Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbouttraffic studyTraffic Study u prepared for: $AFT DELTIC TIMBER CORPORATION T] PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. • CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • 5507 Ranch Drive - Suite 205 (501) 868-3999 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Fax (501) 868-9710 Rahling Road Little Rock, Arkansas l ARKANSAS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ERNEST J. PETERS r No. 4682 f�l Project No.: P-1378 September 26, 008 �. r TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pa INTRODUCTION I STUDY AREA 3 STREET SYSTEM 4 PROPOSED MASTER STREET PLAN CHANGES 5 LAND -USE PLAN PROPOSED CHANGES 5 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 6 TRIP GENERATION & TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS 11 TRAFFIC VOLUME ASSIGNMENTS 13 CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE 14 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS 20 OTHER ISSUES 24 FINDINGS 26 FIGURES 29 APPENDIX Land -Use and Master Street Plan Items Trip -Generation Data Vehicle Turning Movement Count Data Capacity and Level of Service Calculations Traffic Signal Warrants and Results PETERS & ASSOCIATES wx0pamK, ]NC. -fir= g;#tAFl r: f ,r' Tr �. ,rrr r Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. conducted a traffic study for the assessment of an application to the City of Little Rock by the developer for proposed re -zoning, land - use changes to the City Land -Use Plan (LUP) and pro- posed changes to the Master Street Plan (MSP) in Little Rock, Arkansas. The study area is on the west side of Rahling Road, just south of Pebble Beach Drive in Little Rock, Arkansas. The primary issue of this study is traffic operational conditions for the proposed street network changes. A copy of maps depicting the existing Land Use Plan and Zoning Plan in the immediate vicinity of the study area plus the Land Use Plan Amendment, Area Zoning and a copy of the Master Street Plan Amendment are included in the Appendix of this report for reference. Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were con- ducted while school was in session (September, 2008) at the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Road and at several intersections within the study area. The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 1, "Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours." Additionally, existing 24-hour traffic counts were also made while school was in session (September, 2008) at the following locations in the vicinity of the site: • Rahling Road, just north of Pebble Beach Drive • Rahling Road, just south of Pebble Beach Drive • Pebble Beach Drive, just east of Rahling Road ■ Pebble Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road • Dorado Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road • Beckenham Drive, just west of Hinson Road. The study has involved preparing estimated projected fu- ture 10 -year traffic volumes for the proposed master street plan amendment, full build -out of the proposed land -uses of the study tracts. Additionally, ten-year growth applied to the existing thru traffic volumes on Rahling Road were also included in projected traffic vol - PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Page 1 paAFT, ( �. umes used in analysis of this study. Capacity and level of service (LOS) analysis for existing and for projected traffic operations for the AM and PM peak hours was conducted. The 10 -year full build -out projected AM and PM peak hours traffic volumes are depicted on Figure 6, "Projected 10 -Year Traffic Volumes with Full Build -Out of the Site - AM and PM Peak Hours." The analysis of this study has been con- ducted for projected traffic conditions for the proposed road- way network (as depicted in the Appendix of this report). This is a report of methodology and findings relating to a traffic engineering study undertaken to: Evaluate existing traffic conditions and projected traffic conditions to include full build -out of the proposed land - uses of the site plus 10 -year background growth at the study intersections. • Identify the effects on traffic operations resulting from Pxictinn traffic Imus 10-vear background arowth) in com- bination with full build -out generated traffic associated with the proposed land -use plan changes and changes to the MSP. This analysis has account for adjustments in cut-thru traffic anticipated with the connection of addi- tional Collector Streets as proposed. • Present findings relative to traffic operations for the pro- posed street changes and assess developer -proposed changes to the Master Street Plan. In the following sections of this report there are presented traffic data, study methods, findings and recommendations of this traffic engineering investigation. The traffic engineer- ing study is technical in nature. Analysis techniques em- ployed are those most commonly used in the traffic engi- neering profession for traffic operational analysis. Certain data and calculations relative to traffic operational analysis are referenced in the report. Complete calculations and data are included in the Appendix of the report. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. - Page2 The locations of the study intersections are within the City of Little Rock in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The study inter- sections location and vicinity are shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2, below. YL' IERI & AI JUI;IA'IEN E GINERR" INC. Page 3 Rahling Road, is proposed to be improved by the devel- oper to a four -lane median divided roadway with median breaks and the addition of southbound left -turn lanes at Pebble Beach Drive, Drive A, Wellington Plantation Drive and Drive D. This four -lane median divided roadway is planned to be constructed from the existing four -lane sec- tion with median in the vicinity of the site, to the north to tie into the current four -lane roadway. Currently, just nortth of Pebble Beach Drive, Rahling Road narrows to a two-lane roadway with the addition of a southbound left - turn lane at Pebble Beach Drive. Rahling Road is classi- fied as a Minor Arterial on the City of Little Rock MSP. The following roadways in the vicinity of the study area included in this study are classified as Collector Streets: • Pebble Beach Drive • Dorado Beach Drive • Beckenham Drive • Wellinaton Plantation Drive. City of Little Rock service volumes for Collector and Minor Arterial roadways are as follows: ■ Collector = 5,000 vehicles per day. • Minor Arterial = 18,000 vehicles per day. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENCINFF.RS, INC. Page 4 An application for an amendment to the MSP was recently made to the City regarding alignment of certain streets within the study which are described as follows: • The proposed MSP amendment does not include the elimination of Collector Streets, but rather proposes to combine them prior to their connection to Rahling Road. • Re -alignment of the extension of Wellington Plantation Drive from its present alignment shown on the MSP to the north, intersecting the proposed realignment of Beckenham Drive extension just to the east of Rahling Road. • The extension of Beckenham Drive to not intersect Rahling Road to the west, but rather align south to inter- sect the extension of Wellington Plantation Drive. These proposed changes to the City of Little Rock MSP have been taken into consideration as a part of this study. As a part of this study. an assessment of an application to the City of Little Rock by the developer for proposed land - use changes has been included in this analysis. The pro- posed land use changes are as follows: • R-2 - Proposed 60.1 acres (from 107.0 acres existing) • MF -18 - Proposed 41.2 acres (from 20.0 acres existing) • Open Space - 8.0 acres (from 0 acre existing) • C-3 - 19.9 acres (from 0 acre existing) • 0-3 - 5.2 acres (from 0 acre existing). A copy of maps depicting the existing Land Use Plan and Zoning Plan in the immediate vicinity of the study area plus the Land Use Plan Amendment, Area Zoning and a copy of the Master Street Plan Amendment are included in the Ap- pendix of this report for reference. QPETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. PF1gPi 5 Hourly, 24-hour traffic counts were made at the following locations in the vicinity of the development and are sum- marized as follows: STREET 24-HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME TABLE & CHART Rahling Road, Just South of Pebble Beach Dri\,e 11,035 Table 1/Chart 1 Rahling Road, Just North of Pebble Beach Drive 9,320 Table 2/Chart 2 Pebble Beach Drive, Just East of Rahling Road 3,031 Table 3/Chart 3 Pebble Beach Drive, Just West of Hinson Road 4.426 Table 4/Chart 4 Dorado Beach Drive, Just West of Hinson Road 1,647 Table 5/Chart 5 Beckenham Drive, Just West of Hinson Road 2,966 Table 6/Chart 6 Hourly, 24-hour traffic count data are summarized on Ta- bles and Charts 1 through 6 and depicted on Figure 7, "Existing and Projected 1 0 -Year 24 -Hour Weekday Traffic Volumes." (lther traffic --,.M Anfo nnllorfoA �c n nnrf of fhic efi Ir %i includes AM and PM peak hour vehicle turning movement counts at the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive. The AM and PM peak hour turning move- ment count data at this intersection is summarized in the following peak hour turning movement Charts 7 and 8 and are presented in more detail in the Appendix of this report. AM and PM peak hour vehicle turning movement counts made as a part of this study are shown on Figure 3, "Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours." PETERS & ASSOCIATES FMINFERS, INC. - -. - Page 6 TIME Rahling Road, Just South of Pebble Beach Drive Northbound Southbound NB + SB 01:00 PM 271 342 613 02:00 PM 390 330 720 03:00 P M 379 412 791 04:00 PM 485 411 896 05:00 PM 515 622 1137 06:00 P M 418 452 870 07:00 PM 287 396 683 08:00 PM 247 205 452 09:00 PM 188 127 315 10:00 PM 64 54 118 11:00 PM 23 16 39 12:00 AM 8 8 16 01:00 AM 4 6 10 02:00 AM 2 2 4 03:00 AM 5 4 9 04:00 AM 15 4 19 05:00 AM 45 33 78 06:00 AM 155 171 326 07:00 AM 545 350 895 08:00 AM 320 466 786 09:00 AM 277 311 588 10:00 AM 202 227 429 11:00 AM 352 281 633 12:00 PM 294 314 608 24 -Hour Total: 5491 5544 11035 Table 2 — Chart 2 24 -Hour Traffic Counts Rahling Road, Just North of Pebble Beach Drive 600 , Rahllnp Road, Jues Harlh of Pablo BwA prise -TMH¢ Hourly Vokorra 500 E 400 o > 300 T i 200 100 0 Northbound dr off' �' lz'' 0' cp' :�' Hour JUJ PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENCINFE.RS, INC. — 700 600 500 E '0 400 T 300 O zoo 100 0 tAFT OF � rr;ll�� r.