Mussafah Industrial Area Revised Final TIS Report December 2009

Revised Final Report – Mussafah Industrial Traffic Impact Study December
2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 BACKGROUND 4
1.2 SCOPE AND PURPOSE 4
1.2 STUDY AREA 5
CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 8
2.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 8
2.2 ANALYSIS SOFTWARE 8
2.2.1 SIDRA ROUNDABOUT SOFTWARE 8
2.2.2 HCS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SOFTWARE………...……………………………………………………………… 9
2.2.3 SYNCHRO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SOFTWARE 9
2.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 9
2.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 10
2.5 HORIZON YEARS TRAFFIC SCENARIOS 10
CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 11
3.1 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM 11
3.2 DATA COLLECTION 11
3.3 PEAK HOURS 11
3.4 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE 12
3.5 LINK ANALYSIS 12
CHAPTER 4 NO-BUILD (2011) CONDITIONS 16
4.1 LINK ANALYSIS 12
CHAPTER 5 TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION, ASSIGNMENT 19
5.1 TRIP GENERATION 19
5.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 21
CHAPTER 6 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS (2011) 26
6.1 LINK
ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………………………………...27
CHAPTER 7 FUTURE (2021) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS 30
7.1 LINK ANALYSIS…………………………….…………………….…………………………………....30
CHAPTER 8 FULL-BUILD PLUS 10 YEARS CONDITIONS (2021) 33
8.1 LINK ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………………………………….
…..34
CHAPTER 9 PARKING AND SITE ACCESS 37
2009
9.1 PARKING 37
9.2 INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT 40
9.2.1 VEHICULAR ACCESS 41
9.2.2 DELIVERY, SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS 42
CHAPTER 10 MITIGATION MEASURES 45

CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSIONS 51
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (Roundabouts)………………….………………………….
………………………...8
Table 2: Significant Thresholds for Development-Related Transportation Impacts…………….
……………………………………………………...9
Table 3: Existing Conditions LOS and Average Delay per Vehicle……………………………….……………………………………………….
…..12
Table 4: Existing (2008) Segment Link Analysis………………………………………………….
…………………………………….........................13
Table 5: Future Conditions (2011 No-Build) LOS and Average Delay per Vehicle……………………………………………...
……………………..16
Table 6: Future (2011 No-Build) Segment Link
Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………..16
Table 7: Trip Rates……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………........................19
Table 8: Estimated Trips – Adjacent Street………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20
Table 9: Estimated Trips – Peak Hour Generator…………………………………………………………………………………………………...21
Table 10: Future Conditions (2011 Build) LOS & Average Delay per Vehicle…………………………………………………………….….
………..26
Table 11: Future (2011 Build) Segment Link
Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………...27
Table 12: Future (2021) NO-Build LOS and Average Delay per Vehicle…..………………………………………………………..………….
……..30
Table 13: Future (2021 No-Build) Segment Link Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………
30
Table 14: Future Conditions (2021 Build) LOS and Average Delay per Vehicle……………………………………………………….
……………....33
Table 15: Future (2021 Build) Segment Link Analysis ………………..……………………………………….……………………….
…………….34
Table 16: Parking Requirements for Various Land
Uses……………………………………………………………………………………………..37
Table 17: Internal Roads LOS and Average Delay per Vehicle ………………………………………………………………….
…………………...41
Table 18: Intersection Improvements Requirements…………………………………………………………………………….
…………………...45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location Map……………………………………………………………………………………......
……………..6
Figure 2: Study Area…………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………...7
Figure 3: Existing (2008) Conditions Peak Hour Turning Volumes…………………..
……………………………………………..14
Figure 4: Existing (2008) Conditions Level of Service………………………………………………….
…………………………...15
Figure 5: No-Build (2011) Conditions Peak Hour Turning Volumes…………………………………..
……………………………17
Figure 6: No-Build (2011) Conditions Level of Service……………………………………………….
…………………………….18
Figure 7: Traffic Distribution Percentage…………….……………………………………………….
…………………………….23
Figure 8: Project Traffic Assignment……………………………………………….…………………………………………....
….24
2
2009
Figure 9: Project Traffic Volumes…………………………………………………………………….

