0311 Transportes Dia 01d Reporte Semestral Ejemplo USA

8/14/2019 0311 Transportes Dia 01d Reporte Semestral Ejemplo USA

1/92

Countrywide

Traffic Impact Analysis

October 2006

Prepared for:

Countrywide Home Loans

For Submittal to:City of Chandler

M-M Project Number:8601.001

Prepared by:Paul E. Basha, P.E., P.T.O.E.

Andres Sotil, E.I.T., Ph.D.

80 E Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 201

Tempe, Arizona 85281Phone (480) 517-5800Fax (480) 517-5801


2/92

Countrywide Traffic Impact Analysis

Page i

Table of Con tents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 12Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................ 12Proposed Development ........................................................................................................... 12Surrounding Land Use ............................................................................................................ 12Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 12Surrounding Transportation System ........................................................................................ 16Existing Traffic Counts ............................................................................................................ 16Horizon Year ........................................................................................................................... 17Future Ambient Traffic ............................................................................................................. 26Signal Warrant and Multiway Stop AnalysisExisting without Site ......................................... 27Signal Warrant AnalysisAmbient without Site ...................................................................... 37Level-of-Service Analysis without Site ..................................................................................... 38Proposed SiteTrip Generation ............................................................................................. 51Proposed SiteTrip Distribution ............................................................................................. 53Signal Warrant Analysis with Site ............................................................................................ 74Level-of-Service Analysis with Site .......................................................................................... 74Turn Lane Analysis with Site ................................................................................................... 81Summary of Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 86


3/92


Page ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Ambient 2020 Recommended Lane Configurations - Adjacent Intersections .............. 3Figure 2: Ambient 2020 Recommended Lane Configurations - Western Intersections .............. 4Figure 3: Ambient 2020 Recommended Lane Configurations - Southern Intersections ............. 5Figure 4: Recommended Lane Configurations for Adjacent Intersections - 2020 with Site ........ 6Figure 5: Recommended Lane Configurations for Western Intersections - 2020 with Site ......... 7Figure 6: Recommended Lane Configurations for Southern Intersections - 2020 with Site........ 8Figure 7: Recommended Turn Lane Lengths for Adjacent Intersections - 2020 with Site .......... 9Figure 8: Recommended Turn Lane Lengths for Western Intersections - 2020 with Site ......... 10Figure 9: Recommended Turn Lane Lengths for Southern Intersections - 2020 with Site ....... 11Figure 10: Overall Vicinity Map ............................................................................................... 13Figure 11: Greater Vicinity MapAdjacent Intersections ........................................................ 14Figure 12: Greater Vicinity MapWestern Intersections ........................................................ 15Figure 13: Greater Vicinity MapSouthern Intersections ........................................................ 16Figure 14: Existing Traffic Adjacent IntersectionsDirectional Day ......................................... 18Figure 15: Existing Traffic Western IntersectionsDirectional Day .......................................... 19Figure 16: Existing Traffic Southern IntersectionsDirectional Day ........................................ 20Figure 17: Existing Turning Movements Adjacent IntersectionsAM Peak Hour .................... 21Figure 18: Existing Turning Movements Western IntersectionsAM Peak Hour .................... 22Figure 19: Existing Turning Movements Southern IntersectionsAM Peak Hour ................... 23Figure 20: Existing Turning Movements Adjacent IntersectionsPM Peak Hour .................... 24Figure 21: Existing Turning Movements Western IntersectionsPM Peak Hour .................... 25Figure 22: Existing Turning Movements Southern IntersectionsPM Peak Hour ................... 26Figure 23: Adjacent Streets Ambient 2020 TrafficDirectional Day ....................................... 28Figure 24: Western Streets Ambient 2020 TrafficDirectional Day ........................................ 29Figure 25: Southern Streets Ambient 2020 TrafficDirectional Day ....................................... 30Figure 26: Adjacent Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic VolumesAM Peak Hour ................. 31Figure 27: Western Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic VolumesAM Peak Hour.................. 32Figure 28: Southern Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic VolumesAM Peak Hour ................ 33Figure 29: Adjacent Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic VolumesPM Peak Hour ................ 34Figure 30: Western Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic VolumesPM Peak Hour.................. 35Figure 31: Southern Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic VolumesPM Peak Hour ................ 36Figure 32: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Adjacent Intersections AM Peak Hour ................... 40Figure 33: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Western Intersections AM Peak Hour .................... 41Figure 34: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Southern Intersections AM Peak Hour ................... 42Figure 35: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Adjacent Intersections PM Peak Hour ................... 43Figure 36: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Western Intersections PM Peak Hour .................... 44Figure 37: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Southern Intersections PM Peak Hour ................... 45Figure 38: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Adjacent Intersections AM Peak Hour ................... 46 Figure 39: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Western Intersections AM Peak Hour ................... 47Figure 40: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Southern Intersections AM Peak Hour .................. 48Figure 41: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Adjacent Intersections PM Peak Hour ................... 49 Figure 42: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Western Intersections PM Peak Hour ................... 50Figure 43: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Southern Intersections PM Peak Hour .................. 51Figure 44: Site Traffic Trip Distribution AM and PM ................................................................. 54Figure 45: Site Traffic Trip Distribution - Day ........................................................................... 55Figure 46: Adjacent Streets Site TrafficDirectional Day ....................................................... 56Figure 47: Western Streets Site TrafficDirectional Day ........................................................ 57Figure 48: Southern Streets Site TrafficDirectional Day....................................................... 58


4/92


Page iii

Figure 49: Adjacent Intersections Site Traffic VolumesAM Peak Hour ................................. 59Figure 50: Western Intersections Site Traffic VolumesAM Peak Hour ................................. 60Figure 51: Southern Intersections Site Traffic VolumesAM Peak Hour ................................ 61Figure 52: Adjacent Intersections Site Traffic VolumesPM Peak Hour ................................. 62Figure 53: Western Intersections Site Traffic VolumesPM Peak Hour ................................. 63Figure 54: Southern Intersections Site Traffic VolumesPM Peak Hour ................................ 64Figure 55: Adjacent Streets 2020 with Site TrafficDirectional Day ....................................... 65Figure 56: Western Streets 2020 with Site TrafficDirectional Day ........................................ 66Figure 57: Southern Streets 2020 with Site TrafficDirectional Day ...................................... 67Figure 58: Adjacent Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic VolumesAM Peak Hour................. 68Figure 59: Western Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic VolumesAM Peak Hour ................. 69Figure 60: Southern Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic VolumesAM Peak Hour ................ 70Figure 61: Adjacent Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic VolumesPM Peak Hour................. 71Figure 62: Western Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic VolumesPM Peak Hour ................. 72Figure 63: Southern Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic VolumesPM Peak Hour ................ 73Figure 64: Adjacent Intersections 2020 with Site Levels-of-ServiceAM Peak Hour .............. 75Figure 65: Western Intersections 2020 with Site Levels-of-ServiceAM Peak Hour .............. 76Figure 66: Southern Intersections 2020 with Site Levels-of-ServiceAM Peak Hour ............. 77Figure 67: Adjacent Intersections 2020 with Site Levels-of-ServicePM Peak Hour .............. 78Figure 68: Western Intersections 2020 with Site Levels-of-ServicePM Peak Hour .............. 79Figure 69: Southern Intersections 2020 with Site Levels-of-ServicePM Peak Hour ............. 80

