The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous (2)_1 I:~.;~., i __J _ ~1 i TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS l:_:~.J~ J.~~ ~H1LI'S RESTAURAf~T ~_J TI~}CA►S AVENUE AND FRANCIS DRIVE ~QLLEGE STATI~[V Tf=XAS ~~_a i ~~.r_~~ FAR THE VINCENT A~~~CIATES & ARCH f f EC1~S DALLAS TEXAS L,_, BY M.L. HAMMC~NS, P.E. ~~LLEGE STATION, I Jl I ` ~ "'1 ° i TABLE.: ~F C~QN2~~'I'S r. ~ Page _~r ,'j :P~~7ECT DESCRIPTION ..................................1 Rl~~iJAY SYS'TIIK ..........................,...,........3 ~JR~TECT TJR~~'FIC Il~ACT . . . . . 4 .Trip Generation 4 Trip..Distributian 4 ~ Traffic Assig~rm~ent 5 Analysis 5 Site Access. 6 5~:~~1ARY ...............................................7 r~~, FIGIJRFS ..............................................8 APPF.~tIDIX A Analysis Worksheets ..................1.2 APPENDIX B Traffic- Distributon................17 ~k i i L .1 - r i I~ i -7 ~ J III , ~ _ ~~1 I ~ ~I f f ~ - - i it - y__::~ r--l 1 i 1 L, _J r' I ~ - - .-.J r~~ ~.4:.~ 1~_ r-°-~ i v~' ! _i1 f~ "Iry LIST OF ILI~JSTRATIaNS Page Illustration 1 Site Location Map 2 LISP OF FIGURF~S a Fig~~re 1 Site Plan 8 ,j Figure 2 Existing traffic Volwa~es 9 Figure 3 Assigned Traffic Volwmes 10 Fi 4 Ass ed Drivewa Volumes 11 Y 1! LIST OF TABLES. _ f Table 1 Lard Use ~w~, 1 ~ Table 2 Trip Generation 4 . , ~ Table 3 Hl ca gllway pacity N~a~1u~a1 Analy~~es 5 t__ j r_._ { ~ f ~ , f t_ I~ i ~l II I~ i i I i A; ,J t '~~.::J r ~T"Pi f ~:1" r~,~ i~ i; ~r;_.i ~J ,t ,I J 1 _~1 _N~ _t ,r, I t i ~i i ~ ~I f. ~I f 4~. ~?ECT DESCRIF~I'ION f .;l 1_ 'This. report of traffic yss has been prep~~red and is su~nitted to ; provide a description and pr~~babl~ definition of the traffic i~pact that ~ ~ will be created ~'Y the construction of a 4, 500 ± sq~a~are foot Chili's Restaurant in College ..Station, Te,~~as. The site of the pr~~posed restaurant is ocatsd on the northeast corner of the. :intersection of Francis Drive and Texas Avenue. Figure; 1. shows the location of the pr~~posed develo~~oa~ent with resp~~a to key ransportation f._~ corridors within the City of College Station. the pr~~posed restaurant will be located on a .site ~~u:rently ocied by a savings and loan bank. Table 1 itemizes the size ark of building develo~nt existing on and proposed for the parcel under s1t~~ly. i, i i Table 1 LAND USE i ~~,r USE SQUARE FEET j, ~ Existing -Savings aril .Loan Bank 1, 250 ± Frc~posed - Restaurant ~ 4, 500 Based on the size and r~~aracier of the existing and proposed develo~~ent, the study area has been establi :died to include the int~~xsection of Texas <<~ ~ Avenue and Francis Drive, the access driveways to he pr~~►posed develo~~ent and the access driveways to the College Station City.. Halle drive-tl:~raugh facility. Figure 2. illustrates the functional nature of the pri~posed site and the. site access with respect to the s - ing street system argil other access driveways. Traffic control at the intersection of