 1904
Follow-up Headway 3.5=MILI3 4111 4.5111P4
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver *# 16 *2 *558 *38 2
Stage 1 "IIIWMPIIMMIMMD
Stage 2 *388 *224 - *658 317
Time blocked-Platoon(%) 63 63 imitragn
0
Free
None
16
0%
0,93
4
1220
2
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Egriwr
*# 14 *2 *558
#14 *2
*504 *556
*343 *202
*33
*63 203
*531
316
611
1900
0 0 0 „.. 0
Free Ne Frei— Frei
None None None None
0 200 231
12
0161i111
0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92
50 0 4 119
2 2 1832 68
•0 1 2 -11
*Of *L1.111.1=
0 0 1222 0 0
- --7=11111
3,43
411
0
—21.2
587
63
411 587
2.2 —Mil
578
0 .11111111
578
B
L.,
WB
NB
0111•11111•81n=
HCM Control Delay (s) $ 1910.6
kit Los lima_
26 0.8 0
1111.1111111.111.1111LA1111
gL NBT. iriBR EBtAl
Capacity (vph) '14
IIIPtontroi Delay (s) 11.786 0.3 $ 26
Hal Lane VC Ratio 0.096 5.435
IBS 13 A
HCM 96th Percentile Queue (veh)
AM Timings 10/30/2012
0.318 10.483
36
EBLn2 Ln1 SBL SBT. SBR
558 "B1
11110 11.252
0.045 0.053 0,004
B D B
0.14 0.168 0.011
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TV\ISC
Michigan Road 84,..1iroposed Access Drive/98th Street
Intersection
Intersection Delay (seciveh): 140.3
Future PM Peak
11/14/2012
mill11111
BL NBT NBR SBL SBT
76 1715 ALMEMILIA1,44AIL
Conflicting Peds.(#/hr)
Sign Control
Right Turn Channelized
Storage Length
Median Width
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to liginaldgik.alop 411441111Wop Free
None None None None None None None
0 416ininak 0 ,a,w 0
0 0
0%
0.97 0,92 0.97
Grade (% ) ,ait 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92
wavy Vehicles(%) Q 0 0
Movement Flow Rate if1 3 0 32
-riagi of Lanes IIMIIIIIMIIIR 1
Conflicting Flow Rate - All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Follow-up Headway
Pot Capacity-1 tilaneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Time blocked-Platoon(%)
Mov Capacity-1 I'vlaneuver
MDV Cy-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage r
2584
1534
1050
3.5
*# 14
*685
247
54
"# 12
*# 12
*602
*27
HCM Control Delay (5) $ 344
HCM r
3472
1534
1938
4
*685
114
54
*1
*1
*660
*100
0
0
0
774 2697
1936
761
3.3 3,5
*685 *9
*69
*685
54 54
*665 *8
*8
*61
*630
17+6
0 0
0 5
1 0
3509
193
1573
4
*1 29
*114 -
685
54 0
*1 292
*1 GO
'660
0 0 0 0 0
Free FreM11111.1M11
None None None None None
16 12
0%
0,92 0.97 0.91 0,97 0.97 0.92
2
83 1768 4 13 1469 78
1 2
2= 0 .11115
886 1547
*685
0
01NPIMME9111111PW
2 •1
1772
2.2
356
0
54 111.1111M11=1160 1111.11116
*685 - - 356
-
NB
0 9
A
c
.NBI-
Capacity (vph)
HCM Control Delay (s)411111111111111,175
HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.121
HCM Lane LOS 1.11111111111"11. B
HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.409
PM Timings 10/30/2012
gr _NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 Wi3Ln1 SBL
'12 *685 *292
0,4 $ 17,6 10,5 17.6 15.508
- 9.42 0.046 0.018 0.038
F BCC
- 15,386 0.144 0.054 0,117
37
SBT
0.1
A
S8R
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
A&F ENGINEERING
Transporzation Engineering Services
*1O Mg
41tV4EttEVI
!Rom !WWI Sam - Arnim
421 & 98" STREET/PROP 1 SE° RIGHT-
WRIGHT-Off ACCES RIFE
iNTERSE 14
win/ AA/WYSS
38
HCM 2010 TVVSC
13: Michigan Road & PiNoposed RIR° Access Drive
Intersection
Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 0
Movement EBL
Volume (vph) 0
Conflicting Peds. (#fhr) 0
Sign Control Stop
Right Turn Channelized None
Storage Length 0
Median Width 0
Grade (%) 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0
Movement Flow Rate
Number of Lanes 0
EBR NBL NBT
35 0 1223
0 0 0
Stop Free Free
None None None
0 0
12
0.92 0.92 0.92
0 0 4
38 0 1329
1 0 2
Major/Minor julaor 1
Conflicting Flow Rate - All - 930 - 0 0 0
Stage 1 - ..
Stage 2
Follow-up Headway 0 3.3 0
Pot Capacity-1 'Maneuver 0 *558 0
Stage 1 0 - 0
Stage 2 0 0
Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 63
Mov Capacity-1 i'Vlaneuver , 558
SBT SBR
1690 19
Free Free
None None
0
0%
•.92 0.92
4 0
1837 21
2 0
Ma
or 2
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
_proach
HCM Control Delay (5) 11.9 0 0
HCM LOS 8 A A
Lane NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
558
Capacity (vph)
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane VC Ratio
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veil)
AM Timings 10/3012012
- 11.9
- 0,068.
B
- 0 219
39
Future AM Peak
11/13/2012
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM 2010 TWSC
13: %chi an Road 8,11roposed RI/R0 Access Drive
Intersection
Intersection Delay (seciveh): 0.1
Movement EBL •
Volume (vph) 0
Conflicting Peds,(tar) 0
Stgn Control Stop
Right Turn Channelized None
Storage Length 0
Median Width
Grade (% ) 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0,92
Heavy Vehicles(%)
Movement Flow Rate 0
Number of Lanes 0
MajoriMinor
Conflicting Flow Rate - All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Foltow-up Headway 0
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 0
Stage 1 0
Stage 2 0
Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
EBR NBL NBT
43 0 1685
0 0 0
Stop Free Free
None None None
0 0
0
Ocilo
0.92 0.92 0.92
0 0 2
47 0 1832
SBT SBR
1431 23
0 0
Free Free
None. None
0
0
0%
0.92 0.92
3 0
1555 25
Future PM Peak
11/13/2012
0 2 2 0
791 0
-14M----Allr • -
33 0
*685 0
0
- 0
54 0
685
Approach EB
HCM Control Delay (5) 10.6
I-1CM LOS 13
Lane NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (vph• 685
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 •
HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.068
HCM Lane LOS
KM 95th Percentile Queue (vell) 0.219
PM Timings 1013012012
40
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2