�•rTf+�r Hour Table 1 — Chart 1 24 -Hour Traffic Counts Rahling Road, Just South of Pebble Beach Drive TIME Rahling Road, Just North of Pebble Beach Driee Northbound Southbound NB + SB 01:00 PM 252 289 541 02:00 PM 316 284 600 03:00 PM 328 320 648 04:00 PM 415 362 777 05:00 PM 460 553 1013 06:00 PM 346 381 727 07:00 PM 230 320 550 08:00 PM 193 187 380 09:00 PM 145 114 259 10:00 PM 48 52 100 11:00 PM 17 12 29 12:00 AM 5 7 12 01:00 AM 3 5 8 02:00 AM 3 2 5 03:00 AM 4 4 8 04:00 AM 13 5 18 05:00 AM 39 31 70 06:00 AM 123 148 271 07:00 AM 405 287 692 08:00 AM 265 389 654 09:00 AM 229 262 491 10:00 AM 203 200 403 11:00 AM 315 229 544 12700 PM251 269 520 24 -Hour Total: 4608 1 4712 9320 Page 7 TIME Pebble Beach Drive at Rahling Road Eastbound Westbound EB + WB 01:00 PM 83 107 190 02:00 PM 120 102 222 03:00 PM 117 116 232 04:00 PM 117 98 215 05:00 PM 126 122 248 06:00 PM 109 118 227 07:00 PM 85 96 181 08:00 P M 80 74 154 09:00 PM 51 53 104 10:00 PM 22 20 42 11:00 PM 4 20 24 12:00 AM 3 8 11 01:00 AM 02:00 AM 2 1 6 3 8 4 03:00 AM 0 2 2 04:00 AM 2 1 3 05:00 AM 3 12 15 06:00 AM 26 39 65 07:00 AM 172 84 256 08:00 AM 86 107 193 09:00 AM 57 72 128 10:00 AM 59 97 156 11:00 AM 69 88 157 12:00 PM 78 117 194 24 -Hour Total: 1472 1558 3031 450 400 350 E 300 6 250 200 a x 150 100 50 0 Table 4 — Chart 4 24 -Hour Traffic Counts Pebble Beach Drive, Just West of Hinson Road Pe hdle Beech Arlre, JuH We el of H lnuo Road - Tranlc Hawly Vcllnne a ❑ Eastbound __ ■ Weslhourd pxA1F1r 200 Pabhla Reece Hilus k Ra1HIno Road - TralOc Moudw Valu nes 180 160 0 140 E 120 0 > 100 o e0 = 60 40 20 0 tib' til tiry' 0 $ ;p �V 1� 4�•R'' Hour �01�eIeeVe le, vl�011�1e0101, Hour Table 3 — Chart 3 24 -Hour Traffic Counts Pebble Beach Drive, Just East of Rahling Road TIME Pebble Beach Drive, Just West of Hinson Road Eastbound Westbound EB + WB 01:00 PM 102 110 212 02:00 PM 172 162 334 03:00 PM 117 194 311 04:00 PM 145 206 351 05:00 PM 180 241 421 06:00 PM 104 176 280 07:00 PM 69 161 230 08:00 PM 60 105 165 09:00 PM 40 49 89 10:00 PM 24 31 55 11:00 PM 4 6 10 12:00 AM 1 3 4 01:00 AM 1 1 2 3 02:00 AM 2 2 4 03:00 AM 0 0 0 04:00 AM 10 4 14 05:00 AM 20 8 28 06:00 AM 87 59 146 07:00 AM 393 226 619 08:00 AM 179 162 341 09:00 AM 102 109 211 10:00 AM 88 81 169 11:00 AM 101 98 1 199 12:00 PM 111 120 231 24 -Hour Total: 2112 1 2314 1 4426 PETERS & ASSOCIATES EncIY86R9. INCL Page 8 TIME 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 06:00 PM 07:00 PM 08:00 PM 09:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 01:00 AM 02:00 AM 03:00 AM 04:00 AM 05:00 AM 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 24 -Hour Total 300 250 E 200 0 > 150 a 5 z 100 50 0 Dorado Beach Dd\,e at Hinson Road Eastbound Westbound EB + WB 54 41 95 50 46 96 42 51 93 63 72 135 53 94 147 51 76 127 21 45 66 12 35 47 6 22 28 5 15 20 1 8 9 0 3 3 4 0 4 2 1 3 1 0 1 3 0 3 9 3 12 38 10 48 135 31 166 61 30 91 65 55 120 58 58 116 53 53 106 58 53 111 845 802 1647 Table 6 — Chart 6 24 -Hour Traffic Counts Beckenham Drive, Just West of Hinson Road R—L.a rn ld�1r Hinson R-1 . T,a U, l—A. Vnh — e e e e et° C91- 4V Hour `tel PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. — — , Or 160 uoraao eeacn urrve at Hinson Road . 140 120 m 100 0 2 60 '0 60 40 zo a Trarrlc 1lourly Volumes ❑ Eastbound n A Westbound Hour Table 5 — Chart 5 24 -Hour Traffic Counts Dorado Beach Drive, Just West of Hinson Road TIME Beckenham Dri\,e at Hinson Road Eastbound Westbound EB + WB 01:00 PM 79 88 167 02:00 PM 93 92 185 03:00 PM 78 130 208 04:00 PM 92 147 239 05:00 PM 112 212 324 06:00 PM 99 127 226 07:00 PM 49 103 152 08:00 PM 45 78 123 09:00 PM 1 19 42 61 10:00 PM 12 26 38 11:00 PM 13 9 22 12:00 AM 1 6 7 01:00 AM 2 6 8 02:00 AM 0 0 0 03:00 AM 2 0 2 04:00 AM 8 3 11 05:00 AM 26 3 129 06:00 AM 74 12 86 07:00 AM 248 47 295 08:00 AM 144 71 215 09:00 AM 67 48 115 10:00 AM 85 92 177 11:00 AM 70 71 141 12:00 PM 59 76 135 24 -Hour Total: 1477 1489 2966 Page 9 . ➢ pin%y..tryy ■ From Eesl-Rlgm Rpne -Right H.r -Rd Pebble Beach Or Rahring Rd FmmwgdK . From Earl -Left From South-Thru 160 140 120 100 so >° 60 40 20 0 cc 0 co o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time of Day Chart 7 AM Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive. 174 M AF:1r pit ao et 0o to Rahling Rd. Rahling Rd. Cq rn W V -s to N tJ N N 160 p N 140 tp 120 W 100 80 a Chart 8 PM Peak Hours Turning Movement Count 980 60 a n. .0 40 m tr 20 1 - AM Count Data 0 101 v t° W (p M1t: om YkrenThru From Earl -Right F,p S.Jr-Right 07:30 AM 08:15 AM Rahling Rd. Pebble Beech Rd Rahling Rd 1 - PM Count Data v 174 M V ao et 0o to Rahling Rd. IV Cq rn le � Horth ■ Rahling Rd. ■ PETERS & ASSOCIATES F1CINFFRS• INC. Lj Rahling Rd. N rs N N tJt W N a Chart 8 PM Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data a a n. Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive. 101 v .IAd. Pebble Beech Rd. Rarar4Rd (p M1t: om YkrenThru From Earl -Right F,p S.Jr-Right Rahling Rd. Pebble Beech Rd Rahling Rd 1 - PM Count Data Fram North -Lett From Eaai-Lefl From So1h-Thru 160 05:00 PM W 160 140 05:45 PM 0) n 140 120 120 3 Q m 100 100 E 80 80 60 60 94 40 40 20 20 N to r tfy 0 0 In o 0 0 0 0 o v N O N Time of Day to v- Horth IV Rahling Rd. PETERS & ASSOCIATES F1CINFFRS• INC. Lj rs a a a a a a a n. Page 10 The Trip Generation, an Informational Report (7th Edi- tion), 2004, 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 existing zoned land use and the proposed land use changes (aforementioned in a previous section of this report) in the immediate vicinity of the study intersec- tions. These are reliable sources for this information and are universally used in the traffic engineering profession. Proposed zoning changes have been assumed to be included in projected 10 -year traffic conditions. There is a planned approximate 120 -unit condominium development to be located on the west side of Rahling Road, north of Pebble Beach Drive. Expected traffic vol- umes associated with this development have been in- cluded in the projected traffic volumes. 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 proposed land use of each study tract. Applying the appropriate trip -generation rates to the land uses proposed for these tracts makes these cal- culations. Results of this calculation are summarized on Table 7, "Trip -Generation Summary." Residential traffic and office traffic, as will be associated with some of these tracts, ordinarily does contribute to the adjacent street traffic conditions during the on -street AM and PM peak traffic hours. Accordingly, the AM and PM peak traffic periods of the adjacent streets have war- ranted primary traffic analysis as a part of this study. PETERS & ASSOCIATES EnGMsERs, ,HC, Page 11 .-fir rte. AFT OR 1 EXISTING ZONING ' • AM PEAK HOUR • APPROX.•• VOLUME VOLUME r •• • ER EXIT EWER EXIT ResldentW Single -Family (R-2) (107 Acres) 214 Lots 210 2,048 41 120 137 79 Residential MultFFamily (MF -18) (20 Acres) 360 Units 220 2,419 35 148 144 79 TOTALS: 4,467 77 268 281 158 TOTAL ENTERING + EXrTING 345 PROPOSED ZONING' • PM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR APPROX.• JCOD VOLOME VOLUME SIZE • ENTER EIQT ENTER EXIT Residential Single -Family (R-2) (60.1 Acres) 120 Lots 210 1,148 23 67 77 44 Residential MultrFamily (MF -18) (20 Acres) 300 Units 220 2,016 30 123 120 66 Residential MuRrFamily (MF -18) (20 Acres) 300 Units 220 2,016 30 123 120 66 *Commercial Tracts (3.48 Acre, 5.7 Acre and 10.7 Acre) (Neighborhood Co 110,000 Sq. Ft. 820 3,778 55 35 158 172 1.56 Acre Office Tract 15,000 Sq. Ft. 710 165 20 3 4 19 2.93 Acre Office Tract 20,000 Sq. Ft. 1 710 308 38 57 35 9 43i 196 356 486 402 TOTALS: TOTAL ENTERING + EXMNG 552 *These vohanes adjusted to rejlec120% inlernal capture Table 7 — Trip -Generation Summary PETERS & ASSOCIATES 12 ETCIVEF.RS, INC. Page 12 OFAFT , I F-Fff-M Existing traffic volumes have been adjusted to account for the proposed roadway connections and extension of Beck- enham Road and Wellington Plantation Drive. These redis- tributed existing traffic volumes are depicted on Figure 4, "Redistributed Existing Traffic Volumes with Proposed Con- nection - AM and PM Peak Hours." These adjusted volumes account for anticipated redistribution of cut-thru traffic that currently uses Pebble Beach Drive. Once projected traffic was estimated for the proposed land uses in the immediate vicinity, directional distributions were made to reflect the additional traffic projected by these pro- posed land uses at the study intersections. These proposed land use site -generated traffic volumes are depicted on Fig- ure 5, "Proposed Land Use Site -Generated Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours." Values shown on Figure 4, "Redistributed Existing Traffic Volumes with Proposed Connection - AM and PM Peak Hours," have been combined with projected traffic volumes shown on Figure 5, "Proposed Land Use Site -Generated Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours," plus ten-year growth applied to the existing thru traffic volumes on Rahling Road to account for 10 -year projected traffic volumes. These 10 -year projected traffic volumes are depicted on Fig- ure 6, "Projected 10 -Year Traffic Volumes with Full Build -Out of Site - AM and PM Peak Hours." There is a planned ap- proximate 120 -unit condominium development to be located on the west side of Rahling Road, north of Pebble Beach Drive. Expected traffic volumes associated with this devel- opment have been included in the projected traffic volumes. Traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 are the values used in capacity and level of service calculations conducted as a part of this study. The effect of existing background traffic (i.e. the adjacent street non -site traffic which exists), redis- tributed background traffic as well as projected traffic associ- ated with the proposed land uses in the immediate vicinity of the study intersections has thus been accounted for in this analysis. PETERS & ASSOCIATES FNCINFF.RS, ]NC. Page 13 Generally, the "capacity" of a street is a measure of its ability to accommodate a certain magnitude of moving vehicles. It is a rate as opposed to a quantity, measured in terms of vehi- cles per hour. More specifically, street capacity refers to the maximum number of vehicles that a street element (e.g. an intersection) can be expected to accommodate in a given time period under the prevailing roadway and traffic condi- tions. Level of Service (LOS) ordinarily has a letter designation rela- tive to the various operating characteristics, ranging from "A" as the highest quality to "F" representing considerable delay. The various Levels of Service are generally described as fol- lows: Gi PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENCINP.ERS. INC. Page 14 �Avq.otal Dela sec.lveh. Description A <10 This LOS is a free flow condition, with vehicles acting nearly independently to one another. There is little or no delay. B >10 and <15 This LOS is slightly restrictive condition with short traffic delays. The presense of other vehicles is noticeable by the driver. This LOS is the design level that engineers strive for during the C >15 and <25 service life of the facility. LOS C results from an average delay. The traffic flow is stable, but more restrictive. This LOS is noticeably more restrictive, and there are long D >25 and <35 traffic delays. This LOS results in poor driver comfort and in greater accident probabilities. At this LOS, the intersection is operating at capacity with little or E >35 and <50 no gaps. There are very long traffic delays and unstable intersection operation. F >50 At this LOS, there are more vehicles arriving at the approach than can be discharged. Extreme delays will be encountered. Gi PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENCINP.ERS. INC. Page 14 FT •SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Av .Total Dela sec./veh. Description A <10 This LOS is a free flow condition, with vehicles acting nearly - independently to one another. There is little or no delay. B >10 and <20 This LOS is slightly restrictive condition with short traffic delays. - The presense of other vehicles is noticable by the driver. This LOS is the design level that engineers strive for during the C >20 and <35 service life of the facility. LOS C results from an average delay. The traffic flow is stable, but more restrictive. This LOS is noticeably more restrictive, and there are long D >35 and <55 traffic delays. This LOS results in poor driver comfort and in greater accident probabilities. At this LOS, the intersection is operating at capacity with little or E >55 and <80 no gaps. There are very long traffic delays and unstable intersection operation. F >80 At this LOS, there are more vehicles arriving at the approach than can be discharged. Extreme delays will be encountered - LOS values that arereported based ooverall controldelay forintersection. Traffic operational calculations were performed as a part of this study for traffic operating conditions of existing and projected traffic. This analysis was performed using Synchro Version 6, 2003. This computer program has been proven to be reliable when