...__ ..... )> ""'' "-0 "u;-· 0 " i "' ~ 0 ~ ~ ii) "CD n Cl >:" ~ c <" -~ z p ~ (1,) ..... c;:s _,......,, ::z,. -j D c._ >-0 :::::) ten ~ () w z w __. It-0 m z 0 en -0 0 <( ·---· [__ 2 " I " "' ~"---------·-I ..__ __ . g ui .2! .!!! 0 0 (/) (/) <( c: ~ .c g 1 c: .8 ... Ill co >-Cl . ::::> u z I-(/) ~ (/) L.U ~ z 1-u 0 <( w en u z Cl 0 (/) w Cl (/) ....J a: <( <( I-0 u. > u.. al z I-0 <( 0 z ~ co ~ :r: u z 0 (/) 1-<( 0 I z (/) 0 -1-Cl c::: Cl <( OJ <3:: I Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................... ii List of Figures .................................................................... iii Introduction ...................................................................... 1 Section 1 -Intersection Improvements 1.1 Purpose and Procedures ............................................. ....... 2 1.2 Selection of Study Locations ................................................. 3 1.3 Area Characteristics ...................................................... 10 1 .4 Analysis and Recommendations .............................................. 12 1.5 Prioritization of Improvements ............................................... 70 1.6 Conclusion ................... .......................................... 73 Section 2 -Roadway Functional Classification and Design Standards 2.1 Introduction ............................................................ 74 2.2 Functional Classifications ................................................... 76 2.3 Thoroughfare Design Standards .............................................. 81 2.4 Access Control Policy ..................................................... 95 2.5 Median Openings ....................................................... 111 2.6 Traffic Signal Spacing .................... ................................ 116 Section 3 -Future Thoroughfare Needs 3.1 Future Thoroughfare Needs ................................................ 118 References ............................... ..................................... 124 liST OF TABLES Section 1 1.1 Results of Criteria Ranking ................................................... 7 1.2 Definition of Level of Service for Signalized Intersections ........................ ..... 13 1.3 Recommended Yellow Interval Durations ........................................ 18 1.4 Recommended All-Red Interval Durations ........................................ 20 1.5 Recommended Total Clearance Interval Durations .................................. 20 1.6 Results of Prioritization .................................................... 72 Section 2 2.1 Roadway Functional Classifications and General Planning Guidelines ..................... 77 2.2 Roadway Lanes by Functional Classification ...................................... 79 2.3 Minimum Horizontal Centerline Radius .......................................... 88 2.4 Safe Sight Distance for Passenger Cars Crossing a Roadway -Case A .................... 90 2.5 Safe Sight Distance for Passenger Cars Turning Left onto a Roadway-Case 8 .............. 91 2.6 Safe Sight Distance for Passenger Cars Turning Right onto a Roadway -Case C ............. 91 2. 7 Safe Sight Distance for Passenger Cars Entering Driveways by Left Turns -Case D ........... 93 2.8 Safe Sight Distance for Semi-Trailers Entering Driveways by Left Turns-Case E ............ 93 2.9 Sight Distance Adjustments Due to Grade ....................................... 94 2.10 Minimum Driveway Spacing ................................................ 101 2.11 Corner Clearance ....................................................... 101 2.12 Property Clearance Requirements ............................................ 103 2.13 Curb Return Radius and Driveway Entry Width Combinations ......................... 103 2.14 Pavement Widths for Turning Roadways ....................................... 106 2.15 On-Site Driveway Vehicle Storage Lengths ...................................... 108 2.16 Right-Turn Lane Length ................................................... 110 2.17 Transition Distance for Deceleration .......................................... 110 2.18 Length of Median ....................................................... 113 2.19 Intersection Spacing ............................................ ......... 117 ii LIST OF FIGURES Section 1 1.1 Candidate Study Locations ................................................... 4 1.2 Detailed Study Locations .................................................... 9 1.3 Existing and Recommended Traffic Signal Control Areas ............................. 16 Section 2 2. 1 Roadway Function by Classification ........................................... 75 2.2 Existing Roadway Functional Classifications ...................................... 80 2.3 Recommended Standard Roadway Cross Sections .................................. 82 2.4 Intersection R.O.W. Requirements Residential/Industrial Collectors ...................... 84 2.5 Intersection R.O.W. Requirements Minor Arterial ................................... 85 2.6 Intersection R.O.W. Requirements Minor and Major Arterial Requiring Left-Turn Lanes ......... 86 2. 7 Sight Distance .......................................................... 89 2.8 Intersection Conflict Points Driveway/Street ...................................... 96 2.9 Driveway Design Elements ................................................. 100 2.10 Driveway Vertical Grades .................................................. 104 2.11 Median End Treatment ................................................... 114 2.12 Storage Length Required for Unsignalized Left-Turn Lanes ........................... 115 Section 3 3.1 Proposed Arapaho Road Extension ........................................... 120 3.2 Proposed Landmark Road Extension .......................................... 121 3.3 Proposed Quorum Drive Realignment 123 iii INTRODUCTION Strategically located in northern Dallas County, the Town of Addison has experienced tremendous growth over the past several years. Unlike many of its neighboring cities, however, Addison's growth has been predominantly non-residential. Despite the best efforts of the Town's planner to look forward in time to forecast what transportation facilities would be needed to support the higher trip generation intensity of this non-residential growth, the Town of Addison experiences unacceptable conditions on its roadway system during the peak traffic hours. The movements of people and goods into, out of, through and around the Town of Addison is largely dependent upon the automobile. Recognizing the need for an efficient and safe roadway system, the Town of Addison retained Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to develop recommendations for maximizing the operational efficiency and safety of the town's 1 thoroughfare system. This report presents the procedures, findings and conclusions of the Addison Bottleneck Study. The report is divided into two sections. Section 1 of this report presents the methodology, analysis, recommendations and conclusions of the study to alleviate traffic congestion and increase safety on Addison thoroughfares. Section 2 presents thoroughfare design guidelines and proposed thoroughfare plans to ensure that future growth in Addison can be accommodated. c L __ l .. ·.-j '--·--·.: L _ _, L.·. ____ _:. L_ .... z Q b w (/) C/) 1-z w ~ w > ~ 0 z a: a.. 0 ~ u1-z w 0 C/) 1-u w C/) a: w 1-z 1.1 PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES The purpose of this phase of the Addison Bottleneck Study was to develop implementable roadway improvements to alleviate traffic congestion and increase safety on Addison thoroughfares, and to provide a prioritized schedule for implementing the recommended improvements. This report presents the procedures, findings, recommendations, and conclusions of this study to improve traffic conditions in the Town of Addison. Study Procedures The analysis of existing conditions and the development of cost effective improvements to alleviate traffic congestion requires that a logical study process be followed. Such a process, as developed, will ensure that problems, and solutions to the problems, are adequately evaluated and documented. Such a logical process was developed and used in conducting the Addison Bottleneck Study. The study methodology is outlined in the following work tasks. 1. A meeting was held with the Town of Addison 2 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. staff to formulate goals and objectives for the study, and determine the criteria and guidelines to be used in the selection of study locations. A list of candidate intersection locations on Addison's major thoroughfares was developed and reviewed by Town staff. Available data was assembled on all candidate locations and reviewed. Additional needed data was collected by the Town of Addison staff. A.M. and P.M. peak hour visual observations were conducted at each candidate location. All candidate locations were prioritized based on selected criteria in the order of need for improvement. The highest 60% of the candidate locations were selected for detailed analysis. Recommendations were developed for each intersection to decrease delay and improve safety. The recommended roadway improvements were prioritized to provide a systematic method for implementing improvements. 1.2 SELECTION OF STUDY LOCATIONS The Addison Bottleneck Study was undertaken as a means of identifying and correcting the most congested roadway intersections in Addison. In order to accomplish this goal in a cost effective manner, a three step approach was developed. The first step was to identify the intersections most needing improvement. This was to be accomplished with a minimal amount of new data collection. Step two was to identify the improvements necessary at the intersections to decrease congestion and increase safety on Addison thoroughfares. Third, the improvements were prioritized to provide a system of implementing the improvements which maximizes the benefits for the citizens of Addison as early in the implementation process as possible. This chapter discusses the methodology used in the selection of the intersections to be included in the detailed analysis. 3 Candidate Locations Initially, a list of approximately 33 locations was developed for consideration for detailed analysis. This listing included signalized and unsignalized intersections along major arterials within the Town. This list was reviewed by Town staff and revised to approximately twenty-seven (27) locations based on staff's knowledge of operating conditions at the candidate locations. The candidate locations are shown in Figure 1 . 1 . The detailed study locations would be selected from this candidate list based on the criteria and ranking procedures discussed below. Criteria In an effort to minimize any additional data collection, the criteria were selected based upon data which either already exists or was readily available. The criteria set consists of volume/capacity ratios, accident rates, observed peak hour conditions, staff and citizen input, and observations of physical conditions at each candidate location. A brief discussion of each criterion follows. Volume/capacity ratios. The daily volume of traffic entering an intersection was compared to the daily capacity of that intersection (based on hourly capacities and peak hour percentages) to produce a V/C ratio ranging from 0.00 to 1.00 +. . .. I :~~ w 0 a: .... :::;) < 52 0 II. 0 ...J > 0 ::I t; .w... < 0 2i z < 0 Accident rates. The average number of accidents per year reported at an intersection over a period of 3 years was related to the average number of vehicles entering the intersection in a year to produce an accident rate in units of accidents per million entering vehicles (Acc/Mev). Observed oeak hour conditions. A.M. and P.M. peak hour operating conditions were evaluated qualitatively based upon field reconnaissance and perceived level of operation at a location. Factors such as left-or right-turn activity, length of queues, delays, and intersection control were considered in this evaluation. Staff/citizen input. This criteria was evaluated qualitatively based upon input from Town staff concerning the number and nature of complaints from the citizenry regarding certain locations and other input received by the Town regarding perceived conditions. The Town staff provided these ratings according to the procedure outlined below. Physical Conditions. These were evaluated qualitatively based upon field reconnaissance and perceived problems at a location with regard to such things as offsets, alignments, sight distance, curb returns, lane widths, driveway conflicts, and visibility of control devices. 5 Priority Ranking System The priority ranking system was based upon point values assigned within the criteria weighted by the relative importance and accuracy of each criterion. The scoring distribution and weighted average for the criteria were as follows. • • Volume/capacity ratio -(35%) 0.00 -0.40 = 0 pt. 0.41 -0.60 = 1 pt. 0.61 -0.80 = 2 pt. 0.81-1.00 = 3 pt. > 1.00 = 4 pt. Observed peak hour conditions (25%) freedom of movement, no apparent problems = 0 pt. movement slowing, but still relatively free = 1 pt. headways become shorter, occasional but short queues = 2 pt. short headways, consistent queues, but still clearing = 3 pt. minimal headways, long queue lengths, queues not clearing = 4 pt. • Accident rate -(20%) • • 0.0 -0.2 = 0 pt. 0.3 -0.5 = 1 pt. 0.6 -1.0 = 2 pt. 1 . 1 -1 . 5 = 3 pt. > 1.5 = 4 pt . Physical conditions = (1 0%) good, no problem fair, minor problems marginal, minimum standards observed poor, substandard conditions severe, hazardous conditions Staff/citizen input -( 1 0%) no input occasional complaint frequent complaints steady, intense complaints Study Locations = 0 pt. = 1 pt. = 2 pt. = 3 pt. = 4 pt. = 0 pt. = 1 pt. = 2 pt. = 3 pt. Table 1.1 shows the results of the ranking procedures outlined above. The highest sixty percent (60%) of the intersections on the list were deemed appropriate for further analysis. These intersections are illustrated in Figure 1.2. 6 Table 1.1 RESULTS OF CRITERIA RANKING CRITERIA VOLUME/CAPACITY ACCIDENT RATE PEAK OBSERVATION STAFF/CITIZEN PHYSICAL INPUT CONDITIONS TOTAL LOCATION VIC SCORE WEIGHTED RATE SCORE WEIGHTED SCORE WEIGHTED SCORE WEIGHTED SCORE WEIGHTED Bell line/Addison 0.86 3 1.06 0.8 2 0.40 4 1.00 0 0.00 2 0.20 2.65 Bell Line/Midway 0.83 3 1.05 0.8 2 0.40 4 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2.45 Belt Line/Quorum 0.87 3 1.06 0.5 ' 0.20 4 1.00 0 0.00 2 0.20 2.45 Midway/Spring Valley 0.71 2 0.70 0.3 ' 0.20 4 1.00 0 0.00 2 0.20 2.10 Midway/Greenhi11 School 0.86 3 1.05 0.' 0 0.00 3 0.75 0 0.00 2 0.20 2.00 Midway/Beltway 0.71 2 0.70 0.7 2 0.40 3 0.76 0 0.00 ' 0.10 1.96 Addiaon/Lindberg 0.70 2 0.70 0.8 2 0.40 2 0.60 0 0.00 ' 0.10 1.70 Midway!Proton 0.64 2 0.70 0.3 ' 0.20 3 0.76 0 0.00 0 0.00 1.65 Bell line/Montfort 0.72 2 0.70 0.0 0 0.00 3 0.75 0 0.00 ' 0.10 1.65 Midway/Lindberg 0.84 2 0.70 1.0 2 0.40 ' 0.26 0 0.00 ' 0.10 1.45 ' Spring V11lley/Brookh11vttn 0.61 ' 0.36 '.' 3 0.60 ' 0.26 0 0.00 2 0.20 1.40 Addi•on1We11grove 0.44 ' 0.36 0.7 2 0.40 2 2 0,60 0 0.00 ' 0.10 1.35 Ouorum/Ar11phao 0.24 0 0.00 1.1 3 0.60 3 0.75 0 0.00 0 0.00 1.35 Addi•on/Keller Spring• 0.41 ' 0.35 0.7 2 0.40 ' 0.26 0 0.00 3 0.30 1.30 Bell lineiBeltwey 0.94 3 1.06 0.3 ' 0.