Stoneleigh P1-SY 940713 Republic Property Group
Traffic Access Study for the
~u.rtyards at-~.~-'verc-hase in Coppell
DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc.
330 Union Station
Dallas, Texas 75202
July 13, 1994
DT&A
DT&A DeShazo. Tang & Associates
Engineers * Planners
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Jer~ Ragsdale
Republic Property Group
From: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc.
Date: July 13, 1994
Subject: Traffic Access Study for the Courtyards at Riverchase in Coppell, J94093
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze traffic access for the Courtyards at Riverchase, a proposed
townhouse development in Coppell, Texas. The access issues of this analysis are limited to projecting the
development generated traffic arriving at the intersections of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road,
Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive, and Belt Line Road and the planned Fairway Drive. Traffic
generated by several proposed developments in the ~Scinity of the site will be added to the background traffic.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed site consists of a 28.96-acre tract located south of Riverchase Drive between the existing retail tract
at Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive and the planned Fairway Drive. Exhibit 1 illustrates the location
of the site in relation to the surrounding roadwa.vs. The development is planned to consist of 209 townhouse~,
&ccess to the development is planned at two driveways along Riverchase Drive and two driveways at Fairway/?
~ The 'p~2oposed site layout is shown in Exhibit 2.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Accessibility.
Accessibility is an important consideration in the study and design of transportation systems serving any
development. Access to the proposed site will be provided via the following roadways:
· MacArthur Boulevard - is a north/south four-lane divided arterial west of the site. South of
Belt Line Road it becomes a six-lane divided roadway which serves as the major spine road for
Valley Ranch. According to data collected in January. 1994, MacArthur Boulevard carries
approximately 14,000 vehicles per day north of Belt Line Road. The posted speed limit is 35
mph. The Coppell Thoroughfare Plan indicates MacArthur Boulevard is planned to be
expanded to a six-lane divided roadway north of Belt Line Road, but the improvements have
not been funded or scheduled.
330 Union Station
Dallas. Texas 75202
214/748-6740 Metro 214/263-5428
Fax 214/748-7037
LAKE
MAPLELEAF
TUPELO
COURT.
:' FUTURE ;'
DEVELOPMENT J :'" '::
...-:'-.-?~-.:.~.. ==============================================
R%,dERCt~ASE
., .. ...... ..... ....-~.-:-:::
, . , ,, . ; ...... ~ . , .... , ,. · , . ,
BELT LINE RD
EXHIBIT 1
SITE LOCATION
"..,,-o ~'! .:
lid/!
~.'i.,~,,;
~ -..---4....._ --x-- - -.--~. , .---__ :,,
!- ,, , ~.- I-'-T'-'-J~
....~.~_.~
...--.~'," C~:g~.."; ", , · ~, ~ ~ '
~ J I ~ ~ I
, .
,,~ ,,¢'-~------.. '~¥"%'-' I
i, "'----- ~ I -'"'~-' ~ !:
"1 ~ '""-"~- ~-'-- I !
f .~.__=_ -7.-:~'
Site Plan 3
· Belt Line Road - is an east/west arterial located south of the proposed development. East of
MacArthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road is a six-lane divided roadway prodding access to IH-35E.
West of MacArthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road is a two-lane undivided road.
· Riverchase Drive - is a four-lane undivided roadway that connects MacArthur Boulevard from
north of Belt Line Road to Sandy Lake Road east of Mac. Arthur Boulevard. Riverchase Drive
forms the northern boundary, of the site. The roadway is currently the only access to the homes
and golf course in the Riverchase area.
· Fairway Drive - is a planned north/south connection from Riverchase Drive to Belt Line Road.
Forming the eastern boundary of the site, this roadway would provide direct access to Belt Line
Road from the Riverchase area. _'7
Traffic
Volumes
Twenty-four hour traffic counts were performed in~pril 1993~/the intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and
Belt Line Road.~As shown in Exhibit 3, MacArthu~tBoulevard carries approximately 6,800 vehicles southbound
and 10,300 vehiclesJthbound during a twenty-f6ur hour period. Belt Line Road carries about 6,600 vehicles
eas~ vehicles westbound during t~is same time period.
~ ~' HIBIT 3
~t[~.~f ~: Ex~stmg Dal~X y Traffic Volumes
Count Location Vehicles per Day Percent Difference
Thursday-Friday ) Tuesday
(January. 6-7, 1994) (January 11, 1994)
MacArthur Blvd. North 14,010 14,029 0.1%
of Belt Line Rd.
Mac. Arthur Blvd. South 16,903 16,641 1.6%
of Belt Line Rd.
Belt Line Rd East of 16,617 16,692 0.4%
MacArthur Blvd.
Belt Line Rd West of 10,996 10,725 2.5%
Mac. Arthur Blvd.
Riverchase Drive East 1,133 1,096 3.4%
of MacArthur Blvd.
Manual peak hour traffic movement counts were obtained from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Friday January. 6, 1994 and
from 6:30 to 8:30 am on Friday, January. 7, 1994 at the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line
Road, and Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Exhibits 4 and 5 illustrate the existing morning and
evening peak hour traffic movements.
Existlr, g A...~.M Peak Hour Tumir, g Movemer~s
EXHIBIT 5 -~-~ ~ ~ ~ f-
Existtog PM Peak Hour Tumiog IVlovemmts
6
FUTURE CONDITIONS
Projected Traffic Volumes
In order to analyze the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway system, future traffic
volmnes must be estimated. For this analysis, a design year of 1996 was selected. Other developments expected
to affect the traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development in 1996 include the retail center in the
southeast quadrant of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive, four other residential- .type developments
located along MacArthur Boulevard or Riverchase Drive, and a office/retail tract located west of Mac. Arthur
Boulevard across from Riverchase Drive (previously multi-family). The trips generated by these developments
are in addition to the projected background growth. The fifth edition of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual was used to determine the number of trips generated by these seven
developments. The appropriate trip generation rates were used to project the trips for each development. The
number of trips generated is shown in Exhibit 6. -This .city staff direction represents a worst case scenario for
the analysis.
EXHIBIT 6
Background Trip Generation
(Trip-Ends)
Number Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Development of Units Trips
(24-hr) In [ Out In I Out
Jefferson at Riverchase 386 2,411 34 134 - 144 74
Multi-Family
Regency. Court 208 1,451 20 81 84 43
Multi-Family
Northlake Woodlands East 97 1,004 20 58 67 43
No 10 Phase B
Single-Family Detached
Future Development in 39 434 9 27 30 16
Northlake Woodlands East
Single-Family Detached
Riverchase Drive Developments 430 3,955 74 211 262 141
k,,,,,.._ Single-Family Detached
Existing Retail Center 8.55 ac 9,475 0 0 365 354
Retail Zoning 3.75 ac 4,038 60 35 185 185
Office Zoning 3.75 ac 713 85 10 16 80
(previously Riverchase Club
Apts)
Traffic projections for the study area were obtained by applying a growth factor to the existing traffic and adding
the anticipated traffic for the seven developments. The projected growth rate was determined using historic
7
traffic count data near the proposed developments. Comparing 24-hour data collected in 1986 to data collected
in April 1993, a growth rate of 6.5% per year was calculated. Compounded annually, a growth factor of 1.134
was found for year 1996. This growth factor was applied to existing turning movements collected by DT&A in
January 1994. Exhibits 7 and 8 depict the projected 1996 morning and evening peak hour background turning
movements volumes without the proposed Courtyards at Riverchase development. Background trips from the
residential developments were assigned to the adjacent streets using the same traffic orientations as the
Courtyard at Riverchase. The retail and office background trips were assigned to the adjacent streets using the
following orientations: 20% to/from the north, 40% to/from the south, 30% to/from the east and 10% to/from
the west.
