The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 8 - TIA Statec - Pinnacle Point7 -h Pinnacle Point Traffic Impact Analysis (50 Stantec TBPE Registration #: 6324 Prepared for: Adams Engineering & Development Consultants Prepared by: Josh Smith, PE, PTOE January 19, 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 C: Project Site Trip Generation Appendix D: Synchro Analysis Worksheets (3 Sta ntec 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........................................................................................ Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan................................................................................................ Figure 3 Site Context Relevant to Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan .......................... Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes........................................................................................ Figure 5 Background Site with Vacant Areas.................................................................. Figure 6 Estimated Vacant Parcel Development Locations (Phase 2)........................ Figure 7 Proposed Site Trip Distribution............................................................................. Figure 8 Phase 1 Site Volumes............................................................................................ Figure 9 Phase 1 Total Build Volumes................................................................................ Figure 10 Phase 2 Site Volumes.......................................................................................... Figure 11 Phase 2 Total Build Volumes.............................................................................. Figure 12 Trees Obstructing Sight Distance Looking North from Study Intersection ... (3 Sta ntec PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Introduction January 19, 2016 A 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 Two entrances to the site that will be analyzed as part of this study are located on Kimball Avenue. The northern entrance 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. The southern entrance to Pinnacle Point would be a right-in/right-out driveway with no median break, if it is constructed at all. Note the site plan labels this entrance as an "additional vehicular connection if necessary." (3 Stantec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-01-19.docx PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Introduction January 19, 2016 Part of the study analysis will be to determine whether the southern driveway should be constructed. Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan --- M 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 cul-de-sac, Village Center Court, which will in turn connect to South Village Center Drive once it is built. Development on the east side of the future Village Center Court is expected to also have Stantec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work- 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-01-19.docx 1.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Introduction January 19, 2016 driveways connecting to it, but specifics are not yet known. Assumptions will be made about future traffic on Village Center Court 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 Village Center Court. Figure 3 Site Context Relevant to Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan LU 65 LDN " • i A..................... "r a. '" � yam ................» 0 9 ., Future Extended, South Village °. Center Drive, 75 LDN ±i r. •.,i5nL. H._L rT I � a — t.. .mMna. {41 tlW m1 I } m.�kml-91efIbPwP•JW�n 1� I � Y mn da;d M..dna 6� Yetl.YMrYIYtl 91 pe�axEm 1'•i, , " J pw,4Ne[e ryx�owdlk.a ary ♦ "`"'w}II v1 .mvenon�. yrk.�a.e.y I *;IIrtA.::L POIN It Urtyw' .5'425Pan 65 LDN ' BRWK.;iNIRE D. •y Mobility Plan Crooked/Kimball Special Plan Area L.@sr,d Hwy 114 {300'-500' ROWI : Ronda I M IIUFM 1935 [ 140' R OW Parkway) FM 170R M 19381130' ROW' A.6A - 124 Arl.,W ��. A5U - 8M Arta nal A40 - 1 DU Arlenal AC - 88' Alta nal A211 - W Art. nal --- A311-70'Alte nal i C211 -84 Cnllecbr --- C2U - 7B' Collecb, .....