Item 7A - TIA Pinnacle Point Traffic Impact Analysis
Stantec
TBPE Registration #: 6324
Prepared for:
Adams Engineering & Development
Consultants
Prepared by:
Josh Smith, PE, PTOE
-A
a r � y�• �•V ��
y.
.................................f
JOSHUA D. SMITH /
w .,.
f
�l
February 9, 2016
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1
2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS......................................................2.1
2.1 TRAFFIC COUNTS............................................................................................................2.1
2.2 SITE VISIT...........................................................................................................................2.1
2.3 ROADWAY NETWORK....................................................................................................2.1
2.4 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES .........................................................................................2.2
3.0 PROJECTED FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC.............................................................3.1
3.1 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH...............................................................................3.1
3.2 ADJACENT BACKGROUND SITE....................................................................................3.1
3.3 ADJACENT VACANT LAND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................3.2
4.0 PROJECTED SITE AND FUTURE BUILD TRAFFIC.............................................................4.1
4.1 TRIP GENERATION...........................................................................................................4.1
4.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION...........................................................................................................4.1
4.3 PHASE 1 VOLUMES .........................................................................................................4.2
4.4 PHASE 2 VOLUMES .........................................................................................................4.3
5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................5.1
5.1 TRAFFIC MODELING METHODOLOGY.........................................................................5.1
5.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS..........................................................................................5.2
5.3 FUTURE PHASE 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS..............................................................................5.2
5.4 FUTURE PHASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS..............................................................................5.3
6.0 DRIVEWAY ANALYSIS..................................................................................................6.1
6.1 AUXILIARY LANE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................6.1
6.2 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE....................................................................................6.1
7.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................7.1
Appendices
Appendix A: Proposed Site Plan
Appendix B: Collected Traffic Counts
Appendix C: Background Trip Generation
Appendix D: Project Site Trip Generation
Appendix E: Synchro Analysis Worksheets
(3 Stantec
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Proposed Site Trip Generation ...................................................................................4.1
Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds ...................................................................5.2
Table 3 Existing Condition Capacity Analysis........................................................................5.2
Table 4 Future Phase 1 Traffic Analysis (without south driveway) .......................................5.2
Table 5 Future Phase 2 Traffic Analysis....................................................................................5.3
Table 6 Auxiliary Lane Analysis.................................................................................................6.1
Table 7 Intersection Sight Distance.........................................................................................6.2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Proposed Site Location.............................................................................................. 1.1
Figure2 Proposed Site Plan...................................................................................................... 1.2
Figure 3 Site Context Relevant to Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan ................................ 1.3
Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes ..............................................................................................2.2
Figure 5 Background Site with Vacant Areas........................................................................3.1
Figure 6 Estimated Vacant Parcel Development Locations (Phase 2)..............................3.2
Figure 7 Proposed Site Trip Distribution ...................................................................................4.2
Figure 8 Phase 1 Site Volumes..................................................................................................4.3
Figure 9 Phase 1 Total Build Volumes......................................................................................4.3
Figure 10 Phase 2 Site Volumes................................................................................................4.4
Figure 1 1 Phase 2 Total Build Volumes....................................................................................4.5
Figure 12 Trees Obstructing Sight Distance Looking North from Study Intersection......... 6.2
(3 Stantec
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Introduction
February 9, 2016
.J INTRODUCTION
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Adams Engineering & Development
Consultants to complete a traffic impact analysis for the Pinnacle Point proposed office
development (formerly known as Southlake Oaks) in Southlake, TX. The site is expected to
contain 120,000 square feet of floor area, to be built out over two phases: the first phase will
contain two buildings with a total of 37,000 square feet of floor area, and is expected to be built
out in 2016; the remaining four buildings will be built as part of the second phase, and is
expected to be completed in 2018. The location of the proposed site is shown in Figure 1. The
site plan is shown in a condensed form in Figure 2, with the full-sized plan provided in Appendix
A.
Figure 1 Proposed Site Location
1 P
_.T•
Drive'South Village
Center sa
Georgexvl D. . . ts
-
Sch. .
Proposed
Site !
EulbanksAr
Intermediate
Sc
- . . -
. .
One entrance to the site that will be analyzed as part of this study will be located on Kimball
Avenue. It will form the fourth, eastern leg of the intersection of Kimball Avenue and the north
loop of the George Dawson Middle School/Eubanks Intermediate School entrance. This
entrance will be constructed as part of Phase 1 .
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 1•1
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Introduction
February 9, 2016
Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan
�:lFafruerlYM1F-._ - xrn+_.. - :rr=.pix a•i-rc'.ti' ----
r - - •- -
■
LpT 2 ..
!
■ ■ IT ■ ■11
1 LOO 4
=5
4.
The City of Southlake's Mobility Master Plan updated in 2014 and the Mobility Plan for the
Crooked/Kimball Special Plan Area show a future 2-lane east-west undivided collector roadway,
South Village Center Drive, which will run adjacent to the northeast corner of the site, as shown
in Figure 3. A short segment of South Village Center Drive (visible in Figure 1) has recently been
constructed west of Kimball Avenue and north of George Dawson Middle School in conjunction
with development occurring there.
The Mobility Master Plan identifies that this segment will connect to the existing north-south
segment of South Village Center Drive that currently intersects Southlake Boulevard (FM 1709) at
a traffic signal to the northwest. The Mobility Master Plan also identifies the extension of South
Village Center Drive east of Kimball Avenue to Nolen Drive as Project MT17 and lists it as a Priority
Tier 3 project with implementation at least 7 years in the future. The Pinnacle Point developer will
provide two driveways on the east side of the site that will connect to a future access easement
and drive isle, which will in turn connect to South Village Center Drive once it is built.
Development on the east side of the future drive isle is expected to also have driveways
connecting to it, but specifics are not yet known.
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 1.2
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Introduction
February 9, 2016
A cross-parcel access point is planned along the southwest part of the site, in the event that a
connection to the lot south of the proposed site can be negotiated.
Assumptions will be made about future traffic on the access easement and drive isle to address
City comments on an earlier draft of this study. However, since funding for South Village Center
Drive is unknown, build-out traffic will not be evaluated for its intersection with the drive isle.