used to analyze capacity and levels of traffic service under various operating conditions. Detailed calculations for all capac- ity calculations are included in the Appendix. The busiest condi- tion of adjacent street AM and PM peak traffic periods were used for these calculations. Factors included in the analysis are as follows: • Existing traffic patterns. • Redistributed existing traffic patterns reflecting new street connections. • Proposed land uses. • Directional distribution of projected traffic volumes. • Proposed intersection geometry (including elements such as turn lanes, curb radii, etc.). • Existing background traffic volumes with 10 -year growth. • Proposed MSP roadway changes. GJPETERS & ASSOCIATES Existing or proposed traffic control. �E\CIYF,F,RS 1RC Page 15 PRAFT�,rr r r- I r � Mil rr CAPACITY ANALYSIS Level of Service Analysis Results Exist6 Traffic Conditions Capacity and level of service analysis was performed for ex- isting traffic conditions for the worst-case AM and PM peak hours for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive. As indicated in Table 8, "Level of Service Summary - Existing Traffic Conditions," for the study intersection, all existing vehi- cle movements for existing traffic conditions presently oper- ate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours except for the westbound vehicle movements on Pebble Beach Drive at Rahling Road during the PM peak hour (LOS "E") with "Stop" sign control. Traffic volumes used for this analysis are shown on Figure 3, "Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours." 0 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS o F_ F_ _ _ _ -° 0: e u W W W Z Z 2 N y O m c F INTERSECTION PEAK HR PEAK • OF Rzhling Road and Pebble Beach Drive SIGN D D A A A n/a Ei7d E E A A A n/a Table 8 - Level of Service Summary - Existing Traffic Conditions PETERS & ASSOCIATES L FNCINFF.RS, MC. Page age 1 V Proiected Traffic Conditions Level of service analysis was performed for the projected 10 -year traffic conditions for the following intersections: • Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive • Rahling Road and Drive A • Rahling Road and Drive B • Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive • Rahling Road and Drive C • Rahling Road and Drive D • Wellington Plantation Drive and Beckenham Drive. This analysis was performed for AM and PM peak hours traffic. Traffic volumes used for the projected traffic condi- tions are shown on Figure 6, "Projected 10 -Year Traffic Vol- umes with Full Build -Out of Site - AM and PM Peak Hours." The operating conditions projected to exist at these inter- sections are summarized in Table 9, "Level of Service Sum- mary -Projected 10 -Year Traffic Conditions." As indicated in Table 9, for the intersections studied, the only vehicle movements with capacity and LOS results demonstrating very long to extreme traffic delays (LOS "E" or "F") for the AM and/or PM peak hours for these projected traffic conditions are the following: • Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Pebble Beach Drive at Rahling Road (LOS "F") during the PM peak hour with "Stop" sign control. This vehicle move- ment improves to an acceptable LOS "B" with traffic sig- nal control. • Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Drive A at Rahling Road (LOS "E") during the PM peak hour with "Stop" sign control. This volume is low (only 8 vehicles) and the delay should only occur for a short time during the PM peak hour. Additionally, these vehicles have the option of using the protected left -turn at the adjacent proposed signalized intersection of Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive. PETERS & ASSOCIATES e.;.crreeeas, Inc. — Page 17 C71- V F p#tAf � r �T7 �{- . .r • Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Wellington Plantation Drive at Rahling Road (LOS "F") during the AM and PM peak hours with "Stop" sign control. This vehicle movement improves to an acceptable LOS "C" during the AM peak hour and LOS "B" during the PM peak hour with traffic signal control. Northbound left -turn vehicle movement on Drive D at Rahling Road (LOS "E") during the AM and PM peak hours with "Stop" sign control. This volume is low (only 30 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 17 ve- hicles during the PM peak hour) and the delay should only occur for a short time during the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, these vehicles have the op- tion of using the protected left -turn at the adjacent proposed signalized intersection of Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive. nn vola. vcIII ...v'vcic..L .v. u.c�c Nivjc�,Lcu La111%, conditions for the intersections studied are projected to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours. For these projected traffic conditions, analysis was con- ducted with the schematic lane geometry as depicted on Figure 8, "Recommended Schematic Lane Geometry." F PETERS & ASSOCIATES p ENOTNEE,RS, INC, Page age 1 O 1 PETERS & ASSOCIATES FNGINFF.RS• INC. Page 19 6 ' • I 0 J ~ K J H Q_' -J H d' J F IY _ o ! • • u W W W 2 2 2 w (mA U) O m B c H — AM SIGN D B A A A A n/a SIGNAL B B A A A A Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive PM SIGN F B ffA A A A n/a SIGNAL B B A A A A AM Rahling Road and Drive A SIGN D B A A A n/a PM E B 1. J A J A I A I nla Rahling Road and Drive B SIGN A A C B n/a PM C C n/a AM SIGN F B A A B A n/a Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive SIGNAL C F B B A A A A A B A A ASIGN n/a PM SIGNAL B B B A A A A Rahling Road and Drive C I SIGN B A A n/a PM I B A A n/a Rahling Road and Drive D SIGN A B A E B n/a PM A A A E B n/a AM Wellington Plantation Drive and Beckenham Drive SAN A A A A C B C B n/a pM A A A A C B B B n/a f Table 9 - Level of Service Summary - Projected 10 -Year Traffic Conditions PETERS & ASSOCIATES FNGINFF.RS• INC. Page 19 In evaluating the need for a traffic signal, certain estab- lished warrants must be examined by a comprehensive investigation of traffic conditions and physical characteris- tics of the location. The decision to install a traffic signal at a particular location must be evaluated quantitatively relative to these warrants. Satisfaction of conditions for only one of the warrants, as specified, is required for sig- nalization. These warrants, as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), are described in detail in the appendix of this report. They are summa- rized as follows: ♦ Warrant One: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume ♦ Warrant Two: Four -Hour Vehicular Volume ♦ Warrant Three: Peak Hour ♦ Warrant Four: Pedestrian Volume ♦ Warrant Five: School Crossing ♦ Warrant Six: Coordinated Signal System ♦ Warrant Seven: Crash Experience t Warrant Eight: Roa ww Netjt ork SIGNAL WARRANTS RESULTS Traffic signal warrants analysis was made for existing traffic conditions for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive and for projected traffic conditions at this same intersection as well as the intersection of Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive. Existtq Traffic Conditions It was found that traffic signal warrants are not currently met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive with existing traffic volumes. Volumes are not currently sufficient at this intersection to satisfy any warrants. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for this intersection are summarized in Table 10, "Traffic Sig- nal Warrants Results - Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive - Existing Traffic Conditions." lj PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC, Page 20 r err r= PSAFT Projected Traffic Conditions It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive for projected 10 -year traffic conditions. Vol- umes for this condition are projected to be sufficient at this intersection to satisfy Warrants 1 B and 3 and are short only one hour from satisfying Warrant 2. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive are summarized in Table 11, "Traffic Signal Warrants Results - Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive - Projected Traffic Conditions." Traffic signal warrants should be monitored as develop- ment continues in the vicinity. At which time traffic signal warrants are met within the next ten years, a traffic signal should be installed at this intersection. It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Welling- ton Plantation Drive for projected 10 -year traffic condi- tions. Volumes for this condition are projected to be suffi- cient at this intersection to satisfy Warrants 1A, 1 B, 1AB, 2 and 3. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for this intersection are summarized in Table 12, "Traffic Sig- nal Warrants Results - Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive - Projected Traffic Conditions." A traffic signal should be constructed to coincide with the develop- ment of the proposed land uses and master street plan changes in the study area. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC — Page 21 This intersection DOES NOT SATISFY the warrants for signalization as outlined in the "M.U.T.C.D." FINAL RESULTS: Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Hour warrant was met: {PRAFT r r—� r(; v FINAL RESULTS: --- Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis --NmmrrL,7 VOLUME COMB. 4 Hr. Hour warrant was met: 600 900 480 ,MajorSt.: Rahling Road Conditions 150 75 120 iMinor St.: Pebble Beach Drive VOLUME COMB. 4 Hr. Peak Existing Conditions 600 900 480 720 HOUR MAJOR MINOR 1A 1B 1AB 150 75 120 60 3 7:00 1303 83 0 1 SUM MAX. 1 0 0 8:00 1030 107 HOUR MAJOR MINOR 1A 1B IAB 0 2 3 69 7:00 832 61 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 90 8:00 709 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 9:00 539 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 10:00 402 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 11:00 581 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 10 12:00 563 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffic Signal Warrants Results 13:00 560 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive 14:00 674 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Traffic Conditions. 15:00 699 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 16:00 847 83 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 97 17:00 1068 101 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 74 18:00 799 98 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 50 19:00 607 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 434 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 for signalization 21:00 302 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 This intersection DOES NOT SATISFY the warrants for signalization as outlined in the "M.U.T.C.D." FINAL RESULTS: Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Hour warrant was met: Mayor St.: Rahling Road Minor St.: Pebble Beach Drive VOLUME COMB. 4 Hr. Peak 10 -Year Projected 600 900 480 720 Conditions 150 75 120 60 SUM MAX. HOUR MAJOR MINOR 1A 1B 1AB 2 3 7:00 1303 83 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 8:00 1030 107 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9:00 793 69 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10.00 636 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 937 89 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 12:00 904 111 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 13:00 920 106 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 14:00 1078 102 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 15:00 1110 113 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 16:00 1314 102 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 17:00 1631 127 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 18:00 1261 117 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 19:00 983 97 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 20:00 720 74 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 21:00 495 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 3 1 This intersection SATISFIES the warrants for signalization as outlined in the "M.U.T.C.D." PI -M. 5 x ASSOCIATES UETC ITEF.RS, INC. Table 11 Traffic Signal Warrants Results Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive Projected Traffic Conditions. Page 22 — P tAFT r 71-11 t`ff t 1 f: ! ] I �� r'.