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1.25 Addi•on/Arllpnho 0.65 ' 0,35 0.6 ' 0.20 2 0.60 0 0.00 ' 0.10 1.15 Bell linellendmark 0,79 2 0.70 0.2 0 0.00 ' 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.95 1 Table 1.1 RESULTS OF CRITERIA RANKING CRITERIA VOLUME/CAPACITY ACCIDENT RATE PEAK OBSERVATION STAFF/CITIZEN PHYSICAL INPUT CONDITIONS TOTAL LOCATION V/C SCORE WEIGHTED RATE SCORE WEIGHTED SCORE WEIGHTED SCORE WEIGHTED SCORE WEIGHTED Belt Linelleke Foreat 0.69 2 0.10 0 0 0.00 1 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.95 Belt Line/Commercial 0.77 2 0.70 0.3 1 0.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.90 Quorum/Keller Spring• 0.22 0 0.00 1.4 3 0.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.30 0.90 Belt line/Surveyor 0.58 1 0.36 0.3 1 0.20 1 0.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.80 Bell Une/Winnwood 0.77 2 0.70 0.0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.70 Midway/Keller Spring• 0.61 1 0.35 0.1 0 0.00 1 0.26 0 0.00 1 0.10 0.70 Addison/Airport 0.60 1 0.36 0.3 1 0.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.10 0.65 Ouorumi'Ne•tgrove 0.30 0 0.00 0.1 0 0.00 2 0.60 0 0.00 1 0.10 0.60 Addi1on/Sojourn 0.26 0 0.00 0.6 2 0.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.40 Quorum/Airport 0.14 0 0.00 0.6 2 0.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.40 8 -' ! ..--·-·-----i . i ~( I i ~~ U i II g.a mz it• -u a: ~~~ w< { ~=·= ~de-~"'F="....r 'PII .< .. •A IIIJ!JCIS ~~ a: Lt --z 0 ~ 0 ~ N Cl)~ ...z 0 !l:!i= ::let ~0 ii:Q ...J > 0 :::J 1-CI) 0 w ...J ;;: tii 0 1.3 AREA CHARACTERISTICS The operating conditions that are experienced on a thoroughfare system are dependent primarily on the amount of traffic present on the system at a given moment (volume), and the characteristics of that traffic. These traffic characteristics are dependent upon many factors, including the types and composition of landuses served by the roadway system, and the adequacy of the roadway system serving the drivers' needs. The factors can cause traffic characteristics to vary from system to system, and roadway to roadway, and cause similar roadways (i.e., number of lanes, capacity, etc.) to operate differently. This section of the report will discuss the land uses presently existing in Addison and the effects on the current operating conditions on Addison's thoroughfare system. Land Uses The Town of Addison's growth has been predominantly commercial, (including many restaurants 10 and office buildings). Surrounded by cities with predominantly residential land uses, the Town of Addison's major thoroughfares are often used by the residents of these surrounding cities. The Town of Addison experiences sharp increases in traffic volumes during the morning and afternoon peak hours as residents of Addison and surrounding cities travel to and from work in Addison and other areas of the metroplex. For example, Midway Road, a major north/south arterial in Addison experiences approximately 1 2 percent of its total daily volume during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Belt Line Road, a major east/west arterial experiences an increase in traffic volumes not only during the morning and afternoon peak hours, but also during the noon peak hour as people travel to and from lunch. The thoroughfare system is further impacted by a substantial difference in the direction of travel (directional split) on a particular roadway. Again, using Midway Road as an example, 66 percent of the total traffic during the P.M. peak hour travels north on this roadway. Unlike Midway Road or Addison Road, Belt Line Road does not exhibit a large directional split. This heavy peaking of traffic during the peak hours and the large directional split on some thoroughfares places a heavy impact on Addison's thoroughfare system during the peak hours. The town also provides employment to several thousand people. Several types of land uses are present which contribute to this employment including light industrial, warehousing/distribution facilities, retail, and office. Of these land uses, the light industrial and warehousing/distribution facilities have a large impact on the efficiency of the Addison thoroughfare system. These facilities, located predominantly along Addison Road; Midway Road; and on Belt Line Road in Carrollton, Texas, generate a large amount of truck traffic. These large trucks exhibit completely different operating characteristics than the normal passenger car. Much slower to accelerate and decelerate it has been estimated that a large truck can be considered the equivalent of up to six passenger cars when calculating the operating conditions at an intersection. The large percentage of truck traffic on some sections of Addison Road, Midway Road and Belt Line Road substantially reduces the operating capacity of these important arterials. 1 1 1.4 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Once the selection of the detailed study locations was made, additional data was collected for each of the selected intersections including AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts, roadway geometries, and utility locations. This information was used as the data base for evaluating the current traffic conditions at these locations and developing recommendations for improvements to mitigate any identified deficiencies. The analysis procedures as well as the presentation of the findings and recommendations are discussed in the following paragraphs. Analysis Procedures Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the current peak hour traffic conditions to evaluate the current operational level of service for each study location. These analyses were performed utilizing procedures outlined in Chapter 9 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for signalized intersections. Level of service is a qualitative measure of identifying 12 how effectively traffic is managed at an intersection and is defined by categories A through F. Table 1.2 provides descriptions tor each level of service tor signalized intersections. The results of these analyses were then reviewed to identify possible improvements that would relieve congestion, reduce delay and improve the operation and safety of these intersections. Such improvements include the following: • increased curb return radii, • increased exclusive-use lane storage, • additional right-and lett-turn lanes, • signal timing improvements • intersection signalization, • improved pavement surface, and • restriping Employing various combinations of these improvement types, a set of recommended improvements was then developed for each study location and evaluated again using the 1985 HCM procedures to determine how the traffic conditions might be expected to improve. General Findings and Recommendations The findings of this study identified improvements to decrease congestion and increase safety on Addison's thoroughfare system. The traffic e ngineering TABLE 1.2 DEFINITION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A and B No delays in intersections with smooth progression of traffic. Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a single signal cycle. c Moderate delays at intersections with satisfactory to good progression of traffic. Light congestion; occasional back-ups on critical approaches. D 40 percent probability of delays of one cycle or more at every intersection. Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional. Vehicles required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. E Heavy traffic flow condition. Delays of two or more cycles probable. Limit of stable flow. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. F Unstable traffic flow. Heavy congestion. Traffic moves in forced flow condition. Three or more cycles to pass through intersection. Stop-and-go operation. 13 principles used to develop improvements at specific locations, can in some cases, be used to develop general improvements and guidelines to provide the town with the planning tools needed to maintain acceptable service and safety levels of Addison roadways. The traffic engineering principles, as discussed below and in Section 2, include access control and signal timing. Access Control Several improvements identified in this study include the closure of access driveways located too close to intersections. The driveways hinder the flow of traffic along the arterial roadways and decrease safety conditions of the intersections. Driveway access along arterial roadways is a critical issue which must be addressed during the development planning process in order to enhance traffic flow. Each driveway intersection with a street introduces vehicular conflict points into the street's traffic stream, thus decreasing the safety along the roadway. Each driveway also generates "side friction" along a roadway. It has been estimated that for each two percent (2%) increase in driveway frequency, a reduction of one percent (1 %) of the roadway capacity results. For these reasons, roadway capacity and safety can be maximized by carefully determining where and how many driveways should be provided following the guidelines provided in Section 2 of this report. 14 Signal Timing Traffic signals provide the means for accommodating the conflicting demands of traffic flow at intersections by assigning the right-of-way through the intersection to a particular movement or nonconflicting movements. Traffic signals do, however, reduce a roadway's capacity, and can also present the opportunity for increased accidents. In many cases, traffic accidents will greatly increase following their installation, and the overall vehicle delay is also frequently increased. Nevertheless, no more efficient system has been devised to handle traffic at at-grade intersections. Efficient timing of traffic signals is essential to minimize the adverse impact that a traffic signal can have on the capacity and safety of a thoroughfare. Modern traffic controllers have the ability to assign the right-of-way to the heaviest movements at an individual intersection, while shortening or eliminating green time for movements with lesser or no traffic volumes. These advances in controller capabilities have provided the opportunity to traffic signal engineers to greatly increase the operational efficiency of individual signalized intersections. However, when a roadway contains a series of traffic signals, capacity may be further reduced and overall vehicular delay increased substantially if an efficient progressive timing plan is not implemented. A progressive timing plan allows for the continued movement of through traffic along a thoroughfare without stopping at each of the traffic signals. Without the progressive movement of the through traffic along a thoroughfare, not only is capacity reduced and vehicular delay increased, but pollution and noise along the roadway is also increased. Therefore, as traffic volumes on thoroughfares increase, traffic engineers must ensure that signalized intersections not only work efficiently as isolated intersections, but also that each system of signals provide for the progressive movement of through vehicles. The Town of Addison has recently undertaken the process of upgrading signal equipment and implementing new timing plans at selected intersections as part of the Dallas County Signalization Project and the SDHPT Traffic Light Synchronization Program. These signal hardware upgrades have provided the Town the opportunity to implement progressive timing plans along some of its major thoroughfares. Significant reductions in vehicular delay can be realized along these thoroughfares as a result of new timing plans. Within the Dallas County Signalization Project and the SDHPT Traffic Light Synchronization Program was the identification of control areas (grouping of intersections) along the thoroughfares which would be coordinated during the different timing periods which were identified by the study. These control areas are shown in Figure 1.3. These recommended control areas 15 provide the framework necessary to allow the Town to implement progressive timing plans throughout Addison and reduce motorist delay on the town's thoroughfares. Signal Clearance Intervals The signal clearance interval is that period of time in a traffic signal cycle that is used to change the rightof-way assignment at an intersection. A clearance interval is characterized by a yellow warning indication on the approach where the green indication is about to be terminated. In many instances, the yellow warning indication is followed by a short red indication on all approaches and movements at the intersection. The Town of Addison currently uses a yellow and all-red interval to make up its signal clearance interval. An improperly timed clearance interval can be a major cause of accidents at an intersection. Clearance intervals that are too short do not provide adequate time for vehicles to clear the intersection before conflicting vehicle movements are released. If a clearance interval is too long, the number of vehicles entering the intersection during the yellow indication also increases. A correctly timed clearance interval provides an adequate amount of time for an average driver of a vehicle to react to the impending change of the signal and have sufficient distance to safely stop the vehicle. The lengths of the yellow and all-red indications are calculated separately based on a number of factors. -==;;Z..:zzNot to Scale DALLAS CARROLLTON FARMERS BRANCH -... -~~ Brookh en Club Dr •• .. FIGURE 1.3 EXISTING AND RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL AREAS ~----------------------------------------~ 18 As recommended in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) publication entitled, "Determining Vehicle Change Intervals", the length of the yellow interval is primarily a function of the speed of the approaching vehicle. Other factors that have to be considered include signal head visibility, vehicle mix, grade, and railroad crossings. The formula for determining the yellow interval is: y= v t ... 2a ... 2Gg where, y = length of the yellow interval t = driver perception/reaction time = 1.0 sec. v = velocity of approaching vehicle (ft./sec.) a = deceleration rate = 10 ft./sec.2 G = acceleration due to gravity = 32 ft./sec. 2 g = grade of approach (assume as level) = 0% This equation was used to calculate yellow intervals for various approach speeds. The results are given in Table 1.3. The all-red duration is a function of the speed of the vehicle through the intersection and the width of the intersection. The all-red time is determined using the formula: 17 W ... L r= v where, r = duration of all-red interval W= width of intersection (in feet), measured from the near side stop line to the far edge of the conflicting traffic lane along the actual vehicle path L = length of vehicle = 20 ft. v = speed of vehicle through intersection (ft./sec.) The formula would provide adequate all-red time for a vehicle that enters the intersection at the end of the yellow interval to travel past the conflict area of vehicles about to receive the green indication. To calculate recommended all red times the roadway widths given in Section 2 of this report should be assumed and follow: Residential Collector (C2U) Commercial Collector (4LU) Minor Arterial (4LD) Major Arterial (6LD) where, = 40' = 48' = 64' = 86' (..) Q) "' c 0 ·;::; N c.c m M 10 co ~ M M M ' co ~ IJ) z 0 i= <1: a: ::I 0 -.s:: ...J c. <1: E > -a: "0 "' w Q) c ~ Q) ~ z c. 0 10 0 10 ::J (/) M M ' c. 0 <1: w Q z w C'"!~ ~~ BELT LINE RD. = " ;;: 0 " ~ "'" 0 !!, r ~ .; 4" G(POLY II) 4~G1POLY II) --i.X'\.'i tjl //r p~ CATV CiBLE ON POWER POLES pp "' j) \It . . . I' ·• a: I ~ I 0 I 0 I li: 1' 11'L11' '~ f-~ 8 ADDISON BOTILENECK STUDY I o -, · -~ ~ ~ BB. T LINE RD. & MONTFORT DR. u.. ... 