Loading...
Jefferson-SY 940510 TRAFFIC ACCESS STUDY FOR JEFFERSON AT RIVERCHASE, A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN COPPELL, TEXAS Prepared For: Texas Development, Inc. Prepared By:. DcShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. 330 Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 748-6740 May 10,1994 DT&A Job #94065 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Guy Brignon / Mr. Bobby Page --' J'PI Texas Development, Inc. FROM: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. DATE: May 10, 1994 SUBJECT: Traffic Access Study for Jefferson at Riverchase in Coppell, Texas; J94065 PURPOSE The purpose of th[~ memorandum is to analyze traffic access for Jefferson at Riverchase, a proposed multi-family development, in Coppcll, Texas, as well as address additional concerns expressed by city staff. The access issues of ~ analysis are limited to ey~mlnlng the impact of the proposed development on the intersections of Mac. Arthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road, Mac. Arthur Boulevard/Riverchase Drive, and Mac. Arthur Boulevard/Bethel School Road. The analysis also cy~amines the need for a northbound deceleration lane for both the main driveway and the second site access point on Mac. Arthur Boulevard and the affect controlled access gates will have on this need. The access issues of this analysis are limited to projecting the development generated traffic arriving at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. City staff directed that traffic generated by an approved retail center in the southeast quadrant of Mac.Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive and four other planned single- and multi-family developments in the immediate area of the Jefferson at Riverchase development be included in the projected 1996 background traffic. -- SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed development is planned to consist of 386 multi-family units. The development will provide for two -- connections to Mac. Arthur Boulevard, one of which is served by an existing median opening. The proposed site layout is shown in Exhibit 1. _ The proposed site consists of land located cast along MacArthur Boulevard and north of Riverchase Drive. Regency Court, a proposed 280 unit multi-family development, is to be located to the north of the subject development. Northlake Woodlands East No. 10 Phase B, located west of Mac. Arthur Boulevard, is planned to provide for 97 single-family units with 39 more lots proposed for future development. The Riverchase Club -- Apartments, a 208 unit multi-family development, is proposed to be located west of Mac. Arthur Boulevard across from the site. The existing Riverchase Golf Club lies to the east of the proposed development with an approved retail center being located in the southeast quadrant of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Exhibit -- 2 illustrates the location of thc site in rehtion to these noted developments on the surrounding thoroughfares. j!. ~.~' . '""--....:, ~/-,,~- ...... [ ' . "~,~.~ [ ' '?'./ ~ ~ ,, ,. ,-,' I ~ , --'-...,. , · ~ ':J~' ~ . .. " i~ ' ,,'~ , ~ .......... ~ ...... ~. ~ , - i ~ .......... . ...... , ..... ~___~ !' " ' '" .i .... -- ..,, ..~'~'~ ~~~~: " , // f .'~ ~ ' -' ,~-'.~, --~-~--~ ........... " ' ' . I~ , ~ ..... ~ .... ~ ..'" . ~ ..~ ,s~m.~ -.-,~, ~ y_"~ .......... Exhibit 1 Site Plan SANDY LAKE RD I _ ~ M APLELEA F TUPELO ...... - . REG COURT:' '- .'. " 'FUTD~-E- '" ':" PROPOSED SITE ;:' DEVELOPMENT / .':. JEFFERSON . AT ':: '" / " RIVERCHASE RD ~ . .,: .',;' ~ ...'.:.' NoRTHL.~'KE WOODLANDS EAST _ NO.IO PHASE B ..'.._'....~ .,, . . · . .'-'.'v..: flt~F..flCt, lASF- OR - :' ....-.-.-. RETAIL .~':::::::':.'.:'.' .'.~'".'.'-':".':: CENTER ::.".':~:-':i ~': : : :::: :' ~?. ?'~ ~ii~!-.'-:.:-:.:,?:-..'.~..'-:--_?.,:.':"::...:i:!-? BELT LINE FID Exhibit 2 Site Location -- EXISTING CONDITIONS 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 f0ur-lane divided arterial adjacent to 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 Copper Thoroughfare Plan calls for Mac. Arthur Boulevard to be expanded to a six- - lane divided roadway north of Belt Line Road, but the improvements have not been funded or scheduled. _ · Belt Line Road - is an east/west arterial located south of the proposed development. East of MacArthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road ia a six-lane divided roadway providing access to 1-35. West of Mac. Arthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road is a two-lane undivided road. · Riverclmse Drive - is a four-lane undivided roadway that connects Mae. Arthur Boulevard to Sandy Lake Road. Traffic Volumes Twenty-four hour traffic counts were collected in January 1994 on MacArthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road and Riverchase Drive. Counts were conducted on a Thursday and a Friday, and on a Tuesday. Normally, traffic _ counts are conducted on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, to better represent the average traffic conditions/volumes. Friday and Monday data may be erratic at times due to vacations and other factors. The Thursday-Friday count was used in the analysis. Exhibit 3 illustrates traffic volumes for two different 24-hour periods. Both days exhibited almost the same number of vehicles, reflecting little difference in total volumes. -- Therefore, the analysis performed on the Thursday-Friday data should be considered as representative of a "normal" day. Exhibit 3 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes Vehicles per Day Count Percent Location Thursday-Friday Tuesday Difference (January 6-7, 1994) (January 11, 1994) Mac. Arthur Blvd. North of Belt Line Road 14,010 14,029 0.1% MacArthur Blvd. South of Belt Line Road 16,903 16,641 1.6% Belt Line Road East of Mac. Arthur Blvd. 16,617 16,692 0.4% Belt Line Road West of MacArthur Blvd. 10,996 10,725 2.5% Riverchase Drive East of MacArthur Blvd. 1,133 1,096 3.4% 4 Mac. Arthur Boulevard carries approximately 14,000 vehicles per day north of Belt Line Road and 16,800 vehicles per day south of Belt Line Road. Belt Line Road carries about 16,600 vehicles per day east of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and 10,800 vehicles per day west of Mac. Arthur Boulevard. Riverchase Drive carries approximately -- 1,100 vehicles per day east of Mac. Arthur Boulevard. Manual peak hour traffic movement counts were obtained from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 6, 1994 _ and from 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. on Friday, January 7, 1994 at the intersections of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road, and MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. -- FUTURE CONDITIONS Projected Traffic Volumes -- In order to analyze the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway system, future traffic volumes 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 a retail center in the southeast quadrant of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive and four other residential type developments located adjacent to and across from Jefferson at Riverchase. The trips generated by these developments are in addition to the projected background growth. This city staff direction represents a worse, case scenario for the Traffic projections for the study area were obtained by applying, a growth factor to existing traffic and adding the anticipated traffic for the five plsnned and proposed developments. The projected growth rate was determined using historic traffic count data near the proposed site. 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 the year 1996. This growth factor was applied to existing turning movements collected by DT&A in January 1994. Exhibits 4 and 5 depict the projected 1996 morning and evening peak hour background turning movement volumes without the proposed subject development. The background traffic is the projected 1996 volume pins the traffic generated by the planned retail center and four other developments previously identified. Trip Generation The f'~d~ edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual was use to _ determine the number of trips generated by the proposed development. The manual provides rates developed by 1TE for different land uses. The appropriate trip generation rates for the various land uses were projected and are shown in Exhibit 6. _ 5 Exhibit 4 1996 Background Traffic Volumes for the AM Peak Hour (Base + Retail Center + Four Other Developments) Exhibit $ 1996 Background Traffic Volumes for the PM Peak Hour (Base + Retail Center + Four Other Developments) -- Exhibit 6 Trip Generation Values Number Weekday AM Peak PM Peak Development of Trips Hour Hour Units Total Trips Trips Jefferson At Riverchase 386 2,411 '" 34/ (".~_~~ 74 ' Multi-Family * Riverchase Club Apartments 280 1,852 .~ 26 v' 103j 108, 56 ./ ~ Multi-Family 12~' * 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 ......... ~ Retail Center 8_~5 ac 9,475 0 0. 365 354 ~ ; Note: Trip generation for multi-family Iow rise uses ITE Code 221 "f-("-'-, ? :'__ ,~ L,~..~ 0:..; ? Trip generation for single-family detached uses ITE Code 210 · - * Data is from previous reports The proposed Jefferson at Riverchase development is projected to generate 2,411 trip ends during a twenty-four hour period. During the AM peak hour, approximately 34 inbound trips will be generated with 134 outbound -- trips for a total of 168 trips. During the PM peak hour, approximately 144 inbound trips with 74 outbound trips will be generated. The total projected trip ends during the PM peak hour is 218 trips. ._ As part of a previous study in Valley Ranch, Irving Transportation Staff requested an analysis of two existing multi-family developments similar to the development being proposed in this study. The purpose was to evaluate and compare local trip generation volumes to FIE trip generation values. It was found that an average of the two sites confirmed the AM peak hour volumes, while 1TE trip generation values overestimated the site traffic volumes by approximately 20% during the PM peak hour. Based upon this local data, a 20% reduction in PM trip ends was accepted. However, to examln¢ the worst case scenario, reduction in the PM peak hour trips was not applied to Jefferson at Riverchase. The summary of this study can be found in the Appendix. Traffic Orientation and Assignment Trip orientations of site-generated traffic are baaed on distribution percentages used in a previous study in the same area. The orientations were based on the adjacent roadway network traffic during the mornln~ and evenln~ peak hours. Using thin method, two sets of orientations were developed, one for the mornln~ and one for the evening peak hour. These orientations represent the direction that the trips from the proposed development wish to travel during the different peak times. The resultln~ orientations are shown in Exhibit 7. 