List o f Tables

Table 1: Peak Sixty-Minute Periods ........................................................................................ 17Table 2: Signal Warrant Names .............................................................................................. 27Table 3: Existing without Site Signal Warrant Analyses Summary ........................................... 27Table 4: Ambient without Site Signal Warrant Summary ......................................................... 37Table 5: Signal Warrant Satisfaction Threshold at Benson LaneFrye Road Intersection ..... 38Table 6: Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections ................................................. 38Table 7: Employee Arrival and Departure Times ..................................................................... 52Table 8: Weekday Traffic Volume Calculation Details ............................................................. 53Table 9: 2010 with Site Signal Warrant Summary ................................................................... 74Table 10: Street Turn Lane Lengths ........................................................................................ 82Table 11: Street Turn Lane Lengths (continued) ..................................................................... 83Table 12: Street Turn Lane Lengths (continued) ..................................................................... 84Table 13: Street Turn Lane Lengths (continued) ..................................................................... 85Table 14: Street Turn Lane Lengths (continued) ..................................................................... 86


5/92


Page iv

Lis t of A ppendices

Existing Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... ABenson Lane and Frye Road .................................................................................. A.1Ellis Street and Frye Road ...................................................................................... A.2Dobson Road and Frye Road ................................................................................. A.3Dobson Road and Chandler Boulevard .................................................................. A.4Ellis Street and Chandler Boulevard ....................................................................... A.5NB Price Road and Chandler Boulevard ................................................................ A.6SB Price Road and Chandler Boulevard ................................................................. A.7Chandler Village Drive North and Chandler Boulevard ........................................... A.8Chandler Village Drive North and Frye Road .......................................................... A.9Galleria Way and Frye Road ................................................................................ A.10SB Price Road and Frye Road ............................................................................. A.11NB Price Road and Frye Road ............................................................................. A.12Price Road and State Route 202 WB Ramp ......................................................... A.13Price Road and State Route 202 EB Ramp .......................................................... A.14Dobson Road and State Route 202 EB Ramp ...................................................... A.15Dobson Road and State Route 202 WB Ramp ..................................................... A.16Dobson Road and Pecos Road ............................................................................ A.17Turning Movement Counts ................................................................................... A.18

Pertinent Excerpts from the Chandler Transportation StudyFinal Report ............................. BTraffic Signal Warrant Analyses without Site ........................................................................... C

Existing without Site ............................................................................................. C.12020 Ambient without Site ................................................................................... C.2

Level-of-Service without Site ................................................................................................... DExisting without Site .............................................................................................. D.12020 Ambient without Site ..................................................................................... D.2LOS Adjustments .................................................................................................. D.3

Trip Generation ....................................................................................................................... EPertinent Excerpts of ITE Trip Generation.............................................................. E.1Trip Generation Results.......................................................................................... E.2

2020 with Site Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses ....................................................................... F2020 with Site Level-of-Service ............................................................................................... G


6/92

Madison Crossing

Execut ive Summ ary

Introduct ion

Countrywide Home Loans is planning the development of their corporate office buildings in the

City of Chandler, north of Frye Road and east of the Price Freeway (State Route 101). Theproperty size is approximately 24.4 gross acres, consisting of three buildings, eachapproximately 183,000 square feet, to serve approximately 3,429 employees. A completeTraffic Impact Analysis (TIA), including anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for theintersections in the immediate vicinity, is being prepared by Morrison-Maierle.

Resul ts

The proposed development is anticipated to generate the following weekday traffic volumes.

ENTERING EXITING TOTAL

DAY 3,648 3,648 7,296

AM PEAK HOUR 626 77 703

PM PEAK HOUR 98 552 650

Recommendat ions without the Coun trywide Development

Only the Benson Lane and Frye Road intersection (#2) is not currently signalized of theseventeen (17) existing intersections evaluated in this study. The traffic warrant analysis

indicates that the existing traffic conditions without the proposed site at this intersection doesnot satisfy warrants for a traffic signal.

However, by the ultimate year 2020, traffic conditions without the proposed development willsatisfy the warrants for a traffic signal. The required lane configurations to provide acceptablelevels-of-service at the adjacent, western and southern intersections without the proposed sitefor the ultimate year 2020 are provided inFigure 1throughFigure 3,respectively.

Only intersection #2 has the PM peak hour level-of-service at an F condition, if the stop signis not substituted by a traffic signal. Drivers on minor street approaches like northboundBenson Lane are typically delayed and no mitigation is recommended at this time. The trafficvolume at this intersection, as well as vehicle delay, should be regularly monitored to

appropriately determine if and when a traffic signal would be necessary.


7/92

Madison Crossing

Recommendat ions with the Coun trywide Development

The main site access on Frye Road intersection #2 should be monitored to determine ifsignalization is required. The estimated traffic volumes indicate that traffic signal warrants

would be satisfied. The level-of-service analyses also indicate that the intersection wouldoperate with unacceptable delay without a signal and with acceptable delay with a signal.However, the access will serve primarily visitors to the propertynot employees. Countrywideexperiences relatively few visitors to its office. Most importantly, a traffic signal at thisintersection would be disruptive for through traffic on Frye Road.

Traffic signal warrant analysis was performed on the four (4) additional site accesses. It wasdetermined that none of the intersections had traffic conditions that would satisfy the warrantsfor traffic signals in the ultimate year 2020 with the proposed development.

The required lane configurations to provide acceptable levels-of-service at the adjacent,western and southern intersections are provided for the ultimate year 2020 with the proposed

Countrywide development inFigure 4throughFigure 6.

The recommended lengths of the full-width turn-lanes are provided onFigure 7throughFigure9on the turn lane length diagrams. Parking spaces and parking aisles within the Countrywidedevelopment should not be located within the recommended turn-lane lengths.


8/92

Madison Crossing

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

4

SITE

Frye Road2

STOP

STOP

5

67

19

N.T.S.

N

Figure 1: Ambient 2020 Recommended Lane Configurations - Adjacent Intersections


9/92

Madison Crossing

Frye Road

Pric

eFreeway

(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way

ChandlerVil

lageDriveNorth

ChandlerVillageDriveSouth

11

1413

9 810

12

N.T.S.

N

Figure 2: Ambient 2020 Recommended Lane Configurations - Western Intersections


10/92

Madison Crossing

SanTanFreeway(SR202)


16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 3: Ambient 2020 Recommended Lane Configurations - Southern Intersections


11/92

Madison Crossing

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

4

SITE

Frye Road2 5

67

19

20

1

21

3

STOP

STOP

STOP

ST

OP

N.T.S.

N

Figure 4: Recommended Lane Configurations for Adjacent Intersections - 2020 with Site


12/92

Madison Crossing

Frye Road

Price

Freeway

(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way

ChandlerVillageDriveNorth

ChandlerVillageDr

iveSouth

11

1413

9 810

12

N.T.S.

