Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Jefferson/PP-SY 940510
TRAFFIC ACCESS STUDY FOR JEFFERSON AT RIVERCHASE, A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN COPPELL, TEXAS Prepared For: JPI Texas Development, Inc. Prepared By: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. 330 Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 748-6740 May 10,1994 DT&A Job #94065 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mr. Guy Brignon / Mr. Bobby Page JPI Texas Development, Inc. DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. May 10, 1994 Traffic Access Study for Jefferson at Riverchase in Coppell, Texas; J94065 PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze traffic access for Jefferson at Riverchase, a proposed multi-family development, in Coppell, Texas, as well as address additional concerns expressed by city staff. The access issues of this analysis are limited to examining the impact of the proposed development on the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road, MacArthur Boulevard/Riverchase Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard/Bethel School Road. The analysis also examines the need for a northbound deceleration lane for both the main driveway and the second site access point on MacArthur Boulevard and the affect controlled access gates will have on this need. Thc access issues of this analysis are limited to projecting thc development generated traffic arriving at thc intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Bek Line Road. City staff directed that traffic generated by an approved retail center in the southeast quadrant of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive and four other planned single- and multi-family developments in the immediate area of the Jefferson at Riverchase development be included in the projected 1996 background traffic. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed development is planned to consist of 386 multi-family units. The development will provide for two connections to MacArthur Boulevard, one of which is served by an existing median opening. The proposed site layout is shown in Exhibit 1. The proposed site consists of land located east along Mac. Arthur Boulevard and north of Riverchase Drive. Regency Court, a proposed 280 unit multi-family development, is to be located to the north of the subject development. Northlake Woodlands East No. 10 Phase B, located west of Mac. Arthur Boulevard, is planned to provide for 97 single-family units with 39 more lots proposed for future development. The Riverchase Club Apartments, a 208 unit multi-family development, is proposed to be located west of MacArthur Boulevard across from the site. The existing Riverchase Golf Club lies to the east of the proposed development with an approved retail center being located in the southeast quadrant of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Exhibit 2 illustrates the location of the site in relation to these noted developments on the surrounding thoroughfares. I I I I i Exhibit 1 Site Plan OANUy LAKE RD MAPLELEAF FUTU~- DEVELOPMENT RD ~ ' .; ;:: ...'..: ' ~ NoRTHLA'KE WOODLANDS EAST ....... ND.lO PHASE B .;;' REGENCY' COURT..: RETAIL PRopOsED SITE JEFFERSON · AT RIVERCHASE Exhibit 2 Site Location EXISTING CONDITIONS Accessibility is aa 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 ~our-laae 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 aa east/west arterial located south of the proposed development. East of Mac. Arthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road is a six-lane divided roadway providing access to 1-35. West of MacArthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road is a two-lane undivided road. Riverchase Drive - is a four-lane undivided roadway that connects Mac. Arthur Boulevard to Sandy Lake Road. Traffic Volumes Twenty-four hour traffic counts were collected in January 1994 on MacArthur Boulevard, Belt Line Road and Riverchase Drive. Counts were conducted on a Thursday and a Friday, and on a Tuesday. Normally, traffic counts are conducted on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, to better represent the average traffic conditions/volumes. Friday and Monday data may be erratic at times due to vacations and other factors. The Thursday-Friday count was used in the analysis. Exhibit 3 illustrates traffic volumes for two different 24-hour periods. Both days exhibited almost the same number of vehicles, reflecting little di~erence in total volumes. Therefore, the analysis performed on the Thursday-Friday data should be considered as representative of a "normal" day. Exhibit 3 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes Vehicles per Day Count .- Percent Location Thursday-Friday Tuesday Difference (January 6-7, 1994) (January 11, 1994) MacA~thur Blvd. North of Belt Line Road 14,010 14,029 0.1% Mac. Arthur 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 Mac. Arthur Blvd. 10,996 10,725 2.5% Riverchase Drive East of MacArthur Blvd. 1,133 1,096 3.4% 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 MacArthur Boulevard. Riverchase Drive carries approximately 1,100 vehicles per day east of MacArthur Boulevard. Manual peak hour traffic movement counts were obtained from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 6, 1994 and from 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. on Friday, January 7, 1994 at the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road, and Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. FUTURE CONDITIONS Projected Traffic Volumes In order to analyze the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway system, future traffic volumes must be estimated. For this analysis, a design year of 1996 was selected. Other developments expected to affect the traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development in 1996 include a retail center ia the southeast quadrant of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive and four other residential type developments located adjacent to and across from Jefferson at Riverchase. The trips generated by these developments are in addition to the projected background growth. This city staff direction represents a worse case scenario for the analysis. Traffic projections for the study area were obtained by applying a growth factor to existing traffic and adding the anticipated traffic for the five planned and proposed developments. The projected growth rate was deter~-ined using historic traffic count data near the proposed site. Comparing 24-hour data collected in 1986 to data collected in April 1993, a growth rate of 6.5% per year was calculated. Compounded annually, a growth factor of 1.134 was lo,md for the year 1996. This growth factor was applied to existing turning movements collected by DT&A in January 1994. Exhibits 4 and 5 depict the projected 1996 morning and evening peak hour background turning movement volumes without the proposed subject development. The background traffic is the projected 1996 volume plus the traffic generated by the planned retail center and four other developments previously identified. Trip Generation The fifth edition of the Institute of Transportation En~neers (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 the various land uses were projected and are shown in Exhibit 6. RD. BELT LINE RD. Exhibit 4 1996 Background Traffic Volumes for the AM Peak Hour (Base + Retail Center + Four Other Developments) RD. // BELT LINE RD. Exhibit 5 1996 Background Traffic Volumes for the PM Peak Hour (Base + Retail Center + Four Other Developments) Exhibit 6 Trip Generation Values Number Weekday AM Peak PM Peak Development of Trips Hour Hour Units Total Trips Trips Jefferson At Riverchase 386 2,411 34 134 144 74 Multi-Family * Riverchase Club Apartments 280 1,852 26 103 108 56 Multi-Family * Regency Court 208 1,451 20 81 84 43 Multi-Family * Northlake Woodlands East 97 1,004 20 58 67 43 No 10 Phase B Single-Family Detached Future Development in 39 434 9 27 30 16 Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family Detached ' Retail Center 8.55 ac 9,475 0 0 365 354 Note: Trip generation for multi-family low rise uses ITE Code 221 Trip generation for single-family detached uses ITE Code 210 * Data is from previous reports The proposed Jefferson at Riverchase development is projected to generate 2,411 trip ends during a twenty-four hour period. During the AM peak hour, approximately 34 inbound trips will be generated with 134 outbound trips for a total of 168 trips. During the PM peak hour, approximately 144 inbound trips with 74 outbound trips will be generated. The total projected trip ends during the PM peak hour is 218 trips. As part of a previous study in Valley Ranch, Irving Transportation Staff requested an analysis of two existing multi-family developments similar to the development being proposed in this study. The purpose was to evaluate and