…………………………….25
Figure 10: Existing Plus Project Conditions (2011) Peak Hour Turning Volumes………………….………..
……………………......28
Figure 11: Existing Plus Project Conditions (2011) Level of Service……………………………….…………..
…………………......29
Figure 12: Future (No-Build) 2021 Conditions Peak Hour Turning Volumes……………………….…………………………...
….31
Figure 13: Future (No-Build) 2021 Conditions Level of Service……………………………………………………………….
……..32
Figure 14: Future 2021 Conditions Peak Hour Turning Volumes…………………………………………………………….
……....35
Figure 15: Future 2021 Conditions Level of
Service………………………………………………………………………………….36
Figure 16: Proposed Development Layout Plan……………………………………….
……………………………………………..38
Figure 17: Typical Cross Sections………………………………………………………………………………………………....
….39
Figure 18: Proposed Parking Layout Plan…………………………………………………………….
……………………………....40
Figure 19: Vehicular Access Routes………………………………………………………………………………….………………
43
Figure 20: Truck Turning Radius Template…………………………………………………………...
……………………………...44
Figure 21: Proposed Intersection Improvements Year 2011 (No-Build)…………………………………………………….
……….46
Figure 22: Proposed Intersection Improvements Year 2011 (Build)…………...
……………………………………………………..47
Figure 23: Proposed Intersection Improvements Year 2011 (Build)…………...
……………………………………………………..48
Figure 24: Proposed Intersection Improvements Year 2011 (Build)……...
…………………………………………………………..49
Figure 25: Proposed Intersection Improvements Year 2021 (No-Build)
……………………………………………………………..50
Figure 26: Proposed Intersection Improvements Year 2021 (Build)……...…………………………………………………….….…
51
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Peak Hour Traffic Counts
Appendix B: Existing (2008) SIDRA Analysis Results
VOLUME 2
Appendix C: Future (2011) No-Build Traffic SIDRA Analysis Results
Appendix D: 2011 and 2021 ADM Model Traffic Forecast
Appendix E: (2011) Model Traffic SIDRA Analysis Results
Appendix F: Future (2021) No-Build Traffic SIDRA Analysis Results
Appendix G: (2021) Model Traffic SIDRA Analysis Results
Appendix H: Mitigation Measures Analysis Results
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As Abu Dhabi continues to develop, several roadways are planned to be constructed and widened in order
to support local growth in the immediate area to relieve congestion on transportation facilities located
within the area of benefit. The Mussafah Industrial Area west of Abu Dhabi is one of the prime industrial
areas of Abu Dhabi. Just 30 kilometers from the Abu Dhabi city centre, Mussafah plays an important role
in the economic development of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
A traffic impact study was conducted in April 2008 as part of the Abu Dhabi Municipality (ADM) project
for the proposed development in the Mussafah Industrial Complex. This study evaluates the traffic
3
2009
impacts associated with the proposed industrial development (M44 Plot 11-16) located just northwest of
the intersection of 16th street and 9th street in the Mussafah Industrial Park. The proposed development
project includes large warehouse facilities, office buildings, general retail, furniture stores, and electronic
stores.
Traffic and turning movement counts for the morning, midday and evening were collected at four
intersections surrounding the development and one ramp junction of Highway E30 with Street 16 for
three consecutive days. Analysis of the existing conditions (year 2008) exhibit all intersections operating
at acceptable Level of Service (LOS) of D or better. A growth rate of 6.5% was recommended to be used
by the ADM for the purposes of this study for the projection of background traffic to the future model
years (2011 and 2021). The no-build scenario (2011) shows acceptable LOS at all intersections except at
the intersection of 16th street and 9th street. The no-build and build traffic scenarios (2021) also experience
failing LOS at 16th / 9th street, 14th / 9th street, 16th / 7th street and the ramp junctions.
For the trip generation analysis for the various components of the proposed development, the Dubai
parking Rates and Trip generation Manual was used. Calculated trips were provided to the ADM to be
used in their travel demand model of 2011 and 2021. The model also performs the trip distribution.
However, the model results were discarded since the model apparently under-reported the volumes.
Manual trip distribution was carried out and trips were assigned to the existing street network.
As part of this report, a parking access study was conducted. The parking rates were taken from the Dubai
Parking and Trip generation Manual. The total parking requirement for the proposed development is
1,258 parking spaces. Of the total parking spaces required, 152 are required for the use of the warehouse,
including loading / unloading maneuvers. The total parking spaces provided are 1,264 spaces. One of the
major issue with providing the required number of parking spaces is that this will impede on the
municipality’s right-of-way. The approximate number of parking spaces outside the plot limit are 390.
The internal access control and circulation plan for the proposed development were specified and
recommendations are part of this report. One-way two lane roads are recommended at most of the major
internal streets. This provides for enough turning radii for the design vehicles. Barring the entry points, all
internal intersections are recommended to have 4-way stop sign controls for safe and efficient movement.
The design vehicle for this study is WB-40. The report also includes the turning radius for the design
vehicle. The internal roads intersection analysis at two key locations show that all intersections operate at
acceptable LOS of A or B, with the worst individual movement being experienced is C.
Mitigation measures are proposed at the end of this report. Signalized intersections have been preferred
where the existing roundabouts cannot handle the extra traffic load. The only intersection where
mitigation measures have not worked are the 16 th street / 9th street intersection in the 2021 scenario. 16 th
street is the primary traffic arterial and any improvements on 16 th street such as grade separated structures
are not feasible as the main access to the development is just north-west of the intersection.
4
2009
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Mussafah Industrial is one of the primary industrial areas of Abu Dhabi. It is a 25 square-kilometer
industrial area administered by the Abu Dhabi Municipality. It is home to a broad range of small-and-
medium-sized industries including domestic and international joint ventures, as well as government
departments, residential housing and leisure facilities. Bordering the sea, just 15 kilometers from the Abu
Dhabi International Airport and 30 kilometers from the Abu Dhabi city centre, Mussafah plays an
important role in the economic development of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The rapid growth in Abu Dhabi places heavy demands on the transportation system, both in terms of
roadway capacity and parking supply. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) aims to ensure that operational
problems do not arise at the local level due to a proposed development. Further, a TIS helps to ensure that
any and all issues are addressed at the time so that there are no difficult or expensive solutions once the
construction is completed. Similarly, the problem of parking supply can be reduced or eliminated if all
new developments are required to meet their own parking needs. Adequate parking supply ensures that
on-site parking demand is assessed and that adequate parking is provided on-site so that the potential
parking problems are not created. The proposed development (M44 Plot 11-16) located at the northwest
quadrant of 16th Street and 9th Street intersection is one of the major development projects in the Mussafah
Industrial Area.
1.2 SCOPE AND PURPOSE
This Parking and Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has been undertaken to allow the Abu Dhabi Municipality
(ADM) and the Abu Dhabi Department of Transportation (DOT) to assess the need to evaluate the impact
of the new development on the surrounding roadway system and any mitigation strategies resulting from
the impact of the proposed development site.
A traffic impact study was conducted in April 2008 as part of the Abu Dhabi Municipality (ADM) project
for the proposed development in the Mussafah Industrial Complex. This study evaluates the traffic
impacts associated with the proposed industrial development (M44 Plot 11-16) located just northwest of
the intersection of 16th street and 9th street in the Mussafah Industrial Park, west of the city of Abu Dhabi
(see Figure 1). The proposed project includes warehouse facilities, office buildings, general retail,
furniture stores, and electronic stores.
The purpose of this report is to:
 describe the site and the proposed development scheme
 describe the road network, traffic and transport circumstances
 assess the potential access and traffic implications
 assess the appropriateness of the proposed parking provision
 assess the suitability of the proposed internal circulation and servicing arrangements.
This study describes the existing conditions, the traffic generated by the development, the traffic
scenarios in future years and the impact of the proposed development on the existing road infrastructure,
5
2009
including any parking and access related issues. The traffic impacts of the proposed project are evaluated
at key intersections in the vicinity of the site under existing (2008), no-build conditions, and cumulative
(2011 & 2021) conditions.
1.2 STUDY AREA
The study area selected for this study encompasses the proposed development (see Figure 2). The
potential off-site traffic impacts of the project were evaluated during the a.m., midday and p.m. peak
hours at the following intersections:
• 16th street and 9th street;
• Access Road 1 connecting 9th and 7th streets; and
• 16th street / Southbound Highway 10 Ramp;
6
2009
Figure 1
7
2009
Figure 2
8
2009
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
2.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
To determine the operating conditions of an intersection or roadway, the concept of level of service is
commonly used. Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions
which occur on a given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure
used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal
phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the
operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Level of service designations range from A
to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating
conditions. Level of service designation is reported for roadway segments. Intersections were analyzed
using the methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). This methodology determines
the level of service by comparing the average delay for all vehicles passing through the intersection to the
thresholds shown in Table 1.. A unit of measure, such as vehicle delay, generally accompanies the LOS
designation. Operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds). This
incorporates delay associated with deceleration and acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue.
Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (Roundabouts)

