HomeMy WebLinkAboutCU1995-36WELLS &ASSOCtATES, INC.
Suite 600, 1420 Spring Hill Road, McLean, Virginia 22102
October 24, 1995
Mr. Jerry Hodge
Director of Public Works
City of Grapevine
307 West Dallas Road
Grapevine, Texas 76099
817/481-0372
a Z
ilalli
Re: Proposed Grapevine Mills- Shopping Center,
City of Grapevine, Texas
Dear Mr. Hodge:
Pursuant to the request of Elizabeth Link of the Mills Corporation,
please find enclosed 3 copies of the "Traffic Impact Analysis,
Grapevine Mills Development", prepared by Wells & Associates, Inc.
Please review the enclosed data and forward a copy of this report
to Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. for their review and comments.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
feel to call Terry Miller or me at 703/917-6620.
Sincerely,
gmjwz"
FABLIS "EN
� IN ME
Michael J. Workosky
Senior Associate
CC: Thomas Hardy
Elizabeth Link
Terence Fitzgerald
Roy Wilshire
TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, and PARKING CONSULTANTS
Telephone: 703 / 917-6620
Facsimile: 703 / 917-0739
/ • / /
r / • � ,
� � ~ /
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
GRAPEVINE MILLS DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
Prepared for:
The Mills Corporation
Washington, D.C.
Prepared By:
Wells & Associates, Inc.
McLean, Virginia
October, 1995
Traffic Impact Analysis
Grapevine Mills Development
City of Grapevine, Texas
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pacre
INTRODUCTION
1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
4
Site Access and Roadway Network
4
ANALYSIS
7
Existing Traffic Volumes
7
Existing Capacity Analysis
7
Existing Level of Service Analysis
11
FUTURE ANALYSIS
13
Directional Distribution
13
Background Developments
is
Regional Growth Rate
17
Site Trip Generation
17
TOTAL FUTURE ANALYSIS FOR 1999 AND 2010
25
RECOMMENDED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
28
Total Future Year 1999
28
Total Future Year 2010
33
QUEUE ANALYSIS
38
SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS
40
CONCLUSIONS
41
Traffic Impact Analysis
Grapevine Mills Development
City of Grapevine, Texas
LIST OF FIGURES
Fiaure
Title
Pacre
1
Site Location
3
2
Existing
1995 Traffic Volumes
9
3
Existing
1995 Lane Usage and Traffic Control
10
4
Directional
Distribution
14
5
Locations
of Background Developments
16
6
Grapevine
Mills Site Generated Traffic Volumes
24
7
Year 1999
Total Future Traffic Volumes
26
8
Year 2010
Total Future Traffic Volumes
27
9
Year 1999
Required Lane Usage
31
10
Year 2010
Required Lane Usage
36
Traffic Impact Analysis
Grapevine Mills Development
City of Grapevine, Texas
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Pacre
1 Existing 1995 Levels of Service 12
2 Summary of Mills Trip Generation Rates 20
3 Grapevine Mills Trip Generation 21
4 Background Development Trip Generation for 1999 22
5 Background Development Trip Generation for 2010 23
6 Total Future Year 1999 Levels of Service 32
7 Total Future Year 2010 Levels of Service 37
8 Queue Length Summary 39
INTRODUCTION
This report presents a
Grapevine Mills retail
Grapevine, Texas. The si
2499) to the east, S.H.
to the north and west. T
1.
traffic impact analysis for the proposed
development located in the City of
to is bounded by International Parkway (FM
26 to the south, and Anderson- Gibson Road
he site location is illustrated in Figure
The proposed development program of the Grapevine Mills project
includes a total of approximately 2,000,000 square feet of
specialty outlet retail space, 95,000 square feet of ancillary
retail space located in the southern portion of the site, and an
additional 45,000 square feet of support retail /commercial uses
located on outparcels along the S.H. 26 and International Parkway
frontages.
Tasks undertaken as part of this study include:
A site and roadway reconnaissance to determine
opportunities and constraints of site access;
Obtaining traffic counts at the major intersections in
the vicinity of the site during the evening commuter
hours to determine peak hour volumes around the proposed
Grapevine Mills development as well as the peaking
characteristics of the surrounding roadways;
Discussions and meetings with representatives of the City
of Grapevine and the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) to obtain pertinent data relating to the study
area, traffic forecasts, growth trends, and local
infrastructure improvements;
Traffic analyses of the existing and future operations of
the public road system in the vicinity of the site,
including a derived Grapevine Mills mall direction of
approach analysis, queuing analysis, a sight distance
study related to the S.H. 121 /International Parkway
interchange, and a roadway capacity assessment.
Sources of data for this study include The Mills Corporation, The
City of Grapevine, Texas, The North Central Texas Council of
1
Governments, Barton-Ashman & Associates,
Associates, Inc., TXDOT, site plans prepared by
Inc. and National Survey and Engineering, and the
Associates, Inc.
Kimley-Horn and
Site Signatures,
files of Wells &
y° z FZ
Mm
U
0
U)
V)
U)
c
0
x
0
-0
0
CC
OJ
>>
2':t
J- V)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Access and Roadway Network.
The primary access to the proposed Grapevine Mills site will be via
four (4) primary access routes. Two full - movement access driveways
serving the north side of the shopping center and the adjacent
developments will be located along International Parkway north of
S.H. 121. Two additional full - movement access drives to serve the
south and east side of the project will be located on S.H. 26 and
align with intersections serving the newly constructed S.H.
121 /International Parkway interchange. Regional access to the area
is provided via Interstate 635 (LBJ Freeway) and State Highway 114
to the south and east, State Highway 121 and FM 2499 (International
Parkway) from the north, and State Highway 121/114, State Highway
26, and International Parkway from the south and west.
The following is a description of the existing local roadway
network providing direct local access to the proposed Grapevine
Mills development:
International Parkway International Parkway is a
controlled access facility connecting the City of
Grapevine and areas to the north with the Dallas /Fort
Worth International Airport. In addition, International
Parkway provides regional access to the Grapevine Mills
study area via full directional interchanges with
Interstate 635, State Highway 121, and State Highway 114.
A full movement interchange is currently under
construction at the State Highway 121 /International
Parkway /S.H. 26 intersection.
In the vicinity of Anderson- Gibson Road, International
Parkway is classified as a regional arterial road and
operates as a four lane (constructed with a six lane
cross - section) , median divided roadway with auxiliary
turn lanes at key intersections. The intersection of
Anderson- Gibson Road currently operates under STOP sign
control.
According to the City of Grapevine Thoroughfare Plan
adopted in March, 1987, International Parkway north of
S.H. 121 is master planned to consist of a four lane,
divided roadway in a minimum right -of -way of 75 feet.
0
However, it is currently constructed as a six-lane
divided arterial.
S.H. 26, S.H. 26 is a six-lane divided (currently
striped as four-lanes with shoulder) major east-west
arterial roadway that extends from the southern portions
of the City of Grapevine to the International
Parkway/S.H. 121/S.H. 26 interchange. S.H. 26 provides
auxiliary turn lanes at key intersections. The
intersections of S.H. 26 with Anderson-Gibson Road near
the Hilton Hotel and the existing on and off ramps to and
from S.H. 121 operate under STOP sign control. The
intersection of Bethel Road and S.H. 26 west of the site
is operated under signal control.
According to the City of Grapevine Thoroughfare Plan,
S.H. 26 is master planned to be a six lane, divided
roadway with a minimum right-of-way of 100 feet.
Bethel Road. Bethel Road i;
collector road that extends fi
eastward to the Coppell area.
direct access to and from S.H.
International Parkway/I-635/S.H.
system.
a two-lane, east-west
om S.H. 26 in Grapevine
Bethel Road provides
121 and 1-635 within the
121/S.H. 26 interchange
Bethel Road is master planned as a four-lane, undivided
collector road with a minimum right-of-way of 75 feet.
The intersections of Bethel Road with S.H. 26 and the
west side of the International Parkway /I- 635/S.H. 121
interchange (southbound ramps) operate under signal
control. The intersection of Bethel Road and the east
side (northbound ramps) of the International Parkway/I-
635/S.H. 121 operates under a three-way STOP controlled
condition.
Anderson-Gibson Road. Anderson-Gibson Road is a
substandard, rural, two lane local collector road that
extends from S.H. 26 north and east to intersect with
International Parkway and S.H. 121. East of S.H. 121,
Anderson Gibson Road becomes Thweat Road. Anderson-
Gibson Road is master planned as a four lane, undivided
roadway within a 75 foot right-of-way in the City of
Grapevine's 1987 Thoroughfare Plan. Although not assumed
5
as part of this analysis, a grade separation at the
Anderson-Gibson Road/Thweat Road/S.H.121 intersection is
proposed some time in the future.
As part of the proposed Grapevine Mills development,
Anderson-Gibson Road from S.H. 26 to the International
Parkway is planned to be incorporated into the shopping
center's access and ring road system. Assess to the few
adjacent properties to the west and north will be
maintained, and has been included in this analysis.
R.
ANALYSIS
Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic count data utilized in this analysis was obtained
at the key intersections surrounding the site via PM peak hour
turning movement counts conducted on Friday, September 22, 1995
from 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM. The traffic counts were conducted during
the Friday PM peak period to account for the highest amount of
total traffic (retail, local commercial, and commuter) that will be
on the roadways. Existing- traffic volume count summaries are
contained in Appendix A of this report. The existing traffic count
data used in this report is illustrated in Figure 2, and the
existing lane use and traffic control are shown in Figure 3.
Capacity Analysis
Capacity analyses were performed to obtain the existing and future
Levels of Service (LOS) and to determine what improvements would be
needed in order to operate the surrounding road network at
acceptable levels of service. Capacity analyses were done for the
intersections surrounding the site for the PM peak commuter hour
using the methodology presented in the 1985 Highway Capacity
Manual. Special Report #209, published by the Transportation
Research Board. The analyses encompassed existing 1995 conditions,
1999 future traffic with all of the Mills development and a portion
of the local area development, and 2010 ultimate conditions with
the entire Mills project and additional future local developments
located along Anderson- Gibson Road. The worksheets from the
capacity analyses performed for this study can be found in the
appendix of this report.
The ability of a roadway network system to carry traffic is
expressed in terms of Level of Service at critical locations
(usually intersections). Levels of Service range from "A" to "F"
and are defined below:
A - Conditions of free, unobstructed flow, no delays and all
signal phases are sufficient in duration to clear all
approaching vehicles.
B - Conditions of stable flow with very little delay. Only a few
phases are unable to handle approaching vehicles.
7
C - Conditions of stable flow, delays are low to moderate. Full
use of peak directional signal phases) is experienced.
D - Conditions approaching unstable flow, delays are moderate to
heavy. Significant signal time deficiencies are experienced
for short durations during the peak traffic period.
E - Conditions of unstable flow, delays are significant. Signal
phase timing is generally insufficient. Congestion exists for
extended duration throughout the peak period. (Level of
Service "E" represents the theoretical maximum number of
vehicles that can pass through an intersection during a given
time period)
F - Conditions are congested with force flow. So utilization of
the intersection approach is prevented due to backups from
locations downstream.
a
Figure 2
Existing Year 1995 Traffic Volumes North
Weekday PM Peak Commutor Hour Schematic
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Grapevine Mills MAFM MA-VWTA nCK and PAWAVC COVSM TARS
City of Grapevine, Texas 9
Figure 3 Represents One Travel Lane
Existing Lane Usage and Traffic Control ® Signalized Intersection North
--- Stop Sign schemotic
®,® WELLS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Grapevine Mills 7RAFM 7RAAW-CWrA MR end PARKING CaVSZX UNIS
City of Grapevine, Texas 10
Existing Level of Service Analysis
An existing Level of Service (LOS) analysis was conducted to
identify capacity constraints in the existing local roadway network
and to establish a baseline condition prior to the development of
the proposed Grapevine Mills development. The results of the
analyses are summarized in Table 1, and illustrates the existing
LOS for the PM peak period. Capacity analysis worksheets for
existing 1995 conditions are contained in Appendix B of this
report.
The existing conditions analysis performed for this study indicates
that several of the intersections adjacent to the Grapevine Mills
site currently operate below acceptable levels on a theoretical
basis. It should be noted that there was considerable construction
during the time that the traffic counts were collected, and that
the Texas State Department of Transportation implemented a
maintenance of traffic program during this period. There are some
locations where a one -way or three -way STOP condition was installed
instead of the conventional two -way and four -way STOP conditions.
Therefore, in some cases, the traffic volumes had to be reoriented
to allow the use of the capacity analysis software techniques used
to model these locations. Refer to the worksheets contained in
Appendix B of this report for additional information.
11
Table 1
Existing Year 1995 Intersection Levels of Service (1,2)
Grapevine Mills, Grapevine Texas
International Parkway /Anderson- Gibson Road
Unsignalized
EBL
F[97.2]
WBL
F[91.8]
International Parkway W. Ramps /Highway 26
Unsignalized
EBT
F( * ]
International Parkway E. Ramps /Highway 26
Unsignalized
EBT
F[ * ]
Highway 26 /Highway 121 Ramps
Unsignalized
NBT
E(33.2]
Highway 26 /Bethel Road
Signalized
B(12.6)
Highway 121 W. Ramps /Bethel Road Signalized C(15.3)
Highway 121 E. Ramps /Bethel Road Unsignalized NBL F( * ]
Notes: (1) Numbers in brackets represent overall levels of service at unsignalized intersections.
(2) Numbers in parenthese represent overall levels of service at signalized intersections and assume
a cycle length of 120 seconds.
12
FUTURE ANALYSIS
Directional Distribution
The directional distribution of development generated traffic
volumes was derived by using marketing and census data for the
proposed development within a primary (10 mile radius) and
secondary (20 and 40 mile radii) market area and the projected
driving times to and from the site. The directional distribution
incorporated marketing information, census data, locations of
competing retail centers in the study area, and driving times from
the various weighted population concentrations to the Grapevine
Mills site. A directional distribution results from the minimum
driving time paths from the market area population sub - sectors to
the site using the future roadway network.
The directional distribution analysis reflects the fact that
motorists normally will choose the path of minimal impedance to and
from the site. Due to the configuration of the regional roadways,
the analysis indicates that the primary route of regional traffic
to the site will be to and from the south on International Parkway.
Freeway traffic destined for the site from the south, southeast
southwest, and the west will access the site via the two at -grade
intersections on International Parkway (67 %) . The secondary
direction of approach was determined to be to and from south and
west along S.H. 26 (20 %). The remaining traffic (20 %) will enter
to and from the north and east on International Parkway and S.H.
121. Figure 4 illustrates the resultant percent directional
distribution of site generated traffic destined for the proposed
Grapevine Mills retail development.
It should be noted that the ongoing regional improvements at the
S.H. 121 /International Parkway /Route 26/I -635 interchange have been
assumed to be complete for the 1999 and 2010 analyses and for the
directions of approach and departure analysis.
13
/ 11f
15�
Figure 4
Directional Distribution
I�
G� e
mll-6
m C
d O
CY
va /LL
C f �/
.cur
...
me 2%
Bethel Road
1 %%
weat
ood
I—
®® WELLS & ASSOCIATES, IN
ropevine Mills IRAMC, 1RA/YSI1CWTA DOK and PARKING COYAKA
ity of Grapevine, Texas 14
Background Developments
In order to provide a conservative methodology in estimating future
traffic volumes, additional developments within the Grapevine Mills
study area were assumed in the future traffic analysis. Primarily
the developments along Anderson-Gibson Road east and west of
International Parkway were assumed to be developed at various
levels for the 1999 and Year 2010 analyses. As requested by the
City of Grapevine, the developments include portions of the zoned
2,007 multi-family residential units, approximately 1,000,000
square feet of retail space, and approximately 1,350,000 of
business park office. The Year 1999 and Year 2010 background
development locations assumed in this study are shown in Figure 5.
In general, the background developments considered in this analysis
are located north of the Grapevine Mills site, and are 'Listed below
by land use and development level for the year 1999 and year 2010
development scenarios. Reasonable access points were assumed to
appropriately serve these developments from the area road network.