8 Exhibit 7 Traffic Orientation Direction (to/from) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour North 12% 20% South 37% 45% -- East 49% 32% West 2% 3% _ Trip as.4~rnent consisted of modeling the site with trip ends taking the most direct approach possible to the desired destination. Exhibits 8 and 9 illustrate the site generated traffic assi~ments and distribution to the surrounding thoroughfare network. Exhibits 10 and 11 show the corresponding number of vehicles generated by the development at each location, while Exhibits 12 and 13 show the total 1996 traffic volumes. 9 Exhibit 8 Site Generated Tra~c Assignment & Distribution for the AM Peak Hour ~ 0 / 2.? ~ RIVERCH'4$E OR. Exhibit 9 Site Generated Traffic Assignment & Distribution for the PM Peak Hour Exhibit 10 Site Generated Traffic for the AM Peak Hour ~.~. ,~ . '.,~ ~. .~.. ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ""Y. ~.. :r~.. ~ Exhibit 11 Site Generated Traffic for the PM Peak Hour Exhibit 12 Total 1996 Traffic Volumes for the AM Peak Hour iI <~' ~.~ ~ VERC .- ~'2 ~h .......... .;" '. ~o ~' "" ~.. /.-. ~-;. - Exhibit 13 Total 1996 Traffic Volumes for the 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 tlrili~ing the Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. The Transportation Research Board "Highway Capacity Software" package was used to perform the Mac. Arthur -- Boulevard/Belt Line Road analysis and determine intersection Level-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 -- Stopped Delay Per Vehicle Level-of-Service (Sec.) -- A < 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 ~ C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 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. -- * Leve/-o~ A describes operations with vev] low delay, i.e., less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. This occurs when p~ogression 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. · Leve/-of-Smgce B describes operations with delay in the range of S.1 to 15.0 sec 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. · Leve/~f~ Cdescribes operatiouswith delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec 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 intersectionwithout stopping. -- 16 · /,eve/-of-Sen,/ce D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high vic ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. · Leve/~ E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. · Leve/-of-Se~v/ce F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This conditionoften occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high vic ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Analysis of the MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road intersectionwas performed with and without the proposed development. Exhibit 14 summarizes the results of the signalized analysis. Exhibit 14 Signalized Intersection Analysis MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Year Delay Level-of- Delay Level-of- (seconds) Service (seconds) Service 1996Base w/o Improvements 51.2 E * 22.2 C 1996 Base + Development ** '..~F" ** ? F ) w/o Improvements · Volume to capacity ratio is greater than 1 · * Delay is meaningless when volume to capacity ratio is greater than 1.2 The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road was also examined to determine the impact of the proposed developmenton the operations of the intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used to analyze the intersection. For signalized intersection,the totalintcrsectiondelay is used to determine the intersection Level-of-Service. In examining the turning movement volumes at this intersection, the southbound left turns were very high, with approximately 1150 vehicles turning left from MacArthur Boulevard to Belt Line Road. The addition of a s _e~nd_...d_~at~e4_.e. xcl..us_iy.e...1.~..fl.:_t_U._m l_._a~__e is needed to accommodate this h.__ea...vy__so__u.t._h_b_o__u.n._d.l.e_ft__t..u.~..m..?e~n.~. This additi~S~fillane will allow dual left-turn movements for southbound MacArthur Boulevard traffic to eastbound Belt Line Road. Exhibit 15 shows the recommended modifications to the existing southbound lane assignment needed to improve traffic operations at this intersection. 17 -- Kxhibit 15 Recommended Improvements for Southbound MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road Southbound Lane AssjLrnrnent -- Lane Number Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Current Through/Right Through Left Only~ ~..1~3.: .... Shared 4 Only ~ Proposed Through/Right Through Left Only! Left ~nly Shared ~ Only ~ t The intersection of MacArth.~ur_~B.o.~evard and B~]t !~e ..Ro. ad is projected to fail, with or without the proposed / in place, the intersection will operate at a Leve]-o£-Servlce C in the morning and Level-of-Service D in the ... evenin~ as shown in Exhibit 16. Exhibit ~6 -- Signalized Intersection Analysis Mac_Arthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Year Delay Level-of- Delay Level-of- (seconds) Service (seconds) Service 1996 Base + Development 22.7 36.0 D w/Improvements ~-- ........... Unsignalized capacity analyses have been conducted utilizing the Highway Capadty Manual methodology for the following intersections: · Mac. Arthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive · MacArthur Boulevard at Bethel School Road · MacAnhur Boulevard at the Main Driveway · MacArthur Boulevard at the Second Driveway Level-of-Service for unsignalized intersections differs from signalized intersections in that it is a measure of .reserve c_a~ac__~ty, not delay. Stop and Yield signs are used to control traffic in such conditions. As a result, driver on the minor streets are forced to judgmentally select gaps in the major street flow through which they must execute their crossing or turning maneuver. When the demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, excessive delays are encountered which may cause problems for other traffic movements, therefore intersection improvements may be warranted. Level-of-Service therefore for unsignalized intersections must look at the capacity of the number of vehicles that are able to execute their maneuvers. The following table taken from the Highway Capacity Manual summarizes the LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. 18 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Reserve Capacity Expected Delay to (PCPH) Level-of-Service Minor Street Traffic z 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 E 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 17 depicts the results of this analysis. Westbo d~turns from Riverchase Drive to Mac. Arthur Boulevard es'p~rience a Level-of-Service F during ~f~a~r~'~l~--tt~ ~a~"~tersection of MacArthur Boulevard ~nd Riverchase Drive by 5.8% during the AM peak hour and 6.2% during the .PM peak hour. · Exhibit 17 ~ Unsignalized Intersection Analysis , ,~...~?o on MacArthur Boulevard for 1996 Base + Development ' Turning AM Peak'Hour PM Peak Hour Location \ Movement ~ Reserve Level of Reserve Level of ~ Opacity Service Opacity. Service Riverchas,e Drive ~ Left 108 D 538 A ..... ........ ... ,.' SB Left 809 A 92 E K~'' ~,~i' EB Thru 42 E 38 E B~thel School Road NB Left 106 D 560 A ~"---'/ ........... <. .......... SB Left 879 A 155 D · .,~ ~.~:~,- EB Left 32 E 33 E Intersection ~'F~. ," E ~ Main Driveway SB Left :~ 826 A 111 D W13 Right 959 A .... 379 13 Intersection ~-:' ' F' Second Driveway WB Right 1,000 A [ 1,000 A Intersection A [ A The westbound left-turn maneuvers from the cross streets control the intersection Levels-of-Service. However, the unsignalizedanalysis used to determine the Level-of-Senrice for unsignalizedintersections _assumes a random ~val r_ate~ Because of the proximity of Belt Line Road to the unsignalized intersections, the vehicles on MacArthur Boulevard are grouped in platoons. The platooning of vehicles creates larger gaps in the traffic on the major roadway, which allows the vehicles turning left from the minor roadway to operate more efficiently than analytically predicted. Although the intersections'of MacArthur Boulevard and the cross streets, with the exception of the secondavj driveway, are expected to operate at LOS F in the year 1996, the..e_~_tersections wi~_....g, tob. b._a..b_]y.3_ot meet traffic_ may be warrant~"~ ihe future. -~ connecting roa~l~,ay ,from Riverchase Drive to 13elt Line Road east of MacArthur Boulevard may also be provided in the future to ~ecrease the number of trips from Riverchase Drive to MacArthur Boulevard, improving the projected Level-of-S~ce at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard Queue Analysis ~ ~ ' die One factor in this analysis is to determine if the southboun - g MacArthu oulevard at the main driveway is adequate to accommodate the vehicles expected to stack in this lane. This was done by conducting a queuing analysis. The queuing theoo] utilized is documented in the Transportation and Traffic 2O -- Engineering Handbook. 2nd Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1982 (page 461). The theory utilizes a random (i.e., Poisson) arrival rate. Results of thi~ analysis can be found in the Appendix. With a confidence level of 95%, thc results reveal that a qucuc of two vehicles or less can be expected during the morning and evening peak hours for the southbound left turn into the development in 1996. Therefore, thc cxistln~ left-turn storage lane on MacArthur Boulevard at the main entry is adequate to accommodate thc left- turn demand and not disrupt thc through vehicles on MacArthur Boulevard. A queuing analysis was also performed to ew~m~n¢ the intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard at Belt Linc Road. Currently, traffic occasionally queues past Riverchase Drive on southbound MacArthur Boulevard during thc -- morning peak hour. The service rate necessary for the queuing analysis was obtained through the utili?ation of Greenshields theory. ~ theory is documented in thc Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook. 2nd Edition (page 465). It was determined a queue of over 1,500 feet per lane can be expected during the morning _ peak hour if no changes arc made to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Linc Road. Thc distance between Belt Linc Road and Riverchase Drive is approximately 800 feet. The rccommcndcd improvement of dual left turns on southbound MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road and is expected to rcduce thi.