Carrollton-SY 890404 PLANNING DEPA,--!E T'
· 0~ ~. ~ue~ ~e~ve~ APR 7989
Weaver Const~c~ion
FROM= DeShazo, Starek, & Tang, Inc. 0F CARROLLION
DATE= March 2~, 1989
SU~ECT: Traffic Impact of Proposed Landfill si%e in Carrollton,
Texas ~ J89065.
' PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to assess the roadway needs of Sandy
Lake Road in order to serve both existing traffic using this
roadway and those vehicles which would be attracted by a proposed
landfill site in Carrollton, Texas (See Figure 1). A
determination will be made as to the existing condition of the
pavement along Sandy Lake Road from I.H. 35E to the proposed
landfill entrance. In addition, the condition of an existing
bridge over the Elm Fork of the Trinity River is examined. Based
on the findings of these analyses, a recommendation is made for
routing vehicle trips to and from the proposed site.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In order to accurately determine the demands placed on the
existing roadway, it was necessary to collect current traffic
volumes. Two types of traffic counts were conducted as follows:
o 12 Hour Manual Counts - Broken Down By Vehicle Type
o 24 Hour Manual Counts - 15 Minute Bi-Directional
Results of this data collection effort are presented in Table 1.
A graphical summary of total daily traffic volumes is provided in
Figure 2.
TABLE 1
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
TIME FRAME TYPE OF VEHICLE NUMBER OF VEHICLES
EB WB
12 HOUR 18-W~LERS 26 41
TRASH TRUCKS 31 30
SU VEHICLES 210 177
PASSENGER CARS 4,093 3,744
24 HOUR ALL VEHICLES 5,878 6,163
330 Union Station
Dallas, Texas 75202-4802
214/748-6740
The data presented in Table 1 was collected at a point between
I.H.- 35E and the existing City of Carrollton landfill. As a
result, it can be assumed that most of the trash vehicles will
exit Sandy Lake Road at the landfill and not continue on further.
However, due to the lack of any large number of access points
along Sandy Lake Road the majority of the remaining traffic may
be assumed to continue on into the City of Coppell.
PAVEMENT CONDITION
In order to determine the existing pavement condition along Sandy
Lake Road, a series of core samples were taken between I.H. 35E
and the proposed landfill site. These samples begin at a point
approximately 1,000 feet west of I.H. 35E and were collected at
1,000 foot intervals. A comparative analysis of the core samples
reveals a range of asphalt thickness from 2.5" to 6". Subsurface
materials also varied greatly, indicating a history of roadway
repair on a section by section basis. Figure 3 depicts the
results of the borings at each location. Tests of the samples
reveal relatively stable materials which would serve as a good
base for any overlays which might be required to bring the
roadway surface up to standards.
Life expectancy of Sandy Lake Road in its existing condition is
3.5 to 4.2 years at the two worst boring locations (Borings B-4
and B-5) given the following factors:
o Daily Applications of (64,000 lbs) Trash Trucks 112
o Daily Applications of (80,000 lbs) Trucks 50
o Daily Applications of' Vehicular Cars & Pickups 5000
o Resulting Equivalent Daily Application of
18 kips Axle Loads 59
Average life expectancy at all other boring locations is greater
than five years. In order to bring the remainder of the roadway
up to a five year life, they must be treated with an asphalt
overlay which would bring the overall pavement thickness to a
minimum of 3.5 inches.
BRIDGE INVESTIGATION
One of the parameters of this study is to determine the condition
of the existing bridge on Sandy Lake Road across the Elm Fork of
the Trinity River. An inspection of this bridge in December,
1987 resulted in the downgrading of this bridge from a 40,000
pound gross rating to a 24,000 gross rating by the State
Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT). In an
attempt to determine where deficiencies in the bridge might
exist, DeShazo, Starek, & Tang (DS&T) staff engineers performed a
second inspection of this bridge in March, 1989. This site
investigation confirmed the existence of shear cracks in the
concrete beams at the reaction points on abutments and piers. (A
depiction of these cracks is provided in Figure 4). As a result
of this, no upgrade in the load rating of the bridge can be
recommended without first undertaking major repair and/or
The data presented in Table 1 was collected at a point between
I.H, 35E and the existing City of Carrollton landfill. As a
result, it can be assumed that most of the trash vehicles will
reconstruction efforts. The time required to obtain the State
and Federal approvals could range from one year.~o several years
and is dependant on many variables. During this process,
solutions to the bridge problem should be pursued.