No.
Land Use
Amount in
1999
1.
Multi-Family
1,125
units
2.
Multi-Family
0
units
3.
Community Commercial
0
S.F.
4.
Community Commercial
45,000
S.F.
S.
Community Commercial
105,000
S.F.
6.
Business Park
0
S.F.
7.
Community Commercial
193,352
S.F.
8.
Community Commercial
203,044
S.F.
15
Amount in 2010
1,500 units
507 units
123,000 S.F.
45,000 S.F.
105,000 S.F.
1,390,435 S.F.
386,704 S.F.
406,088 S.F.
Figure 5
Locations of Other Developments
North
Schematic
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Grapevine Mills nZ4F G 7RAAWWrA nM and PARKAV COMMhAN75
City of Grapevine, Texas 16
Regional Growth Rate
Population and economic data for the area surrounding the site was
obtained through the North Central Texas Council of Governments'
publication "North Central Texas 1994 Demographic Forecasts ".
According to forecasts within the Dallas -Fort Worth CMSA counties,
the area will experience an overall 1.6% per year growth rate over
the next fifteen years. However, several of the high growth areas
within the Dallas -Fort Worth CMSA are located immediately to the
north of the Grapevine Mills site. Taking the high growth areas
into consideration along with a high number of local developments
that were assumed as part of this study, the existing traffic
volumes were compounded for four (4) years using a 2.0 percent per
year growth rate to forecast year 1999 conditions. An additional
2.0 percent per year growth rate was applied for an eleven (11)
year period to project year 2010 ultimate conditions. These growth
adjusted volumes create a baseline for the future analysis and are
in addition to the background development traffic that was assumed
to be constructed during each study year.
Trip Generation
The number of peak hour trips anticipated to be generated by the
proposed Grapevine Mills development were estimated based on
studies conducted of similar developments. The proposed Grapevine
Mills Mall is a unique development and few others exist. A study
was made of similar centers in Dale City, Virginia at the existing
Potomac Mills Mall and in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the
existing Franklin Mills Mall. The Potomac Mills and Franklin Mills
Mall are prototype specialty regional retail outlet malls
developed by The Mills Corporation. Extensive trip generation
analyses on the prototype Potomac Mills and Franklin Mills malls
were documented in the November, 1993 ITE Journal. The results of
these analyses are incorporated into this study. The Grapevine
Mills trip generation rate was derived through an interpolation of
the Potomac Mills and Franklin Mills data. A summary of the Mills
projects trip generation rates are illustrated in Table 2.
A comparison of peak hour generation rates for Mills projects and
that of "standard regional shopping centers" as reported by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), revealed that the trip
generation rates for a "Mills Center" are on average approximately
twenty (20) to forty (40) percent lower than "a standard regional
17
shopping mall." (Refer to Appendix C of this report for additional
information). This generation was determined to be due to the
retail concept that these types of projects utilize, and the
physical layout of the mall. These factors have a tendency to:
1. Cause patrons to make fewer trips, stay at the mall longer,
and create a more even distribution of daily traffic volumes
than at a typical regional shopping center;
2. Increase the geographic market area of the mall, while
keeping the share of the local market area; and
3. Make the trip generation for the mall lower for peak
commuter hours, because the peak retail generation is more
of a plateau extended over a longer period of time, and less
of an actual peak.
A summary of the trip generation characteristics for the Grapevine
Mills retail development are illustrated in Table 3. Standard ITE
trip generation rates were used to estimate the traffic generated
by the peripheral development for each study year. In addition,
150 of the trips generated by the peripheral development were
assumed to be generated internally within the Grapevine Mills
development. Figure 6 represents the site- generated trips that
were applied to the area roadway network for the year 1999 and the
year 2010 study periods using the previously discussed directional
distribution.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trite Generation, Fifth
Edition, rates were used to generate trips for all of the
background residential, community commercial (general retail), and
business park office developments. Assumptions were made related
to the amount of development that would occur on each individual
site for both 1999 and 2010 conditions. In addition, pass -by trip
estimates were made for each commercial development based on ITE
rates. Tables 4 and 5 present the traffic volumes by land -use for
the year 1999 and year 2010 horizon years.
A separate directional distribution was conducted for the
background developments in the vicinity of the Grapevine Mills site
due to the retail draw of patrons will be generally from a more
localized area. The analyses assumed a more typical ten (10) mile
market ,Aarea for the secondary retail sites surrounding the Mills
shopping center. In general, the major direction of approach was
MY
found to be from the south on S.H. 121 and Highway 26, accounting
for approximately 600 of the total site generated traffic volumes.
The remaining 40% was distributed to the other roadways with the
majority oriented to and from the north and east on International
Parkway and S.H. 121. This distribution was used to apply the
background development traffic to the future road network.
19
Table 2
Mills Trip Generation Rates (Trips /1,000 S.F.)
PM Peak Hour Rates
Site Size Units Observed Projected
Potomac Mills
1,120,000
S.F.
2.02
Franklin Mills
1,590,000
S.F.
1.88
Franklin Mills
1,815,000
S.F.
1.66
Grapevine Mills 2,000,000 S.F. 1766
Source: 1. "Value Oriented Shopping Centers, an Updated Report ", ITE Journal,
November, 1993.
20
S4
ro
m a
r-i 0
ra •ri
rt u
� ro
}4
v Q)
> t�
v N
ra a a
� ro •r♦
ro u �4
E (D E(
;4 +
ro ro
O
U
z 0
0 x
.1 x 4.)
ro Q) O
�' a
v
N a
ri H
f4
E(
rA
m ro
J O
ro E
a ,4
0 0
—1 x
v O
v Q,
v �
E H
U)
4J
•ri
C
v
m
z
ro
a
O
N
Ga
to C-
N
N
O
0'1 to
I
N)
O
O
O
O
O
O
am
O
co c�
v'
sp
M
tD ri
O
rn
ra
rq
N
O
*4
Q'
qo
O1
w Ol
rl
M
ill)
CO [�
v'
V'
M
t0 1-4
0
ri
N
M
m m
co
0 --I
M 07
m
O
W
Ga
cr1
cn
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
rn
rq
O op
Q'
qo
0
m
N
0
0
>
O
•ri
+)
0
E
O
0
O a.
4
0
ter,
I
n.
a
v
y
N
0 ro
A
H
a
ro
.-i
-i
ro
v
.,4
(d
�+ v
to
ro
0
ct
v
0
° a
X
X
E
H
a
H
w
M
H
1v U)
G »
v
v v
O •ri
z
. w
ra
ro �
r- O
�4 • I
:1 +-)
h 4°
»
w O
E 04
H U1
. ro
>4
»
O 44
04 O
N
a v
1J
11 •rl
(a +)
V)
a a
ro x
H
V
s4
N �7:
41 O
N as
v •ri
ON w
G
iL 44
O -ri
.(:: 44
U)
4) O
4.) •ri
4J
v ro
•ri u
u v
o i~
N
a) 0
rA a
(ri •1i
> N
r-( N
v
U
O
V)
C
7
T
C
E
E
O
ti
a)
C
N
C7
Q
4
E
11
c
ro a�
E
-+ o
a�
>
c Q)
Q •., o
A ro t
!p 4 L
H (D O
'9
L O
4 �
F =
LI Y L
S �
Y £
ro �
N
� C
H
a
_ a
N a-�
O
a
4J a
C a
Q) �
U
aJ �'
OJ ?•
1)
.�i
1'
L7
J
:7
S
a) iZ
r O
OI O MI N aI m 0
MI
Q
�
m o O
M w r m r-
m c
M
r-
0
a N H h N ('7
h v
N
N
b
M 0
O
m ID
N
I v
r�
N
m O
m
l�
001Or
w H In 01O,0
aNI 1`
V
I� O
m ti
0 M 10 w
I
m N %D
LO
O
Ln Lo
,•i
r N In
O
N
O
U
O
O O
O
u
ri
0
010 r �0 14 m 01 0% O
a NI c+
cn
�n N
m
N
W
.-i H
M H '•1
r N In
N
fh
�
N
N
ro
U
U
r••1
0 0
O O O
N cI W
ro
N
O O
vl
a
a)
a
O O
M O
M
to
M M
l0
O
a O
m
N M
U
U
w ca
O O
Y
O O
O O O
O O
o
4 31
O r
H a
op
I
O O
w
i
to �
N
m
r O
O
L
v m
N
In O
O
M
O m
m
O 1
O
r O
h
M Ln
Ln
O
m ID
N
I v
O
m
m O
m
l�
M
M c
r
O
U
I
O
Ln Lo
N
a.�
u7
N N
O
U
O
O O
O
u
v
a) O
M
0
(
m
�n N
m
M t0 r' N
iO M M h
O O O
O
O
O O O
O
N N N
N
N
h N N
N N m
m
m
r m m
l�
O
U
Q
7
a)
U
a.�
H
U
U
N
N
A
u
H
r6
co
0
(
a
a
�
N
ro
v
U
O
O
�
N
N
ro
U
U
U
•-+
ro
a N
m m
a)
a
cG
U
U
U
Y
o
o
4 31
OI
H a
op
v W
ro
w
Of
N
m
m
co
a)
ro
a
M
v'
Ln
r
m
U
U
N H
O
W
•.� -.�
E
EE
C -� -ti
M
E
m
i U
sa
u
u
a
N
H
F
E
E
F
r-I
H
OU
4
u)
U ui -H
U m -1
U u7 U
sa U1 i+
ya N N
� fy
U)
s,
N w U ro E
n.
w T E
N ro E
a) y
ro
F
14
o °c
3
j
a7
H a)
N-+
N
ai aa) a .rf z
U •a z
U .� z
�' U
-.�
z
O
ro
ro
ro
ro
�4 14 m a
a v
a) a)
m
a
x z
a z
ra z
z
A
O
� �
•.-a
-.-�
ro is
A
17
E
H N M
v
1O r m
22
m
N
K
G p cW
A O a ° °o
1 cf1 a' N
N
ro
W
O
O
O O 10
0
O O O a
C 0 M
O O
C
O
U
O
U
U
Q
7
a)
U
4
H
U
U
N
N
u
H
r6
E
E
sa
Q+
,�
c
U
O
O
C
ro
U
U
U
•-+
cG
L
L
a�
3
o
o
1
u
N
co
ro
a
M
v'
Ln
r
m
N
a)
N
C
C
C
O
N
sa
O
a
N
C
4
E
O
Q)
U!
C
a1
L
F
c
0
W
L
W
[L
C
O
Y
4
c
N
U
a
E
v
U
1.a
7
O
O
O
N
4
O
W
E
E
u)
C
O
r1
4
c
v
C7
a
F
a�
c
N m
� a
N O
F a)
v >
c v
v v 4
^+ a N
11 m L
m 4 +
F C7 O
m
a1 L
4 O
F �
S d
Y �
v
`) a
a
c
H
O
H H
m °
� N
O
F a
O
C O
O N
U
4 4
CL >
N
1J
G
D
Cu
4
c�
U
4
v
N
J.
Q) N
H Q
J
v
O
c
a
I I
v in M N m m
O
Ln
r m m .-a tq �n M l b r m( r- N
v I O
O
M m v M v m N H r N M
O co m
O 1
O
v
r O r
M in
ri
10
�o to N
N v
O
14
W O m
H
co
(N I m m O I m
C14 U')
I
O
N
cV N a
N 1�
n
m
rl
Ln n
N
CO CO
if1
N N
( � I O{
o
O m M .-i N ri o'i
N N� 0%
V
In 14
m o
M
O
N
N
O r r O O
OJ cN
M
0 0 Ln O O M
o m
m
�o
n 1 C O O v
r o
r
.-y M Lr to O
l0 to
N
N m O m
W O
m
4L
M v In
m
7
cw
(D 0 0 0 (D O O 0 O
O 0 O
O O O O O O
O O
'..
v
O r
c
O O
Lr) LO
r O
O
Ln
c OJ N
In O
O
M
O co m
O 1
O
v
r O r
M in
in
O
�o to N
N v
O
m
W O m
H
H
M
M v r
C-)
n
m
O
Ln n
N
if1
N N
0
o
o O
o
F
m o
M
O
N
to N m
ul rn
M
un r N
t-1
�o
M M r
0 0 0
O
O
O
O O
v
N N N
N
N
!`-
N N
N N 0D
rA
O
r
Ql N
H
N EEC
4 Q
C-)
o o
m
F
m 3 3
3 m
O
c r
v
ul rn
41 0 o
t-1
m
N
4
m
+o
4L
M v In
m
7
co
v
m
c
U
U
U
Y
T T 4
4
4
N
E
m
E
v
E
N
O
E E °'
`n
°'
ami
N
N
U
U
U
m
v
0
E
E
E
G
.1 .r1
m m
W
>> o m
O m
OE m
v v
co
Q.
f F v a
a
a
�
4
4
4
L4
Gi
H
F
F
F
F
O
T
3
> >
ro
s �
a
N 4
ya N 4
T
�
co o
w
4
0
n.
F
— Z
v N m
U -� Z
U -, Z
c
U .-1
-Z
A
+' +�
>, +1 4J
.�
T �
4J
4J
N
Z�
a Z
a
z
�
3 m
x
a
of
m
< Ft
o)
o
41
O
i z 3
s
z
x
c7 v
.i
ro
H N M
v
to
to
r C0
[0i
23
Y1
m
� ao �a uo uo
9 N m v N
N
m
a
v
N
N
O Ln O O
O r O
m
[ O 00 O r
N M 'n N
4 ti O m
m � r
9
C
o
v
a)
u
N EEC
4 Q
C-)
o o
c .Ci
F
m 3 3
3 m
c r
v
ul rn
41 0 o
m
N
m
4L
M v In
r CO
In
N
v
C
C
G]
C
O
m
L4
4
0
a
+n
C
m
4
E-
0
N
7
rJ
C
v
L
E-
0
b
r
w
Cu
c
0
u
v
c
v
C7
CL
F
U
4
0
U
Figure 6
Site— Generated Traffic Assignments North
Weekday PM Peak Commuter Hour Schmatic
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Grapevine Mills Iw 1w nr,Frx; neAAW- WrAnaX Md PAAWM CCAWA WS
City of Grapevine, Texas 24
Total Future Traffic Analysis for 1999 and 2010
The computed site generated trips for the Grapevine Mills project
along with the traffic generated by the future background
developments shown in Tables 4 and 5 were assigned to the future
public road network based on the results of the directions of
approach analysis as illustrated in Figure 4. Future traffic
forecasts were developed based on the summation of the existing
traffic volumes (re- assigned to the road network to account for the
completion of the S.H.121 /International Parkway /I- '635/S.H.26
interchange), the four years of growth applied for 1999 and eleven
years of growth for the Year 2010, plus the traffic volumes
expected to be generated by the full build -out of the Grapevine
Mills development, plus the traffic generated by the projected
future background developments. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the
projected future traffic volumes for 1999 and Year 2010 PM peak
hour traffic volumes.
25
730
�—
171
565 —�-
_ 14
W
Cr
W
/ A
E
l° m � 814
364 108
460
189 —+>
81
�h�b
x-69
�-- 409
29
L m
N e-
hel Road
/ "b,ro
f
1
b
Y Z
h�
bb bra
ti
Obb
b /
4J1
Figure 7
Year 1999 Total Future Traffic Volumes North
SchemOtic
Weekday PM Peak Commuter Hour
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Grapevine Mills mAFM m AW- W.TAnM wd PAWOvc caysar tu✓
City of Grapevine, Texas 26
3
o
0
a_
��M
34
a)
0_
f— 20
x-181
0
N
2
34 --A
t
p
20 —�
I
828 --
n � m
y
o �
c
2 N Ch
LO
— 255
.s—
so
60
�-
-
Anderson
—G'
88
R � �
ll
Road
3112 —�-I
536 --
r, �
Go
i
cD d'
�
1
1
x-69
�-- 409
29
L m
N e-
hel Road
/ "b,ro
f
1
b
Y Z
h�
bb bra
ti
Obb
b /
4J1
Figure 7
Year 1999 Total Future Traffic Volumes North
SchemOtic
Weekday PM Peak Commuter Hour
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Grapevine Mills mAFM m AW- W.TAnM wd PAWOvc caysar tu✓
City of Grapevine, Texas 26
Figure 8
Year 2010 Total Future Traffic Volumes North
Weekday PM Peak Commuter Hour schm,ot„
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Grapevine Mills VrW 7RAFM nWGPWrAnaK and PA)MM CaVSM rAN75
City of Grapevine, Texas 27
RECOMMENDED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
An iterative traffic analysis was performed to determine if the
existing and proposed roadway system could accommodate the
projected future traffic levels and, if not, what roadway
improvements would be needed to support the increase traffic
demand. The resultant analysis led to the recommended roadway
improvements presented in this section.
