The URL can be used to link to this page

021-24 (RezFruitHill(EquusCapitalPartnersLTDDTSLC&WilliamMinor)) .�w DENIAL ACTION Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: September 4, 2024 Recommended Adoption BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: September 25, 2024 DENIED AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING 06-24 FOR FRUIT HILL (EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., DTS, LC AND WILLIAM O. MINOR) WHEREAS, REZONING 06-24 for FRUIT HILL (EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., DTS, LC AND WILLIAM O. MINOR) was submitted to rezone 220.06+/- acres which consist of 189.08+/- acres front RA (Rural Areas) District to MI (Light Industrial) District, 10.34+/- acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, and 20.64+/- RA (Rural Areas) District to TM (Technology-Manufacturing) District with proffers. The property located at 384 Ruebuck Lane, 1420 Rest Church Road and southwest comer of intersection of Rest Church Road and Zachary Ann Lane and identified by Property Identification Numbers 33-9-1A, 33-A-89 and 33-A-90 in the Stonewall Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on September 4, 2024 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on September 25, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare; MOTION TO DENY CARRIED this September 25, 2024, by the following recorded vote: Josh Ludwig, Chairman Aye John Jewell No Heather H. Lockridge No Robert W. Wells No Blaine P. Dunn Aye Robert Liero Aye Judith McCann-Slaughter Aye A COPY ATTEST r Michael L. Bollhoefer Frederick County Ad nistrator Res No 021-24 REZONING#06-24 FRUIT HILL (EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS,LTD.,DTS,LC AND WILLIAM O. MINOR) Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: September 18,2024 Staff Contact: John A. Bishop,AICP,Assistant Planning Director Executive Summary: Meeting Schedule Planning Commission: September 4, 2024 Action: Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: September 25, 2024 Action: Pending Property Information Property Identification Number PIN 33-9-1A, 33-A-89 and 33-A-90 Address 384 Ruebuck Lane, 1420 Rest Church Road and southwest corner of intersection of Rest Church Road and Zachary Ann Lane. Magisterial District Stonewall Acreage +/- 220.06-acres Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RA(Rural Areas) Land Use:Agricultural Proposed Zoning M 1 (Light Industrial) +/-189.08 Acres B2 (General Business) +/- 10.34 Acres TM (Technology-Manufacturing) +/-20.64 acres Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use North: RA Rural Areas Land Use: Residential South: RA Rural Areas Land Use:Agri cultural/Resi denti al East: M1 (Light Industrial)B3 (Industrial Land Use: Diesel sales/repair/truck stop Transition West: RA Rural Areas Land Use: Residential Proposal To rezone 220.06+/- acres which consist of 189.08+/- acres from RA(Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial)District, 10.34+/-acres from RA(Rural Areas)District to B2 (General Business)District, and 20.64+/-RA(Rural Areas)District to TM(Technology-Manufacturing)District with proffers. Positives Concerns Page 2 of 13 1. Significant commercial/industrial 1. The predominant proposed use development in an area envisioned for (approximately 85%)is uses within that category. warehousing/distribution,which is not 2. Implementation of the County's first a true mix under the vision for Mixed example of the revised TM Zoning Used Industrial Office as designated in District. the Northeast Land Use Plan. 3. Upgrades to Ruebuck Lane. Warehousing is not an EDA targeted 4. Implementation of Comprehensive Industry. planned north south connector 2. The transportation proffers, while roadway. significant, do not fully offset impacts. Specifically, at the I-81 ramp due to significant uncertainty of federal timelines and requirements. Review A2ency Comments: Review Agency Comment Comment Summary Status Date Frederick County (FC) October 23, Please see attached email from former Addressed County Attorney 2022 County Attorney Rod Williams. Virginia Department of February 14, Please see attached Fruit Hill Property TIA Transportation 2023 TIA Review from VDOT dated comments (VDOT) August 8, 2022, and February 14, addressed 2023. FC Public Works June 6, 2022 No comments at this time. Historic Resources July 25, 2022 Please see attached letter from Wyatt Addressed Advisory Board Pearson, Director of Planning. FC Fire Marshal May 26,2022 "Any and all future development shall Addressed comply with the Frederick County Fire Prevention Code." Frederick Water Frederick Water has reviewed the Addressed proffers ("7. WATER and SEWER") which captures the developer's commitment to fund and construct the necessary water and sewer infrastructure to serve the site's water and sewer demands. The proffers also commit to install SCADA at the Woodbine and VDOT sanitary pump stations and provide future easements to facilitate water and sewer service in the Cedar Hill and Hopewell Roads area. Frederick Water supports the proposed rezoning application with the referenced proffer statement. Page 3 of 13 Virginia Department of May 31, 2022 Public water and sewer connection Addressed Health (VDH) available. No comments. Planning & Zoning Staff Analysis: Site History: The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester, VA Quadrangle) identifies the majority of the subject property as being zoned A-2 (Agriculture General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding zoning map resulted in the re-mapping of this portion of the subject property and all other A-I and A-2 rezoned land to the RA District. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that serves as the Community's guide for making decisions regarding development,preservation,public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is an essence of compositions of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. The Area Plans,Appendix I of the Comprehensive Plan, are the primary implementation tool and will be instrumental to the future planning efforts of the County. Land Use The Comprehensive Plan adopted on November 10, 2021, and more specifically the Northeast Land Use Plan(NELUP)updated on September 27, 2023, designates the properties in question as Mixed-Use Industrial\Office. The proposal is not fully in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as it does not meet the intent of the Mixed-Use Industrial\Office designation. The vast majority of the proposal (85.9%)is proposed to be designated light industrial with an intended use of warehousing (Not a Frederick County EDA targeted industry),thus not providing a true mixing of uses, and in turn not meeting the stated intent of the zoning ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. For further reference, the Comprehensive Plan includes other area plans that speak to this same future land use category and provides clarity as it relates to targets and goals for properties with this land use designation. These descriptions are in keeping with the intent of the land use designation as outlined in the zoning ordinance. Transportation and Site Access The Comprehensive Planned Road network for this property includes a north/south collector road as well as a connection to Zachary Anne Lane. The applicant has proffered a number of transportation improvements detailed within the proffers below. Page 4 of 13 Proffer Statement, Generalized Development Plan (GDS), & Impact Analysis: The proffer statement, dated July 19, 2024,proposes the following: Proffer Staff Comment 1. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE Staff Note: The predominant proposed use PROPERTY approximately 85%) is warehousing/distribution, which is not a true 1.1.The subject Property shall be developed in mix under the vision for Mixed Used substantial conformance with the GDP Industrial Office as designated in the and shall be designed to establish Northeast Land Use Plan. Warehousing is not interconnected Land Bays in conformance an EDA targeted Industry. with the said GDP, and as is specifically set forth in these Proffers. Upon submission of final site or subdivision plans, minor changes and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions and location of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features as shown on the GDP, provided they meet the intent of these Proffers and are approved by the Director of Planning. 1.2.The following uses shall be prohibited on the portion of the Property zoned M1, as shown on the GDP: 1.2.1. Offices and storage facilities for building construction contractors, heavy construction contractors and special trade contractors 1.2.1. Transportation by air 1.2.2. Dry cleaning plants 1.2.3. Automotive repair shops 1.2.4. Welding repair 1.2.5. Agricultural equipment repair 1.2.6. Boiler cleaning and repair 1.2.7. Cesspool cleaning 1.2.8. Farm machinery and tractor repair 1.2.9. Industrial truck repair 1.2.10. Motorcycle repair service Page 5 of 13 1.2.11. Septic tank cleaning service 1.2.12. Sewer cleaning service 1.2.13. Tank and boiler cleaning service 1.2.14. Tank truck cleaning service 1.2.15. Residential uses accessory to allowed business uses 1.2.16. Industrial launderers 1.2.17. Truck or fleet maintenance facilities 1.3. The Applicant may develop that portion of the Property to be rezoned to TM, as depicted on the GDP, with up to 300,000 sq. ft. of data center only, as permitted in TM districts.All other uses permitted by-right or by conditional use permit are prohibited on that portion of the Property rezoned to the TM District. 1.4. The Applicant may develop only one hotel with a maximum of 100 rooms (ITE Use Group 310), and no more than 5,000 gross sq. ft. of Restaurant (ITE Use Group 932) on that portion of the Property to be rezoned to the B2 District,as depicted on the GDP, and no other uses that are otherwise permitted in that District by right or by conditional use permit.These permitted uses may be in one structure, or in two separate structures, in compliance with relevant Frederick County Ordinances. 1.5. On that portion of the Property to be rezoned to the M1 District, as depicted on the GDP, the Applicant may construct not more than 2,125,500 gross sq. ft. of Warehousing (ITE Use Group 150), as depicted on the GDP, and in compliance with relevant Frederick County Ordinances,of which not more than 300,000 square feet may Page 6 of 13 be High Cube Cold Storage Warehousing (ITE Use Group 157). 1.6. With the exception of (i) the uses that are prohibited in Proffers 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, and (ii) the limitations on High Cube Cold Storage Warehousing in Proffer 1.5, above, the Applicant may develop the Property with any other use permitted by right or conditional use permit (upon the approval of such a permit by the Board of Supervisors) in the M1 District, subject, however, to the following requirements: 1.6.1.If the Applicant elects to develop the M1 Property with any permitted use that results in a higher net new trip generation from the Property than that shown in the "Transportation Impact Analysis for the Fruit Hill Property," prepared by Kittelson and Associates, dated January 2023 (the "TIA"), then as part of the conditional use permit or site plan approval process for those uses, the Applicant shall submit an updated TIA to the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"). Subject to County and VDOT approval of the updated TIA, and the Applicant shall mitigate any additional impacts caused by such additional trips. 1.6.2.In determining whether the uses collectively have an increased traffic impact for purposes of Proffers 1.6.1, the Applicant may use actual traffic counts for then existing uses on the Property in lieu of the estimates Page 7 of 13 that were employed in the TIA, for determining background traffic at the time of site plan submission. 2. COMMUNITY DESIGN No comment. 2.1.Perimeter landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with the GDP.All new landscaping/plantings shall be indigenous species,native to Virginia. 2.2.The Applicant shall construct a 6-foot landscaped berm along the Property's boundary with lots in the Carrollton Subdivision and the Ridgeway Estates Subdivision in accordance with the details thereof on the GDP. Where no berm is provided adjacent to RA zoned parcels,the Applicant shall preserve existing vegetation not more than 75 feet from the perimeter property line to serve as a natural buffer or increase the building setback to 200 feet, as depicted on the GDP. 3. TRANSPORTATION Staff Note: Staff would note the lack of proffer for improvements to the I-81 NB exit 3.1. The Applicant shall dedicate all lands ramp onto Rest Church Road which is proposed to be dedicated to the County or identified as a need in the applicant's traffic to VDOT, as instructed by the Director or impact analysis. Planning, as they are depicted on the approved GDP,within 60 days of a written request from the County therefore. 3.2.The Applicant shall relocate Zachary Ann Lane as generally depicted on the GDP so as to connect with a new road (hereinafter "Fruit Hill Road") as that new road is generally depicted on the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan's Transportation Map, and as generally shown on the GDP. The Applicant shall construct that portion of Fruit Hill Road within the boundaries of the Property, also as generally shown on the GDP. Fruit Hill Road shall be built Page 8 of 13 within a 104-foot right-of-way and shall consist of two lanes with a single 10-foot paved trail, with required turn lanes. 3.3.The Applicant shall construct a westbound left turn lane with at least 200 feet of storage and a 200-foot taper on Rest Church Road at its connection with Fruit Hill Road. 3.4.The Applicant shall apply to abandon, or cause to be abandoned, (i) that portion of Ruebuck Lane immediately past the southern boundary of County Parcel Map Pin 33-(5)-24, and (ii) that portion of Zachary Ann Lane no longer required after relocation of its entrance and connection to Rest Church Road. 3.5. The Applicant shall dedicate an additional 25 feet of right-of-way along the western property line for Ruebuck Lane, from its revised terminus to Rest Church Road, as depicted on the GDP. It shall further install a 55-foot cul-de-sac or a hammerhead turnaround at the terminus of Ruebuck sufficient to permit emergency and other vehicles to effect a safe turn around, at a location outside the floodplain and past the last residential driveway on Ruebuck. The design and location of the turnaround shall be finalized during site plan review.The Applicant shall further,at its expense, pave Ruebuck Lane and improve the existing sight distance issues at its intersection with Macbeth Lane to a standard appropriate for a low volume road in the VDOT Rural Rustic Road Program, from its intersection with Rest Church Road south to the aforementioned cul-de- sac or turnaround. Such dedication shall be made concurrently with the approval of plans for the improvement of Ruebuck Lane. 3.6.The Applicant shall construct at its Page 9 of 13 expense the improvements at the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road that are identified in the TIA (the "Route 11 Improvements"), in accordance with these proffers. Upon the approval of this Rezoning, the Applicant shall, within six months thereafter,prepare plans for the Route 11 Improvements for review by VDOT and the County, and such other agencies as may be required, and upon approval of those plans and the issuance of the necessary construction permits, proceed forthwith to construct the Route 11 Improvements. 3.7.All proffered road improvements to be constructed by the Applicant except the Route 11 Improvements, and those phases of Fruit Hill Road as are established at the time of site plan approval, shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for any building on the Property; provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Applicant will dedicate all of the right-of- way for Fruit Hill Road within 60 days of a written request of the County therefore, and provided further that the ultimate location of Fruit Hill Road may be adjusted for final engineering. 3.8.No entrances to the Property, other than the connection with Fruit Hill Road, as shown on the GDP, shall be permitted onto Rest Church Road or Ruebuck Lane. 3.9.All public roads shall be constructed to VDOT standards and subject to the approval of VDOT and Frederick County. 3.10. For the purposes of these Proffers, "completion" of a public road improvement shall mean when a road or improvement thereto is open to traffic, but may not have yet been accepted into the Page 10 of 13 State Secondary System of Highways for maintenance. Nothing herein shall override or contravene any subdivision monetary guarantee requirements for acceptance of public road improvements. 3.11. The Applicant shall provide appropriate sight distance at the intersection of Ruebuck Lane and Rest Church Road, as generally depicted on the Transportation Plan element of the Generalized Development Plan. 3.12. The Applicant shall contribute its pro rata share of the cost of installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Fruit Hill Road and Rest Church Road when a signal warrant is authorized for such installation. The Applicant's pro-rata share of that cost shall be equal to its then proportionate share of the then total vehicle trips at that intersection less Rest Church Road through trips. Such costs shall be determined by the actual construction costs of the signal, or by VDOT's then current unit price list if not already constructed and shall be paid in accordance with a signalization agreement with VDOT. 4. SIGNAGE No comment The Applicant shall be limited to a single monument sign for the M-1 portion of the Property and a single monument sign for the B-2 portions of the Property at its entrance along Rest Church Road, conforming to the applicable provisions of § 165-201.06 of the Zoning Ordinance, as shown on the GDP; provided that this shall not preclude each owner or tenant of a building from installing signs, internal to the site, conforming to the provisions of § Page 11 of 13 165-201.06 (G) and (H) of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. LIGHTING No comment 5.1 All outdoor lighting shall be compatible, and harmonious throughout the Property. Fixtures shall be similar in style. Lighting shall be mounted at a height that is relative to the property line such that it is no taller than its horizontal distance from the nearest property line, but in no case shall it be placed more than 25' above grade. Any luminaire situated within 50' of any property line shall be oriented perpendicular to and faced away from that property line so as not to cause trespass onto an adjacent property in excess of 0.1 footcandles onto a residential use, or 0.5 footcandles onto any other property. All luminaires shall meet an up-light rating of UO (that is zero up-light) according to the Luminaire Classification System (LCS), as developed and maintained by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). They shall be oriented with the central beam pointed straight down and shall otherwise conform to the requirements of the County's Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a photometric plan as part of the final site plan process demonstrating the minimization of off-site lighting impacts. 6. FIRE AND RESCUE No comment 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of$150.00 per 1,000 gross square feet of constructed building as depicted on each final site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each structure built on the Property. 7. WATER AND SEWER No comment Page 12 of 13 7.1. The Property shall be served with public water and public sewer. At its expense, the Applicant shall design and construct all on-site and off-site improvements necessary to provide service for the demand generated by development on the Property in accordance with applicable Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("Frederick Water"), Frederick County, and Virginia laws, ordinances, and regulations. 7.2. The Applicant will install at its expense SCADA systems as approved by Frederick Water at the Woodbine and VDOT pump stations to enable them to be monitored and pumps cycled on-off in an efficient manner, to accommodate the flows generated by the development. 7.3. The Applicant will grant the necessary easements at no cost to the County or Frederick Water to facilitate the north- south flow of water, the location of which easements shall generally follow the eastern property lines of the Property, with the purpose of ultimately extending to Cedar Hill and Hopewell Roads. The location of these easements will be established as part of the site plan process. 8. CULTURAL RESOURCES No comment INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 8.1. The Applicant shall conduct, or cause to be conducted, an Architectural Resources Study of the Property prior to the approval of the first final site plan for the Property. A Phase II study will be conducted to examine further the interiors and building materials in the Lewis- Solenber er and Cather Houses. 9. ESCALATOR No Comment In the event the monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement are paid to Page 13 of 13 Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant,said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement which are to be paid to the County shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date twenty four (24) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid, or six per cent(6%)per year, whichever is less. Previous Application Actions: This item(previously rezoning 10-22)was heard by the Planning Commission and a public hearing held on 4/19/23. At that time the Planning Commission noted their areas of concern which primarily dealt with traffic and particularly the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road. The applicant noted their willingness to adjust the proffers, and the rezoning was postponed until the 5/17/2023 meeting. This item was then reviewed again with updated proffers on 5/17/2023 and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with a note that the Board direct staff to address the remaining elements of the TIA that were unaddressed. The item was subsequently not heard by the Board of Supervisors due to being withdrawn by the applicant and has now been refiled with minor changes to the form that the Planning Commission saw it on 5/17/23. Planning Commission Summary &Action from the 9/4/24 Meeting: Following the staff presentation the Planning Commission sought clarification on vested rights for a potential data center, trip generation in the M1 portion of the rezoning and how additional trips beyond those studied in the TIA were addressed in the proffers, and the pro rata share calculations for the potential signal at the intersection of Rest Church Road and future Fruit Hill Road. Following the Planning Commission meeting, staff sent out additional clarification that rights under the ordinance are not vested until a site plan is approved and even then, that site plan must be enacted within 5 years to avoid having to incorporate new ordinances that may have been adopted since the original site plan approval. Following the public hearing,the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of rezoning 906-24. Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a decision by the Board of Supervisors on this Rezoning application. • , : Fruit Hill • 1 Rezoning from RA to M1, RA to B2, and RA to OM Location • • DR STAYMAN 1135 �3`0"bl 185 • ,.. 163 -KURD 1287 12991 * /I. ALEUD STAYMAN'DR ^� *JON:4THANDR p,,r 201 ._1221 CHURCH RD .CHURCH RD `180 f'� MARi1D • _ <�.. ROME DR 159 JONATHAN DR Y171 CHUR H RD " 1226 162 ,STAYMAN DR 1745 REST RES, PiROMEDR 1109��RE�CH\URCH RD _CHURCRD. ); �42 QST CHURCHIRD 1214 � CHRRE� URCHRD. F REST CHURCH'RD0 3 ROME CHURCH RD 1y1 8 ' 1176 <.. i 4 3�1A _ X81 .MARi1N 129 REST 1130 REST ROEBUCK LN ESi�� " CHURCH RD RESTJx A CHURCH RD 4663. 'CHIRD'' CHURCH RD 1076 •• -•1 MARTINSBURG F l�jl RESi CHURCH RD -�1 160 �• s - - -� - ST - REST ==1530 -6l �H RD 1062' CHURCH RD 172 _ RESi—= - X88 RESi RE E '00 1188 RUEBUCKLN CHURCH-RD ESi CHURCH RD RREST _ - - 462 !CH RD 1090 CHURCH RD 1,146 CHURCH RD I\\..S - MARTIN 1018`m 1'qb REQ �i REST 2243 ` 33 A 90 CHURCH RD RUEBUCK LN• 4$ 0 RESPCHURCH RD REST CHURCH RD - A •.��W. MARi1NSl 'CHURCHRD' 1102 33 90 'F 191REST . 1. - ;' . PIKE RE 1034 CHURCH RD MAACBETH LN 160 33 A 90 4586` Si REST 209�I - MACBETH LN � �' MARTINSBUF IRCH RD '10�0;CHURCH RD •4 M • MACBETH LN] 4547 16CHURCHRD •• • -1280 MARTINSBURG 4552 !EST 191 RUEBUCK LN PIKE,. RCH RD.. MACBETH LN 279 r MARTINSBURG 16 " -•265 ZACHARY 4535 MACBETH LN 160 - ANNLN MARTINSBURG PIKE CH RDD P 209. - MACBETH LN 81 _.� +' 291 MACBETH LN 4504 fn 337 = 321 MA�NSBURG 491 MARPIKEBURC MACBETH LN MACBETH LN'" .. *Y5 /, _ _ - MACBETH,LN - ZACHARY PIKE 4481 Y ANN LN' MARTINSBURG 36, PIKE MACBETH LN 309 � 4462 MACBETH LN '+. - AAA 445MARTINSBURG 367 MARTINSBURG.PIKE PIKE MACBETH LN - _ -^ 8128 y _ MACBETH LN i _ ARTINSINS URG - MA URG,PIKE MB 9 y _ -4441 PIKE 4412 IETH LN lNARTINSBURG PIKE MARTINSBURG 33 A 89 4392 PIKE 529 MARTINSBURGOKE TIMBERLAKES LN '351 ZACHARY[# ,�'• " ..,_',,, MARTINSBURG t�.'S1! •,; ;.. .;�„� -< - ANN LN” PIKE 4317 MARTINSBURG --a """ MARTINSBURG PIKE 381 • MARTINSBURG JOLINE DR 4273 'PIKE HAUPTMAN Ci ' 141 209 • fia �" 375 ! "1; 4282=• HAUPTMAN Ci HAUPTM�AN�Ci JOUNE DR:; '� � '3� }ys. 36� 382 �� ♦ I•=,"�� '�' JOLINE DR JOLINE DR .,, _a,- � I� __ • ay ' '-.332 / ' .• •• i/ . �., 343� 378 - THISTLELN" M HAUPTMAN'Ci�'" JOLINEDR �, � 201 • • ``„' , -- - ,� . ;,�;.. • LINNE DR � JOL ` 193 DR JOLINE DR 215 �� 320 JOLINE DR "'""'` JOLI l¢ti 1'NE DR - • 1123 7 MARTINS 1 .�/ ■ � JOLINE DR .' •, 286 PIKE ? rTl��p! 120 260 JOLINE DR •• • '�.. •,© JOLINEDR 196 210 232 • , : Fruit Hill • 1 Rezoning from RA to M1, RA to B2, and RA to OM Long Range Land Use Map SiAYMAN DR d ,- '.. 135' "• •� •..,•°...•-�/� � �� 3`0'Y 185 • �• , 163 RUEBUCK�RD V 1287J• 129�� / // ///��/ RCHARD r- STAYMAN'DR s,• <JONATFIANDR s" REST �RCHRD� � )ALETDR 1221 CHURCH RD a°4Z MARTIt R62 E 7AYMAN DR �..•1 �RE� CHURCH RD REST�� ,,. .• ._...,,, �I '' Pi ROMEiDR 1109 REST CHURCH RD CHURCH�RD CHURCH12,14 ROME DR10�3.. CHURCH RD��33 REST CHURCH RD t=: REST CH RD. 33 I lA MARi Es' )2 9 CHINCH URCH�RD ,1089 1130 1 1176 130 (. $1. . IM REST �F RUEBUCK LN ESi CHURCH RD RESTV, 1'`'^CHURCH RD 4663 'CH RD'• 1076 CHURCH OR ••�• MARi1NSBURG F RESiRCH RD 1160 '� ST "t '.;_ k REST 1530 �H RD 1062° CHURCH RD 172 REST 1Bt� X88 REST 1120 0 1188 RUEBUCK LN �I. CHURCH RD H RD CHH RD RE REST �2 REST UR H RD 6 CHURCH RD 224 /' MARTINSBL REST 1046 CHURCH RD RUEBUCK LN• 33 A,90 _/ �460G RESPCHURCH RD,REST CHURCH RD . 'CHURCH RD'°`. 1102 33 A.90 ,MARTIN51 REST 191 r / PIKE L::6 1034 CHURCH RD 209 M�A+CBETH LN 160 33 A 9,0 f !�458� REST REST - ' MACBETH LN MARTINUBUF IRCH RD '10�0;CHURCH RD • • MACBETH LN 4547 164` .REST•° -1280 MARWS15URG 552 CHURCH RD •• • iM ?EST 191 RUEBUCK LN i ARTMSBURG PIKES RCH RD MACBETH LN - 279 ��j 535 BU 16. -.265 ZACHARY //i.:..i i .• MACBETH LN - 160 ANN LN 181 1ARTMBURI/�,PI„KE�� 209. MACBETHoLN / CH RD ail 291... P MACBETH LN 4491 337 MARTINSBURC MACBETH LN 253 321 MARTINSBURG %� PIKE MACBETH LN MACBETH LN ZACHARY PIKE 87�� s��/// 361 `/ ANN LN �MARi1N56URG� %// mow. ' M 368ETH LN / _ MACBETH LN � / 455 � %.iM=RiINSBURG iMARi1NSBURG'PIKE I� SPIKE 371 MACBETH LN M Ri1N5 URG/ M 1NSBURG�PIKE IETH LN MARTINSBURG'PIK ,•."— '�� MARi1N56URG i 529 Y ��MARi1NSBURG�P,IKEJ TIMBERLAKES LN 1 ZACHARY / =ARTINSBURG `.;•d ANN LN iii PIKE' 010 MARTINSBURG/ MARTINSBURG j PIKE i� iMARiINSBURG HAUPiMAN Ci -"` wzov JOLINE DR 4273 141 HAUPTMAN Ci HAUPIINAN CT JOLINE DR O 367 JOLINE DR 332 343 • ,124 378 iHISiLE LN M HAUPTMAN CT m JOLINE t 20'..#"K"$t� +. 352 /� •�`` ,`,,``„' IV ' JOLINE DR " 193 mn 320: JOLINE.DR JOLINE DR •- 4123. MARTINS 286 PIKE �•�' ��Gp J ■ 0 JOLINE DR • V� To be completed by Planning Leff.` Fee Amount Paid 5013-t-0 ,,`` Zoning Amendment Number O t- o14 Anticipated PC Hearing Date `t Date Received Anticipated BOS Hearing Date REZONING APPLICATION FREDERICK COUNTY,VA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Property Owner(s) (please attach additional page(s) if more than two owners): Name: DTS LC Specific Contact Person if Other than Above: Diane Kearns_ Address: 760 Echo Lane, PO Box 2368, Winchester, VA 22604-1568 Telephone: Email: d Name: Specific Contact Person if Other than Above: Address: Telephone: Email: 2. Other Applicant Party(such as a contract purchaser) (please attach additional page(s) if necessary): Name: Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. (contract purchaser) Specific Contact Person if Other than Above: Dan DiLella Jr. Address: 3843 West Chester Pike, Newton Square, PA 19703 Telephone: _ Email: dmdilella@equuspartners.com 3. Law firm, engineering firm,or other person, if any, serving as the primary contact person for this application: Firm Name: Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh, PC Specific Contact Person at Firm: John Foote, Esq. Address: 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300, Woodbridge, VA 22192 Telephone: 703-680-4664 Email: Jfoote@thelandlawyers.com Please note that, if a law firm, engineering firm, or other person, other than the owner of the property, will be acting on behalf of the owner and/or executing papers on behalf of the owner in connection with the rezoning, the owner will need to execute a power of attorney form granting the firm or person such authority. 15 4. Project Name(if any): Fruit Hill Rezoning 5. Property Information: a. Property Identification Number(s): 33 9 1A; 33 A 89; 33 A 90 b. Total acreage of the parcel(s): 220.06 acres c. Total acreage of parcel(s) to be rezoned (if other than whole parcel(s) is being rezoned): d. Current zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: RA e. Proposed zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: M1 (189.08 acres); B2 (10.34 acres); TM (20.64 acres) f. Magisterial District(s): Stonewall g. Location -the property is located at(give street address(es) if assigned or otherwise exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): 33 9 1A: Southwest corner of intersection of Rest Church Road and Zachary Ann Lane 33 A 89: 384 Ruebuck Lane 33 A 90: 1420 Rest Church Road h. Adjoining Properties: Parcel 1D Number Use Zoning Please see attached. Please attach additional page(s) if necessary. Property identification numbers, magisterial districts, and deed book and page numbers/ instrument numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601. 16 6. Disclosure of real parties in interest. Virginia Code § 15.2-2289 provides that localities may by ordinance require any applicant for a zoning amendment to make complete disclosure of the equitable ownership of the real estate to be affected including, in the case of corporate ownership, the name of stockholders, officers, and directors, and in any case the names and addresses of all real parties of interest. Frederick County has, by County Code § 165-101.09, adopted such an ordinance. For each business entity that is an owner or contract purchaser of the property, please list the name and address of each person owning an interest in, or who is an officer or director of, any entity that is an owner or contract purchaser of the property (you need not indicate the amount or extent of the ownership interest). Please note that this requirement does not apply to a corporation whose stock is traded on a national or local stock exchange and having more than 500 shareholders. Please attach additional page(s) if necessary. 7. Checklist. Please check that the following items have been included with this application: ✓❑ Location Map 0✓ Plat Depicting Metes/Bounds of Proposed Zoning �✓ Impact Analysis Statement ❑✓ Proffer Statement(if any) ❑✓ Agency Comments �✓ Fee ❑✓ Copies of Deed(s)to Property(ies) ❑✓ Tax Payment Verification ❑✓ Digital copies (pdf's) of all submitted items 17 8. Signature(s): I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we)authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my(our)knowledge. Owner: c-,'' _V- Date L If signing on behalf of an entity, please state name of entity and your title: Owner: _ _- • _ Li 41•% i Date If signing on behalf of an entity, please state name of entity and your title: Other Applicant Party(if any): = Date If signing on behalf of an entity, please state name of entity and your title: If additional signature lines are necessary, such as if more than two persons are owners, please use additional copies of this page. 18 8. Signature(s): I (we),the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we)hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our)knowledge. Owner: Date If signing on behalf of an entity, please state name of entity and your title: Owner: Date If signing on behalf of an entity, please state name of entity and your title: Other Applicant Party (if aif�i. Date ll If signing on behalf of an entity, please state name of entity and your title: � Q If additional signature lines are necessary, such as if more than two persons are owners, please use additional copies of this page. 18 AF-11Hill RevkwedJM 33..3034 _ PIN _':�:1.:..Addrtse lame �Onur Addsev O..eer Admeae _ _ _ L'u 3391 1530RESTCHL'RCHRD PFISOUTHEASTL.0 _ ;5508 LON:SDR KNOXVILLE.TN37M3221 03 3394 0ZACHARY ANN IN DKOTA L, ESJTIENTSNC •48"LEMNON AVE,STIR 622 DAIL3S.TX 752191400 03 VACANT-COMMERCIAL l?95 J2IZACHIARYA.NNLN PROFFSSION`ALHO.MFS.MC PO BOX 1091 WINCHESTER VA 2 36 01 10 9 1 B3 �cpeO,o-nC1AI _ ?J 96 J5I ZACHARYANNLN FKIUNT SINAI PROPERTIES-WTNCHESTFB III 1330 LYNCHBURG TURNPIKE SAIEMVA211535116 MI�Su,LL ?J A38JJ2 THISTLL IN GRAY DAVIDK&GRAYBRENDAS 332 THISTLE CLEAR_N CLR BROOK,VA 22Q4 1563 SRA DWELLING 331224 911 A —Na oo 1, FAIRF1E1DFARMOFFREDFRIC11COLlC 1767 CEDAR HBL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 2262 1557 RA VACANT 331214 "1 JOIB'EDR DICKERSON DANIELL&DICKERSON JOY 361 JOLNE DA CLEARBROOK.VA 2262416M RA DWELLING 331215 3]S JOLI'EDR SINIPKNS CALVIN&SIMPKNS BETH 2HIGHVIEWDR MAURERTOWN VA 226N 2616 RA VACANT 331216 b]JOLINEDR KERNS RUSSELL E&KERNS KATHERINE L 367)DUNE DR CLEAR BROOK VA 2262416M RA DWELJNG 33121] 313 JO1INE DA NADAGAN DOUGLAS A JR&MADAGAN LEANNA U MBOX 311 STEPHMSON.VA226560311 RA DWELLING 13A 180 209 HAUPTMAN CT MCNERNEYMICHAFI,T&MC.N'ERNEYBEIYI _ _ 2WHAUPTMANCf CLEAR BROOK.VA 226241679 RA DWELLING 33A 18A __529TLMMRLAKESIN GIIBERT CHARLES A&GILBERT JADY IVY TIN[BDWELLINGIAKES LN CLEAR RROOK,VA 22624 16 10 RA DWELLING _ 335M M _ 291 MRI ACBETH IN SHALLENBERGERBAI K&SHALLEN'BERGERGAHRJEJA C 291 MACBETH LN CLEAR BROOK,VA 226241516 RA DWELLING 73529 266 MACBETH LN NAILDENVIERC&NAILEMILYC •266 MACBFTH LN CLEARBROOK,VA 226241516 RA DWEUNG ,315 28 253 MACBETH LN •HACKNEY DIANA L 253 MACBETII LN _CLEAR BROOK,VA 22624 1516 RA DWELLING _ 33527 109 MACBETH LN BABCOCK VALERIE L I119MAfBIRTHLK CLEAR BROOK,VA226241516 RA DWELLING .33526 191 MACBEH LN _CORNJCK MICHAELI&CORRICK USA J _191 M CBETH U LEAR BROOK,VA 21624 1524 RA DWELLING 33525 160MACBETHLN RUSSEL,DAVIDO 160 MACBMU` CIEARBRD0KVA226241524 RA DWEUING 33524 280 RUEBUCK LN DANFORTH DEAN WIUTAM&DANFORTH CHERYL LYNN _280 ROEBUCK LN CLEAR BROOK.VA 226241522 RA DWELLING ??51 224 ROEBUCK LN COOPERROYA 224RUEBUCKIN CLEAR BROOK.VA226341521 RA DWELLING 3J 522 _ I]2 RUFBUCK IN KBJIERADAMC&K®LERPATSYL 172 RUEBUCK LN CIEARBROOK.VA 326241518 RA DWELLING 33521 130RUEBUCKLN HUNTSBERGER JOHN R&HRNTSBERGER BRINLEY 130 RUEBUCK CIEAA BROOK.VA 226241518 RA DWELLING 23All IZ26 RESTCHURCH RD .!.IEREDUH JANET L 1226 REST CHURCH RD CLFARBROOK.VA 226211501 RA DWELLING 33 14 1233 RESTCHURCH RD TAYIORDENNIS MICHAEL&TAYLOR DARIA SUE 1233 REST CHURCH AD CLEAR BROOK.VA 226241500 RA DWELLING _ 23815 114RUEBUCKRD ENNS TAMMY FTRUSTFE OF THE REVTRUST OF TAMMY F ENNS 114 RUEBUCK RD CLEAR BROOK.VA 2262414M RA DWELLING 33814 1287 REST CHURCH RD BECERRB.LUN ANTONIO MARK&LOPEZ ADRIANA NAHIRJLMENFZ 1251MSTCHUACH RD R CUABROOK.VA 226241419 RA DWELLING 3A 13 1299RESTCHURCHILD BUTLERRYANJ&BUr1ERWIUUAMJ 1299 REST CHURCH RD _CLUARBROOK.VA226241419 RA DWELLING 23 A 11 1333 MSTCM!R[H RD BUTLER EDWARD LJR&BLRIERNANCY LEE 1333 REST CHURCH RD CIEARBROOK,VA226241417 RA DWELLING 23A 18 1345 RESTCHURCH RD _NTERSTATEORCHARDNCTHE •PO BOX 23M WINCHESTER VA 226 IMS RA DWELLING 3?A 18A .911 AM.Nol on File_ PFJ SOUTHEAST LIC PO BOX 34170 •..G KY40555 RA DWEWNG 4lcK CO Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia ¢ Frederick Planning Website: www.fcva.us ISI Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone (540) 665-5651 Facsimile (540) 665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents That: Equus Capital Partners,Ltd. Name of Property Owner/Applicant Please note: If the property owner/applicant is an entity,the name of the entity should appear above. If multiple persons own the property or are applicants,an executed power of attorney from each owner will be needed. 3843 West Chester Pike,Newton Square,PA 19703 Mailing Address of Property Owner/Applicant Telephone Number as owner of,or applicant with respect to, the tract(s)or parcel(s)of land in Frederick County, Virginia,identified by following property identification numbers: 33 9 1A;33 A 89;33 A 90 do hereby make,constitute,and appoint: Walsh,Colucci, Lubeley&Walsh, PC c/o John Foote, Esq. Name of Attorney-In-Fact 4310 Prince William Parkway,Suite 300,Woodbridge,VA 22192 703-6604664 Mailing Address of Attorney-In-Fact Telephone Number to act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my name,place,and stead,with the same full power and authority I would have if acting personally,to file and act on my behalf with respect to application with Frederick County,Virginia for the following, for the above identified property: P1 Rezoning ❑ Subdivision Conditional Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Master Development Plan(prelim. or final) ❑ Variance or Zoning Appeal and,further,my attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This appointment shall expire one year from the day that it is signed,or at such sooner time as I otherwise rescind or modify it. 1� Signature= M= ' Title(if signi onnbehalt otan entity) 1 taest-Lxy-� State of County/City of A -L fiW ,To wit: I, �, L UJ a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid,certify that the person wh signed the foregoing instrument personally appeare before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jt� diction aforesaid this day of , 2Q / My Commission Expires: Notary Pu 'c Commonwealth of Pennsylvania-Notary Seal Registration Number: Mary E.Lord,Notary Public Delaware County My Commission Expires April 26,2027 Commission Number 1205638 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD. FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 ACRES Rezoning: Record Owner: DTS, L.C. and William O. Minor Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. Property: 33-(9)-lA; 33-(A)-89; 33-(A)-90, comprising approximately 220.06 acres as shown on the Generalized Development. Plan (hereinafter the "Property") Zoning: RA to M1, B2. and TM Project Name: Fruit Hill Rezoning Original Proffer Date: July 19, 2024 Revision Date: Preliminary Matters: Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2296, et seq., and § 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned hereby proffers that the development and use of the Property shall be in substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto with respect to the Property. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void, and any existing proffers will remain in full force and effect. PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. Any improvements proffered herein below shall be provided at the time of development of the portion of the site served by the improvement, unless otherwise specified. The terms "Applicant" and "Developer" shall include the current and all future owners and successors in interest. For purposes of reference in this Proffer Statement, the "Generalized Development Plan" shall be that plan, consisting of three (3) sheets, prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC entitled, "Fruit Hill Rezoning Frederick County, VA.," (the "GDP") dated May 10, 2023. 1. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY 1.1. The subject Property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the GDP, and shall be designed to establish interconnected Land Bays in conformance with the said GDP, and as is specifically set forth in these Proffers. Upon submission of final site or subdivision plans, minor changes and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions and location of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features as shown on the GDP, provided they meet the intent of these Proffers and are approved by the Director of Planning. 1.2. The following uses shall be prohibited on the portion of the Property zoned M1, as shown on the GDP: 1.2.1. Offices and storage facilities for building construction contractors, heavy construction contractors and special trade contractors 1.2.2. Transportation by air 1.2.3. Dry cleaning plants 1.2.4. Automotive repair shops 1.2.5. Welding repair 1.2.6. Agricultural equipment repair 1.2.7. Boiler cleaning and repair 1.2.8. Cesspool cleaning Page 2 of 12 PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres 1.2.9. Farm machinery and tractor repair 1.2.10. Industrial truck repair 1.2.11. Motorcycle repair service 1.2.12. Septic tank cleaning service 1.2.13. Sewer cleaning service 1.2.14. Tank and boiler cleaning service 1.2.15. Tank truck cleaning service 1.2.16. Residential uses accessory to allowed business uses 1.2.17. Industrial launderers 1.2.18. Truck or fleet maintenance facilities 1.3. The Applicant may develop that portion of the Property to be rezoned to TM, as depicted on the GDP, with up to 300,000 sq. ft. of data center only, as permitted in TM districts. All other uses permitted by-right or by conditional use permit are prohibited on that portion of the Property rezoned to the TM District. 1.4. The Applicant may develop only one hotel with a maximum of 100 rooms (ITE Use Group 310), and no more than 5,000 gross sq. ft. of Restaurant (ITE Use Group 932) on that portion of the Property to be rezoned to the B2 District, as depicted on the GDP, and no other uses that are otherwise permitted in that District by right or by conditional use permit. These permitted uses may be in one structure, or in two separate structures, in compliance with relevant Frederick County Ordinances. 1.5. On that portion of the Property to be rezoned to the M1 District, as depicted on the GDP, the Applicant may construct not more than 2,125,500 gross sq. ft. of Warehousing (ITE Use Group 150), as depicted on the GDP, and in compliance with relevant Frederick County Ordinances, of which not more than 300,000 square feet may be High Cube Cold Storage Warehousing (ITE Use Group 157). 1.6. With the exception of(i) the uses that are prohibited in Proffers 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, and (ii) the limitations on High Cube Cold Storage Warehousing in Proffer 1.5, above, the Applicant may develop the Property with any other use permitted by right or conditional use permit (upon the Page 3 of 12 PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres approval of such a permit by the Board of Supervisors) in the M1 District, subject, however, to the following requirements: 1.6.1. If the Applicant elects to develop the M1 Property with any permitted use that results in a higher net new trip generation from the Property than that shown in the "Transportation Impact Analysis for the Fruit Hill Property," prepared by Kittelson and Associates, dated January 2023 (the "TIA"), then as part of the conditional use permit or site plan approval process for those uses, the Applicant shall submit an updated TIA to the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"). Subject to County and VDOT approval of the updated TIA, and the Applicant shall mitigate any additional impacts caused by such additional trips. 1.6.2. In determining whether the uses collectively have an increased traffic impact for purposes of Proffers 1.6.1, the Applicant may use actual traffic counts for then existing uses on the Property in lieu of the estimates that were employed in the TIA, for determining background traffic at the time of site plan submission. 2. COMMUNITY DESIGN 2.1. Perimeter landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with the GDP. All new landscaping/plantings shall be indigenous species, native to Virginia. 2.2. The Applicant shall construct a 6-foot landscaped berm along the Property's boundary with lots in the Carrollton Subdivision and the Ridgeway Estates Subdivision in accordance with the details thereof on the GDP. Where no berm is provided adjacent to RA zoned parcels, the Applicant shall preserve existing vegetation not more than 75 feet from the perimeter property line to serve as a natural buffer or increase the building setback to 200 feet, as depicted on the GDP Page 4 of 12 PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres 3. TRANSPORTATION 3.1. The Applicant shall dedicate all lands proposed to be dedicated to the County or to VDOT as instructed by the Director or Planning, as they are depicted on the approved GDP, within 60 days of a written request from the County therefor. 3.2. The Applicant shall relocate Zachary Ann Lane as generally depicted on the GDP so as to connect with a new road (hereinafter "Fruit Hill Road") as that new road is generally depicted on the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan's Transportation Map, and as generally shown on the GDP. The Applicant shall construct that portion of Fruit Hill Road within the boundaries of the Property, also as generally shown on the GDP. Fruit Hill Road shall be built within a 104-foot right-of-way, and shall consist of two lanes with a single 10-foot paved trail, with required turn lanes. 3.3. The Applicant shall construct a westbound left turn lane with at least 200 feet of storage and a 200-foot taper on Rest Church Road at its connection with Fruit Hill Road. 3.4. The Applicant shall apply to abandon, or cause to be abandoned, (i) that portion of Ruebuck Lane immediately past the southern boundary of County Parcel Map Pin 33-(5)-24, and (ii) that portion of Zachary Ann Lane no longer required after relocation of its entrance and connection to Rest Church Road. 3.5. The Applicant shall dedicate an additional 25 feet of right-of-way along the western property line for Ruebuck Lane, from its revised terminus to Rest Church Road, as depicted on the GDP. It shall further install a 55-foot cul-de-sac or a hammerhead turnaround at the terminus of Ruebuck sufficient to permit emergency and other vehicles to effect a safe turn around, at a location outside the floodplain and past the last residential driveway on Ruebuck. The design and location of the turnaround shall be finalized during site plan review. The Applicant shall further, at its expense, pave Ruebuck Lane and improve the existing sight distance issues at its intersection with Macbeth Lane to a standard appropriate for a low volume road in the VDOT Rural Rustic Page 5 of 12 PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres Road Program, from its intersection with Rest Church Road south to the aforementioned cul-de-sac or turnaround. Such dedication shall be made concurrently with the approval of plans for the improvement of Ruebuck Lane. 3.6. The Applicant shall construct at its expense the improvements at the w intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road that are identified in the TIA (the "Route 11 Improvements"), in accordance with these proffers. Upon the approval of this Rezoning, the Applicant shall, within six months thereafter, prepare plans for the Route 11 Improvements for review by VDOT and the County, and such other agencies as may be required, and upon approval of those plans and the issuance of the necessary construction permits, proceed forthwith to construct the Route 11 Improvements. 3.7. All proffered road improvements to be constructed by the Applicant except the Route 11 Improvements, and those phases of Fruit Hill Road as are established at the time of site plan approval, shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for any building on the Property; provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Applicant will dedicate all of the right-of-way for Fruit Hill Road within 60 days of a written request of the County therefor, and provided further that the ultimate location of Fruit Hill Road may be adjusted for final engineering. 3.8. No entrances to the Property, other than the connection with Fruit Hill Road, as shown on the GDP, shall be permitted onto Rest Church Road or Ruebuck Lane. 3.9. All public roads shall be constructed to VDOT standards and subject to the approval of VDOT and Frederick County. 3.10. For the purposes of these Proffers, "completion" of a public road improvement shall mean when a road or improvement thereto is open to traffic, but may not have yet been accepted into the State Secondary System of Highways for maintenance. Nothing herein shall override or Page 6 of 12 PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres contravene any subdivision monetary guarantee requirements for acceptance of public road improvements. 3.11. The Applicant shall provide appropriate sight distance at the intersection of Ruebuck Lane and Rest Church Road, as generally depicted on the Transportation Plan element of the Generalized Development Plan. 3.12. The Applicant shall contribute its pro rata share of the cost of installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Fruit Hill Road and Rest Church Road when a signal warrant is authorized for such installation. The Applicant's pro-rata share of that cost shall be equal to its then proportionate share of the then total vehicle trips at that intersection less Rest Church Road through trips. Such costs shall be determined by the actual construction costs of the signal, or by VDOT's then current unit price list if not already constructed, and shall be paid in accordance with a signalization agreement with VDOT. 4. SIGNAGE 4.1. The Applicant shall be limited to a single monument sign for the M-1 portion of the Property and a single monument sign for the B-2 portions of the Property at its entrance along Rest Church Road, conforming to the applicable provisions of § 165-201.06 of the Zoning Ordinance, as shown on the GDP; provided that this shall not preclude each owner or tenant of a building from installing signs, internal to the site, conforming to the provisions of § 165-201.06 (G) and (H) of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. LIGHTING 5.1. All outdoor lighting shall be compatible, and harmonious throughout the Property. Fixtures shall be similar in style. Lighting shall be mounted at a height that is relative to the property line such that it is no taller than its horizontal distance from the nearest property line, but in no case shall it be placed more than 25' above grade. Any luminaire situated within 50' of any property line shall be oriented perpendicular to and faced away from that property line so as not to cause trespass Page 7 of 12 PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres onto an adjacent property in excess of 0.1 footcandles onto a residential use, or 0.5 footcandles onto any other property.All luminaires shall meet an up-light rating of UO (that is zero up-light) according to the Luminaire Classification System (LCS), as developed and maintained by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). They shall be oriented with the central beam pointed straight down, and shall otherwise conform to the requirements of the County's Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a photometric plan as part of the final site plan process demonstrating the minimization of off-site lighting impacts. 6. FIRE AND RESCUE 6.1. The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of$150.00 per 1,000 gross square feet of constructed building as depicted on each final site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each structure built on the Property. 7. WATER AND SEWER 7.1. The Property shall be served with public water and public sewer. At its expense, the Applicant shall design and construct all on-site and off-site improvements necessary to provide service for the demand generated by development on the Property in accordance with applicable Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("Frederick Water"), Frederick County, and Virginia laws, ordinances, and regulations. 7.2. The Applicant will install at its expense SCADA systems as approved by Frederick Water at the Woodbine and VDOT pump stations to enable them to be monitored and pumps cycled on-off in an efficient manner, to accommodate the flows generated by the development. 7.3. The Applicant will grant the necessary easements at no cost to the County or Frederick Water to facilitate the north-south flow of water, the location of which easements shall generally follow the eastern property lines of the Property, with the purpose of ultimately extending Page 8 of 12 PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres to Cedar Hill and Hopewell Roads. The location of these easements will be established as part of the site plan process. 8. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 8.1. The Applicant shall conduct, or cause to be conducted, an Architectural Resources Study of the Property prior to the approval of the first final site plan for the Property. A Phase II study will be conducted to examine further the interiors and building materials in the Lewis-Sole nb erger and Cather Houses. 9. ESCALATOR In the event the monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement which are to be paid to the County shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date twenty four (24) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid, or six per cent (6%) per year, whichever is less. [Signatures on following pages] Page 9 of 12 PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres SIGNATURE PAGES APPLICANT/CONTRACT PURCHASER: Equus Capital Development, Ltd. By: Name: Title: State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name of officer or agent) (title of officer or agent) of (name of corporation acknowledging) a (state or place of incorporation), on behalf of the corporation. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: My Notary Registration Number: Page 10 of 12 PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres OWNER: DTS LC By: Name: Title: State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2024, by . (name of officer or agent) __ (title of officer or agent) of (name of corporation acknowledging) a (state or place of incorporation), on behalf of the corporation. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: My Notary Registration Number:_ Page 11 of 12 PROFFER STATEMENT FRUIT HILL REZONING STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT +/- 220.06 Acres OWNER: William O. Minor State of County of Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: My Notary Registration Number: Page 12 of 12 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT Fruit Hill Rezoning PINS: 33-(9)-lA; 33-(A)-89; 33-(A)-90 Contract Purchaser/Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. July 19, 2024 Introduction. The Applicant is the contract purchaser of properties identified as PINs 33-(9)-IA; 33-(A)-89; 33-(A)-90 (collectively the "Property"). The Property consists of approximately 220.06 acres of contiguous land to the west and southwest of Interchange 323 on I-81, immediately south of Rest Church Road, east of Ruebuck Lane, and west of Zachary Ann Lane. The Property is undeveloped agricultural land, currently zoned RA, Rural Agricultural. The Applicant is seeking a rezoning of the land to M1, B2, and TM for the development of light industrial and related uses as depicted on the Generalized Development Plan ("GDP"). The Applicant intends to construct five buildings of varying sizes, totaling approximately 2,425,500 sq. ft. of space, as well as a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant and a hotel containing up to 100 rooms (the "Proposed Use"). A portion of that square footage will be reserved for the potential location of a data center should that use become viable. Specific end users have not yet been selected, and the Applicant therefore seeks a reasonable degree of flexibility with respect to the final details of this plan in order to accommodate market trends, and the specific needs of the end users ultimately selected. Notwithstanding this, the Applicant will commit to substantial conformance with the submitted GDP. The Applicant is well known to the County, having already developed almost 2,000,000 square feet of industrial space in Frederick, and it enjoys both a national and local reputation for high quality work, and adhering to its commitments. When it commences the process of identifying end-users for the site it will undertake outreach to existing businesses in the Winchester/Frederick County market that are in need of expansion, or for facilities built to their purpose. While no Applicant can prudently commit to limit its potential sales to a single market, there are local users that have expressed, or will express, live interest in development at this location. When engaging with this Applicant, the County should be aware from experience that the Applicant will approach issues of concern with flexibility and diligence. Suitability of the Site. The Applicant has analyzed the following categories, identified by the County, to address the suitability of this site for the proposed rezoning and development. Page 1 of 5 A. 100 Year Floodplains. This Property is bisected by a floodplain (approximately 31.54 acres). Due regard has been given to this, however, and development in that area is limited. Extensive storm water management controls will be required to minimize downstream impacts from the Proposed Use. Please see the attached GDP for more information. B. Wetlands. Duncan Run crosses the middle portion of the Property. A recent environmental study of the site, conducted by ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC, entitled "Waters of the U.S. Study: Fruit Hill Property," and dated November 23, 2021, indicates that there are no wetlands on the Property. C. Steep Slopes. According to the elevations depicted on the Frederick County Tax Map, there are no steep slopes on the Property (over 15%). D. Mature Woodlands. The Property has been used as a working farm for many years. The Property contains roughly 53.87 acres of woodlands. The Virginia Department of Forestry's Forest Conservation Value model designates the bulk of the forested areas on the Property as having only average conservation value and the remainder of the forested areas are not designated as having meaningful conservation value. Additionally, no portion of this Property falls within an ecological core according to the Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment map. E. Prime Agricultural Soils. The majority of this Property contains soils designated "Oaklet" and "Frederick" on County Mapper. More specifically those soils consist of Frederick Poplimento Loams (2-15% slopes), Oaklet Silt Loams (2-15% slopes), and Carbo-Oaklet Silt Loams, very rocky (2-15% slopes). According to the Virginia Agricultural Model map, these areas are labeled as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. The Property also contains Pagebrook Silty Clay Loam, which tracks the eastern portion of Duncan Run and a narrow segment of Pagebrook Silt Loam that extends across the Property farther north. According to the Virginia Agricultural Model map, these areas are less suitable for agriculture. There is also a stretch of Massanetta Loam that tracks the western portion of Duncan Run and there are a few other soil varieties around the exterior of the Property, although their intrusion onto the Property is relatively minor. F. Soil or bedrock conditions which would create construction difficulties or hazards. No significant soil or bedrock conditions have been identified that would result in construction difficulties or hazards associated with the development of the Proposed Use. Page 2 of 5 Surrounding Properties. The surrounding properties to the north, west, and south are zoned RA, Rural Agricultural. According to the Frederick County Mapper, those properties appear to be used for agricultural and residential uses. One subdivision, Carrollton, is located to the northwest and another, Ridgewood Estates, is located to the southwest. To the east, however, are properties zoned B-3, Industrial Transition, and M-1, Light Industrial. Among the industrial uses in this area are a heavy equipment rental facility, and a Flying J facility. The properties to the east belong to the Whitehall Business Park subdivision. The development deriving from this rezoning will transition land that is currently vacant or being used for agricultural purposes to Light Industrial (M1), hotel and restaurant, (B2 General Business), and potentially data center (TM Technology- Manufacturing Park District) uses. This increase in intensity is contemplated and accepted in the Northeast Land Use Plan element of the County Comprehensive Plan, as can be seen by the Property's Mixed Use Industrial/Office designation.' As the NELUP says, the Martinsburg Pike/Interstate 81 corridor continues to be predominantly planned for commercial and industrial (C/I) land uses. The Applicant will commit to measures for the reduction of impacts associated with an increase in intensity of use. Traffic. The Proposed Use would occur in an area with a mature road network, and the Applicant has analyzed its potential impact on those roads. As the NELUP says "[p]articular effort must be made to ensure that access management for the supporting transportation network is a key priority as the function of the interstate and primary road network is critical [at the 323 Interchange]. A number of actions are committed to that would align existing conditions with the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, and accommodate additional traffic from the development. This includes relocating Zachary Ann Lane to correct the inadequate spacing between its existing intersection with Rest Church Road and the nearby 1-81 interchange. The proffered commitments also include the construction of a new road, referred to in this application as Fruit Hill Road, which would connect to Rest Church Road in the location that is contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan as the beginning of the planned new major collector. The Applicant's Traffic Analysis confirms that the road network can adequately support the development of the proposed Fruit Hill Property with the recommendations noted in that Analysis. ' As of September of 2023 the Northeast Land Use Plan identifies the Applicant's Property as Industrial, and Mixed Use Industrial \ Office. Page 3 of 5 The County should recall that the Applicant will also make improvements to the intersection of Rest Church and Martinsburg Pike, adding northbound turn lanes that a VDOT representative told the County at a public hearing will have a greater impact on the function of the 323 Interchange than improvements to the ramps. In addition to the Zachary Ann relocation and construction of Fruit Hill Road, the Applicant will provide a monetary contribution to the County to offset the impacts that are shown in the TIA. The Applicant's monetary contribution, rather than actual construction, will provide flexibility to the County as it undergoes its studies of the existing and future traffic issues in the area, The contributions are calculated based on the Applicant's pro rata share of the cost of those improvements that it need not itself construct, plus additional funds to alleviate existing and future traffic issues. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment According to the Frederick County Mapper, this Property falls within the Sewer and Water Service Area. The Applicant will connect to public sanitary sewer at its expense. The Applicant has undertaken an analysis of the existing system and worked with Frederick Water to address any issues related to the Proposed Use. Water Supply According to the Frederick County Tax Map, this Property falls within the Sewer and Water Service Area. The Applicant will connect to public water at its expense and it worked with Frederick Water to address any concerns related to the Proposed Use. Drainage and Stormwater Management Duncan Run crosses the midsection of the Property. The Frederick County Mapper does not recognize any other streams, rivers, lakes, or ponds on the Property. The Applicant will manage development in accordance with all applicable requirements. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities All end users will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the disposal of solid waste. Historic Sites and Structures After reviewing the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report, the Virginia Division of Historic Resources, and the State and National Registers, the only historical resources located on the Property that have been previously identified are DHR #034-1464 consisting of the Cather House, listed as current, and the Payne Page 4 of 5 House, listed as historic, and DHR 034-1463 consisting of the Carter, Josh house, listed as historic, and the Lewis-Solenberger house, listed as current. The Applicant has proffered to conduct an Architectural Resources Survey as a part of this rezoning. The Applicant has worked with the Historic Resources Advisory Board to identify other concerns and agreed to an additional Phase II study of the Lewis-Solenberger house and the Cather house located on the Property. All discoveries will be reported to the County, and appropriate steps taken should consequential resources be recovered. Impact on Community Facilities Because no end user has been identified for this project, the Applicant is not able to project the exact amount of tax revenue that will be generated by the Proposed Use. The Applicant's proposal, however, to construct approximately 2,425,500 sq. ft. of warehouse/distribution space plus, a hotel, and a restaurant on the Property, will necessarily result in more economically productive uses than currently exist. The rezoning would serve the County's planned goal of increasing its tax base and preliminary projections, based on other projects completed by the Applicant, suggest that the Proposed Use could contribute over $1,000,000 per year in new revenue. Education. The proposed rezoning would have no impact on education. Police Protection. This rezoning is not likely to have significant impact upon level of service standards for the Sheriffs Department. The Applicant will coordinate with that Department in the development of the Property. Fire and Rescue Protection. The Property falls within the Clear Brook First Due Boundary, and would be served by the Clear Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station. According to the station's website, it houses two pumpers, a tanker, a brush truck, and two ALS units. The Applicant has spoken to the Chief of that Station and the Fire Marshall and will continue to coordinate with both. The Applicant proposes a contribution to fire and rescue services in order to offset the impacts associated with the Proposed Use. Parks and Recreation. The proposed rezoning would have no impact on parks and recreation. Page 5 of 5 .009=..I £Z0Z-0l-90 NOO'ON3-3014N7301dd0:IIVN3 :31VOS 31V0 NVId 1N3Wd0l3n34 31lS 999b'£ZL'ObS:XVd W LSLS'bL0'ObS:3NOHd ❑❑❑ aaa NVId 1N3Wd0l3A34 43ZIIV2J3N3J m r Z09ZZ V/�'ii31S3 HO NIM A903NO3HO A9 NMV210 :D CL 5'10 A9l3HS L01 Z Q t,0-[Z 90f F- LU IAWAVn'h1Nnoo AOI2J3a32i3 W (� �1d ��JNI'J33N1°JN3 3 14 JNIN0=JITHiimj-3 OMOI-d00:31ld OOVO b I_LI o i Q U Cl) W w 0 _ U g LL II H vvQ D Q (E) Q I � IU 11 a Q OJ ay \ r o \ o -p------ -- moo \ oN \ w o I \ S J1 0^ Q ¢a JI \\\\ ❑m ci< III I ao \© C� o Qa dao zw a QOQ OF w mho azo H 1 LL �� w o Qa °NQw �� o wok �FQ�F�o W o�� mo a�w �n aw�w III --� i a OR z�U�OJui a`��"GOmo x 000 U� OII I o a z 0 0 ,016 OOWw �¢ �z � aid 2 c w ° z �� oz zz �I a 1 ao w .. � o ..0o uww o Ozoo °o al J o a.� a.� x all' °z t5 ami I w N '0 Y I e aF SWM 11 SWM Ci 1 1 LLN mox I 1 I y V CURCH RD. OQ o REST H p m zowl� (D<()� -- BUSINESS BLVD. ¢< w o r wA w wJ-w mo 0 o I Qm 1 P �� NN azo!z a l ao O� N I I d� I ❑ Y .009=..1 £ZOZ-0I-90 NOO'ON3-3014N7301dd0 11VN3 :31VOS 31V0 NVId NOIiVi2JOdSNV2Ji 999b'£ZL'ObS:XVd w LS1S'bL0'ObS:3NOHd ❑❑❑ aaa NVId 1N3Wdol3A34(13ZI1V2J3NH) m N Z09ZZ VA'ii31S3 HONIM �A903NO3H0 �A9 NMV210 :5 '10 A9l3HS 101 Z Q 40-12 ON 90f I-1 IAWAbn'uNnoO AOI2J3a32i3 W (� �1d ��JNI'J33N1°JN3 3 14 JNINOZ32illlHiimj-3 OMO�Z-d00�3lld OOVO 8 C I_LI J U Cl) W U LL II c Z S Q R III --- ° III w❑❑ , III �II L—l' 0 g `\ III a=� I I III III I I %�\ III I a III II o � � \ 1 ?-0 n I w III I ww III I 0Wo ' III \ \ Eo / \ oo <ww Z ¢�zN OUwYA 1 n— U III III 1 op % a��aaw' p \ o In I w a a o\ ul I < I I \ I� I � ❑z w z — I 0 0 Z U N N Q II _ a� QO wp UOQ IZZ11 U I I JO 11 w DUN z wm �� waw a o io Q, M Q K❑ U �Z UZ Q OWw JO II I lw ' ODO Qa j _ \ l I e o K F K N w.Q Z IN z ❑w W _ tt20 W tn� �w K~ d Z w w U m F ❑ K W O 1 1 ❑azo O° �� Wiz. w N Z❑Y L 1 w U d O W W U. 1 1 ` 11 �W w 2 F❑Q IIi QwwOr C7N ww Q D a w y ug O tt Z 11 R s w >LLLL II e 1 0 O --^^ I am tt!f I Y VVVVVV CHURCH RD. 0 O 1° u �� m .� I111LI - Iw I tt i BUSINESS BLVD. r w ZZ S Z 4^ Q¢Ur www , LLOttwz4 O>ZgQa og° I I oz wa o I ww.IZ 2> 1 <,w-0- �UZw Uw I Zzoy2 I II OOn t OF:,.w I 11 ❑ ww y g II U Qol Q 0 11 I 1 _ c _ .009=..1 EZ0Z-01-90 NOO'ON3-3014N7301dd0 11VN3 :31VOS 31V0 NVld 3dVOSGNVl 999b'£ZL'ObS:XVd W LSLS'bL0'ObS:3NOHd aaa aaa NVId 1N3Ad0l3n34(13ZI1V2J3NH) CO Z09ZZ VA'ii31S3 HONIM :,1903NO3H0 :,19 NMV210 '10 A9l3HS l01 z Q 40-1ZON 90f w ldfiWAbn'h1Nnoo AOI2J3(132i3 W (� �1d ��JNI'J33N1°JN3 3 14 JNINO=J11IHiimj-3 OMOE-d00:31ld OOV0 Oo r mo �O z 0 -w w w tt 7 �LLw zx �m0°z Y LLI U Q, w0 Z O LL ❑F Z=F N '< 3NIl_—d _ J O N w O Z O W / W Cl) O Q o z w d Q N vJ w S w 0-w ❑lz0 0.Qrttaowtt00 O U p w11 z ��ywazw~O�aw w _ 7i W Z w 0 y LL W d Z T Z v W ww Z w w d J F Z ZO d N S - I N Ww00w0-<-0w O 00 O / Q Q R n� w w O w w l w w Q Q Zi I / p a z9-.O z 4G U wJUzz QQU,zw O~ z z9�zc>>J��mwu / g \ c wwwrnogo wo, /J� �wmm LLLLm,2o �F 7 05 wc9wu�i�iF'm�yw� I � Y az z~ wa'a>° w� �Jeoe O zaw<wowwowo. —r w nm-w,5z8zllo n U wWF�mwpLLi�Qz F w w o w 2¢r w 100 BUFFER WI FULL SCREEN \ LL w 001 n W. ww N.0200ww ) \\� Q 11 U .t= Q O O F N F N p (CATEGORY C wo w ---L I Ir � z� N �, � II w I I a�� ° 1 z a_s a III Ili IIS v z z" 0 III 11m try I his C, o�8 \ ' ' z III I N w� oaf I ¢ III o oe @ 0z I N l e J w IIIA a ml d w Q JF�CY, o — III II �� yG ---L PCO/ � a W BRL I F \ W ; Wzw III I 9B BRL 7 w U III �1 p I� Q a e u wl N vo\ \ 6 11 y 1 JJ IIL13 W�r -o S ---L p °o w6 I 0/ II I I.II ON LLZ I 41 a m w ➢d''�I ICm dJ� QJ N0 l I i o I � M ❑O O N I w (� II ol , JI wi , Y\ 1 I P 1 ¢ w? . m C o nWIULL am 100 B0 ,w mp z� ATEGORY�� o U — REST CHURCH RD. O I U O I m .� Il1JJll _- Iw I IG tt i BUSINESS BLVD. I I I I � II II I I ,I I ❑ I I .009=..I £ZOZ-0l-SO NOO'SN3-3014N7301dd0:IIVN3 :31VOS 31V0 ldld 1ORilSIG JNINOZ 43SOdO Jd 999b'£ZL'ObS:XVd w LSLS'bL6'ObS:3NOHd aaa aaa NVId 1N3Wdol3A34(13ZI1V2J3NH) Z09ZZ VA'ii31S3 HONIM A903NO3HO A9 NMV210 � n '10 A9l3HS L01 Z LQL 40-1ZON 90f I j IAWAbn'uNnoo AOI2J3a32i3 W (� �1d ��JNI'J33N1°JN3 3 14 JNINOZ3JITHiimj-3 W OM04-d00:31ld OOV0 _ g oZo'_ J U Q 0M.MCC fm rda gip\ - ry N73 69'38"W 82420' �\ �--- ss�\ I I 2 I I r \ I I a \ m O. '\_ z i ` a O z- w o z I \ Xcb 45, �o zO ICYlaS79°15'11„E..60156' `\ / ¢Q `\ a o NO II r. I aC � I \ w R of _ o O Nt- IS ZaO 9�\ I�1 13 J �� 3w= _ _ = I I�1 \ 1� iib♦® F Z ♦O � I°N � I Im � 1 'Jd,♦ yy� to wo rnl y z OZ ml U dU O N OTA) Y 1600 27'�T I I U 21703' �9°21'23"E" m I _ J R RLABIEY`11�T1�1 1 1 I I i� a ,F I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Staunton/Edinburg Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Dear Mr. Bishop: We have reviewed the revised submission of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Fruit Hill Property TIA in Frederick County,dated January 2023 and submitted January 9,2023. We have also reviewed the revised proffers dated December 6, 2022. VDOT has developed the following comments based on these reviews. 1. We acknowledge that the applicant has included a commitment to submit an updated TIA at the site plan stage in the event that the property is developed with permitted uses resulting in a higher trip generation. However, following the rezoning process it is much more challenging for VDOT to ensure that an agreeable TIA is performed and that adequate mitigations are obtained to address transportation impacts. Additionally, the current language of proffer 1.6, 1.6.1, and 1.6.2 indicating that the applicant"shall not be limited","shall mitigate any additional impacts caused by such additional trips as reasonably required"and other subjective items in a new TIA may further complicate our ability to ensure the implementation of necessary improvements. VDOT reiterates the previous comment that the proffers should reflect the land uses and trip generation assumptions utilized in the current TIA. Any uses other than those proposed in the TIA should require a rezoning amendment to provide an opportunity to properly scope and analyze the changes. The trip generation of a TIA is the foundation for the entire study. Below is a comparison of developer assumed trips to the site vs potential industrial uses to the site for the proposed zoning. TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON DEVELOPERS TIA USES WEEKDAY TRIPS AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS Warehouse, Data Center, Hotel, H-T Restaurant 4330 430 452 POTENTIAL USES General Light Industrial, Hotel, H-T Restaurant 13,008 1886 1668 INCREASE 8678 1456 1216 2. Proffer 1.3 permits 2,125,500 gross sq. ft. of Warehousing(ITE Land Use Code 150) as utilized in the TIA, or the same square footage of High Cube Cold Storage(ITE Land Use Code 157). Note that this amount of High Cube Cold Storage results in more than 2,300 additional daily trips over Warehouse when utilizing the ITE trip equation. Comparatively, General Light Industrial instead of data center and warehouse would result in more than 6,954 additional daily trips. 3. Proffer 1.4 permits 300,000 sq. ft. of permitted OM (Office-Manufacturing)uses on the property. The TIA assumed a low trip generating use of Data Center(297 daily trips). However,permitted OM uses include general and medical offices that could generate more than 2,500 additional daily trips over the TIA assumptions. 1 4. Striking Proffer 1.2.18 to permit the use of gasoline service stations and trucks stops could also have a major impact on both passenger vehicle and truck trips. This use could also have a major impact on the passenger and trucks trips to the site. 5. Proffers 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 contain a window for the transportation improvements to be completed by the applicant of not sooner than the issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the 500,OOOth gross square foot of buildings on the property and not later than the issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the 1,000,OOOth gross square foot of buildings on the property. It should be noted that based on the allowed uses currently permitted by the proffers as noted in comments 1 —4 above,the trip volumes of the TIA may be reached prior to the 500,OOOth gross square foot of buildings on the property. 6. With the exception of trip generation,VDOT overall finds the technical aspects of the revised TIA and supporting analysis to be acceptable as submitted. However,we would like to note that future TIAs utilizing SimTraffic outputs for maximum queue length reporting in the vicinity of an interchange should utilize the Link Origin-Destination Volumes Settings to ensure proper vehicular routing in the simulations. While these settings were applied to the Rest Church Road/US 11 eastbound volumes per discussions between VDOT and Kittelson and Associates,the settings should also be applied to both ramp intersection volumes to prevent off-ramp volumes from making a downstream left turn back onto the interstate. Additionally,between the northbound ramps and US 11 consideration should be given to adjusting the Crosswalk Width under Simulations Settings to move the stop bars to more accurately reflect available storage in the simulations. 7. VDOT agrees with the TIA recommendations at Rest Church Road/US 11 to add the additional eastbound left turn lane and improvements to US 11 to receive the dual lefts before merging back to a single lane and the addition of a third lane to the northbound off-ramp to improve capacity. Based on the evaluation of the two scenarios with the three lane approach on the northbound off-ramp, VDOT would recommend waiting until such time that the improvement is made before determining the appropriate lane designations with additional analysis at that time. 8. Should the transportation improvements identified by the TIA be implemented under the scenario presented in proffer 3.6.3,it should be noted that the monetary contribution of$650,000 will not address the improvements as a state project and would likely need to be leveraged by the county in a transportation grant program to compete for full funding. 9. The initial TIA review resulted in the following comment"Based on the existing lane geometry of Rest Church Road to the west of the I-81 southbound ramp intersection,the westbound left turn lane to Zachary Ann Lane should be continuous and extend back to the ramp signal". The intent of the comment was related to the coding of this segment of Rest Church Road in the 2021 existing condition Synchro models. However,the applicant's response and as show/labeled on Figure 2—Conceptual Site Plan in the revised TIA indicates that the existing two westbound lanes of Rest Church Road between Zachary Ann Lane and the southbound ramps(a through lane and left turn lane)will be extended as two through lanes westward to the proposed Fruit Hill entrance intersection. The inside lane will become the left turn lane into the property. The actual design of this section of Rest Church Road and the proposed left turn lane as a lane drop or an upstream merge prior to the left turn lane can be reviewed and approved at the site plan submission. We appreciate the County's efforts to include VDOT in the early planning stages for development and the opportunity to provide comments on this rezoning. We ask that you include a copy of this transmittal for official public record. If you have any questions or need further information,please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, VDOT-Land Development Engineer Shenandoah,Frederick, Clarke,&Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg,VA 22824 (540)534-3211 2 XVDOTu*.Virgin 3'c°am"'' FRUIT HILL PROPERTY TIA REVIEW FREDERICK COUNTY VDOT EDINBURG RESIDENCY/STAUNTON DISTRICT Review of Fruit Hill Property Traffic Impact Analysis VDOT—October 28, 2022 The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed the updated proffer statement for the Fruit Hill Property project in Frederick County, submitted October 19th, 2022. We offer the following comments on this submission: 1. In the letter with the rezoning updates, it states that the applicant believes VDOT's TIA comments have been addressed. The TIA still needs to be updated based on VDOT's 1st submission review comments, but we are waiting on guidance from VDOT Central Office Traffic Engineering regarding analysis methodology related to two of our comments. 2. Proffer 1.6.1 has been updated to now state "any permitted use" that results in a higher trip generation than the assumptions used in the TIA. A revised TIA subject to county and VDOT approval and any additional mitigation is tied to site plan approval. 3. Proffer 1.6.2 should be clarified to indicate that existing traffic counts related to the subject development will not be utilized to determine the need for a new TIA in the case of a land use change resulting in higher trip generation than the assumptions used in the TIA. If there is existing development on the property at such time that a new TIA is warranted per proffer 1.6.1, the existing development volume will be captured in the baseline/ existing year data collection and analysis associated with the new TIA. 4. Proffer 3.13 should be updated to replace all references of a traffic signal to an intersection improvement as determined and approved through a VDOT Signal Justification Report. 5. A typical section should be provided on the GDP for the proposed 2-lane roadway(Fruit Hill Road, Proffer 3.2). VDOT's preference would be for the center median to be provided and the two inside lanes of the ultimate U4D be constructed in the interim. 6. Please note that an Operational Safety Analysis Report(OSAR) is required for any changes proposed to the interchange. The OSAR must be submitted to FHWA for approval and the intent is to demonstrate that the proposed project will have no significant adverse impact on the operations and safety on the facility. XVDOT FRUIT HILL PROPERTY TIA REVIEW, FREDERICK COUNTY VDOT EDINBURG RESIDENCY/STAUNTON DISTRICT Review of Fruit Hill Property Traffic Impact Analysis VDOT—August 8, 2022 The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Fruit Hill Property TIA in Frederick County, dated April 2022 and submitted June 14, 2022. We have developed the following comments on the initial TIA submission. 1. The TIA is assuming all low volume uses (warehouse, data center)for trip generation while not proffering out other potential uses for light industrial zoning. For example, if confined to the uses as shown in the TIA the site will generate 452 PM peak trips. A"general light industrial (ITE 110)" use would generate over 3.5 times the volume at 1626 PM peak trips. The middle of the road assumption,would be an mixed use "industrial park(ITE 130)" 872 PM peak hour trips. This could have a tremendous impact on the studied intersections, ramps, and roadways. We typically suggest a worse-case senerio but feel more comfortable with either the middle of the road assumption or proffers that actually restrict the uses to the peak hour study volumes. 2. Proffers 1.6, 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 are very weak in providing any future mitigations and many higher generation uses. Any proffers not obtained with the rezoning will likely never happen. 3. The recall mode for the coordinated signal phases should be set to C-Max, instead of C-Min. Please revise. 4. The footnote on page 20 of the TIA states "the current lane configuration on the northbound approach of the Rest Church Road/ I-81 Northbound Ramps intersection does not comply with NEMA phasing. As such, HCM 2000 outputs are reported for signalized intersections." It is the phase assignment on the southbound ramp that does not comply with NEMA phasing. This phase should be adjusted from Phase 3 to Phase 4 to make the intersection NEMA compliant. The analysis results should then be updated to HCM 6 throughout the report per TOSAM requirements. 5. There are inconsistencies with the methodology of reporting queue lengths throughout the TIA. Some scenarios report 95% queue length from Synchro at the ramp intersections, but report max queue length from SimTraffic for the US 11/ Rest Church Road intersection. Other scenarios report max queue length from SimTraffic for all signalized intersections along the corridor,while the 2034 Total Mitigated scenario has an additional footnote that only the US 11/ Rest Church Road intersection PM peak hour queue lengths are reported from SimTraffic. Please provide additional information to support the approach used to report queue lengths in the analysis. A follow up discussion with VDOT may be necessary to determine and agreed upon a methodology for reporting queue lengths. 6. Page 18 of the TIA states that traffic counts were conducted in October 2021 from 3-6 pm. Please correct to match the traffic data collection times of 4-7 pm as reported in the appendix. 7. There is a significant discrepancy of 300 vehicles in I-81 southbound ramp left turns in the 2034 background and 2034 background with mitigation AM scenarios. The left turns in these models are coded as 511, but should be 211 based on the 2034 total build scenarios. As a result, inaccurate delays and queue lengths are reported in Tables 12 and 13 in the TIA. Please revise. (P1225776.DOCX/i VDOT comments oo626o 0000131 4WVVDDTo t I cr,„ ,_, FRUIT HILL PROPERTY TIA REVIEW FREDERICK COUNTY Tr� [x]t�ll VDOT EDINBURG RESIDENCY/STAUNTON DISTRICT 8. Table 10 of the report indicates that an eastbound right turn lane from Rest Church Road onto relocated Zachary Ann Lane is not warranted based on the site trip generation and this right turn lane is not included in the report recommendations. However, a right turn lane is modeled in the PM Total Mitigation Synchro files. Please update the files for consistency with the report. 9. The proposed realignment of Zachary Ann Lane to the west as illustrated in the Conceptual Site Plan included as Figure 2 in the TIA will have a significant impact on truck egress from the existing Flying J development. The realignment will require trucks from Flying J to navigate through the road network of the proposed development to return to Rest Church Road. Has the applicant had discussions with the Flying J property owner to determine if this proposed improvement is supported? 10. Consider simplifying proffer 3.6 to state that the monetary contribution shall be used toward future transportation improvements at the US 11/ Rest Church Road intersection and the I-81, Exit 323 northbound ramp to address operational issues as indicated in the TIA. 11. The proposed 60' right-of-way for Fruit Hill Road (collector road) will not accommodate the 4-lane divided road shown in the County's transportation plan. If the roadway is proposed for addition into the VDOT system, then it should be designed per geometric design standards for urban collector GS-7 with a 45-50 MPH design speed. A typical section should be developed to determine the amount of right-of-way and/or easements needed to accommodate the U4D and any bike and pedestrian access. 12. The section of Rest Church Road from Flying J Travel Center to the collector proposed in this application is shown on the county transportation plan to be a 4 lane divided road. The GDP does not match the transportation plan and only shows a right-of-way dedication and construction 2 lanes with a left turn lane at this intersection. Based on future traffic a U4D roadway is needed up to the collector as well as additional area to transition back to 2 lanes on Rest Church Road. 13. Based on the existing lane geometry of Rest Church Road to the west of the I-81 southbound ramp intersection, the westbound left turn lane to Fruit Hill Road should be continuous and extend back to the ramp signal. 14. The County's exisiting 30' prescriptive easement on Rest Church Road (Rte. 669) is inadequate for maintenance or even minor future improvements. Typically a 50' wide right-of-way is needed for a two lane secondary roadway or 25' dedication from the center of the roadway. 15. The existing Ruebuck Lane (Rte. 670) intersection at Rest Church Road cannot obtain or maintain minimum sight distance without additional right-of-way along Rest Church Road to the east. 16. We have no objections to the abandonment of the end of Ruebuck Lane as shown on the GDP. However,this road does not provide an area for public, emergency, or maintenance services to turn around. A 55' radial right- of-way is needed for a cul-de-sac area at the last driveway(where grade permits) a cul-de-sac to be constructed outside the flood plan. (Pi��5776.DOCX/1 VDOT comments oo626o 000013} - �i x ,z —u✓7"b J�jj Rezoning Comments Frederick-Winchester Health Department Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick-Winchester Health Department Frederick-Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Suite 201 (540) 722-3480 Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please till out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick- Winchester Health Department with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and anv other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Equus capital Partners,Ltd. Telephone: 703-680-4664 Mailing Address: Attn:John H. Foote 4310 Prince William Parkway,Suite 300 Prince William,VA 22192 Location of property: 33 9 1A. 33 A 89, 33 A 90 Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M9,B2,OM Acreage: Frederick-Winchester Health Department's Comments: N0 CDMoyg Health Dept. Signature& Date: _Agog 31- ZZ_ Notice to Health Department-Please Return This Form to the Applicant 27 a E Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Public Works 1y!�Iw Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Frederick County Dept. of PubliAEt E I V E D Attn: Director of Engineering Attn: Director of Engineering 107 North Kent Street 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Suite 200 (540) 665-5643 Winchester, Virginia Frederick County Public Works& Inspections Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Public Works with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement. impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. Telephone: 703-680-4664 Mailing Address: Attn:John H.Foote 4310 Prince William Parkway,Suite 300 Prince William,VA 22192 Location of property: 33 9 1A;33 A 89;33 A 90 Current Zoning: RA Zoning requested: M1, B2,OM Acreage: 220.06 Department of Public Works Comments: Public Works Signature & Date: Z2 Notice to Dept. of Pull c Works -Please Return This Form to the Applicant 22 r Rezoning Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal J Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Fire Marshal Frederick County Fire & Rescue Dept. 1080 Coverstone Drive Attn: Fire Marshal Winchester, Virginia 22602 Public Safety Building (540) 665-6350 1080 Coverstone Drive Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Fire Marshal with his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Equus capital Partners, Ltd. - Telephone: 703-680-4664 Mailing Address: Attn:John H.Foote 4310 Prince William Parkway,Suite 300 Prince William,VA 22192 Location of property: 33 9 1A;33 A 89;33 A 90 Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M1,B2,OM Acreage: 220.06_ Fire Marshal's Comments: :51FE 470$0 Fire Marshal's Signature &Date: Notice to Fire Marshal-Please Return This Form to the Applicant 23 Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Office of the Fire Marshal 1080 Coverstone Drive Winchester,VA 22602 Phone: 540-665-6350 Fax: 540-678-4739 fmo@fcva.us Plan Review Rezoning Status: Approved Project Name Fruit Hill Rezoning Fruit Hill Rezoning Rest Church Rd/Ruebuck Ln Clear Brook, Virginia 22624 Printed Date: 05/26/2022 Applicant: Equus Captial Partners, Ltd. General • Received Date: 05/23/2022 Occupancy Type: Review Begin Date: 05/26/2022 Property Use: Review End Date: 05/26/2022 Activity Number: 1051085 Hours: 2.0000 Review Cause: Application *Willillll Adam Hounshell Lieutenant/Assistant Fire Marshal Page 1 of 1 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 107 North Kent Street (540) 665-5678 Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Parks & Recreation with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement,impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. 1 Applicants Name: Equus Capital Partners,Ltd. Telephone: 703-680-4664 Mailing Address: Attn:John H.Foote 4310 Prince William Parkway,Suite 300 Prince William,VA 22192 Location of property: 33 9 1A;33 A 89;33 A 90 6• RA Zoning requested: M1,B2, OM Acreage: 220.06 Current zoning. _ g ' q Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: Notice to Department of r s & Recreation -Please Return This Form to the Applicant 24 R RezoniDg Comments Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools Ma_iltw. Hand deliver to: Frederick County Public Schools Frederick County Public Schools Attn:Superintendent Attn: Superintendent P.O.Box 3508 School Administration Building Winchester,Virginia 22604 1415 Amherst Street (540)662-3888 Winchester,Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Superintendent I of Public Schools with his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map. proffer ° stateraent,Impact analysis,and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name:.Equus capital Partners,Ud, Telephone: 703-380-4684 Mailing Address: Attn:John H.Foote 4310 Prince Wiliam Parkway,Suite Zoo Pdnoe William,VA 22192 Location of property: 33 91A;33 A 89;33 A 90 Current zoning: RA WSZOM Acreage: 220-06 Superintendent of Public Schools, Comments: Ilk t Superintendent's Signature&Date: Notice to School Superina"tendent- Use®Rern This Form to the Applicant 25 Rezoning Comments Winchester Regional Airport Mail to: Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road 491 Airport Road Winchester. Virginia 22602 (Rt. 645. off of Rt. 522 South) (540) 662-2422 Winchester. Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Winchester Regional Airport with their review. Attach a cope of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Equus capital Partners.Ltd. Telephone: 703-6804664 Mailing Address: Attn.John H.Foote 4310 Prince William Parkway,Suite 300 Prince William VA 22192 Location of property: '3�?1A:33 A 89 33 A 90 Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M1,B2,OM Acreage: 220.06 Winchester Regional Airport's Comments: Winchester Regional Airport' Signature & Date: z-C LL Notice to Winchester Regional Airport - Please Return Form to Applicant 31 R i 1 Rezoning Comments Frederick-Winchester Service Authority i Mail toto: Hand deliver to: Fred-Wine Service Authority Fred-Winc Service Authority Attn: Executive Director Attn: Executive Director P.Q. Box 43 9 W. Piccadilly Street Winchester.Virginia 23604 Winchester. Virginia (540) 722-3579 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Fred-Winc Service Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement,impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Mame: Equus capital Partners,Ltd, Telephone: 703-680-4664 Ntailing Address: Attn:John H.Foote 4310 Prince William Parkway,Suite 300 Prince William,VA 22192 i Location of property: 33 9 1A;33 A 89;33 A 90 Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M1,B2,OM Acreage: 220.06 Fred-Wine Service Authority's Comments: Fred-Winc Service Authoritv's Signature & Date: Notice to Fred-Wine Service Authority-Please Return Form to Applicant 34 Rezoning Comments Frederick Water Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick Water Frederick Water Attn: Engineer Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 315 Tasker Road Winchester, Virginia 22604 Stephens City, Virginia (540) 868-1061 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis,' l and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Equus Capital Partners,Ltd. Telephone: 703-680-4664 Mailing Address: Attn:John H. Foote 4310 Prince William Parkway,Suite 300 Prince William,VA 22192 T.nrntinn of nrnnPrty- 33 91A:33 A 89:33A 90 �_------- r--r---.l Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M1,132,OM Acreage: 220.06 Frederick Water Comments: Frederick Water has reviewed the proffers ("7. WATER AND SEWER") which captures the developers commitment to fund and construct the necessary water and sewer infrastructure to serve the site's water and sewer demands. The proffers also commits to install SCADA at the Woodbine and VDOT sanitary pump stations and provide fu re easements to facilitate water and sewer services in the Cedar Hill and Hopewell Roads area. F _re Water supports the proposed rezoning application with the referenced proffer statement. Frederick Water Signature&Date: Notice to Frederick Water-Please Return This Form to the Applicant 26 CO COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 -;H Fax: 540/ 665-6395 July 25, 2022 John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley& Walsh 4310 Prince William Parkway Suite 300 Prince William, VA 22192 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Fruit Hill Rezoning Application Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) District Property Identification Numbers (PINS): 33-A-90, 33-A-89, and 33-9-1A Magisterial District: Stonewall Dear Mr. Foote: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning application during their meeting on July 19, 2022. This application seeks to rezone three parcels totaling 220.06 acres of land generally located on the south side of Rest Church Road (Route 669), west of Zachary Ann Lane (Route 825), in close proximity to the exit 323 along I-81. The parcels are currently zoned as RA (Rural Areas) and the proposed rezoning is to M1 (Light Industrial), B2 (General Business), and OM (Office-Manufacturing Park). Following their review of this application, the HRAB recommended a Phase 2 study be conducted to further examine the interiors and building materials of the Lewis-Solenberger House and the Cather House. The HRAB recommended that the applicant consider referencing the Department of Historic Resources light detection and ranging (LiDAR) maps to document the presence of significant objects within the property. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, �.i" Wyatt Pearson, AICP Director of Planning & Development WG P/pd cc: Gary Crawford, HRAB Chairman Tyler Klein, Frederick County Senior Planner 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 From: Rod Williams<rwillia@fcva.us> Sent:Sunday, October 23, 2022 3:17 PM To: Foote,John Rivera, Kevin<k Cc:Wyatt Pearson< 'ohn Bishop<j Subject: Fruit Hill rezoning Dear John and Kevin: I have reviewed the revised version of the proffer statement, dated October 19, 2022, for this rezoning and offer the following comments: • Proffer 1.2 — The addition of the exclusion of SIC 55 uses in the proposed M1 portion of the property appears to be unnecessary, as the M1 District does not currently allow SIC 55 uses. • Dates— The most recent dates of the GDP and TIA will, of course, need to be filled in at some point. • Boundaries— I do still believe it appropriate that, to provide certainty, especially given the overafl size of the property, the rezoning materials include metes and bounds for the split zoned portions of parcel number 33-A-90. • Signatures — Finally, and I need to apologize for not having given somewhat greater detail in my previous review, but the precise form of the sentence in the notary block for entities is set out in Va. Code Sec. 55.1-621(2) and is: "The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name of officer or agent, title of officer or agent) of(name of corporation acknowledging) a (state or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation." Our Circuit Court Clerk is looking for attestations to follow the Code-prescribed language as closely as possible. Obviously, "limited liability company" would substitute for "corporation". The foregoing comments are as to legal issues only, of course, and staff and the Planning Commission will provide review as to the substance of the proffer statement. Sincerely yours, Rod Roderick B. Williams County Attorney Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-722-8383 -_vs tov v n� �zne scw 3 vrNrorrn unrnoo voraaaaa3'iva sra vvixarsrovv nvmyvols �iunmsuu:)pue Nu,a-S v-1e s s'N D77 `Al S'AWPloH Pue7an7$naax_7 ouI `@JIoMxa z� 3 a I7ANIS.77111 QHd7 SdSNIV17V 51 fil FPE _ a` -N g $ 5 3� A g a. ' a��P ... e a OV 5_' oSVen p'SN e�(2B Amu O5LWHI� W HI W 01 EnMaHe- s � 9� $ ary t k' s NH - os� Ey q 1gN O § P, MIH 6 C � = m gei2 F owe Q � £ N a IN gyp € v a sa rasa �v e€.,a aim � �a vs(oil _ o rcoz-ess(o> I �*ANL,S�S er s amxa.�'rnusia'mtni[� 't � s.pp—o3 P—��;a �s v� a a�S or 77i 15OWPlnH PUU7—PnJax,7 'ouI `a3iom�@Jo rt s n o d7l1?I!]S-7Zlll QIVVZ SdSn7/b',L76' Y a ki s I � I om I � z � � m � MWas e IM JU �5m spa.. .. M— 0 b� SR - ��.� ISI Po ga m ym tl 3 .K aMY�Jfx�eY s;cS \ ✓"pRi �s6a{'ibb Ep L l B m\ �–��^ .ems F ❑ e a Sr tM 1X Y�_2a&s��' _ '+� �6 ror�� ^/ VsN g I In '�/ i H.�b2r�1� `.(z4y1.3.£~s!s�a'�'-•=� _k _.�_.__ � WNCRFfk� CD uE I I lI w o\\ m �d�7.e2m s roo�sfs fss) .so rooz�s9 foas) saa z��ou�vre�yn ao*anxns�J zaoa r,�vry - _ sttlzms�o�P—sttl as Po X77 llI,;2WP1OH Pue7 anpnaax_ 'ouI `ajiomxa.zq_ ua z Aanxns 97111 aNe7 sasNIe17e ��>d az tits V - }xJ °T \ C" (P 66eilOM1� � I cz� lei /� / gl % \ i Ap IH \ vINStaN\ \ ii G EX rybyo55 o � \ ¢§ PPB p9g5 P 4 \ IN � x IMPUM E z ,, rob a�a o O,W6 tBe'onv '• *3AYns� ,,,. ,J77 lI s-qurPPlH P1e7anr�naax-4 g oui @jjo��a� AJAHns HUM QNe7, adSNIe17e �a / ; JX 1 — � / / Is" I i r 11 /^' , y i r\ y s @v P _J 1 a 7 t x�� t a r — l Cv ZS 04, Y. \ e / I Ir I / / ry GB.01. p $*3h ns�brytnW r " G 377 AI ;2WP[-H Pu-7anr7r��ax_7 'auI `ailomb.1f) � ' AaAH17s-7UIJ(INe75d5NIe17e \J3 -W,J 1 C// All, Ir _ a 4P; 1 t I j / J� ✓I 'Y> - Ids y�i, ffi / , - �= �o - �� -- 1 ------------- r < � a r 1 T / 7/22/24,10:38 AM Untitled Page F � ,� � r` Pair/Lookup Taxes Inquiry of Real Estate Map Number: 33 9 1 A View Map Natne: DTS LC ViewBill View Back 8038427 RE2022 10896 1 6/6/2022 2022 REAL ESTATE $0.00 i of Bill View Back ViewBill 8038427 RE2022 10896 2:1/18/2023 of Bill 2022 REAL ESTATE $0.00' r ViewBill) View Back 8038427 RE2023 10835 1 6/5/2023 2023 REAL ESTATE $0.001 of Bill ViewBill View Back 8038427 RE2023 10835 2 12/5/2023 2023 REAL ESTATE $0.00 1 of Bill I ViewBill Vie�ck 8038427 RE2024 11461 1 6/5/2024 2024 REAL ESTATE $0.00', of Bill OO Show Current Charges Due Show All Charges Total Due: $0.00 Return to Search https://fctaxes.co.frederick.va.us/ApplicationsTFR_PayTaxesfTicketsByMap.aspx 1/1 7/22/24, 10:36 AM Untitled Page Viruillia Pair/Lookup Taxes Inquiry of Real Estate Map Number: 33 A 89 View Map Name: DT$ LC r ViewBill View Back 8006465 tRE2022 10894" 1 6/6/2022 12022 REAL ESTATE $0.00 of Bill ViewBill View Back 8006465 IRE2022 10894 21/18/2023 2022 REAL ESTATE $0.00 of Bill I ViewBill View Back of Bill 8006465 RE2023 10833 1 6/5/2023 12023 REALE TATE $0.00 ViewBill View Back 8006465 I'RE2023 10833 2112/5/2023 12023 REAL ESTATE $0.00 of Bill I I ViewBill View Back 8006465 RE2024 11459' 1 6/5/2024 2024 REAL ESTATE $0.00 of Bill OO Show Current Charges Due Show All Charges Total Due: $0.00 Return to Search https:/Ifctaxes.co.frederick.va.us/Applicationsf'FR_PayTaxesf'FicketsByMap.aspx 1/i 7/22/24,10:37 AM Untitled Page t Pay/Lookup Taxes Inquiry of Real Estate Map Number: 33 A 90 View Map Name: DTS LC View Back ViewBill of Bill 8006466 1RE2022 10895 1 6/6/2022 12022 REAL ESTATE $0.00 View Back I . ViewBill 8006466!RE2022 10895'1 2 1/18/202'12022 REAL ESTATE $0.00 of Bill ViewBill View Back 8006466 1 RE2023 108341 1 6/5/2023 2023 REAL ESTATE $0.00 of Bill 0 View Back ViewBill of Bill 8006466,RE2023 10834" 2 12/5/2023 2023 REAL ESTATE $0.00 ViewBill View Back 8006466 RE2024 11460' 1 6/5/2024 2024 REALE TATE $0.00 of Bill OO Show Current Charges Due Show All Charges Total Due: $0.00 Return to Search haps:/Ifctaxes.co.frederick.va.us/Applications/TR_PayTaxesfTicketsByMap.aspx 1/1 Transportation Impact Analysis Fruit Hill Property Frederick County, Virginia January 2023 Transportation Impact Analysis Fruit Hill Property Frederick County, Virginia Prepared For: Equus Capital Partners,Ltd. O��p 0 3843 West Chester Pike Newtown Square,PA 19073 ,l Prepared By: ANDREW J. BUTSICK Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 11480 Commerce Park Drive,Suite 450 Lic.No. 0402058797 Reston,Virginia 20211 (703)885-8970 Project Manager:Andrew Butsick,PE I�NALE� Project Principal:John Callow Andrew Butsick No. 0402058797 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Project No.26732.000 Traffic Engineer January 2023 I Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Toble of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Tableof Contents......................................................................................................................................ii ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................12 ExistingConditions..................................................................................................................................17 Transportation Impact Analysis ..............................................................................................................31 Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................................................74 References ........................................................................................................................................83 APPENDICES Appendix A Scoping Letter Appendix B 2016 and 2021 Turning Movement Counts Appendix C Level of Service Description Appendix D Existing Conditions Operational Worksheets Appendix E Existing Conditions— Mitigation Operational Worksheets Appendix F In-Process Site Trips Appendix G 2028 Background Traffic Conditions Operational Worksheets Appendix H 2028 Background Conditions— Mitigation Operational Worksheets Appendix I Year 2028 Total Traffic Operational Worksheets Appendix J 2028 Total Traffic Conditions— Mitigation Scenario Operational Worksheets Appendix K Turn Lane Warrants Appendix L Year 2034 Background Traffic Operational Worksheets Appendix M Year 2034 Background Traffic Conditions— Mitigation Scenario Operational Worksheets Appendix N Year 2034 Total Traffic Operational Worksheets Appendix O Year 2034 Total Traffic Conditions—Mitigation Scenario Operational Worksheets Kittelson&Associates,Inc. ii Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure1. Site Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................13 Figure2. Conceptual Site Plan .............................................................................................................14 Figure3. Zoning Map ...........................................................................................................................15 Figure 4. Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control Devices.....................................................18 Figure 5. 2021 Existing Traffic Volumes...............................................................................................20 Figure 6. Existing Traffic Conditions—Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours...........................22 Figure 7. Existing Lane Group Levels of Service—Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours.........23 Figure 8. Converting Eastbound Through Lane to Shared Left-Through—US 11/Rest Church Road..29 Figure 9.Year 2028 Background Traffic Conditions—Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours...33 Figure 10. Year 2028 Background Lane Group Levels of Service—Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours .....................................................................................................................................34 Figure 11. Conceptual Layout— Northbound Left-Turn Lane— Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps .....................................................................................................................................38 Figure 12. Year 2028 Total Traffic Assumed Lane Configurations and Traffic Control Devices...........42 Figure 13. Estimated Trip Distribution Pattern....................................................................................43 Figure 14. Net New Site Generated Trips—Warehousing...................................................................44 Figure 15. Net New Site Generated Trips— Data Center.....................................................................45 Figure 16. Net New Site-Generated Trips- Hotel ................................................................................46 Figure 17. Pass-by& Diverted Trips— Restaurant................................................................................47 Figure 18. Net New Site-Generated Trips- Restaurant.......................................................................48 Figure 19. Year 2028 Total Traffic Conditions—Weekday AM, Weekday PM, and Saturday Midday PeakHours .....................................................................................................................................50 Figure 20. Year 2028 Total Traffic Lane Group Levels of Service—Weekday AM, Weekday PM, and SaturdayMidday Peak Hours...............................................................................................................51 Figure 21. Access Management Evaluation .........................................................................................58 Figure 22. Year 2034 Background Traffic Conditions—Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours.60 Figure 23. Year 2034 Background Lane Group Levels of Service—Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours .....................................................................................................................................61 Figure 24. Year 2034 Total Traffic Conditions—Weekday AM, Weekday PM, and Saturday Midday PeakHours .....................................................................................................................................66 Kittelson&Associates,Inc. iii Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Toble of Contents Figure 25. Year 2034 Total Traffic Lane Group Levels of Service—Weekday AM, Weekday PM, and SaturdayMidday Peak Hours...............................................................................................................67 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Existing Transportation Facilities and Roadway Designations...............................................17 Table 2. Existing Conditions—Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection ..................................................................................24 Table 3. Existing Conditions— Mitigation Strategy#1—Signal Re-timing ...........................................26 Table 4. Existing Conditions— Mitigation Strategy#2—Eastbound Shared Left-Through Lane at US 11/Rest Church Road ...........................................................................................................................28 Table 5. Year 2028 Background Traffic Conditions—Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection........................................35 Table 6. Year 2028 Background— Mitigation Strategies......................................................................37 Table 7. Year 2028 Background Conditions— Mitigated Traffic Conditions........................................39 Table 8. Estimated Trip Generation.....................................................................................................41 Table 9. 2028 Total Traffic Conditions—Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection .................................................................52 Table 10. 2028 Total Traffic Conditions— Mitigated...........................................................................54 Table 11. Right Turn-Lane Warrants— Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane—Year 2028 Total Traffic Conditions .....................................................................................................................................56 Table 12. Left Turn-Lane Warrants— Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane—Year 2028 Total Traffic Conditions .....................................................................................................................................56 Table 13. Year 2034 Background Traffic Conditions—Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection........................................62 Table 14. Year 2034 Background Traffic Conditions— Mitigated ........................................................64 Table 15. 2034 Total Traffic Conditions—Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection.........................................................68 Table 16. Year 2034 Total Traffic Conditions— Mitigated—Weekday AM Peak Hour........................70 Table 17. Year 2034 Total Traffic Conditions— Mitigated—Weekday PM Peak Hour ........................71 Kittelson&Associates,Inc. iv Section 1 Executive Summary Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A traffic operations analysis has been conducted to confirm that the transportation system can adequately support the proposed Fruit Hill Property, in fulfillment of Frederick County and Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) requirements for traffic impact studies. The scope of the project analysis was developed in collaboration with County and VDOT staff. Specifically, this analysis includes: ■ Year 2021 existing land use and transportation system conditions within the site vicinity; ■ Forecast year 2028 background traffic conditions (without site development) during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak periods including in-process/approved developments and regional growth; ■ Trip generation and distribution estimates for the proposed development; ■ Forecast year 2028 total traffic conditions based on build out of the development including queuing and turn lane analyses, ■ Turn lane evaluations at site entrances; ■ Access management evaluation; ■ Forecast year 2034 background traffic conditions (without site development) during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak periods; ■ Forecast year 2034 total traffic conditions based on build out of the development; and, ■ Conclusions and recommendations. Based on the results of the transportation impact analysis,the transportation system can accommodate full build-out of the proposed development with the noted recommendations. The findings of this analysis and our recommendations are discussed below. Existing Conditions ■ All study intersections and critical movements currently operate at LOS C or better with queues stored within existing lanes with the following exception: o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection#4): The eastbound left-turn operates at LOS E with queues spilling back to the adjacent Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The queues block the upstream end of the lane approximately 21 percent of the time during the weekday p.m. peak hour. ■ Signal re-timing alone (i.e., no physical changes to the travelled way) is not anticipated to fully prevent the spill back of eastbound left-turn movements at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 2 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Executive Summary ■ Queue spiIIbacks can be mitigated by adding capacity to the eastbound left- turn movement through conversion of the existing eastbound through lane to a shared left/through lane. This would also require: • Restriping of the eastbound approach lanes • Conversion of the Rest Church Road approaches to operate under "split" signal phasing • Replacing the existing three-section signal head for the eastbound through lane with a four-section head (three ball indicators and one, green left-turn arrow indicator) • Potential widening of US 11 to the north of Rest Church Road to add a second northbound lane that ends/merges a minimum of 495 feet north of the existing commercial driveway on the east side of US 11. • Adjustments to coordination with the adjacent signalized intersections at the 1-81 interchange. ■ If implemented, the eastbound queues would be anticipated to be contained within the existing lane storage. Minimal impacts are anticipated at adjacent intersection due to the conversion of the Rest Church Road approaches to split-phased at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection. o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps (Study Intersection #3): Given the current lane configuration on the northbound approach, the SimTraffic software used to model maximum queues at signalized intersections likely overestimates the levels of queueing on the northbound approach. ■ A review of the SimTraffic model illustrated a majority of the northbound right-turning traffic from the off-ramp ultimately destined for US 11 northbound stacked in the shared left-through-right lane on the off-ramp. However, field observations showed a majority of the northbound right- turns from the off-ramp used the exclusive right-turn lane (often immediately cutting across three lanes to reach the left-turn lane onto US 11 northbound from Rest Church Road). ■ To help "encourage" more vehicles turning left onto US 11 to utilize the exclusive right-turn lane on the off-ramp,the default"Mandatory Distance" and "Positioning Distance" parameters were reduced in the SimTraffic Simulation Settings. Even with these adjustments, however, a considerable amount of northbound off-ramp traffic destined for US 11 northbound continues to stack in the shared left-through-right lane in the SimTraffic model. This should be considered as a potential limitation of the model under the current lane configuration. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 3 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Executive Summary 2028 Background Traffic Conditions ■ A one percent annual growth rate was applied to account for near-term regional traffic growth. ■ In-process developments included in the background 2028 analysis include: o Arogas Parcel—22,570 square feet of shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection o Parcel 33-A-12 — 150,000 square feet of industrial development in the southwest quadrant of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection o Light Property — 105,500 square feet of industrial development along Woodbine Road to the southeast of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection o Whitehall Commerce Center—Undeveloped portions of the larger site located west of US 11 along Rest Church Road include 162,000 square feet of industrial development ■ No transportation improvements were identified for inclusion in the background 2028 analysis. ■ All signalized study intersections and critical movements at unsignalized intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS C or better with queues stored within existing lanes with the following exceptions: o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps (Study Intersection #3): With the increase in volumes on both Rest Church Road and the 1-81 northbound off-ramp due to regional growth and trips from in-process developments, queues on the northbound off-ramp are anticipated to spill back on 1-81 under the existing signal timing during the weekday p.m. peak hour. ■ Note: As aforementioned, the SimTraffic model is likely overestimating forecast northbound queues under the current lane configuration due to limitations within the modeling software with respect to driver lane choice. ■ By adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the existing shared left/through/right lane to a shared left/through lane, additional capacity can be added to the northbound left-turn movement and reduce queue spillback. • The potential for adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the shared left/through/right lane to a shared through/right lane was also evaluated. This also represents a viable mitigation strategy; however, the conversion of the existing shared lane to a shared left/through is anticipated to result in greater Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 4 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Executive Summary reduction in maximum queues and delays on the off-ramp under year 2028 background traffic conditions. o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection #4): Similar to existing conditions, the eastbound left-turn queues at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection are anticipated to spill back to the adjacent Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The movement is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F.The queues are forecast to block the upstream end of the lane approximately 62 percent of the time during the weekday p.m. peak hour. ■ Converting the eastbound through lane to a shared left/through lane and making the associated signal improvements is anticipated to reduce queuing on the eastbound approach to within the existing lane storage. Proposed Development ■ The proposed Fruit Hill Property development consists of one 100-room hotel, one 5,000 square-foot restaurant, one 300,000 square-foot data center, and four industrial buildings totaling to 2,125,500 square feet. ■ Access to the development is proposed via a relocated Zachary Ann Lane. The Applicant is proposing to relocate Zachary Ann Lane further west as a part of this project to improve spacing from adjacent commercial driveways and the adjacent 1-81 interchange. ■ The development is estimated to generate approximately 4,330 net new weekday daily trips, 430 weekday a.m. (317 in, 113 out), and 452 weekday p.m. (146 in, 306 out) peak hour trips when built out in year 2028. 2028 Total Traffic Conditions ■ All signalized study intersections and critical movements at unsignalized intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better with queues stored within existing lanes with the following exceptions: o Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane f RELOCATEDI (Study Intersection #1): The critical northbound left-turn movement from the relocated Zachary Ann Lane is forecast to operate at LOS E during the weekday a.m. peak hour with control delays of 36.1 seconds per vehicle. ■ The movement is anticipated to serve 11 vehicles and queues are anticipated to be less than one vehicle on average during the weekday a.m. peak hour. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the critical northbound right-turn movement is forecast to operate at LOS C. o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps(Study Intersection #3): Similar to year 2028 background traffic conditions, the maximum queues for the northbound Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 5 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Executive Summary approach(ramp from 1-81)are forecast to spill back close to 1-81 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The signal is still forecast to operate below capacity. ■ Note: As aforementioned, the SimTraffic model is likely overestimating forecast northbound queues under the current lane configuration due to limitations within the modeling software with respect to driver lane choice. ■ The site is anticipated to add 72 northbound left-turns to this approach. o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection #4): Without signal timing changes relative to existing conditions, the signalized intersection is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Similar to both existing and year 2028 background traffic conditions, the eastbound left-turn queues are forecast to spill back to the upstream Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection. ■ The site is anticipated to add eight (8) trips to this movement during the weekday p.m. peak hour. 2028 Total Traffic Mitigation ■ As shown to be effective under existing and year 2028 background traffic conditions, the following improvement strategies are anticipated offset the impacts to the surrounding roadway network related to the addition of site-generated trips: o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps (Study Intersection #3) ■ Widen the northbound off-ramp to three approach lanes. By adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the existing shared left/through/right lane to a shared left/through lane, additional capacity can be added to the northbound left-turn movement and reduce queue spillback. • The potential for adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the shared left/through/right lane to a shared through/right lane was also evaluated. This also represents a viable mitigation strategy; however, the conversion of the existing shared lane to a shared left/through is anticipated to result in greater reduction in maximum queues and delays on the off-ramp under year 2028 total traffic conditions. o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection #4) ■ Convert the eastbound through lane to a shared left/through lane and convert the Rest Church Road approach phasing to split phase (as evaluated under existing and year 2028 background traffic conditions) Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 6 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Executive Summary ■ While more drastic improvements (e.g., converting the signals to roundabouts or other alternative intersection forms) were initially considered at each of the study intersections warranting mitigation, the existing intersection spacing and proximity to the bridge over I- 81 would require substantial impacts to accommodate alternative intersection forms. Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation ■ An evaluation of VDOT right-turn lane warrants for two-lane roadways illustrated a right- turn lane is not forecast to be warranted on Rest Church Road at the relocated Zachary Ann Lane under year 2028 total traffic conditions. ■ An evaluation of the VDOT left-turn lane warrants for two-lane roadways illustrated a left- turn lane is forecast to be warranted on Rest Church Road at the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. The turn lane should have a minimum of 200 feet of storage and a 200-foot taper. Access Management Evaluation ■ The proposed relocation of Zachary Ann Lane (to be relocated by the Applicant as a part of this application) meets/exceeds VDOT standards for access spacing on Rest Church Road (local street), including the minimum spacing requirement from an interchange. ■ Relocating Zachary Ann Lane is anticipated to improve both the operations and safety of the Rest Church corridor relative to existing conditions, where the Flying J Travel Center currently has four commercial access points within close proximity to the 1-81 interchange. Shifting truck egress from the Flying J further west will help more clearly delineate decision points for drivers along Rest Church Road. ■ Relocating Zachary Ann Lane is also anticipated to better serve future development in the area. The Flying J Travel Center has previously expressed interest in expanding to the north side of Rest Church Road.A fourth, southbound leg at the relocated Zachary Ann Lane could serve as a singular access point for both the potential Flying J and any future development on the north side of Rest Church Road. ■ Given the projected volumes on Rest Church Road, it is not anticipated any cross-section improvements would be required on Rest Church Road with build-out of the Fruit Hill Property on the south side of Rest Church Road. Year 2034 Background Traffic Conditions ■ A one percent annual growth rate was applied to year 2028 background traffic volumes to account for near-term regional traffic growth between 2028 and 2034. ■ No additional in-process developments beyond those included in the 2028 traffic analysis were identified for inclusion in the 2034 traffic analysis. ■ No transportation improvements were identified for inclusion in the background 2034 analysis. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 7 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Executive Summary ■ All study intersections and critical movements are forecast to continue to operate at LOS C or better with queues stored within existing lanes with the following exceptions: o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps(Study Intersection #3): Similar to year 2028 background traffic conditions, the maximum queues for the northbound approach (ramp from 1-81)are forecast to spill back close to 1-81 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. ■ Note: As aforementioned, the SimTraffic model is likely overestimating forecast northbound queues under the current lane configuration due to limitations within the modeling software with respect to driver lane choice. ■ Similar to year 2028 traffic conditions, the queueing issues are forecast to be addressed by adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the existing shared left/through/right lane to either a shared left/through or a through/right lane. • Converting the existing shared lane on the ramp either a shared left/through or through/right represent viable strategies under year 2034 background traffic conditions. Marginal differences in maximum queue lengths and delay are expected on the northbound ramp between the two strategies.These estimated values are highly dependent on the signal timing and coordination pattern employed. o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection #4): The eastbound left-turn queues at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection are anticipated to spill back to the adjacent Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The movement is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F.The queues are forecast to block the upstream end of the lane approximately 64 percent of the time during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The overall intersection is anticipated to operate near capacity at LOS E. ■ Similar to year 2028 traffic conditions, the queue spillback and high delays are anticipated to be addressed through conversion of the eastbound through lane to a shared left/through and implementing associated signal improvements. Year 2034 Total Traffic Conditions ■ All study intersections and critical movements are forecast to operate at LOS D or better with queues stored within existing lanes with the following exceptions: o Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane f RELOCATEDI (Study Intersection #1): The critical northbound left-turn movement from the relocated Zachary Ann Lane is forecast to operate at LOS E during the weekday a.m. peak hour with control delays of 36.9 seconds per vehicle. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 8 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Executive Summary ■ The movement is anticipated to serve 11 vehicles and queues are anticipated to be less than one vehicle on average during the weekday a.m. peak hour. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the critical northbound right-turn movement is forecast to operate at LOS C. o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps(Study Intersection #3): Similar to year 2034 background traffic conditions, the maximum queues for the northbound approach(ramp from 1-81)are forecast to spill back close to 1-81 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The signal is still forecast to operate below capacity. ■ Note: As aforementioned, the SimTraffic model is likely overestimating forecast northbound queues under the current lane configuration due to limitations within the modeling software with respect to driver lane choice. ■ Similar to year 2034 background traffic conditions, the queueing spillback forecast on the northbound approach can be mitigated by adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the existing shared left- through-right lane to either a shared left/through or through/right lane. • Converting the existing shared lane on the ramp either a shared left/through or through/right represent viable strategies under year 2034 background traffic conditions. Marginal differences in maximum queue lengths and delay are expected on the northbound ramp between the two strategies.These estimated values are highly dependent on the signal timing and coordination pattern employed. o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection #4): Without signal timing changes relative to existing conditions, the signalized intersection is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Similar to both existing and year 2034 background traffic conditions, the eastbound left-turn queues are forecast to spill back to the upstream Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection. ■ As shown effective under existing and pre-build-out traffic conditions, the queueing and delay concerns are anticipated to be addressed through conversion of the eastbound through lane to a shared left/through and implementing associated signal improvements. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 9 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Executive Summary RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the forecast impacts of the proposed Fruit Hill Property development on the surrounding roadway network, the following improvements are recommended for consideration: ■ Convert the eastbound through lane at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection to a shared left/through lane. Appropriate adjustments to signal timing/coordination on Rest Church Road and roadway improvements to US 11 will be required, including converting the Rest Church Road approaches at US 11 to split phasing. o The need for this mitigation strategy is shown to be warranted under existing conditions. The site-related trips added to the network at this intersection represent approximately two percent of the total entering vehicles upon build-out in year 2028. ■ Construct a northbound left-turn lane with at least 300 feet of storage and a 200-foot taper on the northbound off-ramp of 1-81 at Rest Church Road. o The need for this mitigation strategy was shown to be warranted under year 2028 background (pre-build-out) traffic conditions. The site-related trips added to the network at this intersection represent approximately 16.5 percent of the total entering vehicles upon build-out in year 2028. ■ Construct a westbound left-turn lane with at least 200 feet of storage and a 200-foot taper on Rest Church Road at the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. If feasible, this left-turn lane can be extended upstream to the existing left-turn lane onto the [existing] Zachary Ann Lane to create longer storage and greater deceleration distance for future growth. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 10 Section 2 Introduction Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Introduction INTRODUCTION Kittelson and Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) prepared this report to document analysis methodologies and assumptions with regard to the proposed Fruit Hill Property located in the southwest quadrant of the Route 669 (Rest Church Road)/Zachary Ann Lane intersection in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed site, shown in Figure 1, consists of one 100-room hotel, one 5,000 square-foot restaurant, and five industrial buildings totaling to 2,249,000 square feet. The development is proposed to be built out by Year 2028. The Applicant is proposing to provide access to the site via a relocated Zachary Ann Lane. The existing Zachary Ann Lane access point on Rest Church Road would be removed, and existing access to the Pilot/Flying-J Travel Center would be provided via a new driveway off the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. All trips to the proposed site and parcels south of the site on Zachary Ann Lane would also be accessed through the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. Figure 2 shows a preliminary conceptual site plan. The general topography for the study site can best be described as level to rolling-hill type terrain. Figure 3 illustrates the current zoning map for Frederick County(Reference 1). The parcel on which the proposed Fruit Hill Property development is located is currently zoned as Rural Area (RA). This analysis determines the transportation related impacts associated with the proposed development and was prepared in accordance with Frederick County and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requirements for traffic impact studies. The study intersections, time periods for analysis, and scope of this project were selected after County and VDOT staff were consulted. A scoping letter provided for this project is provided in Appendix A. A traffic operations analysis has been conducted to confirm that the transportation system can adequately support the proposed development. Specifically, this analysis includes: ■ Year 2021 existing land use and transportation system conditions within the site vicinity; ■ Forecast year 2028 background traffic conditions (without site development) during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak periods including in-process/approved developments and regional growth; ■ Trip generation and distribution estimates for the proposed development; ■ Forecast year 2028 total traffic conditions based on build out of the development including queuing and turn lane analyses, ■ Turn lane evaluations at site entrances; ■ Access management evaluation; ■ Forecast year 2034 background traffic conditions (without site development) during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak periods; ■ Forecast year 2034 total traffic conditions based on build out of the development; and, ■ Conclusions and recommendations. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 12 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N 670 � PROPOSED 11 NA RELOCATION 7-1- OF ZACHARY ANN LN v2 ��Fs FL�gA �� Q 669 cc MPGg��N�N C) WO n� Q 01181NE FAD c� m 81 2 a: s 0 SITE 522 n 259 0 m 81 50 0 0 7 3 37 a 50 522 a ry 11 FREDE ICK COUNTY,VA 0 0 N 81 a n E ti �-Study Intersections O- Future Study Intersections Site Vicnity Map Figure Frederick County, VA 1 I� KITTELSON I &ASSOCIATES N O i W G � C7 LL NV-1dld33NOO N tOo N u o i VA'AlNnC)3A0IU303H-A N T ,d oHrn33Hro N3 3�Io AIU'JdOMd IIIH iinui O ai \ a d oil a U y LL w jpc _� 8qF�' Ij� III r--1 1 Hlb i 1ss \ v � I III yl I II III III a l 11 - II IIII II I �I ' ill I as � I !I I I Irl I �II ' iii p I ��I A I u Ifl lli �� -aC�Il li lil illl `� I ilii \ — 44 gds � I. ) o jk1 IIY gp I 1111 Zw Ua Fo o �Q a Yca I zo 4.,�orto, �.,9 -w�oE-eeorso�,=, P,o�y-sb�,.odaa-zF�9zi9600z 4„I4,d�gidwa.w"�,�90�%oa�,a,m�, Ir iii � ' Section 3 Existing Conditions Broad Run Estates January 2023 Existing Conditions EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions analysis identifies the site conditions and current operational and geometric characteristics of the roadways within the study area. These conditions will be compared with future conditions later in this report. Kittelson staff visited and inventoried the proposed Fruit Hill Property development site and surrounding study area in December 2021. At that time, Kittelson collected information regarding site conditions, adjacent land uses,existing traffic operations, and transportation facilities in the study area. Transportation Facilities Table 1 summarizes the primary transportation facilities in the site vicinity. Figure 4 shows the existing lane configurations and traffic control devices at the study intersections. Table 1. Existing Transportation Facilities and Roadway Designations T r T` Number Speed W On- of Limit Side- Bicycle Street Road Classification' Lanes (mph) Median walks Lanes Parking kSurface US 11(Martinsburg Pike) Major Collector 4lanes 45 No Partial' No No Paved 1-81 SB Ramps(Exit 323) Interstate Ramp 1 lane 353 No No No No Paved 1-81 NB Ramps(Exit 323) Interstate Ramp 1 lane 353 No No No No Paved Route 669(Rest Church Road) Local 2 lanes 35/45° No No No No Paved Zachary Ann Lane Local 2 lanes No posted No No No No Paved 'Classifications based on VDO-rs 2014 Functional Classification Map. 'Sidewalk on east side of US 11 north of Rest Church Road only. 'Advisory speed. 145 miles-per-hour west of proposed relocated Zachary Ann Lane. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Field observations taken in the site vicinity revealed low levels of pedestrian and bicycle activity along the study area roadways during most hours of the day. No sidewalks were present within the site vicinity except for a short segment of sidewalk along the commercial property on US 11 north of Rest Church Road. The only signalized pedestrian crossing within the study area is the across the east leg at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection. Transit Facilities There is no transit service is provided in the vicinity of the site. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 17 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 \ N 670 \ \ \ \ \ 11 TA \ 2 \\RFs L'160 669 cc MPGg��N�N U WO n� Q 01181NE FAD c� m 81 2 a: clo0 0 0 r a a ry ry m 0 N a n E ti i -STOP SIGN Existing Lane Configurations Figure -TRAFFIC SIGNAL and Traffic Control Devices 4 Frederick County, VA IKITTELSON � &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Existing Conditions Existing Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour Operations Turning movement counts were obtained at the study intersections in October 2021. The counts were conducted during typical weekday morning (6:00 to 9:00 AM), weekday evening (4:00 to 7:00 PM), and Saturday midday (11:00 AM to 2:00 PM) time periods when school was in session and no extreme weather occurred. Given the on-going impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on traffic volumes (particularly to weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hour volumes due to an increase in people working from home), the turning movement counts collected in October 2021 were compared to the 2016 turning movement volumes used in the January 2017 Whitehall Commerce Center Traffic Impact Study. Appendix 8 contains the October 2021 turning movement counts and the 2016 volumes used in the Whitehall Commerce Center study. In general,the traffic volumes collected to and from the east of 1-81 are shown to have increased in the October 2021 counts relative to the 2016 volumes.This is likely the result of the addition of the Amazon fulfilment center to the east of US 11. However, individual movement volumes to and from the west of 1-81 on Rest Church Road were approximately five to 30 percent lower than the 2016 volumes depending on the movement. Based on direction from VDOT staff, the higher of the October 2021 or 2016 turning movement volumes from the Whitehall Commerce Center study were used as the basis for 2021 existing traffic volumes. Figure 5 illustrates the volumes used in this study. Engineering judgement was applied were needed to balance the volumes between intersections (i.e., a similar proportion of trips were assumed to be captured by the Pilot/Flying-J Travel Center between Zachary Ann Lane and the 1-81 Southbound Ramps). Consistent with scoping requirements, operational analyses were performed at the following intersections: 1. Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane 2. Rest Church Road/1-81 Southbound Ramps 3. Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps 4. US 11 (Martinsburg Pike)/Rest Church Road Signal Timing Information The most recent signal timing data for the Rest Church Road corridor was obtained from VDOT at the time the turning-movement counts were collected. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 19 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N NA 670 669 MPG��N�N N Q Wo GDBINE RD C) J m 81 Z O 4 4 O 4 M � � M N < Q 1 Q 1311 Q 188�� Q `"116 Q 1 f—53*' Q *166 95�►117* 0 _• 32 p 58 ��88 � 24" Y �331 Y Y �'12 Lu Lu Lu Lu /* � co 0 a N * N M d 2i /131 2i '305.. *117 c2 Q -136y Q .310�► Q 177 k,`86 Q *83 ` o Q 4-1 � ` 13 443`* Y � ��245* Y ��335 1' � ��70g= o � � � � � 257 � � �� X13 0 C\1 c c^o N N co M p) M M 3 a a ry ry m 0 N Q *ADJUSTED TO MATCH 2016 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS -INCREASED FOR BALANCING PURPOSES 2021 Existing Traffic Volumes Figure Blended from 2016 and 2021 Turning Movement Counts Frederick County, VA 5 I� KITTELSON W &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Existing Conditions Current Levels of Service and Volume-to-Capacity Ratios All level of service (LOS) analyses described in this report was performed in accordance with the procedures stated in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6`" Edition (HCMG - Reference 2)'.A description of level of service and the criteria by which they are determined is presented in Appendix C. This analysis is based on the system hourly peak during each of the study periods to evaluate of all intersection levels-of-service. The weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours were found to occur from 6:45 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m., respectively. Traffic operations were evaluated using Synchro 11 in accordance with VDOT's Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual v2.0 (TOSAM— Reference 3). Figure 6 shows the overall intersection operational results of the existing traffic operations analysis for the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours. Figure 7 shows the lane group LOS. Table 2 summarizes the Synchro 11 peak hour levels of service, 95th percentile back of queue, and delay for each lane group by intersection. For intersections where Synchro was unable to accurately estimate the 95th percentile queue lengths (i.e., the signalized US 11/Rest Church Road intersection, where 95th percentile volumes exceed capacity), SimTraffic software was used to derive the maximum queues shown in Table 2.All parameters of the SimTraffic queueing analysis were evaluated in accordance with Section 7.6 of VDOT's TOSAM.Appendix D contains the existing conditions level of service worksheets. 'The current lane configuration on the northbound approach of the Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection does not comply with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) phasing. As such, HCM 2000 outputs are reported for signalized intersections. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 21 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N NA 670 7 11 669 MPG��N�N N Q wGGDBINE RD U J m 81 Z O 4 4 O ^a Q 116y CM=NB Q 126y LOS=C Q 88-$ LOS=B Q 188y LOS=C Q 1� LOS=B ~53 ¢ 166 Del=27.9 *-117 Q 131y Del=16.3 �95 ¢ 58 Del=26.4�39 Del-10.9 r-12 0 V/C=0.15 p VIC=0.44 r-331 p V/C=0.22 X392 < VIC=0.45 88 W W W � � W ^O� LU LUi > > haMLU i 4= N Ncn D_ o- 30 ..J� 0_ 0_ } 136—► CM=NB } 212y LOS=C } r131OS=C } 117 LOS=D Q LOS=B 143 Q 130 Q 177 Q 83~Del=45.1 173 0� Del=10.8 q Del=22.2 ~245 D �► Del=20.3 �86 VIC=0.73~109 6 W V/C=0.12 W VIC=0.40 x"'257 LU V/C=0.52 335 LU r,,, 3 1 a � � � � �t/v ^M M O O a a ry ry CM- INTERSECTION MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) m LOS- INTERSECTION MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Q (SIGNALIZED)/INTERSECTION MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) DeI= INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY -° (SIGNALIZED)/INTERSECTION MOVEMENT a CONTROL DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) V/C=INTERSECTION VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO n E L� Existing Traffic Operations Figure Weekday AM & PM Peak Hours Frederick County, VA 6 I� KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N NA 670 669 MPG��N�N N Q wGGDBINE RD c� J m 81 Z O 4 4 O Ope—D UU, 1 �¢ aQ C0 IrM 0 A � • *—CY _: YY YLu Lu Lu Lu E t, s 4= UU UUn IL d d B1 d E o Z'i '— o BZ►i i :A o e o c—A.► � 'k1c Lu �A wr c w • ..s w • ..c w Z w w w �"C clo .v, Uy I, t 0 0 a a ry ry m 0 N a n X-LANE GROUP LEVEL OF SERVICE E ti Existing Lane Group Levels of Service Figure Weekday AM & PM Peak Hours Frederick County, VA 7 IWIKITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Existing Conditions Table 2. Existing Conditions-Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95"' Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection Intersection Information AM Peak Hour PM Peak H AA Back Back � Intersection Lane Exis ing of Delay of 7Dela]y I LTraffic Control Approach LOS (s c) m Group turn- n Queue (sec) Queue (sec lengJ'tahs L.Mrill I Jaji6 EBT 0 0.0 0 0.0 EB Route 669(Rest Church EBR 0 0.0 0 0.0 Road)/ EB Approach - 0.0 - 0.0 Zachary Ann Lane Two-way WB WBL A 3 7.6 A 0 8.7 Stop-Controlled WBT 0 0.0 0 0.0 WB Approach - 2.4 - 0.2 (#1) NB NBLR B 13 10.9 B 10 10.8 NB Approach B - 10.9 B - 10.8 EB EBTR C 165 21.0 B 143 18.8 EB Approach C - 21.0 B - 18.8 Rest Church Road/1-81 WB WBL D 314 39.5 C 256 31.8 Southbound Ramps WBT A 103 7.9 A 216 9.1 Signalized WB Approach C - 31.3 C - 20.7 (#2) SB SBLT C 132 31.4 C 130 31.1 SBR 640' C 92 29.1 C 122 29.2 SB Approach C - 30.2 C - 29.9 Overall C - 27.9 C - 22.2 EB EBL A 161 11.3 B 169 15.0 EBT A 91 9.1 B 100 10.2 EB Approach A - 10.0 B - 12.3 Rest Church Road/1-81I WBT A 163 9.7 B 159 17.6 Signalized WB Northbound Ramps WBR B 61 19.7 B 64 19.1 WB Approach B - 11.6 B - 17.9 (#3) NB NBLTR - C 230 30.5 C 499 32.3 NBR 480' C 174 30.9 C 390 21.8 NB Approach C - 30.8 C - 27.3 Overall B - 16.3 C - 20.3 EBL - C 136 29.0 E 227 76.3 EB EBTR - B 131 16.9 C 213 22.1 EB Approach C - 19.8 E - 54.9 WBL 250' E 39 56.9 C 39 33.9 WB WBT - C 88 28.1 C 100 30.7 WBR C 49 27.3 C 87 29.7 US 11(Martinsburg WB Approach C - 30.3 C - 30.4 Pike)/Rest Church Road NBL 150' C 110 34.8 C 150 33.6 Signalized NB NBT - C 74 23.7 E 425 65.9 (#4) NBR 280' C 22 22.4 C 134 24.6 NB Approach C - 28.3 E - 30.3 SBL 240' D 150 41.9 D 91 35.5 SB SBT - C 170 27.6 C 145 29.7 SBR 290' C 101 24.2 C 82 26.7 SB Approach C - 28.4 C - 28.9 Overall C - 26.4 D - 45.1 Maximum queues reported from SimTraffic at signalized intersections due to 951h percentile queues from Synchro exceeding capacity at one or more signalized intersections within the coordinated system. The existing maximum queues on the northbound approach of the Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection (Study Intersection #3) reported from SimTraffic are notably longer than observed in the field. A review of the SimTraffic model illustrated a majority of the northbound right-turning Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 24 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Existing Conditions traffic from the off-ramp ultimately destined for US 11 northbound stacked in the shared left-through- right lane on the off-ramp. However, field observations showed a majority of the northbound right- turns from the off-ramp used the exclusive right-turn lane (often immediately cutting across three lanes to reach the left-turn lane onto US 11 northbound from Rest Church Road). To help "encourage" more vehicles turning left onto US 11 to utilize the exclusive right-turn lane on the off-ramp, the default "Mandatory Distance"and "Positioning Distance" parameters were reduced in the Simulation Settings. By lowering this value to less than the link length between 1-81 and US 11, vehicles are able to make last minute lane changes to cut into the left-turn lane on Rest Church Road to US 11 northbound. Even with these adjustments, however, a considerable amount of northbound off-ramp traffic destined for US 11 northbound continues to stack in the shared left-through-right lane in the SimTraffic model. This likely results in inflated queueing estimates for northbound off-ramp, which are reflected in Table 2. As the queuing results of the model are reviewed, this should be considered as a potential limitation of the model. As also shown in the figures and Table 2, study intersections and critical movements currently operate at LOS D or better. All queues are stored within the existing lanes with the following exceptions: US 11/Rest Church Road(#4) The eastbound left-turn operates at LOS E with queues spilling back to the adjacent Rest Church Road/1- 81 Northbound Ramps intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour.The queues blockthe upstream end of the lane (i.e., Upstream Block Time) approximately 21 percent of the time during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Potential Mitigation Mitigation Strategy#1—Signal Re-timing To alleviate the potential queue spill back and delays on the eastbound approach of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection, potential modifications to existing signal timing were evaluated to better accommodate demand on the eastbound approach. Modifications to signal timing could include changes to existing cycle lengths and/or changes to individual phase splits. Table 3 illustrates the anticipated operations of the three signalized study intersections with updated signal splits using the existing 80 second cycle lengths for each signalized study intersection. Small changes were made to the coordination pattern between the signals to maintain the existing levels of coordination with the new phase splits.Appendix E contains the Synchro and SimTroffic operational worksheets for the mitigated traffic operations. As shown, signal re-timing alone is not anticipated to fully prevent the spill back of eastbound left-turn movements at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection.The upstream intersection is anticipated to be blocked five percent of the time by queue spill backs for the eastbound left-turn during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 25 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Existing Conditions Table 3. Existing Conditions-Mitigation Strategy#1-Signal Re-timing DelayIntersection Information PM Peak HM Back of W Intersection Traffic Control Approach Lane Group Existing LOS Queue 17 M 6, turn-lane lengths (feet)' (sec) EB EBTR B 141 18.9 EB Approach T B - 18.9 WBL - C 261 28.6 Rest Church Road/I-81 Southbound Ramps WB WBT B 159 11.5 Signalized WB Approach C - 20.3 (#2) SB SBLT - C 146 31.2 SBR 640' C 125 29.3 SB Approach C - 30.0 Overall C - 22.1 EBL B 164 14.2 EB EBT B 83 10.5 EB Approach B - 12.1 Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps WB WBT B 138 16.2 WBR B 58 18.2 Signalized WB Approach B - 16.6 (#3) NBLTR - C 341 32.9 NB NBR 480' C 286 22.0 NB Approach C - 27.6 Overall B - 19.9 EBLT - D 215 42.6 EB EBTR - C 173 22.9 EB Approach C - 34.8 WBL 250' C 7 34.1 WB WBT - C 103 34.9 WBR - C 95 33.1 US 11(Martinsburg Pike)/Rest Church Road WB Approach C - 34.0 NBL 150' C 150 35.0 Signalized NB NBT - D 427 54.9 (#4) NBR 280' C 132 23.8 NB Approach D - 51.3 SBL 240' D 108 36.1 SB SBT - C 170 28.0 SBR 290' C 90 25.5 SB Approach C - 27.8 Overall D 36.8 Maximum queues reported from SimTraffic due to 9511'percentile queues from Synchro exceeding capacity at one or more signalized intersections within the coordinated system. Mitigation Strategy#2-Eastbound Shared Left-Through Lane As shown in Table 3, adjustments to existing signal timing alone will have nominal effects on existing queueing on the eastbound approach of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection. Given the existing 6-lane, undivided cross-section of Rest Church Road between the 1-81 Northbound Ramps and US 11, adding storage capacity through an additional eastbound left-turn lane would require widening of the travelled way. This would potentially have substantial impacts to the existing gasoline station in the southwest quadrant of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection and/or the church in the northwest quadrant. It would also potentially affect the lane alignment with the bridge over 1-81 to the west (i.e., potential impacts to signal poles/head locations and/or widening of the bridge). Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 26 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Existing Conditions To prevent queue spiIIback during the weekday p.m. peak hour within the existing cross-section on Rest Church Road, capacity can be added by converting the existing eastbound through lane to a shared left- through lane. This change to the existing eastbound lane configuration would require several improvements: ■ Restriping of the eastbound approach lanes ■ Conversion of the Rest Church Road approaches to operate under "split" signal phasing ■ Replacing the existing three-section signal head for the eastbound through lane with a four- section head (three ball indicators and one, green left-turn arrow indicator) ■ Potential widening of US 11 to the north of Rest Church Road to add a second northbound lane that ends/merges a minimum of 495 feet north of the existing commercial driveway on the east side of US 11. o If US 11 is not widened, the second eastbound left-turn lane at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection would flow into a right-turn trap lane into the commercial property. ■ Adjustments to coordination with the adjacent signalized intersections at the I-81 interchange. Table 4 illustrates anticipated operations of US 11/Rest Church Road after converting the eastbound through lane to a shared left-through lane and adjusting the Rest Church Road approaches to operate under split phasing. As shown, the eastbound queues would be anticipated to contained within the existing lane storage (upstream blockage reduced to zero percent in SimTraffic). Minimal impacts are anticipated at adjacent intersection due to the conversion of the Rest Church Road approaches to split- phased at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection. Figure 8 illustrates the anticipated extents of these improvements. It should also be noted this proposed lane configuration helps address some of the limitations of the SimTraffic model with respect to the northbound off-ramp from I-81. With two left-turning lanes from Rest Church Road onto US 11 northbound, vehicles from the northbound off-ramp can access one of the left-turn lanes on Rest Church Road from either lane on the off-ramp. This is reflected in the reduced forecast queues on the northbound off-ramp (Study Intersection #3) relative to existing conditions. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 27 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Existing Conditions Table 4. Existing Conditions-Mitigation Strategy#2-Eastbound Shared Left-Through Lane at US 11/Rest Church Road Intersection Information PM Peak Hour Intersection Existing Back of Delay W) Traffic Control Approach Lane Group turn-lane lengths LOS Queue (sec) EB EBTR B 144 18.9 EB Approach B - 18.9 WBL - C 269 28.7 Rest Church Road/I-81 Southbound Ramps WB WBT A 136 5.0 Signalized WB Approach C - 17.2 (#2) SB SBLT C 146 1 31.2 SBR 640' C 108 29.3 SB Approach C - 30.0 Overall C - 20.6 EBL - A 154 4.4 EB EBT A 82 10.2 EB Approach A - 12.2 Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps WB WBT C 175 23.4 WBR E 70 74.0 Signalized WB Approach C - 33.8 (#3) NBLTR - C 362 32.9 NB NBR 480' C 305 22.0 NB Approach C - 27.6 Overall C - 23.7 EBLT - D 178 44.8 EB EBTR - C 174 29.8 EB Approach C - 34.9 WBL 250' C 44 33.1 WB WBT - C 99 34.9 WBR - C 73 33.1 US 11(Martinsburg Pike)/Rest Church Road WB Approach C - 34.0 NBL 150' C 149 35.0 Signalized NB NBT - C 257 30.8 (#4) NBR 280' B 53 19.4 NB Approach C - 31.2 SBL 240' D 102 36.0 SB SBT - C 147 22.9 SBR 290' C 66 21.3 SB Approach C - 23.9 Overall C r 30.6 'Maximum queues from SimTraffic reported for consistency with other operational summaries. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 28 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Scale: 1" = 150' 1 N r 150 75 0 150 r 81 Y r 495'MIN BEGIN LANE DROP AFTER COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY ADJUST SIDEWALK TO REDEVELOP BUFFER 100' WIDEN US 11 TO DEVELOP "+ RIGHT-TURN LANE 200'TAPER a clo r � a RE-STRIPE EXISTING RIGHT-TURN LANE AS THROUGH LANE o REST CHURCH RD ,� REPLACE EXISTING 3-SECTION HEAD WITH 4-SECTION HEAD 1 FOR SHARED LEFT-THROUGH LANE RE-STRIPE EASTBOUND — APPROACH `" 0 aAl- Converting Converting Eastbound Through Lane to Shared Left-Through Figure US 11/Rest Church Road 8 Frederick County, VA KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES Section 4 Transportation Impact Analysis Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS The transportation impact analysis identifies how the study area's transportation system will operate through total build out of the project. The Fruit Hill Property development is anticipated to be constructed and built out by 2028.The proposed site consists of one 100-room hotel, one 5,000 square- foot restaurant,one 300,000 square-foot data center, and four industrial buildings totaling to 2,125,000 square feet.Traffic impacts of the proposed Fruit Hill Property development during the typical weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours were examined as follows: • Year 2028 background traffic conditions were developed by: o Applying a one percent compound annual growth rate to year 2021 traffic volumes. o Adding trips associated with in-process developments to the study intersections. • Year 2028 background weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hour traffic conditions were analyzed at each of the study intersections. • Site-generated trips were estimated for the proposed site plan. • Site trip distribution patterns identified and confirmed through the scoping process were derived from existing traffic patterns and major trip origins and destinations in the study area. • Year 2028 total traffic conditions were analyzed at each of the study intersections and site- access driveways during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours. YEAR 2028 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In the 2028 background analysis, traffic operations prior to build-out of the proposed development are analyzed for the purposes of establishing a baseline against which to measure the specific impacts of the proposed development. Background growth in traffic volumes is attributed to regional growth in the area as well as any specific development within the study area. These components of growth are discussed below. Regional Growth A one percent annual growth rate was identified and confirmed through the scoping process to account for near-term regional traffic growth.This growth rate was compounded annually to forecast year 2028 background traffic volumes. In-Process Developments In-process developments within the study area identified to be built out by 2028 include: ■ Arogas Parcel—22,570 square feet of shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 31 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis ■ Parcel 33-A-12—150,000 square feet of industrial development in the southwest quadrant of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection ■ Light Property— 105,500 square feet of industrial development along Woodbine Road to the southeast of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection ■ Whitehall Commerce Center— Undeveloped portions of the larger site located west of US 11 along Rest Church Road include 162,000 square feet of industrial development Trips to and from the in-process developments were assigned based on the assumptions made in previous and on-going traffic impact analyses for other developments (include the January 2019 Whitehall Commerce Center study). Appendix F contains the assumed trip generation and trip assignment for the in-process trips at study intersections. Trip generation for the in-process trips were developed using the standard reference Trip Generation, 1111 Edition (Reference 4) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Planned Transportation Improvements No transportation improvements are anticipated within the study network by the year 2028. With the build-out of the proposed site, Zachary Ann Lane would be relocated further west along Rest Church Road to increase the spacing from the 1-81 interchange. The relocated Zachary Ann Lane would align with the existing residential driveway on the north side of Rest Church Road. 2028 Background Traffic Conditions Traffic volumes under year 2028 background traffic conditions were developed by adding both the one percent compound annual growth rate and the in-process development trips to the existing traffic volumes. Figure 9 shows the overall intersection operational results of the year 2028 background traffic operations analysis for the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours. Figure 10 shows the lane group LOS. Table 5 summarizes the peak hour levels of service, 95th percentile back of queue, and delay for each lane group by intersection. No changes to existing signal timing provided by VDOT were assumed. If appropriate, signal timing updates will be recommended as potential mitigation measures to account for projected traffic volumes. Queues reported at signalized intersections were estimated using the maximum queues SimTraffic, as the Synchro model was unable to fully estimate the extent of forecast queues.Appendix G contains the 2028 background traffic operational analysis worksheets. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 32 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N NA 670 7 11 669 MPG��N�N N Q wGGDBINE RD U J m 81 Z O 4 4 O R 7LOS=C R Q 7.E 138 LOS=B 18 94 � LOS=B 2R LO*S=C 259N18tiDel=27.01 ~59 . De1=16.8 23 Q 84 43Q Del-11.3 127 Q ^ 4143¢ VIC=0.58 376 V/C=0.26 VIC=0.58�1152 10 7 p r' LU LU LU LU M 0 4= IL dr231 0- 0_ 38 150—► CM=NB } S=C } 140- LOS=C } 133 LOS=E - p 0 D l=10 8 �164 139~Del=26.7 X276 p 234 y Del=21.7 k.199 p 106~VIC=6 00~'13 a W V/C=0.12 W 39 + VIC=0.56 f383 LU V/C=0.62 478 LU ' Ar-22 cloa ^M "M O O a a ry ry CM- INTERSECTION MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) m LOS- INTERSECTION MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE o (SIGNALIZED)/INTERSECTION MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) DeI= INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY -° (SIGNALIZED)/INTERSECTION MOVEMENT a CONTROL DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) V/C=INTERSECTION VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO a E L� Year 2028 Background Traffic Operations Figure Weekday AM & PM Peak Hours Frederick County, VA 9 I� KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N NA 670 669 MPG��N�N N Q wGGDBINE RD U J m 81 Z O 4 4 O Ope—D UUP ¢ aQC0 IrM 0 A � *—CY _: YY YNw � ? � � t 0 4= UU r� -j Ri �D_ 0_ D_ D_ --A.oC�► • �� • �' '— o �► �e o e �e o C�► k,C 6 Lu �A WD W �C W �C W Z W Ir W Wclo Ir'C *ywUU I' t 0 0 a a ry ry m 0 N a n X-LANE GROUP LEVEL OF SERVICE E ti Year 2028 Bacgkround Lane Group Levels of Service Figure Weekday AM & PM Peak Hours Frederick County, VA 10 IWIKITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Table 5.Year 2028 Background Traffic Conditions-Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service,95" Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection Intersection Information AM Peak Ho-rm M PM Peak Hour in Intersection Lane Existing Back of Back"ID e Jay Traffic Control Approach turn-lane . Queue EB EBT 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 669(Rest EBR 0 0.0 0 0.0 Church Road)/ EB Approach - 0.0 - 0.0 Zachary Ann Lane Two-way WB WBL A 3 7.7 A 0 8.7 Stop-Controlled WBT A 0 0.0 0 0.0 WB Approach - 2.3 - 0.2 (#1) NB NBLR B 15 11.3 B 10 10.8 NB Approach B - 11.3 B - 10.8 EB EBTR C 193 23.9 C 169 25.5 Rest Church EB Approach C - 23.9 C - 25.5 Road/1-81 WB WBL D 311 42.8 D 377 35.9 Southbound WBT A 119 9.6 B 366 12.7 Ramps Signalized WB Approach C - 34.4 C - 26.2 SBLT D 257 41.2 C 178 31.1 SB SBR 640' C 112 27.8 C 115 27.8 SB Approach D - 36.2 C - 29.4 Overall C - 31.9 C - 26.7 EBL - B 145 14.3 C 176 21.0 EB EBT B 131 12.9 B 192 12.0 Rest Church EB Approach B - 13.2 B - 15.4 Road/1-81 WB WBT A 176 9.7 C 221 21.6 Northbound WBR B 69 10.6 B 89 17.4 Ramps Signalized WB Approach A 9.9 B 20.4 NBLTR - C 228 30.1 C 932 33.1 (#3) NB NBR 480' C 184 31.1 C 480 21.0 NB Approach C - 30.8 C - 27.2 Overall B - 16.8 C - 21.7 EBL C 182 31.3 F 250 159.1 EB EBTR - B 207 16.1 C 249 21.1 EB Approach B - 18.9 F - 105.6 WBL 250' E 52 65.0 C 55 34.5 WB WBT - C 105 28.5 C 181 33.5 us 11 WBR - C 51 27.3 C 112 29.8 (Martinsburg WB Approach C - 31.2 C - 32.7 Pike)/Rest NBL 150' D 129 36.6 D 150 50.3 Church Road Signalized NB NBT - C 86 24.5 F 1,000 96.4 NBR 280' C 27 22.9 C 256 24.6 (#4) NB Approach C - 29.8 F - 81.1 SBL 240' D 177 51.3 D 121 36.0 SB SBT - C 206 30.1 C 181 32.7 SBR 290' C 136 25.0 C 132 28.2 SB Approach C - 31.5 C - 30.8 Overall C 27.0 E 67.0 Maximum queues reported from SimTraffic at signalized intersections due to 95th percentile queues from Synchro exceeding capacity at one or more signalized intersections within the coordinated system. As shown in the figures and Table 5, signalized study intersections and critical movements at unsignalized intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at LOS C or better with queues contained within existing storage with the following exceptions: Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 35 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps(#3) With the increase in volumes on both Rest Church Road and the 1-81 northbound off-ramp due to regional growth and trips from in-process developments, queues on the northbound off-ramp are anticipated to spill back on 1-81 under the existing signal timing during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Similar to existing conditions, the SimTraffic model places a large proportion of the northbound off- ramp traffic destined for US 11 northbound in the shared left-through-right lane. This may artificially increase the projected maximum queues relative to anticipated field conditions. However, under year 2028 background conditions the queuing condition is anticipated to provide a more realistic estimate due to the persistent queue spillback on the eastbound approach of the US 11/Rest Church Road. As outline in the next subsection, the eastbound approach of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection is forecast to block the upstream intersection approximately 62 percent of the weekday p.m. peak hour. This, in turn, prevents vehicles from the off-ramp from proceeding through the intersection. US 11/Rest Church Road(#4) Similar to existing conditions, the eastbound left-turn queues at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection are anticipated to spill back to the adjacent Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The movement is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F. The eastbound left-turn queues are forecast to block the upstream end of the lane (i.e., Upstream Block Time) approximately 62 percent of the time during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The overall intersection is anticipated to operate near capacity at LOS E. Potential Mitigation Given the anticipated increase in traffic volumes at study intersections, it is not anticipated signal re- timing alone at will sufficiently alleviate the delay and queueing concerns at the Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps and US 11/Rest Church Road intersections under year 2028 background traffic conditions. Table 6 illustrates the strategies evaluated to mitigate the anticipated traffic conditions during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Table 7 illustrates the anticipated traffic operations with these improvements. With these improvements, updates to signal timing and coordination were also assumed.Appendix H contains the Synchro and Sim Traffic output worksheets. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 36 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Table 6. Year 2028 Background—Mitigation Strategies Mitigation Intersection OStrategy US 11/Rest Church Road(#4) L Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps(#3) No changes to lane configuration(a baseline for comparison to Convert the eastbound through lane to a shared left-through the subsequent two mitigation strategies) lane and convert the Rest Church Road approach phasing to split phase(as evaluated under existing traffic conditions) Lane Configuration: Proposed Lane Configuration: Mitigation Strategy#1 L 4 qtr Widen the northbound off-ramp to three approach lanes.By adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the existing shared left/through/right lane to a shared through/right lane,additional capacity can be added to the northbound left-turn movement and reduce queue spillback. Figure 11 illustrates a conceptual layout of the potential northbound left-turn lane. Proposed Lane Configuration: Mitigation Strategy#2 1 L Widen the northbound off-ramp to three approach lanes.By adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the existing shared left/through/right lane to a shared left/through lane,additional capacity can be added to the northbound left-turn movement and reduce queue spillback. Proposed Lane Configuration: Mitigation Strategy#3 1 L MEMO 4— mw_� #14 r Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 37 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N i RFS7 c jVaCH RD J ADJUST/AUGMENT NORTHBOUND SIGNAL HEADS AS NECESSARY P" � C s� 300' le fiK '4 CONVERT EXISTING SHARED LEFT-THROUGH-RIGHT TO SHARED THROUGH-RIGHT WIDEN OFF-RAMP TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL APPROACH LANE 200'TAPERclo ' 0 m 0 0 a a ry 0 Scale: 1" = 75' 0 N Q 75 0 75 a Northbound Left-Turn Lane - Conceptual Layout Figure Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps Frederick County, VA 11 KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES _ rn rn 10 w m 1n m 1' In ^ -:t m lD Ln O 1n lD lD ry O � O N 10 w I m Ill I, c m c N to N on m m n oo W W �T N m n m N �T m m LD l0 LD m l0 m ('rl N N N N M fV m N m `~ ry N N N /V fV /V ry N �t N M m �t m �T �T M N M m N N N M rIjO N i O m Ill N m Ill N N Nt O Ill O LD Ln CO M O7 W O O 'o N Ill 'I- M ^ O N M N N N N Ln N N N N N N N N N N N •• U U U Q m U U U U Q Q Q m U m U U U U m 0 U U U 0 U O 0 U m O 0 U U U U OlOl 0) ry m Ln M I, O O V1 W N lD O Ol n n lD lD n W N N Ln N -1m h m I, m M M m I, am c-I I, W N V m Ill c-I N Tt m to c-I N O m I, m r4 am Ol m to to m m w N N -:t 't fV M N M ry N N N N fV ry M lV fV fV ry Ill M V M -:t M � -:t M c-I M M N fV fV M of �t O oo Ln to N I, N n m O m al O to O al M l0 m N lD M Ol N oo h N O oo n to Ln Ln m oo O Ln N N m N N N N N N N N N N N TT Io oo N N N N 'o U U T U U U U U m m m m U U U U U U U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U m O D U U of of m a) m Ln M I" n to of O lD Ill on Q Ln Ln n to -1 -1 'Q lD cq N N Ln " -1 M I� M I� O m m m I- m e I-I m n O O ."� M \ Lf1 a-i 00 V N Oi MM '/7 r,',' M N M m lLI lLI lLI M lLi m r-4 fV m r4 M fV M N N N N N M N Z M N N N t fV ry M � M V a m M- M m N N N M l0 N m �t M O Ln O n Q n co � O O O Ln co N N Ln N Ln N Ln m O N \ Ql m m to Io co Ln of N O N Ln m Ln r" N N ro N r4 ilrnirn N N N N m N N N N t U U o Q U U U U U U m U U U U z U U U U o U U U o U o o V m o o U U V U O) O O O OO co O O M r O OM :t N N co N N O {J O V � U � o J O Y m m J M J r m m J J CC J m m m m m m m m m z z z 1E, m m m Z z Z m m m mmm C L L c U U U U U U U U U U L U (p U U (p U U (p U U 2 O O O ro O O O Q O Q O � O_ Q Q O_ Q rp o G a m m a v a m m a v a m m a a v a-+ m m 3: 3 m m 0 m m Z Z O w m Z Z m m O O O O H U ro o M w C C C 3 Lao W W 0 U) N N H Y 00 op Q op Q ono Q N E \ E a N ro oc ro r Y a o o , v c N o sz L o u sz p-� o o o a N Ln Z .x O � a � Li = Y Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis The following summaries the ability of these mitigation strategies to address the anticipated delay or queueing issues identified: ■ Queue Spillback on Rest Church Road from US 11 to 1-81 Ramps o Under each of the mitigation strategies, the queue Spillback from the eastbound approach to US 11 is anticipated to be substantially reduced during the peak hour with the conversion of the eastbound through lane to a shared left-through lane. ■ Queue Spillback from 1-81 Northbound Off-Ramp to 1-81 Mainline o Similarly, each mitigation strategy is anticipated to eliminate spill back of queues on the 1-81 Northbound Off-Ramp to the 1-81 mainline. Under Mitigation Strategy #1, the queues on the northbound off-ramp are still anticipated to extend approximately halfway down the ramp, which may still affect safe deceleration from 1-81 mainline. Under both Mitigation Strategy #2 and Mitigation Strategy #3, the maximum northbound queues on the off-ramp are forecast to be cut approximately in half relative to Mitigation Scenario#1. ■ Overall intersection and approach delays o Under each mitigation strategy, all intersection approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. Mitigation Strategy #3 is anticipated to result in the greatest improvement to delays and queueing along the corridor. Proposed Development The proposed Fruit Hill Property development consists of one 100-room hotel, one 5,000 square-foot restaurant, one 300,000 square-foot data center, and four industrial buildings totaling to 2,125,500 square feet. The Applicant is proposing to provide access to the site via a relocated Zachary Ann Lane. The existing Zachary Ann Lane access point on Rest Church Road would be removed,and existing access to the Pilot/Flying-J Travel Center would be provided via a new driveway off the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. All trips to the proposed site and parcels south of the site on Zachary Ann Lane would also be accessed through the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. Figure 12 illustrates the assumed lane configurations and traffic control devices under year 2028 total traffic conditions. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed development were developed using the standard reference Trip Generation, 11th Edition (Reference 4) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 8 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the proposed development. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 40 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Table 8. Estimated Trip Generation IL 150 2,125.500 1,000 3,397 Warehousing 361 278 0831383k107276S.F. 160 300.000 1,000 297 33 18 15 27 8 19 Data Center S.F. Hotel 310 100 Rooms 660 43 24 19 46 23 23 Internal to Restaurant(5%AM/PM) (33) (2) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) High-Turnover(Sit-Down) 932 5.000 1,000 536 48 26 22 45 27 18 Restaurant S.F. Pass-by(43%AM/PM)l (230) (20) (10) (10) (20) (10) (10) Total 4,593 452 328 124 474 157 317 Internal Trips(LUC310) (33) (2) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) Pass-by(LUC 932) (230) (20) (10) (10) (20) (10) (10) Net New Trips 4,330 430 317 113 1 452 1 146 306 115%of pass-by trips considered pass-bys on Rest Church Road.Remaining 28%to be considered diverted trips from I- 81 As shown in Table 8,the development is estimated to generate approximately 4,330 net new weekday daily trips, 430 weekday a.m. (317 in, 113 out), and 452weekday p.m. (146 in, 306 out) peak hour trips when built out in year 2028. Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment Trip distribution estimates for the proposed project were developed based on anticipated future travel patterns observed near the site and major origin/destination patterns in the site vicinity. Figure 13 illustrates the estimated trip distribution pattern, which was confirmed through the scoping process. Figure 14, Figure 15, and Figure 16 illustrate the assignment of site-generated trips to the surrounding roadway network for the trips related to the warehousing, data center, and hotel land uses, respectively. Figure 17 and Figure 18 illustrate the assignment of pass-by/diverted and site-generated trips by the restaurant, respectively. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 41 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N 670 � PROPOSED 11 NA RELOCATION 7-1- OF ZACHARY ANN LN v2 ��Fs L'160 / 669 cc MPGg��N�N U WO n� Q 01181NE FAD c� m 81 2 a: clo 0 0 r a a ry ry m -STOP SIGN i -TRAFFIC SIGNAL Q � a e Assumed Year 2028 Total Traffic Lane Configurations Figure and Traffic Control Devices Frederick County, VA 12 KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N FST 670 \° 11 PROPOSED RELOCATION OFZACHARY 669 ANN LN y °\° �oq °\° z ° 10 N Q U 81 Q N WOODBINE RD Y clo 4 j o � a 2 s 0 m 0 0 a a ry m - ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION: a XWAREHOUSING/DATA CENTER/HOTEL (RESTAURANT) n E ti Assumed Site Trip Distribution Figure Frederick County, VA 13 I&PKITTELSON � &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 PROPOSED N T 670 RELOCATION 7� OF ZACHARY ANN LN Gy 669 MPG��N�N N Q WOODBINE RD c� J m 81 2 O 4 4 O 2i 2i 2 37 2i 3.� Q Q 42 Q 5�� Q 0 14� Q 37� ��139 ��1q 2� Y �264 Y Y Y W W W W LU LULU LU0 _ V M d d d124. d 7.� p 5 p 124 138__j, 14 �� 7 Y Y 54 Y 6 Y o LU 102 W W W LU LU LU LU 3 N a a ry ry m 0 N a n E ti Net New Site-Generated Trips Figure Warehousing Frederick County, VA 14 KITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 PROPOSED N T 670 RELOCATION 7� OF ZACHARY ANN LN Gy 669 MPG��N�N N Q WOODBINE RD c� J m 81 2 O 4 4 O 2i 2i 2 7 2i Q Q 7 Q Q �► Y Y Y Y W W W W LU LU LU LUo a a a91 a o Q Q 9 Q Q NO TRIPS ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ ASSOCIATED WITH YY + ��4 Y Y THIS INTERSECTION W 8 W W W LU LU LU LU � Q a a ry ry m 0 N a n E ti Net New Site-Generated Trips Figure Data Center 15 Frederick County, VA I� KITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 PROPOSED N T 670 RELOCATION 7� OF ZACHARY ANN LN Gy 669 MPG��N�N N Q WOODBINE RD c� J m 81 2 O 4 4 O o _ 2i 2i 2 2i i Q Q Q Q 0 1 $ 2272 W W W W LU LU LU LUo _ o d d d 10.� d a p 1 p 10 Y Y 11 Y 1 Y W 21 W W W LU LU LU LU0 N .-- a a ry ry m 0 N a n E ti Net New Site-Generated Trips Figure Hotel 16 Frederick County, VA I� KITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 PROPOSED N T 670 RELOCATION 7� OF ZACHARY ANN LN Gy 669 MPG��N�N N Q WOODBINE RD c� J m 81 2 O 4 4 O M 2i 2i 2 3 2i Q Q 3 Q Q NO PASS-BY TRIPS } -2�► ,� } 3 y } } ASSOCIATED WITH 0 2 2 \i ��3 THIS INTERSECTION Y �8 Y Y Y W W W W LU LU LU LU0 _ M d d d3-10clo d a } } } } NO PASS-BY TRIPS Q -2�� Q 3--j,, Q Q ASSOCIATED WITH 2� -4-2 y THIS INTERSECTION W 8 W W W LU LU LU LU N W M a a ry ry m 0 N a n E ti Pass-by Trips Figure Restaurant Frederick County, VA 17 I� KITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 PROPOSED N T 670 RELOCATION 7� OF ZACHARY ANN LN Gy 669 MPG��N�N N Q WOODBINE RD c� J m 81 2 O 4 4 O 2i 2i 2 4 2i 0 2� 141.8 W W W W LU LULU LUo d d d3�/clo d 3 D 1_• Y 3 8 W 14 W W W LU LU LU LU3 a a ry ry m 0 N a n E ti Net New Site-Generated Trips Figure Restaurant Frederick County, VA 18 I� KITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis 2028 Total Traffic Conditions The year 2028 total traffic conditions analysis forecasts how the transportation system in the study area will operate after build-out of the proposed development. The pass-by and site-generated trips shown in Figure 14 through Figure 18 were added to year 2028 background traffic volumes shown in Figure 9 to arrive at the year 2028 total traffic volumes shown in Figure 19. Figure 20 shows the lane group LOS for the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours. Table 9 summarizes the Synchro 11 peak hour levels of service, 95th percentile back of queue, and delayfor each lane group by intersection. No changes to existing signal timing provided were assumed. If appropriate, signal timing updates will be recommended as potential mitigation measures to account for projected traffic volumes. The queues reported for the signalized intersections were estimated using maximum queues from SimTraffic, as the Synchro model was unable to fully estimate the extent of forecast queues.Appendix 1 contains the year 2028 total traffic conditions operational worksheets. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 49 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 PROPOSED N T 670 RELOCATION 7� OF ZACHARY ANN LN Gy 669 MPG��N�N N Q WOODBINE RD U J m 81 2 O 4 4 O o a N M V QCM=NB Q 215 f Q 153- LOS=B Q 28j OS=136—► �► LOS=C ti } 21 LOS=E X57 } 238 Del=27.7 } 266y Del=20.6 } 187 Del=27.1 �43 Q Del=36.1 351 Q 298 Q 123 Q x-151 D V/C=0.10 p V/C=0.62 pr376 V/C=0.49 462 p VIC=0.59 LU l� LU>LU LU ti �l 4= o NM� N NM r381', f 0- 0- CM-N, } OS=C } 289-$ LOS=C } 131 LOS=F Q LOS=C F162 Q 2 \~Del=27.1 250 y Del=32.3 k.199 p 114, DeIC 109012~239 6 LU V/C=0 63 Ir 157 + V/C=0.66 f 383 LU W V/C=0.96 X487 LU ' X22 cloa M Nm Z M NM "M O O a a ry ry CM- INTERSECTION MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) m LOS- INTERSECTION MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE o (SIGNALIZED)/INTERSECTION MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) DeI= INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY -° (SIGNALIZED)/INTERSECTION MOVEMENT a CONTROL DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) V/C=INTERSECTION VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO a E L� Year 2028 Total Traffic Operations Figure Weekday AM & PM Peak Hours Frederick County, VA 19 WI KITTELSON � &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 PROPOSED N T 670 RELOCATION 7� OF ZACHARY ANN LN Gy 669 MPG��N�N N Q WOODBINE RD U J m 81 2 O 4 4 O U� UUP J� ✓1 � a Ca ¢ ¢ a � Q kc D + �A • ~B y • �8 D • *—CC_: YLu O Y Y E Lu UM �'� �t� 0 4= UU r� -j d d d d E� Co ' o oe o � �C W *—C W C Lu •—c Lu �C a w Z w w w X;"o clo � tw UU 0m QWU 0 ai 0 3 a a ry ry m 0 N a n X-LANE GROUP LEVEL OF SERVICE E ti Year 2028 Total Lane Group Levels of Service Figure Weekday AM & PM Peak Hours Frederick County, VA 20 IWIKITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Table 9. 2028 Total Traffic Conditions-Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95`" Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection DelayIntersection Information AM Peak Hour PM Peak HilIlljo Back Back Intersection Traffic Control Approach Lane Turn-lane LOS of Delay LOS of W) Group len Queuqd sec) ueue (s 9:A�..Waw .l, EBT 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 EB Route 669(Rest Church EBR 0 0.0 0 0.0 Road)/ EB Approach - 0.0 - 0.0 Zachary Ann Lane WBL 200' A 30 8.7 A 18 9.5 [RELOCATED] Two-way WB Stop-Controlled WBT - 0 0.0 0 0.0 WB Approach - 7.5 - 4.7 (#1) NB NBL - E 8 36.1 C 5 16.9 NBR 200' B 40 13.4 C 113 18.6 NB Approach B - 14.4 C - 18.5 EB EBTR - C 221 24.9 C 262 30.3 EB Approach C - 24.9 C - 30.3 Rest Church Road/1-81 WB WBL D 315 35.9 C 401 30.9 Southbound Ramps' WBT B 168 11.0 B 432 14.5 Signalized WB Approach C - 24.9 C - 23.0 (#2) SB SBLT - D 240 41.2 C 152 30.8 SBR 640' C 180 29.0 C 154 28.3 SB Approach C - 34.2 C - 29.2 Overall C - 27.7 C - 27.1 EBL - B 217 15.2 E 379 67.2 EB EBT - B 124 12.3 B 134 14.8 EB Approach B - 13.3 D - 42.9 Rest Church Road/1-81 I WBT B 174 12.4 C 229 28.7 Northbound Ramps' WBI WBR B 70 15.0 C 109 22.9 Signalized WB Approach B - 13.0 C - 27.0 (#3) NB NBLTR - D 559 40.4 D 928 38.0 NBR 480' C 444 29.0 B 480 19.4 NB Approach C - 35.0 C - 29.1 Overall B - 20.6 C - 32.3 EBL - C 170 29.2 F 248 429.2 EB EBTR - B 213 16.1 C 254 20.8 EB Approach B - 18.6 F - 269.6 WBL 250' E 53 65.0 D 61 45.4 WB WBT - C 112 28.5 C 180 28.6 WBR - C 55 27.3 C 109 26.4 US 11(Martinsburg WB Approach C - 31.2 C - 28.8 Pike)/Rest Church Road' NBL 150' D 118 37.6 D 150 53.1 Signalized NB NBT - C 96 24.6 E 691 56.5 (#4) NBR 280' C 21 23.0 C 184 22.7 NB Approach C - 30.7 D - 54.8 SBL 240' D 166 51.3 D 117 40.5 SB SBT C 201 30.4 C 175 31.2 SBR 290' C 151 25.3 C 131 27.4 SB Approach C 31.7 C 30.5 Overall C 27.1 F 109.2 Maximum queues reported from SimTraffic at signalized intersections due to 951h percentile queues from Synchro exceeding capacity at one or more signalized intersections within the coordinated system. As shown in the figures and Table 9, all signalized study intersections and critical movements at unsignalized intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS C or better with queues contained within existing/proposed lane storage with the following exceptions: Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 52 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane (#1) The critical northbound left-turn movement from the relocated Zachary Ann Lane is forecast to operate at LOS E during the weekday a.m. peak hour with control delays of 36.1 seconds per vehicle. The movement is anticipated to serve 11 vehicles and queues are anticipated to be less than one vehicle on average during the weekday a.m. peak hour. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the critical northbound right-turn movement is forecast to operate at LOS C. Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps(#3) Similar to year 2028 background traffic conditions,the maximum queues for the northbound approach (ramp from 1-81) are forecast to spill back close to 1-81 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. As aforementioned, this may be due in part to the limitations of the SimTraffic software. Queues may not be expected to reach this length in reality. The signal is anticipated to operate below capacity with the northbound approach anticipated to operate at LOS C during both the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours. The site is anticipated to add 72 northbound left-turns to this approach. US 11/Rest Church Road(#4) Without signal timing changes relative to existing conditions, the signalized intersection is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Similar to both existing and year 2028 background traffic conditions, the eastbound left-turn queues are forecast to spill back to the upstream Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection. The site is anticipated to add eight (8) trips to this movement during the weekday p.m. peak hour. MITIGATION Similar to year 2028 background traffic conditions, the three improvement strategies in Table 6 were evaluated for their ability to offset the impacts to the surrounding roadway network related to the addition of site-generated trips. Table 10 illustrates the anticipated operations of the three signalized study intersections during the weekday p.m. peak hour under these scenarios. With these improvements, updates to signal timing and coordination were also assumed.AppendixJ contains the Synchro and SimTraffic outputs for the mitigated scenarios. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 53 a a a ti c N co Ln Ln m a ti n a v w O O m m rn In a ti w w Ln rn 'I: O m co N Ln rnrn m to lO c-I lO m e m w ri L l a m m a .w ow n ti m m r`i m �T �t o r- r-i w m w m O N N In N m N m lV fV m rN CO M rN M N M lV M M �* m m �T m N m �t N N N m N i O 7 O �t -zt Ln 0101 a N W n O O O � W Ln c* N O O H c-I O tD 1 h lD lD LnlD N N h h I� O W LnLr1 O CO O N m N N N N NFl N N N N N Ln N N D N TI] I c* o U U U Q m U U V U Q Q Q U U U U U U U U 0 U U U 0 U 0 0 U U O 0 U U U U a a N o w N w Ln m 0 ti m a m O n n In ti 0 0 v ti cq w Ln rn a 0 m cq N Ln orn co lD l0 Ol Lr1 7 Ol M M Lf1 lD rn Ol m N N O � .:t rn m m m N m � d' O n N r4 Ln r4 � N N N `~ N m N M N N `~ � N m r4 :t N N m N � m m m v m m � m N m � N N N m O rl N to lDr" w n Ln Ln O Nm O r- n O W � h m n w h m O O m Ol Ol N O co N N m O m N r- �T N In N N N N N N N m N N N N N L!1 N N N N "» U U U Q m U U V U m Q Q U 0 U 0 U U U U 0 U 0 U 0 U O 0 U U 0 IOIUIU U U V W -1 N W Lr) V lb m m I� -1 �zt Q CO -1 -1 cq W Lq Ol N W W Lq C1 Tt O m cq N Lq Ol O lD w w 6V .4 Ol N N -:t N Vo) Ol N \ N N I, W CA oo N m m N Ol -:t V O n N W Ln oo �t N N N N m N M N N N fV m m Z Lr, N m N m N m m m M m N M N N N m m O W N N Ln N lD Ln Q m W O ^ I� Ol O N N N I" n Ll1 Ol I" O N \ oo W Ol O� O N V1 N N m N N N N N N Z Ln o-o m- 't o-o � N Lr1 � N N N U U U Q m U UU U U Q O] U U z M U o U Q U U U U o � U U Q � U U U U L O O O OO O O O � O W Ln Ln W :t Ol co on H O J O K J co � J J CC J H m m mco W m N co W Z Z Z W W co Z Z Z m m m L U t L U L U L _ U rp U U m U U rp U U C O 2 O o p O O G Q Q Q — Q— Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m m Q O Q m m N Q m m Q N e m m m m w LnO m m Z Z 0 w co cow Z Z m m O C OJOJ OJ }y C N N N p a a C U bA W W f6 � f6 cy cy -o U c a Q oo 0 on o w U L f0f0 U N a N o oc o oc z� a O c c m v v v c N o o u L u U u o a oo v a o u � u Y ok6 o `o n v a N rn � Z •x O Li Y Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Similar to year 2028 background traffic conditions, each of the mitigation strategies is anticipated to improve queueing and delay issues noted under year 2028 total traffic conditions using the existing signal timing and lane configurations. A brief summary of each is provided below: The following summaries the ability of these mitigation strategies to address the anticipated delay or queueing issues identified: ■ Queue Spillback on Rest Church Road from US 11 to 1-81 Ramps o Under each of the mitigation scenarios, the queue Spillback from the eastbound approach to US 11 is anticipated to be substantially reduced during the peak hour with the conversion of the eastbound through lane to a shared left-through lane. Queues are anticipated to be contained within the existing storage (zero to one percent upstream blockage time). The one percent of upstream blockage time during the peak hour can be addressed through minor modifications to the coordination plan tested in this report. ■ Queue Spillback from 1-81 Northbound Off-Ramp to 1-81 Mainline o Each mitigation scenario is anticipated to eliminate spill back of queues on the 1-81 Northbound Off-Ramp to the 1-81 mainline. ■ Under Mitigation Strategy#1, the queues on the northbound off-ramp are still anticipated to extend approximately halfway down the ramp, which may still affect safe deceleration from 1-81 mainline. ■ Under Mitigation Strategy #2, the maximum queues on the northbound off- ramp are reduced approximately 32 percent relative to Mitigation Strategy #1 with the addition of a left-turn lane. ■ Under Mitigation Strategy #3, the maximum queues on the northbound off- ramp are reduced approximately 54 percent relative to Mitigation Strategy #1 and 31 percent relative to Mitigation Strategy#2. ■ Overall intersection and approach delays o All movements anticipated to operate below capacity at LOS D or better under each mitigation strategy. Relative to the forecast operations of the three mitigation strategies under year 2028 background traffic, no substantial increase in delays are expected, nor are queues anticipated to spill beyond proposed storage lengths (e.g., the 300 feet of storage required under year 2028 background traffic conditions for the northbound left-turn lane on the 1-81 off-ramp). The maximum northbound queue on the off-ramp from 1-81 is anticipated to increase by several vehicles; however, this increase is accommodated by the existing off-ramp. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 55 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Overall, Mitigation Strategy#3 provides the greatest anticipated reduction to queues and delays on the northbound off-ramp; however, Mitigation Strategy#2 also represents a viable mitigation strategy for the overall roadway network. Either provides sufficient reduction in queuing and delays and either should considered a viable alternative under year 2028 total traffic conditions. While more drastic improvements (e.g., converting the signals to roundabouts or other alternative intersection forms) were initially considered at each of the study intersections warranting mitigation, the existing intersection spacing and proximity to the bridge over 1-81 would require substantial impacts to accommodate alternative intersection forms. The operations reported above illustrate modifications to the existing control forms can adequately accommodate forecast increases in delay and queueing resulting from the site-generated trips. TURN-LANE EVALUATION Left- and right-turn lane warrants established in Appendix F of VDOT's Road Design Manual (RDM - Reference 5) were evaluated along Rest Church Road at the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. Appendix K contains the right-turn lane evaluations using Figure 3-26 under year 2034 total traffic conditions. It also contains the nomographs used to evaluate the left-turn lane warrants.The percentage of left turns in each approach volume was rounded to the nearest five percent to applythe nomographs.The posted speed limit of Rest Church Road changes from 35 miles-per-hour to 45 miles-per-hour near the proposed relocated Zachary Ann Lane. To be conservative, the nomographs for a 50 mile-per-hour design speed were used. Table 11 and Table 12 contain a summary of the turn-lane warrant analysis for right- and left-turn lanes, respectively. Table 11. Right Turn-Lane Warrants—Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane—Year 2028 Total Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak r Weekday PM Peak Right-Turning Volume Approach Volume Turn-Lane Right-Turning Volume Approach Volume Turn-Lane 21 157 1No 11 159 No Table 12. Left Turn-Lane Warrants—Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane—Year 2028 Total Traffic Conditions Advancing Volume(veh/hr) 408 Weekday AM Peak L(%Left Turns in Advancing Volume) 86.0 Opposing Volume(veh/hr) 157 Turn-Lane Warranted? Yes Advancing Volume(veh/hr) 319 Weekday PM Peak L(%Left Turns in Advancing Volume) 49.2 Opposing Volume(veh/hr) 159 Turn-Lane Warranted? Yes Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 56 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis As shown, a right-turn lane on Rest Church Road at the Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane intersection is not forecast to be warranted under year 2028 total traffic conditions. A left-turn lane is forecast to be warranted during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours. Given the 45 mile-per-hour posted speed limit on Rest Church Road, the left-turn lane should have a minimum of 200 feet of storage and a 200-foot taper. ACCESS MANAGEMENT EVALUATION An evaluation of the proposed relocated Zachary Ann Lane on Rest Church Road was performed with respect to VDOT's Access Management policies. Figure 21 illustrates the proposed spacing of the relocated Zachary Ann Lane with respect to the adjacent private entrances, as well as the interchange with 1-81. Based on Table 2-3 of the RDM,the proposed relocated Zachary Ann Lane should be located a minimum of 1,320 feet from the end of the 1-81 ramp terminal. As shown in Figure 21, the current planned location of Zachary Ann Lane is located approximately 1,325 feet from the edge of the ramp terminal (no turn lanes present as shown in Figure 2-9 of the RDM). Based on Table 2-2 of the RDM, the proposed relocated Zachary Ann Lane should be a minimum of 50 feet from adjacent entrances on Rest Church Road (local street). As shown in Figure 21, the proposed location of Zachary Ann Lane is located greater than 50 feet from any adjacent entrance. Benefits of Relocating Zachary Ann Lane As shown in Figure 21, relocating Zachary Ann Lane as a part of the Fruit Hill Property development is anticipated to increase the spacing to meet/exceed minimum VDOT access spacing standards relative to spacing from the 1-81 interchange. This is of particular importance on the west side of the 1-81 interchange, where the existing Flying J Travel Center currently has four commercial access points within close proximity to each other and the interchange. Relocating the existing truck egress (via Zachary Ann Lane) further west from the other existing driveways will help clearly delineate decision points for drivers along Rest Church Road and is anticipated to improve both the operations and safety performance of the corridor. Relocating Zachary Ann Lane is also anticipated to better serve future development in the area. The Flying J Travel Center has previously expressed interest in expanding to the north side of Rest Church Road.A fourth, southbound leg at the relocated Zachary Ann Lane could serve as a singular access point for both the potential Flying J and any future development on the north side of Rest Church Road. Given the projected volumes on Rest Church Road, it is not anticipated any cross-section improvements would be required on Rest Church Road with build-out of the Fruit Hill Property on the south side of Rest Church Road. The existing cross-section should be reevaluated with future development in the area, including creating medians as necessary to improve access management near the interchange. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 57 j N L J LL = a � J LL w U O = U C . w a --- + wZ f f i Uw Z LL N N OCA ' C MCq LLJJ J G U a w ,Zt CO w 0 O J U LU ED C7 O0 z U a IL U) 0 LU O IL O of d o LO Cf) w lr U Z d Q yy H W Z L ( J a° z a z _ L) Z U w Q W } z O Q � Of N LL LL O C� C7 w Z Z Z i - Q ¢ ¢ OQ (d � ♦A— a w ? j JU LU 0 VV TZ:gol ano�fn7 �?isangn-wdg0�£-fZOZ"60 ung 6mp��ouiJ-s6ij}�oday-Z£L9ZI9600Z gsggnd�dldwall�?Isanqo�000�Ivas�I:� Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis DESIGN YEAR 2034 OPERATIONS The year 2034 traffic conditions analysis is intended to provide a planning-level assessment of how the study area transportation system will operate six years after planned build-out of the proposed development. Year 2034 Background Traffic Conditions To develop year 2034 background traffic volumes, six years of growth (one percent) were added to the year 2028 background traffic conditions shown in Figure 9. No additional in-process developments were identified for build-out between year 2028 and 2034 at the time of scoping. Figure 22 shows the overall intersection operational results of the year 20234 background traffic operations analysis for the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours. Figure 23 shows the lane group LOS.Table 13 summarizes the peak hour levels of service, 9511 percentile back of queue, and delay for each lane group by intersection. No changes to existing signal timing provided by VDOT were assumed. If appropriate, signal timing updates will be recommended as potential mitigation measures to account for projected traffic volumes. Queues reported at signalized intersections were estimated using the maximum queues SimTraffic, as the Synchro model was unable to fully estimate the extent of forecast queues.Appendix L contains the 2034 background traffic operational analysis worksheets. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 59 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N NA 670 7 11 669 MPG��N�N N Q wGGDBINE RD U J m 81 Z O 4 4 O o �o� Q 100-� LOS=B Q 293 LOS=C QO146�- LOS=B ,— Q 157LOS=C tiQ ¢ 189 Del=32.6 135 Q 268 y Del=16.9 129 Q188 Del=27.4 45 r"16 Dp VIC=0.61 r 398 V/C=0.28�^-469 p V =062 127 WW W � WLULU LU v,n LU �o^o ry 4= 6 CM=NB d 245 LOS=Cd 149- LOS=C dr4 — IL OS�E� - Q 159—► LOS=B X174 Q 148~ Q 245y Del=22.8 ¢ 111~Del=76.3 138 0� V/C=0119 �5 + VIC=058 �39g V/C=0.67 X505 Y VIC=1.05~246 LU LU LU LU X23 clo O O a a ry ry CM- INTERSECTION MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) m LOS- INTERSECTION MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE o (SIGNALIZED)/INTERSECTION MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) DeI= INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY -° (SIGNALIZED)/INTERSECTION MOVEMENT a CONTROL DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) V/C=INTERSECTION VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO a E L� Year 2034 Background Traffic Operations Figure Weekday AM & PM Peak Hours Frederick County, VA 22 WI KITTELSON � &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 N NA 670 669 MPG��N�N N Q wGGDBINE RD c� J m 81 Z O 4 4 O 0;:D UVW ✓1 � a ¢ ¢ a � Q Ca D + �A • �8 D • �C_: Y Y E LU LU LU � t UU UUD Il Il 0— IL O� F..� C�► • —A. • --A.o �' '— o �► � �e o e � �e o c�► � kc LU �A WC W •—c W C ��"C U-1 Z w r w w 0 0 a a ry ry m 0 N clo a n X-LANE GROUP LEVEL OF SERVICE E ti Year 2034 Bacgkround Lane Group Levels of Service Figure Weekday AM & PM Peak Hours Frederick County, VA 23 IWIKITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Table 13.Year 2034 Background Traffic Conditions-Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service,95"' Percentile Back of Queue,and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection Intersection Information AM Peak HoUArAM PM Peak Hour in Intersection Lane Existing Back of Back" Delay Traffic Control Approach turn-lane . Queue W) length (feet) (feet EBT 0 0.0 0 0.0 EB Route 669(Rest I EBR 0 0.0 0 0.0 Church Road)/ EB Approach - 0.0 - 0.0 Zachary Ann Lane Two-way WB WBL A 3 7.7 A 0 8.7 Stop-Controlled WBT A 0 0.0 0 0.0 WB Approach - 2.3 - 0.2 (#1) NB NBLR B 18 11.4 B 10 11.0 NB Approach B - 11.4 B - 11.0 EB EBTR C 210 24.7 C 157 26.9 Rest Church EB Approach C - 24.7 C - 26.9 Road/1-81 WB WBL D 327 43.0 C 387 34.7 Southbound WBT B 110 10.5 B 326 13.3 Ramps Signalized WB Approach D - 34.8 C - 25.6 SB SBLT D 250 43.1 C 174 31.2 (#2) SBR 640' C 84 27.8 C 121 27.7 SB Approach D - 37.3 C - 29.3 Overall C - 32.6 C - 26.9 EBL - B 160 14.5 C 191 23.5 EB EBT B 104 12.9 B 170 12.4 Rest Church EB Approach B - 13.3 B - 16.6 Road/1-81 WB WBT B 194 10.2 C 215 23.2 Northbound WBR A 68 9.6 B 107 19.2 Ramps Signalized WB Approach A - 10.0 B - 22.0 NBLTR - C 252 31.3 C 934 34.3 (#3) NB NBR 480' C 229 30.2 C 480 20.6 NB Approach C - 30.7 C - 27.7 Overall B - 16.9 C - 22.8 EBL C 189 28.9 F 251 185.4 EB EBTR - B 204 15.0 C 253 21.4 EB Approach B - 17.6 F - 121.8 WBL 250' E 57 75.4 C 59 34.6 WB WBT - C 112 28.6 C 170 33.7 us 11 WBR - C 54 27.3 C 105 29.9 (Martinsburg WB Approach C - 32.3 C - 32.5 Pike)/Rest NBL 150' D 134 36.9 D 150 52.7 Church Road Signalized NB NBT - C 94 24.8 F 1,087 118.3 NBR 280' C 27 23.1 C 280 24.6 (#4) NB Approach C - 30.1 F - 97.3 SBL 240' E 173 55.6 D 109 36.3 SB SBT - C 288 31.2 C 172 33.6 SBR 290' C 162 25.3 C 130 28.3 SB Approach C - 32.8 C - 31.2 Overall C 27.4 E 76.3 Maximum queues reported from SimTraffic at signalized intersections due to 95th percentile queues from Synchro exceeding capacity at one or more signalized intersections within the coordinated system. As shown, signalized study intersections and critical movements at unsignalized intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at LOS C or better with queues contained within existing storage with the following exceptions: Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 62 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps(#3) During the weekday p.m. peak hour, queues on the northbound off-ramp are anticipated to spill back to mainline 1-81 northbound under year 2034 background conditions.The queue is forecast to spill back for 77 percent of the peak hour. This is consistent with the levels of queuing anticipated under year 2028 background traffic conditions. However, as aforementioned, the extent of this queuing is likely exaggerated in the SimTraffic models due to a considerable amount of northbound off-ramp traffic destined for US 11 northbound continuing to stack in the shared left-through-right lane (rather than distributing among both ramp lanes as seen in the field). US 11/Rest Church Road(#4) The eastbound left-turn queues at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection are anticipated to spill back to the adjacent Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The movement is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F with queues forecast to block the upstream end of the lane (i.e., Upstream Block Time) approximately 64 percent of the time during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The eastbound queues are anticipated to block the upstream intersection approximately one percent of the time during the weekday a.m. peak hour; however, this minor blockage can likely be addressed with minor changes to signal coordination. The northbound through movement is anticipated to operate at LOS F with queues spilling back over 1,000 feet during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The overall intersection is anticipated to operate above capacity at LOS E. POTENTIAL MITIGATION To alleviate the forecast delay and queueing issues projected at the study intersections under year 2034 background traffic conditions, the three mitigation strategies recommended under year 2028 traffic conditions (shown in Table 6) were explored. Table 14 the anticipated operations at the signalized study intersections with these improvements. With these improvements, updates to signal timing and coordination were also assumed.Appendix M contains the Synchro and SimTraffic output worksheets. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 63 O O 't Lo q Lf1 CA of m lD . N Ill M of Lf1 lD Lq N -1 N � O �D r-� m M I- �,: n 41 -1 Ol n Lq M M N N om ^ fV m r-4m r4 N N M N N N N N N � M m m � m � � m ti m m N N N M N - - O N i O I, to W 01 M mm N m N m m N h O O) N W W lD Ln Ln CO N 0) Mcl) c)) c-I m O 0) W N O7 zt al Ol oo Ln w O� O7 Ln O N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ln N N N o 0 0 0 Q U 0 U U U m Q m m U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 U 0 U 0 0 0 m 0 0 U U U 0 O O O m Vl CA Ol 00 -i d. N W l0 M Uf N oq O 't M l0 n m M Il 't n Ol -i of Il Lq � V 01 LD O Nm N al O N N M M to O h to m Ol m M Wm mn � n M N N M m ^ N m Nm Nm N m N M N N N N :tN N m � m � � M c-I mm M N N N m N N N Ol N W :t Lo 't O n n N W N h O N M O N L, lD w O w N Ol M O c-I O LD M O w n O Vl N N N Ln M N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ln N N N N U U U Q m 0 U U U m Q Q m U U U U U U U c m U U C� 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 U U U U O O N O Lq V1 W 01 D m M V1 W wN lD m Nm to N m Nm w z w a-I m V N m V m m m M � W m m n n n N r-4 NM m fV M N M N N N N fV M N Z M N N N -:t c-I N M -:t M V 7 M N m M N N N M M c Ln Ol Ol d' N N Ol Q c M oo O N O O m N N h h W I� N N m O N \ M W � O o) Ill M a-I ID N N m M N N N rO N r4 Z ImIm 00 oo N N L!1 N N N "t 0 0 0 QU 0 U U U m m m U U U z 0 U U U 0 m U U U 0 m 0 � 0 0 0 U O O O OO O O O w O W Ln Ln W O lD m O J C� O G J r F-- co on co on J J CC J H m m m {A m m N m co co co W co co Go Z Z z w w Z Z Z m m m W OLU t L U L U u L .a o U U (p U U m U U O O O O O o O O O2 O V Q a Qa Q a m en a v < m m a v a m m a a v U m m m m Om lo 3 Z Z Oco m m m Z Z m m O N BOJ BOJ O a a m bA bA bA Y N N U Q� m C7 ti ti c M op op o w o o o a � o o ,Y � � .v L o u L o u U u o a o -ov a o u u o `o ^ v aN n cij z .y x o Li m Y Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis As shown, the mitigation strategies employed are anticipated to alleviate queueing and delay issues projected under year 2034 background traffic conditions: ■ Queue Spillback on Rest Church Road from US 11 to 1-81 Ramps o Under each of the mitigation scenarios, the queue Spillback from the eastbound approach to US 11 is anticipated to be substantially reduced during the peak hour with the conversion of the eastbound through lane to a shared left-through lane. ■ Queue Spillback from 1-81 Northbound Off-Ramp to 1-81 Mainline o Similarly, each mitigation scenario is anticipated to eliminate spill back of queues on the 1-81 Northbound Off-Ramp to the 1-81 mainline. Maximum queues under Mitigation Strategy #2 and Mitigation Strategy #3 are anticipated to reduce queuing on the off- ramp by approximately half relative to Mitigation Strategy#1. ■ Overall intersection and approach delays o Under each mitigation scenario, all intersection approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. Nominal differences are anticipated between Mitigation Strategy#2 and Mitigation Strategy #3, and either would likely represent suitable mitigation strategies under year 2034 background traffic conditions. YEAR 2034 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS To estimate traffic volumes at study intersections under year 2034 total traffic conditions(i.e.,six years post-build out of the Fruit Hill Property development), the site trips shown in Figure 14 through Figure 18 were added to the year 2034 background traffic volumes shown in Figure 22. Figure 24 illustrates the estimated year 2034 total traffic volumes and intersection operations. Figure 25 shows the lane group LOS for the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours. Table 15 summarizes the Synchro 11 peak hour levels of service,95th percentile back of queue, and delayfor each lane group by intersection. No changes to existing signal timing provided were assumed. If appropriate, signal timing updates will be recommended as potential mitigation measures to account for projected traffic volumes. The queues reported for the signalized intersections were estimated using maximum queues from SimTraffic, as the Synchro model was unable to fully estimate the extent of forecast queues.Appendix N contains the year 2034 total traffic conditions operational worksheets. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 65 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 PROPOSED N T 670 RELOCATION 7� OF ZACHARY ANN LN Gy 669 MPG��N�N N Q WOODBINE RD U J m 81 2 O 4 4 O NNN ONS Q CM=NB Q 223f Q Q 1116--* 4S=C 159LOS=C LOS LOS=E19lgy 4275 45>- 260 Del=28.6 Del=20.8 29 Del=28.1 Q De=36.9 352 Q 306 Q �41880 0 p V/C=0.64 pr398 V/C=0.52 V/C=0.62 167 r" W W W � � W LU LUW> LU LU �.- �N ry 4= V � Opp 6 } 0- CM-N, drio) S-C� d 298- LOS=D 141 j LOS�F� Q 157�► LOS=C F 172 ¢ 297\~Del=28.1 ' p 261�► Del=37.1 k.205 p 119 , De1=130.6�138 6 V/C=065 X158 + V/C=0.69 X399 LU W V/C=1.02 X509 W V/C=1.06 x,236 LU a M NM Na �Q O O a a ry ry CM- INTERSECTION MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) m LOS- INTERSECTION MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE o (SIGNALIZED)/INTERSECTION MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) D.1= INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY -° (SIGNALIZED)/INTERSECTION MOVEMENT a CONTROL DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) V/C=INTERSECTION VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO a E L� Year 2034 Total Traffic Operations Figure Weekday AM & PM Peak Hours Frederick County, VA 24 I� KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 PROPOSED N T 670 RELOCATION 7� OF ZACHARY ANN LN Gy 669 MPG��N�N N Q WOODBINE RD C) J m 81 2 O 4 4 O C) UUW J� ✓1 � a Ca ¢ ¢ a � Q kc D + �A • ~B y • �8 D • *—CC_: YLU O Y Y E LU UM �'� �t� 4= UU r� -j Il Il d IL 7.! >- r >- C --A.o o o � �C W *—C W C LU •—c LU �C a w Z w w wclo � tw UU 0m QWU 0 ai 0 3 a a ry ry m 0 N a n X-LANE GROUP LEVEL OF SERVICE E ti Year 2034 Total Lane Group Levels of Service Figure Weekday AM & PM Peak Hours Frederick County, VA 25 IWIKITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Table 15. 2034 Total Traffic Conditions-Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue,and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection Intersection Information AM Peak Hour PM Peak HAJE Back Back I Intersection Lane Turn-lane of Delay of :Dela (s cly Traffic Control Ap:pr�o2a LOS LOS W) c Group lengths Queue (sec) Queue (sec I' I -ail L=MINW6 6� EB EBT 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 669(Rest Church EBR 0 0.0 0 0.0 Road)/ EB Approach - 0.0 - 0.0 Zachary Ann Lane WBL 200' A 30 8.8 A 18 9.6 [RELOCATED] Two-way WB Stop-Controlled I WBT - 0 0.0 0 0.0 WB Approach - 7.5 - 4.6 (#1) NB NBL - E 8 36.9 C 5 17.4 NBR 200' B 40 13.7 C 120 19.4 NB Approach B - 14.7 C - 19.3 EB EBTR - C 240 25.8 C 257 33.1 EB Approach C - 25.8 C - 33.1 Rest Church Road/1-81 WB WBL D 324 36.8 C 347 30.4 Southbound Ramps WBT B 184 11.6 B 470 14.8 Signalized WB Approach C - 25.8 C - 22.9 (#2) SB SBLT D 232 43.1 C 166 30.7 SBR 640' C 191 29.1 C 175 28.1 SB Approach C - 35.1 C - 29.1 Overall C - 28.6 C - 28.1 EBL - B 228 15.5 F 376 93.5 EB EBT B 129 12.4 B 240 15.6 EB Approach B - 13.5 E - 57.1 Rest Church Road/1-81 I WBT B 184 12.9 C 229 29.9 Northbound Ramps Signalized WBI WBR B 73 13.0 C 132 23.6 WB Approach B - 12.9 C - 28.1 (#3) NB NBLTR - D 607 41.8 D 928 40.3 NBR 480' C 468 28.9 B 480 19.1 NB Approach C - 35.6 C - 30.2 Overall C - 20.8 D - 37.1 EBL - C 171 29.6 F 242 541.8 EB EBTR - B 213 16.9 C 251 20.5 EB Approach B - 19.4 F - 338.3 WBL 250' E 54 75.4 D 58 45.9 WB WBT - C 110 28.6 C 201 28.8 WBR - C 50 27.3 C 115 26.5 US 11(Martinsburg WB Approach C - 32.3 C - 28.9 Pike)/Rest Church Road NBL 150' D 131 38.3 D 150 54.2 Signalized NB NBT - C 111 24.9 E 1,017 58.9 (#4) NBR 280' C 26 23.2 C 254 22.1 NB Approach C - 31.1 D - 56.8 SBL 240' E 167 55.6 D 115 42.0 SB SBT - C 232 31.6 C 170 30.8 SBR 290' C 157 25.6 C 146 27.0 SB Approach C - 33.0 C - 30.4 Overall C 28.1 F 130.6 Maximum queues reported from SimTraffic at signalized intersections due to 951h percentile queues from Synchro exceeding capacity at one or more signalized intersections within the coordinated system. As shown, all signalized study intersections and critical movements at unsignalized intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better with queues contained within existing/proposed lane storage with the following exceptions: Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 68 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation ImpactAnalysis Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane[RELOCATED](#1) The critical northbound left-turn movement from the relocated Zachary Ann Lane is forecast to operate at LOS E during the weekday a.m. peak hour with control delays of 36.9 seconds per vehicle. The movement is anticipated to serve 11 vehicles and queues are anticipated to be less than one vehicle on average during the weekday a.m. peak hour. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the critical northbound right-turn movement is forecast to operate at LOS C. Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps(#3) Similar to year 2034 background traffic conditions, the maximum queues for the northbound approach (ramp from 1-81) are forecast to spill back close to 1-81 Northbound during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The northbound queue is anticipated to spill back to the mainline approximately 77 percent of the weekday p.m. peak hour.The northbound queue is anticipated to spill back approximately two percent of the weekday a.m. peak hour. However,as aforementioned,the SimTraffic model likely overestimates the projected queuing on the northbound approach due to the artificial stacking of vehicles destined for US 11 northbound in the shared left-through-right lane on the ramp. The signal is still forecast to operate below capacity. The maximum queues on the westbound approach are also anticipated to spill back towards US 11 approximately six percent of the weekday p.m. peak hour. US 11/Rest Church Road(#4) Without signal timing changes relative to existing conditions, the signalized intersection is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Similar to both existing and year 2034 background traffic conditions, the eastbound left-turn queues are forecast to spill back to the upstream Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection, blocking the upstream signal approximately 61 percent of the weekday p.m. peak hour and two percent of the weekday a.m. peak hour. Queues on the northbound approach are anticipated to extend beyond 1,000 upstream of the signal on US 11. MITIGATION Similar to year 2034 background traffic conditions, the three improvement strategies in Table 6 were evaluated for their ability to offset the impacts to the surrounding roadway network related to the addition of site-generated trips.Table 16 and Table 17 illustrate the anticipated operations of the three signalized study intersections during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours, respectively, under these scenarios.The analysis of weekday a.m. peak hour conditions were added to this mitigation evaluation (relative to previous mitigation scenarios only evaluating the weekday p.m. peak hour) due to the forecast increase in queuing on the northbound approach of the 1-81 northbound off-ramp between 2034 background and 2034 total traffic conditions (i.e., the queues are projected to spill back during the weekday a.m. peak hour when previous scenarios projected northbound queues would be contained during the a.m. peak). With these improvements, updates to signal timing and coordination were also assumed.Appendix O contains the Synchro and SimTraffic output worksheets. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 69 N N N . W -1 O of O l0 N Ol Lq V1 00 CA cq lb I� -1 N M I" N M h V7 lz� N Lq V W W rl O n l0 lb Lt ^ W n W M O Ol V1 O N N h ml0 al W m N V V1 M O m n M h W fry N N d' N m N m m rq N N N N N N mm N N r4 N N N N m m m mm m m N N Mm N N N N N O N i O I� N O c-I Ll N h lD O M N O 0) N lD I, � W N N Lf1 l0 N Ol Ln c oo Ol O O O W m m m n O m N m N N N N N N N m N N N N N N N N N s U 0 0 0 U 0 U V V m Q m m U U U U U U U U U U U 0 U V 0 U U U U U U U U N N h i, N O Q1 00 CQ O l-I N m 7 O M M W co Ol al lf1 N M h L!1 a' N Lf1 Oq W Il O O . lD l0 " c W I� W W w m i V7 t to l0 N N n M W l0 m M m N �t to m M O :t n M n c N N r14M N M N N N N fV M N M N fV fV N r-4M M M M M M M fV r-4M M N N fV M N N CA N 041 al O l0 4t �--� al W lV h O N m O N Ln -:tM N N l0 l0 m 0 Ol w O O to ^ �--� O Vl N N N Ln m N M N N N N N N W N In N N N V1 N N N Ln N N N N U U C� Q U Q U V V m m m U U U U U U U U 0 0 U 0 U U 0 U U U U U U U U O Cl Ol Lq M W m m M Q N M m c-I N N M rV M lh Ln 't rV Lq V W W n O N l0 l0 O c-I n w N N m N N N Ln V \ m l0 m m I, O �--� m N V l0 m m O � nm h l0 N N Ln m m fV M N N N N r-4m N Z M fV N fV lV fV N M M M M M fV fV M M fV fV fV N N N Ln to �t M Ol m cy Q m N N W lD N N m o In a N O O m O \ l0 co Ih 0 m 0 � M a N im N FFI N N N Z 't m T, ri N N N N N it U U o Q U o U U U m m U U o U z U U U U U U U U o U V o V U V U U U V U O Y m O O O OO O O O l0 OM :t N N co N N Q R Y GJ � GJ � J 'a o J r J J CC J H m m m co co Go co J H - J r W m co N co co W Z Z Z W W Z Z Z m m m co on co 5`••� L U -c L U L U L U m U U f0 u m U U O Q O O Q Q — O Q Q O O_ Q O_ O_ Q O_ (p Q Q O_ Q 2 yr a m m a v a m m a v a m m a a v m m � m m m m � Z z 0 w m �w 1.1 z z m m V v v v H Q } ma a m C c c C) Ln Ln bA bA n c+ cn f6 ++ v c M o? op P o w v o v m o o a 0 o Y � � v l� v c o u L o u sz o a oo v a o Yr-i u D u Y 0 o 0 `o ^ v c a N n zcL x o Li Y m� 1n o ^ rn rn rn w rn a o n m N n r` o 1n a o o n o a r` m oq w o U� o r` r` v N r, r, �* N W �t c7) c �* �t �6 O o N m Ln lb CO c N O O lD m �t N O7 -:tr� O O7 V1 W Ln Dl m N N m N m N m N N N N m N m m N m N �t N N m �t m m �t m N m �t N N N m lD CA r` Ih /N V1 N -zt r` rV lh lD lD lD O O a M O Ln .--� co lD a r` a CA rV O a0 h v1 O O W v1 r` W N l0 N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N w O 0 't m N N N • U U U Q U 0 U U U m Q m U U U 0 0 U U U 0 m U U 0 U 0 0 0 m O 0 U U U U Ln Ln a I rn rn a v w M a ti N m M w n M N M r\ o a n a w w 0 Ln O n n v m r\ f\ M N � 01 M lD V1 W lD M Ol r` N N N r\ O L/1 M M � N M � M O CT)M -:t W Ln Ol N N N M � N M N m N N � N N M N � N N m N � N N M � M m � M N M � N N N m m N N Ln 4t W O Lnm O N N O O .--� O Ill O w 7 Nr" Ln O7 O M 7 M O Dl wN N L!1 lD N r` N N M N N N N N N N M N N N N Ln N oo Ln lD w N r" N U 0 0 0 U U U U U U Q m U 0 U 0 U U U U 0 m U U 0 U O 0 0 m O 0 U U U U M O N i Lq V7 Ol N -1 Ol Dl CA lD Uf m W m CA Lq Q W V V1 N lD V7 O n W CA cq O V1 O n n 01 a r, r, O 4 m .4 m c w wN m � N w \ W O of � W N M � NM � rl O M M W M M N r-4N -:t N fM fN M N M N NM M Z M fN M M M N N M -:t M M -:t M fN M -:t rV fN N M G O r, Dl a' O �t m o M N Q U O a M cy N O on .--� O r- N lD m m N r" :t � Ln N lD \ N LnW Dl Ln N � LonN M N n N N M N N N M N N N N lD N N N N L U U C) Q U U U U U 0 m U U 0 0 z w U 0 U 0 m U U 0 U 0 0 0 m 0 0 U U U U 2 Y fC GJ d a o Oo o o Oo a Doi lD M N N N (N (N a a ca Y GJ � GJ � J (a m m J CC J r m m J J co m m m m m Z z Z mw w z z z m m m 5� ` L L u u U L L U u u U u _ U RU U (p U U m U U O N o O O o O O � O Q O O Q Q — O Q Q O 0 Q Q Q fa Q Q Q f0 Q Q Q Q fa yr a m m a v a m m a v a m m a a v m m m m m m z z 0 w mw Z z m m 0 0 V v v v yF N } ma a m C C C bA bA bA U) U) f O ti ti � c M a Q a Q to o c Q p o N o o o a L o u L o u U u o Z5 a o u uY ei o o a ,jn z o Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Transportation Impact Analysis As shown, the mitigation strategies employed are anticipated to alleviate queueing and delay issues projected under year 2034 total traffic conditions: ■ Queue Spillback on Rest Church Road from US 11 to 1-81 Ramps o Under each of the mitigation scenarios, the queue spillback from the eastbound approach to US 11 is anticipated to be substantially reduced during the peak hour with the conversion of the eastbound through lane to a shared left-through lane. ■ Queue Spillback from 1-81 Northbound Off-Ramp to 1-81 Mainline o Similarly,each mitigation scenario is anticipated to eliminate spill back of queues on the 1-81 Northbound Off-Ramp to the 1-81 mainline. Maximum queues under Mitigation Strategy #2 and Mitigation Strategy #3 are anticipated to reduce queuing on the off- ramp by approximately half relative to Mitigation Strategy#1 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. During the weekday a.m. peak hour, Mitigation Strategy#2 and Mitigation Strategy#3 are anticipated to reduce queuing on the off-ramp on the order of 20 to 30 percent relative to Mitigation Strategy#1. ■ Overall intersection and approach delays o Under each mitigation scenario, all intersection approaches are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. Nominal differences are anticipated between Mitigation Strategy#2 and Mitigation Strategy #3, and either would likely represent suitable mitigation strategies under year 2034 total traffic conditions. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 72 Section 5 Conclusions and Recommendations Broad Run Estates January 2023 Conclusions and Recommendations CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the transportation impact analysis,the transportation system can accommodate full build-out of the proposed development. The findings of this analysis and our recommendations are discussed below. Existing Conditions ■ All study intersections and critical movements currently operate at LOS C or better with queues stored within existing lanes with the following exception: o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection#4): The eastbound left-turn operates at LOS E with queues spilling back to the adjacent Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The queues block the upstream end of the lane approximately 21 percent of the time during the weekday p.m. peak hour. ■ Signal re-timing alone (i.e., no physical changes to the travelled way) is not anticipated to fully prevent the spill back of eastbound left-turn movements at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection. ■ Queue spillbacks can be mitigated by adding capacity to the eastbound left- turn movement through conversion of the existing eastbound through lane to a shared left/through lane. This would also require: • Restriping of the eastbound approach lanes • Conversion of the Rest Church Road approaches to operate under "split" signal phasing • Replacing the existing three-section signal head for the eastbound through lane with a four-section head (three ball indicators and one, green left-turn arrow indicator) • Potential widening of US 11 to the north of Rest Church Road to add a second northbound lane that ends/merges a minimum of 495 feet north of the existing commercial driveway on the east side of US 11. • Adjustments to coordination with the adjacent signalized intersections at the 1-81 interchange. ■ If implemented, the eastbound queues would be anticipated to be contained within the existing lane storage. Minimal impacts are anticipated at adjacent intersection due to the conversion of the Rest Church Road approaches to split-phased at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 74 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Conclusions and Recommendations o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps (Study Intersection #3): Given the current lane configuration on the northbound approach, the SimTraffic software used to model maximum queues at signalized intersections likely overestimates the levels of queueing on the northbound approach. ■ A review of the SimTraffic model illustrated a majority of the northbound right-turning traffic from the off-ramp ultimately destined for US 11 northbound stacked in the shared left-through-right lane on the off-ramp. However, field observations showed a majority of the northbound right- turns from the off-ramp used the exclusive right-turn lane (often immediately cutting across three lanes to reach the left-turn lane onto US 11 northbound from Rest Church Road). ■ To help "encourage" more vehicles turning left onto US 11 to utilize the exclusive right-turn lane on the off-ramp,the default"Mandatory Distance" and "Positioning Distance" parameters were reduced in the SimTraffic Simulation Settings. Even with these adjustments, however, a considerable amount of northbound off-ramp traffic destined for US 11 northbound continues to stack in the shared left-through-right lane in the SimTraffic model. This should be considered as a potential limitation of the model under the current lane configuration. 2028 Background Traffic Conditions ■ A one percent annual growth rate was applied to account for near-term regional traffic growth. ■ In-process developments included in the background 2028 analysis include: o Arogas Parcel—22,570 square feet of shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection o Parcel 33-A-12 — 150,000 square feet of industrial development in the southwest quadrant of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection o Light Property — 105,500 square feet of industrial development along Woodbine Road to the southeast of the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection o Whitehall Commerce Center—Undeveloped portions of the larger site located west of US 11 along Rest Church Road include 162,000 square feet of industrial development ■ No transportation improvements were identified for inclusion in the background 2028 analysis. ■ All signalized study intersections and critical movements at unsignalized intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS C or better with queues stored within existing lanes with the following exceptions: Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 75 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Conclusions and Recommendations o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps (Study Intersection #3): With the increase in volumes on both Rest Church Road and the 1-81 northbound off-ramp due to regional growth and trips from in-process developments, queues on the northbound off-ramp are anticipated to spill back on 1-81 under the existing signal timing during the weekday p.m. peak hour. ■ Note: As aforementioned, the SimTraffic model is likely overestimating forecast northbound queues under the current lane configuration due to limitations within the modeling software with respect to driver lane choice. ■ By adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the existing shared left/through/right lane to a shared left/through lane, additional capacity can be added to the northbound left-turn movement and reduce queue spillback. • The potential for adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the shared left/through/right lane to a shared through/right lane was also evaluated. This also represents a viable mitigation strategy; however, the conversion of the existing shared lane to a shared left/through is anticipated to result in greater reduction in maximum queues and delays on the off-ramp under year 2028 background traffic conditions. o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection #4): Similar to existing conditions, the eastbound left-turn queues at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection are anticipated to spill back to the adjacent Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The movement is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F.The queues are forecast to block the upstream end of the lane approximately 62 percent of the time during the weekday p.m. peak hour. ■ Converting the eastbound through lane to a shared left/through lane and making the associated signal improvements is anticipated to reduce queuing on the eastbound approach to within the existing lane storage. Proposed Development ■ The proposed Fruit Hill Property development consists of one 100-room hotel, one 5,000 square-foot restaurant, one 300,000 square-foot data center, and four industrial buildings totaling to 2,125,500 square feet. ■ Access to the development is proposed via a relocated Zachary Ann Lane. The Applicant is proposing to relocate Zachary Ann Lane further west as a part of this project to improve spacing from adjacent commercial driveways and the adjacent 1-81 interchange. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 76 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Conclusions and Recommendations ■ The development is estimated to generate approximately 4,330 net new weekday daily trips, 430 weekday a.m. (317 in, 113 out), and 452 weekday p.m. (146 in, 306 out) peak hour trips when built out in year 2028. 2028 Total Traffic Conditions ■ All signalized study intersections and critical movements at unsignalized intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better with queues stored within existing lanes with the following exceptions: o Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane f RELOCATEDI (Study Intersection #1): The critical northbound left-turn movement from the relocated Zachary Ann Lane is forecast to operate at LOS E during the weekday a.m. peak hour with control delays of 36.1 seconds per vehicle. ■ The movement is anticipated to serve 11 vehicles and queues are anticipated to be less than one vehicle on average during the weekday a.m. peak hour. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the critical northbound right-turn movement is forecast to operate at LOS C. o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps (Study Intersection #3): Similar to year 2028 background traffic conditions, the maximum queues for the northbound approach (ramp from 1-81)are forecast to spill back close to 1-81 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The signal is still forecast to operate below capacity. ■ Note: As aforementioned, the SimTraffic model is likely overestimating forecast northbound queues under the current lane configuration due to limitations within the modeling software with respect to driver lane choice. ■ The site is anticipated to add 72 northbound left-turns to this approach. o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection #4): Without signal timing changes relative to existing conditions, the signalized intersection is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Similar to both existing and year 2028 background traffic conditions, the eastbound left-turn queues are forecast to spill back to the upstream Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection. ■ The site is anticipated to add eight (8) trips to this movement during the weekday p.m. peak hour. 2028 Total Traffic Mitigation ■ As shown to be effective under existing and year 2028 background traffic conditions, the following improvement strategies are anticipated offset the impacts to the surrounding roadway network related to the addition of site-generated trips: o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps (Study Intersection #3) Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 77 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Conclusions and Recommendations ■ Widen the northbound off-ramp to three approach lanes. By adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the existing shared left/through/right lane to a shared left/through lane,additional capacity can be added to the northbound left-turn movement and reduce queue spillback. • The potential for adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the shared left/through/right lane to a shared through/right lane was also evaluated. This also represents a viable mitigation strategy; however, the conversion of the existing shared lane to a shared left/through is anticipated to result in greater reduction in maximum queues and delays on the off-ramp under year 2028 total traffic conditions. o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection #4) ■ Convert the eastbound through lane to a shared left/through lane and convert the Rest Church Road approach phasing to split phase (as evaluated under existing and year 2028 background traffic conditions) ■ While more drastic improvements (e.g., converting the signals to roundabouts or other alternative intersection forms) were initially considered at each of the study intersections warranting mitigation, the existing intersection spacing and proximity to the bridge over I- 81 would require substantial impacts to accommodate alternative intersection forms. Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation ■ An evaluation of VDOT right-turn lane warrants for two-lane roadways illustrated a right- turn lane is not forecast to be warranted on Rest Church Road at the relocated Zachary Ann Lane under year 2028 total traffic conditions. ■ An evaluation of the VDOT left-turn lane warrants for two-lane roadways illustrated a left- turn lane is forecast to be warranted on Rest Church Road at the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. The turn lane should have a minimum of 200 feet of storage and a 200-foot taper. Access Management Evaluation ■ The proposed relocation of Zachary Ann Lane (to be relocated by the Applicant as a part of this application) meets/exceeds VDOT standards for access spacing on Rest Church Road (local street), including the minimum spacing requirement from an interchange. ■ Relocating Zachary Ann Lane is anticipated to improve both the operations and safety of the Rest Church corridor relative to existing conditions, where the Flying J Travel Center currently has four commercial access points within close proximity to the 1-81 interchange. Shifting truck egress from the Flying J further west will help more clearly delineate decision points for drivers along Rest Church Road. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 78 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Conclusions and Recommendations ■ Relocating Zachary Ann Lane is also anticipated to better serve future development in the area. The Flying J Travel Center has previously expressed interest in expanding to the north side of Rest Church Road.A fourth, southbound leg at the relocated Zachary Ann Lane could serve as a singular access point for both the potential Flying J and any future development on the north side of Rest Church Road. ■ Given the projected volumes on Rest Church Road, it is not anticipated any cross-section improvements would be required on Rest Church Road with build-out of the Fruit Hill Property on the south side of Rest Church Road. Year 2034 Background Traffic Conditions ■ A one percent annual growth rate was applied to year 2028 background traffic volumes to account for near-term regional traffic growth between 2028 and 2034. ■ No additional in-process developments beyond those included in the 2028 traffic analysis were identified for inclusion in the 2034 traffic analysis. ■ No transportation improvements were identified for inclusion in the background 2034 analysis. ■ All study intersections and critical movements are forecast to continue to operate at LOS C or better with queues stored within existing lanes with the following exceptions: o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps(Study Intersection #3): Similar to year 2028 background traffic conditions, the maximum queues for the northbound approach(ramp from 1-81)are forecast to spill back close to 1-81 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. ■ Note: As aforementioned, the SimTraffic model is likely overestimating forecast northbound queues under the current lane configuration due to limitations within the modeling software with respect to driver lane choice. ■ Similar to year 2028 traffic conditions, the queueing issues are forecast to be addressed by adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the existing shared left/through/right lane to either a shared left/through or a through/right lane. • Converting the existing shared lane on the ramp either a shared left/through or through/right represent viable strategies under year 2034 background traffic conditions. Marginal differences in maximum queue lengths and delay are expected on the northbound ramp between the two strategies.These estimated values are highly dependent on the signal timing and coordination pattern employed. o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection #4): The eastbound left-turn queues at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection are anticipated to spill back to the adjacent Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection during the Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 79 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Conclusions and Recommendations weekday p.m. peak hour. The movement is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F.The queues are forecast to block the upstream end of the lane approximately 64 percent of the time during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The overall intersection is anticipated to operate near capacity at LOS E. ■ Similar to year 2028 traffic conditions, the queue spillback and high delays are anticipated to be addressed through conversion of the eastbound through lane to a shared left/through and implementing associated signal improvements. Year 2034 Total Traffic Conditions ■ All study intersections and critical movements are forecast to operate at LOS D or better with queues stored within existing lanes with the following exceptions: o Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane f RELOCATEDI (Study Intersection #1): The critical northbound left-turn movement from the relocated Zachary Ann Lane is forecast to operate at LOS E during the weekday a.m. peak hour with control delays of 36.9 seconds per vehicle. ■ The movement is anticipated to serve 11 vehicles and queues are anticipated to be less than one vehicle on average during the weekday a.m. peak hour. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the critical northbound right-turn movement is forecast to operate at LOS C. o Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps(Study Intersection #3): Similar to year 2034 background traffic conditions, the maximum queues for the northbound approach(ramp from 1-81)are forecast to spill back close to 1-81 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The signal is still forecast to operate below capacity. ■ Note: As aforementioned, the SimTraffic model is likely overestimating forecast northbound queues under the current lane configuration due to limitations within the modeling software with respect to driver lane choice. ■ Similar to year 2034 background traffic conditions, the queueing spillback forecast on the northbound approach can be mitigated by adding an exclusive northbound left-turn lane and converting the existing shared left- through-right lane to either a shared left/through or through/right lane. • Converting the existing shared lane on the ramp either a shared left/through or through/right represent viable strategies under year 2034 background traffic conditions. Marginal differences in maximum queue lengths and delay are expected on the northbound ramp between the two strategies.These estimated values are highly dependent on the signal timing and coordination pattern employed. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 80 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Conclusions and Recommendations o US 11/Rest Church Road (Study Intersection #4): Without signal timing changes relative to existing conditions, the signalized intersection is forecast to operate above capacity at LOS F during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Similar to both existing and year 2034 background traffic conditions, the eastbound left-turn queues are forecast to spill back to the upstream Rest Church Road/1-81 Northbound Ramps intersection. ■ As shown effective under existing and pre-build-out traffic conditions, the queueing and delay concerns are anticipated to be addressed through conversion of the eastbound through lane to a shared left/through and implementing associated signal improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the forecast impacts of the proposed Fruit Hill Property development on the surrounding roadway network, the following improvements are recommended for consideration: ■ Convert the eastbound through lane at the US 11/Rest Church Road intersection to a shared left/through lane. Appropriate adjustments to signal timing/coordination on Rest Church Road and roadway improvements to US 11 will be required, including converting the Rest Church Road approaches at US 11 to split phasing. o The need for this mitigation strategy is shown to be warranted under existing conditions. The site-related trips added to the network at this intersection represent approximately two percent of the total entering vehicles upon build-out in year 2028. ■ Construct a northbound left-turn lane with at least 300 feet of storage and a 200-foot taper on the northbound off-ramp of 1-81 at Rest Church Road. o The need for this mitigation strategy was shown to be warranted under year 2028 background (pre-build-out) traffic conditions. The site-related trips added to the network at this intersection represent approximately 16.5 percent of the total entering vehicles upon build-out in year 2028. ■ Construct a westbound left-turn lane with at least 200 feet of storage and a 200-foot taper on Rest Church Road at the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. If feasible, this left-turn lane can be extended upstream to the existing left-turn lane onto the [existing] Zachary Ann Lane to create longer storage and greater deceleration distance for future growth. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 81 Section 6 References Fruit Hill Property January 2023 References REFERENCES 1. Frederick County. Frederick County Zoning Map. Accessed December 20, 2021. https://fredcogis.fcva.us/PlanningAccessTerminaI/ 2. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 6t1' Edition. 2016. 3. Virginia Department of Transportation. Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual— Version 2.0. February 2020. 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 11`h Edition. 2021. 5. Virginia Department of Transportation. Road Design Manual. July 2021. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. 83 J.Wri Appendix A Scoping Letter XVDOTof Virginia Department PRE-SCOPE OF WORK MEETING FORM Transportatian Information on the Project Traffic Impact Analysis Base Assumptions The applicant is responsible for entering the relevant information and submitting the form to VDOT and the locality no less than three (3) business days prior to the meeting. If a form is not received by this deadline, the scope of work meeting may be postponed. Contact Information Consultant Name: Andrew Butsick, PE& John Callow - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Tele: (703) 885-8970 E-mail: abutsick kittelson.com Developer/Owner Name: Bob Dwyer- Equus Development, L.P. Tele: (610) 996-6600 E-mail: bob landtrustprop.com Project Information Project Name: Fruit Hill Property Locality/County: Frederick Project Location: (Attach regional and site See Figure 1 - attached specific location ma Submission Type Comp Plan ❑ Rezoning ® Site Plan ❑ Subd Plat ❑ The Fruit Hill Property is a proposed commercial/industrial development located in the southwest quadrant of the Route 669 (Rest Church Road)/Zachary Ann Lane intersection in Frederick County, VA. The proposed development consists of one 100-room hotel room, one 5,000 S.F. restaurant, one 300,000 S.F. data center Project Description: building, and four industrial warehousing buildings totaling to 2,125,500 S.F. (Including details on the land use, acreage, phasing, access Access to the site is proposed via a relocated Zachary Ann Lane. The existing location, etc. Attach additional Zachary Ann Lane access point on Route 669 (Rest Church Road)would be sheet if necessary) removed, and existing access to the Pilot/Flying J Travel Center would be provided via a new driveway off of the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. All trips to the proposed site and parcels south of the site on Zachary Ann Lane would also be accessed through the relocated Zachary Ann Lane. A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2. Proposed Use(s): (Check all that apply; attach Residential ❑ Commercial ® Mixed Use ❑ Other additional pages as necessary) It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. Residential Uses(s) Rooms Number of Units: 1,000 S.F. ITE LU Code(s): GFA Commercial Use(s) Other Use(s) ITE LU Code(s): 310 ITE LU Code(s): 150 932 160 (see attached Trip Gen table) Independent Variable(s): 1,000 S.F. Square Ft or Other Variable: GFA Total Peak Hour Trip Less than 100 100 — 499 Projection: ❑ ® 500 - 999 E] 1,000 or more ❑ Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions Study Period Existing Year: 2021 Build-out Year: 2028 Design Year: 2034 Study Area Boundaries North: VA/WV border South: Route 669 (Rest Church Road) (Attach map) East: US 11 (Martinsburg Pike) West: Route 670 (Ruebuck Road) In-Process/Approved Developments: External Factors That Arogas Parcel - 22,570 SF of shopping center Could Affect Project Parcel 33-A-12 - 150,000 SF of industrial development (Planned road improvements, other nearby developments) Light Property - 102,500 SF of industrial development Whitehall Commerce Center(undeveloped portions) - 162,000 SF of general light industrial development Consistency With Comprehensive Plan Yes (Land use, transportation plan) 2019 AADT Volumes from VDOT Route 669 (Rest Church Road) [Welltown Rd to I-81 Ramps] - 1,700 vpd Route 669 (Rest Church Road) [I-81 Ramps to US 11] - 5,600 vpd Available Traffic Data Ramp to I-81 SB (from Rest Church Road to I-81 SB) - 4,600 vpd (Historical, forecasts) Ramp to I-81 NB (from Rest Church Road to I-81 NB) - 2,600 vpd Ramp from I-81 SB (from I-81 to Rest Church Road) - 2,600 vpd Ramp from I-81 NB (from I-81 to Rest Church Road) - 4,100 vpd Trip Distribution Road Name: See Figure 3 Road Name: (Attach sketch) Road Name: Road Name: Annual Vehicle Trip 1% (see attached Peak Period for Study ® AM ® PM ❑ SAT (check all that apply) It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. Growth Rate: historical Peak Hour of the Generator 6-9am 4-7pm AADTs 1.Route 669 (Rest Church Road) /ZacharyAnn Lane 6' 2.Route 669 (Rest Church Road) Study Intersections /I-81 SB Rams �' and/or Road Segments 3.Route 669 (Rest Church $ (Attach additional sheets as -Road)/1-81 NB Ramps necessary) 4.US 11 (Martinsburg Pike)/Route 669 Rest Church Road) 9' 5. 10. Pass-by allowance: ® Yes ❑ No Reduction: 15% of restaurant trips Internal allowance: ® Yes ❑ No considered pass-by on Route 669 (Rest Trip Adjustment Factors Reduction: 5% of hotel trips to Church Road) restaurant% trips 28% of restaurant trips considered diverted tri s from I-81% trips Software Methodology ® Synchro ❑ HCS (v.2000/+) ❑ aaSIDRA ❑ CORSIM ❑ Other Traffic Signal Proposed Analysis Software: Synchro vl 1, Sim Traffic (oversaturated conditions) or Affected Results: HCM Methodology (Analysis software to be used, progression speed, cycle length) Synchro 11 files will be backsaved to Synchro 10 Improvement(s) Assumed or to be Realignment of Zachary Ann Lane with build-out of the proposed development to Considered increase spacing from the I-81 interchange Developments to be considered to be build-out by 2028: Background Traffic Arogas Parcel - 22,570 SF of shopping center Studies Considered Parcel 33-A-12 - 150,000 SF of general light industrial development Light Property - 102,500 SF of general light industrial development Whitehall Commerce Center(undeveloped portions) - 162,000 SF of general light industrial development Plan Submission ❑ Master Development Plan (MDP) ® Generalized Development Plan (GDP) ❑ Preliminary/Sketch Plan ❑ Other Plan type (Final Site, Subd. Plan) ® Queuing analysis ❑ Actuation/Coordination ❑ weaving analysis Additional Issues to be ❑ Merge analysis ❑ Bike/Ped Accommodations ® Intersection(s) Addressed ❑ TDM Measures ® Other Access Management Evaluation, Turn Lane Evaluations It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: All parameters of the study will be compliant with the provisions and analysis procedures established in VDOT's Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual (TOSAM). Turning movement counts were collected at listed study intersections in October 2021. The volumes illustrated traffic volumes to the east of I-81 have exceeded pre-pandemic levels,while volumes to the west are still lower than pre-pandemic levels. To account for this disparity,the higher of the October 2021 turning movements counts and 2016 turning movement counts in the Hillwood Whitehall TIA (provided by VDOT)will be used to establish existing year 2021 individual turning movement volumes at the I-81 ramp terminal intersections on Route 669 (Rest Church Road). Engineering judgement will be applied to blend volumes between adjacent intersections (where only October 2021 turning movement counts are available). The access management evaluation will include an evaluation of the relationship the relocated Zachary Ann Lane and the commercial entrances along Route 669 (Rest Church Road). If appropriate, mitigation measures will be considered along Route 669 (Rest Church Road). It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. Fruit Hill Development SCOPE OF WORK MEETING ADDITIONS TO THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS,CHANGES TO THE METHODOLOGY OR STANDARD ASSUMPTIONS,AND SIGNATURE PAGE Any additions to the Required Elements or changes to the Methodology or Standard Assumptions due to special circumstances that are approved by VDOT: AGREED: awkw jaz" DATE: 02/09/2022 Applicant or Consultant PRINT NAME: Andrew Butsick App ant or Co ultant a SIGNED: DATE: Z o z VDO epresen PRINT NAME: "(X'� -C VDOT Representative SIGNED: DATE: Local Government Representative PRINT NAME: Local Government Representative Fruit Hill Property February 2022 N 670 � PROPOSED 11 NA RELOCATION 7-1- OF ZACHARY ANN LN v2 ��Fs FL�gA �� Q 669 cc MPGg��N�N C) WO n� Q 01181NE FAD c� m 81 2 a: 0 a 0 SITE 522 a � 259 m M 81 ry 50 O O 7 3 37 LL a 50 0 522 N W O N 11 FREDE ICK COUNTY,VA a a 81 a E Study Intersections 0- Future Study Intersections Site Vicnity Map Figure Frederick County, VA 1 � KITTELSON � &ASSOCIATES N O W � � N LL ".° NV-1dld33NOO £ODc6 N � 2 CL ,v vHiaaaHiewa 3vi i VA'AM lNnC)3NO303H-A (,? a0+ N ++ ®oma, 'N0 AIU'JdOMd 111H iinui O Sr aj U c Lu �V�✓_� %. v =� C U � a v � o a i EPP as- a e r Ig zW Na JU FEn O FQ a Y C6 I Fruit Hill Property February 2022 N FST 670 \° 11 PROPOSED O40 RELOCATION OFZACHARY yo'o 115IG��O 669 ANN LN h o\o o�P �oq o\° z ° N Q U 81 Q N WOODBINE RD Y m 4 0 C7 o m 2 a m �i N O O 3 LL O O H N W O N a - ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION: XWAREHOUSING/DATA CENTER/HOTEL (RESTAURANT) a a Assumed Site Trip Distribution Figure Frederick County, VA 3 � KITTELSON � &ASSOCIATES (D M CO O O D • N N .� M .� M O CO M ^ L" N N • M co LO d) N O N O M • CO N W CO r CO O N O �y M Oo E O �-3 co co N CO O N O M w • M co V .� N Q Y M o MM o 117 M M - N CO .�LO Ul N N LL LL a Esz LL 00, Q' uiui E5uj � O o U U 3 o_ o_ o ¢ Z 9 o o � o � Q� Z o c 0 � � LO o o o� Ln o m a N o oM o E w � o oO M 6 M N d O G � O U Ul CC O 9 C � (6 Q � N C � O O � � Q W - a-I 9 o a v o (D O C E O 2 C r 0 1-- M M D t R o rn O N 00 M M N N 0 00 M M N -L 4- X X O v Q E E a-1 O O O N m m 0 U Z Z v N 00 0 Q 00 00 L a � U C) O 0 - > i O U `n O M m _0 .O O O ``v +, +� ca"rn w w ' = 0 E E C) u N O O m m U N N Q 00 00 M rl O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O lfl LrZF M N r-I Appendix B 2016 and 2021 Turning Movement Counts Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Zachary Ann Ln--Rest Church Rd QC JOB#: 15604801 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Thu,Oct 28 2021 0 0 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM--8:00 AM 0 0 a * Peak 15-Min:7:15 AM--7:30 AM + } 0 0 0 0 0 0 . s 4 r • ti 50 « 0 1 t 0 . 