compare local trip generation volumes to ITE trip generation values. It was found that an average of the two sites confirmed the AM peak hour volumes, while ITE trip generation values overestimated the site traffic volumes by approximately 20% during the PM peak hour. Based upon this local data, a 20% reduction in PM trip ends was accepted. However, to examine the worst case scenario, reduction in the PM peak hour trips was not applied to Jefferson at Riverchase. The summary of this study can be found in the Appendix. Traffic Orientation and Assignment Trip orientations of site-generated traffic are 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 thl.q 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 7. Exhibit 7 Traffic Orientation Direction (to/from) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour North 12% 20% South 37% 45% East 49% 32% West 2% 3% Trip assignment consisted of modeling the site with trip ends taking the most direct approach possible to the desired destination. Exhibits 8 and 9 illustrate the site generated traffic assignments and distribution to the surrounding thoroughfare network. Exhibits 10 and 1! show the corresponding number of vehicles generated by the development at each location, while Exhibits 12 and 13 show the total 1996 traffic volumes. RD. 7'/-) BELT LINE RD. Exhibit 8 Site Generated Traffic Assignment & Distribution for the AM Peak Hour RD. BELT LINE RD, ,0 Exhibit 9 Site Generated Traffic Assignment & Distribution for the PM Peak Hour RD. BEI. T LI~E liD. II Exhibit 10 Site Generated Traffic for the AM Peak Hour RD. It BELT LINE RD. Exhibit 11 Site Generated Traffic for the PM Peak Hour BELT LINE RD, 0 /I Exhibit 12 Total 1996 Traffic Volumes for the AM Peak Hour RD. BELT LINE RD. // I/ Exhibit 13 Total 199~ Traffic Volumes for the PM Peak Hour ANALYSIS/OBSERVATIONS Level-of-Service In order to accurately assess the traffic flow characteristics within the study area, intersection capacity analyses were performed for the peak hours utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. The Transportation Research Board "Highway Capacity Software" package was used to perform the MacArthur Boulevard/Belt ! Jne Road analysis and determine intersection Level-of-Service. Level-of-Service, or LOS, refers to the operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists. There are six Levels-of-Service or capadty conditions that are designated from "A" tO "F', with "A" representing the best operational conditions and "F' the worst conditions. Level-of-Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, Level-of-Service criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for the highest volume during a L5-minute analysis period during the peak hour. The criteria are given in the following table: LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Stopped Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.) A < 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 F > 60.0 Delay may be estimated using procedures contained in thc Highway Capacity Manual. Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent upon a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the volume-to-capacity (vic) ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Leve/-of-Serv/ce,4 d~crib~ operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Leve~/-of-~e~e B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 sec per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, musing higher levels of average delay. Level-of-Service Cdescribes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. 16 Leve/-of-Serv/ce D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high vic ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Leve/-of-Serv/ce E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level-of-Sen,ice F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This conditionoften occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Analysis of the MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road intersectionwas performed with and without the proposed development. Exhibit 14 summarizes the results of the signalized analysis. Exhibit 14 Signalized Intersection Analysis MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road I AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Year Delay Level-of- Delay Level-of- (seconds) Service (seconds) Service 1996 Base w/o Improvements 51.2 E * 22.2 C 1996 Base + Development ** F ** F w/o Improvements Volume to capacity ratio is greater than 1 Delay is meaningless when volume to capacity ratio is greater than 1.2 The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road was also examined to determine the impact of the proposed developmenton the operations of the intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used to analyze the intersection. For signalized intersection,the totalintersectiondelay is used to determine the intersection Level-of-Service. In examining the turning movement volumes at this intersection, the southbound left turns were very high, with approximately 1150 vehicles turning left from MacArthur Boulevard to Belt Line Road. The addition of a second designated exclusive left-turn lane is needed to accommodate this heavy southbound left turn movement. This additional lane will allow dual left-turn movements for southbound MacArthur Boulevard traffic to eastbound Belt Line Road. Exhibit 15 shows the recommended modifications to the existing southbound lane assignment needed to improve traffic operations at this intersection. 17 Exhibit 15 Recommended Improvements for Southbound MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road Southbound Lane Assignment Lane Number Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Current Through/Right Through Left Only Shared Only Proposed Through/Right Through Left Only Left Only Shared Only The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road is projected to fail, with or without the proposed subject development. However, with the recommended improvements and with all of the proposed developments in place, the intersection will operate at a Level-of-Service C in the morning and Level-of-Service D in the evening as shown in Exhibit 16. Exhibit 16 Signalized Intersection Analysis MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Year Delay Level-of- Delay Level-of- (seconds) Service (seconds) Service 1996 Base + Development 22.7 C 36.0 D w/Improvements Unsignalized capacity analyses have been conducted utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual methodology for the following intersections: MacArthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive MacArthur Boulevard at Bethel School Road MacArthur Boulevard at the Main Driveway MacArthur Boulevard at the Second Driveway Level-of-Service for unsignalized intersections differs from signalized intersections in that it is a measure of reserve capacity, not delay. Stop and Yield signs are used to control traffic in such conditions. As a result, driver on the minor streets are forcexl to judgmentally select gaps in the major street flow through which they must execute their crossing or turning maneuver. When the demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, excessive delays are encountered which may cause problems for other traffic movements, therefore intersection improvements may be warranted. Level-of-Service therefore for unsignalized intersections must look at the capacity of the number of vehicles that are able to execute their maneuvers. The following table taken from the Highway Capacity Manual summarizes the LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. 