The traffic analyses performed in this study indicate` that minor
roadway improvements above those currently being constructed will
be needed to support the projected future traffic volumes in 1999
and 2010.
Roadway Improvement Requirements for the Year 1999
A description of each roadway improvement required to facilitate
the 1999 traffic volumes are as follows:
Entrance A /Anderson- Gibson Road. This driveway will serve the
retail parcel on the south side and the multi - family development on
the north side of Anderson- Gibson Road. Capacity analyses indicate
that all of the movements at this intersection will operate at an
acceptable level of service with the exception of the southbound
left turn movement leaving the residential site. The analysis
shows that the southbound left turn movement will operate at a
level of service "F" during the PM peak hour under STOP controlled
conditions. Anderson- Gibson Road should consist of a four -lane
undivided road section and provide a separate left turn lane in the
eastbound and westbound directions. The installation of a traffic
signal would be required to increase the level of service of every
movement to an acceptable level, however, all of the other
movements at this intersection will operate efficiently, and it is
unlikely that a traffic signal would be warranted at this location.
Entrance--B/Anderson-Gibson Road This entrance will operate as a
three -way "T" type intersection in the year 1999. The analysis
assumed that Anderson- Gibson Road is constructed to a five -lane
section, and determined that the northbound left turn movement will
operate at a level of service "E" under STOP sign controlled
conditions. All of the other individual intersection movements
were found to operate at acceptable levels.
International Parkway /Anderson Gibson Road. At the intersection of
International Parkway /Anderson Gibson Road, Anderson- Gibson Road is
recommended to be upgraded to provide a shared eastbound through -
left lane and a single right turn lane onto International Parkway.
The westbound approach will require a shared left- through lane, and
an exclusive right turn lane onto International Parkway. Anderson -
Gibson Road will require to be constructed to provide four through
travel lanes west of International Parkway. The required size of
Anderson- Gibson Road east of International Parkway will be
dependent on the amount of actual development that ocdurs between
International Parkway and S.H. 121.
International Parkway will require dual left turns northbound and
dedicated northbound and southbound right turn lanes. A fully
actuated traffic signal will be required to maintain an acceptable
level of service.
International Parkway /Entrance C. International Parkway is
recommended to be upgraded to provide northbound dual left turn
lanes, and a dedicated southbound right turn lane. A single
southbound left turn lane will also be required. A fully actuated
traffic signal will be required along with a site driveway with a
five (5) lane cross - section consisting of two inbound and three
outbound lanes. The access drive serving development parcels 7 and
8 will require a four (4) lane cross section consisting of two (2)
inbound and two (2) outbound lanes.
Highway 26 /Entrance D. Total future volumes along Highway 26 could
be accommodated with the existing through lanes at the site access
drives. A single left turn lane and right turn lane will be
required in the northbound and southbound direction on Highway 26.
The site driveway will require a five lane section (two lanes in
and three lanes out). A fully actuated traffic signal will be
required at this location.
Highway 26 /Entrance E. The 1999 analysis revealed that the total
future volumes along Highway 26 can be accommodated with the
existing through lanes at the site access drives. A single left
turn lane and right turn lane will be required in the northbound
and southbound directions on Highway 26. The site driveway will
require a five -lane section (two lanes in and three lanes out). A
fully actuated traffic signal will be required at this location.
29
International Parkway On /Off Ramps / Highway 26 The results of the
1999 analysis revealed that both of the International Parkway ramp
junctions with Highway 26 will operate at acceptable levels of
service under STOP conditions without additional geometric
improvements beyond those currently planned. The southbound ramp
intersection (west side), however, was reoriented to stop traffic
on the southbound ramp approach while providing uninterrupted flow
for Highway 26 traffic.
Highway 26 /Bethel Road. The intersection of Highway 26`and Bethel
Road will not require additional road improvements beyond signal
timing modifications to accommodate the forecasted 1999 traffic
volumes.
Bethel Road /S.H.121 On /Off Ramps. The S.H. 121 off ramp
intersection with Bethel Road on the west side of the interchange
was found to operate at an acceptable level of service assuming
minor signal timing modifications. The east side of the
interchange (northbound ramp) will not require geometric
improvements, however, a fully actuated traffic signal will be
required to maintain acceptable levels of service. Further, this
traffic signal should be coordinated with the existing Bethel Road
signals to the west to ensure proper progression of traffic through
the corridor.
A summary of the roadway modifications necessary to accommodate the
1999 total future traffic volumes while providing acceptable levels
of service are illustrated in Figure 9. Revised capacity analyses
were conducted for the intersections and interchange ramp junctions
assuming the roadway improvements described above and illustrated
in Figure 9 are implemented. The results are summarized in Table
6, and indicate that acceptable levels of service will be realized
with the construction of the proposed Grapevine Mills project, the
area regional growth through the study area, and the projected area
developments of sites within the vicinity of the site. A summary
of the capacity analysis worksheets for total future 1999
conditions are contained in Appendix D of this report.
30
.-- Represents One Travel Lone
Figure 9 Signalized Intersection Norm
Year 1999 Lane Usage and Traffic Control Stop Sign Sche'"O`"
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Grapevine Mills rnAfM m N -9-MrA nM and PA-00W COMPA IAN75
City of Grapevine, Texas 31
Table 6
Total Future Year 1999 Intersection Levels of Service (1,2)
Grapevine Mills, Grapevine Texas
- -- Driveway A /Anderson- Gibson Road
Unsignalized
SBL
F[115.7]
Driveway B /Anderson- Gibson Road
Unsignalized
NBL
E[45.0]*
International Parkway /Anderson- Gibson Road
Signalized
C(21.6)
International Parkway/ Driveway C
Signalized
C(21.7)
International Parkway W. Ramps /Highway 26
Unsignalized
SBR
A[9.8]
- - -- International Parkway E. Ramps /Highway 26
Unsignalized
WBT
C[16.3]
Highway 26 /Entrance D
Signalized
B(8.0)
Highway 26 /Entrance E
Signalized
C(17.8)
Highway 26 /Bethel Road
Signalized
B(14.3)
Highway 121 W. Ramps /Bethel Road
Signalized
C(22.6)
Highway 121 E. Ramps /Bethel Road
Signalized
C(15.6)
Notes: (1) Numbers in brackets represent overall
levels of service at unsignalized intersections.
(2) Numbers in parenthese represent overall levels of service
at signalized intersections
and assume
a cycle length of 120 seconds.
* All other intersection movements operating at acceptable
levels of service.
32
Roadway Improvement Requirements for the Year 2010
A description of each roadway improvement beyond those described as
part of the 1999 study analysis required to accommodate the Year
2010 traffic forecasts is as follows:
Entrance A /Anderson- Gibson Road In the year 2010, additional
development will occur within the multi- family development located
on the north side of Anderson- Gibson Road. This will cause the
level of service for the southbound left turn movement to remain at
LOS "F" in 2010. In addition, the northbound left turn movement
obtains a level of service "E" in 2010. In order to increase these
movements to an acceptable level, the installation of a traffic
signal would be required when warrants for signali.zation are met.
However, given the uncertainty of the residential uses, a traffic
signal would not likely be necessary until a significant portion or
all of the potential development is realized on the residential
site, and therefore is not recommended at this time.
Entrance B /Anderson- Gibson Road. This entrance will serve retail
parcels north and south of Anderson- Gibson Road in the year 2010.
This intersection will require a fully actuated traffic signal to
maintain acceptable levels of service in the future. The
installation of this signal should coincide with meeting warrants
for signalization as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices handbook.
International Parkway /Anderson- Gibson Road. As the property north
and west of International Parkway is developed, the capacity
analysis results indicate that the eastbound intersection approach
will require a single lane addition to provide a single left turn
lane, two through lanes, and an eastbound free -flow right turn
lane. The acceleration lane for the eastbound free -flow right will
- be able to utilize the existing sixth lane constructed on
International Parkway. International parkway should be restriped
to provide three through lanes in each direction. The westbound
Anderson- Gibson Road approach will require dual left turn lanes,
two through lanes and a free -flow right turn lane to accommodate
the planned development east of International Parkway.
International Parkway /Entrance C. As the remaining development
program is completed, the outbound cross section of the site
driveway (eastbound approach) will require a single lane addition
(from 3 lanes to 4) to provide double right turn lanes, a single
33
through lane, and a single left turn lane. International Parkway
should be restriped to provide three through lanes in each
direction. In addition, the westbound approach serving background
developments 7 and 8 will require two additional outbound lanes.
Highway 26 /Entrance D. Capacity analysis results for total future
year 2010 conditions revealed that no improvements beyond those
described for 1999 will be necessary at this intersection.
Highway 26 /Entrance E. Entrance E will continue to operate at an
acceptable level in the year 2010 with the previously discussed
- lane use configuration and traffic control in place.
International Parkway On /Off Ramps /Highway 26. The results of the
1999 analysis revealed that the International Parkway off ramp to
Highway 26 (west side) will operate at acceptable levels of service
under STOP conditions without additional improvements beyond those
currently planned. The northbound on ramp from Highway 26 to
International Parkway (east side) will require a traffic signal to
maintain an acceptable level of service in the year 2010.
The operation of this intersection will be dependant on the amount
of through traffic that is ultimately realized on the Highway 26
corridor. As the future road network is constructed, it is
possible that through traffic at this location could decrease and
would negate the need, and not meet warrants for signalization at
this intersection.
Highway 26 /Bethel Road. The intersection of Highway 26 and Bethel
Road will not require additional road improvements beyond those
previously discussed to accommodate the forecasted 2010 traffic
volumes.
Bethel Road /S.H.121 On /Off Rates. The S.H. 121 on and off ramp
intersections with Bethel Road were found to obtain acceptable
levels of service for the year 2010 conditions assuming that the
1999 improvements are in place. However, although the southbound
ramp on west side of the interchange obtains an overall level of
service "D" during the PM peak hour, the westbound approach will
operate at a level of service "E ". The addition of a westbound
left turn lane would be required to increase the level of service
for the westbound approach and maintain an acceptable level of
service-'in the year 2010.
34
The 2010 analysis revealed that the intersections of the
International Parkway and S.H. 26 with the entrances serving the
Grapevine Mills project will operate at acceptable levels of
service during the PM peak hour for both the 1999 and 2010 horizon
years.
A summary of the roadway modifications necessary to accommodate the
2010 traffic volumes beyond those described in the 1999 analysis
are illustrated in Figure 10. Assuming the proposed additional
road modifications are in place, revised capacity analyses were
conducted for the intersections within the study area and revealed
that all of the locations analyzed will operate at acceptable
levels of service with the 2010 program in place. The results are
summarized in Table 7. A summary of the capacity analysis
worksheets for total future year 2010 conditions are contained in
Appendix E of this report.
35
3 �
.�� � N o J111�
o
k—Free Flow
y 4—
►� Anderson—
Road
8
Free
Flow
/ C
1
Grapevine
Mills
' Site
D
�ro
f�i it -4 1 '�" Bethel Road
W
Figure 10
Year 2010 Lane Usage and Traffic Control
✓f
ff
� ll
r
l
Jl�
4- Represents One Travel Lane
® Signalized Intersection North
-•- Stop Sign sc1°"°t"
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, IN
ropevine Mills rnMM IRAN-9- PrAnW and PAMOW^COVRCh
ity of Grapevine, Texas 36
Table 7
Total Future Year 2010 Intersection Levels of Service (1,2)
Grapevine Mills, Grapevine Texas
Driveway A /Anderson- Gibson Road
Unsignalized SBL
F[813.8)
NBL
E[34.21
Driveway B /Anderson- Gibson Road
Signalized
C(17.4)
International Parkway /Anderson- Gibson Road
Signalized
C(23.4)
International Parkway /Driveway C
Signalized
D(26.4)
International Parkway W. Ramps /Highway 26
Unsignalized SBR
B[6.8]
International Parkway E. Ramps /Highway 26
Signalized
B(13.5)
Highway 26 /Entrance D
Signalized
B(9.0)
Highway 26 /Entrance E
Signalized
C(19.0)
Highway 26 /Bethel Road
Signalized
C(18.0)
Highway 121 W. Ramps /Bethel Road
Signalized
D(27.9)
Highway 121 E. Ramps /Bethel Road
Signalized
C(24.0)
Notes: (1) Numbers in brackets represent overall
levels of service at unsignalized intersections.
(2) Numbers in parenthese represent overall levels of service at signalized intersections and assume
a cycle length of 120 seconds.
37
QUEUE ANALYSIS
In addition to the intersection capacity analysis, a queue analysis
was performed to determine the required storing needed for vehicles
at each of the site access drives and the left turns serving the
site from International Parkway and S.H. 26.
The queue analysis was based on the number of vehicles that would
arrive at a red signal multiplied by a safety factor. The American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A
Policy on Geometric Design and Highway Streets, 1984 recommends a
safety factor of 1.5 to 2.0 in order to serve heavy surges that
occur from time to time. The equation used to compute the maximum
queue amount is as follows:
Q =VPH x 2.0 x 25ft. x (T) x (1 -cr /c)
number of cycles per hour x number of lanes
Where: Q = Length of queue (in feet)
VPH = Vehicles per hour during the protected phase
2 = Safety factor
25 = Average space needed for one vehicle (in feet)
T = Average percent of trucks
g/c = Green time /cycle length
The results of the analysis indicate that the longest left turn
queue will occur in the northbound direction at the International
Parkway /Entrance C intersection. A northbound left turn queue
length of 570 feet and 596 feet was calculated for the year 1999.
and 2010 design periods, respectively. Northbound through traffic
queues at this intersection were found to range from 470 feet in
- the year 1999 to 600 feet in the year 2010.
A summary of the queue length analyses conducted for the Grapevine
Mills site entrances are illustrated in Table 8.
RE
U)
ca
x
a)
F
N
C
N
.-1
b)
C N
m c
m a --i
H � Q
ro G iJ
F 0 0
39
T
m
3
t
S
N
w
O
N
O
O
4
N
ti
.O
N
L
N
al
m
h
T
t0
3
L
S
w
O
o,
0
O
c
T
a
N
a_
N
N
N W Ui
"O O H Q1 Ql
"o 'n r-i
6l N to
M
N
to '9
#�
W
m m N m
O O to �
r- r r H
r �O �O r
m D\ r N 0 N
�"1 N �--� m O N
N N m
v' cr O
r- M r r
t� M �O .--1
f »^#✓ + },+
M M M M
N N M .-I
M l0 N N v' rV
i9 � (")
l0 v H �
�},
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O Cl O
O O O
O O O O
co
N 1 if1
CO �O
m M N 0
W
CV CO
O O O
�O N N N
Ln
N m M
.-y
to N v
m m m
m m m m
m m m m m
mmm
m m m m
`
`}*'S
ZZIM
= t
ro ro ro ro
m r r io v
o c m
M N �n
m
N H N N N
In
M M M
}
¢({
N
O M LO LO LCr
r N O CO (\I CO
Lt) N m
Lf) CO N N
LO m r r r
N N to CSI
t�o v Lc) O m o
M r M N M N
co v o
M "o
r Lc) m m
O O O O G
O O O O O O
O O O
O O O O
#` ' ,Q^�j{[
I 1 H
m rn O t0 07
M m H
OO
M O l0
$ Xj } }
I I r
r N O M 6�
to .-� N � H
� v N m
N M co ri
CO
N H
O m N r
LO N Cl)
F rx F
a F a F F
a a F
a a a a
+f= bt
m m m
m m I m 1
m m m I m I
m m m
m m m m
{ }ii
Z M W
Z U) a W a
m
Z Z Jn a W a
Z m W
Z m W W
5�
§t
o
o
ro
s
o
A
Q
#f
--i
C7
>
>
Q
W
I
ro
Al
c
x4
tt
C
cli
39
T
m
3
t
S
N
w
O
N
O
O
4
N
ti
.O
N
L
N
al
m
h
T
t0
3
L
S
w
O
o,
0
O
c
T
a
N
a_
N
N
Sight Distance Analysis
Using the forecasted queues for the left turns into the site and
the through traffic on International Parkway, a sight distance
study was conducted by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. to
determine if sufficient distance was available for drivers on
International Parkway traveling northbound. The sight distance
analysis was based on ramp profiles on the International Parkway
northbound ramps obtained from TXDOT and criteria outlined in the
American Association of Highway Transportation Officials ( AASHTO).