N

Figure 5: Recommended Lane Configurations for Western Intersections - 2020 with Site


13/92

Madison Crossing



16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 6: Recommended Lane Configurations for Southern Intersections - 2020 withSite


14/92

Madison Crossing

200'

75'

75'

175'

100'

50'

325'

200'

75'

225'

325'

175' 325'

200'

350'

25

0'

350'

35

0'

175' 250'

125'

225'

225'

35

0'

375'

100' 150'

250'

175'

25

0'

200'

325'

175'

375' 1325'

475'

75'

15

0'

725'

300'

100'

50'

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoa

d

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

4

SITE

Frye Road2 5

67

19

20

1

21

3

N.T.S.

N

Figure 7: Recommended Turn Lane Lengths for Adjacent Intersections - 2020 with Site


15/92

Madison Crossing

425'

525'

325'

375'

55

0'

95

0'

325'

450'

50'

300'

50'

300'

45

0'

750'

75'

15

0' 125'

125'

150'

225'

150'

15

0' 475'

275'

50'

100'

525'

75'

825'

575'

525'

400'

475'

325'

775'

600'

Frye Road

Pr

iceFreeway

(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way

ChandlerV

illageDriveNorth

ChandlerVilla

geDriveSouth

11

1413

9 810

12

N.T.S.

N

Figure 8: Recommended Turn Lane Lengths for Western Intersections - 2020 with Site


16/92

Madison Crossing

1075'

300'

225'

225'

500'

325'


800'

425'

600'

300'

600'

1125'


16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 9: Recommended Turn Lane Lengths for Southern Intersections - 2020 with Site


17/92

Madison Crossing

Introduct ion

Countrywide Home Loans is planning the development of their corporate office buildings in theCity of Chandler, north of Frye Road and east of the Price Freeway (State Route 101). Theproperty size is approximately 24.4 gross acres, consisting of three buildings, each

approximately 183,000 square feet, to serve approximately 3,429 employees.

Scope of Study

There are six purposes for this TIA: Analyze the existing traffic conditions Estimate the new traffic generated by the proposed Countrywide development Assign and distribute the new traffic to the surrounding street system Determine the need for auxiliary lanes at all study area intersections Evaluate the need for future traffic signals at all study area intersections Evaluate the operation of adjacent streets and intersections with the new development

Proposed Developm ent

The proposed development consists of one (1) commercial parcel. Figure 9 depicts thegeneral study area andFigure 10throughFigure 13provide the study area in more detail.

Surrounding Land Use

The land surrounding the proposed development is primarily utilized for commercial use.

Study A rea

The following intersections will be analyzed for ambient conditions and for conditions with theproposed development for the existing year and for the ultimate year 2020:

Chandler Village Drive North and Chandler BoulevardState Route 101 and Chandler Boulevard (both southbound and northbound on/off ramps)Ellis Street and Chandler BoulevardDobson Road and Chandler BoulevardChandler Village Drive North and Frye RoadGalleria Way and Frye Road

State Route 101 and Frye Road (both southbound and northbound on/off ramps)Benson Lane and Frye Road (primary site access)Ellis Street and Frye RoadDobson Road and Frye RoadDobson Road and Pecos RoadDobson Road and State Route 202 (both eastbound and westbound on/off ramps)Price Road and State Route 202 (both eastbound and westbound on/off ramps)


18/92

Madison Crossing

C

han

dler

Village

Dr

ive

Nor

th

SanTanFreeway (SR202)

Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStree

t

P

rice

Freeway

(SR

101)

Do

bson

Roa

d

Pecos Road

SITE

Pr

ice

Roa

d

N.T.S.

N

BensonRoadGa

lleriaW

ay

Chan

dler

Village

Dr

ive

Sou

th

Site Map

Figure 10: General Vicinity Map


19/92

Madison Crossing

SOUTHERNPACIFIC

RAILROAD

Frye Road

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

SITE

Chandler Boulevard

N.T.S.

N

67

2 53

19

41

21

20

Figure 11: Vicinity Map Adjacent Intersections


20/92

Madison Crossing

Frye Road

PriceFree

way

(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way

ChandlerVillageD

riveNorth


N.T.S.

N

12

10

11

14

8

13

9

Figure 12: Vicinity Map Western Intersections


21/92

Madison Crossing



PriceRoad

DobsonRoad

N.T.S.

N

16 18

17

15

Figure 13: Vicinity Map Southern Intersections

Surroun ding Transportat ion System

The primary streets that will serve the proposed development are State Route 101 west of thesite, Chandler Boulevard to the north, Frye Road to the south, and Ellis Street east of the site.

Exist ing Traffic Counts

Traffic Research and Analysis counted current traffic volumes on Tuesday 1, Wednesday 2,and Thursday 3, August 2006. Approach and departure traffic counts at the study intersectionsfor daily and hourly intervals were obtained. Turning movement counts in fifteen-minuteintervals from 6:00 to 9:00 AM and from 3:00 to 7:00 PM were also obtained for theseintersections on Tuesday 1 and Thursday 10, August 2006.

The existing traffic volumes are provided in Appendix A to this report. Also included inAppendix A are tables providing the hourly counts by time of day, and graphs plotting the

hourly traffic counts. Appendix A.1 through Appendix A.17 contain the approach anddeparture counts for the study intersections. Also included in these appendices are tablesdetermining the maximum morning and evening hourly volumes and peak hour factors asdetermined from the approach counts, and graphs plotting the hourly traffic counts. Table 1provides the peak sixty-minute periods within the three morning and evening hours of the trafficcounts.


22/92

Madison Crossing

Table 1: Peak Sixty-Minute Periods

INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR

Chandler Village Drive North and Chandler Boulevard 11:45 to 12:45 4:30 to 5:30Chandler Village Drive North and Frye Road 11:45 to 12:45 5:00 to 5:00

Galleria Way and Frye Road 9:00 to 10:00 4:30 to 5:30

NB Price Road (SR 101) and Chandler Boulevard 7:00 to 8:00 4:30 to 5:30

SB Price Road (SR 101) and Chandler Boulevard 9:00 to 10:00 4:45 to 5:45

NB Price Road (SR 101) and Frye Road 7:30 to 8:30 4:30 to 5:30

SB Price Road (SR 101) and Frye Road 11:30 to 12:30 4:45 to 5:45

Price Road and WB SR 202 Ramps 7:00 to 8:00 4:30 to 5:30

Price Road and EB SR 202 Ramps 7:15 to 8:15 4:15 to 5:15

Ellis Street and Chandler Boulevard 9:00 to 10:00 12:15 to 1:15

Ellis Street and Frye Road 7:30 to 8:30 4:45 to 5:45Benson Lane and Frye Road 7:15 to 8:15 4:30 to 5:30

Dobson Road and Chandler Boulevard 7:30 to 8:30 4:45 to 5:45

Dobson Road and Frye Road 7:15 to 8:14 4:45 to 5:45

Dobson Road and Pecos Road 7:15 to 8:15 4:45 to 5:45

Dobson Road and WB SR 202 Ramp 7:30 to 8:30 3:45 to 4:45

Dobson Road and EB SR 202 Ramp 7:15 to 8:15 4:45 to 5:45

Figure 14 throughFigure 16 provide the existing directional daily traffic volumes for the studyintersections. Appendix A.14 contains the turning movement counts for the seventeen (17)studied intersections. Figure 17 throughFigure 22show the existing turning movement trafficcounts during the morning and evening peak hours, respectively.

