The URL can be used to link to this page

Jefferson-SY 940303TRAFFIC ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STUDY FOR ULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT COPPELL, TEXAS Prepared For: CED Construction, Inc. Prepared By: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. .~ . ~-~ '~ ~'~ 330 Union Station "~'~' Dallas, Texas 75202 -L-.~--~" e.-'~--- · (214) 748-6740 March 3, 1994 DT&A Job #94028 DT& A "'" D ~o, Tang TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. David Brown CED Construction, Inc. FROM: DcShazo, Tang & A~sociates, Inc. DATE: March 3, 1994 SUBJECT: Traffic Access and Circulation Study for Regency Court in CoppeR, Texas; $94028 PURPOSE The purpose of thi_q memorandum is to analyze traffic access and circulation for Regency Court, a proposed multi-family development in Coppell, Texas. The access issues of this analysis are limited to projecting the development generated traffic arriving at the intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. Traffic generated by an approved retail center in the northeast quadrant of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road and a proposed single-family detached housing development west of Regency Court will be added to the background traffic. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site consists of land located east along MacArthur Boulevard north of Rivcrchase Drive. Vacant land borders to the north and the Riverchase Golf Club lies to the east. Exhibit ! illustrates the location of the site in relation to the surrounding thoroughfares. The development is planned to consist of 208 multi-family units. The development will provide for three connections to Mac. Arthur Boulevard, two of which are across from existing median openings. The proposed site layout is shown in Exhibit 2. EXISTING CONDmONS 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 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 Coppell Thoroughfare Plan calls for MacArthur 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 is a six-lane divided roadway providing access to IH-35. West of Mac. Arthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road is a two-lane undivided road. 330 Union Station Dall~. Texas 75202.=4802 214/748-6740 Metro 214/263-5428 Fax 214/748-7037 FUTURE CONDmONS~ Projected Traffic Volumes In order to analyze the impact of the proposed development on~he adjacent roadway system, future traffic volumes must be estimated. For this analysis, a design year of 1996 was selected. This build out year was also selected for the proposed Northlake Woodlands East No. 10 Phase B development. The proposed Northlake Woodlands East No. 10 Phase B development is located west of Re~:encv Court, adjacent to MacArthur oulevard.- _ l i ,, O' .... / ',, ~'l. s~' __~r~ Traffic projections for thc study area were/obtained by applying a growth factor to existing traffic and ,a~d-dlng thc anticipated traffic for a rctail center planned for thc northeast quadrant of l~lacArthur Boulevard ~d Belt Line Road and the Northlake Woodlands.~:~ development. Comparing 24-hour data collected in 1986_to data collected in April 1993, a growth rate o~per year was calculated. Compounded annually, a growth factor of 1.1_34 was found for the year 1996. Th~ growth factor was applied to existing turning movements collected by DT&A in January 1994, at MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. Exhibits 3 and 4 depict the projected 1996 morning and evening peak hour background turning movement volumes without the proposed development. The b. ackground traffic is the projected 1996 volume plus the planned retail center and Phase B of Northlake Woodlands East No 10. Trip Generation The fifth 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 ITE for different land uses. The appropriate trip generation rates for multi-family units were projected and are shown in Exhibit 5. The exhibit also shows the trip generation utilized for the Northlake Woodlands East study. Exhibit 5 Trip Generation Values Number Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development of Trips Trips Trips Units Total I out I I Regency Court 208 ~ 20 81 84 43 Multi-Family * Northlake Woodlands East No 10-B 97 1,004 20 58 67 43 Single-Family Detached * Retail Center 8.55 ac · - 02 365 · 354 Note: Trip generation for multi-family low dse uses ITE Code 221 \ ./,l.eopai~. Trip generation for single-family detached uses ITE Code 210 ltJ~l' ~.~[~;msnff.~,~'_~, 't*~ data is from previous repons - t~.,j~,~-multi-fumily developments similar to thc dcvclopmcnt being proposed in thc study. Thc purpose was to cvaluatc ~ri~~.and comparc local trip generation volumes to ITE trip generation values. It was found that an average of thc two sites confirmed thc AM peak hour volumes, while ITE trip generation values overestimated thc site traffic volumes by approximately 20% during thc PM peak hour Based upon this local data, a 20% reduction in PM trip ends was accepted. However, to examine the worst case scenario, reduction in the PM peak hnnr trips was not applied to Regency Court. The summary of this study can be found in the Appendix. The site is projected to generate 1 4..la_4~_~.151 trip ends durinf~ twenty-four hour period. During the ~ peak hour, approximately 20 inbound tm~s will be generated wi~utbound trips for a total of 1_~01 trips. During the P, LM peak hour, approximately~inbound trips with 43 ~utbound trips will be generated. The total projected trip ends during the PM peak hour is 1,~2~ trips. Traffic Orientation and Assignment Trip orientations of site-generated traffic are based on distribution percentages used in a previous study in the same area. The orientations were based on the adjacent roadway network traffic during the morning and evening peak hours. Using this method, two sets of orientations were developed, one for the morning 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 resulting orientations are shown in Exhibit 6. Exhibit 6 Traffic Orientation Direction (to/from) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour North 12% 20% South 37%t~ 45% East 49% ~ 32% West 2% 3% Trip assignment consisted of modeling the site with trip ends ~~ most direct ~$roach possible to the desired destination. Exhibits 7 and 8 illustrate the site generated traffic assignments and distribution to the surrounding thoroughfare network. Exhibits 9 and 10 show the corresponding number of vehicles generated by the development at each location. TRAFFIC ARRIVING AT MacARTHUR BOULEVARD / BELT LINE ROAD Exhibits 1! and 12 show the AM and PM 1996 projected peak hour background traffic with the projected site generated traffic volumes shown in parentheses. Again, I?ack~ound traffic is the projected base traffic pins the retail center develop, merit olus ]~h~ase B of Northlake Woodlands East No 10._ The total traffic generated by ' l<egency Court t[i~s projectec[~o arrive at the Mac. Arthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road intersection during the AM peak hour ~ehicles. This represents 2:1% of the total projected AM peak hour traffic entering the intersection in 1996. For the PM peak hour, l~hicle trip ends to and from Regency Court, or ~ of the total calculated traffic for 1996, are projected to enter the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. Exhibit 13, shown on the next page, compares the total anticipated number of vehicles expected to arrive at MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road from the approved retail center, the proposed Phase B of Northlake Woodlands East No. 10 development and Regency Cour[. Exhibit 13 Traffic Volume Entering the Intersection of . MacAr~ur Boulevard & Belt Line Road During Each Peak Houy / Traffic Generator Total AM % of Total Tg~al PM % of Total Volume Traffic //Volume Traffic / Base 4067 .~~ 3631 84.84% Retail Center 0 (,~ 0% .,,) 467 (-~0.91% Northlake Woodlands East No 10 Phase B 66 1.56% 80 1.87% The Regency Court development generates appro:dmately 2.2%-2.4% of the projected traffic expected to arrive at the intersection of Belt Line Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Overall, Regency Court contributes only 1.06% more vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours combined than does the Northlake Woodlan~'-'ff~.qt .development. CONCLUSION In two previous studies submitted to the City of Coppell, modifications to the existing traffic operations of Belt Line Road and MacArthur Boulevard were recommended to improve current delays. These modifications~could_. improved the delay time by 90%. These recommendations provided for ~lual left-turns for southbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road. This can be accomplished by modifying the striping and sisming ~or the southbound approach, which would allow the current inside through lane an option to also mm left onto eastbound Belt Line Road. With the recommended improvement~, the traffic impact of the Regency Court development is not projected to adversely affect the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. SANDY LAKE R'~''_ ~ MAPLELEAF / TUPELO i i illtl lillll iiii IglEILTilllllilllll LiNE FID EXHIBIT 1 SITE LOCATION FALCON LN · SITE sc oo . I I !11111 t'll i I I I I . BELT LINE EXHIBIT 3 Z.~ --~ ~"~ 1996 AM PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND VOLUMES BASE + RETAIL CENTER + PHASE B FALCON LN o ; ;" ;";:Z;l I I I I I EXHIBIT 4 1996 PM P~K HOUR BACKGROUND VOLUMES BASE + RETAIL CENTER + PHASE B (4%) (8% FALCON L" ~r ~ J~ SITE xx%- outbound (xx%,) - Inbound '~ (49%) ~l lf~l BELT LINE RD EXHIBIT 7 AM PEAK HOUR SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS & DISTRIBUTION (6%)(14~ FALCON L. ~ ~ ~<t./ !2.~ ~ SITE 7% (28%) xx% -- outbound (xx%)- Inbound % (32%) ~1~ ~j? . 3~%4i% 32~%; ";' ' ;:;:;:::;I , , , ,,,, , , , , ,- ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' II I I I I I I !11 I i I BELT LINE RD EXHIBIT 8 (3%) ""~ f PM PEAK HOUR SITE GENERATED. (45%) TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS & DISTRIBUTION FALCON LN o~?"/ o SITE ELT LINE RD EXHIBIT 9 '7 1996 AM PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES FALCON LN ~ SITE EXHIBIT 10 1996 PM PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES FALCON LN SITE ~ sc.oo~ _ BELT LINE RD BACKGROUND ~lC WI~ ~ PROJEC~D SI~ GENERATED VOLUMES SHOWN IN () FALCON LN ~ sc.oo~ ~ ':''":::::-::::~,,,, ,,, , BELT LINE RD PROJECTED 1996 PM PEAK HOUR ..~5l ~ BACKGROUND TRAFFIC WITH I~ ~---'--~ PROJECTED SITE GENERATED VOLUMES SHOWN IN () ~ Appendix Intersection Traffic Movements DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc Location: MacArtbt~' Bird Ag Belt Line Rd Date: January 6 - 7, 1994 City/State; Coppell, Texas Day of W~ck: Thurs~y ~m) ~ Fri~y (am) County Dallas Choker(s): Bisbop~V~lwrton/~rl'ias Proj~t-lD~: 94~ - A Conditions: Fair 06:30 06:45 9 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:~ 07:!5 !1 21 37 125 105 13 3 139 57 15 29 7 562 07:i5 07:30 14 29 51 188 129 13 2 172 44 27 45 I0 ~24 2.030 07:30 07:45 34 47 78 257 170 9 8 233 ~ 26 69 7 982 07:45 08:~ 39 48 94 238 181 12 6 262 60 24 43 ~ 1.015 3,283 08:~ 08:15 20 69 78 158 178 6 9 219 51 24 42 I1 ~65 3.586 08:15 08:30 24 48 56 147 112 I I 4 I~ 43 34 33 9 665 3.527 16:~ 16:15 41 66 24 22 q~ 2 4 50 29 40 72 28 410 16:15 16:~0 48 77 20 18 42 2 7 5~ 21 27 ' 55 ~2 16:~0 16:45 ~9 05 2~ 18 42 5 4 6~ 21 4~ ~7 52 506 16:45 17:~ 61 115 22 24 ~ !0 7 78 ~ ~5 102 67 618 i,945 17:~ 17:i5 65 1~7 19 26 54 12 8 58 29 42 107 68 6~ 17:15 17:30 87 218 33 28 71 8 9 83 31 68 138 141 915 2,6~ 17:30 17:45 81 181 32 27 59 3 12 77 29 68 124 127 820 2,978 17:45 18:~ 73 210 32 27 59 5 14 74 37 66 120 123 ~0 Ob~a/ions: 1996 PROJECTED TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION Regency Court Multi-Family Development - Coppell, Texas; J94028 Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road A.M. Peak Hour (ITE Code 221) Inbound = 20 I Outbound = 81 I .... : ........ '--'- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Entering Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Inbound %0 0% 37% 0%0 0%0 0%0 0%0 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 49% Inbound 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Outbound % 0%o 0% 0%o 49%0 37% 2% 0%o 0%0 0%0 0% 0%o 0% Outbound 0 0 0 40 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-' :.: Si~e'-Tbtal'..' ... :.":-.'" o- -~-~' ~ 7..-?.:-... '. 0:.-' ": '.40-: .': .-:30;;i .... :?::.:::-"2-' o' ': '.-' o' ....."..:-~:':'. 0::- '. Background 121 219 341 954 746 45 28 1005 226 115 226 41 4067 Retail Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northlake Woodlands East 0 7 0 28 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 66 . ..'::..: Total:.-w~o Site::::'"'i..... . 121:~ . 226' ' '.'341-:.-:.: :~.982'...i..'767. ' .. --45: -:...... 28. 1'005 - ' 226 .:.'::.i..:i15..;:':.':'::;226:.' :.:.:.-::5!. 'i.....:'.~!'33 'i.. Total'With'Site" ~::"...': .... "'-!2!::-' -: - 233'. '::-:.. 34!.' ' 1022" ':':.'797"-;". :"47. 28 .'. 1005 ...... 226:."'....': 1 i5- ".i.:-::::.226 6;I-:-i;'-" .-'4222 P.M. Peak Hour Inbound -- 84 Outbound = 43 "' "" : '-"' Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Entering Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Inbound % 0%0 45% 0% 0%0 0%0 0% 3% 0%0 0% 0% 0% 32% Inbound 0 38 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 27 Outbound %0 0% 0%o 0%0 32% 45% 3% 0%0 0%0 0%0 0%o 0%0 0%0 Outbound 0 0 0 14 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-..: S'it:~:~Totai' ...':i.':-. '- 'i 0-.: '-".'::':'38:.-::':'""i-..':::.0'i' ;'.':-"~!4~"'.:: '.'!9:.-':.'-.:"-~.-:1:-'"' '-3' .:...0..:'...:..:' ~:'-:..?i:"i.:.i:i:..0 Background 347 846 132 122 276 32 49 331 143 277 555 521 3631 Retail Center 0 73 0 71 71 88 91 0 0 0 0 73 467 Northlake Woodlands East 0 30 0 12 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 80 . i:-: '::.' ""Tota!'wl° Site-'. .::' :.::':-". 347 ..... '949 -.132:-::-..-"205 .... 364; '-:": 'i20'.: - 140' .'..-:;331: -/143-:.:;~-i:277 .':..'"'5'55:-.-".6~i:'5.- '"" ' Total'With Site.-"-'-'.':'- 347' "- .987 ...... 132:: ".219." ...383::.~ ':-121 143: :' .'331 - 143:.". :'-'277-. :.:-~":;555. '642: '.:-:'-::".:-4280- f:\lotus\94028a DT&A MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Jerry Wilson Barry, Bette & Lcd Duke, Inc. FROM: DeShazo, Tang & Associatcs, Inc. DATE: November 3, 1993 RE: Trip Generation Data Comparison for Proposed Multi-Family Development - Sterling Heights; J93149 Thc City of Irving staff rcqucstcd DT&A to evaluated local trip gencrations for multi-family units and comparc them against ITE trip generations. The city and the client agreed to the selection of two mature developments similar to the one proposed. The two sites chosen for the evaluation were the Jefferson Creek Apartments off of MacArthur Boulevard and Royal Lane, and the Villas of Valley Ranch off of MacArthur 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 P.M. hours at each 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 hiEhllghted. Table 2 shows the comparison between the projected ITE volumes and the actual volumes. On an average ratio comparison, it is evident that ITE trip generation volumes overestimate the site traffic volumes by approximately 20% during the P.M.peak hour. The A.M. peak hour volumes closely approximated each other. 330 Union Slation Dallas, T,"~ 75202-~02 214f748-6740 Metro 214f263-5428 Fax 214f748="A137 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 Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound In Out 7:00 0 0 1 6 0 8 1 14 8:15 2 3 1 9 1 3 4 15 17:00 2 0 8 5 7 2 17 7 17:15 6 2 13 5 2 0 21 7 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 17:00 6 4 5 2 11 6 18:15 7 2 3 3 10 5 f:\lotus\93149b Table 2 Comparison of Projected Trip Ends Using , ITE Trip Generation (ITE 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/Prjet 0.31 1.08 0.92 0.92 0.59 0.81 Note: ITE Code 221 (Low-Rise Apartmen0 uses the number of occupied dwelling 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 10-36 Um)A.~ S~£TS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPAGITY V: -[- Vj where 2 movements share a lane cs. = (V:/Cmi) + (Vi/Cmi) v~ + vj + vk where 3 moveraents share a lane CSH = (V,/Cmi) '~- (Vj/Cmj) '~- (Vk/Cmk) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) CsH(pCph) Ce --'~ CSH -- V LO~ MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) csH(pcph) Ce = CSH -- V LOS MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1, 4 Movement v (pcph) cm (p~h) cR ---- cm -- v LOS , 55 /'-/.-o 8¢ - __ I 10-36 URnAN STREETS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARF_,D-LANE CAPACITY Vi + vi ~t ~ ..... · CSH = (Vi/Cml) -t' (Vj/Cmj) where 2 movements share a lane c :. z: :,'" - ~ .... /c; %+Vi+Vk C$~ ---- where 3 movements share a lane (Vi/Cai) -i- (Vi/emi) + (Vk/Cmk) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) CsH(pCph) CR = cs~ -- v LOS ~, ! 8,60 ., 6 ¢ E Movement v(pcph) c,.(pcph) CsH(pcph) c~=Cs~ -- v LOS MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS ~, ¢ Movement v (p~h) Cm (pcph) c. = c= - v LOS ~ i 7.70 7&q A glo' Prepared By. De. Shazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. 330 Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 748-6740 January 13, 1994 DT&A Job g94004 . .. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. David W. Brown C.E.D. Construction FROM: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. DATE: January 13, 1994 SUBJECT: Traffic Access Study Addendum for Riverchase Club Apartments, Coppell, Texas; J94004 PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze traffic access for Riverchase Club Apartments, a proposed multi- family development, in Coppell, Texas, as well as address additional concerns expressed by city staff. After an original submittal of the Traffic Access Study on December 21, 1993, DT&A and C.E.D. Construction met with city staff to discuss additional concerns not addressed in the initial study. The access issues of this analysis are limited to examining the impact of the proposed development on the intersections of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road, and Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. The analysis will also study the need for a southbound deceleration lane and the appropriateness of a second site access point on Mac. Arthur Boulevard. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site consists of land located north of Belt Line Road on MacArthur Boulevard in Coppell, Texas. The site is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the north and east. Vacant land borders to the west while the St. Louis & Southwestern Railroad borders to the south. Exhibit 1 illustrates the site in relation to the surrounding thoroughfares. The development is planned to consist of 280 multi-family dwelling units. The site provides for one driveway at the intersection of MacAxthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. The proposed 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 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, Mac. Arthur Boulevard carries approximately 14,000 vehicles per day north of Belt Line Road. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, and the 85th percent~e speed is 43 mph north of Belt Line Road. The Coppell 330 Union station ~ Teaas 75202-4802 214/748-6740 Metro 214/263-5428 Fax 214/748-7037 thoroughfare plan calls for MacArthur Boulevard to be expanded to a six-lane divided roadway north of Belt Line Road, but the improvements have not been funded or scheduled. ® Riverchase Drive - is a four-lane undivided roadway that connects MacArthur Boulevard to Sandy Lake Road. · 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 providing access to IH35. West of MacArthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road is a two-lane undivided road. Exhibit 3 illustrates the existing lane assi~o~ments at the following intersections: ® MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive ® MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road Traffic Volumes Twenty-four hour traffic counts were performed 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 count "normal" traffic volumes. Fridays and Mondays are erratic at times due to vacations and other factors. Because of time constraints, the Thursday- Friday count was used in the analysis. Exhibit 4 illustrates both of the counts taken. As shown, both days were very similar with respect to traffic volumes. Therefore, the analysis performed on the Thursday-Friday data should be accurate for a 'normal" day. As shown in Exhibit 4, MacArthur 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 MacArthur 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. Exhibit 4~~ Existing Daily Traffic V~l~es Ve~cles per Day Count Percent Thursda¥-l:rid~iy ~-. Tuesday Difference Location ~a~ .~7~. ~- ~x (Janx~ 6-7, 199~)~ ($anuary 11, 1994) MacArthur 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 MacArthur 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% 2 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. Exhibits 5 and 6 illustrate the existing morning and evening peak hour traffic movements. FUTURE CONDITIONS Area Development To determine the appropriate design year in which to examine the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent street system, the year in which the construction of the site will be completed must be estimated. For this proposed development, a completion date of 1996 is anticipated. Other developments that are expected to affect the traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development in 1996 include a retail center planned for the southeast quadrant of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Although additional apartments are planned on Riverchase Drive east of MacArthur Boulevard, they are not expected to be completed until after 1996. Additional single-family homes are also planned in the vicinity of Riverchase Drive. The trips generated by these homes were assumed to be taken into account in the growth rate applied to existing traffic volumes. Traffic Volumes In order to accurately assess the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway system, future traffic volumes must be estimated. Because the proposed development is projected to be completed by early 1996, a design year of 1996 was used to analyze the effect of the development on the adjacent streets. Traffic projections for the study area were obtained by applying a growth factor to existing traffic and adding the planned retail center traffic to the projected volumes. The retail center is not anticipated to affect the traffc volumes during the morning peak hour; however, in the evening peak hour, the retail center is estimated to produce 365 trips into the development and 354 trills out of the development. No passby trips were assumed for this retail center in order to examine the worst case scenario. The growth rate was determined using historic traffic count data near the proposed site. In 1986, DT&A performed 24-hour traffic volume counts at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. Comparing these volumes to the April 1993 daily traffic counts conducted for the retail center planned in the southeast quadrant of MacArthur Boulevard/Riverchase Drive, a growth rate of 6.5% per year was calculated. This growth rate was applied to the existing turning movements collected by DT&A on January 6 and 7, 1994, at the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road, and Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Exhibits 7 and 8 depict the projected 1996 morning and evening peak hour turning movements without the proposed development. These turning movements include the trips generated by the retail center located on the southeast quadrant of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Trip Generation The fifth edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers 0TE) Trip Generation Manual was used to determine the number of trips generated by the proposed development. The manual provides rates developed by ITE for various land uses. The trip generation rates for low-rise multi-family dwelling units were used to calculate the trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed development. The results are shown in Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9 Trip Generation Proposed Multi-Family Development Number Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use of Trips Trips Trips Units Total In]Out In ] Out ulti- am y 280 Note: Trip generation for multi-family low-risc apartments is ba~cd on ITE Land Use Code 221 ') ~..,~-"~__~ The site is projected to generate 1,852 trip ends during a twenty-four hour period. During the A.M. peak hour, approximately 26 inbound trips will be generated while 108 inbound trips will be generated during thc P.M. peak hour. Outbound site trips for thc A.M. and P.M. peak hours were calculated to be 103 and 56, respectively. Thc total projected trip ends during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour are 129 and 164, respectively. In December 1993, DT&A conducted a study of two existing apartments to provide a comparison of actual trips for apartments in the Dallas area to the projected ITE rates shown in the Trip Generation Manual. Exhibit 10 summarizes the results. As shown, the actual trips generated in the morning peak hour were almost identical to the ITE rates for Iow-rise multi-family (1TE Code 221). In the evening peak hour, the actual trips were approximately 80% of the calculated rates. Therefore, the low-rise multi-family rates provide an accurate estimate for the morning peak hour; however, they overestimate the evening peak hour by about 20%. For the purposes of this study, the low-rise multi-family ITE rates were used to calculate the trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed development. Exhibit 10 Comparison of ITE Low-Rise Multi-Family Trip Generation Rates to Actual Trips Generated Location # of Occu- Volumes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Jefferson 300 97% Projected 27 106 133 112 58 170 Creek Actual 15 127 142 86 42 128 Apartments Act/Proj 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 Act/Proj 0.31 1.08 0.92 0.92 0.59 0.81 I^v r = I ] { Act/Proj [ ] [ 1.oo [ [ lo.78 [ Traffic Orientation and Assignment At the request of city staff, trip orientations of site-generated traffic were based on the adjacent roadway network traffic during the morning and evening peak hours. Using this method, two sets of orientations were developed, one for the morning peak hour and one for the evening peak hour. These orientations represent the direction that the trips from the proposed development wish to travel during the particular peak hour. According to the adjacent roadway network morning peak hour traffic volumes, the following orientations were developed: AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour To/From the North 12% 20% To/From the South 37% 45~ To/From the East 49% 32% To/From the West 2% 3% Trip assignment consisted of modeling the site trips to take the most direct approach possible to the intended desire line. Exhibits 11 and 12 illustrate the trip orientations used in distributing site generated traffic to the surrounding thoroughfare network during the morning and evening peak hour, respectively. The morning and evening peak hour trips generated by the proposed development are depicted in Exhibits 13 and 14. Exhibits 15 and 16 show the A.M. and P.M. 1996 projected peak hour background traffic with the projected site generated traffic volumes. Background traffic includes the retail development located on the southeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. ANALYSIS]OBSERVATIONS Intersection Analysis Unsignalized capacity analyses have been conducted utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual methodology for the intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Using this methodology, the worst turning movement level of service represents the intersection level of service, where level of service reflects the expected operation of the intersection. Level of service ranges from "A" to "F", where a level of service A is very good and a level of service F reflects a situation that is considered undesirable. Exhibit 17 depicts the results. For existing conditions, the westbound left turns from Riverchase Drive to MacArthur Boulevard experience a level of service E during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. In the 1996 design year, this intersection is expected to operate at a level of service E in the morning peak hour and level of service F in the evening peak hour due to the westbound left turns. The level of service will remain "E" in the morning peak hour and "F' in the evening peak hour with the addition of the proposed development trips. The proposed multi-family development is. expected to increase thc number of trips traveling through the intersection by only 6% during the A.M. veak hour .and 7% during the P.M. peak hour. Exhibit 17 Unsignalized Intersection Analysis MacArthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive Turning AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Year Movement Reserve Level of Reserve Level of Capacity Service Capacity Service Existing Westbound Left 74 E 4 E Southbound Left 774 A 196 D Intersection -- E -- E Year 1996 Base Westbound Left 62 E -108 F Southbound' Left 769 A 92 E Intersection -- E -- F Year 1996 Base Westbound Left 7 E -114 F + Development Southbound Left 759 A 82 E Eastbound Left 21 E 33 E Northbound Left 88 E 517 A Westbound Thru 41 E 28 E Eastbound Thru 40 E 30 E Intersection -- E -- F The -nsignali?ed location of MacArthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive is expected to analytically operate at level of service F in the P.M. peak hour by the year 1996. The westbound left-turn maneuver from Riverchase Drive controls the intersection level of service. However, the unsignalized analysis used to determine the level of service for nns~gnalized intersections assumes a random arrival rate. Because of the proximity of Belt Line Road to the unsignali?ed intersection of Riverchase Drive, the vehicles on Mac. Arthur 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 intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive is expected to operate at a level of service E in the morning peak hour and level of service F in the evening peak hour in the year 1996, the intersection will probably not meet traffic signal warrants by 1996 because of the relatively Iow traffic volumes on Riverchase Drive. Future signali?ation of this intersection may be warranted, but should be examined closely. A signal at this intersection could promote additional traffic on Riverchase Drive from Sandy Lake Road to MacArthur Boulevard. ~e~ibility of additional access from Rivercha.~e Drive to Belt Lin_e Road east of ~'-'~ MacArthur Boulevard may also be provided in the future. This connection would decrease the number of trips from Riverchase Drive to MacArthur Boulevard, improving the projected level of service of this intersection. The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road was also examined to determine the impact of the proposed development on the operations of the intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used to analyze the intersection. For signalized intersection, the total intersection delay is used to determine the intersection level of service. Exhibit 18 summarizes the results of the analysis. As shown in Exhibit 18, the intersection currently operates at a level of service D in the morning peak hour. In examining the turning movement volumes at this intersection, the southbound left turns were very high, with over 800 vehicles turning left from Mac. Arthur Boulevard to Belt Line Road. To improve traffic o~erations at this intersection, the following modification to the existing southbound lane configuration is recommended: Lane ! Lane 2 Lane 3 Existing Lane Configuration: Right/Through Shared Through Left (,,._Proposed Lane Configuration: Right/Through Shared Through/Left Shared Left By implementing this improvement, the intersection level of service is expected to be improved to a level of service C during the morning peak hour through the year 1996 with the proposed development. In the evening peak hour, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road currently operates at a level of service C. By the year 1996, this level of service is expected be "D". The proposed development will increase intersection delay approximately 7%, but the intersection will remain at a level of service D. Exhibit 18 Signalized Intersection Analysis MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Year Intersection Delay Level of Intersection Delay Level of (seconds/vehicle) Service (seconds/vehicle) Service Existing 37.2 D 21.7 C Existing w/Improvement 20.0 C 21.7 C Year 1996 Base 22.6 C 32.8 D Year 1996 Base + 23.5 C 35.0 D Development Queue Analysis One factor in this analysis is to determine if the left-tm storage lanes on Mac. Arthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive are adequate to accommodate the vehicles expected to stack in these lanes. This was done by conducting a queuing analysis. The queuing theory utilized is documented in the Transportation and Traffic Engineerinff Handbook, 2nd Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1982 (page 461). The theory utilizes a random (i.e., Poisson) arrival rate. Four analysis "years' were examined. Exhibits 19 and 20 illustrate the existing morning and evening peak hours. Exhibits 21 and 22 illustrate the existing morning and evening peak hours with the recommended modification at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bek Line Road. Exhibits 23 and 24 show the queues expected in 1996 without the proposed development during the morning and evening peak hours. Exhibks 25 and 26 depict the queues in 1996 with the proposed development during the morning and evening peak hours. With a confidence level of 95%, the results reveal that a queue of one vehicle or less can be expected during the morning and evening peak hours for the northbound left turn into the development in 1996 (Exhibits 24 and 25). The southbound left turn from Mac. Arthur Boulevard to Riverchase Drive can expect a queue of approximately two vehicles or less during thc peak hours in 1996. Thcrcforc, thc existing left-turn storagc lanes on Mac_Arthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive are adequate to accommodate the left-turn demand and not disrupt the through vehicles on MacArthur Boulevard. A queuing analysis was also performed to examine the intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard at Belt Linc Road. Currently, traffic occasionally queues past Riverchase Drive on southbound MacArthur Boulevard during the morning peak hour. The service rate necessary for the queuing analysis was obtained through the utilization of Greenshields theory. This theory is documented in the Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook. 2nd Edition (page 465). As shown is Exhibit 18, it was determined a queue of over 1,500 feet per lane can be 8 expected during the morning peak hour if no changes are made to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. The distance between Belt Line Road and Riverchase Drive is approximately 800 feet. The recommended improvement of restriping the southbound lanes on MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road and retiming the traffic signal is expected to reduce this queue length. In 1996, the queue is expected to be approximately 360 feet with the development, or a decrease of almost 1,150 feet from existing queues. Secondary Driveway A second driveway located at the median opening on MacArthur Boulevard immediately north of Riverchase Drive was also examined. A driveway at ~his location should improve the traffic conditions at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive by decreasing the turning m~vements in and out of the i~ted in the development at Riverchase Drive. It should be noted that this driveway was not in previous analysis. Because this driveway would be located on the inside of a curve, intersection sight distances were examined to ensure the safety of implementing a driveway at this location. Based on the actual 8$th percentile speed of 43 miles per hour, a minimum sight distance of 320 feet (desirable of 450 feet) is required by the City of Coppell Ordinance number 90496 to provide safe access to and from the site. Currently, sight distances exceed 350 feet. If a sight distance of 320 feet or more c~nnot be maintained due to fencing or landscaping, the median opening can be modified to allow northbound left turns into the site, but prohibit eastbound left turns out of the site (see Exhibit 27). Deceleration Lane Another factor in this analysis was the examination of the need for a deceleration lane on southbound MacArthur Boulevard at the main driveway. The City of Arlington has developed guidelines for the implementation of deceleration lanes that they feel provide additional capacity at driveways when necessary. The Arlington criteria states that a deceleration lane is required if: 1) over 50 vehicles turn right into the development during the peak hour, or 2) over 40 vehicles turn right into the development during the peak hour and the speed limit exceeds 40 mph. The main driveway is expected to have approximately 22 vehicles turning right into the development during the peak hour (without the secondary driveway). Therefore, a deceleration lane should not be required at this location. CONCLUSION The proposed 280-unit multi-family development, located on MacArthur Boulevard north of Belt Line Road, is expected to increase the traffic at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive by 6% in the morning peak hour and 7% 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 the evening peak hour. The increase in traffic on MacArthur Boulevard is not expected to affect the level of service at the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive or MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. Therefore, the proposed development will not adversely affect the roadway system. The operation of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road can be improved by implementing an alternative lane configuration. By allowing the southbound middle lane (currently a through lane only) to cO0~'~..~ ~serve both through and left turn traffic, the delay currently experienced at the intersection can be improved by ~ ~e~ ~0~ almost 90%. The left-turn storage on Mac. Arthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive was also ex,mined to determine if the existing storage lengths were sufficient to accommodate the future traffic volumes. The northbound left-turn into the development is not expected to have more than one vehicle in the lane at a time during the peak hour. 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 Mae. Arthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive. In order to improve traffic flow from Riverchase Drive to MacArthur Boulevard, a second driveway located at the median opening north of Riverchase Drive may be considered. The sight distance for this driveway should be maintained at a minimum of 320 feet as per City of Coppell ordinance requirements. If this sight distance "... cannot be obtained, and the second driveway is desired, the median opening should be cbannelized to allow northbound left-turns into the proposed development, but prohibit eastbound left-turns from the development i' / (see Exhibit 27). / The option of constructing a deceleration lane on southbound Mac. Arthur Boulevard at the main entrance was also examined. The deceleration lane had originally been recommended due to the controlled access point (gates) at the main entrance. These gates have since been removed from the site plan. Because only 22 vehicles are expected to execute this southbound right-tutu movement, a deceleration lane should not be required. 