— I,: 1 F ra �T FINAL. RESULTS: Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Hour warrant was met: Major St.: Rahling Road Minor St.: Wellington Plantation VOLUME COMB. 4 Hr. Peak 10 -Year Projected 600 900 480 720 Conditions 150 75 120 60 SUM MAX. HOUR MAJOR MINOR 1A 1B 1AB 2 3 7:00 1454 138 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 8:00 1150 119 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 9:00 865 89 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10:00 666 121 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11:00 1008 144 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 12:00 957 164 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 13:00 994 158 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 14:00 1122 168 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 15:00 1219 179 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 16:00 1373 175 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 17:00 1672 220 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18:00 1351 190 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19:00 1092 157 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 20:00 724 127 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 21:00 471 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 11 11 11 2 This intersection SATISFIES the warrants for signalization as outlined in the "M.U.T.C.D." Table 12 Traffic Signal Warrants Results Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive Projected Traffic Conditions. PETERS & ASSOCIATES '} ENGINEERS, INC. Page 23 019AFT I f�'r: i i �r r. � •f f fr�r Other issues that have been taken into consideration as a part of this study are as follows: • Existing and projected 10 -year 24-hour traffic volumes are depicted on Figure 7, "Existing and Projected 10 - year 24 -Hour Weekday Traffic Volumes." As depicted on Figure 7, all of the traffic volumes depicted on the Collector Street are less than the 5,000 vehicles per day service volumes per the City of Little Rock MSP. • Existing and 10 -year 24—hour projected traffic volume on Rahling Road in the vicinity of the study area is pro- jected to be 17,200 vehicles per day. This is less than the 18,000 vehicles per day service volumes per the City of Little Rock MSP. Reserve capacity will exist. • There is a planned approximate 120 -unit condominium development to be located on the west side of Rahling Road, north of Pebble Beach Drive. Expected traffic 'v viui i Hca aawiia Lcu JvIu i ung ucve:opir ient have 'been included in the projected traffic volumes. • Traffic signal warrants should be monitored at the inter- section of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive as development continues in the vicinity. At which time traffic signal warrants are met within the next ten years, a traffic signal should be installed at this intersection. Although it was not analyzed as a part of this study, traffic signal warrants are likely already met at the inter- section of Hinson Road and Pebble Beach Drive with existing traffic volumes. • There is a planned Little Rock School District (LRSD) elementary school located on Taylor Loop Road (West), just south of Cantrell Road. Vehicles accessing this new school will likely use most direct routes via Rahling Road and Hinson Road, possibly decreasing some cut- thru traffic that currently exists on the Collector streets within the study area. l�f PETERS & ASSOCIATES ETCRVEF.RR, INC Page 24 • Once the future planned extension to the north of La March Drive to Taylor Loop Road is in place, it is ex- pected that some traffic currently using Rahling Road or to and from the La Marche Drive neighborhoods will di- vert directly to Taylor Loop Road and use the La March Drive extension causing a likely reduction in traffic vol- umes on Rahling Road. Additionally, this could also reduce cut thru volume on Pebble Beach Road and on Beckenham Drive. • As commercial development continues to the west and south of the study area, and more goods and services are available to the west and south, orientation of east/west traffic volumes on Collectors may re -distribute more evenly east -west rather than the pre -dominant orientation toward the east as demonstrated in existing traffic volumes. • If the proposed master street plan changes or other Collector connections are not made to Rahling Road and if the proposed land uses are not constructed, but rather the existing zoning is constructed, then it is esti- mated that Rahling Road will have a projected 10 -year 24-hour volume of 16,050 vehicles per day and Pebble Beach Drive will have a projected 10 -year 24-hour vol- ume of 3,700 vehicles per day at Rahling Road. PETERS & ASSOCIATES E,GUvEFRs, INC, — Page 25 AFT pit f. Findings of this study are summarized as follows: Capacity and level of service analysis was performed for existing traffic conditions for the worst-case AM and PM peak hours for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive. For this intersection, all existing vehicle movements for existing traffic conditions presently operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours except for the westbound vehi- cle movements on Pebble Beach Drive at Rahling Road during the PM peak hour (LOS "E") with "Stop" sign control. Level of service analysis was performed for the projected 10 -year traffic conditions. for the intersections studied, the only vehicle movements with capacity and LOS results demonstrating very long to extreme traffic delays (LOS "E" or "F") for the AM and/or PM peak hours for these projected traffic conditions are the following: IAI V estboun' ILII-lUl l l VetI:0IG imoveI I IGI II on r eLL., G Beach Drive at Rahling Road (LOS "F") during the PM peak hour with "Stop" sign control. This vehicle movement improves to an acceptable LOS "B" with traffic signal control. Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Drive A at Rahling Road (LOS "E") during the PM peak hour with "Stop" sign control. This volume is low (only 8 vehicles) and the delay should only occur for a short time during the PM peak hour. Additionally, these vehicles have the option of using the protected left - turn at the adjacent proposed signalized intersection of Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive. Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Welling- ton Plantation Drive at Rahling Road (LOS "F") dur- ing the AM and PM peak hours with "Stop" sign con- trol. This vehicle movement improves to an accept- able LOS "C" during the AM peak hour and LOS "B" during the PM peak hour with traffic signal control. PETERS & ASSOCIATES Q ENGINEERS, INC Page 26 FT PPA r r�r Northbound left -turn vehicle movement on Drive D at Rahling Road (LOS "E") during the AM and PM peak hours with "Stop" sign control. This volume is low (only 30 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 17 vehicles during the PM peak hour) and the delay should only occur for a short time during the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, these vehicles have the option of using the protected left -turn at the ad- jacent proposed signalized intersection of Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive. All other vehicle movements for these projected traffic con- ditions for the intersections studied are projected to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours. • It was found that traffic signal warrants are not currently met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive with existing traffic volumes. It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive for projected 10 -year traffic conditions. Traffic signal warrants should be monitored as development continues in the vicinity. At which time traffic signal warrants are met within the next ten years, a traffic signal should be installed at this intersection. • It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive for projected 10 -year traffic conditions. A traffic signal should be constructed to coincide with the de- velopment of the proposed land uses and master street plan changes in the study area. • It was found that existing and projected 10 -year 24-hour traffic volumes depicted on the Collector Streets in the vi- cinity of the study area are less than the 5,000 vehicles per day service volumes per the City of Little Rock MSP. 1JPETERS & ASSOCIATER ENGINEERS, INC. Page 27 AFT pitr r ',',T r' r_% I r -r. , , fir , •rf(. �r G It was found that existing and 10 -year 24—hour pro- jected traffic volume on Rahling Road in the vicinity of the study area is projected to be 17,200 vehicles per day. This is less than the 18,000 vehicles per day service volumes per the City of Little Rock MSP. Re- serve capacity will exist. If the proposed master street plan changes or other Collector connections are not made to Rahling Road and if the proposed land uses are not constructed, but rather the existing zoning is constructed, then it is es- timated that Rahling Road will have a projected 10 - year 24-hour volume of 16,050 vehicles per day and Pebble Beach Drive will have a projected 10 -year 24- hour volume of 3,700 vehicles per day at Rahling Road. PETERS & ASSOCIATES F.NCINF,ERS, INC. Page 28 PETERS & ASSOCIATES FNCMFF.RS, ]NC C] c) cn iw W z LL Op BM z w 0 AU) 00 A w a U -)o a Lr) o z 0 2 CJ i Q NT r ■ Q W coC CD ul a a� HAHLING R4. �7 .l. Z � w a J � a w 7 . 5491 � Z o cr 5544 ! J w Jad � Q _j 44 4608 4712. .11035. `�CY J CN 0 44 9,320 ` a_ 32 94 <42� 521 awQ m � � W 17 o O i 0 •4`i0 o m �a E N dpi Em O-1 -d f�1 Oj VI L OD m PG u v C W A N N Io H F �� aN PW, o1 LLI U O ZN f "-- CL v� Ll NORIT Z - E w off rt a as ----- LLuZ� a : ° o z a �t �z¢ LZ 28 -,A°' U Z d CO Z �r�� za_ w Q o� m s w LU w �o v�v oR ■ � �3 �w 0. 1 -AHL1NG RD. Q F— Z W Q a f O O Ja Y j W j C7 Z Y o J w CO 0 d 0 = W � 24� j X77 yd � WO J 567 --e ate. w O d a 455 Of a- �y ccs o «� , 4�,: L' 141 4 3 1 w C) o-530 c- = 0-1 26 X75 co W 527 t> w Q 4-417 U O U :1- 1 CD 04 M a 4 a s o- 406 a o E-R CD 61 Poi ZN �� F I UJ, Li NORTH o i da OC L] 4 LU co ui tV us cv 00 46 �Y-C 20 140 0- Lu 0 12S L- :L (o N 80 4-93 CLT - c> LL An pall -q?"o, L L o� / N fld 1 16 87 < 32 0- Lli 0 74 cl :r 62 Ye 43 30 0 4-69 CL -r cv C,- 14 < D 148 D- 0- LU 0 125 CL T Ln o 92 --b < < iu C) 10-3 a- !L U) U) LU o W Lo T 0 0 w FL LL < z Z> LLI r-) 0 < C)(D —i Elf LLJ LLJ u Q 0 LLJ < F - (f) Cr F- 0 a_ 0 Cl) E- 17 < 0 144 a- Ld 0 a 141 Ad OD Go V. E- S m C3 (U 61P.w 122 Qwa o- Z 107 c-tu CL :L DOH -P 3-j- 0 162 c'L LU 0 132 U 3' Y aC 17 < 0 2) 2 NORTH LL An pall -q?"o, L L o� / N fld 1 16 87 < 32 0- Lli 0 74 cl :r 62 Ye 43 30 0 4-69 CL -r cv C,- 14 < D 148 D- 0- LU 0 125 CL T Ln o 92 --b < < iu C) 10-3 a- !L U) U) LU o W Lo T 0 0 w FL LL < z Z> LLI r-) 0 < C)(D —i Elf LLJ LLJ u Q 0 LLJ < F - (f) Cr F- 0 a_ 0 Cl) E- 17 < 0 144 a- Ld 0 a 141 Ad OD Go V. E- S m C3 (U 61P.w 122 Qwa o- Z 107 c-tu CL :L DOH -P 3-j- o� 0 x Q ku DD t M10 �u m ca N On 47 J [ 20 873-o, 00.. u 0 o- 734 L T 3i3 g Y 15 SG9 -v ¢ w n 4-732 � ca 26 X94 815 o.. UJ CJ 665 a ssa c�� a1 16 �' 156 e 603 622 � t DR N LL c� Y C 14 881 -a a- w 0 o-740 D in a-� 677 -p d w a *-742 -00 U C � C (0 mn� Ln cu >1 (D a o tf U cO -a a) c N 07 N "(Dw cn2 O � � C O O N > U a U d O N d)_0 LU E O �a Zc o O 0 a� YO� x.17 982 --t> - u 0 a- 790 a- T LO w 710-o Q LU p 0-8-71 c Q z w E Z O O Y J Ld Q Ne p z o p = w U) F- [IfF- 0a_ �O�/ LL. V) N U O rn d� vi m rn x P, jr, MOD W I o W N a 61 ZN F = um Ld o -C O -a as 4 C) 2 z 137 164 744 a L3.. u Q d 646 a .: 110 ` y of 184 567 {, 4 w ❑ 692 a. 2 c� Y C 14 881 -a a- w 0 o-740 D in a-� 677 -p d w a *-742 -00 U C � C (0 mn� Ln cu >1 (D a o tf U cO -a a) c N 07 N "(Dw cn2 O � � C O O N > U a U d O N d)_0 LU E O �a Zc o O 0 a� YO� x.17 982 --t> - u 0 a- 790 a- T LO w 710-o Q LU p 0-8-71 c Q z w E Z O O Y J Ld Q Ne p z o p = w U) F- [IfF- 0a_ �O�/ LL. V) N U O rn d� vi m rn x P, jr, MOD W I o W N a 61 ZN F = um Ld o -C O -a as ■ME310 Q L t0 U)00 W O Lq mLLJ a- v v ■ ■ � L CO N It W O N u v v v o (Existing) 11035 . LU (10—Year) m . 