Specifically, the following parameters were used:
Roadway Design Speed: 50 miles per hour
Required Distance(wet surface): 975 feet
-- Height of Object: 3.5 feet
Calculated Northbound Queue: 600 feet
Assuming that Entrance C intersects with the International Parkway
approximately 1,100 feet south of Anderson- Gibson Road, the
resultant distance after the queue is deducted from the total
distance shows that northbound drivers will have approximately
1,100 feet of stopping distance available. This sight distance
exceeds the AASHTO recommendations for safe conditions by over 125
feet. Therefore, the results indicate that Entrance C is located
appropriately to safely and efficiently serve the Grapevine Mills
project.
40
CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this study has been to test the adequacy of the
traffic and transportation system in the vicinity of the proposed
Grapevine Mills development. The major findings and conclusions
reached through this analysis are listed as follows:
1. The major finding of this analysis was that an adequate
roadway network can be developed to serve the Grapevine
Mills development while maintaining an acceptable level of
service on the adjacent roadway system.
2. The major land use of the development will be retail, thus,
the most significant impacts on the on the local roadway
network will occur during the PM peak hour discussed in.this
report and not during the AM peak commuter hours.
3. The improvements to the local road network as described in
the text will accommodate total future traffic projections
and will enable the intersections studied to operate at
acceptable levels of service under future conditions.
4. The road system and recommended improvements described in
the 1999 analysis will accommodate significantly more area
traffic than what will be generated in the first phase of
development.
5. The results of the queuing analysis revealed that sufficient
sight distance will be available for northbound traffic on
the International Parkway at the proposed entrance to the
Grapevine Mills site.
41
APPENDIX A
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARIES
R G' C TUN
cite CAe X0000053 )EV7NE T! , IRNINC )MOVPENT —UNTS,
8 E R
Jouthoounc
rt
ih t
rj
eft
n t r u
T.2tai
)n
'14
0
0
?
7 7
3
71
37
-44
_.''007.
-3
'0
0 0
%
C7;
-34
a t DO u T P":
"ETROCOUNT
"OVEMEJNT COUINTS 3800 BEAUMONT lN Site coue : "'.000095
ao D E R 5 C, N
-t,T8SON 'LAND. TEXAS 75023 Start Date: 09/22;95
e
03qe
"nement 1
4DERSON-rIBSON
;M 2499
ANDERSON-,,'-' 1 BSON
e s t co u n a
Northmund
Eastbound
?oh t _:hru
-ef t
h t
r u =
=fr
Qcht
T r u -2ft
Oqht
-hru L_rr
09
0
cl,
2
162
0
0 i
263
79
0
168
3
3P;
n
?ODD 0 36
i
236
0 0
"1 3
7
401
0
0
7-7
73
6
4
37
C,
11-2
25
2 dog
0
76
'7 i 1
4
7
367
0 0
498
7 7 7
0
�4:
04 7
0
94
10
?1.
1�
2 3
73.5
7,
7
OQ
7-
V -
N 3
,e
r
2
'9"
=7.'.
T
Dour,. N E R
8 5 2 N'
,a 5 c
76
On
r
j:
375
iETROCOUNT
PEVINE TURNING MOVEMENT CCUNTS 800 BEAUMONT Site Code : 00000954
2*6 & BETHEL 01-00. 7EXAS 75023 Start Date: 09/22/95
1.1 954
Age
,ovemen
SH 26
BETHEL
SH 26
N! A
'outhbound
'westbound
Northbouno
Easuouna
r t
ne 3911
°a ht
-.,-t
e f
-in t r
--eft_
7!) aj
. . . . . . .
30 0 60
117
2^
0
29
A
0
2 Z, 1
45
7
—al 0 125
2
�6
102
=5
i2 l
0
0
4 71
'
'3
-78
19
16
0
233
15 A
a
0
0
63
27
241
30 107
0
'8
7
0
-112
71
7 i
7 C
0
r Total 0 -28
.8
79
-74
2
W)
.070
6
4
_
-2
43
iiz
.4
7,
30
4
-2
0
412
r Total 0 483
:2
i70
0
425
124
0
0
11576
�:Ooom 127
.6
27
b4
33
-1-1
r)
338
-215-- 0 -- i c-1-1
4
-.-
v L --
.
al -0 2 :8
1
- )
is
4
7
151
b56
anc :) 11='
Z
i0
376
�ac
1)
0
3773
f Total 0.0% 10.91
!A%
83% 10%
24.1A
AA%
210
0 A%
OA% 0. A
r.
rcn % 14.9%
327.
A X
of Acup A 28 AS li.b
'6.x,0 y
A
- 17
:12%
00
QA%
KA t
2.0
a na i v: v
V t v e
1 as mec a:.
u
va Par=
Ar
a A
:iEv cn 00/22!4
'tart
. .
. . .
... ]ifOes .
. . . . . .
ec—,-r r e e t .am ,e
peaK
lot
7u Aft
Qui
-2 left
0
2 L, t P. b c, u �o 2
2 a,7
we s t b c un a
Ks
17:
0 423
595
28.5
.0 7--.4
Artkoma A 26
==
4
2
X46
PEVINE T!jRNING MOVEIENT CCUNTS
—HL A SH III EAR
-2215
,,ETROCOUN'
:9r0 SEq,!,HiiNt LN.
IN Cu 5623
Op : 1
Site Coce : )0000952
Start Fate: 09/22/95
File 1.1 : 952
SH in 5FP
BETHE:.
2ETHE' -
Smuthbound
Omura
YvAcund
Eastbound
r
I TL
Q nj
' ef 1
Raht
:30 76
6
0
73
12
i
27
i8
--
6
A 19
i� 3
30
H
-7
43
-IODM 3 99
3
0
54
26
27
,5 02
b
1
27
n
0
1
J 2 7-
'0
H
23
0
13
21
0
245
Z06
113
0
.0
19
CQ4
20
.H
_0
'4
:24
176
21
1
�67
-J4
2
604
i
0
0
7
-3
1403
,:OODT '70
4
'35
2
0
2i
7-2
78
3�
15
165
657
rang 36 1154
59
0
1208
TE
0
1)
2`_9
:56
3486
1 Taul 1A% W!
..r <;
M
34 A%
I A 1
At 020
7 n
7 A
h 0
%
= t A.K
43.6%
147,
---jr
suve
i a amm: w
nr
one Am=
2m :2
A : it 7 C9/22:
K
a oe s .......
weman strem Noe
&A
low
Fact
it
-7r: .01
::a!
Rant
F71
Aft
M ?UP
HA
MM
04
A
537
1.,
--I.d
:. 3
7
_'
Vrthboud Q
.0
A
A
1 0
-stoounl 3 E H
5.
i
L
Fagg
APPENDIX B
EXISTING CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ............... . 01EX95PM.HCO
Streets: (N-S) International Pkwy (E-W) Anderson-Gibson Road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... MXW
Date of Analysis.......... 10/12/95
Other Information......... Existing 1995 Volumes, PM Peak Hour
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound
L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Westbound
L T R
---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 O> 1 1 O> 1 1
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s
SU/RV's
CV'S 0-0
PCE's
------------
N
2 1544 - 11
.95 .95 .95
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 2 2
1.02 1.02 1.02
---------------
ITO
10 428 2
.95 .95 .95
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 2 2
1.02 1.02 1.02
----------------
5
1
1
14
1
136
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
Through Traffic Minor Road
0
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
0
3.40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.02 1.02 1.0211.02 1.02 1.02
-----------------------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB ED
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
772
214
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
563
1079
` Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
563
1079
Prob. of Queue -free
State:
0.74
1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major
Street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
1555
430
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
251
1007
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
251
1007
Prob. of Queue -free
State:
0.96
1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
__ Step 3: TH from Minor
Street
WB
ED
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
1986
1995
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
75
74
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.95
0.95
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
72
71
Prob. of Queue -free
State:
0.99
0.99
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor
Street
WB
ED
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
1984
1986
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
57
57
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.94
0.94
Adjusted Impedance
Factor:
0.95
0.95
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.95
0.71
Movement Capacity:
--------------------------------------------------
(pcph)
54
40
- - - - --
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate
MoveCap
SharedCap
Avg.Total
Delay
Movement
v(pcph)
Cm(pcph)
Csh(pcph)
Delay
LOS
By App
--------
EB
L
------
5
------
40 >
------
43
------------
> 97.2
------
> F
--- - - - - --
EB
T
1
71 >
>
>
83.8
EB
R
1
1079
3.3
A
WB
L
15
54 >
55
> 91.8
> F
WB
T
1
72 >
>
>
17.4
WB
R
146
563
8.6
B
NB
L
2
1007
3.6
A
0.0
SB
L
11
251
15.0
C
0.3
Intersection
Delay =
1.6
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................
Streets: (N-S) INT. PKWY W
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
02EX95PM.HCO
EST RAMP (E-W) HIGHWAY 26
NS
60 (min)
MXW
10/12/9S
EXISTING 1995 VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s
SU/RV's
CV's OU
PCE's
-----------
0 2 0
N
1543
.95
0
0
0
2
1
-
---------------
0 2 0
N
443
.95
0
0
0
2
1
----------------
0
0
0
----------------
0
Time (tf)
Adjustment Factors
1 0 0
374
.95
0
0
0
0
1
----------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
---- --------- -- --- ---------- -- -- -------------
Left Turn Major Road
-- - ---- -
5.50
-- ----- - ----- -
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
1986
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
57
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance
Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity:
--------------------------------------------------------
(pcph)
57
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
-- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
WB L 394 57 * F
Intersection Delay = 1708.1
* The calculated delay was greater than 999.9 sec.
T
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release-2.1 Page 1
File Name ................
Streets: (N-S) INT.PKWY E.
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
03EX95PM.HCO
RAMP
NS
60 (min)
MXW
10/12/95
EXISTING 1995
(E-W) HIGHWAY 26
TRAFFIC VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound
L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' S (16)
SU/RV's (0i)
CV's
PCE I s
-----------
0 2 0
N
1543
.95
0
0
0
2
1
-
---------------
0 2 0
N
.95
0
0
0
2
1
----------------
1 0 1
374
14
.95
.95
Gap (tg)
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
----------------
1
Adjustment Factors
Westbound
L T R
---- ---- ----
0 0 0
0
----------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
0
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
1385
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
1385
Prob. of Queue-free
State:
0.99
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor
Street
WB EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
1544
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
109
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance
Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity:
---------------------------------------------------------
(pcph)
109
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
-- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
EB L 394 109 * F
*
EB R 15 1385 2.6 A
Intersection Delay = 926.2
* The calculated delay was greater than 999.9 sec.
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................ 04EX95PM.HCO
Streets: (N-S) HIGHWAY 26 (E-W) HIGHWAY 121 RAMPS
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... Go (min)
Analyst ................... MXW
Date of Analysis.......... 10/12/95
Other Information......... EXISTING 1995 VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T a L T R -L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s
SU/RV's
CV's M
PCE's
-----------
0 1 0
N
57
.95
0
0
0
2
1.02
-
---------------
0 3 0
N
1067
.95
0
0
0
2
1.02
---------------
1 0 1
121
10
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1.02
----------------
1.021
Adjustment Factors
0
0
0
----------------
0
Time (tf)
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
356
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
914
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
914
Prob. of Queue-free
State:
0. 99,.
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor
Street
WB EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
1124
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
237
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance
Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity:
--------------------------------------------------------
(pcph)
237
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
-- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
EB L 130 237 33.2 E
31.0
EB R 11 914 4.0 A
Intersection Delay = 3.2
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
--------------------------------------------
Streets: (E-W) BETHEL ROAD (N-S) HIGHWAY 26
Analyst: MXW File Name: 05EX95PM.HC9
Area Type: Other 10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING 1995 VOLUMES
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - - --
No. Lanes 1> < 1 2 1 1 2
Volumes 425 170 322 124 52 483
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB, Left NB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SD Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 35.OA Green 21.OA 54.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat V/C g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- - --
WB L 546 1770 0.410 0.308 21.5 C 21.4 C
LR 554 1796 0.437 0.308 21.8 C
R 488 1583 0.330 0.308 20.8 C
NB T 1738 3725 0.205 0.467 12.2 13 9.4 B
R 1266 1583 0.103 0.800 1.7 A
SB L 625 1770 0.088 0.325 5.3 B 5.8 B
T 2390 3725 0.223 0.642 5.8 B
Intersection Delay = 12.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.292
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
----------------- - - - - --
Streets: (E-W) BETHEL ROAD (N-S) HIGHWAY 121 W. RAMPS
Analyst: MXW File Name: 06EX95PM.HC9
Area Type: Other 10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING 1995 VOLUMES
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 1 < > 1 1 2 <
Volumes 95 81 108 548 17 560 10
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase-Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ED Left NB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right ED Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 21.OA 48.OA Green 41.OA
Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
ED TR 650 1561 0.284 0.417 15.0 B 15.0 B
WB LT 1057 1786 0.654 0.592 11.6 B 11.6 B
SB L 634 1770 0.028 0.358 16.1 C 19.3 C
TR 1331 3715 0.473 0.358 19.4 C
Intersection Delay = 15.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.586
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................ 07EX95PM.HCO
Streets: (N-S) HIGHWAY 121 E. RAMPS (E-W) BETHEL ROAD
Analyst ................... MXW
Date of Analysis.......... 10/12195
Other Information......... EXISTING 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR
All-way Stop-controlled Intersection
------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 2< 0 0> 1< 0
Volumes 14 98 1 1 243 41 413 183 244 1 1 1
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SU/RV's (915) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CV' s( %) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PCE's 1.1 1.1 .1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
EB
WB
NB
SB
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LT Flow Rate
15
1
435
1
RT Flow Rate
1
43
257
1
Approach Flow Rate
119
300
885
3
Proportion LT
0.13
0.00
0.49
0.33
Proportion RT
0.01
0.14
0.29
0.33
Opposing Approach Flow Rate
300
119
3
885
Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate
888
888
419
419
Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate
0.09
0.23
0.68
0.00
Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate
0.23
0.09
0.00
0.68
Lanes on Subject Approach
1
1
2
1
Lanes on Opposing Approach
1
1
1
2
LT, Opposing Approach
1
15
1
435
RT, Opposing Approach
43
1
1
257
LT, Conflicting Approaches
436
436
16
16
RT, Conflicting Approaches
258
258
44
44
Proportion LT, Opposing Approach
0.00
0.13
0.33
0.49
Proportion RT, Opposing Approach
0.14
0.01
0.33
0.29
Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches
0.49
0.49
0.04
0.04
Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches
0.29
0.29
0.11
0.11
Approach Capacity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
319
297
965
407
- - - - --
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Approach Approach V/C Average
Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay
---------- ---------- --------- ------- -----------
EB 119 319 0.37 4.1
WB 300 297 1.01 46.5
NB
SB 3 407 0.01 1.0
Intersection Delay = *
Level of Service (Intersection)
*The range limits on this approach exceed the maximum.