• C2U - 69 cone cbr w- Commnn Acoa- F.s.—t Cm4k.&K,mLall Plan Area --- OFW AiWrl Noi se Corridor Scale: 1:6,000 1 inch = 500 feet ore �a.e 11.17.204 tifjd Ai4le'.b-rolba D.p�la Rlsxna3-d•a.--.ta.mvxrM u.tl0eeloP rceMSerwcaa tl.rh Mea rairrr. f Iphe hlamrix157�fema ewwr '�wm.swu Source: Adapted from City of Southlake Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan, page 17 (3 Sta ntec bk u:\1981 10064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southIake oaks tia 2016-01-19.docx 1.3 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Data Collection and Existing Conditions January 19, 2016 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 to 2016-01-19.docx 2.1 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Data Collection and Existing Conditions January 19, 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 1 a' Lo co It N School Drwy. m o cD rn -- ,n N N co `r' AM \ph PM \,ph)l (3 Stantec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-01-19.docx 2.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Future Background Traffic January 19, 2016 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 23,000 square feet. The background site with the vacant areas marked is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 Background Site with Vacant Areas A 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 to 2016-01-19.docx 3.1 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Future Background Traffic January 19, 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) (3 Stantec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-01-19.docx 3.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Site and Future Build Traffic January 19, 2016 PROJECTED SITE AND 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 20 100 213 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 to 2016-01-19.docx 4.1 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Site and Future Build Traffic January 19, 2016 Figure 7 Proposed Site Trip Distribution Phase 1 A=M � 4.3 PHASE 1 VOLUMES Phase 2 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 to 2016-01-19.docx 4.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Site and Future Build Traffic January 19, 2016 Figure 8 Phase 1 Site Volumes d a boa`. Y Site Driveway 7 (75) N School Drwy. 0 (0) /�— 3 (25) 0 0 � 0 o rn AM Figure 9 Phase 1 Total Build Volumes E Y W Site Driveway 7(75) N School Drwy. 0 (0)0) 3 (25) o �n I- co N uJ Lo "' AM vph (PP 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 Sta ntec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work- 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-01-19.docx 4.3 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Site and Future Build Traffic January 19, 2016 Figure 10 Phase 2 Site Volumes a' 0 0 n o o °r° Y Site Driveway 11 (72) N School Drwy. 0 (0) 7 (44) o_ o rn 0 o w v AM vph (PM 2 r U d a rn v v CD fi (43) � 0 (0) N Site Drwy o_ m o co AM vph (PM vph) r U iu c v d U o d m 3 (18) � S Site Drwy J (3 Stantec AM bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-01-19.docx 4.4 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Site and Future Build Traffic January 19, 2016 Figure 11 Phase 2 Total Build Volumes > N O 00 1- Y W Site Driveway 7-- 11 (72) N School Drwy. 0 (0) 7 (44) M m O (O V M O_ AM vph (PM vph) 2 1= U N N � C W N a0 U � d Ei (43) � 0 (0) —y N Site Drwy o_ v o 0 in AM vph (PM vph) rJ C 7 O N U O o M N L`a' Co W � Bkrd Driveway 3 () r� 30 (143) (0 0 (0) 0 (0) S Site Drwy m m O o om o a o n o Y � m AM (3 Sta ntec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work- 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-01-19.docx 4.5 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Traffic Analysis January 19, 2016 Phase 2 also considers the extension of South Village Center Drive from Kimball Avenue to Nolen Drive, and the construction of Village Center Court along the east side of the proposed site. This study assumes that the vacant parcels adjacent to Village Center Court would also use Village Center Court to access Kimball Avenue and Nolen Drive. Two driveways were assumed along the east side of Village Center Court 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. 