~ queue length. In 1996, with thc recommended improvements thc queue is expected to only be approximately 165 fcct with thc development, or a decrease of over 1,300 feet from existing queues. Deceleration Lane Another factor in thi~ analysis was the examination of thc need for a deceleration lane on northbound MacArthur. Boulevard at thc main driveway and secondary access. Thc City of Arlington has developed guidelines for thc _ implementation of deceleration lanes that they feel provide additional capacity at driveways when necessary. This criteria states that a deceleration lane is required if: 1) over 50 vehicles turn right into thc development during thc peak hour, or -- 2) over 40 vehicles turn right into the development during the peak hour and the speed limit exceeds 40 mph. -- The m~.__d~._'veway is exacted to peak hour while 2~9 vehicles are proje, eterl to_turn right at_ th___e~secondary .driveway. Due to the projected right turn volume into the development at the main entrance, a deceleration lane is recommended. Right turn volumes at the second access point do not require a separate deceleration lane. - ....... ~',~. ~-,a f transition ~s adc uate to A length of 100 feet tor me _._oece~erauon ~_ ~_,~..£e,~t_o.. .................. ' ...q ............ provide appropriate distance for vehicles to enter the facility without interfering with normal t~-fiii~i traffic. Controlled Access Gates When desiring the entrance ways for developments, a set back of 75 feet for access gates is desirable. At the present time, the design fo~: Jefferson at Riverchase provides for more than 75 feet at the main driveway and approximately 25 feet at the second access point. It is recommended that the gate allowing vehicles into the complex at the second driveway be moved as far away from MacArthur Boulevard as possible, to achieve a larger storage area. Moving the gate back to the end of the covere~ parking area will provide an additional 20 feet to glve a total of'45 feet of storag&' "- -. Jefferson at Riverchase will provide gates controlled by remote control devices similar to conventional garage -- door openers. From the 1983 Parking Access Control Revenue Control. Access De.4g~ handbook, the projected queue length for vehicles entering into this controlled access development is less than one vehicle. The second access gate will also have a queue of less than one vehicle. 21 -- Traffic Arriving at MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road The total traffic generated by Jefferson at Riverchase that is projected to arrive at the MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road intersection during the AM peak hour is 149 vehicles. This represents 3.3_..._% of the total projected -- AM peak hour traffic entering the intersectionin 1996. For the PM peak hour, 174 vehicle trip ends to and from Jefferson at Riverchase, or 3.8% of the total calculated traffic for 1996, are projected to enter the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. Exhibit 18 compares the total anticipated number of vehicles expected to arrive at MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road from the five proposed and planned developments and Jefferson at Riverchase. Exhibit 18 Traffic Volume Entering the Intersection of MacArthur Boulevard & Belt Line Road During Each Peak Hour Traffic Generator Total AM % of Total Total PM % of Total Volume Traffic Volume Traffic 1996 Background Traffic 4067 90.2% 3631 78.8% Jefferson at Riverchase 149 3.3% 174 3.8% Riverchase Club Apartments 111 2.5% 125 2.7% _ Regency Court 89 2.0% 102 2.2% Northlake Woodlands East No 10 Phase B 66 1.5% 80 1.7% Future Development in 27 0.6% 30 0.7% Northlake Woodlands East -~' ....... 467 10.1% Retail Center ~..~. ........ _ The Jefferson at Riverchase development generates 3.3%-3.8% of the projected traffic expected to arrive at the intersection of Belt Line Road and MacArthu~ Boulevard during the peak hours. If one compares the amount of traffic generated by Jefferson at Riverchaseto that generated by the retail center, one would see that the retail center, which has already been approved, geinerates more than twice the amount of traffic of the proposed -- development during the PM peak hour. · .'"'~'~ 'f {t_ 1'~ ...... '" / "' ~,'3,s.,:~. ".~-'"~' ". 22 -- CONCLUSION The proposed 386-unit multi-family development, located east along Mac. Arthur Boulevard north of Riverchase -- Drive, is expected to increase the traffic at the intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive by 3.3% in the morning peak hour and 3.8% in the evening peak hour in the design year 1996. This represents an average increase in the morning traffic on MacArthur Boulevard of two additional vehicles per minute, and three _ vehicles per minute in thc evening peak hour. The intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road is expec_t__e_d_..to.faii, with or without the proposed subj~e~.~..e, velopment in 1996 d .u~n.'. _IL~c morn!,n, zpe..a_k_...h, our. _~-~--t~e addition of a southbOund. 'left-turn 'lane, ..~_e~._..tmg a du~] ]eft turn, thc mtersection m expected to operate at a I~vel-of-Serwce D_~or better during the morning and evening peak hours. This Level-of-Service value indicates the intersection will operate in · accordance with acceptable principles and practices of urban transportation engineering criteria with development -- . of Jefferson at. Riverchasc. . . The left-turn storage on MacArthur Boulevard at the main driveway of Jefferson at Riverchase was also ex~rnincd to determine if the existing storage leagth~ were sufficient to accommodate the future traffic volumes. The southbound left-turn lane is expected to have between one and two vehicles stored in the left-turn lane at Riverchase Drive during the peak hour. Sufficient storage currently exists to accommodate the expected left-turn vehicle queues on Mac. Arthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive. A deceleration lane for northbound MacArthur Boulevard at the main entrance is recommended. A second deceleration lane on MacArthur Boulevard for the northern entrance is not needed. The proposed storage capacity at the main driveway is projected to adequately accommodate the demand at the main entrance with the proposed gate access control. The gate access for inbound traffic at the second entrance is recommended to be repositioned to allow for a total of 40 feet of storage from the curb line of Mac. Arthur Boulevard to the gate arm. -- Appendix Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. ' ~ [ I I ~ee~: MacArth~ Blvd tooation: Sout~l o£ Belt Line Rd Cit¥1~ate: Coppeil, Texas Project-ID,: P4004 -- 003/7 ]..~ .... 4 i I ' Oa~ o~ Week: Tuesday 2400 1200 15 9 7 1215 143 109 30 13 8 1230 155 122 45 11 8 1245 132 104 100 9 42 3 26 1300 1.008 141 571 102 437 115 6 1 1315' 142 107 130 8 2 1330 134 100 145 7 I 1345 106 85 200 8 29 2 6 1400 126 508 91 383 215 6 1 1415 103 75 230 1 5 1430 109 69 245 0 I 1445 119 138 300 2 9 6 13 1500 134 465 112 392 3!5 1 3 1515 69 $0 330 0 I 1530 112 94 345 3 I 1545 86 85 400 0 4 3 8 1600 120 387 102 331 415 1 1 1615 129 105 430 6 4 1630 145 109 445 2 I 1645 149 108 500 2 11 8 14 1700 168 590 127 449 515 3 3 1715 233 114 530 5 6 1730 264 136 545 7 14 1745 311 168 600 18 33 17 40 1800 310 1.118 162 578 615 22 38 1815 354 177 630 38 60 1830 1.945 304 1.279 161 665 645 52 117 1845 273 159 700 81 193 169 382 1900 246 1.177 136 633 715 98 265 1915 195 122 730 134 317 1930 165 108 745 180 310 1945 124 112 800 180 592 289 1.181 2000 114 598 86 428 815 1.871 154 648 307 1.223 2015 116 67 830 114 224 2030 98 74 845 105 172 2045 62 75 900 97 470 116 819 2100 71 347 69 285 915 72 107 2115 60 79 930 80 93 2130 70 72 945 81 72 2145 67 60 1000 77 310 70 342 2200 74 271 73 284 1015 82 69 2215 39 50 1030 75 73 2230 56 32 1045 80 74 2245 46 32 1100 73 310 75 291 2300 41 182 27 141 1115 95 67 2315 28 26 1130 107 80 2330 19 28 1145 120 97 2345 21 16 1200 119 441 100 344 2400 23 91 15 85 Totals 8.749 Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Streot: MacArthur B1vd ~" Location: No/'t./1 o£Belt Liqe Rd Projoct-lO#: ~ -- 000~IG' I1~ O,,o: lanuary 11, 1994 Day of Week: Tuesday t~ .. . . . 24-Hour Total: , a -...h~.,~ . '"'-- '~ :::i:T~~;. :-:.:~]~::::: ~'::~?:.?::::::ii-N6 ~b~'" 2:-':-i::::. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::?:' s~&b~a:;~--:.-::~-~'.~-;~i:::~ ~:'~:i~::-' :::~:P~'E '~ '::~:~:::'-?:::'N~~t: ::~::!'i;~:?:!:~ 2400 1200 1.5. 8 2 1216 105 67 30 7 4 1230 93 95 45 3 4 1245 87 75 100 6 24 4 14 1300 675 74 359 79 316 115 4 2 1315 66 79 328 130 I 2 1330 69 79 145 3 I 1345 50 72 200 4 12 I 6 1400 87 272 63 293 215 3 1 1415 71 67 23O 2 0 1430 79 62 245 3 0 1445 85 79 300 5 13 4 5 1500 67 302 68 276 3~5 3 I 15!5 52 5,3 330 0 I 1530 72 68 345 2 0 1545 96 71 400 0 5 2 4 1600 I 01 321 58 248 415 0 4 1615 106 80 430 2 7 1630 105 60 445 0 1 1645 168 85 500 0 2 4 16 1700 230 609 84 309 515 I 4 1715 281 84 530 5 11 173O 343 93 545 5 37 1745 317 109 370 600 11 22 30 82 1800 1,823 320 1,261 ° 76 362 615 13 40 1815 256 77 630 17 79 1830 218 99 645 16 203 1845 188 94 700 34 80 289 611 1900 163 825 70 340 715 39 456 1915 134 63 730 46 528 1930 107 85 745 66 552 1945 87 61 800 64 215 553 2.089 2000 83 411 52 261 815 2.407 76 252 522 2,155 2015 70 40 830 48 254 364 2030 68 43 845 53 252 2045 49 40 900 68 245 123 1,261 2100 53 240 44 187 915 49 113 2115 54 45 930 51 85 2130 54 31 945 49 76 2145 57 42 1000 58 205 58 340 2200 39 204 33 151 1015 46 48 2215 45 18 1030 52 48 2230 38 21 1045 55 63 2245 38 10 1100 35 188 46 203 2300 31 152 10 58 1115 62 54 2315 25 15 1130 87 58 2330 19 8 To,, i 6.337 ?.69, Equipment ID#: 3592 [14,029 - I Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Location: SoutI2 of B~lt Linc Rd City/State: Co.~. -- Projeot-,0#: ~04004 -- 00JA ~] ~ o,t.: J~ 6- 7, I~ Day of Week: ~y -- FH~y i ~. . , · . ~ , -- ~ ~ . 