EXHIBIT 7
Year 1996 Base Traffic Projectfcr~s AM Peak Hour
EXHIBIT 8
Year 1996 Base Traffic R'ojectims PM Peak Hour
'---' '"-'
10
Trip Generation
The Trip Generation Manual was also used to determine the number of trips generated by the proposed
development. Townhouse rates were used in the analysis. Exhibit 9 illustrates the number of trips generated
by the Courtyard at Riverchase. As shown, the proposed development is projected to generated 1219 trip-ends
during a twenty-four h~ur period. During the morning peak hour, the development is expected to generate ~...~_..
_~.trips3 during the evening peak hour, approximately 114 trips will be generated by the proposed development.
EXHIBIT 9
Development Trip Generation Summary
(Trip-Ends)
· Us. fi. Number Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
~a)~.~c..~ ~:I~,..-~ ? of Units Trips
~, x~' (24-hr) In ] Out In [ Out
~x~ To--house I~ I ~,~9 Icao .I- ~1 75 I 39 I
~~~ffick~ Orien~tion and .~si~ment ~o
~~ ~o.~.~o~ oc ~e-~.~a~ ~ ~ ~a~ o~ ~ut~o. p~r~n~a~e~ u~ pr~,~ou~
~~~. x ~ o.~at~uo~ were ~as~a o~t~ ~aj~at roadway .~ork traf~ ~u.~ t~e morning and ~*~mng p~
mor. n o.e
_~. ~ · pe~ hour. These o~entations represent the d~ection thane trips from the proposed development wish to travel
dur~g the ~erent pe~ times. The resulting orientations are sho~
EXHIBIT 10
Site ~ffic Orien~tions
I Direction (to/from)] AM Peak Hour ] PM Peak Hour I
North 12% 20%
SouthEast 37%
49% 8~. 32%
West 2%
Trip assignment was accomplished by assuming the site trips would take the most direct route possible to the
desired destination. Two scenarios were analyzed. The first used the existing streets only int--he analysis. The
second scenario assumed Fairway Drive had been constructed from Riverchase Drive to Belt Line Road.
Exhibits 11 and 12 illustrate the site generated traffic as assigned to the existing area roadway network during
the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. Exhibits 13 and 14 depict the site generated trips with the
planned Fairway Drive in place. Exhibits 15 and 16 depict the total 1996 traffic volumes with the proposed
development without Fairway Drive; exhibits 17 and 18 show the total 1996 traffic volumes with the proposed
development with Fairway Drive.
11
/
~ BELTLJNE RD.
EXHIBIT 11
Proposed Developrne~t Traffic Projecflor~s without Fairway A.__M_.M Peak Hour
/ ~ ~
'
BELTLJNE RD.
EXHIBIT 12
Propsed Development Traffic Projections without Fairway P,M.. Peak Hour
13
ogo
0--- ~ ~'
Z 2. BELTL!NE RD. Z. -'~ ~ ~'
EXHIBIT 13
Prol~ Development Traffic Projectic~s with Fairway AM Peak Hour
14
EXHIBIT 14
Propsed Development Traffic Projecticr~.s with Fairway PM Peak Hour
EXHIBIT 15
Year 1996 Base and DevElopment w~thout Fairway AM Peak Hour
16
EXHIBIT 16
Year 1996 Base aod Development without Fairway PM Peak Hour
17
EXHIBIT 17
Year 1996 Base arid Development With Fairway AM Peak Hour
18
Year 1996 Base and Developmer~t w/th Fairway PM Peak Hour
ANALYSIS/OBSERVATIONS
Level-of-Service
In order to accurately assess the traffic flow characteristics within the study area, intersection capacity, analyses
were performed for the peak hours utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. The
Transportation Research Board "Highway Capacity Software" package was used to perform the intersection
analysis and determine the intersection Levels of Service.
Level of Service, or LOS, refers to the operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by
motorists. There are six Levels of Service or capacity conditions that are designated from "A" to "F', with "A"
representing the best operational conditions and "F' the worst conditions.
Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort,
frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, Level of Service criteria are stated in terms of
the average stopped delay per vehicle for the highest volume during a 15-minute analysis period during the peak
hour. The criteria are given in the following table:
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service Stopped Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
A < 5.0
B 5.1- 15.0
C 15.1 - 25.0
D 25.1 - 40.0
E 40.1 - 60.0
F > 60.0
Delay may be estimated using procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. Delay is a complex
measure, and is dependent upon a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the
green ratio and the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for the lane group or approach in question.
· Level of Service A describes operations with very. low delay, I.E., less than 5.0 seconds per
vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during
the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to
low delay.
· Level of Ser*~ce B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per
vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles
stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
· Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per
vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths.
Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is
significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
20
· Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per
vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios.
Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle
failures are noticeable.
· Level of Service E describes operations with delay ia the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per
veMcle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values
generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and high vic ratios. Many vehicles stop,
and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
· Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This
is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with
oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also
occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and
long cycle lengths may also be maior contributing causes to such delay levels.
Analysis of the Mac. Arthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road intersection was performed with and without the proposed
development. Exhibit 19 summarizes the results of the signalized analysis.
EXHIBIT 19
Signalized Intersection Analysis
MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road
Year ~ak Hour ('~Peak Hour
Delay Level of Service Delay Level of
(seconds) ~"F~ (seconds) S~F~
1996 Base without Fairway ** **
(no improvements)
1996 Base with Fairway ** F ** F
(no improvements)
1996 Base + Development ** F ** F
without Fairway
(no improvements)
1996 Base + Development ** F ** ~F
w~th Fairway
(no improvements) ~ j ~/
** Delay is meaningless when volume to capacity ratio is greater than 1.2
The intersection of MaeArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road was also examined to determine the intersection
modifications needed to improve the expected level of service by 1996. The Highway Capacity Manual
methodology was used to analyze the intersection. For signalized intersections, the total intersection delay is
used to determine the intersection Level of Service. In examining the turning movement volumes at this
intersection, it was noted that the southbound left tums were very hi.mh~ during the morning peak hour, with
approximately 1,112 to 1,200 vehicles turning left from MacArthur Boulevard to Belt Line Road. The addition
21
of a second designated exclusive left-turn lane is needed to accommodate this heavy southbound left turn
movement. This additional lane will allow dual left-turn movements for southbound MacArthur Boulevard traffic
to eastbound Belt Line Road. Exhibit 20 shows the recommended modifications to the existing southbound lane
assi~ment needed to improve traffic operations at this intersection.