Te~~as Avenue and Francis Drive is facilitated ~ a snap sign. along west bound Francis Drive. Te~~as Avenue is not restricted traffic control devices at the intersection. Hanrever, the st~~cly site is located between the signalized in: ions_of.George , B~ash/Kyle Street to the oath and NewN~aar~/Walton Street to the north, along Texas Avenue. ~~SG~ i i ; ~ ,i 'i i i f 1. °i r"-7 y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ - O _ ~ , ~a rn I C ~ _ { y m ,y 4 _ , l R T ~'E C: D ~ n ! G0 m V~ELLESI~Y CT ~s r~ E ASSAR C1 i ~r ~ ■ o oca ion e ~ . ~ r. ~ ~ aosE c~ R A W ~ C 0 0 ~ , G' ~ ~ ~ ~ NCO L T D 9 " ~ .tiy /j ~ ~r S m F ~ Z ~ ~ . 8A OO K S cn G lC SST ~ z I ~ D ~o GIICNRI T ~ ~ l ~ ~ t~MO ~L m ~ } ~ ~ E' . E KY l ~ ~ L}OMINIK pR ~ ~M iK OA ~ ~ ~ ' r ~ i ~ , l,~ Z -r-- rn R ry ~ rn Q ~ ~ ti E R S 1 T Y l ti ~ ~ C 3 a C C 'ASE ~ ~ . R ~ HARVEY R0 0 A ~ t A c ,J p y ( -v o #h F o o ~ yp r_>,,, ~ _ ~ I S'~:~E L~~AT~;~~]` I~~'~S~RATI~N ~ 2 I... ~ _l~ 1`~' i 1 fi r 'i ~ti~:~J - F~~~NTAY SYSTII~I -~r Texan Avenue is the n~a~or north-south. arterial serving the. entire College Staton,/B~ryan area:. Presently, the structural :cross s~~tion of Te~~as .Avenue pra~des too (2) lanes in each direction: as well as a continuous left turn lane. Due to he high vol~nes along this arterial the T~~~as Dep~~rtment of Hic~7ways and Public Transportation plans to widen Texas ~4-~ Avenue to a seven (7} lane cross section, with tl!zree (3} lanes ~in each direction and a continuous left tarn lane. The other roadway servicing the r~~~ proposed site, Francis Drive, is a collector street serving College Station ~,_J City .:Hall and the s ing neighborhood. Francis:. Drvehas a tl~-six (3 6 } foot cross-;section that functions as ...two taraf f is lanes with on-street parking, but fi.~nctons ` as ~ traffic lanes at the Texas Avenue ~i _ lnt~rrsecton. t! ~~.~_,p , a '-"-f~ i { -1} if L~ r. _Y 1 3. 'i ~ y_a l ~ ~ ~ ,I ~ ~C INTACT d. TRIP GEN~ATION: I Trip generation data for the pr~~posed ite oon+dtons have been established for this study using he ITETrip Generation Manual, 4th Edition. Existing cor~tion tri ration data was established for the noon and pM 1 p g p~'ak ~ ~ periods based on actual, on-site, traffic counts . `Table 2 . is a sLnrm~y of trip generation hourly rates aid trip: ends for the noon ar~d the pNI peak hour, for an average we~~day. ~vC TAR F2 ~ GENE~ZA►TIC~N TABLE Daily AM P~:ak Noon Perak PM Peak Land Use: Sq.Ft. Trips Trips Trips in/out Tri out 1~. / Quality Restaurant 4, 500 392 6-~ 41, 28/13 . 31 21/10 _ Exist' ~.w~ ~ _ Saves and Loan 1, 250 - - 186 93/93 122 61/61 p~~s~d Trips Minus Existing Trips - -145 -65/-80 -91 -40/-51 fl ITE tri eneration rates are ircall dexved bons using The p Y develo~nent size as the inde~~er~dent variable. T11ese rates are'~~ b~~sed on a nw:nb~er of ~ tudes for each land use t!