5.0 TRAFFIC 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 to 2016-01-19.docx 5.1 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Traffic Analysis January 19, 2016 Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds LOS Control Delay Per Vehicle 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 LOS Delay [s] & 95th Percentile Queue [vehicles] No. Intersection Control Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Type LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue Kimball Ave & NBL B (11) 1 A 9) 1 1 School N Side -Street Entrance Loop Stop 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) LOS Delay [s] & 95th Percentile Queue [vehicles] No. Intersection Control Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Type LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue Kimball Ave & NBL B 10 1 A 9 0 School N Side -Street SBL A 9 0 A 9 0 1 Entrance Loop Stop- WBL E 40 0 D 29 1 / Site Drwy Controlled WBR B 10 0 B (11) 0 (3 Sta ntec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-01-19.docx 5.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Traffic Analysis January 19, 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. 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 Village Center Court, 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 Village Center Court 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 No. Intersection Control Type Movement LOS(Delay s & 95th Percentile Queue vehicles AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS(Delay) Queue LOS(Delay) Queue 1 Kimball Ave & School N Entrance Loop / Site Drwy Side -Street Stop- Controlled NBL B (11) 1 B (11) 0 SBL B 10 0 B (11) 0 WBL F 69 0 F 112 3 WBR B (11) 0 B 14 1 2 Village Center Crt&NESite Driveway Side -Street Stop - Controlled EBL A (10) 0 B (11) 0 Village Center Crt&NESite Driveway Side -Street Stop - Controlled EBL B (11) 0 B 14 0 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. 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. (3 Sta ntec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-01-19.docx 5.3 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Driveway Analysis January 19, 2016 6.0 ukIVEWA I' 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 Required? City of Southlake >50 vph 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, 6th Edition ("Green Book") was consulted to compute the required stopping 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 to 2016-01-19.docx 6.1 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Driveway Analysis January 19, 2016 Table 7 Intersection Sight Distance Driveway Movement Design Speed (mph) Grade Recommended Stopping Sight Distanceft Actual Sight Distance (ft) Sight Distance OK? Northwest Right -turn 40 -3% 315 470 Yes Left -turn 1 -3% 1 315 1 95 1 No Figure 12 Trees Obstructing Sight Distance Looking North from Study Intersection L Image source: Google Earth (3 Sta ntec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-01-19.docx 6.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Conclusions January 19, 2016 CONCLUSIOt 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 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 Village Center Court 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 Village Center Court. Traffic analyses conducted for the two driveways along Village Center Court 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 northern sight 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 to 2016-01-19.docx 7.1 APPENDIX A: PROPOSED SITE PLAN 3 e y ` r 3 der d kn.0 6i'4$8' �eaSB V�'Oe3 E000 I w�-ssr 5m i I 7 s-+rs24 I rsam -W- �I I r b I G T. 94 LIIG RtdeAL�s \ \\ \ \\ �� ZGI HawvdE Gn.][eM Vilvk Gn. Tr,uteee, \ \ \ I IIU: I:ouil-, :nn�nnnal ae,hetraumweN o-un u,Mee We \ \ ��.�„` \ I Ve14 Hmverd GrtlJVInFTwr, \ \ �� I Inl l-R-9, BIud1 C6iu Pondwb. Alyd ZaFIA Vhey.EM Pn I Doe Nn D21b24121 N.1)21 \ \ \` uD-aw,d.ux ae. rve. Dlwunss o.e.a.T:cr. � \ � BUFFERYARD TYPE osxrcx. 