Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
TR0501-SY050107
IH 635 & Freeport Parkway City of Coppell TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT STUDY Prepared for: Texas Department of Transportation Dallas District Prepared by: Carter::Burgess 7950 Elmbrook Drive Dallas, Texas 75247-4951 November 22, 2004 Revised January 7, 2005 Submitted to: Traffic Operations Division J ~e~as Department of Transportation Project # 022789.020.1.0001 Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway Table of Contents Page No. 1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Key Findings ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 2 3.0 Area Conditions .................................................................................................. 3 3.1 Roadway System ......................................................................................... 3 3.2 Adjacent Signals .......................................................................................... 4 3.4 Adjacent Land Uses ..................................................................................... 4 4.0 Traffic Evaluation ................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Intersection Capacity Analyses .................................................................... 5 4.2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis .................................................................... 6 4.2.1 IH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway Analysis ................................................................................................ 6 4.1.2 IH 635 EB Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway Analysis ......... 8 4.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary .................................................... 9 4.3.1 IH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway Analysis Summary ............................................................................... 9 4.3.1 IH 635 EB Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway Analysis ....... 10 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................. 10 5.1 Key Findings .............................................................................................. 10 5.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................... 11 AppendixA: Intersection Photographs Appendix B: Traffic Counts Appendix C: Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Sheets Appendix D: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis J Texas Department of Transportation Carter::Burgess Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway List of Tables Page No. Table 1 - Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ................................. 5 Table 2- IH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway General Description of Intersection ................................................................. 6 Table 3- IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway General Description of Intersection .............................................................................. 8 List of Figures Figure 1 - Intersection Locations Figure 2 - Intersection Geometry Figure 3 - Adjacent Land Uses Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway J 1.0 Executive Summary The City of Coppell requested a traffic study at the intersection of Dividend Drive/iH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway. The City requested that the intersection be evaluated for either a traffic signal or flashing lights. Freeport Parkway provides access for business parks located both north and south of IH 635, including the Freeport DFW development that includes a well developed business park and DeVry University. There are several tracts of undeveloped property adjacent to Freeport Parkway that provide the potential for additional traffic through the study intersections. A traffic signal warrant study was prepared for the intersections of the IH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway and the IH 635 EB Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway in the City of Coppell, located in Dallas County. The study was conducted to determine if traffic signals are warranted and should be installed at these intersections using the signal warrants as outlined in the 2003 Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD). Data collected for the intersection includes: intersection geometry, photographs, existing traffic controls, traffic volumes, adjacent intersections, and surrounding land uses. The intersection locations are shown in Figure 1. The methodology included data collection, capacity analyses, and traffic signal warrant analyses. The key findings and recommendations of the study are summarized below. 1.1 Key Findings · The intersection of IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway currently meets Warrants 1, 2 and 3. · The intersection of IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway currently meets Warrants 2 and 3. The intersection of the IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway currently experiences the greatest delay on the southbound through movement due to the all-way stop control, operating at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. The minor street movements all operate at adequate LOS. The intersection of the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway currently experiences the greatest delay on the westbound left-turns, operating at LOS F during the both the AM and PM peak hours. The poor LOS on the westbound approach is caused by the high volumes on Freeport parkway and the limited gaps available for vehicles turning onto Freeport Parkway from the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp. The major street movements all operate at adequate LOS. With intersection signalization, it is expected that the intersection of IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway will operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour. · With intersection signalization, it is expected that the intersection of IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway will operate at LOS A during both the AM IH 635 EB FR & Adjacent In~j~ectio~l_ . .~ ~o ! o~ !! ,.~ ~, ~-~ xx'~/xx~,t,,~ Esters & Freeport Parkway Royal Ln & Freeport Park tray STUDY & ADJACENT INTERSECTION LOCATIONS IH 635 Frontage Roads & Freeport Parkway Carter :: Burgess Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway and PM peak hours. The westbound left-turn lane queue length is expected to reach 90 feet or approximately 4 vehicles. 