10 St.Louis & Southwestern Railroad i111 IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII1'1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Belt. Line Rd. site Location - ~ ~h~b~t 2 Site Plan for ~iverch~e Club Ap~men~~ Exhibit Lane AsSignments Exhibit 5 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (7:15-8:15 am) Exhibit 6 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (5-6 pm) Exhibit 7 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1996 Base (+ Retail) Exhibit 8 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1996 Base (+ Retail) Belt Line Rd. Exhibit 11 AM Peak Hour Trip Orientations Belt Line Rd. Exhibit 12 PM Peak Hour Trip Orientations Belt Line Rd. Exhibit 13 AM Peak Hour Site Generated Trips Belt Line Rd. Exhibit 14 PM Peak Hour Site Generated Trips ~ ~ Belt line Rd. Exhibit 15 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1996 Base + Site ~, r~ Belt Line Rd. wt ... Exhibit 16 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1996 Base + Site Belt Line Rd. tlt III I Exhibit 19 AM Peak Hour Queue Lengths with Existing Geometry 10 5 & I ! Belt Line Rd. II It II II Exhibit 20 PM Peak Hour Queue Lengths with Existing Geometry I 10 Rd. Belt line Exhibit 21 AM Peak Hour Queue Lengths with Improved Geometry 5 ~ -..~ ~"_~ o o 3 2 I J Belt Line Rd. II tl Exhibit 22 6 PM Peal( Hour Queue Lengths with Improved Geometry ' 10 15 - 12 ...... 3~~ t I Belt Line Exhibit 23 AM Peak Hour Queue Lengths 1996 Base 13 J t Belt Line 4~ Exh,bJt 24 ~ PM Peak Hour Queue Lengths,~$ 1996 Base I I · ..+ ~'_ t I t Belt Line Rd. Iit III 311 II II Exhibit 25 AM Peak Hour Queue Lengths 1996 Base + Site 13 II It tl . I I Belt Line Rd. II II tl Exh,b,t 26 PM Peak Hour Queue Lengths 1996 Base + Site TRAFFIC ACCESS STUDY ADDENDUM FOR RIVERCHASE CLUB APARTMENTS IN COPPELL, TEXAS Prepared For: C.E.D. Construction Prepared By:. DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. 330 Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 748-6740 January 13, 1994 DT&A Job #94004 Automated Traffic C,. at DeShaz , Tang & Associates, Inc. { st, eot: Rt'vcrcha~ Drive L~ation: ~.et of Mac~ Blvd Proi~t-lm: 931~- ~7 I "~ D.y of W~k: ~y -- Fd~y 2~Hour Total: ~ ~ ~d + :-...: 1~0 ~0 1515 10 ~ 415 0 0 1~0 5 11 4~ 2 0 1~ 12 15 ~ 0 0 1700 7 ~ 18 53 ~0 0 2 0 0 1715 18 14 515 0 0 17~ 23 '- 28 ~ 3 0 1745 18 11 · ~5 0 3 18~ 1~ 11 ', m 22 ". 75 ~0 0 3 1 4 18~ 4 11 ~0 2 3 18~ 6 5 ~ 2 5 1~0 5 27 5 27 700 5 11 6 14 1915 8 4 715 8 6 1~0 2 0 7~ 3 12 1945 3 1 7~ 6 15 ' 2~0 2 15 1 6 800 20 37 2015 4 0 815 19 .' 20~ 3 2 8~ 12 13 ~ 3 2 845 18 7 2100 2 12 I 5 ~0 118 20 69 11 47 2115 2 4 915 8 10 21~ 0 3 9~ 10 11 21~ 0 0 ~5 7 8 2200 2 4 1 8 1000 11 36 5 34 ~15 1 2 1015 14 8 ~ 1 1 10~ 9 22~ 0 1 10~ 18 8 2~0 0 2 I 5 1100 10 51 6 31 2315 1 0 1115 12 11 2~ 0 0 11~ 13 10 2~6 1 0 1145 9 18 2400 2 4 0 0 1200 6 40 21 60 15 0 0 1215 13 13 ~ 0 0 12~ 13 ~ 1 0 1245 10 6 100 0 1 2 2 1~ 9 115 0 0 1315 10 9 1~ 0 0 1~ 6 9 145 0 0 1~5 4 7 200 0 0 0 0 1 ~0 7 27 8 215 I 0 1415 11 9 2~ 0 0 14~ 12 6 245 0 0 1~5 8 14 ~0 0 1 0 0 1 ~0 11 42 7 315 0 0 1515 6 22 ~ 0 0 1~ 7 14 ~5 0 0 1~5 4 10 ~0 0 0 0 0 1~0 12 29 8 To~ls ~2 571 A~tomated TraffiC-~u,,~ ' DeShaz~,, Tang & Associates, Inc. st,aot: MacArthur Blvd ,.I L~ation: Sou~ of ~lt ~e Rd '-' Cityl~te: C~, T~ ,~ .roj.t-IO*: 93170 - ~3 I ,,~ 2~Hour Total: ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~'-:P"~.;~.-:..'.~:':/.:~~a:. :- .'-: ~'/.-::)~::' ~.a~a-~:'.'.: Ti~. :~-~' ~';.;':/:-:: ~o~a:-.:-'.-.:/:.-/. '.-s0~a~a :-:' ." 1 ~0 200 1415 120 91 215 8 5 14~ 122 ~ 2~ 8 5 1~ 121 118 2~ 0 3 1~0 114 4~ 11~ ~5 ~ 3 15 8 1515 107 ~ 315 I 4 1~ 116 10~ ~ 5 0 1~ 123 110 ~5 4 0 1~0 125 471 106 393 400 2 12 2 1615 1~ 102 415 0 1 1~0 159 10~ ~ 4 3 1~ 186 117 445 3 5 1700 214 715 141 4~ ~ 2 9 5 14 1715 292 1~ 515 0 5 17~ ~ 165 ~ 4 6 1745 313 1~ ~5 6 12 18~ ~ 1.308 171 642 600 15 2~ 18 41 1815 2.0~ ~2 1,3~ 191 704 815 13 24 1 ~ 2~ 150 ~ ~ 46 1845 281 147 ~5 ~ 88 1~0 169 1,102 106 597 700 ~ 173 151 309 1915 187 127 715 75 208 19~ 1~ 108 7~ 131 257 1~5 124 102 745 181 280 2~0 124 ~ 81 416 800 181 ~8 268 1,013 2015 100 82 815 1,?~ 146 ~9 286 1.091 2~ 70 74 830 1 ~ ~ 213 2045 84 ~2 8~ 116 1 2100 72 ~6 ~ 328 ~0 98 495 112 744 2115 ~ 84 915 70 21 ~ ~ 73 9~ ~ 2145 ~ 52 ~5 64 22~ ~ 249 ~ 262 1000 89 291 62 ~15 ~ 42 1015 92 71 22~ 42 ~ 1030 91 65 2245 45 44 1045 86 2~0 42 183 28 1~ 1100 79 ~ 88 288 2315 26 23 1115 106 82 2~ 29 21 11~ 106 97 2~ 21 15 1145 117 106 2400 20 ~ 9 ~ 1200 1 ~ 465 98 ~3 ~5 ~3 ~2 ~2~5 ~SO ~ 7 7 12~ 159 110 ~ 16 7 1245 1~ 127 100 13 49 11 37 13~ 1.089 151 623 88 ~6 115 14 14 1315 138 112 1~ ~0 4 ~0 ~ ~21 145 6 2 1345 129 92 200 15 45 1 21 1400 134 544 ~ 415 To.is 9,137 7,7~ Equioment I~: 3593 I I 16.~3 Automated Traffic Co~,nt DeShazu, Tang & Associates, Inc. Street: Belt Line Road co~,tio.: East of MacAttlmr Blvd City/gate: CO~X~].[, Texas ' Project-ID~: 93170 - 004 Day ot w.k: Tl~ursday - Friday , 24-Hour Total: · a u,~,.,d + · Time peak' '-?-.i~E~i~tboundi::::..-.::::::::.'.:'.?"We, Stb0mid.:"::.:~:. '.Tiniii .'.:PealS.: :.': ;:: ::. :' .:.?::.Eas~bOunii .?. ::: ;:: :' i'-~ ~ .. . ::::::: :.~b0tmd.':... ~.:: 1500 300 1515 82 121 315 2 1530 84 95 330 2 4 1545 97 130 345 6 5 1600 115 378 133 479 400 7 17 2 17 1615 90 144 415 4 3 1630 95 151 43O 6 5 1645 125 224 445 8 2 1700 111 421 225 744 500 5 23 5 15 1715 123 370 515 7 4 1730 143 333 530 18 9 1745 139 388 545 37 24 1800 138 543 ° 338 1.429 500 40 102 24 61 1815 1.989 11S 535 385 1.454 615 41 16 1830 125 240 630 80 14 1645 116 203 545 172 35 1900 107 463 136 974 700 218 511 42 108 1915 82 130 715 299 70 1930 59 115 730 461 95 1945 65 104 745 551 112 2000 70 276 83 432 800 558 1.859 93 370 2015 46 84 815 2.408 433 2.003 105 405 2030 42 75 830 347 78 2045 36 70 845 215 62 2130 33 157 67 296 gOO 173 1.198 77 322 2115 38 83 915 131 62 2130 29 87 930 110 57 2145 25 59 945 95 69 2200 28 120 68 297 1000 110 446 55 243 2215 43 52 1015 go 62 2230 22 51 1030 105 52 2245 19 43 1045 76 53 2300 20 104 45 151 1100 80 351 48 215 2315 16 27 1115 92 64 2330 24 31 1130 100 84 2345 7 20 1145 110 go 2400 7 54 22 100 1200 71 373 87 325 15 11 21 1215 107 125 30 4 17 1230 111 95 45 5 13 1245 117 112 419 100 8 28 13 64 1300 857 122 457 68 400 115 7 8 1315 94 94 130 6 5 1330 111 92 145 3 5 1345 103 93 200 7 23 5 23 1400 101 405 82 361 215 6 9 1415 96 98 230 3 6 1430 97 109 245 3 5 1445 116 103 300 3 15 7 28 1500 101 410 97 405 Total8 8.718 7.899 I Equipment ID#: 5399 I ~ ....................... _~ .... ~ .... D~Shazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Ci~/aae: C~, T~ ' o,y of W~.k: ~y -- Fd~y ~ ~ '-'-'-"'-"----""-'- :'.T~- ::. ?-~ :'~:-:..'=.:.':-~ ':'. ~d'..' :.:.?. :'-.'.::.:==::=: ~w~d .:-?'.. :' . ~i~:-'-. ~.k'= ~.:..':.:.-'-;.~d':.'.: :?..::: '.: ~:.='.'.-:~: ~~d:-:-'..:'/- 1~0 ~ 1515 ~ ~ 315 0 3 1~ 71 67 ~ 2 4 1~ 75 03 ~5 2 5 1~0 88 284 89 ~ ~0 7 11 1 13 1615 79 120 415 2 4 1~ 80 108 ~ 2 2 1~ 117 182 ~ 7 1 1715 112 221 51S 8 1 ~7~ ~ 1~ ~ ~3 s 1746 117 1~ ~S 23 la 1~0 1,2~ 11~ ~ ' 1~ 792 ' ~0 22 e4 ~3 37 18~ ~ les ~ ~ 11 1845 ~ 1~ ~5 108 20 1~ 75 ~ 101 619 700 131 318 24 84 1015 ~ 73 715 205 31 1~ ~ 85 730 2~ ~ 1945 57 69 745 327 75 2000 ~ 228 ~ 293 ~00 322 1,114 55 1~ 2015 ~ 40 815 1,~7 2~ 1,157 32 200 20~ ~ ~ 8~ 1~ 32 ~ ~ 46 8~ 131 22 2100 ~ 1~ 37 180 ~ 98 672 27 113 2115 27 47 015 79 27 21~ 28 45 ~ 86 21 21 ~ 24 ~ ~5 ~ 25 ~ 23 102 ~ 1~ 10~ ~ 2~ 25 ~ ~15 24 28 1015 75 28 22~ 16 ~ 10~ 88 ~ 22~ 17 23 1045 57 32 2~0 15 72 27 108 1100 ~ 2~ 24 120 2315 9 15 1115 61 49 2~ 18 15 11~ 85 46 2~6 4 5 1145 83 62 2~0 1 ~ 15 ~ 1200 ~ 2~ ~ 211 15 8 8 1215 71 73 ~ 3 6 12~ 74 69 ~ 2 8 1245 92 82 100 6 19 6 28 1~0 78 315 73 297 115 4 ~ 1315 814 ~ 310 80 ~4 I~ 2 3 1~ 72 67 1~ 3 3 1~5 75 74 200 2 11 2 14 1400 ~ 282 73 2~ 215 3 3 1415 76 75 2~ 0 3 1~ 79 91 245 4 0 14~ ~ 84 ~0 0 7 2 a 1 ~ 88 ~ e3 ~ Totals ~ s.oee 4.927 Equipment ID~: 359~ ~ I 10.g~ [ Automated Traffic C~,ant DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. st.,or: Belt Line Road ;.~[ ~ t.o,=atio.: West of MacArthur Blvd ,~ ] , Cityl~ate: C~,Tex~ P,oj~t-~D~: 93170 - ~ l Date: 1~ 11, 1~ Da~ o~ w.~: Tu~y 2~Hour Total: ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~Time 'p~k:r:.: ' Eas~und: '::~ W~t~d...-. :Tim~:...::p~k' ~. '~-'East~d' ::...-:~:-.:::-: ::.W~:~d - .: 2400 12O0 15 4 8 1215 ~ 71 30 5 10 12~ ~ 81 ~ 8 5 12~ 94 337 82 100 3 18 2 25 1300 6~ 74 ~5 81 315 115 4 7 1315 80 75 319 1~ 0 2 1~ 82 145 8 I 1~ 52 49 200 1 11 2 12 1400 ~ 2~ 61 248 215 0 3 1415 61 76 2~ 3 3 1 ~ ~ 63 2~ 3 0 14~ ~ 70 ~0 5 11 1 7 1 ~0 67 280 59 268 315 1 3 1515 ~ 75 ~ 2 3 1~ 52 ~ 5 0 1545 93 70 400 I 9 1 7 1600 ~ 295 102 291 415 6 5 1615 96 104 ~ I 9 1~ 95 109 ~5 8 9 1845 102 118 ~0 12 25 13 ~ 1700 83 376 135 460 515 6 8 1715 111 160 ~ 17 2 1730 113 170 ~5 22 10 1745 122 193 ~0 14 ~ 16 36 1800 1.147 104 450 * 174 697 815 ~ 7 1815 99 152 6~ ~ 24 1830 88 145 ~ ~ $1 1845 95 115 700 161 ~ 36 98 1900 69 351 84 4~ 715 214 49 1915 64 75 7~ ~ ~ 1930 ~ 7~ ~6 79 1945 51 51 8~ 324 1.170 51 236 * 2000 38 204 48 222 815 1.47~ 288 1.2~ ~ 2~2 2015 41 40 8~ 207 39 2030 24 25 8~ 1 ~ 42 2045 ~7 29 ~ 110 7~ 51 1~ 2100 ~ 135 38 132 915 72 ~ 2115 21 45 ~0 81 ~ 21~ 28 30 ~ ~ 47 2145 25 25 10~ ~ 2~ ~ 171 2200 23 97 24 124 1015 81 3~ 2215 15 17 10~ ~ 27 22~ 16 17 1045 85 ~ 2245 11 13 11~ 76 288 ~ 158 2300 14 56 22 69 1115 88 55 2315 12 11 11 ~ 49 48 2~ 5 7 1145 79 72 23~ 7 11 1200 78 292 72 245 2400 9 ~ 4 To~ls 6.158 4.569 Equipment ID~: 3595 I 10.725 Automated Traffic Co~..t DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. st.~ot: Belt Linc Ro~d Lo~atio~: ~.~St o£ MacAtt~m' Blvd ~ ,' _ city/aat,,: CoPt~II, Texas ,.~ Proi~t-ID~: 95170 - 0041' ~alo: January 11, 1994 oay o~ We,k: Tuesday ~ ,~ .......... 24--Hour Total: ~ a -..ri~ii/i,~t. :-:-:.:: :' i:-~-:;-i::~astbo,~a: '? ::-:- :':' :.-'.:'.w"~o~a :..:.... 2400 1200 15 6 12 1215 gg 118 30 6 11 1230 120 105 45 10 6 1245 114 100 438 100 4 26 2 31 1300 872 125 458 91 414 115 g 7 1315 116 87 130 5 I 1330 121 476 75 145 g 4 1345 82 64 200 4 27 4 18 1400 86 405 84 310 215 4 3 1415 80 107 230 2 9 1430 86 84 245 4 7 300 6 16 4 23 1500 65 354 76 377 315 I 7 1515 91 107 330 I 2 1530 84 105 345 11 2 1545 100 112 400 0 13 2 13 1500 88 363 138 463 415 8 3 1615 115 137 430 10 12 1630 88 138 445 9 12 1645 87 221 500 11 38 15 42 1700 111 401 232 728 515 8 11 1715 127 316 530 21 3 1730 125 405 545 32 11 1745 145 508 397 500 36 97 19 44 1800 1,942 107 504 320 1.438 ' 615 32 12 1815 119 275 630 90 22 1830 125 246 645 187 29 1845 114 197 700 300 609 55 118 1900 88 446 148 866 715 372 67 1915 77 145 730 499 92 1930 65 102 745 572 111 1945 66 95 800 612 2,055 107 377 2000 48 257 78 420 815 2,505 520 2,203 92 402 2015 45 73 830 408 69 2030 27 77 845 294 79 2045 31 64 900 174 1,396 99 339 2100 42 145 86 300 915 127 74 2115 26 105 930 115 72 2130 35 68 945 89 51 2145 32 74 1000 71 402 57 254 2200 28 121 58 305 1015 72 51 2215 30 54 1030 73 44 2230 27 40 1045 96 58 2245 18 49 1100 71 312 64 217 2300 14 89 47 190 1115 92 61 2315 10 33 1130 83 89 2330 g 28 1145 88 gg 2345 15 24 1200 102 365 113 362 2400 11 45 16 101 Totals 8,944 7.748 Equipment ID#: 3599 I I 15,692 Automated Traffic Cc at DeShaz,., Tang & Associates, Inc. Str®®l~: MacArt~ur Blvd ','~ Location: SOIltll of Belt Line Rd '-' City/State: Copt~, Texas ~". Project-ID#: 93170 - OOJF l o,t,: January 11, 1994 o., oar of week: Tue.~day 24-Hour T.al: I 16,641 [ o ~..,--, Time '::.Peak. '" .:.-Eastbound'! .:.!:-:i~:::i::'~.-W~stlmmafl::.:-'.::: :-Time. ' 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 I 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 I 5 1430 109 69 245 0 I 1445 119 136 300 2 9 6 13 1500 134 465 112 392 315 I 3 1515 69 50 330 0 I 1530 112 94 345 3 I 1545 88 85 400 0 4 3 8 1600 120 387 102 331 415 1 I 1615 128 105 430 6 4 1630 145 109 445 2 1 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 311 166 600 18 33 17 40 1800 310 1,118 162 578 615 22 36 1815 354 177 630 38 60 1830 1,945 304 1.279 161 666 645 52 117 1845 273 159 700 81 193 169 382 1900 246 1,177 135 633 715 98 265 1915 195 122 730 134 317 1930 165 108 745 180 310 1945 124 112 800 180 592 288 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 7,892 Automated Traffic Co,...c DeShazo, rang & Associates, Inc. =.4 sueet: MacAtthur Blvd · o~,tio.: North o£Belt Line Rd City/State: Co/~, Texas ' ~te: January II, 1994 Day of Week: 24-Hour Total: ~ a Tim~ -~,~k- :- :.~%~a :.: so~t~a::'--:. 2400 1200 15 8 2 1215 105 67 30 7 4 1230 93 95 45 3 4 1245 87 75 100 6 24 4 14 1300 675 74 359 79 31 115 4 2 1315 68 79 328 130 I 2 1330 69 79 145 3 I 1345 50 72 200 4 12 1 6 1400 87 272 63 293 215 3 I 1415 71 67 230 2 0 1430 79 62 245 3 0 1445 85 79 300 5 13 4 5 1500 87 302 68 276 315 3 I 1515 52 53 330 0 1 1530 72 66 345 2 0 1545 98 71 400 0 5 2 4 1800 101 321 58 248 415 0 4 1615 106 80 430 2 7 1630 105 60 445 0 I 1645 168 85 500 0 2 4 16 1700 230 609 84 309 515 I 4 1715 281 84 530 5 11 1730 343 93 545 5 37 1745 317 109 370 600 11 22 30 82 1800 1,623 320 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 1 63 825 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 44 167 915 49 113 2115 54 45 930 51 85 2130 54 31 945 49 76 2145 57 42 1000 55 205 55 340 2200 39 204 33 151 1015 46 46 2215 45 18 1030 52 48 2230 33 21 1045 55 63 2245 38 10 1100 35 188 46 203 2300 31 152 10 59 1115 62 54 2315 25 15 1130 87 56 2330 19 8 1145 67 64 2345 15 5 1200 79 295 71 245 2400 16 75 6 34 Totals 6.337 7.692 Equipment ID,: 3592 1 I 14.029 I Automated Traffic Co~,.,t DeShazo, rang & Associates, Inc. I 130 Str®et: Pa'verchase Drive Location: East o£ MacArtbur Blvd City/State: C(7~cJ~, Texas t .roioc1-D#: 95170 - O07F ]_ Day of Week: 24-Hour Total: I 1,096 [ o ,..,._, 'iTim~::."~ealri' :'ii.':-':.".' '£astt~imd: :':- :-~ '~' -: --'~Vestb°und'i :'-:.'-'-: Tim=. 'PAt- '::-:-~" ':'Eastb°Und: :::' "- '": '"i': ! :'"westimuad~: '-.. 2400 1200 15 0 0 1215 18 16 30 0 0 1230 105 12 55 14 50 45 0 0 1245 13 5 100 0 0 0 0 1300 9 52 14 50 115 0 0 1315 11 10 130 0 0 1330 14 145 0 0 1345 8 7 200 0 0 0 0 1400 13 45 4 30 215 0 0 1415 5 6 230 0 0 1430 5 8 245 0 0 1445 13 6 300 0 0 2 2 1500 9 33 8 28 315 0 0 1515 10 5 330 0 0 1530 12 2 345 0 2 1545 19 11 400 0 0 0 2 1600 14 55 8 25 415 0 0 1615 3 12 430 I 0 1630 4 11 445 0 0 1645 9 17 500 0 I 0 0 1700 6 22 18 58 515 0 0 1715 14 17 530 2 0 1730 25 23 75 545 0 I 1745 131 14 59 14 72 600 I 3 0 I 1800 12 65 ' 8 62 615 2 2 1815 10 11 630 2 3 1830 8 t2 645 2 4 1845 4 6 700 9 15 18 27 1900 2 24 2 31 715 5 22 1915 4 3 730 5 10 1930 3 5 745 10 10 1945 3 1 800 8 28 16 58 2000 I 11 2 11 815 15 16 2015 3 0 830 99 12 45 12 54 2030 3 0 845 99 7 42 13 57 2045 3 1 900 99 19 53 5 46 2100 2 11 2 3 915 14 8 2115 1 0 930 10 9 2130 1 1 945 11 3 2145 2 1 1000 9 44 9 29 2200 1 5 3 5 1015 8 6 2215 0 0 1030 14 8 223O 2 1 1045 12 12 2245 0 1 11 O0 6 40 10 34 2300 0 2 0 2 1115 8 6 2315 0 0 1130 14 8 2330 0 1 1145 13 12 2345 0 0 1200 12 45 8 34 2400 1 I 0 1 Totals 5se 540 ECluipment lDO:. 4839 ] Intersection Traffic Movements De.,Sl3azo, Starek & Tang, Inc. Location: /~ ,,~m~.7-,~'v~.. ~,ZV~ ~ Date: D~ 17 -¢.2z> I~'._¢ - / City/State: ~ o ?PE Z/_ / 7-.x' Checker(s): ~'"~ E' .-~/Y~' ~/$A" / Job Number: ~.~ ! 7d3 Conditions: ,¢'n./ - PC'-C'~o~ /V~o.,,/- -, ....":': -'----i':. From :' ': '~: :',: ~:~.~'~ :.~;:,:: 5:". Fr~ -':.'~";J:e°unt'~.~:~.:::.' o. ~ o. o. I 06:45 07:00 o7:o0 o7:18 07:15 07:30 07:30 07:45 07:45 08:00 o~:15 0~:3o 16:30 16:45 16:45 17:00 ~7:oo ~7:~5 / 17:15 17:30 . ~7:30 ~7:4s 17:45 18:00 18:00 18:15 / 18:15 18:30 o~ ~ , ./ .................... E , " . ~ -' -- ~ _~Lo~ ' '~ s T~c S~y Field Sh~t Intersection Traffic Movements DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc Location: MacArtfiur Blvd & Riverchase Dr Date: Jtmu~ry 6- 7, 1994 City/State: Coppoll, T~xa$ Day of Week: Thursday (pm) & Friday (am) County DMlms Checker(s): ./o~ Sh~ws/d & L/m/~ L~rl-/n.g Project-ID//: 93170- C Conditions: Fair 06:30 06:45 18 2 0 132 5 0 157 06:45 07:00 24 6 0 206 6 0 242 07:00 07:15 31 6 0 321 4 2 364 07:15 07:30 35 3 0 346 6 I 391 1,154 07:30 07:45 55 4 0 431 12 0 502 1,499 07:45 08:00 52 20 0 424 16 0 $12 1 fl69 08:00 08:15 70 15 I 348 16 0 450 1,855 08:15 08:30 52 16 I 302 13 0 384 1,848 16:00 16:15 105 8 I 56 12 2 184 16:i5 16:30 124 $ 0 59 6 0 194 16:30 16:45 153 11 ! 56 14 0 235 16:45 17:00 180 10 I 92 20 2 305 918 17:00 17:15 248 15 I 64 12 0 340 1.074 17:15 17:30 351 20 3 93 19 6 492 1,372 17:30 17:45 312 16 0 87 11 0 426 1,563 17:45 18:00 327 13 0 76 27 2 445 1,703 07:27 - 07:29 The Southbound Queue from Belt Line w~s p,,st this inter.~ction. 07:39 - 07:45 The Southbound Queue was p,~st thi~ intersection plus about 15 vehicles. 07:45 - 07:55 The Southbound Queue was past this intersection plus 30 to 45 vehicles. After 07:55 The Queue seemed to clear up very quickly, even suddenly. Intersection Traffic Movements DeShazo, Tang & Associates, lnc Location: MacArthur Bird & Bait Lion Rd Date: ./'~ntmty 6 - 7, 1994 ° City/State: CoppeII, T~xms Day of We~k: Thut'sd~y (pm) & Friday (am) County Dallas Checker(s): Bishop/Woolvottow~rkin.~ Project-ID//: 93170- B Conditions: l:air 06:30 06:45 9 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 11 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 ! 2 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 11 865 3,586 08:15 08:30 24 48 56 147 112 11 4 144 43 34 33 9 665 3,527 16:00 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 16:30 16:45 39 95 27 18 42 5 4 63 21 43 97 52 506 16:45 17:00 61 115 22 24 64 10 7 78 33 35 102 67 618 1,945 17:00 17:15 65 137 19 26 54 12 8 58 29 42 107 68 625 2,151 17:15 17:30 87 218 33 28 71 ii 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 Observations: Growth Rate CaLcuLations for: RacArthur BLvd. & Belt Line Road in Coppett Location Year 24-hr Vol ~ Growth Belt Line East of MacArthur 1985 B784 BeLt Line East of MacArthur 1986 10~9 0.235086 Belt Line @ MacArthur 1993 1&565 0.042976 0.065251 BeLt Line West of NacArthur 1986 146~3 Be[t Line West of MacArthur 1989 8877 -0.15404 ) MacArthur South of Belt Line 1986 5710 MacArthur a BeLt Line 1993 17102 0.169657 Be[t Line + MacArthur 1986 20373 1993 31667 0.065036 Belt Line Near MacArthur has experienced a 4% growth rate per year from 1986 through 1993. #acArthur Near BeLt Line has experienced a 17~ growth rate per year from 1986 through The intersection has experienced a 6.5% growth rate per year free 1986 through 1993. Over 7 years, the traffic in the vicinity of Belt Line Road and MacArthur Blvd. has grown at a rate of 6.5Xper year. DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc. MACHINE TRAFFIC COUNTS LOCATION: '~T{.,[~cc ~' ~'7" d~ j~. ~~ "~. DATE: II--' t~- %5 PROJECT NUMBER: ~'5"'~'O WEATHER CONDITIONS: PEAK HOUR VOLUMES TRAFFIC FROM AM PM NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST 24-HOUR VOLUMES TRAFFIC FROM VOLUME NORTH SOUTH OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: TrafiCOMP II by StreeterAmet Volume Program with 24 Hour and Grand Totals File ~-- ~ ~.~ Identification 104 Interval 15 Minute StationStart Datek°~v~26 Mar 86 End Date 27 Mar 86 Start Time 12:42 End Time 14:17 26 Mar 86 Lane: 1- 2 15:30 51 51 ' 15:45 50 42 Total 194 174 14:15 54 45 14: 50 25 14: 45 48 50 15:O0 Total 150 156 15:15 47 50 l 5: 50 55 57 .5:45 47 59 16: O0 54 42 Total 201 168 16:15 44 42 16:50 65 51 16:45 46 51 17:O0 71 45 Tot al 226 147 17:15 75 48 17:.50 104 41 17:45 122 57 18:O0 99 47 Total 598 175 18:15 90 57 18: 50 75 38 18: 45 64 42 19:O0 44 45 Total 275- 162 19:15 48 54 19:50 55 21 19: 45 58 29 20: O0 50 .56 'oral 151 120 20: 15 28 22 20:50 ~_.