EXHIBIT 20
Recommended Improvements for
Southbound MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road
Southbound Lane Assignment
Scenario
Current Through/Right Through Only Left Only --
Sh_ared
(/~'-Proposed Through/Right Through Only Left Only Left .
{ 'C~ ~;;'~ ~;/j/ Shared
Using the existing lane configurations, the intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road is projected
to fail, with or without the proposed development. However, with the recommended improvement, the
intersection is expected to operate at a Level of Service D in the morning and a Level of Service F or E in the
evening as showxt in Exhibit 21. (
EXHIBIT 21 Is L~S ~.
Signalized Intersection Analysis
MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road
AM Peak Hour t01~a~.a{ 'S h~'~ 7.
Year
Delay (seconds) Level of Service Delay Level of Service
(seconds)
1996 Base + Development 28.1 D 55.5 E
without Fairway
(with Improvements)
1996 Base + Development 27.8 D 44.5 E
with Fairway
(with Improvements)
Unsignalized capacity, analyses have been conducted utilizing the Highwav Capacity Manual methodology, for the
following intersections:
® MacArthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive
· Belt Line Road at Fairway Drive
Level of service for unsignalized intersection differs from signalized intersection in that it is a measure of reserve
capaci~, no delay. Stop and Yield signs are used to control traffic in such conditions. As a result, drivers on
the minor streets are forced to judgmentally select gaps in the major street traffic flow through which they must
execute a turning maneuver. When the demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, excessive dela~ are
encountered which may disrupt other traffic movements, at which time intersection improvements may be
warranted. Level of service for unsignalized intersections must therefore look at the number of vehicles that are
able to execute the maneuver. The following table from the Highway Capacity Manual summarizes the LOS
criteria for unsig~ali~'ed intersections.
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Reserve Capacity Level of Service Expected Delay to
(pcph) Minor Street Traffic
> 400 A Little or no delay
300 - 399 B Short traffic delays
200 - 299 C Average traffic delays
100- 199 ~d.~,-~ Long traffic delays
0 - 99 Very long traffic delays
< 0 F Undesirable delays
Using this methodology, the worst turning movement Level of Service represents the intersection LOS, where
Level of Service reflects the expected operation of the intersection. Exhibit 22 depicts the results of this analysis.
Westbound left turns from Riverchase Drive to MacArthur Boulevard experience 4evel of Service~during
the AM and PM peak hours.
EXHIBIT 22
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
1996 Base + Development
Location Turning AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Movement
Reserve Level of Reserve Level of
Capacity Service Capacity Service
MacArthur ~ NB Left 81 E 429 A
Riverchase SB Left 727 A 59 E
without Fairway EB Left 9 E -39 F
EB Through 0 E 9 E
WB Left -229 F -251 F
WB Through 18 ~ 12 (~
(~lnterseetion
MacArthur ~ NB Left 91 E 429 A
Riverchase SB Left 777 A 54 E
with Fairway EB Left -16 F -41 F
EB Through 0 E 13 E
WB Left -64 F -145 F
WB Through 18 ~ 10 (~
Intersection
Belt Line @ Fairway EB LeftSB Left 609.9 ~ 293769 (~
SB Right 773 A 873
Intersection ('~ C
The left-turn maneuvers from the minor streets control the intersection Levels of Service. However, the
unsignalized analysis used to determine the Level of Service for unsignalized intersections assumes a random
arrival rate. Because of the proximity, of the signalized intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road
to the unsignalized intersections, the vehicles on the major street are grouped in platoons. The platooning of
vehicles creates larger gaps in the traffic on the major roadways, which allows the vehicles turning from the
minor streets to operate more efficiently than anal~ically predicted.
Although the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive is expected to operate at a LOS F in
the year 1996 with or without the Fairway Drive connection, the intersection may not meet traffic signal warrants
by 1996 because of relatively low traffic volumes on Riverchase Drive. However, signali?ation may be warranted
in the future. The intersection of Belt Line Road and Fairway Drive is also exl~ected tn ooerate at a level of _
service F during the morning peak hour; however, in the evening peak hour, the level of servfice is expected to
be "C".
the MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road intersection during the AM peak hour is betweeC~'~and 53 vehicles.-----'~/~; --~% ~t~-.,
This represents 1% of the total projected AM peak hour traffic entering thc intersection in 1996. For the PM ~u~t~
peak hour, between~x~5 and 91 vehicle trip-eny~s to and from Courtyard at Riverchase, or 1%-2% of the total ~;P~n'l~' '
calculated traffic for 199~, are projected to enter the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road.
Exhibit 23 compares the total anticipated number of vehicles expected to arrive at Mac. Arthur Boulevard and
Belt Line Road from the seven area developments, as well as the Courtyards at Riverchase townhouses. Exhibit
24 also examines the intersection, with the implementation of the Fairway Drive connection between Riverchase
Drive and Belt Line Road.
EXHIBIT 23
Traffic Volumes Entering the MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road Intersection
During the Peak Hours (without Fairway Drive)
Traffic Generator Total AM % of Total Total PM % of Total
Volume Traffic Volume Traffic
1996 Background Traffic 4,067 85% 3,631 70%
Jefferson at Riverchase 149 3% 174 3%
Regency Court 89 2% 102 2%
Northlake Woodlands East No 10 66 1% 80 1%
Phase B
Future Development in Northlake 31 1% 37 1%
Woodlands East ~2~
Riverchase Drive Developments ~__ .~. 4% 5%
Existing Retail Center .... 467 9%
Retail/Office Zoning 143 3% 350 7%
CourtTards at Riverchase ~4$~ [e~ 1% ~-~ I~n~. 2%
EXHIBIT 24
Traffic Volumes Entering the MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road Intersection
During the Peak Hours (with Fairway Drive)
Traffic Generator Total AM % of Total Total PM % of Total
Volume Traffic Volume Traffic
1996 Background Traffic . 4,067 87% 3,631 71%
Jefferson at Riverchase 149 3% 174 3%
Regency Court 89 2% 102 2%
Northlake Woodlands East No 10 66 1% 80 2%
Phase B
Futm¢ De~,elnpment in Northlake 1% 37 1%
~u~ Woodlands East ~ 31
'~,~'-).~Riverchase Drive Developments '~~ · C~ ~ 4%
Existing Retail Center .... 467 9%
~ Retail/Office Zoning 143 3% 350 7%
Courtyards at Riverchase 23 05'~'- ~k_ *'Y~' 55 1%
CONCLUSION
The proposed 209-home townhousL'qte~opment, located between Riverchase Drive and Belt Line Road,. east
of Mac. Arthur Boulevard, is expected to increase the traffic at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and
Riverchase Drive by 1% in the morning peak hour and 1% -2% int-he evening peak hour in the design year
1996. This represents an average increase in the morning traffic on MacArthur Boulevard of less than one vehicle
per minute, and 1 to 2 vehicles per.minute
lne m[ersection o[ ~v~acArtl]ur J~otueYard ~ad Belt Line tqoa(] is expected to Jail With or v, qtl~out tl~e proposecr I $.
subject development in 1996 during thc peak hmlrs. With the addition of a southbound left-turn lane, creating
a dual left-turn, the intersection is expected to operate at a level of service D during the AM peak hour and
during the evening peak hour.
