HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact AnalysisTRAFFIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS
PRIMARY PLAT APPROVAL
WESTON COMMUNITIES
MICHIGAN ROAD (U.S. 421) & 106TH STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
° CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
JULY 1994
A&
ENGINEERING CO., INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5172 EAST 65TH STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46220
TRAFFIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS
PRIMARY PLAT APPROVAL
WESTON COMMUNITIES
MICHIGAN ROAD (U.S.421) & 106TH STREET
CARMEL, INDIANA
PREPARED FOR
CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
JULY 1994
PREPARED BY:
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC
5172 EAST 65TH STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46220
(317) 842 -0864
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures i
List of Tables ii
Certification iii
Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Scope of Work 1
Description of the Proposed Development 3
Study Area 4
Description of Vacant Parcels 4
Description of Abutting Street System 7
Traffic Data 8
Generated Traffic Volumes for Proposed Site 8
Generated Traffic Volumes for Vacant Lands 9
Internal Trips 10
Pass -By Traffic 10
Annual Growth Rate for Through Traffic 10
Peak Hours 10.
Assignment and Distribution of Generated Trips 11
Proposed Site Generated Trips Added to Street System 12
Vacant Land Generated Trips Added to Street System 12
Year 2004 Traffic Volumes 12
Total Traffic Volumes 16
Capacity Analyses 20
Conclusions 25
Recommendations 27
Summary 29
Appendix A
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Area Map 5
2. Vacant Land 6
3. Proposed Site Generated Traffic Volumes 13
4. Vacant Land Generated Traffic Volumes 14
5. Year 2004 Traffic Volumes 15
6. Existing Traffic Volumes - 1994 17
7. Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Traffic
Volumes + Year 2004 Traffic Volumes + Existing Zoning
Traffic Volumes 18
8. Sum of Existing Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Traffic
Volumes + Year 2004 Traffic Volumes + Proposed
Site Traffic Volumes
i
19
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Vacant Parcel Recommended Land Use 7
2. Generated Trips - Proposed Site 9
3. Generated Trips - Vacant Lands 9
4. Level of Service Summary - Michigan Road (U.S. 421) &
106th Street 21
5. Level of Service Summary - Shelborne Road & 106th Street 22
6. Level of Service Summary - Shelborne Road (South Leg)
& 116th Street 23
7. Level of Service Summary - Shelborne Road (North Leg)
& 116th Street 24
ii
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS has been prepared by me
and under by immediate supervision and that I have experience and
training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering.
This TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS has been prepared in accordance with
the Carmel, Indiana Applicant's Guide - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
STUDIES FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT and in accordance with instruc-
tions from the Department of Community Development staff.
A & F ENGINEERING CO., INC.
William Jf Fehribach, P.E.
President
Indiana Registration 12855
tt ° .
- S
No. 12855 1
.
•
STATE OF
�''••,f��ON A� E�G.
INTRODUCTION
This Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared for the Carmel /Clay Plan
Commission, at the request of Estridge Development Company, Inc.,
is for a preliminary plat for a 181.61 acre parcel of real estate
that is located north and west of Shelborne Road and 106th Street.
This site is currently zoned S -1 Residential District.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to determine what effect traffic
generated by the site with a zoning classification of S -1 Residen-
tial, when fully developed, will have on the existing adjacent
roadway system. Recommendations based on the findings will be made
to provide for the safe ingress and egress to and from the proposed
site with minimal interference to traffic on the public street
system.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this analysis is:
First, to make new traffic volume counts at the following intersec-
tions:
1. Michigan Road (U.S. 421) and 106th Street
2. Shelborne Road and 106th Street
3. Shelborne Road and 116th Street
Second, to estimate the number of new trips that will be generated
1
for each of the following scenarios:
a. Proposed Development - This is the primary plat as
proposed by Estridge Development Company, Inc.
b. Vacant Lands - The vacant lands within the study area
that have been identified by the Department of Community
Development (DOCD).
c. Existing Zoning - This is the use that is currently zoned
within the site, namely S -1 Residential District.
Third, to assign the generated traffic volumes to the streets where
driveways may be located and to the public roadways that will
provide the access to each of the individual parcels that have been
previously identified to be included in this analysis.
Fourth, to distribute the generated traffic volumes from each
parcel onto the public roadway system and the study intersections
identified as the study area.