~pe, conducted throughout the United Y-~ States during the past several.. ye~~rs. Theis pr~~posed develo~t falls within the ITE classification of "Quality Restaurant" . Acco~ly, trip ~ f' generation rates far .this site have been Bevel b~~sed on such 1 ' , I classification. ~ TRIP DISTRIBUTIQN: .r_ j Several factors were consd+~xed in the distribution of project generated traffic onto the roadway network. Whey are, _ den~graphc distribution, ~ current lard use patt~rrns and the roadway network. The des rOCes5 d1S - , tY` p tion for ro ect enerated tri indentifies ar~d r . p ~ , g ~ quantifies the traffic which gill a roach the Bevel pp p a~~ent from. all directions . site ~s traf f is is identified and qualified by a slml.lar distribution pattern. Finally, d~~ectonal distribution allows ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ivdual trips to be traced frarn the surrounding roadway network onto the site. This t+~:hn a allows the e~ traff ' c qu ~~rted i incr~=ase or decri'~ase, due to a pr~~posed develo~~~ent, to be attributed to particular traf f is maveaments - - at ne~n:~Y' nt~rrsections. The directional distribution of project generated ~ traffic for thss devela~ent is estimated to be: _r _ ~ North 45~ South 45~ E~~st 10~ i i 3 , ~ ~ ~ 4 .r _ a _ l ~r Ck7~71V~ i ~ Using the trip distributions establi~~;ed in the prey suction, trips generated by the pr~~pOSed devela~~oa~ent were :assigned to the urraunding street s~~stem., 'I~is procedure was conducted for both entexing and exiting traffic. Figure 3 represents the existing traffic at Te~cas Avenue and ~ F~~ncis Drive, the nt~yrsectan under stl.~dy, These volumes represent background trraffc that includes as traffic generated by the current land use. Fig~~re 4 . represents the traffic e~~pected a:Eter redevela~~~ent. Notice that' traffic volumes are e~~p~rted to reduce with redevelo~~nent. The ' count data in p~~=~entheses represent the change in traffic volLn~e between the existing conditions and the redeveloped conditions. All move~ents at the int~rrsection will e~~perience a volume reduction with the exception of the west bm~nd Francis Drive approach.... Giese volumes reflectthe cltiangein + the project ste drveway just:east of .Texas Avenue which has been .relocated and converted from 'essentially a one~aay inb+~und tonto a a~?era tion. H~ev~ the.:.~rurrusracal volLn~e increases two way. o~~xa e:~,:~s..~. - ~ ~.~..,r_~~4,..~:~~~ e~~?ecte~ so 7 w , small ,inr~xry.~~ma ~,'~tude~~,r ~as wto~ve a n 1i ible H rv~ M , ,M _ 4 , - ~ g impa.~,the~,~~ n~~~of ~t~e intersection of Te~~as Avenue Franc Drive. and is In addition to the Texas Mo..,.~,.~Y,;RaJ z .~a..:.~,,:a.w , ..~.,w ~ . y .,M~e i ~~,r;aw. dse a.4~S,~44.uN.. . _ ~ : r Avenue, Fz~ancis Drive in ion, traffic was ~ also assigned to the u ~ driveway ..onto Texas Avenue. 