Level of Control Delay per Vehicle in Seconds
Description
Service (Including Geometric Delay)
A Free Flow (Little or no delay) 0 - 10.0
B Stable flow (Slight delays) > 10.1 and ≤ 20.0
C Stable flow (Acceptable delays) > 20.1 and ≤ 35.0
D Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delays) > 35.1 and ≤ 55.0
E Unstable flow (intolerable delays) > 55.1 and ≤ 55.0
Queuing on minor approaches & not enough

F > 80.1
gaps of suitable size to allow safe crossing
2.2 ANALYSIS SOFTWARE

Three software programs were utilized for this traffic study. SIDRA was used for the analysis of the
roundabouts and unsignalized intersections, while SYNCHRO was used for the analysis of traffic signals.
HCS was used for the ramp junction analysis. A brief description of the three programs is detailed below:
9
2009
2.2.1 SIDRA ROUNDABOUT SOFTWARE

SIDRA is an advanced software for roundabouts and provides powerful model calibration facilities.
Calibration parameters such as Environment type, and the Sensitivity Analysis facility can be used to
achieve observed capacity values. It is an advanced micro-analytical traffic evaluation tool that employs
lane-by-lane and vehicle drive cycle models. It also has the capacity to analyze signalized / unsignalized
ramps on interchanges. This software was used for the LOS analysis of the traffic conditions at the
roundabouts.
2.2.2 HCS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SOFTWARE
HCS is one of the most popular traffic analysis software around the world. This software is based
completely on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). It implements the procedures in the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) including all approved changes to date for Signalized Intersections,
Unsignalized Intersections, Urban Streets, Multilane and Two-Lane Highways, Freeway Sections,
Weaving Areas and Ramp Junctions. HCS was used to perform the LOS analysis at the ramp terminals.
2.2.3 SYNCHRO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SOFTWARE
Synchro is a software application for optimizing traffic signal timing and performing capacity analysis.
The software optimizes splits, offsets, and cycle lengths for individual intersections, an arterial, or a
complete network. It was used to study the signalized alternatives in mitigation measures for various
intersections.
2.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
According to the Abu Dhabi Department of Municipalities “Traffic Impact Study and Parking
Requirement Guidelines”, a project is considered to have a significant impact if the new project traffic has
decreased the operations of surrounding roadways by the ADM defined threshold. The ADM prescribes
two primary approaches to establish the significance thresholds. It is the second approach that is being
followed by the ADM and shall be the basis of this traffic impact report. The second approach requires
developments to participate in the mitigation of impacts even before LOS standards are reached. This
typically requires more developments to implement mitigation measures, and tends to reduce the
magnitude of mitigation to be implemented by any one development. Table 2 below shows the ADM
recommended thresholds for development related transportation impacts.
Table 2: Significant Thresholds for Development-Related Transportation Impacts
Future With- Future With- Significant Development
Junctions
Development LOS Development Delay Related Impact
F 80.1 and above 2.0 seconds or above
E 55.1 – 80.0 2.0 seconds or above

Roundabouts
D 35.1 – 55.0 4.0 seconds or above
C 20.1 – 35.0 6.0 seconds or above
B 10.1 – 20.0 Not Significant
A 0.0 – 10.0 Not Significant
10
2009
Future With- Future With- Significant Development

Links
Development LOS Development Delay Related Impact
Arterial Streets D 0.81 – 0.90 0.04 or above
Local Roads C 0.71 – 0.80 0.04 or above
Ramps B 0.61 – 0.70 Not Significant
Driveways A 0.00 – 0.60 Not Significant
2.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS

According to the guidelines provided in the Traffic Impact Study and Parking design Guidelines by Abu
Dhabi Municipality, operations during peak hours of LOS E or better are considered acceptable.
Approach LOS and movement LOS are also important. If any approach or movement at an intersection is
LOS F, then the intersection is considered to be LOS F. As long as all approaches and movements of the
intersection are at LOS E or better, then the average intersection control delay will be the basis for
determining the LOS.
2.5 HORIZON YEARS TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
The proposed development is expected to be built and opened by the year 2011. A future year analysis
after the full build out will be done for the year 2021. Traffic scenarios presented in this report include:
 Existing conditions (2008),
 Future no-build conditions (2011),
 Opening day conditions using Manual Traffic Distribution (2011),
 Year 2021 No-Build conditions, and
 Full build out plus ten years using Manual Traffic Distribution (2021).
11
2009
CHAPTER 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM
The following describes the existing transportation system in the vicinity of the project .
16th Street – an east-west arterial separated by a median, with no posted speed limit. Each direction has
three lanes. 16th Street serves generally industrial uses in the study area. It is 6.8 kilometers long and
converts into 63rd street just east of the Highway 10 interchange. Within the study area, 16th Street has
roundabout controls at all intersections. Parking is prohibited on both sides of the street in the study area.
14th Street – an east-west arterial separated by a median, with no posted speed limit. Each direction has
two lanes. 14th Street serves generally industrial uses in the study area. It is 6.5 kilometers long and starts
west of 7th Street and cul-de-sacs just west of the Highway 10 as it has no access onto or from the
freeway. Within the study area, 14th Street has roundabout controls at all intersections. Parking is
prohibited on both sides of the street in the study area.
9thth Street – a north-south arterial separated by a median, with no posted speed limit. Each direction has
three lanes. 9th Street serves the various industrial uses in the study area. It is 5 kilometers long and runs
between Street 18 to the south and the 6 th Street to the north. Within the study area, 9th Street has
7thth Street – a north-south arterial separated by a median, with no posted speed limit. Each direction has
three lanes. 9th Street serves the various industrial uses in the study area. It is 6.7 kilometers long and
runs between Street 51 to the south and the 6 th Street to the north. Within the study area, 7th Street has
Access Road # 1 – an east-west local street, with no posted speed limit and no median. Each direction has
one lane at present. It connects the 9th street with 7th street and is 1 kilometer long. This road is the future
primary access to the proposed development along with access from 9 th street and 16th street. The road t-
junctions at both the 9th and 7th streets, with only right-in / right-out movements allowed to / from the
major roads. The road is controlled by stop signs for the right-out movements onto both 9 th and 7th streets.
3.2 DATA COLLECTION
ECIL conducted traffic counts at each study intersection during the a.m. peak period (6:30 to 8:300 a.m.),
afternoon peak period (1:30 – 3:30) and p.m. peak period (6:30 to 8:30 p.m.) in November 2008 for three
consecutive days (Sunday, Monday and Tuesday). Appendix A contains the traffic count sheets. These
12
2009
counts were collected using manual enumerators. The counts were done with turning movements and
several vehicle categories were selected for classification purposes.
3.3 PEAK HOURS
The turning movement counts at the study area intersection were “averaged” for the three weekday counts
at each location and the peak hour was determined as 7:30-8:30 in the morning, 1:30-2:30 in the
afternoon and 6:30-7:30 in the evening. A peak hour is defined as a part of the day during which traffic
congestion on roads and crowding on public transport is worst. Figure 3 below shows the peak hour
counts for the study area intersections.
3.4 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
For the analysis of roundabouts, existing data collected were input into SIDRA, which determines the
delay and Level-Of-Service (LOS) by movement and approach for the roundabouts. SIDRA outputs of
existing conditions for the three peak hours are attached in Appendix B for ready reference. The LOS
results are shown below in Table 3.
Table 3: Existing Conditions LOS and Average Delay per Vehicle
AM Peak MD Peak PM Peak
Intersection Avg Avg Avg