~ 21 20:45 21 15 2!: O0 25 19 Total ~4 77 :1.: 50 16 18 · 21: 4~ 14 10 Total 57 60 . ..: 15 ~ 30 6 8 ~ 45 12 10 ,-?-: O0 7 6 Total 47 56 ~j,-.']: 15 5 6 .-5: 50 7 6 ~ 4 ,.'?: 45 24: O0 2 Total 16 19 O: 15 8 ~ 1 0: 50 0:45 3 0 1:00 7 Total 20 5 1:15 i 2 1:50 3 ~:45 4 " ~ AO i 0 Total 9 5 ~' 15 1 0 ~' 50 0 1 ~ 0 .. ,.-: 45 5: 00 1 0 Total 4 5:15 0 0 5: 50 0 0 5:45 0 2 4: 00 0 Total 0 4:15 0 5 4:50 1 1 4:45 1 5:O0 Total 5 9 5:15 0 5: 50 5 1 5:45 0 0 &: 00 5 4 Total 10 6:15 7 9 &: 50 7 20 &: 45 21 45 7:O0 21 74 .'oral 56 146 7:15 45 87 7: 50 42 ~ R5 7: 45 46 144 8: 00 46 1 ~5 ~otal 179 48~ 8: 4'5 59 70 9:O0 59 ATO 'Total 172 .~ 17 9:15 45 40 9:45 .51 29 i 0: 00 54 36 Total 141 149 10:15 26 27 10: 50 48 54 10:45 .~-' .5(3 11: O0 21 29 Total 127 120 11: 15 52 55 11: 50 55 50 11: 45 46 57 Total 150 158 ...- <: 15 44 --: 50 57 50 <: 45 49 47 I ?~'. O0 42 57 Total 192 166 · Tot a 1 2872 2858 · -. 27 Mar 8& Lane: 1 2 1.5:15 42 56 1.5: 50 4.5 29 14: O0 56 56 Total 160 158 14:15 Grand Total 5070 5008 M o ,c A Ri T H L I F,.' E; LV ._ROUTH ::DF BELT LII,IE ROAD 1 50 1 40 1 3O '1 2C) t C) 1 1 0 rt' -I OC:, "' r'r - 7_) -_'3 C' ":"' ~ q n.- 7 0 · T +' __ -- ~1~i~ : 4.0 .+ , '.-,;*~ i ~ ,',al. !! M~~, ~ ','.,./~ ~ ::.~,-,-," ~v'l ~ ',-Fr~ [[ ~L~/,~..,t ' E. ~,...,,,,,,,~ , .... ,,~,,,,,.--,,..~:.,,,.~,..,~,, ,,. ,,, ~:.., ...... 1 "=, F': -~ 1 6 0 '~ 1 Q. ~'-',_. ,q,_ 7' ."':' ,% '- 1 :~_ O_ .4 I-,_ :]_ -- '"-~,_ _.'" 1 (":._., :-'~.._ ,q._ 1 ]. C' _-: Ti l,,,'! E '_-' F E.~A '"' Automated Traffic Count i.._ DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc. Street Name: Belt ~ Road Location: City/State: C~, T~ra~ :., Job Number: Day of 'Week: 24 Hour Total: . 8 877 ; Time Ending: i 1215 I 46 78 i 1230 i 60 71 i 124~ 1315 ! 72 133o 1345 i 55 i 57 1430 1445 1515 ...... 45 53 ~ 1530 32 ~ 1545 54 :, ...... 80 .......................................... i 1615 65 i 83 i 1630 58 I 1645 55 I 126 i 1730 68 ;, 164 190 ~ 1745 79 ~ ........ [ 1815 I 52 ~ 190 ! 1830 J 65 I 1,SO ' i ~, i 117 ~ 1845 ..... 1915 .... 1930 1945 i 33 i 60 '2015 30 ! 61 2030 24 I 31 2045 21 [. 51 2130 20 36 2!45 15 33 ~ 2215 18 i 20 i 2245 2300 ' "'.': 2315 ' 6 20 2330 i 8 7 2345 [ 6 15 5 215 0 23O 0 3 245 ~ 0 ' I 315 ~ 4 3 330 ~ 0 4 ! 530 ~ 6 615 i 30 9 630 730 I j 217 57 7~ ~ 276 61 830 i lsl 47 915 I 63 : 930 ~ 60 40 ~5 i 58 ~7 ~OGO 1045 ~ 49 28 47 40 1130 ~ 38 ~ 47 2~Hour Tot~s: i 4,~ 4,4~ I 4,~ 4,~ i JrafiCOMP II by StreeterAmet Volume Program with 24 Hour and Grand Totalm File $ 10 ~ 120h Identification 102 Interval 15 Minute Station Start Date~- .'6~'Mar 86 End Date 27 Mar 86 Start Time 12:06 End Time 14:06 26 Mar 86 Lane: 13:15 196 13:30 ~~/~ ~. 22(} 13:45 174 Total 79.2 14:15 159 14:5.0 148 14: 45 209 15:00 195 Total 711 15:15 157 15:30 192 ~5:45 181 '-'16: O0 230 Total 760 16:15 220 16: .'50 222 16:45 235 17:00 278 Total 955 17:15 357 17: 30 564 17:45 384 18:O0 417 Total 1502 18:15 .:.69 18: 30 27& 18: 45 242 19: 00 256 Total 1123 19:15 179 19:30 155 19:45 1.55 ~_20:O0 141 total 6(38 20:!5 114 20: .50 105 20:45 101 21: O0 92 Total 412 21: 45 ~ ~ 7: 2~ · ": ' 293 Total 75 Z2:15 48 · 22: 50 47 2~ -.: 45 35 ~ 205 .---': O0 Total 27 ~5.15 50 25:50 ~:45 24:00 15 Total 102 0:15 22 19 0:50 14 0:45 19 1:00 74 Total 8 1:15 8 1:50 1:45 15 ~ 00 ~ Total 51 -2:15 10 2:50 8 '... _:.. 2:45 8 5:O0 51 Total 1 5:15 50 : 7 5:45 4:00 Total 20 4:15 9 4 4:50 8 4:45 12 5: 00 ._...~5 Total 10 5:15 15 5:50 28 5:45 56 &:O0 109 Total 75 &:15 114 6:50 217 6:45 297 7:00 701 .Fatal 465 7:15 654 7:30 692 7:45 646 8:00 2457 T-~tal 389 8: 30 280~ 8:45 --~ 221 9: O0 ¥otal 1341 189 9:15 187 9:50 155 9:45 149 ! 0: 00 658 Total 99 10:15 125 10:50 144 10:45 144 11: 00 512 Total 155 11:15 140 11: 50 192 i 1: 45 154 12:O0 621 Total 12:15 165 149 12:50 178 12:45 142 15: 00 652 Total .Total 14665 27 Mar 86 Lane: 159 13:15 158 15:50 149 15:45 176 14:O0 622 Total Gr and 15285 Total W E ._z. T :'"'...;' F [vi a c A R T H IJ P E: LV E, I ~'rafiCOMP II by StreeterAmet Volume Program with 24 Hour and Grand Totals File # Station ~ 12~')~ Identification 105 Interval 15 Minute Start Date 26 Mar 86 End Date 27 Mar 86 Start Time 12:18 End Time 14:10 Lane: 1 1.'~:~ 15 162 15:45 118 Total 595 14:15 114 14:50 155 14:45 160 15:00 141 Total 548 15:15 127 !5:50 157 j5:45 173 16:O0 155 Total 610 16:15 176 16:50 185 16:45 195 17:O0 215 Total 769 17:15 281 17:50 501 17: 45 289 18: O0 506 Total 1177 18:15 257 18:.50 194 18:45 169 19:00 170 Total 790 19:15 158 19:50 112 19:45 87 --20: O0 96 'oral 455 20:15 71 20: 50 74 20:45 76 21: O0 70 Total 29I 21: 4~ ~ 44~_~ ..'.': O0 Total '~' 15 59 -'22:50 42 ~: 45 44 2~ w: 00 27 Total 172 ~' 15 21 2~ 50 28 ~,: 45 28 24: 00 Total 88 O: 15 18 O: 50 O: 45 10 1: O0 17 Total 61 1:15 8 1:50 9 ~:45 8 ' O0 3 Total 28 :15 9 ~ 50 8 5:O0 8 To~al 28 . '15 5:50 5 .45 4 4:O0 Total 4:15 4:~0 4:45 10 5:O0 6 Total 22 5:15 7 5:50 5: 45 6: 00 45 Total 87 6:15 45 6:50 6:45 148 · 7:00 'o~al 474 7:15 272 7: 30 507 7: 45 358 .8: 00 555 Tot a 1 1270 8: ~5 A~ 204~ · 9: 0c) Total 919 9:15 149 9:50 155 ~: 45 147 10:00 128 Total 579 10:15 128 10:50 156 I 1: 00 146 Tot al 525 11:15 144 11: ~0 128 11: 45 149 12:00 126 Total 547 12:15 12:~5 174 15:00 142 Total 600 Total 10849 27 Mar 86 Lane: 1 15:15 142 15:50 159 15:45 127 14:00 Total 570 Grand Total 11419 BELTLINE EAST ,:DF MocA, RTHUP. 4 0 C-' RAFFIC COUN. S DATE STREET NAME STREET NAME PERFORMED MAC ARTHUR BELTLINE 4/1/93 TIME NORTH SOUTH BOTH WEST EAST BOTH APPROACH APPROACH DIRECTIONS APPROACH APPROACH DIRECTIONS 12:00 AM 13 81 94 31 57 88 1:00 AM 13 37 50 13 37 50 2:00 AM 7 15 22 5 28 33 '3:00 AM 10 14 24 12 11 23 4:00 AM 18 14 32 11 26 37 5:00 AM 57 52 109 67 72 139 6:00 AM 494 209 703 331 152 483 7:00 AM 1'580 743 2323 1173 371 ° 1544 8:00 AM 885 590 1475 813 313 1126 9:00 AM 265 379 644 316 264 580 10:00 AM 222 361 583 245 - 244 489 11:00 AM 259 486 745 303 430 733 12:00 PM 311 712 1023 351 456 -807- 1:00 PM 286 551 837 298 384 682 2:00 PM 267 513 780 319 428 747 3:00 PM 293 495 788 325 428 753 4:00 PM 333 787 1120 397 678 1075 5:00 PM 354 1350 1704 456 1196 1652 6:00 PM 386 1171 1557 419 819 1238 7:00 PM - 271 689 960 296 419 715 8:00 PM 199 460 659 171 388 559 - 9:00 PM 143 307 450 127 378 505 10:00 PM 91 189 280 71 250 321 11:00 PM 36 104 140 49 137 186 I 24..COU.T I 6793 I 10309 I 17102 I 6599 I 7966 I 14565 I 24 HOUR DIRECTIONAL COUNT 1~00 1 ~ ~~ / III/. · I,M 10(X3 ! '/ " .-, \ ........ , ~,%_._~ TIME NORTH SOUTH WEST ................. EAST APPROACH APPROACH. APPROACH APPROACH :TRC # 9301 ~ ~ 24-HOUR MACHINE 'C~'~ [rS -' METROCOUNT DATE: ~ppro~c~ T~E NB ~ HOURL~ TIME NB ~ HOURLY TIME NB -~ HOURLY STARTS EB - ~ TOTAL STARTS EB - ~ TOTAL STARTS EB - WB TOT~ U~ ~ a:oo 3 ~ 9 4:00 · E 0 12:30 ~ 8:30 / ~ 3 4:30 12:45 ~ l 5 8:45 / ~ 7 ~ ~ 4:45' ~ao 0 ao:ao ~ ~ .:ao 2:45 3 7 10:45 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 .:45 8:00 ~ 11:00 7 ~ 7:00 4:00 ~ N= G 7 S:O0 4:30 7 12:30 E ~ e:po ~7 5:30 1 5 1:30 ~ / g:30 8:30 / ~ 2:30 ~ G 1 o:30 "-'- 24-HOUR MACHINE COI~'-'"'S METROCOUNT DATE: LOCATION:' Co~p~ll 24-HOUR VOLUME STARTS WB TOTAL -'STARTS wa TOTAL STARTS 12:3o 17 8:30 I ~ 4:30 ~:~o I 0 ~:~o / 0 3 s:3o 3 2~o ~-- ~o:oo ~ 3 s:oo -2:30 3 10:30 10 & 6:30 e:3o SE 2:30 /3 1 ~o:30 a=46 107 ~0~ 2=4S /~ ~13 10:46 7:O0 E O 3:00 / l 7 ~ ~:°° 3~ -' O~N 24-HOUR MACHINE C('~, I'S METROC T DATE: LOCATION:- ~opp, ! I 24-HOUR VOLUME '~, - STARTS EB -~ TOTAL STARTS -- TOTAL STARTS EB ~B) 12:30 1 ~ 8:30 12:4S /~ 5'7 =:oo ~ 2:30 ! ~ s:3o ~ = ~:3o 6:30 ~ 2:30 / METROC NT DATE: LOCATION:- ~T.,o~p e. l ( 24-HOUR VOLUME ~o j STARTS WB TOTAL STARTS WB TOTAL STARTS ~ WB TOTAL- M~ /~ 8:00 30~ 4:00 la:=O ' ~ s:ae 1 7 ~ 4:30 lO 12:45 ~ ~ / e:4. 1 1 7 ~13 4:4s · 10~ 1:~ ~ o:oo ~ 5:00 ~ ;~o 0 ~o:oo ~E e:oo -/0 2:30 ~ lO:30 ~3 6:30 / 1 2:45 ~ ~ 10:45 G ~ ~ ~-- 6:45 / l~-- a:ao ~ ~ ~:~o _ 7 3 ~:~o 3:45 ~ / ~ 11:45 g~ ~ 0 ~ 7:45 5' 7 4:15 3 12:1S ~ 8:15 4:30 / 12:30 ~ ~' 8:30 ~ ~ . 4:45 ~ / / 12:45 q~ ~J 8:45 ~ / 7 · :oo ~ ~:oo ~0 ~:oo S:4G ~ ~ ~ 7 1:48 7 / ~ ~ ~ 9:45 ~ ? /~ 7 6:30 / 0 ~ 2:30 1 0 ~ 10:30 7:00 ~ 19 3:~ 7 ~ ~ ~:oo 7:30 3 0 ~ 3:30 ~3 11:30 / 3 DUNTS C COUNT STREET NAME WENDYS / TOM THUMB '~ ~,~0~ 5 "['o~-~',~l~ SOUTH WEST EAST 'PROACH APPROACH APPROACH WEST EAST 221 12 I 2 7 15 .4. 26 ' APPROACH APPROACH ~2'8-3--'--8- 0 0 10'--'-'-2~-- 1 ".-'--'3--2'-'~. .T, RT, THRU L'F, RT, THRU LT, 285 7 2 0 6 19 2 35 I ~"'~'1' 0 0 0 0 I 0 7 ~.:"'~ 271 8 I 3 '9 20 2 34 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 O 0 0 0 0 0 § /,,;'~D _286_,__13__ __2__, .C} ~ 4~_,, 1_0__ __ 4 ._ 44 236 16 0 1 11. 9 2 42 5 0 0 0 '3 0 10 t,,'. ~'~ 204 9 0 0 10 10 6 47 ~,-:'~ I 0 I 0 I 0 14 150 10 0 2 .4 14 3 35 ~,;'¥ff . -0~ ~b~ ~0- 0 ~4--'~'~1 .... 15' ' ';: ~ ~ 144 7 0 1 12 8 6 43 I 0 0 I '6 0 17 -I:'~ D 110 8 2 2 10 11 8 38 3 0 I '1 5 0 7 97 13 I I 5 15 I 55 0 0~ 0 '0 _._6 _ I 1_3. $'.,= 95 13 I 0 12 9 5 40 2 0 O 0 6 0 13 91 7 0 0 7 10 2 32 ~,;'~ f" 4 0 I '1 5 0 19 t.'. 60 7 I O 11 11 4 32 2 I I 2 2 0 9 ~'.'~ 59 8 0 0 5 9 0 28 3 0 0 I 6 0 10 - ~':~ 65 4 0 0 5 10 4. 38 ~:¥'~ 4 0 3 1 6 0 11 0 0 2 I 5 0 13 0 0 0 - - I 13 0 8 'r.~e.-- 3 1 1 -- 1 3 0 14 0 I O . 1 7 0 .14 ¢,;,.~ 8202 ~ 437 ~ '1947 11 0 I 3 -10 I 16 9 0 I 3 10 1 17 7 0 1 4 '11 I 18 l.~'.~' 5 0 I 7 3 4 17 t~;'~*' - 6 I 2 10 17 2 '~0 ~'"~' ~ DIRECTIONAL COUNT 14 I I 8 5 5 13 ~t;'~' ' 1'8 I I 23 11 4 18 [ 9 2 I 14. 4 6 14 I~'. ~'t ¢''' 14 0 I 10 15 5 23 ~'="-*'° ' 15 I 1 17 9 2 23 ~t :'*,'~ ~, , _9 2. 3. 14 7 - 4 18 ~:~* ! \ 18 2 2 16 6 2 13 I;~ ! ',, t · 11 I 3 9 14 2 16 t'.~,° / /X 9 0 I 7 11 2 31 I:+'~ ,-- , ,- 5 I 0 4 7 2 13 'A?' ~...-'-..,,,~,~,~.// 5 0 2 10 5 0 20 ,,,:.~ ,.V'- 6 0 I 6 6 0 18 2:t~ ,.-. ,.,,., .~.- ...... .-' " ...... ." 7 o o 3 ...... "- I I I I I I ~'Ti I~'I-I'-'~i~""T"'T'~ I I I I I I I I , i I I I i I ~ ................... .-. ..... 3 I 1 8 11 I 22 '~:'~°t TIME 4 I I 3 13 2 28 ~'.~'~ f 6 0 I 5 8 3 26 ~.,.e'~ f WEST ................ EAST 4 0 0 3 14 2 23 Jr: 15f~ kCH APPROACH APPROACH 7 I 2 5 11 1 26 10 I 0 9 15 I 19 .A..,~I> TRC,~ 9214-1 TRC# 9214.-1 ~ UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ~'--' I0-37 WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS HOURLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCPH Major Street: N~c~ ~'_~4,- ~'~ N N = ~ ~ Vs t ~ V~ __ Grade m Vi . Vs m t Vi ~,~~V4 tv, v, Date of Counts:d,', ~' ~ Average Running Speed: Minor Street: VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement No. 2 3 4 5 7 9 Volume (vph) Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-1 STEP 1: RT from Minor Street t~ V9 ' Conflicting Flow, V~ 1/2V~+V~ ~ zz + ~'~ ~ }z~ vph(Vo) Critical Gap, T~, and Potential Capacity,, c~ T¢ ~ ~0' o sec (Table 10-2) c~9 pcph (Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, c~, cra9 -- c~9 -- pcph STEP 2: LT From Major Street Conflicting Flow, V¢ V~ + V, Critical Gap, T~, and Potential Capacity, % T, ~ ~.75 sec (Table 10-2) c~ = -~76 pcph (Fig. 10-3) Percent of c~ Utilized and ImpedanCe Factor (Fig. 10-5) (vs/c~s) X 100 -~ l y'~ p~ = I. O Actual Capacity, cm cms ~ c~ -~'77 ~ pcph STEP 3: LT From Minor Si~-eet I "~ V~ Conflicting Flow, V~ I/2 V~+V,+Vs+Vs ~ 7,.2. + 2.17_ + I.~ + .I. ~ II I O vph (V~?) Critical Gap, T~, and Potential Capacity, c~ T~ -- -L-/$ sec (Table 10-2) c~ -~ 12.~ pcph (Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, c~, c,~r" c~ X Ps =' ~2_~ X I.o ... ~2.~ pcph SHARED-LAN~ CAPACITY ~ S_II --- v~ + v~ if lane is shared (v,/c~,) + (v~/c~0 Movement N~x v(pcph ) c.~ (pcph) Cst~ (pcph) c~ LOS UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ...,~,, 10-37 WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS HOURLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCPH Maj°r Street: }Vlsi" ~r' ttv P" O N N -- ~-~ = V5 t Grade --V2 . V,__ __V~ ~,,~ f~V, __ tv, Date of C~J ~ Gi¢¢~ I I ¢ s~P I I M~or S~ek PHF' G~e ~o VOL~ AD~S~S M~ent No. 2 3 4 [ 5 7 ~ 9 Vol. (p~h), ~ Table 10-1 ~P 1: ~ ~ ~or ~ ~. C~g ~, V~ 1/2 V~ + V2 Etic~ Gap, To, ~d Pot~ti~ Capad~, cp T, ~ &- O s~ Cable 10-2) ~ =~5~ p~h (Fig. 10-3) A~ Capad~, c~ ~ ~ c~¢ ~ ~EO p~h ~P 2 LT From Major ~ ( V~ C~ffi~g H~, Vc V~ + V2 = ~ + 1~8 = I~Z ~h (V~) Cfitic~ Gap, T~, and Pot~fi~ CapadV, cp T~ = ~.75~ (Table 10-2) cp~ =Z~ p~h (Eg. 10-3) P~c~t of cp Ut~ and ~ance Factor ~g. 10-5) (vi/c?l) X Cfitic~ Gap, T~, ~d Potenti~ Capad~, c~ T~ ~ ~ ~ (Table 10-2) c~ ~ ~ p~h (~g. 10-3) A~ Capad~, c. c.~ = c~r X P~ ~ 75 X .9~ = 74 ~h S~ED-L~ C~AC~ 0 v7 + v, ~ l~e ~ sha~ ., ~, ~- v SH= -- (vMc.~) + (v,/~,) Movem~t Na v(p~h) ~p,i,.~c, (p~h) t,c .' cs~ (p~h) c~, ,, ,. ~ . '-.:~ ~ - i' '~ ' ~'~' ~ UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS .~. '---, 10-37 WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS HOURLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCPH Major Street:~d~^c/~cc-'ri~° .~. N N = [~ ~ Vs -- V, Grade __ V2 ~ ~ V,_ --__ V3~ __% ~ V~ ~/,~ N =~-~ ~'~V~ V, Date of Count~:~d~e ~9c) ~ I I s'roP Tune Period: A~ ~o&. [] YIELD Average Running Speed: .4-O N -- ~] Minor Street: PHF: I Grade ~ % VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement Nc~ 2[3 Volume(vl)h) ,~,~'Q) [ ~ I Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-1 i I STEP 1: RT from Minor Street r-- V~ · Conflicting Flow, V~ 1/2 V~ + V2 Critical Gap, T~, and Potential Capacity, % T, -- ~,O sec (Table 10-2) c~ =:~ .~O pcph (Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, cm c~ -~ %~ -- ~O pcph STEP 2: LT From Major Street tr V~ Conflicting Flow, V~ V~ + V~ -- ~r~ Critical Gap, T~, and Potential Capacity, % T~ -- ~.-/E sec (Table 10-2) ct~ ="/'7~ pcph (Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, c~ cm= %, --- -/ STEP 3: LT From Minor Street co fli t no , v, 1/2 v,+v,+v,+v, = z Critical Gap, T~, and Potential Capacity, cp T~ -- -7.-/5 sec (Table 10-2) cp~ -~ 12-~ pcph (Fig. 10-3) ActualCapacity, c~ c~--c~×P,---- ILo × I.o _-- ~2-O pcph SHARED-~ CAPACITY ~ SH -~ v~ + v~ if lane is shared (v~/c~,) + (v~/~) Movement No. v(pcp~ c,~ (pcph) CSH (pcph) I ca LOS 4 VVO I [ UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-37 WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS HOURLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCPH Major Street: }~Ac J~o.-r~,. ~ N N --- ~-~ < Vs _- Grade __ V, V4_ Date ofCo~nm:¥~-,' ~C, I I ¢ sToP I I Tune Period: ~ J>,~A, [] YIELD Avem~ Running Speed: 4 o N -- J--1 Minor Streeta VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS M m tNo. I 2 3 4 S I 7 I 9 Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-1 ~ ~) .I J I%-7 '~ I STEP 1: RT frrom Minor Street J r" V9 I ConffictingFlow,V~ 1/2V~+V2--- 5-/ + -~'----'/RI vph(Vo) Critical Gap, T=, and Potential Capacity,, % T, --- k. O sec (Table 10-2) %+ = ~7~ pcph (Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, c~ c~ ~ %~ ---- ~ pcph STEP ~ LT From Major Street ( V4 Conflic~g Flow, V= V~ + V= ---- '73 +/~t$7 --/~c~ vph (V=~) .................. Critical Gap, T=, and Potential Capacity, % (rig. 10-5) (vJ%.) X 100 ---- ~7o p. = .13 / . . Percent of c, Utilized and Impedance Factor . ? ,~ )' g U//~.. Com~ now, v~ 1/2 v,+v,+v,+v, Critical Gap, T~, and Potential Capacity, % T~ = '/.? 5 'sec (Table 10-2) %z -- ~'~ pcph (Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, c~ c~ = %~ X P~ = ~-o X ~-- zC~ pcph SHAR£D-LANE C.-~PAC1TY 0 ~__H.---- vt + v9 i/lane is shared (vt/c~) + (v~/c.~) Movement No. v(pcph) J c,,. (pcph) cs, (pcp. h) c.~ J LOS 7 ~-~ J z9 4 J .4~ I t-~o' j 10.3,1, ug~^~ STREETS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1 HOURLY VOLUMES Grade N=~ · Vs 1~57 N=~ V~ 3 ~ Grade 0% Grade ~ % ~ V~ major road N~ V~Vsv~ YIELD ~nor road T~e Period: ~ tx,~~ Average Running 5pe~: PHF: ~- O Grade V5 10-35 UNSIGNALIZ£D INTERSECTIONS ~ WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP 1: RT From Minor Street ('-V, I Conflicting Flows, Vc 1/2 V~ + V, -- Vo 1/2 V~ + V z~= I~ vph 2. + . Critical Gap, T, (Tab. 10-2) (~. O (sec) &,o (sec) 5 2.~ pcph '~Oo pcph %1:= Potential Capacity,., c~ (Fig. 10-3) cp9 = Percent of c~ Utilized (%/%~) X 100 = · ! °~ % (%:/c~12) X 100 Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Po = ~.C~ p~, = _-- %~-5 pcph Actual Capacity, cm c,,~ = c,~ = ~OO __ pcph c~n ---- c~l STEP 2: LT From Major Street ( V~ ,~ V~ Conflicting Flows, V¢ [ V~ + V~ -- Vc~ Vs + V.~ = V~ mr~ +~O---- Z,5.~. vph 5 .+t'lS'L=~7(~0 vph Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) ~,-~5 (sec) 5.75 (sec) Potential Capadty, c~ (Fig. 10-3) c~ -- '~ &O pcph c.~l = ~ O O pcph Percent of cp Utilized (v~/%~) X 100 -- · [ '/.~ % {v~/%~) X 100 Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) P~ = I,O P~ -- / OO pcph Actual Capadty, c., c,,~ -- c~ = ~ (~ · pcph cml -- STEP 3: TH From Minor Street I V~ Conflicting Flows, V~ 1/2V~+V,+V~+V,-~';'+V~--V~s 1/2V,+V~+V~+V~+V:+V~--V¢~ ~ + I-ts'/+ [ =Zo4'7 vph qa ~' z.4o + 2-2-._--2OTOvph Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) '-/.2.$ (sec) '7.zS (sec) SC> pcph %ii-- ~C~ pcph Potential Capacity., % (Fig. 10-3) c~ -- ~ z~ % Percent of c~ Utilized (vs/cp~) X 100 = % (vt ~/c~ ~) X 100 -- ., Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Ps -- ' ~)9 · p~ = .9-/ Actual Capacity, c,, ',~ = ~ O X ~)~ ~%2- _-- %0 X , ~5 x .~;~ (pcph) ,/,,~' · %s X - ~') (pcph) STEP 4: LT From Minor Street -~-" Conflicting Flows, V= V=s (st~)~,~=~ Vc, ,.,JV.~J~p 3) + V~. Critical Gap, T, (Tab. 10-2) '7.'/5 (sec) -L'7~ (sec) Potential Capadty, % (Fig. 10-3) %t = 1 oc-,, pcph %to -- 40 pcph Actual Capadty, c., c,.~ = cut X P,. X P, X P~ X Plz c,.~o WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPACITY ../'~ ~, vi -b vi CSH ~' where 2 movements share a lane (vJc.O + (VJCm,) vT + vi + vk cs" = (vi/c.,) + (vic.,) + (Vk/C.k) where 3 movements share a lane .... . MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9 /-/~" Movement v(pcph) c.(pcph) CSH(pCph) cs = csH -- v /J~ MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,/l, 12 Movement v(pcph) [ c.(pcph) cs.(pcph___)._ [ CR = CS. -- V LOS Movement v (p¢~h) ] ¢. (pcph) '.,,c~ ~ c. - v LOS COMMENTS: ..... : ..... · ., .. 'I0-34 uze~ STREET~ WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1 HOURLY VOLUMES Grade o % STOPU] 4.5_ 2. IL N = ~-] YIELDU] Vn V,, V,o N Grade ~ % ) ( Grade O % 82.- V~ major road N = ~ V ~or mad Ume Pe~od: ~ t~&~ Average Runn~g Spe~: PHF: Grade O % 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 { 11 12 Movment No. 1 2 Volume (~h) ~2 1487 . Vol. (~h), s~ hble 10-1 85 VOL~S ~ PCPH 4~ z ~j NA v~ V3 ~V7 vs v~ 10-35 ~ UNS~GNALIZED (NTERSECTION$ .~, WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP 1: RT From Minor Street ["- V9 Conflicting Flows, V¢ 1/2 V3 + %_ -- Vo 1/2 V Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) (~. O (sec) Co, ~ (sec) _- "E-'/5 pcph cp~:-- -7-/5 pcph Potential Capacity, cp (Fig. 10-3) %9 Percent of cp Utilized (%/c~) × 100 = ~ % (vi:/cv~2) × 100 --- (o .% Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) p~ = ,;)7,- Pi2 = Actual Capacity,, c,, c,,9 -- cp~ -- %'75 pcph c,,~: = c~2 = -/'75 pcph STEP 2: LT From Major Street ( V~ ) V: Conflicting Flows, Vc Va + V,. = Vc~ V~ + V~ '/~ + M'~.7 = I ~(oO vph ~_v_ + ~d-~ = ~-/C) vph Critical Gap, Tc (Tab. 10-2) ~,-/5 (sec) ~.75 (sec) Potential Capacity, c~ (Fig. 10-3) c~ = I ~D pcph cpi _- ~oo pcph Percent of % Utilized (%/%,) × 100 = ~'7 % (vi/Cv0 × 100 =- 14 % Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) p~ = .'1 o p~ -- .c)O ActualCapacity, c.~ c..,~-_cv~= ~%O pcph c~_--cv~----(oOO pcph STEP 3: TH From Minor Street I Vs [ Vii Conflicting Flows, V¢ 1/2V~+V2+V~+Vs+Vs+V,--Vcs 1/2Vs+V~+V~+V~+V:+V~=V¢; ~ ._ .4&,~ ~. 4~ =ZlzZ~ vph 7~ .+}4~7 + 52- -- 21'~vph Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) '7, ~-5 (sec) 7, 2 $ (sec) Potential Capacity, c? (Fig. 10-3) cvs = ~(> pcph cvil _- ~O pcph Percent of cv Utilized (vs/cvs) X 100 = ~ % (v:i/cvu) X 100 -- ~ % Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Ps-- ,9~ P~l --- ' 9'7 Actual Capacity, c~ c..,s = c~s X P~ X P~ c.