1 42' BUFFERYARD TYPE A --- ---- --------------- BUFFERYARD TYPE'F1' \ 149 \ \ Q:.2 FUTURE VILLAGE CENTER RD. r r r r r r r � �r� r� T �r�x � r r r q�� W _ -+� � �=s9_ ��L✓M - - 10'BUFFER 10' BUFFER + + + + + + + + + + r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r= +� + o I---------- li 18.0' V + ❑ B 107.2' a 70'X40'VISIBILITY TRIANGLE r _ _-95,3'. - - 24'COMMON ACCESS, � �� 24 EMERGENCY ACCESS 876' = Z r + + + r + + aw a AND UTILITY EASEMENT W 19 I U-1 I @ 3 r 6.0'. LOT 1 JJ 21,500 S.F. FFE=676.5 +V,e r + r r + e •y. r 98 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED 6' CONC. WALK q0. r vl r r r r 33.0' y 6.0' r r r ® ® rin „nE ® ® la FI E n E F1N"E 19 X 40'VISIBIUTY TRIANGLE w 146.73' 24.04 86. 3' r y S89 46' 4 S46' 40"W seT* quit. +++ r 166.7' r rr r r F Is LL1 r r r 16M. 4 9 10'x 50' LOADING 'I o -NEW DECORATIVE r r; U swim SPACE (TYP.) M BLOCK RETAINING WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED Z) ?? t HEIGHT/MATERIALS TIED rlr �w� rrr + + + swo LOT 3 Ed to z w¢ 20,000 SF FFE= 676.5 t + tg + 5 74 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED F y' k W Iq LOT 4 w 21,000 SF 6'CONC. WALK FFE=676.5 18.0' _ (TYP.) W 64 PARKING Ny- EGESS ,,- y, \ SPA 10'x 50' LOADING 13 SPACE (TYP.) G r III°3� r y' W 32H r r r r r 28a216 6 r1ace, SF r+ r r r r r r r r r r \ 18.0' 2A4.0- r \ g NEW DECORATIVE + + + + + r BLOCK RETAINING WALL + 13 6.0'v TO BE CONSTRUCTED r r r 18.0' r HEIGHT/MATERIALS TBD NEW DECORATIVE r '" aE BLOCK RETAINING WALL euMIA-SETSOK- - - ` VO SJ Burzma/c BErBACK -2 0' - f ` TO BE CONSTRUCTED ` + ` r r ra 860' r HEIGHT/MATERIALSTEID LANE r r r r r r + r is �WSIN lmp 3tr r r r r r r r r r r �- �v 10'BUFFER L I BUFFERYARDTYPE'F1 U, a a®dos oaw Poloo on P l9 VWum.R F T-C,r. 1. Site Site Data Summary Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot3 LoM Lot 5 Lot 6 ROW Total Existing Zoning SFIA SFIA BELA SFIA SFIA SFIA SFIA Proposed Zoning SP2 SP2 SP2 SP2 SP2 SP2 SP2 Land Use Designation MIXEDUSE MIXEDUSE MIXEDUSE MIXEDUSE MIXEDUSE MIXEDUSE MIXEDUSE Gross Acreage 2.74 1.73 2.73 129 1.4 1.77 11.66 Net Acreage 2.74 1.73 2.93 1.29 1.4 1.77 11.66 N,mlber of Proposed Lots 1 I 1 1 1 1 11 6 Percentage of Site Coverage 18% 21% 17% 30% 28% 23 32".b Area of Open Space (in Sq. Ft) 52,522 17,077 1 76,493 6,580 1 M48 20,114 179,334 Percentage of Open Space 43 % 23 % 65% 10% 13 % 31 % 36% Area of Impervious Coverage on Sq, Ft) 67,012 58,422 41,105 58,204 46,119 44,679 311,541 Percentage 01 Impervious Coverage 57% 77% 35% 90% 87% 74% 644E Proposed Bcilshcg Area(Fvvt Pow in Sq. FIj 21,500 15,500 20000 21,000 21,000 21,000 120D00 Number of Starks 1 1 1 I 1 1 Maximum Building Height 35 Feet 35 Feet 35 Feet 35 Feet 35 Feet 35 Feet Proposed Building Height 24 Feet 24 Feet 24 Feet 24 Feet 24 Feet 24 Feet Proposed Floor Mee (in Sq, Ff) 21,500 15.500 20,000 21,000 21.000 21,000 120.000 Required Parking 72 52 67 70 70 70 400 Provided Parking 9andard 94 63 70 60 57 82 426 Handicap 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 Twat 98 67 74 64 61 86 450 Required Loading Spaces (Per SP-2 Regulations) 10'x 25' to'x 50' 1 1 1 1 1 t 6 Provided Loading Spaces l0' x 25' 10' x 50' I I I 1 I 1 b Start Construction Month/Year had Construction Month,Tear 12 a I 33QF_ LLI I U., 24.0' 18.0' 10'x 50' LOADING I 2 ° SPACE (TYP.) 1 I LOT 2 w I no 15,500 15,500 S.F. It FFE=680.9 92A 67 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED u, 6' CONC. WALK (TYP.) I4 le I 10'X40'VISIBILITY TRIANGLE QI 18.0' 9 24'COMMON ACCESS, 3 , 16' 40" EMERGENCY ACCESS -80, AND UTILITY EASEMENT r 6' CONC. WALK (TYP.) LOT 5 21,000 SF FFE=680.9 61 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED '1V a 46' 40' �+ 7 W35.0'a� LOT 6 21, 000 SF FFE=680.9 86 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED 1Y X 40' VISIBILITY TRIANGLE 1 24.0' r rE 231 I',°1 LIFU&ID AD .0Ir I�I I „ BENT 2' EMERGENCY ACCESS 'P) AND UTILITY EASEMENT 86.0' a r 7 118.01I I feLnr I I I 1 7"I 1 1 1 r+ ro LEGEND PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PAVEMENT PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA PROPOSED BUFFER YARD NOTE: FIRELANES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE PERMANENT 24' COMMON