Figure 3 Site Context Relevant to Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan
�® Mobility Plan
vb �� 203❑ Special Plan Area
• �, r �I LDN
....• '
�bb
Legend
�, Ili Hwy 114(300'�OU R01M1r)
I; �Raadol Min'FM1839 1 t40'ROW Parkway}
•�4�' AFM 170WFM 1838(130'ROW�*�• \. A61),124'Arl"FW1
of ••
r 44
'•20 � -A541-Ba'grtanal
J --A40-IUD Arlernal
• • - Future Extended a�• A4Q.e1 Me nal
•PinSouth Village A20-WARedal
Center Drive rrr A3U-7VMenal
s 02U-84'Collector
76 LDN
0 ..•C2U-74Y Ze:[ar
I
r•C2t1•ed Collecbr
•
Common Access Easement
1 • — Crop ked'Krm¢a 11 Plan Area
w
---UWAIrpdd Noise Corridor
� h:M.b ALL I+_L Gr 4
i I •• x..u.bnw.br we....aort
Scale.
'E •'\ to we•.0 oo.�wamlm,n.r
..r...�o<.•L,k.�.M �s,aaa
i, l; i{'le a b"9Q W.rPreMrrF
5
"+.�(:4.L F'rJ4N 1=L{ l:''l;k. �•LN P!w[retrlo1h 5o1YMd?iTSSPiEn tlrlCtl-5C10feat
rdar is srr•mr e6aer[s
•� t Ye�.xwtl ahmrLort
�OeedQ It•S7•�O4 ����
65 LDN
\ `'• D.pedm.ntd Pl.ryrvn °�'..`a'.."�`.`a.��
Fitc_r.M.�I ilitL[.: '� 44 x.d Oevebp rceM Sr>,cen wrkw..a nex�•.
A".phc Yrlomalm%WS w 'm x.anr v,n.
Source:Adapted from City of Southlake Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan, page 17
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 1.3
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Data Collection and Existing Conditions
February 9, 2016
2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The data collection for this project included peak hour turning movement counts for one
intersection near the proposed site. In addition, a site visit was made by Stantec staff.
2.1 TRAFFIC COUNTS
CJ Hensch & Associates, Inc.was contracted to collect traffic counts for the study intersection of
Kimball Avenue and the George Dawson Middle School/Eubanks Intermediate School northern
entrance driveway. Turning movement counts were collected on Wednesday, November 4,
2015, from 7:00-9:00 AM and from 4:00-6:00 PM.
From the traffic counts, the AM peak hour was found to occur from 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM, and the
PM peak hour was found to occur from 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM. The collected counts are provided in
Appendix B.
2.2 SITE VISIT
A site visit was conducted by Stantec staff on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 during the AM peak
period and student drop-off period for the adjacent George Dawson Middle School. During the
site visit, geometric information was collected for the intersection of Kimball Avenue and the
school's north loop entrance, the sight distances were measured at the locations of the
proposed site's northwest driveway along Kimball Avenue, and the build-out of the background
site, located northwest of the proposed Pinnacle Point development, was noted. During the
school drop-off period, a 20 mph speed limit was in effect along Kimball Avenue for the school
zone instead of the usual posted speed limit of 35 mph. Throughout the site visit, neither heavy
congestion nor long turning delays were observed.
2.3 ROADWAY NETWORK
Kimball Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway, operating with a speed limit of 35 mph within
the study area. In the City of Southlake Master Thoroughfare Plan, the roadway is classified as an
arterial. At its intersection with the George Dawson Middle School north loop driveway, left turn
bays are present for the northbound and southbound approaches. The north loop driveway is
one-way for entering traffic only at this intersection, so the intersection is not stop-controlled or
signalized.
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 2.
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Data Collection and Existing Conditions
February 9, 2016
2.4 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
From the collected turning movement counts, the existing year 2015 traffic volumes are shown in
Figure 4 for the AM and PM peak hours.
Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes
Southlake Blvd
> LO
7S
F — Co V
®
ILO
Y
•
N School Drwy.
e�
Pr
• • • - • c00rn
so
I� m
Site
N N
M
`n AM\,ph(PM\,ph)
WIF
Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 2.2
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Projected Future Background Traffic
February 9, 2016
PROJECTED FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
3.1 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH
Phase 1 for the proposed site is expected to be built out in 2016, while Phase 2 is expected for
2018. Between the existing condition year of 2015 and the two build-out years, traffic in the area
is expected to increase. By comparing historical average daily traffic counts in the area,
obtained through both TxDOT and the City of Southlake, a background growth rate of 3% per
year was determined, and applied to the collected turning movement counts.
3.2 ADJACENT BACKGROUND SITE
To the northwest of the proposed site, and directly north of George Dawson Middle School, is a
retail development which has been constructed recently but is not yet fully occupied. During
the site visit (December 1, 2015), it was noted that the remaining vacant space was
approximated to be around 20,300 square feet. The background site with the vacant areas
marked is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Background Site with Vacant Areas
Pi
I!{AL►� - �1 a•f w - ]]�+-�,� / �'1 _'tee. !, '"ti yr�' 1
/ ,.e
Site Vacan,
Areas
s
A trip generation and trip distribution analysis was conducted to estimate the added traffic due
to the full build-out of the background site's vacant spaces. The resulting traffic volumes were
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 3.1
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Projected Future Background Traffic
February 9, 2016
then added to the expected future volumes of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed site's
construction. The trip generation worksheet for the adjacent background site is included in
Appendix C.
3.3 ADJACENT VACANT LAND DEVELOPMENT
The vacant land surrounding the proposed site is zoned for general sites and retail commercial.
Since Pinnacle Point is the first proposed development among the vacant parcels in the vicinity,
no other surrounding background development is anticipated for its 2016 Phase 1 build-out.
However, for Phase 2 of the proposed site's build-out, estimates of the number of trips produced
by the surrounding vacant sites were added to the expected Phase 2 background traffic. These
added volumes considered the future extension of Village Center Drive. The vacant parcels
considered are shown in Figure 6. The trip generation estimates for the vacant parcels are
included in Appendix C. Because much of the vacant development is not near Kimball Avenue,
it was not predicted that these vacant parcels would have a great effect on traffic volumes
adjacent to the proposed site.
Figure 6 Estimated Vacant Parcel Development Locations (Phase 2)
-■y e"^ T" � ram -'� r V
rda/5.
a r w
1 *oned
♦Y r« i` • • • Retaili
FCommercia , ---�
I • I`r
Future a
ExtendedCenter �.
DriveSouth Village Proposed
Sit_
+M i
Future Access
Zoned I f
Generalized
e
Easement and
Site Plan 4t
Drive Isle ■
Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 3.2
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Projected Site and Future Build Traffic
February 9, 2016
4.0 PROJECTED SITF 4LND FUTURE BUILD TRAFFIC
The proposed site traffic was estimated through trip generation and trip distribution analyses. This
section provides the resulting turning movement volumes at the study intersection that will be
generated by the proposed site, and the overall projected future traffic volumes including site
and background traffic.