APPENDIX
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 07-14-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard
Analyst: EJL File Name: 96AMEXWO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 AM
Comment: 1996 Base Traffic w/out Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 < 1 2 <
Volumes 44 1005 226 115 226 140 121 335 341~ 954 60
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left * *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * SB Left * * *
Thru * * Thru * *
Right * * Right * *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 4.0A 18.0A Green 27.0A 16.0A 8.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 83 395 0.55 0.21 29.6 D 34.0 D
T 1191 5643 0.98 0.21 36.0 D
R 338 1599 0.71 0.21 25.1 D
WB L 154 3461 0.52 0.29 22.9 C 18.3 C
T 543 1881 0.44 0.29 17.1 C
R 462 15~9 G.32 0.29 16.3 C
NB L 179 1787 0.49 0.31 20.9 C * *
TR 619 3480 1.21 0.18 * *
SB L 774 1787 1.49 0.64 * * * *
TR 1905 3728 0.59 0.51 10.2 B
Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = *
(g/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable.
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 07-14-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard
Analyst: EJL File Name: 96PMEXWO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 PM
Comment: 1996 Base Traffic w/out Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 ~__--_~ 1 2 < 1 2 <
Volumes 176 331 143 277 555~ 347 1265 132 342 593 154
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left * * *
Thru * Thru * *
Right * Right * *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * * SB Left * *
Thru * * Thru *
Right * * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 6.0A 15.0A 13.0A Green 6.0A 19.0A ll.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 119 1787 0.93 0.27 68.3 F 34.2 D
T 940 5643 0.41 0.17 21.8 C
R 266 1599 0.57 0.17 24.1 C
WB L 884 3461 0.30 0.46 11.8 B * *
T 669 1881 0.87 0.36 24.9 C
R 569 1599 1.48 0.36 * *
NB L 417 1787 0.73 0.48 18.9 C 55.9 E
TR 1402 3711 1.10 0.38 64.6 F
SB L 119 1787 2.35 0.31 * * * *
TR 769 3643 1.07 0.21 63.8 F
Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = *
(g/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable.
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 07-14-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard
Analyst: EJL File Name: 96AMFWWO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 AM
Comment: 1996 Base Traffic w/Fairway & w/out Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 < _~. 2 <
Volumes 43 1006 226 175 230 118 121 327 349~ 894 56
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * SB Left * *
Thru * * Thru * *
Right * * Right * *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 5.0A 18.0A Green 39.0A 20.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 3.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0
Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0
~secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6
Cycle
Length:
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 79 414 0.57 0.19 32.7 D 57.3 E
T 1081 5643 1.08 0.19 63.8 F
R 306 1599 0.78 0.19 30.2 D
WB L 184 3461 0.71 0.28 31.0 D 22.5 C
T 520 1881 0.47 0.28 18.7 C
R 442 1599 0.28 0.28 17.3 C
NB L 80 376 1.59 0.21 * * * *
TR 738 3469 1.01 0.21 48.2 E
SB L 741 1787 1.48- 0.66 * * * *
TR 2459 3728 0.43 0.66 5.0 A
Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = *
(g/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable.
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 07-14-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard
Analyst: EJL File Name: 96PMFWWO.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 PM
Comment: 1996 Base Traffic w/Fairway & w/out Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1~1347112321<~ 3141~2~
Volumes 168 339 143 327 559 ~
150
Lane Width 12.012.012.012.012.012J. 012.012.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left * * *
Thru * Thru * *
Right * Right * *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * * SB Left * *
Thru * * Thru *
Right * *. Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 6.0A 15.0A 13.0A Green 6.0A 19.0A 11.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 119 1787 0.89 0.27 58.7 E · 31.4 D
T 940 5643 0.42 0.17 21.9 C
R 266 1599 0.57 0.17 24.1 C
WB L 884 3461 .. 0.36 0.46 12.2 B * *
T 669 1881 0.88 0.36 25.3 D
~ 569 1599 1.38 0.36 * *
NB L 417 1787 0.73 0.48 18.9 C 57.5 E
TR 1396 3694 1.11 0.38 66.7 F
SB L 119 1787 2.11 0.31 * * * *
TR 768 3638 1.00 0.21 43.6 E °
Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = *
(g/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable.
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 07-13-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) ]elt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd
Analyst: GCL File Name:
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 AM Peak
Comment: Year 1996 Base + Development without Fairway - No Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 < ~l-~\ 2 <
Volumes 44 1005 226 115 226 145 121 339 341~ 972 61
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1~.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left * *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * SB Left * * *
Thru . * Thru * *
Right * * Right * *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 4.0A 14.0A Green 26.0A 19.0A 10.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 80 481 0.57 0.17 33.0 D * *
T 891 5346 1.31 0.17 * *
R 252 1515 0.94 0.17 49.2 E
WB L 146 3279 0.54 0.24 25.4 D 21.0 C
T 436 1782 0.55 0.24 20.1 C
R 370 1515 0.41 0.24 18.8 C
NB L 207 1693 0.44 0.37 17.4 C 60.4 F
TR 696 3297 1.08 0.21 67.6 F
SB L 752 1693 1.5~ 0.69 * * * *
TR 1884 3532 0.61 0.53 9.7 B
Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS ~
(g/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable.
HCM: SIGNALIZED
.............. u., SU~IMARY 07-13-1994
Center ?st ~.~icrecomputers in Transportation
Streets-. (E-W) Belt ~-~..= Road "';-S) MacArthur Blvd
Analyst: GCL rile Name:
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 PM Peak
Comment: Year 1996 Base + Development '~iahout Fairway - No Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R ~ L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 ! 2 1 i 1 2 < 1 2 <
Volumes 178 331 143i 277 555 8,t~ 347 1299 132 354 611 155
Lane Width 12.0 12.? !2.0-12.0 12.0 ~7. 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0j 2_ . 0 0
Signal Operat' ns
Phase Combination 1 2 3 & 5 6 7 8
EB Left * * '; Left * * *
Thru , Tkru * ,
Right , Right * *
Peds Peds
WB Left , , ·
..... .==t * *
Thru * * Thru *
Right * * Eight *
Peds
NB Right K~c,~t
SB Right r"-' t
Green 6.0A ]_~.0A 13.0A ~en 6.0A 19.0A ll.0A
Yellow/A-R 3 0 ~ 0 4 0 ~i~''z~- 3 0 3 0 4 0
Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 st 'ii.~e 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhuse combina-_, or'~: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Perfc ..... .'ce ~7',:~mary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c .... C Approach:
Mvmts Cap 71c?; Ratio '.~io Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 113 1S~2 0.97 .~7 79.2 F 37.4 D
T 891 534~ 0.43 17 ~1.9 C
R 252 1515 0.60 17 ~4.8 C
WB L 838 3279 0.32 %6 11.9 B 65.1 F
T 634 1782 0.92 "6 ~9.6 D
R 5S9 1515 1.20 '6 ~1.2 F
NB L 395 1693 0.77 '8 ~0.9 C 90.8 F
TR 1325 35!~ 1.19 ~8 ~76.9 F
SB L 113 1693 2.60 ?1 * * * *
TR 730 ~457 1.16 .i 99.9 F
~ ~ ~'~-"~ ' Intersection LOS *
~nt~ro ........ Delay = * ~/vah; =
(g/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calcu. ion ~= D1 is infeasable.