ROUTING OF TRASH TRUCKS
In the case that bridge repair or reconstruction is not feasible
within the time that it takes to begin operation of the the
proposed landfill, an alternate routing of the trash trucks will
be necessary. Figure 5 illustrates some of the major routes
available for truck traffic. Table 2 provides comparative
distances for the routes considered.
TABLE 2
ALTERNATE ROUTES AND DISTANCES FROM IH 35E TO SITE
FROM ORIGIN ROUTE DISTANCE
(miles)
NORTH ROUND GROVE/ Round Grove to Denton Tap
I.H. 35E to Sandy Lake 6.1
I.H. 35E to Sandy Lake 6.0
SOUTH BELT LINE/ Belt Line to Denton Tap
I.H. 35E to Sandy Lake 9.2
Belt Line to Mac Arthur
to Sandy Lake 4.5
I.H. 35E to Sandy Lake 3.3
It is recommended that Denton Tap be considered the primary
alternate route in the event that rehabilitation of the bridge on
Sandy Lake Road is not possible prior to the opening of the
landfill.
RECOMMENDATIONS
C)
o
B-4
Symbols ancl Terms LJsed on Boring Logs
Soil O~ ROCk Types
FIGURE 3
CORE SAMPLE RESULTS
BRIDGE ELEVATION LOOKING SOUTH
STERL ~I'E~L ,
_.. ' 288'0' t
T-BEAM ~ ~,,~~____~~-- SOLE PLATE
] MASONRY PLATE
CAP 't FIGURE 4
i TYPICAL SHEAR CRACKS
i AT ABUTMENTS AND PIERS
EVALUATION OF
PAVEMENT CONDITION~ SANDY LAKE ROAD
WEST OF I.H. 35E TO EAST OF
RIVERCHASE DRIVE
CARROLLTON/COPPELL, TEXAS
PREPARED FOR
DESHAZO, STAREK & TANG, INC.
DALLAS, TEXAS
Maxim Engineers inc. Secie,::~,ca/Mater,als ~s[ ng/'Ocnsu~tan'[s
Maxim Engineers. Inc.
March 29, 1989
DeShazo, Starek & Tan~, Inc.
330 Union Station
Dallas, ~ 75202
Attn: Brian Van De Walle
Re: P~_port No. D-89-0133
Evaluation of Pavement
F£om West of I.H. 35E to
East of Riverchase D~ive
Gentl~n.-
cc~dition of the pave~nt on Sandy Lake Road from Riverchase ~rive to west
of Inte~tate Highway 35 East in Coppell ar~ Carrollton, Texas.
The purpose of th/s investigation was to detezmine the pavement material at
the base mater/als ar~ the estimatsd life of the ew~cing road based on
pr~ected traffic that was generated by the project civil engineer.
Nine (9) test borings were advanced with a truck mounted drillin~ rig.
Samples of the ~dsrlying mterials wer~ ob~a~ to a depth of eleven
(11) feet at each of the boring locations. ~b~ recov~ samples w~re
logged, placed in plastic bags, marked and transpo~ to our laboratory
for further test/rig. ~e bore holes were plugged with co,fete upon
cc~pletion of the drillir~ operation. Future plugging of these b~les
my be required am~ should be performgd~_ by others. ~e location of all
the borings is shown on the attached plan of borings.
2342 Faber's
PO Box 59902
Dallas. Texas 75229
',214) 2,:7-7575
~aZ~29, 1989
No. 200 Sieve and Unconfined ~ressive Strength-~ were performed
on select~ soil samples in ord__er to determine, the physical and
eng~ing chaz-uctaristics of th~ base a~d ur~lerlyir~ material ~. Cc~es
of the asa!tic ouncrete pavement were obe~ at t~o locations.
Gradation, field and. laboratory density and stability tests ~re
performed on these samples. ~he results of the as~malt tests are
incl~ in the appendix of this report. ~he results of the
classification tests are shown at t_heir respective depth on the
C. ANALYSIS
~ data ge/lerated frc~ tb~ irr~estigation ir~icates that the pave~erfc
cross section cc~s~ of 2.5 to 6.5 itches of hot ~ix asphaltic
omx=ete pav~nt. ~he base matarial consisted of ~nted sand, sandy
clay or sand and gravel. 5 to 7.25 ]/lc. hes of ~te was er~
at four of the nine bor/ng locations. ~%e soils ur~erlying the base
cxx~ ma/nly of sa~ clays, clayey sand, silty sands and sands and
gravel mixtures that remained in evidence to the complet/cn depth of the
test borings. Subsurface seepage water was e~countered in some of the
bor/ng locations at depths .ranging between 5.5 and 11 feet belch; the
ew~-~/ng grour~ surface. ~he pav~_nt cross ~tion at the knring
location is summarized in the following ~hle.