v/h LOS Delay v/h LOS Delay v/h LOS Delay
(sec) (sec) (sec)
RA-1 2,634 B 10.4 2,173 A 8.5 2,328 A 8.1
RA-2 1,755 A 8.9 962 A 6.1 1,154 A 6.5
RA-3 1,166 A 5.0 959 A 4.4 673 A 4.3
RA-4 1,847 A 6.2 1,526 A 7.1 1,558 B 10.2
Ramp (Exit) 3,052 C 1,782 A 2,430 B
Ramp (Entrance) 1,462 C 1,520 C 2,287 D
All intersections operate at acceptable LOS of A and B in the existing (2008) conditions. The individual
movements also operate at LOS A or B for all the intersections. Figure 4 shows the LOS for each
individual movement and the overall LOS for the study time periods.
3.5 LINK ANALYSIS

The link capacity analysis examines the operating conditions of roadway links rather than intersections,
and uses the daily traffic instead of the peak hours. The operating condition is defined by the ratio of link
volume to link capacity, or V/C. The V/C of the different roadway links that would be impacted by the
proposed development’s traffic was calculated for the 2008 existing volumes traffic scenarios.
The maximum daily capacity is calculated to be ten times the maximum hourly capacity, so the threshold
for possible daily capacity is significantly lower than if the roadway was at maximum flow for an entire
13
2009
day. The 2008 link analysis shows that all intersections within the project area can accommodate the site
traffic without exceeding the theoretical capacity of the roadway links. The Abu Dhabi Parking and
Traffic Guidelines suggest the following link capacities for the various classes of roads:
• Expressways and freeways, 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane;

• Arterial streets, 780 vehicles per hour per lane;
• Arterial streets in the CBD, 580 vehicles per hour per lane;
• Local roads, 580 vehicles per hour per lane; and
• Ramps, 1,500 vehicles per hour per lane.
Table 4 below shows the link volumes and the link capacities.
TABLE 4: EXISTING (2008) SEGMENT LINK ANALYSIS

Highest Peak Hourly Classificatio Capacit Number of V /C
Segment
Volume n y Lanes Ratio
16th Street 1317 Arterial 780 3 0.56
9th Street 802 Local 580 3 0.46
Off-Ramp 3052 Ramp 1500 2 1.01
On-Ramp 2287 Ramp 1500 2 0.76
14
2009
INSERT FIGURE 3 (A-3 SIZE)
15
2009
16
2009
CHAPTER 4
NO-BUILD (2011) CONDITIONS
This chapter evaluates the impacts the annual growth rate without the proposed development, thus called
the future year (2011) no-build condition. The ADM provided the consultants with a growth rate of 6.5%
to be used per annum. The existing year (2008) traffic was projected to the year 2011 using this growth
rate. The LOS of the future no-build conditions is given under Table 5 below. The results of the software
analysis are provided in Appendix C of this report.
Table 5: Future Conditions (2011 No-Build) LOS and Average Delay per Vehicle
Intersection LO Avg Delay Avg Delay LO Avg Delay
v/h v/h LOS v/h
S (sec) (sec) S (sec)
RA-1 3,533 F (F) 214.0 3,066 B 12.5 3,241 B 10.5
RA-2 2,523 B 18.3 1,484 A 9.0 1,665 A 6.7
RA-3 1,558 A 4.3 1,291 A 3.8 914 A 3.7
RA-4 2,404 A 5.4 2,027 A 6.8 2,039 B 12.2
Ramp (Exit) 4,453 F 2,600 B 3,546 F
Ramp (Entrance) 2,134 D 2,218 D 3,337 E
As is evident from table 4 above, all of the roundabout intersections except the RA-1 (AM) operate under
acceptable LOS for the intersection as a whole and for the individual movements. The LOS F for the RA-
1 in the AM is primarily attributed to the LOS F experienced by the southbound (left and right)
movements. All other movements are LOS C or better. Since two of the movements experience a LOS F,
the whole intersection is considered to be operating at a LOS F. Figures 5 and 6 below show the peak
hour volumes and LOS results for the individual movements.
4.1 LINK ANALYSIS
TABLE 6: FUTURE (2011) NO-BUILD SEGMENT LINK ANALYSIS

Segment Highest Peak Hourly Classificatio Capacit Number of V /C
17
2009

Off-Ramp 4453 Ramp 1500 2 1.48
On-Ramp 3337 Ramp 1500 2 1.11
18
2009
19
2009
CHAPTER 5
TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION, ASSIGNMENT
5.1 TRIP GENERATION
The trip generation for the proposed development is consisted of warehouses, offices and showrooms.
The showrooms have been further divided into General Retail, Furniture Store and Electronics Store. A
pass-by trip reduction rate of 5% for the showroom components is advised to be utilized for this study.
Further, an internal trips reduction of 10% is suggested to be used for the showroom components. The
Dubai Municipality Trip Generation and Parking Manual was used to project the trips generated by the
proposed site. Tables 7, 8 and 9 below show the results of the trip rates, estimated trips for the adjacent
street and the estimated trips for the peak hour generator, respectively.
Table 7 – Trip Rates
Peak Trip Rates- Adjacent Interna