4.1 TRIP GENERATION
The proposed site is expected to be built-out in two phases: the first phase will include two office
buildings (Lots 1 and 2 on the site plan) with a gross floor area of 37,000 square feet; for the
second phase, an additional four office buildings will be built, bringing the total floor area to
120,000 square feet.
The standard practice for estimating site trip generation is to use the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. For the proposed site, the land use type
"General Office Building" (ITE code 710) was used. The resulting peak hour trips for both phases
of the proposed site build-out are shown in Table 1. (Phase 2 totals are cumulative and thus
include trips from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildings). The corresponding ITE worksheets are
provided in Appendix D.
Table 1 Proposed Site Trip Generation
Traffic Phase 1 Phase 2
Volumes Total Trips In Out Total Trips In Out
Daily Trips 617 309 308 1,508 754 754
AM Peak 86 76 10 221 194 27
PM Peak 120 20 100 j 213 36 177
4.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
A trip distribution analysis is used to estimate how site-generated trips enter and exit the project's
study area. For this study, the external trip distribution was based on the current traffic volumes
and the expected traffic patterns around the proposed site. The trip distribution, shown in Figure
7, was developed for both build-out phases. It was assumed to be the same for both peak hours
and for inbound and outbound traffic.
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\reVised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 4.1
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Projected Site and Future Build Traffic
February 9, 2016
Figure 7 Proposed Site Trip Distribution
Phase 1 Phase 2
soiltly
� I
�' • }r
- •
. .7 ..7 � •� _4 4
INN
T
.e Z 7 Futurew- r'
Extended
bo
South Viliage
Center Drive
t
Pr 3070
Proposed Proposed
Site Site
V
Future Access
Easementand
Drive _
4.3 PHASE 1 VOLUMES
The Phase 1 volumes consider the first stage of the proposed site's build-out, including two of the
six proposed buildings, and the full build-out of the retail/restaurant development on the
southwest corner of Southlake Boulevard and Kimball Avenue. The proposed site volumes are
shown in Figure 8, and the Phase 1 total build volumes are shown in Figure 9.
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 4.2
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Projected Site and Future Build Traffic
February 9, 2016
Figure 8 Phase 1 Site Volumes
1
Southlake B I vd
v
Q �
I O O 0
Y
Site Driveway
• �
7(75)
�,_,- _ • N School Drwy. �E 0 0(0)0)
3(25)
O o rn
Proposed
- AM h PM h
r
Figure 9 Phase 1 Total Build Volumes
Southlake Blvd A1
QN
7f^ LO LO
- I �
Y
ly Site Driveway
• 0 7(75)
• N School Drwy. � 0(0)0)
3(25)
e
o
Proposed � `U)
Site AM h PM h
4.4 PHASE 2 VOLUMES
The Phase 2 volumes for the proposed site are shown in Figure 10. The estimated Phase 2 total
build volumes are shown in Figure 11.
The Phase 2 volumes consider the full build-out of the proposed site, the shopping development
northwest of the site, and build-out of the vacant parcels surrounding the proposed site.
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 4.3
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Projected Site and Future Build Traffic
February 9, 2016
Figure 10 Phase 2 Site Volumes
Southlake Blvd _
_ w
OO
, '••� O O W
Y J
I� WI Site Driveway
7-- 11 (72)
N School Drwy. 0(0)
,�- 7(44)
k�
0o rn
O O c
Proposed
Site AM\/ph(PM\/ph)
2
G1
• 1 Q I� O
� VN,
r � W
LL
6(43) --;;7
0(0) —y
N Site Drwy
o_ o0
0
M
AM h PM h
3
v
N
V
O O
N
7
u-
3(18)3(18)
S Site Drwy
AM h PM h
Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 4.4
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Projected Site and Future Build Traffic
February 9, 2016
Figure 11 Phase 2 Total Build Volumes
Southlake Blvd
~ > N O
�y f6
r�r �J rn (o
1 W
ZAr4JY
IL Site Driveway
T-- 11 (72)
N School Drwy. < — 0(0)
7(44)
•
k�
rn rn
ProposeM O_
Site AM\/ph(PM\/ph)
2
v
N N
G1 �
0 M
r W
LL
6(43) �
0(0)
N Site Drwy
0
O
O
AM\/ph(PM\/ph)
3
v
N
> V lM M
O O O Co
W N In Co
r
� IIW
LL
Bkrd Driveway
3( ) _tel 30(
(0 )
0(0) � 0(0)
S Site Drwy
v
a O SO
Y �
m
AM\/ph(PM\/ph)
Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 4.5
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Traffic Analysis
February 9, 2016
Phase 2 also considers the extension of South Village Center Drive from Kimball Avenue to Nolen
Drive, and the construction of the access easement and drive isle along the east side of the
proposed site.
This study assumes that the vacant parcels adjacent to the drive isle would also use Village
Center Court to access Kimball Avenue and Nolen Drive. Two driveways were assumed along
the east side of the drive isle for these background developments, and a portion of the
estimated trip generation of these sites was distributed among those driveways. In Figure 11, the
driveway locations for the proposed site are shown as solid white lines, while the analysis
driveways included for the background developments are shown with dotted white lines.
j'RAFFI(. ANALYSIS
The traffic analysis performed for this study includes a level of service and queue length analysis
for the study intersections. This section describes the methodology used in the traffic analysis and
presents the traffic performance for each intersection movement studied.
5.1 TRAFFIC MODELING METHODOLOGY
SynchroTM Version 9 was used to perform capacity analysis at the study intersection. The
capacity analysis functions are based on the Transportation Research Board's Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010. The HCM is a nationally recognized standard for performing
capacity analyses. The reports generated from each Synchro model are shown in Appendix E.
Capacity analyses are evaluated based on a level of service (LOS) that ranges from A
(excellent) to F (poor). Levels of service A through D are generally considered acceptable and
levels of service E and F are considered unacceptable. The level of service thresholds from the
Highway Capacity Manual are shown in Table 2.
For side-street stop-controlled intersections, the major street movements have right-of-way, and
thus don't have any delay passing through the intersection. Therefore, these approaches were
not considered for this study. Overall level of service values for such intersections are not
computed, as these free-flow movements would cause overall delay to be misleadingly low. For
this study, both the delay (and respective level of service) and 95th-percentile queue length was
computed for each applicable movement.