Apprc~ m~te A~]t
Boring Location Thickness
B-1 Sra. 2 + 50 Eastbottr~
I sra. 13 + 00 Westbour~ 4" (1)
B-2
B-3 Sra. 24 + 75 ~e_h~r~ 3.5"
B-4 Sta. 35 + 00 Westbour~ 2.75"
: B-5 sra. 44 + 00 Eastbour, d 2.5"
I B-6 Sra. 55 + 00 West/xazr~l 3.75" (2)
B-7 Sta. 65 + 00 East/xaa~ 6.5" (3)
B-8 Sta. 73 + 00 Eastbour~ 6.5" (4)
B-9 ~-~t of Riverchase Drive 3.5"
(1) 7.25 Inch Concrete Pavement under Asphalt
(2) s Lnch Cuncreta Pavemant urger Asphalt
(3) 5 Inch Concrete Pavement ur~__e~ Asphalt
(4) 6 Inch Concrete Pavement ~e~ Asphalt
Maxim Engine, elm. Inc.
~ 29~ .1.989
indicate that the tested asphalt material meets the Texas State Depar~mm~
of Highways and Public Transportation specifications, f6r gradation and
s~ability. Density tests also indicate that the asphalt is in a ~all
Presently, a Type I waste disposal facility is pzDposed for the area located
generally northeast of the int~rsection of Riv~ Drive and Sandy T~ke
~oad. ~he proposed facility will be accessed from Sar~y Lake Road. It is
expected that the facility will generate heavy truck traffic. ~%e i~t of
Traffic infonmaticn furmi~h~d by D~ ~h~o, Starek & Tang, Inc. indicates that
presently up to 60 trash ccmpa~ trucks are using Sandy T~ke Road daily.
It is expected that the new facility, when fully operational, will generate
another 50 daily trips by tr~-~h compactor trucks.
~he effect of the additional traffic on the existing pavement was evaluated
usin~ different AASHIO pavement evaluation ~dlods. ~ results of our
analysis and findim~ are as follows:
- Daily Applications of (64,000 lbs) tr~h trucks: 112
- Daily Applications of (80,000 lbs) trucks: 50
- Daily Applications of vehicular car & pickups: 5000
- Resulting equivalent daily application of
lS kips axle loads: 59
- P~ojected life of pavement at worst borin~
location (Borings B-4 and B-5): 3.5 to 4.2 years
~he theoretical life of the pavement at the ~-emaining boring locaticr~ is
expected to be above five (5) years ur~ler the aforementioned traffic
Maaim Engine, In~.
]989
To extend the life of the pavement to five years based c~ the af~c~
om~liticm, an asphalt overlay will be re~,~ed to bring the total depth of
the asphaltic con=r~ pavement to a m/nimum of 3.5-inches. ~he overall
perfo~mmr~e~ of the pav~-~nt sectio~ w~ll be ~~1. d "~t.~ life ~
b~ ~U su~:r~e mter~.~. ~ prevented f~. occurr~.
We trust the infozmaticn provi~ herein is sufficient for your use. If you
S~y,
Maxim £ngin~, inc.
~ of Asmhalt Tests ..
sarape Loca~m: ]~='/ng ])-6
As~t Type: Type D Surface Coarse
~ Retained Passinq Soecifications
1/2" 0 100 100
3/8" 2.2 97 · 8 85 - 100
#4 37.5 21 - 53
#10 19.7 11 - 32
Total #10 59.4 54 - 74
#40 10.5 6 - 32
#80 13.7 4 - 27
#200 6.2 3 - 27
-#200 4.2 I - 8
Percent Asphalt 6.0 4 - 8
Stability 51.0 Min 35
Field Density (pcf) 148.3
T~hoz',ato~-j~,. Density (pcf) 150.1
Peroerfc C~pactic~l 98.8
Maxim Engineers, Inc.