67 8 + 0 ; 0 t 9 89 + Q93 * 49 0 + 100 t 6.1 90 * 1 '+ r 18 . 161 0 * 0 1 r 16.7+ 41 [- 1 0 *2 a: 100 100 0 9+7 19 73 u+yLi 4}. Counts u�+y t 15.8 91.8 VATA 17i1tT[7Ri'V€5 COMMEAYf&5 I 0 0 0 - .0 4 4. L 0 J �\ t 0 0 7 0 0 w ... r- 0 0 '+ r 0 r ti } a F- 0 0 0 0 N/A L J N+A L N/A y . t N/A N/A w r N/A 15-Min Count Zachary Ann Ln Zachary Ann Ln Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 6:00 AM 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 3 0 0 33 6:15 AM 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 4 8 0 0 52 6:30 AM 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 3 6 0 0 53 6:45 AM 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 4 9 0 0 48 186 7:00 AM 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 7 4 0 0 56 209 7:15 AM 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 6 13 0 0 62 219 730 AM 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 2 17 0 0 58 224 7:45 AM 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 3 15 0 0 54 230 8:00 AM 1 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 9 0 0 40 214 8:15 AM 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 1 7 0 0 49 201 8:30 AM 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 4 10 0 0 50 193 8:45 AM 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 4 10 0 0 56 195 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 24 52 0 0 248 Heavy Trucks 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 68 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Zachary Ann Ln--Rest Church Rd QC JOB#: 15604802 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Thu,Oct 28 2021 0 0 Peak-Hour:4:15 PM—5:15 PM 0 0 1+ * Peak 15-Min:5:00 PM--5:15 PM + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + ti 0 a 103 « 0 1 S 0 113 1.9 t 0 tQ 0 n 4.4 109 r Q90 t 102 3.7 y A- 2 109* 0 C 11 y 208 3.7 4 0 1 t 27.3 4 42.8 �4 0 # f��y � a 0 *7� 10 99 uaLi 4}. Counts 30 85.9 VATA 17i1tT[7Ri'V€5 COMMEAYf&5 0 0 0 -1 .0 4 L 0 t 4 0 0 '+ r 0 T h } a F- 0 0 0 0 N/A L J N+A L N/A y . t N/A N/A w r N/A 15-Min Count Zachary Ann Ln Zachary Ann Ln Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 4:00 PM 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 37 0 0 82 4:15 PM 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 3 18 0 0 70 4:30 PM 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 6 26 0 1 86 4:45 PM 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 24 0 0 76 314 5:00 PM 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 1 34 0 0 89 321 5:15 PM 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 18 0 0 67 318 5:30 PM 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 1 25 0 0 59 291 5:45 PM 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 1 28 0 0 78 293 6:00 PM 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 23 0 0 61 265 6:15 PM 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 14 0 0 47 245 6:30 PM 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 2 16 0 0 47 233 6:45 PM 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 2 14 0 1 48 203 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 4 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 0 0 4 136 0 0 356 Heavy Trucks 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 56 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Zachary Ann Ln--Rest Church Rd QCJOP "f 15604803 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Sat,Oct 30 2021 0 0 Peak-Hour: 1:00 PM—2:00 PM 0 0 + * Peak 15-Min: 1:15 PM--1:30 PM + 0 0 0 0 0 0 r + 0 0 • � 74 « 1 s t 0 . 74 2.7 . 0 t 0 . 4.1 58 + 12 . 73 1.7+ 41111111111 . 2.7 59 * 0 '+ r 1 . 115 1.7 4 0 7 r 100. 48.7 + 0 +7� 0 }5� 1 57 u aL i 4}. Co o u t�+y t 100 965 DATA TMT DRATS COMMEAYME5 I 0 0 0 - L 0 t t 0 0 '+ r 0 T h } a F- 0 0 0 0 N/A L J N+A L N/A y . t N/A N/A w .N/A 15-Min Count Zachary Ann Ln Zachary Ann Ln Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 11:00 AM 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 15 0 0 46 11:15 AM 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 20 0 0 50 11:30 AM 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 20 0 0 44 11:45 AM 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 22 0 0 45 185 12:00 PM 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 17 0 0 42 181 12:15 PM 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 18 0 0 41 172 12:30 PM 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 10 0 1 35 163 12:45 PM 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 15 0 0 41 159 1:00 PM 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 14 0 0 40 157 1:15 PM 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 1 26 0 0 66 182 1:30 PM 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 15 0 0 39 186 1:45 PM 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 18 0 0 45 190 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 4 104 0 0 264 Heavy Trucks 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 0 92 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: 1-81 SB Ramps-- Rest Church Rd QC JOB#: 15604804 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Thu,Oct 28 2021 157 0 Peak-Hour:7:00 AM—8:00 AM 223 0 + * Peak 15-Min:7:30 AM--7:45 AM + + 83 0 74 33.7 0 95 189 . 0 s t 0 . 456 37 4- 0 ./ 4 0 t 9.9 107» 093 . 1067�. 41.1+ 4-39.6 235 * 128 '+ r 350 . 181 �R' 36.6. 32.87 r09 + 282 t - [— 0 0 0 4 f G t -T * 'F- -1 " 478 0 uaLi 4 Counts 9.4 0 DATA T%I'J4T1W'Ws Cr-M fU g1WF5 0 0 0 —1 1- 4 4. L r 0 t t 0 0 0 0 0 '+ ! r 0 0 0 0 O F 1— a N4A N+A ~ L N/A y ■ N/A N/A y . N/A r 41 'x r 15-Min Count 1-81 SB Ramps 1-81 SB Ramps Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 11 0 0 18 22 0 55 11 0 0 125 6:15 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 23 0 0 20 32 0 68 22 0 0 173 6:30 AM 0 0 0 0 16 0 19 0 0 28 41 0 72 23 0 0 199 6:45 AM 0 0 0 0 34 0 22 0 0 24 20 0 72 17 0 0 189 686 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 25 0 16 0 0 27 30 0 82 21 0 0 201 762 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 23 0 19 0 0 22 30 0 77 29 0 0 200 789 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 11 0 22 0 0 29 36 0 100 31 0 0 229 819 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 15 0 26 0 0 29 32 0 91 25 0 0 218 848 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 0 0 21 29 0 70 24 0 0 163 810 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 15 0 12 0 0 23 21 0 71 19 0 0 161 771 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 21 1 20 0 0 21 27 0 62 39 0 1 192 734 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 32 0 1 0 31 30 0 1 46 37 0 0 187 703 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 44 0 88 0 0 116 144 0 400 124 0 0 916 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 52 52 0 36 0 164 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: 1-81 SB Ramps-- Rest Church Rd QC JOB#: 15604805 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Thu,Oct 28 2021 204 0 Peak-Hour:4:45 PM—5:45 PM 19.6 0 + * Peak 15-Min:5:00 PM--5:15 PM + 110 1 93 32.7 0 43 r + 9 2. 0 4 280 « 0 1 t 0 . 423 26.1 4- 0 tQ 0 n 10.2 171» [&IS . 170w1�. 19.9 y On A-21.8 308* 137 '+ r 25.3 . 264 �R' 24.7+ 30.7 7 1- 2.4 . 14.4 0 0 0 4 f & t 7 ' * 'F- -1 " 391 0 uaLi 4 Counts 123 0 DATA T%I'J4T1W'Ws Cr-M fU g1WF5 I 0 0 0 — 1- -1 L Y 0 t t 0 0 1 r 0 0 � -10 0 0 1— a N4A 1 � N+A ~ L N/A y ■ N/A N/A . .N/A y 41 15-Min Count 1-81 SB Ramps 1-81 SB Ramps Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 18 0 34 0 0 49 29 0 55 43 0 0 228 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 16 0 25 0 0 47 33 0 56 52 0 0 229 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 12 0 26 0 0 41 35 0 57 49 0 0 220 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 20 0 25 0 0 41 34 0 51 40 0 0 211 888 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 21 0 26 0 0 50 41 0 73 55 0 0 266 926 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 22 1 32 0 0 46 28 0 66 36 0 0 231 928 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 30 0 27 0 0 34 34 0 63 39 0 0 227 935 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 16 0 34 0 0 41 20 0 55 43 0 0 209 933 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 22 0 28 0 0 45 25 0 90 41 0 0 251 918 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 22 0 20 0 0 31 30 0 59 35 0 0 197 884 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 12 1 37 0 0 28 15 0 40 35 0 0 168 825 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 15 0 1 0 31 32 0 1 29 27 0 0 146 1 762 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 84 0 104 0 0 200 164 0 292 220 0 0 1064 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 4 0 36 0 44 32 0 48 0 164 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: 1-81 NB Ramps-- Rest Church Rd QC JOB#: 15604807 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Thu,Oct 28 2021 0 156 Peak-Hour:6:45 AM--7:45 AM 0 24.4 + * Peak 15-Min:7:15 AM--7:30 AM I + O + O J -.0 + t L 433 64 ai 4 92 476 95 54.7 ;3.3 3.2 131* IF019 t 384 5.3 * X3.1 195* 0 -t r 0 * 324 21.5* 0 Z r 0 * 3.7 t '- [- 49 0 3� +y . Co �+y 5�.2 0 t 0 242 u L i 4}. A o u t 0 14 DATA TMT DRATS COMMEAYME5 I 0 0 0 - L 0 J 4 0 0 0 L 0 * � t 0 0 > r o 0 � � 0 0 0 /A a NSA ~ L N/A* • t N/A (� N/A* r N/A 15-Min Count 1-81 NB Ramps 1-81 NB Ramps Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 6:00 AM 4 2 20 0 0 0 0 0 14 12 0 0 0 69 12 0 133 6:15 AM 11 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 0 0 0 72 8 0 143 6:30 AM 14 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 18 24 0 0 0 90 14 0 197 6:45 AM 9 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 15 41 0 0 0 84 23 0 229 702 7:00 AM 14 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 19 35 0 0 0 91 22 0 225 794 7:15 AM 17 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 16 30 0 0 0 89 22 0 231 882 7:30 AM 9 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 14 25 0 0 0 120 25 0 228 913 7:45 AM 15 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 104 20 0 202 886 8:00 AM 11 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 77 15 0 165 826 8:15 AM 16 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 18 21 0 0 0 77 25 0 179 774 8:30 AM 32 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 14 26 0 0 0 81 16 0 185 731 8:45 AM 18 2 28 0 0 0 0 0 15 32 0 0 0 57 20 0 172 701 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 68 0 228 0 0 0 0 0 64 120 0 0 0 356 88 0 924 Heavy Trucks 48 0 8 0 0 0 20 12 0 0 12 0 100 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: 1-81 NB Ramps-- Rest Church Rd QC JOB#: 15604808 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Thu,Oct 28 2021 0 179 Peak-Hour:5:15 PM—6:15 PM 0 16.2 + * Peak 15-Min:6:00 PM--6:15 PM + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 4 i + 4 428 90 t 89 « 428 10.3 27.8 a t 4.5 « 3 170 y o91 + 3.39 2.9 y. «2.7 260 y 0 1 r 0 y 518 11.5 y 0 0 . 15 789 0 348 . f��y �3+3 0 #9 ' F_ 0 437 u+yL i 4}. Counts u�+y t 0 8.7 DATA TMT DRATS COMMEAYME5 I 0 0 0 - L 0 t t 0 0 0 L 0 y ... r- 0 0 0 -� f r 0 � � 0 0 0 J /A a L NSA ~ L N/A y . t N/A $ wr'r $ N/A y Y N/A 15-Min Count 1-81 NB Ramps 1-81 NB Ramps Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 4:00 PM 29 1 74 0 0 0 0 0 26 42 0 0 0 76 26 0 274 4:15 PM 41 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 28 27 0 0 0 66 18 0 249 4:30 PM 28 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 29 28 0 0 0 74 27 0 256 4:45 PM 21 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 27 38 0 0 0 69 23 0 254 1033 5:00 PM 29 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 23 49 0 0 0 101 23 0 290 1049 5:15 PM 23 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 25 46 0 0 0 75 23 0 284 1084 5:30 PM 19 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 18 47 0 0 0 79 23 0 273 1101 5:45 PM 21 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 23 35 0 0 0 80 17 0 260 1107 6:00 PM 1 26 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 24 42 0 0 0 105 26 0 308 1 1125 6:15 PM 25 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 15 37 0 0 0 70 20 0 250 1091 6:30 PM 20 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 53 19 0 194 1012 6:45 PM 15 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 23 21 0 0 0 43 13 0 163 915 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 104 0 340 0 0 0 0 0 96 168 0 0 0 420 104 0 1232 Heavy Trucks 32 0 0 0 0 0 28 4 0 0 8 8 80 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: 1-81 NB Ramps-- Rest Church Rd QCJOP - 15604809 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Sat,Oct 30 2021 0 135 Peak-Hour: 1:00 PM—2:00 PM 0 22.2 + * Peak 15-Min: 1:15 PM--1:30 PM + 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 L 321 « 80 1 t 55 « 297 11.5 33.8# t 55 r 2.7 123+ IF010 Y 242 5.7 y Y 2.1 203 * 0 '+ r 0 . 299 16.7• 0 1 r 0 + 43 - F- -1 , 47 0 176 +ya40.5 0 3.4 0 255 u L i 4}. Counts u t 0 14.9 DATA TMT DRATS COMMEAYME5 I 0 0 0 - L 0 # r t 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 + r 0 3 � 0 0 0 /A a r NSA ~ L N/A y . t N/A (� N/A r Y N/A + /A } 1 � N/A r 15-Min Count 1-81 NB Ramps 1-81 NB Ramps Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 11:00 AM 17 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 26 22 0 0 0 63 13 0 171 11:15 AM 18 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 14 24 0 1 0 72 21 0 186 11:30 AM 18 1 37 0 0 0 0 0 20 22 0 0 0 61 16 0 175 11:45 AM 18 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 11 29 0 0 0 64 16 0 178 710 12:00 PM 19 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 22 19 0 0 0 57 14 0 168 707 12:15 PM 25 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 0 0 0 58 14 0 172 693 12:30 PM 21 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 17 19 0 0 0 64 16 0 171 689 12:45 PM 21 1 51 0 0 0 0 0 23 24 0 0 0 49 10 0 179 690 1:00 PM 23 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 19 29 0 0 0 61 10 0 187 709 1:15 PM 19 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 25 32 0 0 0 72 18 0 210 747 1:30 PM 23 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 17 27 0 0 0 45 11 0 166 742 1:45 PM 14 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 19 35 0 0 0 64 16 0 192 755 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 76 0 176 0 0 0 0 0 100 128 0 0 0 288 72 0 840 Heavy Trucks 36 0 4 0 0 0 44 12 0 0 12 4 112 Buses Pedestrians 4 0 0 0 4 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: US 11--Rest Church Rd QC JOB#: 15604810 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Thu,Oct 28 2021 681 175 Peak-Hour:6:45 AM--7:45 AM 13 23 + * Peak 15-Min:7:30 AM--7:45 AM + 347n4 1zoL I L 1.4 1.4 o.s + w .+ a .. 487 78 t 39 « 139 2.9 • 3.8 J - L 0 « 2.2 28.0 091 t 88 0 w t 3.4 322 y 56 1 t 12 y 321 3.7 w 16.1i f 0 4 03 4 58 3 . f��y 1;5 1.7 0t 282 123 uaLi 4}. Counts 43 5.7 DATA TMT DRATS COMMEAYME5 I 0 0 0 Jl � 0t * 0 Ot � � ° c— o . [� « o ## 0 1 r 0 0 � � 0 0 0 1— J /A * r NSA ~ L N/A y . t N/A (� N/A r r N/A • � r . � � I I � 1 «O)��--"'!Viii r a /A N/A ~ 15-Min Count US 11 US 11 Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 6:00 AM 9 12 5 0 9 31 58 0 4 13 10 0 4 10 6 0 171 6:15 AM 14 10 1 0 22 58 64 0 8 24 10 0 1 4 9 0 225 6:30 AM 9 6 2 0 15 43 79 0 13 32 16 0 9 12 7 0 243 6:45 AM 10 14 5 0 29 50 86 0 15 67 19 0 2 15 7 0 319 958 7:00 AM 12 10 3 0 21 48 80 0 24 46 11 0 4 20 9 0 288 1075 7:15 AM 16 11 4 0 34 45 80 0 22 44 15 0 5 23 11 0 310 1160 7:30 AM 1 14 23 1 0 36 71 101 0 17 31 11 0 1 30 12 0 348 1265 7:45 AM 6 14 2 0 18 53 99 0 23 10 17 0 4 20 9 0 275 1221 8:00 AM 10 29 1 0 10 31 74 0 26 9 17 0 5 10 11 0 233 1166 8:15 AM 11 23 2 0 25 50 77 0 14 11 14 0 3 14 9 0 253 1109 8:30 AM 10 30 0 0 16 53 66 0 19 10 12 0 3 17 15 0 251 1012 8:45 AM 16 25 0 0 9 37 43 0 28 17 16 0 1 16 10 0 218 955 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 56 92 4 0 144 284 404 0 68 124 44 0 4 120 48 0 1392 Heavy Trucks 12 0 0 4 8 12 0 0 8 0 4 0 48 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: US 11--Rest Church Rd QC JOB#: 15604811 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Thu,Oct 28 2021 457 726 Peak-Hour:5:15 PM—6:15 PM 15 0.8 1 + + Peak 15-Min:6:00 PM--6:15 PM + + 211 173 73 2.4 1.2 0 + 7 a 429 t 276 ai 4 126 + 312 3 Y 0.7, t OB n 2.2 151 * IF010 162 13 + Y: 3.7 503 * 76 1 r 24 y 234 1.4* 3.9 7 r 0 + 13 3.6 0.94 *324 10 # 273 390 uaLi} Counts 1.8 15 DATA TMT DRATS COMMEAYME5 I 0 0 0 — L 1 0 t t 0 0 0 L 0 y }... r- 0 0 '+ r 0 0 � 0 0 0 1— N/A L L N/A y . t N/A fi (� N/A* Y N/A r 15-Min Count US 11 US 11 Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 4:00 PM 16 61 1 0 11 44 57 0 76 22 16 0 2 25 25 0 356 4:15 PM 20 90 0 0 7 40 59 0 54 13 15 0 3 13 13 0 327 4:30 PM 14 82 1 0 6 66 67 0 75 20 15 0 5 22 16 0 389 4:45 PM 21 99 1 0 14 44 51 0 79 19 13 0 3 16 20 0 380 1452 5:00 PM 14 84 1 0 14 42 93 0 79 14 15 0 3 19 19 0 397 1493 5:15 PM 12 82 5 0 17 35 62 0 86 26 22 0 1 25 33 0 406 1572 5:30 PM 12 84 1 0 15 46 44 0 72 32 25 0 6 46 31 0 414 1597 5:45 PM 22 89 2 0 20 35 52 0 54 41 15 0 3 18 30 0 381 1598 6:00 PM 10 69 2 0 21 57 53 0 64 52 14 0 14 73 32 0 461 1662 6:15 PM 14 71 3 0 24 36 46 0 65 40 8 0 3 33 17 0 360 1616 6:30 PM 9 51 2 0 11 25 42 0 59 25 13 0 2 16 13 0 268 1470 6:45 PM 11 44 1 0 9 28 39 0 47 9 7 0 1 10 10 0 216 1305 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 40 276 8 0 84 228 212 0 256 208 56 0 56 292 128 0 1844 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 12 4 28 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peal< Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: US 11--Rest Church Rd QC JOP - 15604812 CITY/STATE: Frederick,VA DATE:Sat,Oct 30 2021 441 471 Peak-Hour: 1:00 PM—2:00 PM 0.5 0.4 + * Peak 15-Min: 1:15 PM--1:30 PM + 201187 53 OS OS 0 d + a L L .� # 293 « 194 s t 63 « 127 2.7 • 1 J t 0 Y 3.9 55 .. 1a]9 Y 48 14.5.* Y 10.4 300* 51 '+ r 16 116 a: 5 r 9B 1 0 r 0 . G9 # r r 44 214 8 Counts �45 0 0 254 266 u aL i 4. o u t t 2.4 OB VATA TMT[7R ffS COMMEAYME5 I 0 0 0 — L Y 1 Y 0J -r t 0 0 0 L 0 y �')`i r- 0 0 + r 0 - f r 2 � 0 0 0 1— N/A L N/A y . t N/A fi (� N/A r Y N/A + /A * � 1 � N/A r 15-Min Count US 11 US 11 Rest Church Rd Rest Church Rd Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Totals 11:00 AM 11 45 0 0 18 41 57 0 34 6 15 0 3 6 21 0 257 11:15 AM 18 45 2 0 18 52 61 0 37 18 7 0 7 18 22 0 305 11:30 AM 16 47 1 0 15 47 46 0 30 12 16 0 6 16 19 0 271 11:45 AM 16 44 1 0 8 53 53 0 42 17 6 0 3 14 9 0 266 1099 12:00 PM 16 46 0 0 18 53 38 0 39 9 11 0 5 12 26 0 273 1115 12:15 PM 9 44 2 0 11 41 50 0 43 8 8 0 2 11 17 0 246 1056 12:30 PM 10 42 1 0 16 54 55 0 32 9 15 0 1 15 21 0 271 1056 12:45 PM 7 42 2 0 9 55 37 0 39 14 12 0 3 15 17 0 252 1042 1:00 PM 8 54 2 0 11 52 50 0 47 12 9 0 3 10 12 0 270 1039 1:15 PM 16 55 2 0 15 52 57 0 49 20 12 0 6 14 19 0 317 1110 1:30 PM 5 54 2 0 12 39 37 0 51 7 12 0 6 19 12 0 256 1095 1:45 PM 15 51 2 0 15 44 57 0 47 16 18 0 1 5 20 0 291 1134 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 64 220 8 0 60 208 228 0 196 80 48 0 24 56 76 0 1268 Heavy Trucks 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 16 0 0 8 0 36 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Report generated on 11/8/202112:03 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 2 320 2 240 9,780 a 5 NN �N 106(245) %.75(73) 71900 Ar 232(84) 6,370 44=0 282(176) 6,710 l FUTURE Rest Church Rd 6,370 Rest Church Rd 6,730 Rest Church Rd INTERSECTION 126(1 )�� 79(131) 1 t f 71(296)-0 I t 166(13030) 75(126)ME* 55(73)0% c e N a a 00 a 2,360 4,340 6,610 o � titi 4� FUTURE FUTURE r INTERSECTION INTERSECTION Rest Church Rd Route 659 I i 2 / O 3 SITE FUTURE ; INTERSECTION 9 9 Woodbine- Rd Route 669 NOT To 11— 5,120 LEGEND %.20(87) Q STUDY INTERSECTION 1A 0-28(122) 7 7 Woodbine Rd FUTURE ■tIF TURNING MOVEMENTS �� 370 INTERSECTION 100(100 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC:AM(PM) 0 6 1,000 WEEKDAYADT o N 5,120 January 9,2017 Page 126 HILLWOOD WHITEHALL FIGURE 4 i TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING 2016 TRAFFIC VOLUMES project#HIL 6!'1604 FREDERICK COUNTY, VA Jc wy 2017 Appendix C Level of Service Description Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Appendix C APPENDIX C LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CONCEPT Level of service(LOS) is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort(including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. Six grades are used to denote the various level of service from "A" to "F".2 Signalized Intersections The six level-of-service grades are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table C1. Additionally,Table C2 identifies the relationship between level of service and average control delay per vehicle. Control delay is defined to include initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Using this definition, Level of Service "D" is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Table C1 Level-of-Service Definitions(Signalized Intersections) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle low average control delay,less than 10 seconds per vehicle.This occurs when progression is extremely A favorable,and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.Most vehicles do not stop at all.Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Average control delay is greater than 10 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 20 seconds per vehicle.This B generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.More vehicles stop than for a level of service A, causing higher levels of average delay. Average control delay is greater than 20 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 35 seconds per vehicle.These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths.Individual cycle failures may begin to C appear at this level.The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Average control delay is greater than 35 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 55 seconds per vehicle.The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable D progression,long cycle length,or high volume/capacity ratios.Many vehicles stop,and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Average control delay is greater than 55 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 80 seconds per vehicle.This is usually considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.These high delay values generally(but not always)indicate E poor progression,long cycle lengths,and high volume/capacity ratios.Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Average control delay is in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle.This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation.It may also occur at high volume/capacity ratios below 1.0 with F many individual cycle failures.Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such high delay values. Most of the material in this Appendix is adapted from the Transportation Research Board,Highway Capacity Manual,(2016). z Most of the material in this Appendix is adapted from the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, (2016). Kittelson&Associates,Inc. C1 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Appendix C Table C2 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections DelayLevel of Service IL Average Control A <10.0 B >10 and(20 C >20 and(35 D >35 and(55 E >55 and(80 F >80 Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections include two-way stop-controlled(TWSC) and all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides models for estimating control delay at both TWSC and AWSC intersections.A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table C3. A quantitative definition of level of service for unsignalized intersections is presented in Table C4. Using this definition, Level of Service "E" is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Table C3 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections DelayLevel of e Average A • Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. • Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in queue. • Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience. B • Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in queue. C • Many times,there is more than one vehicle in queue. • Most drivers feel restricted,but not objectionably so. D • Often there is more than one vehicle in queue. • Drivers feel quite restricted. • Represents a condition in which the demand is near or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated by the movement. E • There is almost always more than one vehicle in queue. • Drivers find the delays approaching intolerable levels. • Forced flow. F • Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. C2 Fruit Hill Property January 2023 Appendix C Table C4 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle(Seconds)<10.0 B >10.0 and(15.0 C >15.0 and(25.0 D >25.0 and(35.0 E >35.0 and(50.0 F >50.0 It should be noted that the level-of-service criteria for unsignalized intersections are somewhat different than the criteria used for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is that drivers expect different levels of performance from different kinds of transportation facilities. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than an unsignalized intersection. Additionally, there are a number of driver behavior considerations that combine to make delays at signalized intersections less galling than at unsignalized intersections. For example, drivers at signalized intersections are able to relax during the red interval, while drivers on the minor street approaches to TWSC intersections must remain attentive to the task of identifying acceptable gaps and vehicle conflicts. Also, there is often much more variability in the amount of delay experienced by individual drivers at unsignalized intersections than signalized intersections. For these reasons, it is considered that the control delay threshold for any given level of service is less for an unsignalized intersection than for a signalized intersection. While overall intersection level of service is calculated for AWSC intersections, level of service is only calculated for the minor approaches and the major street left turn movements at TWSC intersections. No delay is assumed to the major street through movements. For TWSC intersections, the overall intersection level of service remains undefined: level of service is only calculated for each minor street lane. In the performance evaluation of TWSC intersections, it is important to consider other measures of effectiveness (MOEs) in addition to delay, such as v/c ratios for individual movements, average queue lengths, and 95th-percentile queue lengths. By focusing on a single MOE for the worst movement only, such as delay for the minor-street left turn, users may make inappropriate traffic control decisions. The potential for making such inappropriate decisions is likely to be particularly pronounced when the HCM level-of-service thresholds are adopted as legal standards, as is the case in many public agencies. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. C3 Appendix D Existing Conditions Operational Worksheets HCM 6th TWSC Fruit Hill Property 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2021 Existing Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations "+ I Traffic Vol,veh/h 116 1 24 53 1 98 Future Vol,veh/h 116 1 24 53 1 98 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 100 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 11 7 100 96 Mvmt Flow 129 1 27 59 1 109 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 130 0 243 130 Stage 1 - - - - 130 - Stage 2 - 113 - Critical Hdwy 4.21 7.4 7.16 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.299 4.4 4.164 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1402 574 719 Stage 1 - 702 - Stage 2 - 717 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1402 563 719 _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 563 - Stage 1 702 _ Stage 2 703 Approach EB WB NB _ HCM Control Delay,s 0 2.4 10.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 717 1402 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.153 0.019 HCM Control Delay(s) 10.9 7.6 _ HCM Lane LOS B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.1 Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2021 Existing Page 1 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2021 Existing Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 329 372 131 106 128 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.74 0.08 0.39 0.43 Control Delay 11.2 42.0 8.4 34.3 10.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.2 42.0 8.4 34.3 10.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 18 200 9 49 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 46 280 45 91 43 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1180 667 1722 323 331 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.56 0.08 0.33 0.39 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2021 Existing Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-21I021 Existing --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 126 166 331 117 0 0 0 0 93 2 114 Future Volume(vph) 0 126 166 331 117 0 0 0 0 93 2 114 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3456 1787 2597 1726 1214 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3456 1787 2597 1726 1214 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 142 187 372 131 0 0 0 0 104 2 128 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 199 0 372 131 0 0 0 0 0 106 20 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 39% 36% 1% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 33% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.3 22.7 53.1 12.7 12.7 Effective Green, g(s) 24.3 22.7 53.1 12.7 12.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.28 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1049 507 1723 274 192 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.21 0.05 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.73 0.08 0.39 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 20.6 25.9 4.8 30.2 28.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.30 1.64 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 5.7 0.1 1.2 0.3 Delay(s) 21.0 39.5 7.9 31.4 29.1 Level of Service C D A C C Approach Delay(s) 21.0 31.3 0.0 30.2 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2021 Existing Page 3 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2021 Existing t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 89 132 396 96 77 175 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.06 0.23 0.11 0.24 0.48 Control Delay 12.1 9.8 10.3 1.2 1.8 9.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.1 9.8 10.5 1.2 1.8 9.5 Queue Length 50th(ft) 22 16 62 0 0 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 46 31 83 0 0 49 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 433 2328 1754 865 369 432 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 698 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.06 0.38 0.11 0.21 0.41 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2021 Existing Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-21I021 Existing --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 88 131 0 0 392 95 56 0 193 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 88 131 0 0 392 95 56 0 193 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1165 3438 3505 1568 1158 1490 Flt Permitted 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 mmqq Satd. Flow(perm) 524 3438 3505 1568 1158 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 89 132 0 0 396 96 57 0 195 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 67 151 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 89 132 0 0 396 46 0 10 24 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 55% 5% 0% 0% 3% 3% 59% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 54.2 54.2 38.4 38.4 10.9 10.9 Effective Green, g(s) 54.2 54.2 38.4 38.4 10.9 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.48 0.48 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 415 2329 1682 752 157 203 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.04 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.03 0.01 c0.02 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.06 0.24 0.06 0.07 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 5.0 4.3 12.2 11.1 30.1 30.3 Progression Factor 2.20 2.10 0.77 1.75 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.5 Delay(s) 11.3 9.1 9.7 19.7 30.5 30.9 Level of Service B A A B C C Approach Delay(s) 10.0 11.6 30.8 = 0.0m Approach LOS B B C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.22 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2021 Existing Page 5 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2021 Existing --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 86 271 13 97 43 57 64 14 132 235 381 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.28 0.08 0.25 0.11 0.34 0.11 0.02 0.65 0.37 0.48 Control Delay 32.3 15.5 34.7 34.3 0.6 39.2 20.8 0.1 51.0 23.2 4.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.3 15.5 34.7 34.3 0.6 39.2 20.8 0.1 51.0 23.2 4.8 Queue Length 50th(ft) 38 32 6 23 0 27 23 0 64 91 0 Ed Queue Length 95th(ft) 48 53 23 46 0 62 51 0 #146 154 59 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 258 985 162 393 394 172 594 671 204 629 788' Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.28 0.08 0.25 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.02 0.65 0.37 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2021 Existing Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-21I021 Existing --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 78 188 58 12 88 39 52 58 13 120 214 347 Future Volume(vph) 78 188 58 12 88 39 52 58 13 120 214 347 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 3355 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 3355 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 86 207 64 13 97 43 57 64 14 132 235 381 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 32 0 0 0 35 0 0 10 0 0 279 Lane Group Flow(vph) 86 239 0 13 97 8 57 64 4 132 235 102 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 0% 16% 0% 3% 0% 12% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.9 22.7 1.4 14.2 14.2 8.4 20.2 20.2 9.1 21.4 21.4 Effective Green, g(s) 9.9 22.7 1.4 14.2 14.2 8.4 20.2 20.2 9.1 21.4 21.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.28 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 214 951 31 622 286 169 470 407 203 503 427 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.07 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 c0.07 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.25 0.42 0.16 0.03 0.34 0.14 0.01 0.65 0.47 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 22.1 38.9 27.8 27.2 33.2 23.1 22.4 33.9 24.5 22.9 Progression Factor 0.85 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.2 18.0 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.6 0.0 8.0 3.1 1.3 Delay(s) 29.0 16.9 56.9 28.1 27.3 34.8 23.7 22.4 41.9 27.6 24.2 Level of Service C B E C C C C C D C C Approach Delay(s) 19.8 30.3 28.3 28.4 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.7% ICU Level of Service A _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2021 Existing Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2021 Existing Weekday AM-2021 Existing Intersection: 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue(ft) 36 133 _ Average Queue(ft) 3 68 95th Queue(ft) 19 114 Link Distance(ft) 649 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 100 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB SB SB - Directions Served T T TR L T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 156 99 165 314 103 132 92 - Average Queue(ft) 52 31 71 180 25 59 43 95th Queue(ft) 121 73 133 279 75 110 78 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 ' Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 - Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 161 65 91 163 133 61 230 174 Average Queue(ft) 56 15 37 70 37 24 95 47 95th Queue(ft) 119 44 77 132 94 54 182 118 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 ' Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 _ Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2021 Existing Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2021 Existing Weekday AM-2021 Existing Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 136 115 131 39 88 84 49 110 74 22 150 170 Average Queue(ft) 63 51 61 10 38 30 22 34 20 4 75 71 95th Queue(ft) 121 98 113 32 77 70 47 79 52 17 129 131 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 427 427 427 945 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 101 Average Queue(ft) 49 95th Queue(ft) 85 Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty:0 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2021 Existing Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC Fruit Hill Property 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations T+ Traffic Vol,veh/h 136 0 4 143 2 68 Future Vol,veh/h 136 0 4 143 2 68 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 110 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 0 100 1 0 82 Mvmt Flow 166 0 5 174 2 83 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 166 0 350 166 Stage 1 - - - - 166 - Stage 2 - 184 - Critical Hdwy 5.1 6.4 7.02 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 3.5 4.038 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 985 651 707 _ Stage 1 - 868 - Stage 2 - 852 - _ Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 985 648 707 _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 648 - Stage 1 868 _ Stage 2 848 Approach EB WB NB _ HCM Control Delay,s 0 0.2 10.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 705 985 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.121 0.005 HCM Control Delay(s) 10.8 8.7 _ HCM Lane LOS B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing Page 1 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 389 292 278 112 173 A Ratio 0.26 0.70 0.14 0.39 0.52 Control Delay 13.3 34.8 9.6 33.9 11.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.3 34.8 9.6 33.9 11.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 29 144 14 52 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 60 221 75 92 47 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1490 469 1919 479 442 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.26 0.62 0.14 0.23 0.39 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-21I021 Existing --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 212 130 257 245 0 0 0 0 96 3 152 Future Volume(vph) 0 212 130 257 245 0 0 0 0 96 3 152 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4023 1770 2911 1744 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4023 1770 2911 1744 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 241 148 292 278 0 0 0 0 109 3 173 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 292 0 292 278 0 0 0 0 0 112 28 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.7 18.9 52.7 13.1 13.1 Effective Green, g(s) 27.7 18.9 52.7 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.24 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1392 418 1917 285 188 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.17 0.10 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.70 0.15 0.39 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 18.4 27.9 5.2 29.9 28.7 Progression Factor 1.00 0.96 1.74 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 5.0 0.1 1.2 0.5 Delay(s) 18.8 31.8 9.1 31.1 29.2 Level of Service B C A C C Approach Delay(s) 18.8 20.7 0.0 29.9 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing Page 3 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 146 197 372 96 286 266 A Ratio 0.36 0.11 0.36 0.17 0.71 0.43 Control Delay 18.8 11.9 19.3 1.5 31.5 4.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 Total Delay 18.8 11.9 19.3 1.5 32.0 4.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 39 27 46 0 114 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 90 42 128 0 186 48 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 417 1825 1039 575 500 719 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 2 0 0 42 50 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.35 0.11 0.36 0.17 0.62 0.40 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-21I021 Existing --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 131 177 0 0 335 86 167 2 328 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 131 177 0 0 335 86 167 2 328 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1302 1504 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 579 3471 3539 1568 1302 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 146 197 0 0 372 96 186 2 364 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 26 190 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 146 197 0 0 372 28 0 260 76 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.1 42.1 23.5 23.5 23.0 23.0 = Effective Green, g(s) 42.1 42.1 23.5 23.5 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 411 1826 1039 460 374 432 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.06 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.02 0.20 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.11 0.36 0.06 0.69 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 10.5 9.5 22.3 20.3 25.4 21.4 Progression Factor 1.36 1.06 0.75 0.93 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.2 6.9 0.4 Delay(s) 15.0 10.2 17.6 19.1 32.3 21.8 Level of Service B B B B C C Approach Delay(s) 12.3 17.9 27.3 0.0m Approach LOS B B C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing Page 5 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 351 229 15 125 130 69 390 10 76 182 290 A Ratio 1.00 0.25 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.34 0.96 0.02 0.41 0.47 0.48 Control Delay 79.3 13.5 34.9 31.6 1.1 36.5 69.1 0.0 40.7 33.1 4.9 Queue Delay 30.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 109.6 13.5 34.9 31.6 1.1 36.5 69.1 0.0 40.7 33.1 4.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 159 12 7 29 0 32 194 0 36 80 0 Ad Queue Length 95th(ft) #306 35 24 52 0 66 #345 0 75 140 33 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 _ Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 351 909 162 511 535 244 407 581 188 386 598 Starvation Cap Reductn 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 1.09 0.25 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.96 0.02 0.40 0.47 0.48 _ Intersection Summary - # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. _ Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-21I021 Existing --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 305 117 83 13 109 113 60 339 9 66 158 252 Future Volume(vph) 305 117 83 13 109 113 60 339 9 66 158 252 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3274 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3274 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow(vph) 351 134 95 15 125 130 69 390 10 76 182 290 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 71 0 0 0 111 0 0 8 0 0 230 Lane Group Flow(vph) 351 158 0 15 125 19 69 390 2 76 182 60 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 20.5 7.2 11.8 11.8 9.6 17.3 17.3 8.4 16.6 16.6 Effective Green, g(s) 15.9 20.5 7.2 11.8 11.8 9.6 17.3 17.3 8.4 16.6 16.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.26 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 351 838 162 511 238 206 406 314 185 386 328 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.05 0.01 c0.04 0.04 c0.21 c0.04 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 1.00 0.19 0.09 0.24 0.08 0.33 0.96 0.01 0.41 0.47 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 23.3 33.4 30.2 29.4 32.3 31.0 24.6 33.5 27.8 26.1 Progression Factor 0.92 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 46.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.3 34.9 0.0 2.0 1.9 0.6 Delay(s) 76.3 22.1 33.9 30.7 29.7 33.6 65.9 24.6 35.5 29.7 26.7 Level of Service E C C C C C E C D C C Approach Delay(s) 54.9 30.4 60.3 28.9 Approach LOS D C E C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2021 Existing Weekday PM-2021 Existing Intersection: 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue(ft) 27 111 _ Average Queue(ft) 2 55 95th Queue(ft) 17 95 Link Distance(ft) 649 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 110 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 135 109 143 256 216 55 130 122 Average Queue(ft) 52 43 63 139 48 3 63 52 95th Queue(ft) 108 86 120 221 138 32 112 92 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 503 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 169 74 100 156 159 64 499 390 Average Queue(ft) 71 24 42 72 62 26 231 149 95th Queue(ft) 135 61 83 132 122 53 452 357 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 ' Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 _ Storage Blk Time(%) 3 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 5 0 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2021 Existing Weekday PM-2021 Existing Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 227 213 201 39 80 100 87 150 425 134 91 145 Average Queue(ft) 166 86 72 9 33 39 43 63 202 11 37 70 95th Queue(ft) 241 198 159 32 71 81 74 149 378 78 77 127 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 427 427 427 945 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 12 3 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 21 5 2 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 21 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 15 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 82 - Average Queue(ft) 38 95th Queue(ft) 67 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) - Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 48 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing Page 2 Appendix E Existing Conditions — Mitigation Operational Worksheets Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 389 292 278 112 173 A Ratio 0.26 0.69 0.14 0.39 0.52 Control Delay 13.4 31.4 12.2 34.0 11.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.4 31.4 12.2 34.0 11.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 29 131 30 52 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 60 206 90 92 47 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1481 552 1919 370 381 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.26 0.53 0.14 0.30 0.45 Intersection Summary Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 212 130 257 245 0 0 0 0 96 3 152 Future Volume(vph) 0 212 130 257 245 0 0 0 0 96 3 152 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4023 1770 2911 1744 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4023 1770 2911 1744 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 241 148 292 278 0 0 0 0 109 3 173 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 292 0 292 278 0 0 0 0 0 112 28 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.6 19.1 52.8 13.0 13.0 Effective Green, g(s) 27.6 19.1 52.8 13.0 13.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.24 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1387 422 1921 283 187 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.17 0.10 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.69 0.14 0.40 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 27.8 5.1 30.0 28.8 Progression Factor 1.00 0.86 2.23 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 4.8 0.1 1.2 0.5 Delay(s) 18.9 28.6 11.5 31.2 29.3 Level of Service B C B C C Approach Delay(s) 18.9 20.3 0.0 30.0 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 146 197 372 96 286 266 A Ratio 0.35 0.11 0.36 0.17 0.72 0.43 Control Delay 17.7 12.1 17.7 1.4 32.3 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 Total Delay 17.7 12.1 17.7 1.4 32.9 5.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 37 25 45 0 114 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 76 39 120 0 191 49 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 427 1834 1038 574 484 703 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 40 46 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.34 0.11 0.36 0.17 0.64 0.40 Intersection Summary Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 131 177 0 0 335 86 167 2 328 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 131 177 0 0 335 86 167 2 328 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1302 1504 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 579 3471 3539 1568 1302 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 146 197 0 0 372 96 186 2 364 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 26 190 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 146 197 0 0 372 28 0 260 76 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.3 42.3 23.5 23.5 22.8 22.8 = Effective Green, g(s) 42.3 42.3 23.5 23.5 22.8 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 414 1835 1039 460 371 428 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.06 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.02 0.20 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.11 0.36 0.06 0.70 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 10.4 9.4 22.3 20.3 25.6 21.5 Progression Factor 1.30 1.11 0.69 0.88 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.2 7.4 0.4 Delay(s) 14.2 10.5 16.2 18.2 32.9 22.0 Level of Service B B B B C C Approach Delay(s) 12.1 16.6 27.6 0.0m Approach LOS B B C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-(IMitigation Strategy#1 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 351 229 15 125 130 69 390 10 76 182 290 A Ratio 0.83 0.26 0.10 0.36 0.27 0.38 0.91 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.47 Control Delay 44.1 14.0 35.2 36.8 1.4 39.4 58.9 0.0 42.0 30.5 4.4 Queue Delay 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 84.2 14.0 35.2 36.8 1.4 39.4 58.9 0.0 42.0 30.5 4.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) 151 15 7 31 0 33 191 0 36 79 0 Ad Queue Length 95th(ft) #265 36 24 55 0 69 #333 0 75 133 31 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 _ Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 424 897 157 347 475 191 427 593 177 421 621 Starvation Cap Reductn 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 1.06 0.26 0.10 0.36 0.27 0.36 0.91 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.47 _ Intersection Summary - # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. _ Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 305 117 83 13 109 113 60 339 9 66 158 252 Future Volume(vph) 305 117 83 13 109 113 60 339 9 66 158 252 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3274 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3274 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow(vph) 351 134 95 15 125 130 69 390 10 76 182 290 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 71 0 0 0 117 0 0 8 0 0 224 Lane Group Flow(vph) 351 158 0 15 125 13 69 390 2 76 182 66 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.2 20.2 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.6 18.2 18.2 8.0 18.1 18.1 Effective Green, g(s) 19.2 20.2 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.6 18.2 18.2 8.0 18.1 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.25 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 424 826 157 347 161 184 427 331 177 421 358 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.05 0.01 c0.04 0.04 c0.21 c0.04 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.19 0.10 0.36 0.08 0.38 0.91 0.01 0.43 0.43 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 28.8 23.5 33.6 33.6 32.7 33.2 30.1 23.9 33.9 26.5 25.0 Progression Factor 0.92 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.1 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.5 1.7 24.7 0.0 2.3 1.5 0.5 Delay(s) 42.6 22.9 34.1 34.9 33.1 35.0 54.9 23.9 36.1 28.0 25.5 Level of Service D C C C C C D C D C C Approach Delay(s) 34.8 34.0 51.3 27.8 Approach LOS C C D C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2021 Existing - Mitigation Strategy #1 Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue(ft) 23 105 _ Average Queue(ft) 1 51 95th Queue(ft) 12 91 Link Distance(ft) 649 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 110 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 141 101 137 261 159 31 146 125 - Average Queue(ft) 57 43 58 140 61 1 62 52 95th Queue(ft) 120 84 111 225 129 20 116 92 - Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 503 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) ' Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 164 66 83 138 123 58 341 286 Average Queue(ft) 69 18 38 61 51 25 177 101 95th Queue(ft) 129 51 76 112 103 51 296 239 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 ' Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 _ Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2021 Existing - Mitigation Strategy #1 Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 215 173 157 37 87 103 95 150 427 132 108 170 Average Queue(ft) 139 59 55 10 37 41 45 65 197 8 42 70 95th Queue(ft) 223 141 118 32 76 83 79 153 372 58 87 130 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 427 427 427 945 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 3 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 5 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 22 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 16 0 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB - Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 90 Average Queue(ft) 39 95th Queue(ft) 71 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 - Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty:23 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 389 292 278 112 173 A Ratio 0.26 0.69 0.14 0.39 0.52 Control Delay 13.4 31.5 5.3 34.0 11.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.4 31.5 5.3 34.0 11.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 29 156 48 52 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 60 209 43 92 47 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1481 552 1919 370 381 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.26 0.53 0.14 0.30 0.45 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 212 130 257 245 0 0 0 0 96 3 152 Future Volume(vph) 0 212 130 257 245 0 0 0 0 96 3 152 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4023 1770 2911 1744 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4023 1770 2911 1744 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 241 148 292 278 0 0 0 0 109 3 173 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 292 0 292 278 0 0 0 0 0 112 28 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.6 19.1 52.8 13.0 13.0 Effective Green, g(s) 27.6 19.1 52.8 13.0 13.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.24 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1387 422 1921 283 187 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.17 0.10 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.69 0.14 0.40 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 27.8 5.1 30.0 28.8 Progression Factor 1.00 0.86 0.96 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 4.8 0.1 1.2 0.5 Delay(s) 18.9 28.7 5.0 31.2 29.3 Level of Service B C A C C Approach Delay(s) 18.9 17.2 0.0 30.0 Approach LOS B B A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 146 197 372 96 286 266 A Ratio 0.35 0.11 0.36 0.17 0.72 0.43 Control Delay 6.5 3.7 25.7 4.0 32.3 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.5 3.7 25.7 4.0 32.3 4.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 9 6 91 0 114 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 16 10 145 4 191 49 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 427 1834 1038 574 484 703 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.34 0.11 0.36 0.17 0.59 0.38 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 131 177 0 0 335 86 167 2 328 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 131 177 0 0 335 86 167 2 328 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1302 1504 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 579 3471 3539 1568 1302 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 146 197 0 0 372 96 186 2 364 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 26 190 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 146 197 0 0 372 28 0 260 76 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.3 42.3 23.5 23.5 22.8 22.8 = Effective Green, g(s) 42.3 42.3 23.5 23.5 22.8 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 414 1835 1039 460 371 428 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.06 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.02 0.20 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.11 0.36 0.06 0.70 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 10.4 9.4 22.3 20.3 25.6 21.5 Progression Factor 0.35 0.33 1.01 3.63 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.2 7.4 0.4 Delay(s) 4.4 3.2 23.4 74.0 32.9 22.0 Level of Service A A C E C C Approach Delay(s) 3.7 33.8 27.6 0.0m Approach LOS A C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-II Mitigation Scenario 2 --1. .4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 197 383 15 125 130 69 390 10 76 182 290 A Ratio 0.68 0.63 0.08 0.36 0.35 0.38 0.68 0.02 0.42 0.32 0.42 Control Delay 44.9 26.9 33.9 36.8 2.6 39.4 32.1 0.0 41.8 24.1 5.1 Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.0 26.9 33.9 36.8 2.6 39.4 32.1 0.0 41.8 24.1 5.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 97 73 7 31 0 33 174 0 36 72 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 162 115 24 55 0 69 260 0 75 121 49 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 317 663 180 347 373 191 574 597 179 568 685' Starvation Cap Reductn 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.63 0.58 0.08 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.68 0.02 0.42 0.32 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 305 117 83 13 109 113 60 339 9 66 158 252 Future Volume(vph) 305 117 83 13 109 113 60 339 9 66 158 252 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3173 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3173 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow(vph) 351 134 95 15 125 130 69 390 10 76 182 290 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 38 0 0 0 117 0 0 7 0 0 202 Lane Group Flow(vph) 197 345 0 15 125 13 69 390 3 76 182 88 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 14.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.6 24.4 24.4 8.1 24.4 24.4 Effective Green, g(s) 14.5 14.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.6 24.4 24.4 8.1 24.4 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 291 575 180 347 161 184 573 443 179 568 482 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.11 0.01 c0.04 0.04 c0.21 c0.04 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.60 0.08 0.36 0.08 0.38 0.68 0.01 0.42 0.32 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 30.6 30.1 32.7 33.6 32.7 33.2 24.4 19.4 33.8 21.4 20.5 Progression Factor 1.09 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.4 4.6 0.4 1.3 0.5 1.7 6.4 0.0 2.2 1.5 0.8 Delay(s) 44.8 29.8 33.1 34.9 33.1 35.0 30.8 19.4 36.0 22.9 21.3 Level of Service D C C C C C C B D C C Approach Delay(s) 34.9 34.0 31.2 23.9 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 30.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2021 Existing - Mitigation Scenario 2 Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 144 100 141 269 136 31 146 108 _ Average Queue(ft) 53 42 61 128 46 1 64 50 95th Queue(ft) 113 86 114 231 111 12 116 88 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 503 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 154 65 82 175 154 70 362 305 Average Queue(ft) 60 14 28 79 69 30 182 100 95th Queue(ft) 122 46 68 141 133 61 295 233 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2021 Existing - Mitigation Scenario 2 Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 176 178 174 44 87 99 73 149 257 53 102 147 Average Queue(ft) 98 96 80 9 32 40 38 50 132 5 38 56 95th Queue(ft) 148 147 146 30 73 81 64 122 227 35 80 112 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 5 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 4 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 66 Average Queue(ft) 31 95th Queue(ft) 57 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 4 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2021 Existing-Mitigation Scenario 2 Page 2 Appendix F In-Process Site Trips Fruit Hill Property Apri12022 N N7 670 o\° -2111 2 AROGAS PARCEL 669 MPCU N Q wOODeINE RD 0 J m 81 Z pj O O 4 4 O 2i 2i Q Q Q , Q W W �4 W W Lu Lu Lu Lu _ ^l a d d d d 15.� o Q 1 Q 1 8 k 4 Q N D 'V-4 a LU � �4 LU � �1 3 � M LL O C n N W H a - ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION* = XX% *TO MATCH ASSUMPTIONS IN 2017 WHITEHALL COMMERCE CENTER TIA a Net New Site-Generated Trips Figure Arogas Parcel F1 Frederick County, VA � KITTELSON � &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property Apri12022 N N7 670 o\° -2111 2 AROGAS PARCEL 669 MPCU N i WOOD81NE RD 0 J m 81 Z pj O O 4 4 O 2i 2i 2i 8.� Q NO PASS-BY TRIPS Q Q 4 Q Q ASSOCIATED WITH Q Q �4 Q 0 THIS INTERSECTION 0 0 4 0 Y Y jr'4 Y Y 1 LL W W W W Lu Lu Lu Lua M a a o a o 22.E } NO PASS-BY TRIPS } } 11 } p ASSOCIATED WITH p p `11 p Y THIS INTERSECTION Y Y ��11 Y f�22 W W /r 11 W WLu Lu Lu Lu 3 3 LL O C n N W H a - ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION* = XX% *TO MATCH ASSUMPTIONS IN 2017 WHITEHALL COMMERCE CENTER TIA a Pass-by Trips Figure Arogas Parcel F2 Frederick County, VA K� KITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property Apri12022 N N7 670 o\° -2111 2 PARCEL 33-A-12 669 MPCU N i WOOD81NE RD 0 J m 81 Z pj O O 4 4 O 2i 2i 2 2i1 Q Q 5 Q 39��} k, Q 5 y Q 1. Q ��5 Q 73 1 6 5 LU LU LU❑ LU Lu Lu Lu Lu / ^ a a a a 0- 1 1 Q 6 k, Q ❑ �� f�4 ❑ ❑ 29 ❑ 11 Y Y ��4 33 Y Lu Lu Lu W W Ir29 W W Lu LL O C n N W H a - ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION* = XX% *TO MATCH ASSUMPTIONS IN 2017 WHITEHALL COMMERCE CENTER TIA a Net-New Site-Generated Trips Figure Parcel 33-A-12 g Frederick County, VA F3 K� KITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property Apri12022 N N7 670 o\° -2111 2 669 MPCU N i WOOD81NE RD 0 J m 81 Z LIGHT PROPERTY O 4 4 O N � 2i 2i 2i Q Q 3Q 26 k, Q Q 3 Q —• Q —• ��3 Q 49 ❑ ❑ ❑ 3 ❑ 3 Y Y W W W W Lu Lu Lu LuN M a a a a a Q Q Q 3�► k Q ❑ -4-3 ❑ ❑ 20 ❑ 6` Y Y ��3Y ��23 YLU LU + LU Lu W W Ir20 W W 3 M � LL O C n N W H a - ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION* = XX% *TO MATCH ASSUMPTIONS IN 2017 WHITEHALL COMMERCE CENTER TIA a Net-New Site-Generated Trips Figure Light Property g Frederick County, VA F4 K� KITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Fruit Hill Property Apri12022 N N7 670 o\° -2111 2 SES o Q 669 WHITEHALL COMMERCE MPG��N�N U w00 CENTER N Q D81 NE RD 0 J m 81 Z pj O O 4 4 O 1My 11 c cc ` cc cc 2i 2i G 2i Q 5 Q 5 Q 42 y k, Q 79 } �1 Q �I Q �6 Q 5 1 ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ n LU w w w Lu Lu Lu Lu � N a a a a a Q 1 Q ��► Q 6�► k, Q 17�� ❑ �� f�4 ❑ ❑ 32 ❑ 9 4 36 Y *--68 Lu W W Ir32 Lu Lu LU W Lu 3 h LL O C n N W H a - ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION* = XX% *TO MATCH ASSUMPTIONS IN 2017 WHITEHALL COMMERCE CENTER TIA a Net-New Site-Generated Trips Figure Whitehall Commerce Center (Undeveloped Portions) F5 Frederick County, VA K� KITTELSON k &ASSOCIATES Appendix G 2028 Background Traffic Conditions Operational Worksheets HCM 6th TWSC Fruit Hill Property 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028 Background Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations T+ Traffic Vol,veh/h 138 1 26 59 1 105 Future Vol,veh/h 138 1 26 59 1 105 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 100 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 11 7 100 96 Mvmt Flow 153 1 29 66 1 117 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 154 0 278 154 Stage 1 - - - - 154 - Stage 2 - 124 - Critical Hdwy 4.21 7.4 7.