2~Hour Total: ~ 16,ffi3I * .... ~- ' ~ · '- *'~- _ : ~i'. :~t'[.~.~' '-. :~6~:...'~. ::::::? ..~ah~a :.'~::-~ ": ' ~i~:' :'~ht :-~:~:?:: R~'~a~::.-::'::?::?-. ~..:~ 1 ~0 200 1415 120 91 215 8 5 1 ~ 1 ~ 85 230 8 5 ~ 1~5 121 118 245 0 3 1~0 114 4~ 113 ~5 300 3 15 8 19 1515 107 "~ 315 I 4 1~0 116 109 ~0 5 0 ~ 1~5 123 110 ~ 4 0 1~ 125 471 106 ~3 400 2 12 2 1815 1~ 102 415 0 1 1 ~0 159 103 ~0 4 3 ~ 1~5 186 117 ~ 3 5 1700 214 715 141 463 ~0 2 9 5 14 1715 292 129 5~5 0 I 5 1730 ~ 165 530 4 6 ~ '.' 1745 313 1~ ~5 5 12 1800 368 1.306 171 842 600 15 25 18 41 1815 2,060 342 1.3~ 191 704 615 13 24 1830 2~ 150 ~ 30 46 ~ 1845 281 147 ~5 53 88 1~0 189 1.102 109 597 700 ~ 173 151 309 1915 167 127 715 75 208 1~0 1~ 108 7~ 131 257 ~ 1945 124 102 7~ 181 280 2000 124 5~ 81 416 800 181 568 2~ 1,013 2015 100 82 815 1.730 148 8~ 288 1,091 2030 70 74 830 135 ~ 213 ~ 2045 ~4 82 845 116 1 2100 72 326 ~ 328 ~0 98 495 112 7~ 2115 ~ ~4 915 70 2130 62 73 930 68 90 ~ 2145 ~ 52 945 64 ~00 58 2~ ~ 262 1000 89 291 62 308 ~1~ S4 42 1015 92 71 22~ 42 36 10~ 91 65 ~ ~ 45 ~ 1045 86 2300 42 183 2~ 150 1100 79 ~ 8~ 288 2315 26 23 1115 108 82 2~ 29 21 1130 106 97 ~ 2~ 21 15 1145 117 108 2400 20 ~ 9 88 1200 138 485 98 15 13 12 1215 159 121 30 7 7 1230 159 110 ~ ~ 16 7 1245 154 127 100 13 49 11 37 1300 1.069 151 623 8S 448 115 14 14 1315 ~ 138 112 130 10 4 1~0 ~ 1~ 121 ~ 145 6 2 1345 129 92 200 ~5 ~ ~ 2~ ~400, m4 S~ TO~]S ~ 9.137 7,766 I -- ] EquiDment ID~: 3593 16,~3 Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. ~.9 [ . ~reec.l~lacAl't]ttlrBlvd ~: ] [ City/gate: Coppc~, Texas Project-ID#: P4004 -- 00d~[ O.to: Sanuat7 6- 7, 1994 Day o~ Work: Thursday -Fdday ......... I. .I I' 14 010'[ "*' '"= "= :'" = '" ~' '~ ~' '~ "~ '~' "~ 24-Hour To~I: · a --.~.~d + ~ ~ ~"~ 1 500 300 1515 79 52 315 1 2 1530 83 85 330 4 0 1545 102 92 345 3 1 1600 86 350 72 301 400 1 9 2 5 1615 1~6 65. 415 0 ' 5 1630 128 70 430 2 3 1645 166 80 445 2 3 1700 204 614 99 314 500 1 5 9 20 1715 292 94 515 1 6 1730 350 103 530 6 10 1745 321 92 545 5 30 1800 346 1,309 106 395 ' 600 7 19 26 72 la15 !,713 305 1,322 90 391 I 615 8 31 1830 251 103 630 11 70 1845 218 93 645 22 148 1900 155 929 87 373 700 33 74 209 458 1915 139 82 715 39 315 1930 106 59 730 45 428 1945 92 62 745 68 543 2000 73 410 53 256 800 73 225 517 1.803 2015 75 48 815 2.176 89 275 413 1.901 2030 59 49 830 68 298 274 2045 69 51 845 62 171 2100 53 256 51 199 900 53 272 127 985 2115 51 49 915 43 92 2130 61 38 930 45 78 2145 43 23 945 42 82 2200 48 203 26 136 1000 56 186 64 316 2215 39 28 1015 65 49 2230 38 25 1030 63 55 2245 33 19 1045 66 61 2300 37 147 10 82 1100 58 252 74 239 2315 19 12 1115 69 71 2330 19 7 1130 84 71 2345 23 5 1145 79 82 2400 26 87 28 52 1200 87 319 56 280 15 14 4 1215 107 71 30 9 2 1230 80 72 45 9 1 1245 102 86 100 7 39 9 16 1300 660 78 357 73 302 115 6 6 1315 66 86 130 5 0 1330 85 9O 145 7 2 1345 7O 56 200 13 31 0 8 1400 73 294 68 300 215 7 2 1415 86 63 230 1 0 1430 96 73 245 5 0 1445 83 107 300 1 14 3 5 1500 82 347 92 335 To~[$ 6.758 7.252 Equipment ID#: 3592 ! i 14.010 Intersection Traffic Movements DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc Location: MacArth~ Bird & Bait Lina Rd Date: Jan~ry 6 - 7, 1994 City/$tnte: Cop~ll, T~xas Da), of Week: Th~sd~y (pm) & Friday (am) County Dallas Checker(s): Bi.~'hop/Woolwrlon/L~riffns Project-ID#: 94004 - A Conditions: Fair !::~:::?.:::33:::~:~:~::33'.':.::::::: 3;~.:::::?-'.':.i::-:.::i:::<.::.:::~:~::.:~:!: -!:~ '"'":~::::'~'-'::::~i:i: :~:~:? '"::::~:::'"::~:~:?i :1:3:: ::':'!:~: ::~':: ~¥'.-: ::':':':':::: $:: :;-: ~: ':':'::~ :::':: :::: ':'~':' '~'~:' '"':':' ~'' ':' ':'~e'v ''~' ':':' :'v'~ .:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.v:.:...~:.:...:.:c.- ~.:.:.:.~:::.v:.:. 06:30 06:45 ~ 20 22 62 53 9 I 77 25 · 13 27 4 322 06:45 07:00 12 23 24 99 89 6 3 87 36 8 .32 3 422 07:00 07:15 I I 21 37 125 105 13 3 139 57 15 29 7 562 07:15 07:30 14 29 51 188 129 13 2 172 44 27 45 10 724 2,030 07:30 07:45 34 47 78 257 170 9 8 233 44 26 69 7 982 2,690 07:45 08:00 39 48 94 238 181 12 6 262 60 24 43 8 1,015 3,283 08:00 08:!5 20 69 78 158 178 6 9 219 51 24 42 !1 865 3,586 08:15 08:30 24 48 56 147 ! 12 11 4 144 43 34 33 9 665 3,527 16:00 16:15 41 66 24 22 4 ! 2 4 50 29 40 72 28 419 16:!5 16:30 48 77 20 18 42 2 7 53 21 27 55 32 402 16:30 16:45 39 95 27 18 42 5 4 63 21 43 97 52 506 16:45 17:00 61 115 22 24 64 I0 7 78 33 35 102 67 618 1,945 17:00 17:!5 65 137 19 26 54 12 8 58 29 42 107 68 625 2,151 17:15 17:30 87 218 33 28 71 8 9 83 31 68 138 141 915 2,664 17:30 17:45 81 181 32 27 59 3 12 77 29 68 124 127 820 2,978 17:45 18:00 73 210 32 27 59 5 14 74 37 66 120 123 840 3,200 PM pe~' ilofir:il..:.-'!.i:.: :':" .-.~-.;-::~i..-::::!.7~l~i-'...:.:.-:.: 'i"i~i' ?.-?'i~ii':.:'-.:::.:::.':24j:'?:~:-i:.:... ~S: ."' :' 43'.": :-~.'::::'i~2 .::: ':.-:."iig' ~:.:-. :-.:i~:? :::::.'. '~Si:::::.'.'.!"~:~Si~. :.':.:.:~./.::.::::.:.:.:?:/J'i2°°' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :-! '~i-.': ;r~iifi)iSi~i~::'-''~:' :; ::-~i~-~::~i!~?i::":':.:; i:':,:ii~i:.:':i:'i;'::.~'~:-''- ~.:~'..~::~?::i~::.'.;::::~?~i79:'?~:.:':.~":-'~ -~',-" .' :.'i:" 46'i'".:"~':~::'~:::.:'; '-:i:.'i.~'~:..-::fl:;'i~:~::'.:.-;' :~;~'?.i:i: ;:! i!;ii.-?-i):.::::.'?~'.:-'~I~ i:::i::!.!.~:f:i-:"!i:.~:'?:.~?:;-.-.:'-: ~x,,.i:;;~-::-:"~:::".!:,:':. :::.:~i:. ::-.'iii!i~'''- ~.~..' ~'.i~ 'i~i:S~':::.:: 641'!~' :: .. ~14% ~.3% :"g~:.~ ":iiii~% .:.~::i'O':~'~ "~ ~ i.6~-~.:-~::-5~:~'~ . 'ii. =========================================== :.:.-::?:.~i':~..:?.ii:-;:~i..:;::.!....i-'::::.:'..:-::- %Gr6~h":' .113;4% .............. :(" '347 :' :i '::-846'-i~.?":132 '.::'-:i(122 '- '~:. 276' ':::i~:i::: 32 ' 49';.~:' i'-:~: 331 '":-~':-:.143: '-/.:/:277 '.'::;--' 555:?":-.:'552'1" .....:" '":. :':" -" ~:'. .. .. . 3,629' ~,~: A2X~S.WK~ Observations: I I I I I I I I I ! ] I I I ! I I I Intersection Traffic Movements DeShazo, Tang & Associates, In¢ Location: MacArthur Blvd & B~lt Linc Rd Date: January 6 - 7, 1994 City/State: Copp~ll, Toxas Day of We~k: Thursday (pm) & Fdday (am) County Dallas Checker(s): Bishop/Woolv~rton/Larl~n.¢ Project-ID#: 94004 - A Conditions: Fair ........................ :?~'::'::'~?:~'~':'~':~:~.~i'i~.~%~i ~?..~i.~i~..``...?:~:~?~:~:*.~:...~:~:~*~::~::::~i~?~?:::~i~! iii?i ~:~:~.~.~:~:~,::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: :::.~:.:;:.,:::.... :.>:.. :.:.:.. :-:.:.. :.'.:..->::..-x< .---.-.--.---.---. · ::::~:::.c~:-'..'.'.'.<.: ~::~ ?~:~ :::~:~:: :~ ~ ~.:~:~:~:?.:'.'.'~:~ ~ .<'~ ~.~:.:-.:.~ :.:¥:::-:::::~: ::!~:~:~.::?.~:::>..':~.~:::::::.~:.:: :...:.:.:~.>:<.~:..~?.:::::::::::..':~::::.:.~>~:~:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~:.~.~::<~>.~:~:~::::~:::~:~:.`.~:~&~.::~<~:::~::~.~:.<.::~.:.:: :!i!i!i!i~i~i!~i:~i~.<~i~!~.,<~:~i!iii!i: ':~-:---:':':':-:~-~:,-:'.'--..'-'.-~: ............ : ................... ........~.. .... '.'..."~ ~.: ~.':: .'.':: 5:: -':.:::: -::':~."::.~:: .:::.'-'-:-:.'-'.,:-.':'-:.:-:~-:-:-:-:-: ::.q~.~--.~.:.::~.%~:.> >:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:- :< .:?,.':~.~ ~ :.~:::::::~: ~:?.~:.'.~ ~ ?.~: :::~:~ :: !~!i!iiii~ii}iii~iii ~ MacAr~ur Bird B~lt Lin~ Rd ' ~ B~lt Lin~ Rd ::~,~!:'..:~::~-~::..',i:~:!::i--::::!:!~::.-.'::.-..-!:: ' .......... ::: .'..:?.~?.:, ......... ~,..:~.:.:.:.::.:,,~:,::::.:~::::- >:~:::::::::~li::l.t~ .......... ................................................................. ~:?:~!.*..~ 06:30 06:45 9 20 22 62 53 9 I 77 25 I 3 27 4 322 06:45 07:00 12 23 24 99 89 6 3 87 36 8 32 3 422 07:00 07:15 11 21 37 125 105 13 3 139 57 -. 15 29 7 562 07:15 07:30 14 29 51 188 !:29 13 2 172 44 27 45 !0 724 2,030 07:30 07:45 34 47 78: 257 170 9 8 233 44- 26 69 7 982 2,690 07:45 08:00 39 48 94 238 181 12 6 262 60 :24 43 8 1,015 3,283 08:00 08:15 20 69 78 158 178 6 9 219 51 24 42 11 865 3,586 * 08:15 08:30 24 48 56 147 112 11 4 144 43 34 33 9 665 3,527 ~ i;~ :::::::::::::::::::::: :~:.i~::~.ii~:::~::~:::.::~.~:.~:::.~:.~i~:~.;::~::::::::::i~.i::i::i::~.~. :.':.i!!::~:~ii~:::.'?.i~::::i'.~J~"!::.:?i?:':';'~ . ::.:.":i'25 ':::':):i:~/iis:ii':;:?~??~:.::i'/~:'' -:::-::~i':.~foi?:'!:'::i?:::::~;:i'~'::i?:!~:~,~::.:-?~:::'.::a~'- =================================== ~s3'i~: ;-'.~:::::i:.i::i-.. ========================================================== ~'~'ti8~;i:'?.'i:ii:~'.: ?::::~ii~:.~:¢~.il;!~iiii:::~:.~?~::';ii~.~ii:~.~i;i:~i:.::i~::!~i!i'.:i:. ')i!i}:.:i~}:~i:i::':.::i:::.:l",~j::jii~i~;:?;::i.? .':-~i./.':-~.'?:-?.)i',?ia!i~?~i"!':.~::i~:~.!?[i::i:'' 'i~[;-.:'~':.}!~?i:::iii?i.~i:.~:?!i:?!i:'iii!~}i~i?~!i- .::~?:":ii?i!::.;::~i:.:::(:??i::i- %~r:ii~::.:.:.::i'::~i:-':.:-' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... i'¢i:ii~?:ji!:i'ii:~::~:!~i:i':~ '::::-~!~i{'i':i?ii:~iii::!.i~,7.~:.'S~ :.:'.i~'2:.':~:':?.i.,~is'i:i:::.'i~':i; ?io:i:~s.:'~.:.S~':a'i~:.i!!::~:i:i~'~/ii =================================================== .: %~-'i:i~'-:.;;."-':i1~}':% 'ii:i.:~i::::H:~'!ili::~i~ii~i.'i~'a~J~'i!~:~):.':.::il.":ii~t~:''-:.~?!ii:-i!iii'i..?::~:~!:..:~i?.::':!....:.,.:.:.ii' --:::-,:::~6':::.::'?,i-~ia'~i'?:'~::.~' :i',:.-:.i:',:.:.l~':':...::?.!?/':.:::::i'::.iii?.!',:~i'~: ?~:~ii?,;-:":i::?:-i::.~is :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ! 6:00 16: ! 5 41 66 24 22 41 2 4 50 29 40 72 28 419 16:15 16:30 48 77 20 18 42 2 7 53 21 27 55 32 402 16:BO 16:45 39 95 27 18 42 5 4 63 21 ,43 97 52 506 16:45 17:00 61 115 22 24 64 I0 7 78 33 35 102 67 618 1,945 17:00 17:!5 65 137 19 26 54 12 8 58 29 42 107 68 625 2,151 17:i5 17:30 87 218 33 28 71 8 9 83 31 68 138 141 915 2,664 17:30 17:45 81 181 32 27 59 3 12 77 29 68 124 127 820 2,978 17:45 18:00 73 210 32 27 59 5 14 74 37 66 120 123 840 3.200 * ~s~-~::.,~?.~:..~:!i:~:~. ======================================================================== -~::.:,:..i~?i:oi~:!:.:::i:,:=,,i~:.~:~ii:.;.:?i:.:,i:.-:::!i~ '- .,-'i:.: i--:~:j :?.::.i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :'~:i,i',':-~:iii::-::.i::~:::~SO?:':?:~'~O': ',:::,:ii?:!!!=::::a:~/~' ii.?:!.'~7.:~-:?:~':::!i::::.:::?::'~'?.- ~?/;~::'.'.::~i;.i:.?::..i::?i.:::i~? =.:::.'i~ai~!'::-i~.:~.i~:~:- :ii.::~i~'~ i::-:~'~::i~'~::.~!:~?~:::.-~:/:'~ :' "~5::a~':::.:~3':~-~:.:"~'i'~:~i ::i~a'!~'.!~:.-~'t'.~:.?:?:!3~!~:~. ?!i~::::i:!i::?:?::?i~::~- ':: · o~?.:ii?.io5~ ..:::::i'~;~i;3'~'i:.:::-?:::~:::'::~i~-i:.-'?,i:::.:::.;:i~' :?:.:i!i':i!i~j~:-.-::?:::.,~S!...i:?i::.::.:..'~ :i~-:."4S-.?,-~i/)b.?:::::i'~': .~:::::i::::~:~:!:i.::~:'.:.iii.