1.2 Recommendations Based on the results of the traffic signal warrant analysis, capacity analysis, and projected tand uses, traffic signals are recommended at the intersections of IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway and IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway. The signals at the IH 635 Frontage Road Ramp intersections should be coordinated. It is expected that the IH 635 Frontage Road Ramp intersections should not be coordinated with the existing adjacent signals at Freeport Parkway and Esters, and Freeport Parkway and Royal Lane due to the distance between the study intersections and the adjacent intersections. A traffic signal at the intersection of the IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway will reduce the delay currently experienced by the through volumes at this intersection. A traffic signal at the intersection of the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road and Freeport Parkway will improve safety and decrease the delay and queue lengths for vehicles on the eastbound frontage road turning left onto Freeport Parkway. ~® 2 Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway 2.0 Introduction The City of Coppell requested a traffic study at the intersection of Dividend Drive/iH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp and Freepod Parkway. The City requested that the intersection be evaluated for either a traffic signal or flashing lights. Freeport Parkway provides access for business parks located both north and south of IH 635, including the Freeport DFW development that includes a well developed business park and DeVry University. There are several tracts of undeveloped property adjacent to Freeport Parkway that provide the potential for additional traffic through the study intersections. A traffic signal warrant study was prepared for the intersections of the iH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway and the IH 635 EB Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway in the City of Coppell, located in Dallas County. The study was conducted to determine if traffic signals are warranted and should be installed at these intersections using the signal warrants as outlined in the 2003 Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD). Data collected for the intersection includes: intersection geometry, photographs, existing traffic controls, traffic volumes, adjacent intersections, and surrounding land uses. The intersection locations are shown in Figure 1. 3.0 Area Conditions 3.1 Roadway System A site visit was conducted to become familiar with the intersections and the surrounding roadways. Characteristics of the study roadways are described below. Intersection photographs are provided in Appendix A. Freeport Parkway is a six-lane divided roadway south of the IH-635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and a four-lane divided roadway north of the IH-635 Eastbound Ramp. The roadway is constructed of concrete pavement with paved shoulders, and is in good condition. Pavement markings are provided and are in good condition. The speed limit on Freeport Parkway south of the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp is 40 mph and 30 mph north of the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp. The Freeport Parkway approaches at the iH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp are uncontrolled. An exclusive left-turn lane is provided for southbound traffic, and an exclusive channelized right-turn lane is provided for northbound traffic. A yield sign is posted for Freeport Parkway northbound right-turns. The Freeport Parkway approaches at the IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp are stop controlled. Exclusive left-turn lanes are provided for both northbound and southbound traffic, and an exclusive channelized right-turn lane is provided for southbound traffic. A yield sign is posted for Freeport Parkway southbound right-turns. IH-635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp is a two-lane, bi-directional ramp that runs generally east-west. The ramp intersects Freeport Parkway from the east and connects to the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road. The roadway widens at the westbound approach to Freeport Parkway, and an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive channelized right-turn lane are provided at the intersection. Yield signs are posted for the IH-635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp right turns. The roadway is constructed of concrete with paved shoulders, and is in good 3 Department of Transporta~ion Carter=Burgess : I Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway condition. Pavement markings are provided and are in good condition. The intersection is currently unsignalized with stop control on the IH-635 Eastbound Ramp approach. IH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp is a two-lane, bi-directional ramp that runs generally east- west. The ramp intersects Freeport Parkway from the west and connects to the IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road. The roadway widens at the eastbound approach to Freeport Parkway, and a left-through lane and an exclusive channelized right-turn lane are provided at the intersection. The roadway is constructed of concrete with paved shoulders, and is in good condition. Pavement markings are provided and are in good condition. A stop sign is posted on the eastbound approach at Freeport Parkway for left-turns and through traffic, a yield sign is posted for the right-turning traffic. The advisory speed limit on the ramp is 30 mph. Dividend Drive is a four-lane divided roadway that runs east-west, intersecting Freeport Parkway from the east opposite the intersection with the IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp. The roadway is constructed of concrete with curb and gutter and is in excellent condition. Pavement markings are not provided. A stop sign is posted on the westbound approach at the intersection with Freeport Parkway. The speed limit on Dividend Drive is 30 mph. Figure 2 illustrates the existing geometry at the intersection. 3.2 Adjacent Signals There are currently two existing signals on Freeport Parkway within one mile of the study intersections. The first existing traffic signal is located at the intersection of Freeport Pkwy and Esters Blvd, located approximately 1/2 mile from the intersection of IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway. The second existing traffic signal is located at the intersection of Freeport Pkwy and Royal Lane, located approximately 1 mile from the intersection of IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway. The adjacent traffic signals are shown on Figure 1. 