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.299 4.4 4.164 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1373 545 695 Stage 1 - 683 - Stage 2 - 707 - _ Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1373 534 695 _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 534 - Stage 1 683 _ Stage 2 692 Approach EB WB NB _ HCM Control Delay,s 0 2.3 11.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 693 1373 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.17 0.021 HCM Control Delay(s) 11.3 7.7 _ HCM Lane LOS B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0.1 Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Background Page 1 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028 Background Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 367 422 143 232 137 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.78 0.09 0.75 0.42 Control Delay 13.0 45.1 10.0 47.6 9.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.0 45.1 10.0 47.6 9.8 Queue Length 50th(ft) 24 228 13 110 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 52 312 50 #205 45 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1058 667 1670 323 338 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.63 0.09 0.72 0.41 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Background Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028IIBackground --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 149 178 376 127 0 0 0 0 205 2 122 Future Volume(vph) 0 149 178 376 127 0 0 0 0 205 2 122 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3467 1787 2597 1725 1214 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3467 1787 2597 1725 1214 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 167 200 422 143 0 0 0 0 230 2 137 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 220 0 422 143 0 0 0 0 0 232 25 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 39% 36% 1% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 33% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 24.3 51.4 14.4 14.4 Effective Green, g(s) 21.0 24.3 51.4 14.4 14.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.30 0.64 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 910 542 1668 310 218 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.24 0.06 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.78 0.09 0.75 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 23.2 25.4 5.4 31.1 27.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.40 1.75 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 7.3 0.1 10.1 0.3 Delay(s) 23.9 42.8 9.6 41.2 27.8 Level of Service C D A D C Approach Delay(s) 23.9 34.4 0.0 36.2 Approach LOS C C A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Background Page 3 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028 Background t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 95 262 447 124 93 283 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.11 0.26 0.14 0.29 0.62 Control Delay 15.4 13.8 10.3 1.6 2.2 10.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 15.4 13.8 10.6 1.6 2.2 10.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 32 45 71 0 0 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m52 m66 94 0 0 66 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 884 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 415 2304 1732 857 374 513 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 696 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.11 0.43 0.14 0.25 0.55 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Background Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028IIBackground --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 94 259 0 0 443 123 60 0 312 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 94 259 0 0 443 123 60 0 312 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1165 3438 3505 1568 1186 1490 Flt Permitted 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 mmqq Satd. Flow(perm) 497 3438 3505 1568 1186 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 95 262 0 0 447 124 61 0 315 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 80 242 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 95 262 0 0 447 59 0 13 41 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 55% 5% 0% 0% 3% 3% 59% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 53.6 53.6 37.9 37.9 11.5 11.5 Effective Green, g(s) 53.6 53.6 37.9 37.9 11.5 11.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.47 0.47 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 395 2303 1660 742 170 214 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.08 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.04 0.01 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.11 0.27 0.08 0.08 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 5.2 4.7 12.7 11.5 29.7 30.2 Progression Factor 2.66 2.71 0.74 0.90 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.9 Delay(s) 14.3 12.9 9.7 10.6 30.1 31.1 Level of Service B B A B C C Approach Delay(s) 13.2 9.9 30.8 0.0m Approach LOS B A C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service A _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Background Page 5 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028 Background --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 118 511 16 133 47 80 74 21 154 269 409 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.49 0.10 0.34 0.12 0.47 0.13 0.03 0.77 0.44 0.51 Control Delay 36.2 12.7 35.0 35.6 0.6 43.7 21.1 0.1 61.7 24.6 5.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.2 13.3 35.0 35.6 0.6 43.7 21.1 0.1 61.7 24.6 5.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 51 23 8 32 0 38 27 0 77 107 0 Ad Queue Length 95th(ft) 64 74 26 60 0 81 57 0 #177 177 61 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 1361 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 258 1051 162 393 394 171 581 661 200 613 796 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.62 0.10 0.34 0.12 0.47 0.13 0.03 0.77 0.44 0.51 _ Intersection Summary - # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. _ Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Background Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028Background --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 107 281 184 15 121 43 73 67 19 140 245 372 Future Volume(vph) 107 281 184 15 121 43 73 67 19 140 245 372 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 3194 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 3194 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 118 309 202 16 133 47 80 74 21 154 269 409 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 115 0 0 0 39 0 0 16 0 0 303 Lane Group Flow(vph) 118 396 0 16 133 8 80 74 5 154 269 106 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 0% 16% 0% 3% 0% 12% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 23.4 1.4 14.2 14.2 8.4 19.6 19.6 9.0 20.7 20.7 Effective Green, g(s) 10.6 23.4 1.4 14.2 14.2 8.4 19.6 19.6 9.0 20.7 20.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.29 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 230 934 31 622 286 169 456 395 201 486 413 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.12 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.04 c0.09 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.42 0.52 0.21 0.03 0.47 0.16 0.01 0.77 0.55 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 22.9 39.0 28.1 27.2 33.7 23.7 22.9 34.5 25.7 23.5 Progression Factor 0.90 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.4 26.0 0.4 0.1 2.8 0.8 0.1 16.8 4.5 1.5 Delay(s) 31.3 16.1 65.0 28.5 27.3 36.6 24.5 22.9 51.3 30.1 25.0 Level of Service C B E C C D C C D C C Approach Delay(s) 18.9 31.2 29.8 31.5 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.3% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Background Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2028 Background Weekday AM-2028 Background Intersection: 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue(ft) 44 153 _ Average Queue(ft) 5 70 95th Queue(ft) 25 119 Link Distance(ft) 649 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 100 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 141 100 193 311 119 10 257 112 - Average Queue(ft) 55 40 87 200 36 1 123 44 95th Queue(ft) 118 82 158 284 90 9 216 84 - Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 504 504 504 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 ' Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 145 101 131 176 130 69 228 184 Average Queue(ft) 64 42 72 81 42 27 95 64 95th Queue(ft) 123 85 117 148 103 57 178 135 Link Distance(ft) 504 504 504 198 198 198 913 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 ' Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 _ Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2028 Background Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2028 Background Weekday AM-2028 Background Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 182 178 207 52 105 95 51 129 86 27 177 206 Average Queue(ft) 85 84 121 16 46 37 23 52 30 7 89 89 95th Queue(ft) 154 148 192 44 90 79 49 101 68 23 159 170 Link Distance(ft) 198 198 198 427 427 427 1388 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 2 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 3 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 136 Average Queue(ft) 55 95th Queue(ft) 108 Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty:6 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2028 Background Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC Fruit Hill Property 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations T+ Traffic Vol,veh/h 150 0 4 164 2 73 Future Vol,veh/h 150 0 4 164 2 73 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 110 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 0 100 1 0 82 Mvmt Flow 170 0 5 186 2 83 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 170 0 366 170 Stage 1 - - - - 170 - Stage 2 - 196 - Critical Hdwy 5.1 6.4 7.02 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 3.5 4.038 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 981 638 703 _ Stage 1 - 865 - Stage 2 - 842 - _ Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 981 635 703 _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 635 - Stage 1 865 _ Stage 2 838 Approach EB WB NB _ HCM Control Delay,s 0 0.2 10.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 701 981 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.122 0.005 HCM Control Delay(s) 10.8 8.7 _ HCM Lane LOS B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background Page 1 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 421 435 314 166 185 A Ratio 0.38 0.78 0.17 0.51 0.51 Control Delay 17.1 40.6 14.0 34.3 9.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.1 40.6 14.0 34.3 9.5 Queue Length 50th(ft) 40 234 47 77 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 65 #384 97 120 45 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1100 559 1850 479 451 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.38 0.78 0.17 0.35 0.41 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028Background --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 231 139 383 276 0 0 0 0 143 3 163 Future Volume(vph) 0 231 139 383 276 0 0 0 0 143 3 163 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4029 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4029 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 262 158 435 314 0 0 0 0 162 3 185 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 302 0 435 314 0 0 0 0 0 166 34 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 25.3 50.9 14.9 14.9 Effective Green, g(s) 19.5 25.3 50.9 14.9 14.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.32 0.64 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 982 559 1852 324 214 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.25 0.11 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.78 0.17 0.51 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 24.7 24.8 5.9 29.3 27.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.20 2.11 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 6.0 0.2 1.8 0.5 Delay(s) 25.5 35.9 12.7 31.1 27.8 Level of Service C D B C C Approach Delay(s) 25.5 26.2 0.0 29.4 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background Page 3 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 156 260 531 221 327 310 A Ratio 0.45 0.15 0.55 0.37 0.76 0.46 Control Delay 25.5 13.5 23.3 4.9 32.3 4.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 4.9 0.4 Total Delay 25.5 13.5 23.6 5.1 37.3 5.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 50 41 123 0 127 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 113 60 m182 m9 216 51 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 846 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 352 1759 971 590 509 747 i Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 109 78 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 121 141 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.44 0.15 0.62 0.43 0.84 0.51 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028IIBackground --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 140 234 0 0 478 199 179 2 392 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 140 234 0 0 478 199 179 2 392 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1313 1504 Flt Permitted 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 433 3471 3539 1568 1313 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 156 260 0 0 531 221 199 2 436 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 160 0 31 215 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 156 260 0 0 531 61 0 296 95 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.6 40.6 22.0 22.0 24.5 24.5 L Effective Green, g(s) 40.6 40.6 22.0 22.0 24.5 24.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.31 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 345 1761 973 431 402 460 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.07 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.04 0.23 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.15 0.55 0.14 0.74 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 11.8 10.5 24.7 21.9 24.9 20.6 Progression Factor 1.67 1.13 0.80 0.77 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.2 1.8 0.6 8.3 0.5 Delay(s) 21.0 12.0 21.6 17.4 33.1 21.0 Level of Service C B C B C C Approach Delay(s) 15.4 20.4 27.2 0.0m Approach LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background Page 5 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 435 275 25 272 148 192 435 13 83 191 307 A Ratio 1.24 0.30 0.15 0.53 0.28 0.80 1.07 0.02 0.45 0.55 0.54 Control Delay 158.4 12.5 36.0 35.8 1.3 58.6 97.7 0.1 41.8 36.4 6.4 Queue Delay 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 159.5 12.5 36.0 36.0 1.3 59.2 97.7 0.1 41.8 36.4 6.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) -275 18 12 66 0 94 -246 0 40 87 0 Md Queue Length 95th(ft) #437 24 34 102 0 #192 #404 0 81 149 44 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 1358 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 351 925 162 511 535 244 406 580 188 347 571 Starvation Cap Reductn 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 26 0 4 0 0 0 0 8 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 1.36 0.30 0.15 0.56 0.28 0.80 1.07 0.02 0.44 0.55 0.55 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028Background --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 383 136 106 22 239 130 169 383 11 73 168 270 Future Volume(vph) 383 136 106 22 239 130 169 383 11 73 168 270 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3262 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3262 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 435 155 120 25 272 148 192 435 12 83 191 307 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 89 0 0 0 126 0 0 10 0 0 250 Lane Group Flow(vph) 435 186 0 25 272 22 192 435 3 83 191 57 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 20.5 7.2 11.8 11.8 11.3 17.3 17.3 8.4 14.9 14.9 Effective Green, g(s) 15.9 20.5 7.2 11.8 11.8 11.3 17.3 17.3 8.4 14.9 14.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.26 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 351 835 162 511 238 242 406 314 185 346 294 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.06 0.01 c0.08 c0.11 c0.23 0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 1.24 0.22 0.15 0.53 0.09 0.79 1.07 0.01 0.45 0.55 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 23.5 33.6 31.5 29.5 33.2 31.4 24.6 33.6 29.5 27.5 Progression Factor 0.95 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 128.5 0.6 0.9 1.9 0.4 17.0 65.0 0.0 2.4 3.2 0.7 Delay(s) 159.1 21.1 34.5 33.5 29.8 50.3 96.4 24.6 36.0 32.7 28.2 Level of Service F C C C C D F C D C C Approach Delay(s) 105.6 32.3 81.1 30.8 Approach LOS F C F C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 67.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Background Weekday PM-2028 Background Intersection: 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Movement WB B14 NB Directions Served L T LR Maximum Queue(ft) 11 17 121 _ Average Queue(ft) 0 1 56 95th Queue(ft) 8 13 101 Link Distance(ft) 226 649 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 110 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 137 119 169 377 366 114 178 115 - Average Queue(ft) 58 53 79 201 89 6 82 54 95th Queue(ft) 114 98 141 324 223 52 150 95 - Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 504 504 504 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) ' Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 176 188 192 221 217 89 932 480 Average Queue(ft) 86 65 80 119 97 43 824 446 95th Queue(ft) 152 176 184 201 180 73 1136 587 Link Distance(ft) 504 504 504 198 198 198 875 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 1 1 0 65 ' Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 1 2 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 _ Storage Blk Time(%) 65 4 Queuing Penalty(veh) 125 16 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Background Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Background Weekday PM-2028 Background Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 250 241 249 55 177 181 112 150 1000 256 121 181 Average Queue(ft) 218 198 163 16 71 82 53 139 619 34 48 78 95th Queue(ft) 241 251 280 43 140 149 95 182 1168 173 99 147 Link Distance(ft) 198 198 198 427 427 427 1385 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 62 26 14 3 Queuing Penalty(veh) 129 53 29 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 10 55 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 40 99 1 0 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 132 Average Queue(ft) 50 95th Queue(ft) 93 Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 496 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Background Page 2 Appendix H 2028 Background Conditions — Mitigation Operational Worksheets Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 421 435 314 166 185 A Ratio 0.35 0.78 0.16 0.58 0.54 Control Delay 16.9 46.9 4.1 39.6 11.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.9 46.9 4.1 39.6 11.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 38 239 20 77 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 69 323 31 134 51 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1190 688 1915 304 354 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.35 0.63 0.16 0.55 0.52 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 231 139 383 276 0 0 0 0 143 3 163 Future Volume(vph) 0 231 139 383 276 0 0 0 0 143 3 163 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4029 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4029 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 262 158 435 314 0 0 0 0 162 3 185 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 305 0 435 314 0 0 0 0 0 166 30 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.4 25.2 52.7 13.1 13.1 Effective Green, g(s) 21.4 25.2 52.7 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.31 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1077 557 1917 285 188 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.25 0.11 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.78 0.16 0.58 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 23.2 24.9 5.2 30.9 28.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.57 0.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 6.3 0.2 3.6 0.6 Delay(s) 23.9 45.3 3.9 34.5 29.3 Level of Service C D A C C Approach Delay(s) 23.9 27.9 0.0 31.7 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 156 260 532 221 327 310 A Ratio 0.44 0.15 0.53 0.37 0.78 0.47 Control Delay 27.4 19.7 21.9 7.3 35.2 5.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 27.4 19.7 22.3 7.6 35.2 5.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 68 48 104 2 128 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 140 107 m147 m36 227 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 359 1792 1006 604 476 717 i Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 127 86 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 38 0 0 0 3 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.43 0.15 0.61 0.43 0.69 0.43 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 140 234 0 0 479 199 179 2 392 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 140 234 0 0 479 199 179 2 392 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1313 1504 Flt Permitted 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 442 3471 3539 1568 1313 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 156 260 0 0 532 221 199 2 436 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 158 0 30 218 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 156 260 0 0 532 63 0 297 92 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 41.3 41.3 22.8 22.8 23.8 23.8 L Effective Green, g(s) 41.3 41.3 22.8 22.8 23.8 23.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 351 1791 1008 446 390 447 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.07 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.04 0.23 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.15 0.53 0.14 0.76 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 11.4 10.1 24.1 21.3 25.5 21.0 Progression Factor 1.96 1.75 0.79 1.46 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.2 1.5 0.5 10.0 0.5 Delay(s) 23.6 17.9 20.6 31.5 35.5 21.5 Level of Service C B C C D C Approach Delay(s) 20.0 23.8 28.7 0.0 Approach LOS C C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-(IMitigation Strategy#1 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 239 471 25 272 148 192 435 13 83 191 307 A Ratio 0.84 0.79 0.14 0.78 0.40 0.75 0.74 0.02 0.47 0.38 0.47 Control Delay 51.2 24.5 34.9 52.6 3.9 52.0 34.4 0.1 43.4 27.1 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.2 24.5 34.9 52.6 3.9 52.5 34.4 0.1 43.4 27.1 5.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 109 50 12 71 0 93 194 0 40 79 0 Wd Queue Length 95th(ft) m#225 47 33 #125 6 #180 #299 0 82 134 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 291 613 180 347 373 266 584 603 177 497 647 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.82 0.77 0.14 0.78 0.40 0.74 0.74 0.02 0.47 0.38 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 383 136 106 22 239 130 169 383 11 73 168 270 Future Volume(vph) 383 136 106 22 239 130 169 383 11 73 168 270 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3168 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3168 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 435 155 120 25 272 148 192 435 12 83 191 307 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 0 133 0 0 9 0 0 225 Lane Group Flow(vph) 239 432 0 25 272 15 192 435 4 83 191 82 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 14.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 24.8 24.8 8.0 21.3 21.3 Effective Green, g(s) 14.2 14.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 24.8 24.8 8.0 21.3 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 285 562 180 347 161 257 583 451 177 496 421 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.14 0.01 c0.08 c0.11 c0.23 0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.77 0.14 0.78 0.09 0.75 0.75 0.01 0.47 0.39 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 31.3 32.9 35.2 32.7 32.5 24.8 19.1 34.0 24.0 22.7 Progression Factor 0.81 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.5 6.6 0.7 12.7 0.5 11.9 8.4 0.0 2.7 2.3 1.0 Delay(s) 44.1 22.1 33.6 47.8 33.2 44.5 33.2 19.1 36.7 26.3 _ 23.7 Level of Service D C C D C D C B D C C Approach Delay(s) 29.5 42.2 36.3 26.4 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Background - Mitigation Strategy #gVeekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 156 126 155 312 153 54 174 119 _ Average Queue(ft) 61 54 79 200 51 4 85 53 95th Queue(ft) 126 100 142 289 117 30 146 95 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 503 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 250 108 135 200 200 127 397 338 Average Queue(ft) 99 42 62 122 100 59 204 129 95th Queue(ft) 184 87 115 189 173 99 342 280 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Background - Mitigation Strategy #gVeekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 194 188 166 47 160 198 83 150 395 128 101 144 Average Queue(ft) 113 105 75 12 70 93 42 111 176 8 42 65 95th Queue(ft) 177 166 142 36 132 168 71 176 323 57 86 122 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 4 9 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 15 17 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 121 Average Queue(ft) 43 95th Queue(ft) 89 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:37 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 421 435 314 166 185 A Ratio 0.35 0.78 0.16 0.58 0.54 Control Delay 16.9 45.7 4.3 39.6 11.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.9 45.7 4.3 39.6 11.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 38 241 13 77 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 69 324 42 134 51 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1190 688 1915 304 354 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.35 0.63 0.16 0.55 0.52 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 231 139 383 276 0 0 0 0 143 3 163 Future Volume(vph) 0 231 139 383 276 0 0 0 0 143 3 163 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4029 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4029 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 262 158 435 314 0 0 0 0 162 3 185 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 305 0 435 314 0 0 0 0 0 166 30 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.4 25.2 52.7 13.1 13.1 Effective Green, g(s) 21.4 25.2 52.7 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.31 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1077 557 1917 285 188 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.25 0.11 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.78 0.16 0.58 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 23.2 24.9 5.2 30.9 28.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.49 0.77 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 6.7 0.2 3.6 0.6 Delay(s) 23.9 43.9 4.2 34.5 29.3 Level of Service C D A C C Approach Delay(s) 23.9 27.3 0.0 31.7 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 --1. .4--- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 156 260 532 221 199 220 218 A Ratio 0.40 0.13 0.45 0.33 0.63 0.41 0.41 Control Delay 21.5 13.3 21.2 6.0 35.7 6.0 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 21.5 13.3 22.2 6.4 35.7 6.1 5.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 50 41 82 8 86 1 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 129 89 m195 m21 150 51 50 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 400 480 Base Capacity(vph) 407 1969 1177 669 372 593 592 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 384 175 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 109 0 0 0 6 6 - Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.38 0.14 0.67 0.45 0.53 0.37 0.37 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 140 234 0 0 479 199 179 2 392 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 140 234 0 0 479 199 179 2 392 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1280 1507 1504 Flt Permitted 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 480 3471 3539 1568 1280 1507 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 156 260 0 0 532 221 199 2 436 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 148 0 164 164 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 156 260 0 0 532 73 199 56 54 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.4 45.4 26.6 26.6 19.7 19.7 19.7 Effective Green, g(s) 45.4 45.4 26.6 26.6 19.7 19.7 19.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.25 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 394 1969 1176 521 315 371 370 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.07 c0.15 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.05 c0.16 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.13 0.45 0.14 0.63 0.15 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 9.2 8.1 21.0 18.7 26.9 23.6 23.6 Progression Factor 1.93 1.47 0.90 1.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.4 5.6 0.4 0.4 Delay(s) 18.6 12.0 19.8 25.2 32.6 24.0 23.9 Level of Service B B B C C C C Approach Delay(s) 14.5 21.4 26.7 0.0m Approach LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-(IMitigation Strategy#2 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 239 471 25 272 148 192 435 13 83 191 307 A Ratio 0.84 0.79 0.14 0.78 0.40 0.75 0.74 0.02 0.47 0.38 0.47 Control Delay 59.3 35.6 34.9 52.6 3.9 52.0 34.4 0.1 43.4 27.1 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.3 35.6 34.9 54.7 3.9 52.0 34.4 0.1 43.4 27.1 5.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 116 85 12 71 0 93 194 0 40 79 0 Wd Queue Length 95th(ft) #238 168 33 #125 6 #180 #299 0 82 134 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 291 613 180 347 373 266 584 603 177 497 647 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.82 0.77 0.14 0.83 0.40 0.72 0.74 0.02 0.47 0.38 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 383 136 106 22 239 130 169 383 11 73 168 270 Future Volume(vph) 383 136 106 22 239 130 169 383 11 73 168 270 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3168 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3168 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 435 155 120 25 272 148 192 435 12 83 191 307 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 0 133 0 0 9 0 0 225 Lane Group Flow(vph) 239 432 0 25 272 15 192 435 4 83 191 82 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 14.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 24.8 24.8 8.0 21.3 21.3 Effective Green, g(s) 14.2 14.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 24.8 24.8 8.0 21.3 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 285 562 180 347 161 257 583 451 177 496 421 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.14 0.01 c0.08 c0.11 c0.23 0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.77 0.14 0.78 0.09 0.75 0.75 0.01 0.47 0.39 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 31.3 32.9 35.2 32.7 32.5 24.8 19.1 34.0 24.0 22.7 Progression Factor 1.05 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.1 6.6 0.7 12.7 0.5 11.9 8.4 0.0 2.7 2.3 1.0 Delay(s) 52.6 34.6 33.6 47.8 33.2 44.5 33.2 19.1 36.7 26.3 _ 23.7 Level of Service D C C D C D C B D C C Approach Delay(s) 40.7 42.2 36.3 26.4 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Background - Mitigation Strategy #2leekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 146 108 169 334 120 39 168 135 _ Average Queue(ft) 61 50 74 202 31 2 84 54 95th Queue(ft) 124 92 136 302 86 25 142 98 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 496 496 496 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R L TR R Maximum Queue(ft) 196 86 122 187 178 96 272 147 123 - Average Queue(ft) 84 27 52 97 79 45 134 65 37 95th Queue(ft) 156 67 99 158 143 81 229 118 84 - Link Distance(ft) 496 496 496 190 190 190 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 400 480 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Background - Mitigation Strategy #2leekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 200 191 183 47 169 186 85 150 436 81 100 159 Average Queue(ft) 125 114 87 12 74 92 42 111 187 7 42 67 95th Queue(ft) 186 173 157 35 138 165 70 174 346 56 83 126 Link Distance(ft) 190 190 190 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 2 0 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 4 11 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 15 21 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB - Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 123 Average Queue(ft) 46 95th Queue(ft) 88 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 - Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 40 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 421 435 314 166 185 A Ratio 0.35 0.78 0.16 0.58 0.54 Control Delay 16.9 28.0 6.0 39.6 11.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.9 28.0 6.0 39.6 11.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 38 202 49 77 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 69 259 25 134 51 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1190 688 1915 304 354 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.35 0.63 0.16 0.55 0.52 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 231 139 383 276 0 0 0 0 143 3 163 Future Volume(vph) 0 231 139 383 276 0 0 0 0 143 3 163 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4029 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4029 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 262 158 435 314 0 0 0 0 162 3 185 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 305 0 435 314 0 0 0 0 0 166 30 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.4 25.2 52.7 13.1 13.1 Effective Green, g(s) 21.4 25.2 52.7 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.31 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1077 557 1917 285 188 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.25 0.11 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.78 0.16 0.58 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 23.2 24.9 5.2 30.9 28.7 Progression Factor 1.00 0.75 1.08 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 7.1 0.2 3.6 0.6 Delay(s) 23.9 25.6 5.8 34.5 29.3 Level of Service C C A C C Approach Delay(s) 23.9 17.3 0.0 31.7 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 --1. -4- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 156 260 532 221 99 102 436 A Ratio 0.37 0.12 0.41 0.31 0.39 0.40 0.65 Control Delay 5.6 1.6 18.1 5.5 30.5 30.7 7.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 5.6 1.6 18.8 6.0 30.5 30.7 7.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 7 5 77 8 45 46 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 23 7 m126 m21 84 85 65 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 400 480 Base Capacity(vph) 449 2106 1311 720 342 345 758 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 436 216 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 53 0 0 0 0 7 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.35 0.13 0.61 0.44 0.29 0.30 0.58 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 140 234 0 0 479 199 179 2 392 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 140 234 0 0 479 199 179 2 392 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1216 1227 1583 Flt Permitted 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 qW Satd. Flow(perm) 505 3471 3539 1568 1216 1227 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 156 260 0 0 532 221 199 2 436 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 139 0 0 346 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 156 260 0 0 532 82 99 102 90 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 48.5 48.5 29.6 29.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 Effective Green, g(s) 48.5 48.5 29.6 29.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.37 0.37 0.21 0.21 0.21 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 425 2104 1309 580 252 254 328 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.07 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.12 0.41 0.14 0.39 0.40 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 7.7 6.7 18.7 16.7 27.4 27.4 26.6 Progression Factor 0.40 0.20 0.85 1.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.4 2.1 2.2 1.0 Delay(s) 3.7 1.4 16.6 21.5 29.5 29.6 27.6 Level of Service A A B C C C C Approach Delay(s) 2.3 18.0 28.2 0.0m Approach LOS A B C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-(IMitigation Strategy#3 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 239 471 25 272 148 192 435 13 83 191 307 A Ratio 0.84 0.79 0.14 0.78 0.40 0.75 0.74 0.02 0.47 0.38 0.47 Control Delay 55.1 26.1 34.9 52.6 3.9 52.0 34.4 0.1 43.4 27.1 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.1 26.1 34.9 54.8 3.9 52.0 34.4 0.1 43.4 27.1 5.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 117 76 12 71 0 93 194 0 40 79 0 Wd Queue Length 95th(ft) #234 117 33 #125 6 #180 #299 0 82 134 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 291 613 180 347 373 266 584 603 177 497 647 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.82 0.77 0.14 0.83 0.40 0.72 0.74 0.02 0.47 0.38 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 383 136 106 22 239 130 169 383 11 73 168 270 Future Volume(vph) 383 136 106 22 239 130 169 383 11 73 168 270 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3168 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3168 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 435 155 120 25 272 148 192 435 12 83 191 307 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 0 133 0 0 9 0 0 225 Lane Group Flow(vph) 239 432 0 25 272 15 192 435 4 83 191 82 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 14.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 24.8 24.8 8.0 21.3 21.3 Effective Green, g(s) 14.2 14.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 24.8 24.8 8.0 21.3 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 285 562 180 347 161 257 583 451 177 496 421 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.14 0.01 c0.08 c0.11 c0.23 0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.77 0.14 0.78 0.09 0.75 0.75 0.01 0.47 0.39 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 31.3 32.9 35.2 32.7 32.5 24.8 19.1 34.0 24.0 22.7 Progression Factor 0.95 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.0 6.6 0.7 12.7 0.5 11.9 8.4 0.0 2.7 2.3 1.0 Delay(s) 48.4 24.0 33.6 47.8 33.2 44.5 33.2 19.1 36.7 26.3 _ 23.7 Level of Service D C C D C D C B D C C Approach Delay(s) 32.2 42.2 36.3 26.4 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Background - Mitigation Strategy #31eekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 137 122 193 345 122 10 163 115 _ Average Queue(ft) 60 55 79 168 42 1 85 54 95th Queue(ft) 120 100 150 301 97 9 144 93 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 496 496 496 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R L LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 142 53 57 162 158 91 131 194 180 Average Queue(ft) 57 6 13 86 64 43 51 93 78 95th Queue(ft) 113 30 45 141 122 77 105 169 144 Link Distance(ft) 496 496 496 190 190 190 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 400 480 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Background - Mitigation Strategy #31eekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 179 207 207 45 163 165 92 150 446 135 97 147 Average Queue(ft) 113 142 127 12 69 82 44 114 186 9 43 64 95th Queue(ft) 175 200 209 35 131 143 77 175 364 65 84 119 Link Distance(ft) 190 190 190 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 1 2 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 2 5 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 3 12 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 13 22 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB - Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 108 Average Queue(ft) 44 95th Queue(ft) 82 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 - Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 43 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 2 Appendix I Year 2028 Total Traffic Operational Worksheets HCM 6th TWSC Fruit Hill Property 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028 Total Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 8.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations T+ + r Traffic Vol,veh/h 136 21 351 57 11 233 Future Vol,veh/h 136 21 351 57 11 233 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 200 - 200 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 11 7 100 96 Mvmt Flow 151 23 390 63 12 259 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 174 0 1006 163 Stage 1 - - - - 163 - Stage 2 - 843 - Critical Hdwy 4.21 7.4 7.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.299 4.4 4.164 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1350 180 686 Stage 1 - 675 - Stage 2 - 293 - _ Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1350 128 686 _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 128 - Stage 1 675 _ Stage 2 208 Approach EB WB NB _ HCM Control Delay,s 0 7.5 14.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 128 686 1350 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.095 0.377 0.289 HCM Control Delay(s) 36.1 13.4 8.7 _ HCM Lane LOS E B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 1.8 1.2 Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Total Page 1 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028 Total Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 509 422 335 232 308 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.78 0.20 0.75 0.66 Control Delay 14.1 38.2 11.4 47.4 11.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.1 38.2 11.4 47.4 11.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 35 209 54 110 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 71 m290 m81 #205 70 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1108 667 1668 323 477 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.63 0.20 0.72 0.65 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. - Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Total Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AMII-2028 Total --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 215 238 376 298 0 0 0 0 205 2 274 Future Volume(vph) 0 215 238 376 298 0 0 0 0 205 2 274 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3477 1787 2597 1725 1214 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3477 1787 2597 1725 1214 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 242 267 422 335 0 0 0 0 230 2 308 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 253 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 312 0 422 335 0 0 0 0 0 232 55 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 39% 36% 1% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 33% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 24.3 51.4 14.4 14.4 Effective Green, g(s) 21.0 24.3 51.4 14.4 14.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.30 0.64 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 912 542 1668 310 218 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.24 0.13 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.78 0.20 0.75 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 23.9 25.4 5.9 31.1 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.14 1.83 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 6.9 0.3 10.1 0.8 Delay(s) 24.9 35.9 11.0 41.2 29.0 Level of Service C D B D C Approach Delay(s) 24.9 24.9 0.0 34.2 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Total Page 3 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028 Total t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 155 269 467 124 277 252 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.12 0.32 0.16 0.80 0.55 Control Delay 17.1 13.1 13.0 2.0 30.0 9.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.1 13.1 13.4 2.0 30.0 9.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 48 42 82 0 44 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m73 m60 96 0 #171 62 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 391 2212 1478 754 367 488 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 553 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.12 0.50 0.16 0.75 0.52 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Total Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AMlI-2028 Total --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 153 266 0 0 462 123 212 0 312 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 153 266 0 0 462 123 212 0 312 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1165 3438 3505 1568 1148 1490 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 mmqq Satd. Flow(perm) 477 3438 3505 1568 1148 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 155 269 0 0 467 124 214 0 315 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 152 209 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 155 269 0 0 467 52 0 125 43 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 55% 5% 0% 0% 3% 3% 59% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.5 51.5 33.8 33.8 13.6 13.6 Effective Green, g(s) 51.5 51.5 33.8 33.8 13.6 13.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.17 - Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 - Lane Grp Cap(vph) 388 2213 1480 662 195 253 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.08 0.13 ' v/s Ratio Perm c0.21 0.03 0.11 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.12 0.32 0.08 0.64 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 6.4 5.5 15.4 13.8 30.9 28.4 Progression Factor 2.24 2.21 0.77 1.07 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.2 9.5 0.7 Delay(s) 15.2 12.3 12.4 15.0 40.4 29.0 Level of Service B B B B D C Approach Delay(s) 13.3 13.0 35.0 0.0m Approach LOS B B C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.9% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Total Page 5 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2028 Total --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 122 514 16 133 47 90 74 21 154 269 420 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.49 0.10 0.34 0.12 0.53 0.13 0.03 0.77 0.44 0.52 Control Delay 34.1 12.6 35.0 35.6 0.6 46.0 21.1 0.1 61.9 24.7 5.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.1 13.3 35.0 35.6 0.6 46.0 21.1 0.1 61.9 24.7 5.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 49 38 8 33 0 43 27 0 77 107 0 Ad Queue Length 95th(ft) m57 m74 26 60 0 #97 57 0 #177 177 61 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 258 1054 162 391 393 172 580 661 200 610 802 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.64 0.10 0.34 0.12 0.52 0.13 0.03 0.77 0.44 0.52 Intersection Summary - # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. _ Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. _ Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Total Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AMII-2028 Total --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 111 281 187 15 121 43 82 67 19 140 245 382 Future Volume(vph) 111 281 187 15 121 43 82 67 19 140 245 382 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 3190 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 3190 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 122 309 205 16 133 47 90 74 21 154 269 420 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 119 0 0 0 39 0 0 16 0 0 312 Lane Group Flow(vph) 122 395 0 16 133 8 90 74 5 154 269 108 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 0% 16% 0% 3% 0% 12% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 23.5 1.4 14.2 14.2 8.5 19.5 19.5 9.0 20.5 20.5 Effective Green, g(s) 10.7 23.5 1.4 14.2 14.2 8.5 19.5 19.5 9.0 20.5 20.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.29 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 232 937 31 622 286 171 454 393 201 482 409 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.12 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.04 c0.09 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.42 0.52 0.21 0.03 0.53 0.16 0.01 0.77 0.56 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 22.8 39.0 28.1 27.2 33.8 23.8 22.9 34.5 25.8 23.7 Progression Factor 0.83 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.4 26.0 0.4 0.1 3.8 0.8 0.1 16.8 4.6 1.6 Delay(s) 29.2 16.1 65.0 28.5 27.3 37.6 24.6 23.0 51.3 30.4 25.3 Level of Service C B E C C D C C D C C Approach Delay(s) 18.6 31.2 30.7 31.7 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2028 Total Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2028 Total Weekday AM-2028 Total Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB B14 WB WB WB SB SB A Directions Served T T TR T L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 203 134 221 3 315 168 48 240 180 _ Average Queue(ft) 92 53 106 0 196 68 2 114 74 95th Queue(ft) 176 108 183 3 282 136 24 198 136 _ Link Distance(ft) 227 227 227 408 503 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 _ Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 _ Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 217 103 124 174 176 70 559 444 Average Queue(ft) 101 35 68 90 65 31 315 227 95th Queue(ft) 184 79 108 157 134 61 519 422 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 2 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 3 0 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2028 Total Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2028 Total Weekday AM-2028 Total Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 170 195 213 53 98 112 55 118 96 21 166 201 Average Queue(ft) 93 99 128 15 41 43 25 51 27 4 83 92 95th Queue(ft) 152 175 205 42 80 90 52 99 67 17 150 168 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 427 427 427 945 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 3 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 1 2 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 151 Average Queue(ft) 60 95th Queue(ft) 112 Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:9 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2028 Total Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC Fruit Hill Property 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Total Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 10.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations "+ I + r Traffic Vol,veh/h 148 11 157 162 21 389 Future Vol,veh/h 148 11 157 162 21 389 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 200 - 200 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 0 100 1 0 82 Mvmt Flow 168 13 178 184 24 442 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 181 0 715 175 Stage 1 - - - - 175 - Stage 2 - 540 - Critical Hdwy 5.1 6.4 7.02 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 3.5 4.038 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 970 400 698 _ Stage 1 - 860 - Stage 2 - 588 - _ Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 970 326 698 _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 326 - Stage 1 860 _ Stage 2 480 Approach EB WB NB _ HCM Control Delay,s 0 4.7 18.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 326 698 970 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.073 0.633 0.184 HCM Control Delay(s) 16.9 18.6 9.5 _ HCM Lane LOS C C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 4.5 0.7 Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Total Page 1 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Total Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 777 435 405 166 266 A Ratio 0.69 0.78 0.22 0.50 0.61 Control Delay 23.9 35.3 15.9 33.9 10.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.9 35.3 15.9 33.9 10.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 97 231 72 76 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 135 m#377 m117 120 55 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1128 555 1844 479 510 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.69 0.78 0.22 0.35 0.52 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. - Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Total Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PMII-2028 Total --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 396 288 383 356 0 0 0 0 143 3 234 Future Volume(vph) 0 396 288 383 356 0 0 0 0 143 3 234 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 450 327 435 405 0 0 0 0 162 3 266 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 216 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 618 0 435 405 0 0 0 0 0 166 50 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 25.1 50.7 15.1 15.1 Effective Green, g(s) 19.5 25.1 50.7 15.1 15.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.31 0.63 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 970 555 1844 328 217 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.25 0.14 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.78 0.22 0.51 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 27.1 25.0 6.2 29.1 27.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.03 2.29 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 5.2 0.2 1.7 0.7 Delay(s) 30.3 30.9 14.5 30.8 28.3 Level of Service C C B C C Approach Delay(s) 30.3 23.0 0.0 29.2 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Total Page 3 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Total t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 321 278 541 221 373 344 A Ratio 0.96 0.17 0.73 0.44 0.83 0.47 Control Delay 71.0 15.8 29.0 6.0 40.2 4.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4 31.2 0.5 Total Delay 71.0 15.8 30.3 6.4 71.4 5.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) —162 37 130 0 160 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m#292 m71 m183 m9 #310 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 836 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 336 1649 743 503 482 768 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 71 65 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 121 146 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.96 0.17 0.81 0.50 1.03 0.55 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Total Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PMII-2028 Total --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 289 250 0 0 487 199 251 2 392 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 289 250 0 0 487 199 251 2 392 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1277 1504 Flt Permitted 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 348 3471 3539 1568 1277 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 321 278 0 0 541 221 279 2 436 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 175 0 15 227 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 321 278 0 0 541 46 0 358 117 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.0 38.0 16.8 16.8 27.1 27.1 Effective Green, g(s) 38.0 38.0 16.8 16.8 27.1 27.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.34 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 336 1648 743 329 432 509 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.08 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 0.03 0.28 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.17 0.73 0.14 0.83 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 16.0 12.0 29.5 25.7 24.3 19.0 Progression Factor 2.16 1.22 0.81 0.86 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 32.6 0.2 5.0 0.7 13.7 0.5 Delay(s) 67.2 14.8 28.7 22.9 38.0 19.4 Level of Service E B C C D B Approach Delay(s) 42.9 27.0 29.1 0.0' Approach LOS D C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Total Page 5 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2028 Total --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 444 285 25 272 148 198 435 13 83 191 310 A Ratio 1.20 0.22 0.15 0.53 0.28 0.81 0.94 0.02 0.45 0.58 0.56 Control Delay 145.4 11.3 36.0 35.8 1.3 60.7 62.5 0.1 41.8 38.0 6.8 Queue Delay 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Delay 146.4 11.3 36.0 36.1 1.3 61.5 62.5 0.1 41.8 38.0 6.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) -281 14 12 66 0 97 -246 0 40 87 0 Ad Queue Length 95th(ft) m#431 m16 34 102 0 #199 #404 0 81 149 46 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 1365 966 _ Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 369 1289 163 511 535 244 465 615 188 344 569 Starvation Cap Reductn 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 29 0 4 0 0 0 0 8� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 1.32 0.22 0.15 0.56 0.28 0.82 0.94 0.02 0.44 0.56 0.55 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. DIM Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Total Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PMII-2028 Total --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 391 136 114 22 239 130 174 383 11 73 168 273 Future Volume(vph) 391 136 114 22 239 130 174 383 11 73 168 273 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3251 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3251 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 444 155 130 25 272 148 198 435 12 83 191 310 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 91 0 0 0 119 0 0 10 0 0 249 Lane Group Flow(vph) 444 194 0 25 272 29 198 435 3 83 191 61 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 23.9 2.9 15.9 15.9 11.3 19.8 19.8 6.8 15.8 15.8 Effective Green, g(s) 10.9 23.9 2.9 15.9 15.9 11.3 19.8 19.8 6.8 15.8 15.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.30 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 241 971 65 689 320 242 465 360 150 367 312 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.06 0.01 c0.08 c0.12 c0.23 0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 1.84 0.20 0.38 0.39 0.09 0.82 0.94 0.01 0.55 0.52 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 34.5 20.9 37.7 27.9 26.2 33.4 29.5 22.7 35.1 28.7 26.8 Progression Factor 1.03 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 393.6 0.5 7.7 0.8 0.3 19.8 27.0 0.0 5.4 2.5 0.6 Delay(s) 429.2 20.8 45.4 28.6 26.4 53.1 56.5 22.7 40.5 31.2 27.4 Level of Service F C D C C D E C D C C Approach Delay(s) 269.6 28.8 54.8 30.5 Approach LOS F C D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 109.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2028 Total Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Total Weekday PM-2028 Total Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB B14 B14 WB WB WB SB SB A Directions Served T T TR T T L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 253 195 233 9 8 401 432 127 152 154 _ Average Queue(ft) 128 79 125 0 0 199 134 10 77 68 95th Queue(ft) 221 149 204 7 8 333 280 65 133 119 Link Distance(ft) 227 227 227 396 396 504 504 504 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 379 134 142 229 224 109 928 480 Average Queue(ft) 200 48 59 141 126 48 845 441 95th Queue(ft) 331 104 114 225 214 85 1122 609 Link Distance(ft) 504 504 504 198 198 198 865 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 2 1 0 69 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 4 3 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 64 4 Queuing Penalty(veh) 125 17 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Total Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Total Weekday PM-2028 Total Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 248 243 254 61 151 180 109 150 691 184 117 175 Average Queue(ft) 215 196 161 20 70 90 49 129 324 13 49 82 95th Queue(ft) 243 257 274 48 127 154 90 181 674 90 95 154 Link Distance(ft) 198 198 198 427 427 427 1393 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 57 27 11 Queuing Penalty(veh) 122 58 23 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 10 29 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 42 54 0 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 131 Average Queue(ft) 52 95th Queue(ft) 96 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 452 ' Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Total Page 2 Appendix J 2028 Total Traffic Conditions — Mitigation Scenario Operational Worksheets Queues 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 12/13/2022 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 777 435 405 166 266 A Ratio 0.61 0.82 0.21 0.58 0.65 Control Delay 20.9 28.5 0.8 39.4 12.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.9 28.5 0.8 39.4 12.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 91 227 1 77 0 - Queue Length 95th(ft) 132 m287 m1 134 63 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1276 595 1913 304 421 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.61 0.73 0.21 0.55 0.63 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 1I12/13/2022 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 396 288 383 356 0 0 0 0 143 3 234 Future Volume(vph) 0 396 288 383 356 0 0 0 0 143 3 234 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 450 327 435 405 0 0 0 0 162 3 266 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 623 0 435 405 0 0 0 0 0 166 44 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.6 23.9 52.6 13.2 13.2 Effective Green, g(s) 22.6 23.9 52.6 13.2 13.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.30 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1124 528 1913 287 190 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.25 0.14 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.82 0.21 0.58 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 26.1 5.5 30.8 29.0 Progression Factor 1.00 0.75 0.11 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 6.8 0.2 3.4 0.9 Delay(s) 26.4 26.4 0.8 34.2 29.8 Level of Service C C A C C Approach Delay(s) 26.4 14.1 0.0 31.5 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Queues 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 12/13/2022 t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 321 278 541 221 373 344 A Ratio 0.85 0.16 0.73 0.44 0.91 0.49 Control Delay 30.8 2.5 30.9 8.9 53.8 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 30.8 2.5 31.5 9.3 53.8 5.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 38 7 108 2 174 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #213 8 #175 m37 #347 58 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 382 1750 740 503 419 710 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 43 60 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 46 0 0 0 4 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.84 0.16 0.78 0.50 0.89 0.49 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 1I12/13/2022 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 289 250 0 0 487 199 251 2 392 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 289 250 0 0 487 199 251 2 392 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1277 1504 Flt Permitted 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 348 3471 3539 1568 1277 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 321 278 0 0 541 221 279 2 436 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 175 0 15 238 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 321 278 0 0 541 46 0 358 106 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.4 40.4 16.8 16.8 24.7 24.7 = Effective Green, g(s) 40.4 40.4 16.8 16.8 24.7 24.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.21 0.21 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 378 1752 743 329 394 464 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.08 0.15 c0.28 _ v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 0.03 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.16 0.73 0.14 0.91 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 14.4 10.7 29.5 25.7 26.6 20.6 Progression Factor 0.74 0.22 0.85 1.49 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.0 0.2 4.7 0.7 25.2 0.5 Delay(s) 24.6 2.5 29.7 39.1 51.8 21.1 Level of Service C A C D D C Approach Delay(s) 14.3 32.4 37.1 0.0m Approach LOS B C D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Page 4 Queues 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd II 12/13/2022 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 244 485 25 272 148 198 435 13 83 191 310 A Ratio 0.66 0.64 0.13 0.74 0.39 0.76 0.79 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.54 Control Delay 35.8 24.2 34.7 48.6 3.8 52.0 39.0 0.1 43.4 32.4 7.3 Queue Delay 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.4 24.3 34.7 48.6 3.8 54.5 39.0 0.1 43.4 32.4 7.