18 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Reserve Capadty (PCPH) Level-of-Service ~400 A 300-399 B 200-299 C 100-199 D 0-99 E <0 F Expected Delay to Minor Street Traffic Little or no delay Short traffic delays Average traffic delays Long traffic delays Very long traffic delays Undesirable delays Using this methodology, the worst turning movement Level-of-Service represents the intersection LOS, where Level-of-Service reflects the expected operation of the intersection. Exkibit 17 depicts the results of this analysis. Westbound left turns from Riverchase Drive to MacArthur Boulevard experience a Level-of-Service F during the AM and PM peak hours. The proposed multi-family development is expected to increase the number of trips traveling through the intersection o.f MacAr. thur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive by 5.8% during the AM peak hour and 6~2% during the PM peak hour.. · 19 Exhibit 17 Unsignalized Intersection Analysis on MacArthur Boulevard for 1996 Base + Development Turning AM Peak'Hour PM Peak Hour Location Movement Reserve Level of Reserve Level of Capacity Service Capacity Service Riverchase Drive NB Left 108 D 538 A SB Left 809 A 92 E EB Left 23 E 17 E EB Thru 42 E 38 E WB Left -28 F -107 F WB Thru 43 E 36 E Intersection F F Bethel School Road NB Left 106 D 560 A SB Left 879 A 155 D EB Left 32 E 33 E EB Thru 44 E 47 E WB Left -5 F 20 E WB Thru 44 E 47 E Intersection F E Main Driveway SB Left 826 A lll D WB Left 1 E -25 F WB Right 959 A 379 B Intersection E F Second Driveway WB Right 1,000 A 1,000 , A Intersection A A The westbound left-turn maneuvers from the cross streets control the intersectionLevels-of-Service. However, the unsignalizedanalysis used to determine the Level-of-Service for unsignalizedintersectionsassumes a random arrival rate. Because of the proximity of Belt Line Road to the unsignalized intersections, the vehicles on MacArthur Boulevard are grouped in platoons. The platooning of vehicles creates larger gaps in the traffic on the major roadway, which allows the vehicles turning left from the minor roadway to operate more efficiently than analytically predicted. Although the intersections'of MacArthur Boulevard and the cross streets, with the exception of the secondary driveway, are expected to operate at LOS F in the year 1996, the intersections will probably not meet traffic signal warrants by 1996 because of the relatively low traffic volumes on the cross streets. However, signalization may be warranted in the future. A connecting roadway from Riverchase Drive to Belt Line Road east of MacArthur Boulevard may also be provided in the future to decrease the number of trips from Riverchase Drive to MacArthur Boulevard, improving the projected Level-of-Service at the intersection of MacA_rthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive. Queue Analysis One factor in this analysis is to determine if the southbound left-turn storage lane on MacArthur Boulevard at the main driveway is adequate to accommodate the vehicles expected to stack in this lane. This was done by conducting a queuing analysis. The queuing theory utilized is documented in the Transportation and Traffic 20 Ene/neering Handbook, 2nd Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1982 (page 461). The theory utiliTes a random (i.e., Poisson) arrival rate. Results of this analysis can be found in the Appendix. With a confidence level of 95%, the results reveal that a queue of two vehicles or less can be expected during the morning and evening peak hours for the southbound left mm into the development in 1996. Therefore, the existing left-mm storage lane on MacArthur Boulevard at the main entry is adequate to accommodate the left- turn demand and not disrupt the through vehicles on Mac. Arthur Boulevard. A queuing analysis was also performed to examine the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line 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 En_~fineering Handbook. 2nd Edition (page 465). It was determined a queue of over 1,500 feet per lane can be expected during the morning peak hour if no changes 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 dual left turns on southbound MacArthur Boulevard at Belt Line Road and is expected to reduce this queue length. In 1996, with the recommended improvements the queue is expected to only be approximately 165 feet with the development, or a decrease of over 1,300 feet from existing queues. Deceleration Lane Another factor in this analysis was the examination of the need for a deceleration lane on northbound Mac. Arthur Boulevard at the main driveway and secondary access. The City of Arlington has developed guidelines for the implementation of deceleration lanes that they feel provide additional capacity at driveways when necessary. This criteria states that a deceleration lane is required if: 1) 2) over 50 vehicles turn right into the development during the peak hour, or 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 86 vehicles mining right into the development during the peak hour while 29 vehicles are projected to turn right at the secondary driveway. Due to the projected right mm volume into the development at the main entrance, a deceleration lane is recommended. Right turn volumes at the second access point do not require a separate deceleration lane. A length of 100 feet for the deceleration lane with 150 feet of transition is adequate to provide appropriate distance for vehicles to enter the facility without interfering with normal through traffic. Controlled Access Gates When design/nE the entrance ways for developments, a set back of 75 feet for access gates is desirable. At the present time, the design fo~ Jefferson at Riverchase provides for more than 75 feet at the main driveway and approximately 25 feet at the second access point. It is recommended that the gate allowing vehicles into the complex at the second driveway be moved as far away from MacArthur Boulevard as possible, to achieve a larger storage area. Moving the gate back to the end of the covered parking area will provide an additional 20 feet to give a total of 45 feet of storage. Jefferson at Riverchase will provide gates controlled by remote control devices similar to conventional garage door openers. From the 1983 Parking Access Control, Revenue Control, Access Design handbook, the projected queue length for vehicles entering into this controlled access development is less than one vehicle. The second access gate will also have a queue of less than one vehicle. 21 Traffic Arriving at Mac. Arthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road The total traffic generated by Jefferson at Riverchase that is projected to arrive at the MacArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road intersection during the AM peak hour is 149 vehicles. This represents 3.3% of the total projected AM peak hour traffic entering the intersectionin 1996. For the PM peak hour, 174 vehicle trip ends to and from Jefferson at Riverchase, or 3.8% of the total calculated traffic for 1996, are projected to enter the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road. Exhibit 18 compares the total anticipated number of vehicles expected to arrive at MacArthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road from the five proposed and planned developments and Jefferson at Riverchase. Exhibit 18 Traffic Volume Entering the Intersection of MacArthur Boulevard & Belt Line Road During Each Peak Hour Traffic Generator Total AM % of Total Total PM % of Total Volume Traffic Volume Traffic 1996 Background Traffic 4067 90.2% 3631 78.8% Jefferson at Riverchase 149 3.3% 174 3.8% Riverchase Club Apartments 111 2.5% 125 2.7% Regency Court 89 2.0% 102 2.2% Northlake Woodlands East No 10 Phase B 66 1.5% 80 1.7% Future Development in 27 0.6% 30 0.7% Northlake Woodlands East Retail Center 467 10.1% Total 4222 I 100% 4280 100% The Jefferson at Riverchase development generates 3.3%-3.8% of the projected traffic expected to arrive at the intersection of Belt Line Road and MacArthur Boulevard during the peak hours. If one compares the amount of traffic generated by Jefferson at Riverchase to that generated by the retail center, one would see that the retail center, which has already been approved, generates more than twice the amount of traffic of the proposed development during the PM peak hour. 22 CONCLUSION The proposed 386-unit multi-family development, located east along Mac. Arthur Boulevard north of Riverchase Drive, is expected to increase the traffic at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Riverchase Drive by 3.3% in the morning peak hour and 3.8% in the evening peak hour in the design year 1996. This represents an average increase in the morning traffic on Mac. Arthur Boulevard of two additional vehicles per minute, and three vehicles per minute in the evening peak hour. The intersection of Mac. Arthur Boulevard and Belt Line Road is expected to fail with or without the proposed subject development in 1996 during the morning peak hour. With the addition of a southbound left-turn lane, creating a dual left turn, the intersection is expected to operate at a Level-of-Service D or better during the morning and evening peak hours. This Level-of-Service value indicates the intersection will operate in accordance with acceptable principles and practices of urban transportation engineering criteria with development of Jefferson at Riverchase. The left-turn storage on Mac. Arthur Boulevard at the main driveway of Jefferson at Riverchase was also examined to determine if the existing storage lengths were sufficient to accommodate the future traffic volumes. The southbound left-turn lane is expected to have between one and two vehicles stored in the left-turn lane at Riverchase Drive during the peak hour. Sufficient storage currently exists to accommodate the expected left-turn vehicle queues on MacArthur Boulevard at Riverchase Drive. A deceleration lane for northbound MacArthur Boulevard at the main entrance is recommended. A second deceleration lane on Mac. Arthur Boulevard for the northern entrance is not needed. The proposed storage capacity at the main driveway is projected to adequately accommodate the demand at the main entrance with the proposed gate access control. The gate access for inbound traffic at the second entrance is recommended to be repositioned to allow for a total of 40 feet of storage from the curb line of Mac. Arthur Boulevard to the gate arm. Appendix Day of Week: Tuesday Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc Street: MacArthur Blvd City/State: Cop~].