~:~'~::':i'~::.:::?,:::.:~S'~:~i ========================================== Observations: MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Jerry Wilson Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc. FROM: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. ; DATE: November 3, 1993 ..:,- RE: Trip Generation Data Comparison for Proposed Multi-Family Development - Sterling Heights; J93149 : The City of Irving staff requested DT&A to evaluated local trip generations for multi-family units and compare -- them against 1TE trip generations. The city and the client agree.d to the selection of two mature developments similar to'the one proposed. The two site~ chosen for the evaluation were the Jefferson Creek Apartments off of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Royal Lane, and the Villas of Valley Ranch off of Mae-Arthur Boulevard, Ranch -- Trail and Red River Trail. DT&A obtained site plans and information (i.e number of units) on each ~ development from the City of Irving. Contact was made with the developments to confu'm the information provide by the city and to find the occupancy rate. Jefferson Creek reported an occupancy, rate of 97% of their , -- 300 available units. The Villas reported an occupancy rate of 98% of 124 available units. On November 1, 1993, DT&A personnel recorded site volumes during the peak A.M. and P2vf. hours at e~.~ site. To determine the volume, vehicles entering and leaving the sites were counted during fifteen minute -- intervals over a period of one hour and thirty minutes. The data was then compiled and analyzed. Table i shows the collected data with the peak hours highlighted. Table 2 shows the comparison between the -- projected ITE volumes and the actual volumes. On an average ratio comparison, it is evident that 1TE trip generation volumes overestimate the site traffic volumes by approximately 20% during the P2vLpeak hour. The ~" A.M. peak hour volumes closely approximated each other. ~ -- ~ Union Station Dallaa, Teams 75202-4802 214/748-6740 Metro 214/263-.54~J~ Fax 214f/48-70Cr/ 1 ! ! ! I ! ! I 1 I 1 1 I I ! 1 I ! I Table 1 Summary of Peak Hour Driveway Volumes For Two Multi-Family Developments in Irving, Texas Jefferson Time 1st North Gate East Gate 2nd North Gate Total Peak Creek Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbcund Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound In Out 7:00 0 '0 1 6 0 8 1 14 ::-.--:': -:.::. :~:.-:.:.~:~.:~:.~:-~:.~.::::::'.' .::~'::.'::qi'i:'~:':.!:::!::" '.::-!:~'?:-::.:i:-!::!'-~i!;'.;~:~'i ':?.:::::::~.:: -..LS:.-: .i.:i..~..~?.-:!-':..ii:.;.l~:... ':~:i-'~::-:'-::: :. ~6 -:-:- '.-:.'. :'i. ' ===================== 6:-)?¥-/-?:!:?.4'. ::'..' ========================= :..i-:~:."'~i'~:~::':~:.~. ',,.' ;::'::.;i::i:~:~ :'?~-:-..i::;~/. ::-:i:~:' . ':?:i ':::;:/.' :. '.::::::~.::..-::?".~-::.:.:,:: Z3. -.i:::: '::-'i:/;:~'..-,:':~.::.-:.'.".':/:" ~::~.: :.~:::.:':i"i;.. 8:15 2 3 I 9 I 3 4 15 17:00 2 0 8 5 7 2 17 7 17:15 6 2 13 5 2 0 21 7 :' -'-i -:: '....-- ~ '..:' .'-i 17i30 ":: '(. i":--: ':: :~i:.. ':::--3' -.~::.i-.i-.":.i'. ::i:':-"~'. '-:!i: ~.-:.i:'. ~'2 :.i..-.--.-::..' '. 9 . ::'. 17 -.-'4 .':':' ::'. :-.:.i:. ::.2" .:: i.'i::'. '. ig.. .!?..i!?:?::::?.!.!-:::.:.i2~. '"' ~ifii:"~''':I'' ' i~i~':.: .. '.';":!:: i:.!': i:~ ':::':! '!:.'":;:?.'..:' ::!i":.2:. '":?:::: -iii:--'?.:.:.{ :-:': :"6 9 '-:.(:::.::..:':::.!.-:::2 .'.7-.-.' .2'~:: · .:'".':':.H. 0.~,-:.... .... 'i~i~" ..i.:i:i :'~:.'.!~ ::ii:'.: ::::.:'.:.:~..:,:-'3.- .ii~?.:::i:."i:...:':-i01-.:...:. :.:.i ~ ".;:':.i '3 -'-':;'i':-i:i:'-.~" i::-. :~7:-:.'..~::ii:::ii-!~..,.:."m' Villas of Time South Gate North Gate Total Peak Valley Ranch Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound In Out 7:00 0 11 2 3 2 14 7:15 3 8 2 2 5 10 -.-. ::-" ::.-:-.-"-'i:::-'. ' 7:30 '.:':..~.::.::..:.::~:::.i:0 .::i'i:?::.-..~:..-:-8.. ::.::.' :: .' '-i '' . ..7 ' '. ;:'".' .~::.:.i:: :i:--:5.' "--.':::::.-i:::ii'~-ii': -. A'!'~?"~i~;~'."''"..:.' ~/:~'::::.:::.' -i::' .'"':'-:~:'-}:ii::O:- :.i!~::ii: i.;~;i:::-..' '!-i::i:;~" :':':'i::.'f:: "...;.i'i. "-: :-i' :?: . ."4 ' .' ".: i:: i' '?i.': :i.:i.': .j ii:'." .'.'i'.':i'.."?i.:~.:':i 17:00 6 4 5 2 11 6 -:...;.' ".7. '..::..;:?:-:.?:¥. - lqi:fS'::.:i .' ?'::.':'ii'.::i0" '?:'.::..~;:':'-:-:':':0 - .:~" ...... '.-: 2 '- : .-i'. 7 .. :: .:' .::: '."~-:.:"?:'"--'- . ~.::::..-? 'i:2: ..' ?:"-..:?-'..::. 7' '- i;:i~i'"~? ~::-'- ':~. i~i~°.. ::.::: ::i::.-?:-::-:i:~/':/-.::i:-:4 -.?/' i'::::. ~ :.~.i:.::!::~:..:i:~::"'.:'~::. ~- :' ':'-::. i::..' i . "..:i/. ::::".: ..-ii.'.::...::i: :-:.. -.':~:./::. :::' :~.:-i:-i~'~::.:i:~: ::.--?. :-::-::i31~':-.:~' ":i:?-:::-:".--'"~0 .,~::.::..::!!~: '::~?i:~ ::::!:-::i:-:::'~: ~' :~ -..:.. :?:-" ~ '-' '- i:::'. ".. -:-~:-:::...:-i-:?.:::ii-"i::::'i::. ".'?~?ii/~:.': .-.' i::.::i..i!?:..' ?.:i::.' :-' .::i?i::ii:-:; .:::. i8:00.-:/ :'.:::::--..i 'iO-.! ::.-:.:-:.;-.::.:-:'i:'i/i ':~:.'--'--...- 5..-.-::i.i: :.i::' 2 :-~ ' 'i:: .'ii.:.i '.i: .::i: 'i-:-:" ..:-.:"-:?:-':'-:i~: 18:15 7 2 3 3 10 5 -f: \lotus\93149b - I I I I I I I I I I ! I ! I I ! I I I Table 2 Comparison of Projected Trip Ends Using ITC Trip Generation (ITC Code 221) to Actual Driveway Volumes Two Multi-Family Developments in Irving, Texas Number of A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Location Units Occupancy Volumes Inbound Outbound Sum Inbound Outbound Sum Jefferson Creek · · 300 97 % Projected 27 106 133 112 58 170 Apartments Actual~ 15 127 142 86 42 128 Actl/Prjct [ 0.56 1.20 1.07 0.77 0.72 0.75 Villas of 124 98 % Projected 13 52 65 52 27 79 Valley Ranch Actual 4 56 60 48 16 64 Actl/Prjct 0.31 1.08 0.92 0.92 0.59 0.81 Note: ITC Code 221 (Low-Rise Apartment) uses the number of occupied dwel!ing units to calculate the projected volumes Table 3 Comparison of Actual Volumes vs. Projected Volumes of Trip Generation Peak Hour Location A.M. P.M. Jefferson Creek 1.07 0.75 Villas 0.92 0.81 Average 1.00 0.78 f:\lotus\93149b LCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 05-10-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ~:reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard Analyst: GCL File Name: BLMACAMN.HC9 ~.ea Type: Other 5-10-94 AM Peak (~mment: Year 1996 without Development 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 < ~-~lumes 28 1005 226 115 226 41 121 219 341 954 746 45 ] [ne 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 ~ Left * * SB Left * * * Thru * * Thru * * Right * * Right * * -- Peds Peds ! ~ Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 4.0A 18.0A Green 27.0A 16.0A 8.0A ~ ~llow/A-R 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0 ] ~st 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 LJ L 162 766 0.17 0.21 22.1 C 34.6 D T 1129 5346 0.98 0.21 36.9 D R 320 1515 0.71 0.21 25.3 D ~ ~ L 146 3279 0.51 0.29 22.7 C 18.6 C T 515 17.82 0.44 0.29 17.2 C -- R 438 1515 0.09 0.29 15.1 C ! ~ L 169 1693 0.48 0.31 20.8 C 47.8 E TR 576 3238 1.02 0.18 53.4 E F~ L 734 1693 1.19 0.64 127.0 F 72.2 .~.~ TR 1805 3532 0.46 0.51 9.2 B .......................... ,, Intersection Delay = 51.2 sec/veh~IRL=~=uL~i~,~LOS = E ~ ...... · L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 1.030 .... - ...................... .- ~ . LCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 05-10-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation : :reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard Analyst: GCL File Name: BLMACAMN.HC9 ~.ea Type: Other 5-10-94 PM Peak , )mment: Year 1996 without Development ~ %~p~,~ 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 < i 2 < -blumes 49 331 143 277 555 521 347 846 132 122 276 32 ~ne 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 ~nase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * * NB Left * * * Thru * Thru * * Right * Right * * Peds Peds ~ Left * * * SB Left * * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * _ Peds Peds ~ Right EB Right ~B Right WB Right Green 6.0A 15.0A 13.0A Green 6.0A 19.0A ll.0A --=_llow/A-R 3.0 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0 ~st 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 _B L 113 1693 0.26 0.27 20.0 C 22.3 C T 891 5346 0.41 0.17 21.8 C -- R 252 1515 0.57 0.17 24.2 C B L 838 3279 0.30 0.46 11.8 B 27.3 D T 634 1~82 0.88 0.36 25.4 D -- R 539 1515 0.97 0.36 37.6 D B L 395 1693 0.64 0.48 15.8 C 17.3 C TR 1320 3495 0.78 0.38 17.7 C ~B L 113 1693 0.63 0.31 27.4 D 22.1 C TR 741 3511 0.44 0.21 20.2 C / ........... ~ Intersection Delay = 22.2 sec/veh Intersection'"LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.747 ......................... ~ M: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 05-04-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ~°~reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard ~ .alyst: GCL File Name: Area Type: Other 5-4-94 AM Peak C~mment: Year 1996 Base w/All Area Dev.(Incl. Jeff. @ Riverchase)- NO IMP Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ~ . Lanes 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 < .~_~ 1 2 < Volumes 29 1005 226 115 226 94 121 258 ~41,~1149 ~.~'~.. 52 I~ne Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ~ OR Vols 0 0 0 0 Signal Operations fase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ~ Left * NB Left * Thru * Thru * -- Right * Right * Peds Peds WB Left * * SB Left * * -- Thru * * Thru * * Right * * Right * * Peds Peds N~ Right EB Right S Right WB Right ~_een 5.0A 18.0A Green 39.0A 20.0A Yellow/A-R 3.0 3.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 I~st Time 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ¢ cle Length: 94.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 -- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS E L 82 428 0.38 0.19 26.6 D 77.4 F T 1024 5346 1.14 0.19 87.8 F R 290 1515 0.8.2 0.19 33.3 D W~ L 174 3279 0.48 0.28 23.2 C 19.6 C T 493 1782 0.48 0.28 18.9 C R 419 1515 0.24 0.28 17.0 C N~ L 76 356 1.68 0.21 * * * * TR 693 3259 0.96 0.21 38.5 D S~ L 702 1693 1.61 0.66 * * * * TR 2330 3532 0.45 0.66 5.1 B '. -- Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection~0S = * '"-.~- // (_/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable. -'~ .................... '~ 3~ ....................... ' · .,~~ "'~f ~ ~ 3 ....~ ~ H M: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 05-10-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation S~reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard A alyst: GCL File Name: 4065NIPM.HC9 Area Type: Other 5-4-94 PM Peak Comment: Year 1996 Base w/All Area Dev.