ST8807-SY 900827GATEWAY MEDIAN OPENING
AT ROYAL LANE
IN COPPELL, TEXAS
Prepared for:.
Mr. Gary Sieb
City of Coppell
on Behalf of:
Mr. Bill Thompson
Thompson Investments
Prepared by:
DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc.
330 Union Station
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 748-6740
J90080
August 27, 1990
DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc.
Engineers · Planners
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mr. Gary Sieb
Director of Planning & Community Services
City of Coppell
DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc.
August 27, 1990
Gateway Median Opening at Royal Lane; J90080
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the accessibility of Gateway Boulevard at
Royal Lane. The subject intersection is located in Coppell, Texas near the interchange of I.H.
635 and Royal Lane. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the intersection with respect to the
area roadway network.
BACKGROUND
The April, 1990 "Roadway Functional Classifications and Design Standards" (RFCDS) report,
prepared be Barton-Aschman Associates, examined the year 2010 traffic projections on Royal
Lane and Gateway Boulevard. Figure 2 depicts the year 2010 daily traffic projections on the
subject roadways. Based on these daily traffic projections, the RFCDS report indicated the
median opening on Royal Lane and Gateway Boulevard should be closed in the year 2010.
This median closure would disallow the westbound and southbound left-turn movements from
Gateway Boulevard.
ANAL YSIS/OBSERVATIONS
In order to evaluate the accessibility of Gateway Boulevard at Royal Lane, the existing traffic
volume on Royal Lane north of Gateway Boulevard was determined using standard traffic
count machines. A summary of the traffic count is located in the appendix. The July 17,
330 Union Station
Dallas, Texas 75202-4802
1 214/748-6740 Metro 214/263-5428
Fax 214/748-7037
1990 traffic count on Royal Lane was 1,462 vehicles per day. Using the year 2010 traffic
projections given in Figure 2, the yearly growth rate was calculated using the following
equation:
F; P*(l+i)n
F = Future Volume
P = Present Volume
i = Growth. Rate
n = Difference in years
i = ((F/P)(X/n))- I
F -- 18,000 vehicles
P = 1,462 vehicles
i -- 20 years
i = 0.1337 '( 13% increase in traffic each year)
From the existing daily traffic coUnt, it was determined the peak hour of operation occurred
during the.. evening peak hour. This time frame represents the critical hour during which the
largest number of vehicles' are expected to travel through the intersection. To obtain
projected evening peak hour turning movements for the year 2010, a 10% K-factor and a 30%
in/70% out directional split (from the 'Addendum Report Roadway Sizing Study for
Southwestern Boulevard in Coppell, Texas") were applied to the year 2010 daily traffic
volumes. Using the thirteen percent per year growth rate (i), it was then possible to estimate
the evening peak hour traffic volumes for any year between 1990 and year 2010.
Intersection analyses were conducted for each year from 1990 to 2010 using the Highway
Capacity Manual methodology. As shown in Figure 3, the analyses were based on the P.M.
peak hour traffic projections with the proposed connection from Gateway Boulevard to the
I.H. 635 westbound frontage road west of Royal Lane. Table 1 summarizes the results of the
analyses. It was determined that the intersection would continue to operate at acceptable
levels of service with the median opening until the year 2003. At this time, the median
opening on Royal Lane should be reconstructed to prevent left-turn and through movements
from Gateway Boulevard, and a connection from Gateway Boulevard to the I.H. 635
westbound frontage road should be constructed east of Royal Lane to allow access from
Gateway Boulevard to southbound Royal Lane and I.H. 635. The I.H. 635 westbound frontage
road should be widened to four lanes of traffic to accommodate the additional traffic from
Gateway Boulevard. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed roadway alignment to accommodate the
projected year 2010 traffic volumes. Capacity analyses summary reports are located in the
Appendix.