ACCESS, EMERGENCY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. OWNER: LOT 1 PO CHIN 2409 CASTLE ROCK ROAD ARLINGTON, TX 76006 1 jj I I I I I� PRELIMINARY FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 FEET 1 n=50' OWNER: OWNER: APPLICANT: LOT 2 LOT 3 BROWN COMPANY PARTNERS, LLC TERESA FLOYD BLAINE THOMPSON 5440 HARVEST HILL ROAD, SUITE 236 1395 HIDE A WAY LANE 20236 FM 1804 DALLAS, TX 75230 HIDEAWAY, TX 75771 LINDALE, TX 75771 CONTACT: DAVID KARR PHONE: (214) 506-3205 EMAIL: david.karr@browndfw.com 1 � O < SO�ry PROJECT LOCATION WF e ° • WALL E 3 - O W W o � a RAINBOW °o V 0 F c� PNO N4 G<' V'USS U� C LOCATION MAP 1"= 2000' SUMM YCHART -BUFFERYARDS- 1 Locadon Length Buaeryar Width I Canopy Trees Accent Trees Shrub Fe He ce/Screening ght&Materiel Comments No hA Required 300, 10'-TYPE' I' 9 IB 20 Fcne FI-6'opaglro 12leing Cenapy-3 rolmted lawords hndxapa Provided 10'.TYPE' V 9 Is 24 None- variance requnecd nlvulmiona No hB Required 166, IP-TYPE" 2 3 13 7 Existing Gnopy-5 rowtedmxards landawpe Providrd 10'.TYPE' 2 3 13 1 mlkwmione Required 230' N/A None requiredper SP zoning Provided Required 466' N/A None required per SP mning urh Provid d ett Re ed ear 230' In -TYPE" 2 5 Is H HI- 75Yo I6Exieing Gnepy-14 oweed,oxord landscape Providd 10'-TYPE" 2 5 18 HenIX HI-75% ealewationa SUMMA RY CHART -BUFFERYARDS- U YF 2 Laaafion Length Bufferyart Width - I Canopy 'Dees Accent Trees Shrub Fri He tee/Screening ght&hLhrisl Cannonade North Required 34V 10 -TYPEW 3 7 28 3ExiainBGnopy Provided W-TYPE'R 3 7 28 Required 245' W-TYPIEW 2 5 20 �t Provided [W-TYPEW 2 5 20 RequI 349' N/A Nonere,Wodper SPmning Nh Provitled Required 245' N/A Nanerega.d per gP-nine Provided SUMMA RY CHART -BUFFERYARDS- 3 atiw Length Buife Width- c CAIAceert Tree Tree. Shrub Fe Be ce/Screening ght li Mahrbl Co,nemots rth Required 442' WA None required per SP mning Provided Required 16W WA Nonevequnezonng dperR at Provided Required 442' N/A None required per SP zoning an Provided em Required 160' la -TYPE" 2 3 13 HN, to 24 ExWmg Canopy - 22 treesro trAtoxards Provided 10'-TYPE 2 1 3 13 Hedg HI hodreeperep ement SUMMARY CHART - BUFFERVARDS - L T4 axon lsngth BuBerya Canopy Trees Accent Trecs Shrub Fe a ce/Screening ht& erisl Commerceidth- None Required 442' N/A None required per SP mning Provided n RegwrM 220, N/A None ropamd per gP mning Provided anopaque Required 442' 10'-TYPE' I' 13 27 35 Fen FI -V IS ong Cengpy-2 S Exitowards land¢e Prmided W.-TYPE' I' 13 27 3$ None -variance regm9ed regwremenl R gmred 220' W-TYPE" 2 5 19 H H1 22 ExiningGnopy-20 We. Provigkd ]W-TYPE' 2 5 19 H NI tescomsedo end. re lende.pooepconent SUMMARY CHART -BUFFERVARDS -LOT 5 Location length 8utreryard Wirth -Type Canopy Trees Accent Trees SM1rub Fence/Screening Height&Material Cvmmens Nonh Require law N/A None required per SP wining Prov' Een Require 38W N/A None requivedper SP zoning P-ide bmhRnpre law 10'-TYPE-Fl- 5 II 15 Redp Hl 2Exlning Cangpy Provi 30--TYPETV 5 11 15 Hedge Hl Wen Reeme, 38W N/A None required per SP mning Provi SUMMARY CHART -BUFFERYARDS-LOT 6 8uaeryard Canopy Trees Accent Trees ds ShruConcentrateWidth-Type Fence/Screening HeigM1t&Materiel ConcentConcentrateLocadLaced.ngtb North Requ' 195' N/A Noneregnired per S'Paoning Prov' Eem Require 38W IY- IYPE'A' 4 8 30 None Provi 10'-TYPE 'R 4 8 30 Snmh Iton, 195, 1V TYPETV 6 12 a Erne. Fl-8'apagm 3Exining Cennpy Provi 10'-IyPhTI' 6 12 16 None-vanenceregoI We. Require 380' N/A None rcgNred per SPmning Provide LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS AND BEING ENGINEER/CONSULTANT: OUT OF THE G. MAIN SURVEY, ADAMS ENGINEERING ABSTRACT NO. 1098 AND THE 8951 CYPRESS WATERS BLVD., SUITE 150 T. EASTER SURVEY ABSTRACT DALLAS, TEXAS 75019 CONTACT: JIMMY ECFECHTER, PLA CON NO. 474, TARRANT COUNTY, PHONE: (817) 328-3200 TEXAS EMAIL: jimmy.fechter@adams-engineering.com CASE NO: Z415-115 ES?