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 5.1
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Traffic Analysis
February 9, 2016
Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds
Control Delay Per Vehicle
LOS seconds
Stop-Controlled Intersection
A < 10
B >10 and<_15
C >15 and<_25
D >25 and<_35
E >35 and<_50
F >50
5.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The existing traffic analysis incorporates the traffic volumes counted in the field and the current
geometric conditions. The results of the existing condition capacity analysis are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Existing Condition Capacity Analysis
Control LOS(Delay[s]) &95th Percentile Queue [vehicles]
No. Intersection Type Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS(Delay) Queue LOS(Delay) Queue
Kimball Ave & Side-Street NBL B (1 1) 1 A (9) 1
1 School N Stop
Entrance Loop
Note that because the school driveway is one-way moving away from the intersection, the only
existing movement that experiences any delay at the intersection is the northbound left turn.
This movement does not experience significant congestion or queues during either peak hour.
No improvements are therefore needed based upon existing conditions.
5.3 FUTURE PHASE 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Phase 1 of the proposed site's build-out includes two of the six planned office buildings, and is
projected for the year 2016. The traffic analysis for Phase 1 is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Future Phase 1 Traffic Analysis (without south driveway)
Control LOS(Delay[s]) &95th Percentile Queue [vehicles]
No. Intersection Type Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS(Delay) Queue LOS(Delay) Queue
Kimball Ave & Side-Street NBL B (1 1) 1 A (10) 0
School N SBL A (9) 0 A (9) 0
1 Entrance Loop Stop- WBL E(44) 0 D (31) 1
/Site Drwy Controlled WBR B (10) 0 B (1 1) 0
Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 5.2
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Traffic Analysis
February 9, 2016
The only movement projected to face high delay is the westbound left turn out of the proposed
driveway during the AM peak. However, during the AM peak, the volume making that left turn is
only 3 vph, and there would thus be nearly no queues expected. Therefore, improvements to this
intersection are not recommended. Adequate throat length will be available during both the
AM and PM peak hours to allow left turns without queues backing up into the roundabout
internal to the site. With a previous analysis, a right-in/right-out driveway was considered on the
southwest portion of the site along Kimball Avenue. It was determined that the site traffic using
this driveway would not significantly contribute to the delay or queues at the northwest driveway
along Kimball Avenue, and was therefore not considered for the analysis of this report.
5.4 FUTURE PHASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Phase 2 includes the full build-out of all six office buildings in the proposed site, projected for the
year 2018. It also includes the extension of South Village Center Drive between Kimball Avenue
and Nolen Drive, and the access easement and drive isle, which would provide driveway
access to the proposed site and two of the adjacent vacant parcels included in the
background analysis. The traffic analysis for Phase 2 is shown in Table 5.
It should be noted that the driveways for the background sites along the access easement and
drive isle are modeled only for purposes of determining the impacts to the Pinnacle Point
driveways. Therefore, LOS and queuing movements relating to the background driveways are
not listed in Table 5 and any improvements related to those driveways would be the
responsibility of adjacent developers.
Table 5 Future Phase 2 Traffic Analysis
Control LOS(Delay[s]) &95th Percentile Queue [vehicles]
No. Intersection Type Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS(Delay) Queue LOS(Delay) Queue
Kimball Ave & NBL B (13) 1 B (12) 0
Side-Street
School N SBL B (10) 0 B (1 1) 0
1 Entrance Loop Controlled WBL F 88 1 F 133 3
/Site Drwy WBR B (1 1) 0 B (14) 1
Drive Isle & NE Side-Street EBL A (10) 0 B (11) 0
2 Site Driveway Stop-
Controlled NEEMM
Drive Isle & NE Side-Street EBL B (1 1) 0 B (14) 0
3 Site Driveway Stop-
Controlled
The westbound left turn out of the proposed site's Kimball driveway would experience LOS F
during both peak hours. However, the 95th percentile queue for this movement is only three
vehicles during the PM peak hour. The site design includes storage for three vehicles between
the stop bar at Kimball Avenue and the internal site roundabout, so queues would be unlikely to
affect conflicting movements at the roundabout.
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 5.3
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Traffic Analysis
February 9, 2016
With the low expected queue for the westbound left turn exit from the proposed site onto
Kimball Avenue, and the other options for vehicles to leave the site, neither improvements to the
site driveway along Kimball Avenue nor an additional driveway would be warranted.
5 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 5.4
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Driveway Analysis
February 9, 2016
6.0 ukIVEWAY ANALYSIS
6.1 AUXILIARY LANE ANALYSIS
An auxiliary lane analysis was conducted to determine if a right turn deceleration lane would be
required for any of the three proposed driveways to the site, per City of Southlake Standards. As
explained in the previous section, the tentatively proposed southwestern driveway on Kimball
Avenue will not be required, and is therefore not considered for an auxiliary lane.
The right turn ingress volumes and volume threshold are shown in Table 6. As shown in the table,
none of the driveways would require a right turn deceleration lane.
Table 6 Auxiliary Lane Analysis
Deceleration
Lane (based on Deceleration
right-turn ingress) Lane
City of Southlake >50 vph Required?
Requirement
Northwest Driveway 49 No
Northeast Driveway 47 No
Southeast Driveway 20 No
6.2 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE
An intersection sight distance analysis was conducted for the proposed northwestern driveway
along Kimball Avenue. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials'
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 61" Edition ("Green Book") was consulted
to compute the required intersection sight distance based on the major roadway design speed
and grade. The actual sight distance for the driveway was measured during the site visit.
Although the speed limit along Kimball Avenue is 35 mph, a design speed of 40 mph was
assumed to consider vehicles that may be speeding along that roadway.
The results of the sight distance analysis are shown in Table 7. Right turns out of the northwestern
driveway will have adequate sight distance. For left turns out of the driveway, however, the
small trees in the median just north of the intersection inhibit that movement's sight distance,
and would make for an unsafe turn out of the proposed site. Refer to the image of this location
taken when trees are in full bloom in Figure 12. Due to this sight distance issue, it is
recommended that the trees along the median north of the proposed site's north driveway be
removed.
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 6•
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Driveway Analysis
February 9, 2016
Table 7 Intersection Sight Distance
Recommended
Design
Intersection Actual Sight Sight
Driveway Movement Speed Grade
Sight Distance Distance(ft) Distance OK?