17200 110. Qiy �N MR A N O r W (D 1 o! W r D ZJ A J A / 14 Z'IC)IV DR. OfOfU) w pLU Z Ld C) _joc N U p W U H � U W W Q O � ry ~ o_ Q p p Q W W _Z H U) X W W a � pv, W Q a O O Jo a W W CD L) Z_ o� J W O --j n O V) W U O co �rj d F, M a M W ICD W N 61 Z.4 - cu — H � U W _ o wa as --_�` U� � � Z W 0 =W UO C) W LU Z 0 Q a Z J W O U } Y 4— OD m ernnq Ra [ap��T �r��y Is1 ,�o OR co �Day6 4 G a. �7 T � � a � KAHLING R ar Q U Z y m W a_ Q Q O O T w Q Yy o > Y �Z - F C 0 a J of W Q rJ- a C Ranting Rd. •� O J o ctf a_ F ti y y R~V Rd cc � U m n p� M W d o W C7 N 61 ZN F r U Q+ �. iFiiKT}i a Q, PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENCIWERS, INC PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. n Vicinity Map Master Street Plan Admendment Case: MSP -08-01 Location: Wellington Plantation Dr. Ward: 5 PD: 19 0 450 900 1,800 Feet CT: 42.10 TRS: T2N R13W30 MFS MF12 I OS PDR Kvio�.,Yi r r v ` w •'1 � 1V T - I � r+ Area , Vicinity Map r3F r �r\. i� a � L ti� }; �� • '�'► r~ L� 9 ` 1E r 1 'r �� � '� r � ,� e ■ �. y 7 ry � t �1Vulu Case: Z -8165-A N Location: East side of Rahling Road south of Pebble Beach Ward: 5 PD: 19 CT: 42.10 TRS: T2N R13W30 0 250500 1,000 Feet Vicinity Map Area Zonin Case: LU08-19-02 N Location: East side of Rahling Road south of Pebble Beach LDR and SF to C, MF, O and OS Ward: 5 PD: 19 0 250500 1,000 Feet CT: 42.10 TRS: T2N R13W30 I PK/OS MX SF X1A100-, O NC MF .may"- _+•' *w lr �'r ��•� {itl� r � r >• • 11 � ■ ; Vicinity Map WA 1 � -,r �� 1 t • ti 1 i ++� tea! ■ ♦ y• i � � ',`�. Land Use Plan Case: Z -8165-A N Location: East side of Rahling Road south of Pebble Beash Ward: 5 PD: 19 0 250500 1,000 Feet CT: 42.10 TRS: T2N R13W30 Legend [ . n. 1 a■ ti w i�. .r ,.L 1 : 1 changeMF Mc 7 i SF f Y r M ♦ r � � t � �r � y i �► . r � I •A,l n��r� ► • 1 �, y '/1•L + � n i}'y't'. y '^� �1•I�r•a ♦ moi+ z � r a x I _ + Y � r� •fes r 1 ♦ r 1 i 1 t + • 4 r �r * 1 � � s�r! i*r �w '*' `iia'• {� ,s. 1 1 s r a = t' f W Ii►•'w � ■� Land Use Plan Amendment Case: LU08-19-02 N Location: East side of Rahling Road south of Pebble Beach LDR and SF to C, MF, O and OS Ward: 5 PD: 19 0 250500 1,000 Feet CT: 42.10 TRS: T2N R13W30 P -P -J, PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENCINRERE, 1NC P1378 Little Rock, Arkansas Mixed -Use Development Single -Family (R-2) (107 Acres) 214 Lots I 210 Multi -Family (MF -18) (20 Acres) 360 Units 220 TOTAL ENTERIN PROPOSED ZONING TWO-WAYPM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR APPROX.• VOLUME VOLUME SIZE CODE VOLUMEENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT Residential Single -Family (R-2) (60.1 Acres) 120 Lots 210 1,148 23 67 77 44 Residential Multi -Family (MF -18) (20 Acres) 300 Units 220 2,016 30 123 120 66 Residential Multi -Family (MF -18) (20 Acres) 300 Units 220 2,016 30 123 120 66 *Commercial Tracts (3.48 Acre, 5.7 Acre and 10.7 Acre) (Neighborhood Comr 110,000 Sq. Ft. 820 3,778 55 35 158 172 1.56 Acre Office Tract 15,000 Sq. Ft. 710 165 20 3 4 19 2.93 Acre Office Tract 28,00L5q. . Ft. 1 710 308 38 5 7 35 196 356 486 402 TOTALS: 9,431 552 TOTAL ENTERING +EXITING *These volumes adjusted to reflect 20% internal capture Existing Zoning Summary of Multi -Use Trip Generation Average Weekday Driveway Volumes September 26, 2008 24 Hour AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour Two -Way Land Use Size Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Single Family Detached Housing 214 Dwelling Units 2048 41 120 137 79 Apartments 360 Dwelling Units 2419 36 148 144 79 Total 4467 77 268 281 158 Note: A zero indicates no data available. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS P1378 - PROPOSED LAND USES Summary of Multi -Use Trip Generation Average Weekday Driveway Volumes September 22, 2008 Note: A zero indicates no data available. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 24 Hour AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour Two -Way Land Use Size Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Single Family Detached Housing 120 Dwelling Units 1148 23 67 77 44 Apartments 300 Dwelling Units 2016 30 123 120 66 Apartments 300 Dwelling Units 2016 30 123 120 66 Shopping Center 110.0 T.G.L.A. 4723 69 44 198 215 General Office Building 15.0 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. 165 20 3 4 19 General Office Building 28.0 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. 308 38 5 7 35 Total 10376 210 365 526 445 Note: A zero indicates no data available. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 1 PETERS & ASSOCIATES FNC[NFF.RS, INC. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data AM Hour Turning Movement Count Data Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Road Little Rock, AR P-1378 Rahling Rd. From North Printed- AM Count Data Pebble Beach Dr. From East File Name : AM -TM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 09/23/2008 Page No : 1 From South rill 07:00 AM 49 2 51 7 8 15 9 45 54 120 07:15 AM 51 1 52 4 11 15 26 66 92 159 07:30 AM 73 1 74 6 17 23 60 149 209 306 07:45 AM 109 1 110 6 25 31 72 118 190 331 Total 282 5 287 23 61 84 } 167 378 545 916 08:00 AM 129 8 137 5 35 40 30 76 106 283 08:15 AM 80 7 87 2 21 23 12 67 79 189 08:30 AM 90 1 91 5 19 24 17 54 71 186 08:45 AM 73 1 74 1 19 201 9 55 64 158 Total 372 17 .389 13 94 1071 68 252 320 816 Grand Total 654 22 676 I 36 155 191 235 630 865 1732 Apprch % 96.7 3.3 18.8 81.2 27.2 72.8 Total % 37.8 1.3 39.0 2.1 8.9 11.0. 13.6 36.4 49.9 . Rabling R4. Out In Total ® 676 11342 654 22' Left 1 4 T °� C North * A 2312008 7:00: AM? + 3 2312008 8:45:00 AM -+ AM CGwit Data x nom: T r Thr, am 630 235 809 8 F 1674 Out In Total Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data AM Hour Turning Movement Count Data Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Road Little Rock, AR P-1378 File Name : AM -TM From North Start Time Thru [ Left our From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - PeaF Intersection 07:30 AM 98 Volume 391 17 Percent 95.8 4.2 07:45 Volume 109 1 Peak Factor 5 35 High Int. 08:00 AM Volume 129 8 Peak Factor :30:00 AM� 40 File Name : AM -TM From East Total Right Left : 09/23/2008 Page No 4081 19 98 117 16.2 83.8 110 6 25 70.2 1 08:00 AM 31 137 5 35 0.745 . File Name : AM -TM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 09/23/2008 Page No '2 RaNng Rd. From South Total Right ThruI App. Total Int. Total 117 174 410 584 1109 29.8 70.2 1 L► 31 72 118 190 331 0.838 R 07:30 AM :30:00 AM� 40 60 149 209 0.731 . v 0.699 RaNng Rd. Out In Total 429 837 39117 Thru Lei! 1 L► T North R :30:00 AM� w —51 S m r2006 2312006 8:15:00 AM r p° v AM Count 008 M Thru Ri 174 48 r 75541073 Out inTotal Rahli Rd. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data PM Hour Turning Movement Count Data Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive Little Rock, AR P-1378 Grouns Printed- PM Count Data File Name : PM -TM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 09/22/2008 Page No : 1 05:00 PM 108 RahTing Rd. 6 Pebble Beach Rd. 05:15 PM 146 Rahling Rd. 152 6 28 05:30 PM From North 10 151 From East 29 05;45 PM From South 6 132 Start Time Thru Left I App. Total Right I Left I App. Total Right I Thru I App. Total Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 7.2 1.01 1.0 83.6 Total % 1.0 1.0 42.9 1.7 8.6 04:00 PM 83 9 92 3 17 20 22 95 117 229 04:15 PM 77 8 85 6 22 28 21 103 124 237 04:30 PM 89 12 101 3 23 26 23 96 119 246 04:45 PM 79 5 84 3 21 24 17 83 108 402 125 485t 233 945 Total 328 34 362.1 15 83 98 05:00 PM 108 10 118 6 13 05:15 PM 146 6 152 6 28 05:30 PM 141 10 151 4 29 05;45 PM 125 6 132 5 31 Total 521 32 553 21 101 Grand Total 849 66915 36 184 Apprch % 92.8 7.2 16.4 83.6 Total % 39.8 3.1 42.9 1.7 8.6 Rabling Rd.. Out In Total 859 815 1 1774 849 fie Thu Left 1 L► 1919 279 123 34 321 24 111 33 112 27 99 36 24 88 722 2135 94 421 2201 177 823 17.7 82.3 10.3 , 8.3 38.5 142 279 135 321 126 310 112 280 515. 1190 10001 2135 46.8 Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data PM Hour Turning Movement Count Data File Name : PM -TM Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive Site Code : 00000000 Little Rock, AR Start Date : 09/22/2008 P-1378 Page No :2 Rohling . Out in Total 442 &53 995 s � 32 � Rahling Rd. From North I Pebble Beach Rd. From East I Rahling Rd. From South Left Start Time Thru Left j App. Total Right I Left I App. Total Right Thru I_App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 O N �i fl North Intersection 05:00 PM j 20 0:00 P11 Volume 521 32 553 21 101 122 94 421 515 1190 Percent 94.2 5.8 17.2 82.8 18.3 81.7 IR 05:15 Volume 146 6 152 6 28 34 24 111 135 321 Peak Factor 0.927 High Int. 05:15 PM 05:45 PM 05:00 PM Volume 146 6 152 5 31 36 19 123 142 Peak Factor 0.910 0.847 0.907 Rohling . Out in Total 442 &53 995 s � 32 � Left 1 Z O N �i fl North L �• °' v 20 0:00 P11 2212008 5:45:00 PM PM Count Data n o Q 00 — h!42194 Thru IR 622 1 1137 Out Total Rahli I r? .401� PETERS & ASSOCIATES HNUMMERs, INC. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1 1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 4- t Movement _WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ►Yr 635 T+ 425 Volume Left t Sign Control Stop 0 Free 21 189 Free Grade 0% 287 0% 948 1700 0% Volume (veh/h) 98 19 410 174 17 391 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 107 21 446 189 18 425 Pedestrians 0.4 Approach LOS D Lane Width (ft) Intersection Summary Average Delay Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Percent Blockage ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1002 540 635 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1002 540 635 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 60 96 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 263 542 948 Direction. Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 127 635 18 425 Volume Left 107 0 18 0 Volume Right 21 189 0 0 cSH 287 1700 948 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.44 0.37 0.02 0.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 54 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 27.1 0.0 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS D A Approach Delay (s) 27.1 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing Traffic; Existing Geometrics AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1 1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 II f *'- t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y NB 1 T* ►� + Sign Control Stop 35 Free Volume Left Free Grade 0% 0 0% 23 0% Volume (veh/h) 101 21 421 94 32 521 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 110 23 458 102 35 566 Pedestrians 0.0 8.7 0.0 Lane LOS E Lane Width (ft) A Approach Delay (s) 37.4 0.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) Approach LOS E Percent Blockage Intersection Summary Right turn flare (veh) 4.