�c Wi $ v Pa gEe Y'E y E B E 0 O E o e� � do �ea`» ii ox-E} x asA=_ LIP Q Z X J o� a LL r LU w JY m a Q W z _ 0 Z 0-0 V THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW, AGENCY APPROVAL, AND COMMENT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF TED A. MURDAY, P.E. REGISTRATION No. 91918, ON 01115116 THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES TBPE Registration #: F-1002 � J JOB NUMBER: MON 2015.083 DESIGNED BY: L1F DRAWN BY: RWA CHECKED BY: DWL DATE: 01 19 2016 SHEET: C2a0 tJC pyrl9ht2015,Adams APPENDIX B: TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS C 1 I Ic,ll savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 Turning Movement Data Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 1 Start Time Thru Right Kimball Avenue Southbound U-Turn Peds Total Left Thru Kimball Avenue Northbound U-Turn Peds Total Left School Driveway Eastbound 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 8:45 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 - AII Vehicles (no classification) 1593 398 3 1994 254 1967 1 2222 1 0 0 1 4217 All Vehicles (no classification) 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - - 100.0 100.0 Pedestrians - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 1 - - Pedestrians - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100.0 - - II A[rai& tiscialc savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 2 N 1 41 75 co M LO ID S 3 � 11/04/2015 7:00 AM o � � 0 � — Ending At 11/04/2015 6:15 PM 0 0 0 o of Vehicles (no p ( 0 m classification) Pedestrians h T 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 U L T P 1 254 1967 0 0 0 0 0 1 254 1967 0 1594 2222 3816 0 0 0 1594 2222 3816 Out In Total Kimball Avenue [S] Turning Movement Data Plot C 1 I Ic,ll savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 J� •17�C�111'i�i7fiCl�_1TA1! Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 3 Start Time Thru Right Kimball Avenue Southbound U-Turn Peds Total Left Thru Kimball Avenue Northbound U-Turn Peds Total Left School Driveway Eastbound Right U-Tum 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 classification) 524 178 1 703 126 532 1 659 0 0 0 0 1362 All Vehicles (no classification) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - - - 100.0 Pedestrians - - - 0 - 0 - Pedestrians 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 100.0 - - II A[rai& tiscialc savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 4 N 1 � � � Peak Hour Data S Q COO O O M O O J S 3 11/04/2015 7:45 AM E 0 0 O Ending At 11/04/2015 8:45 AM 0 0 o O of Z All Vehicles (no j p 0 0 o classification) fication) Pedestrians h T 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 U L T P 1 126 532 0 0 0 0 0 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) C 1 I Ic,ll savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 5 Start Time Thru Right Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 Kimball Avenue Kimball Avenue Southbound Northbound U-Turn Peds Total Left Thru U-Turn Peds Total PM) Left School Driveway Eastbound Right U-Tum 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 classification) 451 118 0 569 68 590 0 658 1 0 0 1 1228 All Vehicles (no classification) 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 Pedestrians - - 0 - 0 - - 0 - - Pedestrians - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II A[rai& tiscialc savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 6 N 1 is m � r Peak Hour Data T~ SN � O � J 3 11/04/2015 4:15 P M o o — Ending At 11/04/2015 5:15 PM 0 0 00 of All Vehicles (no 0 � CD CO classification) Pedestrians 0 0 o a h T 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 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 Land Use Shopping Center ITE Code 820 Weekdays Ln(Trips) = 0.65 * Ln(X) + 5.83 AM Peak Hour: Weekdays (Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic) Ln(Trips) = 0.61 * Ln(X) + 2.24 PM Peak Hour: Weekdays (Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic) Ln(Trips) = 0.67 * Ln(X) + 3.31 Saturdays (Peak Hour of Generator) Ln(Trips) = 0.65 * Ln(X) + 3.78 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 2,409 50% 50% 1,205 1,204 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 59 62% 38% 37 22 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 206 48% 52% 99 107 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 310 52% 48% 161 149 Sta ntec Vacant Parcel Trip Generation - Phase 2 Zoning Sizes . Floor Area ObiectlD Code Description f - Ratio ITE Code Intensity Unit Da v Rate AM Rate PM Rate AM Y. In PM % In Da v In Da v Out AM In AM Out PM In PM Out 1 SP2 Generalized Site Plan MF-2 Apartments 146,667 1.0 220 40 Dwelling Units 6.65 0.51 0.62 20% 65% 134 134 4 16 16 9 0-1 Offices 146,667 1.0 710 147 1,000 sq.ft. GFA 11.03 1.56 1.49 88% 17% 809 809 201 27 37 181 C-2 Retail Shopping 146,667 1.0 820 147 1,000 sq.ft. GLFA 42.70 0.96 3.71 62% 48% 3,131 3,131 87 54 261 283 Total 440,000 4,075 4,075 293 97 315 473 2 SP2 Generalized Site Plan MF-2 Apartments 82,667 1.0 220 23 Dwelling Units 6.65 0.51 0.62 20% 65% 76 76 2 9 9 5 0-1 Offices 82,667 1.0 710 83 1,000 sq.ft. GFA 11.03 1.56 1.49 88% 17% 456 456 113 15 21 102 C-2 Retail Shopping 82,667 1.0 820 83 1,000 sq.ft. GLFA 42.70 0.96 3.71 62% 48% 1,765 1,765 49 30 147 159 Total 248,000 2,297 2,297 165 55 177 267 3 SP2 Generalized Site Plan MF-2 Apartments 196,667 1.0 220 54 Dwelling Units 6.65 0.51 0.62 20% 65% 180 180 6 22 22 12 0-1 Offices 196,667 1.0 710 197 1,000 sq.ft. GFA 11.03 1.56 1.49 88% 17% 1,085 1,085 270 37 50 243 C-2 Retail Shopping 196,667 1.0 820 197 1,000sq.ft.GLFA 42.70 0.96 3.71 62% 48% 4,199 4,199 117 72 350 379 Total 590,000 5,464 5,464 393 131 422 634 4 C2 Local Retail Commercial 200,000 1.0 820 200 1,000 sq.ft. GLFA 42.70 0.96 3.71 62% 48% 4,270 4,270 119 73 356 386 *zoning according to Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan: p. 21 *see Southlake Zoning Map for zoning codes and descriptions Lam' Stantec 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 Weekday Ln(Trips) = 0.76 * Ln(# units) + 3.68 AM Peak Hour: Weekday Ln(Trips) = 0.80 * Ln(# units) + 1.57 PM Peak Hour: Weekday Trips = 1.12 (# units) + 78.45 Saturday (Peak Hour of Generator) Trips = 0.43 (# units) Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 617 50% 50% 309 308 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 86 88% 12% 76 10 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 120 17 % 83 % 20 100 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 16 54% 46% 9 7 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 Weekday Ln(Trips) = 0.76 * Ln(# units) + 3.68 AM Peak Hour: Weekday Ln(Trips) = 0.80 * Ln(# units) + 1.57 PM Peak Hour: Weekday Trips = 1.12 (# units) + 78.45 Saturday (Peak Hour of Generator) Trips = 0.43 (# units) Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 1508 50% 50% 754 754 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 221 88% 12% 194 27 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 213 17% 83% 36 177 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 52 54% 46% 28 24 APPENDIX E: SYNCHRO REPORTS HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance/Kimball Drwy Phase 1 Build AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 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 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 3 0 8 140 603 21 62 591 199 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1314 1808 312 790 0 0 624 0 0 Stage 1 894 894 - - - - - - - Stage 2 420 914 - - - - 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 150 78 684 826 - 953 - Stage 1 360 358 - - - - Stage 2 631 350 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 116 0 684 826 - 953 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 116 0 - - - Stage 1 299 0 - - Stage 2 590 0 - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18.3 1.9 0.7 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 826 - 116 684 953 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.17 - 0.028 0.011 0.065 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - 36.9 10.3 9 - HCM Lane LOS B - E B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 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 NBR SBL SBT SBR 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 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 27 0 82 76 686 5 16 533 132 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1140 1538 346 664 0 0 691 0 0 Stage 1 841 841 - - - - - - - Stage 2 299 697 - - - - 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 194 115 650 921 - - 900 - Stage 1 383 379 - - - - Stage 2 726 441 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 175 0 650 921 - 900 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 175 0 - - - Stage 1 351 0 - - Stage 2 713 0 - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.8 0.9 0.