3.3 Traffic Volumes Thirteen-hour turning movement counts were conducted at the intersections of the IH 635 Frontage Road Ramps and Freeport Parkway on Wednesday October 6, 2004. The thirteen- hour counts are included in Appendix B. 3.4 Adjacent Land Uses Land uses along the iH 635 Frontage Road Ramps, Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway in the area of the study intersections are primarily commercial and undeveloped. Dividend Drive provides access to a business park, which at the time of the study included one large commercial headquarters building. Freepod Parkway provides access for a business park both north and south of IH 635. The business park north of IH 635 has not completely developed. The business park south of IH 635, called Freeport DFW, includes many different types of businesses in mid-rise office buildings. DeVry University is also located at Freeport DFW. A land use sketch is shown in Figure 3. __~® 4 ---- Carter::Burgess Texas Department of Transportation IH 635WB ~/i~I~ Frontage Road j <:~ NTS I ~ Dividend I I I IH 635 I , I I 'i]'l 'i]' f ' Frontage Road ~ I I I I I ~ I I , I I ~ I I [ I FIGURE 2 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY IH 635 Frontage Roads & Freepo~ Par~ay Undeveloped Undeveloped IH 635 WB & ~, I Frontage Road ,J NTS Business Park & _ ~ ~=~ Headquarters ,0, ~' ~ ~' ,~'~ Divi d Undeveloped ~== Frontage Road Undeveloped Undeveloped Freeport DFW Business Park Devry University FIGURE 3 ADJACENT LAND USES IH 635 Frontage Roads & Freeport Parkway Carter::Burgess Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway 4.0 Traffic Evaluation 4.1 Intersection Capacity Analyses Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the operating conditions experienced at an intersection or along an arterial roadway when it is subject to varying traffic volumes. There are six levels of service, LOS A through F, which describe the traffic operating conditions from best to worst, respectively. LOS E is considered the capacity of the intersection. For signalized and unsignalized intersections, LOS can be calculated using the methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Each LOS corresponds to a range of delay. LOS worsens as delay increases. Corresponding LOS and ranges of delay for unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 1. Table I - Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level-of-Service Control Delay Range (sec.) A < 10.0 B >10,0 and _< 15,0 C >15.0 and -< 25,0 D >25.0 and -< 35.0 E >35.0 and < 50,0 F >50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000, A capacity analysis was conducted for the intersections of the IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway and IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway. The analysis considered existing geometry, intersection control, peak hour volumes, and peak hour factors. The intersection of the IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway currently experiences the greatest delay on the southbound though movement, operating at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. The minor street movements all operate at adequate levels of service. With intersection signalization, it is expected that the intersection of IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway will operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour. The intersection of the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway currently experiences the greatest delay on the westbound left-turns, operating at LOS F during the both the AM and PM peak hours. The poor LOS on the westbound approach is caused by the high volumes on Freeport Parkway and the limited gaps available for vehicles turning onto Freeport Parkway from the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp. The queue length for westbound left-turns is approximately 450 feet or 18 vehicles. The major street movements all operate at adequate levels of service. J Texas Department of Transportation 5 Carter::Burgess Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway With intersection signalization, it is expected that the intersection of IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway will operate at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. The westbound left-turn lane queue length is expected to reach 90 feet or approximately 4 vehicles. The capacity analysis summary sheets are included in Appendix C. 4.2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersections of the IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway and IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway. The analyses were conducted according to the 2003 Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD). The traffic signal warrant analyses evaluated three (3) of the eight (8) signal warrants outlined in the TMUTCD. The warrants evaluated and their results are shown below. The traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are included in Appendix C. 4.2.1 IH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway Analysis Table 2 below describes the general information about each roadway that was used in the signal warrant analysis. Table 2- iH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway General Description of Intersection Major Minor Roadway Freeport Pkwy iH 635 WB FR Ramp/Dividend Dr. Direction North-South East-West Lanes on Approach at Intersection 3-NB, 4-SB 2-EB & 1-WB~ ~5~ percentile speed 40 mph 30 mph · 35,958 PO ulatlon2 th~rRthre the r~oht turn lane and volumes The wes~ound right-tm were not considered in the analysis. 2From the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Warrant 1-Eight Hour Vehicular Volume- To meet Warrant 1, Condition A and/or Condition B must be met. Condition A The major street must have a total traffic count for both approaches of 600 vehicles per hour (vph) and the minor street must have 200 vph for one approach. To meet Condition A, eight (8) hours are required where both the major and minor street meet the traffic requirements for the same hour· Hours that both meet: 9 Hours required: 8 Warrant lA- Satisfied 6 Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District Traffic Signal Warrant Study November 2004 IH 635 & Freeport Parkway Condition B The major street must have a total traffic count for both approaches of 900 vehicles per hour (vph) and the minor street must have 100 vph for one approach. To meet Condition B, eight (8) hours are required where both the major and minor street meet the traffic requirements for the same hour. Hours that both meet: 4 Hours required: 8 Warrant lA- Not Safisfied Warrant 2-Four Hour Volumes This warrant is satisfied when traffic volumes for at least any four hours of an average day plotted on Figure 4C-1 from the TMUTCD fall above the line for '2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes. See Figure 4C-1 in Appendix D. Plotted points above line: 7 Plotted points required: 4 Warrant 2-Safisfied Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Condition A -Peak Hour Delay-N/A Condition B-Peak Hour Volume This warrant is satisfied when traffic volumes for at least any one (1) hour of an average day are plotted on Figure 4C-3 from the TMUTCD and fall above the line for '2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes'. See Figure 4C-3 in Appendix