,. 2
TABLE 1
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Gateway Blvd. @ Royal Lane
II
YEAR (Alignment)[[ V/C Ratio [ Delay (Sec/Veh) [
Level
of
Service
1990 (Figure 1) 0.167' 19.0 C
2004 (Figure 2) 0.639 22.5 C
2004 (Figure 3) 0.796 34.8 D
2010 (Figure 4)* 0.912 25.2 C
A .,,1.,.io ,-,~' I M KRf whfr/I~nvnl 1 .nna ~!~t/~.w~v nn~.rnt~.s MS an unsienalized intersectioJ
CONCLUSION
The analysis of the intersection of Royal Lane at Gateway Boulevard is based upon the year
2010 Royal Lane projections from the RFCDS report. These projections indicate a yearly
growth rate between 1990 and 2010 in excess of 13% per year. The average yearly growth rate
for the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex thoroughfares has historically been within 3 - 4% per
year. Even with the unusually high yearly growth rate of 13%, it has been determined that
the intersection of Royal Lane, the I.H. 635 westbound frontage road and Gateway Boulevard
in Coppell will operate at or below an acceptable level of service 'C`:.until the year 2003
during the evening peak hour.
Furthermore, the area bounded by Bethel Road and Southwestern Boulevard to the north, S.H.
121 to the west, I.H. 635 to the south and Belt Line Road to the east is limited in accessibility.
The existence of the Southern Pacific railroad, I.H. 635, D/FW International Airport land and
North Lake, coupled with the lack of frontage roads along I.H. 635 between Belt Line Road
and S.H. 12 I, restrict accessibility to and through the area. Just as Regent Boulevard provides
area circulation south of I.H. 635 in Irving, Cotton Road (Gateway Boulevard) serves the s~me
purpose is Coppell. The fact that Cotton Road intersects Royal Lane close to the I.H. 635
westbound exit ramp is due to its close proximity to the the Southern Pacific raikoad and the
limited depth of developable land owned by Mr. Bill ThOmpson and D/FW Airport at the
corner of Cotton Road and Royal Lane.
Although agreeing with the City's consultant that signalization of the Cotton Road/Royal
Lane intersection will cause a delay to Royal Lane and I.H. 635 exit ramp traffic, DS&T feels
that: 1) delay is low and will only be a factor during the P.M. peak hour, 2) the signals can
3
be efficiently and safely coordinated (see Figure 5), 3) the level of service of the signal will
not exceed a level of service "C" until the year 2003 (based on the high growth rate exceeding
13% per year), and 4) Cotton Road/Gateway Boulevard is needed for area circulation.
Therefore, based upon the results of this analysis combined with access and circulation needs
for the area, the following modifications are recommended:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Allow Cotton Road/Gateway Boulevard to operate under the existing roadway
geometry until traffic signals are warranted at the intersections of the I.H. 635
frontage roads, Gateway Boulevard and Royal Lane.
Construct interconnected traffic signals on Royal Lane at the frontage roads of I.H.
635 and Gateway Boulevard when warranted.
The City of Coppell should investigate the possibility of providing a westbound
extension for Gateway Boulevard between Royal Lane and the I.H. 635 westbound
frontage road west Of Royal Lane (refer to Figure 3). The City would contact the
SDHPT and D/FW International Airport (adjacent landowner).
If and when the operation of the Royal Lane/I.H. 635-Gateway Boulevard signal
system approaches an unacceptable level of service, DS&T recommends that a median
be constructed on Royal Lane to allow right-turn movements in and out of Gateway
Boulevard at Royal Lane and southbound left-turn movements from Royal Lane to
Gateway Boulevard only (See Figure 4). Also, a connection should be constructed
between Gateway Boulevard and the I.H. 635 westbound frontage road to
accommodate the left-turn and through traffic movements previously occurring at the
Gateway Boulevard and Royal Lane intersection. The I.H. 635 westbound frontage
road should also be widened to four lanes to accommodate the increased volumes of
traffic.
With these phased modifications to the area roadway network, the intersection of Gateway
Boulevard and Royal Lane is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service through the
year 2010. Also, accessibility to and through the area will be adequate to handle the existing
and planned land uses for the area between Bethel Road, Southwestern Boulevard, Belt Line
Road, I.H. 635 and S.H. 121.
4
I I I I i I I I 1 I I I I I I I I ! I
FIGURE 1
Intersection Location
I I ! 1 ! I I I i ! I ! I I I I I I I
* ESTIMATED
FIGURE 2
Year 2010 Daily Traffic Projections (RFCDS Report)
I
K.T~S.