Horizon Year

The horizon year selected for this analysis was 2020. The expected build out year for theproposed development is 2008. The City of Chandler requires analysis for the horizon year2020 without and with the proposed development.


23/92

Madison Crossing

18,252

17,377

21,781 18,418

17,731 18,987

19,017

10,886 11,49911,058

75

1,8

21

9,921

2,4

22

2,2

53

20,985

3,5

65

2,5

10

7,869

2,144

12

,921

6,261

7,991 6,943

2,933

10

,507

12

,334

7,099

9,7

07

2,281

8,692

10

,02

4

2,232

9,9

6

4

12

,802

14

,25

8

12

,05

6

12

,85

1

13

,045

13

,65

4

8,513 9,480

382

677

2,2

30

2,5

06

2,7

25

134

Frye Road

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

2 53

19

4

SITE

Chandler Boulevard

1

21

20

N.T.S.

N

Figure 14: Existing Traffic Adjacent IntersectionsDirectional Day


24/92

Madison Crossing

3,7

36

4,0

95

29,213

16,971

16,971

29,213

13

,967

9,359

8,723

9,076

11,467

22

,677

21,979

22,557

14

,062

9,8

57

18,788

3,9

89

5,340 5,409

3,5

25

3,4

34

3,2

29

4,954 4,9913

,677

11,341

10,366

3,8

16

12

,930

5,352 10,055

10

,104

5,753

9,359

11,467

10,970

12

,564

6,0

09

4,3

24

22,021

22,749

25,699

20,780 15,565

842

855

25

,4

81

SOUTHERNPACIFIC

RAILROAD

Frye Road

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way


ChandlerVillageDrive

South

12

10

11

14

8

13

9

N.T.S.

N

Figure 15: Existing Traffic Western IntersectionsDirectional Day


25/92

Madison Crossing

11

,141

6,4

00


5,509

9,73

7

10

,505

18

,128

18

,588

21

,37

0

21

,694

6,281 6,145


7,3

44

7,6

99

11

,141

6,4

00


5,096

5,812 6,539

16

,548

17

,736

18

,128

18

,588

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 16: Existing Traffic Southern IntersectionsDirectional Day


26/92

Madison Crossing

494496

6 21

13752139 2

211

79

72020

4

3139

29

21

22 9

1,122106

23 214

19

30

23

169

12

381

28

139256

20

9

61

472

122139

64

15

2 227282

140

2738

94

846

208

144

96

144

413

118 160

926

268104

479150

73

308

863

63

10

497

69

1,0

4

9

46115

Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

4 5

19

SITE20

21

1 2 3

N.T.S.

N

Figure 17: Existing Turning Movements Adjacent Intersections AM Peak Hour


27/92

Madison Crossing

165706

441

122

479777

164

84277

21

884526

307

664

94

23

15

14 13

1,17131

12

18

4 8 4

80

32

63

96101

425

1014

26

17

393

33283

1,082

952

5

281

288

1355682

12

312

337

25

8

332

9 16

483

392

1

56

59

516

82

6

Frye Road

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way



South

12

10

11

9 8

1413

N.T.S.

N

Figure 18: Existing Turning Movements Western Intersections AM Peak Hour


28/92

Madison Crossing

180

1,0

87

1,4

08

262


212

350

14350

1

798

3843

1,2

69

78

58

321

275

1,3

69


793

100

507

137

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 19: Existing Turning Movements Southern Intersections AM Peak Hour


29/92

Madison Crossing

180434

231 637

7360

1221,410

223

283

43

65

17

38 23

26112

117

1 27

16

62

17928

7066 2

21

1,323

410142

101733

34

24

239

59

21

101

182

732

88

199

44

183

916

123

6

830

106

71

37

5343574

179

1,181

230

260

824

142

176

57

4

145

247 237

5

23834

Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

4 5

19

SITE20

21

1 2 3

N.T.S.

N

Figure 20: Existing Turning Movements Adjacent Intersections PM Peak Hour


30/92

Madison Crossing

23

26

401

5411,428

96

41

118

97

19

583

514

25

27

1,050

122854

365

45126

605

236

15

07

9

1,774305

74

82261

115

41

42

704

529599

42522

7

278

37

0

44

17

1

21

745

668

229

225

231363

857

202

586

523

1,581

184

327

202

1,073

45

4

369

547

385

260

Frye Road

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way



South

12

10

11

9 8

13 14

N.T.S.

N

Figure 21: Existing Turning Movements Western Intersections PM Peak Hour


31/92

Madison Crossing

376

295

1,5

66

22342

1,9

04

1,1

52

120

484


208

1,4

80

515

1,5

88

407 224

294 902

385


45

8

17

2

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 22: Existing Turning Movements Southern Intersections PM Peak Hour

Future Amb ient Traff ic

The ambient future traffic volumes were determined using the Chandler Transportation Study

(CTS) Final Report accepted by the City Council on 24 May, 2001. Appendix B providespertinent excerpts from this study. The anticipated 2020 traffic volumes for the study roadwayswere taken from the CTS 2020 daily traffic forecasts, as directed by City of Chandler officials.For segments not provided in the CTS, growth rates were based on adjacent intersectionsusing one of the following methods:

(1) For intersections with non-shared segments, a percentage increase was assumed basedon a similar adjacent intersection whose predicted 2020 volumes are provided in the CTS.


32/92

Madison Crossing

(2) For intersections with shared segments, total volumes were assumed to be the same onthe segment shared by the intersection provided in the CTS and the intersection notprovided in the CTS. However, directional splits were based on existing directional splitsfor the intersection whose volume was being estimated.

Figure 23throughFigure 31 show the directional daily and the morning and evening turning

movement traffic counts for the ultimate conditions without the site in the ambient year 2020.

Signal Warrant A nalysis Exist ing w ithout Si te

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as published by the United StatesDepartment of Transportation is the reference for determining the need for traffic signalinstallation throughout the United States. This document establishes eight separate, relatedsets of criteria termed warrants. If none of the eight warrants are satisfied, then a signalshould not be installed. If one or more of the warrants are satisfied, then a signal might beappropriate.

Appendix C.1provides the complete traffic signal warrant analyses for the Benson Lane andFrye Road intersection (#2). Table 2 provides the names of the primary signal warrants andTable 3summarizes the analyses results of the primary warrants.

Table 2: Signal Warrant Names

WARRANT NAME

1A Minimum Vehicular Volume

1B Interruption of Continuous Traffic

1A and 1B Combination of Warrants2 Four-Hour Vehicular Volume

3B Peak Hour Volume

Table 3: Existing without Site Signal Warrant Analyses Summary

Actual number of hours met

Warrant 1A 1B 1A & 1B 2 3B WarrantRequired hours met 8 8 8 4 1 Satisfied?

Benson Lane and Frye Road (Access 2) 0 0 0 0 0 NO


33/92

Madison Crossing

225

13,375

10,425 11,675

475

825

19

,025

19

,388

20

,613

19

,525

20

,475

20

,488

16

,975

20

,50

0

8,800

21

,50

0

17,900

23,100

8,713

18

,600

21

,400

19

,513

9,613

10,688

10,200

3,0

13

2,6

88

4,4

13

3,0

88

2,1

88

12,213

14,125

75

24,488

23,075

21,925

13,588

25,513 25,488

24,513

7,688

9,788 8,513

24,975

25,025

2,7

13

3,0

88

3,3

13

Frye Road

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

2 53

19

4

SITE

Chandler Boulevard

1

21

20

N.T.S.