'These volumes are shaun bey Figure 5. r_ ANAhYS3S v.:;~, After traffic assi t to the surr+c1' roaclwa network the network ~ ~ Y ~ , was analyzed to det~rrmine 'the impact of proposed devela~~aent. Highway Capacity Manual t~~c;~niques were utilized for analysis purposes. HCM analyses yield quantitative capacity figures as well as qualitative Level of Service evaluations. Level of Service designation provides a qualitative assess~ent of e~~~+rted traffic delays with IaS A indicating very short delays to IpS F indicating long delays at capacity conditions. Table 3 provides a su~nary of the Hic~lway Capacity :Manual analyses p~~xforrnsd as part of this.. study. I TABLE 3 HIY .CAPACITY MANtTAL ANALYSES. ,~1 Ii Exist' R►edevel Exist' R~edevel 1 ~ Noon Noon PM Peak PM Peak T~sxas Avenu a and Francis Avenue Left. from Texas E E E E Left frarn Francis E E E E i Ri t frooai Francis _ ~ C C B 8 T+~€as Avenue and ,1 Drivewa _Y Left fraan Teas E D ~ heft frcma Drivewa ~ ~ E y E t~ Right from Driveway B A i 1 5. ~r ~ I, _._.J r ~'r , ~ r•.+ryi j As can be .seen from the table,. r+3dwelo~~oa~ent will not c~tiange the o~~eration 'L~4'r of the roadway network to any sgnf ic~~nt de~~ree. However, even though the volume reduction due to re-~d~vela~~~ent is small, its effect on the ~ tra~:~sportaton network will be positive. It should be recognized that the s~n~a3.1 reductions are not nu~erically significant enough to reflect in tAhe q~~altatve ~I~S~ analysis due to ove~~a►he].m3ng volumes along Texas Avenue, however,: the small volume reduction can r~ysula in improved mave~nent hr+qugh the Texas Avenue and Francis Drive:, argil the project driveway int~~xsections SITE ACt~SS : ~ ~ ~ ~ I - ~ Ads to :the proposed devel~t is provided ugh one (1~ location along Texas Avenue and two (2~~ locations along Francis Drive. Since the ~ op~~xation of the access point~~along Texas avenue was addressed in the 'i,~i previous.. s~~ton, this section :will :focus on the Francis Drive access. Concern has been expressed that traffic mavament conflicts might be created on Francis Drive due to prc~aty with the City Hall... drive-t~lrough faciYity. Since the Francis Drive driveway has been moved to the east end ' of the pr~~?ertY and since traffic usage on the ordex of only 6 - 10 .vehicles per hour is anticipated, .;conflicts that would significantly effect the traffic flow should not ..occur. It is recce ~ ~ ed however, that full. ~ traffic f 1cJw capacity. be maintained on Francis Drive by the installation of 11 1~`~ `y N gns ~ ~ ~ f - No Par ' si from Texas Avenue easterl throe the Ci .Hall ~ driveway at the Huddle of the block. Such parking restriction :should apply to both sides of Francis Drive. . i i i, -:1 _J ,_._r 1 - 6. i . 