[, Texas Projoct-ID#: 94(~4[ -- O03F Oato: JTEffJ/J~j/I1, 1994 // 24-Hour Total: ] 16,641 9 13 11 9 1 0 3 o 3 5 7 18 22 38 52 81 98 134 180 180 154 114 105 97 72 80 81 77 82 75 80 73 95 107 120 119 42 29 11 33 193 592 470 310 310 441 7 8 8 3 -- 26 1 2. 1 2 6 I 5 1 6 13 3 1 1 3 I 4 1 8 3 6 14 17 36 60 117 169 265 317 310 289 648 307 224 172 116 107 93 72 7O 69 73 74 75 67 80 97 100 14 4O 382 1,181 1,223 819 342 291 344 1200I 1215 I 143 1230 I 155 1245 I 132 1300 / 1,008 141 571 1315 ~ 142 1330 ~ 134 1345 ~ 106 1400 I 126 508 ~ 1415 / 103 1430 / 109 1445 / 119 1500 ~ 134 465 69 112 88 120 387 2115 2130 2145 2200 2215 223O 2245 2300 2315 2330 2345 2400 Totals 128 145 149 168 233 264 311 310 354 304 273 246 195 165 124 114 116 98 62 71 6O 7O 67 74 39 56 46 41 28 19 21 23 590 1,118 598 347 271 182 91 8.749 1,279 16.641 109 122 104 102 437 107 100 85 91 383 75 69 136 112 392 50 94 85 102 331 105 109 108 127 449 114 136 166 162 578 177 161 159 136 633 122 108 112 86 428 67 74 75 69 285 79 72 60 73 284 50 32 32 27 141 26 28 16 15 85 E0uipment IDth 3593 ] 7,892 666 Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. street: MacArt~ur Blvd [oca~o.: Not~ o£ Belt Linc Rd City/State: COi1Dt]C~, Texas Project-lO#: 94004 -- 006/7 Date: J'~Itll/~r'Jr 11, 1994 oay of Week: 24-Hour Total: 14,029 { 2 2400 100 115 130 145 200 215 230 245 300 315! 24 12 13 o 2 0 o 2 1 5 5 11 22 13 17 16 34 80 39 46 66 64 215 76 48 53 68 245 49 51 49 56 205 46 52 55 35 188 62 87 67 79 295 252 254 2 4 4 4 14 2 2 1 I 6 1 0 0 4 5 1 1 o 2 4 4 7 1 4 18 4 11 37 30 82 40 79 203 289 611 456 528 552 553 2,089 522 2,155 364 252 123 1,261 113 85 76 66 340 46 48 63 46 203 54 56 84 71 245 Equipment ID#: 3592 1200 I 1215 I 1230 I 1245 I 1300 1 675 1315 ] 1330 [ 1345 ]' 1400 1 1415 ] 1430 I 1445 I 1500 1 ~5151 1530 1545 1600 1615 1630 1645 1700 1715 1730 1745 1800 1,623 1815 1830 1845 1900 1915 1930 1945 2000 2015 2030 2045 2100 2115 2130 2145 2200 2215 2230 2245 2300 2315 2330 2345 2400 Totals 105 67 ] 93 95 / 87 75 / 66 69 50 87 71 79 85 67 52 72 96 101 106 105 168 230 281 343 317 32O 256 218 188 163 134 107 87 83 70 68 49 53 54 54 57 39 45 38 38 31 25 19 15 16 272 302 321 609 1,261 * 825 411 240 204 152 75 6,337 79 316 ] 79 328 79 72 63 293 67 62 79 68 276 53 66 71 58 248 80 60 85 84 309 84 93 109 370 76 362 99 94 70 340 85 61 52 261 4O 44 167 31 42 33 151 18 21 10 10 59 15 8 5 6 34 7,692 ] 14,029 74 359 Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Streot: MacArt~ Blvd "~ ~x Locatio.: Sou~ of Belt t. ine Rd l:~ City/State: CO..LI~J~, Texas ~ ix ,.~ \ ~4-Hour Total: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3400 200 1415 120 91 215 8 5 1430 122 85 230 6 5 1~5 121 116 245 0' 3 1500 114 4~ !13 ~5 300 3 15 8 19 1515 107 68 315 1 4 1530 116 109 ~0 5 0 1545 123 110 ~45 4 0 1600 125 471 106 393 400 2 12 2 6 1615 156 102 415 0 1 1630 159 103 430 4 3 1~5 186 117 ~5 3 5 1700 214 715 141 463 500 2 9 5 14 1715 292 129 5~5 ~ 5 1730 ~3 165 530 4 6 1745 313 1~ ~5 6 12 1800 368 1,306 171 642 600 15 25 18 41 1815 2,060 342 1,356 191 704615 I 13 24 1830 2~ 150 ~0 30 46 1845 281 147 645 53 88 1900 189 1,102 109 597 700 ~ 173 151 309 1915 167 127 715 75 208 1930 135 106 730 131 257 1945 124 102 745 181 280 2000 124 550 81 416 800 181 568 268 1.013 2015 100 82 815 1,730 146 639 288 1,091 2030 70 74 830 135 6~ 213 2045 84 82 845 116 2100 72 326 90 328 ~0 98 495 112 7~ 2115 68 84 915 70 2130 62 ' 73 930 68 90 2145 ~ 52 945 64 2200 56 249 53 262 1000 89 291 62 306 2215 54 42 1015 92 71 2230 42 36 1030 91 ~45 45 ~ 1045 86 2300 42 18~ 28 150 1100 79 348 88 288 2315 26 23 1115 106 82 2~0 29 21 1130 106 97 2~5 21 15 1145 117 106 2400 20 96 9 68 1200 136 465 98 ~3 15 13 12 1215 159 121 30 7 7 12~ 159 110 45 16 7 1245 154 127 100 13 49 11 37 1300 1,069 151 623 88 446 115 14 14 1315 138 112 130 10 4 1330 143 121 145 6 2 1345 129 92 200 15 45 1 21 1400 134 544 ~ 415 To.Is 9,137 7,766 Equipment ID~: 3593 ~ 16,~3 Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Stroe,: M cAr ur B vd [ocatio.: North o£Belt Line Rd ,.. City/State: CotTp~H, Texas '" 1! : Project-ID#: 94004 -- 006A Date: Sa~uary 6- 7, 1994 Day of Woek: T/1/.l/',~y - Friday :g -~/ [ i'~ : 24-Hour Total: ~ 1500 300 1515 79 52 315 I 2 1530 83 85 330 4 0 1545 102 92 345 3 1 1600 .88 350 72 301 400 I 9 2 5 1615 116 65 415 0 ' 5 1630 128 70 430 2 3 1645 166 80 445 2 3 1700 204 614 99 314 500 1 5 9 20 1715 292 94 515 I 6 1730 350 103 530 6 10 1745 321 92 545 5 30 1800 346 1.309 106 395 ' 600 7 19 26 72 lg~5 !,713 305 1,322 90 391 615 8 31 1830 251 103 630 11 70 1845 218 93 645 22 148 1900 155 929 87 373 700 33 74 209 458 19151 139 82 715 39 315 1930 106 59 730 45 42~ 1945 92 62 745 68 543 2000 73 410 53 256 800 73 225 517 1,803 2015 75 48 815 2.176 89 275 413 1.901 2030 59 49 830 68 298 274 2045 69 51 845 62 171 2100 53 256 51 199 900 53 272 127 985 2115 51 49 915 43 92 2130 61 38 930 45 78 2145 43 23 945 42 82 2200 48 203 26 136 1000 56 186 64 316 2215 39 28 1015 65 49 2230 38 25 1030 63 55 2245 33 19 1045 66 61 2300 37 147 10 82 1100 58 252 74 239 2315 19 12 1115 69 71 2330 19 7 1130 84 71 2345 23 5 1145 79 82 2400 26 87 28 52 1200 87 319 56 280 15 14 4 1215 107 71 30 9 2 1230 80 72 45 9 1 1245 102 86 100 7 39 9 16 1300 669 78 367 73 302 115 6 6 1315 66 86 130 5 0 1330 85 90 145 7 2 1345 70 56 200 13 31 0 8 1400 73 294 68 300 215 7 2 1415 86 63 230 I 0 1430 96 73 245 5 0 1445 83 107 300 I 14 3 5 1500 82 347 92 335 Totals 6.758 7,252 Equipment ID#: 3592 I [ 14,010 J Intersection Traffic Movements DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Ine Location: 3/lacArthur Bird & Belt Linc Rd Date: January 6 - 7, 1994 City/State: Copp~ll, Texas Day of Week: Thursday (pm) & Friday (am) County Dallas Checker(s): Bishop/Woolvarton/Larkins Project-ID#: 94004 - A Conditions: Fair 06:30 06:45 9 20 22 62 53 9 ! 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 12 2 172 44 '27 45 10 724 2,030 07:30 07:45 34 47 78 257 170 9 8 233 44 26 69 7 982 2,690 07:45 08:00 39 48 94 ' 238 181 12 6 ' 262 60 24 43 8 1,015 3,283 08:00 08:15 20 69 78 158 178 6 9 219 51' 24 42 11 865 3,586 08:15 08:30 24 48 56 147 112 l I 4 144 ' 43 34 33 9 665 3,527 16:00 16:15 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:!5 17:30 87 218 33 28 71 8 9 83 31 68 138 141 915 2,664 17:30 17:45 81 181 32 27 59 3 12 77 29 68 124 127 820 2,978 17:45 18:00 73 210 32 27 59 5 14 74 37 66 120 123 840 3,200 Obs~rvatlons: Intersection Traffic Movements DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc Location: MacArthur Bird & Bait Liaa Rd Date: January, 6 - 7, 1994 City/State: Coppoll, Taxas Day of Week: Thursday (pm) & FHday (am) County Dallas Checker(s): Bishop/Woolvartomq..arkins Project-ID//: 94004 - 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 07:00 07:15 Il 21 37 125 105 13 3 139 57 .1.5 29 7 562 07:!5 07:30 14 29 51 188 129 13 2 172 44 27 45 I0 724 2,030 07:30 07:45 34 47 78 257 170 9 8 233 44 26 69 7 982 2,690 07:45 08:00 39 48 94 238 181 12 6 262 60 ,24 43 8 1,015 3,283 08:00 08:15 20 69 78 158 178 6 9 219 51 24 42 11 865 3,586 08:15 08:30 24 48 56 147 112 11 4 144 43 ' 34 33 9 665 3,527 16:00 16:15 41 66 24 22 41 2 4 50 29 40 72 28 419 16:i5 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 8 9 83 31 68 138 141 915 2,664 17:30 17:45 81 181 32 27 59 3 12 77 29 68 124 127 820 2,978 17:45 18:00 73 210 32 27 59 5 14 74 37 66 120 123 840 3,200 Observations: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Mr. Jerry Wilson Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc. DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. November 3, 1993 Trip Generation Data Comparison for Proposed Multi-Family Development - Sterling Heights; $93149 The City of Irving staff requested DT&A to evaluated local trip generations for multi-family units and compare 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 site's chosen for the evaluation were the. Jefferson Creek Apartments off of Mac-Arthur Boulevard and Royal Lane, and the .Villas of Valley R ~anch off Of Mac. Arthur' Boulevard, Ranch Trail and Red River Trail.' DT&A obtained site plans and information (i.e number of units) on each development from the City of Irving. Contact was made with the developments to confu-m the information provide by the city and to find the occupancy rate. Jefferson Creek reported an occupancy rate of 97% of their 300 available units. The Villas reported an occupancy rate of 98% of 124 available units. On November !, 1993, DT&A personnel recorded site volumes dur:mg the peak A.M. and P.M. l~ours 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 thc collec:ed data with the peak hoars highlighted. Table 2 shows the comparison between the projected ITE volumes and the actual volumes. On an average ratio comparison, it is evident that IrE 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. 