D. Plotted points above line: 4 Plotted points required: 1 Warrant 3-Safisfied 7 J ~e~as Deparf~nent of Transportation Carter=;Burgess Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway 4.1.2 IH 635 EB Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway Analysis Table 3 below describes the general information about each roadway that was used in the signal warrant analysis. Table 3- IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway General Description of Intersection Major Minor Roadway Freeport Pkwy IH 635 EB FR Ramp Direction North-South East-West Lanes on Approach at Intersection 3-NB, 3-SB 2-WB 8~h percentile speed 35 mph 30 mph Population~ 35,958 From the U.S. Census Bureau, Warrant 1-Eight Hour Vehicular Volume- To meet Warrant 1, Condition A and/or Condition B must be met. Condition A The major street must have a total traffic count for both approaches of 600 vehicles per hour (vph) and the minor street must have 200 vph for one approach. To meet Condition A, eight (8) hours are required where both the major and minor street meet the traffic requirements for the same hour. Hours that both meet: 3 Hours required: 8 Warrant lA- Not Satisfied Condition B The major street must have a total traffic count for both approaches of 900 vehicles per hour (vph) and the minor street must have 100 vph for one approach. To meet Condition B, eight (8) hours are required where both the major and minor street meet the traffic requirements for the same hour. Hours that both meet: 5 Hours required: 8 Warrant 1 A- Not Satisfied .._~® 8 , , J ~e~es Departmen, of Transportation Carter:.'Burgess Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District Traffic Signal Warrant Study November 2004 IH 635 & Freeport Parkway Warrant 2-Four Hour Volumes This warrant is satisfied when traffic volumes for at least any four hours of an average day plotted on Figure 4C-1 from the TMUTCD fall above the line for '2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes'. See Figure 4C-1 in Appendix D. Plotted points above line: 4 Plotted points required: 4 Warrant 2-Satisfied Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Condition A-Peak Hour Delay-N/A Condition B-Peak Hour Volume This warrant is satisfied when traffic volumes for at least any one (1) hour of an average day are plotted on Figure 4C-3 from the TMUTCD and fall above the line for '2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes'. See Figure 4C-3 in Appendix D. Plotted points above line: 2 Plotted points required: 1 Warrant 3-Satisfied 4.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary 4.3.1 IH 635 WB Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway Analysis Summary Warrants Satisfied · Warrant 1- Eight-Hour Vehicular Volumes · Warrant 2-Four Hour Volumes · Warrant 3-Peak Hour Volume Warrants Not Satisfied None Warrants Not Included · Warrant7-Crash Experience Warrants Not Applicable · Warrant 4- Pedestrian Volume · Warrant 5-School Crossing · Warrant 6- Coordinated Systems · Warrant 8-Roadway Network J Texas Department of Transportation 9 Carter:=Burgess Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway 4.3.1 IH 635 EB Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway Analysis Warrants Satisfied · Warrant 2-Four Hour Volumes · Warrant 3-Peak Hour Volume Warrants Not Satisfied · Warrant 1- Eight-Hour Vehicular Volumes Warrants Not Included · Warrant 7-Crash Experience Warrants Not Applicable · Warrant 4- Pedestrian Volume · Warrant 5-School Crossing · Warrant 6- Coordinated Systems · Warrant 8-Roadway Network 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Key Findings The intersection of IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway currently meets Warrants 1, 2 and 3. The intersection of IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway currently meets Warrants 2 and 3. The intersection of the IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freepod Parkway currently experiences the greatest delay on the southbound through movement due to the all-way stop control, operating at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. The minor street movements all operate at adequate LOS. The intersection of the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway currently experiences the greatest delay on the westbound left-turns, operating at LOS F during the both the AM and PM peak hours. The poor LOS on the westbound approach is caused by the high volumes on Freeport parkway and the limited gaps available for vehicles turning onto Freeport Parkway from the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp. The major street movements all operate at adequate LOS. With intersection signalization, it is expected that the intersection of IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway will operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour. With intersection signalization, it is expected that the intersection of IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway will operate at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. The westbound left-turn lane queue length is expected to reach 90 feet or approximately 4 vehicles. ~® 10 Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway ;I 5.2 Recommendations Based on the results of the traffic signal warrant analysis, capacity analysis, and projected land uses, traffic signals are recommended at the intersections of IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway and IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp and Freeport Parkway. The signals at the IH 635 Frontage Road Ramp intersections should be coordinated. It is expected that the IH 635 Frontage Road Ramp intersections should not be coordinated with the existing adjacent signals at Freeport Parkway and Esters, and Freeport Parkway and Royal Lane due to the distance between the study intersections and the adjacent intersections. A traffic signal at the intersection of the IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp/Dividend Drive and Freeport Parkway will reduce the delay currently experienced by the through volumes at this intersection. A traffic signal at the intersection of the IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road and Freeport Parkway will improve safety and decrease the delay and queue lengths for vehicles on the eastbound frontage road turning left onto Freeport Parkway. J ~e~as Department of Transportation Carter Burgess Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway Appendix A Intersection Photographs APPENDICES 'l Westbound Approach on Eastbound IH 635 Frontage Road Ramp at Freeport Parkway Northbound Freeport Parkway at IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp Southbound Freeport Parkway at IH 635 Eastbound Frontage Road Ramp Northbound Freeport Parkway at IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp 2 Southbound Freeport Parkway at IH 635 Westbound Frontage Road Ramp Eastbound Approach on Westbound IH 635 Frontage Road Ramp at Freeport Parkway 3 Westbound Dividend Drive at Freeport Parkway 4 Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway Appendix B Traffic Counts APPENDICES Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway Appendix C Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Sheets APPENDICES HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM 3: IH 635 WB FR & Freeport Pkw~ 11/19/2004 Lane Configurations ~1' ~' ~1' ~' ~I"~, <,1"~' i~ st P Volume (vph) 141 67 439 2 2 3 37 450 83 86 765 69 p~akH0brF~Ct0~; 0~80; 062 ;0182 050 050 0.38 , 0,:7i::, 088 065 0~63 ;0,78 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 176 108 535 4 4 8 52 529 128 137 981 78 Volume Total (vph) 284 535 8 8 317 V0 ume E~bff (v@h) 'i76 0 4 0 52 Volume Right (vph) 0 535 Departure Headway (s) 7.6 3.2 Degre~ Ufil ~.ati0n x 0.60 0.48 Capacity (veh/h) 462 1116 362 C0ntrb. De ay (s) 21 1 9 11.2 Approach Delay (s) 13.3 10.7 Appr~.