. ~ of Asuhalt Tests --
Sarape Iz3catJ. ca: ]k=~ ~
t Asphalt Type: Type D Surface Coarse
Percent Percent TSEHPT
~ Retained Passina Suecifications
1/2" 0 100 100
3/8" 2.4 97.6 85 - 100
~4 26.9 21 - 53
#10 21.3 11 - 32
Total #10 50.6 54 - 74
#40 16.2 6 - 32
#80 15.9 4 - 27
#200 7.0 3 - 27
-#200 3.4 I - 8
Peroent As~m]t 6.9 4 - 8
Stability 53.0 Min 35
Field Density (pcf) 146.5
l'ah~ratory Density (pcf) 148.7
~ Cc~c~ 98.5
M~xim Engini~ri, inc.
Sa~. ].e T. ocatica~: ~ B,-8
asahalt Ty~e: Type B Surface Coarse
Percent Peruent TSEHP~
Sieve Size Retained Passinq Soecifications
1" 0 100 100
7/8" 4 96 95 - 100
3/8" 28.6 21 - 53
#4 16.8 11 - 42
#10 14.6 5 - 26
Total #10 64.0 58 - 74
#40 8.0 6 - 32
#80 14.6 4 - 21
#200 6.5 3 - 21
-#200 1.5 1 - 8
Percent Asphalt 5.4 3.5 - 7
Stability 51.5
Field Density (pcf) 147.9
Tahoratory Density (pcf) 149.7
Percent ~on 98.8
Maxim Engineera, Inc.
Log
Of
Boring
B-'! See Plan of Borin~
Sandy Lake Road. Co ~peli/Carroilton, Tex~s
~ Intermittent Sampling
~ ~x~ Unknown
~ o STRATU~ DESCRIPTION o o
~ { 6 INCH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ...
. 12 0.5 BROWN SAND and GRAVEL
13 35 17
1.0 BRO~ SANDY CLAY with g~vel
19
2.5
I ~DDISH BROWN and ~LLOW~H
] BROWN SIL~ SANDY CLAY
~ ~.o
BROWN SIL~ CLAY 20 102 3~ 17 21 4620
:ompletion Depth Date [ Wa~er Obee~atio~
11.0' 3/9/89I None Encountered
, B-2 See Plan of Borings
Project
z Sandy Lake Road, Co~pell/Carroliton, Tex~
~ ~'~ '="= STRATUM DESCRIPTION ~=
" 4 INCH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ..
' 7.25 INCH CONCRE~ PAVE~NT
] DARK BROWN SANDY CLAY
] _
7 2.5 '
~ 8 19
I ] BROWN CLA~Y SAND
8 6.0
~ :':'::" I ~DD~H BROWN SAND
CompLetion Depth Date ~ Water Ob~ariom
11.~' ~/9/891 Water Encountered at 11.0'
8-3 See Plan of Borings
Sandy Lake Road, Co ~pell/Carroliton. Texas
]~ Intermittent Sampling
1_ 3'5 INCH ASPHALT PAVEMENT _
~. 0.5 6 INCH YELLOWISH BROWN
~ 1.5 ~LLOW~H BROWN SAND and GRAVEL .
~~ ~LLOW~HBROWN~ND~dGRAVEL .
~/~ 18 25 IGRAY SANDY CLAY
~44~ ~OW~ CLA~Y SAND
. ;. ~LLOWISH BROWN S~TY SAND
.5' 3/9/89 None Encountered Il--
S-4 See Plan of Borih~s
Projee~
~, Sandy Lake Road, Co~pell/Carroiiton, Texas
~au. Intermittent Sampling .-~ E w
i Unknown
[__ J 2.75 INCH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ..
~ :': :' :"/50/ 0.5
.~ :':'::'/.~ 3" LIGHT BROWN SAND and CEMENT
] 4~ 30 1.5 LIGHT BROWN SANDY CLAY with 8ravel .
~ REDDISH BROWN SANDY CLAY
.5
t l~il 15 6.0 YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY SAND
J ~!:.¥.::':'-'[ 1o.~
............... hI_.G_ ._I:~._. ~ g_o. _w._N_ S_f._Np._.
11.5 ' ' ..............................
11.5' 3/9/89t None Encountered Il
Log of Boring ~ .,.r ~,.o.
B-5 See Plan of Boring.
Proj~
Sandy Lake Road, Co )pell/CarroiiWn, Texas
~ a I~. x Unknown
! 2.5 INCH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ..