3~0 Union Station Dallaz, Te. ms 75202-4802 214/748-6740 Metro 214/26~5428 Far 214/748-7~37 I ! I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I Table 1 Summary of Peak Hour Driveway Volumes For Two Multi-Family Developments in Irving, Texas Jefferson Time 1st North Gate East Gate 2nd North Gate Total Peak Creek Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound l 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 .V,a!ley 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 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I i ! 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 ol ] A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Location Units Occupancy Volumes[- Inbound Outbound! Sum Inbound Outbound Sum Jefferson Creek , · 300 97 % Projected 27 106 133 112 58 170 Apartments Actual 15 127 142 86 42 128 Actl/Prjct 0.56 1.20 1.07 0.77 0.72 0.75 Villas of 124 98% Projected 13 52 65 52 27 79 Valley Ranch Actual 4 56 60 48 16 64 Actl/Prjct 0.31 1.08 0.92 0.92 0.59 0.81 Note: ITE Code 221 (Low-Rise Apartment) uses the number of occupied dwelling units to calculate the projected volumes Table 3 Comparison of Actual Volumes vs. Projected Volumes of Trip Generation I Peak Hour Location A.M. P.M. Jefferson Creek 1.07 0.75 Villas 0.92 0.8'i Average __ f:\lotus\93149b nCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation 05-10-1994 treets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard Analyst: GCL File Name: BLMACAMN.HC9 ~rea Type: Other 5-10-94 AM Peak omment: Year 1996 without Development ~/~1~~ No. Lanes --olumes ~ne Width RTOR Vole Eastbound L T R 1 3 1 28 1005 226 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 Westbound L T R 2 1 1 115 226 41 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 Northbound L T R 1 2 < 121 219 12.0 12.0 341 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 < 954 746 12.0 12.0 45 0 Fhase Combination 1 ~B Left Thru Right Peds --B Left Thru Right -- Peds B Right oB Right Green ellow/A-R _cst Time Cycle Length: 2 Signal Operations 3 4 NB SB Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right 5 6 4.0A 18.0A Green 27.0A 16.0A 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7 7 8.0A 4.0 3.0 8 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C _ Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS ~B L 162 766 0.17 0.21 22.1 C T 1129 5346 0.98 0.21 36.9 D R 320 1515 0.71 0.21 25.3 D B L 146 3279 0.51 0.29 22.7 C T 515 1~82 0.44 0.29 17.2 C -- R 438 1515 0.09 0.29 15.1 C B L 169 1693 0.48 0.31 20.8 C TR 576 3238 1.02 0.18 53.4 E ~B L 734 1693 1.19 0.64 127.0 F TR 1805 3532 0.46 0.51 9.2 B Approach: Delay LOS 34.6 D 18.6 C 47.8 E 72.2 F = E sec/veh ~% nter~t~i~ LOS Intersection Delay = 51.2 v/c(x). _~_~__1.030 .__~ Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical ~CM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation 05-10-1994 ~reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard Analyst: GCL File Name: BLMACAMN.HC9 .~rea Type: Other 5-10-94 PM Peak ~ Dmment: Year 1996 without Development ~6~ ~u~ No. Lanes --plumes ~ne Width RTOR Vols Eastbound L T R 1 3 1 49 331 143 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 Westbound L T R 2 1 1 277 555 521 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 Northbound L T R 1 2 < 347 846 132 12.0 12.0 Southbound L T R 1 2 < 122 276 32 12.0 12.0 0 Signal Operations ~nase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EB Left , , NB Left * * * -- Thru * Thru * * Right * Right * * Peds Peds --B Left , * * SB Left * * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * _ Peds Peds B Right EB Right oB Right WB Right Green 6.0A 15.0A 13.0A Green 6.0A 19.0A ll.0A --ellow/A-R 3.0 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0 Dst Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 #7 8 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C _ Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS ~B L 113 1693 0.26 0.27 20.0 C T 891 5346 0.41 0.17 21.8 C -- R 252 1515 0.57 0.17 24.2 C B L 838 3279 0.30 0.46 11.8 B T 634 1~82 0.88 0.36 25.4 D -- R 539 1515 0.97 0.36 37.6 D B L 395 1693 0.64 0.48 15.8 C TR 1320 3495 0.78 0.38 17.7 C ~B L 113 1693 0.63 0.31 27.4 D TR 741 3511 0.44 0.21 20.2 C Intersection Delay = 22.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.747 Approach: Delay LOS 22.3 C 27.3 D 17.3 C 22.1 C ! :M: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 05-04-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation F~.reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard i talyst: GCL File Name: Area Type: Other 5-4-94 AM Peak Cmmment: Year 1996 Base w/All Area Dev.(Incl. Jeff. @ Riverchase)- NO IMP ~ ). Lanes Volumes ~ne Width I ?OR Vols Eastbound L T R 1 3 1 29 1005 226 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 Westbound L T R 2 1 1 115 226 94 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 Northbound L T R 1 2 < 121 258 341 12.0 12.0 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 < 1149 893 12.0 12.0 52 0 ! rase Combination 1 Left Thru -- Right Peds WB Left -- Thru Right Peds NB Right ~ ~ Right C_'een Yellow/A-R r~st Time ¢ 'cle Length: 2 * * * * * Signal Operations 3 4 NB SB Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right 5 6 * * * * * * 5.0A 18.0A Green 39.0A 20.0A 3.0 3.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 94.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 7 8 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS L 82 428 0.38 0.19 26.6 D 77.4 F T 1024 5346 1.14 0.19 87.8 F R 290 1515 0.82 0.19 33.3 D L 174 3279 0.48 0.28 23.2 C 19.6 C T 493 1782 0.48 0.28 18.9 C R 419 1515 0.24 0.28 17.0 C L 76 356 1.68 0.21 * * * * TR 693 3259 0.96 0.21 38.5 D L 702 1693 1.61 0.66 * * * * TR 2330 3532 0.45 0.66 5.1 B Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = * (.'/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable. }--~M: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 05-10-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ~%reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard ; ~alyst: GCL File Name: 4065NIPM.HC9 Area Type: Other 5-4-94 PM Peak C~Dmment: Year 1996 Base w/All Area Dev.(Incl. Jeff. @ Riverchase)- NO IMP } ~. Lanes Volumes P~ne Width t ~OR Vols Eastbound L T R 1 3 1 150 331 143 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 Westbound L T R 2 1 1 277 555 726 12.0 12.0 12.0 190 Northbound L T R 1 2 < 347 1112 132 12.0 12.0 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 < 264 447 125 12.0 12.0 0 ] rase Combination 1 LJ Left * Thru -- Right Peds WB Left * -- Thru Right Peds N_B Right f ~ Right c~een Yellow/A-R ?~st Time ( ,cle Length: Signal Operations 2 3 4 * NB Left , Thru * Right Peds * * SB Left * * Thru , * Right Peds EB Right WB Right 6.0A 15.0A 13.0A 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5 6 7 Green 6.0A 19.0A ll.0A Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 #7 8 _ Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS ]--9 L 113 1693 0.82 0.27 46.7 E T 891 5346 0.43 0.17 21.9 C R 252 1515 0.60 0.17 24.8 C ~ L 838 3279 0.32 0.46 11.9 B T 634 1782 0.92 0.36 29.6 D R 539 15.15 1.05 0.36 56.2 E ~ L 395 1693 0.77 0.48 20.9 C TR 1324 3505 1.04 0.38 43.4 E LJ L 113 1693 1.75 0.31 * * TR 727 3446 0.87 0.21 28.8 D Approach: Delay LOS 28.2 D 36.5 D 38.7 D . -- Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = * .j/C)*(V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable. --CM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION S~Y 05-04-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ~treets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard nalyst: GCL File Name: BLMACAM.HC9 Area Type: Other 5-4-94 AM Peak ~omment: Year 1996 Base w/All Area Dev.(Incl. Jeff. @ Riverchase)- w/ IMP ~. Lanes Volumes ~ne Width fOR Vols Eastbound L T R 1 3 1 29 1005 226 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 Westbound L T R Northbound L T R 341 0 Southbound L T R 2 2 < 1149 893 12.0 12.0 2 1 1 115 226 94 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 1 2 < 121 258 12.0 12.0 52 base Combination 1 _B Left Thru -- Right Peds WB Left -- Thru Right Peds NB Right B Right teen Yellow/A-R --ost Time ycle Length: 2 Signal Operations 3 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right 5 6 7 4.0A 20.0A ,Green 26.0A 19.0A 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7 4.0A 4.0 3.0 Lane Group: Mvmts Cap L 137 T 1247 R 354 L 146 T 554 R 471 ~LB L 94 TR 688 ~B L 1239 TR 1884 ~st Time/Cycle, L = Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat v/c g/C Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS 588 0.23 0.23 21.4 C 5346 0.93 0.23 29.7 D 1515 0.67 0.23 23.2 C 3279 0.54 0.31 22.4 C 1782 0.43 0.31 16.2 C 1515 0.21 0.31 14.8 B 1693 0.73 0.30 37.9 D 3259 0.96 0.21 38.8 D 3279 0.92 0.62 19.2 C 3532 0.55 0.53 9.2 B Approach: Delay LOS 28.4 D 17.5 C 38.6 D 14.6 B Intersection Delay = 22.