~ LOS. ~ B a 0 8 0 0.25 -0.70 0.14 9.2 8.3 7.2 0.02 0.02 0.64 399 484 10:2 392 463 654 78 0 137 0 0 128 0 0 78 -0.!9 0.16 0.02 -0.55 6.9 7.0 6.9 3.2 0,75 0.90 1.25 0.07 511 508 533 1121 20.9 26.9 44.6 147.2 5.2 24.2 98.2 C F , 53.1 HCM Level of Service F nt~rs@Ct on capac ~ Ut !zation 67.8% Analysis Period (min) 15 ICU L~evel of Service C TxDOT WA #2 Signal Warrant Analysis Existing AM Carter & Burgess, inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM 6: IH 635 EB FR & Freeport Pkwy 11/19/2o04 Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor H0udyflow rate (vph) Pedestrians L~ne Width (fi) Walking Speed (fi/s) P~i~nt_ BlOckage Right turn flare (veh) U~di~n ~YPe Median storage veh) upstr~amsigna.'! px, platoon unblocked v~, ~rff]i~ing :v01bme vCl, stage 1 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, sihg!e tC, 2 stage (s) pO queue free % q~l ~',a.~i~ (veh/b,.)' Stop Fme Free 0% 0% 0% 182 402 34~ 112 147 110~ 0.88 0.85 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.82 207 473 465 132 t73 1344 None t483 233 465 1483 233 465 6.8 6.9 4.1 ,?~ r ~j.~ 2.2 0 39 84 98 769 . 1092 Volume Left V~'I~J~R ght cSH Vo!~Ji~e to Capac tY Queue Length 95th (ft) ~b~! p~la~/(~)~ , 600.1 Lane LOS F AP~h De ~y (~) 194.3 2~ 47~ 233 233~ 132 173 672 672 207 0 0 0 0 173 0 0 ,0: 4?3 0 0 132 O 0 0 98 769 1700 1700 '700 1092 1700 1700 2.10 0.61 0:14 0.1~ 0.08 0,16 0.40 0.40 447 107 0 0 0 14 0 0 16,8 0.0 0.0 0.0' 8.9 0.0 0.0 C A 0.C 1.0 Approach LOS F Average Delay 47.8 nterse~(~B:Capacl~ Ut izaton 47 ~ cU L~ve of service Analysis Period (rain) 15 : TxDOT WA #2 Signal Warrant Analysis Existing AM Carter & Burgess, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM 3: IH 635 WB FR & Freeport Pkw¥ 11/19/2o04 Lane ~nf gurat?ns 4' ie' 4' ?' . '('1'~ S ~ ~{m ' : St6p ' Stop ' Stbp st~p Volume (vph) 89 8 232 82 30 55 244 587 11 2 491 106 Peak~0~Fac!9¢ · 088 0.52 0,77 0.71, 068,, 069,, 079, 087, 069 0.25 0.78 0.60 Hourly flow rate (vph) 109 16 301 115 44 80 309 675 16 8 629 177 Volume Total (vph) 125 301 160 80 646 353 218 420 177 Vb U~ E~'~ (v~h) ' i09 0 115 0 309 0 8 0 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 301 0 80 0 16 0 0 177 H~dil~" '~ :'' , 0,35 -058 036 -0,70 0.26 0.00 0.07 0.05 -0.65 7.7 7.4 7.1 7.4 7.4 3.2 Depad~re Headway (s) 8.7 3.2 8.7 D~r~Qffii~ti0n. x ' 0:30 027 0.39 0.17, 1.33 0.70 0.45 0.86 0.16 Capaci~ (veh/h) 388 1112 388 443 495 491 477 481 1121 ~hffS~6iaVf~ ,: ' 154 7.4 15.9 11.0 182.6 24.0 15.0 39.6 5.6 Approach Delay (s) 9.7 14.3 126.5 25.7 ......... A '~ ~; B F D HCM Level of Service F I~i~r~b~6 c~ac!~Y Utiii~tibn 60~i% Analysis Period (rain) 15 ICU Leve of Service B TxDOT WA #2 Signal Warrant Analysis Existing PM Carter & Burgess. Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: IH 635 EB FR & Freeport Pkw~ Timing Plan: PM 11/19/2004 ~ane Configurations si{~n Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Vqlum~ (veh/h) 22 51 811 748 159 646 Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.81 0.90 Hqur~yflow rate(vph) 32 56 891 796 196 718 Pedestrians Lahe Width (fi)' Walking Speed (~s) Right turn flare (veh) Medi~D,~~ , None Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked vC; c6hflicting volume 1643 446 891 vC1, stage ~ conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1643 ~6 891 tq, S~g~e (S) 7.1 7.3 4.3 tC, 2 stage (s) 3.6 3.f 2.3 pO queue free % 45 89 73 ) s8 513 720 Volume Left cSH V.q!"~ t9 Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) -32 56 446 446 796 !9~ 359 359 32 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 0 56' "0 0 796 0 0 0 58 513 1700 1700 1700 720 1700 1700 0.55 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.47 0.27 0.21 0.23 55 9 0 0 0 28 0 0 0.o o~0' CgP~! 'D~@',~Y~; (~) 124.8 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1t.9 Lane LOS F B B ','~i~ ~ii'~'. ' S 2.5 Ap~prc~a~h Delay ( ) 53.4 0.0 Approach LOS F Average Delay 2.6 nter~Joh C~paci~ Utili~tion 61.8% ICU Level of Se~ice B Anal~is Period (min) 15 TxDOT WA #2 Signal Warrant Analysis Existing PM Carter & Burgess. Inc. Synchro 6 Repod Page 2 Timings Timing Plan: AM 3: IH 635 WB FR & Freeport Pkwy 11/19/20o4 Lane Configurations <-1' i# +1' ~ +I"~ +~'~ ~' ' Volume (vph) 141 67 439 2 2 3 37 450 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm ~mtec~ted Phases 4 8 2 ei-mitt~d Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 4 4 4 8 '8 8 2 2 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Mipim,u~plit(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20,0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split {%) 43.6% 43.6% 43.6% 43.6% 43.6% 43~6°~ Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Ali-Red Time(s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead/Lag Le.ad-~ag Optimize? Recall Mode A~ Effgt ~reen (S) Actuated g/C Ratio Control Delay Qyeu'b Delay Total Delay Approach Delay APl~rP~6h LOS Perm 6 6 4.0 4.0 200 200 20~q 20.0·20.'0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 56.4% 56 4% 56_4% 56.4% 56 4% 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 O.5 O.5 O.5 O.5 0.5 None None None None None None 18.7 18,7 18.7 18.7 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 -0.56 0.90 0.01 0.01 18.4 30.2 11.2 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.4 30.2 11.2 7.0 B C- B A 26.1 9.1 C - A C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min 28.3 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.48 0-8~~! ~g;!0 7.4 18.2 2.7 0.0 O.0 0.0 7.4 18.2 2.7 A B ~ 7.4 17.2 Actuated Cycle Length: 55 ~.ffSfft~ '~0 (~6~), Ref~reficed to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 ~0Pt~g[ ~YPe:'A~tuated-Coordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 0.90 !~ter~t.!~! $igpa_~ p~!~i 17,.3 Intersection capacity Utilization 67.8% ~aly~is~iPeriod (m[~) ! 