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization Median type None ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1145 509 560 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1145 509 560 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 P01 yui. ui. fircc ofiu 49 9e 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 213 564 1011 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 133 560 35 566 Volume Left 110 0 35 0 Volume Right 23 102 0 0 cSH 239 1700 1011 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.56 0.33 0.03 0.33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 37.4 0.0 8.7 0.0 Lane LOS E A Approach Delay (s) 37.4 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing Traffic; Existing Geometrics PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1 1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 4,- t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # None 1039 338 1039 338 6.8 6.9 3.5 3.3 55 97 221 658 Stop WB 2 NB 1 Fee Volume Left 100 Fee 0% 0 0% 17 0 0% 92 16 622 156 16 603 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 100 17 676 170 17 655 None 1039 338 1039 338 6.8 6.9 3.5 3.3 55 97 221 658 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 846 846 4.1 2.2 98 787 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 100 17 338 338 170 17 328 328 Volume Left 100 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 Volume Right 0 17 0 0 170 0 0 0 cSH 221 658 1700 1700 1700 787 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.45 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.02 0.19 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 54 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 34.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay (s) 30.5 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development Queues Pagel 1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 "r t /- \0- 1 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 17 676 170 17 655 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.03 0.35 0.12 0.04 0.29 Control Delay 15.4 4.5 8.6 0.7 4.8 4.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 15.4 4.5 8.6 0.7 4.8 4.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 0 30 0 1 28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 58 8 116 10 7 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 686 675 537 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 721 640 2324 1365 564 2790 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.03 0.29 0.12 0.03 0.23 Intersection Summary Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2 1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 92 r tt ? 16 tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3539 1583 585 3539 Volume (vph) 92 16 622 156 16 603 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 100 17 676 170 17 655 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 52 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 4 676 118 17 655 Turn Type Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 pm+ov 0.1 pm+ov pm+pt 0.0 Protected Phases 8 1 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases B 8 A 2 6 Approach Delay (s) 17.6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 10.5 24.5 32.7 31.8 31.8 Effective Green, g (s) 9.2 12.5 25.5 34.7 32.8 32.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.25 0.51 0.69 0.66 0.66 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 326 522 1805 1225 462 2322 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.00 c0.19 0.02 0.00 c0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.06 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.01 0.37 0.10 0.04 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 17.6 14.1 7.4 2.5 3.4 3.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 18.2 14.1 7.6 2.5 3.4 3.7 Level of Service B B A A A A Approach Delay (s) 17.6 6.5 3.7 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2 2: Drive A & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 f -I ♦ I # Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r +I tt Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 12 46 732 15 30 665 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 50 796 16 33 723 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1230 406 812 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1230 406 812 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 nn ni IPI IA frPP. % Ai Qi 9Fi cm capacity (veh/h) 163 594 810 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 13 50 530 282 33 361 361 Volume Left 13 0 0 0 33 0 0 Volume Right 0 50 0 16 0 0 0 cSH 163 594 1700 1700 810 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.08 0.31 0.17 0.04 0.21 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 7 0 0 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 29.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B A Approach Delay (s) 15.2 0.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 3 3: Drive B & Rahling Road* 368 368 Volume Left (vph) 0 9/29/2008 0 4 0 I 5 0 II i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Departure Headway (s) r 0 5.3 5.4 tt Sign Control Stop 0.79 Stop 0.55 0.55 Stop Volume (vph) 0 5 742 10 0 677 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 5 807 11 0 736 Direction, Lane #- WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph) 5 538 280 368 368 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right (vph) 5 0 11 0 0 Hadj (s) -0.57 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 Departure Headway (s) 6.0 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.79 0.41 0.55 0.55 Capacity (veh/h) 562 669 663 654 656 Control Delay (s) 9.1 24.1 10.7 13.5 13.5 Approach Delay (s) 9.1 19.5 13.5 Approach LOS A C B Intersection Summary Delay 16.6 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 4 4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 4- t /'0- \*. Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 155 65 ++ 376 200 ++ Sign Control Stop Volume Left Free 0 0 Free Grade 0% 0 0% Volume Right 0 0% Volume (veh/h) 143 60 692 184 110 567 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 155 65 752 200 120 616 Pedestrians 0.18 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 240 9 0 Lane Width (ft) 0 15 0 0 Control Delay (s) 216.6 Walking Speed (ft/s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 Percent Blockage F B B Right turn flare (veh) Approach Delay (s) 155.9 0.0 Median type None Approach LOS F Median storage veh) Intersection Summary Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked Average Delay 18.7 vC, conflicting volume 1299 376 Intersection Capacity Utilization 952 vC1, stage 1 conf vol of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1299 376 952 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 .,n , c fircc of 0 cin 83 cM capacity (veh/h) 127 621 717 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 155 65 376 376 200 120 308 308 Volume Left 155 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 Volume Right 0 65 0 0 200 0 0 0 cSH 127 621 1700 1700 1700 717 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 1.22 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 240 9 0 0 0 15 0 0 Control Delay (s) 216.6 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B B Approach Delay (s) 155.9 0.0 1.8 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development Queues Page 1 4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 f *-- I ♦ / I i Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SSL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 65 752 200 120 616 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.10 0.43 0.17 0.25 0.26 Control Delay 20.2 3.3 11.9 0.8 7.9 4.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.2 3.3 11.9 0.8 7.9 4.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 0 79 0 11 33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 17 153 11 34 73 Internal Link Dist (ft) 528 404 601 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 627 589 2083 1235 632 2715 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.11 0.36 0.16 0.19 0.23 Intersection Summa Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2 4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 4-- t lb� v. Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Vi if tt r ►j tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3539 1583 591 3539 Volume (vph) 143 60 692 184 110 567 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 155 65 752 200 120 616 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 65 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 20 752 135 120 616 Turn Type pm+ov pm+ov pm+pt Protected Phases 8 1 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 15.3 26.8 36.5 37.4 37.4 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 17.3 27.8 3 8. 5 38.4 38.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.30 0.49 0.67 0.67 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Glp Cap (vph) 332 591 1723 23 1178 53.4 2380 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.00 c0.21 0.02 0.03 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.06 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.03 0.44 0.11 0.22 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 20.7 14.0 9.5 3.3 5.6 3.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 21.7 14.0 9.7 3.3 5.8 3.8 Level of Service C B A A A A Approach Delay (s) 19.4 8.4 4.1 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 57.1 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 5 5: Drive C & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 t II i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r 0 tt Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 5 871 11 0 710 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 5 947 12 0 772 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1339 479 959 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1339 479 959 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 144 532 713 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 5 631 328 386 386 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 5 0 12 0 0 cSH 532 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.37 0.19 0.23 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 11.8 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 6 6: Rahling Road & Drive D 9/29/2008 --P. -I* 4___ Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 0 tf r Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 843 26 16 694 30 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 916 28 17 754 33 42 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 945 1342 472 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 945 1342 472 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 nn rn iai is frog 0/ QR 77 07 cmcapacity (veh/h) 722 140 538 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 611 334 17 377 377 33 42 Volume Left 0 0 17 0 0 33 0 Volume Right 0 28 0 0 0 0 42 cSH 1700 1700 722 1700 1700 140 538 Volume to Capacity 0.36 0.20 0.02 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 21 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 38.4 12.3 Lane LOS B E B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 23.6 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 7 7: Wellington Plantation Drive & Beckenham Drive 9/29/2008 --1' -0. 