The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Abouttraffic study aug 2004PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. August 13, 2004 Mr. Jim Markus Ev-Mark Development LLC P.O. Box 241850 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Re: P1038 Hickory Grove Subdivision Traffic Study Dear Mr. Markus: As requested by The Mehlburger Firm, Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. has prepared this letter report which summarizes the analysis with the development of a proposed residential development (Hickory Grove Subdivision) in Little Rock, Arkansas. Included in the analysis are two scenarios (described in a subsequent section of this letter) for the projected traffic conditions associated with an 83 home residential development to be constructed on the west side of Hinson Road, just north of Windsor Road and south of Pebble Beach Drive. The proposed development site location and vicinity are shown on Figures 1 and 2, which follow. WSITE Tt • r Figure 2 - Site Location Map P.O. BOX 21638 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72221 (501) 225-0500 FAX: (501) 225-0602 Mr. Jim Markus July 13, 2004 Page 2 � w p SITE °w wuaw �+err9 ry �. � ❑f� a c,. u. v �3�4arO1 40 Figure 2 - Site Location Map This is a report of methodology and findings relating to a traffic engineering study undertaken to: • Examine existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site. • Ascertain projected traffic operating conditions for the two scenarios of development (with and without the construction of Dorado Beach Drive extension). • Identify the effects on traffic operations resulting from existing traffic in combination with site-generated traffic associated with the development, and existing traffic that would most likely divert to Montvale Drive and to Valley Park Drive (via Dorado Beach Drive extension) from Pebble Beach Drive). EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing 24-hour vehicle counts were conducted in July and August, 2004, as a part of this study by this consultant at the following locations in the vicinity of the site: • Pebble Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road • Pebble Beach Drive, just east of Cape Cod Court • Pebble Beach Drive, just east of Rahling Road • Montvale Drive, just south of Pebble Beach Drive • Valley Park Drive, just south of Pebble Beach Drive. Mr. Jim Markus July 13, 2004 Page 3 Directional 24-hour traffic volumes at each of the five locations are depicted on the attached Figure 3, "Existing 24 -Hour Traffic Volumes." The street classifications per the City of Little Rock Master Street Plan (MSP) of each of the aforementioned roadways in the vicinity of the site are as follows: ■ Pebble Beach Drive, from Rahling Road to Hinson Road — Collector. 7 Montvale Drive, from Pebble Beach Drive to Dorado Beach Drive — Collector. Valley Park Drive, from Pebble Beach Drive to Dorado Beach Drive — Residential. • Dorado Beach Drive, west of the site - Collector. TRIP GENERATION AND SITE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS The Trip Generation, an Informational Report, 2003, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and The Trip Generation Software (Version 5 by Microtrans), were utilized in calculating the magnitude of traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed residential land use of this development. These are reliable sources for this information and are universally used in the traffic engineering profession. Using the selected trip generation rates, calculations were made as a part of this study to provide a reliable estimate of traffic volumes that can be expected to be associated with the development as proposed. Applying the appropriate trip generation rates to the land use proposed for the development makes these calculations. Results of this calculation are summarized on Table 1, "Summary of Trip Generation," below. Table l — Summary of Trip Generation These calculations indicate that approximately 794 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average weekday are projected to be generated by the proposed residential land use on this site. ACCESS SCENARIOS Two scenarios of access to the development have been reviewed as a part of this study and are as follows: Mr. Jim Markus July 13, 2004 Page 4 Scenario 1 Dorado Beach Drive, which currently ends just west of the site, not extended through the site development. 