5 Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service C Splits and Phases: 3: IH 635 WB FR & Freeport Pkwy ~2 TxDOT WA ~2 Signal Warrant Analysis With Signalization Cader & Burgess, Inc. Synchro 6 RepoK Page 1 Timings Timing Plan: AM 6: IH 635 EB FR & Freeport Pk-w~ 11/19/20o4 Lane Configurations ~i i# V0 ur~ (~PI~) '182 402 Perm Turn Type p~t~phases' Permitted Phases D~tect~r phaSb~' Minimum Initial (s) M[hJmp~ Split (s) Total Split (s) Yellow Time (s) Lead/Lag Re~ll Mode A~ E~'ree~ (S) A~uated g/C Ratio Control Delay Total Delay Approach Delay Am>ro~bl~l~OS - 349 1'12 147 1102 Perm Perm 8 2 6 8 2 6 8 8 2 2 6 6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 23.0 23.0 32,0 32.0 32,0 32,0 41.8% 4'1,8% 58~% 58.2% 58.2% 58,2% 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 None None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min 12.5 12.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 0.23 0,23 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.~! ;0,77 0.21 0.13 0.3'1 0,60 18.8 9.5 5,6 1.9 5,1 5.4 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 18.8 9.5 5.6 1.9 5.1 5.4 ~ A A A A' A '12.4 4,8 5.3 A Actuated Cycle Length: 55 Natural Cycle: 50 C~t~;;~)~ ~ A~uated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77 !~i~.~'~igpal~elay: 6.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.2% Splits and Phases: 6: IH 635 EB FR & Freeport Pkwy ~)hase 2;.NBT and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Intersection LOS: A ICU Level of Service A TxDOT WA #2 Signal Warrant Analysis With Signalization Carter & Burgess, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 2 Timing Plan: PM Timings 11/19/2004 3: IH 635 WB FR & Freeport Pkw~ Lane Configurations <,1' Turn Type Permitted Phases D~tect~r ,Phases Minimum Initial (s) Min!rnum Split (s) Total Split (s) T~tal -~'PIR {%) Yellow Time (s) AI!~-Red Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead.!~ag optimize? Recall Mode Act Effct'G~'een (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/~ Ratio '~. Control Delay queq~ ge!ay Total Delay Approach Delay 89 8 232 82 30 55 Perm Perm Perm Perm 4 8 4 4 8 8 4 4 4 8 8 8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20,0 20.0 20,0 2(} 0 20.0 20,0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 31.4% 31.4%o 31,4% 31.4% 31.4% 31.4% 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0,5 0.5 0.5 244 587 2 491 106 Perm Perm Perm 2 6 2 6 6 2 2 6 6 6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 20,0 20.0 20.0 20.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 68 6% 68.6% 68.6% 68.6% 68.6% 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.,5 0.5 None None None None None None 12.7 12.7 12,7 12.7 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.62 0.56 0.64 0,22 30.4 6.0 29.9 6.8 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 6.0 29.9 6.8 C A C A 13.2 22.2 C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min 49.3 49.3:49.3 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.63 0.27- 0.15 7.3 4.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 4.7 1.2 A A ~ a 7.3 4.0 A A Actuated Cycle Length: 70 Offset; 2~ ~3~,, ~/e). Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL. Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60 C.,,onb'g! ~ype~ Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0,64 In{ers~cti0a S!gnal Delay; 8,7 intersection Capacity Utilization 60,1% Ana!y~i~ Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: Intersection LOS: A ICU Leve~ of Service B 3: IH 635 WB FR & Freeport Pkwy e2 TxDOT WA #2 Signal Warrant Analysis With Signalization Carter & Burgess, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 1 Timing Plan: PM Timings 11/1912004 6: IH 635 EB FR & Freeport Pkw~ Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Permiffed Phases 8 2 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ...... ',:;': 00~ 200 200 Total Split(s) 20.0 20.0 50.0 50.0 50.O 5O.O Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3,5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lead/Lag ~ead,~o Opbm~ze Recall Mode None None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.87 0.87 0,87 0.87 Control Delay 29.1 10.3 2,0 1.6 6.9 1.6 Total Delay 29.1 10.3 2.0 1.6 6.9 1.6 Actuated Cycle Length: 70 Natural Cycle: 60 Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.53 Intersection Capacity Utilization 6'1.8% ICU Level of Service B Splits and Phases: 6: IH 635 EB FR & Freeport Pkwy TxDOT WA #2 Signal Warrant Analysis With Signalization Carter & Burgess, Inc. Synchro 6 Repo~ [ Page 2 Texas Department of Transportation-Dallas District November 2004 Traffic Signal Warrant Study IH 635 & Freeport Parkway Appendix D Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis APPENDICES TRAFFIC SURVEY - COUNT ANALYSIS 2003 Texas MUTCD WARRANTS County: Dallas City: Coppell Population: 35,958 Route # Name Control Major Freeport Parkway/ 2374 Minor IH 635 EB FR District No.: Dallas Survey Date: 10/6/2004 Section 85% Speed 7 35 30 Warrant 1: Eight- Hour Volumes Condition A Number of Lanes Minor Major Street Street I 1 2 or more 1 2 or more 2 or more 1 2 or more Major Street Minor Street Both Approaches High Volume Approach Required Required Urban Rural* Urban Rural 500 350 150 105 600 420 150 105 600 420 200 140 500 350 200 140 *Cdteda when the 85th percentile speed is greater than 40 rnph or when the population is less than 10,000 Warrant 1-Condition A Criteria Time Volume Major Minor Be~in End Major Minor >= 600 >= 200 Both Meet 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 0 0 N N N 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 0 0 N N N 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 0 0 N N N 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 0 0 N N N 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 0 0 N N N 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 0 0 N N N 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 729 273 Y Y Y 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 1503 479 Y Y Y 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 1455 507 Y Y Y 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 597 194 N N N 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 603 105 y N N 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1256 111 y N N 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 1431 177 y N N 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 1148 166 y N N 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 848 103 y N N 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 1013 85 y N N 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 1691 70 y N N 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 2364 73 y N N 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 1187 59 y N N 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 0 0 N N N 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 0 0 N N N 9:00 PM 10;00 PM 0 0 N N N 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 0 0 N N N 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 