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 109 53 12 71 0 95 203 0 40 83 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m182 m93 33 #125 6 #184 #342 0 82 141 57 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 367 763 192 369 382 272 552 583 177 419 596 Starvation Cap Reductn 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 4� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.70 0.65 0.13 0.74 0.39 0.79 0.79 0.02 0.47 0.46 0.52 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd 1I12/13/2022 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 391 136 114 22 239 130 174 383 11 73 168 273 Future Volume(vph) 391 136 114 22 239 130 174 383 11 73 168 273 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3162 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3162 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 444 155 130 25 272 148 198 435 12 83 191 310 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 0 132 0 0 9 0 0 239 Lane Group Flow(vph) 244 442 0 25 272 16 198 435 4 83 191 71 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 16.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 12.2 23.5 23.5 6.4 18.2 18.2 Effective Green, g(s) 16.6 16.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 12.2 23.5 23.5 6.4 18.2 18.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 334 656 191 368 171 262 552 427 141 423 360 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.14 0.01 c0.08 c0.12 c0.23 0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.67 0.13 0.74 0.09 0.76 0.79 0.01 0.59 0.45 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 29.6 29.2 32.4 34.7 32.3 32.5 26.0 20.0 35.5 26.6 25.0 Progression Factor 0.91 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.0 5.4 0.7 9.1 0.5 12.4 8.5 0.0 7.2 1.6 0.6 Delay(s) 38.8 28.5 33.1 43.8 32.8 44.9 34.4 20.0 42.8 28.2 25.5 Level of Service D C C D C D C C D C C Approach Delay(s) 31.9 39.5 37.3 28.9 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Synchro 11 Report Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Total - Mitigation Strategy#1 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB B14 WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR T L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 210 183 258 17 370 158 11 192 141 _ Average Queue(ft) 117 84 130 1 148 46 0 87 64 95th Queue(ft) 193 154 215 13 291 126 8 156 111 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 1072 503 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 275 62 92 206 204 125 583 448 Average Queue(ft) 121 11 20 117 104 62 308 221 95th Queue(ft) 229 42 61 192 181 109 494 401 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 2 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 2 0 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Total - Mitigation Strategy#1 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 180 179 194 47 148 187 86 149 500 84 112 152 Average Queue(ft) 101 106 80 13 62 93 41 115 222 7 43 70 95th Queue(ft) 162 161 154 34 125 163 67 175 492 49 90 128 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 5 14 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 21 26 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB - Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 112 - Average Queue(ft) 45 95th Queue(ft) 86 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) - Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:55 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 12/13/2022 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 777 435 405 166 266 A Ratio 0.61 0.82 0.21 0.58 0.65 Control Delay 20.9 31.6 1.1 39.4 12.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.9 31.6 1.1 39.4 12.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 91 227 1 77 0 - Queue Length 95th(ft) 132 m302 m1 134 63 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1276 595 1913 304 421 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.61 0.73 0.21 0.55 0.63 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Synchro 11 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 1I12/13/2022 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 396 288 383 356 0 0 0 0 143 3 234 Future Volume(vph) 0 396 288 383 356 0 0 0 0 143 3 234 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 450 327 435 405 0 0 0 0 162 3 266 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 623 0 435 405 0 0 0 0 0 166 44 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.6 23.9 52.6 13.2 13.2 Effective Green, g(s) 22.6 23.9 52.6 13.2 13.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.30 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1124 528 1913 287 190 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.25 0.14 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.82 0.21 0.58 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 26.1 5.5 30.8 29.0 Progression Factor 1.00 0.81 0.15 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 8.1 0.2 3.4 0.9 Delay(s) 26.4 29.2 1.0 34.2 29.8 Level of Service C C A C C Approach Delay(s) 26.4 15.6 0.0 31.5 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Queues 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 12/13/2022 --1. .4--- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 321 278 541 221 279 220 218 A Ratio 0.77 0.15 0.63 0.40 0.82 0.39 0.39 Control Delay 20.0 1.9 27.6 8.7 47.9 5.8 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.0 1.9 28.2 9.0 47.9 5.9 5.7 Queue Length 50th(ft) 28 6 106 2 127 1 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #177 7 168 m37 #250 52 51 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 480 Base Capacity(vph) 433 1897 862 549 361 581 581 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 94 74 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 45 0 0 0 2 2 - Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.74 0.15 0.70 0.47 0.77 0.38 0.38 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Synchro 11 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 1I12/13/2022 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 289 250 0 0 487 199 251 2 392 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 289 250 0 0 487 199 251 2 392 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1280 1507 1504 Flt Permitted 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 391 3471 3539 1568 1280 1507 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 321 278 0 0 541 221 279 2 436 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 167 0 160 160 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 321 278 0 0 541 54 279 60 58 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.7 43.7 19.5 19.5 21.4 21.4 21.4 Effective Green, g(s) 43.7 43.7 19.5 19.5 21.4 21.4 21.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.27 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 415 1896 862 382 342 403 402 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.08 0.15 c0.22 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 0.03 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.15 0.63 0.14 0.82 0.15 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 12.3 9.0 27.0 23.7 27.5 22.4 22.3 Progression Factor 0.63 0.19 0.88 1.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.6 0.1 2.6 0.6 15.5 0.4 0.3 Delay(s) 15.3 1.9 26.3 38.4 43.0 22.7 22.7 Level of Service B A C D D C C Approach Delay(s) 9.1 29.8 30.6 0.0m Approach LOS A C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Synchro 11 Report Page 4 Queues 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd II 12/13/2022 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 244 485 25 272 148 198 435 13 83 191 310 A Ratio 0.66 0.64 0.13 0.74 0.39 0.76 0.79 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.54 Control Delay 37.8 26.4 34.7 48.6 3.8 52.0 39.0 0.1 43.4 32.4 7.3 Queue Delay 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 38.4 26.5 34.7 48.6 3.8 54.9 39.0 0.1 43.4 32.4 7.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 105 54 12 71 0 95 203 0 40 83 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #210 104 33 #125 6 #184 #342 0 82 141 57 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 367 763 192 369 382 272 552 583 177 419 596 Starvation Cap Reductn 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 4� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.70 0.65 0.13 0.74 0.39 0.80 0.79 0.02 0.47 0.46 0.52 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Synchro 11 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd 1I12/13/2022 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 391 136 114 22 239 130 174 383 11 73 168 273 Future Volume(vph) 391 136 114 22 239 130 174 383 11 73 168 273 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3162 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3162 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 444 155 130 25 272 148 198 435 12 83 191 310 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 0 132 0 0 9 0 0 239 Lane Group Flow(vph) 244 442 0 25 272 16 198 435 4 83 191 71 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 16.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 12.2 23.5 23.5 6.4 18.2 18.2 Effective Green, g(s) 16.6 16.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 12.2 23.5 23.5 6.4 18.2 18.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 334 656 191 368 171 262 552 427 141 423 360 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.14 0.01 c0.08 c0.12 c0.23 0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.67 0.13 0.74 0.09 0.76 0.79 0.01 0.59 0.45 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 29.6 29.2 32.4 34.7 32.3 32.5 26.0 20.0 35.5 26.6 25.0 Progression Factor 0.96 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.8 5.4 0.7 9.1 0.5 12.4 8.5 0.0 7.2 1.6 0.6 Delay(s) 41.0 31.0 33.1 43.8 32.8 44.9 34.4 20.0 42.8 28.2 25.5 Level of Service D C C D C D C C D C C Approach Delay(s) 34.4 39.5 37.3 28.9 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Synchro 11 Report Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Total - Mitigation Strategy#2 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB B14 WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR T L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 205 193 259 11 337 171 44 166 176 _ Average Queue(ft) 114 81 133 1 145 43 2 79 70 95th Queue(ft) 190 152 217 14 271 123 29 138 126 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 1072 496 496 496 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB - Directions Served L T T T T R L TR R Maximum Queue(ft) 257 84 90 206 199 137 295 395 220 - Average Queue(ft) 116 8 18 108 97 58 172 94 41 95th Queue(ft) 214 46 61 184 173 106 288 246 113 - Link Distance(ft) 496 496 496 190 190 190 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 1 0 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 2 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 300 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 4 0 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Total - Mitigation Strategy#2 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 202 185 157 42 178 214 81 150 507 157 120 178 Average Queue(ft) 122 106 70 12 66 98 42 115 218 9 43 73 95th Queue(ft) 182 168 126 33 139 183 68 177 483 71 88 142 Link Distance(ft) 190 190 190 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 7 13 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 27 26 0 0 1 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 144 - Average Queue(ft) 48 95th Queue(ft) 98 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 - Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:64 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 2 Queues 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 12/13/2022 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 777 435 405 166 266 A Ratio 0.61 0.82 0.21 0.58 0.65 Control Delay 20.9 34.1 1.1 39.4 12.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.9 34.1 1.1 39.4 12.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 91 231 1 77 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 132 324 1 134 63 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1276 595 1913 304 421 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.61 0.73 0.21 0.55 0.63 Intersection Summary Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Synchro 11 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 1I12/13/2022 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 396 288 383 356 0 0 0 0 143 3 234 Future Volume(vph) 0 396 288 383 356 0 0 0 0 143 3 234 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 450 327 435 405 0 0 0 0 162 3 266 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 623 0 435 405 0 0 0 0 0 166 44 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.6 23.9 52.6 13.2 13.2 Effective Green, g(s) 22.6 23.9 52.6 13.2 13.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.30 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1124 528 1913 287 190 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.25 0.14 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.82 0.21 0.58 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 26.1 5.5 30.8 29.0 Progression Factor 1.00 0.84 0.15 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 9.5 0.2 3.4 0.9 Delay(s) 26.4 31.4 1.1 34.2 29.8 Level of Service C C A C C Approach Delay(s) 26.4 16.8 0.0 31.5 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Queues 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 12/13/2022 --1. -4- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 321 278 541 221 139 142 436 A Ratio 0.69 0.13 0.48 0.34 0.57 0.58 0.65 Control Delay 11.1 1.5 23.5 8.1 37.9 38.2 8.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.1 1.5 24.1 8.5 37.9 38.2 8.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 13 5 102 2 64 65 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 25 6 165 m37 123 125 73 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 480 Base Capacity(vph) 502 2127 1120 647 278 280 698 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 259 144 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 41 0 0 0 0 5 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.64 0.13 0.63 0.44 0.50 0.51 0.63 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Synchro 11 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd 1I12/13/2022 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 289 250 0 0 487 199 251 2 392 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 289 250 0 0 487 199 251 2 392 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1216 1225 1583 Flt Permitted 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 qW Satd. Flow(perm) 460 3471 3539 1568 1216 1225 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 321 278 0 0 541 221 279 2 436 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 0 348 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 321 278 0 0 541 70 139 142 88 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 49.0 49.0 25.3 25.3 16.1 16.1 16.1 Effective Green, g(s) 49.0 49.0 25.3 25.3 16.1 16.1 16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.32 0.32 0.20 0.20 0.20 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 463 2125 1119 495 244 246 318 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.08 0.15 0.11 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.29 0.04 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.13 0.48 0.14 0.57 0.58 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 9.1 6.5 22.1 19.6 28.8 28.9 27.0 Progression Factor 0.49 0.20 0.93 1.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 0.1 1.1 0.5 5.0 5.2 1.0 Delay(s) 8.3 1.4 21.7 34.5 33.8 34.0 28.0 Level of Service A A C C C C C Approach Delay(s) 5.1 25.4 30.3 L 0.0 M Approach LOS A C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.2% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Synchro 11 Report Page 4 Queues 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd II 12/13/2022 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 244 485 25 272 148 198 435 13 83 191 310 A Ratio 0.66 0.64 0.13 0.74 0.39 0.76 0.79 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.54 Control Delay 35.9 23.4 34.7 48.6 3.8 52.0 39.0 0.1 43.4 32.4 7.3 Queue Delay 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.5 23.6 34.7 48.6 3.8 54.5 39.0 0.1 43.4 32.4 7.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 105 52 12 71 0 95 203 0 40 83 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #209 83 33 #125 6 #184 #342 0 82 141 57 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 367 763 192 369 382 272 552 583 177 419 596 Starvation Cap Reductn 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 4� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.70 0.65 0.13 0.74 0.39 0.79 0.79 0.02 0.47 0.46 0.52 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Synchro 11 Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd 1I12/13/2022 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 391 136 114 22 239 130 174 383 11 73 168 273 Future Volume(vph) 391 136 114 22 239 130 174 383 11 73 168 273 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3162 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3162 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 444 155 130 25 272 148 198 435 12 83 191 310 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 0 132 0 0 9 0 0 239 Lane Group Flow(vph) 244 442 0 25 272 16 198 435 4 83 191 71 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 16.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 12.2 23.5 23.5 6.4 18.2 18.2 Effective Green, g(s) 16.6 16.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 12.2 23.5 23.5 6.4 18.2 18.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 334 656 191 368 171 262 552 427 141 423 360 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.14 0.01 c0.08 c0.12 c0.23 0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.67 0.13 0.74 0.09 0.76 0.79 0.01 0.59 0.45 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 29.6 29.2 32.4 34.7 32.3 32.5 26.0 20.0 35.5 26.6 25.0 Progression Factor 0.92 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.7 5.4 0.7 9.1 0.5 12.4 8.5 0.0 7.2 1.6 0.6 Delay(s) 38.9 27.6 33.1 43.8 32.8 44.9 34.4 20.0 42.8 28.2 25.5 Level of Service D C C D C D C C D C C Approach Delay(s) 31.4 39.5 37.3 28.9 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Scenario 1 Fruit Hill Property 5:38 pm 12/02/2021 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Synchro 11 Report Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Total - Mitigation Strategy#3 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB B14 WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR T L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 217 197 244 2 374 165 32 169 159 _ Average Queue(ft) 115 80 131 0 165 51 1 85 71 95th Queue(ft) 190 155 215 2 293 132 18 146 123 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 1072 496 496 496 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R L LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 264 74 92 188 184 127 220 270 170 Average Queue(ft) 113 13 17 95 84 56 71 133 76 95th Queue(ft) 206 48 61 171 160 105 155 231 135 Link Distance(ft) 496 496 496 190 190 190 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 300 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2028 Total - Mitigation Strategy#3 Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 176 204 208 55 153 188 82 150 440 156 101 180 Average Queue(ft) 100 128 107 14 65 92 43 117 194 9 44 74 95th Queue(ft) 161 184 191 40 129 163 72 178 367 71 87 141 Link Distance(ft) 190 190 190 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1 2 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 5 11 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 22 22 0 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 106 - Average Queue(ft) 45 95th Queue(ft) 83 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) - Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:51 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2028 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 2 Appendix K Turn Lane Warrants Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane Year 2028 Total Traffic Conditions 124 { 104 , FULL—WIDTH TURN LANE AND TAPER REQUIRED F Cr Q 2 80 LLJ cr7 J CU 2 LLi ............................ 60 TAPER REQUIRED C7 40 ¢` . 20 RADIREQUIRED - US .� NTC TURNtANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED � 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 PHV APPROACH TOTAL, VEHICLES PER HOUR FIGURE 3-26 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (t-LANE HIGHWAY) * - Weekday AM - Weekday PM - Saturday Midday Rest Church Road/Zachary Ann Lane Year 2028 Total Traffic Conditions 8 w-C"'ade.vmsign$Ilae�d Intergectlgrrs L=%Left Turns in lrax 5-5tora"Length ReclLilr" V=50 mph(design Speed} CL L=40% W 0 - - 400 Ilk - z 30-0 0 - � kq- S` r 0 . 1 } No Left-Tur4 Le 7e Required 0 200 400 6010 8.00 1000 VAADVANCING ANCING VOLUME (VPH) FIGURE 3-15 WARRANT FOR. LEFT TURIN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY • - Weekday AM - Weekday PM - Saturday Midday Appendix L Year 2034 Background Traffic Operational Worksheets HCM 6th TWSC Fruit Hill Property 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Background Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations T+ Traffic Vol,veh/h 146 1 27 62 1 112 Future Vol,veh/h 146 1 27 62 1 112 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 100 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 11 7 100 96 Mvmt Flow 162 1 30 69 1 124 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 163 0 292 163 Stage 1 - - - - 163 - Stage 2 - 129 - Critical Hdwy 4.21 7.4 7.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.299 4.4 4.164 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1363 534 686 Stage 1 - 675 - Stage 2 - 703 - _ Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1363 522 686 _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 522 - Stage 1 675 _ Stage 2 688 Approach EB WB NB _ HCM Control Delay,s 0 2.3 11.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 684 1363 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.184 0.022 HCM Control Delay(s) 11.4 7.7 _ HCM Lane LOS B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0.1 Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Background Page 1 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Background Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 388 447 152 239 146 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.80 0.09 0.77 0.43 Control Delay 13.4 45.3 11.0 49.3 9.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.4 45.3 11.0 49.3 9.8 Queue Length 50th(ft) 26 241 13 114 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 54 330 52 #215 46 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1032 667 1668 323 346 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.67 0.09 0.74 0.42 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Background Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034IIBackground --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 157 189 398 135 0 0 0 0 211 2 130 Future Volume(vph) 0 157 189 398 135 0 0 0 0 211 2 130 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3467 1787 2597 1725 1214 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3467 1787 2597 1725 1214 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 176 212 447 152 0 0 0 0 237 2 146 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 230 0 447 152 0 0 0 0 0 239 26 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 39% 36% 1% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 33% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.2 25.1 51.4 14.4 14.4 Effective Green, g(s) 20.2 25.1 51.4 14.4 14.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.31 0.64 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 875 560 1668 310 218 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.25 0.06 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.80 0.09 0.77 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 23.9 25.1 5.4 31.2 27.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.39 1.92 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 8.0 0.1 11.9 0.3 Delay(s) 24.7 43.0 10.5 43.1 27.8 Level of Service C D B D C Approach Delay(s) 24.7 34.8 0.0 37.3 Approach LOS C C A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Background Page 3 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Background t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 101 271 474 130 199 194 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.12 0.28 0.15 0.57 0.50 Control Delay 15.8 13.9 10.8 1.7 13.1 9.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 15.8 13.9 11.1 1.7 13.1 9.7 Queue Length 50th(ft) 34 47 76 0 7 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m54 m67 100 0 67 55 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 884 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 406 2290 1714 849 399 441 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 692 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.12 0.46 0.15 0.50 0.44 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Background Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034IIBackground --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 100 268 0 0 469 129 64 0 325 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 100 268 0 0 469 129 64 0 325 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1165 3438 3505 1568 1316 1490 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 mmqq Satd. Flow(perm) 483 3438 3505 1568 1316 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 101 271 0 0 474 130 65 0 328 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 156 165 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 101 271 0 0 474 61 0 43 29 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 55% 5% 0% 0% 3% 3% 59% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 53.3 53.3 37.5 37.5 11.8 11.8 Effective Green, g(s) 53.3 53.3 37.5 37.5 11.8 11.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.47 0.47 0.15 0.15 - Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 386 2290 1642 735 194 219 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.08 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.12 0.29 0.08 0.22 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 5.4 4.8 13.1 11.7 30.1 29.6 Progression Factor 2.61 2.65 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.2 0.6 Delay(s) 14.5 12.9 10.2 9.6 31.3 30.2 Level of Service B B B A C C Approach Delay(s) 13.3 10.0 30.7 = 0.0m Approach LOS B B C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.9% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Background Page 5 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Background --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 123 529 18 140 49 84 78 22 163 286 434 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.50 0.11 0.36 0.12 0.50 0.14 0.03 0.80 0.47 0.54 Control Delay 34.0 12.2 35.2 35.8 0.7 44.5 21.2 0.1 65.8 25.2 5.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.0 12.9 35.2 35.8 0.7 44.5 21.2 0.1 65.8 25.2 5.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 50 37 8 34 0 40 28 0 82 115 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 55 82 28 62 0 85 60 0 #189 188 63 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 1361 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 258 1052 162 392 394 171 576 658 203 610 811 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 227 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.64 0.11 0.36 0.12 0.49 0.14 0.03 0.80 0.47 0.54 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Background Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034Background --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 112 293 188 16 127 45 76 71 20 148 260 395 Future Volume(vph) 112 293 188 16 127 45 76 71 20 148 260 395 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 3198 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 3198 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 123 322 207 18 140 49 84 78 22 163 286 434 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 112 0 0 0 40 0 0 17 0 0 322 Lane Group Flow(vph) 123 417 0 18 140 9 84 78 5 163 286 112 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 0% 16% 0% 3% 0% 12% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 23.5 1.4 14.2 14.2 8.4 19.4 19.4 9.1 20.6 20.6 Effective Green, g(s) 10.7 23.5 1.4 14.2 14.2 8.4 19.4 19.4 9.1 20.6 20.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.29 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 232 939 31 622 286 169 451 391 203 484 411 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.13 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.04 c0.09 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.44 0.58 0.23 0.03 0.50 0.17 0.01 0.80 0.59 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 22.9 39.0 28.2 27.2 33.8 24.0 23.0 34.6 26.0 23.7 Progression Factor 0.81 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 0.5 36.4 0.4 0.1 3.1 0.8 0.1 21.0 5.2 1.6 Delay(s) 28.9 15.0 75.4 28.6 27.3 36.9 24.8 23.1 55.6 31.2 25.3 Level of Service C B E C C D C C E C C Approach Delay(s) 17.6 32.3 30.1 32.8 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Background Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2034 Background Weekday AM-2034 Background Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 140 101 210 327 110 5 250 84 _ Average Queue(ft) 58 43 89 207 40 0 121 40 95th Queue(ft) 120 84 161 300 92 5 207 74 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 504 504 504 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB _ Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 160 104 132 194 181 68 252 229 _ Average Queue(ft) 69 41 75 89 49 29 107 73 95th Queue(ft) 133 87 119 163 120 58 202 164 Link Distance(ft) 504 504 504 198 198 198 913 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2034 Background Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2034 Background Weekday AM-2034 Background Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 188 189 204 57 112 93 54 134 94 27 173 288 Average Queue(ft) 97 87 114 15 48 36 24 54 31 6 98 112 95th Queue(ft) 163 155 186 44 94 76 50 107 72 22 174 286 Link Distance(ft) 198 198 198 427 427 427 1388 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 2 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 7 1 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 162 Average Queue(ft) 60 95th Queue(ft) 123 Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 11 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2034 Background Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC Fruit Hill Property 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations T+ Traffic Vol,veh/h 159 0 5 174 2 77 Future Vol,veh/h 159 0 5 174 2 77 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 110 - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 0 100 1 0 82 Mvmt Flow 181 0 6 198 2 88 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 181 0 391 181 Stage 1 - - - - 181 - Stage 2 - 210 - Critical Hdwy 5.1 6.4 7.02 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 3.5 4.038 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 970 617 692 ' Stage 1 - 855 - Stage 2 - 830 - _ Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 970 613 692 _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 613 - Stage 1 855 _ Stage 2 825 Approach EB WB NB _ HCM Control Delay,s 0 0.2 11 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 690 970 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.13 0.006 HCM Control Delay(s) 11 8.7 _ HCM Lane LOS B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background Page 1 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 446 453 332 172 197 A Ratio 0.43 0.78 0.18 0.52 0.52 Control Delay 17.7 39.8 14.7 34.4 9.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.7 39.8 14.7 34.4 9.5 Queue Length 50th(ft) 42 244 61 80 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 69 #410 102 123 47 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1045 583 1844 479 460 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.43 0.78 0.18 0.36 0.43 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034Background --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 245 148 399 292 0 0 0 0 149 3 173 Future Volume(vph) 0 245 148 399 292 0 0 0 0 149 3 173 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4027 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4027 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 278 168 453 332 0 0 0 0 169 3 197 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 316 0 453 332 0 0 0 0 0 172 37 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.2 26.4 50.7 15.1 15.1 Effective Green, g(s) 18.2 26.4 50.7 15.1 15.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.33 0.63 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 916 584 1844 328 217 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.26 0.11 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.78 0.18 0.52 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 25.9 24.1 6.1 29.2 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.21 2.17 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 5.5 0.2 2.0 0.5 Delay(s) 26.9 34.7 13.3 31.2 27.7 Level of Service C C B C C Approach Delay(s) 26.9 25.6 0.0 29.3 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background Page 3 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 166 272 557 228 346 326 A Ratio 0.50 0.16 0.60 0.39 0.78 0.47 Control Delay 28.2 13.7 24.8 5.1 34.1 4.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 8.8 0.5 Total Delay 28.2 13.7 25.1 5.4 42.9 5.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 58 42 134 0 135 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 120 61 m190 m13 234 53 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 846 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 337 1732 935 582 508 757 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 72 68 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 127 149 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.49 0.16 0.65 0.44 0.91 0.54 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034IIBackground --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 149 245 0 0 501 205 190 2 413 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 149 245 0 0 501 205 190 2 413 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1312 1504 Flt Permitted 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 398 3471 3539 1568 1312 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 166 272 0 0 557 228 211 2 459 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 168 0 30 223 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 166 272 0 0 557 60 0 316 103 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.9 39.9 21.1 21.1 25.2 25.2 L Effective Green, g(s) 39.9 39.9 21.1 21.1 25.2 25.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.26 0.26 0.31 0.31 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 331 1731 933 413 413 473 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.08 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.04 0.24 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.16 0.60 0.15 0.76 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 12.5 10.9 25.7 22.5 24.7 20.1 Progression Factor 1.76 1.12 0.81 0.82 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.2 2.2 0.6 9.6 0.5 Delay(s) 23.5 12.4 23.2 19.2 34.3 20.6 Level of Service C B C B C C Approach Delay(s) 16.6 22.0 27.7 0.0m Approach LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background Page 5 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 458 290 26 280 157 197 461 13 88 203 326 A Ratio 1.30 0.31 0.16 0.55 0.29 0.81 1.14 0.02 0.47 0.59 0.57 Control Delay 184.0 12.7 36.2 36.1 1.4 60.3 118.6 0.1 42.8 37.6 7.6 Queue Delay 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Delay 185.1 12.7 36.2 36.5 1.4 61.1 118.6 0.1 42.8 37.6 7.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) -296 21 12 69 0 97 -273 0 42 94 0 ' Queue Length 95th(ft) #449 26 35 105 0 #198 #435 0 85 157 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 1358 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 351 929 162 511 535 244 406 580 188 346 570 Starvation Cap Reductn 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 34 0 4 0 0 0 0 9 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 1.44 0.31 0.16 0.59 0.29 0.82 1.14 0.02 0.47 0.59 0.58 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034Background --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 403 144 111 23 246 138 173 406 11 77 179 287 Future Volume(vph) 403 144 111 23 246 138 173 406 11 77 179 287 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3263 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3263 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 458 164 126 26 280 157 197 461 12 88 203 326 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 94 0 0 0 134 0 0 10 0 0 265 Lane Group Flow(vph) 458 196 0 26 280 23 197 461 3 88 203 61 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 20.5 7.2 11.8 11.8 11.3 17.3 17.3 8.4 14.9 14.9 Effective Green, g(s) 15.9 20.5 7.2 11.8 11.8 11.3 17.3 17.3 8.4 14.9 14.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.26 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 351 836 162 511 238 242 406 314 185 346 294 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.06 0.01 c0.08 c0.11 c0.25 0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 1.30 0.23 0.16 0.55 0.10 0.81 1.14 0.01 0.48 0.59 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 23.5 33.6 31.6 29.5 33.3 31.4 24.6 33.7 29.7 27.5 Progression Factor 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 155.1 0.7 1.0 2.1 0.4 19.4 87.0 0.0 2.6 3.9 0.7 Delay(s) 185.4 21.4 34.6 33.7 29.9 52.7 118.3 24.6 36.3 33.6 28.3 Level of Service F C C C C D F C D C C Approach Delay(s) 121.8 32.5 97.3 31.2 Approach LOS F C F C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 76.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Background Weekday PM-2034 Background Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 149 110 157 387 326 111 174 121 _ Average Queue(ft) 62 54 74 210 97 8 83 55 95th Queue(ft) 125 96 128 322 249 60 148 96 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 504 504 504 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 191 166 170 215 211 107 934 480 Average Queue(ft) 92 60 74 126 96 47 877 460 95th Queue(ft) 167 161 171 205 185 87 1082 566 Link Distance(ft) 504 504 504 198 198 198 875 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 0 0 77 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 1 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 71 4 Queuing Penalty(veh) 146 18 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Background Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Background Weekday PM-2034 Background Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 251 236 253 59 155 170 105 150 1187 280 109 172 Average Queue(ft) 217 201 168 19 69 84 53 138 853 47 47 84 95th Queue(ft) 240 252 281 50 129 147 91 180 1505 209 93 148 Link Distance(ft) 198 198 198 427 427 427 1385 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 64 30 16 16 Queuing Penalty(veh) 141 65 34 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 9 63 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 38 116 1 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 130 Average Queue(ft) 53 95th Queue(ft) 102 Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:560 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Background Page 2 Appendix M Year 2034 Background Traffic Conditions — Mitigation Scenario Operational Worksheets Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 446 453 332 172 197 A Ratio 0.37 0.80 0.17 0.63 0.57 Control Delay 16.8 38.1 4.0 42.5 12.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.8 38.1 4.0 42.5 12.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 41 181 19 81 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 71 212 m30 141 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1198 683 1935 283 352 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.37 0.66 0.17 0.61 0.56 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 245 148 399 292 0 0 0 0 149 3 173 Future Volume(vph) 0 245 148 399 292 0 0 0 0 149 3 173 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4027 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4027 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 278 168 453 332 0 0 0 0 169 3 197 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 323 0 453 332 0 0 0 0 0 172 31 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.4 25.7 53.2 12.6 12.6 Effective Green, g(s) 21.4 25.7 53.2 12.6 12.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.32 0.67 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1077 568 1935 274 181 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.26 0.11 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.80 0.17 0.63 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 23.3 24.8 5.1 31.5 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.19 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 6.7 0.2 5.0 0.6 Delay(s) 24.0 36.1 3.9 36.5 29.8 Level of Service C D A D C Approach Delay(s) 24.0 22.5 0.0 32.9 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 166 272 557 228 346 326 A Ratio 0.50 0.15 0.55 0.38 0.80 0.48 Control Delay 20.1 12.7 24.1 7.7 37.3 5.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.1 12.7 24.6 8.0 37.3 5.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 55 40 114 5 137 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m126 70 m169 m44 #271 55 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 333 1763 1005 608 475 727 i Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 152 92 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 58 0 0 0 5 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.50 0.16 0.65 0.44 0.73 0.45 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 149 245 0 0 501 205 190 2 413 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 149 245 0 0 501 205 190 2 413 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1312 1504 Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 417 3471 3539 1568 1312 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 166 272 0 0 557 228 211 2 459 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 163 0 30 226 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 166 272 0 0 557 65 0 316 100 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.6 40.6 22.7 22.7 24.5 24.5 L Effective Green, g(s) 40.6 40.6 22.7 22.7 24.5 24.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.31 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 330 1761 1004 444 401 460 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.08 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.04 0.24 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.15 0.55 0.15 0.79 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 12.0 10.5 24.4 21.4 25.4 20.6 Progression Factor 1.23 1.09 0.87 1.61 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.2 1.6 0.5 11.4 0.5 Delay(s) 16.3 11.7 22.9 35.0 36.7 21.1 Level of Service B B C C D C Approach Delay(s) 13.4 26.4 29.2 0.0m Approach LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-(IMitigation Strategy#1 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 252 496 26 280 157 197 461 13 88 203 326 A Ratio 0.84 0.78 0.14 0.81 0.42 0.75 0.82 0.02 0.50 0.43 0.51 Control Delay 48.7 17.7 35.0 54.6 4.7 51.7 40.2 0.1 44.5 29.0 6.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.7 17.7 35.0 54.6 4.7 52.5 40.2 0.1 44.5 29.0 6.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 115 21 12 73 0 95 214 0 43 87 0 Ad Queue Length 95th(ft) m#232 29 34 #131 12 #183 #357 0 86 145 57 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 _ Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 311 652 180 347 373 272 563 590 177 471 644' Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.81 0.76 0.14 0.81 0.42 0.75 0.82 0.02 0.50 0.43 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 403 144 111 23 246 138 173 406 11 77 179 287 Future Volume(vph) 403 144 111 23 246 138 173 406 11 77 179 287 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3169 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3169 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 458 164 126 26 280 157 197 461 12 88 203 326 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 0 141 0 0 9 0 0 243 Lane Group Flow(vph) 252 457 0 26 280 16 197 461 4 88 203 83 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.2 24.0 24.0 8.0 20.3 20.3 Effective Green, g(s) 15.0 15.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.2 24.0 24.0 8.0 20.3 20.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 301 594 180 347 161 262 564 436 177 472 401 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.14 0.01 c0.08 c0.11 c0.25 0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.77 0.14 0.81 0.10 0.75 0.82 0.01 0.50 0.43 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 31.3 30.9 32.9 35.2 32.7 32.5 26.0 19.7 34.1 25.0 23.5 Progression Factor 0.80 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 17.4 6.2 0.8 14.5 0.6 12.2 12.4 0.0 3.0 2.8 1.2 Delay(s) 42.6 15.1 33.6 49.7 33.3 44.7 38.4 19.7 37.1 27.9 _ 24.7 Level of Service D B C D C D D B D C C Approach Delay(s) 24.4 43.3 39.9 27.5 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Background - Mitigation Strategy #gVeekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 152 127 179 371 185 81 179 119 _ Average Queue(ft) 63 55 77 212 80 4 88 56 95th Queue(ft) 125 102 142 314 164 41 150 95 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 503 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 224 101 132 201 204 129 391 333 Average Queue(ft) 90 40 61 130 108 61 210 132 95th Queue(ft) 171 85 111 194 178 104 339 271 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 2 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Background - Mitigation Strategy #gVeekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 188 181 180 47 176 202 95 150 530 113 96 161 Average Queue(ft) 109 99 67 12 78 100 45 118 220 7 43 75 95th Queue(ft) 169 161 135 36 155 186 78 176 432 57 84 136 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 5 17 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 19 31 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 111 Average Queue(ft) 47 95th Queue(ft) 88 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) - Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:54 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 446 453 332 172 197 A Ratio 0.37 0.80 0.17 0.63 0.57 Control Delay 16.8 33.2 3.6 42.5 12.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.8 33.2 3.6 42.5 12.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 41 124 15 81 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 71 188 27 141 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1198 683 1935 283 352 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.37 0.66 0.17 0.61 0.56 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 245 148 399 292 0 0 0 0 149 3 173 Future Volume(vph) 0 245 148 399 292 0 0 0 0 149 3 173 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4027 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4027 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 278 168 453 332 0 0 0 0 169 3 197 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 323 0 453 332 0 0 0 0 0 172 31 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.4 25.7 53.2 12.6 12.6 Effective Green, g(s) 21.4 25.7 53.2 12.6 12.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.32 0.67 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1077 568 1935 274 181 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.26 0.11 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.80 0.17 0.63 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 23.3 24.8 5.1 31.5 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 0.96 0.67 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 7.2 0.2 5.0 0.6 Delay(s) 24.0 31.0 3.5 36.5 29.8 Level of Service C C A D C Approach Delay(s) 24.0 19.4 0.0 32.9 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 --1. -4- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 166 272 557 228 211 232 229 A Ratio 0.44 0.14 0.50 0.35 0.65 0.42 0.41 Control Delay 13.8 9.3 20.6 7.2 35.4 5.8 5.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.8 9.3 21.1 7.5 35.4 5.8 5.7 Queue Length 50th(ft) 46 38 105 5 91 1 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m83 63 m148 m37 156 51 50 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 480 Base Capacity(vph) 397 1936 1124 653 388 617 616 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 218 126 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 52 0 0 0 3 3 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.42 0.14 0.61 0.43 0.54 0.38 0.37 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 149 245 0 0 501 205 190 2 413 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 149 245 0 0 501 205 190 2 413 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1280 1507 1504 Flt Permitted 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 447 3471 3539 1568 1280 1507 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 166 272 0 0 557 228 211 2 459 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 171 170 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 166 272 0 0 557 72 211 61 59 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.6 44.6 25.4 25.4 20.5 20.5 20.5 L Effective Green, g(s) 44.6 44.6 25.4 25.4 20.5 20.5 20.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.32 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.26 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 380 1935 1123 497 328 386 385 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.08 c0.16 c0.16 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.05 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.14 0.50 0.15 0.64 0.16 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 9.8 8.5 22.1 19.5 26.5 23.1 23.0 Progression Factor 1.03 0.97 0.81 1.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 1.2 0.5 5.8 0.4 0.4 Delay(s) 11.1 8.4 19.2 30.8 32.3 23.5 23.4 Level of Service B A B C C C C Approach Delay(s) 9.4 22.6 26.2 0.0m Approach LOS A C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.1% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-(IMitigation Strategy#2 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 252 496 26 280 157 197 461 13 88 203 326 A Ratio 0.84 0.78 0.14 0.81 0.42 0.75 0.82 0.02 0.50 0.43 0.51 Control Delay 50.2 19.7 35.0 54.6 4.7 51.7 40.2 0.1 44.5 29.0 6.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 50.2 19.7 35.0 54.6 4.7 52.5 40.2 0.1 44.5 29.0 6.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 104 23 12 73 0 95 214 0 43 87 0 Ad Queue Length 95th(ft) #236 48 34 #131 12 #183 #357 0 86 145 57 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 _ Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 311 652 180 347 373 272 563 590 177 471 644' Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.81 0.76 0.14 0.81 0.42 0.75 0.82 0.02 0.50 0.43 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 403 144 111 23 246 138 173 406 11 77 179 287 Future Volume(vph) 403 144 111 23 246 138 173 406 11 77 179 287 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3169 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3169 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 458 164 126 26 280 157 197 461 12 88 203 326 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 0 141 0 0 9 0 0 243 Lane Group Flow(vph) 252 457 0 26 280 16 197 461 4 88 203 83 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.2 24.0 24.0 8.0 20.3 20.3 Effective Green, g(s) 15.0 15.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.2 24.0 24.0 8.0 20.3 20.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 301 594 180 347 161 262 564 436 177 472 401 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.14 0.01 c0.08 c0.11 c0.25 0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.77 0.14 0.81 0.10 0.75 0.82 0.01 0.50 0.43 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 31.3 30.9 32.9 35.2 32.7 32.5 26.0 19.7 34.1 25.0 23.5 Progression Factor 0.83 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.1 6.3 0.8 14.5 0.6 12.2 12.4 0.0 3.0 2.8 1.2 Delay(s) 44.0 17.4 33.6 49.7 33.3 44.7 38.4 19.7 37.1 27.9 _ 24.7 Level of Service D B C D C D D B D C C Approach Delay(s) 26.3 43.3 39.9 27.5 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Background - Mitigation Strategy #2leekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 161 132 162 362 201 112 169 121 _ Average Queue(ft) 69 58 84 214 87 5 89 56 95th Queue(ft) 133 105 151 326 179 47 147 98 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 496 496 496 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R L TR R Maximum Queue(ft) 198 105 134 187 206 114 260 167 137 Average Queue(ft) 83 35 61 114 97 57 129 67 38 95th Queue(ft) 160 81 111 180 173 98 222 122 87 Link Distance(ft) 496 496 496 190 190 190 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 300 480 - Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Background - Mitigation Strategy #2leekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 202 192 168 57 165 212 107 150 522 113 110 152 Average Queue(ft) 123 107 75 12 72 100 44 119 224 8 43 72 95th Queue(ft) 189 174 141 38 133 183 74 179 441 64 86 132 Link Distance(ft) 190 190 190 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 2 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 5 17 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 21 31 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB - Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 135 Average Queue(ft) 50 95th Queue(ft) 94 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 - Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:56 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 446 453 332 172 197 A Ratio 0.37 0.80 0.17 0.63 0.57 Control Delay 16.8 42.6 7.8 42.5 12.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.8 42.6 7.8 42.5 12.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 41 252 12 81 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 71 336 85 141 54 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1198 683 1935 283 352 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.37 0.66 0.17 0.61 0.56 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t' tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 245 148 399 292 0 0 0 0 149 3 173 Future Volume(vph) 0 245 148 399 292 0 0 0 0 149 3 173 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 4027 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 4027 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 278 168 453 332 0 0 0 0 169 3 197 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 323 0 453 332 0 0 0 0 0 172 31 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.4 25.7 53.2 12.6 12.6 Effective Green, g(s) 21.4 25.7 53.2 12.6 12.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.32 0.67 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1077 568 1935 274 181 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.26 0.11 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.80 0.17 0.63 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 23.3 24.8 5.1 31.5 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.32 1.47 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 7.6 0.2 5.0 0.6 Delay(s) 24.0 40.4 7.6 36.5 29.8 Level of Service C D A D C Approach Delay(s) 24.0 26.5 0.0 32.9 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 --1. .4--- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 166 272 557 228 105 108 459 A Ratio 0.40 0.13 0.43 0.32 0.41 0.42 0.66 Control Delay 18.7 9.8 21.4 7.6 30.5 30.6 7.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.7 9.8 22.2 8.2 30.5 30.6 7.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 46 38 100 5 48 49 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m111 58 m182 m37 86 89 66 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 480 Base Capacity(vph) 435 2090 1286 715 354 357 786 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 434 213 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 28 0 0 0 0 9 - Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.38 0.13 0.65 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.59 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 149 245 0 0 501 205 190 2 413 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 149 245 0 0 501 205 190 2 413 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1216 1227 1583 Flt Permitted 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 qW Satd. Flow(perm) 480 3471 3539 1568 1216 1227 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 166 272 0 0 557 228 211 2 459 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 145 0 0 362 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 166 272 0 0 557 83 105 108 97 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 48.2 48.2 29.1 29.1 16.9 16.9 16.9 Effective Green, g(s) 48.2 48.2 29.1 29.1 16.9 16.9 16.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.36 0.36 0.21 0.21 0.21 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 414 2091 1287 570 256 259 334 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.08 0.16 0.09 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.05 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.13 0.43 0.15 0.41 0.42 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 8.0 6.9 19.2 17.1 27.2 27.3 26.5 Progression Factor 1.85 1.23 0.97 1.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.4 2.2 2.3 1.0 Delay(s) 15.6 8.5 19.5 31.3 29.5 29.6 27.5 Level of Service B A B C C C C Approach Delay(s) 11.2 22.9 28.2 0.0m Approach LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-(IMitigation Strategy#3 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 252 496 26 280 157 197 461 13 88 203 326 A Ratio 0.84 0.78 0.14 0.81 0.42 0.75 0.82 0.02 0.50 0.43 0.51 Control Delay 51.1 32.2 35.0 54.6 4.7 51.7 40.2 0.1 44.5 29.0 6.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.1 32.2 35.0 54.6 4.7 54.6 40.2 0.1 44.5 29.0 6.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 115 68 12 73 0 95 214 0 43 87 0 Ad Queue Length 95th(ft) #220 128 34 #131 12 #183 #357 0 86 145 57 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 _ Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 311 652 180 347 373 272 563 590 177 471 644 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.81 0.76 0.14 0.81 0.42 0.80 0.82 0.02 0.50 0.43 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 --I. .4- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 403 144 111 23 246 138 173 406 11 77 179 287 Future Volume(vph) 403 144 111 23 246 138 173 406 11 77 179 287 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3169 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3169 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 458 164 126 26 280 157 197 461 12 88 203 326 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 0 141 0 0 9 0 0 243 Lane Group Flow(vph) 252 457 0 26 280 16 197 461 4 88 203 83 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.2 24.0 24.0 8.0 20.3 20.3 Effective Green, g(s) 15.0 15.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 12.2 24.0 24.0 8.0 20.3 20.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 301 594 180 347 161 262 564 436 177 472 401 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.14 0.01 c0.08 c0.11 c0.25 0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.77 0.14 0.81 0.10 0.75 0.82 0.01 0.50 0.43 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 31.3 30.9 32.9 35.2 32.7 32.5 26.0 19.7 34.1 25.0 23.5 Progression Factor 0.90 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 17.0 6.3 0.8 14.5 0.6 12.2 12.4 0.0 3.0 2.8 1.2 Delay(s) 45.2 31.4 33.6 49.7 33.3 44.7 38.4 19.7 37.1 27.9 _ 24.7 Level of Service D C C D C D D B D C C Approach Delay(s) 36.0 43.3 39.9 27.5 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Background - Mitigation Strategy #31eekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 144 116 167 356 158 29 189 123 _ Average Queue(ft) 64 55 78 196 55 1 85 57 95th Queue(ft) 128 99 137 303 122 18 148 97 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 496 496 496 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB _ Directions Served L T T T T R L LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 195 77 93 199 189 111 135 202 193 _ Average Queue(ft) 85 33 42 111 92 54 49 92 81 95th Queue(ft) 157 66 82 175 158 96 102 172 146 Link Distance(ft) 496 496 496 190 190 190 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 300 480 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Background - Mitigation Strategy #31eekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 183 212 228 49 172 197 89 150 569 182 99 158 Average Queue(ft) 119 149 135 12 70 98 44 114 239 12 45 77 95th Queue(ft) 183 205 226 36 138 181 75 179 521 89 85 140 Link Distance(ft) 190 190 190 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 2 3 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 4 7 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 6 17 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 25 32 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 108 Average Queue(ft) 48 95th Queue(ft) 88 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:68 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Background-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 2 Appendix N Year 2034 Total Traffic Operational Worksheets HCM 6th TWSC Fruit Hill Property 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 8.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations T+ + r Traffic Vol,veh/h 144 21 352 60 11 240 Future Vol,veh/h 144 21 352 60 11 240 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 200 - 200 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 11 7 100 96 Mvmt Flow 160 23 391 67 12 267 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 183 0 1021 172 Stage 1 - - - - 172 - Stage 2 - 849 - Critical Hdwy 4.21 7.4 7.16 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.299 4.4 4.164 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1340 176 677 Stage 1 - 668 - Stage 2 - 291 - _ Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1340 125 677 _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 125 - Stage 1 668 _ Stage 2 206 Approach EB WB NB _ HCM Control Delay,s 0 7.5 14.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 125 677 1340 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.098 0.394 0.292 HCM Control Delay(s) 36.9 13.7 8.8 _ HCM Lane LOS E B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 1.9 1.2 Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total Page 1 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 531 447 344 239 317 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.80 0.21 0.77 0.66 Control Delay 14.5 39.0 12.0 49.3 11.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.5 39.0 12.0 49.3 11.