-
D/FW International Airport I I i Thompson Investments
I
-
--"------_ /I ~ "'"-;-.._
' -'"'""-----._..__. _.............-~_ ,~,~ .~.opos~o
- '-.)-c~_.,~o~ ~! - -
] I"11 "1
II II I ·
II II'
_~~ 'Yea~' 1990 - Year 2003
I ! I ! ! ! I I ! I I I I I ! I I I I
FIGURE 4
Proposed Roadway Alignment
Year 2004 - Year 2010
FIGURE 5
DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc.
Engineers · Planners
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
April 6, 1990
Mr. Bill Thompson
Thomspon Interests Inc.
8333 Douglas Ave.
Suite 1510
Dallas, Tx 75225-5811
The purpose of this memo is to address the operational characteristics
of the proposed intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Royal Lane.
The location of this intersection is approximately 125 ft north of the
intersection of the westbound Frontage ROad of I.H. 635 and Royal
Lane.
Signalization requires that these two intersection be driven by the
same traffic controller. This pair of intersections would then be
interconnected to the eastbound Frontage Road signal which is approxi-
mately 600 ft. to the south. The eastbound Frontage Road would operate
using its own controller.
The attaChed sketches depict the phase sequencing that could be used
to operate the pair of intersections on the north side. This
sequencing allows for all movements at this location.
330 'Union Station
Dallas, Texas 75202-4802
214/748-6740
1 I ! I ! I I I I I I I I ! I I I I
' r//:./!.
· .- ' / / //,,;, - ~ , · .. ., ;~'~o ~':,!'~l ~=,~:; '~-.
" .' .".~':,'T .~ '~ :~ ~'~.~ ,',?~.,."~:a~i" ~'.-~.'~-.,,j .~' , .... , . .
~ , ,.~ ,,,~, ~t ~ /~'~~~ ~,,,~...,,,.,~.,~.,,,,~:.:~,~. ,,,_
~ ~ ........ / ~---~ .... ~.~
'
~ // ...... ~ ~~ ...... o
. _:_:~ ..~-~_~ ....... /~
~ ~ ...... ~: -~ - :,---:z
~.~. "~:: """~:. ~ ,:,~ "~""'~,~, ~,~,"'~""?:~"~"....:,~., .... · / ~~~T~'" ~ r/~~?!~i~ J~h '~.~ ~'~':,~'~:-~' ":' '
· ,'. ,-1 ;~,~'~}~.]~i' 4f"', ........ '~. '. ..~ ~ -, ~' . '~t~ ,,,~ ;" '. .
'"'j ~ ....... ~"' 7~ ~! ~/ ~: ~-/~
.,~ "/) ~ .... ~ ...... /g~:~:.~~'- ~:~: ,~ , ~..~ ~. . .
'"' ~ ~'~~~[:" · /~F{' ' ~ ~u'~:~'~ '~* '"' ~ ~'~:*"m~" .....
f~ ~ :.,ii.~'~:/;~ / ~ /
o . ~ ~- i.:~?:/~/ · , ~ /
i ~,,' .. ,.~ .~,
~ ,,,'~/ / 5 ','':'/Y "~ 6
~'" /"
/ !
APPENDIX
De, Shazo, Starek & Tang, Inc.