0 0 N N N 'otal number of hours approaches) and minor high volume approach) met: 3 Condition A is not satisfied Hours Required: 8 V~'~rr~nt I not satisfied. © 2004 1 Carter :: Burgess, Inc. Warrant 1: Eight- Hour Volumes Condition B Number of Lanes Minor Major Street Street 1 1 2 or more 1 2 or more 2 or more Major Street Minor Street Both Approaches High Volume Approach Required Required Urban Rural* Urban Rural* 750 525 75 53 900 630 75 53 90O §30 100 70 2 or more 750 525 100 70 *Criteria when the 85th percentile speed is greater than 40 rnph or when the population is less than 10,000 Warrant 1-Condition B Criteria Time Volume Major Minor Begin End Maior Minor >= 900 >=100 Both Meet 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 0 0 N N N 1 ;00 AM 2:00 AM 0 0 N N N 2:00 AM 3;00 AM 0 0 N N N 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 0 0 N N N 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 0 0 N N N 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 0 0 N N N 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 729 273 N Y N 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 1503 479 Y Y Y 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 1455 507 Y Y Y 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 597 194 N Y N 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 603 105 N Y N 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1256 111 Y Y Y 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 1431 177 Y Y Y 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 1148 166 Y Y Y 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 848 103 N Y N 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 1013 85 y N N 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 1691 70 y N N 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 2364 73 y N N 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 1187 59 y N N 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 0 0 N N N 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 0 0 N N N 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 0 0 N N N 10:00 PM 11:00PM 0 0 N N N 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 0 0 N N N Total number of hours, both the mai approaches) and minor(high volume approach) met: 5 Hours Required: 8 Condition B Is not satisfied Warrant I not satisfied. © 2004 2 Carter :: Burgess, inc. Warrant 2: Four Hour Vehicular Volumes This warrant is similar to Warrant lA, except that the required traffic volumes must be present for at least four hours of an average day. The traffic volumes required are based on curves (Figure 4C-2) shown in the MUTCD. * The required traffic is present for at least four hours. Warrant 2 Is satisfied Warrant 3, Condition A- Peak Hour Delay This warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions will cause undue delay to traffic entering or crossing the major street. The peak hour delay warrant is satisfied when the following conditions exist for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average weekday: (1) The total delay by the traffic on a side street control[ed by a stop sign equals or exceeds four vehicte- hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and (2) the volume on the side street (one direction) equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic and 150 vph for two moving lanes, and (3) the total traffic volume serviced during 1 hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for an intersection with four (or more) approaches or 650 vph for three approaches. *Part I - N/A *Part 2 - N/A *Part 3 - NIA Warrant 3a is N/A. Warrant 3, Condition B - Peak Hour Volume This warrant applies to traffic entedng from the minor street which encounters undue delay crossing the main street. This warrant is satisfied when the main street and side street traffic volumes satisfy the curves shown in Figure 4C-4 of the TMUTCD. Warrant 3 Condition B is satisfied. Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume Required* Existing 100 or more for each of any four hours 0% OR 190 or more dudng any one hour 0% * For predominant pedestrian crossing speeds less than 3.5 fi/sec, the pedestrian volume may be reduced as much as 50 percent. Gap Requirements YES NO YES NO Is the nearest signal located more than 300 feet away? For traffic flow which is not platooned, are there less than 60 gaps per hour of adequate length for the pedestrians to cross the street? Warrant 4 is Not Included in Study CaF(er :: Burgess, Inc. © 2004 Warrant 5: School Crossing YES NO IS the number of adequate gaps in traffic stream during the pedod when the children are using the crossing less than the number of minutes in the same period? Warrant 5 is N/A. Warrant 6: Coordinate Systems YES NO Are the adjacent signals in a signal system? YES NO Would the resultant spacing be 1000 feet or mere? Warrant 6 is Not Included In Study Warrant 7: Crash Experience YES NO iS 80% or more of one of Warrants #1, #2, or #3 met? ~. YES J NO Have there been more than five accidents susceptible to correction by a traffic signal in 12 months? Warrant 7 is Not Included In Study Warrant 8: Roadway Network YES NO Does the major street have an existing or immediately projected entedng volume of · 1000 vehicles per hour of a typical weekday? YES NO DO 5-year projected traffic volumes meet Warrants 1, 2, or 3? YES NO IS there an entedng traffic volume of at least 1000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours on a Saturday or Sunday?. Warrant 8 Is Not Included in Study Summary: Warrants satisfied: 2, 3 Warrants not satisfied: 1 Warrants net applicable: 5 Warrants not included in study: 4, 6, 7, 8 © 2004 4 Carter :: Burgess, ~nc. qd^-qoeoJddv euJnlOA qlS!H-leeJl$ JOU!l/~ 0 0 Minor Street-High Volume Approach-vph m 0 ° ~ ~ Major Minor TRAFFIC SURVEY - COUNT ANALYSIS 2003 Texas MUTCD WARRANTS City: Route # Dallas Coppell Population: 35,958 Name Control Freeport Parkway 2374 IH 635 WB FPJDividend Dr~ve District No.: Dallas Survey Date: 10/6/2004 Section 85% Speed 7 40 3O Warrant 1: Eight- Hour Volumes Condition A Number of Lanes Minor Major Street Street I 1 2 or more 1 2 or more 2 or more 1 2 or more Major Street Minor Street Both Approaches High Volume Approach Required Required Urban Rural* Urban Rural 500 350 150 105 600 420 150 105 600 420 200 140 500 350 200 140 *Cdteda when the 85th percentile speed is greater than 40 rnph or when the population is less than 10,000 Warrant 1-Condition A Criteria Time Volume Major Minor Be~in End Major Minor >= 600 >= 200 Both Meet 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 0 0 N N N 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 0 0 N N N 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 0 0 N N N 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 0 0 N N N 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 0 0 N N N 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 0 0 N N N 