(mph) (ft)
Right-turn -3% 385 470 Yes
Northwest Left w/trees 40 -3% 500 95 No
Left (w/o trees) 600 Yes
Figure 12 Trees Obstructing Sight Distance Looking North from Study Intersection
i
40W&
Image source:Google Earth
5 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks fia 2016-02-09.docx 6.2
PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Conclusions
February 9, 2016
7.0 <;ONCLUSIONS
The proposed Pinnacle Point development is expected to include six office buildings with a total
floor area of 120,000 square feet. The first phase of development is expected for 2016, and
would include two of the six buildings. The full site build-out is expected for 2018.
The first phase of build out of the proposed site would only include one driveway on the
northwest part of the proposed site along Kimball Avenue. With the expected volumes, traffic
conditions would not warrant any improvements to the driveway. At the driveway, sight distance
was determined to be inadequate for vehicles turning left from the site onto Kimball Avenue.
Therefore, it is recommended that the trees located along the median directly north of this
intersection be cleared to provide adequate sight distance for this vehicle movement.
The second phase of the build-out includes all six of the site's proposed buildings, as well as the
build-out of the vacant parcels surrounding the proposed site. It is assumed that Village Center
Drive would be extended from Kimball Avenue to Nolen Drive to the east of the site. The
proposed access easement and drive isle would run alongside the eastern side of the proposed
site, and would access Village Center Drive. The second phase of build-out would also include
two driveways which would access the drive isle. Traffic analyses conducted for the two
driveways along the drive isle showed low congestion and delay for those driveways, and further
improvements would not be needed.
Future traffic capacity within the study area for the existing condition and with the build-out of
Phase 1 was determined to be adequate for the projected traffic demand. Therefore, no
improvements to the surrounding Kimball Avenue or to the site's driveways would be needed
except to remove trees from the Kimball Avenue median north of the site driveway for
adequate sight distance for left turns exiting the site.
(3 Stantec
bk u:\198110064\revised scope work-01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 7.1
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED SITE PLAN
NVId ld3JNOJ o
sum
PVC 03 w o N
SVX31'3)IVIHinos
odcpza„o
1NIOd 31JVNNId
o
a� Y
i zww� o
zmQ,np U
- � UQZmQU
r m
I
p� I I r mQ
pF,na
i ooa�p
w -
o
a � _
--------------------------------------------
— _ _ - oar
Uri
d gas
LL
'I, -
2
® ® ® w
Lu
� a
IjR
HP—
' s
s &.
UIQ
P =
(1N3YV3AVd 313tINNo�1'3AH llH9WIN'S - - �":3.�-
I S
APPENDIX B: TURNING MOVEMENT
COUNTS
Hou
As&
suocial
Count Name:1.Kimball Avenue
savant@cjhensch.com at George Dawson Middle
5215 Sycamore Ave School North Loop Entrance
Site Code:1
Pasadena,Texas,United States 77503 Start Date:11/04/2015
281-487-5417 Page No:1
Turning Movement Data
Kimball Avenue Kimball Avenue School Driveway
Southbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time
Thru Right U-Tum Peds Total Left Thru U-Turn Peds Total Left Right U-Turn Peds Total Int.Total
7:00 AM 47 4 0 0 51 2 72 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 125
7:15 AM 54 4 0 0 58 5 69 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 132
7:30 AM 93 14 0 0 107 9 76 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 192
7:45 AM 139 73 1 0 213 38 139 0 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 390
Hourly Total 333 95 1 0 429 54 356 0 0 410 0 0 0 0 0 839
8:00 AM 150 58 0 0 208 40 149 1 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 398
8:15 AM 146 28 0 0 174 28 133 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 335
8:30 AM 89 19 0 0 108 20 111 0 0 131 0 0 0 1 0 239
845 AM 59 6 0 0 65 4 77 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 146
Hourly Total 444 111 0 0 555 92 470 1 0 563 0 0 0 1 0 1118
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'"BREAK``*
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hourly Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 94 22 0 0 116 12 141 0 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 269
4:15 PM 90 43 0 0 133 19 157 0 0 176 0 0 0 0 0 309
4:30 PM 108 24 0 0 132 15 114 0 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 261
4:45 PM 125 29 0 0 154 19 155 0 0 174 0 0 0 0 0 328
Hourly Total 417 118 0 0 535 65 567 0 0 632 0 0 0 0 0 1167
5:00 PM 128 22 0 0 150 15 164 0 0 179 1 0 0 0 1 330
5:15 PM 85 14 1 0 100 7 137 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 244
5:30 PM 92 20 0 0 112 17 135 0 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 264
5:45 PM 93 18 1 0 112 4 138 0 0 142 0 0 0 0 0 254
Hourly Total 398 74 2 0 474 43 574 0 0 617 1 0 0 0 1 1092
6:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Grand Total 1593 398 3 0 1994 254 1967 1 0 2222 1 0 0 1 1 4217
Approach% 79.9 20.0 0.2 - - 11.4 88.5 0.0 - - 100.0 0.0 0.0 - - -
Total% 37.8 9.4 0.1 - 47.3 6.0 46.6 0.0 - 52.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 -
AIIVehicles(no 1593 398 3 - 1994 254 1967 1 - 2222 1 0 0 - 1 4217
classification)
All Vehicles100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - - 100.0 100.0
classification))
Pedestrians - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 1 - -
Pedestrians - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100.0 - -
.�Stiix iak
Count Name:1.Kimball Avenue
savant@cjhensch.com at George Dawson Middle
5215 Sycamore Ave School North Loop Entrance
Site Code:1
Pasadena,Texas,United States 77503 Start Date:11/04/2015
281-487-5417 Page No:2
Kimball Avenue[N]
Out In Total
1971 1994 3965
0 0 0
1971 1994 3965
398 1593 3 0
0 0 0 0
398 1593 3 0
R T U P
N 1 Is
-Fa CO
SN � O � J
O 11/04/2015 7:00 AM
o — Ending At
11/04/2015 6:15 PM
°0 000 � Z
a All Vehicles(no
U) p Lo o m classification)
Pedestrians
h t
U L T P
1 254 1967 0
0 0 0 0
1 1 254 1967 0
1594 2222 3816
0 0 0
1594 2222 3816
Out In Total
Kimball Avenue[S]
Turning Movement Data Plot
Hou
As&
suocial
Count Name:1.Kimball Avenue
savant@cjhensch.com at George Dawson Middle
5215 Sycamore Ave School North Loop Entrance
Site Code:1
Pasadena,Texas,United States 77503 Start Date:11/04/2015
281-487-5417 Page No:3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:45 AM)
Kimball Avenue Kimball Avenue School Driveway
Southbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time
Thru Right U-Tum Peds Total Left Thru U-Turn Peds Total Left Right U-Turn Peds Total Int.Total
7:45 AM 139 73 1 0 213 38 139 0 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 390
8:00 AM 150 58 0 0 208 40 149 1 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 398
8:15 AM 146 28 0 0 174 28 133 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 335
8:30 AM 89 19 0 0 108 20 111 0 0 131 0 0 0 1 0 239
Total 524 178 1 0 703 126 532 1 0 659 0 0 0 1 0 1362
Approach% 74.5 25.3 0.1 - - 19.1 80.7 0.2 - - NaN NaN NaN - - -