N

Figure 23: Adjacent Streets Ambient 2020 Traffic Directional Day


34/92

Madison Crossing

30,600

24,400 25,100

1,2

00

900

17,2

00

7,2

00

5,5

00

27,000

28,000

31,3

00

12,100

12,4

00

7,025

11,500

14,100

13,475

15,4

00

17,3

00

13,950

12,750

4,7

25

15,9

00

6,575 12,325

4,2

75

5,0

25

6,075 6,1254,5

25

4,8

75

6,525 6,675

4,5

75

4,2

25

3,9

75

29,900

11,500

10,750

11,150

14,100

24,650

25,350

27,9

00

35,900

20,800

20,800

35,900

SOUTHERNPACIFIC

RAILROAD

Frye Road

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way



South

12

10

11

14

8

13

9

N.T.S.

N

Figure 24: Western Streets Ambient 2020 Traffic Directional Day


35/92

Madison Crossing

7,700 7,500

22

,300

22

,800

26

,300

26

,600

11,400

20,2

00

21,8

00

13

,300


23

,100


22

,300

22

,800

7,100 8,000

20

,35

0

21

,75

0

10,600

23

,100

13

,300


20

,600

21

,400

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 25: Southern Streets Ambient 2020 Traffic Directional Day


36/92

Madison Crossing

1,6

1

5

567

163

50

1,047852

1,026184

106

339

1,7

52

69

124

758

269

1,1

53

323

172

227

15

8

836

130 176

1,298

379

373

147

235

50

634

244

250525

1545

0

50

153

684

924

167

134

109

229

66567

153

50

50

68

57

50

1,366153

50

51

84

831,452175

87

7

7 2188845

4

3414

364654

Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

4 5

19

SITE20

21

1 2 3

N.T.S.

N

Figure 26: Adjacent Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour


37/92

Madison Crossing

904

5271,246

122

97

190

542

169

83

337

4276252

62

365

134

167

698

680

1,414

50

418

55

284

35850

50

428

50

193468

50259

168

50

459

50

50

50

196

58

291

90

69

1,563221

50

50

50

50

50

579

805

1,678216

1821,708

730

1,118

180

743

343

806

317

Frye Road

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way



South

12

10

11

9 8

1413

N.T.S.

N

Figure 27: Western Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour


38/92

Madison Crossing

1,6

08

684

1571

,324


3855

42

1,1

96

1,8

28

288

340

1,5

75

636

1,3

07

15

1


1,7

44

2,0

78

86

47

3

353

598

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 28: Southern Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour


39/92

Madison Crossing

194

905

267

294 277

109

343

197

1,601

25

3

341

1,281

156

78

667

719

579

115

125

1,2

23

356462

1,4

41

242

120

201

1,4

92

563

263

135

50

906

256

1,3

88

124

1,742

502236

1111,001

50

5020

7870

70

241,138

1 38

55

86 109

84123

129

1341,932

245

311

76

132

198559

254

243

117

50

Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

4 5

19

SITE20

21

1 2 3

N.T.S.

N

Figure 29: Adjacent Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour


40/92

Madison Crossing

645

286

423

602

687

202

222

410

222

1,490

67

1

902

694444

943735

252

65

8

8112,015

71950 7

4

363

407

72

50

602802

50

230

80

1,012

165

87

2,253336

81

90410

245

77

0

64

1

85

6

503

50

1,229

4701,112

40

2

5034

1

50

106

51

236

107

50

87

50

606

5952,115

Frye Road

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way



12

10

11

9 8

13 14

N.T.S.

N

Figure 30: Western Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour


41/92

Madison Crossing

779


484

728

2,3

19

414

325

2,0

94

781

2,0

94

253

867

894

2,4

62

424


1,7

47

448 47

3

598

2,0

78

567

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 31: Southern Intersections Ambient 2020 Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour


42/92

Madison Crossing

This analysis reveals that the Benson Lane and Frye Road intersection (#2) does not satisfythe warrants for traffic signal installation with the existing traffic conditions.

Signal Warrant A nalysis Ambient wi thout Si te

The MUTCD process was also utilized to determine if a signal is likely to be warranted at theBenson Lane and Frye Road intersection (#2) in the ultimate year 2020 with the proposed siteconditions. The warrants presuppose that a minimum of 16 hours of traffic counts are available.Only the ambient 2020 without site daily and peak hourly traffic volumes can be estimateddirectly. Only three of the eight MUTCD warrants can utilize estimated traffic volumes toprovide an indication of the likely need for a traffic signal at a particular location.

Three hourly volumes are necessary to analyze these three warrants the hour with thehighest traffic volumes, the hour with the fourth highest volume, and the hour with the eighthhighest volume. The peak hourly volume has been estimated from the daily volume asdescribed in the section of this report entitled Exist ing Traff ic Counts. The fourth and eighth

highest hourly volumes can be estimated from the peak hourly volume or the daily volume.

The percentages of the day and peak hour traffic arriving in the fourth highest and eighthhighest hours for intersection #2 are provided in Appendix A.1. For each intersectionapproach, the fourth highest hourly volume and the eighth highest hourly volume wereestimated as the maximum of three calculations utilizing the appropriate percentage of thedaily volume, the morning peak hourly volume, and the evening peak hourly volume.

Finally, to provide more appropriate results, the right-turn traffic volumes on minor streets orapproaches were reduced from the volumes required in the traffic warrant analysis as thismovement can typically be accommodated without a traffic signal.

Appendix C.2 provides the results of the ambient 2020 plus site signal warrant analysis forintersection #2. The results are summarized inTable 4.

Table 4: Ambient without Site Signal Warrant Summary

Warrants Satisfied?

Warrant 1A 1B 2 3B - AM 3B - PM

Benson Lane and Frye Road (Access 2) NO NO NO NO YES

Based on these analyses, a traffic signal should be warranted at the intersection of BensonLane and Frye Road. However, it was noticed in Appendix C.2that the 3BPM warrant wasmarginally satisfied (80 estimated vehicles versus 75 required vehicles) and therefore it wasdecided to evaluate when the other warrants would be satisfied, starting from the existing trafficvolume counted for this project and reported in Appendix A.1.Table 5 provides the percentincrease of the existing traffic volumes that would generate the satisfaction of the appropriatetraffic signal warrant. Based on these variable results, it is recommended that a traffic signal


43/92

Madison Crossing

not be installed at this intersection. Regular monitoring of traffic volumes and vehicle delay isnecessary to determine if and when a traffic signal should be installed.

Table 5: Signal Warrant Satisfaction Threshold at Benson Lane Frye Road Intersection

Existing Volume

Warrant Percent Increase

1A 190%

1B 50%

2 30%

3B - AM 100%

3B - PM 10%

Level-of-Service An alysis w ithout Si te

The ability of a transportation system to transmit the transportation demand is characterized asits level-of-service (LOS). Level-of-service is a rating system from A, representing the bestoperation, to F, representing the worst operation. Typically, level-of-service D is consideredthe minimum acceptable operation. The appropriate reference for level-of-service operation isthe Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board.