Fifth, to prepare an analysis, including a capacity analysis and
level of service analysis, for each intersection in the study area
for each of the following scenarios:
a. Existing Conditions - Based on existing roadway condi-
2
tions, traffic signal timing, and traffic volumes.
b. Vacant Lands - The estimated number of trips that will be
generated by the vacant lands will be added to the
existing traffic volumes.
c. Year 2004 Traffic - the traffic volumes that will be
generated from outside the study area through the Year
2004 (at the rate of two (2) percent per year) added to
the sum of the existing traffic volumes and the vacant
land traffic volumes.
d. Proposed Development - the traffic volumes that would be
generated by the proposed development added to the sum of
the existing traffic volumes, vacant land traffic
volumes, and the Year 2004 traffic volumes.
Finally, to prepare a TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS documenting all data,
analyses, conclusions, and recommendations to provide for the safe
and efficient movement of traffic through the study area.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The real estate under consideration is located north and west of
Shelborne Road and 106th Street. This tract is bounded by proposed
commercial development to the west, residential development to the
south, and zoned residential acreage to the east. The primary plat
3
for this site proposes 388 single family units. This development
will be known as Weston Communities. The development of this site
will have access along Shelborne Road and along 106th Street.
Figure 1 is an area map showing the location of the site.
STUDY AREA
The study area as defined by the Department of Community Develo-
pment for this analysis includes Michigan Road from 106th Street to
the north property line of the site and 106th Street from Michigan
Road to Shelborne Road.
The study area will include the following intersections:
1. Michigan Road (U.S. 421) and 106th Street
2. Shelborne Road and 106th Street
3. Shelborne Road and 116th Street
DESCRIPTION OF VACANT PARCELS
The Department of Community Development has identified the vacant
parcels that are to be included in this Traffic Impact Analysis and
the individual land uses that are to be assigned to each vacant
parcel. The vacant parcels are shown on Figure 2. The recommended
individual parcel land uses, including the size of each parcel and
the potential build -out for each parcel are listed in Table 1.
4
1l
TABLE 1
VACANT PARCEL RECOMMENDED LAND USE
Site Anticipated Development Buildout
1 Commercial Center 200,000 SF
2 Hamilton Business Park 552,300 SF
3 Ashbrooke Residential 200 Units
4 Hamilton Center 144,500 SF
5 General Office 300,000 SF
6 Garden Center 23 Acres
DESCRIPTION OF THE ABUTTING STREET SYSTEM
This proposed site will be served by the public roadway system that
includes Michigan Road (U.S. 421), 106th Street, and Shelborne
Road.
Michigan Road (U.S. 421) - is a major northwest - southeast
State Highway that serves traffic to and from Indianapolis to
northwestern Indiana. Michigan Road is a two lane roadway
with additional turn lanes added at major intersections.. At
its intersection with 106th Street there are exclusive left -
turn lanes on the north and south approaches. There is an
exclusive right -turn lane for both northbound and southbound
traffic. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of
Michigan Road and 106th Street.
7
106th Street - is a two -lane east -west cross township collec-
tor connecting Michigan Road (U.S. 421) to Keystone Avenue
(S.R. 431) . There is a four -way stop control at the intersec-
tion with Shelborne Road.
Shelborne Road - is a two -lane north -south cross township
collector.
TRAFFIC DATA
Peak hour manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made
at each of the study intersections.
These traffic volume counts, made during the hours of 6:00 AM to
9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM, include an hourly total of all
"through" traffic and all "turning" traffic at the intersections.
These traffic volume data have been published in Appendix A.
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED SITE
The estimate of traffic to be generated by the proposed development
is a function of the development size and of the character of the
land use. Trip Generation' report was used to calculate the number
of trips that will be generated by this proposed site. This report
is a compilation of trip data for various land uses as collected by
transportation professionals throughout the United States in order
. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Fifth Edition, January 1991.
8
to establish the average number of trips generated by various land
uses. Table 2 is a summary of the trips that will be generated by
the proposed site.
TABLE 2
GENERATED TRIPS - PROPOSED SITE
Peak Hour Trips
ITE AM AM PM PM
Land Use Code Size Enter Exit Enter Exit
S- Family 210 388 d.u. 68 193 239 128
GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR VACANT LANDS
Trip Generation report was used to calculate the number of trips
that will be generated by the vacant lands. Table 3 is a summary
of the trips that will be generated by the vacant lands.