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 07-13-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd
Analyst: GCL File Name:
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 AM Peak
Comment: Year 1996 Base + Development with Fairway - NO IMPROVEMENTS
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 < ~~
Volumes 43 1006 226 1879 231 121 329 351 56
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left * *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * SB Left * * *
Thru * * Thru * *
Right * * Right * *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 4.0A 14.0A Green 26.0A 19.0A 10.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lost Time 3.0_ 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: ~ecsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 80 481 0.56 0.17 32.4 D * *
T 891 5346 1.31 0.17 * *
R 252 1515 0.94 0.17 49.2 E
WB L 146 3279 0.87 0.24 51.9 E- 30.9 D
T 436 1782 0.56 0.24 20.2 C
R 370 1515 0.33 0.24 18.3 C.
NB L 207 1693 0.44 0.37 17.4 C 61.0 F
TR 694 3286 1.08 0.21 68.4 F
SB L 752 1693 1.45 0.69 * * * *
TR 1884 3532 0.56 0.53 9.3 B
Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS ~
(g/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable.
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUM/~ARY 07-13-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd
Analyst: GCL File Name:
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 PM Peak
Comment: Year 1996 Base + Development with Fairway - No Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 < 1 2 <
Volumes 168 341 143 339 560 748 347 1248 183 314 549 150
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 190 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left * * *
Thru * Thru * *
Right * -° Right * *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * * SB Left * *
Thru * * Thru *
Right * * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 6.0A 15.0A 13.0A Green 6.0A 19.0A ll.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 113 1693 0.92 0.27 67.2 F 33.6 D
T 891 5346 0.44 0.17 22.0 C
R 252 1515 0.60 0.17 24.8 C
WB L 838 3279 0.39 0.46 12.5 B 41.6 E
T 634 1782 0.93 0.36 30.5 D
R 539 1515 1.09 0.36 _7~_5-- _F'
NB L 395 1693 0.77 0.48 20.9 C 94.4 F
TR 1320 3495 1.20 0.38 111.4 F
SB L 113 1693 2.22 0.31 * * * *
TR 729 3452 1.06 0.21 60.5 F
Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = *
(g/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable.
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 07-13-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd
Analyst: GCL File Name:
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 AM Peak
Comment: Year 1996 Base + Development without Fairway - Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 < _~2<
Volumes 44 1005 226 115 226~ 121 339 341~ 61
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left * *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * SB Left * * *
Thru * * Thru * *
Right * * Right * *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 4.0A 20.0A Green 26.0A 19.0A 4.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lost Time 3._0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length:~secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 100 428 0.46 0.23 24.9 C 28.5 D
T 1247 5346 0.93 0.23 29.7 D
R 354 1515 0.67 0.23 23.2 C
WB L 146 3279 0.54 0.31 22.4 C 17.5 C
T 554 1782 0.43 0.31 16.2 C
R 471 1515 0.32 0.31 15.5 C
NB L 94 1693 0.73 0.30 37.9 D 63.3 F
TR 696 3297 1.08 0.21 67.6 F
SB L 1239 3279 0.96 0.62 24.2 C 17.3 C
TR 1884 3532 0.61 0.53 9.7 B
Intersection Delay = 28.1 sec/veh Intersection LOS ~D~
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.924
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 07-13-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd
Analyst: GCL File Name: 94093.HC9
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 PM Peak
Comment: Year 1996 Base + Development without Fairway - Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 < 2 2 <
Volumes 178 331 143 277 555 824 347 1299 132 354 611 155
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 350 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left * * *
Thru * Thru * *
Right * Right * *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * * SB Left * *
Thru * * Thru *
Right * * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 5.0A 12.0A 9.0A Green 8.0A 22.0A 14.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 94 1693 1.14 0.22 161.7 F 61.5 F
T 713 5346 0.54 0.13 24.1 C
R 202 1515 0.75 0.13 32.3 D
WB L 656 3279 0.40 0.37 16.3 C 95.0 F
T 495 1782 1.18 0.28 113.7 F
~ 42~ lS~5 ~.19 O.28
NB L 489 1693 0.64 0.57 12.1 B 29.5 D
TR 1563 3516 1.01 0.44 33.5 D
SB L 291 3279 1.01 0.37 63.7 F 48.9 E
TR 845 3457 1.00 0.24 42.4 E
Intersection
Delay = 55.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.998
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 07-13-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd
Analyst: GCL File Name:
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 AM Peak
Comment: Year 1996 Base + Development with Fairway - Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 < 2 2 <
Volumes 43 1006 226 187 231~ 121 329 351~12.~0 56
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vole 0 0 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left * *
Thru * Thru *
Right * Right *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * SB Left * * *
Thru * * Thru * *
Right * * Right * *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 4.0A 20.0A Green 26.0A 19.0A 4.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 116 499 0.39 0.23 23.2 C 28.5 D
T 1247 5346 0.93 0.23 29.8 D
R 354 1515 0.67 0.23 23.2 C
WB L 146 3279 0.87 0.31 49.4 E. 27.6 D
T 554 1782 0.44 0.31 16.3 C
R 471 1515 0.26 0.31 15.1 C
NB L 94 1693 0.73 0.30 37.9 D 64.0 F
TR 694 3286 1.08 0.21 68.4 F
SB L 1239 3279 0.89 0.62 ~16.a~ C 13.2 B
TR 1884 3532 0.56 0.53 / 9.3 B
Intersection Delay = 27.8 se~veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/~(x) = 0.912
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 07-13-1994
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd
Analyst: GCL File Name:
Area Type: Other 7-13-94 PM Peak
Comment: Year 1996 Base + Development with Fairway - Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 < 2 2 <
Volumes 168 341 143 339 560 748 347 1248 183 314 549 150
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 300 0 0
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left * * *
Thru * Thru * *
Right * Right * *
Peds Peds
WB Left * * * SB Left * *
Thru * * Thru *
Right * * Right *
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 5.0A 14.0A 9.0A Green 7.0A 21.0A 14.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0
Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 #7
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 94 1693 1.03 0.24 109.1 F 44.6 E
T 832 5346 0.47 0.16 22.7 C
R 236 1515 0.64 0.16 26.4 D
WB L 656 3279 0.48 0.39 16.2 C 54.9 E
T 535 1782 1.10 0.30 76.6 F
R 455 1515 1.04 0.30 Cb7.1~
NB L 470 1693 0.66 0.54 13.5 B 37.1 D
TR 1514 3495 1.04 0.43 42.5 E
SB L 255 3279 0.99 0.34 62.4 F 43.9 E
TR 805 3452 0.96 0.23 36.0 D
Intersection Delay = 44.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.983
UN$IGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-3'/
WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS
HO~LY VOL~S VOL~S ~ PCPH
Vs __
~.. :~ Avenge Run~g Sp~: ~ O N = ~
': Minor
S~eet:
VOL~
' Movement No. 2 3 4 ~ 7 9
Vol. (p~h), s~ Table 10-1
S~P 1: RT ~m ~ot S~t
~ Con,crag ~ow, V~ ¥2 V~ + V. = la + ~ = I ~7 ,Th (V~)
C~fic~ Gap, T¢, ~d Potenri~ Capa~, c~ Tc ~' ~ ~ (Table 10-2) %9 . .