Street Pass-
Cod Independent Hour of Area Parkin l
Description Source by
e Variable Generato (sqm) g Rates Captur
AM MD PM Trips
r e
Peak Peak Peak
Dubai
Trip
Light Generatio
Industry n and 601 100 sqm GFA 0.22 108,500 0.17 0.12 0.16 0.14 0% 0%
(Non-CBD) Parking
Rates
Manual
Dubai
Trip
Office Generatio
Building n and 203 100 sqm GFA 2.32 16,800 1.94 1.97 1.58 2.23 0% 0%
(Non-CBD) Parking
Rates
Manual
Dubai
Trip
Generatio
General
n and 103 100 sqm GFA 24.77 10,800 1.05 3.43 6.65 2.15 10% 5%
Retail
Parking
Rates
Manual
Dubai
Furniture Trip
110 100 sqm GFA 1.02 21,600 0.35 0.78 0.84 0.58 10% 5%
Store Generatio
n and
20
2009
Parking
Rates
Manual
Dubai
Trip
Generatio
Electronic
n and 111 100 sqm GFA 4.46 21,600 0.35 2.64 2.96 1.73 10% 5%
Store
Parking
Rates
Manual
179,30
Total Gross Floor Area
0
Table 8 – Estimated Trips – Adjacent Street
AM - Peak Hour MD - Peak Hour PM - Peak Hour

TRIP
GENERATION
RATES Ou Ou
Rate In Rate In Rate In Out
t t
Light Industry 64 50 44
0.17 36% 0.12 50% 0.16 56%
(Non-CBD) % % %
Office Building 73 31 29
1.94 27% 1.97 69% 1.58 71%
(Non-CBD) % % %
62 47 52
General Retail 1.05 38% 3.43 53% 6.65 48%
% % %
81 39 52
Furniture Store 0.35 19% 0.78 61% 0.84 48%
% % %
49 48
Electronic Store 0.00 0% 0% 2.64 51% 2.96 52%
% %
AM - Peak Hour MD - Peak Hour PM - Peak Hour

PROJECT Manua Cod Project Total Total Total
Units Ou Ou
TRIPS l e Size Peak In Peak In Peak In Out
t t
Hour Hour Hour
100
Light Industry
Dubai 601 sqm 108,500 184 118 66 130 65 65 174 76 97
(Non-CBD)
GFA
100
Office Building
Dubai 203 sqm 16,800 326 238 88 331 103 228 265 77 188
(Non-CBD)
GFA
100
General Retail Dubai 103 sqm 10,800 113 70 43 370 174 196 718 373 345
GFA
100
Furniture Store Dubai 110 sqm 21,600 76 61 15 168 66 102 181 94 87
GFA
100
Electronic Store Dubai 111 sqm 21,600 0 0 0 570 279 291 639 307 332
GFA
21
2009
1,05
Subtotal 699 487 212 1,570 687 883 1,978 928
0
Internal Trips Reduction @ 10% (Showrooms only) 19 13 6 111 52 59 154 77 76
Total Extrernal Trips 680 474 206 1,459 635 824 1,824 851 974
Pass-by Percentage @ 5% (Showrooms only) 9 6 3 50 23 27 69 35 34
Total Trips 672 468 204 1,409 612 797 1,755 816 939
Table 9 – Estimated Trips – Peak Hour Generator
Peak Hour of Generator

TRIP GENERATION
RATES Rate In Out
Light Industry (Non-CBD) 0.22 54% 46%

Office Building (Non-CBD) 2.32 50% 50%
General Retail 24.77 52% 48%
Furniture Store 1.02 47% 53%
Electronics Store 4.46 51% 49%
Peak Hour of Generator

Cod Projec
PROJECT TRIPS Manual Units
e t Size Total Peak Hour In Out
100 sqm
Light Industry (Non-CBD) Dubai 601 108,500 239 129 110
GFA
100 sqm
Office Building (Non-CBD) Dubai 203 16,800 390 195 195
GFA
100 sqm
General Retail Dubai 103 10,800 2,675 1,391 1,284
GFA
100 sqm
Furniture Store Dubai 110 21,600 220 104 117
GFA
100 sqm
Electronics Store Dubai 111 21,600 963 491 472
GFA
Subtotal 4,487 2,310 2,178

Internal Trips Reduction @ 10% (Showrooms only) 386 199 187
Total External Trips 4,101 2,111 1,990
Pass-by Percentage @ 5% (Showrooms only) 193 99 94
2,01 1,89
Total Trips 3,908
2 7
22
2009
5.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT

Due to industrial nature of this development, it is anticipated that trip attraction to the site will be at the
regional level, providing employment opportunity for surrounding communities as well as people living
in Abu Dhabi. Abu Dhabi ADM provided the consultant with the results of its travels demand model
(attached in Appendix D of this report). A growth rate of 6.5% per annum was provided for no-build
scenarios.
The ADM travel demand model was not used in this analysis. The results of the model showed the future
years (2011 and 2021) volumes at all junctions to be lower than those of the existing counts. Due to this
discrepancy in the model run, it was decided with the Abu Dhabi Department of Transportation (DOT)
that manual trip distribution and assignment shall be carried out for determining the future plus project
conditions for the model years.
Manual trip distribution was carried out to determine the approach of the project generated traffic. It was
assumed that 70% of the project generated traffic shall be utilizing the 16 th street (via the freeway) to
approach the site. This high percentage was selected as the 16 th street access to the freeway is the closest
to the project site, with 16th street being the major access point and normally carries the most traffic in
existing conditions as 16th street is a major arterial. 10% project generated traffic was assumed to be
coming south from 9th street. 5% traffic each was assumed to be approaching the site from westbound 14 th
street, southbound 7th street, northbound 7th street and northbound 9th street. Figure 7 below shows the trip
distribution percentages.
Traffic assignment was based on the basis of ease of vehicular access and creating the most logical route.
Figure 8 and 9 below shows the project traffic assignment percentage and actual volumes. The rationale
behind this assignment was based on the fact that motorists would choose the path most direct to reach
the site and take the most direct route to reach their destination. 16 th street carries most of the
development generated traffic and the proposed site has two entry points on the 16 th street. Two entry
points are located on 9th street and two are located on Access Road 1.
23
2009
24
2009
25
2009
26
2009
CHAPTER 6
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS (2011)
This chapter evaluates the impacts of the proposed project on existing traffic operations in the vicinity of
the project site.
The LOS of the future build conditions (2011) using the manual trip distribution and assignment results is
given under Table 10 below. The results of the software analysis are provided in Appendix E of this
report.
Table 10: Future Conditions (2011 Build) LOS & Average Delay per Vehicle