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.879 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation 05-04-1994 ~ ~reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard Analyst: GCL File Name: BLMACPM.HC9 ~ea Type: Other 5-4-94 PM Peak (~mment: Year 1996 Base w/All Area Dev.(Incl. Jeff. @ Riverchase)- w/ IMP No. Lanes ~lumes ] .ne Width ~£OR Vols Eastbound L T R 1 3 1 150 331 143 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 Westbound L T R Northbound L T R 132 0 Southbound L T R 2 2 < 264 447 12.0 12.0 2 1 1 277 555 726 12.0 12.0 12.0 190 1 2 < 347 1112 12.0 12.0 125 t.~ase Combination 1 EB Left * -- Thru Right Peds ~ Left * Thru Right Peds ~ Right c, Right Green ~llow/A-R ] tst Time Cycle Length: 2 Signal Operations 3 4 6.0A 15.0A 13.0A 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right 5 6 7 Green 6.0A 19.0A ll.0A Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 #7 Lane Group: Mvmts Cap t~ L 113 T 891 -- R 252 ¥; L 838 T 634 _ R 539 ~ L 395 TR 1324 SB L 219 -- TR 727 Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat v/c g/C Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS 1693 0.82 0.27 46.7 E 5346 0.43 0.17 21.9 C 1515 0.60 0.17 24.8 C 3279 0.32 0.46 11.9 B 1782 0.92 0.36 29.6 D 1515 1.05 0.36 56.2 E 1693 0.77 0.48 20.9 C 3505 1.04 0.38 43.4 E 3279 0.93 0.31 53.4 E 3446 0.87 0.21 28.8 D Approach: Delay LOS 28.2 D Lost Time/Cycle, L = 36.5 D 38.7 D 36.3 D Intersection Delay = 36.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.944 ! :M: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation 05-10-1994 ~ :reets: (E-W) Belt Line Road Analyst: GCL Area Type: Other ( ~mment: Year 1996 without Development (N-S) MacArthur Boulevard File Name: BLMACAMN.HC9 5-10-94 AM Peak ~/I.~v£~..~ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes ~lumes ]Lne Width RTOR Vols 1 3 1 28 1005 226 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 2 1 1 115 226 41 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 1 2 < 121 219 12.0 12.0 341 0 2 2 < 954 746 12.0 12.0 45 0 [nase Combination 1 EB Left -- Thru Right Peds W~ Left * Thru * Right * Peds ] 3 Right hJ Right Green .--%.llow/A-R ')st Time Cycle Length: 2 Signal Operations 3 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right 5 6 7 4.0A 20.0A Green 26.0A 19.0A 3.0 4.0 Yellow/A- 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7 4.0A 4.0 3.0 8 SB Lane Group: Mvmts Cap L 191 T 1247 R 354 L 146 T 554 R 471 L 94 TR 684 L 1239 TR 1884 Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat v/c g/C Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS 820 0.15 0.23 20.8 C 5346 0.89 0.23 26.4 D 1515 0.64 0.23 22.4 C 3279 0.51 0.31 21.7 C 1782 0.41 0.31 16.0 C 1515 0.09 0.31 14.2 B 1693 0.69 0.30 33.7 D 3238 0.86 0.21 28.6 D 3279 0.72 0.62 10.4 B 3532 0.44 0.53 8.4 B Approach: Delay LOS 25.6 D Lost Time/Cycle, L = 17.5 C 29.5 D 9.4 B Intersection Delay = 18.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.760 UN$IGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-37 WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS HO~LY VOL~S VOL~S ~ PCPH Major S~t: ~c~c. ~ (~ N N = ~ ~ Vs ~Z ~ Vs -- Grade - V2 _ V~ -- VI _ ,, V~ __ Date of Count: I~ ~ I'' ~ S~P T~e Pm~: %%q ~c -~ -- ~ ~ELD Average Rung Spe~: 4D N =~ Minor S~eet: PHF: Grade % ~ ~ VOL~ AD~S~S M~ement No. 2 3 4 5 7 9 Vol. (p~h), s~ Table 10-1 S~P I: ~' ~m ~or ~t ~- V~ Con~ctmg How, V~ 1/2 V~ + V Cdtic~ Gap, T~, and Potenti~ Capad~, cp T~ = ~'~ s~ (2~ble 10-2) cp, = ~ p~h (Fig. 10-3) q% Am~ Capad~, cm c~ = cp9 = p~h ~P Z LT From Major S~ ( V~ Con~a~gHo~ V¢ V~+V2= Z2 + Cfitic~ Gap, T~, and Potenfi~ Capad~, cp T~ = ~, Z': ~ (Table 10-2) cpi =~ p~h (Hg. 10-3) P~cent of cp Ut~ and ~nce Factor (Fig. 10-5) (v~/%~) X A~ Capad~, c~ c~i = c~t = ~O pcph S~P 3: LT From ~or'S~t [ ~ V7 Conffi~g How, V~ 1/2 V~+Vl+V~+V~ = I I + 36~+~ + ~ = IZ~h (V¢~) C~tic~ Gap, To, and Potenti~ Capad~, c~ Ir = ~' [ ~ (Table 10-2) c~7 p~h (Fig. 10-3) Am~ Capad¢ c. c~2 = c~r X P~ = XTO X I, G = [Z~ ~h S~ED-L~ C~AC~Y e S~_= v7 + v9 ~ lane ~ sha~ (v~/c~) + (v~/c~,) Movement No. v(p~h) [ c~ (p~h) cs. (p~h) c~ L~ UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-37 WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS LOCATION: HOURLY VOLUMES Major Street: Wot · JV~¼ ~, ~r' ('~) N VOLUMES IN PCPH Grade 1'7 t-q V2 _ - V~ Zq Da~eofCo~: I~ ~~ ~:D Average Run~g S~ed: ~ O = I Minor ~ S~eet: PHF: Grade % ~., ~,;',~¢~oc~ ~ . __ V: ~ Vs -- VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement No. 2 3 4 5 Volume 17 g 'Zcl Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-1 STEP I: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flow, V, [5q7_ t 7 9 1/2 V~ + V: -- 45 + -- ~Ot vph (V~) Critical Gap. T~, and Potential Capacity, cp Actual Capadty, c,~ T¢ =~.4 sec (Table 10-2) %9 =~q ~__ pcph (Fig. 10-3) STEP 2: LT From Major Street ~' Vi Conflicting Flow, V¢ Critical Gap, To, and Potential Capadty, cp Percent of % Utilized and Impedance Factor (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capadty, cm STEP 3: LT From Minor Street ~ V~ Conflicting Flow, V¢ Critical Gap, To, and Potential Capad~y, c~ Actual Capacity, c~ i/2 V~+V2+V~+V, = ~3 + ~$+~ + 2_q = 2o_.9._~vph = 4t~ (Fig. 10-3) T~ ~, ~ s~ (Table 10-2) c~ = p~h SHARED-LANE CAPACITY v~ + v~ if lane is shared (v~/c~) + (v~/c~0 Movement No. v(pcph) 7 4 '7-ok ~0 c~ (p~h) cs~. (pc'ph) c~ LOS -iS F WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1 / HOURLY VOLUMES Grade __.% Grade , % STOP[] YIELD[] V:: Vii Vm maj.or road ~STOP [] N =~ ' Vt Vs V~ minor road 7,"'/- Vi 3~ ~ V~. 4% V~ __ Grade % YIELD [] Grade Date of counts: %-u-ae Period: Iq q (~ -- Average Running Speed: PHF: VOLUME ADJ'USTMENTS Movement No. f t J 2; Volume (vph) Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-t VOLUMES INPCPH j 3 4 5 6 J 7 ' J 8 9 i0 i1 NA v~ ~__~, t/2 NA V7 V8 V5 ,~ V~ NA NA ,% UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 10-35 WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS STEP 1: RT From Minor Street Conflicting Flows, Critical Gap, Tc (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity, co (Fig. 10-3) Percent of cp Utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capacity, cm STEP 2: LT From Major Street Conflicting Flows, V¢ Critical Gap, Tc (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity, cp (Fig. 10-3) Percent of cp Utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual '~ ' - t_apaoty; c.~ STEP 3: TH From Minor Street Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, T, (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity, % (Fig. 10-3) Percent of % Utilized .Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capacity, STEP 4: LT From Minor Street Conflicting Flows, V~ Critical Gap, Tc (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity, % (Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, C V9 · vph V4 V3 + V2 -- Vo z~B +3~1 = 3~q .vph cd, Z (sec) = ~lC~ pcph Cp4 (v J%4) x 100 = 0, Iv_. % p~= 1 / 2V3+V2-}-V 1 +V6+V 5+V4=Vc8 7.q +3Il +'L2- + g +zot~ + ~ =Z3-/$vph to,~ (sec) c~,~= %-0 pcph (vs/%s) XlO0= 2. .% p~ = ~,0 Cms=cpsXP~XP4 '-iq = s-b ,x $,%% × ~,~. (pcph) qVr V~, (step 3) + Vu + V~2 = Vet 7-378+ 7_ + $~ =V-%'7,,ph ~,X (sec) cp;='" ~D pcph c~z = crt X P~ X P4 X P~ X Pn Page 2 1/2 V6 -[- V5 ~'~ Mcl2 Z. + z°5,~2~_ IGIO vph $,/-4' (sec) cp,2= z{~C) pcph (v./%,:)x100= Z I % p,: = O. ~$ Cml2 = Cpl2 ~--- ~.~C) pcph ½ Vt V6 + Vs = Vd 5. v_ ,(sec) _- 130 (v~/%0 X 100 Cml ~ Cpi ~ ~= 2. OZO vph . pcph =1-7 % i~O pcph 1/2V6+Vs+V4+V3+V2+V l=Vcl 1 2. +2017+ I .+ qc~ + 31l..+ 22 =2401 vph fO. (o .... (sec) cr~: S'-O pcph (v~,/%,0 x 100 = 4 % p,,= 6.q"1 Cm~! = Cpi! X P~ X P4 qq = _%-0 ,,x 0.~3°o X 1,0 .... (pcph) _ I0-36 URBAN STREETS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPACITY vi + vi cs. = where 2 movements share a lane (v:/cmi) + (vi/c~0 v~+vi+v~ Cs~ - where 3 movements share a lane (v~/c=) + (vi/q.) + (vk/c~,k) MINOR S~EET APPROACH MOVEME~S 7. 8. 9 Movement v(p~h) c~(p~h) cs~(pcph) % = cs~ - v LOS 7 ~ zq -2% ~ 8 ~ 44 ~3 ~ MINOR S~EET APPROACH MOVEr. S 10. ~ ~ Movement v(p~h) c~(pwh) cs~(pcph) % = %. -- v LOS 12 ~JOR S~E~ LEFT ~S 1, 4 Movement v (p~h) cm (pcph) cu =cm -- v LOS CO~S: 1U-iq, URBAN STREETS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1 HOURLY VOLUMES Grade -7 3 V~ Grade __ major road ("~I~sTOP C] YIELD [] Date of counts: Tune Period: ')Cl q (" - f~ P'"] Average Running Speed: PHF: ,% VOLUME ADJIJSTMENTS Movement No. Volume (vph) Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-1 VOLUMES 12N' PCPH 12 VI: VI0 NA v: NA 7 L NA vs NA UNSIGNALIZ£D I NT£R~ECTIONS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP 1: RT From Minor Street C V9 J Vlz Conflicting Flows, V¢ Critical Gap, T= (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity, cp (Fig. 10-3) Percent o£ c~ Utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capadty, I/2.V: +V: =Vo 37 +~7~Pz qo-/ vph ,% 1/2 V,+V~ = V¢:z fpp ~ , , (v,/c,,) x ioo = t % ?9= (~:c% (sec) (vu/%,z) x 100 c.,. = c~ = ZOO pcph c.,~l = %,= = %OC> STEP 2: LT From Maior Street ( - V~ ) V~ Conflicting Flows, Vt = ?0o5 Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capadty, c~ (Fig. 10-3) Percent of % Utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capacity, c= STEP 3: TH From Minor Street Conflicting Flows, Vt Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) - - = b~',5, pcph I Vt~ 1/2V~+Vz+V~+V~ '+V~+V,=V~ ,37 + 1~0+ ~ $. + Z"z..