:2(I REDDISH BROWN SAND and GRAVEL 4
~ 10 2~51 5 ~DD~H BROWN CLA~Y SAND '
5 ~o
~mpletion Depth Date ~ W~ter O~e~tions
~ ~.S' 3/9/89 ~ None Encountered
Log of Boring ~ ~.r ~oc.,,o. ,,-' V.,e Z of ~
, B-6 See Plan of Borir.~j
Projec~
Sandy Lake Road, Co ~pell/Carroliton. Texas
.u~" ~ Intermittent Sampling 3~ E -~ 3 ~ mD~
~ ~ [ STRATUM DESCRIPTION '~oc '~" .~ ." ~"~c ~n' c~ ~"
3.75 INCH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ..
8 INCH CONCRE~ PAVEMENT
~:~. 50/ 1.0
~ 3~ BROWN SAND and GRAVEL
~ 31 2.0 GRAY ~d BROWN SANDY CLAY 16
3.0
~ 5.5
8 DARK GRAY and ~LLOWISH BROWN
~m~l-t,~n Depth Date
11.5' 3/10/89 [ Water Ob~ation, Water Encountered at 5.0' Il ~
Log of Boring NL :r l~o~-.o. *'-~' P.. X o~ X
B-7 See Plan of Boringa
Project
Sandy Lake Road. Co ~peii/Carroilton, Texas
D~
~10~ O Su~e~levacion · ~ ~ C Ce ·
,~= /,~= STRATUM DESCRIPTION oo := .~ ~ ~c o :o=
6.5 INCH ASPHALT PAVE~NT
5 INCH CONCRE~ PAVEME~
18 1.0 ~LLOWISH BROWN SAND and GRAVEL
BROWN SANDY CLAY
2.0 DA~ GRAY SANDY CLAY
4.0
8 GRAY SANDY CLAY 21
l~,..soer { Locition P~e 1 of 1
Log of Boring B-8[ See Plan of Borings
P~ec~
Sand~ Lake Road, Co~peil/Carro[lton, Texas
~ Intermittent Samplin~ ~ E .~ ~ ~ ~
I 0 O C ~ ~ ~ ~ C 0 C O~
J / I 6.5 ~CH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ...
[ J } 6 INCH CONCRE~ PAVEME~
BROWN SANDY CLAY
5-
14 39
BRO~ CLA~Y SAND
7.5
: :' ". 9.5
~. }~i.~ BROWN SAND a~d GRAVEL
',ompletion Depth D&te W~ter Ob~tions
11.5' 3/10/~9 Water Encountered at 6.5' ~ ~
Log of Boring
B-~.} See Plan of Borings
Project
Sandy Lake Road, Co~peil/Carroiiton, Texas
~ ~' Intermittent Sampling
I 0 Sub&ce Elevation I ~ · ~ ~ C C I -
~ ~ Unknown
CDC -~K .~1
~ g .-0 STRATUM DESCRIPTION
~ 3.5 INCH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ....
~.~ 36 0.5
~: LIG~ BROWN SAND ~d GRAIL
18 40 20 20
~ LIG~ BROWN SANDY CLAY
11 15
.............................. , ...............................
~mpletion Depth Date ~ Water O~e~ations
11.5' 3/1T/89
Symbols and Terms Used on Boring Logs
Soil or Rock Types ,,Sampler Types
-~ :. SAND SANDY SHALE
iii SILT I tll SILTY LIMESTONE
~ ///~ ~ ~helby Rock Split T.H.D.
CLAY CLAYEY FILL Tube Core Spoon Auger
"
Consistency of Cohesive Soils
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (TON/SQ. FOOT)
DESCRIPTIVE
TERM
Very Soft Less than 0.25
Soft 0.25.-0.50
Firm 0.50-1.00
Stiff
_ 1.00-2.00
Very Stiff 2,00-4.00
Hard More than 4.00
Relative Density of Cohesiontess Soils
STD. PENETRATION RESISTANCE BLOWS/FOOT DESCRIPTIVE TERM RELATIVE DENSITY
0-10 Loose 0 TO 40%
10-30 Medium Dense 40 TO 70%
30-50 Dense 70 TO 90%
OVER 50 Very Dense 90 TO 100%
Soil Structure
CALCAREOUS Containing deposits of calcium carbonate: generally nodular
SLICKENSlDED Having inclined planes of weakness that are slick and glossy in appearance.
LAMINATED Composed of thin layers of varying color and texture.
FISSURED Containing shrinkage cracks frequently filled with fine sand or sill Usually mom or
less vertical.
INTERBEDDED Composed of alternate layers of different soil types.
Physical Properties of Rock Hardness
and
Degree
of
Cementation
VERY SOFT OR PLASTIC Can be remolded in hand: corresponds in consistency up to very stiff in soils.
SOFT Can be scratched with fingernail.