4 w~ - \ ,I f ~l ~ ,1 y s~Y Traffic :.generated bey the proposed redewelog~n~ent is e~~pec~ted to be less { during the noon and PM I~°aks han is au~: gently generated hY the existing savings and loan b~~nk. Whhae the e~~~ volume reductions are. minor and not ref lec~ted in Hic~lway .Capacity I~a~1ua7. analyses they could have a j positive impact on the n+e~y roadway netr~ork. Furtlh~:rmore, an analysis of ~ site access locations indicates that the site access points are adequate to facilitate r~~dwela~ent and he impact of traffic at these sites is e~~pected to be less t~lan is currently e~Kperiea~ced due: to the present .land r use. Based o~ he shady conducted in conjwaction with this report, redevela~~~ent of the ..;site, in aceordancewith pro}~~sed plans, should require ,m-,, no in~raven~ents or alteration to the existing roadway network other titian no ' I parking signs described above. r,_-.,' ~ _.'~~I i ~1 k y I__, ~ j P,~ 4 i I il~ ~r ~ t-~ ~ ~ J t~--, I ~...,,;J i + --~~-r 1._~.~1~ 1 ij ! ~ r. i ~t...:<~ 1 ~ 7 . 1 ~ I _:1 it ~ i i i_ _.:..~I i t ` ~ i j I i i ~ ` ~ i r .-,I i J i j `l S i i r i 1 ~ ~.1 II ~ j ~ I !f II ICI I I it I ~t i, M i, i W 7 ' ~ o0'~'S ;z0 9~1 3 ~~81 X50 ,~9 Sll ~ 1~g1 ,50 oO~bS LL I I !I . ~ I 1 f ~l ~ a I ~ ~ ~ ~ I . ~ ~ , ~ , ~i ~ f i I , Z F- O r Q cN ~ N Y Lk ....II J w ~g 06 N• N o ~ ~ o ~ o ~ W ~ ~ F H I w I ~~1 4~;~ Z ~ i i ~ ' I 'A VI I U ~ Z 5 _ L~ 6~ o6~N .00 59 N M ,~L~ .6S o6~ o ~ , , , >o.,a~...~•.+•~.olr,..~.. N II i~ ~nN~nd sdx~ ~o AN x ~ Y I w y - ti.► V _ - 7 ~ .7 - = i ~ ...._l T r - , 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ i r_.~_ r_ ~,i j . _ } - r. i v , ~ ~ I ' 1__ _1 i,_ i NOflN VOLUMES {Exstn } 12-1 P ,M. 5 8 90 g / ,E....c 190.:7 ~ 61 Texa-s Avenue ~ ~ 8.97. ° ~ _ ~ 98 20 56 H y~1 i . i _ 45 93 ~ ~ ~ ~ Francis Drive ~ ; ~ j ~I ` ` t !i ~~~f ~ -P.M. PEAK VOLUMES Existing) 5~G P.M. 5/8/90 t~ 2376 ~ 46 F~ - Texas Avenue E 1626 i 59 < Irk 23 35 ~ ~ ._I k~ .1 29 ~.s~ 61 t . `j k r-_.. _ Francis Drive E k, 4 FIGURE 2. EXTSTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - G, , -=i ~`,I ~ . ~ n 1 J ~b I NOON VOLUN~ES AFTER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - ~~~~~U~ ~~r~ll 4....: tJ 1866 (-41) s~ (oi TexaS Avenue I ~^i (-23 1 1874 ]~1 25 57 +21(+1l 45 S arc 6 r... ~ _ i ~ .J Francis Drive T.,j r.Y, P.M. VOLUMES ~tiFTER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT) 2355 211 46 f 01 Texas Avenue (-~41 1612 r 4J . -a 5 5 25 35 ~ ~ ~+2I (~l ~j i _.1 2 b:_r 1 Franc is Drive . 1 ~ FTGuRE 3. ASSIGNED TRAFFIC VOLUME t ~n ~i 4.. I 'i I - i I*r i R l ,p~ , NOON VOLUMES RAFTER REDEVE~~,OP~MENT ) ~ 190 7 -,r 13 Texas Avenue 18 97 _ A~ 10 I 9 11 ~ . I << i I Driveway To Development L+J . ~I:,, ~1 ~_`y~ P.M. PEAK..VOLUMES AFTER REDEVELOPMENT} ~r.. 237.6 9 1626 r_ 8 3 4 I Driveway To lleve lopment ~r FIGURE 4 ASSIGNED DRIVE~IAY VOLUMES ~.1 i l ' , i ( i f k,-~;J o I 1, i, i {l . 'f l i ~w j I i J _:,J ~T j ~J j a ~..1 i°`~t. ~..~1 r I `.~1 i I i I ,i f! _.J i 1 ~ s i • I', 10-37 UNSIGNALIZEn INTERSECTIONS I : ~ . EET FAR ANALYSIS OF T-I~~RSEC'~IOI~S ~ , ' WaRKSH ~f A t NAME:. ~ ~ - .a I,,~CATIQN: A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ . c ~ T r ~,.i ~ ~ ~ ~ V4LUA~lES IN PCPH HC?URLY t~UL~s Mayor Street. N _ V5 Iqo~ V { J 8~ V V4 E _ 2 Grade z - . V3 ~ . ~ 2 ~ ~ t _..°l~o V3 N V V ~ 9 ~ ~ V~ V4 . Date of Counts:. ~ ~ ° Zb~ ~ ~ S1~OP - Time Period:..