0111 cc .... I a 2:: .a.. ADDISON, TEXAS z ::1: a:. ~ . !r 01 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS """""'"' ~ ~"' 'OIUt.'flll\l IT:: NOre \IIi JJLY, 1990 LJM SHEET < MOOFY EUSTWQ mANSmoN ~ "'"'* """' ~8'1'1: L.atGnt OF 75' TO 150' FOR 0 1"=40' KMG OF ~ LEFT-TURN BAY. ~ b Barton-.Aach:rn.an A.ssocie. tes. Inc. 23 Location -Belt Line/Quorum Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop Location Approach ADT Approach Lanes Left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes Left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions V/C Average Delay LOS Accident History 19B7-90 Accident Rate/MV .46 Accidents/Year 8.0 Quorum Northbound South leg (62'1 4,72B 0 2 0 AM MID 144 307 144 171 45 175 EXISTING CONDITIONS Quorum Southbound North leg (49'1 3,606 1 2 0 PM AM MID PM 307 41 75 93 312 283 137 148 101 216 166 216 AM .97 34.0 D Right Angle Rear End Left Turn Right Turn Sideswipe Total 24 Belt Line Belt Line Westbound Eastbound West leg (125'1 None East leg (205'1 20,598 21,218 1 1 3 3 0 0 AM MID PM AM MID PM 122 115 87 204 175 152 1571 1314 1423 1017 1491 1912 85 70 75 235 171 266 Intersection MID PM .96 6.39 35.6 153.9 D F 7 Head On 0 11 Pedestrian 0 4 Ran Off Road 0 0 Fixed Object 1 Other 0 24 LOCATION: Belt Line at Quorum EXISTING AND PROJECTfO 0EFICI£NCIES: 1. Heavy left tum volumes for west end south approaches. 2. Heavy right tum volume• tor north and west approachea. 3. High frequency of rear·end accklenta. 4. Unmarked pavement on south appro~~eh. 5. Median on west approach extenda too far out and Impedes traffic operaUona. 6. Extreme delay incurred by northbound motorial during PM peak. RECOMMENDlD IMPAOVEMfNTS: 1 . Expand the aouth approach on Quorum to provkle dual left tumlng lanea 175' stor~~ge), two through lanea, and a right turning lane (125' 1torege). 2. Expand the north approach on Quorum to provide a left turning lane II 00' atorage), two through lane a, and a right tumlng lane (76' atorage). 3. Elcpand Belt Line on all approaches to provide dual left tum lane• lealtbound • 1 00' storage and westbound· 200" atorageland three thruugh lanes. 4. Cut biiCk median noaa on weat approach and north approach. 5. Provide tracking for eastbound and we at bound left tum movement a. EXPECTED BENEFIJS Oft OISBENEFITB: 1. Decrea1e lnteraection delay. 2. lncreaae lntanactlon capacity. 3. Improve operation and traffic flow . .___.. MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS: Level of Service AM MID PM Existing 0 0 F With Racommended Improvement• B B D Average Delay l•ec/vehl AM MID PM 34.0 35.6 163.9 14.4 14.8 25.6 Ace. Rate IAcc/MEVI .46 .46 Barton-Aschman Associates,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: BEL TUNE AND QUORUM ALT. 1 Client: Town of Addison Project: Addison Bottleneck Study Job I: 1663.08.01 Dale: 8/22/90 ITEM NO; QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 3043 S.Y. New Pavement (concrete) 24.00 73032.00 1051 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 8408.00 3195 L.F. New Curb & Gutter 8.00 25560.00 3195 L.F. Rem. Exist. Curb & Gutter 5.00 15975.00 15 % Intersection Signalization 70000.00 10500.00 1 EA. Rei. Controller/Fndn. 1664.00 1664.00 3 EA. Rei. Mastarm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 11409.00 3 EA. Rei. Pedsll. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 2976.00 6 EA. Rei. Pullbox 177.00 1062.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 56.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 0.00 3 EA. Rei. Uti I. Pole @Inters' n. 6000.00 18000.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Pole 2000.00 0.00 2 EA. Rei. Util. Vault 10000.00 20000.00 0 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Water Meter 328.00 0.00 0 EA. Adjust Manhole 413.00 0.00 50 S.F. Add' I R-0-W(nonheast quadran!) ) 18.00 900.00 4225 S.F. Add' I R-0-W (comm./retail) 12.00 50700.00 Sub-Tolal 240186.00 L.S. Engineering/Contingency Fees 0.15 36027.90 TOTAL ESTIMATE 276500.00 Note: Preliminary Cost Estimates Do Not Include Landscaping. 25 --/I ~ /!!: OH CAlV ~·· HE OH ~~TV .• -~:::., ~ . PROPOSED R.O.W. PROPOSED A.O.W. G~G ~ --· ;o;;t: ... Uno -·ww~ ) II "--.. nono ,, -115711131411423 ....---t22/11SII7 204/171511152 ___,. 1017114111/1812-235/171/Htl--..._.. ~I( ~wo-o ""-;;;::;; o~• "---~~· '!:! ... LEGEND ~.-...·--/fF':::::. ... XXX/XXX/XXX 26 ALTERNATIVE 1 ~ I ADDISON BOffiENECK SlUDY BELT LINE RD. & QUORUM DR. ADDISON, TEXAS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS IHTDISIEo:TICitl 146. t ~"' OltA10tl ll'r. I SHm JJLY, 1990 LJM "'""' ...... """"'O'o!D 11': ,·=40' KMG OF ~ Ba.rton-Aschman As9ocia tes, Inc. location -Belt line/Quorum Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop location Approach ADT Approach Lanes left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions ViC Average Delay LOS Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV .46 AccidentsNear 8.0 Quorum Northbound South leg (62'1 4,728 0 2 0 AM MID 144 307 144 171 45 175 EXISTING CONDITIONS Quorum Southbound North leg (49'1 3;606 1 2 0 PM AM MID PM 307 41 75 93 312 283 137 148 101 216 166 216 AM .97 34.0 D Right Angle Rear End left Turn Right Turn Sideswipe Total 27 Belt line Belt line Westbound Eastbound West leg (125'1 None East leg (205'1 20,598 21,218 1 1 3 3 0 0 AM MID PM AM MID PM 122 115 87 204 175 152 1571 1314 1423 1017 1491 1912 85 70 75 235 171 266 Intersection MID PM .96 6.39 35.6 153.9 D F 7 Head On 0 11 Pedestrian 0 4 Ran 011 Road 0 0 Fixed Object 1 Other 0 24 LOCATION: Belt Line at Quorum EXISTINO AND PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES: 1 . Heavy left tum volume• for west and south approaches. 2. Heavy right tum volume& for north and we&t approachaa. 3. High frequency of rear·end accklent&. 4. Unmarked pavement on south approach. 5. Median on west approach extend& too tar out and Impede& traffic operatktn1. 6. Extreme delay incurred by northbound motorist during PM peak. RECOMMENDED IMPAOVEMENTS: 1. Expand the aouth approach on Quorum to provide dual left turning lane& (76' atorage). two through lanel, and a right turning lane 1125' atorage). 2. Expand the north approach on Quorum to provide aloft turning lane (100' atorage), two through lanea, and a right turning lane (76' storage). 3. Expand Belt Line on all approachea to provide dual left tum lanea le .. tbound • 1 00' atorage and weatbound-200' atorage) and three through lanea. 4. Cut back median noaa on weal approach and north approach. 6. Pro vida tracking foreaatbound and westbound Jefttum movementa. EXPECTED BENEFJTB OR De&BENEFfTS: 1. Decrease intersection delay. 2. lncreau intersection cepacity. 3. Improve operation and treffic flow. MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS: Level of Service AM MID PM Existing D D F With Recommended Improvement• 8 B D Average Delay (sec/vehl AM MID PM 34.0 35.6 153.9 14.4 14.8 26.6 Ace. Rate IAcc/MEVI .46 .46 Banon-Aschman Associates,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: BELTLINE AND QUORUM ALT. 2 Client: Town of Addison Project: Addison Bonleneck Study Job#: 1663.08.01 Date: 8/06/90 ITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 5337 S.Y. New Pavement (concrete) 24.00 128088.00 1302 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 10416.00 4308 L.F. New Curb & Guner 8.00 34464.00 4308 L.F. Rem. Exist. Curb & Guner 5.0() 21540.00 15 o/o Intersection Signalization 70000.00 10500.00 1 EA. Rei. Controller/Fndn. 1664.00 1664.00 3 EA. Rei. Mastarm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 11409.00 1 EA. Rei. PedsU. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 992.00 6 EA. Rei. Pullbox 177.00 1062.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 0.00 3 EA. Rei. Util. Pole @lnters'n. 6000.00 18000.00 6 EA. Rei. Util. Pole 2000.00 12000.00 2 EA. Rei. Ulil. Vault 10000.00 20000.00 0 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 0.00 8 EA. Rei. Water Meter 328.00 2624.00 1 EA. Adjust Manhole 413.00 413.00 2500 S.F. Add'l R-0-W (northeast corner) 18.00 45000.00 15005 S.F. Add'! R-0-W (comm./retail) 12.00 180060.00 Sub-Total 498232.00 L.S. Engineering/Contingency Fees 0.15 74734.80 TOTAL ESTIMATE 573000.00 Nota: Prallmlnary Cost Estimates Do Not Include Landscaping. 28 -• BELT UNE RD. 1..,. ----:tAOE LENG1lt -too' __) ---1,, .. 1'11 r;m :~NOTE> TRANSITION TO EXISTINO CROSS-SECTION ~ I I i ! I I~: -I ,. FEET FROM INTERSECTION. ~ 1 ~CLOSE EXISTIIO DRIVEWAYS I 1 \~ ~~. ROPOSED R.".., I --· -·-1:-= = = = ~ -_ j:.. r STOAAOE-LENOnt-200" ; //--/~ ---==--· 30"A ~-/I AL: ll ~I -/""~· -w-30':R,---ATV --'·. \\ .PROPOSED R.O.W. 4 aD ~: j ~~ft a~• an~ •• e ill$ ••• ) II .._ .. nona '' -1571/131411423 Beft Lkle ,--122111!1187 IM/175/162---' 1141111/1812-'t ( 351t7112H-..., I ~--~~~ ~ g~; IfF ..... --....... ;; Noon HIU ::• /rPJI.. PMit Hcu XXXJXXX/XXX ~~~ I ~ i5 :::> 0 pl]l ( /PAOPOSEDA.O.W. l!w·l 1,_ ~ ' -I I 0 1! Ill I~ 11 ~ ~ ~ g 29 ALlERNATIVE 2 BOTTLENECK STUDY ea. T L111E RD. & QUORUM DR. ADDISON, TEXAS ,.,.,._ ~ I '"" I -~ "' -,-----I.:JJL""Y,cc:l990 LIU I SHEET ..... ,_ I """ ~--"" I r~40· KMG Of Ci":l Barton-Aschman 101 A .. ,.n~t .... t.~!lll-Inc Location -Addison/Belt Line Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop Location Approach ADT Approach Lanes Left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes Left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions ViC Average Delay LOS Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV .81 Accidents/Year 17.6 Addison Northbound None 5,894 1 2 0 AM MID 83 187 188 297 74 213 EXISTING CONDITIONS Addison Southbound None 6,331 1 2 0 PM AM MID PM 321 157 222 128 710 666 296 407 243 291 306 282 AM .92 40.2 E Right Angle Rear End Left Turn Right Turn Sideswipe Total 30 Belt Line Westbound East leg (62'1 21,198 2 3 0 AM MID 122 212 1571 1473 85 122 Intersection MID PM 1.0 1.10 48.4 93.2 E F 4 12 24 0 4 52 Belt Line Eastbound None 20,190 2 3 0 PM AM MID PM 200 204 282 383 1703 1017 1653 1942 75 235 16 6 Head On 0 Pedestrian 0 Ran Off Road 0 Fixed Object 6 Other Unknown Object LOCATION: Addiaon at Belt line fXJSTINCl AND PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES: 1. High frequency of accidents. 2. High volume of right and left turning volume• on north and •outh approache•. 3. Curb return radii too amall. RECOMMENDfD IMPROVEMENTS: 1 . Widen north approach to provide a left tum lane C160'), through lane•. and a right turning lane 1160'1. 2. Widen •outh approach to provide duel left turning lanea(160'), two through lane•. and a right tumlng lane 1260'1. 3, Increase curb retum radii to 36' on northwe•t. 110uthwe1t, and aoutheaat comers. EXPfctm Bf.NEFITS OR DJSBENEFfT8: 1. lncreaae ufety. 2. Improve left tum capacity and operation. 3. Improve lnteruction capacity and flow. 4. Reduce delay. MfASURE Of EFFECTJVE.SS: Level of Average Delay Service l•ec/veh) Ace. Rate AM MID PM AM MID PM IAcc/MEVI Exiating E E F 40.2 48.4 93.2 .81 With Recommended Improvement• c D E 21.7 27.9 41.8 .69 Barton-Aschman Associates,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: BELTLINE AND ADDISON Client: Town Town of Addison Project: Addison Bottleneck Study Job#: 1663.08.01 Date: 8/22190 ITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1589 S.Y. New Pavement (concrete) 24.00 38t 36.00 0 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 0.00 1897 L.F. New Curb & Gutter 8.00 15176.00 1897 L.F. Rem. Exist. Curb & Gutter 5.00 9485.00 10 % Intersection Signalization 70000.00 7000.00 0 EA. Rei. Controller/Fndn. 1664.00 0.00 3 EA. Rei. Mastarm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 11409.00 0 EA. Rei. Pedstl. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 0.00 3 EA. Rei. Pullbox 177.00 531.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 0.00 1 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 2300.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Pole@lnters"n. 6000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Pole 2000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Vault 10000.00 0.00 1 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 755.00 0 EA. Rei. Water Meter 328.00 0.00 0 EA. Adjust Manhole 413.00 0.00 0 S.F. Add" I R-0-W (residential) 4.00 0.00 4950 S.F. Add"l R-0-W (comm.lrelail) 12.00 59400.00 Sub-Total 144192.00 L.S. Engineering/Conlingency Fees 0.15 21628.80 TOTAL ESTIMATE 166000.00 Note: Preliminary Coat Eatlmatea Do Not Include Landscaping. 31 ~ ~ PROPOSED ---------w----------~------BELT UNE RD. L ci "' i 0 < > ~ • 0 ·-· m, ~~~~ c •• . -)I I ~aato2211o \ -11571/14W1703 .. l..JM ,--12212121'200 __ __... 1017/tuattl.q--238/1811 ~ )f( -oe ·-· ~!:::t' .-e ··-·· ~::.~ a!~ w--~ ;-;:== ............... I I ,r::::. ... -'* STORAGE LBIGTH-100' ~ I -w w If J w-----------• ---·! Jk NOTE: Sto,.~ Length Shown Ill E111ilbD Slotage Langth • 0 I lt'Ltt~n·~~~· LtL• z1 1 1 n 0 l/1/Jl! ~ a ~ • ~ 32 ADDISON BOTILENECK SlUDY B8.. T UNE RD. & ADDISON RD. ADDISON, TEXAS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ..-... 1 .... ~-.,., I SHEET J.n.Y, 1990 LJM ........ I """' .rrl'f'llO'oUI.'r. 1"=-40' KMG Of b] Barton A9ch:rnan Assoc1e. tes. Inc. Location -Belt Line/Beltway Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop Location Approach ADT Approach Lanes Left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes Left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions VIC Average Delay LOS Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV .25 AccidentsNear 3 Beltway Northbound None 5,894 1 2 0 AM MID 17 50 0 0 120 271 EXISTING CONDITIONS Belt Line Belt Line Westbound Eastbound Far None 21,198 20,190 1 1 3 3 0 0 PM AM MID PM AM MID PM 58 201 214 159 0 0 0 0 1657 1755 2110 1835 1794 2063 364 0 0 0 27 57 49 Intersection AM MID PM .72 .72 .84 16.9 17.5 20.9 c c c Right Angle 0 Head On 0 Rear End 6 Pedestrian 0 Left Turn 5 Ran Off Road 0 Right Turn 0 Fixed Object 0 Sideswipe 1 Other 0 Total 12 33 lOCATION: Bolt line/Beltway ElUSTINO AND PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES: 1. Large vehicular volume on Belt Line causes delay to Beltway. 2. High frequency of rear-end and left tum accidents. RECOMMENDfD IMPROVEMENTS; 1. No lane configuration changes. 2. Coordination of signal with other •ignale on Belt Line. EXPECTED BENEFITS OR OISBENEFITS: 1. Coordination will allow Belt line traffic to flow with decreased delay. MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS: Level of Service AM MID PM Existing C C C With Recommended Improvement• No change Average Delay C•ec/vehl AM MID PM 16.9 17.5 20.9 No change Ace. Rate IAcc/MEVI .25 .25 NOTE: No physical changes to the intersection. therefore no preliminary cost estimate is included. 34 ...,.._ 1657117&512110 ~ Belt Line Ad. ,-20112141158 183151179412083-27157148 --, It m• Norlh ~ om I NO"[E, -~ : o, No Recommended Lone m-L2lEIOI • -~~~ ---Configuration Improvements 'i 0 m ~ ~AJA.PoU-~=Hcu XXXIXXXIXXX J ~ ~ --...j. -~--r-w----__ P..a-~~----ep----oHi--' w • w w -------BELT UNE RD. ----I"<> ---I.¢. ----"'"t-------"'"!---w ' ,. w w '"' &:. 'f' 5 SlOEWAL.K T ----' T == -j--~ I I~ > -< I I 3: I ... I ih ...I w CD ADDISON 80ffiENECK STUDY BELT LINE RD. AND BELTWAY DR. ADDISON. TEXAS SIGNAL HEAD &. LOOP RECOMMENDATIONS IHTEitSEC'11CH tlo. DATE: OltAWI B'l': JJLY, 1990 SHEET LJM "" .... ~ API'IIOVEII 81'; A010 1·=40' KGM or ~ Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. 35 ~ EXISTING CONDITIONS Location -Belt Line/Midway Street Midway Midway Belt Line Belt Line '--Intersection Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Bus Stop Location None South leg (262') None None Approach ADT 18,113 16,457 19,834 18,448 Approach Lanes Left Turn 1 1 1 1 Through 3 3 3 3 Right Turn 1 0 0 0 Peak Hour Approach Volumes -AM-MID PM AM MID PM AM MID PM AM MID PM Left Turn 113 271 314 221 372 297 296 330 252 116 158 150 Through 629 745 1391 1514 805 936 1037 1102 1262 1242 1007 1330 Right Turn 200 418 392 67 202 117 240 242 236 296 178 143 l__ Operating Conditions Intersection AM MID PM V/C 1 .98 1.08 Average Delay 81.6 59.4 116.9 LOS F E F Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV .76 Right Angle 13 Head On 0 Accidents/Year 20.3 Rear End 25 Pedestrian 0 Left Turn 15 Ran Off Road 0 Right Turn 0 Fixed Object 7 Sideswipe 1 Other 0 Total 61 36 ~ LOCATION: Belt line at Midway EXISTINO AND PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES: 1. High left tum volumea on all approachaa. 2. High right tum volume• on east, south. and waat approaches. 3. High freqUIIncy of accidents from vehlclea pushing cJearance interval. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: 1. Widen Midway approaches to provide dual left tum•. (north approach 160' .torage and •outh 1pproach 100' •toragal. thme through lanee. and a right tum lane (north approach 176' 1torage and •outh approach 125' etoragel. 2. Widen Bolt Line weet 1pproech to provide dual Jafl tum• 176' •toragel. three through 11ne1 and right tum lane (1 60' etoragel. 3. Widen eaet approach to provide dual left, two through, and a •he red right/through lane. 4. Cloee ecce•• driveway• clo•aet to lnter.ection on northwelt and •outhweet comer.. EXPEcnD BENfFJTB OR DBBfNEflTI: 1. Better man.gement at left and right tum•. 2. Maximize inteructlon capacity tor at-grade lnter.ectlon. 3. Improve safety. 4. Improve overall operation and traffic flow. MEASURE OF EFFECTIV£..:Ss: level of Average Delay Service (sec/vehl Ace. Rate AM MID PM AM MID PM IAcc/MEVI Existing F E F 81.6 59.4 1 16.9 .76 With Recommended Improvement• D 0 E 29.2 26.3 47.3 .50 Barton-Aschman Associates,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: BELTLINE AND MIDWAY Client: Town of Addison Project: Addison Bottleneck Study Job N: 1663.08.ol Date: 8/22/90 ITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 3255 S.Y. New Pavement (concrete) 24.00 78120.00 2752 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 22016.00 4363 L.F. New Curb & Guner 8.00 34904.00 4027 L.F. Rem. Exist. Curb & Gutter 5.00 20135.00 50 o/o Intersection Signalization 70000.00 35000.00 0 EA. Rei. Controller/Fndn. 1664.00 0.00 2 EA. Rei. Mastarm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 7606.00 4 EA. Ref. Pedstl. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 3968.00 6 EA. Ref. Pullbox 177.00 1062.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 0.00 3 EA. Ref. Util. Pole@lnters"n. 6000.00 18000.00 2 EA. Ref. Util. Pole 2000.00 4000.00 2 EA. Ref. Util. Vault 10000.00 20000.00 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 755.00 EA. Rei. water Meter 328.00 328.00 1 EA. Adjust Manhole 413.00 413.00 0 S.F. Add" I R-0-W (residential) 4.00 0.00 19346 S.F. Add" I R-0-W (comm./retail) 12.00 232152.00 Sub-Total 478459.00 L.S. Engineering/Contingency Fees 0.15 71768.85 TOTAL ESTIMATE 550000.00 Note: Preliminary Cost Estimates Do Not Include Landscaping. 37 I ~I I! 0~ ~· ~l'lm I --"' //L I~ ~ UO CATV ~----~__,-;A~ II w PROPOtE9 R.O.W; . ~ -w 1/. -.,: ~· ~ -BEL TLINE RD. --i I---i -4> --''MEDIAN ~ -= 1<-~ ~ -r STORAGe U::NQlli -125' ~ -~ f:-STORAGE LENGTli -Tf£_) -~ -~ j.--~ -4 MEDIAN I -~ j.----------<> I~ I w w --w VAULTD -v re STORAGE LENG -~'! ~ I ' ,\ I\ /PROPOSr R.O. W. ... ·,-w !ltlnV: ! ,, l I . ~ CLOSE DRIVEWAYS ~ c:i • i I ,( ~ I " l ~ ~ I I c 0 ~I ~ <( z ' ;;:: ~ ~ I I 1• ADDISON BOmENECK SnJDY 0~ ~ ~I z ~ BaT LINE RD. & MIDWAY RD. :E~ ~ ~ w ~I I I I ~ 11\ ADDISON, TEXAS ~ ~ w ~ I~ I I I w RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 0 ~ I ..,.,.,.,.,. .. DATE: DIU-~~ ~ s><( .;= c ~ --------------- location -Midway/lindberg Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop location Approach ADT Approach lanes left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions V/C Average Delay lOS Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV 1.0 Accidents/Year 13 Midway Northbound South leg (50'1 12,681 1 3 0 AM PM 86 73 863 1805 90 103 EXISTING CONDITIONS Midway Southbound North leg (54'1 16,457 1 3 0 AM PM 348 398 1906 1131 61 26 AM .97 35.9 D Right Angle Rear End left Turn Right Turn Sideswipe Total 39 lindberg Westbound None 3,897 0 1 0 AM 87 107 342 Intersection PM .99 84.4 F 3 12 8 3 5 39 PM 117 41 213 Head On Pedestrian Ran Off Road Fixed Object Other lindberg Eastbound None 2,698 0 1 0 AM 13 22 17 0 0 4 3 PM 81 87 55 LOCATION: Midway at Lindbe111 EmnNO AND PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES: 1 . Heavy volume a for aouthbound left tuma and e.atbound right tuma. 2. Curb return radii amall for northeaat comer and aoutheaat comer. 3. High frequency of accldenta. 4. Pavement marklnga on weat approach are not appropriate. RECOMMENDED IMPfiOVEMENTB: 1. Expand north approach left turning lanea to 260' .torage length; may require cloalng median upatream. 2. lnatall pavement marking• on eaat approach to provide a left tum lane, a through lane. and a right tum lane. 3. lnatall pavement marklnga on weat approach to provide a laft turning lane and a through lane. 4. lncreaae northeaat and aoutheaat comer to a 80' curb retum radii. ExPECTED BENEFITS OR 018BENEFIT8: 1. Improve overall operation and traffiC flow at the lntartectkm. 2. Reduce lntertectlon delay. 3. lncreaae lntertection capacity. 4. Improve aafety. 6. Improved truck operation. MEASURE Of EFFECTIVENESS: Level of Average Delay Service laec/vehl Ace. Rate AM PM AM PM IAcc/MEV) Existing D F 35.9 04.4 1.0 With Recommended Improvements B D 8.3 25.4 .61 Barton-Aschman Associates,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: MIDWAY AND LINDBERG Client: Town ol Addison Project: Addison Bonleneck Study Job#: 1663.08,01 Date: 8/22/90 ITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 847 S.Y. New Pavemenl (concrete) 24.00 20328.00 280 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 2240.00 810 L.F. New Curb & Gutter 8.00 6480.00 810 L.F. Rem. Exisl. Curb & Gutter 5.00 4050.00 10 % Intersection Signalization 70000.00 7000.00 1 EA. Rei. Conlroller/Fndn. 1664.00 1664.00 2 EA. Rei. Maslarm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 7606.00 0 EA. Rei. Pedsll. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 0.00 2 EA. Rei. Pullbox 177.00 354.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 0.00 2 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 4600.00 3 EA. Rei. Util. Pole @lnters'n. 6000.00 18000.00 0 EA. Rei. Ulil. Pole 2000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Ulil. Vaull 10000.00 0.00 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 755.00 5 EA. Rei. Water Meter 328.00 1640.00 1 EA. Adjust Manhole 413.00 413.00 0 S.F. Add" I R-0-W (residenlial) 4.00 0.00 1950 S.F. Add" I R-0-W (comm./relail) 12.00 23400.00 Sub-Total 98530.00 L.S. Engineering/Contingency Fees 0.15 14779.50 TOTAL ESTIMATE 113500.00 Note: Preliminary Coal Estimates Do Not ln<:lude Landscaping. 40 ~ ~. ~ ~ t -m i I I I o'• ~8-;~3 """" m '--3421213 I -107141 /1\, I . ~ ,--&71117 . ' 13181--" 0 22/87-~tr 0 171515---., lBlEHl ~·~ ---~00 NOTE: STORAGE LENGTH FOR LEFT-TURN BAY ci ,._ ~~~-~ b o-' EXTENDED TO 250': MAY REQUIRE CLOSURE 0~--1-: 0:: co;:;g /P.M. Pel* Har.r MEDIAN OPENINGS NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION. 0 r---~~ ~ 0 XXX/XXX I I ~J ' ~ l W ~rr ~.~o'R /.. " ~'-.....,_~ -. .. 7 w y I _) f-" I ~ rx-: \.__ LINDBERG DR. '-<> --' .J ~ I ~ TORAGS LENGTH -100' ~ : i'-t 0 ~ ~ 0 'i_ G '----. ~~ ~a_;-o----==;,T T T .. I .. "'*~ ·~ ~ .7 .. HE --· '~ OHF 80'A I" + Tf ~ : • J~ • 0 f ADDISON BOffiENECK S1UDY MIDWAY RD. & UNDBERG DR. \ v I~ L NOTE: 80' R Naed•cl To Allow Ttuckl ADDISON, TEXAS I To Twn Into The EaatbounCI Lane RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS IN1DtStC'T1DII lll~~o .. ,. OIUI• IT: 0 JJLY. 1990 LJM SHEET "' '""' """' API'II:O'oltl IT: ,~=40' KMG OF ~ Be.rton-Aschme.n Associates, Inc. 41 Location -Beltway/Midway Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop location Approach ADT Approach lanes Left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions VIC Average Delay LOS Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV . 7 Accidents/Year 10.0 Midway Northbound South leg 1204'1 18,795 1 3 AM PM 71 176 1020 1949 103 195 EXISTING CONDITIONS Midway Southbound None 17,718 1 3 AM PM 1 1 44 2224 1371 17 60 AM .5 11.9 B Right Angle Rear End left Turn Right Turn Sideswipe Total 42 Beltway Westbound None 1,264 1 1 0 AM 179 6 12 Intersection PM .73 1 1.4 8 2 21 1 0 3 30 PM 95 44 28 Head On Pedestrian Ran Off Road Fixed Object Other Beltway Eastbound None 1,835 1 1 1 AM 47 63 221 0 0 2 0 PM 28 45 78 lOCATION: Beltway at Midway EXISTINO ANO PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES: 1. Pavement markings on eastbound and westbound approaches are needed. 2. Insufficient storage length on aauth approach. 3. High number of rear-end accidents. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: 1. lntall new pavement markings an east and weat approaches. 2. Construct additional storage far right-tum lane 1126'1, left tum lane (160') on south appro.ch, and left tum lane (76'1 on weat approach and left tum lane 1160'1 on east approach. EXPECTED BENEFIR, OR 01SBfN£FlT8: 1. Increase lnterwection capacity. 2. Provide better channellzatkm for eaat and weat approach. MEASURE OF EFFECnYENEB8: level of Average Delay Service (Mc/vehl Ace. Rate AM PM AM PM IA.cc/MEVI Existing B B 11.9 11.4 .70 With Recommended Improve menta B B 11.9 11.4 .60 Banon-Aschman Associates,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: BELTWAY ANO MIDWAY Client Town of Addison Project: Addison Bonleneck Study Job N: 1663.08.01 Date: 8/22190 ITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 186 S.Y. New Pavement (concrete) 24.00 4464.00 186 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 1488.00 231 L.F. New Curb & Gutter 8.00 1848.00 231 L.F. Rem. Exist. Curb & Gutter 5.00 1155.00 5 % Intersection Signalization 70000.00 3500.00 0 EA. Rei. Controller/Fndn. 1664.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Mastarm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Pedstl. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Pullbox 177.00 0.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Pole@lnters'n. 6000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Pole 2000.00 0.00 2 EA. Rei. Util. Vault 10000.00 20000.00 0 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Water Meter 328.00 0.00 0 EA. Adjust Manhole 413.00 0.00 0 S.F. Add'l R-0-W (residential) 4.00 0.00 0 S.F. Add' I R-0-W (comm./retail) 12.00 0.00 Sub-Total 32455.00 L.S. Engineering/Contingency Fees 0.15 4868.25 TOTAL ESTIMATE 37500.00 Note: Preliminary Coat Eetlmatea Do Not Include Landscaping, 43 ~ . ~ . o::,..j ~~~2 ~NI -)N~~ "-12128 '-&/44 BMwa ,-17ilil5 'I ,., I I tl//' I /..,~ 0 • ,&01 ~ I ~ z 0 > :< " 47/28_,. t. 113140-~ ( 221n&-.!itrt.. I omo ~om -m,_, -,~ ~00 N-~ I 1 v ~ ~ ~'jf ~Y.:::--!l_ . \ ----I ---------'!'~ as____ MH • ~ ~~~ : -STORABE LEHCliH -75' t-~ STORAGE LENGnt -150' BEL iWA-¥--DR. _ -o ""~'?,. " ~ ·T yo., " "" -~ I <>-' =: -I _..,..~· '~;-----'\ --~·· .. I f---1:-w :I i r i -~ ·rl FH; l I ~ I I . ·~ 'I § • ; i • • • ill ~0 I ~ " 0 ~ r-A.M. PHI!. How/rP.M. PMk Hlu XXXI XXX ~ I F' NOTE: EXTEND STORAGE LENGTH FOR BOTH THE LEFT AND RIOHT TURN BAYS ADDISON BOTTLENECK STUDY li i j r ( '\ MIDWAY RD. & BB.lWAY OR. ADDISON, TEXAS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS I_ lTRANSITION-160' tl'ltii2:C'IICIMJ •• Location -Midway/Spring Valley Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop Location Approach ADT Approach Lanes Left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes Left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions ViC Average Delay LOS Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV .28 Accidents/Year 6.3 Midway Northbound North leg ( 160'1 22,771 1 3 0 AM 103 PM 259 1267 1421 373 321 EXISTING CONDITIONS Midway Southbound South leg (232'1 19,797 1 3 1 AM 286 1569 78 PM 245 1273 270 AM 1.04 72.6 F Right Angle Rear End Left Turn Right Turn Sideswipe Total 51 Spring Valley Westbound West leg (260'1 13,056 1 3 0 AM PM 279 425 391 814 288 259 Intersection PM .97 56.7 E 0 Head On 9 Pedestrian 6 Ran Off Road 0 Fixed Object 2 Other 19 Spring Valley Eastbound West leg (235'1 6,168 1 3 0 AM 204 688 291 0 0 0 PM 122 425 56 LOCATlON: Midway at Spring Valley EXJST1Na AND PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES: 1. Heavy righHum and lefHum volumes on all approaches. 2. Storege baya for north and south approaches not adequate. 3. High frequency of rear-end and left-tum accidents. RECOMMENDED IMPROYI:MENTS: 1. Widen Midway approaches to provide dual left turns (northbound 160' IJtorage and southbound 175' storage). 2. Widen Spring Valley approaches to provide dual left turns (westbound 160' storage and eastbound 160' storage) as well as right tum lanes (westbound 100' storage and eastbound 100' storage). EXPECTED BENEFITS OR DISBENEFITS: 1. Decrease Intersection delay. 2. Increase Intersection capacity. 3. Improve safety; reduce reer·end and left-tum accident potential. 4. Improve overall operation and traffic flow et the Intersection. MEASURE OF EFFECTlVENESS: Level of Average Daley Service (sec/vehl Ace. Rete AM PM AM PM IAcc/MEVJ Existing F E 72.6 66.7 .28 With Recommended Improvements D c 31.7 21.8 .23 Barton-Aschman Associates,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: Client: Project: Job#: Date: ITEM NO. 52 MIDWAY AND SPRING VALLEY Town of Addison Addison Bottleneck Study 1663.08.01 8122/90 QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 5677 S.Y. New Pavement (concrete) 24.00 136248.00 371 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 2968.00 6638 L.F. New Curb & Guner 8.00 53104.00 6638 L.F. Rem. Exist. Curb & Guner 5.00 33190.00 25 o/o Intersection Signalization 70000.00 17500.00 0 EA. Rei. Controller/Fndn. 1664.00 0.00 4 EA. Rei. Mastarm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 15212.00 4 EA. Rei. Pedstl. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 3968.00 9 EA. Rei. Pullbox 177.00 1593.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 0.00 6 EA. Rei. Util. Pole @lnters'n. 6000.00 36000.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Pole 2000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Vault 10000.00 0.00 1 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 755.00 0 EA. Rei. Water Meter 328.00 0.00 3 EA. Adjust Manhole 413.00 1239.00 0 S.F. Add' I R-0-W (residential) 4.00 0.00 2425 S.F. Add' I R-0-W (comm./retail) 12.00 29100.00 Sub-Total 330877.00 L.S. Engineering/Contingency Fees 0.15 49631.55 TOTAL ESTIMATE 381000.00 Note: Preliminary Coat Estimates Do Not Include Landscaping. --. .. I ! I w~ -:--.JI ~ ,.,,.,.l.lt! ! =::Jl1i I PROPOSED R.O.W, 1 I I ~I ~ I I I ~. ~ o• '" ~\ I I I ~ J-,_,.:,> PROPOSED R.O.W. ~------~ ,...... -~ ~ ; G --"; ~§§~~§§~~==~~~~~~~~~~~ -~ -~ ~ ~ ::= STORAOS-ir--LENGTH-150' ~ --F~--=·w ; -~ 4MEDlAN . ~ ------:: -SPRING VALLEY"t-----~ w • ~ --PROPOSED R.O W c.i . . . a:: ~ I t 7 PROPOSED R.O.W. • 'i< ~ ~ ~-~ I I ... ~ : ~ g n,-53 " ~ -~ . o= .. ll ...... w :1 ;:: ~ I -~~ ) 1"1 "--•••12•• \ -3911814 Spring v ... y ,-2791428 2041122-' -·,.-, 1 r ~1158--.... 1 o~~ ~NN ~·" ;;.:::: ;; a•, ~;w LEGeM> r-A.M. PMII I-II:U 1 1 P.u. PaM ..... XXXI XXX ADDISON BOffiENECK STUDY MIDWAY RD. & SPRING VAllEY RD. ADDISON, TEXAS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS SI,f;D IT: 1"=40' KMG OF bl Be.rton-Aschman As~ocia tes. Inc. Location -Westgrove/Addison Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop Location Approach ADT Approach Lanes Left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes Left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions V/C Average Delay LOS Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV . 7 Accidents/Year 4.6 Addison Northbound None 3,318 2 0 AM PM 97 462 182 550 22 70 EXISTING CONDITIONS Addison Southbound None 3,209 1 2 0 AM PM 79 80 442 187 12 12 AM .80 24.6 c Right Angle Rear End Left Turn Right Turn Sideswipe Total 58 Westgrove Westbound West leg 1240'1 3,321 0 2 0 AM 54 116 176 Intersection PM .88 28.7 D 4 4 2 0 2 14 PM 45 231 113 Head On Pedestrian Ran Off Road Fixed Object Other Westgrove Eastbound West leg (144'1 4,184 0 2 0 AM 4 266 557 0 0 2 0 0 PM 25 168 158 LoCATION: Weatgrove at Addl.an EXIBTlNO AND PROJECT£0 DEFICIENCIES: 1. No pavement marking a on eaat and weat approach. 2. Small curb retum radii. 3. High right tum volumea on e1111t approach during PM peak. 4. High right tum valumea on west approach during AM peak. 6. High frequency of rear-end and right angle accktenta. Rf:COMIIENDEO IMPROVEIIENTB: 1. Flare eaat and we•t approach to 44' and provide 11 5oft tum lane, a. through lane, and • right tum lane. 2. lncrea•e curb retum r.tll to 30'. 3. Provkte 11torage of 176' for right tumlng lane• and 76' for left turning lane• on e .. t and wast approach ... 4. lnatall pavement marking• on e .. t and weat approeche11. ExPECTED BfNEFITI OR OISBENE.FITI: 1. lncreaae lnteraectlon capacity and decreaN lnteraectlon delay. 2. lncrea•e e .. t/welt flow acroaa lnteraectJon. 3. Decreaae rear-end and right angle accldenta; Improve 1111fety. MEASURE: OF EFF£CTMNEBS: level of Average Delay Service l•ec/veh) Ace. Rate AM PM AM PM IAcc/MEVJ Existing c D 24.6 28.7 .7 With Recommended Improvement• B B 14.2 14.4 .5 Barton-Aschman Associales,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: Client: Project Job H: Date: ITEM NO. 59 ADDISON AND WESTGROVE Town of Addison Addison Bonleneck Study 1663.08.01 8/22/90 QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 480 S.Y. New Pavement (concrete) 24.00 11520.00 0 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 0.00 693 L.F. New Curb & Guner 8.00 5544.00 693 L.F. Rem. Exist. Curb & Guner 5.00 3465.00 10 % Intersection Signalization 70000.00 7000.00 1 EA. Rei. Con1roller/Fndn. 1664.00 1664.00 3 EA. Rei. Mas1arm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 11409.00 0 EA. Rei. Pedstl. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 0.00 2 EA. Rei. Pullbox 177.00 354.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 0.00 4 EA. Rei. Util. Pole @lnters'n. 6000.00 24000.00 4 EA. Rei. Util. Pole 2000.00 8000.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Vault 10000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Water Meter 328.00 0.00 0 EA. Adjust Manhole 413.00 0.00 0 S.F. Add'l R-0-W (residential) 4.00 0.00 2100 S.F. Add' I R-0-W (comm./retail) 10.00 21000.00 Sub-Total 93956.00 L.S. Engineering/Contingency Fees 0.15 14093.40 TOTAL ESTIMATE 108500.00 Note: Preliminary Cost Estimates Do Not Include Landscaping. --------~v"'AuLT -· • -TELE. VAULT d'.t t: w r> O' c u i r..;:i: I ~~-c )"ji '--1781113 "-1111231 Weat e ,--54146 2ee1f:: :=::. ' f ~ 61571158"""""' 1 I Wl!O :.,t:: "w ,ww ~:!! ~ r=_A.U. PMk HciU I ,-P.M. Peak HcM.r XXX/XXX IT -.~---PROPOSED A;,O.;.W•~·'--------rSTGROVE DR~TOAAGE LEHGTM -1&1 ~ "-· ...... ~---~--;;:;:W . , "rc . •• .;t'G CATV~--• -+ PROPOSED R.O.W. --1 11Mf ---'I I, '"' ., .--STORAQE LENGTH -75' ~I! > ·' 'l!<'l 0, oil ~ . I i I ~ I ADDISON BOTILENECK STUDY ADDISON RD. & WESTGROVE DR. 60 ADDISON, TEXAS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ~Mot..l QA.l[: I ~IT: JJLY, 1990 LJM SHEET Fl.£ NAill: t SICNZ: ,--"' 1·=40' KMG ri::l Bart.on-Aschman l_gJ As:socia tes, Inc. OF Location -Keller Springs/Addison Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop Location Approach ADT Approach Lanes Left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes Left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions V/C Average Delay LOS Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV .7 Accidents/Year 5 Addison Northbound North leg (76') 7,073 1 2 1 AM PM 9 14 255 785 69 319 EXISTING CONDITIONS Addison Southbound None 7,853 1 2 0 AM 139 830 14 PM 107 411 3 AM .69 17.8 c Right Angle Rear End Left Turn Right Turn Sideswipe Total 61 Keller Springs Westbound None 4,092 0 1 1 AM 330 27 127 Intersection PM .61 14.8 B 2 6 2. 0 2 15 PM 109 9 235 Head On Pedestrian Ran Off Road Fixed Object Other Keller Springs Eastbound East leg (127') 589 0 1 0 AM 1 2 3 0 2 0 0 PM 23 18 14 LOCATION: Keller Springs/Addison EXISTINO AND PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES! 1. Heavy right-tum volumes eaat approach. 2. High frequency of rear-end accidents. 3. Through and right-turns conflict on south approach. 4. Northbound left·tums cause hazards on north approach. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS: 1. Add channelization median on aouth approach to separate through lanes and right-tum lane. 2. Add channelization Island at the access driveway closellt to the intersection on the northwellt comer. 3, Increase East approach roadway to provide a right turning lane with storage of 150'. EXPECTED BENEFITS OR 01SBENEFITS: 1. Improve safety. 2. Improve traffic flow on Addison. 3. Decrease Intersection delay. MEASURE OF EFFECTIVEN£88: Level of Average Delay Service (sec/vehl Ace. Rate AM PM AM PM IACc/MEVI Existing c B 17.8 14.8 .7 With Recommended Improvements B B 8.6 8.7 .5 Barton-Aschman Associates,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: Client: Project: Job N: Date: ITEM NO. 62 ADDISON AND KELLER SPRINGS Town of Addison Addison Bottleneck Study 1663.08.01 8/22/90 QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 384 S.Y. New Pavement (concrete) 24.00 9216.00 0 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 0.00 842 L.F. New Curb & Guner 8.00 6736.00 456 L.F. Rem. Exist. Curb & Gutter 5.00 2280.00 5 % Intersection Signalization 70000.00 3500.00 0 EA. Rei. Controller/Fndn. 1664.00 0.00 2 EA. Rei. Mastarm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 7606.00 0 EA. Rei. Pedstl. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 0.00 2 EA. Rei. Pullbox 177.00 354.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 0.00 1 EA. Rei. Uti!. Pole @lnters"n. 6000.00 6000.00 1 EA. Rei. Ulil. Pole 2000.00 2000.00 0 EA. Rei. Uti!. Vault 10000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Water Meter 328.00 0.00 0 EA. Adjust Manhole 413.00 0.00 0 S.F. Add" I R-0-W (residential) 4.00 0.00 1800 S.F. Add" I R-0-W (comm./retail) 10.00 18000.00 Sub-Total 55692.00 L.S. Engineering/Contingency Fees 0.15 8353.80 TOTAL ESTIMATE 64500.00 • Note: Preliminary Coat Estimates Do Not Include Landscaping. : I _j I i · . I I L I I I \, 0 r-<~~: I IJ-. I I o' .. •o !!~~ ::~ "-1271235 )I I _,,. Kell., \,. ,-N0/108 1123--"' ~ t ( 211e-1 3/14"' ::~ i ;;5~ oo -~ LEGEND ,--oUol. Peak How I r-P.M. Peall Hour XXX/XXX 63 T ~ ~ """" I ADDISON BOTILENECK STUDY ADDISON RD. & KEllER SPRINGS ADDISON. TEXAS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS '"""""""'~ ..... IIIlA .. aT: I SHEET J.Ill, 1990 LJI.1 ... ._ """ """"!ToO IY: I 1"'-40' KMG or @Barton Asch:rnan Associe. tes, Inc. (/) z 0 i= 0 w (/) a: w t~ Cl w !;;: ....J 0 22 --------------- Location -Quorum/Arapaho Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop Location Approach ADT Approach Lanes Left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes Left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions VIC Average Delay LOS Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV 1. 1 Accidents/Year 5.0 Quorum Northbound None 4,576 1 2 0 AM 75 123 153 PM 75 278 186 EXISTING CONDITIONS Quorum Southbound AM 117 416 55 None 1,995 1 2 0 PM 29 130 9 AM .68 18.7 Right Angle Rear End Left Turn Right Turn Sideswipe Total 64 c Arapaho Westbound AM 146 452 16 Intersection 4 0 0 15 None 2,021 0 2 0 PM .74 44.6 E PM 159 362 121 Head On Pedestrian Ran Off Road Fixed Object Other Arapaho Eastbound East leg 1256'1 4,184 AM 11 259 73 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 PM 76 533 68 • LOCATION: Quorum et Arapaho ElOBTINCJ AND PROJECTED DEFICI£JIICI£8: 1. HJgh lntenectlon delay far PM peak hour~. 2. Heavy left turning movements on ent approach. 3. Unmarked pavement on a .. t and welt approach. RECOIIMENDfD IMPROYUIENTB: 1. Flare eaat and wast approachea to 65' to provide a left lane. through lane, and right lone. 2. Provide • loft 1torago lane of 126' on tho east approach. 3. Provide a toft 1torago lana of 76' on the west approach. 4. Install pavement marklnga on oalt and welt appruachoa. EXPECTED BENEFnB OR 0JJBENffnB: 1. Docraaao lntor~octlon delay. 2. lncraau capacity of oaat and wo1t approaches. 3. lncraaao traffic flow through lntor~ectkm. 4. lncraaae aafoty. MEASURE OF EffECTJVENE88: Level of Average Delay Service (aec/vehl Ace. Rate AM PM AM PM IAcctMEVJ Existing c E 18.7 44.6 1.1 With Recommended Improvements c c 17.4 18.9 .7 Barton-Aschman Associates,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: ARAPAHO AND QUORUM Client: Town of Addison Project: Addison Boltleneck Sludy Job#: 1663.08.D1 Date: 8/22/90 ITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1030 S.Y. New Pavement (concrete) 24.00 24720.00 0 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 0.00 1252 L.F. New Curb & Gutter 8.00 10016.00 1252 L.F. Rem. Exist. Curb & Gutter 5.00 6260.00 10 o/o Intersection Signalization 70000.00 7000.00 1 EA. Rei. Controller/Fndn. 1664.00 1664.00 3 EA. Rei. Mastarm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 11409.00 0 EA. Rei. Pedsll. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 0.00 6 EA. Rei. Pullbox 177.00 1062.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 0.00 1 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 2300.00 3 EA. Rei. Util. Pole @lnters'n. 6000.00 18000.00 2 EA. Rei. Util. Pole 2000.00 4000.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Vault 10000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 0.00 2 EA. Rei. Water Meter 328.00 656.00 3 EA. Adjust Manhole 413.00 1239.00 0 S.F. Add'l R-0-W (residenlial) 4.00 0.00 6462 S.F. Add'l R-0-W (comm./relail) 8.00 51696.00 Sub-Total 140022.00 L.S. Engineering/Contingency Fees 0.15 21003.30 TOTAL ESTIMATE 161500.00 Nota: Preliminary Coat Estimates Do Not Not Include Landscaping. 65 ·.:,:,~="f1'=:: :: =~-= '/';I STORAGE L£NGTH -76' '" :~ "'i PROPOSED fL~~. CLOSE DRNEWAY i I a: II~ ,a: I§ ~,, '' '' '' "" ,., '' '' »t I' I' " " " " I' " c " ' 66 ~ -gc. I e;~ 0 ~i·:: '--101121 ---..4!121302 J ~ ,--14811158 200/0S3-' ,n._.. I lr 73108--.... I ~-. oE LENGTH-t2fi.A,R ••I ~~-~;~ ~ r-: A.M. ..... Hcu 1 r P.M. ,.. lieu XXXIX XX !'.ROPOSED -R.O.W. ! AHORD . PRO~w. ~ ..... 0 ADDISON BOTILENECK STUDY ARAPAHO RD & QUORUM DR. ADDISON, TEXAS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ....., __ .... ClllAJtl IT: I SHEtT J.JlY, 1990 LJM ........ """' N"f"''I'C l'r. I 1"=40" KMG Of bl Barton A=lchman As so cia t.e:s, Inc. Location -Spring Valley/Brookhaven Street Intersection Approach Bus Stop Location Approach ADT Approach Lanes Left Turn Through Right Turn Peak Hour Approach Volumes Left Turn Through Right Turn Operating Conditions VIC Average Delay LOS Accident History 1987-90 Accident Rate/MV 1. 1 Accidents/Year 7.0 Brookhaven Northbound None 4,185 1 0 1 AM 54 0 527 EXISTING CONDITIONS PM 47 0 301 Right Angle 3 Rear End 3 Left Turn 6 Right Turn 0 Sideswipe 4 Total 22 67 Spring Valley Westbound East leg 1294'1 5,849 2 1 0 AM 182 221 0 Intersection AM .59 12.1 B PM 607 683 0 PM .52 8.1 B Head On Pedestrian Ran Off Road Fixed Object Other Spring Valley Eastbound None 7,727 0 2 0 AM 31 651 0 0 0 3 3 0 PM 108 342 0 LOCATION: Spring Valley at Brookhaven EXJST1NO AND PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES: 1. High frequency of accldanta. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEIIEffTS: 1. lncreaaa channallizatlon through lnteructlon. 2. Add median on waat approach to r..tric:t tuma In accaaa driveway• near lntanactlon. 3. Provide tracking for northbound left tuma. 4. Cloaa driveway• on aaat approach cloaeat to lntaraecUon. EXPECTED BfNEFITi OR OISBENfflTS: 1. Improve ufaty. reduce acck:lanta. MEAIIURf Of EFFfCTJV£NE88: Level of Average Delay Service (aec/whl Ace. Rata AM PM AM PM IAcc/MEVJ E)(fatlng 8 8 12.1 8.1 1.1 With Recommended Improve menta No Change No Change .76 Barton-Aschman Associates,lnc. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET Location: SPRING VALLEY AND BROOKHAVEN Client: Town of Addison Project: Addison Bottleneck Study Job N: 1663.08.01 Date: 8/06/90 ITEM NO. QUA_NTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL 232 S.Y. New Pavement (concrete) 24.00 5568.00 232 S.Y. Rem. Exist. Pavement 8.00 1856.00 972 L.F. New Curb & Gutter 8.00 7776.00 570 L.F. Rem. Exist. Curb & Gutter 5.00 2850.00 0 EA. Intersection Signalization 70000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Con1roller/Fndn. 1664.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Maslarm Pole/Fndn. 3803.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Pedstl. Pole/Fndn. 992.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Pullbox 177.00 0.00 0 EA. Rem. Pullbox 56.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Drainage Inlet 2300.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Pole @lnters'n. 6000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Util. Pole 2000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Utit. Vault 10000.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Fire Hydrant 755.00 0.00 0 EA. Rei. Water Meter 328.00 0.00 75 LF. Pavement Marking 6.00 450.00 0 S.F. Add"l R-0-W (residential) 4.00 0.00 0 S.F. Add"l R-0-W (comm./retail) 8.00 0.00 Sub-Total 18500.00 L.S. Engineering/Contingency Fees 0.15 2775.00 TOTAL ESTIMATE 21500.00 Note: Preliminary Coat Estimates Do Not Include Landscaping. 68 '. I ~ ~ I \ J \ I ....:-=?OWER SOURCE . -.. 9 • ) .. I 0 ·· " . . _...,' --w w w w w w • ac G gO 7 Q Q : • "'"'r ~ r ... -< -', ...-.-1 I I ") ... ' r'-fs_pmg v • ..,. --2211883 ,-1821807 8611342-311108, ~/" ,, -~ ... ~":10 lo~'\\ .. ~ sPRII:I.C VALLEUD. _ ' , , • i:.1 --W ~ w LEGEND -w ;jl /1! • z 0 \! OHE w-OH ADDISON BOTILENECK STUDY .!..?, 1.5 = 4 pt. = 0 pt. = 1 pt. = 1.5 pt. = 2 pt. = 3 pt. = 3.5 pt. = 4 pt. Relation to a corridor system-(15%) y N = = 0 pt. 5 pt. The weighted percents were then applied to the scores for the criteria and added to develop a condition index for each location for both existing and improved conditions. The difference between the existing condition index and the improved condition index (i.e., index change, indicating the level of improvement) was then divided into the cost of the improvements to 71 develop a relative cost per level of improvement. Through ti)is process, locations with a lower relative cost per improvement would receive a higher priority ranking. Table 1.6 shows the results of the prioritization procedures as outlined above. -------Table 1.6 RESULTS OF THE PRIORITIZATION Major Street Minor Street Peak Exist 2nd Peak Exist. Ace. Peak lmprv. 2nd Peak lmprv. Part of Index lmprvmt. Rei. Cost of LOS Exist LOS Rate LOS lmprv. LOS Ace. Rate System Change Cost lmprvmt Spring Valley Brookhaven B B 1.1 B B 0.8 N 1.1 21600 19645.45 Addison Kelter Springs c B 0.7 B B 0.5 N 1.4 64500 46071.43 Belt Line Montfort E F 0.02 c c 0.02 y 1.4 78500 54642.86 Addison Westgrove c D 0.7 B B 0.5 N 1.6 108500 67812.50 Midway lindberg D F 1.0 B D 0.6 y 1.3 113500 87307.70 Addison Lindberg/c E 0.8 c E 0.5 N 1.1 98500 89546.45 Arapaho Midway Beltway 8 B 0.7 8 8 0.5 y 0.4 37500 93750.00 Midway Greenhill School A A 0.9 A A 0.6 y 0.6 62000 103333.33 Quorum Arapaho c E 1.1 c c 0.7 N 1.5 161500 107866.67 Belt Line Addison E F O.B c E 0.7 y 1.4 166000 118571.43 Midway Proton B B 0.3 B B 0.3 y 0.3 39000 130000.00 Belt Uno Quorum Alt. 01 D F 0.5 B D 0.5 y 1.6 276500 184333.33 Midway Spring Valley F E 0.3 D c 0.2 y 1.8 381000 211666.67 Belt line Midway F F 0.8 D E 0.5 y 2.2 550000 250000.00 Belt Line Quorum Alt. 02 D F 0.6 B D 0.5 y 1.5 573000 382000.00 -----72 1.6 CONCLUSIONS The Belt Line Road, Midway Road, and Addison Road corridors along with other secondary corridors in and through the town of Addison provide local and crosstown access for neighborhoods and businesses. With the continued growth of the area and linkage of these corridors with other major arterial roadways and regional highways, traffic demands have continued to increase. During this period of time, safety for adjacent residences and businesses has been reduced, along with that for the non-local roadway user. Delays and congestion have increased at the same time, reducing the quality of life in both similar and different ways for local residents and non-local motorists along these corridors. The focus of this study has been to identify problem areas of congestion and safety within the Town of Addison and working closely with the Town of Addison staff, to develop workable solutions to current 73 deficiencies. The recommendations presented in this report represent at-grade improvements that will improve traffic flow and safety along the major corridors throughout the Town of Addison. Maximum at-grade capacity has been recommended at a number of the study intersections (such as the intersection of Belt Line and Midway). Even with the recommended lane configurations, delays may occur at these intersections with maximum allowable at-grade capacity. Future considerations may need to be given to grade separation of major intersections. C\1 z Q o1-· w en --------------- . J N z 0 1-u w (/) (/) Cl a: <( Cl z <( 1-C/) z (.9 (/) w Cl Cl z <( z 0 1-<( u LL (/) (/) <( ....J u ....J <( z 0 1-u z ::::) LL ~ Cl <( 0 a: 2.1 INTRODUCTION City thoroughfare plans are typically based on a system of functionally classified roadways. These functional classifications are intended to reflect the role or functions of each roadway within the overall thoroughfare system. The functional classifications describe each roadway's function and reflect a set of characteristics common to all roadways within each classification. Functions range from providing mobility for through traffic and major traffic flows to providing access to specific properties. Characteristics unique to each classification include degree of continuity, general capacity, and traffic control characteristics. Figure 2.1 illustrates the relative roles of each classification to achieve its intended function. 74 Design standards, as discussed in this section, describe the generalized characteristics of each functional classification. These characteristics are necessary to insure roadways will serve their intended functions without resulting in diversion of traffic to or from these facilities. Maintaining these characteristics allows the roadways to operate as intended, with maximum efficiency and safety. ~ ~ ._.-' Complete ·accesa control. lillie local Ira file ALL MOVEMENT Cit• zz z 0 1-0 z ;:) u. -... "<'::.:.E, "a:'>o ~:I~,,, ..... .oo o·o·o·1·o '·',.::':':':" lAOVEMEN ACCESS FUNCTION ~ FUNCTION ;;;: I I ~~ I No through traltlc. I ~0 I unrestricted acceaol ..,< I Q I ALL ACCESS I='YD~:u=~~w.&v .&DTS::DI.&I r.n11 ~r.:TnD LOC.AL CUL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION DE SAC FIGURE 2.1 ROADWAY FUNCTION BY CLASSIFICATION ----------------------------------------~ 75 2.2 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS Functional classifications for thoroughfare roadways are needed to provide an underlying basis for determining the following: -Desired degree of continuity -Capacity level -Traffic control strategy -Design speeds and other general design criteria -Access policy In order to function properly, streets must not only be designed to provide adequately for the desired function, but must also appear to the driver to be appropriate for the role. Arterial streets typically have four or more lanes, medians, turn lanes at intersections, wider rights-of-way, higher design speeds, higher levels of nighttime illumination, and traffic control which gives them priority at intersections with lower class streets. Local streets have one or two lanes with low design 76 speeds and restricted right-of-way which tend to limit through movement. The functional classification system provides a basis for applying these characteristics to the roadway system. Table 2.1 describes the general characteristics required for each classification to achieve its intended function. Roadwav Classifications There are four basic functional classifications of roadways. These are: • • • • Freeways -high capacity facilities with controlled access intended to carry high volumes of longer distance trips; high capacity supplement to arterial system. Anerials -carry through traffic between areas . Relatively high speed, continuous, high capacity roadways with mobility as their priority function. Property access is low priority function. Collectors -primary function is to link the local streets with the arterial system; function as collector-distributors and provide property access to commercial properties. Locals -provide access to individual properties. Accommodation of significant through traffic is not an appropriate function. TABLE 2.1 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND GENERAL PLANNING GUIDELINES Minimum roadway Approx. Direct Land Access lnteruction Spacing Speed Limit Classifications Function Continuity Spacing 1Milesl1 fmphl Freeway and Traffic Movement Continuous 4 None 1 mile 45-55 Expressway Arterial Moderato distance Continuous 1/4-12 Restricted· some 1/8 mile 36·45 intercommunity, movements may ba 1 14 milo on regional intrametro area, traffic prohibited; number route movement. Minor and spacing of function-land access. driveways controlled. May be limited to major generators on rogional routes. Collector Primary -collect/Not 1/4-1/21 SafetY controls; 300 feet 30 dtatribute traffic necessarily limited regulation between local street• continuoua: and arterial ayatem. may not Secondary -land extend ecceas. Tertiary-acrosa interneighborhood arterials. traffic movement. local land Access None As ne&d&d safety control only 300 feet 30 NA = Not applicable. 1Spacing determination should also include consideration of hravel hravel projections in the area or corridor based on) ultimate anticipated development. 2Denser spacing neoded for commercial and high density residential districts. 77 Comments Parking Prohibited Supplements capacity and arterial street system and provides high speed mobility. Prohibited Backbone of street •vstem. Umitod Through traffic should be diacouroged Permitted Through traffic should be discouraged. City street systems consist of arterials, collectors, and local streets. Freeways are normally· under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, and are therefore not the responsibility of the municipalities. The remainder of this section, which relates to the city municipal thoroughfare systems, addresses only arterials, collectors, and locals. The number of traffic lanes required for each roadway should be determined based on projected traffic volumes to be accommodated on each street. The number of lanes may vary from street to street although their functional classification may be the same. Table 2.2 shows the range in moving traffic lanes by functional classification. Based on the characteristics of the existing street system in the Town of Addison, the following five roadway classifications were established: -Major arterial -Minor arterial -Commercial collector -Residential collector -Local Figure 2.2 illustrates the classifications of each of the roadways which comprise the arterial and collector thoroughfare system within Addison. 78 ' TABLE 2.2 ROADWAY LANES BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Lanes 1 Functional Classification 2 4 5 40 60 Arterial -Limited Continuity X X X Continuous X X High Capacity/Regional X Collector -Residential/Commercial X X X Local -Residential X X 10-divided roadway with median 79 -==;;~~Not to 8oale il .a : LEGEND .,....,~,. Freeway .. 1!5 : . • • i ~ ... • • • 1: •~,•• MaJor Arterial 11111111111111111111111 Minor Arterial 111111111111 Commercial CoUector •••• , • • • • • •• Realclent&al Collector .i • ..: To ... •Y ,; II: I ... 0 5 • "' a . ,I !) , • ~ .; .:5 ~ Marah Ln. FIGURE 2.2 EXISTING ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS 80 OQil 2.3 THOROUGHFARE DESIGN STANDARDS For the purposes of this report, design standards include the numbers of lanes by functional classification, standard cross-sections, intersection treatments, and access control. Each of these is described in a separate section below. Standard Cross Sections Roadway cross sections are composed of a total right-of-way width, pavement widths, median widths, and parkway widths. Figure 2.3 shows the recommended standard roadway cross-sections for the identified roadway classifications. Design elements are discussed below. Lane Widths These cross sections have been developed in accordance with the following lane width: (1) 12-foot 81 curb lanes, (2) 11-foot interior lanes, (3) 11-foot single left-turn and right-turn lanes and 22-foot double left-turn lanes. Sidewalks It is recommended that sidewalks be constructed to a minimum width of 4 feet. Sidewalks should be 5 feet or more in width in non-residential areas or where sidewalks are next to the curb. As an alternative, sidewalks may be considered for public easements adjacent to the right-of-way or on private property adjacent to the buildings which generate the pedestrian activity. Barrier free ramps should be provided at all intersections. Median Widths Median widths on divided roadways should maintain a minimum width of sixteen (16) feet. This width provides for a five (5') foot median island width adjacent to left-turn lanes. A five (5') foot median width is recommended on all new roadways; a four (4') foot minimum median width is recommended on reconstruction of existing roadways. Parkways The recommended minimum parkway width is ten feet to accommodate sidewalks and driveway curbreturns within the roadway right-of-way. Comrnerclal/lnduatrlal Collector LEQEND ~ -MOVING TRAFFIC LANE Miner Art.rlal : -TURN LANE AT INTERSECTION • P -PARKING LANE Majer Arterial Reaklentlal Local 110'1 ~ 7' 110'1 I' 50' -, Realdentlal CoUector 10' 40' I I p ~ t I 80' ---, ,. 10'1 ~ ~ 48' t t 110'1 ~ S~w~ 88' ~----, • 24' .,11'15'1 24' t 110',1 ~·~ I J : f ~· ~Sidewalk I •.o2'1' [_wj L I I~ 84' -' -, 35' 110',1 !r"' -!'I -,t., I ~ ...... n .-1_0!1' ----, FIGURE 2.3 RECOMMENDED STANDARD ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS ~------------------~--------------~ 82 Parking Parking should only be allowed on local residential and residential collector streets. On these streets, parking widths should be eight (8) feet to allow for parallel parking only. The cross sections shown in Figure 2.3 represent mid-block conditions. In some instances (discussed under intersection treatments) the cross sections will vary in the vicinity of intersections. Intersection Treatments At intersections between arterial streets or at locations with at least 200 turning movements per hour, special treatments should be considered to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate existing or projected volumes. These treatments may include left-turn lanes, right-turn lanes, double left-turn lanes, bus turn outs, or a combination thereof. Each intersection treatment should be designed based on the specific needs of that location. It is appropriate and advisable to reserve sufficient right-of-way to accommodate probable eventual intersection improvements. Figures 2.4 through 2.6 show the additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate several combinations of typical intersection treatments. 83 Design Speed The design speed for a roadway is the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specified segment of roadway when conditions are so favorably that design features of the roadway govern. Design speeds determine the physical characteristics of the roadway (i.e. minimum horizontal centerline radius, stopping sight distance, etc.). The recommended design speed for each roadway classification is given below: Roadway Classification Design Speed Major arterial 45 Minor arterial 40 Commercial collector 40 Residential collector 35 Local 30 It should be noted that the physical characteristics of an arterial or collector is generally not the governing factor in restricting speeds. Traffic volumes during peak hours, cross traffic, and traffic controls are examples of factors that must be considered when determining speed limits. Horizontal Curvature The minimum centerline radius for curving roadways is determined based on the design speed, friction factor, a: Ul .... < Ul a: C!l a: 0 a: 0 .... (J Ul :I 0 (J ..J < a: .... "' :::1 Q z :::: ..J :! (J a: Ul :I :I 0 (J I I 110' L1. & RL TWII L-1211' 0 2;:::_ ~ ~ ! --~ 1 ri -T i i ~+ -II' --~-----:---1_ ~~=====--_J: iii -,-~ -( -ri -a --\. ,<1: ~ I I I ! « ; ... -io --=-··1 + r 0 ~ 4 LANE UNDIVIDED WIDENED TO PROVIDE LEFT AND/OR RIGHT TURN LANES -----I ~~----1110' ----(1) NOTE: 36'R. curb returns should be used at lnteraectlona In commercial and Industrial areas or on roadwaya with high volumea of trucks. FIGURE 2.4 INTERSECTION R.O.W. REQUIREMENTS RESIDENTIAL/INDUSTRIAL COLLECTORS ~--------------------------------~-84 a: I!! ~ 0 -"'~ c::!:o c 0 u -. ;:(j -... "' ~ ~->-C I I r. ~ ~\\ l\..._ '" *O• t I I '-__ .:....__~ I I __ .... __ _ I ' • ...-------<>--->-0 ..J ... z 0 0 I /.::, 1 /l--_ .(eMa~o.ua I ! I _;.-&----. I I .l" -t>----( 1/'+> ~ t i I I c u.!1 =U -.. .. ~ .=c «! (/) 1-~ ~ 1-w w zw -a: !!§ 0 1-C!I fl. (/) ii: 1--o>- c 01 ·-ll...J ~I 20' Minimum Of I Consistent Grade _.a 0 ... :I 41 0 a· "0 w . G Top 01 c £112" Per Foot (Maximum) : 2 f7 urb ~1 1 /4" Per Foot (Normal) '...--------------G. 2• Minimum (Max.•8'l6) I 1. Low Volume Driveway On Local Street 2. Low Volume Driveway On Collector Streets 3. High Volume Drlvewa y Or Low Volume Driveway On Arterial Streets G2 Maximum Range -10% To +14% -4% To +B% -1% To +5% Low Volume Driveway-a. .. than 100 veh. during peak hour In peak direction High Volume Driveway-more than 100 veh. during peak hour In peak direction FIGURE 2.10 DRIVEWAY VERTICAL GRADES ~------~------------------------~-104 "industrial" driveway for these vehicles and prohibit their use of the other "commercial" driveways within the development. 3. At high volume industrial driveways, the use of compound curves in the curb returns is recommended by AASHTO (reference 1). Driveway Angle The angle at which a driveway intersects the street should be 90 degrees. If the site conditions (e.g., terrain, lot size, and shape, etc.) will not permit a 90 degree approach, the angle may be reduced to the following minimums. Two-way: 1. 2. 70 degrees for large multi-family complex, commercial, and industrial driveways. 60 degrees for single family, duplex, townhouse, and small multi-family complex residential driveways. One-way: 45 degrees for all driveways. 105 Channelization Islands And Median Dividers Turning Roadway Width To facilitate the ingress and egress movements on high speed arterials, islands separating right-turn movements may be used provided the pavement width is sufficient to allow the vehicle to negotiate the turns at the proper design speed (see Table 2.14). The pavement should be widened to permit the outer and inner wheel tracks of the selected design vehicle to clear the pavement gores by about 2 feet on each side. Driveways with island separated right-turn ingress movements that will have more than 1 0% trucks should be designed for single-unit trucks while industrial or commercial delivery driveways should be designed for WB-50 vehicles. Island Size Islands should be constructed so as to be easily seen and make obvious the proper course of travel. Islands should only be constructed if they will exceed 75 square feet in area. Islands of a minimum 100 square feet are preferred. Elongated Driveway Island Width Plus Length When an elongated island is used as a driveway divider way, that island should have the following Table 2.14 PAVEMENT WIDTHS FOR TURNING ROADWAYS1 Radius on Inner Edge of Pavement Pavement Width (feet) for Design Vehicle R (feet) Passenger Car Single-Unit WB-50 50 13 18 26 75 13 17 2 1 Developed from Reference 1 . 106 minimum dimensions. 1 . Minimum island width = 5 feet 2. Minimum island length = 20 feet This will ensure adequate island visibility and width on which traffic signs can be installed while providing adequate lateral clearance. Any island landscaping heights and densities shall be as specified in the visual obstruction regulations. Throat Length The required length of throat for storage will depend on two factors. These are the parking facility egress control, if any, and the gap availability on the street being entered. Egress control should be considered as a site design prerogative of the developer and normally does not impact street operations. Gap availability, if not considered in establishing driveway throat length, can result in request for police traffic control or unwarranted signalization. Police control should not be permitted as a solution to inadequate throat length. Egress driveway lanes should be designed to accommodate outbound traffic during the most demanding peak hour condition (site outbound or street peak). Differing land uses will have differing peak parking movement distributions. These distributions affect the rate at which vehicles exit the parking 107 locations and therefore directly affect the length of storage required to hold the vehicles until they receive an acceptable gap to enter the roadway. Table 2.15 presents the required storage for exiting driveway lanes as a function of land use and the number of total site parking spaces divided by the number of exit lanes. Deceleration/Acceleration Lanes Right-Turn Deceleration Lanes Deceleration lanes for right turns into driveways may greatly ease the negative impact a drive will have on the flow of traffic on an arterial. Such a provision will enable right-turning traffic to slow to turn without risk of rear end accidents or causing following traffic to slow down. A deceleration lane should be considered on arterials with average operating speeds of at least 35 mph or more if the following conditions apply: 1 . The average peak hour inbound right turn volume is at least 120 vehicles. 2. Where several successive driveways meet condition 1 and driveway spacing is not adequate to avoid encroachment of the rightturn lane on another driveway, a continuous right-turn lane should be used. -TABLE 2.15 ON-SITE DRIVEWAY VEHICLE STORAGE LENGTHS1 Parking Spaces/Outbound Driveway Lane MF Residential 0-200 200-400 400-600 > 600 1 Developed from Reference 7. 2 Measured from property line. 25 25 50 100 Storage Required (feet)2 Retail3 Office 25 25 50 100 150 200 200 more lanes 3 More than 700 spaces/lane will require additional outbound driveway lanes. 108 Industrial 50 150 more lanes more lanes ~ 3. A continuous right-turn lane should be considered in a section where 20 percent of the directional volume on the arterial makes right turns. For signalized driveway intersections, lane requirements should be based on a capacity analysis. Right-Turn Lane Length Deceleration lanes should be of adequate length to permit safe deceleration from the design speed to a stop within the deceleration lane. Traffic may be assumed to leave the through lane at 15 mph below the design speed. Total deceleration lane length includes length of taper. Table 2.16 shows the desired length for various design speeds. The recommended taper lengths for lett or right turns is given in Table 2.17. The transition should be accomplished using reverse curve geometry. 109 Table 2.16 RIGHT TURN LANE LENGTH Functional Classification Deceleration Lane Le·ngth Including Taper (feet) Arterial 350 Collector 250 Local 200 Table 2.17 TRANSITION DISTANCE FOR DECELERATION Functional Classification Length (feet) Arterial 150 Collector 150 Local 100 110 L.. 2.5 MEDIAN OPENINGS Median Openina Spacina The location of openings in a median to allow leftturn ingress and egress movements at a driveway or local street is a function of the type and operating speed of the roadway, volume of traffic expected to make the left-turn movements, and the location relative to other intersecting streets, driveways, and median openings. Median openings may be permitted on divided thoroughfares at intersections with public streets and/or driveways. The order of priority to be utilized to determine where median openings should be located is at intersections with: 1. First priority -Designated Thoroughfares 111 2. Second Priority -Minor Streets 3. Third Priority -Driveways Median openings will be provided at all intersections with designated arterials and collectors. Median openings will normally be permitted at all intersections with minor streets. Priority will be given to minor streets that serve collector functions. No median opening will be permitted at a minor street or driveway if specific conditions create an unsafe intersection. Vertical and horizontal sight distance must meet minimum standards as specified in Section 2.3. No median opening will be allowed to serve either alleys or emergency access easements and the minimum distance of an opening to an intersecting public street will be governed by the combined left-turn lane design requirements for that intersection and the median opening, as well as the functional classification of the two intersecting streets. Median openings should not be granted unless all of the following conditions exist: 1. The property to be served has a driveway at the median opening and is a significant traffic generator with demonstrated or projected trip generation of not less than 100 left-turn ingress or 100 egress vehicles during the peak hour. (reference 7) 2. 3. The median width is sufficient to permit construction of a left-turn storage lane. The median is sufficiently long so that should exclusive left-turn lanes be needed at both ends of a median, sufficient distance will be available to properly design deceleration taper and sufficient storage lanes as shown in Table 2.18 given the recommended median length. Median Opening Design Median Opening Length The nose-to-nose length of median openings is a function of turning angles and left turning radius (based on the expected traffic volume vehicle mixture, i.e., passenger cars, single unit trucks, semi-trailers, etc.). Median openings that will be expected to handle a large number of trucks should be designed to accommodate a design vehicles appropriate for the driveway. The minimum median opening length should be 60 feet. Median End Treatment Median noses should be of the type illustrated in Figure 2.11, with a nose end radius of 2'6" and transition radii from the full width median to the nose end radius ranging from a minimum of 50 feet to a maximum of 75 feet, depending on the design vehicle 112 turning radius to be accommodated. The median nose should have a minimum of a 15 foot setback from the cross-street curb line for single left turn lanes and 18 feet for dual left-turn lanes. Median Left-Turn Lane Width Each median opening where a left-turn or U-turn movement will be permitted should be designed with a left-turn lane of sufficient storage and taper distance. Left-turn lanes constructed in the median should be a minimum width of 11 feet wide. Left Turn Storage Requirements The length required for left-turn storage in the median left-turn lane is a function of the number of leftturn movements, opposing through movements and, if the intersection is signalized, the cycle length and green time. Figure 2.12 shows the required storage length for various left turn and through movement conflicts at unsignalized intersections. Table 2.18 LENGTH OF MEDIAN Cross-Street Functional Functional Classification Classification Special Arterial Residential Areas2 Non-Residential Areas Arterial Freeway Arterial Collector Local Driveway -less than 40 ft. in width3 -40 ft. or more in width4 Collector Freeway Arterial Collector Local Driveway -less than 40 ft. in width3 -40 ft. or more in width4 1 Measured from end to end. 2 Frontage consists of at least 50 percent residential on each side of street. 3 2-way driveway; 1-way driveway less than 20 feet in width. 4 2-way driveway; 1-way driveway 20 feet or more in width. Minimum Median 1 Length (feet) 10005 500 500 500 400 300 300 350 500 400 400 300 300 350 6 Opening for left turns from the special arterial to a driveway may be permitted with a minimum median length of 500 feet; no outbound left turns from driveways will be permitted at such locations. 113 ...I c l:ii c w en 0 z l:ii ::1 ::I Ill z c Ci w :I _ .. ... ~ " a: • a: .. 1-~ .. z Cll w w ::!: a: 1-::I -w :I: :::1 ...J 0 > C> z If) 0 Q. Q. 0 II • > 100 t-tl·t-ft-.. ,~'"~'Hi-~ J: 0 "" 100 1>0 N Grodt 1 unsu)naliud inlcrstclions S :r sloravc ltnl)ll'l required ~-~'_!_ _I_ -----r---~--~±±!= t-.. I' . ~III :-: xU:::::.:.;_-:= t'-:..~~;;:pijifJ:::j·-:·:...:~~'=CJ::::r:::l __ , · -L-~--1 • I --~-~~+ :,.~· "~"~'"·~··I<~ r ~ ,_.. ~o-i'_, _ o0 •• J.J.~. o . J -1 _,_...._ .... _ ~-0· J• 0• 0• "' . 1 I T-. -'---,__ ~~-.. 1---~, 1--~-~~:~:~ zoo 250 lOO J~ '100 450 ~00 .. o LOO v,' LEFT TURNING VOLUME (VPH) FIGURE 2.12 STORAGE LENGTH REQUIRED FOR UNSIGNALIZED LEFT-TURN LANES ----------------------~---------------------~ 115 2.6 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SPACING The primary function of an arterial street is to move a large volume of through traffic as quickly, efficiently, and safely as possible. For major roadways with at-grade intersections this can best be done by providing progressive signal operation. Signal spacing and timing are two of the limiting factors in providing such operation. Standard procedure in signal timing is to attempt to establish offsets, cycle lengths, and phasings for given conditions, as determined by existing intersection spacings. More efficient operation, however, can be obtained if the intersections are uniformly spaced within a certain optimum range. By providing for proper intersection spacing during the development of an area or, in some cases, modifying existing intersection or signal spacings, a high degree of efficiency in operation of the major roadway and flexibility of adaptation to 116 daily volume fluctuations can be realized. Subject to the constraints of providing reasonable access to the arterial, and avoiding excessive circuity of travel tor crossing traffic, a procedure has been developed (reference 14) to define the "optimum" range of intersection spacings. Table 2.19 gives desirable intersection spacings for different combinations of cycle lengths and speeds of progression; the numbers in parentheses are for a simultaneous system. Table 2.19 INTERSECTION SPACING CORRESPONDENCE TO GIVEN SPEEDS AND CYCLE LENGTHS FOR THE SIGNAL ALTERNATE SIGNAL SYSTEM* INTERSECTION SPACING (fT) FOR CYCLE LENGTH OF: Speed 40 sec 50 sec 60 sec 70 sec 80 sec 90 sec 100 sec 110 sec 120 sec (mph) 25 735 919 1103 1286 1470 1654 1838 2021 2180 (1470) (1838) (2205) (2573) (2940) (3308) (3675) (4043) (4360) 30 882 1103 1323 1544 1764 1985 2205 2426 2616 (1764) (2205 (2646) (3087) (1528) (3969) (4410) (4851) (5232) 35 1029 1286 1544 1801 2058 2315 2573 2830 3052 (2058) (2573) (3087) (3602) (4116) (4631) (5145) (5660) (5232) 40 1176 1470 1764 2058 2352 2646 2940 3234 3488 (2352) (2940) (3528) (4116) (4704) (5292) (5880) (6468) (6976) 45 1323 1654 1985 2315 2646 2977 3308 3638 3924 (2646) (3308) (3969) (4631) (5292) (59 54) (6615) (7277) (7848) 50 1470 1838 2205 2573 2940 3308 3775 4153 4360 (2940) (3675) (441 0) (5145) (5880) (6615) (7550) (8305) (8720) I I J 55 1617 2021 2426 2830 3234 3638 4153 4447 (3234) (4043) (4851) (5660) (6468) (7277) (8305) (8894) L_ ~:~~~~ I ---I------* Numbers in parentheses are for a simultaneous system. 117 ('I) z 0 to w (J) --------------- UJ c w w z w a: ('t) .\C'f,8 Jl Boyington h."\~ --cl 0 .!! :s < Mldcourt r;.ed-oe ~ 668 .... .... Wiley Poet -li E & 'i .... I I I :n~ ~ I Not to Scale ! ~ II iII! KaMer Springe I PROPOSED AUGNIIENTJ I & Airport I f Yl Bent lrraa Foreat I 0 FIGURE 3.3 PROPOSED QUORUM REALIGNMENT -------------------------------------------------~ 123 REFERENCES 1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 1990, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.; 1990. 2. Arterial Driveway Access Guidelines for Glendale Heights, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., Evanston, Illinois, 1979. 3. Bochner, Brian S. "Regulation of Driveway Access to Arterial Streets", Evanston, Illinois: Compendium of Technical Papers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1978. 4. City of Dallas, Texas. Paving Design Manual, Dallas, Texas: Department of Public Works. 5. City of Dallas, Texas. Guidelines for Driveway Design and Operation. Draft. 6. City of Lakewood, Colorado. Transportation Engineering Design Standards, Lakewood, Colorado, 1985. 7. Crommelin, Robert W ., Entrance-Exit Design and Control For Major Parking Facilities, "Seminar '72" Los Angeles Parking Association; Los Angeles, California, 1972. 8. Federal Highway Administration. Access Management for Streets and Highways, National Technical Information Service, Service, Springfield, Virginia, 1982. 9. Federal Highway Administration. Evaluation of Techniques for the Control of Direct Access to Arterial Highways, Final Report. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 1975. 10. Federal Highway Administration. Technical Guidelines for the Control of Direct Access to Arterial Highways, Volume 1: General Framework for lmplementating Access Control Techniques. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 1975. 124 u 11. Federal Highway Administration. Technical Guidelines for the Control of Direct Access to Arterial Highways, Volume II: Detailed Description of Access Control Techniques. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 1975. 12. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Guidelines for Driveway Design and Location, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1985. 13. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Guidelines for Urban Major Street Design. A Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1984. 14. Highway Research Board. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 93, Guidelines for Medial and Marginal Access Control on Major Roadways, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1970. 125 TO br. BARTqN-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 5485 Belt Line Road, Suite 199 Dallas, Texas 75240 (214) 991-1900 AJJ •sm, 'li 7 s cui GENTLEMEN: DATE 0 ..,ur\J~..._ !