MODERATELY HARD Can be scratched easily with knife: Cannot be scratched with fingernail.
HARD Difficult to scratch with knife.
VERY HARD Cannot be scratched with knife.
POORLY CEMENTED OR FRIABLE Easily crumbled.
CEMENTED Bound together by chemically precipitated material occurring in the interstices between
allogenic particles of rock -- quartz, calcite, dolomite, siderite and iron oxide are common
cementing materials.
Physical Properties of Rock Degree of Weathering
UNWEATHERED Rock in its natural state before being exposed to atmospheric sgents.
SLIGHTLY WEATHERED Noted ¢)reoominantly by color change with no disintegrated zones.
WEATHERED Complete color change with zones of slightly decomposed rock.
EXTREMELY WEATHERED Complete color cl~ange with consistency, texture, and general a~pearance approaching soil.
Maxim Engineem Inc.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYM-
BOLS TYPICAL NAMES
GW Well g. raded gravels, gravel - sand mixtures,
CLEAN little or no f.ines.
GRAVELS
Poorly graded gravels or gravel, sand
GRAVELS
(Little
or
rto
fines)
(More than 50% of GP mixtures, little or no fines.
coarse fractio~ is
LARGER than the
GRAVELS GM Silty gravels, gravel - sand - silt mixtures.
COARSE
No.
4
sieve
size)
GRAINED WITH FINES
SOl LS (Appreciable amt.
(More than 50% of of fines) GC Clayey gravels, gravel - sand -
clay
mixtures.
material is
LARGER than
No. 200 sieve SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little
or no fines.
size) CLEAN SANDS
(Little or no fines)
SANDS SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands,
(More than 50% of little or no fines.
coarse fraction is
SMALLER than the
No. 4 sieve size) SANDS SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.
WITH FINES
(Appreciable amt.
* of fines) SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures.
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flou,
M L silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with
slight plasticity.
FINE SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic clays of Iow to medium plasticity,
(Liquid limit LESS than 50) CE gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays,
GRAINED lean clays.
SOILS
(More than 50% of OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of
material is Iow plasticity.
SMALLER than
sieve MH Inorganic silts, micaceou$ or diatomaceous
No.
20O
size) fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.
SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid limit GREATER than 50) CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,
organic silts.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOl LS PT Peat and other highly organic soils.
BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by
combinations of group symbols.
Maxim Engineers inc.
Deshazo, Starek & Tang, Inc. Equipmen= ID #:3594/3593
S=reet Name: Sandy Lake Road
Location: Wes= of 1-35E
City/State: Carrollton, Texas
N~mher: 89065 (036)
Da=e: March 15, 1989
of Week: Wednesday 24-Hour To=al: 12041
Time Ending: Eastbound Westbound
1400
1415 75 88
1430 94 99
1445 70 73
1500 82 321 75 335
1515 82 77
1530 71 78
1545 62 118
1600 90 305 130 403
1615 61 89
1630 97 109
1645 120 94
1700 92 370 99 391
1715 114 119
1730 139 160
1745 141 · 139
1800 150 544 167 585
1815 113- 195
1830 115 181
1845 124 133
1900 101 453 128 637
1915 106 122
1930
109 138
1945 149 113
2000 84 448 97 -470
2015 '.57 84
2030 ~9 70
2045 '34 73
2100 98 228 : 87 314
2115 40 87
2130 62 68
2145 25 74
2200 24 151 47 276
2215 24 45
2230 18 40
2245 27 55
2300 11 80 23 163
2315 16 25.