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 38 224 56 114 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 73 m308 m84 #215 71 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1085 667 1668 323 485 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.67 0.21 0.74 0.65 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. - Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AMII-2034 Total --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 223 249 398 306 0 0 0 0 211 2 282 Future Volume(vph) 0 223 249 398 306 0 0 0 0 211 2 282 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3476 1787 2597 1725 1214 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3476 1787 2597 1725 1214 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 251 280 447 344 0 0 0 0 237 2 317 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 322 0 447 344 0 0 0 0 0 239 57 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 39% 36% 1% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 33% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.2 25.1 51.4 14.4 14.4 Effective Green, g(s) 20.2 25.1 51.4 14.4 14.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.31 0.64 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 877 560 1668 310 218 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.25 0.13 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.80 0.21 0.77 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 24.6 25.1 5.9 31.2 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.16 1.92 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 7.6 0.3 11.9 0.9 Delay(s) 25.8 36.8 11.6 43.1 29.1 Level of Service C D B D C Approach Delay(s) 25.8 25.8 0.0 35.1 Approach LOS C C A D Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total Page 3 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 161 278 493 130 284 262 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.13 0.34 0.17 0.81 0.55 Control Delay 17.5 13.1 13.3 2.0 31.8 8.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.5 13.1 13.8 2.0 31.8 8.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 50 44 87 0 47 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m75 m61 102 0 #181 64 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 384 2205 1469 751 367 496 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 551 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.13 0.54 0.17 0.77 0.53 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AMII-2034 Total --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 275 0 0 488 129 216 0 325 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 159 275 0 0 488 129 216 0 325 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1165 3438 3505 1568 1149 1490 Flt Permitted 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 mmqq Satd. Flow(perm) 465 3438 3505 1568 1149 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 161 278 0 0 493 130 218 0 328 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 151 217 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 161 278 0 0 493 54 0 133 45 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 55% 5% 0% 0% 3% 3% 59% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.3 51.3 33.5 33.5 13.8 13.8 Effective Green, g(s) 51.3 51.3 33.5 33.5 13.8 13.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.17 - Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 - Lane Grp Cap(vph) 382 2204 1467 656 198 257 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.08 0.14 - v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.03 0.12 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.13 0.34 0.08 0.67 0.18 - Uniform Delay, d1 6.6 5.6 15.7 14.0 31.0 28.2 Progression Factor 2.24 2.20 0.78 0.92 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.2 10.8 0.7 Delay(s) 15.5 12.4 12.9 13.0 41.8 28.9 Level of Service B B B B D C Approach Delay(s) 13.5 12.9 35.6 0.0 Approach LOS B B D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total Page 5 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 127 532 18 140 49 93 78 22 163 286 445 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.50 0.11 0.36 0.12 0.54 0.14 0.03 0.81 0.47 0.55 Control Delay 34.5 13.5 35.2 35.9 0.7 46.9 21.2 0.1 66.4 25.3 5.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _ Total Delay 34.5 14.3 35.2 35.9 0.7 46.9 21.2 0.1 66.4 25.3 5.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 50 43 8 34 0 45 28 0 82 115 Queue Length 95th(ft) m59 m81 28 62 0 #100 60 0 #189 188 63 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 258 1056 162 391 393 173 576 657 202 606 816 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.66 0.11 0.36 0.12 0.54 0.14 0.03 0.81 0.47 0.55 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AMII-2034 Total --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 116 293 191 16 127 45 85 71 20 148 260 405 Future Volume(vph) 116 293 191 16 127 45 85 71 20 148 260 405 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1736 3194 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1736 3194 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 127 322 210 18 140 49 93 78 22 163 286 445 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 114 0 0 0 40 0 0 17 0 0 332 Lane Group Flow(vph) 127 418 0 18 140 9 93 78 5 163 286 113 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 0% 16% 0% 3% 0% 12% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.8 23.6 1.4 14.2 14.2 8.5 19.3 19.3 9.1 20.4 20.4 Effective Green, g(s) 10.8 23.6 1.4 14.2 14.2 8.5 19.3 19.3 9.1 20.4 20.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.30 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 234 942 31 622 286 171 449 389 203 479 407 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.13 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.04 c0.09 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.44 0.58 0.23 0.03 0.54 0.17 0.01 0.80 0.60 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 22.9 39.0 28.2 27.2 33.9 24.0 23.1 34.6 26.2 23.9 Progression Factor 0.83 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 0.4 36.4 0.4 0.1 4.4 0.8 0.1 21.0 5.4 1.7 Delay(s) 29.6 16.9 75.4 28.6 27.3 38.3 24.9 23.2 55.6 31.6 25.6 Level of Service C B E C C D C C E C C Approach Delay(s) 19.4 32.3 31.1 33.0 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2034 Total Weekday AM-2034 Total Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB B14 WB WB WB SB SB A Directions Served T T TR T L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 207 131 240 16 324 184 71 232 191 _ Average Queue(ft) 89 56 114 1 200 76 4 121 71 95th Queue(ft) 177 106 196 16 298 148 33 205 124 Link Distance(ft) 227 227 227 408 503 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB _ Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 228 92 129 184 169 73 607 468 _ Average Queue(ft) 103 36 66 91 66 33 346 258 95th Queue(ft) 188 76 111 159 133 62 579 462 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 2 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 5 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 8 1 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2034 Total Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2034 Total Weekday AM-2034 Total Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 171 197 213 54 92 110 50 131 111 26 167 232 Average Queue(ft) 94 99 124 15 43 45 23 59 29 5 86 94 95th Queue(ft) 153 175 200 42 83 88 48 113 79 20 154 185 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 427 427 427 945 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 2 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1 3 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 1 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 4 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 157 Average Queue(ft) 60 95th Queue(ft) 116 Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 18 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2034 Total Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC Fruit Hill Property 1: Zachary Ann Ln & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 10.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations "+ I + r Traffic Vol,veh/h 157 11 158 172 21 393 Future Vol,veh/h 157 11 158 172 21 393 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 200 - 200 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 0 100 1 0 82 Mvmt Flow 178 13 180 195 24 447 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 191 0 740 185 Stage 1 - - - - 185 - Stage 2 - 555 - Critical Hdwy 5.1 6.4 7.02 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 3.5 4.038 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 961 387 688 ' Stage 1 - 852 - Stage 2 - 579 - _ Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 961 315 688 _ Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 315 - Stage 1 852 _ Stage 2 471 Approach EB WB NB _ HCM Control Delay,s 0 4.6 19.3 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 315 688 961 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.076 0.649 0.187 HCM Control Delay(s) 17.4 19.4 9.6 _ HCM Lane LOS C C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 4.8 0.7 Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total Page 1 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total --11� AF-- Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 804 453 423 172 277 A Ratio 0.75 0.79 0.23 0.51 0.62 Control Delay 26.3 35.4 16.5 33.7 10.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.3 35.4 16.5 33.7 10.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 102 240 77 78 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 142 m#395 m120 121 55 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1068 576 1832 479 518 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.75 0.79 0.23 0.36 0.53 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. - Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PMII-2034 Total --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 410 297 399 372 0 0 0 0 149 3 244 Future Volume(vph) 0 410 297 399 372 0 0 0 0 149 3 244 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 466 338 453 423 0 0 0 0 169 3 277 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 642 0 453 423 0 0 0 0 0 172 53 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.2 26.1 50.4 15.4 15.4 Effective Green, g(s) 18.2 26.1 50.4 15.4 15.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.33 0.63 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 905 577 1833 335 222 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.26 0.15 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.79 0.23 0.51 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 24.4 6.4 28.9 27.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.05 2.29 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 4.7 0.2 1.8 0.8 Delay(s) 33.1 30.4 14.8 30.7 28.1 Level of Service C C B C C Approach Delay(s) 33.1 22.9 0.0 29.1 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total Page 3 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 331 290 566 228 394 358 A Ratio 1.05 0.18 0.76 0.45 0.86 0.47 Control Delay 93.7 16.4 30.5 6.1 42.3 4.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.4 53.4 0.6 Total Delay 93.7 16.4 32.3 6.5 95.7 5.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) —180 41 137 0 173 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m#281 m70 m191 m14 #337 55 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 836 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 316 1621 743 509 484 777 i Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 71 68 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 130 157 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 1.05 0.18 0.84 0.52 1.11 0.58 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PMII-2034 Total --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 298 261 0 0 509 205 262 2 413 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 298 261 0 0 509 205 262 2 413 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1280 1504 Flt Permitted 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 323 3471 3539 1568 1280 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 331 290 0 0 566 228 291 2 459 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 16 234 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 331 290 0 0 566 48 0 378 124 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 37.4 37.4 16.8 16.8 27.7 27.7 Effective Green, g(s) 37.4 37.4 16.8 16.8 27.7 27.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.21 0.21 0.35 0.35 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 317 1622 743 329 443 520 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.08 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 0.03 0.30 0.08 v/c Ratio 1.04 0.18 0.76 0.15 0.85 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 16.7 12.4 29.7 25.8 24.3 18.6 Progression Factor 2.25 1.24 0.81 0.89 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 56.0 0.2 5.7 0.7 16.0 0.5 Delay(s) 93.5 15.6 29.9 23.6 40.3 19.1 Level of Service F B C C D B Approach Delay(s) 57.1 28.1 30.2 0.0m Approach LOS E C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total Page 5 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 467 299 26 280 157 202 461 13 88 203 330 A Ratio 1.33 0.24 0.16 0.55 0.29 0.83 0.95 0.02 0.47 0.59 0.58 Control Delay 195.5 10.9 36.2 36.1 1.4 62.2 65.4 0.1 42.8 37.8 7.8 Queue Delay 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Delay 196.6 10.9 36.2 36.5 1.4 63.1 65.4 0.1 42.8 37.8 7.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) -306 14 12 69 0 100 -273 0 42 94 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m#450 m15 35 105 0 #204 #435 0 85 157 56 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 1365 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 351 1261 162 511 535 244 484 626 188 344 569 Starvation Cap Reductn 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 37 0 4 0 0 0 0 9 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 1.46 0.24 0.16 0.59 0.29 0.84 0.95 0.02 0.47 0.59 0.59 Intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PMII-2034 Total --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 411 144 119 23 246 138 178 406 11 77 179 290 Future Volume(vph) 411 144 119 23 246 138 178 406 11 77 179 290 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3253 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3253 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 467 164 135 26 280 157 202 461 12 88 203 330 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 96 0 0 0 126 0 0 10 0 0 262 Lane Group Flow(vph) 467 203 0 26 280 31 202 461 3 88 203 68 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.1 23.1 2.9 15.9 15.9 11.4 20.6 20.6 6.8 16.5 16.5 Effective Green, g(s) 10.1 23.1 2.9 15.9 15.9 11.4 20.6 20.6 6.8 16.5 16.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.29 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 7.1 5.5 6.8 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 223 939 65 689 320 244 484 374 150 384 326 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.06 0.01 c0.08 c0.12 c0.25 0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 2.09 0.22 0.40 0.41 0.10 0.83 0.95 0.01 0.59 0.53 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 35.0 21.6 37.7 27.9 26.2 33.3 29.2 22.1 35.2 28.3 26.3 Progression Factor 1.02 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 506.1 0.5 8.2 0.8 0.3 20.9 29.7 0.0 6.8 2.5 0.7 Delay(s) 541.8 20.5 45.9 28.8 26.5 54.2 58.9 22.1 42.0 30.8 27.0 Level of Service F C D C C D E C D C C Approach Delay(s) 338.3 28.9 56.8 30.4 Approach LOS F C E C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 130.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 26.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Total Weekday PM-2034 Total Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB B14 B14 WB WB WB SB SB A Directions Served T T TR T T L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 237 186 249 4 8 347 470 166 175 167 _ Average Queue(ft) 124 84 134 0 0 203 142 16 84 72 95th Queue(ft) 210 150 215 4 8 315 303 92 150 124 Link Distance(ft) 227 227 227 396 396 504 504 504 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 376 226 240 229 216 132 928 480 Average Queue(ft) 205 69 79 152 132 51 884 456 95th Queue(ft) 338 183 191 231 220 93 1027 590 Link Distance(ft) 504 504 504 198 198 198 865 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 3 1 0 77 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 71 4 Queuing Penalty(veh) 146 19 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Total Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Total Weekday PM-2034 Total Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 247 242 251 58 189 201 115 150 1017 254 115 170 Average Queue(ft) 217 198 163 19 79 95 55 136 547 22 48 83 95th Queue(ft) 243 256 279 49 155 171 98 180 1172 134 94 146 Link Distance(ft) 198 198 198 427 427 427 1393 980 Upstream Blk Time(%) 61 27 12 4 Queuing Penalty(veh) 137 60 27 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 15 40 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 65 77 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 146 - Average Queue(ft) 60 95th Queue(ft) 112 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) - Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:543 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Total Page 2 Appendix O Year 2034 Total Traffic Conditions — Mitigation Scenario Operational Worksheets Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 531 447 344 239 317 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.83 0.21 0.71 0.64 Control Delay 14.6 53.5 5.7 42.0 10.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.6 53.5 5.7 42.0 10.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 39 238 23 110 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 72 #335 55 183 68 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1070 600 1625 366 507 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.74 0.21 0.65 0.63 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 223 249 398 306 0 0 0 0 211 2 282 Future Volume(vph) 0 223 249 398 306 0 0 0 0 211 2 282 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3476 1787 2597 1725 1214 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3476 1787 2597 1725 1214 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 251 280 447 344 0 0 0 0 237 2 317 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 320 0 447 344 0 0 0 0 0 239 62 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 39% 36% 1% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 33% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.8 24.2 50.1 15.7 15.7 Effective Green, g(s) 19.8 24.2 50.1 15.7 15.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.30 0.63 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 860 540 1626 338 238 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.25 0.13 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.83 0.21 0.71 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 25.0 26.0 6.4 30.0 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.57 0.79 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 9.9 0.3 7.1 0.8 Delay(s) 26.2 50.7 5.4 37.1 28.0 Level of Service C D A D C Approach Delay(s) 26.2 31.0 0.0 31.9 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 161 278 493 130 284 262 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.13 0.40 0.20 0.73 0.50 Control Delay 19.9 13.3 23.8 6.3 21.5 6.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 19.9 13.3 24.3 6.3 21.5 6.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 66 55 93 0 46 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m128 103 170 m9 125 53 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 389 2060 1231 655 476 635 i Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 360 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.13 0.57 0.20 0.60 0.41 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 275 0 0 488 129 216 0 325 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 159 275 0 0 488 129 216 0 325 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1165 3438 3505 1568 1149 1490 Flt Permitted 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 mmqq Satd. Flow(perm) 439 3438 3505 1568 1149 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 161 278 0 0 493 130 218 0 328 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 144 206 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 161 278 0 0 493 46 0 140 56 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 55% 5% 0% 0% 3% 3% 59% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 48.0 48.0 28.1 28.1 17.1 17.1 Effective Green, g(s) 48.0 48.0 28.1 28.1 17.1 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.35 0.35 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 369 2062 1231 550 245 318 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.08 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.03 0.12 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.13 0.40 0.08 0.57 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 8.1 7.0 19.6 17.3 28.2 25.7 Progression Factor 1.80 1.60 1.04 2.05 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.3 5.1 0.6 Delay(s) 15.5 11.3 21.3 35.9 33.2 26.3 Level of Service B B C D C C Approach Delay(s) 12.8 24.3 29.9 = 0.0m Approach LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-(IMitigation Strategy#1 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 114 545 18 140 49 93 78 22 163 286 445 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.78 0.10 0.40 0.14 0.51 0.18 0.04 0.58 0.53 0.57 Control Delay 29.4 19.6 34.2 37.5 0.8 43.7 27.7 0.1 39.5 28.9 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.4 19.6 34.2 37.5 0.8 44.1 27.7 0.1 39.5 28.9 5.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 51 36 8 35 0 44 32 0 75 123 0 Ed Queue Length 95th(ft) m96 53 28 63 0 90 70 0 133 200 68 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 325 737 180 350 361 189 440 541 328 539 775' Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.74 0.10 0.40 0.14 0.52 0.18 0.04 0.50 0.53 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 116 293 191 16 127 45 85 71 20 148 260 405 Future Volume(vph) 116 293 191 16 127 45 85 71 20 148 260 405 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1579 3063 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1579 3063 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 127 322 210 18 140 49 93 78 22 163 286 445 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 108 0 0 0 44 0 0 17 0 0 318 Lane Group Flow(vph) 114 437 0 18 140 5 93 78 5 163 286 127 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 0% 16% 0% 3% 0% 12% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.1 18.9 18.9 12.6 22.9 22.9 Effective Green, g(s) 15.5 15.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.1 18.9 18.9 12.6 22.9 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 305 593 180 350 161 183 440 381 281 538 457 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.14 0.01 c0.04 0.06 0.04 c0.09 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.74 0.10 0.40 0.03 0.51 0.18 0.01 0.58 0.53 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 30.3 32.7 33.8 32.5 33.3 24.4 23.4 31.2 24.0 22.1 Progression Factor 0.93 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 5.0 0.5 1.6 0.2 3.0 0.9 0.1 3.6 3.7 1.5 Delay(s) 27.1 20.1 33.2 35.3 32.7 36.4 25.2 23.5 34.8 27.8 23.7 Level of Service C C C D C D C C C C C Approach Delay(s) 21.3 34.5 30.4 27.0 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#1 Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 186 137 232 341 245 88 226 164 _ Average Queue(ft) 83 53 113 206 78 6 114 72 95th Queue(ft) 162 102 190 303 172 44 191 127 Link Distance(ft) 227 227 227 503 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 263 118 139 203 206 91 463 382 Average Queue(ft) 131 43 74 126 105 41 239 154 95th Queue(ft) 236 91 122 193 191 74 394 317 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 1 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 1 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#1 Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 171 185 208 34 103 104 48 136 142 24 171 203 Average Queue(ft) 65 92 113 10 38 42 24 60 34 6 79 102 95th Queue(ft) 132 158 186 30 81 89 47 116 95 20 140 174 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 JL 0 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 140 Average Queue(ft) 58 95th Queue(ft) 110 Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:6 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 531 447 344 239 317 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.83 0.21 0.71 0.64 Control Delay 14.6 46.5 9.0 42.0 10.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.6 46.5 9.0 42.0 10.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 39 245 32 110 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 72 #337 77 183 68 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1070 600 1625 366 507 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.74 0.21 0.65 0.63 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 223 249 398 306 0 0 0 0 211 2 282 Future Volume(vph) 0 223 249 398 306 0 0 0 0 211 2 282 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3476 1787 2597 1725 1214 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3476 1787 2597 1725 1214 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 251 280 447 344 0 0 0 0 237 2 317 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 320 0 447 344 0 0 0 0 0 239 62 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 39% 36% 1% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 33% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.8 24.2 50.1 15.7 15.7 Effective Green, g(s) 19.8 24.2 50.1 15.7 15.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.30 0.63 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 860 540 1626 338 238 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.25 0.13 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.83 0.21 0.71 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 25.0 26.0 6.4 30.0 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.31 1.28 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 9.6 0.3 7.1 0.8 Delay(s) 26.2 43.7 8.5 37.1 28.0 Level of Service C D A D C Approach Delay(s) 26.2 28.4 0.0 31.9 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 --1. .4--- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 161 278 493 130 218 164 164 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.15 0.47 0.22 0.72 0.21 0.21 Control Delay 23.1 14.4 26.0 5.5 39.7 0.6 0.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.1 14.4 26.4 5.5 39.7 0.6 0.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 60 52 123 0 95 0 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m118 90 166 m0 166 0 0 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 480 Base Capacity(vph) 343 1875 1048 582 358 834 834 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 177 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.15 0.57 0.22 0.61 0.20 0.20 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 275 0 0 488 129 216 0 325 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 159 275 0 0 488 129 216 0 325 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1165 3438 3505 1568 1135 1490 1490 Flt Permitted 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 mmqq Satd. Flow(perm) 408 3438 3505 1568 1135 1490 1490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 161 278 0 0 493 130 218 0 328 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 120 120 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 161 278 0 0 493 39 218 44 44 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 55% 5% 0% 0% 3% 3% 59% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.6 43.6 23.9 23.9 21.5 21.5 21.5 Effective Green, g(s) 43.6 43.6 23.9 23.9 21.5 21.5 21.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 331 1873 1047 468 305 400 400 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.08 0.14 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.02 c0.19 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.15 0.47 0.08 0.71 0.11 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 10.4 9.0 22.9 20.2 26.5 22.0 22.0 Progression Factor 1.69 1.43 1.00 1.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.3 9.5 0.3 0.3 Delay(s) 18.8 13.0 24.2 34.9 36.0 22.3 22.3 Level of Service B B C C D C C Approach Delay(s) 15.1 26.4 27.8 0.0m Approach LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.1% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-(IMitigation Strategy#2 --1. .4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 114 545 18 140 49 93 78 22 163 286 445 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.78 0.10 0.40 0.14 0.51 0.18 0.04 0.58 0.53 0.57 Control Delay 31.3 32.4 34.2 37.5 0.8 43.7 27.7 0.1 39.5 28.9 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 31.3 32.4 34.2 37.5 0.8 43.7 27.7 0.1 39.5 28.9 5.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 50 67 8 35 0 44 32 0 75 123 0 Ed Queue Length 95th(ft) 89 119 28 63 0 90 70 0 133 200 68 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 325 737 180 350 361 189 440 541 328 539 775' Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.74 0.10 0.40 0.14 0.49 0.18 0.04 0.50 0.53 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 116 293 191 16 127 45 85 71 20 148 260 405 Future Volume(vph) 116 293 191 16 127 45 85 71 20 148 260 405 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1579 3063 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1579 3063 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 127 322 210 18 140 49 93 78 22 163 286 445 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 108 0 0 0 44 0 0 17 0 0 318 Lane Group Flow(vph) 114 437 0 18 140 5 93 78 5 163 286 127 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 0% 16% 0% 3% 0% 12% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.1 18.9 18.9 12.6 22.9 22.9 Effective Green, g(s) 15.5 15.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.1 18.9 18.9 12.6 22.9 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 305 593 180 350 161 183 440 381 281 538 457 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.14 0.01 c0.04 0.06 0.04 c0.09 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.74 0.10 0.40 0.03 0.51 0.18 0.01 0.58 0.53 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 30.3 32.7 33.8 32.5 33.3 24.4 23.4 31.2 24.0 22.1 Progression Factor 0.99 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 5.0 0.5 1.6 0.2 3.0 0.9 0.1 3.6 3.7 1.5 Delay(s) 28.9 36.9 33.2 35.3 32.7 36.4 25.2 23.5 34.8 27.8 23.7 Level of Service C D C D C D C C C C C Approach Delay(s) 35.5 34.5 30.4 27.0 Approach LOS D C C C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#2 Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 214 164 241 332 228 114 222 160 _ Average Queue(ft) 92 54 113 205 74 7 116 74 95th Queue(ft) 177 110 194 299 170 50 189 127 Link Distance(ft) 227 227 227 496 496 496 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB _ Directions Served L T T T T R L TR R Maximum Queue(ft) 269 118 139 210 210 84 296 384 201 _ Average Queue(ft) 125 36 72 124 99 40 180 70 44 95th Queue(ft) 226 86 122 195 188 71 288 206 122 Link Distance(ft) 496 496 496 190 190 190 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 1 ' Queuing Penalty(veh) 2 2 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 300 480 - Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#2 Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 195 192 209 40 88 102 46 133 124 26 165 186 Average Queue(ft) 91 104 126 10 37 42 22 62 34 5 78 99 95th Queue(ft) 168 169 191 31 76 85 46 118 84 20 137 165 Link Distance(ft) 190 190 190 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 2 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 3 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 148 Average Queue(ft) 60 95th Queue(ft) 111 Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 11 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 531 447 344 239 317 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.83 0.21 0.71 0.64 Control Delay 14.6 48.2 7.9 42.0 10.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.6 48.2 7.9 42.0 10.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) 39 245 29 110 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 72 #336 85 183 68 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1070 600 1625 366 507 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.74 0.21 0.65 0.63 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 223 249 398 306 0 0 0 0 211 2 282 Future Volume(vph) 0 223 249 398 306 0 0 0 0 211 2 282 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3476 1787 2597 1725 1214 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3476 1787 2597 1725 1214 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 251 280 447 344 0 0 0 0 237 2 317 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 320 0 447 344 0 0 0 0 0 239 62 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 39% 36% 1% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 33% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.8 24.2 50.1 15.7 15.7 Effective Green, g(s) 19.8 24.2 50.1 15.7 15.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.30 0.63 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 860 540 1626 338 238 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.25 0.13 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.83 0.21 0.71 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 25.0 26.0 6.4 30.0 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.35 1.11 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 10.1 0.3 7.1 0.8 Delay(s) 26.2 45.2 7.5 37.1 28.0 Level of Service C D A D C Approach Delay(s) 26.2 28.8 0.0 31.9 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 --1. .4--- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 161 278 493 130 109 109 328 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.13 0.39 0.19 0.51 0.51 0.57 Control Delay 16.5 10.2 21.4 4.3 36.6 36.6 7.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.5 10.2 21.8 4.3 36.6 36.6 7.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 55 49 92 0 50 50 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m106 77 146 m0 98 98 62 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 480 Base Capacity(vph) 417 2119 1278 674 260 260 627 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 378 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.13 0.55 0.19 0.42 0.42 0.52 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 159 275 0 0 488 129 216 0 325 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 159 275 0 0 488 129 216 0 325 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1165 3438 3505 1568 1078 1078 1568 Flt Permitted 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 mmqq Satd. Flow(perm) 446 3438 3505 1568 1078 1078 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow(vph) 161 278 0 0 493 130 218 0 328 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 263 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 161 278 0 0 493 47 109 109 65 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 55% 5% 0% 0% 3% 3% 59% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 49.3 49.3 29.2 29.2 15.8 15.8 15.8 L Effective Green, g(s) 49.3 49.3 29.2 29.2 15.8 15.8 15.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 381 2118 1279 572 212 212 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.08 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.03 c0.10 0.10 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.13 0.39 0.08 0.51 0.51 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 7.5 6.4 18.8 16.6 28.7 28.7 26.9 Progression Factor 1.71 1.42 1.00 1.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.2 4.1 4.1 0.7 Delay(s) 13.6 9.2 19.5 25.5 32.8 32.8 27.6 Level of Service B A B C C C C Approach Delay(s) 10.9 20.8 29.7 0.0m Approach LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-(IMitigation Strategy#3 --1. .4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 114 545 18 140 49 93 78 22 163 286 445 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.78 0.10 0.40 0.14 0.51 0.18 0.04 0.58 0.53 0.57 Control Delay 28.4 26.5 34.2 37.5 0.8 43.7 27.7 0.1 39.5 28.9 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.4 26.5 34.2 37.5 0.8 43.7 27.7 0.1 39.5 28.9 5.9 Queue Length 50th(ft) 49 48 8 35 0 44 32 0 75 123 0 Ed Queue Length 95th(ft) 94 110 28 63 0 90 70 0 133 200 68 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 325 737 180 350 361 189 440 541 328 539 775' Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.74 0.10 0.40 0.14 0.49 0.18 0.04 0.50 0.53 Intersection Summary Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4M tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 116 293 191 16 127 45 85 71 20 148 260 405 Future Volume(vph) 116 293 191 16 127 45 85 71 20 148 260 405 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1579 3063 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1579 3063 1805 3505 1615 1612 1863 1615 1787 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow(vph) 127 322 210 18 140 49 93 78 22 163 286 445 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 108 0 0 0 44 0 0 17 0 0 318 Lane Group Flow(vph) 114 437 0 18 140 5 93 78 5 163 286 127 Heavy Vehicles(%) 4% 0% 16% 0% 3% 0% 12% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.1 18.9 18.9 12.6 22.9 22.9 Effective Green, g(s) 15.5 15.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.1 18.9 18.9 12.6 22.9 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 305 593 180 350 161 183 440 381 281 538 457 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.14 0.01 c0.04 0.06 0.04 c0.09 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.74 0.10 0.40 0.03 0.51 0.18 0.01 0.58 0.53 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 30.3 32.7 33.8 32.5 33.3 24.4 23.4 31.2 24.0 22.1 Progression Factor 0.90 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 5.0 0.5 1.6 0.2 3.0 0.9 0.1 3.6 3.7 1.5 Delay(s) 26.2 29.3 33.2 35.3 32.7 36.4 25.2 23.5 34.8 27.8 23.7 Level of Service C C C D C D C C C C C Approach Delay(s) 28.7 34.5 30.4 27.0 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#3 Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB B14 WB WB WB SB SB A Directions Served T T TR T L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 229 140 245 2 342 220 81 211 155 _ Average Queue(ft) 90 54 115 0 214 53 5 113 71 95th Queue(ft) 184 106 201 2 312 139 48 186 127 Link Distance(ft) 227 227 227 408 496 496 496 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R L LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 261 95 127 193 196 84 250 313 181 - Average Queue(ft) 111 34 61 113 90 37 72 152 70 95th Queue(ft) 212 75 110 180 169 66 182 265 130 - Link Distance(ft) 496 496 496 190 190 190 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 ' Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 300 480 - Storage Blk Time(%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 2 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday AM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#3 Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 164 190 209 50 102 96 48 136 99 24 177 204 Average Queue(ft) 70 127 149 9 41 39 23 60 31 6 80 101 95th Queue(ft) 154 195 220 32 82 81 48 117 77 20 140 174 Link Distance(ft) 190 190 190 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 4 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1 8 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 0 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 138 Average Queue(ft) 60 95th Queue(ft) 107 Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 14 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday AM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 804 453 423 172 277 A Ratio 0.64 0.84 0.22 0.60 0.66 Control Delay 22.0 42.8 4.3 40.3 12.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.0 42.8 4.3 40.3 12.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) 98 158 25 80 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 138 m198 m31 138 65 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1251 595 1913 304 430 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.64 0.76 0.22 0.57 0.64 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 410 297 399 372 0 0 0 0 149 3 244 Future Volume(vph) 0 410 297 399 372 0 0 0 0 149 3 244 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 466 338 453 423 0 0 0 0 169 3 277 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 649 0 453 423 0 0 0 0 0 172 46 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 24.5 52.6 13.2 13.2 Effective Green, g(s) 22.0 24.5 52.6 13.2 13.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.31 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1095 542 1913 287 190 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.26 0.15 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.84 0.22 0.60 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 25.1 25.9 5.5 30.9 29.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.34 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 6.2 0.1 3.9 0.9 Delay(s) 27.5 40.9 4.2 34.9 _ 29.9 Level of Service C D A C C Approach Delay(s) 27.5 23.1 0.0 31.8 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 331 290 566 228 394 358 A Ratio 0.90 0.17 0.81 0.46 0.94 0.50 Control Delay 43.4 11.5 35.3 9.3 58.6 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.4 11.5 37.0 9.7 58.6 5.2 Queue Length 50th(ft) 150 53 115 4 189 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #255 83 #212 m43 #374 60 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 367 1726 698 492 420 720 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 43 58 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 47 0 0 0 4 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.90 0.17 0.86 0.53 0.94 0.50 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r 44 r Traffic Volume(vph) 298 261 0 0 509 205 262 2 413 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 298 261 0 0 509 205 262 2 413 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1280 1504 Flt Permitted 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 304 3471 3539 1568 1280 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 331 290 0 0 566 228 291 2 459 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 183 0 16 245 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 331 290 0 0 566 45 0 378 113 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.8 39.8 15.8 15.8 25.3 25.3 Effective Green, g(s) 39.8 39.8 15.8 15.8 25.3 25.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.32 0.32 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 367 1726 698 309 404 475 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.08 0.16 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 0.03 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.17 0.81 0.15 0.94 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 16.6 11.0 30.7 26.5 26.6 20.2 Progression Factor 1.08 1.01 0.87 1.55 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.7 0.2 7.6 0.7 29.8 0.5 Delay(s) 38.5 11.3 34.3 41.8 56.4 20.8 Level of Service D B C D E C Approach Delay(s) 25.8 36.5 39.4 0.0m Approach LOS C D D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-(IMitigation Strategy#1 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 257 509 26 280 157 202 461 13 88 203 330 A Ratio 0.71 0.67 0.13 0.75 0.41 0.76 0.83 0.02 0.50 0.53 0.56 Control Delay 34.2 11.6 34.8 49.6 4.5 51.8 42.5 0.1 44.5 33.5 7.5 Queue Delay 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J Total Delay 35.0 11.7 34.8 49.6 4.5 55.7 42.5 0.1 44.5 33.5 7.5 Queue Length 50th(ft) 103 20 12 73 0 97 220 0 43 89 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) m#212 m39 34 #131 12 #187 #373 0 86 149 58 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 364 757 193 372 383 277 554 585 177 414 608 Starvation Cap Reductn 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 5 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.74 0.69 0.13 0.75 0.41 0.82 0.83 0.02 0.50 0.49 0.55 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 411 144 119 23 246 138 178 406 11 77 179 290 Future Volume(vph) 411 144 119 23 246 138 178 406 11 77 179 290 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3163 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3163 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 467 164 135 26 280 157 202 461 12 88 203 330 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 42 0 0 0 140 0 0 9 0 0 255 Lane Group Flow(vph) 257 467 0 26 280 17 202 461 4 88 203 75 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 16.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 12.4 23.6 23.6 6.4 18.1 18.1 Effective Green, g(s) 16.4 16.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 12.4 23.6 23.6 6.4 18.1 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 330 648 194 373 173 266 554 429 141 421 358 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.15 0.01 c0.08 c0.12 c0.25 0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.72 0.13 0.75 0.10 0.76 0.83 0.01 0.62 0.48 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 30.1 29.7 32.3 34.7 32.2 32.4 26.3 19.9 35.6 26.9 25.1 Progression Factor 0.78 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.9 6.7 0.7 9.8 0.5 12.5 11.4 0.0 9.4 1.8 0.6 Delay(s) 38.2 14.6 33.0 44.4 32.7 44.8 37.8 20.0 45.0 28.7 25.7 Level of Service D B C D C D D B D C C Approach Delay(s) 22.5 39.8 39.5 29.4 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#1 Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 237 221 225 339 224 118 176 144 _ Average Queue(ft) 118 89 131 212 102 6 82 71 95th Queue(ft) 203 175 206 305 198 51 147 120 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 503 503 503 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R LTR R Maximum Queue(ft) 343 122 150 213 208 162 614 450 Average Queue(ft) 170 52 74 141 131 70 314 227 95th Queue(ft) 288 99 126 211 207 123 532 415 Link Distance(ft) 503 503 503 195 195 195 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 3 2 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 7 5 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) 2 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 5 0 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#1 Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 184 193 186 51 177 211 89 150 611 230 117 172 Average Queue(ft) 96 100 75 14 74 103 45 124 251 17 46 78 95th Queue(ft) 162 164 151 40 147 176 74 178 527 110 92 139 Link Distance(ft) 195 195 195 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 1 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 0 6 19 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 26 36 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB - Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 116 Average Queue(ft) 51 95th Queue(ft) 94 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 - Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:84 Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#1 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 804 453 423 172 277 A Ratio 0.64 0.84 0.22 0.60 0.66 Control Delay 22.0 42.0 4.8 40.3 12.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.0 42.0 4.8 40.3 12.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) 98 159 26 80 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 138 m229 m38 138 65 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1251 595 1913 304 430 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.64 0.76 0.22 0.57 0.64 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 410 297 399 372 0 0 0 0 149 3 244 Future Volume(vph) 0 410 297 399 372 0 0 0 0 149 3 244 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 466 338 453 423 0 0 0 0 169 3 277 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 649 0 453 423 0 0 0 0 0 172 46 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 24.5 52.6 13.2 13.2 Effective Green, g(s) 22.0 24.5 52.6 13.2 13.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.31 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1095 542 1913 287 190 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.26 0.15 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.84 0.22 0.60 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 25.1 25.9 5.5 30.9 29.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.20 0.81 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 8.2 0.2 3.9 0.9 Delay(s) 27.5 39.4 4.6 34.9 _ 29.9 Level of Service C D A C C Approach Delay(s) 27.5 22.6 0.0 31.8 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 --1. -4- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 331 290 566 228 291 232 229 A Ratio 0.81 0.15 0.65 0.41 0.85 0.41 0.40 Control Delay 30.4 10.3 26.9 8.2 52.3 5.9 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 30.4 10.3 27.7 8.5 52.3 5.9 5.8 Queue Length 50th(ft) 125 52 112 4 135 1 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #294 82 162 m39 #267 53 52 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 417 1897 865 555 356 585 584 - Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 98 79 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 50 0 0 0 3 3 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.79 0.16 0.74 0.48 0.82 0.40 0.39 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 298 261 0 0 509 205 262 2 413 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 298 261 0 0 509 205 262 2 413 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1280 1507 1504 Flt Permitted 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 367 3471 3539 1568 1280 1507 1504 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 331 290 0 0 566 228 291 2 459 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 172 0 168 168 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 331 290 0 0 566 56 291 64 61 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.7 43.7 19.5 19.5 21.4 21.4 21.4 = Effective Green, g(s) 43.7 43.7 19.5 19.5 21.4 21.4 21.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 406 1896 862 382 342 403 402 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.08 0.16 c0.23 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 0.04 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.15 0.66 0.15 0.85 0.16 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 12.6 9.0 27.2 23.7 27.8 22.4 22.4 Progression Factor 1.25 1.09 0.85 1.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.0 0.1 2.9 0.6 19.5 0.4 0.4 Delay(s) 25.8 9.9 26.1 37.2 47.3 22.8 22.7 Level of Service C A C D D C C Approach Delay(s) 18.4 29.3 32.3 0.0m Approach LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-(IMitigation Strategy#2 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 257 509 26 280 157 202 461 13 88 203 330 A Ratio 0.71 0.67 0.13 0.75 0.41 0.76 0.83 0.02 0.50 0.53 0.56 Control Delay 35.8 12.3 34.8 49.6 4.5 51.8 42.5 0.1 44.5 33.5 7.5 Queue Delay 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J Total Delay 36.7 12.4 34.8 49.6 4.5 54.1 42.5 0.1 44.5 33.5 7.5 Queue Length 50th(ft) 106 19 12 73 0 97 220 0 43 89 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #232 39 34 #131 12 #187 #373 0 86 149 58 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 - Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 364 757 193 372 383 277 554 585 177 414 608 Starvation Cap Reductn 17 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.74 0.69 0.13 0.75 0.41 0.79 0.83 0.02 0.50 0.49 0.55 _ Intersection Summary - # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. _ Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 411 144 119 23 246 138 178 406 11 77 179 290 Future Volume(vph) 411 144 119 23 246 138 178 406 11 77 179 290 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3163 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3163 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 467 164 135 26 280 157 202 461 12 88 203 330 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 42 0 0 0 140 0 0 9 0 0 255 Lane Group Flow(vph) 257 467 0 26 280 17 202 461 4 88 203 75 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 16.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 12.4 23.6 23.6 6.4 18.1 18.1 Effective Green, g(s) 16.4 16.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 12.4 23.6 23.6 6.4 18.1 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 330 648 194 373 173 266 554 429 141 421 358 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.15 0.01 c0.08 c0.12 c0.25 0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.72 0.13 0.75 0.10 0.76 0.83 0.01 0.62 0.48 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 30.1 29.7 32.3 34.7 32.2 32.4 26.3 19.9 35.6 26.9 25.1 Progression Factor 0.81 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.9 6.7 0.7 9.8 0.5 12.5 11.4 0.0 9.4 1.8 0.6 Delay(s) 40.3 15.4 33.0 44.4 32.7 44.8 37.8 20.0 45.0 28.7 25.7 Level of Service D B C D C D D B D C C Approach Delay(s) 23.7 39.8 39.5 29.4 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#2 Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB B14 WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR T L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 216 193 254 9 342 221 144 175 154 _ Average Queue(ft) 114 83 129 0 217 101 11 86 75 95th Queue(ft) 189 156 216 7 322 197 70 147 133 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 1072 496 496 496 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R L TR R Maximum Queue(ft) 294 110 148 206 203 134 345 139 106 Average Queue(ft) 160 43 70 133 119 69 182 67 37 95th Queue(ft) 269 92 126 199 189 115 305 114 79 Link Distance(ft) 496 496 496 190 190 190 638 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 2 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 4 3 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#2 Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 192 185 161 52 168 210 88 150 641 106 115 174 Average Queue(ft) 121 102 65 13 72 101 45 122 258 9 46 80 95th Queue(ft) 180 166 125 37 140 176 75 181 554 65 91 145 Link Distance(ft) 190 190 190 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 2 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 9 18 0 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 36 36 0 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 110 - Average Queue(ft) 51 95th Queue(ft) 93 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) - Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:82 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#2 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 804 453 423 172 277 A Ratio 0.64 0.84 0.22 0.60 0.66 Control Delay 22.0 37.2 2.8 40.3 12.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 22.0 37.2 2.8 40.3 12.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) 98 119 7 80 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 138 #203 30 138 65 Internal Link Dist(ft) 202 481 849 Turn Bay Length (ft) 640 Base Capacity(vph) 1251 595 1913 304 430 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.64 0.76 0.22 0.57 0.64 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +0 tt 4 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 410 297 399 372 0 0 0 0 149 3 244 Future Volume(vph) 0 410 297 399 372 0 0 0 0 149 3 244 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3982 1770 2911 1743 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 466 338 453 423 0 0 0 0 169 3 277 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 649 0 453 423 0 0 0 0 0 172 46 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 17% 29% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 40% Turn Type NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 3 Permitted Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 24.5 52.6 13.2 13.2 Effective Green, g(s) 22.0 24.5 52.6 13.2 13.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.31 0.66 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time(s) 6.2 6.1 6.2 8.0 8.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1095 542 1913 287 190 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.26 0.15 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.84 0.22 0.60 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 25.1 25.9 5.5 30.9 29.0 Progression Factor 1.00 0.93 0.45 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 9.9 0.2 3.9 0.9 Delay(s) 27.5 34.0 2.7 34.9 _ 29.9 Level of Service C C A C C Approach Delay(s) 27.5 18.9 0.0 31.8 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 2 Queues Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 --1. .4--- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 331 290 566 228 145 148 459 A Ratio 0.72 0.14 0.51 0.35 0.61 0.62 0.68 Control Delay 17.7 6.4 21.9 7.5 40.4 40.7 8.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Delay 17.7 6.4 22.4 7.8 40.4 40.7 8.6 Queue Length 50th(ft) 116 47 106 4 68 69 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) 184 55 153 m39 130 132 77 Internal Link Dist(ft) 481 191 609 Turn Bay Length (ft) 480 Base Capacity(vph) 507 2142 1109 648 262 264 702 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 214 128 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 62 0 0 0 0 8 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.65 0.14 0.63 0.44 0.55 0.56 0.66 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 --1. .4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt tt r r Traffic Volume(vph) 298 261 0 0 509 205 262 2 413 0 0 0 Future Volume(vph) 298 261 0 0 509 205 262 2 413 0 0 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 J Satd. Flow(prot) 1399 3471 3539 1568 1216 1225 1583 Flt Permitted 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 qW Satd. Flow(perm) 436 3471 3539 1568 1216 1225 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 331 290 0 0 566 228 291 2 459 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 369 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 331 290 0 0 566 72 145 148 90 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 29% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 41% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 49.4 49.4 25.1 25.1 15.7 15.7 15.7 Effective Green, g(s) 49.4 49.4 25.1 25.1 15.7 15.7 15.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.20 0.20 _ Clearance Time(s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 463 2143 1110 491 238 240 310 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.08 0.16 0.12 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 0.05 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.14 0.51 0.15 0.61 0.62 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 9.2 6.4 22.4 19.7 29.3 29.4 27.4 Progression Factor 1.13 0.92 0.85 1.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 0.1 1.2 0.5 6.4 6.6 1.1 Delay(s) 14.8 6.0 20.3 32.2 35.7 36.0 28.5 Level of Service B A C C D D C Approach Delay(s) 10.7 23.7 31.4 L 0.0 M Approach LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 23.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B _ Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 4 Queues Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-(IMitigation Strategy#3 --1. -4- t t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow(vph) 257 509 26 280 157 202 461 13 88 203 330 A Ratio 0.71 0.67 0.13 0.75 0.41 0.76 0.83 0.02 0.50 0.53 0.56 Control Delay 35.9 16.4 34.8 49.6 4.5 51.8 42.5 0.1 44.5 33.5 7.5 Queue Delay 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J Total Delay 36.7 16.5 34.8 49.6 4.5 53.1 42.5 0.1 44.5 33.5 7.5 Queue Length 50th(ft) 126 24 12 73 0 97 220 0 43 89 0 Queue Length 95th(ft) #231 153 34 #131 12 #187 #373 0 86 149 58 Internal Link Dist(ft) 191 394 920 966 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 150 280 240 290 Base Capacity(vph) 364 757 193 372 383 277 554 585 177 414 608 Starvation Cap Reductn 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 2 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio 0.74 0.69 0.13 0.75 0.41 0.77 0.83 0.02 0.50 0.49 0.54 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Fruit Hill Property 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 --1. 4--- t i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ tt r + r + r Traffic Volume(vph) 411 144 119 23 246 138 178 406 11 77 179 290 Future Volume(vph) 411 144 119 23 246 138 178 406 11 77 179 290 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1610 3163 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1610 3163 1805 3471 1615 1719 1881 1455 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 467 164 135 26 280 157 202 461 12 88 203 330 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 42 0 0 0 140 0 0 9 0 0 255 Lane Group Flow(vph) 257 467 0 26 280 17 202 461 4 88 203 75 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% 5% 1% 11% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 16.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 12.4 23.6 23.6 6.4 18.1 18.1 Effective Green, g(s) 16.4 16.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 12.4 23.6 23.6 6.4 18.1 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time(s) 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 7.6 5.8 5.8 8.5 6.2 6.2 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 330 648 194 373 173 266 554 429 141 421 358 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.15 0.01 c0.08 c0.12 c0.25 0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.72 0.13 0.75 0.10 0.76 0.83 0.01 0.62 0.48 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 30.1 29.7 32.3 34.7 32.2 32.4 26.3 19.9 35.6 26.9 25.1 Progression Factor 0.85 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.5 6.7 0.7 9.8 0.5 12.5 11.4 0.0 9.4 1.8 0.6 Delay(s) 40.0 20.0 33.0 44.4 32.7 44.8 37.8 20.0 45.0 28.7 25.7 Level of Service D B C D C D D B D C C Approach Delay(s) 26.7 39.8 39.5 29.4 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary A HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 _ Actuated Cycle Length(s) 80.0 Sum of lost time(s) 25.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Fruit Hill Property Synchro 11 Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#3 Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Intersection: 2: 1-81 SB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB B14 WB WB WB SB SB Directions Served T T TR T L T T LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 212 210 269 17 368 247 100 177 142 _ Average Queue(ft) 113 89 134 1 209 107 6 84 71 95th Queue(ft) 188 168 218 11 322 221 55 147 117 Link Distance(ft) 226 226 226 1072 496 496 496 878 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 0 1 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 640 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Intersection: 3: 1-81 NB Ramps & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T R L LT R Maximum Queue(ft) 285 99 122 188 204 147 202 277 156 - Average Queue(ft) 131 43 51 113 108 65 86 127 76 95th Queue(ft) 242 83 99 182 180 112 163 229 126 - Link Distance(ft) 496 496 496 190 190 190 638 638 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 1 0 - Queuing Penalty(veh) 1 2 0 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 480 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Fruit Hill Property Weekday PM - 2034 Total - Mitigation Strategy#3 Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L LT TR L T T R L T R L T Maximum Queue(ft) 194 206 206 44 137 180 98 150 474 183 110 165 Average Queue(ft) 103 136 119 12 63 91 45 115 207 11 47 74 95th Queue(ft) 174 198 209 35 117 158 76 178 386 79 91 136 Link Distance(ft) 190 190 190 415 415 415 945 977 Upstream Blk Time(%) 0 1 1 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 1 2 Storage Bay Dist(ft) 250 150 280 240 Storage Blk Time(%) 4 14 0 Queuing Penalty(veh) 16 27 0 Intersection: 4: US 11 & Rest Church Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue(ft) 121 - Average Queue(ft) 51 95th Queue(ft) 92 - Link Distance(ft) Upstream Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) 290 Storage Blk Time(%) Queuing Penalty(veh) - Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty:52 _ Fruit Hill Property SimTraffic Report Weekday PM-2034 Total-Mitigation Strategy#3 Page 2