LOS
A
F
A
APPENDIX C
OUTLET SHOPPING CENTER TRIP GENERATION DATA PUBLISHED BY THE
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Developing Travel
Forecasting Data for Factory
Outlet Centers
BY WILLIAM J. SCULLY,, JR., RICHARD A. RYDANT, AND KYLE J. BRENNER
precasting the amount of traffic ex-
pected to be generated by a pro-
posed new land use or by a change in an
existine land use is one of the basic tasks
of a transportation engineer. Although
ITE and other agencies have collected
and compiled a substantial amount of
data on the travel characteristics of many
different land uses since the 1960s. gaps
exist in the databases and euidelines.
These gaps are most apparent when
there is a major change in the type of
land use being developed or when a new
land -use type begins to flourish. Conse-
quently. assessing the impact of the land
use, including forecasting the amount of
new traffic to be expected. can be diffi-
cult. Examples of this include large.
mixed -use projects, convenience mar-
kets with self -serve gasoline services.
and factory outlet centers.
The factory outlet center is a major
new type of land use in the United
States. A factory outlet by definition is
a manufacturer's retail outlet. tradition-
ally located in the basement of the mill
or factory. Today, factory outlet centers
house a group of independent manufac-
turer -owned outlet stores typically sell -
ine discontinued lines. seconds. etc., at
discounted prices. The centers tend to be
relatively small and situated in or near
tourist areas. There are usually no ma-
jor, large anchor stores in these centers.
Based on the size and makeup of the
stores and centers, the market to which
these centers are geared, and the typical
location of the centers, it is clear that
thev are different from the standard
shopping center. With several factory
outlet centers proposed for different
areas of Massachusetts. the problem
faced by major public transportation
agencies responsible for reviewing the
projects was not only the lack of histor-
ical empirical data on trip generation.
but also the need to define how factory
outlet centers differ from standard shop-
ping centers.
As part of a proposed factory outlet
center traffic impact study. an extensive
data collection program was carried out
to better define the travel characteristics
of factory outlet centers. Observations of
both trip generation and pass -by trip -
making characteristics were conducted.
Although this study may only scratch the
surface of these issues. the results should
provide some valuable insight relative to
travel characteristics of this type of land
use.
Study Sites
Developing trip generation rates and ob-
taining information on the pass -by char-
acteristics for factory outlet centers in-
volved compiling available data collected
by others and conducting our own field
surveys (see Table 1).
The two North Conway study sites
(L.L. Bean Factory Outlet and Red
Barn Outlet Center) are in a tourist area
that attracts outdoor enthusiasts, such as
campers in the summer and skiiers in the
winter. The roadway (State Highway
Route 16/302) adjacent to and serving
both sites is the only major route nearby.
and with the exception of .a locally
known street, there are no opportunities
to bypass the area or to divert from an-
other route. The L.L. Bean store was
expected to be a destination for shop-
pers, and thus that outlet center was ex-
pected to have a high trip generation rate
and a low pass -by rate. The corridor is
well known for its retail outlet centers
and it is thus expected that pass -by trip
rates for a specific center are high.
Lenox. Massachusetts, is another
tourist area. with museums, galleries.
and Tanel e wood. which is the summer
"home" of the Boston Symphony. The
Lenox Country Shops are located ap-
proximately 1 mile north of the proposed
site for a new factory outlet center: other
retail centers. including neighborhood -
type centers. are located 1.5 to 2 miles
north of the project site.
Cape Cod Factory Outlet Center in
Sagamore. Massachusetts. is adjacent to
two major highways that serve Cape Cod
and is also within 0.25 miles of several
major retail trip generators.
In contrast, the Branford Factory Out-
let Center, just outside of New Haven.
Connecticut, is not in a tourist area. The
center is located on Route 1, which is
heaviiv traveled by commuters. Nearby
land uses do not include other factory
outlet centers, which would tend to re-
duce the likelihood of pass -by trips to
the Branford Center. Interstate 95 is
nearby, and because it runs parallel to
ITE JOURNAL . FEBRUARY 1991 -41
Route 1, it allows motorists to either by-
pass the commercial area or to divert
from it.
Methodology
Trip Generation
Driveway volumes were counted for var-
ious periods. Days and time periods
were somewhat dictated by the schedule
of the traffic impact study for the pro-
posed project. The data collected did,
however, include both Christmas season
and post - Christmas season observations.
Several Saturday. as well as weekdav,
counts were also incorporated into the
data collection effort. Summer condi-
tions representing peak travel- demand
periods in Lenox, Sagamore. and North
Conway were included.
Data were collected during the week-
day afternoon peak period and on Sat -
urdays for four to six hours: most centers
closed by 6 P.m. Nine new data - collection
observation periods were included in the
final analysis. including the new Satur-
day observations. Historical data, avail-
able from other studies. were also pro -
vided to us for review and examination_
These data included five additional Sat-
urday observations and eight weekday
data points.
Pass -By Trips
Pass -by traffic is a phenomenon that is
related to retail- oriented developments.
such as shopping centers. service cen-
ters, and fast -food establishments. Pass -
by trips can represent impulse or "turn
in" traffic from the existing roadway, trip
chaining. and diverted trips (i.e.. those
diverted from another center or those
diverted from another roadway). They
are also somewhat influenced by other
land uses in the area. As can be readily
seen, pass -by trips are very much a func-
tion of local street volumes.
Detailed travel surveys were also con-
ducted in order to gain a better under-
standing of the pass -by trip phenomenon
as it relates to factory outlet centers. Po-
tential sites were selected and reviewed
with the state transportation agency, and
after receiving approvals from owners.
two sites were selected for further study:
the 50,000 -sq ft L.L. Bean Factory Out-
let Center in North Conway and the
100.000 -sq ft Outlet Center in Branford,
Connecticut. The Branford Factory Out-
42 - ITE JOURNAL • FEBRUARY 1991
Table 1. Factory Outlet Center Characteristics
Name
Location
Size (sq ft)
No. of
Stores
Survey Type
No. of Obser-
vations
The Lenox Coun-
Trip
try Shops
Lenox, MA
86,000
26
Generation
8
The Red Barn
Trip
Outlet Center
N. Conway, NH
23,000
25
Generation
3
Cape Cod Fac-
tory Outlet
Trip
Center
Sagamore, MA
125,000
25 '
Generation
1
LL Bean Factory
Outlet
N. Conway, NH
50,000
11
Pass -by
2
Trip
Branford Factory
Generation
Outlet Center
Branford, CT
100,000
33
and Pass -by
20
'Historical mechanical recorder counts also were available.
Table 2. Peak -Hour Trip Generation Rates Used in Projecting Factory Outlet Traffic
(Trip Ends per 1000 sq ft)
In Out Total
Average Conditions
Average Weekday P.m. 1.51 1.61 3.12
Saturday 3.00 2.89 5.89
Peak Conditions
Average Weekday P.m. 1.81 2.00 3.81
Saturday 146 3.08 6.54
let Center provides a contrast to the L.L.
Bean center because it is situated in a
nontourist area along a major commuter
corridor with a parallel route available.
Consequently, these two survey sites
provided a complementary set of data on
the travel behavior of visitors (e.g., tour-
ists, day shoppers) and/or regular com-
muters in relation to factory outlet cen-
ters.
The L.L. Bean surveys were con-
ducted on Thursday (4 -6 P.m.), Friday
(1 -6 P.m.), and Saturday (12 -4 P.m.),
May 4 through May 6. 1989. The Bran-
ford center surveys were conducted on
Wednesday and Thursday (1 -6 P.M.),
May 24 and 25, 1989.
In general, the procedure followed for
conducting the pass -by surveys was as
presented in Trip Generation.' The sur-
vey forms provided in Trip Generation
were modified slightly to be more site -
specific and clearer on important ques-
tions.
In calculating the pass -by trip rates,
assumptions were made regarding trip
purpose and the origin /destination of the
trip. The survey obtained information on
where the trip originated (i.e.. home.
work, other retail), as well as the next
stop (i.e.. home, work, other retail).
New trips generated by the center were
assumed to be those for which the trip
origin and next stop were the same and
those for which the trip origin was some-
thing other than "other retail" and the
next stop was "other retail."
Results
Trip Generation
All the available trip generation data ob-
servations were compiled, including
both new and historical data. Data were
organized by weekend versus weekday
and peak season versus off -peak season.
as well as by total. Applying the daily
and/or peak -hour traffic count data col-
lected at the various factory outlet cen-
ters to the gross leasable area of each,
trip generation rates were derived for the
locations examined in this study. These
rates are shown in Table 2.
In computing trip generation rates.
the observed data and validity of the
counts were reviewed. Invalid or ques-
tionable data were omitted from the cal-
culation. The resulting data showed the
following:
• Average weekday afternoon rates, un-
der average conditions, are 22 percent
lower than during peak periods;
• Saturday peak rates. under average
conditions, are only 11 percent lower
than during peak demand periods;
• Directional splits are comparable to
other retail uses (i.e.. approximately
50150).
The observed trip - generating character-
istics were also reviewed for patterns
over the course of the day. Figures 1 and
2 illustrate observed patterns for the Red
Barn Outlet Center and the Lenox
Shops. The patterns indicate fairly con-
sistent trip rates between 12 P.-,t. and 5
PM. on Saturdays for each center. The
overall trip rates for each center were
fairly comparable.
In addition, a review of entering and
exiting traffic patterns related to the Red
Barn Outlet Center for the -summer
(peak) period and the off -peak period
indicated that although trip rates are dif-
ferent, the hourly patterns show consis-
tency in trip rates for a four- to five -hour
period.
Historical data from the Branford
Center provided information on daily
trip generation and the variation in
travel to and from the center over the
course of the week. Figure 3 illustrates
the daily variation in trip making during
the month of September. As indicated.
Friday has the highest weekday trip rate.
and as expected. Saturday is the overall
peak shopping day. The data indicated
that Saturday traffic is approximately 36
percent higher than Friday traffic and 53
percent higher than the average weekdav
traffic. Traffic on Sundays was compa-
rable to average weekday traffic. The av-
erage daily trip rate was computed to be
32 trips per 1000 sq ft, while the Satur-
day trip rate was calculated to be 49 trips
per 1000 sq ft.
The last area examined. with respect
to trip generation, was a comparison be-
tween observed trip generation rates and
rates calculated according to the equa-
tions provided in Trip Generation (Land-
OBSERVED ENTERING PATTERN`
zso- -- - - -- -- --- - -- - -- — -- - - --
i
2.00 - -�-�. - - -- - —
T -
150 - --
Trip Rat.
W ks(
1.00
i
0.50
i
I
0.00
12:041:00 1:00.2:00 2:00 -3:00 3:041:00 1:045:00
Red Barn Slaps v Lenox shops `
note: tsaturday. oR-sra t
Figure 1. The observed entering pattern for Red Barn and Lenox Shops factory outlet
centers.
OBSERVED EXMNC PATTERN�
2.50
zoo _-
750'-- -- — — —
Trip Rate
P_ kat
1.00 -
0.50 - - -- -- -- —
0.00
7290-100 1:00 -290 Z006-3D0 3:00-190 4.005fl0
Rd Bam Shop. C..,anoa Shope
note (Saturday, otf- ,on)
Figure 2. The observed exiting pattern for Red Barn and Lenox Shops factory outlet
centers.
Figure 3. Daily variation in travel to and from the Branford Outlet Center in Septem-
ber. SOURCE: Unpublished trip generation data. Barkan & Mess Associates, Inc.
ITE JOURNAL • FEBRUARY 1991 . 43
This
publication
is available
in icrofr .
n
UMI reproduces this publication in
microform: microfiche and 16 or
35mm microfilm. For information
about this publication or any of the
more than 16,000 periodicals and
7,000 newspapers we offer, complete
and mail this coupon to UMI, 300 -
North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI
48106 USA. Or call us toll -free for an
immediate response: 800- 521 -0600.
From Alaska and Michigan call collect
313 -761 -4700. From Canada call toll -
free 800 - 343 -5299.
Please send me information about the
titles I've listed below:
Name
Title
Company institution
Address
City.•StaterZip
Phone ( )
LT-M -1
A Bell & Howell Compahy
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 USA
800 - 521 -0600 toll -free
313- 761 -4700 collect from Alaska
and Michigan
800 - 343 -5299 toll -free from Canada
44 • ITE JOURNAL . FEBRUARY 1991
Table 3. Observed Trip Generation Rates for Factory Outlet Centers Versus Shopping
Center Rates Derived from Trip Generation'
Vehicle Trip Ends per 1000 sq ft Gross Leasable Area
Size of Center Average Weekday Weekday P.m. Peak Saturday Peak
(sq ft) Derived Observed Derived Observed Derived Observed
23,500 123.4 — 12.47 3.12 15.96 5.89
50,000 94.7 — 8.7 3.12 11.98 5.89
100,000 74.3 35.51 6.23 112 9.21 5.89
`Land-use code 820 in cited reference 1.
Table 4. Summary of Travel Surveys
Day of Survey
Resident
No. of Surveys
Visitor
Total
L. L. Bean Outlet
Thursday
9
22
31
Friday
31
135
166
Saturday
33
215
248
Branford, CT
Wednesday
no
no
147
Thursday
no
no
186
na = not applicable
Use Code 820). Table 3 compares trip
rates calculated using the regression
equations from Land -Use Code 820 with
trip rates actually observed for factory
outlet centers as a result of this research.
Using the rates in Trip Generation. it
is apparent that as the size of a shopping
center increases, the actual trip rate de-
creases. Although this phenomenon has
not vet been reported for factory outlet
centers, the data shown in Table 3 indi-
cate that trip rates for factory outlet cen-
ters are 50 to 75 percent lower than those
for shopping centers during the average
weekday afternoon peak hour and 35 to
65 percent lower during the Saturdav
peak hour. Certainly, caution must be
used here because of limited data, as
well as a need to better understand fac-
tory outlet centers in various environ-
ments (i.e.. urban versus suburban.
tourist area versus nontourist area).
However, it is fairly clear from this re-
search that trip—eneratina characteris-
tics of factory outlet centers do differ
substantially from those of traditional
shopping centers.
Pass -By Trips
In general, the premise was that not all
the trips generated by factory outlet cen-
ters represent new trips. A certain per-
centage of trips. referred to as pass-by
trips. represents those motorists who are
alreadv on the roadway system Nvho
choose to visit the project. These trips
could be impulse, diverted. or planned
linked trips. Prior to conducting the sur-
veys, review agencies anticipated a rela-
tively low pass -bv rate (in the 0 to 15
percent range) for commuters during the
week, while generally agreeing that Sat-
urdays would experience higher pass -by
rates. There was doubt, however.
whether the outlet centers would have
characteristics similar to rezular shop-
ping centers.
Tables 4 through 6 provide summaries
of the travel surveys conducted at both
sites studied (L-L. Bean Center and
Branford Center). The results from the
pass -by surveys were quite interesting.
Overall, 450 personal - interview surveys
were completed over three days at the
L.L. Bean outlet in North Conway and
Table 5. Travel Survey Frequency Summary, L.C. Bean Center
Question
1. Are you a local resident?
2. Where are you from?
3. How long is your stay?
4. What is your primary reason for visiting the
area?
5. Where did your trip begin just prior to this
stop?
6. Where will you go directly from here?
7. Did you alter your normal route to get here
today?
were completed over two days at the
Branford site. As seen in Table -l. a small
number of survevs were obtained for
Thursdav at the L.L. Bean outlet center.
It was observed. however. that the ma-
jority of outlet center patrons were
tors to the area and not residents. By
identifving both categories of patrons.
pass -by characteristics of each could be
examined. The sample collected at the
Branford site was fairly consistent on
both days.
Highlights from the survevs include
the following:
• A large majority of patrons of the L.L.