2330 10 26
2345 12 18
2400 i7 45 23 92
~ ~.~.'. - -,
15 5 13
'30 8 12
45 4 10
100 3 20 7 42
130 4 10
145 2 5
200 2 10 ... 7 32
215 1 3'
230 4 3
245 2 5
3 O0 5. 12 1 12
315 3 1
0 1
33O
345 0 3
400 1 4 1 6
415 1 2
430 2 4
445 3 6
500 5 11 2 14
515 8 3
530 9 6
545 24 4
600 21 62 12 25
615 39 17
630 49 19
645 82 48
700 91 261 87 171
730 136 145
745 156 156
800 151 554 156 562
815 127 117
830 126 74
845 116 71
900 107 476 60 322
915 80 44
930 84 39
945 82 57
1000 60 306 59 199
1015 66 57
1030 76 39
1045 65 62
1100 82 289 62 220
1115 56 66
1130 76 68
1145 58 68
1200 81 271 79 281
1215 70 69
1230 85 77
1245 94 86
1300 95 344 75 307
1315 78 76
1330 58 74
1345 88 84
1400 89 313 70 304
5878 5878 6163 6163
24-HOUR TOTAL VOLUM]~: 12041
TRAFFTC COtINT DATA SHEET
,EST OF T.H. ~5[ PAGE i OF
COUNT
: TIHE : le - ~HEELERS : TRASH COHPAC- : SU VEHICLES : PASSENGER : TOTALS
: ENDING: : TOE TRUC~S : :CAES i TRUCES :
: : N6 : EB : TOT : ~8 : E8: TOT : ~8 : EB : TOT : ~ : EB : TOT : )SHIN: HOLIR
: ~ :J5: 0: e: 0: 0: 0: 0 : 0: J : 1 : J6: ~3: q9: SJ :
: 6 :~0: I : 0: ] : 0 : 0: 0: 0 :' 2: 2: ~2: 5~: ~1 : 97 :
: ~:45: J: O: 1: O: O: O: J: ~: 2: 43: 76: 12]: J27 :
: 7:00: 0 ' 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 3: 4 : 7: 58: 82: J40: 154 : 42~
: 7:15: ~: 0: J: 0: 0: 0: 4: 4: 8: ~: 124: ~2~: 241 : 6J9
: 7 :~0: 0: J : 1 : 0: 0: 0: ~: 4: 7: J46:~15: 2~J: 277 : 79~
: 7:45: 0: 0: 0: 0: ~: ~: ]: 2: 5: 129: 40: i6~: ]85 : B57
: 8:00: O: ~: 3: O: J2: i2: 2: ~: 5: 140: ~79: ~ig: ~5~ : 1062
: ~ :~5: 3: 0: 3: 0: 0: 0: I : 0: I : ~0: 12~: 20~: 211 : J032
:
: ~:~0: O: O: O: O: o: O: o: J: 1: 7~:JO2: 17~: Jei : ~
: ~:45: I: ]: 2: 0: I: t : ~: 3: 6: 74: ~7: 171: 18~ : ~40
9:00: J : i: 2: 0: 0: 0: 3: 3: ~: ~1: 100 :' 1~I: 177 : 758
9:15: 1 : I : 2 ' 1 : 0: 1 : 5: 3: 8: 67: 76: 143: 165 : 712
9:30: 1 : 1 : 2: 0: 0: 0: 1 :. 0: 1 : 49: 69: 118: 124 : 6S5
9:4S: I : I: 2: 0: 2':' 2: 3: 1: 4: S2': 4S: 117: 1~ : S99
10:00: 1 : I: 2: 1: ' 0: I: 0: 3 :~ 3: ~]~ .~: 101: 113 : S3S
I0:1~: 2: 0: ~: I: I: 2: 2: 0: 2: ~'~'~ Iff7: 17[: 182 : 5~7
I0:3~: 7: I: ~: 3:
10 :t5: 2: 1: ~: I : I: ~: ~: 0: ~: tt': ~: 87: 1~ : 552
II :00: 1 : 2: 3: 0 : 2: 2: 0: 3: 3: 57: 97: 154: 170 : t, O0
11:15: 0: I : I : 1 : 0: 1 : 2: 4: 6 : 50: 74 : 124 : 140 : 592
11:30: 3 : 0: 3: 0: 0: 0: 2: 0: 2: ~: 43: 99: 109 : ~22
i1:45: 1 : O: I : 0: I : I : I : 2: .3: 48:'120: 188: 198 : 4,12
12:00: 0 :1 :''1 .~ :
...- . _ . .-... -
T~Aff. TC COUNI DAIA SHEFI
a SA}4D¥ LAK,c ROAD DS&T ,T~'~ NO.
- ~[SI 0[ ].H. 35[ PAGE 2
CO. UNT
: TIH[ : 18 - NHEfLERS : TRASH COHPAC- : SU VEHICLES : PASSEHGER : TOTAl. 5
: ENDING: : TOk TRUCKS : :CARS & TRUCKS :
'~. : : ~G: Ell: lOT: ~1~ : EB : TO1 : ~g : Ell : lOT : Nil : E8 : lflT : 15HIH: HOUR
: 12:15: ¢: fl: 0: 2 : I : 3: 11 : 10: 21 : 6B: 7iI': 1t6: 19t : 619
: 17:30: I : I : 2: 9 : 0: 9: 0: 0: B: 73.: 77: 150 :. 188 : 72[;
; ................................... ,- ................................................. .~ .............