Total% 38.5 13.1 0.1 - 51.6 9.3 39.1 0.1 - 48.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 -
PHF 0.873 0.610 0.250 - 0.825 0.788 0.893 0.250 - 0.867 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.856
All Vehicles(no 524 178 1 - 703 126 532 1 - 659 0 0 0 - 0 1362
classification)
All Vehicles(no 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0
classification)
Pedestrians - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 1 - -
Pedestrians - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100.0 - -
.�Stiix iak
Count Name:1.Kimball Avenue
savant@cjhensch.com at George Dawson Middle
5215 Sycamore Ave School North Loop Entrance
Site Code:1
Pasadena,Texas,United States 77503 Start Date:11/04/2015
281-487-5417 Page No:4
Kimball Avenue[N]
Out In Total
533 703 1236
0 0 0
533 703 1236
178 524 1 0
0 0 0 0
178 524 1 0
R T U P
N 1 Is
0 O D Peak Hour Data
S M O M
H
N O O O J
O O o 11 7:45 AM
o — Endingding At
11/04/2015 8:45 AM
0 0 0 0 2
All Vehicles(no
U) p CO O M classification)
Pedestrians
O a
h t
U L T P
1 126 532 0
0 0 0 0
1 1 126 532 0
525 659 1184
0 0 0
525 659 1184
Out In Total
Kimball Avenue[S]
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:45 AM)
Hou
As&
suocial
Count Name:1.Kimball Avenue
savant@cjhensch.com at George Dawson Middle
5215 Sycamore Ave School North Loop Entrance
Site Code:1
Pasadena,Texas,United States 77503 Start Date:11/04/2015
281-487-5417 Page No:5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)
Kimball Avenue Kimball Avenue School Driveway
Southbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time
Thru Right U-Tum Peds Total Left Thru U-Turn Peds Total Left Right U-Turn Peds Total Int.Total
4:15 PM 90 43 0 0 133 19 157 0 0 176 0 0 0 0 0 309
4:30 PM 108 24 0 0 132 15 114 0 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 261
4:45 PM 125 29 0 0 154 19 155 0 0 174 0 0 0 0 0 328
5:00 PM 128 22 0 0 150 15 164 0 0 179 1 0 0 0 1 330
Total 451 118 0 0 569 68 590 0 0 658 1 0 0 0 1 1228
Approach% 79.3 20.7 0.0 - - 10.3 89.7 0.0 - - 100.0 0.0 0.0 - - -
Total% 36.7 9.6 0.0 - 46.3 5.5 48.0 0.0 - 53.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.1 -
PHF 0.881 0.686 0.000 - 0.924 0.895 0.899 0.000 - 0.919 0.250 0.000 0.000 - 0.250 0.930
All Vehicles(no 451 118 0 - 569 68 590 0 - 658 1 0 0 - 1 1228
classification)
%All Vehicles(no 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 - - - 100.0 100.0
classification)
Pedestrians - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 0 - -
Pedestrians - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.�Stiix iak
Count Name:1.Kimball Avenue
savant@cjhensch.com at George Dawson Middle
5215 Sycamore Ave School North Loop Entrance
Site Code:1
Pasadena,Texas,United States 77503 Start Date:11/04/2015
281-487-5417 Page No:6
Kimball Avenue[N]
Out In Total
591 569 1160
0 0 0
591 569 1160
118 451 0 0
0 0 0 0
118 451 0 0
R T U P
N 1 Is
o D Peak Hour Data
u � � S
11/04/2015 4:15 PM
o — Ending At
11/04/2015 5:15 PM
0 0 0 0 2
o m All Vehicles(no
m 0 O classification)
Pedestrians
O o o a
h t
U L T P
0 68 590 0
0 0 0 0
0 68 590 0
451 658 1109
0 0 0
451 658 1109
Out In Total
Kimball Avenue[S]
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)
APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND SITES
TRIP GENERATION
Trip Generation
ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012)
Project Pinnacle Point Traffic Impact Analysis Project Number 198110064
Client Adams Engineering & Development Consultants
1000 Sq. Feet Gross
Site Background Development NW of Site Leasable Area 20.3
Land Use Shopping Center ITE Code 820
Trips
Weekdays Total Percent Number
Number In Out In Out
Ln(Trips) = 0.65 * Ln(X) + 5.83 2,409 50% 50% 1,205 1,204
Trips
AM Peak Hour: Weekdays TotalPercent Number
(Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic) Number Fin Out In Out
Ln(Trips) = 0.61 * Ln(X) + 2.24 59 62% 38% 37 22
Trips
PM Peak Hour: Weekdays Total Percent Number
(Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic) Number In Out In Out
Ln(Trips) = 0.67 * Ln(X) + 3.31 206 I 48% 52% 99 107
Trips
Saturdays Total Percent Number
(Peak Hour of Generator) Number In Out In Out
Ln(Trips) = 0.65 * Ln(X) + 3.78 310 52% 48% 161 149
(So Stantec
O
2
lD I� Vf m ti n n N O O N w y4--1
2
lD I� n m m O N N n N N M
j N lfl m m Vf N m I� M n
O N �
N f
0 O m
a
'T m - Vf 0 0 N n O N m Qlp O
O W O 7 n N O�
Q N �•_�• _
M a r-i N Vf a
D
Ol .tiVf lD lD N n O N m Q O
m W ti o ^ � N o a N
m a ti N 7 Vf a
D
a
C O W N O W N O W N N
N W lD N W lD N W lD lD
a
O ti m o ti m o ti m M
a
v �
�n �n m m �n m m m
o ri o o ri o o ri o o
a
m o o m o o o o o
� lD N N lD N N lD N N N
0
a LL a LL a LL LL
U1 O O U1 O O w O O O
S o o 3 c 0 3 c c O
0 0 o ri
ti N W W N ti N
C
U1
O O O O O O O O O O O
u N N N N N N N N N N
LLJ N n W N I� W N I� W W
F
U1
a o O O O O O O O O O O
0 � ti ti ti ti ti ti N
O
O
O O lD lD O O
N lc lc lc o lc lc lc o lc lc lc o O N o
y N � i6 i6 i6 o ru N N oo" io io i6 0 o d a
V1 N 1l1 N GO U
t 'a
a o �
N0 lt-w3
Vi C Vi C C
0) •60) •6 VI Q •6 VI Q VI Q U '� G
d C O d C O d C O N
In N to N to N to cc O
Q W � � � N
W a v O w a" v O w a" v O O O
o c
{� C N N - N N N - N N N - N N
N o m O o M O o M O o 'o v
a J `g _
C41 11
u
0.1 N
APPENDIX D: PROPOSED SITE TRIP
GENERATION
Trip Generation
ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012)
Project Pinnacle Point Traffic Impact Analysis Project Number 198110064
Client Adams Engineering & Development Consultants
1000 Sq. Feet Gross
Site Pinnacle Point- Phase 1 (Buildings 1 & 2) Floor Area 37
Land Use General Office Building ITE Code 710
Trips
Weekday Total Percent Number
Number In Out In Out
Ln(Trips) =0.76 * Ln(#units) +3.68 617 50% 50% 309 308
Trips
AM Peak Hour:Weekday Total Percent Number
Number In Out In Out
Ln(Trips) =0.80 * Ln(#units) + 1.57 86 88% 12% 76 10
Trips
PM Peak Hour:Weekday Total Percent Number
Number In Out In Out
Trips= 1.12 (# units) + 78.45 120 17% 83% 20 100
Trips
Saturday Total Percent Number
(Peak Hour of Generator) Number In Out In Out
Trips= 0.43 (# units) 16 54% 46% 9 7
Stantec
Trip Generation
ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012)
Project Pinnacle Point Traffic Impact Analysis Project Number 198110064
Client Adams Engineering & Development Consultants
1000 Sq. Feet Gross
Site Pinnacle Point- Phase 2 (All Buildings) Floor Area 120
Land Use General Office Building ITE Code 710
Trips
Weekday Total Percent Number
Number In Out In Out
Ln(Trips) =0.76 * Ln(#units) +3.68 1508 50% 50% 754 754
Trips
AM Peak Hour:Weekday Total Percent Number
Number In Out In Out
Ln(Trips) =0.80 * Ln(#units) + 1.57 221 88% 12% 194 27
Trips
PM Peak Hour:Weekday Total Percent Number
Number In Out In Out
Trips= 1.12 (# units) + 78.45 213 17% 83% 36 177
Trips
Saturday Total Percent Number
(Peak Hour of Generator) Number In Out In Out
Trips= 0.43 (# units) 52 54% 46% 28 24
C� to ntc
APPENDIX E: SYNCHRO REPORTS
HCM 2010 TWSC
1: Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance Existing AM
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR
Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 126 532 0 1 0 524 178
Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 126 532 0 1 0 524 178
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized None None - None - None
Storage Length 130 50
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - 0 - 0
Grade,% 0 0 - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 92 100 92 92 92 25 79 89 92 25 92 87 61
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 159 598 0 4 0 602 292
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1234 1827 299 894 894 0 0 436 598 0 0
Stage 1 925 925 - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 309 902 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 6.44 4.14 6.44 4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.52 2.22 2.52 2.22
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 169 76 697 388 755 760 975
Stage 1 347 346 - - - - -
Stage 2 718 355 - - - - -
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 169 0 697 738 738 760 975
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 169 0 - - - - -
Stage 1 347 0
Stage 2 718 0
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay,s 0 2.4 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLn1 SBU SBL SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 738 760 975
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.222 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay(s) 11.3 0 9.8
HCM Lane LOS B A A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.8 0 0
Synchro 9 Report
HCM 2010 TWSC
1 : Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance Existing PM
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR
Traffic Vol,veh/h 1 0 0 0 0 0 68 590 0 0 0 451 118
Future Vol,veh/h 1 0 0 0 0 0 68 590 0 0 0 451 118
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized None None - None - None
Storage Length 130 50
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 - 0 - 0
Grade,% 0 0 - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 25 92 100 92 92 92 89 90 92 100 92 88 69
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 0 0 0 0 0 76 656 0 0 0 513 171
Ma Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1064 1492 328 684 0 0 479 656 0 0
Stage 1 808 808 - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 256 684 - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 6.44 4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 2.52 2.22
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 218 122 668 905 714 927
Stage 1 399 392 - - - -
Stage 2 763 447 - -
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 200 0 668 905 --2147-483648 927
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 200 0 - -
Stage 1 365 0
Stage 2 763 0
Approach WB
HCM Control Delay,s 0 1 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLn1 SBU SBL SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 905 + 927
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.084 - -
HCM Control Delay(s) 9.3 0 0
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 0
Notes
-:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined ':All major volume in platoon
Synchro 9 Report
HCM 2010 TWSC
1 : Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance/Kimball Drwy Phase Build AM
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 'NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 3 0 7 129 555 19 57 544 183
Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 3 0 7 129 555 19 57 544 183
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized None - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 130 50
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0
Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 92 100 92 92 92 79 89 92 92 87 61
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 3 0 8 163 624 21 62 625 300
Ma Minorl ma Maj
Conflicting Flow All 1398 2010 322 925 0 0 644 0 0
Stage 1 961 961 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 437 1049 - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 2.22
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 132 58 674 734 937
Stage 1 332 333 - - -
Stage 2 619 303 - - -
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 96 0 674 734 937
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 96 0 - - -
Stage 1 258 0
Stage 2 578 0
Approach
HCM Control Delay,s 20.4 2.3 0.6
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt j NBLiNBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 734 96 674 937
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.222 0.034 0.011 0.066
HCM Control Delay(s) 11.3 43.8 10.4 9.1
HCM Lane LOS B E B A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.8 0.1 0 0.2
Synchro 9 Report
HCM 2010 TWSC
1 : Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance/Kimball Drwy Phase 1 Build PM
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NB
Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 25 0 75 70 631 5 15 490 121
Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 25 0 75 70 631 5 15 490 121
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized None - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 130 50
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0
Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 92 100 92 92 92 89 90 92 92 88 69
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 27 0 82 79 701 5 16 557 175
Ma Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1172 1626 353 732 0 0 707 0 0
Stage 1 861 861 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 311 765 - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 2.22
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 185 101 643 868 887
Stage 1 374 371 - - -
Stage 2 716 410 - - -
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 165 0 643 868 887
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 165 0 - - -
Stage 1 340 0
Stage 2 703 0
Approach WB
HCM Control Delay,s 16.3 1 0.2
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 868 165 643 887
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 0.165 0.127 0.018
HCM Control Delay(s) 9.6 31.1 11.4 9.1
HCM Lane LOS A D B A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1
Synchro 9 Report
HCM 2010 TWSC
1 : Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance/N Site Driveway Phase 2 Build AM
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NB
Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 7 0 11 136 710 49 78 689 192
Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 7 0 11 136 710 49 78 689 192
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized None - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 130 50
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0
Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 92 100 92 92 92 79 89 92 92 87 61
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 8 0 12 172 798 53 85 792 315
Ma Minor1 Majorl
Conflicting Flow All 1735 2445 426 1107 0 0 851 0 0
Stage 1 1169 1169 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 566 1276 - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 2.22
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 79 31 577 626 783
Stage 1 258 265 - - -
Stage 2 532 236 - - -