+ 5~bt + q% = Z-5-Olv-ph ~,. b (sec) 1/2Vs+V~+V~+V~+Vz+V II .+ w~31+ ~%+ -7 ~..+ i-7'~ ~ 2,.= 6. ~, . (sec) Potential Capad~, % (Fig. 10-3) Percent of c~ Utilized .Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capadty, o,~, :! x 6. ,~,5, .% STEP 4: LT From Minor Street Confficfing Rows, V, Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capadty, c, (Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity., -~Vr (step 3) + Vt~ + V~,. = 2501+ 2_ "1, \ (sec) %;= "~0 ?cph 2.q = 4(~ xo.93. · , x .. LVlo [0-36 U~B^N STR£~"tS WORKSHEE-I' FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page SHARED-LANE CAPACITY v~ + vi cs~ -- where 2 movements share a lane (vi/c~i) + (vi/c~,i) v~ + vi + v~ cs~ -- where 3 movements share a lane (v~/c~,) + (vi/c~i) + (v&c~k) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9 Movement I v(pc~h) %,(pcph) I %.(pcph) 1%=%" -- v LOS ~rNO~ sTR~rr ~'ROgcH ~OVEMENTS ~0, r~ ~' Movement v(pcph) [." c.(p~h) } csH(p~h) c, = cs. -- v LOS ~IOR S~E~ LEFT ~S 1, ~ CO~S: 10-34 URB^N :STREETS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1 Location:~'~cleJkv44~uv ~/~cJ /~4ba~ ~oO[ ~c,'[ Name: ! HOURLY VOLUMES Grade % 7_-7q Grade , % YIELD[] ~2 Vt, V~0 N =Ir] ' 'v; v8 v, minor road V~ v, t82~,. N=[~] V~ Grade major road , YIELD [] Date of counts: Tune Period: )qq (o -- ,A P-o. Average Running Speed: PHF: G rode . % VOLUME ADJUSTMEN-FS Movement No. Volume (vph) Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-1 i VOLUMES INPCPH NA NA ~Vi2 VII Vt5 ) ~ V2 L V~ V5 .~ V~ V? Vs NA NA WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP 1: RT From Minor Street C V, S Vtz Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity, % (Fig. I0-3) Percent of c, Utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capacity, vph STEP 2: LT From Major Street Conflicting Flows, V~ Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity, % (Fig. 10-3) Percent of % Utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capaci~; STEP 3: TH From Niinor Street Conflicting Flows, Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity,, cF (Fig. 10-3) Percent of cF Utilized .Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capacity, c~ STEP 4: LT From NLLnor Street Conflicting Flows, V¢ Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity,, % (Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, V~ + V,. = Vc~ 6 ,+Z~,= 7--~Cvph 5-,'2- (sec) %.~ = ~ pcph (~,d%3x lOO= o,/\ .% c~.~ = c~ = .~.'~ pcph '"~Vr V~s (step 3) + '7, ! _ 40 pcph Cp7 ~~ c,...; ~ q,r X P~ X Pt X Pt~ X Pt: %?_ = /40 x 0,%'~, x ~,,o x ~.0 x t).q~ (pcph) WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPACITY CSH ~ CSH ~ vi+vi (v,/cmJ + (vi/cra,) where 2 movements share a lane vT d- vi d- vk <vi/c,.,) + <vi/c,~,) + <v~/c.~) where 3 movements share a lane MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, S, 9 Movement v(pcph) q,(pcph) csa(pcph) c~ --- cs~ -- v LOS Movement MINOR STREETAPPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11, 12 v(pcph) t c.~(pcph) cs.(pcph) CR ~ CSH ~ V LOS ~ 4 LOS D COM2VIENTS: WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page I HOURLY VOLUMES STOP[]~ 2.0 z~L N---- [-%-] YIELD[[] V~2 V~ Vm N N--[-~ ~. Vs 5'7E, N = ["j-] Grade % ) ( Grade__5% -/~) V~ __ major road " L-~.!i Date of counts: minor road Time Period: ~2~t~f~\ ~:L~.oo\ ~_cl. Average Running Speed: d/CZ PHF: Grade __% VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Mcvement No.!1 1 2 3 4 ! I ~ , ' Volume(vph) -)0 '~OS ~2-Ct ~- 575 3 'V ~ [ 3 I z/ I0 242 VOLUMES 12~ PCPH ~2L NA v~ V~o v-- NA NA v~ NA UN$IGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS I0-35 WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP 1: RT From Minor Street Conflicting Flows, Critical Gap, T~ (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity, % (Fig. 10-3) 1/2 v~ + ~v~= ye, ~-, ~ (sec) Cp9 ~ __ vph dViz 1/2 V6+v. =Ye,2 Z D,q (sec) %,:= ~t0 p~h · . vph Percent of cp Utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capadty, c,, (vJ%~) x 100 = C~ ~.> % ~ pcph STEP 2: LT From Major Street ( Vi Conflicting Flows, V¢ Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capadty, c~ (Fig. 10-3) Percent of % Utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capacity, lVs STEP 3: TH From Minor Street (vu/cvn) X 100 ---- J c~l2 = cpu = pcph ) v, V6 + V~ =V¢l 3'...+ff75= 5BI vph ~,?- (sec) cpt= . pcph (vi/%,)x ~oo: Il % p,: O,q4 I Vii Conflicting Flows, Vt Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity,, % (Fig. 10-3) Percent of cp Utilized .Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Actual Capacity, STEP 4: LT From Minor Street Conflicting Flows, Critical Gap, T¢ (Tab. 10-2) Potential Capacity, % (Fig. 10-3) Actual Capacity, c,, I/2V~+V2+Vi+V~+Vs+V4=Vcs 13 +lk, b$+ 70 + g' + ~ + S- = 2271vph /.o. b (sec) %~= b-(Z) pcph (vs/%~)Xl00= © % p,= c~.~ = cpa X P~ X P~ (-~,c~A x tb~gq (pcph) 1/2V~+V~+V4+V3+V~+V~=V¢I1 G. (o (sec) c~,~t--'-- fi-O pcph (v~,/%,J x too: lO Crr,~~ = Cl~li X Pi X P~ 47 : .Sb x b.qq x ,3.~e, (pcpa) WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SHARED-LANE CAPACITY v~ + vi cs~ = where 2 movements share a lane (vi/c.O + (vi/%) cs~ -- where 3 movements share a lane (v,/cmi) + (%/%) + (vk/cmk) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9 Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) CsH(pCph) % -- c5~ -- v LOS ., MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 Movement v(pcph) .' c.~(pcph) cs~(pcph) cR = c$~ -- v LOS 10 ~-~ MA~OR STREET LEFT TURNS 1, 4 Movement v (pcph) c~ (pcph) LOS &ZO A COMA4ENTS: QUEUE ANALYSIS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOCATION: Main Driveway @ MacArthur, SB left, Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Ho APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 29 CAPACITY (FROM UNSIGNALIZED AN 111 PROBABILITY 0.95 QUEUE = 1.231899 vehicles 24.63799 feet LOCATION: Main Driveway @ MacArthur, SB left, Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Ho APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 4 CAPACITY (FROM UNSIGNALIZED AN 826 PROBABILITY 0.95 QUEUE = -0.43798 vehicles -8.75961 feet QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur (~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 347 NB Left CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 43 CAPACITY = 899.05 VPI-IPL QUEUE-- 3.84 VEHICLES 76.75 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 1244 NB Thru/ 746.4 NB Thru/Right CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 37 37 CAPACITY = 784.76 VPHPL 784.76 VPHPL QUEUE = (11.00) VEHICLE 90.89 VEHICLES (219.92) FEET 1,817.70 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur (~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base * Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 1112 NB Thru 667.2 NB Thru CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 37 37 CAPACITY-- 784.76 VPHPL 784.76 VPHPL QUEUE = (14.21) VEHICLE 27.38 VEHICLES · (284.26) FEET 547.52 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Westbound MacArthur (~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base * Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 277 lefts 166.2 lefts CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 41 41 CAPACITY = 860.95 VPHPL 860.95 VPHPL QUEUE = 3.06 VEHICLE 1.80 VEHICLES 61.22 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Westbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 555 Throughs CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 35 CAPACITY= 746.67 VPHPL QUEUE = 14.52 VEHICLES 290.48 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Eastbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 331 Throughs 198.6 Throughs CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 21 21 CAPACITY = 480.00 VPHPL 480.00 VPHPL QUEUE= 11.39 VEHICLE 4.22 VEHICLES 227.81 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Eastbound MacArthur (~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 143 lefts CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 27 CAPACITY = 594.29 VPHPL QUEUE = 2.23 VEHICLES 44.66 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur (~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 264 SB Left 158.4 SB Left CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 31 