Automated Traffic Count
Street:
Location: North o£ Cotto,,
City/State:
Job Number: 900~0(160)
Date: July 17, 1990
Day of Wee k: T~y
24-Hour Total: I 1,462 I
E¢ ' )ment ID~:
900
915 8 9
930 6 11
945 3 10
1015 1 5
1030 5 5
1045 2 : 7
1130 7 5
1'145 9 8
1215 9 13
1230 9 8
1245 I.11 11
1315 7 4
1330 6 9
1345 6 8
1415 11 10
1430 8 7
1445 4 13
1515 3 11
1530 5 38
1,545 5 23
1615 9 5
1630 6 11
1645 18 10
1715 - 38 10
1730 31~ 8
1745 30 8
1815 17 7
1830 8 ' 2
1845 11 2
1915 10. 7
1930 7 4
1945 4 0
2015 6 1
2030 7 3
2045 2 4
2130 3 0
2145 3 2
2215 4 0
2230 3 0
2245 2 1
2315 3 1
2330 I 1
2345 2 1
15 0
30 I 0
4,5 3 0
115 0
130 0 1
145 0 0
215 0 0
230 I ' 0
245 0 0
315 0
330 0 1
345 0 0
415 0
430 0 0
445 0 0
515 0 2
530 0 1
545 3 3
615 4
630 15 8
645 25 24
.............................. 2,6
715 10
73O 7 53
745 8 72
9 6O
830 12 39
845 5 20
24-Hooz Totals: 615 615 847 847
1,462
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
**************************************************************************
INTERSECTION,,GATEWAY/I,H, 635 WBFR/ROYAL LANE
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST ....... GCL
DATE .......... 8/23/90
TIME .......... PM PEAK HOUR
COMMENT ....... 1990 VOLUMES
VOLUMES : GEOMETRY
-- EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 43 22 99 1 : L 12,0 LT 12,0 L 12,0 L 12,0
TH 32 0 22 58 : TR 12,0 R 12,0 T 12,0 T 12,0
-- RT 2 36 17 44 : 12,0 12,0 TR 12,0 T 12,0
RR 0 0 -0 0 : 12,0 12,0 12,0 TR 12,0
: 12,0 12,0 I2,0 12,0
: 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
· ~ GRADE HV ADJ PKG ~USES PHF PEDS PED, BUT, ARR, TYPE
-- (%) (%) · Y/N Nm. Nb ' - ~ Y/N rain T
EB 0,00 2,00 N '0 0 0,90 50 N 28,8 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 O 0.90 50 N 28.8 3
_ NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 N 19.8 3
SB 0,00 2,00 N 0 0 0,90 50 N 19,8 3
SIGNAL SETTINGS
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
NB LT
EB LT X ~
TH X TH
RT X RT
PD PD
WB LT X SB LT
TH X TH
RT X RT
PD PD
GREEN 18,0 16,0 0,0 0,0 GREEN
YELLOW 3,0 3,0 0,0 0,0 YELLOW
PH-1
X
X
X
CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0
PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
X
X
X
27,0 17,0 0,0 0,0
3,0 3,0 0,0 0,0
LEVEL OF 'SERVICE
LANE GRP, V/C G/C DELAY
EB L 0,141 0,200 22,5
TR 0,107 0,200 19,0
WB LT 0,081 0,178 19,9
R 0,149 0,178 20,2
NB L 0,217 0,300 18,0
TR 0,046 0,300 14,4
SB L 0,003 0,189 22,5
TR 0,132 0,189 19,6
LOS
C
C
C
C
C
B
C
C
APP. DELAY APP. LOS
21.0 C
20.1 C
16.9 C
19.6 C
INTERSECTION: Delay =
19,0 (sec/veh)
V/C = 0. 167
LOS--C
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
**************************************************************************
INTERSECTION. .GATEWAY/I.H. 635 WBFR/ROYAL LANE
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST ....... JJW
DATE .......... 8 - 17 -90
TIME .......... PM PEAK HOUR
COMMENT ....... YEAR 2003 VOLUMES
EB
LT 219
TH 165
RT 12
RR 0
VOLUMES :
WB NB SB : EB
111 509 5 : L 12.0
0 112 295 : T 12.0
181 84 223 : R 12.0
0 0 0 : 12.0
: 12.0
: 12.0
GEOMETRY
WB NB SB
L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
T 12 · 0 LT 12 · 0 T 12 · 0
R 12 · 0 T 12 · 0 T 12 · 0
12 . 0 TR 12 · 0 TR 12 · 0
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
EB
WB
NB
SB
'GRADE - HV ADJ PKG
(%) (%) Y/N Nm
0..00 2.00 ~ N 0
0.00 2.00 N 0
0.00 2.00 N 0
0.00 2.00 N 0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
BUSES PHF PEDS
Nb
0 0.95 50
0 0.95 50
0 0.95 50
0 0.95 50
PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
Y/N rain T
N 31.8 3
N 31.8 3
N 25.8 3
N 25.8 3
EB LT
-- TH
RT
PD
WB LT
TH
RT
PD
'- GREEN
YELLOW
PH-1
X
X
X
PH-2
X
X
X
SIGNAL SETTINGS
PH-3 PH-4
18.0 16.0 0.0 0.0
3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
LT
TH
RT
PD
SB LT
TH
RT
PD
GREEN
YELLOW
PH-1
X
X
X
CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0
PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
.X
X
X
27.0 17.0 0.0 0.0
3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
LANE GRP.
