SC-Lakeside E6-CS 920428 ! /~/'_~, P.O. BOX 478
Coppell. Texas 75019
(~~ The City With A Beautiful Future 214-462-0022
April 28, 1992
Ayres Associates
~. O. Box 612409
Dallas, iX 75261
Re: Traffic Study for Coppel! Elementary ~6
Dear S!r:
The City oX Coppell has received and reviewed the traffic study and has
the following comments ~o offer:
! ibis traffic study does not take into account the future
development along Village Parkway, i.e. Lakewood Estates and
Gibbs Station. What impact, if any, will those two
developments have on this traffic study.
2 The reference to the two drives closest to MacArthur being
designated for use by parents and visitors is incorrect. It is
my understanding that the parent parking lot had been moved
further east.
3) There is a comment concerning that bus and staff traffic can
access the site from the north. Will there be a designated bus
route to insure bus access from the north to either Village
Parkway or MacArthur? The City of Coppell is very concerned
about using Kimbel Kourt to access the site. Kimbel Kourt is a
substandard street and it is our opinion that it would not be
able to withstand the heavy traffic.
4) A traffic flow schematic map would be helpful in reviewing this
study.
5) There are comments concerning the use of Kimbel Kourt to access
Sandy Lake Road. I am concerned that if people utilize Kimbel
Kourt and load the intersection headed west on Sandy Lake, then
the signal lights may have to be retimed and if they are
retimed, how will this affect traffic on MacArthur?
Letter to Ayres Associates
April 28, 1992
Pa§e 2
6 Based on the queue length on Sandy Lake Road, only about 3 cars
could actually exit Kimbel Kourt westbound before the
intersection is blocked.
7 There is a comment on page 7 concerning Kimbel Kourt being able
to handle 12,000 trips per day. It is our opinion that Kimbel
Kourt is not in good enough shape to withstand that much
traffic on a daily basis. If Kimbel Kourt is intricately tied
into the traffic flow around the elementary school, it is quite
possible that the school should consider upgrading Kimbel Kourt.
8) On Sheet 9 there is a breakdown of A.M. peak traffic around the
elementary school. Please comment as to why it is assumed that
the A.M. traffic would have only 126 trips.
Your last conclusion on page 12 is that a traffic signal at the
intersection of Village Parkway and MacArthur Blvd. would
provide a more efficient traffic progression along MacArthur.
This traffic study indicates that currently there is no need
for this traffic signal. However, has consideration been given
to the traffic flow around this elementary school when the
surrounding areas along Village Parkway and MacArthur have
built out? Currently, there is approximately 800 lots in the
general vicinity about to develop. This is based on
preliminary and final plats the City has recently received.
What impact will those lots have on the intersection of Village
Parkway and MacArthur?
There are other comments throughout this study. Please respond to these
comments in written form so that the City can make a determination on the
acceptance of this traffic study.
If you should have any additional questions, please feel free to contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
KMG/Dd
cc: M. Shohre Daneshmand, P.E., Civil Engineer
Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
COPTS