A~ CapadW, c= c~ = c~ = ~ p~h
~p o~ LT F~m Major ~ ( V4
Cfiticfi Gap, T~, and Pot~fi~ C~pad~, c~ T~ =~:~ ~ ~able 10-2) c~ = ~ZO p~h (Fig. 10-3)
Percent of c~ UteS'and ~ance Factor (~g. 10-5)
~P 3: LT From ~or ~t ~ ~ Vr
~ Cfi~c~ Gap, T~, and Potenti~ Capa~5 c~ T~ ~, ~ s~ ~able 10-2) c~ = ~ p~h (~g. 10-3)
SH = (v~/c=~) = (v~/%,) V~ .~ ~ ~- '
7 5% -q
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS [0-3'/
WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS
HO~LY VOL~S VOL~ ~ PCPH
.; MajorS~t: ~~'~. ~.c~ ~ N
· 'd ~ Vs
"~' N ;~ ~ V~ ~ ~ V~ , V~
~. V~ ~ Vr V~
~: Date of Counm: ; ~ .~ S~P ~ ~
'; Average Ruumg Spe~: ~O N = ~
.-: Minor
5~ee~:
PHF'~ Grade % ~ · ';.r,-
VOL~ AD~~S . .
.:2 Mov~ent N'~ 2 3 4 5 7 9
· , ~i. (p~h), ,, T~e ~04 6{ ~ O ~ 7
: ~P 1: RT ~m ~or 5~ ~ V~ .
Conffict~g ~ow. V¢ 1/2 V~ + V. = ~ + ~ q {
-; . . _ :, ,= ;Th (V~)
Cfitic~ Gap, T~. and Potenti~ Capad~, c. T¢ = '"- :z ~ (Table 10-2) %~ = ~O p~h (Fig.
A~M CapadW, c~ ~ = %~ = ~ p~h
~P 2: LT From Major ~ , V~
conm~ ~, v. v, ~ v~ ~ ?~ + 15E.. = ~ ~h (V,,)
Cfitic~ Gap, T~, and Pot~ Cipad~, % T~ ~ 5,1~C ~ ~able 10-2) c~ = ~ p~h (Rg. 10-3)
Perc~t of c~ Ut~ and ~dance Factor (Eg. 10-5) (v~/%~) X 1~ ~ ~, ~ P~ =
'-; A~M Capad~, c~ c=~ = %4 ~ ~ p~h
~P 3: LT From ~or ~t ~ Vr
, ...~
: Con~g How, V, 1/2 V~+V;~V~+V, = ~ + ~ + /~ + &t ~ ~h (V,~)
Cfific~ Gap, T,, and Potenti~ Capad~, c~ T: =q.q~ ~ ~able 10-2) c~ ~ ~ p~h (~g. 10-3)
S~ED-L~ C~AC~Y
2 v, + v~ ff lane ~ shar~
(v~/c=~) + (v~/c,~)
Movement No. v(p~h) c~ (p~h) csa (p~h) ca
9 ~q q4~ g~Z
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1
HOURLY
Grade %
STOP~ 3~ z q
y~ vu v:t v:o N
M v~ ~q
Grade % ~ ~ Grade %
I Oq V~ ~ I mai.or road
N: ~ Vr V~ V~ YIELD '-
' Date of counts:
PHF:
G fade __ %
VOL~E AD~S~S k'~
Movement No. ~ 1 ' 3 4 I 5 [ 6 ' v 8 a I0 11 ~ 12
VOL~S ~ PCPH
NA v,
NA v~
V7 V~
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2
' '"" ~v~ Iv..
STEP 1: RT From Minor Street ] ---'
Contlicting Hows, Vc 1/2 V:. + V, = V;~ 1/2 Vs + V.- = Velz
C.dtical Gap, T, (Tab. 10-2) 5,4 (sec) S, q (sec)
Potential Capacity, c~ (Fig. 10-3) c~ = ~0 pcph c.~,,. -= ..,..,O ~c'oh
· Percent of cp Utilized (vp/c.:~) X I00 -- [ ,2.4 % (v::/c.~,.) X i00 -- I ¢3. ~ %
Impedance Factor, P (Fig. !0-5) p~ _- ~),qO~ p,., __
~ r V. ½ Vi
:~ STEP 2: LT From Major Street !
' ~ Conflicting Flows, V; V~ + V. -- Vc~ V~ .-- V.~ = Vc~
lob + ~,i~ = '% i-q vpa 2.% ~. zo2; = 7_050
~ C~ticai Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2-) ~, 'L (sec) ~, 2_ (sec)
Potential Capacity, % (Fig. 10-3) c~, = - c~
Percent of % Utilized (v:/c?4) X 100 =0.~ % % (v:/%l) X !00 = ~-'~'~, %
Imr)edance Factor, P (Fig. I0-5) p, = I, 0 P: = b '~
STEP 3: TH From Minor Street i . - i "
Contlicting Flows, V¢ ~/2V~+V.~-V~+Vd+V,+V?V_s 1/2Vs+V--V.+V~-V- .-V~=V.t,
Critical Gap, T.. (Tab. 10-2) ~, {~ (sec) {a, {~ (sec)
Potential Capadty, % (Fig. i0-3) c~s =__ Fc!2h c.~, =
Percent of c~ Utilized (vs/c..s) X 100 = I~ % (v,~/c_u) X_100 ---- Z~
Impedance Factor, P (Fig. i0-5) P, =' 5.q P:~ = '6
Actual Capacity, c.., c.~s = c=s X P~ X P~ c._..l ~ ----- c~l, X P, X P4
2.K = 50 x 7_ -- ~ ,x
0,9 x I,b (pcph) t~.5 x I,O
STEP 4: LT From Minor Street q Vr LV:o
ConFlicting ~ows, V. Vt., (step 3) - V:~; V;z -- V:~ Vt:~ (step 3) + Vs - V~ = V~,0
~ Chticai Gao. T.. (Tab. 10-2) "/' ~ (sec) "} ' % (sec)
Potential Capacity., c; (Fig. 10-$) c.,t = '~) pcph c?,o --- zti"~ ?cph
Actual Cavacitx;. . c~.. c-,.t = cTt X P, X P~ X P:: X P.... C=~o --- c;~0. X .; ~ X P,. X Ps X
I% =,qO x0,S'x 19, _-40..xO.Cx
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3
SHARED-LANE CAPACITY ~'---
v~ ,'-- vi
CSH ---- where 2 movements share a lane
(V~/C:nj ~ (Vi/C..m)
":'" v- '--. v: ~ v~
csH -- where 3 movements share a lane
(v,/c~,) + (vi/c~,) -
MEXIOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMEaNT$ 7, 8, 9
· .i Movement vl'pcph), .' c=(pcph) cs~(pcph) c.~ .... -s, - v LOS
.z.- M~N'OR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10, 11, Z2
Movement v(pcph) ; c...,(pcphl :
· . ' .. . I cs~(pcph) c~ = CSH -- v LOS
I i1 ' ' 2 I
. x~ ~- , , ~ -'."