4-- 4,- -*\ t 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T 1 T T Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 133 123 10 10 109 63 4 3 3 37 7 102 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 145 134 11 11 118 68 4 3 3 40 8 111 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 187 145 683 637 139 602 608 153 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 187 145 683 637 139 602 608 153 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 90 99 98 99 100 89 98 88 cM capacity (veh/h) 1387 1438 287 351 909 373 365 893 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 145 145 11 187 4 7 40 118 Volume Left 145 0 11 0 4 0 40 0 Volume Right 0 11 0 68 0 3 0 111 cSH 1387 1700 1438 1700 287 507 373 817 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.09 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 1 0 1 1 9 13 Control Delay (s) 7.9 0.0 7.5 0.0 17.8 12.2 15.8 10.2 Lane LOS A A C B C B Approach Delay (s) 3.9 0.4 14.4 11.6 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1 1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road Lane Width (ft) 102 9/29/2008 ,(- 4-- r Volume Left 114 i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r tt 0 Median type tt Sign Control Stop Free Median storage veh) 0 Free Grade 0% 0% 635 1700 0% Volume (veh/h) 105 18 665 94 26 815 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 114 20 723 102 28 886 Pedestrians 114 20 361 Lane Width (ft) 102 28 443 Walking Speed (ft/s) Volume Left 114 0 Percent Blockage 0 0 28 Right turn flare (veh) 0 Volume Right 0 Median type None 0 102 Median storage veh) 0 0 cSH Upstream signal (ft) 635 1700 1700 pX, platoon unblocked 801 1700 1700 vC, conflicting volume 1222 361 825 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 0.06 0.04 0.26 vC2, stage 2 conf vol Queue Length 95th (ft) 102 2 vCu, unblocked vol 1222 361 825 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 n0 queue free % 31 97 96 cm capacity (veh/h) 166 635 801 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 114 20 361 361 102 28 443 443 Volume Left 114 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 Volume Right 0 20 0 0 102 0 0 0 cSH 166 635 1700 1700 1700 801 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.69 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.04 0.26 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 102 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 64.5 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B A Approach Delay (s) 56.7 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development Queues Pagel 1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 4 4-- t II i Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SF T Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 20 723 102 28 886 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.04 0.38 0.07 0.07 0.40 Control Delay 16.8 4.6 8.8 0.8 5.2 5.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.8 4.6 8.8 0.8 5.2 5.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 0 34 0 2 44 Queue Length 95th (ft) 67 9 130 8 10 94 Internal Link Dist (ft) 686 675 537 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 678 632 2179 1442 528 2647 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.03 0.33 0.07 0.05 0.33 Intersection Summary Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2 1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r tt ? tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3539 1583 552 3539 Volume (vph) 105 18 665 94 26 815 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 114 20 723 102 28 886 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 29 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 114 5 723 73 28 886 Turn Type pm+ov pm+ov pm+pt Protected Phases 8 1 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.4 11.9 27.4 36.8 34.9 34.9 Cff +1•1,,II !•` g 1c) LI ecti a Green, s 1n A - 9Z O I 9 7Q A L _ 38 Q V .V ZF 9 VV. ZC 0 VV.V Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.26 0.52 0.71 0.66 0.66 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Glp Cap (vph) 339 522 1851 1248 443 2340 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.00 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.01 0.39 0.06 0.06 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 15.1 7.8 2.3 3.6 4.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 19.6 15.1 7.9 2.3 3.7 4.3 Level of Service B B A A A A Approach Delay (s) 18.9 7.2 4.2 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2 2: Drive A & Rahling Road II 9/29/2008 f *-- t t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations if +I, tt Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 8 26 734 20 47 873 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 28 798 22 51 949 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1385 410 820 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1385 410 820 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 93 95 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 126 591 805 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 9 28 532 288 51 474 474 Volume Left 9 0 0 0 51 0 0 Volume Right 0 28 0 22 0 0 0 cSH 126 591 1700 1700 805 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.05 0.31 0.17 0.06 0.28 0.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 4 0 0 5 0 0 Control Delay (s) 35.7 11.4 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS E B A Approach Delay (s) 17.1 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 3 3: Drive B & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 t t* \0- i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations 0 F +T+ Volume Right (vph) 22 tt Sign Control Stop 0 Stop -0.57 0.03 Stop Volume (vph) 0 20 740 14 0 881 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 22 804 15 0 958 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph) 22 536 283 479 479 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right (vph) 22 0 15 0 0 Hadj (s) -0.57 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.04 0.85 0.45 0.73 0.73 Capacity (veh/h) 554 622 614 641 636 Control Delay (s) 9.5 31.6 12.0 21.0 21.0 Approach Delay (s) 9.5 24.8 21.0 Approach LOS A C C Intersection Summary Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 4 4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahling Road II 9/29/2008 f- 4- t i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations WB 1 WB 2 tt i NB 3 tt Sign Control Stop Volume Total Free 117 351 Free Grade 0% 404 0% Volume Left 259 0% Volume (veh/h) 238 108 646 164 137 744 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 259 117 702 178 149 809 Pedestrians 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 2.46 0.18 0.21 Lane Width (ft) 0.10 0.20 0.24 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 584 Walking Speed (ft/s) 0 0 0 18 0 0 Percent Blockage 751.1 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 Right turn flare (veh) 0.0 Lane LOS F B Median type None Approach Delay (s) 520.3 Median storage veh) 1.7 Approach LOS Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked Intersection Summary vC, conflicting volume 1404 351 Average Delay 880 89.1 vC1, stage 1 conf vol Intersection Capacity Utilization vC2, stage 2 conf vol 48.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) vCu, unblocked vol 1404 351 880 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 0 82 80 cM capacity (veh/h) 105 645 763 Direction. Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 259 117 351 351 178 149 404 404 Volume Left 259 0 0 0 0 149 0 0 Volume Right 0 117 0 0 178 0 0 0 cSH 105 645 1700 1700 1700 763 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 2.46 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.20 0.24 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 584 17 0 0 0 18 0 0 Control Delay (s) 751.1 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B B Approach Delay (s) 520.3 0.0 1.7 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 89.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development Queues Pagel 4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 ,- i Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 117 702 178 149 809 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.15 0.50 0.14 0.33 0.39 Control Delay 22.8 4.2 16.1 0.8 8.2 7.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.8 4.2 16.1 0.8 8.2 7.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 6 88 0 18 59 Queue Length 95th (ft) 160 31 184 13 54 133 Internal Link Dist (ft) 528 404 601 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 686 784 1687 1285 541 2410 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.15 014 0.28 034 Intersection Su Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2 4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahling Road Actuated Cycle Length (s) 9/29/2008 Intersection Capacity Utilization f- Analysis Period (min) t 1* "0. II i Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r tt r tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3539 1583 475 3539 Volume (vph) 238 108 646 164 137 744 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 259 117 702 178 149 809 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 63 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 71 702 115 149 809 Turn Type pm+ov pm+ov pm+pt Protected Phases 8 1 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 19.4 20.6 33.6 32.0 32.0 Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 21.4 21.6 35.6 33.0 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.39 0.39 0.65 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 451 731 1390 1140 459 2123 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.01 c0.20 0.03 0.04 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.05 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.10 0.51 0.10 0.32 0.38 Uniform Delay, dl 17.9 10.7 12.7 3.7 5.7 5.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 19.7 10.7 12.9 3.7 6.1 5.8 Level of Service B B B A A A Approach Delay (s) 16.9 11.1 5.9 Approach LOS B B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.8 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 5 5: Drive C & Rahling Road 9/29/2008 f- t II t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r +11� tt Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 20 790 17 0 982 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 22 859 18 0 1067 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1402 439 877 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1402 439 877 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 2.2 nn nl IPI IP frPP 0/ inn AR inn cM capacity (veh/h) 131 566 766 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 22 572 305 534 534 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 22 0 18 0 0 cSH 566 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.34 0.18 0.31 0.31 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 11.6 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 6 6: Rahlinu Road & Drive D 9/29/2008 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 0 329 26 tf 521 r Sign Control Free 0 0 Free Stop 0 Grade 0% Volume Right 0 0% 0% 0 Volume (veh/h) 787 40 24 958 17 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 855 43 26 1041 18 22 Pedestrians 3 0 0 13 3 Control Delay (s) Lane Width (ft) 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 41.3 11.7 Walking Speed (ft/s) A E Percent Blockage Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 Right turn flare (veh) Approach LOS Median type D Intersection Summary None Median storage veh) Average Delay Upstream signal (ft) Intersection Capacity Utilization pX, platoon unblocked 36.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 vC, conflicting volume 899 1450 449 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 899 1450 449 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 84 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 751 117 557 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 570 329 26 521 521 18 22 Volume Left 0 0 26 0 0 18 0 Volume Right 0 43 0 0 0 0 22 cSH 1700 1700 751 1700 1700 117 557 Volume to Capacity 0.34 0.19 0.03 0.31 0.31 0.16 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 0 0 13 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 41.3 11.7 Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 25.3 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 7 7: Wellington Plantation Drive & Beckenham Drive 9/29/2008 II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ T T 1� Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 14 128 122 11 130 54 12 10 15 68 12 138 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 139 133 12 141 59 13 11 16 74 13 150 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 200 272 558 460 205 386 497 171 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 200 272 558 460 205 386 497 171 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 nn ni iaua fraP %, 99 99 96 98 98 RR 97 RR cM capacity (veh/h) 1372 1292 352 488 835 543 465 873 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 15 272 12 200 13 27 74 163 Volume Left 15 0 12 0 13 0 74 0 Volume Right 0 133 0 59 0 16 0 150 cSH 1372 1700 1292 1700 352 650 543 816 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 0 3 3 12 19 Control Delay (s) 7.7 0.0 7.8 0.0 15.6 10.8 12.7 10.5 Lane LOS A A C B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.4 12.4 11.2 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development I PETERS & ASSOCIATES � @NCINP.F.RS, ]NC J 0 U JO = N Izz m of 3 a p p tl a v a p p p p tl a a a fA = w � 7+ in' m o� oppaaapp.