~~~ - ~ YIELD ~ Average Running Speed:-- `N = Q Minor . .Streets _ PHF:~Grade~9'0 FRA~Ctg ~ . VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS 2 3 4 5~ 9 Movement No Volume (vph} ~ ~ Ti - ~ . _ Vol. (pcph}, ee Table 10-1 STEP 1: RT from Minor greet r' 9 ''~`r Conflictin Flow V 1 J2 V3 + V2 ~ g r. tental Ca a , c T~ se's (Table 10-2} ~ prph (Fig. 10=3) Critical Gap, T~ ,and Po ~ tY p ~ _ Actual Capaaty, cm ~m9 ~ . ~ STEP 2: LT From Mayor .:Street 4 Conflictin Flow, V~ V3 + Vz + = vp ~ ,I $ Potential Ca as r c T~ = ~ sec (Table 10-2) c~, _ p~' ( g . Critical Gap,. T~ ,and P tY p . ' X100=~'~ P ; Percent of cp Utilized and Impedance Factor (Frg.10-5) (va/~~) 4 ~ ~m4 ~ ~--0= t' cP~l Actual Capaaty, cm Motor Street. ~ V~ STEP 3. LT Fmm . ~ . ^ . 49 -189 ~ Z.~. h Confl~ctin Flow, V 1 /2 V3+V2+ +V4 + + ~ t g ~ Table 10-2 c ~ 50 - h (Fi ~:10-3) ..TTY T and Potential ~a aci , c T ( } ~ ' PAP g Critical Ga tY ~ p p, ~ P Q _ 25 . c c X p ~ D X ~ prph . . . Actual Ca act. , r m~ p~ 4 _ - . m :P a CAPACITY ]HARED LANE _ S v~ ~ vg ~ if lane is shared i SH= tv7! ~m7) + tV9I~m9~ r~ _ I ~ Y( 11} c ~ h} ~sH ( h} ~ CR Movement No. m _ ~ ~ 7 C Z ~ 9 ~ Z ~ E - 4 ~ ' 1 ~ ~ _l w. 1 ' ` UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 1~-3~ ,F• s; WORKSHEET FOR ANALYSIS aF T-I~I'R~ECTIONS 9 I A ~ ~ ~2~1 ~ ~ NAME: ~ .r ~ LQCATION. HUtJ~LY VOLUMES VOLU11~ Il~1 PCPH Ma'or Street; N l V ~f ~ 5 ❑ y2 Grade ~ V~ V . .~L V N - Z ~ ~ ~ . V, V9 ,~_~.,1 V, V9 Dane of Counts: 1 ~ 5 S1~P Time Period; ~ 00 ~ YIELD Average Running `Speed; N = Minor Streets a~ PHF; Grade Q/o ~~LUME ADJUSTMENTS . ~ ovement No. 2 3 4 5 7 9 ~ ~ M Volume. h) ~ ~ ~ ~ I8 ~ l . ~ ~ Vol. ( h), see` Table 10-1 ~ P~ . STEP 1: RT from Minor: Street t'' V9 Conflictin Flow, V~ 1 /2 V3 + Vz = vph (V~) T ~ sec ~ able 10-2 = ~ h (Fig. 10-3) Critual-Gap, Tt ,and Poten#ial Capaaty, cp ~ . (T. . } ~9 Pip _ Actual CapaClty, Cm ~m9 cp9 ~~h . . . STEP 2: LT From Major Stree# V4 ~ ~ ~ ~__,I ~ ~ F10W V V + V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vph (Vc4) ~ Confllct>ng ~ 3 z a T and Potential Ca as c . T ~ spec (Table 10-2} c ~ = - ~ ~cp'h (Fig. 10-3) . Cntual G p~ C, p tY p t p _ _ o ~ 5 r F~ .10-5 v c X 100- ~ P - Percent of cp Utilized and Impedance Facto (g ) (4/ p4} , . 4 i _ _ ~ acs Actual Capacity, cm cm4 -c~ ~ pcph STEP 3:-LT From Minor Street ~ ~ V~ Confl~ctu~g Flow, V~ 1/2 V3 2+ , + ~ ` ' Critical Ga T ,:.and Potential Ca aci}~, c T = ~ sec (Table 10-2): c , - pcph (Fig. 10-3) i ~ p, ~ p `,7 p c p A foal Ca aci}~ c c c , X P, = X o= = P~Ph ~__J ~ p `1~ m m7 p r.,, . SHARED-LANE CAPACITY y7 Yq if lane i`s shared ~1 SH r lw7l~m7~ + (V9~~m9} h ~ ~ ~ c. Movement No. v( h} m ) sH ( ) R 1 ~ . X25 G 9 _ ~ ~ 39 f _r...~ . . _ i , m~ , } ~~~II i~ ~.J ~ , i pOr~ N d~,,`~; ~ ~ 10-37 UNSIGNALIZEU INTERSECTIONS _ I . RKSHEET :FOR ANALYSIS .0~~ T-IN~'ERSE~TIONS , . ~V~ ~~,IJ ~ _ -NAME: ~T~ ~ - . LOCATION: -T~ ~ ~ ~ I~ a R A C ~ X ! g~' ~ ~G► C o ~ ~ ~ i o ~5 VOLUMES 1N PCPH HOURLY VOLUMES ~ ~~,.a ~ , Mayor Street. F ~ Vs v5 23~~ _j N Z V 2 ~ ~~O 2 Grade l ~z - 4 - V3 V3 N ..11 v v ~ y~ . 