Bean outlet center in North Conway
are visitors to the area:
• In general, area residents visited the
center during off -peak times during
Response
Thurs. (5/4/89)
4-6 P.M.
Fri. (5/5/89)
1 -6 P-M.
Sat. (5/6/89)
12 -4 P.M.
Yes
11
31
33
No
20
135
215
Local
11
32
29
Other N.H.
3
42
51
Maine
1
18
16
Mass.
4
33
95
Other
12
41
57
Permanent
11
30
18
One day
7
77
69
Weekend (2 days)
4
34
116
3 or more days
9
25
45
Vacation
14
58
123
Day shopper
4
47
73
Business
1
21
5
Personal business
0
5
12
Sightseeing
1
2
2
Outdoor recreation
0
2
7
Other
0
1
7
Home
4
47
57
Work
4
19
2
Other retail
8
82
170
Hotel /Motel
5
6
8
Other
10
12
11
Home
13
48
34
Work
1
5
1
Other retail
6
91
195
Hotel /Motel
2
10
5
Other
9
12
13
Yes
5
18
30
No
26
148
218
the week and not on weekends: and
• The reason respondents gave for being
in the area was not only for shopping.
but also for general vacationing.
Using these assumptions and applying
them to the results of the surveys. pass -
by rates were estimated and are sum-
marized in Table 7. From the table. it can
be seen that the percentages of pass -by
trips for the two factory outlet centers
studied are relatively high. Pass -by trips
for the L.L. Bean outlet were 62 percent
on Thursday. 66 percent on Friday. and
74 percent on Saturday. Interestingly. the
Branford results also revealed high pass -
by trip rates, although the survevs were
conducted on a Wednesday and a Thurs-
day in an area not known for tourism.
Results from both Wednesday and
Thursday consistently indicated that
pass -by rates were in the range of 50 to
60 percent. Overall. the results from the
survev indicated that individual factory
outlet centers will tend to experience
pass -by rates similar to or greater than
traditional shopping centers.
Conclusion
The research conducted in this studv of
factory outlet centers has indicated that
the outlet centers do not generate traffic
to the same level as traditional shopping
centers. but are similar in terms of the
pass -by trip phenomenon. Detailed
travel survevs conducted at two major
factory outlet centers have demonstrated
that pass -by trips do. in fact. occur dur-
ITE JOURNAL . FEBRUARY 19911 - 45
ing both the weekday and the weekend.
whether in a tourist or nontourist envi-
ronment. Based on these survey find-
ings, the pass -by rate can be quite high,
and use of a zero percent pass -by is not
representative of any realistic condi-
tions. The observed pass -by rates also
indicated that pass -by activity at factory
outlet centers may be higher than the
ITE Trip Generation methodology
would estimate and that, while the trip -
generating characteristics of factory out-
let centers may in fact be significantly
different from that of neighborhood or
regional shopping centers. the Trip Gen-
eration methodology for calculating
pass -by trip rates should not be rejected
out of hand. The detailed survevs of fac-
tory outlet centers have shown that their
observed pass -by rates are at least com-
parable and consistent with those of typ-
ical shopping centers.
The trip generation characteristics of
factory outlet centers show a much lower
trip rate than for traditional shopping
centers. This could be due to the spe-
cialty of factory outlet stores, the ab-
sence of a large anchor store, and the
fact that day -to -day durable goods are
generally not available at factory outlet
centers.
It must be noted that this compilation
of data and information has only
scratched the surface of travel forecast-
ing for factory outlet centers. As with
other new land uses where research is
needed to better understand the travel
characteristics associated with them,
there are more questions to be answered
and areas to be studied further. Some of
these include the following:
• Assuming the month of May was av-
erage, do pass -by projections differ
during the peak summer tourist season
or pre- Christmas period?
Table 6. Travel Survey Frequency Summary, Branford Factory Outlet Center
• What is the appropriate condition for
which to analyze and design?
• As a geographic area grows in outlet -
center type development, is trip gen-
eration behavior more related to the
aggregate total of centers in the area,
rather than on an individual center ba-
sis? If so. at what aggregate total does
each new center add little to the
amount of new traffic to the area?
• There is a need to collect additional
data and examine the potentially dif-
ferent characteristics for factory outlet
centers by geographic area in the coun-
try. urban versus suburban, nontourist
areas versus tourist areas. isolated cen-
ters versus centers in large outlet retail
areas.
• Do outlet centers function significantly
different from upscale specialty retail
stores?
Wed. (5/24/89) Thum (5/25/89)
Question Response 1-6 P.m. 1-6 P.m.
1. Where were you just prior to this stop? Local Area 118 164
Other Conn. 28 21
Other 1 1
1 Is that your:
,. Where will you go directly from here?
4. Is that your
5. Was coming to this center today the primary
reason for this trip?
6. If you did not stop here today would you still
be on Route 1 passing by?
Home
59
54
Work
31
59
Shopping
25
23
Business
8
7
Personal Bus.
10
13
Other
14
30
Local
120
150
Other Conn.
26
34
Other
1
2
Home
88
113
Work
4
20
Shopping
21
22
Business
3
2
Personal Bus.
11
12
Other
20
17
Yes
63
89
No
84
97
Yes
68
61
No
79
125
7. How far out of your way did you travel? 0 -5 min. 96 96
5 -15 min. 37 59
+ 15 min. 14 31
46 . ITE JOURNAL - FEBRUARY 1991
Reference
1. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip
Generation. 4th Edition. Washington.
D.C.: ITE, 1987
Bibliography
McDonough & Scully. Inc. Final Environ-
mental Impact Report, Tanger Outlet Cen-
ter. Lenox, Massachusetts. Framingham.
Mass.: McDonough & Scully. May 1989.
Unpublished trip generation data. Branford
Outlet Center. Barkan & Mess Associates.
Branford. Connecticut, 1988.
Unpublished trip generation data. Lenox
Country Shops. Champagne Associates.
Northampton. Mass.. 1987.
Unpublished trip generation data. The Red
Barn. Resources Systems, Nonich, Vt..
1988. f
William J. Scully,
Jr., P.E. is a prin-
cipal with tMc-
r:
Donough &
Scully, in Fra-
mingham. tMassa-
clucserts. Scully. a
XMember of ITE, has been actively in-
volved in the Institute and had ::orked on
Technical Council committees related to
examining travel reduction options and
assessing traffic impacts. He also chaired
the Technical Council committee on ef-
fective CBD parking. At the local level.
he is involved in technical committees.
preparing technical programs for the
Table 7. Summary of Established Pass -by Trip Rates
% New Trips % Pass -by Trips
Day Resident Visitor Resident Visitor Weighted Average
L. L. Bean Outlet
Thursday 33.3 40.9 66.7 59.1 613
Friday 48.4 30.4 51.6 69.6 66.2
Saturday 27.3 25.6 72.7 74.4 74.1
Branford, CT
Wednesday 43.6 56.4 61.2
Thursday 35.0 65.0
membership, and developing ways to en-
courage people to enter the profession. He
holds a B. S. C. E. and an M. S. C. E. from
the Utniversin, of Massachusetts in Am-
herst.
Richard A. Rv-
dant, formerly a
transportation en-
gineer with ;Mc-
Donough &
Scully, assisted iit
the cohecrion and
analysis of the Meld data used in the de-
velopmenr of rite trip generation and pass -
bv trip rates presented in this article. He
holds a B.S.C.E. from Worcester Poly-
technic Instintte. Rydant is an Associate
:Member of ITE and is currently with the
Central ,Massachusetts Regional Plan-
ning Commission.
Kvle J. Brenner ivas a transportation en-
gineering aide with .11eDonough & Scully
at the time this study was conducted. He
had been involved in the firm's transpor-
tation planning studies and signal design
projects and in several trip generation
studies and travel surveys. He has a
B.S. C. E. from IiorcesterPolvtechnicIn-
stirute.
ITE JOURNAL • FEBRUARY 1991 - 47
n 1991, the February issue of the ITE
Journal published "Developing
Traffic Forecasting Data for Factory
Outlet Centers."' This article dealt with
the trip generation characteristics of
five small to mid -size. value - oriented or
outlet -type retail facilities (23.000
square feet (sq ft) to 125.000 sq ft) in
the northeast area of the United States.
This article, written by Scully, Rydant
and Brenner, clearly shows that value -
oriented retail centers have significantly
different (and lower) trip generation
characteristics than retail shopping cen-
ters of similar sizes. In fact, the 1991
ITE Journal article shows that value -
oriented trip generation rates generally
are 50 percent less than traditional
shopping centers, as published in the
ITE's Trip Generation, 5th Edition?
The purpose of this update is to pro-
vide additional information on value -
oriented retail centers ranging in size
from 93,000 sq ft to super regional mall -
size, value oriented retail centers con-
taining up to 1,815,000 sq ft. At the cur-
rent time, there are only a few super
regional type value- oriented malls, but
based upon current retail trends it is
anticipated that there will be many
more super malls of this type planned
and constructed,4uring the 1990s. At
the current time, the most well -known
Conversion Factors
To convert from IQ 4IlwLL p by
sq ft 1112 0.0929
16 • RE JOURNAL • NOVEMBER 1993
value- oriented super regional malls are:
• Potomac Mills in Prince William
County, Va. (Washington D.C. area)
• Sawgrass Mills in Ft. Lauderdale. Fla.
• Gurnee Mills in Chicago. Ill.
• Franklin Mills in Philadelphia. Pa.
Currently, there are similar facilities
being planned in Milpitas. Calif.:
Kansas City. Mo.: Tampa. Fla.: and
Seattle. Wash.
Value - oriented regional mails pro-
vide a unique shopping experience for
customers and patrons. There is a vast
difference in traffic generation charac-
teristics, as well as the product and envi-
ronment that is created by a value -ori-
ented mall.
A summary of the February 1991
article follows:
-The research conducted in this study
of factory outlet centers has indicated
that the outlet centers do not generate
traffic to the same level as traditional
shopping centers, but are similar in terms
of the pass -by trip phenomenon. Detailed
travel surveys conducted at two major
factory outlet centers have demonstrated
that pass -by trips do, in fact, occur during
both the weekday and the weekend.
whether in a tourist or non - tourist envi-
ronment. Based on these survey findings.
the pass -by rate can be quite high. and
use of a 0 percent pass -by is not represen-
tative of any realistic conditions. The
observed pass -by rates also indicated that
pass -by activity of factory outlet centers
might be higher than the ITE trip genera-
tion methodology would estimate and
that while trip generating characteristics
of factory outlet centers might. in fact. be
significantly different from that of neigh-
borhood or regional shopping centers.
the trip generation methodology for cal-
culating pass -by trips should not be
rejected out of hand. The detailed sur-
vevs of factory outlet centers have shown
that their observed pass -by rates are at
least comparable or consistent with those
of typical shopping centers.
-The trip generation characteristics of
factory outlet centers show a much lower
trip rate than for traditional shopping
centers. This could be because of the spe-
cialty of factory outlet stores. the absence
of a large anchor store and the fact that
day -to -day durable goods generally are
unavailable at factory outlet centers."
Based on Table 3 in the 1991 article.
a 100,000 sq ft factory outlet center gen-
erates 52 percent fewer daily trips than
what would be determined from the
ITE's Trip Generation, 50 percent fewer
weekday evening peak -hour trips and
36 percent fewer Saturday peak -hour
trips.
Table 1 of this article shows a trip
generation comparison for various -size,
value- oriented outlet malls /shopping
centers during the evening peak hour.
The top section of the table makes a
comparison for both Potomac Mills and
Franklin Mills to the same size regional
mall based upon ITE trip generation
rates. As can be seen, the peak -hour
trips average 30 percent less for the
super regional outlet malls. The other
six comparisons are for centers of vari-
ous sizes from 93,000 sq ft to 3I5.000 scl
ft vs. typical retail strip shopping cen-
ters. A comparison of those trips shows
a significantly higher differential of trips
for the outlet center vs. the strip shop-
ping center.
Table 2 is a comparison of various -
size centers on a Friday and Saturday
for outlet centers and strip centers
based generally upon the ITE Trip
Generation.
Table 3 shows hourly trip rates/1,000
sq ft from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. on a week-
day. This type of data is required to
undertake more extensive studies
including traffic signal warrant analyses
and studies of access points to the
value- oriented super regional malls.
One of the important factors to
remember when analyzing the traffic
impacts of a value - oriented mall is that
the travel characteristics of the cus-
tomers are substantially different than
those of a typical regional mall.
Customers who frequent a factory out-
let center typically "plan their trip" well
in advance and often look upon a trip to
a value- oriented factory outlet mall as
an "event" rather than just a shopping
trip. The shopping experience at a
value - oriented mall often is one marked
by a long stay as compared to a one -
hour or less trip to a regional mall for a
specific purpose. A value - oriented mall
serves a larger market and area and,
therefore. there is typically a longer
drive time to the value mall. This condi-
tion will result in an understandably
longer visit even during peak hours.
The difference between the shop-
ping characteristics of a regional mall
and a value- oriented mall could be
compared to that which takes place in a
community strip shopping center vs. a
typical regional mall. By this compari-
son, it is customary for many patrons at
a strip shopping center to simply go into
the shopping center, go to the bank, the
dry cleaner, the video store or another
store for a period of 15 minutes to 30
minutes and then leave that shopping
center to proceed onto another destina-
tion. When comparing the shopping trip
for a strip center to that of a regional
mall, the typical regional mall trip is
longer. Likewise, when comparing a
standard regional mall to a trip made to
a value- oriented mall, the value- orient-
ed mall experience is longer, more
planned and structured, and, therefore,
the overall trip generation rate on a per
square foot basis is less.
Table 4 summarizes the results of a
shoppers survey taken at the Potomac
Mills super mall. The table illustrates
how visit time frames for the value -ori-
ented regional center tended to be sub-
stantially longer in duration than for
more conventional shopping malls. The
data also indicate that, unlike the tradi-
tional regional mall where the primary
attraction factor is locational conve-
nience with low prices ranking last, the
primary attraction factors for a value -
oriented regional mall are selection and
low prices, with locational convenience
ranked last.
The survey data from Potomac Mills
indicates that shoppers tend to travel
further and stay longer at a value -ori-
ented super mall in comparison to a tra-
ditional regional mall. Table 5 shows
the result of the employee survey data
for Potomac Mills, which can also be
used for trip and parking generation.
In summary, it is clear that the 1991
Journal article, when combined with the
data contained in this article, continues
to show that value- oriented retail cen-
Table 1. Evening Peak Hour Trip Rate Comparisons Between Observed Rates
and 17E Rates (Total Trips /1,000 sq tt GLA)
ITE Rote
Site For Retalf Observed Rate % Difference
Potomac Mills (12/86)
Prince William County, Va.
1.12 million sq tt 2.84 2.02 -28.8%
Franklin Mills
Philadelphia, Pa.
1.590 million sq ft 2.61 1.88 -28%
Franklin Mills (6/92)
Philadelphia, Pa.
1.815 million sq ft 2.52 1.66 -34.1%
Average for 3 studies at Regional Mall Sized Centers -30.3%
Kenosho Outlet Mall
Wisconsin
315,000 sq tt
4.33
1.60
-63.1%
Northeast Outlet Malt Study
(Published in ITE Jo=oa
(5 centers 8% - 125k sq ft)
6.23
3.12
-50%
Chesapeake Village (6/92)
Cecil County, Md.
148,000 sq ft
5.69
1.59
-72.1%
Chesapeake Village (6/92)
Queen Anne's County, Md.
122,303 sq tt
6.10
2.43
-60.2%
Bay Bridge Market Place
(Saturday, 4/89)
Anne Arundel County, Md.
93,000 sq ft 6.56 2.50 -61.9%
Bay Bridge Market Place
(Weekday Before Christmas - 12/87)
93,000 sq tt
8.90 2.92 -67.2%
Average for 10 studies at Community Sized Centers
-62.4%
Sources: ITE Trip Generation (Fifth Edition): Potomac Milts Traffic Impact Analysis: Trip Generation
Studies conducted by The Traffic Group Inc. from 1980 to 1992: February 1991, ITE Journal.