TABLE 3
GENERATED TRIPS - VACANT LANDS
Peak Hour Trips
ITE AM AM PM PM
Parcel Code Size Enter Exit Enter Exit
1 820 200,000 SF 154 90 510 510
2 820 552,300 SF 733 258 1213 1482
3 210 200 Units 38 109 131 71
4 820 144,500 SF 127 75 415 415
5 710 300,000 SF 399 49 71 347
6 817 23 Acres 104 97 114 110
9
INTERNAL TRIPS
The proposed use for this site is residential. In this type of
scenario one can normally expect there will be internal trips
between the residential units. However, ITE Land Use Code 210 was
used to estimate the number of total trips. The data collected for
this land use code includes trips between the dwelling units. By
using this land use code internal trips are accounted for.
Therefore, there will be no reduction in the number of trips for
this use that result from internal trips.
PASS -BY TRAFFIC
Residential developments are destination developments that do not
generated pass -by trips. Therefore, there no reduction will be
take for pass -by trips.
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC
The annual growth rate of background traffic is for traffic that
will access the public roads from outside the study are; that is,
traffic that will enter the study area and exit the study area
without stopping within it. The annual growth rate of through
traffic to be used for this analysis is two percent (2) per year
for Michigan Road, Shelborne Road, 106th Street, and for 116th
Street.
PEAK HOURS
Peak hour referred to in this analysis are as follows:
10
a. AM Peak Hour is 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM
b. PM Peak Hour is 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
These times are based on the traffic volume count that was made at
the intersection of Michigan Road and 106th Street.
ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRIPS
The study methodology used to determine the traffic volumes, from
the proposed site, that will be added to the street system is
defined as follows:
1. The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the site must
be assigned to each of the streets where a driveway may be
located that will serve as access to the site and to the
public street system. Using the traffic volume data collected
for this analysis, traffic to and from the proposed new site
has been assigned to each of the access streets 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 distrib-
uted by direction to the public roadways at their intersection
with the streets where the driveways may be located. For this
proposed site the distribution was based on the existing
traffic patterns and the assignment of generated traffic.
11
PROPOSED SITE GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM
An estimate of the generated traffic volumes that can be expected
from the proposed site has been made for each of the streets where
a driveway may be located and for each of the study area inter-
sections. The Peak Hour generated traffic volumes are shown on
Figure 3. These data are based on the previously discussed trip
generation data, assignment of generated traffic, and distribution
of generated traffic.
VACANT LAND GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM
Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the vacant land
developments, within the study area, have been prepared for the
study area intersections. The peak hour total for all vacant lands
are shown on Figure 4. These data are based on the previously
discussed trip generation data, assignment of generated traffic,
and the distribution of generated traffic.
YEAR 2004 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To evaluate the future impact of this development on the public
roadway system, the existing through traffic volumes must be
projected forward to a design year. The design year used for this
project, based on a ten year projection beyond the completion of
construction, will be year 2004. A rate of two percent per year
has been used for this analysis. The peak hour 2004 traffic
volumes are shown on Figure 5.
12
TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES
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 then be
analyzed as to the adequacy of the existing roadway system. The
following scenarios will be reviewed as a part of this analysis:
1. Existing Traffic Volumes- These are the traffic volumes
that were obtained in January 1994. Figure 6 is a
summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersec-
tions for the peak hours.
2. Existing Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes +
Year 2004 Traffic Volumes - Figure 7 is a summary of the
total of these traffic volumes at the study intersections
for the peak hours.
2. Existing Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Generated Traffic
Volumes + Year 2004 Traffic Volumes + Proposed Site Gen-
erated Traffic Volumes - Figure 8 is a summary of the
total of these traffic volumes at the study intersections
for the peak hours.
16
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to
accommodate the traffic volumes that approach the intersection.
The "efficiency" of an intersection is designated by the Level -of-
Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS of an intersection is
determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity
analysis ". Input data into a capacity analysis includes traffic
volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes and, in the
case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To
determine the level of service at each of the study intersections,
a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer
program based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)2.
The Department of Community Development has requested that an
analysis be made for the AM and PM Peak Hours for each of the
scenarios that were identified in the section titled "Total Traffic
Volumes" at each study intersection. These analyses have been
completed and the computer solution showing the LOS results are
included in Appendix A.