1~ ~ Date of Counts... 23 3 I Time Period: ~ ~ - ~ YIELD _:r~ Avera a Runnin S N- g g peed. 2 Minor Stree#: . PHF:____---__ Grader FR~IV CAS _ _ _a 'VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS 9 2 3 4 5 ? MoYement No. . 2~ z Volume (vph) ~ Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-1 • ' or Street r'' V9 . . STEP 1. RT from Mln Confllctu~g Flow, V~ / 3 ~ . _ ~ T - 5 ~5 (Table 10-2) ~r = ~h (Fig. 10-3) Critical Gap, T~ ,and Potential Capacity, cp ~ ~ ~ 4a~ p~Ph Actual Capacity, Cm ~m9 ' Cpq = w a f~: { V4 STEP 2: LT From Malor Street. ~ _ ~ + Idol ~ i- ^h Conflicting Flow, V~ ~3 + v~ ~ ) ~ ~ - ph (Fig. 10-3) • tal Ca aci c T~ _ ~5 5 sec (Table 10-2 c~ _ Critical Gap, T~ ,and Poten p ty, ~ r Fi .10.5 v c } X lpp = = P~ = _Q:~ Percent of c Utilized and Impedance Facto (g ) (4/ ~ p - Cmq - ~ ~l 4~C~ pcph Actual Capacity, cm V? ~ STEP 3: LT From Minor Street . .Sf _ 1, 1 ~ 3~ ~ 11026 ~A +~=~~02~ h ) Conflicting Flow, V~ ~ ential Ca aci c T = ~ sec (Table 10-2) c pcph (Fig: 10-3) Critical Gap, T~ ,and Pot p ty p ~ p _ ~ Actual Capacity, cm p~ + - Y TT C PA CA . ED LANE SHAR . ~ . . v +v I~~ ~ ~hared ~ lane ~s s SH - l (v7I ~m7~ + (v9~~m9} . ~ h cR Movement Na h} cm ( h} csH ~ . 4 3~ ~ ~ 4 , 4~ ~1 ~4, _ ,....T_ ~._..I..,.~....._,.._.. .~..<t W: ,_y.-._;.; ~$&"H~3i!'FidY(~'fb~"°'`+..Iw~0.~r ~ - 'I ~i - Y~ 10- 7 ~ UNSiGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ,r r ~Tni ~s WORKSHEET FAR ANALYSIS -aF T=~~-RSECTII7NS _ ~~.~i A ~ ~ ~ L ~ _ ~ NAME: 7~.~1 ~ LOCATION: _ c V4i~UN[ES IIV PCPH f H4tJRLY VULUMES Maior Street: r._.~, V ` V ..2355 5 ~(ol'L v v, ~ ~ Grade.. 5 ~ _ . V~ i ~ ~ V V ~ q I Date of Counts: _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ STOP ~ P~A~ Tune Period..~'M CJ YIELD N= 4j ~ .Average Running Speed;-- Minor y - Streets r~--,~ ~ ~ PHF;- Grade~96 ~ - - - _ _ VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS - r-- nt No ~ 3 4 5 ~ ~ 9 ~ Moveme . Volume (vph} ( ~ . tr . _ i Vol. h ,see Table 10-1 - _ . :1 ,y V STEP:I: RT from Minor Street. 9 ~28 Sod 8 3~ . Confl~ctu~g Flow, V~ . T - ~ 5 able 10-2 _ h (Fig. 10-3) Cntical -Gap, T~ ,and Potential Capacity, cP t (T ) ~ ~ . Actual Ca aci}~, c ~ cm9 = c~ = p~ph - p `7 m :f STEP 2: LT From Major. S#reet V4 . ~ 55 I l~l ~ . l I~b~ Confhetin Flow, Vr V3 + V2 + ~ vPh g _ ..i , . T = 5 ~ ~ able 10-2 c-~ ~ ~ ~ ....._.h (Fig. 10-3} Critical Gap, T~ ,and .Potential Capaaty, cp ~ (T ) ~ ~ _ 33 0,~ 2 - ~ Percent of c Ut' ' ed and Impedance Factor (Fig: 10-5) (v4/c~}..X :100 P4 = ~ P Actual Capaaty, Cm m4 p4 p p 1. . STEP 3: LT Fmm Minorf Street ~ _ ~ V, , 28 1~r2. _ I b~~ ~ 'h ~ Conflictin Flow, y~ 1 /2 V3+Vz-~',+V4 + + + ~ S ~ c ~ , Q ~ able 10-2 c ~ = ~ ~ - h (Fig: 10-3) Critical Gap, T~ .,and Potential Capacity, p T~ ) p, P~ 5~, . _ ` ~5 