24-hour projected traffic volumes, which include site -generated traffic volumes, are depicted on Figure 4, "Scenario 1 —Projected 24 -Hour Traffic Volumes without Dorado Beach Extension." Under this analsysis scenario the subdivision will have its own and only point of access on Hinson Road and no connection to Dorado Beach Drive. For this scenario, no change is expected in traffic volumes on Montavale Drive and on Valley Park Drive. Traffic volumes on Pebble Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road are expected to increase approximately 2 percent. Scenario 2 Dorado Beach Drive extended through the site development to Hinson Road. 24-hour projected traffic volumes, which include site -generated traffic volumes and diverted traffic volumes (traffic volumes diverted to Montvale Drive and to Valley Park Drive via Dorado Beach Drive extension from Pebble Beach Drive) are depicted on Figure 5, "Scenario 2 — Projected 24 -Hour Traffic Volumes with Dorado Beach Extension." For this scenario, traffic volumes are expected to increase approximately 35 percent on Montvale Drive and 23 percent on Valley Park Drive. Traffic volumes on Pebble Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road are expected to decrease approximately 15 percent. FINDINGS Findings of this study are as follows: • 5,685 vehicles per day on Pebble Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road is the highest traffic volume on any of the streets included in this study. This volume is approximately equal to the City of Little Rock normal "service volume" for a collector street. ■ As proposed, the subdivision consisting of approximately 83 lots would generate approximately 794 trips per day. ■ As proposed in Scenario 1, the subdivision will have its own and only point of access on Hinson Road and no connection to Dorado Beach Drive. There is expected to be no change in traffic volumes on Montavale Drive and on Valley Park Drive without the Dorado Beach Drive extension. Traffic volumes on Pebble Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road are expected to increase only 2 percent. • As proposed in Scenario 2, if a roadway connection is made from Dorado Beach Drive to Hinson Road, it would be possible for existing traffic to cut through the existing neighborhood from Pebble Beach Drive to Hinson Road via Montvale Drive and Valley Park Drive. This cut -through traffic could have a negative impact on existing residential Mr. Jim Markus July 13, 2004 Page 5 streets. Traffic volumes are expected to increase approximately 35 percent on Montvale Drive and 23 percent on Valley Park Drive. • No intersection on Pebble Beach Drive from Hinson Road to Rahlings Road has constrained capacity operation due to intersection traffic volumes. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations of this study are as follows: We conclude from this study that the subdivision proposed and the adjoining neighborhoods are better served with exclusive access for the subdivision to Hinson Road and with no connection to adjacent neighborhood streets. This would assure that the satisfactory traffic operations on Pebble Beach Drive will continue to exist and that no increases in traffic volumes on Montvale Drive and on Valley Park Drive would occur due to the proposed development. Sincerely, PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Ernest J. Peters, P.E. President Z 5 W i NORTH P O ; cy) GU N O U z z ��oN�or U) a 03 uj M O) N ■ N . 1249 1 177 VALI-Ey PARK DR. Z O �N a 800 m p Q � � Y ■ V) Q M_ 749 w w > U o ■ Of LL W MONTV 0 ~ AL>~ DR. O coo s = °v Lo d � o � � o w mco U m . mom,, W do W�� o POMM� Rp,�lLifVG R�• ZN a,I' C.1 00 o< o- da ` J O>>o= NORTH AL 00— c r WN~Lu F- r7 (.) 0U) U j W J O) U 2 .... - z W d U W 'r W W O m O 8-0 N N00 + . N �. 1249' c� U 1177e O VALLEY PARK Z DR. z O U) .800 C' > rn D m p a A U N F-Q 0 749 o Z> Ln w U o vO Of Q w MONTV ALE pR. � ~ � O C%O y U f= m a �0 = QU U O m U-) U Jrl W n yam+ oho M a o RAHLING RD.rn y iii ao Wx� G. w z°N �� Zot U� � LJ O F- d fa - a- NW=Z =) H O . z NORM ■ _p 0� O ?�(5 ¢=U)z W L1) N W o W fnWDw of �U2 D 0 �U-Q U Z d m O N�NSo I o to o w ca. A CD o LO n LO N . N � 1522 0 M N d o 1450 + ss W X mw VALLEY PARK DR. S w o 0 Z 0 _ (11 1073 o m p z¢ ■Y M (n � 1022 e +LLJ ( oro rn > U u 00 v 0 E w U Q w MO TVALE DR. of F- Of O cLp U s u� = m 00 �o 0 � E p QU W Ln p 0 m ■ -p N 7 C Y p E N O p p O V �+0+>�a V m tl W c E U 0^ > a W 0'—o�� aTiMc� 010 ioE- ao W a, . Rp,HLkNG RD. w �, > -0 U w z°cNu O 0 O .> c 0 X O) VOD ay Z > v) O_U Op NM LLIW O F - Cr Q as -----