: 12:45: 0: 0: 0: 2: 0: 2: 4 : El : 12 : 65 : 70 : 14J : 169 : 655
I : t3 :OO: 2: 0: 2: 4 : 2: 6: 10: 3: l]: gl : 67: 1t8: 190 : 711
: 13:15: 0: 0: 0: 0 : i : 1 : 10: 5: 15: 71 : 72:
: 13 :.tO: 0: 0: 0: 1 : 0: I : 8: 9: 17: 66 : 75: 141 : 177 : 71l
: 1:3:45: I : I : 2: 0 : 2: 2 : 5 : 7: 12: 57: 60: 117: 145 : 4,91
: 14:00: 0: 2: 2: 0: 0: 0 : lO: 7: 17 : 78: YO: 148: 186 : 4,87
: 11:15: 2: fl: 2: I : 0: 1 : Il : 7: 18: 66: 4,6: 112: 174 : 4,8d,
: 14:30: I : 0: I : 0: 0: 0: I: t : 8: 70: {36: 1,36: 154 : 663
: 14:45: 1 : I : 2: 0 : 1 : 1.: 9: 12: 21 : 7:3: 78: 151 : 199 : 71,3
: 15:00: 1 : I : 2: 0: 0
: 15:15: I : ?: ,3: 0: 0: 0: 4 : 14 : 18: 78: 70: 148: 190 : 72.0
:
: 15 :.lO: 2: 0: 2: 0: 0: 0 : 8: 7 : 15: 85 : 71 : 1,56: 190 : 756
: 1S :45: 2: (1: 2: 0: 0: 0: 6: 7: 13: 58: 56: 114: 144 : 701
:
: 16:00: 1 : I : 2: I : 0: I : 6: 4 : 10: 95: 62: 157: 183 : 707
J : 16:15: 0: 0: 0: O: O: 0: 3: 7: 10: 106: 94 : 200: 220 : 737
1(, :30: 0: ] : 1 : 0 : ] : 1 : 5. : (,: Il : lOS: 75: 184: 210 : 7S?
i
, : 16:45: 0: 0: 0: 1 : 0: 1 : 4 : 7: Il : 131 : 96: 2~7: 251 : B64
: 17:00: 1 : 0: 1 : 0: 0: O: 3: $: 8: 91 : 90: IB1 : 199 : 080
: 17:15: 1 : P. : I : 0 : 0: 0: 3: 4 : 7 : 133 : 118: 251 : 267 : 527
: 17:3U: 0 : t! : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : ] : I : 2: 10,3: 129: 232: 2,3~',: 953
: 17:45: I : 0 : I : 0 : 0: 0 : I : 3: 4 : 140: 15B: 2!)8: 308 : lOlO
: 18:00: 0: P,: 0: 0: 0 : O : 3: ! : 4: 171 : 170: 341 : 349 : 1160
TRAFFIC COUN! DATA ,C, HE[1 - SUMMARY
SANDY LAKE ROA[I DS&T JO5 NO.
I~EST OF ].H. :~SE PAGE :~ OF 3
DIRECTIONAL SUililAR¥
.................................................... .:~.2 ...............................................
: : J8 - ~HEEt. ERS : TKASH COMPAC- : SU VEHICLES : PA$SINGE'I~ : I(]TAL :
: TTilE : : TOR TRUCKS : :CARS & TRIJCIL'S : VEIlICLES :
: PERIOD: ............................................................... ... ....................... :
: ~6: E8: TOT : N8 : Ell: TOT: i~8 : EB : TOT :"8 : E8 : TOT : W6 : E6 :
.... ;: ....
VEHICLE TYPE SUItHARY
: ]8- : TRASH : SU VEil. ~' PASSENGER: TOTAl. :
T:[ItE : i~HEELERS: TRUCES:-1 CAR & TRIJCICS: VEHTCLES:
: HO. ! 10: NO. : . I0. IO:tNO. : ! 101: ilO. :I TOl
J)AILY : 67: O.eZ: 61 : 0.71:I87: 4.6I: 78]7: 93.E:I:: 8:S52: 1001:
: :2~-~i, ....... -;'; ;-i~: ;; :']5~t, ~_., :. ~.,~ ~ ~. ~.~!~. ~o,~: .~,~: ...................................
~' ;-..-]~;~ ........................: .,o ..
P~ PEAl: 2: 0.7.I: 0: 0.81:[1 1122