EB L
T
R
WB L
T
R
NB L
TR
SB L
TR
V/C
0. 681
0.487
0.042
0.388
0.000
0.708
0.572
0 · 217
0.016
0. 635
LEVEL OF SERVICE
G/C DELAY LOS
0.200 29.1 D
0.200 21.3 C
0 · 2 O0 18 · 8 C
0.178 25.3 ' D
0.178 0.0 A
0.178 27.2 D
0,300 20.8 C
0.300 15.2 C
0. 189 22 · 6 C
0 · 189 22 · 6 C
APP. DELAY
25.6
26.5
19.3
22.6
APP. LOS
D
D
C
C
INTERSECTION:
Delay = 22.5 (sec/veh)
V/C = 0. 639
LOS=C
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
INTERSECTION. · GATEWAY/I .H. 635 WBFR/ROYAL LANE
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST ....... JJW
DATE ' 8-17-90
TIME .......... PM PEAK HOUR
COMMENT ....... YEAR 2004 VOLUMES
,VOLUMES : GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 248 125 576 6 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 187 0 127 335': T 12.0 T 12.0 LT 12.0 T 12.0
-- RT 13 296 96 253 : R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0
: 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
: 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
-- (%) (%) Y/N' Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 2.00 N '0 0 0.95 50 N 31.8 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 50 N 31.8 3
_ NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 50 N 25.8 3
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 50 N 25.8 3
SIGNAL SETTINGS
PH-1 PH-2 pH-3 PM-4
EB LT X NB LT
TH X TH
RT X RT
PD PD
WB LT X SB LT
TH X TH
RT X RT
PD PD
GREEN 19.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN
YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW
PH-1
X
X
X
CYCLE ??NGTH = 90.0
PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
X
X
X
25.0 18.0 0.0 O.0
3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
LEVEL OF SERVICE
_ LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY
EB L 0.730 0.211 30.2
T 0.523 0.211 21.3
R 0.043 0.211 18.3
-- WB L 0.437 0.178 25.7
T 0.000 0.178 0.0
R 1.157 0.178 115.8
-- NB L 0.699 0.278 23.8
TR 0.266 0.278 16.4
.SB L 0.019 0.200 22.0
TR 0.681 0.200 22.7
LOS APP. DELAY
D 26.1
C
C
D 89.1
A
F
C 21.7
C
C 22.7
C
APP. LOS
D
F
C
C
INTERSECTION:
Delay = 34.8 (sec/veh)
V/C = 0. 796
LOS=D
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
**************************************************************************
INTERSECTION..GATEWAY/I.H. 635 WBFR/ROYAL LANE
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST ....... GCL
DATE .... ...... 8/23/90
TIME .......... PM PEAK HOUR
COMMENT ....... 2010 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
VOLUMES : GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB
LT 0 793 1224 0 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T
TH 0 397 471 711 : TR 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 T
RT 0 436 0 537 : 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR
RR 0 0 0 161 : 12'.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 R
: 12.0 12.0 12.0
: 12.0 12.0 12.0
SB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES
(%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR.
Y/N min T
N 26.5
N 26.5
N 11.5
N 11.5
TYPE
3
3
3
3
EB LT
TH
RT
PD
WB LT
TH
RT
PD
GREEN
YELLOW
PH-1 PH-2
X
X
X
28.5
3.0
0.0
0.0
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH =
PH - 3 PH - 4 PH - 1 PH - 2 PH - 3
NB LT X X
TH X X
RT
PD
SB LT
TH X X
RT X X
PD
0.0 0.0 GREEN 33.5 8.0 8.0
0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 3.0
90.0
PH-4
0.0
0.0
LANE GRP.
WB L
TR
NB L
T
SB TR
R
V/C
0.849
0.890
0.963
0.297
0.849
0.850
LEVEL OF SERVICE
G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
0.317 26.6 D 25.7 D
0.317 24.8 C
0.494 28.9 D 23.3 C
0.494 8.7 B
0.211 25.9 D 27.5 D
0.211 33.2 D
INTERSECTION:
Delay =
25.2 (sec/veh)
V/C = 0. 912
LOS =D