':: MAJOR STREET LEFT TU1LX/S 1, 4
- Movement v (p~h) c.~ (p~h) ¢.~ -- c~ -- v LOS
:'i ~ ~ ~c,q ~qo ~i F__
~ - ~' 3 -/3o 72.9.
COIVfiMENTS:
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page l
"~'"'7 re.' '-- . .'"~'~-,, .,..,- '"".~_,.::,~,,' ..~..~.~"- ..... ,..,~,:..!,
Location: ~C-k[ ,d, ,/ 'r >~ u 't ~',,,~.~. .j; 7:- .. t . -. ,_ Name: ]~ ...~p
HOURLY VOLUMES
Grade ~ %
STOPr-I Iqc_L t ~ 'a. --
YiELDC V:2 V,.~ V~o N
V~ '~ ~
Grade __.% I d"' Grade
l~ I V: --/ ! mai.or road
! ! i STOP C
N --~,] V; Vs V.~ YIELD .'--
:
: Date of counts:
~ minor road~-i,- IO ~ ~ i--m-re Period: ~/~'~ Nc~:~
[~.j0,tt~ta-_, bz Average Running Speed:
- PHF:
Grade ~%
:... -7
VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS
:"~ Movement No. : I 2 ] 3 4 5 ~ 6 7 8 9 10, il I2
i ..... '""~ -" 2~2 : -'
il-I L.'-!--- ~ i",
VOLLTMES ~-N PCPH
.: I i ~
NA
V~
NA v.
· NA
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2
-"" r-v I v::
: STEP 1: RT From Minor Street i .~
~ /aY,. , V.--V~ i/2 Vi+V,=V.L-
: Conflicting Hows, V. i ' ' -'-' - ' . -
Chticai Gap, T¢ (Tab. !0-2) ~'~ (sec) :' ;~ (sec)
Potentiai Capacky, c~ (Hg. 10-3) c~ = 4~ ?~h c,,: = ~q~ pcph
Percen~ of % Utilized (v~/c~,) X i00 i4 (v~:/%~0 X 100 = Z~ %
Impedance Factor. P (Hg. !0-5) P~ = O'C~ Pt: = ~'~
Actual CapadW, c~ c=~ = c~ = ~ ~h c~lz = c~: = ~ ~h
S~P 2: LT From Major Street ( ' V, ~ V~
Conflicting Hows, V. V3 - V: = Vc~ V, + V~ = V::
'4 C~ticai Gap, T: (Tab. !0-2) ~ '~ (sec) ~ ~ (sec)
Potential Capadty, % (~g. 10-3) %4~- = i ~ ~c~h. . c=t. = ~O ~c~h. .
.; ~
Percent of % Utilized (v,./c;4) X i00 = ~a., ~ ~o '~ (v:/%0. X 100 = ~ %,
im~ance Factor. P (Fig. 10-5) P4 = ~'~ Pt ~ 0.~
STEP 3: ~ From Minor Street ~ Vs [ Vt:
Contlicting Flows. Vt 1/2V.,~ V: .--'~: .--V~-',~ C~'v 4= v :., ~ /,aY ~--V---¥ ,--¥ -~ v ,~¥.
Critical Gap, T: (Tab. 10-2) b. (o (sec) &, l~ (sec)
Potential Capacity., c? (Fig. 10-3) ' c,a = ~-O pcph c~ ---- ~-O ?c'ph
Percent of c~ Utilized ' (v~/c;~) X lO0 -- ~.O % (v:t/%L:) X i00 = 77..(a
Impedance Factor, P (Fig. i0-5) Ps = ~ P~ --'-- Q, ~ i
Actual Capacity, c., c~s = c.~s X P: X P~ c._.4t = c;~ X P. X P~
2"a = 50 X ')2. = ~-O X
. b ~ (pc?h)
STEP 4: LT From Minor Street '~ V~ LV~0
Conflicting Flows, V. V:s (step 3~ .- Vt: ' Vt:; Vt.-. V~:; (step 3) ~- V~ + V9; V..:0
C.-itical Gao, T: (Tab. 10-2) --m'. i. (sec) ~: , (sec).
Potential Cavaciw,%(Fig. i0-3) . .= 'd{O vc:h C:~o-- ~O pcvh
Ac,ual Cavacitv, ,..~ c_; : ~' , X P, X P, X P., X .,, '~ c..-.~o: c-.~o X P4 X .:P X Ps X Po.
IZ = 49X09i X 14 --- a/O.x
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3
SHARED-L~NE CAPACITY
V: ~" V,
Csa ---- where '~
~ movements share a lane
(Vl/Cm,) ,4-
.;
cs. = where 3 movement~ share a lane
(vi/c=,) .- (v:/c..,) .-
:;
MINOR STREET A2PROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9
:l
-i Movement v(pcp, h) c=(pcph) cs~(pcph) % = CsH -- v LOS
,i 7 2.k, 5 I Z - 2
; 8 ~P, 2.2 17_ E
~'~ .MEqOR STREET. APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10, LI, 12
Movement v(pcph) c=(pcph) csH(pcp, h) % = cs~ -- v LOS
_: ~o 5%. i 4 - 3q
. ' n ~5 zZ ct E .-----
5 MA/OR STREET LEFT TLrI~N'S 1,
" Movement v (pcph) ~,~-,~ (pc'?h) % = % -- '¢ [.OS
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page !
Location: ]~O c ~ '-'z:.,x:-,- "~" .' -::' /" '~: ' " ~:' '
~ ;. ~.'. :1";. Name: [~ ~ ~ ~'~ :. ~/r''' .