The tables that are included in this report are a summary of the
results of the LOS analyses and are identified as follows:
Table 4 - Michigan Road (U.S. 421) and 106th Street
Table 5 - Shelborne Road and 106th Street
Table 6 - Shelborne Road (South Leg) and 116th Street
Table 7 - Shelborne Road (North Leg) and 116th Street
2. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., Special Report 209, 1985.
20
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that follow are based on the capacity analyses and
the resulting levels service. These conclusions apply only to the
two peak hours that have been addressed in this analysis. These
peak hours are when the largest volumes of traffic will occur.
Therefore, if the resulting level of service are adequate during
these two time periods it can generally be assumed that the
remaining 22 off -peak hours will have levels of service that are
better than the peak hours, since the traffic volumes will be less
during those off -peak hours.
Further, the conclusions that follow were included in the Traffic
Impact Analysis that was prepared for the petition to change the
zone maps for the B -2 Business District in the northeast corner of
Michigan Road and 106th Street. The impact from this proposed
site, which is being presented by the same owners, does not alter
the conclusions.
Michigan Road & 106th Street
1. This intersection is currently operating at level of
service B during both the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak
Hour with the existing roadway conditions.
2. If this site were developed in accordance with the
existing zoning plan the AM Peak hour would drop to level
C and the PM Peak Hour to level E. This analysis is
25
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
1
1
based on no change in the intersection geometrics.
3. If the site is developed as proposed and there is no
change in the intersection geometrics, the intersection
level of service would drop. However, if a right turn
lane is added along the east side of Michigan Road from
106th Street to the northern most driveway, then the
level of service will remain B in the AM Peak Hour and
will only change to level C in the PM Peak Hour. This
change will then require the existing northbound right -
turn lane to become a through and right -turn lane.
Shelborne Road & 106th Street
1. The traffic volumes at this intersection are currently
less than level of service C traffic volumes during both
the AM Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour.
2. If this project is developed as proposed the projected
traffic volumes at this intersection will continue to be
less than level of service C traffic volumes.
Shelborne Road & 116th Street
1. In addition to the above intersections, the intersection
of Shelborne Road and 116th Street has been added to this
analysis. The results of the capacity analysis and level
of service analysis at this intersection indicate that
26
1
all movements are operating at level "C" or better and
will continue to do so following the full build out of
this proposed development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this analysis and the conclusions, the following recommen-
dations are made to insure that the roadway system will operate at
acceptable levels of service if the site is developed as shown on
the primary plat.
Michigan Road & 106th Street
1. The improvements that have been committed to as a part of
the petition to change the zone maps to B -1 Business
District for the northeast quadrant of Michigan Road and
106th Street will adequately serve this intersection.
These committed improvements include exclusive left -turn
lanes on 106th Street and a right -turn lane along the
east side of Michigan Road in front of the subject
property.
106th Street Access
1. This access point should be design with two outbound
lanes and one inbound land, all 12 feet wide. A right -
turn deceleration lane and a passing blister will also be
required on 106th Street.
27
Shelborne Road & 106th Street
1. The traffic volumes being added to this intersection, as
a result of this proposed development, are minimal.
Therefore, no additional improvements are required at
this intersection.
Shelborne Road & 116th Street
1. The traffic volumes being added to this intersection, as
a result of this proposed development, are minimal.
Therefore, no additional improvements are required at
this intersection.
Shelborne Road Access
1. This access point should be design with two outbound
lanes and one inbound land, all 12 feet wide. A right -
turn deceleration lane and a passing blister will also be
required on Shelborne Road.
28
SUMMARY
The development of this project as proposed will not adversely
affect the operation of the public roadway system on Michigan Road
or at the intersections of; Michigan Road and 106th Street;
Shelborne Road and 106th Street; or Shelborne Road and 116th Street
provided the improvements are made as recommended.
An "on- site" review of the roadway system did not indicate that
there would be any sight distance problems at the approaches.
29
APPENDIX A
This document contains the traffic data that were used in the Traffic Impact
Analysis for the proposed primary plat to be Located in the northwest
quadrant of Shelborne Road and 106th Street.