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 589 427 N Y N 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 1310 684 Y Y Y 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 1203 513 Y Y Y 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 465 292 N Y N 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 397 292 N Y N 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 642 338 Y Y Y 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 791 550 Y Y Y 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 606 538 Y Y Y 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 557 287 N Y N 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 724 250 Y Y Y 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 1196 210 Y Y Y 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1441 329 Y Y Y 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 688 202 Y Y Y 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 0 0 N N N 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 0 0 N N N 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 0 0 N N N 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 0 0 N N N 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 0 0 N N N Condition A Is satisfied Warrant 1 satisfied. Total number of hours, approaches) and minor(high volume approach) met: 9 Hours Required: 8 © 2004 1 Carter :: Burgess, Inc, Warrant 1: Eight- Hour Volumes Condition B Number of Lanes Minor Major Street Street 1 1 2 or more 1 2 or more 2 or more Major Street Minor Street Both Approaches High Volume Approach Required Required Urban Rural* Urban Rural* 750 525 75 53 900 630 75 53 900 630 100 70 1 2 or more 750 525 100 70 *Cdteda when the 85th percentile speed is greater than 40 rnph or when the population is less than 10,000 Warrant 1-Condition B Criteria Time Volume Major Minor Begin End Major Minor >= 900 >=100 Both Meet 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 0 0 N N N 1 ;00 AM 2:00 AM 0 0 N N N 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 0 0 N N N 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 0 0 N N N 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 0 0 N N N 5:00 AM 8:00 AM 0 0 N N N 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 589 427 N Y N 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 1310 684 Y Y Y 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 1203 513 Y Y Y 9:00AM 10:00AM 465 292 N Y N 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 397 292 N Y N 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 642 338 N Y N 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 791 550 N Y N 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 606 538 N Y N 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 557 287 N Y N 3;00 PM 4:00 PM 724 250 N Y N 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 1196 210 Y Y Y 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1441 329 Y Y Y 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 688 202 N Y N 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 0 0 N N N 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 0 0 N N N 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 0 0 N N N 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 0 0 N N N 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 0 0 N N N Total number of hours, approaches) and minor(high volume approach) met: 4 Hours Required: 8 Condition B is not satisfied Warrant I satisfied. © 2004 2 Carter :: Burgess, Inc. Warrant 2: Four Hour Vehicular Volumes This warrant is similar to Warrant lA, except that the required traffic volumes must be present for at least four hours of an average day. The traffic volumes required are based on curt, es (Figure 4C-2) shown in the MUTCD. * The required traffic is present for at least four hours. Warrant 2 is satisfied Warrant 3, Condition A- Peak Hour Delay This warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions will cause undue delay to traffic entering or crossing the major street. The peak hour delay warrant is satisfied when the following conditions exist for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average weekday: (1) The total delay by the traffic on a side street controlled by a stop sign equals or exceeds four vehicle- hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and (2) the volume on the side street (one direction) equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic and 150 vph for two moving lanes, and (3) the total traffic volume serviced during 1 hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for an intersection with four (or more) approaches or 650 vph for three approaches. *Part I - N/A *Part 2 - N/A *Part 3 - NIA Warrant 3a is N/A. Warrant 3, Condition B - Peak Hour Volume This warrant applies to traffic entering from the minor street which encounters undue delay crossing the main street. This warrant is satisfied when the main street and side street traffic volumes satisfy the curves shown in Figure 4C-4 of the TMUTCD. Warrant 3 Condition B is satisfied. Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume Required* Existing 100 or more for each of any four hours 0% OR 190 or more during any one hour 0% * For predominant pedestrian crossing speeds less than 3.5 ftJsec, the pedestrian volume may be reduced as much as 50 percent. Gap Requirements YES NO YES NO IS the nearest signal located more than 300 feet away? For traffic flow which is not platooned, are there less than 60 gaps per hour of adequate length for the pedestrians to cross the street? Warrant 4 is Not Included in Study © 2004 3 Carter :: Burgess, Inc. Warrant 5: School Crossing YES NO IS the number of adequate gaps in traffic stream during the period when the children are using the crossing less than the number of minutes in the same period? Warrant 5 is N/A. Warrant 6: Coordinate Systems YES NO Are the adjacent signals in a signal system? YES NO Would the resultant spacing be 1000 feet or more? Warrant 6 is Not Included In Study Warrant 7: Crash Experience YES NO · EsI .o Is 80% or more of one of Warrants #1, #2, or #3 met? Have there been more than five accidents susceptible to correction by a traffic signal in 12 months? Warrant 7 is Not Included In Study Warrant 8: Roadway Network YES NO Does the major street have an existing or immediately projected entering volume of > 1000 vehicles per hour of a typical weekday'? YES NO Do 5-year projected traffic volumes meet Warrants 1,2, or 3? YES NO IS there an entering traffic volume of at least 1000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours on a Saturday or Sunday?. Warrant 8 is Not Included in Study Summary: Warrants satisfied: 1, 2, 3 Warrants not satisfied: none Warrants not applicable: 5 Warrants not included in study: 4, 6, 7, 8 © 2004 4 Carter :: Burgess, Inc. qdA-qoeoJddv euJnloA HB!H-~eeJ1S J°u!H 0 0 0 @ 0 ~ z 0 0 / ~/ . qd^-tloeoJddv etunloA q~!H-leeJ~,S Jou!lhl 0 CD 0