~ = cv~l × P1 X P~ ?;,7-- = %0 X ~:2-- = ~0 X , o) X ,-/ (pcph) · 9 X · -/ (pcph) STEP 4: LT From Minor Street '~ V,- Lvl0 Conflicting Flows, V~ V~{~omla, 3) + V~ z~V~.: ---- V.r V¢~l (step 3) + Vs + V9 -- V~l0 Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) /," .7,7~ (sec) "--~ '7.7~ (sec) Potential Capacity, % (Fig. 10-3) Cv~ = -4o pcph ! cvs0 = ~O pcph Actual Capacity, c~ c.~r -- c~ X P~ X P4 .X. P,l X P~: c~0 -- cp~0 X P4 X P~ X Ps X P~ .~, -"/ X .9.7 X ~.~o (pcph) · 9 X .~5 X ,'~2- (pcph) 10-36 ..-. URBAN ~TR~ET~ ~ WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page SHARED-LANE CAPACITY vi -t- vi %. = where 2 movements share a lane (v~/%) + (v,/c,,,i) % + vi + % csH ---- where 3 movements share a lane (v,/c,..) + (vi/c.,.) + (v~/c~,O MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pCph) cs.(pcph) cu = cs~ - v LOS 9 MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10, LI, 12 Movement v(pcph) ] ¢.,(pcph) csu(pcph) cR = csH -- v LOS 12 .d-~, L "-' / MA/OR STREET L£FT TURNS 1, 4 Movement v (pcph) c., (pcph) cR = c., -- v LOS COMMENTS: ...... UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-7 TABLE 10-2. CRITICAL GAP CRITERIA F~,fx UNSIGNALIZ~D INTERSECTIONS BASIC CRITICAL GAP FOR PASSENGE. R CARS. SEC VEHICL£ MANEUVER AVFJOL. GE RUNNXNG SPEED, .MAJOR ROAD AND 30 MPH ~ 55 MPH TYPE OF CONTROL NUMBER OF LANF~ ON MA~OR ROAD 2 4 2 4 RT from Minor Road LT from Major Road 5.0 5.5 5.5 6.0 Cross Major Road STOP 6.0 6.5 7.5 8.0 YmLD 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 LT from ,Minor Road STOP 6.5 7.0 8.0 8.5 ~r:LD 6.0 6.5 , 7.0 7.5 ADJUSTM~NT-q AND MODIFICATIONS TO CRITICAL OA~. SEC CONDmON i ADVENT RT from Minor Strew: Curb radim > 50 fl I --0.$ or mm an~le < ~ RT from Minor Str~: Ac~l~ration lane ~ --1.0 provided All mov~m~m: Population > 2:~0,000 --0.$ R~h-'ict~t sight diet,nee.' ap to + 1.0 M-~i~,.~m Ct/till ~p -- 8.5 Pot v~lu~ of ~v~ mm~m~ spe~t be~ 30 rout 55 m~h. · Thiz mtju~l i~ ~ f~' the s~ mov~t~ imbed by r~[r~-ted sight 200 8.5 Figure 10-3. Potential capacity based 200 ~oo soo soo ~ooo ,~co ~4oo ~soo on conflicting traffic volume and crit- con~c~na r~r~¢ $v~us. v: ,,v~ ical gap size. POTENTIAL CAPACITY, c. (pcph) ~ ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ..~..~....~.........../ _..--- . 8 .//////...~ ./ ./ ./- ~o .,i/ ,; ,'/ ,,~ ~' g / t ! o / I -~I I · "--" UN$1ONALIZ£D INTIi~ECT1ON$ ~ 10-~ 0 20 40 60 80 I00 CAPACITY USED BY EXISTING DEMAND , Percento~Je Figure 10-5. Impedance factors as a result of congested movements. HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 01-11-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Beltline Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd. Analyst: GCL File Name: EXISTA2.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-11-94 AM Peak Comment: Existing 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 25 886 199 101 199 36 107 193 301 841 658 40 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 i 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 51.0A 17.0A Yellow/A-R 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.5.. 3.5 Lost Time ..~.O'~... 3.0 Lost Time ~.0 ...3.,.0 Cycle Length:~ 106.0 s%ecsPhase combination order:."~"'~ -~5 ~ .......... 'intersection Performance Summ~ry Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 131 731 0.19 0.18 28.2 D 47.3 E T 958 5346 1.02 0.18 50.9 E R 272 1515 0.73 0.18 32.2 D T 454 1782 0.44 0.25 21.8 R 386 1515 0.09 0.25 19.5 C .NB L 287 1693 0.37 0.17 30.0 D 41.3 E TR 550 3238 0.94 0.17 43.7 E SB L 831 1693 1.01 0.49 47.9 .E. 30.8 D .TR 1733 3532 0.42 0.49 11.3 B- Intersection Delay = 37.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS =~D' Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.941 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 01-11-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Beltline Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd. Analyst: GCL File Name: EXISTP1.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-11-94 PM Peak Comment: Existing Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 3 1 2 i I '" 1 ~.._-...< 1 2 < Volumes 43 292 126 244 489 459 306 746 116 108 243 28 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 23.0A 16.0A Green 15 OA 36.0A Yellow/A-R 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3 5 3 5 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 105·0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/¢ g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 69 428 0.62 0.16 41·6 E 27.3 D T 866 5346 0.37 0·16 25.5 D R 245 1515 0.51 0·16 27.3 D WB L 718 3279 0.30 0.41 16.0 C 18·1 C T 730 1782 0·67 0.41 17·7 C R 620 1515 0·74 0·41 19.7 C NB L 597 1693 0.51 0·35 21.1 C 20.7 C TR 1232 3495 0.73 0·35 20.6 C SB L 258 1693 0·42 0·15 31·3 D 28.3 D TR 535 3511 0.53 0.15 27.2 D Intersection Delay = 21·7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0·703 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 01-12-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Beltline Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd. Analyst: GCL File Name: EXISTA2.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-11-94 AM Peak Comment: Existing w/ Southbound Shared Left/Through Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 3 ...... 1 (~.~,./~., 1 1 1 2 < //-"~ 1 > Volumes 25 ".~_.6-, 199 ~ 199 36 107 193 /3~0.~ 841 ~58"~ 40 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 ~.v 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ~. ~' 12.0 1~O" 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 ~22.0A Green .38.0A~22.0A ~ Lost Time 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 .3..0 __~ ........ ;.... Cycle Length: ,.~-~'~ecsPhase combination order:"~ #5 #6 ........... "'" '-Intersection Performance Summa~' ...................... Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 219 927 0.11 0.24 21.2 C 22.9 C T 1265 5346 0.77 0.24 23.2 C R 358 1515 0.56 0.24 21.4 C WB L 181 766 0.56 0.24 ~D'%~. 21 .9 . T 422 1782 0.47 0.24 20.3 -C R 358 1515 0.10 0.24 17.9 C NB L 419 1693 0.26 0.25 al.4 C 21.4 C TR 801 3238 0.65 0.25 21.4 C SB ~ 710 1693 0.69 0.42 -..18.7 C~' 17.0 C .~-'~ ~.LTR'.,, .. 14617 3484 0.76 0.42 16.2 ~q ~ ' ~ ~? ,Intersection Delay = 20.0 sec/veh Inter~ection LOS Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.730 ~CM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIuN SUMMARY 01-11-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Beltline Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd. Analyst: GCL File Name: EXISTP~.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-11-94 PM Peak Comment: Existing w/ 55 ~~ 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 43 292 126 244 489 459 306 746 116 108 243 Lane Width 12.012.012.012'.012.012.012.012.0 12.012.0 RTOR Vole 0 0 0 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * Thru * Right * Right * ~ Peds Peds /~"" '4-.'\ WB Left * * aB Left * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 23.0A 16.0A Green 15.0A 36.0A Yellow/A-R ~.~.~90 4.0 Yellow/A- 3,._~ ....... ~..~.._ Lost Time .. .... 3.0~ 3.0 Lost Time"~-,-.0 3.0 Cycle Length: ~105.0 SecsPhase combination order: #1929596 Intersection Performance Summar~ Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 69 428 0.62 0.16 41.6 27.3 T 866 5346 0.37 0.16 25.5 D R 245 1515 0.51 0.16 27.3 D WB L 718 3279 0.30 0.41 16.0 C 18.1 T 730 1782 0.67 0.41 17.7 C R 620 1515 0.74 0.41 19.7 C NB L 597 1693 0.51 0.35 21.1 C 20.7 TR 1232 3495 0.73 0.35 20.6 C SB L 258 1693 0.42 0.15 31.3 D 28.3 LTR 535 3511 0.53 0.15 27.2 D Intersection Delay = 21.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.703. ~ /'~ .......... HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 01-12-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Beltline Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd. Analyst: GCL File Name: EXISTA3.HC9 Area Type: Other . .. 1-11-94 AM Peak Comment: Year 199~ ~a~e .'"~-"'- tk~z___~_l ........................ Eastbound h Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R "~L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 3 1 ~ 1 1 1 2 < 1 > 2 < Volumes 28 1005 226 115 226 41 121 219 341 954 746 45 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 22.0A Green 38.0A 22.0A Lost Time 3 0 Lost Time 3.0 3 0 -~ ~_' Cycle Length: 93.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5 #6 ~_ [.~ ~ ~ ....... , Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 194 820 0.14 0.24 21.4 C 25.7 D T 1265 5346 0.87 0.24 26.4 D R 358 1515 0.63 0.24 22.7 C WB L 157 664 0.73 0.24 35.5 ~ 25.0 C T 422 1782 0.54 0.24 21.0 C R 358 1515 0.11 0.24 18.0 C NB L 419 1693 0.29 0.25 21.7 C 22.7 C TR 801 3238 0.73 0.25 22.9 C SB L 710 1693 0.78 0.42 21.5 C 19.8 C LTR 1461 3484 0.86 0.42 19.0 C Intersection Delay = 22.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.828 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION.SUMMARY 01-12-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Beltline Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd. Analyst: GCL File Name: EXISTP3.HC9 Area Type: Other ~ 1-11-94 PM Peak Comment: Year 1995 Base /. ~.~ ..... ..L~ 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 140 331 143 277 555 594 347 919 132 193 347 120 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 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 * * NB Left * EB Left Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Pods Peds WB Left , * SB Left * Pods Pods SB Right WB Right * Green 31.0A 5.0P Green 14.0A 29.0A 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.5 3.5 Yellow/A-R 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Lost Time ~/~3~ 3.0 Cycle Length: ~/94.0 ~ecsPhase 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 EB L 108 1693 0.76 0.43 34.5 D 21.1 C T 1763 5346 0.21 0.33 17.2 C R 500 1515 0.29 0.33 17.8 C WB L 209 3279 0.61 0.43 19.4 C- 27.9 D T 588 1782 0.94 0.33 40.9 E R 741 1515 0.80 0.49 19.7 C NB L 540 1693 0.64 0.32 22.7 C 37.9 D TR 1115 3495 0.99 0.32 42.7 SB L 270 1693 0.64 0.16 31.5 D 43.2 E LTR 546 3423 0.94 0.16 47.1 E Intersection Delay = 32.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.913 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTI' SUMMARY 01-12-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Beltline Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd. Analyst: GCL File Name: EXISTA4.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-11~94 AM Peak Comment: Year 1995 Base Plus 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 < Volumes 29 1005 226 115 226 53 121 228 341 1003 784 47 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 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 WBLeft * SBLeft* Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 22 0A Green 38 OA 22 0A ....... Yellow/a-R 3.0 Yellow/a- 3.5 3.5 Lost Time 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 "-- ......... ' ....... -'~ ' Cycle Length: 93.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 185 784 0.16 0.24 21.4 C 25.7 D T 1265 5346 0.87 0.24 26.4 D R 358 1515 0.63 0.24 22.7 C WB L 157 664 0.73 0.24 35.5 D 24.8 C T 422 1782 0.54 0.24 21.0 C R 358 1515 0.15 0.24 18.2 C NB L 419 1693 0.29 0.25 21.7 C 22.9 C TR 802 3243 0.74 0.25 23.1 C SB L 710 1693 0.82 0.42 23.4 C 21.8 C LTR 1461 3484 0.90 0.42 21.1 C Intersection Delay = 23.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.851 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 01-12-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) Beltline Road (N-S) MacArthur Blvd. Analyst: GCL File Name: EXISTP4.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-11-94 PM Peak Comment: Year 1995 Base Plus 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 < Volumes 143 331 143 277 555 624 347 968 132 209 372 122 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 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 * ~'~'~ I,,,~. ~l. TM Thru * Thru * /~ ~ ~. Right * Right * /~ ~ Peds Peds i ...... ~-~ NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right * Green 29.0A 4.0P Green 14.5A 29.5A Yellow/A-R 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.5 3.5 Lost Time ~?-3~3.0 . Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: ~ 92.0 ~%ecsPhase 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 EB L 92 1693 0.84 0.40 49.3 E 24.7 C T 1685 5346 0.22 0.32 17.6 C R 478 1515 0.30 0.32 18.2 C WB L 178 3279 0.68 0.40 23.9 C 33.3 D T 562 1782 0.99 0.32 50.2 E R 733 1515 0.85 0.48 22.5 C NB L 561 1693 0.62 0.33 21.1 C 37.7 D TR 1160 3500 1.00 0.33 42.6 E SB L 285 1693 0.65 0.17 30.8 D 42.0 E LTR 578 3428 0.94 0.17 45.9 E Intersection Delay = 35.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.937 Sm 12/20/93 s,~peed # observat % Total Cumul % MacArthur North of Belt Line 1 33 33 1 0.017543 0.017543 2 34 34 1 0.017543 0.035087 3 35 35 1 0.017543 0.052631 4 36 36 2 0.035087 0.087719 5 36 37 5 0.087719 0.175438 6 37 38 7 0.122807 0.298245 7 37 39 8 0.140350 0.438596 8 37 40 10 0.175438 0.614035 9 37 41 6 0.105263 0.719298 10 37 42 1 0.017543 0.736842 11 38 -~-~'x 6 0.105263 0.8421057 12 38 :'.~1~/' 1 0.017543 0.8596495 13 38 45 4 0.070175 0.929824 14 38 46 3 0.052631 0.982456 15 38 47 1 0.017543 1 16 38 17 38 57 ,..-. ./ 19 39 / ~v', ' ' -/ ..-~ ...... 20 39 t. ~4~ ....-- 22 39 23 39 24 39 25 39 26 40 27 40 28 40 29 40 30 40 31 40 32 40 33 40 34 40 35 40 36 41 37 41 38 41 39 41 40 41 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 43 45 43 46 43 47 43 48 43 49 44 50 45 51 45 52 45 53 45 54 46 55 46 56 46 57 47 40.21052 -.'.~ AN ORDINANCE OF CITY OF TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. V9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE crrY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 341 OF THE CITY OF COPPF. LI.; REGULATING SIGHT VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET INTERSECI~ONS; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING PENALTIES FORVIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; EXCEPT WHERE A DIFFERENT PENALTY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW FOR SUCH OFFENSE, THE PENALTY SI-IA].I. BE THAT FI~.D BY STATE LAW, AND FOR ANY OFFENSE WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION THAT GOVERNS FIRE SAFETY, ZONING, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAN~ATION OR DUMPING OF REFUSE AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED BY SECTION 2.09 OF THE TEXAS LrrTER ABATEMENT ACt, ARTICLE 4477-9a, VERNON'S ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES, AS AMENDED THE PENALTY SHAI.L BE A FINE NOT TO EX~.Fr~ THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOI.IARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE crrY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPFI.I~ TEXAS: SECTION 1. Am~ah~g O~m~' No. 341, T]~ Subdivision ~ of the Ci~ of Orai~ce No. 341, the Subdivision Orai~ce of the C. it7 of Coppell is hereby amended by adding thereto a new provision which shall be incorporated as a new Article 13-1 of the Code of Ordinances of the Cit7 and shall read as follows: AMENDD~IG VISIBILITT REGULATIONS - Page 1 "Article 13 - 1 Vis~ilky Requirements. Sec. 13-1-1 Street/Drive Intersection Vis~iliry Triangles. A. Vi-~[iky requlmm~,-t~ for residual (local) meet i~temeaions. No fence, wall, screen, billboard, sign, structure, foliage, hedge, tree, bush, shrub, berm, or any other k~m~ tither xnan-made or natural shall be erected, planted, or mzlntained in such a position or place so as to obsu'uct or interfere within the following mlnlm~m s£a~ldarcL% 1. Vision at all imersecfions where streets intersect at or near right angles shall be dear at elevations between two and one-half (2 1/2) feet and nine (9) feet above the average gutter elevation, except single mmked trees, within a triangular area formed by extending the two curb lines from their poinl of intersection, forty-five (45) feet, and connecting these points with an imaginary line, thereby ranking a triangle, ff there are no curbs existing, the tria.,~,lnr area shall be formed by extending the property lines from their point of intersection thirty (30) feet and connecting these points with an imaginary line, thereby ,-.king a triangle as per figure 1. B. V',.,%~i-] T~i*n~i~ for Non-R~a~-,i*l (collector ..a arteriaO The desirable mlnlm.m sight distances area based on the prpmlse that entrance m~neuve~ should not severely degrade traf6c flow on an urban street. They are, therefore, particularly applicable to arterial streets. Actual slghr distances provided at intersections should be much greater thall these mlnlm~,m values if practical Therefore, the following minimum slghr distance triangle that incorporates both plum and profile restrictions sbnll also apply to virility obstructions at int~-sections. 1. In the plan view, the horizonlal dear area at the intersection of a proposed street/drive shall be dpfined as being wlrhln a triangular area formed b~. a. A line that is on the centerline of the proposed street/drive, besin,~ing at the intersecting street's tangent of curb and conrlnuing for a distance of fifteen (15) feet back into the proposed street/drive to the end point. AMENDING VISIBIIi'IW REGULATIONS - Page 2 b. ^ line that is parallel to and five ($) feet out from the intersecting street's curb, beginning at the centerline of the proposed street/drive and continuing for a distance ~I~ as prescn'bed by figure 2 and table A, to the end point. c. A straight line that connects the end point of 1.a (that is on the centerline and fifteen (15) feet back into the proposed street/drive) and the end poinl of 1.b (that is a distance ~ along and five (5) feet out from the existing street's curb from the centerline of the proposed street/drive). 2. In the profile view the vertical dear area shall be defined as the area that is below a point that is nine (9) feet above the street curb and above a point that is two and one-half (2 1/2) feet above the street curb. C. The aforpmenl:ioned restrictions also apply to streets which do not intersect at right angles, except that the triangle dimensions shall not necessarily be minimum requiremenl~, in such cases, the City's Traffc Engineer, or his designee, shall have the authority to vary such requirements as he de,ms necessary to provide safety for both vehic~l:ar and pedestrian traffic. D. ILO.W. Obstruction O,~a, the Vf~,qi~y TrL-ngi,~. 1. Fences, w-all~, screens, billboards, signs and other structures sharl conform to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City, as amended, and to the Sign Ordinance of the ~ty. 2. Foliage of hedges, trees, and shrubs in public right-of-ways shall be mslnralned by the property owner adjace~_r to the right-of-way, such that the minimum ovedlallg above a sidewalk shall be seven (7) feet. The minimum overhang above a street, alley or public driveway sh~ll be fourteen (14) feet. The Chief Building Offelsl or his authorized representative shall have the authority to determine whether any such fence, wall, screen, hedge, tree, bush, shrub, billboard, sign or structure, as AMENDING VISIBILITY REGULATIONS - Page 3 erected, planted or maintained, constitute a public hazard or public nuisance in violation of the provision of this ordinance. Upon determination, he shall cause to be issued a written notice to the owner or lessee of the property d~manding that said owner or lessee abate said hazard or nuisance within ten (10) days of the date said notice is mailed. The City of Coppell may abate the hazard or nuisance upon the written request of the owner or lessee of the property and upon payment of reasonable charges for labor. F. Exceptions. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to, or otherwise interfere wlth~ the following: 1. Placement and maintenance of war:tic control devices under governmental authority and control 2. Existing and future scree, ning requirpments imposed by the Cily Council of the City of CoppelL 3. Existin~ and furore City, State and Federal Regulations.' The City Council may allow variances to the terms of this ordinance. An administrative fee of Fifty Dollars ($50) sb~ll be charged to all appl~-anrn requesting a variance from this ordinance. Non-profit organizations shall be exempt :fxom the Fifty Dollars ($50) administrative fee when requesting a variance. SECTION 2. Savin~ Clause. Chapter 13 of the Code of OrAinsnces of the City of Coppell shall r~,maln in full force and effect, save and except as amended by this ordinance. SECTION 3. Rep,~l~ng Clause. An parts of ordinances, inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance AMENDING VISIBILITY REGULATIONS - Page 4 are hereby repealed. SEC'nON 4. ~ili~ Clause. If any article, paragraph, or subdivision, clause or provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or held unconstiturlonal, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole or any part of provision thereof, other than the part so decided to be invalid or unconstitutional SECTION S. Penalty Clause. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed gu/ky of a nfisdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a penalty of flue not to exceed the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each offense; except where a different penalty shall be that fixed by sta~e law, and for any offense which is a violation of any provision that governs ~re safety, zoning, public health and sanitation or dumping of refuse as that term is defined by Sections 2.09 of the To~a_~ Litter Abatement Act, Article 4477-9a, Vernon's Annotated Civ~ Statutes, as amended, the penalty shall be a flue not to exceed the s-m of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense, and each and every day such offense is continued shall constitute a new and separate offense. SECTION 6. ~ Date. This ordinance shall take effect ;mmedi;*lely from and after its passage and publ/cation of its caption, as the law in such cases provides. AMEND~G VISIBIMTY REGULATIONS - Page 5 DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED b.y/r~e City C?uncil of the City of Coppe]l, Texas this the // day of F~.7 ~j ~.~2, 1990. APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: AMENDING VISIBILrIT REGULATIONS - Page 6 ATTACHMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. Figure 1 S~eet Intersection V'~i].ity Triangle Figm'e 2 -'- ,,,o,~. I r i I ~ ,'--- ?R' I'L "i TABLE 'A' SIGHT DISTANCES (BEE FIGURE 2) BTOPPING BIGHT INTERSECTION BIGHT DIBTANGE- (PEET) DEBIGH DIBTANGE (PEET) PAVEMENT NEAR 81DE r-ARBIDE BPEED WIDTH MINIMUM DEBIRABLE MINIMUM DEBIRABLE MINIMUM DEBIRABLE 26 150 2 O0 26' 150 ~ ~0 160 ~110 28' 200 260 200 800 40 200 200 .~ 86' 200 276 220 8 10 40' 240 828 270 870 ~15 240 250 44' 240 880 27~ 875 2-22' 240 880 ~OB 4 10 40 275 800 44' 27~ 8~0 ~lO~ 42 ~ 2-88' 2~0 400 400 820 45 ~11.5 87.5 2-:18' ~20 4.50 4.50 .BaO VEHICLE IN LANE NEAREST INTERSECT,ON -,,~.., GRADE APPROACHING INTERSECTION --LINE OF SIGHT FAR SIDE GRADE APPROACHING i~.~ INTERSECTION J~. VEHICLE IN LANE~ :i. NEAREST APPROACHING · ~ TRAFFIC. .-~ · ~'1 .;. .~ .~," ~'": NEAR SIDE ";'~'~i- -,:~.. SIGHTDISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS ..,.~.~.:::.. USE WITH TABLE .:fi:' '.i.'.. - 2~- INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING HANDBOOK SECOND EDITION Wolfgang S. Homburger Editor Louis E. Keefer and William R. McGrath Associate Editors PRENTICE-HALL, INC., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 investigate those driver and vehicle characteristics that are of data collected in the field. Drew et al.4° derive an expres- most important in eliminating rear-end collisions. The car- sion for acceleration noise as following model used is that given by m = 1, I = 2. The simulation demonstrated that most critical variables were 'l (1) driver reaction time, (2) desired spacing, and (3) thresh- n2~ Vr - Vo 2 old boundary for relative perception, o' = ~t, - ~ · (15.1 I0) where r = total time in motion for subject trip segment Acceleration "noise" Au = constant increment of velocity change (mph) (2 mph is suggested) It is reasonable to assume that a driver will attempt to maintain a uniform velocity when traveling along a road- At~ = time interval (seconds} for a change in velocity. way. But because of traffic and roadway conditions, or of magnitude ni Au (n is an integer) inattention to the driving task, the driver will vary the speed (and thus the acceleration) while proceeding along a road- Vo, Vr = velocity at the start and end of trip segment way. K = number of segments of uniform acceleration The standard deviation cr of the acceleration about the mean acceleration is defined as the acceleration "noise." The mathematical definition of this quantity, assuming mean For a long trip, or a trip where Vr and Vo are nearly identical, acceleration to be zero, is the second term of the equation can be neglected. An example of calculation of acceleration noise for a ' vehicle in urban traffic is shown in Table 15-3. For this o' = la(t)]2 dt (15.108) example, &u = 2.0 mph and the total time in motion is 30.0 s. Between zero and 8 s, the vehicle accelerates from 20 mph to 24 mph, so that n = 4.0/2.0 -- 2.0 and At where att) is the acceleration (positive or negative) at time t and T is the total time in motion. An alternative form in 8.0 s. Successive changes in velocity, are evaluated simi- which acceleration is sampled at successive time intervals larlv.. (At) becomes ra.m.Z cr = ~ [a(t)]: At (15.109) Velocity Elapsed at End of Jones and Potts39 measured acceleration noise over different Time Interval roads, varying traffic conditions and different drivers. They hterval (s) (mph) n. second reported the following conclusions: 0 0 2o -- -- -- I 8 24 2 8 0.50 1. For two roads through hilly country, ~ is much greater for a 2 12 22 I .t 0.25 3 17 24 1 5 0.20 narrow 2-lane mad than for a 4-lane dual highway. 4 24 20 2 7 0.57 2. For a road in hilly country., is greater for a downhill journey 5 .30 24 2 6~ 0.6'/ than for an uphill one. Total 30 2.19 3. For two drivers driving different speeds below the design speed [(w 20 - 24 : ,a of a highway. ~y is much the same. -.l L~-(2.~¢~ _ ( h ] 4. If one or both drivers exceed the design speed, o' is greater for \-~-~/ J = 0.52 mpWs = the faster driver. ~. Increasing traffic volume increases o'. 6. Increasing Waffle congestion produced by patting cars. stopping Queueing models buses, cross traffic, crossing pedes~ans, etc.. increases o'. 7. The value of ~ may be a b~tter measure of traffic congestion Delay resulting from congestion is commonly observed than travel times and stopped times. 8. High values of cr indicate a potentially dangerous situation, ill many types of transportation systems. Vehicles wait in line for an opportunity to make a left turn, riders form a line to board a transit bus, and aircraft form a queue on a Although Jones and Potts caution against the use of ar- bitrazy interpretation of values of ~y, they make the obser- taxiway while awaiting permission to take off. ration that ~y = 0.7 R/sa is a low value and cr -- 1.5 ft/s~ The length of time a user must wait, the number of units is a high value, waiting in line, or the proportion of time that a facility might be empty (parking stall) are all examples of the type of Calculation of acceleration noise. Equations (15.108) problems that may be solved with the use of queueing and (15.109) do not lend themselves to ease of calculation models. ~D. R. Dt~,w. C. L. DuoEx. man C. J. K.n~.s~. "Freeway Level of Service aa ~T. R. Joi~es A~,'O R. B. Po-frs. The Meaaut~nent of Acceleration Noise--A Desc~bed by an Energy-Acceleration Noise Model." GeometricA~pect~ o/Highways. Traffic Parameter." Oper. Res.. 10 (6), 745-763 (1962). Highway Res. Rec. 162, Washingnon. D.C., 1967.30-85. 4~0 Transportation and Traffic Engineenng Handbook -' Fundamentals of queueing theory ~,(o) = I - p (15.111) The probability of n units in the system is The elements of a single-channel queueing system are ' ? illustrated in Figure 15.15. Of interest are such items as the P(n) = WP(O) (15.112) - number of units in the queue, thc probability that there are ~ 2. Average queue length. £(m). The average number of _~ no units in the queue, or the average time a unit waits in -.t the queue. The queue is the number of units waiting to be units waiting to be served (average queue length) is ~' served (5 units in Figure 15.15). The arrival rate of units is termed X and the average service rate is ,,. E(m) = - (15.113) M 'i~ X = arrival - Io O O O O I ['~ ~ u ' ~rvice 3. Average number in tbe system, E(n). The average hum- rate rata '~ Queue Service bet in the system is the sum of those in queue plus the ~ channel number being served. " -~ Figur~ 15.15. Schematic of a single-channel queueing system. ,i~ E(n) .... (15.114) -'- To predict mathematically the characteristics of a ':~,~ queueing system, it is necessary to specify the following 4. Variance of the number in the system, var(n). The var- ?, system characteristics and parameters: lance of the number in the system is ,'~ I. Arrival pattern characteristics: (a) average rate of ar- ;7 rival k and (b) statistical distribution of time between ar- var(n) = p~ k~ (15.115) i: rivals. (1 - p)' (~. - X) ;- 2. Service facility characteristics: (a) average ,"'ate of serv- '.: ice ~,, (b) statistical distribution of service time, and (c) the S. Average waiting time, E(w). The average time an arrival :'-' spends waiting before service begins is :.. number of units that can be served simultaneously, or num- ~' ber of channels available (1 in Figure 15.15). Arrivals and service may be random where the time between arrivals at £(w) = (15. 116) : a ticket booth and the time it takes to collect a parking fee ~,(~. - k) are both described by the negative exponential distribution. 6. Average time in ~,'stem, E(v). The average time, in- There may be a combination of statistical distributions, as eluding waiting plus the time being served, is for random arrivals of vehicles at a metered entrance ramp followed by uniformly distributed service times as a vehicle E{v) -- ~I (15.117) is permitted to enter every 9 s. - 3, Queue discipline characteristics, such as the means ~ by which the next unit is to be served: A common discipline Example of Queueing Calculations for a Single Chun- ''.} is first in, first out (FIFO), such as is usually observed at nel. The exit from a parking facility is through a single ,. a traffic signal or a freeway entrance ramp. Other disciplines exit, where variable fees are collected and change made. may occur: for example, last in, first out (LIFO). This con- Vehicles arrive at a rate X of 120 veh/h. The time to collect ' dition may occur on a two-lane approach to a signalized fees is exponentially distributed with a mean duration (I/~,) intersection where vehicles in the left lane are queued up of 18 s. What are the characteristics of the operation? ,: behind a left-turning vehicle as the fight lane empties. Thc last vehicle in the left lane is the first vehicle to enter the X = 120= 2 vei'v'min; ~ fight lane and the queue is emptied from the r~ar as sue- 60 ': cessive vehicles enter the right lane to bypass the delayed 60 ¢: left-turning vehicle. ~ -- 18 = 3V~ vebJmin; -. Single-channel queue. The formulas developed here are 2 ._ based on the assumption that interarrival and service times O = 3"A = 0.60 are exponentially distributed and the queue discipline is first in, first out. Since the arrival rate is k, the interval between arrivals is Ilk. ff the service rate is ~, the average service 1. The probability of an idle booth (1 - 0.60) = 0.4. time is ll~.. The ratio p = k/C, called the traffic intensity 2. The probability that n vehicles will be in the system is: or utilization factor, must be less than one (p < I) for the .~ following relationships to apply; otherwise, thc queue will ,. continue to grow indefinitely. · -' ~(o) 0.4 0.4 ~ 1. Number of units in system. The number of units in the ~) o.2~ 0.64 ' . P(2} 0.144. 0.784. ~ system includes the number in queue plus the number t,a) o.os~ 0.8?04 ~ being served. The probability of no units (an empty ~'*) o.os]s,, o.9~22~ F($) 0.031104 0.953344 system) is Traffic Flow Theory 461 3. If the garage operator wishes to be certain with 0.95 4. Average number in system: probability that departing vehicles will not interfere with E(n) = p + E(m) (15.122) other operations, it will be necessary to provide space for five vehicles, four of which are in queue. 5. Average time an arrival spends in the system: 4. E(m) =~(0'6)2 = 0.90 vehicle in queue on the ay- E(n) 1 - 0.6 E(v) = (15.123) erage. 5. E(n) = 0.6 = 1.50 vehicles in system on the 6. Average waiting time (time spent in queue): 1 - 0.6 1 average. E(w) = E(v) - - (15.124) 2 6. E(w) = = 0.45 rain average time (10/3) (10/3 - 2) Example of Queueing Calculations for Multiple Chan- waiting for service, nels. Assume that the parking facility is operated with two I exits, each capable of serving 3'/3 veh/min (ix). The arrival 7. E(v) = ~ 0.75 min average time in the (10/3) - 2 rates are as previously listed (X. = 2 veh/min, la -- 0.60). system. 1. Probability of an idle booth, P(0): Multiple-channels queue. A parking lot may be con- P(X <~ al) sidered as an example of a system with parallel service 1 channels where the K parking slots represent the service P(0) = ~ (0.6)" (0.6)2 channels. Figure 15.16 shows the schematic of a multiple- ~ + channel queueing system. It is assumed that the service rate ,,-o n! 2(1 - 0.6/2) IXtc of each of the K channels is identical. Arrivals are ran- = 0.5385 dom with rate ~., and la = Mia.tr. Further,' la/K is defined as the utilization factor for the entire facility, representing the 0.6 2. P(I) = (0.5385) = 0.3231 0.8615 mean proportion of busy channels (full parking spaces). For the multiple-channels case, the value of la may be greater (0.6)'- than 1, but the following formulas apply only for the case P(2) = ~ (0.5385) where the utilization factor la/K < I. 2 (0.6): 1 (2)2.2(2) (0.5385) = 0.0969 [~2 P(3) = (0'6)3 [~] , ~ (2)3.2(2-~---~ (0.5385) = 0.0291 0.98~75 , · ,o o o o o, [.~.1 3. if the garage operator continues to be satisfied with 0.95 aue-a k ' ~' probability that departing vehicles will not interfere with k service channels other operations, the two booths are ail that are necessary to provide space for the exiting vehicles. Figure 15.16. Schematic of a muitichannel queueing system. 1. Probability of no units in system: 4. E(m) = = 0.0593 ye- ' 2(2) (1 - 0.6/2)2 1 P(0) -- ~c-~ O~ .,. lair (15.118) hicle waiting on the average. ~ n! K!(1 - p/K) 5. E(n) = 0.60 ,- 0.0593 = 0.6593 vehicle in system on 2. Probability of n units in system: the average. la,, 6. E(v) = 0.6593/2 = 0.3297 min average in the system. I ~.~ P(0) for n ~< K (15.119) 7. E(w) = 0.3997 - --L-I -- 0.0297 rain average waiting 10/3 P(n) = for service. lan Kn_tCK-~"~.~ P(0) for n ~> K (15.120) By opening a second channel, the number of vehicles and 3. Average queue length: the time spent waiting are both reduced. If there are no vehicles in the system, both booths are idle; if there is one P(0)ptC*t [ I ] vehicle in the system, there is one idle booth, so that the E(m) = K!KL(1 - la/K):J (15.121) proportion of time that one or more booths will be idle is (0.5385 + 0.3231) = 0.8651. 48~ Transportation and Traffic Eng~neenng Handbook Y:-. Delays at intersections '~te, Earlier i~., 10 9 8 6 5 4 3 2 t'.-~ Applications of queueing theory, to problems represented ~v ~ ~ , Events t'-~ by traffic situations are more complex than those developed ~':" for single and multiple channels. The time a unit waits in 918 7 6 s 141 3 2 1 Interval ~-:~ numar ',~:: line at an unsignalized intersection is a function of a com- bination of gap acceptance characteristics, the passage of i ~..~ gaps in the main stream, and the characteristics of the wait- ., v.-.?- lng stream of traffic. There is a difference between the · ,~"'-' r--'L_~ -~].~_r~~ L_j-~,a,~ks . ..,- :._ behavior of pedestrians and vehicles crossing an intersec- . , Anti-blocks ?' don, because pedestrians can accept a gap as a cluster, ' ·_ whereas a vehicle cannot accept a gap until it has waited : ,~., to be first in line at the intersection. ; Non-gaps :~-= This section will consider the definitions of blocks and ~i I ~' Gaps :~-~ gaps, pedestrian delay, and vehicular delay at unsignalized intersections and vehicular delay at signalized intersections. · Start of '~ Blocks, gaps, intervals, and lags. A stream of traffic · , .._-e~ may be considered as the passage of a succession of vehi- i I ~ ~ , ' ~. ties, or a succession of gaps, or a succession of blocks, as I ~ shown in Figure 15.17, where the time of arrival of main- Inter-gap headway I '.~_ street vehicles is shown on a time scale (events 2 to 9). '~ Event 1 is the arrival of a cross-street vehicle. Raff~ and Figure 15.17. Definitions of time interval for stream flow. i'~ Olive&: have considered the problem of defining the inter- ~ vehicle inmrvals that might be considered as acceptable to .~: a crossing or merging vehicle, arrivals are random (Poisson-distributed) and verified his .'.. Intervals 2 to 9 are time intervals h between the arrival results with field observations. If it is assumed that thc main- of main-street vehicles at the projected path of the crossing street flow is q (veh/s) and that a minimum interval -e (the side-street vehicle. Interval 1, a lag, is defined as the time critical gap in seconds) is required between successive ar- ,~.. from the arrival of the side-street vehicle to the passage of rivals on the main street for a pedestrian to cross safely, by ,. the next main-street vehicle. If h is greater than the critical equation (15.46) the probability that a pedestrian will pass ': headway % the waiting driver or pedestrian will cross; oth- without delay is ~ erwise, the driver will continue to wait. P(h > 'r) = e-¢' (15.125) : Intervals 2, 6, 7, and 9 are each greater than % but only ;~. a portion of these four intervals is available for crossing, while the probability that a pedestrian will be delayed is :' Raft has defined the time when no crossing is possible as Pa = I - e-¢' (15.126) ~ a "block"; conversely, the remaining time is defined as - "antiblocks." Oliver defined any time interval (h) 'r) as Of particular interest is the time a pedestrian must wait .~: a gap and the remaining intervals as nongaps. Time intervals (block time) for an appropriate antiblock in order to cross · ~ 2, 6, 7, and 9 are each a gap; time intervals 3, 4, and 5 are the roadway. Roadway events are considered relative to the ;' grouped into a single nongap; intervals I and 8 are also passage of vehicles over an elapsed time t, during which nongaps. The number of vehicles in an intergap headway the number of events is the accumulated volume qt. Further, '~ (events 2 to 6) is defined as the number occurring just after the mean headway tlq is defined as T. '~ the vehicle (or event) defining the start of a gap, but in- The average duration (seconds) of all gaps is : eluding the last vehicle that defines the end of the nongap. '~' For example, the first intergap headway in Figure 15.17 T -6 'r (15.127) .- contains four vehicles (3, 4, 5, and 6); the second intergap The average duration of all non~aps is ':: headway contains one vehicle, 7. - r 7~° - '~' :- T - (15.128) Pedestrian delay at unsignalized intersections. Pedes- I - e- , trian delay at an unsignalized intersection was first treated by Adams~a in 1936. He assumed that pedestrian and vehicle The average duration of all blocks is (T/e-¢') - T 05.129) ::2 The average duration of all antiblocks is T · ' 'tM. A. P.A~. A Volmne Warrant for Urban Sto~ Signs. Eno Foun~tion for I'{i~way Truffle Consol, S-,,gamek. Conn.. 1950. pp. S2-?