This manual considers the average delay per vehicle as the measure to determine the level-of-service for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. For signalized intersections thedelay and level-of-service are calculated for the intersection, each approach, and each turningmovement. For unsignalized intersections the level-of-service is defined for each minor

movement for two-way stop controls, and is not defined for the major street approaches or forthe intersection as a whole Table 6 lists the level-of-service criteria for both signalized andunsignalized intersections as stated in the Highway Capacity Manual.

Table 6: Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections

LEVEL-OF-SERVICEAVERAGE DELAY (seconds/vehicle)

SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED

A 10 10B > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15

C > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25D > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35E > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50F > 80 > 50


44/92

Madison Crossing

Synchro software was utilized to calculate the average delay and level-of-service. The inputand output for these analyses are provided as Appendix D to this report, and the results aresummarized on the following pages.

Each of the existing intersections was analyzed for its level-of-service for the existing trafficvolume, traffic control, and lane configuration. Appendix D provides the complete results of

these analyses. Appendix D.1provides the results for the existing 2006 traffic volumes andAppendix D.2provides the results for the ambient 2020 without site traffic volumes.

Synchro provides calculated average delay exceeding 120 seconds per vehicle. Theequations for these delay calculations are accurate only for delays less than 60 seconds. Theequations provide reasonably accurate results for delays between 60 and 120 seconds.Calculated delay greater than 120 seconds are very exaggerated. Therefore, all calculatedaverage delay greater than 120 seconds per vehicle were reduced to 120 seconds per vehicle.This adjustment becomes particularly meaningful when a specific movement is calculated toexperience very high delay and thereby greatly exaggerates the corresponding approach delayand intersection delay. Tables of these adjustments are provided for the appropriateintersections in Appendix D.3.

Figure 32 through Figure 43 provide the existing and ambient 2020 without site level-of-service for the study intersections for the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. Asstated before, the Benson Lane and Frye Road intersection was not improved and thus itshows that the PM peak hour northbound approach has level-of-service F.


45/92

Madison Crossing

B

B B B B C

B B

B B

B B B B B

A A CD

AC

AB

A AB

B

C

A BB B

B

B

B B

B

B

B

B

C

B

BB

B

C

B

B

B

B

BB

B B

B

B

B

D

A

B

AA

C

B

B

C

A

A

AA

B

B

A

A

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

4

B B

AB

B

-

SITE

Frye Road2

STOP

STOP

5

67

19

N.T.S.

N

Figure 32: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Adjacent Intersections AM Peak Hour


46/92

Madison Crossing

B

B B

B D

B

D B BB

A

B B

A

A

B B B

A

A

B BA

A AA

C

A AA

A

A AA

B

BB

B

C

C

AA

B A

B

B

B

B

B B

B

C

BB

BB

A

A

B

A

C

A

A

A A

B

A

B

C

B

A

B

BA

B

B

B

BC

D

BB

AB

Frye Road

Price

Freeway

(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way


ChandlerVillageDr

iveSouth

11

1413

9 8

B

B B

A

B

A

A

10

12

N.T.S.

N

Figure 33: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Western Intersections AM Peak Hour


47/92

Madison Crossing

B B

B

B

A

B A

B


BB

B

A

A

B

C

A

A

A

A

B

B A

A

A

B

A

A

A


A

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

A

B

A

A

N.T.S.

N

Figure 34: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Southern Intersections AM Peak Hour


48/92

Madison Crossing

B

B B B D C

B D

B C

B B C D B

B A CC

AC

AC

A AA

B

C

B BB B

B

B

B B

B

C

B

A

A

A

A

B

C C

A

B

F

A

A

B

B

A

C

C

B

C

C

A

C

C

C

A

BB

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

4

B C

AB

B

-

SITE

Frye Road2

STOP

STOP

5

67

19

N.T.S.

N

Figure 35: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Adjacent Intersections PM Peak Hour


49/92

Madison Crossing

C

C D

C D

B

D B BB

B

B C

B

B

B B B

B

B

B BB

B CB

C

B BC

D

AB

C

C

C

CD

B

D

B

B

C

BB

B

B

B

B

B

B A

C

C

B

A

B

D

CA

B

C

D B

C

D

BB

C

C

BB

B B

B

B

C

B

BB

B

B BA

Frye Road

Price

Freeway

(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way


ChandlerVillageDr

iveSouth

11

1413

9 8

C

C C

B

B

B

B

10

12

N.T.S.

N

Figure 36: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Western Intersections PM Peak Hour


50/92

Madison Crossing

B

A

C


BB

B

A

C

A

C A

B

B

B

D

A

B

A

A

A


A

C

C

A

A

C

C C

B

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

A

B

C

A

N.T.S.

N

Figure 37: Existing 2006 Level-of-Service Southern Intersections PM Peak Hour


51/92

Madison Crossing

B C DB B C

C D

B

B BD C

B B C

AD

CC

B B

C

C F

A

D

E

F B

E

DD D

D

C

DE

D

C

C

C

C

B

C

C

B

C

D

B

DC

D

C

C

E

D

C

AA

C

C

C

C

C C

C

C C

B

C

A

B

A

B

C

B

B

C

B

B

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

4

C

AC

-

SITE

Frye Road2

STOP

STOP

5

67

19

C

D

N.T.S.

N

Figure 38: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Adjacent Intersections AM Peak Hour


52/92

Madison Crossing

B

C C

C C

B

B B

B

B

B B B

B

B

B BB

B B

D

B B

D

BB

D

C

B

B

B

C

DB

C

B C

B

D

BB

B B

B

B

B

D

BC

B

C

B

B

C

CA

BA

B

C

B

B

B

B

B

B AB

C

B

C

BB

B

B

B

C

B

CD

D

C

C D

Frye Road

Price

Freeway

(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way


ChandlerVillageDr

iveSouth

11

1413

9 8

C

B C

B

B

B

B

10

12

N.T.S.

N

Figure 39: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Western Intersections AM Peak Hour


53/92

Madison Crossing

B

B

B

B


BB

A

C A

BB

B

B

A

C

A

B

A

A

B B

B

B

C

A


A

B

B

A

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

B

B

B

A

N.T.S.

N

Figure 40: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Southern Intersections AM Peak Hour


54/92

Madison Crossing

B D DC C D

C E

C

D CE C

B B C

AD

AC

C B

C

C E

B

C

E

F B

D

DE D

C

C

C

B

B

C

C

C C

AA

D

E

B

C

F

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

A

DCC

E C

D

C

C

D

C

C

C

C

D

C

D

D

CE

D

B

D

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

4

C

BC

-

SITE

Frye Road2

STOP

STOP

5

67

19

D

D

N.T.S.

N

Figure 41: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Adjacent Intersections PM Peak Hour


55/92

Madison Crossing

B

C D

D D

B

B C

B

B

B B B

B

B

B BB

C C

C

C B

D

D

C

CD

E

C

D

D

D

DA

B

C

CC

C

C

C

C

C BC

B

C

E

BC

E

BB

B B

B

B

BB

BC

D

B

C

C

D

D D

C

D

DC

E

D

C

C

D

BA

D

B

E

D

Frye Road

Price

Freeway

(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way


ChandlerVillageDr

iveSouth

11

1413

9 8

D

B C

C

C

B

C

10

12

N.T.S.

N

Figure 42: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Western Intersections PM Peak Hour


56/92

Madison Crossing

B

B

C


BB

B

A

C

B

C A

B

B

B

D

A

C

B

A

A


A

D

C

A

A

D

D C

B

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

B

B

C

A

N.T.S.

N

Figure 43: Ambient 2020 Level-of-Service Southern Intersections PM Peak Hour

Proposed Site Trip Generation

The estimated trip generation for the proposed Countrywide project was determinedthrough the procedures and data contained within the Institute of TransportationEngineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, published in 2003. This documentprovides traffic volume data from existing developments throughout North America thatcan be utilized to estimate vehicle trips that might be generated from proposeddevelopments. The traffic data are provided for 152 different categories. The estimatedtraffic volume is dependent upon independent variables defined by the characteristicsand size of each land use category.


57/92

Madison Crossing

There is considerable data for office developments. Seven different land use categoriesare providedGeneral Office, Corporate Headquarters, Single Tenant, Medical-DentalOffice, Office Park, Research & Development, and Business Park. The two mostappropriate land use categories for this proposed development are CorporateHeadquarters (Code 714) and Single Family Tenant (Code 715). The most readily

available and appropriate independent variables for office developments are thebuilding size in 1,000 square feet and the number of employees.

Trips can be determined utilizing an average trip generation rate or a regressionequation. Appendix E.1provides the pertinent excerpts from Trip Generation. Theseexcerpts provide graphs for each land use code, each independent variable, and eachtime period of the data from the various studies. These graphs plot the average rateline and the regression equation line. In each case, the regression equation line iscloser to the building size and the number of employees for Countrywide than is theaverage rate line. Therefore, the regression equation line was utilized for this analysis.

Countrywide employees arrive throughout a four-hour period in the morning and depart

throughout a four-hour period in the afternoon. Error! Reference source not found.provides the approximate percentage of employee arrivals and departures by hour.

Table 7: Employee Arrival and Departure Times

To ensure a conservative analysis, the total number of employees was utilized toestimate the daily traffic volume. The number of employees arriving in the highestarrival hour and departure hour was utilized to estimate the peak hourly traffic volume.

The estimate for peak hour site traffic volume was based on 40% of the totalemployees. This will ensure that the site accesses accommodate the peak periodarrival and departure volumes.

Appendix E.2provides the complete results of the trip generation calculations. Table 8provides a summary of the calculations.

TIME PERIOD PORTION OF EMPLOYEES

5:00 to 6:00 AM 10%

6:00 to 7:00 AM 15%

7:00 to 8:00 AM 40%

8:00 to 9:00 AM 35%

2:00 to 3:00 PM 10%

3:00 to 4:00 PM 15%

4:00 to 5:00 PM 40%

5:00 to 6:00 PM 35%


58/92

Madison Crossing

Table 8: Weekday Traffic Volume Calculation Details

Proposed Site Tr ip Distr ibut ion

The final determination related to site traffic is the direction the generated traffic utilizes to enterand exit the site. The site was examined to determine the probable routes for its traffic.Figure 44 andFigure 45provide the percentage of site traffic entering and exiting the site fromthe external streets for the daily, morning and evening peak hours. Figure 46 throughFigure 54provide the resulting site directional daily traffic as well as the morning and evening

peak hour turning movement volumes.Figure 55throughFigure 63provide the resulting 2020ambient with site directional daily traffic as well as the morning and evening peak hour turningmovement volumes.

DAY

LAND USE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE SIZE ENTERING EXITING TOTAL

Corporate Headquarters Building Area 549,000 2,113 2,112 4,225

Corporate Headquarters Employees 3,429 3,431 3,431 6,862

Single Tenant Building Area 549,000 1,656 1,655 3,311

Single Tenant Employees 3,429 3,648 3,648 7,296

MAXIMUM 3,648 3,648 7,296

AM PEAK HOUR


Corporate Headquarters Building Area 549,000 721 54 775

Corporate Headquarters Employees 1,372 565 42 607Single Tenant Building Area 549,000 831 103 934

Single Tenant Employees 1,372 626 77 703

MAXIMUM 626 77 703

PM PEAK HOUR


Corporate Headquarters Building Area 549,000 66 598 664

Corporate Headquarters Employees 1,372 55 442 497

Single Tenant Building Area 549,000 130 739 869

Single Tenant Employees 1,372 98 552 650MAXIMUM 98 552 650


59/92

Madison Crossing

LEGEND

AM

PM

12%

12%

12%

12%

3%3%

6%6%

3%3%

3%3%

4%4%

1%1%

2%2%

2%2%

3%3%

13%

13%

4%4%

16%

16%

15% 4%

4%

3%

3%

7%

7%


3%

3%

15%

3%

3%

1%1%

7%

7%

3%3%

6%6%

4%4%

3%3%

13%

13%

13%

13%

10%

3%3%

3%3%

7%7%

10%

3%3%

SanTanFreeway(SR202) 7%7%

10%

10%

Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

Ellis

Street

PriceFreeway

(SR101)

Dobso

nRoad

Pecos Road

PriceR

oad

Benson Lane

Galleria Way


15

16

18

17

19

6

5

78910

11

12 13 14 4

15

16

2 31

SITE 21

20

N.T.S.

N

Figure 44: Site Traffic Trip Distribution AM and PM


60/92

Madison Crossing

3%

13%


3%

3%

7%

2%

2%

3%

3%

7%

3%

1%

1%

16% 4%

16% 3%

4%

6%

3%

12%

6%

4%

12%

4%

3%

3%

3%

7%

13%

3%

13%


10%10%

7%

Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

PriceRoad

Benson Lane

Galleria Way

Chandler

VillageDriveNorth

15

16

18

17

19

6

5

78910

11

12 13 14 4

15

16

2 31

SITE20

21

N.T.S.

N

Figure 45: Site Traffic Trip Distribution - Day


61/92

Madison Crossing

1,0

94

1,933

1,0

21

1,933 1,021

1,021 657511

657 657

365

365

657 657

109

146

109

109

109

109

365

328

365

511

1463

28

328

693

511

109

146

255

511 255

109

146

146

328

219

547

547

219

87

6

87

6

912

657

1,131

511 146

146511

693

657657

87

6

730

730

87

6

511

511

146

109

1,131

985

146

146

693

693

511

511

Frye Road

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

2 53

19

4

SITE

Chandler Boulevard

1

21

20

N.T.S.

N

Figure 46: Adjacent Streets Site Traffic Directional Day


62/92

Madison Crossing

584

584 547

146

146

47

4

182

182

547

547

438

47

4

47

4

292

985

1,459

511

948

511

511

36

47

4

292

948

511182 292

109

73

73

182 292 109

36

547

985

1,933

109

109

511

547

547

511

1,933

1,459

511

511

438

SOUTHERNPACIFIC

RAILROAD

Frye Road

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way



South

12

10

11

14

8

13

9

N.T.S.

N

Figure 47: Western Streets Site Traffic Directional Day


63/92

Madison Crossing

474 365

47

4

584

948

948

255

36

5

36

5

365

109



47

4

584

474 365

109

109

255

109

109

365

109


16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 48: Southern Streets Site Traffic Directional Day


64/92

Madison Crossing

`

19

44

613

2

2

25

2

2

13

1

136

13

2

5

4

3126

12

317

4

94

56

4

63

34

8

29

44

385

50

35

19

19

275

38

2 1

2262

38

65

31

25

4

88

31

35

44

11

125

15 8

25

50

19 19

22

157175

Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

4 5

19

SITE20

21

1 2 3

N.T.S.

N

Figure 49: Adjacent Intersections Site Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour


65/92

Madison Crossing

2

19

6

163

20118

1

10

88

50

169

2

19

3 1

13

4

31

88

6

31

1

2

619 2

9

5025

6

38

4

3163

7525 12

Frye Road

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way



South

12

10

11

9 8

1413

N.T.S.

N

Figure 50: Western Intersections Site Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour


66/92

Madison Crossing

19

448


6310

10

100

19

2 5


19

2 8

81

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

P

riceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 51: Southern Intersections Site Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour


67/92

Madison Crossing

`

2

116

7

1111

2

37

12

39

176

2

6

11

17

1

3

5

10

33

55

83

550

28

32

27

820

344

67

47

28

5

159

28

25

1,021

26

58

208

55

110

6

4

14

17

77

33

22

28

43922

5

33

1,021912

912

Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

4 5

19

SITE20

21

1 2 3

N.T.S.

N

Figure 52: Adjacent Intersections Site Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour


68/92

Madison Crossing

22

44

25

17

28

55

44

221

144

72

13

77

14

17

3

3

26

8

14

2

105

11

628

17

83

66

22

6 8 4

3

1

1

5

412

Frye Road

PriceFreeway(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way

ChandlerVillageDriv

eNorth

ChandlerVillageDriveS

outh

12

10

11

9 8

13 14

N.T.S.

N

Figure 53: Western Intersections Site Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour


69/92

Madison Crossing

7


3

55

72

72 10

16

3

17

39


3

13

17

55

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

P

riceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 54: Southern Intersections Site Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour


70/92

Madison Crossing

1,3

19

15,308

1,0

21

12,358 11,446

11,446 12,332

475

825

11,198

12,600 12,600

365

365

14,513 14,513

17

,084

19

,17

1

19

,497

20

,722

19

,634

20

,584

20

,86

5

9,128

21

,86

5

9,223

18

,746

2,5

16

4,7

41

3,7

81

10,123

18,009

20

,633

7,943

10,298 8,768

23,209

21

,546

19

,65

8

10,528

3,2

31

547

547

2,9

06

3,5

88

3,9

63

912

12,869

14,506

26,023 25,633

24,65824,998

4,0

06

14,78214,244

3,9

63

730

730

4,1

88

3,8

23

3,5

98

23,221

22,034

14,506

1,0

60

25,121

25,171

4,0

06

3,7

81

3,8

23

3,5

98

Frye Road

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

2 53

19

4

SITE

Chandler Boulevard

1

21

20

N.T.S.

N

Figure 55: Adjacent Streets 2020 with Site Traffic Directional Day


71/92

Madison Crossing

31,184

24,984 25,647

1,3

46

1,0

46

17,6

74

7,3

82

5,6

82

27,547

28,547

31,7

38

12,574

12,8

74

7,317

12,485

15,559

13,986

18,2

48

14,461

13,261

4,7

61

16,3

74

6,867

16,3

48

12,8366,707 6,967

4,3

84

4,2

98

4,0

48

6,257 6,4174,6

34

4,9

11

30,447

12,485

12,683

4,6

84

5,1

34

36,411

21,347

21,347

36,411

13,083

15,559

25,161

25,861

28,3

38

SOUTHERNPACIFIC

RAILROAD

Frye Road

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way



South

12

10

11

14

8

13

9

N.T.S.

N

Figure 56: Western Streets 2020 with Site Traffic Directional Day


72/92

Madison Crossing

8,174 7,865

22

,77

4

23

,384

27

,248

27

,548

11,655

20,5

65

22,1

65

23

,465

13

,409



22

,77

4

23

,384

7,574 8,365

20

,45

9

21

,85

9

10,855

20

,709

21

,509

23

,465

13

,409


16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

PriceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 57: Southern Streets 2020 with Site Traffic Directional Day


73/92

Madison Crossing

`

758

1,6

3

4

567

207

1,053865

1,027184

109

364

1,7

52

69

124

271

1,1

55

323

184

228

17

1

842

130 176

1,310

38055

4

31796

12

31

543

4

94

266

924

167

4

63

57

1

8

238

250569

19255

50

153

734

137378

166

25

4

50

77

114

267

66

636

244

17557352

50

105

57

1,03431

831,452200

4

501,366241

31

54

89

48

3414

3

98

132

22

101

91345

696

19 19

959

157

54

882Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

4 5

19

SITE20

21

1 2 3

N.T.S.

N

Figure 58: Adjacent Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour


74/92

Madison Crossing

124

97

50

209

548

50

480

4476363

43

343

806

284

375

1,502

55

40850

50

849

418

169

698

187

83

193471

51259

168

63

463

934

337516

50

50

50

196

64

322

91

71

50

56

69 52

1,687216

579

855

755

749

134

5301,253

184

2131,771

1,638246

50

1,130

Frye Road

PriceFreew

ay(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way



South

12

10

11

9 8

1413

N.T.S.

N

Figure 59: Western Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour


75/92

Madison Crossing

1,6

27

728

1571,3

31


340

448552

1,2

06

1,9

28

288

1,5

94

636

1,3

10

156


1,7

63

2,0

80

94

473

353

679

16 18

17

15

DobsonRoad

P

riceRoad

N.T.S.

N

Figure 60: Southern Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour


76/92

Madison Crossing

`

196

916

273

294 277

109

350

197

1,612

253

352

1,283

156

78

667

722

579

122

125

1,2

23

357464

1,4

41

242

120

240

1,5

08

569

265

140

50

917

273

1,3

89

127

5

10

150

50

55

83

5284

28

628

262

1,742

510257

1141,045

567

917

28

5

15

605

28

7520

7

876

1,355

20

70

241,146

158

118

55

92 109

88123

142

1341,932

262

389

109

154

28

202598

276

5

276

Frye Road

Chandler Boulevard

EllisStreet

DobsonRoad

Pecos Road

Benson Lane

67

4 5

19

SITE20

21

1 2 3

N.T.S.

N

Figure 61: Adjacent Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour


77/92

Madison Crossing

667

286

468

602

687

228

427

250

1,545

715

1,123

837

294

457

1,020735

252

658

8112,029

50 74

379

410

72

233

1,038

727

50

602815

50

245

80

85

6

165

89

2,262340

92

96437

67

50

1,312

4701,178

42

4

56

34

1

77

8

64

5

503

53

106

51

236

108

50

88

611

5992,127

Frye Road

PriceFreeway(SR101)

Chandler Boulevard

Galleria Way

ChandlerVillageDriv

eNorth

ChandlerVillageDriveS

outh

12

10

11

9 8

13 14

N.T.S.

N

Figure 62: Western Intersections 2020 with Site Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour


78/92

Madison Crossing

786


484

731

2,3

75

85

3

2,1

66 423

325

2,1

10

253

869

894

2,4

79

462

Sa

0311 Transportes Dia 01d Reporte Semestral Ejemplo USA

Documents

Transcript of 0311 Transportes Dia 01d Reporte Semestral Ejemplo USA