>law D-A~,\~J f~L P.L .... L WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 Attached 0 Under separate cover via _________ the following items: 0 Shop drawings 0 Copy of letter 0 Prints 0 Change order 0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications o ____________________________________ _ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION I {')~ Tl> ILC r. H>. t _L~ .. 1.. I ;'\ .~ '.0. J .. l ' THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: 0 For approval 0 Approved as submitted D Resubmit ____ copies for approval ~ For your use 0 Approved as noted 0 Submit ____ copies for distribution )'!. As requested 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return ____ corrected prints 0 For review and comment 0 0 FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS--------------------~---------1-~---------------------------------------------Gl\ 1[ '\""' Rcw. 9''t;1ro, COPY TO _____________________________________ __ SIGNED:_---.Icf,;.,.l.' /:::.j-..::j~l--------, enclosures •re not as noted, kindly notity us at once. """ TOWN OF ADDISON THOROGHFARE PLAN FEE ESTIMATE (PERSON-HOURS) 04/15/91 ======= ====================== ======= ======= ======= ======= TASK DESCRIPTION GDJ RCW KMG TECH ======= ====================== ======= ======= ======= ======= 1.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.0 6.1 6.2 ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES 12 POLICY DEVELOPMENT EXISTING POLICIES 1 IDENTIFY NEW POLICIES 3 PREPARE MEMORANDUM 0 TOWN COUNCILAPPROVA 2 EVAL. FUTURE RDWY NEEDS ASSEMBLE DATA REVIEW MODEL INPUTS REVISE MODEL EVAL. 1990 ASSIGNMENT 2 DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES 6 TEST ALTERNATIVES 4 PRESENT RESULTS 2 REVISE PREFERRED PLAN 2 AMENDMENT/REVIEW PROCESS MEET WITH TOWN STAFF DRAFT AMEND. PROCESS REVISE AS NEEDED THOR. DEVELOPMENT PLAN ASSEMBLE RESULTS SUBMIT DRAFT PLAN PREPARE MAP APPROVAL PROdESS PREPARE PRESENTATION MAKE PRESENTATIONS ------------------------TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE LABOR NCTCOG DIRECT EXPENSES ESTIMATED FEE PER TASK 2 4 2 2 6 2 4 4 --------60 32000.56 5000.00 500.00 37500.56 12 4 2 4 6 6 6 2 2 2 16 8 8 8 40 4 8 8 8 6 12 2 4 4 8 2 2 16 10 4 4 4 8 8 10 4 24 24 4 4 26 4 4 --------114 182 50 LABOR ================== ==== ======= ======= ======= ======= TASK 1: ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES 2808.36 TASK 2: POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2808.34 TASK 3: EVALUATE FUTURE ROADWAY NEEDS 11970.40 TASK 4: THOROUGHFARE AMENDMENT/REVIEW PROCE 4080.44 TASK 5: THOROUGHFARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6706.66 TASK 6: ASSIST IN APPROVAL PROCESS 3626.36 ------------------------------------------------------32000.56 ======= ======= TOTAL CLER HOURS ======= ======= 4 32 7 9 4 12 6 16 16 46 14 22 22 8 4 18 6 30 4 14 14 24 8 62 4 42 12 ----------------26 434 NCTCOG EXPENSE TOTAL ======= ================ 50.00 2658.36 50.00 2858.34 5000.00 150.00 17120.40 100.00 4180.44 100.00 6806.66 50.00 3676.36 -------------------------5000.00 500.00 37500.56 TASK 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 5.0 8.0 TOWN OF ADDISON THOROUGHFARE PLAN STUDY PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE WEEK DESCRIPTION 6 10 16 CONFIRM ISSUES-OBJECTIVES POLICY DEVELOPMENT EVALUATE FUTURE RDWY. NEEDS ASSEMBLE DATA -REVIEW MODEL INPUTS -REVISE MODEL PREPARE BASE ASSIGNMENT DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES TEST ALTERNATIVES PRESENT RESULTS PREPARE RECOMMENDED PLAN AMENDMENT /REVIEW PROCESS THOROUGHFARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ASSIST IN APPROVAL PROCESS LEGEND * Staff and/or Steering Comm. Mtg. c:::J Review by Staff and/or Steering Comm. 2o 2°6 3 0 * c:::::J * * * ---L_ -- Barton·Aschman Associates, Inc. 5485 Belt Line Road, Suite 199 Dallas, Texas 75240 USA March 6, 1991 Mr. Robin Jones Director of Streets Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001 Phone: (214) 991-1900 Fax: (214) 490-9261 Metro: 263-9138 RE: Proposal to Prepare Town of Addison Thoroughfare Plan Dear Mr. Jones: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional engineering services in connection with the preparation for a Thoroughfare Development Plan for the Town of Addison, Texas. Such a plan will provide Town staff with the information required to develop the transportation system necessary to accommodate future travel demands within the Town. During its forty year history, Barton-Aschman has conducted hundreds of thoroughfare plan studies similar to the proposed Town of Addison Study. Our experience ranges from large cities such as Dallas to small, suburban cities such as Coppell. The project staff proposed for this project has worked with all of the cities which surround Addison and are very familiar with their thoroughfare systems. Barton-Aschman will be assisted on this project by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). The NCTCOG brings to this study the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional, and specific North Dallas area travel demand forecasting capabilities and expertise which will be necessary to accurately forecast future travel demand within the Town. This letter presents our approach, proposed work program, and fee estimate for the development,of a thoroughfare plan for the Town of Addison. If accepted, this letter will become an agreement between the Town of Addison and Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to provide the services outlined in the work program. APPROACH The approach we propose for preparation of the Town of Addison's Thoroughfare Plan has worked successfully for our clients elsewhere. Our approach uses a base of relevant issues to be addressed, and sound, technical analysis to develop a plan that will provide the transportation system to meet the Town's goals. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Robin Jones March 6, 1991 Page 2 Our approach is straightforward, and involves the following steps: '\t ~2. ~3. ""4. Search out all real and perceived issues related to the thoroughfare plan, the planning process, and its implementation. Utilize an objective, understandable, logica~ and responsive planning process and highly qualified, credible staff with prior success to prepare the plan and interface with Town staff and decision makers. Involve the Town staff (and Town Council members and other representatives, if desired) to help maximize knowledge of the process and credibility with the public. Prepare a set of policies and plans which clearly meet local objectives, respond to specific concerns, and can be justified technically. We have found that this type of process is effective. Technically, our approach is based on the following process: ""'-., 1. Maximize the use of information assembled as part of the Addison Bottleneck study. 2. Prepare a set of (draft, and later, final) policies which will guide the development of the thoroughfare plan. For example, a policy might be able to "maximize use of tf: TSM measures in any area or corridor before considering major capital improvements". '\. 3. Build from both processes and the extensive data base that the NCTCOG has developed over the years to provide relevant analysis tools. 'v 4. Conduct the detailed technical analyses which will support the development of the actual plan (map, standards, and implementation policies and guidelines) and review it at strategic points with the Town staff and public decision makers. --v 5. Develop mechanisms of maintaining flexibility, assessing impacts of development and thoroughfare plan changes, and maintaining or increasing plan and system effectiveness. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Robin Jones March 6, 1991 Page 3 WORK PROGRAM Based upon our understanding of the needs of this project, and our extensive experience as conducting similar studies, we have prepared a work program which comprehensively evaluates the future roadway needs of the Town. Our proposed work program is contained in the following six distinct tasks: Yrask 1: Confirm Issues and Objectives Develop Policies "Task 2: 'vTask 3: "'->Task 4: '-'Task 5: '-Task 6: Evaluate Future Roadway Needs Develop Thoroughfare Amendment and Review Process Prepare Thoroughfare Development Plan Assist in Approval Process Each of these tasks is discussed in the following paragraphs: TASK 1: Puroose: Activities: CONFIRM ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES To identify specific issues to be addressed in the study and develop goals and objectives for the thoroughfare development plan. 1.1 Meet with Town staff and key persons selected by staff (i.e. Town Council members, neighborhood association representatives, local developers, etc.) to discuss specific issues (i.e. areas of concern) to be addressed during the study. During this meeting the goals of objectives of the thoroughfare plan will be discussed. NOTE: This group could serve as a steering committee throughout the study. Periodic presentations to and feedback from this group could greatly enhance the success of the final plan. 1.2 Review results of the Addison Bottleneck study with the steering committee. Specific study results to be discussed are assessment of existing thoroughfare system, recommended improvements, and roadway design and access control standards. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Robin Jones March 6, 1991 Page 4 1.3 Prepare and submit memorandum outlining goals and objectives to address Issues. TASK 2: Purpose: Activities: POLICY DEVELOPMENT To assess the effectiveness of current written or unwritten roadway planning polices, develop new policies if necessary, and prepare planning policies issue paper. 2.1 Develop, in conjunction with Town staff, a tabulation of policies and procedures which are currently being applied in the thoroughfare planning decision making process. 2.2 Determine the basis or reason of application of these policies, as well as any problems or opportunities associated with them. Identify additional policies and modifications to existing policies necessary to address goals and objectives identified in Task 1. 2.3 Prepare and submit issues paper documenting results of investigations of present policies with recommendations for new or revised policies. 2.4 Following review by Town staff (and/or steering committee), incorporate new and revised policies into appropriate formats and submit to Town Council for approval. TASK 3: Puroose: NOTE: Legal review of proposed policies will be necessary prior to approval by the Town Council. EVALUATE FUTURE ROADWAY NEEDS To identify future thoroughfare needs and evaluate alternative roadway systems to satisfy these needs. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Robin Jones March 6, 1991 Page 5 Activities: 3.1 Assemble existing and projected input data to NCTCOG travel forecasting models. 3.2 Review existing and projected population and employment data, model zone structure, and roadways networks. Identify planning horizon year. 3.3 Revise model input data where appropriate to meet specific Town needs. 3.4 Calibrate 1990 base model for use in evaluating future thoroughfare alternatives. 3.5 Develop thoroughfare alternatives to meet specific issues and/or subarea needs (i.e. Quorum area). Three alternative networks will be modeled. Two additional model runs are proposed to evaluate specific refinements after each model run, results will be discussed with staff for selected horizon year. 3.6 Test and evaluate results of each thoroughfare alternative. 3.7 Prepare and present to steering committee results of evaluation and recommended plan. 3.8 Revise recommended plan, as appropriate, based on steering committee comments. TASK4: Puroose: Activities: TIIOROUGHFARE AMENDMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS To provide necessary procedures and analytical tools to assist staff in the continuing process of plan review and amendment. 4.1 Meet with Town staff to discuss amendment process and present typical procedures and analytical tools for evaluating requested changes. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Robin Jones March 6, 1991 Page 6 4.2 4.3 TASK 5: Purpose: Activities: Based on discussions in Task 4.1, prepare and submit draft thoroughfare amendment process and technical analysis procedures. Meet with staff to discuss comments and revise procedures. THOROUGHFARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN To prepare thoroughfare development plan document for approved. 5.1 Assemble results of study into final transportation development plan document. Information will include: thoroughfare planning policies roadway classification system roadway design standards access control guidelines recommended thoroughfare plan thoroughfare amendment procedures 5.2 Submit to Town staff for review (NOTE: it is anticipated that this review will be for format only. All elements in the thoroughfare plan will have been previously reviewed by Town staff and/or steering committee. 5.3 In addition to plan document, prepare and submit large scale thoroughfare plan map, in reproducible form, to staff. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Robin Jones March 6, 1991 Page 7 TASK 6: Purpose: Activities: ASSIST IN APPROVAL PROCESS To present study procedures, findings, reconunendations and conclusions to aid in approval of the plan. 6.1 Prepare presentation of study procedures, findings, and recommendation. 6.2 Make presentations, as directed by Town staff, to interested groups. FEE ESTIMATE Our fee for completing the Scope of Services outlined above will be based on our hourly rates current at the time of performance, for staff services rendered. Based on our experience in studies of this type, we estimate that the fee for completion of tasks 1 through 6 will be $37,500. We will not exceed this fee without receiving your prior authorization. If the need for extra services should arise, we will seek your authorization and, before proceeding and if requested, we will supply you with our estimate of the fee to be incurred. Direct reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses such as travel, reproduction, etc., will be be billed at cost and will be added to staff time costs incurred on the project. Billing for services will be submitted monthly and will be due and payable upon receipt. Billings which are not paid within 30 days will bear interest at the rate of 1.5 percent per month. AUTHORIZATION AND SCHEDULE We will initiate work on this project inunediately upon receipt of a signed copy of this letter of agreement. We estimate that the Thoroughfare Development Plan can be completed within eighteen (18) weeks of the notice to proceed. The proposed project schedule is attached. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Robin Jones March 6, 1991 Page 8 We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide this proposal and look forward to working with the Town of Addison staff on this project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, A Gary D. ost, P.E. Principal Associate Robert C. Wunderlich, P.E. Senior Associate GDJ /RCW:tdb Drue_· _______________________ _ gary\jones.loa ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY: (Signature) (Printed or Typed Name) (Title) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR: (Organization) (Title) TASK 1. CONFIRM ISSUES & OBJECTIVES 2. POLICY DEVELOPMENT 3. EVALUATE FUTURE ROADWAY NEEDS 4. THOROUGHFARE AMENDMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS 6. THOROUGHFARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8. ASSIST IN APPROVAL PROCESS(1) TOWN OF ADDISON THOROUGHFARE PLAN STUDY PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE WEEK 2 4 6 8 10 (1) AS REQUESTED BY TOWN STAFF 12 14 16 16 2'o 2 I I I I I I I I I 1-----::::J 1-----I