(sec) (sec) (sec)
RA-1 3943 F 682 4052 F 413 4528 F 458.8
RA-2 2632 D(F) 38.3 1655 B 10.2 1941 B 10.7
RA-3 1624 A 6.0 1492 A 5.1 1153 A 5.1
RA-4 2623 A 7.6 2545 B 15.2 2709 F 466.2
Ramp (Exit) 4781 F 3028 B 4117 F
Ramp (Entrance) 2277 D 2775 D 3994 F
7th St / Access Rd 738 NA* 3.1 759 NA 7.8 926 NA 7.9
9th St / 900 NA 1.9 605 NA 5.3 875 NA 8.0
27
2009
Intersection 8
9th St /
882 NA 0.9 772 NA 2.4 886 NA 3.2
Intersection 9
16th St /
2169 NA 9.2 1997 NA 18.4 2219 NA 23.6
Intersection 10
The results show that the intersection of 16 th street with 9th street exhibit failing LOS in all the three peak
periods. In the AM period, it is the southbound movements (all) experiencing LOS F. During the
afternoon peak period, the left and right turn movements of the southbound direction experience LOS F.
In the evening peak period, the southbound, northbound and the eastbound movements experience LOS
of E or F. The intersection of 14 th street and 9th street also experiences a failing movement (eastbound and
westbound left turns). Figures 10 and 11 show the peak hour volumes and LOS for the individual
movements.
6.1 LINK ANALYSIS

TABLE 11: FUTURE CONDITIONS (2011 BUILD) SEGMENT LINK ANALYSIS

Segment

Off-Ramp 4781 Ramp 1500 2 1.59
On-Ramp 3994 Ramp 1500 2 1.33
28
2009
29
2009
30
2009
CHAPTER 7
FUTURE (2021) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS
This chapter evaluates the impacts the annual growth rate without the proposed development, thus called
the future year (2021) no-build condition. The ADM provided the consultants with a growth rate of 6.5%
to be used per annum. The existing year (2008) traffic was projected to the year 2021 using this growth
rate. The LOS of the future no-build conditions is given under Table 12 below. The results of the
software analysis are provided in Appendix F of this report.
Table 12: Future Conditions (2021 No-Build) LOS and Average Delay per Vehicle

(sec) (sec) (sec)
RA-1 6739 F 2663 5825 F 2662.1 6135 F 2147.5
RA-2 5023 F 1192.1 2909 C(F) 30.9 3351 F 193.3
RA-3 2,918 A 7.6 2,419 A 4.7 1,713 A 4.4
RA-4 4176 C(E) 24.2 4168 F 476.3 3493 F 610.6
Ramp (Exit) 6920 F 4040 F 5510 F
Ramp (Entrance) 3316 F 3447 F 5185 F
The results show that the intersections of 16 th / 9th street, 9th / 14th street, and 16th / 7th streets operate at
unacceptable LOS of F during the peak hour periods. Figures 12 and 13 show the peak hour volumes and
LOS for the individual movements. This failing LOS and long vehicle delays is associated with the
projection of 2008 traffic counts for 13 years at an yearly growth rate of 6.5%.
7.1 LINK ANALYSIS

TABLE 13: FUTURE CONDITIONS (2021 NO-BUILD) SEGMENT LINK
ANALYSIS
Segment

Off-Ramp 6920 Ramp 1500 2 2.31
31
2009
On-Ramp 5185 Ramp 1500 2 1.73
32
2009
33
2009
CHAPTER 8
FULL-BUILD PLUS 10 YEARS CONDITIONS
(2021)
This scenario was analyzed considering the full-build plus 10 years for the method using the manual trip
distribution and assignment as shown above in figures 7, 8 and 9. The LOS of the future build plus 10
years conditions is given under Table 14 below. The results of the software analysis are provided in
Appendix G of this report.
Table 14: Future Conditions (2021 Build) LOS & Average Delay per Vehicle

(sec) (sec) (sec)
RA-1 7133 F 2946.1 6949 F 3376.5 7520 F 3968.7
RA-2 5128 F 1266.3 3129 E 72.1 3627 F 284.7
RA-3 2984 A 9.5 2620 A 6.0 2049 A 5.9
RA-4 4283 D 35.7 4334 F 591.9 3705 F 763.8
Ramp (Exit) 7248 F 4468 F 6081 F
Ramp (Entrance) 3400 F 3782 F 5579 F
7th St / Access
733 NA 2.7 1296 NA 8.1 1106 NA 7.9
Rd
9th St /
1455 NA 2.1 922 NA 4.1 1132 NA 7.2
Intersection 8
9th St /
1435 NA 0.8 939 NA 1.8 1143 NA 2.6
Intersection 9
16th St /
3193 NA 6.3 2539 NA 14.6 2416 NA 2.0
Intersection 10
34
2009
RA-1 and RA-2 are experiencing a LOS of F in all the three time periods analyzed, whereas RA-4
experiences failing LOS during the afternoon and evening peak periods. The turning movement volumes
and LOS are shown in figures14 and 15 below.
8.1 LINK ANALYSIS