31 CAPACITY = 670.48 VPHPL 670.48 VPHPL QUEUE = 3.94 VEHICLE 2.19 VEHICLES 78.82 FEET 43.83 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur ~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 572 SB Thru/ 343.2 SB Thru/Right CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 25 25 CAPACITY = 556.19 VPHPL 556.19 VPHPL QUEUE = (165.31) VEHICLE 8.54 VEHICLES (3,306.10) FEET 170.77 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development PM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 447 SB Thru 268.2 SB Thru CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 25 25 CAPACITY -- 556.19 VPHPL 556.19 VPHPL QUEUE = 20.07 VEHICLE 5.3! VEHICLES 401.43 FEET 106.28 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 121 NB Left CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 30 CAPACITY= 651.43 VPI-IPL QUEUE = 1.74 VEHICLES 34.71 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE' ' 599 NB Thru/ 359.4 NB TlmffRight CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 25 25 CAPACITY = 556.19 VPHPL 556.19 VPI-rPL QUEUE = (63.11) VEHICLE 9.55 VEHICLES (1,262.11) FEET 190.92 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Northbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 258 NB Thru 154.8 NB Thru CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 25 25 CAPACITY= 556.19 VPHPL 556.19 VPHPL QUEUE-- 5.00 VEHICLE 2.60 VEHICLES 99.90 FEET 52.01 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Westbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 115 lefts 69 lefts CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 31 31 CAPACITY = 670.48 VPHPL 670.48 VPHPL QUEUE = 1.61 VEHICLE 1.03 VEHICLES 32.24 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Westbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development ANt Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 226 Throughs CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 31 CAPACITY = 670.48 VPHPL QUEUE = 3.23 VEHICLES 64.70 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Eastbound MacArthur ¢} Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 1005. Throughs 603 Throughs CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 27 27 CAPACITY = 594.29 VPHPL 594.29 VPHPL QUEUE = (9.77) VEHICLE (317.35) VEHICLES (195.31) FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Eastbound MaeArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 29 lefts CYCLE LENGTH 90 GREEN TIME 27 CAPACITY = 594.29 VPHPL QUEUE = 0.52 VEHICLES 10.50 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur @ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 1149 SB Left 689.4 SB Left CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 56 56 CAPACITY= 1146.67 VPHPL 1146.67 VPHPL QUEUE = (2,266.41) VEHICLE 8.05 VEHICLES (45,328.28) FEET 161.02 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur ~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 945 SB Thru/ 567 SB Thru/Right CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 51 51 CAPACITY = 1051.43 VPHPL 1051.43 VPHPL QUEUE = 42.15 VEHICi. E 6.46 vEmCLES 843.04 FEET 129.14 FEET QUEUE ANALYSIS USING GREENSHIELDS THEORY (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) Southbound MacArthur ~ Belt Line - Year 1996 Base + Development AM Peak Hour - With Improvements APPROACH FLOW PER LANE 893 SB Thru 535.8 SB Thru CYCLE LENGTH 90 90 GREEN TIME 51 51 CAPACITY-- 1051.43 VPHPL 1051.43 VPHPL QUEUE = 27.20 VEHICLE 5.83 VEHICLES 543.95 FEET 116.62 FEET I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENTS IN COPPELL AM Peak Hour Intersection: MaeArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road Movements Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 0 9 0 [ 49 38 2 1 0 0 0 0 12 111 2.5 % Regency Court Multi-Family 208, 0 7 0 40 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 89 2.0% Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 0 7 0 28 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 66 '1.5% Future Development Single-Family 39 0 3 0 12 8 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 4 27 0.6% Retail Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Subtotal 0 39 0 195 147 7 I 0 0 0 0 53 442 9.8 % Projected 1996 Background Traffic 121 219 341 954 '746 45 28' 1005 226 115 226 41 4067 90.2% Total Projected 1996 Traffic .121 258 341 1149 893 52 29 1005 226 115 226 94 4509 100.0% PM Peak Hour Intersection: MaeArthur Boulevard/Belt Line Road Movements Number of Northbound Volumes Southbound Volumes Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes Approach Volumes Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 0 49 0 16 25 2 3 0 0 0 0 30 125 2.7% Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 38 0 14 19 1 3 0 0 0 0 27 102 2.2% Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 0 30 0 12 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 80 1.79[ Future' Development Single-Family 39 0 11 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 30 0.7 % Retail Center 0 73 0 71 71 88 91 0 0 0 0 73 467 10.1% Subtotal 0 266 0 142 171 93 101 0 0 0 0 205 978 21.2% Projected 1996 Background Traffic 347 846 132 122 276 32 49 331 143 277 555 521 3631 78.8~ Total' Projected 1996 Traffic 347 1112 132 264 447 125 150 331 143 277 555 726 4609 100.0% f:\lotus\94065 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR Ai/EA DEVELOPMENTS IN COPPELL AM Peak Hour Intersection: MaeArthur Boulevard/Riverchase Drive Movements Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left TLru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 22 0 0 [ 0 0 3 12 2 89 0 1 0 129 5.0% Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 17 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 3.5 Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 0 17 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 Future Development Single-Family 39 0 7 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1.1% Retail Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Subtotal 22 71 0 0 260 3 12 2 89 0 1 0 460 17.9 ~ Projected 1996 Background Traffic 0 240 48 I 1757 0 0 0 0 57 0 1 2104 82.1%,,,, Total Projected 1996 Traffic 22 311 48 1 2017 3 12 2 89 57 1 1 2564 100.0% PM Peak Hour Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard/Riverchase Drive Movements Number of'Northbound Volumes Southbom~d Volumes Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes Approach Volumes Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 82 0 0 0 0 22 11 2 43 0 4 0 164 5.9 % Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 68 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 3.7 % Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 0 51 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2.9 5{ Future Development Single-Family 39 0 19 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 1.1% Retail Center 0 83 0 43 85 0 0 0 0 58 0 41 310 11. ~ ~ Subtotal 82 336 0 43 218 22 11 2 43 58 4 41 860 30.85~ Projected 1996 Background Traffic 0 1404 73 5 363 0 0 0 0 78 0 9 1932 69.29[,,,, Total Projected 1996 Traffic 82 1740 73 48 · 581 22 11 2 43 136 4 50 2792 100.09[ f:\lotus\94065 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENTS IN COPPELL AM Peak Hour Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard/Bethel School Road Movements Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 0 12 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0.7 % Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 11 6 1 35 0 0 0 0 37 0 3 93 4.2% Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 17 0 0 0 24 0 2 0 25 0 0 0 68 3.1% Future Development Single-Family 39 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 20 0 0 0 29 1.3 % Retail Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ~ Subtotal 24 38 6 1 66 1 ' 3 0 45 37 0 3 224 10.1% Projected 1996 Background Traffic 0 241 0 0 1'758 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 89.9% Total Projected 1996 Traffic 24 279 6 1 1824 1 3 0 45 37 0 3 2223 100.0% PM Peak Hour Intersection: MacArthur Boulevard/Bethel School Road Movements Number of Northbound Volumes Southbound Volumes Eastbound Volumes Westbound Volumes Approach Volumes Development Use Units Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Percentage Riverchase Club Apartments Multi-Family 280 0 11 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 1.4% Regency Court Multi-Family 208 0 42 26 5 17 0 0 0 0 17 0 3 110 4.7 % Northlake Woodlands East Single-Family 97 51 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 15 0 0 0 82 3.5% Future Development Single-Family 39 19 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 11 0 0 0 35 1.5 % Retail Center 0 124 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 10.8% Subtotal 70 192 26 5 210 3 4 0 26 17 0 3 556 23.8 % Projected 1996 Background Traffic 0 1413 0 0 368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1781 76.2% Total Projected 1996 Traffic 70 1605 26 5 578 3 4 0 26 17 0 3 2337 100.0% f:\lotus\94065