(Incl. Jeff. @ Riverchase)- NO IMP Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volumes 150 331 143 277 555 . 347 .. 264 447 125 I--ne Width 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12.0 121~12.0 ~,0' 12.0 12.0 B OR Vols 0 190 0 0 _ Signal Operations P ase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5~ Left * * NB Left * * * Thru * Thru * * -- Right * Right * * Peds Peds WB Left * * * SB Left * * -- Thru * * Thru * Right '* * Right * Peds Peds N~ Right EB Right S Right WB Right ~_een 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 I--st Time 3.0 3,0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 ¢cle 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 ~-- L 113 1693 0,82 0,27 46,7 E 28,2 D T 891 5346 0.43 0.17 21.9 C R 252 1515 0.60 0,17 24,8 C W- L 838 3279 0.32 0,46 11.9 B 36.5 D T 634 1782 0,92 0,36 29,6 R 539 15.15 1.05 0.36 56.2 b~B L 395 1693 0,77 0,48 20,9 C 38,7 D TR 1324 3505 1,04 0,38 43,4 $~ L 113 1693 1.75 0.31 * * * * TR 727 3446 0,87 0.21 28,8 D -- Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LO~ (_/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable~ ? 'l' '" . ...- ": ~ Q ~ -~ -? .,~ ~ .- TM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 05-04-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ~treets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard aalyst: GCL File Name: BLMACAM.HC9 Area Type: Other 5-4-94 AM Peak ,...- --~'-~-,. Cmmment: Year 1996 Base w/All Area Dev.(Incl. Jeff. @ Riverchase)~ w/ IMP Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ~. Lanes 1 .... _~ ......... 1 2 1 1 1 2 < 2 2 < Volumes 29~.1005 226 115 226 94 · 121 258 341 ~1~i~9' :,,~ 52 ~ne Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1'2~0 12.0 fOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Signal Operations ~ase Combination i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _B Left * NB Left * * Thru * Thru * -- Right * Right * Peds Peds WB Left * * SB Left * * * -- Thru * * Thru * * Right * * Right * * Peds Peds N_B Right EB Right ~ Right WB Right _reen 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 3 Lost Time 3 0 3 0 3 0 --~st Time .,. 3~ 3.0 . . . fcle 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 B L 137 588 0.23 0.23 21.4 C 28.4 D T 1247 5346 0.93 0.23 29.7 -D R 354 1515 0.67 0.23 23.2 C ~ 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 0.21 0.31 14.8 B ~B L 94 1693 0.73 0.30 37.9 D 38.6 D TR 688 3259 0.96 0.21 38.8 .... ~_.~,_, ~B L 1239 3279 0.92 0.62 19.2 .... C-.' 14.6 B TR 1884 3532 0.55 0.53 9.2 B -- Intersection Delay = 22.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS ='~_.l )st Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.879 .".'_ .: ~.- ~'~ .. .. . -- ..3 "'~ ~ ~% ~ } ~: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 05-04-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ~ :reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard Analyst: GCL File Name: BLMACPM.HC9 ~rea Type: Other 5-4-94 PM Peak ( ~mment: Year 1996 Base w/All Area Dev.(Incl. Jeff. @ Riverchase)- w/ IMP 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 < V~lumes 150 331 143 277 555 f72~': 347 ~ 132 264 447 125 ] [ne Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ~£OR Vols 0 190 0 0 Signal Operations 1.1ase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * * NB Left * * * -- Thru * Thru * * Right * Right * * Peds Peds W~ Left * * ~ SB Left * * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * · Peds Peds ! ~ Right EB Right £3 Right WB Right Green 6.0A 15.0A 13.0A Green 6.0A 19.0A ll.0A ?~.llow/A-R 3.0 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0 ] Dst 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 ! ~ L 113 1693 0.82 0.27 46.7 E' 28.2 D T 891 5346 0.43 0.17 21.9 C -- R 252 1515 0.60 0.17 24.8 C % ~ L 838 3279 0.32 0.46 11.9 B 36.5 D - T 634 1782 0.92 0.36 29.6 D _ R 539 1515 ~y"I,0.5'. 0.36 .56.2 ~ ~ L 395 1693 0.77 0.48 20.9 C 38.7 D TR 1324 3505 /' 1'~'~4" 0.38 43.4 SB L 219 3279 0]'9~ 0.31 53.4 E. 36.3 D -- TR 727 3446 0.87 0.21 28.8 D Intersection Delay = 36.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.944 k~: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 05-10-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ~:reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard Analyst: GCL File Name: BLMACAMN.NC9 Area Type: Other 5-10-94 AM Peak ( ~mment: Year 1996 without Development 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 < ~lumes 28 1005 226 115 226 41 121 219 341 954 746 45 ] [ne 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 lnase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * * -- Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds Peds Left * * SB Left * * * Thru * * Thru * * Right * * Right * * Peds Peds ] ~ Right EB Right tJ Right WB Right Green 4.0A 20.0A Green 26.0A 19.0A 4.0A '~.llow/A-R 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0 ' )st 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 L 191 820 0.15 0.23 20.8 C 25.6 D T 1247 5346 0.89 0.23 26.4 D -- R 354 1515 0.64 0.23 22.4 C I 3 L 146 3279 0.51 0.31 21.7 C 17.5 C T 554 17.82 0.41 0.31 16.0 C -- R 471 1515 0.09 0.31 14.2 B ! 3 L 94 1693 0.69 0.30 33.7 D 29.5 D TR 684 3238 0.86 0.21 28.6 D SB L 1239 3279 0.72 0.62 10.4 B- 9.4 B TR 1884 3532 0.44 0.53 8.4 B Intersection Delay = 18.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.760 '- WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS HO~LY VOL~S VOL~ ~ PCPH :~ Vs Grade V2 V~ ~ ~ V2 ~~V~ ~ -- Av~ge Ru~g S~: ~ N =~ Minor VOL~ AD~~S ~ _ M~ent N~ 2 3 4 5 7 9 ~ -.~'~' Cmffict~g How, V, 1/2 V, + V2 = 11 + 3~ = la2 ~h (Vo) Gitic~ Gap. T¢, and Potenti~ Ca~d~, c~ T~ ~ Z'~ ~ O~ble 10-2) c~ = ~ p~h (Bg. 10-3) __ Am~ Capad~, c. c.. = Cpc = q~ p~h ~P Z LT From Major ~ ( V~ '"' Conffi~g ~ow, V, Va +V2 ~ Z~ + 3~2 ~ 32~ ~h Cfitic~ Gap, To, and Pot~ti~ Capad~, c~ Tc = ~ ~ ~able 10-2) cp~ =~ p~h (~g. 10-3) _ P~c~t of cp Ut~ and ~nce Favor (~g. 10-5) (v~/~) X 1~= , ~ P~= ~:i A~ Capad~, c~ c~ = %~ = ~ pcph ~P 3: LT From ~or'~ [ ~ V ~6y & ~ ~ Contusing now, V, 1/2 V~+V~+Vs+V~: I I + 362 +.~ + ~ = ]Z~h ~) Cfitic~ Gap, T,, and Potential Capad~, c~ T~ = ~ I ~ ~able 10-2) c~ p~h (Eg. 10-3) A~ Capad~, c. c.z ~ Cp~ X P~ = ~T~X I,~ ~ ~ZO ~h S~ED-~ ~AC~Y (v~/c.~) + (v,/c.,) Movem~t No. v(p~h) c~ (p~h) I cs, (p~h) c~ [ L~ 9 UN$IGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-$7 WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS HO~LY VOL~ VOL~ ~ PCPH -- Average R~g S~d: ~nor S~ee~ PHF'__ Grade % ~o~, b~'.0~to~ . VOL~ AD~~S M~ent No. 2 [ 3 4 5 [ 7 9 Vo~,(~h) I~ ~S ~ B6 2q ~q Z 5~ I I _ Vol. (p~h), s~ Table 10-1 C,~tic~ Gap, T~, ~d Potenfi~ Capad~, cp T~ = ~ 4 sec ~able 10-2) c~ = ~ p~h (Rg. lO-3) ~P Z LT From Major ~ ( V~ C~tic~ Gap, To, and Potenfi~ Capad~, c2 T~ = ~, .~ ~ (Table 10-2) cp~ ~ d ~ p~h (Rg. 10-3) -- P~nt of cp Utili~ and ~ce Favor (~g. 10-5) A~ Capad~, c~ c~ = c~ = {~9 p~h Cdtic~ Gap, T~, ~d Potenfi~ Capad~, cp T~ = ~, ~ s~ (Table 10-2) cp~ ~ 4~ p~h (Eg. 10-3) S~ED-~ -- ~ S~-= v~ + v9 ff l~e ~ sh~ (v,/c.D + Movement Na v(p~h) 7 5q Cs~- WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page I -- Location: ~<xc ~r-VE~,~- ~.~vd / ~'wt~o~ ~ Name: HO~LY VOL~S -- Grade , % STO~ ~ ~ ~ N =~ -- ~~ V~ V~, V~o N ~~ L v~ V~ Grade % 9 ~ Grade % Z~ V~ major road N~' VzV~V~ YIELD ~ii Date of count: -- ~or ~ad ~e Pe~od: ~i ~l{t~ ~c ~t . Avenge R~g Speed: PHF: -- Grade % VOL~E AD~S~S ' ~' ~ blovementNo. 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ii0 i1 12 VOL~S ~ PC~H UH$10,NALiZED INTERSECTIONS 10-35 WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 i STEP 1: RT From Minor Street V9 : -- Conflicting ~lows, V¢ 1/2 V~ + V: = Vt9 1/2 V .i ~,y.~ zone: , -- Critical Gap, T¢ (%b. 10-2) ~. ~ (s<) ~' q (sec) ~ { O ~ ~ O pcph Potential Capadty, c, (Fig. 10-3) c,~ = p~h c~t: = :: ~ Percent of c, UtiBz~ (%/c,~) X 100 = ~ ' ~ 1% (vu/c~l=) X 100 = Imp~ance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) p, = ~, O p~: = 'x _ Actual Capadty, c~ c~, = c~ = p~h c~: = c~u = p~h t~ S~P 2: LT From Major ~reet ( V~ ) V~ :{ ~ Conflicting Hows. V¢ Va + V: = Vm V~ + V~ '"~ Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) ~'~ (s<) 5. Z (sec) ;:~ -- 6~ pcvh [_30 pcvh - ~ Potential Capadty, c, (Fig. 10-3) %4 = c,~ = ".~ .~ Percent of c~ Utilized (%/%4) X 100 = O. ~ % (v~/cp~) X 100 = % 3, ~ Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) P4 = ~l' ~ P~ = . i "~- Actual Capaciee, c~ c~4 = %4 = ~ D pcph . c~l = c:~ ~ t~~ pcph ' ; S~P 3: ~ From Minor Street Vs ] 'i ' '; ~ Con~cting Hows, V¢ 1/2Va+V~+V~+V~+V~+V~=V,s 1/2V,+V~+V~+Va+V:+V~=V,~ ..~i ~q + 3~ + zz + z .+zola+ I-+ :t.'i ~ Critical Gap, T~ (%b. 10-2) $. ~ (sec) $' g (sec) .~ Potential Capad~, c, (Fig. 10-3) c~, = ~ p~h c,t~ = ~O pcph " Percent of co Utilized (%/%,) X 100 = ~ % (Vtt/Cpll) X 100 Impedance Factor, P (Hg. 10-5) ps = I, O Pu 5 Actual Capadty, cg c~, = c~ X P~ X P~ c~ = c~l X Pt X P~ _ ~ = ~ x ~q = 5~ x ~,~ x X,o (pcph) 0.$% X X,0 (p~h) . Confficting Hows, V_ V~ (step 3) + V~ + V~: = V,7 Vd~ (step 3) + Vs + V~ = Vdo i Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) ~ ' ~ (s~) ~' ~ (sec) ; Potential CapaciW, c~ (Fig. 10-3) %7 =" ~ pcph %~0 = ~O pcph ~ ~ Actual Capaci~, c~ c~r = c,; X P: X P~ X Pz~ X Pt: c~0 = cpi0 X P~ X P~ X Ps X P~ zq =qO x0.~,x 35 = ~O x~.O.x -" ~ ~ 0~ x I U, x ~ 'a (p~h) ~.:,'~ x 0~..X ..... (pcph) . ' ' WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPACITY vi + vj CSH = where 2 movements share a lane (vic=,) + (vi/cra,) v~+vi+vk CSH = where 3 movements share a lane (v~/em,) + (vi/%) + (vk/c~k) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9 Movement v(pcph) %(pcph) csH(pcph) [ ca ---- csH -- v LOS MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,1l, 12 Movement v(pcph) c...(pcph) csH(pclah) % - CsH - v LOS 1 ~1 'Z Li,a, 4 % '"=' 'r 7 ~--~' .'. "~ MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1, 4 Movement v (pcph) c~ (pcph) cR --- c~ - v LOS COMMENTS: ,'0-24, URBAN STREET'; WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page HOURLY VOLUMES - ® Grade · % YIELrl~ Vu V,, V;0 N - N =~5'] , v, >-~1 N V; '~ °o Grade % ) ( Grade __ ~ Q- V~ major road N=~']' V7VsV9 YIELD -- I& i ~-~-0 Date of counts: minor road T'm~e Period: ICl q b - [~ Iq~'c~0,f ~t . Average Running Speed: PHF: Grade __% __ VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS "'"~ VOLUMES tN PCPI--I V~ NA v~ d,~ NA V3 UN$1GNALIZED I NTEP,.BECTIO NS 10-3~ ._.. WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page , STEP 1: RT From Minor Street V~ : 1-- Con,'~icting ~,ow$, V¢ '?