Included are the intersection turning movement traffic volumes counts and the
intersection capacity analyses for each of the study intersections for the AM
Peak Hour and the PM Peak Hour.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Michigan Road (U.S. 421) & 106th Street 3
Shelborne Road & 106th Street 13
Shelborne Road & 116th Street 23
MICHIGAN ROAD & 106TH STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSES
SHELBORNE ROAD & 106TH STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSES
1985 HCM: MULTI -WAY STOP INTERSECTION
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
INTERSECTION: Shelborne Road & 106th Street
********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
COMMENT: Existing Traffic Volumes
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: AM Peak Hour
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
NORTHBOUND: 24
SOUTHBOUND: 127
EASTBOUND: 111
WESTBOUND: 171
TOTAL: 428
******************•***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEMAND SPLIT: 65/35
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
NUMBER OF LANES:
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND: 2
EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND: 2
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUME AT LEVEL OF SERVICE C (TABLE 10 -7): 1010
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ACTUAL VOLUME VS LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME: 428 vs 1010
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
CAPACITY: 1600
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
17
1985 HCM: MULTI -WAY STOP INTERSECTION
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
INTERSECTION: Shelborne Road & 106th Street
********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
COMMENT: Existing Traffic Volumes
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: PM Peak Hour
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
NORTHBOUND: 129
SOUTHBOUND: 46
EASTBOUND: 182
WESTBOUND: 137
TOTAL: 494
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEMAND SPLIT: 65/35
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
NUMBER OF LANES:
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND: 2
EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND: 2
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUME AT LEVEL OF SERVICE C (TABLE 10 -7): 1010
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ACTUAL VOLUME VS LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME: 494 vs 1010
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
CAPACITY: 1600
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
18
1985 HCM: MULTI -WAY STOP INTERSECTION
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
INTERSECTION: Shelborne Road & 106th Street
********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
COMMENT:
Existing Traffic Volumes + Year 2004 Traffic Vol-
umes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes + Proposed
Development Traffic Volumes
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: AM Peak Hour
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
NORTHBOUND: 32
SOUTHBOUND: 170
EASTBOUND: 181
WESTBOUND: 270
TOTAL: 653
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEMAND SPLIT: 70/30
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
NUMBER OF LANES:
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND: 2
EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND: 2
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUME AT LEVEL OF SERVICE C (TABLE 10 -7): 960
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ACTUAL VOLUME VS LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME: 653 vs 960
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
CAPACITY: 1500
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
19
1985 HCM: MULTI -WAY STOP INTERSECTION
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
INTERSECTION: Shelborne Road & 106th Street
********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
COMMENT:
Existing Traffic Volumes + Year 2004 Traffic Vol-
umes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes + Proposed
Development Traffic Volumes
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: PM Peak Hour
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
NORTHBOUND: 169
SOUTHBOUND: 85
EASTBOUND: 296
WESTBOUND: 266
TOTAL: 816
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEMAND SPLIT: 70/30
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
NUMBER OF LANES:
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND: 2
EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND: 2
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUME AT LEVEL OF SERVICE C (TABLE 10 -7): 960
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ACTUAL VOLUME VS LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME: 816 vs 960
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
CAPACITY: 1500
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1985 HCM: MULTI -WAY STOP INTERSECTION
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
INTERSECTION: Shelborne Road & 106th Street
********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
COMMENT: Existing Traffic Volumes + Year 2004 Traffic Vol-
umes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: AM Peak Hour
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
NORTHBOUND: 25
SOUTHBOUND: 132
EASTBOUND: 158
WESTBOUND: 264
TOTAL: 579
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEMAND SPLIT: 70/30
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
NUMBER OF LANES:
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND: 2
EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND: 2
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUME AT LEVEL OF SERVICE C (TABLE 10 -7): 960
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ACTUAL VOLUME VS LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME: 579 vs 960
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
CAPACITY: 1500
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
21
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1985 HCM: MULTI -WAY STOP INTERSECTION
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
INTERSECTION: Shelborne Road & 106th Street
********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
COMMENT: Existing Traffic Volumes + Year 2004 Traffic Vol-
umes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED: PM Peak Hour
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
NORTHBOUND: 143
SOUTHBOUND: 55
EASTBOUND: 266
WESTBOUND: 246
TOTAL: 710
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEMAND SPLIT: 70/30
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
NUMBER OF LANES:
NORTHBOUND & SOUTHBOUND: 2
EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND: 2
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TRAFFIC VOLUME AT LEVEL OF SERVICE C (TABLE 10 -7): 960
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ACTUAL VOLUME VS LEVEL OF SERVICE C VOLUME: 710 vs 960
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
CAPACITY: 1500
*********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
22
SHELBORNE ROAD & 116TH STREET
INTERSECTION DATA
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSES