Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Arbor Manors-SY061020
Traffic Impact Analysis The Ellington Development Coppell, Texas Prepared for: The City of Coppell, Texas October 2006 ......._.__. ~~ ~~~ .:~~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2006 Kimley-Ham _ antl Associates, Inr.. TECH~acA~ ~EMC~rialv~tl To: Mr. Ken Griffin City of Coppell, Texas From: C`. Brian Shamburger, P.E. Anecl K. Gogula, EIT -~ Kimley-I~Iorn and Associates, Inc. Date: C7ctvber 20, 2006 ~; .. C. l3.5143Ltt~,~~ . . ~. a .. ~7~.. , .. ,.,~A ~.,,9 -~ ~.~ . q~•~,~.~~ , ` Subject: 't'he Iillington Development Traffic Impact Analysis Copps]], "I'cxas Introduction The purpose of this study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed Ellington Development located in the southwest comer of the intersection of Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Roaci in the City of Coppell, Texas. The specific objectives of tills study are to determine the existing and future (year 2(110) levels of-service of tl~e adjacent roadways and intersections and to reco~rzmend any capacity related improvements (if necessary). Existing C'anditians '1'hc h`act of land under study is cun~ently undeveloped and is zoned tmdcr category "R", retail according; to the City of Coppell, comprehensive plan. "i'he proposed lillin~ton Development has l22 dwelling units ofhigh end residential townhomes. A vicinity map can be seen in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 illustrates the proposed concept plan. Denton Tap Read is located to the east of the proposed site and is a six-lane divided facility. Denton 't'ap Road is classified as a 6 lane divided, principal arterial, with 110 feet of right-of-way according to the City n/~Cop~~ell M~rstcr Thoroughfare Pla~~. '[`hc posted speed limit on Denton Tap Road in the vicinity of the site is 40 miles per hour. Sandy Lake Road forms the northern border of the proposed site. Currently Sandy Lake Road is a two lane undivided roadway. According to the City of C`o~pet! Afaster 7horouglr~rare :c'Icrrz, Sandy Lake Road is classified as a four lane divided, collector with 90 feet ofright-of-way. The posted speed limit on Sandy Lake Road. in the vicinity cif the site is 35 miles per hour, Exhibit 3 shows the existing lane configuration and traffic control devices at the intersection of Denton "hap Road and Sandy bake Road and also at the proposed site driveways and the existing roadways. The intersection of Dcnion `f'op Road and Sandy Lake Road has left turn lanes on the northbound, southbound and the eastbound approaches and a dual left turn lane on the westbound appa~aach. The GUinghm Development TIA Uctohor 2(16 Coppell. Texas Page I ~ Kimley-Hom ~ antl Associates, lnc. Proposed Development The proposed Ellington Development is planned to be high end residential townhomes. The proposed development will include 122 dwelling units. The site plan includes two entrances. The primary entrance is located on Sandy Lake Road and aligns with the existing Albertson's west Driveway located approximately 550 feet west of the intersection of Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Road. The secondary entrance is located on Denton Tap Road and aligns with the existing intersection of Denton Tap Road and Braewood. This minor entrance is located approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection of Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Road. Trip Generation Based on discussions with the City, the proposed Ellington Development is projected to be bttilt-out by the year 2010. Therefore, for purposes of analysis, the build-out year is 2010. To estimate the trips generated by the proposed development, trip generation rates from the 7`h edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual were used. The ITE manual includes different trip generation rates for both townhomes and single family detached housing. The trip rates for townhomes are approximately half the rates of single family. Given the unique nature of this development, it is our opinion that the trip rates for townhomes may be too low. The reality is that this development will likely fall somewhere in the middle, but in order to be conservative, the trip generation rates for single family detached housing was used. Table 1 shows the projected site-generated trips using the single family rates. Table 2 summarizes the total number of trips that are expected to be generated at build- out of the proposed development during the AM and PM peak periods and on a daily basis. The number of trips generated represents the number of vehicles entering and exiting the proposed development to and from the adjacent street system. Table 1. Estimated Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use in:0ut In:Out In:Out Description Rate Split Rate Split Rate Split (% Townhomes (assumed Single- 0.75(X) 25:75 I.OI(X) 6337 9.57 (X) 50:50 Family Detached Housing) Numbers of Trips Generated =Trip Rate (Development Unit) X =Number of Dwelling Units The Ellington Development TlA October 2006 Coppell, Texas Pagc 2 ~ Kimley-Hom ~ antl Associates, Inc. Table 2. Estimated Trip Generation -Build-Out of Development Land Use Intensity / ITE Daily AM Peak PM Peak Units Code Total In Out Total In Out Total The Ellin ton Develo ment Townhomes (assumed Single- Family Detached Housin ) 122 Dwelling Units 210 1168 23 69 92 77 46 123 Trip Generation Comparison According to the City of Coppell zoning, the current 29 acre tract of land is zoned as "R", retail, out of which 10 acres is zoned retail and 16 acres is zoned commercial. At the request of the City, a comparison between the residential and retail/commercial trip generation was performed. A Floor Area Ratio of approximately 0.2 was used to determine the total floor area of the retail land use for comparison purposes. If the site were developed as a shopping center, the site would be approximately 225,000 square feet in size. Table 3 presents the trip generation rates for the residential and shopping center land uses. For comparison purposes, Table 4 shows the difference in trips generated by the proposed residential development and a potential shopping center. From Table 4, it can be seen that a shopping center will generate significantly more trips than the proposed residential townhome development. In fact, over a 24-hour period, a 225,000 s.f. shopping center will generate over 700% more traffic than a 122 lot subdivision. Table 3. Estimated Trip Generation Rates Townhomes Sin le Famil Detached Housin ) vs. Sho in Center AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use In:Out In:Out In:Out Description Rate Split Rate Split Rate Split (%) (% (%) Townhomes (assumed Single- Family Detached 0.75(X) 25:75 1.01(X) 63:37 9.57 (X) 50:50 Housing) Shopping Center 1.03(Y) 61:39 3.75(Y) 48:52 42.94(Y) 50:50 Numbers of Trips Generated =Trip Rate (Development Unit) X =Number of Dwelling Units Y = 1,000 S uare Feet of Gross Leasable Area The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas Page 3 ~ ~ Kimley-Hom CI ~ _ and Associates, Inc. Table 4. Trip Generation Comparison Townhomes Sin le Famil Detached Housin vs. Sho in Center Intensity / ITE Daily AM Peak PM Peak Land Use Units Code Total In Out Total In Out Total The Ellin ton Devela ment Townhomes (assumed Single- 122 Dwelling 210 1168 23 69 92 77 46 123 Family Detached Units Housin Shopping 225,000 g20 9662 142 90 232 405 439 844 Center S uare Feet Additional Trips Generated _ _ 8494 ] 19 21 140 328 393 721 by Shopping Center Increase in _ - 727% 517% 30% 152% 426% 854% 586% number of Tri s The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas Page 4 ~ ^ Kimley-Hom ~ antl Associates, Inc. Capacity Analysis Capacity defines the volume of traffic that can be accommodated by a roadway at a specified "level-of-service." Capacity is affected by various geometric factors including roadway type (e.g. divided or undivided), number of lanes, lane widths, and grades. Level-of-service (LOS), which is a measure of the degree of congestion, ranges from LOS A (free flowing) to LOS F (a congested, forced flow condition). For the purpose of this study LOS C is considered to be the minimum acceptable level of service for design and evaluation purposes, while LOS D is considered acceptable for long-term planning due to the uncertainty of study assumptions. A description of each operational state for both signalized and unsignalized intersections is presented in Table 5. Table 5 -Definition of Level of Service for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Level Average Control Delay per of Service Vehicle (sec/veh) Description Signalized Unsignalized S 10 (A) <_ 10 (A) No delays at intersections with continuous flow A and B traffic. Uncongested operations; high frequency > 10 and _< 20 > 10 and 5 15 (B) of long gaps available for all left and right- (B) turning traffic; no observable queues. Moderate delays at intersections with C > 20 and <_ 35 > 15 and < 25 satisfactory to good traffic flow. Light _ congestion; infrequent backups on critical approaches. Increased probability of delays along every D > 35 and _< 55 > 25 and < 35 approach. Significant congestion on critical _ approaches, but intersection functional. No long standing lines formed. Heavy traffic flow condition. Heavy delays E > 55 and <_ 80 > 35 and < 50 Probable. No available gaps for cross-street _ traffic or main street turning traffic. Limit of stable flow. Unstable traffic flow. Heavy congestion. Traffic F > 80 > 50 moves in forced flow condition. Average delays greater than one minute highly probable. Total breakdown. The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas ['age 5 ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Hom ~ and Associates, Inc. Existing Traffic Existing turning movement counts were collected on Wednesday, October l 8, 2006 at the following intersections: • Denton Tap Road and Sand Lake Road, • Sandy Lake Road and Albertson's west driveway, and • Denton Tap Road and Braewood. A 24-hour recording machine count was also collected along Sandy Lake Road, west of the Albertson's west driveway on Tuesday, October 17, 2006. The existing traffic volumes are presented in Exhibit 4. Raw traffic counts are included in the Appendix. Based upon examination of the existing traffic volumes and land use, reasonable assumptions for the trip distributions were made. It was estimated that approximately 50 percent of the site traffic will travel to the west and north along Sandy Lake and Denton Tap to access SH 121. Approximately 30 percent of the site traffic will travel east along Sandy Lake Road to access Interstate Highway 35 and the President George Bush Turnpike. It was estimated that the remaining 25 percent of the site traffic would travel south along Denton Tap to access Interstate Highway 635. The assumptions for trip distribution are presented in Exhibit 5. Projected Traffic Volumes In order to determine the projected background traffic volumes, historical 24-hour count data were obtained from the City of Coppell website (http://www.ci.coppelLtx.us/). Counts were obtained along Denton Tap between Sandy Lake Road and Bethel School Road and can be seen in Table 6. Based on the available data, a conservative growth rate of 5.5% was applied to the existing traffic volumes to generate the year 2010 background traffic volumes (see Exhibit 6). Table 6. Historic Traffic Counts, Denton Tap Road Year Daily Count 1995 23,220 1997 35,825 2000 39,370 2003 35,685 The site traffic volumes are presented in Exhibit 7. The proposed development has only residential land use hence no pass-by or internal trip reduction was used as part of the analysis. The build-out total traffic volumes presented in Exhibit 8 were estimated by combining the anticipated site generated traffic volumes (see Exhibit 7) with the projected background traffic volumes (see Exhibit 6). The build-out traffic scenario assumes Sandy Lake Road to be a four-lane divided roadway. The Ellington Development T[A October 2006 Coppell, Texas Page 6 ~ ^ Kimley-Hom ~ antl Associates, Inc. Signalized Intersection Analysis Intersection level of service analysis was then performed to evaluate the proposed development's impacts on the roadway system for the build-out year (2010). Using the Synchro 6T"'software, both AM and PM peak hour intersection level of service analyses were completed. The results can be seen in Table 7 and Table 8. Synchro 6T"' output sheets are attached in the Appendix. Based on the results, the signalized intersection at Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Road currently operates at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak periods (LOS C and D respectively). Over the next several years, traffic in the area will continue to increase and operations at this intersection will deteriorate (i.e., LOS E and F during the AM and PM peak periods). With the development in place, operations at this intersection will continue to operate at a poor level of service. If traffic does not increase at the rates assumed, the future level of service at this intersection should be consistent with existing conditions. Table 7 summarizes the level of service and the HCM average control delay for this intersection. Table 7 -Signalized Intersection Analysis Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Dela ' LOS Dela ' LOS Existing Traffic Scenario Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Road 31.3 C 54.8 D Build Out Background Traffic Scenario (2010) Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Road 63.5 E 126.8 F Build Out Traffic Scenario -Total Traffic (2010) Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Road 65.9 E 132.1 F ~ Delay is reported as HCM Average Control Delay in sec / veh Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 8 summarizes the unsignalized intersection level of service. The proposed site has two entrances. The primary site entrance aligns with the existing Albertson's west driveway on Sandy Lake Road. The secondary entrance (Driveway B) aligns with the intersection of Braewood and Denton Tap Road. Both entrances are planned to be unsignalized and do not meet the minimum warrants for signalization. For this study, it was assumed that Sandy Lake Road will be widened to a four lane divided roadway by the year 2010. This assumption was used to analyze the background traffic and total traffic scenarios. The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas Page 7 ~ Kimley-Hom CI' ~ _ antl Associates, Inc. Based on the results, both unsignalized intersections are projected to operate at poor levels of service with and without the development in place. Much of the delay shown at these intersections can be attributed to the relatively high through volumes along both Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Road. When through volumes become extremely high, peak hour delay for the minor approach left-turn will increase significantly regardless of the volume. For this study, the minor street left-turn volumes were all less than 60 vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peak periods. If delays at the site entrance along Denton Tap become too high, residents will simply exit onto Sandy Lake and turn left at the signal at Denton Tap. Signalization is typically the only viable option to mitigate these types of delay. Unfortunately, the minor street approach volumes at both locations are too low and would not warrant signalization. No other mitigation improvements are recommended for these locations. Table 8. Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Controlled AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Movement Delay t LOS Delay ` LOS Existin Traffic Scenario Sandy Lake Road and Driveway A/ Albertson's Drivewa SB 25.6 D 25.7 D Denton Tap Road and Driveway B/Braewood WB 24.9 E 70.3 F Build Out Background Traffic Scenario (2010 ) Sandy Lake Road and Driveway AJ Albertson's Drivewa SB 20.9 C 25.9 D Denton Tap Road and Drivewa B/Braewood WB 128.6 F 263.7 F Build Out Traffic Scenario -Total Traffic (2010) Sandy Lake Road and SB 60.3 F 66.0 F Driveway A/ Albertson's Driveway NB 25.4 D 28.9 D Denton Tap Road and WB 221.7 F 481.9 F Driveway B/Braewood EB 3894.2 F 155.0 F ~ Delay is reported as HCM delay in sec / veh The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas Page 8 ^ ~ ~ Kimley-Hom ~ antl Associates, Inc. Auxiliary Lanes Sandy Lake Road is planned to be widened to four lanes divided with a raise median. As part of this construction, both eastbound and westbound left-turn l~ be provided at the proposed site entrance along Sandy Lake Road. Based on the projected right-turn volumes at each site entrance, right-turn decelera lanes are not warranted. Intersection Sight and Stopping Sight Distance Based on field observations at the proposed site, no potential sight distance problems were observed. The driveway designs should provide adequate distance for obstruction free viewing distances for approaching traffic. All signage, landscaping and improvements should be selected and located so as to not block these clear sight distance areas. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our review of the proposed development, the following conclusions and recommendations can be made: • The intersection of Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Road currently operates at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak periods. • At build out (2010), all study area intersections are expected to operate at a poor level of service with or without the development in place. • A westbound left turn lane should be provided within the future median along Sandy Lake Road at the main site entrance. • Based on field observations, no potential sight distance problems were observed at the proposed site entrances. The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas Page 9 ^ ~ ~ Kimley-Hom ~ and Associates, Inc. Appendix Sections 1 Exhibits 2 Raw Traffic Count Sheets 3 Existing (2006) Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Analysis 4 Build Out Background (2010) Traffic Analysis 5 Build Out (2010) Total Traffic Analysis The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas ~ Kimley-Hom ~! ~ antl Associates, Inc. 1. Exhibits The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map The Ellington Development - TIA ^~^ KmleyFbrn ~ and A4sociatea, Inc. JN! Y3IVDOSSV 8 NOSJ34NV A3p/,1pp ~9'6~ '9sory o ~~~; 3 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ - a ~ ~~ ~. .5 s ~~ ~ ~y~~~ ~ a~n~ ~ ~`~~a ~bv ~ o s~ ~ ~ ~ a~ o ~x~ ;z 8$77 ~77e° N~ ~ ~ ~>wm ~ W ~ Qi ~ ~ a8~o~~~ 3b~\~~afy`~~ <R 8 ~ ~ @ 3~'~~~e <~y FN ~ ~ ~~ +3~cii~i° ~~~e~ @¢@a $s~ gg~ py~~~~a ~aaa ByNwb33~~~~Gr ~ u~ g~ ~ ~~'Q J,~Ome a ~~9~9~3~~~~~~~~~ <`~ j=7~~i~;G W ~ _ s ~~~~~~.~m~a~~ ~ Delta=8'10'46` ZONED: C ' r4 R=2923.94' CONNELL SKAGGS ADDITION ZONED: C 2 VOLUME 88066, PAGE 5896 LOT 4, tw d T=209.OJ' 3 M.R.D. C. T. C NNELL SKAGGS ADDITI N ~' 0` °' _ L=417.42' 1 V LUME 88006, PAGE 59 5 ~ ~Y ' ' aj Chd=586'24' 'E 417.07 M.R. D, C. T. ~ m ~~ y~W~; ~ - - q E ROAD -OF-WAY ' ~o~~l s~ i VOL. 71077, PG 1961 D.R.D.C. T. m*) A ~ L n'1 R€' I Z D ~ I M.P. M I J • ~ T c0 I VOLUME 3 ~ I - ~ e f • 0 87233 ADD/11 ~ J ~ TACE 2g R~D. I PROPOSED __~ SCREENING ° ~ ~ 71 ~ 5 . _ A ~+ ~ 0 I ~ m~ ,s' B r (rvar ) ~ ~ r I ~ ~ p ~ I ' E N87 8' I Q ~E R W V . l I W A .. F F ~ I 0.8 ACRE TR •• Z O - ,e ~ I ( 15 ALL EY ~ N 1 E~ ~ I- (A.4) T' / 1 V N89'30'32'E 206.48, +. I ~ ~ I- , S 4 I N -_ - - - .,~a. er,m.=- .poi T2 mk 2 ~ E I E - _ ,--__.. m xx m '~ z,+ I t a b FTF ++d m I Lm, ~ ~ ~ . ~ y S zp_ -J R ~ o~ I TRACT A KFC NATIONAL COMPA m a l>F. ' e n n~ie~) L. L ~L _ . , B w D VOLUME 89121, PACE ~ D.R.D.GT. X ,s BL ,s BL ~ "J ~ r r8 W I o »I -- ~ ' " PART OF HORACE THOMPSON ARDINGER, JR. 20' zo I I I I ;') o° ~j N v„ ~ VOLUME 95064, PAGE 471J I L--.a _ ~ ~ D. R. D. C. T. I l ~ ~ Lorx ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n I I •O w~or LAItE cROmnc Aoornon WA4NE ENlR0.lD Ci. DE xem SANDY LAK E w '"1 2 0 ACRE TRACT N vREHausr uNOwN As TMau~eaRCn c°"uEivA~re LOT CRD LUME gppiZlOClcSS/NG, FC C.'C CFP' o . (A.3) I I 1~ uE oa.D CiACE naz M.R.O.C.iA~ 380 Z 20 ALLEY • ~ 81' • ~ ~ 1 - _ ZONED: R "°""~a I _ pIN - - r N. -- -- _ ~ o ENERAL TELEPHONE CO. ~ I ~ ~ I _ _ 1 o' ~ 1 ' ' OF THE SOUTHWEST o a ~ , + S22 43;14 E 44488 o SOS 'RO a R07,~ ( ~~ 455 37'54"W CF q~R ~ ~ ~MP~TA Qy~Y~~R~ PROPOSED 28' G ' S . O ACCESS k UiIUTY O 9g F1 (~~ ~~i ( 3.6 ACRE TRAC (NET 3.3 ACRE) (TRACT "8") 27 ~'~ BLOCK A 0 ~p 26 S ~ S02'37'34"E 3 q ~ 5,.., d, 7 81.68' \~ ` 0 3 m m ,° , ' ~ I tiff ~ -_ ~ I I _ ~~~ ~il ~ ~ e ) vvm o~ } ~ a r~~ A J ~i •:ron a. _ +eirwr ar. _ F. O yc~ ~ W n / l~ ~~~ ~ V ~ * 9 •~_ C m ~ ~~,~ ~ ~~) "v 3.6 ACRE TRACT I II A.5 ~~' ~ 7~, m ' , > ' e D" G n., .~ ~ ~ ~ i D ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ,x 2 _ m N ' ~, w. . tFi. ~ F (TM.> F 1 ~ ~ W ~. S ~ ~ ~ ~ 2A' FADUE N' ~ ~ \ ""yam "Y' °"` • - - - '. 93.5 588'50'25"W 442 27' ° BLOC B 1 2 3 4 5 6 ZONE :P0115 (SF-7) YNNPA E _ VOLUME 92001 AGE 29 2 t~f~P~d'cf _--~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ZONED: C 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ WYNNPAGE ESTATES, LTD. ~ ~ VOLUME 91086, PAGE 680 9 ~ ~~ ~ ~ D. R, D. C.T. X21(59) 1~a ~~~ ~ sa ~ ~ <- 53a(SU) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2651273) 24(2'1) ~ G. SB ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~ 329(2(15) 551(845) --> NB ~ 183(288) ~' B = ~ y.. 295(371) ~ 175(90) ~ NB ~ 1$ ~ ~ N Q ~ EB ~ ~ y Sandy L ake Road SITE 7,488 ~ Drive B Braewood Drive ~ '~s3111) SB ~ ~ ~ 19(5) Wynnpage Drive T NB ~ EB Exhibit 4 Existing (2006) AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes The Ellington Development -TIA 25% ~ w° wB ~ E-1191) ~ SB ~ j X28% ~ 71% !?. y ~ (24%) ~ ~ T 7~ ~' (2e%1 ~ I I ~ tax ~ ~ _~ NB ~ 196(19%) ~, x x ~ ~ ~ C ~0,, EB ~ EB v Q y a~ D 25% 'SITE ~ Drive B Wynnpage Drive Braewood Drive 20% 30% wB Q~ SB I I 114E%I ~' ~ T 11%) ~ yz ~ NB \ EB Exhibit 5 LEGEND Site Inbound/Outbound Traffic Distribution and Global Trip Distribution INTERSECTING srREETS The Ellington Development -TIA ~~~ DIRECTIONAL TRAVEL AM(PM) PEAK HOUR ~ DIRECTIONAL AVERAGE DAILY TURNING MOVEMENT TRAFFIC VOLUME VOLUMES BY ARROW XXXX INBOUND(OUTBOUND) TURNING MOVEMENT PERCENTAGE BY ARROW DIRECTION SCALE : N.7S. DIRECTION ^_^ ~~~~ ~ Bnd AS9oCiateB, InC. _ .Q ~ ~ ~ ~3) O SB j~ ~ ~~Bi) ~ iL ~ Q- ~~) ~ NB ~ C O EB ~ Q 0) ~ ~ WB Sg F-:iat~;ior7 ~ ~. ~ ~ eoe(zsa) 227(330) ~ 217111) ~ ~ ~~ \ EB ~~,^ Sandy Lake SITE Drive B Wynnpage Drive Braewood Drive a WB ~~ ~-eB~1a) SB ~ ~ ~ 2uB) T I NB R~ EB Exhibit 6 Build Out Year (2010) Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes The Ellington Development -TIA wB v sB <- X19 ~ ~ 18~~- a S(IB) ~ A ~ NB C ~ ° ++ Q d W ~ non) ~' 19(13) ~ ~ ~ ~ NB 13(10) >, "' ~.~. ~~~ EB Road SITE I Drive B Wynnpage Drive S Exhibit 7 Build Out Year (2010) Site Traffic Volumes LEGEND The Ellington Development -TIA INTERSECTING STREETS ~~~ ~ DIRECTIONAL TRAVEL DIRECTIONAL AVERAGE DAILY AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME TURNING MOVEMENT XXXX VOLUMES BY ARROW DIRECTION ~_ ~s ~ SB I ~ ~ 1~) Braewood Drive "~ ~~ SB j ~2) ~ ~ T ~ NB 111) ~~ EB SCALE : N.T.S. ^~^ IGmleyFbrn ~ and Assoaatea, Inc. ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Hom ~ and Associa6es, Inc. 2. Raw Traffic Count Sheets The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas C ~ t.1 c E ~ v; a o °% ~ l~ ,=~ N Q~ ~ •~ N o _ O ~ ,_ r ~a y~~ ~~ a_~ a~~ C d ~ Z' ~ ~ N ~ ~ LL =C L 11 C ~ ^ Y t H O o ~ o 'C U f~ N V U1 (O ~ O N V 1~ 00 O O (O ~ N M ~ N N N O V ~ 7 F- O O a° 2 o a` o rn y " M ~ 0 0 3 U °' roi v cMO ° ro o r~ V ~ a0 ° H O o O 01 M 0 M ~ o U ~ M O V M ~ 7 1~ (O r I~ W 7 W N 00 ~ N 0 M ~ O O t ~ ~ o O ~ 'C ~ N O U ~ N V V V 7 M in ~ M ~ G F- O O a L m N °u\i uM~ 0 ~ y (p l1J .. U V e- N N (D M O l17 O I~ r 00 n IA r N ~ O N V 0 H O O d M ~ c O ~ U N m N V O ~,.~ O `- a0 N O ~ V In V' N F- O O t N o oND C r ti p U V h OD O O N M (O O ~ ~ .- N ~ N M M V V N 'O C F- O O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ W j ~ aL+ U a O ~ M n M O a r V O uOj M C f~ V N N ~ ~ ~ ~ y v N O . j F- o y p o U V N ~ M 7 N (O N O 7 a0 7 N ~ M O V M O N N O p ~ O O L ~ o f~ ` U ~. M a0 N N ~ M In N aD ~-- ~ ~ O t+D O O ~ C I- O O 7 O 2 v ' N ~ ~ = '~ U O ~ ~ O 0 N 0 N M O O) c0 m M O r OI ~ ~ O O Z ~ N N H O O N o ~ ~` - ~ N O U O M ~ V N M ~ N f0 N a0 M 01 N O r ~ ~ QQQQQ~dQd" x C ~y T oino~ov~o~ M V O M V O O O n n n n O W ~ F _ C ~ ~a p ~"' d O E E d 1° ~ ~ _ m ~ ~ ° ~ E a ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~Sj Q Q Q Q Q~ Q Q 0 0 7 0 ono ~noinou~o ~ M~ O ~ M V O F- Y ~ Y F- Y Q Y x Y c0 c0 (O n r f~ r pp N ~ N m N d N d N ~ a a a a a A O) 0 o e O ~ M ~ m o ~ O ~ N M y Y J 7 O) U T W O T N M M O c r~ d C ~ v c ~ N ~ o ~ ~~ o ~ ~~ U N i`_ peoa del uo~uaQ U ~ n o O O O N n. ~ 2 o prj ~ ~ °~ .M~-- Obi N N 0 0 Y U7 ~ d ~ ~ 0 0 0 N V N ~ o ~ O ~ U L O ~ F... QQQQ Q QQ ` ~ U o~no~o u>o~ M 7 0 M V O O Q ; (O (O f~ f~ f~ ~ O O ~ Y U ~ ~ 2 c ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q~ Q Y O ~~ ~ O ~ M V' O N N a a O O O~ r~~ W Q (0 C f0 p~ V d H C C N X c 0 Of C wi 7 Y N a U F- C ~ C.1 C O~ d ° 2 ~ ~ O ~' N Q~ ~ •Q N tD C y ~ ~ ~ N Q -p ~ r- C d ~ N ~ L. ~' ~ O °> ~ ~ ~ t' = t U Cy o G O ^ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aaaaaaa O N O In O ~J O M V O ~ M 7 0 ~ ~ ~ N N N O ~~~~~~~ aaaaaaa ONO ~ O ~ M ~ O M V V V V l17 U9 ~ N ~° N A e o 0 0 to W (O ~ M M N 1, M o ~7 ~ ~ N O C {0 M (D ~ T N N N ~ ~ o M d C N O ~ t0 N ~ N ~ ~ j ~ ~~ VVV ~ peoa del uo~uaa U ~ a ~ fl. o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O o r f~ ~ ~ ~O cfl t0 f~ QOj N M _ ~p Y N ~ d 0 0 ~ M ~ 0 0 0 n N M ~ a 0 0 ao °o ° `~ U U o ~ a~aaaa~aaa ` d U In O V7 O N O N O ~ M 7 0 ~ M V 0 Y ~ Q L V V~ lA In N IA (O U ~ 'o~ F- aa~a~aaa~aa Y ~ O~ M V O O M B N N a a V V C V N~ N lfl a Y R J T V C R a~ V d c 0 c m C 0 m w `I x N a U H C y tt C 0 ~ N ~ 1 ~ •Q N ~ N ~ r` 'O fq .. ~v ~~ a~ ~ ,., ~ C d ~ 5 0 O N ~~ o „~ " = L U d G ~ ^ Y F o 0 t h 'C N ~ O U O O O O In V O M N N ~ F- 0 0 ~° 2 M ° °m ro y " U O O O O v O 1~ N N (0 10 01 M 0 M 0 ~ N O V N 1f1 F- O O m o o O ° - o U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F o 0 L p a O p .~ p o U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C F O O ` ~ a ~ ^ o O L `~ ~ t0 W ~1 0 W lL U O O O O O V O M (0 O N O N ~- O O ~ •* e n _ N ~ Ci („) 0 0 0 0 ~ CO f~ 00 N N H O O L n o n 'C ! ar O U o o o o M lo M u1 ~ r v ~ F- 0 0 ~ t O O ~ p N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~- O ~ N ~O'1 O U O O O O O O n ~ N N H O O L O a O - O O U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v H o 0 o' ~ O o °o a L L '~ O O ~ o z U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H o 0 N e O O O O U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q d a ovlovlolno~ M V O ~ M V O ~ o ~ p 2 a ~ E ~ ~ y F d c0 iD 1~ r r r O a0 o C d U u1 L ~ O m ~ ~ ~ g ~ m a LL ~ Q a o a o~ a o ~ 0 ~ F Q = l n v i ov i M~ O ~ M~ O I- Y Y Y Y Y O 1D O n n r r 0 N N N N N a a a a a N ~° N 0 0 o C { (0 O ~ p 11 O o N Y ~7 O U A J d rn N `qo c ~°o ~ c ~ H `~ ~ ° o J (`~nJ JnL ` v O / m F ~anud s,uos~aq~y U 0 0_ ~ 0 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~~ a ~ o D O ~ N N O ~ Y N N o r^ a a o Q eo t- 0 0 O N E U O O ~ ~' ~ F- o 0 ~ O r U o 0 0 t O ~ ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ~ d (-S O In O N O In 0~ M'Q O~M'7O N O Q t 10 (0 f~ 1~ ~ r W a0 _ ~ Y £ > ~ E a~ ~ aaaaaaaa~ o o _ ~ Y U vlovloul ovlo ~ M V O ~ M 7 0 ~ Y ~ Y a~i a`1 as io la to ~ ~ r r~ ao a~i a a~0i s Q T ~_q U d J T In X C 0 OC1 W~ 0 x af0i a v f- C Cn f..1 C tq ~ ~U ~ w o ~ l0 ~ N 1 (Q/~ •Q N [O^D H~. X ~~ Q~ °' ~ ,.; ~ C m ~ ~ o ~ N ~ ~' C p y o 11 L LL O E~ ^ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aaaaaa ou>o~nou~ M V O .- M ~ d' V In In lA N ~~~~~~~ aaaaaaa lly O N O N O N ~ M V O ~ M V V ~ a N ~ ~ ~ A m 0 0 0 rn o ~ rn ~ o e o ~ U d Y J d ~ O O ~ ~ m ~ p o ~ o a c '0 N R /~ O fV! ~ o ~ ~~ U N ~ ~anup s,uosyaq~y U O n c ~v Q p ~ O ~' N 7 0 Y d o aD o ~ o d ~ ~ u~ ~ ~ O a 0 0 m F- 0 0 0 H E U o 0 ~ j h o 0 ao 0 0 0 0 `° U o 0 t o m ~ aaaan n n a `' ?~ U . . . v~oino~ ono ~ M d 0 M V O ~ p ~ ~ Q L V V V In lA In N O _ ~ Y E H 1 H N E 2 ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m > o a a a a a a a a o 0 Y d O ~ M 1 0 ~ M V Y Y N U7 V V' V V N N~ in N N as a d a a ~_Q U a~ m m ~i C 0 m W I O x d a U H C7 C uj ti c O~ N w o _~ ~_v :;N i ~ .p Nc°^o 'D fyA m ~c~d a~ a~~ L Z` C ~ N O p y o '= L LL '1 C ~ ^ Y Q Q Q ~ Q v~oinoinoin V O ~ M V O .- ~n r~ ~r ~ 06 06 a~¢aaa~da O ~ O ~ O lf1 O M 7 0 ~- M A O cp (O I~ r r n ao d ~ o 0 0 c o co r N 0 ~ O ( 0 C ~ W N L ~ O~ m ~ ~ O O a v ~ ~7 o a ~ ~~ ZY o m F peon del uo~uaa U ~ a ~ o ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~~ d O e O p~ ~ ~ O O O = s O N f0 ~ a 0 0 o ~ o a o o 0 0 Q N f- O H E U °o ~ ¢o r', ~ ~ c `~ o ~ U 2 F Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q d O '' m U ov>ou~o u~o~n M a O E M ~t O ~ y ~ Q ~ c0 c0 I~ ~ r fr M O tL ~ Y 2 _~ ~ ~ > aaaaaaa~d y y U ~ O N O~ O ~A O ~ M V O .-- M V O cocDmr~ ~~co a a a O 3 d m m` U n H c c d N O rn C_ w I x° Y a~ U F C N 61 C O~ d ° 2~ iv ~N ~~ ~~ _N o ~ ~ 'O N '~ ~~ a=„ ~C `: ~ L Z' C ~ N o p y o = L ~ ~ ~ ^ Y F- o 0 r ~ e U O O O O a N ~ V ~ ~ o D C H O O a 2 o a ~ a y O ~ O ~ 3 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H o 0 O m - M O V O O O O A N O N l0 ~ F- O O L O O O O U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C F O O ~ ° 2 o a o o 0 ~ t o 0 N ~ w U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F- 0 0 d o o 0 ° - o U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L F- 0 0 O o 0 O C O O V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C F- O O ~ 2 M O) ° ~ W 'L' t ~+ ~ ~ M O o U o 0 0 0 Q 0 N OD N O) 0 N N o N M rn o0 M m c0 ~ ~ O ~ ~ o O O O U O O O O OO N O f~ N ~ N N ~ O O L 10 o W n C U O O O O M (O OD OD N N N ~ O ~ C ~- O O C .~. _ N ° c0 _ O) a L o Z L `~ U o 0 0 0 ~ N ~ M ~ ~ ~ _ N ~ N r N ~ N N ~ ~ N O F- O O ~ o ' o a i - ° o U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a~daaa ~a = ~ a ~o~no~nou>o M 7 0 M d' O p ~.. C S O a °~ ~ E ~ ~ V V N ~ t0 N (O _ m . d ~ ~ ~ O o ~ ~ U O ~ ~ R ~ O W ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o daaaaan _ N o ~ o G ~ 'o _ . O l17 O l0 O l0 O M O ~ M V O ~ M 7 F- ~C ~ Y F' Y Q Y = Y V V K V~ h N~ c0 a~ l0 ~ l9 d f0 ~ f0 o a a a a a d o o a 9 ~o ~ ~o O) N , (O M O N ~ C U 3 i ry o ~ S O N m ~ N~ a U f0 ~ O Q ~ ~~ o U N F peon del uo~uad U O d o N (p N ~ (`~~~~ {I ~I LJ LJ Q 7 o o M ~rn ~ ~ 0 00 = rn Y l0 ~ d 0 0 o ~ 0 0 0 o 0 0 as J 0 0 "~ U t m o ~- aaaaaaaa ` d V v~o~no~n ouzo M V O M V O Q ~ V V V N ~'1 N In O Y U ~ ' ~ ~ aaao~ daa ~ o . a O ~ ~[ ~ U Md' M V O O ~ N N V V 7 V~ ~O N M a a a O 3 d (6 ~m V O. l0 H 0 c d w O rn C W~ N a U F- ~~ Kimley-Hom Automatic Traffic Counts ~ - and Associates, Inc. Avera a Dail Traffic (24-Hour Count) Boo - - t - ~ - _., - - - - t - 7 - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - r -. r - - - - i- - - t - Project Na.: 6122 L000 goo ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ StationNo.: , soo ---;---------- --------- -- ---,--~- o Counter No.: = soo - i - -' - - - - - - - - - ' - -'~ - - - - - ' - ~ - - - - - ~I ~ ~I ~ ~ n aoo I Location: Sandy Lake Road m ' ' ' ' _ _ _ _ _ 300 - i - ~ - - - - - - - -~ - - .. - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - City/State: Coppell, TX t ~ i Date: October 17, 2006 j zoo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--r -- Day of Week: Tuesday mo - -,--~---- ~- ------ -~--_ -~------ 0 Site: Sandy Lake Road, West of zaoo zoo aoo soo eoo tooo tzoo taoo tsoo taoo zooo 22oo ~ ~Weslbound Time of Day ~-EaslbOUnd Denton Ta Road Time Peak Eastbound Westbound Time Peak Eastbound Westbound 24:00 12:00 0:15 6 6 12:15 173 134 0:30 6 2 12:30 138 132 0:45 7 8 12:45 120 129 1:00 10 29 5 21 13:00 110 541 138 533 I:IS 6 5 13:15 106 112 1:30 3 3 13:30 99 128 L45 3 3 13:45 108 91 2:00 4 16 5 16 14:00 106 419 80 411 2:15 3 3 14:15 9l 116 2:30 3 2 14:30 87 105 2:45 2 0 14:45 93 93 3:00 7 IS 9 14 15:00 115 386 99 413 3:15 7 3 15:15 133 110 3:30 4 4 15:30 147 109 3:45 5 0 15:45 109 106 4:00 2 18 3 LO 16:00 120 509 133 458 4:15 3 2 16:15 16t 156 4:30 2 4 16:30 156 156 4:45 6 2 16:45 138 130 5:00 10 21 7 IS 17:00 117 572 133 575 5:15 13 15 17:15 180 132 5:30 I S 14 17:30 174 154 5:45 I S 29 17:45 192 152 6:00 29 72 33 9I 18:00 174 720 161 599 6:15 44 31 18:15 * 173 151 6:30 56 37 18:30 * 169 175 6:45 64 66 18:45 * 187 185 7:00 82 246 80 214 19:00 142 671 146 657 7:15 105 89 19:15 142 146 7:30 * 138 107 19:30 106 130 7:45 * 155 126 19:45 98 131 8:00 150 548 158 480 20:00 87 433 108 515 8: 15 159 158 20:15 103 93 8:30 123 113 20:30 99 114 8:45 113 113 20:45 85 85 9:00 123 518 94 478 21:00 95 382 82 374 9:15 95 104 21:15 73 69 9:30 88 82 21:30 68 73 9:45 75 87 21:45 39 56 10:00 86 344 66 339 22:00 38 218 44 242 10:15 90 69 22:15 2l 33 10:30 71 74 22:30 21 31 10:45 80 58 22:45 33 28 11:00 85 326 81 282 23:00 18 93 19 111 11:15 115 66 23:15 2I 23 11:30 118 96 23:30 9 10 11:45 128 91 23:45 10 8 12:00 148 509 1L5 368 24:00 2 42 9 50 AM Peak H our 7:15-8:15 D irectional Vol umes 7,648 7,266 %ofADT 7.7% 24-Hour Volume 14,914 PM Peak Ho ur 17:45-18:45 ofADT 9.2% S. Main north of Felix Gwozdz ~ Kimley-Hom ~ and Associates, Inc. 3. Existing (2006) Traffic Peak Hour Analysis The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EXISTING AM 2006 6: Sandy Lake Road & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development Lane Configurations ~ +~~ ~ ~~ T'~ '~ •T~ '1i TT'~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3289 1770 5004 1770 5029 Flt Permitted 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.23 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 416 3539 1583 1508 3289 153 5004 429 5029 Volume (vph) 183 295 175 329 296 265 114 749 89 206 1897 151 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 199 321 190 358 322 288 124 814 97 224 2062 164 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 137 0 156 0 0 13 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 199 321 53 358 454 0 124 898 0 224 2218 0 Turn Type pm+pt custom pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.5 17.9 17.2 28.1 17.2 56.8 48.7 63.6 52.1 Effective Green, g (s) 29.5 17.9 17.2 28.1 17.2 1 56.8 0 54 48.7 46 0 63.6 0 61 52.1 50 0 Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) 0.28 4.0 0.17 4.0 0.16 4.0 0.27 4.0 0. 6 4.0 . 4.0 . 4.0 . 4.0 . 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 266 603 259 603 539 14 208 0 05 2321 18 0 407 0 06 2495 44 0 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.13 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.10 c0. . 0.28 . c . 0.27 c . v/c Ratio 0.75 0.53 0.20 0.59 0.84 0.60 0.39 0.55 0.89 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 39.7 38.0 31.5 42.6 19.8 18.4 10.5 23.8 Incremental Delay, d2 10.9 0.9 0.4 1.6 11.5 4.5 0.5 1.6 5.2 Delay (s) 42.8 40.6 38.4 33.1 54.1 24.4 18.9 12.1 29.1 Level of Service D D D C D C B B C Approach Delay (s) 40.6 46.3 19.5 27.5 Approach LOS D D B C 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EXISTING AM 2006 3: Sandy Lake Road & Albertson's W. Driveway The Ellington Development ~' ~ ~' '~ Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 vC, conflicting volume 609 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 531 tC, single (s) 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 0.83 586 504 6.2 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 82 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 865 147 474 Volume Total ~' 625 Volume Left 26 Volume Right 0 cSH C it 865 0 03 Volume to apac y Queue Length 95th (ft) . 2 0 8 Control Delay (s) Lane LOS . A Approach Delay (s) 0.8 Approach LOS 586 23 26 18 0 0 26 0 0 23 0 18 1700 1700 147 474 0.34 0.01 0.18 0.04 0 0 16 3 0.0 0.0 34.6 12.9 D B 0.0 25.6 D 5:00 pm Baseline Kimley Horn Synchro 6 Report Page 1 Stop 0% 24 0.92 26 None 0% 0% _ 24 551 539 21 17 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 26 599 586 23 18 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EXISTING AM 2006 9: Braewood & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development ~ ~ I /~ ~ Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~"~ ~ '~'~ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 19 53 643 4 28 1593 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 58 699 4 30 1732 Pedestrians Wi h f Lane dt ( t) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1210 pX, platoon unblocked 0.61 l 1628 352 703 vC, conflicting vo um vC1, stage 1 conf vol e 2 conf vol C2 sta e v , g vCu, unblocked vol 1392 352 703 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 74 91 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 79 645 890 Volume Total ~` 21 58 466 237 30 866 866 Volume Left 21 0 0 0 30 0 0 Volume Right 0 58 0 4 0 0 0 cSH i C 79 0 26 645 0 09 1700 27 0 1700 0 14 890 1700 51 0 03 0 1700 0 51 ty Volume to apac Queue Length 95th (ft) . 24 . 7 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . . 3 0 9 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 66.4 F 11. B . . . . A . , Approach Delay (s) 25.7 0.0 0.2 _ ~~"`' `~ r ~ a.,` Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Ut ilization 54.0% IC U Level of Ser vice A Analysis Period (min) 15 5:00 pm Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EXISTING PM 2006 6: Sandy Lake Road & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development Lane Configurations >~ •T ~ ~~ T'N 'i TTT- '~ TTY Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3284 1770 5010 1770 4960 Flt Permitted 0.19 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.07 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 355 3539 1583 1537 3284 480 5010 126 4960 Volume (vph) 266 371 90 205 296 273 202 2169 239 190 657 130 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 289 403 98 223 322 297 220 2358 260 207 714 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 83 0 130 0 0 11 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 289 403 15 223 489 0 220 2607 0 207 831 0 Turn Type pm+pt custom pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 23.0 17.0 26.0 17.0 75.0 62.0 69.0 59.0 Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 23.0 17.0 26.0 17.0 75.0 62.0 69.0 59.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.19 0.14 0.22 0.14 0.62 0.52 0.58 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) R ti P t / 283 0 13 678 11 0 224 475 0 04 465 15 0 440 c0 05 2589 c0 52 209 08 c0 2439 17 0 v a o ro s v/s Ratio Perm c . c0.18 . 0.01 . 0.07 . . 0.26 . . 0.48 . v/c Ratio 1.02 0.59 0.07 0.47 1.05 0.50 1.01 0.99 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 54.7 44.2 44.6 39.4 51.5 10.6 29.0 57.1 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 59.0 3.8 0.6 3.3 56.2 4.0 19.4 59.8 0.4 Delay (s) 113.7 48.1 45.2 42.7 107.7 14.6 48.4 116.9 19.0 Level of Service F D D D F B D F B Approach Delay (s) 71.7 90.5 45.8 38.1 Approach LOS E F D D Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EXISTING PM 2006 3: Sandy Lake Road & Albertson's W. Driveway The Ellington Development ---- r-- Lane Configurations a' '~ Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 27 645 614 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) ~ r" Stop 0% 41 58 59 0.92 0.92 0.92 64 45 63 Right turn flare (veh) di n t e M None yp e a Median storage veh) 5 l ft i U t 47 ( ) ream s gna ps pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 0.81 0.81 vC, conflicting volume 732 1427 667 vC1, stage 1 conf vot 2 f l C2 t con vo v , s age vCu, unblocked vol 668 1528 589 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 96 56 85 cM capacity (veh/h) 745 100 411 Volume Total ~; 730 667 64 45 63 Volume Left 29 0 0 45 0 Volume Right "' 0 0 64 0 63 cSH 745 1700 1700 100 411 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.39 0.04 0.44 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 47 13 Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 36.7 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delav 3.0 Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EXISTING PM 2006 9: Braewood & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development Sign Control Grade Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) ~ ~ ~ l~ Stop Volume Total ~'~ 5 Volume Left 5 Volume Right `~`; 0 cSH 27 Free 0% 1680 12 1217 636 57 324 324 0 0 0 57 0 0 12 0 27 0 0 0 270 1700 1700 323 1700 1700 0.04 0.72 0.37 0.18 0.19 0.19 3 0 0 16 0 0 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 0% 0% 5 11 25 52 596 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 5 12 1826 27 57 648 Lane LOS F C C Approach Delay (s) 65.8 0.0 1.5 Approach LOS F HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis BACKGROUND AM 2010 6: Sandy Lake Road & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1770 3539 1583 3433 3294 1770 5004 1770 5029 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.16 1.00 466 3539 1583 864 3294 160 5004 292 5029 Volume (vph) 227 365 217 408 382 328 141 928 110 255 2350 187 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 247 397 236 443 415 357 153 1009 120 277 2554 203 RTOR Reduction (vph ) 0 0 4 0 147 0 0 13 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph ) 247 397 232 443 625 0 153 1116 0 277 2748 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+ov pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 3 8 1 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.0 16.0 24.6 30.0 18.0 55.1 46.5 65.0 52.4 Effective Green, g (s) 26.0 16.0 24.6 30.0 18.0 55.1 46.5 65.0 52.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.15 0.23 0.29 0.17 0.52 0.44 0.62 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 240 539 431 540 565 216 2216 385 2510 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.11 0.04 c0.09 c0.19 0.06 0.22 c0.10 c0.55 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.10 0.14 0.31 0.35 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.74 0.54 0.82 1.11 0.71 0.50 0.72 1.10 Uniform Delay, d1 49.7 42.5 35.2 31.3 43.5 23.3 21.0 12.9 26.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 65.9 5.2 1.3 9.7 70.0 10.1 0.8 6.3 49.8 Delay (s) 115.6 47.7 36.5 41.0 113.5 33.4 21.8 19.2 76.1 Level of Service F D D D F C C B E Approach Delay (s) 63.8 87.1 23.2 70.9 Approach LOS E F C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 63.5 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capac ity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Utilization ti C it I t 105.0 104 4% Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 16.0 G " '' ' "`" `'°' "" ersec on apac y n Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Grou p . 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis BACKGROUND AM 2010 3: Sandy Lake Road & Albertson's W. Driveway The Ellington Development Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) rercent aiocrcage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach LOS 0% 0% 30 683 668 26 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 33 742 726 28 Stop 0% 30 0.92 33 21 0.92 23 None 547 0.92 0.92 0.92 754 1162 363 641 1086 214 4.1 6.8 6.9 2.2 3.5 3.3 ,: 96 861 82 97 186 725 280 495 363 363 28 33 23 33 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 23 861 1700 1700 1700 21 1700 186 02 0 18 0 725 0 03 ; 0.04 3 0.29 0 0.21 0 0. 0 . . 0 15 . 2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 1 0.1 A D B 0.5 0.0 20.9 C Baseline Kimley Horn Synchro 6 Report Page 1 ~ ~ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis BACKGROUND AM 2010 9: Braewood & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development I Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blocka e g Right turn flare (veh) Median t e None yp Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1210 pX, platoon unblocked fli ti l C 0.51 2018 436 ~ 872 v , con c ng vo ume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2035 436 872 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 .. p0 queue free % 0 87 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 24 568 769 Volume Total `~ 26 72 578 294 38 1073 1073 Volume Left 26 0 0 0 38 0 0 Volume Right 0 72 0 5 0 0 0 cSH 24 568 1700 1700 769 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 1.09 0.13 0.34 0.17 0.05 0.63 0.63 Queue Length 95th (ft) 82 11 0 0 4 0 0 Control Delay (s) 448.