TABLE 15: FUTURE CONDITIONS (2021 BUILD) SEGMENT LINK ANALYSIS

Segment

Off-Ramp 7248 Ramp 1500 2 2.42
On-Ramp 5579 Ramp 1500 2 1.86
35
2009
36
2009
37
2009
CHAPTER
9
PARKING AND SITE ACCESS
9.1 PARKING
Parking rates for the proposed development were taken from the Dubai Trip Generation and Parking
Rates Manual. The proposed development layout plan is shown below in Figure 16. The typical cross
sections for the internal roads are shown in figure 17. The parking layout plan is shown in figure 18.
According to the Dubai manual, the total parking requirements based on the Gross Floor Area (GFA) is
1,258 vehicles. Table 16 below shows the parking requirements for each land use code for the proposed
development.
Table 16: Parking Requirements for Various Land Uses
Project Parking
Development Cod Parking
Manual Units Size Rate (per
Types e Numbers
(sqm) 100 sqm)
Dubai Trip
Light Industry (Non- Generation and 100 sqm
601 108,500 0.14 152
CBD) Parking Rates GFA
Manual
Dubai Trip
Office Building (Non- Generation and 100 sqm
203 16,800 2.23 375
CBD) Parking Rates GFA
Manual
Dubai Trip
Generation and 100 sqm
General Retail 103 10,800 2.15 232
Parking Rates GFA
Manual
Dubai Trip
Furniture Store 110 21,600 0.58 125
Parking Rates GFA
Manual
Dubai Trip
Electronics Store 111 21,600 1.73 374
Parking Rates GFA
Manual
1,258
Total Parking Requirements
vehicles
38
2009
The development provides at-grade parking for 1,264 vehicles. This is also the maximum number of
parking spaces that could be provided due to the many design constraints associated with the site. The
total parking, thus is of six extra vehicles as compared to the requirements. The parking plan shows both
parallel and angled parking spaces. The angled parking are at 45 degrees and are located at the periphery
of the proposed development. Angled parking spaces are provided for the reason that the Autoturn
software was utilized to check the turning radii of the vehicles into the lanes and also in the parking
spaces. With the provision of angled parking spaces vis-à-vis perpendicular parking spaces, the parking
has been made possible. Parking is available parallel and at 45 degree angle to the streets. Majority of the
proposed parking is parallel to the streets (874 parking spaces), while the remaining parking spaces are
angled (390). All parking stalls are 7.0 meters in length and 2.6 meters in width.
39
2009
40
2009
41
2009
9.2 INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT

Access management is a systematic approach that balances the flow of traffic with the need to access
properties along the roadway. It helps to preserve roadway capacity, reduces the potential for crashes, and
decreases travel time and congestion. Improving the efficiency of the transportation system and
improving access to properties will provide an environment necessary to have a positive economic effect
on businesses.
Examples of access management techniques include minimum separation distances between driveways
(dependent on speed and sight distance), sharing driveways between businesses, designing parking lots
for efficient internal circulation and sharing them between businesses, accessing multiple businesses
through the use of rear service roads or frontage roads, the use of right turn lanes and right turn
deceleration tapers, and many more. Roundabouts can many times be used to provide a safe, progressive
flow of traffic through otherwise difficult intersections.
The internal circulation at the site is provided by several ingress / egress points as shown in the figure 9
on page 24. For ease of access and to accommodate the truck turning radii, the internal circulation plan is
mostly made one way. One way streets are also provided to provide adequate parking facilities. All roads
except Road No. 5 and Road No. 7 are one-way streets. Figure 18 shows that Roads 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11
and 14 are two lane roads.
For the intersection analysis, two intersections were chosen. One is the intersection of Road 4 with Road
14, while the other is the intersection of Road 4 with road 12. For the turning movements, it was assumed
that 25% of all traffic entering the development site from the 16 th street would make a left turn upon
entering, while 75% of the traffic would go straight onto Road 4. Similarly, it was assumed that 75% of
the traffic going northbound on Road 4 at intersection with Road 12 would make a right while the
remaining 25% would go straight and exit the site from the Access Road 01. These roads were chosen for
being the critical intersections. Table 17 below shows the results of the internal circulation analysis using
SIDRA software.
Table 17: Internal Roads LOS and Average Delay per Vehicle

(sec) (sec) (sec)
Road 4 / Road 14
203 N/A 6.0 354 N/A 7.9 535 N/A 10.4
(2-way Stop)
Road 4 / Road 12
173 A 9.0 306 A 9.7 388 A 9.9
(All-way Stop)
All intersections operate at acceptable LOS of A and B in the internal roads. The individual movements
also operate at LOS A, B or C for all the intersections. It is expected that the proposed roads provide
adequate capacity (580 vehicles / lane / hour) to cater to the demands for internal circulation and parking.
The SIDRA results are provided at the end of Appendix E.
9.2.1 VEHICULAR ACCESS
42
2009
Shared driveways have been encouraged for the development’s internal circulation. The vehicular access
for office personnel and visitors to the showrooms, electronics store and general stores will be provided
via the Access Road 1 at the north end of the proposed development, and from westbound 16 th street on
the south end through internal roads labeled 3, 4, 6 and 8.
9.2.2 DELIVERY, SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
A review of the curb radii of the internal circulation roads shown on the site layout plan indicates they are
sufficient to allow service vehicles, such as a refuse truck, to access the site. The design truck for this
project has been taken as WB-12 (WB-40). See the development layout plan in Figure 19 for the
locations of truck and emergency vehicles, and the regular passenger vehicles’ access routes. Figure 20
shows the autoturn software turning radii analysis for the design vehicle as well as parking maneuvers of
a large car.
The site layout plan shows that roads labeled 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 have minimum widths of 12.5m,
excluding the parallel parking spaces on both sides. Roads in the north-south direction labeled 3, 4, 6 and
8 have access to the Access Road 1 to the north, while access to 16 th street is available to the south of the
development. Entrance by the larger vehicles shall be restricted to the north on Access Road 1, so as not
to impede the flow of traffic on the main arterial 16 th street, while the larger vehicles shall be able to exit
both on Access Road 1 and 16 th street. The emergency vehicles, in addition to the access through Access
Road 1, shall also be able to use the three access points on 16 th street for all entrance / exit maneuvers.
The heavy vehicles shall be restricted on all other internal roads. Adequate pavement markings and
signage shall need to be placed to guide the motorists.
43
2009
44
2009
45
2009
CHAPTER 10
MITIGATION MEASURES
Most of the intersections / individual movements exhibit an acceptable level of service under the existing
conditions and the future no-build (2011) conditions. The Traffic Impact Analysis has identified
recommended improvements for the site, referred to here as mitigation measures, which have been
designed to eliminate or reduce potentially significant transportation/circulation impacts. Some of the
more common mitigation measures could include, but not limited to:
 Adding of a turn lane(s) at intersections,
 Widening of the roads for a longer stretch,
 Signalization of a particular intersection,
 To provide more capacity, storage lengths could be increased,
 Restrict movements at certain intersections during certain times.
Specifically, intersection improvements are required at the following intersections under different
scenarios. These are shown below in Table 18.
Table 18: Intersection Improvements Requirements
Overall Failing Failing
S. Horizon Intersectio Recommended Mitigation Improved
Intersectio Peak Movement
No. Year n Measures LOS
n LOS Hour (LOS F)
A signalized intersection is
2011 No- 16th street / 9th
1
Build street
F AM SBL, SBR provided as a solution to DOT as C
seen in Figure 21.
A signalized intersection is
provided as shown in Figure 22.
2011 16th street / 9th AM, MD,
2
Build street
F
PM
MANY The only movement failing is SBL D/C/C
with a LOS E in the PM peak
period.
Provide right turn slip lanes for
2011 9th street / 14th both EB and WB to ease pressure
3
Build street
D AM EBL, WBL
on the through and left movements B
as shown in Figure 23.
Signalized intersection with a
2011 16th street / 7th dedicated left turn lane for the
4
Build street
F PM WBL
WBL movement as shown in C
figure 24.
Signalized intersection as shown in
Figure 25. However, no solution as
2021 No- 16th street / 9th AM, MD,
5
Build street
F
PM
WB, SB, EB the constraint is 16th street through F/F/F
which the main development
entrance is located at the corner.
2021 No- 9th street / 14th AM, MD, Signalized intersection as seen in
6
Build street
F
PM
F
Figure 25. D/B/C
2021 No- 16th street / 7th AM, MD, Signalized intersection as seen in
7
Build street
F
PM
MANY
Figure 25. C/C/C
See Figure 26. However, no
2021 16th street / 9th AM, MD,
8
Build street
F
PM
F solution due to the project site at F/F/F
the corner.
46
2009
2021 9th street / 14th AM, MD, Signalized intersection as seen in