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 51 0 577 626 783
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 51 0 - - -
Stage 1 187 0
Stage 2 474 0
Approach NB
HCM Control Delay,s 41 2.2 0.7
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 626 51 577 783
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.275 0.149 0.021 0.108
HCM Control Delay(s) 12.9 87.6 11.4 10.2
HCM Lane LOS B F B B
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.4
Synchro 9 Report
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Village Center Crt & NE Driveway Phase 2 Build AM
Intersection -
Int Delay,s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR -
Traffic Vol,veh/h 6 0 0 50 158 47
Future Vol,veh/h 6 0 0 50 158 47
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None None None
Storage Length 0 -
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0
Grade,% 0 - 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 7 0 0 54 172 51
Ma r Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 251 197 223 0 - 0
Stage 1 197 - - -
Stage 2 54 - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 738 844 1346
Stage 1 836 - -
Stage 2 969 - -
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 738 844 1346
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 738 - -
Stage 1 836
Stage 2 969
Approach NB SB
HCM Control Delay,s 9.9 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 1346 738
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.009
HCM Control Delay(s) 0 9.9
HCM Lane LOS A A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 0
Synchro 9 Report
HCM 2010 TWSC
I SE Driveway/Background Driveway & Village Center Crt Phase 2 Build AM
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 4.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NB
Traffic Vol,veh/h 3 0 0 0 0 30 0 17 0 88 50 20
Future Vol,veh/h 3 0 0 0 0 30 0 17 0 88 50 20
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized None None None None
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0
Grade,% 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 3 0 0 0 0 33 0 18 0 96 54 22
M I Minor2 Minor-11 Majorl
Conflicting Flow All 292 275 65 275 285 18 76 0 0 18 0 0
Stage 1 257 257 - 18 18 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 35 18 - 257 267 - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 660 632 999 677 624 1061 1523 1599
Stage 748 695 - 1001 880 - - -
Stage 2 981 880 - 748 688 - - -
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 609 592 999 644 585 1061 1523 1599
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 609 592 - 644 585 - - -
Stage 1 748 651 1001 880
Stage 2 951 880 701 645 -
Approach NB
HCM Control Delay,s 10.9 8.5 0 4.1
HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLnl
Capacity(veh/h) 1523 609 1061 1599
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.005 0.031 0.06
HCM Control Delay(s) 0 10.9 8.5 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A B A A A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 0 0.1 0.2
Synchro 9 Report
HCM 2010 TWSC
1 : Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance/N Site Driveway Phase 2 Build PM
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 3.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR_
Traffic Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 44 0 72 73 949 9 14 809 127
Future Vol,veh/h 0 0 0 44 0 72 73 949 9 14 809 127
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized None - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 130 50
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0
Grade,% 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 100 92 100 92 92 92 89 90 92 92 88 69
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 48 0 78 82 1054 10 15 919 184
MaIM Minnr1 Majorl Majo�
Conflicting Flow All 1713 2357 532 1103 0 0 1064 0 0
Stage 1 1223 1223 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 490 1134 - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 2.22
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 81 35 492 629 651
Stage 1 241 250 - - -
Stage 2 581 276 - - -
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 69 0 492 629 651
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 69 0 - - -
Stage 1 210 0
Stage 2 568 0
Approach
HCM Control Delay,s 59 0.8 0.1
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2
Capacity(veh/h) 629 69 492 651
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.13 0.693 0.159 0.023
HCM Control Delay(s) 11.6 133.2 13.7 10.7
HCM Lane LOS B F B B
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.4 3.1 0.6 0.1
Synchro 9 Report
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Village Center Crt & NE Driveway Phase 2 Build PM
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT ' SBT SBR -
Traffic Vol,veh/h 43 0 0 241 152 9
Future Vol,veh/h 43 0 0 241 152 9
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None None None
Storage Length 0 -
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0
Grade,% 0 - 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 47 0 0 262 165 10
Ma Minor2 Major1
Conflicting Flow All 432 170 175 0 - 0
Stage 1 170 - - -
Stage 2 262 - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 581 874 1401
Stage 1 860 - -
Stage 2 782 - -
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 581 874 1401
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 581 - -
Stage 1 860
Stage 2 782
Approach NB SB
HCM Control Delay,s 11.7 0 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity(veh/h) 1401 581
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.08
HCM Control Delay(s) 0 11.7
HCM Lane LOS A B
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 0.3
Synchro 9 Report
HCM 2010 TWSC
I SE Driveway/Background Driveway & Village Center Crt Phase 2 Build PM
Intersection
Int Delay,s/veh 5.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NB
Traffic Vol,veh/h 18 0 0 0 0 143 0 80 0 95 53 4
Future Vol,veh/h 18 0 0 0 0 143 0 80 0 95 53 4
Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized None None None None
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0
Grade,% 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 0 0 0 0 155 0 87 0 103 58 4
Ma r Minor2 Minor1 Majorl
Conflicting Flow All 431 353 60 353 355 87 62 0 0 87 0 0
Stage 1 266 266 - 87 87 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 165 87 - 266 268 - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 535 572 1005 602 571 971 1541 1509
Stage 739 689 - 921 823 - - -
Stage 2 837 823 - 739 687 - - -
Platoon blocked,%
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 425 531 1005 569 530 971 1541 1509
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 425 531 - 569 530 - - -
Stage 1 739 640 921 823
Stage 2 703 823 687 638
Approach
HCM Control Delay,s 13.9 9.4 0 4.7
HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLnl
Capacity(veh/h) 1541 425 971 1509
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.046 0.16 0.068
HCM Control Delay(s) 0 13.9 9.4 7.6 0
HCM Lane LOS A B A A A
HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 0.6 0.2
Synchro 9 Report