~_ Critical Gap, Tc (Tab. 10-2) ~,z~ (sec) 5, zt (sec) Potential Capacity. % (Fig. 10-3) %4 = ~'~ © pcph cT~: pcph ~;_ Percent of % Utilized (%/%~) X 100 = I ~ % (v~:/cpn) X 100 = ~' % .: Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) p~ -- · ., Actual Capacity, c..,. c..,~ =co -- _~o.~ pc-oh, c,,n --%u ---- ~CC> vcph. ""~ STEP 2: LT From Major Street ( ' V~ ½ V: .: .-~ Conflicting Flows. V¢ V~ + V,. = Vc; V, + V~ -- V¢~ ~:~i-- Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) ~,7._ (sec) ~. 7_ (sec) ~"..;: Potential Cat, arty,, cT (Fig. 10-3) %~ = }A'O . pcph %, = 6 7..(~ pcph ; Percent of % Utilized · i Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) p~ = :.; STEP 3: TH From Minor Street [ Vs ! V;~ :~ Contlicting Flows, V~ 1/2Vi?V:+VI+V~+V~+V?V¢t I/2V~+V~+V~+V~+V,. '.--Vt=Vc~t .: Critical Gap, T: (Tab. 10-2) (~' {~ , (sec) (o. (~ (sec) .-: Potential Capaci .tT', cp (Fig. 10-3) c~a = Q--{~) pcph cT,' = ~-(--9 pc-g.h '~_ Percent of cT Utilized (vs/cT~) X 100 = 9, % (v~,/%u) X I00 = '~ % .-... .Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Ps = ''~ Actual Capacity, c.4 c..,a = c;a X P~ X P~ c..,,~ = c.~tt X P~ X P~ ..-- STEP 4: LT From Minor Street '~ Vr LV,o _..; Conflicting Flows, Vc V~ (step 3) .'-- V:: .-- V:,. = "i Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) ']' \ (sec) -7, ~ (sec) ~ Potential Capacity., % (Fig. 10-3) c~r = z~__._~© pcph %,0 = 'q ~ pcph =~; XP'XPiXPsXP~ ActualCapadty, c~ c..,t=c~tXP~XP~XP~XP~: c %,0 4~ X0.$5 X 10-36 uRn^~ s'r~r=~rs WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SI-L~RED-LANE CAPACITY ,-. v~ + vi where 2 movements share a lane vT + vi + vk cs~ = where 3 movements share a lane (vi/c..,) + (vi/%) + M OR STR -ET m ROAC MOV Mm'rS Movement { v(pcph) [ c,,,(pcph) [ c~.(pcph) % = cs. -- v LOS .MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10, L1 12 Movement v(pcph) [2 c~(pcph) cs~(pcph) % -- c~ - v LOS MAJOR STREET LE~ TURNS 1, -- COMMENTS: l(.)-34, URBAN WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1 HO~LY VOL~ ~ G~de - % y~ V~ V~ V~o N V~ G~de .__% 9 6 Grade % -- 2~ V~ ~ior road . N=~' V~VaV, YIELDC -~ ~or ~ad ~e Period: Iqq (o - A :. ~- ~ ~0 1 ~. Average R~m$ Speed: ., [ 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 ~ ii 12 · I -- vu v" v~ v~ % · NA -- NA v~ NA v) WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS ?ay -- " STEP 1: RT From Minor Street V9 Viz -! 'i Conflicting Flows, Vc 1/2 V~ + V, = V¢~ 1/2 V~ ':~l Critical Gap, Tc tI'ab. 10-:l) 5.4 (sec) ~" zt' (sec) -- Potential Capacity., c~ (Fig. 10-3) c~ = ~-'/O pcph c~,. = -~ 0 pcph ;:. Percent of c~ Utilized (%/c~) X 100 ~ Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) p~ = ~,L) Pu ': ~q~ ~coh q~.O ;~c~h c.~,, -- %,~--- ~' . . Actual Capacity., c.,, c,,~ -- c~e = ::i STEP 2: LT From Major Street ( V~ · i Conflicting Flows, V¢ V~ + V: ~ Vc~ V~ '.-- V,. ~ V;~ ..~ Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) ~-,'2_ (sec) ~', 'Z- (sec) ::i.; Potential Capacity, ¢? (Fig. 10-3) c~ , . . ": Percent ofc~ Utilized (~%/cp~) X 100= O, '; 6,~W -; ~ 0 P,-- · ~ ~ Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) P~ = ' · i ,~:'~ Actual Caoacit-¢, c., c.~ = cv~ . * .'t ~ i _ STEP 3: TH From Minor Street I V~ V,.~ -! -i Conflicting Flows, V¢ 1/2V~+V:+V~V~+V~+V~=V~ 1/2V~+V~+V~VV~+V"+V~=Vm ,:: _ Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) ~o, (~ (sec) .. Potential Capacity, c~ (Fig. 10-3) c~t = , ' O .% .: Percent of cp Utilized (vs/c~) X I00 -- Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Ps = ~' ~ Pu -- I, C) ~" Actual Capacity, c~ c..,~ -- c~s X -- 0,%-] × STEP 4: LT From Minor Street 3Vt LV'° .: Conflicting Flows, V. V.a (step 3) ~ i Critical Gay, T. (Tab. 10-2) -/, I (sec) '7, I (sec) : Potential Capacity., c~ (Fig. 10-3) c~t = ~ pcph c~0 = qb pcph -" \,6 x l.O x ~.q5 (pc?h) ~)~'~ .x l,O_x ~,O (pcp. h) WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPACITY ~": v~ + vi C~H = where 2 movements share a lane (vJc,,,,) + (vi/c..,) .,;~ v~ + vi + v~ ~ %H = where 3 movements share a lane ~:; -.- (v~/c,~,) + (vi/c..,i) + :.: MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9 ...:,. Movement v(pcph) c~(pcph) cs~(pcph) ce = csH v LOS '"" MINOR STREET'APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11, 12 <:?~- Movement v(pcph) [ c=(pcph) c<.,(pcph) c.~ = cs. - v LOS L~t0 5 I 3~¥ %z E · .=~ i". ! ,MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1, 4 '--- ' Movement v (pcph) c,~ (pcph) c.~ ---- c~ - v LOS .,'.il -'--:---. -J' i 7-4 ' ~0 / tsko D · ' CO~S: WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page -- HOURLY VOLUMF. S Grade. YIELD~ V;2 V,, V~o N Grade ,% ~ ~ Grade .,% -- -'/C) V~ Y maior road N =['~ ' ' Vz V~ minor road Tune Period: · ~ti~k~\ ~:L~ %t{. Average Running Speed: z/Ch ~ -- PHF: Grade % _ VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS : VOLUMES ~ PCPH ~ NA v~ NA : v2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-35 WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 ~ STEP 1: RT From Minor Street V9 i -- Conflicting Flows, Vc 1/2 V3 + Vz = V,9 1/2 Vs + VT = Vctz '/~{ _ Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) ~. ~ (sec) ~' ~ (sec) Potential Capadty, % (Fig. 10-3) :. ~ Percent of % Utiliz~ (%/%~) X 100 = ~ % (v~:/%n) X 100 = ~ % .: Imp~ance Factor, P (Hg. 10-5) P~ -' Actual CavadW, c~ c~ = c~ = ~ p~h c~n = c~tz = ~ I ~ p~h :~ S~P Z LT From Major Street ~ V~ ) V~ -i Con~cting Hows, V~ V~ + Vz = Vc~ Vs + V~ = Vet ,?{ _ Critical Gap, T. (Tab. 10-2) ~'~ (Sec) C,~ (sec) ' i Potential Capadty, cp (Hg. 10-3) %4 = ~ ~ p~h % = ~G pcph -i Percent of c~ Utilized (v~/%~) X 100 = % (v~/%~) X 100 = , "{ -- Impedance Factor, P (rog. 10-5) P~ z '"> Actual Capacity, c~ i "';' :~ ' ' ' ' .2 STEP 3: ~ From Minor Street Vs .i ' -- Confficting HOWS, V~ 1/2V~+V:+Vt+Vt+Vs+VI=Vcs 1/2V~Vs~vi+V3+vz+Vt=Vcu ,~ 13 +l~S+ V O+ .Z ~ ~ + "- Cdtic~l Ga~, T~ (~ab. ~0-2) ~. ~ (~ec) ~' ~ (sec) ~-~ p~h %,,= ~ p~h ~ Potential Capaci~, % (Hg. 10-3) c,~ = . · :'= ~ Percent of % Utilized (vs/%~) X 100 = O % (v~/%~) X 100 = ~' % ' .Imp~ance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capadty, c~ c~ = cp~ X P~ X P~ c~ = cp~ X P~ X P~ ~? = ~ x ~ = 5~ x ~.~ x ~.fi~ <p~h) o.qq X '~ ac~, S~P 4: LT From ~or S~eet I . Confficting Hows, V¢ V~s (step 3) ~ V~, + V~: = V¢z V~u (step 3) + Vs + V~ = V,~0 Critical Gay. T= (Tab. 10-2) ~' ~ (s~) ~ ' I (sec) ' ~ pcph Potential Capad~, c; (~g. 10-3) c;t = ~D p~h C~to = -- Actual Capaci~, c~ cmt = cp~ X P~ X P~ X P~t X P,: c~t0 = Cp~o X P~ X P~ X Ps X P9 " aa . (~ ae~ i 'xn4 X~Xl 0 (pcph) ~,,, xlC x., (pcph) . ', WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page -- SHARED-LANE CAPACITY vi -F vi -- CSH = where 2 movements share a lane (Vi/Cra,) -}" (Vj/C.mj) v~+vi+ v~ -- Cs~ ----- where 3 movements share a lane (v~/c,,~) + (vi/c~,i) + (vJc.~) -- MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9 Movement { v(pcph) [ c.~(pcph) { CsH(pCph) c, ---- cs. -- v LOS ~ MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 Movement v(pcph) ' c.~(pcph) csM(pcph) c~ -- cs. - v LOS - :0 /-4 :! MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1, 4 : Movement v (pcph) [ c~ (pcph) I c.~ ---- c.~ -- v LOS -: -- COMMENTS: QUEUE ANALYSIS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOCATION: Main Driveway @ MacArthm', SB left, Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Ho APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 29 CAPACITY (FROM UNSIGNALIZED AN 111 PROBABILITY 0.95 -- QUEUE = 1.231899 vehicles -~ ~v~,~ :~ 24.63799 feet ~ -- LOCATION: Main Driveway @ MacArthur, SB left, Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Ho APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 4 CAPACITY (FROM UNSIGNALIZED AN 826 ~ PROBABILITY 0.95 QUEUE-- -0.43798 vehicles -- -8.75961 feet QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur ~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 347 NB L~ff CYCLE LENGTH . 90 GREEN TIME 43 CAPACITY-- 899.05 VPHPL QUEUE = 3.84 VEHICLES 76.75 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur ~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 1244 NB Thru/ 746.4 NB Thru/Right CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 '---"-'-"-'----' GREEN TIME 37 37 CAPACITY = 784.76 VPHPL 784.76 VPHPL QUEUE = (11.00) VEHICLE ~ (219.92) FEE'r 1,817.70 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 1112 NB Thru 667.2 NB Thru CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 :-~-----: GREEN TIME 37 37 CAPACITY = 784.76 VPHPL 784.76 VPHPL QUEUE = (14.21) VEHICLE 27.38 VEHICLES (284.26) FEET 547.52 FEET ~ QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSH/ELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Westbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base * Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 277 lefts 166.2 lefts -- CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 41 41 CAPACITY = 860.95 VPI-IPL 860.95 VPHPL QUEUE = 3.06 VEHICLE 1.80 VEHICLES -- 61.22 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Westbound MacArthur ~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 555 Throughs CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 35 CAPACITY= 746.67 VPI-IPL QUEUE = 14.52 VEHICLES ~ !~ ';¢'~ 290.48 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZE]) INTERSECTION) Eastbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 331 Throughs 198.6 Throughs -- CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 21 21 CAPACITY = 480.00 VPHPL 480.00 VPI-IPL -- QUEUE= 11.39 VEHICLE 4.22 VEHICLES 227.81 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Eastbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE __!.43 lefts CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 27 CAPACITY = 594.29 VPHPL QUEUE = 2.