ITE JOURNAL - NOVEMBER 1993 - 17
tens generate traffic at substantially
lower trip generation rates than tradi-
tional neighborhood, community or
regional mall retail shopping centers.
References
t. Guckert. W. 'Trip Generation
Comparisons of Club Warehouse
Stores.' ITE Journal, Vol. 63, No. 4
(April 1993): 26-28.
2. Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Trip Generation, 5th Edition.
Washington, DC: ITE, 1990. 1
ITE's Electronic
Bulletin Board
The ITE Bulletin Board System
can be accessed by anyone with a
modem and PC by dialing
800/9824683. The bulletin board
allows users to:
*Exchange technical information
• Make technical inquiries
•Leave or get messages
• Download files
*Get the latest information on
Positions available or wanted up
to six weeks before publication in
ITE journal
*Access lists of journal articles
*Review "Washington Reports"
• And much more
If you need more information
about what the BBS has to offer
or have questions about using it,
call the systems operator at ITE
Headquarters at 202/554 -8050.
18 • ITE JOURNAL • NOVEMBER 1993
Table 2. Trip Generation Comparisons for Various Sized Outlet Mails /Centers
on a Friday and Saturday
1.2 Million sq ft
• Observed Trips (Potomac Mills)
. ITE (Regional Mail - Code 820)
Difference
ITE (Cutlet Center - Code 823)
ITE (Strip Center - Code 820)
Friday Saturday
Evening Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour
2A00 Trips
3,360 Trips
29% less
for Outlet Mal
410 Trips
1,140 Trips
2,800 Trips
4,320 Trips
36% less
for Outlet MOD
710 Trips
1,560 Trips
Difference 64% less 55% less
for Outlet Center for Outlet Center
• Observed (Outlet Center) 310 Trips
590 Trips
• ITE (Strip Center - Code 820) 620 Trips
920 Trips
Difference 50% less
36% less
for Outlet Center
for Outlet Center
Source: 1986 Traffic impact Analysts for Potomac Mills and fTE Trip Generation (FM Edition)
Table 3. Pro)oeted Hourly Trip Generation Rates for a 1,500,004 sq ft
Super Regional Value- Oriented Moll'
Time
in
Weekday Trip Rate / 1,000 sq h
Out
Total
84 a.m.
0.31
0.10
0.41
9-10
1.03
0.18
1.21
10-11
1.29
0.39
1.68
11 -12 noon
1.09
0.65
1.74
12 -1 p.m.
1.15
0.87
2.02
1 -2
1.08
1.04
2.12
2-3
0.98
1.18
2.16
3-4
0.93
1.10
2.03
4-5
0.95
1.04
1.99
5-6
0.98
1.04
2.02
6-7
0.97
1.00
1.97
74
111
0.71
1.82
8-9
0.69
0.80
1.49
9-10
0.35
1.16
1.51
10-11 P.M.
0.12
0.45
0.57
Based upon Potomac Mills Study Traffic impact Analysis from Dec. 2. 1986, to Dec. 16. 1986.
Table 4. Potomac Miib: hopper Survey
VWt time Frames
rte Spent at Regional Sriopprnp Centers
Most Frequently
Shopped Mad
(Percent of
Respondents)
Potomac Mills
(Percent of
Respondents)
Less than 30 minutes
2.1
3.0
30 minutes to less than 1.5 hours
31.1
27.7
1.5 hours to less than 2.5 hours
27.5
27.6
2.5 hours to less than 3.5 hours
19.0
17.8
3.5 hours or more
10.0
23.4
Most Frequently Shopped Mall
Results
Potomac Mills
Ronk Reason
Percent'
Ronk
Reason
Percent'
1 Convenience
55.7
1
Selection
26.1
2 Quality
13.7
2
Low Prices
23.0
3 Selection
12.6
3
Quality
16.5
4 Low Prices
11.5
4
Convenience
15.2
Source: Western DevekKx t Corporation and RPR Economic Consultants, Potomac MWs
intercept Survey— Srtopo#V Patterns. Nov. 21-23,1989; provided to Wagstaff and Associates by
the Prince William Planning Department, Prince Wllllom, Va.; 502 respondents.
'Percent of total respondents.
Table 5. Potomac Mills Employ** Survey
Characteristic'
Results
Total Employees
Approx. 3.000
Estimated gross leasable floor area
1,354.343'
Total GLASF /employee
451
Employment Type
Full Time:
54 percent
Part Time:
46 percent
Employee Age
17 years or less:
23 percent
18 to 24:
41 percent
25 to 34:
20 percent
35 to 44:
10 percent
'
45 or more:
6 percent
Employee Sex
Female:
72 percent
Mole:
28 percent
Source: Western Development Corporation and RPR Economic Consultants.
Potomac Mitts
Economic Benefit Project: A Reassessment, January
1989.
1All data excludes outlying commercial pads.
tTE JOURNAL • NOVEMBER 1993 • 19
APPENDIX D
TOTAL FUTURE YEAR 1999 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................
Streets: (N-S) DRIVEWAY A
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ........
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
08TF99PM.HCO
(E-W) ANDERSON-GIBSON RD
EW
60 (min)
MxW
10/12/95
TOTAL FUTURE 1999 VOLUMES
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Stop /Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' S (0-6)
SU/RV's (0-o)
CV's (-6)
PCE's
-------------
1
2<
0
33
10
N
97
386
33
.95
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
---------------
1
1
1 2< 0
N
73 459 212
.95 .95 .95
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 2 2
1 1 1
----------------
1
1<
0
33
10
73
.95
.95
.95
Road
0
2.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
----------------
1
1
Adjustment Factors
1
1<
0
120
10
54
.95
.95
.95
Road
0
2.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
----------------
1
1
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major
Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor
Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic
Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor
Road
7.00
3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
210
336
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1084
936
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1084
936
Prob. of Queue -free State:
0.93
0.94
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
419
671
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1021
748
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1021
748
Prob. of Queue -free State:
0.92
0.86
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 3: TH from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
1244
1154
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
204
230
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.80
0.80
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
163
184
Prob. of Queue -free State:
0.93
0.94
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
1037
1126
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
230
202
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.75
0.74
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.81
0.80
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.76
0.75
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------
174
151
- - - - --
0
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate
MoveCap
SharedCap
Avg.Total
Delay
Movement
v(pcph)
Cm(pcph)
------
Csh(pcph)
------
Delay
------------
LOS
------
By App
--- - - - - --
--------
NB
L
------
35
174
25.9
D
NB
T
11
163 >
>
>
11.8
NB
R
77
1084 >
635
> 6.6
>.B
SB
L
126
isi
115.7
F
SB
T
11
184 >
>
>
76.5
SB
R
57
936 >
563
> 7.3
> 9
EB
L
102
748
5.6
3
1.0
WB
L
77
1021
3.8
A
0.4
Intersection
Delay =
10.4
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................
Streets: (N-S) DRIVEWAY B
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
09TF99PM.HCO
EW
60 (min)
MxW
10/12/95
TOTAL FUTURE
(E-W) ANDERSON-GIBSON RD
1999 VOLUMES
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I n n
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
mc, s 00
SU/RV's
CV's (90
PCE's
------------
0 2<
0
.95
N
565
14
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
---------------
1
J_ n
14
U
.95
N
171
730
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
----------------
1
J_ n
14
171
.95
.95
Gap (tg)
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
----------------
1
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
----------------
0
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 290
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 987
- -- Movement Capacity: (pcph) 987
Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.82
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street WD, ED
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 579
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 838
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 838
Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.79
--------------------------------------------------------
--- Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB SB
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
1473
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
121
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.79
Adjusted Impedance
Factor:
0.79
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.79
Movement Capacity:
--------------------------------------------------
(pcph)
95
- - - - --
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HcS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Perfo--
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph)
-------- ------ ------ - - - - --
NB L is 95
NB R 180 987
WB L 180 838
Intersection Delay
nance Summary
Avg.Total
Delay
------------
45.0
4.5
5.5
1.4
Delay
LOS By App
------ --- - - - - --
E
7.5
A
13 1.0
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Version 2.4
10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
Streets: (E-W) ANDERSON-GIBSON RD
(N-S) INTERNATIONAL DRIVE
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 01TF99PM.HC9
Area Type: Other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE
1999
VOLUMES
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L T
R
L T
R
L T
R
L T
R
No . Lanes
---- ----
> 1
----
1
---- ----
> 1
----
1
---- ----
1 2
----
1
---- ----
1 2
- - --
1
Volumes
88 112
536
60 138
255
678 1483
48
129 572
85
Lane Width
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00 3.00
3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1
2
3 4
5
6 7
8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
ND Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green 31.OA
Green 28.OA
34.OA
12.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0
Yellow/AR 0.0
5.0
5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs
Phase
combination
order: #1
#5 #6
#7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance
Summary
Lane Group: Adj
Sat
V/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
----- ---- -------
EB LT 263
957
-----
0.802
----- -----
0.275 37.1
---
D
-----
15.0
- --
B
R 1069
1583
0.528
0.675 6.8
B
WB LT 331
1205
0.628
0.275 27.3
D
21.0
C
R 660
1583
0.406
0.417 16.1
C
ND L 746
1770
0.957
0.750 38.1
D
23.2
C
T 1987
3725
0.825
0.533 17.2
C
R 844
1583
0.060
0.533 8.7
B
SB L 313
1770
0.435
0.283 26.7
D
23.6
C
T 1118
3725
0.566
0.300 23.4
C
R 475
1583
0.187
0.300 20.1
C
Intersection
Delay =
21.6 sec/veh Intersection
LOS
= C
Lost Time/Cycle, L =
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0
sec Critical
v/c(x)
= 0.923
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
Streets: (E-W) DRIVEWAY C (N-S) INTERNATIONAL PKWY
Analyst: MXW File Name: 1OTF99PM.HC9
Area Type: Other 10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 1999 VOLUMES
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - - --
No. Lanes > 1 2 > 1 1 2 2 1 1 2<
Volumes 34 20 828 181 20 34 1059 2143 181 34 1100 34
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left NB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
WE Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WE Right
Green 23.OA Green 47.OA 40.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat V/C g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- - --
EB LT 213 1022 0.268 0.208 25.9 D 23.5 C
R 1240 3167 0.794 0.392 23.4 C
WE LT 288 1384 0.735 0.208 35.1 D 33.6 D
R 330 1583 0.109 0.208 24.9 C
NB L 1298 3539 0.885 0.367 28.5 D 14.8 B
T 2763 3725 0.857 0.742 9.2 3
R 1174 1583 0.163 0.742 2.9 A
SB L 62 177 0.581 0.350 29.4 D 37.5 D
TR 1298 3709 0.966 0.350 37.7 D
Intersection Delay = 21.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.882
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................
Streets: (N-S) INT. PKWY W
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
02TF99PM.HCO
EST RAMP
EW
60 (min)
MxW
10/12/9S
TOTAL FUTURE
(E-W) HIGHWAY 26
1999 VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T a L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s
SU/RV's
CV's
PCE's
-----------
0 2 0
N
450
.95
0
0
0
2
1
-
---------------
0 2 0
N
516
.95
0
0
0
2
1
----------------
0
0 0
---------------
0
Adjustment Factors
0 0 1
266
95
0
0
0
2
----------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 258
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1025
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1025
Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.73
--------------------------------------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
-- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
SB R 280 1025 4.8 A
Intersection Delay = 1.0
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................
Streets: (N-S) INT.PKWY E.
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
03TF99PM.HCO
RAMP
NS
60 (min)
MxW
10/12/95
TOTAL FUTURE
(E-W) HIGHWAY 26
1999 VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
--------------------------------
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s
SU/RV1s (%)
CV I S
PCE's
------------
0 2 0
N
450
.95
0
0
0
2
1
---------------
0 2 0
N
.95
0
0
0
2
1
----------------
1 0 1
310
14
.95
.9s
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
---------------
1
Adjustment Factors
U
U
Follow-up
---------------
0
Time (tf)
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
0
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
1385
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
1385
Prob. of Queue-free
State:
0.99
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor
Street
WD EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
451
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
545
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance
Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity:
--------------------------------------------------------
(pcph)
545
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v (pcph) Cm (pcph) Csh (pcph) Delay LOS By App
-- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
EB L 326 545 16.3 C
15.7
EB R 15 1385 2.6 A
Intersection Delay = 6.6
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4
10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
Streets: (E-W) ENTRANCE D
(N-S) HIGHWAY 26
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 11TF99PM.HC9
Area Type: Other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 1999
VOLUMES
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
No. Lanes
---- ---- ----
1 1 1
---- ---- ----
---- ---- ----
1 2 1
---- ---- - - --
1 2 1
Volumes
1 188 52
59 449 226
25 899 35
Lane Width
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4
5
6 7 8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green 35.OA
Green 75.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0
Yellow/AR 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase
combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat
V/c g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS
Delay LOS
----- ---- -------
EB L 546 1770
----- ----- ----- ---
0.002 0.308 18.6 C
----- - --
20.5 C
T 574 1863
0.345 0.308 20.9 C
R 488 1583
0.113 0.308 19.2 C
NB L 161 251
0.385 0.642 7.4 13
5.9 B
T 2390 3725
0.208 0.642 5.7 B
R 1016 1583
0.234 0.642 5.9 2
SE L 447 696
0.058 0.642 5.2 B
6.6 B
T 2390 3725
0.415 0.642 6.9 B
R 1583 1583
0.023 1.000 0.0 A
Intersection
Delay = 8.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.392
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
Streets: (E-W) ENTRANCE E
(N-S) HIGHWAY 26
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 12TF99PM.HC9
Area Type: Other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE
1999
VOLUMES
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L T
R
L T R
L T R
L T R
No . Lanes
---- ----
1 1
----
1
---- ---- ----
---- ---- ----
1 2 1
---- ---- - - --
1 2 1
Volumes
220 173
376
503 514 3
8 782 161
Lane Width
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00 3.00
3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1
2
3 4
5 G 7 8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green 21.OA
Green 36.OA 53.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0
Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs
Phase
combination order: #1 #5 #G
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat
V/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap
Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
---- -------
EB L 339
1770
----- ----- ----- --- ----- - --
0.684 0.192 33.0 D 22.7 C
T 357
1863
0.510 0.192 29.1 D
R 778
1583
0.509 0.492 13.8 3
ND L 574
1770
0.922 0.575 35.1 D 18.3 C
T 2825
3725
0.201 0.758 2.7 A
R 1200
1583
0.002 0.758 2.3 A
SB L 251
547
0.032 0.458 11.5 B 13.3
T 1707
3725
0.506 0.458 15.0 B
R 1069
1583
0.158 0.675 4.6 A
Intersection
Delay = 17.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L =
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0
sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.672
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
--------------- --
Streets: (E-W) BETHEL ROAD (N-S) HIGHWAY 26
Analyst: MXW File Name: 05TF99PM.HC9
Area Type: Other 10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 1999 VOLUMES
------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - - --
No. Lanes 1> < 1 2 1 1 2
Volumes 460 364 959 134 134 1022
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sic[nal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ED Left NB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NE Right ED Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 34.OA Green 21.OA 55.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- - --
WB L 531 1770 0.456 0.300 22.4 C 25.0 C
LR 535 1784 O.S23 0.300 23.3 C
R 475 1583 0.726 0.300 28.1 D
NB T 1769 3725 0.599 0.475 15.3 C 13.7 B
R 1266 1583 0.111 0.800 1.7 A
SB L 330 1770 0.427 0.325 11.8 B 7.5 B
T 2421 3725 0.467 0.650 6.9 B
Intersection Delay = 14.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.629
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4
10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
---------------------------------
Streets: (E-W) BETHEL
ROAD
(N-S) HIGHWAY 121 W. RAMPS
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 06TF99PM.HC9
Area Type: other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE
1999
VOLUMES
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L T
R
L T R
L T R
----
L T R
---- ---- - - --
No. Lanes
---- ----
1
----
<
---- ---- ----
> 1
---- ----
1 2 <
Volumes
189
81
108 814
52 957 10
Lane Width
12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00
3.00.3.00
3.00
.3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1
2
3 4
5
6 7 8
EB Left
NE Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green 23.OA
48.OA
Green 39.OA
Yellow/AR 0.0
5.0
Yellow/AR 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs
Phase combination order: #1 #2
#5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat V/C g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap
Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay
LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- -------
EB TR 667
1601
----- ----- -----
0.426 0.417 16.3
C 16.3 C
WB LT 1092
1795
0.889 0.608 19.6
C 19.6 C
SB L 605
1770
0.091 0.342 17.3
C 26.8 D
TR 1271
3719
0.841 0.342 27.3
D
Intersection
Delay = 22.6 sec/veh Intersection
LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L =
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0
sec Critical v/c(x) =
0.872
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4
10-20-1995
Wells
& Associates
Streets: (E-W) BETHEL ROAD
(N-S) HIGHWAY 121
E. RAMPS
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 07TF99PM.HC9
Area Type: Other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 1999
VOLUMES
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L T R
L T R
L T R
----
L T R
---- ---- - - --
No. Lanes
---- ---- ----
> 1
---- ---- ----
1 <
---- ----
> 2 <
Volumes
29 212
409 69
513 183 244
Lane Width
12.0
12.0
12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00,1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4
5
6 7 8
ED Left
N13 Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
ED Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green 54.OA
Green 56.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0
Yellow/AR 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase
combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat
v/C g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS
Delay LOS
----- ---
----- ---- -------
EB LT 684 1466
----- ----- ----- ---
0.371 0.467 13.5 3
13.5 3
WB TR 765 1640
0.659 0.467 17.4 C
17.4 C
NB LTR 1684 3485
0.617 0.483 15.2 C
15.2 C
Intersection
Delay = 15.6 sec/veh Intersection
LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.637
APPENDIX E
TOTAL FUTURE YEAR 2010 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Hcs: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................
Streets: (N-S) DRIVEWAY A
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
08TF10PM.HC0
EW
60 (min)
MxW
10/12/95
TOTAL FUTURE 2010
(E-W) ANDERSON-GIBSON RD
VOLUMES
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- - ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s ( % )
SU/RV's
CV's
PCE's
-----------
1 2
2< 0
0
33
10
N
126 4
414 3
33
.95 .
.95 .
.95
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
2 2
2 2
2
1 1
1 1
1
1 2< 0
N
73 487 277
.95 .95 .95
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 2 2
1 1 1
----------------
1
1<
0
33
10
73
.95
.95
.95
Right Turn Minor Road
0
2.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
----------------
1
1
Adjustment Factors
1
1<
0
155
10
71
.95
.95
.95
Right Turn Minor Road
0
2.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
---------------
1
1
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
_
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
BC3: UoeignaIizecl Intersection Release 2'I Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
Step I: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
224
382
Potential Capacity: (I?oplz)
I066
887
- Movement Capacity: (fzcIzh)
I066
887
Prob. of Queue-free State:
0'93
0'92
--------------------------------------------------------
_ Step 2: LT from Y0a'oz Street
WB
EB
________________________________________________________
Conflicting Flows: (nplz)
447
764
Potential Capacity: (I?cplz)
987
667
- Movement Capacity: (pcph)
987
667
Prob. of Queue-free State:
0'92
0'80
--------------------------------------------------------
� Step 3: TB from Minor Street
NB
SE
________________________________________________________
Conflicting Flows: (vpb)
1394
1272
Potential Capacity: (pcpb)
167
197
-
Capacity Adjustment Factor
doe to Impeding Movements
0'74
0.74
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
123
145
-� Prob. of Queue-free State:
0.9I
0'92
________________________________________________________
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB
BB
_ --------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vpiz)
I122
1244
Potential CaIzszoit]/: (pcplz)
203
I70
Major LT, Minor TB
-
Impedance Factor:
0,68
8'67
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0,75
0'75
Capacity Adjustment Factor
- duo to Impeding Movements
O.G9
0'69
Movement Capacity: (pcplz)
--------------------------------------------------------
140
118
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate
MoveCap
SharedCap
Avg.Total
Delay
Movement
v(pcph)
Cm(pcph)
------
Csh(pcph)
Delay
LOS
------
By App
--- - - - - --
--------
NB
L
------
35
140
------
------------
34.2
E
NB
T
11
123 >
>
>
15.1
NB
R
77
1066 >
544
> 7.9
> B
SB
L
163
118
813.8
F
SB
T
11
145 >
>
>
526.2
SB
R
75
887 >
536
> 8.0
> B
E3
L
133
667
6.7
B
1.5
WB
L
77
987
4.0
A
0.3
Intersection
Delay =
72.1
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4
10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets: (E-W) ANDERSON-GIBSON RD (N-S) ENTRANCE D
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 09TF10PM.HC9
Area Type:
Other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 2010
VOLUMES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
No. Lanes
---- ---- ----
1 2<
---- ---- ----
1 2<
---- ---- ----
1 1<
---- ---- ----
1 1 <
Volumes
28 600 14
171 795 192
14 10 171
192 10 28
Lane Width
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4
5
6 7 8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
ED Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
23.OA 52.OA
Green 35.OA
Yellow/AR
0.0 5.0
Yellow/AR 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase
combination order: #1 #2 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane
Group: Adj Sat
V/c g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS
Delay LOS
-----
ED L
---- -------
357 1770
----- ----- ----- ---
0.081 0.358 7.6 B
----- ---
14.2 B
TR
1671 3713
0.406 0.450 14.4 B
WB L
438 1770
0.411 0.358 7.0 B
16.1 C
TR
1628 3617
0.670 0.450 17.6 C
NB L
479 1552
0.031 0.308 18.7 C
21.1 C
TR
493 1599
0.387 0.308 21.3 C
SB L
265 859
0.763 0.308 32.6 D
30.3 D
TR
512 1660
0.078 0.308 19.0 C
Intersection
Delay = 17.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.690
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4
10-20-1995
Wells
& Associates
Streets: (E-W) ANDERSON-GIBSON
RD (N-S) INTERNATIONAL DRIVE
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 01TF10PM.HC9
Area Type: Other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE
2010
VOLUMES (2.0 Million S.F.)
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L T
R
L T R
L T R
L T R
---- - - --
No. Lanes
---- ----
1 2
----
---- ---- ----
2 2
---- ---- ----
2 3 1
----
1 3 1
Volumes
132 154
475 188
841 1917 187
213 736 129
Lane Width
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols
100
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sicrnal Operations
Phase Combination 1
2
3 4
5
6 7 8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
ND Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green 18.5A
8.OA
Green 20.OA 42.5A
11.0A
Yellow/AR 5.0
5.0
Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0
5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs
Phase
combination order: #1 #2 #5
#6 #7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat
V/c g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap
Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS
Delay LOS
--
----- ---- -------
EB L 364
1770
----- ----- ----- ---
0.382 0.367 22.3 C
----- -
29.7 D
T 310
3725
0.548 0.083 35.7 D
WB L 605
3539
0.852 0.171 39.1 D
38.8 D
T 310
3725
0.670 0.083 38.3 D
NB L 973
3539
0.937 0.275 39.0 D
20.6 C
T 3004
5588
0.739 0.538 14.5 B
R 1121
1583
0.176 0.708 3.8 A
SB L 298
1770
0.752 0.267 35.5 D
20.3 C
T 2072
5588
0.412 0.371 18.2 C
R 857
1583
0.159 0.542 8.9 B
Intersection
Delay = 23.4 sec/veh Intersection
LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L =
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.0
sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.949
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4
10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
Streets: (E-W) DRIVEWAY C
(N-S) INTERNATIONAL PKWY
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 10TF10PM.HC9
Area Type:
Other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 2010
VOLUMES (2.0 mill S.F.)
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L T R
---- ----
L T R
L T
R
L T
R
No . Lanes
----
1 1 2
---- ---- ----
2 1 1
---- ----
2 3
----
1
---- ----
1 3
- - --
1
Volumes
34 20 828
306 20 57
1059 2854
306
57 1797
34
Lane Width
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4
5
6 7
8
ED Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SD Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
ED Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
6.OA 12.5A
Green 30.5A 43.OA 8.OA
Yellow/AR
5.0 5.0
Yellow/AR 0.0
5.0 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase
combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 #7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane
Group: Adj Sat
V/c g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap Flow
----
Ratio Ratio Delay
LOS Delay
LOS
-----
ED L
-------
368 1770
----- ----- -----
0.098 0.292 24.6
--- -----
C 22.4
---
C
T
124 1863
0.169 0.067 34.2
D
R
1280 3167
0.770 0.404 22.0
C
WB L
428 3539
0.776 0.121 39.1
D 37.1
D
T
124 1863
0.169 0.067 34.2
D
R
277 1583
0.217 0.175 27.5
D
NB L
1194 3539
0.961 0.338 38.1
D 21.4
C
T
3516 5588
0.940 0.629 17.4
C
R
1227 1583
0.262 0.775 2.5
A
SB L
254 1770
0.236 0.217 28.2
D 37.1
D
T
2096 5588
0.993 0.375 37.8
D
R
785 1583
0.046 0.496 10.1
B
Intersection
Delay = 26.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS
= D
Lost Time/qycle,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
L = 15.0
sec Critical v/c(x)
= 0.928
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................
Streets: (N-S) INT. PKWY W
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
02TF10PM.HC0
EST RAMP
EW
60 (min)
MxW
10/12/95
TOTAL FUTURE
(E-W) HIGHWAY 26
2010 VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s ('I)
SU/RV's ( o )
CV's
PCE' s
-----------
0 2 0
N
691
.95
0
0
0
2
1
-
---------------
0 2 0
N
609
.95
0
0
0
2
1
---------------
0
0
0
----------------
0
Time (tf)
Adjustment Factors
0 0 1
421
.95
0
0
0
2
1
----------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step l: RT from Minor Street NB SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 304
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 971
_ Movement Capacity: (pcph) 971
Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.54
-------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
-- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
SB R 443 971 6.8 B
Intersection Delay = 1.7
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4
10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
Streets: (E-W) HIGHWAY 26
(N-S) INER. PKWY E.
RAMP
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 03TF10PM.HC9
Area Type: Other
10-13-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 2010
Eastbound
Westbound Northbound
Southbound
L T R
L T R L T R
L T R
---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 2
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
2 1
---- ----
Volumes 691
609 14
Lane Width 12.0
12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0
0
Lost Time 3.00
3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green 65.OA 45.OA
Green
Yellow/AR 5.0 5.0
Yellow/AR
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase
combination order: #1 #2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat
V/c g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS
Delay LOS
----- ---- -------
EB L 1976 3539
----- ----- ----- ---
0.379 0.558 9.7 2
----- - --
9.7 B
WB T 1459 3725
0.461 0.392 17.7 C
17.6 C
R 620 1583
0.024 0.392 14.5 B
Intersection
Delay = 13.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.413
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4
10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
Streets: (E-W) ENTRANCE D
-------------------------------
(N-S) HIGHWAY 26
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 11TF10PM.HC9
Area Type: Other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 2010
VOLUMES
Eastbound
Westbound
---------------
Northbound
--
Southbound
L T R
----
L T R
L T R
L T R
No. Lanes
---- ----
1 1 1
---- ---- ----
---- ---- ----
1 2 1
---- ---- - - --
1 2 1
Volumes
2 188 52
59 690 226
25 1251 35
Lane Width
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4
5
6 7 8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WE Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WE Right
Green 35.OA
Green 75.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0
Yellow/AR 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat
V/c g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow
----
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS
Delay LOS
----- -------
EB L 546 1770
----- ----- ----- ---
0.004 0.308 18.6 C
----- - --
20.5 C
T 574 1863
0.345 0.308 20.9 C
R 488 1583
0.113 0.308 19.2 C
NB L 80 124
0.779 0.642 34.4 D
7.8 B
T 2390 3725
0.319 0.642 6.3 B
R 1016 1583
0.234 0.642 5.9 3
SB L 275 428
0.095 0.642 5.3 B
7.9 B
T 2390 3725
0.579 0.642 8.2 3
R 1583 1583
0.023 1.000 0.0 A
Intersection
Delay = 9.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sec Critical v/c (x) = 0.638
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
Streets: (E-W) ENTRANCE E
(N-S) HIGHWAY 26
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 12TF10PM.HC9
Area Type: Other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 2010
VOLUMES
Eastbound
Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R
L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 1 1 1
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - - --
1 2 1 1 2 1
Volumes 220 173 420
560 755 3 8 1134 161
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0
0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left
ND Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green 18.OA
Green 42.OA 50.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0
Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase
combination order: #1 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj sat
V/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- -------
EB L 295 1770
----- ----- ----- --- ----- - --
0.786 0.167 39.9 D 24.4 C
T 310 1863
0.586 0.167 31.9 D
R 818 1583
0.540 0.517 13.1 B
NB L 637 1770
0.925 0.675 35.5 D 16.1 C
T 2918 3725
0.286 0.783 2.4 A
R 1240 1583
0.002 0.783 1.8 A
SB L 128 296
0.062 0.433 12.8 B 18.8 C
T 1614 3725
0.777 0.433 20.5 C
R 989 1583
0.171 0.625 6.1 B
Intersection
Delay = 19.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.857
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets: (E-W) BETHEL ROAD (N-S) HIGHWAY 26
Analyst: MXW File Name: 05TF10PM.HC9
Area Type: Other 10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 2010 VOLUMES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - - --
No. Lanes 1> < 1 2 1 1 2
Volumes 700 435 1260 203 169 1385
Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 .3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ED Left NB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SE Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right ED Right
SB Right WD Right
Green 34.OA Green 21.OA 55.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ---
WB L 531 1770 0.832 0.300 32.9 D 32.0 D
LR 535 1784 0.637 0.300 25.3 D
R 475 1583 0.868 0.300 36.6 D
NB T 1769 3725 0.787 0.475 18.8 C 16.5 C
R 1266 1583 0.169 0.800 1.8 A
SB L 328 1770 0.543 0.325 18.8 C 9.5 B
T 2421 3725 0.632 0.650 8.5 B
Intersection Delay = 18.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.794
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
---------------------------
Streets: (E-W) BETHEL ROAD (N-S) HIGHWAY 121 W. RAMPS
Analyst: MXW File Name: 06TF10PM.HC9
Area Type: Other 10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 2010 VOLUMES
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 1< 1 1 1 2 <
Volumes 289 81 108 997 136 957 138
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left NB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
ND Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 20.OA 46.OA Green 44.OA
Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- - --
EB TR 649 1622 0.600 0.400 19.5 C 19.5 C
WB L 399 1770 0.286 0.308 9.3 B 33.9 D
T 1056 1863 0.994 0.567 36.6 D
SB L 678 1770 0.211 0.383 16.1 C 25.1 D
TR 1401 3655 0.864 0.383 26.2 D
Intersection Delay = 27.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.941
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4
10-20-1995
Wells & Associates
Streets: (E-W) BETHEL ROAD
---------------
(N-S) HIGHWAY 121
- --
E. RAMPS
Analyst: MXW
File Name: 07TF10PM.HC9
Area Type: Other
10-12-95 PM PEAK
Comment: TOTAL FUTURE 2010
VOLUMES
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L T R
---- ---- ----
L T R
L T R
=-
L T R
No. Lanes
> 1
---- ---- ----
1 <
---- - - -- ----
> 2 <
---- ---- - - --
Volumes
65 360
592 107
513 183 244
Lane Width
12.0
12.0
12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4
5
6 7 8
ED Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
ED Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green 54.OA
Green 56.OA
Yellow/AR 5.0
Yellow/AR 5.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase
combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat
V/c g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS
Delay LOS
----- ---- -------
ED LT 569 1220
----- ----- ----- ---
0.785 0.467 22.3 C
----- ---
22.3 C
WB TR 765 1639
0.962 0.467 37.5 D
37.5 D
NB LTR 1684 3485
0.617 0.483 15.2 C
15.2 C
Intersection
Delay = 24.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.787