-.-.-ap z E � C O t U Om o v o v o 0 o v o 0 o v o IC 3 v 'o lC = m �`+oopptlpO6p.-dpp C W m al � V% J _V 0.. N ¢ 00000000000000 10 Qt G Oai Y- -.r m '. - WO m r - [O v o` m u o y K d O W (1 O: m N N C Q' 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �2 �2 �2' m m N a i , � H � 2 Mva�av�vvm`�Mo i3 m a `o v o �rnu°iimnmmmrnmomn�c '� L m _O 3 � EIL ornuO 2E; m O Q 4 o p o p e o 4 0 o e Q c O N LL Q e p Q e o o e a e o n n e a y � oMD n M 0� h ilJ O y ' M r d N< N tm0 m O n t00 £ ` RliE53§!2B§m;e o � )) � �,������ © k5■ � k\ e 2§@e23®g�g)E�a■ ---------- k ! { § : / � •2 2�@SI`l�;G��^!2 ........... / \ ƒ m■ � � ,-,,,,- - -,-,- � LD LU ,�}`(z! § „ o,,, , | 2@§ k v� § \\�z� �e & - &})wo f � / i®!m!■i4§;Sm§�, §�� / ) � of \ - ak ƒ z } | ) f§ ) (0 | ; #k _ w� V), ::;:22::::;;f /2§ (§i\ } ; 2 ; R � / �- 0 | ;;;� §am!lmmgmgqqqqqq !l - \J}7 { } £ ` RliE53§!2B§m;e o � )) � �,������ © k5■ � k\ e 2§@e23®g�g)E�a■ k ! { § : � •2 2�@SI`l�;G��^!2 _z m■ � � LD LU ,�}`(z! 2@§ k v� § \\�z� �e - &})wo / i®!m!■i4§;Sm§�, §�� of \ - ak ƒ z } | ) f§ ) (0 | ; A w� V), ::;:22::::;;f /2§ k j,E ; 2 ; R � / { } C YQJ v z I I ^ ' t W S O i0 O m V N b W � Ib0 V b tN0 tb0 t�0 m U fn I1 } w o � umirn�Nvbinmomd m�bob o � meeMbaabinrrba n � m � Z m0 W... vS e a . moe �n. roe M F. W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ob 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v Z �r ci o� i�iri v 6i o z � w C W d o Q E2 CL December 2000 Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Support: Page 4C-3 The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. sect. 4C.01 to 4C.02 Page 4C-4 December 2000 Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. In applying each condition the major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h (40 mph), or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in'1'able 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Sect. 4C.02 December 2000 Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A—Minimum Vehicular Volume Page 4C-5 Condition B—Interruption of Continuous Traffic Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street 1 ................. 1................. 2 or more... 1 ................. 2 or more... 2 or more... 1__ ............ 2 or more .... -Vehicles per hour on higher -volume Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major street minor -street approach moving traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%' 80%b 70%' 100%a 80%b 70%` 1 ................. 1................. 500 400 350 150 120 105 2 or more... 1 ................. 600 480 420 150 120 105 2 or more... 2 or more... 600 480 420 200 160 140 1 ................. 2 or more.... 500 400 350 200 160 140 Condition B—Interruption of Continuous Traffic Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street 1 ................. 1................. 2 or more... 1 ................. 2 or more... 2 or more... 1__ ............ 2 or more .... a Basic minimum hourly volume. b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures. ` May be used when the major -street speed exceeds 70 km1h (40 mph) or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000. Sect. 4C.02 venicles per nour on higher -volume Vehicles per hour on major street minor -street approach (total of both approaches) (one direction only) 100%a 80%, 70%` 100%a 80%b 70%` 750 600 525 75 60 53 900 720 630 75 60 53 900 720 630 100 80 70 71;n Ann 9;9F 100 8o 70 a Basic minimum hourly volume. b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures. ` May be used when the major -street speed exceeds 70 km1h (40 mph) or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000. Sect. 4C.02 Page 4C-6 Guidance: December 2000 The combination of Conditions A and B should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems. Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume Support; The Four -Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination o1 approach lanes. on the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h (40 mph) or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1. Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour Support: The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor -street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. Standard: This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases. Such cases include, but are not limited to, office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high -occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. Sect. 4C.02 to 4C.04 December 2000 = 500 d = 400 �U w Q d 300 cn Q W 200 Z J 100 2 0 _ Page 4C-7 Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume '115 "80 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) "Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h (40 mph) ON MAJOR STREET) = 400 CL 2 1-- Q 300 WO W � W CL CLH Q 200 OW Z� J O 100 2 _U 2 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. '80 '60 1000 Sec[. 4C.04 December 2000 600 500 2 W Q 400 WO T_ � 300 Ir Q ZW 2 200 J O > 100 2 U Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES / 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 LANE & 11 LANE Page 4C-9 "150 `100 4Uu ouU ODU /VU OVU z1VU IUUU IIUV ICUU 13UV I'+UU IUVU IODU I/UU 18UU MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) "Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h (40 mph) ON MAJOR STREET) CL = 400 W Q Cr � IL 300 U) U) Q Cc W Z 200 J O > 100 2 0 2 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANESI 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE t 1 .1 LANE & 1 LANE "100 '75 300 400 500 600 700 600 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Sect. 4C.05 Page 4C-8 December 2000 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met: A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day: 1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor - street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach; or 5 vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach, and 2. The volume on the same minor -street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h (40 mph), or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to satisfy the criteria in the second category of the Standard. Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Support: The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Sect. 4C.04 to 4C.05 Page 4C-10 Standard: December 2000 The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met: A. The pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an intersection or midblock location during an average day is 100 or more for each of any 4 hours or 190 or more during any 1 hour; and B. There are fewer than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length to allow pedestrians to cross during the same period when the pedestrian volume criterion is satisfied. Where there is a divided street having a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait, the requirement applies separately to each direction of vehicular traffic. The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 90 in (300 ft), unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. If a traffic control signal is Justified by both this signal warrant and a traffic engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads conforming to requirements set forth in Chapter 4E. Guidance: If a traffic control signal is justified by both this signal warrant and a traffic engineering study: A. If installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. B. At an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic -actuated and should include pedestrian detectors. As a minimum, it should have semiactuated operation, but full -actuated operation with detectors on all approaches might also be appropriate. C. At nonintersection crossings, the traffic control signal should be pedestrian - actuated, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 30 in (100 ft) in advance of and at least 6.1 in (20 ft) beyond the crosswalk, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. SeCL 4C.05 December 2000 Page 4C-11 Option: The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major roadway may be reduced as much as 50 percent if the average crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 1.2 m/sec (4 ft/sec). A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street, even if the rate of gap occurrence is less than one per minute. Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing Support: The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of school children at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the children are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 students during the highest crossing hour. Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade -separated crossing. The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 90 in (300 ft), unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Guidance: If a traffic control signal is justified by both this signal warrant and an engineering study: A. If installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. Sect. 4C.05 to 4C.06 Page 4C-12 December 2000 B. At an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic -actuated and should include pedestrian detectors. As a minimum, it should have semiactuated operation, but full -actuated operation with detectors on all approaches might also be appropriate. C. At nonintersection crossings, the traffic control signal should be pedestrian - actuated, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 30 in (100 ft) in advance of and at least 6.1 m (20 ft) beyond the crosswalk, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. Section 4C.07 Warrant 6,�Coordinated Signal System Support: Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning. B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. Guidance: The Coordinated Signal System signal warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic control signals would be less than 300 m (1,000 ft). Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience Support: The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal. Sect. 4C.06 to 4C.08 December 2000 Page 4C-13 Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met: A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency; and B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12 -month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 (see Section 4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Section 4C.09 Warrant 8 Roadway Network Support: Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria: A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5 -year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a nonnormal business day (Saturday or Sunday). Sect. 4C.08 to 4C.09 Page 4C-14 December 2000 A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have one or more of the following characteristics: A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow; or B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a city; or C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. Sect. 4C.09 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. • CML & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ■ 5507 Ranch Drive - Suite 205 (501) 868-3999 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Fax (501) 868-9710