~. The average delay for all pedestrians E(d) is ~ ' ~:R. M. Ot.nt~. "Distrilmtion of G~ and Blocks in a Traffi~ Strewn." Oper. "' Re~.. 10 (2) 197-217 (1962). ~. R, A~S. "Road Traffic Comidemd as a Random Series," J. Inst. Civ. ~ -- T - x ( 15.13 I) Eng., 4, Ill-la0 (1936}. qe-'~' Traffic Flow Theory 463 The average delay for only those pedestrians who are In the previous discussion of pedestrian delay, it is as- delayed E~da) is sumed that distributions of headways on the main street were negative exponential. Mayne45 generalized Tanner's I (15.132) results to include an arbitrary distribution of main-street qe -~ I - e-~ headways. Weiss and Maradudin46 and Herman and Weiss'~7 As an example of the application of these formulas, con- applied renewal theory, which permits the consideration of sider the case in which pedestrians are crossing a wide street "yield sign" delay where the critical lag of a crossing vehicle where the critical gap -r = 10.0 s. The flow rate is 720 is a function of whether the vehicle is moving or stopped. veh/h, so that q = 0.2 veh/s and T = llq = 5.0 s. The They also considered the case for the impatient driver, where proportion delayed, by equation (15.126), is the probability of accepting a gap of given size increases with time· Assuming Poisson-distributed main-street flow I -- e-°'2¢t°~ ---- 0.86 with mean headway T and a shifted exponential gap ac- The average duration of all gaps, by equation (15.127), ceptance, the mean delay to side-street traffic is is e~ - I 1 5.0 ,- 10.0 = 15.0s q ' ' ~ [e~- l -q~ The average duration of all nongaps, by equation 4. (~q b)Z(l + q-r + b'r)(1 - e-q~) (15.135) (15.128), is 10e-°'2"°~ 5.0 - = 3.43 s + e-'r' ( q + q'r)] I - e-°'2el°' q -3 b The average duration of all blocks, by equation (15.129), in which · is the minimum acceptable gap and b the pa- is rameter of the shifted exponential gap acceptance distri- [ ] bution, which equals I/(T - 'r). Equation (15.135) may be 5lc-°'2°°) - 5 = 31.95 s compared to equation (15.131), where the gap acceptance is constant. The average duration of all antiblocks, by equation For the "yield sign" problem, where a moving vehicle (15.130), is 5.0 s. requires a gap of z) and a stopped vehicle requires a gap The average delay to all pedestrians, by equation of x2, Weiss and Maradudin find the mean delay to be 1 E(d) --- --(1 - e-q'') 4. e-~',(~.2 - ,ri) -- ~'2 0.2e_O.2Oo) -- 5 -- 10 = 21.95 S q (15.13.6.) The average delay per delayed pedestrian, by equation (15.132), is Vehicular delay at unsignalized intersections. The I 10 preceding section considers delay only to a first-in-line ve- 0 2e-°'z"°) - I - e-°'2"°~ hicte and makes no allowance for waiting in a queue prior · to being first in line. Major and Bucldey~ considered an = 36.95 - 11.57 inexhaustible queue of vehicles on a side street under the following conditions: when a main-street headwav is less = 25.38 s than % no vehicle enters: when a main-street headway is The formulas developed above will also give the delay between ~ and 2~, one vehicle enters; when a main-street for crossing vehicles if the cross-street traffic volume is so headway is between 2~ and 3'r, two vehicles enter; and so low that there are no queues formed, so that any waiting on. The number of vehicles N that can enter from the side vehicle can cross if the gap is sufficiently large, street is found as follows: Tanner" considered the problem of the distribution of the size of pedestrian groups crossing together. The average Numtmr of Vehicles Number of Headways This size of a group crossing together is si~ of Re.way Entering Headway Size per Unit Time pea' + qe-q~ E(n~) -- (15.133) where p is the pedestrian flow rate and q is vehicular flow. The average number of pedestrians waiting to cross is 'SA. $. MAY'ML 'Some FurOr R~suJts in ~e Theory, of Pedesman and Road E(n~,) = p- (eq~ - q'- 1) (15.134) ?raffic,'Siometrika~ 41, 37~-3sg(1954L q "o. H. wExss nt~o A. A. M,na~oODm. "Some Problems in Tra/fic Delay,' Oper. Res., 10 (I) 74-104 tI962L "~. Fdgl~ ~ G. H. WEiss. "Comment~ on the Highway Crossing Problem. Oper. Re~.. 9 [4). 82g--g40 (1961). · *]. C. T~'m~. "The Delay to Pedesuians Crossing a Road." Biometr~ka. $8. aN. G. M,,uon ^.,eh D. L Buoct.~v. "Entry to a Traffic Smtam." Proc. Australian 383-392 (1951). RoadRes. Bd., 206-228 (1962). 464 Yransoortatcon aha Traffic Eng:neering Handbook II I I · . The number of vehicles that will enter or cross the main- c = cycle time. s street flow per unit of time (capacity et' cross flow) is -5 g = effective green time, s , ~ r = effective red time, s .c: + 3q(e-3v' - e-a~') + · .~ q ----- average arrival rate of traffic on the approach, PCU/s ~ variance ,~ from which I = ~ of number of PCU arriving in one signal cycle mean N = I - e-¢' (15.137) s = saturation flow on the approach, PCU/s A more realistic assumption is that the headway for fei- d = average delay to PCU on the approach, s -- lowing vehicles is [3,_, so that two vehicles require a headway Qo -- overflow, PCU .... '. of-r + [32, and three vehicles require ? + 2[32, and so on. ' Provided that [32 ~< 'r, equation (15.137) becomes k = g/c, proportion of the cycle that is effectively green ": qe-q, y = qs, ratio of average arrival rate to saturation flow '' N = (15.138) '" ! - e-q$: x = qclgs, ratio of average number of arrivals per cycle to the maximum number of departures per cycle : Ashworth49 modified the approach used by Major and Bucldey by assuming that the critical gap of the driver is Then r + g = c and Xx = y. The ratio x is called the 'ri whereas that of the second driver is 'r: seconds. Further, degree of saturation of the approach and y will be called -: he assumed a move-up time equal to a constant [3: seconds, the flow ratio of the approach. ' :' during which time, following the departure of the vehicle The effective green time is the portion of the cycle time at the head of the queue, the second vehicle moves into the during which PCU are assumed to pass the signal at a con- front position but is unable to take advantage of any suitable stunt ram s as long as there are vehicles waiting on the gap offered. With these assumptions, he gives the average approach. Greenshields et al.,~ for example, reported that waiting delay at the head of the queue for those vehicles the total time for a queue of n stopped vehicles to pass a actually delayed: signal can be given by 'r,e-*~ total time = 14.2 + 2. l(n - 5) seconds (n >~ 5) E(da) = I + (e~:-~) (T - 1'_-:-2-~) (15.139) Had all the vehicles departed at the saturation rate s (I/2.1), where the first five vehicles would have required 10.5 s, so that the effective green is the signal green time less 3.7 s. In l = 1 + q('r~ - 132) - e~',-":-~:~ (1 + q'r,.) most studies, it is assumed that a waiting queue of vehicles q[1 - ee''-'':-~] will take advantage of the yellow clearance interval, al- and T = llq. though the effective green time may be adjusted to reflect The average waiting delay for all vehicles (provided that particular operating conditions. · z > 'r~ - I~:) is Continuum model for pretimed signals. A represen- E(d) = 'rt - 'cz - [3,. + T [eq': - e~'' -~:q (15.140) tation of a continuum model proposed by MayS: is shown in Figure 15.18. The vertical axis represents the cumulative Equations O5.140) and (15.139) may be compared to arrivals qt and the horizontal axis the time t. Case I rep- (15.131) and (15.132), respectively, where the latter two resents the behavior when the capacity of the green interval equations consider delay for the pedestrian case. exceeds the arrivals during the green + red time. Case II is concerned with the instance when the discharge during Signalized intersections. Queueing at a signalized in- the green phase is equal to the arrivals during the green terseetion occurs during the red phase on each approach, + red period. In Figure 15.18, the vertical distance c-a and queues become longer as the approach volume nears represents the number of vehicles that have accumulated the capacity of the approach. This section will consider a since the signal entered the red phase. The horizontal dis- continuum model and several probability models, tance a-b represents the total time from arrival to departure Vehicles are considered as consisting of identical pas- for any given vehicle. senger car units (PCU). A track, for example, may be con- May developed the following measures of queue behav- sidered as 1.5 or 2 PCU and a turning vehicle may be ior: assigned a value depending on the type of maneuver and delays to that maneuver (such as pedestrians). The following notation, after Allsop,m is used. Let ~B. D. G~sumu~s. D. SC~A~mO. nt~n E. L. F. mocso~. Traffic p#rformance ~1:{. ASHWORTH. '"rte Capacity, of Priority Typ~ lnteraeCUons wish a Non-uniform at Urban Intersections. Bureau of Highway Traffic. Yale University, Press, New Disuiburion of Critical Acceptance Gaps." Transport. Res.. 3 (2) 273-278 (1969). Haven. Conn.. 1947. s~,. E. ~. 'Delay at a Fixed-Time Signal I: Theoretical Analysis," Trans- hA. D. MAY. ,'R.. "rra~fic Flow Theov/~The Traffic Engineer's Challenge.' port. Sci., 6 (3), 260-285 (1972). Proc. Inst. rra~c Eng., 290-303 (1965). Traffic Flow Theow 4.~5 ~ ~m~ Capac{tv > Arrivals _= .~_ t- I Time Green Case I! - Capacity = Arrivals a ~me ~ 1. Tim~ ~er ~ of ~n ~at qu~u~ i~ ~ipa~d (to) q(r + to) = ; 2. ~on of cycl~ wi~ queu~ (P~) 3. ~ffion of w~cl~- stop~d (P,) ~ffing y ~ ql~ yiel~ yr " 4. M~m numar of v~hicl~ ~ queue (Q~) to ~ ~ (15.141) ~ ~. Av~mg~ numar of v~cl~ ~ queue (~ 1 - y 6. To~ v~clo horn of ~lay ~r cycl~ (D) 2. ~ffion of cycle wi~ queue is equ~ to queu~ fim~ ~5' 8. M~um in~vidu~ v~c~ d~lay (d~) P~ ~~r + to (15.142) :;': ~e fo~ul~ for ~ese ~o c~es ~ develo~d ~om simple 3. ~on of vehicles stop~ is equ~ to veMcles ~. geome~c ~lafionships. stop~to~ vehicles ~r cycle: ~ 1. For ~y given cycl,, it is evi~n~ ~at at time to ~r the P, ~ q(r + to) = t~ (15.143) ~.. st~ of ~en, ~e ~v~, equ~ the disch~g,: q(r + g) yc -'..~- 4. The maximum vehicles in queue will be seen by in- Other departure models have been proposed, but the choice --'~ spection to be the height of the triangle at r units after of departure model does not affect delay calculations as does .-~ start of red: the choice of arrival model. -.~ Allsopss shows that if arrivals are regular at intervals ::~ Q,~ = qr (15.14,4) 1lq (a step function rather than the continuous functions as ,..."~ 5. The average number of vehicles in the queue, over the shown in Figure 15.18), the average delay per vehicle in -'~ total length of cycle c, is seconds is .,r.. ~'.e Q = (qr/2)r + (qr/2)to + O(q - to) d = r - + " r + to + q - to 2c(1 - y) 12q: :" (15.149) which yields where 0 is in the range ..~- -~ = r + to qr (15.145) 1 l :~-' c 2 - <0 < -- .- 3 x 3ta 3 X 3 -'~' 6. The total vehicle time of delay is given by the area of 'i~;- the triangle and c, q, r, s, and y are as previously defined. The first term ~ of equation (15.149) is the same as that developed by War- :! D = ~(r + to) drop: :: qr r - (15.146) d = (15.150) ~..- 2 I - y 2c(I - y) ::-':.. _- qr: If q is allowed to increase indefinitely (the ratio y = q/s :" 2(1 - y) remaining constant) in equation (15.149) the average delay per vehicle will tend to d = r:/[2c(l - y)], the result given 7. The average individual delay is given by dividing the in equation (15.148) from a continuum model. total delay by the number of vehicles: Webster used computer simulation to develop a formula d = qr: I for delay: - x: _ 0.65(~)~,~.d:+s~' 2(I y) qc (15.147) d = c(l - X): + r: 2(1 - Mr) 2q(l - x) q- 2c(1 - y) (15.151) 8. The maximum individual vehicular delay will be s~n from Figure 8.16 to be Because c(l - 3,) = r and Xx = y, the first term is the same as that obtained by assuming continuous flow, equa- ~ d,~ = r (15.148) tion (15.148). Allsop demonstrates that the second term may be obtained by assuming that a queue with constant If the departures sc < arrivals qc, the queue grows with service l/Xs is interposed between the signal and the arriving each successive cycle and the foregoing formulas are not traffic, where the mean waiting time is x~/[2q(l - x)]. The applicable, third term is a correction term representing 5 to 15% of the total delay, so that equation (15.151) may be simplified to Probability models for pretimed signals. Several tions. The simplest approach is to use regular arrivals as in 2(1 - Xx) + 2q(l - x) (15.152) the continuum model. Beckmann et al.Sa used binomial ar- rivals, and the Poisson model has been used by Adams,~ Hutchinson~ made numerical comparisons of the delay Webster,Ss and Wardrop.S~ Neweils? used a model in which expressions listed in this section on probability models and the arrivals were assumed to have a shifted exponential concluded that the results are sufficiently similar that con- distribution, venience and simplicity of calculations may dictate the Most models for the departure of PCU from a traffic choice of model. signal queue assume departures at equal time intervals lis. Queueing models at bottlenecks ~M. Bm:ron~. C, B. McC~om~_. mn} C. B. Wms~'~. Studie~ in the ~can~nic$ A bottleneck on a roadway .may result in a partial or total of Tmn~pon,,qon. Yale University P~sS. New Haven. Conn., 1956. ~Aon.qs. "Road Traffic Coaaide~l aa a Random Seri~." reduction in traffic flow. The case of total reduction is thc 'F. V. We~n'~l~. I'rt~c Signal Settings, Road Res. Tech. Pap. No. 39, Great Britain Road Reae. a~h Laborato~., 1958. ~W'nm~aOt,. "Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Res~tch." aAi~soe. "Delay at fixed Time Traffic Signal I: Theozetical Analysis." i riG. F. NEWl~I.L. "Statistical Analysis of the Flow of Highway Traffic through ~T. P. Htrrc:N~son, "Delay at a fixed Time Signal Il: Numerical Comparisons a Signalized Intersection," Quart. Appl. Ma~,. 15, 353-369 (19561. of Some Theoretical Expressions." Transport. Sci., 6 (3), 286--305 {1972). Traffic Flow Theow 4~? TABLE 16-Zt* TABLE 16-22 Value~ ot'f3 = ~.65 (Cl~f)"~x: ' ~ '~' Tabulation off~ = 21'1 - x) Cf[ + f21q x (hundredtkt) qC (tendu) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.0~ 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 x Gz/C 2.5 5 I0 20 40 0.1 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.020 0.022 0.3 0.2 2 2 I 1 0 0.2 0.025 0.028 0.031 0.03'g 0.038 0.042 0.046 0.050 0.0~4 0.0559 0.4 2 1 I 0 0 0.3 0.064 0.070 0.0755 0.081 0.088 0.09,1 0.101 0.109 0.116 0.125 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.133 0.142 0.152 0.162 0.173 0.184 0.196 0.208 0.222 0.2355 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.250 0.2655 0.282 0.299 0.317 0.336 0.356 0.378 0.400 0.425 0.4 0.2 6 4 3 2 1 0.6 0.4~0 0.477 0.506 0.5536 0.5569 0.604 0.641 0.680 0.723 0.768 0.4 3 2 2 I 1 0.7 0.817 0.869 0.926 0.987 1.055 1.13 i.20 1.29 1.38 1.49 0.6 2 2 I I 0 0.8 1.60 1.73 1.87 2.03 2.21 2.41 2.64 2.91 3.23 3.60 0.8 2 I I I 1 0.9 4.055 4.60 55.28 6.18 7.36 9.03 !!.55 15.7 24.0 49.0 0.55 0.2 10 7 5 3 2 *Us~ Table as follows: ~cample: if x = 0.24. x = 0.2 + 0.04; enter row 0.2 and 0.4 6 5 4 2 1 column 0.04; thenfa = 0.038. 0.6 6 4 3 2 2 0.8 3 4 3 3 2 Soc'Rc~; Research on Road Hr.aOic (London: Her Ma. jes~'s Statione~ Office, 19655L p. 302. 0.6 0.2 14 I 1 8 .5 3 0.4 11 9 7 4 3 0.6 9 8 6 5 3 s -- saturation flow, veh/s, as discussed below o.8 7 x2 0.7 0.2 18 14 11 7 55 f: = (sec Table 16-21) o.4 2(1 - x) 0.6 13 1~ 10 s 6 0.8 I1 12 13 12 I0 C q X ---- ~'- 0.8 0.2 18 17 13 10 7 Ge s 0.4 16 155 13 10 8 0.6 155 155 14 12 9 0.65(C/q'-)lax ,-+~ovc~ 0.8 1~ 155 17 17 155 f~ -- (see Table 16-22) Cfi ~- fgq 0.9 0.2 13 14 0.4 12 13 13 11 9 The effective green time G~ is the time available for flow 0.~ i~ 13 14 14 12 o.s at the rate s. It is thus equal to the green time plus yellow 0.955 o.z time minus the time loss in queue startup and the time taken 0.4 7 9 9 i0 9 for the last vehicle to cross the intersection. Studies of 0.6 7 9 to 11 to queues at urban intersections suggest that the queue startup o.s 7 9 10 12 13 value averages about 3.7 s and the last vehicle value about 0.9755 0.2 8 9 10 9 8 2.0 s (depending on speed and intersection geometries). 0.4 8 9 lO 1o 9 0.6 8 9 11 12 The saturation flow rate s is the maximum rate at which o.8 s 10 12 13 14 vehicles enter the intersection in a single lane after the queue Sotmc~: Research on Road Tra~c Road Re~eatch Laboratot7 (London: Her starmp delay has been eliminated and while a continuous mj=v/'s s~ationery office. 19655), p. 303. demand exists. Studies of intersection performance in the United States indicate that under ideal circumstances, head- exceeds about 80% of theoretical capacity and becomes ways bev~veen successive passenger vehicles stabilized at between 2.1 and 2.0 s, yielding values ors of 0.48 and 0.50 nearly asymptotic above 90% of theoretical capacity. veh/s, or 0.49 averaged. To use this procedure, demand flow rates for the ap- Queue length. Another possible measure of traffic per- proach, saturation flow rate, and effective gx~en time must formance at signalized intersections is the length of queues either be obtained from field measurements or be estimated, developed. Average queue length is approximated by the Using the values given above and a 1204 cycle (30 larger result of the two formulas cycles/h) with a 50% split, it is seen that the theoretical hourly capacity of a single-lane signal approach under ideal n = qR (16.19) conditions is approximately 30G~s, or 30(60 - 3.7 - 2.0) and (0.49) -- 800 passenger vehicles per hour, or 1600 pas- seuger vehicles per hour of green. Such a flow rate would (R~ be accompanied by a high average delay (exceeding 4 min n -- q~ + d) (16.20) per vehicle). A value of 90% of the above, approximately where n = average queue length, number of vehicles 1450 passenger vehicles per hour of green, has been sug- gested as a more realistic value, q = approach flow, veh/s The computed delay from the preceding formulas at a representative intersection is shown in Figure 16.21. It can R = red time, s be seen that average delay increases very rapidly as volume d = average individual delay from equation (16.18) $~2 Transoor~auon and Traffic Engineenng Handbook Saturation flow ................ 1,800 veh,cles per hour / -~ 50 i Cycle ~ime ...................... 60 sec ~.-----~ 40 E f fect ive green ti. me ........ 31~ sec , ! / ~... Figure 16.21. Typical delay/volume curve relation- ~ ~ i " Maximum ship on a signalized approach (British). SOURCE: I [ [ Rese,,rch on Road Traffic, London: with permission ~ ' of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1965, p. 304. Traffic flow (vehicies per hour} TABLE 16-2.3 Fattmate of Queue Length at $aun of Green Which Wm No~ Be Exceeded ha · Mote Than I% of Cyde~ It is the percentage of "loaded," or fully utilized, signal ';" phases (i.e., cycle failures) on a particular intersection ap- proach during the hour under consideration, determined by z G~'c 2.5 5.0 to.o 20.0 -'.,.-- ~o.o field observations or estimates. 0.3 0.4 6 9 ]4 ~ 3s Using another method, the percentage of cycles during 0.6 5 6 n ]7 zs which more vehicles arrive than depart can be estimated 0.8 3 5 7 12 17 from the chart in Figure 16.22. Traffic arrivals are assumed to be Poisson-distributed. The departure rate is ta!cen as 0.5 0.5 0.2 7 9 t7 29 53 0.4 6 9 ~4 23 35 vehicles/s with an assumed 4-s lost time per phase. It should 0.6 5 7 H ~? zs be noted that failures estimated by this method do not in- 0.8 · ~ $ 7 12 18 .... . = clude the effect of queues carried over from previous cycle 0.7 0:2 9 12 17' ' < ~s'- ~0 _ failures. It thus overestimates the possibility of vehicles 0.4 9 9 15 23 38 being served during the cycle in which they arrive. Since 0.6 8 9 12 18 28 0.8 7 7 8 12 18 overestimation becomes more serious as probability of fail- : ~ ure increases, this estimate is reasonable only under the 0.s b:2 ]3 ]~ ]9 "2s' 50 better level-of-service conditions. 