X _ h ~ ~m7 ~p7 X P~ - . - Actual rapacity, cm = SHA.RED-LANE CAPACITY v, + v9 ~ if lane is shared SH _ - - ~ h: ~ h . cR Movement No. v( h} m ( } H ( ~ 2~ ~ g 4 ~ J-_-, 11 ~ I :;::1 I i ' ~ ~ UNSiGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ~ 10"37 c~ _ J 1 ~ - WORKSHEET FOR ANALY~I~ ~OF T=~~ '~ERSECTI0I~S - _ ; . r' ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..:NAME. , . LOCATIQN: ,r ~ _ VOLUMES II~1 PCPH HOURLY VOLUMES . Major Street: ~ _ _ . . r--~, V n V - ~ ~ ~ t,_.J 5 ~ V 2 ,rte,, , V4 Grade - V+ i V p~ V N 3 _ !0 3 1 V7 v9 1 Date of Coun#s: ~ ~ D S1~OP Time Period: ~ ~ YIELD Average Running Speed: N = Minor f--~ Street: PHF: ~ Grade % _ _ . _ _ , VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ~m_.~ i Movement No. 2 3 4 5~ 7 9 J IJao~ r~q~ t~ !3 ~ Volume (vph) 23~G 4 ~ ~~7~ ~ ~ _ i ~ Vol. (PcPh), see Table 10-1 .~a ST'EP.1: RT from :Minor Street ~ v9 r~ q4 ~ ~ . Confhcting Flow, ~ / 3 z ~ 5 35~~ Critical Ga , T , and Potential Capacity, c T~ - 5 (Table 10-2) Mpg = p~ph (Fig. 10-3) P ~ p 3 ~b it i ~ Cmq = Cpg.. Z-C pCPh ACtUaI CapaClty, Cm STEP Z: LT From Major Street:.. - V, Conflictin Flow, V V3 + ~z = + ~ ~ _ ! ~ ~h (V~4) g ~ r~ . Critical ~a , T ,and Potential Ca aci , c T~ ~ sec. (Table 10-2) c ~ p~ih (Fig, 10-3) P . ~ P tY p t3 X92 Percent of c Utilized and Impedance Factor (Fig: 10-5) (v4/cp4) X 100 = -P, = P 1 do J _ Actual Capacity, cm ~m4 - spa=- pcph y STEP 3: LT From Minor Street V~ - . ~qi5 _ , Conflicting Flow,: V~ 1 /Z V~+V2-+V4 = ~ + 16 Zb + ~ + ~h ~V~~) 5 0 Critical Ga , T ,and Potential Ca achy, c T = ~ ~ sec (Table 10-1) c ~s2 pcph {Fig: 10-3) ~ P~ P p ~ 5 0 ~:9 ~ ~-6 ~ ~ Actual Ca achy, cm ~,t,~ _ cp, X Pa = ~o X o . ~ = prph P f~.,, SHARED-LANE CAPACITY ~ + v9 if lane is shared SH _ ,t ' ~ `Movement No. v( h) cm ( h) ` ~sH ( h~ ~R LOS I 9 4 3~ ~ _ 9 A~2. / z ~ A 13 ~ D o 1 _ 4 ~ o o ,1 i I f i .tea 7 ~I Mm 1 t i i} i (`~~'1 i 4 ~.._,.l I i 1 11 4_:._. ~ j ~ ::..I j J I~ i i i i I ,,.J ~._.r~, ' j i u~ i I i fr ti: f-.-~ I ~ ~ i i I, ' I'~ ~~,._~~I i i IN-BOUND TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 45 ~.,,.4 ,I ~ ~ . ~ s 45 $0 ~o T$Xa S A'VGI1ue Dr 1VeW 35 ~ 4~_. 1 Site ~V~~ w- ~ Francis Driveway ~t W 20 ~o r-~ ~ _ I ~ 1 10 10 W r--~! H 10 FRANCfiS DRIVE II ~ k 45 r n, 'j ~ `DIRE;CTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ~ 45% From the.North. 45% From the South ~:~1 10% From the East v ~f- i APPENDIX B 1. rte, r--,~ ~~i ~~1 OUT-EpUND T~AF~LC pIST~RIB.UTION '~w) r' x. I II ~.-._J - North - 45 _ _ ~ _ _ _ 1 1 ~ ' 40 , 70 ~o Texas avenue ~rivew~. ~ 3 0 ~ ~~i ~ r ~ i r--~ ' ~1 ~ ~ ~ Site r-~ ~~'anc ~;s Dr iyewa~r ~ I ~:,i ~ 30 % r--~ t i 20 10 j 5 ~ _.:I - 15 10 - '~-rands ~~l~a i r_. ~ 45 DI`RE.GT~~pNAL :DI,s~;RI;BUTI~N _ 45%,To the North n 45% To the. South ~ 10% To 'the East -AP~ENDIVX B- 2 j l8. ~l l_.:., i ---^1 j ! ~_i ~y _ f 1 f~~ { r_ I ~i '~.._:W 1 J' I i , ~__a 1 , ._~i i ~ j I 1 ~ i . r--~ t`~ l ~ ~ 4 f`_ ;:1 J