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 921 - 175 650 900 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.083 - 0.155 0.125 0.018 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - 29.3 11.3 9.1 - HCM Lane LOS A - D B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.5 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 1.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 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 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 8 0 12 148 772 53 85 749 209 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1638 2221 413 958 0 0 825 0 0 Stage 1 1094 1094 - - - - - - - Stage 2 544 1127 - - - - 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 91 43 588 714 - - 801 - Stage 1 282 288 - - - - Stage 2 546 278 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 64 0 588 714 - 801 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 64 0 - - - - Stage 1 224 0 - - Stage 2 488 0 - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 33.6 1.7 0.8 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 714 - 64 588 801 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.207 - 0.119 0.02 0.106 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 - 68.7 11.2 10 - HCM Lane LOS B - F B B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 0.4 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 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 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 - - PotCap-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 EB 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 3: 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 NBR SBL SBT SBR 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 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 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 1 748 695 - 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 EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 8.5 0 4.1 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR 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 3.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 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 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 0 0 0 48 0 78 79 1032 10 15 879 138 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1665 2243 521 1017 0 0 1041 0 0 Stage 1 1195 1195 - - - - - - - Stage 2 470 1048 - - - - 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 88 42 500 678 - 664 Stage 1 250 258 - - - - Stage 2 595 303 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 76 0 500 678 - 664 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 76 0 - - - - Stage 1 221 0 - - Stage 2 582 0 - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 50.7 0.8 0.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 678 - 76 500 664 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.117 - 0.629 0.157 0.023 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11 - 111.7 13.5 10.5 - HCM Lane LOS B - F B B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 2.8 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 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 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 - - PotCap-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 EB 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 3: 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 NBR SBL SBT SBR 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 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 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 1 739 689 - 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 EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.9 9.4 0 4.7 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR 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