0.4 12 13 17 2~ 39 0.6 ]2 ]3 ~ ~o ~s The relationships between the failure rate determined by 0.a ii 12 12 15 la this method and levels of service computed by the Highway · o.9 o.2 29 25 29 ~ 55 Capacity Manual, 1965 method for a representative con- o.~ 2~ ~ z7 ~ ~ dition are shown in Figure 16.23. 0.6 27 24 26 28 42 The relationship between failure rate and average indi- 0.8 27 23 24 25 29 vidual delay computed by the method given previously in o.9~ o.2 ~o 36 3s 47 65 this chapter is shown in Figure 16.24. o.4 ao ~4 37 ,~ 55 At this time there is no general agreement as to which 0.6 40 32 30 42 48 0.a 39 32 34 36 ~o of the measures of intersection performance is most appro- priam. In fact, differing measures may be the most suitable 0.975 0.2 82 70 79 69 93 in different specific cases. The distributions of vehicle ar- 0.4. 83 66 75 65 82 0.6 82 70 69 59 79 rivals assumed in the methods just described may not be o.a 79 ~ ~ 57 79 descriptive of a specific case at hand, particularly an urban SOt~,C~: Research on Road Traffic Road R~a~a~h Lab~'am~ (London: Her situation with other nearby signals. Other distributions MajeatT's Stationery Office, 1965), p. 308. might well be more appropriate. Once ongoing research is complete, it is likely that some measure of delay will prove A value of perhaps greater significance is the maximum to be the best basic measure. probable queue length. This can be estimated from Table 16-23, in which the parameters C, G, q, andx are as defined for equation (16.18). Factors affecting signalized intersection capacity Cycle failures. The "load factor," which is described in more detail later among the factors affecting capacity, Determination of signalized intersection capacity in- is utilized in the Highway Capacity Manual, 1965 method volves a substantial number of factors. In the Highway Ca- as the most convenient available measure of intersection pacity Manual, 1965 procedures, some are automatically approach service, although it is admittedly rather artificial, taken into account by proper selection of charts and curves; Highway Cal3acnv and Levels of Service 503 .. TRAFI~I(~ *~'~"~'~ STUDY FOR ....... APARTMENTS IN COPPELI..,, TEXAS Prepared For: lll~ruction Prepared By:. DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. 330 Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 748-6740 December 21, 1993 DT&A Job #93170 · DT&A a, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. David W. Brown C.E.D. Construction FROM: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. DATE: December 21, 1993 SUBJECT: Traffic Access Study for Riverchase Club Apartments, Coppell, Texas; J93170 PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze traffic access for Riverchase Club Apartments, a proposed multi- family development, in Coppell, Texas. The access issues of this analysis are limited to projecting the site generated traffic at Belt Line Road and to assess possible congestion at the main driveway at MaeArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. The analysis will also study the need for a southbound deceleration lane and the appropriateness of a second access point for the site off of Mac. Arthur Boulevard. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site consists of land located north of Belt Line Road on MacArthur Boulevard in Coppell, Texas. The site is bounded by Mac. Arthur Boulevard to the north and east. Vacant land borders to the west while the St. Louis & Southwestern Railroad borders to the south. Exhibit 1 illustrates the site in relation to the surrounding thoroughfares. The development consists of 280 multi-family dwelling units. The site provides for one driveway at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. The proposed 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 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 the summer of 1993, Mac. Arthur Boulevard carries approximately 17,900 vehicles per day south of Belt Line Road. With a posted speed limit is 35 mph, the average speed is 40 mph north of Belt Line Road. The Coppell thoroughfare plan calls for MacArthur Boulevard to be expanded to a six-lane divided roadway, but the improvements have not been scheduled as of now. · Riverchase Drive - is a four-lane undivided roadway that connects Mac, Arthur Boulevard to Sandy Lake Road. 330 Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202-4802 214/748-6740 Metro 214f263-5428 Fax 214/748=7037 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 providing access to IH35. West of Mac_Arthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road is currently a two-lane undivided road. Exhibit 3 illustrates the existing lane assignments at the following intersections: · Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverehase Drive · Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road A major retail center is planned for the southeast corner of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. A new fire station is also planned for the land south of the proposed site, between the railroad and the property line. Traffic Volumes Twenty-four hour traffic counts were performed ia April, 1993 at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. As shown in Exhibit 4, Mac. Arthur Boulevard carries approximately 6,800 vehicles southbound and 10,300 vehicles northbound during a twenty-four hour period. Belt Line Road carries about 6,600 veMcles eastbound and 8,000 vehicles westbound during this same time period. Manual peak hour traffic movement counts were obtained from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. on Friday, December 17, 1993 and from 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. on Monday, December 20, 1993 at the intersection of Mar. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Exhibits 5 and 6 illustrate the existing morning and evening peak hour traffic movements. FUTURE CONDITIONS Area Development To determine the appropriate design year in which to examine the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent street system, the year in which the construction of the site will be completed must be estimated. For this proposed development, a opening date of 1995 is anticipated. Other developments that are expected to affect the traffic conditions ia the vicinity of the proposed development in 1995 include a retail center planned for the southeast corner of Mae. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Although additional apartments are planned on Riverchase Drive east of MacArthur Boulevard, they are not expected to be completed until after 1995. Additional single-family homes are also planned in the vicinity of Riverchase Drive. The trips generated by these homes were assumed to be taken into account in the growth rate applied to existing traffic volumes. Traffic Volumes In order to accurately assess the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway system, future traffic volumes must be estimated. Because the proposed development is projected to be completed and leased out by mid-1995, a design year of 1995 was used to analyze the effect of the development on the adjacent streets. Traffic projections for the study area were obtained by applying a growth factor to existing traffic and adding the retail center traffic to the projected volumes. The growth rate was determined using historic traffic count data near the proposed site. In 1986, DT&A performed 24-hour traffic volume counts at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. Comparing these volumes to the April, 1993 daily traffic counts conducted for the retail center planned in the southeast quadrant of Mac. Arthur Boulevard/Riverchase Drive, a growth rate of 6.5% per year was calculated. This growth rate was applied to the existing turning movements collected by DT&A on December 17 and 20, 1993, at Mac. Arthur Boulevard/Riverchase Drive. Exhibits 7 and 8 depict the projected 1995 morning and evening peak hour turning movements without the proposed development. These turning movements include the trips generated by the retail center location the southeast quadrant of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Trip Generation The fifth edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual was used to determine the number of trips generated by the proposed development. The manual provides rates developed by ITE for various land uses. The trip generation rates for multi-family low-rise dwelling units were used to calculate the trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed development. The results are shown in Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9 Trip Generation Proposed Multi-Family Development Number Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use of Trips Trips Trips Units Total [ I I o.t I Note: Trip generation for multi-family low-rise apartments is based on ITE Land Use Code 221 The site is projected to generate 1,852 trip ends during a twenty-four hour period. During the A.M. peak hour, approximately 26 inbound trips will be generated while 108 inbound trips will be generated during the P.M. peak hour. Outbound site trips for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours were calculated to be 103 and 56, respectively. The total projected trip ends during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour are 129 and 164, respectively. Traffic Orientation and Assignment Trip orientations of site-generated traffic are based on city staff projections. The orientations used resulted in a 35% attraction to the north, 20% to the south, 20% to the east and 25% to the west. Trip assignment consisted of modeling the site with trip ends taking the most direct approach possible to the intended desire line. Exhibit 10 illustrates the trip orientations used in distributing site generated traffic to the surrounding thoroughfare network. The morning and evening peak hour trips generated by the proposed development are depicted in Exhibits 11 and 12, respectfully. Exhibits 13 and 14 show the A.M. and P.M. 1995 projected peak hour background traffic with the projected site generated traffic volumes. Background traffic includes the retail development located on the southeast comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. ANALYSIS/OBSERVATIONS Intersection Analysis Unsignalized capacity analyses have been conducted for the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. For existing conditions, the westbound left turns from Riverchase Drive to Mac. Arthur Boulevard experience a level of service E in the A.M. peak hour and level of service F in the P.M. peak hour due to thc westbound left from Riverchase Drive, even though only 1 vehicle every two minutes make this left mm movement in the morning peak hour and 1 vehicle per minute in the evening peak hour. In the 1995 design year, this intersection is expected to operate at a level of service E in the morning peak hour and level of service F in the evening peak hour due to the westbound left turns. The proposed multi-family development is expected to increase the number of trips traveling through the intersection by only 7% during the A.M. peak hour and 3 7/% during the P.M. peak hour. The uusignalized location of MacArthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive currently analytically operate at level of service F in the P.M. peak hour. The left-turn maneuver from the east controls the intersection level of service. However, the unsignalized analysis used to determine the level of service for uusignalized intersections assumes a random arrival rate. Because of the proximity of Belt Line Road to the uusignali~ed intersection of Riverchase Drive, the vehicles on Mac. Arthur 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. The vehicles will queue on the minor roadway and will not effect the flow of traffic on the major roadways. Although the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive is expected to operate at a level of service E in the morning peak hour and level of service F in the evening peak hour, the intersection will probably not meet traffic signal warrants by 1995 because of the relatively low traffic volumes on Riverchase Drive. Future signalization of this intersection may be warranted, but should be examined closely. A signal at this intersection would promote additional traffic on Riverchase Drive from Sandy Lake Road to MacArthur Boulevard. This additional traffic may be seen as undesirable to the golf coarse patrons and the residents in the area. Left-Turn Storage Lane Requirements One factor in this analysis is to determine if the northbound left-turn lane on MacArthur Boulevard at the main entrance of the proposed development is adequate to accommodate the vehicles expected to stack in this lane. This was done by conducting a queuing analysis. The queuing theory util~.ed is documented in the Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1982 (page 461). The theory utilizes a random (i.e., Poisson) arrival rate. With a confidence level of 95/%, the results reveal that a queue of one vehicle or less can be expected during the morning and evening peak hours. Therefore, the existing left-mm storage lane is adequate to accommodate the left-turn demand into the development and not disrupt the vehicles northbound on Mac. Arthur Boulevard. A queuing analysis was also performed to examine southbound Mac. Arthur Boulevard traffic at Belt Line Road. Currently, traffic occasionally queues past Riverchase Drive during the morning peak hour. The se~ice rate necessary for the queuing analysis was obtained through the utilization of Greenshields theory. This theory is documented in the Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition (page 465). By the year 1995 (without the proposed development), it was determined a queue of over 5,000 feet per lane could be expected during the morning peak hour if no changes are made to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. The distance between Belt Line Road and Riverchase Drive is approximately 800 feet. In order to improve this queue length, the signal timing at MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road should be examined to determine the possibility of retiming the signal to allow more green time for southbound Mac. Arthur Boulevard during the A.M. peak hour. For example, if approximately five seconds of green time were added to the southbound movements during each cycle, the queue length of over 5,000 feet could be decreased to about 620 feet. If this is not possible, the widening of MacArthur Boulevard from Riverchase Drive to Belt Line Road from four lanes to six lanes should be examined. Not only would this improvement provide additional capacity to the intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road, it would eliminate the current situation in which the southbound left turn-lane is in line with a through lane, causing confusion for southbound traffic. Secondary Driveway To allow trips to and from the proposed development improved access to MacArthur Boulevard, a second driveway located at the median opening immediately north of Riverchase Drive should be considered. Because this driveway would be located on the inside of a curve, sight distances were examined to ensure the safety of implementing a driveway at this location. Based on the actual average speed of 40 mph, a minimum sight distance of 275 feet is required to provide safe access to and from the sight (reference Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook. 2nd Edition). Currently, sight distances exceed 300 feet. If a sight distance of 275 feet 4 or more cannot be maintained due to fencing or landscaping, the median opening can be modified to allow northbound left turns into the site, but prohibit eastbound left turns out of the site (see Exhibit 15). This design would improve the traffic conditions at the intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive by decreasing the turning movements in and out of the development at Riverchase Drive. Deceleration Lane Another factor in this analysis was the examination of the need for a deceleration lane on southbound MacAxthur Boulevard at the main driveway. The City of Arlington has developed guidelines for the implementation of deceleration lanes that they feel provide additional capacity at driveways when necessary. The Arlington criteria states that a deceleration lane is required if: 1) over 50 vehicles turn right into the development during the peak hour, or 2) over 40 vehicles turn right into the development during the peak hour and the speed limit exceeds 40 mph. The main driveway is expected to have a maximum of 38 vehicles turning right into the development during the peak hour. Therefore, a deceleration lane should not be required. CONCLUSION The proposed 280-unit multi-family development, located on Mac. Arthur Boulevard north of Belt Line Road, is expected to increase the traffic at the intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive by 7% in the morning and evening peak hours in the design year 1995. This represents an increase in the morning traffic on MacArthur Boulevard of two vehicles per minute, and three vehicles per minute in the evening peak hour. The increase in traffic on MacArthur Boulevard is not expected to affect the level of service of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Therefore, the proposed development will not adversely affect the roadway system. The left-turn storage on Mac. Arthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive was also examined to determine if the existing storage lengths were sufficient to accommodate the future traffic volumes. The northbound left-turn into the development is not expected to have more than one vehicle in the lane at a time during the peak hour. 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. In order to improve traffic flow from Riverchase Drive to Mac. Arthur Boulevard, a second driveway located at the median opening north of Riverchasc Drive should be considered. The sight distance for this driveway should be maintained at a minimum of 275 feet. If this sight distance cannot be obtained, the median opening should be channelized to allow northbound left-turns into the proposed development, but prohibit eastbound left-turns from the development (see Exhibit 15). The option of constructing a deceleration lane on southbound Mac. Arthur Boulevard at the main entrance was also examined. The deceleration lane had originally been recommended due to the controlled access point (gates) at the main entrance. These gates have since been removed from the site plan. Because only 38 vehicles are expected to execute this southbound right-turn movement, a deceleration lane should not be required. 5 .Riverchase Dr. ,, St. Loui~ & $OUthwe~t n "'"'"'"'"'"'",,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e,,r,,,,Railroad IIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiii1#11 Belt. Line Rd. Exhibit 1 Site Location Exhibit 2 Site Plan for Riverchase Club Apartments Exhibit 3 Lane Assignments , ..~werohase Dr. St.Louis & 'Southwestern Railroad III!111111111111 III1'!!!1111111111111111 I!11 I!!1111111 1111111111111 Iii111111 I!111 !1 Belt, Line Rd. Exhibit 4 Existing 24-Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 5 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 6 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 7 1995 AM Peak Hour Base Traffic Volumes 1 [xhibit 8 1995 PM Peak Hour Base ~affic Volumes Exhibit 10 Site Trip Distribution & Orientation Exhibit 11 AM Peak Hour Site Traffic Exhibit 12 PM Peak Hour Site Traffic Exhibit 13 1995 AM Peak Hour Base Plus Site Traffic Exhibit 14 1995 PM Peak Hour Base Plus Site Traffic Exhibit 15 Potential Channelization of 2nd Driveway