9
Build street
F
PM
F
Figure 26. D/B/C
2021 16th street / 7th Signalized intersection as seen in
10
Build street
F MD, PM F
Figure 26. C/C/C
The SYNCHRO and SIDRA analysis results of the mitigation measures are shown in Appendix H.
47
2009
48
2009
49
2009
50
2009
51
2009
52
2009
CHAPTER 11
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project located in the Mussafah Industrial Complex is a large multi-use facility, to be
primarily used as a warehouse facility. The parking requirements, however show that the secondary uses,
such as the showrooms, offices and general stores shall be requiring most of the proposed parking spaces.
Adequate parking spaces have been provided in and around the facilities with shared driveways
encouraged. Most of the internal roads are provided with one-way streets due to the large turning radii of
the design vehicle.
This report concludes that impacts on the existing street network system related to the proposed
development are limited to the model year 2021. The intersections start to fail once the 6.5% growth rate
is compounded till the year 2021. Further adding to these high volumes is the development related traffic.
The intersections most affected are the 16 th street / 9th street and the 9th street / 14th streets intersections.
16th / 9th street intersection is the worst affected since 16 th street is an arterial carrying large amounts of
traffic. Any mitigation measure at this intersection is limited since the proposed development is just off
the 16th / 9th street intersection. Mitigation measures for the most affected 16 th street are not viable as this
is the main access point to the proposed development site. Further, the ramps exhibit failing LOS as the
link volumes exceed capacity.
53

Mussafah Industrial Area Revised Final TIS Report December 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mussafah Industrial Area Revised Final TIS Report December 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revised Final Report – Mussafah Industrial Traffic Impact Study December

CHAPTER 10 MITIGATION MEASURES 45

Figure 9: Project Traffic Volumes…………………………………………………………………….

Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (Roundabouts)

A Free Flow (Little or no delay) 0 - 10.0

B Stable flow (Slight delays) > 10.1 and ≤ 20.0

C Stable flow (Acceptable delays) > 20.1 and ≤ 35.0

D Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delays) > 35.1 and ≤ 55.0

E Unstable flow (intolerable delays) > 55.1 and ≤ 55.0

Queuing on minor approaches & not enough

2.2 ANALYSIS SOFTWARE

2.2.1 SIDRA ROUNDABOUT SOFTWARE

F 80.1 and above 2.0 seconds or above

E 55.1 – 80.0 2.0 seconds or above

D 35.1 – 55.0 4.0 seconds or above

C 20.1 – 35.0 6.0 seconds or above

B 10.1 – 20.0 Not Significant

A 0.0 – 10.0 Not Significant

Future With- Future With- Significant Development

Local Roads C 0.71 – 0.80 0.04 or above

Ramps B 0.61 – 0.70 Not Significant

Driveways A 0.00 – 0.60 Not Significant

2.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS

Intersection Avg Avg Avg

RA-1 2,634 B 10.4 2,173 A 8.5 2,328 A 8.1

RA-2 1,755 A 8.9 962 A 6.1 1,154 A 6.5

RA-3 1,166 A 5.0 959 A 4.4 673 A 4.3

RA-4 1,847 A 6.2 1,526 A 7.1 1,558 B 10.2

Ramp (Exit) 3,052 C 1,782 A 2,430 B

Ramp (Entrance) 1,462 C 1,520 C 2,287 D

3.5 LINK ANALYSIS

• Expressways and freeways, 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane;

TABLE 4: EXISTING (2008) SEGMENT LINK ANALYSIS

9th Street 802 Local 580 3 0.46

14th Street 248 Local 580 2 0.21

7th Street 668 Local 580 3 0.38

Off-Ramp 3052 Ramp 1500 2 1.01

On-Ramp 2287 Ramp 1500 2 0.76

INSERT FIGURE 3 (A-3 SIZE)

INSERT FIGURE 4 (A-3 SIZE)

RA-1 3,533 F (F) 214.0 3,066 B 12.5 3,241 B 10.5

RA-2 2,523 B 18.3 1,484 A 9.0 1,665 A 6.7

RA-3 1,558 A 4.3 1,291 A 3.8 914 A 3.7

RA-4 2,404 A 5.4 2,027 A 6.8 2,039 B 12.2

Ramp (Exit) 4,453 F 2,600 B 3,546 F

Ramp (Entrance) 2,134 D 2,218 D 3,337 E

TABLE 6: FUTURE (2011) NO-BUILD SEGMENT LINK ANALYSIS

Volume n y Lanes Ratio

INSERT FIGURE 5 (A-3 SIZE)

INSERT FIGURE 6 (A-3 SIZE)

Peak Trip Rates- Adjacent Interna

Table 8 – Estimated Trips – Adjacent Street

AM - Peak Hour MD - Peak Hour PM - Peak Hour

AM - Peak Hour MD - Peak Hour PM - Peak Hour

Table 9 – Estimated Trips – Peak Hour Generator

Peak Hour of Generator

Light Industry (Non-CBD) 0.22 54% 46%

Peak Hour of Generator

Subtotal 4,487 2,310 2,178

5.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT

INSERT FIGURE 7 (A-3 SIZE)

INSERT FIGURE 8 (A-3 SIZE)

INSERT FIGURE 9 (A-1 SIZE)