HOU~ LY VOLU~S
Grade %
YIE~ V:2 V:t V~o N
V,
~ Grade %
Grade % I Gq V. ~ I mai.or road
N=~ VrV~V~ YIELDC
Date of counm:
~or road~% ~ I; T~e Period: ~ P~ Sa.r, kk
~;~- ~ a'~ ~ Average Running Speed:
PHF:
Grade %
VOL~E AD~S~EN~S
Movemenr No. ~ 1~;: .~ 3 a. I.5 ,.6 7 8 ~ ~. ~i ~0
, ~.1 , -- · ; I
Vol. (p~h). s~ Table I0-1 [lOq Q~ o.'-~, --:: : ,;~ .... .-.~
VOL~S ~ PCPH
' L
I
v:z ,,':~ v:~ v,,~
NA
NA v.
: NA
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2
! STEP 1: RT From Minor Street
Conflicting Flows, V. 1/2 V~ ,- V.
.:.
;; . 4 (sec)
Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) ~'. ,a (sec)
Potential Capacity, % (Fig. 10-3) cp, -- q Z~ pc-,o, h %,: = ~$(~ pcph
· Percent o[ % Utilized (v~/c~) X
Imvedance Factor, P (Fig. !0-5) ?~ -- '3... P~: = ' ·
Ac~ai Capadty, c~, c~ = c~ -- vcvh c~,~,_ --- c.~n ....... '-~ vcvh
STEP 2: LT From Maior Street {' ' V~ / V.
'' Contlic:ing Hows, V~ Vs + V: = Vc~ V, a. V~ = V~:
Potential Capadty, c~ (Fig. 10-3) c~ = 'l~O pcph cfi = }cl-O pcph
Percent of % Utilized (v;/c~) X
-: Imvedance Factor. P (Fig. ~0-5)
.: STEP .3: TH From .Minor Street Vs t '
C~ticai Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) /..,,, ~ (sec) [~' ~ (sec)
Potentiai Capacity, c~ (Fig. 10-3) c:s = ~O pcph c,~ -_ 50 pcph
Percent of c, Utilized ~v~//",:i~ X ~00 -- ~ D~ %. (v: ~/c~ l) X 100 = ~ %
Imoedance Factor. P (Fig. 10-5) p~
Actual Capacit.s; c~ c._..~
STEP 4: LT From ..Minor Street
Lo:0
Conflicting ~ows. V. V:., (step 3) -- V.. - V::. -- V:; V:..: (step 3) ~ V., + V~ = V~0
· Z5e,%
C:-irical Gao, T: (Tab. i0-2'~ ' -}'. i (sec) -}. } (sec)
Potentiai Cavacitv. % (Fig. i0-3)
X Po
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3
SHARED-La, NE CAPACITY
Vi .-- Vi
CSH ---- where 2 movements share a lane
(v~/c.,.,) + (v~/c,.,)
~ -~ Vo ~' V; '." Vk
CSH = where 3 movements share a lane
(vi/c...,,) + (vi/c.,,,) ? (v~/c~,)
~OR STREET A. PPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9
.;
-i Movement v(pcph) c~(pcp, h) cs~(pcp, h) c.~ = Cs~ - v LOS
M~NOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,
Movement v(pc'oh}. . c._..(pcp, h) %a(pcph) c.~ = %....~. -- v LOS
' } '~ '= Z O E .-
~ .MAJOR STREET LEFT TLqLNS 1, 4
m' Movement v (pcph) c= (pcph) c.~ = c_. -- v LOS
COMMENTS:
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page
HOURLY VOLUlV[ES
Grade ~ %
YIELD~ V:: V:t V:o N
~ v~ 40
- N ~{-~-] , V, ~.~Z
- ~ Grade % J /~ Grade ~%
:i } 5{ V: -.,/ ~ maj.or road
.., I~q v., -'~ ~ i ~
I I ~ STOP f-
N =~ V.- V~ V~ YIELD '_-
~. : ,
Date o( counts:.
R:(W~/c/,,.,~...~ £! .Average Running Speed:
PHF:
'~ Grade
VOLL.TME ADJUSTMENTS ~'-
VOLUMES IN PCPH
2t v$ NA
~ V~
~/ v~
· NA
v~
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2
i STEP 1: RT From Minor Street V~
i Conflicting Flows, V_ 1/2 V~ .- V: = V:~ 1/2 V~ .- Vs = V:t2
_ = -~ _.2c%g. = vph
:: Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) 5, ~ (sec) ~' ~ (sec)
Potential Capacity, cT (Fig. 10-3) cv~ -- ~ ~ID ?cph C?l: --- -~q~ ?cph
· Percent of % Utilized (v~/c;~) X 100 = j''J' ~ % (v::/%tz) X 100
Imoedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) p~ = O,~
Actual Caoadtv, c,~ c~,~ = %; = pcph c~..z = c:~,_ -- pcp. h
.'; STEP 2: LT From Ma~or Street ( V~
i Conflicting Flows, V. V~ .z.V. = Vt; V~ -- V, -- V:~
?f Cfiticai Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-23 ~, '2__ (sec) ~, 7. (sec)
· Potential Capacity, c~ (Fig. I0-3) %4 = I '2.____~ pc'?h %: ---- ~-~(~ vc.~h
Percent of c. Utilized (v./c..)XiO0= ~.~ % (v:/%t)×i00= 2(o %
Imvedance Factor. P (Fig. 10-5) p4 = (.3. ~ p. -- O
STEP 3: TH From .Minor Street I V., i V..:
Catical Gay. T¢ (Tab. 10-2) ~- ~0 (sec) [~. k (sec)
Potential Capaci'.ry, c~ (Fig. 10-3) %a = _%'-0 pcph %~: = ~ O pcph
Percent of% Utilized (vs/%~) X I00 = 2.~ % , (vt
Imvedance Factor. P (Fig. I0-5) Ps = O. ~)'~ , p
Actual Capacir?; c.,. c~,s = c;~ X P, X P. , .
'2.0 = ~'0 x ' Zo = £0 x
O ,l x (pc?h) ',
STEP 4: LT From Minor Street q V.- Lv,0
Cont~2ctmg ~ows, V~ /~s ~ste.v 2) - V~t ......... . . ·
; Critical Gao. T~ (Tab. 10-2) --~- [ (sec) '7, i (sec)
~ 73 ~coh
i Potential Capacity., c; (Fig. 10-3) c.-r = /4 0 ~h c=~0 = ' . .
Actual Cavac~tv, c., c - X P, X P X '~ X P c_..:~
U R./~A~% ::iT R £ET:5
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3
SHARED-LANE CAPACITY '~"'-'
v~ + vi
csH = where 2 movemenm share a lane
(v~/¢~J + (vi/c.,)
csu = where 3 movements share a lane
(v~/c=) + (vi/c=) +
MIaNOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, ~
-.i Movement v(pcph) c~(pc?h) cs~(pc'ph) c.~ = csH - v LOS
8 lo Zo ~o
MINOR STR£~I' APPROACH MOVEMENTS i0,11, 12.
Movement V(pcph) c.(pcp, h) cs~:(pcph) c~ ~ c~_~ -- v LOS
m l~.q '1q5 5q(~ A
'{ .MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1, 4
Movement v (pc-ph) c~ (pcph) c~ = c... -- v LOS