___23_. VEHICLES 44.66 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 264 SB Left 158.4 SB Loft CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 31 31 CAPACITY = 670.48 VPHPL 670.48 VPHPL QUEUE= 3.94 VEHICLE 2.19 VEHICLES 78.82 FEET 43.83 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur ~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 572 SB Thru/ 343.2 SB Thru/Right CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 25 25 CAPACITY ~ 556.19 VPHPL 556.19 VPHPL QUEUE -- (165.31) VEHICLE 8.54 VEHICLES -- (3,306.10) FEET 170.77 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 447 SB Thr~ 268.2 SB Thru CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 25 25 CAPACITY -- 556.19 VPHPL 556.19 VPHPL QUEUE = 20.07 VEHICLE 5.31 VEI-HCLES 401.43 FEET 106.28 FEET -- QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 121 NB Left -- CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 30 CAPACrrY = 651.43 VPHPL -- QUEUE-- 1.74 VEHICLES 34.71 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MaeArthur ~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE ' · 599- bib Thru/ 359.4 NB ~ght CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 25 25 CAPACITY = 556.19 VPHPL 556.19 VPHPL QUEUE -- (63.11) VEHICLE 9.55 VEHICLES (1,262.11) FEET 190.92 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur ~i~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 258 NB Thru 154.8 NB Thru CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 25 25 -- CAPACITY = 556.19 VPHPL 556.19 VPHPL QUEUE-- 5.00 VEHICLE 2.60 VEHICLES 99.90 FEET 52.01 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Westbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base * Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 115 lefts 69 lefts CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 31 31 CAPACITY = 670.48 VPHPL 670.48 VPHPL QUEUE = 1.61 VEHICLE 1.03 VEHICLES -- 32.24 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Westbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 226 Throughs CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 31 CAPACITY = 670.48 VPI-IPL QUEUE--- 3.23 VEHICLES 64.70 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Eastbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 1005 Throughs 603 Throughs CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 27 27 CAPACITY = 594.29 VPHPL 594.29 VPHPL _ QUEUE -- (9.77) VEHICLE (317.35) VEHICLES _ .. (195.31) FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Eastbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 29 leRs CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 27 CAPACITY = 594.29 VPI-IPL QUEUE = 0.52 VEHICLES 10.50 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 1149 SB Left 689.4 SB Left ~ CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 " .... ~. GREEN TIME 56 56 ' CAPACITY= 1146.67 VPHPL 1146.67 VPHPL QUEUE-- (2,266.41) VEHICLE 8.05 VEHICLES (45,328.28) FEET 161.0'2 FEET -- QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MaeArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 945 SB Thru/ 567 SB Thru/Right -- CYCLE LENGTH 90 ~, 90 ~/~ GREEN TIME 51 ' 51 CAPACITY = 1051.43 VPHPL 1051.43 VPHPL QUEUE-- 42.15 VEHICLE 6.46 VEHICLES 843.04 FEET 129.14 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur ii} Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements GREEN TIME 51 51 CAPACITY= 1051.43 VPHPL 1051.43 VPHPL QUEUE = 27.20 VEHICLE 5.83 VEHICLES 543.95 FEET 116.62 FEET ] I } } } ) } } } } } } } } } } } } } PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENTS IN COPPELL AM Peak Hour Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road Movements ::====:=:::::=::::::====::=:=:=:::=:===:=::::=:::=:::=::=: ====================?=======?=========================?==========?=======================?=================?===?======================?====?=?=== Number of Northbound Volumes" Southbound Volumes Eastbound Volumes W~stbound Volumes Approach Volumes Development Use Units L~ft Thru Right I.~ft Thru Right L~ft Thru Right L~ft Thru Right Total Percentage -'...:~:. leffe~on '~-~r~has~?.:!i~:::/~:: ::M~!ff~Fa~ly:::: ~:i!~i~:i':-i.:::~ii?.::!?:'386:::i ::::::::::::::::::::::::: O-:. :::::::::::::::::::::::::============================ 0'? i:i::?.~.'-.'66'::. :.?~i!ii."50'. Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 0 9 0 49 35 2 I 0 0 0 0 I2 I I I 2.5 Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 7 0 40 30 2 .0 0 0 0 0 10 89 2.0% Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 0 7 0 28 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 I0 66 1.5% Future Development Single-Family ~39 0 3 0 12 8 0 0. 0 0 0 0 4 27 0.6% Retail Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Subtotal 0 39 0 195 147 7 .1 0 0 0 0 53 442 9.8% Projected 1996 Background Traffic 121 219 341 954 746 45 28 1005 226 115 226 41 4067 90.2 Total Projected 1996 Traffic 121 258 341 1149 893 52 "29 1005 226 115 226 94 4509 100.0% PM Peak Hour Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road Movements :~-::::"¥.-?'...~?~..:::.:~.~i~.~?~iii~.~i~ii~i~)~.~:~.:?.~i~?i.:~i~:~...~.~.~i.!~iii~:.?~!ii~:.~iii!::.ii~:~!i.i~;~.~i~i.ii. Number of Northbound Volumes Southbound Volumes Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes Approach Volumes Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 0 49 0 16 25 2 3 0 0 0 0 30 125 2.7% Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 38 0 14 19 I 3 0 0 0 0 27 I02 2.2% Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 0 30 0 12 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 80 1.7% Future Development Single-Family 39 0 11 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 30 0.7% Retail Center 0 73 0 71 71 $$ 91 0 0 0 0 73 467 10.1% Subtotal 0 266 0 142 171 93 I01 0 0 0 0 205 978 21.2% Projected 1996 Background Traffic 347 846 132 122 276 32 49 331 143 277 555 521 3631 78.8% Total Projected 1996 Traffic 347 1112 132 264 447 125 150 331 143 277 555 726 4609 100.0% f:\lotus\94065 I I I I I I I I I I ! ! I I I I } I } PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENTS IN COPPELL AM Peak Hour Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard/Riverchase Drive Movements .i:-~:.~ '-~:?~..~::i':i-i..:i .:....i~;.?ii!::~.i~:?~i:?~:.:::ii:::.~:~:??!::::::::~::ii::i?.~:::i:..~..:?:~::.:?:i?~ii::i:?.:!iiii~::.:::i~.ii::i~ Number of Northbound Volumes Southbound Volumes Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes Approach Volumes Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 22 0 0 0 0 3 12 2 89 0 1 0 129 5.0% Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 17 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 3.5 % Northlako Woodlands East Single-Family 97 0 17 0 0 49 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 2.6% Future Development Single-Family 39 0 7 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1. 1% Retail Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Subtotal 22 71 0 0 260 3 12 2 89 0 1 0 460 17.9 % Projected 1996 Background Traffic 0 240 48 1 1757 0 0 0 0 57 0 I 2104 82.1% Total Projected 1996 Traffic 22 311 48 I 2017 3 12 2 89 57 1 1 2564 100.0% PM Peak Hour Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard/Riverchase Drive Movements :::~.-:'?::::: -i:?. ':.: '-?i L'i ?' ~::?.::~:-:~i:::'i~:.i~i.i!:.?:!-.~i:-~iii-i'::ili: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::?::?:::::::?:::::::: Number of Northbound Volumes Southbound Volumes Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes Approach Volumes Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 82 0 0 0 0 22 11 2 43 0 4 0 164 5.9% Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 68 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 3.7 % Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 0 51 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 2.9 % Future Development Single-Family 39 0 19 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 I. 1% Retail Center 0 83 0 43 85 0 0 0 0 58 0 41 310 11.1% Subtotal 82 336 0 43 21 I! 22 11 2 43 58 4 41 1160 30.8 % Projected 1996 Background Traffic 0 1404 73 5 363 0 0 0 0 78 0 9 1932 69.2% Total Projected 1996 Traffic 82 1740 73 48 581 22 11 2 43 136 4 50 2792 100.0% f:~lotus\94065 I I I ! ! I I I ! I I I I I I I ! I PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENTS IN COPPELL AM Peak Hour Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard/Bethel School Road Movements i'.::i!::ii':.:.:i:i?.~ii:.i'. :-:::.-'i:i:~:.:i:.::i'i:~:i.:':i':'?:.?::::~?:i.i ?~:::~::~:~ii~::~:::~::::i:::::~::~:!~:~:~i~?:::~::::~ii?~?~i:~ Number of Northbound Volumes Southbound Volumes Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes Approach Volumes Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage -'! '-:Jeffei;so~':.@.Ri,~r~li~::i:~::?:i::-.': Mi~lfi~F~i~I :~.:.i~?~:i.i-:.::-ii..:.-3g6:.i~:i-ii::!:.-.-ii~:::i:ii:.01:.i :::?.i !'5:': i.i: i:: i:i:.i-.~i:o::::' !?i::::-. '0- .:.:.- ':-i:.'-~:.:. !?i :.:i?.ii:::..0i:i.'::~.::i':.::~'::~i::::::-°:!::' i?:: ::ii::!i:.!i::'o"?':':-'::!~?.i~:-:°:-:~.' :~i::::::?~!::::i:~:?:'::q?!:i?~:-:i'iii:-:i:::~:(~i'il '?::::.::::~?~?i~:-:':":?-?-~9' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :-'-0.9 % Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 0 12 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0.7 % Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 11 6 1 35 0 0 0 0 37 0 3 93 4.2 % Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 17 0 0 0 24 0 2 0 25 0 0 0 68 3.1% Future Development Single-Family 39 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 20 0 0 0 29 1.3 % Retail Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Subtotal 24 38 6 1 66 1 3 0 45 37 0 3 224 10.1% Projected 1996 Background Traffic 0 241 0 0 1758 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 89.9% Total Projected 1996 Traffic 24 279 6 1 1824 1 3 0 45 37 0 3 2223 100.0% PM Peak Hour Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard/Bethel School Road Movements '.' "~:.:'?:...:.:: '?'..i~ :::.?."..:?::.'ii~"~:i-::.::!ii::::~::::i::-'-:.- :iii'~.:ii::i..::??:ii:::i(i:.:.~:::::i.:.:.::~:::::.i-i::iii!i.i!:!':ii.':-'i Number of Northbound Volumes Southbound Volumes Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes Approach Volumes Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 0 11 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 1.4% Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 42 26 5 17 0 0 0 0 17 0 3 110 4.7 % Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 51 0 0 [ 0 14 0 2 0 15 0 0 0 82 3.5 % Future Development Single-Family 39 19 0 0I 0 0 3 2 0 11 0 0 0 35 1.5 % Retail Center 0 124 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 10.8% Subtotal 70 192 26 5 210 3 4 0 26 17 0 3 556 23.8% Projected 1996 Background Traffic 0 1413 0 0 368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1781 76.2% Total Projected 1996 Traffic 70 1605 26 [ 5 578 3 4 0 26 17 0 3 2337 100.0% f:\lotus\94065