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B A Approach Delay (s) 128.6 0.0 0.2 _ " "~' `„ ~ "~~~~ Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay tersection Ca acit I Ut ilization 4.1 64 6% IC U Level of Se rvice C y n p Analysis Period (min) . 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 0% 0% 0% 24 66 797 5 35 1974 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 26 72 866 5 38 2146 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis BACKGROUND PM 2010 6: Sandy Lake Road & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development Lane Configurations ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~ '~'~"~ ~ '~~'~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3285 1770 5010 1770 4959 Flt Permitted 0.19 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.07 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 355 3539 1583 1152 3285 345 5010 132 4959 Volume (vph) 330 460 111 254 367 338 250 2687 296 235 814 161 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 359 500 121 276 399 367 272 2921 322 255 885 175 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 82 0 139 0 0 11 0 0 22 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 359 500 39 276 627 0 272 3232 0 255 1038 0 Turn Type pm+pt custom pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 37.0 24.0 17.0 26.0 17.0 74.4 60.0 67.6 56.6 ,,~ Effective Green, g (s) 37.0 24.0 17.0 26.0 17.0 74.4 60.0 67.6 56.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.20 0.14 0.22 0.14 0.62 0.50 0.56 0.47 '' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 298 708 224 421 465 385 2505 225 2339 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.14 0.05 0.19 c0.08 c0.65 c0.10 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm c0.21 0.02 0.09 0.35 0.54 v/c Ratio 1.20 0.71 0.17 0.66 1.35 0.71 1.29 1.13 0.44 Uniform Delav. d1 54.2 44.7 45.3 40.2 51.5 13.0 30.0 38.5 21.2 . ,.,y. ,..,,.,,...,.,..,, ...,., ...,.. ....., ....., ...,., ...,., ...._ ..-- ..-- s Incremental Delay, d2 119.5 3.2 0.4 3.7 170.5 5.8 133.7 100.6 0.6 Delay (s) 173.7 47.9 45.7 43.8 222.0 18.8 163.7 139.1 21.8 Level of Service F D D D F B F F C Approach Delay (s) 93.7 174.8 152.5 44.5 Approach LOS F F F D HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) 126.8 HCM Level of Service 1.23 12.0 H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis BACKGROUND PM 2010 3: Sandy Lake Road & Albertson's W. Driveway The Ellington Development Lane Configurations ~'T ~~ ~' '~ ~' _- -- Sign Control Free Free Stop . - -- Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 33 799 761 73 51 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 36 868 827 79 55 78 _ _ Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) P t Bl ka e ercen oc g Right turn flare (veh) M dian t e None e yp Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked 0.91 547 0.91 0.91 vC, conflicting volume 907 1333 414 vC1, stage 1 conf vol ' vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 793 1264 _,. 249 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF 2 2 3 5 3 3 (s) p0 queue free % . 95 . 60 . 88 cM capacity (veh/h) 746 139 680 Volume Total ~ 325 579 414 414 79 55 78 Volume Left 36 0 0 0 0 55 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 79 0 78 cS H 746 1700 1700 1700 1700 139 680 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.34 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.40 0.12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 0 0 43 10 Control Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.0 11.0 Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 25.9 Approach LOS D Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 ~ ^-- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis BACKGROUND PM 2010 9: Braewood & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development I 7~ Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~~- Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 6 14 2082 31 64 737 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 15 2263 34 70 801 Pedestrians Lane Width 1210 2297 vCu, unblocked vol 2885 1148 2297 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 ~ . .. .. __ p0 queue free % 19 92 68 cM capacity (veh/h) 8 192 216 Volume Total 7 15 1509 788 70 401 401 Volume Left 7 0 0 0 70 0 0 Volume Right '"~"' 0 15 0 34 0 0 0 cSH 8 192 1700 1700 216 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.81 0.08 0.89 0.46 0.32 0.24 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 6 0 0 33 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8 19.7 25.3 0.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A h D l F D D _ _ '"' '~ ~~` ~" ~°'`~~' pproac e ay (s) 2 Approach LOS 63.7 F 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary _.. Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utili zation 68.5% IC U Leve l of Serv ice C Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 ^ ~ ~ Kimley-Hom ~ antl Associates, Inc. 5. Build Out (2010) Total Traffic Analysis The Ellington Development TIA October 2006 Coppell, Texas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL TRAFFIC AM 2010 6: Sandy Lake Road & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development Lane Configurations ~ TT ~- ~~ ~"~ ~ ~T'~ *~ ~~"( Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3296 1770 5004 1770 5027 Flt Permitted 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.16 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 438 3539 1583 781 3296 152 5004 292 5027 Volume (vph) 244 384 230 408 388 328 146 929 111 255 2350 193 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 265 417 250 443 422 357 159 1010 121 277 2554 210 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 121 0 139 0 0 12 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 265 417 129 443 640 0 159 1119 0 277 2756 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.0 17.0 17.0 32.0 19.0 57.7 49.0 68.0 55.3 ',~ Effective Green, g (s) 28.0 17.0 17.0 32.0 19.0 57.7 49.0 68.0 55.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.17 0.52 0.45 0.62 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) R i P / 245 11 547 12 245 541 1 569 0 19 208 0 6 2229 0 22 382 0 10 2527 0 55 rot v s at o v/s Ratio Perm c0. 0.17 0. 0.08 c0. 0 0.14 c . .0 0.34 . c . 0.35 c . v/c Ratio 1.08 0.76 0.53 0.82 1.12 0.76 0.50 0.73 1.09 Uniform Delay, d1 51.7 44.6 42.8 32.5 45.5 25.7 21.8 13.5 27.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -;! Incremental Delay, d2 80.9 6.2 2.0 9.4 77.0 15.3 0.8 6.7 48.0 Delay (s) 132.6 50.8 44.8 41.9 122.5 41.0 22.6 20.2 75.3 Level of Service F D D D F D C C E Approach Delay (s) 72.5 93.2 24.9 70.3 Approach LOS E F C E HCM Average Control Delay 65.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.9% ICU Level of Service ''R G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~' ~ ~ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL TRAFFIC AM 2010 3: Sandy Lake Road & Driveway A The Ellington Development Lane Configurations ra"~ a'~ ~ ~ '~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 30 683 6 116 669 26 17 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 742 7 126 727 28 18 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 605 749 1383 1797 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 ~'; 2.2 3.5 4.0 p0 queue free % 96 85 76 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 864 856 77 58 Volume Total '~ 404 378 Volume Left 33 0 Volume Right `~ 0 7 cSH 864 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.6 Approach LOS 368 485 28 18 53 33 126 0 0 18 0 33 0 0 28 0 53 0 856 1700 1700 77 623 70 0.15 0.29 0.02 0.24 0.09 0.47 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 66 1 7 11 3 47 95 5 .5 A . . . F . B . F 1.9 25.4 60.3 Stop 0% 49 30 0 21 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 53 33 0 23 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL TRAFFIC AM 2010 9: Braewood & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development Stop 0% 3 0 0.92 0.92 3 0 Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage _:.. _ _ . - -_ - _ - . -- ~ _ ... -.... , . . Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) vNau Gai i i a~yi iai l~ ~/ "1 pX, platoon unblocked 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 vC, conflicting volume 2745 3112 1080 2030 3110 437 `~ vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 3409 4106 259 2058 4102 437 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) ~~. 1210 0.53 2161 874 ., ,__ 2304 874 4.1 4.1 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 0 100 100 0 100 87 99 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 1 1 391 16 1 567 113 768 Volume Total ~~? 3 1 26 72 435 440 38 1440 721 Volume Left 3 0 26 0 1 0 38 0 0 Volume Right 0 1 0 72 0 5 0 0 1 cSH 1 391 16 567 113 1700 768 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 2.64 0.00 1.62 0.13 0.01 0.26 0.05 0.85 0.42 Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 0 95 11 1 0 4 0 0 Control Delay (s) 51 87.6 14.2 797.8 12.3 0.6 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B F B A A Approach Delay (s) 38 94.2 221.7 0.3 0.2 Approach LOS F F Average Delay 12.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service ~? C u~ Analysis Period (min) 15 ~® Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 0% 0% 0% 1 24 0 66 1 799 5 35 1987 1 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1 26 0 72 1 868 5 38 2160 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL TRAFFIC PM 2010 6: Sandy Lake Road & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development Lane Configurations ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~ ~~"~ ~ '~'~'~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3293 1770 5009 1770 4948 Flt Permitted 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.07 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 339 3539 1583 1132 3293 320 5009 137 4948 Volume (vph) 341 473 121 256 389 338 265 2687 297 235 815 179 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 371 514 132 278 423 367 288 2921 323 255 886 195 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 88 0 131 0 0 11 0 0 26 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 371 514 44 278 659 0 288 3233 0 255 1055 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.0 25.0 25.0 27.0 18.0 74.0 59.0 65.2 54.2 •~ Effective Green, g (s) 38.0 25.0 25.0 27.0 18.0 74.0 59.0 65.2 54.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.15 0.62 0.49 0.54 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 298 737 330 427 494 388 2463 224 2235 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.15 0.05 0.20 0.10 c0.65 c0.10 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.03 0.10 0.36 0.51 v/c Ratio 1.24 0.70 0.13 0.65 1.33 0.74 1.31 1.14 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 54.2 44.0 38.7 39.4 51.0 14.2 30.5 56.7 22.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 135.3 2.9 0.2 3.5 163.8 7.5 143.7 102.5 0.7 Delay (s) 189.4 46.9 38.9 42.9 214.8 21.7 174.2 159.1 23.6 Level of Service F D D D F C F F C Approach Delay (s) 97.9 170.0 161.7 49.5 Approach LOS F F F D Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL TRAFFIC PM 2010 3: Sandy Lake Road & Driveway A The Ellington Development Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Free Free Stop Stop O% 0% 0% 0% 800 18 55 761 73 11 0 33 51 0 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 870 20 60 827 79 12 0 36 55 0 meaian type ® None ~~ None ~ Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) o, 547 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 vC, conflicting volume 907 889 „~; 1562 1977 445 1489 1908 414 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol ~~ vCu, unblocked vol 777 889 1511 1974 445 1429 1897 226 tC, single (s) 4.1 ';~ ', 4.1 ~ 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 -~- '' 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 95 92 80 100 94 23 100 89 cM capacity (veh/h) 747 758 59 48 561 72 54 695 Volume Total '~ 471 Volume Left 36 Volume Right '' 0 cSH 747 Volume to Capacity 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 Control Delay (s) 1.4 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.7 Approach LOS Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 454 336 551 79 12 36 55 78 0 60 0 0 12 0 55 0 20 0 0 79 0 36 0 78 1700 758 1700 1700 59 561 72 695 0.27 0.08 0.32 0.05 0.20 0.06 0.77 0.11 0 6 0 0 17 5 91 9 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 80.2 11.9 1 43.9 10.8 ~ - - A F B F B 0.9 28.9 66.0 5.7 65.8% ICU Level of Service C +~~~® 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 Volume (veh/h) 33 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 36 78 Pedestrians HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL TRAFFIC PM 2010 9: Braewood & Denton Tap Road The Ellington Development Lane Configurations ~ '~ Sign Control Stop Grade 0% Volume (veh/h) 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 0 Pedestrians Free 0% 1 2092 0.92 0.92 1 2274 Stop 0% 0 14 0.92 0.92 0 15 Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage _ _ _ . _ , .. Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked 0.92 0.92 vC, conflicting volume 2103 3258 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 405 2837 3243 1154 811 vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2112 3374 258 2914 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 3358 1154 701 2308 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 88 100 100 0 100 92 100 67 cM capacity (veh/h) 18 5 678 5 5 191 816 214 Volume Total _ 2 1 7 15 1138 1171 70 538 272 Volume Left 2 0 7 0 1 0 70 0 0 Volume Right '~ 0 1 0 15 0 34 0 0 3 cSH 18 678 5 191 816 1700 214 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.00 1.38 0.08 0.00 0.69 0.33 0.32 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 42 6 0 0 34 0 0 Control Delay (s) 227.3 10.3 1546.9 25.5 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B F D A D Approach Delay (s) 155.0 481.9 0.0 2.3 Approach LOS F F Average Delav 4.1 Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 6 Report Kimley Horn Page 1 0% 1 6 31 64 743 3 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1 7 34 70 808 3